That would be kind of neat actually... have a simplified physics model based solely on gravitational attraction of proton, electron and neutron blocks, each with their relative mass. Based on that, you could build up algorithms for elements, cellular structures, etc. and keep most of the popular ones available. Then you'll get the really focused people building RNA etc. and attampting to build real-world models to see how the physics need to be tweaked to replicate real-world interactions.
Then we can get a little microbial Mario jumping on real mushroom fibers!
The issue isn't that they know your browser loaded that page, it's that since so many websites use that F, and use it even in so-called secure portions of the site, it is trivial for Facebook's automated systems to create a profile for you and figure out what your exact browsing habits are. Since Facebook is already known to have the back end to handle this data and no reason at all not to tabulate it, it stands to reason that they are using it to their advantage.
Twitter does the exact same thing with the badging, but they don't really have the infrastructure to tie it all together, which is probably why nobody's complaining about them. However, they could easily sell this data to someone else with the resources to leverage it.
As for two-way computer screens... they actually exist, even though most people prefer the cheaper, more common, monitor-with-a-camera-embedded-in-the-frame version.
The government stuff... well, you just have to wonder: which government? Or are they ALL doing it?:D
while sound sampled and played back at 44.1khz should be good enough for anyone, it's a lossy representation of the original waveform. The problem with this comes with post-sampling manipulation of the original waveforms, at which point the gaps tend to pile up in patterns that can be detectable by the human ear, due to our innate ability to find patterns in just about anything, even when it doesn't actually exist.
The problem here is that they need the extra data in order to properly reconstruct a 44.1khz equivalent after overfiltering and munging the original waveform until it is in a state that no longer looks like the original. It doesn't matter that it's still a decent 44.1khz sample -- it's one that is easier to find engineered patterns in than the original, and so it sounds different. They need more data to make it sound better.
They could fix this by not doing so much post-processing on the sample, but they'd rather look like they're doing something important to "improve" the sound, and then attempt to hide that fact by overlaying it with a strong signal from the original. Think of it as the audio equivalent of layering an original image over a copy that's been gaussian blurred. Easier than re-creating the image from the blurred copy, and if you only have half the samples and you've munged ALL of them, you no longer have something to do that with.
Funny, I'm not hateful, angry, or voting for the Democrats.... but I do support nationalized healthcare, mostly because the alternative if the US system is left to itself is even worse. You're right that there's no real fix; however, once the debate devolves to "us" and "them", both "us" and "them" have already won.
The problem of course is that the other plans to fix Medicare all come with strings attached, which are generally either UnAmerican, radical, or subversive.
Personally, I think that the problem currently calls for a radical solution, so I'd support a well thought out radical solution. Not one where a "compromise" solution that saves medicare to the benefit of a few at the cost of other government services, however.
Come on... the submitter should have been able to slip in the Python reference; it's extremely apt under the circumstances.
Speaker of the House: Bring out yer dead! [opposition puts a bill in the bin, unaware of the fact that the bill is actually in discussion]
The Opposition: Here's one.
Speaker of the House: That'll be ninepence.
Bill C-30: I'm not dead.
Speaker of the House: What?
The Opposition: Nothing. [hands the collector his money] There's your ninepence.
Bill C-30: I'm not dead!
Speaker of the House: 'Ere, he says he's not dead.
The Opposition: Yes he is.
Bill C-30: I'm not.
Speaker of the House: He isn't.
The Opposition: Well, he will be soon, he's very ill.
Bill C-30: I'm getting better.
The Opposition: No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment.
Speaker of the House: Well, I can't take him like that. It's against regulations.
Bill C-30: I don't want to go on the cart.
The Opposition: Oh, don't be such a baby.
Speaker of the House: I can't take him.
Bill C-30: I feel fine.
The Opposition: Oh, do me a favor.
Speaker of the House: I can't.
The Opposition: Well, can you hang around for a couple of minutes? He won't be long.
Speaker of the House: I promised I'd be at the Liberals'. They've lost nine today.
The Opposition: Well, when's your next round?
Speaker of the House: Thursday.
Bill C-30: I think I'll go for a walk.
The Opposition: You're not fooling anyone, you know. Isn't there anything you could do?
Bill C-30: I feel happy. I feel happy. [The Speaker glances up and down the commons furtively, then whacks the bill with the his mace, solving the problem]
The Opposition: Ah, thank you very much.
Speaker of the House: Not at all. See you on Thursday.
The Opposition: Right.
Only if the GPL allows it (which it does). If you sell a Mac with Linux on it, but don't provide access to the source code however, that's a violation and is illegal.
And I can get the same technical support from StackOverflow, forums, and O'reilly Books and it is either free or cheaper. Anyone that knows how to use Google doesn't need tech support.
I think this sums it all up, it's the same argument you've made everywhere else. Believe it or not, many people would rather pay someone else to do all that and just get on with their life. This doesn't mean you're wrong, it just means the arguments I made don't really apply to you, so you seem to be subtly missing the point of my replies. Apple (and Microsoft) aren't concerned with what you can do; they're concerned with creating an object of value that they can sell to make a profit. They go about it in significantly different manners, even though the end products are amazingly similar. Different people value the choices they've made; some reject both, and would rather do the extra work themselves.
And before the "you love Macs" flame comes on, I also use Ubuntu as my primary desktop, with Windows in a VM to deal with issues that only crop up with a Windows environment, and OS X in a VM to deal with issues that only crop up in an OS X environment. I leave the Macs for the rest of my family, so I don't have to do any "user support". My work computers are all computers, with a mix of VMs and OSes, depending on the task at hand.
One more thing: I think you misunderstood my comment about Windows and installation: I'm talking about entering the security code and registration -- everyone's figured out the "one step install" part by now, so it's not really an issue.
Well, all you'd really need is a port of OpenStep/Darwin to handheld devices, and with a small amount of work it could run iOS apps quite nicely -- albeit insecurely, as it wouldn't validate the signatures.
But what's the point? With IBM-compatibles, this was a new frontier, placing computing power in the hands of the individual. Nowadays, people have more power in their pocket calculators -- if they have them. Most people have a phone that does that sort of thing. Those phones run some flavour of one of five operating systems, some of which are open source. The phones are sold as add-ons to service contracts.
Just like most people really don't care what software is running inside their electric smart meter, most people really don't care what software is running inside their phone, as long as it does what they want.
Google is to phones what MS was to PCs. Apple and RIM are to phones what Apple (post Apple][) and Commodore were to PCs.
You can complain about Windows and Microsoft all you want, but at least they let you install their software on any hardware you want. Apple wants to control you from the motherboard up, marking up their products to ridiculous prices for overrated hardware. They do it with computers, iPod, iPhone, everything.
The first down-mod from a Mac lover will just be further evidence of the truth.
How about a response?
Apple: They let you do whatever you want with their software and hardware, with pretty much no lockdown. If you start attempting to make a profit selling their product (without them getting a piece), they sue you. iOS is a partial exception to this; where they do pretty much the opposite (just like Microsoft).
Microsoft: If you buy their software, you need to go through a song and dance to get it installed. If you modify the hardware, you need to go through another song and dance. If someone else copies your code and uses it, it gets revoked. If MS kills off the license server, your software no longer works.
I find it interesting that after so many years, the "ridiculous prices" trope is still rolled out. Apple prices are pretty much where they should be. They cover costs, add a bit for R&D, and then the regular markup on top of that. They don't compete with whitebox houses on price (same components for cheaper prices without integration or support) but they make up for it with marketing.
The biggest costs in selling something technical are QA and support. Both things Apple generally does a good job at, because they sell that -- the cheaper products don't.
There are more reasons people buy Apple products than because everyone's doing it -- Apple is really the new Sony (in more ways than one).
Interestingly, I have two copies of Snow Leopard, purchased directly from Apple. At first glance, they look identical. However, one of them will only install over a pre-existing version of OS X, and the EULA talks about it being upgrade-only. The other one does not have this upgrade wording, and will install on any hardware.
Granted, this was after the entire Psystar debacle, and at the time the EULAs all said "upgrade" -- but I think Apple would have significant difficulty preventing me from installing my full-install copy of Snow Leopard on a hackintosh and selling it.
Of course, I'm not a business buying multiple copies and selling the resulting PCs for profit.
Should Apple have the right to demand the software can only run on their hardware?
Remember when Atari tried blocking third-party software from their hardware and a judge ruled that they must allow for third-party use of their hardware?
I'm pretty sure that's not the same thing. Apple is saying that only they have the right to build machines that can run their software, not that you can't write/sell software to run on their machines.
That's not what I got from this: what I got is that Apple is saying only they have the right to pre-install their software on hardware and sell the package.
To me, this is a grey zone, as I'm within my rights to resell my Mac with OS X installed; I'm not within my rights to void the agreement on OS X and sell it on a netbook.
...and I'd rather learn how to do it myself as a way to relax from my day job. I'm not willing to fix other people's stuff though, as that carries too much liability.
This is the part where the four elephants get tired of holding up A'Tuin and decide to come back as the four steeds of the apocalypse in time to remove the 8 seals guarding the dimensional weak spot between earth and the universe of Mordor, right? And then A'Tuin panics when she realizes nobody's holding her up anymore, and decides it's time to swim home to lay her eggs?
For that matter, as long as you've got a buffer of a few films, you can sit down and watch one RIGHT NOW, after picking out the one you're going to watch tomorrow and setting it to download.
Back in the day on 2400 baud dialup, it could take an entire week to completely download that 5 minute cinepak video with pcm audio....
I disagree... DVDs are a valuable means of delivering data to my media server, which then copies off the bits it wants and leaves the rest. As such, DVDs are a backup medium these days, more than anything else.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be kind of neat actually... have a simplified physics model based solely on gravitational attraction of proton, electron and neutron blocks, each with their relative mass. Based on that, you could build up algorithms for elements, cellular structures, etc. and keep most of the popular ones available. Then you'll get the really focused people building RNA etc. and attampting to build real-world models to see how the physics need to be tweaked to replicate real-world interactions.
Then we can get a little microbial Mario jumping on real mushroom fibers!
Yes... but then all they need is another microbe where they can't write that bit. String them together to get your storage. Replicate ad nauseam....
Just make sure to protect it; you wouldn't want to get a virus....
Likely video drivers and other "non-free" stuff.
However, it can be argued that almost ALL Linux software is 3rd party.... as well as being first party. That's the whole point.
Actually... I should admit: I have facebook's image and CDN servers blocked in my browser, so they're not tracking me most of the time :)
The issue isn't that they know your browser loaded that page, it's that since so many websites use that F, and use it even in so-called secure portions of the site, it is trivial for Facebook's automated systems to create a profile for you and figure out what your exact browsing habits are. Since Facebook is already known to have the back end to handle this data and no reason at all not to tabulate it, it stands to reason that they are using it to their advantage.
Twitter does the exact same thing with the badging, but they don't really have the infrastructure to tie it all together, which is probably why nobody's complaining about them. However, they could easily sell this data to someone else with the resources to leverage it.
As for two-way computer screens... they actually exist, even though most people prefer the cheaper, more common, monitor-with-a-camera-embedded-in-the-frame version.
The government stuff... well, you just have to wonder: which government? Or are they ALL doing it? :D
However, putting this in a Hybrid would provide the better of both worlds in the near term.
Meh. I'm waiting for my teleporter. There's no way I'd want to step outside with everyone flying badly maintained autonomous electric cars.
Sure you can. Just not of the same data points.
while sound sampled and played back at 44.1khz should be good enough for anyone, it's a lossy representation of the original waveform. The problem with this comes with post-sampling manipulation of the original waveforms, at which point the gaps tend to pile up in patterns that can be detectable by the human ear, due to our innate ability to find patterns in just about anything, even when it doesn't actually exist.
The problem here is that they need the extra data in order to properly reconstruct a 44.1khz equivalent after overfiltering and munging the original waveform until it is in a state that no longer looks like the original. It doesn't matter that it's still a decent 44.1khz sample -- it's one that is easier to find engineered patterns in than the original, and so it sounds different. They need more data to make it sound better.
They could fix this by not doing so much post-processing on the sample, but they'd rather look like they're doing something important to "improve" the sound, and then attempt to hide that fact by overlaying it with a strong signal from the original. Think of it as the audio equivalent of layering an original image over a copy that's been gaussian blurred. Easier than re-creating the image from the blurred copy, and if you only have half the samples and you've munged ALL of them, you no longer have something to do that with.
Funny, I'm not hateful, angry, or voting for the Democrats.... but I do support nationalized healthcare, mostly because the alternative if the US system is left to itself is even worse. You're right that there's no real fix; however, once the debate devolves to "us" and "them", both "us" and "them" have already won.
The problem of course is that the other plans to fix Medicare all come with strings attached, which are generally either UnAmerican, radical, or subversive.
Personally, I think that the problem currently calls for a radical solution, so I'd support a well thought out radical solution. Not one where a "compromise" solution that saves medicare to the benefit of a few at the cost of other government services, however.
Remember: a bird needs at least two wings to fly.
Come on... the submitter should have been able to slip in the Python reference; it's extremely apt under the circumstances.
Speaker of the House: Bring out yer dead! [opposition puts a bill in the bin, unaware of the fact that the bill is actually in discussion]
The Opposition: Here's one.
Speaker of the House: That'll be ninepence.
Bill C-30: I'm not dead.
Speaker of the House: What?
The Opposition: Nothing. [hands the collector his money] There's your ninepence.
Bill C-30: I'm not dead!
Speaker of the House: 'Ere, he says he's not dead.
The Opposition: Yes he is.
Bill C-30: I'm not.
Speaker of the House: He isn't.
The Opposition: Well, he will be soon, he's very ill.
Bill C-30: I'm getting better.
The Opposition: No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment.
Speaker of the House: Well, I can't take him like that. It's against regulations.
Bill C-30: I don't want to go on the cart.
The Opposition: Oh, don't be such a baby.
Speaker of the House: I can't take him.
Bill C-30: I feel fine.
The Opposition: Oh, do me a favor.
Speaker of the House: I can't.
The Opposition: Well, can you hang around for a couple of minutes? He won't be long.
Speaker of the House: I promised I'd be at the Liberals'. They've lost nine today.
The Opposition: Well, when's your next round?
Speaker of the House: Thursday.
Bill C-30: I think I'll go for a walk.
The Opposition: You're not fooling anyone, you know. Isn't there anything you could do?
Bill C-30: I feel happy. I feel happy. [The Speaker glances up and down the commons furtively, then whacks the bill with the his mace, solving the problem]
The Opposition: Ah, thank you very much.
Speaker of the House: Not at all. See you on Thursday.
The Opposition: Right.
Only if the GPL allows it (which it does). If you sell a Mac with Linux on it, but don't provide access to the source code however, that's a violation and is illegal.
And I can get the same technical support from StackOverflow, forums, and O'reilly Books and it is either free or cheaper. Anyone that knows how to use Google doesn't need tech support.
I think this sums it all up, it's the same argument you've made everywhere else. Believe it or not, many people would rather pay someone else to do all that and just get on with their life. This doesn't mean you're wrong, it just means the arguments I made don't really apply to you, so you seem to be subtly missing the point of my replies. Apple (and Microsoft) aren't concerned with what you can do; they're concerned with creating an object of value that they can sell to make a profit. They go about it in significantly different manners, even though the end products are amazingly similar. Different people value the choices they've made; some reject both, and would rather do the extra work themselves.
And before the "you love Macs" flame comes on, I also use Ubuntu as my primary desktop, with Windows in a VM to deal with issues that only crop up with a Windows environment, and OS X in a VM to deal with issues that only crop up in an OS X environment. I leave the Macs for the rest of my family, so I don't have to do any "user support". My work computers are all computers, with a mix of VMs and OSes, depending on the task at hand.
One more thing: I think you misunderstood my comment about Windows and installation: I'm talking about entering the security code and registration -- everyone's figured out the "one step install" part by now, so it's not really an issue.
Well, all you'd really need is a port of OpenStep/Darwin to handheld devices, and with a small amount of work it could run iOS apps quite nicely -- albeit insecurely, as it wouldn't validate the signatures.
But what's the point? With IBM-compatibles, this was a new frontier, placing computing power in the hands of the individual. Nowadays, people have more power in their pocket calculators -- if they have them. Most people have a phone that does that sort of thing. Those phones run some flavour of one of five operating systems, some of which are open source. The phones are sold as add-ons to service contracts.
Just like most people really don't care what software is running inside their electric smart meter, most people really don't care what software is running inside their phone, as long as it does what they want.
Google is to phones what MS was to PCs. Apple and RIM are to phones what Apple (post Apple][) and Commodore were to PCs.
You can complain about Windows and Microsoft all you want, but at least they let you install their software on any hardware you want. Apple wants to control you from the motherboard up, marking up their products to ridiculous prices for overrated hardware. They do it with computers, iPod, iPhone, everything.
The first down-mod from a Mac lover will just be further evidence of the truth.
How about a response?
Apple: They let you do whatever you want with their software and hardware, with pretty much no lockdown. If you start attempting to make a profit selling their product (without them getting a piece), they sue you. iOS is a partial exception to this; where they do pretty much the opposite (just like Microsoft).
Microsoft: If you buy their software, you need to go through a song and dance to get it installed. If you modify the hardware, you need to go through another song and dance. If someone else copies your code and uses it, it gets revoked. If MS kills off the license server, your software no longer works.
I find it interesting that after so many years, the "ridiculous prices" trope is still rolled out. Apple prices are pretty much where they should be. They cover costs, add a bit for R&D, and then the regular markup on top of that. They don't compete with whitebox houses on price (same components for cheaper prices without integration or support) but they make up for it with marketing.
The biggest costs in selling something technical are QA and support. Both things Apple generally does a good job at, because they sell that -- the cheaper products don't.
There are more reasons people buy Apple products than because everyone's doing it -- Apple is really the new Sony (in more ways than one).
Interestingly, I have two copies of Snow Leopard, purchased directly from Apple. At first glance, they look identical. However, one of them will only install over a pre-existing version of OS X, and the EULA talks about it being upgrade-only. The other one does not have this upgrade wording, and will install on any hardware.
Granted, this was after the entire Psystar debacle, and at the time the EULAs all said "upgrade" -- but I think Apple would have significant difficulty preventing me from installing my full-install copy of Snow Leopard on a hackintosh and selling it.
Of course, I'm not a business buying multiple copies and selling the resulting PCs for profit.
Should Apple have the right to demand the software can only run on their hardware?
Remember when Atari tried blocking third-party software from their hardware and a judge ruled that they must allow for third-party use of their hardware?
I'm pretty sure that's not the same thing. Apple is saying that only they have the right to build machines that can run their software, not that you can't write/sell software to run on their machines.
That's not what I got from this: what I got is that Apple is saying only they have the right to pre-install their software on hardware and sell the package.
To me, this is a grey zone, as I'm within my rights to resell my Mac with OS X installed; I'm not within my rights to void the agreement on OS X and sell it on a netbook.
...and I'd rather learn how to do it myself as a way to relax from my day job. I'm not willing to fix other people's stuff though, as that carries too much liability.
This is the part where the four elephants get tired of holding up A'Tuin and decide to come back as the four steeds of the apocalypse in time to remove the 8 seals guarding the dimensional weak spot between earth and the universe of Mordor, right? And then A'Tuin panics when she realizes nobody's holding her up anymore, and decides it's time to swim home to lay her eggs?
For that matter, as long as you've got a buffer of a few films, you can sit down and watch one RIGHT NOW, after picking out the one you're going to watch tomorrow and setting it to download.
Back in the day on 2400 baud dialup, it could take an entire week to completely download that 5 minute cinepak video with pcm audio....
I disagree... DVDs are a valuable means of delivering data to my media server, which then copies off the bits it wants and leaves the rest. As such, DVDs are a backup medium these days, more than anything else.
I've been waiting for the .cdn TLD for some time, to house all content distribution networks, and anyone who wants to pretend they're a CDN.
We obviously need to pair every .pro domain with a matching .con domain... you know, for balance.