For the tots, I'm thinking more along the lines of KidPix (http://www.hotornot.com/r/?eid=OSHMEZE-WBU). Wonderful stuff, and easy enough for a three-year-old to grasp and run with.
For that matter, OpenOffice (or Word, or whatever) is overkill. Something clean like Pages would be much better.
The problem, of course, is cost. Even if OS X was free, most of the interesting, kid-friendly software is not, and wouldn't be. So you'd be running Gimp and OpenOffice on OS X, which would be more painful and just as intimidating as on any other *nix.
The real story here has nothing to do with $100 laptops, Linux vs Mac OS X, or Open vs. Closed Source.
Steve Jobs proposed an arrangement under which Apple would allow computers other than its own to run Mac OS X.
Just this summer, Apple VP Phil Schiller was telling the media, "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac."
Now, this is a long way from selling boxed copies of OS X for installation on whitebox PCs, much less a bundling agreement with Dell...but still, it's a significant development. What other devious schemes might Steve Jobs have for OSX86?
The bling-bling diamond on my finger is a status symbol.
My shiny red Lexus with its five-inch gold circle-L logo on the grille is a status symbol.
My Rolex is a status symbol.
The brand name clothes I wear every day are status symbols.
My iPod, with its bright-white headphones, is a status symbol.
The computer that sits on my desk in my office is not a status symbol. I do not ever invite people into my office to show off my Mac. Sure, it's pretty, but all the friends and neighbors I'm trying so hard to impress with my worldly wealth just give me a funny look when I show them my shiny new Power Mac.
> "Especially of a "copy" which is a material object including the media it is stored on. >There is no such thing as "the media and the software" as seperate entities.
Per your link: A "computer program" is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result.
"Copies" are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term "copies" includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed.
Wow. Separate definitions. Almost as if they were "separate entities." As if the "work" is distinct from the "material object."
My question to you is, how do you use, say, Microsoft Word 2003, without making a copy (see your definition) on the hard disk of a personal computer? It can't be run from the CD. You would need to duplicate this copyright-protected "computer program" to use it. And copying the software to your hard disk ("installing") would be an infringing act.
Unless you had received permission to make such a copy from the copyright holder.
Such permission is only granted to individuals who agree to the EULA.
What is "sold" is a CD copy of the software. As it says, "you own the media on which the software is stored...." and that CD, the box it came in, and the instruction manual are your property, and can never be reclaimed by Microsoft or the retailer or anyone else, no matter what. That is the only thing that is being sold at the store.
The right to copy and execute that software are what is spelled out in the EULA. If you do not accept the EULA, then you are free to do whatever you want with the CD, box, and manual that you purchased. You could use it as a coaster, or a Frisbee, or to prop up a wobbly table leg. But if you want to break the seal and install the software, you'll have to agree to the EULA. And if, having "agreed," you violate it, then Microsoft can terminate your license, and insist that you destroy all "copies." (But you'll get to keep the original CD, manual, and box!)
I'm not aware of any court ruling that has struck down the legality of click-through EULAs. (Some clauses in certain licenses have been ruled illegal, but not the licenses in general.) So for now, when you break the sticker-seal or click Agree, you are effectively agreeing to a contract. And that contract is independent of your purchase of that box, manual, and CD.
OSx86 (also OSX86) is not a typo. It refers to the versions of Mac OS X which have been compiled for the Intel x86 architecture; currently this represents the Developer Transition Kit, the pirated software therefrom, and future commercial releases of Mac OS X for the Intel platform.
ARP was basically equivalent to the radiotelephone system deployed in the US by the Bell System. In the 1950s.
NMT was much closer to AMPS, and was implemented at about the same time. My guess is that NMT preceded AMPS by two years at most. And the US deployment was hampered by a large area landmass divided between dozens of different carriers as a result of regulation.
Draw up a budget proposal for whatever locking file cabinets, secure equipment cabinets, Kensington locks (better than nothing...) and desktop security software that you'll need to ensure the security and functionality of your information systems. Keep in mind that this includes not only malicious snoopers but also cleaning staff that snag cables with their vacuum cleaners, and take whatever precautions are necessary.
Be thorough, but don't make stuff up. Don't make it a turf war, just make it clear that you're working to protect the systems that you're responsible.
Come up with this proposal, and an estimate of the costs, and request that Accounting begin soliciting bids from vendors. And then lightly suggest that this would not be necessary if you could have good locking offices.
Keep in mind, though, that private offices are only effective if they are truly private. If they're not always proerly locked, or if too many people have the keys, then you'll be the worst kind of office hypocrite.
Apple's Mac business has been growing since the iPod came out. In the past year, it has grown significantly (35% or more.)
Mac sales volume is up. Mac revenue is up. Mac profits are up. From any economic angle, the Mac is a product which has great value.
From a technical angle, Mac OS X is being improved and enhanced at a furious rate. If Microsoft were neglecting Longhorn as badly as Apple has been neglecting OS X, then it would've shipped in 2003.
The Mac only looks bad if you compare it to the growth of iPod. And that's a stupid comparison, because the Mac does not compete with the iPod.
(Incidentally, Sony eagerly sought licensees for Betamax. It lost because VHS continuously improved quality, reduced costs, extended playtime and beat Sony to market with each improvment.)
I've seen these systems used in makeshift or closet "datacenters" where servers (and other heat-producing equipment) were placed into a small space like a closet with nonexistent or inadequate cooling. Essentially, they put the evaporator in the same room as the heat source, with only coolant lines leading out to the condenser. They eliminate the need for a duct system, and they let convection currents do most of the work.
Steve owns 50% of Pixar
on
Pixar For Sale?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Last time I checked, Steve Jobs was not one of the bigger shareholders, so he would get little out of the deal, except to cede control of the one place which he can guarantee will allow Apple to sell movies via iTMS.
Steve Jobs personally owns more than 50% of Pixar (See the Annual Report) I'm not exactly sure why Jobs is not listed among Pixar's insider roster. I'm guessing it has something to do with the fact that Steve's shares have never actually been traded. Or maybe he's got a very good accountant and a healthy fear of the IRS. Who knows.
Anyway, as far as motivation goes, I'd wager "Billions and billions of dollars" would explain it.
if you are part of a linux community, you get help faster, friendlier and for free. and you after giving advice to others have even a good conscience of being helpful!... but for the average "i-do-not-want-to-learn-but-it-must-just-work" user, you are perfectly right!
The Macintosh has a "community" as well. Most minority platforms do. Heck, there are even some places where Windows users can go to get advice. (Usually having to do with viruses and spyware, but still....)
How long did it take Google to build a Firefox version of their toolbar?
How long will it take until a Linux or Mac version of Google Earth comes out? Google Desktop Search?
Almost 90% of the market uses both Windows and IE. It should come as no surprise that they're the first priority. That Microsoft intends to support Firefox at all is a step forward.
I commend Bill for his generosity, really. The Gates Foundation is the largest charity organization in the world, and it does many worthwhile things. It follows in the grand tradition of billionaire benefactors, like Rockefeller and Carnegie.
But keep in mind that Gates is the wealthiest man on the face of the planet, worth tens of billions of dollars. There's only so many mansions, exotic cars, yachts, priceless works of art, private jets, islands, and so forth he could purchase before they become ridiculous, if he were even into those things. And still he'd have billions left over.
To put it another way, suppose you've got $100,000 in assets (home equity, retirement savings, property, etc.) minus debt. Suppose Bill Gates is worth US$46.5 billion in 2005, according to Forbes. If you were to give away the same proportion of your ($100,000) net worth as Bill Gates just did in Africa, you'd need to cut a check for...$554.84
If I write a $550 check to charity every year, does that get me sainthood?
Again, I don't mean to minimize Gates' generosity, or the tremendous good that his money is doing around the world. Just to put it in perspective.
I've always wondered why the global scientific community doesn't do more replication of data as part of peer review.
Just try getting a grant for "Doing exactly what this other guy already did, just to make sure."
Yeah, it actually is important, but try explaining that to the bean counters. The best you can do is propose some sort of "continuation" and include the original experiment as a control group, and hope to verify it that way.
No one has ever conducted an "evolution experiment" whereby the input was some lower life form and the output was a higher life form.
The entire idea of a "lower life form" and "higher life form" is grounded in the idea that humans, created in God's image, are innately superior to other animals, which are merely dumb beasts to be shepherded by Adam and his descendants. (Or any of a dozen other creation stories in which humans are created by a deity.)
Biologically speaking, a successful life form is one that survives. Some are more complex than others, but there is no evolutionary reason to conclude that a human is "higher" than a chimp or a paramecium. It is not necessary to have some function that transforms lower to higher...merely to have an effective transformation function resulting in a new species.
Both companies are backing BluRay. Phillips had as much of a hand in specifying the format as Sony.
Not to mention Thomson, which developed SECAM, and owns the companies (Telefunken and RCA) that developed PAL and NTSC. (Those would be the three analog TV standards that, collectively, the entire world uses.)
Amazingly, different people have different needs, and evidently different levels of eyesight.
What's even more amazing is that nobody at Apple realizes this. I'm just glad that they're not under the impression that everyone is as sharp-eyed as you.
Mac monitors have always rendered one point = one pixel. Always. To this day, in Tiger, 1px=1pt.
Let's get some terminology straight beforehand pixel = smallest uniquely controllable element on a screen point = unit for font measurement dot = smallest uniquely controllable visual element of anything (printer, screen, etc.) inch = unit for linear measurement; equal to 2.54cm
The original Mac was designed so that 1pixel=1dot=1point=1/72 of an inch. Software, displays, and printers all agreed to this. Worked well in '84.
Today, on, say, a 12" PowerBook, 1pixel=1point=1/106 of an inch on the screen.
But in the software, 1pixel=1point=1/72". Still. To this day.
The difference between 1/106 and 1/72 is exactly the problem that the resolution-independent UIs in Leopard/Vista are attempting to solve.
Well, with twice the cache per core, plus DDR533 memory, they could actually be faster than the previous dual-chip models at the same clock speed. Not to mention cheaper for Apple to manufacture (At the same great Apple retail prices!)
And it's hard enough to read at that resolution. Trust me, I have one, and I use an external monitor to take some of the burden of of my eyes. Remember, a Mac has traditionally rendered 1point=1pixel.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, maybe middle school aged kids.
For the tots, I'm thinking more along the lines of KidPix (http://www.hotornot.com/r/?eid=OSHMEZE-WBU). Wonderful stuff, and easy enough for a three-year-old to grasp and run with.
For that matter, OpenOffice (or Word, or whatever) is overkill. Something clean like Pages would be much better.
The problem, of course, is cost. Even if OS X was free, most of the interesting, kid-friendly software is not, and wouldn't be. So you'd be running Gimp and OpenOffice on OS X, which would be more painful and just as intimidating as on any other *nix.
The real story here has nothing to do with $100 laptops, Linux vs Mac OS X, or Open vs. Closed Source.
Steve Jobs proposed an arrangement under which Apple would allow computers other than its own to run Mac OS X.
Just this summer, Apple VP Phil Schiller was telling the media, "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac."
Now, this is a long way from selling boxed copies of OS X for installation on whitebox PCs, much less a bundling agreement with Dell...but still, it's a significant development. What other devious schemes might Steve Jobs have for OSX86?
The bling-bling diamond on my finger is a status symbol.
My shiny red Lexus with its five-inch gold circle-L logo on the grille is a status symbol.
My Rolex is a status symbol.
The brand name clothes I wear every day are status symbols.
My iPod, with its bright-white headphones, is a status symbol.
The computer that sits on my desk in my office is not a status symbol. I do not ever invite people into my office to show off my Mac. Sure, it's pretty, but all the friends and neighbors I'm trying so hard to impress with my worldly wealth just give me a funny look when I show them my shiny new Power Mac.
> "Especially of a "copy" which is a material object including the media it is stored on.
>There is no such thing as "the media and the software" as seperate entities.
Per your link:
A "computer program" is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result.
"Copies" are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term "copies" includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed.
Wow. Separate definitions. Almost as if they were "separate entities." As if the "work" is distinct from the "material object."
My question to you is, how do you use, say, Microsoft Word 2003, without making a copy (see your definition) on the hard disk of a personal computer? It can't be run from the CD. You would need to duplicate this copyright-protected "computer program" to use it. And copying the software to your hard disk ("installing") would be an infringing act.
Unless you had received permission to make such a copy from the copyright holder.
Such permission is only granted to individuals who agree to the EULA.
What is "sold" is a CD copy of the software. As it says, "you own the media on which the software is stored...." and that CD, the box it came in, and the instruction manual are your property, and can never be reclaimed by Microsoft or the retailer or anyone else, no matter what. That is the only thing that is being sold at the store.
The right to copy and execute that software are what is spelled out in the EULA. If you do not accept the EULA, then you are free to do whatever you want with the CD, box, and manual that you purchased. You could use it as a coaster, or a Frisbee, or to prop up a wobbly table leg. But if you want to break the seal and install the software, you'll have to agree to the EULA. And if, having "agreed," you violate it, then Microsoft can terminate your license, and insist that you destroy all "copies." (But you'll get to keep the original CD, manual, and box!)
I'm not aware of any court ruling that has struck down the legality of click-through EULAs. (Some clauses in certain licenses have been ruled illegal, but not the licenses in general.) So for now, when you break the sticker-seal or click Agree, you are effectively agreeing to a contract. And that contract is independent of your purchase of that box, manual, and CD.
OSx86 (also OSX86) is not a typo. It refers to the versions of Mac OS X which have been compiled for the Intel x86 architecture; currently this represents the Developer Transition Kit, the pirated software therefrom, and future commercial releases of Mac OS X for the Intel platform.
Compare "Macintel."
ARP was basically equivalent to the radiotelephone system deployed in the US by the Bell System. In the 1950s.
NMT was much closer to AMPS, and was implemented at about the same time. My guess is that NMT preceded AMPS by two years at most. And the US deployment was hampered by a large area landmass divided between dozens of different carriers as a result of regulation.
Draw up a budget proposal for whatever locking file cabinets, secure equipment cabinets, Kensington locks (better than nothing...) and desktop security software that you'll need to ensure the security and functionality of your information systems. Keep in mind that this includes not only malicious snoopers but also cleaning staff that snag cables with their vacuum cleaners, and take whatever precautions are necessary.
Be thorough, but don't make stuff up. Don't make it a turf war, just make it clear that you're working to protect the systems that you're responsible.
Come up with this proposal, and an estimate of the costs, and request that Accounting begin soliciting bids from vendors. And then lightly suggest that this would not be necessary if you could have good locking offices.
Keep in mind, though, that private offices are only effective if they are truly private. If they're not always proerly locked, or if too many people have the keys, then you'll be the worst kind of office hypocrite.
Apple's Mac business has been growing since the iPod came out. In the past year, it has grown significantly (35% or more.)
Mac sales volume is up. Mac revenue is up. Mac profits are up.
From any economic angle, the Mac is a product which has great value.
From a technical angle, Mac OS X is being improved and enhanced at a furious rate. If Microsoft were neglecting Longhorn as badly as Apple has been neglecting OS X, then it would've shipped in 2003.
The Mac only looks bad if you compare it to the growth of iPod. And that's a stupid comparison, because the Mac does not compete with the iPod.
(Incidentally, Sony eagerly sought licensees for Betamax. It lost because VHS continuously improved quality, reduced costs, extended playtime and beat Sony to market with each improvment.)
I've seen these systems used in makeshift or closet "datacenters" where servers (and other heat-producing equipment) were placed into a small space like a closet with nonexistent or inadequate cooling. Essentially, they put the evaporator in the same room as the heat source, with only coolant lines leading out to the condenser. They eliminate the need for a duct system, and they let convection currents do most of the work.
Vendor 1
Vendor 2
Last time I checked, Steve Jobs was not one of the bigger shareholders, so he would get little out of the deal, except to cede control of the one place which he can guarantee will allow Apple to sell movies via iTMS.
Steve Jobs personally owns more than 50% of Pixar (See the Annual Report) I'm not exactly sure why Jobs is not listed among Pixar's insider roster. I'm guessing it has something to do with the fact that Steve's shares have never actually been traded. Or maybe he's got a very good accountant and a healthy fear of the IRS. Who knows.
Anyway, as far as motivation goes, I'd wager "Billions and billions of dollars" would explain it.
Yes, it can be bought online, through any of dozens of online brokers. The ticker symbol is
PIXR
if you are part of a linux community, you get help faster, friendlier and for free. and you after giving advice to others have even a good conscience of being helpful! ... but for the average "i-do-not-want-to-learn-but-it-must-just-work" user, you are perfectly right!
The Macintosh has a "community" as well. Most minority platforms do. Heck, there are even some places where Windows users can go to get advice. (Usually having to do with viruses and spyware, but still....)
Apple User Groups
http://www.macfixit.com/
http://www.macintouch.com/
http://www.macosx.com/
http://www.mac-forums.com/
http://forums.macrumors.com/forumdisplay.php?f=78
And then there are the comp.sys.mac.* newsgroups, and others.
How long did it take Google to build a Firefox version of their toolbar?
How long will it take until a Linux or Mac version of Google Earth comes out? Google Desktop Search?
Almost 90% of the market uses both Windows and IE. It should come as no surprise that they're the first priority. That Microsoft intends to support Firefox at all is a step forward.
I commend Bill for his generosity, really. The Gates Foundation is the largest charity organization in the world, and it does many worthwhile things. It follows in the grand tradition of billionaire benefactors, like Rockefeller and Carnegie.
But keep in mind that Gates is the wealthiest man on the face of the planet, worth tens of billions of dollars. There's only so many mansions, exotic cars, yachts, priceless works of art, private jets, islands, and so forth he could purchase before they become ridiculous, if he were even into those things. And still he'd have billions left over.
To put it another way, suppose you've got $100,000 in assets (home equity, retirement savings, property, etc.) minus debt. Suppose Bill Gates is worth US$46.5 billion in 2005, according to Forbes. If you were to give away the same proportion of your ($100,000) net worth as Bill Gates just did in Africa, you'd need to cut a check for...$554.84
If I write a $550 check to charity every year, does that get me sainthood?
Again, I don't mean to minimize Gates' generosity, or the tremendous good that his money is doing around the world. Just to put it in perspective.
I've always wondered why the global scientific community doesn't do more replication of data as part of peer review.
Just try getting a grant for "Doing exactly what this other guy already did, just to make sure."
Yeah, it actually is important, but try explaining that to the bean counters. The best you can do is propose some sort of "continuation" and include the original experiment as a control group, and hope to verify it that way.
No one has ever conducted an "evolution experiment" whereby the input was some lower life form and the output was a higher life form.
The entire idea of a "lower life form" and "higher life form" is grounded in the idea that humans, created in God's image, are innately superior to other animals, which are merely dumb beasts to be shepherded by Adam and his descendants. (Or any of a dozen other creation stories in which humans are created by a deity.)
Biologically speaking, a successful life form is one that survives. Some are more complex than others, but there is no evolutionary reason to conclude that a human is "higher" than a chimp or a paramecium. It is not necessary to have some function that transforms lower to higher...merely to have an effective transformation function resulting in a new species.
"You can't win, Judge Greene. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine."
If you understand enough about thermodynamics to know what "100% efficient" means, you understand enough to know that it is physically impossible.
phone companies in France, Germany, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have announced...Gotta love Ma Bell.
Which RBOCs would those be? BellFrance, German Bell, and Mideast Bell?
I've posted this before...
JVC developed VHS.
Phillips developed audio CDs.
Both companies are backing BluRay. Phillips had as much of a hand in specifying the format as Sony.
Not to mention Thomson, which developed SECAM, and owns the companies (Telefunken and RCA) that developed PAL and NTSC. (Those would be the three analog TV standards that, collectively, the entire world uses.)
Amazingly, different people have different needs, and evidently different levels of eyesight.
What's even more amazing is that nobody at Apple realizes this. I'm just glad that they're not under the impression that everyone is as sharp-eyed as you.
Mac monitors have always rendered one point = one pixel. Always. To this day, in Tiger, 1px=1pt.
Let's get some terminology straight beforehand
pixel = smallest uniquely controllable element on a screen
point = unit for font measurement
dot = smallest uniquely controllable visual element of anything (printer, screen, etc.)
inch = unit for linear measurement; equal to 2.54cm
The original Mac was designed so that 1pixel=1dot=1point=1/72 of an inch. Software, displays, and printers all agreed to this. Worked well in '84.
Today, on, say, a 12" PowerBook, 1pixel=1point=1/106 of an inch on the screen.
But in the software, 1pixel=1point=1/72". Still. To this day.
The difference between 1/106 and 1/72 is exactly the problem that the resolution-independent UIs in Leopard/Vista are attempting to solve.
Well, with twice the cache per core, plus DDR533 memory, they could actually be faster than the previous dual-chip models at the same clock speed. Not to mention cheaper for Apple to manufacture (At the same great Apple retail prices!)
The 12" i^HpowerBook is still at 1024x768
And it's hard enough to read at that resolution. Trust me, I have one, and I use an external monitor to take some of the burden of of my eyes. Remember, a Mac has traditionally rendered 1point=1pixel.