Nokia could get out of developing QT, but someone else would move into the niche and undercut the prices of their proprietary replacement. It is simply too hot of a business opportunity to be ignored right now. Maybe the companies dumping money into QT development would go down for a while without Nokia's support, or maybe they would go up because people see an opportunity to make money. Either way, Nokia trying to use it as leverage is not going to get them too far. Actually, only the copyright owner (now Nokia, since they bought out Trolltech) could make a proprietary release of Qt due to the GPL.
I don't see how that statement in any way contradicts the one I made. If Nokia makes a proprietary version, other companies can take the code base (at that point) and start selling an OSS fork of it, and they probably will. They'll be able to undercut Nokia's prices because Nokia will have to be doing all their own dev work, whereas the new company will still be getting contributions from the rest of the OSS community.
Actually, now that I think about it, your statement is also untrue. If Nokia releases a proprietary version, their contract with community requires them to release the code at that point under the BSD license, which another company could use to make a different proprietary version (BSD allows companies to close the source so long as they give credit).
Don't forget that 10.6 drops support for PowerPC CPUs!
Wait till the rumor is actually confirmed before complaining about it. The developer preview doesn't support it... yet. We still don't know if they plan on PPC for the final version, or if we do we signed an NDA.
Where the heck is virtualization? The hardware is there, just begging to be used.
I think Apple is happy having Parallels and VMWare duking it out for the best virtualization solution and both seem to run plenty fast aside from the graphics emulation (which both are pushing hard to do better). So long as it is competitive and advancing rapidly I don't think Apple wants to upset things.
No integrated kernel-level support for virtualization...
This fits with Apple's strategy so far. People who emulate anything other than Windows are a tiny niche. People who emulate Windows can, using several solutions that work just fine and Apple has been good about making sure they have the hooks they need. At the same time they make sure Windows apps can't run natively, out of the box to prevent developers from counting on such as a poor man's API.
...and no support for virtualizing OS X.
Actually, Apple supports OS X server under virtualization, which is useful but avoids breaking their hardware/software tying (upon which they are dependent because of the anti-competitive desktop OS market).
Apple has really dropped the ball badly on this one.
The question is, what task do you want to perform that Apple's lack of support is hindering for you? Is it one that would destroy Apple's business strategy? Is it one that is useful only to a tiny niche market?
Um, since when are "stability and performance" considered "features"
This seems to be a common failure to understand what Apple is claiming they will be adding in snow leopard. From TFA Apple will be adding... "...a new generation of core software technologies that will streamline Mac OS X, enhance its performance, and set new standards for quality."
That is, they're adding new technology that will allow for increased performance and stability. An example of this is OpenCL, which will make it easier for software developers to make use of the GPU for miscellaneous computing tasks... thus increasing the performance of those applications. Another new technology is Grand Central, making it easier for developers to get the most out of multi-core processors, again increasing performance and also increasing stability. Yet a third example is the move to 64-bit to allow applications to address more memory, thus increasing performance. You'll note none of these are about fixing performance or stability bugs in OS X; although doubtless Apple will apply them to do that as well.
I don't think I should have to shell out more money for "stability and performance" because they should have been included with Leopard, but obviously were not.
Hey, if you don't like what is in snow leopard, no one is forcing you to pay for it. Just wait for the next release you do feel is worth the money. Still, I think you are misunderstanding the summary and the blurb. When Leopard was introduced one of the features allowed OpenGL applications to automatically spawn an extra thread to feed the GPU, utilizing a second core even for applications that had not been written to take advantage of it and providing significant performance improvements for many applications. This is more of the same, features being added to increase performance, not bugs being fixed to increase performance.
Being captured while engaged in acts of war but not wearing a uniform that marks one as a combatant means you are *not* a prisoner of war and *not* entitled to protection under the Convention, as specified in the Convention itself. Curiously, this point seems to be ignored by most media reports.
That's because it is factually incorrect. the Geneva convention applies to self organized militias who do not have uniforms but who are fighting an invading army in their country. This applies to the vast majority of the prisoners in Guantanamo.
Well, the fact that US law says it doesn't automagically make it right, of course.
No, but neither does it make it wrong. The laws were written that way for a purpose, because without them people were forced into debtors labor prisons and forced apprenticeships and other labor. For bonus credit, guess which US president had to flee the city he lived in to avoid just such slavery.
Why, in your theoretical scenario, shouldn't the would-be slave just get charitable assistance?
Because the wealthy like power and controlling people so they buy people and make them live how they want and consider it charity all the same.
hat's what people do today when they have no resources, I fail to see why it isn't an option in the picture you paint.
Because people will be forced into the worst deals possible by law. This is the same reason selling your organs is illegal, because otherwise wages would drop to the point where many had to in order to provide for their families. Capitalism is ruthless and unstable unless regulated to avoid such human rights issues.
This is the lesson here. Don't contribute to projects that claim ownership of your code as a condition of contributing. Fork the project first... QT used this model. Then they sold all the code they collected over the years to Nokia. And here we are.
Except people did consider this possibility and Trolltech signed an agreement specifically covering what would happen if they stopped releasing improvements to QT, specifically including cases where they had been acquired by another company. Basically they're bound to release it under the BSD license at that point, so we have a start for a fork just as good as what you mention.
Do you remember the recent article on the the stalled XOrg development? People don't like doing low level, thankless, GUI stuff. They like making interfaces, not improving the speed of existing widgets.
Actually, I think most Linux developers don't really enjoy the bit they are working on. They do it because they are being paid by a company who needs that part improved. With X.org, for the most part, it was not a problem for what companies want to use it for (mostly as a server). As companies start to use Linux for more applications (to sell consumer laptops, for example) they will invest more in areas like improving X.org in ways that will facilitate those uses.
It would be difficult to get a sufficient number of people to work on the project reliably, IMHO.
Nokia could get out of developing QT, but someone else would move into the niche and undercut the prices of their proprietary replacement. It is simply too hot of a business opportunity to be ignored right now. Maybe the companies dumping money into QT development would go down for a while without Nokia's support, or maybe they would go up because people see an opportunity to make money. Either way, Nokia trying to use it as leverage is not going to get them too far.
fact is, murder in my country is a factor 5 lower, and if it happens with a gun, it is frontpage news.
Strict gun control laws tend to reduce murders performed with guns, but overall murders go up (very slightly). I bet Sweden has even lower rates of murder than your country, without strict gun control. Gun ownership stops significantly more murders than it facilitates. Partly this is because criminals can pick targets physically weaker than themselves and there is nothing to equalize the situation.
Gun control is one of the last things to look at to reduce violent crime and murder. First there is wealth disparity, availability of medical care, criminalization of illicit drugs, etc. They all have a lot more influence. That said, assuming that gun control is contributing one way, when pretty much all the data shows the opposite, is just being willfully ignorant.
Nothing says you have to buy a gun and carry it, but supporting laws to forcibly make that decision for others, especially in the face of all the scientific evidence which points to it causing more harm for society than it causes... well that is both anti-freedom and just plain poor decision making. If your country really does have a low rate of violence and strict gun control laws, then repealing them is likely to have an even more significant benefit, relative to your current state. Claiming what you have is good enough, because while you don't stop as many murders as possible, you're still better than the US (one of the worst among all industrialized nations, especially in the parts with strict gun control) is just a variation of the "we're not as bad as China fallacy".
If these were any other two companies... would we be seeing the same reaction on Slashdot?
Well, if they were companies as heavily invested in the computing industry and with as much influence, and one of them was an abuse monopoly single-handedly responsible for holding back progress in multiple areas of the computer industry for decades, well then probably.
Seriously, imagine if Apple were trying to acquire, for instance Transmeta...
Not many people would care because Apple doesn't have a monopoly, hasn't been abusing it, and will likely not result in any market stagnating and resulting detrimental effects for those of us here.
Would a Yahoogle monopoly be any better than an MS one?
Microsoft has several monopolies and regularly abuses them. Yahoo being acquired by them would give them enough share to be close to having several more, which would certainly become new monopolies soon as they abuse their other monopolies to make sure that happens.
On the other hand, even if Google and Yahoo merged, that would not necessarily give them even one monopoly. See how it makes a difference?
You think it is light? It is 25 pages long with 104 references and 4 pages of attached data. It is nothing like a pamphlet from anyone. It is a formal study, obviously written by a professional.
Anyway, I don't change my opinion on guns in my country...
I don't expect people to change their opinions just because of the facts. Most people make up their minds based upon primarily emotional factors. Then they look for facts to support their predetermined opinions and ignore anything that conflicts with them.
It is very clear, especially on the issue of gun control, that emotion rules instead of reason. You don't care if more people die or are injured or if a given gun control law will result in said suffering and death... that is to say, not as much as you care about not having to change your mind and in the face of real data.
Gary, Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.)
It is one of the most well accepted studies of the sort, both because of the conservative stance he took in putting together the numbers, the meticulous methodology, and his own credentials as a person who had not vested interest of bias at the time. He is criminology professor, then at Florida State, with no affiliation with the NRA or any pro-gun organization. He is, in fact, a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International, Independent Action, the Democratic party 2000, and Common Cause... all very left-wing groups. When he published he claimed to have been very surprised by the results of his own research.
Also note, 1.5 was the most conservative of his estimates with 2.5 million being a possibility given more recent studies.
In other words, my initial posting was an attempt was trying to make an objective statement of fact without too much emotion involved - I don't need stuff I buy to look nice to other people so take the fact that a fair proportion of the price of an Apple product has gone into making it look good, then I can find equally usable stuff a lot cheaper elsewhere.
Apple spends money on industrial design to make products look good, but I'm not sure you can consider that to be a "fair proportion of the price of an Apple product". It's a one time expense for each product, the same as the other engineering costs and probably no more than Sony and the like spend. Since they sell so many, it is probably more than absorbed by their bulk pricing discounts for components. Your argument is that you can find equally usable products, cheaper elsewhere. My argument is that, for most people this is not true. For the average person, Apple products are significantly more usable for the tasks people normally perform... and that is what has made their products sell so well in comparison to other products who spend as much or more on industrial design and marketing.
For an example, lets look at the iPod (note I don't own an iPod or iPhone). When it came out it was more expensive and had less space than a nomad and was predicted to fail by many here on Slashdot. It succeeded wildly in drawing in new users. At the time, Apple was not even that well known of a brand and was not trendy. Why did it succeed? The reason is iTunes and the iTunes store and the iPod interface itself. It was the first player where people could easily rip their CDs and get them onto the device. I know people, smart people, that installed iTunes just for the purpose of ripping their music collections to use with a different player. Apple was the first one to make all the tasks users wanted to do, easy enough for Joe six-tooth.
People that write off Apple's success as because their products are trendy or pretty are simply not understanding Apple's strategy and success in these markets and looking for a reason that they can dismiss. Their strategy is also a reason why a lot of their products are not ideal for Slashdotters. We want features and generally don't mind tinkering and figuring things out. iPods lack of an FM tuner may be a bigger drawback to a geek than its ease of use is a benefit. This is fine, but it does lead many to fail to understand the perspective of the masses is different and overall usability is important and sells devices.
Have you ever performed a usability study on a modern computer? No, but I've read as many of them as I can get my hands on, and have found none of them credible.
So you're claiming the entire field of scientific research into usability is not credible, and the alternative you're proffering, is your own personal opinion backed up by no data whatsoever? I've got to tell you, that's not very persuasive.
I have, for the past quarter of a century, rarely even had any user interface experts provide an example of a study other than Apple's original flawed work.
Have you considered actually going to HCI conferences, subscribing to the journals, or just reading the academic papers published online. There are a lot of rigorous usability studies, usually testing a particular interface and looking for problem tasks/workflows.
I'm an advanced user. I have decades of experience with Macs and just about every other user interface that uses a mouse and windows, including every version of Mac OS, the Lisa, and all three of the GUIs Xerox developed on the Dorado and Dolphin boxes. I am still discovering magic keys in Apple applications by means of word-of-mouth and google.
Hold your horses there partner! We're talking about chording keys that substitute for extra mouse buttons, not any other UI features. Stay on topic. Are you still looking for the ctrl key to use with your muse button or trackpad? Are you still trying to figure out that if you have two fingers on the trackpad when you click it works like the second button on other systems?
Care to cite an example? I know of only two applications on OS X that are exceptions to this rule, one of which is an abysmal custom interface trying to exactly mimic the Windows version If you mean iTunes, that's a custom UI developed on the Mac and ported to Windows that Apple has used as a testbed for user interface ideas.
I don't know of any functions in iTunes that I have to use a second mouse button for. I'm not seeing you support your assertion with any examples. If the problem is real, surely you can think of some application where you need the second mouse button on OS X.
I'm not a Windows user, and I'm not comparing OS X with Windows. I'm right now using contextual menus WITH user customization on OS X.
So what is your problem with Apple's implementation of the second mouse button? You claim to be using it, so how have they hindered that use case? They support features by default if you have a second button and it is possible to customize them, unlike other popular implementations where you are forced to use them and they cannot be customized. I'd say Apple is ahead of the curve here.
* Applications are *not* as consistent as you claim. There are many actions even in Apple's apps that are only available through the contextual menu, or through magic chords. Really. Care to cite an example? I know of only two applications on OS X that are exceptions to this rule, one of which is an abysmal custom interface trying to exactly mimic the Windows version and the other is a high end graphics application that specifies users must have a multi-button mouse to use it. I'll give you a hint, look in the regular menus. The menu bar can be up to 1,000 pixels away from the current position of the mouse. Sure, you can increase sensitivity, but then you lose pixel-level control of the mouse pointer due to your hand tremors.
Yeah, selecting things from the regular menus when you can use a right-click context menu can be slow, which is why it is nice to have both options. The point of standardizing on one button is it forces developers to put them in the regular menus, even if they also put them in the the right-click context menu as well.
The reason the above is advantageous is for all the novice user who don't properly use the second mouse button and for all the people using alternative interfaces that don't have a second button either. If you're blind and using an audio interface and a function is only in the right-click context menu, well you generally can't use that program at all. If it is in the regular menu or the regular menu and the right-click menu you're okay. The same goes for styluses, touch screen kiosks, voice activated interfaces, etc.
It would be nice to think developers would always include a function in a place other than the right-click context menu as well, but that simply doesn't happen as may years of experience has shown. Having a one-button default is the only method that has succeeded.
Very simple. Make stuff that looks a certain way on the basis that you are appealing to the fact that some people are prepared to pay for exclusivity, rather than functionality, first.
I disagree. There are dozens of phones out that look very similar to the iPhone, by intention. Nah, Apple's strategy with the iPhone is the same one they used with the iPod. Enter a market with a product that is not cheaper or more featureful than the competition, but usability test the heck out of it, including the surrounding services and software. Provide only the features that work really, really well and easily. For the most part, people buy and use iPhones because a lot of the features present on other smartphones are just too hard to use for the average person. They're fine for geeks, but just not there for normal people. This explains why iPhone users actually use the features of their phones more often than users of competing phones. Is the iPhone the only one that can look up your location on a map and then find the closest sushi place and it's phone number? Nope. If it was my father using it, though, I'd sure rather he had an iPhone so he could do it in less than ten minutes and didn't have to ask me questions.
Basically, it is the same reason the Wii is selling so well, they expanded an existing market by making it more suited to the masses.
Employees use IM as a way to goof off. Employees use Web browsers as a way to goof off. Employees use ceiling tiles as a way to goof off. Employees use their imaginations as a way to goof off.
The problem in all these cases is not that employees have found something with which they can goof off. The problem is that your employees are bored and unmotivated. Seriously, most large employers have horrible working conditions and do little to motivate their employees. If they used profit sharing to make up a significant portion of their worker's pay, I bet you'd see a very different situation.
Personally, I've worked in some very good environments where IM was a great productivity boon. It was faster than e-mail but let us exchange text and images that avoided the ambiguity of a telephone call, provided a record of what was exchanged, and was a lot easier to manage with a dozen people than a conference call. Of course we were getting stock options and significant (5 figure) bonuses based upon how much profit the company made. Because we made our own hours and were motivated we didn't waste a lot of time chatting with friends and family instead of working.
Argumentum ad verecundiam. I've been seeing people make claims like this for almost 25 years now, and I have yet to see a single credible study that supports it. Single button mice are more "demo friendly". That's it.
What are you talking about? Have you ever performed a usability study on a modern computer? There is always at least one person messing up and hitting the wrong button. I once thought I was going to get away without that problem when testing an interface for network security experts, but sure enough one of the top guys at AT&T (a really bright guy by the way) who was helping us test accidentally clicked the wrong button while trying to access a menu. This is an absurdly common issue. To claim it has never been demonstrated in a credible study either shows complete ignorance of the topic at hand or some bizarre selection criteria for said studies.
* Applications are *not* as consistent as you claim. There are many actions even in Apple's apps that are only available through the contextual menu, or through magic chords.
Really. Care to cite an example? I know of only two applications on OS X that are exceptions to this rule, one of which is an abysmal custom interface trying to exactly mimic the Windows version and the other is a high end graphics application that specifies users must have a multi-button mouse to use it. I'll give you a hint, look in the regular menus.
These magic chords, the alternate mechanisms for replacing the context menu in Mac OS, are not "discoverable".
True, they are not easily discoverable, but that is only one part of usability. Novice users don't need to discover them. Advanced suers have no problem figuring them out quite quickly. The only people at risk are those who want to be more advanced, but are both too cheap to buy a multi-button mouse and too lazy to look up the chording key or that they can use two fingers on the track pad.
* Using contextual menus does not prevent user configuration.
Yes it does, at least as currently implemented on Windows and in many custom interfaces for programs. You either can use a custom menu or you can use the one supplied by the developer, but usually you cannot merge the two into one menu and often there is no way to add the functionality from the custom menu into a standard menu. This is an extremely common problem for people trying to use an alternative input device, like people with palsy.
Argumentum ad hominem, too. Not guilty. I use OS X regularly, I've used Macs for almost a quarter of a century. OS X is my primary desktop.
This is not an ad hominem attack, nor was it a description of you. This was describing the characteristics that lead people to repeat this misperception in the media. So tell me, are you one of the people who is too lazy to learn or too cheap to buy a new mouse?
The language is a serious turn off for most developers I know.
Really? The only developers I can think of that it would be a problem for are those guys who learned Java or VB at their trade school and have never learned anything else. Pretty much everyone else has picked up C at some point and Objective C is just a superset.
I'd also note that from what I've read developers are raving about the ease of use of the iPhone dev kit. From the development forums I see a lot of happy people, with the occasional clueless person asking if they can develop for the iPhone using Visual Basic 6. I've seen some complaints about the slow rate at which people are letting developers into the program, but not about objective C.
Their passive-aggressive relationship with multiple mouse buttons is a crying shame.
I find their stance on mouse buttons to be ideal. As a usability expert, I can assure you misuse of secondary mouse buttons is one of the most common usability problems, even for more advanced users, although they often do not consciously note it. For novice users, a single mouse button is by far preferable. For trackpad users, both novice users and power users complete tasks faster using two-finger taps or chording... with only midrange users having issues. Standardizing one one button as the requirement for developers to target also improves overall usability. It means if you are using an alternate input method like a stylus, voice interface, handicap interface, or if you are scripting actions within an application, all functions are accessible in the same, standard way, with no functionality exclusively available to users that can easily access a second mouse button. This also means the second mouse button functionality can be customized by the user, since it is not required to operate any application. That means in my text editor on OS X I don't have useless option in the context menu brought up by the second button (as is the case in Wordpad in WinXP). Instead I assign useful items to that context menu, like a service for auto-replacing line endings. Basically, I think you're way off when it comes to the multi-button mouse thing. The "might mouse" is an ideal new mouse for home computers with multiple users as it is the first I know of that lets software decide if the mouse is multi-button or single button based upon the user account. Apple has its share of usability problems, but their practices with regard to mouse buttons are not one of them. Mostly it is just Windows users complaining because it is different or people who don't actually use OS X regularly complaining about what they assume would be a problem.
yes, but if you buy a firearm with the explicit goal of reducing your risk... and by buying the gun you increase the risk, something smells fishy.
This is straying quite far from the topic. The original point was if is was an absurd belief only an American could hold to strict gun control laws were stupid. As for whether or not acquiring a firearm is statistically more or less likely to result in your death or that of a family member, well that depends a lot upon what categories you fall into. For example, according to one study 78% of all incidents where children accidentally shoot themselves are with firearms illegally obtained in the first place.
To address your primary point though, obtaining a firearm increases the chances of a family member dying through the use of a firearm... but that does not mean the overall risk of death by violent crime or accident does not go down. One of the primary ways in which people are misled about this issue is when studies try to single out guns from other types of violent crimes, intentionally ignoring crimes committed without guns and the effect of gun ownership in those situations. [For example, a person with a gun defends themselves with it against a person with a baseball bat. Does your particular evaluation of risk ignore that or count that as a violent crime or potential murder avoided?] It is important to avoid making the same mistake when considering overall safety as a result of firearm ownership.
how many crimes have been avoided by the wide availability of guns vs. delta risk ?
There are about 230,000 deaths and injuries caused intentionally or accidentally with firearms every year. There are about 700,000 crimes committed with firearms (most of which obviously don't result in a shooting). Just to be as conservative as possible, if we assume all the deaths and injuries are the rest of legal mishandling instead of illegal action, that means there could be up to 900,000 people killed or injured accidentally or intentionally with firearms. Conservatively, firearms are used to prevent a crime about 1.5 million times a year. So on the face of things, it seems like a win, but that does not, necessarily translate to a "win" for any given individual. Firearms are potentially dangerous tools and need to be handled with a great deal of caution by people who have been properly trained.
I'd note this has wandered very far astray from the merits of strict gun control legislation, where the numbers are very clear. It is a fallacy to equate gun control legislation with guns not existing.
... and how about studies indicating gun presence in a house lead to much more accidents?
Indeed they do, but that isn't an issue of crime, nor, necessarily a valid reason to make something illegal. Having a backyard pool is increases the risk of your child dying twenty times as much as owning a firearm. Buying your child a bicycle increases their chance of dying equally to having firearms in the house. No one would even consider outlawing either of those. Claiming firearms should be a special case is just playing on unrealistic fears.
A lot of america's problems with guns relate to illegal drugs just as we had problems with illegal booze.
I prefer to phrase it in terms of "A lot of america's problems with violent crime relate to illegal drugs just as we had problems with illegal booze." Drug dealers stab and beat people as often as they shoot them. Your point, however, is very valid. The prohibition on drugs and criminalization of drug usage is another very strong correlation. Some studies indicate serious violent crime would drop as much as one third if we spent a quarter of the money we're putting into the "war on drugs" on public rehab and addiction management programs and decriminalized (not legalized) most illicit drugs. It sure worked in the UK, among other places.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see how that statement in any way contradicts the one I made. If Nokia makes a proprietary version, other companies can take the code base (at that point) and start selling an OSS fork of it, and they probably will. They'll be able to undercut Nokia's prices because Nokia will have to be doing all their own dev work, whereas the new company will still be getting contributions from the rest of the OSS community.
Actually, now that I think about it, your statement is also untrue. If Nokia releases a proprietary version, their contract with community requires them to release the code at that point under the BSD license, which another company could use to make a different proprietary version (BSD allows companies to close the source so long as they give credit).
Wait till the rumor is actually confirmed before complaining about it. The developer preview doesn't support it... yet. We still don't know if they plan on PPC for the final version, or if we do we signed an NDA.
I think Apple is happy having Parallels and VMWare duking it out for the best virtualization solution and both seem to run plenty fast aside from the graphics emulation (which both are pushing hard to do better). So long as it is competitive and advancing rapidly I don't think Apple wants to upset things.
No integrated kernel-level support for virtualization...This fits with Apple's strategy so far. People who emulate anything other than Windows are a tiny niche. People who emulate Windows can, using several solutions that work just fine and Apple has been good about making sure they have the hooks they need. At the same time they make sure Windows apps can't run natively, out of the box to prevent developers from counting on such as a poor man's API.
...and no support for virtualizing OS X.Actually, Apple supports OS X server under virtualization, which is useful but avoids breaking their hardware/software tying (upon which they are dependent because of the anti-competitive desktop OS market).
Apple has really dropped the ball badly on this one.The question is, what task do you want to perform that Apple's lack of support is hindering for you? Is it one that would destroy Apple's business strategy? Is it one that is useful only to a tiny niche market?
This seems to be a common failure to understand what Apple is claiming they will be adding in snow leopard. From TFA Apple will be adding... "...a new generation of core software technologies that will streamline Mac OS X, enhance its performance, and set new standards for quality."
That is, they're adding new technology that will allow for increased performance and stability. An example of this is OpenCL, which will make it easier for software developers to make use of the GPU for miscellaneous computing tasks... thus increasing the performance of those applications. Another new technology is Grand Central, making it easier for developers to get the most out of multi-core processors, again increasing performance and also increasing stability. Yet a third example is the move to 64-bit to allow applications to address more memory, thus increasing performance. You'll note none of these are about fixing performance or stability bugs in OS X; although doubtless Apple will apply them to do that as well.
I don't think I should have to shell out more money for "stability and performance" because they should have been included with Leopard, but obviously were not.Hey, if you don't like what is in snow leopard, no one is forcing you to pay for it. Just wait for the next release you do feel is worth the money. Still, I think you are misunderstanding the summary and the blurb. When Leopard was introduced one of the features allowed OpenGL applications to automatically spawn an extra thread to feed the GPU, utilizing a second core even for applications that had not been written to take advantage of it and providing significant performance improvements for many applications. This is more of the same, features being added to increase performance, not bugs being fixed to increase performance.
That's because it is factually incorrect. the Geneva convention applies to self organized militias who do not have uniforms but who are fighting an invading army in their country. This applies to the vast majority of the prisoners in Guantanamo.
No, but neither does it make it wrong. The laws were written that way for a purpose, because without them people were forced into debtors labor prisons and forced apprenticeships and other labor. For bonus credit, guess which US president had to flee the city he lived in to avoid just such slavery.
Why, in your theoretical scenario, shouldn't the would-be slave just get charitable assistance?Because the wealthy like power and controlling people so they buy people and make them live how they want and consider it charity all the same.
hat's what people do today when they have no resources, I fail to see why it isn't an option in the picture you paint.Because people will be forced into the worst deals possible by law. This is the same reason selling your organs is illegal, because otherwise wages would drop to the point where many had to in order to provide for their families. Capitalism is ruthless and unstable unless regulated to avoid such human rights issues.
Except people did consider this possibility and Trolltech signed an agreement specifically covering what would happen if they stopped releasing improvements to QT, specifically including cases where they had been acquired by another company. Basically they're bound to release it under the BSD license at that point, so we have a start for a fork just as good as what you mention.
Here you go.
Actually, I think most Linux developers don't really enjoy the bit they are working on. They do it because they are being paid by a company who needs that part improved. With X.org, for the most part, it was not a problem for what companies want to use it for (mostly as a server). As companies start to use Linux for more applications (to sell consumer laptops, for example) they will invest more in areas like improving X.org in ways that will facilitate those uses.
It would be difficult to get a sufficient number of people to work on the project reliably, IMHO.Nokia could get out of developing QT, but someone else would move into the niche and undercut the prices of their proprietary replacement. It is simply too hot of a business opportunity to be ignored right now. Maybe the companies dumping money into QT development would go down for a while without Nokia's support, or maybe they would go up because people see an opportunity to make money. Either way, Nokia trying to use it as leverage is not going to get them too far.
Strict gun control laws tend to reduce murders performed with guns, but overall murders go up (very slightly). I bet Sweden has even lower rates of murder than your country, without strict gun control. Gun ownership stops significantly more murders than it facilitates. Partly this is because criminals can pick targets physically weaker than themselves and there is nothing to equalize the situation.
Gun control is one of the last things to look at to reduce violent crime and murder. First there is wealth disparity, availability of medical care, criminalization of illicit drugs, etc. They all have a lot more influence. That said, assuming that gun control is contributing one way, when pretty much all the data shows the opposite, is just being willfully ignorant.
Nothing says you have to buy a gun and carry it, but supporting laws to forcibly make that decision for others, especially in the face of all the scientific evidence which points to it causing more harm for society than it causes... well that is both anti-freedom and just plain poor decision making. If your country really does have a low rate of violence and strict gun control laws, then repealing them is likely to have an even more significant benefit, relative to your current state. Claiming what you have is good enough, because while you don't stop as many murders as possible, you're still better than the US (one of the worst among all industrialized nations, especially in the parts with strict gun control) is just a variation of the "we're not as bad as China fallacy".
Well, if they were companies as heavily invested in the computing industry and with as much influence, and one of them was an abuse monopoly single-handedly responsible for holding back progress in multiple areas of the computer industry for decades, well then probably.
Seriously, imagine if Apple were trying to acquire, for instance Transmeta...Not many people would care because Apple doesn't have a monopoly, hasn't been abusing it, and will likely not result in any market stagnating and resulting detrimental effects for those of us here.
Microsoft has several monopolies and regularly abuses them. Yahoo being acquired by them would give them enough share to be close to having several more, which would certainly become new monopolies soon as they abuse their other monopolies to make sure that happens.
On the other hand, even if Google and Yahoo merged, that would not necessarily give them even one monopoly. See how it makes a difference?
You think it is light? It is 25 pages long with 104 references and 4 pages of attached data. It is nothing like a pamphlet from anyone. It is a formal study, obviously written by a professional.
Anyway, I don't change my opinion on guns in my country...I don't expect people to change their opinions just because of the facts. Most people make up their minds based upon primarily emotional factors. Then they look for facts to support their predetermined opinions and ignore anything that conflicts with them.
It is very clear, especially on the issue of gun control, that emotion rules instead of reason. You don't care if more people die or are injured or if a given gun control law will result in said suffering and death... that is to say, not as much as you care about not having to change your mind and in the face of real data.
Gary, Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.)
It is one of the most well accepted studies of the sort, both because of the conservative stance he took in putting together the numbers, the meticulous methodology, and his own credentials as a person who had not vested interest of bias at the time. He is criminology professor, then at Florida State, with no affiliation with the NRA or any pro-gun organization. He is, in fact, a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International, Independent Action, the Democratic party 2000, and Common Cause... all very left-wing groups. When he published he claimed to have been very surprised by the results of his own research.
Also note, 1.5 was the most conservative of his estimates with 2.5 million being a possibility given more recent studies.
Apple spends money on industrial design to make products look good, but I'm not sure you can consider that to be a "fair proportion of the price of an Apple product". It's a one time expense for each product, the same as the other engineering costs and probably no more than Sony and the like spend. Since they sell so many, it is probably more than absorbed by their bulk pricing discounts for components. Your argument is that you can find equally usable products, cheaper elsewhere. My argument is that, for most people this is not true. For the average person, Apple products are significantly more usable for the tasks people normally perform... and that is what has made their products sell so well in comparison to other products who spend as much or more on industrial design and marketing.
For an example, lets look at the iPod (note I don't own an iPod or iPhone). When it came out it was more expensive and had less space than a nomad and was predicted to fail by many here on Slashdot. It succeeded wildly in drawing in new users. At the time, Apple was not even that well known of a brand and was not trendy. Why did it succeed? The reason is iTunes and the iTunes store and the iPod interface itself. It was the first player where people could easily rip their CDs and get them onto the device. I know people, smart people, that installed iTunes just for the purpose of ripping their music collections to use with a different player. Apple was the first one to make all the tasks users wanted to do, easy enough for Joe six-tooth.
People that write off Apple's success as because their products are trendy or pretty are simply not understanding Apple's strategy and success in these markets and looking for a reason that they can dismiss. Their strategy is also a reason why a lot of their products are not ideal for Slashdotters. We want features and generally don't mind tinkering and figuring things out. iPods lack of an FM tuner may be a bigger drawback to a geek than its ease of use is a benefit. This is fine, but it does lead many to fail to understand the perspective of the masses is different and overall usability is important and sells devices.
So you're claiming the entire field of scientific research into usability is not credible, and the alternative you're proffering, is your own personal opinion backed up by no data whatsoever? I've got to tell you, that's not very persuasive.
I have, for the past quarter of a century, rarely even had any user interface experts provide an example of a study other than Apple's original flawed work.Have you considered actually going to HCI conferences, subscribing to the journals, or just reading the academic papers published online. There are a lot of rigorous usability studies, usually testing a particular interface and looking for problem tasks/workflows.
I'm an advanced user. I have decades of experience with Macs and just about every other user interface that uses a mouse and windows, including every version of Mac OS, the Lisa, and all three of the GUIs Xerox developed on the Dorado and Dolphin boxes. I am still discovering magic keys in Apple applications by means of word-of-mouth and google.Hold your horses there partner! We're talking about chording keys that substitute for extra mouse buttons, not any other UI features. Stay on topic. Are you still looking for the ctrl key to use with your muse button or trackpad? Are you still trying to figure out that if you have two fingers on the trackpad when you click it works like the second button on other systems?
Care to cite an example? I know of only two applications on OS X that are exceptions to this rule, one of which is an abysmal custom interface trying to exactly mimic the Windows version If you mean iTunes, that's a custom UI developed on the Mac and ported to Windows that Apple has used as a testbed for user interface ideas.I don't know of any functions in iTunes that I have to use a second mouse button for. I'm not seeing you support your assertion with any examples. If the problem is real, surely you can think of some application where you need the second mouse button on OS X.
I'm not a Windows user, and I'm not comparing OS X with Windows. I'm right now using contextual menus WITH user customization on OS X.So what is your problem with Apple's implementation of the second mouse button? You claim to be using it, so how have they hindered that use case? They support features by default if you have a second button and it is possible to customize them, unlike other popular implementations where you are forced to use them and they cannot be customized. I'd say Apple is ahead of the curve here.
Yeah, selecting things from the regular menus when you can use a right-click context menu can be slow, which is why it is nice to have both options. The point of standardizing on one button is it forces developers to put them in the regular menus, even if they also put them in the the right-click context menu as well.
The reason the above is advantageous is for all the novice user who don't properly use the second mouse button and for all the people using alternative interfaces that don't have a second button either. If you're blind and using an audio interface and a function is only in the right-click context menu, well you generally can't use that program at all. If it is in the regular menu or the regular menu and the right-click menu you're okay. The same goes for styluses, touch screen kiosks, voice activated interfaces, etc.
It would be nice to think developers would always include a function in a place other than the right-click context menu as well, but that simply doesn't happen as may years of experience has shown. Having a one-button default is the only method that has succeeded.
I disagree. There are dozens of phones out that look very similar to the iPhone, by intention. Nah, Apple's strategy with the iPhone is the same one they used with the iPod. Enter a market with a product that is not cheaper or more featureful than the competition, but usability test the heck out of it, including the surrounding services and software. Provide only the features that work really, really well and easily. For the most part, people buy and use iPhones because a lot of the features present on other smartphones are just too hard to use for the average person. They're fine for geeks, but just not there for normal people. This explains why iPhone users actually use the features of their phones more often than users of competing phones. Is the iPhone the only one that can look up your location on a map and then find the closest sushi place and it's phone number? Nope. If it was my father using it, though, I'd sure rather he had an iPhone so he could do it in less than ten minutes and didn't have to ask me questions.
Basically, it is the same reason the Wii is selling so well, they expanded an existing market by making it more suited to the masses.
Employees use IM as a way to goof off. Employees use Web browsers as a way to goof off. Employees use ceiling tiles as a way to goof off. Employees use their imaginations as a way to goof off.
The problem in all these cases is not that employees have found something with which they can goof off. The problem is that your employees are bored and unmotivated. Seriously, most large employers have horrible working conditions and do little to motivate their employees. If they used profit sharing to make up a significant portion of their worker's pay, I bet you'd see a very different situation.
Personally, I've worked in some very good environments where IM was a great productivity boon. It was faster than e-mail but let us exchange text and images that avoided the ambiguity of a telephone call, provided a record of what was exchanged, and was a lot easier to manage with a dozen people than a conference call. Of course we were getting stock options and significant (5 figure) bonuses based upon how much profit the company made. Because we made our own hours and were motivated we didn't waste a lot of time chatting with friends and family instead of working.
What are you talking about? Have you ever performed a usability study on a modern computer? There is always at least one person messing up and hitting the wrong button. I once thought I was going to get away without that problem when testing an interface for network security experts, but sure enough one of the top guys at AT&T (a really bright guy by the way) who was helping us test accidentally clicked the wrong button while trying to access a menu. This is an absurdly common issue. To claim it has never been demonstrated in a credible study either shows complete ignorance of the topic at hand or some bizarre selection criteria for said studies.
* Applications are *not* as consistent as you claim. There are many actions even in Apple's apps that are only available through the contextual menu, or through magic chords.Really. Care to cite an example? I know of only two applications on OS X that are exceptions to this rule, one of which is an abysmal custom interface trying to exactly mimic the Windows version and the other is a high end graphics application that specifies users must have a multi-button mouse to use it. I'll give you a hint, look in the regular menus.
These magic chords, the alternate mechanisms for replacing the context menu in Mac OS, are not "discoverable".True, they are not easily discoverable, but that is only one part of usability. Novice users don't need to discover them. Advanced suers have no problem figuring them out quite quickly. The only people at risk are those who want to be more advanced, but are both too cheap to buy a multi-button mouse and too lazy to look up the chording key or that they can use two fingers on the track pad.
* Using contextual menus does not prevent user configuration.Yes it does, at least as currently implemented on Windows and in many custom interfaces for programs. You either can use a custom menu or you can use the one supplied by the developer, but usually you cannot merge the two into one menu and often there is no way to add the functionality from the custom menu into a standard menu. This is an extremely common problem for people trying to use an alternative input device, like people with palsy.
Argumentum ad hominem, too. Not guilty. I use OS X regularly, I've used Macs for almost a quarter of a century. OS X is my primary desktop.This is not an ad hominem attack, nor was it a description of you. This was describing the characteristics that lead people to repeat this misperception in the media. So tell me, are you one of the people who is too lazy to learn or too cheap to buy a new mouse?
Really? The only developers I can think of that it would be a problem for are those guys who learned Java or VB at their trade school and have never learned anything else. Pretty much everyone else has picked up C at some point and Objective C is just a superset.
I'd also note that from what I've read developers are raving about the ease of use of the iPhone dev kit. From the development forums I see a lot of happy people, with the occasional clueless person asking if they can develop for the iPhone using Visual Basic 6. I've seen some complaints about the slow rate at which people are letting developers into the program, but not about objective C.
I find their stance on mouse buttons to be ideal. As a usability expert, I can assure you misuse of secondary mouse buttons is one of the most common usability problems, even for more advanced users, although they often do not consciously note it. For novice users, a single mouse button is by far preferable. For trackpad users, both novice users and power users complete tasks faster using two-finger taps or chording... with only midrange users having issues. Standardizing one one button as the requirement for developers to target also improves overall usability. It means if you are using an alternate input method like a stylus, voice interface, handicap interface, or if you are scripting actions within an application, all functions are accessible in the same, standard way, with no functionality exclusively available to users that can easily access a second mouse button. This also means the second mouse button functionality can be customized by the user, since it is not required to operate any application. That means in my text editor on OS X I don't have useless option in the context menu brought up by the second button (as is the case in Wordpad in WinXP). Instead I assign useful items to that context menu, like a service for auto-replacing line endings. Basically, I think you're way off when it comes to the multi-button mouse thing. The "might mouse" is an ideal new mouse for home computers with multiple users as it is the first I know of that lets software decide if the mouse is multi-button or single button based upon the user account. Apple has its share of usability problems, but their practices with regard to mouse buttons are not one of them. Mostly it is just Windows users complaining because it is different or people who don't actually use OS X regularly complaining about what they assume would be a problem.
This is straying quite far from the topic. The original point was if is was an absurd belief only an American could hold to strict gun control laws were stupid. As for whether or not acquiring a firearm is statistically more or less likely to result in your death or that of a family member, well that depends a lot upon what categories you fall into. For example, according to one study 78% of all incidents where children accidentally shoot themselves are with firearms illegally obtained in the first place.
To address your primary point though, obtaining a firearm increases the chances of a family member dying through the use of a firearm... but that does not mean the overall risk of death by violent crime or accident does not go down. One of the primary ways in which people are misled about this issue is when studies try to single out guns from other types of violent crimes, intentionally ignoring crimes committed without guns and the effect of gun ownership in those situations. [For example, a person with a gun defends themselves with it against a person with a baseball bat. Does your particular evaluation of risk ignore that or count that as a violent crime or potential murder avoided?] It is important to avoid making the same mistake when considering overall safety as a result of firearm ownership.
how many crimes have been avoided by the wide availability of guns vs. delta risk ?There are about 230,000 deaths and injuries caused intentionally or accidentally with firearms every year. There are about 700,000 crimes committed with firearms (most of which obviously don't result in a shooting). Just to be as conservative as possible, if we assume all the deaths and injuries are the rest of legal mishandling instead of illegal action, that means there could be up to 900,000 people killed or injured accidentally or intentionally with firearms. Conservatively, firearms are used to prevent a crime about 1.5 million times a year. So on the face of things, it seems like a win, but that does not, necessarily translate to a "win" for any given individual. Firearms are potentially dangerous tools and need to be handled with a great deal of caution by people who have been properly trained.
I'd note this has wandered very far astray from the merits of strict gun control legislation, where the numbers are very clear. It is a fallacy to equate gun control legislation with guns not existing.
... and how about studies indicating gun presence in a house lead to much more accidents?Indeed they do, but that isn't an issue of crime, nor, necessarily a valid reason to make something illegal. Having a backyard pool is increases the risk of your child dying twenty times as much as owning a firearm. Buying your child a bicycle increases their chance of dying equally to having firearms in the house. No one would even consider outlawing either of those. Claiming firearms should be a special case is just playing on unrealistic fears.
I prefer to phrase it in terms of "A lot of america's problems with violent crime relate to illegal drugs just as we had problems with illegal booze." Drug dealers stab and beat people as often as they shoot them. Your point, however, is very valid. The prohibition on drugs and criminalization of drug usage is another very strong correlation. Some studies indicate serious violent crime would drop as much as one third if we spent a quarter of the money we're putting into the "war on drugs" on public rehab and addiction management programs and decriminalized (not legalized) most illicit drugs. It sure worked in the UK, among other places.