McCain... cannot check email because he was tortured as a POW and does not have full mobility of his arms and is unable to use a computer.
I understood that he's unable to lift his arms above his head, but has reasonable mobility below that. He can certainly write in a notebook, as we saw in the recent debate.
Given that, it seems more likely that the reason he can't use a computer is more in line with his age and that "old dog, new tricks" thing.
I don't think this matters at all though. Plenty of people don't care to use computers, and while that's odd to us, there's nothing wrong with it.
"A Student asked his master 'What is Buddha.' His master answered 'Three pounds of flax.'"
I think we can both see what that means for FOSS! Tough times ahead, eh?
On a less unhinged note, I'm not sure why a comparison of two companies in completely separate industries indicate a trend in one industry. Can we flip this and say that the use of FOSS will decline in food-related industries? I mean, mineral industries are in a downturn, as are real estate company stocks. Does that counter the soup point?
Both do image editing (and in this case The Gimp is a more powerful tool) but Pixelmator fits in with the look and feel of OS X and works extremely well with other Mac apps. In fact look at the two websites - The Gimp's site looks like crap. Having used both to some degree and not needing the full power of The Gimp, I dumped it for Pixelmator a long time back. The UI is unbelievably far ahead of The Gimp.
If you're going to use an app for any length of time, it should be as comfortable as possible. This is obvious for cars, for furniture, for workplaces but somehow it's a debated point for software applications. Aesthetics are important, and for some reason Mac users care a lot about the concept.
That's a long answer to your somewhat troll-y question, but there it is. Mac users can certainly use apps that work on Linux and Windows, we just choose not to if something more usable exists.
Have a look at the layered diagram for OS X (noting that it's not to 'scale'), and you'll see some open source components: Darwin OpenGL (also the basis for Core Image) OpenAL (not in diagram, but in 10.4 onwards) SQLite (not in diagram, basis for Core Data)
What does that leave us? Quartz, Quicktime and Aqua are the main things. The core of the OS, the important stuff is all open sourced. User interaction through Aqua is critical to the OS' usability, but since you can do everything through the command line, the non-open source elements are less critical.
Hell, you could theoretically replace Quartz, Quicktime and Aqua with open source components. You can't replace Darwin or OpenGL.
I believe that I am correct is saying "OS X is largely an open source OS." I did not (and would not) say it is completely open source, but the majority of the OS is.
It already is financially rewarding to learn mathematics. The problem is that it's not immediate and not potentially as rewarding as many entertainment careers can be.
A better education is going to provide better job opportunities and the money that goes with that. The fact that people fail to see this is a bit sad.
If you were to look at it purely from financial terms, consider an education as an investment. Low (but some) risk, long term payoff.
My MBP failed with a video issue just after it was out of warranty (stupid me, forgot the extended warranty on this one). After many conversations, Apple agreed to fix it free of charge and it's been fine ever since.
I'll remember this if this machine dies like that again. Thanks for the link.
Users do need to adapt, but surely you shouldn't be asked for confirmation more than once on a brief process. I've been asked multiple times for the same action when rearranging my Start menu. Once there were three UAC pop-ups in a row!
A temporary elevation of rights for a single process (and its children) is the goal here, and it appears UAC only elevates a specific action, not the process containing it.
It's been a while since I've used VIsta for more than booting to play Warhammer, so I can't be certain if Microsoft have improved UAC. I hope so.
>> Given that Apple were hit with a patent granted to Creative Labs for an mp3 player interface that's an obvious extension of their existing Mac interface
>Ok, first gulp... You really think it was a UI based on the Mac interface?
You've never seen the column view? It was in the NeXT interface many years back. Perhaps you might remember it.
Note the column view, then remember that this was back in the early 90s and Apple bought NeXT. Seems like a logical way to view files, and I'm not surprised that NeXT did not patent it.
Clearly column view predated Creative Labs by quite a few years, but Apple still lost that case. I have to admit I'm not sure why, although possibly the patent Creative had included the phrase "on a portable device." That's a powerful phrase, just like "on the Internet," is.
Second gulp... Apple stole more from Creative than just the organizational construct patent Creative sued Apple over, sadly Creative didn't patent more of their work at the time or it would have been a massive multi-level lawsuit.
Such as?
Apple has made a living off of copying other people's work, and even have the nerve to copyright, tm, or patent what they ripped off.
Such as?
Also you seem to discount how offensive Apple is with their IP. For comparison to 'evil' MS has had virtually NO IP initiated lawsuits, and Apple has had 100s, probably 1000s.
Thousands? Why not millions, or billions? Why stop at thousands when you're just making stuff up?
Using even 'recent' history go back to the mid 90s iMac and the design disputes where Apple were suing people for making things look like the teal/plastic iMacs without Apple licensing or royalties, yet the original design they used came from a freaking Clothes Iron they stole...
Again, you're talking copyright and the thread is all about patents. Got anything relevant to say here?
I'm not even going to touch this bizarre story about a clothes iron which even if it were true is a copyright issue anyway.
Re:So where does that place OS X?
on
Linux 2.6.27 Out
·
· Score: 1
Well, they're outsourcing it these days, shipping the jobs out of Australia and into (I think) Singapore.
They've had a run of... bad luck... lately, and fingers are pointing at the outsourcing of maintenance. That may not be entirely fair though, as the cost-cutting has been going on for some time.
You've got to save money, or else you won't be able to pay your executives obscene amounts of money.
Since it would cost nothing to have Apple fix the iPod under warranty, I'm just going to imagine that the poster had Apple fix it and then resold it on eBay, thus subsidising his new mp3 player.
Anything else would be foolishly throwing money away.
You made pretty specific allegations about a single company, but won't provide specific details to back those up. Are Apple named in the that GAO report?
I've not travelled much in Asia yet, so I'll have to wait to see the dumping sites (ooh! dump sites! That would be fun!). Looking at Google I can see general stuff, but nothing specific to Apple apart from a few opinion pieces (ie worthless as proof).
I have no doubt that dumping is going on, but you can't go naming a company without something to back up your claim that is specific to that company. Surely we have to consider a company innocent until proven guilty?
The elitism in the parent post is so thick, you can cut it with a knife!
When people stop banging on about Apple being a fashion company and actually work out why Apple's customers like their products, maybe some of the competition will suck less.
But no, far easier to deride something you clearly do not understand as successful purely because of fashion. Why think, when you've got knee-jerk comments to make, eh?
I started down the overclocking path, but after screwing around with settings for a few days realised what you've just stated. The effect was far less than what I'd gain from the (then) top-of-the-line processor, and by the time I needed that speed, I could just buy the better processor cheaply.
If I want a faster computer, I can just upgrade the processor. An annual few hundred dollars to have a very fast PC is okay. Maybe I'll need a new motherboard/processor/RAM combo every few years.
Until overclockers are a major market segment, Intel will sell the parts at their best, safest rating.
Remember that Dell, HP, Apple, etc also pick the parts up at the factory ratings. Manufacturers will be less than thrilled if parts are intentionally under-clocked to satisfy the tiny overclocker market demographic.
Like airport security, data mining for terrorists works perfectly for the actual purpose.
It is about showing voters that "Something is being done!"
Expecting these systems to catch terrorists or secure the public is fantasy. As an example, suppose the next terrorism attack is about introducing radioactive material into the water supplies of a city. Who is protecting the reservoirs, the dams and every metre of pipeline?
What if a terrorist cell was looking to blow up buildings from the inside? Do security guards check what is inside the photocopier being delivered? Some knowledge of procedure is all that's required to deliver devastating attacks.
It's easy to go on, but the point is that there are too many possible vectors of attack to secure them all. Instead, the visible ones have a lot of highly visible processes introduced, and people everywhere know that "something is being done!"
(The reality that terrorists generally aren't very competant doesn't get the voters behind you, and won't be pitched any time soon.)
It's the same with data mining. "Something is being done!" It doesn't matter that real terrorists may have almost no consistent data profile, it matters only that the project is highly visible, costs an enormous amount and is talked about often.
Once you start talking about tens of millions of dollars, vast databases and all the really clever people working on the project, most voters will be so impressed they won't need evidence of success. It all sounds so damn good! I mean, your home computer may cost a thousand dollars, and look at what it can do! Imagine spending a hundred million dollars - what could it *not* do?
A secondary win for the project is that someone gets to try their pet project out, and maybe link enough data together to build up a really great voter profiling tool.
It's sad, but the whole "beefing up security" after 11-Sep-2001 was more like the plot of "Yes Minister" than "The West Wing."
Right-click on a Dock icon in OS X and you'll see that apps can expose functionality there. For example, iTunes has a list of functions - pause, play, next track, previous track, etc. There's an application-control function of the Dock covered by this patent, I believe, and that's not obvious and not done previously.
Given that Apple were hit with a patent granted to Creative Labs for an mp3 player interface that's an obvious extension of their existing Mac interface (column view from NeXT, OS X), it's hard to argue that it's not in their interest to make sure they've got a patent portfolio as broad as possible.
Under the current system, every company should strive for the most possible patents.
I can't think of an example of them suing someone else over software-method patents. I'm not actually disagreeing with you, but can you provide something to back up your point?
Slashdot Mirror
McCain ... cannot check email because he was tortured as a POW and does not have full mobility of his arms and is unable to use a computer.
I understood that he's unable to lift his arms above his head, but has reasonable mobility below that. He can certainly write in a notebook, as we saw in the recent debate.
Given that, it seems more likely that the reason he can't use a computer is more in line with his age and that "old dog, new tricks" thing.
I don't think this matters at all though. Plenty of people don't care to use computers, and while that's odd to us, there's nothing wrong with it.
I see your non-sequiter and raise you a Zen koan!
"A Student asked his master 'What is Buddha.' His master answered 'Three pounds of flax.'"
I think we can both see what that means for FOSS! Tough times ahead, eh?
On a less unhinged note, I'm not sure why a comparison of two companies in completely separate industries indicate a trend in one industry. Can we flip this and say that the use of FOSS will decline in food-related industries? I mean, mineral industries are in a downturn, as are real estate company stocks. Does that counter the soup point?
It's like the difference between The Gimp and Pixelmator.
Both do image editing (and in this case The Gimp is a more powerful tool) but Pixelmator fits in with the look and feel of OS X and works extremely well with other Mac apps. In fact look at the two websites - The Gimp's site looks like crap. Having used both to some degree and not needing the full power of The Gimp, I dumped it for Pixelmator a long time back. The UI is unbelievably far ahead of The Gimp.
If you're going to use an app for any length of time, it should be as comfortable as possible. This is obvious for cars, for furniture, for workplaces but somehow it's a debated point for software applications. Aesthetics are important, and for some reason Mac users care a lot about the concept.
That's a long answer to your somewhat troll-y question, but there it is. Mac users can certainly use apps that work on Linux and Windows, we just choose not to if something more usable exists.
Have a look at the layered diagram for OS X (noting that it's not to 'scale'), and you'll see some open source components:
Darwin
OpenGL (also the basis for Core Image)
OpenAL (not in diagram, but in 10.4 onwards)
SQLite (not in diagram, basis for Core Data)
What does that leave us? Quartz, Quicktime and Aqua are the main things. The core of the OS, the important stuff is all open sourced. User interaction through Aqua is critical to the OS' usability, but since you can do everything through the command line, the non-open source elements are less critical.
Hell, you could theoretically replace Quartz, Quicktime and Aqua with open source components. You can't replace Darwin or OpenGL.
I believe that I am correct is saying "OS X is largely an open source OS." I did not (and would not) say it is completely open source, but the majority of the OS is.
It already is financially rewarding to learn mathematics. The problem is that it's not immediate and not potentially as rewarding as many entertainment careers can be.
A better education is going to provide better job opportunities and the money that goes with that. The fact that people fail to see this is a bit sad.
If you were to look at it purely from financial terms, consider an education as an investment. Low (but some) risk, long term payoff.
The kernel of OS X is Darwin. Have a look at the second link in my post above. The entire kernel is open sourced under the BSD licence.
Surely you knew that?
... one of the most locked-down proprietary consumer platforms available ...
I love how people throw this sort of thing out when they must know it's just not true.
http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html
http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/
http://developer.apple.com/opensource/internet/webkit.html
Apple use and contribute to open source, and OS X is largely an open source OS with a proprietary front-end.
Criticise Apple for real stuff, you've got plenty of choice. Don't make stuff up and pretend it's true though.
Interesting.
My MBP failed with a video issue just after it was out of warranty (stupid me, forgot the extended warranty on this one). After many conversations, Apple agreed to fix it free of charge and it's been fine ever since.
I'll remember this if this machine dies like that again. Thanks for the link.
Users do need to adapt, but surely you shouldn't be asked for confirmation more than once on a brief process. I've been asked multiple times for the same action when rearranging my Start menu. Once there were three UAC pop-ups in a row!
A temporary elevation of rights for a single process (and its children) is the goal here, and it appears UAC only elevates a specific action, not the process containing it.
It's been a while since I've used VIsta for more than booting to play Warhammer, so I can't be certain if Microsoft have improved UAC. I hope so.
>> Given that Apple were hit with a patent granted to Creative Labs for an mp3 player interface that's an obvious extension of their existing Mac interface
>Ok, first gulp... You really think it was a UI based on the Mac interface?
You've never seen the column view? It was in the NeXT interface many years back. Perhaps you might remember it.
Here's a picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nextstep
Note the column view, then remember that this was back in the early 90s and Apple bought NeXT. Seems like a logical way to view files, and I'm not surprised that NeXT did not patent it.
Clearly column view predated Creative Labs by quite a few years, but Apple still lost that case. I have to admit I'm not sure why, although possibly the patent Creative had included the phrase "on a portable device." That's a powerful phrase, just like "on the Internet," is.
Second gulp... Apple stole more from Creative than just the organizational construct patent Creative sued Apple over, sadly Creative didn't patent more of their work at the time or it would have been a massive multi-level lawsuit.
Such as?
Apple has made a living off of copying other people's work, and even have the nerve to copyright, tm, or patent what they ripped off.
Such as?
Also you seem to discount how offensive Apple is with their IP. For comparison to 'evil' MS has had virtually NO IP initiated lawsuits, and Apple has had 100s, probably 1000s.
Thousands? Why not millions, or billions? Why stop at thousands when you're just making stuff up?
Using even 'recent' history go back to the mid 90s iMac and the design disputes where Apple were suing people for making things look like the teal/plastic iMacs without Apple licensing or royalties, yet the original design they used came from a freaking Clothes Iron they stole...
Again, you're talking copyright and the thread is all about patents. Got anything relevant to say here?
I'm not even going to touch this bizarre story about a clothes iron which even if it were true is a copyright issue anyway.
As completely unrelated?
Can you be more specific in the question?
Just gather massive amounts of wealth, and you're *always* attractive.
Except for the "gathering" part, it's so simple!
Well, they're outsourcing it these days, shipping the jobs out of Australia and into (I think) Singapore.
They've had a run of... bad luck... lately, and fingers are pointing at the outsourcing of maintenance. That may not be entirely fair though, as the cost-cutting has been going on for some time.
You've got to save money, or else you won't be able to pay your executives obscene amounts of money.
Well, since you're new you'll have to start with the over 70s.
Enjoy!
That depends on what you're selling.
Try selling beef or timber to the US.
Since it would cost nothing to have Apple fix the iPod under warranty, I'm just going to imagine that the poster had Apple fix it and then resold it on eBay, thus subsidising his new mp3 player.
Anything else would be foolishly throwing money away.
You made pretty specific allegations about a single company, but won't provide specific details to back those up. Are Apple named in the that GAO report?
I've not travelled much in Asia yet, so I'll have to wait to see the dumping sites (ooh! dump sites! That would be fun!). Looking at Google I can see general stuff, but nothing specific to Apple apart from a few opinion pieces (ie worthless as proof).
I have no doubt that dumping is going on, but you can't go naming a company without something to back up your claim that is specific to that company. Surely we have to consider a company innocent until proven guilty?
Wow, that's a pretty explosive story. You'll blow Apple out of the water with the proof that you're basing this on.
So... we'll just sit back and wait for you to produce it, eh?
The elitism in the parent post is so thick, you can cut it with a knife!
When people stop banging on about Apple being a fashion company and actually work out why Apple's customers like their products, maybe some of the competition will suck less.
But no, far easier to deride something you clearly do not understand as successful purely because of fashion. Why think, when you've got knee-jerk comments to make, eh?
I started down the overclocking path, but after screwing around with settings for a few days realised what you've just stated. The effect was far less than what I'd gain from the (then) top-of-the-line processor, and by the time I needed that speed, I could just buy the better processor cheaply.
If I want a faster computer, I can just upgrade the processor. An annual few hundred dollars to have a very fast PC is okay. Maybe I'll need a new motherboard/processor/RAM combo every few years.
Until overclockers are a major market segment, Intel will sell the parts at their best, safest rating.
Remember that Dell, HP, Apple, etc also pick the parts up at the factory ratings. Manufacturers will be less than thrilled if parts are intentionally under-clocked to satisfy the tiny overclocker market demographic.
Like airport security, data mining for terrorists works perfectly for the actual purpose.
It is about showing voters that "Something is being done!"
Expecting these systems to catch terrorists or secure the public is fantasy. As an example, suppose the next terrorism attack is about introducing radioactive material into the water supplies of a city. Who is protecting the reservoirs, the dams and every metre of pipeline?
What if a terrorist cell was looking to blow up buildings from the inside? Do security guards check what is inside the photocopier being delivered? Some knowledge of procedure is all that's required to deliver devastating attacks.
It's easy to go on, but the point is that there are too many possible vectors of attack to secure them all. Instead, the visible ones have a lot of highly visible processes introduced, and people everywhere know that "something is being done!"
(The reality that terrorists generally aren't very competant doesn't get the voters behind you, and won't be pitched any time soon.)
It's the same with data mining. "Something is being done!" It doesn't matter that real terrorists may have almost no consistent data profile, it matters only that the project is highly visible, costs an enormous amount and is talked about often.
Once you start talking about tens of millions of dollars, vast databases and all the really clever people working on the project, most voters will be so impressed they won't need evidence of success. It all sounds so damn good! I mean, your home computer may cost a thousand dollars, and look at what it can do! Imagine spending a hundred million dollars - what could it *not* do?
A secondary win for the project is that someone gets to try their pet project out, and maybe link enough data together to build up a really great voter profiling tool.
It's sad, but the whole "beefing up security" after 11-Sep-2001 was more like the plot of "Yes Minister" than "The West Wing."
Right-click on a Dock icon in OS X and you'll see that apps can expose functionality there. For example, iTunes has a list of functions - pause, play, next track, previous track, etc. There's an application-control function of the Dock covered by this patent, I believe, and that's not obvious and not done previously.
Given that Apple were hit with a patent granted to Creative Labs for an mp3 player interface that's an obvious extension of their existing Mac interface (column view from NeXT, OS X), it's hard to argue that it's not in their interest to make sure they've got a patent portfolio as broad as possible.
Under the current system, every company should strive for the most possible patents.
I can't think of an example of them suing someone else over software-method patents. I'm not actually disagreeing with you, but can you provide something to back up your point?
No, the first two messages sum it up well. The rest discuss and generally agree.
If you're at all curious, it's worth reading those two. As far as I can tell, they're absolutely spot on.