My thought was that the firmware would be tied to the kernel so that you couldn't run it without the firmware, but I don't know how. Probably through calls back to the firmware, but that places checks back in the kernel. So I'm an idiot. Hmm, perhaps they just use a radically different firmware, such as Open Firmware (or EFI with some proprietary extensions), one that isn't saddled with tons of legacy baggage, and then it can't run on any normal computer (okay, the bootloader can't run). And perhaps that is what I meant....
Then they could add a compatibility mode of some kind so that Windows could still run.
So long as the process is convoluted enough and involves "hacked" binaries, Apple shouldn't really care. Of course, if they want to be able to build the media companies dream DRM system (which seems funnily enough to also be the bare minimum the media companies will accept) on top of it, they'll have to do better than that.
Of course it has to be the firmware that does the checking. The kernel can't be trusted if there is an open source version available. So how do you allow Darwin and only signed versions of OS X to run? The only way I can think of at the moment is to tie the firmware to OS X in an ugly way. I'm looking forward to their solution.
Really? I find this hard to believe. Why now? Has ELF improved that much compared to Mach-O in the last couple of years? Anybody knowledgeable enough to do a pro/con comparison between the two?
OMG, you mean if I buy a computer now, there will be something NEWER and FASTER next year? Jeez, I better tell me grandparents not to buy that new computer they were looking at getting. Thanks for the catch.
Come on, don't panic. How is it obsolete? Will the next version of iPhoto not run on it? Did Apple announce they were dropping support? They are planning on shipping PowerPC systems until the end of 2007 (although I suspect it might be sooner), two and a half years from now. Apple has always been very good at supporting older machines, so you can expect support to extend at least another 3 three years out from there (which is a bare minimum). So, possibly in 5 years, the computer you buy today won't run the latest and greatest software.
I understand that this will be a common misconception and I am looking forward to being able to clean up on some used Dual-G5s as the resale value plummets, but the Macs they are selling today are going to be just as great a value over the next couple years as they were yesterday. I'm still going to have my grandparents buy a new Mac Mini.
Come on, Dan Rather deserves better than to be lumped in with that group. He made a serious error in judgement, but it wasn't like that was the only thing he ever did or even that he did it repeatedly. He deserves his lumps, but he had a long and distinguished career and deserves to be remembered for the entirety of it, not this one mistake.
Wow, usually when someone wants to make an argument by cherry-picking facts and ignoring anything that is contrary to their opinion (rather than addressing it and providing a coherent argument against it), they don't point out that is what they are doing. It kind of defeats the "ignore" part of the strategy.
Hmm, you also ignored that these are private sector representatives, not the "pointy headed academics" you refer to, but then I expect you to ignore the content of this post just like you ignored the disagreeable content of the article and of my previous post.
Goddamn it, READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE! Jesus, apparently I have to spell it out. The Whitehouse confirmed this, it isn't a "biased or even lazy source."
The White House admits as much: "We wanted people who would represent the Administration positively, and--call us nutty--it seemed like those who wanted to kick this Administration out of town last November would have some difficulty doing that," says White House spokesman Trent Duffy.
There is also the rather funny point that this is an article about how the administration retaliates against those that don't agree with it and you are whining that the source is anonymous! "Hmm, I have no fucking clue why the source wouldn't go on the record BECAUSE I DIDN'T READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE!"
I seem to recall the Clinton administration doing the same thing with an even more mundane task - the WH travel office - not even because they didn't agree with their politics but because they wanted to put one of their cronies in charge.
There is a world of difference between a Whitehouse employee and a private sector engineer. If you really can't see any, I'll give you a little help: one is employed by the President. But that doesn't matter, because you completely eviscerate your argument by admitting that Clinton didn't do it because of the employee's politics, but because he wanted someone else in the job. Let me see if I follow your logic: "Bush discriminate against people because of their political views because Clinton did it, except that Clinton didn't do it". I'm afraid that if I touch your argument it will collapse and I'll be hurt by a falling fallacy.
Just as the 'industry source' bad mouths the administration here, think about the Kerry supporter who does get on one of these 'standard' boards and later, because he was on this board (BUT THEY JUST DO STANDARDS, RIGHT??), is a 'industry source' and goes off the record bashing the (Jeb) Bush administration.
Are you for real? You don't become an "industry source" by attending a meeting, you become one by working in the industry. Nice troll, but the Jeb Bush part gives it away.
Do you really believe the U.S. compromises on its telecommunications standards because some Latin American country is doing it differently?
Look, you can be an ass and claim any interaction between humans involves diplomacy, but what we are talking about here is the PolySci definition of diplomacy, which is the activity of managing a country's international relations. When the U.S. engages in diplomacy, it sends State department officials and other members of the government, not engineers from the private sector. The private sector in general has no place in U.S. diplomatic negotiations. Instead, the U.S. sends American company reps with State department officials on issues of international trade, which is what this would fall under.
Should the State department only help companies that financially support the majority party (or rather, don't financially support the minority party)? Should the U.S. government in general work for the betterment of its all U.S. citizens or just those that fully support the party in power? This is a move towards the latter.
The problem is that you continue to misrepresent Linus' position. Show me where he advocated "technical-merit-before-anything-else". He didn't. He also did not advocate RMS's "free-software-before-anything-else" approach. He was open to an open source alternative that was close to BitKeeper or even had the potential to get close to BitKeeper, but there wasn't anything even close around.
Seeing as you fail to understand Linus' position, I don't see how you can judge it against RMS's.
The State Department has traditionally put together a list of industry representatives for these meetings, and anyone in the U.S. telecom industry who had the requisite expertise and wanted to go was generally given a slot, say past participants. Only after the start of Bush's second term did a political litmus test emerge, industry sources say.
Want to change things? Pass laws that prohibit political contributions from all business entities. Restrict contributions to individuals problems like this virtually vanish.
Unfortunately, that does nothing to solve this problem:
One nixed participant, who has been to many of these telecom meetings and who wants to remain anonymous, gave just $250 to the Democratic Party.
This was an individual contribution of $250. While I would love to see corporate money removed from politics, the real problem is that this administration believes anyone who disagrees with them should be completely shut out of our government.
Whoops, look like you didn't understand the person you replied to. Ibn was referring to the people in the Bush administration who made this policy when Ibn referred to "hacks", not the people attending the meeting. Your karma will go because you made a bad post, not because you think it supported Bush.
The State Department has traditionally put together a list of industry representatives for these meetings, and anyone in the U.S. telecom industry who had the requisite expertise and wanted to go was generally given a slot, say past participants. Only after the start of Bush's second term did a political litmus test emerge, industry sources say.
We aren't talking about diplomatic work, we are talking about standards work.
Here, you don't even have to read the whole article, just read this paragraph:
The State Department has traditionally put together a list of industry representatives for these meetings, and anyone in the U.S. telecom industry who had the requisite expertise and wanted to go was generally given a slot, say past participants. Only after the start of Bush's second term did a political litmus test emerge, industry sources say.
I am not putting Linus on a pedestal. I am treating him like I would like to be treated. He made the best possible choice using all of the information he had and, looking back, he still believes it was a good one. Unless you can show me where he is being irrational and allowing his personal involvement to cloud his judgment, I will accept his evaluation at face value (considering he is the single best person able to make that evaluation). Yes, you are correct, people can allow their emotions, egos, and other irrational, personal factors to color their objectivity, but it is also true that people can put aside their personal connections and prejudices and make honest, rational judgments in spite of those factors. I am not saying, as you put it, that "he's totally immune to the most common human psychological effects and social behaviour", I'm saying that, like us, he is aware of it and that he is able to factor it into his decisions. I think that is one of the hallmarks of a mature, rational adult. I would like other people to give me the benefit of the doubt that I am capable of objectivity. I am simply extending the same courtesy to Linus.
I did no such thing.
You said "If it really is all that much beneficial, he (Linus) would obviuosly chose another technological superior, yet proprietary system. I doubt that he will, however." The condition was on whether or not it was beneficial, not whether or not a proprietary system was technologically superior. That was implicit in your statement. If it is possible that this time there is an open source solution that is technologically superior, than his decision to not choose a closed system will tell you nothing. It only is relevant if you assume that there is a technologically superior closed source product.
Sorry, I did not mean to imply that open source source management systems are more advanced than their closed source counterparts. I don't think that is true. I believe Linus' one immutable rule on picking a new source management system was that it still be free-as-in-beer to develop on the Linux kernel, so I was writing under that assumption. BitKeeper is the only closed product that had contorted itself into offering a free version, so as far as I know, the crown goes by default to an open source system.
Saying that that was the largest benefit, even when taken at face value, is justification in hindsight. And it's not really the actual reason neither, as you are well aware. He didn't say: "we'll take BK because it will force me to organise things differently", he just stated that it was technologically superior.
It isn't justification in hindsight. Linus knew at the time that BitKeeper used a distributed rather than a centralized repository model. IIRC, at first he was very skeptical of the model, but Larry won him over (that is a very vague recollection, though). The point is, the workflow for different products is very different and that was a factor Linus was very conscious of in making his decision.
Furthermore, say he had chosen an other alternative, then what? Good chance he would say just the same; that he was forced to do things differently. This is an argument that is always true; the moment you manage things differently, one can say it is different. As for the 'better'; that is hindsight, as I already pointed out.
Okay, now I think you are a troll: you are using interchangeably "different" and "better". He didn't say it was different, he said it was better. Not all changes are better. And what is "cvs of sourceforge"? Also, my understanding is that Linus had tried a few different programs, such as Subversion, arch, etc. I believe he made a standing offer to switch to any open source product that could match a list of key functionality in felt he needed in BitKeeper.
And I disagree with your last statement. It does prove something, provided the same variables are present. For instance, if he thought that propieraty systems are still superior, and
There is, of course, always the matter that there might be a relation noted, but therefor not a causality. Is there really a heightened production? Is it due to Bitkeeper? Is it *all* due to Bitkeeper?
Hmm, I think I'll go with Linus on this. He says
In fact, one impact BK ha shad is to very fundamentally make us (and me in
particular) change how we do things. That ranges from the fine-grained
changeset tracking to just how I ended up trusting submaintainers with
much bigger things, and not having to work on a patch-by-patch basis any
more. So the three years with BK are definitely not wasted: I'm convinced
it caused us to do things in better ways, and one of the things I'm
looking at is to make sure that those things continue to work.
So I just wanted to say that I'm personally very happy with BK, and with
Larry. It didn't work out, but it sure as hell made a big difference to
kernel development. And we'll work out the temporary problem of having to
figure out a set of tools to allow us to continue to do the things that BK
allowed us to do.
So, Linus believes BitKeeper has been invaluable in improving the processes of kernel development and that they will be able to keep those procedural processes when moving to a newer system. I'm going to trust Linus on this one and unless you have some evidence he is exaggerating the beneficial effects of his decision to cover his own ass, keep your insinuations (even the neutral Linus could be biased a bit in this regard, because after all, he has made and kept to this decision for 3 years, contrary to much critique) to yourself.
The cost [to transition to a new source management system] will not be minute, I assure you. Yes, it *might* have been worthwile, but I have problems with this 'might' because it is largely based on speculation. If it really is all that much beneficial, he (Linus) would obviuosly chose another technological superior, yet proprietary system. I doubt that he will, however. Well, we'll see.
God, this is funny. First, no, the "might" is not based on speculation, it is based on the direct testimony of Linus Torvalds (which I quoted above). You are going to need some strong evidence so convince me or any other rational person that Linus is wrong on this.
And for one so concerned with speculation, you might want to take note that you have no idea what the transition cost will be. It likely won't be insignificant, but source management isn't a huge part of a programmers day (except for Linus and a few others), so it isn't like switching to a new operating system or anything. But we really won't know at all until Linus decides on an alternative.
And your logic is seriously, fatally flawed in the last two lines I quoted from you. First, you falsely assume that the best technological choice must be proprietary. The technologically superior system this time might be open source. Second, and even worse, you assert that if choosing a proprietary system was a good decision this time, than it has to be a good decision this time. This is foolish. The largest benefit in choosing a proprietary system last time was the structural changes it made to the development process. According to Linus, it made them much more productive and it is very unlikely that *any* source management system, whether proprietary or not, will be able to produce a similar gain in efficiency. What Linus chooses this time in no way affects whether what he chose last time was the right decision.
Yes, but then again, I would have been surprised if Linus would have said something else, because after all, he was the dude that made the decision, despite opposition, and he stuck to it for 3 years. If he really thinks it was worth the trouble, he will chose another proprietary system which is technically superior. I do not think he will, hence, there can be some doubt about how beneficial it all has been.
Stop impugning Linus' objectivity unless you have some evidence that can demonstrate his bias. Otherwise, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. And again you make your false assertion. What Linus chooses going forward proves nothing.
My problem is that it is a pixel for pixel copy. Is there only one way to draw a stylized magnifying glass? Apparently, to the designers at Microsoft, there is.
Ah, yes, I forgot about "Metal Finder". However, that was borrowed from Safari, so I think it is irrelevant to my post. As to why Spotlight is different, if you can't tell from all of the information available on the Internet, you will be able to when you use it. It is substantially faster and better and its use in System Preferences is a huge step forward. I hope all application preferences get the same kind of functionality.
Microsoft are such fucking tools. Look at the magnifying glass icon. It is the exact same as the Safari icon, just flipped on it's horizontal axis. That is what Apple will be using in Spotlight, but its origin is with Sherlock, which had that magnifying glass and a Sherlock-style hat as its icon (and has been around for the better part of a decade).
"Well, we're stealing the ideas, we might as well steal the look. God, this job is easy. Alright, let's call it a day."
Why doesn't the customer just buy a filtering program? Why is the ISP forced to do it for them or face a felony charge and jail time? Why are all of the ISP's other customers forced to pay for this? Subsection (3)(b)(i) explicitly prohibits ISPs from charging any individuals who request the service, they may only raise rates across their entire customer base. Why should other customers have to pay because some people don't want to do their own parenting? This is bullshit. If they had at least allowed ISPs to charge for the service, some ISPs would have proudly charged a thousand bucks a month and others would have offered it for free (at the cost of higher prices). Then the market could have at least sorted out whether people really value this service (in which case, ISPs that were charging a ridiculous amount would have to bring their prices inline with the others). At least then there would be some choice.
Yes, you are right. I have my terminology screwed up. I am not a marketeer, so I'll accept your definitions of viral and buzz marketing. Change "viral" to "buzz" in my previous post. The substance of the post still stands.
I know you didn't mark it insightful, so if you perceived any ire in my previous comment, consider it directed at the moderator who did.
I'm sorry, I don't think this should be marked insightful.
1) I think this concern is entirely premature and a little crazy. First, you have to make the assumption that a studio would intentionally leak an episode of their show to generate buzz. I think that is entirely possible, especially given that the unique nature of the BBC. And the SciFi channel is openly showing episodes of Battlestar Galactica on their website in order to try to gin up interest in later episodes, so secretly releasing one isn't too big a jump. However, you then have to make the assumption, and this is the leap, that the companies would then allow somebody to get prosecuted for doing exactly what the wanted and enabled them to do. There would be huge PR and/or legal costs to both the company and the organization that pressed the charges (assuming there is one) to face the choice of perjuring themselves or revealing they released it themselves.
Short answer: assume it is all illegal unless you get it directly from the producer/distributor. Is it really the episode of Dr. Who that is going to put you away?
2) I think maybe you intended this one to follow 3), because otherwise it doesn't make sense. Of course, it still doesn't make sense. Why would pirate groups want to flag their releases as illegal? Why make it that much easier for them to be filtered out? Wouldn't they try to make them seem as legitimate as possible?
3) I think you are missing the whole point of viral marketing. The point is that you don't know it is marketing. It comes to you through otherwise normal social interaction. It starts with a hot chick at a bar, someone on the street, or a spray-painted tag and is suppose to generate positive word-of-mouth. Or something like that. Tagging it as marketing would defeat the whole point. Then you might as well put it on your site like the Battlestar episodes.
4) Again, you are missing the point of viral marketing. It isn't supposed to look like a suit created it. It is supposed to look like this show is just so cool that some dedicated fan risked his life to get a copy and now wants to share it with the rest of the world because it is so cool. "I have never encoded a video before, but my friend works as a computer tech for a production studio that just finished work on the first episode of the new Dr. Who series and it is just so cool, I just knew other diehard fans like me would love it!"
The other replier is right, it is Pink Martini. Check out this, this, and this.
I don't have a lot of that type of music, but I love Sympathique and I highly recommend it. And their live shows are amazing, especially when they play with a full orchestra. I've heard their music in a few shows or movies, but I don't think they are that well known. If nothing else, it makes great background music for special dinners.
Slashdot Mirror
My thought was that the firmware would be tied to the kernel so that you couldn't run it without the firmware, but I don't know how. Probably through calls back to the firmware, but that places checks back in the kernel. So I'm an idiot. Hmm, perhaps they just use a radically different firmware, such as Open Firmware (or EFI with some proprietary extensions), one that isn't saddled with tons of legacy baggage, and then it can't run on any normal computer (okay, the bootloader can't run). And perhaps that is what I meant.... Then they could add a compatibility mode of some kind so that Windows could still run.
So long as the process is convoluted enough and involves "hacked" binaries, Apple shouldn't really care. Of course, if they want to be able to build the media companies dream DRM system (which seems funnily enough to also be the bare minimum the media companies will accept) on top of it, they'll have to do better than that.
Of course it has to be the firmware that does the checking. The kernel can't be trusted if there is an open source version available. So how do you allow Darwin and only signed versions of OS X to run? The only way I can think of at the moment is to tie the firmware to OS X in an ugly way. I'm looking forward to their solution.
Really? I find this hard to believe. Why now? Has ELF improved that much compared to Mach-O in the last couple of years? Anybody knowledgeable enough to do a pro/con comparison between the two?
OMG, you mean if I buy a computer now, there will be something NEWER and FASTER next year? Jeez, I better tell me grandparents not to buy that new computer they were looking at getting. Thanks for the catch.
Come on, don't panic. How is it obsolete? Will the next version of iPhoto not run on it? Did Apple announce they were dropping support? They are planning on shipping PowerPC systems until the end of 2007 (although I suspect it might be sooner), two and a half years from now. Apple has always been very good at supporting older machines, so you can expect support to extend at least another 3 three years out from there (which is a bare minimum). So, possibly in 5 years, the computer you buy today won't run the latest and greatest software.
I understand that this will be a common misconception and I am looking forward to being able to clean up on some used Dual-G5s as the resale value plummets, but the Macs they are selling today are going to be just as great a value over the next couple years as they were yesterday. I'm still going to have my grandparents buy a new Mac Mini.
Come on, Dan Rather deserves better than to be lumped in with that group. He made a serious error in judgement, but it wasn't like that was the only thing he ever did or even that he did it repeatedly. He deserves his lumps, but he had a long and distinguished career and deserves to be remembered for the entirety of it, not this one mistake.
And ASP was acquired by Microsoft, not created.
Hmm, you also ignored that these are private sector representatives, not the "pointy headed academics" you refer to, but then I expect you to ignore the content of this post just like you ignored the disagreeable content of the article and of my previous post.
I seem to recall the Clinton administration doing the same thing with an even more mundane task - the WH travel office - not even because they didn't agree with their politics but because they wanted to put one of their cronies in charge.
There is a world of difference between a Whitehouse employee and a private sector engineer. If you really can't see any, I'll give you a little help: one is employed by the President. But that doesn't matter, because you completely eviscerate your argument by admitting that Clinton didn't do it because of the employee's politics, but because he wanted someone else in the job. Let me see if I follow your logic: "Bush discriminate against people because of their political views because Clinton did it, except that Clinton didn't do it". I'm afraid that if I touch your argument it will collapse and I'll be hurt by a falling fallacy.
Just as the 'industry source' bad mouths the administration here, think about the Kerry supporter who does get on one of these 'standard' boards and later, because he was on this board (BUT THEY JUST DO STANDARDS, RIGHT??), is a 'industry source' and goes off the record bashing the (Jeb) Bush administration.
Are you for real? You don't become an "industry source" by attending a meeting, you become one by working in the industry. Nice troll, but the Jeb Bush part gives it away.
Look, you can be an ass and claim any interaction between humans involves diplomacy, but what we are talking about here is the PolySci definition of diplomacy, which is the activity of managing a country's international relations. When the U.S. engages in diplomacy, it sends State department officials and other members of the government, not engineers from the private sector. The private sector in general has no place in U.S. diplomatic negotiations. Instead, the U.S. sends American company reps with State department officials on issues of international trade, which is what this would fall under.
Should the State department only help companies that financially support the majority party (or rather, don't financially support the minority party)? Should the U.S. government in general work for the betterment of its all U.S. citizens or just those that fully support the party in power? This is a move towards the latter.
Seeing as you fail to understand Linus' position, I don't see how you can judge it against RMS's.
Want to change things? Pass laws that prohibit political contributions from all business entities. Restrict contributions to individuals problems like this virtually vanish.
Unfortunately, that does nothing to solve this problem:
This was an individual contribution of $250. While I would love to see corporate money removed from politics, the real problem is that this administration believes anyone who disagrees with them should be completely shut out of our government.Whoops, look like you didn't understand the person you replied to. Ibn was referring to the people in the Bush administration who made this policy when Ibn referred to "hacks", not the people attending the meeting. Your karma will go because you made a bad post, not because you think it supported Bush.
We aren't talking about diplomatic work, we are talking about standards work.
Here, you don't even have to read the whole article, just read this paragraph:
I did no such thing.
You said "If it really is all that much beneficial, he (Linus) would obviuosly chose another technological superior, yet proprietary system. I doubt that he will, however." The condition was on whether or not it was beneficial, not whether or not a proprietary system was technologically superior. That was implicit in your statement. If it is possible that this time there is an open source solution that is technologically superior, than his decision to not choose a closed system will tell you nothing. It only is relevant if you assume that there is a technologically superior closed source product.
Sorry, I did not mean to imply that open source source management systems are more advanced than their closed source counterparts. I don't think that is true. I believe Linus' one immutable rule on picking a new source management system was that it still be free-as-in-beer to develop on the Linux kernel, so I was writing under that assumption. BitKeeper is the only closed product that had contorted itself into offering a free version, so as far as I know, the crown goes by default to an open source system.
Saying that that was the largest benefit, even when taken at face value, is justification in hindsight. And it's not really the actual reason neither, as you are well aware. He didn't say: "we'll take BK because it will force me to organise things differently", he just stated that it was technologically superior.
It isn't justification in hindsight. Linus knew at the time that BitKeeper used a distributed rather than a centralized repository model. IIRC, at first he was very skeptical of the model, but Larry won him over (that is a very vague recollection, though). The point is, the workflow for different products is very different and that was a factor Linus was very conscious of in making his decision.
Furthermore, say he had chosen an other alternative, then what? Good chance he would say just the same; that he was forced to do things differently. This is an argument that is always true; the moment you manage things differently, one can say it is different. As for the 'better'; that is hindsight, as I already pointed out.
Okay, now I think you are a troll: you are using interchangeably "different" and "better". He didn't say it was different, he said it was better. Not all changes are better. And what is "cvs of sourceforge"? Also, my understanding is that Linus had tried a few different programs, such as Subversion, arch, etc. I believe he made a standing offer to switch to any open source product that could match a list of key functionality in felt he needed in BitKeeper.
And I disagree with your last statement. It does prove something, provided the same variables are present. For instance, if he thought that propieraty systems are still superior, and
Hmm, I think I'll go with Linus on this. He says
So, Linus believes BitKeeper has been invaluable in improving the processes of kernel development and that they will be able to keep those procedural processes when moving to a newer system. I'm going to trust Linus on this one and unless you have some evidence he is exaggerating the beneficial effects of his decision to cover his own ass, keep your insinuations (even the neutral Linus could be biased a bit in this regard, because after all, he has made and kept to this decision for 3 years, contrary to much critique) to yourself.The cost [to transition to a new source management system] will not be minute, I assure you. Yes, it *might* have been worthwile, but I have problems with this 'might' because it is largely based on speculation. If it really is all that much beneficial, he (Linus) would obviuosly chose another technological superior, yet proprietary system. I doubt that he will, however. Well, we'll see.
God, this is funny. First, no, the "might" is not based on speculation, it is based on the direct testimony of Linus Torvalds (which I quoted above). You are going to need some strong evidence so convince me or any other rational person that Linus is wrong on this.
And for one so concerned with speculation, you might want to take note that you have no idea what the transition cost will be. It likely won't be insignificant, but source management isn't a huge part of a programmers day (except for Linus and a few others), so it isn't like switching to a new operating system or anything. But we really won't know at all until Linus decides on an alternative.
And your logic is seriously, fatally flawed in the last two lines I quoted from you. First, you falsely assume that the best technological choice must be proprietary. The technologically superior system this time might be open source. Second, and even worse, you assert that if choosing a proprietary system was a good decision this time, than it has to be a good decision this time. This is foolish. The largest benefit in choosing a proprietary system last time was the structural changes it made to the development process. According to Linus, it made them much more productive and it is very unlikely that *any* source management system, whether proprietary or not, will be able to produce a similar gain in efficiency. What Linus chooses this time in no way affects whether what he chose last time was the right decision.
Yes, but then again, I would have been surprised if Linus would have said something else, because after all, he was the dude that made the decision, despite opposition, and he stuck to it for 3 years. If he really thinks it was worth the trouble, he will chose another proprietary system which is technically superior. I do not think he will, hence, there can be some doubt about how beneficial it all has been.
Stop impugning Linus' objectivity unless you have some evidence that can demonstrate his bias. Otherwise, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. And again you make your false assertion. What Linus chooses going forward proves nothing.
My problem is that it is a pixel for pixel copy. Is there only one way to draw a stylized magnifying glass? Apparently, to the designers at Microsoft, there is.
Nice troll.
Ah, yes, I forgot about "Metal Finder". However, that was borrowed from Safari, so I think it is irrelevant to my post. As to why Spotlight is different, if you can't tell from all of the information available on the Internet, you will be able to when you use it. It is substantially faster and better and its use in System Preferences is a huge step forward. I hope all application preferences get the same kind of functionality.
Microsoft are such fucking tools. Look at the magnifying glass icon. It is the exact same as the Safari icon, just flipped on it's horizontal axis. That is what Apple will be using in Spotlight, but its origin is with Sherlock, which had that magnifying glass and a Sherlock-style hat as its icon (and has been around for the better part of a decade).
"Well, we're stealing the ideas, we might as well steal the look. God, this job is easy. Alright, let's call it a day."
No, if Apple opened a sushi bar, they would advertise with:
"Look at how white and shiny our rice is!"
FRTFA.
Why doesn't the customer just buy a filtering program? Why is the ISP forced to do it for them or face a felony charge and jail time? Why are all of the ISP's other customers forced to pay for this? Subsection (3)(b)(i) explicitly prohibits ISPs from charging any individuals who request the service, they may only raise rates across their entire customer base. Why should other customers have to pay because some people don't want to do their own parenting? This is bullshit. If they had at least allowed ISPs to charge for the service, some ISPs would have proudly charged a thousand bucks a month and others would have offered it for free (at the cost of higher prices). Then the market could have at least sorted out whether people really value this service (in which case, ISPs that were charging a ridiculous amount would have to bring their prices inline with the others). At least then there would be some choice.
Yes, you are right. I have my terminology screwed up. I am not a marketeer, so I'll accept your definitions of viral and buzz marketing. Change "viral" to "buzz" in my previous post. The substance of the post still stands.
I know you didn't mark it insightful, so if you perceived any ire in my previous comment, consider it directed at the moderator who did.
I'm sorry, I don't think this should be marked insightful.
1) I think this concern is entirely premature and a little crazy. First, you have to make the assumption that a studio would intentionally leak an episode of their show to generate buzz. I think that is entirely possible, especially given that the unique nature of the BBC. And the SciFi channel is openly showing episodes of Battlestar Galactica on their website in order to try to gin up interest in later episodes, so secretly releasing one isn't too big a jump. However, you then have to make the assumption, and this is the leap, that the companies would then allow somebody to get prosecuted for doing exactly what the wanted and enabled them to do. There would be huge PR and/or legal costs to both the company and the organization that pressed the charges (assuming there is one) to face the choice of perjuring themselves or revealing they released it themselves.
Short answer: assume it is all illegal unless you get it directly from the producer/distributor. Is it really the episode of Dr. Who that is going to put you away?
2) I think maybe you intended this one to follow 3), because otherwise it doesn't make sense. Of course, it still doesn't make sense. Why would pirate groups want to flag their releases as illegal? Why make it that much easier for them to be filtered out? Wouldn't they try to make them seem as legitimate as possible?
3) I think you are missing the whole point of viral marketing. The point is that you don't know it is marketing. It comes to you through otherwise normal social interaction. It starts with a hot chick at a bar, someone on the street, or a spray-painted tag and is suppose to generate positive word-of-mouth. Or something like that. Tagging it as marketing would defeat the whole point. Then you might as well put it on your site like the Battlestar episodes.
4) Again, you are missing the point of viral marketing. It isn't supposed to look like a suit created it. It is supposed to look like this show is just so cool that some dedicated fan risked his life to get a copy and now wants to share it with the rest of the world because it is so cool. "I have never encoded a video before, but my friend works as a computer tech for a production studio that just finished work on the first episode of the new Dr. Who series and it is just so cool, I just knew other diehard fans like me would love it!"
The other replier is right, it is Pink Martini. Check out this, this, and this.
I don't have a lot of that type of music, but I love Sympathique and I highly recommend it. And their live shows are amazing, especially when they play with a full orchestra. I've heard their music in a few shows or movies, but I don't think they are that well known. If nothing else, it makes great background music for special dinners.