You are making the ASSUMPTION that it is an exception simply because you haven't read more reports. Perhaps others were like you and simply accepted that the police should be free to violate their rights -- after all, it was just 10 hours of their life that was taken away.
Yes, the did drop the charges and apologized, but where is the accountability? Much like those that claim to "accept responsibility" (without suffering any consequences), it is meaningless and just PR hype. When the IRS takes away your property and you spend years fighting them to find out it was a clerical error and they say "Sorry, my bad" -- is that also acceptable?
If you are FREE SOCIETY, you will ALWAYS be at risk for a terrorist attack. Anything officials may tell you otherwise is a complete lie.
Giving in to allowing a police state will not diminish the risks. They cannot GUARANTEE ZERO ATTACKS if you give up your rights! So you give up your rights and are still at risk of attack, just as you were before you gave up those rights -- only now you are less free.
Agreed. Just like the 'Explicit Lyrics" there should be a large sticker on the front that says
COPY-PROTECTED CD-LIKE DISC Because we believe you are a thief, you can only play this object on a few, select devices only in a way that is approved by RIAA.
And those discs should be returnable by law (after all, you aren't able to copy them - which is the argument used for not returning standard CDs).
Unfortunately, neither will happen due to the fact that our Corrupt Congressmen are in the back pockets of RIAA and MPAA lobbyists. With enough money, your rights can be stripped away by corporations through your own Representatives!
Our politicians (like Mr. Hatch) are so corrupted and in the pockets of mega-corporations and we, the people, are easily put of for commercial slaughter.
I refuse to allow myself to encourage being treated as a criminal by RIAA. My music purchases are at an absolute minimum, partially due to the lack of anything really good out there -- but mainly because I don't want to put any more money into a system that treats me with such disregard.
Perhaps when RIAA sheds its dinosaur paradigm and moves into the 21st Century (and doesn't just promote bubblegum radio music) -- then they'll get some of my hard earned money again.
I'm sure they'll blame file sharing for any boycott-based decline as well (they are quite delusional), but we have to stop feeding the monster.
I went through my angry phase in my early twenties. Settled down a bit and am revving back up. The corruption is just growing too much, too fast. Our politicians aren't just for sale, they're advertising that they're for sale. They don't even care that it's immoral.
But I'm starting to suffer from 'outrage fatigue'.
I agree -- but it isn't leading me to stop. Rather I'm getting to the point where I'm going to go and kick some ass. I'm really sick and tired of these greedy companies and these greedy Congressmen stripping me of my rights for the sake of the all mighty dollar.
Unfortunately our politicians are SO CORRUPT that they've sold their own soul as well as the souls of their constituents to these FAT ASS companies. I'm already planning to take several weeks out of the next election and devote it to throwing out the incumbent, whatever party he/she may be.
provided they come with some sort of an expiary date.
Well, 2 years (the length of the non-compete in question) is a lifetime in the world of computers.
I also think that if a company wants to enforce it, it should be required to pay the individual's new salary for the duration of the non-compete.
Non-competes basically destroy your career. And with a company like Microsoft, anything you would do afterwards competes with them. It's a lose-lose scenario.
he knew what he was doing when he signed his contract with Microsoft
Companies will do everything they can to protect their interests at the cost of yours. You are naturally at a disadvantage when you sign any of these agreements, because not signing them means you won't get a job.
BMW should listen to Michael's arguments and sell their M6 engine to fit in my Ford Fiesta. Damn that BMW -- making me buy an M6 coupe just to get the engine!!
They could sell so many more M6 engines if only they made it available to all Ford Fiesta users.
The mobile PPC970s were late, and are currently clocked lower than the G4, and would not offer any real performance advantage if crammed into a Mac portable.
My experience has also been that the Altivec Unit (or whatever IBM calls it) is not as efficient on the G5 as the G4. My personal experience has been that my dual 1.0Ghz G4 is ALMOST on a par with my dual 2.0Ghz G5 when doing Altivec-heavy processes (like encoding) -- and that just shouldn't be the case.
That suggests that a lower clocked G5 won't necessary be better than the G4 it would replace in Laptops.
Ultimately, I think Apple made the right decision long term, even if there is some turmoil short-term. And that's speaking as a developer and consumer of Apple-related products.
I'd prefer a Virtual PC-like application to run the occasional Windows software with the ability to pause the virtual machine (to not use any CPU). Rebooting is so 90s.
Benefits:
1. It would be plenty fast (on intel hardware). 2. I wouldn't have to reboot to access Windows 3. Much cheaper than a DVI KVM 4. 2nd machine not required for a few Windows programs
Re:My iBook died two months ago...
on
New Apples Next Week
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Actually, yes: for my next desktop I'm waiting for AMD64 dual-core.
Well, most people won't hold off a purchase of a computer because of what is coming down the path 12 months from now. If that were the case, nobody would ever buy a computer.
Most people I know that need to replace their notebook today are not keen on the idea of waiting a year to get a replacement.
If I NEED a replacement today, I'm not going to lose 12 months of productivity because of what might come down the road a year (or even 9 months) from now. There is always something better in the pipeline.
As for Mac OS X, once the initial Universal conversion is made -- I doubt users will even notice the difference. I expect Universals to be around for a long time (at least 5 years) which is longer than the useful life of most computers.
(Except when the Mac Intels finally comes out, I really need a replacement for my iBook)
If you can afford to wait, then do so -- but I think that the PPC-based Macs that come out will be very useful for most folks that need a new computer TODAY.
You're basically taking the rest of this guy's life away because he stole something
What he stole was people's lives and futures. This wasn't a stupid mistake, this was deliberate, criminal act. It was motivated by greed.
If he got ONE YEAR for every life he ruined with his $11 Billion theft, he'd be in prison for several THOUSAND YEARS. From the point of view -- 25 years is generous.
Do you not feel any empathy for the THOUSANDS of lives destroyed by this man's greed? Just because no blood was shed, doesn't mean lives were destroyed.
For the most part, I think CEOs are often held unaccountable for their actions. In a case like this, where there was deliberate intent to steal (and not just a few bucks but BILLIONS, the scale is almost impossible to comprehend) -- he should be removed from society.
Tax evasion, fraud, conspiracy etc. are all crimes that are worth punishing... but taking 25 years of someone's life away for such crimes is bullshit. 2 - 3 years is fine IMO
So you think bilking $11 Billion from people and destroying the lives and futures of thousands only deserves 2-3 years in prison? Are you serious? Or do you think that since there is no blood or dead bodies, we should just slap their wrists and let them on their way to steal again?
I realize that you see the President of the United States promoting and commending folks for their failings, but that is not (or at least should not be) the general rule.
But maybe Intel understands what it means to be a partner with Apple
What company isn't a pain to partner with especially when one makes promises to the other and doesn't keep them.
IBM made promises to Apple and then left Apple hanging. No 3Ghz PPC chip, limited quantities of PPC all too often. The result, Apple wasn't able to take advantage of the hype they created. I'd be pissed too if IBM kept screwing things up.
Apple is going to push Intel, make demands of Intel, get moody and pout, and bitch, bitch, bitch
Intel doesn't need Apple's extra chip orders, but it does want a partner that can create a really cool computer with its chip inside. DELL, HP, etc have all failed to do that over the last 20 years. Apple shipped a cool little box design, Intel showed of a cool little box design (no real computer inside). DELL and HP (still) don't have a cool little box design and I wonder if they ever will.
Not Yet -- but given the fact that tickets are a major source of revenue, you can bet that would be in the next step.
You will just receive a bill in the mail: "You owe $2000 for last month's speeding violations, see table for times and location of each violation. Please note, not paying will result in a $100/day penalty."
Funny.. you say that the patent system works, but then go on to explain all the problems associated with it.
If the patent system works, we wouldn't have the one-click patent or the XOR patent. So the patent system IS NOT WORKING (even if the reason is because reviewers doing a good job).
I think software patents are even worse, since the timeframe for a patent is so long and the speed of development is so short. They give a virtual infinite lock on (what is often) an obvious idea.
Well with a statement like that there is little point in arguing my points to contradict some of your arguments. Because you are more interested in defending you convictions then having a intelegent debate on the topic.
That's a total cop-out. You could still argue your points -- these discussions aren't one-on-one. For the record, I used to be in favor of more limited software patents. I've always felt that 17 years was excessive, but that there might be a legitimate case for software patents -- I have simply been persuaded in the other direction.. so I'm open to change.
I have yet to hear someone make an argument that 17 year software patents aren't too long other than to simply state it as fact.
Patents are designed to spur innovation. However, it certainly appears that software patents are having the opposite effect.
I used to think that it is simply how they are used, but given that a patent lasts 17 years (virtual infinity in computer years), it essentially locks up innovation.
And to make things worse, the US Patent Office is issuing retarded (ie. obvious) patents like they were handing out candy to kids. And then companies and individuals have to spend millions to break the patent (since it is assumed valid and has to be disproved).
Drop a Mercedes engine into a Chrysler and you get a $30K+ car. Drop OS X onto a Intel chip and you get an Apple-priced machine. Both are competitive when compared to the market around them -- but you won't get a Crossfire for a low-end Sebring price tag. I shouldn't pick on Chrysler. Chrysler isn't as low-end as they used to be (and their Firepower concept actually seems pretty cool). Ford or Kia might have been a better example for the analogy.
Mercedes/Chrysler may have been a bad example only because the two companies merged, but the original argument still holds true -- Mercedes isn't going to drop a powerful engine in a car that's less that $20K. That's what PC users are wanting. OS X + $200 low-end Dell PC = Mac. THAT would be the end of Apple.
Apple + Intel will provide for Apple to be more competitive with PCs in general. The solution is a win to all users, but I don't expect the price of Mac mini to drop to $200 as a result. But maybe we get more bang for our $399 or $499 buck.
You compare Apple to BMW, yet BMW does the exact same thing; they charge more for a premium brand.
Actually that was my point. Apple is a premium brand. Yet many folks are calling for Apple to make their "experience" (engine, whatever metaphor you want to use to describe OS X) available to cheap PC users (or in the car world, Ford Focus -- not to pick on the Focus, but there is a big difference in driving experience between a Focus and a BMW).
GM is slashing prices -- BMW keeps raising prices. It's a great analogy to understand why Apple doesn't need to play the "cheapest PC" game.
The Mac mini is very much like BMW's Mini brand. It's fun, affordable and offers much of the same experience as the more expensive brand.
Now, if the rumor mill has it right and Apple goes with the Alpha, then I'm all for it. Otherwise they're selling junk with a pretty face.
I doubt Apple is going with the Alpha. But from a realistic point of view (as a developer), I really don't care what the processor is underneath as long as the compilers are optimized for it and it runs fast. And without revealing any details, I think Apple is on the right track.
Apple is going with the best chips available. The fact that the OS is mostly chip neutral means that if something else comes along, they might do that too (we developers will be pros at compiling for other chips by then -- and it really will be nothing more than a flipped switch). NeXTStep was running something like 4 different architectures in its day.
Initially, I was as shocked and appalled at Apple's announcement, but I've seen these things in action and even with the lac of OS optimizations and lack of top-end hardware, the machines performance was fairly impressive.
There is plenty of skanky stuff happening in any OS, especially one that needs to maintain compatibility -- but I do think that G5 never realized its potential and the cost to try and get IBM's attention on it is too high.
stranglehold: a grip around the neck of another person that can kill by asphyxiation if held for long enough.
exactly where is the positive connotation you get out the word stranglehold?
From the original article:That way there could be the "cheap PC" version of OS X
This is the same sort of stuff that keeps coming round and round. I want the coolness that Mac OS X offers, but don't want to pay for it.
Now, perhaps it wasn't meant as a bitch -- but the use of "stranglehold" (vs. tight coupling, which is an example of a something that does not have positive or negative connotations) and "cheap PC version of OS X" certainly would lead one to believe it is the same tripe I keep hearing from the PC world.
Slashdot Mirror
You are making the ASSUMPTION that it is an exception simply because you haven't read more reports. Perhaps others were like you and simply accepted that the police should be free to violate their rights -- after all, it was just 10 hours of their life that was taken away. Yes, the did drop the charges and apologized, but where is the accountability? Much like those that claim to "accept responsibility" (without suffering any consequences), it is meaningless and just PR hype. When the IRS takes away your property and you spend years fighting them to find out it was a clerical error and they say "Sorry, my bad" -- is that also acceptable?
If you are FREE SOCIETY, you will ALWAYS be at risk for a terrorist attack. Anything officials may tell you otherwise is a complete lie.
Giving in to allowing a police state will not diminish the risks. They cannot GUARANTEE ZERO ATTACKS if you give up your rights! So you give up your rights and are still at risk of attack, just as you were before you gave up those rights -- only now you are less free.
Agreed. Just like the 'Explicit Lyrics" there should be a large sticker on the front that says
COPY-PROTECTED CD-LIKE DISC
Because we believe you are a thief,
you can only play this object on a few, select devices
only in a way that is approved by RIAA.
And those discs should be returnable by law (after all, you aren't able to copy them - which is the argument used for not returning standard CDs).
Unfortunately, neither will happen due to the fact that our Corrupt Congressmen are in the back pockets of RIAA and MPAA lobbyists. With enough money, your rights can be stripped away by corporations through your own Representatives!
Agreed.
Our politicians (like Mr. Hatch) are so corrupted and in the pockets of mega-corporations and we, the people, are easily put of for commercial slaughter.
I refuse to allow myself to encourage being treated as a criminal by RIAA. My music purchases are at an absolute minimum, partially due to the lack of anything really good out there -- but mainly because I don't want to put any more money into a system that treats me with such disregard.
Perhaps when RIAA sheds its dinosaur paradigm and moves into the 21st Century (and doesn't just promote bubblegum radio music) -- then they'll get some of my hard earned money again.
I'm sure they'll blame file sharing for any boycott-based decline as well (they are quite delusional), but we have to stop feeding the monster.
Say that again when you're in your thirties.
Already there!
I went through my angry phase in my early twenties. Settled down a bit and am revving back up. The corruption is just growing too much, too fast. Our politicians aren't just for sale, they're advertising that they're for sale. They don't even care that it's immoral.
But I'm starting to suffer from 'outrage fatigue'.
I agree -- but it isn't leading me to stop. Rather I'm getting to the point where I'm going to go and kick some ass. I'm really sick and tired of these greedy companies and these greedy Congressmen stripping me of my rights for the sake of the all mighty dollar.
Unfortunately our politicians are SO CORRUPT that they've sold their own soul as well as the souls of their constituents to these FAT ASS companies. I'm already planning to take several weeks out of the next election and devote it to throwing out the incumbent, whatever party he/she may be.
And how many jobs have you received when not agreeing to the non-compete clause.
provided they come with some sort of an expiary date.
Well, 2 years (the length of the non-compete in question) is a lifetime in the world of computers.
I also think that if a company wants to enforce it, it should be required to pay the individual's new salary for the duration of the non-compete.
Non-competes basically destroy your career. And with a company like Microsoft, anything you would do afterwards competes with them. It's a lose-lose scenario.
he knew what he was doing when he signed his contract with Microsoft
Companies will do everything they can to protect their interests at the cost of yours. You are naturally at a disadvantage when you sign any of these agreements, because not signing them means you won't get a job.
BMW should listen to Michael's arguments and sell their M6 engine to fit in my Ford Fiesta. Damn that BMW -- making me buy an M6 coupe just to get the engine!!
They could sell so many more M6 engines if only they made it available to all Ford Fiesta users.
The mobile PPC970s were late, and are currently clocked lower than the G4, and would not offer any real performance advantage if crammed into a Mac portable.
My experience has also been that the Altivec Unit (or whatever IBM calls it) is not as efficient on the G5 as the G4. My personal experience has been that my dual 1.0Ghz G4 is ALMOST on a par with my dual 2.0Ghz G5 when doing Altivec-heavy processes (like encoding) -- and that just shouldn't be the case.
That suggests that a lower clocked G5 won't necessary be better than the G4 it would replace in Laptops.
Ultimately, I think Apple made the right decision long term, even if there is some turmoil short-term. And that's speaking as a developer and consumer of Apple-related products.
I'd prefer a Virtual PC-like application to run the occasional Windows software with the ability to pause the virtual machine (to not use any CPU). Rebooting is so 90s.
Benefits:
1. It would be plenty fast (on intel hardware).
2. I wouldn't have to reboot to access Windows
3. Much cheaper than a DVI KVM
4. 2nd machine not required for a few Windows programs
Actually, yes: for my next desktop I'm waiting for AMD64 dual-core.
Well, most people won't hold off a purchase of a computer because of what is coming down the path 12 months from now. If that were the case, nobody would ever buy a computer.
Most people I know that need to replace their notebook today are not keen on the idea of waiting a year to get a replacement.
If I NEED a replacement today, I'm not going to lose 12 months of productivity because of what might come down the road a year (or even 9 months) from now. There is always something better in the pipeline.
As for Mac OS X, once the initial Universal conversion is made -- I doubt users will even notice the difference. I expect Universals to be around for a long time (at least 5 years) which is longer than the useful life of most computers.
(Except when the Mac Intels finally comes out, I really need a replacement for my iBook)
If you can afford to wait, then do so -- but I think that the PPC-based Macs that come out will be very useful for most folks that need a new computer TODAY.
Unless these are Intel machines, I won't buy
Would you buy an Intel that wasn't a quad-core? After all, those single-core chips are a dying platform as well.
Whatever Steve says, I don't believe that binaries will stay Intel/PowerPC for very long.
I expect universal binaries to be around for at least 5 years (if not longer) after the transition is complete (for a total of 7+ years).
Look at how long it took for developers to let go of OS 9. Apple had to declare OS 9 DEAD and even then, it's taken a while to let go.
You're basically taking the rest of this guy's life away because he stole something
What he stole was people's lives and futures. This wasn't a stupid mistake, this was deliberate, criminal act. It was motivated by greed.
If he got ONE YEAR for every life he ruined with his $11 Billion theft, he'd be in prison for several THOUSAND YEARS. From the point of view -- 25 years is generous.
Do you not feel any empathy for the THOUSANDS of lives destroyed by this man's greed? Just because no blood was shed, doesn't mean lives were destroyed.
For the most part, I think CEOs are often held unaccountable for their actions. In a case like this, where there was deliberate intent to steal (and not just a few bucks but BILLIONS, the scale is almost impossible to comprehend) -- he should be removed from society.
Tax evasion, fraud, conspiracy etc. are all crimes that are worth punishing... but taking 25 years of someone's life away for such crimes is bullshit. 2 - 3 years is fine IMO
So you think bilking $11 Billion from people and destroying the lives and futures of thousands only deserves 2-3 years in prison? Are you serious? Or do you think that since there is no blood or dead bodies, we should just slap their wrists and let them on their way to steal again?
I realize that you see the President of the United States promoting and commending folks for their failings, but that is not (or at least should not be) the general rule.
But maybe Intel understands what it means to be a partner with Apple
What company isn't a pain to partner with especially when one makes promises to the other and doesn't keep them.
IBM made promises to Apple and then left Apple hanging. No 3Ghz PPC chip, limited quantities of PPC all too often. The result, Apple wasn't able to take advantage of the hype they created. I'd be pissed too if IBM kept screwing things up.
Apple is going to push Intel, make demands of Intel, get moody and pout, and bitch, bitch, bitch
Intel doesn't need Apple's extra chip orders, but it does want a partner that can create a really cool computer with its chip inside. DELL, HP, etc have all failed to do that over the last 20 years. Apple shipped a cool little box design, Intel showed of a cool little box design (no real computer inside). DELL and HP (still) don't have a cool little box design and I wonder if they ever will.
Apple will make Intel cool again.
It's not like they're ticketing based on the GPS
Not Yet -- but given the fact that tickets are a major source of revenue, you can bet that would be in the next step.
You will just receive a bill in the mail: "You owe $2000 for last month's speeding violations, see table for times and location of each violation. Please note, not paying will result in a $100/day penalty."
Funny.. you say that the patent system works, but then go on to explain all the problems associated with it.
If the patent system works, we wouldn't have the one-click patent or the XOR patent. So the patent system IS NOT WORKING (even if the reason is because reviewers doing a good job).
I think software patents are even worse, since the timeframe for a patent is so long and the speed of development is so short. They give a virtual infinite lock on (what is often) an obvious idea.
Well with a statement like that there is little point in arguing my points to contradict some of your arguments. Because you are more interested in defending you convictions then having a intelegent debate on the topic.
That's a total cop-out. You could still argue your points -- these discussions aren't one-on-one. For the record, I used to be in favor of more limited software patents. I've always felt that 17 years was excessive, but that there might be a legitimate case for software patents -- I have simply been persuaded in the other direction.. so I'm open to change.
I have yet to hear someone make an argument that 17 year software patents aren't too long other than to simply state it as fact.
Patents are designed to spur innovation. However, it certainly appears that software patents are having the opposite effect.
Wrong -- Software patents ARE evil!
I used to think that it is simply how they are used, but given that a patent lasts 17 years (virtual infinity in computer years), it essentially locks up innovation.
And to make things worse, the US Patent Office is issuing retarded (ie. obvious) patents like they were handing out candy to kids. And then companies and individuals have to spend millions to break the patent (since it is assumed valid and has to be disproved).
Drop a Mercedes engine into a Chrysler and you get a $30K+ car. Drop OS X onto a Intel chip and you get an Apple-priced machine. Both are competitive when compared to the market around them -- but you won't get a Crossfire for a low-end Sebring price tag. I shouldn't pick on Chrysler. Chrysler isn't as low-end as they used to be (and their Firepower concept actually seems pretty cool). Ford or Kia might have been a better example for the analogy.
Mercedes/Chrysler may have been a bad example only because the two companies merged, but the original argument still holds true -- Mercedes isn't going to drop a powerful engine in a car that's less that $20K. That's what PC users are wanting. OS X + $200 low-end Dell PC = Mac. THAT would be the end of Apple.
Apple + Intel will provide for Apple to be more competitive with PCs in general. The solution is a win to all users, but I don't expect the price of Mac mini to drop to $200 as a result. But maybe we get more bang for our $399 or $499 buck.
You compare Apple to BMW, yet BMW does the exact same thing; they charge more for a premium brand.
Actually that was my point. Apple is a premium brand. Yet many folks are calling for Apple to make their "experience" (engine, whatever metaphor you want to use to describe OS X) available to cheap PC users (or in the car world, Ford Focus -- not to pick on the Focus, but there is a big difference in driving experience between a Focus and a BMW).
GM is slashing prices -- BMW keeps raising prices. It's a great analogy to understand why Apple doesn't need to play the "cheapest PC" game.
The Mac mini is very much like BMW's Mini brand. It's fun, affordable and offers much of the same experience as the more expensive brand.
Now, if the rumor mill has it right and Apple goes with the Alpha, then I'm all for it. Otherwise they're selling junk with a pretty face.
I doubt Apple is going with the Alpha. But from a realistic point of view (as a developer), I really don't care what the processor is underneath as long as the compilers are optimized for it and it runs fast. And without revealing any details, I think Apple is on the right track.
Apple is going with the best chips available. The fact that the OS is mostly chip neutral means that if something else comes along, they might do that too (we developers will be pros at compiling for other chips by then -- and it really will be nothing more than a flipped switch). NeXTStep was running something like 4 different architectures in its day.
Initially, I was as shocked and appalled at Apple's announcement, but I've seen these things in action and even with the lac of OS optimizations and lack of top-end hardware, the machines performance was fairly impressive.
There is plenty of skanky stuff happening in any OS, especially one that needs to maintain compatibility -- but I do think that G5 never realized its potential and the cost to try and get IBM's attention on it is too high.
My apologies, although perhaps the use of the words "tight-coupling" vs. "stranglehold" would sound more neutral.
stranglehold: a grip around the neck of another person that can kill by asphyxiation if held for long enough.
exactly where is the positive connotation you get out the word stranglehold?
From the original article:That way there could be the "cheap PC" version of OS X
This is the same sort of stuff that keeps coming round and round. I want the coolness that Mac OS X offers, but don't want to pay for it.
Now, perhaps it wasn't meant as a bitch -- but the use of "stranglehold" (vs. tight coupling, which is an example of a something that does not have positive or negative connotations) and "cheap PC version of OS X" certainly would lead one to believe it is the same tripe I keep hearing from the PC world.