First, I have to say, I've had no problems with 10.1.3, and it works fine on my PowerBook G4.
About the apple.slashdot.org site: does this mean that Apple stories won't be cross-posted to the regular slashdot site? If they are still cross posted, then that's cool.
If not, I see a problem: partitioning Apple-related stories away in a separate site from general science, technology, YRO, and other non-Linux stories seems counterproductive and silly. I mean, there's a reason why MacSlash doesn't get a tenth of the traffic as Slashdot. That is, as a Mac user (and Linux and Windows user), I don't care to visit another site that only covers Mac stuff; that's what Macintouch and MacCentral are for.
So if this site is going to be like the latter, you should have done a poll to see which topic had to get off the swingset and play by itself.
> Look at the astonishing Jimmy Neutron, Boy
> Genius It was made for a tiny fraction of what
> was spent on Final Fantasy, and it looks
> terrible in comparison -- but the story is fun
> and engaging.
Yes, I believe that is known as the "South Park effect". So, to be more interesting, the Final Fantasy movie either needed a better plot or a lot more foul language.
> It goes to show that however remarkable a
> technical achievement it may be, FF:SW totally
> lacked the soul needed for animated features.
I agree. The visual effects were stunning, but I felt short-changed in the story department. It felt like they were trying too hard to make the story "big". You can't carry a movie by the visual effects alone. It reminds me of when I visited England and got to see the the Tower of London (or wherever it is that they store all the royal jewelry and related). When one first walks in, everyone is reduced to a slack-jawed yokel at the impressive array of gold and gems. After about ten minutes, however, I found myself bored at looking at the 100th diamond encrusted crown. It's funny because any *one* artifact would have caught my attention for a while, but when you stick them all together, the effect becomes numbing.
Visual effects in a movie can be the same way. At first, you're like, "wow! that looks real!", but after a while the eye candy becomes weary, and a good plot needs to keep you interested for the remaining 1.75 hours.
After I saw the movie, I thought they would have benefited from just extending the plot line of Final Fantasy VIII to a full-length movie. The cuts scenes from that game were engaging and the character development was really good. The result would have been a lot more exciting.
> Did someone completely forget about this whole monopoly thing?
I was waiting for someone to say this!
I refuse to consider any "analysis" of Microsoft's success that doesn't mention the fact they have a monopoly, and they illegally abuse it. As long as they continue to do that, Apple will never get more market share, no matter how good their products are. In fact, Apple in 2000-2002 should be able to serve as this example. Their products are critically acclaimed (iMac, iPod), they seem to be what many people want (Unix + Mac), and they're not incredibly overpriced (except for the Cinema Display). The #1 reason why more people won't buy their products is because they want what everyone else is running-- i.e. Windows -- because they're worried about compatibility.
I don't want to hear that Microsoft is so successful because they don't reengineer software from the ground up, or because they spend so much on development, or because they shoot for mainstream America without also taking into account that they illegally abuse their monopoly. Not doing so is like talking about the flowers on the coffee table without mentioning the giant elephant in the middle of the room.
So, Mr. Katz, please go back and reevaluate your analysis to take that into account.
I have to say, I like the design. It's a very consumer-looking device, and I don't think I've seen another computer that looked like this. I'm sure Apple will keep the current tower-look for their professional machines, but this is a very innovative machine for consumer users.
What's interesting is back in 1997, when Apple introduced the first iMac, a bunch of companies jumped ahead to rip it off: eMachines (are they still around?) and Future Power are two I remember. When Apple sued them, the only defense they came up with was that their designs weren't rip-offs; there was just only so many ways to build a one-piece computer. Of course, the judges disagreed, and the rip-offs were pulled.
Now, Apple releases their successor to the original iMac, and it looks completely different. Of course using an LCD instead of a CRT changes the engineering restraints a bit, but most other computer companies would have made something reminiscent of the previous model. This just goes to show that there are many different ways to build a computer. I think for the computer industry to get out of its rut, it has to collectively forget that incrementally increasing hardware specifications is not the way to "innovate", but this is.
Seems likely to be a fake
on
Apple PDA?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I agree that it seems to be a fake. In the iWalk_Still10.jpg, it shows the Apple logo on the job wheel, something that looks kind of retarded. If look at an iPod, it's clear that their industrial design goes for more of an understated look -- for example, there is no Apple logo on the front of an iPod. In fact, I'd expect an Apple PDA today to look more like an iPod.
The screen looks kind of odd in that shot, too. it looks like the scroll bar on the right doesn't quite line up with the tool bar on the bottom. I'd also expect the UI to look more like Aqua.
If this thing plays MP3s, Apple will be canabalizing sales from their successful iPod. They've been pretty good about marketing recently, and I'd be surprised if they pulled an obvious blunder like that (particularly since they're still stinging from the poor marketing they did with the overpriced Cube).
Finally, if I understand correctly, Steve Jobs hated the Newton. I believe he called it a "damn scribble toy" before he killed it a few years ago. It would be odd for him to resurrect it.
In short, I think this is likely another hoax.
Re:uh... a few seconds ruins a film?
on
Attack of the Clones
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
> George Lucas gave up his integrity for:
>
> 1) doing something for the sole reason of attracting the 12 year old girl market, or
Yeah, and the first three movies had so much integrity. That's why it was so crucial to the plot to have Carrie Fisher in a bikini for the first act of the ROTJ. It wasn't for the sole reason of attracting the 12 year old boy market.
Everyone who is complaining about this should get over it. Lucas is putting in his daughters' favorite boy band, and they're going to die in a few seconds on film. What father wouldn't want to do that?
I know that the FCC will mandate HDTV by 2006, but I think that what they're really doing is mandating digital TV by that period, so that broadcasters can effectively fit up to 8 channels in the channel bandwidth where they used to fit only one -- that is, compete with cable television. Consumers won't pay for that necessarily, so equipment providers are marketing the HDTV part of it. So you've got the carrot (HDTV) and the stick (can't use your regular TV after 2006) to push you towards a slightly lower quality TV standard (DTV).
The problem is, picture quality is not the limiting factor in today's media experience. How will high definition fix the quality of television today? Will it suddenly make the latest season of the Simpsons as funny as seasons 3-8? Will it make the damn football games on Fox shorter, so they will no longer pre-empt Futurama on Sundays (at least in Dallas)?
The moral? Wait for HDTV until it's as cheap as a regular TV. Take the extra money you would have spent and donate it to PBS.
Look, we'll get to the "Megabyte"/"Mebibyte" distinction just as soon as we're done with the "hacker"/"cracker" distinction. After that, we can switch everyone in the US to the metric system and call it a day.
> Bush was at least honest enough to question the
> justification for the case during the campaign,
> while Gore dodged the question every time it was > raised.
So you're actually crediting GWB with being paid off by Microsoft and staying bought? I guess that is "honest" is a weird sort of way.
And, yes I do think Gore would have had a different position on this issue. Despite what you say, Gore did not "dodge the issue" every time it was raised. On the contrary, Gore told Microsoft employees during direct questioning that he believed anti-trust laws were applicable to the software industry. From a USA Today article:
Gore told the employees that "I respect your feelings." But he also said antitrust laws must be enforced when competition is unfairly stifled.
> Now, it seems the DoJ has proven just the
> opposite. They got the affirmation that it was a
> monopoly and then decided that was "good
> enough"... we don't need to punish them.
You're forgetting something happened in between. The DOJ was doing fine until Microsoft's check to Bush and the other Republicans cleared. Then the following conversation happened:
GWB: Now Ashy, don'cha think you're bein a little hard on Microsoft. Maybe you're misunderstating their position.
JA: But they broke the law! And since we're Republicans, we can't be seen as soft on crime!
GWB: Tell you what, John, if you go easy on the B. Gates and Co, I'll let you tromp on some civil rights. Will that make it better?
> I find it hard to believe that there's a great
> consumer need out there for car-delievered
> subscription services
Sure, there is a need, but I don't think it's necessarily digital radio. Mercedes-Benz has their integrated phone/roadside assistance function with GPS (kind of like On-star) that comes standard on every MB today. You pay a yearly subscription for the service-- an incredible $200/year, and that doesn't include airtime!
When you buy the car, you get a free 1-year subscription, plus some airtime. I've heard that the re-sign rate after the first year is fairly high, so some people see some value in it.
However, that could an isolated case. I'm having a hard time believing that people would pay for that, plus some satellite radio service that required a subscription as well. From the perspective of users not wanting to subscribe to multiple services, I can see a downside there -- same reason why many people don't subscribe to multiple magazines. And with MP3 players becoming more popular, many people would view satellite radio as a competitor to MP3 players.
I think there will be some limited markets for this: stations for rural areas, piped muzak for businesses and retail stores, and similar. I don't see it getting big for mainstream consumers when other more accepted substitute items exist: regular radio, cassette tapes, CDs, and MP3 players. Plus, good-ol', traditional conversation!
> This model works quite smoothly, as
> demonstrated by Stalin (too many groups to
> count), Hitler (Jews are the best known
> victims, but many others as well), McCarthy
> ("Communists"), and the Inquisition
> ("Heretics", "infidels", and others).
Isn't it a little farfetched to equate what happened to the Jews in WWII to the police confiscating computers of a bunch of people that didn't want to pay for Photoshop? I can see it now: "First they came for the script-kiddies..." Maybe we can look forward to reading the tragic diary of a young warez hacker who was forced to live in the closet of someone else's dormroom because they couldn't afford Microsoft Word but for whom Nisus Writer or Okito Composer wasn't enough.
I agree that Ashcroft is a scary fellow, but let's try to keep some perspective.
If that's a condition of the sale, then they shouldn't sell you the upgrade unless you have 10.0. You should have to show a UPC symbol or something. Giving you the full 10.1 and in the shrink-wrap license saying you need 10.0 before you can use it is silly.
Wait, so you're saying that although Apple gave you the full install, and they relied on your honesty to use that updater only if you have a full copy of the previous version, you should have the right to install the full OS because they provided it to you?
Here Apple is, trusting users with a simple updater -- and remember, they're the same company company shipping the iPod, an MP3 player with virtually no copy-protection -- and you're saying that since they had the nerve to trust you with the full version, they deserve to be ripped off.
That's a great argument for software companies to do whatever it takes to restrict distribution of their software. Kind of like how Microsoft ties XP to your hardware profile (hope you weren't one of the ones complaining about that!).
People who advance the argument you just did are the reason why record companies and software companies assume people will pirate anything they can, and to hell with honesty.
How the heck did the parent comment get moderated as "troll?" Read the moderation rules-- you can't mod a comment down just because you disagree with the comment!
This guy is right. I got my copy of Mac OS 10.1 for free. No charge, no questions, nothing. The sales person gave it to me, along with a coupon for free coffee.
Now Apple's upset because some showed that the free update CD can be used to install the complete version of Mac OS X 10.1. So what's Apple supposed to do now? Force users to bring in their Mac OS X original CD before they can get the update? Remember, unlike with Windows, Apple doesn't require serial numbers to install the OS, and I'd rather they kept it that way.
I wish the people at MacFixIt had thought it though a bit more before they gleefully spread that information around.
To the guy who had a bad experience at CompUSA -- that's not Apple's fault. Particularly because you said they were giving copies away days later. Blame CompUSA, not Apple.
The answer is that Word had no serious competition, so Microsoft was content to sell it separately and to offer a stripped-down word processor ("WordPad") bundled with Windows.
An excellent point. Of course, Word was already involved in a scam, so maybe Microsoft didn't want mix them up.
MS Word is part of Microsoft's scam of predatory pricing. I wrote an article for MacKiDo a few years ago that is still relevant today. In it, I discussed how Microsoft was pricing the components in Office to bury the competition.
For example, if you buy Word, Excel, or PowerPoint individually, you pay $379 each. So if you want Word and Excel, shell out $758. But, for $459, you get Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Entourage, and a helluva lot of clipart. So no one in their right mind would buy an office product by itself, and no one can release a product that competes with any product in the Office suite.
I feel sorry for PowerOn Software. They worked pretty hard making improvements to Now up to date (their contact manager suite), but they'll have very little luck getting anyone to buy it for two reasons: (1) Entourage is bundled with Office and (2) Microsoft Exchange Server requires Entourage for an email client (or the older Outlook for Mac). So Power On is in the same situation as Netscape; they have to charge for something (to stay in business) that MS has decided to give away for free.
> There are also two more "wingdings" fonts,
> WingDings 2 and WingDings 3, but I wouldn't know
> how to describe some of the symbols that come up
> for those.
So you're saying that when you type letters using WingDings 2 and 3, you get an image that is unspeakable?
> As long as the spirit of innovation is preserved
> and destructive viruses are recognized as
> industrial terrorism, Microsoft will continue to
> provide revolutionary ideas.
That guy then goes on to suggest that Microsoft is a victim of "terrorists". Look, Mr. Thomas, if a script kiddie can bring down a MS server, that's hardly the same as a terrorist. Calling it "terrorism" to gain sympathy while you tow the party line is just plain disgusting.
You want Microsoft to not be a victim? Put away your PowerPoint presentations on.NET, and go learn about the results of a real terrorist. For starters, go over to NYC and help the clean up effort. Or why don't you go donate money to the family of a fireman who lost his life trying to get people out.
Then you can put your "terrorists" in perspective: If you don't want MS to be "victimized": take security seriously and build a decent server OS, quit breaking anti-trust laws, and start acting like a company that's accountable for its actions.
Yeah, Mr. Moderator, this is a flame, but this guy makes me sick.
I know a lot of people think that anybody should have the right to make a window manager that looks like Aqua, since Apple doesn't own the idea of a "liquid-looking" interface. However, I think this attitude misses an important point.
Would any of the Aqua rip-offs have been created if Apple hadn't created Aqua? Would Microsoft's Luna look like it does without Apple's Aqua? Of course not, they would have continued with the chiselled grayness look that they did for years.
It's easy to take the excellent work someone else has done, tweak it, and then claim it's original work. It's a lot harder to start from scratch and build something truly original. Sure, everybody is influenced by something, but the important thing is to make sure that the influence isn't completely obvious. When it is obvious, that's the sign of simply derivative work. If the influence is not obvious, then you've got creative work. And Apple should have the right to sue the hell out of anyone who creates derivitive works that dilute their own stuff. That means, if it isn't running on Apple hardware running Mac OS X, it shouldn't look like Aqua.
The general consensus at Slashdot seems to be: (1) Aqua sucks, (2) but looky, I can recreate it as a Window manager for my putty colored, 15-mouse-button-equipped, hand-assembled computer, (3) and Apple doesn't have the right to protect their look/feel anyway.
Not intended to be a flame; it's just too early in the morning for me.
Once again, John has done an excellent job reviewing the Mac OS. I have to disagree with him about the need for global menu bar modifications. He says,
In 10.0.x, there was no officially sanctioned method for global menu bar modification. With the OS X Apple menu off limits to user and developer modification (a designation that remains in 10.1), the entire 10.0.x menu bar was effectively fixed (with the exception of Apple's tacit inclusion of an optional menu bar clock).
Apple's rationale for this decision has been described to me as being motivated by the proliferation of menu bar clutter in classic Mac OS. Many classic Mac OS applications wanted to include their own system-wide menus, some of which had limited value to the user.
Unfortunately, third parties will have to continue to stumble in the dark as they try to leverage the new system menu framework (and rest assured, they will try), because the system menu API is not public. Instead, Apple wants third party developers to add such functionality through what Apple calls "dock menus", meaning menus spawned from docked application icons (e.g. the new playback commands in the iTunes pop-up menu).
He goes on to say it's a bad thing to not allow third parties to modify the menu bar
The problem is, when you let third parties modify the menu bar, they always do it, whether the user wants them to or not. I remember back in Mac OS 9 and before, every software developer wanted their application to be right up front, so it seems everybody was sticking inits in the Extension folder so they could have their own menu bar icon. Microsoft would add one for some sort of shortcut. Palm adds one to access Palm Desktop. Power On Software would stick one on there for their contact manager. I personally found it annoying that these apps would unnecessarily clutter the menu bar, forcing me to dig through through the System Folder to get rid of whatever they stuck in there. It was even more annoying that under Mac OS 9 you have to reboot after removing an init.
Apple is now saying, if you want a global menu item, use the Dock. Of course, some enterprising small developer will hack the menu bar for some specific function, but at least the big software companies won't clutter the menu bar just because they want the "premium real estate".
Related to that, it's even better now that applications are self-contained into bundles, because I found it equally annoying that apps would scatter things all over the System Folder, making it annoying to delete everything.
5 nines are required for wireline telco hardware. You might expect less than that other applications, but if you're talking about telco hardware made by the big companies (Alcatel, Lucent, Nortel), that kind of uptime is taken seriously. This equipment includes local exchanges, access tandems, long distance switches, and the SS7 network. So switches designed for wireline telco usage must meet the fewer than 5 minutes of downtime per year requirement.
SS7 networks are some of the most reliable in the industry. They're designed to be completely redundant, with the specialized switches (called STPs) set up in mated pairs, located in different parts of the country in the event of a catastrophic disaster. HLRs are typically run in mated pairs as well, so if you're updating the software in one, you still won't lose that kind of service because the mate can take over any functions.
Slashdot Mirror
First, I have to say, I've had no problems with 10.1.3, and it works fine on my PowerBook G4.
About the apple.slashdot.org site: does this mean that Apple stories won't be cross-posted to the regular slashdot site? If they are still cross posted, then that's cool.
If not, I see a problem: partitioning Apple-related stories away in a separate site from general science, technology, YRO, and other non-Linux stories seems counterproductive and silly. I mean, there's a reason why MacSlash doesn't get a tenth of the traffic as Slashdot. That is, as a Mac user (and Linux and Windows user), I don't care to visit another site that only covers Mac stuff; that's what Macintouch and MacCentral are for.
So if this site is going to be like the latter, you should have done a poll to see which topic had to get off the swingset and play by itself.The Aqua-fied slash look is pretty cool, though.
The metric system is the tool of the devil! My car gets forty rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I like it!
Great, now people will be complaining about the iMac not having a second mouse button or foot pedal.
> Look at the astonishing Jimmy Neutron, Boy
> Genius It was made for a tiny fraction of what
> was spent on Final Fantasy, and it looks
> terrible in comparison -- but the story is fun
> and engaging.
Yes, I believe that is known as the "South Park effect". So, to be more interesting, the Final Fantasy movie either needed a better plot or a lot more foul language.
> It goes to show that however remarkable a
> technical achievement it may be, FF:SW totally
> lacked the soul needed for animated features.
I agree. The visual effects were stunning, but I felt short-changed in the story department. It felt like they were trying too hard to make the story "big". You can't carry a movie by the visual effects alone. It reminds me of when I visited England and got to see the the Tower of London (or wherever it is that they store all the royal jewelry and related). When one first walks in, everyone is reduced to a slack-jawed yokel at the impressive array of gold and gems. After about ten minutes, however, I found myself bored at looking at the 100th diamond encrusted crown. It's funny because any *one* artifact would have caught my attention for a while, but when you stick them all together, the effect becomes numbing.
Visual effects in a movie can be the same way. At first, you're like, "wow! that looks real!", but after a while the eye candy becomes weary, and a good plot needs to keep you interested for the remaining 1.75 hours.
After I saw the movie, I thought they would have benefited from just extending the plot line of Final Fantasy VIII to a full-length movie. The cuts scenes from that game were engaging and the character development was really good. The result would have been a lot more exciting.
I was waiting for someone to say this!
I refuse to consider any "analysis" of Microsoft's success that doesn't mention the fact they have a monopoly, and they illegally abuse it. As long as they continue to do that, Apple will never get more market share, no matter how good their products are. In fact, Apple in 2000-2002 should be able to serve as this example. Their products are critically acclaimed (iMac, iPod), they seem to be what many people want (Unix + Mac), and they're not incredibly overpriced (except for the Cinema Display). The #1 reason why more people won't buy their products is because they want what everyone else is running-- i.e. Windows -- because they're worried about compatibility.
I don't want to hear that Microsoft is so successful because they don't reengineer software from the ground up, or because they spend so much on development, or because they shoot for mainstream America without also taking into account that they illegally abuse their monopoly. Not doing so is like talking about the flowers on the coffee table without mentioning the giant elephant in the middle of the room.
So, Mr. Katz, please go back and reevaluate your analysis to take that into account.
I have to say, I like the design. It's a very consumer-looking device, and I don't think I've seen another computer that looked like this. I'm sure Apple will keep the current tower-look for their professional machines, but this is a very innovative machine for consumer users.
What's interesting is back in 1997, when Apple introduced the first iMac, a bunch of companies jumped ahead to rip it off: eMachines (are they still around?) and Future Power are two I remember. When Apple sued them, the only defense they came up with was that their designs weren't rip-offs; there was just only so many ways to build a one-piece computer. Of course, the judges disagreed, and the rip-offs were pulled.
Now, Apple releases their successor to the original iMac, and it looks completely different. Of course using an LCD instead of a CRT changes the engineering restraints a bit, but most other computer companies would have made something reminiscent of the previous model. This just goes to show that there are many different ways to build a computer. I think for the computer industry to get out of its rut, it has to collectively forget that incrementally increasing hardware specifications is not the way to "innovate", but this is.
I agree that it seems to be a fake. In the iWalk_Still10.jpg, it shows the Apple logo on the job wheel, something that looks kind of retarded. If look at an iPod, it's clear that their industrial design goes for more of an understated look -- for example, there is no Apple logo on the front of an iPod. In fact, I'd expect an Apple PDA today to look more like an iPod.
The screen looks kind of odd in that shot, too. it looks like the scroll bar on the right doesn't quite line up with the tool bar on the bottom. I'd also expect the UI to look more like Aqua.
If this thing plays MP3s, Apple will be canabalizing sales from their successful iPod. They've been pretty good about marketing recently, and I'd be surprised if they pulled an obvious blunder like that (particularly since they're still stinging from the poor marketing they did with the overpriced Cube).
Finally, if I understand correctly, Steve Jobs hated the Newton. I believe he called it a "damn scribble toy" before he killed it a few years ago. It would be odd for him to resurrect it.
In short, I think this is likely another hoax.
> George Lucas gave up his integrity for:
>
> 1) doing something for the sole reason of attracting the 12 year old girl market, or
Yeah, and the first three movies had so much integrity. That's why it was so crucial to the plot to have Carrie Fisher in a bikini for the first act of the ROTJ. It wasn't for the sole reason of attracting the 12 year old boy market.
Everyone who is complaining about this should get over it. Lucas is putting in his daughters' favorite boy band, and they're going to die in a few seconds on film. What father wouldn't want to do that?
I know that the FCC will mandate HDTV by 2006, but I think that what they're really doing is mandating digital TV by that period, so that broadcasters can effectively fit up to 8 channels in the channel bandwidth where they used to fit only one -- that is, compete with cable television. Consumers won't pay for that necessarily, so equipment providers are marketing the HDTV part of it. So you've got the carrot (HDTV) and the stick (can't use your regular TV after 2006) to push you towards a slightly lower quality TV standard (DTV).
The problem is, picture quality is not the limiting factor in today's media experience. How will high definition fix the quality of television today? Will it suddenly make the latest season of the Simpsons as funny as seasons 3-8? Will it make the damn football games on Fox shorter, so they will no longer pre-empt Futurama on Sundays (at least in Dallas)?
The moral? Wait for HDTV until it's as cheap as a regular TV. Take the extra money you would have spent and donate it to PBS.
Look, we'll get to the "Megabyte"/"Mebibyte" distinction just as soon as we're done with the "hacker"/"cracker" distinction. After that, we can switch everyone in the US to the metric system and call it a day.
I read all the stories and I still can't figure it out? Is my email domain changing again? home.com -> attbi.com -> urscrewed.com
> Bush was at least honest enough to question the
> justification for the case during the campaign,
> while Gore dodged the question every time it was
> raised.
So you're actually crediting GWB with being paid off by Microsoft and staying bought? I guess that is "honest" is a weird sort of way.
And, yes I do think Gore would have had a different position on this issue. Despite what you say, Gore did not "dodge the issue" every time it was raised. On the contrary, Gore told Microsoft employees during direct questioning that he believed anti-trust laws were applicable to the software industry. From a USA Today article:
> opposite. They got the affirmation that it was a
> monopoly and then decided that was "good
> enough"... we don't need to punish them.
You're forgetting something happened in between. The DOJ was doing fine until Microsoft's check to Bush and the other Republicans cleared. Then the following conversation happened:
GWB: Now Ashy, don'cha think you're bein a little hard on Microsoft. Maybe you're misunderstating their position.
JA: But they broke the law! And since we're Republicans, we can't be seen as soft on crime!
GWB: Tell you what, John, if you go easy on the B. Gates and Co, I'll let you tromp on some civil rights. Will that make it better?
JA: Well...
GWB: I'll even give you some new police powers ...
JA: You got a deal! That'll show all those people in Missoura who would rather vote for a dead guy than me!
> I find it hard to believe that there's a great
> consumer need out there for car-delievered
> subscription services
Sure, there is a need, but I don't think it's necessarily digital radio. Mercedes-Benz has their integrated phone/roadside assistance function with GPS (kind of like On-star) that comes standard on every MB today. You pay a yearly subscription for the service-- an incredible $200/year, and that doesn't include airtime!
When you buy the car, you get a free 1-year subscription, plus some airtime. I've heard that the re-sign rate after the first year is fairly high, so some people see some value in it.
However, that could an isolated case. I'm having a hard time believing that people would pay for that, plus some satellite radio service that required a subscription as well. From the perspective of users not wanting to subscribe to multiple services, I can see a downside there -- same reason why many people don't subscribe to multiple magazines. And with MP3 players becoming more popular, many people would view satellite radio as a competitor to MP3 players.
I think there will be some limited markets for this: stations for rural areas, piped muzak for businesses and retail stores, and similar. I don't see it getting big for mainstream consumers when other more accepted substitute items exist: regular radio, cassette tapes, CDs, and MP3 players. Plus, good-ol', traditional conversation!
> This model works quite smoothly, as
> demonstrated by Stalin (too many groups to
> count), Hitler (Jews are the best known
> victims, but many others as well), McCarthy
> ("Communists"), and the Inquisition
> ("Heretics", "infidels", and others).
Isn't it a little farfetched to equate what happened to the Jews in WWII to the police confiscating computers of a bunch of people that didn't want to pay for Photoshop? I can see it now: "First they came for the script-kiddies..." Maybe we can look forward to reading the tragic diary of a young warez hacker who was forced to live in the closet of someone else's dormroom because they couldn't afford Microsoft Word but for whom Nisus Writer or Okito Composer wasn't enough.
I agree that Ashcroft is a scary fellow, but let's try to keep some perspective.
Wait, so you're saying that although Apple gave you the full install, and they relied on your honesty to use that updater only if you have a full copy of the previous version, you should have the right to install the full OS because they provided it to you?
Here Apple is, trusting users with a simple updater -- and remember, they're the same company company shipping the iPod, an MP3 player with virtually no copy-protection -- and you're saying that since they had the nerve to trust you with the full version, they deserve to be ripped off.
That's a great argument for software companies to do whatever it takes to restrict distribution of their software. Kind of like how Microsoft ties XP to your hardware profile (hope you weren't one of the ones complaining about that!).
People who advance the argument you just did are the reason why record companies and software companies assume people will pirate anything they can, and to hell with honesty.
How the heck did the parent comment get moderated as "troll?" Read the moderation rules-- you can't mod a comment down just because you disagree with the comment!
This guy is right. I got my copy of Mac OS 10.1 for free. No charge, no questions, nothing. The sales person gave it to me, along with a coupon for free coffee.
Now Apple's upset because some showed that the free update CD can be used to install the complete version of Mac OS X 10.1. So what's Apple supposed to do now? Force users to bring in their Mac OS X original CD before they can get the update? Remember, unlike with Windows, Apple doesn't require serial numbers to install the OS, and I'd rather they kept it that way.
I wish the people at MacFixIt had thought it though a bit more before they gleefully spread that information around.
To the guy who had a bad experience at CompUSA -- that's not Apple's fault. Particularly because you said they were giving copies away days later. Blame CompUSA, not Apple.
> He started swearing at me and telling me he was :)
> going to come and kill me and my family and all
> this other stuff and hung up on me
Uh, be careful, homeboy. I saw a news report where a lot of companies (like airlines) hire prison labor to act as telemarketers.
An excellent point. Of course, Word was already involved in a scam, so maybe Microsoft didn't want mix them up.
MS Word is part of Microsoft's scam of predatory pricing. I wrote an article for MacKiDo a few years ago that is still relevant today. In it, I discussed how Microsoft was pricing the components in Office to bury the competition.
For example, if you buy Word, Excel, or PowerPoint individually, you pay $379 each. So if you want Word and Excel, shell out $758. But, for $459, you get Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Entourage, and a helluva lot of clipart. So no one in their right mind would buy an office product by itself, and no one can release a product that competes with any product in the Office suite.
I feel sorry for PowerOn Software. They worked pretty hard making improvements to Now up to date (their contact manager suite), but they'll have very little luck getting anyone to buy it for two reasons: (1) Entourage is bundled with Office and (2) Microsoft Exchange Server requires Entourage for an email client (or the older Outlook for Mac). So Power On is in the same situation as Netscape; they have to charge for something (to stay in business) that MS has decided to give away for free.
> There are also two more "wingdings" fonts,
> WingDings 2 and WingDings 3, but I wouldn't know
> how to describe some of the symbols that come up
> for those.
So you're saying that when you type letters using WingDings 2 and 3, you get an image that is unspeakable?
My God, it's worse than we thought!
I can't believe what this MS drone wrote:
.NET, and go learn about the results of a real terrorist. For starters, go over to NYC and help the clean up effort. Or why don't you go donate money to the family of a fireman who lost his life trying to get people out.
> As long as the spirit of innovation is preserved
> and destructive viruses are recognized as
> industrial terrorism, Microsoft will continue to
> provide revolutionary ideas.
That guy then goes on to suggest that Microsoft is a victim of "terrorists". Look, Mr. Thomas, if a script kiddie can bring down a MS server, that's hardly the same as a terrorist. Calling it "terrorism" to gain sympathy while you tow the party line is just plain disgusting.
You want Microsoft to not be a victim? Put away your PowerPoint presentations on
Then you can put your "terrorists" in perspective: If you don't want MS to be "victimized": take security seriously and build a decent server OS, quit breaking anti-trust laws, and start acting like a company that's accountable for its actions.
Yeah, Mr. Moderator, this is a flame, but this guy makes me sick.
I know a lot of people think that anybody should have the right to make a window manager that looks like Aqua, since Apple doesn't own the idea of a "liquid-looking" interface. However, I think this attitude misses an important point.
Would any of the Aqua rip-offs have been created if Apple hadn't created Aqua? Would Microsoft's Luna look like it does without Apple's Aqua? Of course not, they would have continued with the chiselled grayness look that they did for years.
It's easy to take the excellent work someone else has done, tweak it, and then claim it's original work. It's a lot harder to start from scratch and build something truly original. Sure, everybody is influenced by something, but the important thing is to make sure that the influence isn't completely obvious. When it is obvious, that's the sign of simply derivative work. If the influence is not obvious, then you've got creative work. And Apple should have the right to sue the hell out of anyone who creates derivitive works that dilute their own stuff. That means, if it isn't running on Apple hardware running Mac OS X, it shouldn't look like Aqua.
The general consensus at Slashdot seems to be: (1) Aqua sucks, (2) but looky, I can recreate it as a Window manager for my putty colored, 15-mouse-button-equipped, hand-assembled computer, (3) and Apple doesn't have the right to protect their look/feel anyway.
Not intended to be a flame; it's just too early in the morning for me.
Once again, John has done an excellent job reviewing the Mac OS. I have to disagree with him about the need for global menu bar modifications. He says,
He goes on to say it's a bad thing to not allow third parties to modify the menu bar
The problem is, when you let third parties modify the menu bar, they always do it, whether the user wants them to or not. I remember back in Mac OS 9 and before, every software developer wanted their application to be right up front, so it seems everybody was sticking inits in the Extension folder so they could have their own menu bar icon. Microsoft would add one for some sort of shortcut. Palm adds one to access Palm Desktop. Power On Software would stick one on there for their contact manager. I personally found it annoying that these apps would unnecessarily clutter the menu bar, forcing me to dig through through the System Folder to get rid of whatever they stuck in there. It was even more annoying that under Mac OS 9 you have to reboot after removing an init.
Apple is now saying, if you want a global menu item, use the Dock. Of course, some enterprising small developer will hack the menu bar for some specific function, but at least the big software companies won't clutter the menu bar just because they want the "premium real estate".
Related to that, it's even better now that applications are self-contained into bundles, because I found it equally annoying that apps would scatter things all over the System Folder, making it annoying to delete everything.
5 nines are required for wireline telco hardware. You might expect less than that other applications, but if you're talking about telco hardware made by the big companies (Alcatel, Lucent, Nortel), that kind of uptime is taken seriously. This equipment includes local exchanges, access tandems, long distance switches, and the SS7 network. So switches designed for wireline telco usage must meet the fewer than 5 minutes of downtime per year requirement.
SS7 networks are some of the most reliable in the industry. They're designed to be completely redundant, with the specialized switches (called STPs) set up in mated pairs, located in different parts of the country in the event of a catastrophic disaster. HLRs are typically run in mated pairs as well, so if you're updating the software in one, you still won't lose that kind of service because the mate can take over any functions.