No, but maybe more than two. See the rest of my short comment. I don't think I'd call something I wrote "cross-platform" if it only worked on, say, Mac and Linux, or Mac and Windows.
I suppose I'd say that "cross-platform" means to me that it should run on the major current OSes, the ones that have (say) at least a few tens of millions of users. But this is pedantic and I'm not actually terribly interested in it - just bummed that this particular piece of OSS brands itself as "cross-platform" but doesn't run on Mac.
There's no Mac version, and no plans for one either according to the current forums and FAQ. Windows + Linux != cross-platform; maybe you could call it "dual platform." Too bad, it sounds like useful software.
I couldn't care less about booting Windows - I just want to be able to RUN it (or the brain-dead apps I'm sometimes forced to work with). Dual-booting is a pain in the ass - who the hell wants to run only in windows with no OSX available?
Give me basically a natively fast virtual machine. I don't ever want to boot my mac into Windows. Just let me run it like VPC on steroids when I have to, and you've got a sale.
No. Read Lenin's The State and Revolution. The "withering away of the state" is the ultimate goal of communism.
You could (correctly) argue that Lenin doesn't provide the only definition or vision of communism, but his is a widely-held one and formative of many derivatives.
When I tried to play the iMovie my brother made with an iTMS tune of his, QuickTime Player refused to play it on my machine, saying it was "not authorized."
Didn't work on his gf's video iPod, either. Same thing.
Try just the iMovie. The DVD format doesn't have a facility to detect iTMS protection, but iMovie does. My brother made an iMovie of his kid on the beach and put an iTMS song in it and mailed it to my brothers and me, and it refused to play for all of us.
Using Apple's iMovie and iDVD, I'm entirely able to do this with purchased iTMS music without jumping through any hoops. So granted, I'm not using Windows, but I fail to see what you're griping about.
Try playing your video on a different machine not authorized to your itunes account and you'll see what he's griping about.
I guess we just have to assume that everything we transmit electronically on any channel is being recorded and analyzed. The natural instinct if you don't want to be spied on is "use encryption," but I just have to take it on faith that key-based encryption hasn't been secretly broken by someone wicked smart at the NSA since I don't remotely have the math.
Is it known for a fact that PGP doesn't have backdoors for the FBI, or that nobody's got a quantum computer in some underground lab calmly ripping though 2048-bit keys? Who do we believe? And should we also assume that using encryption at all raise your "snoopability score" with the gov't spooks and subject you to more intensive surveillance?
PDP-8 was the first machine I ever came into contact with - I was 5. It typed out text on a green ribbon. It asked me my name. I nervously typed it in (at my dad's prodding) and it asked me if I wanted to play an adding game. My eyes went wide. It was all downhill since.
First machine I had at home: someone's TRS-80 loaned over a weekend. Played Hamurabi all weekend and wrote my first basic programs (to draw rectangles on the screen).
First machine I bought with my own money: Atari 400, age 12. 16k of glorious RAM. Upped it to 48k eventually and even added a floppy drive later. Wrote my first 6502 code with the Mac/65 assembler - a hex/ascii disk editor that remains one of my proudest hacks.
27 years later, I still have my Atari 400 and it still works. The floppy drive is dead, though.:(
I'm in the same situation as the OP; I run non-profit mailing lists for educators with thousands of subscribers, a substantial portion of whom are aol. I can't afford $5/day either (PER MESSAGE, of which there could easily be dozens in a single day).
$0.25 per day, flat rate, for *all mail* getting through? *Possibly* - but that's $90/year, money I'll have to come up with in some fashion. There could easily be a few thousand legitimate messages per day that would need to pass these filters, so figure 250,000 messages per year, and I might be able to come up with $250 per year to let that happen. $250 for 250,000 messages = $0.001 per message, which is probably low enough to be worth it for some spammers. I don't see how it can work.
Looks like I'm going to have to tell AOL/etc users they they're just plain out of luck and should switch to an ISP that will reliably deliver mail if they want to receive it.
This is only an announcement of "plans", and a sign-up for a "free trial" of a *beta* version of the tools. No obvious word on pricing (OSX's Developer Tools are free), or release dates.
Well, I'm not familiar with that particular situation, but as it's involving commerce, I have no problem with it NOT being based in open source. It's entirely different. The Massachusetts ruling is about *government documents that need to be accessed by the public*. Anything that is DESIGNED to be public needs to be done in a way that can actually be ACCESSED by the public.
Bravo to MA for standing up to the 800-lb gorilla. I hope they can stick to their guns. MS could trivially implement ODC if they wanted to, but they know that if they do, they'll see a huge migration away because no-one will need them anymore for anything but the most extreme VB-enhanced documents. I don't see that happening. I still have a nasty feeling MA will eventually cave into who-knows-what pressures because I can't imagine how MS could "let this stand" - it just seems like too big a threat to their core business model. Can a state government withstand a withering onslaught of whatever one of the world's biggest gigungaopolies can throw at it?
I've got my popcorn made and am munching eagerly while watching it all unfold.
If you want the market to determine your prices so you can reap big profits for popular stuff, then you don't get to set a minimum to cover your ass for stuff only a few people want. Your minimum is one cent, if that.
If you're going to play the capitalism game, play it fairly. Otherwise it's just more consumer-gouging, in a new suit.
For fzck's sake, some of us are trying to avoid spoilers for this final go-round in this series! I don't know what's in the extra scenes and I don't WANT to know until I see it. You go ahead and list a bunch of them right in the summary text. At LEAST put up a "spoilers" warning and put that shit in the extended copy!
Try using your brains once in a while, it really doesn't hurt!
...which is reasonable, but my question is: why put it online then?
I don't think I've backpedaled from a click so fast in years. Holy crap. I could feel my retinas withering from the "maximum offensiveness" color scheme, and someone was pounding my head with a guitar turned up to 11 at the same time. Lovely wake-up call, thanks.
Microsoft's underlying problem is that it employs about 22,000 programmers; the open-source community can easily muster ten times that number. That means the capability gap that has opened up between the open-source codebase and Windows is only going to get worse from Microsoft's point of view, not better.
The difference here is that as he says, Microsoft employs 22,000 programmers. If we assume these are full-time employees, then they're working 40 hours a week on whatever Microsoft wants. Do the 220,000 theorized open-source programmers have 40 hours a week to spend on co-ordinated open source projects?
If this wildly conjectured figure is true, it may be that the case that the number of "man-hours" availble in the two camps is comparable, if the open source coders can find an average of 4 hours a week to work on nonpaying projects. Counting heads doesn't make for a very useful comparison in this case, though, unless someone's going to hire the 220,000 to do open source work (and let me know if that's happening, because I'll show up for an application).
I don't think "we" should get too overconfident about the "capability gap." "We" certainly have fabulously talented coders, but Microsoft certainly does too, and never underestimate the power of a focused monolith. Could we get our army to proceed with even one-tenth of Microsoft's coordinated corporate project discipline? How much potentially productive time do open-source coders lose just bickering with each other in lengthy flamewars about what "free" means?
Anybody using uControl? I can't update until I know my caps -> control change will still work. 1.4.3 is the latest release, but it's for 10.3.x -> 10.3.3.
And even if a bunch of butt-munches start "sharing" their music with others, that means more AAC files out there, which means a better chance we'll see more MP3 players that include AAC support in the future.
And don't forget that FairPlay purposely leaves in the Apple ID used to purchase the song. So if people DO start putting their.m4a's up on Kazaa, tracing them back to the owner for major bustitude is trivial. Every file retains its signature. This should limit the appeal to pirates, at least the ones who don't put the files through a second process to remove it. And those guys will pirate things anyway no matter what format they're in.
I just wish I had either an iPod or a windows machine capable of running iTunes so I could use it. My G4s and linux boxen can't do it. And iPods are still way too expensive for me, so I guess I'm stuck with the CD -> mp3 method for now.
...is the only thing that worked for me. I was getting junk fax calls in the middle of the night, always from different sources. I talked to the FCC, I talked to the Attourney General of my state, they both said they'd take copies of the junk faxes for reference, but each complaint had to be processed individually. The one law firm supposedly dealing with junk faxes in my state on junkfaxes.org never responded to inquiry email.
In the end I coughed up $5 a month to Verizon for "anonymous call intercept." All of the junk faxes came from anonymous sources that dodged caller ID, so this service bags them all. I hate having to pay to silence that crap, but it's better than being woken up in the middle of the night every fucking night. I did this about 2 months ago and haven't received a single junk fax (or telemarketing call, for that matter) since.
The market dominance however, has shown us the benefit of having "standard" file types such as.doc that just about everybody in certain industries uses exclusively.
Whose standards are we talking about? Closed-source, proprietary document formats don't help anybody except the seller of the only program that can access them. They're one of the biggest sources of data loss in computing.
A "standard" file type like.rtf is a lot more useful than.doc because it's an open format and anybody can read it. Your.rtf documents will be perfectly readable in 20 years. Your.doc documents almost certainly won't.
Right. For free software a "this might not work" warranty is fine. For something you're PAYING for, it damn well better work, and the customer better have some recourse if it doesn't. Imagine going to Staples for a new phone (say) and finding a bit of tiny-print legalese saying that the phone might not work, and it sucks to be you if it doesn't.
Nobody can guarantee that their software is bug-free, but if it turns out to have bugs (defects), the manufacturer should either make a clear, genuine and kick-ass effort to solve it double-quick, or offer a refund within a warranty period like any other manufacturer on earth.
Some programmers/companies aren't good enough to do that? Then they shouldn't be selling software.
Slashdot Mirror
No, but maybe more than two. See the rest of my short comment. I don't think I'd call something I wrote "cross-platform" if it only worked on, say, Mac and Linux, or Mac and Windows.
I suppose I'd say that "cross-platform" means to me that it should run on the major current OSes, the ones that have (say) at least a few tens of millions of users. But this is pedantic and I'm not actually terribly interested in it - just bummed that this particular piece of OSS brands itself as "cross-platform" but doesn't run on Mac.
There's no Mac version, and no plans for one either according to the current forums and FAQ. Windows + Linux != cross-platform; maybe you could call it "dual platform." Too bad, it sounds like useful software.
I couldn't care less about booting Windows - I just want to be able to RUN it (or the brain-dead apps I'm sometimes forced to work with). Dual-booting is a pain in the ass - who the hell wants to run only in windows with no OSX available?
Give me basically a natively fast virtual machine. I don't ever want to boot my mac into Windows. Just let me run it like VPC on steroids when I have to, and you've got a sale.
No. Read Lenin's The State and Revolution. The "withering away of the state" is the ultimate goal of communism.
You could (correctly) argue that Lenin doesn't provide the only definition or vision of communism, but his is a widely-held one and formative of many derivatives.
When I tried to play the iMovie my brother made with an iTMS tune of his, QuickTime Player refused to play it on my machine, saying it was "not authorized."
Didn't work on his gf's video iPod, either. Same thing.
Try just the iMovie. The DVD format doesn't have a facility to detect iTMS protection, but iMovie does. My brother made an iMovie of his kid on the beach and put an iTMS song in it and mailed it to my brothers and me, and it refused to play for all of us.
Using Apple's iMovie and iDVD, I'm entirely able to do this with purchased iTMS music without jumping through any hoops. So granted, I'm not using Windows, but I fail to see what you're griping about.
Try playing your video on a different machine not authorized to your itunes account and you'll see what he's griping about.
I guess we just have to assume that everything we transmit electronically on any channel is being recorded and analyzed. The natural instinct if you don't want to be spied on is "use encryption," but I just have to take it on faith that key-based encryption hasn't been secretly broken by someone wicked smart at the NSA since I don't remotely have the math.
Is it known for a fact that PGP doesn't have backdoors for the FBI, or that nobody's got a quantum computer in some underground lab calmly ripping though 2048-bit keys? Who do we believe? And should we also assume that using encryption at all raise your "snoopability score" with the gov't spooks and subject you to more intensive surveillance?
PDP-8 was the first machine I ever came into contact with - I was 5. It typed out text on a green ribbon. It asked me my name. I nervously typed it in (at my dad's prodding) and it asked me if I wanted to play an adding game. My eyes went wide. It was all downhill since.
:(
First machine I had at home: someone's TRS-80 loaned over a weekend. Played Hamurabi all weekend and wrote my first basic programs (to draw rectangles on the screen).
First machine I bought with my own money: Atari 400, age 12. 16k of glorious RAM. Upped it to 48k eventually and even added a floppy drive later. Wrote my first 6502 code with the Mac/65 assembler - a hex/ascii disk editor that remains one of my proudest hacks.
27 years later, I still have my Atari 400 and it still works. The floppy drive is dead, though.
I'm in the same situation as the OP; I run non-profit mailing lists for educators with thousands of subscribers, a substantial portion of whom are aol. I can't afford $5/day either (PER MESSAGE, of which there could easily be dozens in a single day).
$0.25 per day, flat rate, for *all mail* getting through? *Possibly* - but that's $90/year, money I'll have to come up with in some fashion. There could easily be a few thousand legitimate messages per day that would need to pass these filters, so figure 250,000 messages per year, and I might be able to come up with $250 per year to let that happen. $250 for 250,000 messages = $0.001 per message, which is probably low enough to be worth it for some spammers. I don't see how it can work.
Looks like I'm going to have to tell AOL/etc users they they're just plain out of luck and should switch to an ISP that will reliably deliver mail if they want to receive it.
This is only an announcement of "plans", and a sign-up for a "free trial" of a *beta* version of the tools. No obvious word on pricing (OSX's Developer Tools are free), or release dates.
right.
s/source/format/;
Well, I'm not familiar with that particular situation, but as it's involving commerce, I have no problem with it NOT being based in open source. It's entirely different. The Massachusetts ruling is about *government documents that need to be accessed by the public*. Anything that is DESIGNED to be public needs to be done in a way that can actually be ACCESSED by the public.
Bravo to MA for standing up to the 800-lb gorilla. I hope they can stick to their guns. MS could trivially implement ODC if they wanted to, but they know that if they do, they'll see a huge migration away because no-one will need them anymore for anything but the most extreme VB-enhanced documents. I don't see that happening. I still have a nasty feeling MA will eventually cave into who-knows-what pressures because I can't imagine how MS could "let this stand" - it just seems like too big a threat to their core business model. Can a state government withstand a withering onslaught of whatever one of the world's biggest gigungaopolies can throw at it?
I've got my popcorn made and am munching eagerly while watching it all unfold.
If you want the market to determine your prices so you can reap big profits for popular stuff, then you don't get to set a minimum to cover your ass for stuff only a few people want. Your minimum is one cent, if that.
If you're going to play the capitalism game, play it fairly. Otherwise it's just more consumer-gouging, in a new suit.
D00d, you got 14,000,000th ps0t!
-1, offtopic, but couldn't resist.
ontday alktay abouthay usenethay!
For fzck's sake, some of us are trying to avoid spoilers for this final go-round in this series! I don't know what's in the extra scenes and I don't WANT to know until I see it. You go ahead and list a bunch of them right in the summary text. At LEAST put up a "spoilers" warning and put that shit in the extended copy!
Try using your brains once in a while, it really doesn't hurt!
...which is reasonable, but my question is: why put it online then?
I don't think I've backpedaled from a click so fast in years. Holy crap. I could feel my retinas withering from the "maximum offensiveness" color scheme, and someone was pounding my head with a guitar turned up to 11 at the same time. Lovely wake-up call, thanks.
...wouldn't you still want to know?
The difference here is that as he says, Microsoft employs 22,000 programmers. If we assume these are full-time employees, then they're working 40 hours a week on whatever Microsoft wants. Do the 220,000 theorized open-source programmers have 40 hours a week to spend on co-ordinated open source projects?
If this wildly conjectured figure is true, it may be that the case that the number of "man-hours" availble in the two camps is comparable, if the open source coders can find an average of 4 hours a week to work on nonpaying projects. Counting heads doesn't make for a very useful comparison in this case, though, unless someone's going to hire the 220,000 to do open source work (and let me know if that's happening, because I'll show up for an application).
I don't think "we" should get too overconfident about the "capability gap." "We" certainly have fabulously talented coders, but Microsoft certainly does too, and never underestimate the power of a focused monolith. Could we get our army to proceed with even one-tenth of Microsoft's coordinated corporate project discipline? How much potentially productive time do open-source coders lose just bickering with each other in lengthy flamewars about what "free" means?
Anybody using uControl? I can't update until I know my caps -> control change will still work. 1.4.3 is the latest release, but it's for 10.3.x -> 10.3.3.
And even if a bunch of butt-munches start "sharing" their music with others, that means more AAC files out there, which means a better chance we'll see more MP3 players that include AAC support in the future.
.m4a's up on Kazaa, tracing them back to the owner for major bustitude is trivial. Every file retains its signature. This should limit the appeal to pirates, at least the ones who don't put the files through a second process to remove it. And those guys will pirate things anyway no matter what format they're in.
And don't forget that FairPlay purposely leaves in the Apple ID used to purchase the song. So if people DO start putting their
I just wish I had either an iPod or a windows machine capable of running iTunes so I could use it. My G4s and linux boxen can't do it. And iPods are still way too expensive for me, so I guess I'm stuck with the CD -> mp3 method for now.
...is the only thing that worked for me. I was getting junk fax calls in the middle of the night, always from different sources. I talked to the FCC, I talked to the Attourney General of my state, they both said they'd take copies of the junk faxes for reference, but each complaint had to be processed individually. The one law firm supposedly dealing with junk faxes in my state on junkfaxes.org never responded to inquiry email.
In the end I coughed up $5 a month to Verizon for "anonymous call intercept." All of the junk faxes came from anonymous sources that dodged caller ID, so this service bags them all. I hate having to pay to silence that crap, but it's better than being woken up in the middle of the night every fucking night. I did this about 2 months ago and haven't received a single junk fax (or telemarketing call, for that matter) since.
The market dominance however, has shown us the benefit of having "standard" file types such as .doc that just about everybody in certain industries uses exclusively.
.rtf is a lot more useful than .doc because it's an open format and anybody can read it. Your .rtf documents will be perfectly readable in 20 years. Your .doc documents almost certainly won't.
Whose standards are we talking about? Closed-source, proprietary document formats don't help anybody except the seller of the only program that can access them. They're one of the biggest sources of data loss in computing.
A "standard" file type like
Right. For free software a "this might not work" warranty is fine. For something you're PAYING for, it damn well better work, and the customer better have some recourse if it doesn't. Imagine going to Staples for a new phone (say) and finding a bit of tiny-print legalese saying that the phone might not work, and it sucks to be you if it doesn't.
Nobody can guarantee that their software is bug-free, but if it turns out to have bugs (defects), the manufacturer should either make a clear, genuine and kick-ass effort to solve it double-quick, or offer a refund within a warranty period like any other manufacturer on earth.
Some programmers/companies aren't good enough to do that? Then they shouldn't be selling software.