Granted, you can't build a fab in your basement. But I imagine governments don't have this problem.
What are the implications of Sun doing this? There are countries that wouldn't be allowed to buy their finished Niagara servers that could now, given time, reproduce their technology. Doesn't this make a mockery of the U.S. technology embargo against certain countries?
Perhaps I'm simply missing something, but if AMD can get into hot water over their processors showing up in Iran why does Sun get a pass for revealing how to construct similar technology? It can't just be immediacy. If anything wouldn't the "blueprints" be of more value than the finished product?
Perhaps. But Apple doesn't need to bid. They "won" the minute Verizon said they would open their network to all devices--essentially the same thing Google intends to do should they win a chunk of the 700 MHz spectrum. Google has reasons to become a carrier. Apple really doesn't, especially if they have open access to networks for any device they may wish to build.
Let's see. . . 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista. . . Yup, only the even numbered releases are any good. Just to be safe they'd best rebrand Windows 7 as Windows 8.;-)
To Apple, Burst now represents an additional barrier to entry into the same market. It won't make a difference necessarily to a large company, but a small potentially more innovative competitor will now have to pay off Burst before using similar features. It seems that Apple's lawyers could have taken out all of the patents, given how successful they were with the 14 they invalidated. They took out just enough to reduce their liability, paid Burst a token sum, and then left Burst enough ammo to challenge others--ultimately to Apple's benefit.
They've done this before. This doesn't seem that different from their settlement with Creative over hierarchical lists for sorting music.
As others have pointed out, Apple produces an integrated stack of a product. Hardware and software that are designed to work together. That's true for the Mac and it's true for the iPhone.
Google and their associates are looking to create a software stack that will run on a variety of hardware platforms. Exactly whose business model does that emulate? I think Apple has less to worry about than Microsoft does. This new platform is designed to fit exactly into the same niche that's currently occupied by Windows Mobile.
Saying Apple should be worried generates lots of headlines and readership, but it seems to me the ongoing Google - Microsoft "war" just opened a new front.
But that doesn't mean they should spend it on Adobe, unless they've gotten wind of something the rest of us haven't.
Apple has a pretty compelling story just now. They have a new OS with tools developers are excited about using. The Mac is gaining market share, so developers are more inclined to write software for the platform. That should include Adobe. However, much of Adobe's software is written using Apple's 32-bit Carbon framework. It will be an expensive proposition for Adobe to move forward and develop new 64-bit Cocoa versions of their code.
If Apple could positively determine that Adobe was not going to make this investment it might make sense for them to buy them to make sure that it happened. Adobe software is hugely important to Apple--look at how many people held off making the transition to Intel Macs until CS3 was ready. Apple is not a huge company, employee-wise. They could eventually develop competing products at the cost of increasing their number of employees, a lead time to market and risking incompatibility with the existing market standard. Given those terms, purchasing Adobe could be the cheaper option.
But unless Adobe plans to abandon the Mac this purchase wouldn't make much sense for Apple.
The primary season is unusually front loaded this time around, and the candidates that intend to contest all of the early states could be dealt a serious blow by a Colbert candidacy. The comments here speak volumes. Lots of people would vote for him either as a protest or because they think it's funny. Given Colbert's media exposure he'd likely do well. But what will that do to the other candidates?
If you were another candidate, would you risk your limited funds in a primary you're likely to lose or have a poor showing in because of a "joke" candidate? If you're hoping to gain momentum from a South Carolina/southern victory, and the future of your campaign depends on it, is it worth taking the risk? I think the answer would be no for a few of the less recognizable candidates. This would have the potential to reduce the importance of South Carolina's primary as well as distort the succeeding primaries. A week after South Carolina there are primaries in 21 states. Colbert won't be competing in any of them. If the party allowed him onto the ballot they would effectively be saying their primary didn't matter in the big scheme of determining who the overall nominee will be.
BTW, I don't live in South Carolina and I'm not a Democrat (or a Republican). But I think they've done the country a favor this time. I enjoy Colbert's routine on television but that's where he should stay. We should resist the urge to turn the process of selecting our leaders into entertainment.
I don't disagree. I'm only pointing out a reason why someone might find paying $1.99 reasonable. Perhaps they want to be part of the conversation when their friends talk about it around the watercooler the next day.
Now a thing or two about sheep. They're stupid herd animals that do what all the other sheep do in order to protect themselves from predators. Buying the box set instead of watching a download or the initial broadcast doesn't make you any less a sheep--after all, you're still consuming the same product as the rest of the herd. Just a bit later, after all the juicy bits have gotten out and the thing has gone a bit stale. If you don't want to be a sheep realize that the entire entertainment industry is a distraction, designed to keep you from noticing that the predators are already ravaging the flock. If you truly don't want to be a sheep turn off your television and pay attention.
It's $1.99 but it's also available the next day, not 6 months later. You have to wait for the DVD release. If you're invested in a serial television show you might be willing to pay that so that you don't have to give the rest of the season a pass because you missed one or two episodes. Not everyone has a Tivo. Heck, not everyone has cable--in my area basic cable costs about $45/month. That's a lot of iTunes downloads if, say, a casual TV viewer decided to dispense with that particular middleman.
As the RIAA lawyer stated. I agree. A few generations ago people quite happily made their own, and played it for the enjoyment of their family and friends. If you believe, as I do, that music is an essential part of what it means to be human I strongly encourage you to get out and make some. Give it away. Invite your friends to listen. Bring your instruments to Slashdot parties. Whatever it takes. Just don't *buy* any from the current music cartels.
Boycott the record companies into extinction.
Somewhere along the line people who are capable of being artists (i.e. each of us) were reduced to being "consumers". It's time we stop just accepting this as a matter of course.
How much clearer could Apple have been? They put out a press release days before releasing the software, warning people that the firmware update could potentially damage unlocked iPhones. Then, when you downloaded the firmware update it threw up a warning screen saying that hacked/unlocked phones could be damaged by the firmware update. If that didn't scream "don't install me on a hacked phone" what would have?
Now people are looking to sue because they ignored these warnings and installed the firmware update anyway. Please grow up and take responsibility for your actions. You hacked the phone. Don't expect updates or further support, and, most of all--HEED THE VENDOR'S WARNINGS!
Polar bears have historically required pack ice to breed and hunt. As the ice melts more and more bears drown. Their numbers are in decline. Officially they're listed as vulnerable, but I believe later this year that status will be downgraded to endangered. Hopefully they'll be able to adapt their behavior to the new, warmer conditions of the arctic. But I wouldn't expect that.
There's plenty of scientific research on this subject. Granted, Wikipedia isn't the best reference. But it will give you pointers to look further: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear
If you have a load of goods to ship from Asia to Europe, would you rather package it on a relatively small ship that can fit through the Panama canal and pay the canal fees, or would you load it on a much larger freighter and send it through the Northwest Passage?
That's why the sovereignty rights matter. If Canada can assert its rights to this Arctic route they can charge whatever the market will bear. Given the relative (potential) cost savings I'd think they could charge a lot.
No need to miss the drag and drop functionality. It's available on every iPod. You simply have to enable disk mode. It will appear on your desktop as an attached drive, and you can then drag and drop to your heart's content. It's more difficult to manage your music this way, but it works fine.
Your other complaints don't bother me much personally, but I will note that they don't apply to the iPhone. It has a separate volume control that's easily accessible and adjustable by feel, or when navigating the touch screen if you're dexterous enough.
From their DRM free downloads. Microsoft is involved. I'm sure Universal love to strip some of the power iTunes/Apple has over the music download market. They're just leveraging their existing partner ($1 per Zune sale to Universal anyone?) to help them do it.
Let me preface this by saying that I work in a Windows free environment. I understand that not everyone has this luxury.
Am I a bad citizen because I don't scan for Windows viruses on my Linux systems? It's almost like another Microsoft tax--you're expected to degrade your performance to prevent their victims, uh, customers (yeah, that's it) from infecting each other. Those folks need to be responsible for their own safety and not expect the rest of us to do it for them. They could start by holding Microsoft accountable and making other choices at purchasing time. To me, Windows isn't worth the hassle.
I suspect you are the only one, but of course there's no way to prove that. There are lots more reasons to change a design then the ones you've listed.
Look at the improvements differently. Apple gets hammered no matter what they do, but they've been on a continual path to make their designs simpler and more easy to service. Granted, the iMac G4 was an abominable machine to service. But the G5 and Intel systems have been pretty nice. After the recent environmental flap it's also a nice concession to go with aluminum and glass for the large components. Both are easily recyclable. Add in the Energy Star compliance and you have a system that is more energy efficient, environmentally friendly, serviceable and superior to the original iMac in every way.
To use a phrase that Bush 41 uttered with such contempt.
Why anyone would trust this administration to get this initiative right in any sense is beyond me. Even with funding and congressional support this Bush couldn't send a man to New Orleans and get it right. Making the attempt resulted in colossal waste and fraud, and a transfer of taxpayer dollars to his political cronies. Attempting to send a man to Mars at his behest would have the same result--only this time with trillions of dollars instead of just billions.
We should be thanking Congress for this. We're all better off waiting for (and supporting!) leaders who actually have vision and are capable of achieving it. Not just making hopeful, distracting speeches but actually focusing on and funding your initiatives to realize your goals.
And you know that I'm a native speaker of English how? You know there are plenty of people whose brains don't have English as their base platform. For all we know the original poster doesn't either.
Here's a generalized stereotype for you. You're a typical American. Or is that Republican? Cheap shots instead of rational arguments.
You could have just said "you're wrong about what the AC said" and shown why.
Car analogies are fine when you do your research, but in this case you're completely wrong. There is no way the VW Golf and the Ford Focus use the same platform, as VW and Ford are two completely independent companies with no agreement for platform sharing.
Now if you had said the Ford Focus and the Volvo S40 you would have been (more) correct, as Ford owns Volvo and they do share platforms. But you're comparing apples and oranges with the Golf and the Focus.
If you had made a valid comparison your argument about safety regulations would otherwise have more merit. I will acknowledge that there is some truth there. But then you continue along another mistaken path...
As to diesel cars, US regulations have forced manufacturers to improve their engine designs. There will be a flood of "clean" diesel engines available in the US in the 2008-9 time frame that meet those "idiotic" regulations you're complaining about, not just from Mercedes but VW/Audi, Honda, Ford and GM. And as for the city car class you say isn't sold here, I guess we'll find out how big the market is in about two months when the Daimler Smart car goes on sale. So again, it's possible to have small cars that meet those "idiotic" regulations. But make no mistake, the market will be limited. City cars will have limited appeal for suburban and rural Americans because they don't fit their lifestyles. If Daimler sells a single Smart in Montana or South Dakota I will be amazed.
BTW, ethanol is not added to make emissions cleaner, it was added to replace MTBE. It's a widely held misnomer that it was added to decrease emissions or whatnot.
Several people have said this during the discussion. That might be true for gasoline that's 10% ethanol but it's not true for E85 "gasoline". E85, at 85% ethanol is designed to both reduce emissions and the use of petro-fuel. Its use is increasing, at least in the US midwest. You don't get the same energy output from E85 (by volume) so you have to use more of the stuff. I'm not aware of any studies that have measured the net emissions of the two fuels by volume, so it's hard to say whether it's doing any good or not.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know whether to applaud you or find a way to have you committed...
So the Unibomber manifesto could someday be read as prophecy after all...
Granted, you can't build a fab in your basement. But I imagine governments don't have this problem.
What are the implications of Sun doing this? There are countries that wouldn't be allowed to buy their finished Niagara servers that could now, given time, reproduce their technology. Doesn't this make a mockery of the U.S. technology embargo against certain countries?
Perhaps I'm simply missing something, but if AMD can get into hot water over their processors showing up in Iran why does Sun get a pass for revealing how to construct similar technology? It can't just be immediacy. If anything wouldn't the "blueprints" be of more value than the finished product?
Perhaps. But Apple doesn't need to bid. They "won" the minute Verizon said they would open their network to all devices--essentially the same thing Google intends to do should they win a chunk of the 700 MHz spectrum. Google has reasons to become a carrier. Apple really doesn't, especially if they have open access to networks for any device they may wish to build.
Let's see. . . 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista. . . Yup, only the even numbered releases are any good. Just to be safe they'd best rebrand Windows 7 as Windows 8. ;-)
To Apple, Burst now represents an additional barrier to entry into the same market. It won't make a difference necessarily to a large company, but a small potentially more innovative competitor will now have to pay off Burst before using similar features. It seems that Apple's lawyers could have taken out all of the patents, given how successful they were with the 14 they invalidated. They took out just enough to reduce their liability, paid Burst a token sum, and then left Burst enough ammo to challenge others--ultimately to Apple's benefit.
They've done this before. This doesn't seem that different from their settlement with Creative over hierarchical lists for sorting music.
As others have pointed out, Apple produces an integrated stack of a product. Hardware and software that are designed to work together. That's true for the Mac and it's true for the iPhone.
Google and their associates are looking to create a software stack that will run on a variety of hardware platforms. Exactly whose business model does that emulate? I think Apple has less to worry about than Microsoft does. This new platform is designed to fit exactly into the same niche that's currently occupied by Windows Mobile.
Saying Apple should be worried generates lots of headlines and readership, but it seems to me the ongoing Google - Microsoft "war" just opened a new front.
The pictures here don't show the true horror. The television news reporters across the street refer to this building as "the technicolor hemorrhoid."
But that doesn't mean they should spend it on Adobe, unless they've gotten wind of something the rest of us haven't.
Apple has a pretty compelling story just now. They have a new OS with tools developers are excited about using. The Mac is gaining market share, so developers are more inclined to write software for the platform. That should include Adobe. However, much of Adobe's software is written using Apple's 32-bit Carbon framework. It will be an expensive proposition for Adobe to move forward and develop new 64-bit Cocoa versions of their code.
If Apple could positively determine that Adobe was not going to make this investment it might make sense for them to buy them to make sure that it happened. Adobe software is hugely important to Apple--look at how many people held off making the transition to Intel Macs until CS3 was ready. Apple is not a huge company, employee-wise. They could eventually develop competing products at the cost of increasing their number of employees, a lead time to market and risking incompatibility with the existing market standard. Given those terms, purchasing Adobe could be the cheaper option.
But unless Adobe plans to abandon the Mac this purchase wouldn't make much sense for Apple.
The primary season is unusually front loaded this time around, and the candidates that intend to contest all of the early states could be dealt a serious blow by a Colbert candidacy. The comments here speak volumes. Lots of people would vote for him either as a protest or because they think it's funny. Given Colbert's media exposure he'd likely do well. But what will that do to the other candidates?
If you were another candidate, would you risk your limited funds in a primary you're likely to lose or have a poor showing in because of a "joke" candidate? If you're hoping to gain momentum from a South Carolina/southern victory, and the future of your campaign depends on it, is it worth taking the risk? I think the answer would be no for a few of the less recognizable candidates. This would have the potential to reduce the importance of South Carolina's primary as well as distort the succeeding primaries. A week after South Carolina there are primaries in 21 states. Colbert won't be competing in any of them. If the party allowed him onto the ballot they would effectively be saying their primary didn't matter in the big scheme of determining who the overall nominee will be.
BTW, I don't live in South Carolina and I'm not a Democrat (or a Republican). But I think they've done the country a favor this time. I enjoy Colbert's routine on television but that's where he should stay. We should resist the urge to turn the process of selecting our leaders into entertainment.
I don't disagree. I'm only pointing out a reason why someone might find paying $1.99 reasonable. Perhaps they want to be part of the conversation when their friends talk about it around the watercooler the next day.
Now a thing or two about sheep. They're stupid herd animals that do what all the other sheep do in order to protect themselves from predators. Buying the box set instead of watching a download or the initial broadcast doesn't make you any less a sheep--after all, you're still consuming the same product as the rest of the herd. Just a bit later, after all the juicy bits have gotten out and the thing has gone a bit stale. If you don't want to be a sheep realize that the entire entertainment industry is a distraction, designed to keep you from noticing that the predators are already ravaging the flock. If you truly don't want to be a sheep turn off your television and pay attention.
It's $1.99 but it's also available the next day, not 6 months later. You have to wait for the DVD release. If you're invested in a serial television show you might be willing to pay that so that you don't have to give the rest of the season a pass because you missed one or two episodes. Not everyone has a Tivo. Heck, not everyone has cable--in my area basic cable costs about $45/month. That's a lot of iTunes downloads if, say, a casual TV viewer decided to dispense with that particular middleman.
As the RIAA lawyer stated. I agree. A few generations ago people quite happily made their own, and played it for the enjoyment of their family and friends. If you believe, as I do, that music is an essential part of what it means to be human I strongly encourage you to get out and make some. Give it away. Invite your friends to listen. Bring your instruments to Slashdot parties. Whatever it takes. Just don't *buy* any from the current music cartels.
Boycott the record companies into extinction.
Somewhere along the line people who are capable of being artists (i.e. each of us) were reduced to being "consumers". It's time we stop just accepting this as a matter of course.
And work on your reading comprehension.
How much clearer could Apple have been? They put out a press release days before releasing the software, warning people that the firmware update could potentially damage unlocked iPhones. Then, when you downloaded the firmware update it threw up a warning screen saying that hacked/unlocked phones could be damaged by the firmware update. If that didn't scream "don't install me on a hacked phone" what would have?
Now people are looking to sue because they ignored these warnings and installed the firmware update anyway. Please grow up and take responsibility for your actions. You hacked the phone. Don't expect updates or further support, and, most of all--HEED THE VENDOR'S WARNINGS!
These potential lawsuits will go nowhere.
This is so wrong I don't know where to begin.
Polar bears have historically required pack ice to breed and hunt. As the ice melts more and more bears drown. Their numbers are in decline. Officially they're listed as vulnerable, but I believe later this year that status will be downgraded to endangered. Hopefully they'll be able to adapt their behavior to the new, warmer conditions of the arctic. But I wouldn't expect that.
There's plenty of scientific research on this subject. Granted, Wikipedia isn't the best reference. But it will give you pointers to look further: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear
Try "potentially lucrative" then.
If you have a load of goods to ship from Asia to Europe, would you rather package it on a relatively small ship that can fit through the Panama canal and pay the canal fees, or would you load it on a much larger freighter and send it through the Northwest Passage?
That's why the sovereignty rights matter. If Canada can assert its rights to this Arctic route they can charge whatever the market will bear. Given the relative (potential) cost savings I'd think they could charge a lot.
No need to miss the drag and drop functionality. It's available on every iPod. You simply have to enable disk mode. It will appear on your desktop as an attached drive, and you can then drag and drop to your heart's content. It's more difficult to manage your music this way, but it works fine.
Your other complaints don't bother me much personally, but I will note that they don't apply to the iPhone. It has a separate volume control that's easily accessible and adjustable by feel, or when navigating the touch screen if you're dexterous enough.
From their DRM free downloads. Microsoft is involved. I'm sure Universal love to strip some of the power iTunes/Apple has over the music download market. They're just leveraging their existing partner ($1 per Zune sale to Universal anyone?) to help them do it.
Let me preface this by saying that I work in a Windows free environment. I understand that not everyone has this luxury.
Am I a bad citizen because I don't scan for Windows viruses on my Linux systems? It's almost like another Microsoft tax--you're expected to degrade your performance to prevent their victims, uh, customers (yeah, that's it) from infecting each other. Those folks need to be responsible for their own safety and not expect the rest of us to do it for them. They could start by holding Microsoft accountable and making other choices at purchasing time. To me, Windows isn't worth the hassle.
I suspect you are the only one, but of course there's no way to prove that. There are lots more reasons to change a design then the ones you've listed.
Look at the improvements differently. Apple gets hammered no matter what they do, but they've been on a continual path to make their designs simpler and more easy to service. Granted, the iMac G4 was an abominable machine to service. But the G5 and Intel systems have been pretty nice. After the recent environmental flap it's also a nice concession to go with aluminum and glass for the large components. Both are easily recyclable. Add in the Energy Star compliance and you have a system that is more energy efficient, environmentally friendly, serviceable and superior to the original iMac in every way.
Depends on what it's made of. . .it would be much safer to just open a hyperspace window and have it pass through the Earth. No grenades necessary. ;-)
To use a phrase that Bush 41 uttered with such contempt.
Why anyone would trust this administration to get this initiative right in any sense is beyond me. Even with funding and congressional support this Bush couldn't send a man to New Orleans and get it right. Making the attempt resulted in colossal waste and fraud, and a transfer of taxpayer dollars to his political cronies. Attempting to send a man to Mars at his behest would have the same result--only this time with trillions of dollars instead of just billions.
We should be thanking Congress for this. We're all better off waiting for (and supporting!) leaders who actually have vision and are capable of achieving it. Not just making hopeful, distracting speeches but actually focusing on and funding your initiatives to realize your goals.
And you know that I'm a native speaker of English how? You know there are plenty of people whose brains don't have English as their base platform. For all we know the original poster doesn't either.
Here's a generalized stereotype for you. You're a typical American. Or is that Republican? Cheap shots instead of rational arguments.
You could have just said "you're wrong about what the AC said" and shown why.
Car analogies are fine when you do your research, but in this case you're completely wrong. There is no way the VW Golf and the Ford Focus use the same platform, as VW and Ford are two completely independent companies with no agreement for platform sharing.
Now if you had said the Ford Focus and the Volvo S40 you would have been (more) correct, as Ford owns Volvo and they do share platforms. But you're comparing apples and oranges with the Golf and the Focus.
If you had made a valid comparison your argument about safety regulations would otherwise have more merit. I will acknowledge that there is some truth there. But then you continue along another mistaken path...
As to diesel cars, US regulations have forced manufacturers to improve their engine designs. There will be a flood of "clean" diesel engines available in the US in the 2008-9 time frame that meet those "idiotic" regulations you're complaining about, not just from Mercedes but VW/Audi, Honda, Ford and GM. And as for the city car class you say isn't sold here, I guess we'll find out how big the market is in about two months when the Daimler Smart car goes on sale. So again, it's possible to have small cars that meet those "idiotic" regulations. But make no mistake, the market will be limited. City cars will have limited appeal for suburban and rural Americans because they don't fit their lifestyles. If Daimler sells a single Smart in Montana or South Dakota I will be amazed.
Several people have said this during the discussion. That might be true for gasoline that's 10% ethanol but it's not true for E85 "gasoline". E85, at 85% ethanol is designed to both reduce emissions and the use of petro-fuel. Its use is increasing, at least in the US midwest. You don't get the same energy output from E85 (by volume) so you have to use more of the stuff. I'm not aware of any studies that have measured the net emissions of the two fuels by volume, so it's hard to say whether it's doing any good or not.