The version of OS X that comes after Mountain Lion will only let you install applications/software from the App Store. Again, Steve's plan; not Tim's.
How is that supposed to work? Is Apple going to start selling OSX desktops and laptops that won't run scripts or executables?
You'll pardon me for thinking this is a pretty weak prediction. Here's an alternative: One day Apple will start selling iOS devices in the Macbook or iMac form factor. See how much better that is? If you also assume they'll kill OSX in the process, then you get your doom and gloom AND you don't have to explain how they'd actually go about locking down their OS to be so restrictive yet still somewhat useful.
Garden Wall is what it's called by Apple Fanboys. Apple users call it the Jail Wall. That's why your iOS devices need to be jail-broken, not garden-broken. (Score:1, Informative)
I wish Slashdot would interview the guy who decided to spend the mod point on this comment.
Some of us are unwilling to trash our genuine identities, contravene our values and castrate ourselves in order to win the approval of vapid and shallow women.
So you refuse to move out of your parents' basement on principle?
Speaking of which, the iPod nano would make a nice smart watch; it looks decent with the right strap.
I have one and I love it. *BUT* I don't think many around here would. Here's the pro's and cons:
Pros: - Very lightweight and very comfy to wear. (YMMV.) - I love the display and the various watch faces. (Dear Apple, we want an app store for iPod Nano!) - People notice when it lights up and wonder what it is I have. It is definitely a conversation piece. - I put a bunch of comedy albums on it so once in a while it's a great anti-boredom device. - It has a built-in FM radio that you can even pause, but I'll admit I never really use that. - I've never tried it but I can use it as a flash drive. - The stopwatch and timer app are VERY intuitive and work well.
Cons: - I've only had it go two days on a charge. For me it's not a biggie, but I *know* a lot of people would hate that. - This thing has NO ability to make sound. If you need alarms this watch is not for you. - You have to hit the button to get the display to come on, and sometimes it goes to the music player instead of the clock. I live with this annoyance but wish I didn't have to. - Once in a while the music player runs without my knowledge and kills the battery. - Not even CLOSE to waterproof. It has a headphone jack so watch it in the rain.
I love it, but it's not a watch, it's an iPod Nano stuck to my wrist. I really do hope Apple develops an iPod watch one day but for now this'll suffice. For now I wouldn't recommend it unless my list of Cons was fully understood and accepted.
How do you figure? Bandwidth is a scarce resource in precisely the way electricity is.
No, it is not. You cannot, for example, 'bank' bandwidth.
There is a finite amount available -- sure they can expand capacity, but that's not free.
Nobody said it was free. But we're not talking about a scenario where they're choosing a fair way to dole out resources, they're choosing a way that involves everybody paying more money. If this were about bandwidth being exactly like electricity, the the billing for it would be WAY different than it is now.
For future release to the public, well, one would HOPE that they stick with what works. If they follow my hunch and the test cars quietly navigate the Nevada roads in safety... then it would stand to reason that publicly marketed models would retain the same levels of anonymity.
Won't happen.
Per my argument above, it should be easy enough to Google to release liability if a car manufacturer deviates from their testing methods. If forced to install an extra tail light or some other vestigial bit, Google would have their defense in the bag. "We didn't test it with that part... that part (and/or people's reaction to it) caused the accident. Blame Ford" (or whoever)
Um... no. They'll be liable for the cause of the crash. Simple as that. If they're forced to add something per whatever regulations are in place at the time, they won't be able to release it until they've done so, and they're gonna test it with the new configuration.
I think we have different opinions of gaudy or noticeable: Here's an example of the Japanese decals I mentioned for young and old drivers. I can't see the US requiring anything more than that, if anything at all. More on that later...
There is no 'gaudy' in this conversation. It's all about whether or not the drivers around this car know it's on auto-pilot. Just your illustrations alone are more than enough to alert other drivers. (Not to mention R2D2 sticking out the top...)
The fact is: a google auto-pilot car cruised around a major metro area for several months without anyone the wiser.
The fact is that doesn't matter. Let's see if it can cruise around now without being noticed. Better yet, let's see what happens when (you may have heard this before...) there are a million of them on the road.
I went down the path that being highly recognizable would be the ONLY way for such a car to be unsafe, per the lookie-loos comment, but that the car itself, and the auto-drive technology would be perfectly safe (hence "in due time" probably being a very long time).
What you just said is that it's safe but it's not safe. And ya know what? That is *really* important. You fan filter out half the equation to try to make your logic work, but in real life it's still there. Your basis for this assumption is that it'll be some big secret. I won't happen for liability reasons, it won't happen for marketing reasons, it won't happen because everybody and their mother wants to see one of these cars, it won't happen unless Google somehow manages to actually conceal the devices on the roof of the car, and it won't happen due to possible regulations making it clear who's driving.
Once a.) People drive along-side them comfortably and b.) Google has done the inevitable revisions to their software to improve safety and performance, then yeah we're more than likely to see a drop in traffic accident statistics. That first year is going to be really rough. And now we're right back to where I said: Wait for version 3.
Here in rural Manitoba we get 7Mbps down / 768Kbps up for $46 + tax for a 60GB cap. Fucking sense of entitlement.
I realize it's fun to play songs on the hate parade when talking about Americans, but entitlement is not the word. At the next town over they can get unlimited service with a different provider. That's an issue of value, not entitlement.
That's mainly due to complacency, not due to a limitation of resources. Maybe I'm not in the majority, and that'd make you right, but if they want my money they'll have to offer what I want.
I remove the ads from it automagically before watching. Still illegal?
No, but it's worth mentioning that I never said that it was.
Is it any less moral than downloading a copy via bit torrent or Usenet with the ads already removed?
I don't know. But I'll put this in another perspective: If your favorite ad-supported website goes off-line, would you feel bad if you had Ad-Block on?
It's a balance. On the one hand, these content providers need to respond to supply and demand. On the other hand, there's no free lunch. They need to be reasonable and you still need to pay. To me the word 'moral' has nothing to do with this conversation.
Seriously, you are like the archtypical obscenely fat glutton at the $9 all-you-can-eat-buffet threatening to take his business somewhere else.
That's said to hear. I hope your view isn't typical. If AT&T pulls this I'll be leaving, too. I'm saying this as someone who doesn't even use half of the data available in their tiered plans.
They probably can't wait for you to leave.
They cannot wait for me to pay more for less service. If you don't believe me, go look up how they charge for SMS messages.
Slashdot Mirror
The version of OS X that comes after Mountain Lion will only let you install applications/software from the App Store. Again, Steve's plan; not Tim's.
How is that supposed to work? Is Apple going to start selling OSX desktops and laptops that won't run scripts or executables?
You'll pardon me for thinking this is a pretty weak prediction. Here's an alternative: One day Apple will start selling iOS devices in the Macbook or iMac form factor. See how much better that is? If you also assume they'll kill OSX in the process, then you get your doom and gloom AND you don't have to explain how they'd actually go about locking down their OS to be so restrictive yet still somewhat useful.
Garden Wall is what it's called by Apple Fanboys. Apple users call it the Jail Wall. That's why your iOS devices need to be jail-broken, not garden-broken. (Score:1, Informative)
I wish Slashdot would interview the guy who decided to spend the mod point on this comment.
Ah, okay.
Thanks for clarifying. I live a close to an airport so I was just being a lil paranoid.
Have a good weekend!
You need to get out of your basement once in a while.
Isn't this really the sort of knowledge gained by spending more time in the basement?
37 posts about the Pentium division bug.
Just like the speed of these processors, if we lower the quality of the humor, we can get more posts output to the site!
The light is from a radioactive Tritium source ...
Are you able to get that past the TSA?
Some of us are unwilling to trash our genuine identities, contravene our values and castrate ourselves in order to win the approval of vapid and shallow women.
So you refuse to move out of your parents' basement on principle?
Speaking of which, the iPod nano would make a nice smart watch; it looks decent with the right strap.
I have one and I love it. *BUT* I don't think many around here would. Here's the pro's and cons:
Pros:
- Very lightweight and very comfy to wear. (YMMV.)
- I love the display and the various watch faces. (Dear Apple, we want an app store for iPod Nano!)
- People notice when it lights up and wonder what it is I have. It is definitely a conversation piece.
- I put a bunch of comedy albums on it so once in a while it's a great anti-boredom device.
- It has a built-in FM radio that you can even pause, but I'll admit I never really use that.
- I've never tried it but I can use it as a flash drive.
- The stopwatch and timer app are VERY intuitive and work well.
Cons:
- I've only had it go two days on a charge. For me it's not a biggie, but I *know* a lot of people would hate that.
- This thing has NO ability to make sound. If you need alarms this watch is not for you.
- You have to hit the button to get the display to come on, and sometimes it goes to the music player instead of the clock. I live with this annoyance but wish I didn't have to.
- Once in a while the music player runs without my knowledge and kills the battery.
- Not even CLOSE to waterproof. It has a headphone jack so watch it in the rain.
I love it, but it's not a watch, it's an iPod Nano stuck to my wrist. I really do hope Apple develops an iPod watch one day but for now this'll suffice. For now I wouldn't recommend it unless my list of Cons was fully understood and accepted.
Well it would mean we'd get Firefly back, that's for sure.
During the early tests of this device one technician was knocked unconscious after repeatedly urging her to shout "Hand, pick up the ball!"
How do you figure? Bandwidth is a scarce resource in precisely the way electricity is.
No, it is not. You cannot, for example, 'bank' bandwidth.
There is a finite amount available -- sure they can expand capacity, but that's not free.
Nobody said it was free. But we're not talking about a scenario where they're choosing a fair way to dole out resources, they're choosing a way that involves everybody paying more money. If this were about bandwidth being exactly like electricity, the the billing for it would be WAY different than it is now.
For future release to the public, well, one would HOPE that they stick with what works. If they follow my hunch and the test cars quietly navigate the Nevada roads in safety... then it would stand to reason that publicly marketed models would retain the same levels of anonymity.
Won't happen.
Per my argument above, it should be easy enough to Google to release liability if a car manufacturer deviates from their testing methods. If forced to install an extra tail light or some other vestigial bit, Google would have their defense in the bag. "We didn't test it with that part... that part (and/or people's reaction to it) caused the accident. Blame Ford" (or whoever)
Um... no. They'll be liable for the cause of the crash. Simple as that. If they're forced to add something per whatever regulations are in place at the time, they won't be able to release it until they've done so, and they're gonna test it with the new configuration.
I think we have different opinions of gaudy or noticeable: Here's an example of the Japanese decals I mentioned for young and old drivers. I can't see the US requiring anything more than that, if anything at all. More on that later...
There is no 'gaudy' in this conversation. It's all about whether or not the drivers around this car know it's on auto-pilot. Just your illustrations alone are more than enough to alert other drivers. (Not to mention R2D2 sticking out the top...)
The fact is: a google auto-pilot car cruised around a major metro area for several months without anyone the wiser.
The fact is that doesn't matter. Let's see if it can cruise around now without being noticed. Better yet, let's see what happens when (you may have heard this before...) there are a million of them on the road.
I went down the path that being highly recognizable would be the ONLY way for such a car to be unsafe, per the lookie-loos comment, but that the car itself, and the auto-drive technology would be perfectly safe (hence "in due time" probably being a very long time).
What you just said is that it's safe but it's not safe. And ya know what? That is *really* important. You fan filter out half the equation to try to make your logic work, but in real life it's still there. Your basis for this assumption is that it'll be some big secret. I won't happen for liability reasons, it won't happen for marketing reasons, it won't happen because everybody and their mother wants to see one of these cars, it won't happen unless Google somehow manages to actually conceal the devices on the roof of the car, and it won't happen due to possible regulations making it clear who's driving.
Once a.) People drive along-side them comfortably and b.) Google has done the inevitable revisions to their software to improve safety and performance, then yeah we're more than likely to see a drop in traffic accident statistics. That first year is going to be really rough. And now we're right back to where I said: Wait for version 3.
Oh... wait, did I just fall for a whoosh? Oops...
Heh. You got a D in economics, didnt'cha.
Here in rural Manitoba we get 7Mbps down / 768Kbps up for $46 + tax for a 60GB cap. Fucking sense of entitlement.
I realize it's fun to play songs on the hate parade when talking about Americans, but entitlement is not the word. At the next town over they can get unlimited service with a different provider. That's an issue of value, not entitlement.
"LaForge here, we're geeting a whoosh sound from the phase inducers!"
You really missed the point of my question.
That's mainly due to complacency, not due to a limitation of resources. Maybe I'm not in the majority, and that'd make you right, but if they want my money they'll have to offer what I want.
Boy do I agree with you about the double-dip. But it doesn't really matter, though. Lack of ad revenue kills TV shows.
How do they know? It's simple: They want their advertisers to keep coming back. And... guess what? :)
I remove the ads from it automagically before watching. Still illegal?
No, but it's worth mentioning that I never said that it was.
Is it any less moral than downloading a copy via bit torrent or Usenet with the ads already removed?
I don't know. But I'll put this in another perspective: If your favorite ad-supported website goes off-line, would you feel bad if you had Ad-Block on?
It's a balance. On the one hand, these content providers need to respond to supply and demand. On the other hand, there's no free lunch. They need to be reasonable and you still need to pay. To me the word 'moral' has nothing to do with this conversation.
*HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA*
And you'll get $10, where as the attorneys will get $100 mil.
Yeah, I'm sure Verizon would laugh like that at giving $100 mil. to lawyers.
Seriously, you are like the archtypical obscenely fat glutton at the $9 all-you-can-eat-buffet threatening to take his business somewhere else.
That's said to hear. I hope your view isn't typical. If AT&T pulls this I'll be leaving, too. I'm saying this as someone who doesn't even use half of the data available in their tiered plans.
They probably can't wait for you to leave.
They cannot wait for me to pay more for less service. If you don't believe me, go look up how they charge for SMS messages.
Small nitpick: Most DVRs do NOT cut out advertising. They just make it possible to fast forward through them.
I'll put it another way: My wife and I watch stuff all the time via DVR, we still catch a number of commercials.
If I can watch, oh I don't know, Seinfeld reruns on TV over the air for free...
Actually, you're not watching them for free. Your eyeballs earn them money in the form of advertising.
A better example might be: "If I'm an HBO subscriber and I download the episode of Game of Thrones that I missed..."
That said, I actually do agree with you, it's just the whole advertising thing is a big speed-bump in your argument.