Customers who bought a Macintosh are very unlikely to accept software that runs 5-10% slower, and _in Windows_.
I doubt they would even notice a 5-10% slowdown.
I expect that only a small percentage of Macintosh owners would be willing to _use_ Windows software. The percentage who would be willing to _buy_ Windows software, especially after a Macintosh product was abandoned, is miniscule.
You obviously did not read the mac fanboy excitement in the win32 virtualization & boot camp stories. It was rampant, you could almost smell how eager the fanbois were to run windows software (embarassing, but true).
Oh - and I'm afraid the Apple fanboism is being watered down by the legions of clueless ipod inspired switchers - these guys don't give a crap if it used to be mac software, they'll buy it regardless.
Citing a source doesn't act like a get out of jail free card. Unless you put large sections in italics, or quotes, or something else to signify that it is not your work, it's still considered plagiarism. I don't know the specifics for when to use quotes, italics, etc. but you should be able to Google it.
Read the definition of cite - it is differnt to "link to" or "acknowledge"
I've shown that the phrase "open source" can be interpreted as "source code is available to see", an interpretation which you have not directly criticized.
Lets go back & look at you're first statement in this thread:
No, "open source" means "the source code is available for you to see"
I have shown that:
1) The word 'open' comprehensively means more then "viewable" (in particular, it means access that it two way) 2) When you use multiple words, they gain meaning. The term "Open Source" is commonly held to mean viewable, redistributable code.
Please provide me with a link (hell, I'm not even asking for credible anymore) from someone who agrees with your definition. (hint, if you're alone on the Internet, you're almost certainly wrong).
The original contention was that Apple was lying when they said that Darwin was "open source", which is pure horse shit.
I'm afraid you're wrong again (why am I not surprised):
1) Apple does not say Darwin is open source (XNU is a component of darwin, and is not listed on Apple's OSS page). 2) If they did, they would be lying.
Instead of trying to redefine open source to make Apple look good, why didn't you just correct the original poster about Apple saying Darwin was open source? Then you wouldn't have looked so ignorant.
42 entries found for open. The first 10 are listed below.
1 : having no enclosing or confining barrier : accessible on all or nearly all sides 2 a (1) : being in a position or adjustment to permit passage : not shut or locked (2) : having a barrier (as a door) so adjusted as to allow passage b : having the lips parted c : not buttoned or zipped 3 a : completely free from concealment : exposed to general view or knowledge b : exposed or vulnerable to attack or question : SUBJECT [and so on - read all definitions before you respond to the ones I've quoted.]
42 definitions... most of which go a good deal beyond 'accessable'.
Not only does the he term implies a hell of a lot more then you say it does, but it's commonn usage implies redistribution as well.
Again, I challenge you to provide a link that supports your point of view.
Sorry, I didn't mean to jump on you robertjw, I just read your post too fast & objected to: which is the uncredited use (both intentional and unintentional) 'cause I think intention does matter.
But your post was quite correct - I hadn't read the parent to it & took it out of context.
No. Plagiarism is neither a criminal nor civil offence. In fact, plagiarism is not a legal term and is not legally recognised. But breach of copyright or intellectual property rights (IPR) is illegal; if an act of plagiarism breaches copyright or IPR then it is illegal. Not every act of plagiarism is a breach of copyright. For example, you can plagiarise work that has no copyright.
Why is that plagiarism? I cited the source, didn't I?
That's a grayer area.
On slashdot, and in the context of quoting someone further up in a thread, I would say it's not plagiarism. But if you'd, say linked to another blog, it might have crossed the line.
Looking at the definition for cite:
1. To quote as an authority or example. 2. To mention or bring forward as support, illustration, or proof: cited several instances of insubordinate behavior.
I think it could be argued that under some circumstance you did not "cite" me.
I agree with you that it a matter of presentation completely.
Definition: In an instructional setting, plagiarism occurs when a writer deliberately uses someone else's language, ideas, or other original (not common-knowledge) material without acknowledging its source.
You might also be interested looking at the definition on dictionary.com
Has any comment begining with "Bzzzzt!" (or ending with "Nuff said") ever not been wrong?
There are rules for handling source material, of which crediting the author is only one. It's not appropriate to copy long swathes of text just because you threw in a citation somewhere.
I made no mention of whether it's appropriate or not - just that its not plagiarism if you cite the source - passing off the work as your own is one of the things that seperates copyright infringement from plagiarism.
Plagiarism: n 1: a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work 2: the act of plagiarizing; taking someone's words or ideas as if they were your own. [emph mine]
No, its not plagiarism. I'm not arguing about the ethics of what you describe. Just saying that plagiarism neccessitates passing off the work as your own. If you site a source, its no more plagiarism then copying a music CD is plagiarism.
I think you mean to say that there are no worms self-propogating themselves on OS X and Linux. There are indeed viruses for both platforms. Here is an example [linuxdevcenter.com] Here is a humorous example [newsforge.com], also I can direct you to Talking about virus prevalence [desktoplinux.com]
No, I meant to say "The fact is that there are no viruses for either os x or linux spreading in the wild."
None of the examples you link to refute that.
Perhaps at some point in the future it may become neccessary for linux & macs (particularly macs) to get a virus scanner, but windows is so much easier a target, that it is not yet neccessary.
You are sending a very bad message by implying that using Linux or some other OS will void the need to protect your computer from viruses. Your hatred for MS is blinding you.
The fact is that there are no viruses for either os x or linux spreading in the wild.
He wants scanners that provide real-time protection, not just on-demand scanning.
Fair enough, I read it too quickly. However, clamwin can be integrated into outlook & ie (two major vectors), and be setup to run periodically.
As every 'real time' protection anti virus scanner I've ever reccommended has been more trouble then its worth (high resource usage, memory leaks & false alarm pop-ups causing the user to turn it off every single time), I would still go with my reccommendation.
It does not break down. A system at 90% is just as annoying as a video at 90%.
No, it does break down. A video at 90% speed is unwatchable. A computer at 90% speed is quite usable.
In fact - as you rightly point out, no matter what system you're using, it will almost certainly be running at less then 90% of its full speed.
I paid for full speed, I want full speed.
Well, I don't disagree with you there.
So yeah. My point is that Virtualization will not destroy the native OS market. Not a chance in hades. Too many performance hounds like myself in the work to cause native to fail to be profitable.
It probably won't kill it, but it will vastly reduce the amount of 'native' software.
I think the vast majority of people will quite happily accept a 5-10% slowdown.
Utter nonsense. Wind Turbines kill no more birds then any other structure the same size. And frankly, they look fantastic (I realize that's completely subjective, but apparantly the parent doesn't).
Your post is one of those "oh, people object to everything, so there's no point trying to switch from fossil fuels" type whines.
Try watching a video that's been slowed to 90%, and you'll see what I mean by slow.
A video slowed to 90% would be annoying, but any modern system slowed to 90% would play a video at full speed. Your analogy breaks down.
As the mac-buying public has no problem with rosetta slow downs on intel hardware, I imagine they wouldn't have any problems with other slow downs due to emulation layers.
Chinese Language Website + Anti US Statements + Article about US and China relationship = Support for China?
No, that still doesn't add up. This is obviously hard for you to understand, but support for one country does not mean being anti another country. Making statements criticising one country is not the same as support for another country.
Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
And as an aside (hopefully this will shut you up): Actually read the "Chinese Language Website" You'll find its trilingual (so you'll be able to understand) and also, criticises China.
So, what we have is (according to you): [blog critical of china (not mentioned in post)] + [sentiment critical of US] = [pro china]
It's a $30 program that provides a far sight more chance of recovering a stolen laptop than nothing does.
Buy $30 worth of insurance - a much better solution.
enough about computers to know how to reset the firmware password on a Mac is more than likely going to be tech-savvy enough to be able to get a better job than stealing computers off of tables at coffee shops.
If the firmware password is set (I doubt it), then the thief will simply sell it to someone who knows how to bypass the firmware password. The vast majority of stolen laptops pass through a few fences who most certainly know how to do a reinstall.
It's just like locked cell phones. They're no deterrent to cell phone thieves either.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh!
:-)
There you are - I was wondering why you hadn't replied! How are you today? Still haven't worked out how to create an account I see
Customers who bought a Macintosh are very unlikely to accept software that runs 5-10% slower, and _in Windows_.
I doubt they would even notice a 5-10% slowdown.
I expect that only a small percentage of Macintosh owners would be willing to _use_ Windows software. The percentage who would be willing to _buy_ Windows software, especially after a Macintosh product was abandoned, is miniscule.
You obviously did not read the mac fanboy excitement in the win32 virtualization & boot camp stories. It was rampant, you could almost smell how eager the fanbois were to run windows software (embarassing, but true).
Oh - and I'm afraid the Apple fanboism is being watered down by the legions of clueless ipod inspired switchers - these guys don't give a crap if it used to be mac software, they'll buy it regardless.
Citing a source doesn't act like a get out of jail free card. Unless you put large sections in italics, or quotes, or something else to signify that it is not your work, it's still considered plagiarism. I don't know the specifics for when to use quotes, italics, etc. but you should be able to Google it.
Read the definition of cite - it is differnt to "link to" or "acknowledge"
Lets go back & look at you're first statement in this thread:I have shown that:
1) The word 'open' comprehensively means more then "viewable" (in particular, it means access that it two way)
2) When you use multiple words, they gain meaning. The term "Open Source" is commonly held to mean viewable, redistributable code.
Please provide me with a link (hell, I'm not even asking for credible anymore) from someone who agrees with your definition. (hint, if you're alone on the Internet, you're almost certainly wrong).
The original contention was that Apple was lying when they said that Darwin was "open source", which is pure horse shit.
I'm afraid you're wrong again (why am I not surprised):
1) Apple does not say Darwin is open source (XNU is a component of darwin, and is not listed on Apple's OSS page).
2) If they did, they would be lying.
Instead of trying to redefine open source to make Apple look good, why didn't you just correct the original poster about Apple saying Darwin was open source? Then you wouldn't have looked so ignorant.
Now that is funny!
(If you get the joke, you'll mod the parent informative, and this funny!)
Are you sure you want me to do that? 42 definitions... most of which go a good deal beyond 'accessable'.
Not only does the he term implies a hell of a lot more then you say it does, but it's commonn usage implies redistribution as well.
Again, I challenge you to provide a link that supports your point of view.
Sorry, I didn't mean to jump on you robertjw, I just read your post too fast & objected to: which is the uncredited use (both intentional and unintentional) 'cause I think intention does matter.
But your post was quite correct - I hadn't read the parent to it & took it out of context.
That is interesting (and informative) GeorgeH,
From the fourth article google returned (most were similar, but this seemed clearest to me):I did not know that!
That's a grayer area.
On slashdot, and in the context of quoting someone further up in a thread, I would say it's not plagiarism. But if you'd, say linked to another blog, it might have crossed the line.
Looking at the definition for cite: I think it could be argued that under some circumstance you did not "cite" me.
I agree with you that it a matter of presentation completely.
plagiarism, which is the uncredited use (both intentional and unintentional) of somebody else's words or ideas.
The site you link to contains the following statement:But helpfully links to the helpful Defining and Avoiding Plagiarism:The WPA Statement on Best Practices.That site contains the following:You might also be interested looking at the definition on dictionary.com
Has any comment begining with "Bzzzzt!" (or ending with "Nuff said") ever not been wrong?
;-)
There are rules for handling source material, of which crediting the author is only one. It's not appropriate to copy long swathes of text just because you threw in a citation somewhere.
I made no mention of whether it's appropriate or not - just that its not plagiarism if you cite the source - passing off the work as your own is one of the things that seperates copyright infringement from plagiarism.
'nuff said
even when the source is attributed.
Its not plagiarism then is it?
I think you mean to say that there are no worms self-propogating themselves on OS X and Linux. There are indeed viruses for both platforms. Here is an example [linuxdevcenter.com] Here is a humorous example [newsforge.com], also I can direct you to Talking about virus prevalence [desktoplinux.com]
No, I meant to say "The fact is that there are no viruses for either os x or linux spreading in the wild."
None of the examples you link to refute that.
Perhaps at some point in the future it may become neccessary for linux & macs (particularly macs) to get a virus scanner, but windows is so much easier a target, that it is not yet neccessary.
You are correct - thanks for the link :-)
You are sending a very bad message by implying that using Linux or some other OS will void the need to protect your computer from viruses. Your hatred for MS is blinding you.
The fact is that there are no viruses for either os x or linux spreading in the wild.
He wants scanners that provide real-time protection, not just on-demand scanning.
Fair enough, I read it too quickly. However, clamwin can be integrated into outlook & ie (two major vectors), and be setup to run periodically.
As every 'real time' protection anti virus scanner I've ever reccommended has been more trouble then its worth (high resource usage, memory leaks & false alarm pop-ups causing the user to turn it off every single time), I would still go with my reccommendation.
It does not break down. A system at 90% is just as annoying as a video at 90%.
No, it does break down. A video at 90% speed is unwatchable. A computer at 90% speed is quite usable.
In fact - as you rightly point out, no matter what system you're using, it will almost certainly be running at less then 90% of its full speed.
I paid for full speed, I want full speed.
Well, I don't disagree with you there.
So yeah. My point is that Virtualization will not destroy the native OS market. Not a chance in hades. Too many performance hounds like myself in the work to cause native to fail to be profitable.
It probably won't kill it, but it will vastly reduce the amount of 'native' software.
I think the vast majority of people will quite happily accept a 5-10% slowdown.
Wind turbines kill birds and look ugly.
Utter nonsense. Wind Turbines kill no more birds then any other structure the same size. And frankly, they look fantastic (I realize that's completely subjective, but apparantly the parent doesn't).
Your post is one of those "oh, people object to everything, so there's no point trying to switch from fossil fuels" type whines.
I'd reccommend clamAV for windows or clamwin, both are windows ports of the excellent GPLd clam AV.
But I'm also going to make an obligatory dig at windows. Consider downloading some software that means you wont have to run anti-virus software.
(Staying true to my username, I would also like to reccommend os x, but as it's not available for download, and requires new hardware, I won't).
You can hold a nation collectively responsible for its leaders, but not its citizens.
What is a nation if not its citizens?
That said, you make your point well. Perhaps my statement as originally worded was too strong.
Try watching a video that's been slowed to 90%, and you'll see what I mean by slow.
A video slowed to 90% would be annoying, but any modern system slowed to 90% would play a video at full speed. Your analogy breaks down.
As the mac-buying public has no problem with rosetta slow downs on intel hardware, I imagine they wouldn't have any problems with other slow downs due to emulation layers.
Chinese Language Website + Anti US Statements + Article about US and China relationship = Support for China?
No, that still doesn't add up. This is obviously hard for you to understand, but support for one country does not mean being anti another country. Making statements criticising one country is not the same as support for another country.
Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
And as an aside (hopefully this will shut you up): Actually read the "Chinese Language Website" You'll find its trilingual (so you'll be able to understand) and also, criticises China.
So, what we have is (according to you): [blog critical of china (not mentioned in post)] + [sentiment critical of US] = [pro china]
It doesn't add up.
damn, might as well throw all those German citizens in the jail house then eh? After all you DO hold THEM responsible for WW2?
You need to read more history too. Germany was no longer a democracy by the time war broke out.
Add to that the fact that anyone old enough to bear responsibility for the war is dead & your statement also looks extremely stupid.
"But the O.P. did not make any statement of support for the Chinese government. Did he?"
Again it's called READING BETWEEN THE LINES, learn about it sometime
My criticism was that he read something between the lines that simply wasn't there.
Tell me how Chinese language website + Anti US statements = Support for China?
It's a $30 program that provides a far sight more chance of recovering a stolen laptop than nothing does.
Buy $30 worth of insurance - a much better solution.
enough about computers to know how to reset the firmware password on a Mac is more than likely going to be tech-savvy enough to be able to get a better job than stealing computers off of tables at coffee shops.
If the firmware password is set (I doubt it), then the thief will simply sell it to someone who knows how to bypass the firmware password. The vast majority of stolen laptops pass through a few fences who most certainly know how to do a reinstall.
It's just like locked cell phones. They're no deterrent to cell phone thieves either.