As a native Hoosier, I would offer up my home state for algae production for the same deal residents of Alaska get from the oil companies: a yearly profit dividend check for each member of the household.
Whatever the next year is "the year of" will still be based on personal preferences, opinions, and needs. The IT colleagues I work with STILL cannot even correctly pronounce Ubuntu, much less support it in our infrastructure. The users we support, both casual and power, take their cues from us and most have no idea what ANY variant of *nix is.
I have done what I can to educate lay-users. When switching to a Mac is infeasible I have been directing them to Dell's new Linux machines. The Ubuntu folks get a regular request from me for discs, along with the copies I make locally. I pass these out like aspirin to users suffering through Windows issues. I have seen *some* traction made, but without more support from my colleagues, I am just the crazy guy who keeps using up spare CD-Rs.
While I agree with your sentiments regarding the burden of the UoW to cooperate with legal investigations and the rights of those students to have their day in court, I feel this might be a tad unrealistic and ignoring the history of similar efforts on the part of the RIAA. The students in question are being given a choice: pay up or pay up. There is no real "out" for them. They will give into the RIAA's demands and pay the $3-5000 it is alleged they each owe or they will need to retain a lawyer and pay out the same amount (or more) to have anything close to equal representation in said court.
Whether the students in question are guilty or innocent is no longer an issue where the facet of their financial obligation is concerned. The RIAA has determined these kids will pay and pay they will.
The solution to this quandary is far more encompassing than mere bullying tactics on the part of the RIAA. It involves real problems with our legal system and the carte blanche written to organizations like the RIAA on the fact they have the most resources to lobby their interests.
Truly, this isn't even a matter of whether copyright infringement is justifiable or not or whether these students can claims some kind of "fair use". Put yourself in the UoW's place. Let's pretend you own a small business which has around 30 employees, each of which has access to a computer on your network. I walk in with credentials proclaiming me to be a lawyer for the RIAA and claim to have detected employees on YOUR network downloading illegal music. I present you with a list of IP addresses, times, and alleged network activity gathered. I then demand you provide me with the identities of all those who were on the computer, at that IP, at that time.
Do you cooperate with me? A non-state official, non-law enforcement, and with no warrant for such a search and seizure?
My answer would be "bring me a court order for this particular action and we will talk".
I'm glad this kind of information is finally getting out. I am definitely someone who is willing to plunk down the kind of cash needed for the iPhone and was even prepared to do this coming weekend with a trip to Fairbanks, AK, assuming there would be even be stock of them available. However, I did NOT want to be locked into an AT&T contract given their spotty-at-best coverage in this state.
I have full faith and confidence that some enterprising young ne'er-do-wells will find the proper workarounds to unlock full functionality of the device and maybe even get it to the point I can slide my Cellular One sim card into it for at least partial functionality on the data side of things.
I am guessing about a month or so will be my wait time. The $600 in my pocket whimpers a bit, but it will just have to be patient.
I buy hundreds of CDs per year, perhaps even thousands and I know many more who are just like me without being either audiophiles or geeks. In fact, nearly everyone I know buys 20, 50, or even 100 CDs at a time whenever we go out shopping for them. These things are invaluable for burning off all the music we buy online or acquire through...ahem...other methods. It's not just music they are good for either! Did you know you can put computer files like Word documents or even installable programs on CDs too?
I seriously question where these idle speculations about CD sales are coming from. The only thing better than a CD is a DVD and you don't THOSE slowing in sales, do you? Thought not.
The Government is clear that creationism and intelligent design are not part of the science National Curriculum programs of study and should not be taught as science.
While I am always encouraged to read news of the mystics once again being driven from the science classrooms, I still find it depressing that the need to do so continues to exist.
Your inclusion of the American Civil War alongside Greek and Roman histories regarding slavery denotes the sad lack of education too many Americans have regarding this issues.
Once and for all the American Cvil War was NOT about slavery. It was about the economic leverage slave owners tried to weld against the indentured servant labor force of the north
And now, for a brief history lesson.
(Disclaimer: I am speaking abstractly of the slave trade and of the historical fact regarding it. While this may seem cold and even racist, by no means should my assessment of the slave trade itself be construed to imply some approval or condoning of the ownership and/or trade in human beings. I am merely trying to relay facts about what was, not what should have been.)
What most people do not realize is that only about 2% of the entire African slave trade reached American shores. The US outlawed the importation of slaves in 1808, over half a century before the Civil War. Thus, what slave trade existed in the US was an internal and self-sustaining one.
Slaves were listed as assets on slave owners books in much the same way as any other asset. In fact, in Georgia, the expected lifetime output of a slave was factored into the Return on Investment (ROI) of his/her purchase, and leveraged accordingly in any bank loan or finance maneuver on the part of the slave owner seeking to expand his operation.
This became more prominent as the 19th century wore on and northern states relied on cheap immigrant labor or an indentured servant to fuel industrialization while the south continued its reliance on the internal slave trade. The fact slaves reproduced at far lower rates than imported indentured servants led to a premium on the slave him/herself. Supply and demand created a workforce shortage for the south and surplus for the north.
This, in turn, lead the politicians of the north to turn the moral issue of slavery into a political one in order to enforce an economic advantage, such as when they did the same against the Mormons in the Utah territories.
What resulted was the retaliation of southern slave owners to protect what they viewed as legitimate assets, leveraged against mortgages they had taken out from northern banks in order to compete with European textile mills, from which the northern states had been importing from more than the southern states.
The American Civil War wasn't about slavery or even states' rights. It was about economics. The northern states had the lion's share of the GDP of the young US and, thus, had a greater attention from the Federal government. Factor in the hot-button moral issue of slavery and the northern states had a sure-fire win from a political standpoint.
The true shame is that all this resulted in actual warfare, with the southern states refusing to budge on the obvious moral bankruptcy of the internal slave-trade and insisting, blindly, that the issue was about states' rights.
Comments like Lily's are ostensibly about megacompanies dominating over smaller ones and hurting the end-user in the process.
However, those comments are really just complaints that end-users aren't making the "correct" choice.
Let's say Steve Jobs ends up correct in his predictions and Safari picks up a healthy chunk of the userbase.
So what?
People still have a choice in what they use, just as they do now.
I use Safari on my Mac and Firefox on Windows because they suit my needs overall. I am still giving Safari on Windows a fair shot and have been trying to use it for past week or so to gauge whether it's going to be better for me in the long run.
Those are my choices...not Jobs' or Lily's or anyone else.
Working in IT, however, I do have some influence and credibility over what endusers I support will use or have access to on their machines. Thus, I usually throw Firefox on any new set-up, but most people still go looking "the Internets, that E thing" whenever they want t browse.
That's fine with me. Their choices are a product of what they need, are used to, and about which they are educated.
I work IT for a national park. Thus, I am surrounded by a lot of crunchy granola types who are always going on and on about conservation and the environment and not wasting anything.
Except when it comes to printing.
Right now, there are 5 or 6 different departments, which share 20 laser printers of varying model from HP, and ALL of them are out of toner or running dangerously low. Due to the remoteness of our location, getting new supplies in is a painfully slow process.
The reason they are all out of toner? They feel the need to print every goddamn screen or Excel file so they can read it or show it to someone else. Keep in mind, these people also have laptops and PDAs apart from the desktops and we have a locally shared folders and our own Exchange.
Whether printers report their toner/ink levels accurately is a moot point, AFIAC. The real waste is among people who refuse to use email, screen reading aids, and portable devices to read and share their work.
The one part of the 21st century I believe most people around me have caught onto is digital photography. We all use digital cameras and online photo storage sites. I rarely see a printed photograph anymore and am usually surprised when I do.
Thus, in a picturesque part of the world, surrounded by gorgeous scenery and lush woodlands, about 1200 environmental hippies are tearing through tons of paper all so that Person A can show a paragraph to Person B, sitting 5 feet away at another desk.
Okay, maybe I need new contact lenses or maybe I have had one too many Alaskan Ambers, but did ANYONE else read the headline as "Vatican Photos That Inform Instead of Bore" and clicked immediately to see what new mischief Pope Benny has been up to? Anyone?
As a Mac user who ONLY uses Windows for the few games I enjoy which don't have a Mac equivalent, I have yet to find the rebooting aspect of BootCamp to be slow in the least. Shutting down OSX has always been a quick-fast-and-in-a-hurry process, with the whole machine completely down in about 15 seconds, tops. Windows, it seems, performs better than I have ever seen it on my iMac and boots up completely in just under a minute or so. In fact, rebooting into Windows on my iMac takes FAR less time than it does to start VirtualPC on my iBook. If I am going to play a game for a couple of hours at a stretch, then I fail to see how a simple minute or so to get Windows up and running is too much of a price to pay.
...how long has Unix existed? How many threats in the wild exist compared to oh, say, Windows? How many web servers run some variant of *nix compared to Windows and, of those servers, how many are affected by exploits and threats almost daily?
Yeah, bring that myth of "smaller user base means less of a target" one more time. I could use another good laugh.
There are indeed higher energy beams out there which could or not be producing the kinds of particles these scientists are seeking. The issue is they will be produced in controlled and observable conditions, as opposed to hoping we are looking in the right place, with the right equipment, and at the right time somewhere out in the black.
As for those on the fringe who call themselves scientists and warn of things like Earth-devouring black holes being spawned at CERN....truly, they aren't even worth coming up with a witty description for their idiocy.
I actually made the comparison between a video game and my work just a few days ago, though not in the manner being discussed in the above article. Here is an example:
I was tasked with setting up the Outlook profiles of 3 new users in the accounting office. This should be a very straight-forward, brain-dead job. To complete this, however, involved me eventually having to replace a machine in the office, which meant a trip across campus to the purchasing office in order to locate a spare box. The purchasing guy wouldn't give up his spare box willingly unless I performed another task he needed accomplished and which had been far lower on IT's priority list. To complete THAT task, I had to drive to another location, speak to yet another person, fix yet another problem, and finally wind up back where I started.
Had someone asked me to climb a magic mountain to retrieve an ancient artifact in order to unlock some secret spell would have made as much sense.
On the flipside, I gained +750 EP, +200 gold, and rose 2 levels.;)
Once it's more of a target, you'll see a gain in attacks. Not only that, but recently any exploits to a *nix based system weren't as publicized as Windows, due to the pure hate of Microsoft.
This is a myth which needs to go away once and for all. I have had to deal with a variant on it whenever I discuss OSX with Windows users and point out the lack of real security issues on the Mac front.
No, it's NOT because the user-base of *nix installations (Linux, OSX, et al) is smaller that none of these of operating systems experience anywhere NEAR the magnitude of security threats plaguing Microsoft products. Unix has been around for far longer than many/. readers have been alive and it has evolved and changed with the times into what we see today. It has been attacked for decades by people seeking to exploit some weakness or another and, yet, it has experienced nothing comparable to a widespread Windows virus.
Here is an even better example: web servers
For several years now, *nix-based servers have outnumbered Windows-based. Thus, the Windows server userbase is smaller than that of its competition. Yet, which platform STILL endures the most security exploits or virus infections? Yep, Windows.
I serve as IT support for a company which manages several properties and facilities in a national park. Just two days ago, we experienced an entire property (200+ machines requiring access to a variety of servers on another property and in two different cities elsewhere in the country) suddenly disappear from the grid. No connectivity of any sort, nothing. A team was dispatched who proceeded to troubleshoot everything from NIC cards to cabling to virus scans on the affected machines.
It turned out that a main switch had the power cable removed by someone who needed the outlet to charge her cell phone. Since she is a retail manager with a different company who happened to share one of our retail spaces, I traded out the knowledge of her mistake for goods from her store, including a nifty pair of Timberland boots and some sweaters.
1. Wait for BRB disaster.
2. Determine it's not your fault nor anyone on your team.
3. Blackmail the culprit.
4. Profit!!
I believe I encountered this last year when I was trying to set my wife's AIM account up on her iChat client. She has been typing the long version of her pass into the AIM client, which apparently wasn't reading past those first 8 characters. When we tried it in the iChat client, it kept spitting it back out as being incorrect. We eventually had to change her pass to a shorter one to get it to work.
I have worked with scientists for a number of years from a variety of fields (I am a writer and interviewer). I have witnessed the gamut between arrogance and humility, as one would expect in any profession. Yet, I have never spoken to a single scientist or someone who works extensively with scientists who has said science knows everything there is to know. The very questions raised by the process of science is what drives some of the most dedicated individuals I have met. The idea that some level of "ignorance" on the part of science exists and is "astonishing" is merely indicative of someone who is inherently ignorant OF science. No scientist has all the answers nor, I would guess, does any scientist WANT to know all the answers. When there are no more questions, there is no reason to continue searching. The person who posted this story has, in my opinion, an axe to grind with science as a whole for what has probably been a demolition of some silly superstition or mythology, clung to so desperately by those who still need magic as an explanation for the world instead of the inherent splendor of how things really work.
Whatever questions there are regarding the sun and its structure will most likely be resolved someday, if the past is any indication. So too, will new questions arise and the quest will continue. "CowboyNeal" would do well to educate him/herself on this very basic aspect of human nature instead of issuing the tacit implication that because science hasn't answered some current question or another, its past answers must now be considered suspect.
I am only peripherally aware of SCO, by way of its continued legal battles regarding the origin of Linux, etc. What I found ironic about this subject is that I am writing this comment, at this very moment, by way of a free WiFi spot. I am currently traveling across the US and Canada, with a final destination of Alaska. I stopped here to check my bearings via Google Maps, check my email, and catch up on the latest news. I stopped at a Panera Bread store for a soda and the aforementioned purpose. But, because I also smoke, I am sitting in my RV at the moment and using their signal for my purposes.
I don't consider myself unlike a great many other people. I specifically sought out Panera because I knew they had free WiFi, didn't feel like finding a subdivision neighborhood with open networks and/or crack closed ones, and needed a soda. In fact, as I sit here and contemplate the implications of what SCO is asking for, I can envision the entire method by which I choose the places to patronize to change. I don't take my laptop to McDonald's, for example, because they are using a commercial Wayport system which costs ludicrous amounts.
My wife and I have even sought out local sports bars, such as the Sidelines grill locations in and around Kennesaw Georgia because they offered what we considered the best of all worlds: they allow smoking, they serve alcohol, and they have free WiFi. The idea of banning what I have done as well, that is offer an open signal for the benefit of others, is akin to banning someone borrowing a cell phone because that person COULD be underage and COULD be calling some porn/sex line.
The constant self-righteous indignation directed at cell phone users would be laughable if it wasn't so annoying. What EXACTLY is it that bothers those who are complaining about HAVING to hear someone else talk on a cell phone? Do you make the same complaints when you HAPPEN to overhear someone having a discussion nearby with another actual person? Is it the caliber of the conversation itself which irks you? Do you make the same judgments on the cloyingly cute couple who are returning from their honeymoon and can't seem to stop pawing each other and whispering how much they love each other?
Since when was any place outside of a church or a library considered sacred ground, where people had to speak in hushed tones and only to people who were actually present with them? If your auditory perception is such that you cannot weed out the annoyances we all face on a daily basis, whether it is loud thumping music in some punk's car or the incessant babbling of two teenage girls, then I am sure there is some sort of medication you could look into.
I can fully understand the technical reasons for limiting cell phone use on airplane, if such data actually backs up the need for such a ban. However, what is amazing to me is that there are so many who seem to think they need protection from the conversations of people around them. I use my cell phone all the time when I am traveling, ESPECIALLY if I am either traveling alone or conducting actual business. It's a communication service I pay for and will use whenever the hell I feel like it regardless of some overly-sensitive whiner who feels that my conversation via a cell phone is less worthy to be overheard than his back and forth with his nearby buddies.
Why are the cell phone haters stopping at just cell phone conversations? Why aren't they pushing for a Quiet Time law on any conversation they might happen to overhear in any close space? What's the real difference except that its fashionable and PC to hate an alleged annoyance caused by some device someone is using?
When I speak on my phone, it is in the same tone of voice and loudness as when someone is right next to me. Others might not, just as others might not control their volume in real-life conversations. Guess what? That's life, folks. Get over it.
My wife and I have been traveling via RV for the last two years or so. We chose the Verizon service because it offered the most connectivity and best speeds for the money. Our contract started in 2005. This was our set-up: my Powerbook running the Novatel 620 card (which the sales guy said was impossible, but he was wrong) sharing to an Airport Express, which then served to my wife's laptop and her iMac. I know for a fact we used way over 5 gigs per month in those first months. Without cable television, we subscribed to several different television seasons via iTMS and even conducted video conferencing on a regular basis. It wasn't until later when my wife had downloaded a succession of legal movies from iTMS, which were 1 gig apiece that we noticed the service was cut off on the account.
Here is what may not be mentioned in the story, however. I merely took the card in to the nearest Verizon store and they turned it right back on again, albeit with a different number assigned to it. This has happened about 10 or more times since then and I eventually became chummy enough with the Verizon store people that I need only call them to ask for it to be reactivated. I can't say this would be the policy at another Verizon store, but the people there acted as if they saw that sort of thing all the time and they would just shake their heads at their corporate office.
Yeah, let's be real. The "science" is Star Wars is atrocious, no doubt, but the Firefly universe has to top every conceivable list of ludicrously unimaginable futures. It's not even space opera. I don't know what it is, but it sure as hell isn't science fiction. Farse? I mean, it's cowboys in space, playing on holographic pooltables and transporting cattle across galaxies, for Christ's sake. It might just as well be an episode of South Park. I will never understand how anyone could actually take it seriously.
Actually, Serenity/Firefly epitomize the science fiction genre in showing the issues of human science and technological achievement as both a blessing and curse on the characters involved. Star Wars focused more hokey religious allusions and whiz-bang special effects. Yeah, it revolutionized Hollywood, as you point out later, but not because of WHAT it was but in HOW it was made. Plunk Serenity down in the same time and the effect would have been the same, storylines aside. The 6 Academy Awards Star Wars won were in technical categories. No real critic considered it anything new and even Lucas himself cops to the wholly unoriginal storyline. It was lifted from the Saturday serials he viewed as a kid and wished to pay homage to by showing them using cutting-edge special effects. THAT was the big achievement of Star Wars.
Serenity, on the other hand, achieved a similar cultural impact on a loyal fanbase, but in a modern era where box office receipts aren't the true measure of a movie or television series. Again, show Serenity in place of Star Wars to those crowds lined up around the block back in the 1970s and the effect would have been identical to any impact Star Wars had. Thus, we have to consider why in THIS era, Serenity achieved a notable impact of its own, given the special effects were not that special in comparison to other films out there.
s for "a traditional good versus evil" story, I disagree, as does George Lucas. Star Wars is Vader's story. It is primarily the story of his fall from grace, rather than his redemption. Take away Vader, and Luke, and yes, Star Wars would be pretty traditional. But then it wouldn't be Star Wars.
The "it's Vader's story" is merely Lucas' modern apologetic to draw attention from the fact he wanted to re-make Flash Gordon, but couldn't because he couldn't obtain the rights. It's his justification for the HORRID "pre-quels" he foisted on his fanbase to try and remake the original Star Wars series into something more sophisticated, again, for the MODERN era. With nearly 30 years of canon to draw from, the best he could do was try to re-make his original homage to 1930s serial dramas into some quasi-psychological study of a very one-dimensional character.
Star Wars single handedly revolutionized not only the SF industry, but the whole of Hollywood. It may be easy to forget now how much the first movie changed in the late 70s, but it did.
It revolutionized the way films are MADE, not how films are TOLD. It was a technical achievement in an era on the cusp of breakthroughs across the spectrum of special effects and imagery. The original Star Trek was fairly decent in its day as well with the special effects, but its longevity was nearly entirely due to the story it told. More on that, in a second, when we deal with the characters of these subjects.
Serenity and Firefly "crossed boundaries" only in that pathetic way which you recognize as wholly forced --- to make a story "for our time", no matter how contrived. It brought absolutely nothing new to the table. It was a bunch of "good natured outlaws" driving around in a crappy spaceship. Hey, where have I heard that before? Maybe it rings familiar because Mal Reynolds and his Firefly are directly, shamelessly plagiarized from the very 30 year old movie you're criticizing as outdated. Seriously, if you can't see Han Solo in Mal and Firefly in the Millennium Falcon you have to be blind.
Slashdot Mirror
How many read the title of the post to mean something involving a new Vista error producing endless reboots following an update?
As a native Hoosier, I would offer up my home state for algae production for the same deal residents of Alaska get from the oil companies: a yearly profit dividend check for each member of the household.
Whatever the next year is "the year of" will still be based on personal preferences, opinions, and needs. The IT colleagues I work with STILL cannot even correctly pronounce Ubuntu, much less support it in our infrastructure. The users we support, both casual and power, take their cues from us and most have no idea what ANY variant of *nix is.
I have done what I can to educate lay-users. When switching to a Mac is infeasible I have been directing them to Dell's new Linux machines. The Ubuntu folks get a regular request from me for discs, along with the copies I make locally. I pass these out like aspirin to users suffering through Windows issues. I have seen *some* traction made, but without more support from my colleagues, I am just the crazy guy who keeps using up spare CD-Rs.
While I agree with your sentiments regarding the burden of the UoW to cooperate with legal investigations and the rights of those students to have their day in court, I feel this might be a tad unrealistic and ignoring the history of similar efforts on the part of the RIAA. The students in question are being given a choice: pay up or pay up. There is no real "out" for them. They will give into the RIAA's demands and pay the $3-5000 it is alleged they each owe or they will need to retain a lawyer and pay out the same amount (or more) to have anything close to equal representation in said court.
Whether the students in question are guilty or innocent is no longer an issue where the facet of their financial obligation is concerned. The RIAA has determined these kids will pay and pay they will.
The solution to this quandary is far more encompassing than mere bullying tactics on the part of the RIAA. It involves real problems with our legal system and the carte blanche written to organizations like the RIAA on the fact they have the most resources to lobby their interests.
Truly, this isn't even a matter of whether copyright infringement is justifiable or not or whether these students can claims some kind of "fair use". Put yourself in the UoW's place. Let's pretend you own a small business which has around 30 employees, each of which has access to a computer on your network. I walk in with credentials proclaiming me to be a lawyer for the RIAA and claim to have detected employees on YOUR network downloading illegal music. I present you with a list of IP addresses, times, and alleged network activity gathered. I then demand you provide me with the identities of all those who were on the computer, at that IP, at that time.
Do you cooperate with me? A non-state official, non-law enforcement, and with no warrant for such a search and seizure?
My answer would be "bring me a court order for this particular action and we will talk".
I'm glad this kind of information is finally getting out. I am definitely someone who is willing to plunk down the kind of cash needed for the iPhone and was even prepared to do this coming weekend with a trip to Fairbanks, AK, assuming there would be even be stock of them available. However, I did NOT want to be locked into an AT&T contract given their spotty-at-best coverage in this state.
I have full faith and confidence that some enterprising young ne'er-do-wells will find the proper workarounds to unlock full functionality of the device and maybe even get it to the point I can slide my Cellular One sim card into it for at least partial functionality on the data side of things.
I am guessing about a month or so will be my wait time. The $600 in my pocket whimpers a bit, but it will just have to be patient.
I buy hundreds of CDs per year, perhaps even thousands and I know many more who are just like me without being either audiophiles or geeks. In fact, nearly everyone I know buys 20, 50, or even 100 CDs at a time whenever we go out shopping for them. These things are invaluable for burning off all the music we buy online or acquire through...ahem...other methods. It's not just music they are good for either! Did you know you can put computer files like Word documents or even installable programs on CDs too?
I seriously question where these idle speculations about CD sales are coming from. The only thing better than a CD is a DVD and you don't THOSE slowing in sales, do you? Thought not.
While I am always encouraged to read news of the mystics once again being driven from the science classrooms, I still find it depressing that the need to do so continues to exist.
Did anyone else read the headline to say (paraphrased) that Manhunt2 would require two shelves?
Your inclusion of the American Civil War alongside Greek and Roman histories regarding slavery denotes the sad lack of education too many Americans have regarding this issues.
Once and for all the American Cvil War was NOT about slavery. It was about the economic leverage slave owners tried to weld against the indentured servant labor force of the north
And now, for a brief history lesson.
(Disclaimer: I am speaking abstractly of the slave trade and of the historical fact regarding it. While this may seem cold and even racist, by no means should my assessment of the slave trade itself be construed to imply some approval or condoning of the ownership and/or trade in human beings. I am merely trying to relay facts about what was, not what should have been.)
What most people do not realize is that only about 2% of the entire African slave trade reached American shores. The US outlawed the importation of slaves in 1808, over half a century before the Civil War. Thus, what slave trade existed in the US was an internal and self-sustaining one.
Slaves were listed as assets on slave owners books in much the same way as any other asset. In fact, in Georgia, the expected lifetime output of a slave was factored into the Return on Investment (ROI) of his/her purchase, and leveraged accordingly in any bank loan or finance maneuver on the part of the slave owner seeking to expand his operation.
This became more prominent as the 19th century wore on and northern states relied on cheap immigrant labor or an indentured servant to fuel industrialization while the south continued its reliance on the internal slave trade. The fact slaves reproduced at far lower rates than imported indentured servants led to a premium on the slave him/herself. Supply and demand created a workforce shortage for the south and surplus for the north.
This, in turn, lead the politicians of the north to turn the moral issue of slavery into a political one in order to enforce an economic advantage, such as when they did the same against the Mormons in the Utah territories.
What resulted was the retaliation of southern slave owners to protect what they viewed as legitimate assets, leveraged against mortgages they had taken out from northern banks in order to compete with European textile mills, from which the northern states had been importing from more than the southern states.
The American Civil War wasn't about slavery or even states' rights. It was about economics. The northern states had the lion's share of the GDP of the young US and, thus, had a greater attention from the Federal government. Factor in the hot-button moral issue of slavery and the northern states had a sure-fire win from a political standpoint.
The true shame is that all this resulted in actual warfare, with the southern states refusing to budge on the obvious moral bankruptcy of the internal slave-trade and insisting, blindly, that the issue was about states' rights.
Comments like Lily's are ostensibly about megacompanies dominating over smaller ones and hurting the end-user in the process.
However, those comments are really just complaints that end-users aren't making the "correct" choice.
Let's say Steve Jobs ends up correct in his predictions and Safari picks up a healthy chunk of the userbase.
So what?
People still have a choice in what they use, just as they do now.
I use Safari on my Mac and Firefox on Windows because they suit my needs overall. I am still giving Safari on Windows a fair shot and have been trying to use it for past week or so to gauge whether it's going to be better for me in the long run.
Those are my choices...not Jobs' or Lily's or anyone else.
Working in IT, however, I do have some influence and credibility over what endusers I support will use or have access to on their machines. Thus, I usually throw Firefox on any new set-up, but most people still go looking "the Internets, that E thing" whenever they want t browse.
That's fine with me. Their choices are a product of what they need, are used to, and about which they are educated.
I work IT for a national park. Thus, I am surrounded by a lot of crunchy granola types who are always going on and on about conservation and the environment and not wasting anything. Except when it comes to printing. Right now, there are 5 or 6 different departments, which share 20 laser printers of varying model from HP, and ALL of them are out of toner or running dangerously low. Due to the remoteness of our location, getting new supplies in is a painfully slow process. The reason they are all out of toner? They feel the need to print every goddamn screen or Excel file so they can read it or show it to someone else. Keep in mind, these people also have laptops and PDAs apart from the desktops and we have a locally shared folders and our own Exchange. Whether printers report their toner/ink levels accurately is a moot point, AFIAC. The real waste is among people who refuse to use email, screen reading aids, and portable devices to read and share their work. The one part of the 21st century I believe most people around me have caught onto is digital photography. We all use digital cameras and online photo storage sites. I rarely see a printed photograph anymore and am usually surprised when I do. Thus, in a picturesque part of the world, surrounded by gorgeous scenery and lush woodlands, about 1200 environmental hippies are tearing through tons of paper all so that Person A can show a paragraph to Person B, sitting 5 feet away at another desk.
Okay, maybe I need new contact lenses or maybe I have had one too many Alaskan Ambers, but did ANYONE else read the headline as "Vatican Photos That Inform Instead of Bore" and clicked immediately to see what new mischief Pope Benny has been up to? Anyone?
As a Mac user who ONLY uses Windows for the few games I enjoy which don't have a Mac equivalent, I have yet to find the rebooting aspect of BootCamp to be slow in the least. Shutting down OSX has always been a quick-fast-and-in-a-hurry process, with the whole machine completely down in about 15 seconds, tops. Windows, it seems, performs better than I have ever seen it on my iMac and boots up completely in just under a minute or so. In fact, rebooting into Windows on my iMac takes FAR less time than it does to start VirtualPC on my iBook. If I am going to play a game for a couple of hours at a stretch, then I fail to see how a simple minute or so to get Windows up and running is too much of a price to pay.
...how long has Unix existed? How many threats in the wild exist compared to oh, say, Windows? How many web servers run some variant of *nix compared to Windows and, of those servers, how many are affected by exploits and threats almost daily?
Yeah, bring that myth of "smaller user base means less of a target" one more time. I could use another good laugh.
There are indeed higher energy beams out there which could or not be producing the kinds of particles these scientists are seeking. The issue is they will be produced in controlled and observable conditions, as opposed to hoping we are looking in the right place, with the right equipment, and at the right time somewhere out in the black.
As for those on the fringe who call themselves scientists and warn of things like Earth-devouring black holes being spawned at CERN....truly, they aren't even worth coming up with a witty description for their idiocy.
I think Steve has higher standards than to reciprocate that move. After all, he's a smart guy and Gates already burned him once...
I actually made the comparison between a video game and my work just a few days ago, though not in the manner being discussed in the above article. Here is an example:
;)
I was tasked with setting up the Outlook profiles of 3 new users in the accounting office. This should be a very straight-forward, brain-dead job. To complete this, however, involved me eventually having to replace a machine in the office, which meant a trip across campus to the purchasing office in order to locate a spare box. The purchasing guy wouldn't give up his spare box willingly unless I performed another task he needed accomplished and which had been far lower on IT's priority list. To complete THAT task, I had to drive to another location, speak to yet another person, fix yet another problem, and finally wind up back where I started.
Had someone asked me to climb a magic mountain to retrieve an ancient artifact in order to unlock some secret spell would have made as much sense.
On the flipside, I gained +750 EP, +200 gold, and rose 2 levels.
Once it's more of a target, you'll see a gain in attacks. Not only that, but recently any exploits to a *nix based system weren't as publicized as Windows, due to the pure hate of Microsoft.
/. readers have been alive and it has evolved and changed with the times into what we see today. It has been attacked for decades by people seeking to exploit some weakness or another and, yet, it has experienced nothing comparable to a widespread Windows virus.
This is a myth which needs to go away once and for all. I have had to deal with a variant on it whenever I discuss OSX with Windows users and point out the lack of real security issues on the Mac front.
No, it's NOT because the user-base of *nix installations (Linux, OSX, et al) is smaller that none of these of operating systems experience anywhere NEAR the magnitude of security threats plaguing Microsoft products. Unix has been around for far longer than many
Here is an even better example: web servers
For several years now, *nix-based servers have outnumbered Windows-based. Thus, the Windows server userbase is smaller than that of its competition. Yet, which platform STILL endures the most security exploits or virus infections? Yep, Windows.
I serve as IT support for a company which manages several properties and facilities in a national park. Just two days ago, we experienced an entire property (200+ machines requiring access to a variety of servers on another property and in two different cities elsewhere in the country) suddenly disappear from the grid. No connectivity of any sort, nothing. A team was dispatched who proceeded to troubleshoot everything from NIC cards to cabling to virus scans on the affected machines.
It turned out that a main switch had the power cable removed by someone who needed the outlet to charge her cell phone. Since she is a retail manager with a different company who happened to share one of our retail spaces, I traded out the knowledge of her mistake for goods from her store, including a nifty pair of Timberland boots and some sweaters.
1. Wait for BRB disaster.
2. Determine it's not your fault nor anyone on your team.
3. Blackmail the culprit.
4. Profit!!
I believe I encountered this last year when I was trying to set my wife's AIM account up on her iChat client. She has been typing the long version of her pass into the AIM client, which apparently wasn't reading past those first 8 characters. When we tried it in the iChat client, it kept spitting it back out as being incorrect. We eventually had to change her pass to a shorter one to get it to work.
I have worked with scientists for a number of years from a variety of fields (I am a writer and interviewer). I have witnessed the gamut between arrogance and humility, as one would expect in any profession. Yet, I have never spoken to a single scientist or someone who works extensively with scientists who has said science knows everything there is to know. The very questions raised by the process of science is what drives some of the most dedicated individuals I have met. The idea that some level of "ignorance" on the part of science exists and is "astonishing" is merely indicative of someone who is inherently ignorant OF science. No scientist has all the answers nor, I would guess, does any scientist WANT to know all the answers. When there are no more questions, there is no reason to continue searching. The person who posted this story has, in my opinion, an axe to grind with science as a whole for what has probably been a demolition of some silly superstition or mythology, clung to so desperately by those who still need magic as an explanation for the world instead of the inherent splendor of how things really work.
Whatever questions there are regarding the sun and its structure will most likely be resolved someday, if the past is any indication. So too, will new questions arise and the quest will continue. "CowboyNeal" would do well to educate him/herself on this very basic aspect of human nature instead of issuing the tacit implication that because science hasn't answered some current question or another, its past answers must now be considered suspect.
I am only peripherally aware of SCO, by way of its continued legal battles regarding the origin of Linux, etc. What I found ironic about this subject is that I am writing this comment, at this very moment, by way of a free WiFi spot. I am currently traveling across the US and Canada, with a final destination of Alaska. I stopped here to check my bearings via Google Maps, check my email, and catch up on the latest news. I stopped at a Panera Bread store for a soda and the aforementioned purpose. But, because I also smoke, I am sitting in my RV at the moment and using their signal for my purposes.
I don't consider myself unlike a great many other people. I specifically sought out Panera because I knew they had free WiFi, didn't feel like finding a subdivision neighborhood with open networks and/or crack closed ones, and needed a soda. In fact, as I sit here and contemplate the implications of what SCO is asking for, I can envision the entire method by which I choose the places to patronize to change. I don't take my laptop to McDonald's, for example, because they are using a commercial Wayport system which costs ludicrous amounts.
My wife and I have even sought out local sports bars, such as the Sidelines grill locations in and around Kennesaw Georgia because they offered what we considered the best of all worlds: they allow smoking, they serve alcohol, and they have free WiFi. The idea of banning what I have done as well, that is offer an open signal for the benefit of others, is akin to banning someone borrowing a cell phone because that person COULD be underage and COULD be calling some porn/sex line.
The constant self-righteous indignation directed at cell phone users would be laughable if it wasn't so annoying. What EXACTLY is it that bothers those who are complaining about HAVING to hear someone else talk on a cell phone? Do you make the same complaints when you HAPPEN to overhear someone having a discussion nearby with another actual person? Is it the caliber of the conversation itself which irks you? Do you make the same judgments on the cloyingly cute couple who are returning from their honeymoon and can't seem to stop pawing each other and whispering how much they love each other?
Since when was any place outside of a church or a library considered sacred ground, where people had to speak in hushed tones and only to people who were actually present with them? If your auditory perception is such that you cannot weed out the annoyances we all face on a daily basis, whether it is loud thumping music in some punk's car or the incessant babbling of two teenage girls, then I am sure there is some sort of medication you could look into.
I can fully understand the technical reasons for limiting cell phone use on airplane, if such data actually backs up the need for such a ban. However, what is amazing to me is that there are so many who seem to think they need protection from the conversations of people around them. I use my cell phone all the time when I am traveling, ESPECIALLY if I am either traveling alone or conducting actual business. It's a communication service I pay for and will use whenever the hell I feel like it regardless of some overly-sensitive whiner who feels that my conversation via a cell phone is less worthy to be overheard than his back and forth with his nearby buddies.
Why are the cell phone haters stopping at just cell phone conversations? Why aren't they pushing for a Quiet Time law on any conversation they might happen to overhear in any close space? What's the real difference except that its fashionable and PC to hate an alleged annoyance caused by some device someone is using?
When I speak on my phone, it is in the same tone of voice and loudness as when someone is right next to me. Others might not, just as others might not control their volume in real-life conversations. Guess what? That's life, folks. Get over it.
My wife and I have been traveling via RV for the last two years or so. We chose the Verizon service because it offered the most connectivity and best speeds for the money. Our contract started in 2005. This was our set-up: my Powerbook running the Novatel 620 card (which the sales guy said was impossible, but he was wrong) sharing to an Airport Express, which then served to my wife's laptop and her iMac. I know for a fact we used way over 5 gigs per month in those first months. Without cable television, we subscribed to several different television seasons via iTMS and even conducted video conferencing on a regular basis. It wasn't until later when my wife had downloaded a succession of legal movies from iTMS, which were 1 gig apiece that we noticed the service was cut off on the account.
Here is what may not be mentioned in the story, however. I merely took the card in to the nearest Verizon store and they turned it right back on again, albeit with a different number assigned to it. This has happened about 10 or more times since then and I eventually became chummy enough with the Verizon store people that I need only call them to ask for it to be reactivated. I can't say this would be the policy at another Verizon store, but the people there acted as if they saw that sort of thing all the time and they would just shake their heads at their corporate office.
Yeah, let's be real. The "science" is Star Wars is atrocious, no doubt, but the Firefly universe has to top every conceivable list of ludicrously unimaginable futures. It's not even space opera. I don't know what it is, but it sure as hell isn't science fiction. Farse? I mean, it's cowboys in space, playing on holographic pooltables and transporting cattle across galaxies, for Christ's sake. It might just as well be an episode of South Park. I will never understand how anyone could actually take it seriously.
Actually, Serenity/Firefly epitomize the science fiction genre in showing the issues of human science and technological achievement as both a blessing and curse on the characters involved. Star Wars focused more hokey religious allusions and whiz-bang special effects. Yeah, it revolutionized Hollywood, as you point out later, but not because of WHAT it was but in HOW it was made. Plunk Serenity down in the same time and the effect would have been the same, storylines aside. The 6 Academy Awards Star Wars won were in technical categories. No real critic considered it anything new and even Lucas himself cops to the wholly unoriginal storyline. It was lifted from the Saturday serials he viewed as a kid and wished to pay homage to by showing them using cutting-edge special effects. THAT was the big achievement of Star Wars.
Serenity, on the other hand, achieved a similar cultural impact on a loyal fanbase, but in a modern era where box office receipts aren't the true measure of a movie or television series. Again, show Serenity in place of Star Wars to those crowds lined up around the block back in the 1970s and the effect would have been identical to any impact Star Wars had. Thus, we have to consider why in THIS era, Serenity achieved a notable impact of its own, given the special effects were not that special in comparison to other films out there.
s for "a traditional good versus evil" story, I disagree, as does George Lucas. Star Wars is Vader's story. It is primarily the story of his fall from grace, rather than his redemption. Take away Vader, and Luke, and yes, Star Wars would be pretty traditional. But then it wouldn't be Star Wars.
The "it's Vader's story" is merely Lucas' modern apologetic to draw attention from the fact he wanted to re-make Flash Gordon, but couldn't because he couldn't obtain the rights. It's his justification for the HORRID "pre-quels" he foisted on his fanbase to try and remake the original Star Wars series into something more sophisticated, again, for the MODERN era. With nearly 30 years of canon to draw from, the best he could do was try to re-make his original homage to 1930s serial dramas into some quasi-psychological study of a very one-dimensional character.
Star Wars single handedly revolutionized not only the SF industry, but the whole of Hollywood. It may be easy to forget now how much the first movie changed in the late 70s, but it did.
It revolutionized the way films are MADE, not how films are TOLD. It was a technical achievement in an era on the cusp of breakthroughs across the spectrum of special effects and imagery. The original Star Trek was fairly decent in its day as well with the special effects, but its longevity was nearly entirely due to the story it told. More on that, in a second, when we deal with the characters of these subjects.
Serenity and Firefly "crossed boundaries" only in that pathetic way which you recognize as wholly forced --- to make a story "for our time", no matter how contrived. It brought absolutely nothing new to the table. It was a bunch of "good natured outlaws" driving around in a crappy spaceship. Hey, where have I heard that before? Maybe it rings familiar because Mal Reynolds and his Firefly are directly, shamelessly plagiarized from the very 30 year old movie you're criticizing as outdated. Seriously, if you can't see Han Solo in Mal and Firefly in the Millennium Falcon you have to be blind.
The idea that Malcom Reyno