You're talking about motive. I'm talking about economics.
The economic system that took us to the Moon was socialism. The economic system that is launching Virgin Galactic is capitalism.
Apollo was very much about nationalism and militarism, as you stated. It was also about exploration, science and futurism (although those alone, I suspect, would not have sufficed to draw the needed budget). But regardless the motive, it was *only* possible, during the 60s (and even to this very day) as a socialist endeavor.
And it's only just getting there over 50 years after socialism did it.
Both socialism and capitalism have their places. Capitalism wouldn't have gotten us to the Moon in the 60s. Socialism won't get the masses into space in the 10s. A healthy society has a balance of both.
3D accelerated compositing GUI, Dock, column-view Finder, iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie.
iChat Theater.
WiFi, multitouch trackpad, magsafe.
These are just a few things off the top of my head that Apple came out with before Windows or Linux. All of these things are enhancements to previously existing technologies, so don't go saying that Time Machine is just a copy of rsync, or that iChat Theater is a copy of VNC. All of these technologies are real innovation, and all of the ones that are software-based are being copied by Linux, not the other way around.
None of them were copied from "Unix, OS/2, even Linux".
Where's the usual/. argument that artists don't deserve compensation because they're producing something that's easily copied?
I've never seen it stated on slashdot (or anywhere, really), that artists don't deserve compensation.
Displeasure with a specific economic model does not mean displeasure with economics itself. I buy all my music off of iTunes. I don't *want* more physical crap, I don't *want* the disc, I want the music.
For those artists and labels that don't want to sell via iTunes (or Amazon, in a pinch), there are other ways to acquire their music without buying a disc. I *want* to buy their music. I *do* believe they deserve to be paid. If they don't want to show up to the party, it's their own damned fault.
As for the labels themselves. They are outmoded business models, and must either evolve or die. Artists really don't need them like they used to. Their remaining relevance going forward is their catalog of copyrighted material which, unfortunately, looks like it will never go out of copyright.
Name *one* thing Apple or Microsoft copied from Linux. The only thing that comes to mind is virtual desktops, which predate Linux. Nextstep (aka Mac OS X) had virtual desktops (via third party software) before Linux even existed.
Linux is the ultimate copycat. The core system itself is a complete copy of Unix. The graphical interface predates Linux as well. Linux's strength isn't in its innovation or originality. Its strength is in its openness and technical excellence.
It's called "background information". The fact that it was invented in 1859, or that it was Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. who invented it, are equally irrelevant to us.
However, all of the above facts are interesting, including the fact that he gave it away. Good for him.
No, the original poster said there'd be built-up pressure. There is no built-up pressure, as the pressure comes from the sun. The sun won't "build up" pressure that, once uncapped, will fry the planet.
This is nothing more than a clever mirror. Pressure does not build up.
As for whether the Earth would heat back up, that depends on other factors. The mirror could be used until greenhouse gasses are brought under control. Additionally, it's possible that the cloud cover would be self-sustaining (i.e., would be in equilibrium) with our current greenhouse gas levels. This whole scheme reminds me too much of Venus (even though the specifics are vastly different).
The "transient geoengineering schemes", as you call them, don't solve the problem, but they do dampen the effects, which may buy us precious time. This is like using first-aid to keep someone alive long enough to get to the hospital.
A more sensible fellow was interviewed on TV recently who said that most of our climate change is driven by the Sun
*All* of our climate changes are driven by the sun. What this plan does (and what greenhouse gasses do in general) is alter the dynamics of what happens to the energy that reaches the Earth.
Whenever people go on about how it's the sun, their motives are childish and selfish. "The problem is unsolvable, stop trying to fix it, and damn well stop asking me to help!" Of course it's the sun. What do we do about it? What can we do about it? These are valid questions. "Learn to adapt" is the last contingency (well, the last contingency is extinction, but we'll assume that's unacceptable).
Look at it like a river. Rivers flood all the time--it's part of their natural cycle. That doesn't mean we have to "adapt". People like living alongside rivers. Cities naturally form around rivers. Some flooding may be man-made (runoff side-effects of clear cutting, for example), most may be due to the nature of the river, terrain and climate. But we can, and have done something about it. We've built dams.
Thanks to dams, people don't have to "adapt" to the yearly floods. The cost of a dam is *huge*, even if you ignore the energy it generates. But the cost of *not* building a dam is larger. The lost productivity, the lost farm land and property development. The lost city infrastructure, or the added cost to make the infrastructure flood-resistant.
And not to mention, the cost of lost lives.
Rivers still flood, but our dams have essentially eliminated all but the 100-year and 1,000-year floods. Humanity is no longer required to endure the yearly floods that plagued our ancestors.
Whether global climate change is man-made or not is one question, whether global climate change is happening is another. In a certain sense, whether it's man-made or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether it's happening, and if so, what can we do about it. Only then does whether it's man-made truly matter. If it's man-made, that gives us more options. If it's not man-made, then the task is more difficult.
This proposal is, essentially, a dam in the sky, stopping energy from the sun from reaching us. Even if global climate change is due entirely to increased output from the sun, this plan, if it's sound, would negate the need to adapt. It would reflect that excess energy away from the planet.
There are many questions that need to be addressed. Is the proposal sound? What are the side-effects? The risks? The costs? But to say "do nothing" is not a proper response from the species that gave us Aristotle and Archimedes, that gave us Apollo and the Internet, that gave us dams, trains, cars and planes. "Do nothing" is the response of the dinosaurs. "Do nothing" is the response of an incapable species, or a cowardly, selfish species. But most of all, "do nothing" is the response of a doomed species.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul is wrong, whether Paul is a corporation or an individual.
Taxes aren't robbery. They are the dues you pay for living in this nation and all the advantages that grants. Taxes collected from 'Peter' always go to pay 'Paul'. That's the whole point of taxes, to pay for something.
Your assessment sounds a lot like the idea that a doctor saved a person's life is a 'shallow analysis', because the patient spent the next three decades smoking and eventually died of lung disease.
A better example of shallow analysis comes from people who simply jump to the conclusion that government intervention always turns out badly.
There are countless public institutions which undermine your argument. Does this happen with municipal water and power? Fire and police services?
Anti-government Americans must come to understand one fundamental fact about America... We The People are the government. When the private sector cannot provide adequate service, it falls upon us, ourselves, to step up and do what they will not or can not.
Of course, it's generally better when we don't have to, when we can pay someone else to take care of things. But that's not always possible or reasonable. When the state takes on some project, like defense or health care or (in this case) Internet service, what that really means is that We The People are taking on that project.
I know that, personally, I don't want to get into the ISP business, but until prices, service, and policies become more consumer-friendly, I'm inclined to look at becoming an ISP the only way I can, which is in cooperation with my fellow citizens. The taxes that pay for it are the best way I can contribute. But this is only because I think high quality Internet access is important, and the private sector is showing themselves to be incapable to living up to the task granted them.
As for filtering, you're right. The problem isn't "The Government" as some external entity enforcing its will upon us, the problem is "We The People" who have, as a society, decided that decency and crime-fighting should trump our freedoms. You'll get nowhere trying to convince the politicians to change, what you have to change is the people. Your use of a term like "STATENET" is clearly meant to convey Soviet/Communist overtones. The problem with the Soviet Union wasn't that it meant to make a better world for its people, but that it was a top-down system. The power came from the few, and was imposed on the many. In The United States of America, the power comes from the bottom up, even today where apathy and anti-government sentiment are so prevalent.
So, then..... why are they working on this? As I understand it, their launch system is already lucrative enough as it is. Why go reinventing the wheel?
The same reason Airbus and Boeing make similar aircraft. Because they want to be the one to sell it to you.
A question for you. Why shouldn't they be working on this? Because someone else currently does? Really?
If anyone at this point doesnt get that you dont open anything, from anybody, no matter what, then you will probably learn that Darwin is harsh even to the innocent.
That's different from saying they deserve it. These people are victims of malicious intent. That's like saying anyone who helps a stranger on the street deserves to be robbed. It might happen and 'Darwin is harsh', like you said, but that doesn't make it deserved.
The logic of 'they deserve it' also lets the criminal off the hook. If someone gets what they deserve, it's hard to see why the person who perpetrated that is guilty of anything in a moral sense.
Since this sequence (embedding a virus and changing the name to.wri) pretty much requires malicious intent, then to be infected you'd be opening a.wri file from an unknown source.
You mean like a worm email that comes from a friend's infected PC?
You should at least be asking yourself, if you know what a.wri is then why did they send that format? instead of say rtf?
People do odd things all the time. If you go a day without an odd thing happening, you must lead a very simple and sheltered life (which is odd in itself, so...).
Whoa...hold on there,son. The fact that they publish security updates proves them wrong.
None of the security updates have anything to do with viruses.
There are no Mac OS X viruses. None.
Maybe there aren't many (or any) viruses, worms and whatnot targeting the platform today, but they will come, and when they arrive, it will be a good idea to have some protection installed beforehand. A relative few will still get infected before the AV industry can react, but the rest will be safe as soon as a definition update appears that detects the threat.
Better still, run no antivirus/anti-malware software at all until viruses and malware become a problem.
The reason is that it's foolish to expend resources protecting against something that isn't a problem, nor is there any indication that it's about to become a problem in the near term.
Cite one example of Apple doing anything to the apps already on your phone, or anyone's phone. Just one.
The only thing Apple has set aside for that is to disable CoreLocation access to apps which stalk people. That's it. If you know of anything else, please share with the rest of us.
The interview in which Jobs said this was a response to a question about the CoreLocation blacklist I mentioned above.
The only known, or even hinted at, remote 'kill switch' for iPhone apps is that CoreLocation blacklist, and the only known thing it does is prevents an app from using CoreLocation. The app can still run, it just can't determine where a user is located. This is so that if an app starts stalking people, Apple can disable that feature for the app.
Apple has already pulled a few apps from their stores, and not a single one of them have been remotely killed on anyone's iPhone.
Any claims that there is an iPhone app remote kill switch, aside from the CoreLocation blacklist, are complete fabrications.
All viruses require a reasonable level of market share to operate, because one of the principles they rely upon is a network effect, and you just plain cannot get a network effect without a decent market share. So marketshare is, very much, a pre-requisite for a successful virus. It's not the only one, but when people say "Mac OS X hasn't been attacked yet because it doesn't have enough marketshare", they're right. That's one fundamental reason. And unless you can show that any other reasons apply, it's likely to be the only reason.
This is called critical mass. The fact that there's a very healthy third-party developer market for OS X is strong evidence that it's reached a sufficient critical mass to attract virus writers. The fact that there are trojans out for OS X is strong evidence for such critical mass.
So, you must be wondering, why aren't there any actual viruses for OS X? It's because they're too damned hard to write. Trojans? No problem. Worms? Sure, but they won't be long-lived. Viruses, though, on OS X are a nut that's yet to be cracked.
People always like to bring up how most malware is meant to earn money, or that most people use Windows, so it's a bigger target. This only explains why OS X has less viruses than Windows. What it doesn't explain is why OS X has no viruses. You'd expect at least one or two, if for nothing else than the fame and to take Mac users down a peg.
The very least Apple could do is set Mac OS X up so that the installer actively discourages setting up the default user as an administrator.
You do not understand how Mac OS X operates. Admin accounts are not the same as the user Administrator or the group Administrators (on Windows), nor the same as root on Unix. They are basically equivalent to a Unix user in the sudoer's file. You have to enter your password to elevate your privileges, just like you do in Unix, and similar to what you have to do in Vista (although the OS X/Unix way is a bit more secure in that someone can't just walk up to your unlocked computer and start wreaking superuser havoc without your password).
Slashdot Mirror
You're talking about motive. I'm talking about economics.
The economic system that took us to the Moon was socialism. The economic system that is launching Virgin Galactic is capitalism.
Apollo was very much about nationalism and militarism, as you stated. It was also about exploration, science and futurism (although those alone, I suspect, would not have sufficed to draw the needed budget). But regardless the motive, it was *only* possible, during the 60s (and even to this very day) as a socialist endeavor.
Besides, I don't think it's ugly at all.
Neither do I, but on to your main point...
Would you prefer it work well, or look good?
Both are generally possible.
Unless, of course, it's designed to reach (sub)orbit by being repulsed by the Earth.
The field of personal space travel is opening up!
This is the beauty of capitalism.
And it's only just getting there over 50 years after socialism did it.
Both socialism and capitalism have their places. Capitalism wouldn't have gotten us to the Moon in the 60s. Socialism won't get the masses into space in the 10s. A healthy society has a balance of both.
*cough* Apple owns CUPS *cough*
Time Machine, Expose, Dashboard.
3D accelerated compositing GUI, Dock, column-view Finder, iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie.
iChat Theater.
WiFi, multitouch trackpad, magsafe.
These are just a few things off the top of my head that Apple came out with before Windows or Linux. All of these things are enhancements to previously existing technologies, so don't go saying that Time Machine is just a copy of rsync, or that iChat Theater is a copy of VNC. All of these technologies are real innovation, and all of the ones that are software-based are being copied by Linux, not the other way around.
None of them were copied from "Unix, OS/2, even Linux".
Here's a link to the video.
Hahaha! Oh, wait...
Where's the usual /. argument that artists don't deserve compensation because they're producing something that's easily copied?
I've never seen it stated on slashdot (or anywhere, really), that artists don't deserve compensation.
Displeasure with a specific economic model does not mean displeasure with economics itself. I buy all my music off of iTunes. I don't *want* more physical crap, I don't *want* the disc, I want the music.
For those artists and labels that don't want to sell via iTunes (or Amazon, in a pinch), there are other ways to acquire their music without buying a disc. I *want* to buy their music. I *do* believe they deserve to be paid. If they don't want to show up to the party, it's their own damned fault.
As for the labels themselves. They are outmoded business models, and must either evolve or die. Artists really don't need them like they used to. Their remaining relevance going forward is their catalog of copyrighted material which, unfortunately, looks like it will never go out of copyright.
Name *one* thing Apple or Microsoft copied from Linux. The only thing that comes to mind is virtual desktops, which predate Linux. Nextstep (aka Mac OS X) had virtual desktops (via third party software) before Linux even existed.
Linux is the ultimate copycat. The core system itself is a complete copy of Unix. The graphical interface predates Linux as well. Linux's strength isn't in its innovation or originality. Its strength is in its openness and technical excellence.
It's called "background information". The fact that it was invented in 1859, or that it was Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. who invented it, are equally irrelevant to us.
However, all of the above facts are interesting, including the fact that he gave it away. Good for him.
No, the original poster said there'd be built-up pressure. There is no built-up pressure, as the pressure comes from the sun. The sun won't "build up" pressure that, once uncapped, will fry the planet.
This is nothing more than a clever mirror. Pressure does not build up.
As for whether the Earth would heat back up, that depends on other factors. The mirror could be used until greenhouse gasses are brought under control. Additionally, it's possible that the cloud cover would be self-sustaining (i.e., would be in equilibrium) with our current greenhouse gas levels. This whole scheme reminds me too much of Venus (even though the specifics are vastly different).
The "transient geoengineering schemes", as you call them, don't solve the problem, but they do dampen the effects, which may buy us precious time. This is like using first-aid to keep someone alive long enough to get to the hospital.
A more sensible fellow was interviewed on TV recently who said that most of our climate change is driven by the Sun
*All* of our climate changes are driven by the sun. What this plan does (and what greenhouse gasses do in general) is alter the dynamics of what happens to the energy that reaches the Earth.
Whenever people go on about how it's the sun, their motives are childish and selfish. "The problem is unsolvable, stop trying to fix it, and damn well stop asking me to help!" Of course it's the sun. What do we do about it? What can we do about it? These are valid questions. "Learn to adapt" is the last contingency (well, the last contingency is extinction, but we'll assume that's unacceptable).
Look at it like a river. Rivers flood all the time--it's part of their natural cycle. That doesn't mean we have to "adapt". People like living alongside rivers. Cities naturally form around rivers. Some flooding may be man-made (runoff side-effects of clear cutting, for example), most may be due to the nature of the river, terrain and climate. But we can, and have done something about it. We've built dams.
Thanks to dams, people don't have to "adapt" to the yearly floods. The cost of a dam is *huge*, even if you ignore the energy it generates. But the cost of *not* building a dam is larger. The lost productivity, the lost farm land and property development. The lost city infrastructure, or the added cost to make the infrastructure flood-resistant.
And not to mention, the cost of lost lives.
Rivers still flood, but our dams have essentially eliminated all but the 100-year and 1,000-year floods. Humanity is no longer required to endure the yearly floods that plagued our ancestors.
Whether global climate change is man-made or not is one question, whether global climate change is happening is another. In a certain sense, whether it's man-made or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether it's happening, and if so, what can we do about it. Only then does whether it's man-made truly matter. If it's man-made, that gives us more options. If it's not man-made, then the task is more difficult.
This proposal is, essentially, a dam in the sky, stopping energy from the sun from reaching us. Even if global climate change is due entirely to increased output from the sun, this plan, if it's sound, would negate the need to adapt. It would reflect that excess energy away from the planet.
There are many questions that need to be addressed. Is the proposal sound? What are the side-effects? The risks? The costs? But to say "do nothing" is not a proper response from the species that gave us Aristotle and Archimedes, that gave us Apollo and the Internet, that gave us dams, trains, cars and planes. "Do nothing" is the response of the dinosaurs. "Do nothing" is the response of an incapable species, or a cowardly, selfish species. But most of all, "do nothing" is the response of a doomed species.
The "upward pressure" comes from the sun. If we reduce the energy from the sun, the upward pressure is also reduced.
This isn't like capping a geyser, it's like diverting the underground pressure that drives the geyser.
From high school calculus.
There is no action that is immoral for an individual, that becomes right when done by a collective.
Trial by jury comes to mind immediately. As does war.
And taxes. If I take it upon myself to tax you, that's immoral. If society takes it upon itself to tax you, it's not automatically immoral.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul is wrong, whether Paul is a corporation or an individual.
Taxes aren't robbery. They are the dues you pay for living in this nation and all the advantages that grants. Taxes collected from 'Peter' always go to pay 'Paul'. That's the whole point of taxes, to pay for something.
Your assessment sounds a lot like the idea that a doctor saved a person's life is a 'shallow analysis', because the patient spent the next three decades smoking and eventually died of lung disease.
A better example of shallow analysis comes from people who simply jump to the conclusion that government intervention always turns out badly.
There are countless public institutions which undermine your argument. Does this happen with municipal water and power? Fire and police services?
Anti-government Americans must come to understand one fundamental fact about America... We The People are the government. When the private sector cannot provide adequate service, it falls upon us, ourselves, to step up and do what they will not or can not.
Of course, it's generally better when we don't have to, when we can pay someone else to take care of things. But that's not always possible or reasonable. When the state takes on some project, like defense or health care or (in this case) Internet service, what that really means is that We The People are taking on that project.
I know that, personally, I don't want to get into the ISP business, but until prices, service, and policies become more consumer-friendly, I'm inclined to look at becoming an ISP the only way I can, which is in cooperation with my fellow citizens. The taxes that pay for it are the best way I can contribute. But this is only because I think high quality Internet access is important, and the private sector is showing themselves to be incapable to living up to the task granted them.
As for filtering, you're right. The problem isn't "The Government" as some external entity enforcing its will upon us, the problem is "We The People" who have, as a society, decided that decency and crime-fighting should trump our freedoms. You'll get nowhere trying to convince the politicians to change, what you have to change is the people. Your use of a term like "STATENET" is clearly meant to convey Soviet/Communist overtones. The problem with the Soviet Union wasn't that it meant to make a better world for its people, but that it was a top-down system. The power came from the few, and was imposed on the many. In The United States of America, the power comes from the bottom up, even today where apathy and anti-government sentiment are so prevalent.
So, then..... why are they working on this? As I understand it, their launch system is already lucrative enough as it is. Why go reinventing the wheel?
The same reason Airbus and Boeing make similar aircraft. Because they want to be the one to sell it to you.
A question for you. Why shouldn't they be working on this? Because someone else currently does? Really?
If anyone at this point doesnt get that you dont open anything, from anybody, no matter what, then you will probably learn that Darwin is harsh even to the innocent.
That's different from saying they deserve it. These people are victims of malicious intent. That's like saying anyone who helps a stranger on the street deserves to be robbed. It might happen and 'Darwin is harsh', like you said, but that doesn't make it deserved.
The logic of 'they deserve it' also lets the criminal off the hook. If someone gets what they deserve, it's hard to see why the person who perpetrated that is guilty of anything in a moral sense.
Since this sequence (embedding a virus and changing the name to .wri) pretty much requires malicious intent, then to be infected you'd be opening a .wri file from an unknown source.
You mean like a worm email that comes from a friend's infected PC?
You should at least be asking yourself, if you know what a .wri is then why did they send that format? instead of say rtf?
People do odd things all the time. If you go a day without an odd thing happening, you must lead a very simple and sheltered life (which is odd in itself, so...).
Well... *looks around uneasily*.. it's a start but better lynch him to be safe =)
From orbit.
It's the only way to be sure.
Whoa...hold on there,son. The fact that they publish security updates proves them wrong.
None of the security updates have anything to do with viruses.
There are no Mac OS X viruses. None.
Maybe there aren't many (or any) viruses, worms and whatnot targeting the platform today, but they will come, and when they arrive, it will be a good idea to have some protection installed beforehand. A relative few will still get infected before the AV industry can react, but the rest will be safe as soon as a definition update appears that detects the threat.
Better still, run no antivirus/anti-malware software at all until viruses and malware become a problem.
The reason is that it's foolish to expend resources protecting against something that isn't a problem, nor is there any indication that it's about to become a problem in the near term.
Cite one example of Apple doing anything to the apps already on your phone, or anyone's phone. Just one.
The only thing Apple has set aside for that is to disable CoreLocation access to apps which stalk people. That's it. If you know of anything else, please share with the rest of us.
No. The lesson of OS/2 is to not trust MS as your software development partner.
The interview in which Jobs said this was a response to a question about the CoreLocation blacklist I mentioned above.
The only known, or even hinted at, remote 'kill switch' for iPhone apps is that CoreLocation blacklist, and the only known thing it does is prevents an app from using CoreLocation. The app can still run, it just can't determine where a user is located. This is so that if an app starts stalking people, Apple can disable that feature for the app.
Apple has already pulled a few apps from their stores, and not a single one of them have been remotely killed on anyone's iPhone.
Any claims that there is an iPhone app remote kill switch, aside from the CoreLocation blacklist, are complete fabrications.
All viruses require a reasonable level of market share to operate, because one of the principles they rely upon is a network effect, and you just plain cannot get a network effect without a decent market share. So marketshare is, very much, a pre-requisite for a successful virus. It's not the only one, but when people say "Mac OS X hasn't been attacked yet because it doesn't have enough marketshare", they're right. That's one fundamental reason. And unless you can show that any other reasons apply, it's likely to be the only reason.
This is called critical mass. The fact that there's a very healthy third-party developer market for OS X is strong evidence that it's reached a sufficient critical mass to attract virus writers. The fact that there are trojans out for OS X is strong evidence for such critical mass.
So, you must be wondering, why aren't there any actual viruses for OS X? It's because they're too damned hard to write. Trojans? No problem. Worms? Sure, but they won't be long-lived. Viruses, though, on OS X are a nut that's yet to be cracked.
People always like to bring up how most malware is meant to earn money, or that most people use Windows, so it's a bigger target. This only explains why OS X has less viruses than Windows. What it doesn't explain is why OS X has no viruses. You'd expect at least one or two, if for nothing else than the fame and to take Mac users down a peg.
The very least Apple could do is set Mac OS X up so that the installer actively discourages setting up the default user as an administrator.
You do not understand how Mac OS X operates. Admin accounts are not the same as the user Administrator or the group Administrators (on Windows), nor the same as root on Unix. They are basically equivalent to a Unix user in the sudoer's file. You have to enter your password to elevate your privileges, just like you do in Unix, and similar to what you have to do in Vista (although the OS X/Unix way is a bit more secure in that someone can't just walk up to your unlocked computer and start wreaking superuser havoc without your password).