I wasn't aware that PC-type is suddenly a benchmark for speed At a certain point, the benefits of increased bandwidth are lost due to the computer (phone, PC, game console, etc) being unable to keep up. I imagine this is what they are referring to.
One caveat: You'll have to use Google for navigation Do no Evil, eh? It's Open Source, so this 'caveat' may not be so accurate. I'm guessing it's more like the iPhone where Google is the default and the nicest way to map, but it does nothing to stop you from using other services. They'd have to cripple the web browser to do that. The reporter is probably either playing loose with "have to use" (implying "without additional effort") or read/heard that it will have Google Maps built in, and (inaccurately) extrapolated from there.
Privacy is just another asset I can use to barter. Why is it intrinsically "evil" for someone to choose to sell it? And yes, I understand that not everyone understands exactly what they're selling, but that's a consumer problem. Because when you "barter away" your privacy, it makes it harder for me to maintain mine. *Anything* that makes it harder for me to maintain my privacy gets tagged "evil" by default, unless and until it becomes sufficiently justified.
Hmm. If you understand that humor is subjective, you will realize that what you've just posted is stupid. Alternately, if you think humor is objective, well, then you're just plain stupid. Hrmm. If you understand that 'stupid' is subjective, you will realize that what you've just posted is self-contradictory.
And why can't you just skip over content that doesn't interest you And why can't you just skip over content that doesn't interest you?
What do you base your assertion that the AC must keep *his* opinion to himself, but you are under no such restriction?
And to clarify: I think both you and the AC have every right to express your opinion. I just think your attack was unwarranted[1], and highly[1] hypocritical[2].
So what do you propose? We just let people on planes as if they were buses? When was this brought up? It started out as *YOU* defending *KIDNAPPING AND TORTURING INNOCENT PEOPLE*. That's very different from not letting them on planes, which in and of itself is an entirely different argument.
You're one seriously sick, sick fuck if you think it's OK to send Americans to jail for years without trial and that it's OK to send foreigners passing through the US to the most shady governments on Earth to be tortured.
I'd rather die a free man in a free nation in a terrorist attack than live as a fucking coward, fearing those who are guilty of nothing more than sharing a religion, appearance, or name with the boogeyman.
The boogeyman committed *ONE* successful attack against us, but *OUR* own reaction to that attack has caused us much, much more damage. It's time for Americans to stop being such bunch of shadow-fearing pansies, and to live free, proud, and fearless, like the people of any great nation should.
Good thing it wasn't muslims you were making fun of, because that would have proved you were a Republican. From your choice of jokes it is rather obvious you are a Democrat. It's not obvious[1] that he's a Democrat because he *didn't* make fun of Mohammed/Allah. It's obvious he's a Democrat because he made fun of *Republicans*. It's in the title, for crying out loud!
[1] It's really not 'obvious' he's a Democrat. The only thing that's really obvious is that he's not a Christian extremist (the 'Jesus trumps everything crowd' as opposed to merely being a Christian). If being against Christian extremism is the same thing as being a Democrat, then that speaks highly of the Democratic party. However, I'm sure there are plenty of Republicans who are just as annoyed that Christian extremism has such strong control over their party.
As for leopard vs Vista performance. Go look at Tiger vs Vista performance when using NATIVE Intel binaries reviews of products like Adobe CS3 products. Vista stomps OS X Tiger. That's a different topic.
Now go look up any other performance review comparing the two OSes, take a native OSX Intel game vs the same game on Vista. Vista again is much faster. Different topic, and "is much faster" isn't true.
So how can you claim/makeup that Leopard is faster than Vista, when Tiger isn't even faster than Vista when booted on the same Mac Hardware, running dual ported OS optimized versions of the same software? Because the topic is the OS, not individual apps.
If you 'could' install Leopard on a 700mhz PIII then you could compare old hardware as well, but you can't, and a 700mhz PIII IS slower than a 800mhz G4, that Leopard crawls on already, and Vista with enough RAM runs nice and peppy at the 700mhz level. Leopard doesn't install on an 800MHz G4. It runs very well on hardware it can install on, "with enough RAM" (as you stated for Vista), which does *not* run "peppy" on a 700MHz PIII unless you disable features (and not *just* Aero).
Tiger can't even match Vista's performance with applications that are Mac's bread and butter like Adobe Illustrator or Photoshop on TODAY'S hardware. So it would be insane to 'proclaim' that Leopard is faster than Vista on 'old' hardware when you have no idea, and no way to even test it. Already stated, from the beginning *and* more than once that you can't test beyond the cut-off point. But *up to* that point, Leopard is faster than Vista.
Clue: Leopard is faster than Tiger is faster than Panther is faster than Jaguar is faster than Puma is faster than OS X 10.0 is faster than the public beta is faster than the developer's preview.
Clue: Vista is slower than XP is slower than 2000 is slower than Me is slower than 98 is slower than 95 is slower than 3.1.
Do us all a favor, go look up OS X Tiger vs Vista performance when running the same applications on the same hardware. Different topic (apps).
I hate to burst your bubble, but there are computers on Apple's website that you can buy today that are not so Leopard friendly. Go look up the models with less than 1GB of RAM. There are none. Thanks for playing.
Microsoft doesn't control the hardware market, you can buy PC computers that won't even run Win2k or Linux at acceptable speeds. Maybe if MS became a hardware/OS monopoly like Apple does, then you could use this argument against Vista. But they don't, so they have to deal with the problems their market causes. *YOU* brought up the Mac vs PC commercial, saying it was the exact *OPPOSITE* of reality, when in fact, it's very true. The fact that MS doesn't control the hardware is a *REASON* this is true. Just because it's not directly MS's fault does not make it any less true. You didn't make the claim that it's not MS's fault, but claimed that it's just not true at all.
This same hardware you talk about not being 'Vista-friendly' is hardware that Leopard wouldn't run well on either. Additionally with the vast PC hardware market, there are new systems sold that Leopard couldn't run on at all, let alone not be 'friendly'. Want me to find you an Ad of a server with a Rage 128 or older Video card in it? How about an Intel based System without SSE2 or SSE3, and see how well core graphics work? Leopard doesn't run on PCs. No one ever claimed it did.
How in the hell does Apple create such a cult of brainwashing? Can't you think 'different' for yourself? I'm not the one bringing up various irrelevant arguments to try to defend a company! I'm responding *SOLELY* to your clam that Apple's ad was the opposite of the truth--that PC's don't really need much upgrading for Vista, but that Leopard is so much worse.
4) Via iTunes on a computer, iPod, iPhone, AppleTV--REVOKED--
That's the problem here.
Seriously watching TV is passive enough, soon you'll be complaining that the things you want aren't beamed directly into your head. No, he wants the very active method of watching the content via iTunes, which is *vastly* more flexible to the three options you listed.
The progression from the physical to the digital has its best hopes right now set on iTunes. Eventually, iTunes will need to drop DRM altogether, but iTunes+DRM is more useful than DVD+DRM or over-the-air or On Demand, etc. NBC pulling out of iTunes and going their own way is going to set the 'digital revolution' back, all in the name of avarice.
Although I don't like DRM, at least progress was moving *forward*. NBC is now actively taking us backwards. It's pathetic. I think Hulu is a good idea on it's own, as yet *another* option, but as a replacement for iTunes it's pathetic and is highly insulting to the consumer.
Um, not like I want to defend cable companies and their pricing Then why are you doing it? You have free will, if you really *don't* want to defend them, you don't have to.
"93% in 10 years" is to my mind an inflammatory way of saying "an average of 6.7% per year over the last 10 years." If they both mean the same thing, then what's your beef? That it's 'inflammatory'? Isn't putting it your way overly polite? They're using their monopoly status to raise prices beyond what the market would allow if the already minimal amount of competition were allowed in a way that seems to overly burden the poor, and you want to choose the most soothing, acquiescent wording possible?
I can never understand what motivates the sheep to defend the wolf.
Given that overall the consumer price index has averaged about a 3% increase per year over that period, cable prices are bad, but not as bad as the quote makes it sound. It makes it sound like they nearly doubled in 10 years. Is that not what happened?
However, you can't claim Leopard performs better than Vista on older hardware, and you can't claim that Leopard will even run properly on older hardware when it specifically doesn't. Vista will run on a 1999 era Computer, with memory being the only thing that would be of concern. Try re-reading my post. Leopard runs faster than Vista on the same hardware. As the hardware gets slower, Leopard does better than Vista *until* you hit the cut-off point, where Leopard won't even install, while Vista will gladly run increasingly poorly.
I don't really dispute much of what you are saying (you do have a few inaccuracies, which amount to what I called word-play, which is saying "EVERYTHING still works" which is not true, as you point out, "there is ONE feature, the DWM (Aero) video composer", which leads to a significantly degraded Vista experience--so much so that it's a major difference between Home Basic and Home Premium). But ignoring that, what I'm referring to is your original claim that:
Apple's ads pushed the idea that Vista needed major new hardware upgrades to run more than anyone else has, and their new Leopard demands more in hardware than Vista Which, at the expense of repeating myself yet again, to run Vista fully, you need a more powerful PC than to run Leopard just as fully, and that equivalent hardware will run Vista slower than Leopard *UNTIL* you hit that point where Leopard won't even install.
You're conflating minimum hardware requirements with how well it runs on supported hardware. Leopard has higher minimum hardware requirements, but runs better on the same hardware than Vista does.
What's worse is that the from a time standpoint, there are PCs sold *THIS VERY DAY* that are not Vista-friendly, while every Mac sold for the last few years is absolutely Leopard-friendly, which is more indicative of the ad you were referencing (about the PC having to have an upgrade operation to run Vista).
What I said above, "in fact, you lose out on more OS-level features by using a RAGE 128 on Vista than you do using one on Leopard," was wrong. Very wrong. The point I was making was still valid, but the specific card was incorrect.
But what you say here is *very* misleading:
Vista and all the bundled applications can run on a 1993 SVGA Card - PERIOD. There are OS features which won't run *at all*, and many programs which will run so horribly that saying they run at all is little more than word-play.
Leopard demands more in hardware than Vista Leopard and Vista take different approaches to minimum system requirements. Vista will run on extremely old hardware, it will just do so very, very slowly. As you get faster, more and more features are enabled. Leopard just won't install on Macs beyond a certain point.
Interestingly, Leopard's cut-off hardware is less powerful than Vista's "Home Basic recommended system". The Home Premium requirements are *much* higher than Leopard.
if you have an older Mac with a RAGE 128 video for example, several applications just fail to run at all. The same is true for Vista. In fact, you lose out on more OS-level features by using a RAGE 128 on Vista than you do using one on Leopard.
You're promoting an odd position--that Leopard runs slower than Vista. Speaking from *personal* experience with *both* systems on the *exact same* hardware, I can tell you that, hands-down, the *opposite* is true.
Were you using a disc from circa 2002? A lot has changed since then. XP has had a lot added and fixed since then. If you are using an up to date slipstreamed XP SP2 disc, the patch process doesn't take unduly long.
...
Were you using a disc from circa 2002? I dare ya, grab a Ubuntu Breezy Badger disc as your starting point, install it, and then patch it up to Gutsy. See how long that takes you. I bet it would be faster, to boot from the Breezy live CD, and use it to download Gutsy in its entirety, and then install from that. Why would anyone use an old Ubuntu CD when they can just download a new one? As for XP, you *can't* download an up-to-date disc.
With XP, you will have to borrow an up-to-date disc (and it has to match your license-type--was it OEM? Home? Pro? Upgrade? Odds are highly against a friend's disc even working with your key), buy an up-to-date copy, or create a slipstreamed disc (the option you listed).
So, to make a valid comparison (which is what you are ostensibly trying to do), you need to compare downloading and burning an Ubuntu ISO with downloading SP2, creating a slipstreamed ISO, and burning it.
Both in time spent, and effort expended, the Ubuntu option is going to win out.
"Technology Breeds Crime" places the emphasis on technology whereas "Crime Feeds On Technology" places the emphasis on crime. Agreed.
I would say this is a story more about crime than about technology I don't think so. It's equally dependent on crime and technology. Remove either one and the article makes absolutely no sense.
so the second is more appropriate. I fully disagree, which is the exact point I'm trying to make. If you treat this primarily as a problem with the criminals, you will be less likely to make beneficial technological changes (which is, in fact, the primary motivation for slashdot-types to say, "it's not the technology, it's the criminal") for fear of the potential for irrational changes. And a very rational fear that is--after all, how many very irrational technology laws have been passed via this very route!
Instead of kowtowing to the irrationality of others, why not fight that irrationality? In this case, kowtowing to irrationality means avoiding actual *beneficial* technology laws for fear of enacting bad technology laws. This seems to be a very short-sighted and defeatist attitude. Instead of working to make society better, all you're doing is trying to keep it from getting worse. In such an effort, if you win the best you can hope for is to keep things the same. If you lose, things get worse. Given that you are highly unlikely to win every time, you're taking action that will do nothing but ratchet down, allowing things to get worse and worse.
Technology breeds criminals implies that technology needs to be slowed or stopped. No it doesn't. If that's what you infer, you're jumping to conclusions.
Criminals use technology implies (and clearly indicates) that criminals are always going to abuse technology to facilitate crime. Nowhere in that statement is it "clearly indicated" or implied (in fact, it can't both "clearly indicate" and "imply". Do you know what those words mean?) that criminals will "always abuse technology to facilitate crime".
Unless you're irrational and prone to jumping to conclusions, to thinking with your gut. I propose teaching people to think with their minds, and to root out and expose truthiness for the fraud that it is.
Here's the problem with wording: Foxnews and George W Bush. Yes. That's exactly what I stated the problem was: the irrational people. Without the irrational people, Fox News and GWB would be impotent.
"criminals use technology" means [1] that technology can be a neutral thing in which can both benefit and harm society.
"technology breeds criminals" means [2] the loopy fuckers in power will send us into another dark age, all in the name of security. Nice try.
You're swapping definitions. means [1]: is defined as means [2]: leads to
If you re-read my post, it will be *extremely* clear that I'm referring to "means [1]", and point out that the problem caused by "means [2]" is not the wording, but the irrational people.
My solution is to teach people to think. Your solution is to trick people with wording. My solution solves the problem. Your solution merely treats the symptoms.
Ignoring the pedantic difference of "breeds" vs "feeds" (both of which are metaphors anyway), it's essentially "technology facilitates crime" vs "criminals utilize technology", which both describe the exact same thing. You can't have one without the other.
I realize you are reacting against the fear that people will hear this and fight against technology instead of fighting against crime, but that's them being irrational. The best way to fight irrationality is not more irrationality, and the claim that technology does not help criminals is irrational. Teach them to oppose the crime, not the technology. But also accept that sometimes the best way to oppose the crime is to limit the technology.
A very good example is credit card receipts. Presently, receipts are not allowed to contain a certain amount of data. This all but eliminates one avenue of identity theft/credit card fraud.
Given that the Mac Mini is smaller than the clock radio or DVD+R spindle on my desk at home, I'm not sure where you're going with this... Yeah, but if he had a Mac mini, where would he put his clock radio?
Expose is not an ideal solution. With the taskbar I have an immediate view of all open windows, without any form of interaction. Not when you run out of space.
It also encourages a good computing habit in not having a lot of open Windows Why is that a "good computing habit"?
In short, you *don't* like the Dock, solely because you can't tell which IM window received a message without clicking a button or key, but you *do* like that the Windows task bar is so limited that it requires you to stay under a certain number of open windows (which certainly requires significantly more clicking and effort than clicking a single icon).
Sadly, it will almost certainly be worse -- it'll probably require payment of a large fee to AT&T, AND require approval of your specific app by AT&T itself. So you can forget freeware, anything remotely controversial, or that doesn't mesh with their Grand ARPU-increasing strategy of the week. (ARPU = Average Revenue Per User) What makes you think this is, "almost certain"? It's nothing but imagined nonsense.
So, AT&T is going to lock third-party developers out of the iPod touch? Apple is going to let AT&T cripple the iPhone to be inferior to the iPod touch? One of those things will have to be true for your "almost certain, probably" musing to be true.
It would be even better if Apple provided a glide-path to current developers to becoming "legit" so that they're encouraged to engage rather than fight. I don't follow you here. Apple is not going to assist in "porting" apps from the current, non-official API to whatever the final version is. It would make no sense. And that being the case, why would "current developers" fight this? Do you think they're going to split off and continue to use the 1.0.2 APIs?
Apple really has no reason to be a jerk about it except spite. Nonsense. If by being a jerk, you mean, doing absolutely nothing to help current developers port to the new API. On the contrary, there's no reason for Apple to *not* be a jerk about it, if that's your definition. Spite doesn't enter into it.
Every single third-party developer of native apps *knows* they are playing in volatile waters, and that every single assumption they are making is subject to change. When an official API comes out, they will port to it if they want to continue with iPhone development.
And, Apple TV? Why let people play geek codecs when you could force people to use your DRM-locked money-generating format? Non-encrypted MP4/h.264 (which Apple TV supports) does not generate any revenue for Apple.
Wait until you ditch OS X and install Linux... you will need tissues and moisturiser. I realize the process of getting Linux configured can be so frustrating as to bring one to tears, so the tissues make sense. But seriously, Linux's usability has improved quite a bit over the years. I think, for most people, moisturizer is no longer necessary. Well, for Ubuntu at least. For Gentoo, I suppose, I can see your point...
Little beasties that breed at an earlier age make more generations in n years than do longer living animals. Crank the for(;;) loop faster and things happen faster. Ummmmm: duh! Right. Because science is merely thinking to oneself, "yes, this makes sense" and taking no further effort to verify one's conclusions.
Thank you -- I'd mod you insightful if I had points. My biggest pet peeve with the so-called debate around evolution is the notion that there is some sort of directionality to it. Popular media tends to reinforce this by using phrases like "more evolved." There *is* directionality to it. If there weren't, we'd just be +/- some base level.
Greater fitness for the environment is the direction evolution takes. Natural selection is the force which points evolution in that direction.
You don't evolve eyes, for example, just to lose them, with equal probability, as keeping them, or making them better. There are cases where eyes do evolve away, but that too is not a random, undirected event, but instead directed by natural selection in response to a changing environment (usually, finding oneself in a cave for a number of generations).
Slashdot Mirror
What do you base your assertion that the AC must keep *his* opinion to himself, but you are under no such restriction?
And to clarify: I think both you and the AC have every right to express your opinion. I just think your attack was unwarranted[1], and highly[1] hypocritical[2].
[1] Subjective, Opinion
[2] Objective, Fact
You're one seriously sick, sick fuck if you think it's OK to send Americans to jail for years without trial and that it's OK to send foreigners passing through the US to the most shady governments on Earth to be tortured.
I'd rather die a free man in a free nation in a terrorist attack than live as a fucking coward, fearing those who are guilty of nothing more than sharing a religion, appearance, or name with the boogeyman.
The boogeyman committed *ONE* successful attack against us, but *OUR* own reaction to that attack has caused us much, much more damage. It's time for Americans to stop being such bunch of shadow-fearing pansies, and to live free, proud, and fearless, like the people of any great nation should.
Fucking coward.
[1] It's really not 'obvious' he's a Democrat. The only thing that's really obvious is that he's not a Christian extremist (the 'Jesus trumps everything crowd' as opposed to merely being a Christian). If being against Christian extremism is the same thing as being a Democrat, then that speaks highly of the Democratic party. However, I'm sure there are plenty of Republicans who are just as annoyed that Christian extremism has such strong control over their party.
Clue: Leopard is faster than Tiger is faster than Panther is faster than Jaguar is faster than Puma is faster than OS X 10.0 is faster than the public beta is faster than the developer's preview.
Clue: Vista is slower than XP is slower than 2000 is slower than Me is slower than 98 is slower than 95 is slower than 3.1. Do us all a favor, go look up OS X Tiger vs Vista performance when running the same applications on the same hardware. Different topic (apps). I hate to burst your bubble, but there are computers on Apple's website that you can buy today that are not so Leopard friendly. Go look up the models with less than 1GB of RAM. There are none. Thanks for playing. Microsoft doesn't control the hardware market, you can buy PC computers that won't even run Win2k or Linux at acceptable speeds. Maybe if MS became a hardware/OS monopoly like Apple does, then you could use this argument against Vista. But they don't, so they have to deal with the problems their market causes. *YOU* brought up the Mac vs PC commercial, saying it was the exact *OPPOSITE* of reality, when in fact, it's very true. The fact that MS doesn't control the hardware is a *REASON* this is true. Just because it's not directly MS's fault does not make it any less true. You didn't make the claim that it's not MS's fault, but claimed that it's just not true at all. This same hardware you talk about not being 'Vista-friendly' is hardware that Leopard wouldn't run well on either. Additionally with the vast PC hardware market, there are new systems sold that Leopard couldn't run on at all, let alone not be 'friendly'. Want me to find you an Ad of a server with a Rage 128 or older Video card in it? How about an Intel based System without SSE2 or SSE3, and see how well core graphics work? Leopard doesn't run on PCs. No one ever claimed it did. How in the hell does Apple create such a cult of brainwashing? Can't you think 'different' for yourself? I'm not the one bringing up various irrelevant arguments to try to defend a company! I'm responding *SOLELY* to your clam that Apple's ad was the opposite of the truth--that PC's don't really need much upgrading for Vista, but that Leopard is so much worse.
Which is meaningless. In that way, *everything* competes with *everything* else. Charmin competes with Sony, butterflies compete with Toyota, etc.
Hulu and YouTube aren't direct competitors in any useful sense of the word.
They are similar in that they are video websites, so they do occupy a similar space, but their offerings don't really overlap.
That's the problem here. Seriously watching TV is passive enough, soon you'll be complaining that the things you want aren't beamed directly into your head. No, he wants the very active method of watching the content via iTunes, which is *vastly* more flexible to the three options you listed.
The progression from the physical to the digital has its best hopes right now set on iTunes. Eventually, iTunes will need to drop DRM altogether, but iTunes+DRM is more useful than DVD+DRM or over-the-air or On Demand, etc. NBC pulling out of iTunes and going their own way is going to set the 'digital revolution' back, all in the name of avarice.
Although I don't like DRM, at least progress was moving *forward*. NBC is now actively taking us backwards. It's pathetic. I think Hulu is a good idea on it's own, as yet *another* option, but as a replacement for iTunes it's pathetic and is highly insulting to the consumer.
I can never understand what motivates the sheep to defend the wolf. Given that overall the consumer price index has averaged about a 3% increase per year over that period, cable prices are bad, but not as bad as the quote makes it sound. It makes it sound like they nearly doubled in 10 years. Is that not what happened?
I don't really dispute much of what you are saying (you do have a few inaccuracies, which amount to what I called word-play, which is saying "EVERYTHING still works" which is not true, as you point out, "there is ONE feature, the DWM (Aero) video composer", which leads to a significantly degraded Vista experience--so much so that it's a major difference between Home Basic and Home Premium). But ignoring that, what I'm referring to is your original claim that: Apple's ads pushed the idea that Vista needed major new hardware upgrades to run more than anyone else has, and their new Leopard demands more in hardware than Vista Which, at the expense of repeating myself yet again, to run Vista fully, you need a more powerful PC than to run Leopard just as fully, and that equivalent hardware will run Vista slower than Leopard *UNTIL* you hit that point where Leopard won't even install.
You're conflating minimum hardware requirements with how well it runs on supported hardware. Leopard has higher minimum hardware requirements, but runs better on the same hardware than Vista does.
What's worse is that the from a time standpoint, there are PCs sold *THIS VERY DAY* that are not Vista-friendly, while every Mac sold for the last few years is absolutely Leopard-friendly, which is more indicative of the ad you were referencing (about the PC having to have an upgrade operation to run Vista).
But what you say here is *very* misleading: Vista and all the bundled applications can run on a 1993 SVGA Card - PERIOD. There are OS features which won't run *at all*, and many programs which will run so horribly that saying they run at all is little more than word-play.
Interestingly, Leopard's cut-off hardware is less powerful than Vista's "Home Basic recommended system". The Home Premium requirements are *much* higher than Leopard. if you have an older Mac with a RAGE 128 video for example, several applications just fail to run at all. The same is true for Vista. In fact, you lose out on more OS-level features by using a RAGE 128 on Vista than you do using one on Leopard.
You're promoting an odd position--that Leopard runs slower than Vista. Speaking from *personal* experience with *both* systems on the *exact same* hardware, I can tell you that, hands-down, the *opposite* is true.
Have you run both?
...
Were you using a disc from circa 2002? I dare ya, grab a Ubuntu Breezy Badger disc as your starting point, install it, and then patch it up to Gutsy. See how long that takes you. I bet it would be faster, to boot from the Breezy live CD, and use it to download Gutsy in its entirety, and then install from that. Why would anyone use an old Ubuntu CD when they can just download a new one? As for XP, you *can't* download an up-to-date disc.
With XP, you will have to borrow an up-to-date disc (and it has to match your license-type--was it OEM? Home? Pro? Upgrade? Odds are highly against a friend's disc even working with your key), buy an up-to-date copy, or create a slipstreamed disc (the option you listed).
So, to make a valid comparison (which is what you are ostensibly trying to do), you need to compare downloading and burning an Ubuntu ISO with downloading SP2, creating a slipstreamed ISO, and burning it.
Both in time spent, and effort expended, the Ubuntu option is going to win out.
Instead of kowtowing to the irrationality of others, why not fight that irrationality? In this case, kowtowing to irrationality means avoiding actual *beneficial* technology laws for fear of enacting bad technology laws. This seems to be a very short-sighted and defeatist attitude. Instead of working to make society better, all you're doing is trying to keep it from getting worse. In such an effort, if you win the best you can hope for is to keep things the same. If you lose, things get worse. Given that you are highly unlikely to win every time, you're taking action that will do nothing but ratchet down, allowing things to get worse and worse.
Unless you're irrational and prone to jumping to conclusions, to thinking with your gut. I propose teaching people to think with their minds, and to root out and expose truthiness for the fraud that it is.
"technology breeds criminals" means [2] the loopy fuckers in power will send us into another dark age, all in the name of security. Nice try.
You're swapping definitions.
means [1]: is defined as
means [2]: leads to
If you re-read my post, it will be *extremely* clear that I'm referring to "means [1]", and point out that the problem caused by "means [2]" is not the wording, but the irrational people.
My solution is to teach people to think. Your solution is to trick people with wording. My solution solves the problem. Your solution merely treats the symptoms.
What exactly is the difference?
Ignoring the pedantic difference of "breeds" vs "feeds" (both of which are metaphors anyway), it's essentially "technology facilitates crime" vs "criminals utilize technology", which both describe the exact same thing. You can't have one without the other.
I realize you are reacting against the fear that people will hear this and fight against technology instead of fighting against crime, but that's them being irrational. The best way to fight irrationality is not more irrationality, and the claim that technology does not help criminals is irrational. Teach them to oppose the crime, not the technology. But also accept that sometimes the best way to oppose the crime is to limit the technology.
A very good example is credit card receipts. Presently, receipts are not allowed to contain a certain amount of data. This all but eliminates one avenue of identity theft/credit card fraud.
In short, you *don't* like the Dock, solely because you can't tell which IM window received a message without clicking a button or key, but you *do* like that the Windows task bar is so limited that it requires you to stay under a certain number of open windows (which certainly requires significantly more clicking and effort than clicking a single icon).
Anyway, what you want is Growl.
So, AT&T is going to lock third-party developers out of the iPod touch? Apple is going to let AT&T cripple the iPhone to be inferior to the iPod touch? One of those things will have to be true for your "almost certain, probably" musing to be true.
Every single third-party developer of native apps *knows* they are playing in volatile waters, and that every single assumption they are making is subject to change. When an official API comes out, they will port to it if they want to continue with iPhone development.
Greater fitness for the environment is the direction evolution takes. Natural selection is the force which points evolution in that direction.
You don't evolve eyes, for example, just to lose them, with equal probability, as keeping them, or making them better. There are cases where eyes do evolve away, but that too is not a random, undirected event, but instead directed by natural selection in response to a changing environment (usually, finding oneself in a cave for a number of generations).