IMC was giving their software away for free. You can't lower the price much further than that. The problem was people violating the licensing terms and using the software on other companies' hardware.
... it would have been fairly easy for them to cut deals with STB, Diamond, Creative, and other OEMs... You don't know that. For all we know, they made a very reasonable offer to these companies and were rebuffed simply because they aren't interested in competing in that market.
MacWeek just recently ran a story about a longtime Mac hardware company, Micro Conversions, Inc., that got run out of business by people pirating their driver. http://macweek.zdnet.com/1999/05/23/microcon2.html
Every year when these reports come out, I break out my big salt shaker and ask the same old questions. First, let me come right out and say I am against software piracy. Now, onto the discussion.
What is a loss? What is piracy? What is a business application? How are these fantabulous US$11 billion calculated? Consider...
231 million rogue applications, for an average loss of US$47 per. What business apps sell for $47? Utilities, I suppose...
Are losses calculated by list price or street value?
If someone pirates Microsoft Office, does that count as one application or 5? Is the value the bundle value of Office (about $50), street value ($100), list ($250-$500?), or the separate list values of the component applications ($1250 to $2500)?
If someone pirates a CD that includes both commercial and free software (eg, Internet Explorer), is the free software counted? Is it counted if it is available both for free and at retail?
Is it piracy if the person using the unpaid-for copy would certifiably never actually buy that product? (YES, by the way.) Is it countable as a loss of revenue?
Is it piracy if one person installs it on two computers for their sole use, as an alternative to (eg) carrying around a notebook computer? In other words, if the customer simply chooses not to cooperate with really stupid one-CPU licenses? Is that a loss?
Would our retail prices drop by 38% if all this piracy stopped?
Finally, a nit-pick: Could it be that Hong Kong was dropped from the US govt's watch list simply because it's part of China now?
I've written user level programs that crashed SunOS (which, I admit, is generally rock solid). I don't see many people claiming they don't know Unix. I've also wiped out NetBSD, OpenBSD, and Linux (kernel 2.0.36). I don't recall if I've crashed AIX or not.
I'd also like to point out that this "bug" is caused by the very same web server that Slashdotters lambasted for spawning too many processes on Linux. It's not just Apple's problem; their symptom is just more severe.
Apple and Unix: A/UX, c1987-1993 AIX servers, c1995-1997 MkLinux, c1995-1998 NeXTStep (now OS X), c1988-1999
I think Apple has all the Unix credentials it needs. Slashdotters are looking for any excuse, no matter how specious, to nail Apple's balls to the wall. I know it's true. You know it's true. Just admit it.
Why don't you hold off questioning Apple's abilities until they've had a week to get a fix out the door? We all seem to think Linus & co. are pretty good, but they've had to release a new kernel every other week since the "release" of version 2.2.
"...there are a great number of bugs that WE can't fix, because it'd break existing apps."
Where have I heard this before? Oh, yes! Macintosh System 7.0 had to preserve a number of the less desirable artifacts from System 6 to avoid breaking Word and Excel in places where they ignored Apple's programming rules. FEEEL how much pity I have for MS now.
IIRC, there are already two existing ways to get the NT source code. The first way is to be an educational or research institution and promise to give MS the right to use anything you develop. The second is to pay MS $millions for a source code license, like AT&T did. Anyone, feel free to correct me on this.
I read this action thusly: 1. How can we ride the coattails of the "open source fad?" 2. How can we get the benefits of "open source" without opening our source? 3. How can we change the rules or definition of "open source" to our best advantage?
Our response as a community should be: 1. We will not debug commercial software _just_ because it's open source. Open-sourcing a commercial product is not an excuse to short-change quality control or publish buggy software. 2. We will not accept anything less than full source disclosure. 3. We will use the courts to prevent anyone from misusing the "Open Source" trademark. Oh, and a last point just for MS: 4. We refuse to pay real money for the "privilege" of beta-testing future products.
Both NetBSD and OpenBSD have Mac ports. Furthermore, Linux, NetBSD, and OpenBSD all have Mac/m68k projects, which you might reasonably argue count as separate from the PPC versions. If so, then the tally rises to seven.
I find that, as a user, I can move back and forth beween no fewer than 4 different versions of UNIX on a regular basis with less difficulty than I experience jumping between Windows NT and Windows 95.
In my experience, all the different flavors of UNIX are like different flavors of frosting all on the same vanilla cake. The substance is always the same.
Perhaps someone who develops for both multiple UNIX versions and Win32 can enlighten us on which is easier to program and support.
How many $TRILLIONS of otherwise unnecessary expense has it cost the collective computing world to have stardardized around the MS family of OS products, instead of standardizing on a PC OS that was built right in the first place?
How many $TRILLIONS in tech support and upgrades would have been saved if, for example, the IBM PC had used a UNIX kernel with a great GUI? Don't laugh too hard -- the technology was mostly in place even in 1981.
I think Jon has put his finger on a basic issue that is at the heart of most of the hatred in the world today. This isn't about Littelton at all; it's about the entire world.
Even better, it's like a phone call with call blocking.
Let me make my point short and sweet: Intel is prosecuting the wrong action.
For Intel to complain that they are receiving email Mr. Hamidi is WRONG. For Intel to complain that their employees are being harrassed by him is RIGHT. That's the key difference.
Mr. Hamidi is, however, correct to liken his action to making a speech outside Intel's building. He's shouting through open windows, that Intel could close to him anytime they want. How tough is it to install a new address in a mail filter?
So, NO, Intel is not being trespassed upon. They have simply not shut a simple window to block the ranting of an irate neighbor. They may call the cops and make the guy shut up, but they may not claim he is infringing on their property rights.
To use another analogy, Hamidi is no worse or different than an annoying telemarketer, and Intel has a very capable robotic calling attendant that could easily not accept his calls. It's up to them to do so.
But he's also on our side. We need him more than he needs us, so let's be nice to him! It's so much easier to exploit someone when they do it willingly...;-)
She asked me out once. I still kick myself for not saying "yes"! I wanted to go out with her, but I was socially precarious already and she was clearly on the bottom of the heap. I didn't want to make my already bad position worse by being seen with her outside of a school setting.
My dear friends, saying "No" to "Tanya" was possibly the single stupidest social blunder I made in my whole life. I have no idea where she is today, but I am wracked with guilt over that event. Don't get me wrong, I have a happy home life and wouldn't want to change it. But I wish I had had the guts to be her friend.
Of course, it only took me a few months to see how infantile and stupid I had been, but it was too late for me. For the rest of you, though, I'm telling you now, from someone who's been there:
IF THERE'S A TANYA IN YOUR LIFE AND YOU SAY NO TO HER LIKE I DID, I'LL NEVER FORGIVE YOU!
I know ONE person who had a miserable college experience that paralleled the idiocy of high school, and that student transferred to a real university after one year. Even my friends who went to community colleges and big state schools with brainless jocks were much better off than in high school.
I think being out from under the protection of their parents' home deflates the fatheads pretty quickly. It's also a self-selected crowd. EVERYONE goes to high school. Hmm, I'm getting a nasty idea here. Quick, somebody squash it before it escapes!
When I read all these awful stories, I just can't help but wish there were a place where the "talented misfits" could go to find an uplifting, supportive atmosphere. Of course, you're not going to find that sort of silver bullet anywhere. But I still wish one existed.
On a more pragmatic level, the best advice I can think of came from another Slashdotter: Get your GED and get out! If your high school is a living hell because you're bright, you sure as shootin' ought to be able to pass some lame GED exam and move on to college, where (usually) you can be challenged and appreciated.
Ordinarily, I'd say high school is a valuable and necessary step _socially_ in the growing up process, but if high school society is the cause of your problems, get out!
One word of caution: Going to college is no panacea, either. I knew underage college students who were just as miserable and lonely as high school students. Your fellow students may not be the abusive assholes they were in high school, but they ARE as many as seven years your senior -- and a hell of a lot happens in those seven years. Even if you are their intellectual peer, a social gulf will still exist. You have to go through late adolescence eventually, and it won't be easy anywhere.
This, of course, brings me back to the idea of some sort of "geek haven" high school that the tormented outsiders could go to. Boarding school, of course, with 100-base-T in every room.:-) Please don't crash down on me with the logistical problems, I'm daydreaming.
You may argue that the real world is a whole lot more like high school than we care to admit, and you're only hurting yourself hiding from it. I would disagree in one key aspect, though, which is that in the real world your tormentors rarely have the chance to actually beat you up. And in a battle of wits, we geeks can hold our own.
Kdart, I sympathise with your viewpoint, but you have the sense of my comment exactly backwards. The original poster said his high school was relatively free of hate, and I was asking how the hate-filled 1960s turned into the idyllic 1980s.
I also must strongly disagree with your implied criticism of the Supreme Court's decision. I will to my dying breath (well, maybe only gravely ill) defend your or anyone else's right to quietly pray wherever and whenever they want to. And I will equally strongly argue that it is !!!NOT!!! appropriate for a public school to force students to pray.
This country was founded on the principle of freedom to practice any religion or none at all. To require school prayer, as was done then, is to slip right back into the tyranny of state religion that our founding fathers came to this land to escape. I'm not saying you shouldn't practice religion, even in school. I'm saying no governmental body (which the public schools are) may FORCE one particular mode of religious practice on its constituents (students).
I have lived with an inner-city public high school teacher. Believe me, the teachers are victims of an uncaring system every bit as much as the students.
The country that gave us the movie named above must be every bit as capable as the USA to write the book on socially maladjusted youths in secondary schools.
My question to you is: How did that atmosphere cease to exist between the late 1960s and when you were in school in the 1980s? And how can we learn from your example?
Spot on, Jon! Great job catching the rebound. I bet you saw it coming a mile off, too. I did.
Remember the movie _Die Hard_, where Alan Rickman has every move the authorities make plotted out to three decimal places? That's what this society is like. I'd like a volunteer from the audience: Someone who is surprised that the Littleton tragedy resulted in massive scapegoating. Hello? Anyone?
The problem is, our society loves to take the easy way out. Right-thinking is SOOOO much easier than thinking! Looking for any place to lay the blame rather than taking responsibility is so deeply engrained in American society, it makes me sick. I'm sure it's not healthy for me to have such low opinions of my fellow Americans, but I can't help it. It's all because my mom fed me homemade yogurt when I was young.
It's not that simple, of course. You can make a bunch of individually brilliant people into a committee, and that committee will come up with the most asinine ideas you ever heard of. Society is like that too, and when kids enter the equation, all rationality flies out the window. Hey, at least their heart is in the right place. But that's no excuse for throwing out the baby (and the Constitution) with the bathwater.
So this time, let's not let it be like every school shooting in the past. Let's not let society write off all the other victims, the ones who weren't shot, or even at the same school.
Jon Katz, please be our spokesman! Send your stories to every "conventional" media outlet you can and keep at the until they acknowledge in print and in prime-time that innocent kids are being victimized and violated McCarthy-style (or KKK-style, not that there's much difference) by the people who are being the most self-righteous about Littleton.
Don't let our "leaders" off the hook! Force them to recognize their own culpability, their own hypocrisy, and their responsibility. Make them change their ways!
Readers, you can do this too. Okay, the trick is to speak your mind without getting thrown in the clink (or out of school). Start with your friends. Engage them in an intellectual/philosophical discourse about how society is letting its kids down, about how innocent kids are getting hurt in the authoritarian "crossfire", and what should be done to correct matters.
Once you have a watertight argument, try it on some "adults", like your parents. If you can convince them, or at least make a case that they can't shoot holes in, then you're ready to write letters to the editor of the newspaper and TV stations, and finally, that most unreasonable body of all, the School Board!
Can I guarantee that you'll have any success? Can I assure you that you won't get kicked out of school? Of course not! Free advice is worth what you pay for it. Have I ever done anything like this myself? No! I'm a coward. Well, I have been published in letters to the editor, but never mind that. My point is, if you don't like the way things are headed, start doing something _constructive_ to change it! And that starts with making yourself heard and respected. You can gain respect by making your statements intelligent, well thought out, and well supported.
Sheesh, did I just write all that? What gives me the right to suck up your bandwidth like that? Who is this guy, anyway? Who cares? Does my message move you? I hope it does.
The Mac Classic (c1989) had MacOS in ROM, too, 6.0.1 IIRC. Not that I ever tried to use it, but it's cute that it was in there.
Putting TOS in ROM was an incredibly STUPID move on Atari's part. It meant that I had to live with all the bugs of TOS 1.0 for YEARS (can you say "40 folder limit"?) while MacOS updates came along every few months. When a newer OS finally did come out, it cost $100 and needed factory authorized installation!
For the same money, the Amiga was a MUCH better computer. It's the machine that the ST should have been.
Finally, when I got my 1040ST, I paid around $1500 for a system with two floppies and a color monitor. For the same price, I probably could have found a used Mac Plus (they were $2500 new). At the time, I thought I was getting a great deal. I was wrong. A computer is only as good as the software you can run on it, and the ST never had software as good as what you could get on the Mac. I should know, I used both.
Much as I wanted my ST to be a beautiful swan, it was never anything but an ugly duckling.
I've been playing violent computer games since before those putrescent pukes were born. Shit, I've been playing violent computer games since before about half of you/.'ers were born! I've been a heavy Internet user since those gun-toting psychopaths were in elementary school. I've never harmed anyone, nor have I been strongly tempted to. I have a house and a job and a long-time domestic partner. I am what is colloquially referred to as a well-adjusted individual.
I attribute this to the fact that my parents actually went to the trouble to teach me good values. Thanks, Mom and Dad!
We have a fundamental problem in America that people are unwilling to accept responsibility. We see it every day: frivolous lawsuits, bogus bankruptcy filings (1e6 per year), and parents who try to use legislation to abdicate their responsibility to raise their kids.
"We can't watch our kids all the time," they say. "I did my best, but the kid was out of control!" Well, listen up you FUCK: YOU MADE THE KID, YOU FUCKING WELL DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO RAISE IT PROPERLY! IF YOU'RE NOT READY TO SACRIFICE YOUR WHOLE LIFE TO BE A GOOD PARENT, THEN DON'T FUCKING HAVE FUCKING KIDS!!! Pardon my french. I guess I feel strongly about this.
This brings me back to responsibility. Kids have very few rights under law, and correspondingly few responsibilities. Morally and legally, parents are responsible for the actions and well-being of their children. Parents must do whatever it takes to meet this obligation, even if it means asking friends and relatives to help out, or even one of the quitting their job and tightening their belts a notch. The system breaks down when we don't enforce this.
For starters, if the kid commits a crime, the parents must share equally in the punishment. I have no problem at all with seeing those Colorado parents doing life in prison for unleashing those little demons into the world.
I'm not saying there weren't other factors. The sensational media. Politics. Economices. Social dynamics in school. Inadequate security. Preservatives in their food. Even violent games and the Internet. But none of these other factors can be used as an excuse, because in the end it always comes back to the parents.
The bottom line is, parents are responsible for bringing up their kids. Parents are responsible for what their kids do. Period.
As far as I know, nothing you said is true. If you can provide references to back up your statements, I might believe you. Frankly, though, I doubt you can substantiate anything you said.
Slashdot Mirror
IMC was giving their software away for free. You can't lower the price much further than that. The problem was people violating the licensing terms and using the software on other companies' hardware.
... it would have been fairly easy for them to cut deals with STB, Diamond, Creative, and other OEMs...
You don't know that. For all we know, they made a very reasonable offer to these companies and were rebuffed simply because they aren't interested in competing in that market.
MacWeek just recently ran a story about a longtime Mac hardware company, Micro Conversions, Inc., that got run out of business by people pirating their driver.l
http://macweek.zdnet.com/1999/05/23/microcon2.htm
Every year when these reports come out, I break out my big salt shaker and ask the same old questions. First, let me come right out and say I am against software piracy. Now, onto the discussion.
What is a loss? What is piracy? What is a business application? How are these fantabulous US$11 billion calculated? Consider...
231 million rogue applications, for an average loss of US$47 per. What business apps sell for $47? Utilities, I suppose...
Are losses calculated by list price or street value?
If someone pirates Microsoft Office, does that count as one application or 5? Is the value the bundle value of Office (about $50), street value ($100), list ($250-$500?), or the separate list values of the component applications ($1250 to $2500)?
If someone pirates a CD that includes both commercial and free software (eg, Internet Explorer), is the free software counted? Is it counted if it is available both for free and at retail?
Is it piracy if the person using the unpaid-for copy would certifiably never actually buy that product? (YES, by the way.) Is it countable as a loss of revenue?
Is it piracy if one person installs it on two computers for their sole use, as an alternative to (eg) carrying around a notebook computer? In other words, if the customer simply chooses not to cooperate with really stupid one-CPU licenses? Is that a loss?
Would our retail prices drop by 38% if all this piracy stopped?
Finally, a nit-pick: Could it be that Hong Kong was dropped from the US govt's watch list simply because it's part of China now?
Okay, there's my questions. Rip into 'em!
I've written user level programs that crashed SunOS (which, I admit, is generally rock solid). I don't see many people claiming they don't know Unix. I've also wiped out NetBSD, OpenBSD, and Linux (kernel 2.0.36). I don't recall if I've crashed AIX or not.
I'd also like to point out that this "bug" is caused by the very same web server that Slashdotters lambasted for spawning too many processes on Linux. It's not just Apple's problem; their symptom is just more severe.
Apple and Unix:
A/UX, c1987-1993
AIX servers, c1995-1997
MkLinux, c1995-1998
NeXTStep (now OS X), c1988-1999
I think Apple has all the Unix credentials it needs. Slashdotters are looking for any excuse, no matter how specious, to nail Apple's balls to the wall. I know it's true. You know it's true. Just admit it.
Why don't you hold off questioning Apple's abilities until they've had a week to get a fix out the door? We all seem to think Linus & co. are pretty good, but they've had to release a new kernel every other week since the "release" of version 2.2.
1. 20 people were killed, not 40.
2. The pilot was found guilty of destroying evidence. He was kicked out of the Marines and will go to prison.
"...there are a great number of bugs that WE can't fix, because it'd break existing apps."
Where have I heard this before? Oh, yes! Macintosh System 7.0 had to preserve a number of the less desirable artifacts from System 6 to avoid breaking Word and Excel in places where they ignored Apple's programming rules. FEEEL how much pity I have for MS now.
IIRC, there are already two existing ways to get the NT source code. The first way is to be an educational or research institution and promise to give MS the right to use anything you develop. The second is to pay MS $millions for a source code license, like AT&T did. Anyone, feel free to correct me on this.
I read this action thusly: 1. How can we ride the coattails of the "open source fad?" 2. How can we get the benefits of "open source" without opening our source? 3. How can we change the rules or definition of "open source" to our best advantage?
Our response as a community should be: 1. We will not debug commercial software _just_ because it's open source. Open-sourcing a commercial product is not an excuse to short-change quality control or publish buggy software. 2. We will not accept anything less than full source disclosure. 3. We will use the courts to prevent anyone from misusing the "Open Source" trademark. Oh, and a last point just for MS: 4. We refuse to pay real money for the "privilege" of beta-testing future products.
Both NetBSD and OpenBSD have Mac ports. Furthermore, Linux, NetBSD, and OpenBSD all have Mac/m68k projects, which you might reasonably argue count as separate from the PPC versions. If so, then the tally rises to seven.
I find that, as a user, I can move back and forth beween no fewer than 4 different versions of UNIX on a regular basis with less difficulty than I experience jumping between Windows NT and Windows 95.
In my experience, all the different flavors of UNIX are like different flavors of frosting all on the same vanilla cake. The substance is always the same.
Perhaps someone who develops for both multiple UNIX versions and Win32 can enlighten us on which is easier to program and support.
This is what I would like to know:
How many $TRILLIONS of otherwise unnecessary expense has it cost the collective computing world to have stardardized around the MS family of OS products, instead of standardizing on a PC OS that was built right in the first place?
How many $TRILLIONS in tech support and upgrades would have been saved if, for example, the IBM PC had used a UNIX kernel with a great GUI? Don't laugh too hard -- the technology was mostly in place even in 1981.
I think Jon has put his finger on a basic issue that is at the heart of most of the hatred in the world today. This isn't about Littelton at all; it's about the entire world.
Even better, it's like a phone call with call blocking.
Let me make my point short and sweet: Intel is prosecuting the wrong action.
For Intel to complain that they are receiving email Mr. Hamidi is WRONG. For Intel to complain that their employees are being harrassed by him is RIGHT. That's the key difference.
Mr. Hamidi is, however, correct to liken his action to making a speech outside Intel's building. He's shouting through open windows, that Intel could close to him anytime they want. How tough is it to install a new address in a mail filter?
So, NO, Intel is not being trespassed upon. They have simply not shut a simple window to block the ranting of an irate neighbor. They may call the cops and make the guy shut up, but they may not claim he is infringing on their property rights.
To use another analogy, Hamidi is no worse or different than an annoying telemarketer, and Intel has a very capable robotic calling attendant that could easily not accept his calls. It's up to them to do so.
But he's also on our side. We need him more than he needs us, so let's be nice to him! It's so much easier to exploit someone when they do it willingly... ;-)
Seriously, I think JK is doing a good job.
She asked me out once. I still kick myself for not saying "yes"! I wanted to go out with her, but I was socially precarious already and she was clearly on the bottom of the heap. I didn't want to make my already bad position worse by being seen with her outside of a school setting.
My dear friends, saying "No" to "Tanya" was possibly the single stupidest social blunder I made in my whole life. I have no idea where she is today, but I am wracked with guilt over that event. Don't get me wrong, I have a happy home life and wouldn't want to change it. But I wish I had had the guts to be her friend.
Of course, it only took me a few months to see how infantile and stupid I had been, but it was too late for me. For the rest of you, though, I'm telling you now, from someone who's been there:
IF THERE'S A TANYA IN YOUR LIFE AND YOU SAY NO TO HER LIKE I DID, I'LL NEVER FORGIVE YOU!
I know ONE person who had a miserable college experience that paralleled the idiocy of high school, and that student transferred to a real university after one year. Even my friends who went to community colleges and big state schools with brainless jocks were much better off than in high school.
I think being out from under the protection of their parents' home deflates the fatheads pretty quickly. It's also a self-selected crowd. EVERYONE goes to high school. Hmm, I'm getting a nasty idea here. Quick, somebody squash it before it escapes!
When I read all these awful stories, I just can't help but wish there were a place where the "talented misfits" could go to find an uplifting, supportive atmosphere. Of course, you're not going to find that sort of silver bullet anywhere. But I still wish one existed.
:-) Please don't crash down on me with the logistical problems, I'm daydreaming.
On a more pragmatic level, the best advice I can think of came from another Slashdotter: Get your GED and get out! If your high school is a living hell because you're bright, you sure as shootin' ought to be able to pass some lame GED exam and move on to college, where (usually) you can be challenged and appreciated.
Ordinarily, I'd say high school is a valuable and necessary step _socially_ in the growing up process, but if high school society is the cause of your problems, get out!
One word of caution: Going to college is no panacea, either. I knew underage college students who were just as miserable and lonely as high school students. Your fellow students may not be the abusive assholes they were in high school, but they ARE as many as seven years your senior -- and a hell of a lot happens in those seven years. Even if you are their intellectual peer, a social gulf will still exist. You have to go through late adolescence eventually, and it won't be easy anywhere.
This, of course, brings me back to the idea of some sort of "geek haven" high school that the tormented outsiders could go to. Boarding school, of course, with 100-base-T in every room.
You may argue that the real world is a whole lot more like high school than we care to admit, and you're only hurting yourself hiding from it. I would disagree in one key aspect, though, which is that in the real world your tormentors rarely have the chance to actually beat you up. And in a battle of wits, we geeks can hold our own.
Kdart, I sympathise with your viewpoint, but you have the sense of my comment exactly backwards. The original poster said his high school was relatively free of hate, and I was asking how the hate-filled 1960s turned into the idyllic 1980s.
I also must strongly disagree with your implied criticism of the Supreme Court's decision. I will to my dying breath (well, maybe only gravely ill) defend your or anyone else's right to quietly pray wherever and whenever they want to. And I will equally strongly argue that it is !!!NOT!!! appropriate for a public school to force students to pray.
This country was founded on the principle of freedom to practice any religion or none at all. To require school prayer, as was done then, is to slip right back into the tyranny of state religion that our founding fathers came to this land to escape. I'm not saying you shouldn't practice religion, even in school. I'm saying no governmental body (which the public schools are) may FORCE one particular mode of religious practice on its constituents (students).
I have lived with an inner-city public high school teacher. Believe me, the teachers are victims of an uncaring system every bit as much as the students.
The country that gave us the movie named above must be every bit as capable as the USA to write the book on socially maladjusted youths in secondary schools.
My question to you is: How did that atmosphere cease to exist between the late 1960s and when you were in school in the 1980s? And how can we learn from your example?
Spot on, Jon! Great job catching the rebound. I bet you saw it coming a mile off, too. I did.
Remember the movie _Die Hard_, where Alan Rickman has every move the authorities make plotted out to three decimal places? That's what this society is like. I'd like a volunteer from the audience: Someone who is surprised that the Littleton tragedy resulted in massive scapegoating. Hello? Anyone?
The problem is, our society loves to take the easy way out. Right-thinking is SOOOO much easier than thinking! Looking for any place to lay the blame rather than taking responsibility is so deeply engrained in American society, it makes me sick. I'm sure it's not healthy for me to have such low opinions of my fellow Americans, but I can't help it. It's all because my mom fed me homemade yogurt when I was young.
It's not that simple, of course. You can make a bunch of individually brilliant people into a committee, and that committee will come up with the most asinine ideas you ever heard of. Society is like that too, and when kids enter the equation, all rationality flies out the window. Hey, at least their heart is in the right place. But that's no excuse for throwing out the baby (and the Constitution) with the bathwater.
So this time, let's not let it be like every school shooting in the past. Let's not let society write off all the other victims, the ones who weren't shot, or even at the same school.
Jon Katz, please be our spokesman! Send your stories to every "conventional" media outlet you can and keep at the until they acknowledge in print and in prime-time that innocent kids are being victimized and violated McCarthy-style (or KKK-style, not that there's much difference) by the people who are being the most self-righteous about Littleton.
Don't let our "leaders" off the hook! Force them to recognize their own culpability, their own hypocrisy, and their responsibility. Make them change their ways!
Readers, you can do this too. Okay, the trick is to speak your mind without getting thrown in the clink (or out of school). Start with your friends. Engage them in an intellectual/philosophical discourse about how society is letting its kids down, about how innocent kids are getting hurt in the authoritarian "crossfire", and what should be done to correct matters.
Once you have a watertight argument, try it on some "adults", like your parents. If you can convince them, or at least make a case that they can't shoot holes in, then you're ready to write letters to the editor of the newspaper and TV stations, and finally, that most unreasonable body of all, the School Board!
Can I guarantee that you'll have any success? Can I assure you that you won't get kicked out of school? Of course not! Free advice is worth what you pay for it. Have I ever done anything like this myself? No! I'm a coward. Well, I have been published in letters to the editor, but never mind that. My point is, if you don't like the way things are headed, start doing something _constructive_ to change it! And that starts with making yourself heard and respected. You can gain respect by making your statements intelligent, well thought out, and well supported.
Sheesh, did I just write all that? What gives me the right to suck up your bandwidth like that? Who is this guy, anyway? Who cares? Does my message move you? I hope it does.
The Mac Classic (c1989) had MacOS in ROM, too, 6.0.1 IIRC. Not that I ever tried to use it, but it's cute that it was in there.
Putting TOS in ROM was an incredibly STUPID move on Atari's part. It meant that I had to live with all the bugs of TOS 1.0 for YEARS (can you say "40 folder limit"?) while MacOS updates came along every few months. When a newer OS finally did come out, it cost $100 and needed factory authorized installation!
For the same money, the Amiga was a MUCH better computer. It's the machine that the ST should have been.
Finally, when I got my 1040ST, I paid around $1500 for a system with two floppies and a color monitor. For the same price, I probably could have found a used Mac Plus (they were $2500 new). At the time, I thought I was getting a great deal. I was wrong. A computer is only as good as the software you can run on it, and the ST never had software as good as what you could get on the Mac. I should know, I used both.
Much as I wanted my ST to be a beautiful swan, it was never anything but an ugly duckling.
I've been playing violent computer games since before those putrescent pukes were born. Shit, I've been playing violent computer games since before about half of you /.'ers were born! I've been a heavy Internet user since those gun-toting psychopaths were in elementary school. I've never harmed anyone, nor have I been strongly tempted to. I have a house and a job and a long-time domestic partner. I am what is colloquially referred to as a well-adjusted individual.
I attribute this to the fact that my parents actually went to the trouble to teach me good values. Thanks, Mom and Dad!
We have a fundamental problem in America that people are unwilling to accept responsibility. We see it every day: frivolous lawsuits, bogus bankruptcy filings (1e6 per year), and parents who try to use legislation to abdicate their responsibility to raise their kids.
"We can't watch our kids all the time," they say. "I did my best, but the kid was out of control!" Well, listen up you FUCK: YOU MADE THE KID, YOU FUCKING WELL DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO RAISE IT PROPERLY! IF YOU'RE NOT READY TO SACRIFICE YOUR WHOLE LIFE TO BE A GOOD PARENT, THEN DON'T FUCKING HAVE FUCKING KIDS!!! Pardon my french. I guess I feel strongly about this.
This brings me back to responsibility. Kids have very few rights under law, and correspondingly few responsibilities. Morally and legally, parents are responsible for the actions and well-being of their children. Parents must do whatever it takes to meet this obligation, even if it means asking friends and relatives to help out, or even one of the quitting their job and tightening their belts a notch. The system breaks down when we don't enforce this.
For starters, if the kid commits a crime, the parents must share equally in the punishment. I have no problem at all with seeing those Colorado parents doing life in prison for unleashing those little demons into the world.
I'm not saying there weren't other factors. The sensational media. Politics. Economices. Social dynamics in school. Inadequate security. Preservatives in their food. Even violent games and the Internet. But none of these other factors can be used as an excuse, because in the end it always comes back to the parents.
The bottom line is, parents are responsible for bringing up their kids. Parents are responsible for what their kids do. Period.
As far as I know, nothing you said is true. If you can provide references to back up your statements, I might believe you. Frankly, though, I doubt you can substantiate anything you said.