>>>Why exactly did you keep your Mac up to date and not update your PCs?
Why? Because the PCs kept working and did not need updating from Win98 (my laptop) or XP (my desktop). Those OSes are still able to run the latest Firefox or Office. In contrast the MAC became unusable with the original 10.1 software, such that I couldn't even find a workable browser unless I upgraded to 10.4 minimum, so that's why I spent the cash. PC OS == no cost. Mac OS == recurring cost.
Oh well.
I think I'm done with Macs. My first Quadra Mac was not as good as my awesome Amiga 4000, but was clearly superior to the crappy Windows 3 and 95, which is why I went that route. Now there's no real difference. Windows has copied nearly all the same functionality, such that it often feels just like a Mac OS (even has a trashcan and finder-like interface). It's the same reason why I buy a Toyota instead of a Lexus.
>>>>I have a G4 PowerMac which apparently won't run 10.6. Can Linux be run on this machine?
>>Yes, but why?
I can't believe you were modded +5 Insightful. You don't even know how to read (apparently) since you didn't comprehend this part of the sentence "PowerMac...won't run 10.6". I wish I knew how to moderate because I'd mod you "-1 illiterate"
Just so people don't think I'm a Mac-hater and MS-lover..... this below should convince you:
>>>Don't be a fucking tight-arse with RAM, and vista is fine.
Does it? My brother has Vista and it worked fine with 1/2 gig but was slow, so I upgraded him to 1.5 gig and it was wonderful. But then a week later it started telling him he's using an unauthorized copy of Vista. So I reinstalled everything and typed in the authorized serial number.... and one week later it did the same damn thing, claiming he stole Vista.
I removed the RAM and the problem disappeared, but now Vista is as slow as a snail running through molasses. Again.
What kind of shitty software does Microsoft produce that you can't even upgrade your RAM from 1/2 to 1.5 gig without it declaring you are using an illegal copy of their OS??? Damn I miss the ease-of-use of my old Commodore Amiga - it just worked and it worked well.
>>>Maybe, but that's not going to stop me from paying $10 for my upgrade right now.
More money sucked out of my wallet by Apple:
- Money spent since 1999 on my Win98 laptop - nothing. - Money spent since 2002 on Windows XP - nothing. - Money spent since 2002 on OS X 10.x - about $400. (Else my G4 Mac would stop functioning properly.) Clearly Apple is like Lexus or Acura or Chrysler - a luxury brand for those who can afford the expensive, ongoing maintenance costs.
No it's not a troll. It's free speech. An opinion.
You don't have to like it, but you should at least respect it. I'm not changing my opinion just because you lashout with teeny-bopper insults like "idiot" or "troll" or "asshole" (like you did with my previous posts). My opinion is my opinion. MACS are luxury brands with pricetags and maintenance fees to match.
Apple has forced users on the upgrade treadmill FAR more often than Microsoft. I can run all the latest software on XP. Try doing that with OSX 10.0 (or whatever version you can update it to, without paying anything)
QFT. (quoted for truth).
Hell.. Apple charged iPod touch users money for updating the firmware.
It's not officially-supported, but it still works. NOW contrast that with what happens if I try to install FF3 or the latest Safari on a 10.3 or earlier Mac OS - "your OS needs updating". It won't even install. I suspect it would work just fine, but Apple's "we control you and your computer"-paradigm won't even let me try.
That sounds like my parents, who were fine while they were apart with separate interests (dad at work; mom at home), but once they both retired they discovered they hate each other. I wouldn't be surprised to get a phonecall and hear that they killed each other - yes it's that bad.
>>>like Ron White says, you can buy a bigger rack...
I hate big racks. My niece told me she bought breast implants and the first thing out of my mouth was "Why???" She was really cute before but now she looks un-natural, especially since the implants have traveled south to her stomach. (shaking head). Way to ruin your appearance girl. I'm like King Henry the 8th, I prefer small firm breasts. Stay away from the fakies.
Then you'll be arrested for exposing a minor to porn. Isn't (lack of) freedom great??? I think this is one of those laws that needs to be rewritten, where it's okay to discuss sex and even show educational videos, if the young adult has reached age 13. Current laws forbid this practice, and could result in parents being arrested.
I figure at age 13 they need the information. Better to have informed teens rather than ignorant ("You can't get pregnant the first time," "It's safe to have sex halfway between periods," et cetera).
I never understood that. I can understand the purple-colored dye fading if it's exposed to light (same as a rug or painting fades), but if it's stored inside a dark Caselogic notebook, why would it fade? It should be just fine.
I guess you could also throw-in a USB flashdrive for backup. That ought to last 15 years, but the question is - Will it still be readable? What if USB ports disappear like PS/2, Centronics, and serial connections have disappeared? For example I have an ancient 80s printer that still works, but I have no way to hook it up. The same might happen to a USB drive.
>>>what if there's a crime committed in your house ? If someone attacks you there, there will be no camera to act as a deterrent. >>>
Yes true, but after I blow the criminal's brains-out with my semiautomatic, I will invite the police inside to clean up the mess. The right to ownership of your self is the most basic right. The right to protect yourself is the second right, and I always exercise it to the fullest measure.
Imagine that we have a Constitution to prevent these types of abuses.
Well you don't have to imagine, because we do have such a thing. One at the U.S. level, one at the State level, one at the County level, and often another one at the City/Township level too. We just need to enforce these constitutions, and hold politicians to task for violating them.
Also to quote President TR - "Speak softly and carry a big stick" to make sure they understand we mean it. Or else.
Then the solution is not to have shoddy enforcement of the laws (which weakens the whole legal system), but instead rewrite the laws to be less strict. For example the first time is just a warning, rather than 5 years in jail.
I used this same argument in regards to speeding laws, which thanks to cameras means more people are getting ticketed. I argue the solution is not shoddy enforcement, but instead raise the limit to a higher number from 65 to 75 for example, so fewer people get ticketed. (Besides 75 is what the interstate engineers recommended in the first place... politicians need to listen to engineers, not ignore them.)
>>>"CCTV captures chilling moment drug-fuelled thugs beat OAP to death"
Yes and then there's these lines:
- "Philadelphia camera catches teen rampage in supermarket - 5 students arrested and jailed. More arrests expected" - "Baltimore camera spies bank thief last week - cops apprehended crook this morning" - "White Marsh Mall security cameras used to convict "parking lot murderer" caught in act"
Without cameras these people would have never been caught, since the crimes would have gone unobserved.
>>>If the police wish to follow my every movement then they need a court order -
No they don't. They can sit outside your house all day (just like CCTV cameras do), and they don't need a court order to monitor your front yard, which is publicly visible. They only need a court order to enter past the threshold.
>>>You won't object if City Hall mandates that all entrances and exits are monitored
No. They've had that power for over a hundred years, simply by putting a police officer or detective outside my house. Nothing changed except we're replacing organic eyeballs with electronic.
>>>Why stop there? Great Britain is going to install cameras into some targeted homes
That sucks for the UK, but fortunately the U.S. has a Supreme Law that forbids that from happening, unless a warrant is first obtained from a judge, and names specifically what is being monitored (i.e. kid's bedroom to prevent sex abuse). I don't fear the future so long as we remember our past, and enforce the laws to stop the government from acting unconstitutionally.
We also need to revive State nullification of federal laws. It was used prior to the Civil War to nullify Slave Extradition Laws and prevent escaped blacks from being shipped back to the south. It can be used again for similar positive purposes (like nullifying anti-medical marijuana laws).
Yes sometimes bad laws pass, like the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1796 that violated free speech, but eventually the people rise-up, start waving guns around, scare the shit out of their representatives, and then the law gets nullified (1802).
This is one of the advantages of having a Constitution that defines what laws are allowed, what laws are not allowed, plus having a democracy where the populace demands to be heard (or else). Walking down the street may foolishly be criminalized today, but it will be nullified rather quickly, either by the Supreme Court, or the Congress, or the States, or the People.
And here's another anecdotal case, where an American lady had a cam monitoring her house and she spied thieves break-in from her employer's office. She called the cops who then showed-up and surrounded the house to arrest the gang. Without the cam, she'd have come home to an half-empty house and had no clue who did it. Cameras DO prevent crimes and/or catch the bad guys.
Perhaps not every time, but more often than if they were not there.
>>>Whether it's because the perp is wearing a hat or they never return to the city or whatever, were there an actual officer there it could have been stopped then and there: >>>
That's a really big "if". In reality the cop would not have been there, but instead patrolling some other part of the city, or taking a break to get donuts, or at home sleeping with his wife. A cop can't be everywhere. If you were to eliminate those 1000 cameras, you'd need to hire 3000 cops in rotating shifts to get the same level of surveillance. The cameras are cheaper.
For those who think CCTVs are not effective, just look at how many speeders and red-light drivers get caught by cameras, and are issued automatic tickets/fines.
If the cameras did not exist those people would have gotten-away with that crime.
>>>when a cop sees someone commit a crime he can arrest him on the spot, all a CCTV camera can do is watch
True and false. If the cop happens to be in the right place at the right time and not taking a break to eat donuts, then yes he can arrest the perp. It's more-likely the cop won't be anywhere near the crime.
But a CCTV system can cover 1000 different places, and over the course of three shifts, such that it sees virtually everything. The guards monitoring the video feeds will spot the crime in progress, and then go to the scene to catch the criminal, or at least rescue the victim before he/she bleeds to death.
CCTV expands the reach of existing laws, to more effectively protect individual rights from those seeking to cause harm.
>>>All public areas, always on CCTV, always recorded..... You could find out all sorts of interesting information about other people.
Yes. Exactly the same information the government finds when it attaches a police officer to your house to monitor your activities and follow you around. The ability to spy on you has not changed - they've always had this capability.
>>>I have read more than a few stories about police taking action against people who are filming them
Me too. I've never been harassed about my videocam, but I've had police try to search my car without permission, and I simply respond, "Do you have a warrant?" The police are bound by the same Supreme Law as all of us, and said law protects our papers and effects. In the case of the camera I'd say, "I'm filming a public scene. Can you cite which law I'm violating by doing this?" "Uh..." "Well then I'll just keep filming."
Police are funny. My brother was telling me about how he went to check on his wife's mom, and a police officer walked-up and demanded entry to the apartment complex so he could talk to one of the other residents. My brother refused, and the policeman hassled him, but still my brother refused. An officer can not cross the threshold without warrant.
Why police think they are above the law is a mystery, but amusing to watch.
Slashdot Mirror
>>>Why exactly did you keep your Mac up to date and not update your PCs?
Why? Because the PCs kept working and did not need updating from Win98 (my laptop) or XP (my desktop). Those OSes are still able to run the latest Firefox or Office. In contrast the MAC became unusable with the original 10.1 software, such that I couldn't even find a workable browser unless I upgraded to 10.4 minimum, so that's why I spent the cash. PC OS == no cost. Mac OS == recurring cost.
Oh well.
I think I'm done with Macs. My first Quadra Mac was not as good as my awesome Amiga 4000, but was clearly superior to the crappy Windows 3 and 95, which is why I went that route. Now there's no real difference. Windows has copied nearly all the same functionality, such that it often feels just like a Mac OS (even has a trashcan and finder-like interface). It's the same reason why I buy a Toyota instead of a Lexus.
To save money.
>>>>I have a G4 PowerMac which apparently won't run 10.6. Can Linux be run on this machine?
>>Yes, but why?
I can't believe you were modded +5 Insightful. You don't even know how to read (apparently) since you didn't comprehend this part of the sentence "PowerMac...won't run 10.6". I wish I knew how to moderate because I'd mod you "-1 illiterate"
I call it Final Fantasy 10-2. Why? Because I'm not Roman and therefore don't use Roman numerals. ;-)
Just so people don't think I'm a Mac-hater and MS-lover..... this below should convince you:
>>>Don't be a fucking tight-arse with RAM, and vista is fine.
Does it? My brother has Vista and it worked fine with 1/2 gig but was slow, so I upgraded him to 1.5 gig and it was wonderful. But then a week later it started telling him he's using an unauthorized copy of Vista. So I reinstalled everything and typed in the authorized serial number.... and one week later it did the same damn thing, claiming he stole Vista.
I removed the RAM and the problem disappeared, but now Vista is as slow as a snail running through molasses. Again.
What kind of shitty software does Microsoft produce that you can't even upgrade your RAM from 1/2 to 1.5 gig without it declaring you are using an illegal copy of their OS??? Damn I miss the ease-of-use of my old Commodore Amiga - it just worked and it worked well.
>>>Maybe, but that's not going to stop me from paying $10 for my upgrade right now.
More money sucked out of my wallet by Apple:
- Money spent since 1999 on my Win98 laptop - nothing.
- Money spent since 2002 on Windows XP - nothing.
- Money spent since 2002 on OS X 10.x - about $400. (Else my G4 Mac would stop functioning properly.) Clearly Apple is like Lexus or Acura or Chrysler - a luxury brand for those who can afford the expensive, ongoing maintenance costs.
No it's not a troll.
It's free speech.
An opinion.
You don't have to like it, but you should at least respect it. I'm not changing my opinion just because you lashout with teeny-bopper insults like "idiot" or "troll" or "asshole" (like you did with my previous posts). My opinion is my opinion. MACS are luxury brands with pricetags and maintenance fees to match.
Apple has forced users on the upgrade treadmill FAR more often than Microsoft. I can run all the latest software on XP. Try doing that with OSX 10.0 (or whatever version you can update it to, without paying anything)
QFT. (quoted for truth).
Hell.. Apple charged iPod touch users money for updating the firmware.
Really? Is that true? Hmmm.
Firefox 3 works on Win98 laptop.
It's not officially-supported, but it still works. NOW contrast that with what happens if I try to install FF3 or the latest Safari on a 10.3 or earlier Mac OS - "your OS needs updating". It won't even install. I suspect it would work just fine, but Apple's "we control you and your computer"-paradigm won't even let me try.
That sounds like my parents, who were fine while they were apart with separate interests (dad at work; mom at home), but once they both retired they discovered they hate each other. I wouldn't be surprised to get a phonecall and hear that they killed each other - yes it's that bad.
>>>like Ron White says, you can buy a bigger rack...
I hate big racks. My niece told me she bought breast implants and the first thing out of my mouth was "Why???" She was really cute before but now she looks un-natural, especially since the implants have traveled south to her stomach. (shaking head). Way to ruin your appearance girl. I'm like King Henry the 8th, I prefer small firm breasts. Stay away from the fakies.
>>>seeing the goatse?
Then you'll be arrested for exposing a minor to porn. Isn't (lack of) freedom great??? I think this is one of those laws that needs to be rewritten, where it's okay to discuss sex and even show educational videos, if the young adult has reached age 13. Current laws forbid this practice, and could result in parents being arrested.
I figure at age 13 they need the information. Better to have informed teens rather than ignorant ("You can't get pregnant the first time," "It's safe to have sex halfway between periods," et cetera).
I never understood that. I can understand the purple-colored dye fading if it's exposed to light (same as a rug or painting fades), but if it's stored inside a dark Caselogic notebook, why would it fade? It should be just fine.
I guess you could also throw-in a USB flashdrive for backup. That ought to last 15 years, but the question is - Will it still be readable? What if USB ports disappear like PS/2, Centronics, and serial connections have disappeared? For example I have an ancient 80s printer that still works, but I have no way to hook it up. The same might happen to a USB drive.
Ding. Ding. Ding!
Precisely correct. Last week's criminal caught via CCTV evidence is this week's crime that has been prevented.
>>>what if there's a crime committed in your house ? If someone attacks you there, there will be no camera to act as a deterrent.
>>>
Yes true, but after I blow the criminal's brains-out with my semiautomatic, I will invite the police inside to clean up the mess. The right to ownership of your self is the most basic right. The right to protect yourself is the second right, and I always exercise it to the fullest measure.
Imagine that we have a Constitution to prevent these types of abuses.
Well you don't have to imagine, because we do have such a thing. One at the U.S. level, one at the State level, one at the County level, and often another one at the City/Township level too. We just need to enforce these constitutions, and hold politicians to task for violating them.
Also to quote President TR - "Speak softly and carry a big stick" to make sure they understand we mean it. Or else.
Then the solution is not to have shoddy enforcement of the laws (which weakens the whole legal system), but instead rewrite the laws to be less strict. For example the first time is just a warning, rather than 5 years in jail.
I used this same argument in regards to speeding laws, which thanks to cameras means more people are getting ticketed. I argue the solution is not shoddy enforcement, but instead raise the limit to a higher number from 65 to 75 for example, so fewer people get ticketed. (Besides 75 is what the interstate engineers recommended in the first place... politicians need to listen to engineers, not ignore them.)
>>>"CCTV captures chilling moment drug-fuelled thugs beat OAP to death"
Yes and then there's these lines:
- "Philadelphia camera catches teen rampage in supermarket - 5 students arrested and jailed. More arrests expected"
- "Baltimore camera spies bank thief last week - cops apprehended crook this morning"
- "White Marsh Mall security cameras used to convict "parking lot murderer" caught in act"
Without cameras these people would have never been caught, since the crimes would have gone unobserved.
>>>If the police wish to follow my every movement then they need a court order -
No they don't. They can sit outside your house all day (just like CCTV cameras do), and they don't need a court order to monitor your front yard, which is publicly visible. They only need a court order to enter past the threshold.
>>>You won't object if City Hall mandates that all entrances and exits are monitored
No. They've had that power for over a hundred years, simply by putting a police officer or detective outside my house. Nothing changed except we're replacing organic eyeballs with electronic.
>>>Why stop there? Great Britain is going to install cameras into some targeted homes
That sucks for the UK, but fortunately the U.S. has a Supreme Law that forbids that from happening, unless a warrant is first obtained from a judge, and names specifically what is being monitored (i.e. kid's bedroom to prevent sex abuse). I don't fear the future so long as we remember our past, and enforce the laws to stop the government from acting unconstitutionally.
We also need to revive State nullification of federal laws. It was used prior to the Civil War to nullify Slave Extradition Laws and prevent escaped blacks from being shipped back to the south. It can be used again for similar positive purposes (like nullifying anti-medical marijuana laws).
Yes sometimes bad laws pass, like the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1796 that violated free speech, but eventually the people rise-up, start waving guns around, scare the shit out of their representatives, and then the law gets nullified (1802).
This is one of the advantages of having a Constitution that defines what laws are allowed, what laws are not allowed, plus having a democracy where the populace demands to be heard (or else). Walking down the street may foolishly be criminalized today, but it will be nullified rather quickly, either by the Supreme Court, or the Congress, or the States, or the People.
Riiiiight.
And here's another anecdotal case, where an American lady had a cam monitoring her house and she spied thieves break-in from her employer's office. She called the cops who then showed-up and surrounded the house to arrest the gang. Without the cam, she'd have come home to an half-empty house and had no clue who did it. Cameras DO prevent crimes and/or catch the bad guys.
Perhaps not every time, but more often than if they were not there.
>>>Whether it's because the perp is wearing a hat or they never return to the city or whatever, were there an actual officer there it could have been stopped then and there:
>>>
That's a really big "if". In reality the cop would not have been there, but instead patrolling some other part of the city, or taking a break to get donuts, or at home sleeping with his wife. A cop can't be everywhere. If you were to eliminate those 1000 cameras, you'd need to hire 3000 cops in rotating shifts to get the same level of surveillance. The cameras are cheaper.
For those who think CCTVs are not effective, just look at how many speeders and red-light drivers get caught by cameras, and are issued automatic tickets/fines.
If the cameras did not exist those people would have gotten-away with that crime.
>>>when a cop sees someone commit a crime he can arrest him on the spot, all a CCTV camera can do is watch
True and false. If the cop happens to be in the right place at the right time and not taking a break to eat donuts, then yes he can arrest the perp. It's more-likely the cop won't be anywhere near the crime.
But a CCTV system can cover 1000 different places, and over the course of three shifts, such that it sees virtually everything. The guards monitoring the video feeds will spot the crime in progress, and then go to the scene to catch the criminal, or at least rescue the victim before he/she bleeds to death.
CCTV expands the reach of existing laws, to more effectively protect individual rights from those seeking to cause harm.
>>>All public areas, always on CCTV, always recorded..... You could find out all sorts of interesting information about other people.
Yes. Exactly the same information the government finds when it attaches a police officer to your house to monitor your activities and follow you around. The ability to spy on you has not changed - they've always had this capability.
>>>I have read more than a few stories about police taking action against people who are filming them
Me too. I've never been harassed about my videocam, but I've had police try to search my car without permission, and I simply respond, "Do you have a warrant?" The police are bound by the same Supreme Law as all of us, and said law protects our papers and effects. In the case of the camera I'd say, "I'm filming a public scene. Can you cite which law I'm violating by doing this?" "Uh..." "Well then I'll just keep filming."
Police are funny. My brother was telling me about how he went to check on his wife's mom, and a police officer walked-up and demanded entry to the apartment complex so he could talk to one of the other residents. My brother refused, and the policeman hassled him, but still my brother refused. An officer can not cross the threshold without warrant.
Why police think they are above the law is a mystery, but amusing to watch.