> Religion and logic don't necessarily disclude one another, but for those who belive in both, the order > of which supercedes which might determine whether they're agnostic or if they're religious.
Religion may be logical, but it is based on flawed principles. It is very easy to show the problems with the basic principles, and the rest comes crumbling down. I am referring to religion having any bearing on the physical world, e.g. creationism. Leave it in the spiritual realm where it belongs and you won't have any problems.
> I think we take a lot on faith without realising it. Much of that is based on someone elses faith > too!
To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, when everything that is impossible has been eliminated, that which remains, no matter how improbable, is the solution.
Science works because of peer review. Every theory is published for anyone to try to disprove. Creationism has been sumarilly disproved. Specifics of evolution knowledge get disproved and refined, but the basic theory seems to stand up to all scrutiny.
A scientific theory is the best that we can do at the moment. It is not how the universe works. We are always discovering new things.
> By applying logic, I've never really got beyond the questions of other minds and the existence of > external actual reality as an explanation for sense-data. And I don't see Occam's razor as being > a logical method.
An existential crisis. Don't they teach basic philosophy in school any more?:-(
Remember, Scientific Theory sprang from Natural Philospohy. You can't study one without basic knowledge of the other.
> To fix this, you should have a law liek Canada's where the loser pays the legal bills for both sides > in a law suit. This ensure frivilous law suits have to think twice. While a suit with a legitimate > chance of suceeding won't be unduly impeded.
So the fat cats can sue everyone who can't defend themselves for FREE? I must not be understanding how the law works.
> And without a well trained military force we would be taken over by a different well trained military > force. What exactly is your point? Oh, you were trolling. I knew you couldn't actually suggest that > the existence of a military force run by the government was a bad idea. > > Do you think we would be much safer without a military.
Your interpretation of my statement is quite, um, fanciful. What I mean is that it is not the military that we should be worried about. They are just a tool. It is the politicians that run it who can turn a democracy into a dictatorship overnight.
> We do want patriotic people in the armed forces. But we need people who are bright, can understand > local politics and react intelligently to the nasty tactical issues urban combat involves.
Who in his right mind would moderate this insightful??? The military wants people who can take orders WITHOUT thinking. Officers maybe, but not grunts.
> oh yeah, there is also that little added benefit of a trained military force being the only thing > between you being able to post self-righteous crap like this and you being forced to obey the whims of > some dictator.
It's the well trained military force that puts the dictator into power, and keeps him there safe and secure.
> Stupid, stupid decision from a company that claims to be serious about security.
When their solution for your company's email virus problems is to replace your Linux sendmail servers with their new virus scanning Exchange servers for $gazillion, then it makes perfect M$ sense. M$ serious about security? Get serious. Viruses are just another way for them to make money.
> So here's a question for you guys. If you owned this company or a similar one, and Microsoft wanted > to buy you out for a good price, would you choose not to sell for ethical reasons regardless of the > profit you would make?
If it meant take the money and run, yeah, I would. If it meant becoming a M$ employee, then no chance in hell.
> OpenOffice on OSX was almost cancelled several times due to the amount of x86-specific code in it, > apparently.
It's written in C, not in assembly.:-) OpenOffice runs fine on my Solaris Sparc machine. I think you mean to say Windows and X11 specific code, as opposed to Cocoa specific code.
> I remember the good old days when it was almost always about Linux and related Linux topics. The > good stuff!
It's News for Nerds, not Pander to Linux Hackers. Mac and Apple successes are big news. They are finally reaching their true geek shaping potential. Deal with it, or submit more interesting Linux articles.
> I think saying Apple will *stop* people from running OS X on their computers is a bit much. That's why they have said they won't > "allow" it.
Besides, if it's "naughty," then the hackers will try that much harder. If Apple just gave it to them, they wouldn't care. They want it to be difficult, so that they can brag about getting it working.
> [rolls mouse wheel, wheel-mouse clicks on a link] > [Looks at TV in desktop app] > [Drops to shell prompt] > $ cat/proc/version > Linux version 2.6.10-1.770_FC3smp > (bhcompile@porky.build.redhat.com) (gcc version 3.4.2 > 20041017 (Red Hat 3.4.2-6.fc3)) #1 SMP Thu Feb 24 14:20:06 > EST 2005 > [scratches head]
I am glad you were lucky enough to get all supported hardware. With Linux, it's like winning the lottery.:-)
> I believe it will be the opposite effect -- if people get MacOSX to run at all, people (generally assumed to be stupid) will still think > that it should still "just work" even though it is pirated and not running on official hardware.
Nah. The hackers who get it running on a PC are not the folks who normally buy a Mac and expect it to just work. The hackers will tinker and chat and read hacker sites and eventually get it running and feel a sense of accomplishement and love it. If they have problems, it gives them something else to tinker with. Besides, how can it be any worse then getting Linux to work?
> Apple PCs will run Windows. This has already been confirmed by one of Apple's VPs. They will not be > using OpenFirmware. You'll be able to triple boot windows, OSX and Linux.
I read that Apple would not stop people from trying to run Windows on an Intel Mac, not that they WOULD run Windows. I also read that the development boxes shipping use a BIOS instead of Openfirmware, not that Apple was dumping Openfirmware. These are not the new machines that will ship next year.
Please site your sources, because I can't find what you claim.
> Apple still claims that OS-X never crashes. Mac users will say the same thing in public. However the > Big Secret is that on Mac-centric bulletin boards (like this, for instance) you see that there are > many "kernel panics" (the equivalent of a Windows BSOD).
Never? Hell, even Solaris can panic, but it's once in a blue moon. Assuming it's not a hardware problem. A better way to put it is that Windows panics, oh, 100 times more often and OSX. Using PCs and Macs at work and at home for many years, that number is about right.
Also remember that if a Mac experiences any problem at all, the Mac faithful bitch and scream and gnash their teeth. When a Windows machine has a fatal problem, the Windows user doesn't even mention it. It's assumed that Windows will be crappy.
> Well, my two reasons to switch to Apple a few months ago (apart from usual Windows frustration), > was is doesn't use x86 CPUs and is has OpenFirmware.
Did I miss something? Where did Apple say they were dropping OpenFirmware?
> The fact is that the Linux GUI is constatnly approaching "Apple Quality" and it will only be a > metter of a few years before it gets there.
That's a moving target. The Linux GUI developers need to be creative, and shoot for a target well past where OSX is right now. Otherwise they will always be playing catch up.
> Apple is trying to position themselves so that they can skimm off the top of the Linux boom and > cut out a niche for themselves.
Right now the only money to made in Linux is on corporate servers. Apple makes most of their money off of graphics workstations and home user computers. Apple's competition for market share is squarely against Windows, not Linux.
> Apple are staking their entire company on OSX not being pirated to other x86 platforms. OSX will not > support any non-Apple hardware, so it's not a threat, unless you count possible increased Apple > market share due to lower prices.
I don't think so. People who pirate OSX will mostly be current Windows users who already own PC's, not Mac owners or potential Mac customers looking for cheap hardware. They will be the people who never would have bought Mac hardware anyway. Does this hurt Apple? Just the opposite. It shows off OSX to a whole group of people who never would have touched it.
Now if Apple were expecting to make money selling OSX licenses for generic PCs, then pirating might hurt their bottom line.
> Because OS X won't run on most every machine out there like Linux will.
OSX out of the box, no. But the Mac community has been able to get OSX running on unsupported Macs without too much difficulty. Darwin runs on anything. It won't take too long for someone to crack whatever meager copy protection that Apple will cook up. Jobs probably wants the hacker community to get all excited it. By the end of next year, folks all over corporate America will be showing off their Dells running OSX, just like they used to show off their WinXP betas.
> I use Linux only on my Mac, not only because it performs better, but because the apps I wanted to > use all work in X11, but not all of them are ported to Aqua.
That makes no sense. X11 runs fine along side Aqua. Unless what you really want is the Gnome Desktop or some such.
Slashdot Mirror
> Religion and logic don't necessarily disclude one another, but for those who belive in both, the order
> of which supercedes which might determine whether they're agnostic or if they're religious.
Religion may be logical, but it is based on flawed principles. It is very easy to show the problems with the basic principles, and the rest comes crumbling down. I am referring to religion having any bearing on the physical world, e.g. creationism. Leave it in the spiritual realm where it belongs and you won't have any problems.
jfs
> I think we take a lot on faith without realising it. Much of that is based on someone elses faith
:-(
> too!
To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, when everything that is impossible has been eliminated, that which remains, no matter how improbable, is the solution.
Science works because of peer review. Every theory is published for anyone to try to disprove. Creationism has been sumarilly disproved. Specifics of evolution knowledge get disproved and refined, but the basic theory seems to stand up to all scrutiny.
A scientific theory is the best that we can do at the moment. It is not how the universe works. We are always discovering new things.
> By applying logic, I've never really got beyond the questions of other minds and the existence of
> external actual reality as an explanation for sense-data. And I don't see Occam's razor as being
> a logical method.
An existential crisis. Don't they teach basic philosophy in school any more?
Remember, Scientific Theory sprang from Natural Philospohy. You can't study one without basic knowledge of the other.
jfs
> To fix this, you should have a law liek Canada's where the loser pays the legal bills for both sides
> in a law suit. This ensure frivilous law suits have to think twice. While a suit with a legitimate
> chance of suceeding won't be unduly impeded.
So the fat cats can sue everyone who can't defend themselves for FREE? I must not be understanding how the law works.
jfs
> And without a well trained military force we would be taken over by a different well trained military
> force. What exactly is your point? Oh, you were trolling. I knew you couldn't actually suggest that
> the existence of a military force run by the government was a bad idea.
>
> Do you think we would be much safer without a military.
Your interpretation of my statement is quite, um, fanciful. What I mean is that it is not the military that we should be worried about. They are just a tool. It is the politicians that run it who can turn a democracy into a dictatorship overnight.
jfs
> We do want patriotic people in the armed forces. But we need people who are bright, can understand
> local politics and react intelligently to the nasty tactical issues urban combat involves.
Who in his right mind would moderate this insightful??? The military wants people who can take orders WITHOUT thinking. Officers maybe, but not grunts.
jfs
> oh yeah, there is also that little added benefit of a trained military force being the only thing
> between you being able to post self-righteous crap like this and you being forced to obey the whims of
> some dictator.
It's the well trained military force that puts the dictator into power, and keeps him there safe and secure.
> Stupid, stupid decision from a company that claims to be serious about security.
When their solution for your company's email virus problems is to replace your Linux sendmail servers with their new virus scanning Exchange servers for $gazillion, then it makes perfect M$ sense. M$ serious about security? Get serious. Viruses are just another way for them to make money.
jfs
> So here's a question for you guys. If you owned this company or a similar one, and Microsoft wanted
> to buy you out for a good price, would you choose not to sell for ethical reasons regardless of the
> profit you would make?
If it meant take the money and run, yeah, I would. If it meant becoming a M$ employee, then no chance in hell.
jfs
> It's just good business sense. If you could cripple your competitors' OSes while acquiring
> things you wanted, wouldn't you do it?
Sure, it's just business, unless the company is abusing its monopoly power. We have laws to stop that sort of this. Only M$ somehow seems exempt.
jfs
> They don't sale or support Unix or Linux. What is the problem? They need to focus on their customers.
> That makes plenty of business sense.
MacOSX is unix, and M$ supports it well enough with Office, VPC, etc.
jfs
> OpenOffice on OSX was almost cancelled several times due to the amount of x86-specific code in it,
:-) OpenOffice runs fine on my Solaris Sparc machine. I think you mean to say Windows and X11 specific code, as opposed to Cocoa specific code.
> apparently.
It's written in C, not in assembly.
jfs
Me, in about a half hour. I'm picking up a dual 2.7GHz and 23" display at the Apple Store.
1 - I'll be able to resell it for 50%+ of the cost.
2 - I can keep the monitor when I get a new Intel system.
3 - Although many apps will be fat by the rollout of the new machines, many will only work on the PPC.
I figure an upgrade to Intel in about three years. I see no hurry to rush onto the bleeding edge of new technology.
jfs
> I remember the good old days when it was almost always about Linux and related Linux topics. The
> good stuff!
It's News for Nerds, not Pander to Linux Hackers. Mac and Apple successes are big news. They are finally reaching their true geek shaping potential. Deal with it, or submit more interesting Linux articles.
jfs
I don't know. To me this is like the Wright brothers announcing their new airline and airport before ever flying at Kittyhawk.
jfs
> I think saying Apple will *stop* people from running OS X on their computers is a bit much. That's why they have said they won't
> "allow" it.
Besides, if it's "naughty," then the hackers will try that much harder. If Apple just gave it to them, they wouldn't care. They want it to be difficult, so that they can brag about getting it working.
jfs
> [rolls mouse wheel, wheel-mouse clicks on a link] /proc/version
:-)
> [Looks at TV in desktop app]
> [Drops to shell prompt]
> $ cat
> Linux version 2.6.10-1.770_FC3smp
> (bhcompile@porky.build.redhat.com) (gcc version 3.4.2
> 20041017 (Red Hat 3.4.2-6.fc3)) #1 SMP Thu Feb 24 14:20:06
> EST 2005
> [scratches head]
I am glad you were lucky enough to get all supported hardware. With Linux, it's like winning the lottery.
jfs
> I believe it will be the opposite effect -- if people get MacOSX to run at all, people (generally assumed to be stupid) will still think
> that it should still "just work" even though it is pirated and not running on official hardware.
Nah. The hackers who get it running on a PC are not the folks who normally buy a Mac and expect it to just work. The hackers will tinker and chat and read hacker sites and eventually get it running and feel a sense of accomplishement and love it. If they have problems, it gives them something else to tinker with. Besides, how can it be any worse then getting Linux to work?
jfs
> Apple PCs will run Windows. This has already been confirmed by one of Apple's VPs. They will not be
> using OpenFirmware. You'll be able to triple boot windows, OSX and Linux.
I read that Apple would not stop people from trying to run Windows on an Intel Mac, not that they WOULD run Windows. I also read that the development boxes shipping use a BIOS instead of Openfirmware, not that Apple was dumping Openfirmware. These are not the new machines that will ship next year.
Please site your sources, because I can't find what you claim.
jfs
> Apple still claims that OS-X never crashes. Mac users will say the same thing in public. However the
> Big Secret is that on Mac-centric bulletin boards (like this, for instance) you see that there are
> many "kernel panics" (the equivalent of a Windows BSOD).
Never? Hell, even Solaris can panic, but it's once in a blue moon. Assuming it's not a hardware problem. A better way to put it is that Windows panics, oh, 100 times more often and OSX. Using PCs and Macs at work and at home for many years, that number is about right.
Also remember that if a Mac experiences any problem at all, the Mac faithful bitch and scream and gnash their teeth. When a Windows machine has a fatal problem, the Windows user doesn't even mention it. It's assumed that Windows will be crappy.
jfs
I thought this argument died in the 80's.
jfs
> Well, my two reasons to switch to Apple a few months ago (apart from usual Windows frustration),
> was is doesn't use x86 CPUs and is has OpenFirmware.
Did I miss something? Where did Apple say they were dropping OpenFirmware?
jfs
> The fact is that the Linux GUI is constatnly approaching "Apple Quality" and it will only be a
> metter of a few years before it gets there.
That's a moving target. The Linux GUI developers need to be creative, and shoot for a target well past where OSX is right now. Otherwise they will always be playing catch up.
> Apple is trying to position themselves so that they can skimm off the top of the Linux boom and
> cut out a niche for themselves.
Right now the only money to made in Linux is on corporate servers. Apple makes most of their money off of graphics workstations and home user computers. Apple's competition for market share is squarely against Windows, not Linux.
jfs
> Apple are staking their entire company on OSX not being pirated to other x86 platforms. OSX will not
> support any non-Apple hardware, so it's not a threat, unless you count possible increased Apple
> market share due to lower prices.
I don't think so. People who pirate OSX will mostly be current Windows users who already own PC's, not Mac owners or potential Mac customers looking for cheap hardware. They will be the people who never would have bought Mac hardware anyway. Does this hurt Apple? Just the opposite. It shows off OSX to a whole group of people who never would have touched it.
Now if Apple were expecting to make money selling OSX licenses for generic PCs, then pirating might hurt their bottom line.
jfs
> Because OS X won't run on most every machine out there like Linux will.
OSX out of the box, no. But the Mac community has been able to get OSX running on unsupported Macs without too much difficulty. Darwin runs on anything. It won't take too long for someone to crack whatever meager copy protection that Apple will cook up. Jobs probably wants the hacker community to get all excited it. By the end of next year, folks all over corporate America will be showing off their Dells running OSX, just like they used to show off their WinXP betas.
jfs
> I use Linux only on my Mac, not only because it performs better, but because the apps I wanted to
> use all work in X11, but not all of them are ported to Aqua.
That makes no sense. X11 runs fine along side Aqua. Unless what you really want is the Gnome Desktop or some such.
jfs