In the past, Apple has sold x86 daughter cards for the Mac that would run Windows at the same time as MacOS (not dual boot). Kind of like TrueBlue for classic under OSX. They were not very successful.
> Yes, species die off. Sucks for the those animals, and makes us feel guilty if were are causing it, but > the fact is that natural processes have killed off more animals than humans have.
What people with this short sighted view do not take into account is the speed of the extinction. Except maybe for the dinosaur killing meteor, all extinctions happen over thousands if not tens of thousands of years. Creatures have time to spread and fill the niches, adapt to the new conditions.
The mass extinction that we are in the middle of is fast. There is no time for nature to adapt. If we kill off one species, then that may kill off all other species that feed off of it, before they have time to adapt to a new food source, or move to a new local.
Think of it this way. If you have an outhouse, and you use it a couple of times a day, the sewage will seep into the ground without a problem. Use it 100,000 times a day, and your house will be overflowing with shit. This is where we are right now. And it's not pretty.
>...I'm fine with that. Better still, how about enforced nakedness on the plane?
That was one of the main premises of Robert Heinlein's The Puppet Masters (conveniently ignored by the folks that made the awful movie). Since the monsters that control people can hide inside their clothes, the only way to be safe was to outlaw clothes. I don't think he mentioned what people did during the winter...:-)
>...must we post a story about every person who thinks that platform X is better than platform Y and > is just plain "fed up"? Of course, as long as we include the statement "I used to be a platform X > user ONLY, now I'm switching to Y," then it matters a whole lot more.
When 98% of the business world would never dream of switching from windows to mac because of the cost and difficulties, when a company does it successfully and easily, and is happy with the results, it IS news. It's a wake up call to the brainwashed masses.
> What I consistently fail to understand is how self-professed experts, in the same breathless > exposition of their love for a non-windows OS, can both admit to having suffered the actual symptoms of > security problems on Windows and then claim to be an authority. > > Yes, there are security problems with windows, but no, you have to be a giant fucktard newbie to > actually ever be affected by them.
So to you 99% of the world are clueless fucktards? Because the number of people who understand how to secure a windows environment are few and far between.
> I have a 500$ emachine that does everything the he/I wants to do. I run windows update on a regular > basis and have never had a problem. What a whiner. What do i care about different bios versions?
Have you ever tried managing 1000 machines with 1000 average users? Please folks, having a PC at home does not make you an IT specialist. Nor does running linux make you a unix admin.
> The inevitable situation is that we will have unlimited space -- that is, more than we can fill. > So what happens when we can quite easily put every piece of digital media we've ever even thought about > owning -- all the movies, all the games -- on a single disk, without ever having to delete anything?
I've already done that. I put over 100 floppies, all of my games and files, onto 2 zip cartridges. That's back when a cutting edge game fit on a single floppy.
The point is, movies, games, graphics will keep increasing in size/resolution in order to fill up your media, whatever size it is.
> Who, except for/. crowd, expects Microsoft adopts Linux for one of their strategic pieces? > Windows has the HAL that can absorb hardware differences, so there's no room for Linux and the > like.
When the Mac came out in '84, M$ told the DOS heads that using their keyboard macros was so much faster than using a mouse that using the mouse and gui will never make it into mainstream business. They published statistics to prove it. Then Windows came out, and M$ told them how great the mouse and gui was, and they switched over in droves, their past biases completely removed from their memory banks.
When the web started taking off in the early '90s, M$ told the faithful that the web was a waste of time. It was run by Universities and will never be applicable to the modern business world. Hell, you had to jump through hoops to even get windows running TCP/IP back then. Then M$ came out with IE, and told everyone that it is the business app of the future. All of the windows heads developed mass amnesia, and told us all how M$ runs the internet.
History says that if M$ changed their stance and started pushing Linux, embrased and extended into proprietary hell, of course, then all the current Linux haters will tell you how great M$ Linux is, and forget they ever bashed it.
M$s main power is brainwashing. They coddle the non-free-thinking masses and give them a sense of community in their M$ness. They will blindly follow whatever Redmond tells them, as long as they have Linux and Apple or whoever to despise. Hated is the easiest way to bind any community.
> (If I Was A Physicist)... > I would find a more scientific subject to study, you know, that is actually related to physics.
The study shows a bias in the statistics, that such a system is not stocastic. This is a good lesson for any physics researcher. Do you think all physics is quarks and quasars? It's much more mundane than you may realize.
> In order to access those records, an investigator has to go to FISC and convince a panel of judges > that you are suspected of espionage, terrorism, or drug smuggling AND you have not committed a crime > that would allow for a search warrant AND letting you know that they want to search those records > would allow you to delete data that they want to see.
And with the Patriot act, getting the judge to approve a warrant is basically a rubber stamp. A judge has to have a very strong reason to disallow a warrant, instead of the police needing a strong reason to ask for one.
>...but there was one webcam site that allowed you to control robots to dig in sand, plant a garden, >etc. And, of course, the Mars Rovers are about as remote as you can get - at least, this side of the > Asteroid Belt.
There's a several minute communication lag between earth and mars. Hardly real time. Maybe a human landed on mars or in orbit around mars working a remote probe somewhere on the planet.
> GNU enterprise? Which of the Big 4 is going to sign off on GNU enterprise? Well, I guess if you > have enough cash, one of them will, but I'd imagine that one would want to spend one's cash in > better ways.
A company spend it's money to fund software development that will then be given away (to its competators) for free? They'd have to be crazy. Universities, national labs, etc? Yes. But profitable companies? Definately not.
> Roger Ebert is one of the few critics where I can successfully apply that test, even if there's a few > films where you wonder what he was thinking (like his positive review of "Anaconda"). CABIN BOY rocks!
Was there a woman with big boobs in Anaconda? Boobs count for a lot with Ebert. See Beyond the Valley of the Dolls if you get a chance.:-)
Ben, Matt, Damon, Jason, George, I'm so there.:-) Actually, I'm sure he would take it seriously. And it would have much better dialog. I just don't know if he can handle special effects.
> I am confused as to why people think other companies can't deliver on these specs. Apple always > had a marketing dominance in the mp3 player sector, not a technological one.
Maybe you are not the target market, because I and many others love the technology of the iPod. What gets most people hooked on buying an iPod is playing with the wheel on their friend's iPod or at the Apple store. It is vary easy and intuitive to find songs and play them.
Besides, I can get a tiny FM radio with headphones from Walgreens for $10 if that's what I want.
> Gates' prediction that the Internet would be huge business was not wrong at all.
Um, no. Gates thought that the internet was a joke, not for the business user. M$ was very late coming out with a browser, because they had no interest until it was almost too late. They scrambled like mad to warp and mutate Mosaic into the non-standards complient bastard IE when it was obvious that the internet was not going away.
> It always amazes me how people associate Apple Computer with open-ness, free thinking, and > individuality.
Personally, I've always seen them as a corporation that creates better products than everyone else.
> The company has demonstrated over the course of its existance that it is the direction opposite of
>all of those trends. Clised
Clised?:-)
> Example 1: iPod limited to apple services and formats, functionally a lockin product designed to > trap users into the Apple Music Store.
My iPod plays MP3's fine. Also, Apple does not own/control the AAC standard.
> Example 2: Look and Feel. Apple has always imposed the most limits on the user's ability to > customize his computer look and feel of any OS. Conformity is the Mantra at Apple. Individuality > be darned.
All the way back with OS5 people would install all kinds of desktop changing utilities. Hot keys, changing menu items in the finder, changing the colors, border, the look of feel. Konfabulator and others are useful these days with OSX. The funniest one was the extension that changed all the icons to fruits, with a yellow banana in place of the apple icon in the top bar.
> Example 3: Open Source. Apple plays lip services to opensource but does not give anything of > signifigance back to the community. Darwin in open. Aqua is not. KHTML is open, Safari is not. > On and on.
The last I saw I could get all the Darwin code for OSX from Apple for free.
> Take the Six Feet Under sets... they cost $100, but they're big and take up 6 discs, you almost feel > like it "should" cost a lot. I mean, the thing looks and weighs as much as a hard-cover book.
How about 12 VHS tapes and a foot and a half of shelf space. Or 24 reels of movie film. People's perception of "big" can change pretty quickly.
> But I guess no-one will make a film of it anyway, because it is anti-corporatist, anti-Statist and proposes that a small group of > activists can and should employ rather violent means to defeat a technocratic dictatorship.
Don't count on it. Hollywood has proven time and again that to them an original work is just a title, a couple of character names, and a plot that needs to be completely rewritten for film/television. Earthsea, Puppet Masters, Starship Troopers... The list goes on.
> I hate MS just as much as the next guy, but, honestly, they will win eventually. Google is great, > but Microsoft makes so many products (OS, Word, search, email) and has so much more money, that it > will eventually win.
You're too young to remember when people said the same thing about IBM and M$, aren't you.
> Coca-Cola isn't a made-up name. Its a combination of Coca beans and Cola nuts.
Just like Tiger Direct is a combination of two words, Tiger and Direct. The folks that own Coca-Cola do not go out suing people for using the word Coca or the word Cola. Nor should Tiger Direct be able to stop someone from using Tiger.
The script that is written is not the movie that is shot. The director and various uncredited writers punch up the script, i.e. turn it into the director's vision. Then while shooting the producers are always asking for changes. Dialog is constantly being changed and BEING DROPPED. Watch Project Greenlight for a more or less overdramatized look at what really goes on when making a film.
The final product is NOT the script that DNA wrote.
Slashdot Mirror
In the past, Apple has sold x86 daughter cards for the Mac that would run Windows at the same time as MacOS (not dual boot). Kind of like TrueBlue for classic under OSX. They were not very successful.
Draw your own conclusions.
jfs
> Oh, I get it -- you're talking about the deplete uranium reserves in iPods.
:-)
The depleted uranium is not a problem. It's the un-depleted uranium that you have to look out for. In your iPod. OK, moderate me off-topic.
jfs
> Yes, species die off. Sucks for the those animals, and makes us feel guilty if were are causing it, but
> the fact is that natural processes have killed off more animals than humans have.
What people with this short sighted view do not take into account is the speed of the extinction. Except maybe for the dinosaur killing meteor, all extinctions happen over thousands if not tens of thousands of years. Creatures have time to spread and fill the niches, adapt to the new conditions.
The mass extinction that we are in the middle of is fast. There is no time for nature to adapt. If we kill off one species, then that may kill off all other species that feed off of it, before they have time to adapt to a new food source, or move to a new local.
Think of it this way. If you have an outhouse, and you use it a couple of times a day, the sewage will seep into the ground without a problem. Use it 100,000 times a day, and your house will be overflowing with shit. This is where we are right now. And it's not pretty.
jfs
> ...I'm fine with that. Better still, how about enforced nakedness on the plane?
:-)
That was one of the main premises of Robert Heinlein's The Puppet Masters (conveniently ignored by the folks that made the awful movie). Since the monsters that control people can hide inside their clothes, the only way to be safe was to outlaw clothes. I don't think he mentioned what people did during the winter...
jfs
> And does that software run at all on a Mac or under Linux?
No, but equivalent software that doesn't require a daily reboot of the server does.
jfs
> ...must we post a story about every person who thinks that platform X is better than platform Y and
> is just plain "fed up"? Of course, as long as we include the statement "I used to be a platform X
> user ONLY, now I'm switching to Y," then it matters a whole lot more.
When 98% of the business world would never dream of switching from windows to mac because of the cost and difficulties, when a company does it successfully and easily, and is happy with the results, it IS news. It's a wake up call to the brainwashed masses.
jfs
> What I consistently fail to understand is how self-professed experts, in the same breathless
> exposition of their love for a non-windows OS, can both admit to having suffered the actual symptoms of
> security problems on Windows and then claim to be an authority.
>
> Yes, there are security problems with windows, but no, you have to be a giant fucktard newbie to
> actually ever be affected by them.
So to you 99% of the world are clueless fucktards? Because the number of people who understand how to secure a windows environment are few and far between.
jfs
> I have a 500$ emachine that does everything the he/I wants to do. I run windows update on a regular
> basis and have never had a problem. What a whiner. What do i care about different bios versions?
Have you ever tried managing 1000 machines with 1000 average users? Please folks, having a PC at home does not make you an IT specialist. Nor does running linux make you a unix admin.
jfs
> The inevitable situation is that we will have unlimited space -- that is, more than we can fill.
> So what happens when we can quite easily put every piece of digital media we've ever even thought about
> owning -- all the movies, all the games -- on a single disk, without ever having to delete anything?
I've already done that. I put over 100 floppies, all of my games and files, onto 2 zip cartridges. That's back when a cutting edge game fit on a single floppy.
The point is, movies, games, graphics will keep increasing in size/resolution in order to fill up your media, whatever size it is.
jfs
> Who, except for /. crowd, expects Microsoft adopts Linux for one of their strategic pieces?
> Windows has the HAL that can absorb hardware differences, so there's no room for Linux and the
> like.
When the Mac came out in '84, M$ told the DOS heads that using their keyboard macros was so much faster than using a mouse that using the mouse and gui will never make it into mainstream business. They published statistics to prove it. Then Windows came out, and M$ told them how great the mouse and gui was, and they switched over in droves, their past biases completely removed from their memory banks.
When the web started taking off in the early '90s, M$ told the faithful that the web was a waste of time. It was run by Universities and will never be applicable to the modern business world. Hell, you had to jump through hoops to even get windows running TCP/IP back then. Then M$ came out with IE, and told everyone that it is the business app of the future. All of the windows heads developed mass amnesia, and told us all how M$ runs the internet.
History says that if M$ changed their stance and started pushing Linux, embrased and extended into proprietary hell, of course, then all the current Linux haters will tell you how great M$ Linux is, and forget they ever bashed it.
M$s main power is brainwashing. They coddle the non-free-thinking masses and give them a sense of community in their M$ness. They will blindly follow whatever Redmond tells them, as long as they have Linux and Apple or whoever to despise. Hated is the easiest way to bind any community.
jfs
> (If I Was A Physicist)...
> I would find a more scientific subject to study, you know, that is actually related to physics.
The study shows a bias in the statistics, that such a system is not stocastic. This is a good lesson for any physics researcher. Do you think all physics is quarks and quasars? It's much more mundane than you may realize.
btw, my BA is in physics.
jfs
> In order to access those records, an investigator has to go to FISC and convince a panel of judges
> that you are suspected of espionage, terrorism, or drug smuggling AND you have not committed a crime
> that would allow for a search warrant AND letting you know that they want to search those records
> would allow you to delete data that they want to see.
And with the Patriot act, getting the judge to approve a warrant is basically a rubber stamp. A judge has to have a very strong reason to disallow a warrant, instead of the police needing a strong reason to ask for one.
jfs
> ...but there was one webcam site that allowed you to control robots to dig in sand, plant a garden,
>etc. And, of course, the Mars Rovers are about as remote as you can get - at least, this side of the
> Asteroid Belt.
There's a several minute communication lag between earth and mars. Hardly real time. Maybe a human landed on mars or in orbit around mars working a remote probe somewhere on the planet.
jfs
> GNU enterprise? Which of the Big 4 is going to sign off on GNU enterprise? Well, I guess if you
> have enough cash, one of them will, but I'd imagine that one would want to spend one's cash in
> better ways.
A company spend it's money to fund software development that will then be given away (to its competators) for free? They'd have to be crazy. Universities, national labs, etc? Yes. But profitable companies? Definately not.
jfs
> Roger Ebert is one of the few critics where I can successfully apply that test, even if there's a few
:-)
> films where you wonder what he was thinking (like his positive review of "Anaconda"). CABIN BOY rocks!
Was there a woman with big boobs in Anaconda? Boobs count for a lot with Ebert. See Beyond the Valley of the Dolls if you get a chance.
jfs
> kevin smith
:-) Actually, I'm sure he would take it seriously. And it would have much better dialog. I just don't know if he can handle special effects.
Ben, Matt, Damon, Jason, George, I'm so there.
jfs
> I am confused as to why people think other companies can't deliver on these specs. Apple always
> had a marketing dominance in the mp3 player sector, not a technological one.
Maybe you are not the target market, because I and many others love the technology of the iPod. What gets most people hooked on buying an iPod is playing with the wheel on their friend's iPod or at the Apple store. It is vary easy and intuitive to find songs and play them.
Besides, I can get a tiny FM radio with headphones from Walgreens for $10 if that's what I want.
jfs
> Gates' prediction that the Internet would be huge business was not wrong at all.
Um, no. Gates thought that the internet was a joke, not for the business user. M$ was very late coming out with a browser, because they had no interest until it was almost too late. They scrambled like mad to warp and mutate Mosaic into the non-standards complient bastard IE when it was obvious that the internet was not going away.
jfs
> It always amazes me how people associate Apple Computer with open-ness, free thinking, and
:-)
> individuality.
Personally, I've always seen them as a corporation that creates better products than everyone else.
> The company has demonstrated over the course of its existance that it is the direction opposite of
>all of those trends. Clised
Clised?
> Example 1: iPod limited to apple services and formats, functionally a lockin product designed to
> trap users into the Apple Music Store.
My iPod plays MP3's fine. Also, Apple does not own/control the AAC standard.
> Example 2: Look and Feel. Apple has always imposed the most limits on the user's ability to
> customize his computer look and feel of any OS. Conformity is the Mantra at Apple. Individuality
> be darned.
All the way back with OS5 people would install all kinds of desktop changing utilities. Hot keys, changing menu items in the finder, changing the colors, border, the look of feel. Konfabulator and others are useful these days with OSX. The funniest one was the extension that changed all the icons to fruits, with a yellow banana in place of the apple icon in the top bar.
> Example 3: Open Source. Apple plays lip services to opensource but does not give anything of
> signifigance back to the community. Darwin in open. Aqua is not. KHTML is open, Safari is not.
> On and on.
The last I saw I could get all the Darwin code for OSX from Apple for free.
> Apple's image is ALL marketing spin.
Your post is all uninformed bile.
jfs
> Take the Six Feet Under sets... they cost $100, but they're big and take up 6 discs, you almost feel
> like it "should" cost a lot. I mean, the thing looks and weighs as much as a hard-cover book.
How about 12 VHS tapes and a foot and a half of shelf space. Or 24 reels of movie film. People's perception of "big" can change pretty quickly.
jfs
> Maybe. That's the problem with economics, it always assumes a rational consumer ;-)
And advertising assumes a stupid (er, uninformed) consumer.
jfs
> But I guess no-one will make a film of it anyway, because it is anti-corporatist, anti-Statist and proposes that a small group of
> activists can and should employ rather violent means to defeat a technocratic dictatorship.
Don't count on it. Hollywood has proven time and again that to them an original work is just a title, a couple of character names, and a plot that needs to be completely rewritten for film/television. Earthsea, Puppet Masters, Starship Troopers... The list goes on.
jfs
> I hate MS just as much as the next guy, but, honestly, they will win eventually. Google is great,
> but Microsoft makes so many products (OS, Word, search, email) and has so much more money, that it
> will eventually win.
You're too young to remember when people said the same thing about IBM and M$, aren't you.
jfs
> Coca-Cola isn't a made-up name. Its a combination of Coca beans and Cola nuts.
Just like Tiger Direct is a combination of two words, Tiger and Direct. The folks that own Coca-Cola do not go out suing people for using the word Coca or the word Cola. Nor should Tiger Direct be able to stop someone from using Tiger.
jfs
The script that is written is not the movie that is shot. The director and various uncredited writers punch up the script, i.e. turn it into the director's vision. Then while shooting the producers are always asking for changes. Dialog is constantly being changed and BEING DROPPED. Watch Project Greenlight for a more or less overdramatized look at what really goes on when making a film.
The final product is NOT the script that DNA wrote.
jfs