I work at a university actually. I see more ipads around than macbooks. Lots of Dell laptops, and even windows netbooks. It's a private university too, so it's not like the kids can't afford a macbook. But this is as it should be, any of those options are sufficient for presentations, note taking, research, etc. If I see an OS X machine around, chances are it's running a $10K+ piece of equipment, or serving the department web site.
Re:Imagine if you had to Hack Windows to run on a
on
The Hackintosh Guide
·
· Score: 1
By your logic, Firestone has a monopoly on Firestone tires and Krispy Kreme has a monopoly on Krispy Kreme donuts.
That's the thing, OS X wasn't made successful by technically illiterate, neo-urbanite, narcissistic hipsters. That was the original Mac. OS X is genuinely superior technically to the alternatives. Unfortunately, that's the only current Apple product you can say that about.
Re:Imagine if you had to Hack Windows to run on a
on
The Hackintosh Guide
·
· Score: 1
In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / (alone or single) + polein / (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.
You are saying that Commodore did not have sufficient control over Amiga OS to determine significantly the terms on which others would have access to it?
But which one is easier to remember? The graphical ones.
Really? Using a GUI is a lot like going to the toolbox and grabbing a tool. Sometimes a tool gets misplaced and you're going to have to hunt for it. Words (like CLI commands) are always right there.
Sure, we've all had the experience where a word is right on the tip of our tongue and we can't think of it. But it's an uncommon experience, which is why it's remarkable. We all have enormous English vocabularies that we can call up instantly. On the other hand, most of us lose something every day. I've learned to keep the important things (keys) at hand, but I couldn't tell you where the swiss army knife I was just using is.
GUIs are the same way. When I use a GUI, I am constantly asking myself "ok, which menu was that command in?". With a CLI you never have to know where your commands are. Just speak the words and it is done. It's like a fucking magical incantation. That is what I call easy.
If I have to look up the command line syntax every time I want to make a link, it's a lot slower than just using the GUI method. I have to figure out what to type in the search engine
Search.. engine..? If you invoke 'ln' with no arguments, it tells you to use --help for more information. When you do that you get a nice list of options. It's all right there at your fingertips.
Another problem is long paths to directories. Sure, typing ~/Pictures is easy enough, but what if it's ~/Desktop/android-sdk-mac_86/tools (random example), or something worse.
That's what tab completion is for. This explains why you think the CLI is harder than the GUI. You're doing it wrong. The CLI has been around for long enough that it has tools to get around all these problem cases. The GUI is getting there. Features like desktop search are helping to solve the "where is it?" problem I described above. But, surprise, surprise, they do it by becoming more like the CLI.
rm -rf ~/Pictures ln -s [folder you care about] ~/Pictures
To
Right click the folder in nautilus and click Make Link, you'll get a shortcut. Delete the Pictures folder, cut and paste that link file that was made and rename it to Pictures.
Almost every word processor has a non-layout presentation option used for banging out text without sacrificing running spell checking, syntax, auto capitalization, or the use of outlining capability, etc
With a little creativity you can do any of that with command line tools. There's aspell for spelling, and regular expressions for formatting & navigating.
Self imposing a limitation making it harder to make changes mean more post production work. Consistency suffers. Continuity is the first causality. Errors creep in and persist.
A document that is processed by machine rather than by hand from the start will mean less post production work. Consistency can be ensured with simple pattern matching.
But in technical writing, when a term or a name changes you pretty much have to find and fix that immediately, because your editor won't have a clue.
No one who writes anything of length works in page layout view or worries about fonts, page breaks while entering the basic document. New writers may make this mistake their first time, but soon learn.
Then there's absolutely no reason to use a WYSIWYG editor.
In non technical writing, when it becomes important for continuity to insert some facts or flesh out a character earlier in the story to support a later story twist, you have a choice of inserting it inline, with the intent of moving it later, or finding the appropriate place, and inserting it right then when the idea is fresh. The former leads to more re-writes.
Is there some reason you think 'ed' is an append only editor?
You might have a point, if the research on pot was completed.
Cannabis is one of the most studied botanical and pharmacological products in history. Even Nixon's own commission in the 1970s recommended decriminalization.
At this point, the idea that it's harmless is naive to say the least,
Nobody says it's harmless. Nothing is without risk. What we know is that it's much less harmful than many other products we expose ourselves to on a daily basis. How many people die because of stomach bleeding from Aspirin, or chronic liver damage from Acetaminophen? Thousands every year. How many would die from an OTC cannabis preparation for general aches and pains? None.
But, what you fail to recognize is that what makes something a criminal act is legislative and judicial in nature.
But what makes it right or wrong has nothing to do with the law. When the law is so fundamentally wrong, the real villains are those who perpetuate, profit, and vote for it.
We're going to make this much more difficult for you if you don't cooperate."
That's a classic lie from the cops. They are going to make it as difficult as they can whether you cooperate or not. The more information you give them, the more difficult they can make it. Whether it's county sheriff or the FBI, nothing should pass your lips besides "I'm sorry, I can't do anything until I talk to my lawyer." Don't hand them the device, don't even confirm or deny that you know it exists.
Entirely normal, understandable, and acceptable behavior should never be considered suspicious and should *never* be considered probable cause for a warrant. (remember probable = >50% chance) Sending money overseas to your family isn't evidence of terrorism any more than making funny faces at children to make them laugh is evidence of pedophilia.
First, given all the trouble the FBI has had issuing legal National Security Letters, I wouldn't assume that there's a valid warrant until I read it.
Second, if stalking immigrant kids is the FBI "doing their job", they should find a different job. Getting a warrant requires "probable cause". Probable refers to probability. How many of these fishing expeditions has the FBI gone on? If less than 50% of them lead to arrests, they are getting warrants for improbable causes. That's unconstitutional.
What's interesting is that they said newer models are placed in the engine compartment. It would seem wise to bug your own engine compartment so you know when the hood has been raised.
In short, it won't. Think of the timescale involved in a new virus/worm/trojan/vulnerability being discovered, the time it takes to figure out how it works, and the time to patch/fix it.
You don't have to know anything about the virus. Microsoft knows the checksums to all the files in Windows. All they have to do is include hardware that checks theses files for any changes. We're talking about a white list of verified systems, not a blacklist of bad stuff.
Oh yeah, and if you disable, or attempt to emulate the trusted computing chip, you're breaking the law under the DMCA/ACTA/etc.
We're talking a multitude of OS's, various windows boxes (XP, vista, 7, home/pro/corp), unix boxes, bsd boxes, linux boxes, OSX.
No we're not. Depending on how cynical you are, banning non-supported operating systems from the internet is either a nice side effect for Microsoft, or the entire reason for this initiative.
In short, having sshd open to the world, on the standard port, is probably an indication that a system can be broken into more easily than one which does not appear to be running sshd on the standard port.
A machine not running SSHD is more likely to be a Windows box which is more easily broken into.
Slashdot Mirror
Because it's cheaper to pay Lucas off than fight him in court even if it's an obvious win.
I work at a university actually. I see more ipads around than macbooks. Lots of Dell laptops, and even windows netbooks. It's a private university too, so it's not like the kids can't afford a macbook. But this is as it should be, any of those options are sufficient for presentations, note taking, research, etc. If I see an OS X machine around, chances are it's running a $10K+ piece of equipment, or serving the department web site.
By your logic, Firestone has a monopoly on Firestone tires and Krispy Kreme has a monopoly on Krispy Kreme donuts.
Yes, they do. Is that not obvious?
That's the thing, OS X wasn't made successful by technically illiterate, neo-urbanite, narcissistic hipsters. That was the original Mac. OS X is genuinely superior technically to the alternatives. Unfortunately, that's the only current Apple product you can say that about.
In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / (alone or single) + polein / (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.
You are saying that Commodore did not have sufficient control over Amiga OS to determine significantly the terms on which others would have access to it?
What software actually costs to produce is irrelevant. What matters is how valuable it is to the customer, and how much they're willing to pay for it.
Commodore didn't have a monopoly on Amiga OS?
What made the Macintosh successful and what made OS X successful are two different stories as well.
But which one is easier to remember? The graphical ones.
Really? Using a GUI is a lot like going to the toolbox and grabbing a tool. Sometimes a tool gets misplaced and you're going to have to hunt for it. Words (like CLI commands) are always right there.
Sure, we've all had the experience where a word is right on the tip of our tongue and we can't think of it. But it's an uncommon experience, which is why it's remarkable. We all have enormous English vocabularies that we can call up instantly. On the other hand, most of us lose something every day. I've learned to keep the important things (keys) at hand, but I couldn't tell you where the swiss army knife I was just using is.
GUIs are the same way. When I use a GUI, I am constantly asking myself "ok, which menu was that command in?". With a CLI you never have to know where your commands are. Just speak the words and it is done. It's like a fucking magical incantation. That is what I call easy.
If I have to look up the command line syntax every time I want to make a link, it's a lot slower than just using the GUI method. I have to figure out what to type in the search engine
Search.. engine..? If you invoke 'ln' with no arguments, it tells you to use --help for more information. When you do that you get a nice list of options. It's all right there at your fingertips.
Another problem is long paths to directories. Sure, typing ~/Pictures is easy enough, but what if it's ~/Desktop/android-sdk-mac_86/tools (random example), or something worse.
That's what tab completion is for. This explains why you think the CLI is harder than the GUI. You're doing it wrong. The CLI has been around for long enough that it has tools to get around all these problem cases. The GUI is getting there. Features like desktop search are helping to solve the "where is it?" problem I described above. But, surprise, surprise, they do it by becoming more like the CLI.
One person accomplishes so much more than they used to, in particular when it comes to trivial tasks.
And yet, we are so much busier today.
Please remember that efficiency increases don't mean nobody works
Isn't that a problem? If efficiency just means there's more time for people to do more work, there's something seriously wrong with the world.
Compare:
To
Which instructions are really easier to follow?
Almost every word processor has a non-layout presentation option used for banging out text without sacrificing running spell checking, syntax, auto capitalization, or the use of outlining capability, etc
With a little creativity you can do any of that with command line tools. There's aspell for spelling, and regular expressions for formatting & navigating.
Self imposing a limitation making it harder to make changes mean more post production work. Consistency suffers. Continuity is the first causality. Errors creep in and persist.
A document that is processed by machine rather than by hand from the start will mean less post production work. Consistency can be ensured with simple pattern matching.
But in technical writing, when a term or a name changes you pretty much have to find and fix that immediately, because your editor won't have a clue.
No one who writes anything of length works in page layout view or worries about fonts, page breaks while entering the basic document. New writers may make this mistake their first time, but soon learn.
Then there's absolutely no reason to use a WYSIWYG editor.
In non technical writing, when it becomes important for continuity to insert some facts or flesh out a character earlier in the story to support a later story twist, you have a choice of inserting it inline, with the intent of moving it later, or finding the appropriate place, and inserting it right then when the idea is fresh. The former leads to more re-writes.
Is there some reason you think 'ed' is an append only editor?
You might have a point, if the research on pot was completed.
Cannabis is one of the most studied botanical and pharmacological products in history. Even Nixon's own commission in the 1970s recommended decriminalization.
At this point, the idea that it's harmless is naive to say the least,
Nobody says it's harmless. Nothing is without risk. What we know is that it's much less harmful than many other products we expose ourselves to on a daily basis. How many people die because of stomach bleeding from Aspirin, or chronic liver damage from Acetaminophen? Thousands every year. How many would die from an OTC cannabis preparation for general aches and pains? None.
But, what you fail to recognize is that what makes something a criminal act is legislative and judicial in nature.
But what makes it right or wrong has nothing to do with the law. When the law is so fundamentally wrong, the real villains are those who perpetuate, profit, and vote for it.
We're going to make this much more difficult for you if you don't cooperate."
That's a classic lie from the cops. They are going to make it as difficult as they can whether you cooperate or not. The more information you give them, the more difficult they can make it. Whether it's county sheriff or the FBI, nothing should pass your lips besides "I'm sorry, I can't do anything until I talk to my lawyer." Don't hand them the device, don't even confirm or deny that you know it exists.
Entirely normal, understandable, and acceptable behavior should never be considered suspicious and should *never* be considered probable cause for a warrant. (remember probable = >50% chance) Sending money overseas to your family isn't evidence of terrorism any more than making funny faces at children to make them laugh is evidence of pedophilia.
He could at least have mentioned which "big, multinational electronics company" he spoke with.
First, given all the trouble the FBI has had issuing legal National Security Letters, I wouldn't assume that there's a valid warrant until I read it.
Second, if stalking immigrant kids is the FBI "doing their job", they should find a different job. Getting a warrant requires "probable cause". Probable refers to probability. How many of these fishing expeditions has the FBI gone on? If less than 50% of them lead to arrests, they are getting warrants for improbable causes. That's unconstitutional.
What's interesting is that they said newer models are placed in the engine compartment. It would seem wise to bug your own engine compartment so you know when the hood has been raised.
And none of those problems mean a thing to the politicians Microsoft will bribe to mandate Trusted Computing.
In short, it won't. Think of the timescale involved in a new virus/worm/trojan/vulnerability being discovered, the time it takes to figure out how it works, and the time to patch/fix it.
You don't have to know anything about the virus. Microsoft knows the checksums to all the files in Windows. All they have to do is include hardware that checks theses files for any changes. We're talking about a white list of verified systems, not a blacklist of bad stuff.
Oh yeah, and if you disable, or attempt to emulate the trusted computing chip, you're breaking the law under the DMCA/ACTA/etc.
We're talking a multitude of OS's, various windows boxes (XP, vista, 7, home/pro/corp), unix boxes, bsd boxes, linux boxes, OSX.
No we're not. Depending on how cynical you are, banning non-supported operating systems from the internet is either a nice side effect for Microsoft, or the entire reason for this initiative.
Linux might be able to do that, once you desolder your trusted computing chip and dump it. That is, if it doesn't self destruct on dumping.
Dude, shrug your shoulders and say "that's why I use Linux". Don't be an enabler.
Trusted Computing. Where it's the government that can trust your computer, not you.
In short, having sshd open to the world, on the standard port, is probably an indication that a system can be broken into more easily than one which does not appear to be running sshd on the standard port.
A machine not running SSHD is more likely to be a Windows box which is more easily broken into.
It's pretty difficult to do, especially in a heterogeneous OS network.
That's the point. Microsoft doesn't want a heterogeneous network.