QuartzGL increases the amount of machines that have no speed hit.
Aside from that, you're correct about the speed complaint. I couldn't disagree more about the usability. Every feature I've ever wanted in a modern operating system is exposed and easy to use.
Either way, grandparent poster said, "How anyone could use OS 9 at all is beyond me." He didn't ask why. Many of us cannot use Mac OS 9, because there is a feature we need that cannot possibly be shoehorned into that operating system safely. I had been using Macs since the 128k, and switched to Linux and wintel PCs because of those sorely needed features.
Now I am able to use Macintoshes again. I can't use Mac OS 9.
Right. That's why Apple is doing things similarly to the Linux and BSD folks. Apple writes drivers. Every peripheral I've ever wanted to use has worked great with MOSX, because Apple wrote the drivers.
Vertical market integration for application software and operating systems is a great idea. And it's awful hard on the competition.
You're right. When you can spend 4 times your storage cost on backups, tapes are the way to go.
For those of us that want to only spend the same ammount as our storage cost (or less) on backups, then a second firewire drive is an excellent solution. I don't see why you're so upset.
It's as if your a 3d professional getting angry because a home user is happy about the performance of his geforce2. Let him be happy. Jesus.
Fair enough. I agree. But once you give up on religious good and evil, they become relative terms. I'm a big fan of the golden rule as well. Because its good for me.
Symmetry. I'm also with you about phonetics, though:)
The problem with the stakeholder theory is that it's easy to argue that the corporation that is best to its shareholders most of all will also be best to their stakeholders in the long run.
Iduno if this winds up true in practice, but it certainly makes sense if your work it out logically. I can't figure out the hole in it.
This is because companies such as Microsoft have decided that it is in the shareholder's best interest to own shares in a larger microsoft, rather than shares in a smaller microsoft and a little profit per share. Given the share price and the P/E ratio, I'd say their shareholders still agree. If you don't, don't buy MSFT. (I'm certainly not buying MSFT.)
Except that corporations are the posession of their shareholders.
You have entirely missed the point of the recent corporate scandals. When someone says, "The sole responsibility of a corporation is to its shareholders," they distinctly did *not* say, "The sole responsibility of a corporation is to its CEO and board of directors."
Grandparent poster would likely suggest that corporations have *zero* responsibility to their CEO and board of directors. If the corporation fucks their employees by demanding long hours, the corporation has not done anything ethically wrong. The employees could (should) leave. If the employer fucks their employees by *lying* about the actual value of their stock, then the corporation has committed both a fraud, and violated it's responsibility to its shareholders.
It's the government's job to make sure that defrauding consumers is expensive, and thus not in the best interest of the shareholders. It's the government's job to make sure that polution is expensive and thus not in the best interest of the shareholders.
The corporation is a possession of its shareholders. Your post suggests otherwise, which is factually incorrect.
Um... I think you missed the point of the whole corporate accounting scandal. The reason it was bad was that corporations were not acting in the best interest of their shareholders. The only reason corporations are beholden to the SEC is because the SEC attempts to ensure that they act in the best interest of their shareholders.
They are beholden to the federal and state governments, and the IRS in exactly the same way you are.
Huh. What behavior has Bruce exhibited that's particularly ignoble?
The RNC and the DNC are both not-for-profit, and it's relatively guaranteed that every person on/. thinks at least one of those organizations are less than noble. I doubt anyone would make the assumption you're describing. Popular opinion to the contrary, many/.ers are capable of critical thought. We might respect Bruce for actual reasons.
I also believe that you probably have reasons for disrespecting him. What are they?
Yeah, I feel like those are all textbook examples of evil acts. I'm sure you could think of a hypothetical situation in which they would no longer be evil acts.
Abraham wasn't evil, right?
Re:No big surprise there.
on
Upcoming Cyberwars
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
As far as I can figure out, there are two ways to define good and evil:
1) Good is anything that God likes, and evil is anything he doesn't like. 2) Good is anything that is better than other things, and evil is anything that is worse than other things.
I can't figure out a way to define absolute good and evil without using God in the definition. Without religion, good is relative, and evil is relative.
Whenever I hear GW speak, I get the distinct feeling that he's using the religious definition of good and evil. It makes me feel like I've been used every time he does it.
Alright, I understand lots of/.ers respond without readin the article. Please, however, at least finish reading the post you're responding to. I think I said: It's all political posturing, and it's all bullshit.
I don't *care* if there's a profound difference in the motivations of Al Qaeda and the Palestinians. I'm just trying to talk about the political posturing done by the US, Russia, Israel, and now Taiwan. This political posturing is far, far removed from reality. That was my point. Please read again.
Anyway, a lot of anti-embargoe types would suggest that we *were* denying people human rights, and we were preventing people from getting medical attention before the 9/11 attacks. But it's hard to argue that that had much to do with Al Qaeda's motivation.
Re:No big surprise there.
on
Upcoming Cyberwars
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
really feel like the USians started the whole trend when GW & gang started talking about evil. GW would like to submit that the terrorists are pure incarnations of evil on Earth, and the USA is 100% righteous.
This is false, of course. And other nations have it worse than us anyway. I don't know about their body count, but terrorism on the part of the Chechnyans and the Palestinians certainly affect the daily lives of Israelis and Russians much more than Americans are effected by Al Qaeda. So, if Al Qaeda is pure evil, then surely the Chechnyans and the Palestinians are worse, right?
It's all political posturing, and it's all bullshit. We must attack Al Qaeda in order to preserve our national security. It has nothing to do with good vs. evil. Good vs. evil is a psuedo-religious sham. Any way, now that unconventional warfare has been equated with evil incarnate, Taiwan would be stupid not to invoke the name of terrorism when dealing with China. It's like calling GW on the phone and saying, "We understand if you're too chicken to deal help us out." Personally, I'm all for it. Just because I like Taiwan, and hope that the US defends its allies.
I still *can* change the default interface, but now I don't want to change it like that. Since Apple has made changes to their UI that make it more usable for me, a regular user, and also make it so a newbie would work better at my computer...
Well then Apple had some room to improve. This follows because they improved.
Right. That's what happens when it's their own new computer.
However, when they sit down at *my* mac, they'd have been lost. If they sit down at my mac now, all I have to say is "The compass rose thing is the browser." They can figure out where the address book is, where the mp3 player is, where my mail program is, etc. If I had internet explorer on my computer, I wouldn't have to tell them anything.
I would rather have a machine that crashes occasionally rather than one that I don't understand how to use. The classic Mac OS had an easy, gradual curve from new user to power user. This means that with a *little bit* of effort, a user was eventually empowered to administer and customize their own system.
I couldn't disagree more.
When I was four years old, my dad bought a Mac 128K. I've been using Macs since then. Do you remember how hard it was for them to shoehorn a tcp/ip stack into that kernel? It took them a _long_ _time_ to get it right. We were in the cold even longer for an MP3 player that didn't crash the computer. If the user started doing complicated stuff with the machine, it started crashing more. It was just that simple. And when a user is starting to do more complicated things, they probably care about the crashing even more.
Since you get physical feedback from all of those kitchen devices, they've got natural advantages over computer interfaces.
Also, different programs are not different devices. If the knob on your gas range started working differently depending on the type of food, it'd be damn confusing.
And there, now I've taken the metaphor way way too far. Every time someone starts doing computer interfaces like physical interfaces, things go horribly wrong. For evidence, I submit: All non-Apple software DVD players.
Um, yeah. On rereading the original post, I see exactly what you mean.
He wasn't saying it was wrong to attack ebay because there was something wrong about the application of IP, he was simply saying that it was wrong to attack ebay because they employ people and are in the black. Your post addressed that directly and appropriately. I'll go sit down.
What a bunch of crap! There is nothing wrong or immoral with asserting your rights. There's two models of society: One where everyone works only for the greater good, not caring about personal gain. The other where everyone focuses only on satisfying their personal goals.
Uh, what a bunch of crap. Sure, you've nailed the difference between communism and capitalism, but you didn't read your Ayn Rand close enough. (I've never read any Ayn Rand, so I don't hold that against you.) In *all* systems, *everyone* focuses on satisfying personal goals. If you want all the starving masses to have food, that is still a personal goal. In a communist system, the government is a powerful force that may be used to satisfy those goals. In an ideal (Randian) capitalist system, the government is not a powerful force that may be used to satisfy those goals.
The fact that we have a government granting legal rights to intellectual property of this type shows very well that we do not have the second model of society you describe. I understand you agree that this is a frivolous patent. The patent holder is using the might of the US government to control other people's behavior. To a capitalist, that is immoral. We have accepted this level of immorality when it means that we gain access to new technologies.
It would be ok for the patent holder to limit us if the patent were good, and it would not be ok for the patent holder to limit us if the patent were bad. Just because he has the US Federal Marshals on his side doesn't make it morally ok.
P.S. I'm anything but a Randian capitalist, but it always upsets me when I see bullshit in action. If you're going to spout the capitalist line, do it right.
My only question is if it could even learn to bs for me on those laggy starcraft 3v3 games.
That's not funny at all... I always longed to meet one of those assholes in real life so I could slap them silly. Or at least scream at them for a little while. People like that are one of the many many reasons it takes twice as much time to find a decent starcraft game as it takes to play the damn game.
Slashdot Mirror
QuartzGL increases the amount of machines that have no speed hit.
Aside from that, you're correct about the speed complaint. I couldn't disagree more about the usability. Every feature I've ever wanted in a modern operating system is exposed and easy to use.
Either way, grandparent poster said, "How anyone could use OS 9 at all is beyond me." He didn't ask why. Many of us cannot use Mac OS 9, because there is a feature we need that cannot possibly be shoehorned into that operating system safely. I had been using Macs since the 128k, and switched to Linux and wintel PCs because of those sorely needed features.
Now I am able to use Macintoshes again. I can't use Mac OS 9.
Right. That's why Apple is doing things similarly to the Linux and BSD folks. Apple writes drivers. Every peripheral I've ever wanted to use has worked great with MOSX, because Apple wrote the drivers.
Vertical market integration for application software and operating systems is a great idea. And it's awful hard on the competition.
You're right. When you can spend 4 times your storage cost on backups, tapes are the way to go.
For those of us that want to only spend the same ammount as our storage cost (or less) on backups, then a second firewire drive is an excellent solution. I don't see why you're so upset.
It's as if your a 3d professional getting angry because a home user is happy about the performance of his geforce2. Let him be happy. Jesus.
Um. Don't jump to that conclusion. It could also be mostly just buggy software. Linux certainly doesn't have a monopoly on that...
Fair enough. I agree. But once you give up on religious good and evil, they become relative terms. I'm a big fan of the golden rule as well. Because its good for me.
:)
Symmetry. I'm also with you about phonetics, though
The problem with the stakeholder theory is that it's easy to argue that the corporation that is best to its shareholders most of all will also be best to their stakeholders in the long run.
Iduno if this winds up true in practice, but it certainly makes sense if your work it out logically. I can't figure out the hole in it.
This is because companies such as Microsoft have decided that it is in the shareholder's best interest to own shares in a larger microsoft, rather than shares in a smaller microsoft and a little profit per share. Given the share price and the P/E ratio, I'd say their shareholders still agree. If you don't, don't buy MSFT. (I'm certainly not buying MSFT.)
Except that corporations are the posession of their shareholders.
You have entirely missed the point of the recent corporate scandals. When someone says, "The sole responsibility of a corporation is to its shareholders," they distinctly did *not* say, "The sole responsibility of a corporation is to its CEO and board of directors."
Grandparent poster would likely suggest that corporations have *zero* responsibility to their CEO and board of directors. If the corporation fucks their employees by demanding long hours, the corporation has not done anything ethically wrong. The employees could (should) leave. If the employer fucks their employees by *lying* about the actual value of their stock, then the corporation has committed both a fraud, and violated it's responsibility to its shareholders.
It's the government's job to make sure that defrauding consumers is expensive, and thus not in the best interest of the shareholders. It's the government's job to make sure that polution is expensive and thus not in the best interest of the shareholders.
The corporation is a possession of its shareholders. Your post suggests otherwise, which is factually incorrect.
Um... I think you missed the point of the whole corporate accounting scandal. The reason it was bad was that corporations were not acting in the best interest of their shareholders. The only reason corporations are beholden to the SEC is because the SEC attempts to ensure that they act in the best interest of their shareholders.
They are beholden to the federal and state governments, and the IRS in exactly the same way you are.
Huh. What behavior has Bruce exhibited that's particularly ignoble?
/. thinks at least one of those organizations are less than noble. I doubt anyone would make the assumption you're describing. Popular opinion to the contrary, many /.ers are capable of critical thought. We might respect Bruce for actual reasons.
The RNC and the DNC are both not-for-profit, and it's relatively guaranteed that every person on
I also believe that you probably have reasons for disrespecting him. What are they?
Except that GW is his nickname, used by his friends, and many many others the world over.
Yeah, I feel like those are all textbook examples of evil acts. I'm sure you could think of a hypothetical situation in which they would no longer be evil acts.
Abraham wasn't evil, right?
As far as I can figure out, there are two ways to define good and evil:
1) Good is anything that God likes, and evil is anything he doesn't like.
2) Good is anything that is better than other things, and evil is anything that is worse than other things.
I can't figure out a way to define absolute good and evil without using God in the definition. Without religion, good is relative, and evil is relative.
Whenever I hear GW speak, I get the distinct feeling that he's using the religious definition of good and evil. It makes me feel like I've been used every time he does it.
Alright, I understand lots of /.ers respond without readin the article. Please, however, at least finish reading the post you're responding to. I think I said: It's all political posturing, and it's all bullshit.
I don't *care* if there's a profound difference in the motivations of Al Qaeda and the Palestinians. I'm just trying to talk about the political posturing done by the US, Russia, Israel, and now Taiwan. This political posturing is far, far removed from reality. That was my point. Please read again.
Anyway, a lot of anti-embargoe types would suggest that we *were* denying people human rights, and we were preventing people from getting medical attention before the 9/11 attacks. But it's hard to argue that that had much to do with Al Qaeda's motivation.
really feel like the USians started the whole trend when GW & gang started talking about evil. GW would like to submit that the terrorists are pure incarnations of evil on Earth, and the USA is 100% righteous.
This is false, of course. And other nations have it worse than us anyway. I don't know about their body count, but terrorism on the part of the Chechnyans and the Palestinians certainly affect the daily lives of Israelis and Russians much more than Americans are effected by Al Qaeda. So, if Al Qaeda is pure evil, then surely the Chechnyans and the Palestinians are worse, right?
It's all political posturing, and it's all bullshit. We must attack Al Qaeda in order to preserve our national security. It has nothing to do with good vs. evil. Good vs. evil is a psuedo-religious sham. Any way, now that unconventional warfare has been equated with evil incarnate, Taiwan would be stupid not to invoke the name of terrorism when dealing with China. It's like calling GW on the phone and saying, "We understand if you're too chicken to deal help us out." Personally, I'm all for it. Just because I like Taiwan, and hope that the US defends its allies.
I still *can* change the default interface, but now I don't want to change it like that. Since Apple has made changes to their UI that make it more usable for me, a regular user, and also make it so a newbie would work better at my computer...
Well then Apple had some room to improve. This follows because they improved.
Yeah. As a million people have said before:
Any two button USB mouse is automatically supported by MacOS X, and right clicks work like control-clicks (that is, they invoke contextual menus).
Right. That's what happens when it's their own new computer.
However, when they sit down at *my* mac, they'd have been lost. If they sit down at my mac now, all I have to say is "The compass rose thing is the browser." They can figure out where the address book is, where the mp3 player is, where my mail program is, etc. If I had internet explorer on my computer, I wouldn't have to tell them anything.
I would rather have a machine that crashes occasionally rather than one that I don't understand how to use. The classic Mac OS had an easy, gradual curve from new user to power user. This means that with a *little bit* of effort, a user was eventually empowered to administer and customize their own system.
I couldn't disagree more.
When I was four years old, my dad bought a Mac 128K. I've been using Macs since then. Do you remember how hard it was for them to shoehorn a tcp/ip stack into that kernel? It took them a _long_ _time_ to get it right. We were in the cold even longer for an MP3 player that didn't crash the computer. If the user started doing complicated stuff with the machine, it started crashing more. It was just that simple. And when a user is starting to do more complicated things, they probably care about the crashing even more.
+1, Funny
Since you get physical feedback from all of those kitchen devices, they've got natural advantages over computer interfaces.
Also, different programs are not different devices. If the knob on your gas range started working differently depending on the type of food, it'd be damn confusing.
And there, now I've taken the metaphor way way too far. Every time someone starts doing computer interfaces like physical interfaces, things go horribly wrong. For evidence, I submit: All non-Apple software DVD players.
Um, yeah. On rereading the original post, I see exactly what you mean.
He wasn't saying it was wrong to attack ebay because there was something wrong about the application of IP, he was simply saying that it was wrong to attack ebay because they employ people and are in the black. Your post addressed that directly and appropriately. I'll go sit down.
What a bunch of crap! There is nothing wrong or immoral with asserting your rights. There's two models of society: One where everyone works only for the greater good, not caring about personal gain. The other where everyone focuses only on satisfying their personal goals.
Uh, what a bunch of crap. Sure, you've nailed the difference between communism and capitalism, but you didn't read your Ayn Rand close enough. (I've never read any Ayn Rand, so I don't hold that against you.) In *all* systems, *everyone* focuses on satisfying personal goals. If you want all the starving masses to have food, that is still a personal goal. In a communist system, the government is a powerful force that may be used to satisfy those goals. In an ideal (Randian) capitalist system, the government is not a powerful force that may be used to satisfy those goals.
The fact that we have a government granting legal rights to intellectual property of this type shows very well that we do not have the second model of society you describe. I understand you agree that this is a frivolous patent. The patent holder is using the might of the US government to control other people's behavior. To a capitalist, that is immoral. We have accepted this level of immorality when it means that we gain access to new technologies.
It would be ok for the patent holder to limit us if the patent were good, and it would not be ok for the patent holder to limit us if the patent were bad. Just because he has the US Federal Marshals on his side doesn't make it morally ok.
P.S. I'm anything but a Randian capitalist, but it always upsets me when I see bullshit in action. If you're going to spout the capitalist line, do it right.
I didn't want to know what my dad did with that digital camera in his bedroom. Now he's going to have to ask me to secure it. Eeeeuuugh.
My only question is if it could even learn to bs for me on those laggy starcraft 3v3 games.
That's not funny at all... I always longed to meet one of those assholes in real life so I could slap them silly. Or at least scream at them for a little while. People like that are one of the many many reasons it takes twice as much time to find a decent starcraft game as it takes to play the damn game.