Actually, she's the most compassionate person I can think of. And she advocates far more compassion than, say, the Bible.
If you don't take her "too seriously" you are avoiding the philosophy-- that 30 page screed you said to avoid, lays out the philosophy in a logical manner from the most basic of assumptions, and then goes to prove its correctness.
That majesty you admire is a quality you can have if you want it. Humans don't have to be doomed to shooting themselves in the foot everyday, and I remain perplexed as to the fanatics who continue to advocate such misery.
So, I don't see how you can't take it too seriously.
I'm happy to address any issues you might have with her philosophy, but in order to do that, you're going to have to read it. But, conveniently, you'd rather not read it so you can sit there and call people who have understood it names.
The book was good for me. Before I read it I thought objectivists were not making much sense. now I understand why they are right. I learned a lot from it... and gained a lot of skills in evaluating the world around me.
Going back to the Apple case, it was quite right that they weren't able to patent their UI, because it doesn't constitute an "innovation" under patent law, and it would be holding back the rest of the IT industry by decades in doing so.
You violate the very DEFINITION of patent in this country with this comment.
Furthermore, you have essentially said that "anyone who does something novel MUST be forced to share it with others, otherwise we're holding back the industry."
Hell, if it wasn't novel, how could patenting it hold back the industry? (As if that were even plausible to begin with.)
Bottom line is clear-- you want what isn't yours and you want to take it by force, just like any other mugger, moocher, lay about or congresscum.
I don't have to sidestep your points, because you don't bother to make any.
Al you do, is repeatedly make these conclusive statements, which are vague and often factually untrue (nowhere in the constitution does it give me rights to your property).
I'm condescending because you're being an idiot-- if you want to advocate communism, go for it and do so, but do so explicitly. Don't advocate it and pretend that you're advocating capitalism.
You concede that apple's rights were trampled on when windows copied the mac, yet you claim that IP protection is draconian? Whatever. We've seen the software industry go from a vibrant one with thousands of software companies to a moribund one with one big software companies and a few small ones trying to stay ouf of its way. Flash survives because Microsoft hasn't forced a comperable technology on the market.
THIS is what happens when you don't have competition and protection of property.
Yeah, you claim that human rights don't exist-- fine, I call you on the advocate of totalitarianism that you are. Just don't call it "balance".
You don't want balance, you want what every moocher wants.
And what's best about it is the dystopia is the creation of the policies and politics you see around you every day. Unlike most, it is not fantastical, speculative, and while it does have a bit of sci fi element, in the interest of expressing "future technology" but generally, its almost old fashioned in style.
Yes the novel is about the triumph of the human spirit, like 1984, but it is great literature, and will likely open your eyes to things you see every day but don't recognize.
Well worth reading, and re-reading. (Of course, I will get flamed for recommending this, because there are actually people who advocate the dystopia that occurs in the novel, and of course,they hate having it being pointed out. But I challenge anyone who hates this book to actually read it, and show where its wrong-- so far nobody has met that challenge. So, unless you've read it and can provide a rational response, don't tell me how much you think it sucks...
Hell, all teh fanatics that want you to NOT read it is reason enough to read it.
Seems apple is doing a patch for security once a month.
Its really nice that they are automatically detected, and you are asked if you want to apply them.
But is once a month too frequently? Many have their update set to check every day, so the day they release the patch, hundreds of thousands will download it all at once.
On the downside a vulnerability could be known about for up to a month before the patch is released...
But on the upside, these regular updates, and how they are automatically distributed, seems far better than other systems I've used.
Its unfortunate that companies are deciding they need us to prove ourselves to them, but they don't take basic security into account for us. More and more people who have no right to are demanding my social security number, signature electronically or thumbprint. And I refuse.
First off its illegal to demand a SSN unless they are your employer, bank, stock broker or the army and you're enlisted. Every credit card that demands it is breaking the law.
The solution to that is to give them a bogus one-- unless you're applying for credit. Then if you give them a bogus one its fraud, even though its illegal for them to ask in teh first place-- unless you give them a patently bogus one.
Anyway, I have learned that the idiots that work for these companies don't understand security and think you're being stubborn for protecting your rights, so I stopped arguing with them-- I just blow them off. The UPS guy asks me to sign for packages and I do-- but the signature bears no relation to my name.
Same thing when asked to electronically sign for a credit card- I give them a bunch of squiggles... so far nobodies actually compared.
Thumbprints are the worst-- bank tellers are the most obnoxious about saying its for my protection-- which is the most blatant lie I've ever heard. They don't take to well to being asked "Exactly how does this protect me?" Usually I refuse. So far they haven't escalated the issue-- I think they sense the eagerness with which I approach the opportunity to dress down a bank manager on how lax their security is, and how ironic it is that a BANK has such bad security, in front of all their customers. The thing is - these people KNOW that they are not providing adequate security, but they don't have the power to change it either.
It is your duty, whenever someone demands of you something that is not their right to demand, to give them a bogus biometric. Its the only way to protest and its the only way to protect yourself.
So far, writing to companies and pointing out that using SSN as a "password" is stupid (every bank I know of does this) has gotten nowhere. But office Depot, UPS, et al, have a lot of useless signatures on file.
Yes, you can do things with cocoa that you can't with carbon. Carbon has sufficient aaccess to the machine to do all the important things you want to do-- but cocoa is a whole different way of working, and it is much superior to carbon.
Yes, Cocoa applications are MORE NATIVE than carbon. Cocoa is the development environemtn Next made....carbon is based on the old MAc OS.
Use Cocoa. They are not equivilent. Carbon is great if you need to move a lot of old mac os code over, but otherwise, you should use cocoa. In the areas where you need to call carbon apis (because apple moved the stuff over rather than rewriting it, like quicktime) you can... no problemo. But cocoa is a lot better.
And more native.
And provides things you cannot do in carbon, no way, no how. (Like delegation, protocols, nibs, and categories are glorious.)
Carbon is around for the long haul, but its not the preferred platform.
New stuff should and will be developed in cocoa-unless you're a diehard fanatic of the toolbox. Even for diehard fanatics, cocoa is a much faster development environment.
Cocoa, and specifically, Objective-C based cocoa is the preferred platform. Java/cocoa when you need cross platform, or carbon when you're porting an older mac app.
You can access carbon apis from cocoa, no problem.
Hell, I switched to X full time over a year ago and haven't missed it. All the games I care about, Quake 2, 3, Wolfenstein, Warcraft, run fine under it... so does everything else I need to use.
I can understand people who are taking their time upgrading older macs to OS X. but you buy a new mac and you get os x, you shouldn't complain-- you're getting a much better computer. IF your game doesn't work in X, keep your old mac around, to run the game.
I've written Matt Rothenburg directly a number of times trying to correct him on errors and misrepresentations he's made. From the simple mistakes to the serious gaffs, he has turned out to be not only unwilling to learn the necessary technology, or read the relevant material-- but to be completely without care for accuracy at all.
He's make this point explicit. He doesn't care, his only goal is to sell page views.
That he has written for MacWeek doesn't tell you that he knows squat about what he's writing about, or technology in general. In fact, to this date I've yet to meet anyone who writes for a living (other than tech manual writers) who knows technology-- usually if you're competent, you get a better job working with technology than writing about it.
Sorry, you can write for Mac Week, you can claim to be a mac fan, but when you screw up-- AND you don't care about the fact, then you get no slack from me-- you might as well be a windows zealot.
Hell, the first time I wrote him he was complaining because Apple hadn't kept the "commitment" to ship system 8 when it was *rumored* to. He actually took an editorial position that apple wasn't letting rumor sites dictate its shipping date was proof of poor execution on their part. Thats pathetic and desperate.
The only thing that keeps me from thinking this is a conspiracy to bash the platform, is the fact that x86 platform coverage from these same people is just as incompetent.
I don't mind that reporters are ignorant. I expect it. What I mind is that they are also arrogant shitheads who believe what they WANT to believe over scientific proof or the facts that contradict them.
Basically their attitude is "I can write whatever I want, its freedom of the press, it doesn't matter if its accurate or not-- my readers are too stupid to be able to tell."
You take that attitude and I will call you and idiot, and Rothberg took that attitude with me.
Oh, marketshare-- that's an excellent point-- another lie. You claim they have half the market share, but I've never seen any factual evidence to support this. Rothberg and idiots all over quote "%5" but this is a made up number.
I don't even know of any organization that TRACKS this figure. IDC, Gartner, et al, only track NEW PC SALES from major distributers.... which means they ignore all sales of Macs thru the apple site, apple stores and independent apple sellers. That apple has "%5 of new pc market share when only counting ingram micro and compusa" does not mean they have only %5 of market share of the currently operating computers in the world. Ignoring most apple sales, and only looking at new computer sales (ignoring the fact that Macs go obsolete half as fast as PCs) is going to under-report market share.
Hell, by that figure, a reasonable guestimate is that the other half of apples sales (stores, online and local independents) makes the new CPU sales %10 of the market, and the fact that macs last twice as long, would bring total market share up to %20.
But its convenient for you, Matt Rothburg, and other anti-mac people to believe apple only has %5 so keep believing it. Just recognize that it is not a fact-- it is an unsupported belief.
I'm not saying the marketshare is %20. I'm just saying we don't know. Last time I saw real marketshare numbers, Apple had more of the market with its current OS than Windows current OS, because nobody was upgrading their windows boxes.
To get real market share numbers, someone would have to actually survey the market somehow. The number of machines in use in the field (rather than new sales) is relevant because when you decide on platform support, you want the size of the market you're selling into. People don't buy software only the first year they bought the computer.
Apple's work explicitly fits the definition of patentable-- it is unobvious and a process.
Patents are a protection of natural rights with the incentive to disclose those innovations.
The further innovation is not the purpose of patents-- if I have and idea and I don't tell you, then I have a me-granted monopoly on the idea.
It sounds like you're going along the lines of theory that "all property is theft" and applying it to intellectual property. In which case, who did you steal your body from? If you don't own your body, then how can you argue that you don't own the products of your body?
This assumption-- that you don't own the products of your body-- is the basis of liberalism, communism, and most totalitarian ideas-- such as the elimination of property rights.
That apple's property rights were not protected-- and the US software industry has been destroyed because of it, proves my point. Your hypothetical that it would have been worse if microsoft had to come up with something original is unsupported by the fact that its been almost 20 years and Windows is still a simple outdated copy of the mac UI, and Linux uses an even poorer copy.
Lack of property protection devalues the property, and causes a lack of innovation. And that's exactly what we've seen over the last 20 years.
As to the idea of "natural rights" being made up, they are not-- there is a consistent logical argument for it. I can point you in the direction of reading it, but I will not attempt to make it here because this forum is insufficient for making it (And frankly I don't have any faith that you will put the requisite energy into understanding it.)
First off this story's premise flat out WRONG. Apple is not going tweak the hardware to prevent OS 9 from running. Apple doesn't work that way-- hell they went out of their way to make OS X work on machines that aren't officially supported (like my 9500) by providing drivers for hardware they haven't shipped yet.
OS 9-- and OS's 8 all the way back to the original Macintosh contain hardware specific code. Whenever Apple released a new version of the hardware, they'd release an extention to the OS to support it. So, it was very common to have hardware that couldn't run some versions of the OS without extensions.
All apple is doing is that going forward, they are not going to constrain their hardware by the design assumptions of OS 9. OS 9 is 1984 technology and assumes its in control of the hardware. Under OS X the hardware is far more abstracted.
So, Apple is going to design its hardware to run OS X and not *worry* about OS 9. Given the way Apple migrates its computers, if there's some controller chip for which 9 is not compatible, it will still take a year before the whole line is refreshed and os 9 will likely run on those new machines that don't yet have the controller chip, while it doesn't run on other new machines with the newer controller chip-- even though none of them are "officially supported"
The reason windows 95 runs on current hardware is that there has been no innovation in PC hardware. Clock rates have gone up, but nothing new has been done.
Finally this article is full of errors large and small (the coffin was not rolled onto stage-- why include a detail like that to make us think you were there and not making it up, and then get it WRONG?)
That a newspaper publisher in florida is stuck on 9 is NOT news. Check out "Crazy Apple Rumors Site" for a great parody of this kind of reporting.
It will take time for all the applications to migrate, but OS X is clearly moving in the right direction.
To characterize this as apple "tweaking" teh software so it won't run on hardware is to flat out lie about what's going on, and is unfair as well.
This is the kind of bullshit reporting that mac users have to deal with-- if its not claiming that apple is bankrupt when they have $5 billion in the bank, its claiming that apple or steve jobs go out of their way to annoy people, when in fact there's a much more plausible business decision behind it. This is a great example of the idiots at eWeek not understanging anything about how OS 9 works and how hardware is designed and integrated with the OS.
Yeah, you CAN"T run software that violated apple's programming guides going back to 1984!
Any software written for the Mac that does those things is software that violates the programming guides.
Software that doesn't runs great on Classic. And I've had a fun time finding the oldest piece of software I can and trying it out. I have software written in 1987 that runs under classic.
Funny, I'd love to hang out with a bunch of gay apple users. Most of the gay people I know use macs-- they are far too picky about things being stupidly done and so they go for superiority.
what's the big deal? You think anyone is going to feel bad because you said apple users are gay? Sheesh.... it only tells us that you're insecure about the size of your weenie.
Who cares who's gay and who isn't... anyone worthy posting on slashdot doesn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, she's the most compassionate person I can think of. And she advocates far more compassion than, say, the Bible.
If you don't take her "too seriously" you are avoiding the philosophy-- that 30 page screed you said to avoid, lays out the philosophy in a logical manner from the most basic of assumptions, and then goes to prove its correctness.
That majesty you admire is a quality you can have if you want it. Humans don't have to be doomed to shooting themselves in the foot everyday, and I remain perplexed as to the fanatics who continue to advocate such misery.
So, I don't see how you can't take it too seriously.
I love it.
I'm happy to address any issues you might have with her philosophy, but in order to do that, you're going to have to read it. But, conveniently, you'd rather not read it so you can sit there and call people who have understood it names.
The book was good for me. Before I read it I thought objectivists were not making much sense. now I understand why they are right. I learned a lot from it... and gained a lot of skills in evaluating the world around me.
This only works to your personal detriment.
While we're at it We The Living is set during the rise of communism in Russia. Real dystopia on earth- who needs fiction?
I won't spoil the ending but lets just say its not wrapped up in a nice happy bundle.
Yeah, idiots like you think a 1 bit buss that runs at 500MHz is "twice as fast" as a 128 bit buss that runs at 250MHz.
Why I wasted time arguing with someone who calls themselves "reality master 101" is beyond me-- normally I ignore children.
Going back to the Apple case, it was quite right that they weren't able to patent their UI, because it doesn't constitute an "innovation" under patent law, and it would be holding back the rest of the IT industry by decades in doing so.
You violate the very DEFINITION of patent in this country with this comment.
Furthermore, you have essentially said that "anyone who does something novel MUST be forced to share it with others, otherwise we're holding back the industry."
Hell, if it wasn't novel, how could patenting it hold back the industry? (As if that were even plausible to begin with.)
Bottom line is clear-- you want what isn't yours and you want to take it by force, just like any other mugger, moocher, lay about or congresscum.
Bytemarks, Photoshop, hell, ever fair comparison done has born me out.
By the way, I was talkign about intel chips. That you compre a year old PowerPC to the latest AMD processor is telling.
But then, you've got a fantasy to maintain, so keep prosting slanted and non-objective "comparisons".
OS X has native support for Midi. In Jaguar there's a Midi configuration application in the box.
I know people that use midi now, so I don't see how apple is preventing it.
Yeah, I love that you cite Firewire, an Apple invention, as proof of "innovation in PC hardware".
That's great.
I don't have to sidestep your points, because you don't bother to make any.
Al you do, is repeatedly make these conclusive statements, which are vague and often factually untrue (nowhere in the constitution does it give me rights to your property).
I'm condescending because you're being an idiot-- if you want to advocate communism, go for it and do so, but do so explicitly. Don't advocate it and pretend that you're advocating capitalism.
You concede that apple's rights were trampled on when windows copied the mac, yet you claim that IP protection is draconian? Whatever. We've seen the software industry go from a vibrant one with thousands of software companies to a moribund one with one big software companies and a few small ones trying to stay ouf of its way. Flash survives because Microsoft hasn't forced a comperable technology on the market.
THIS is what happens when you don't have competition and protection of property.
Yeah, you claim that human rights don't exist-- fine, I call you on the advocate of totalitarianism that you are. Just don't call it "balance".
You don't want balance, you want what every moocher wants.
Of course. Which actually is really just yet another reason the IRS is a bad idea. That they use it for passwords however is unacceptable.
This is yet another reason we should get rid of the current system and implement a Fair TAx: www.fairtax.org
And what's best about it is the dystopia is the creation of the policies and politics you see around you every day. Unlike most, it is not fantastical, speculative, and while it does have a bit of sci fi element, in the interest of expressing "future technology" but generally, its almost old fashioned in style.
Yes the novel is about the triumph of the human spirit, like 1984, but it is great literature, and will likely open your eyes to things you see every day but don't recognize.
Well worth reading, and re-reading. (Of course, I will get flamed for recommending this, because there are actually people who advocate the dystopia that occurs in the novel, and of course
Hell, all teh fanatics that want you to NOT read it is reason enough to read it.
Seems apple is doing a patch for security once a month.
Its really nice that they are automatically detected, and you are asked if you want to apply them.
But is once a month too frequently? Many have their update set to check every day, so the day they release the patch, hundreds of thousands will download it all at once.
On the downside a vulnerability could be known about for up to a month before the patch is released...
But on the upside, these regular updates, and how they are automatically distributed, seems far better than other systems I've used.
Its unfortunate that companies are deciding they need us to prove ourselves to them, but they don't take basic security into account for us. More and more people who have no right to are demanding my social security number, signature electronically or thumbprint. And I refuse.
First off its illegal to demand a SSN unless they are your employer, bank, stock broker or the army and you're enlisted. Every credit card that demands it is breaking the law.
The solution to that is to give them a bogus one-- unless you're applying for credit. Then if you give them a bogus one its fraud, even though its illegal for them to ask in teh first place-- unless you give them a patently bogus one.
Anyway, I have learned that the idiots that work for these companies don't understand security and think you're being stubborn for protecting your rights, so I stopped arguing with them-- I just blow them off. The UPS guy asks me to sign for packages and I do-- but the signature bears no relation to my name.
Same thing when asked to electronically sign for a credit card- I give them a bunch of squiggles... so far nobodies actually compared.
Thumbprints are the worst-- bank tellers are the most obnoxious about saying its for my protection-- which is the most blatant lie I've ever heard. They don't take to well to being asked "Exactly how does this protect me?" Usually I refuse. So far they haven't escalated the issue-- I think they sense the eagerness with which I approach the opportunity to dress down a bank manager on how lax their security is, and how ironic it is that a BANK has such bad security, in front of all their customers. The thing is - these people KNOW that they are not providing adequate security, but they don't have the power to change it either.
It is your duty, whenever someone demands of you something that is not their right to demand, to give them a bogus biometric. Its the only way to protest and its the only way to protect yourself.
So far, writing to companies and pointing out that using SSN as a "password" is stupid (every bank I know of does this) has gotten nowhere. But office Depot, UPS, et al, have a lot of useless signatures on file.
We already know that OS X doesn't run on 5 year old Macs.
Its running just fine on my SEVEN year old PowerMac 9500.
The problem is that Apple is just not going to constrain future hardware by legacy OS stuff.
Mcirosoft has spent 10 year moving people to os that is "modern" so that tehy don't ahve this problem.
Apple did it in one OS release. thats' the only diffrence.
This article is just plane wrong.
Yes, you can do things with cocoa that you can't with carbon. Carbon has sufficient aaccess to the machine to do all the important things you want to do-- but cocoa is a whole different way of working, and it is much superior to carbon.
Yes, Cocoa applications are MORE NATIVE than carbon. Cocoa is the development environemtn Next made...
Use Cocoa. They are not equivilent. Carbon is great if you need to move a lot of old mac os code over, but otherwise, you should use cocoa. In the areas where you need to call carbon apis (because apple moved the stuff over rather than rewriting it, like quicktime) you can... no problemo. But cocoa is a lot better.
And more native.
And provides things you cannot do in carbon, no way, no how. (Like delegation, protocols, nibs, and categories are glorious.)
Carbon is around for the long haul, but its not the preferred platform.
New stuff should and will be developed in cocoa-unless you're a diehard fanatic of the toolbox. Even for diehard fanatics, cocoa is a much faster development environment.
Cocoa, and specifically, Objective-C based cocoa is the preferred platform. Java/cocoa when you need cross platform, or carbon when you're porting an older mac app.
You can access carbon apis from cocoa, no problem.
Warcraft three runs perfectly fine under OS X.
Hell, I switched to X full time over a year ago and haven't missed it. All the games I care about, Quake 2, 3, Wolfenstein, Warcraft, run fine under it... so does everything else I need to use.
I can understand people who are taking their time upgrading older macs to OS X. but you buy a new mac and you get os x, you shouldn't complain-- you're getting a much better computer. IF your game doesn't work in X, keep your old mac around, to run the game.
I've written Matt Rothenburg directly a number of times trying to correct him on errors and misrepresentations he's made. From the simple mistakes to the serious gaffs, he has turned out to be not only unwilling to learn the necessary technology, or read the relevant material-- but to be completely without care for accuracy at all.
He's make this point explicit. He doesn't care, his only goal is to sell page views.
That he has written for MacWeek doesn't tell you that he knows squat about what he's writing about, or technology in general. In fact, to this date I've yet to meet anyone who writes for a living (other than tech manual writers) who knows technology-- usually if you're competent, you get a better job working with technology than writing about it.
Sorry, you can write for Mac Week, you can claim to be a mac fan, but when you screw up-- AND you don't care about the fact, then you get no slack from me-- you might as well be a windows zealot.
Hell, the first time I wrote him he was complaining because Apple hadn't kept the "commitment" to ship system 8 when it was *rumored* to. He actually took an editorial position that apple wasn't letting rumor sites dictate its shipping date was proof of poor execution on their part. Thats pathetic and desperate.
The only thing that keeps me from thinking this is a conspiracy to bash the platform, is the fact that x86 platform coverage from these same people is just as incompetent.
I don't mind that reporters are ignorant. I expect it. What I mind is that they are also arrogant shitheads who believe what they WANT to believe over scientific proof or the facts that contradict them.
Basically their attitude is "I can write whatever I want, its freedom of the press, it doesn't matter if its accurate or not-- my readers are too stupid to be able to tell."
You take that attitude and I will call you and idiot, and Rothberg took that attitude with me.
Oh, marketshare-- that's an excellent point-- another lie. You claim they have half the market share, but I've never seen any factual evidence to support this. Rothberg and idiots all over quote "%5" but this is a made up number.
I don't even know of any organization that TRACKS this figure. IDC, Gartner, et al, only track NEW PC SALES from major distributers.... which means they ignore all sales of Macs thru the apple site, apple stores and independent apple sellers. That apple has "%5 of new pc market share when only counting ingram micro and compusa" does not mean they have only %5 of market share of the currently operating computers in the world. Ignoring most apple sales, and only looking at new computer sales (ignoring the fact that Macs go obsolete half as fast as PCs) is going to under-report market share.
Hell, by that figure, a reasonable guestimate is that the other half of apples sales (stores, online and local independents) makes the new CPU sales %10 of the market, and the fact that macs last twice as long, would bring total market share up to %20.
But its convenient for you, Matt Rothburg, and other anti-mac people to believe apple only has %5 so keep believing it. Just recognize that it is not a fact-- it is an unsupported belief.
I'm not saying the marketshare is %20. I'm just saying we don't know. Last time I saw real marketshare numbers, Apple had more of the market with its current OS than Windows current OS, because nobody was upgrading their windows boxes.
To get real market share numbers, someone would have to actually survey the market somehow. The number of machines in use in the field (rather than new sales) is relevant because when you decide on platform support, you want the size of the market you're selling into. People don't buy software only the first year they bought the computer.
Windows 95 doesn't support USB 2, let alone USB or Firewire.
That's my point.
Apple's work explicitly fits the definition of patentable-- it is unobvious and a process.
Patents are a protection of natural rights with the incentive to disclose those innovations.
The further innovation is not the purpose of patents-- if I have and idea and I don't tell you, then I have a me-granted monopoly on the idea.
It sounds like you're going along the lines of theory that "all property is theft" and applying it to intellectual property. In which case, who did you steal your body from? If you don't own your body, then how can you argue that you don't own the products of your body?
This assumption-- that you don't own the products of your body-- is the basis of liberalism, communism, and most totalitarian ideas-- such as the elimination of property rights.
That apple's property rights were not protected-- and the US software industry has been destroyed because of it, proves my point. Your hypothetical that it would have been worse if microsoft had to come up with something original is unsupported by the fact that its been almost 20 years and Windows is still a simple outdated copy of the mac UI, and Linux uses an even poorer copy.
Lack of property protection devalues the property, and causes a lack of innovation. And that's exactly what we've seen over the last 20 years.
As to the idea of "natural rights" being made up, they are not-- there is a consistent logical argument for it. I can point you in the direction of reading it, but I will not attempt to make it here because this forum is insufficient for making it (And frankly I don't have any faith that you will put the requisite energy into understanding it.)
Where by "havent shipped yet" I meant "haven't shipped for a long time".
Doh!
First off this story's premise flat out WRONG. Apple is not going tweak the hardware to prevent OS 9 from running. Apple doesn't work that way-- hell they went out of their way to make OS X work on machines that aren't officially supported (like my 9500) by providing drivers for hardware they haven't shipped yet.
OS 9-- and OS's 8 all the way back to the original Macintosh contain hardware specific code. Whenever Apple released a new version of the hardware, they'd release an extention to the OS to support it. So, it was very common to have hardware that couldn't run some versions of the OS without extensions.
All apple is doing is that going forward, they are not going to constrain their hardware by the design assumptions of OS 9. OS 9 is 1984 technology and assumes its in control of the hardware. Under OS X the hardware is far more abstracted.
So, Apple is going to design its hardware to run OS X and not *worry* about OS 9. Given the way Apple migrates its computers, if there's some controller chip for which 9 is not compatible, it will still take a year before the whole line is refreshed and os 9 will likely run on those new machines that don't yet have the controller chip, while it doesn't run on other new machines with the newer controller chip-- even though none of them are "officially supported"
The reason windows 95 runs on current hardware is that there has been no innovation in PC hardware. Clock rates have gone up, but nothing new has been done.
Finally this article is full of errors large and small (the coffin was not rolled onto stage-- why include a detail like that to make us think you were there and not making it up, and then get it WRONG?)
That a newspaper publisher in florida is stuck on 9 is NOT news. Check out "Crazy Apple Rumors Site" for a great parody of this kind of reporting.
It will take time for all the applications to migrate, but OS X is clearly moving in the right direction.
To characterize this as apple "tweaking" teh software so it won't run on hardware is to flat out lie about what's going on, and is unfair as well.
This is the kind of bullshit reporting that mac users have to deal with-- if its not claiming that apple is bankrupt when they have $5 billion in the bank, its claiming that apple or steve jobs go out of their way to annoy people, when in fact there's a much more plausible business decision behind it. This is a great example of the idiots at eWeek not understanging anything about how OS 9 works and how hardware is designed and integrated with the OS.
Yeah, you CAN"T run software that violated apple's programming guides going back to 1984!
Any software written for the Mac that does those things is software that violates the programming guides.
Software that doesn't runs great on Classic. And I've had a fun time finding the oldest piece of software I can and trying it out. I have software written in 1987 that runs under classic.
Wow, it hasn't taken me 7 hours to do a set at home work unit since... what, 1998?
All this desperation to defy physics and economics is annoying.
I should probably stop feeding the troll.
Funny, I'd love to hang out with a bunch of gay apple users. Most of the gay people I know use macs-- they are far too picky about things being stupidly done and so they go for superiority.
what's the big deal? You think anyone is going to feel bad because you said apple users are gay? Sheesh.... it only tells us that you're insecure about the size of your weenie.
Who cares who's gay and who isn't... anyone worthy posting on slashdot doesn't.