Well, asshole, I had paragraphed it, but I'd forgotten to put the scroll-bar format to plain text, so it interpreted it via HTML markers(w/c meant that tabs and breaks were ignored).
Now, your still an anonymous pussy who has refused to post your normal slashdot name, and your original points all stand refuted.
That you have not responded intelligently to anything I wrote indicates the invalidity of your opinion.
HOPE THIS HELPS YOU TO RE-THINK YOUR MUSIC-NAZI IDEALS.
You pussy, you could at least have the balls to post your name.
Now, responding to your post...
> And then they came for the people with the
> illicit music, and the slashdotters
Look, the points people here were making was that it is WRONG for the RIAA and their evil corporate and law buddies to go after Napster or ISPs or Nap-users in general because the ISPs are just conduits, as is Napster, and many Nap-users trade non-copyrighted material(for a prominent type of non-copyrighted MP3s, go on Napster and do a search for anything XXX). So, our point is that it is unjustified and a violations of people's right to go after: (a) Napster, as Napster is just a conduit, and should not have to waste their time putting up complex and bandwidth wasting filtering mechs; (b) the ISPs, for the same reason, as they're just conduits, etc; (c) the Nap-users in general, as many don't use Napster to trade copyrighted material(though the only way they've really gone after Nap-users in general is by their statements that Nap-users "steal" their "property").
Now, as for why it's WRONG for the RIAA and the gov't in Taiwan -- which they have apparently corrupted to their means -- to raid student dorms and confiscate their stuff: simple, this is a violation of their right to privacy and of THEIR property rights(as their computer was taken from them without just cause).
So, what does it amount to? This: even if you say that sharing/downloading copyrighted files is wrong/illegal, there is NO reasonable way to prevent this in the vast majority of cases without VIOLATING the rights of individual people, and of independant corporations/organizations(such as Napster and ISPs). The filters they propose to use on Napster would violate Napster's rights -- as it would force Napster to adopt an inferior business model, which would clog up bandwidth(filtering wastes space and slows down things). For the same reasons, such action against ISPs also violates THEIR rights. Now, as for the individual user, spying on him online and collecting information on him online violates his right to privacy; and raiding the rooms and confiscating the property of college students is a GESTAPO tactic that violates THEIR right to privacy and THEIR right to property.
So, when you consider the whole thing, the RIAA and the music industry doesn't give a shit about anybody's rights but their own:
1. They don't care about the right of ISPs to provide the most efficient service.
2. They don't care about the right of Napster to provide the most efficient service.
3. They don't care about the rights of individuals their privacy.
4. They don't care about the rights of individuals to property.
5. They think that the transmission of MP3s taken from copyrighted music should be illegal even if the MP3s are converted their binary number equivalents -- so they think that the transmission of certain numbers should be illegal. (i.e., there is a certain binary number which represents the song "Hit Me Baby One More Time" perfectly; they think this number should not be allowed to be transmitted).
In fact, the ONLY rights that the RIAA cares about are:
1. Their "right" to their Intellectual Property(btw, I think IP laws last to long and need to be viewed as a necessary evil, thus should be weakened).
2. Their "right" to determine WHAT YOU hear on the radio; part of the reason they hate Napster so much is that now people have a choice, and don't just eat the slop that's given to them by the music industry.
Basically, the RIAA and other organizations like it which support the DMCA and other nazi-legislation want the United States Government(which is supposed to REPRESENT the PEOPLE, be accountable to the people, and all) to value THEIR rights to "their" intellectual property over the rights of other corporations, and over the rights of the individual to privacy, property, and freedom of expression.
This is absurd. When it comes down to the "rights" or corporations versus the rights of people, there can be no compromises: the rights of people are infinitely more important thant he rights of corporations: indeed, the rights of corporations are merely subsets of the rights of people, as corporations existences depend on people.
I would like to say that I personally view Intellectual Property laws as a necessary evil to prevent freeloading on the work of others. I think that they should be cut back in how long they last(10 years max) and their force should be greatly reduced. It bothers me that they ONLY work for rich corporations and organizations of corporations, and not for the individual. The idea that information can be "owned" by companies also bothers me.
As a tangent line to prove my case, consider the current madness with patenting genes "isolated from nature". What do you think your "God" would think if (s)he knew that the shit that HE made was being claimed as the property of humans?(if you believe in god, which I don't but apparently 95% of the world does). If your a logical atheist like myself, consider this: what if Rutherford had patented the nucleus when he discovered it, because he "isolated it" from nature?
Who controls the internet controls the MP3s: who controls the law controls the internet.
Unfairuse
Doubleplusunfairuse
Riaasoc
You could create and share noise but not music.
We're getting the music into its final shape -- the shape it's going to have when nobody hears anything else. When we've finished with it, tpeople like you will have to learn music all over again. I dare say, that our chief job is inventing new music. But not a bit of it! We're destroying notes -- scores of them, hundreds of them, every day. We're cutting the music down to the bone. The eleventh album won't contain a single note that will become obsolete before the year 2050.
You don't grasp the beauty of the destruction of notes. Do you know that Newmusic is the only music in the world whose repratrauer gets smaller every year?
It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of notes.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newmusic is to narrow the range of thought? In the end, we shall make musicrime literally impossible, because there will be no notes in which to express it. Every song that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one note, with its tone rigidly defined and all its subsidiary tones rubbed out and forgotten.
Every year fewer and fewer notes, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there's no reason or ecuxe for committing musicrime. It's merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won't be any need for event hat. The Revolution will be complete when the music is perfect. Newmusic is Riaasoc and Riaasoc is Newmusic. Has it ever occured to you that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be able to understand 'music' wuch as we are listening to now?
The whole climate of music will be different. In fact there will be no music, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not hearing notes -- not needing to hear notes. Orthododxy is unconsciousness. Soon, people will buy CD-albums which are blank.
Duckmusic, to quack music like a duck. It is one of those interesting words that have two contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent(such as Napster), it is absue, applied to someone you agree with, it is praise.
Two minutes hate.
It was terribly dangerous to let your singing wonder when you were in any public place or within the range of the Riaascreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxeity, a habit of muttering to yourself -- anything that could give you away...Even to wear an improper expression on your face when a victory against napster was announced, was a punishable offence. There was even a word for it under the Newmusic order: facecrime, it was called.
Everything faded into mist. The past music was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth.
Napster was a fragment of the abolished past
In the end the RIAA would announce that a sharp was a flat, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it.
What about the right to privacy of the people who were killed? What about how their rights were violated when some fucking son-of-a-bitch followed them to their house, wrote down their house number, and their liscence plate number?
What concerns me here about this website is not that they were happy when ppl were killed, but that they must have followed people around and stalked them to procure such information, thus violating their right to privacy.
What the fuck is up with this, nVidia releasing GeForce 3 for Macs but not for PCs? Have they lost their minds? PCs dominate the market, and all of the best gaming products that come out on PCs come out on Macs a year later, if at all.
What the fuck is this, an attempt by nVidia to force consumers to switch over to Macs, forcing us all to give up the games -- Descent 3, Tomb Raider 1 - 4, Quake 1 - 3, Unreal, Half-Life -- we paid good money for, and settle to be on a platform which is usually a year behind when it comes to gaming releases?
This is a major tactical error on the part of nVidia. They are sending the message that their top priority is compatability with Macs, and this is not going to get the most sales/profit, as PCs dominate the market.
What's next, are they going to start demanding they be paid compensation for every medium sold which *can* copy their copyrighted music? This is absurd bullshit. What they want to do is stifle the selling of inventions that make their industry obsolete. More and more technologies to make data-copying easier are coming out, and they will either have to deal with it and develop new plans, or go broke. They get no pity from me.
What's next? Will they be pursuing legal action against private users who loan their books out? Will they have little self-destruct, "This book is liscensed to be read in 48 hours and will self-destruct aftewards" messages in fine print on the book? Are they going to prevent people from staying at the library and reading the books for free their also?
And then there's the Electronic Books and E-Journals. Are they going to be suing every university and organization that has such a service "for free" online? And what if I buy an E-journal, and then cut&paste the text for certain articles -- or the whole journal -- and e-mail it to a friend? Are they then going to sue me, and everyone else who does such? Or are they going to start trying to offer the E-Journals on fancy looking Java applets(hence their excuse for the unnecessary bloat) which prevent any use of the copy function?
Really, this is nothing but blatently disgusting. They want to use their "information" as a way of keeping power in their hands -- and those who pay for it. It is a manipulative, and no different than the way in which the Royals during the middle ages kept information out of the hands of the poor. Information is not something that you can own. I dont' give a flying fuck what the law says -- knowledge and ideas(other than paparazzi-like stuff) is something that the public has the right to.
What these companies want to do is hold up scientific and intellectual progress, so they can make money. If they had their way, there would a mirage of liscenses and end-user-agreements that scientists would have to go through just to get the necessary preliminary papers for lab work. The vast sweeping "intellectual property rights," that companies have -- from book companies rights to the books, to biotech companies "rights" to genes they discover -- hold up progress, and force it to be filtered through their narrow perspectives.
Everyone has the right to information. Information wants to be free.
Apple did "steal" something, you stupid shit. They looked through tons and tons and tons of custom-created skins in the BSD/Linux and BeOS worlds to find what they thought were the best ideas, and the best skins, and they used many of them directly.
By the way, I've made a few custom icons from MS WinME w/c -- upon hindsight -- (esp the IE icon) resemble the idea of MacOS X Aqua's GUI icons, in their blue color and smooth gradients.
check them out at http://home.rochester.rr.com/tweak/icons.jpg
Now, is Apple going to try to sue me to prevent me from putting *my* custom made IE icon(pixel-by-pixel customized, using Icon Pro, I might ad)?
Boy, this company really likes whining?
I say, it's too damn bad for them. *nix users have Window Managers and Desktops that mimic the look and functionality of MS Windows 9x to the beat, but MS hasn't done anything about them, and wouldn't be able to either.
The simple fact of the matter is, that if I -- as a WinME user -- want to have my desktoip/interface look and function like that is my right. I can get whatever costware or freeware skinning/modifying programs I desire, and make my desktop look like and function like whatever the hell I want it to -- that means I can make it function and look exactly like a *nix GUIs; can make it function and look exactly like the BeOS GUI; can make function and look exactly liket he Amiga Classic/Amiga SDK GUIs; and, yes, finally can make it function and look exactly like MacOS X' GUI. It is *my* desktop and I have the right to make it however the hell I want to. That is indisputable -- Apple doesn't question that.
What Apple does want is to prevent me or anyone else who makes their GUI look exactly like MacOS X' from sharing that with others. This is clearly impractical and impossible. Even if you prevent ppl from posting their Aqua skins on the web, they will still share them interpersonally, or may even post detailed How-To instructions.
This is clearly a desperate attempt by Apple to eliminate the rights of consumers to have their interface be as they desire it to be.
It is wrong.
Typical reaction from the stupid mac user who would buy an i-mac because, "i-macs are ". Doesn't it say something about the avg. intelligence level of mac users that Apple would think advertising, "i-macs are blue" would sell their products? It says they're dumb, or shallowly concerned with irrelevancies.
Now, as for the "better hardware of macs," that's pure bullshit. Granted, their CPU's are more efficient -- in that they do not require fans, and thus save electricity -- but they still(compensating for cycles required to complete an instruction) are no faster than Intel/AMD chips. Now, lets look at the RAM -- RIMM RAM and DDR RAM is offered with PC's, but not with Macs, which offer SDRAM. We all know that RIMM and DDR RAM are superior to SDRAM. Now, the graphics cards -- Mac's only have acquired support for nvidia GeForce' -- unquestionably the best on the market -- a short while ago. The drivers are likely crap for the Macs: in fact, I'd be willing to be the GeForce drivers work better w/ Linux than with Macs. It is uncertain as to if Mac's will have support for Nvidia's upcoming GPU.
By the way, as someone else here has posted, in benchmarks comparing how PC's and Mac's handle Quake's crusher test was decisive: PC's equipped with analagous graphics cards/speed(compensated for cycles/instruction), and RAM creamated their counterpart Mac's on the tests.
Also, I've been hearing a lot about how MS ripped off Apple with their Windows program -- well, how the hell can that be, as Apple didn't invent a windowing GUI? The windowing GUI was invented and -- considering the times -- perfected in Amiga OS, which was a full fledged multimedia GUI when Apple users were amazed that they could change the colors of their text.
Now, as for the relevant topic -- ppl creating identical images/functionality for their GUI as OS X has. If someone wants their desktop to look exactly like OS X, and function as close to such as is possible, it's their right to do so: their computer. They can make it look and behave however the fuck they want to.
typical reaction from a stupid mac user who doesn't understand shit. The fact is, most Mac users are just dumb -- that's why they get macs, because they're computers for dumb people. Now, if you had half a brain about you, you'd know that most of the "skins" that make WinME or *nix resemble MacOSX are extensions to free software -- no one is making money off of "apple's" hard work. And if you were consistent, you'd admit that most of the MacOSX GUI owes it's existence to themes already partially explored in the world of *nix skinning. The entire point of this article was that there was no copyright violation -- the skins do *not* have apple Logo's on them. There is, furthermore, no validity to Apple's claim -- MS hasn't tried, and if they have haven't been successful, in stopping people in the *nix world from implementing and posting online skins and themes that make *nix WMs work exactly like WinME, have they? No.
The fact is, most of the REAL work that takes place in GUI appearance is done in the GPL world, by people who want new "looks" for their Unix GUI, or for their MS GUI. Then, what happens, is companies like Mac and MS come allong and use what other's have made for free in the GPL world, and put it into their GUI...then, they complain about "copyright violation" -- how hypocritical.
what Apple wants is the right to monopolize any type of general appearance they claim to have "invented," which would stiffle the market. They are desperate because they are losing, and thus pulling desperate bullshit tricks. Everyone has the right to make their desktop look like whatever the hell they want it to look like, and share that look with other people. You basically implied apple wanted to have sole rights to the "Windows" look 10 years ago, which would mean that they would monopolize GUI's. This would be unacceptable as it would force people to use Macs, when most ppl -- for good reason -- prefer to use PC compatables.
please, apple doesn't have the right to prevent anyone who uses any non-mac OS from giving their computer an "Aqua-like" interface. And if Apple was self-consistent, they'd admit that most of the ideas they got for their Aqua skin were previously implemented in part under the vast array of *nix GUI's.
Yes, patents exist to foster innovation, but that has been extremely twisted in the modern world, where patents can be valid for a 120 years; however, the founding father's intended that patents be 7-15 years or so.
Now, regarding "patenting a gene," no one should be able to patent a gene. It is natural. Patenting a gene means that other ppl need your permission to use it -- if a scientist discovers a new heavy element, he can't patent it b/c it's not something he invented, so why can these ppl patent natural genes? All this crap about them being able to patent it b/c it's not found that way in nature is bullshit -- the point is, it is still something that nature made, not them: they didn't invent it, hence shouldn't be able to patent it.
So, what should they be able to patent, so that innovation will be encouraged? Well, that's obvious -- the treatments and modifications on the gene developed by the company after it's discovery. For example, having identified the gene for color blindness, they might make various modifications to it that would render it inactive, so ppl would not be color blind, or develop certain treatments to counteract that -- that is what should be patented, not the gene itself.
But, you ask, if we just do that, then companies will spend millions of dollars trying to find a gene for something, and then when they find it -- as it won't be patentable -- everyone else will use that to develop their own cures, so everyone will be on a level footing, even though said company made the investment to discover it. Well, we can solve that by giving a temporary patent to the said company that discovered the gene, giving that company exlusive rights to develop treatments from that gene for a said period of time -- hence, that company's investment would not be wasted, and ppl wouldn't be able to freeload off them.
The problem with your argument is that Microsoft doesn't do shit to be accountable. If there is a bug in the software, it takes them forever to make a patch, and their software is very unstable and bloated...furthermore, because the software is not open source, less security holes are noticed and fixed by users and companies; however, those securitie holes are noticed and exploited by hackers who use reverse-engineering software.
On the other hand, OS' like Debian and OpenBSD are extremely stable; because they are open sourced, bugs can be fixed, and security holes closed quickly, as they are. Security flaws in the BSD's are usually fixed very quickly.
To be quite frank, MS gets a lot of money to sell something that cost hardly nothing to make. Compare pay-for software to pay-for hardware, and you'll find that pay-for software is a rip off. For both software and hardware, their is the research cost. However, for software don't have to pay for material resources to sell it...for hardware you do...now, consider WindowsNT, which can be *very* expensive, and also MS Office 2000 Professional, which is about 500 dollars.
MacOS people need to get over themselves and their OS.
1. Many of them pride themselves as being the most fanatical followers of their OS of choice. This is not true. Amiga(classic and SDK) has the most fanatical followers of any OS. Free/Open BSD and Slackware also have some very fanatical followers.
2. MacOS users often imply that their OS is the easiest to use. This is arguably false. BeOS has a reasonable claim to being the easiest OS to use. Amiga(classic and SDK) also has a reasonable claim to that title. Windows is easier to use as an OS to use than Mac is, and a configured X-windows WM/desktop system such as Black Box + XFce or SCWM + XFce is easier to use than MacOS.
3. MacOS is not the most powerful OS. The *nix family of OS' is. They have more power than any other OS'. Particularly, the powerful *nix' I cite are: AIX, IRIX, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, QNX, Slackware, and Debian. Please do not be offended if your *nix is not on this list. These are simply the one's that stick out in my mind.
4. MacOS is not the most customizable OS...again, the *nix's, as a family of OS', are the most customizable. BeOS is also very customizable in terms of hardware options(it allows a lot of tweakings).
5. MacOS is not the most stable or secure OS...again, this title falls to the *nix's as a family, particularly AIX, IRIX, OpenBSD, and QNX. Again, do not be offended if your *nix is not listed. Also, BeOS is very stable.
6. MacOS certainly does not boast the largest software base...Windows undeniably boasts that title, though the *nix's may rival it in terms of all the open software available for them on the net.
7. MacOS is not the best OS for graphics. IRIX is the undesputed champion in that area. Anyone who would deny that is blind. BeOS and AmigaSDK are also both very capable and worthy OS' in terms of graphics, both of them better than MacOS. Also, *nix's are very good for graphics(duh, IRIX is a *nix)...to prove my point, I would like to say that the special effects from Jurassic Park were done in IRIX, and that many of the computer special effects of Titanic were done using Linux.
Now, I felt it was my duty to the rest of you to mention all of this, which most of you probably already knew. I would also like to say that it is obvious that his author is abusing the definition of an OS as suits his needs. An OS is not a GUI, nor is it a set of applications that come in a package. An OS manages the hardware and acts as an "overboss" to all of the software applications installed on it. It need not necessarily have a Graphical User Interface, or any User Interface(i.e., tcsh) at all. A User Interface is simply a tool -- supplemental to the OS -- which allows the user to act as the "overboss" to the OS to some extend. It should be noted, however, that many OS' come with interfaces, both textual and graphical. This is not, however, a requirement.
Now, we can debate about if it is best that the OS ship with a UI or not, but that is a matter of preference. Personally, I prefer a market such that BOTH options are available -- i.e., you can get an OS that has a UI that comes with it, or one that has several to choose from with it, or one that has none. This is part of living in a free nation -- choices! I love *nix(particularly FreeBSD, my system) for the choices it gives me...I can change my GUI's and have more than one, and I can change my text shells and have more than one. I also like BeOS and AmigaSDK for the setup they offer with little effort. I also like QNX, which comes with UI's and offers the user choice; mostly, however, I like QNX b/c it is the most efficient OS, an example I believe everyone should follow. As for Windows, well, I can play Descent3 and TombRaider4 on it -- which, to me, are THE ONLY GAMES.
In closing, I'd like to offer some praise to each of the operating systems that I've talked about...
*nix: As a family of OS', they are stable and secure, as well as very powerful and customizable. Thus, if you know how to use them, you can make them do anything(literally, YOUR *nix can do anything b/c you can alter the source code to make it do such, though most ppl haven't that know-how, myself included).
Amiga, classic and SDK: Amiga basically started the multimedia revolution...as the amiga.com site says, Amiga was what Multimedia used to be before Windows screwed it up. Amiga was also, in my opinion, the first OS to provide an adequate GUI, and what they did in their time was amazing...even the classic is still a good OS, and the new AmigaSDK is really cool.
BeOS: They did something revolutionary -- started from the ground up! An OS designed for speed and performance, designed to respond to the user even under high-stress circumstances. It is a very capable graphics/multimedia OS, and is certainly FAST...I'd LOVE to see it join the Open-sourced community. However, if they're going to go Open-source, help out the Open-Source community, they better do it before the jesture becomes meaningless...AmigaSDK(though now Open Source) is making moves to contribute to the Open Sourced community through RedHat.
Windows(9x and above): Like I said, I can play TombRaider 4 and Descent3 on it. It's a standard, it comes with most PC's, and it has HUGE software support...pretty boring OS, but for the moment one that is needed(hopefully, as more games are available for *nix, BeOS, and AmigaSDK, esp the Descent/TombRaider games, it won't be needed).
OS/2: Did you really think I'd forgotten OS/2? Come on! No way! OS/2, what the average user's GUI experience SHOULD have been, had not M$ stabbed IBM in the back...as it stands, OS/2 is a reliable OS, with lots of power and an easy-to-use system...it is still highly regarded in the business community(anything by IBM is)...as it stands, it's an IBM product(THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. IBM.) and that says a lot in and of itself...IBM -- the good company. I will be honest, I am very biased towards IBM(also to SGI)...I'd love to see IBM make OS/2 open-sourced -- it would greatly benefit the Open-Source community.
Plan9, Multics, etc: Ok, so these aren't around that much any more...but they were some of the "Original OS's" along with UNIX way back when...in fact, the original UNIX projects shared much common origen with these products...I would say that these OS', along with UNIX, are the forefather's of our present day operating systems, and as such they deserve respect.
MacOS: And finally, I arrive at MacOS. Like that 10-year old Chevy that's outside in my stone driveway(my Benz is sheltered in the garage) it will get you where you want to go...maybe. There is nothing much to say about MacOS except that it is mediocre.
Being a UNIX enthusiast myself, I'd like to close my response with a comment on UNIX(ok, so I'm also a BeOS, AmigaSDK, and OS/2 enthusiast). Anyways, I'd like to say that way back when, when the concept of the OS first became needed, many OS' stepped into the ring, but only one is still standing: UNIX(today, it is a family of OS', but back then it wasn't).
"And for all those naysayers out there, remember that many fighters stepped into the Ring, but only ONE is STILL KING: Don King." -- Don King, *Only In America*
You are very much distorting the issue...the debate of RISC v. CISC is almost irrelevant as of today, as RISC technology has become more CISC-like, and CISC technology more CISC-like. Even what you consider "RISC" technology such as MIPS is MUCH more complicated than the traditional RISC technology of the past, when the term RISC was first invented. As for Intel's and AMD's, they are both converging towards RISCness, reducing the number of pre-built in instructions. To put it another way: "RISC" technology is now 40% CISC, and "CISC" technology 40% RISC. And as for RISC being the future, if so, they need to get their act together, as a whole...I consider SGI to be the representative of RISC, as they sell some of the best systems, MIPS based, with IRIX. However, on their web-site is full of annoying PDF files, which necessarily make finding out information about platforms difficult...not to mention that fact that the damn site doesn't have *any* information on the pricing of various systems, nor is there any way in which the site allows for their MIPS platforms for to be compared to Intel/AMD based systems. Then again, IBM and Compaq don't offer any way for their systems to be comapred to MIPS based systems. Anyways, this bullshit with different processors 'speed' being affected by both the number of Mhz value and the number of instructiosn per cycle. There should be a STANDARD way to compare processors, in an ABSOLUTE sense...i.e., the equation for time/application is this: time/application = (lines/application) * (cycles/line) * (time/cycles). Note that time/cycle is the inverse of Mhz value, or 1/Mhz's. What should happen, is that the CPU speed-representing value shoudl be represented by the inverse of the multiple of 1/[(cycles/line) * (time/cycles)], or lines/time.
Actually, no its not nonsense. Gravity and the Electrstatic force are both measured in Netwons(N) -- that is, (kg)(m)(s)^(-2). Or, kilogram-meters per second-squared. Thus, they can be compared. However, I see your point. I believe what you are concerned about is the density of force -- that is, force per size, etc. Well, if you take an electron in the hydrogen atom, it is a valid comparison to compare the electrostatic force attracting the electron to the nucleus with the gravitational force attracting the electron to the nucleus. The electrostatic force attracting the electron to the nuclues is: (k)(q1)(q2)(r)^(-2). The gravitational force attracting the electron to the nuclues is: (G)(m1)(m2)(r)^(-2). Both an electron and a proton have an absolute value in Coulombs of ~1.602EE-19 Coulombs. An electrons mass is on the order of 10^(-31). A protons, on the order of 10^(-27). [I don't know the precise values off the top of my head]. k is an electrostatic constant. G is a graviational constant. Thus, the net electrostatic force attracting the electron to the nuclues is much smaller than the net graviational force attracting the electron to the nuclues. However, you may still accuse me of making an invalid comparison, if you carefully look at the two equqations: F(electromagnetic) = (k)(q1)(q2)(r)^(-2) F(graviational) = (G)(m1)(m2)(r)^(-2) In my example, the electron in the Hydrogen atom, the product of q1q2 was not equal to the product of m1m2. Thus, the comparison may be said to be invalid. However, even if such hair-splitting is employed, it is still obvious that Gravity is an inherently 'weaker' force than electromagnetism. Let us say that we have an object of 1kg and 1 Coulomb; and another of 1kg and -1 Coulomb. Let us say they are 1m appart. These two objects would be attracted to eachother by both the graviational and the electrostatic force. F(g) = (G)(1kg)(1kg)(1m)^(-2) F(g) = (6.67E-8 Nm^2/kg^-2)(1kg)(1kg)(1m)^(-2) F(g) = 6.67E-8 N F(e) = (k)(1C)(-1C)(1m)^(-2) F(e) = (8.99E9 Nm^2/C^2)(1C)(-1C)(1m)^(-2) F(e) = 8.99E9 N Clearly, even given a perfectly level playing ground in terms of the absolute magnitude of the mass/charge, the graviational force is much weaker. It is interesting to note that both these forces approach infinity as the radius -- that is, the distance between the two object's centres -- approaches zero. This is the concept behind a black hole. Because a black hole -- or singularity -- is essentially a large mass concentrated at a singular point, the gravity is very strong round that point. For example, being 100 meters above the surface of the earth you would feel little force. But being 1000 meters above the "surface" of a singularity, you would be stretched out like a sphagetti. This is because with the earth, you are farther away from its center. Such also shows why it is *impossible* to dig through the moon. As one starts digging down into the moon, the gravity becomes much stronger, as one is approaching its center(at the center of the moon, gravity is infinite). Eventually, as one digs down to the center, the gravity becomes too much to bear: it will crush one's body like you would squash a bug, turn your bones into dust, and do other unpleasant torturous things to you.
It's simple as this: you need to try it out yourselves. Its really quite easy -- Linux is free, BeOS5 is free. What's so hard about getting BeOS5 and a good version of Linux speedwiae(i.e., Slackware, or Stampede) and comparing for yourself? Your personal comparison certainly won't be worthy of any generalization, but it will apply aptly to you. Now, as far as I'm concerned, the only games that are important are Descent(I, II, and III) and Tomb Raider(I, II, III, and IV); everything else is garbage. Now, once you try for yourselves, you don't have anything to complain or gripe about. If Be runs Descent3 better, then you play it on Be; and if Linux runs TombRaider better, then you play Tomb Raider on Linux. Big deal. So you have to use two OS'. That too much for your intellect? Challenge your simplistic views? Now, regarding all this bullshit that everyone's saying about Windows being a better games platform than Linux; in a word, no. It *runs* some games marginally better, under 'fair' comparisons; this is only becuase every game is developed from its infancy to be run under windows -- the way it manages data, I/O, etc etc, is all optimized for the bloated Windows code. The Linux versions of games are 'afterthoughts.' Ask Outrage to develop Descent4 on Stampede Linux, and you'll see how good gaming can be on Linux. Now, since we're all talking about the BeOS hype, I'll say from what I've seen its very good. It is worth a try, and should not be mindlessly put down by many *nix fanatics as it is being done; I suppose, however, this hostility can be expected, since the Linux community is so divided and so hostile that a disagreement on a distribution -- i.e., if you like Slackware or Debian -- can become a holy crusade. But, back to the point, BeOS seems to be very good from what I've read. It's gotten rave reviews from independant sources such as ZDnet. This is nothing for *nix ppl to be worried about; why? Well, I can answer that in one question: How many reviews of *any* noteoworthy *nix distribution(i.e., xBSD, IRIX, Linux and all its distros) have you read that don't praise *nix? Now, I've read a lot about a great many OS', and when I eliminate the information that was basically useless to me -- i.e., the ultra technical aspects of the OS -- all I'm left with is advertising -- mindless, fanatical, advertising. If you want to use the internet to determine anything about an OS, use it to determine which OS has the most fanatical and devote followers; this is somewhat of a plus for an OS, since it has to be good to have fanats. But, for everything else, internet sources seem to be useless. So, do you know what you do? You look at everything, you e-mail some professors, and you try the shit out yourself. A fine example is the ?war? between Linux and *BSD. Well, how the fuck are you to know the difference between clams and oysters if you've only had clams? As long as we're talking about BeOS' multimedia superiority, it would be wholly unfair to say that *nix is an unknown in the multimedia category. Linux was used to develop the movie Titanic -- that is certainly high praise. Also, need I say anything other than IRIX? It's multimedia is legendary. P.S. -- I'm really anxious to see how well Linux performs in multimedia with Amiga running atop it; as Amiga's so legendary in multimedia, it should offer dramatic improvements. P.P.S. -- as long as we're flame-baiting about different OS', I might as well mention a virtual unknown -- V2 OS. It doesn't come with a zillion features, but it gets the job done and its the most efficient OS ever programmed, also the fastest -- period; written in C/C++, and compiled excellently, and then tweaked and perfected line-by-line in asm(assembly). It doesn't get much better than that concerning a job well done. Personally, I think every program, and every OS, should be hand tweaked -- post compilation -- by a programmer to make it faster. For info on V2_OS, see http://www.v2os.com
So what if what we're doing isn't illegal? They can't launch invesigations against a million people. And they can't ban napster from doing what it does b/c any website can do the same, and they don't ban offering file on webistes, do they? Specifically, they can't prevent napster from being as it is now b/c ppl can offer legit files, and to stop that would be a violation of the constitution. Furthermore, the companies can not prove the source of the music offered on napster. If it is something that was taken off the radio, put ontoa computer, and offered on napster, it's not illegal. As they can't prove that every offering on Napster wasn't on the radio, they can't prove that anything illegal was done.
Actually, no it's not stealing, or the vast majority of it can't be for a simple reason -- almost all the music on napster is also on the radio. That means that any method of recording and convertion to mp3 could have been used, so it can't possibly be stealing as the radio is free. Also, even if someone downloads some song w/c isn't on the radio and isn't authorized for publishing on Napster by the producer, that isn't stealing either, b/c that person has no way of knowing such(as for the person who originally published it online, that's another matter)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, asshole, I had paragraphed it, but I'd forgotten to put the scroll-bar format to plain text, so it interpreted it via HTML markers(w/c meant that tabs and breaks were ignored).
Now, your still an anonymous pussy who has refused to post your normal slashdot name, and your original points all stand refuted.
That you have not responded intelligently to anything I wrote indicates the invalidity of your opinion.
HOPE THIS HELPS YOU TO RE-THINK YOUR MUSIC-NAZI IDEALS.
Titles summarizes my opinion of the gestapo S.S. trooper fuckers at the RIAA.
You pussy, you could at least have the balls to post your name. Now, responding to your post... > And then they came for the people with the > illicit music, and the slashdotters Look, the points people here were making was that it is WRONG for the RIAA and their evil corporate and law buddies to go after Napster or ISPs or Nap-users in general because the ISPs are just conduits, as is Napster, and many Nap-users trade non-copyrighted material(for a prominent type of non-copyrighted MP3s, go on Napster and do a search for anything XXX). So, our point is that it is unjustified and a violations of people's right to go after: (a) Napster, as Napster is just a conduit, and should not have to waste their time putting up complex and bandwidth wasting filtering mechs; (b) the ISPs, for the same reason, as they're just conduits, etc; (c) the Nap-users in general, as many don't use Napster to trade copyrighted material(though the only way they've really gone after Nap-users in general is by their statements that Nap-users "steal" their "property"). Now, as for why it's WRONG for the RIAA and the gov't in Taiwan -- which they have apparently corrupted to their means -- to raid student dorms and confiscate their stuff: simple, this is a violation of their right to privacy and of THEIR property rights(as their computer was taken from them without just cause). So, what does it amount to? This: even if you say that sharing/downloading copyrighted files is wrong/illegal, there is NO reasonable way to prevent this in the vast majority of cases without VIOLATING the rights of individual people, and of independant corporations/organizations(such as Napster and ISPs). The filters they propose to use on Napster would violate Napster's rights -- as it would force Napster to adopt an inferior business model, which would clog up bandwidth(filtering wastes space and slows down things). For the same reasons, such action against ISPs also violates THEIR rights. Now, as for the individual user, spying on him online and collecting information on him online violates his right to privacy; and raiding the rooms and confiscating the property of college students is a GESTAPO tactic that violates THEIR right to privacy and THEIR right to property. So, when you consider the whole thing, the RIAA and the music industry doesn't give a shit about anybody's rights but their own: 1. They don't care about the right of ISPs to provide the most efficient service. 2. They don't care about the right of Napster to provide the most efficient service. 3. They don't care about the rights of individuals their privacy. 4. They don't care about the rights of individuals to property. 5. They think that the transmission of MP3s taken from copyrighted music should be illegal even if the MP3s are converted their binary number equivalents -- so they think that the transmission of certain numbers should be illegal. (i.e., there is a certain binary number which represents the song "Hit Me Baby One More Time" perfectly; they think this number should not be allowed to be transmitted). In fact, the ONLY rights that the RIAA cares about are: 1. Their "right" to their Intellectual Property(btw, I think IP laws last to long and need to be viewed as a necessary evil, thus should be weakened). 2. Their "right" to determine WHAT YOU hear on the radio; part of the reason they hate Napster so much is that now people have a choice, and don't just eat the slop that's given to them by the music industry. Basically, the RIAA and other organizations like it which support the DMCA and other nazi-legislation want the United States Government(which is supposed to REPRESENT the PEOPLE, be accountable to the people, and all) to value THEIR rights to "their" intellectual property over the rights of other corporations, and over the rights of the individual to privacy, property, and freedom of expression. This is absurd. When it comes down to the "rights" or corporations versus the rights of people, there can be no compromises: the rights of people are infinitely more important thant he rights of corporations: indeed, the rights of corporations are merely subsets of the rights of people, as corporations existences depend on people. I would like to say that I personally view Intellectual Property laws as a necessary evil to prevent freeloading on the work of others. I think that they should be cut back in how long they last(10 years max) and their force should be greatly reduced. It bothers me that they ONLY work for rich corporations and organizations of corporations, and not for the individual. The idea that information can be "owned" by companies also bothers me. As a tangent line to prove my case, consider the current madness with patenting genes "isolated from nature". What do you think your "God" would think if (s)he knew that the shit that HE made was being claimed as the property of humans?(if you believe in god, which I don't but apparently 95% of the world does). If your a logical atheist like myself, consider this: what if Rutherford had patented the nucleus when he discovered it, because he "isolated it" from nature?
2001
The RIAA is watching you.
MP3 police.
Who controls the internet controls the MP3s: who controls the law controls the internet.
Unfairuse
Doubleplusunfairuse
Riaasoc
You could create and share noise but not music.
We're getting the music into its final shape -- the shape it's going to have when nobody hears anything else. When we've finished with it, tpeople like you will have to learn music all over again. I dare say, that our chief job is inventing new music. But not a bit of it! We're destroying notes -- scores of them, hundreds of them, every day. We're cutting the music down to the bone. The eleventh album won't contain a single note that will become obsolete before the year 2050.
You don't grasp the beauty of the destruction of notes. Do you know that Newmusic is the only music in the world whose repratrauer gets smaller every year?
It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of notes.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newmusic is to narrow the range of thought? In the end, we shall make musicrime literally impossible, because there will be no notes in which to express it. Every song that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one note, with its tone rigidly defined and all its subsidiary tones rubbed out and forgotten.
Every year fewer and fewer notes, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there's no reason or ecuxe for committing musicrime. It's merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won't be any need for event hat. The Revolution will be complete when the music is perfect. Newmusic is Riaasoc and Riaasoc is Newmusic. Has it ever occured to you that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be able to understand 'music' wuch as we are listening to now?
The whole climate of music will be different. In fact there will be no music, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not hearing notes -- not needing to hear notes. Orthododxy is unconsciousness. Soon, people will buy CD-albums which are blank.
Duckmusic, to quack music like a duck. It is one of those interesting words that have two contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent(such as Napster), it is absue, applied to someone you agree with, it is praise.
Two minutes hate.
It was terribly dangerous to let your singing wonder when you were in any public place or within the range of the Riaascreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxeity, a habit of muttering to yourself -- anything that could give you away...Even to wear an improper expression on your face when a victory against napster was announced, was a punishable offence. There was even a word for it under the Newmusic order: facecrime, it was called.
Everything faded into mist. The past music was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth.
Napster was a fragment of the abolished past
In the end the RIAA would announce that a sharp was a flat, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it.
What about the right to privacy of the people who were killed? What about how their rights were violated when some fucking son-of-a-bitch followed them to their house, wrote down their house number, and their liscence plate number? What concerns me here about this website is not that they were happy when ppl were killed, but that they must have followed people around and stalked them to procure such information, thus violating their right to privacy.
Enough said
What the fuck is up with this, nVidia releasing GeForce 3 for Macs but not for PCs? Have they lost their minds? PCs dominate the market, and all of the best gaming products that come out on PCs come out on Macs a year later, if at all. What the fuck is this, an attempt by nVidia to force consumers to switch over to Macs, forcing us all to give up the games -- Descent 3, Tomb Raider 1 - 4, Quake 1 - 3, Unreal, Half-Life -- we paid good money for, and settle to be on a platform which is usually a year behind when it comes to gaming releases? This is a major tactical error on the part of nVidia. They are sending the message that their top priority is compatability with Macs, and this is not going to get the most sales/profit, as PCs dominate the market.
What's next, are they going to start demanding they be paid compensation for every medium sold which *can* copy their copyrighted music? This is absurd bullshit. What they want to do is stifle the selling of inventions that make their industry obsolete. More and more technologies to make data-copying easier are coming out, and they will either have to deal with it and develop new plans, or go broke. They get no pity from me.
What's next? Will they be pursuing legal action against private users who loan their books out? Will they have little self-destruct, "This book is liscensed to be read in 48 hours and will self-destruct aftewards" messages in fine print on the book? Are they going to prevent people from staying at the library and reading the books for free their also? And then there's the Electronic Books and E-Journals. Are they going to be suing every university and organization that has such a service "for free" online? And what if I buy an E-journal, and then cut&paste the text for certain articles -- or the whole journal -- and e-mail it to a friend? Are they then going to sue me, and everyone else who does such? Or are they going to start trying to offer the E-Journals on fancy looking Java applets(hence their excuse for the unnecessary bloat) which prevent any use of the copy function? Really, this is nothing but blatently disgusting. They want to use their "information" as a way of keeping power in their hands -- and those who pay for it. It is a manipulative, and no different than the way in which the Royals during the middle ages kept information out of the hands of the poor. Information is not something that you can own. I dont' give a flying fuck what the law says -- knowledge and ideas(other than paparazzi-like stuff) is something that the public has the right to. What these companies want to do is hold up scientific and intellectual progress, so they can make money. If they had their way, there would a mirage of liscenses and end-user-agreements that scientists would have to go through just to get the necessary preliminary papers for lab work. The vast sweeping "intellectual property rights," that companies have -- from book companies rights to the books, to biotech companies "rights" to genes they discover -- hold up progress, and force it to be filtered through their narrow perspectives. Everyone has the right to information. Information wants to be free.
Apple did "steal" something, you stupid shit. They looked through tons and tons and tons of custom-created skins in the BSD/Linux and BeOS worlds to find what they thought were the best ideas, and the best skins, and they used many of them directly.
By the way, I've made a few custom icons from MS WinME w/c -- upon hindsight -- (esp the IE icon) resemble the idea of MacOS X Aqua's GUI icons, in their blue color and smooth gradients. check them out at http://home.rochester.rr.com/tweak/icons.jpg Now, is Apple going to try to sue me to prevent me from putting *my* custom made IE icon(pixel-by-pixel customized, using Icon Pro, I might ad)?
Boy, this company really likes whining? I say, it's too damn bad for them. *nix users have Window Managers and Desktops that mimic the look and functionality of MS Windows 9x to the beat, but MS hasn't done anything about them, and wouldn't be able to either. The simple fact of the matter is, that if I -- as a WinME user -- want to have my desktoip/interface look and function like that is my right. I can get whatever costware or freeware skinning/modifying programs I desire, and make my desktop look like and function like whatever the hell I want it to -- that means I can make it function and look exactly like a *nix GUIs; can make it function and look exactly like the BeOS GUI; can make function and look exactly liket he Amiga Classic/Amiga SDK GUIs; and, yes, finally can make it function and look exactly like MacOS X' GUI. It is *my* desktop and I have the right to make it however the hell I want to. That is indisputable -- Apple doesn't question that. What Apple does want is to prevent me or anyone else who makes their GUI look exactly like MacOS X' from sharing that with others. This is clearly impractical and impossible. Even if you prevent ppl from posting their Aqua skins on the web, they will still share them interpersonally, or may even post detailed How-To instructions. This is clearly a desperate attempt by Apple to eliminate the rights of consumers to have their interface be as they desire it to be. It is wrong.
Typical reaction from the stupid mac user who would buy an i-mac because, "i-macs are ". Doesn't it say something about the avg. intelligence level of mac users that Apple would think advertising, "i-macs are blue" would sell their products? It says they're dumb, or shallowly concerned with irrelevancies. Now, as for the "better hardware of macs," that's pure bullshit. Granted, their CPU's are more efficient -- in that they do not require fans, and thus save electricity -- but they still(compensating for cycles required to complete an instruction) are no faster than Intel/AMD chips. Now, lets look at the RAM -- RIMM RAM and DDR RAM is offered with PC's, but not with Macs, which offer SDRAM. We all know that RIMM and DDR RAM are superior to SDRAM. Now, the graphics cards -- Mac's only have acquired support for nvidia GeForce' -- unquestionably the best on the market -- a short while ago. The drivers are likely crap for the Macs: in fact, I'd be willing to be the GeForce drivers work better w/ Linux than with Macs. It is uncertain as to if Mac's will have support for Nvidia's upcoming GPU. By the way, as someone else here has posted, in benchmarks comparing how PC's and Mac's handle Quake's crusher test was decisive: PC's equipped with analagous graphics cards/speed(compensated for cycles/instruction), and RAM creamated their counterpart Mac's on the tests. Also, I've been hearing a lot about how MS ripped off Apple with their Windows program -- well, how the hell can that be, as Apple didn't invent a windowing GUI? The windowing GUI was invented and -- considering the times -- perfected in Amiga OS, which was a full fledged multimedia GUI when Apple users were amazed that they could change the colors of their text. Now, as for the relevant topic -- ppl creating identical images/functionality for their GUI as OS X has. If someone wants their desktop to look exactly like OS X, and function as close to such as is possible, it's their right to do so: their computer. They can make it look and behave however the fuck they want to.
typical reaction from a stupid mac user who doesn't understand shit. The fact is, most Mac users are just dumb -- that's why they get macs, because they're computers for dumb people. Now, if you had half a brain about you, you'd know that most of the "skins" that make WinME or *nix resemble MacOSX are extensions to free software -- no one is making money off of "apple's" hard work. And if you were consistent, you'd admit that most of the MacOSX GUI owes it's existence to themes already partially explored in the world of *nix skinning. The entire point of this article was that there was no copyright violation -- the skins do *not* have apple Logo's on them. There is, furthermore, no validity to Apple's claim -- MS hasn't tried, and if they have haven't been successful, in stopping people in the *nix world from implementing and posting online skins and themes that make *nix WMs work exactly like WinME, have they? No. The fact is, most of the REAL work that takes place in GUI appearance is done in the GPL world, by people who want new "looks" for their Unix GUI, or for their MS GUI. Then, what happens, is companies like Mac and MS come allong and use what other's have made for free in the GPL world, and put it into their GUI...then, they complain about "copyright violation" -- how hypocritical.
what Apple wants is the right to monopolize any type of general appearance they claim to have "invented," which would stiffle the market. They are desperate because they are losing, and thus pulling desperate bullshit tricks. Everyone has the right to make their desktop look like whatever the hell they want it to look like, and share that look with other people. You basically implied apple wanted to have sole rights to the "Windows" look 10 years ago, which would mean that they would monopolize GUI's. This would be unacceptable as it would force people to use Macs, when most ppl -- for good reason -- prefer to use PC compatables.
please, apple doesn't have the right to prevent anyone who uses any non-mac OS from giving their computer an "Aqua-like" interface. And if Apple was self-consistent, they'd admit that most of the ideas they got for their Aqua skin were previously implemented in part under the vast array of *nix GUI's.
Yes, patents exist to foster innovation, but that has been extremely twisted in the modern world, where patents can be valid for a 120 years; however, the founding father's intended that patents be 7-15 years or so. Now, regarding "patenting a gene," no one should be able to patent a gene. It is natural. Patenting a gene means that other ppl need your permission to use it -- if a scientist discovers a new heavy element, he can't patent it b/c it's not something he invented, so why can these ppl patent natural genes? All this crap about them being able to patent it b/c it's not found that way in nature is bullshit -- the point is, it is still something that nature made, not them: they didn't invent it, hence shouldn't be able to patent it. So, what should they be able to patent, so that innovation will be encouraged? Well, that's obvious -- the treatments and modifications on the gene developed by the company after it's discovery. For example, having identified the gene for color blindness, they might make various modifications to it that would render it inactive, so ppl would not be color blind, or develop certain treatments to counteract that -- that is what should be patented, not the gene itself. But, you ask, if we just do that, then companies will spend millions of dollars trying to find a gene for something, and then when they find it -- as it won't be patentable -- everyone else will use that to develop their own cures, so everyone will be on a level footing, even though said company made the investment to discover it. Well, we can solve that by giving a temporary patent to the said company that discovered the gene, giving that company exlusive rights to develop treatments from that gene for a said period of time -- hence, that company's investment would not be wasted, and ppl wouldn't be able to freeload off them.
The problem with your argument is that Microsoft doesn't do shit to be accountable. If there is a bug in the software, it takes them forever to make a patch, and their software is very unstable and bloated...furthermore, because the software is not open source, less security holes are noticed and fixed by users and companies; however, those securitie holes are noticed and exploited by hackers who use reverse-engineering software. On the other hand, OS' like Debian and OpenBSD are extremely stable; because they are open sourced, bugs can be fixed, and security holes closed quickly, as they are. Security flaws in the BSD's are usually fixed very quickly. To be quite frank, MS gets a lot of money to sell something that cost hardly nothing to make. Compare pay-for software to pay-for hardware, and you'll find that pay-for software is a rip off. For both software and hardware, their is the research cost. However, for software don't have to pay for material resources to sell it...for hardware you do...now, consider WindowsNT, which can be *very* expensive, and also MS Office 2000 Professional, which is about 500 dollars.
1. Many of them pride themselves as being the most fanatical followers of their OS of choice. This is not true. Amiga(classic and SDK) has the most fanatical followers of any OS. Free/Open BSD and Slackware also have some very fanatical followers.
2. MacOS users often imply that their OS is the easiest to use. This is arguably false. BeOS has a reasonable claim to being the easiest OS to use. Amiga(classic and SDK) also has a reasonable claim to that title. Windows is easier to use as an OS to use than Mac is, and a configured X-windows WM/desktop system such as Black Box + XFce or SCWM + XFce is easier to use than MacOS.
3. MacOS is not the most powerful OS. The *nix family of OS' is. They have more power than any other OS'. Particularly, the powerful *nix' I cite are: AIX, IRIX, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, QNX, Slackware, and Debian. Please do not be offended if your *nix is not on this list. These are simply the one's that stick out in my mind.
4. MacOS is not the most customizable OS...again, the *nix's, as a family of OS', are the most customizable. BeOS is also very customizable in terms of hardware options(it allows a lot of tweakings).
5. MacOS is not the most stable or secure OS...again, this title falls to the *nix's as a family, particularly AIX, IRIX, OpenBSD, and QNX. Again, do not be offended if your *nix is not listed. Also, BeOS is very stable.
6. MacOS certainly does not boast the largest software base...Windows undeniably boasts that title, though the *nix's may rival it in terms of all the open software available for them on the net.
7. MacOS is not the best OS for graphics. IRIX is the undesputed champion in that area. Anyone who would deny that is blind. BeOS and AmigaSDK are also both very capable and worthy OS' in terms of graphics, both of them better than MacOS. Also, *nix's are very good for graphics(duh, IRIX is a *nix)...to prove my point, I would like to say that the special effects from Jurassic Park were done in IRIX, and that many of the computer special effects of Titanic were done using Linux.
Now, I felt it was my duty to the rest of you to mention all of this, which most of you probably already knew. I would also like to say that it is obvious that his author is abusing the definition of an OS as suits his needs. An OS is not a GUI, nor is it a set of applications that come in a package. An OS manages the hardware and acts as an "overboss" to all of the software applications installed on it. It need not necessarily have a Graphical User Interface, or any User Interface(i.e., tcsh) at all. A User Interface is simply a tool -- supplemental to the OS -- which allows the user to act as the "overboss" to the OS to some extend. It should be noted, however, that many OS' come with interfaces, both textual and graphical. This is not, however, a requirement.
Now, we can debate about if it is best that the OS ship with a UI or not, but that is a matter of preference. Personally, I prefer a market such that BOTH options are available -- i.e., you can get an OS that has a UI that comes with it, or one that has several to choose from with it, or one that has none. This is part of living in a free nation -- choices! I love *nix(particularly FreeBSD, my system) for the choices it gives me...I can change my GUI's and have more than one, and I can change my text shells and have more than one. I also like BeOS and AmigaSDK for the setup they offer with little effort. I also like QNX, which comes with UI's and offers the user choice; mostly, however, I like QNX b/c it is the most efficient OS, an example I believe everyone should follow. As for Windows, well, I can play Descent3 and TombRaider4 on it -- which, to me, are THE ONLY GAMES.
In closing, I'd like to offer some praise to each of the operating systems that I've talked about...
*nix: As a family of OS', they are stable and secure, as well as very powerful and customizable. Thus, if you know how to use them, you can make them do anything(literally, YOUR *nix can do anything b/c you can alter the source code to make it do such, though most ppl haven't that know-how, myself included).
Amiga, classic and SDK: Amiga basically started the multimedia revolution...as the amiga.com site says, Amiga was what Multimedia used to be before Windows screwed it up. Amiga was also, in my opinion, the first OS to provide an adequate GUI, and what they did in their time was amazing...even the classic is still a good OS, and the new AmigaSDK is really cool.
BeOS: They did something revolutionary -- started from the ground up! An OS designed for speed and performance, designed to respond to the user even under high-stress circumstances. It is a very capable graphics/multimedia OS, and is certainly FAST...I'd LOVE to see it join the Open-sourced community. However, if they're going to go Open-source, help out the Open-Source community, they better do it before the jesture becomes meaningless...AmigaSDK(though now Open Source) is making moves to contribute to the Open Sourced community through RedHat.
Windows(9x and above): Like I said, I can play TombRaider 4 and Descent3 on it. It's a standard, it comes with most PC's, and it has HUGE software support...pretty boring OS, but for the moment one that is needed(hopefully, as more games are available for *nix, BeOS, and AmigaSDK, esp the Descent/TombRaider games, it won't be needed).
OS/2: Did you really think I'd forgotten OS/2? Come on! No way! OS/2, what the average user's GUI experience SHOULD have been, had not M$ stabbed IBM in the back...as it stands, OS/2 is a reliable OS, with lots of power and an easy-to-use system...it is still highly regarded in the business community(anything by IBM is)...as it stands, it's an IBM product(THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. IBM.) and that says a lot in and of itself...IBM -- the good company. I will be honest, I am very biased towards IBM(also to SGI)...I'd love to see IBM make OS/2 open-sourced -- it would greatly benefit the Open-Source community.
Plan9, Multics, etc: Ok, so these aren't around that much any more...but they were some of the "Original OS's" along with UNIX way back when...in fact, the original UNIX projects shared much common origen with these products...I would say that these OS', along with UNIX, are the forefather's of our present day operating systems, and as such they deserve respect.
MacOS: And finally, I arrive at MacOS. Like that 10-year old Chevy that's outside in my stone driveway(my Benz is sheltered in the garage) it will get you where you want to go...maybe. There is nothing much to say about MacOS except that it is mediocre.
Being a UNIX enthusiast myself, I'd like to close my response with a comment on UNIX(ok, so I'm also a BeOS, AmigaSDK, and OS/2 enthusiast). Anyways, I'd like to say that way back when, when the concept of the OS first became needed, many OS' stepped into the ring, but only one is still standing: UNIX(today, it is a family of OS', but back then it wasn't).
"And for all those naysayers out there, remember that many fighters stepped into the Ring, but only ONE is STILL KING: Don King." -- Don King, *Only In America*
You are very much distorting the issue...the debate of RISC v. CISC is almost irrelevant as of today, as RISC technology has become more CISC-like, and CISC technology more CISC-like. Even what you consider "RISC" technology such as MIPS is MUCH more complicated than the traditional RISC technology of the past, when the term RISC was first invented. As for Intel's and AMD's, they are both converging towards RISCness, reducing the number of pre-built in instructions.
To put it another way: "RISC" technology is now 40% CISC, and "CISC" technology 40% RISC. And as for RISC being the future, if so, they need to get their act together, as a whole...I consider SGI to be the representative of RISC, as they sell some of the best systems, MIPS based, with IRIX. However, on their web-site is full of annoying PDF files, which necessarily make finding out information about platforms difficult...not to mention that fact that the damn site doesn't have *any* information on the pricing of various systems, nor is there any way in which the site allows for their MIPS platforms for to be compared to Intel/AMD based systems. Then again, IBM and Compaq don't offer any way for their systems to be comapred to MIPS based systems.
Anyways, this bullshit with different processors 'speed' being affected by both the number of Mhz value and the number of instructiosn per cycle. There should be a STANDARD way to compare processors, in an ABSOLUTE sense...i.e., the equation for time/application is this: time/application = (lines/application) * (cycles/line) * (time/cycles). Note that time/cycle is the inverse of Mhz value, or 1/Mhz's. What should happen, is that the CPU speed-representing value shoudl be represented by the inverse of the multiple of 1/[(cycles/line) * (time/cycles)], or lines/time.
Actually, no its not nonsense. Gravity and the Electrstatic force are both measured in Netwons(N) -- that is, (kg)(m)(s)^(-2). Or, kilogram-meters per second-squared. Thus, they can be compared. However, I see your point. I believe what you are concerned about is the density of force -- that is, force per size, etc. Well, if you take an electron in the hydrogen atom, it is a valid comparison to compare the electrostatic force attracting the electron to the nucleus with the gravitational force attracting the electron to the nucleus. The electrostatic force attracting the electron to the nuclues is: (k)(q1)(q2)(r)^(-2). The gravitational force attracting the electron to the nuclues is: (G)(m1)(m2)(r)^(-2). Both an electron and a proton have an absolute value in Coulombs of ~1.602EE-19 Coulombs. An electrons mass is on the order of 10^(-31). A protons, on the order of 10^(-27). [I don't know the precise values off the top of my head]. k is an electrostatic constant. G is a graviational constant. Thus, the net electrostatic force attracting the electron to the nuclues is much smaller than the net graviational force attracting the electron to the nuclues. However, you may still accuse me of making an invalid comparison, if you carefully look at the two equqations: F(electromagnetic) = (k)(q1)(q2)(r)^(-2) F(graviational) = (G)(m1)(m2)(r)^(-2) In my example, the electron in the Hydrogen atom, the product of q1q2 was not equal to the product of m1m2. Thus, the comparison may be said to be invalid. However, even if such hair-splitting is employed, it is still obvious that Gravity is an inherently 'weaker' force than electromagnetism. Let us say that we have an object of 1kg and 1 Coulomb; and another of 1kg and -1 Coulomb. Let us say they are 1m appart. These two objects would be attracted to eachother by both the graviational and the electrostatic force. F(g) = (G)(1kg)(1kg)(1m)^(-2) F(g) = (6.67E-8 Nm^2/kg^-2)(1kg)(1kg)(1m)^(-2) F(g) = 6.67E-8 N F(e) = (k)(1C)(-1C)(1m)^(-2) F(e) = (8.99E9 Nm^2/C^2)(1C)(-1C)(1m)^(-2) F(e) = 8.99E9 N Clearly, even given a perfectly level playing ground in terms of the absolute magnitude of the mass/charge, the graviational force is much weaker. It is interesting to note that both these forces approach infinity as the radius -- that is, the distance between the two object's centres -- approaches zero. This is the concept behind a black hole. Because a black hole -- or singularity -- is essentially a large mass concentrated at a singular point, the gravity is very strong round that point. For example, being 100 meters above the surface of the earth you would feel little force. But being 1000 meters above the "surface" of a singularity, you would be stretched out like a sphagetti. This is because with the earth, you are farther away from its center. Such also shows why it is *impossible* to dig through the moon. As one starts digging down into the moon, the gravity becomes much stronger, as one is approaching its center(at the center of the moon, gravity is infinite). Eventually, as one digs down to the center, the gravity becomes too much to bear: it will crush one's body like you would squash a bug, turn your bones into dust, and do other unpleasant torturous things to you.
It's simple as this: you need to try it out yourselves. Its really quite easy -- Linux is free, BeOS5 is free. What's so hard about getting BeOS5 and a good version of Linux speedwiae(i.e., Slackware, or Stampede) and comparing for yourself? Your personal comparison certainly won't be worthy of any generalization, but it will apply aptly to you. Now, as far as I'm concerned, the only games that are important are Descent(I, II, and III) and Tomb Raider(I, II, III, and IV); everything else is garbage. Now, once you try for yourselves, you don't have anything to complain or gripe about. If Be runs Descent3 better, then you play it on Be; and if Linux runs TombRaider better, then you play Tomb Raider on Linux. Big deal. So you have to use two OS'. That too much for your intellect? Challenge your simplistic views? Now, regarding all this bullshit that everyone's saying about Windows being a better games platform than Linux; in a word, no. It *runs* some games marginally better, under 'fair' comparisons; this is only becuase every game is developed from its infancy to be run under windows -- the way it manages data, I/O, etc etc, is all optimized for the bloated Windows code. The Linux versions of games are 'afterthoughts.' Ask Outrage to develop Descent4 on Stampede Linux, and you'll see how good gaming can be on Linux. Now, since we're all talking about the BeOS hype, I'll say from what I've seen its very good. It is worth a try, and should not be mindlessly put down by many *nix fanatics as it is being done; I suppose, however, this hostility can be expected, since the Linux community is so divided and so hostile that a disagreement on a distribution -- i.e., if you like Slackware or Debian -- can become a holy crusade. But, back to the point, BeOS seems to be very good from what I've read. It's gotten rave reviews from independant sources such as ZDnet. This is nothing for *nix ppl to be worried about; why? Well, I can answer that in one question: How many reviews of *any* noteoworthy *nix distribution(i.e., xBSD, IRIX, Linux and all its distros) have you read that don't praise *nix? Now, I've read a lot about a great many OS', and when I eliminate the information that was basically useless to me -- i.e., the ultra technical aspects of the OS -- all I'm left with is advertising -- mindless, fanatical, advertising. If you want to use the internet to determine anything about an OS, use it to determine which OS has the most fanatical and devote followers; this is somewhat of a plus for an OS, since it has to be good to have fanats. But, for everything else, internet sources seem to be useless. So, do you know what you do? You look at everything, you e-mail some professors, and you try the shit out yourself. A fine example is the ?war? between Linux and *BSD. Well, how the fuck are you to know the difference between clams and oysters if you've only had clams? As long as we're talking about BeOS' multimedia superiority, it would be wholly unfair to say that *nix is an unknown in the multimedia category. Linux was used to develop the movie Titanic -- that is certainly high praise. Also, need I say anything other than IRIX? It's multimedia is legendary. P.S. -- I'm really anxious to see how well Linux performs in multimedia with Amiga running atop it; as Amiga's so legendary in multimedia, it should offer dramatic improvements. P.P.S. -- as long as we're flame-baiting about different OS', I might as well mention a virtual unknown -- V2 OS. It doesn't come with a zillion features, but it gets the job done and its the most efficient OS ever programmed, also the fastest -- period; written in C/C++, and compiled excellently, and then tweaked and perfected line-by-line in asm(assembly). It doesn't get much better than that concerning a job well done. Personally, I think every program, and every OS, should be hand tweaked -- post compilation -- by a programmer to make it faster. For info on V2_OS, see http://www.v2os.com
So what if what we're doing isn't illegal? They can't launch invesigations against a million people. And they can't ban napster from doing what it does b/c any website can do the same, and they don't ban offering file on webistes, do they? Specifically, they can't prevent napster from being as it is now b/c ppl can offer legit files, and to stop that would be a violation of the constitution. Furthermore, the companies can not prove the source of the music offered on napster. If it is something that was taken off the radio, put ontoa computer, and offered on napster, it's not illegal. As they can't prove that every offering on Napster wasn't on the radio, they can't prove that anything illegal was done.
Actually, no it's not stealing, or the vast majority of it can't be for a simple reason -- almost all the music on napster is also on the radio. That means that any method of recording and convertion to mp3 could have been used, so it can't possibly be stealing as the radio is free. Also, even if someone downloads some song w/c isn't on the radio and isn't authorized for publishing on Napster by the producer, that isn't stealing either, b/c that person has no way of knowing such(as for the person who originally published it online, that's another matter)