How long does Apple continue supporting OS releases? (I have heard it's shorter than MS, but I'm actually pretty ignorant...)
Apple only offers security and bugfix support for its current release and the one before it. So, 10.4 was deprecated when 10.6 came out, and now that 10.7 is released, 10.5 is deprecated.
That site allows you to search any court case in WI. There are limitations - minors often aren't on there, and certain other cases are blocked from public access as well. But overall this has been a *good* thing.
Hell, I even once ran a girl I had started dating through there - and turned up three shoplifting convictions.
We always went to her place after that...:-)
Re:Where is our Pixar/Disney Sequal?
on
The Story of Tron
·
· Score: 1
As games go, it was actually pretty good. Some of the original cast did voice work for it, and the graphics are really well done. But they didn't market it at all - hardly anyone knows it existed.
" "We need buses!" Yes, Mr. Mayor. We need those 200 bright yellow school buses that you let sit, and are now under water. 200 buses, 50 people per...that's 10,000 people you could have evacuated in one trip."
I'm willing to bet that either he didn't have the authority to comandeer those buses (are they privately owned?), or that it was not feasible to satisfy the logistics required to get those busses running.
Not to mention - so he commandeers the busses, then what ? He sends people to Houston? There was no place to send evacuees before the storm hit. Or even immediately after.
FEMA is the organization created to solve these logistical issues. FEMA had the authority to do all of that two days before the storm hit. FEMA dropped the ball. In a big way.
He had told me that the reason truckers don't "shutdown" the truck was because it was too hard on the engine. Nothing to do with AC or anything else. Semi engines run for 500,000 + miles typically without any work other than routine service (i.e oil change)
Your friend is somewhat mistaken. Starting a diesel isn't any harder on it than running it is. It is true that in cold weather diesel engines can be tough to start, but cold weather is defined as less than 35 degrees F. In which case you'd be running the engine to keep warm, anyway.
Many trucking companies put thermostats in the rigs to prevent extened idle operation between 40-80 degrees or so. Others use engine logs that tell a mechanic what conditions the engine has been run under (as well as shifting, speed, etc, etc.) This irks many drivers, as I'm sure the slashdot crowd can understand.
This truckstop innovation will go a long way to reducing driver complaints about comfort - but I wonder how many of them will put up with having the window ajar enough for the various connections, and not having the hum of the diesel at high idle to lull them to sleep.
This line bothers me. How do you get a bad report. You can't get a bad report unless you don't pay your bills on time. And even if you do have a bad report you can add to your file the reasons.
There's more to your credit report than just your credit history, and there are any number of good reasons for errors to exist - from identity theft to simple clerical errors. Further, you can generate bad credit by merely applying for credit, and being turned down.
If you got the bad rating through no fault of your own, you still are punished for having it. You're guilty until you prove yourself innocent.
And if that's a libertarian principle, I want nothing of it.
If they do, its my own damn fault. If the government has it, then its as good as permanent
Then you say...
Sure, once you're on a list, you're probably there for life, but what bad is it doing?
Ok, so as long as it's permanent, what difference does it make who has the list? Corps hold great sway over your life already. I'd say greater than governments.
Want a good example ? Credit. With a bad credit report, you can be denied employment, housing, and education. This kind of oppression comes not from the government. They rarely even use it in the normal course of business. It comes from Corps. Did you vote for this ? (hint: noone did - the capitalist market created it)
The problem here is that once the corp gets it, they can sell it to whom ever they like. Including the government, and others you oppose. And you have no say in what they do, unless you are on the board.
There is no FOIA for corps, and no right of the public to know what they do. On the other hand, there is such a check against the government. At least in an idealogical sense, they have to pretend to care about what I want.
(Do you think Will Shakespeare would have produced plays if it wasn't lucrative).
Shakespeare is a poor example, The concept of Copyright didn't exist until the old bard had been worm food for quite sometime. IIRC, copyright came about in 1710, and Shakespeare died in the 1660s.
This doesn't even address the fact that Shakespeare may not even have authored what it is often claimed he did.
If you're serious about leaving the U.S. It might be wise to consider the implications.
Frankly, I find it incredibly disingenous to point to a body of 535 people, most of whom you've never even heard of, and say "every elected official breaks the oath...". That is not supported by the facts, and such rhetoric is alarmingly naive. It's almost as though you really believe that Congressmen, CEOs, and the rest of what passes for American Aristocracy do not face the same issues we do. It might make it easier to rationalize your rhetoric by dehumanizing those who are in government or positions of power, but it is still an injustice to people about whom oyu know nothing.
If you had actually met and talked with anyone at almost any level of government you would understand that each of them tries to do the best job they can. Some are better than others, some are even better people than others, but a couple of bad apples is no good reason throw out the whole basket. It's all in how you perceive it, and no issue is ever so simple as you'd like to think.
Things are much better now than they have been in the past. Ask my grandfather what it was like to grow up in Morgan Park, in a home built by Morgan, owned by Morgan, leased by morgan under the shadow of The Morgan(U.S. Steel) plant, attending Morgan school, buying shoes at the Morgan general market with (you guessed it) Morgan scrip. J.P Morgan was a generous man, but lets not forget he and others owned this country in ways that give the MPAA wet dreams. They usurped rights to peaceably assemble, and speak freely in breaking the unions, and they used their power and money to exert tremendous pressure on our nearly bankrupt government. The era of RobberBarons came to an end, and it ended despite the power that Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan, et al. exerted over the government. The good guys won, but it's never so clear cut as it is in the movies. For instance, the income tax was passed and the Fed created as a result of the lack of money the government had with which to do anything. Is that a good thing ? Like everyting else, it depends on where you look at it from.
The point I'm tryin to make, such as it is; is that there are many changes coming down the pipe. I doubt we will get our positions on every issue right the first time, but that is not significant of the corruption inherent in the system, but rather the humanity that our system is rife with. Somewhere in there, people like us, will manage to live, and in most cases be happy anyway. Some of the rest of us need to cut back on the caffeine.
Your arguement that Americans are more prone to fatness as a result of some personal deficiency is disingenious at best, and insulting to everyone who struggles against what nature has done for them at worst.
If you consider that fatness is a required trait for survival in most other species you may also understand that eating too much is as base an instinct as suckling, and that all humans regardless of where they are born, raised, or call home suffer this instinct as well.
We have been engineered over several million years to build up reserves of fat. But then again, someone who lived to 40 was very old indeed. Most of the traits that "fat" people have that render them "unhealthy" don't evidence themeselves until well into maturity. Which in turn renders an arguement based on the long term effects of fatness moot.
Personally, I find the premise of your argument insulting, even though I am one of those skinny bastards who cannot seem to exceed 190 lbs for the life of me. There is nothing wrong with Americans that makes them prone to being fat, any more than there is something wrong with (insert favored generalization/stereotype).
The simple fact of the matter is that food is plentiful in America, and bad food is oh so good. You can't blame Americans for not being able to live by your ideals, realistically, I don't think (insert ideal country of choice)ians would fare any better in the same situation.
Our youth now loves luxuries. They have bad manners, contempt for authority. They show disrespect for elders and they love to chatter instead of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants, of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up their food, and tyrannize their teachers.
The simple fact of the matter is that we don't have a great deal of data in either direction. We have only been paying attention for the past hundred years or so, and the best data is only from the past 50 years.
Drawing conclusions based on so little reliable data borders on religious zealotry, IMO. To Believe that we have any responsibility to, or indeed that we are even capable of, maintaining any kind of ecological status quo is arrogance of the first order.
We, and our effects, are simply not that important.
It seems to me that we (humans in general) seem rather egotistical when it comes to our impact on the enviroment. Aren't humans, and the byproducts of our existance, really forces that are just as natural as any other occurance ?
The fact that we are aware of what we do, and can change our behaviors does not imply a responsibility to do so, despite the arguments of the moralists.
Change is good, is it not ? Then why the urge to keep things the same, to protect habitat, to preserve species that maybe ought to be extinct ? Aren't our motivations and actions just as arbitrary as any other natural or not ?
I grant that it's a shame that my children will never see a carrier pigeon in flight, but is it not an equal shame that none of us will ever see a T-Rex mating ritual ?
When I fought forest fires for the DNR, I was not impressed with our ability to affect the evironment, in fact I was dismayed at the futility that modern forest fire fighting really is. After years of liberal ecological indoctrination, I was appalled that the same humans that could drive hundreds of species to extinction in days was perfectly helpless against a simple oxidation reaction until the wind chose to blow the flames back into the burned area. I was equally amazed to see green things and animals reoccupy the same area two weeks later, and after a year you could barely tell that there had ever been a fire.
Humans are actually quite small and insignificant, and we really have very little to do with what goes on on this planet. I think we ought not get wrapped up in our own egotisim and worry less about maintaining the status quo and work more toward increasing our own adaptivity. After all, as history has demonstrated, those species that adapt survive, and the ones that cannot die off, regardless of what form those influences take.
You see, Napster could be perfectly legal if the RIAA wanted it to be legal. They don't so it isn't.
I think that what is being forgotten about is that the customer is always right.
What I'm trying to say is that, we as music customers like using MP3's, they're small, portable, and sound decent. The RIAA on the other hand doesn't want us to use that because they lose a measure of control over it. While I understand that issue, I think it's overblown, and frankly, I have a better opinion of my fellow man than to think the majority of them are theives that wouldn't rather use legal means than illegal ones.
Instead of giving us what we want, the RIAA is forcing us to become pirates. They have ignored the basic business truism:give them what they want.
I'm willing to pay money for music, but I want to do it my way. If they won't play ball, I'll take my business elsewhere.
It seems that the major labels have finally stumbled upon a clue. Instead of spending money to litigate, which doesn't generate profits - just bad press, they are pursuing the advantages of the new medium. This is to be applauded. It means better quality MP3s(or whatever) and it means that the artist continues to get paid.
What we have now is piracy on the high seas, and noone really benefits from that kind of environment. It cannot sustain itself. There is no question that the paradigm has shifted, and the conventional distribution model is no longer the only game in town. The Labels are going to lose some control over distibution, and that is good.
But what is happening now cannot continue, or we will find that the noise will grow independent of the signal. That would be bad for us, but worse for artists. Ask any college band how hard it is to get noticed now. Imagine what happens when they are competing against the entirity of the internet. For all of thier bad behavior, the labels act as a reasonable filter and keep the noise down and make it easier to find recordings of the music that matters to you.
I agree that there are many lowlifes in the record industry. It's important to recognize that those lowlifes have nothing on an artist until said artist signs on the line. The artist is complicit in the whole arrangement and as much to blame as the labels for the culture that pervades the music industry.
When you're in bed with the Devil, the Devil is not sleeping alone.
I think those that fail to realize this have an unrealistic expectation of fairness in a world that is inherently unfair. It's just as impossible to legislate good sense on the part of the artist as it would be for the labels to contain the MP3 Djinn.
That this settlement may very well have nothing to do with whether or not Hitachi violated any patents. Rambus had also accused Hitachi of violating, and in fact practically ignoring, thier 1992 license agreement.
Natch, the details of that agreement are undisclosed. But I think that it's somewhat obvious that whatever the merits (or lack of) of Rambus' patent case against Hitachi, Rambus had a very strong case concerning the License agreement. That means that Hitachi woulda taken a hit either way.
Given that, I do not believe taht Rambus patents will stand up to a serious court challenge, But IANAL and that remains to be seen.
Slashdot Mirror
How long does Apple continue supporting OS releases? (I have heard it's shorter than MS, but I'm actually pretty ignorant...)
Apple only offers security and bugfix support for its current release and the one before it. So, 10.4 was deprecated when 10.6 came out, and now that 10.7 is released, 10.5 is deprecated.
The Wisconsin Circuit Court Access (WCCA) ?
:-)
That site allows you to search any court case in WI. There are limitations - minors often aren't on there, and certain other cases are blocked from public access as well. But overall this has been a *good* thing.
Hell, I even once ran a girl I had started dating through there - and turned up three shoplifting convictions.
We always went to her place after that...
It was a game:
http://buenavistagames.go.com/product/tronPC.html
As games go, it was actually pretty good. Some of the original cast did voice work for it, and the graphics are really well done. But they didn't market it at all - hardly anyone knows it existed.
Nephs
" "We need buses!" Yes, Mr. Mayor. We need those 200 bright yellow school buses that you let sit, and are now under water. 200 buses, 50 people per...that's 10,000 people you could have evacuated in one trip."
I'm willing to bet that either he didn't have the authority to comandeer those buses (are they privately owned?), or that it was not feasible to satisfy the logistics required to get those busses running.
Not to mention - so he commandeers the busses, then what ? He sends people to Houston? There was no place to send evacuees before the storm hit. Or even immediately after.
FEMA is the organization created to solve these logistical issues. FEMA had the authority to do all of that two days before the storm hit. FEMA dropped the ball. In a big way.
Nephs
These days, it's not the Iraqi government that's kidnapping, torturing, and murdering people, but a group of loosely-affiliated amateurs.
I wouldn't be so quick to call American Armed Forces "loosely-affiliated amateurs".
They're very closely affiliated.
Nephs
He had told me that the reason truckers don't "shutdown" the truck was because it was too hard on the engine. Nothing to do with AC or anything else. Semi engines run for 500,000 + miles typically without any work other than routine service (i.e oil change)
Your friend is somewhat mistaken. Starting a diesel isn't any harder on it than running it is. It is true that in cold weather diesel engines can be tough to start, but cold weather is defined as less than 35 degrees F. In which case you'd be running the engine to keep warm, anyway.
Many trucking companies put thermostats in the rigs to prevent extened idle operation between 40-80 degrees or so. Others use engine logs that tell a mechanic what conditions the engine has been run under (as well as shifting, speed, etc, etc.) This irks many drivers, as I'm sure the slashdot crowd can understand.
This truckstop innovation will go a long way to reducing driver complaints about comfort - but I wonder how many of them will put up with having the window ajar enough for the various connections, and not having the hum of the diesel at high idle to lull them to sleep.
Toodles,
Nephs
This line bothers me. How do you get a bad report. You can't get a bad report unless you don't pay your bills on time. And even if you do have a bad report you can add to your file the reasons.
There's more to your credit report than just your credit history, and there are any number of good reasons for errors to exist - from identity theft to simple clerical errors. Further, you can generate bad credit by merely applying for credit, and being turned down.
If you got the bad rating through no fault of your own, you still are punished for having it. You're guilty until you prove yourself innocent.
And if that's a libertarian principle, I want nothing of it.
Toodles,
Nephs
First you say...
If they do, its my own damn fault. If the government has it, then its as good as permanent
Then you say...
Sure, once you're on a list, you're probably there for life, but what bad is it doing?
Ok, so as long as it's permanent, what difference does it make who has the list? Corps hold great sway over your life already. I'd say greater than governments.
Want a good example ? Credit. With a bad credit report, you can be denied employment, housing, and education. This kind of oppression comes not from the government. They rarely even use it in the normal course of business. It comes from Corps. Did you vote for this ? (hint: noone did - the capitalist market created it)
The problem here is that once the corp gets it, they can sell it to whom ever they like. Including the government, and others you oppose. And you have no say in what they do, unless you are on the board.
There is no FOIA for corps, and no right of the public to know what they do. On the other hand, there is such a check against the government. At least in an idealogical sense, they have to pretend to care about what I want.
Toodles,
Nephs
While I don't disagree with you, I do remember a funny little law about blacks at the back of the bus.
I also remember Rosa Parks ignoring it.
Not caring about the law and caring that a particular law is stupid are two different things.
It is important to remember that the key to civil disobiedience is being *punished* for your apparent crimes. That is what separates those twits that burn down mink farms from true heroes like Steven Biko .
One had the balls to get caught anyway.
Toodles,
Nephs
(Do you think Will Shakespeare would have produced plays if it wasn't lucrative).
Shakespeare is a poor example, The concept of Copyright didn't exist until the old bard had been worm food for quite sometime. IIRC, copyright came about in 1710, and Shakespeare died in the 1660s.
This doesn't even address the fact that Shakespeare may not even have authored what it is often claimed he did.
Toodles,
Nephs
If you're serious about leaving the U.S. It might be wise to consider the implications.
Frankly, I find it incredibly disingenous to point to a body of 535 people, most of whom you've never even heard of, and say "every elected official breaks the oath...". That is not supported by the facts, and such rhetoric is alarmingly naive. It's almost as though you really believe that Congressmen, CEOs, and the rest of what passes for American Aristocracy do not face the same issues we do. It might make it easier to rationalize your rhetoric by dehumanizing those who are in government or positions of power, but it is still an injustice to people about whom oyu know nothing.
If you had actually met and talked with anyone at almost any level of government you would understand that each of them tries to do the best job they can. Some are better than others, some are even better people than others, but a couple of bad apples is no good reason throw out the whole basket. It's all in how you perceive it, and no issue is ever so simple as you'd like to think.
Things are much better now than they have been in the past. Ask my grandfather what it was like to grow up in Morgan Park, in a home built by Morgan, owned by Morgan, leased by morgan under the shadow of The Morgan(U.S. Steel) plant, attending Morgan school, buying shoes at the Morgan general market with (you guessed it) Morgan scrip. J.P Morgan was a generous man, but lets not forget he and others owned this country in ways that give the MPAA wet dreams. They usurped rights to peaceably assemble, and speak freely in breaking the unions, and they used their power and money to exert tremendous pressure on our nearly bankrupt government. The era of RobberBarons came to an end, and it ended despite the power that Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan, et al. exerted over the government. The good guys won, but it's never so clear cut as it is in the movies. For instance, the income tax was passed and the Fed created as a result of the lack of money the government had with which to do anything. Is that a good thing ? Like everyting else, it depends on where you look at it from.
The point I'm tryin to make, such as it is; is that there are many changes coming down the pipe. I doubt we will get our positions on every issue right the first time, but that is not significant of the corruption inherent in the system, but rather the humanity that our system is rife with. Somewhere in there, people like us, will manage to live, and in most cases be happy anyway. Some of the rest of us need to cut back on the caffeine.
Nephs
--
My hell would be eternity in your heaven.
Your arguement that Americans are more prone to fatness as a result of some personal deficiency is disingenious at best, and insulting to everyone who struggles against what nature has done for them at worst.
If you consider that fatness is a required trait for survival in most other species you may also understand that eating too much is as base an instinct as suckling, and that all humans regardless of where they are born, raised, or call home suffer this instinct as well.
We have been engineered over several million years to build up reserves of fat. But then again, someone who lived to 40 was very old indeed. Most of the traits that "fat" people have that render them "unhealthy" don't evidence themeselves until well into maturity. Which in turn renders an arguement based on the long term effects of fatness moot.
Personally, I find the premise of your argument insulting, even though I am one of those skinny bastards who cannot seem to exceed 190 lbs for the life of me. There is nothing wrong with Americans that makes them prone to being fat, any more than there is something wrong with (insert favored generalization/stereotype).
The simple fact of the matter is that food is plentiful in America, and bad food is oh so good. You can't blame Americans for not being able to live by your ideals, realistically, I don't think (insert ideal country of choice)ians would fare any better in the same situation.
Toodles,
Nephs.
Our youth now loves luxuries. They have bad manners, contempt for authority. They show disrespect for elders and they love to chatter instead of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants, of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up their food, and tyrannize their teachers.
(Socrates, 425 BC)
Heh.
Nephs
You're right, those Modern OSes like Windows use microkernels and they are definately overrated.
Nephs.
The simple fact of the matter is that we don't have a great deal of data in either direction. We have only been paying attention for the past hundred years or so, and the best data is only from the past 50 years.
Drawing conclusions based on so little reliable data borders on religious zealotry, IMO. To Believe that we have any responsibility to, or indeed that we are even capable of, maintaining any kind of ecological status quo is arrogance of the first order.
We, and our effects, are simply not that important.
Nephs
I won't spoil it, so go read it.
Toodles,
Nephs
(not trolling, actual point ahead)
It seems to me that we (humans in general) seem rather egotistical when it comes to our impact on the enviroment. Aren't humans, and the byproducts of our existance, really forces that are just as natural as any other occurance ?
The fact that we are aware of what we do, and can change our behaviors does not imply a responsibility to do so, despite the arguments of the moralists.
Change is good, is it not ? Then why the urge to keep things the same, to protect habitat, to preserve species that maybe ought to be extinct ? Aren't our motivations and actions just as arbitrary as any other natural or not ?
I grant that it's a shame that my children will never see a carrier pigeon in flight, but is it not an equal shame that none of us will ever see a T-Rex mating ritual ?
When I fought forest fires for the DNR, I was not impressed with our ability to affect the evironment, in fact I was dismayed at the futility that modern forest fire fighting really is. After years of liberal ecological indoctrination, I was appalled that the same humans that could drive hundreds of species to extinction in days was perfectly helpless against a simple oxidation reaction until the wind chose to blow the flames back into the burned area. I was equally amazed to see green things and animals reoccupy the same area two weeks later, and after a year you could barely tell that there had ever been a fire.
Humans are actually quite small and insignificant, and we really have very little to do with what goes on on this planet. I think we ought not get wrapped up in our own egotisim and worry less about maintaining the status quo and work more toward increasing our own adaptivity. After all, as history has demonstrated, those species that adapt survive, and the ones that cannot die off, regardless of what form those influences take.
Toodles,
Nephs
--
Something witty is written here.
You see, Napster could be perfectly legal if the RIAA wanted it to be legal. They don't so it isn't.
:give them what they want.
I think that what is being forgotten about is that the customer is always right.
What I'm trying to say is that, we as music customers like using MP3's, they're small, portable, and sound decent. The RIAA on the other hand doesn't want us to use that because they lose a measure of control over it. While I understand that issue, I think it's overblown, and frankly, I have a better opinion of my fellow man than to think the majority of them are theives that wouldn't rather use legal means than illegal ones.
Instead of giving us what we want, the RIAA is forcing us to become pirates. They have ignored the basic business truism
I'm willing to pay money for music, but I want to do it my way. If they won't play ball, I'll take my business elsewhere.
Nephs
It seems that the major labels have finally stumbled upon a clue. Instead of spending money to litigate, which doesn't generate profits - just bad press, they are pursuing the advantages of the new medium. This is to be applauded. It means better quality MP3s(or whatever) and it means that the artist continues to get paid.
What we have now is piracy on the high seas, and noone really benefits from that kind of environment. It cannot sustain itself. There is no question that the paradigm has shifted, and the conventional distribution model is no longer the only game in town. The Labels are going to lose some control over distibution, and that is good.
But what is happening now cannot continue, or we will find that the noise will grow independent of the signal. That would be bad for us, but worse for artists. Ask any college band how hard it is to get noticed now. Imagine what happens when they are competing against the entirity of the internet. For all of thier bad behavior, the labels act as a reasonable filter and keep the noise down and make it easier to find recordings of the music that matters to you.
I agree that there are many lowlifes in the record industry. It's important to recognize that those lowlifes have nothing on an artist until said artist signs on the line. The artist is complicit in the whole arrangement and as much to blame as the labels for the culture that pervades the music industry.
When you're in bed with the Devil, the Devil is not sleeping alone.
I think those that fail to realize this have an unrealistic expectation of fairness in a world that is inherently unfair. It's just as impossible to legislate good sense on the part of the artist as it would be for the labels to contain the MP3 Djinn.
Toodles,
Nephs
That this settlement may very well have nothing to do with whether or not Hitachi violated any patents. Rambus had also accused Hitachi of violating, and in fact practically ignoring, thier 1992 license agreement.
Natch, the details of that agreement are undisclosed. But I think that it's somewhat obvious that whatever the merits (or lack of) of Rambus' patent case against Hitachi, Rambus had a very strong case concerning the License agreement. That means that Hitachi woulda taken a hit either way.
Given that, I do not believe taht Rambus patents will stand up to a serious court challenge, But IANAL and that remains to be seen.
Nephs