When it comes down to it, the primary difference a user will see between a Folder and a Label is that Folders can only hold a file once, while Labels can hold the same file multiple times. i.e. The concept just pushes existing abstractions just a bit farther.
Except that Labels don't hold the actual file, they merely hold a virtual pointer to the file which exists in one folder somewhere. When you delete the file from the Smart Folder, you'll be deleting it from the physical folder and thus removing it from all those other Labels that really aren't the same as folders. Unless when you delete things from Smart Folders you're only deleting the reference, which would make it pretty useless for finding things to delete them.
I dunno, database filesystems are a neat idea, and can be useful, but completely abandoning the idea that a file exists at a physical location on the drive (or on removable media, or a network drive, etc) just doesn't seem like a good idea to me. There is potential for many bad things to happen if we completely throw the metaphors out the window. This concept will work best only for those of us who can understand its limitations and potential problems. For regular folks who can't even use normal folders properly, this can end up being a disaster in certain situations.
The labeling thing works with situations like Gmail because you can't find or label anything outside your little email container. In that kind of case, they are great. There's still the issue of what happens when you do a search and want to delete all the messages you find, even though some of them have multiple labels. What happens then? People are going to get confused by the behavior of labeled files, there is no doubt about it. Of course, this is just my opinion.
This can be troublesome if you work with files that are highly related. "Did I file that bill from the University under 'Finance' or under 'School'?
Under a stored query system (i.e. Labels), you could place the bill under *both* University and Finance. That's why labelling makes more sense than folders.:-)
I can foresee problems where people will think they are operating on two different files and make two different sets of changes to the same file. Or when they want to split the file into two separate copies instead of having the two labels on the same file. It better be easy to find the "original" file in its physical folder and be able to copy it to a different physical folder. there also better be some way to figure out how many different "Smart Folder" references there are to that file, like finding out how many symlinks there are to a Unix file.
Another example: you do a find and get files from removable media or networked drives, then make a Smart Folder to treat those files like a regular folder. Confusion will reign when the removable media gets removed or the network drive gets disconnected. The user will freak out. Where did my files go??? Or will the OS try to keep the media from being ejected if there are files on it referenced by a Smart Folder? That would be extremely annoying to most users, so I doubt that will happen. The files will just disappear. Some folks will understand this and use it to their benefit, others will just get very confused. They'll "store" the files in a Smart Folder and then send the CD to Africa and be left wondering what happened to their copy of the files.
What about the idiot that does a query that finds half the files on his computer and mistakenly labels them as being part of a big project he's working on, then tells an assistant to delete all the files with that label after the project is over? No problem. Instant disaster.
This whole database filesystem idea is cute and can be useful, but mark my words, there will be situations where it will cause major problems. People who already don't understand the concept of regular folders won't really do any better at understanding the deeper implications of a database filesystem. They'll just lose more files by being unable to create a proper query to find what they just saved, the same way they already can't find what they just saved from Word or an email or the web. I think the idea of abandoning regular folders altogether is just asking for heaps of trouble in the long run.
With a situation like Gmail, labeling can work very well, because you can't label or find any objects outside your own little container of email messages. You can't go around deleting other people's mail or Google's system files by mislabeling something. On a computer, abandoning the references to a file's physical location is probably not a good thing to promote. Of course, this is just my opinion, and I'm sure I'll end up using Smart Folders anyway when I buy a Mac mini. But I will be wary of their potential to cause me headaches.
I did not meet anyone in China that was unhappy with their political system, yet before I went I read many stories of what it was like that turned out to be complete rubbish. The country was full of educated, happy people that would laugh at me for believing stupid propoganda. The main difference between us and them is that they know it is all propoganda yet most of us think that what we read is the truth.
That's because most people are idiots, no matter their education level. They actually believe they live in a free society because that's what the government says it is. Those with half a brain who tried to actually be free are rotting in prison, so they can't spread their "stupid propaganda" about the fact that there is no political or religious freedom in their society. Hmm.
There are any number of societies all over the world were the vast majority of the populace is perfectly happy with their political system because that's all they know about and they've never felt the need to go against it. (In the same way, most people LOVE Microsoft because most of them have never felt the need to not be forced to buy Microsoft or think outside Microsoft's box.) When they do go against the system, they quickly learn that whatever political freedom they thought they had was an illusion, and gee wouldn't it be nice if I lived in a free country where I could express my views without rotting in a prison cell.
In summary, just because most people you meet aren't unhappy with the system doesn't mean the system doesn't have major issues. I mean, look at us here in the US. We're losing our freedoms by the day, and a large portion of the populace thinks we're doing great. In fact, we're so great that we obviously have a right to foist our perfect political system on the rest of the world. Because most people are idiots, no matter how much "education" they've had. The people running and destroying our government went to some of the most prestigious schools in the country, after all.
Yeah, I can't imagine any power user not paying $69.95 per copy for an enhanced DOS prompt. Oh wait, yes I can. Any free alternatives that are worth downloading?
People of this world are being duped into set of ideas that make up the order of things. At an Age of mass communication. How long will it take before a massive revolution takes place that whipes out the world of corporate pimps? And true Socialisam takes place. And no, not the Communist type Socialisam that everyone thinks of when they hear that word. True Socialisam has never been done before. For it to be true entire globe would have to choose to perticipate.
Think about it. It would be like a giant open source project. That eliminates money and simply requests are made and fullfiled as they are ordered, on a world wide scale. By that I mean anything from growing food to operating trucks and airplanes. Different groups would be created to fullfill every human needs. Through a system that the main goal isnt profit but true human needs.
I can just hope that it happens soon.
You're joking, right? I'm all for everyone being cooperative and all that, but you have to be extremely naive of human nature to even think a world such as you are describing could possibly exist. Less than 1/10th of 1% of humanity is capable of existing peacefully in a purely "cooperative" world, where we're all magically supposed to cooperate to do anything and everything necessary to maintain a coherent society, from growing food to building any kind of machine the world thinks it needs.
Here's a demonstration of the fundamental problem: I "need" a 150ft yacht with an infinite fuel supply where I can be surrounded by beautiful women while I sail all the oceans of the world. Care to get started on building that for me? For free, no less? What do you mean I don't "need" a yacht? Hmm. This projectile weapon says different...
As of the 21st century the least of several evils that we have come up with is controlled capitalism. As long as it has decent controls it works out pretty good. The vast majority of the population has an opportunity to have a comfortable, meaningful life in a capitalist society. The problems come when we allow 1% of the population to hold 90%+ of the capital and let the corporations start dictating the laws. It is not the basic capitalistic theory that is the problem, it's simple powermongering by the people at the top.
A purely socialist world society would collapse in microseconds. This is not the Star Trek universe, unfortunately, but we are doing the best we can.
This sends a very clear message to potential Mac buyers... Do not buy until these machines ship in 2006, or you'll get an obsolete machine, like I just did.
Not really, but you did just sent a clear message that you are an idiot. But I'll be happy to take that Mac mini off your hands at half price. It's hard for me, being so generous, but I'll do it just for you...
There are millions of G3s, G4s and G5s out there and all of a sudden nobody will want to sell their software to those millions of users? Makes perfect sense. NOT. The PPC Macs will be able to obtain new software for at least 5 years and probably longer. Watch the keynote address. It's extremely simple for developers to compile a universal binary for both platforms. I see no reason whatsoever for developers to start compiling Intel-only versions of their software for many years to come. In fact, not until the new PPC Macs reach the end of their useful lifetime about a decade from now.
This is like moving from a G3 to a G4 to a G5, or didn't you notice that every year there is some new software or feature that only works on the latest computers, no matter what platform or OS you're using? Every computer you will ever buy will always be 50% obselete the moment you walk out of the store. This is no different. If you are on the bleeding edge you will be buying a new machine every couple of years anyway, just like you've always done to keep up with the speed increases and the very latest high-end software. Mac mini users have absolutely nothing to be concerned about. But feel free to continue spreading baseless FUD, so I can get a good price on a PPC Mac next year.
I think the point is manufacturing quality. Apple's products are a step above what you get in the PC world. They are probably even from the same vendors as the PC products, but manufactured to a higher specification. I don't know this for sure, but it certainly seems to be the case from my experience.
When you buy a Mac, you don't have to ask yourself, "is this going to work reliably?" or "is this going to work like I expect it to?" They have high engineering standards which really shine through on the final product. It's all the little things added up which turns your computer from a hassle to a productivity tool.
Last three out of five Macs I have been involved in purchasing have had problems bad enough to require servicing. Logic board failures, hard drive failures, they're never able to give a clear answer. I have personally witnessed an iBook turn itself into a paperweight a few hours after we received it, and an eMac locked up while I was using it and wouldn't reboot. The hard drive had to be replaced, then it had an extreme video problem when we got it back so we had to send it for service again and they replaced the logic board. A brand new Mac mini crashed within hours of its first regular use and refused to reboot. Bad hard drive was what the Apple Hardware Test said. I have no idea what they're doing with it, we still don't have it back. It'll be two weeks on Monday.
Someone else's G5 had a bad modem that kept locking up the whole machine. Had to send it for service but it's working OK now.
Point being, Macs are far from perfect. And the guy higher up is right. Us WinTel refugees tend to get instantly enamored with Apple stuff and blind ourselves to the problems. In general, I have seen many more "little" problems on PCs over the years than I have seen on Macs. On the other hand, when a Mac develops a real problem, it is often a very bad, unfixable problem that requires servicing. This guy is going to be effing pissed the first time his Apple laptop develops a problem in the field, because the probability is that it will be something so bad it will put the thing out of commission. My whole organization runs Macs, and I love them to death, but in 15 years of WinTel use I've never seen problems like we've had with the recent Macs we've purchased. The Apple discussion forums are rife with similar experiences for every different type of Mac, so don't even try to give me any crap about this being an isolated set of events. When they work, the work great, when they die, they effing DIE.
Nevertheless, I still recommend Macs for anyone looking for a new computer, and I will keep buying Macs at my organization, because overall Macs are still better as long as you keep good backups and/or have some other Macs around as backups. I was able to boot that dead Mac mini into Firewire target disk mode and clone it onto an external drive. The guy who was using it is now just hopping around to any free Mac in the office and booting from that drive, and it's like he's still using the Mac mini. He can boot up on an iBook or a G4 Power Mac tower. Mac OS X doesn't care.
When the Mac mini returns I'll spend about an hour cloning the system back onto the internal drive and he'll be off and running like nothing ever happened. With Windows, the operating system is so delicate (registry, anyone?) and locked into the specific hardware that this scenario is literally impossible. Even Linux would have a tough time handling being switched between different types of computers without something breaking, and there certainly isn't an easy way to boot any random PC from an external drive, you'll need a special boot disk or something AFAIK. I've been using Linux on servers and desktops for several years. It simply can't compare to Mac OS X in so many ways.
Macs have both strong points and weak points. For me, the strong points outweigh the weak points. For others this might not apply, and ignoring the problems is a sure path to aggravation. Trying to push Macs as being perfect and absolutely reliable is a sure path to creating very unhappy Mac users when things go wrong.
Yeah,that's funny, to me, as I sit here surfing/. with my 5-button scroll-wheel Optical Intellimouse Explorer with back-forward buttons that work in all applications. I know it's a joke, but it's getting old. Macs have supported multi-button scroll mice for almost a decade now.
I had an MX500 and went and bought an MX300 with a cord instead.
Basically my take is that it's a mouse that isn't really good for either. For twitch gaming I _really_ want a corded one, for someone who just browses the web, as you've said, a $6 mouse works just as well. So who are the target demographic that absolutely needed it?
The SFV (Stupid Fashion Victims). The people who buy for the buzzwords and the hype. OOOH, IT'S LASER!
Whether or not the defendant was guilty or was convicted is not the point. This discussion is about the fact that the mere presence of some common encryption software without the presence of any encrypted files was used as "supporting evidence" of some sort of criminal intent. Which is really, really bad. It doesn't even really matter what the case was about. What they did by admitting the presence of PGP software as supporting evidence of intent is tantamount to criminalizing encryption software itself.
It isn't any different than if you have a legal gun and then conceal it when you go out. The gun stopped being legal once you did that. Here, the point is that he knew what was doing wrong and he punctuated it by encrypting it making it, arguably, a de facto admission of guilt.
Except that:
A) They have no evidence that he was using it to conceal anything related to the case. B) It is perfectly legal to carry a concealed weapon in many states, although some require a license. So your analogy is faulty.
So it is quite different, and there is no way it can be considered an admission of guilt because it can't be linked to the crime or the intent to commit a crime. it should never have been part of the case.
You, like many others today, miss the important distinction, and the mods didn't catch it. What possible purpose could you have for carrying a large empty bag into a store, other than shoplifting? Its presence is a strong indicator that you were planning on shoplifting something. The mere presence of encryption software has no relation. It is not a strong indicator of anything, unless they can establish as fact that you purchased or used the software specifically for committing a crime. It is merely a general tool, like the computer itself, or the envelopes you use to mail letters. The fact that he uses envelopes to mail letters, or the fact that he owns a computer in the first place, was not used as supporting evidence of criminal intent.
There are so many other legal uses of encryption software that a ruling like this should always be considered very dangerous. It is not his use of the software to encrypt photos that is being used, because they have no evidence of that. It is the mere presence of the software, implying that its only possible use on his computer would be for criminal intent. That is the bad part.
Who cares what other evidence there was? So he was guilty, that's not the point. The crypto was still used as "supporting" evidence, even though it didn't support the case because they had no actual evidence linking it to the crime. The fact that it was still declared supporting evidence by its mere presence is still a dangerous precedent. It's like using the fact that a defendant owned a pair of running shoes as supporting evidence that he was planning the robbery he committed. It would rightfully be seen as an indictment of running shoes as a whole, and one step away from the criminalization of the owning of running shoes.
The problem is, they don't have that "evidence" in the middle that you refer to. It's just a bonfire, or a paper shredder, or an envelope, or a lighter. But there is no corpse. No destroyed or hidden evidence. They said so. They have no evidence of encrypted images. There is just a common tool, like a paper shredder, which many people now use at home to destroy perfectly legal financial documents for their own safety, so criminals won't pull their financial information out of the trash. Unless there is a link, the tool has nothing to do with the case at hand, and should not be seen as supporting evidence of anything.
Both Mac OS X and Windows 2K/XP support encrypted filesystems these days. Does that mean whenever you catch someone doing something wrong with a computer you can use that built-in support for encryption as "supporting evidence" of criminal intent at their trial? You better sure as hell hope not.
No, you don't get it (and apparently neither do the mods). The things you say are true, hiding evidence is a crime, but they have no bearing on this situation. The point is, they have no evidence of the software being purchased or used for purposes of committing or covering up this crime (or any crime). Your analogy to going through a bunch of specific actions that can be linked directly to the crime is totally fallacious. Everyone who is saying this is a dangerous and stupid ruling is correct. The simple presence of the software is being taken as proof that it was intended for a criminal use. It is not his "use" of it that is being used, it is the "presence" of it on his computer that is being used against him.
And there you go again at the end of your post with another fallacious analogy, comparing encryption software to bolt cutters, as if it is obvious that its presence alone implies criminal intent. That's extremely dangerous reasoning. Just because I want to encrypt something does not mean I am encrypted child porn. Are you buying child porn whenever you enter a secure website that uses SSL? THINK about it. Think real hard. It's a subtle but extremely important distinction.
Same thing with someone above who compared encryption software to having a gun during a robbery. WTF? Guns, five gallons of bleach, bolt cutters, all these things have very limited uses and can be easily related to the crime in the analogy, but it will still require some sort of evidence that the defendant actually intended to use the item to commit a crime. If a guy gets caught breaking into something and happens to own a pair of bolt cutters that are stored in his shed at home, the bolt cutters have absolutely nothing to do with his crime. If a person owns a laundromat that has a clothes washing service, it would not be out of the ordinary for them to have a lot of bleach on hand. The fact that they had a bunch of bleach and used it to clean up some blood after they killed someone with a knife could not be used as supporting evidence that the crime was thought out beforehand. It just happened to be there. The fact that they used it to clean up the blood is the only fact that can be brought in as evidence, and it could only support the accusation that they were conscious afterward of having committed a crime, and trying to cover it up. The simple presences of the bleach could not have any bearing on the case.
Encryption software is a tool with many uses. Without direct evidence of its specific use, it cannot be used as supporting evidence for anything criminal. All the comments I've seen say they do not have any direct evidence of it being used in the crime, or being purchased for use in the crime, therefore it should not be admissable as supporting evidence of criminal intent. Do you get it now? It's like if you had a hammer in your desk drawer and they took it as supporting evidence that you were going to download child porn and hide it. It's totally nonsensical unless a direct link can be provided by the police.
You're completely incorrect--I don't think you're thinking about the situation rationally.
Encryption is merely a tool that this man used to commit his crimes. Should video cameras the defendant used not be admitted? Should video TAPES? What about any other equipment he used in the filming process? They clearly (I think you'll agree) should be admissible as evidence. Why not the fact that he went to great lengths to hide his creations? Encryption is JUST a TOOL. It's not magically special just because it's on computers.
It is you who are completely incorrect. Encryption software is just a tool, with no direct relation to his crime. They have no evidence of encrypted photos. They have no evidence that he has the software for any particular reason. They won't say how it's any different from built-in encryption support like Apple's FileVault or Windows' Encrypted Filesystem support. This is NOT like video tapes or video cameras (was the defendant making his own child porn? If not, WTF would video cameras or tapes have to do with it either?). If this is just some stuff he downloaded to his computer from the Internet, video tapes or cameras would have absolutely nothing to do with the case, and rightfully would either never be mentioned or never taken as supporting evidence of guilt.
You're right, encryption is not magically special because it's on a computer. It is you and they who are treating it as magically special, when it's really just a generic tool. It indicates absolutely nothing with regards to the defendant's crime, unless they can give direct evidence of the software being purchased or used specifically to commit this crime or to help hide this crime. If they can't establish some kind of direct link between the crime and the software, it shouldn't even be part of the case. If there is no link, there is NO reason to consider it as even "supporting" evidence. Period.
Wrong. This is simply adding intent and conspiracy elements to the crime, it would be the same as you killing someone with a knife and then buying five gallons of bleach to clean up the blood splatters on the walls. Buying bleach is of course legal, and no one is questioning that, but adding the fact that you bought/used the bleach for a specific purposes related to the crime absolutely shows that you a) knew what you were doing b) had the presence of mind to clean up after yourself c) intended to conceal the crime.
No, I would say this is more like you killing someone with a knife and simultaneously having a bottle of bleach at home in the laundry room, and they have no evidence of you buying or using it for any other reason than doing the laundry, and yet it is somehow taken as "supporting evidence" that your crime was thought out in advance, with you having the bleach on hand specifically to clean up after the crime. Obviously the bleach could have been used to clean up some blood, so that must have been your intention in owning it.
Your mistake is in comparing this to a non-ordinary amount of bleach and suggesting they had some sort of evidence that you used the bleach to clean the blood off the walls. This encryption software is just an everyday, regular size, common bottle of bleach sitting in the laundry room, just like almost anyone would have in their home if they happen to have a laundry room. It indicates absolutely nothing. Thinking otherwise is an extremely dangerous logical fallacy. And it absolutely IS an indictment of the tool. Encryption software is not the logical equivalent of five gallons of bleach.
And with other evidence, why shouldn't it be? In fact, the presence of it ought to lead prosecutors to tack on the charge of conspiracy.
Just like the presence of a gun during a robbery lifts the crime to armed robbery, the presence of encryption ought to imply not only that the culprit intended to commit the crime but also intended to cover it up as well.
Problem. With. Your. Analogy. Is. Encryption. Is. NOT. A. Gun.
The presences of encryption implies nothing. You have commmitted a logical fallacy. Windows 2000 and XP have encrypted filesystem support, does that imply that all Windows users are intending to commit a crime and hide it because they bought a computer running Windows? No. You use SSL encryption every time you buy something online. Does that mean you were intending to commit a crime with the intent of hiding it when you installed a web browser that supports secure HTTP? I don't think so.
You were right in your subject line. After that you failed. Encryption is just a tool. It is not a firearm. That is a very flawed analogy. With that kind of analogy we can all become criminals overnight. Yippee.
Shame on Microsoft. And how rude that Office 2003 doesn't implement and utilize the wonderful and open OASIS file format that was ratified 3 days ago.
You have a sort of point, but in this case the standard has been in development and draft form for literally years. Microsoft has had plenty of chances to follow along with the development and provide 99% complete support for the format, even before it was ratified. Then all they'd have to do is put some tweaks in a patch for 100% support after the standard is finalized. The OpenOffice.org formats have been around and in active use for years now, but I don't see Microsoft supporting those either, and aren't they remarkably similar to the final ratified OpenDocument standards? Hmm, I think so. In other words, they've had their chance. It's not like the developing standards were kept secret until the day they were ratified, giving them only 3 days to work on it.
So yes, shame on Microsoft, as usual. Especially as we move into the future. If it's impossible for them to provide a simple drop-in translator for new file formats in their state-of-the-art office suite it doesn't speak highly of their software design, does it? Somehow I feel this is something well within their reach. I, like the GP poster, am also looking forward to castigating Microsoft at every opportunity until they fully support open document standards. It's a fool's errand, but someone has to do it.
The BBC reports on recent theoretical physics research showing that wormholes may not be very useful for space or time travel. Wormholes with smooth or classical spacetimes appear to be unstable and fall apart quickly. Too bad for budding time travelers and space explorers!
"Also in the news this evening, recent theoretical physics research suggests that the Earth's atmosphere will never be very useful for traveling long distances over the surface of the planet at great speed. Air appears to be unstable, and any machine we make to try and utilize this medium for human flight has always fallen apart quickly. Too bad for budding air travelers and aviators. Time to give up now."
The universe will always be bigger and more complex than we think it is, folks. I wouldn't worry too much about never being able to time travel, use wormholes or travel faster than light (or all of the above). Eventually a way will be found, even if it means breaking the theoretical laws we think we know. Any scientist worth his or her salt knows that no matter how much we learn, there may always be something around the corner that will blast what we thought we knew into a million pieces and turn everything on its head. It is the height of hubris to assume otherwise.
Well, it's obviously cost-effective enough to run on at least two channels I get: Cartoon network and TBS.
You misspelled "rerun". The main point of this whole conversation is that Futurama was axed a couple of years ago, and we want new episodes, not reruns. I can already buy the entire series on DVD, which I have done, and was very sad to find out at the end that there simply would not be a 5th season box set forthcoming (I don't have cable which is why I got the DVDs in the first place) because the series is no longer being produced. Apparently the networks think it isn't cost-effective to make and broadcast new episodes.
What everyone always seems to forget about biometric identification schemes is:
A) You cannot change your biometrics, and B) There is no such thing as a 100% secure computer system.
So, you now have a number derived from 15 points on your fingerprint that gives "absolute proof" of your identity. Sooner or later, a way will be found to hack the system either from the inside or simply by spoofing the scanner with a gummi bear, and the authorities will have "absolute proof" that you were the person logged in and surfing porn at 5:32 PM on Tuesday, April 23rd, 2005, and fondling yourself in front of teenagers. Don't even try to defend yourself. They have "proof". Absolute proof, of course, because it's such a reliable and uncrackable computer system, and nobody could possibly spoof your fingerprint. The computer is all-knowing and all-seeing. The computer is God. It is completely infallible, unlike those silly little library cards.
So yes, this is absolutely, positively, a very scary thing. They are putting their absolute trust into an identification system that really isn't any more effective than a library card. This is totally disregarding the problem with the fact that a PUBLIC library requires positive ID just to get on the bleeping Internet. Does your library require ID if you want to use the phone for a local call? Liability protection my ass. It is a parent's job to protect their children. This is all getting out of hand.
This kind of "convenience" is almost always the enemy of freedom.
In that light I would say send that sucker back and get an enclosure with a different chipset. I'll keep the name in mind to avoid purchasing.
What I meant by the drive was actually the contents of the drive. In true Mac fashion there appear to be some magical things that need to happen in order for a drive to be bootable. I haven't heard much about people installing directly from the install DVD/CDs, and I personally haven't tried it, but I have had good luck with cloning as long as the drive is formatted beforehand. I have heard some problems come from not zeroing the drive before the clone.
Another problem is the whole firmware issue that OS X had since about 10.3.6. I had a drive just stop working, or maybe it was the Firewire port on the computer that stopped working. Even installing the firmware update didn't help. That whole issue has been extremely annoying.
Good luck with getting a different enclosure to work.
If it sees the Firewire drive at all, like when you hold down the Option key when booting, you should have no problem booting from the external drive. I haven't heard of a non-bootable Firewire chipset. The problem is most likely the drive. Try formatting and zeroing the drive and redoing your clone (I assume you're using something like Carbon Copy Cloner to clone the internal drive onto the external drive). Make sure the application is set to make the new drive bootable.
If your IQ is 2 standard deviations from the norm, shouldn't you know how to spell "necessary". Then again, you didn't specify in what direction.
Einstein was dyslexic. Being able to spell well is not necessarily an indicator of general intelligence, and vice versa. The brain has a great many specialized areas that do specific tasks, like interpreting audio signals as language, or recognizing visual input as a face, or translating the concepts in your head into written words with correct spelling. In many people one or more of these areas doesn't work as well as the others. In fact it's hard to find a person in whose brain all these functions work equally well. That's why we often speaking of a person having particular "talent" or gift for doing a specific task or set of tasks. Conversely there are people who are bad at remembering names, or recognizing faces, or spelling.
I have an immediate relative whose general IQ tests were off the charts, but can't spell worth a damn. I think part of the problem a lot of smart people have with spelling properly is that English is a totally nonsensical mishmash of words from many different languages, where the exceptions to the spelling rules sometimes outnumber the words to which the rules may be applied. For instance, "nessisary" is a perfectly valid spelling from the standpoint of phonetics.
Slashdot Mirror
When it comes down to it, the primary difference a user will see between a Folder and a Label is that Folders can only hold a file once, while Labels can hold the same file multiple times. i.e. The concept just pushes existing abstractions just a bit farther.
Except that Labels don't hold the actual file, they merely hold a virtual pointer to the file which exists in one folder somewhere. When you delete the file from the Smart Folder, you'll be deleting it from the physical folder and thus removing it from all those other Labels that really aren't the same as folders. Unless when you delete things from Smart Folders you're only deleting the reference, which would make it pretty useless for finding things to delete them.
I dunno, database filesystems are a neat idea, and can be useful, but completely abandoning the idea that a file exists at a physical location on the drive (or on removable media, or a network drive, etc) just doesn't seem like a good idea to me. There is potential for many bad things to happen if we completely throw the metaphors out the window. This concept will work best only for those of us who can understand its limitations and potential problems. For regular folks who can't even use normal folders properly, this can end up being a disaster in certain situations.
The labeling thing works with situations like Gmail because you can't find or label anything outside your little email container. In that kind of case, they are great. There's still the issue of what happens when you do a search and want to delete all the messages you find, even though some of them have multiple labels. What happens then? People are going to get confused by the behavior of labeled files, there is no doubt about it. Of course, this is just my opinion.
This can be troublesome if you work with files that are highly related. "Did I file that bill from the University under 'Finance' or under 'School'?
:-)
Under a stored query system (i.e. Labels), you could place the bill under *both* University and Finance. That's why labelling makes more sense than folders.
I can foresee problems where people will think they are operating on two different files and make two different sets of changes to the same file. Or when they want to split the file into two separate copies instead of having the two labels on the same file. It better be easy to find the "original" file in its physical folder and be able to copy it to a different physical folder. there also better be some way to figure out how many different "Smart Folder" references there are to that file, like finding out how many symlinks there are to a Unix file.
Another example: you do a find and get files from removable media or networked drives, then make a Smart Folder to treat those files like a regular folder. Confusion will reign when the removable media gets removed or the network drive gets disconnected. The user will freak out. Where did my files go??? Or will the OS try to keep the media from being ejected if there are files on it referenced by a Smart Folder? That would be extremely annoying to most users, so I doubt that will happen. The files will just disappear. Some folks will understand this and use it to their benefit, others will just get very confused. They'll "store" the files in a Smart Folder and then send the CD to Africa and be left wondering what happened to their copy of the files.
What about the idiot that does a query that finds half the files on his computer and mistakenly labels them as being part of a big project he's working on, then tells an assistant to delete all the files with that label after the project is over? No problem. Instant disaster.
This whole database filesystem idea is cute and can be useful, but mark my words, there will be situations where it will cause major problems. People who already don't understand the concept of regular folders won't really do any better at understanding the deeper implications of a database filesystem. They'll just lose more files by being unable to create a proper query to find what they just saved, the same way they already can't find what they just saved from Word or an email or the web. I think the idea of abandoning regular folders altogether is just asking for heaps of trouble in the long run.
With a situation like Gmail, labeling can work very well, because you can't label or find any objects outside your own little container of email messages. You can't go around deleting other people's mail or Google's system files by mislabeling something. On a computer, abandoning the references to a file's physical location is probably not a good thing to promote. Of course, this is just my opinion, and I'm sure I'll end up using Smart Folders anyway when I buy a Mac mini. But I will be wary of their potential to cause me headaches.
I did not meet anyone in China that was unhappy with their political system, yet before I went I read many stories of what it was like that turned out to be complete rubbish. The country was full of educated, happy people that would laugh at me for believing stupid propoganda. The main difference between us and them is that they know it is all propoganda yet most of us think that what we read is the truth.
That's because most people are idiots, no matter their education level. They actually believe they live in a free society because that's what the government says it is. Those with half a brain who tried to actually be free are rotting in prison, so they can't spread their "stupid propaganda" about the fact that there is no political or religious freedom in their society. Hmm.
There are any number of societies all over the world were the vast majority of the populace is perfectly happy with their political system because that's all they know about and they've never felt the need to go against it. (In the same way, most people LOVE Microsoft because most of them have never felt the need to not be forced to buy Microsoft or think outside Microsoft's box.) When they do go against the system, they quickly learn that whatever political freedom they thought they had was an illusion, and gee wouldn't it be nice if I lived in a free country where I could express my views without rotting in a prison cell.
In summary, just because most people you meet aren't unhappy with the system doesn't mean the system doesn't have major issues. I mean, look at us here in the US. We're losing our freedoms by the day, and a large portion of the populace thinks we're doing great. In fact, we're so great that we obviously have a right to foist our perfect political system on the rest of the world. Because most people are idiots, no matter how much "education" they've had. The people running and destroying our government went to some of the most prestigious schools in the country, after all.
Yeah, I can't imagine any power user not paying $69.95 per copy for an enhanced DOS prompt. Oh wait, yes I can. Any free alternatives that are worth downloading?
People of this world are being duped into set of ideas that make up the order of things. At an Age of mass communication. How long will it take before a massive revolution takes place that whipes out the world of corporate pimps? And true Socialisam takes place. And no, not the Communist type Socialisam that everyone thinks of when they hear that word. True Socialisam has never been done before. For it to be true entire globe would have to choose to perticipate.
Think about it. It would be like a giant open source project. That eliminates money and simply requests are made and fullfiled as they are ordered, on a world wide scale. By that I mean anything from growing food to operating trucks and airplanes. Different groups would be created to fullfill every human needs. Through a system that the main goal isnt profit but true human needs.
I can just hope that it happens soon.
You're joking, right? I'm all for everyone being cooperative and all that, but you have to be extremely naive of human nature to even think a world such as you are describing could possibly exist. Less than 1/10th of 1% of humanity is capable of existing peacefully in a purely "cooperative" world, where we're all magically supposed to cooperate to do anything and everything necessary to maintain a coherent society, from growing food to building any kind of machine the world thinks it needs.
Here's a demonstration of the fundamental problem: I "need" a 150ft yacht with an infinite fuel supply where I can be surrounded by beautiful women while I sail all the oceans of the world. Care to get started on building that for me? For free, no less? What do you mean I don't "need" a yacht? Hmm. This projectile weapon says different...
As of the 21st century the least of several evils that we have come up with is controlled capitalism. As long as it has decent controls it works out pretty good. The vast majority of the population has an opportunity to have a comfortable, meaningful life in a capitalist society. The problems come when we allow 1% of the population to hold 90%+ of the capital and let the corporations start dictating the laws. It is not the basic capitalistic theory that is the problem, it's simple powermongering by the people at the top.
A purely socialist world society would collapse in microseconds. This is not the Star Trek universe, unfortunately, but we are doing the best we can.
This sends a very clear message to potential Mac buyers... Do not buy until these machines ship in 2006, or you'll get an obsolete machine, like I just did.
Not really, but you did just sent a clear message that you are an idiot. But I'll be happy to take that Mac mini off your hands at half price. It's hard for me, being so generous, but I'll do it just for you...
There are millions of G3s, G4s and G5s out there and all of a sudden nobody will want to sell their software to those millions of users? Makes perfect sense. NOT. The PPC Macs will be able to obtain new software for at least 5 years and probably longer. Watch the keynote address. It's extremely simple for developers to compile a universal binary for both platforms. I see no reason whatsoever for developers to start compiling Intel-only versions of their software for many years to come. In fact, not until the new PPC Macs reach the end of their useful lifetime about a decade from now.
This is like moving from a G3 to a G4 to a G5, or didn't you notice that every year there is some new software or feature that only works on the latest computers, no matter what platform or OS you're using? Every computer you will ever buy will always be 50% obselete the moment you walk out of the store. This is no different. If you are on the bleeding edge you will be buying a new machine every couple of years anyway, just like you've always done to keep up with the speed increases and the very latest high-end software. Mac mini users have absolutely nothing to be concerned about. But feel free to continue spreading baseless FUD, so I can get a good price on a PPC Mac next year.
Would you like some cheese with that, sir?
I think the point is manufacturing quality. Apple's products are a step above what you get in the PC world. They are probably even from the same vendors as the PC products, but manufactured to a higher specification. I don't know this for sure, but it certainly seems to be the case from my experience.
When you buy a Mac, you don't have to ask yourself, "is this going to work reliably?" or "is this going to work like I expect it to?" They have high engineering standards which really shine through on the final product. It's all the little things added up which turns your computer from a hassle to a productivity tool.
Last three out of five Macs I have been involved in purchasing have had problems bad enough to require servicing. Logic board failures, hard drive failures, they're never able to give a clear answer. I have personally witnessed an iBook turn itself into a paperweight a few hours after we received it, and an eMac locked up while I was using it and wouldn't reboot. The hard drive had to be replaced, then it had an extreme video problem when we got it back so we had to send it for service again and they replaced the logic board. A brand new Mac mini crashed within hours of its first regular use and refused to reboot. Bad hard drive was what the Apple Hardware Test said. I have no idea what they're doing with it, we still don't have it back. It'll be two weeks on Monday.
Someone else's G5 had a bad modem that kept locking up the whole machine. Had to send it for service but it's working OK now.
Point being, Macs are far from perfect. And the guy higher up is right. Us WinTel refugees tend to get instantly enamored with Apple stuff and blind ourselves to the problems. In general, I have seen many more "little" problems on PCs over the years than I have seen on Macs. On the other hand, when a Mac develops a real problem, it is often a very bad, unfixable problem that requires servicing. This guy is going to be effing pissed the first time his Apple laptop develops a problem in the field, because the probability is that it will be something so bad it will put the thing out of commission. My whole organization runs Macs, and I love them to death, but in 15 years of WinTel use I've never seen problems like we've had with the recent Macs we've purchased. The Apple discussion forums are rife with similar experiences for every different type of Mac, so don't even try to give me any crap about this being an isolated set of events. When they work, the work great, when they die, they effing DIE.
Nevertheless, I still recommend Macs for anyone looking for a new computer, and I will keep buying Macs at my organization, because overall Macs are still better as long as you keep good backups and/or have some other Macs around as backups. I was able to boot that dead Mac mini into Firewire target disk mode and clone it onto an external drive. The guy who was using it is now just hopping around to any free Mac in the office and booting from that drive, and it's like he's still using the Mac mini. He can boot up on an iBook or a G4 Power Mac tower. Mac OS X doesn't care.
When the Mac mini returns I'll spend about an hour cloning the system back onto the internal drive and he'll be off and running like nothing ever happened. With Windows, the operating system is so delicate (registry, anyone?) and locked into the specific hardware that this scenario is literally impossible. Even Linux would have a tough time handling being switched between different types of computers without something breaking, and there certainly isn't an easy way to boot any random PC from an external drive, you'll need a special boot disk or something AFAIK. I've been using Linux on servers and desktops for several years. It simply can't compare to Mac OS X in so many ways.
Macs have both strong points and weak points. For me, the strong points outweigh the weak points. For others this might not apply, and ignoring the problems is a sure path to aggravation. Trying to push Macs as being perfect and absolutely reliable is a sure path to creating very unhappy Mac users when things go wrong.
Not for you. All these mice have >1 button
/. with my 5-button scroll-wheel Optical Intellimouse Explorer with back-forward buttons that work in all applications. I know it's a joke, but it's getting old. Macs have supported multi-button scroll mice for almost a decade now.
Yeah,that's funny, to me, as I sit here surfing
I had an MX500 and went and bought an MX300 with a cord instead.
/.: "Hi, Moraelin!"
Basically my take is that it's a mouse that isn't really good for either. For twitch gaming I _really_ want a corded one, for someone who just browses the web, as you've said, a $6 mouse works just as well. So who are the target demographic that absolutely needed it?
The SFV (Stupid Fashion Victims). The people who buy for the buzzwords and the hype. OOOH, IT'S LASER!
You: "Hi, my name is Moraelin... and I'm an SFV."
Whether or not the defendant was guilty or was convicted is not the point. This discussion is about the fact that the mere presence of some common encryption software without the presence of any encrypted files was used as "supporting evidence" of some sort of criminal intent. Which is really, really bad. It doesn't even really matter what the case was about. What they did by admitting the presence of PGP software as supporting evidence of intent is tantamount to criminalizing encryption software itself.
It isn't any different than if you have a legal gun and then conceal it when you go out. The gun stopped being legal once you did that. Here, the point is that he knew what was doing wrong and he punctuated it by encrypting it making it, arguably, a de facto admission of guilt.
Except that:
A) They have no evidence that he was using it to conceal anything related to the case.
B) It is perfectly legal to carry a concealed weapon in many states, although some require a license. So your analogy is faulty.
So it is quite different, and there is no way it can be considered an admission of guilt because it can't be linked to the crime or the intent to commit a crime. it should never have been part of the case.
You, like many others today, miss the important distinction, and the mods didn't catch it. What possible purpose could you have for carrying a large empty bag into a store, other than shoplifting? Its presence is a strong indicator that you were planning on shoplifting something. The mere presence of encryption software has no relation. It is not a strong indicator of anything, unless they can establish as fact that you purchased or used the software specifically for committing a crime. It is merely a general tool, like the computer itself, or the envelopes you use to mail letters. The fact that he uses envelopes to mail letters, or the fact that he owns a computer in the first place, was not used as supporting evidence of criminal intent.
There are so many other legal uses of encryption software that a ruling like this should always be considered very dangerous. It is not his use of the software to encrypt photos that is being used, because they have no evidence of that. It is the mere presence of the software, implying that its only possible use on his computer would be for criminal intent. That is the bad part.
Who cares what other evidence there was? So he was guilty, that's not the point. The crypto was still used as "supporting" evidence, even though it didn't support the case because they had no actual evidence linking it to the crime. The fact that it was still declared supporting evidence by its mere presence is still a dangerous precedent. It's like using the fact that a defendant owned a pair of running shoes as supporting evidence that he was planning the robbery he committed. It would rightfully be seen as an indictment of running shoes as a whole, and one step away from the criminalization of the owning of running shoes.
The problem is, they don't have that "evidence" in the middle that you refer to. It's just a bonfire, or a paper shredder, or an envelope, or a lighter. But there is no corpse. No destroyed or hidden evidence. They said so. They have no evidence of encrypted images. There is just a common tool, like a paper shredder, which many people now use at home to destroy perfectly legal financial documents for their own safety, so criminals won't pull their financial information out of the trash. Unless there is a link, the tool has nothing to do with the case at hand, and should not be seen as supporting evidence of anything.
Both Mac OS X and Windows 2K/XP support encrypted filesystems these days. Does that mean whenever you catch someone doing something wrong with a computer you can use that built-in support for encryption as "supporting evidence" of criminal intent at their trial? You better sure as hell hope not.
No, you don't get it (and apparently neither do the mods). The things you say are true, hiding evidence is a crime, but they have no bearing on this situation. The point is, they have no evidence of the software being purchased or used for purposes of committing or covering up this crime (or any crime). Your analogy to going through a bunch of specific actions that can be linked directly to the crime is totally fallacious. Everyone who is saying this is a dangerous and stupid ruling is correct. The simple presence of the software is being taken as proof that it was intended for a criminal use. It is not his "use" of it that is being used, it is the "presence" of it on his computer that is being used against him.
And there you go again at the end of your post with another fallacious analogy, comparing encryption software to bolt cutters, as if it is obvious that its presence alone implies criminal intent. That's extremely dangerous reasoning. Just because I want to encrypt something does not mean I am encrypted child porn. Are you buying child porn whenever you enter a secure website that uses SSL? THINK about it. Think real hard. It's a subtle but extremely important distinction.
Same thing with someone above who compared encryption software to having a gun during a robbery. WTF? Guns, five gallons of bleach, bolt cutters, all these things have very limited uses and can be easily related to the crime in the analogy, but it will still require some sort of evidence that the defendant actually intended to use the item to commit a crime. If a guy gets caught breaking into something and happens to own a pair of bolt cutters that are stored in his shed at home, the bolt cutters have absolutely nothing to do with his crime. If a person owns a laundromat that has a clothes washing service, it would not be out of the ordinary for them to have a lot of bleach on hand. The fact that they had a bunch of bleach and used it to clean up some blood after they killed someone with a knife could not be used as supporting evidence that the crime was thought out beforehand. It just happened to be there. The fact that they used it to clean up the blood is the only fact that can be brought in as evidence, and it could only support the accusation that they were conscious afterward of having committed a crime, and trying to cover it up. The simple presences of the bleach could not have any bearing on the case.
Encryption software is a tool with many uses. Without direct evidence of its specific use, it cannot be used as supporting evidence for anything criminal. All the comments I've seen say they do not have any direct evidence of it being used in the crime, or being purchased for use in the crime, therefore it should not be admissable as supporting evidence of criminal intent. Do you get it now? It's like if you had a hammer in your desk drawer and they took it as supporting evidence that you were going to download child porn and hide it. It's totally nonsensical unless a direct link can be provided by the police.
Argh.
You're completely incorrect--I don't think you're thinking about the situation rationally.
Encryption is merely a tool that this man used to commit his crimes. Should video cameras the defendant used not be admitted? Should video TAPES? What about any other equipment he used in the filming process? They clearly (I think you'll agree) should be admissible as evidence. Why not the fact that he went to great lengths to hide his creations? Encryption is JUST a TOOL. It's not magically special just because it's on computers.
It is you who are completely incorrect. Encryption software is just a tool, with no direct relation to his crime. They have no evidence of encrypted photos. They have no evidence that he has the software for any particular reason. They won't say how it's any different from built-in encryption support like Apple's FileVault or Windows' Encrypted Filesystem support. This is NOT like video tapes or video cameras (was the defendant making his own child porn? If not, WTF would video cameras or tapes have to do with it either?). If this is just some stuff he downloaded to his computer from the Internet, video tapes or cameras would have absolutely nothing to do with the case, and rightfully would either never be mentioned or never taken as supporting evidence of guilt.
You're right, encryption is not magically special because it's on a computer. It is you and they who are treating it as magically special, when it's really just a generic tool. It indicates absolutely nothing with regards to the defendant's crime, unless they can give direct evidence of the software being purchased or used specifically to commit this crime or to help hide this crime. If they can't establish some kind of direct link between the crime and the software, it shouldn't even be part of the case. If there is no link, there is NO reason to consider it as even "supporting" evidence. Period.
Wrong. This is simply adding intent and conspiracy elements to the crime, it would be the same as you killing someone with a knife and then buying five gallons of bleach to clean up the blood splatters on the walls. Buying bleach is of course legal, and no one is questioning that, but adding the fact that you bought/used the bleach for a specific purposes related to the crime absolutely shows that you a) knew what you were doing b) had the presence of mind to clean up after yourself c) intended to conceal the crime.
No, I would say this is more like you killing someone with a knife and simultaneously having a bottle of bleach at home in the laundry room, and they have no evidence of you buying or using it for any other reason than doing the laundry, and yet it is somehow taken as "supporting evidence" that your crime was thought out in advance, with you having the bleach on hand specifically to clean up after the crime. Obviously the bleach could have been used to clean up some blood, so that must have been your intention in owning it.
Your mistake is in comparing this to a non-ordinary amount of bleach and suggesting they had some sort of evidence that you used the bleach to clean the blood off the walls. This encryption software is just an everyday, regular size, common bottle of bleach sitting in the laundry room, just like almost anyone would have in their home if they happen to have a laundry room. It indicates absolutely nothing. Thinking otherwise is an extremely dangerous logical fallacy. And it absolutely IS an indictment of the tool. Encryption software is not the logical equivalent of five gallons of bleach.
And with other evidence, why shouldn't it be? In fact, the presence of it ought to lead prosecutors to tack on the charge of conspiracy.
Just like the presence of a gun during a robbery lifts the crime to armed robbery, the presence of encryption ought to imply not only that the culprit intended to commit the crime but also intended to cover it up as well.
Problem. With. Your. Analogy. Is. Encryption. Is. NOT. A. Gun.
The presences of encryption implies nothing. You have commmitted a logical fallacy. Windows 2000 and XP have encrypted filesystem support, does that imply that all Windows users are intending to commit a crime and hide it because they bought a computer running Windows? No. You use SSL encryption every time you buy something online. Does that mean you were intending to commit a crime with the intent of hiding it when you installed a web browser that supports secure HTTP? I don't think so.
You were right in your subject line. After that you failed. Encryption is just a tool. It is not a firearm. That is a very flawed analogy. With that kind of analogy we can all become criminals overnight. Yippee.
Shame on Microsoft. And how rude that Office 2003 doesn't implement and utilize the wonderful and open OASIS file format that was ratified 3 days ago.
You have a sort of point, but in this case the standard has been in development and draft form for literally years. Microsoft has had plenty of chances to follow along with the development and provide 99% complete support for the format, even before it was ratified. Then all they'd have to do is put some tweaks in a patch for 100% support after the standard is finalized. The OpenOffice.org formats have been around and in active use for years now, but I don't see Microsoft supporting those either, and aren't they remarkably similar to the final ratified OpenDocument standards? Hmm, I think so. In other words, they've had their chance. It's not like the developing standards were kept secret until the day they were ratified, giving them only 3 days to work on it.
So yes, shame on Microsoft, as usual. Especially as we move into the future. If it's impossible for them to provide a simple drop-in translator for new file formats in their state-of-the-art office suite it doesn't speak highly of their software design, does it? Somehow I feel this is something well within their reach. I, like the GP poster, am also looking forward to castigating Microsoft at every opportunity until they fully support open document standards. It's a fool's errand, but someone has to do it.
The BBC reports on recent theoretical physics research showing that wormholes may not be very useful for space or time travel. Wormholes with smooth or classical spacetimes appear to be unstable and fall apart quickly. Too bad for budding time travelers and space explorers!
"Also in the news this evening, recent theoretical physics research suggests that the Earth's atmosphere will never be very useful for traveling long distances over the surface of the planet at great speed. Air appears to be unstable, and any machine we make to try and utilize this medium for human flight has always fallen apart quickly. Too bad for budding air travelers and aviators. Time to give up now."
The universe will always be bigger and more complex than we think it is, folks. I wouldn't worry too much about never being able to time travel, use wormholes or travel faster than light (or all of the above). Eventually a way will be found, even if it means breaking the theoretical laws we think we know. Any scientist worth his or her salt knows that no matter how much we learn, there may always be something around the corner that will blast what we thought we knew into a million pieces and turn everything on its head. It is the height of hubris to assume otherwise.
Well, it's obviously cost-effective enough to run on at least two channels I get: Cartoon network and TBS.
You misspelled "rerun". The main point of this whole conversation is that Futurama was axed a couple of years ago, and we want new episodes, not reruns. I can already buy the entire series on DVD, which I have done, and was very sad to find out at the end that there simply would not be a 5th season box set forthcoming (I don't have cable which is why I got the DVDs in the first place) because the series is no longer being produced. Apparently the networks think it isn't cost-effective to make and broadcast new episodes.
What everyone always seems to forget about biometric identification schemes is:
A) You cannot change your biometrics, and
B) There is no such thing as a 100% secure computer system.
So, you now have a number derived from 15 points on your fingerprint that gives "absolute proof" of your identity. Sooner or later, a way will be found to hack the system either from the inside or simply by spoofing the scanner with a gummi bear, and the authorities will have "absolute proof" that you were the person logged in and surfing porn at 5:32 PM on Tuesday, April 23rd, 2005, and fondling yourself in front of teenagers. Don't even try to defend yourself. They have "proof". Absolute proof, of course, because it's such a reliable and uncrackable computer system, and nobody could possibly spoof your fingerprint. The computer is all-knowing and all-seeing. The computer is God. It is completely infallible, unlike those silly little library cards.
So yes, this is absolutely, positively, a very scary thing. They are putting their absolute trust into an identification system that really isn't any more effective than a library card. This is totally disregarding the problem with the fact that a PUBLIC library requires positive ID just to get on the bleeping Internet. Does your library require ID if you want to use the phone for a local call? Liability protection my ass. It is a parent's job to protect their children. This is all getting out of hand.
This kind of "convenience" is almost always the enemy of freedom.
In that light I would say send that sucker back and get an enclosure with a different chipset. I'll keep the name in mind to avoid purchasing.
What I meant by the drive was actually the contents of the drive. In true Mac fashion there appear to be some magical things that need to happen in order for a drive to be bootable. I haven't heard much about people installing directly from the install DVD/CDs, and I personally haven't tried it, but I have had good luck with cloning as long as the drive is formatted beforehand. I have heard some problems come from not zeroing the drive before the clone.
Another problem is the whole firmware issue that OS X had since about 10.3.6. I had a drive just stop working, or maybe it was the Firewire port on the computer that stopped working. Even installing the firmware update didn't help. That whole issue has been extremely annoying.
Good luck with getting a different enclosure to work.
If it sees the Firewire drive at all, like when you hold down the Option key when booting, you should have no problem booting from the external drive. I haven't heard of a non-bootable Firewire chipset. The problem is most likely the drive. Try formatting and zeroing the drive and redoing your clone (I assume you're using something like Carbon Copy Cloner to clone the internal drive onto the external drive). Make sure the application is set to make the new drive bootable.
If your IQ is 2 standard deviations from the norm, shouldn't you know how to spell "necessary". Then again, you didn't specify in what direction.
Einstein was dyslexic. Being able to spell well is not necessarily an indicator of general intelligence, and vice versa. The brain has a great many specialized areas that do specific tasks, like interpreting audio signals as language, or recognizing visual input as a face, or translating the concepts in your head into written words with correct spelling. In many people one or more of these areas doesn't work as well as the others. In fact it's hard to find a person in whose brain all these functions work equally well. That's why we often speaking of a person having particular "talent" or gift for doing a specific task or set of tasks. Conversely there are people who are bad at remembering names, or recognizing faces, or spelling.
I have an immediate relative whose general IQ tests were off the charts, but can't spell worth a damn. I think part of the problem a lot of smart people have with spelling properly is that English is a totally nonsensical mishmash of words from many different languages, where the exceptions to the spelling rules sometimes outnumber the words to which the rules may be applied. For instance, "nessisary" is a perfectly valid spelling from the standpoint of phonetics.