If you don't understand the difference between copying a work you would have never paid for and stealing a physical object, there is no hope for you. Please kill yourself and save everyone around you.
"The better question is, why not? People who fit into Apple's narrow marketing niche probably already have Macs. Those of us who are better served by other hardware aren't going to buy them either way. Why not sell the OS to people who'll buy it?"
If Apple wanted to sell an generic x86 compatible OS, they would have 10 years ago.
"Meanwhile, those with legitimate uses are locked out. Doesn't really make much sense to me."
It doesn't make sense to you because you're a slash-moron. All legitimate users of MacOS X and of Darwin-x86 get their binary images from Apple to use on their Apple hardware. Just because you don't like the definition of "legitimate" doesn't make you less of a moron.
"But there is also a big loss of credibility: will I ever trust a kernel I and a large public doesn't have the source for, with no peer review at all? If you want to hide something devious (DRM, spyware, etc.), the kernel is the right place."
You are a fucked-up slash-drone if you think it's a loss of credibility to have a closed-source kernel. IBM, HP and MS really have suffered such huge losses. [rolls eyes]
"It's a non-issue because collecting call data is not monitoring. If you want to call it monitoring, then Ma Bell has been monitoring us since private lines were introduced."
If you don't understand the difference between a private corporation having the data and the Federal government having the data, you don't understand the U.S. Constitution.
"Having said that, I'd be happier still if the average person would simply become smarter."
Average... Smarter...
If you put any thought into it, you would realize that the only way to raise the average intelligence of the Human population would be to kill stupid people.
If you believe that because Bush said so, you are an idiot beyond all and any measure. The same Bush that won't let Congress investigate the issue, mind you.
Is to kill the spammers. Obviously the death penalty doesn't resolve the issue forever, or we'd not have as much crime as we do in the world, but it will deter most spammers.
We put down rabid dogs because they have the potential to harm human beings despite having no intention to do so. Why is it less humane to remove life that actively and maliciously harms others?
Windows has a large set of consistant keyboard shortcuts that work across virtually every Windows application. The apps where they tend to break are those stupid programs with "themes" or "skins" and those that are ported from other systems that are insanely stupid.
Mac OS has virtually no keyboard shortcuts that are actually consistant across applications. Cut/copy/paste are about it. Even moving within lines of text is not consistant on the Mac. Talk about stupid for the sake of stupid.
X Window has the most ridiculous clipboard scheme imaginable. Who had the absolutely stupid idea to make selection == copy? That is so insane from a usability perspective that only a slash-moron could defend it.
"I am legally prevented from writing, distributing or using Free Software that can play music encoded with Apple's Fairplay DRM."
That is a lie, pure and simple. You may reverse-engineer Fairplay for purposes of interoperability. It even says so in the DMCA. Apple is not required to give anyone the specs, but they also cannot prevent you from reverse-engineering them.
"And OT, but I've been hearing so much about this damn illegal immigrant thing its pissing me off. If the US wants to stop terrorism the first thing they should make sure doesn't happen is people getting into this country without being checked. Whats to stop terrorists from running accross the Mexico border?"
What's to stop them from flying in to JFK or LAX and walking through customs? The idea that customs agents at airports are going to stop all terrorists is simply absurd. There are so many foreign visitors to the US each day that there is no way to filter out the terrorists. All you need is one to get through. They don't care if they die. They won't care if they get deported.
The fact is that in about 230 years of this country's history, 9/11 is the *only* terrorist act performed by outsiders. 200 years of presidents didn't need to shred the Constitution to keep the country safe. George the 2nd just wants to crown himself.
What the fuck are you talking about? Are you just a typical fucked up slashdot ignoramus, or do you actually work at it?
If code is running, it's running. The end. What the hell does it matter what the architecture is?
If you all you meant is that 90%+ of computers on the 'net are Intel compatibles, why not just say so? It's not as if 34875384 other comments haven't already pointed that out indirectly.
"(Thanks to our suburb-hating, anti-business Canadian governor Michigan has the worst unemployment rates in the country. Everybody is doing better except for us.)"
Right. MI unemployment rates have nothing to do with the fact that a huge percentage of jobs in MI are industrial or manufacturing and that all the manufacturers (auto in particular) are suffering economically? Sorry, I can't see how Granholme has anything to do with Ford's (I work at Ford, so I know from what I speak) management being completely out of touch with their prospective markets.
98%+ of politicians are self-serving assholes, but that doesn't make them responsible for every woe to occur in their jurisdictions.
And I believe it's the moral imperative to assassinate the board members of any corporation that puts profits ahead of everything else. Anything less is asking for corporate-controlled slavery.
You are an idiot. Of course, most anti-religious bigots on slashdot are idiots.
The idea that the known universe operates as a deterministic machine, is NOT contradictory to religious belief. Who do you think Judeo-Christrians believe made the machine?
""Visual" anything is a BAD way to go because it generates a bunch of code for you, and half the time you don't even know what the hell it does. Is it secure code? You don't know - you didn't write it. Such code could make apps prone to things like buffer overflows. Is that what you want for your users? If your argument is for code reusability or how quick you can build an app, it's easy enough to reuse code that you previously wrote."
Of all the posts I've ever read, anywhere, this has to be the most ignorant of them all. You are truly the most fucked-up person to ever touch a computer.
Fact: Unless you write every single bit yourself (no assembler, no compiler, no external libraries), you have no idea if the code is secure. You are, to say it again, totally fucked-up to think that a RAD environment is automatically worse than using glibc in terms of security or bugginess.
As my chemistry and biology teacher (same man) in high school pointed out, the first passages of the Bible (the real Bible, not the New Testament Babble) directly support the Big Bang theory.
The gist of the passages is that there was a void and emptiness (to'hu v'vohu), and from this sprang forth light. Jewish scholars have long believed that this light is not the same light which emanates from the sun. The most reasonable explanation is that this "light" refers to energy. In other words, the universe sprang from a void and released energy. From all this came the observable universe. Sounds like a really simplistic description of the Big Bang theory, tailored to an audience that would not have understood the word science when translated to any language of the day.
In a similar vein, it is also understood that a "day" in God's perspective is not a 24 hour day as defined by humans. In biblical terms, such a use of the term "day" simply refers to some discreet period of time. There is no implied consistancy with the length of time from one context to another. When the term is used to refer to human activities, a day refers to a 24-hour unit of time.
It has been generally accepted for hundreds, if not thousands, of years by Jewish scholars that biblical descriptions of the material world are not to be taken literally when a literal interpretation contradicts observable phenomena. The details of creation as currently understood can be fit into the Genesis story fairly well, so long as one understands that the literal-sounding terms used were chosen for an audience that did not have the knowledge to accept what we consider modern understanding and science.
One should also understand that the debate between religion and science often is really referring to Christianity and science. The Jewish religion is far more than a body of unprovable beliefs. It is a philosophy. One of the greatest Talmudic sages summed up the Jewish religion as: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Another summed it as: treat each person as a friend. It is a body of law governing every aspect of human activity. Jewish law has evolved over the millenia, and it continues to do so to this day.
Christianity departed from Judiasm by rejecting every part of it besides the core belief in a creator and redeemer. (Both of these are considered core beliefs of Judiasm.) By rejecting the law and the rules governing the determination of law, it also rejected the ability to adapt and reinterpret to fit new knowledge and circumstances.
There is a core part of any theistic religion that is based purely on faith. Only those opposed to rational thought try to apply an irrational belief system on every aspect of reality. Don't let people like this color your view of religion. Humans are not wholly rational, and I feel that it's perfectly fine to have irrational beliefs in areas that rational thought cannot explain. I.E. There's nothing wrong in believing in God until the existance of God is disproven.
You are rather confused. Random mutations and their survival in terms of off-spring is the definition of the evolutionary process. However, there is zero evidence to show that the same process yielded a human and a chimp from some common ancestor. It is *theoretically* possible, but it is neither proveable nor unproveable. I have yet to read how one could falsify evolution.
Your analogy of the line of people is flawed. There is a *gasp* scientific definition of a species. I don't know it off-hand, but I know it exists. And I know that calling the weed out in my lawn a new species doesn't make it one.
"Given that the variations in genes between any two organisms are the factor that accounts for radically different development, such as the case with the banana and the giraffe, we have all the data we need to show that Darwinian evolution is totally realistic, plausible, feasible, however you want to put it."
You are a moron. What do the genetic differences between a giraffe and banana have to do with evolution? Please explain how the banana and the giraffe, together, explain, demonstrate or somehow prove the viability of evolution.
An idiot would argue that evolution happens. An idiot would believe that evolution must explain the origin of distinct species.
How would you falsify evolution? It's a made-up explanation for a bunch of observations. Are you going to force some species to evolve to survive and see if it does? Noone understands the random factors that go into micro-evolution, much less macro. I posit there is no possible way to prove evolution as the method by which modern species came to be as they are. It is also impossible to disprove, hence it cannot be science. According to the rabid slash-holes who are more fundementalist (or is that just mental?) than any religious personage could hope to be.
Slashdot Mirror
"That's why Capitalism is an inherently amoral system."
Companies like Worldcomm and Enron have proven that capitalism - as practiced in the US - is an inherently IMmoral system.
If you don't understand the difference between copying a work you would have never paid for and stealing a physical object, there is no hope for you. Please kill yourself and save everyone around you.
"The better question is, why not? People who fit into Apple's narrow marketing niche probably already have Macs. Those of us who are better served by other hardware aren't going to buy them either way. Why not sell the OS to people who'll buy it?"
If Apple wanted to sell an generic x86 compatible OS, they would have 10 years ago.
"Meanwhile, those with legitimate uses are locked out. Doesn't really make much sense to me."
It doesn't make sense to you because you're a slash-moron. All legitimate users of MacOS X and of Darwin-x86 get their binary images from Apple to use on their Apple hardware. Just because you don't like the definition of "legitimate" doesn't make you less of a moron.
"But there is also a big loss of credibility: will I ever trust a kernel I and a large public doesn't have the source for, with no peer review at all? If you want to hide something devious (DRM, spyware, etc.), the kernel is the right place."
You are a fucked-up slash-drone if you think it's a loss of credibility to have a closed-source kernel. IBM, HP and MS really have suffered such huge losses. [rolls eyes]
"It's an old tradition, or a charter, or something."
It's a tradition, or an old charter or something.
I think that's closer to the actual quote, but I don't have any Rankin books at work.
"It's a non-issue because collecting call data is not monitoring. If you want to call it monitoring, then Ma Bell has been monitoring us since private lines were introduced."
If you don't understand the difference between a private corporation having the data and the Federal government having the data, you don't understand the U.S. Constitution.
"Having said that, I'd be happier still if the average person would simply become smarter."
Average... Smarter...
If you put any thought into it, you would realize that the only way to raise the average intelligence of the Human population would be to kill stupid people.
"Please recognize that your worship of deities IS a dangerous thing. It does NOT derive from logical thought."
It is dangerous to presume that humans should be logical. You are an idiot, stupid, a moron, a twit and a fuck-up. Please delete yourself.
If you believe that because Bush said so, you are an idiot beyond all and any measure. The same Bush that won't let Congress investigate the issue, mind you.
Is to kill the spammers. Obviously the death penalty doesn't resolve the issue forever, or we'd not have as much crime as we do in the world, but it will deter most spammers.
We put down rabid dogs because they have the potential to harm human beings despite having no intention to do so. Why is it less humane to remove life that actively and maliciously harms others?
The Windows UI is the best of the 3 I've tried.
Windows has a large set of consistant keyboard shortcuts that work across virtually every Windows application. The apps where they tend to break are those stupid programs with "themes" or "skins" and those that are ported from other systems that are insanely stupid.
Mac OS has virtually no keyboard shortcuts that are actually consistant across applications. Cut/copy/paste are about it. Even moving within lines of text is not consistant on the Mac. Talk about stupid for the sake of stupid.
X Window has the most ridiculous clipboard scheme imaginable. Who had the absolutely stupid idea to make selection == copy? That is so insane from a usability perspective that only a slash-moron could defend it.
"Posting at +1, UID of almost 900,000..."
/. into a cesspit.
You have just invalidated anything you might ever say in any forum anywhere. You are stuck-up snob to beat all snobs.
WHAT THE FUCK DOES SOME STUPID SLASHDOT UID HAVE TO DO WITH THE VERACITY OF ANYTHING?
Fucked-up people like you have turned
"I am legally prevented from writing, distributing or using Free Software that can play music encoded with Apple's Fairplay DRM."
That is a lie, pure and simple. You may reverse-engineer Fairplay for purposes of interoperability. It even says so in the DMCA. Apple is not required to give anyone the specs, but they also cannot prevent you from reverse-engineering them.
"And OT, but I've been hearing so much about this damn illegal immigrant thing its pissing me off. If the US wants to stop terrorism the first thing they should make sure doesn't happen is people getting into this country without being checked. Whats to stop terrorists from running accross the Mexico border?"
What's to stop them from flying in to JFK or LAX and walking through customs? The idea that customs agents at airports are going to stop all terrorists is simply absurd. There are so many foreign visitors to the US each day that there is no way to filter out the terrorists. All you need is one to get through. They don't care if they die. They won't care if they get deported.
The fact is that in about 230 years of this country's history, 9/11 is the *only* terrorist act performed by outsiders. 200 years of presidents didn't need to shred the Constitution to keep the country safe. George the 2nd just wants to crown himself.
What the fuck are you talking about? Are you just a typical fucked up slashdot ignoramus, or do you actually work at it?
If code is running, it's running. The end. What the hell does it matter what the architecture is?
If you all you meant is that 90%+ of computers on the 'net are Intel compatibles, why not just say so? It's not as if 34875384 other comments haven't already pointed that out indirectly.
"(Thanks to our suburb-hating, anti-business Canadian governor Michigan has the worst unemployment rates in the country. Everybody is doing better except for us.)"
Right. MI unemployment rates have nothing to do with the fact that a huge percentage of jobs in MI are industrial or manufacturing and that all the manufacturers (auto in particular) are suffering economically? Sorry, I can't see how Granholme has anything to do with Ford's (I work at Ford, so I know from what I speak) management being completely out of touch with their prospective markets.
98%+ of politicians are self-serving assholes, but that doesn't make them responsible for every woe to occur in their jurisdictions.
And I believe it's the moral imperative to assassinate the board members of any corporation that puts profits ahead of everything else. Anything less is asking for corporate-controlled slavery.
You are an idiot. Of course, most anti-religious bigots on slashdot are idiots.
The idea that the known universe operates as a deterministic machine, is NOT contradictory to religious belief. Who do you think Judeo-Christrians believe made the machine?
"This policy is odious and in every way shameful. I will not be returning to World of Warcraft, and I'm not even gay myself."
Good for Blizzard. They have enough idiots and terminally stupid people to deal with as it is. They don't need you too.
Blizzard has a simple policy. Don't. Make. Waves.
They are not a newspaper editorial page. They are not a blog. They are not slashdot. They are not a debate society. They are not Fox News.
They are developers and producers of an online game.
It is idiots like you that feel persecuted and targetted when no such thing is taking place that make this world suck.
""Visual" anything is a BAD way to go because it generates a bunch of code for you, and half the time you don't even know what the hell it does. Is it secure code? You don't know - you didn't write it. Such code could make apps prone to things like buffer overflows. Is that what you want for your users? If your argument is for code reusability or how quick you can build an app, it's easy enough to reuse code that you previously wrote."
Of all the posts I've ever read, anywhere, this has to be the most ignorant of them all. You are truly the most fucked-up person to ever touch a computer.
Fact: Unless you write every single bit yourself (no assembler, no compiler, no external libraries), you have no idea if the code is secure. You are, to say it again, totally fucked-up to think that a RAD environment is automatically worse than using glibc in terms of security or bugginess.
As my chemistry and biology teacher (same man) in high school pointed out, the first passages of the Bible (the real Bible, not the New Testament Babble) directly support the Big Bang theory.
The gist of the passages is that there was a void and emptiness (to'hu v'vohu), and from this sprang forth light. Jewish scholars have long believed that this light is not the same light which emanates from the sun. The most reasonable explanation is that this "light" refers to energy. In other words, the universe sprang from a void and released energy. From all this came the observable universe. Sounds like a really simplistic description of the Big Bang theory, tailored to an audience that would not have understood the word science when translated to any language of the day.
In a similar vein, it is also understood that a "day" in God's perspective is not a 24 hour day as defined by humans. In biblical terms, such a use of the term "day" simply refers to some discreet period of time. There is no implied consistancy with the length of time from one context to another. When the term is used to refer to human activities, a day refers to a 24-hour unit of time.
It has been generally accepted for hundreds, if not thousands, of years by Jewish scholars that biblical descriptions of the material world are not to be taken literally when a literal interpretation contradicts observable phenomena. The details of creation as currently understood can be fit into the Genesis story fairly well, so long as one understands that the literal-sounding terms used were chosen for an audience that did not have the knowledge to accept what we consider modern understanding and science.
One should also understand that the debate between religion and science often is really referring to Christianity and science. The Jewish religion is far more than a body of unprovable beliefs. It is a philosophy. One of the greatest Talmudic sages summed up the Jewish religion as: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Another summed it as: treat each person as a friend. It is a body of law governing every aspect of human activity. Jewish law has evolved over the millenia, and it continues to do so to this day.
Christianity departed from Judiasm by rejecting every part of it besides the core belief in a creator and redeemer. (Both of these are considered core beliefs of Judiasm.) By rejecting the law and the rules governing the determination of law, it also rejected the ability to adapt and reinterpret to fit new knowledge and circumstances.
There is a core part of any theistic religion that is based purely on faith. Only those opposed to rational thought try to apply an irrational belief system on every aspect of reality. Don't let people like this color your view of religion. Humans are not wholly rational, and I feel that it's perfectly fine to have irrational beliefs in areas that rational thought cannot explain. I.E. There's nothing wrong in believing in God until the existance of God is disproven.
You are rather confused. Random mutations and their survival in terms of off-spring is the definition of the evolutionary process. However, there is zero evidence to show that the same process yielded a human and a chimp from some common ancestor. It is *theoretically* possible, but it is neither proveable nor unproveable. I have yet to read how one could falsify evolution.
Your analogy of the line of people is flawed. There is a *gasp* scientific definition of a species. I don't know it off-hand, but I know it exists. And I know that calling the weed out in my lawn a new species doesn't make it one.
"Given that the variations in genes between any two organisms are the factor that accounts for radically different development, such as the case with the banana and the giraffe, we have all the data we need to show that Darwinian evolution is totally realistic, plausible, feasible, however you want to put it."
You are a moron. What do the genetic differences between a giraffe and banana have to do with evolution? Please explain how the banana and the giraffe, together, explain, demonstrate or somehow prove the viability of evolution.
An idiot would argue that evolution happens. An idiot would believe that evolution must explain the origin of distinct species.
If you believe in evolution, wouldn't that make you the monkey's nephew?
How would you falsify evolution? It's a made-up explanation for a bunch of observations. Are you going to force some species to evolve to survive and see if it does? Noone understands the random factors that go into micro-evolution, much less macro. I posit there is no possible way to prove evolution as the method by which modern species came to be as they are. It is also impossible to disprove, hence it cannot be science. According to the rabid slash-holes who are more fundementalist (or is that just mental?) than any religious personage could hope to be.