I happen to prefer Apple's software (particularly iPhoto and iMovie) for the things I like to do. Are there Windows options for these tasks? Sure. Do they suck? Mostly.
I, unfortunately, use Windows at work, but for my own stuff, the choice is clear.
Is Symantec going to be a good neighbor and give me a copy of their software? No? Then they can get bent, along with all the other users out there who are counting on my diligence to keep their machines from catching on fire.
Here's my bottom line: OSS is secure enough, but, for me, it's not functional enough. MacOS X is functional enough, and secure enough. Windows is neither.
For different people, there will be different constellations of requirements, but for me, OS X is the best tool for my jobs.
And I've got very little patience for Symantec trying to drum up business with their fear-mongering. I'm not saying there will never be an OS X exploit in the wild...that would be silly. I am saying that I don't trust Symantec to evaluate that threat for me.
Take the concept of OS X exploits seriously? Sure! They need to be watched for. Take Symantec seriously? Not likely.
You're telling me that Symantec is saying that there are MacOS malware exploits? Doesn't Symantec make a program that they sell to protect you from MacOS malware exploits? I wonder if that gives them a vested interest in blowing the "threat" out of proportion?
You know, like Virex anti virus for OS X. I'm still a little curious about what viruses it protects against.
A 5.56mm rifle cartridge will go through most bullet proof vests. A 7.62mm cartridge will go through all of them.
I think that if policemen don't want to get shot, they should find a less dangerous line of work, and stop worrying about people toting around 57 inch rifles. That cost $8000.
Yeah, because it's totally impossible that anybody will ever be able to get that DNA corpus. Or change the law. The government will protect you...really!
Ah, the old "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!" argument. That might make sense, if law enforcement were above reproach.
Guess what: They're not.
I would much rather have my murder remain unsolved than to live in a police state. You are attempting to elicit an emotional response in a philosophical argument, which is poor form.
Hold on. You're telling me somebody used a.50BMG weapon in a crime? What kind of crime? I'd love to read about that. Some jack-hole thinks he needs a six foot long rifle to hold up a convenience store. That's...magical.
Haven't there been a pretty substantial number of teenage suicides in Japan?
You certainly can't have it both ways. Children who don't feel like they have any way out act like any other animal in the same situation: Destructive.
Right. What does that have to do with what Heinlein was proposing?
Anybody who wanted to could be a full citizen. All they had to do was serve the society (not necessarily in the military) for a brief period. The people who chose to not get full citizenship were not stigmatized: They simply didn't get to vote.
Now, there are DOZENS of implementational hurdles that would need to be overcome to make that practical. However, as a statement of principle, I think it's remarkably sound. And not related//at all// to fascism.
I simply don't understand why they took the title, and the character names, from a book that (compared to movie audiences) few people have read, and then proceed to not tell that story.
Why not write their own story? Why associate it with the Heinlein book, if you're not going to tell Heinlein's story? This keeps happening in Hollywood, and I simply don't understand.
"radio stations would never need to pay license fees to music artists--by playing a song off a CD they own, they're not depriving anyone else of the ability to play the song"
Circular reasoning.
You might say that you have rights to your intellectual property. Other people disagree. Fortunately (for you), for now, the courts agree with you. Don't confuse that with a natural right.
I don't agree that depriving you of a potential sale is, in any way, theft. Would I be stealing from you if I told your potential customers that your software didn't work, and that they shouldn't buy it? Should I go to jail if I did that?
I called it "Spaceship Soldiers" in my mind to differentiate it. I almost maintained my doublethink enough to enjoy the movie...but then the movie sucked all by itself, and I wanted to send a tactical nuclear device to every person involved with the project.
Since that video game is designed explicitly to manipulate Ender's psyche, that shouldn't be too surprising.
Maybe it was too subtle for you. Me? I don't think subtlety is the only virtue of good authors. Making engaging characters do interesting things is of more interest to me.
Slashdot Mirror
I happen to prefer Apple's software (particularly iPhoto and iMovie) for the things I like to do. Are there Windows options for these tasks? Sure. Do they suck? Mostly.
I, unfortunately, use Windows at work, but for my own stuff, the choice is clear.
Is Symantec going to be a good neighbor and give me a copy of their software? No? Then they can get bent, along with all the other users out there who are counting on my diligence to keep their machines from catching on fire.
Not my problem.
Here's my bottom line: OSS is secure enough, but, for me, it's not functional enough. MacOS X is functional enough, and secure enough. Windows is neither.
For different people, there will be different constellations of requirements, but for me, OS X is the best tool for my jobs.
And I've got very little patience for Symantec trying to drum up business with their fear-mongering. I'm not saying there will never be an OS X exploit in the wild...that would be silly. I am saying that I don't trust Symantec to evaluate that threat for me.
Take the concept of OS X exploits seriously? Sure! They need to be watched for. Take Symantec seriously? Not likely.
No, I DON'T think that its "stylishness" has anything whatsoever to do with its susceptibility to malware.
Once there are some actual exploits in the wild that we can examine and dissect, my conclusion will remain.
Oh, wait, what's this? There aren't any? Ah. OK then.
You're telling me that Symantec is saying that there are MacOS malware exploits? Doesn't Symantec make a program that they sell to protect you from MacOS malware exploits? I wonder if that gives them a vested interest in blowing the "threat" out of proportion?
You know, like Virex anti virus for OS X. I'm still a little curious about what viruses it protects against.
Type III has the ceramic trauma plates, right? I'd be pretty surprised if that was normal duty garb for most officers.
.50 BMG is silly, and should be construed as a power grab.
Details aside, I totally agree with your conclusion: Banning
A 5.56mm rifle cartridge will go through most bullet proof vests. A 7.62mm cartridge will go through all of them.
I think that if policemen don't want to get shot, they should find a less dangerous line of work, and stop worrying about people toting around 57 inch rifles. That cost $8000.
OK, that sort of reinforces what I'd guessed: To a good approximation, zero criminals use legally-purchased .50 BMG rifles to commit crimes.
And, as usual, misinformation and scare-mongering at work to incrimentally remove the 2nd Amendment.
I really hate that the only political discussion in America is which set of rights we need to give up to Be Safe. It's really distressing.
Yeah, because it's totally impossible that anybody will ever be able to get that DNA corpus. Or change the law. The government will protect you...really!
Ah, the old "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!" argument. That might make sense, if law enforcement were above reproach.
Guess what: They're not.
I would much rather have my murder remain unsolved than to live in a police state. You are attempting to elicit an emotional response in a philosophical argument, which is poor form.
Hold on. You're telling me somebody used a .50BMG weapon in a crime? What kind of crime? I'd love to read about that. Some jack-hole thinks he needs a six foot long rifle to hold up a convenience store. That's...magical.
Ah, so we should just keep slipping down the slope?
I would say that, if you are exonerated, all records of your arrest should be destroyed.
Uh, okay.
Here's another hint: Not every job or business is like yours, and requires parallel or serial ports.
It's not worth it, to you, for your set of needs. What does that have to do with the other 6 billion people on Earth?
Haven't there been a pretty substantial number of teenage suicides in Japan?
You certainly can't have it both ways. Children who don't feel like they have any way out act like any other animal in the same situation: Destructive.
Right. What does that have to do with what Heinlein was proposing?
//at all// to fascism.
Anybody who wanted to could be a full citizen. All they had to do was serve the society (not necessarily in the military) for a brief period. The people who chose to not get full citizenship were not stigmatized: They simply didn't get to vote.
Now, there are DOZENS of implementational hurdles that would need to be overcome to make that practical. However, as a statement of principle, I think it's remarkably sound. And not related
I think you're tarring with a pretty broad brush there, amigo.
Go read some Sheri S. Tepper, and then talk to me about how little stock goes into character development.
90% of everything is crap. I seem to remember some sci-fi author wrote that...
Yeah, and along with the TOTAL PERVERSION OF HEINLEIN'S POINT, what else was different?
They got the philosophy totally wrong. They lampooned Heinlein's idea as being neo-Nazi fascism, and I found it pretty annoying.
Heinlein's argument was that people should serve in order to rule. I don't think that's fascism.
I simply don't understand why they took the title, and the character names, from a book that (compared to movie audiences) few people have read, and then proceed to not tell that story.
Why not write their own story? Why associate it with the Heinlein book, if you're not going to tell Heinlein's story? This keeps happening in Hollywood, and I simply don't understand.
"radio stations would never need to pay license fees to music artists--by playing a song off a CD they own, they're not depriving anyone else of the ability to play the song"
Circular reasoning.
You might say that you have rights to your intellectual property. Other people disagree. Fortunately (for you), for now, the courts agree with you. Don't confuse that with a natural right.
I don't agree that depriving you of a potential sale is, in any way, theft. Would I be stealing from you if I told your potential customers that your software didn't work, and that they shouldn't buy it? Should I go to jail if I did that?
I called it "Spaceship Soldiers" in my mind to differentiate it. I almost maintained my doublethink enough to enjoy the movie...but then the movie sucked all by itself, and I wanted to send a tactical nuclear device to every person involved with the project.
How does this differ from every other artistic medium? Why do you single out sci-fi?
Since that video game is designed explicitly to manipulate Ender's psyche, that shouldn't be too surprising.
Maybe it was too subtle for you. Me? I don't think subtlety is the only virtue of good authors. Making engaging characters do interesting things is of more interest to me.
Where you deceive that person. Any other questions?