"The part that still bothers me, now that capacity is no longer a substantial issue, is that in Windows or *nix I can instantly change file types from the interface, but not with Mac. It comes up a lot--many times a day."
In the current shipping version of MacOS (read X) you can "Show Info" on a file (same thing as in "Get Info in OS 9) and there is a pull down menu that gives the option application. Its very easily noticed. There you can reset not only the meta data for that file, but also, the default for all files of that type. You no longer need to use file typer. Anyhow in OS 9 this was a non-issue. If you wanted to open something with a different application, all you had to do was drag the file onto the icon for the app you want to launch it. You could even do multiples.
"I hate downloading things on a Mac because of this. Some idjit will have a file set to open in an application I don't have"
This is deceitful. If you download a normal everyday file off the internet, odds are not going to get the meta information of that file, even if it was orginally on the Mac. Almost every single application for downloading on the Mac uses the System level settings for mapping extensions to type/creator, which will ALWAYS be an app you have. The only times you will get meta info with the file is when you 1. download a stuffit archive and 2. use hotline. I personally can't remember the last time I downloaded a file as a stuff it archive, unless it was an installer, which in that case it was irrelevent since it was self contained. Now if you are heavily using Hotline for exchanging files, then odds are you are a pirate and deserve what you get.
He's spents a lot of energy attacking Apple's reccomendation that file name extensions should be added to files in addition to individually storing the creator/type in some OS X style fasion. He makes what appears to be a good arguement...For those who didn't read, Ill breifly outline.
1. funny.txt.vbs emails where.vbs is hidden (as OS X.1 will offer) can trick the user into opening an application
2. Hidden extensions allow Finder.app and Finder.whatever to appear as "Finder" in the same Folder....
He then goes on to say why Apple would reccomend developers use extensions (which is redundant)...A networked world demands MacOS be a better "citizen". He claims extensions are unneccisary since email apps can append extensions to files when sent...Not to mention his speculation that Apple would drop it's current model from a Windows model...
Problem with his analysis. E-mail isn't the only way to share files in OS X. Currently OS X offers FTP, HTTP, Appletalk, NFS, SSH and X.1 will add CIFS. Appletalk handles Meta information transparently, going from Mac to Mac, no need for extensions. FTP, HTTP, SSH and NFS (NFS will almost always go to a flat filesystem) offer no way to store/send OS X style meta information. Yes OS X treats a NFS drive (and CIFS drives if you use Sharity) as a UFS drive and stores Meta data properly so that the Mac can use the file, but the remote computer has NO idea what kinda of file that is, unless it has an extension. So a Mac user who casually copies a extension-less Word document to a PC zip disk, when they put that disk in a PC, it's useless (unless the user knows of the problem). So it is clear file extensions are needed for a networked enviroment....
But Mac users don't like extensions so Apple will let us hide them.... which creates the problems he described (funny.txt.vbs and duplication file names in the same folder). The first is really a non problem since the Mail application in OS X doesn't hide file extensions even if it's named funny.txt.app and double clicking the in Mail does NOT launch the file. This potential problem can be further alleviated but noting what kind of file it is below it in Mail. The second issue of duplicate file names can be solved easily too...don't allow it. In other words DumbName.jpg and DumbName.txt should not be allowed in the same folder. Then hide all the file extensions and the users would be none the wiser.
Gee, I don't know. I think using their monolopy position to tie the very existence of a plugin to IE and only IE just might violate the Sherman Act. As IE is shipped on more and more computers, and people just use what came with the OS (read IE), 3-D party venders will, naturally, migrate their plugins to ActiveX. From that point on, for a browser to be viable, all other browsers will have to support ActiveX. There are two problems with this 1. ActiveX isn't very secure and 2. You will need Microsofts permission.
"what is the use of supporting the api of a dead browser?"
1. Netscape 4.x did not magically stop working the day AOL bought Netscape.
2. WinME STILL runs Win3.1 apps.
3. It required time, money and effort on MS's part to actively REMOVE Netscape style plugin support. Why REMOVE a used feature when leaving the code doesn't actually hurt anything and supports your current user base?
When you go to the console shop and buy a game for your favorite console, if you owned a Dreamcast, would you bitch when that Playstation2 game doesn't play on it? No you wouldn't.
When you go to a computer shop and buy a piece of software, if you own a PC would you bitch if Photoshop for the Mac doesn't run on a Dell? No you wouldn't.
Under this scheme, when you go to a PC shop and buy software, you would buy software for a HP computer, just as you do today for Mac, Windows and Linux. No confusion.
1. Force a uniform pricing the MS charges OEM's. They price need not be mandated, but no matter who the OEM, MS should charge the same price as it does to other OEMs.
2. The source code to Windows is licensed, not the binaries.
3. The OEM's should be allowed to take that source and do anything it wants with it. Don't want IE? Remove it. Don't think Hailstorm is the future direction of your company? Remove it. Want to integrate Quicktime or Real into the OS? GO right ahead.
Given the opportunity OEMs would LOVE to be able to ship branded computers. FInally a HP computer will be different from a Compaq computer. This will also allow OEM's to get developers, not MS and eventually move away from Windows to their own API set.
Will a fractured market confuse consumers? No. Look at the Unix market. Each Unix has proprietary features, but it also remains possible for developers to write cross compatible source. I suspect the same would happen to the WinTel PC market. Another way to look at it...Is anyone confused by the game console market? Of course not!
I was hoping a company with some vision and balls would buy Be. You know a company that has no problem entering markets that it has a zero marketshare in. A company like Sony. It's really really depressing to walk into a computer store and see only two types of branded computers. Windows and Mac. I was vaguely hopeing Sony was going to buy Be and turn it into a Windows killer. I beleive they are the only company, other than Apple, that have the ability to get consumers to buy a computer that doesn't have Windows on it for home use.
Right now the market is in horrible shape. PC OEMS are nothing more than Windows distributors and Apple has a near monolopy on not being Microsoft. It would be nice to get some fresh blood in the industry.
"Why hasn't someone started a Non-profit record label. Could that work ? Or what about a "minimum profit" record label ? "
Check out Dischord Records and more specifically Fugazi (Ian owns Dischord). All tapes and records $6 all CD's $9, postage paid. In many cities Fugazi can fill 5-10K shows and only charge $7 even with your ticket master surcharge (Fugazi is the main revenue stream for Dischord and they reinvest the money to the label so others can have their music heard).
"What hardware? Damned near anything. I have more problems selecting hardware for Windows boxes, as Windows boxes are pretty much only good for gaming, and still, most Windows games come with strings attached in terms of hardware.;P"
Interesting. Damned near anything, eh? I guess you never actually tried to get a graphics card to work with Linux (Other than matrox, which from what i hear actually has good support).
"Software? It's on CD. I pop it in, select workstation, and poof. Jumpin jeebus on a pogo stick. "
Yeah and once on the Harddrive it's but in oh so obvious places all over. Not only that, very little of the useful software has any links anywhere for easy finding, you have to do a find to see where it was put.
"Open GL? Why the hell would I need Open GL?"
For 3-D modelling apps that are being migrated from SGI to Linux as people leave the burning ship. Not to mention video games.
"Why did it take you 15 minutes to find the PPP dialer? What kind of shitty distribution are you using?"
Mandrake 8.0
"Network where hard drives are shared? Oh, please, what newbies do *THIS*?! They ain't newbies if they can, on any operating system."
Try OS X which has a little button to click that "Starts file sharing" in the prefrences, under the aptly named "Sharing" button.
"Put things in the menu? RTFM, though it's usually been my experience that you need to sacrifice three goats and carry out the ancient ritual of "Dragon Drop" or some such. I dunno what it is, but it sounds messy, like a dragon crushing a small medieval village while crapping and flying by simultaneously. You think bird crap on a car is nasty.."
Just because your OS can't drag and drop doesn't mean others can't either. This has nothing to do with putting things in the menu anyhow.
"Bah. I'm actually disgusted with modern Linux distributions. RedHat 7.1 makes it so even someone's pet rock can have a working install up and running in minutes."
With a default install that is about as secure as leaving your car running at a gas station unattended in New York at 4am. Don't forget to being to shutdown those network servies that "newbies" won't be about to use anyway which are on by default.
"For the love of god, I didn't have to go digging through any configuration files!"
Yeah and you didn't try to do complicated tasks like hooking up a second harddrive after the install or turning off network services.
The complaint that Linux is hard to use is not one necissaryly of GUI per se, it's set up. Basic quality assurance questions are hard to answer:
What hardware are you going to use? What software are you going to use? Where is that software located? How do you install that software? Where is the software located on the Hardrive after you instal it? How do you get OpenGL to install? Why did it take me 15 minutes to find the PPP dialer? How do you set up a network where hard drives are shared? How do you put things into the menu?
If a sys-admin takes the time to form a planned approach for Linux installs, makes a custom CD for installing the "supported apps", then Linux can be usable. Problem is the Linux approach of shipping not only with the kitchen sink but 10 different kitchen sinks to choose from, all of which are disassembled and in their boxes is not one for newbies.
"It interesting to think that it took 20 years to get this far. How far will we be with computing in the next 20? Staggers the imagination."
Let's take a look...
1. Operating systems will ship with virii to save us the trouble of getting ourselves.
2. You will need 20 Ghz just to create a text document, and people will think nothing is abnormal about this.
3. You will need at least a gigabit ethernet line just to get a receipe from the internet. People will think nothing is abnormal about this.
4. You'll need to sign your soul to your OS vender just to swap your graphics card.
5. You'll pay a tax that goes directly to Music/Movie companies to pay for the pirating. The pirating will still be illegal. (yes I know this is true now, to an extent)
6. Despite the faster lines world wide, downloading a text document will still take a few seconds.
7. Your OS vender will disable your OS when you don't make your monthly payment. After 2 months your account will be canceled and your files deleted.
I find it interesting that the "innovations" you list have NOTHING to do with game play. I like modern games, when they contribute to innovative game play. I also still play Tetris, sometimes even choosing to play it over The Sims, which btw is very innovative. Quite frankly, as pretty as Q3 is, compared to Q2, it's not innovative in any way gameplay wise.
"Its a good business decsion from a strictly money making view point."
Let's assume for the sake of arguement that Rambus does get royalties from DDR, one could easily assume that the entire memory industry would get togethor, kick Rambus out of their commities, and form a new royalty free standard and refuse to allow Rambus to make it.
It's still a "short term" move. After DDR RAM is no longer viable (and I'm willing to bet that won't be long), Rambus is screwed. It's not good business sense to piss off an entire industry that has no reason to listen to you anymore.
"The thought of somebody mucking around in my corpse isn't exactly pleasant, but then again, I'm going to be dead so what do I care? And if I end up having cells that prevents thousands to millions of deaths, hey, even better."
The problem is two fold with this reasoning.
1. There is a lack of consent on the part of the fetus. This will never be possible to get.
2. The fetus was actively destroy by the scientist in his noble goal of ending disease. This reminds me of the Nazi scientist who experimented on people who "were going to die anyways" or "were already killed". We rightfully rejected their science and we should reject the science of any researcher who uses cells from an actively destroyed fetus.
"My view of religious extremism is merely rabid evangelism and unwillingness to even consider another point of view because it goes against religion."
This is such a narrow scope and view of religion. Many who refer to religious extremist use the same exact style of reasoning and have the same pigheadedness when it comes to their own beleifs. This is the nature of ethics and not a feature soley concern with religion. If you ever been to college in the early to mid 90's you may have heard of a man called "Brother Jed" who went around to various campuses and "preached". He is the classic fundamentalist christian. Unbending in his devotion to his beliefs, both in blindness to "the word" and in blindness to the limitations of his mental abilities to reason through an arguement. If I learned anything about watching people "argue" with him it's that the nature of that extremism is not a feature of religion, in and of itself, but a feature of humans and their devotion to show everyone else how stupid they are not to see the light.
The difference between having morals and being an extremeist is not one of point of view. An extremist would never believe you no matter how rational your arguement. Unfortunatly for those of us who look up to the likes of Gustavo Gutierrez, Dorathy Day and are well versed in our Wellhausen and Noth while maintaining a belief that all life is sacred (no matter how insignificant it looks), we are lumped into the same catergory as those yearn for the days of women getting illegal abortions and dieing. (I, unlike other Pro-Lifers, know for a fact that there need to be changes in society before abortion can be outlawed...including but not limited to child care access, an increase in the education of the poor, easier access to adoption to those who can take care of the unwanted, increases access to heath services)
"The religious extreme still see the embryo research they hate."
There is one problem with generalizations. When you peg a beleif on a group, it blinds you. There is such a thing as the "Religous left". You know that group that fights for workers rights, rights of the poor, gay rights, for the end of the death penality, for equal treatment of women and minorities, the end of poverty, fair pay for fair work, fair trade to help developing countries, and yes, as impossible as you may think it is, the rights of the unborn child.
I'm not a fanatic in the way that those crazy ass republicans are. I'm not out shooting abortion doctors. I am going to Amnesty International protests, identifying with the protesters who had the SHIT beat out of them in Italy for PEACEFULLY (read the news paper people, it's the talk of Europe) protesting the treatment that rich countries give poor countries. But I know one thing, taking a dead person and experimenting on them without their consent is unethical, and that includes a fetus.
He didn't crack any encryption, he merely showed a real world implementation of someone elses work using cheap hardware ($100 linksys wireless card based off the Intersil Prismn II chipset). They used this card because much the card is done in software and it had a Linux driver that could grab raw WEP encrypted packets.
"Flaws at every level, including protocol design, implementation, and deplyment, can render a system completely vulnerable. Once a flawed system is popular enough to become a target, it is usually a short time before the system is defeated in the field."
This is exactly while all security measures should be wide open to public observation before implementation. It is NOT safe to assume that if the spec is not released publicly, in its entirity, that someone can not reverse engineer it later and break it wide open. To rely on laws that make it illegal to discover these holes is fruitless because those who are interested in knowing how such things work could care less about what is illegal and what is not illegal.
"Just for the information, what are all those nicer and cheaper ways to create pdf documents?"
Just go to Adobe's web site and downloaded their print to PDF software. They used to have a MacOS version (which is what I use), but it seems to be gone. They do seem to still have a Windows version (PDF writer, irrc)
Wake up people, some things are worth repeating. Neat technology that doesn't get attention that it deserves is sometimes worth a second article. Instead of pointing out the obvious, try talking about the technology itself.
Re:Be made a lot of good choices and still they're
on
Be Buyout Looms Closer
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Sure, BeOS is great, but the VPs just made a huge numbers of mistakes:
1) The BeBox: a completly new architecture. Neat for sure, but look at Apple...
Apple: Proudly going out of business for over 25 years.
2) They were planning to be "the Apple of multimedia production". Neat but maybe you should support more than 1 sound card (SB AWE32), humm?
3) For 6 month, BeOS didn't have an architecture to run on, while switching from the Apple architecture to the PC...
Did their PPC version magically stop working?
4) They just didn't listen to developers...
Neither does Microsoft
5) It was a single-user system...
With Mutli-user job services and plans to move to a log in screen....
6) Open Source would have been a good idea, two years ago, when they begun to run into serious troubles.
I don't see what OS could have done for them, since they had a robust, fast, OS that they could not even GIVE away. All OS would do is guarantee that MUST give it away.
They didn't fail because of Microsoft, stupid users, the dot-com bubble burst or anything. They failed because they made stupid strategic decisions.
This reasoning I fail to see. This has been addressed time and time again. It was adressed in MS's trial and agreed to by Judge Jackson and the Appealate court. The Network Effect. Not only that, but MS uses value customer licensing to keep vendors from doing things it doesn't like. The more you suck up to MS, the less you pay for Windows, this includes not shipping an alternate OS. This was all covered in the trial.
So you tell me, who was Be going to sell their desktop OS to?
I really don't know what these people are talking about. AOL has become very profitable by getting people to pay for "content" along with being an ISP. The model exists. Not only does it work, but it does require the sectioning off of the internet.
Since this is the case, It would be a stretch to say these "Companies" don't realize this. Which makes me thing there must be some other motive behind sectioning off the internet....
Slashdot Mirror
In the current shipping version of MacOS (read X) you can "Show Info" on a file (same thing as in "Get Info in OS 9) and there is a pull down menu that gives the option application. Its very easily noticed. There you can reset not only the meta data for that file, but also, the default for all files of that type. You no longer need to use file typer. Anyhow in OS 9 this was a non-issue. If you wanted to open something with a different application, all you had to do was drag the file onto the icon for the app you want to launch it. You could even do multiples.
"I hate downloading things on a Mac because of this. Some idjit will have a file set to open in an application I don't have"
This is deceitful. If you download a normal everyday file off the internet, odds are not going to get the meta information of that file, even if it was orginally on the Mac. Almost every single application for downloading on the Mac uses the System level settings for mapping extensions to type/creator, which will ALWAYS be an app you have. The only times you will get meta info with the file is when you 1. download a stuffit archive and 2. use hotline. I personally can't remember the last time I downloaded a file as a stuff it archive, unless it was an installer, which in that case it was irrelevent since it was self contained. Now if you are heavily using Hotline for exchanging files, then odds are you are a pirate and deserve what you get.
1. funny.txt.vbs emails where
2. Hidden extensions allow Finder.app and Finder.whatever to appear as "Finder" in the same Folder....
He then goes on to say why Apple would reccomend developers use extensions (which is redundant)...A networked world demands MacOS be a better "citizen". He claims extensions are unneccisary since email apps can append extensions to files when sent...Not to mention his speculation that Apple would drop it's current model from a Windows model...
Problem with his analysis. E-mail isn't the only way to share files in OS X. Currently OS X offers FTP, HTTP, Appletalk, NFS, SSH and X.1 will add CIFS. Appletalk handles Meta information transparently, going from Mac to Mac, no need for extensions. FTP, HTTP, SSH and NFS (NFS will almost always go to a flat filesystem) offer no way to store/send OS X style meta information. Yes OS X treats a NFS drive (and CIFS drives if you use Sharity) as a UFS drive and stores Meta data properly so that the Mac can use the file, but the remote computer has NO idea what kinda of file that is, unless it has an extension. So a Mac user who casually copies a extension-less Word document to a PC zip disk, when they put that disk in a PC, it's useless (unless the user knows of the problem). So it is clear file extensions are needed for a networked enviroment....
But Mac users don't like extensions so Apple will let us hide them.... which creates the problems he described (funny.txt.vbs and duplication file names in the same folder). The first is really a non problem since the Mail application in OS X doesn't hide file extensions even if it's named funny.txt.app and double clicking the in Mail does NOT launch the file. This potential problem can be further alleviated but noting what kind of file it is below it in Mail. The second issue of duplicate file names can be solved easily too...don't allow it. In other words DumbName.jpg and DumbName.txt should not be allowed in the same folder. Then hide all the file extensions and the users would be none the wiser.
Maybe YOUR EB does that, but not all...
"what is the use of supporting the api of a dead browser?"
1. Netscape 4.x did not magically stop working the day AOL bought Netscape.
2. WinME STILL runs Win3.1 apps.
3. It required time, money and effort on MS's part to actively REMOVE Netscape style plugin support. Why REMOVE a used feature when leaving the code doesn't actually hurt anything and supports your current user base?
When you go to a computer shop and buy a piece of software, if you own a PC would you bitch if Photoshop for the Mac doesn't run on a Dell? No you wouldn't.
Under this scheme, when you go to a PC shop and buy software, you would buy software for a HP computer, just as you do today for Mac, Windows and Linux. No confusion.
1. Force a uniform pricing the MS charges OEM's. They price need not be mandated, but no matter who the OEM, MS should charge the same price as it does to other OEMs.
2. The source code to Windows is licensed, not the binaries.
3. The OEM's should be allowed to take that source and do anything it wants with it. Don't want IE? Remove it. Don't think Hailstorm is the future direction of your company? Remove it. Want to integrate Quicktime or Real into the OS? GO right ahead.
Given the opportunity OEMs would LOVE to be able to ship branded computers. FInally a HP computer will be different from a Compaq computer. This will also allow OEM's to get developers, not MS and eventually move away from Windows to their own API set.
Will a fractured market confuse consumers? No. Look at the Unix market. Each Unix has proprietary features, but it also remains possible for developers to write cross compatible source. I suspect the same would happen to the WinTel PC market. Another way to look at it...Is anyone confused by the game console market? Of course not!
Right now the market is in horrible shape. PC OEMS are nothing more than Windows distributors and Apple has a near monolopy on not being Microsoft. It would be nice to get some fresh blood in the industry.
"Why hasn't someone started a Non-profit record label. Could that work ? Or what about a "minimum profit" record label ? " Check out Dischord Records and more specifically Fugazi (Ian owns Dischord). All tapes and records $6 all CD's $9, postage paid. In many cities Fugazi can fill 5-10K shows and only charge $7 even with your ticket master surcharge (Fugazi is the main revenue stream for Dischord and they reinvest the money to the label so others can have their music heard).
Interesting. Damned near anything, eh? I guess you never actually tried to get a graphics card to work with Linux (Other than matrox, which from what i hear actually has good support).
"Software? It's on CD. I pop it in, select workstation, and poof. Jumpin jeebus on a pogo stick. "
Yeah and once on the Harddrive it's but in oh so obvious places all over. Not only that, very little of the useful software has any links anywhere for easy finding, you have to do a find to see where it was put.
"Open GL? Why the hell would I need Open GL?"
For 3-D modelling apps that are being migrated from SGI to Linux as people leave the burning ship. Not to mention video games.
"Why did it take you 15 minutes to find the PPP dialer? What kind of shitty distribution are you using?"
Mandrake 8.0
"Network where hard drives are shared? Oh, please, what newbies do *THIS*?! They ain't newbies if they can, on any operating system."
Try OS X which has a little button to click that "Starts file sharing" in the prefrences, under the aptly named "Sharing" button.
"Put things in the menu? RTFM, though it's usually been my experience that you need to sacrifice three goats and carry out the ancient ritual of "Dragon Drop" or some such. I dunno what it is, but it sounds messy, like a dragon crushing a small medieval village while crapping and flying by simultaneously. You think bird crap on a car is nasty.."
Just because your OS can't drag and drop doesn't mean others can't either. This has nothing to do with putting things in the menu anyhow.
"Bah. I'm actually disgusted with modern Linux distributions. RedHat 7.1 makes it so even someone's pet rock can have a working install up and running in minutes."
With a default install that is about as secure as leaving your car running at a gas station unattended in New York at 4am. Don't forget to being to shutdown those network servies that "newbies" won't be about to use anyway which are on by default.
"For the love of god, I didn't have to go digging through any configuration files!"
Yeah and you didn't try to do complicated tasks like hooking up a second harddrive after the install or turning off network services.
The complaint that Linux is hard to use is not one necissaryly of GUI per se, it's set up. Basic quality assurance questions are hard to answer: What hardware are you going to use? What software are you going to use? Where is that software located? How do you install that software? Where is the software located on the Hardrive after you instal it? How do you get OpenGL to install? Why did it take me 15 minutes to find the PPP dialer? How do you set up a network where hard drives are shared? How do you put things into the menu?
If a sys-admin takes the time to form a planned approach for Linux installs, makes a custom CD for installing the "supported apps", then Linux can be usable. Problem is the Linux approach of shipping not only with the kitchen sink but 10 different kitchen sinks to choose from, all of which are disassembled and in their boxes is not one for newbies.
They effectively do when they pass a verdict of not guilty, despite the evidence. Juries can do that, you know?
Let's take a look...
1. Operating systems will ship with virii to save us the trouble of getting ourselves.
2. You will need 20 Ghz just to create a text document, and people will think nothing is abnormal about this.
3. You will need at least a gigabit ethernet line just to get a receipe from the internet. People will think nothing is abnormal about this.
4. You'll need to sign your soul to your OS vender just to swap your graphics card.
5. You'll pay a tax that goes directly to Music/Movie companies to pay for the pirating. The pirating will still be illegal. (yes I know this is true now, to an extent)
6. Despite the faster lines world wide, downloading a text document will still take a few seconds.
7. Your OS vender will disable your OS when you don't make your monthly payment. After 2 months your account will be canceled and your files deleted.
I find it interesting that the "innovations" you list have NOTHING to do with game play. I like modern games, when they contribute to innovative game play. I also still play Tetris, sometimes even choosing to play it over The Sims, which btw is very innovative. Quite frankly, as pretty as Q3 is, compared to Q2, it's not innovative in any way gameplay wise.
Let's assume for the sake of arguement that Rambus does get royalties from DDR, one could easily assume that the entire memory industry would get togethor, kick Rambus out of their commities, and form a new royalty free standard and refuse to allow Rambus to make it.
It's still a "short term" move. After DDR RAM is no longer viable (and I'm willing to bet that won't be long), Rambus is screwed. It's not good business sense to piss off an entire industry that has no reason to listen to you anymore.
The problem is two fold with this reasoning.
1. There is a lack of consent on the part of the fetus. This will never be possible to get.
2. The fetus was actively destroy by the scientist in his noble goal of ending disease. This reminds me of the Nazi scientist who experimented on people who "were going to die anyways" or "were already killed". We rightfully rejected their science and we should reject the science of any researcher who uses cells from an actively destroyed fetus.
"My view of religious extremism is merely rabid evangelism and unwillingness to even consider another point of view because it goes against religion."
This is such a narrow scope and view of religion. Many who refer to religious extremist use the same exact style of reasoning and have the same pigheadedness when it comes to their own beleifs. This is the nature of ethics and not a feature soley concern with religion. If you ever been to college in the early to mid 90's you may have heard of a man called "Brother Jed" who went around to various campuses and "preached". He is the classic fundamentalist christian. Unbending in his devotion to his beliefs, both in blindness to "the word" and in blindness to the limitations of his mental abilities to reason through an arguement. If I learned anything about watching people "argue" with him it's that the nature of that extremism is not a feature of religion, in and of itself, but a feature of humans and their devotion to show everyone else how stupid they are not to see the light.
The difference between having morals and being an extremeist is not one of point of view. An extremist would never believe you no matter how rational your arguement. Unfortunatly for those of us who look up to the likes of Gustavo Gutierrez, Dorathy Day and are well versed in our Wellhausen and Noth while maintaining a belief that all life is sacred (no matter how insignificant it looks), we are lumped into the same catergory as those yearn for the days of women getting illegal abortions and dieing. (I, unlike other Pro-Lifers, know for a fact that there need to be changes in society before abortion can be outlawed...including but not limited to child care access, an increase in the education of the poor, easier access to adoption to those who can take care of the unwanted, increases access to heath services)
Everything wasn't up for review outside of the committie. It should have been.
Yes.
There is one problem with generalizations. When you peg a beleif on a group, it blinds you. There is such a thing as the "Religous left". You know that group that fights for workers rights, rights of the poor, gay rights, for the end of the death penality, for equal treatment of women and minorities, the end of poverty, fair pay for fair work, fair trade to help developing countries, and yes, as impossible as you may think it is, the rights of the unborn child.
I'm not a fanatic in the way that those crazy ass republicans are. I'm not out shooting abortion doctors. I am going to Amnesty International protests, identifying with the protesters who had the SHIT beat out of them in Italy for PEACEFULLY (read the news paper people, it's the talk of Europe) protesting the treatment that rich countries give poor countries. But I know one thing, taking a dead person and experimenting on them without their consent is unethical, and that includes a fetus.
He didn't crack any encryption, he merely showed a real world implementation of someone elses work using cheap hardware ($100 linksys wireless card based off the Intersil Prismn II chipset). They used this card because much the card is done in software and it had a Linux driver that could grab raw WEP encrypted packets.
This is exactly while all security measures should be wide open to public observation before implementation. It is NOT safe to assume that if the spec is not released publicly, in its entirity, that someone can not reverse engineer it later and break it wide open. To rely on laws that make it illegal to discover these holes is fruitless because those who are interested in knowing how such things work could care less about what is illegal and what is not illegal.
Just go to Adobe's web site and downloaded their print to PDF software. They used to have a MacOS version (which is what I use), but it seems to be gone. They do seem to still have a Windows version (PDF writer, irrc)
Wake up people, some things are worth repeating. Neat technology that doesn't get attention that it deserves is sometimes worth a second article. Instead of pointing out the obvious, try talking about the technology itself.
1) The BeBox: a completly new architecture. Neat for sure, but look at Apple...
Apple: Proudly going out of business for over 25 years.
2) They were planning to be "the Apple of multimedia production". Neat but maybe you should support more than 1 sound card (SB AWE32), humm?
Sound cards supported by BeOS
3) For 6 month, BeOS didn't have an architecture to run on, while switching from the Apple architecture to the PC...
Did their PPC version magically stop working?
4) They just didn't listen to developers...
Neither does Microsoft
5) It was a single-user system...
With Mutli-user job services and plans to move to a log in screen....
6) Open Source would have been a good idea, two years ago, when they begun to run into serious troubles.
I don't see what OS could have done for them, since they had a robust, fast, OS that they could not even GIVE away. All OS would do is guarantee that MUST give it away.
They didn't fail because of Microsoft, stupid users, the dot-com bubble burst or anything. They failed because they made stupid strategic decisions.
This reasoning I fail to see. This has been addressed time and time again. It was adressed in MS's trial and agreed to by Judge Jackson and the Appealate court. The Network Effect. Not only that, but MS uses value customer licensing to keep vendors from doing things it doesn't like. The more you suck up to MS, the less you pay for Windows, this includes not shipping an alternate OS. This was all covered in the trial.
So you tell me, who was Be going to sell their desktop OS to?
Since this is the case, It would be a stretch to say these "Companies" don't realize this. Which makes me thing there must be some other motive behind sectioning off the internet....
Instead of "The Jeff Corwin Experience" we might see "Jeff Cowin's Experience"