Which is why XGrid is such a big win. Macs are *easy* to admin, and *easy* to keep running 24/7/365. The XGrid app can be installed remotely, even via ssh. So unless the job in question requires high speed network communications (and some do), if you have a campus full of macs, you also have an extra, all-night, supercomputer.
Although the police cannot be sued for failure to protect, their presence in the form of foot and vehicular patrols *is* a deterrent to crime.
Moreover, stating that one has no cause of action in civil court against the police confuses two different domans. If a private security firm fails to protect you, you sue them. If the police fail to protect the public, in a democracy, we replace the mayor with someone who ensures that the police *do* protect the public (presumably by replacing high ranking police officials, etc.). Giuliani was elected mayor of New York partly because of such a law and order platform.
Well this is merely hearsay "I have a friend..." Moreover, we know that this hearsay is false, because It could never, take 2 to 3 days to load Mac OS X (any version) and all of one's applications. That figure is simply preposterous.
Loading Mac OS X, and doing a fairly complicated customization (such as installing a couple of open source lisps, slime, and configuring emacs to work with them), in the worst possible case, takes 4 or 5 hours. Loading applications is much quicker - you just drag and drop them from your backups. Very few require that they be installed with the installer again. I just did a clean install on a G4 of Panther, and restored over 50 apps from backups, just to eliminate any unnecessary frameworks etc. that may have accumulated on the machine, before installing Panther. The whole process took about 4 hours, and most of that was writing the backups to an external firewire drive, and copying them back to the G4's internal IDE drive (I have a large CD collection, and a correspondingly large iTunes library).
The hearsay about "2 to 3 days" is simply false - period.
Why don't you just use one of your many machines as the wireless router? You must have one box beefy enough ande stable enought that wireless routing would be invisible in the background (i.e., not be a noticeable resource drain on that box).
You're conflating Apple updates, some of which need to be applied for security reasons, or bug fixes, and third party application vendor updates, which are almost always feature enhancements, or minor bug fixes, but just about never security related.
In fact, the only updates that *need* to be applied to a Mac OS X machine are the security updates, and these are issued, on average, every two weeks, to once a month. Many of these security updates do *not* require a machine restart.
You father is becoming a slave to his dubious "update alerter." There is no reason for a machine in a production environment to do this sort of silliness ("iBelch by Indigestion software has been updated to version 5.4.1 - your installed version is 5.4.0. New in this version: added support for controlling iBelch via a Bluetooth phone. Do you wish to upgrade? - restart required") Anyone without a Bluetooth phone and with a lick of sense doesn't apply this application update.
The X Mac OS X is a roman numeral ten. Mac OS X is pronounced "Mac OS Ten." If you have been calling Mac OS X "Mac OS Ex," stop, because that is *not* how it is pronounced.
Just for complete clarity, the X in X server, and X-free86, etc. is *not* a roman numeral, and *is* pronounced "Ex."
And these people will buy low priced, commodity, wintel boxes, on which the profit is next to zero.
The big profits are to be made in high end, near-workstation class machines, and high end laptops. In both of these markets, Apple's machines not only compete favorably, but surpass the competition in power, usability, and reliability.
Apple is in business to make money, not to compete in the low-to-no-profit arena of commodity boxes.
Programming is also unlike crafts. In fact, I think considering programmers craftsmen is unfair. A craftsman is an artisan, like a painter or a woodcarver. No two items he creates are the same. He doesn't go through a lengthy design period; he merely creates whatever thing of beauty he is working on.
Painters and sculptors don't simply start hacking away at it. Craftspeople do go through a lengthy period of design and planning. In painting and sculpture, these are called studies. Even a cursory glance at art history shows this fact.
Further, a single item he creates is expensive, because each item is unique and represents a huge investment in time. So I don't think this comparison holds up either.
This relates to the value of what the worker produces, not the process by which it is produced.
Programmers are like craftsmen who have very low reproduction costs. Each work is essentially unique, just as each of a painter's works are uniqure. But the programmer can reproduce his for next to nothing, while the painter needs more time and effort to reprodue his works. And, yes, painters routinely reproduced popular works. For example, Gilbert Stuart's portraits of George Washington were so popular that he essentially made a living by generating over 100 copies of his own works.
If you want an accurate model for computer programming, the closest model is that of the mathematician, because really, computer science is a branch of mathematics. It is the branch that deals with implementation and design of algorithms. In a sense, programmers model thought processes; things humans would have to do manually if the computer didn't exist.
Programming is not computer science. 99% of all programmers never devise a new sorting algorithm, never write a theorem prover, etc. Programmers apply the discoveries of computer scientists, but that doesn't make them computer scientists. Craftsmen apply the discoveries of scientists (new pigments, new metal alloys, etc.) but that doesn't make craftsmen scientists. Programmers are like craftsmen. They just have much lower reproduction costs.
We can't always "let the free market do its thing" when "its thing" causes a great deal of economic dislocation and suffering. Remember, that the free market's "thing" used to be taking boats to Africa, purchasing slaves, and selling them in "free markets" here in America. Regulation serves a useful function in preventing greed from causing unnecessary suffering. The "free market" is driven only by greed, and is not the divine cure-all that some would have you believe.
How do you think he got the record company CEOs to let him start the iTunes Music Store?
Re:hard problems ... human factors
on
Real Security?
·
· Score: 1
Meaning, the human factors are hard problems that require skills in dealing with people, rather than skills in cryptography, etc. This doesn't make them "unsolvable," but just hard problems that require a different skill set.
An engineer can't solve these problems, but possibly (actually, probably) someone who is better at observing and dealing with people than the typical engineer could devise solutions. Read Tog's article. He makes a good start. First principle - don't encourage users to bypass the security system by making it burdensome or excessively complex to use.
Your kids can do christian prayers in school just as soon as everyone also gets to do hindu ceremonies, moslem prayers (toward mecca, of course), jewish prayers, native american religious ceremonies, etc.
What's that? Only silent prayer? Funny how that only works for certain christian sects. Unless everyone has the same rights to practice what they consider essential to their religious observance, you can't let one group (christians who believe in silent prayer) have their "rights" but deny these same rights to others.
It's completely impractical to let every religious denomination practice its essential religious ceremonies in school, so we don't let anyone do it. Instead, we encourage all faiths to practice their religious observances in venues outside of schools - temples, churches, navajo hogans, synagogues, etc.
Moreover, this ignores the practical reality, which is that, in most schools, the majority would simply foist what it considers essential (silent prayer anyone? the Lord's Prayer?) on everyone, and completely ignore the fact that non-christians were either being forced to perform a religious observance they do not believe in, or being ostracized for not participating. If you thing this latter is insignificant, you have very little understanding of peer pressure, and impressionability among school aged children. Non-christian parents rightly do not want their children pressured by peers and state funded institutions into christian prayer. Leave prayer in the churches where it belongs.
"do we honestly know that say, Dickens actually *felt* what she wrote?"
Well, we do know that Dickens was a man (Charles Dickens). Maybe you were thinking of the Poet Emily Dickinson?
Anyway, geeks, far from being "50's reactionaries [sic*]" know bad software when they see it, and are not afraid to say that the emperor has no clothes.
*There's no possessive there chief, nor is it a contraction, so you don't need the apostrophe
In case you missed the whole antitrust action, MS's main defense for claiming Internet Explorer was part of Windows was that to be prevented from bundling applications would "stifle innovation." Microsoft council even claimed, with a straight face mind you, that they could bundle a "ham sandwich" and it would be part of Windows. This is what your parent was referring to.
There's this thing called literature. You can only get it if you actually do some work, 'cause it can't be poured into your head like TV or movies, while you sit there passively munching popcorn or hot pockets. That work is called "reading."
If a novel, universally acclaimed as a great work of literature seems "wordy as fuck" to you, then that's a sign that your reading skills are poor, and need improvement, not that the author needs to "work on his writing skills a bit."
There might be some companies out there that would want this idea to be scrutinized closely in court, but Microsoft would not be likely to be among them.
Remember that Microsoft has a long history of what you refer to as "software dumping." Internet Explorer anyone? How much have MS users paid for that piece of software, which must have cost MS millions to develop. Clearly, MS have been dumping their web browser below cost! It was, for years, a separate, free download, in an era when MS was struggling mightily to catch up to then leader, Netscape.
So, no, I don't think Microsoft really want the courts to rule that giving away software is de facto unfair competition. It would take a weapon from Microsoft's arsenal that they have used to excellent effect in the past.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is why XGrid is such a big win. Macs are *easy* to admin, and *easy* to keep running 24/7/365. The XGrid app can be installed remotely, even via ssh. So unless the job in question requires high speed network communications (and some do), if you have a campus full of macs, you also have an extra, all-night, supercomputer.
Although the police cannot be sued for failure to protect, their presence in the form of foot and vehicular patrols *is* a deterrent to crime.
Moreover, stating that one has no cause of action in civil court against the police confuses two different domans. If a private security firm fails to protect you, you sue them. If the police fail to protect the public, in a democracy, we replace the mayor with someone who ensures that the police *do* protect the public (presumably by replacing high ranking police officials, etc.). Giuliani was elected mayor of New York partly because of such a law and order platform.
Well this is merely hearsay "I have a friend..." Moreover, we know that this hearsay is false, because It could never, take 2 to 3 days to load Mac OS X (any version) and all of one's applications. That figure is simply preposterous.
Loading Mac OS X, and doing a fairly complicated customization (such as installing a couple of open source lisps, slime, and configuring emacs to work with them), in the worst possible case, takes 4 or 5 hours. Loading applications is much quicker - you just drag and drop them from your backups. Very few require that they be installed with the installer again. I just did a clean install on a G4 of Panther, and restored over 50 apps from backups, just to eliminate any unnecessary frameworks etc. that may have accumulated on the machine, before installing Panther. The whole process took about 4 hours, and most of that was writing the backups to an external firewire drive, and copying them back to the G4's internal IDE drive (I have a large CD collection, and a correspondingly large iTunes library).
The hearsay about "2 to 3 days" is simply false - period.
Why don't you just use one of your many machines as the wireless router? You must have one box beefy enough ande stable enought that wireless routing would be invisible in the background (i.e., not be a noticeable resource drain on that box).
You're conflating Apple updates, some of which need to be applied for security reasons, or bug fixes, and third party application vendor updates, which are almost always feature enhancements, or minor bug fixes, but just about never security related.
In fact, the only updates that *need* to be applied to a Mac OS X machine are the security updates, and these are issued, on average, every two weeks, to once a month. Many of these security updates do *not* require a machine restart.
You father is becoming a slave to his dubious "update alerter." There is no reason for a machine in a production environment to do this sort of silliness ("iBelch by Indigestion software has been updated to version 5.4.1 - your installed version is 5.4.0. New in this version: added support for controlling iBelch via a Bluetooth phone. Do you wish to upgrade? - restart required") Anyone without a Bluetooth phone and with a lick of sense doesn't apply this application update.
Anonymous posting clearly cowardly. Please upgrade to logged in posts which include, as a new feature "accountability."
The X Mac OS X is a roman numeral ten. Mac OS X is pronounced "Mac OS Ten." If you have been calling Mac OS X "Mac OS Ex," stop, because that is *not* how it is pronounced.
Just for complete clarity, the X in X server, and X-free86, etc. is *not* a roman numeral, and *is* pronounced "Ex."
And these people will buy low priced, commodity, wintel boxes, on which the profit is next to zero.
The big profits are to be made in high end, near-workstation class machines, and high end laptops. In both of these markets, Apple's machines not only compete favorably, but surpass the competition in power, usability, and reliability.
Apple is in business to make money, not to compete in the low-to-no-profit arena of commodity boxes.
That's subjunctive mood , not mode.
Mod this AC down as flamebait please.
Not prononunced the same.
The "at" in "anat" is pronouced to rhyme with "hat," for example.
The "at" in "anatman" is pronounced to rhyme with the "ot" in "hot." - ahn-OT-mahn
Programming is also unlike crafts. In fact, I think considering programmers craftsmen is unfair. A craftsman is an artisan, like a painter or a woodcarver. No two items he creates are the same. He doesn't go through a lengthy design period; he merely creates whatever thing of beauty he is working on.
Painters and sculptors don't simply start hacking away at it. Craftspeople do go through a lengthy period of design and planning. In painting and sculpture, these are called studies. Even a cursory glance at art history shows this fact.
Further, a single item he creates is expensive, because each item is unique and represents a huge investment in time. So I don't think this comparison holds up either.
This relates to the value of what the worker produces, not the process by which it is produced.
Programmers are like craftsmen who have very low reproduction costs. Each work is essentially unique, just as each of a painter's works are uniqure. But the programmer can reproduce his for next to nothing, while the painter needs more time and effort to reprodue his works. And, yes, painters routinely reproduced popular works. For example, Gilbert Stuart's portraits of George Washington were so popular that he essentially made a living by generating over 100 copies of his own works.
If you want an accurate model for computer programming, the closest model is that of the mathematician, because really, computer science is a branch of mathematics. It is the branch that deals with implementation and design of algorithms. In a sense, programmers model thought processes; things humans would have to do manually if the computer didn't exist.Programming is not computer science. 99% of all programmers never devise a new sorting algorithm, never write a theorem prover, etc. Programmers apply the discoveries of computer scientists, but that doesn't make them computer scientists. Craftsmen apply the discoveries of scientists (new pigments, new metal alloys, etc.) but that doesn't make craftsmen scientists. Programmers are like craftsmen. They just have much lower reproduction costs.
Only if you hold to the interpretation that cats can't be observers. If they can, they they know right away whether they've been gassed/killed or not.
We can't always "let the free market do its thing" when "its thing" causes a great deal of economic dislocation and suffering. Remember, that the free market's "thing" used to be taking boats to Africa, purchasing slaves, and selling them in "free markets" here in America. Regulation serves a useful function in preventing greed from causing unnecessary suffering. The "free market" is driven only by greed, and is not the divine cure-all that some would have you believe.
How do you think he got the record company CEOs to let him start the iTunes Music Store?
Meaning, the human factors are hard problems that require skills in dealing with people, rather than skills in cryptography, etc. This doesn't make them "unsolvable," but just hard problems that require a different skill set.
An engineer can't solve these problems, but possibly (actually, probably) someone who is better at observing and dealing with people than the typical engineer could devise solutions. Read Tog's article. He makes a good start. First principle - don't encourage users to bypass the security system by making it burdensome or excessively complex to use.
Sorry, typo - should be "think" not "thing" of course.
Your kids can do christian prayers in school just as soon as everyone also gets to do hindu ceremonies, moslem prayers (toward mecca, of course), jewish prayers, native american religious ceremonies, etc.
What's that? Only silent prayer? Funny how that only works for certain christian sects. Unless everyone has the same rights to practice what they consider essential to their religious observance, you can't let one group (christians who believe in silent prayer) have their "rights" but deny these same rights to others.
It's completely impractical to let every religious denomination practice its essential religious ceremonies in school, so we don't let anyone do it. Instead, we encourage all faiths to practice their religious observances in venues outside of schools - temples, churches, navajo hogans, synagogues, etc.
Moreover, this ignores the practical reality, which is that, in most schools, the majority would simply foist what it considers essential (silent prayer anyone? the Lord's Prayer?) on everyone, and completely ignore the fact that non-christians were either being forced to perform a religious observance they do not believe in, or being ostracized for not participating. If you thing this latter is insignificant, you have very little understanding of peer pressure, and impressionability among school aged children. Non-christian parents rightly do not want their children pressured by peers and state funded institutions into christian prayer. Leave prayer in the churches where it belongs.
"do we honestly know that say, Dickens actually *felt* what she wrote?"
Well, we do know that Dickens was a man (Charles Dickens). Maybe you were thinking of the Poet Emily Dickinson?
Anyway, geeks, far from being "50's reactionaries [sic*]" know bad software when they see it, and are not afraid to say that the emperor has no clothes.
*There's no possessive there chief, nor is it a contraction, so you don't need the apostrophe
ok, so you and the three other people on the net who only do completely legal file sharing are not the subject of these articles.
However, the overwhelming majority of file sharing taking place is of the illegal copyright infringement variety.
4. Because they're honest.
Hard to believe, but there are a whole bunch of honest people still out there. If there weren't, who would all the dirtbags rip off?
Yeah, instead of Expose with an accent, they should call it "Freedom Expose." ;^)
In case you missed the whole antitrust action, MS's main defense for claiming Internet Explorer was part of Windows was that to be prevented from bundling applications would "stifle innovation." Microsoft council even claimed, with a straight face mind you, that they could bundle a "ham sandwich" and it would be part of Windows. This is what your parent was referring to.
No you need to work on your reading skills.
There's this thing called literature. You can only get it if you actually do some work, 'cause it can't be poured into your head like TV or movies, while you sit there passively munching popcorn or hot pockets. That work is called "reading."
If a novel, universally acclaimed as a great work of literature seems "wordy as fuck" to you, then that's a sign that your reading skills are poor, and need improvement, not that the author needs to "work on his writing skills a bit."
There might be some companies out there that would want this idea to be scrutinized closely in court, but Microsoft would not be likely to be among them.
Remember that Microsoft has a long history of what you refer to as "software dumping." Internet Explorer anyone? How much have MS users paid for that piece of software, which must have cost MS millions to develop. Clearly, MS have been dumping their web browser below cost! It was, for years, a separate, free download, in an era when MS was struggling mightily to catch up to then leader, Netscape.
So, no, I don't think Microsoft really want the courts to rule that giving away software is de facto unfair competition. It would take a weapon from Microsoft's arsenal that they have used to excellent effect in the past.