And if your favorite software can't run in classic mode and doesn't have an OS X version, then this action might be just the nudge needed to get your OS X version.
You're missing a very real likelihood here which is that some older software that people still use, rely on, or enjoy may no longer be supported by its developers. I can think of lots of older games that have no chance of being ported to OS X because the companies that made them have since moved on. Specifically, in my case, I can cite Marathon which I still love playing from time-to-time. Bungie, now permanently attached to the Evil Empire, has no plans to carbonize Marathon. Last thing I heard was that applications couldn't access hardware directly via Classic, so unless Apple figures out some brilliant way to get around that, then users of older software that do access hardware directly (like many games) are out in the cold. Given that Apple has traditionally allowed for compatibility going way back, this would be an uncharacteristic move on their part.
I have a feeling that some changes will be made to the Classic mode to allow for these kinds of things (or I hope.) I can't possibly imagine that someone at Apple would think cutting off access to OS 9 completely like this would be a good idea. If they did that, effectively rendering any given company's software investment virtually worthless, they would open the door for people to jump to Windows (hell, if you have to re-purchase all your software anyway... why not?) Think people won't jump to Windows if Apple fucks them over? I don't think it's a gamble Apple wants to take, and I hope they wouldn't be unwise enough to force customers into such an undesireable position.
My thoughts exactly. I caught it on NPR recently as well as a discussion about it yesterday (with an embarrassingly conspiracy-oriented British woman who claimed that the U.S. is "blackmailing" people to us GM products; fortunately, the host was smart enough to call bullshit on it.) It is being covered in the U.S. press, but you actually have to go to a news source, not an infortainment channel like CNN or Fox.
The article only touches on it briefly, but one of the biggest problems with making money from online newspapers is not the technology, not the feasibility of it, but rather getting people out of the old way of thinking. Some of it is ignorance. Some is fear of change.
I'm a web developer for a major, regional newspaper and I see it on a regular basis. There is interest in advertising online amongst advertisers. The real problem is getting sales reps out of the mode that print is the only way to go. The few reps who take an interest in selling online get almost immediate results. We've watched reps reluctantly go off to sell online and come back stunned by the response (however, the nature of a sales rep's job makes it easy to forget that); other reps claim that they spend all their time convincing advertisers that print is the way to go, and can't dilute that message by bringing online sales into it (and if that sounds like an excuse... well....)
The problem isn't limited to sales reps. Others (and I am not kidding about this) think the Internet is a "fad." I've heard that term kicked around by many people in the newspaper business. Watching people put the Internet in the same category as hula hoops or pet rocks gives me a real sense of what we're up against. Some of our reporters and editors express resentment in "giving our work away for free" online.
It's a frustrating experience, but from my perspective, the core problem is changing the way people think, particularly those who have the power to guide these kinds of things to profitability.
I bet if you were to ask an American they would say
[...blah blah...]
I love how non-Americans can get away with starting sentences like this about Americans and effectively generalize about 250+ million people, and yet if an American says something like that about Europeans or any other group we're accused of being ill-informed Ameri-centric assholes.
Normally, my attitude toward turning a movie into
a series is not enthusiastic, but if any film ended
in such a way as to beg for more, Ghost in the
Shell is it. Fingers crossed that they don't
botch it up by losing sight of the themes and
philosophical points of the film.
In fact, it almost seems like it was ended in
such a way as to lead intentionally in to a series.
(or a sequel.) Does anyone know whether such a
thing was planned originally or not?
What you describe is not a flaw of capitalism
but rather a flaw in the current application of
anti-trust laws in the U.S. Capitalism, unhindered by the sort of kowtowing to corporate interests
we see in our Congress and governmental
"leadership," provides (if not requires) the
ultimate remedy to this problem: competition.
Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater;
the bad guy here isn't capitalism, but rather the
lack of.
I go to the Web Developer's Virtual Library frequently and read up on any given topic. There is an enormous amount of free tutorials and articles here, all very enjoyable, informative and--this one's a rarity in the world of programming articles--grammatically correct.
I'm a long-time Mac user and I am totally underwhelmed by the whole.Mac thing. In fact, this is the dumbest thing I've ever seen.
I don't have a problem paying for services, but why do iTools users have to purchase the whole package? There are no options to buy just what you want. You don't go to the store for milk and have to buy yogurt, sour cream, eggs, cottage cheese and dairy creamer just to get the one thing.
I only use Webmail, but I have to pay for.Mac homepage, iDisk, Virex (virus scanning? On a Mac? What are they thinking... oh yeah, I'm so affraid of all 4 of the Mac viruses out there), backup storage, email access, etc. Fuck that.
And let's look at their "web-hosting." I see no indication that you can run Perl scripts, PHP, database services, or use a whole host of other goodies that most web-hosting services offer. On top of that, you can't even log in to your site via FTP (at least, as far as I can see... maybe, I'm wrong.)
Paying for services isn't a big deal. I'm not one of those whiners who has a fit when something free on the web disappears. Webmail is fantastic, even in its beta phase. I'd gladly pay for it, but not $100 a year to pay for a bunch of silly crap I have no intention of using. That's ludicrous.
Besides that, iTools was once advertised as part of the Mac OS purchase experience. I love how that has just quietly disappeared.
"Toast and Jam use the same EULA that Roxio's PC burning product, Easy CD Creator, uses. Easy CD Creator leverages aspects of Windows Media Technology, which does include DRM components."
That's supposed to be an explanation? If you're using something from another company that your users object to then it doesn't change the fact that you're still using it. Just because the DRM components come from Windows Media Technology doesn't change the fact that you still have the DRM components in your software. I don't get this. Was this supposed to satisfy anyone's curiosity or outrage about this?
Oh well... my money's going elsewhere still until their product manager comes forth with revised plans that exclude DRM components. Period. No excuses. They'll find out the hard way.
If you don't
tell them how you feel they will have no reason to reconsider this kind of thing in the future. The link above goes to their "contact us" page. Use the customer service link.
I hope everyone who had time to gripe here on Slashdot will also have time to submit a level-headed and reasonable explanation of why you are unhappy with this and will no longer support them by buying their products as a result.
Make sure you point out competitors who aren't doing this, other software, etc.
This kind of thing will be won battle-by-battle not with one definitive law or judgment. Do your part if you really care.
I don't think this qualifies as a "mainstream" site but I was one of the founders and the first editor of Spare Bricks a quarterly webzine devoted to Pink Floyd. For the last six issues or so I've hidden secret messages in the zine, ranging from invisible links that take you to secret pages to graphics placed on pages with the height and width set to 1. In one issue, we had a very low contast message hidden in a picture; download it and play with the contast and the message appears.
I'm currently working on putting up the zine's archives. We have a page devoted to the easter eggs for those of you interested.
The secret typically contains the words "Congratulations... you have found the secret message" which is the wording of the backward message heard on The Wall during "Empty Spaces."
I did the cover art for the current issue and the easter egg there is of particular interest to Slashdot readers. Check it out. In the "random" computer text above and to the left of Roger Waters' head, you can make out a line starting with:
$sm="y46...
And another line below it:
$sm =~ tr[146...
Plug those two lines into Perl and print $sm. Hmmm... wonder what it says.:^)
Mac rumor sites are a strange thing (are there such things for the Wintel world? I really don't know.) I've monitored them for some time and I can say that the only one with any track record to speak of is macosrumors.com. They have consistently outguessed nearly every Apple announcement that I've seen in the last two years, and they only publish stories when something is worth publishing. I suspect the person behind the site has some knowledge of journalistic methods and waits until he can independently verify news before reporting. The site really is shockingly accurate and I suspect the publisher has lots of contacts with beta-testers and Apple seed recipients willing to quietly break their NDAs.
The only thing macosrumors didn't immediately predict was the flat-panel iMac, but they didn't have to. They mentioned it almost a year before its release (along with a couple schematics of its design) and then left the rumor alone.
Rumor sites are fun but should not be trusted. Mainstream sites reporting off those rumors should not be trusted either. Think Secret in particular has no credibility, but they often publish tantalizing screen shots prior to releases so they are worth watching for that only.
--Rick
Re:A new slogan for Linux
on
Is Linux Dead?
·
· Score: 2
How about a Monty Python slant?
"It is now time for the penguin running your server to explode."
... who are compaining about the annoyances with QT for Windows, you have two simple options.
1. Send your suggestions/compaints to Apple. The current Apple isn't the same as the circa-1995 Apple that wouldn't listen to its users. Apple seems strangely eager to cater to users nowadays. Go to their site and make your thoughts known.
2. Get a Mac. I'm not being a smart-ass or a nutball Mac advocate, but Apple specializes in Mac software. Their Windows version of QT is so-so, but the Mac version is beautiful. I've used WMP, Real and QT on both platforms, and QT on Mac is light-years ahead of any other combination (with the possible footnote that Real's audio streaming seems to have a *very slight* edge, although QT's audio stream doesn't litter your drive with those annoying.rm files.)
I have a feeling that Apple will likely never make Windows QT better or equal to QT on the Mac and I can't say I totally fault them for it (not justifying it, but I can't see the rationale.)
I don't mean to sound like I'm trying to evade or rework your question, but if this concern is in regards to using the control key vs. the Apple/command key, I would really encourage you to give the Apple approach a shot. I have worked on both Windows and Macs and find the Mac convention of using the Apple (or command) key to be preferable and I've known Windows users who have grown to prefer it as well for the simple reason that it's less physical space to stretch your fingers and that the Apple key is closer to the natural resting place of your hands on the keyboard. Even if you don't find those to be a compelling enough reasons, it's very easy to become adept at both (I switch between the conventions of both platforms easily at this point.)
Having said that, I'm sure there are utilities or hacks out there to do it. Either way, I wouldn't let such a trivial matter stand in the way.
I'm seeing comments here about how it must be one or two features of Mozilla that make it attractive to people, but the harsh truth is that until the 1.0 release, Netscape/Mozilla sucked ass and now it's an uphill battle in pulling people away from IE.
I'm not trying to troll here, but it's the truth. And don't give me the typical "but IE breaks web standards, etc." I'm not talking from a developer's perspective, but from a user's perspective which we have seen time and time again is the real deciding factor in most technology "wars," fair or not.
I try my best to keep my machine MS-free, but when it comes to browsers, there was little choice in the matter. Netscape 4.x was a joke and Netscape 6.0 was freaking slooooowwwwwww. A lot of people (even those who despise MS) fled to MSIE for relief, and let's be honest. MS did a decent job with it, at least from a user's perspective.
I'm using Mozilla 1.0 now, trying to give it time to grow on me and replace IE. Mozilla has a few quirks, but its benefits outweigh the negatives and I see significantly little difference between it and IE in terms of user experience. I've been actively encouraging others to try it out, but it will take time. Netscape botched the browser war very badly and IE has rooted itself in the public mind as THE ONE AND ONLY BROWSER. Although I like Mozilla, I have real doubts that it will get far, but best of luck to them. I'm on their side.
People have mentioned ACM codes of ethics, and ICCM codes of ethics, but there is an actual code of ethics designed for and by sysadmins: http://www.usenix.org/sage/publications/code_of_et hics.html
Very interesting! I had no idea this existed and I posted before it was mentioned in other posts. This concept was on my mind because I had been discussing something similar earlier (in regards to those working in medicine) so it just kind of clicked into my head when I read the article.
I guess the question I have is this: how does an already firmly established group put this into action in a way that it is legitimately recognized and honored by both employers and associates? That's the real hurdle here.
--Rick
Maybe an admin code of ethics?
on
Ethical Obligations
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Dealing with this kind of ethical quandry isn't an admin's job and yet it seems that they end up stuck. In other professions where we have similar possible ethical dilemmas (medical, legal, etc.) there are established and deeply entrenched codes of ethics to which practitioners are expected, even by employers and associates, to adhere. Why don't system administrators have such a thing?
I think the revelation in the article that a business would prefer to sweep such a theft under the rug is frightening and opens the door to all kinds of problems. Maybe making employers understand that their admins are obligated by their own professional standards to expose this kind of thing will effect a positive change. I can't imagine what hiding it will achieve. You don't have to think hard to come up with examples of past situations where hiding "undesireable" information caused more problems than it solved. We're seeing the end results of that very attitude playing itself out with Enron/Arthur Andersen as well as the Catholic church right now.
Admins should be expected to expose this kind of thing with the understanding that doing so will avoid bigger and worse problems down the road. It should be viewed as a service to the public which takes priority over protecting petty business interests.
We will either learn from history or repeat it... again.
I'm starting to wonder if our culture isn't collectively losing its ability to suspend their disbelief. Of course, a diminutive warrior like Yoda suddenly flying through the air is going to be funny on the surface. But if you were lost in the film like I was, really submerged into the world on-screen, not self-consciously fearful of what people might think if you let yourself go and connect with it, then that moment was one of the most startling moments in all the SW films.
One nice touch I noticed is that Yoda grabs his cane afterward and we are left to ponder the fact that this guy just moved like lightning in his fight, but has difficultly with the act of walking. It strikes you that he was exerting the Force on himself to move himself through the air and engage in battle. It makes a definitive statement about his ability.
I didn't have trouble with this. I feel sorry for those who couldn't enter that world and experience it full-force. Pity.
Maybe it's not compatible with Netscape per se, but I can use Webmail perfectly well with Mozilla 1.0 (on Mac OS 9). In fact, thanks to the brilliant addition of tabbed browsing, I actually find that it's preferable to IE overall.
In a discussion with a friend a few years ago about Napster, I actually said that record companies should do this. I'm not surprised to see it happening (but I am surprised it took them so long to do it... always assuming they did.) The only problem is that such a move would look (and does look) desperate.
The reason this strikes me as a good thing is that, in some sense, record companies are showing signs of coming to terms (even reluctantly) with the competition that technology offers or at least acknowledging that it isn't going away or can't be legislated into non-existence. True, this isn't the most admirable way to approach it--akin to pissing in the pool because the other kids won't play your way--but at least it doesn't involve lawyers and IP laws.
I can't put it into words beyond that, but my gut instinct here is that this isn't so bad and may be an indication that the music industry is running out of ideas or resources to combat the inevitable. Maybe when they reach that point, they will be faced with the unavoidable conclusion that file-sharing isn't the end of the world.
It's funny- the publicity photos of the 15 inch macs really make it look a lot nicer then it is. I finally saw one up close a few weeks ago- the arm and screen is super smooth, but the base looks like a cheap toy.
My wife's reaction was exactly the opposite. She thought pictures of the new iMac were awful. She thought it looked goofy. We just saw one in person a few days ago and she loved it. Afterward, she kept asking me questions about it. Seeing it really changed her opinion of it.
Personally, I was impressed with the display. I have a 15" CRT display at home and the viewable area is noticeably larger on the iMac's 15" LCD display. On top of that, the colors and images are sharp and clear. One of the things that drives me crazy about LCD displays is that they tend to darken or solarize when viewed from an angle. The iMac's display didn't do that.
Also, FWIW, this "news" about the bigger iMac displays is being treated as an unlikely rumor amongst some of the more in-the-know Mac sites. Just FYI.
This is almost funny. As soon as one file-sharing system goes down, another comes along. Will the RIAA simply continue to sue every file-sharing service? It's ludicrous, but this doesn't strike me as bad. Maybe it will give others time to figure out a new digital distribution system to supplant the old business model so fervently and pointlessly protected by the RIAA. Let them go down fighting for a hopelessly outdated system while others make progress establishing the new.
Hate to say it, but this site reeks of blind Mac devotion. I'm not trolling. I'm a Mac user too, but even so, I really hate Mac advocacy sites and would hope that the moderators here on the Slashdot Apple site are savvy enough to weed these out. I could be wrong about this site, but that's my gut instinct after browsing it a little.
Slashdot Mirror
You're missing a very real likelihood here which is that some older software that people still use, rely on, or enjoy may no longer be supported by its developers. I can think of lots of older games that have no chance of being ported to OS X because the companies that made them have since moved on. Specifically, in my case, I can cite Marathon which I still love playing from time-to-time. Bungie, now permanently attached to the Evil Empire, has no plans to carbonize Marathon. Last thing I heard was that applications couldn't access hardware directly via Classic, so unless Apple figures out some brilliant way to get around that, then users of older software that do access hardware directly (like many games) are out in the cold. Given that Apple has traditionally allowed for compatibility going way back, this would be an uncharacteristic move on their part.
I have a feeling that some changes will be made to the Classic mode to allow for these kinds of things (or I hope.) I can't possibly imagine that someone at Apple would think cutting off access to OS 9 completely like this would be a good idea. If they did that, effectively rendering any given company's software investment virtually worthless, they would open the door for people to jump to Windows (hell, if you have to re-purchase all your software anyway... why not?) Think people won't jump to Windows if Apple fucks them over? I don't think it's a gamble Apple wants to take, and I hope they wouldn't be unwise enough to force customers into such an undesireable position.
My thoughts exactly. I caught it on NPR recently as well as a discussion about it yesterday (with an embarrassingly conspiracy-oriented British woman who claimed that the U.S. is "blackmailing" people to us GM products; fortunately, the host was smart enough to call bullshit on it.) It is being covered in the U.S. press, but you actually have to go to a news source, not an infortainment channel like CNN or Fox.
I'm a web developer for a major, regional newspaper and I see it on a regular basis. There is interest in advertising online amongst advertisers. The real problem is getting sales reps out of the mode that print is the only way to go. The few reps who take an interest in selling online get almost immediate results. We've watched reps reluctantly go off to sell online and come back stunned by the response (however, the nature of a sales rep's job makes it easy to forget that); other reps claim that they spend all their time convincing advertisers that print is the way to go, and can't dilute that message by bringing online sales into it (and if that sounds like an excuse... well....)
The problem isn't limited to sales reps. Others (and I am not kidding about this) think the Internet is a "fad." I've heard that term kicked around by many people in the newspaper business. Watching people put the Internet in the same category as hula hoops or pet rocks gives me a real sense of what we're up against. Some of our reporters and editors express resentment in "giving our work away for free" online.
It's a frustrating experience, but from my perspective, the core problem is changing the way people think, particularly those who have the power to guide these kinds of things to profitability.
[...blah blah...]
I love how non-Americans can get away with starting sentences like this about Americans and effectively generalize about 250+ million people, and yet if an American says something like that about Europeans or any other group we're accused of being ill-informed Ameri-centric assholes.
Curious and annoying double-standard.
In fact, it almost seems like it was ended in such a way as to lead intentionally in to a series. (or a sequel.) Does anyone know whether such a thing was planned originally or not?
What you describe is not a flaw of capitalism but rather a flaw in the current application of anti-trust laws in the U.S. Capitalism, unhindered by the sort of kowtowing to corporate interests we see in our Congress and governmental "leadership," provides (if not requires) the ultimate remedy to this problem: competition. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater; the bad guy here isn't capitalism, but rather the lack of.
I go to the Web Developer's Virtual Library frequently and read up on any given topic. There is an enormous amount of free tutorials and articles here, all very enjoyable, informative and--this one's a rarity in the world of programming articles--grammatically correct.
I'm a long-time Mac user and I am totally underwhelmed by the whole .Mac thing. In fact, this is the dumbest thing I've ever seen.
.Mac homepage, iDisk, Virex (virus scanning? On a Mac? What are they thinking... oh yeah, I'm so affraid of all 4 of the Mac viruses out there), backup storage, email access, etc. Fuck that.
I don't have a problem paying for services, but why do iTools users have to purchase the whole package? There are no options to buy just what you want. You don't go to the store for milk and have to buy yogurt, sour cream, eggs, cottage cheese and dairy creamer just to get the one thing.
I only use Webmail, but I have to pay for
And let's look at their "web-hosting." I see no indication that you can run Perl scripts, PHP, database services, or use a whole host of other goodies that most web-hosting services offer. On top of that, you can't even log in to your site via FTP (at least, as far as I can see... maybe, I'm wrong.)
Paying for services isn't a big deal. I'm not one of those whiners who has a fit when something free on the web disappears. Webmail is fantastic, even in its beta phase. I'd gladly pay for it, but not $100 a year to pay for a bunch of silly crap I have no intention of using. That's ludicrous.
Besides that, iTools was once advertised as part of the Mac OS purchase experience. I love how that has just quietly disappeared.
"Toast and Jam use the same EULA that Roxio's PC burning product, Easy CD Creator, uses. Easy CD Creator leverages aspects of Windows Media Technology, which does include DRM components."
That's supposed to be an explanation? If you're using something from another company that your users object to then it doesn't change the fact that you're still using it. Just because the DRM components come from Windows Media Technology doesn't change the fact that you still have the DRM components in your software. I don't get this. Was this supposed to satisfy anyone's curiosity or outrage about this?
Oh well... my money's going elsewhere still until their product manager comes forth with revised plans that exclude DRM components. Period. No excuses. They'll find out the hard way.
I hope everyone who had time to gripe here on Slashdot will also have time to submit a level-headed and reasonable explanation of why you are unhappy with this and will no longer support them by buying their products as a result.
Make sure you point out competitors who aren't doing this, other software, etc.
This kind of thing will be won battle-by-battle not with one definitive law or judgment. Do your part if you really care.
--Rick
I'm currently working on putting up the zine's archives. We have a page devoted to the easter eggs for those of you interested.
The secret typically contains the words "Congratulations... you have found the secret message" which is the wording of the backward message heard on The Wall during "Empty Spaces."
I did the cover art for the current issue and the easter egg there is of particular interest to Slashdot readers. Check it out. In the "random" computer text above and to the left of Roger Waters' head, you can make out a line starting with:
$sm="y46 ...
And another line below it:
$sm =~ tr[146 ...
Plug those two lines into Perl and print $sm. Hmmm... wonder what it says. :^)
--Rick
The only thing macosrumors didn't immediately predict was the flat-panel iMac, but they didn't have to. They mentioned it almost a year before its release (along with a couple schematics of its design) and then left the rumor alone.
Rumor sites are fun but should not be trusted. Mainstream sites reporting off those rumors should not be trusted either. Think Secret in particular has no credibility, but they often publish tantalizing screen shots prior to releases so they are worth watching for that only.
--Rick
How about a Monty Python slant?
"It is now time for the penguin running your server to explode."
--Rick
... who are compaining about the annoyances with QT for Windows, you have two simple options.
.rm files.)
1. Send your suggestions/compaints to Apple. The current Apple isn't the same as the circa-1995 Apple that wouldn't listen to its users. Apple seems strangely eager to cater to users nowadays. Go to their site and make your thoughts known.
2. Get a Mac. I'm not being a smart-ass or a nutball Mac advocate, but Apple specializes in Mac software. Their Windows version of QT is so-so, but the Mac version is beautiful. I've used WMP, Real and QT on both platforms, and QT on Mac is light-years ahead of any other combination (with the possible footnote that Real's audio streaming seems to have a *very slight* edge, although QT's audio stream doesn't litter your drive with those annoying
I have a feeling that Apple will likely never make Windows QT better or equal to QT on the Mac and I can't say I totally fault them for it (not justifying it, but I can't see the rationale.)
--Rick
How easy is it to remap keys in Mac OS X?
I don't mean to sound like I'm trying to evade or rework your question, but if this concern is in regards to using the control key vs. the Apple/command key, I would really encourage you to give the Apple approach a shot. I have worked on both Windows and Macs and find the Mac convention of using the Apple (or command) key to be preferable and I've known Windows users who have grown to prefer it as well for the simple reason that it's less physical space to stretch your fingers and that the Apple key is closer to the natural resting place of your hands on the keyboard. Even if you don't find those to be a compelling enough reasons, it's very easy to become adept at both (I switch between the conventions of both platforms easily at this point.)
Having said that, I'm sure there are utilities or hacks out there to do it. Either way, I wouldn't let such a trivial matter stand in the way.
--Rick
I'm not trying to troll here, but it's the truth. And don't give me the typical "but IE breaks web standards, etc." I'm not talking from a developer's perspective, but from a user's perspective which we have seen time and time again is the real deciding factor in most technology "wars," fair or not.
I try my best to keep my machine MS-free, but when it comes to browsers, there was little choice in the matter. Netscape 4.x was a joke and Netscape 6.0 was freaking slooooowwwwwww. A lot of people (even those who despise MS) fled to MSIE for relief, and let's be honest. MS did a decent job with it, at least from a user's perspective.
I'm using Mozilla 1.0 now, trying to give it time to grow on me and replace IE. Mozilla has a few quirks, but its benefits outweigh the negatives and I see significantly little difference between it and IE in terms of user experience. I've been actively encouraging others to try it out, but it will take time. Netscape botched the browser war very badly and IE has rooted itself in the public mind as THE ONE AND ONLY BROWSER. Although I like Mozilla, I have real doubts that it will get far, but best of luck to them. I'm on their side.
--Rick
Very interesting! I had no idea this existed and I posted before it was mentioned in other posts. This concept was on my mind because I had been discussing something similar earlier (in regards to those working in medicine) so it just kind of clicked into my head when I read the article.
I guess the question I have is this: how does an already firmly established group put this into action in a way that it is legitimately recognized and honored by both employers and associates? That's the real hurdle here.
--Rick
Dealing with this kind of ethical quandry isn't an admin's job and yet it seems that they end up stuck. In other professions where we have similar possible ethical dilemmas (medical, legal, etc.) there are established and deeply entrenched codes of ethics to which practitioners are expected, even by employers and associates, to adhere. Why don't system administrators have such a thing?
I think the revelation in the article that a business would prefer to sweep such a theft under the rug is frightening and opens the door to all kinds of problems. Maybe making employers understand that their admins are obligated by their own professional standards to expose this kind of thing will effect a positive change. I can't imagine what hiding it will achieve. You don't have to think hard to come up with examples of past situations where hiding "undesireable" information caused more problems than it solved. We're seeing the end results of that very attitude playing itself out with Enron/Arthur Andersen as well as the Catholic church right now.
Admins should be expected to expose this kind of thing with the understanding that doing so will avoid bigger and worse problems down the road. It should be viewed as a service to the public which takes priority over protecting petty business interests.
We will either learn from history or repeat it... again.
--Rick
Bill: Steve, we're really concerned that Apple continue development of these programs on Windows.
Steve: Bill, we're really concerned that Microsoft continue development of Office on the Mac.
Bill: (feeling a little bit more of that monopolistic power slip away) DOH!
--Rick
I'm starting to wonder if our culture isn't collectively losing its ability to suspend their disbelief. Of course, a diminutive warrior like Yoda suddenly flying through the air is going to be funny on the surface. But if you were lost in the film like I was, really submerged into the world on-screen, not self-consciously fearful of what people might think if you let yourself go and connect with it, then that moment was one of the most startling moments in all the SW films.
One nice touch I noticed is that Yoda grabs his cane afterward and we are left to ponder the fact that this guy just moved like lightning in his fight, but has difficultly with the act of walking. It strikes you that he was exerting the Force on himself to move himself through the air and engage in battle. It makes a definitive statement about his ability.
I didn't have trouble with this. I feel sorry for those who couldn't enter that world and experience it full-force. Pity.
--Rick
You cannot use Netscape Navigator version 6
Maybe it's not compatible with Netscape per se, but I can use Webmail perfectly well with Mozilla 1.0 (on Mac OS 9). In fact, thanks to the brilliant addition of tabbed browsing, I actually find that it's preferable to IE overall.
--Rick
In a discussion with a friend a few years ago about Napster, I actually said that record companies should do this. I'm not surprised to see it happening (but I am surprised it took them so long to do it... always assuming they did.) The only problem is that such a move would look (and does look) desperate.
The reason this strikes me as a good thing is that, in some sense, record companies are showing signs of coming to terms (even reluctantly) with the competition that technology offers or at least acknowledging that it isn't going away or can't be legislated into non-existence. True, this isn't the most admirable way to approach it--akin to pissing in the pool because the other kids won't play your way--but at least it doesn't involve lawyers and IP laws.
I can't put it into words beyond that, but my gut instinct here is that this isn't so bad and may be an indication that the music industry is running out of ideas or resources to combat the inevitable. Maybe when they reach that point, they will be faced with the unavoidable conclusion that file-sharing isn't the end of the world.
--Rick
It's funny- the publicity photos of the 15 inch macs really make it look a lot nicer then it is. I finally saw one up close a few weeks ago- the arm and screen is super smooth, but the base looks like a cheap toy.
My wife's reaction was exactly the opposite. She thought pictures of the new iMac were awful. She thought it looked goofy. We just saw one in person a few days ago and she loved it. Afterward, she kept asking me questions about it. Seeing it really changed her opinion of it.
Personally, I was impressed with the display. I have a 15" CRT display at home and the viewable area is noticeably larger on the iMac's 15" LCD display. On top of that, the colors and images are sharp and clear. One of the things that drives me crazy about LCD displays is that they tend to darken or solarize when viewed from an angle. The iMac's display didn't do that.
Also, FWIW, this "news" about the bigger iMac displays is being treated as an unlikely rumor amongst some of the more in-the-know Mac sites. Just FYI.
--Rick
This is almost funny. As soon as one file-sharing system goes down, another comes along. Will the RIAA simply continue to sue every file-sharing service? It's ludicrous, but this doesn't strike me as bad. Maybe it will give others time to figure out a new digital distribution system to supplant the old business model so fervently and pointlessly protected by the RIAA. Let them go down fighting for a hopelessly outdated system while others make progress establishing the new.
--Rick
Hate to say it, but this site reeks of blind Mac devotion. I'm not trolling. I'm a Mac user too, but even so, I really hate Mac advocacy sites and would hope that the moderators here on the Slashdot Apple site are savvy enough to weed these out. I could be wrong about this site, but that's my gut instinct after browsing it a little.
--Rick