First off, consider the case of my girlfriend. She was beginning to get interested in M:tG. though she hadn't played much. I had plenty of cards by that time, so I made her a deck and gave it to her. She did not pay to play at all. The point: Pokemon fails the first test, because it isn't always necessary to pay to play.
Yes, there's an element of chance. There's an element of chance in any game; that's why it's called a game. Even something as "innocent" as Parcheesi or Clue has elements of chance, and yet I see no one suing companies that make those. To set that up as a criterion for gambling is just plain stupid. So Pokemon would pass the second test if that test were even valid. But since it isn't, the point is moot.
And as for there being a prize: Pokemon, while it is possible to play for ante (to use the M:tG term; I don't know what Pokemon calls it) it isn't mandated. So it fails the third test ("there is a prize") because there is not always a prize.
I suppose you could say that there's an element of gambling in the buying of Pokemon card packs. But I also doubt too many people would call that a game. These kids made a stupid decision. Their parents, who could easily have put an end to it, made a very stupid decision by not doing so, thereby losing thousands of dollars. They have no one to blame for this but themselves.
They think wearing an ID badge will prevent school violence? Hardly. No more than banning lockers and backpacks.
There is a problem. Of that there can be no doubt. But what is the problem? Are backpacks the problem? No. Is the lack of an easy way to identify students the problem? No. Are trenchcoats the problem? No. In fact, I'm going to take a gutsy leap here and say that even guns are not the problem, as evidenced by the fact that for every psycho who shoots someone with a gun there are thousands of gun owners who never hurt anyone with a gun in their entire lives. I'm not in either camp (seeing as I don't own a gun, nor do I plan to in the immediate future), but it's simply an observation.
And that's why ID badges, banning backpacks or tranchcoats, and metal detectors will not solve anything, nor will they save any lives at all. Violence in our schools is like a virus. You can suppress the symptoms with relative ease, but you have not cured the disease until you get to the root of the problem and eradicate that. So, we come to the question: what is the root of the problem?
I believe that the problem is a simple lack of basic respect for one's fellow human beings. As someone who lives near Washington, DC (when not at college) I see this every single day, in adults as well as children. Politeness is a thing to be exploited. People are chess pawns to be manipulated in a game where the prize is power and/or prestige, or perhaps it is just a whim. Kids in school whose only fault is to prize knowledge over physical ability are tortured by their peers, day in and day out, from kindergarten all the way through high school. And I don't speak of the relatively good-natured ribbing our parents and even grandparents experienced; what I see going on in today's public schools would make Amnesty International cringe if only they knew. But they don't know, because administrations cover it up with shit like this. Why? Because really solving the problem is hard, very hard. So instead they quietly hide it away, putting the victim through punishments which were meant for the agreesors, all the while winking at the troublemakers, giving them the silent go-ahead to continue the brutality.
And yes, solving this problem will be difficult. The first thing is the hardest: admitting that we were wrong. Our culture has made many great strides, and most of the time the changes have been for the better, but somewhere along the line we screwed up, and now we have to go back. To what? I don't claim to know; it can be blamed on any of a million different things.
One popular theory among conservatives is that it's the breakdown of the family unit, and there's some credence to that; where will a child learn to respect all people if not from a set of loving parents to use as examples? This is the one I tend to believe. But at the same time, dysfunctional families have always existed (if you're religious they existed all the way back to Adam and Eve and their kids), and this kind of violence was so seldom seen even ten years ago that to say it never happened wouldn't be far from the truth. Then again, there weren't nearly so many dysfunctional families, and most people who came out of those still managed to become well-adjusted, evan after abuse. Conversely, some families, while hardly dysfunctional by any means, actively twist their children into the brutes we see today (particularly in terms of racism; I've had the misfortune to witness this as well).
Some, mainly the religious right, would say it was the separation of church and state. That theory's not one I tend to believe, but I see their viewpoint; if the schools don't teach that there are any moral laws that transcend human beings then what reason is there to respect anyone? At the same time, there's the concept of gestalt, that humanity is greater than the sum of the human beings within it. It's a completely nonreligious idea which happens to have the interesting property of allowing the idea of respect for all people to be taught along with a reason for doing sowithout infringing upon anyone's religion or lack thereof. Why respect all people? Because they, like you, are humans, a part of something greater than either of you. An interesting idea, and perhaps something that ought to be looked into; I don't know of many people who would argue that humanity is as a whole greater than the sum of its parts.
Others claim it's media violence. The theory goes that media violence first desensitizes people, then causes people to actually crave it. There's a very large hole in this theory, though. The only reason moviemakers create films as they do is because it's profitable; just ask any movie maker. The only thing that hasn't become cheaper (when inflation is accounted for) over the past fifty years is movie-theater tickets, yet people flock to see the movies in ever-increasing numbers, particularly violent ones. Moviemakers know this; they realize that the desire for violence is already present in the audience, long before any exposure takes place. It is the same for television and video games. I tend to believe this craving comes, once again, from a basic lack of respect for all people; if you respect people then by definition you desire violence towards them. But I digress; the gestalt idea is for another debate some other time.
So how do you solve this problem? Much as I hate to say it, it's probably too late for the current generation of high- and even middle-schoolers. But you can still reach current and forthcoming elementary-schoolers. Get it into children's TV programs (it's been in Sesame Street and even Barney for decades, but the oldest target age for these is still too young to have much of an effect), and get it into the schools. The rule is a simple one: respect all people.Zero tolerance for infractions (though, obviously, what constitutes disrespect is going to have to happen on a case-by-case basis for all but the most blatant violations). Break it too many times, and it's out of the public school system and into a system specifically trained to handle bullies, such as military school (mention military school to any bully, by the way, and 99 times out of 100 you'll get a noticeable fear reaction; the threat is quite effective if it can be backed up).
Yeah, it's a simple thing. It sounds too simple, in fact. So did the "Just Say No" campaign, but it was working while it was in force (studies showed a decline in drug abuse during those years). It was criticized by all sorts of people for being too simplistic, but it worked. The other campaigns since then, while they've been much more sophisticated, haven't had much (or at least as much) of an effect; drug abuse is on the rise again (perhaps more slowly than it would be if no campaign existed, but any rise is a sign of failure). Sometimes simpler really is better.
The rule is simple. Respect all people. Why can't the schools get that into their heads? It would save them, students, parents, and possibly the world at large a great deal of trouble in the end.
No one will ever force you to buy one. PC's will not suddenly be banned when there finally is an alternative available.
True, but if they're not profitable anymore than no one will make them.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the availability of an alternative even caused the prices to drop, which is always a good thing. If big bad Bill want's to sell a NC, but makes it impossible for non MS software to run on it, his NC will fail to compete with other NC's that do not pose such restrictions.
Microsoft's track record (and Intel's for that matter) proves that people will often buy what is cheaper over what is better. Because M$ would be making the hardware and the only software that could run on it, it could sell the NC at rock-bottom prices that absolutely no one else is in any position to match (except possibly Apple, but they won't do it).
It would make as little sense as making windows for microsoft apps only.
I'm sure they're working on it. There's already the hidden API.
Did anyone ever think that the admittedly knee jerk reactions of school administrators might actually have saved lives? There was at least one other shooting afterwards, perhaps the crack down prevented more? I mean, it's too bad that some school kids lost some priviledges, but if lives were saved (even one,) isn't that *worth it*?
So you're sayinf that lives were saved because some schools banned trenchcoats and even lockers? Just how much of a fool can you possibly be? These are not the problem and never were. The problem is a cultural one. In the United States, the average intellectual can expect to be ritualistically tortured for eight hours a day, five days a week, 36 weeks a year. Worse, our culture encourages this torture. That is what is wrong. The pressure could drive anyone to madness.
Fifteen people died that day. This is a horrible, sad thing. They should not have had to die. But their deaths at least have meaning, as an example of what happens when the persecution of intellectually-oriented people gets out of hand. The crackdowns saved no lives, and ruined several. The only crackdown that would even have a hope of working is one against the true source of the problem: disrespect. But, as always, the administrations tried to take the quick-fix, punishing the victims. The fact that there was a shooting even after this proves this tactic not only wrong, but dangerous.
Actually, whgen it comes to the relative effectiveness of guns and knives, it depends on range. Get to within ten feet or so and the knife befomes far more effective.
I think you're also forgetting the effectiveness of a knife as a slashing weapon.
It doesn't matter, because they guy you're responding to was wrong. Take away the guns, and criminals won't turn to knives. They'll turn to bombs. Then we're really screwed.
Worst of all, simple illegalization of guns isn't going to change a thing; most criminals already get their guns by illegal means (legal means are, after all, too easy to trace), and simply taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens is not going to change that.
As long as they don't do anything with these domain names, it's nothing more than squatting. The heck of it is, they could be putting these names to productive use. Link 'em all back to anti-hate groups, get the information out there.
You can't destroy a hate group with laws. The reason: laws don't destroy hate. It would be dangerous to even try, because the minute you stifle someone else's voice you jeopardize your own. No, laws aren't the way to combat hate groups. There is only one real way to fight them: with knowledge. Start young, demonstrating the principles of equality. The rule is simple: respect all people, no matter what.
And for crying out loud, why is it that no state has passed a law stating that indoctrinating a child with racism is child abuse? I live not even a hundred yards away from just such a family, and it's truly revolting to watch. Three little girls, the oldest one not yet ten, and already they're spewing hate speech (as far as I know they have yet to graduate to actual slurs, but I also try to avoid this family whenever possible). It's absolutely sickening. There are states which treat failure to teach a child English as child abuse, and if that is than surely planting racism into a young mind is too.
Actually, if I remember correctly, the GPL has been violated by a business before. It was NeXT, actually. They added Onjective-C to GCC, then tried to close up their source tree. FSF got mad, took them to court, and the end result is that we now have Objective-C in GCC as Open-Source.
In other words, Corel's about to get slammed hard. And frankly, they deserve it; I don't consider myself an OSS-zealot, but breaking a license like this is another issue entirely.
It's always a shame to see aomeone fall from such heights as this. If he is indeed guilty, though, I have absolutely no sympathy for him at all.
However, this is going to prove very problematic. Censors and snoopers alike are going to have a field day, thanks to the fact that this case will inevitably become quite high-profile. Censors will decry the ease of transmission of information on the Net, claim it's "a haven for chold pronography" and demand censorship (not like they haven't been doing it already, but now they have a high-profile case to latch onto).
Snoopers, on the other hand, will show how "people like this" use encryption to hide their activity from law enforcement, therefore "they" need a backdoor. Worse, since their point is semi-valid, they'll sway a lot more people over to their side than they would with pure crap.
Note I said semi-valid; they have a right to investigate, but it does not counter or override the people's right to privacy. I'll gladly let the FBI search my computer and decrypt my stuff, but they're going to have to show me a warrant first. If they don't, then they aren't getting into my machine, plain and simple.
But I digress. The point is, even if justice is served in this case, it could very well pave the way for injustices of the worst kind later on. We're going to have to watch this very carefully.
Perhaps. But there's little point in writing something you can't test. A person who's modifying data to use in chip production is going to want to be able to build one and test it; that can't be done without the machines.
Besides which, you're right about FPGA's and such. But the Sparc isn't an FPGA anyway, so it doesn't apply in this case.
Unfortunately, I think it's one doomed to failure.
There are two main reasons why Open-Source is practical in software. One, software is available in infinite supply; I could make as many copies of a given program as I wanted and always have one more, and furthermore I can do it at zero cost. Two, software is pretty easy to modify; all one needs is a compiler (which GNU and the EGCS team have given us already) and source code (which is readily available). Because of these two facts, anyone with a computer can get into the business quickly and cheaply.
Hardware doesn't have these two attributes. First, it's not available in infinite supply; if I have one chip and give it away I have no chips. I can, of course, make more if I have the right machine. The problem is, the cost of said machine (several million dollars, last I checked, and I don't seem to be able to find any of them on EBay for less) keeps pretty much every man, woman, and child on the face of the planet from getting one. Even if I have the machine, I still have to buy the materials, which gets expensive if I want to make many chips.
Second, hardware is very difficult to modify on the level of the individual chips. Many people on Slashdot probably built their computers from preexisting parts. Some probably have managed to build one from preexisting chips and constructing even the boards themselves. But I'd love to see someone here running Linux on a chip that he or she made as a Computer Engineering project in college (granted, such courses do tend to include constructing a simple microprocessor as a final project, but now try making a whole computer out of it). Besides which, EPROM's and EEPROM's notwithstanding, one cannot modify a chip which has already been made; you must literally throw it out and start again if you want to change the chip.
These two major factors are going to keep the idea of an Open-Source processor from being truly feasible. It's not that no one will work on it (a fallacy often used as FUD against Open-Source software). It's that almost no one is able to work on it (certainly not enough to derive much of an advantage), and those that are typically already work for a chip company which is going to take a very dim view of an employee who's helping out someone else's chips, so in the interest of job security they aren't going to work on it either. Opening the specs is still a Good Thing from a trustworthiness standpoint, but I seriously hope Sun isn't hoping to get the next generation of Sparcs this way.
One, the entire moderstion system, including documentation, needs to be documented on the site. Looking through all of the posts here I'm astounded at how many people don't seem to understand the system, and therefore are requesting features which already exist. I think that if the whole system were very thoroughly documented, these debates about how best to implement a moderation system would st least slow down if not stop, because there would be one page where people could go, read up on the system, and understand it.
Second, there are complaints of a "lack of moderation." There's a reason for that, but increasing the number of moderators is not going to help. The problem lies in the fact that you can't post in a thread you've moderated, and vice versa. People who post their insignts to a thread lose the ability to moderate. People who consider moderating back down because they might want to post something. I remember the debates about the idea of "moderate XOR post" before it was implemented, and I agreed with it at the time, but I see now that it just isn't working.
At least in that aspect, we should go back to the idea that you can moderate and post in the same thread, but you cannot moderate your own posts. At least for people with karma over, say, 15 (enough to show a history of good, responsible posting) this would end that problem.
Third: It's already required for a person to send in an e-mail address when registering. Perhaps it would be best if only one account were allowed per e-mail address. Couple this with the idea posted earlier in this thread that a person whose post gets moderated to Flamebait or Troll (this would have to be changed to require a consensus of three moderators in order to change a person's post to Troll status) cannot post anything more until the next day. The result would help to cut down on trolling, since a person cannot simply create another account and continue on. Since there's already a "Post Anonymously" checkbox there isn't a need for more than one account per person anyway. E-mail addresses can't be faked, since the password is sent to the e-mail address given when a person registers (so an account with a faked address is useless since you can't log on).
Finally, the thing about keeping Karma on a person's User Info page: people like to monitor how they're doing. I myself was quite surprised when I looked at my own score. It's a nice thing to see for those of us with high Karma, and if Karma starts to drop it's a good wake-up call. For those with low Karma, there's something to be said for watching one's progress as one claws one's way out of that trap. It's for the best that people can see what their Karma score is; please don't change it.
Because of this, I have serious doubts as to whether or not I'll ever watch or buy anything by Henson and company ever again.
Censorship is the true obscenity, and this is what it's coming to. I wish things were different, but as it is I'm beginning to consider leaving the country as soon as I get out of college (assuming the government still allows people to leave the country at all by then). In the interests of "protecting chiuldren" they would reduce us to a nation of children. Then again, this is probably what they want, since children are easier to control than adults, especially adults who actually exercise their own minds rather than let the government do their thinking for them.
Intellectuals need a government lobby. We should try and get organized; I know it's the nature of us geeks to work alone but it takes concerted effort to make a difference. That's why the Slashdot Effect works; millions of people all doing the same thing at the same time (sure, it's not really concerted, but you get the same effect). It's how Linux works; imagine where it would be now if only Linus worked on it and no one else. It can work in real life too. I hate to turn Slashdot into a political platform, so this is best done on another site. It's probably a lost cause for our generation; we're all going to live under at least a brief period of totalitarianism at some point within the next fifty years, I'd imagine. But if we want our children to have any freedom whatsoever, we have to organize and get out into the real world.
First, perhaps I should point out to people that it hasn't been done yet. This is only a plan to do so. I'll believe this guy's claims when I see them.
Second, I don't see how this supplants any creation theories at all; all it would prove is that life could in fact be created by intelligent design. Of course, that fact is going to be ignored by fundamentalists and militant atheists alike, as fundamentalists brand it as something contrary to God's will and the militant atheists (note that I didn't say all atheists) try to claim it as proof for their side.
Personally, I have a lot of qualms about this, though. The potential for abuse is quite high. The article points out the potential for bio-weaponry, which is of course a possibility. What I'm more worried about is that if they ever do get to the point where they can create higher lifeforms they'll mass-produce them to use as slaves (or, in the case of the military, super-soldiers, not that there's much of a difference). Up until fairly recently I thought the world had outgrown that concept, but the recent violence in Eastern Europe (and the more recent violence in East Timor) plus the various hate groups worldwide seem to have proven otherwise.
Slashdot really shouldn't post these release notices until the day after a release. Give the mirror sites and more dedicated users some time to get it before Slashdotting the servers.
Besides which, then a list of mirrors can be posted along with the notice, to help reduce the load. Honestly, Slashdot's popularity is a Good Thing, but that popularity gives us a certain responsibility not to overload servers unless it's necessary (i.e. Web servers which typically don't have mirrors).
Of course, if Microsoft owns the server in question, all bets are off. But I doubt that's the case here.
Liberal? Me? Please tell me you're joking. As a matter of fact, when it comes to politics I'm actually rather conservative. Hell, I'm even Christian, if you want to know the truth. Not to mention that I have the last two thirds of DWM (I'm a bit young to be divorced, or even married for that matter), just as you do.
I am sane, however. I've seen what these people can do. I might add that at least to date I'm not boycotting anyone (by the way, what's "frankenstein food"; I've never heard anything called that). And yes, boycotts and such are "valid expressions of discontent with American life."
And I don't agree with the liberals who boycott all that other stuff, either. But they aren't of any particular concern for this issue; when's the last time you heard a liberal arguing that RPG's were the tools of Satan and should be banned? (yes, I know some scream about supposed psychological effects on children, but I've never heard a signle liberal advocate banning them).
Sure, there aren't many Mac Webservers out there. But as long as you take proper care of it, it makes a great server. It's not Linux, mind you, but Linux is Linux and Mac is Mac. Each does things differently. I'm sure the Army has its reasons for choosing MacOS; I doubt it's any OSS-related FUD seeing as they could have switched to one of a number of commercial Unices as well.
I know of Mac boxes that have had over a year of uptime (this was a while back, and as a consequence they were still running System 7.6, one of releases which wasn't exactly known for stability). It's all a matter of taking care of the thing.
Admittedly, though, I'm dumbfounded as to why they didn't use Apache (which does have a Mac port; a company called Tenon maintains it under the name WebTen, though I think they might have closed off their branch of the code). WebStar does have its own advantages, though.
I wonder if they'll switch to Apache/OSX when it comes out (hell, why didn't they do it now? OSX Server comes with it; even Darwin comes with it, and yes the CGI bug has been fixed).
Hasbro buying out WotC is probably the worst thing which could happen for role-playing gamers.
Why? Because Hasbro is a huge company. And huge companies have this annoying habit of bowing to the twisted whims of the so-called Christian right (never mind that it's neither). Look at Warner's cop-out of releasing The Matrix only on DVD (which I hope they don't do in the end).
In other words, everyone's favorite band of immature zealots will now have a much easier time of getting a lot of the best role-playing and card games out there effectively banned by "forcing" Hasbro to stop making them (thanks to one incredibly annoying facet of the Christian right: it's so damn huge that a boycott, or even the threat of one, would be disastrous to any company, even Micro$oft).
This is simply common sense. Wave your hand in front of a lamp (monitors don't work very well for this experiment). How do you see it? As one image after another; you don't see your hand in all possible positions at once.
Note that that's simply processing sensory data. The people who talk about spotting the red cube in a bunch of green ones are talking about something totally different: recognition. Even there, the brain picks the red cube out from the whole image; the reason the time to recognize the red cube doesn't depend on the number of total cubes is that you see the same size image, no matter how many cubes there are, and the red cube looks different enough from the green ones that it's easy to spot. It'd be like playing "Where's Waldo" in a situation where everyone else is wearing blue; no matter how many people there are you'll find Waldo in a second.
Still not convinced? Here's a simple experiment to try: play "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" and Limp Bizkit's "Nookie" in your head simultaneously (those songs being chosen because they're totally different; feel free to substitute any other two songs that are sufficiently different), and try to concentrate on both at the same time (note: do this without actually saying the lyrics to either one; that's cheating). You can get pretty close, but I'll bet that you can't quite do it.
More than likely, the brain simply "multitasks" in a manner not unlike machines do today; it doesn't really run multiple processes at once but it can do a pretty convincing illusion. Since each area works somewhat independently of the others, you can get a bit of parallelism going. That's why you could sing the lyrics to one song while thinking of another; you've assigned a different area to each task. Put them in the same area (by not saying the lyrics to either one) and suddenly you can't do it.
So, cheer up. At least on this planet we're still top dog in terms of intelligence (your average U.S. politician notwithstanding).
That "Mark of the Beast" bit is a bit ridiculous when applied to this context, but it could prove useful.
Consider: although free speech is constantly under attack in the US, no one dares question freedom of religion (no one regarded as a sane person, at any rate). Therefore, you can always refuse to be added to the database "for religious reasons" and the government cannot stop you for fear of word getting out (hell, phrase it that way and this would be an issue that would likely have every activist group in America, from the Christian Coalition to the ACLU, from People for the American Way to the Citizens for the Ten Commandments, all agreeing for once; that'd be kinda cool).
If I remember correctly, this is even precedented on a couple of military bases, where "MARC cards" were becoming popular for matters of security clearance. The name has since been changed to "SMART cards" and they're not as pervasive as they might have been. Someone posted that on Slashdot once; I forget who.
It's simply that the government does not care about them. It's somehow gotten the impression that it is above the law somehow.
Look, once again their cover story is almost legit. But the fact remains, someone will abuse this. It's simply the law of averages; when something is ripe for abuse, someone will eventually come along and do so. Look at Germany in the 1930's and 40's; severe depression, extremely low confidence in the government, and other such factors. Along comes some unknown artist named Adolf, and suddenly you have one of the most hideous examples of abuse of power in history: the Third Reich.
So it will be with this. The nature of the abuse will probably be much different from the Third Reich (I seriously doubt the Secret Service is going to kill people based on race, though when you consider the Japanese internment camps of WWII I suppose it's a possibility), but the effects will be every bit as real. It's only a matter of time. I doubt its creators will abuse it; most people actually do start this kind of hideous obscenity with good intentions (hell; even the pro-censorship people mean well for the most part, not realizing just how selfish/lazy/deluded/evil their reasons for wanting it really are). But someone will come along. Who? I don't know. The most likely candidate in today's admistration doesn't have enough time left in office to do it (seeing as the database isn't even finished).
(as evidenced by the fact that not only were they announcing G4 upgrades the same day as the G4 machines, but the fact that they were able to find the ROM block on the day the trojan^H^H^H^H^H^Hsystem update was released even though the block hadn't been removed).
That should read as follows:
(as evidenced by the fact that not only were they announcing G4 upgrades the same day as the G4 machines even though the block hadn't been removed, and by the fact that they were able to find the ROM block on the day the trojan^H^H^H^H^H^Hsystem update was released).
I should have used the Preview button, I guess. Actually, Rob, you should consider forcing a preview before any message is posted. It would cut down on errors and also give flamers one last chance to cool off before posting a flame.
To some extent, but consider: would you buy an upgrade to a chip which had never even once been used in any computer being produced at the time? I wouldn't have done that, and I doubt most other people would have done it. Yeah, upgrade companies want to go up to faster chips, but you'll notice that even before the ROM block issue came up, they had G4 upgrades ready but didn't sell them (as evidenced by the fact that not only were they announcing G4 upgrades the same day as the G4 machines, but the fact that they were able to find the ROM block on the day the trojan^H^H^H^H^H^Hsystem update was released even though the block hadn't been removed).
The upgrade companies had been holding back on purpose; the ROM block changed nothing (which renders it worthless from a business perspective, but Apple decided to be paranoid).
I'm not defending Apple at all; that was a dirty trick that they pulled. But consider everything before accusing people.
A Fast Ethernet switch for $50/port? Where are you getting this info from; I'd love to buyt a switch from them if it's that cheap.
I might also add that NetBoot over AirPort actually works quite well; ever seen it? Spiffy, to say the least.
And yeah, you can get a decent Ethernet card for $50 and spend the extra money on cabling (buying the card would be pointless seeing as how every Mac made in the last ten years comes with Ethernet already). But the switch is still the problem. At $50 a port for 11 ports, that would be $550 (I might add that the AirPort handles the same number of devices for $300; that's quite a bit of savings).
In short, for a small home network of five devices, AirPort and 100Base-T cost the same amount, assuming $50/port for a switch which could handle the same number of devices as an AirPort, and $50 for good Ethernet cards. However, also consider that 100Base-T is severe overkill for a network of only five devices, and even at ten you're only just starting to feel a severe crunch on bandwidth. Then, of course, there's the ease of use of the AirPort network; 100Base-T can't beat that.
Consider this also: if the rumors that a single G4 can act as an AirPort are true, then the cost of 11 AirPort cards is the same as that of 11 Ethernet cards and a fast switch at $50/port. This, of course, assumes that you want to use the G4 on the network, and it's already installed (you'd have to buy a machine to act as a server on the 100Base-T network anyway).
So in the end, for a home LAN the AirPort is actually ideal. For a business LAN... maybe if the business were really small. But businesses should be using higher-end solutions anyway. The AirPort was designed as a home and classroom LAN solution, and at this it excels.
This is a rumor. There's another rumor going around that Apple's going to reverse the G4-block in the Blue G3's. They can't both be right (well, I suppose they could, but it would make no sense at all).
Wouldn't matter anyway, seeing as how OSX (and therefore Darwin) requires no proprietary boot ROM. Nor, actually, does OS8.6 (the G4's and iBooks have no proprietary ROM in hardware, therefore MacOS wouldn't be able to boot at all if it still required one. Truth be told, MacOS has booted on CHRP machines since 8.1!) All the upgrade makers would have to do is trot on over to FirmWorks and get their OpenFirmware ROM's from there. No big deal.Linux already works with these OF modules, so it doesn't hurt them in the least. MacOS... well, what do you think OSX is for?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, please. Pokemon? Gambling? Not in the least.
First off, consider the case of my girlfriend. She was beginning to get interested in M:tG. though she hadn't played much. I had plenty of cards by that time, so I made her a deck and gave it to her. She did not pay to play at all. The point: Pokemon fails the first test, because it isn't always necessary to pay to play.
Yes, there's an element of chance. There's an element of chance in any game; that's why it's called a game. Even something as "innocent" as Parcheesi or Clue has elements of chance, and yet I see no one suing companies that make those. To set that up as a criterion for gambling is just plain stupid. So Pokemon would pass the second test if that test were even valid. But since it isn't, the point is moot.
And as for there being a prize: Pokemon, while it is possible to play for ante (to use the M:tG term; I don't know what Pokemon calls it) it isn't mandated. So it fails the third test ("there is a prize") because there is not always a prize.
I suppose you could say that there's an element of gambling in the buying of Pokemon card packs. But I also doubt too many people would call that a game. These kids made a stupid decision. Their parents, who could easily have put an end to it, made a very stupid decision by not doing so, thereby losing thousands of dollars. They have no one to blame for this but themselves.
They think wearing an ID badge will prevent school violence? Hardly. No more than banning lockers and backpacks.
There is a problem. Of that there can be no doubt. But what is the problem? Are backpacks the problem? No. Is the lack of an easy way to identify students the problem? No. Are trenchcoats the problem? No. In fact, I'm going to take a gutsy leap here and say that even guns are not the problem, as evidenced by the fact that for every psycho who shoots someone with a gun there are thousands of gun owners who never hurt anyone with a gun in their entire lives. I'm not in either camp (seeing as I don't own a gun, nor do I plan to in the immediate future), but it's simply an observation.
And that's why ID badges, banning backpacks or tranchcoats, and metal detectors will not solve anything, nor will they save any lives at all. Violence in our schools is like a virus. You can suppress the symptoms with relative ease, but you have not cured the disease until you get to the root of the problem and eradicate that. So, we come to the question: what is the root of the problem?
I believe that the problem is a simple lack of basic respect for one's fellow human beings. As someone who lives near Washington, DC (when not at college) I see this every single day, in adults as well as children. Politeness is a thing to be exploited. People are chess pawns to be manipulated in a game where the prize is power and/or prestige, or perhaps it is just a whim. Kids in school whose only fault is to prize knowledge over physical ability are tortured by their peers, day in and day out, from kindergarten all the way through high school. And I don't speak of the relatively good-natured ribbing our parents and even grandparents experienced; what I see going on in today's public schools would make Amnesty International cringe if only they knew. But they don't know, because administrations cover it up with shit like this. Why? Because really solving the problem is hard, very hard. So instead they quietly hide it away, putting the victim through punishments which were meant for the agreesors, all the while winking at the troublemakers, giving them the silent go-ahead to continue the brutality.
And yes, solving this problem will be difficult. The first thing is the hardest: admitting that we were wrong. Our culture has made many great strides, and most of the time the changes have been for the better, but somewhere along the line we screwed up, and now we have to go back. To what? I don't claim to know; it can be blamed on any of a million different things.
One popular theory among conservatives is that it's the breakdown of the family unit, and there's some credence to that; where will a child learn to respect all people if not from a set of loving parents to use as examples? This is the one I tend to believe. But at the same time, dysfunctional families have always existed (if you're religious they existed all the way back to Adam and Eve and their kids), and this kind of violence was so seldom seen even ten years ago that to say it never happened wouldn't be far from the truth. Then again, there weren't nearly so many dysfunctional families, and most people who came out of those still managed to become well-adjusted, evan after abuse. Conversely, some families, while hardly dysfunctional by any means, actively twist their children into the brutes we see today (particularly in terms of racism; I've had the misfortune to witness this as well).
Some, mainly the religious right, would say it was the separation of church and state. That theory's not one I tend to believe, but I see their viewpoint; if the schools don't teach that there are any moral laws that transcend human beings then what reason is there to respect anyone? At the same time, there's the concept of gestalt, that humanity is greater than the sum of the human beings within it. It's a completely nonreligious idea which happens to have the interesting property of allowing the idea of respect for all people to be taught along with a reason for doing sowithout infringing upon anyone's religion or lack thereof. Why respect all people? Because they, like you, are humans, a part of something greater than either of you. An interesting idea, and perhaps something that ought to be looked into; I don't know of many people who would argue that humanity is as a whole greater than the sum of its parts.
Others claim it's media violence. The theory goes that media violence first desensitizes people, then causes people to actually crave it. There's a very large hole in this theory, though. The only reason moviemakers create films as they do is because it's profitable; just ask any movie maker. The only thing that hasn't become cheaper (when inflation is accounted for) over the past fifty years is movie-theater tickets, yet people flock to see the movies in ever-increasing numbers, particularly violent ones. Moviemakers know this; they realize that the desire for violence is already present in the audience, long before any exposure takes place. It is the same for television and video games. I tend to believe this craving comes, once again, from a basic lack of respect for all people; if you respect people then by definition you desire violence towards them. But I digress; the gestalt idea is for another debate some other time.
So how do you solve this problem? Much as I hate to say it, it's probably too late for the current generation of high- and even middle-schoolers. But you can still reach current and forthcoming elementary-schoolers. Get it into children's TV programs (it's been in Sesame Street and even Barney for decades, but the oldest target age for these is still too young to have much of an effect), and get it into the schools. The rule is a simple one: respect all people. Zero tolerance for infractions (though, obviously, what constitutes disrespect is going to have to happen on a case-by-case basis for all but the most blatant violations). Break it too many times, and it's out of the public school system and into a system specifically trained to handle bullies, such as military school (mention military school to any bully, by the way, and 99 times out of 100 you'll get a noticeable fear reaction; the threat is quite effective if it can be backed up).
Yeah, it's a simple thing. It sounds too simple, in fact. So did the "Just Say No" campaign, but it was working while it was in force (studies showed a decline in drug abuse during those years). It was criticized by all sorts of people for being too simplistic, but it worked. The other campaigns since then, while they've been much more sophisticated, haven't had much (or at least as much) of an effect; drug abuse is on the rise again (perhaps more slowly than it would be if no campaign existed, but any rise is a sign of failure). Sometimes simpler really is better.
The rule is simple. Respect all people. Why can't the schools get that into their heads? It would save them, students, parents, and possibly the world at large a great deal of trouble in the end.
No one will ever force you to buy one. PC's will not suddenly be banned when there finally is an alternative available.
True, but if they're not profitable anymore than no one will make them.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the availability of an alternative even caused the prices to drop, which is always a good thing. If big bad Bill want's to sell a NC, but makes it impossible for non MS software to run on it, his NC will fail to compete with other NC's that do not pose such restrictions.
Microsoft's track record (and Intel's for that matter) proves that people will often buy what is cheaper over what is better. Because M$ would be making the hardware and the only software that could run on it, it could sell the NC at rock-bottom prices that absolutely no one else is in any position to match (except possibly Apple, but they won't do it).
It would make as little sense as making windows for microsoft apps only.
I'm sure they're working on it. There's already the hidden API.
Did anyone ever think that the admittedly knee jerk reactions of school administrators might actually have saved lives? There was at least one other shooting afterwards, perhaps the crack down prevented more? I mean, it's too bad that some school kids lost some priviledges, but if lives were saved (even one,) isn't that *worth it*?
So you're sayinf that lives were saved because some schools banned trenchcoats and even lockers? Just how much of a fool can you possibly be? These are not the problem and never were. The problem is a cultural one. In the United States, the average intellectual can expect to be ritualistically tortured for eight hours a day, five days a week, 36 weeks a year. Worse, our culture encourages this torture. That is what is wrong. The pressure could drive anyone to madness.
Fifteen people died that day. This is a horrible, sad thing. They should not have had to die. But their deaths at least have meaning, as an example of what happens when the persecution of intellectually-oriented people gets out of hand. The crackdowns saved no lives, and ruined several. The only crackdown that would even have a hope of working is one against the true source of the problem: disrespect. But, as always, the administrations tried to take the quick-fix, punishing the victims. The fact that there was a shooting even after this proves this tactic not only wrong, but dangerous.
Actually, whgen it comes to the relative effectiveness of guns and knives, it depends on range. Get to within ten feet or so and the knife befomes far more effective.
I think you're also forgetting the effectiveness of a knife as a slashing weapon.
It doesn't matter, because they guy you're responding to was wrong. Take away the guns, and criminals won't turn to knives. They'll turn to bombs. Then we're really screwed.
Worst of all, simple illegalization of guns isn't going to change a thing; most criminals already get their guns by illegal means (legal means are, after all, too easy to trace), and simply taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens is not going to change that.
As long as they don't do anything with these domain names, it's nothing more than squatting. The heck of it is, they could be putting these names to productive use. Link 'em all back to anti-hate groups, get the information out there.
You can't destroy a hate group with laws. The reason: laws don't destroy hate. It would be dangerous to even try, because the minute you stifle someone else's voice you jeopardize your own. No, laws aren't the way to combat hate groups. There is only one real way to fight them: with knowledge. Start young, demonstrating the principles of equality. The rule is simple: respect all people, no matter what.
And for crying out loud, why is it that no state has passed a law stating that indoctrinating a child with racism is child abuse? I live not even a hundred yards away from just such a family, and it's truly revolting to watch. Three little girls, the oldest one not yet ten, and already they're spewing hate speech (as far as I know they have yet to graduate to actual slurs, but I also try to avoid this family whenever possible). It's absolutely sickening. There are states which treat failure to teach a child English as child abuse, and if that is than surely planting racism into a young mind is too.
Actually, if I remember correctly, the GPL has been violated by a business before. It was NeXT, actually. They added Onjective-C to GCC, then tried to close up their source tree. FSF got mad, took them to court, and the end result is that we now have Objective-C in GCC as Open-Source.
In other words, Corel's about to get slammed hard. And frankly, they deserve it; I don't consider myself an OSS-zealot, but breaking a license like this is another issue entirely.
It's always a shame to see aomeone fall from such heights as this. If he is indeed guilty, though, I have absolutely no sympathy for him at all.
However, this is going to prove very problematic. Censors and snoopers alike are going to have a field day, thanks to the fact that this case will inevitably become quite high-profile. Censors will decry the ease of transmission of information on the Net, claim it's "a haven for chold pronography" and demand censorship (not like they haven't been doing it already, but now they have a high-profile case to latch onto).
Snoopers, on the other hand, will show how "people like this" use encryption to hide their activity from law enforcement, therefore "they" need a backdoor. Worse, since their point is semi-valid, they'll sway a lot more people over to their side than they would with pure crap.
Note I said semi-valid; they have a right to investigate, but it does not counter or override the people's right to privacy. I'll gladly let the FBI search my computer and decrypt my stuff, but they're going to have to show me a warrant first. If they don't, then they aren't getting into my machine, plain and simple.
But I digress. The point is, even if justice is served in this case, it could very well pave the way for injustices of the worst kind later on. We're going to have to watch this very carefully.
Perhaps. But there's little point in writing something you can't test. A person who's modifying data to use in chip production is going to want to be able to build one and test it; that can't be done without the machines.
Besides which, you're right about FPGA's and such. But the Sparc isn't an FPGA anyway, so it doesn't apply in this case.
Unfortunately, I think it's one doomed to failure.
There are two main reasons why Open-Source is practical in software. One, software is available in infinite supply; I could make as many copies of a given program as I wanted and always have one more, and furthermore I can do it at zero cost. Two, software is pretty easy to modify; all one needs is a compiler (which GNU and the EGCS team have given us already) and source code (which is readily available). Because of these two facts, anyone with a computer can get into the business quickly and cheaply.
Hardware doesn't have these two attributes. First, it's not available in infinite supply; if I have one chip and give it away I have no chips. I can, of course, make more if I have the right machine. The problem is, the cost of said machine (several million dollars, last I checked, and I don't seem to be able to find any of them on EBay for less) keeps pretty much every man, woman, and child on the face of the planet from getting one. Even if I have the machine, I still have to buy the materials, which gets expensive if I want to make many chips.
Second, hardware is very difficult to modify on the level of the individual chips. Many people on Slashdot probably built their computers from preexisting parts. Some probably have managed to build one from preexisting chips and constructing even the boards themselves. But I'd love to see someone here running Linux on a chip that he or she made as a Computer Engineering project in college (granted, such courses do tend to include constructing a simple microprocessor as a final project, but now try making a whole computer out of it). Besides which, EPROM's and EEPROM's notwithstanding, one cannot modify a chip which has already been made; you must literally throw it out and start again if you want to change the chip.
These two major factors are going to keep the idea of an Open-Source processor from being truly feasible. It's not that no one will work on it (a fallacy often used as FUD against Open-Source software). It's that almost no one is able to work on it (certainly not enough to derive much of an advantage), and those that are typically already work for a chip company which is going to take a very dim view of an employee who's helping out someone else's chips, so in the interest of job security they aren't going to work on it either. Opening the specs is still a Good Thing from a trustworthiness standpoint, but I seriously hope Sun isn't hoping to get the next generation of Sparcs this way.
One, the entire moderstion system, including documentation, needs to be documented on the site. Looking through all of the posts here I'm astounded at how many people don't seem to understand the system, and therefore are requesting features which already exist. I think that if the whole system were very thoroughly documented, these debates about how best to implement a moderation system would st least slow down if not stop, because there would be one page where people could go, read up on the system, and understand it.
Second, there are complaints of a "lack of moderation." There's a reason for that, but increasing the number of moderators is not going to help. The problem lies in the fact that you can't post in a thread you've moderated, and vice versa. People who post their insignts to a thread lose the ability to moderate. People who consider moderating back down because they might want to post something. I remember the debates about the idea of "moderate XOR post" before it was implemented, and I agreed with it at the time, but I see now that it just isn't working.
At least in that aspect, we should go back to the idea that you can moderate and post in the same thread, but you cannot moderate your own posts. At least for people with karma over, say, 15 (enough to show a history of good, responsible posting) this would end that problem.
Third: It's already required for a person to send in an e-mail address when registering. Perhaps it would be best if only one account were allowed per e-mail address. Couple this with the idea posted earlier in this thread that a person whose post gets moderated to Flamebait or Troll (this would have to be changed to require a consensus of three moderators in order to change a person's post to Troll status) cannot post anything more until the next day. The result would help to cut down on trolling, since a person cannot simply create another account and continue on. Since there's already a "Post Anonymously" checkbox there isn't a need for more than one account per person anyway. E-mail addresses can't be faked, since the password is sent to the e-mail address given when a person registers (so an account with a faked address is useless since you can't log on).
Finally, the thing about keeping Karma on a person's User Info page: people like to monitor how they're doing. I myself was quite surprised when I looked at my own score. It's a nice thing to see for those of us with high Karma, and if Karma starts to drop it's a good wake-up call. For those with low Karma, there's something to be said for watching one's progress as one claws one's way out of that trap. It's for the best that people can see what their Karma score is; please don't change it.
Because of this, I have serious doubts as to whether or not I'll ever watch or buy anything by Henson and company ever again.
Censorship is the true obscenity, and this is what it's coming to. I wish things were different, but as it is I'm beginning to consider leaving the country as soon as I get out of college (assuming the government still allows people to leave the country at all by then). In the interests of "protecting chiuldren" they would reduce us to a nation of children. Then again, this is probably what they want, since children are easier to control than adults, especially adults who actually exercise their own minds rather than let the government do their thinking for them.
Intellectuals need a government lobby. We should try and get organized; I know it's the nature of us geeks to work alone but it takes concerted effort to make a difference. That's why the Slashdot Effect works; millions of people all doing the same thing at the same time (sure, it's not really concerted, but you get the same effect). It's how Linux works; imagine where it would be now if only Linus worked on it and no one else. It can work in real life too. I hate to turn Slashdot into a political platform, so this is best done on another site. It's probably a lost cause for our generation; we're all going to live under at least a brief period of totalitarianism at some point within the next fifty years, I'd imagine. But if we want our children to have any freedom whatsoever, we have to organize and get out into the real world.
First, perhaps I should point out to people that it hasn't been done yet. This is only a plan to do so. I'll believe this guy's claims when I see them.
Second, I don't see how this supplants any creation theories at all; all it would prove is that life could in fact be created by intelligent design. Of course, that fact is going to be ignored by fundamentalists and militant atheists alike, as fundamentalists brand it as something contrary to God's will and the militant atheists (note that I didn't say all atheists) try to claim it as proof for their side.
Personally, I have a lot of qualms about this, though. The potential for abuse is quite high. The article points out the potential for bio-weaponry, which is of course a possibility. What I'm more worried about is that if they ever do get to the point where they can create higher lifeforms they'll mass-produce them to use as slaves (or, in the case of the military, super-soldiers, not that there's much of a difference). Up until fairly recently I thought the world had outgrown that concept, but the recent violence in Eastern Europe (and the more recent violence in East Timor) plus the various hate groups worldwide seem to have proven otherwise.
Slashdot really shouldn't post these release notices until the day after a release. Give the mirror sites and more dedicated users some time to get it before Slashdotting the servers.
Besides which, then a list of mirrors can be posted along with the notice, to help reduce the load. Honestly, Slashdot's popularity is a Good Thing, but that popularity gives us a certain responsibility not to overload servers unless it's necessary (i.e. Web servers which typically don't have mirrors).
Of course, if Microsoft owns the server in question, all bets are off. But I doubt that's the case here.
Liberal? Me? Please tell me you're joking. As a matter of fact, when it comes to politics I'm actually rather conservative. Hell, I'm even Christian, if you want to know the truth. Not to mention that I have the last two thirds of DWM (I'm a bit young to be divorced, or even married for that matter), just as you do.
I am sane, however. I've seen what these people can do. I might add that at least to date I'm not boycotting anyone (by the way, what's "frankenstein food"; I've never heard anything called that). And yes, boycotts and such are "valid expressions of discontent with American life."
And I don't agree with the liberals who boycott all that other stuff, either. But they aren't of any particular concern for this issue; when's the last time you heard a liberal arguing that RPG's were the tools of Satan and should be banned? (yes, I know some scream about supposed psychological effects on children, but I've never heard a signle liberal advocate banning them).
Sure, there aren't many Mac Webservers out there. But as long as you take proper care of it, it makes a great server. It's not Linux, mind you, but Linux is Linux and Mac is Mac. Each does things differently. I'm sure the Army has its reasons for choosing MacOS; I doubt it's any OSS-related FUD seeing as they could have switched to one of a number of commercial Unices as well.
I know of Mac boxes that have had over a year of uptime (this was a while back, and as a consequence they were still running System 7.6, one of releases which wasn't exactly known for stability). It's all a matter of taking care of the thing.
Admittedly, though, I'm dumbfounded as to why they didn't use Apache (which does have a Mac port; a company called Tenon maintains it under the name WebTen, though I think they might have closed off their branch of the code). WebStar does have its own advantages, though.
I wonder if they'll switch to Apache/OSX when it comes out (hell, why didn't they do it now? OSX Server comes with it; even Darwin comes with it, and yes the CGI bug has been fixed).
Hasbro buying out WotC is probably the worst thing which could happen for role-playing gamers.
Why? Because Hasbro is a huge company. And huge companies have this annoying habit of bowing to the twisted whims of the so-called Christian right (never mind that it's neither). Look at Warner's cop-out of releasing The Matrix only on DVD (which I hope they don't do in the end).
In other words, everyone's favorite band of immature zealots will now have a much easier time of getting a lot of the best role-playing and card games out there effectively banned by "forcing" Hasbro to stop making them (thanks to one incredibly annoying facet of the Christian right: it's so damn huge that a boycott, or even the threat of one, would be disastrous to any company, even Micro$oft).
This is simply common sense. Wave your hand in front of a lamp (monitors don't work very well for this experiment). How do you see it? As one image after another; you don't see your hand in all possible positions at once.
Note that that's simply processing sensory data. The people who talk about spotting the red cube in a bunch of green ones are talking about something totally different: recognition. Even there, the brain picks the red cube out from the whole image; the reason the time to recognize the red cube doesn't depend on the number of total cubes is that you see the same size image, no matter how many cubes there are, and the red cube looks different enough from the green ones that it's easy to spot. It'd be like playing "Where's Waldo" in a situation where everyone else is wearing blue; no matter how many people there are you'll find Waldo in a second.
Still not convinced? Here's a simple experiment to try: play "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" and Limp Bizkit's "Nookie" in your head simultaneously (those songs being chosen because they're totally different; feel free to substitute any other two songs that are sufficiently different), and try to concentrate on both at the same time (note: do this without actually saying the lyrics to either one; that's cheating). You can get pretty close, but I'll bet that you can't quite do it.
More than likely, the brain simply "multitasks" in a manner not unlike machines do today; it doesn't really run multiple processes at once but it can do a pretty convincing illusion. Since each area works somewhat independently of the others, you can get a bit of parallelism going. That's why you could sing the lyrics to one song while thinking of another; you've assigned a different area to each task. Put them in the same area (by not saying the lyrics to either one) and suddenly you can't do it.
So, cheer up. At least on this planet we're still top dog in terms of intelligence (your average U.S. politician notwithstanding).
That "Mark of the Beast" bit is a bit ridiculous when applied to this context, but it could prove useful.
Consider: although free speech is constantly under attack in the US, no one dares question freedom of religion (no one regarded as a sane person, at any rate). Therefore, you can always refuse to be added to the database "for religious reasons" and the government cannot stop you for fear of word getting out (hell, phrase it that way and this would be an issue that would likely have every activist group in America, from the Christian Coalition to the ACLU, from People for the American Way to the Citizens for the Ten Commandments, all agreeing for once; that'd be kinda cool).
If I remember correctly, this is even precedented on a couple of military bases, where "MARC cards" were becoming popular for matters of security clearance. The name has since been changed to "SMART cards" and they're not as pervasive as they might have been. Someone posted that on Slashdot once; I forget who.
It's simply that the government does not care about them. It's somehow gotten the impression that it is above the law somehow.
Look, once again their cover story is almost legit. But the fact remains, someone will abuse this. It's simply the law of averages; when something is ripe for abuse, someone will eventually come along and do so. Look at Germany in the 1930's and 40's; severe depression, extremely low confidence in the government, and other such factors. Along comes some unknown artist named Adolf, and suddenly you have one of the most hideous examples of abuse of power in history: the Third Reich.
So it will be with this. The nature of the abuse will probably be much different from the Third Reich (I seriously doubt the Secret Service is going to kill people based on race, though when you consider the Japanese internment camps of WWII I suppose it's a possibility), but the effects will be every bit as real. It's only a matter of time. I doubt its creators will abuse it; most people actually do start this kind of hideous obscenity with good intentions (hell; even the pro-censorship people mean well for the most part, not realizing just how selfish/lazy/deluded/evil their reasons for wanting it really are). But someone will come along. Who? I don't know. The most likely candidate in today's admistration doesn't have enough time left in office to do it (seeing as the database isn't even finished).
About the only time you can count on anything from AppleInsider anymore is when it has screenshots (the one thing it does better than MOSR).
It's sad. Back in the days when it was MacNN Reality, it was quite good. Now, I rarely trust what it says without a picture.
(as evidenced by the fact that not only were they announcing G4 upgrades the same day as the G4 machines, but the fact that they were able to find the ROM block on the day the trojan^H^H^H^H^H^Hsystem update was released even though the block hadn't been removed).
That should read as follows:
(as evidenced by the fact that not only were they announcing G4 upgrades the same day as the G4 machines even though the block hadn't been removed, and by the fact that they were able to find the ROM block on the day the trojan^H^H^H^H^H^Hsystem update was released).
I should have used the Preview button, I guess. Actually, Rob, you should consider forcing a preview before any message is posted. It would cut down on errors and also give flamers one last chance to cool off before posting a flame.
To some extent, but consider: would you buy an upgrade to a chip which had never even once been used in any computer being produced at the time? I wouldn't have done that, and I doubt most other people would have done it. Yeah, upgrade companies want to go up to faster chips, but you'll notice that even before the ROM block issue came up, they had G4 upgrades ready but didn't sell them (as evidenced by the fact that not only were they announcing G4 upgrades the same day as the G4 machines, but the fact that they were able to find the ROM block on the day the trojan^H^H^H^H^H^Hsystem update was released even though the block hadn't been removed).
The upgrade companies had been holding back on purpose; the ROM block changed nothing (which renders it worthless from a business perspective, but Apple decided to be paranoid).
I'm not defending Apple at all; that was a dirty trick that they pulled. But consider everything before accusing people.
A Fast Ethernet switch for $50/port? Where are you getting this info from; I'd love to buyt a switch from them if it's that cheap.
I might also add that NetBoot over AirPort actually works quite well; ever seen it? Spiffy, to say the least.
And yeah, you can get a decent Ethernet card for $50 and spend the extra money on cabling (buying the card would be pointless seeing as how every Mac made in the last ten years comes with Ethernet already). But the switch is still the problem. At $50 a port for 11 ports, that would be $550 (I might add that the AirPort handles the same number of devices for $300; that's quite a bit of savings).
In short, for a small home network of five devices, AirPort and 100Base-T cost the same amount, assuming $50/port for a switch which could handle the same number of devices as an AirPort, and $50 for good Ethernet cards. However, also consider that 100Base-T is severe overkill for a network of only five devices, and even at ten you're only just starting to feel a severe crunch on bandwidth. Then, of course, there's the ease of use of the AirPort network; 100Base-T can't beat that.
Consider this also: if the rumors that a single G4 can act as an AirPort are true, then the cost of 11 AirPort cards is the same as that of 11 Ethernet cards and a fast switch at $50/port. This, of course, assumes that you want to use the G4 on the network, and it's already installed (you'd have to buy a machine to act as a server on the 100Base-T network anyway).
So in the end, for a home LAN the AirPort is actually ideal. For a business LAN... maybe if the business were really small. But businesses should be using higher-end solutions anyway. The AirPort was designed as a home and classroom LAN solution, and at this it excels.
This is a rumor . There's another rumor going around that Apple's going to reverse the G4-block in the Blue G3's. They can't both be right (well, I suppose they could, but it would make no sense at all).
Wouldn't matter anyway, seeing as how OSX (and therefore Darwin) requires no proprietary boot ROM. Nor, actually, does OS8.6 (the G4's and iBooks have no proprietary ROM in hardware, therefore MacOS wouldn't be able to boot at all if it still required one. Truth be told, MacOS has booted on CHRP machines since 8.1!) All the upgrade makers would have to do is trot on over to FirmWorks and get their OpenFirmware ROM's from there. No big deal.Linux already works with these OF modules, so it doesn't hurt them in the least. MacOS... well, what do you think OSX is for?