No, I'm advocating not choosing a server OS that can't be patched because of a closed nature after only 5 or so years of use.
Though, since you bring up OS X, since all of the services are based on open source pieces of software anyway (like Apache, OpenSSH, SMB) if it ever is marked as unsupported by Apple, I can compile and install patched versions myself. Oh, and it will continue to run on whatever hardware I had it on after patching just as before.
You won't find good support for older video cards in the latest versions of Linux. Don't try running X out-of-the-box on an S3 card that's older than a Virge.
I wouldn't expect to run X on any of these older machines. In fact, the whole point of my posts have been that the major downfall of using Windows as a server is that you CAN'T get rid of the GUI or all of the bloat; even OS X can be booted without a GUI and run in console mode.
However, let's say I have a very old version of X, as well as a simplistic Window manager that works really well on my p100 -- in that situation, a security flaw in the OS doesn't mean I need to update to KDE 3 or Gnome 2.0 to keep safely using my computer; I can just patch up Samba, SSH, or Apache. Essentially, Microsoft is saying I need to drop NT4 and upgrade to a bloated XP GUI, just to get support for a security flaw that's in the OS level, and could be patched in any UNIX flavor.
Yet, with Microsoft ceasing to support NT 4 (that might run really great on my older machine), the only way I can update this box is to update to Windows 2000 (which will also cease to be supported at some point) or XP, and probably buying more hardware to get similar performance. If there's a mail server on my network that's been running wonderfully for 10 years on its hardware, why should a patchable flaw force me to upgrade it to a newer OS, or even buy new hardware? That's essentially what Microsoft is doing here.
As for my feeling about usability on the desktop, which seems to be where at least one of you were going with this, I've dropped Linux and Windows a long time ago and adopted OS X.
Your point is? I can run a recent version of Linux or BSD on a 386 or 486, strip it down, and have it perform relatively decently. My Macintosh Quadra 700 is a 25mhz CPU running OpenBSD, and handling a lot of little network tasks quite nicely. Solaris can be stripped down in similar ways (in fact, I don't even use the GUI on that Sparc).
When's the last time you booted your NT box without a GUI, or could recompile the kernel for performance boosts, or tweak nearly every aspect of it to make it run decently on old hardware? You haven't, so shut up and remain an anonymous coward.
Redhat 6.2 isn't nearly as old, but it seems that Redhat has been supporting any release that's been up2date capable, across a few different architectures. I'm guessing a company's motivation to support an OS might change when they make their money from providing support, not selling software. Sun, though they sell software, seems to be a company that's been a little more focused on providing support.
Think about this too: Solaris 9 will still run on my 70mhz Sparcstation, a machine released around the same time as NT 4. Redhat 8.0 will still run on any old Pentium from seven years ago; same deal with the BSDs. Windows, on the other hand, can't be upgraded to the latest version usually without buying entirely new hardware, since every release has some new bloated GUI (that, you ironically can't disable).
When a software company is in bed with hardware companies (like Intel) the incentives to pump out bloated code increases, to warrant new hardware sells.
How someone with horrible design skills like this, can be a writer at a major computer magazine is beyond me. He could at least have the sense to pay someone to design it for him . .
I would have never paid for anyway -- it's not like making stricter laws is going to make me purchase things I couldn't have afforded in the first place.
I see the warez scene, and more recently the mp3 trading scene to be a lot like mixtapes in the DJ scene: it's a form of street promotion.
Compare the warez kids to DJs. The warez kids are the ones who collect all kinds of programs, and check them out to see if they're worth anything. DJs collect records, usually that they get as promos or through record pools, and distribute cut up versions of them to the public on tape -- usually to get the word out about the latest 'jam.' People buy the mixtapes, hear it mixed in with some other songs, then go buy a copy of their own . . at least that's what i always did. From every tape of course, there'd be maybe only one or two songs out of 20 or 30 that stood out.
There's countless games and programs that wouldn't have been nearly as popular if it weren't for the warez scene pumping it up, and then making the average individuals go out and buy legitimate copies, usually because they're not savvy enough to get it themselves. Whether they admit it or not, software companies need the warez kids to create street buzz.
If you really appreciate a piece of software, or an artist, you'll ultimately go buy it. If for nothing else because that 96k version you got off Kazaa sucks. Same thing with software. Case in point, I'm waiting every day for UT2k3 to come out for Mac. I could warez it, but it's not even worth the trouble, and I'd prefer to have a boxed copy and original CD.
Apparently Camp X-Ray if you dare pirate M$ software.
Seriously, this is the kind of news about Microsoft that you should forward to all of your friends, along with notes letting them know that there's otheralternatives.
If M$ succeeds any further with their domination the whole computing experience is going to be ruined, no matter what platform you're running. I mean, you have to question what motivates the richest man in the world to still try and gain more control, it's certainly not money, so it must be power . ..
Of course, Bill's attitude fits in well right now with the US's proposed neocolonialist efforts in Iraq -- so they probably make a perfect team. You have to wonder what more the most powerful country in the world wants, when it attempts to control through proxy every other nation. In either case, it's not a good thing.
When your power reaches a certain stage you have a few options. One is to use your power to benefit everyone, and be satisfied that you've reached the top. The other is to have an all or nothing attitude, try and seize everything, and wager ruining yourself, and everyone under you in the process -- because hey, what fun is life once you've reached the top? The only other thing you can do is push it to the edge.
Russia expanded too far, now look at it. Britain expanded to nearly all of the globe, and now it's not controlling even half of that. If Microsoft follows the history of colonialism and imperialism, then they will almost definitely fall. The problem isn't their reign, and how long it will be, but the damage they do in between. Case in point, under colonialist conditions enough damage can be done to a nation's morale that it takes years to fully recover, not to mention the damage done by an outside culture attempting to destroy the formally dominate culture (the heavy usage of French, and its tremendous effect on pure Arabic in places such as Tunisia and Algeria come to mind).
The point is, never think that computers are politically neutral ground. For the past 5-7 years I think M$ has proven that who ends up controlling certain aspects of technology either makes it an enjoyable, or absolutely horrific experience for all.
Actually, US has been shutting down any charities that send money to any Muslim countries, it doesn't really matter if they're legitimate or not. Find me solid evidence that any of those organizations knowingly funded 'terrorism' (terrorism in quotes, because apparently buying Palestinian kids food is terrorist activity now). By solid evidence I mean actual proof, not just government rants about how proof exists, but they can't inform you of it because it's 'high security.'
Let's say you want to send money to Iraq for charity. You have contacts there that will distribute the food. Locally, you talk to numerous Muslims and collect thousands of dollars, and then proceed to send it to your contact in Iraq. The US government sees this, and says you're supporting Saddam Huseein (when you actually hate him) and you're instantly held with 'secret evidence' and no trial. I guess US doesn't like Iraqis getting food from people who actually do care about their interests, and that dropping fruit loops on them in crates that say "gift from US govt." is much more appealing.
I don't know how much money you think Taliban made from drugs, because they outlawed the export and production of it a year before they were taken out of power.
How much did the average farmers make (the people not even affiliated with Taliban)? Probably enough to support their families -- which is more than the 'interim regime' is doing. Oh, and now the drug production is probably much higher than it was under Taliban.
It won't be as cheap as x86 by any means, but it could be easier to support and teach.
I don't know, the Dells at my school's computer labs probably didn't cost much less than a similarly configured iMac of their day . ..
Plus with an iMac they save space, and can fit more computers into one lab.
Actually, Macs can theoretically run 3 operating systems at once: Windows (via Virtual PC, although they can't buy a Windows license with this offer), Linux, and OS X. What more real life experience do you want?
It's nice to have OS X remind me of updates that actually IMPROVE performance. This is real nice coming from a Windows world where every week there's a new "Windows update," fixing some bug that was discovered 2 weeks before.
The difference? In Windows land an update meant, "Fuck, what 'security patch' is ready to be downloaded now? This is so annoying." In OS X, when software update pops up I'm generally wondering what new improvements there are to things overall, and happy about it.
Anyone know what I'd need to do to get TCP/IP over RS-232 with this? They say it can be done on the page, but I'm not sure what kind of cables I'd need. The coolest thing about this project is that it will run on a standard c64, with no expansions of any kind.
(Currently looking at c64 and 1541 drive sitting on my closet shelf.)
Finally I have a use for that XE1541 cable I bought two or three years ago.
Man, I picked up a Performa 6214CD last year for a few pennies and installed Mklinux on it, but there was no support for the NIC installed, which is an Apple Ethernet LC Twisted-Pair Card, that uses a PDS connector slot. The chip on the card is National Semiconductor DP83934 (SONIC-T).
I tried this page but none of the kernels supported my card. You know of a way to get this card working perhaps, or can you suggest a card for that machine that will work in Linux?
My cousin was spending the night at my house one summer, and we were playing Street Fighter II from maybe 12 AM until 4 AM.
Anyway, I had been totally kicking his ass every round for at least two hours straight. All of a sudden, like three hours into things, he just started killing me every match, with any fighter.
I got so mad that I ripped the SNES off the table, then tossed it up against the wall on the other side of the room. It still worked fine, except I broke the RF connector and it had a chip on the side where the plastic broke off.
Also, I took all his things and threw them out of the room, down the stairs, along with him. Adolescence rocks.
if you haven't done anything, then what do you have to worry about?
That's kind of beside the point. I mean, would you feel okay about your ISP reading all of your E-Mails? You haven't done anything wrong, so it's okay right?
It doesn't matter whether or not you've done anything, it's that some bored system admin doesn't have any business reading your mail in the first place. Likewise, some moron working at an airport doesn't really have any business knowing your credit history, and some spook at the NSA doesn't have any right to listen to you cry on the phone while breaking up with your girlfriend -- whether it's supposedly for national security or not.
Do you know what preemptive action really is? It's carrying yourself in a way that people have no reason to bother you in the first place. It's not supplying arms to rogue states, setting up puppet regimes and then bitching about how "undemocratic" those regimes are, right after they decide they don't want to be pimped anymore.
This kind of profiling will never fly w/the ACLU and the like, though.
It didn't fly the first time around because of the racial profiling. However, looking for completely clean credit records is only going to result in more religious profiling for this simple reason: In Islam the idea of giving or receiving interest is completely forbidden, so very strict Muslims aren't even going to be using credits cards, and thus have no history at all. More moderate individuals will charge, but then pay the bill before interest is applied. Others simply don't care at all and approach it secularly. I'm assuming there's other religious beliefs out there that hold this same position.
Some will probably say 'good, very traditional types are more likely to be terrorists.' Well, take into consideration that the 9/11 hijackers charged up a storm of supplies, and supposedly went to strip clubs. Basically, they were your average 20-something American males in terms of their lifestyle. So tell me who exactly you're going to profile for? Religious types? Those individuals in most characteristics didn't even meet that criteria. The average very religious Muslim wouldn't have had much to do with the 9/11 hijackers.
Monitoring bank and credit reports will flag questionable purchases like, oh, let's say, 2 tons of fertilizer and a Ryder truck.
Just remember not to buy toenail clippers or a fingernail file before your next flight I guess, since that might set off their "red alarm."
Like someone else pointed out somewhere in this discussion, these new laws aren't about fighting terrorism, no more than "tougher drug laws" are a "war on drugs." What they are about is conditioning you to accept things you wouldn't ordinarily; being used to having your privacy violated on a regular basis, so that when the totalitarian state finally does come in (as if it hasn't already), you will be too caught up in it to fight.
The simple way is to put a $30 tax on the initial purcahes of a new computer.
Except, why should everyday consumers be the ones paying this $30 tax? The way I see it, the huge businesses throwing away 1000 486's along with CRT's, or the workers who take them home and then throw them out (initially thinking they got a great deal) are the real ones polluting.
How about this: all businesses or government institutions buying X quantity of computers are required to pay a recycling tax based on how many computers purchased. These computers are then given stickers, certifying them to be recyclable at certain centers. If in the event the business sells this computer to an employee, he or she can always return these machines to be recycled at no charge. I don't think the average consumer should be the one paying for this.
As for my old computers, they've usually been A) put to some other use, B) given away, C) Sold to someone else, or D) Put in my garage. I've yet to just toss one in the trash.
Actually, he could be seen using the iBook every weekday afternoon of those 3 months live on "The Screensavers". Of course, this excludes days for re-runs and vacation days when he wasn't there. Patrick really did use the iBook.
I don't get Tech TV since I only have basic cable, but I've watched it a few times at friends' houses. I always assumed the computers on the set were more or less, just kind of props that maybe got some light use, or were used in demonstrations.
Still though, using a computer at work is a lot like using a computer at a lab. In the long run, most people aren't going to investigate making it the best experience they can (some will I know); most are just thinking, "it's the work computer, I can't wait until I get home to [insert favorite OS and architecture here]". That's at least how I've been in the past. Computers at work or at school have sort of been, trash -- and I expect them to operate similarly. That kind of thinking might explain why he blindly used IE the whole time, even though it's horribly slow, and never thought of investing in Virtual PC (why spend $200 on something on a computer you're just using because of work?).
I can remember using a laptop running Windows loaned to me by my university. It kept doing all kinds of annoying things, but I never bothered to fix it or install another OS, simply because I felt no motivation to -- it wasn't mine, I didn't pay for it, and I wasn't planning on keeping it. I just accepted it as is. This could be a similar scenario.
I'm willing to bet when he got home he was back in XP land all those months.
The biggest problem with switching isn't the Mac or OS X. It's when you have to deal with the Windows-centric parts of the world. If you can avoid them (most folks don't need compatibility with odd applications in the office), you could be all set right out of the box with your Mac.
It would have been nice if he went and explained what exactly he meant here. For all intensive purposes, particularly those that his core audience probably would be interested in, a Mac integrates fine in Windows dominated environments. The biggest focus of most (and I know not all people) is going to be file and printer sharing, and the transfer of Office documents -- something OS X handles nicely. A mention of a good version of Office for OS X would've been nice too.
Which reminds me: Windows has some great Web browser options.
Emm, and I'm wondering what exactly those are? OS X has Mozilla, Chimera, Omniweb, iCab, Opera, MSIE, Safari -- the options seem to be fine.
As someone else pointed out, he failed to make any mention of Virtual PC, that probably would've handled his Windows-only app acceptably.
This has actually been one of the worst Switch articles I've read. It didn't really go into much depth, and the things it said that were accurate, one could basically deduct without even owning a Mac. This was written after 3 months of research and use? I could've wrote this after 1 hour of intense use (he probably did). Why is it this article looks like some lazy-ass had a Mac, didn't use it for three months, then tried to meet an article deadline two nights before?
Turns out that I can make a distinction between the troops, their immediate leaders, and our society's leaders.
Yes, you can -- congratulations. And you know what, so can those soldiers before deciding to sign up to be reservists. They're still responsible. It doesn't take a genius to know that joining a government's military means defending that government's political leaders, no matter how wrong it may be.
Which is to say, that the folks with their ass on the line, on the line for you whether you choose to acknowledge that or cop out, are for the most part young adults and young kids that we've placed in harms way.
If I started a fight with some kid trying to steal his lunch money, and he totally kicked my ass in the process, then I went to my mother and asked her to feel sorry for it, because I was only trying to protect my peers' interest and social status, do you think she'd give me a hug and say "good job?" When Bush sends his gang over to sniff for oil and bully around already poor Iraqis in the name of it, I don't see a reason to say "it's okay guys!" Being young and stupid isn't an excuse. At age 18 you're old enough to be tried as an adult for a crime, but that person doesn't understand that war, inherently, means innocent people die? Presumably, at age 18 he would've studied enough history to know that most wars were over bullshit, and maybe glanced over that whole Vietnam thing. If after doing all that he decided the college money from the US military was just fabulous and he had to do it, hey . . he can get this year's darwin award after getting blasted.
I take that seriously, while you seemingly would like to avoid that responsibility. If they have a weapon available to them, one that's legal to use in their context, I want them to use it and use it with necessary force.
Blah, this argument is so tired. So the issue for you is WHO is being killed, not the simple fact that SOMEBODY is being killed? So essentially, you'd PREFER a 20 year old Iraqi, poor and, by your fearless leader's terminology "oppressed" at that, be murdered than a similarly aged (and also white, another subconscious bonus for you probably) American, who happens to be wrongfully INVADING their country? Here's a solution: when the call to go to war comes, you refuse it, and nobody gets killed.
Please don't tell me of enlightened people. I haven't seen many enlightened people on our planet, mainly just folks pushing their own self interests.
Oh right, you mean like Americans who want lower oil prices and support a war with Iraq, and even when there is no war still bitch about how high the prices are, when they pay less per barrel than most European nations?
Dictators and tyrants should be recognized as such and treated appropriately.
Yeah, so you should probably deal with that Sharon guy that you keep mistakenly sending millions of dollars of aid to. I mean, it's not like he kills people unjustly on a regular basis or anything.
If you don't like this war, what are you really doing about it? How are you protesting in ways that matter? What kind of car are you driving? What have you done wrt ANWR? What insulation is in your house? Do you turn your computers off at night? Do you support the ACLU and the EFF? Have you voted recently? Have you spoken to the candidates or written them letters or visited them in their offices? Have you volunteered?
Or do you just like to badmouth the troops that your carelessness has placed in harms way?
I'm what one might call a 'student activist' and have done a number of things on my campus. Hell, after 9/11, and especially recently with this upcoming war on Iraq I've found allies amongst people who would generally never speak to one another (environmental organizations on campus working alongside anarchist ones for similar causes is one example I can think of).
And even if I didn't vote, I don't see how that would've placed any troops out of harm's way, after watching Bush rig this last election.
And do I turn my computers off at night? Of course not, otherwise I wouldn't be on Slashdot.
Ultimately, isolationism is the only thing that will work long term. You're probably right.
Yes, isolationism is the solution -- on both sides. Japan knew the deal years ago when they kicked all Europeans out (up until about 100 years ago). They knew outsiders would do nothing but exploit the land's resource's and never allow it to grow. Unfortunately Arabs got puppet UK and US rulers who, by obligation, didn't isolate enough.
Hmmm...that doesn't actually sound bad. Here's the thing though - quality of life in the Muslim world absolutely blows, and it could be argued that they hate us because otherwise they'd have to be jealous of us and the easy lives we have.
Riiight. That's why all of the hijackers except one came from wealthy Gulf nations that have equal, and in many cases higher (UAE and Kuwait come to mind) standards of living than the US. Somehow I'm thinking the issue isn't lack of resources here. But, you can keep chanting your George W. Bush "they hate our freedoms" mantra if that makes you feel better about your own country's fuck ups.
Here's a question - what's your answer for terrorism? Because taking out governments that blatantly sponsor it seems to be the only recourse, other than just living with it.
I would love to debate any moron who tries to draw a connection between Bin Ladin and Saddam on national TV. Saddam is the absolute antithesis to Bin Ladin's ideology, so much of an apostate in his eyes that working with the likes of him would be totally out of the question. Saddam regularly kills and imprisons Islamic activists, ones much less radical than Bin Ladin. Hell, Bin Ladin's main beef with the Saudi family was over American troops being stationed there, something much less damning Islamically speaking than what Saddam does on a day to day basis -- in most other respects he believed they were fine. Do you think someone as secular as Saddam is going to fly with him?
Of course, since these televised "political analysts" don't actually know anything about the religion or culture of the region, they aren't able to make that connection.
Ultimately, it comes down to this: how much risk are we willing to assume for something worse than 9/11 to happen?
How about adopting policy that's fair, instead of planting conflicts across the globe to ensure US economic benefit? Wouldn't that be nicer than getting frisked down at the airport, for the so-called "protection of your freedom."
Saddaam has illegal weapons, and assuming he won't use them is dangerously naive - he's used them in every war he's engaged in, including genocide on Iraqis (Kurdish).
Right, and the US is the only country on earth that's ever used Nuclear weapons. In case you didn't know, the US used biological weapons on its civilians too. Don't you feel so much more righteous than Saddam now?
I know there's a whole preconceived notion that when you're young and join the military you're innocent, and deserve some kind of sympathy. It's sad when people die, but the fact of the matter is, when you join the armed forces, knowing you could at one point be ordered to kill people who've done nothing wrong to you, just on the command of one person, you are responsible . Given that, if you disagree with war you don't "support our troops" on principle. If you joined the Armed Forces you made a stupid decision, and even a dishonorable discharge is better than the other result.
I hope our military uses whatever they can, however they can, legally. If you have a problem with the war, run for the PTA, the local council, state government, or federal government. Did you remember to vote?
Yet at the same time you admit previously that stupid American policy is the reason those troops are in danger in the first place? So why do you "hope our military uses whatever they can?" Enlightened people don't waste their time viewing themselves as members of some fictitious nation drew up by manmade borders, with some horrible notion that these lines must be defended. You don't support a war just because your 'country' happens to be involved in it -- this isn't a fucking football game with your local teams playing in it.
You do have control, you can write a GPL-like license that explicitly denies the military from using your software....
Seriously though, if the government sees a program they feel will help them accomplish a specific task, do you really think they care about violating a software license? Who is going to come in and stop them, find out, or press charges? If a violation occurs chances are no one will ever know. The best precaution here seems to be to only release code openly, no matter what license, if your conscious is clear about what it might be used for.
As for the Second Amendment, most people don't think Iraq's armed forces stands a chance against the US. Do you think your "well-regulated militia" really stands a chance if the US Armed Forces can be turned on its citizens?
Maybe not -- at least if it's you and 30 of your friends against an entire Army, and that's a shame, because government (not just the US government, mind you) should never be allowed to become that powerful in the first place.
(IOW, the real safeguard of your liberties comes from the Armed Forces siding with the people in such an event, not with an independent militia.)
I kind of agree here. But the real safeguard comes when every single individual in the nation is armed, and willing to die. It's less likely a solider is going to be so eager to destroy the rights of his own people if he knows that means killing his own friends, neighbors, and family in the process.
On the other hand, military recruitment brainwashing can probably produce some interesting results, so who knows.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I'm advocating not choosing a server OS that can't be patched because of a closed nature after only 5 or so years of use.
Though, since you bring up OS X, since all of the services are based on open source pieces of software anyway (like Apache, OpenSSH, SMB) if it ever is marked as unsupported by Apple, I can compile and install patched versions myself. Oh, and it will continue to run on whatever hardware I had it on after patching just as before.
You won't find good support for older video cards in the latest versions of Linux. Don't try running X out-of-the-box on an S3 card that's older than a Virge.
I wouldn't expect to run X on any of these older machines. In fact, the whole point of my posts have been that the major downfall of using Windows as a server is that you CAN'T get rid of the GUI or all of the bloat; even OS X can be booted without a GUI and run in console mode.
However, let's say I have a very old version of X, as well as a simplistic Window manager that works really well on my p100 -- in that situation, a security flaw in the OS doesn't mean I need to update to KDE 3 or Gnome 2.0 to keep safely using my computer; I can just patch up Samba, SSH, or Apache. Essentially, Microsoft is saying I need to drop NT4 and upgrade to a bloated XP GUI, just to get support for a security flaw that's in the OS level, and could be patched in any UNIX flavor.
Yet, with Microsoft ceasing to support NT 4 (that might run really great on my older machine), the only way I can update this box is to update to Windows 2000 (which will also cease to be supported at some point) or XP, and probably buying more hardware to get similar performance. If there's a mail server on my network that's been running wonderfully for 10 years on its hardware, why should a patchable flaw force me to upgrade it to a newer OS, or even buy new hardware? That's essentially what Microsoft is doing here.
As for my feeling about usability on the desktop, which seems to be where at least one of you were going with this, I've dropped Linux and Windows a long time ago and adopted OS X.
Your point is? I can run a recent version of Linux or BSD on a 386 or 486, strip it down, and have it perform relatively decently. My Macintosh Quadra 700 is a 25mhz CPU running OpenBSD, and handling a lot of little network tasks quite nicely. Solaris can be stripped down in similar ways (in fact, I don't even use the GUI on that Sparc).
When's the last time you booted your NT box without a GUI, or could recompile the kernel for performance boosts, or tweak nearly every aspect of it to make it run decently on old hardware? You haven't, so shut up and remain an anonymous coward.
Redhat 6.2 isn't nearly as old, but it seems that Redhat has been supporting any release that's been up2date capable, across a few different architectures. I'm guessing a company's motivation to support an OS might change when they make their money from providing support, not selling software. Sun, though they sell software, seems to be a company that's been a little more focused on providing support.
Think about this too: Solaris 9 will still run on my 70mhz Sparcstation, a machine released around the same time as NT 4. Redhat 8.0 will still run on any old Pentium from seven years ago; same deal with the BSDs. Windows, on the other hand, can't be upgraded to the latest version usually without buying entirely new hardware, since every release has some new bloated GUI (that, you ironically can't disable).
When a software company is in bed with hardware companies (like Intel) the incentives to pump out bloated code increases, to warrant new hardware sells.
How someone with horrible design skills like this, can be a writer at a major computer magazine is beyond me. He could at least have the sense to pay someone to design it for him . .
I would have never paid for anyway -- it's not like making stricter laws is going to make me purchase things I couldn't have afforded in the first place.
I see the warez scene, and more recently the mp3 trading scene to be a lot like mixtapes in the DJ scene: it's a form of street promotion.
Compare the warez kids to DJs. The warez kids are the ones who collect all kinds of programs, and check them out to see if they're worth anything. DJs collect records, usually that they get as promos or through record pools, and distribute cut up versions of them to the public on tape -- usually to get the word out about the latest 'jam.' People buy the mixtapes, hear it mixed in with some other songs, then go buy a copy of their own . . at least that's what i always did. From every tape of course, there'd be maybe only one or two songs out of 20 or 30 that stood out.
There's countless games and programs that wouldn't have been nearly as popular if it weren't for the warez scene pumping it up, and then making the average individuals go out and buy legitimate copies, usually because they're not savvy enough to get it themselves. Whether they admit it or not, software companies need the warez kids to create street buzz.
If you really appreciate a piece of software, or an artist, you'll ultimately go buy it. If for nothing else because that 96k version you got off Kazaa sucks. Same thing with software. Case in point, I'm waiting every day for UT2k3 to come out for Mac. I could warez it, but it's not even worth the trouble, and I'd prefer to have a boxed copy and original CD.
Apparently Camp X-Ray if you dare pirate M$ software.
.
Seriously, this is the kind of news about Microsoft that you should forward to all of your friends, along with notes letting them know that there's other alternatives.
If M$ succeeds any further with their domination the whole computing experience is going to be ruined, no matter what platform you're running. I mean, you have to question what motivates the richest man in the world to still try and gain more control, it's certainly not money, so it must be power . .
Of course, Bill's attitude fits in well right now with the US's proposed neocolonialist efforts in Iraq -- so they probably make a perfect team. You have to wonder what more the most powerful country in the world wants, when it attempts to control through proxy every other nation. In either case, it's not a good thing.
When your power reaches a certain stage you have a few options. One is to use your power to benefit everyone, and be satisfied that you've reached the top. The other is to have an all or nothing attitude, try and seize everything, and wager ruining yourself, and everyone under you in the process -- because hey, what fun is life once you've reached the top? The only other thing you can do is push it to the edge.
Russia expanded too far, now look at it. Britain expanded to nearly all of the globe, and now it's not controlling even half of that. If Microsoft follows the history of colonialism and imperialism, then they will almost definitely fall. The problem isn't their reign, and how long it will be, but the damage they do in between. Case in point, under colonialist conditions enough damage can be done to a nation's morale that it takes years to fully recover, not to mention the damage done by an outside culture attempting to destroy the formally dominate culture (the heavy usage of French, and its tremendous effect on pure Arabic in places such as Tunisia and Algeria come to mind).
The point is, never think that computers are politically neutral ground. For the past 5-7 years I think M$ has proven that who ends up controlling certain aspects of technology either makes it an enjoyable, or absolutely horrific experience for all.
Actually, US has been shutting down any charities that send money to any Muslim countries, it doesn't really matter if they're legitimate or not. Find me solid evidence that any of those organizations knowingly funded 'terrorism' (terrorism in quotes, because apparently buying Palestinian kids food is terrorist activity now). By solid evidence I mean actual proof, not just government rants about how proof exists, but they can't inform you of it because it's 'high security.'
Let's say you want to send money to Iraq for charity. You have contacts there that will distribute the food. Locally, you talk to numerous Muslims and collect thousands of dollars, and then proceed to send it to your contact in Iraq. The US government sees this, and says you're supporting Saddam Huseein (when you actually hate him) and you're instantly held with 'secret evidence' and no trial. I guess US doesn't like Iraqis getting food from people who actually do care about their interests, and that dropping fruit loops on them in crates that say "gift from US govt." is much more appealing.
I don't know how much money you think Taliban made from drugs, because they outlawed the export and production of it a year before they were taken out of power.
How much did the average farmers make (the people not even affiliated with Taliban)? Probably enough to support their families -- which is more than the 'interim regime' is doing. Oh, and now the drug production is probably much higher than it was under Taliban.
It won't be as cheap as x86 by any means, but it could be easier to support and teach.
.
I don't know, the Dells at my school's computer labs probably didn't cost much less than a similarly configured iMac of their day . .
Plus with an iMac they save space, and can fit more computers into one lab.
Actually, Macs can theoretically run 3 operating systems at once: Windows (via Virtual PC, although they can't buy a Windows license with this offer), Linux, and OS X. What more real life experience do you want?
Buying OS X licenses is a hell of a lot cheaper than Windows, too.
It's nice to have OS X remind me of updates that actually IMPROVE performance. This is real nice coming from a Windows world where every week there's a new "Windows update," fixing some bug that was discovered 2 weeks before.
The difference? In Windows land an update meant, "Fuck, what 'security patch' is ready to be downloaded now? This is so annoying." In OS X, when software update pops up I'm generally wondering what new improvements there are to things overall, and happy about it.
Anyone know what I'd need to do to get TCP/IP over RS-232 with this? They say it can be done on the page, but I'm not sure what kind of cables I'd need. The coolest thing about this project is that it will run on a standard c64, with no expansions of any kind.
(Currently looking at c64 and 1541 drive sitting on my closet shelf.)
Finally I have a use for that XE1541 cable I bought two or three years ago.
Man, I picked up a Performa 6214CD last year for a few pennies and installed Mklinux on it, but there was no support for the NIC installed, which is an Apple Ethernet LC Twisted-Pair Card, that uses a PDS connector slot. The chip on the card is National Semiconductor DP83934 (SONIC-T).
I tried this page but none of the kernels supported my card. You know of a way to get this card working perhaps, or can you suggest a card for that machine that will work in Linux?
My cousin was spending the night at my house one summer, and we were playing Street Fighter II from maybe 12 AM until 4 AM.
Anyway, I had been totally kicking his ass every round for at least two hours straight. All of a sudden, like three hours into things, he just started killing me every match, with any fighter.
I got so mad that I ripped the SNES off the table, then tossed it up against the wall on the other side of the room. It still worked fine, except I broke the RF connector and it had a chip on the side where the plastic broke off.
Also, I took all his things and threw them out of the room, down the stairs, along with him. Adolescence rocks.
if you haven't done anything, then what do you have to worry about?
That's kind of beside the point. I mean, would you feel okay about your ISP reading all of your E-Mails? You haven't done anything wrong, so it's okay right?
It doesn't matter whether or not you've done anything, it's that some bored system admin doesn't have any business reading your mail in the first place. Likewise, some moron working at an airport doesn't really have any business knowing your credit history, and some spook at the NSA doesn't have any right to listen to you cry on the phone while breaking up with your girlfriend -- whether it's supposedly for national security or not.
Do you know what preemptive action really is? It's carrying yourself in a way that people have no reason to bother you in the first place. It's not supplying arms to rogue states, setting up puppet regimes and then bitching about how "undemocratic" those regimes are, right after they decide they don't want to be pimped anymore.
This kind of profiling will never fly w/the ACLU and the like, though.
It didn't fly the first time around because of the racial profiling. However, looking for completely clean credit records is only going to result in more religious profiling for this simple reason: In Islam the idea of giving or receiving interest is completely forbidden, so very strict Muslims aren't even going to be using credits cards, and thus have no history at all. More moderate individuals will charge, but then pay the bill before interest is applied. Others simply don't care at all and approach it secularly. I'm assuming there's other religious beliefs out there that hold this same position.
Some will probably say 'good, very traditional types are more likely to be terrorists.' Well, take into consideration that the 9/11 hijackers charged up a storm of supplies, and supposedly went to strip clubs. Basically, they were your average 20-something American males in terms of their lifestyle. So tell me who exactly you're going to profile for? Religious types? Those individuals in most characteristics didn't even meet that criteria. The average very religious Muslim wouldn't have had much to do with the 9/11 hijackers.
Monitoring bank and credit reports will flag questionable purchases like, oh, let's say, 2 tons of fertilizer and a Ryder truck.
Just remember not to buy toenail clippers or a fingernail file before your next flight I guess, since that might set off their "red alarm."
Like someone else pointed out somewhere in this discussion, these new laws aren't about fighting terrorism, no more than "tougher drug laws" are a "war on drugs." What they are about is conditioning you to accept things you wouldn't ordinarily; being used to having your privacy violated on a regular basis, so that when the totalitarian state finally does come in (as if it hasn't already), you will be too caught up in it to fight.
The simple way is to put a $30 tax on the initial purcahes of a new computer.
Except, why should everyday consumers be the ones paying this $30 tax? The way I see it, the huge businesses throwing away 1000 486's along with CRT's, or the workers who take them home and then throw them out (initially thinking they got a great deal) are the real ones polluting.
How about this: all businesses or government institutions buying X quantity of computers are required to pay a recycling tax based on how many computers purchased. These computers are then given stickers, certifying them to be recyclable at certain centers. If in the event the business sells this computer to an employee, he or she can always return these machines to be recycled at no charge. I don't think the average consumer should be the one paying for this.
As for my old computers, they've usually been A) put to some other use, B) given away, C) Sold to someone else, or D) Put in my garage. I've yet to just toss one in the trash.
Actually, he could be seen using the iBook every weekday afternoon of those 3 months live on "The Screensavers". Of course, this excludes days for re-runs and vacation days when he wasn't there. Patrick really did use the iBook.
I don't get Tech TV since I only have basic cable, but I've watched it a few times at friends' houses. I always assumed the computers on the set were more or less, just kind of props that maybe got some light use, or were used in demonstrations.
Still though, using a computer at work is a lot like using a computer at a lab. In the long run, most people aren't going to investigate making it the best experience they can (some will I know); most are just thinking, "it's the work computer, I can't wait until I get home to [insert favorite OS and architecture here]". That's at least how I've been in the past. Computers at work or at school have sort of been, trash -- and I expect them to operate similarly. That kind of thinking might explain why he blindly used IE the whole time, even though it's horribly slow, and never thought of investing in Virtual PC (why spend $200 on something on a computer you're just using because of work?).
I can remember using a laptop running Windows loaned to me by my university. It kept doing all kinds of annoying things, but I never bothered to fix it or install another OS, simply because I felt no motivation to -- it wasn't mine, I didn't pay for it, and I wasn't planning on keeping it. I just accepted it as is. This could be a similar scenario.
I'm willing to bet when he got home he was back in XP land all those months.
The biggest problem with switching isn't the Mac or OS X. It's when you have to deal with the Windows-centric parts of the world. If you can avoid them (most folks don't need compatibility with odd applications in the office), you could be all set right out of the box with your Mac.
It would have been nice if he went and explained what exactly he meant here. For all intensive purposes, particularly those that his core audience probably would be interested in, a Mac integrates fine in Windows dominated environments. The biggest focus of most (and I know not all people) is going to be file and printer sharing, and the transfer of Office documents -- something OS X handles nicely. A mention of a good version of Office for OS X would've been nice too.
Which reminds me: Windows has some great Web browser options.
Emm, and I'm wondering what exactly those are? OS X has Mozilla, Chimera, Omniweb, iCab, Opera, MSIE, Safari -- the options seem to be fine.
As someone else pointed out, he failed to make any mention of Virtual PC, that probably would've handled his Windows-only app acceptably.
This has actually been one of the worst Switch articles I've read. It didn't really go into much depth, and the things it said that were accurate, one could basically deduct without even owning a Mac. This was written after 3 months of research and use? I could've wrote this after 1 hour of intense use (he probably did). Why is it this article looks like some lazy-ass had a Mac, didn't use it for three months, then tried to meet an article deadline two nights before?
Turns out that I can make a distinction between the troops, their immediate leaders, and our society's leaders.
Yes, you can -- congratulations. And you know what, so can those soldiers before deciding to sign up to be reservists. They're still responsible. It doesn't take a genius to know that joining a government's military means defending that government's political leaders, no matter how wrong it may be.
Which is to say, that the folks with their ass on the line, on the line for you whether you choose to acknowledge that or cop out, are for the most part young adults and young kids that we've placed in harms way.
If I started a fight with some kid trying to steal his lunch money, and he totally kicked my ass in the process, then I went to my mother and asked her to feel sorry for it, because I was only trying to protect my peers' interest and social status, do you think she'd give me a hug and say "good job?" When Bush sends his gang over to sniff for oil and bully around already poor Iraqis in the name of it, I don't see a reason to say "it's okay guys!" Being young and stupid isn't an excuse. At age 18 you're old enough to be tried as an adult for a crime, but that person doesn't understand that war, inherently, means innocent people die? Presumably, at age 18 he would've studied enough history to know that most wars were over bullshit, and maybe glanced over that whole Vietnam thing. If after doing all that he decided the college money from the US military was just fabulous and he had to do it, hey . . he can get this year's darwin award after getting blasted.
I take that seriously, while you seemingly would like to avoid that responsibility. If they have a weapon available to them, one that's legal to use in their context, I want them to use it and use it with necessary force.
Blah, this argument is so tired. So the issue for you is WHO is being killed, not the simple fact that SOMEBODY is being killed? So essentially, you'd PREFER a 20 year old Iraqi, poor and, by your fearless leader's terminology "oppressed" at that, be murdered than a similarly aged (and also white, another subconscious bonus for you probably) American, who happens to be wrongfully INVADING their country? Here's a solution: when the call to go to war comes, you refuse it, and nobody gets killed.
Please don't tell me of enlightened people. I haven't seen many enlightened people on our planet, mainly just folks pushing their own self interests.
Oh right, you mean like Americans who want lower oil prices and support a war with Iraq, and even when there is no war still bitch about how high the prices are, when they pay less per barrel than most European nations?
Dictators and tyrants should be recognized as such and treated appropriately.
Yeah, so you should probably deal with that Sharon guy that you keep mistakenly sending millions of dollars of aid to. I mean, it's not like he kills people unjustly on a regular basis or anything.
If you don't like this war, what are you really doing about it? How are you protesting in ways that matter? What kind of car are you driving? What have you done wrt ANWR? What insulation is in your house? Do you turn your computers off at night? Do you support the ACLU and the EFF? Have you voted recently? Have you spoken to the candidates or written them letters or visited them in their offices? Have you volunteered?
Or do you just like to badmouth the troops that your carelessness has placed in harms way?
I'm what one might call a 'student activist' and have done a number of things on my campus. Hell, after 9/11, and especially recently with this upcoming war on Iraq I've found allies amongst people who would generally never speak to one another (environmental organizations on campus working alongside anarchist ones for similar causes is one example I can think of).
And even if I didn't vote, I don't see how that would've placed any troops out of harm's way, after watching Bush rig this last election.
And do I turn my computers off at night? Of course not, otherwise I wouldn't be on Slashdot.
Time to switch from Proftpd; I've found a new friend.
Ultimately, isolationism is the only thing that will work long term. You're probably right.
Yes, isolationism is the solution -- on both sides. Japan knew the deal years ago when they kicked all Europeans out (up until about 100 years ago). They knew outsiders would do nothing but exploit the land's resource's and never allow it to grow. Unfortunately Arabs got puppet UK and US rulers who, by obligation, didn't isolate enough.
Hmmm...that doesn't actually sound bad. Here's the thing though - quality of life in the Muslim world absolutely blows, and it could be argued that they hate us because otherwise they'd have to be jealous of us and the easy lives we have.
Riiight. That's why all of the hijackers except one came from wealthy Gulf nations that have equal, and in many cases higher (UAE and Kuwait come to mind) standards of living than the US. Somehow I'm thinking the issue isn't lack of resources here. But, you can keep chanting your George W. Bush "they hate our freedoms" mantra if that makes you feel better about your own country's fuck ups.
Here's a question - what's your answer for terrorism? Because taking out governments that blatantly sponsor it seems to be the only recourse, other than just living with it.
So, before heading to Iraq the US should probably head over to Israel, then perhaps they can begin giving reparations for their home grown terrorism.
I would love to debate any moron who tries to draw a connection between Bin Ladin and Saddam on national TV. Saddam is the absolute antithesis to Bin Ladin's ideology, so much of an apostate in his eyes that working with the likes of him would be totally out of the question. Saddam regularly kills and imprisons Islamic activists, ones much less radical than Bin Ladin. Hell, Bin Ladin's main beef with the Saudi family was over American troops being stationed there, something much less damning Islamically speaking than what Saddam does on a day to day basis -- in most other respects he believed they were fine. Do you think someone as secular as Saddam is going to fly with him?
Of course, since these televised "political analysts" don't actually know anything about the religion or culture of the region, they aren't able to make that connection.
Ultimately, it comes down to this: how much risk are we willing to assume for something worse than 9/11 to happen?
How about adopting policy that's fair, instead of planting conflicts across the globe to ensure US economic benefit? Wouldn't that be nicer than getting frisked down at the airport, for the so-called "protection of your freedom."
Saddaam has illegal weapons, and assuming he won't use them is dangerously naive - he's used them in every war he's engaged in, including genocide on Iraqis (Kurdish).
Right, and the US is the only country on earth that's ever used Nuclear weapons. In case you didn't know, the US used biological weapons on its civilians too. Don't you feel so much more righteous than Saddam now?
By the way, the U.S. Military is not the bad guy here, and by no means do I want anyone to think that I feel that way.
Oh my God, this is so laughable. Let's take a look at history, shall we?
I know there's a whole preconceived notion that when you're young and join the military you're innocent, and deserve some kind of sympathy. It's sad when people die, but the fact of the matter is, when you join the armed forces, knowing you could at one point be ordered to kill people who've done nothing wrong to you, just on the command of one person, you are responsible . Given that, if you disagree with war you don't "support our troops" on principle. If you joined the Armed Forces you made a stupid decision, and even a dishonorable discharge is better than the other result.
I hope our military uses whatever they can, however they can, legally. If you have a problem with the war, run for the PTA, the local council, state government, or federal government. Did you remember to vote?
Yet at the same time you admit previously that stupid American policy is the reason those troops are in danger in the first place? So why do you "hope our military uses whatever they can?" Enlightened people don't waste their time viewing themselves as members of some fictitious nation drew up by manmade borders, with some horrible notion that these lines must be defended. You don't support a war just because your 'country' happens to be involved in it -- this isn't a fucking football game with your local teams playing in it.
You do have control, you can write a GPL-like license that explicitly denies the military from using your software ....
Seriously though, if the government sees a program they feel will help them accomplish a specific task, do you really think they care about violating a software license? Who is going to come in and stop them, find out, or press charges? If a violation occurs chances are no one will ever know. The best precaution here seems to be to only release code openly, no matter what license, if your conscious is clear about what it might be used for.
As for the Second Amendment, most people don't think Iraq's armed forces stands a chance against the US. Do you think your "well-regulated militia" really stands a chance if the US Armed Forces can be turned on its citizens?
Maybe not -- at least if it's you and 30 of your friends against an entire Army, and that's a shame, because government (not just the US government, mind you) should never be allowed to become that powerful in the first place.
(IOW, the real safeguard of your liberties comes from the Armed Forces siding with the people in such an event, not with an independent militia.)
I kind of agree here. But the real safeguard comes when every single individual in the nation is armed, and willing to die. It's less likely a solider is going to be so eager to destroy the rights of his own people if he knows that means killing his own friends, neighbors, and family in the process.
On the other hand, military recruitment brainwashing can probably produce some interesting results, so who knows.