> but "HELL NO" to running bubbly
> UIs on your pimp 2Ghz AMD.
Because OS X uses a Darwin base, is it possible that it will eventually move on to the x86 platform? It's *nix. It can be ported to any platform. I think Apple wants to perfect OS X and get much more developer support before they move on to PCs. Honestly, 3 years ago, Apple computers were 150% proprietary. Apple thought money was in hardware. Now the/only/ difference between apple computers and PCs is the Motorola processor. They standardized on IDE, PCI, USB, etc, etc... See a trend? Don't you think Steve Jobs knows that they have to get away from hardware into software? It is almost a sure thing that OS X will be on PCs in a year or two. They need to have a good product first. Perfect it with the loyal Mac community and take OS X to the other 95% of the computing community.
Seems to me that the media / politicians / parents only recognize the few people that take gaming to the extreme. I enjoy a good stress-relieving deathmatch at the end of the day, but I've also known people who have made gaming their lives, rather to live in a RPG than in the world. Its funny because, gaming can have that effect on people, and others tend to see only the extreme side of the gaming culture.
I'm not surprised. How many other examples of this thing happening has life shown us? A few I can think of are Slashdotters (Not all loud-mouthed script-kiddie anti-anything-but-linux zealots), Christians (Not all mindless unintelligent science-defying people), and Canadians (They don't have those floppy heads like on South Park).
I am quite aware of that... Hmmm.. I guess I did word that incorrectly. What I had intended to convey is that despite the fact that they don't audit ports, they try to keep high quality... by being aware of what goes in the collections. But if it is unified, could they be as discretionary?
I think its an issue of man power...
The site quotes: "The ports & packages collection does NOT go through the thorough security audit that OpenBSD follows. Although we strive to keep the quality of the packages collection high, we just do not have enough human resources to ensure the same level of robustness and security.
Sir Theo de Raadt,
There is talk about all the BSDs having a unified ports collection. I know that OpenBSD can't audit every software port, and the OpenBSD site quotes: "we strive to keep the quality of the packages collection high." I would believe that ports security is still an issue.
My questions are: Is OpenBSD wanting a unified ports collection? How will this affect the proactive security stance of OpenBSD? What roadblocks stand in the way of this happening?
-pdholden
I am acutally reading a book on the science of conciousness (and the missing elements thereof) that you might find every enlightening. It is "Shadows of the Mind" by Roger Penrose. Penrose is the lead Professor of Mathmatics at Oxford and is the winner (with Steven Hawking) of the Wolf Prize for physics. This book is actually the sequel to "The Emperors New Mind" which is on the same subject.
Now to get to the point: this guy goes very deep into the computability and non-computability involved in awareness, according to different viewpoints, and points out that some missing element of conciousness "trancends" computation. If you have never read these books, I recommend them. Along with your view, he also contends that in the present form, computers cannot be concious because consiousness is beyond computability. This reading might be informative to your ideas as well.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that is Islam. Muhummad was the one who put to death all who did not believe in Allah.
> but "HELL NO" to running bubbly > UIs on your pimp 2Ghz AMD. Because OS X uses a Darwin base, is it possible that it will eventually move on to the x86 platform? It's *nix. It can be ported to any platform. I think Apple wants to perfect OS X and get much more developer support before they move on to PCs. Honestly, 3 years ago, Apple computers were 150% proprietary. Apple thought money was in hardware. Now the /only/ difference between apple computers and PCs is the Motorola processor. They standardized on IDE, PCI, USB, etc, etc... See a trend? Don't you think Steve Jobs knows that they have to get away from hardware into software? It is almost a sure thing that OS X will be on PCs in a year or two. They need to have a good product first. Perfect it with the loyal Mac community and take OS X to the other 95% of the computing community.
It is nice that I will be able to do more than just write nice little AppleScripts.
Seems to me that the media / politicians / parents only recognize the few people that take gaming to the extreme. I enjoy a good stress-relieving deathmatch at the end of the day, but I've also known people who have made gaming their lives, rather to live in a RPG than in the world. Its funny because, gaming can have that effect on people, and others tend to see only the extreme side of the gaming culture.
I'm not surprised. How many other examples of this thing happening has life shown us? A few I can think of are Slashdotters (Not all loud-mouthed script-kiddie anti-anything-but-linux zealots), Christians (Not all mindless unintelligent science-defying people), and Canadians (They don't have those floppy heads like on South Park).
I am quite aware of that... Hmmm.. I guess I did word that incorrectly. What I had intended to convey is that despite the fact that they don't audit ports, they try to keep high quality... by being aware of what goes in the collections. But if it is unified, could they be as discretionary?
I think its an issue of man power...
The site quotes: "The ports & packages collection does NOT go through the thorough security audit that OpenBSD follows. Although we strive to keep the quality of the packages collection high, we just do not have enough human resources to ensure the same level of robustness and security.
Sir Theo de Raadt,
There is talk about all the BSDs having a unified ports collection. I know that OpenBSD can't audit every software port, and the OpenBSD site quotes: "we strive to keep the quality of the packages collection high." I would believe that ports security is still an issue.
My questions are: Is OpenBSD wanting a unified ports collection? How will this affect the proactive security stance of OpenBSD? What roadblocks stand in the way of this happening?
-pdholden
Now to get to the point: this guy goes very deep into the computability and non-computability involved in awareness, according to different viewpoints, and points out that some missing element of conciousness "trancends" computation. If you have never read these books, I recommend them. Along with your view, he also contends that in the present form, computers cannot be concious because consiousness is beyond computability. This reading might be informative to your ideas as well.