For crying out loud. How much money does a site have to spend to offer a FREE service? If someone wants to open up a hearing- or sight-impaired IM or webmail service that prevents spam from being delivered, then *go right ahead*. Why should the services mentioned (OK, most of them probably could afford to do something) be *forced* to do anything when they are offering stuff for free?
Some posts have stated that the impaired folks can choose to use services that manage to make it easier for them to exist on the Net and perform those types of activites. Why do we have to force anyone to do anything with their content when other folks can make choices of their own?
Other posts pointed out that some of us folks who are not using Idiotic Exploder are being discriminated aganist by various sights. Hello? Clue-impaired organizations? I *just* *don't* visit them. I chose a bank who'se web site was Mac, BSD and Linux friendly. I visit sites that actually render properly according to standards and I avoid Flash sites like the plague (mentioning Flash, are those sites next on the hit list? Quick everyone hide your Java applets, the Web Content Police are coming!)
Next thing we'll be told that we need to use only a certain select few color schemes and ensure our sites are spell-checked thoroughly before going live.
i'm not complaining about purchasing a new release (i'll gladly pay an Apple Tax over a M$ Tax any day). i'm merely pointing out that since it's a ".#" release, there shouldn't technically be that much extra in it, or at least we shouldn't expect there to be.
while XP is better than 2K, it qualifies as a ".#" release. more eye candy, some compatability libs and various tweaks here and there. no astounding innovation.
very true. ars does a great job with most anything they decide to tackle as a subject for an article. one more thing to keep monitoring before panther is in the hands of us mere mortals.
As the rest of the song goes "that don't impress me much".
I'm a recent "switchbacker" (used Mac from Plus to early PowerMac's and just got a dual G4). Since it's a ".#" release, I wasn't expecting a ton of major changes (since that should be a "#." release). However, this is the second review I've seen that spends the majority of it's time on the Finder. Wow. A new Finder.
I know things are different in Mac land (one reason I switched back), but not being an insider or able to attend the conference (hence, no preview copy), I'd really love to start seeing more authoritative articles on what kinds of 64-bit goodness is there for the G5's or a thorough coverage of what cool parts of FreeBSD 5 made it into Darwin/X.
Granted, it's a different perspective (I'm perfectly happy cd'ing and ls'ing from a terminal). Perhaps most Mac folks will be cheering a decent upgrade to their main view of the system.
I can't help thinking, tho, that alot of Mac/.'ers will want the inside skinny as opposed to hearing that the Finder can't be skinned (tho that's a fun complaint since I'd rather not stare at brushed metal all the time either).
Looks like we all should start grabbing *BSD ISO's and CVS trees and start over. Makes me kind of glad I got a Mac.
I'm not saying we should be throwing in the towel just yet, but SCO sure has managed to knee linux right in the enterprise stomach and seems to be digging in for a long fight.
I know that this has severely hurt the chances of getting linux in my Fortune 100 company, no matter who the vendor is (HPaQ, Sun, IBM...it won't matter how many or few letters they have in their name). Linux - even if vindicated - will be relegated to niche apps (probably embedded appliances) and the chances of finally getting open source projects brought in will be even slimmer than they are now.
SCO hurt themselves and damaged the entire linux/open source community with this money-grab. I will take great pleasure in dancing on SCO's grave and will be one of the first persons making bids on their equipment when it's put up for auction.
Anyone have any links to some libraries or projects that might use lpd as a transport for generic queueing? Seems like a nice, language-agnostic, non-complex mechanism for cross-system job scheduling, etc. No real security model (though one could adapt something to it), but cool and readily available nonetheless.
Given what one can do with ghostscript queues, this is not exactly rocket science, but it goes to show the flexibility of *nix once again.
I don't know whether it's a standards problem with the Safari rendering engine, but this story: http://www.iht.com/articles/96772.html from their site doesn't render well enough to read at all in Safari (latest, patched beta).
It looked OK in Firebird (the browser, not the DB), tho. I like the attention to detail regarding spacing in the articles, but the main page just made me want to do anything but surf further on their site.
It's a completely different experience on this end.
My config (far from state of the art):
2 x 867MHz G4 133MHz bus 256K L2 cache per processor 1MB L3 cache per processor
1.5GB RAM DDR SDRAM (2100)
NVIDIA GeForce4MX (standard one with the Mac)
OS X 10.2.6
I just re-tried a bunch of SSL sites and the the sites I usually hit. I did a side-by-side comparison between it and Safari and Firebird beat it every time.
They may just be managing user perception well (i.e. making it seem like it's faster).
If someone can point me to a benchmarking tool that can measure browser stuff, I'll be glad to run tests on all of the available Mac browsers and post them somewhere (since we're sliding down the slippery slope of being off topic a bit). I'll google for it as well.
I haven't tried a ton of SSL connections yet, but so far it's given a 15-25% speed improvement (perhaps more) to browsing on my Mac (dual 867MHz G4).
I've tried:
IE (hey, it came with it!)
Safari (latest beta)
Camino (latest stable release)
Mozilla (the 'big daddy')
Opera (lags behind on this platform)
IE just rots. Safari, in its most recent incarnation, works well standards-wise, but one can really feel how different it and the Mozilla code really are (and I do like Moz better). It's also "slow". Camino is coming along well, but it too is "slow". SSL is painful on both of them (I tend to use IE on a PC to hit SSL sites).
Firebird is just plain cool. A bit rough around the Mac edges, but it's *fast*. Did I mention that it's fast?
The Camino team and these guys should team up. The combined browser would be unmatched.
I *chose* to be disappointed that the Wachowski brothers took (in _my_ opine) the low road with regard to movie content (however they - or anyone else - states the reason[s] for the inclusion of the scenes). I'm sure I'd enjoy most of the rest of the movie (though, a number of the reviews indicate that perhaps the W brothers aren't as clever or consistent this time around) and perhaps it will be available via one of the movie content editing services in the coming twelve months. I'm waitining in eager anticipation to hear what that makes me in the eyes of those that are not as "uptight" as I apparantly am.
That disappointment translate[ds] into a lost movie ticket sale (actually, six lost ticket sales since I know five others who aren't seeing it for the same reason). I'm/we're part of an insignificant ($-wise) minority and they - and apparantly you - won't miss me/us. I'm/we're very OK with that.
Interestingly enough, my response to the original/parent thread was intended to confirm that the original posters were/are not alone. As indicated in the post - despite the fact that all I've done is state what the personal reasons are for not going - those who do feel the need to attend movies with this type of content can do little more than hurl insults.
I belive that - in, and of itself - speaks volumes.
I have no problem (it is a free country) if other people choose to see that type of stuff on the big screen. I, however, do not.
A question: would you want one of your daughters - presupposing one has children at all - to be one of the throngs who are "letting it all hang out" in front of a few million, salivating males?
If so, my *personal opinion* is that it is a sad state of affairs for humanity.
I wouldn't start a movement to "ban" crap like this from movies, and I wouldn't 'attack' you for wanting to be exposed to such stuff (unlike your reply to me). I'm not starting a picketing campagin against 'Reloaded', I'm just choosing to not reward (again, my opine) a poor decision by the film makers.
Please, enjoy my empty seat. The popcorn is on me.
WCIII was an OK game, but it was hardly worth the hype and was definitely not a major improvement to the WC-line. Yes, it's difficult to do much innovation within a time-tested, well-established genre, but I expected far more from WCIII than it delivered.
NOTE: I don't do the online-gaming thing much, so this p.o.v. is solely from a single-player experience.
I found the "battles" repetitive and very droll. I took great offense at having to kill "civilians" (even though they were about to become zombies) and I longed for the energetic feel of C&C.
I doubt I'll spend the cash to give an EQ ripoff version of it a try.
That's a really good point. I keep trying to make a mental note every time something like this comes up - that is, every time one could say "doing XYZ would be violating the DMCA". I overlooked that in this case.
It'd be a cool if there were a site that did that kind of tracking. An open (moderated) blog whose sole purpose was to document what would be "illegal" as it comes up. It might be an eye-opener to the folks making and signing the laws.
But, I digress. Back on track, in summation: good post Bob9113.
While most geeks take at least some "delight" in vulnerabilities (even outside M$ vulnerabilities), the fact that we keep seeing stupid programmer tricks from M$ employees should be a comforting factor to DRM detractors. Even if M$ manages to get DRM out there, how riddled with holes will it be? If it is constantly circumvented, does anyone think suppliers will use it (DMCA-type laws notwithstanding)?
And with this being a web-"exploit", it makes the DRM-circumvention idea more interesting since all of the verification will be done online.
Poseidon for UML Community Edition from Gentleware is a really nice modeling and reverse-engineering tool. It's Java-based (a *tad* slow on startup) and has great support.
If little kids are seeing graphic R-rated movies, that is a problem. Like I said in my reply to the other posting, "kids" - in this case - == 15-17 year olds.
I'm also not sure "The Matrix" shows people killing people. As I said, it is fairly, blatantly clear (for the 15+-year-old crowd) that it's human against machine.
Most of the rest of the world you referred to (Canada and most of Europe) lost the majority of my societial respect a long time ago (on a macro/country-level) primarily due to their social views, and they just got downgraded even more recently since they seemed to want to preserve their own economics more than they wanted to engage in "violence" to do the right thing.
One of the great things about the US is that folks are quite free to have differing opinions. Thankfully, movies are not a necessary part of life. They are optional and there are plenty to choose from. If people want to see "sexuality" on screen, they can choose to do so.
Like I said. Research. Don't react. Despite the fact that one can probably find a "study" to support any opinion, real "experts" that care more about human lives than they do about getting grants, book contracts or furthering an "agenda" will back me up.
From what I saw, there will be far more than "kissing" in this one. That's a problem. A big one. Especially since this film *is* and *will* be marketed to "kids". I'm glad they both at least have an R rating.
Original Matrix:Rated R for sci-fi violence and brief language. Reloaded: Rated R for sci-fi violence and some sexuality.
And "kids" in this case == 15-17 year olds. Despite what the marketing folks would have you believe, they are still children.
And, finally, if you really believe (especially American) society is growing up with any discernable fears and inhibitions, I guess you don't get out much. From what I see, it's a bit too unafraid and uninhibited.
NOTE: I realize this is my PoV. I'm just ticked and wanted to vent somewhere. If you don't like my comments, just ignore me or intelligently reply. I don't "waste" my mod-points whacking folks with differing opinions, you shouldn't either.
On-screen violence does not inherently trigger real-world violence (do a serious/comprehensive google before you argue if you don't want a url flood in a reply), especially when you've got someone doing the limbo in "bullet-time" or performing some very nice acrobatics in an obviously heavily choreographed fight scene (those comments are for "The Matrix").
On-screen sex, on the other hand, does something far more permanent and destructive to the mind no matter what the context (do a real, honest google thing again before arguing).
Two of my kids are (in my opinion) old enough to handle Matrix-style violence, including the stuff I saw in the trailer. However, none of us will be seeing it now (unless CleanFlicks stays in business long enough I guess) since they decided to take the low-road with regard to "scenes with sexual content". The Matrix "franchise" didn't need to go there (and didn't go there in movie #1).
Sigh.
Maybe the one in the fall will take a higher road.
Mac OS X *is* an average, consumer-friendly OS. My primary machines @ work is a SunBlade. I do (1/2 of the time) Windows-security for a living. @ home, I've got a network of Solaris boxes, RH Linux boxes, some embedded crap and some Windows XP boxes. A very beefy XP box - up until 1 month ago - was my primary machine. Why? Work stuff (M$ apps). Games. Some Java development-related stuff. Games. A/V stuff.
I bought a Mac. Dual G4 PowerMac. I made the switch. The Mac is now the primary box. It's *nix. It rocks. It's better than anything RH ever bundled or conceived of. All of my open source stuff works like a charm (and usually has pre-built packages from opendarwin.org). Java development is great. Usability is 10x that of Linux and the stability and speed beats XP.
Mozilla and variants work well. OpenOffice.org needs some tweaking, but works well enough to avoid choosing between buying M$ Office and the car payment.
Develop for *nix, herald Linux compatibility and promote usability on Mac. It's a good formula and Windows doesn't have to remain on top in the long run.
Two all-beef patties lettuce, tomato and special sauce with a pair of fries sticking out from the top at either end
WANBurgler Special - A.K.A. The Unhappy Meal
An edible, fiber optic light source on the burger (yes, they make edible fiber optic light sources) shines when it detects kismet or netstumbler scans during your WiFi session
Arghh. It makes me want to scream when I see sentences like the last one: "Our wired network here is no where near as secure as out wireless one!".
Do you have a spanning switch port on the outside of your building/office that anyone can sniff? Regardless of what you're doing now to encrypt the traffic, the fact is that it can all be captured and processed at a later time. This inherently makes it way more insecure, no matter how you've scrambled the data.
Given enough time, horsepower and/or smart people (the best encryption schemes are destroyed mathematically, not by brute/distributed force) the codes can be broken. Say it takes 3-5 years. Well, where I work, we have information that has a 20 year life span. If some critical pieces are uncovered any time during that, it's game over.
No matter what security you use, 802.11 will never be truly secure.
(the really sad thing is that I blew the ability to mod because of this...there were some good posts too...sigh)
The problem with this concept is that hardly anyone bothers with the metadata.
When is the last time you saw any or all of the fields filled out in the properties dialog of a MS Word or Excel document? (I'm asking more in the "enterprise" context, not personal/@home context)
Where I work, the only time any form of metadata is used is in document management environments - and the only time those are used is when stuff needs to be tracked for FDA compliance.
Users don't care about metadata. They barely care enough to spell things right or hit F7 to get the computer to do it for them.
Amongst the 50%+ installed base of PC's that the trade rags say are out there, I'll wager that most users can't do much on them beyond get to their AOL mailbox and solitaire game. There *are* tech-heads out there (a large majority of which are probably on/.) and they can envision many cool things (you mention some) which will revolutionize desktop productivity. Most users, however, are content to be WIMPs forever.
Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo. MSN. insert-your-favourite-*free*-webmail-or-IM-service -here. All: FREE.
For crying out loud. How much money does a site have to spend to offer a FREE service? If someone wants to open up a hearing- or sight-impaired IM or webmail service that prevents spam from being delivered, then *go right ahead*. Why should the services mentioned (OK, most of them probably could afford to do something) be *forced* to do anything when they are offering stuff for free?
Some posts have stated that the impaired folks can choose to use services that manage to make it easier for them to exist on the Net and perform those types of activites. Why do we have to force anyone to do anything with their content when other folks can make choices of their own?
Other posts pointed out that some of us folks who are not using Idiotic Exploder are being discriminated aganist by various sights. Hello? Clue-impaired organizations? I *just* *don't* visit them. I chose a bank who'se web site was Mac, BSD and Linux friendly. I visit sites that actually render properly according to standards and I avoid Flash sites like the plague (mentioning Flash, are those sites next on the hit list? Quick everyone hide your Java applets, the Web Content Police are coming!)
Next thing we'll be told that we need to use only a certain select few color schemes and ensure our sites are spell-checked thoroughly before going live.
We're doomed, absolutely doomed, as a society.
i'm not complaining about purchasing a new release (i'll gladly pay an Apple Tax over a M$ Tax any day). i'm merely pointing out that since it's a ".#" release, there shouldn't technically be that much extra in it, or at least we shouldn't expect there to be.
while XP is better than 2K, it qualifies as a ".#" release. more eye candy, some compatability libs and various tweaks here and there. no astounding innovation.
very true. ars does a great job with most anything they decide to tackle as a subject for an article. one more thing to keep monitoring before panther is in the hands of us mere mortals.
As the rest of the song goes "that don't impress me much".
/.'ers will want the inside skinny as opposed to hearing that the Finder can't be skinned (tho that's a fun complaint since I'd rather not stare at brushed metal all the time either).
I'm a recent "switchbacker" (used Mac from Plus to early PowerMac's and just got a dual G4). Since it's a ".#" release, I wasn't expecting a ton of major changes (since that should be a "#." release). However, this is the second review I've seen that spends the majority of it's time on the Finder. Wow. A new Finder.
I know things are different in Mac land (one reason I switched back), but not being an insider or able to attend the conference (hence, no preview copy), I'd really love to start seeing more authoritative articles on what kinds of 64-bit goodness is there for the G5's or a thorough coverage of what cool parts of FreeBSD 5 made it into Darwin/X.
Granted, it's a different perspective (I'm perfectly happy cd'ing and ls'ing from a terminal). Perhaps most Mac folks will be cheering a decent upgrade to their main view of the system.
I can't help thinking, tho, that alot of Mac
Looks like we all should start grabbing *BSD ISO's and CVS trees and start over. Makes me kind of glad I got a Mac.
I'm not saying we should be throwing in the towel just yet, but SCO sure has managed to knee linux right in the enterprise stomach and seems to be digging in for a long fight.
I know that this has severely hurt the chances of getting linux in my Fortune 100 company, no matter who the vendor is (HPaQ, Sun, IBM...it won't matter how many or few letters they have in their name). Linux - even if vindicated - will be relegated to niche apps (probably embedded appliances) and the chances of finally getting open source projects brought in will be even slimmer than they are now.
SCO hurt themselves and damaged the entire linux/open source community with this money-grab. I will take great pleasure in dancing on SCO's grave and will be one of the first persons making bids on their equipment when it's put up for auction.
I second the full-disclosure link. Check it out. It's pretty much what you're looking for minus the shifty FQDN...
If you're really serious about having a "bugtraq alternative", then start posting on full-disclosure and encourage others to do so as well.
Anyone have any links to some libraries or projects that might use lpd as a transport for generic queueing? Seems like a nice, language-agnostic, non-complex mechanism for cross-system job scheduling, etc. No real security model (though one could adapt something to it), but cool and readily available nonetheless.
Given what one can do with ghostscript queues, this is not exactly rocket science, but it goes to show the flexibility of *nix once again.
I don't know whether it's a standards problem with the Safari rendering engine, but this story: http://www.iht.com/articles/96772.html from their site doesn't render well enough to read at all in Safari (latest, patched beta).
It looked OK in Firebird (the browser, not the DB), tho. I like the attention to detail regarding spacing in the articles, but the main page just made me want to do anything but surf further on their site.
It's a completely different experience on this end.
My config (far from state of the art):
2 x 867MHz G4
133MHz bus
256K L2 cache per processor
1MB L3 cache per processor
1.5GB RAM DDR SDRAM (2100)
NVIDIA GeForce4MX (standard one with the Mac)
OS X 10.2.6
I just re-tried a bunch of SSL sites and the the sites I usually hit. I did a side-by-side comparison between it and Safari and Firebird beat it every time.
They may just be managing user perception well (i.e. making it seem like it's faster).
If someone can point me to a benchmarking tool that can measure browser stuff, I'll be glad to run tests on all of the available Mac browsers and post them somewhere (since we're sliding down the slippery slope of being off topic a bit). I'll google for it as well.
I've tried:
IE just rots. Safari, in its most recent incarnation, works well standards-wise, but one can really feel how different it and the Mozilla code really are (and I do like Moz better). It's also "slow". Camino is coming along well, but it too is "slow". SSL is painful on both of them (I tend to use IE on a PC to hit SSL sites).
Firebird is just plain cool. A bit rough around the Mac edges, but it's *fast*. Did I mention that it's fast?
The Camino team and these guys should team up. The combined browser would be unmatched.
I *chose* to be disappointed that the Wachowski brothers took (in _my_ opine) the low road with regard to movie content (however they - or anyone else - states the reason[s] for the inclusion of the scenes). I'm sure I'd enjoy most of the rest of the movie (though, a number of the reviews indicate that perhaps the W brothers aren't as clever or consistent this time around) and perhaps it will be available via one of the movie content editing services in the coming twelve months. I'm waitining in eager anticipation to hear what that makes me in the eyes of those that are not as "uptight" as I apparantly am.
That disappointment translate[ds] into a lost movie ticket sale (actually, six lost ticket sales since I know five others who aren't seeing it for the same reason). I'm/we're part of an insignificant ($-wise) minority and they - and apparantly you - won't miss me/us. I'm/we're very OK with that.
Interestingly enough, my response to the original/parent thread was intended to confirm that the original posters were/are not alone. As indicated in the post - despite the fact that all I've done is state what the personal reasons are for not going - those who do feel the need to attend movies with this type of content can do little more than hurl insults.
I belive that - in, and of itself - speaks volumes.
I have no problem (it is a free country) if other people choose to see that type of stuff on the big screen. I, however, do not.
A question: would you want one of your daughters - presupposing one has children at all - to be one of the throngs who are "letting it all hang out" in front of a few million, salivating males?
If so, my *personal opinion* is that it is a sad state of affairs for humanity.
I wouldn't start a movement to "ban" crap like this from movies, and I wouldn't 'attack' you for wanting to be exposed to such stuff (unlike your reply to me). I'm not starting a picketing campagin against 'Reloaded', I'm just choosing to not reward (again, my opine) a poor decision by the film makers.
Please, enjoy my empty seat. The popcorn is on me.
You're not alone (and prepare for a flame onslaught from other /. readers. I got trashed for lamenting this when the final trailer was made available.
I have no plans to see it despite the fact that it was the 2nd most anticipated movie ever for me (besides LoTR series).
boB
WCIII was an OK game, but it was hardly worth the hype and was definitely not a major improvement to the WC-line. Yes, it's difficult to do much innovation within a time-tested, well-established genre, but I expected far more from WCIII than it delivered.
NOTE: I don't do the online-gaming thing much, so this p.o.v. is solely from a single-player experience.
I found the "battles" repetitive and very droll. I took great offense at having to kill "civilians" (even though they were about to become zombies) and I longed for the energetic feel of C&C.
I doubt I'll spend the cash to give an EQ ripoff version of it a try.
That's a really good point. I keep trying to make a mental note every time something like this comes up - that is, every time one could say "doing XYZ would be violating the DMCA". I overlooked that in this case.
It'd be a cool if there were a site that did that kind of tracking. An open (moderated) blog whose sole purpose was to document what would be "illegal" as it comes up. It might be an eye-opener to the folks making and signing the laws.
But, I digress. Back on track, in summation: good post Bob9113.
While most geeks take at least some "delight" in vulnerabilities (even outside M$ vulnerabilities), the fact that we keep seeing stupid programmer tricks from M$ employees should be a comforting factor to DRM detractors. Even if M$ manages to get DRM out there, how riddled with holes will it be? If it is constantly circumvented, does anyone think suppliers will use it (DMCA-type laws notwithstanding)?
And with this being a web-"exploit", it makes the DRM-circumvention idea more interesting since all of the verification will be done online.
Constant vulnerabilities == no real DRM.
Poseidon for UML Community Edition from Gentleware is a really nice modeling and reverse-engineering tool. It's Java-based (a *tad* slow on startup) and has great support.
So one's religious beliefs automatically negates the validity of anything done by that person/group?
If little kids are seeing graphic R-rated movies, that is a problem. Like I said in my reply to the other posting, "kids" - in this case - == 15-17 year olds.
I'm also not sure "The Matrix" shows people killing people. As I said, it is fairly, blatantly clear (for the 15+-year-old crowd) that it's human against machine.
Most of the rest of the world you referred to (Canada and most of Europe) lost the majority of my societial respect a long time ago (on a macro/country-level) primarily due to their social views, and they just got downgraded even more recently since they seemed to want to preserve their own economics more than they wanted to engage in "violence" to do the right thing.
One of the great things about the US is that folks are quite free to have differing opinions. Thankfully, movies are not a necessary part of life. They are optional and there are plenty to choose from. If people want to see "sexuality" on screen, they can choose to do so.
Like I said. Research. Don't react. Despite the fact that one can probably find a "study" to support any opinion, real "experts" that care more about human lives than they do about getting grants, book contracts or furthering an "agenda" will back me up.
From what I saw, there will be far more than "kissing" in this one. That's a problem. A big one. Especially since this film *is* and *will* be marketed to "kids". I'm glad they both at least have an R rating.
Original Matrix:Rated R for sci-fi violence and brief language.
Reloaded: Rated R for sci-fi violence and some sexuality.
And "kids" in this case == 15-17 year olds. Despite what the marketing folks would have you believe, they are still children.
And, finally, if you really believe (especially American) society is growing up with any discernable fears and inhibitions, I guess you don't get out much. From what I see, it's a bit too unafraid and uninhibited.
NOTE: I realize this is my PoV. I'm just ticked and wanted to vent somewhere. If you don't like my comments, just ignore me or intelligently reply. I don't "waste" my mod-points whacking folks with differing opinions, you shouldn't either.
On-screen violence does not inherently trigger real-world violence (do a serious/comprehensive google before you argue if you don't want a url flood in a reply), especially when you've got someone doing the limbo in "bullet-time" or performing some very nice acrobatics in an obviously heavily choreographed fight scene (those comments are for "The Matrix").
On-screen sex, on the other hand, does something far more permanent and destructive to the mind no matter what the context (do a real, honest google thing again before arguing).
Two of my kids are (in my opinion) old enough to handle Matrix-style violence, including the stuff I saw in the trailer. However, none of us will be seeing it now (unless CleanFlicks stays in business long enough I guess) since they decided to take the low-road with regard to "scenes with sexual content". The Matrix "franchise" didn't need to go there (and didn't go there in movie #1).
Sigh.
Maybe the one in the fall will take a higher road.
Mac OS X *is* an average, consumer-friendly OS. My primary machines @ work is a SunBlade. I do (1/2 of the time) Windows-security for a living. @ home, I've got a network of Solaris boxes, RH Linux boxes, some embedded crap and some Windows XP boxes. A very beefy XP box - up until 1 month ago - was my primary machine. Why? Work stuff (M$ apps). Games. Some Java development-related stuff. Games. A/V stuff.
I bought a Mac. Dual G4 PowerMac. I made the switch. The Mac is now the primary box. It's *nix. It rocks. It's better than anything RH ever bundled or conceived of. All of my open source stuff works like a charm (and usually has pre-built packages from opendarwin.org). Java development is great. Usability is 10x that of Linux and the stability and speed beats XP.
Mozilla and variants work well. OpenOffice.org needs some tweaking, but works well enough to avoid choosing between buying M$ Office and the car payment.
Develop for *nix, herald Linux compatibility and promote usability on Mac. It's a good formula and Windows doesn't have to remain on top in the long run.
Do you have a spanning switch port on the outside of your building/office that anyone can sniff? Regardless of what you're doing now to encrypt the traffic, the fact is that it can all be captured and processed at a later time. This inherently makes it way more insecure, no matter how you've scrambled the data.
Given enough time, horsepower and/or smart people (the best encryption schemes are destroyed mathematically, not by brute/distributed force) the codes can be broken. Say it takes 3-5 years. Well, where I work, we have information that has a 20 year life span. If some critical pieces are uncovered any time during that, it's game over.
No matter what security you use, 802.11 will never be truly secure.
(the really sad thing is that I blew the ability to mod because of this...there were some good posts too...sigh)
The problem with this concept is that hardly anyone bothers with the metadata.
/.) and they can envision many cool things (you mention some) which will revolutionize desktop productivity. Most users, however, are content to be WIMPs forever.
When is the last time you saw any or all of the fields filled out in the properties dialog of a MS Word or Excel document? (I'm asking more in the "enterprise" context, not personal/@home context)
Where I work, the only time any form of metadata is used is in document management environments - and the only time those are used is when stuff needs to be tracked for FDA compliance.
Users don't care about metadata. They barely care enough to spell things right or hit F7 to get the computer to do it for them.
Amongst the 50%+ installed base of PC's that the trade rags say are out there, I'll wager that most users can't do much on them beyond get to their AOL mailbox and solitaire game. There *are* tech-heads out there (a large majority of which are probably on