There are times when people do dangerous things that simply shouldn't be dangerous. Often these come down to poor decisions on Microsoft's part. Couple that with a history of ignoring security issues and Microsoft's history is full of issues that, yes, I would put squarely on Microsoft's shoulders.
The original NT kernel, thrown together in a matter of days (for demonstration purposes, not for official release) by Dave Cutler is still there in the middle of their Windows 7.
Now there's a version I've never heard before. Source ?
That fits with what I've seen. Microsoft's history, maybe surprisingly, does not suggest that Bill Gates is seriously interested in technology. If you disagree, please name an innovation from Microsoft. Most innovations were bought from someone else, or were, like the NTFS file system, the result of Microsoft top management hiring someone well known in the computer industry.
Can you identify some companies that produced "innovations" _without_ employees ?
Actually, perhaps it would be better if you could first define "innovation" and offer a few examples of same.
Also, I've yet to meet anyone who tries to claim that the new taskbar isn't cleaner and easier to use.
You have now. The new Taskbar is a distinct step backwards for any sort of heavy multitasking (though in fairness most of the reasons it is originated in Windows XP) and the "preview" thing is just a pain in the arse, especially on laptops with their less accurate pointing devices.
In short, it has successfully duplicated many of the ways the Dock sucks.
About the only improvements are the unification of quicklaunch and window buttons, and the ability to drag & drop to reorganise button order.
Please don't ever SUGGEST nursing to people, unless they demonstrate a genuine compassion, patience, and willingness to help others even on their worst days.That is to say, unless they're pretty much the antithesis of the average Slashdotter.:)
Indeed. An abortion, on the other hand, certainly can be. An embryo isn't a baby in any meaningful sense of the word - indeed, biologically, it's just a parasite.
Or are you one of these idiots who thinks most abortions are in the third trimester of viable foetuses ? I suppose you think all those feminists are out there deliberately getting pregnant just to have abortions, as well ?
I have no problems with killing what so ever, but I'm not a coward and would never kill someone who can't fight back.
You "have no problems with killing", but you're wound up about abortion ? Sounds like you have no problems with hypocrisy either. What about when the pregnancy would endanger or kill the mother ?
If you knew anything about me, you'd know that I'm constantly pushing people NOT to conform. However, just because you don't conform doesn't mean you don't have to suffer the consequences of your actions.
A baby is no longer a consequence of conception. It's a choice.
Actually, people killed babies since the dawn of time. It's only that now people like you somehow think it's acceptable to kill them just because they'd be inconvenient.
Hate to break it to you, tiger, but abortions have been going on for a lot longer than the last few decades. The main difference is that now it's a simple, safe and reliable procedure rather than a complicated, dangerous and risky one.
But you know what, I'll shut up about it if we make it fair - make a law so that instead of just being able to kill a baby that's inconvenient to you, you can kill anyone who inconveniences you. We'll call it a "retroactive abortion". If someone's being a dumbass and wasting my time in the line at the bank / store, jab a needle in their head and suck out their brain - *bam* retroactive abortion. Deal? (Something tells me that you'll be against that).
This is what's called a slippery slope fallacy. You'll need to do better.
Society has (up until people like you came about in the last couple of decades) always insisted that people accept responsibility for their actions.
Ah. So the world was perfect before the 60s then ? It's ok, I'm not on your lawn.
That's why we have a legal system - to make people accept the negative consequences of their actions.
Funny, I thought we had a legal system to resolve disputes and isolate dangerous people from others they might hurt.
People like you who think people can do whatever they want without any consequences are why those of us who do think rationally and realize that actions have consequences (sometimes good, sometimes bad) have little hope for the future.
So I'm guessing that you *do* support the idea of not giving smokers with lung cancer treatment, painkillers for people who injured themselves doing risky things, surgery the victims of industrial accidents, or medicine for people with STDs ? After all, those people are just suffering the consequences of their actions.
It's pretty awesome how you're trying to justify your oppressive tendencies by calling it "taking responsibility" though. I don't think I've heard that one before.
Also the motherboards ARE custom made versions using established intel chipsets, they need to be custom made to fit the shape of the iMacs and Mini's.
They're no more "custom made" than any other motherboard that has to fit into a non-standard form factor - and there are a hell of a lot more machines like that sold by companies other than Apple.
There is nothing special, or unique, or exciting about about the construction of a Mac's motherboard, no matter how much Mac zealots might try to argue otherwise. They're built by the same manufacturers, with the same components, on the same assembly lines as the millions of other motherboards used by Dell, HP, et al. It's just another PC with a fancier firmware.
Because Apple uses dubious means to prevent people from running OSX on computers they don't bless. There's always going to be a market for it as long as Apple refuses to allow for people to just install on whatever hardware they want.
They don't even need to do that. The commercial market for Psystar's machines would dry up overnight if Apple released a ~$1100ish headless tower.
So promoting personal responsibility and thinking before you act is being an asshole?
You're not "promoting personal responsibility". You're trying to make people conform to the way you think they should behave by removing some of their options to be responsible.
I'm all for having a good time - you want to do drugs? Go for it. Want to get drunk off your ass? Sweet! Want to bang 100 girls? Aweosome! -- HOWEVER, if you're not ready to accept any possible negative consequences, don't do it.
Thanks to modern medicine, childbirth is not inherently a "negative consequence" of pregnancy. Your argument is broken.
I have to wonder though, are you so gung-ho about withholding cancer treatment from people who smoke ? An adrenaline shot from someone who overdosed ? Painkillers from people who injure themselves performing risky stunts ? A lung transplant for someone who spent thirty years working in a mine ?
And if you try to be a little bitch and avoid having to suffer the consequences of your actions, I will give you massive amounts of shit for it. Hell, I've probably had sex with more girls than anyone else on slashdot - however, if one of them would get pregnant, I wouldn't tell them to kill the kid just so that I wouldn't have to accept the consequences of my actions. Do I want kids? Hell no. But if that would happen, I'm prepared to accept it.
Feel free to martyr yourself. When you insist others must do the same thing, you cross the line into oppressor.
Oh, incidentally, what are you going to do if it's the girl who wants an abortion ? Tie her to the bed until the baby is born, telling her over and over she must accept the consequences of her actions ?
I really don't care if low lifes kill their kids (because it means eventually you'll snuff yourselves out and then we can get on with making the world a better place once all the excuse-making collectivists are gone).
A world full of absolutist, judgemental, misogynist arseholes. What an awesome idea !
However, trying to claim that killing babies is a rational alternative to using your brain before spreading your legs is pathetic.
Not nearly as pathetic as trying to oppress people because they're having a good time.
Just remember the bumper sticker - "the people who are for abortion are only alive because their mother was against it".
Ah, yes. Like most bumper stickers - short, simple and laughably incorrect.
No, I'm saying that actions have consequences. If you're not prepared to deal with the consequences, then you have no business doing it. It doesn't matter if it's sex, playing the stock market, gambling, racing, skydiving, etc.
Except your "consequences" are wholly artificial because they only exist if a simple medical procedure is actively denied for the sole reason of them 'learning their lesson'.
There is no reason why, in today's world, sex must ever result in an unwanted birth unless people like you intervene to try and tell others how they should behave.
Your argument is nothing more than saying that people should not be held responsible for their actions, which is the main reason that the world is such a shitty place today - people like you making excuses for those who do bad / stupid things instead of holding them accountable for their choices.
Not in the slightest. My argument is that babies are only a "consequence" of accidental pregnancy if you impose your beliefs on other people.
It's not arbitrary, it's an consequence of the fact that we're human, and the simple that fact that humans that don't value human life either kill themselves or are psychopaths on which a functioning society cannot be based.
Is the measure of "valuing human life" such that anyone who has an abortion is, by definition, either suicidal or a psychopath ?
As you pointed out, no contraceptive is 100%, therefore any time you are having sex (with or without contraceptives) you are risking getting pregnant. If you're not ready to deal with the potential negative outcomes of having sex, you shouldn't be having it. So yes, it IS a willing decision - a willing decision to have sex. An abortion because of "oops" is a matter of not wanting to deal with the consequences of their actions.
No, it's exactly the same situation as any other form of birth control, it just happens post-contraception instead of pre-. Having abortion because of "oops" is most definitely "dealing with the consequences of their actions" and taking steps to prevent that situation from worsening.
Your argument is simply a roundabout way of sex for reasons other than reproduction is wrong.
Averting pregnancy when "condoms and pills, plan B/morning after pill, and many other old fashion ways to not get pregnant" either weren't or couldn't be used.
The numbers of people who have a very hard time making children grows like crazy. With the current trend, in 3 generations, there will be no human left in the western world, who can reproduce without advanced medical help. A few generations later we're done. At least if we continue to go that way.
The problem in the West is not that women can't have babies, it's that they choose not to.
Obviously, in countries where women are unlucky enough not to have that choice, babies appear with more frequency.
Uuum, NO. How can you have completely forgotten about the vast DRM horrors that got introduced in Vista? All the other things, like slowness, compatibility problems, partially a bad architecture, were results of this one thing, and by themselves not the relevant points. They existed, because every shit and his mother now had to be encrypted and locked down.
Slashdot Mirror
There are times when people do dangerous things that simply shouldn't be dangerous. Often these come down to poor decisions on Microsoft's part. Couple that with a history of ignoring security issues and Microsoft's history is full of issues that, yes, I would put squarely on Microsoft's shoulders.
For example ?
Google, Apple and others are making those things happen
What "technological miracles" are you attributing to Google and Apple ?
The original NT kernel, thrown together in a matter of days (for demonstration purposes, not for official release) by Dave Cutler is still there in the middle of their Windows 7.
Now there's a version I've never heard before. Source ?
That fits with what I've seen. Microsoft's history, maybe surprisingly, does not suggest that Bill Gates is seriously interested in technology. If you disagree, please name an innovation from Microsoft. Most innovations were bought from someone else, or were, like the NTFS file system, the result of Microsoft top management hiring someone well known in the computer industry.
Can you identify some companies that produced "innovations" _without_ employees ?
Actually, perhaps it would be better if you could first define "innovation" and offer a few examples of same.
I wouldn't blame the pill bottle for that. Instead, I'd ask "where were the parents when this happened?"
Probably allowing their child a bit of independence, like all the parental experts on Slashdot keep telling them to. ;)
Also, I've yet to meet anyone who tries to claim that the new taskbar isn't cleaner and easier to use.
You have now. The new Taskbar is a distinct step backwards for any sort of heavy multitasking (though in fairness most of the reasons it is originated in Windows XP) and the "preview" thing is just a pain in the arse, especially on laptops with their less accurate pointing devices.
In short, it has successfully duplicated many of the ways the Dock sucks.
About the only improvements are the unification of quicklaunch and window buttons, and the ability to drag & drop to reorganise button order.
Having known 6, 7 and 8 figure salary folks I can assure you that you can't do their jobs.
Well, to be fair, neither can most of them...
Please don't ever SUGGEST nursing to people, unless they demonstrate a genuine compassion, patience, and willingness to help others even on their worst days.That is to say, unless they're pretty much the antithesis of the average Slashdotter. :)
Killing a baby is never being responsible.
Indeed. An abortion, on the other hand, certainly can be. An embryo isn't a baby in any meaningful sense of the word - indeed, biologically, it's just a parasite.
Or are you one of these idiots who thinks most abortions are in the third trimester of viable foetuses ? I suppose you think all those feminists are out there deliberately getting pregnant just to have abortions, as well ?
I have no problems with killing what so ever, but I'm not a coward and would never kill someone who can't fight back.
You "have no problems with killing", but you're wound up about abortion ? Sounds like you have no problems with hypocrisy either. What about when the pregnancy would endanger or kill the mother ?
If you knew anything about me, you'd know that I'm constantly pushing people NOT to conform. However, just because you don't conform doesn't mean you don't have to suffer the consequences of your actions.
A baby is no longer a consequence of conception. It's a choice.
Actually, people killed babies since the dawn of time. It's only that now people like you somehow think it's acceptable to kill them just because they'd be inconvenient.
Hate to break it to you, tiger, but abortions have been going on for a lot longer than the last few decades. The main difference is that now it's a simple, safe and reliable procedure rather than a complicated, dangerous and risky one.
But you know what, I'll shut up about it if we make it fair - make a law so that instead of just being able to kill a baby that's inconvenient to you, you can kill anyone who inconveniences you. We'll call it a "retroactive abortion". If someone's being a dumbass and wasting my time in the line at the bank / store, jab a needle in their head and suck out their brain - *bam* retroactive abortion. Deal? (Something tells me that you'll be against that).
This is what's called a slippery slope fallacy. You'll need to do better.
Society has (up until people like you came about in the last couple of decades) always insisted that people accept responsibility for their actions.
Ah. So the world was perfect before the 60s then ? It's ok, I'm not on your lawn.
That's why we have a legal system - to make people accept the negative consequences of their actions.
Funny, I thought we had a legal system to resolve disputes and isolate dangerous people from others they might hurt.
People like you who think people can do whatever they want without any consequences are why those of us who do think rationally and realize that actions have consequences (sometimes good, sometimes bad) have little hope for the future.
So I'm guessing that you *do* support the idea of not giving smokers with lung cancer treatment, painkillers for people who injured themselves doing risky things, surgery the victims of industrial accidents, or medicine for people with STDs ? After all, those people are just suffering the consequences of their actions.
It's pretty awesome how you're trying to justify your oppressive tendencies by calling it "taking responsibility" though. I don't think I've heard that one before.
And why would there be PPC code on an Intel Mac?
Because OS X uses fat binaries. Every Intel Mac running an OS X version before Leopard is full of PPC binaries.
It should be easy to write the installer to test for the processor then only install the correct code.
It has long (back to at least System 7) been a feature of MacOS that you could boot nearly any Mac with nearly any System disk.
Even then though utilities like Spring Cleaning can remove unneeded code so I see no reason there should be PPC code in an Intel installation of OS X.
Nevertheless, there is, which is why the fact that Snow Leopard "does not need as much hard disk space" is an expected outcome, not an achievement.
Also the motherboards ARE custom made versions using established intel chipsets, they need to be custom made to fit the shape of the iMacs and Mini's.
They're no more "custom made" than any other motherboard that has to fit into a non-standard form factor - and there are a hell of a lot more machines like that sold by companies other than Apple.
There is nothing special, or unique, or exciting about about the construction of a Mac's motherboard, no matter how much Mac zealots might try to argue otherwise. They're built by the same manufacturers, with the same components, on the same assembly lines as the millions of other motherboards used by Dell, HP, et al. It's just another PC with a fancier firmware.
For instance it does not need as much hard disk space as Leopard does.
Nor should it, given all the PPC code was removed.
Because Apple uses dubious means to prevent people from running OSX on computers they don't bless. There's always going to be a market for it as long as Apple refuses to allow for people to just install on whatever hardware they want.
They don't even need to do that. The commercial market for Psystar's machines would dry up overnight if Apple released a ~$1100ish headless tower.
So promoting personal responsibility and thinking before you act is being an asshole?
You're not "promoting personal responsibility". You're trying to make people conform to the way you think they should behave by removing some of their options to be responsible.
I'm all for having a good time - you want to do drugs? Go for it. Want to get drunk off your ass? Sweet! Want to bang 100 girls? Aweosome! -- HOWEVER, if you're not ready to accept any possible negative consequences, don't do it.
Thanks to modern medicine, childbirth is not inherently a "negative consequence" of pregnancy. Your argument is broken.
I have to wonder though, are you so gung-ho about withholding cancer treatment from people who smoke ? An adrenaline shot from someone who overdosed ? Painkillers from people who injure themselves performing risky stunts ? A lung transplant for someone who spent thirty years working in a mine ?
And if you try to be a little bitch and avoid having to suffer the consequences of your actions, I will give you massive amounts of shit for it. Hell, I've probably had sex with more girls than anyone else on slashdot - however, if one of them would get pregnant, I wouldn't tell them to kill the kid just so that I wouldn't have to accept the consequences of my actions. Do I want kids? Hell no. But if that would happen, I'm prepared to accept it.
Feel free to martyr yourself. When you insist others must do the same thing, you cross the line into oppressor.
Oh, incidentally, what are you going to do if it's the girl who wants an abortion ? Tie her to the bed until the baby is born, telling her over and over she must accept the consequences of her actions ?
I really don't care if low lifes kill their kids (because it means eventually you'll snuff yourselves out and then we can get on with making the world a better place once all the excuse-making collectivists are gone).
A world full of absolutist, judgemental, misogynist arseholes. What an awesome idea !
However, trying to claim that killing babies is a rational alternative to using your brain before spreading your legs is pathetic.
Not nearly as pathetic as trying to oppress people because they're having a good time.
Just remember the bumper sticker - "the people who are for abortion are only alive because their mother was against it".
Ah, yes. Like most bumper stickers - short, simple and laughably incorrect.
No, I'm saying that actions have consequences. If you're not prepared to deal with the consequences, then you have no business doing it. It doesn't matter if it's sex, playing the stock market, gambling, racing, skydiving, etc.
Except your "consequences" are wholly artificial because they only exist if a simple medical procedure is actively denied for the sole reason of them 'learning their lesson'.
There is no reason why, in today's world, sex must ever result in an unwanted birth unless people like you intervene to try and tell others how they should behave.
Your argument is nothing more than saying that people should not be held responsible for their actions, which is the main reason that the world is such a shitty place today - people like you making excuses for those who do bad / stupid things instead of holding them accountable for their choices.
Not in the slightest. My argument is that babies are only a "consequence" of accidental pregnancy if you impose your beliefs on other people.
It's not arbitrary, it's an consequence of the fact that we're human, and the simple that fact that humans that don't value human life either kill themselves or are psychopaths on which a functioning society cannot be based.
Is the measure of "valuing human life" such that anyone who has an abortion is, by definition, either suicidal or a psychopath ?
As you pointed out, no contraceptive is 100%, therefore any time you are having sex (with or without contraceptives) you are risking getting pregnant. If you're not ready to deal with the potential negative outcomes of having sex, you shouldn't be having it. So yes, it IS a willing decision - a willing decision to have sex. An abortion because of "oops" is a matter of not wanting to deal with the consequences of their actions.
No, it's exactly the same situation as any other form of birth control, it just happens post-contraception instead of pre-. Having abortion because of "oops" is most definitely "dealing with the consequences of their actions" and taking steps to prevent that situation from worsening.
Your argument is simply a roundabout way of sex for reasons other than reproduction is wrong.
What purpose does abortion serve?
Averting pregnancy when "condoms and pills, plan B/morning after pill, and many other old fashion ways to not get pregnant" either weren't or couldn't be used.
The numbers of people who have a very hard time making children grows like crazy. With the current trend, in 3 generations, there will be no human left in the western world, who can reproduce without advanced medical help. A few generations later we're done. At least if we continue to go that way.
The problem in the West is not that women can't have babies, it's that they choose not to.
Obviously, in countries where women are unlucky enough not to have that choice, babies appear with more frequency.
personally I wish MSFT would do the same thing.
They do. The difference is that a "generation" to Apple is on the order of 12-18 months, whereas to Microsoft it's more like 7-8 *years*.
MSFT let's them stay in the previous century and use bare metal knife switches to turn on the lights.
So do most enterprise-level vendors - but Apple is far more interested in forced upgrades and milking its customers.
You want "platform independence"? We already had that with source.
No, you didn't.
Why download if you can stream?
Firstly, who offers 1080p video for streaming ?
Secondly, because streaming is - for several reasons - very unreliable.
A little out of date, but I can't imagine things have improved since then:
Indeed. That paper was inaccurate and FUD laden when it was first published and remains so today.
Uuum, NO. How can you have completely forgotten about the vast DRM horrors that got introduced in Vista? All the other things, like slowness, compatibility problems, partially a bad architecture, were results of this one thing, and by themselves not the relevant points. They existed, because every shit and his mother now had to be encrypted and locked down.
The FUD is strong in this one.