Sounds like you are opposed to any business model that involves a big up front investment on the basis of the chance of ongoing returns per copy.
No.
Maybe you want the same lunatic communist ideal applied to pharmaceutical patents too?
You are conflating two completely different issues (copyright and patents).
Well done, you just wiped out the pharmaceutical industry. How about the movie business? whoosh, you just wrecked that too.
Prove it. Heck, even some actual supporting evidence would be good.
You can dream up any twisted bullshit to justify taking peoples hard work for nothing, but if that system relies on other people paying for it to fund its development, you will always just be a freeloader.
I don't want to take anything.
Grow up, and pay your way.
Come back when you can argue the situation rationally, without resorting to mindless ad hominems. Then try actually addressing my statements, rather than your paranoid fantasies.
LOL! This thread started because you berated and belittled another poster because his opinion of when humans become human was not 'objective' or scientific.
No, my first post to this thread was criticising the poster for conflating stem cell research with his own paranoid fantasies about mad scientists and uteruses-for-hire - and then pointing out how contrary this deception was to the principles of Christianity he implied he followed.
I responded thus because I find people who proclaim particular religious beliefs but then fail to adhere to them - or try to pretend they aren't adhering to them - particularly undesirable individuals. They're even worse than the one who blatantly try to impose their morals on everyone else based on what they believe their invisible sky friend told them to think.
*You* were the first person to start talking about "when humans become human", implying that point is at when a "unique genetic code" is first created. Ignoring for a moment that defining people by their genetic code leads towards things like eugenics, lack of free will and a Gattaca-like society, you fail to provide any reason why that "unique genetic code" is so inherently valuable.
Incidentally, I wasn't "impugning" the poster's reasoning, I was attacking his dishonest and deceptive attempt at scaremongering.
So you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is either ignorant or just preaching religions dogma.
No, I believe that anyone who argues from ignorance or based in religious dogma, is doing so.
Yet when pressed you cannot offer any explanation of what makes a human human.
Nor do I need to, as it is off-topic for this thread.
And you think it is my ego that is in danger? You have got to be kidding.
I doubt I could do anything to damage your ego, even if I wanted to.
Yes, I did. I told you I considered a blastocyst to not be a "human". Since that is what therapeutic cloning creates (and later discards), that is all that is germane to this discussion.
The question is very simple. WHEN do YOU believe a human becomes human developmentally?
When *I* believe a "human becomes a human" is utterly irrelevant to anything in this discussion except your ego.
And a newborn hasn't even gotten to be a toddler, let alone an adolescent, let alone an adult.
So what are the differences between those stages of growth, comparable to the differences between a blastocyst and a viable foetus ?
You didn't answer my question which was "when and why a developing human becomes 'human'"
Yes, I did, just not in the way you wanted. A clump of cells that hasn't even embedded into the womb, is not a "human being" by any sort of objective measure. At that stage, it's a roll of the dice whether or not it will even reach that "potential human" stage of an embryo. Comparing it to any other bunch of human-sourced cells in terms of "humanness" is quite reasonable.
Your example of a condom full of semen or used tampon is dramatic and emotionally charged but not founded in science. It can be totally discredited with the simple explanation that unlike a blastocyst, embryo, etc. sperm and eggs do not contain a full genetic code for a new and unique human being.
You neglect to indicate why this is significant enough to be the defining moment of "humanness". You also neglect to explain why the clump of cells called a blastocyst holds any more inherent importance in the universe than the clump of cells that was on your dinner plate last night.
The rather harsh truth of "full genetic codes" is that they're not particularly scarce, nor hard to generate. Indeed, a significant proportion of the world's population take explicit steps to *avoid* it.
Its called writing songs and learning to play an instrument, both of which take years and for which the pay is zero.
Straw man. This is no different to many other skills.
Before you mouth off about musicians getting a 'free ride' maybe you should go learn an instrument and spend a few years in their shoes? I don't think that 'rock star' is a simple ticket to easy money.
Selling CDs (or even better, selling music online) *is* a free ride. You only have to do the work _once_ and then you can sell the resultant product essentially forever, for basically zero ongoing expense. It's a great racket if you can get into it, but it's still a racket.
Contrast this to concerts - ie: live performance. The artist has to actually get out and *perform* - ie: work - each and every time.
The latter is akin to how most working people earn a crust. The former is how people getting a free ride out of copyright do it. The OP suggested that revenue from the former is drying up, while the latter is increasing. I can see *why* someone in the system would be disappointed with that, but I can't say I feel particularly sympathetic towards them. Welcome to the real fucking world.
Glorified input switcher? I don't know what you mean. Rumor is that it will have a hard drive to store movies, music, and TV shows, along with a menu system to sort through and play them. Plus, you'll supposedly be able to buy stuff from iTMS directly from the iTV.
Well, that's changed considerably from the last time I heard about it. If it's actually doing that, it's a bit more useful.
The poster was suggesting that Apple, on the other hand, could leverage what is supposed to be a general entertainment system (the iTV, which will play music and movies), in order to gain a foothold in the game-console market.
The iTV isn't a "general entertainment system", it's a glorified input switcher.
I happen to agree that the world needs far tougher copyright protections, and ones that are more effective (while being less intrusive) than current DRM schemes. I have good friends who are musicians, and they are seeing huge declines in their incomes from music sales, even though they seem to have larger fan bases and draw greater crowds at concerts.
So record sales are down, but concert attendance is up.
Where's the problem here ? Apart from your friends being dismayed that their free ride is drying up and they actually have to go out and work to make some money, that is ?
Any ideas for how to effectively stop illegal downloads?
You impugn the poster's 'objective' reasoning but you fail to mention where your powers of logic and reason draw the line. Is it the trip down the birth canal that makes a fetus human?
A blastocyst - assuming (falsely in the case of typical research being discussed) it's even created inside a uterus and not some artificial container - hasn't even embedded into the womb, let alone taken on any meaningful attributes of a "human". It's about as much a "human being" as a condom full of semen or a used tampon.
Please do enlighten us with your reasons for when and why a developing human becomes 'human'.
A blastocyst hasn't even gotten to the point of being an embryo, let alone a foetus, let alone a baby.
Did I see a different article or are we talking about aborted fetuses, not pre-embryonic tissue in a petri dish.
The bill *allows* for the use of aborted foetal tissue - in particular the harvesting of eggs from females - which is very different to the scaremongering you (and other opponents here in Australia) are trying to conjure up of farming women for foetuses.
Now tell me again how I'm the one that's trolling by invoking incorrect imagery?
You are trying to imply the standard method for harvesting stem cells is to get a woman pregnant, then abort a known-viable foetus when, in fact, it is nothing of the sort.
And the imagery I had in mind was the trailer-trash Jerry Springer fan who will do anything for a quick buck, and even save on her birth control pills at the same time.
Which is completely and utterly unrealistic. Makes for a sensational outrage generator, though.
Not the downtrodden women renting out their uteri.
Uteruses is a perfectly valid plural term, FYI.
Science also says that a 2 yr old and 4 yr old are different.
Really ? What differences between a 2 and 4 year old does science say there are on the scale similar to a blastocyst (which hasn't even implanted in the womb) and viable, expected to be carried to term foetus ?
No, I'm completely correct because your example was deliberately *wrong* in a standard attempt to inflame the issue by invoking imagery of late-term foetuses and poor, downtrodden women renting out their uteruses to mad scientists.
Read my response to someone else who said the same thing you did, but in politer terms.
Oh, please. Don't try and play the persecution card because you got called trolling by trying to conflate therapeutic cloning of pre-embryonic tissue in a petri dish and women being paid by crazy blokes in white coats to get pregnant so they can experiment on their foetuses.
Your *personal religious beliefs* might dictate that a blastocyst and a newborn baby are one and the same, but *science* says otherwise.
As usual, most counter arguments are based in ignorance and/or religious dogma. It was painful trying to watch some politicians argue against this - doubly so for the ones who didn't have the stones to admit they oppose it because of their personal moral beliefs and attempted (as you did) to come up with some other, "objective" reasoning.
My problem is the potential for women to get pregnant so they can get an abortion and get paid by an equally unscrupulous scientist.
Conflating two significantly different situations like this is blatantly dishonest. You should be ashamed of yourself - *ESPECIALLY* if you actually do consider yourself Christian.
The IBM Power Series had a different BIOS than the PowerMac (which was available as of 1994), and therefore NT 3.51 would apparently not have worked on the Mac without a serious rewrite.
At most, it would have required a new HAL. More likely, changes would have been fairly minimal and mainly a matter of peripheral driver support.
PowerPC support, along with official MS support for Alpha and MIPS processors, was dropped from NT during development of Windows NT 4.
That would be NT 5.0 (Windows 2000). NT 4.0 was available on all four platforms. Additionally, the Alpha port was kept up to date well into the beta, possibly even (can't remember for sure) the RC phase of Windows 2000.
(There's also the ports that were never commercially released - SPARC, etc).
Does this change the (stupid) clause in the law that says timeshifting is ok but says that the timeshifted content must be deleted/destroyed after you have watched it once?
I don't agree with it, but such a clause would be perfectly aligned with the idea of time-shifting. Far from stupid, it formally defines something the concept of "time-shifting" inherently implies.
Wait, isn't everyone in Australia already a criminal? That was the whole point, wasn't it?
You say this in jest (I hope;) ), but ironically it's actually true, vis-a-vis activities related to copyright.
Under current Australian laws, we aren't even able to record (most) things on TV (to time-shift or otherwise). There's no concept of "fair use", or similar. I've often wondered how Apple were even able to sell the iPod in Australia, given that until the Oz iTunes Store opened up a few months ago, there wasn't any legal way consumers could actually get music onto one.
So while this bill almost certainly one of those "ask for something outrageous if you merely want to get something unlikely" ploys, in all likelihood it actually makes the legal situation better, because it was so bad to begin with.
I mean, I hear the arguement, that tax breaks encourage people to have more kids. Why? People will always f*ck. F*cking will result in kids...I don't think anyone needs encouragement to screw more. I don't think that any couple has said to each other.."Hon...I just don't wanna have any (more) kids.". "But babe, look at the tax write off we'll get for the kids if we have it"."Ok, babe...take them panties on down there then!!!"
"Family-oriented" tax breaks exist to encourage the "right" type of people (ie: those who are already productive enough in society such that tax breaks actually matter to them) to reproduce, in the hope that such people will raise their children to be similarly productive, thus improving society as a whole.
Most first world countries don't even have birth rates high enough to hit replacement, which gives lots of people (from economists to white supremists) cause for concern. This is why those tax breaks exist, along with the "morality" related hangovers from earlier times that were in place to "encourage" people to settle into a "normal" family.
I agree that the world's copyright system is out of date but I have yet to hear of any decent ways to change it.
In my mind, the major changes that need to be made (fundamentally I'm disagree with copyright entirely, but it's always going to need to be around in some form) are:
* Make copyright for commercialisation reasons opt-in.
* Decriminalise non-profit infringement.
* Dramatically reduce the length of copyright terms and link them to how successful the work is - so more successful works reach the end of their copyright sooner.
Do you have a DOS 6.2 around the matching Windows 3.xx? Start with "grep Stac/*/*/*/*/*/*"
I do, in fact, keep old DOS VMs around. Being a curious kind of bloke, I though I'd give it a try.
According to strings(1) and grep(1), the only files that have references to 'stac' or 'stacker' are MSBACKDB.OVL, MWAVABSI.DLL, Readme.txt, SETVER.EXE and SMARTMON.EXE - none of which are at all suspicious. In particular, the obvious locations for actual Stacker code to be - COMMAND.COM, DBLSPACE.BIN, IO.SYS and MSDOS.SYS - don't have any such references. Neither did Windows 3.1's win.com, for that matter.
But if you want to research this it's best to just get your hands on the executables. You can then break up the stacker binaries into snippets and search for those snippets in the Microsoft binaries, you can also run a decompiler and repeat, which may find more matches.
Maybe. But given that a) my recollection of the case, b) all the available evidence (including court documents and usenet discussions) online and c) the preliminary test you suggested all turned up zero support of copyright infringement, I'm going to have to call shennannigans on it.
Willingly is way off. He had a monopoly position in operating systems that made it literally impossible to buy computer equipment without giving Microsoft money.
False. There has never been any point in time when it has been impossible to buy computers without Windows.
You know it actually lends you credibility when you say, "I was wrong and I admit it" when you are caught making factually incorrect statements.
When I make a factually incorrect statement, I'll consider it.
I'm suggesting that no one has ever presented any evidence that marketshare is a significant contributing factor to the security of those platforms, or (if it is significant) how significant that one factor is.
"Market share" is a term used to capture the aspects of Windows's market presence that make it more widely compromised than any other platform. In particular, a high number of relatively ignorant users and a large number of machines, but additionally the greater ROI offered to developers of malicious code, the increased rates of infection, the greater level of damage, the greater level of visibility, the greater average age of installed machines, and so forth.
Market share does not have any influence on how secure a platform is relevant to objective measures. What it *does* have a significant impact on is the attractiveness, number, frequency, longevity and impact of exploits, when they occur - and since that's how everyone seems to measure "security" (especially on Slashdot), *that* is why market share is a significant factor relevant to a platform's "security".
So long as the market is using the term "security" in the way that it currently does, market share is an inescapable and significant factor in measuring that "security". Should people start measuring "security" using objective, neutral metrics, then the influence of market share will be reduced.
True, but neither most OS X machines nor most Linux machines are constantly being infected by trojans, so there isn't a lot of demand.
This does not change the fact that neither OS X or Linux "contain trojans", nor that "containing trojans" is a very difficult problem to solve.
It would be nice if the features used to contain trojans became more widespread and integrated on those platforms, but doing so is proactive security addressing a problem that has not really materialized yet. Not implementing them on Windows is simply negligence and lack of motivation on the part of MS.
Or it simply can't be done while retaining sufficient levels of usability and backwards compatibility.
This is called a false dichotomy. We don't yet know what Apple is going to do, but you can bet it won't be either of the above.
No, we don't. We do, however, know that if unsigned/unknown programs are restricted in any meaningful way, it's going to be a *lot* of applications that get broken (albeit likely proportionally less on OS X and Linux).
Most programs don't want to perform the behavior of malware, so simply restricting those behaviors by default will "break" only a few legacy apps. And by "break" I mean ask the user what they want it to be able to do and then do what the user tells it.
The problem is that most of the things malware does *is* - or was - considered quite innocuous, on its own.
No it [restricting who can sign/certify applications] does not.
Yes, it does. Because when any old Tom, Dick or Harry can have their piece of software "approved", every old Tom, Dick and Harry are going to be writing malware that conveniently circumvents all this security simply by virtue of the OS trusting it.
Apple can maintain their own certificate signing authority and even package repository if they want.
Apple are large, known, commercial vendor. Ie: a poor counter example to my point.
There is nothing to prevent users from adding more certifiers at whatever trust level they want. There is nothing stopping users from changing these levels for completely unsigned applications in general or for a given application.
At which point we just get back to the situation as it exists now - users can run any code they want that can do anything it wants.
You do realise, I hope, that being one of the "geeks" on Slashdot, that this also applies to you?
I used "geeks" in ""s because the real geeks have researched the situation and know about IE. Hence they don't make the stupid comments about IE that are rife on Slashdot like "IE is in the Windows kernel" or "IE runs with special privileges".
If I determine that khtml contains so many security risks that I don't want it on my system, I can remove it - and use Firefox, Mozilla, or whatever.
And break everything that depends on KHTML. Just like Windows.
My computer will still run. My O/S will not be broken.
It will if that functionality was part of it to start with. Which is the point. Microsoft (and Apple) don't pander to people who want a patchwork quilt for an Operating System, the people who want to keep their OS up on blocks in the back shed, the people who want to compile their own kernels. They target people who want something that works out of the box with a minimum of fuss and headaches (end users) and that has a large array of consistent, built-in functionality to leverage (developers).
If you *want* that kind of environment, then that's fine - there's Linux and various other alternatives that are more suitable for you. But attacking Microsoft for not having features a market they're not even targeting wants is about as dumb as a monster truck racer criticising Ferrari for not building vehicles for him.
Oh, wait - that won't work, either. They keep changing the API. It's not documented. It's not stable.
If it's not documented, how do third parties manage to write software that uses it ?
You saying that there is no real difference between the the way the Microsoft HTML rendering engine and the various open source engines are architected, implemented & installed is just about as silly as saying that the difference between a round wheel and a square one is a minor implementation detail.
The only meaningful difference is the presence of the source code. Which, from an architectural perspective, *IS* a minor detail.
But clearly there are users who find the described functionality useful, and on that basis I agree with the idea that OS makers (e.g. Apple, Microsoft) should make it a priority to include such functionality as native to the OS's they distribute. Given a default setting of OFF and/or an easy way to turn it off, there's no reason not to include it; the engineering is simple, so the cost is not a reasonable deterrent to Apple or Microsoft.
I have to disagree that the engineering is simple. Especially when you take wrapping the choices in a good UI (a _critical_ aspect of making the functionality useful) into the equation. If it were simple, it would have been done a long time ago.
In all other OSes we can remove the equivalent components at our leisure [...]
No, you can't.
Or, rather, you can, but anything that uses them will break - which is exactly the same situation as Windows.
(one of the most important points of why MS hasn't run away with the server market is the need to keep a GUI running in a fucking bloody server, adding a layer of complexity and thus bugs, that you don't need).
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like you are opposed to any business model that involves a big up front investment on the basis of the chance of ongoing returns per copy.
No.
Maybe you want the same lunatic communist ideal applied to pharmaceutical patents too?
You are conflating two completely different issues (copyright and patents).
Well done, you just wiped out the pharmaceutical industry. How about the movie business? whoosh, you just wrecked that too.
Prove it. Heck, even some actual supporting evidence would be good.
You can dream up any twisted bullshit to justify taking peoples hard work for nothing, but if that system relies on other people paying for it to fund its development, you will always just be a freeloader.
I don't want to take anything.
Grow up, and pay your way.
Come back when you can argue the situation rationally, without resorting to mindless ad hominems. Then try actually addressing my statements, rather than your paranoid fantasies.
LOL! This thread started because you berated and belittled another poster because his opinion of when humans become human was not 'objective' or scientific.
No, my first post to this thread was criticising the poster for conflating stem cell research with his own paranoid fantasies about mad scientists and uteruses-for-hire - and then pointing out how contrary this deception was to the principles of Christianity he implied he followed.
I responded thus because I find people who proclaim particular religious beliefs but then fail to adhere to them - or try to pretend they aren't adhering to them - particularly undesirable individuals. They're even worse than the one who blatantly try to impose their morals on everyone else based on what they believe their invisible sky friend told them to think.
*You* were the first person to start talking about "when humans become human", implying that point is at when a "unique genetic code" is first created. Ignoring for a moment that defining people by their genetic code leads towards things like eugenics, lack of free will and a Gattaca-like society, you fail to provide any reason why that "unique genetic code" is so inherently valuable.
Incidentally, I wasn't "impugning" the poster's reasoning, I was attacking his dishonest and deceptive attempt at scaremongering.
So you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is either ignorant or just preaching religions dogma.
No, I believe that anyone who argues from ignorance or based in religious dogma, is doing so.
Yet when pressed you cannot offer any explanation of what makes a human human.
Nor do I need to, as it is off-topic for this thread.
And you think it is my ego that is in danger? You have got to be kidding.
I doubt I could do anything to damage your ego, even if I wanted to.
No you didn't.
Yes, I did. I told you I considered a blastocyst to not be a "human". Since that is what therapeutic cloning creates (and later discards), that is all that is germane to this discussion.
The question is very simple. WHEN do YOU believe a human becomes human developmentally?
When *I* believe a "human becomes a human" is utterly irrelevant to anything in this discussion except your ego.
And a newborn hasn't even gotten to be a toddler, let alone an adolescent, let alone an adult.
So what are the differences between those stages of growth, comparable to the differences between a blastocyst and a viable foetus ?
You didn't answer my question which was "when and why a developing human becomes 'human'"
Yes, I did, just not in the way you wanted. A clump of cells that hasn't even embedded into the womb, is not a "human being" by any sort of objective measure. At that stage, it's a roll of the dice whether or not it will even reach that "potential human" stage of an embryo. Comparing it to any other bunch of human-sourced cells in terms of "humanness" is quite reasonable.
Your example of a condom full of semen or used tampon is dramatic and emotionally charged but not founded in science. It can be totally discredited with the simple explanation that unlike a blastocyst, embryo, etc. sperm and eggs do not contain a full genetic code for a new and unique human being.
You neglect to indicate why this is significant enough to be the defining moment of "humanness". You also neglect to explain why the clump of cells called a blastocyst holds any more inherent importance in the universe than the clump of cells that was on your dinner plate last night.
The rather harsh truth of "full genetic codes" is that they're not particularly scarce, nor hard to generate. Indeed, a significant proportion of the world's population take explicit steps to *avoid* it.
What free ride?
Selling music.
Its called writing songs and learning to play an instrument, both of which take years and for which the pay is zero.
Straw man. This is no different to many other skills.
Before you mouth off about musicians getting a 'free ride' maybe you should go learn an instrument and spend a few years in their shoes? I don't think that 'rock star' is a simple ticket to easy money.
Selling CDs (or even better, selling music online) *is* a free ride. You only have to do the work _once_ and then you can sell the resultant product essentially forever, for basically zero ongoing expense. It's a great racket if you can get into it, but it's still a racket.
Contrast this to concerts - ie: live performance. The artist has to actually get out and *perform* - ie: work - each and every time.
The latter is akin to how most working people earn a crust. The former is how people getting a free ride out of copyright do it. The OP suggested that revenue from the former is drying up, while the latter is increasing. I can see *why* someone in the system would be disappointed with that, but I can't say I feel particularly sympathetic towards them. Welcome to the real fucking world.
Glorified input switcher? I don't know what you mean. Rumor is that it will have a hard drive to store movies, music, and TV shows, along with a menu system to sort through and play them. Plus, you'll supposedly be able to buy stuff from iTMS directly from the iTV.
Well, that's changed considerably from the last time I heard about it. If it's actually doing that, it's a bit more useful.
The poster was suggesting that Apple, on the other hand, could leverage what is supposed to be a general entertainment system (the iTV, which will play music and movies), in order to gain a foothold in the game-console market.
The iTV isn't a "general entertainment system", it's a glorified input switcher.
I happen to agree that the world needs far tougher copyright protections, and ones that are more effective (while being less intrusive) than current DRM schemes. I have good friends who are musicians, and they are seeing huge declines in their incomes from music sales, even though they seem to have larger fan bases and draw greater crowds at concerts.
So record sales are down, but concert attendance is up.
Where's the problem here ? Apart from your friends being dismayed that their free ride is drying up and they actually have to go out and work to make some money, that is ?
Any ideas for how to effectively stop illegal downloads?
Decriminalise not-for-profit downloading.
You impugn the poster's 'objective' reasoning but you fail to mention where your powers of logic and reason draw the line. Is it the trip down the birth canal that makes a fetus human?
A blastocyst - assuming (falsely in the case of typical research being discussed) it's even created inside a uterus and not some artificial container - hasn't even embedded into the womb, let alone taken on any meaningful attributes of a "human". It's about as much a "human being" as a condom full of semen or a used tampon.
Please do enlighten us with your reasons for when and why a developing human becomes 'human'.
A blastocyst hasn't even gotten to the point of being an embryo, let alone a foetus, let alone a baby.
Did I see a different article or are we talking about aborted fetuses, not pre-embryonic tissue in a petri dish.
The bill *allows* for the use of aborted foetal tissue - in particular the harvesting of eggs from females - which is very different to the scaremongering you (and other opponents here in Australia) are trying to conjure up of farming women for foetuses.
Now tell me again how I'm the one that's trolling by invoking incorrect imagery?
You are trying to imply the standard method for harvesting stem cells is to get a woman pregnant, then abort a known-viable foetus when, in fact, it is nothing of the sort.
And the imagery I had in mind was the trailer-trash Jerry Springer fan who will do anything for a quick buck, and even save on her birth control pills at the same time.
Which is completely and utterly unrealistic. Makes for a sensational outrage generator, though.
Not the downtrodden women renting out their uteri.
Uteruses is a perfectly valid plural term, FYI.
Science also says that a 2 yr old and 4 yr old are different.
Really ? What differences between a 2 and 4 year old does science say there are on the scale similar to a blastocyst (which hasn't even implanted in the womb) and viable, expected to be carried to term foetus ?
You're partially correct, my example sucked.
No, I'm completely correct because your example was deliberately *wrong* in a standard attempt to inflame the issue by invoking imagery of late-term foetuses and poor, downtrodden women renting out their uteruses to mad scientists.
Read my response to someone else who said the same thing you did, but in politer terms.
Oh, please. Don't try and play the persecution card because you got called trolling by trying to conflate therapeutic cloning of pre-embryonic tissue in a petri dish and women being paid by crazy blokes in white coats to get pregnant so they can experiment on their foetuses.
Your *personal religious beliefs* might dictate that a blastocyst and a newborn baby are one and the same, but *science* says otherwise.
As usual, most counter arguments are based in ignorance and/or religious dogma. It was painful trying to watch some politicians argue against this - doubly so for the ones who didn't have the stones to admit they oppose it because of their personal moral beliefs and attempted (as you did) to come up with some other, "objective" reasoning.
My problem is the potential for women to get pregnant so they can get an abortion and get paid by an equally unscrupulous scientist.
Conflating two significantly different situations like this is blatantly dishonest. You should be ashamed of yourself - *ESPECIALLY* if you actually do consider yourself Christian.
The IBM Power Series had a different BIOS than the PowerMac (which was available as of 1994), and therefore NT 3.51 would apparently not have worked on the Mac without a serious rewrite.
At most, it would have required a new HAL. More likely, changes would have been fairly minimal and mainly a matter of peripheral driver support.
PowerPC support, along with official MS support for Alpha and MIPS processors, was dropped from NT during development of Windows NT 4.
That would be NT 5.0 (Windows 2000). NT 4.0 was available on all four platforms. Additionally, the Alpha port was kept up to date well into the beta, possibly even (can't remember for sure) the RC phase of Windows 2000.
(There's also the ports that were never commercially released - SPARC, etc).
Does this change the (stupid) clause in the law that says timeshifting is ok but says that the timeshifted content must be deleted/destroyed after you have watched it once?
I don't agree with it, but such a clause would be perfectly aligned with the idea of time-shifting. Far from stupid, it formally defines something the concept of "time-shifting" inherently implies.
Wait, isn't everyone in Australia already a criminal? That was the whole point, wasn't it?
You say this in jest (I hope ;) ), but ironically it's actually true, vis-a-vis activities related to copyright.
Under current Australian laws, we aren't even able to record (most) things on TV (to time-shift or otherwise). There's no concept of "fair use", or similar. I've often wondered how Apple were even able to sell the iPod in Australia, given that until the Oz iTunes Store opened up a few months ago, there wasn't any legal way consumers could actually get music onto one.
So while this bill almost certainly one of those "ask for something outrageous if you merely want to get something unlikely" ploys, in all likelihood it actually makes the legal situation better, because it was so bad to begin with.
I mean, I hear the arguement, that tax breaks encourage people to have more kids. Why? People will always f*ck. F*cking will result in kids...I don't think anyone needs encouragement to screw more. I don't think that any couple has said to each other.."Hon...I just don't wanna have any (more) kids.". "But babe, look at the tax write off we'll get for the kids if we have it"."Ok, babe...take them panties on down there then!!!"
"Family-oriented" tax breaks exist to encourage the "right" type of people (ie: those who are already productive enough in society such that tax breaks actually matter to them) to reproduce, in the hope that such people will raise their children to be similarly productive, thus improving society as a whole.
Most first world countries don't even have birth rates high enough to hit replacement, which gives lots of people (from economists to white supremists) cause for concern. This is why those tax breaks exist, along with the "morality" related hangovers from earlier times that were in place to "encourage" people to settle into a "normal" family.
I agree that the world's copyright system is out of date but I have yet to hear of any decent ways to change it.
In my mind, the major changes that need to be made (fundamentally I'm disagree with copyright entirely, but it's always going to need to be around in some form) are:
* Make copyright for commercialisation reasons opt-in.
* Decriminalise non-profit infringement.
* Dramatically reduce the length of copyright terms and link them to how successful the work is - so more successful works reach the end of their copyright sooner.
Nope. Parallels yes, boot camp no. Boot Camp only supports Windows XP.
I can assure you that Boot Camp works with both Windows 2003 and Vista.
Do you have a DOS 6.2 around the matching Windows 3.xx? Start with "grep Stac /* /*/* /*/*/*"
I do, in fact, keep old DOS VMs around. Being a curious kind of bloke, I though I'd give it a try.
According to strings(1) and grep(1), the only files that have references to 'stac' or 'stacker' are MSBACKDB.OVL, MWAVABSI.DLL, Readme.txt, SETVER.EXE and SMARTMON.EXE - none of which are at all suspicious. In particular, the obvious locations for actual Stacker code to be - COMMAND.COM, DBLSPACE.BIN, IO.SYS and MSDOS.SYS - don't have any such references. Neither did Windows 3.1's win.com, for that matter.
But if you want to research this it's best to just get your hands on the executables. You can then break up the stacker binaries into snippets and search for those snippets in the Microsoft binaries, you can also run a decompiler and repeat, which may find more matches.
Maybe. But given that a) my recollection of the case, b) all the available evidence (including court documents and usenet discussions) online and c) the preliminary test you suggested all turned up zero support of copyright infringement, I'm going to have to call shennannigans on it.
Can Bootcamp or Parallels be used to run a IIS + win2K server on this? (Apple XServe)
Yes.
Willingly is way off. He had a monopoly position in operating systems that made it literally impossible to buy computer equipment without giving Microsoft money.
False. There has never been any point in time when it has been impossible to buy computers without Windows.
You know it actually lends you credibility when you say, "I was wrong and I admit it" when you are caught making factually incorrect statements.
When I make a factually incorrect statement, I'll consider it.
I'm suggesting that no one has ever presented any evidence that marketshare is a significant contributing factor to the security of those platforms, or (if it is significant) how significant that one factor is.
"Market share" is a term used to capture the aspects of Windows's market presence that make it more widely compromised than any other platform. In particular, a high number of relatively ignorant users and a large number of machines, but additionally the greater ROI offered to developers of malicious code, the increased rates of infection, the greater level of damage, the greater level of visibility, the greater average age of installed machines, and so forth.
Market share does not have any influence on how secure a platform is relevant to objective measures. What it *does* have a significant impact on is the attractiveness, number, frequency, longevity and impact of exploits, when they occur - and since that's how everyone seems to measure "security" (especially on Slashdot), *that* is why market share is a significant factor relevant to a platform's "security".
So long as the market is using the term "security" in the way that it currently does, market share is an inescapable and significant factor in measuring that "security". Should people start measuring "security" using objective, neutral metrics, then the influence of market share will be reduced.
True, but neither most OS X machines nor most Linux machines are constantly being infected by trojans, so there isn't a lot of demand.
This does not change the fact that neither OS X or Linux "contain trojans", nor that "containing trojans" is a very difficult problem to solve.
It would be nice if the features used to contain trojans became more widespread and integrated on those platforms, but doing so is proactive security addressing a problem that has not really materialized yet. Not implementing them on Windows is simply negligence and lack of motivation on the part of MS.
Or it simply can't be done while retaining sufficient levels of usability and backwards compatibility.
This is called a false dichotomy. We don't yet know what Apple is going to do, but you can bet it won't be either of the above.
No, we don't. We do, however, know that if unsigned/unknown programs are restricted in any meaningful way, it's going to be a *lot* of applications that get broken (albeit likely proportionally less on OS X and Linux).
Most programs don't want to perform the behavior of malware, so simply restricting those behaviors by default will "break" only a few legacy apps. And by "break" I mean ask the user what they want it to be able to do and then do what the user tells it.
The problem is that most of the things malware does *is* - or was - considered quite innocuous, on its own.
No it [restricting who can sign/certify applications] does not.
Yes, it does. Because when any old Tom, Dick or Harry can have their piece of software "approved", every old Tom, Dick and Harry are going to be writing malware that conveniently circumvents all this security simply by virtue of the OS trusting it.
Apple can maintain their own certificate signing authority and even package repository if they want.
Apple are large, known, commercial vendor. Ie: a poor counter example to my point.
There is nothing to prevent users from adding more certifiers at whatever trust level they want. There is nothing stopping users from changing these levels for completely unsigned applications in general or for a given application.
At which point we just get back to the situation as it exists now - users can run any code they want that can do anything it wants.
Even if a user r
You do realise, I hope, that being one of the "geeks" on Slashdot, that this also applies to you?
I used "geeks" in ""s because the real geeks have researched the situation and know about IE. Hence they don't make the stupid comments about IE that are rife on Slashdot like "IE is in the Windows kernel" or "IE runs with special privileges".
If I determine that khtml contains so many security risks that I don't want it on my system, I can remove it - and use Firefox, Mozilla, or whatever.
And break everything that depends on KHTML. Just like Windows.
My computer will still run. My O/S will not be broken.
It will if that functionality was part of it to start with. Which is the point. Microsoft (and Apple) don't pander to people who want a patchwork quilt for an Operating System, the people who want to keep their OS up on blocks in the back shed, the people who want to compile their own kernels. They target people who want something that works out of the box with a minimum of fuss and headaches (end users) and that has a large array of consistent, built-in functionality to leverage (developers).
If you *want* that kind of environment, then that's fine - there's Linux and various other alternatives that are more suitable for you. But attacking Microsoft for not having features a market they're not even targeting wants is about as dumb as a monster truck racer criticising Ferrari for not building vehicles for him.
Oh, wait - that won't work, either. They keep changing the API. It's not documented. It's not stable.
If it's not documented, how do third parties manage to write software that uses it ?
You saying that there is no real difference between the the way the Microsoft HTML rendering engine and the various open source engines are architected, implemented & installed is just about as silly as saying that the difference between a round wheel and a square one is a minor implementation detail.
The only meaningful difference is the presence of the source code. Which, from an architectural perspective, *IS* a minor detail.
But clearly there are users who find the described functionality useful, and on that basis I agree with the idea that OS makers (e.g. Apple, Microsoft) should make it a priority to include such functionality as native to the OS's they distribute. Given a default setting of OFF and/or an easy way to turn it off, there's no reason not to include it; the engineering is simple, so the cost is not a reasonable deterrent to Apple or Microsoft.
I have to disagree that the engineering is simple. Especially when you take wrapping the choices in a good UI (a _critical_ aspect of making the functionality useful) into the equation. If it were simple, it would have been done a long time ago.
In all other OSes we can remove the equivalent components at our leisure [...]
No, you can't.
Or, rather, you can, but anything that uses them will break - which is exactly the same situation as Windows.
(one of the most important points of why MS hasn't run away with the server market is the need to keep a GUI running in a fucking bloody server, adding a layer of complexity and thus bugs, that you don't need).
An idle GUI makes effectively zero difference.