A lot of people - myself included - refer to Darwin when talking about the OS, and Mac OS X when talking about all of the stuff that Apple bundles on the install CD (including Quartz, Cocoa, and so on).
They're you're being inconsistent, and making arbitrary distinctions to support your bias.
The general working definition of an OS is the stuff that you need to boot the system and launch programs.
It is a struggle to see how the full OS X (or Windows) would not meet this definition.
You have, however, demonstrated the one consistency I've seen with "technical people" when defining what an "OS" - they always go out of their way to ensure whatever set of rules they make up excludes any sort of "GUI" from being included. They all seem to suffer from Goldilocks syndrome, since not being able to pop up a bash shell isn't "graphical" _enough_, while drawing windows and using a mouse for input is _too_ "graphical".
A parent should be able to use this. A parent is responsible for know where a child is and what the child is doing.
Heh, that's pretty funny. When was the last time a parent was held responsible for something their child did ?
If my daughter had a cell phone, I would use this to determine if she is working out some affair with a lecherous principal or teacher.
Right. And I bet you'd also be right there if she was "working out some affair" with any other man you disapproved of as well.
Before you, and others, scoff, This happened recently in my county. A high school principal was having sexual encounters with a student and was discovered via a discovery made by the parent of incoming/outgoing texts made on the daughter cell phone.
How old was the girl ? If she was 13, it's a problem. If she was 17, it's neither surprising nor outrageous. Heck, just in my high school back in the day there are at least half a dozen examples of students having "encounters" with teachers that I can think of, and that was fifteen years ago (two of them have been married to that same person for the last 10).
This is why not being tied to a single app store is awesome. Unless you jailbreak an iPhone, you're stuck with "Blockbuster", whereas on an Android phone, you can go to any "video rental place" you want.
Of course, you're then more exposed to the possibility of being mugged walking out of the video store, or standing next to a guy in loose trackpants with his hands in his pockets while you're making your selection...
It won't change the fact that it's stupid in the iPhone case, because the supposed "security" could be achieved by requiring users to insert a security code to enable "advanced" features, like out of market installation.
Any system whose security can be circumvented by presenting what is essentially an "are you sure" dialog box to someone completely unqualified to make the decision, is not secure.
If we can get a big enough liver-oid to provide a few years function, that might be enough for an elderly patient to live out the rest of their normal life-span (or at least normal "health-span").
If you need a new liver you're already at the end of your natural life span (however you might want to refer to it).
Personally I'm all for *extending* my natural lifespan with replacements and upgrades, but don't try and pretend it's anything else.
I was saying that no other browser is limited to Windows, so it's kind of normal that no other browsers tries to hook deeply into the OS functions as IE does.
How does IE "hook deeply into OS functions" ? What does it do that other browsers implemented in a similar fashion as shared components don't do ?
and while we're at it can we get rid of the "hate" category of crime too?
Hate crimes are there to help separate the people who are doing harm for some rational reason (I really want his iPod) from the people who are doing harm for an irrational reason (he's a nigger).
The potential for rehabilitating someone who starts off thinking rationally is much better, hence the value in making the distinction. Though I'm going to guess from your stereotypical right-wing "ratchet the levels of punishment UP to the "hate crime" level for everything" attitude, rehabilitation isn't something you really believe in.
The other oddity is people use their phone as an alarmclock? A smartphone with a battery life measured in hours, probably dead by wakeup time?
Er, yeah. In fact it coincides quite neatly with my need to charge the thing every night (well, probably every second night, but it's a habit to plug it in as I go to bed, and was even back when I had a phone that would comfortably go a week on a single charge).
I've been using my phone for an alarm clock for a good 15 years now, probably longer. Long, long before I stopped wearing a watch.
Yes, but the licensing applies to both and if you were going to pick one that it would apply to (for some reason), there are reasons to assume it would be the players.
I think you'll find the two different types of devices are licensed differently (which makes perfect sense, given one is an appliance and the other is going into a general purpose computer).
If a racing driver knows that it takes more brake power for him to slow down when he's going fast than when he's going slow and also that the effect is magnified by the weight of his car but he can't quote "F=MA" at you, that doesn't mean he lacks understanding of the underlying physics--quite the opposite. He lacks understanding of the mathematical model of physics.
If that's your measure of "understanding the underpinning physics" then I have to disagree with your initial premise. I've been in the car with a lot of bad drivers, and never met anyone who couldn't grasp the concept that going faster meant it took longer to stop.
This can be easily demonstrated by entering physicists into races against the drivers. They may know F=MA and other, more complex equations but they cannot apply them the way that a racer who understands the physics from the inside can.
That's not understanding physics, it's know how to drive. It's like trying to say anyone who can catch a ball understands calculus.
The very idea of zipping along a track without that understanding burned in at the most intuitive level is amusing to me.
My point is that it *is* intuitive, and not due to any sort of education or actual understanding of the science.
This should be driven home by the sheer number of top class drivers/riders who are well and truly entrenched in their sports long before they learn anything meaningful about Physics.
Even at the amateur level, the drivers have a firm understanding of the physics. Could they crank out the equations? Probably not, but they could certainly explain the underpinnings.
I'm not quite sure one can have "a firm understanding of the physics" without being able to "crank out the equations".
Either that or "firm understanding of the physics" doesn't mean what I interpret it as. Because if you take out the maths and equations, there's not a lot left that can really be called "Physics".
The biggest reason most drivers are awful is because they're not paying attention. In nearly every case, for street driving, by the time you need to be overly concerned about how the physics works (eg: stopping distances or losing traction on a corner), you've already failed as a driver. "Good driving" is about 50% attitude, 30% experience and 20% skill.
Without math, your ability to understand physics is compromised; and without physics basic and very practical things like your driving skills are going to suffer. People are *really* a lot better drivers when they can bring a realistic understanding of traction, inertia, kinetic energy and so forth to the driver's seat.
I'd be happy to lay down quite a bit of money betting that the average (or even above average) rally driver couldn't even begin to explain any of the mathematics or physics underpinning those things, despite them probably having the best understanding of vehicle control in the world.
Sure, they want an opressive Orwellian regieme but somehow our parliamentary system actually seems to work and put a stop to the idiocy before it gets close to becoming law.
These sorts of schemes almost never have any serious support in the major parties, they're nearly always pandering to independents to get their support on more "important" issues. Hence, as soon as said "issue" has been resolved, they wither and eventually die.
('wowser' is a uniquely Aussie term for a strong supporter of interventionist government policy).
Er, no. A 'wowser' is typical right-wing, puritanical, fundie-Christian, save-the-children, hand-wringing moron. It's got nothing to do with whether or not they agree with Government policy (and given the current Government, they probably don't, since such people wouldn't support the godless Labor heathens in a pink fit).
If you were to perhaps actually host a website, with some of the infringing material, then I think you might have grounds. But an archive of it all? I doubt it.
I can't see how there would be any distinction between these two things in the eyes of the law.
if it's only 900Gb of data or, for the sake of the argument, suppose it really is 9000Gb of data, come on, what could be the cost of hosting 10 terabytes?
More than the cost of an off the shelf SATA hard disk. A lot more. The staff to maintain the servers, alone, would be hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.
Before 2000 there were computer standards in place. Not following those standards is now an obvious huge failure and now companies will be paying for it.
A standard that doesn't provide the functionality you need can't be followed.
I sweat & labor to earn the wealth, and somebody takes it away for their OWN enrichment. I'm beginning to understand how an indentured servant must have felt (he worked but the wealth went to the landlord).
This is an insulting comparison, and you should be ashamed to make it.
Yes I'm sorry you ran into a wall and broke your hip, but you've had a job for ~30 years. You have money and should pay the bill yourself out of your personal wages/savings - just like I pay my own bills out of my own account. AFTER you run out of money I'll gladly help you (via welfare, medicare) but nor prior to that.
What about the person who has no savings to start with ?
A safety net should be exactly that - a net. Not an entitlement given to people who are still on the "highwire" of life and don't need it.
It *is* only a safety net. Heck, in the US it doesn't even qualify as that - more like a few awnings to slightly break your fall before you hit the ground.
In the context under discussion, I have a hard time seeing it as anything but punishment. When the government says "If you have more than X in the bank, we're going to take Y percent of it -- but if you have less than X, we'll take none of it", it's punishment for those who have the money taken.
No, it's a reflection that some can afford to pay more than others, and benefit from the results in more comprehensive - albeit complex and subtle - ways.
In none of these cases does "within their rights" mean "the right thing to do".
You're missing the point, which is that the rhetorical "who decides who takes what" question you were asking (with the implication that any answer is wrong) *actually* has a quite reasonable answer - everyone decides.
If we remove their right to keep what they earn, then what incentive to earn it?
The same incentive they had back when the tax rates *were* high. The same incentive they have in other countries with much higher taxation rates.
Here's a hint: people who would fall into the ultra-high tax brackets generally aren't motivated by a need for money money.
That reminds me of the tax situation years back: if you make a jump in income bracket by one dollar, you end up taking home significantly less of your money than you would have had you not earned that last dollar.
I'm not aware of any taxation system that has worked like that. Certainly it's poorly designed, but it in no way resembles modern progressive taxation systems, nor any that would be implemented today.
The only thing this does is give people incentive to either a) not earn the money [since they can't keep it], or b) find ways to hide what they've earned, thus ensuring that the government gets even less than it otherwise would have.
Or it gives them an incentive to plow that money back into employees, R&D, and various other ventures that reduce taxable income, rather than blowing it on a tenth holiday home, third yacht, or twentieth car.
Ultimately, your argument is not supported by evidence. There are numerous countries in the world with higher - sometimes significantly higher - tax burdens than the US, especially at the high end, yet they are not wastelands of strife and doom. Indeed, most of them have higher standards of living by just about every metric known.
The only place low (or nonexistant, as is clearly your preference) taxation leads is to an even faster accumulation of most wealth in the hands of the few, massive disparities in income levels and standards of living, and the destruction of the middle class. Or, in other words, exactly what has been happening in the USA for the last few decades. Take heart though, because at least if things continue at the rate they have been (and it's unlikely to change, given the complete lack of anything vaguely resembling left-wing politics there), it should only be another generation or two before America is a land of Lords and Serfs, and you'll be living your dream.
This has little to do with tax on annual income. Further: you're saying that mere act of having a lot of "wealth" should be punishable by giving it to the government?
So long as you call taxation "punishment", it's impossible to have a reasonable discussion on the topic.
For that matter, who gets to define "a lot" and what the threshold is?
That would be everyone, seeing as the US has a democratic government.
It's a sad state of affairs when there's a need to defend somebody wanting to keep substantially more of his own income than he gives to the government.
When it comes to things that are sad, people earning 10s or 100s of millions a year having to "get by" on only 5% of that would be a long, long way down the list.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of people - myself included - refer to Darwin when talking about the OS, and Mac OS X when talking about all of the stuff that Apple bundles on the install CD (including Quartz, Cocoa, and so on).
They're you're being inconsistent, and making arbitrary distinctions to support your bias.
The general working definition of an OS is the stuff that you need to boot the system and launch programs.
It is a struggle to see how the full OS X (or Windows) would not meet this definition.
You have, however, demonstrated the one consistency I've seen with "technical people" when defining what an "OS" - they always go out of their way to ensure whatever set of rules they make up excludes any sort of "GUI" from being included. They all seem to suffer from Goldilocks syndrome, since not being able to pop up a bash shell isn't "graphical" _enough_, while drawing windows and using a mouse for input is _too_ "graphical".
A parent should be able to use this. A parent is responsible for know where a child is and what the child is doing.
Heh, that's pretty funny. When was the last time a parent was held responsible for something their child did ?
If my daughter had a cell phone, I would use this to determine if she is working out some affair with a lecherous principal or teacher.
Right. And I bet you'd also be right there if she was "working out some affair" with any other man you disapproved of as well.
Before you, and others, scoff, This happened recently in my county. A high school principal was having sexual encounters with a student and was discovered via a discovery made by the parent of incoming/outgoing texts made on the daughter cell phone.
How old was the girl ? If she was 13, it's a problem. If she was 17, it's neither surprising nor outrageous. Heck, just in my high school back in the day there are at least half a dozen examples of students having "encounters" with teachers that I can think of, and that was fifteen years ago (two of them have been married to that same person for the last 10).
This is why not being tied to a single app store is awesome. Unless you jailbreak an iPhone, you're stuck with "Blockbuster", whereas on an Android phone, you can go to any "video rental place" you want.
Of course, you're then more exposed to the possibility of being mugged walking out of the video store, or standing next to a guy in loose trackpants with his hands in his pockets while you're making your selection...
It won't change the fact that it's stupid in the iPhone case, because the supposed "security" could be achieved by requiring users to insert a security code to enable "advanced" features, like out of market installation.
Any system whose security can be circumvented by presenting what is essentially an "are you sure" dialog box to someone completely unqualified to make the decision, is not secure.
A smartphone is designed to run general purpose software [...]
According to whom ?
I was referring to "Too bad no other browser maker takes advantages of the OS features used to do that." from AC, three levels above my comment.
The question remains as to what "OS functions" IE is "hooking deeply into" that other programs couldn't for any reason.
If we can get a big enough liver-oid to provide a few years function, that might be enough for an elderly patient to live out the rest of their normal life-span (or at least normal "health-span").
If you need a new liver you're already at the end of your natural life span (however you might want to refer to it).
Personally I'm all for *extending* my natural lifespan with replacements and upgrades, but don't try and pretend it's anything else.
I was saying that no other browser is limited to Windows, so it's kind of normal that no other browsers tries to hook deeply into the OS functions as IE does.
How does IE "hook deeply into OS functions" ? What does it do that other browsers implemented in a similar fashion as shared components don't do ?
and while we're at it can we get rid of the "hate" category of crime too?
Hate crimes are there to help separate the people who are doing harm for some rational reason (I really want his iPod) from the people who are doing harm for an irrational reason (he's a nigger).
The potential for rehabilitating someone who starts off thinking rationally is much better, hence the value in making the distinction. Though I'm going to guess from your stereotypical right-wing "ratchet the levels of punishment UP to the "hate crime" level for everything" attitude, rehabilitation isn't something you really believe in.
Weird, when we have cars on the road on solarenergy that are not at all 100 meters long.
What solar vehicles are you thinking of that bear any resemblance to a standard car ?
The other oddity is people use their phone as an alarmclock? A smartphone with a battery life measured in hours, probably dead by wakeup time?
Er, yeah. In fact it coincides quite neatly with my need to charge the thing every night (well, probably every second night, but it's a habit to plug it in as I go to bed, and was even back when I had a phone that would comfortably go a week on a single charge).
I've been using my phone for an alarm clock for a good 15 years now, probably longer. Long, long before I stopped wearing a watch.
Yes, but the licensing applies to both and if you were going to pick one that it would apply to (for some reason), there are reasons to assume it would be the players.
I think you'll find the two different types of devices are licensed differently (which makes perfect sense, given one is an appliance and the other is going into a general purpose computer).
If a racing driver knows that it takes more brake power for him to slow down when he's going fast than when he's going slow and also that the effect is magnified by the weight of his car but he can't quote "F=MA" at you, that doesn't mean he lacks understanding of the underlying physics--quite the opposite. He lacks understanding of the mathematical model of physics.
If that's your measure of "understanding the underpinning physics" then I have to disagree with your initial premise. I've been in the car with a lot of bad drivers, and never met anyone who couldn't grasp the concept that going faster meant it took longer to stop.
This can be easily demonstrated by entering physicists into races against the drivers. They may know F=MA and other, more complex equations but they cannot apply them the way that a racer who understands the physics from the inside can.
That's not understanding physics, it's know how to drive. It's like trying to say anyone who can catch a ball understands calculus.
These are DVD drives for computers, not standalone DVD players.
The very idea of zipping along a track without that understanding burned in at the most intuitive level is amusing to me.
My point is that it *is* intuitive, and not due to any sort of education or actual understanding of the science.
This should be driven home by the sheer number of top class drivers/riders who are well and truly entrenched in their sports long before they learn anything meaningful about Physics.
Even at the amateur level, the drivers have a firm understanding of the physics. Could they crank out the equations? Probably not, but they could certainly explain the underpinnings.
I'm not quite sure one can have "a firm understanding of the physics" without being able to "crank out the equations".
Either that or "firm understanding of the physics" doesn't mean what I interpret it as. Because if you take out the maths and equations, there's not a lot left that can really be called "Physics".
The biggest reason most drivers are awful is because they're not paying attention. In nearly every case, for street driving, by the time you need to be overly concerned about how the physics works (eg: stopping distances or losing traction on a corner), you've already failed as a driver. "Good driving" is about 50% attitude, 30% experience and 20% skill.
Without math, your ability to understand physics is compromised; and without physics basic and very practical things like your driving skills are going to suffer. People are *really* a lot better drivers when they can bring a realistic understanding of traction, inertia, kinetic energy and so forth to the driver's seat.
I'd be happy to lay down quite a bit of money betting that the average (or even above average) rally driver couldn't even begin to explain any of the mathematics or physics underpinning those things, despite them probably having the best understanding of vehicle control in the world.
Sure, they want an opressive Orwellian regieme but somehow our parliamentary system actually seems to work and put a stop to the idiocy before it gets close to becoming law.
These sorts of schemes almost never have any serious support in the major parties, they're nearly always pandering to independents to get their support on more "important" issues. Hence, as soon as said "issue" has been resolved, they wither and eventually die.
('wowser' is a uniquely Aussie term for a strong supporter of interventionist government policy).
Er, no. A 'wowser' is typical right-wing, puritanical, fundie-Christian, save-the-children, hand-wringing moron. It's got nothing to do with whether or not they agree with Government policy (and given the current Government, they probably don't, since such people wouldn't support the godless Labor heathens in a pink fit).
If you were to perhaps actually host a website, with some of the infringing material, then I think you might have grounds. But an archive of it all? I doubt it.
I can't see how there would be any distinction between these two things in the eyes of the law.
if it's only 900Gb of data or, for the sake of the argument, suppose it really is 9000Gb of data, come on, what could be the cost of hosting 10 terabytes?
More than the cost of an off the shelf SATA hard disk. A lot more. The staff to maintain the servers, alone, would be hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.
Before 2000 there were computer standards in place. Not following those standards is now an obvious huge failure and now companies will be paying for it.
A standard that doesn't provide the functionality you need can't be followed.
I sweat & labor to earn the wealth, and somebody takes it away for their OWN enrichment. I'm beginning to understand how an indentured servant must have felt (he worked but the wealth went to the landlord).
This is an insulting comparison, and you should be ashamed to make it.
Yes I'm sorry you ran into a wall and broke your hip, but you've had a job for ~30 years. You have money and should pay the bill yourself out of your personal wages/savings - just like I pay my own bills out of my own account. AFTER you run out of money I'll gladly help you (via welfare, medicare) but nor prior to that.
What about the person who has no savings to start with ?
A safety net should be exactly that - a net. Not an entitlement given to people who are still on the "highwire" of life and don't need it.
It *is* only a safety net. Heck, in the US it doesn't even qualify as that - more like a few awnings to slightly break your fall before you hit the ground.
In the context under discussion, I have a hard time seeing it as anything but punishment. When the government says "If you have more than X in the bank, we're going to take Y percent of it -- but if you have less than X, we'll take none of it", it's punishment for those who have the money taken.
No, it's a reflection that some can afford to pay more than others, and benefit from the results in more comprehensive - albeit complex and subtle - ways.
In none of these cases does "within their rights" mean "the right thing to do".
You're missing the point, which is that the rhetorical "who decides who takes what" question you were asking (with the implication that any answer is wrong) *actually* has a quite reasonable answer - everyone decides.
If we remove their right to keep what they earn, then what incentive to earn it?
The same incentive they had back when the tax rates *were* high. The same incentive they have in other countries with much higher taxation rates.
Here's a hint: people who would fall into the ultra-high tax brackets generally aren't motivated by a need for money money.
That reminds me of the tax situation years back: if you make a jump in income bracket by one dollar, you end up taking home significantly less of your money than you would have had you not earned that last dollar.
I'm not aware of any taxation system that has worked like that. Certainly it's poorly designed, but it in no way resembles modern progressive taxation systems, nor any that would be implemented today.
The only thing this does is give people incentive to either a) not earn the money [since they can't keep it], or b) find ways to hide what they've earned, thus ensuring that the government gets even less than it otherwise would have.
Or it gives them an incentive to plow that money back into employees, R&D, and various other ventures that reduce taxable income, rather than blowing it on a tenth holiday home, third yacht, or twentieth car.
Ultimately, your argument is not supported by evidence. There are numerous countries in the world with higher - sometimes significantly higher - tax burdens than the US, especially at the high end, yet they are not wastelands of strife and doom. Indeed, most of them have higher standards of living by just about every metric known.
The only place low (or nonexistant, as is clearly your preference) taxation leads is to an even faster accumulation of most wealth in the hands of the few, massive disparities in income levels and standards of living, and the destruction of the middle class. Or, in other words, exactly what has been happening in the USA for the last few decades. Take heart though, because at least if things continue at the rate they have been (and it's unlikely to change, given the complete lack of anything vaguely resembling left-wing politics there), it should only be another generation or two before America is a land of Lords and Serfs, and you'll be living your dream.
This has little to do with tax on annual income. Further: you're saying that mere act of having a lot of "wealth" should be punishable by giving it to the government?
So long as you call taxation "punishment", it's impossible to have a reasonable discussion on the topic.
For that matter, who gets to define "a lot" and what the threshold is?
That would be everyone, seeing as the US has a democratic government.
It's a sad state of affairs when there's a need to defend somebody wanting to keep substantially more of his own income than he gives to the government.
When it comes to things that are sad, people earning 10s or 100s of millions a year having to "get by" on only 5% of that would be a long, long way down the list.