There were two PowerBook G3/400s. I didn't specify Pismo (which came in 400 and 500), and neither did the user you were replying to. I've got the bronze keyboard (which came in 333 and 400), which does not have the AirPort slot.
Yes, it means that. It's been a part of Mac OS X since the beginning. But, it relies on the app. GarageBand is not scriptable, for example, but iPhoto and iTunes have fairly decent scriptable functionality.
And I never was able to get that driver to work with an AirPort Extreme base station. I used to use it with the old graphite base station. I used to connect using my WaveLAN card for the PB and connecting the PS2 to the PB's Ethernet port. But still, then I am stuck at lower speeds, which kinda blew, and the extra bandwidth on the Extreme helps. Plus, I have a TiBook, and wanted the extra range a second base station provides, because the single one wasn't cutting it.
Where did you get this "After 90 days, you can still get help -- including more advanced topics -- but it will cost you from $6,000 to $50,000." quote? Link? Facts?
The link's right there, sport. Read it again, see the link this time, and click on it.:-)
Now here's $100 worth of secret, annoyingly undocumented Mac OS X Server information: you can use the password of an Admin account to log in via AFP as any user on the system.
Hm, maybe I should have mentioned that in the review. Oh wait, I did!:-) And it is documented, in Panther Server, anyway. And you can turn it off, as noted in the review.
However, this does not disqualify me from having an opinion about the laws that are going to affect me, and how tax money is going to be spent.
I didn't say it disqualifies you or that you cannot have an opinion, nor did I imply it. I meant only that your judgment is clouded by having a lack of understanding.
And I don't see how tax dollars are relevant: it's not like this requires significant public monies (or any monies at all) to implement. Sure, there's the issue of enforcement, but that's rarely significant for cases like this (unless it goes to through the courts on a FIrst Amendment appeal, but that would only happen once, whether the law was upheld or not). Money isn't the issue.
Not at all, and thank you for calling me a liar. But it is still government control of what these kids can and cannot buy.
You are quite welcome, and if you persist, I shall thusly honor you again. You kept talking about what the kids can "do," what is "acceptable" for them. This (proposed) law does not say it is not acceptable for a child to have, or even purchase, this game. It says a parent must give the approval. It says society CANNOT give approval. It says society CANNOT say something is acceptable. It is the exact opposite of what you think it is.
And that seems so extreme to you?
So, government should not forbid kids from smoking, drinking, purchasing firearms, getting married, etc. Yes, that sounds exceptionally extreme to me.
No, it just gives either the government, or a private organization, control over what a child can purchase, but does nothing to represent the parent's views.
I never said the purchasing itself represented the parents' views. It can't. It only puts the decision to purchase directly into the hands of the parents.
In fact, a child may still end up getting a hold of games that the parents find objectionable.
Yes, but that is not an argument. We have laws against killing, and people still kill! OMG!
If you can't or won't control what your children are doing, what the hell are you doing having kids?
Spoken like someone who has no children. You can't control your kids, unless you abuse them to the point where they go Clockwork Orange. You can discipline them and train them, but no kid is expected to be well-trained or well-disciplined such that they will always do the right thing. That is why they are KIDS. If they could be fully trusted, or have full responsibility for themselves, we would call them ADULTS.
So, if I get you right, you are basically saying that the fact that because kids can do things, ouside of parental supervision, we should allow the government to decide for everyone what is acceptable for thier kids, and what isn't?
You keep pretending that these kids are being disallowed by the government from playing the game. Nothing could be further from the truth, and your dishonesty is transparent.
I'm hardly an extreme person, I just have this deeply seated belief that raising children is the burden of the parents who decided to have them, not the rest of society.
That's a ridiculous belief to have, and a quite extreme one.
This law does not "put the parents in control", it does nothing of the sort.
Yes, it does. It disallows the child from purchasing it for himself. It gives the parents control over that purchase. How do you not get this? 20 points higher than me, and he thinks a big guy like that can wear his clothes?
There is no reason for this law, if you don't want your kids playing 'M' rated or violent games, then don't let them; but let's not go and expect the government to play nanny for everyone.
You are ignoring reality. Just flat-out living in fantasyland. We have had laws for hundreds of years in this country prohibiting minor access to what society deems is "adult" material. It's not that parents aren't able to do their job, but that kids are stupid and run out and do what they are disallowed anyway, regardless of what their parents say. We have laws against kids buying porn and alcohol, but in most cases, parents are allowed to provide those materials to their children. Only the most extreme people -- or kids -- think this is an example of a "nanny government."
I'm curious when you find you need two side-by-side; I'm trying to think of a situation and I'm failing... All my two-window needs are met by either command-tilde to flip back and forth or Expose.
Do you ever need two pieces of paper side by side on your desk? Maybe a book and a piece of paper? I often will read from one browser window or email while typing in another. I do it all the time. Right now I am doing it, but I have two monitors; when I am away from my desk, I have only one.
Even these idiots aren't claiming that games *physically* kill anyone, rather that they incite violence. Which as he says, is clearly the case with some books.
He said the books DO kill people. Please go back and read, KTHX.
You must not have noticed that you can turn the thumbnails off, and just show the window titles in a vertical list.
You must not have read in my post where I wrote, "Plus, a ton of space is wasted when you only have a few tabs, if you don't want/need thumbnails" (the implication being that without thumbnails, it is just window titles, with a lot of empty space below them).
My impression is that usually the opposite is true, since screens are wider than they are tall, especially with the proliferation of widescreen aspect ratios.
It's a side effect of having a wide screen. Because my (PowerBook 15") screen is wider than it is tall, on average, each individual window takes up all the vertical space (or at least, enough so that I can't have another usable window in the same x coordinates). There is additional space above and below the window, but not enough for another usable window.
So, if I need to use two windows at once, I need to put them next to each other (or change their size, which is too time-consuming). If I keep my browser windows the same size as I normally do, OmniWeb windows will take up a lot more of my usable space, not just because they take up more space (they do) but because they take up the space I am actually using for something else, whereas adding a horizontal bar takes up more vertical space, which wasn't being used for anything anyway. Maybe I shrink the height of my browser windows a dozen or so pixels, but that is insignificant compared to having two windows side-by-side.
And while I am sure I can close the Tabs drawer, I don't want to. I like leaving my list of tabs open. Opening and closing it when going back and forth between windows would be annoying, too.... I'm still looking forward to giving it a try.
I totally agree with this statement, though you have to admit that parents are stupid too. Or shall I say adults.
Absolutely. I don't think parents are always right, just that they are the ones who are charged with the responsibility for the kids' decisions. And when enough of society thinks something is not appropriate for kids, then they say, "OK, let's make sure that if a kid is using this, that it is with the parents' permission, by making it legal only for adults to purchase it." It's not a perfect system, but it helps ensure the parents are the ones making the decision, even if that decision is a poor one.
Those are all good reasons. But none of them matter on the issue of horizontal vs. vertical.
My horizontal space is more valuable than my vertical space. Plus, a ton of space is wasted when you only have a few tabs, if you don't want/need thumbnails. If you can't have the standard tab format, as a horizontal bar, you lose. I am not saying this is a bad implementation -- on the contrary, I think it is the best thing I've seen in a browser since the introduction of tabs -- but I don't want to use it. Not on a regular basis, anyway.
It isn't a bad thing, it's a good thing. All it does is say "if kids under 17 want this game, then that's fine, but a parent needs to approve the purchase by buying it for them." This is a good thing. It puts the parents in more control, and it fends off attacks from people who would ban the games entirely. There is no problem here, except for kids who would buy the games without their parents' approval... and as a parent, I consider that *good*.
It just kills me when people say the government shouldn't be involved, this is an issue for parents. Hello, brainiac: that is what the law DOES, it puts the parents in control.
I love GTA: Vice City. I plan to get the next installment when it is released. I am an adult, I can make that choice. Kids can't make that choice responsibly, because kids are little piles of stupid. I was a kid once, I remember what it was like. Don't pretend you were/are any different. Parents exist because kids are stupid. You don't like it? I don't care.
He seriously weakens his point by asserting that any books have caused any deaths. The Bible and Mein Kampf have killed no one. People use books to kill, or encourage others to kill. The book itself causes nothing.
And in this sense, he is mostly attacking a straw man: the most serious detractors of violent video games rarely assert the games cause violence, only that they encourage violent tendencies, etc.
This is where I think the Court just drops all but the pretense of legal reasoning and says whatever they want.
When the Court ruins your argument, you claim they are nutty. Sorry, but you're the one who introduced Erie.:-)
So, outlawing public nudity entirely is more than the minimum amount possible to uphold whatever the compelling interest is
As Scalia said, they do not need a compelling interest, as the law is not related to expression.
Granted, this was not the majority opinion, but merely a concurring one; but it's the position I like, and if you disagree, well, take it up with him.;-)
Well, I guess you're playing devil's advocate.
Uh, no.
If that were true, the Court would have ruled in favor of the nude dancers, since publishing videotapes of such dancing is clearly protected in the same jursidiction.
Sorry? The law had nothing to do with the existence or sale of nudity, it had to do with the public display of it. I think you're getting lost way out in left field here.
the fact remains that paying someone for sex is illegal unless that sex is being photographed, because of the first amendment protections involved
You are making an unwarranted assumption. The case you cited says nothing about the exception being for photography. The clear implication is that it is an exception for the sake of performance/art/expression, regardless of the form of that expression.
You really are just imagining a special exception for publishing. It doesn't exist.
The law is not allowed to regulate the content of a theater performance or photo shoot, based on anyone's opinion of what is or is not more artistic.
If this were true, the Supreme Court would have ruled in favor of the nude dancers.
My point exactly -- the purpose of the public nudity was to publish photography, which is a protected form of first amendment exression.
So is dancing. Sorry, you're not strengthening your case here.
It's not like that at all; the dancers in Erie were nude not for the purposes of publishing, but performance, which is much further from protected expression than publishing.
First, that simply isn't true. Both have the same Constitutional protections. I'm amazed you're asserting they do not. Second, are you already forgetting that it was assumed the performance of Equus would have First Amendment protections, while the performance of the dancers, it was ruled, did not? If mere performance isn't as well-protected, why is it assumed Equus would have successfully defended itself from prosecution?
As to your California citation... that's a completely different issue. There, they were discussing whether sex scenes in a movie constituted prostitution. That's not related in any way to this case. First, the crime at hand is simply being nude in public, not having any specific intent in the act beyond that; prostitution statutes don't prohibit sexual intercourse, they prohibit the sale of sexual intercourse. Second, and more importantly, you misconstrue the case as distinguishing publication from non-publication, when in fact, it is distinguishing artistic performance of the act, from the actual act. It does specifically mention motion pictures, but there's no reason to think that it was specifying publication as being especially exempt, instead of merely stating the fact that they were for a motion picture, which is one of many categories of protected expression.
So if the bar was closed and the door was locked, she could reasonably expect no one to walk in on her, and thus the bar wasn't a public place at the time.
Correct. However, in this case, she'd have been guilty of trespassing.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
There were two PowerBook G3/400s. I didn't specify Pismo (which came in 400 and 500), and neither did the user you were replying to. I've got the bronze keyboard (which came in 333 and 400), which does not have the AirPort slot.
Yes, it means that. It's been a part of Mac OS X since the beginning. But, it relies on the app. GarageBand is not scriptable, for example, but iPhoto and iTunes have fairly decent scriptable functionality.
And I never was able to get that driver to work with an AirPort Extreme base station. I used to use it with the old graphite base station. I used to connect using my WaveLAN card for the PB and connecting the PS2 to the PB's Ethernet port. But still, then I am stuck at lower speeds, which kinda blew, and the extra bandwidth on the Extreme helps. Plus, I have a TiBook, and wanted the extra range a second base station provides, because the single one wasn't cutting it.
No, I meant Windows is a small corner of the computing world. I never see Windows, so it must be true.
:-)
And maybe I am isolated, but the rest of you are jealous.
Where did you get this "After 90 days, you can still get help -- including more advanced topics -- but it will cost you from $6,000 to $50,000." quote? Link? Facts?
:-)
The link's right there, sport. Read it again, see the link this time, and click on it.
You apparently don't understand the concept of a review, wherein I try to find out whether or not the GUI is worth the expense.
Now here's $100 worth of secret, annoyingly undocumented Mac OS X Server information: you can use the password of an Admin account to log in via AFP as any user on the system.
:-) And it is documented, in Panther Server, anyway. And you can turn it off, as noted in the review.
Hm, maybe I should have mentioned that in the review. Oh wait, I did!
What he means is that books incite violence, or that they cause violence.
And, since he said they actually cause death, he was therefore weakening his case. Exactly.
What you were saying was irrelevant
:)
I didn't say his whole article sucked, only that he weakened that one point. I don't think it is irrelevant.
But forget it.
No! YOU forget it!
Which is exactly the charge levelled at GTA and other video games.
What I said is that the most serious detractors of these games do NOT charge this.
However, this does not disqualify me from having an opinion about the laws that are going to affect me, and how tax money is going to be spent.
I didn't say it disqualifies you or that you cannot have an opinion, nor did I imply it. I meant only that your judgment is clouded by having a lack of understanding.
And I don't see how tax dollars are relevant: it's not like this requires significant public monies (or any monies at all) to implement. Sure, there's the issue of enforcement, but that's rarely significant for cases like this (unless it goes to through the courts on a FIrst Amendment appeal, but that would only happen once, whether the law was upheld or not). Money isn't the issue.
Not at all, and thank you for calling me a liar. But it is still government control of what these kids can and cannot buy.
You are quite welcome, and if you persist, I shall thusly honor you again. You kept talking about what the kids can "do," what is "acceptable" for them. This (proposed) law does not say it is not acceptable for a child to have, or even purchase, this game. It says a parent must give the approval. It says society CANNOT give approval. It says society CANNOT say something is acceptable. It is the exact opposite of what you think it is.
And that seems so extreme to you?
So, government should not forbid kids from smoking, drinking, purchasing firearms, getting married, etc. Yes, that sounds exceptionally extreme to me.
No, it just gives either the government, or a private organization, control over what a child can purchase, but does nothing to represent the parent's views.
I never said the purchasing itself represented the parents' views. It can't. It only puts the decision to purchase directly into the hands of the parents.
In fact, a child may still end up getting a hold of games that the parents find objectionable.
Yes, but that is not an argument. We have laws against killing, and people still kill! OMG!
If you can't or won't control what your children are doing, what the hell are you doing having kids?
Spoken like someone who has no children. You can't control your kids, unless you abuse them to the point where they go Clockwork Orange. You can discipline them and train them, but no kid is expected to be well-trained or well-disciplined such that they will always do the right thing. That is why they are KIDS. If they could be fully trusted, or have full responsibility for themselves, we would call them ADULTS.
So, if I get you right, you are basically saying that the fact that because kids can do things, ouside of parental supervision, we should allow the government to decide for everyone what is acceptable for thier kids, and what isn't?
You keep pretending that these kids are being disallowed by the government from playing the game. Nothing could be further from the truth, and your dishonesty is transparent.
I'm hardly an extreme person, I just have this deeply seated belief that raising children is the burden of the parents who decided to have them, not the rest of society.
That's a ridiculous belief to have, and a quite extreme one.
This law does not "put the parents in control", it does nothing of the sort.
Yes, it does. It disallows the child from purchasing it for himself. It gives the parents control over that purchase. How do you not get this? 20 points higher than me, and he thinks a big guy like that can wear his clothes?
There is no reason for this law, if you don't want your kids playing 'M' rated or violent games, then don't let them; but let's not go and expect the government to play nanny for everyone.
You are ignoring reality. Just flat-out living in fantasyland. We have had laws for hundreds of years in this country prohibiting minor access to what society deems is "adult" material. It's not that parents aren't able to do their job, but that kids are stupid and run out and do what they are disallowed anyway, regardless of what their parents say. We have laws against kids buying porn and alcohol, but in most cases, parents are allowed to provide those materials to their children. Only the most extreme people -- or kids -- think this is an example of a "nanny government."
I'm curious when you find you need two side-by-side; I'm trying to think of a situation and I'm failing... All my two-window needs are met by either command-tilde to flip back and forth or Expose.
Do you ever need two pieces of paper side by side on your desk? Maybe a book and a piece of paper? I often will read from one browser window or email while typing in another. I do it all the time. Right now I am doing it, but I have two monitors; when I am away from my desk, I have only one.
Even these idiots aren't claiming that games *physically* kill anyone, rather that they incite violence. Which as he says, is clearly the case with some books.
He said the books DO kill people. Please go back and read, KTHX.
You must not have noticed that you can turn the thumbnails off, and just show the window titles in a vertical list.
You must not have read in my post where I wrote, "Plus, a ton of space is wasted when you only have a few tabs, if you don't want/need thumbnails" (the implication being that without thumbnails, it is just window titles, with a lot of empty space below them).
My impression is that usually the opposite is true, since screens are wider than they are tall, especially with the proliferation of widescreen aspect ratios.
... I'm still looking forward to giving it a try.
It's a side effect of having a wide screen. Because my (PowerBook 15") screen is wider than it is tall, on average, each individual window takes up all the vertical space (or at least, enough so that I can't have another usable window in the same x coordinates). There is additional space above and below the window, but not enough for another usable window.
So, if I need to use two windows at once, I need to put them next to each other (or change their size, which is too time-consuming). If I keep my browser windows the same size as I normally do, OmniWeb windows will take up a lot more of my usable space, not just because they take up more space (they do) but because they take up the space I am actually using for something else, whereas adding a horizontal bar takes up more vertical space, which wasn't being used for anything anyway. Maybe I shrink the height of my browser windows a dozen or so pixels, but that is insignificant compared to having two windows side-by-side.
And while I am sure I can close the Tabs drawer, I don't want to. I like leaving my list of tabs open. Opening and closing it when going back and forth between windows would be annoying, too.
Me too!
I totally agree with this statement, though you have to admit that parents are stupid too. Or shall I say adults.
Absolutely. I don't think parents are always right, just that they are the ones who are charged with the responsibility for the kids' decisions. And when enough of society thinks something is not appropriate for kids, then they say, "OK, let's make sure that if a kid is using this, that it is with the parents' permission, by making it legal only for adults to purchase it." It's not a perfect system, but it helps ensure the parents are the ones making the decision, even if that decision is a poor one.
Those are all good reasons. But none of them matter on the issue of horizontal vs. vertical.
My horizontal space is more valuable than my vertical space. Plus, a ton of space is wasted when you only have a few tabs, if you don't want/need thumbnails. If you can't have the standard tab format, as a horizontal bar, you lose. I am not saying this is a bad implementation -- on the contrary, I think it is the best thing I've seen in a browser since the introduction of tabs -- but I don't want to use it. Not on a regular basis, anyway.
It isn't a bad thing, it's a good thing. All it does is say "if kids under 17 want this game, then that's fine, but a parent needs to approve the purchase by buying it for them." This is a good thing. It puts the parents in more control, and it fends off attacks from people who would ban the games entirely. There is no problem here, except for kids who would buy the games without their parents' approval ... and as a parent, I consider that *good*.
It just kills me when people say the government shouldn't be involved, this is an issue for parents. Hello, brainiac: that is what the law DOES, it puts the parents in control.
I love GTA: Vice City. I plan to get the next installment when it is released. I am an adult, I can make that choice. Kids can't make that choice responsibly, because kids are little piles of stupid. I was a kid once, I remember what it was like. Don't pretend you were/are any different. Parents exist because kids are stupid. You don't like it? I don't care.
Maybe if you'd actually read the article, you'd realise that.
Maybe if you understood what I was saying, you wouldn't have posted something that was entirely irrelevant to my post! Oopsie on you.
He seriously weakens his point by asserting that any books have caused any deaths. The Bible and Mein Kampf have killed no one. People use books to kill, or encourage others to kill. The book itself causes nothing.
And in this sense, he is mostly attacking a straw man: the most serious detractors of violent video games rarely assert the games cause violence, only that they encourage violent tendencies, etc.
This is where I think the Court just drops all but the pretense of legal reasoning and says whatever they want.
:-)
;-)
When the Court ruins your argument, you claim they are nutty. Sorry, but you're the one who introduced Erie.
So, outlawing public nudity entirely is more than the minimum amount possible to uphold whatever the compelling interest is
As Scalia said, they do not need a compelling interest, as the law is not related to expression.
Granted, this was not the majority opinion, but merely a concurring one; but it's the position I like, and if you disagree, well, take it up with him.
Well, I guess you're playing devil's advocate.
Uh, no.
If that were true, the Court would have ruled in favor of the nude dancers, since publishing videotapes of such dancing is clearly protected in the same jursidiction.
Sorry? The law had nothing to do with the existence or sale of nudity, it had to do with the public display of it. I think you're getting lost way out in left field here.
the fact remains that paying someone for sex is illegal unless that sex is being photographed, because of the first amendment protections involved
You are making an unwarranted assumption. The case you cited says nothing about the exception being for photography. The clear implication is that it is an exception for the sake of performance/art/expression, regardless of the form of that expression.
You really are just imagining a special exception for publishing. It doesn't exist.
The law is not allowed to regulate the content of a theater performance or photo shoot, based on anyone's opinion of what is or is not more artistic.
... that's a completely different issue. There, they were discussing whether sex scenes in a movie constituted prostitution. That's not related in any way to this case. First, the crime at hand is simply being nude in public, not having any specific intent in the act beyond that; prostitution statutes don't prohibit sexual intercourse, they prohibit the sale of sexual intercourse. Second, and more importantly, you misconstrue the case as distinguishing publication from non-publication, when in fact, it is distinguishing artistic performance of the act, from the actual act. It does specifically mention motion pictures, but there's no reason to think that it was specifying publication as being especially exempt, instead of merely stating the fact that they were for a motion picture, which is one of many categories of protected expression.
If this were true, the Supreme Court would have ruled in favor of the nude dancers.
My point exactly -- the purpose of the public nudity was to publish photography, which is a protected form of first amendment exression.
So is dancing. Sorry, you're not strengthening your case here.
It's not like that at all; the dancers in Erie were nude not for the purposes of publishing, but performance, which is much further from protected expression than publishing.
First, that simply isn't true. Both have the same Constitutional protections. I'm amazed you're asserting they do not. Second, are you already forgetting that it was assumed the performance of Equus would have First Amendment protections, while the performance of the dancers, it was ruled, did not? If mere performance isn't as well-protected, why is it assumed Equus would have successfully defended itself from prosecution?
As to your California citation
So if the bar was closed and the door was locked, she could reasonably expect no one to walk in on her, and thus the bar wasn't a public place at the time.
:-)
Correct. However, in this case, she'd have been guilty of trespassing.