Took me awhile to make sure it was working because I couldn't get a damned test fax, but once I did, it worked great. Yay! Now I can have my unused second phone number dedicated to my unused fax modem and software!
Note that it wasn't you that I flamed, but one of your users. Twas following him, because he was in my opt-in list.
I understand that.
And thanks for your understanding. I've de-foe'd you. Of course, you may wish to keep hassling me, or other users in my journal discussions, as is your right, in which case I will re-foe you. Whatever.:)
Fine, you just won't be able to do it in my journal.:-)
However, just to show I am a sport: if you say you won't flame anymore in my journal, I'll un-foe you. I don't care to have enemies, I just care to keep my journal discussions civil, to some degree. I don't care either way, but if you wish to participate, you are welcome to.
You violated my one rule in my journal discussions, and you got the prescribed penalty for it. Hell, I even replied and said you were correct. What more do you want? Not that I care...
"automatically configure the entire server, without any interaction beyond plugging it into the network and turning it on"
Isn't this type of methodology what gets wireless users in trouble?
As noted, the feature is for servers: Xserve boxes that come with Mac OS X Server 10.3 preinstalled. It is designed for rackmount systems where you have lots of boxes to configure. Just don't plug such a box into a network the first time with things like wireless access points on the network. Wait until you configure the box for the first time before you connect it to the rest of the world, and you're fine.
If you look at the table of contents from archive.org from over two years ago, it is not listed, either. That it is not listed in the table of contents is nothing new, it was not in there before. It was apparently not in there when the Memory Hole first posted its article (it certainly wasn't in there before).
It does appear to have been removed, as I cannot find "Scowcroft" in a search from March 1-3 1998, but I can find "Nelan" (the author of the above URL that redirects, "Selling The War Badly"), and I can find it no other searches. But that it does not appear in the TOC from over two years ago, and that the URL is of a different style than the others from that TOC, makes me think someone else is going on than the various conspiracy theories seen in this discussion.
He says his entire web team runs on Mac OS X, but Netcraft says he is a liar!
And yes, he does use Slash, but he also ripped out the X-Fry header quotes. YOU BASTARD.
And all that is far worse, to me, then his lies about Bush not doing anything about North Korea and making the situation worse when it is clear that the Bush administration has been heavily engaged with North Korea and had a huge success in getting six-way, multilateral, talks going for the first time in many years (bilateral talks have been a major part of the problem with North Korea). Sure, there's work to do, but it is excellent progress, and it's a simple lie to say Bush has been "disengaged" with North Korea, has not been making significant progress, and to say that the ongoing diplomacy has been a "failure."
When asked what Edwards would do, he said, "I would sit with North Korea in a very tough way and negotiate." Right, because aligning Japan, South Korea, Russia, China, and the U.S. against North Korea, all in the same room, is not "sitting with North Korea in a very tough way and negotiating." He's so full of it.
He's also full of it on tort reform (he, a former trial attorney himself, gets most of his campaign money from attorneys and their employees), on support for the war (he fully supports the war, but think Bush did it the wrong way, even though at the time he fully supported it), and on the economy (Bush's tax cuts HURT the economy before they went into effect, but now that they have taken effect and the economy is coming back, they certainly can't get any credit!).
But I could vote for him regardless of his position on North Korea, and taxes, and tort reform, and the war, if only he would come clean on his use of FreeBSD!
Is that such a big deal? I mean, if it's replacing the application, it's kinda going to have to quit it!
It is if you weren't thinking about it, had some processes running in the Terminal, and didn't have the preferences set to not close without warning if you have processes running (which, IIRC, is the default).
It's not a huge deal, but it absolutely should warn you before doing it.
However, I'd suspect if that person didn't know, they might just say, "I don't know what the plans are at this point," as opposed to saying they weren't planning to port those security updates back to Jaguar.
Maybe he did, and Goldsmith misinterpreted or misremembered. Or, maybe he was trying to be cool and act like he knew something when he didn't. Like you.
However, none of this changes the fact that Apple initially planned not to backport the fixes to Jaguar.
Yes, exactly like you. It is not a fact. You have no person, you have no statement, you have absolutely nothing that proves this supposed "fact." You are trying to look cool and act like you know something when you don't. You're failing miserably.
If this really happened to you -- that is, that you did not read the documentation or Apple's postings on the subject, and thought 10.2 Server would run on a G5 -- then you could have complained to Apple who surely would have accepted a return/refund, or provided a voucher for an upgrade.
why can't Apple just come out and say that *ALL* OS 10 versions will be fixed, instead getting specific
Because they will not be updating 10.1 or 10.0. They also don't update Mac OS at all anymore, except for where it is necessary for Mac OS X interaction, and even that is rare.
According to David Goldsmith of @Stake, "In my initial conversations with them [Apple], they said they weren't going to fix 10.2, but I wouldn't be surprised if they change that."
Who at Apple? Was it someone who actually had authority or knowledge? And what, exactly, was said? How do we know Goldsmith didn't misunderstand? This quote from Goldsmith is entirely useless. It has no meaning. Maybe some low-level techie who was working on the bugs told Goldsmith, "I dunno, I'd be surprised if they updated 10.2."
Apple did initially tell security experts they didn't plan to patch Jaguar.
That is speculation. You have no way of knowing, unless you know exactly who said what to Goldsmith. And you don't.
You can buy one spare 512MB CompactFlash card for the price of this reader. If you're not a pro user, chances are you won't need more than that (you probably won't even need that much at all).
It's only when the media you require becomes more expensive or bulky than the media reader itself, that the media reader would be beneficial. And I'm sorry, if you are taking that many photos, or of a high enough quality, that an extra 512MB card is not enough for your vacation, then you simply are not an average user.
I got a new 160GB FW drive today, hooked it up to newly upgraded Panther PowerBook. It sees 152.61 GB capacity and free (which is what 160GB where K=1000 instead of 1024 works out to, approximately). Now, feeling brave, I try my previous 160GB FW drive (both are Maxtor), and... 152.65GB capacity, 11.2GB free. So... works for me!(tm)
Slashdot Mirror
Took me awhile to make sure it was working because I couldn't get a damned test fax, but once I did, it worked great. Yay! Now I can have my unused second phone number dedicated to my unused fax modem and software!
Note that it wasn't you that I flamed, but one of your users. Twas following him, because he was in my opt-in list.
:)
I understand that.
And thanks for your understanding. I've de-foe'd you. Of course, you may wish to keep hassling me, or other users in my journal discussions, as is your right, in which case I will re-foe you. Whatever.
No, look, it's real simple
LOL. Obviously not, because you don't get it.
I'm not breaking your rules at all. You've blocked me out of your forum.
You broke my rules for flaming, which is what got you blocked. Odd that this surpasses your understanding.
So, you don't care whose rules YOU break, you just care that others follow YOUR rules.
Typical liberal.
Fine, you just won't be able to do it in my journal. :-)
However, just to show I am a sport: if you say you won't flame anymore in my journal, I'll un-foe you. I don't care to have enemies, I just care to keep my journal discussions civil, to some degree. I don't care either way, but if you wish to participate, you are welcome to.
You violated my one rule in my journal discussions, and you got the prescribed penalty for it. Hell, I even replied and said you were correct. What more do you want? Not that I care ...
"automatically configure the entire server, without any interaction beyond plugging it into the network and turning it on"
Isn't this type of methodology what gets wireless users in trouble?
As noted, the feature is for servers: Xserve boxes that come with Mac OS X Server 10.3 preinstalled. It is designed for rackmount systems where you have lots of boxes to configure. Just don't plug such a box into a network the first time with things like wireless access points on the network. Wait until you configure the box for the first time before you connect it to the rest of the world, and you're fine.
Why couldn't it be the other kind of computer, with the slave part on top and the female part on the bottom?
I love widescreen games, though I have few of them. Madden 2003, GTA: Vice City, GT3. I wish there were more of them that used it.
I didn't mean to imply anything about you ... if I had thought you were subscribing to conspiracy theories, I'd have said so. :-)
If you look at the table of contents from archive.org from over two years ago, it is not listed, either. That it is not listed in the table of contents is nothing new, it was not in there before. It was apparently not in there when the Memory Hole first posted its article (it certainly wasn't in there before).
1 101980302-138662,00.html, but the article in question was at a URL that looked like http://www.time.com/time/magazine/1998/dom/980302/ special_report.clintons_29.html. It's a different style of URL, it's no wonder it doesn't work.
And yes, the URLs currently show one paragraph, and then the rest of the article, but those new URLs look like http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,
It does appear to have been removed, as I cannot find "Scowcroft" in a search from March 1-3 1998, but I can find "Nelan" (the author of the above URL that redirects, "Selling The War Badly"), and I can find it no other searches. But that it does not appear in the TOC from over two years ago, and that the URL is of a different style than the others from that TOC, makes me think someone else is going on than the various conspiracy theories seen in this discussion.
He says his entire web team runs on Mac OS X, but Netcraft says he is a liar!
And yes, he does use Slash, but he also ripped out the X-Fry header quotes. YOU BASTARD.
And all that is far worse, to me, then his lies about Bush not doing anything about North Korea and making the situation worse when it is clear that the Bush administration has been heavily engaged with North Korea and had a huge success in getting six-way, multilateral, talks going for the first time in many years (bilateral talks have been a major part of the problem with North Korea). Sure, there's work to do, but it is excellent progress, and it's a simple lie to say Bush has been "disengaged" with North Korea, has not been making significant progress, and to say that the ongoing diplomacy has been a "failure."
When asked what Edwards would do, he said, "I would sit with North Korea in a very tough way and negotiate." Right, because aligning Japan, South Korea, Russia, China, and the U.S. against North Korea, all in the same room, is not "sitting with North Korea in a very tough way and negotiating." He's so full of it.
He's also full of it on tort reform (he, a former trial attorney himself, gets most of his campaign money from attorneys and their employees), on support for the war (he fully supports the war, but think Bush did it the wrong way, even though at the time he fully supported it), and on the economy (Bush's tax cuts HURT the economy before they went into effect, but now that they have taken effect and the economy is coming back, they certainly can't get any credit!).
But I could vote for him regardless of his position on North Korea, and taxes, and tort reform, and the war, if only he would come clean on his use of FreeBSD!
Is that such a big deal? I mean, if it's replacing the application, it's kinda going to have to quit it!
It is if you weren't thinking about it, had some processes running in the Terminal, and didn't have the preferences set to not close without warning if you have processes running (which, IIRC, is the default).
It's not a huge deal, but it absolutely should warn you before doing it.
selfupdate-cvs did work for me, btw, doing update-all now.
However, I'd suspect if that person didn't know, they might just say, "I don't know what the plans are at this point," as opposed to saying they weren't planning to port those security updates back to Jaguar.
Maybe he did, and Goldsmith misinterpreted or misremembered. Or, maybe he was trying to be cool and act like he knew something when he didn't. Like you.
However, none of this changes the fact that Apple initially planned not to backport the fixes to Jaguar.
Yes, exactly like you. It is not a fact. You have no person, you have no statement, you have absolutely nothing that proves this supposed "fact." You are trying to look cool and act like you know something when you don't. You're failing miserably.
Read a book.
Just how does saying that something is still supported imply that its successor doesn't exist?
I dunno, how does Mac OS X Server 10.2 being supported imply that they must fix Mac OS X 10.2?
If this really happened to you -- that is, that you did not read the documentation or Apple's postings on the subject, and thought 10.2 Server would run on a G5 -- then you could have complained to Apple who surely would have accepted a return/refund, or provided a voucher for an upgrade.
why can't Apple just come out and say that *ALL* OS 10 versions will be fixed, instead getting specific
Because they will not be updating 10.1 or 10.0. They also don't update Mac OS at all anymore, except for where it is necessary for Mac OS X interaction, and even that is rare.
the original article said nothing untrue.
That's false. It said "Apple Forcing Panther Upgrade for Security Patch" which was untrue. I dunno who wrote the headline, but it was a fabrication.
According to David Goldsmith of @Stake, "In my initial conversations with them [Apple], they said they weren't going to fix 10.2, but I wouldn't be surprised if they change that."
Who at Apple? Was it someone who actually had authority or knowledge? And what, exactly, was said? How do we know Goldsmith didn't misunderstand? This quote from Goldsmith is entirely useless. It has no meaning. Maybe some low-level techie who was working on the bugs told Goldsmith, "I dunno, I'd be surprised if they updated 10.2."
Apple did initially tell security experts they didn't plan to patch Jaguar.
That is speculation. You have no way of knowing, unless you know exactly who said what to Goldsmith. And you don't.
Of course Apple is going to fix them, they still support the 10.2 Server, so they have to...
Are you implying Mac OS X 10.3 Server is not available?
You can buy one spare 512MB CompactFlash card for the price of this reader. If you're not a pro user, chances are you won't need more than that (you probably won't even need that much at all).
It's only when the media you require becomes more expensive or bulky than the media reader itself, that the media reader would be beneficial. And I'm sorry, if you are taking that many photos, or of a high enough quality, that an extra 512MB card is not enough for your vacation, then you simply are not an average user.
That can change, buddy.
I got a new 160GB FW drive today, hooked it up to newly upgraded Panther PowerBook. It sees 152.61 GB capacity and free (which is what 160GB where K=1000 instead of 1024 works out to, approximately). Now, feeling brave, I try my previous 160GB FW drive (both are Maxtor), and ... 152.65GB capacity, 11.2GB free. So ... works for me!(tm)