It would hardly surprise me, though there's probably some other reasoning too.
While I love the MacOS UI, and a lot of the stuff that runs on it, I agree that the OS is falling apart, that it's amazing that Apple is still around with some of the boners they've pulled, and that Steve is one of the world's biggest assholes.
Contrast this with the Woz, who I have nothing but respect for.
You're not a Mac person, or you wouldn't have said this.
Let's back up some:
The original Macintosh had one small bug that didn't become evident for a while - the name. It was simply 'Macintosh.'
When the newer version came out, the problem persisted. There was no way to tell a Mac with 128kB of RAM from one with 512kB. (they quickly became informally known as the 128K and the 512K, which was also called by it's code name, Fat Mac)
The third Mac, which had 512kB RAM but a new 800kB floppy drive (the original was 400kB... ah, memories) still didn't have a unique name, and ended up being known as the 512KE (E for Expanded, I guess... I have one at my parent's house;)
Finally the Mac Plus came out, and sanity was restored. Every Mac since had a particular model name... Mac II, IIx, IIcx, SE, SE/30, IIvx (had one of those too... I'm a sucker) Quadra 700, 6100/66, 9500/132, etc.
But it's worth noting that Steve left Apple at around the time of the 512K - 512KE.
Now, a couple years ago the G3's came out. If they had continued with the ~8 year tradition of assigning each model a confusing number, the desktop would have been the 7700 and the minitower the 8700.
But Steve, who had returned, decided that they would simply be named 'Power Macintosh G3/xxx' where xxx was the speed of the CPU.
Okay, obviously a break from the numbering system (which did have a vague amount of logic behind it... I can follow up later on that if you want) but you could say G3 and people knew what you meant.
Unfortunately, the iMac (which also suffers from this problem) had come out and we all knew that the beige look that the first G3's had was not long for this world.
And indeed, the next models to come out of Cupertino in Jan '99 looked different. They had Blue and White cases. Here's a picture. Note, btw, that they ONLY came in Blue and White. By that time IIRC the iMacs came in colors. (more on that in a moment)
Apple, and everyone else, in order to distinguish them, came to call them 'Power Mac G3 (Blue and White)'s. So when he says that that's what he tested it on, that's important. I would have a good guess if he said G3/400, since the ones now known as Beige G3's weren't sold that fast, but the color tells me which MODEL.
The G4's have the same problem; G4 can mean the original G4 Yikes, with a PCI video card, or the slightly newer G4 Sawtooth with an AGP video card, or the Dual-Processor G4. Guess what people call these things in order to distinguish them?
iMacs are the
iMac Revision A, the original 233MHz Bondi iMac
iMac Revision B, almost exactly the same
iMac Revision C, better known as 'Fruity iMacs' because they came in five colors.
iMac Revision D, a somewhat faster version (ie Fruity/333 instead of Fruity/266)
iMac Revision E, better known as 'Slot Loading iMacs' because of the new CD/DVD mechanism, or the 'Kihei iMacs' after the codename, or the 'Transparent iMacs' because of the redesigned case. This introduced the Graphite iMac DV/SE, and split the current iMac models up by how powerful they were (a low-end Blueberry, midrange in five colors, high end in Graphite)
iMac Revision F, currently known as 'Summer 2000 iMacs', which come in different colors, and are currently shipping.
This makes it really frickin' hard to talk about iMacs and actually convey some sense of what you're talking about.
The PowerBooks (which I don't really follow closely) are about as bad - they're presently being officially named after the color of the keyboards or something. And so everyone ignores that and uses the codenames instead.
Backing up, because Steve has boneheadedly decided that we shouldn't have a standard method of being able to tell these things apart (there aren't even name badges on the desktops - just a pictoral Apple logo) we have to describe the appearance, etc.
And as already noted, there never was a purple G3 desktop, though a lot of people did want one actually... Blue and purple have been the most popular colors.
Well, if that's true then the manufacturers would be engaged in a copyright violation - the right to copy is secured to the artist, not the RIAA or the manufacturer of the equipment, nor can the DMCA claim (b/c it would be contrary to the consitution) that an author circumventing a protection mechanism to copy works which he holds the copyright to.
Well that's something I've been wondering about...
Much of the DeCSS case was predicated on the idea that unless the movie studios (or the DVD CCA - it's _never_ been clear which one it is, because as long as they refuse to provide a straight answer they can get away with more) permit some player to play DVDs, they're illegal.
So what prevents someone from releasing a CSS-encrypted DVD, explicitly prohibiting it from being played on Sonys, and then suing the bejesus out of them for daring to make a DVD player that can play it?
One would imagine that it would have happened by now - it's generally better to sue people with deep pockets as poor ones can't cough up any damages.
And furthermore, even if the law claimed that Fair Use didn't exist, or restricted it tightly, it wouldn't matter; Fair Use is a construction of the courts first and foremost. We get it no matter what Congress says.
Yes, but you've missed my point; You said before: The GPL is like making adultery illegal: a net loss of individual freedom for a net gain in morality.
So I'll ask again - what freedom does the GPL take away that you have by default under copyright law?
Your answer had better not be 'the freedom to distribute binaries of code copyrighted to others, without a license" because you DO NOT have that freedom due to the law. Not the GPL, the law.
The GPL does not grant as many freedoms as it could, but your statement that it results in a net loss of freedom is bogus.
But I ask you - what freedom does the GPL take away? The answer of course is none. Your freedoms are already abridged by copyright law. The GPL restores some of them to you if you agree to it. You only gain.
Obviously, you get even more with other licenses, and you're not restricted from doing anything at all to material in the public domain. But that doesn't mean that the GPL is bad because it gives you less - do you accuse people of being uncharitable when they give you $20 instead of $500?
I know that Photoshop started out as a Mac program used for special effects work on Cameron's movie "The Abyss," but I'm pretty sure that it's been an Adobe product for as long as it's been commercially available.
(though a crappy one for a while - remember Collage, the third party program that you had to get if you wanted layers before Photoshop 2.5?)
TeX is a typesetting language. Quark XPress is a layout program. They're not the same kind of thing; generally you import typeset documents from Word or TeX or whatever into Quark and then lay 'em out.
I'd hate to typeset stuff with Quark (in fact, I have had to, and I did hate it) but I don't think that you could do nearly as much compositing with TeX as you can with Quark even if you were really proficient with it.
Yeah, but even if the controls were very close together, how would you simultaneously use a joystick, a crosspad, seven buttons, two shoulder buttons, and a trigger?
The PSX doesn't let you use all the inputs simultaneously either (try using the cross, buttons, shoulders and joysticks together squid boy;) but tries to get around it by letting you EITHER use:
1)the cross and the buttons
2)the cross and the right joystick
3)the left joystick and the buttons
without it being awfully inconvenient to switch. 'Course, the layout would have to be really well thought out b/c you can't make the switch instantly (e.g. it would suck if you used the cross to move, the buttons to fire and the joysticks to aim, unless you're a sniper)
and at that point, the only problem with the N64 is that the switch is more inconvenient.
A PSX controller with fewer shoulder buttons, a proper crosspad, triggers, and right and left N64 udders for comfort would kick ass. I'd get one.
That said, my favorite N64 games were probably Snobo Kids and Blast Corps. PSX games are generally not as fun; very cool, but it's not quite the same.
Well, it's been a while since I used an N64 (had one, got stolen, got a PSX to see how the other half lives) but I loved the controller. At least, the ergonomics. Looked ugly as hell.
But it was designed to be flexible; there are three ways of using it.
1) The center and right udders, which is most common.
2) The left and right udders (using the crosspad instead of the analog stick)
3) The left and center udders (do any games even use this?)
and of course this governs the shoulder and Z buttons as well. I'd have to fault the game designers for bad layouts; who can use all three parts of the thing simultaneously? You don't have enough fingers.
The PSX controller has a shit crosspad, and the double shoulder buttons are confusing as hell. The micro udders are also really annoying - it's never comfortable to hold.
Never used a DC, but it doesn't strike me as a good design.
Well sure antitrust has been spottily enforced. Not everyone at the DOJ thinks its a good idea either. (either generally, or more usually I suspect, in very specific cases)
But when it has been exercised, I still don't think that it usually has been for ill. Are cases frequently brought by competitors? Sure. The DOJ has better things to do. They don't start antitrust cases themselves that frequently. But let competitors try to do it to each other and they'll police themselves to our benefit.
While the effects may indeed raise prices (East India Tea was cheap too, for all the good it did) since when have they reduced competiton? (Innovation varies - yeah, it's great to have Bell doing pure research, but it's also great to have cellphones, phone cards, PBX software, faxes, etc.)
And had IBM bought MS at the beginning... people still would have flocked to them just for the name. But the clones would have died - w/o an RE'd OS they wouldn't be legal, just as it was with the BIOS. Would DR have written an RE'd OS? Would IBM have renewed Apple's basic license? (MS had them by the balls in real life) I think that it would have eventually ended up in something along the lines of the PS/2. A closed but otherwise nice debacle for us. Not at all fun if there was nothing significant competing with it.
I've been reading a great, but dense (both physically and mentally) book recently, called "IBM's Early Computers." It's great stuff, and very detailed, and runs from Hollerith through about just prior to the System/360.
While it's mostly focused on technical matters (chapters like Transistors and Ferrite-Core Memory) it does touch a little on the business side of things. There have been multiple antitrust actions taken against IBM.
The two biggies are the one that ended in 1956, that forced them to permit people to buy their hardware (previously only leasing was available) and the one that ended in 1982 in which they were accused of monopolizing all general purpose computers, systems and peripherals. (the case started in the late sixties/early seventies, so it wasn't micros of course, but still...)
However, there were maybe 10-20 other cases in the seventies as well... and probably more before that. IBM used to be Microsoft, basically... IIRC the old term was 'IBM and the Seven Dwarves' (who were Univac, Honeywell, Control Data, GE, RCA, Burroughs and NCR)
As for their entry into the micro market, the decision to go with off the shelf components and OSes (MS-DOS and CPM86 IIRC) was driven largely by a desire to have something built quickly (by IBM standards). I don't think that there was anything that moved as fast as the Acorn project did. But why did they need the speed? Too many people were using micros. Even if they were for teeny tasks that you would rarely bother running on an IBM, it was embarrasing. And for tasks that you _would_ have run on the big iron if it were available 24/7 like a micro, it was dangerous.
Obviously I agree that even had Rehnquist recused himself the case would've gotten bounced back to the lesser appeals courts.
But Rehnquist should have recused himself; judges must avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
And I totally disagree with your opinion that MS will win, or that they ought to. The cure is an old one - antitrust legislation has been around for about a hundred years, and it has been pretty damn good too. But I find it difficult to believe that you don't think that MS has been acting illegally. It's a pretty cut and dry case.
Certainly MS never had any problems with antitrust legislation existing until recently. (given that IBM would be the only computer company, had a number of cases not been persued against it)
The Finder is basically a shell. The OS is run by the System suitcase (and nowadays with the New World ROMs, etc.) There are a number of venerable 'minifinders' that would let you run another application from an open dialog (they were really small to fit on an emergency boot floppy with room for another app) and of course you could put any program into a System Folder, change the creator/file types appropriately and call it Finder and it would run at boot time.
Besides - haven't you ever quit the Finder and discovered that you're still running other applications? Used to happen to me all the time on one particularly flakey machine - fortunately DragThing was bright enough to realize that Applescript wasn't able to get the Finder to respond to commands because it was quit, and would reload it for me.
Bootable CDs are basically what killed the need for this ability, though sometimes people quit the finder to gain a little bit more free memory.
Well, music is specifically covered by the AHRA - IIRC it states that all noncommercial analog duplication and distribution is legal. And all digitial duplication and distribution is legal provided that the system has a rights management system in place and that it's primary purpose is for audio recording (as opposed to, in the Rio case, a computer)
As for taping stuff off of tv, the Supreme Court covered that in the early 80's in the seminal Sony v. Universal Studios case. They decided that it was legal to tape shows for timeshifting purposes, and were aware of and had no issues with, people making libraries of stuff they taped.
So generally, taping stuff is not a copyright infringement, though IANAL.
Taping from the radio would appear to be entirely legal given the AHRA and the Sony v. Universal case.
Don't sweat it, kid.
As for Napster - I don't think that Napster themselves are at fault; users perhaps, but that's only good for action against users, not Napster per se. (whether or not the RIAA, MPAA et al have bought enough laws and corrupt judges to get their way or not is a different matter)
IIRC the original PlayStation was a CD ROM addon for the SNES. Sony spent a lot of time and effort developing it with Nintendo, only to get brushed off.
Pissed, they fininshed turning the PS into a standalone console - which was named the PlayStation, but abbreviated as PSX to distinguish it from the earlier PS that never hit the market. Evidently, the X makes it sound cool.
Slashdot Mirror
It would hardly surprise me, though there's probably some other reasoning too.
While I love the MacOS UI, and a lot of the stuff that runs on it, I agree that the OS is falling apart, that it's amazing that Apple is still around with some of the boners they've pulled, and that Steve is one of the world's biggest assholes.
Contrast this with the Woz, who I have nothing but respect for.
Let's back up some: The original Macintosh had one small bug that didn't become evident for a while - the name. It was simply 'Macintosh.'
When the newer version came out, the problem persisted. There was no way to tell a Mac with 128kB of RAM from one with 512kB. (they quickly became informally known as the 128K and the 512K, which was also called by it's code name, Fat Mac)
The third Mac, which had 512kB RAM but a new 800kB floppy drive (the original was 400kB... ah, memories) still didn't have a unique name, and ended up being known as the 512KE (E for Expanded, I guess... I have one at my parent's house ;)
Finally the Mac Plus came out, and sanity was restored. Every Mac since had a particular model name... Mac II, IIx, IIcx, SE, SE/30, IIvx (had one of those too... I'm a sucker) Quadra 700, 6100/66, 9500/132, etc.
But it's worth noting that Steve left Apple at around the time of the 512K - 512KE.
Now, a couple years ago the G3's came out. If they had continued with the ~8 year tradition of assigning each model a confusing number, the desktop would have been the 7700 and the minitower the 8700.
But Steve, who had returned, decided that they would simply be named 'Power Macintosh G3/xxx' where xxx was the speed of the CPU.
Okay, obviously a break from the numbering system (which did have a vague amount of logic behind it... I can follow up later on that if you want) but you could say G3 and people knew what you meant.
Unfortunately, the iMac (which also suffers from this problem) had come out and we all knew that the beige look that the first G3's had was not long for this world.
And indeed, the next models to come out of Cupertino in Jan '99 looked different. They had Blue and White cases. Here's a picture. Note, btw, that they ONLY came in Blue and White. By that time IIRC the iMacs came in colors. (more on that in a moment)
Apple, and everyone else, in order to distinguish them, came to call them 'Power Mac G3 (Blue and White)'s. So when he says that that's what he tested it on, that's important. I would have a good guess if he said G3/400, since the ones now known as Beige G3's weren't sold that fast, but the color tells me which MODEL.
The G4's have the same problem; G4 can mean the original G4 Yikes, with a PCI video card, or the slightly newer G4 Sawtooth with an AGP video card, or the Dual-Processor G4. Guess what people call these things in order to distinguish them?
iMacs are the
- iMac Revision A, the original 233MHz Bondi iMac
- iMac Revision B, almost exactly the same
- iMac Revision C, better known as 'Fruity iMacs' because they came in five colors.
- iMac Revision D, a somewhat faster version (ie Fruity/333 instead of Fruity/266)
- iMac Revision E, better known as 'Slot Loading iMacs' because of the new CD/DVD mechanism, or the 'Kihei iMacs' after the codename, or the 'Transparent iMacs' because of the redesigned case. This introduced the Graphite iMac DV/SE, and split the current iMac models up by how powerful they were (a low-end Blueberry, midrange in five colors, high end in Graphite)
- iMac Revision F, currently known as 'Summer 2000 iMacs', which come in different colors, and are currently shipping.
This makes it really frickin' hard to talk about iMacs and actually convey some sense of what you're talking about.The PowerBooks (which I don't really follow closely) are about as bad - they're presently being officially named after the color of the keyboards or something. And so everyone ignores that and uses the codenames instead.
Backing up, because Steve has boneheadedly decided that we shouldn't have a standard method of being able to tell these things apart (there aren't even name badges on the desktops - just a pictoral Apple logo) we have to describe the appearance, etc.
And as already noted, there never was a purple G3 desktop, though a lot of people did want one actually... Blue and purple have been the most popular colors.
Well, according to the article anyway, there is still only the Aqua theme, but now it comes in Blue or Graphite colors...
Makes sense enough - the widgets are basically the same.
Well, if that's true then the manufacturers would be engaged in a copyright violation - the right to copy is secured to the artist, not the RIAA or the manufacturer of the equipment, nor can the DMCA claim (b/c it would be contrary to the consitution) that an author circumventing a protection mechanism to copy works which he holds the copyright to.
Course, IANAL....
Sadly, such a program would _still_ be acting as a circumventing device, and be illegal for as long as the boneheaded DMCA is law.
It doesn't matter what it does with the output, or how difficult it is to do stuff with the output - if it can get to the input, that's too bad.
Well that's something I've been wondering about...
Much of the DeCSS case was predicated on the idea that unless the movie studios (or the DVD CCA - it's _never_ been clear which one it is, because as long as they refuse to provide a straight answer they can get away with more) permit some player to play DVDs, they're illegal.
So what prevents someone from releasing a CSS-encrypted DVD, explicitly prohibiting it from being played on Sonys, and then suing the bejesus out of them for daring to make a DVD player that can play it?
One would imagine that it would have happened by now - it's generally better to sue people with deep pockets as poor ones can't cough up any damages.
And furthermore, even if the law claimed that Fair Use didn't exist, or restricted it tightly, it wouldn't matter; Fair Use is a construction of the courts first and foremost. We get it no matter what Congress says.
So I'll ask again - what freedom does the GPL take away that you have by default under copyright law?
Your answer had better not be 'the freedom to distribute binaries of code copyrighted to others, without a license" because you DO NOT have that freedom due to the law. Not the GPL, the law.
The GPL does not grant as many freedoms as it could, but your statement that it results in a net loss of freedom is bogus.
But I ask you - what freedom does the GPL take away? The answer of course is none. Your freedoms are already abridged by copyright law. The GPL restores some of them to you if you agree to it. You only gain.
Obviously, you get even more with other licenses, and you're not restricted from doing anything at all to material in the public domain. But that doesn't mean that the GPL is bad because it gives you less - do you accuse people of being uncharitable when they give you $20 instead of $500?
You mean the footprints that were mostly blown away when the exhaust from the LM washed over them?
Bah - the flag even fell down.
I know that Photoshop started out as a Mac program used for special effects work on Cameron's movie "The Abyss," but I'm pretty sure that it's been an Adobe product for as long as it's been commercially available.
(though a crappy one for a while - remember Collage, the third party program that you had to get if you wanted layers before Photoshop 2.5?)
800kB floppies? That would have been luxury (and was standard from the 512KE through the... what? IIx?)
The original Mac 128k had 400kB floppies. But you really did want a second floppy drive. The disk swap tango was annoying as hell.
TeX is a typesetting language. Quark XPress is a layout program. They're not the same kind of thing; generally you import typeset documents from Word or TeX or whatever into Quark and then lay 'em out.
I'd hate to typeset stuff with Quark (in fact, I have had to, and I did hate it) but I don't think that you could do nearly as much compositing with TeX as you can with Quark even if you were really proficient with it.
Supreme Court justices can also be impeached, though I can't recall any instances of this ever happening.
Yeah, but even if the controls were very close together, how would you simultaneously use a joystick, a crosspad, seven buttons, two shoulder buttons, and a trigger?
;) but tries to get around it by letting you EITHER use:
The PSX doesn't let you use all the inputs simultaneously either (try using the cross, buttons, shoulders and joysticks together squid boy
1)the cross and the buttons
2)the cross and the right joystick
3)the left joystick and the buttons
without it being awfully inconvenient to switch. 'Course, the layout would have to be really well thought out b/c you can't make the switch instantly (e.g. it would suck if you used the cross to move, the buttons to fire and the joysticks to aim, unless you're a sniper)
and at that point, the only problem with the N64 is that the switch is more inconvenient.
A PSX controller with fewer shoulder buttons, a proper crosspad, triggers, and right and left N64 udders for comfort would kick ass. I'd get one.
That said, my favorite N64 games were probably Snobo Kids and Blast Corps. PSX games are generally not as fun; very cool, but it's not quite the same.
Well, it's been a while since I used an N64 (had one, got stolen, got a PSX to see how the other half lives) but I loved the controller. At least, the ergonomics. Looked ugly as hell.
But it was designed to be flexible; there are three ways of using it.
1) The center and right udders, which is most common.
2) The left and right udders (using the crosspad instead of the analog stick)
3) The left and center udders (do any games even use this?)
and of course this governs the shoulder and Z buttons as well. I'd have to fault the game designers for bad layouts; who can use all three parts of the thing simultaneously? You don't have enough fingers.
The PSX controller has a shit crosspad, and the double shoulder buttons are confusing as hell. The micro udders are also really annoying - it's never comfortable to hold.
Never used a DC, but it doesn't strike me as a good design.
Well sure antitrust has been spottily enforced. Not everyone at the DOJ thinks its a good idea either. (either generally, or more usually I suspect, in very specific cases)
But when it has been exercised, I still don't think that it usually has been for ill. Are cases frequently brought by competitors? Sure. The DOJ has better things to do. They don't start antitrust cases themselves that frequently. But let competitors try to do it to each other and they'll police themselves to our benefit.
While the effects may indeed raise prices (East India Tea was cheap too, for all the good it did) since when have they reduced competiton? (Innovation varies - yeah, it's great to have Bell doing pure research, but it's also great to have cellphones, phone cards, PBX software, faxes, etc.)
And had IBM bought MS at the beginning... people still would have flocked to them just for the name. But the clones would have died - w/o an RE'd OS they wouldn't be legal, just as it was with the BIOS. Would DR have written an RE'd OS? Would IBM have renewed Apple's basic license? (MS had them by the balls in real life) I think that it would have eventually ended up in something along the lines of the PS/2. A closed but otherwise nice debacle for us. Not at all fun if there was nothing significant competing with it.
I've been reading a great, but dense (both physically and mentally) book recently, called "IBM's Early Computers." It's great stuff, and very detailed, and runs from Hollerith through about just prior to the System/360.
While it's mostly focused on technical matters (chapters like Transistors and Ferrite-Core Memory) it does touch a little on the business side of things. There have been multiple antitrust actions taken against IBM.
The two biggies are the one that ended in 1956, that forced them to permit people to buy their hardware (previously only leasing was available) and the one that ended in 1982 in which they were accused of monopolizing all general purpose computers, systems and peripherals. (the case started in the late sixties/early seventies, so it wasn't micros of course, but still...)
However, there were maybe 10-20 other cases in the seventies as well... and probably more before that. IBM used to be Microsoft, basically... IIRC the old term was 'IBM and the Seven Dwarves' (who were Univac, Honeywell, Control Data, GE, RCA, Burroughs and NCR)
As for their entry into the micro market, the decision to go with off the shelf components and OSes (MS-DOS and CPM86 IIRC) was driven largely by a desire to have something built quickly (by IBM standards). I don't think that there was anything that moved as fast as the Acorn project did. But why did they need the speed? Too many people were using micros. Even if they were for teeny tasks that you would rarely bother running on an IBM, it was embarrasing. And for tasks that you _would_ have run on the big iron if it were available 24/7 like a micro, it was dangerous.
Obviously I agree that even had Rehnquist recused himself the case would've gotten bounced back to the lesser appeals courts.
But Rehnquist should have recused himself; judges must avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
And I totally disagree with your opinion that MS will win, or that they ought to. The cure is an old one - antitrust legislation has been around for about a hundred years, and it has been pretty damn good too. But I find it difficult to believe that you don't think that MS has been acting illegally. It's a pretty cut and dry case.
Certainly MS never had any problems with antitrust legislation existing until recently. (given that IBM would be the only computer company, had a number of cases not been persued against it)
And what has Microsoft's basic research done lately? I've never heard of anything, while IBM and Bell are extremely well known.
Oh yes you can.
The Finder is basically a shell. The OS is run by the System suitcase (and nowadays with the New World ROMs, etc.) There are a number of venerable 'minifinders' that would let you run another application from an open dialog (they were really small to fit on an emergency boot floppy with room for another app) and of course you could put any program into a System Folder, change the creator/file types appropriately and call it Finder and it would run at boot time.
Besides - haven't you ever quit the Finder and discovered that you're still running other applications? Used to happen to me all the time on one particularly flakey machine - fortunately DragThing was bright enough to realize that Applescript wasn't able to get the Finder to respond to commands because it was quit, and would reload it for me.
Bootable CDs are basically what killed the need for this ability, though sometimes people quit the finder to gain a little bit more free memory.
Well, music is specifically covered by the AHRA - IIRC it states that all noncommercial analog duplication and distribution is legal. And all digitial duplication and distribution is legal provided that the system has a rights management system in place and that it's primary purpose is for audio recording (as opposed to, in the Rio case, a computer)
As for taping stuff off of tv, the Supreme Court covered that in the early 80's in the seminal Sony v. Universal Studios case. They decided that it was legal to tape shows for timeshifting purposes, and were aware of and had no issues with, people making libraries of stuff they taped.
So generally, taping stuff is not a copyright infringement, though IANAL.
Taping from the radio would appear to be entirely legal given the AHRA and the Sony v. Universal case.
Don't sweat it, kid.
As for Napster - I don't think that Napster themselves are at fault; users perhaps, but that's only good for action against users, not Napster per se. (whether or not the RIAA, MPAA et al have bought enough laws and corrupt judges to get their way or not is a different matter)
No, SOS was the OS for the Apple ///.
Which was appropriate as it was an infamous flop.
IIRC the original PlayStation was a CD ROM addon for the SNES. Sony spent a lot of time and effort developing it with Nintendo, only to get brushed off.
Pissed, they fininshed turning the PS into a standalone console - which was named the PlayStation, but abbreviated as PSX to distinguish it from the earlier PS that never hit the market. Evidently, the X makes it sound cool.