GPG actually ported DS to Mac OS X. It's playability was stronger due to a typical Mac's better-than-standard-issue video card (in my case, initially a GeForce 4MX 32MB).
It wasn't much different than Diablo II in playability, although I appreciated the ability to blend abilities to create characters, unlike in Diablo II where the character type is quite fixed.
I, too, was disappointed with the overall plot (the word "contrived" fits well) and lacked Diablo and Diablo II's storyline that kept its rigid universe interesting. Weapons, armor, and graphics were very nice, including the use of a true mule for loot (no other game since that has been popular enough for me to play on Mac OS X has duplicated this), the wide, wide world that had lots to explore (particularly the MP map), and showing definitive changes to the character's appearance as armor and weapons are added.
The bad news: The Mac version lacked an inherent MP game list system, since DirectPlay is not available for Mac OS X. Thankfully, GameRanger, a free game access service for some Mac games, worked well to link up Mac users. Next, while the Mac and PC versions essentially did and used the same resources, the use of DirectPlay for the PC version and coding changes with the Mac version made it impossible to play with PC users, nor was it possible to port character or game files from PC version to Mac, or vice versa.
That, and stability was a problem in some configurations. Overall, I enjoyed it for many months--it was actually the first game that broke my routine play of Diablo II, after I played that game and its expansion for almost 3 years.
Neither Diablo II nor Dungeon Siege hold a candle to Neverwinter Nights and its 2 expansions. Being an online adaptation of the D&D world, this game was designed for storylines, but does not slouch on game play in the slightest. And, although the official Mac versions of the two game expansions are not yet available, Mac OS X users can install the Linux game components to play both expansions without issue. Character and game files are easily transportable, and Mac, Windows, and Linux users can play and host without issue (only the Windows users can create worlds as the toolset was made only for this platform).
Still, I would appreciate a DS II if it arrives for Mac OS X. However, since GPG (and the Mac company, MacSoft, that ported the game) has not worked to bring its single expansion of DS I, called Legends of Arrana, to Mac OS X, I doubt it may show any earlier than 1 year--if at all--after DS II arrives for the PC. And, after enjoying the diversity of NWN, I'd be more cautious on the quality and usability of a GPS game.
To clarify amichalo's comments, many third-party players work with iTunes, and did before the iPOd.
However, only the iPod will accept AAC music files downloaded from iTMS. Not sure if there are other AAC/iTMS-compliant devices out there outside of the iPod.
Microsoft has the financial leverage to stick this out. They'll need it.
No other company has understood that Apple's success comes from the successful and uncomplicated integration of a good, simple audio player with an application with a simple interface for getting and playing your songs.
Other players may be cheaper, but their interfaces suck or place many restrictions. Consistency is the hobgoblin of the PC industry, which should not be confused with compatibility. Given that, there are gazillons of players and software products for the PC, and that factions the market just like the personal computer boon had dozens of different, but incompatible, types of personal computers.
People don't want to learn yet another way to play their music. The experience of getting, burning, and playing songs with iTunes is virtually the same on both Mac and Windows. No other music product can make that claim.
Like the personal computer boon, the market will clear out, leaving one dominant and secondary way to do things. I expect Apple to remain there if they continue to evolve the iPod and iTunes without increasing the price.
Babylon 5 had one thing going for it that Star Trek has never had.
AN ENDING to its story. Star Trek isn't a story, it's a LARP vampire game you can never leave!
A story gets boring when you drag the characters or themes around for an eternity. Bergman and friends need to read more Grecian novels. Heroes need to accomplish their tasks, and die. Cities rise and fall, bad guys are always vanquished in the end.
Sheridan dies a hero. Valen/Sinclair dies a hero. Kirk dies a hero, but it took too damn long to make it happen.
Apple's legal team might sue, but almost certainly send a letter of cease-and-desist of look-and-feel of the product.
Why would Apple care, especially since these apps work only on Linux boxes? (Assuming that this stuff compiles only for x86 and not PPC Linux distros...)
Because Apple must always show aggressive protection of their products' trade and servicemarks as well as their look and feel. While the resemblance to iPhoto and iTunes is mostly there, it's not something that Apple would win, IMO.
A suit or intimidating letter only creates history that courts can use (through Apple's attorneys) to keep Apple's products defined as a specific item or service, and reduce the chance of genericization.
Real has two products that compete with Apple's offerings:
- QuickTime Player's streaming vs. RealPlayer - QuickTime Streaming Studio vs. Real Server
The advantage Apple has with QTSS is that it's free and usable on many operating systems.
Real offers no significant advantages in an allance, and, particularly, might not provide any changes in Apple's hardware sales (where their cash comes from).
Apple would sooner buy out Real than ally with it.
However, Arnold is now an elected, and fully accountable official. His opinion now has the weight of official California state policy. If he screws up, or succeeds, its public record, and he will stay or be voted out.
"Fairness" is inherent to the right of Free Speech. Streisand speaks, I turn the channel. Limbaugh speaks, I listen with amusement. O'Reilly speaks, I find something else to do.
Liberal, conservative--I personally don't care of a person's party. I do care--greatly--when someone comes up with some inane idea and tries to enact it, but is not an elected official.
If I could mod in the same place I post, I would mod you up for your appropriate use of a paraphrasing of Voltaire's quote (at least, I think it's his quote).
The person who wields their Free Speech rights should remember that it's like a sword. Many people wave it all about, expecting to cut, but few seem to know that we ALL have swords, and you are expected to parry (that is, defend your reasons for saying what you've said) or be cut yourself.
When it comes to speaking your mind about almost anything, few countries or people have it as good as the people of the United States, even in this post-September 11 world.
I get annoyed, however, at people, most notably the cults of personalities we call celebrities, who think that they have a right to make their words and comments louder or have them deemed more important than others. Two words: Barbra Streisand. Another two words: Jane Fonda. Look, I'm glad the two of you have an opinion, but just because you make millions in Hollywood and have played many roles in film doesn't give you any more credibility than the guy who slaves all day for his family.
Another problem I have is how some people think that Free Speech is a one-way thing, as if they can say what they want without criticism. The Dixie Chicks' Natalie Maines learned this lesson the hard way. True, as an American on our soil you are free to express an opinion. However, the Americans who are listening to you are also free to react to your opinion by counter-comment, or even just to ignore what you said. In the case of Ms. Maines, some folks decided that they would ignore her group's album for a while.
Free speech always costs somebody something. My feeling is that the Right of Free Speech wouldn't be worth anything if you didn't lose something as you exercised your right.
Free speech is self-correcting as well. That is its true power. The very existance of Slashdot, and of the web article that spawned this topic is an example of the balance that true Free Speech maintains.
Maybe I'm all wet, but I remember the times where "geek" was more synonymous with "freak" (as in a deformity) and the term bookworm was used to describe me by sneering kids in my elementary school.
It's easy to throw out the term "geek" to describe anyone who plays video games or understands what a computer is. However, for any definition to have meaning, there has to be a limitation. We can't all be geeks, per se...some of us may just be geek-compatible, or geek-like.
I think geekness changes with the times, of course. In my youth, I experimented with making my own batteries, assembling logic circuits, signal amps, lightwave communicators, and oscillators on breadboards. I launched model rockets, and gazed at the stars, and could tell you anything about the space program and its history.
So, a geek, in my mind, is a person with a deep fascination in the technological aspects of life and his world, and whose social nature and recreation frequently revolves around such aspects of science and technology.
Frequently, geeks are so involved with their interests that it supplants their social life--but this is common to anyone who gets too wrapped up in something, foregoing sex just to enjoy more of the diversion. Drug addicts do this all the time--doesn't make them a geek just because they are antisocial due to their addictions.
Gamers, for instance, can be geeks, but not all gamers are geeks. They're just kids who obsess over game playing. Now, you find me a guy who not only can play games AND assemble his own computer (an ability that was geek-elite, but now commonplace), but is also so knowledgeable in a scientific or technical topic or two to the point where you just know this guy could get a job in it someday (despite the fact that he learned all the stuff just for fun), then you have, in my mind a True Geek.
Does being able to recite lines from "Star Trek" or know the nuances between the Lord of the Rings book and movie characters count? Not really, in my mind. That's just a variation of appreciating fantasy. We used to call that "being a nerd." Girls and their imaginations of fairy tales and castles have been doing that for quite a while. But if you can attach a real-world component to that fantasy (such as research into the ability to, say, build a lightsaber replica that simulates the "real thing", then you approach the criteria of the Geek.
Being a Geek is not a passive activity, like gaming. Geeks explore, conquer, criticize, and hang out on/. dissing each other about topics few others care about, including dissing one of the richest men on the world. Did we forget that Bill Gates is the archetypical geek?
A Geek is a nerd with applied application of his knowledge in the real world.
How can you provide a "fix" for what is a truly normal part of ANY operating system's function? Specifically, the ability to open a file. This thing isn' taking advantage of a vunerabilty of the Mac OS per se.
This is not an inherent flaw in Mac OS or any operating system. Trojans take advantage of the user and their desire to open anything they see.
The only protection against a Trojan is information and eradication. When the "PKZIP" trojan came along years ago, disguised as an update to the archiving app, information on the new World Wide Web and email notified all that the item was not what it seemed. The file was quickly removed from servers all around.
Although this new Trojan is harmless, future attempts will not likely be so benign. So, pal, if you don't feel it's much of a threat, don't buy any software. Just come complaining when something happens that causes problems that could have been resolved by not being so cheap and using some foresight.
Trojans aren't new in the Mac world, of course. There have been viruses made for the original Mac OS, but very, very few in comparison to, say, MS-DOS and Windows: Approximately 50 Mac OS viruses compared to 20,000+ viruses and their ilk in the Windows world.
The method in which this trojan infects isn't new: Windows viruses often hide their true extension in the same way as this empty-payload Mac OS X trojan.
What is significant is what a payload-laden trojan could do the today's Mac OS world. As a tech, I get to see a fair audience of Macs in use and what software they use. The very concerning part is that very few (my estimate: less than 1 in 50) Macs use ANY kind of antivirus software.
Not that you can't find any: Aside from Intego (who make a fine firewall as well as their virus products), you can get Norton AntiVirus from Symantec and Virex from Network Associates. Yet, most of us don't own any AV software.
That's bad for two reasons. One: While most Windows malware we Mac users may receive by mail are harmless to our Mac OS X systems, we remain Typhoid Mary-esque carriers to other PCs. Two: Our complacency in saying that "Macs don't get viruses" does not ensure that we will not experience one later.
That "later" is now.
Further, the "security through obscurity" protection is gone with the move to OS X. It's just a UNIX OS now, no longer a relatively-closed OS, which means there are more people who are UNIX-savvy who can create malware than before. (Fortunately that also means there are plenty of Good Guys who can spot this stuff before Apple or AV vendors are made aware.)
While I doubt there will be lots of new Mac attacks soon, I would not wait until one shows up with a nasty payload. Buy some AV software and keep puttering along. I'm sure there's some ass out there with too much time on their hands who, like the guy who took the Word Macro "Concept" virus, added a payload and sent it on its way, who will love to make some pitiful Mac users suffer.
Also, consider creating a regular user account, which cannot install software. In the event that you do open something with a payload on that account, hopefully OS X's permissions will stop any attempts to change any file or program except those in that account's home folder. Thank God for the UNIX permissions system.
However, to keep the Samus-is-female mystique means a director will have to have a plot and dialogue that supports a person you cannot see. Not impossible, but does threaten to be a complete bore.
This also means that whoever you cast has to be able to ACT, since looking good comes only later in such a movie, if they follow the game mythos.
Remember that Jessica Albo, Ms. Jolie, and others are just actresses, guys. Some do their own stunts, but the idea of a twisting and turning action girl really exists only in your head. Hell, they could dig up some old fossil of a woman in this day of CG and make her spin around. Give me a real actress any day.
Real, WMP, QuickTime and Macs
on
Real Problems
·
· Score: 3, Informative
There is a Windows Media Player for Mac OS X and 9 that, like its RealPlayer for OS X counterpart, has few annoying "features' that appear in their Windows counterparts. Generally speaking, Mac users can use the streams from the major sites like NPR unless the streaming site has intentionally identified the Macintosh browser or player and refuses access, whether the stream is compatible or not.
WMP for Mac's streaming ability works fine. But this player, unlike the one built-in with Windows, only plays WMA streams and files, and lacks the iTunes-ish MP3 player features.
Of course, aside from the free RealPlayer (which, if you look at this link on a Mac browser that IDs itself as a Mac browser shows a simple link in the right corner to the free RealPlayer), there is QuickTime, which also plays streams well, but there are few sites that use it (one is Cartoon Network's Star Wars: Clone Wars site).
To make space viable, it takes the same thing that made other capital ventures viable: Volume, volume, volume.
Space needs to go commercial. The USA was built on the prospects of an unexplored and virgin land (sure, we annilihlated people in our conquest and enslaved others to do it, but that's not a new trick, either).
NASA has partially privatized its STS work, but a reason other than scientific exploration is needed. Given that, yes, the Bush plan doesn't really get to the heart of what's needed. A Best Reason.
If the moon were made of precious metals, we'd have that moon base 30 years ago...
Getting There, and Costs
on
The Wrong Stuff
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
STS (the Space [Shuttle] Transportation System) is a flawed system design, with little compromise or tolerance for failures, systemic or political. On that issue alone, STS must be replaced.
A much smaller Shuttle-like orbiter, which can be mated atop a Delta, Titan III or other medium-lift vehicle, is needed. It may look like the Crew Return Vehicle concept that's being rehashed into a shuttle replacement. I think it would have more merit to the old military DynaSoar project. Such a vehicle, unlike the Shuttle Orbiters we have, is not a truck...it would be a human taxi, with a small bay for some replacement consumables. For larger payloads and refurbs, use the old Orbiters--unmanned, remote controlled. If we can run robots from millions of miles away, we can surely do the same from low Earth orbit. In fact, the Russians showed it can be done with their own mortibund Shuttle--it's first and only flight was completely unmanned, from launch to landing. The old Orbiters would also double as rescue vehicles, along with having additional new Shuttle Taxis ready to go on other pads when a flight is in progress. We can't use single-use rockets for ISS refurbs since the pressurized cargo modules (like the special ones used by Orbiters during an ISS crew and experiment transition) has equipment that must come back. Only our Orbiters have the ability to return large equipment modules safely to Earth.
We should be able to adapt single-use rockets to send new ISS components for assembly. The ISS will need more arms, and a new Orbiter replacement might need something like the current Canadian remote arm.
The main thing I would recommend is (1) just make a reusable human taxi that (1) has an abort mode like the old Apollo spacecraft, where the new Orbiter can rocket away from the booster, as well as (2) a durable crew compartment that, in the case of normal reentry failure, could be separated from the larger body and land by parachute.
Baby steps, please. A Shuttle replacement need not be all things as our current ones tried to be. For LEO, a simple crew vehicle will work. Later, the ISS or a moonbase should be used to create new, true spacecraft that ferry and from the Moon, and can use lunar material to build a Mars vehicle.
When someone says that the cost to go to space is too expensive, I have to emphasize where the money goes to build the spacecraft. It's not like we take millions of dollar bills, smelt them into vehicles or stuff bills in the fuel tanks and set them afire. That money goes to WORKERS who build the space vehicles and COMPANIES that make jobs. That's economically a Good Thing.
My comment is mostly for the beanie-heads who are newer to Slashdot than us dyed-in-the-keyboard vets of many computers, so forgive me by driving home the obvious.
An operating system is an operating system is an operating system is an operating system. It's only purpose is to provide you, the user, a human-readable interface and control system for the computer's hardware and software.
How Linux, other UNIXen, and Windows handle this, however, is the big question to me when someone asks me the question that the article posed.
Applications designed for Windows are just that--developers typically use programming tools that create apps which are hardware-and-operating-system-specific. Barring an emulator such as Virtual PC (funny, that's owned now by Microsoft, too), Windows applications simply will not operate unless it has a conventional Intel-style PC hardware architecture running a specific flavor of Windows. And nope, your 16-bit Windows apps will likely break in Windows XP, so you have to hunt and peck for the app that works in the OS you have.
The UNIX family has things differently. UNIX-family applications are frequently hardware-agnostic and non-operating system-specific. You could be running Solaris, or FreeBSD, or Mandrake, or SuSE, or Darwin, or Mac OS X--generally, the code just works. (Plenty of exceptions, like OpenOffice ports to Mac OS X, but a version does work now in OS X's X11 environment, to take an example.)
Where you would walk into a computer store to buy Windows software, a *NIX user could download the source code for an application and compile it, or build it to work for their particular operating system and platform. Of course, we could buy the source code from a store as well, or the binaries for our platform, if a software maker distributed most of the UNIX software in that format. Currently, the inability of a home Linux user to visit CompUSA for the latest UNIX application is among the greatest challenges to *NIX as a popular home desktop OS (Mac OS X's inroads notwithstanding).
Nevertheless, I can download most BSD and many UNIX and Linux source code from my Mac OS X (BSD variant) workstations, compile it, and use it, without problem or complant. Windows users generally aren't compiling squat--they have to buy or find the already-assembled binaries that run within Windows--and pray that those versions of the binaries were compiled with their Windows version (and patch version, and service pack version) in mind.
The best example of a well-written application that doesn't particularly care about platform (at least in terms of its data files--binaries must still be obtained) is BioWare's Neverwinter Nights game series. It works on Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux. While the two expansion packs for the original game haven't yet been released in an official Mac version yet, because BioWare designed the game's data to be platform-agnostic, many impatient Mac users have figured out. without a lot of hassle, how to install the game expansions using the Linux versions of the games.
Windows is a proprietary operating system, and any applications written for it feed into that mold. The UNIX world is literally open in its design and flexibility. Don't confuse "open" for "Open Source," however--that's another (related) story.
Windows can support multiple users, but does not allow more than one user at a time to use the operating system in the classic UNIX sense.
And you actually said that "Windows NT was a complete redesign" for security without laughing out loud? The Windows design is anything but secure, and I don't have to prove it anymore than by going to work and trying to annililate the latest worms that have worked their way through several secure Windows proxy and mail servers, or even visiting the Symantec AV page.
Windows is one of the most flawed operating systems in terms of security, period. Wet tissue paper has fewer holes than that OS.
Your arguments are circular. It's really not the apps that are poor, but the safety they have in running within the OS, or the restrictions they are given so that NOTHING they do can affect the whole of the OS.
OF COURSE I haven't installed Linux since, oh, last week, for fun. I use a Macintosh. Don't care for that kind of complication, so I let more experienced people ensure my UNIX works for me.
I'm still waiting on someone listing something that Microsoft can be truly credited for as a true invention for the computer community that many have copied in appreciation.
The Apple menu, unlike the Windows Start menu, could be made to work that way in the original Mac OS, but you cannot make Mac OS X do this without hacking or third-party app. Further, the Apple menu doesn't self-configure in the same way as the Start menu does. I prefer icon-centricity myself, but Windows launches apps more consistently than in Mac OS X, where apps are now stored in one place, but can still be placed whereever you want, which is OK if you are the only one using it.
I agree with your other points--the rest of the way that Windows handles its Start menu is quite scary.
I like using my Mac OS X dock, but if you have a lot of programs to launch, the dock becomes less useful. I add my Applications folder to the dock to form an ersatz Start menu when I need to quick-launch.
Microsoft=GES (Good Enough Software)
on
Is Windows Worth $45?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Microsoft's OS design gives us only the menu-centric launching interface starting with Windows 95. It did one thing that the Mac OS hadn't (and still doesn't, being icon-centric in navigation of apps)--allow a quick way to launch an application.
Slowly, Microsoft added OS features that allowed plug-and-play hardware detection, and peer-to-peer networking. That's about all I can think of from the OS level. Again, nothing fancy--the Macintosh hardware was doing this since 1986 with the Mac Plus.
The Office suite was a nice integration of packages, however I don't know if that qualifies as innovation per se.
Has Microsoft matched its software pace to the rest of the computer industry pace? No.
SECURITY: While all other operating systems and hardware have presented and adapted new techniques to keep bad guys out with greater ease and reliability, Microsoft has merely patched and patched, foregoing any true complete redesign of any of their products for tighter security. A quick way to fix this would be to drop the W32 architecture as their primary architecture, pick up a Linux distro (they're free!), then have a new OS that runs UNIX apps, has UNIX-style security, yet can still run W32 apps. Remember that MS bought the Virtual PC emulation software, which is a much better WINE than WINE? (Mac users can testify to this). Running the flawed Windows in a virtual machine can isolate any malware inside the environment in the same way that Mac users run Windows in their version of VPC. That way any infections stay there, unable to affect the UNIX OS that runs the virtual machine.
PHILOSOPHY: Microsoft has never learned the KISS principle. Their software is too bloated with features that the designers thought people wanted without keeping focused on what was only needed. This bloat extends into the OS and its millions of code and all apps. Also, Microsoft is a "Not Invented Here" company that stifles competition (read: inspiration) that encourages new ideas and products. MS would have never dreamt of the hyperlinking browser--and they might have bought it up before CERN could get the idea out and buried it in a file cabinet if they thought about it.
I can go on and on, but I bet that others have a few more ideas that support what little I've said.
...is already included on The Two Towers Extended DVD box set, disc 1.
Go to the chapters area, then select the last chapter. Doing so should bring up a Ring that can be selected to play an intro from Peter J. and the full acceptance speech. (Peter J. has a great sense of humor to allow his coworkers/Gollum to call him a "fu**ing hack!" in the ditty.)
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps a person experienced in ATC software or hardware could enlighten us on the specific system in use, its OS and other trivial bits.
It would help to reduce the coming surge of Microsoft jokes, which is very likely not relevant here.
Does this idea remind anyone of a certain soldier, his AI and special combat suit?
The soldier with an AI watching over and monitoring movement alone would be a nice thing, a'la "Bitching Betty" voice warnings in military fighters.
If the AI suit has as nice of a voice as "Cortana," so much the better.
GPG actually ported DS to Mac OS X. It's playability was stronger due to a typical Mac's better-than-standard-issue video card (in my case, initially a GeForce 4MX 32MB).
It wasn't much different than Diablo II in playability, although I appreciated the ability to blend abilities to create characters, unlike in Diablo II where the character type is quite fixed.
I, too, was disappointed with the overall plot (the word "contrived" fits well) and lacked Diablo and Diablo II's storyline that kept its rigid universe interesting. Weapons, armor, and graphics were very nice, including the use of a true mule for loot (no other game since that has been popular enough for me to play on Mac OS X has duplicated this), the wide, wide world that had lots to explore (particularly the MP map), and showing definitive changes to the character's appearance as armor and weapons are added.
The bad news: The Mac version lacked an inherent MP game list system, since DirectPlay is not available for Mac OS X. Thankfully, GameRanger, a free game access service for some Mac games, worked well to link up Mac users. Next, while the Mac and PC versions essentially did and used the same resources, the use of DirectPlay for the PC version and coding changes with the Mac version made it impossible to play with PC users, nor was it possible to port character or game files from PC version to Mac, or vice versa.
That, and stability was a problem in some configurations. Overall, I enjoyed it for many months--it was actually the first game that broke my routine play of Diablo II, after I played that game and its expansion for almost 3 years.
Neither Diablo II nor Dungeon Siege hold a candle to Neverwinter Nights and its 2 expansions. Being an online adaptation of the D&D world, this game was designed for storylines, but does not slouch on game play in the slightest. And, although the official Mac versions of the two game expansions are not yet available, Mac OS X users can install the Linux game components to play both expansions without issue. Character and game files are easily transportable, and Mac, Windows, and Linux users can play and host without issue (only the Windows users can create worlds as the toolset was made only for this platform).
Still, I would appreciate a DS II if it arrives for Mac OS X. However, since GPG (and the Mac company, MacSoft, that ported the game) has not worked to bring its single expansion of DS I, called Legends of Arrana, to Mac OS X, I doubt it may show any earlier than 1 year--if at all--after DS II arrives for the PC. And, after enjoying the diversity of NWN, I'd be more cautious on the quality and usability of a GPS game.
To clarify amichalo's comments, many third-party players work with iTunes, and did before the iPOd.
However, only the iPod will accept AAC music files downloaded from iTMS. Not sure if there are other AAC/iTMS-compliant devices out there outside of the iPod.
Microsoft has the financial leverage to stick this out. They'll need it.
No other company has understood that Apple's success comes from the successful and uncomplicated integration of a good, simple audio player with an application with a simple interface for getting and playing your songs.
Other players may be cheaper, but their interfaces suck or place many restrictions. Consistency is the hobgoblin of the PC industry, which should not be confused with compatibility. Given that, there are gazillons of players and software products for the PC, and that factions the market just like the personal computer boon had dozens of different, but incompatible, types of personal computers.
People don't want to learn yet another way to play their music. The experience of getting, burning, and playing songs with iTunes is virtually the same on both Mac and Windows. No other music product can make that claim.
Like the personal computer boon, the market will clear out, leaving one dominant and secondary way to do things. I expect Apple to remain there if they continue to evolve the iPod and iTunes without increasing the price.
Babylon 5 had one thing going for it that Star Trek has never had.
AN ENDING to its story. Star Trek isn't a story, it's a LARP vampire game you can never leave!
A story gets boring when you drag the characters or themes around for an eternity. Bergman and friends need to read more Grecian novels. Heroes need to accomplish their tasks, and die. Cities rise and fall, bad guys are always vanquished in the end.
Sheridan dies a hero.
Valen/Sinclair dies a hero.
Kirk dies a hero, but it took too damn long to make it happen.
Apple's legal team might sue, but almost certainly send a letter of cease-and-desist of look-and-feel of the product.
Why would Apple care, especially since these apps work only on Linux boxes? (Assuming that this stuff compiles only for x86 and not PPC Linux distros...)
Because Apple must always show aggressive protection of their products' trade and servicemarks as well as their look and feel. While the resemblance to iPhoto and iTunes is mostly there, it's not something that Apple would win, IMO.
A suit or intimidating letter only creates history that courts can use (through Apple's attorneys) to keep Apple's products defined as a specific item or service, and reduce the chance of genericization.
Real has two products that compete with Apple's offerings:
- QuickTime Player's streaming vs. RealPlayer
- QuickTime Streaming Studio vs. Real Server
The advantage Apple has with QTSS is that it's free and usable on many operating systems.
Real offers no significant advantages in an allance, and, particularly, might not provide any changes in Apple's hardware sales (where their cash comes from).
Apple would sooner buy out Real than ally with it.
I generally agree.
However, Arnold is now an elected, and fully accountable official. His opinion now has the weight of official California state policy. If he screws up, or succeeds, its public record, and he will stay or be voted out.
"Fairness" is inherent to the right of Free Speech. Streisand speaks, I turn the channel. Limbaugh speaks, I listen with amusement. O'Reilly speaks, I find something else to do.
Liberal, conservative--I personally don't care of a person's party. I do care--greatly--when someone comes up with some inane idea and tries to enact it, but is not an elected official.
If I could mod in the same place I post, I would mod you up for your appropriate use of a paraphrasing of Voltaire's quote (at least, I think it's his quote).
The person who wields their Free Speech rights should remember that it's like a sword. Many people wave it all about, expecting to cut, but few seem to know that we ALL have swords, and you are expected to parry (that is, defend your reasons for saying what you've said) or be cut yourself.
When it comes to speaking your mind about almost anything, few countries or people have it as good as the people of the United States, even in this post-September 11 world.
I get annoyed, however, at people, most notably the cults of personalities we call celebrities, who think that they have a right to make their words and comments louder or have them deemed more important than others. Two words: Barbra Streisand. Another two words: Jane Fonda. Look, I'm glad the two of you have an opinion, but just because you make millions in Hollywood and have played many roles in film doesn't give you any more credibility than the guy who slaves all day for his family.
Another problem I have is how some people think that Free Speech is a one-way thing, as if they can say what they want without criticism. The Dixie Chicks' Natalie Maines learned this lesson the hard way. True, as an American on our soil you are free to express an opinion. However, the Americans who are listening to you are also free to react to your opinion by counter-comment, or even just to ignore what you said. In the case of Ms. Maines, some folks decided that they would ignore her group's album for a while.
Free speech always costs somebody something. My feeling is that the Right of Free Speech wouldn't be worth anything if you didn't lose something as you exercised your right.
Free speech is self-correcting as well. That is its true power. The very existance of Slashdot, and of the web article that spawned this topic is an example of the balance that true Free Speech maintains.
Maybe I'm all wet, but I remember the times where "geek" was more synonymous with "freak" (as in a deformity) and the term bookworm was used to describe me by sneering kids in my elementary school.
/. dissing each other about topics few others care about, including dissing one of the richest men on the world. Did we forget that Bill Gates is the archetypical geek?
It's easy to throw out the term "geek" to describe anyone who plays video games or understands what a computer is. However, for any definition to have meaning, there has to be a limitation. We can't all be geeks, per se...some of us may just be geek-compatible, or geek-like.
I think geekness changes with the times, of course. In my youth, I experimented with making my own batteries, assembling logic circuits, signal amps, lightwave communicators, and oscillators on breadboards. I launched model rockets, and gazed at the stars, and could tell you anything about the space program and its history.
So, a geek, in my mind, is a person with a deep fascination in the technological aspects of life and his world, and whose social nature and recreation frequently revolves around such aspects of science and technology.
Frequently, geeks are so involved with their interests that it supplants their social life--but this is common to anyone who gets too wrapped up in something, foregoing sex just to enjoy more of the diversion. Drug addicts do this all the time--doesn't make them a geek just because they are antisocial due to their addictions.
Gamers, for instance, can be geeks, but not all gamers are geeks. They're just kids who obsess over game playing. Now, you find me a guy who not only can play games AND assemble his own computer (an ability that was geek-elite, but now commonplace), but is also so knowledgeable in a scientific or technical topic or two to the point where you just know this guy could get a job in it someday (despite the fact that he learned all the stuff just for fun), then you have, in my mind a True Geek.
Does being able to recite lines from "Star Trek" or know the nuances between the Lord of the Rings book and movie characters count? Not really, in my mind. That's just a variation of appreciating fantasy. We used to call that "being a nerd." Girls and their imaginations of fairy tales and castles have been doing that for quite a while. But if you can attach a real-world component to that fantasy (such as research into the ability to, say, build a lightsaber replica that simulates the "real thing", then you approach the criteria of the Geek.
Being a Geek is not a passive activity, like gaming. Geeks explore, conquer, criticize, and hang out on
A Geek is a nerd with applied application of his knowledge in the real world.
How can you provide a "fix" for what is a truly normal part of ANY operating system's function? Specifically, the ability to open a file. This thing isn' taking advantage of a vunerabilty of the Mac OS per se.
This is not an inherent flaw in Mac OS or any operating system. Trojans take advantage of the user and their desire to open anything they see.
The only protection against a Trojan is information and eradication. When the "PKZIP" trojan came along years ago, disguised as an update to the archiving app, information on the new World Wide Web and email notified all that the item was not what it seemed. The file was quickly removed from servers all around.
Although this new Trojan is harmless, future attempts will not likely be so benign. So, pal, if you don't feel it's much of a threat, don't buy any software. Just come complaining when something happens that causes problems that could have been resolved by not being so cheap and using some foresight.
Trojans aren't new in the Mac world, of course. There have been viruses made for the original Mac OS, but very, very few in comparison to, say, MS-DOS and Windows: Approximately 50 Mac OS viruses compared to 20,000+ viruses and their ilk in the Windows world.
The method in which this trojan infects isn't new: Windows viruses often hide their true extension in the same way as this empty-payload Mac OS X trojan.
What is significant is what a payload-laden trojan could do the today's Mac OS world. As a tech, I get to see a fair audience of Macs in use and what software they use. The very concerning part is that very few (my estimate: less than 1 in 50) Macs use ANY kind of antivirus software.
Not that you can't find any: Aside from Intego (who make a fine firewall as well as their virus products), you can get Norton AntiVirus from Symantec and Virex from Network Associates. Yet, most of us don't own any AV software.
That's bad for two reasons. One: While most Windows malware we Mac users may receive by mail are harmless to our Mac OS X systems, we remain Typhoid Mary-esque carriers to other PCs. Two: Our complacency in saying that "Macs don't get viruses" does not ensure that we will not experience one later.
That "later" is now.
Further, the "security through obscurity" protection is gone with the move to OS X. It's just a UNIX OS now, no longer a relatively-closed OS, which means there are more people who are UNIX-savvy who can create malware than before. (Fortunately that also means there are plenty of Good Guys who can spot this stuff before Apple or AV vendors are made aware.)
While I doubt there will be lots of new Mac attacks soon, I would not wait until one shows up with a nasty payload. Buy some AV software and keep puttering along. I'm sure there's some ass out there with too much time on their hands who, like the guy who took the Word Macro "Concept" virus, added a payload and sent it on its way, who will love to make some pitiful Mac users suffer.
Also, consider creating a regular user account, which cannot install software. In the event that you do open something with a payload on that account, hopefully OS X's permissions will stop any attempts to change any file or program except those in that account's home folder. Thank God for the UNIX permissions system.
Interesting idea, folks.
However, to keep the Samus-is-female mystique means a director will have to have a plot and dialogue that supports a person you cannot see. Not impossible, but does threaten to be a complete bore.
This also means that whoever you cast has to be able to ACT, since looking good comes only later in such a movie, if they follow the game mythos.
Remember that Jessica Albo, Ms. Jolie, and others are just actresses, guys. Some do their own stunts, but the idea of a twisting and turning action girl really exists only in your head. Hell, they could dig up some old fossil of a woman in this day of CG and make her spin around. Give me a real actress any day.
There is a Windows Media Player for Mac OS X and 9 that, like its RealPlayer for OS X counterpart, has few annoying "features' that appear in their Windows counterparts. Generally speaking, Mac users can use the streams from the major sites like NPR unless the streaming site has intentionally identified the Macintosh browser or player and refuses access, whether the stream is compatible or not.
WMP for Mac's streaming ability works fine. But this player, unlike the one built-in with Windows, only plays WMA streams and files, and lacks the iTunes-ish MP3 player features.
Of course, aside from the free RealPlayer (which, if you look at this link on a Mac browser that IDs itself as a Mac browser shows a simple link in the right corner to the free RealPlayer), there is QuickTime, which also plays streams well, but there are few sites that use it (one is Cartoon Network's Star Wars: Clone Wars site).
...I want that spammer's ball sac for a potpourri-filled an air freshener.
Yeah, pal, I got your "male enhancement" right HERE...
I agree.
To make space viable, it takes the same thing that made other capital ventures viable: Volume, volume, volume.
Space needs to go commercial. The USA was built on the prospects of an unexplored and virgin land (sure, we annilihlated people in our conquest and enslaved others to do it, but that's not a new trick, either).
NASA has partially privatized its STS work, but a reason other than scientific exploration is needed. Given that, yes, the Bush plan doesn't really get to the heart of what's needed. A Best Reason.
If the moon were made of precious metals, we'd have that moon base 30 years ago...
STS (the Space [Shuttle] Transportation System) is a flawed system design, with little compromise or tolerance for failures, systemic or political. On that issue alone, STS must be replaced.
A much smaller Shuttle-like orbiter, which can be mated atop a Delta, Titan III or other medium-lift vehicle, is needed. It may look like the Crew Return Vehicle concept that's being rehashed into a shuttle replacement. I think it would have more merit to the old military DynaSoar project. Such a vehicle, unlike the Shuttle Orbiters we have, is not a truck...it would be a human taxi, with a small bay for some replacement consumables. For larger payloads and refurbs, use the old Orbiters--unmanned, remote controlled. If we can run robots from millions of miles away, we can surely do the same from low Earth orbit. In fact, the Russians showed it can be done with their own mortibund Shuttle--it's first and only flight was completely unmanned, from launch to landing. The old Orbiters would also double as rescue vehicles, along with having additional new Shuttle Taxis ready to go on other pads when a flight is in progress. We can't use single-use rockets for ISS refurbs since the pressurized cargo modules (like the special ones used by Orbiters during an ISS crew and experiment transition) has equipment that must come back. Only our Orbiters have the ability to return large equipment modules safely to Earth.
We should be able to adapt single-use rockets to send new ISS components for assembly. The ISS will need more arms, and a new Orbiter replacement might need something like the current Canadian remote arm.
The main thing I would recommend is (1) just make a reusable human taxi that (1) has an abort mode like the old Apollo spacecraft, where the new Orbiter can rocket away from the booster, as well as (2) a durable crew compartment that, in the case of normal reentry failure, could be separated from the larger body and land by parachute.
Baby steps, please. A Shuttle replacement need not be all things as our current ones tried to be. For LEO, a simple crew vehicle will work. Later, the ISS or a moonbase should be used to create new, true spacecraft that ferry and from the Moon, and can use lunar material to build a Mars vehicle.
When someone says that the cost to go to space is too expensive, I have to emphasize where the money goes to build the spacecraft. It's not like we take millions of dollar bills, smelt them into vehicles or stuff bills in the fuel tanks and set them afire. That money goes to WORKERS who build the space vehicles and COMPANIES that make jobs. That's economically a Good Thing.
My comment is mostly for the beanie-heads who are newer to Slashdot than us dyed-in-the-keyboard vets of many computers, so forgive me by driving home the obvious.
An operating system is an operating system is an operating system is an operating system. It's only purpose is to provide you, the user, a human-readable interface and control system for the computer's hardware and software.
How Linux, other UNIXen, and Windows handle this, however, is the big question to me when someone asks me the question that the article posed.
Applications designed for Windows are just that--developers typically use programming tools that create apps which are hardware-and-operating-system-specific. Barring an emulator such as Virtual PC (funny, that's owned now by Microsoft, too), Windows applications simply will not operate unless it has a conventional Intel-style PC hardware architecture running a specific flavor of Windows. And nope, your 16-bit Windows apps will likely break in Windows XP, so you have to hunt and peck for the app that works in the OS you have.
The UNIX family has things differently. UNIX-family applications are frequently hardware-agnostic and non-operating system-specific. You could be running Solaris, or FreeBSD, or Mandrake, or SuSE, or Darwin, or Mac OS X--generally, the code just works. (Plenty of exceptions, like OpenOffice ports to Mac OS X, but a version does work now in OS X's X11 environment, to take an example.)
Where you would walk into a computer store to buy Windows software, a *NIX user could download the source code for an application and compile it, or build it to work for their particular operating system and platform. Of course, we could buy the source code from a store as well, or the binaries for our platform, if a software maker distributed most of the UNIX software in that format. Currently, the inability of a home Linux user to visit CompUSA for the latest UNIX application is among the greatest challenges to *NIX as a popular home desktop OS (Mac OS X's inroads notwithstanding).
Nevertheless, I can download most BSD and many UNIX and Linux source code from my Mac OS X (BSD variant) workstations, compile it, and use it, without problem or complant. Windows users generally aren't compiling squat--they have to buy or find the already-assembled binaries that run within Windows--and pray that those versions of the binaries were compiled with their Windows version (and patch version, and service pack version) in mind.
The best example of a well-written application that doesn't particularly care about platform (at least in terms of its data files--binaries must still be obtained) is BioWare's Neverwinter Nights game series. It works on Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux. While the two expansion packs for the original game haven't yet been released in an official Mac version yet, because BioWare designed the game's data to be platform-agnostic, many impatient Mac users have figured out. without a lot of hassle, how to install the game expansions using the Linux versions of the games.
Windows is a proprietary operating system, and any applications written for it feed into that mold. The UNIX world is literally open in its design and flexibility. Don't confuse "open" for "Open Source," however--that's another (related) story.
Windows can support multiple users, but does not allow more than one user at a time to use the operating system in the classic UNIX sense.
And you actually said that "Windows NT was a complete redesign" for security without laughing out loud? The Windows design is anything but secure, and I don't have to prove it anymore than by going to work and trying to annililate the latest worms that have worked their way through several secure Windows proxy and mail servers, or even visiting the Symantec AV page.
Windows is one of the most flawed operating systems in terms of security, period. Wet tissue paper has fewer holes than that OS.
Your arguments are circular. It's really not the apps that are poor, but the safety they have in running within the OS, or the restrictions they are given so that NOTHING they do can affect the whole of the OS.
OF COURSE I haven't installed Linux since, oh, last week, for fun. I use a Macintosh. Don't care for that kind of complication, so I let more experienced people ensure my UNIX works for me.
I'm still waiting on someone listing something that Microsoft can be truly credited for as a true invention for the computer community that many have copied in appreciation.
The Apple menu, unlike the Windows Start menu, could be made to work that way in the original Mac OS, but you cannot make Mac OS X do this without hacking or third-party app. Further, the Apple menu doesn't self-configure in the same way as the Start menu does. I prefer icon-centricity myself, but Windows launches apps more consistently than in Mac OS X, where apps are now stored in one place, but can still be placed whereever you want, which is OK if you are the only one using it.
I agree with your other points--the rest of the way that Windows handles its Start menu is quite scary.
I like using my Mac OS X dock, but if you have a lot of programs to launch, the dock becomes less useful. I add my Applications folder to the dock to form an ersatz Start menu when I need to quick-launch.
Microsoft's OS design gives us only the menu-centric launching interface starting with Windows 95. It did one thing that the Mac OS hadn't (and still doesn't, being icon-centric in navigation of apps)--allow a quick way to launch an application.
Slowly, Microsoft added OS features that allowed plug-and-play hardware detection, and peer-to-peer networking. That's about all I can think of from the OS level. Again, nothing fancy--the Macintosh hardware was doing this since 1986 with the Mac Plus.
The Office suite was a nice integration of packages, however I don't know if that qualifies as innovation per se.
Has Microsoft matched its software pace to the rest of the computer industry pace? No.
SECURITY: While all other operating systems and hardware have presented and adapted new techniques to keep bad guys out with greater ease and reliability, Microsoft has merely patched and patched, foregoing any true complete redesign of any of their products for tighter security. A quick way to fix this would be to drop the W32 architecture as their primary architecture, pick up a Linux distro (they're free!), then have a new OS that runs UNIX apps, has UNIX-style security, yet can still run W32 apps. Remember that MS bought the Virtual PC emulation software, which is a much better WINE than WINE? (Mac users can testify to this). Running the flawed Windows in a virtual machine can isolate any malware inside the environment in the same way that Mac users run Windows in their version of VPC. That way any infections stay there, unable to affect the UNIX OS that runs the virtual machine.
PHILOSOPHY: Microsoft has never learned the KISS principle. Their software is too bloated with features that the designers thought people wanted without keeping focused on what was only needed. This bloat extends into the OS and its millions of code and all apps. Also, Microsoft is a "Not Invented Here" company that stifles competition (read: inspiration) that encourages new ideas and products. MS would have never dreamt of the hyperlinking browser--and they might have bought it up before CERN could get the idea out and buried it in a file cabinet if they thought about it.
I can go on and on, but I bet that others have a few more ideas that support what little I've said.
You can also find it online.
...is already included on The Two Towers Extended DVD box set, disc 1.
Go to the chapters area, then select the last chapter. Doing so should bring up a Ring that can be selected to play an intro from Peter J. and the full acceptance speech. (Peter J. has a great sense of humor to allow his coworkers/Gollum to call him a "fu**ing hack!" in the ditty.)