I wasn't discussing simply just realaudio/realvideo vs wma/wmv. I was discussing microsoft as the entity they are. Don't take what I say out of its context. Microsoft didn't try to control the web browsing market fairly. If you are blind enough to belief so thats your prerogative.
The reason people switch is because in most cases they don't have to switch they are already using Microsoft products that were preinstalled for them. You're just trolling right?
Microsoft isn't trying to control anything based on merit or technical superiority. They are trying to control the market by forcing exisiting competitors out of it. I see Microsoft as a modern day "Mafioso"; the difference is that the sleepy heads in gov't will not make change until it's absolutely too late. The stuff Microsoft is doing wouldn't have been tolerated 20 yrs ago, times change and the people in gov't change and/or get greedy and the only hope is that they get greedy enough to choke on their own salivation.
You seemingly have an odd sense of what a "summer blockbuster" means. This movie was absolutely horrible. The special effects don't rival anything I've seen and were done extremely poorly. All in all I'd have to agree with the latter review done by Cmdrtaco. This movie was a movie I could of probably watched on Scifi.
Neither Microsoft nor the government are in any way able to enforce that you do otherwise - in fact there's this little thing called the Constitution that protects you.
Not yet.. but they will soon enough with things like the DMCA.
A learjet isn't capable.. It just doesn't have the mods necessary unless you'd like it to implode on the way up. The pressure itself would be enough to crush it..
I don't think we disagree so much on the facts, more on the future. Your mentioning the DMCA, "there are major changes and growth that have been going on for the past 5 yrs and no one is paying any attention" and such are all points I agree with completely -- I just believe that in the long run those will prove to be temporary eccentricities in the system. At any given point in time, you can find some parts that are out of whack, but as a whole, and over time, I think history shows the system gets more equitable.
I'm not talking about 5 or 10 or 20 years, but over 50-100 or 200 years, we have more individual freedom today, and take them legally for granted, than any humans in any society before. The same was true of those 500 years ago compared to the ones 1000 years ago -- less likley to be called up by the king, less likely to have their property overrun, more likely to be defended from disaster, etc. It's pretty tough to die of starvation or exposure today in the US (and most other 1st world countries), something that wasn't true even 100 years ago. It would be shocking for someone to lose their home because someone stronger felt like moving in. It bothers us to hear about cases such as Diallo in NYC, when even 50 years ago that sort of thing was just considered "good fun" by a large part of the country.
I agree, that we disagree on the future. Maybe I'm slightly pessimistic and your outcome will be true. Then again I look around at some of these laws we have and am frightened at the path we are taking. History proves that before it ever gets good it's gotta get really really bad and the thing is that we might not be able to make change because of the existing laws. No matter how much people band together it won't matter then. It's a scary thought and maybe I'm just too pessimistic.. maybe. Good convo, by the way. It's rare that people on slashdot have enough attention span to debate such issues humanely.
There IS a reason that the penalty is light. If cops got 20 yrs to life for shooting someone in error, they would be terrified to draw their guns. What if they hit someone by accident? What if the person they were facing was only pretending to have a gun? If cops were terrified to draw their guns, criminals would be more bold. The effectiveness of law enforcement would be reduced in situations where guns were really needed.
I am not in any way condoning the shooting of an unarmed 15-yr old, and I wish that the cop in question would get a longer sentence. My point is that there IS a reason why the law is the way it is. There isn't really a way to change the law in such a way that it is 100% fair all of the time, and the lawmakers do the best they can. It might be easy in hindsight to propose a modification to this law that might have saved this case, for example making a much stiffer penalty for shooting minors. But that modification might have other effects. How is a cop to tell, in a few seconds, whether the person he is about to shoot is a minor or not? You see the difficulty.
The problem with that is that you're viewing the case in the wrong light. Policeman should always be wary about pulling their weapons it should be the last resort and not the first. Which in this case it wasn't, If you have a 15 yr old kid running from you, you don't pull out your weapon and shoot to kill. You call in backup and have him stopped if you can't catch him. At least shoot the kid in the leg, you don't shoot to kill. There are certain things you do and don't do as a police officer and from the general concensus of some police officers in that neighborhood, they feel that he should of gotten the maximum possible sentence because it makes them look unprofessional. It also makes their jobs harder, in the heat of the moment they've got alot of things to run through their head before they decide if they should take that shot and that can cost them their lives.
Totally unprofessional, uncalled for behavior, not in control. This officer was all of the three. If your brother,cousin,friend was running away from a cop in fear they might get into trouble for stealing a bad of candy do you condone their death sentence, with no trial and jury?
And there is probably some darwin advocate who has probably done it for many of the popular apps. It'd be a straightforward task for a developer with BSD experience, less work on packages that already work on FreeBSD and NetBSD, more work for packages that use Linuxisms.
No, that hasn't happened yet eventually it will. It's only a couple of minor changes you'd probably have to make.
Easier said than done. I couldn't get anything out of Freshmeat's list of FTP servers or a Google search for open-source windows FTP server, while open-source windows HTTP server turned up Apache as the second result. Not only that, but HTTP has a lower connection setup and teardown cost than FTP.
You want to transfer files but would prefer not to use the File Transfer Protocol, thats funny. Finding an open source ftpd server is not hard. Go to www.download.com or somewhere, you'll eventually find one for windows. And setting up an anonymous FTP site takes all of 2 mins.
The default settings handle most basic cases of running Apache on a personal workstation, giving you about the same features as the IM clients' built-in file servers have, with the most commonly changed option (at least on the WinApache installations I've done) being which domain name to return to HTTP/1.0 clients.
Default settings handle most basic cases maybe for you and the purpose that you are using it for which is for file transfers. Most people that setup a webserver use it for its purpose and that is to serve.html pages. I'll repeat again, If you think you can write a GUI configuration program for Apache without making it restrictive; then go ahead.
If I quote the messages would just get too long.. A couple of quick stuff to point out in this message. Just a quick list of refuting arguments.
1. If you look at what goals were fought for in the past you'd see that we weren't such a fragmented nation. It's good to be diverse and to have different cultures and groups etc but when that means you are making laws for each of these "specific" groups there is a problem.
2. Letting 100 guilty men go free is better than to jail 1 man. Letting 1 guilty man go free when you have evidence but the law PROHIBITS you from such action as "jailing" means the law needs to be changed.
3. You are not FREE in this country (by free I mean not being watched, not being hampered or blindlingly giving your rights over to corporations) People do it everyday. Infact our current technological state of affairs would show this best. You really aren't FREE and the clamp is being tightened down everyday. You are only as FREE as your mind is and your mind can't be free if you are hindered doing certain things because of things like the DMCA or IP rights etc.
4. Our nation is a very unsecure one thats all I can really say about that. With the explosive growth of the internet expect to see alot more terrorists attack not just on computers but on major cities in the US cities with alot of people. On the personal level we are a 1st rate nation without proper healthcare facilities for the public paid for by the gov't. Go to switzerland.. walk into a hospital and you'll be treated infact in some countries the gov't employs the unemployed. You seriously need to read up on that. When it comes to socialism and providing our people with stuff like healthcare, welfare etc we are far behind.
5. Are founding fathers? That's your opinion and I would agree to a certain extent. However I don't like to think about what people would have or might say should they be around. I'd rather look at the current state of affairs and make logical decisions based on the past. History itself is always a teacher.
6. I believe I've read that.. I'll head over to the library on tuesday or something but I'm not debating the fact that our legal system has come far. Trust me, I know it's come far. However I'm debating the fact that it's anywhere near perfect. During those Supreme Court cases major changes took place sculpting the system we have today.. Which is good. However there are major changes and growth that have been going on for the past 5 yrs and no one is paying any attention. The law is not being sculpted for the people by the people; It's being sculpted by private industry and interests groups with alot of money. That in my opinion would of made the founding fathers blood high but obviously I don't speak for them I'm speaking for myself.
The legal system works, in the long run, for 99.999999% of the cases it handles. The rest, eventually, will cause changes in the law, because those extraordinary circumstances offend us.
Are you serious?! Or just joking? And who is US? Are you aware of the current state of America? It's turning into a segregagist, group like country. Where every group want's to have their voices heard instead of us speaking as a nation.
Yes, that particular offender may never be punished, but that is an individual case, not a systematic one. Again, there are too many cases to list where "the particular offender is never punished" you simply don't know what you are talking about. I attribute this to the fact that you are a white anglo saxon protestant male who has seen the legal system only work and not fail. Why don't you go down to the Brooklyn DA's office and ask about murders, burgularly and theft, missing persons who they know the culprits for but they aren't jailed. They walk the street.
Your knowledge of the past is pretty weak if you can claim that modern american citizen are by any relative measure "injured". We are the single most privleged, protected, and secure society that has ever existed on planet earth, bar none.
We are the single most privileged? Depends on what you mean my privleged. I'd rather be free. Protected? That's not it; it's just that any other country hasn't become extremely pissed off yet. The 310th MP battalion can tell you alot about that. Secure?! You obviously don't know what you're talking about, seriously you just don't know what you're talking about.
If you believe that last statement about the legal future being closer to the ideal "we're" pursing you really need to take a class in law. The legal system is nowhere near what the founding fathers called the ideal system.. Not to insult you but please go read a book on the history of our law and then compare to our current state of affairs.
Re:There's lots of software; Apache is useful
on
OSX/Win2K Deathmatch
·
· Score: 1
Mac OS X has four application subsystems: Classic, Carbon, Cocoa, and POSIX + X11. Programs that run in POSIX + XonX see the Mac as a mixed FreeBSD/NetBSD box running an X11 server. You can find almost any POSIX + X11 app you need at OSDN Freshmeat
I never debated that. I know this, granted you seem to take in account that ANY POSIX+X11 app will work that's not the case, for some of the apps on freshmeat you'd need to hack up some of the code.
How else are you supposed to share files? Email is out because your ISP says the files are too large to fit in attachments. NFS, SMB, etc. are out because they're platform specific and don't work across dial-up. That's why I run Apache on my Linux box and WinApache on my Windows ME box, so that I can send files to users on other IM services.
File Transfer Protocol otherwise known as ftp. NFS does work across dialup and so does SMB. It just isn't a feasible idea. All you have to do is find an ftp server for windows and start it, add users etc.
Except "any other software program" the user is likely to encounter on a Macintosh computer has GUI configuration.
Yeah and? Most people that ran apache on a mac before this will have no problem. They are the users I'm talking about. New users will just have to learn how to do it. If you think you can write a GUI configuration program for Apache without making it restrictive; then go ahead.. Just be sure to either sell it (no exhorbant pricing) or submit the source to the apache source tree.
Whether you consider the comment out-of context or not, even in the larger context you'll find that the original poster is right here. The reveiwer fails to notice that these apps *are* available under Win2k. The fact that he bundled this comment in with a comment about usability doesn't make his assertions any more valid.
What apps are you discussing here? The original writer of the comment didn't include anything about apps and as for the article; with general conceptual knowledge of the two operating systems; everyone knows that windows basically has more apps. Finding software for the MAC is a pain in the ass. I've never debated that and neither did the article.
And as for the Apache issue, I think the point the poster was trying to make is that an average user can enable IIS and has a *GUI* to configure it. The same is true of ftpd (which I'm sure is why it was added). It would be a hell of a lot easier explaining how to start the webserver to a "newbie" with a GUI as opposed to having to manually configure the daemons in a non-GUI way.
IIS is not Apache (never confuse the two). Having a GUI to configure apache isn't gonna make much difference infact it's quite worthless. You can use "Comanche" which would be the best option if you did need such a thing. If a newbie wants to setup a webserver it's best that they learn how to configure apache by hand. Not only that but a regular desktop user isn't going to be needing apache so there is no point in turning it on. A power user however won't mind editing their own conf file for the webserver process, GUI's just can't cut writing your own config the way you like it. It'd also help prevent people throwing up Apache properly unconfigured. And yes if a newbie wants his own webserver and wants to use Apache he or she must learn it just like any other software program. If they want to use IIS they can also do that, that's what is called users choice.
Linuxconf is not an apache GUI configuration (if it is; i'm sorry I just don't think anyone would be stupid enough to even use linuxconf for such a task or anything else for that matter) program and I don't know what apacheconf is, if you could provide links I'd appreciate it. I don't believe I'm ignorning anything, his points weren't that valid and I believe all he did was selectively pull comments to blow out of proportion.
You take what they say out of context and add your own meaning.
In this category, Windows 2000 is simply overmatched. When it comes to Internet-ready operating systems, Apple stepped ahead way back at OS 9
This is laughable as well. Every single thing the guy listed for OSX, Win2k Pro comes with. Well, Microsoft doesn't supply free WebDav space, but I doubt the OS can be faulted for that.
"Apple stepped ahead way back at OS 9"; Win2K professional doesn't have the ease of use setting up an internet connection for a "dumb user".
OS X delivers the killing blow with its integration of Apache
Thats the big FUD. Sure, Apple biggybacks on the work of others and includes that stuff. But its by no means integration. Its just a checkbox for on or off, I see no frontend for configuring all of the httpd or ftpd options.
Windows has ISS (MAC OSX is unix and can run your favorite httpd/ftp/gopher etc servers) and Apache isn't in the ftpd business so why the jab there? Apple isn't in the server game, they are in the user arena and have provided power users the option of server capabilities with a robust backend at the same time allowing "I just want to get my stuff done" users a nice UI. Which is what everyone knows however you've taken it out of context.
The article was more about usability than not. Even though I don't think it was of much substance you've put a new spin on it and have taking it out of context. That is what is known as a zealot and or troll.
Free? No. Microsoft doesn't give anything away freely. It all has it's price. The sooner you learn that the price you are paying is with your own freedom of choice the quicker you yourself become free.
It's truly sad that you feel that way, it just proves to me how unaware people are of what free means and how blindingly they'd give up having a choice.
What is it Microsoft week on slashdot or something? Can we get back to more urgent and pressing matters like I dunno maybe a couple of benchmarks on some of the apache 2.0 alphas. I'm sick about hearing about Microsoft! Stop it.
It's a corporation and as such will do anything for the almighty dollar. They don't care about morals because that's simply not their job. As for me, I could hardly care because at the end of the day it doesn't affect me in the least. When people want interoperability I'll just charge more. Oh you'd like standards with that? Write to Microsoft. That's not my problem and no I don't care about your deadline it just isn't technically feasible and if it is, it's going to cost you. Don't like the pricing? Find someone else. Eventually people will get fed up with exhorbant prices and then having to pay people like me more exhorbant prices to get the job done.
When all is said and done I go home at the end of the day a little bit more richer with alot of free software on my desktop. What can Microsoft do about that? Not much.
All you have to do is do your part, continue to write code, innovate etc. Eventually people will wonder why they are paying through the nose and the guys over there got their stuff for free.
Actually I was the national winner of the junior barrister competition. The finals held at Hofstra university. I was 13 or maybe 14 at the time so I suspect I'd have some slight clue about the justice system. I'm also pretty sure you can look it up somewhere. My professor at the time was a Mr. David Feldman. I won my case by being a sleaze bag and that is currently why I am not a lawyer however I'm investigating the possiblities of becoming a lawyer and providing my services to battle such cases as DeCSS; as soon as I finish my compsci degree.
Seriously now, a lawyer (person who deals with law and the justice system as his/her profession) is going to know a lot more about the American justice system than you. Just 'cause you read about a few instances of outrageous things happening in the media (who make a living off of reporting outrageous things) doesn't mean that the American legal system is flawed.
That is not true, the fact of it is that there are good lawyers and bad lawyers (in my eyes good and evil exist as well). The media only picks up on some of these cases so you have to wonder how many others go unheard. To be frank, "Outrageous" isn't the correct word, tantanum to murder is a phrase that sums it up for me and I sincerely wish it was only a few incidents however, that simply just isn't true.
Further, I urge you to not be overly cynical about our justice system. Yes, there are flaws which subject our legal system to manipulation and abuse and, yes, things move slowly and sometimes backward for periods, but I truly believe that our system is pretty good and eventually produces the correct results.
You're too new of a lawyer to make a comment like that. Considering the past and present I can't be cynical enough about our justice system! Unarmed men being shot down for no reason and their murderers get 6 months in jail. Here in NYC in 1999 a cop shot a 15 yr old kid from running from him. The max time he can serve is 1 yr on the misdemanor charge, He'll serve if convicted probably about 4-5 months max.
Your justice system and mine are two different justice systems. For me past, present and I hope not but most likely future have proven that. I applaud you for your love of the system but comments like that are an insult to and injured public.
If they taught gambling in schools the gambling industry would be out of business. The odds of you winning any money when you step into a casino are slim and if you do win money the feelings of ambition are going to outweigh your common sense. Unless you're obviously doing it all for fun. Also there are certain games like poker, blackjack etc that don't require that much of statistical math skill. It's more about technique and the way you play the game against an opponent.
Gambling can be very wholesome fun especially if you love losing money. You're more likely to be hit by a run away truck who's driver broke out of a federal state prison on a military base, than to win gambling in casinos.
I just couldn't throw my computer into the trash. The net betting thing is hard to implement and verifying via GPS isn't feasible considering the I might feel like playing while I'm not in a legal state. The commerce/verifying etc is what's going to be hard. More power to them for trying but I don't think it's going to be easy as they claim.
Exactly how do you plan to do that? It always sounds good until you actually try and do it. Personally; I don't even know where you'd begin with such an idea.
I don't have the slightest idea where to begin. Getting it off the ground would take a while and alot of hand holding but after about 3-4 months it could be done. I don't have any links to neural nets or AI but this would be a perfect application of its uses.
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't discussing simply just realaudio/realvideo vs wma/wmv. I was discussing microsoft as the entity they are. Don't take what I say out of its context. Microsoft didn't try to control the web browsing market fairly. If you are blind enough to belief so thats your prerogative.
The reason people switch is because in most cases they don't have to switch they are already using Microsoft products that were preinstalled for them. You're just trolling right?
Microsoft isn't trying to control anything based on merit or technical superiority. They are trying to control the market by forcing exisiting competitors out of it. I see Microsoft as a modern day "Mafioso"; the difference is that the sleepy heads in gov't will not make change until it's absolutely too late. The stuff Microsoft is doing wouldn't have been tolerated 20 yrs ago, times change and the people in gov't change and/or get greedy and the only hope is that they get greedy enough to choke on their own salivation.
You seemingly have an odd sense of what a "summer blockbuster" means. This movie was absolutely horrible. The special effects don't rival anything I've seen and were done extremely poorly. All in all I'd have to agree with the latter review done by Cmdrtaco. This movie was a movie I could of probably watched on Scifi.
Justunixjobs.com?
Neither Microsoft nor the government are in any way able to enforce that you do otherwise - in fact there's this little thing called the Constitution that protects you.
Not yet.. but they will soon enough with things like the DMCA.
Thats nice; however it seems you don't take into proper consideration that corporations can own alot of things, including gov'ts.
A learjet isn't capable.. It just doesn't have the mods necessary unless you'd like it to implode on the way up. The pressure itself would be enough to crush it..
I don't think we disagree so much on the facts, more on the future. Your mentioning the DMCA, "there are major changes and growth that have been going on for the past 5 yrs and no one is paying any attention" and such are all points I agree with completely -- I just believe that in the long run those will prove to be temporary eccentricities in the system. At any given point in time, you can find some parts that are out of whack, but as a whole, and over time, I think history shows the system gets more equitable.
I'm not talking about 5 or 10 or 20 years, but over 50-100 or 200 years, we have more individual freedom today, and take them legally for granted, than any humans in any society before. The same was true of those 500 years ago compared to the ones 1000 years ago -- less likley to be called up by the king, less likely to have their property overrun, more likely to be defended from disaster, etc. It's pretty tough to die of starvation or exposure today in the US (and most other 1st world countries), something that wasn't true even 100 years ago. It would be shocking for someone to lose their home because someone stronger felt like moving in. It bothers us to hear about cases such as Diallo in NYC, when even 50 years ago that sort of thing was just considered "good fun" by a large part of the country.
I agree, that we disagree on the future. Maybe I'm slightly pessimistic and your outcome will be true. Then again I look around at some of these laws we have and am frightened at the path we are taking. History proves that before it ever gets good it's gotta get really really bad and the thing is that we might not be able to make change because of the existing laws. No matter how much people band together it won't matter then. It's a scary thought and maybe I'm just too pessimistic.. maybe. Good convo, by the way. It's rare that people on slashdot have enough attention span to debate such issues humanely.
There IS a reason that the penalty is light. If cops got 20 yrs to life for shooting someone in error, they would be terrified to draw their guns. What if they hit someone by accident? What if the person they were facing was only pretending to have a gun? If cops were terrified to draw their guns, criminals would be more bold. The effectiveness of law enforcement would be reduced in situations where guns were really needed.
I am not in any way condoning the shooting of an unarmed 15-yr old, and I wish that the cop in question would get a longer sentence. My point is that there IS a reason why the law is the way it is. There isn't really a way to change the law in such a way that it is 100% fair all of the time, and the lawmakers do the best they can. It might be easy in hindsight to propose a modification to this law that might have saved this case, for example making a much stiffer penalty for shooting minors. But that modification might have other effects. How is a cop to tell, in a few seconds, whether the person he is about to shoot is a minor or not? You see the difficulty.
The problem with that is that you're viewing the case in the wrong light. Policeman should always be wary about pulling their weapons it should be the last resort and not the first. Which in this case it wasn't, If you have a 15 yr old kid running from you, you don't pull out your weapon and shoot to kill. You call in backup and have him stopped if you can't catch him. At least shoot the kid in the leg, you don't shoot to kill. There are certain things you do and don't do as a police officer and from the general concensus of some police officers in that neighborhood, they feel that he should of gotten the maximum possible sentence because it makes them look unprofessional. It also makes their jobs harder, in the heat of the moment they've got alot of things to run through their head before they decide if they should take that shot and that can cost them their lives.
Totally unprofessional, uncalled for behavior, not in control. This officer was all of the three. If your brother,cousin,friend was running away from a cop in fear they might get into trouble for stealing a bad of candy do you condone their death sentence, with no trial and jury?
And there is probably some darwin advocate who has probably done it for many of the popular apps. It'd be a straightforward task for a developer with BSD experience, less work on packages that already work on FreeBSD and NetBSD, more work for packages that use Linuxisms.
.html pages. I'll repeat again, If you think you can write a GUI configuration program for Apache without making it restrictive; then go ahead.
No, that hasn't happened yet eventually it will. It's only a couple of minor changes you'd probably have to make.
Easier said than done. I couldn't get anything out of Freshmeat's list of FTP servers or a Google search for open-source windows FTP server, while open-source windows HTTP server turned up Apache as the second result. Not only that, but HTTP has a lower connection setup and teardown cost than FTP.
You want to transfer files but would prefer not to use the File Transfer Protocol, thats funny. Finding an open source ftpd server is not hard. Go to www.download.com or somewhere, you'll eventually find one for windows. And setting up an anonymous FTP site takes all of 2 mins.
The default settings handle most basic cases of running Apache on a personal workstation, giving you about the same features as the IM clients' built-in file servers have, with the most commonly changed option (at least on the WinApache installations I've done) being which domain name to return to HTTP/1.0 clients.
Default settings handle most basic cases maybe for you and the purpose that you are using it for which is for file transfers. Most people that setup a webserver use it for its purpose and that is to serve
If I quote the messages would just get too long.. A couple of quick stuff to point out in this message. Just a quick list of refuting arguments.
1. If you look at what goals were fought for in the past you'd see that we weren't such a fragmented nation. It's good to be diverse and to have different cultures and groups etc but when that means you are making laws for each of these "specific" groups there is a problem.
2. Letting 100 guilty men go free is better than to jail 1 man. Letting 1 guilty man go free when you have evidence but the law PROHIBITS you from such action as "jailing" means the law needs to be changed.
3. You are not FREE in this country (by free I mean not being watched, not being hampered or blindlingly giving your rights over to corporations) People do it everyday. Infact our current technological state of affairs would show this best. You really aren't FREE and the clamp is being tightened down everyday. You are only as FREE as your mind is and your mind can't be free if you are hindered doing certain things because of things like the DMCA or IP rights etc.
4. Our nation is a very unsecure one thats all I can really say about that. With the explosive growth of the internet expect to see alot more terrorists attack not just on computers but on major cities in the US cities with alot of people. On the personal level we are a 1st rate nation without proper healthcare facilities for the public paid for by the gov't. Go to switzerland.. walk into a hospital and you'll be treated infact in some countries the gov't employs the unemployed. You seriously need to read up on that. When it comes to socialism and providing our people with stuff like healthcare, welfare etc we are far behind.
5. Are founding fathers? That's your opinion and I would agree to a certain extent. However I don't like to think about what people would have or might say should they be around. I'd rather look at the current state of affairs and make logical decisions based on the past. History itself is always a teacher.
6. I believe I've read that.. I'll head over to the library on tuesday or something but I'm not debating the fact that our legal system has come far. Trust me, I know it's come far. However I'm debating the fact that it's anywhere near perfect. During those Supreme Court cases major changes took place sculpting the system we have today.. Which is good. However there are major changes and growth that have been going on for the past 5 yrs and no one is paying any attention. The law is not being sculpted for the people by the people; It's being sculpted by private industry and interests groups with alot of money. That in my opinion would of made the founding fathers blood high but obviously I don't speak for them I'm speaking for myself.
You live in a dream world..
The legal system works, in the long run, for 99.999999% of the cases it handles. The rest, eventually, will cause changes in the law, because those extraordinary circumstances offend us.
Are you serious?! Or just joking? And who is US? Are you aware of the current state of America? It's turning into a segregagist, group like country. Where every group want's to have their voices heard instead of us speaking as a nation.
Yes, that particular offender may never be punished, but that is an individual case, not a systematic one.
Again, there are too many cases to list where "the particular offender is never punished" you simply don't know what you are talking about. I attribute this to the fact that you are a white anglo saxon protestant male who has seen the legal system only work and not fail. Why don't you go down to the Brooklyn DA's office and ask about murders, burgularly and theft, missing persons who they know the culprits for but they aren't jailed. They walk the street.
Your knowledge of the past is pretty weak if you can claim that modern american citizen are by any relative measure "injured". We are the single most privleged, protected, and secure society that has ever existed on planet earth, bar none.
We are the single most privileged? Depends on what you mean my privleged. I'd rather be free. Protected? That's not it; it's just that any other country hasn't become extremely pissed off yet. The 310th MP battalion can tell you alot about that. Secure?! You obviously don't know what you're talking about, seriously you just don't know what you're talking about.
If you believe that last statement about the legal future being closer to the ideal "we're" pursing you really need to take a class in law. The legal system is nowhere near what the founding fathers called the ideal system.. Not to insult you but please go read a book on the history of our law and then compare to our current state of affairs.
Mac OS X has four application subsystems: Classic, Carbon, Cocoa, and POSIX + X11. Programs that run in POSIX + XonX see the Mac as a mixed FreeBSD/NetBSD box running an X11 server. You can find almost any POSIX + X11 app you need at OSDN Freshmeat
I never debated that. I know this, granted you seem to take in account that ANY POSIX+X11 app will work that's not the case, for some of the apps on freshmeat you'd need to hack up some of the code.
How else are you supposed to share files? Email is out because your ISP says the files are too large to fit in attachments. NFS, SMB, etc. are out because they're platform specific and don't work across dial-up. That's why I run Apache on my Linux box and WinApache on my Windows ME box, so that I can send files to users on other IM services.
File Transfer Protocol otherwise known as ftp. NFS does work across dialup and so does SMB. It just isn't a feasible idea. All you have to do is find an ftp server for windows and start it, add users etc.
Except "any other software program" the user is likely to encounter on a Macintosh computer has GUI configuration.
Yeah and? Most people that ran apache on a mac before this will have no problem. They are the users I'm talking about. New users will just have to learn how to do it. If you think you can write a GUI configuration program for Apache without making it restrictive; then go ahead.. Just be sure to either sell it (no exhorbant pricing) or submit the source to the apache source tree.
Whether you consider the comment out-of context or not, even in the larger context you'll find that the original poster is right here. The reveiwer fails to notice that these apps *are* available under Win2k. The fact that he bundled this comment in with a comment about usability doesn't make his assertions any more valid.
What apps are you discussing here? The original writer of the comment didn't include anything about apps and as for the article; with general conceptual knowledge of the two operating systems; everyone knows that windows basically has more apps. Finding software for the MAC is a pain in the ass. I've never debated that and neither did the article.
And as for the Apache issue, I think the point the poster was trying to make is that an average user can enable IIS and has a *GUI* to configure it. The same is true of ftpd (which I'm sure is why it was added). It would be a hell of a lot easier explaining how to start the webserver to a "newbie" with a GUI as opposed to having to manually configure the daemons in a non-GUI way.
IIS is not Apache (never confuse the two). Having a GUI to configure apache isn't gonna make much difference infact it's quite worthless. You can use "Comanche" which would be the best option if you did need such a thing. If a newbie wants to setup a webserver it's best that they learn how to configure apache by hand. Not only that but a regular desktop user isn't going to be needing apache so there is no point in turning it on. A power user however won't mind editing their own conf file for the webserver process, GUI's just can't cut writing your own config the way you like it. It'd also help prevent people throwing up Apache properly unconfigured. And yes if a newbie wants his own webserver and wants to use Apache he or she must learn it just like any other software program. If they want to use IIS they can also do that, that's what is called users choice.
Linuxconf is not an apache GUI configuration (if it is; i'm sorry I just don't think anyone would be stupid enough to even use linuxconf for such a task or anything else for that matter) program and I don't know what apacheconf is, if you could provide links I'd appreciate it. I don't believe I'm ignorning anything, his points weren't that valid and I believe all he did was selectively pull comments to blow out of proportion.
You take what they say out of context and add your own meaning.
In this category, Windows 2000 is simply overmatched. When it comes to Internet-ready operating systems, Apple stepped ahead way back at OS 9
This is laughable as well. Every single thing the guy listed for OSX, Win2k Pro comes with. Well, Microsoft doesn't supply free WebDav space, but I doubt the OS can be faulted for that.
"Apple stepped ahead way back at OS 9"; Win2K professional doesn't have the ease of use setting up an internet connection for a "dumb user".
OS X delivers the killing blow with its integration of Apache
Thats the big FUD. Sure, Apple biggybacks on the work of others and includes that stuff. But its by no means integration. Its just a checkbox for on or off, I see no frontend for configuring all of the httpd or ftpd options.
Windows has ISS (MAC OSX is unix and can run your favorite httpd/ftp/gopher etc servers) and Apache isn't in the ftpd business so why the jab there? Apple isn't in the server game, they are in the user arena and have provided power users the option of server capabilities with a robust backend at the same time allowing "I just want to get my stuff done" users a nice UI. Which is what everyone knows however you've taken it out of context.
The article was more about usability than not. Even though I don't think it was of much substance you've put a new spin on it and have taking it out of context. That is what is known as a zealot and or troll.
Free? No. Microsoft doesn't give anything away freely. It all has it's price. The sooner you learn that the price you are paying is with your own freedom of choice the quicker you yourself become free.
It's truly sad that you feel that way, it just proves to me how unaware people are of what free means and how blindingly they'd give up having a choice.
What is it Microsoft week on slashdot or something? Can we get back to more urgent and pressing matters like I dunno maybe a couple of benchmarks on some of the apache 2.0 alphas. I'm sick about hearing about Microsoft! Stop it.
It's a corporation and as such will do anything for the almighty dollar. They don't care about morals because that's simply not their job. As for me, I could hardly care because at the end of the day it doesn't affect me in the least. When people want interoperability I'll just charge more. Oh you'd like standards with that? Write to Microsoft. That's not my problem and no I don't care about your deadline it just isn't technically feasible and if it is, it's going to cost you. Don't like the pricing? Find someone else. Eventually people will get fed up with exhorbant prices and then having to pay people like me more exhorbant prices to get the job done.
When all is said and done I go home at the end of the day a little bit more richer with alot of free software on my desktop. What can Microsoft do about that? Not much.
All you have to do is do your part, continue to write code, innovate etc. Eventually people will wonder why they are paying through the nose and the guys over there got their stuff for free.
Actually I was the national winner of the junior barrister competition. The finals held at Hofstra university. I was 13 or maybe 14 at the time so I suspect I'd have some slight clue about the justice system. I'm also pretty sure you can look it up somewhere. My professor at the time was a Mr. David Feldman. I won my case by being a sleaze bag and that is currently why I am not a lawyer however I'm investigating the possiblities of becoming a lawyer and providing my services to battle such cases as DeCSS; as soon as I finish my compsci degree.
Seriously now, a lawyer (person who deals with law and the justice system as his/her profession) is going to know a lot more about the American justice system than you. Just 'cause you read about a few instances of outrageous things happening in the media (who make a living off of reporting outrageous things) doesn't mean that the American legal system is flawed.
That is not true, the fact of it is that there are good lawyers and bad lawyers (in my eyes good and evil exist as well). The media only picks up on some of these cases so you have to wonder how many others go unheard. To be frank, "Outrageous" isn't the correct word, tantanum to murder is a phrase that sums it up for me and I sincerely wish it was only a few incidents however, that simply just isn't true.
Further, I urge you to not be overly cynical about our justice system. Yes, there are flaws which subject our legal system to manipulation and abuse and, yes, things move slowly and sometimes backward for periods, but I truly believe that our system is pretty good and eventually produces the correct results.
You're too new of a lawyer to make a comment like that. Considering the past and present I can't be cynical enough about our justice system! Unarmed men being shot down for no reason and their murderers get 6 months in jail. Here in NYC in 1999 a cop shot a 15 yr old kid from running from him. The max time he can serve is 1 yr on the misdemanor charge, He'll serve if convicted probably about 4-5 months max.
Your justice system and mine are two different justice systems. For me past, present and I hope not but most likely future have proven that. I applaud you for your love of the system but comments like that are an insult to and injured public.
If they taught gambling in schools the gambling industry would be out of business. The odds of you winning any money when you step into a casino are slim and if you do win money the feelings of ambition are going to outweigh your common sense. Unless you're obviously doing it all for fun. Also there are certain games like poker, blackjack etc that don't require that much of statistical math skill. It's more about technique and the way you play the game against an opponent.
Gambling can be very wholesome fun especially if you love losing money. You're more likely to be hit by a run away truck who's driver broke out of a federal state prison on a military base, than to win gambling in casinos.
I just couldn't throw my computer into the trash. The net betting thing is hard to implement and verifying via GPS isn't feasible considering the I might feel like playing while I'm not in a legal state. The commerce/verifying etc is what's going to be hard. More power to them for trying but I don't think it's going to be easy as they claim.
Exactly how do you plan to do that? It always sounds good until you actually try and do it. Personally; I don't even know where you'd begin with such an idea.
I'm gonna search around and see what I can find.
I don't have the slightest idea where to begin. Getting it off the ground would take a while and alot of hand holding but after about 3-4 months it could be done. I don't have any links to neural nets or AI but this would be a perfect application of its uses.