It seems to me that you need to read up on what the RBL is, then, before you pass judgement.
This is how it works:
1. People report open relays and the like to the RBL. 2. RBL puts that on a list. 3. Various ISPs receive a copy of that list, and make it so that email from those sources is not received.
Note that step 3 is 100% consensual. As the owner of an ISP, you can choose to receive mail from those on the RBL. You can even ignore the list entirely. Each ISP gets to choose if they want to use the list or not, and by virtue its customers get to choose whether or not to use that ISP. Basically, it's a way for people to ignore known spam sources if they want to.
It's not a 'big brother' type organization as you don't have to use their list of spam sources if you don't want to. They simply provide a service to those who trust them to root out spam sources (and they are very open on their criteria for putting people on the list, as well as providing proof of their actions).
Now, my guess is that you spoke before doing your research - and that you ARE a true libertarian. However, saying that the RBL doesn't have the right to publish a list of spammers (that your ISP can and can not choose as a commercial organization to filter) is antithetical to libertarian thought. Yeah, there are variations on the same theme, but this is basically a free speech issue. They're not forcing anyone to use it, after all.
No you're not. You're seriously suggesting that companies shouldn't be able to choose what they can and cannot do to stop their customers from receiving spam. That's not libertarian at all.
Like any industry, you will find some companies use the RBL, and others don't. It's no more censorship than a private corporation not allowing someone to shout obscenities within their building.
A libertarian (which is what I generally consider myself) would laud the RBL for providing a service - a list of confirmed offenders - to the public. The public can choose if they want to use the list or not. It's that simple. If you'd rather receive mail from known spam sources, then you can switch to a competing company.
--- Or the fact that their documented interfaces are wildly different than those used by the majority of other OSes, making it a real PITA to code for them? ---
I've got news for you - in terms of marketshare, they are the majority of OSes.
By your logic. Unix/Linux should conform to the market leader. Didn't think so.
Don't blame the platform leaders if someone else doesn't develop a new file system. I don't know so much about Microsoft, but Apple hasn't significantly changed the manner in which you can access the filesystem. There have been a few file-system wide encryption tools out there already.
Hell, recent versions of MacOS include basic encryption features already - built into the OS.
I remember when the OS was renamed OS8, a lot of people assumed it was some black voodoo to kill off the cloners using their own contracts. Then I used OS8, and realized that it probably deserved the moniker (it was no Copland, sure, but it wasn't a 7.X release either).
Since then, Apple has often changed their numbering schemes during development to reflect where they felt it belonged - even without the need to renegotiate contracts with cloners.
Now, where I *will* agree with you is where you say the cloners (I'm specifically thinking of Power Computing here) were kicking Apple's ass. All things equal, PCC deserved to kick their ass in the market because (at the time) Apple was spewing forth some pretty shitty hardware. However, the cloners wouldn't be anything without the MacOS, and it was Apple's to take away.
I do disagree about the platform, unless you mean it's not a successful platform unless it features more than one vendor. While the average geek would love to piece together their own boxen - and this is what the clones promised - it doesn't matter a bit for the average consumer, graphic artist, web designer, or educational institution. For Apple's core audience, the Mac is quite a viable platform.
That said, I want cloning back. Even if I choose to buy Apple hardware, as long as cloners can expand the MacOS marketshare, everyone wins. Unfortunately that's not what was happening before...
Yes he does, if the only alternative is to discredit its users. You know, those people who get work done day in and day out using the OS in question?
If you'll discard your 'anonymous coward' label, I'd be more than happy to have a serious debate on these issues (in particular, how your first two claims are completely false, and the last is subjective in that I've been 'reliably' running OS9 on Powerbook with few issues).
But really, I imagine it's much easier to practice 'hit and run' zealotry, saving you the burden of responding to my original complaint - that dissing a platform's entire userbase is about as low as you can get in the zealotry scale.
The only jihad I see here seems to come from you. Why do you feel this need to come up with lengthy posts trying to discredit Mac users?
Perhaps if you can discredit the technology someone will listen to you. Not everyone feels that they are defined by the people who use their computing platform.
--- So instead of Apple losing money, many Mac Cloners went out of business? One of them, Power Computing, got bought out by Apple after the clone licenses got revoked. If it was Microsoft, that would be anti-competitive behavior. ---
The difference is, Apple doesn't have 90% of the desktop OS market. They have less than 10%, and at the time it was far less than it is even now.
Cloners developed something with a strong dependency on Apple-supplied software, hardware, and R&D. They signed a limited contract to make Mac clones using these resources, which ran out. Apple opted out of renewing. That's it.
Now, you can shout 'monopoly!' over and over as much as you'd like, but the fact remains that Apple can't be a monopoly when there are so many alternative segments within the same market for them to explore. Yeah, Apple is a monopoly in Apple-supplied operating systems and hardware, but that's kind of obvious for any company isn't it?
The point is, Mac cloners could have changed platforms and licensed Windows and still have a chance to survive. A Wintel cloner is pretty much stuck with their platform, or they're going to get screwed in the market.
They have property that they protect, perhaps at the detriment/bankruptcy of competitors. But that alone does not make a monopoly.
As great as BeOS is (and it is), it would not have kept Power Computing in business. Otherwise, Be would have taken PCC up on their offer almost immediately and we'd have Power Tower Pro G4s running BeOS R5 right now - or at least until Intel invested in Be.
If you're remember, Power Computing came out with an Intel-based laptop and only shipped a few hundred before going out of business. It certainly wasn't because of product quality (I got to work on one, and it kicked ass for an Intel-based system), it was that there were too many competitors. If PCC went into the BeOS market, they would have found out that there is no BeOS market, and went out of business anyhow.
Especially at that time, when BeOS was even less mature than it is now.
Under a capitalist society, each manufacturer would be free to compete with Apple and decide what they wanted to do with their products.
Know what? That's exactly how it happened. Apple chose not to provide/license their OS any longer, and the cloners didn't have anything to replace it with. They signed a contract that ran out, and Apple simply chose not to renegotiate.
Some people may think this sucks. Hell, I was one of them (long live my PowerTower Pro, a clone). But this is perfectly legit in a capitalist society. For cloners to clone, they had to accept it on Apple's terms. It's Apple's OS after all, right?
In hindsight, Apple was leaking cash like a sieve, and this may have helped them recover. Other companies signed contracts that put them in a position of relying on Apple, and Apple chose to feed itself rather than die (and guess what: if Apple went out of business, they'd have been dead in a year anyhow). Sad? Yes. Unethical? Maybe. But certainly within the realm of the capitalistic way of doing things.
(and no, there are no anti-trust violations here - Apple is pretty far from being anything even close to being a monopoly. that's like saying panasonic has a monopoly in panasonic vcrs - true, but that's kind of inherant to the statement)
Well, I'm not sure what you mean by 'cocky', but I'm mainly referring to the substitution of 0's for o's and the "I'm your master" connotation. Both of these things seem pretty common in the script kiddie community.
That doesn't mean you can't have an obscure handle of some sort, but I can see why someone might pick up a certain 'vibe' just by looking at your name.
Of course, feel free to ignore me. I'm just one person. If it works for you, you may as well keep it.
Hrm, or maybe it was meant exactly how it looks: that the girl is 'worth more' on the open market than her parents. Big deal - inflation alone will usually do that for most young people.
Why people feel the need to fabricate some grand sociological reason for everything, I have no idea.
I never said it would be easy. It wasn't easy for the founders of Wal-Mart to get where they are now. I'm just saying it's not impossible.
As I mentioned, certain chains eventually fall or are overtaken by smarter and faster competitors. Apple and Microsoft took IBM's place in the industry because IBM wasn't fast enough or smart enough to get in the right market. Eventually someone will replace them as well.
Upstarts have a strange habit of occasionally breaking through and becoming the big guys. Wal-Mart and its ilk weren't around forever you know... At one point they replaced someone else at the helm of their markets.
Oh, yeah, that's definately true. I guess I wasn't really including friendships.
Online love type relationships basically need intimacy, and often lack it. You don't really need intimacy with 'normal' friends, although it's sometimes pretty nice to be able to hang out in person from time to time.
Actually, friendships probably benefit a lot from starting online.
Relationships with a strong online component CAN work. My girlfriend of 5 years and I got to know eachother online. It's not impossible, and can actually help if either of you is shy or you just want to know the actual person first.
However - this is the catch: we met through the local BBSing scene, not over the 'net in general. We were only about 15 minutes apart once we decided to meet, and could spend 'quality time' together.
Really, online relationships don't have anything against them other than that being online generally means being far far apart. Long-distance relationships of ANY kind just don't work very well (despite a few exceptions), no matter how they were started. I can always see impending doom whenever someone instantly 'falls in love' with someone living 2000 miles away, and flies down there to see them. That kind of thing is a recipe for disaster, and usually happens to emotionally unstable people to begin with.:/
--- Why doesnt apple just fucking use standard mice? (we need to be proprietary) FINE! BE PROPRIETARY, but give me a standard PROPRIETARY fucking mouse ---
Who is talking proprietary? Apple's current mice are all USB based.
And ADB was never really proprietary - you could make 3rd party ADB mice without any special licensing or anything. Just because something is a bit less common doesn't make it proprietary.
--- I'm really pissed off about the mouse though, because my employer just offered me a new company PowerMac. ---
Easy. Get a 3rd party mouse. Yeah, the stock one sucks, but there are tons of choices. Kensington makes some pretty good one, and if you can get around the dirty feeling you get supposedly the Microsoft mice are pretty decent.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to me that you need to read up on what the RBL is, then, before you pass judgement.
This is how it works:
1. People report open relays and the like to the RBL.
2. RBL puts that on a list.
3. Various ISPs receive a copy of that list, and make it so that email from those sources is not received.
Note that step 3 is 100% consensual. As the owner of an ISP, you can choose to receive mail from those on the RBL. You can even ignore the list entirely. Each ISP gets to choose if they want to use the list or not, and by virtue its customers get to choose whether or not to use that ISP. Basically, it's a way for people to ignore known spam sources if they want to.
It's not a 'big brother' type organization as you don't have to use their list of spam sources if you don't want to. They simply provide a service to those who trust them to root out spam sources (and they are very open on their criteria for putting people on the list, as well as providing proof of their actions).
Now, my guess is that you spoke before doing your research - and that you ARE a true libertarian. However, saying that the RBL doesn't have the right to publish a list of spammers (that your ISP can and can not choose as a commercial organization to filter) is antithetical to libertarian thought. Yeah, there are variations on the same theme, but this is basically a free speech issue. They're not forcing anyone to use it, after all.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
I dunno. I'm just a stupid libertarian
---
No you're not. You're seriously suggesting that companies shouldn't be able to choose what they can and cannot do to stop their customers from receiving spam. That's not libertarian at all.
Like any industry, you will find some companies use the RBL, and others don't. It's no more censorship than a private corporation not allowing someone to shout obscenities within their building.
A libertarian (which is what I generally consider myself) would laud the RBL for providing a service - a list of confirmed offenders - to the public. The public can choose if they want to use the list or not. It's that simple. If you'd rather receive mail from known spam sources, then you can switch to a competing company.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
Or the fact that their documented interfaces are wildly different than those used by the majority of other OSes, making it a real PITA to code for them?
---
I've got news for you - in terms of marketshare, they are the majority of OSes.
By your logic. Unix/Linux should conform to the market leader. Didn't think so.
Don't blame the platform leaders if someone else doesn't develop a new file system. I don't know so much about Microsoft, but Apple hasn't significantly changed the manner in which you can access the filesystem. There have been a few file-system wide encryption tools out there already.
Hell, recent versions of MacOS include basic encryption features already - built into the OS.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Yeah. Apple pretty much has their 10% marketshare locked up. Monopoly indeed!
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Um, there are actually a lot of utilities like that for the web.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
I remember when the OS was renamed OS8, a lot of people assumed it was some black voodoo to kill off the cloners using their own contracts. Then I used OS8, and realized that it probably deserved the moniker (it was no Copland, sure, but it wasn't a 7.X release either).
Since then, Apple has often changed their numbering schemes during development to reflect where they felt it belonged - even without the need to renegotiate contracts with cloners.
Now, where I *will* agree with you is where you say the cloners (I'm specifically thinking of Power Computing here) were kicking Apple's ass. All things equal, PCC deserved to kick their ass in the market because (at the time) Apple was spewing forth some pretty shitty hardware. However, the cloners wouldn't be anything without the MacOS, and it was Apple's to take away.
I do disagree about the platform, unless you mean it's not a successful platform unless it features more than one vendor. While the average geek would love to piece together their own boxen - and this is what the clones promised - it doesn't matter a bit for the average consumer, graphic artist, web designer, or educational institution. For Apple's core audience, the Mac is quite a viable platform.
That said, I want cloning back. Even if I choose to buy Apple hardware, as long as cloners can expand the MacOS marketshare, everyone wins. Unfortunately that's not what was happening before...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Yes he does, if the only alternative is to discredit its users. You know, those people who get work done day in and day out using the OS in question?
If you'll discard your 'anonymous coward' label, I'd be more than happy to have a serious debate on these issues (in particular, how your first two claims are completely false, and the last is subjective in that I've been 'reliably' running OS9 on Powerbook with few issues).
But really, I imagine it's much easier to practice 'hit and run' zealotry, saving you the burden of responding to my original complaint - that dissing a platform's entire userbase is about as low as you can get in the zealotry scale.
Jihad, indeed.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
The only jihad I see here seems to come from you. Why do you feel this need to come up with lengthy posts trying to discredit Mac users?
Perhaps if you can discredit the technology someone will listen to you. Not everyone feels that they are defined by the people who use their computing platform.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
So instead of Apple losing money, many Mac Cloners went out of business? One of them, Power Computing, got bought out by Apple after the clone licenses got revoked. If it was Microsoft, that would be anti-competitive behavior.
---
The difference is, Apple doesn't have 90% of the desktop OS market. They have less than 10%, and at the time it was far less than it is even now.
Cloners developed something with a strong dependency on Apple-supplied software, hardware, and R&D. They signed a limited contract to make Mac clones using these resources, which ran out. Apple opted out of renewing. That's it.
Now, you can shout 'monopoly!' over and over as much as you'd like, but the fact remains that Apple can't be a monopoly when there are so many alternative segments within the same market for them to explore. Yeah, Apple is a monopoly in Apple-supplied operating systems and hardware, but that's kind of obvious for any company isn't it?
The point is, Mac cloners could have changed platforms and licensed Windows and still have a chance to survive. A Wintel cloner is pretty much stuck with their platform, or they're going to get screwed in the market.
They have property that they protect, perhaps at the detriment/bankruptcy of competitors. But that alone does not make a monopoly.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
As great as BeOS is (and it is), it would not have kept Power Computing in business. Otherwise, Be would have taken PCC up on their offer almost immediately and we'd have Power Tower Pro G4s running BeOS R5 right now - or at least until Intel invested in Be.
:>
If you're remember, Power Computing came out with an Intel-based laptop and only shipped a few hundred before going out of business. It certainly wasn't because of product quality (I got to work on one, and it kicked ass for an Intel-based system), it was that there were too many competitors. If PCC went into the BeOS market, they would have found out that there is no BeOS market, and went out of business anyhow.
Especially at that time, when BeOS was even less mature than it is now.
I would have bought one though.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
You're 100% right.
Under a capitalist society, each manufacturer would be free to compete with Apple and decide what they wanted to do with their products.
Know what? That's exactly how it happened. Apple chose not to provide/license their OS any longer, and the cloners didn't have anything to replace it with. They signed a contract that ran out, and Apple simply chose not to renegotiate.
Some people may think this sucks. Hell, I was one of them (long live my PowerTower Pro, a clone). But this is perfectly legit in a capitalist society. For cloners to clone, they had to accept it on Apple's terms. It's Apple's OS after all, right?
In hindsight, Apple was leaking cash like a sieve, and this may have helped them recover. Other companies signed contracts that put them in a position of relying on Apple, and Apple chose to feed itself rather than die (and guess what: if Apple went out of business, they'd have been dead in a year anyhow). Sad? Yes. Unethical? Maybe. But certainly within the realm of the capitalistic way of doing things.
(and no, there are no anti-trust violations here - Apple is pretty far from being anything even close to being a monopoly. that's like saying panasonic has a monopoly in panasonic vcrs - true, but that's kind of inherant to the statement)
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Someone posted the text of the rumors on an AppleInsider message board, which you can get at below (about halfway down):
0 4621-2.html
http://forum.appleinsider.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/0
...I'd post them here myself, but I'd rather not incur the wrath of Apple's legal department.
Frankly, I think they have the right to ask that they be taken down, but it'd really come down to the courts as to what actually happens.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Depends. The merger can't complete unless you can get Mickey to wear blue jeans and a black turtleneck sweater.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Well, I'm not sure what you mean by 'cocky', but I'm mainly referring to the substitution of 0's for o's and the "I'm your master" connotation. Both of these things seem pretty common in the script kiddie community.
That doesn't mean you can't have an obscure handle of some sort, but I can see why someone might pick up a certain 'vibe' just by looking at your name.
Of course, feel free to ignore me. I'm just one person. If it works for you, you may as well keep it.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
I'd say a number of the items mentioned are pretty extensive - making Marathon a lot different than Doom (and IMHO superior).
As for not seeing anything 'original', you aren't really seeing that on ANY platform. Rehashing old themes is pretty common.
On the plus side, the Mac spawned SimCity, and for that I am grateful.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Hrm, or maybe it was meant exactly how it looks: that the girl is 'worth more' on the open market than her parents. Big deal - inflation alone will usually do that for most young people.
Why people feel the need to fabricate some grand sociological reason for everything, I have no idea.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
It may help if you don't sign your name as something like "0verl0rd".
No offense, but it does create some - er - preconceptions about you based on the script kiddies out there...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
I never said it would be easy. It wasn't easy for the founders of Wal-Mart to get where they are now. I'm just saying it's not impossible.
As I mentioned, certain chains eventually fall or are overtaken by smarter and faster competitors. Apple and Microsoft took IBM's place in the industry because IBM wasn't fast enough or smart enough to get in the right market. Eventually someone will replace them as well.
Upstarts have a strange habit of occasionally breaking through and becoming the big guys. Wal-Mart and its ilk weren't around forever you know... At one point they replaced someone else at the helm of their markets.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
I did read, and I know exactly what it's about. It's about nationalism and demagoguery.
If someone kills your father, you don't find someone who looks a lot like the murderer and kill him for revenge.
This guy took it out on the wrong people - it's as simple as that.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
That's downright unethical. The last thing I want when I'm looking for porn is for some stupid video game site to pop up. :>
(yes, i'm kidding)
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Try amish-online.com ...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Oh, yeah, that's definately true. I guess I wasn't really including friendships.
Online love type relationships basically need intimacy, and often lack it. You don't really need intimacy with 'normal' friends, although it's sometimes pretty nice to be able to hang out in person from time to time.
Actually, friendships probably benefit a lot from starting online.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Actually, you are mostly right, but not quite.
:/
Relationships with a strong online component CAN work. My girlfriend of 5 years and I got to know eachother online. It's not impossible, and can actually help if either of you is shy or you just want to know the actual person first.
However - this is the catch: we met through the local BBSing scene, not over the 'net in general. We were only about 15 minutes apart once we decided to meet, and could spend 'quality time' together.
Really, online relationships don't have anything against them other than that being online generally means being far far apart. Long-distance relationships of ANY kind just don't work very well (despite a few exceptions), no matter how they were started. I can always see impending doom whenever someone instantly 'falls in love' with someone living 2000 miles away, and flies down there to see them. That kind of thing is a recipe for disaster, and usually happens to emotionally unstable people to begin with.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Well, on the plus side, Apple is fixing the stupid QT4 interface. The tray is going away, and the thumbwheel is being replaced with a slider.
At least, as of OSX DP4...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
Why doesnt apple just fucking use standard mice? (we need to be proprietary) FINE! BE PROPRIETARY, but give me a standard PROPRIETARY fucking mouse
---
Who is talking proprietary? Apple's current mice are all USB based.
And ADB was never really proprietary - you could make 3rd party ADB mice without any special licensing or anything. Just because something is a bit less common doesn't make it proprietary.
---
I'm really pissed off about the mouse though, because my employer just offered me a new company PowerMac.
---
Easy. Get a 3rd party mouse. Yeah, the stock one sucks, but there are tons of choices. Kensington makes some pretty good one, and if you can get around the dirty feeling you get supposedly the Microsoft mice are pretty decent.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)