One guess: cost. Adding a satellite radio tuner would add a considerable amount of cost to the unit. I imagine the price would easily double.
As for streamed broadcasts, this would be a feature of the radioSHARK software, not the hardware. I think Griffin is lucky their software runs at all at this point, nevermind having the ability to grab internet streams. I imagine that feature will be implemented later in the Mac software using Applescript and iTunes since iTunes already streams internet broadcasts. I'm not holding my breath. I would recommend Mac users get RadioLover for the timed recording of internet broadcasts.
At this point their software is very buggy and hastily assembled, IMO.
RadioSHARK software records in both AAC and AIFF on Macs. Plus it imports directly into iTunes. So no panic or angst or work on your part is necessary.;)
I don't think you're entirely correct. If someone believes that the Earth is flat, it's not journalistic integrity to report that, investigate it further, and treat it on par with what we all know the reality to be. It's plain stupidity, or even reverse bias.
In regards to a flat earth theory, it really depends on how the reporting is done. What would be stupid is to assume that journalists to a good job reporting truth when in most cases they are simply disseminating the news according to their personal agenda. If a scientist declared the world is flat, we may disagree with him but the difference between an interesting news story and a puff piece or biased bit of yellow journalism is whether the journalist takes time to state why the scientist believes what he does. Good news let's the listener/reader form their own opinion. Bad news tells the listener/reader what their opinion should be.
As always there should be moderation in all things, but I do not believe intellectual snobbery, conservatism, liberalism, or any kind of demagoguery serves the public's best interest, especially when represented by journalists. My original posting still stands: the article's analysis was flawed because of its own bias. It made only one strong argument while the rest where emotional hotpoints that were specious at best. Just because somebody's opinion is wrong to the reporter doesn't mean the opinion shouldn't be represented. Otherwise, we no longer have a free press but instead a social agenda by intellectuals.
99.9% of the world believed the world was flat once, and had the "evidence" to back it up. I suppose you could say that this only proves how ignorant the religious are, but I believe it shows how important it is to not downplay the.1% because the majority disagree with it. You may not be interested in being balanced, i.e. interested in other people's opinions, because "Joe Crackpot decided to believe the world is square", but some people might enjoy reading an article about a Square World Society - even if they thought the society was peopled by complete loons. By censoring the news through a filter of what you think is valid or not does the public a disservice. Report the news and let people make their own opinions. If they agree with you that the Square World Society is off its rocker then lucky you. I, however, don't enjoy having my news filtered by elitist snobs such as yourself who feel they know what is fact and what is fiction.
Besides, you fail to see my point that the article is slanted because of the author's bias against religious people. It compromises his position and interferes with the point he is trying to make. Notice how much clearer and concise his argument is when he discusses the global warming controversies. There were no religious issues there to cloud his reason. However, like most journalists indignant about religion, he cites the most extreme cases in the other parts of the article and uses them as the representation of the norm. Science good: Religion bad! Your list of "Facts", no matter how hotly you believe in them, are only your opinions. Your anonymous rant only shows that you think his article is a good one because you agree with his bias.
In summation, it was a poorly written article compromised because of his lack of journalistic integrity. He argued the case against unbalanced journalism for his opponents by showing how closeminded and censoring his approach to journalism is when he advocated not representing the other side of issues because he personally felt they were laughable.
Here in Utah we had a guy run for Senate who served time. He held Howard Hunter, a former president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints, as hostage with a "bomb". Most people, Mormon and non-Mormon alike, think this guy is a complete nutjob. He complained this week that he wasn't elected to the Senate because there were no pencils in the voting booths for write-in candidates. Now, nobody in their right mind would vote for this guy, right? But if the journalists reporting the story decided he was too crazy to be newsworthy, that he was a certifiable religious looney, that he wasn't worth their time, we the people of Utah would a) have not had a chuckle to relieve all the post-election stress and b) not been faced with the simple truth: Despite the fact that this guy would never have beaten out Bennett, it was true that there were no pencils in the voting booths. Whether you like it or not, it was news. The question of his sanity was irrelevant and left up to the discretion of the citizens. Interfering with the way science is reported to the world is irrisponsible, in my opinion. If religion can't censor science, then science shouldn't censor religion.
Lastly, please try to remember that science that isn't disputed is dogma as well.
LOL Nicely put, nycroft. Nothing is more intimidating for somebody new to something than dealing with techno-elitist snobs who make their day by tearing somebody else down. Time was you would only bump into that in PC IRC forums (ever try being a n00b in IRC? It's ugly, man!) But I'm disappointed to see this attitude come over to the Mac.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. We are on slashdot, after all.;) And the Mac has won over many new users from the geekier side because of its sweet GUI built over a Unix system, many of them tweenagers with lots of brains but little manners. Still, it would be nice if the punks on the forum would button it and stop busting people's chops for not being born with obscure file and system knowledge.
Bill Maher isn't one to talk about intolerance. His pungent takes on American life, religion, and politics aren't favorable to anybody who he doesn't agree with. As with most comedians, sometimes he's funny, sometimes he's not. But when it comes to being tolerant, who's to say what is intolerant and what is not? Certainly not the very biased Bill Maher. The definition of tolerance is often relative to the issue at hand.
As for the article, we can't use hindsight to second guess objectivity. A journalist should report all sides of an issue to avoid biased reporting. 99% of the world's experts believe the world was flat at one point but they were wrong. Should the 1% have been censured? History has proven that doing so was wrong.
Personally, I can't believe we're having this discussion in the first place. Journalism of late is anything but objective and non-partisan. We should be sending accolades to journalists who take the time to report on all sides of an issue, not reprimanding them for supporting the side we disagree with.
This article was just as unbalanced as the journalism it was complaining about. It was an opinion piece full of unsupported statements except in the conjecture of the author (such as: "Later on, even the Raelians themselves reportedly laughed at how easy it was to get free publicity." with no cited sources)
Notice the stories that were represented:
A reporter censured for not representing both sides of the abortion-causes-cancer issue. Because the author felt that the only scientist claiming abortion causes cancer was a born again crackbot the author concluded there was no need for balanced coverage.
Same reporter represents both sides of an issue in Texas for the inclusion of new creationist theories in text books. This time the reporter supposedly errs because he DOES represent both sides, but in the opinion of the author the expert for creationism is another born again crackpot.
Later on in the article he cites Clonaid's infamous cloning announcement and seems to feel that the announcement was so spurious that if only the media had paid attention to the cited expert the matter would never have been reported.
Whether his fact checking is correct or not, or if the individual examples cited were convincing to his point, is not relevant to my point. There was a lean there: religious people are not newsworthy. The author's coverage of the global warming controversies was much more salient and thorough in my opion because it did not involve religious issues which the author obviously has a problem with.
John Carroll's comment that claimed Gold's story vindicated critics who accuse the LA Times of liberal bias could be correctly applied to this article's media analysis as well.
As for Jon Stewart on Crossfire... "Stop hurting America?" Are you serious? He was self-righteous, sanctimonious and rude. How was that helping America? Basically, if you didn't agree with him and his political leanings, you were hurting America. In addition, he refused to acknowledge he had a responsibility to ask Kerry tough questions while acknowledging that he would vote for Kerry and that everybody else is partisan. The hypocricy was astounding. He excuses himself because his show is comedy, but this doesn't stop him from supporting some political agendas, in my opinion. If Jon Stewart doesn't like Crossfire and feels that a better forum is needed for intelligent political discourse and debate then he should use his clout to make such a forum. That's the American way, isn't it? Instead, he wishes to silence the voices he doesn't like to hear. How openminded is that?
As a side note, I used to be a BIG Jon Stewart fan, but once he jumped onboard the Kerry campaign he lost his humorous objectivity and became a partisan - just like the people he mocked. His election night coverage show was painful. Whereas his supporting cast was trenchant and hilarious, Stewart whined about Democrats huddling up north together with him in fear of the rest of the nation. I suppose he was trying to be funny, and perhaps if he hadn't been so partisan and emotionally involved with the election's outcome he might have succeeded. But I, a registered unaffiliate with any party, found him dull, pitiful and biased - like the linked article.
> As for the iMac delays, didn't I hear something about customs issues? Looks like the man is not only stopping video game accessories under the DMCA, but other strange looking electronics (probably suspecting some kind of terrorist activity...dear lord).
Maybe the inspectors are trying to see if any of those new iMacs can dance like in those Pixar animations.
"Hey Sal! Any of those things dancin' yet?"
"Nope. I've gone thru my whole tape collection. I think Celine Dion's just putting them to sleep..."
>and EVERY time you try to do something you don't have sufficient permissions to do a dialog box should pop up to enter your administrator username and password so you can do it anyway.
I agree with you. When I was setting up a net work between my associates computer and mine a while ago (something I only needed when we got together), I copied new permissions (in OS9) to all the folders on the drive that I wanted locked out of the network. This seemed like a good idea at the time but later proved disasterous. Not only did my Mac take 20 minutes to turn file sharing on everytime I booted, but OSX was seriously messed up. I couldn't even launch the classic layer for lack of permissions. OS9 had reconfigured OSX's folder permissions.
A few calls later to tech friends and I learned that Apple's filesharing wasn't implemented the best way. My Mac was checking each and every unique directory every time it booted when turning on file sharing. So I reinstalled OS9 and just used a shared folder. Now file sharing turns on in seconds. I still need to reinstall OSX. Enabling root and altering permissoins didn't fix the problem.
With that history in mind, I can't imagine I'm the first person to copy new permissions across a drive. OS9 shouldn't affect OSX that way. I figured things out quickly and fixed them, but I'm new to OSX and "sudo" isn't in my vocabulary yet. It's not like OSX comes with any docs either. It's just not ready for primetime.
The point of all this, and how it relates to Jordan's comments, is that the typical Mac user is NOT a *nix user. Apple's trying to sell to two different markets. It's a tricky balancing act, IMO. While the engine under the hood needs to be suped up to the max and fully featured to excite *nix users, the dashboard needs to be accessible to people like me who are new, and worse, people like my parents who just point and click and expect things to work without knowing to sudo instead of enabling root.:)
Jordan said "I think 10,000 entries is going to be something of a stretch even for the FreeBSD ports team, but I don't see that number being entirely improbable for some Macintosh equivalent since there are a lot more Macfolk than there are FreeBSD users."
This comment tickles at a core problem with the transition from OS9 to OSX for many Mac users. There may be more Macfolk than FreeBSD users, but how many of them want to rethink package utilities? A lot of Jordan's comments are good suggestions (for instance, implementing the new standard of XML into the package process), but it seems that this problem will be tackled by *nix users like himself moving over to the OSX platform, and not by OS9 users delving into *nix for their first time. Still, it IS a good time to rethink things before momentum makes it difficult to change.
I also agree with him that Apple should have spearheaded the process, and they probably will in time. Apple has always focused on userfriendlyness first, then streamlined what was under the hood last. Compared to the past, Apple seems to be responsibly balancing the development of OSX across the board. However, if OSX is to succeed with the typical Mac audience, it will need to be a lot more stable and userfriendly to the simplest Mac user. I can't imagine my parents enabling their root account to reconfigure folder permissions as I had to do recently. Heck, my dad can barely figure out his email. LOL, nevermind launch a shell and interface via CLI. I imagine streamlining the package utility mechanism is low on Apple's priorities. Still, it's comforting that Jordan is mulling the problem over.
Slashdot Mirror
As for streamed broadcasts, this would be a feature of the radioSHARK software, not the hardware. I think Griffin is lucky their software runs at all at this point, nevermind having the ability to grab internet streams. I imagine that feature will be implemented later in the Mac software using Applescript and iTunes since iTunes already streams internet broadcasts. I'm not holding my breath. I would recommend Mac users get RadioLover for the timed recording of internet broadcasts.
At this point their software is very buggy and hastily assembled, IMO.
RadioSHARK software records in both AAC and AIFF on Macs. Plus it imports directly into iTunes. So no panic or angst or work on your part is necessary. ;)
In regards to a flat earth theory, it really depends on how the reporting is done. What would be stupid is to assume that journalists to a good job reporting truth when in most cases they are simply disseminating the news according to their personal agenda. If a scientist declared the world is flat, we may disagree with him but the difference between an interesting news story and a puff piece or biased bit of yellow journalism is whether the journalist takes time to state why the scientist believes what he does. Good news let's the listener/reader form their own opinion. Bad news tells the listener/reader what their opinion should be.
As always there should be moderation in all things, but I do not believe intellectual snobbery, conservatism, liberalism, or any kind of demagoguery serves the public's best interest, especially when represented by journalists. My original posting still stands: the article's analysis was flawed because of its own bias. It made only one strong argument while the rest where emotional hotpoints that were specious at best. Just because somebody's opinion is wrong to the reporter doesn't mean the opinion shouldn't be represented. Otherwise, we no longer have a free press but instead a social agenda by intellectuals.
Ah, the openminded exchange of ideas at slashdot...
Besides, you fail to see my point that the article is slanted because of the author's bias against religious people. It compromises his position and interferes with the point he is trying to make. Notice how much clearer and concise his argument is when he discusses the global warming controversies. There were no religious issues there to cloud his reason. However, like most journalists indignant about religion, he cites the most extreme cases in the other parts of the article and uses them as the representation of the norm. Science good: Religion bad! Your list of "Facts", no matter how hotly you believe in them, are only your opinions. Your anonymous rant only shows that you think his article is a good one because you agree with his bias.
In summation, it was a poorly written article compromised because of his lack of journalistic integrity. He argued the case against unbalanced journalism for his opponents by showing how closeminded and censoring his approach to journalism is when he advocated not representing the other side of issues because he personally felt they were laughable.
Here in Utah we had a guy run for Senate who served time. He held Howard Hunter, a former president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints, as hostage with a "bomb". Most people, Mormon and non-Mormon alike, think this guy is a complete nutjob. He complained this week that he wasn't elected to the Senate because there were no pencils in the voting booths for write-in candidates. Now, nobody in their right mind would vote for this guy, right? But if the journalists reporting the story decided he was too crazy to be newsworthy, that he was a certifiable religious looney, that he wasn't worth their time, we the people of Utah would a) have not had a chuckle to relieve all the post-election stress and b) not been faced with the simple truth: Despite the fact that this guy would never have beaten out Bennett, it was true that there were no pencils in the voting booths. Whether you like it or not, it was news. The question of his sanity was irrelevant and left up to the discretion of the citizens. Interfering with the way science is reported to the world is irrisponsible, in my opinion. If religion can't censor science, then science shouldn't censor religion.
Lastly, please try to remember that science that isn't disputed is dogma as well.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. We are on slashdot, after all. ;) And the Mac has won over many new users from the geekier side because of its sweet GUI built over a Unix system, many of them tweenagers with lots of brains but little manners. Still, it would be nice if the punks on the forum would button it and stop busting people's chops for not being born with obscure file and system knowledge.
As for the article, we can't use hindsight to second guess objectivity. A journalist should report all sides of an issue to avoid biased reporting. 99% of the world's experts believe the world was flat at one point but they were wrong. Should the 1% have been censured? History has proven that doing so was wrong.
Personally, I can't believe we're having this discussion in the first place. Journalism of late is anything but objective and non-partisan. We should be sending accolades to journalists who take the time to report on all sides of an issue, not reprimanding them for supporting the side we disagree with.
Notice the stories that were represented:
Whether his fact checking is correct or not, or if the individual examples cited were convincing to his point, is not relevant to my point. There was a lean there: religious people are not newsworthy. The author's coverage of the global warming controversies was much more salient and thorough in my opion because it did not involve religious issues which the author obviously has a problem with.
John Carroll's comment that claimed Gold's story vindicated critics who accuse the LA Times of liberal bias could be correctly applied to this article's media analysis as well.
As for Jon Stewart on Crossfire... "Stop hurting America?" Are you serious? He was self-righteous, sanctimonious and rude. How was that helping America? Basically, if you didn't agree with him and his political leanings, you were hurting America. In addition, he refused to acknowledge he had a responsibility to ask Kerry tough questions while acknowledging that he would vote for Kerry and that everybody else is partisan. The hypocricy was astounding. He excuses himself because his show is comedy, but this doesn't stop him from supporting some political agendas, in my opinion. If Jon Stewart doesn't like Crossfire and feels that a better forum is needed for intelligent political discourse and debate then he should use his clout to make such a forum. That's the American way, isn't it? Instead, he wishes to silence the voices he doesn't like to hear. How openminded is that?
As a side note, I used to be a BIG Jon Stewart fan, but once he jumped onboard the Kerry campaign he lost his humorous objectivity and became a partisan - just like the people he mocked. His election night coverage show was painful. Whereas his supporting cast was trenchant and hilarious, Stewart whined about Democrats huddling up north together with him in fear of the rest of the nation. I suppose he was trying to be funny, and perhaps if he hadn't been so partisan and emotionally involved with the election's outcome he might have succeeded. But I, a registered unaffiliate with any party, found him dull, pitiful and biased - like the linked article.
Maybe the inspectors are trying to see if any of those new iMacs can dance like in those Pixar animations.
"Hey Sal! Any of those things dancin' yet?"
"Nope. I've gone thru my whole tape collection. I think Celine Dion's just putting them to sleep..."
D
A few calls later to tech friends and I learned that Apple's filesharing wasn't implemented the best way. My Mac was checking each and every unique directory every time it booted when turning on file sharing. So I reinstalled OS9 and just used a shared folder. Now file sharing turns on in seconds. I still need to reinstall OSX. Enabling root and altering permissoins didn't fix the problem.
With that history in mind, I can't imagine I'm the first person to copy new permissions across a drive. OS9 shouldn't affect OSX that way. I figured things out quickly and fixed them, but I'm new to OSX and "sudo" isn't in my vocabulary yet. It's not like OSX comes with any docs either. It's just not ready for primetime.
The point of all this, and how it relates to Jordan's comments, is that the typical Mac user is NOT a *nix user. Apple's trying to sell to two different markets. It's a tricky balancing act, IMO. While the engine under the hood needs to be suped up to the max and fully featured to excite *nix users, the dashboard needs to be accessible to people like me who are new, and worse, people like my parents who just point and click and expect things to work without knowing to sudo instead of enabling root. :)
D
Jordan said "I think 10,000 entries is going to be something of a stretch even for the FreeBSD ports team, but I don't see that number being entirely improbable for some Macintosh equivalent since there are a lot more Macfolk than there are FreeBSD users." This comment tickles at a core problem with the transition from OS9 to OSX for many Mac users. There may be more Macfolk than FreeBSD users, but how many of them want to rethink package utilities? A lot of Jordan's comments are good suggestions (for instance, implementing the new standard of XML into the package process), but it seems that this problem will be tackled by *nix users like himself moving over to the OSX platform, and not by OS9 users delving into *nix for their first time. Still, it IS a good time to rethink things before momentum makes it difficult to change. I also agree with him that Apple should have spearheaded the process, and they probably will in time. Apple has always focused on userfriendlyness first, then streamlined what was under the hood last. Compared to the past, Apple seems to be responsibly balancing the development of OSX across the board. However, if OSX is to succeed with the typical Mac audience, it will need to be a lot more stable and userfriendly to the simplest Mac user. I can't imagine my parents enabling their root account to reconfigure folder permissions as I had to do recently. Heck, my dad can barely figure out his email. LOL, nevermind launch a shell and interface via CLI. I imagine streamlining the package utility mechanism is low on Apple's priorities. Still, it's comforting that Jordan is mulling the problem over.