That's kind of the point. Look at the different reactions across the world to Bhopal and 11 September. Why is one so much worse than the other? Maybe because they were consumers? or Americans? but the original poster's comments are right on the spot.
What a load of utter crap. If all you want a pc for is to learn sw/hw interaction, then go a cheap make it yourself thing with linux or bsd or minix or something else that's free. But don't start with that bullshit "oh macs have proprietary this and proprietary that" it's been done to death.
The mac has a the same frickin' parts as any other computer: cpu, ram, hd, etc and software: os, application sw as any other damn computer.
The fact that it's 'proprietary' (I assume what you're saying is it doesn't have a huge marketshare) shouldn't make a damn bit of difference if you're interested in how computers work (cf how an x86 box running linux works).
It seems the real reason apple did this is to maintain portability. Jobs has said multiple times that 'We like to have options' when asked about future chips in macs. It's been backed up by the top brass at apple too (eg, Infoworld article with VP's).
It seems that they can emulate a pc-register in a risc architecture, but could they (easily) do it the other way around? Perhaps this is the real reason why they kept the abi the way it is: so they could easily port os x to whatever platform they like...
I think more than emphasising what's bad about TV, it's important to emphasise what's good about gaming (disclaimer: I rarely play computer games and then it's usually for short periods of time):
1. increases reaction times 2. is actually interactive rather than making you unilaterally consume (oops, is that a good thing? depends on perspective i guess)...
Don't know where you're getting your legal info, but back up their my friend.
First, it may an instance of fair dealing (as it is known here). More likely it would be a breach of our consumer protection legislation (cf intellectual property legislation) which is embodied in the Trade Practices Act (1974). Point is as far as I know, this is the first test of the claim.
As for anti-piracy protection interfering with legitimate back-ups, etc: the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act which is our version of the US DMCA, states that a person may make legal back-ups, etc, but manufacturers using TPM's (technological protection measures) are under no compulsion to facilitate this.
Further TPM-circumvention devices are illegal. But it's not illegal to use them to circumvent for fair dealing purposes. I'm sure you appreciate the stupidity of this solution.
I forgot to add a response to your dig at macs at the bottom. Your rant about 'proprietary hardware' has been discussed in several other threads on/., I suggest you check them out, because it's *totally* unjustified when you look at the new macs.
Pretty translucent cases? Oh I'm sorry, do good taste and aesthetics get in the way of your computing experience? Seriously this is the dumbest complaint I hear about macs: "They're just too... nice looking. People would think I had you know, taste. I might get envious glances from girls and a raised eyebrow or two instead of sneers and jeers... I just... wouldn't know how to deal with it"
As for the video card, check out the g4 towers, easiest and most customisable computer I can see around in terms of the way the case is built. And essentially a variation on the old blue & white G3 towers, which were *way* ahead of their time for design (in so many ways).
The fact that lots of games, apps, etc are available for Dimdows doesn't make it a better product, it just makes it a monopoly.
As for its stability, we'll take it on your terms, pre-XP (suits me fine as I haven't had that much experience with XP) and I can tell you I do a hell of a lot more tech support for my wintel using friends/family than I do for those who use other platforms. With those who use linux, unix, etc admittedly it's simply because they're comfortable with and know enough about their 'puters to fix it themselves. With those who use the mac (disclaimer I do) and many of them refuse to upgrade to the Unixy-goodness of OS X, it's because their systems don't crash. Your point is taken of course that windows may not crash as much as some people *imply* (rarely directly claim) but it's relative.
Free Speech in the US as in many other places always has its limits, and it's a matter of how things are phrased. If you sign an NDA, then you forfeit your right to speak about topic "X".
If you're sitting in judgment over people's actions (or corporations'), as the Appellate Court points out, you must express your views in the court room! so that the defendant has a chance to answer your criticisms either in that courtroom or in an appellate court.
Jackson defends himself with the argument that people have a right to know what's going on in the courtroom. The parties to a case, however: those most directly affected by the judgment have a much stronger claim - one that Jackson totally ignored.
While totally in favour of Jackson's ruling and findings of fact, I strongly believe that his was one of the worst displays of judicial irresponsibility we have recently seen.
Perhaps it's just me, but sounds an awful lot like the OpenDoc project on the Mac many years ago. And my memory vaguely suggests many other functionality-oriented mix-n-match projects around that time.
Always seemed like a good idea that was ahead of its time...
Although you're right about Australia having most, but not all.
There is no right to peaceably assemble. In fact I believe in most States and Territories, if not all, you have to gain police permission or face the possibility of being removed as a public nuisance.
There is no right to petition the Government as such. In some case, the name of which escapes my mind, it was held there's no actual right to be given a vote!
And the closest we get to a right to free speech etc is the _implied_ freedom of political communication.
Software has been described to me as a gas: it will expand to fill any container you wish to place it in.
Thus, if you put the same amount of air you can fit in a 250ml bottle in a 1 litre bottle, it will still fill it up. Similarly, if you give M$, or Apple, or Adobe or any other s/w maker more space, they'll use it =)
According to Frank Rose, in his book West of Eden, the End of Innocence at Apple Computer, it was the Macintosh product range that was named after Jobs' favourite type of apple.
While I agree with the general "vibe" of your post, you seem to have a few misconceptions.
Copyright does not inherently create illegal monopolies or compromise the free market. The point of copyright, within a free market, is to allow authors (of literature, music, software, etc) to profit from their works - FOR A TIME.
A free market does not have illegal monopolies - a free market is one where competition ensures that monopolies either, don't exist, or, only exist where a monopoly is natural due to the nature of the industry (arguably water and electricity distribution, etc).
Besides which, the US is only concerned with a "free market" (however the US wishes to conceive of this phrase) within its own borders. As has been pointed out in this discussion in several places already, the US doesn't care what its companies do outside its own borders: break the law, exploit resources and people, f*ck up the environment: as long as it ain't ours...
Just a quick note: "the industry" that allowed itself to be lead by the nose was IBM, by allowing Microsoft to become (for all intensive purposes) sole external licensee of their OS (DOS). Why was IBM (and so Microsoft) able to make such a big impact? Big business was used to Big Blue.
Point? Don't get too caught up in what we can do - the computer industry supplies computers and associated "things": It's big business that will make the difference, go out there and sell it to the CTO's and CFO's...
Agreed that "Joe Schmuck" doesn't care about becoming a content provider or freedom of the press, sharing information, etc. This is clearly evident in the number of people sharing vs. number of people leeching on p2p networks (on Gnutella, 70% people shared nothing, 50% of search responses came from 1% of servers - lecture given at Australian National Uni.).
This does not mean however, that the cause is lost. Systems like Freenet, which is quite sh*te at sharing files Napster style, would work brilliantly if it was used as its author designed it to be used - sharing important information without fear of reprisal or censorship. The fact of the matter is, by restricting upload speeds, and encouraging the average user to stay a consumer, a corporation can in effect deny the user the framework to use the freedom they theoretically have gained from the internet.
Until these technical issues are solved, Joe Scmuck will remain a schmuck...
Slashdot Mirror
That's kind of the point. Look at the different reactions across the world to Bhopal and 11 September. Why is one so much worse than the other? Maybe because they were consumers? or Americans? but the original poster's comments are right on the spot.
I wonder if any of those macs had RAM Doubler installed on their Hard Drives?
- sorry, I'll be quiet now
What a load of utter crap. If all you want a pc for is to learn sw/hw interaction, then go a cheap make it yourself thing with linux or bsd or minix or something else that's free. But don't start with that bullshit "oh macs have proprietary this and proprietary that" it's been done to death.
The mac has a the same frickin' parts as any other computer: cpu, ram, hd, etc and software: os, application sw as any other damn computer.
The fact that it's 'proprietary' (I assume what you're saying is it doesn't have a huge marketshare) shouldn't make a damn bit of difference if you're interested in how computers work (cf how an x86 box running linux works).
It seems that they can emulate a pc-register in a risc architecture, but could they (easily) do it the other way around? Perhaps this is the real reason why they kept the abi the way it is: so they could easily port os x to whatever platform they like...
I think more than emphasising what's bad about TV, it's important to emphasise what's good about gaming (disclaimer: I rarely play computer games and then it's usually for short periods of time):
...
1. increases reaction times
2. is actually interactive rather than making you unilaterally consume (oops, is that a good thing? depends on perspective i guess)
There must be heaps more - anyone else?
what are you talking about? I saw Elvis just the other day, in McDonalds... I'm sure it was him, why would he be dressed like that otherwise?
yeah, apple's a lot less interesting since it lost its since of humour.
Don't know where you're getting your legal info, but back up their my friend.
First, it may an instance of fair dealing (as it is known here). More likely it would be a breach of our consumer protection legislation (cf intellectual property legislation) which is embodied in the Trade Practices Act (1974). Point is as far as I know, this is the first test of the claim.
As for anti-piracy protection interfering with legitimate back-ups, etc: the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act which is our version of the US DMCA, states that a person may make legal back-ups, etc, but manufacturers using TPM's (technological protection measures) are under no compulsion to facilitate this.
Further TPM-circumvention devices are illegal. But it's not illegal to use them to circumvent for fair dealing purposes. I'm sure you appreciate the stupidity of this solution.
What I find more interesting is the fact that the comment was submitted by Nick DePlume... editor of thinksecret...
I forgot to add a response to your dig at macs at the bottom. Your rant about 'proprietary hardware' has been discussed in several other threads on /., I suggest you check them out, because it's *totally* unjustified when you look at the new macs.
Pretty translucent cases? Oh I'm sorry, do good taste and aesthetics get in the way of your computing experience? Seriously this is the dumbest complaint I hear about macs: "They're just too... nice looking. People would think I had you know, taste. I might get envious glances from girls and a raised eyebrow or two instead of sneers and jeers... I just... wouldn't know how to deal with it"
As for the video card, check out the g4 towers, easiest and most customisable computer I can see around in terms of the way the case is built. And essentially a variation on the old blue & white G3 towers, which were *way* ahead of their time for design (in so many ways).
The fact that lots of games, apps, etc are available for Dimdows doesn't make it a better product, it just makes it a monopoly.
As for its stability, we'll take it on your terms, pre-XP (suits me fine as I haven't had that much experience with XP) and I can tell you I do a hell of a lot more tech support for my wintel using friends/family than I do for those who use other platforms. With those who use linux, unix, etc admittedly it's simply because they're comfortable with and know enough about their 'puters to fix it themselves. With those who use the mac (disclaimer I do) and many of them refuse to upgrade to the Unixy-goodness of OS X, it's because their systems don't crash. Your point is taken of course that windows may not crash as much as some people *imply* (rarely directly claim) but it's relative.
not graphically, but you can always launch terminal su username and away you go...
If you're sitting in judgment over people's actions (or corporations'), as the Appellate Court points out, you must express your views in the court room! so that the defendant has a chance to answer your criticisms either in that courtroom or in an appellate court.
Jackson defends himself with the argument that people have a right to know what's going on in the courtroom. The parties to a case, however: those most directly affected by the judgment have a much stronger claim - one that Jackson totally ignored.
While totally in favour of Jackson's ruling and findings of fact, I strongly believe that his was one of the worst displays of judicial irresponsibility we have recently seen.
Perhaps it's just me, but sounds an awful lot like the OpenDoc project on the Mac many years ago. And my memory vaguely suggests many other functionality-oriented mix-n-match projects around that time.
Always seemed like a good idea that was ahead of its time...
Hmm...
Although you're right about Australia having most, but not all.
There is no right to peaceably assemble. In fact I believe in most States and Territories, if not all, you have to gain police permission or face the possibility of being removed as a public nuisance.
There is no right to petition the Government as such. In some case, the name of which escapes my mind, it was held there's no actual right to be given a vote!
And the closest we get to a right to free speech etc is the _implied_ freedom of political communication.
But yeah, we do have freedom of religion (s116).
Dear poster,
This question was posted by Cliff, not Pudge. Duh.
Software has been described to me as a gas: it will expand to fill any container you wish to place it in.
Thus, if you put the same amount of air you can fit in a 250ml bottle in a 1 litre bottle, it will still fill it up. Similarly, if you give M$, or Apple, or Adobe or any other s/w maker more space, they'll use it =)
According to Frank Rose, in his book West of Eden, the End of Innocence at Apple Computer, it was the Macintosh product range that was named after Jobs' favourite type of apple.
Besides which, the US is only concerned with a "free market" (however the US wishes to conceive of this phrase) within its own borders. As has been pointed out in this discussion in several places already, the US doesn't care what its companies do outside its own borders: break the law, exploit resources and people, f*ck up the environment: as long as it ain't ours...
Point? Don't get too caught up in what we can do - the computer industry supplies computers and associated "things": It's big business that will make the difference, go out there and sell it to the CTO's and CFO's...
I don't know whether licencing laws have different ground rules though
This does not mean however, that the cause is lost. Systems like Freenet, which is quite sh*te at sharing files Napster style, would work brilliantly if it was used as its author designed it to be used - sharing important information without fear of reprisal or censorship. The fact of the matter is, by restricting upload speeds, and encouraging the average user to stay a consumer, a corporation can in effect deny the user the framework to use the freedom they theoretically have gained from the internet.
Until these technical issues are solved, Joe Scmuck will remain a schmuck...