It is equally worrying to consider that women have been socially conditioned to think of the quality of their and their (possible) family's life as opposed to the level of pay that they get [which undoubtably also affects quality of life], as it is to consider that men are conditioned to neglect anything and everything in return for greater pay.
Why is that worrying, and why does it have to be "social" conditioning? Genetically, men are more predisposed to be hunters and providers, and women are more predisposed to be nurturers and caretakers. (Yes, these are generalizations. Yes, there are many exceptions.) The point is that you can't just disregard the effects of millions of years of evolution.
If you actually want to speak intelligently about this, you really owe it to yourself to try it out.
Which I can't do, since I don't own any Windows systems.
The sad thing is, you'll be talking it down, when in fact, it's one of the coolest things I've ever seen in this industry.
It very well may be. But, at this point I don't see how anyone can trust Microsoft to put stability and sound architecture ahead of marketing concerns. Microsoft talking about standards compliance and cross-platform technologies has about as much credibility as Al Gore talking about campaign finance reform. Maybe in a year
You can also make it illegal to allow corporations to indirectly give to politicians. Whether through incentives or what not.
No you can't, not unless you're willing to shred the 1st Amendment. If you make it illegal for corporations to give money to politicians, then high-ranking officers of the corporation will give money allegedly as private citizens. Try to ban that, and they will instead give money to advocacy groups that will in turn give it to politicians. Ban that, and not only will they find another loophole, but you've directly violated the rights of speech, press, assembly, and petition.
An alternative solution is for the government to stop passing unconstitutional laws that favor certain corporations; that way there would be no incentive to lobby and corporations would have to actually focus on producing what consumers want.
If that is true, their actions certainly don't show it. It is not the role of government to:
- create a gigantic mandatory Ponzi scheme under the guise of a retirement plan
- dispense billions of dollars in corporate welfare
- use police-state tactics to imprison millions whose only crime was to ingest a substance they disapprove of
- censor the Internet "for the children"
And what people like Lieberman or most other moral-right politicians do is use their newfound Celebrity status to voice their opinions. That's all well and good, really. When you see legislation mandating that companies or citizens do something unconstitutional successfully working it's way through the legislative process, maybe you have the right to complain.
Lieberman and Gore have specifically said that if they're elected and Hollywood doesn't clean up its act in six months, they will try to get legislation passed to force them to. I think it's entirely reasonable to protest threats of censorship.
On the other hand, Gore and Lieberman subsequently attended tons of Hollywood fund raisers and curiously failed to bring the topic up, so it's possible they were just pandering to soccer moms for votes. So they are either liars, censors or both.
every other person you disagree with has that some right to freedom of Speech, and there is not reason that holding a government salary should prevent them from saying what they belive.
Absolutely. I have no problem with Lieberman saying he doesn't like what Hollywood produces. I have a huge problem with him threatening to imprison people if they produce things he doesn't like.
Then I read a description of what the program does, and that is flat illegal, no matter what you say. It makes a copy of copyrighted material.
Legality is a matter for the courts and that is still being decided. Regardless, it is not wrong, no matter what you or the courts say. It allows the owner of a DVD to make a copy for space-shifting purposes, a long-recognized application of fair use. It could also be used to pirate DVDs, just like a CD burner can be used to pirate software. The possibility of illegal use does not justify the criminalization of all use.
If it were to pipe an MPEG video player, not logically going to the hard drive (i.e. only possibly going through virtual memory) then it would not be illegal because it would not "copy" the movie!
It would still be copied to RAM, which would probably be sufficient for the MPAA weasels to try to ban it.
Given that it is IP rights that protect GPL'ed code, one must respect others IP rights by not taking illegal actions because one thinks it's okay.
No one has a duty to obey an unjust law. Arguably, one has a duty to break it. Martin Luther King, yada yada yada.
/. should be careful about trivializing IP or it may find itself at the butt end of a lawsuit.
/. allows a forum for posters to express their views. Any law of which that would be in violation needs to be swiftly challenged and disposed of.
Not to say that it is wrong to oppose oppresive laws and systems, but/. is becoming the "no IP" site.
The/. "official policy" (not that there is one) is not that all IP is bad, but that entities which attempt to abuse IP with bogus patents (Amazon, BT...), post-sale license "agreements" (CueCat, MS...), and purchased legislation (MPAA, RIAA...) should be stopped. (Voting Libertarian would be a good start.)
Not true. Darwin contains far more than "borrowed" BSD code. There's Core Foundation, NetInfo, AppleTalk, IOKit, and more. And aside from Darwin there's Quicktime Streaming Server and OpenPlay. Apple was not obligated to "give back" anything, but they have chosen to release more than they took.
As an alternative, vote for Harry Browne. Like Nader, he opposes allowing corporations to purchase anti-consumer legislation. Unlike Nader, he applies pro-liberty concepts consistently, including your right to spend your money as you see fit rather than having a huge portion it wasted on ineffective and often destructive federal programs.
Having said that, vote for Nader if you really do believe in his socialist policies. (That's not intended as an insult, just a factual statement). Both he and Browne are at least principled, unlike the major candidates.
Sigh. Must be some way to get the DMCA repealed, no?
Support the EFF. The DeCSS case is probably the best shot we have at giving the DMCA a well-deserved burial. And they've also come out against this instance of Hollywood attempting to rewrite copyright law.
kill the clones
Cloning was never set up properly. They should have had the clone makers go after markets that Apple didn't, instead they ended up cannibalizing Apple sales.
kill the newton
I agree, that sucked. The Newton would be awesome today if it had continued.
bring back the closed, all-in-one, non-upgradable mac (iMac and Cube)
They have Firewire, so you can add high-speed peripherals. With 100Mbps Ethernet built in, most people don't need PCI slots; if you do then get a G4 tower.
throw NeXTOS on top of new hardware (sorry OSX is NeXT in mac's clothing)
And that's bad why? The power and stability of Unix, a (mostly) great UI, what's the problem?
threaten to sue a few dozen web sites
just about squash publication of a book that doesn't portray him as a god
act like a spoiled brat when ATI let the cat out of the bag a little early (like we didn't know anyway?)
No arguments here, those are all pretty tacky.
Sell out Apple to Microsoft.
Um, no. If you're talking about Microsoft's stock investment, Apple at the time was on the verge of death. They needed a vote of confidence, and apparently also had solid evidence that Microsoft had stolen code from them. In a sort of mutual blackmail, Apple agreed to promote IE while Microsoft agreed to continue with MS Office and make a public show of support.
Piss off game developers.
How? They adopted OpenGL instead of their proprietary Quickdraw3D and Id and other developers have been generally pleased from what I've seen.
Failed to give the users/consumers many of the things they have asked for, 6 slot systems, voice recgonition, multi-button mice, etc.
Extremely few users need more than 3 slots, you can buy an expansion chassis if you do. Jobs has demoed IBM's ViaVoice lots of times; I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up integrated into OS X. I have mixed feelings about the mouse; I personally use an Intellimouse (MS should really stick to hardware), but I've heard plenty of anecdotal evidence that non-techies are easily confused with left and right clicking.
Turn Apple's once great, free support into clueless, expensive, too-long-on-hold waste of time
If true, that's obviously bad, and I've heard many other negative reports. On the other hand, I've had to call support exactly once in 5 years.
I think someone needs to take Jobs over their knee and spank him a few times. Doesn't he know how to play nice with everyone else? Apple's market share sucks and by pissing off the only fans and users they have it's going to drop even more.
Apple's market share is increasing, and their stock has soared in the last two years. I disagree with a lot of what Jobs has done, but he's obviously doing some things right. As an Apple shareholder, I'm glad he's there.
Corporations ARE causing serious problems in the world today. They ARE stealing our freedoms. They ARE influencing our government by supporting candidates that will throw our freedoms away so that corporations can rape us.
You're half right. Many (not all) corporations would love to eliminate many freedoms, but they can't do that without government support. Most corporate abuses complained about on/. are a direct result of government legislation. If Congress and the president hadn't allowed the MPAA and friends to purchase the DMCA, we wouldn't be in this DeCSS mess.
This is why I don't understand the support for big-government politicians like Nader and Gore. Even if you believe that either or both of them are entirely honorable men who would use the increased power of government responsibly and never bow to corporate lobbying, can you say the same about their successors? The real solution is to firmly limit what government can do (for example, to the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution), leaving corporations with no reason to try to buy influence. Not that I know how to actually achieve this...
what most puzzles me is why you're so frothing at the mouth to "catch" me in errors
I'm not trying to do that at all, I apologize if that's the way it came out. We're both just trying to get the facts out, and all I'm saying is that "not supported" doesn't necessarily mean "doesn't work".
I (as well as the AC who replied) was able to run DP4 with a Voodoo3 driving a second monitor. No acceleration, but it worked fine. The Dock genie effect looks even funkier when it goes across screens...
PowerBook Owners: Mac OS X Public Beta does not yet include optimized power management (e.g. sleep) or wireless networking (AirPort) functionality for all configurations. These capabilities are planned for release but are not available yet.
Note "for all configurations", implying it works on at least some.
From the install guide PDF:
If you have more than one monitor connected to your computer, you may be unable to
install this release. To install this release, you may only need to unplug the second
monitor. If you still cannot install this release, remove any additional display cards.
This is also what DP4 said, so it looks like multiple monitor support is still in the "sort of works, but unsupported" category.
I believe that Carbon apps will continue to use "\r" as EOL, while Cocoa apps will use the standard "\n". It might get a bit confusing, but fortunately nearly all Mac text editors understand all three line ending conventions.
It will certainly be downloadable. The only question is whether it will be downloadable directly from Apple or from dozens of Hotline and ftp sites. Right now the latter is looking more likely.
I question the accuracy of many parts of this story. Specifically:
I expect that the 128MB/1.5G ram/disk requirements are recommended rather than mandatory; DP4 ran quite well on an iMac with 64MB, although I would want at least 128MB for development.
Longtime Mac users might be taken aback by the Mac OS X beta's need for a user name and password when starting up or rebooting the computer
Since Mac OS X Server the user has been able to specify that an account should be logged in automatically.
In addition, the beta will not install on systems configured with more than one monitor, and it does not support wireless AirPort networking.
DP4 works with both Airport and multiple monitors. I suppose it's possible this functionality has been removed, but I would be very surprised (and annoyed).
In the Mac OS X beta, as in previous versions, opening a Classic Mac OS application first launches the Classic application, which loads a virtual Mac OS 9 environment -- a process sources said takes several minutes.
Only if "several" means "less than one".
Monitors are cheap, and none of mine have ever failed. My G4 at home runs two monitors, and it's much better than a virtual desktop because you can actually see everything at once. Extremely useful for graphic artists and developers (run app on one monitor, debugger on the other).
I've seen DP4 run on two monitors using the base ATI AGP card and a Voodoo3 PCI. The Voodoo didn't get hardware acceleration, but it worked fine. I suspect Apple is just saying that multiple monitors aren't "officially supported".
Would it be too much to expect (or even want) some sort of core knowlegde of the technology, with those that have proven themselves worthy, allowed to jump on the fastlane of the superhighway?
Yes. When you are driving or flying a plane, you can very easily kill others if you don't know what you are doing. Quoting a 100-line article and adding "Me too" is not going to destroy the Internet.
is a majority in broadband worth not ensuring that those who will use it have some sense of responsibility?
How are you going to test this? A malicious cracker would easily past the test, as he knows the correct answers. My grandparents probably would not, as they neither have nor need to have "core knowledge of the technology".
Brown and the libertarians, strange as it may seem, are likely to side with the MPAA and RIAA, due to their strong idealism concerning property rights.
I've yet to see a libertarian who supports the MPAA or RIAA in these matters. Libertarians support contract law, and thus take a dim view of one party attempting to unilaterally impose terms of use after a sale is completed. Now, if customers were required to sign a contract every time they bought a DVD stating that they would only play it on approved players, etc, then libertarians would likely find that enforceable (sucky, but enforceable). On the other hand, the MPAA would be unlikely to do that as it would require them to directly state their belief that consumers should have no rights.
I think a three way debate over this issue between Brown, Nader, and Buchanan would be FAR more interesting than what Bush and Gore would say.
Absolutely. I think that's true of just about any issue.
Thank you, I am enlightened now. To think I was wasting my time trying to reach my own conclusions about ethics and morality. I can't believe I missed the obvious truth that everything governments or corporations say is right, and everything they disapprove of is wrong.
There were better laws that had been doing just fine for decades before the DMCA was purchased. Those would the standard copyright laws with exemptions for fair use and none of this "anti-circumvention" crap. Using DeCSS to view or store DVDs for your own personal use would be legal. Using DeCSS to create thousands of copies and sell them would be illegal. Distributing DeCSS would be legal, since it has plenty of non-infringing uses. Very reasonable, and therefore unacceptable to the MPAA.
The DMCA does not need to be fixed or amended. It needs to be eliminated.
Demonstrably false. Youth violence has declined in recent years while entertainment media is more graphic.
I don't question your experiences, but I have two questions:
- Would you agree that your reaction to video games was substantially greater than that of most people?
- At any point during your "daydreaming", were you actually tempted to inflict violence upon innocent people?
Based on your reaction to your dream, it looks your morals were not compromised at all. Your experience suggests that it may be better for you to stay away from graphic games, but fails to make the case that they cause real-world violence.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is that worrying, and why does it have to be "social" conditioning? Genetically, men are more predisposed to be hunters and providers, and women are more predisposed to be nurturers and caretakers. (Yes, these are generalizations. Yes, there are many exceptions.) The point is that you can't just disregard the effects of millions of years of evolution.
And those languages are C# (copy of Java), C++ (ugh) and VB (no comment necessary).
10. With Java, you have to learn Java. Plus, statistics show that 70% of all Java developers target APIs that are native to their platform.
That doesn't sound right, do you have a source? Most server-side Java is very portable.
With .NET, you can write in *any* of over 15 already-announced languages.
Languages for the Java VM.
If you actually want to speak intelligently about this, you really owe it to yourself to try it out.
Which I can't do, since I don't own any Windows systems.
The sad thing is, you'll be talking it down, when in fact, it's one of the coolest things I've ever seen in this industry.
It very well may be. But, at this point I don't see how anyone can trust Microsoft to put stability and sound architecture ahead of marketing concerns. Microsoft talking about standards compliance and cross-platform technologies has about as much credibility as Al Gore talking about campaign finance reform. Maybe in a year
No you can't, not unless you're willing to shred the 1st Amendment. If you make it illegal for corporations to give money to politicians, then high-ranking officers of the corporation will give money allegedly as private citizens. Try to ban that, and they will instead give money to advocacy groups that will in turn give it to politicians. Ban that, and not only will they find another loophole, but you've directly violated the rights of speech, press, assembly, and petition.
An alternative solution is for the government to stop passing unconstitutional laws that favor certain corporations; that way there would be no incentive to lobby and corporations would have to actually focus on producing what consumers want.
If that is true, their actions certainly don't show it. It is not the role of government to:
- create a gigantic mandatory Ponzi scheme under the guise of a retirement plan
- dispense billions of dollars in corporate welfare
- use police-state tactics to imprison millions whose only crime was to ingest a substance they disapprove of
- censor the Internet "for the children"
And what people like Lieberman or most other moral-right politicians do is use their newfound Celebrity status to voice their opinions. That's all well and good, really. When you see legislation mandating that companies or citizens do something unconstitutional successfully working it's way through the legislative process, maybe you have the right to complain.
Lieberman and Gore have specifically said that if they're elected and Hollywood doesn't clean up its act in six months, they will try to get legislation passed to force them to. I think it's entirely reasonable to protest threats of censorship.
On the other hand, Gore and Lieberman subsequently attended tons of Hollywood fund raisers and curiously failed to bring the topic up, so it's possible they were just pandering to soccer moms for votes. So they are either liars, censors or both.
every other person you disagree with has that some right to freedom of Speech, and there is not reason that holding a government salary should prevent them from saying what they belive.
Absolutely. I have no problem with Lieberman saying he doesn't like what Hollywood produces. I have a huge problem with him threatening to imprison people if they produce things he doesn't like.
The latest clients from distributed.net have Altivec support in both the OS X and OS 8/9 versions. 3.4 Mkeys/sec on my G4/400.
Legality is a matter for the courts and that is still being decided. Regardless, it is not wrong, no matter what you or the courts say. It allows the owner of a DVD to make a copy for space-shifting purposes, a long-recognized application of fair use. It could also be used to pirate DVDs, just like a CD burner can be used to pirate software. The possibility of illegal use does not justify the criminalization of all use.
If it were to pipe an MPEG video player, not logically going to the hard drive (i.e. only possibly going through virtual memory) then it would not be illegal because it would not "copy" the movie!
It would still be copied to RAM, which would probably be sufficient for the MPAA weasels to try to ban it.
Given that it is IP rights that protect GPL'ed code, one must respect others IP rights by not taking illegal actions because one thinks it's okay.
No one has a duty to obey an unjust law. Arguably, one has a duty to break it. Martin Luther King, yada yada yada.
Not to say that it is wrong to oppose oppresive laws and systems, but /. is becoming the "no IP" site.
The /. "official policy" (not that there is one) is not that all IP is bad, but that entities which attempt to abuse IP with bogus patents (Amazon, BT...), post-sale license "agreements" (CueCat, MS...), and purchased legislation (MPAA, RIAA...) should be stopped. (Voting Libertarian would be a good start.)
Not true. Darwin contains far more than "borrowed" BSD code. There's Core Foundation, NetInfo, AppleTalk, IOKit, and more. And aside from Darwin there's Quicktime Streaming Server and OpenPlay. Apple was not obligated to "give back" anything, but they have chosen to release more than they took.
Having said that, vote for Nader if you really do believe in his socialist policies. (That's not intended as an insult, just a factual statement). Both he and Browne are at least principled, unlike the major candidates.
Support the EFF. The DeCSS case is probably the best shot we have at giving the DMCA a well-deserved burial. And they've also come out against this instance of Hollywood attempting to rewrite copyright law.
kill the clones
Cloning was never set up properly. They should have had the clone makers go after markets that Apple didn't, instead they ended up cannibalizing Apple sales.
kill the newton
I agree, that sucked. The Newton would be awesome today if it had continued.
bring back the closed, all-in-one, non-upgradable mac (iMac and Cube)
They have Firewire, so you can add high-speed peripherals. With 100Mbps Ethernet built in, most people don't need PCI slots; if you do then get a G4 tower.
throw NeXTOS on top of new hardware (sorry OSX is NeXT in mac's clothing)
And that's bad why? The power and stability of Unix, a (mostly) great UI, what's the problem?
threaten to sue a few dozen web sites
just about squash publication of a book that doesn't portray him as a god act like a spoiled brat when ATI let the cat out of the bag a little early (like we didn't know anyway?)
No arguments here, those are all pretty tacky.
Sell out Apple to Microsoft.
Um, no. If you're talking about Microsoft's stock investment, Apple at the time was on the verge of death. They needed a vote of confidence, and apparently also had solid evidence that Microsoft had stolen code from them. In a sort of mutual blackmail, Apple agreed to promote IE while Microsoft agreed to continue with MS Office and make a public show of support.
Piss off game developers.
How? They adopted OpenGL instead of their proprietary Quickdraw3D and Id and other developers have been generally pleased from what I've seen.
Failed to give the users/consumers many of the things they have asked for, 6 slot systems, voice recgonition, multi-button mice, etc.
Extremely few users need more than 3 slots, you can buy an expansion chassis if you do. Jobs has demoed IBM's ViaVoice lots of times; I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up integrated into OS X. I have mixed feelings about the mouse; I personally use an Intellimouse (MS should really stick to hardware), but I've heard plenty of anecdotal evidence that non-techies are easily confused with left and right clicking.
Turn Apple's once great, free support into clueless, expensive, too-long-on-hold waste of time
If true, that's obviously bad, and I've heard many other negative reports. On the other hand, I've had to call support exactly once in 5 years.
I think someone needs to take Jobs over their knee and spank him a few times. Doesn't he know how to play nice with everyone else? Apple's market share sucks and by pissing off the only fans and users they have it's going to drop even more.
Apple's market share is increasing, and their stock has soared in the last two years. I disagree with a lot of what Jobs has done, but he's obviously doing some things right. As an Apple shareholder, I'm glad he's there.
You're half right. Many (not all) corporations would love to eliminate many freedoms, but they can't do that without government support. Most corporate abuses complained about on /. are a direct result of government legislation. If Congress and the president hadn't allowed the MPAA and friends to purchase the DMCA, we wouldn't be in this DeCSS mess.
This is why I don't understand the support for big-government politicians like Nader and Gore. Even if you believe that either or both of them are entirely honorable men who would use the increased power of government responsibly and never bow to corporate lobbying, can you say the same about their successors? The real solution is to firmly limit what government can do (for example, to the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution), leaving corporations with no reason to try to buy influence. Not that I know how to actually achieve this...
I'm not trying to do that at all, I apologize if that's the way it came out. We're both just trying to get the facts out, and all I'm saying is that "not supported" doesn't necessarily mean "doesn't work".
I (as well as the AC who replied) was able to run DP4 with a Voodoo3 driving a second monitor. No acceleration, but it worked fine. The Dock genie effect looks even funkier when it goes across screens...
From the install guide PDF:
This is also what DP4 said, so it looks like multiple monitor support is still in the "sort of works, but unsupported" category.
I believe that Carbon apps will continue to use "\r" as EOL, while Cocoa apps will use the standard "\n". It might get a bit confusing, but fortunately nearly all Mac text editors understand all three line ending conventions.
Yes, the beta supports SMP. See http://www.apple.com/macosx/.
It will certainly be downloadable. The only question is whether it will be downloadable directly from Apple or from dozens of Hotline and ftp sites. Right now the latter is looking more likely.
Since Mac OS X Server the user has been able to specify that an account should be logged in automatically.
DP4 works with both Airport and multiple monitors. I suppose it's possible this functionality has been removed, but I would be very surprised (and annoyed).
Only if "several" means "less than one".
Monitors are cheap, and none of mine have ever failed. My G4 at home runs two monitors, and it's much better than a virtual desktop because you can actually see everything at once. Extremely useful for graphic artists and developers (run app on one monitor, debugger on the other).
I've seen DP4 run on two monitors using the base ATI AGP card and a Voodoo3 PCI. The Voodoo didn't get hardware acceleration, but it worked fine. I suspect Apple is just saying that multiple monitors aren't "officially supported".
Yes. When you are driving or flying a plane, you can very easily kill others if you don't know what you are doing. Quoting a 100-line article and adding "Me too" is not going to destroy the Internet.
is a majority in broadband worth not ensuring that those who will use it have some sense of responsibility?
How are you going to test this? A malicious cracker would easily past the test, as he knows the correct answers. My grandparents probably would not, as they neither have nor need to have "core knowledge of the technology".
I've yet to see a libertarian who supports the MPAA or RIAA in these matters. Libertarians support contract law, and thus take a dim view of one party attempting to unilaterally impose terms of use after a sale is completed. Now, if customers were required to sign a contract every time they bought a DVD stating that they would only play it on approved players, etc, then libertarians would likely find that enforceable (sucky, but enforceable). On the other hand, the MPAA would be unlikely to do that as it would require them to directly state their belief that consumers should have no rights.
I think a three way debate over this issue between Brown, Nader, and Buchanan would be FAR more interesting than what Bush and Gore would say.
Absolutely. I think that's true of just about any issue.
Thank you, I am enlightened now. To think I was wasting my time trying to reach my own conclusions about ethics and morality. I can't believe I missed the obvious truth that everything governments or corporations say is right, and everything they disapprove of is wrong.
The DMCA does not need to be fixed or amended. It needs to be eliminated.
Demonstrably false. Youth violence has declined in recent years while entertainment media is more graphic.
I don't question your experiences, but I have two questions:
- Would you agree that your reaction to video games was substantially greater than that of most people?
- At any point during your "daydreaming", were you actually tempted to inflict violence upon innocent people?
Based on your reaction to your dream, it looks your morals were not compromised at all. Your experience suggests that it may be better for you to stay away from graphic games, but fails to make the case that they cause real-world violence.