Two things come to mind:
1) Symantec is encouraging a market (anti-virus software for Macs) that does not yet exist. Currently, why should Mac users need to buy anti-virus software? Perhaps if there were more of a threat for Mac systems (hint hint) Symantec could sell more copies of there software. All about the $$ if you ask me.
2) *BSD's are also affected by this challenge since OS X is based off Darwin which is based off FreeBSD. If Mac viruses become mainstream, the jump to Linux/Unix viruses will have been made. Although inevitable, I'm disappointed a corporation would be encouraging this behavior.
Although their heart is in the right place (saving the reefs) this is doing more evolutionary damage in the long run. I'll explain:
In the environmental saving community there seems to be an incorrect notion that species on our planet are static and that the environment is static. Believe it or not species are supposed to adapt to environment - not the other way around. The concept of altering environment to fit the species is completely backwards. Proof? Ask yourself among all our species on this planet, why are so many of them ideally tuned or specific to their environmental surroundings? Did the environment change to match the species - not!
If we alter the reef's environment to suit the corals of today, then corals of tomorrow will never have a need to adapt or evolve. Weather it be a change in temperature, salinity, or god forbid pollution levels, life will continue to find a way to survive and evolve with or without the help of humans.
The recording industry has always used a technological advantage over its consumers in order to curb (not prevent) piracy. This is nothing new. For example, in the late 80's came the CD. Everyone preferred the CD due to its unmatched quality. Sure you could record to cassette, but you - as a consumer - could never match the quality. Now here we are in the 21st century. We now have the ability to duplicate that quality. Think of this; if MP3's could have only only achieve a maximum bit rate of 56kbps, do you really think Napster would have been such a big threat? In order for companies to survive, they must be able to offer a better (quality - literally) product than what could be acquired for free. If they cannot do this, there is no market for them. Due to what I outlined above, many feel there is no market for the recording industry - at least not based on the original model, which relies heavily on the existance of technological gaps between producer and consumer. This is exactly what laws and DRM are about. It is a feeble attempt at preserving this obsolete model by artificially forcing a technological gap between consumer and producer.
Slashdot Mirror
Two things come to mind: 1) Symantec is encouraging a market (anti-virus software for Macs) that does not yet exist. Currently, why should Mac users need to buy anti-virus software? Perhaps if there were more of a threat for Mac systems (hint hint) Symantec could sell more copies of there software. All about the $$ if you ask me. 2) *BSD's are also affected by this challenge since OS X is based off Darwin which is based off FreeBSD. If Mac viruses become mainstream, the jump to Linux/Unix viruses will have been made. Although inevitable, I'm disappointed a corporation would be encouraging this behavior.
Although their heart is in the right place (saving the reefs) this is doing more evolutionary damage in the long run. I'll explain:
In the environmental saving community there seems to be an incorrect notion that species on our planet are static and that the environment is static. Believe it or not species are supposed to adapt to environment - not the other way around. The concept of altering environment to fit the species is completely backwards. Proof? Ask yourself among all our species on this planet, why are so many of them ideally tuned or specific to their environmental surroundings? Did the environment change to match the species - not!
If we alter the reef's environment to suit the corals of today, then corals of tomorrow will never have a need to adapt or evolve. Weather it be a change in temperature, salinity, or god forbid pollution levels, life will continue to find a way to survive and evolve with or without the help of humans.
Update your source:- 1/books/h andbook/cvsup.html
- 1/books/h andbook/makeworld.html
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859
Compile your source and kernel:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859
The recording industry has always used a technological advantage over its consumers in order to curb (not prevent) piracy. This is nothing new. For example, in the late 80's came the CD. Everyone preferred the CD due to its unmatched quality. Sure you could record to cassette, but you - as a consumer - could never match the quality. Now here we are in the 21st century. We now have the ability to duplicate that quality. Think of this; if MP3's could have only only achieve a maximum bit rate of 56kbps, do you really think Napster would have been such a big threat? In order for companies to survive, they must be able to offer a better (quality - literally) product than what could be acquired for free. If they cannot do this, there is no market for them. Due to what I outlined above, many feel there is no market for the recording industry - at least not based on the original model, which relies heavily on the existance of technological gaps between producer and consumer. This is exactly what laws and DRM are about. It is a feeble attempt at preserving this obsolete model by artificially forcing a technological gap between consumer and producer.