that does unpack everything only to throw away all but the file you wanted, though. try unpacking only the middle-most file in the kernel source tarball, see how long it takes.
of course, zip has to put up with (very marginally) worse compression because each file is compressed individually to solve this problem. also, tarballs can be treated as streams since all the metadata is interleaved in with the files - a zip has all the directory data in dedicated portions of the file, which means you might have to seek backwards in certain situations. that, of course, is not always possible in some of the situations where a tarball will still work for ya.
If the Germans had not placed Hitler in power, if the Germans had not sustained him in power, if Hitler had not plunged Europe into a war of conquest and genocide, then not a single Allied bomb would have ever fallen on German territory.
true, but that still seems to me like an awfully thin justification for war crimes.
maybe it's just that i have a strange viewpoint on this; i'm mainly interested in the morals of violence and what should be counted as a "war crime", and why; blaming the deaths of some number of thousands of noncombatant civilians on how their country made the wrong guy boss a decade earlier just seems like a stretch.
Hitler and the other fascists, including those ruling Japan, had to be stopped, at any cost. The cost of defeat was unthinkable.
entirely true, and this comes closer to an explanation for the atrocities in question. still, i'm unconvinced that it's much of a moral (or legal) justification; i'm not convinced somebody should be let off the hook for mass murder just because they can claim that, well, if we'd lost then such-and-such worse atrocity would have resulted. that's very likely true, but does it make the atrocity in question necessary or justified?
Trying to take the moral high ground in war is pointless. Death is death, regardless of motive. But, that is no reason to avoid fighting to win.
i agree enthusiastically; i am, as it were, merely bickering about what moves should be considered legal and proper in the fight, and why. though it is, of course, an entirely academic dispute - the winners will decide what counted as fair, and that'll be that, just as it always has been.
See, Dresden was not a stategic military target, but the U.S. decided to bomb our city anyway in order to destroy the morale of the general civilian population. In other words, the U.S. engaged in terrorism because terrorism works.
because they thought it would work. but given that the Blitz had not exactly demoralized Londoners, i have never quite understood why the allies thought it would work.
much the same calculus should still apply today - human psychology being what it is, the circumstances in which strategic terrorism might work or conversely certainly won't work are probably quite static. i can't offhand think of a situation in which it definitely will work; though situations where the enemy is unknown and impossible to locate seem to favor it quite a lot. in actual, nation-on-nation shooting war, it seems like a gross waste of munitions and little else.
(Japan was done for long before the bomb, arguably even from the very beginning, due to the economic disparity alone. they just bit off way more than they could chew, and the smarter of their admirals knew it, too. Hiroshima and Nagasaki at best only hastened the inevitable.)
Certainly, the firebombing of German cities was an atrocity; but these acts were conducted in response to previous deliberate targetting of UK cities by the Luftwaffe.
that's true, but merely being true does not prevent it from sounding an awful lot like "but he started it, mommy!".
They did what they thought they needed to do to end (that is, win) the war. (Ditto with the atomic bombs dropped on Japan). It's easy to make predictions like `it had no effect`, `they would have won anyway` now, isn't it?
it's even easier to say it was a war crime.
that the perpetrators of certain war crimes thought their crimes were necessary at the time shouldn't be much of a surprise. even the military won't let you carry a gun very long if you go committing atrocities without even that slender an excuse. but that doesn't make these actions less criminal; there's nothing about an atrocity that says, "oh well, if you really, really insist you have to, then it's not so atrocious after all". it doesn't work that way.
it might even have actually been necessary - though of course we'll never know - and yet nonetheless been a war crime. you're no less a robber for stealing that loaf of bread just because you would have starved to death otherwise, after all.
Find me a race that can reliably run a nuclear power reactor
ours. we have reliably run several hundred of the things, all over the planet, in all sorts of conditions and circumstances, for decades. very, very few of them have had any sorts of incidents at all.
of course, we have also cocked up spectacularly in a number of regrettable cases.
we've also managed several different space programs, manned and (mostly) unmanned, for about as many decades, largely successfully - there haven't been all that very many screwed-up space launches, compared to how many hundreds have gone off without a hitch.
of course, we've really badly screwed up a handful of those launches as well, occasionally with loss of life in that process.
the same caveats go for every single enterprise humans have ever attempted, from powered flight to automobiles to sail ships to living in caves. if you want a race that can do a thing - any one thing - with perfection before you'll let anybody try to do that thing, you will never get anything done. not anything at all.
and that was the point i was trying to make - that you can't blame a technology for human failings, and you can't just hide under the blankets from everything that might potentially go wrong while waiting for mankind to be perfected so that we won't have to fear screwing something up again. you can't stop trying just because you fail. that leads nowhere. the sensible thing is to gain an understanding of the risks and how to manage them, and then just up and take them - that's the only way to ever get anywhere.
When a core melt-down happens, there is not a damn thing on this planet (that I know of) that can the molten (and getting hotter by the second) glob that used to be the core.
It has been theorized that if this happens, the molten core will burn through the earth until it reaches water.
part(s) of the core of Chernobyl 4
melted down.
(though i'm not entirely sure if this was due to a runaway reaction producing too much heat, or due to external heating from the graphite moderator fire started by the steam explosion. nor am i sure which would be the worse thing.)
what basically happened was that the molten core material had to melt its way through its containment (what there was of it). in the process, of course, it became
diluted
with molten whatever-it-had-just-touched matter. this can't go on forever without the core matter going subcritical; the "china syndrome", melt-through-the-planet scenario presupposes some mechanism for the fissile material to stay homogenous and concentrated, and i for one can't think of any.
except that made the know-nothings even more scared of their own shadows, so politics and fear-mongering killed that too.
Or perhaps my irrationality extends to thinking that when the pigeons around the UK's nuclear waste processing plants are so radioactive they would be classed as nuclear waste themselves
if you think that proves anything about nuclear waste reprocessing as such, then you would indeed be thinking irrationally. if, however, you get a sneaking suspicion that the simple explanation - namely, that whoever operated that particular plant were a bunch of goofball morons who shouldn't have been trusted to operate a toaster - might after all be more likely, then perhaps there is still hope for your rationality and sense.
The problem with nuclear power is that it is made by humans and they have a habit of fucking up on a grand scale.
how, exactly, is that a problem with nuclear power?
that is a problem with people. don't blame nuclear power for your belonging to a race of goofball morons. if you let humanity's inherent flawedness scare you away from doing anything at all remotely dangerous - because, ohmygoddess, we might fuck it up somehow, because we are so goddamn motherfucking stupid, we can't trust ourselves with pointy sticks even, we might poke our eyes out, won't somebody think of the children - then nothing will ever get done. at all. by anybody.
yes, nuclear power carries some risks. so does every other damn thing you will ever think of. as a general rule of thumb, the more worthwhile and useful things you can think of will be proportionally more dangerous. that's life - deal with it.
All breeder reactors are a potential source of weapons of mass destruction.
so what? so's the neighborhood hardware store. plus it'd be easier and safer to make weapons out of the hardware store's goods if you have to do it in your garage - to handle largish quantities of plutonium and survive to tell about it, you actually have to have a clue. and decent facilities, which ain't cheap. or easy to hide.
the weapons-of-big-mushroom-clouds "argument" basically only applies to national governments, because they're the only ones with the resources to make it credible - and they can already make all the WMDs they really want anyway. the only comeback would be "dirty bombs", but that's not an argument either, because nerve gasses would be just as destructive, just as easy to make, less likely to kill their maker in the process, and a lot easier to hide the making of.
somebody please mod parent up even further. only post with both sense and perspective in these comments so far.
as for my own opinion - nuclear power would be safe, cheap, and non-polluting, if only the idiot NIMBY know-nothings would cease screaming "it can't be done" at the people who would otherwise be doing it long enough for the latter to get anything done. however, that would take an outlawing of idiocy, which isn't gonna happen because the lawmakers would all lose their electorates, so...
but if you look at Windows XP out of the box it STANDS OUT and YELLS "I'm different!" (from previous versions of Windows)
yeah, it yells "i'm trying to copy a different version of MacOS from the other versions of windows!". pity it doesn't yell "i've actually learned something from MacOS, unlike the other versions of windows!".
myself, i don't much give a damn what a GUI looks like or what other GUIs it may or may not resemble; i care whether or not a GUI works and lets me do my job. by this standard, gnome and kde are both decent-to-good, windows is so-so at best, and macos is good to excellent. i might use a mac if the hardware was affordable, and/or if the most recent versions weren't going downhill in usability even as they're finally fixing their worthless-junk underlying OS problems.
200MHz is too slow for daily work. 250MHz P5/MMX is what i'm stuck with (overclocked 233), and OOo is painfully slow. not just to start up, but to use. mozilla runs decent once it's up, but starting it up is so horrendously slow i use galeon instead. it's only moderately annoying to wait for. evolution starts up not much quicker than moz does; thank ghods it runs pretty snappy for most (but not all) regular tasks, or i'd have to go back to using mutt for all my mail.
my desktop's so damn slow, i'm actually looking forward to upgrading to gnome 2.4, because everybody keeps saying the thing's faster than 2.0 - if they're wrong about that, i'm gonna be SOL before long.
maintainability. granted it's not as big a deal as it is with production servers, but with your home system, you probably don't want to spend any time dicking around maintaining it if you don't really have to, do you? there's beer to drink and late shows to watch, after all - i know that's what i'd rather be doing...
as a home user, you're probably not finding yourself having to expand suddenly-too-small filesystems very often. (although if you are, you want LVM.) but you might occasionally find yourself wanting to move all your filesystems over to that brand-spanking-new harddisk you bought, no? easy enough with LVM, just migrate the LVs to the newly-added PV, then delete the old one.
snapshots might be useful, too, if you do backups like we all really ought to. no worries about files changing on you in the middle of the backup process when you're backing up a static snapshot.
my only gripe with LVM: if you've got a configured and running "regular" setup with (say) three or four partitions, and migrate it the "easy" way to LVM, you'll be left with three or four unused partitions "in front" of your LVM PV, and deleting them is a minor PITA because your next boot is gonna choke on the VG activation so you'll have to fix it by hand. that's life for ya, i guess, i'm just hoping the device mapper in 2.6-to-be is gonna fix that...
it's mostly just you. that carrier plane actually looks kinda neat to me... weird as all hells, but so weird it flips over into neatness. looks like a slimmed-down container crane with wings, almost. except most container cranes don't have that all-fiberglass sleekness, of course.
SS1 could do with a smaller wing, perhaps, but i guess if you wanna fly where there's barely any air you need all the lifting surfaces you can get...
(for a really weird-looking Rutan creation, google for the Boomerang. asymmetric multi-engine aircraft rox0r!)
plenty other people have already linked to "Reflections on Trusting Trust", so i won't duplicate their efforts. i'll just point out that:
(1) you're _trusting_ that the C compiler really is "only" a translator. unless, of course, you've verified the damn thing yourself, this may or may not be a safe assumption to make. more than likely it *is* safe, of course, but it would be better security to take no more on trust than you absolutely have to - which means, no more code on your important machines than necessary. does the machine need a compiler to do its primary task? if no, it shouldn't have one; useless code can have useless security vulnerabilities.
(2) how is it going to help an attacker? idunno. i don't want to find out, either. any attacker that got through *my* firewall will damn well *have* to precompile their own code (making sure to get all their dependencies right for the target system) then upload the binary, wasting that much more time and effort and bandwidth. this is *good* - it means attacking my system will be that much more work for them. i *want* it to be hard for the bad guys.
(3) sure, the blackhat can precompile and download his own binaries. what if i'm paranoid enough to mount all my "binary" filesystems RO, and all my writable ones noexec? probably a smart enough attacker could work around that too, but doing so without a compiler (or perl interpreter, or whatever else i'm masochistic enough to do without) will be steadily more of a PITA.
security in depth relies on several, independent security measures. each by itself may provide no more than an inconvenience, yet all together may be more trouble than it's worth for any attacker. removing gcc can be one such inconvenience. don't knock it until you've been exploited through it...
Re:Theres no scientific proof for any of this.
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 1
manic depression is a personality trait
that has to be the dumbest thing i have ever seen posted to slashdot, and that's saying one helluva lot.
i'm married to a manic depressive person. i've read some Kay Jamison, i've looked into the DSM guidelines for the disorder enough to understand them, i've done the relevant homework on mood stabilizers and antidepressants to understand what my spouse is taking. and i've seen my spouse functional and dysfunctional, happy, miserable, dysthymic, hypomanic, working well in society and locked up in a closed ward. no, i'm not an expert, but i don't have to be - i know damn bloody well you're talking outta some horse's ass. bipolar a "personality trait", bull fucking shit.
tell you what - call up your local hospital's psych ward, see if you can play candy striper there for a few weeks. that should teach you when to shut the fuck up and just have people think you're an idiot.
unless you go cutting-edgehigh-tech nuclear plant, in which case you just need some inert gas and meltdowns are impossible.
but of course we can't do that - that'd mean doing some (shock! horror!)
nuclear powerresearch, and (no! say it ain't so!) building some brand-new designs. clearly it must be much better to keep building those nuke plants just like they did back in the 1950's and 60's, or better yet, don't build any new ones at all - just keep running the ones they built back then, more or less unchanged.
the Quark version that's keeping my local community college from going all-out OSX on their macs still requires a copy protection dongle. in fact, the ITS department even had the damnedest time getting USB dongles out of Quark so they could at least go to flat-panel iMacs. there was plenty of cursing all around last fall as the semester was about to start and the student newspaper was worrying how they were gonna go to press...
And why the fuck would you want to run UFS on a desktop machine?
nonono, for this sort of article you need an "Apple is dying" troll. yes, i know there's a Mach somewhere underneath OSX, but that's just not enough to run a "BSD is dying" troll in the apple department of/. - please keep the tired old/. troll subjects straight!
so does mine, but does anybody ever seem to notice? heck no. i go buy beer at my local grocery store, i get carded every other time, but not ONCE have they so much as tried to verify the plastic i'm paying them with is actually mine. eesh...
Slashdot Mirror
that does unpack everything only to throw away all but the file you wanted, though. try unpacking only the middle-most file in the kernel source tarball, see how long it takes.
of course, zip has to put up with (very marginally) worse compression because each file is compressed individually to solve this problem. also, tarballs can be treated as streams since all the metadata is interleaved in with the files - a zip has all the directory data in dedicated portions of the file, which means you might have to seek backwards in certain situations. that, of course, is not always possible in some of the situations where a tarball will still work for ya.
true, but that still seems to me like an awfully thin justification for war crimes.
maybe it's just that i have a strange viewpoint on this; i'm mainly interested in the morals of violence and what should be counted as a "war crime", and why; blaming the deaths of some number of thousands of noncombatant civilians on how their country made the wrong guy boss a decade earlier just seems like a stretch.
entirely true, and this comes closer to an explanation for the atrocities in question. still, i'm unconvinced that it's much of a moral (or legal) justification; i'm not convinced somebody should be let off the hook for mass murder just because they can claim that, well, if we'd lost then such-and-such worse atrocity would have resulted. that's very likely true, but does it make the atrocity in question necessary or justified?
i agree enthusiastically; i am, as it were, merely bickering about what moves should be considered legal and proper in the fight, and why. though it is, of course, an entirely academic dispute - the winners will decide what counted as fair, and that'll be that, just as it always has been.
because they thought it would work. but given that the Blitz had not exactly demoralized Londoners, i have never quite understood why the allies thought it would work.
much the same calculus should still apply today - human psychology being what it is, the circumstances in which strategic terrorism might work or conversely certainly won't work are probably quite static. i can't offhand think of a situation in which it definitely will work; though situations where the enemy is unknown and impossible to locate seem to favor it quite a lot. in actual, nation-on-nation shooting war, it seems like a gross waste of munitions and little else.
(Japan was done for long before the bomb, arguably even from the very beginning, due to the economic disparity alone. they just bit off way more than they could chew, and the smarter of their admirals knew it, too. Hiroshima and Nagasaki at best only hastened the inevitable.)
that's true, but merely being true does not prevent it from sounding an awful lot like "but he started it, mommy!".
it's even easier to say it was a war crime.
that the perpetrators of certain war crimes thought their crimes were necessary at the time shouldn't be much of a surprise. even the military won't let you carry a gun very long if you go committing atrocities without even that slender an excuse. but that doesn't make these actions less criminal; there's nothing about an atrocity that says, "oh well, if you really, really insist you have to, then it's not so atrocious after all". it doesn't work that way.
it might even have actually been necessary - though of course we'll never know - and yet nonetheless been a war crime. you're no less a robber for stealing that loaf of bread just because you would have starved to death otherwise, after all.
ours. we have reliably run several hundred of the things, all over the planet, in all sorts of conditions and circumstances, for decades. very, very few of them have had any sorts of incidents at all.
of course, we have also cocked up spectacularly in a number of regrettable cases.
we've also managed several different space programs, manned and (mostly) unmanned, for about as many decades, largely successfully - there haven't been all that very many screwed-up space launches, compared to how many hundreds have gone off without a hitch.
of course, we've really badly screwed up a handful of those launches as well, occasionally with loss of life in that process.
the same caveats go for every single enterprise humans have ever attempted, from powered flight to automobiles to sail ships to living in caves. if you want a race that can do a thing - any one thing - with perfection before you'll let anybody try to do that thing, you will never get anything done. not anything at all.
and that was the point i was trying to make - that you can't blame a technology for human failings, and you can't just hide under the blankets from everything that might potentially go wrong while waiting for mankind to be perfected so that we won't have to fear screwing something up again. you can't stop trying just because you fail. that leads nowhere. the sensible thing is to gain an understanding of the risks and how to manage them, and then just up and take them - that's the only way to ever get anywhere.
part(s) of the core of Chernobyl 4 melted down. (though i'm not entirely sure if this was due to a runaway reaction producing too much heat, or due to external heating from the graphite moderator fire started by the steam explosion. nor am i sure which would be the worse thing.)
what basically happened was that the molten core material had to melt its way through its containment (what there was of it). in the process, of course, it became diluted with molten whatever-it-had-just-touched matter. this can't go on forever without the core matter going subcritical; the "china syndrome", melt-through-the-planet scenario presupposes some mechanism for the fissile material to stay homogenous and concentrated, and i for one can't think of any.
"stick it in a fast reactor and use it again".
except that made the know-nothings even more scared of their own shadows, so politics and fear-mongering killed that too.
if you think that proves anything about nuclear waste reprocessing as such, then you would indeed be thinking irrationally. if, however, you get a sneaking suspicion that the simple explanation - namely, that whoever operated that particular plant were a bunch of goofball morons who shouldn't have been trusted to operate a toaster - might after all be more likely, then perhaps there is still hope for your rationality and sense.
how, exactly, is that a problem with nuclear power?
that is a problem with people. don't blame nuclear power for your belonging to a race of goofball morons. if you let humanity's inherent flawedness scare you away from doing anything at all remotely dangerous - because, ohmygoddess, we might fuck it up somehow, because we are so goddamn motherfucking stupid, we can't trust ourselves with pointy sticks even, we might poke our eyes out, won't somebody think of the children - then nothing will ever get done. at all. by anybody.
yes, nuclear power carries some risks. so does every other damn thing you will ever think of. as a general rule of thumb, the more worthwhile and useful things you can think of will be proportionally more dangerous. that's life - deal with it.
version control's handy for controlling your configuration files. i've never tried CVS, but i make a point of RCS'ing my /etc directory.
yes - it's one of those large, complex systems that were evolved from small, simple systems which didn't work either.
...to astronomers, anyway. they're used to decimal fractions of years, and 2003.10 ended sometime in march; we're into 2003.9 by now.
then we'd have to abbreviate it "pee-pee drive"...
so what? so's the neighborhood hardware store. plus it'd be easier and safer to make weapons out of the hardware store's goods if you have to do it in your garage - to handle largish quantities of plutonium and survive to tell about it, you actually have to have a clue. and decent facilities, which ain't cheap. or easy to hide.
the weapons-of-big-mushroom-clouds "argument" basically only applies to national governments, because they're the only ones with the resources to make it credible - and they can already make all the WMDs they really want anyway. the only comeback would be "dirty bombs", but that's not an argument either, because nerve gasses would be just as destructive, just as easy to make, less likely to kill their maker in the process, and a lot easier to hide the making of.
as for my own opinion - nuclear power would be safe, cheap, and non-polluting, if only the idiot NIMBY know-nothings would cease screaming "it can't be done" at the people who would otherwise be doing it long enough for the latter to get anything done. however, that would take an outlawing of idiocy, which isn't gonna happen because the lawmakers would all lose their electorates, so...
yeah, it yells "i'm trying to copy a different version of MacOS from the other versions of windows!". pity it doesn't yell "i've actually learned something from MacOS, unlike the other versions of windows!".
myself, i don't much give a damn what a GUI looks like or what other GUIs it may or may not resemble; i care whether or not a GUI works and lets me do my job. by this standard, gnome and kde are both decent-to-good, windows is so-so at best, and macos is good to excellent. i might use a mac if the hardware was affordable, and/or if the most recent versions weren't going downhill in usability even as they're finally fixing their worthless-junk underlying OS problems.
my desktop's so damn slow, i'm actually looking forward to upgrading to gnome 2.4, because everybody keeps saying the thing's faster than 2.0 - if they're wrong about that, i'm gonna be SOL before long.
what error? every paycheck i ever got had a "signature" rubber-stamped on it.
as a home user, you're probably not finding yourself having to expand suddenly-too-small filesystems very often. (although if you are, you want LVM.) but you might occasionally find yourself wanting to move all your filesystems over to that brand-spanking-new harddisk you bought, no? easy enough with LVM, just migrate the LVs to the newly-added PV, then delete the old one.
snapshots might be useful, too, if you do backups like we all really ought to. no worries about files changing on you in the middle of the backup process when you're backing up a static snapshot.
my only gripe with LVM: if you've got a configured and running "regular" setup with (say) three or four partitions, and migrate it the "easy" way to LVM, you'll be left with three or four unused partitions "in front" of your LVM PV, and deleting them is a minor PITA because your next boot is gonna choke on the VG activation so you'll have to fix it by hand. that's life for ya, i guess, i'm just hoping the device mapper in 2.6-to-be is gonna fix that...
SS1 could do with a smaller wing, perhaps, but i guess if you wanna fly where there's barely any air you need all the lifting surfaces you can get...
(for a really weird-looking Rutan creation, google for the Boomerang. asymmetric multi-engine aircraft rox0r!)
plenty other people have already linked to "Reflections on Trusting Trust", so i won't duplicate their efforts. i'll just point out that:
(1) you're _trusting_ that the C compiler really is "only" a translator. unless, of course, you've verified the damn thing yourself, this may or may not be a safe assumption to make. more than likely it *is* safe, of course, but it would be better security to take no more on trust than you absolutely have to - which means, no more code on your important machines than necessary. does the machine need a compiler to do its primary task? if no, it shouldn't have one; useless code can have useless security vulnerabilities.
(2) how is it going to help an attacker? idunno. i don't want to find out, either. any attacker that got through *my* firewall will damn well *have* to precompile their own code (making sure to get all their dependencies right for the target system) then upload the binary, wasting that much more time and effort and bandwidth. this is *good* - it means attacking my system will be that much more work for them. i *want* it to be hard for the bad guys.
(3) sure, the blackhat can precompile and download his own binaries. what if i'm paranoid enough to mount all my "binary" filesystems RO, and all my writable ones noexec? probably a smart enough attacker could work around that too, but doing so without a compiler (or perl interpreter, or whatever else i'm masochistic enough to do without) will be steadily more of a PITA.
security in depth relies on several, independent security measures. each by itself may provide no more than an inconvenience, yet all together may be more trouble than it's worth for any attacker. removing gcc can be one such inconvenience. don't knock it until you've been exploited through it...
that has to be the dumbest thing i have ever seen posted to slashdot, and that's saying one helluva lot.
i'm married to a manic depressive person. i've read some Kay Jamison, i've looked into the DSM guidelines for the disorder enough to understand them, i've done the relevant homework on mood stabilizers and antidepressants to understand what my spouse is taking. and i've seen my spouse functional and dysfunctional, happy, miserable, dysthymic, hypomanic, working well in society and locked up in a closed ward. no, i'm not an expert, but i don't have to be - i know damn bloody well you're talking outta some horse's ass. bipolar a "personality trait", bull fucking shit.
tell you what - call up your local hospital's psych ward, see if you can play candy striper there for a few weeks. that should teach you when to shut the fuck up and just have people think you're an idiot.
but of course we can't do that - that'd mean doing some (shock! horror!) nuclear power research, and (no! say it ain't so!) building some brand-new designs. clearly it must be much better to keep building those nuke plants just like they did back in the 1950's and 60's, or better yet, don't build any new ones at all - just keep running the ones they built back then, more or less unchanged.
the Quark version that's keeping my local community college from going all-out OSX on their macs still requires a copy protection dongle. in fact, the ITS department even had the damnedest time getting USB dongles out of Quark so they could at least go to flat-panel iMacs. there was plenty of cursing all around last fall as the semester was about to start and the student newspaper was worrying how they were gonna go to press...
nonono, for this sort of article you need an "Apple is dying" troll. yes, i know there's a Mach somewhere underneath OSX, but that's just not enough to run a "BSD is dying" troll in the apple department of /. - please keep the tired old /. troll subjects straight!
so does mine, but does anybody ever seem to notice? heck no. i go buy beer at my local grocery store, i get carded every other time, but not ONCE have they so much as tried to verify the plastic i'm paying them with is actually mine. eesh...