If it went to trial, they would have to explain this and then it would get thrown out. They would need a good reason to be watching your house in the first place (I'm not familiar with probable cause laws, but if they had to resort to an infrared imager to suspect you in the first place I don't think they'd be able to meet those criteria for anything else).
Not quite... You can't control the appearance of the content on the user's machine. You can control the content itself. This is the difference between an editor publishing a book in Braille (same content, different presentation) and the editor rewriting the last chapter himself (different content, not what the author intended).
Suck was an artifact of the time when media was transforming from Old Media to New Media, as Katz would put it::dodges thrown vegetables::. It took advantage of all the Internet could do for content presentation, but it was strictly one-way and didn't offer anything new in the actual content (besides a sarcastic and irreverent tone, which is not exactly unique these days).
User-generated content really is getting more interested than content created by "professionals". Slashdot itself is one of the prime examples: Many articles combine a large body of original content with the comments posted by everyone, to create a totally new way of processing ideas.
2. There's an undocumented but by-now-well-known method for enabling full root that should be on any Mac tech site.
4. classic mode is only truly slow for me when booting it, which takes about 5 minutes (I'm on a beige G3/300). Once it's running, it's not so bad. It's fast enough for me to play MacOS games in it (these tend to be buggier than most progams in classic so ymmv). Also, if you quit every classic app, the environment goes to sleep after a few minutes and X is back to normal.
That comparison should be run with Mac OS X Server, which is OS X with some consumer stuff removed and some more server stuff (QT streaming server, WebObjects, better GUI admin tools) included.
I don't think any system in which the feedback loop of coolness (global audience preferences fed back to artist) exists is ideal. There's too much incentive for conformity on the part of the creators. The answer may be to de-formalize the process, so that you are forced to rely on word-of-mouth and not any automated tools. Perhaps we can only keep track of 150 people because that is an evolutionarily chosen ideal sample size for long-term social interaction. I don't care what 150 million people think; we already have the Billboard Top 100 which is basically the same thing.
I have a feeling that any such system could be easily manipulated as well, just look at what happens to web polls (and to a lesser extent message boards).
Modern music isn't an art, it's a science (and yes, I believe the two are mutually exclusive categories). Music is a product made by machines in factories. Every so often, the supervisors will check with the QA department, perform a few tweaks here and there, and run off a new batch.
The supervisors are the record companies, the machines are the [obviously horrendous but popular ] "artists", the QA department is marketing.
This is only possible due to centralization and control. It is possible to see, down to the last disc or listener, exactly what people are buying, in what quantities, what makes them make that decision, and what they like. Then they just guess what people want and make more of it. No business risks, no controversies, no experimenting, no variety, no worth.
A less formal and concrete distribution system, especially one with substantial anonymity (like Jamie's description of early radio, or P2P) is a much better medium for an art form. It prevents this reduction to formulaism and gives the artists more freedom to do what THEY want instead of trying to please someone, because the latter is now entirely out of anyone's control. If the music is good, someone will listen to it.
The technology exists, now the ball is in the audience's court. Napster and current P2P programs have done enormous damage to the potential for a system like this by gettin people hooked on free music. Any system that involves the audience paying will now be rejected, since they know they can get it for free.
There are two paths we can go to from here:
The record companies win. Music is ever more tightly under their control. They keep on producing crap and people keep buying it. This can only go on for so long; sooner or later even the teenage airheads who listen to Britney Spears will realize that pop music has been crap for years, and stop buying it. The record companies will maintain their grip on the music production systems of the world, but with slipping sales. But there's no chance to replace them because any other system gets snapped up into the cartel and dragged down with it (I'm deliberately avoiding things like Gnutella here for the sake of argument). The music industry is over, the global distribution system breaks down. All music is now strictly local and live. Bad ending.
Or, the audience grows some ethics and becomes willing and able to pay for what they listen to. Someone invents a system that lets people give artists money for their music, and PEOPLE ACTUALLY USE IT. The supply of new bands for the record companies dries up since there is now a better way to create art and survive with it (not that this will reduce their production, see second half of above scenario). However, this is very unlikely because, as we have seen, people are greedy bastards.
I don't use Napster because I think it is wrong. I also buy perhaps 1 CD a year, and only if I have extensively previewed it through free (legal) channels to see if it's any good.
Acrobat Reader is free, Acrobat Distiller or whatever they call the creator is not. Knowledgable readers will point out that Mac OS X includes PDF creation facilities (there is a printer driver that generates PDF files), but God only knows how much Apple paid Adobe for this privilege. Adobe isn't really a good example here as they have a lucrative traditional software business to subsidize this.
Quicktime
The free version of QT also has some restrictions on viewing (can't go full screen, can't escape custom movie interfaces). And, FWIW, it used to be entirely free until Apple realized people would actually pay for this stuff in version 3. It's possible to get around the limits by using old software that isn't aware of the licensing system.
Real
The player and content creator are both free. They charge for the streaming server.
Please tell me you're joking. About 13,000 people are playing CS a any given time- that's so small a percentage of America (250 million) that my calculator watch can't even display it.
I'm more disturbed that a commercial for this movie involving bestiality made it through the ad department and got onto a kids' show in the first place. Where and when did you see it?
Then don't see any movies at all. That's what I do, unless I hear from reliable sources (friends or family, not critics) that such-and-such movie is really great. The last movie I saw in a theater was Shrek. Before that, I think it was Crouching Tiger.
The sole reason Photoshop is faster on Macs than PCs (recently), and the reason Steve always brings it out to show off, is altivec. We need benchmarks of vectorized vs non-vectorized versions of the same task, running on the same G4 or against an x86 box. Unfortunately I can count the programs that use altivec in the real world on one hand; hopefully this will change with OS X arriving (altivec in system libraries).
It is a really stupid idea to send earth life, especially engineered life, to other planets without fully investigating them first. Look what happens on earth when life forms are placed in unnatural habitats: rabbits in australia, zebra mussels in the great lakes, killer bees in the southern US. Mars is far more of an unknown, and we should not do anything that even has the possibility for unintended consequences until we know what we are dealing with.
Surely there's a better way to detect conditions on mars without throwing plants at it. How about another robot lander (one that works) built with our modern knowledge of biochemisty?
It's been suggested that if we ever find that another planet has life on it, leave that planet alone and forget about it. I think that's a little extreme, but we should be very, very careful about cross-contamination, and launching plants modified with our somewhat primitive genetic tools into an unknown environment is going too far.
Slashdot Mirror
If it went to trial, they would have to explain this and then it would get thrown out. They would need a good reason to be watching your house in the first place (I'm not familiar with probable cause laws, but if they had to resort to an infrared imager to suspect you in the first place I don't think they'd be able to meet those criteria for anything else).
I fail to see the parallels between breaking the law to correct existing injustices and breaking the law to get high.
If you don't like the law, change it. Don't just ignore and say it's not fair when you get caught.
What is the advantage of this monstrosity over a tabletop projector that costs a fraction as much and can probably use a bigger screen?
A VBS virus that changes every entry in msnodc.xml to goatse.cx
Not quite... You can't control the appearance of the content on the user's machine. You can control the content itself. This is the difference between an editor publishing a book in Braille (same content, different presentation) and the editor rewriting the last chapter himself (different content, not what the author intended).
Suck was an artifact of the time when media was transforming from Old Media to New Media, as Katz would put it ::dodges thrown vegetables::. It took advantage of all the Internet could do for content presentation, but it was strictly one-way and didn't offer anything new in the actual content (besides a sarcastic and irreverent tone, which is not exactly unique these days).
User-generated content really is getting more interested than content created by "professionals". Slashdot itself is one of the prime examples: Many articles combine a large body of original content with the comments posted by everyone, to create a totally new way of processing ideas.
Suck was simply a concept whose time had past.
FWIw, OS X already has voice recognition.
2. There's an undocumented but by-now-well-known method for enabling full root that should be on any Mac tech site.
;)
4. classic mode is only truly slow for me when booting it, which takes about 5 minutes (I'm on a beige G3/300). Once it's running, it's not so bad. It's fast enough for me to play MacOS games in it (these tend to be buggier than most progams in classic so ymmv). Also, if you quit every classic app, the environment goes to sleep after a few minutes and X is back to normal.
5. Install the dev tools
That comparison should be run with Mac OS X Server, which is OS X with some consumer stuff removed and some more server stuff (QT streaming server, WebObjects, better GUI admin tools) included.
When I read your post, I had been misreading the article as "as easy as throwing a hot dog". :\
It's not so much "biased" as it is "just plain stupid." :)
I don't see how either of those characteristics is unique to macintoshes :)
Yes, it's called the Post Anonymously button.
Remember Mr. and Mrs. Everywhere? Not far off...
I don't think any system in which the feedback loop of coolness (global audience preferences fed back to artist) exists is ideal. There's too much incentive for conformity on the part of the creators. The answer may be to de-formalize the process, so that you are forced to rely on word-of-mouth and not any automated tools. Perhaps we can only keep track of 150 people because that is an evolutionarily chosen ideal sample size for long-term social interaction. I don't care what 150 million people think; we already have the Billboard Top 100 which is basically the same thing.
I have a feeling that any such system could be easily manipulated as well, just look at what happens to web polls (and to a lesser extent message boards).
Modern music isn't an art, it's a science (and yes, I believe the two are mutually exclusive categories). Music is a product made by machines in factories. Every so often, the supervisors will check with the QA department, perform a few tweaks here and there, and run off a new batch.
The supervisors are the record companies, the machines are the [obviously horrendous but popular ] "artists", the QA department is marketing.
This is only possible due to centralization and control. It is possible to see, down to the last disc or listener, exactly what people are buying, in what quantities, what makes them make that decision, and what they like. Then they just guess what people want and make more of it. No business risks, no controversies, no experimenting, no variety, no worth.
A less formal and concrete distribution system, especially one with substantial anonymity (like Jamie's description of early radio, or P2P) is a much better medium for an art form. It prevents this reduction to formulaism and gives the artists more freedom to do what THEY want instead of trying to please someone, because the latter is now entirely out of anyone's control. If the music is good, someone will listen to it.
The technology exists, now the ball is in the audience's court. Napster and current P2P programs have done enormous damage to the potential for a system like this by gettin people hooked on free music. Any system that involves the audience paying will now be rejected, since they know they can get it for free.
There are two paths we can go to from here:
- The record companies win. Music is ever more tightly under their control. They keep on producing crap and people keep buying it. This can only go on for so long; sooner or later even the teenage airheads who listen to Britney Spears will realize that pop music has been crap for years, and stop buying it. The record companies will maintain their grip on the music production systems of the world, but with slipping sales. But there's no chance to replace them because any other system gets snapped up into the cartel and dragged down with it (I'm deliberately avoiding things like Gnutella here for the sake of argument). The music industry is over, the global distribution system breaks down. All music is now strictly local and live. Bad ending.
- Or, the audience grows some ethics and becomes willing and able to pay for what they listen to. Someone invents a system that lets people give artists money for their music, and PEOPLE ACTUALLY USE IT. The supply of new bands for the record companies dries up since there is now a better way to create art and survive with it (not that this will reduce their production, see second half of above scenario). However, this is very unlikely because, as we have seen, people are greedy bastards.
I don't use Napster because I think it is wrong. I also buy perhaps 1 CD a year, and only if I have extensively previewed it through free (legal) channels to see if it's any good.Adobe Acrobat
Acrobat Reader is free, Acrobat Distiller or whatever they call the creator is not. Knowledgable readers will point out that Mac OS X includes PDF creation facilities (there is a printer driver that generates PDF files), but God only knows how much Apple paid Adobe for this privilege. Adobe isn't really a good example here as they have a lucrative traditional software business to subsidize this.
Quicktime
The free version of QT also has some restrictions on viewing (can't go full screen, can't escape custom movie interfaces). And, FWIW, it used to be entirely free until Apple realized people would actually pay for this stuff in version 3. It's possible to get around the limits by using old software that isn't aware of the licensing system.
Real The player and content creator are both free. They charge for the streaming server.
I suspect that this sort of thing (cooperation between two sides of a lawsuit) is highly illegal.
Theoretically yes, practically no.
If they controlled 100% of the hardware, it would be impossible (and that's assuming they did it perfectly), it might well be uncrackable.
But in the real world, the cat is out of the bag, systems they do not control exist, and there will be a way to crack everything.
Please tell me you're joking. About 13,000 people are playing CS a any given time- that's so small a percentage of America (250 million) that my calculator watch can't even display it.
Name 1 movie last year that was better than CTHD.
I'm more disturbed that a commercial for this movie involving bestiality made it through the ad department and got onto a kids' show in the first place. Where and when did you see it?
Then don't see any movies at all. That's what I do, unless I hear from reliable sources (friends or family, not critics) that such-and-such movie is really great. The last movie I saw in a theater was Shrek. Before that, I think it was Crouching Tiger.
The sole reason Photoshop is faster on Macs than PCs (recently), and the reason Steve always brings it out to show off, is altivec. We need benchmarks of vectorized vs non-vectorized versions of the same task, running on the same G4 or against an x86 box. Unfortunately I can count the programs that use altivec in the real world on one hand; hopefully this will change with OS X arriving (altivec in system libraries).
It is a really stupid idea to send earth life, especially engineered life, to other planets without fully investigating them first. Look what happens on earth when life forms are placed in unnatural habitats: rabbits in australia, zebra mussels in the great lakes, killer bees in the southern US. Mars is far more of an unknown, and we should not do anything that even has the possibility for unintended consequences until we know what we are dealing with.
Surely there's a better way to detect conditions on mars without throwing plants at it. How about another robot lander (one that works) built with our modern knowledge of biochemisty?
It's been suggested that if we ever find that another planet has life on it, leave that planet alone and forget about it. I think that's a little extreme, but we should be very, very careful about cross-contamination, and launching plants modified with our somewhat primitive genetic tools into an unknown environment is going too far.