Or don't you care if elections are literally stolen? Show me the evidence. Yes the CEO of Diebold made that statement. In the context of a meeting of an organization he belongs to, not as "Hi, I'm the CEO of Diebold and I will cheat to make it happen". Maybe you're not involved with such meetings, but talk like "We'll deliver (our area) to you" is standard fare.
The 2004 presidential elections had anomalies THAT WERE OUTSIDE THE POSSIBLE MARGIN OF ERROR FOR EXIT POLLS. In your opinion.
Do you understand what that means? It means that the results WERE rigged. This country was forced into a war of choice by a president that was never legitimately elected and there are hundreds of thousands of people who are dead because of it.
See, this is where you lost all credibility. The democrats voted to authorize Bush to decide if we would go to war. They GAVE HIM THE AUTHORIZATION. Which means they voted for it. You don't REALLY need to see the links to the language of the bill, and the voting record, and all the quotes from the Democrats about the WMDs, do you? Maybe you do. Let me know, I'd post them but it's astonishingly off-topic. Let's just say it disgusts me that the Democrats and you both are exhibiting short-term memory problems. Playing both sides of the fence for political gain. Repugnant.
This goes way beyond politics into the realm of treason. Those responsible for subverting our election process should be hanged until dead. Every last one of them. Great, but your conclusion is built on a foundation of, pardon, bullshit. Unless you can come up with something solid, your end suggestion is nothing more than your foundation.
It's obvious you have a problem with how things are going, yet you lack accurate specifics in your response. I wonder - are you wrong, or just working from inaccurate information? Please consider how this contrasts how you describe Bush talking about the WMD that the Democrats also said were there. Show your work.
Funny - I would have expected that sort of talk to end after the latest congressional elections.
Funny - Walden O'Dell, the CEO who infamously promised to deliver Ohio's votes to Bush in 2004, resigned in 2005. See previous re: context. Hint: people with jobs are also allowed to join political parties.
That's what the GP was talking about. Indeed. Let's look at that: Last week, the Brad Blog reported of possible class action litigation against Diebold and its CEO for securities fraud. In 2003, O'Dell promised to deliver Ohio to President Bush in his re-election bid.
If you click on the link there, it mentions that this was in the context of a political fundraiser event; he was speaking as a member of the public, not as the CEO of Diebold. So the objection here is that the guy has a political interest in his private life? First amendment, anyone? He was saying, in a Republican Party fundraiser, that we (as a representative of "we" being defined as Republican Party) will get the votes. He wasn't there as "Hi, I'm CEO of Diebold, our company is going to do whatever it takes...".
Selective snipping and taking things out of context as you have, shows rather a lot of bias.
As my dad said, don't stake your reputation on something if you can't seem to get the hang of it; he was talking about sports, but it applies here as well. Diebold can't do this well; they should stop doing it and concentrate on their core business.
Ah, it's going so, so well, and then:
That, and Diebold has already accomplished what it's CEO promised to do - deliver the Presidency to the Republicans. Funny - I would have expected that sort of talk to end after the latest congressional elections. Or is this one of those "only bring it up when we don't like the result" kind of things.
Try me.. I have a nice new 45ACP to test out. I've got my eyes on a Kimber, myself, but am having trouble justifying even to myself a fourth M1911. What new toy do you have?
What!?! It's open to debate? It might not be Bush's fault after all? *gasp* We must sue someone immediately or pass a new regulation! No, don't you see? DON'T YOU SEE IT, MAN? That's how evil he is, he can even effect weather on OTHER PLANETS!!11!!1!eleven!1!!! He is simultaneously the stupidest person ever to serve in that office, _AND_, the most clever, insidious one capable of things you can't even imagine.
That or, I suppose, there are more variables in the equation than anyone who pretends to understand it has looked at. People with _this_ set of biases will ignore certain things, people with _another_ set of biases will ignore other things. Politics, sadly, seems tied to environmentalism, even though the "left=green" oversimplification is only somewhat accurate at best.
Which is why I wouldn't like to have a system that doesn't patches security holes ASAP. Unless you can show me otherwise, I'm going with the statement made by several folks in the thread that it's disabled by default. It's only a security hole if you open it. If you cut a hole in the side of your house for when you leave, is that the house-builder's fault?
Um yes it does. If you have 1000 machines you probably have an image, jumpstart installation, custom installer, or possibly newer OS CDs/DVDs. The admin, since its probably not you, also could have disabled it after the fact. Assume much? Hell yes we have a jumpstart infrastructure. And my question remains, who in the world takes a raw box from Sun with an OS that they shipped with and use it? First of all, the partitioning is very unlikely to be suitable for, well, anything by default.
Telnet has been enabled by default for a long time on the default installs going back quite a ways on up well into several solaris 10 sub-releases. Oddly enough, several non-AC's have posted otherwise. I tend to trust their word over that of someone not even willing to say who they are.
Duh, you mean that sun doesn't have automatic software updates turned by default? It's a stupid thing to do, even for servers - and "admins must test the update first" is not an excuse, I'd rather have something breaking than a security hole In the real world, things need to be tested and run through the dev/stage/prod environments. This isn't Joe's Bait Shop we're talking about...
1: Ummm, Solaris ships with telnet enabled. Did you see the headline of the article you are posting in regards to? Ummm, No, it doesn't. But I've only got about 1000 of 'em to use as a sample size so maybe my experience is too limited.
2: Many people, or there would be no worm, if you want a concrete example then look elsewhere. Your (2) depends on your (1) to be true, and I suspect that it is not.
As others have pointed out, many of whom even stand behind their statements with their identity, the admin has to specifically decide they want telnet enabled. Exposing telnet to anything, especially the public internet, has been widely regarded as an Astonishingly Bad Idea for many years.
Yeah, that was my response when I first heard of this bug/exploit. But the real question is, should systems be shiped with telnet enabled? Obviously the answer is "no", but vendors seem to be slow to get this message.
Serious questions: 1. Who ships with telnet enabled? Certainly not Apple or any of the Linux distros I've used. and 2. Who uses Unix systems with the default build installed by Sun? Do they even _come_ with an OS anymore?
That argument presumes that the conviction was justified. There is no accounting for bad laws (don't even try to tell me there's no such thing) or for convictions for things which are illegal in American but not in Canada! There are people, senior citizens now, who are still alive and lived in a time when black people could be arrested for going the wrong place. Sodomy laws. Protest arrests. Wow. So many people reading so much into my post that I didn't write.
There is also the fact that certain classes of people; minorities and the poor to be specific, are statistically much more likely to receive criminal convictions for their first drug case than for wealthy whites charged with the same crime. So there is a large group of more "respectable" people who were similarly irresponsible but got the charges wiped off their record and have more rights for no valid reason. An irrational bias clearly colors the enforcement of the law. I don't think its so simple as to say anyone with a record gets what they deserve. Well, I think it's fair to say, however, that if you have a record, you'll want to know about these limitations if you want to travel to Canada. And, sorry, but for every person who has been "wronged by the man" or whatever, there's probably a hundred or a thousand who deserve what's on their record.
If you don't like it, well, don't do things to limit that option for yourself, or visit some other place. Their country, their rules.
I'm sorry, I think I missed the part where it said that every Canadian agrees with these rules? Apparently I did as well, because I neither said it, quoted it, or thought that had anything to do with it. Why bring it up?
This argument pops up everytime there are restrictions on entry (e.g., fingerprinting). Not everyone is a xenophobe you know - if my own country were to introduce such things, I'd be against it, yet the fact that it's "my country" would then strangely give me little say in the matter. Let me be more clear. If you want to visit some place, you probably want to find out what the rules are. Just as a general rule of thumb so you don't get surprised, right? Like, if you come in to my house, don't think that lighting up inside is acceptable, because it isn't. The Canadian government has decided that they feel that this sort of thing matters, and are taking steps accordingly. If you, as a Canadian (presumably?) don't like it, work to get your laws changed. But, that's the law on the books at this time, they now have a means and motivation to enforce it, and that's the way it is.
I want people to be able to visit me without being hassled. Also when one country starts doing such things, other countries often follow, so citizens of all countries end up being affected. A world where movement between countries becomes harder is not one which I want, and I don't see how parrotting "their country, their rules" has any relevance to this issue. Parroting? Seems pretty straightforward to me. Don't like the rules, don't go to the party.
So...I suppose people now will get their undies in a bundle over this. Putting aside for a moment the tenuous at best "YRO" category for this - where's the surprise, what's the problem? If you want to go visit a foreign country, they get to decide who they let in and for what reasons. If you don't like it, well, don't do things to limit that option for yourself, or visit some other place. Their country, their rules.
I remember t' day when you could ask a stupid question on a newsgroup and get at least 5 answers for free, and all you had to do was decide which 4 were wrong. Now you have to pay (virtually or not) for the privilege... So, usenet is dead now? I didn't see the posting saying so. Actually I subscribe to news.individual.net for 10 Euro a year, and they provide excellent speed, retention, and spam filtering. No binaries groups though.
A 0.05mm square is 1/64th the size of a 0.4mm square, not 1/8th. Did submitter fail geometry class or something? Apparently he paid better attention in that class than you did to the summary: ...measuring only 1/20 of a millimeter square. That's 1/8 the size (in linear dimension)
Actually, I believe that was a joke in the vein of hyperbole.
Speaking of implants, though, I've been working on this chip that gets implanted directly into the brain to improve Slashdot users' sense of humor. Well, thing is, there's so many people around here, AC's especially, who actually think that way. So it's hard to know (and, to be honest, care) if he was lampooning them, or if he really thinks that way.
It's called the Patriot Tracking Program. Anyone who's NOT a Redubycan Party member is assigned a prison number for processing.
Thanks for your support.
Fascistically yours, George W. Bush You know, it's funny how when people don't have actual facts to work with, they make shit up. It's even funnier that they don't seem to realize just how transparent and ineffective that tactic is.
Go ahead, keep your current hardware and/or OS. Nothing is going to magically stop working because you choose not to upgrade one or the other.
Until 2007, Windows 98 and Windows 2000 kept correct wall time for users in the United States. Now it doesn't.
And you want me to defend Microsoft for not releasing a trivial patch for old OS's? How is _that_ relevant? Guess what - this is part of that pain vs. upgrade thing. If it REALLY bothers you so horribly until the date that your system thinks DST happens with, well, wow.
Those apps are many, many years old. Newer apps have come out to _replace_ them, or new versions of the same apps have come out to replace them.
My problem was that 1. the newer apps don't run on the old OS (e.g. one who has 10.3 and the apps need 10.4 right away), and I'm under the impression that this happens more quickly on a Mac than on a PC running Windows; and 2. the newer apps have harsher digital restrictions management.
I can't actually think of a single app I use on my Mac that has DRM. iTunes I suppose if I bought from the online store, but I don't. But you know what? If an app needs something that's in 10.4 to run, I'd rather have that app than to miss out on it, so I bought 10.4, just as I'll buy 10.5. If you don't NEED that app, stay at the old rev. Isn't choice _wonderful_?
If you have a point, I'm not seeing what it is. You're whining, it seems, that OS upgrades are available for people to choose to buy if they want new stuff. Me, I see that as a good thing. Or maybe you're saying that Apple should just, you know, give them away for free or something. Well...Apple has a responsibility to the shareholders to produce a profit, and a responsibility to their customers to stay in business. I'd rather spend 100 bux on an upgrade than to have them go byebye because I'm a cheap bastard.
You just replied to a guy who probably thinks that screwing a new case fan into the existing holes constitutes building something. Or that assembling Ikea furniture makes him handy. To dismiss such a product, he's clearly never actually built anything, whether it be a renovated bathroom, a waterblock for a CPU cooler, or a stretched frame for his Jeep Cherokee Limousine.
Yup, I know folks like that. I work in IT, but, I built my house. Every board, every nail, foundation, footings, plumbing, electrical, the whole deal. Hired out the well, septic, excavation (didn't have a backhoe at the time), and concrete flatwork. Everything else, I've done, kitchen cabinets I made from lumber I milled from cherry trees I cut down. Took a long time. BUT, it has given me an immense respect for tradespeople and the sheer amount of effort involved in doing it, and then the huge incremental effort to then do it _right_.
99.5% accurate? Okay, I'll round up a whole percent. Worst overages would therefore be buying 101.5 feet of fascia when I needed but 100, and it saved me the labor (and risk) of climbing the ladder and measuring the width of my eaves to make sure it was right. Dude clearly has no idea why there are always large dumpsters at construction sites, and how this would if anything only serve to reduce the waste.
Right. In my case, I could spend extra time pre-calculating my cutlist and materials lists, so I was able to fit the scrap from framing out the house into the back of a pickup. Takes more time but the time was effectively "free". This product isn't for me, this product is for the jobber who has 20 things up in the air and needs to know what they're dealing with at a given location. I don't see it doing 3D, but a 3D target of some sort might be an interesting extension of this idea. Actually with two of them, one on either side of the frame,...let's just say this is a solve-able problem. And a great tool for what it does. Software and perception being what it is, though, the vendor might have better luck at $99 per copy rather than $19 or $29 or whatever it is. Strange but true.
And, guess what, nobody is _made_ to upgrade anything. The upgrades offer new features Like the ability to run software that is still developed and marketed? I am under the impression that developers of applications for Mac OS X don't care as much about compatibility with old operating system versions as much as developers of applications for Windows:
Sigh. With any upgrade or, in fact, any purchase at all, the consumer has to decide if the things the new shiny one will do, that the old one does not do, are important enough for them to spend the money needed to get that new shiny thing. This is nothing unique to MacOS major upgrades. When the shiny factor outweighs the cost factor, buy it.
applications for Mac OS X require new frameworks faster than applications for Windows require new APIs. Old versions of apps compatible with your OS are quickly withdrawn from the market for 94 years in favor of the new version compatible only with a newer OS. Yes, thank you for showing that you don't understand the actual situation. Let me give some examples. Right now, I'm sitting at a G4 iMac. OSX. I can run any legacy app I've tried by firing up the "classic" environment - it's a MacOS 9 instance that runs, more or less, in a virtual machine ON the OSX box. I can also run anything made today. Now let's jump forward 2 (3? whatever) hardware generations to today's Mac. They stopped support for Classic. Different processor and, you know what? Those apps are many, many years old. Newer apps have come out to _replace_ them, or new versions of the same apps have come out to replace them. I see this as a good thing, rather than a problem. I suppose if you're the kind of person who is emotionally attached to your favorite version of Word for Windows and find it won't run for you under Vista, well, perhaps you're missing something. If you still want to run that old app? Go ahead, keep your current hardware and/or OS. Nothing is going to magically stop working because you choose not to upgrade one or the other.
I'd rather the development effort goes into forward progress than unreasonable backwards compatibility.
So... Macs don't cost an obscene amount of money relative to comparable PCs? Has Apple stopped making people pay $100+ for the equivalent of a "Service Pack"? Thank you for helping me make my point. A major upgrade isn't a "service pack", it's like going from win95 to win98, or NT to 2000, etc. And, guess what, nobody is _made_ to upgrade anything. The upgrades offer new features and (shock!) better performance on existing hardware. You can choose, you see, if you want to upgrade or not.
Do Apple accessories not cost exponentially more than identical products, even those made by other brand name companies? No, they're not. Thanks for playing. HINT: hardware doesn't care if it's plugged into a Mac or a PC. Just bought a printer today in fact; oddly enough, the Epson Whateverthefark PhothWhatsit doesn't know or care what it's plugged into, a minute or 2 of work and it's running. WHAT extra expense?
Are iPods not far more expensive than competing players with greater functionality? Since when? I guess it depends on what's important to you. Me, I prefer knowing that I don't have to dick around with my system when I get home, because I've got 800 boxes or so to dick around with during the day; I want it to _just work_. It does.
Those of us who don't worship at the Church of Apple are not ignorant of the Book of Jobs, we just choose not to buy into it... figuratively or otherwise. It's not that we don't "get" Macs, it's that we don't care, and you're too much of an elitist prick to "get" why.
That's great. Kindly tell me specifically then, what your direct personal recent experience is with Mac, Unix, and iPods. Because it seems that, as usual of people badmouthing Apple for reasons that, knowing Apple stuff I see as iffy at best, you're speaking out of preconceived notions and ignorance rather than knowing about that of which you speak.
[not posting AC because it's lame, and I'm willing to take a Karma hit from the fanboys] And that's why I'm responding.
Aren't Mac users apparently proud of paying through their teeth for everything? (snip of blah blah blah)
Oh, how little you understand us. It's _fine_ if you don't like Mac. But I can't help but wonder what, if any, direct personal recent experience you have with them. It may surprise you, but many Mac people who don't like MS, are intimately familiar with their products. The opposite, oddly enough, rarely seems to be true. It's OK if you enjoy your Windows systems. Really. That's just fine. But when you then go on to speak of that which you either don't understand, or choose to misrepresent, well, it goes into "give it a rest, wouldya?"
Slashdot Mirror
Show me the evidence. Yes the CEO of Diebold made that statement. In the context of a meeting of an organization he belongs to, not as "Hi, I'm the CEO of Diebold and I will cheat to make it happen". Maybe you're not involved with such meetings, but talk like "We'll deliver (our area) to you" is standard fare.
The 2004 presidential elections had anomalies THAT WERE OUTSIDE THE POSSIBLE MARGIN OF ERROR FOR EXIT POLLS.
In your opinion.
Do you understand what that means? It means that the results WERE rigged. This country was forced into a war of choice by a president that was never legitimately elected and there are hundreds of thousands of people who are dead because of it.
See, this is where you lost all credibility. The democrats voted to authorize Bush to decide if we would go to war. They GAVE HIM THE AUTHORIZATION. Which means they voted for it. You don't REALLY need to see the links to the language of the bill, and the voting record, and all the quotes from the Democrats about the WMDs, do you? Maybe you do. Let me know, I'd post them but it's astonishingly off-topic. Let's just say it disgusts me that the Democrats and you both are exhibiting short-term memory problems. Playing both sides of the fence for political gain. Repugnant.
This goes way beyond politics into the realm of treason. Those responsible for subverting our election process should be hanged until dead. Every last one of them.
Great, but your conclusion is built on a foundation of, pardon, bullshit. Unless you can come up with something solid, your end suggestion is nothing more than your foundation.
It's obvious you have a problem with how things are going, yet you lack accurate specifics in your response. I wonder - are you wrong, or just working from inaccurate information? Please consider how this contrasts how you describe Bush talking about the WMD that the Democrats also said were there. Show your work.
Funny - Walden O'Dell, the CEO who infamously promised to deliver Ohio's votes to Bush in 2004, resigned in 2005. See previous re: context. Hint: people with jobs are also allowed to join political parties.
You were killed by a slime mold. Do you want your possessions identified (y/n):
Third paragraph in.
That's what the GP was talking about.
Indeed. Let's look at that: Last week, the Brad Blog reported of possible class action litigation against Diebold and its CEO for securities fraud. In 2003, O'Dell promised to deliver Ohio to President Bush in his re-election bid.
If you click on the link there, it mentions that this was in the context of a political fundraiser event; he was speaking as a member of the public, not as the CEO of Diebold. So the objection here is that the guy has a political interest in his private life? First amendment, anyone? He was saying, in a Republican Party fundraiser, that we (as a representative of "we" being defined as Republican Party) will get the votes. He wasn't there as "Hi, I'm CEO of Diebold, our company is going to do whatever it takes...".
Selective snipping and taking things out of context as you have, shows rather a lot of bias.
Ah, it's going so, so well, and then: That, and Diebold has already accomplished what it's CEO promised to do - deliver the Presidency to the Republicans. Funny - I would have expected that sort of talk to end after the latest congressional elections. Or is this one of those "only bring it up when we don't like the result" kind of things.
I've got my eyes on a Kimber, myself, but am having trouble justifying even to myself a fourth M1911. What new toy do you have?
No, don't you see? DON'T YOU SEE IT, MAN? That's how evil he is, he can even effect weather on OTHER PLANETS!!11!!1!eleven!1!!! He is simultaneously the stupidest person ever to serve in that office, _AND_, the most clever, insidious one capable of things you can't even imagine.
That or, I suppose, there are more variables in the equation than anyone who pretends to understand it has looked at. People with _this_ set of biases will ignore certain things, people with _another_ set of biases will ignore other things. Politics, sadly, seems tied to environmentalism, even though the "left=green" oversimplification is only somewhat accurate at best.
Which is why I wouldn't like to have a system that doesn't patches security holes ASAP. Unless you can show me otherwise, I'm going with the statement made by several folks in the thread that it's disabled by default. It's only a security hole if you open it. If you cut a hole in the side of your house for when you leave, is that the house-builder's fault?
Assume much? Hell yes we have a jumpstart infrastructure. And my question remains, who in the world takes a raw box from Sun with an OS that they shipped with and use it? First of all, the partitioning is very unlikely to be suitable for, well, anything by default.
Telnet has been enabled by default for a long time on the default installs going back quite a ways on up well into several solaris 10 sub-releases. Oddly enough, several non-AC's have posted otherwise. I tend to trust their word over that of someone not even willing to say who they are.
1: Ummm, Solaris ships with telnet enabled. Did you see the headline of the article you are posting in regards to?
Ummm, No, it doesn't. But I've only got about 1000 of 'em to use as a sample size so maybe my experience is too limited.
2: Many people, or there would be no worm, if you want a concrete example then look elsewhere.
Your (2) depends on your (1) to be true, and I suspect that it is not.
As others have pointed out, many of whom even stand behind their statements with their identity, the admin has to specifically decide they want telnet enabled. Exposing telnet to anything, especially the public internet, has been widely regarded as an Astonishingly Bad Idea for many years.
Yeah, that was my response when I first heard of this bug/exploit. But the real question is, should systems be shiped with telnet enabled? Obviously the answer is "no", but vendors seem to be slow to get this message.
Serious questions: 1. Who ships with telnet enabled? Certainly not Apple or any of the Linux distros I've used. and 2. Who uses Unix systems with the default build installed by Sun? Do they even _come_ with an OS anymore?I'm sorry, I think I missed the part where it said that every Canadian agrees with these rules?
Apparently I did as well, because I neither said it, quoted it, or thought that had anything to do with it. Why bring it up? This argument pops up everytime there are restrictions on entry (e.g., fingerprinting). Not everyone is a xenophobe you know - if my own country were to introduce such things, I'd be against it, yet the fact that it's "my country" would then strangely give me little say in the matter.
Let me be more clear. If you want to visit some place, you probably want to find out what the rules are. Just as a general rule of thumb so you don't get surprised, right? Like, if you come in to my house, don't think that lighting up inside is acceptable, because it isn't. The Canadian government has decided that they feel that this sort of thing matters, and are taking steps accordingly. If you, as a Canadian (presumably?) don't like it, work to get your laws changed. But, that's the law on the books at this time, they now have a means and motivation to enforce it, and that's the way it is.
I want people to be able to visit me without being hassled. Also when one country starts doing such things, other countries often follow, so citizens of all countries end up being affected. A world where movement between countries becomes harder is not one which I want, and I don't see how parrotting "their country, their rules" has any relevance to this issue. Parroting? Seems pretty straightforward to me. Don't like the rules, don't go to the party.
So...I suppose people now will get their undies in a bundle over this. Putting aside for a moment the tenuous at best "YRO" category for this - where's the surprise, what's the problem? If you want to go visit a foreign country, they get to decide who they let in and for what reasons. If you don't like it, well, don't do things to limit that option for yourself, or visit some other place. Their country, their rules.
I remember t' day when you could ask a stupid question on a newsgroup and get at least 5 answers for free, and all you had to do was decide which 4 were wrong. Now you have to pay (virtually or not) for the privilege...
So, usenet is dead now? I didn't see the posting saying so. Actually I subscribe to news.individual.net for 10 Euro a year, and they provide excellent speed, retention, and spam filtering. No binaries groups though.
Speaking of implants, though, I've been working on this chip that gets implanted directly into the brain to improve Slashdot users' sense of humor. Well, thing is, there's so many people around here, AC's especially, who actually think that way. So it's hard to know (and, to be honest, care) if he was lampooning them, or if he really thinks that way.
Thanks for your support.
Fascistically yours,
George W. Bush You know, it's funny how when people don't have actual facts to work with, they make shit up. It's even funnier that they don't seem to realize just how transparent and ineffective that tactic is.
Until 2007, Windows 98 and Windows 2000 kept correct wall time for users in the United States. Now it doesn't.
And you want me to defend Microsoft for not releasing a trivial patch for old OS's? How is _that_ relevant? Guess what - this is part of that pain vs. upgrade thing. If it REALLY bothers you so horribly until the date that your system thinks DST happens with, well, wow.
Those apps are many, many years old. Newer apps have come out to _replace_ them, or new versions of the same apps have come out to replace them.
My problem was that 1. the newer apps don't run on the old OS (e.g. one who has 10.3 and the apps need 10.4 right away), and I'm under the impression that this happens more quickly on a Mac than on a PC running Windows; and 2. the newer apps have harsher digital restrictions management.
I can't actually think of a single app I use on my Mac that has DRM. iTunes I suppose if I bought from the online store, but I don't. But you know what? If an app needs something that's in 10.4 to run, I'd rather have that app than to miss out on it, so I bought 10.4, just as I'll buy 10.5. If you don't NEED that app, stay at the old rev. Isn't choice _wonderful_?
If you have a point, I'm not seeing what it is. You're whining, it seems, that OS upgrades are available for people to choose to buy if they want new stuff. Me, I see that as a good thing. Or maybe you're saying that Apple should just, you know, give them away for free or something. Well...Apple has a responsibility to the shareholders to produce a profit, and a responsibility to their customers to stay in business. I'd rather spend 100 bux on an upgrade than to have them go byebye because I'm a cheap bastard.
You just replied to a guy who probably thinks that screwing a new case fan into the existing holes constitutes building something. Or that assembling Ikea furniture makes him handy. To dismiss such a product, he's clearly never actually built anything, whether it be a renovated bathroom, a waterblock for a CPU cooler, or a stretched frame for his Jeep Cherokee Limousine.
Yup, I know folks like that. I work in IT, but, I built my house. Every board, every nail, foundation, footings, plumbing, electrical, the whole deal. Hired out the well, septic, excavation (didn't have a backhoe at the time), and concrete flatwork. Everything else, I've done, kitchen cabinets I made from lumber I milled from cherry trees I cut down. Took a long time. BUT, it has given me an immense respect for tradespeople and the sheer amount of effort involved in doing it, and then the huge incremental effort to then do it _right_.
99.5% accurate? Okay, I'll round up a whole percent. Worst overages would therefore be buying 101.5 feet of fascia when I needed but 100, and it saved me the labor (and risk) of climbing the ladder and measuring the width of my eaves to make sure it was right. Dude clearly has no idea why there are always large dumpsters at construction sites, and how this would if anything only serve to reduce the waste.
Right. In my case, I could spend extra time pre-calculating my cutlist and materials lists, so I was able to fit the scrap from framing out the house into the back of a pickup. Takes more time but the time was effectively "free". This product isn't for me, this product is for the jobber who has 20 things up in the air and needs to know what they're dealing with at a given location. I don't see it doing 3D, but a 3D target of some sort might be an interesting extension of this idea. Actually with two of them, one on either side of the frame,
Sigh. With any upgrade or, in fact, any purchase at all, the consumer has to decide if the things the new shiny one will do, that the old one does not do, are important enough for them to spend the money needed to get that new shiny thing. This is nothing unique to MacOS major upgrades. When the shiny factor outweighs the cost factor, buy it.
applications for Mac OS X require new frameworks faster than applications for Windows require new APIs. Old versions of apps compatible with your OS are quickly withdrawn from the market for 94 years in favor of the new version compatible only with a newer OS.
Yes, thank you for showing that you don't understand the actual situation. Let me give some examples. Right now, I'm sitting at a G4 iMac. OSX. I can run any legacy app I've tried by firing up the "classic" environment - it's a MacOS 9 instance that runs, more or less, in a virtual machine ON the OSX box. I can also run anything made today. Now let's jump forward 2 (3? whatever) hardware generations to today's Mac. They stopped support for Classic. Different processor and, you know what? Those apps are many, many years old. Newer apps have come out to _replace_ them, or new versions of the same apps have come out to replace them. I see this as a good thing, rather than a problem. I suppose if you're the kind of person who is emotionally attached to your favorite version of Word for Windows and find it won't run for you under Vista, well, perhaps you're missing something. If you still want to run that old app? Go ahead, keep your current hardware and/or OS. Nothing is going to magically stop working because you choose not to upgrade one or the other.
I'd rather the development effort goes into forward progress than unreasonable backwards compatibility.
Thank you for helping me make my point. A major upgrade isn't a "service pack", it's like going from win95 to win98, or NT to 2000, etc. And, guess what, nobody is _made_ to upgrade anything. The upgrades offer new features and (shock!) better performance on existing hardware. You can choose, you see, if you want to upgrade or not.
Do Apple accessories not cost exponentially more than identical products, even those made by other brand name companies?
No, they're not. Thanks for playing. HINT: hardware doesn't care if it's plugged into a Mac or a PC. Just bought a printer today in fact; oddly enough, the Epson Whateverthefark PhothWhatsit doesn't know or care what it's plugged into, a minute or 2 of work and it's running. WHAT extra expense?
Are iPods not far more expensive than competing players with greater functionality? Since when?
I guess it depends on what's important to you. Me, I prefer knowing that I don't have to dick around with my system when I get home, because I've got 800 boxes or so to dick around with during the day; I want it to _just work_. It does.
Those of us who don't worship at the Church of Apple are not ignorant of the Book of Jobs, we just choose not to buy into it... figuratively or otherwise. It's not that we don't "get" Macs, it's that we don't care, and you're too much of an elitist prick to "get" why.
That's great. Kindly tell me specifically then, what your direct personal recent experience is with Mac, Unix, and iPods. Because it seems that, as usual of people badmouthing Apple for reasons that, knowing Apple stuff I see as iffy at best, you're speaking out of preconceived notions and ignorance rather than knowing about that of which you speak. [not posting AC because it's lame, and I'm willing to take a Karma hit from the fanboys]
And that's why I'm responding.