As opposed to Unix, where the design is so open and extensible that anything is possible, yet there is no coherent interface and none of the non-server applications work or look as good as they do on Macintosh or Windows.
I beg to differ. Applications on Mac OS X look just as good as they do on the Mac.
I work as a developer for my university. The Terminal in 10.3 is indeed case-sensitive (and there is the HFS+ Case Sensitive file system for server). I very much prefer XCode to any other IDE I've used. It's clean and simple, unlike VS.Net, which is just god awful.
And I've seen the Linux GUI's. Some of them look okay, but Aqua is far, far better-looking. Konquerer has to have some of the ugliest toolbars I've ever seen, and the Aqua knock-offs for Linux are just abysmal.
Oh, and I'd argue that OS X isn't exactly the best of the CLI world. Sure, it has a CLI, but you can't just hit a hotkey to bring it to the front in the middle of a GUI session, like you can in Linux. That really sucks when you need to get to the terminal because the GUI's frozen.
inux has done the same ever since X came into existance.
Windows has always supported a command prompt too, just the majority of users don't have a clue on what it is, or how to use it.
He said the best of both worlds, not "command line plus fucking ugly GUI." I like a lot of things about both Linux and Windows, but neither holds a candle to OS X.
Re:Man ... it's not that bad on OS X ...
on
Real's Reality
·
· Score: 1
I have a G4 with OS X, and I would have tended to agree with you - that is, until I started browsing around my ~/Library directory. (~/Library is where many applications, especially graphical ones, store user preferences, settings, and a bunch of other stuff. It's like the Windows registry, except not always in resident memory.)
Your user preferences directory isn't the same as the Registry by a long shot. The Registry is a database. The ~/Library/Preferences directory is a collection of text files which store application settings in simple XML.plist format. It's not where applications go to make changes to your system, which is what the Registry is (in addition to being a store house for preferences).
Apparently, when you drag an application from the/Applications folder to the trash, your per-user preferences and other settings that reside in ~/Library/* don't get taken along, giving you a residual build up of all sorts of things. If you want to get the real scoop on just how easy and clean it is to get rid of programs on Mac OS X, check your ~/Library directory for stuff leftover from programs you thought you removed completely months ago. I'll bet you'll find a lot of stuff you dind't think existed on your HD anymore.
Don't be silly. Of course they don't get taken along, nor would I want them to be. If I delete the application and decide to put it back on my system, all my settings are preserved. If I want the extra 4 kB of disk space, I'll delete them myself. Furthermore, manipulating the Registry allows Windows applications to set login items and all sorts of other annoying bullshit. This is not equivalent to the Preferences folder in any way. In general, if I remove an application on OS X, all the daemons that run with that app are gone, too, since they're most likely stored inside the application's bundle. Basically, even if RealOne on OS X did have all this extra shit, it'd all be gone once you tossed your RealOne.app bundle.
Man ... it's not that bad on OS X ...
on
Real's Reality
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
RealOne on Mac OS X is actually a pretty decent, light-weight player. It plays Real Media streams and only Real Media streams, to my knowledge. That's all I need it for. And once I found the Free Download link, everything was pretty simple after that. Register with a bogus E-mail address, create some dumb-ass password and forget about it. And if I want to remove it, drag it to the trash.
I find that a lot of software for OS X is like this, whereas the Windows versions almost always require some sort of surgical procedure to remove. Do the Windows programming departments of companies nowadays have more programmers just to put in the extra, spyware garbage? Because that kind of stuff certainly isn't in any prominent OS X applications that I can think of.
And if you've never seen anyone use WMP over Winamp, you're only hanging around geeks. Hell, half my Comp Sci classmates use WMP, because "it came with Windows".
If there's one thing I've learned about computer science students in my years at a university, it's that being computer science students doesn't make them more knowledgeable about computers than the average user. Some of them program pretty well, but they wouldn't know their asses from their elbows if some serious computer problems crept up. Hell, some of them can't even diagnose network issues properly.
And what is the deal with commercial websites? It seems like they have some sort of mania which prevents them from simply posting MPEGs. I mean, we get real, MS, or QuickTime. Seriously lame.
The "mania" you're referring to would be the fact that, in comparison to the other streaming solutions (MPEG-4, QuickTime, Real, Windows Media), MPEG-1 just blows. Every modern streaming solution delivers better quality than MPEG-1 at lower bitrates. Heck, MPEG-4 was designed specifically for streaming.
Interestingly, also, is that Windows Media Player for Mac OS X sucks donkey nuts, and I'm pretty sure that a whopping zero Mac users actually use it as their default media player for even Windows Media (I always try VLC first).
We're talking about porn in the context of children's development. Of course keeping your pornography addiction secret from your spouse is going to damage your relationship. Keeping things like that bottled up in general damages your relationships.
The second link is a religious page which actually says that fantasizing about other women is equivalent to adultery.
From dictionary.com (respect):
# A feeling of appreciative, often deferential regard; esteem. See Synonyms at regard.
# The state of being regarded with honor or esteem.
Respect is given. I don't feel that a check or cash necessarily points to respect. If I pay someone $20 to kick punch them in the face...how does that show respect? I'm not refuting what you said...we can go back and forth on this for days. I'm just clarifying why I said what I said.
I never said that porn stars' salaries were indicative of respect. I said that they were paid well and respected. But try visiting some of the big-time porn stars' personal websites, like Asia Carrera's for example, to see how they like their jobs. I'd wager that the only thing that porn actresses don't like about working in the porn industry is the claim that they're "being exploited" or "taken advantage of."
I agree. So do alot of shows on television. And i still think that kids (until they're able to process the information and decipher between reality and fiction) don't gain anything by seeing those things. The point at which they're able to make conscious decisions about what's reality/fiction or right/wrong...that's variable.
They probably don't, but they're not harmed by it in the way that exposing them to drugs or alcohol would. I'm not saying that people should show their kids porn all the time; I'm saying that they should stop getting so worked up over their children seeing it.
I agree with that statement completely. And I don't believe that undermines any "family virtues" either. But as a parent I would want talk to my kids about sex before they get bombarded by media and sex ed courses. Which means as soon as they're capable of understanding the basics of sex.
"Family values" is a phrase invented by the Christian right to essentially mean, "Sexuality is evil."
String theory makes plenty of testable predictions. The problem is that we don't have the technology to actually perform the experiments. String theory deals with massive amounts of energy that we just can't generate yet.
I agree with that. porn alone (or much of anything else) isn't a root cause to ruining a family. I do however believe that lots of things can aid in that.
I've never even heard of porn being the straw that broke the camel's back. Drugs, alcohol and lack of communication tear families apart, not a guy cumming on a girl's tits.
But I think we might be getting away from the original topic. I do believe that exposing children to pornography (since that's what we're talking about here) does no good for them...and in fact harms them. How? I beleive pornography in general portrays several things which I think are unhealthy/harmful.
using women for gratification (no i'm not being a feminist)
How are the women being "used"? In the case of the big names in porn, they're very well-paid and respected on the set, and more importantly, they enjoy what they do. Sure, there is definitely porn out there that is male-dominated and lots of amateur stuff, but that's hardly representative of the entire industry.
unhealthy sexuality (due to swapping partners and having unprotected sex)
Actually, a lot of porn is filmed with condoms. Many female porn stars refuse to work with a male co-star unless he wears protection. Again, you're holding the bottom-of-the-barrel stuff as typical of the rest of the industry.
unrealistic consequences (noone ever gets pregnant and noone contracts stds)
How many normal movies are like that? Plenty. You and I both know that in tons of mainstream movies, the female and male lead will end up having sex, and the only consequences are emotional. There is no mention of using a condom or being on birth control or anything like that.
Movies in general present a distorted view of reality. The key is being able to tell fantasy from reality, and good parents will raise their kids with the sense to differentiate between the two.
I think that cases like this are a reason why we should have better sex education. Don't just teach children how to have safe sex; give them pointers on how to have good sex, as well. This would help adolescents tell the difference between what they've got on their computers and how it happens in real life. Of course, the "family values" groups would hate that idea...
Kind of reminds me of the Simpson's episode where Burns flashed back to when he was a child with his father taking him through an old factory, before there were unions. As the 1920's variant of the teenage pubescent is being dragged off the floor, he says, "One day, we workers will form unions, so we can get the wages and benefits that we deserve! But then we'll go to far, and become corrupt... and the Japanese will eat us alive."
Effects such as breaking up and ruining your family are mild to insignificant?
If your family ties are so weak that a visual depiction of two people having sex can break them, porn is the least of your worries.
So exposing children to mentally harmful things is alright?
Prove that it's "mentally harmful."
Basically...if you break items children are exposed to...down to one of three things...good, bad, neutral. I would consider loving and caring parents as "good". Classical or instrumental music as "neutral". Pornography as "bad".
The first part doesn't make any sense, and the second part is simply a sweeping proclamation. "Drugs are bad... mmmkay?"
I'll call my shrink.
Forget the shrink. Find a proctologist so he can get the stick out of your ass.
I think this guy deserves three years of HARD LABOR. Like they used to do in the past. When you break the law, you should go to prison and be worked like a DOG. You go prison, you are a slave. Period.
Unfortunately for your inability to temper your bloodlust, slavery is illegal, and so is cruel and unusual punishment. This guy did nothing to deserve three years in prison.
This guy is going to a low sec prison. Club-fed. Are fucking kidding me? That is easy time. Where is the incentive for him to NOT do something like this again?
Precisely. After he gets out, he'll never find a good job because he's been to prison. All he's got left are illegal means to being successful. That's why prison time won't work for a punishment in this case. That's why a heavy fine will.
Sense you've assumed so much about me, I'm going to assume you'd like this guy to be understood. We need to understand why he is a lazy fuck only trying to make easy money at the expense of typos. He should be treated with respect and given every opportunity to realize just what it is he did wrong. Right?
No, I just don't think he deserves three years in prison. If you'd actually read my original post instead of knee-jerking and saying what a horrible person I am because I don't subscribe to the asinine and manipulative "Think of the children!" mantra used as a set of pliers for the nation's heartstrings toward the goal of outlawing everything that whiny parents don't like, maybe you'd have seen that.
You know... It appears I'm raising my kids quite similarly to how your parents raised you. Suh-weet Jesus in a WalMart, I hope they don't turn out like you
Don't worry, I'm sure your kids will be perfectly good conformists and automatons.
If you look for research on the effects of exposure to pornography at a young age - you'll answer your own question. Children aren't capable of seeing consequences for alot of their actions. And there is actually alot of evidence that shows that exposure to pornography at a young age tremendously increases the chance for addiction to it at a later age.
The same can be said about anything which is particularly enjoyable. Lots of things can be addictive. The consequences of various addictions vary. Addiction to porn has effects that are anywhere from mild to insignificant compared to other types of addictions. Sure it's possible to begin obsessing over porn and looking at it so much that you get fired from your job and your life collapses, but that could happen with lots of other perfectly legal things, too.
That said...isn't shielding young kids from pornography similar to shielding them from drugs and alcohol?
Absolutely not. Exposing children to drugs and alcohol physically and objectively harms them. If you're seriously equating an 8 year-old doing lines to an 8 year-old flipping through some porn sites, you might need your head examined.
There's a difference between saying, "I don't want my kids exposed to porn," and saying, "I want the people who run the porn websites that my kid visited without my consent to be locked up for three years."
Don't give me that, "When you're a parent, you'll understand" bullshit. No reasonable person would believe that the guy deserves 3 years in prison. My parents didn't go crying to the government if I was exposed to material they didn't approve of. They didn't expect Uncle Sam to raise me for them through passing legislation; they raised me by actually talking and interacting with me and not being too shy or timid to talk to me about things like sex. Most importantly, they raised me with the capacity to tell fantasy from reality, so they didn't have to worry about me blowing people away at school because I played Doom or raping a girl on prom night because I had been exposed to porn.
So fuck you pal. Try talking to your kids once in a while about these subjects instead of pissing and whining that the government should outlaw things you don't want your kid exposed to. You're the parents; you raise the child.
Simple deductive reasoning. There is absolutely no evidence of these kids being harmed in any objective manner. If the parents don't want their children seeing pornography, then they should be monitoring their kids' internet activities.
He didn't hurt anyone. He offended the religious, prudish sensibilities of some parents. Did he do anything to deserve 3 years of jail time? Certainly not. Whether or not he should be punished for putting whatever material he wants on his legally purchased domain name is debatable, but the guy doesn't deserve jail time. That's just overkill. With drug offenders flooding the prison systems for hurting no one but themselves, we don't need domain name offenders in there as well. America needs to start lightening up with its regard toward sex. These children will not be scarred for life, nor will they become criminals or low-lifes just because they say a guy cumming on a woman's tits. Wake up to reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh Jesus, are you serious? I'd mod this funny if I didn't want to post a comment.
I work as a developer for my university. The Terminal in 10.3 is indeed case-sensitive (and there is the HFS+ Case Sensitive file system for server). I very much prefer XCode to any other IDE I've used. It's clean and simple, unlike VS.Net, which is just god awful.
And I've seen the Linux GUI's. Some of them look okay, but Aqua is far, far better-looking. Konquerer has to have some of the ugliest toolbars I've ever seen, and the Aqua knock-offs for Linux are just abysmal.
Oh, and I'd argue that OS X isn't exactly the best of the CLI world. Sure, it has a CLI, but you can't just hit a hotkey to bring it to the front in the middle of a GUI session, like you can in Linux. That really sucks when you need to get to the terminal because the GUI's frozen.
RealOne on Mac OS X is actually a pretty decent, light-weight player. It plays Real Media streams and only Real Media streams, to my knowledge. That's all I need it for. And once I found the Free Download link, everything was pretty simple after that. Register with a bogus E-mail address, create some dumb-ass password and forget about it. And if I want to remove it, drag it to the trash.
I find that a lot of software for OS X is like this, whereas the Windows versions almost always require some sort of surgical procedure to remove. Do the Windows programming departments of companies nowadays have more programmers just to put in the extra, spyware garbage? Because that kind of stuff certainly isn't in any prominent OS X applications that I can think of.
Interestingly, also, is that Windows Media Player for Mac OS X sucks donkey nuts, and I'm pretty sure that a whopping zero Mac users actually use it as their default media player for even Windows Media (I always try VLC first).
Yeah because all the clone boxes suddenly stopped working after Apple stopped licensing them. Oh, wait ...
The second link is a religious page which actually says that fantasizing about other women is equivalent to adultery. I never said that porn stars' salaries were indicative of respect. I said that they were paid well and respected. But try visiting some of the big-time porn stars' personal websites, like Asia Carrera's for example, to see how they like their jobs. I'd wager that the only thing that porn actresses don't like about working in the porn industry is the claim that they're "being exploited" or "taken advantage of." They probably don't, but they're not harmed by it in the way that exposing them to drugs or alcohol would. I'm not saying that people should show their kids porn all the time; I'm saying that they should stop getting so worked up over their children seeing it. "Family values" is a phrase invented by the Christian right to essentially mean, "Sexuality is evil."
Micro-black holes will have extremely small event horizons. You can stop worrying about CERN collapsing the solar system now.
String theory makes plenty of testable predictions. The problem is that we don't have the technology to actually perform the experiments. String theory deals with massive amounts of energy that we just can't generate yet.
Movies in general present a distorted view of reality. The key is being able to tell fantasy from reality, and good parents will raise their kids with the sense to differentiate between the two.
I think that cases like this are a reason why we should have better sex education. Don't just teach children how to have safe sex; give them pointers on how to have good sex, as well. This would help adolescents tell the difference between what they've got on their computers and how it happens in real life. Of course, the "family values" groups would hate that idea
Kind of reminds me of the Simpson's episode where Burns flashed back to when he was a child with his father taking him through an old factory, before there were unions. As the 1920's variant of the teenage pubescent is being dragged off the floor, he says, "One day, we workers will form unions, so we can get the wages and benefits that we deserve! But then we'll go to far, and become corrupt ... and the Japanese will eat us alive."
There's a difference between saying, "I don't want my kids exposed to porn," and saying, "I want the people who run the porn websites that my kid visited without my consent to be locked up for three years."
Don't give me that, "When you're a parent, you'll understand" bullshit. No reasonable person would believe that the guy deserves 3 years in prison. My parents didn't go crying to the government if I was exposed to material they didn't approve of. They didn't expect Uncle Sam to raise me for them through passing legislation; they raised me by actually talking and interacting with me and not being too shy or timid to talk to me about things like sex. Most importantly, they raised me with the capacity to tell fantasy from reality, so they didn't have to worry about me blowing people away at school because I played Doom or raping a girl on prom night because I had been exposed to porn.
So fuck you pal. Try talking to your kids once in a while about these subjects instead of pissing and whining that the government should outlaw things you don't want your kid exposed to. You're the parents; you raise the child.
Simple deductive reasoning. There is absolutely no evidence of these kids being harmed in any objective manner. If the parents don't want their children seeing pornography, then they should be monitoring their kids' internet activities.
He didn't hurt anyone. He offended the religious, prudish sensibilities of some parents. Did he do anything to deserve 3 years of jail time? Certainly not. Whether or not he should be punished for putting whatever material he wants on his legally purchased domain name is debatable, but the guy doesn't deserve jail time. That's just overkill. With drug offenders flooding the prison systems for hurting no one but themselves, we don't need domain name offenders in there as well. America needs to start lightening up with its regard toward sex. These children will not be scarred for life, nor will they become criminals or low-lifes just because they say a guy cumming on a woman's tits. Wake up to reality.
As I read it, selling Linux licenses constitutes sub-licensing, which is prohibited under the GPL.
Of course not. Communism is an economic system; socialism is a governmental one. It's communism and capitalism that are mutually exclusive.