......They just have not seen a 1080i HD movie (available on DTV/Dish/cable now) on a 50"+ 1920x1080 capable display......
How many people live in apartments where they can easily place a 40+ inch HD screen, even if they can afford one? Large screens are still about five to ten times more expensive that a 20" set from Walmart. Add to that the cost of replacing the DVD player and the fact that the programs themselves don't improve, over conventional DVDs and ordinary cable stations, and you have recipe for very slow adoption of the new technology. Just as Microsoft Windows is "good enough" for millions of computer users, so too the now existing DVDs are good enough for most of the ordinary cash strapped consumers. Most extra money consumers might have had to spend on new tech toys is now being spent at the gas pump. It is interesting that the government now excludes food and energy costs from their inflation rate publications.
.....Now that the cost of production and distribution of films and music is close to zero, and will get ever closer to zero as things are digitised more.......
If this is true, why don't YOU make the next Lord of the Rings film or something like that and let everybody copy it for free? Good films still cost quite a bit to make. Copyright violations should have draconian penalties for anyone who derives an income, directly or indirectly from someone else's hard creative work. OTOH, someone who copies movies they bought onto a hard disk of their laptop, so they don't have to cart the disks on the airplane, ought to be allowed to do so. There is no loss or gain of income involved for anyone in this or similar practices by the ordinary users.
......Suddenly what was immoral yesterday would be totally ok today?.....
Depends on whether there are absolutes in what's moral and what is not. The laws of physics are absolutes, in that no human legislative or judicial body has any jurisdiction over them. The One who made the laws of physics also made certain laws or morality, but the latter are not immediately enforced such as the laws of physics. Copyright is purely a legal construct of the modern era, which began when the printing press was invented. Before then, copying was almost as hard as creating original content and so there was no need for such laws. DRM is nothing more than to revert, at least partially, to the days when copying was difficult. If someone worked hard to create something, such as music or movie, it is definitely theft of sorts for someone else to use this TO MAKE THEMSELVES AN INCOME, thus depriving the creator of the reward of their creativity. Because of this, commercial "pirates" should receive draconian punishments. However, if Joe consumer copies a CD or movie for their OWN enjoyment, that should be allowed, as long as Joe doesn't get any benefit, other than enjoying the work. Joe may like the a work of a particular artist and buy some other work or tell his friends who then buy. Ever since copying devices have existed, there has been copyright infringement, yet the big content management companies are richer than ever. Perhaps Mr. Jobs was right in calling them "greedy"!
.....Sorry, but the fact that you don't issue a warranty does not mean that the government cannot pass a law regulating how much you are responsible when you sell something.....
How can a warranty be put on software, any more than on a fictional novel? There is no way to certify mathematically that any non-trivial program is error free. Testing all possibilities of a large system, such as Windows and its apps to ensure any given level of reliability and functionality is very time consuming and therefore expensive.
The constant comparison between software and automobiles or any other material good is very flawed. Fundamentally, software is NOT a material object and cannot be be subjected to the same rules. If the same design methods could be applied to software, as to building bridges, then demanding warranties would be justified. As it is, writing software is an art, more than a science, akin to writing a good recipe book, not for food, but for instructions to a dumb machine that has to interact with an (presumably) intelligent human being, in order that this human may achieve a certain purpose. A good software "engineer" is as much more like a gifted artist. After the engineer has designed the program, a coder has to compile this design into a source program, which in turn is compiled by a mechanical "compiler" into the actual instructions that the computer hardware finally executes. Perhaps, someday in the future, the human coder will be replaced by a mechanical one, like today's compilers. This may result in more reliable programs, but a flawed design can still cause problems.
.....And I think for most consumers it would work like this:you charge us serious cash, we want a warranty.....
How much money would a 99% crash or error proof OS, such as Windows or OSX cost? How long would a MS or Apple have to test and how much would it cost? With material products, there are mathematical methods by which it is possible to predict performance and reliability. Only a limited amount of testing is needed of prototypes and production goods. This is NOT the case with software which is NOT a material good. There are no mathematical methods that can ensure a bug free program, such as there are for designing a bridge that will not collapse under most foreseen or unforeseen circumstances. The only real way to determine whether software is reasonably good and reliable is through extensive testing, which is labor intensive and therefore very expensive. To mandate a software maker to guarantee something that by its very nature CANNOT be guaranteed by design, but only by tedious and expensive testing is a dumb idea, to put it mildly.
....Holding software vendors accountable for bugs in the software they sell/support would do wonders for improving the quality of software in general......
It would also do wonders for the cost of software. So you would hold the developer of some stupid game, or even a word processor to your vaunted "professional" standards of expensive testing? Give me a break! Nobody has yet AFAIK come up with a foolproof mathematical way to certify that any program of even moderate complexity is bug free. The only way to be reasonably, but never absolutely sure there are no bugs is to test, test, test and then test some more. That gets very expensive. To make such an expensive testing a legal requirement for all software and to certify so called engineers, who may have more degrees than a thermometer as the only ones to be allowed to write "normal" software is ridiculous. When MS Word crashes or Windows BSOD, so what? Nobody gets hurt and if you save your work often, there is usually little economic loss.
All this would do is make more work for lawyers and make software as relatively expensive as small private airplanes, the exorbitant cost of which is largely due to liability issues. Keep regulators and lawyers out of this, but let buyers of life critical systems pay for the testing of such software.
Don't make it a requirement that any and every software meets any particular, government mandated standards. I have heard of a lot of extremely stupid, unworkable ideas in my lifetime, but this one is one of the worst to surface in a long time.
.....Or buy a PC to play games AND have a computer that "just works".....
Of course you can and spend almost as much money on a high performance video card as for say an X-Box360. You still have to take time to install and nursemaid the anti-virus software needed for all Windows systems, if the computer is connected to the internet. I have a nice AMD powered Windows system also. Every time I turn it on I get asked to download the latest virus definitions and other updates, even though it too is behind our hardware firewall. For our Macs, for security, we only make sure nobody is running routinely as administrator.
You obviously have never used the well integrated iLife content creation programs than come with every Mac, even the $700 dual-processor Mac Mini. For PC apps of this type, if there are any at all that come even close, you'd pay as much or more than for an iMac. I have some PC using friends. Perhaps you can compile a list of PC programs that do all or most of what iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto and Garageband do, how well they work together and how much these would each cost. My friends and others reading such a reply may benefit. Apple of course provides the iTunes program free to Windows users also.
....Macs aren't good for games out of the box. You need to buy extra equipment......
Who cares? To play games get a console from Sony, M$ or Nintendo and get the best game performance for your money. Buy a Mac if you want a computer than "just works", for which you don't have to spend a pile of extra money on protection software, just to keep it operational. Use the money and time you save from not having to fight Windows malware and BSOD to buy and play some console games on a computer made especially for games. If you have any time at all left over after playing games, you might use Garage band and/or iMovie to create some content of your own. Who knows, you might come to enjoy creating content more than consuming it.
.....your mind is just not open to the facts......
It is YOUR mind that is closed to the fact that copying of *any* kind of information creates nothing new. Mechanical copying of anything, manmade or natural, including complex genetic sequences can never produce any NEW information. Copying the files from a disk to say a tape, does NOT increase the amount of information. If you copy all or part of such a tape onto another disk which already had some other information thereon, you still have not increased the sum total of the information you were originally in possession of. If the information on the tape are instructions on how to build an airplane and the other disk carries data on how to make a car, then the combined information will still not tell you how to build anything other than cars or airplanes. No matter how you mechanistically manipulate the data, they will never magically instruct you in how to build a boat.
The things you have said are correct WITHIN the framework of the pre-existing information. A coli type of bacteria may become resistant to all sorts of environmental factors, but it can never become a coccus type because the information in the two is very different. This requires a new design based on information provided by an intelligent mind.
Intelligent minds conceive and make airplanes and cars. Why do you have such difficulty in believing that an intelligent mind invented and built your brain by which your mind can express itself by doing great things? Why is it so hard for you to see that only an INTELLIGENT MIND can generate new information?
.....This results in ADDED DNA. All it is is a copying error.....
In no discipline has it ever been OBSERVED that a copying error ADDS information, but ONLY always loses data. Why should the genetic code be exempt from the laws of physics which demand that this it possible to lose data when copying, but NEVER gain? The best *any* copying process, whether natural or man made, can hope for, is a perfect duplicate. There will never be any added information unless intelligence was also involved.
In sexual reproduction, selective copying can prevent damaging recessive traits from getting passed on, but no NEW information is added. For evolution from a simpler to a more advanced organism, large amounts of new information must be added. No matter how often you copy a computer program, there is a possibility that the program may lose some capability or cease to function altogether, but you will never get an upgraded program with higher capabilities unless the mind of a programmer is involved. You will never get a chicken from a reptile, because a chicken contains more information than a snake or whatever.
Matter and energy by themselves cannot generate new, original information, no matter how long and often they may interact with each other. Breeding and adaptation are observed facts, which are often labeled "evolution", but these mechanisms operate only within the existing information frameworks. Any aspect of "evolution" that requires new, previously non-existent information is scientifically unobserved and bogus.
.....but the fact that mutations and evolution are happening are something one must admit to.......
Mutations, like everything else physical is subject to entropy. As such ALL mutations, WITHOUT any exceptions, having EVER been observed, result in a decrease of information. We see this in computer systems also. A random error will never add information, but usually make such a corruption of the data, as to render the computer inoperable. An increase in complexity, such as from a single cell to a multi-celled organism also requires a huge increase in information. Nowhere, ever, at any time has this been observed to happen. It is wishful imagination on the part of the evolution faithful.
Any given system, such as a virus or bacterium, can respond to environmental stimuli only within the constraints of whatever information there is already resident within it. We do this with computer software and other human designs also. A programmer tries to anticipate bad data or error conditions and have the program take appropriate action. In the same way, the One who programmed survival mechanisms into living systems anticipated certain stresses that a given organism might encounter. Some of the survival techniques of His creations are truly astounding.
There is no known physical process or mechanism that can create more information than what is already present in a given system. New information can only arise as the activity of MIND. Whether that be the mind of people re-arranging existing matter and energy for new or existing purposes, or the mind of God, as the originator of all information and knowledge.
......You need to understand that this is even happening today. Using controlled breeding people create new species all the time.......
No matter how much breeding and other manipulations are done, no new information is ever generated. Information is stored in the DNA and breeding doesn't ever add information that was not already there. Evolution cannot explain where the tremendous amount of information that is inherent in and being transmitted and exchanged in living systems originated.
The amount of information transmitted, received and processed each day in a human being, exceeds 10^24 binary bits, while the sum total of all data stored in all libraries of mankind is 10^18 bits. This means that your body processes a million times more data each day than the contents of all libraries on this planet.
Nobody has EVER demonstrated the generation of creative information arising from any other source besides an intelligent mind. All information and knowledge can and must be ultimately traced back to God. That is why we read of Jesus: "In him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." (Col 2:3) All our discoveries of science allow us to use our human intelligence, given to us by the Creator, to build all the technology we enjoy. Yet, compared to the technology of life, all our human accomplishments are totally primitive. An ordinary light bulb converts about 4% of the input energy into light. The rest is wasted as heat. Even our best light generators can only do about 35%. Yet fireflies and other living light generators achieve 100% conversion. Living systems convert chemical energy directly into motion without generating wasteful heat. We have not yet learned how to convert chemical energy into mechanical energy without using some kind of inefficient heat engine. Evolution believers try to tell everybody that what man cannot duplicate by best efforts happened by chance, without the action of an intelligent mind. Now THAT is faith!
.....the question must be anwsered egg not because of genetics......
But it IS genetics at a much more basic level. DNA carries the instruction codes for all life, including the codes needed to make enzymes and proteins. However, it takes enzymes and proteins to make the DNA which carries the information codes that specify how to make enzymes and proteins. So what came first, the enzymes & proteins, or the DNA?
A computer contains the complete and total information how to construct a computer. How did the first computer get made and where did the information on how to make one come from? Of course, we all know that an outside intelligence constructed the first computer.
So why is it so far fetched to postulate that an external intelligence came up with the first DNA, complete with the instructions on how to construct enzymes and proteins, which then enabled the DNA to replicate from that point on? Why is it thought so outlandish, that an intelligent creator made the first chicken, complete with the ability to lay eggs which develop into more chickens? Evolution has no answer for this dilemma.
......Prove the program (or its modules) mathematically correct......
I am not a programmer, (electrical engineer) but from everything I've ever read about programming and codes, it is not possible to do this for really complicated programs or it takes even more effort than just testing it at runtime. Most computers have an operating system of some kind and its interaction with a program can also give rise to unforeseen glitches and bugs which in no way can be proven ahead of time since the programmers generally don't have access to the source code of the OS.
Even so you are correct that, as in any engineering discipline, careful attention to design and using tried and true methods can minimize errors and get a reasonably reliable product out the door at a competitive price. A major reason the software industry at large is not regulated, such as aircraft or automobiles for example, is that the consequences failure in the vast majority of cases doesn't endanger human life or large property value. A BSOD usually doesn't rise appreciably above an annoyance level and is thus tolerated in most cases. Even financial institutions have backup systems, just in case an error does happen they can go back and re-run the programs after fixing the trouble. This may not be possible, in an airliner, where a software bug causes a problem while the plane is flying at 35,000 feet with 200+ passengers at risk.
For some software companies, their customers are made to pay to be the software testers and that, IMHO is going a little too far.
.......you must prove that your software passes this and that criteria.....
Is there a way, even theoretically, to "prove" that a complex piece of software is bug free? Bad security is just a form of bug. AFAIK, software can be "tested" long and hard, but that doesn't mean that all bugs can or will be found. If truly bug free software were a "regulated" requirement, would that only give lawyers another avenue of attack to make tons of money and prevent anyone who doesn't have the money to hire an army of them from entering the software business? Does that mean a truly bug free word processor or operating system would cost the kind of money that software for controlling a nuclear reactor costs? It seems that regulating software would not guarantee bug free software, since such guarantees are impossible to make, except through tedious and extremely expensive, long periods of tedious testing.
......most iPod owners I know go the route of iTunes.....
Have you asked these ipod owners what percentage of the music on their ipods is from itunes as compared to other sources? Most ipods actually have only a very small percentage of their library purchased from the ITMS. I like having my entire 500+ CD collection in my pocket. There are many music lover, who have bought CDs and even vinyl LP years ago and ripped these into their ipods in the last few years, so they can enjoy their music anywhere. Free legal music from the internet is another good source of music for ipods.
.....has since become a nearly universal identifier.....
The reason there is a need for such is because of the computer. In any database, each record must be unique. One would thing that/. geeks know this. When SS was invented, there were no computers, but now there HAS to be such an identifier. The SS number just happened to be a very widely used unique number for everybody.
.....The point is, a government faced with a rebellous population doesn't know which people are on which side......
Governments still need money, and that comes from the "rebellious population". Therefore if this population is large enough and stops paying taxes, the government and its military stops working. Few soldiers and police will stick around if they don't get paid for a few months or more. We saw how many police just took off out of the hurricane devastated New Orleans. Now multiply such chaos nationwide, brought on, not be a natural disaster, but by massive civil disobedience. So far though, there is still the ballot box through which our government may be changed without a lot of bloodshed. Therefore, if the "rebellious" ones vote, they have the power to change the government, as the constitution specifies. I wonder though how many of the vociferous/.ers actually bother to vote. Maybe the administrators could conduct a straw poll here online.
This discussion was originally about a database used to identify illegal aliens, so they can be prevented from getting employment and thereby have no incentive to come here in the first place. A good identification system combined with a strong disincentive for employers to hire improperly identified individuals is not such a bad idea.
.......However, if something like this is placed in law.......
"IF" of course is the operative word. A new law mandating that no automobile may ever be sold used is also being considered. If fact, in order to stimulate the manufacturing economy, no used merchandise of any kind may be sold or traded. It will work about as well as prohibition did. Do you hear some facetious noises?
.....as it will be illegal for customers to sell any next-gen PlayStation games that they've bought".....
Since when have laws EVER stopped people from doing what they want to do, especially if those laws are only made for the fat cats with lots of money who have managed to bribe some politicians? All these 'agreements' and 'licenses' are not worth the electricity it takes to project them onto a screen and are not practical to enforce. If I have physical possession of an otherwise legal product, I have the right to sell that and there will never be an enforceable law that will prevent this.
.....I believe Vista is heading back this way......
I sincerely hope that MS finally REALLY decides to dramatically reduce the malware misery it has allowed its millions of users to suffer all these years now. I primarily use Macs, but need also use Windows from time to time. Using Windows is like being in a seedy neighborhood, constantly being on the alert for that mugger or other unsavory character lurking in some doorway.
The basic idea of an editable text file, where a knowledgeable user can customize the system is actually good. Its Windows implementation, especially the one file, all "eggs in one basket" registry is not so good. Apple does this with PLIST files, but each program may have one or more of its own such files located in the user's library. That way, if errant code in a particular software screws up its plist, only that program is affected and the remedy is to simply trash the plist file(s). The program will then re-create a new one and the user may have to re-enter some of the previous settings for that program.
Windows flavored iTunes has some DRM stuff in it and that may be one reason it wants admin for installation. It also wants admin for Mac installs or upgrades, probably for that reason. Once installed however, a limited user can access all of the iTunes features.
.......Ha - perhaps you can explain to my why iTunes on Windows require admin permissions to install then?!.....
Yes, I can. It's because of the existence of an arcane file called the registry, where most programs need to write data, when installing. Many also want to write to there just for day to day running. In order to write or change the registry, admin access is required. Many malware programs, such as zombie backdoors and keystroke loggers, write to the registry and other system areas, to ensure that they start up each time the computer is booted. If the registry is damaged, the computer will misbehave or in some cases fail to boot at all.
OSX doesn't have such a single point of failure, which is one reason it is more stable and secure. For most programs, application parameter are stored in each user's library, where user write access is sufficient. The non-admin user may also store applications in their own, private applications folder. Mac users, much more than their Widows counterparts, tend to be highly intolerant of software developers who don't follow Apple's rather rigid "rules". Why do all my other programs run fine, but only this one from fly-by-night software always asks for an administrator password? OSX also provides fewer places for malware and its files to hide when (not if) it gets into the computer.
...I thought you were intelligent enough to understand that "native support" excluded the Classic virtual machine emulator....
You are the one that doesn't understand that Classic and its programs running under OSX is NOT an emulator, but runs at full speed. Because the newer hardware is much more powerful, these old programs actually run much faster than they ever did on the hardware they were originally written for. OS9.2 classic and all of its apps is just another program, fully native under OSX running on the PPC architecture. Old Apple programs that don't try to reference hardware directly usually run just fine. Now that Apple switched to Intel chips, classic is no longer available.
....Unless you're talking about running your old 7.1 CAD app.....
That is exactly what I was trying to say. Back then I was using two CAD programs and they both run fine under Classic running under OS10.4. They both have a capability to save their proprietary file formats as Mac PICT files, which a more modern OSX program can open and manipulate. I transferred both the programs and the files from CD archive disks made in 1995 with a Mac clone.
....Finally, Apple broke backwards compatibility and forced all of their software vendors to significantly rewrite all their programs. Most people run Windows because they don't like things like that. Had OSX natively supported Classic apps it would have had all the same permission problems as Windows does.......
Really? I just had the occasion to look at and convert some ancient (1989-1990) CAD files which were originally done on a 16Mhz Mac SE under system 7.1. I copied the programs and files to my PowerMac running OSX10.4 and it all worked just fine under Classic. Maybe there is a program or two that doesn't work as a non-admin under OSX. Even MS office for Mac doesn't need admin rights to install and run.
Slashdot Mirror
......They just have not seen a 1080i HD movie (available on DTV/Dish/cable now) on a 50"+ 1920x1080 capable display......
How many people live in apartments where they can easily place a 40+ inch HD screen, even if they can afford one? Large screens are still about five to ten times more expensive that a 20" set from Walmart. Add to that the cost of replacing the DVD player and the fact that the programs themselves don't improve, over conventional DVDs and ordinary cable stations, and you have recipe for very slow adoption of the new technology. Just as Microsoft Windows is "good enough" for millions of computer users, so too the now existing DVDs are good enough for most of the ordinary cash strapped consumers. Most extra money consumers might have had to spend on new tech toys is now being spent at the gas pump. It is interesting that the government now excludes food and energy costs from their inflation rate publications.
.....Now that the cost of production and distribution of films and music is close to zero, and will get ever closer to zero as things are digitised more.......
If this is true, why don't YOU make the next Lord of the Rings film or something like that and let everybody copy it for free? Good films still cost quite a bit to make. Copyright violations should have draconian penalties for anyone who derives an income, directly or indirectly from someone else's hard creative work. OTOH, someone who copies movies they bought onto a hard disk of their laptop, so they don't have to cart the disks on the airplane, ought to be allowed to do so. There is no loss or gain of income involved for anyone in this or similar practices by the ordinary users.
......Suddenly what was immoral yesterday would be totally ok today?.....
Depends on whether there are absolutes in what's moral and what is not. The laws of physics are absolutes, in that no human legislative or judicial body has any jurisdiction over them. The One who made the laws of physics also made certain laws or morality, but the latter are not immediately enforced such as the laws of physics. Copyright is purely a legal construct of the modern era, which began when the printing press was invented. Before then, copying was almost as hard as creating original content and so there was no need for such laws. DRM is nothing more than to revert, at least partially, to the days when copying was difficult. If someone worked hard to create something, such as music or movie, it is definitely theft of sorts for someone else to use this TO MAKE THEMSELVES AN INCOME, thus depriving the creator of the reward of their creativity. Because of this, commercial "pirates" should receive draconian punishments. However, if Joe consumer copies a CD or movie for their OWN enjoyment, that should be allowed, as long as Joe doesn't get any benefit, other than enjoying the work. Joe may like the a work of a particular artist and buy some other work or tell his friends who then buy. Ever since copying devices have existed, there has been copyright infringement, yet the big content management companies are richer than ever. Perhaps Mr. Jobs was right in calling them "greedy"!
.....Sorry, but the fact that you don't issue a warranty does not mean that the government cannot pass a law regulating how much you are responsible when you sell something.....
How can a warranty be put on software, any more than on a fictional novel? There is no way to certify mathematically that any non-trivial program is error free. Testing all possibilities of a large system, such as Windows and its apps to ensure any given level of reliability and functionality is very time consuming and therefore expensive.
The constant comparison between software and automobiles or any other material good is very flawed. Fundamentally, software is NOT a material object and cannot be be subjected to the same rules. If the same design methods could be applied to software, as to building bridges, then demanding warranties would be justified. As it is, writing software is an art, more than a science, akin to writing a good recipe book, not for food, but for instructions to a dumb machine that has to interact with an (presumably) intelligent human being, in order that this human may achieve a certain purpose. A good software "engineer" is as much more like a gifted artist. After the engineer has designed the program, a coder has to compile this design into a source program, which in turn is compiled by a mechanical "compiler" into the actual instructions that the computer hardware finally executes. Perhaps, someday in the future, the human coder will be replaced by a mechanical one, like today's compilers. This may result in more reliable programs, but a flawed design can still cause problems.
.....And I think for most consumers it would work like this:you charge us serious cash, we want a warranty.....
How much money would a 99% crash or error proof OS, such as Windows or OSX cost? How long would a MS or Apple have to test and how much would it cost? With material products, there are mathematical methods by which it is possible to predict performance and reliability. Only a limited amount of testing is needed of prototypes and production goods. This is NOT the case with software which is NOT a material good. There are no mathematical methods that can ensure a bug free program, such as there are for designing a bridge that will not collapse under most foreseen or unforeseen circumstances. The only real way to determine whether software is reasonably good and reliable is through extensive testing, which is labor intensive and therefore very expensive. To mandate a software maker to guarantee something that by its very nature CANNOT be guaranteed by design, but only by tedious and expensive testing is a dumb idea, to put it mildly.
....Holding software vendors accountable for bugs in the software they sell/support would do wonders for improving the quality of software in general......
It would also do wonders for the cost of software. So you would hold the developer of some stupid game, or even a word processor to your vaunted "professional" standards of expensive testing? Give me a break! Nobody has yet AFAIK come up with a foolproof mathematical way to certify that any program of even moderate complexity is bug free. The only way to be reasonably, but never absolutely sure there are no bugs is to test, test, test and then test some more. That gets very expensive. To make such an expensive testing a legal requirement for all software and to certify so called engineers, who may have more degrees than a thermometer as the only ones to be allowed to write "normal" software is ridiculous. When MS Word crashes or Windows BSOD, so what? Nobody gets hurt and if you save your work often, there is usually little economic loss.
All this would do is make more work for lawyers and make software as relatively expensive as small private airplanes, the exorbitant cost of which is largely due to liability issues. Keep regulators and lawyers out of this, but let buyers of life critical systems pay for the testing of such software.
Don't make it a requirement that any and every software meets any particular, government mandated standards. I have heard of a lot of extremely stupid, unworkable ideas in my lifetime, but this one is one of the worst to surface in a long time.
.....Or buy a PC to play games AND have a computer that "just works".....
Of course you can and spend almost as much money on a high performance video card as for say an X-Box360. You still have to take time to install and nursemaid the anti-virus software needed for all Windows systems, if the computer is connected to the internet. I have a nice AMD powered Windows system also. Every time I turn it on I get asked to download the latest virus definitions and other updates, even though it too is behind our hardware firewall. For our Macs, for security, we only make sure nobody is running routinely as administrator.
You obviously have never used the well integrated iLife content creation programs than come with every Mac, even the $700 dual-processor Mac Mini. For PC apps of this type, if there are any at all that come even close, you'd pay as much or more than for an iMac. I have some PC using friends. Perhaps you can compile a list of PC programs that do all or most of what iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto and Garageband do, how well they work together and how much these would each cost. My friends and others reading such a reply may benefit. Apple of course provides the iTunes program free to Windows users also.
....Macs aren't good for games out of the box. You need to buy extra equipment......
Who cares? To play games get a console from Sony, M$ or Nintendo and get the best game performance for your money. Buy a Mac if you want a computer than "just works", for which you don't have to spend a pile of extra money on protection software, just to keep it operational. Use the money and time you save from not having to fight Windows malware and BSOD to buy and play some console games on a computer made especially for games. If you have any time at all left over after playing games, you might use Garage band and/or iMovie to create some content of your own. Who knows, you might come to enjoy creating content more than consuming it.
.....your mind is just not open to the facts......
It is YOUR mind that is closed to the fact that copying of *any* kind of information creates nothing new. Mechanical copying of anything, manmade or natural, including complex genetic sequences can never produce any NEW information. Copying the files from a disk to say a tape, does NOT increase the amount of information. If you copy all or part of such a tape onto another disk which already had some other information thereon, you still have not increased the sum total of the information you were originally in possession of. If the information on the tape are instructions on how to build an airplane and the other disk carries data on how to make a car, then the combined information will still not tell you how to build anything other than cars or airplanes. No matter how you mechanistically manipulate the data, they will never magically instruct you in how to build a boat.
The things you have said are correct WITHIN the framework of the pre-existing information. A coli type of bacteria may become resistant to all sorts of environmental factors, but it can never become a coccus type because the information in the two is very different. This requires a new design based on information provided by an intelligent mind.
Intelligent minds conceive and make airplanes and cars. Why do you have such difficulty in believing that an intelligent mind invented and built your brain by which your mind can express itself by doing great things? Why is it so hard for you to see that only an INTELLIGENT MIND can generate new information?
Bye, and have a good day!
.....This results in ADDED DNA. All it is is a copying error .....
In no discipline has it ever been OBSERVED that a copying error ADDS information, but ONLY always loses data. Why should the genetic code be exempt from the laws of physics which demand that this it possible to lose data when copying, but NEVER gain? The best *any* copying process, whether natural or man made, can hope for, is a perfect duplicate. There will never be any added information unless intelligence was also involved.
In sexual reproduction, selective copying can prevent damaging recessive traits from getting passed on, but no NEW information is added. For evolution from a simpler to a more advanced organism, large amounts of new information must be added. No matter how often you copy a computer program, there is a possibility that the program may lose some capability or cease to function altogether, but you will never get an upgraded program with higher capabilities unless the mind of a programmer is involved. You will never get a chicken from a reptile, because a chicken contains more information than a snake or whatever.
Matter and energy by themselves cannot generate new, original information, no matter how long and often they may interact with each other. Breeding and adaptation are observed facts, which are often labeled "evolution", but these mechanisms operate only within the existing information frameworks.
Any aspect of "evolution" that requires new, previously non-existent information is scientifically unobserved and bogus.
.....but the fact that mutations and evolution are happening are something one must admit to.......
Mutations, like everything else physical is subject to entropy. As such ALL mutations, WITHOUT any exceptions, having EVER been observed, result in a decrease of information. We see this in computer systems also. A random error will never add information, but usually make such a corruption of the data, as to render the computer inoperable. An increase in complexity, such as from a single cell to a multi-celled organism also requires a huge increase in information. Nowhere, ever, at any time has this been observed to happen. It is wishful imagination on the part of the evolution faithful.
Any given system, such as a virus or bacterium, can respond to environmental stimuli only within the constraints of whatever information there is already resident within it. We do this with computer software and other human designs also. A programmer tries to anticipate bad data or error conditions and have the program take appropriate action. In the same way, the One who programmed survival mechanisms into living systems anticipated certain stresses that a given organism might encounter. Some of the survival techniques of His creations are truly astounding.
There is no known physical process or mechanism that can create more information than what is already present in a given system. New information can only arise as the activity of MIND. Whether that be the mind of people re-arranging existing matter and energy for new or existing purposes, or the mind of God, as the originator of all information and knowledge.
......You need to understand that this is even happening today. Using controlled breeding people create new species all the time.......
No matter how much breeding and other manipulations are done, no new information is ever generated. Information is stored in the DNA and breeding doesn't ever add information that was not already there. Evolution cannot explain where the tremendous amount of information that is inherent in and being transmitted and exchanged in living systems originated.
The amount of information transmitted, received and processed each day in a human being, exceeds 10^24 binary bits, while the sum total of all data stored in all libraries of mankind is 10^18 bits. This means that your body processes a million times more data each day than the contents of all libraries on this planet.
Nobody has EVER demonstrated the generation of creative information arising from any other source besides an intelligent mind. All information and knowledge can and must be ultimately traced back to God. That is why we read of Jesus: "In him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." (Col 2:3) All our discoveries of science allow us to use our human intelligence, given to us by the Creator, to build all the technology we enjoy. Yet, compared to the technology of life, all our human accomplishments are totally primitive. An ordinary light bulb converts about 4% of the input energy into light. The rest is wasted as heat. Even our best light generators can only do about 35%. Yet fireflies and other living light generators achieve 100% conversion. Living systems convert chemical energy directly into motion without generating wasteful heat. We have not yet learned how to convert chemical energy into mechanical energy without using some kind of inefficient heat engine. Evolution believers try to tell everybody that what man cannot duplicate by best efforts happened by chance, without the action of an intelligent mind. Now THAT is faith!
.....the question must be anwsered egg not because of genetics......
But it IS genetics at a much more basic level. DNA carries the instruction codes for all life, including the codes needed to make enzymes and proteins. However, it takes enzymes and proteins to make the DNA which carries the information codes that specify how to make enzymes and proteins. So what came first, the enzymes & proteins, or the DNA?
A computer contains the complete and total information how to construct a computer. How did the first computer get made and where did the information on how to make one come from? Of course, we all know that an outside intelligence constructed the first computer.
So why is it so far fetched to postulate that an external intelligence came up with the first DNA, complete with the instructions on how to construct enzymes and proteins, which then enabled the DNA to replicate from that point on? Why is it thought so outlandish, that an intelligent creator made the first chicken, complete with the ability to lay eggs which develop into more chickens? Evolution has no answer for this dilemma.
......Prove the program (or its modules) mathematically correct......
I am not a programmer, (electrical engineer) but from everything I've ever read about programming and codes, it is not possible to do this for really complicated programs or it takes even more effort than just testing it at runtime. Most computers have an operating system of some kind and its interaction with a program can also give rise to unforeseen glitches and bugs which in no way can be proven ahead of time since the programmers generally don't have access to the source code of the OS.
Even so you are correct that, as in any engineering discipline, careful attention to design and using tried and true methods can minimize errors and get a reasonably reliable product out the door at a competitive price. A major reason the software industry at large is not regulated, such as aircraft or automobiles for example, is that the consequences failure in the vast majority of cases doesn't endanger human life or large property value. A BSOD usually doesn't rise appreciably above an annoyance level and is thus tolerated in most cases. Even financial institutions have backup systems, just in case an error does happen they can go back and re-run the programs after fixing the trouble. This may not be possible, in an airliner, where a software bug causes a problem while the plane is flying at 35,000 feet with 200+ passengers at risk.
For some software companies, their customers are made to pay to be the software testers and that, IMHO is going a little too far.
.......you must prove that your software passes this and that criteria.....
Is there a way, even theoretically, to "prove" that a complex piece of software is bug free? Bad security is just a form of bug. AFAIK, software can be "tested" long and hard, but that doesn't mean that all bugs can or will be found. If truly bug free software were a "regulated" requirement, would that only give lawyers another avenue of attack to make tons of money and prevent anyone who doesn't have the money to hire an army of them from entering the software business? Does that mean a truly bug free word processor or operating system would cost the kind of money that software for controlling a nuclear reactor costs? It seems that regulating software would not guarantee bug free software, since such guarantees are impossible to make, except through tedious and extremely expensive, long periods of tedious testing.
......most iPod owners I know go the route of iTunes.....
Have you asked these ipod owners what percentage of the music on their ipods is from itunes as compared to other sources? Most ipods actually have only a very small percentage of their library purchased from the ITMS. I like having my entire 500+ CD collection in my pocket. There are many music lover, who have bought CDs and even vinyl LP years ago and ripped these into their ipods in the last few years, so they can enjoy their music anywhere. Free legal music from the internet is another good source of music for ipods.
.....has since become a nearly universal identifier.....
The reason there is a need for such is because of the computer. In any database, each record must be unique. One would thing that/. geeks know this. When SS was invented, there were no computers, but now there HAS to be such an identifier. The SS number just happened to be a very widely used unique number for everybody.
.....The point is, a government faced with a rebellous population doesn't know which people are on which side......
/.ers actually bother to vote. Maybe the administrators could conduct a straw poll here online.
Governments still need money, and that comes from the "rebellious population". Therefore if this population is large enough and stops paying taxes, the government and its military stops working. Few soldiers and police will stick around if they don't get paid for a few months or more. We saw how many police just took off out of the hurricane devastated New Orleans. Now multiply such chaos nationwide, brought on, not be a natural disaster, but by massive civil disobedience. So far though, there is still the ballot box through which our government may be changed without a lot of bloodshed. Therefore, if the "rebellious" ones vote, they have the power to change the government, as the constitution specifies. I wonder though how many of the vociferous
This discussion was originally about a database used to identify illegal aliens, so they can be prevented from getting employment and thereby have no incentive to come here in the first place. A good identification system combined with a strong disincentive for employers to hire improperly identified individuals is not such a bad idea.
.......However, if something like this is placed in law.......
"IF" of course is the operative word. A new law mandating that no automobile may ever be sold used is also being considered. If fact, in order to stimulate the manufacturing economy, no used merchandise of any kind may be sold or traded. It will work about as well as prohibition did. Do you hear some facetious noises?
.....as it will be illegal for customers to sell any next-gen PlayStation games that they've bought".....
Since when have laws EVER stopped people from doing what they want to do, especially if those laws are only made for the fat cats with lots of money who have managed to bribe some politicians? All these 'agreements' and 'licenses' are not worth the electricity it takes to project them onto a screen and are not practical to enforce. If I have physical possession of an otherwise legal product, I have the right to sell that and there will never be an enforceable law that will prevent this.
.....I believe Vista is heading back this way......
I sincerely hope that MS finally REALLY decides to dramatically reduce the malware misery it has allowed its millions of users to suffer all these years now. I primarily use Macs, but need also use Windows from time to time. Using Windows is like being in a seedy neighborhood, constantly being on the alert for that mugger or other unsavory character lurking in some doorway.
The basic idea of an editable text file, where a knowledgeable user can customize the system is actually good. Its Windows implementation, especially the one file, all "eggs in one basket" registry is not so good. Apple does this with PLIST files, but each program may have one or more of its own such files located in the user's library. That way, if errant code in a particular software screws up its plist, only that program is affected and the remedy is to simply trash the plist file(s). The program will then re-create a new one and the user may have to re-enter some of the previous settings for that program.
Windows flavored iTunes has some DRM stuff in it and that may be one reason it wants admin for installation. It also wants admin for Mac installs or upgrades, probably for that reason. Once installed however, a limited user can access all of the iTunes features.
.......Ha - perhaps you can explain to my why iTunes on Windows require admin permissions to install then?!.....
Yes, I can. It's because of the existence of an arcane file called the registry, where most programs need to write data, when installing. Many also want to write to there just for day to day running. In order to write or change the registry, admin access is required. Many malware programs, such as zombie backdoors and keystroke loggers, write to the registry and other system areas, to ensure that they start up each time the computer is booted. If the registry is damaged, the computer will misbehave or in some cases fail to boot at all.
OSX doesn't have such a single point of failure, which is one reason it is more stable and secure. For most programs, application parameter are stored in each user's library, where user write access is sufficient. The non-admin user may also store applications in their own, private applications folder. Mac users, much more than their Widows counterparts, tend to be highly intolerant of software developers who don't follow Apple's rather rigid "rules". Why do all my other programs run fine, but only this one from fly-by-night software always asks for an administrator password? OSX also provides fewer places for malware and its files to hide when (not if) it gets into the computer.
...I thought you were intelligent enough to understand that "native support" excluded the Classic virtual machine emulator....
You are the one that doesn't understand that Classic and its programs running under OSX is NOT an emulator, but runs at full speed. Because the newer hardware is much more powerful, these old programs actually run much faster than they ever did on the hardware they were originally written for. OS9.2 classic and all of its apps is just another program, fully native under OSX running on the PPC architecture. Old Apple programs that don't try to reference hardware directly usually run just fine. Now that Apple switched to Intel chips, classic is no longer available.
....Unless you're talking about running your old 7.1 CAD app.....
That is exactly what I was trying to say. Back then I was using two CAD programs and they both run fine under Classic running under OS10.4. They both have a capability to save their proprietary file formats as Mac PICT files, which a more modern OSX program can open and manipulate. I transferred both the programs and the files from CD archive disks made in 1995 with a Mac clone.
....Finally, Apple broke backwards compatibility and forced all of their software vendors to significantly rewrite all their programs. Most people run Windows because they don't like things like that. Had OSX natively supported Classic apps it would have had all the same permission problems as Windows does.......
Really? I just had the occasion to look at and convert some ancient (1989-1990) CAD files which were originally done on a 16Mhz Mac SE under system 7.1. I copied the programs and files to my PowerMac running OSX10.4 and it all worked just fine under Classic. Maybe there is a program or two that doesn't work as a non-admin under OSX. Even MS office for Mac doesn't need admin rights to install and run.