The moral key to copying or not it seems to me is whether or not the copier is getting some sort of financial gain by appropriating the fruits of creativity of the copyright holder. If the copies are given away without gain, then copying should be allowed.
If a copy is given away, it does not automatically follow that a sale of the work was lost. If I invite friends over to watch a movie and it is a bomb, then there might be a loss to the studio, because those that saw the it will certainly not spend a dime on it. However, if it is a hit, some of my friends might want to buy it and some may ask me to make them a copy. At this point, the price of the movie will be a deciding factor for most of them. If the price is reasonable, then they will buy it, but if it is outrageously high then they would more likely bug me for a copy. If the price is too high, the studio has not lost any money since most of the friends would not buy it anyway, but just do without. So, the key to minimizing piracy is to find just the right selling price. It seems that for movie DVDs the prevailing prices are pretty fair, but plain music CD cost way more for the entertainment time they provide.
I think arguing hardware vs software is foolish. The best computing experience for the unsophistcated consumers and the huge number of small businesses lies in the total integration between hardware and software. The game consoles exemplify this approach for consumers, as does Apple in the general purpose computer realm. Specialized devices for limited tasks will take an ever increasing role now done by dedicated PCs, but I believe the PC's, whether Macs or Wintel will be used to co-ordinate many of the special devices.
The Wintel-Mac-iPod-iTunes system is a rather successful example of that sort of symbiotic relationship. Cell phones which accept digital inputs of address books and other useful data from a PC are another growing use. The relationship between digital and video cameras and the PC also shows how this will unfold more and more.
Hardware will never be free, since hardware without software is useless. The closer that hardware and software work as one, the better the result. There is no such thing as a free lunch. AAW
Of all the things that are on this whole topic, you have certainly had the best post.
It seems that the prevailing opinion here is that PROGRAMMING is about the only rewarding thing the mother could do.
How about learning to make and edit videos, create music or various graphic arts?
A computer is only a tool to most people, not the be-all and end-all it appears to be to most/. readers. Since most people do enjoy creating one thing or another, a computer can be a means of expressing this creativity.
Question:
Are ISPs required by law to keep the kind of information that enables anyone to find out who was logged on where and when?
If so, for how long must that information be kept?
If there is no law for them to keep that kind of data, it seems to me that ISPs would save themselves a lot of trouble to simply not log anything that can identify any particular user.
This means for a DHCP assigned address, the ip number that was assigned at any particular time is unknown.
AAW
There will always be art. Centuries before anyone dreamed up "copyright" skilled people produced literature, music, statues and paintings etc. for the sheer joy of creating beauty. If all "copyright" were abolished today, these creative activities would still continue, but not as a profit making business. Some of the so called "art" that is being carried on as big business should not really be called that. The urge to create is deeply ingrained in the human creature, reflecting an echo of the one who created everything in the beginning. AAW
It is impossible to counterfeit money. You can only copy some paper that represents some value the banking system has assigned to it. When the world decided to abandon a medium of exchange based on real value because it is scarce, to something representing arbitrary value, it became impossible to do anything other than comitting copyright infringement. Copying paper representing value is just a specialized form of copyright infringement, also of course illegal, which gets dealt with by another body of law entirely. AAW
OSX server from Apple sells for $999.00 and does all that wonderful Linux stuff just as well. There is no subscription cost and no client access fee for an unlimited number of users. Even if you factor in equivalent hardware cost from Apple, it is still cheaper then either Linux or Windows
Just get Apple's OSX Panther. It does most if not all what Linux can do out of the box. It comes with a virus free environment and you can get 5 copies for about $200 and you can watch DVD's, import and edit music and movies and make DVD's, make your own music, connect SAFELY to the Internet and have all the geeky UNIX type of fun besides when you fire up the terminal program. In addition to all this your Mom can use it easily also.
I turned an old 1999 purple iMac G3 into a wonderful music server and backup storage server for the other more advanced Macs on my network.
As for hardware, a new PC box that can run XP or Linux reasonably well is not much less expensive than an entry level Mac, such as an eMac.
If you are an advanced geek (the majority of/. users) as the only user of an existing PC, then Linux is certainly the best choice, but for the clueless masses, Linux can be a great frustration. That is my understanding of the original article.
Before opening a doubtful download, I move it to the "shared" directory and then log onto a special testing account with nothing important to lose. Then, upon opening it, if the download wants to have an admin passwork I refuse to give it. There is no reason why a program needs to have admin access unless it wants to modify something in the system or install in the system wide apps folder. A program that cannot run from an unprivileged folder and an unprivileged account is possibly some kind of malware and does not get to run on my system at all.
My religious beliefs were not offended, in fact I doubt that this is possible. Everyone is entitled to believe as they wish, but some beliefs may be more rational than others.
I was talking about biological life based on one or more cells. In the context of the SETI research this requires an entity advanced enough to build and operate a communication device that utilizes some form of electromagnetic or other energy we can detect.
The stubbornly persistent belief by mankind, historically and presently, in non-biological life, such as gods, devils, ghosts and such is just that, a belief that may well be based on the existence of such things. However, until someone builds a working ghost detector, these life forms remain outside the realm of what most people consider to be science.
If other imaginable or unimaginable intelligent life forms do exist, why would they resort to slow, primitive means of communication by any known energy form, limited as far as we know, to the speed of light? On our time scale, it takes about 70,000 years for a message to travel across our galaxy and millions of years for intergalactic communications. How long did it take for mankind to figure out how to use electromagnetic energy as a means of communication? If coherent electromagnetic signals were indeed sent from distant places in the universe, what is the probability that we would receive and decipher them in our infinitesimal window of time?
The men and women of science who laid the foundations about 200 or so years ago were not atheists, but believed at the very least in a rational Creator having made the world they were endeavoring to explore. Some of them, such as Newton, Pascal, Faraday and many others were in fact devout Christians. Einstein believed in God, and his ideas of God caused him much consternation when quantum physics was discovered. Attributing things we do not understand (yet) to God and leaving it at that is NOT scientific thinking, but then neither is it scientific to attribute the still mysterious aspects of our world to random chance.
You are right in your conclusion that more research is required, but it should be directed by the perfectly reasonable assumption that there is a Creator and we can find great satisfaction and delight in exploring and making good use of the deep, seemingly endless mysteries He has put before us. If there is a God, is it so unreasonable to assume that He would be pleased to have us explore the world He has made and by this exploration perhaps come to an understanding and appreciation of Him?
The existence or absence of a Creator does not affect the ability to study the workings of lasers, the genetic codes or any other fields of science. Admitting the existence of God does however have profound implications on how we behave, especially when we think that no one notices. That however is off the topic started by the original article and would likely lead to a long discussion on its own.
If you read it again you will note that I wrote ".. the chemistry we know.." One can always speculate about other chemistries and postulate multiple universes. I was talking about the kind of life we KNOW about as it exists here.
ALL life needs to have water available in its liquid form and this requirement puts rather narrow limits on the temperature range life can exist in.
The gravity of a planet must be great enough to hold onto water in its atmosphere, but low enough to allow poisonous things like ammonia and methane to leave. You'd also have a pretty tough time move around on a planet like Jupiter or Saturn. Venus is only slightly larger than Earth, but you'd not last very long in its atmosphere even if its temperature were not at about the point where lead melts.
The magnetic field is needed to deflect high energy particles from the sun. The particles produce intense radiation which would damage or eliminate the more complex life forms.
You can believe (an act of faith) that everything came together randomly if you wish, but if you do the math, you'll find that the probability of this earth and everything on it coming about by chance is unimaginably small.
As I see it, it takes more faith to believe that all the complexity science studies in all fields came about by trial and error than to believe that a transcendent Creator put it all together. Science studied from this point of view is just as exciting and can produce just as many, if not more benefits to humanity.
SETI, from the viewpoint of randomness is a waste of time, but from the viewpoint of intelligent design one could postulate that the Creator did indeed make other worlds which might be contacted by us or they communicate with us.
It is ironic that the original artice is on a SETI supported site. The idea that there is intelligent life out there somwhere is wishful thinking. To have a planet have *ANY* kind of life requires some very detailed design just to have the proper environment where life could exist. Just in terms of temperature, it requires the range where water can be liquid. The only chemistry we know of that can make the incredibly complex molecular structures of even only single celled life must be based on carbon.
For example, stars must be spaced at least 3.8 light years apart from each other in order for the orbit of a planet it may have to remain stable enough to keep the energy that planet receives constant enough so that any water that might exist there remains in liquid form. About half of all stars we have ever observed are spaced closer than this minimum.
The planet must also have a specific gravitational and magnetic fields, rotation rate, be in orbit around a properly sized star at the correct distance to maintain stable temperatures. In addition to this, any such planet must have a chemistry friendly to life. Unless all these factors and many others are exactly right, no life forms can survive.
Any process, other than an intelligent, purposeful design is unlikely to produce such a planet, including our own.
Conclusion: SETI is also pseudo science and a waste of money and human effort.
You did not really answer my question. Linux may be more diverse, and that can bring its own problems, but the average normal non-techies (who don't read SD site) don't care what the OS nor the hardware is, other than they want the stuff to work, and work the first time out of the box. That is the area where Apple is better than anyone else right now. The Linux community should concentrate on making this excellent OS work easily for the non- techies also. That was my point
You have hit the nail on the head!
Many people (including scientsts) do not wish to entertain the thought that there may be a God after all.
The first sentence of the Bible reads: "In the beginning God created heaven and Earth"
In scientific terms it could be: God created time-space-matter-energy.
All scientific disciplines that ask questions of origins or beginnings ultimately come to a dead end beyond which God stands there as a better alternative than any other explanation.
The problem is not with science, but when anyone dares to accept the idea of the existence of God, a number of disturbing questions arise, among which are: If there really is a God, then perhaps I am accountable for my life. What if there really is a heaven and a hell? What if the reality that science can explore is only like the tip of the iceberg of all that exists?
Another quote from the Bible:
"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:" (Hebrews 9:27)
No one argues with the first half of this verse, namely that we are all subject to death, but many are not willing to accept the second half about a judgment.
It may be this innate, unarticulated fear of the final judgment that drives the frantic search for dark matter as an ultimately futile attempt to explain away God and everyone's requirement for a final appearance before Him.
AAW
How can you put Windows and the MacOS into the same pot and Linux as a contrast. What can Linux do that MacOSX cannot, except that the MacOS can be used by grandma, whereas it takes a geek to set up and maintain Linux. Linux is a UNIX flavor for geeks, whereas OSX is a UNIX flavor for ordinary mortals, but geeks can have their geeky pleasures with the command line terminal program.
The theory of dark matter is based on the assumption that the basic properties of the Universe have never changed over time. If the intrinsic properties of space itself HAVE changed significantly, then there is no need to postulate such a thing as dark matter. Scientists are very reluctant to accept new data that shakes their preconceived pet ideas to their foundations. It took over 200 years after Roemer first measured a finite light speed, for the majority of scientists to accept the fact that light did not get instantaneously from point A to point B, as was the belief for centuries. In the same way, the majority of scientists today refuse to even consider the idea that some very fundamental "constants" may have changed dramatically since the beginning of time. For example, the cause for the "Red Shift" of distant star light is traditionally attributed to the Doppler effect, and in light of that INTERPRETATION of the cause for an observed fact, (the shifted light) all sorts of cosmological observations are very difficult to explain.
Humans (including scientists) like to assume that certain things stay the same for all time, but that is a fervently desired wish based on faith, not observed fact. It seems that in the physical universe, there is nothing as constant as change!
AAW
What can Linux do on either a Mac or an Intelbox that a Mac with OSX cannot do? Of course OSX does not run on Intel. The point of the original article was -- the software did not do the job with a particular hardware. For things to work best, the hardware and software have to be designed together, and that is why Apple stuff works better. OSX allows mom to use the computer easily, but it also lets the advanced geeks to twiddle with the UNIX like underpinnings via the command line terminal. If the author of the article had bought a new Mac, even an inexpensive eMac instead of the Intel inside box, he would never encounter such difficulties as he did and there would be no need to install Linux at all. If Apple ever ported OSX to Intel hardware (not likely with their current hardware based business model) Linux would experience an immediate death and windows would get some serious competition. Look how their iTunes and iPod is doing for a small idea of this.
I was talking about USERS of computers, not programmers. It goes without saying that it usually best to write software on the platform that the software will run on the most. Why would anyone want to write software for a Windows computer on a Mac or write software for a Mac on a Wintel box?
I'd like to see a list of computer jobs (NOT PROGRAMS) that cannot be done on a Mac running OSX. There may not be as many programs to do a given kind of task on a Mac than on a Wintel box, but other than certain certain specialized vertical apps specially written for Windows, anything one kind of computer can do, another can do as well, and in the case of a Mac, usually better. The fact that there are thousands of viruses, worms and other malware to contend with on Windows, whereas, as far as I know there are ZERO instances of such crap for the Mac OSX, should be worth somthing to some users. Don't come with "the reasons there are no viruses for the Mac.... etc..."
Who cares what the reasons are -- I don't have to waste money or time on all that anti-virus crap and can surf the Internet without fear. For that reason alone, I don't think that Apple will go away any time soon.
If a minor, such as that 15 year old is sued and just ignores the RIAA idiots and they get a default judgement against said 15 year old of the maximum the law allows and the poor kid has $10 in her piggy bank, all they can get is $10.
Is that correct or can they attempt to collect from the parents and take everything the family owns? Maybe some lawyer type can answer this.
The safest common computing platform, as far as nasty programs go has always been and still is the Mac. I have been using Macs since 1986 and have never installed any anti-viral software on any of them and have never had a virus. Neither has any of my Mac using friends. Don't give me that old saw about the small number of installed Macs being the reason there are no viruses or worms for Macs, especially those running the new OSX.
If Microsoft really cared, they could make their system just as secure. They can start by changing their defaults of running every conceivable service and opening every port which the vast majority of users never have need for.
Is a virus or worm nothing more than another program, albeit a nasty one? I cannot install *any* program on my OSX Mac unless I have administrator rights. Therefore, if I open an e-mail and am suddenly asked for an admin password which I don't know or refuse to supply, whatever code wants to get installed cannot propagate and screw up the system. Am I not correct in this?
For everyday computer use I don't need administrator rights and I suspect neither do most computer users.
I have OSX 10.2.6 running on an original imac, but until I added another 256M chip it was indeed VERY slow. I also added a 120G drive and now it makes a fantastic iTunes music server and stores all my photos. It is not that awfully slow anymore for other tasks either. I also still use it on OS9 to play some of the many games I have accumulated over the years. AAW
I had downloaded 10.2.8 but had not yet installed it, because I always wait a little while and look at Mac websites for any signs of trouble. In either mac or windows it is probably a good idea to not immediately install a patch (unless it is for a REALLY nasty worm etc) but to let others bear te brunt of any bugs. The first one on the block with a new gadget or program may have the satisfaction of being #1, but that also, like so much in life has its costs.
Slashdot Mirror
The moral key to copying or not it seems to me is whether or not the copier is getting some sort of financial gain by appropriating the fruits of creativity of the copyright holder. If the copies are given away without gain, then copying should be allowed.
If a copy is given away, it does not automatically follow that a sale of the work was lost. If I invite friends over to watch a movie and it is a bomb, then there might be a loss to the studio, because those that saw the it will certainly not spend a dime on it. However, if it is a hit, some of my friends might want to buy it and some may ask me to make them a copy. At this point, the price of the movie will be a deciding factor for most of them. If the price is reasonable, then they will buy it, but if it is outrageously high then they would more likely bug me for a copy. If the price is too high, the studio has not lost any money since most of the friends would not buy it anyway, but just do without. So, the key to minimizing piracy is to find just the right selling price. It seems that for movie DVDs the prevailing prices are pretty fair, but plain music CD cost way more for the entertainment time they provide.
AAW
I think arguing hardware vs software is foolish. The best computing experience for the unsophistcated consumers and the huge number of small businesses lies in the total integration between hardware and software. The game consoles exemplify this approach for consumers, as does Apple in the general purpose computer realm. Specialized devices for limited tasks will take an ever increasing role now done by dedicated PCs, but I believe the PC's, whether Macs or Wintel will be used to co-ordinate many of the special devices.
The Wintel-Mac-iPod-iTunes system is a rather successful example of that sort of symbiotic relationship. Cell phones which accept digital inputs of address books and other useful data from a PC are another growing use. The relationship between digital and video cameras and the PC also shows how this will unfold more and more.
Hardware will never be free, since hardware without software is useless. The closer that hardware and software work as one, the better the result. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
AAW
Of all the things that are on this whole topic, you have certainly had the best post.
/. readers. Since most people do enjoy creating one thing or another, a computer can be a means of expressing this creativity.
It seems that the prevailing opinion here is that PROGRAMMING is about the only rewarding thing the mother could do.
How about learning to make and edit videos, create music or various graphic arts?
A computer is only a tool to most people, not the be-all and end-all it appears to be to most
Question: Are ISPs required by law to keep the kind of information that enables anyone to find out who was logged on where and when? If so, for how long must that information be kept? If there is no law for them to keep that kind of data, it seems to me that ISPs would save themselves a lot of trouble to simply not log anything that can identify any particular user. This means for a DHCP assigned address, the ip number that was assigned at any particular time is unknown. AAW
There will always be art. Centuries before anyone dreamed up "copyright" skilled people produced literature, music, statues and paintings etc. for the sheer joy of creating beauty. If all "copyright" were abolished today, these creative activities would still continue, but not as a profit making business. Some of the so called "art" that is being carried on as big business should not really be called that. The urge to create is deeply ingrained in the human creature, reflecting an echo of the one who created everything in the beginning.
AAW
It is impossible to counterfeit money. You can only copy some paper that represents some value the banking system has assigned to it. When the world decided to abandon a medium of exchange based on real value because it is scarce, to something representing arbitrary value, it became impossible to do anything other than comitting copyright infringement. Copying paper representing value is just a specialized form of copyright infringement, also of course illegal, which gets dealt with by another body of law entirely.
AAW
OSX server from Apple sells for $999.00 and does all that wonderful Linux stuff just as well. There is no subscription cost and no client access fee for an unlimited number of users.
Even if you factor in equivalent hardware cost from Apple, it is still cheaper then either Linux or Windows
AAW
Just get Apple's OSX Panther. It does most if not all what Linux can do out of the box. It comes with a virus free environment and you can get 5 copies for about $200 and you can watch DVD's, import and edit music and movies and make DVD's, make your own music, connect SAFELY to the Internet and have all the geeky UNIX type of fun besides when you fire up the terminal program. In addition to all this your Mom can use it easily also.
I turned an old 1999 purple iMac G3 into a wonderful music server and backup storage server for the other more advanced Macs on my network.
As for hardware, a new PC box that can run XP or Linux reasonably well is not much less expensive than an entry level Mac, such as an eMac.
If you are an advanced geek (the majority of/. users) as the only user of an existing PC, then Linux is certainly the best choice, but for the clueless masses, Linux can be a great frustration. That is my understanding of the original article.
AAW
Before opening a doubtful download, I move it to the "shared" directory and then log onto a special testing account with nothing important to lose. Then, upon opening it, if the download wants to have an admin passwork I refuse to give it. There is no reason why a program needs to have admin access unless it wants to modify something in the system or install in the system wide apps folder. A program that cannot run from an unprivileged folder and an unprivileged account is possibly some kind of malware and does not get to run on my system at all.
AAW
My religious beliefs were not offended, in fact I doubt that this is possible. Everyone is entitled to believe as they wish, but some beliefs may be more rational than others.
I was talking about biological life based on one or more cells. In the context of the SETI research this requires an entity advanced enough to build and operate a communication device that utilizes some form of electromagnetic or other energy we can detect.
The stubbornly persistent belief by mankind, historically and presently, in non-biological life, such as gods, devils, ghosts and such is just that, a belief that may well be based on the existence of such things. However, until someone builds a working ghost detector, these life forms remain outside the realm of what most people consider to be science.
If other imaginable or unimaginable intelligent life forms do exist, why would they resort to slow, primitive means of communication by any known energy form, limited as far as we know, to the speed of light? On our time scale, it takes about 70,000 years for a message to travel across our galaxy and millions of years for intergalactic communications. How long did it take for mankind to figure out how to use electromagnetic energy as a means of communication? If coherent electromagnetic signals were indeed sent from distant places in the universe, what is the probability that we would receive and decipher them in our infinitesimal window of time?
The men and women of science who laid the foundations about 200 or so years ago were not atheists, but believed at the very least in a rational Creator having made the world they were endeavoring to explore. Some of them, such as Newton, Pascal, Faraday and many others were in fact devout Christians. Einstein believed in God, and his ideas of God caused him much consternation when quantum physics was discovered. Attributing things we do not understand (yet) to God and leaving it at that is NOT scientific thinking, but then neither is it scientific to attribute the still mysterious aspects of our world to random chance.
You are right in your conclusion that more research is required, but it should be directed by the perfectly reasonable assumption that there is a Creator and we can find great satisfaction and delight in exploring and making good use of the deep, seemingly endless mysteries He has put before us. If there is a God, is it so unreasonable to assume that He would be pleased to have us explore the world He has made and by this exploration perhaps come to an understanding and appreciation of Him?
The existence or absence of a Creator does not affect the ability to study the workings of lasers, the genetic codes or any other fields of science. Admitting the existence of God does however have profound implications on how we behave, especially when we think that no one notices. That however is off the topic started by the original article and would likely lead to a long discussion on its own.
If you read it again you will note that I wrote ".. the chemistry we know.." One can always speculate about other chemistries and postulate multiple universes. I was talking about the kind of life we KNOW about as it exists here.
ALL life needs to have water available in its liquid form and this requirement puts rather narrow limits on the temperature range life can exist in.
The gravity of a planet must be great enough to hold onto water in its atmosphere, but low enough to allow poisonous things like ammonia and methane to leave. You'd also have a pretty tough time move around on a planet like Jupiter or Saturn. Venus is only slightly larger than Earth, but you'd not last very long in its atmosphere even if its temperature were not at about the point where lead melts.
The magnetic field is needed to deflect high energy particles from the sun. The particles produce intense radiation which would damage or eliminate the more complex life forms.
You can believe (an act of faith) that everything came together randomly if you wish, but if you do the math, you'll find that the probability of this earth and everything on it coming about by chance is unimaginably small.
As I see it, it takes more faith to believe that all the complexity science studies in all fields came about by trial and error than to believe that a transcendent Creator put it all together. Science studied from this point of view is just as exciting and can produce just as many, if not more benefits to humanity.
SETI, from the viewpoint of randomness is a waste of time, but from the viewpoint of intelligent design one could postulate that the Creator did indeed make other worlds which might be contacted by us or they communicate with us.
It is ironic that the original artice is on a SETI supported site. The idea that there is intelligent life out there somwhere is wishful thinking. To have a planet have *ANY* kind of life requires some very detailed design just to have the proper environment where life could exist. Just in terms of temperature, it requires the range where water can be liquid. The only chemistry we know of that can make the incredibly complex molecular structures of even only single celled life must be based on carbon.
For example, stars must be spaced at least 3.8 light years apart from each other in order for the orbit of a planet it may have to remain stable enough to keep the energy that planet receives constant enough so that any water that might exist there remains in liquid form. About half of all stars we have ever observed are spaced closer than this minimum.
The planet must also have a specific gravitational and magnetic fields, rotation rate, be in orbit around a properly sized star at the correct distance to maintain stable temperatures. In addition to this, any such planet must have a chemistry friendly to life. Unless all these factors and many others are exactly right, no life forms can survive.
Any process, other than an intelligent, purposeful design is unlikely to produce such a planet, including our own.
Conclusion: SETI is also pseudo science and a waste of money and human effort.
You did not really answer my question. Linux may be more diverse, and that can bring its own problems, but the average normal non-techies (who don't read SD site) don't care what the OS nor the hardware is, other than they want the stuff to work, and work the first time out of the box. That is the area where Apple is better than anyone else right now. The Linux community should concentrate on making this excellent OS work easily for the non- techies also. That was my point
You have hit the nail on the head! Many people (including scientsts) do not wish to entertain the thought that there may be a God after all. The first sentence of the Bible reads: "In the beginning God created heaven and Earth" In scientific terms it could be: God created time-space-matter-energy. All scientific disciplines that ask questions of origins or beginnings ultimately come to a dead end beyond which God stands there as a better alternative than any other explanation. The problem is not with science, but when anyone dares to accept the idea of the existence of God, a number of disturbing questions arise, among which are: If there really is a God, then perhaps I am accountable for my life. What if there really is a heaven and a hell? What if the reality that science can explore is only like the tip of the iceberg of all that exists? Another quote from the Bible: "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:" (Hebrews 9:27) No one argues with the first half of this verse, namely that we are all subject to death, but many are not willing to accept the second half about a judgment. It may be this innate, unarticulated fear of the final judgment that drives the frantic search for dark matter as an ultimately futile attempt to explain away God and everyone's requirement for a final appearance before Him. AAW
How can you put Windows and the MacOS into the same pot and Linux as a contrast. What can Linux do that MacOSX cannot, except that the MacOS can be used by grandma, whereas it takes a geek to set up and maintain Linux. Linux is a UNIX flavor for geeks, whereas OSX is a UNIX flavor for ordinary mortals, but geeks can have their geeky pleasures with the command line terminal program.
AAW
The theory of dark matter is based on the assumption that the basic properties of the Universe have never changed over time. If the intrinsic properties of space itself HAVE changed significantly, then there is no need to postulate such a thing as dark matter. Scientists are very reluctant to accept new data that shakes their preconceived pet ideas to their foundations. It took over 200 years after Roemer first measured a finite light speed, for the majority of scientists to accept the fact that light did not get instantaneously from point A to point B, as was the belief for centuries. In the same way, the majority of scientists today refuse to even consider the idea that some very fundamental "constants" may have changed dramatically since the beginning of time. For example, the cause for the "Red Shift" of distant star light is traditionally attributed to the Doppler effect, and in light of that INTERPRETATION of the cause for an observed fact, (the shifted light) all sorts of cosmological observations are very difficult to explain. Humans (including scientists) like to assume that certain things stay the same for all time, but that is a fervently desired wish based on faith, not observed fact. It seems that in the physical universe, there is nothing as constant as change! AAW
What can Linux do on either a Mac or an Intelbox that a Mac with OSX cannot do? Of course OSX does not run on Intel. The point of the original article was -- the software did not do the job with a particular hardware. For things to work best, the hardware and software have to be designed together, and that is why Apple stuff works better. OSX allows mom to use the computer easily, but it also lets the advanced geeks to twiddle with the UNIX like underpinnings via the command line terminal. If the author of the article had bought a new Mac, even an inexpensive eMac instead of the Intel inside box, he would never encounter such difficulties as he did and there would be no need to install Linux at all. If Apple ever ported OSX to Intel hardware (not likely with their current hardware based business model) Linux would experience an immediate death and windows would get some serious competition. Look how their iTunes and iPod is doing for a small idea of this.
I was talking about USERS of computers, not programmers. It goes without saying that it usually best to write software on the platform that the software will run on the most. Why would anyone want to write software for a Windows computer on a Mac or write software for a Mac on a Wintel box?
I'd like to see a list of computer jobs (NOT PROGRAMS) that cannot be done on a Mac running OSX. There may not be as many programs to do a given kind of task on a Mac than on a Wintel box, but other than certain certain specialized vertical apps specially written for Windows, anything one kind of computer can do, another can do as well, and in the case of a Mac, usually better. .... etc..."
The fact that there are thousands of viruses, worms and other malware to contend with on Windows, whereas, as far as I know there are ZERO instances of such crap for the Mac OSX, should be worth somthing to some users.
Don't come with "the reasons there are no viruses for the Mac
Who cares what the reasons are -- I don't have to waste money or time on all that anti-virus crap and can surf the Internet without fear. For that reason alone, I don't think that Apple will go away any time soon.
If a minor, such as that 15 year old is sued and just ignores the RIAA idiots and they get a default judgement against said 15 year old of the maximum the law allows and the poor kid has $10 in her piggy bank, all they can get is $10. Is that correct or can they attempt to collect from the parents and take everything the family owns? Maybe some lawyer type can answer this.
The safest common computing platform, as far as nasty programs go has always been and still is the Mac. I have been using Macs since 1986 and have never installed any anti-viral software on any of them and have never had a virus. Neither has any of my Mac using friends. Don't give me that old saw about the small number of installed Macs being the reason there are no viruses or worms for Macs, especially those running the new OSX. If Microsoft really cared, they could make their system just as secure. They can start by changing their defaults of running every conceivable service and opening every port which the vast majority of users never have need for.
Is a virus or worm nothing more than another program, albeit a nasty one? I cannot install *any* program on my OSX Mac unless I have administrator rights. Therefore, if I open an e-mail and am suddenly asked for an admin password which I don't know or refuse to supply, whatever code wants to get installed cannot propagate and screw up the system. Am I not correct in this? For everyday computer use I don't need administrator rights and I suspect neither do most computer users.
I have OSX 10.2.6 running on an original imac, but until I added another 256M chip it was indeed VERY slow. I also added a 120G drive and now it makes a fantastic iTunes music server and stores all my photos. It is not that awfully slow anymore for other tasks either. I also still use it on OS9 to play some of the many games I have accumulated over the years.
AAW
I had downloaded 10.2.8 but had not yet installed it, because I always wait a little while and look at Mac websites for any signs of trouble. In either mac or windows it is probably a good idea to not immediately install a patch (unless it is for a REALLY nasty worm etc) but to let others bear te brunt of any bugs. The first one on the block with a new gadget or program may have the satisfaction of being #1, but that also, like so much in life has its costs.