..get to be harassed by the Border Patrol just because they want to travel within their own state...
Question: If someone in a hot, fast car refused to stop, does the New Mexico state or local police help the federal border cops stop the car? If the people of New Mexico felt strongly about the constitutionality of these checkpoints, they could forbid their police to co-operate with the federal government in law enforcement in this manner. That would make it that much harder for the feds to do this sort of random law enforcement. Are the state and local police obligated to help enforce federal laws, especially unconstitutional ones? Has that been tested in courts?
....It's just a matter of combing through your life and finding which of those laws you've broken....
If one or two people told a border cop to stuff it, they might make the rather large effort required to do that to make an example of the few. If thousands, or even only hundreds did that, the feds would not have enough manpower and would have to stuff it. This would be especially true if the feds did not get any help whatsoever from local or state police. I don't envision a border patrol cop chasing a vehicle that refused to stop, halfway across a state all by himself, if he got no help from any law enforcement officers other than other federal cops.
...The message is simple, "You have no rights."....
So what would happen if such a "border patrol" officer tried to pull someone over and they refused to stop? Would they get re-inforcements from the local or state police? Maybe states and localities should forbid their officers from helping the feds for things like the enforcement of blatantly unconstitutional activities by that means. I have heard that in some places, local cops will simply ignore the federal law enforcement efforts, leaving the federal government to go it alone. Much of the time, the feds don't have sufficient manpower to enforce the crazier of their rules. This 100 mile thing appears to to be one of these federal rules, the states and counties could and should safely ignore and not help enforce.
...get away from the three centuries of built up corruption?... Do you really believe that you and everyone with you will NOT bring your own corruption with you? Oh wait, your corruption is virtue!
... Frankly, it's about time we had some ability as consumers to deal with this sort of fraud...
You do have that ability. It is called an answering machine. When a number shows up on caller ID which you do not recognize as a friend's, relative's or business associate's, just don't answer the phone, but let the answering machine take it. Most automated call systems are not programmed to leave a message. For those who do leave messages, a push of a button will delete them. Also, when calls coming in at a time when you do not wish to answer the phone, such as at dinnertime, just ignore the phone. At first it may be hard to ignore a ringing telephone, but after a while you'll get the hang(up) of it.
...As far as the lady keeping her phone number, that is akin to somebody keeping their credit card number after fraud....
Almost, but not quite. A good way to keep telemarketers and other undesirable calls at bay, is to only answer known numbers that show up on the caller ID. Everything else gets routed to the answering machine. Most computerized telemarketing systems recognize when an answering machine picks up and don't bother to leave any kind of message. Those that do, can be dealt with quickly by the delete button.
...whether the results are consistent with the predictions...
Predictions of necessity involve interpretation. Any interpretation in turn, is colored by the underlying worldview of the interpreter. There is no way to get away from that. If an individual whose worldview agrees with the interpretation of the scientists with the same worldview, then that individual is likely to believe or have faith in the interpretation that such a scientist brings to every experiment. Scientists seldom do experiments and then just report on the results, but commonly also offer interpretations of the data. Any discussion of origins, of necessity, must always be an interpretation, because no one can go back into history with a Time machine and observe what really happened. The same is true of course of the future.
...than that which is proven before one's eyes,...
Nothing can really be proven, there are only degrees of evidence that may be believed or not. Such evidence can only be presented to our senses. We have plenty of experimental and experiential evidence that our senses can be fooled. Most of the time of course, we can be reasonably assured, that the evidence presented by our senses is credible and believable.
There is also a vast difference of what is actually measured and observed and how these observations and measurements are interpreted. All interpretation is always filtered through the interpreter's worldview.
Scientists observe for example, that even single living cells are very complex on the molecular scale. Someone with an atheistic worldview, will interpret this complexity arising from random processes over enormous amounts of time. Someone who believes in God, will attribute this complexity to his brilliant design skill. Only the observation part is science. Both interpretations are beliefs based on different worldviews. Those with atheistic worldviews have mislabeled their beliefs as science and get government funds to promulgate these beliefs in schools.
...It would be asinine for them to insist that people prove they own a Mac (or Pystar) to buy OS X...
Why would that be? Is that not how it was when Apple first came out with the Intel processor in their computers? There were no versions of OSX for sale for the new Intel powered Macs. If they sell their operating system to any and all comers, what is there to prevent dozens of Pystars from coming out of the woodwork? Apple has every right to choose and must choose, to whom they will sell their operating system.
(...Testing a new machine is a significant expense..)
That may well be true. Therefore Apple could make it part of the agreement that Pystar would pay for that in exchange of being able to buy as many retail copies of OSX as they wanted. The point of my whole suggestion was, that since Apple is not interested in selling a rock-bottom cost computer under their brand name, they might do so under the Pystar brand. As for the add hackintosh user, many of them likely pirate OSX anyway.
This is a question that cannot be answered within the mechanistic, probabilistic worldview held by mainstream scientists today. Most of them holding that underlying worldview would deny that uniqueness.
If a visitor would show up on planet Earth claiming to have come from a distant corner of this universe, or even from another universe or dimension, what evidence could such a visitor give to have us believe that this is really true? How do we know that this has not already happened in the history of mankind?
Modern science fiction has such visitors to show up in some kind of a vehicle, such as a spaceship. That assumes that such visitors, or intelligent entities are subject to the constraints of time and space such as we are. If there really is a transcendent eternal being(s), God(s) if you will, what evidence would be needed to convince humans of whatever truth or message this visitor tried to impart? Do we humans, by the means of our intellect really have the equipment to discern the difference between sufficiently advanced technology and what we label supernatural?
....but way too many of us are willing to just simply "believe"....
There is no way you can live your daily life without belief. When you get into a car or a plane, you BELIEVE that they will take you where you want to go. You don't know that for sure. When you go to bed at night you believe and hope that you will wake up in the morning but there is no guarantee that you will. I am sure that you have at one time or another read stories of whole families who went to bed in the evening and never saw the next day due to fire or carbon monoxide. Our lives are governed much more by belief, by faith, than the sure knowledge.
There really is no proof of anything, only evidence that we can choose to believe or not believe.
(...of the reasonably ridiculous notion that life began here when some mythical magical man in the sky...)
You and everyone else that agrees with your assumption (belief) doesn't really KNOW this, but simply believes it and then tries to pass that belief off as sure knowledge. The only evidence we have, is that life, that we are here. There is no way to do deduce from that alone how it began. Even if you invented a time machine and used it to travel back as far as necessary, what evidence would you collect there at the beginning, to bring back to convince your fellow humans at the present time? In the end, whatever evidence you did collect and bring back, would still have to be believed. It would not constitute incontrovertible proof.
If an intelligent life form came to visit us here on planet Earth, what evidence would be sufficient to convince us that this entity came from a galaxy far far away or even another universe or dimension?
...or on the other hand allow them to continue to selling them....
That might actually be a likely outcome of this whole thing. Apple could allow them to build a little cost machine which Apple has no interest in doing. The system requirements of OSX a much more modest than the current VISTA. Many users could be exposed to OSX this way, which would ultimately be Apple's benefit.
Apple has never been and still isn't interested in building and selling a rock-bottom priced Dell computer competitor. They could either buy Pystar outright or make an agreement with them and help them market to a low-cost box under that brand name. This would prevent the dilution of Apple's highly respected brand name, but would allow many people to taste OSX for a low entry fee. Some of these buyers might later want a laptop for themselves or for their kids. The only way to get one of those is to buy one from Apple.
...Or they'd have to do the testing themselves. This would be a significant expense...
It would not have to be all that expensive for Apple to test a representative model machine or two. If that representative machine worked correctly, Apple could approve it and even help Pystar. With the proper agreements, Apple could ensure that these machines would meet a need that Apple currently does not address. One such need is a really low cost, upgradable box positioned between the high end Mac Pro and the low end mini. Since the OSX system requirements are considerably less than VISTA, Apple could also allow this company to make a rock-bottom priced box branded with the Pystar name.
Apple could also withdraw their operating system from the open market and sell only to their customers and to Pystar. This would be a win-win situation for Apple and the consumers who wanted a really low cost way of running Apple software. Once people who bought these low-cost computers learned the vast superiority of OSX over VISTA, some might eventually be overcome with techno-lust and buy a fancier, better genuine Mac.
...There is no way that Psystar will get a license to ship with MacOS X...
How can you be so sure of that? Right now, the Apple desktop lineup has a huge hole between their expensive MacPro and the underpowered, un-expendable mini. It probably would not hurt Apple's bottom line very much to make a deal with these guys that lets them build a computer that fills that gap and sell it under the Pystar brand name. To prevent any others from getting the idea of doing a similar thing, Apple could stop selling OSX on the open market and only sell it to their registered customers.
...and OS X starts using a trusted computing module...
That would be a totally unnecessary expense for Apple and a quite annoying feature for all users. Every computer or other device that Apple sells has a serial number. Almost all of these serial numbers together with their customers are registered with Apple already. Instead of selling their software on the open market to all comers, each buyer could be required to supply a valid serial number. That would put an end to this whole thing in any future attempts by others to cash in on Apple's hard work.
....How would one install OS X on a machine one has wiped it from....
Almost every Mac ever made since serial number and registered it with Apple. Anyone who wanted to buy a boxed copy, could go into an Apple store, where they could check when that person already owns an Apple Computer. If so, he could buy a copy of OSX, otherwise not. Online sales would also work since Apple already has a database connecting every serial number with the name of the owner.
That did not work with UBUNTU and my KONICA and Epson printers. Even the Internet did not work right away, I had to change some settings Joe or Jane user would have deemed arcane and not known about without a geeky./ person such as I and most people here are. I could not even get a CD for the Konica.
(...The Epson America website directs you to Epson Kowa for Linux drivers...)
Downloading a bunch of software is not what Joe or Jane user want to have to do, before the new computer works with their new printer or scanner. They want to pop the disk that came with the device in, click "INSTALL" and then print or scan. That is why Linux is for geeks and nerds but is in fact a great OS. Joe and Jane don't care about source code or any other code. They expect their computer, like a TV or toaster, to "just work" when they turn it on. It seems that many Linux advocating/. citizens here DON'T understand this.
Joe and Jane user need to be able to call an 800 number of the manufacturer or bug someone at the store they bought their shiny new computer. They cannot go to a Linux store like they can to an Apple store nor can they send a distress call to the maker of their computer in most cases. If they have a geeky relative, willing to be their support department, then maybe Linux is a viable option for them. Maybe some geeks enjoy being the support dept. for their relatives and friends.
Even though I know and also use Windows and to a lesser degree Linux (Ubuntu) I tell relatives and friends: "Sorry, I only do Macs". Several of them have even gone out and gotten a Mac so they can have someone close by or a phone call away that is able and (somewhat) willing to help them. Because Macs (usually) "just work" I don't get too manny calls.
.... Mac programs for updates manually, by going to the website...
Many free as well as for $$$ Mac programs allow for automatic checking for updates. They usually do this when the program starts. Some programs have a "check for Updates" in the help menu or preference settings.
(...trivially scriptable for setting up a new, custom installation exactly the way you want...)
Maybe for someone who develops software or a power user such things might be important. To most people, computers like cars have a utility function. They don't care even a little what happens under the hood. They want the car to get them where they want to go and want their computer to work as soon as they plug it in and sit down in front of it. The Mac, though not perfect, is by far and away the closest to this, of all computing devices available to common folks. When something goes wrong, they want one phone number to call or a store they can complain to. Windows and Macs let users do that, but for Linux, things are not so simple. Downloading a bunch of software is not what Joe or Jane user want to have to do, before the new computer works with their new printer or scanner. They want to pop the disk that came with the device in, click "INSTALL" and then print or scan.
So is any other distraction, such as eating or drinking something. Even drinking some water from a bottle can and does momentarily divert attention. Common sense needs to be applied in all these situations. It seems though that in many areas of life these days, common sense is far less common than it used to be. Life has always been risky. New technology sometimes adds to these risks. Common sense, not a huge pile of laws, ought to govern whether some of these risks are worth the benefit. My cell phone is MY servant. It is ONLY on, when I want to make or are expecting a call. The rest of the time it is turned OFF, including when driving.
....For a start I know of at least one human who's been cured of the religious delusions....
I assume you are mean yourself here? Well I got news for you! Everybody, even atheists have a world view, life philosophy if you will. You BELIEVE far more things than you KNOW.
(...will be cured of their religious delusions in the few seconds between their heart stopping and their brain succumbing to hypoxia...)
That shows your faith right there! You don't KNOW that this is so, but simply BELIEVE that as part of your world view. You have not experienced death yet, so how CAN you so confidently make such a claim? You may believe that is true and that's OK. According to the most widely distributed book on the planet, the Holy Bible, we read in Hebrews 9:27 -- And as it is appointed to men once to die, but after this the judgment"
Even you have no argument about the first part of that sentence. as surely as death will come to you, just as surely you will stand in judgment before your Maker.
Even if you confine "religion" to a belief in the supernatural, you still cannot tell sufficiently advanced technology from the miraculous. If you claim you can tell, would you share with me and maybe other readers how you accomplish that feat? There is not now and there has never been *any* culture or civilization that does NOT give religion a central place in their lives.
...What about CIFS? (Needed for files > 4 gigs.)...
The Mac OSX file system supports as big a file as anyone could buy a disk drive to hold it. What is the use of another file system for most users? HFS+ in OSX with Spotlight searching does pretty much everything those others you mentioned. Besides most users don't CARE about the innards of the file systems and how beautiful or ugly it may be. All they want is read access to their data and software.
(...There's also KDE3, and all that implies, but I'm not sure about that. KDE4 is ported...)
Who would want to use that when the GUI of OSX is far better?
(...Oh really? Care to name some?...)
Get my Epson CX5400 all in one scanner-printer working in Linux? How about my Epson R1800 wide carriage photo printer or the Konica Minolta color laser printer? ? Maybe somebody has kludged something up, but Epson and Minolta only support Windows and Mac OSX. Who has time to scout the Internet for software that MIGHT work? User really DO care whether they can buy name brand printers, scanners camcorders and have them work without a lot of fuss. Having to download even ONE piece of software to make a device work correctly is OK for geeks, but not for grandma user. She wants to pop in a disk, click the mouse and then print or scan.
(...Oh, and a proper package manager...)
Most free Mac software comes on DMG a disk image that opens and installs the software with a few mouse clicks. For example GIMP installs on OSX and runs with x11.app which comes with every Mac. Other X-11 programs also work just fine. Much fine free open software runs in the native OSX environment.
...I am all for prosecution of anyone who tries to multitask in ANY way while at the wheel...
How is talking on a phone (hands free) different than talking with a passenger? Will they outlaw passengers in cars or at least talking to them? Maybe every car will have a driver compartment, mandated to be totally isolated from the rest of the vehicle. Whatever happened to common sense, such as turning the phone off? How did people live before cell phones existed?
Slashdot Mirror
..get to be harassed by the Border Patrol just because they want to travel within their own state...
Question: If someone in a hot, fast car refused to stop, does the New Mexico state or local police help the federal border cops stop the car? If the people of New Mexico felt strongly about the constitutionality of these checkpoints, they could forbid their police to co-operate with the federal government in law enforcement in this manner. That would make it that much harder for the feds to do this sort of random law enforcement. Are the state and local police obligated to help enforce federal laws, especially unconstitutional ones? Has that been tested in courts?
....It's just a matter of combing through your life and finding which of those laws you've broken....
If one or two people told a border cop to stuff it, they might make the rather large effort required to do that to make an example of the few. If thousands, or even only hundreds did that, the feds would not have enough manpower and would have to stuff it. This would be especially true if the feds did not get any help whatsoever from local or state police. I don't envision a border patrol cop chasing a vehicle that refused to stop, halfway across a state all by himself, if he got no help from any law enforcement officers other than other federal cops.
...The message is simple, "You have no rights."....
So what would happen if such a "border patrol" officer tried to pull someone over and they refused to stop? Would they get re-inforcements from the local or state police? Maybe states and localities should forbid their officers from helping the feds for things like the enforcement of blatantly unconstitutional activities by that means. I have heard that in some places, local cops will simply ignore the federal law enforcement efforts, leaving the federal government to go it alone. Much of the time, the feds don't have sufficient manpower to enforce the crazier of their rules. This 100 mile thing appears to to be one of these federal rules, the states and counties could and should safely ignore and not help enforce.
...get away from the three centuries of built up corruption?...
Do you really believe that you and everyone with you will NOT bring your own corruption with you? Oh wait, your corruption is virtue!
... Frankly, it's about time we had some ability as consumers to deal with this sort of fraud...
You do have that ability. It is called an answering machine. When a number shows up on caller ID which you do not recognize as a friend's, relative's or business associate's, just don't answer the phone, but let the answering machine take it. Most automated call systems are not programmed to leave a message. For those who do leave messages, a push of a button will delete them. Also, when calls coming in at a time when you do not wish to answer the phone, such as at dinnertime, just ignore the phone. At first it may be hard to ignore a ringing telephone, but after a while you'll get the hang(up) of it.
...As far as the lady keeping her phone number, that is akin to somebody keeping their credit card number after fraud....
Almost, but not quite. A good way to keep telemarketers and other undesirable calls at bay, is to only answer known numbers that show up on the caller ID. Everything else gets routed to the answering machine. Most computerized telemarketing systems recognize when an answering machine picks up and don't bother to leave any kind of message. Those that do, can be dealt with quickly by the delete button.
...whether the results are consistent with the predictions...
Predictions of necessity involve interpretation. Any interpretation in turn, is colored by the underlying worldview of the interpreter. There is no way to get away from that. If an individual whose worldview agrees with the interpretation of the scientists with the same worldview, then that individual is likely to believe or have faith in the interpretation that such a scientist brings to every experiment. Scientists seldom do experiments and then just report on the results, but commonly also offer interpretations of the data. Any discussion of origins, of necessity, must always be an interpretation, because no one can go back into history with a Time machine and observe what really happened. The same is true of course of the future.
...than that which is proven before one's eyes,...
Nothing can really be proven, there are only degrees of evidence that may be believed or not. Such evidence can only be presented to our senses. We have plenty of experimental and experiential evidence that our senses can be fooled. Most of the time of course, we can be reasonably assured, that the evidence presented by our senses is credible and believable.
There is also a vast difference of what is actually measured and observed and how these observations and measurements are interpreted. All interpretation is always filtered through the interpreter's worldview.
Scientists observe for example, that even single living cells are very complex on the molecular scale. Someone with an atheistic worldview, will interpret this complexity arising from random processes over enormous amounts of time. Someone who believes in God, will attribute this complexity to his brilliant design skill. Only the observation part is science. Both interpretations are beliefs based on different worldviews. Those with atheistic worldviews have mislabeled their beliefs as science and get government funds to promulgate these beliefs in schools.
...It would be asinine for them to insist that people prove they own a Mac (or Pystar) to buy OS X...
Why would that be? Is that not how it was when Apple first came out with the Intel processor in their computers? There were no versions of OSX for sale for the new Intel powered Macs. If they sell their operating system to any and all comers, what is there to prevent dozens of Pystars from coming out of the woodwork? Apple has every right to choose and must choose, to whom they will sell their operating system.
(...Testing a new machine is a significant expense..)
That may well be true. Therefore Apple could make it part of the agreement that Pystar would pay for that in exchange of being able to buy as many retail copies of OSX as they wanted. The point of my whole suggestion was, that since Apple is not interested in selling a rock-bottom cost computer under their brand name, they might do so under the Pystar brand. As for the add hackintosh user, many of them likely pirate OSX anyway.
...Why are we so unique?..
This is a question that cannot be answered within the mechanistic, probabilistic worldview held by mainstream scientists today. Most of them holding that underlying worldview would deny that uniqueness.
If a visitor would show up on planet Earth claiming to have come from a distant corner of this universe, or even from another universe or dimension, what evidence could such a visitor give to have us believe that this is really true? How do we know that this has not already happened in the history of mankind?
Modern science fiction has such visitors to show up in some kind of a vehicle, such as a spaceship. That assumes that such visitors, or intelligent entities are subject to the constraints of time and space such as we are. If there really is a transcendent eternal being(s), God(s) if you will, what evidence would be needed to convince humans of whatever truth or message this visitor tried to impart? Do we humans, by the means of our intellect really have the equipment to discern the difference between sufficiently advanced technology and what we label supernatural?
....but way too many of us are willing to just simply "believe" ....
There is no way you can live your daily life without belief. When you get into a car or a plane, you BELIEVE that they will take you where you want to go. You don't know that for sure. When you go to bed at night you believe and hope that you will wake up in the morning but there is no guarantee that you will. I am sure that you have at one time or another read stories of whole families who went to bed in the evening and never saw the next day due to fire or carbon monoxide. Our lives are governed much more by belief, by faith, than the sure knowledge.
There really is no proof of anything, only evidence that we can choose to believe or not believe.
(...of the reasonably ridiculous notion that life began here when some mythical magical man in the sky...)
You and everyone else that agrees with your assumption (belief) doesn't really KNOW this, but simply believes it and then tries to pass that belief off as sure knowledge. The only evidence we have, is that life, that we are here. There is no way to do deduce from that alone how it began. Even if you invented a time machine and used it to travel back as far as necessary, what evidence would you collect there at the beginning, to bring back to convince your fellow humans at the present time? In the end, whatever evidence you did collect and bring back, would still have to be believed. It would not constitute incontrovertible proof.
If an intelligent life form came to visit us here on planet Earth, what evidence would be sufficient to convince us that this entity came from a galaxy far far away or even another universe or dimension?
...or on the other hand allow them to continue to selling them....
That might actually be a likely outcome of this whole thing. Apple could allow them to build a little cost machine which Apple has no interest in doing. The system requirements of OSX a much more modest than the current VISTA. Many users could be exposed to OSX this way, which would ultimately be Apple's benefit.
....But what would Apple WANT with Psystar? ...
Apple has never been and still isn't interested in building and selling a rock-bottom priced Dell computer competitor. They could either buy Pystar outright or make an agreement with them and help them market to a low-cost box under that brand name. This would prevent the dilution of Apple's highly respected brand name, but would allow many people to taste OSX for a low entry fee. Some of these buyers might later want a laptop for themselves or for their kids. The only way to get one of those is to buy one from Apple.
...Or they'd have to do the testing themselves. This would be a significant expense...
It would not have to be all that expensive for Apple to test a representative model machine or two. If that representative machine worked correctly, Apple could approve it and even help Pystar. With the proper agreements, Apple could ensure that these machines would meet a need that Apple currently does not address. One such need is a really low cost, upgradable box positioned between the high end Mac Pro and the low end mini. Since the OSX system requirements are considerably less than VISTA, Apple could also allow this company to make a rock-bottom priced box branded with the Pystar name.
Apple could also withdraw their operating system from the open market and sell only to their customers and to Pystar. This would be a win-win situation for Apple and the consumers who wanted a really low cost way of running Apple software. Once people who bought these low-cost computers learned the vast superiority of OSX over VISTA, some might eventually be overcome with techno-lust and buy a fancier, better genuine Mac.
...There is no way that Psystar will get a license to ship with MacOS X...
How can you be so sure of that? Right now, the Apple desktop lineup has a huge hole between their expensive MacPro and the underpowered, un-expendable mini. It probably would not hurt Apple's bottom line very much to make a deal with these guys that lets them build a computer that fills that gap and sell it under the Pystar brand name. To prevent any others from getting the idea of doing a similar thing, Apple could stop selling OSX on the open market and only sell it to their registered customers.
...and OS X starts using a trusted computing module...
That would be a totally unnecessary expense for Apple and a quite annoying feature for all users. Every computer or other device that Apple sells has a serial number. Almost all of these serial numbers together with their customers are registered with Apple already. Instead of selling their software on the open market to all comers, each buyer could be required to supply a valid serial number. That would put an end to this whole thing in any future attempts by others to cash in on Apple's hard work.
...Apple developed the OS and machines together. Neither the chicken nor the egg came first...
Does that also mean that the chicken and egg were developed together by their designer?
....How would one install OS X on a machine one has wiped it from....
Almost every Mac ever made since serial number and registered it with Apple. Anyone who wanted to buy a boxed copy, could go into an Apple store, where they could check when that person already owns an Apple Computer. If so, he could buy a copy of OSX, otherwise not. Online sales would also work since Apple already has a database connecting every serial number with the name of the owner.
...No drivers to install, no CDs to mess with...
That did not work with UBUNTU and my KONICA and Epson printers. Even the Internet did not work right away, I had to change some settings Joe or Jane user would have deemed arcane and not known about without a geeky ./ person such as I and most people here are. I could not even get a CD for the Konica.
(...The Epson America website directs you to Epson Kowa for Linux drivers...)
Downloading a bunch of software is not what Joe or Jane user want to have to do, before the new computer works with their new printer or scanner. They want to pop the disk that came with the device in, click "INSTALL" and then print or scan. That is why Linux is for geeks and nerds but is in fact a great OS. Joe and Jane don't care about source code or any other code. They expect their computer, like a TV or toaster, to "just work" when they turn it on. It seems that many Linux advocating /. citizens here DON'T understand this.
Joe and Jane user need to be able to call an 800 number of the manufacturer or bug someone at the store they bought their shiny new computer. They cannot go to a Linux store like they can to an Apple store nor can they send a distress call to the maker of their computer in most cases. If they have a geeky relative, willing to be their support department, then maybe Linux is a viable option for them. Maybe some geeks enjoy being the support dept. for their relatives and friends.
Even though I know and also use Windows and to a lesser degree Linux (Ubuntu) I tell relatives and friends: "Sorry, I only do Macs". Several of them have even gone out and gotten a Mac so they can have someone close by or a phone call away that is able and (somewhat) willing to help them. Because Macs (usually) "just work" I don't get too manny calls.
.... Mac programs for updates manually, by going to the website...
Many free as well as for $$$ Mac programs allow for automatic checking for updates. They usually do this when the program starts. Some programs have a "check for Updates" in the help menu or preference settings.
(...trivially scriptable for setting up a new, custom installation exactly the way you want...)
Maybe for someone who develops software or a power user such things might be important. To most people, computers like cars have a utility function. They don't care even a little what happens under the hood. They want the car to get them where they want to go and want their computer to work as soon as they plug it in and sit down in front of it. The Mac, though not perfect, is by far and away the closest to this, of all computing devices available to common folks. When something goes wrong, they want one phone number to call or a store they can complain to. Windows and Macs let users do that, but for Linux, things are not so simple. Downloading a bunch of software is not what Joe or Jane user want to have to do, before the new computer works with their new printer or scanner. They want to pop the disk that came with the device in, click "INSTALL" and then print or scan.
....Phone calls are very bad for drivers...
So is any other distraction, such as eating or drinking something. Even drinking some water from a bottle can and does momentarily divert attention. Common sense needs to be applied in all these situations. It seems though that in many areas of life these days, common sense is far less common than it used to be. Life has always been risky. New technology sometimes adds to these risks. Common sense, not a huge pile of laws, ought to govern whether some of these risks are worth the benefit. My cell phone is MY servant. It is ONLY on, when I want to make or are expecting a call. The rest of the time it is turned OFF, including when driving.
....For a start I know of at least one human who's been cured of the religious delusions....
I assume you are mean yourself here? Well I got news for you! Everybody, even atheists have a world view, life philosophy if you will. You BELIEVE far more things than you KNOW.
(...will be cured of their religious delusions in the few seconds between their heart stopping and their brain succumbing to hypoxia...)
That shows your faith right there! You don't KNOW that this is so, but simply BELIEVE that as part of your world view. You have not experienced death yet, so how CAN you so confidently make such a claim? You may believe that is true and that's OK. According to the most widely distributed book on the planet, the Holy Bible, we read in Hebrews 9:27 -- And as it is appointed to men once to die, but after this the judgment"
Even you have no argument about the first part of that sentence. as surely as death will come to you, just as surely you will stand in judgment before your Maker.
Even if you confine "religion" to a belief in the supernatural, you still cannot tell sufficiently advanced technology from the miraculous. If you claim you can tell, would you share with me and maybe other readers how you accomplish that feat? There is not now and there has never been *any* culture or civilization that does NOT give religion a central place in their lives.
...What about CIFS? (Needed for files > 4 gigs.)...
The Mac OSX file system supports as big a file as anyone could buy a disk drive to hold it. What is the use of another file system for most users? HFS+ in OSX with Spotlight searching does pretty much everything those others you mentioned. Besides most users don't CARE about the innards of the file systems and how beautiful or ugly it may be. All they want is read access to their data and software.
(...There's also KDE3, and all that implies, but I'm not sure about that. KDE4 is ported...)
Who would want to use that when the GUI of OSX is far better?
(...Oh really? Care to name some?...)
Get my Epson CX5400 all in one scanner-printer working in Linux? How about my Epson R1800 wide carriage photo printer or the Konica Minolta color laser printer? ? Maybe somebody has kludged something up, but Epson and Minolta only support Windows and Mac OSX. Who has time to scout the Internet for software that MIGHT work? User really DO care whether they can buy name brand printers, scanners camcorders and have them work without a lot of fuss. Having to download even ONE piece of software to make a device work correctly is OK for geeks, but not for grandma user. She wants to pop in a disk, click the mouse and then print or scan.
(...Oh, and a proper package manager...)
Most free Mac software comes on DMG a disk image that opens and installs the software with a few mouse clicks. For example GIMP installs on OSX and runs with x11.app which comes with every Mac. Other X-11 programs also work just fine. Much fine free open software runs in the native OSX environment.
...I am all for prosecution of anyone who tries to multitask in ANY way while at the wheel...
How is talking on a phone (hands free) different than talking with a passenger? Will they outlaw passengers in cars or at least talking to them? Maybe every car will have a driver compartment, mandated to be totally isolated from the rest of the vehicle. Whatever happened to common sense, such as turning the phone off? How did people live before cell phones existed?