Scientists who predict gloom and doom from global warming don't get paid if they report that there really isn't a problem. I am repeatedly fascinated by global warming scientists who dismiss studies that contradict their cries of alarm as the product of people who are being paid to say there is no problem.
That works both ways, petroleum and other industries won't pay for research that concludes global warming is real, but with pay for that which shows it isn't real. So where are all the scientists saying global warming isn't true?
Curious where you're living Falon, as in the US my understanding is that if you take a photo on public grounds then there's not much the subject (or the owner of, in the case of property being photographed) can do to influence what you do with it later on.
.... just as it's illegal to photograph people who are clearly identifiable in public and selling those photos.
Yet there is an entire industry that does just this to people in the public eye. Is there some legal exemption for people who have been previously in same lame film or made a pop song?
And that's supposed to be news. I said editorials but should have included news as well. On the other hand I can't go down to the lake near me and shoot photos of people at the park then sell them without a release form if the people are clearly identifiable. In my photography class we spent more than a day discussing what was legal and what wasn't. Actually back then as it was right around 9-11 people were being stopped for shooting photos by the police. Police tried to confiscate one student's camera. Shortly after that a lawyer came out with The Photographer's Right handbook.
One of the first things we learned in the photography class I took in college was that photographing and selling the photos of someone's house is illegal in some places without the owner signing a release form, just as it's illegal to photograph people who are clearly identifiable in public and selling those photos. The only tyme it is legal when a release form is not signed but the photo is sold is if it is used as part of an editorial. Now, it may be legal in some places but not everywhere.
The most recent update available for Mac OS 9 via the Apple support page linked in your post is 9.2.2. It was released in December 2001. Support means more than hosting a very old update. There have been no bug fixes, improvements or changes of any kind to the OS 9 code since that release.
I have a PC I bought brand new in December 1997 with Windows NT 4.0. The last tyme I was able to download an update was in 2000. The last update I got for it was in 2001, when I had to take it to the Geek Squad to have it installed.
Service packs are just bug fixes?
To make my post short I left stuff out. They service packs are still part of the Windows they are issued for. OS X 10.5 is a different OS than 10.4. Snow Leopard, 10.6, is another OS upgrade. Upgrade not update. Update vs Upgrade:
"An Apple "software upgrade" means a major, standalone version of a software product."
"A "software update" updates a major (reference release) version of software, but does not upgrade it to the next major version (if one exists)."
when a Apple Software Update does come down the pipe, I have to consider if installing it will break my configuration and land me in hot water with my boss when he can't get his e-mail anymore.
Isn't this true with most software updates? I'm not an IT administrator of Windows or any other platform but in medium and larger organizations doesn't IT first test bug fixes, updates, and upgrades on test beds before deploying them on production systems? I imagine the same applies to Linux and other platforms.
The summary states that Apple's Perl is broken--if you installed third-party modules
If you read the actual article, and not rely on summaries, three conditions need to be met: "Perl breakage only occurs if you're running Leopard (Mac OS X 10.5), you're using the Perl distro baked into the OS, and you've updated the distro via CPAN (Comprehensive Perl Archive Network), a widely-used collection of existing Perl modules." How many modules does Apple provide? How many who use Perl do not use CPAN?
To upgrade incrementally from 10.0 to 10.5 costs money every step of the way.
Upgrading OX S from 10.0 to 10.1 and all the way up to 10.5 is upgrading the OS not installing service packs as with Windows. Windows Vista Service Pack 1 is a bug fix, and Macs do the same thing. I have Leopard installed and what I installed was 10.5, after having run update I now have 10.5.6, which is like 6 service packs for Vista. And none of those updates cost me a dime. I can also update Leopard for some years to come if I want to. Even now Apple still supports Mac OS 9 and it's been out longer than Windows XP which MS has been extending support for because of the demand for it. MS originally End of Lifed XP last year.
if you are going to mess with Apple's Perl, you can't do much because it will break at some point with an update. This applies to many of the *nix-y parts of OS X. Your config files get overwritten by Software Update. The extensions you configured and compiled yourself because they weren't there get disabled because all of a sudden, Apple decides to include it
I think you miss my point. You say if you do something yourself eventually an Apple update will overwrite what you did. But in this case it was Apple's own implementation that was broken. If you had built and installed Perl yourself it was not broken by the update.
I have to say Linux is better. In most distros, you get a more flexible, up-to-date distribution that is less likely to break if you play around with it too much.
I don't know how the Linux distros work, but I may find out soon. I plan on installing Ubuntu on my Mac RSN and if I do I want to setup both Leopard and Ubuntu as development platforms.
Apple released 10.0 in 2001. Since then they have released five major versions (10.1 - 10.5) with the average time between releases being about 18 months. In Australia we pay about AU$150 a pop so if I had kept a single Mac up to date over than period of time my total cost for OSX upgrades not counting the cost of the version bundled with the machine would be about AU$750.
Ah but are all those upgrades needed? I bought my Mac months before Leopard was released and even though I got an upgrade to Leopard when it came out, I finally installed it about 2 months ago. More than a year went by before the upgrade. And the only reason I did upgrade from Tiger, 10.4, to Leopard or 10.5 was because the Java 6 SDK requires 10.5.
if I feel inclined to run Vista or Windows 7 I'll probably buy a new box with the OS included and I'll run that box for 7 or 8 years and I probably won't have to pay for a single software update along the way.
I can do the same thing with my Mac, that's not unique to Windows PCs.
if you take what Apple gives you and don't customize it too much. Installing your own modules? Not the Apple way.
Like other's you have it backwards. Apple's update only affects Apple's implementation of Perl. If you built your own Perl implementation it wasn't affected.
Go to Linux for that kind of thing. Who would use OS X for serious Perl work anyway?
I plan to use OS X, and Linux, for Perl. Can you tell me why Perl does not work well with OS X?
Well, Apple does more DRM, more vendor lock-in, more proprietary secrets, and more evil business practices
Citation needed.
Apple does ship with Perl preinstalled on every copy of OS X I've ever used. Leopard ships with Ruby on Rails
Having switched from Windows to OS X I haven't tried Perl on my Mac yet. Ruby in Rails comes with Leopard? I didn't know that, as I've been thinking about learning it it's nice to know I already have it installed, or can install it from the Leopard install disks.
The problem only affects certain "knowledgeable" users who changed certain operating system files.
You have it backwards. Apple's OS X upgrade affected Apple's implementation of Perl. If you built Perl yourself the update doesn't affect you.
If different versions of the files were required by the user
The update affected files that Apple provided. The "Security Update brings (old) IO.bundle with version 1.22 but your IO.pm has been updated to the latest 1.23 on CPAN shell." Replacing the new bundle with an older one is what caused the breakage.
1. The fanbois jump up and down all the time crying out "Apple is teh best" and "it just works" so loud they they shit in their pants.
And Apple foes jump up and down whenever something doesn't "just work". What I noted in reading tfa and bog post is that the software update only breaks the perl that's build into Macs, but if someone builds and installs their owe Perl won't be broken.
2. The same fanbois will murder Microsoft if this happened to them.
Does Microsoft even ship Windows with Perl installed?
On that note I've got an IBM eServer 325 which I bought and will probably never use. I guess I could just donate it, since nobody seems to want to buy it.
I didn't say it couldn't be changed nor did I say it wouldn't.
I didn't say you did say it couldn't be changed.
I simply stated that assuming the user was to be prompted at boot time which OS. Then windows would need to be the factory default or users (by users i mean the non-technical users) will get annoyed.
Since I used NT4 more than I used Redhat on my dualboot PC NT4 was the default OS and if an OS was not chosen at boot tyme it would automatically boot into NT4 after 15 seconds. I only had to tend to it if I wanted Redhat, and then I didn't even have to wait a minute before the boot manager came up. The actual boot process after the OS was chosen took longer than the boot manager did.
Your confusing desire and want with necessity. At least in the terms I was ever describing it.
Like I said, you want to define necessity.
Do you think the illegal immigrant problems just started with NAFTA?
Oh, I agree. Illegal immigrant problems started before the Mayflower brought the Pilgrims to Plymouth, Mass. Ever since then Europeans have tried to exterminate the native inhabitants. Heck Christopher Columbus tried to enslave Arawaks and other inhabitants of the Caribbean. Unfortunately for him he declared the New World as Spanish territory and Castile'sQueen Isabella, who united the Iberian kingdoms into the Spanish kingdom, told him she could not enslave her own subjects. That was one of the few things, if not the only one, that she did right.
It's problems have little to do with NAFTA or the price of corn. The minimum wage in Mexico is something like 52.6 pesos which comes out to around $4.70 a day (2008 numbers where minimum wage in the US is more then a days pay per hour).
Farmers, if the farm is large enough, employ workers. No farms means no farm workers. In order to make a living those ex farm workers then take any job they can which drives wages down, more than they already are.
You obviously don't know how subsidies work.
Are you saying the Heritage Foundation doesn't know how subsides work as well? And all the other think tanks that can afford to pay economists? You know more than they do? What's your qualification? Got a PhD in economists? Where from? Or are you just pulling things out of your ass?
Since you think you know more than others, there's no point in me continuing.
Of course there's one thing you can say about Cuba, the millions of peasants all get plenty of food... Well, the ruling elite do anyway.
Did you even read the article I linked to? One reason for the success of city farms and gardens in Cuba was because the government allowed farmers to sell produce grown on vacant lots directly to consumers. Urban farmers were able to make 2 or tymes as much as rural farmers.
While there's no political freedom in Cuba, hopefully Raul Castro will allow politics to open up, economically Cuba is more open than it has been in a long tyme. There wasn't much political freedom under Fulgencio Batasta y Zaldívar either, he did stage a coup d'état on March 10, 1952 overthrowing the elected president. What I find weird is that at first the Communist Party in Cuba supported him. After the coup Fidel Castro tried to challenge the coup in the courts but was refused.
It's really hard to fathom how stupid Adobe is. Is trivial to get a hacked copy. It's not trivial to do simple things like cross platform upgrades.
Yea, I agree. Even with GIMP and CinePaint I think Adobe could sell more Photoshop and the rest of their graphics software if they released versions of Linux. And if they lowered their prices. I don't know about switching platforms though, how hard it is that is.
It's not trivial to deal with activation / licensing on XP
Activation, and spyware like WGA, is one of the reasons I switched from Windows to Linux and OS X.
Slashdot Mirror
Scientists who predict gloom and doom from global warming don't get paid if they report that there really isn't a problem. I am repeatedly fascinated by global warming scientists who dismiss studies that contradict their cries of alarm as the product of people who are being paid to say there is no problem.
That works both ways, petroleum and other industries won't pay for research that concludes global warming is real, but with pay for that which shows it isn't real. So where are all the scientists saying global warming isn't true?
Falcon
Curious where you're living Falon, as in the US my understanding is that if you take a photo on public grounds then there's not much the subject (or the owner of, in the case of property being photographed) can do to influence what you do with it later on.
I live in the US, and your understanding is wrong. There actually is no one right or wrong answer, it's complex. "Photo Law - Your Right to Take Pictures in Public" is an introduction to the laws.
Falcon
.... just as it's illegal to photograph people who are clearly identifiable in public and selling those photos.
Yet there is an entire industry that does just this to people in the public eye. Is there some legal exemption for people who have been previously in same lame film or made a pop song?
And that's supposed to be news. I said editorials but should have included news as well. On the other hand I can't go down to the lake near me and shoot photos of people at the park then sell them without a release form if the people are clearly identifiable. In my photography class we spent more than a day discussing what was legal and what wasn't. Actually back then as it was right around 9-11 people were being stopped for shooting photos by the police. Police tried to confiscate one student's camera. Shortly after that a lawyer came out with The Photographer's Right handbook.
The rest of what you say is rubbish.
Falcon
Google is selling eyeballs, the photos are lures for those eyeballs.
Falcon
Nothing more.
Nothing more if you don't care about privacy.
One of the first things we learned in the photography class I took in college was that photographing and selling the photos of someone's house is illegal in some places without the owner signing a release form, just as it's illegal to photograph people who are clearly identifiable in public and selling those photos. The only tyme it is legal when a release form is not signed but the photo is sold is if it is used as part of an editorial. Now, it may be legal in some places but not everywhere.
Falcon
The most recent update available for Mac OS 9 via the Apple support page linked in your post is 9.2.2. It was released in December 2001. Support means more than hosting a very old update. There have been no bug fixes, improvements or changes of any kind to the OS 9 code since that release.
I have a PC I bought brand new in December 1997 with Windows NT 4.0. The last tyme I was able to download an update was in 2000. The last update I got for it was in 2001, when I had to take it to the Geek Squad to have it installed.
Service packs are just bug fixes?
To make my post short I left stuff out. They service packs are still part of the Windows they are issued for. OS X 10.5 is a different OS than 10.4. Snow Leopard, 10.6, is another OS upgrade. Upgrade not update. Update vs Upgrade:
"An Apple "software upgrade" means a major, standalone version of a software product."
"A "software update" updates a major (reference release) version of software, but does not upgrade it to the next major version (if one exists)."
you're just annoying me.
And you're annoying me. Bye.
Falcon
when a Apple Software Update does come down the pipe, I have to consider if installing it will break my configuration and land me in hot water with my boss when he can't get his e-mail anymore.
Isn't this true with most software updates? I'm not an IT administrator of Windows or any other platform but in medium and larger organizations doesn't IT first test bug fixes, updates, and upgrades on test beds before deploying them on production systems? I imagine the same applies to Linux and other platforms.
Falcon
The summary states that Apple's Perl is broken--if you installed third-party modules
If you read the actual article, and not rely on summaries, three conditions need to be met: "Perl breakage only occurs if you're running Leopard (Mac OS X 10.5), you're using the Perl distro baked into the OS, and you've updated the distro via CPAN (Comprehensive Perl Archive Network), a widely-used collection of existing Perl modules." How many modules does Apple provide? How many who use Perl do not use CPAN?
Falcon
To upgrade incrementally from 10.0 to 10.5 costs money every step of the way.
Upgrading OX S from 10.0 to 10.1 and all the way up to 10.5 is upgrading the OS not installing service packs as with Windows. Windows Vista Service Pack 1 is a bug fix, and Macs do the same thing. I have Leopard installed and what I installed was 10.5, after having run update I now have 10.5.6, which is like 6 service packs for Vista. And none of those updates cost me a dime. I can also update Leopard for some years to come if I want to. Even now Apple still supports Mac OS 9 and it's been out longer than Windows XP which MS has been extending support for because of the demand for it. MS originally End of Lifed XP last year.
Falcon
Same here. I don't understand why I need the X11 sources compiled from fink just to get apache 2 and php.
I don't know about Apache but PHP comes with Leopard.
Falcon
if you are going to mess with Apple's Perl, you can't do much because it will break at some point with an update. This applies to many of the *nix-y parts of OS X. Your config files get overwritten by Software Update. The extensions you configured and compiled yourself because they weren't there get disabled because all of a sudden, Apple decides to include it
I think you miss my point. You say if you do something yourself eventually an Apple update will overwrite what you did. But in this case it was Apple's own implementation that was broken. If you had built and installed Perl yourself it was not broken by the update.
I have to say Linux is better. In most distros, you get a more flexible, up-to-date distribution that is less likely to break if you play around with it too much.
I don't know how the Linux distros work, but I may find out soon. I plan on installing Ubuntu on my Mac RSN and if I do I want to setup both Leopard and Ubuntu as development platforms.
Falcon
Apple released 10.0 in 2001. Since then they have released five major versions (10.1 - 10.5) with the average time between releases being about 18 months. In Australia we pay about AU$150 a pop so if I had kept a single Mac up to date over than period of time my total cost for OSX upgrades not counting the cost of the version bundled with the machine would be about AU$750.
Ah but are all those upgrades needed? I bought my Mac months before Leopard was released and even though I got an upgrade to Leopard when it came out, I finally installed it about 2 months ago. More than a year went by before the upgrade. And the only reason I did upgrade from Tiger, 10.4, to Leopard or 10.5 was because the Java 6 SDK requires 10.5.
if I feel inclined to run Vista or Windows 7 I'll probably buy a new box with the OS included and I'll run that box for 7 or 8 years and I probably won't have to pay for a single software update along the way.
I can do the same thing with my Mac, that's not unique to Windows PCs.
Falcon
So how easy is it to install MySQL 5+ and PHP 5+?
If you have OS X server MySQL is already installed. And in Leopard PHP is as well. Substituting "OS X" for "L" OS X has everything to run LAMP.
Falcon
if you take what Apple gives you and don't customize it too much. Installing your own modules? Not the Apple way.
Like other's you have it backwards. Apple's update only affects Apple's implementation of Perl. If you built your own Perl implementation it wasn't affected.
Go to Linux for that kind of thing. Who would use OS X for serious Perl work anyway?
I plan to use OS X, and Linux, for Perl. Can you tell me why Perl does not work well with OS X?
Falcon
Well, Apple does more DRM, more vendor lock-in, more proprietary secrets, and more evil business practices
Citation needed.
Apple does ship with Perl preinstalled on every copy of OS X I've ever used. Leopard ships with Ruby on Rails
Having switched from Windows to OS X I haven't tried Perl on my Mac yet. Ruby in Rails comes with Leopard? I didn't know that, as I've been thinking about learning it it's nice to know I already have it installed, or can install it from the Leopard install disks.
Falcon
The problem only affects certain "knowledgeable" users who changed certain operating system files.
You have it backwards. Apple's OS X upgrade affected Apple's implementation of Perl. If you built Perl yourself the update doesn't affect you.
If different versions of the files were required by the user
The update affected files that Apple provided. The "Security Update brings (old) IO.bundle with version 1.22 but your IO.pm has been updated to the latest 1.23 on CPAN shell." Replacing the new bundle with an older one is what caused the breakage.
Falcon
That's funny... since 2000, MS has had two releases you'd have to pay to upgrade to... How many has Apple had? more than two...
How much do those upgrades cost? The cheapest Best Buy sells is the Microsoft Windows Vista(TM) Home Premium Upgrade with Service Pack 1 - Windows for $130, the same as an Apple upgrade. And a Leopard family pack which allows Leopard to be installed on 5 Macs costs $200. - Microsoft Windows Vista(TM) Ultimate with Service Pack 1 cost $320 at Best Buy. Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition w/SP1, with 25 clients costs more than $3000. Meanwhile Mac OS X Server v10.5.4 with a 10 client license cost $500.
So yes Apple upgrades come more frequently, and who doesn't want frequent upgrades, however they cost less than Microsoft upgrades.
Falcon
1. The fanbois jump up and down all the time crying out "Apple is teh best" and "it just works" so loud they they shit in their pants.
And Apple foes jump up and down whenever something doesn't "just work". What I noted in reading tfa and bog post is that the software update only breaks the perl that's build into Macs, but if someone builds and installs their owe Perl won't be broken.
2. The same fanbois will murder Microsoft if this happened to them.
Does Microsoft even ship Windows with Perl installed?
Falcon
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but Apple doesn't even offer something akin to a RH support contract.
I'm not sure what you mean but Apple does offer software support.
Falcon
On that note I've got an IBM eServer 325 which I bought and will probably never use. I guess I could just donate it, since nobody seems to want to buy it.
Have you tried Freecycle?
Falcon
I didn't say it couldn't be changed nor did I say it wouldn't.
I didn't say you did say it couldn't be changed.
I simply stated that assuming the user was to be prompted at boot time which OS. Then windows would need to be the factory default or users (by users i mean the non-technical users) will get annoyed.
Since I used NT4 more than I used Redhat on my dualboot PC NT4 was the default OS and if an OS was not chosen at boot tyme it would automatically boot into NT4 after 15 seconds. I only had to tend to it if I wanted Redhat, and then I didn't even have to wait a minute before the boot manager came up. The actual boot process after the OS was chosen took longer than the boot manager did.
Falcon
Your confusing desire and want with necessity. At least in the terms I was ever describing it.
Like I said, you want to define necessity.
Do you think the illegal immigrant problems just started with NAFTA?
Oh, I agree. Illegal immigrant problems started before the Mayflower brought the Pilgrims to Plymouth, Mass. Ever since then Europeans have tried to exterminate the native inhabitants. Heck Christopher Columbus tried to enslave Arawaks and other inhabitants of the Caribbean. Unfortunately for him he declared the New World as Spanish territory and Castile's Queen Isabella, who united the Iberian kingdoms into the Spanish kingdom, told him she could not enslave her own subjects. That was one of the few things, if not the only one, that she did right.
It's problems have little to do with NAFTA or the price of corn. The minimum wage in Mexico is something like 52.6 pesos which comes out to around $4.70 a day (2008 numbers where minimum wage in the US is more then a days pay per hour).
Farmers, if the farm is large enough, employ workers. No farms means no farm workers. In order to make a living those ex farm workers then take any job they can which drives wages down, more than they already are.
You obviously don't know how subsidies work.
Are you saying the Heritage Foundation doesn't know how subsides work as well? And all the other think tanks that can afford to pay economists? You know more than they do? What's your qualification? Got a PhD in economists? Where from? Or are you just pulling things out of your ass?
Since you think you know more than others, there's no point in me continuing.
Falcon
The traditional methods of reducing the human population are disease and war. For the most part, humanity has resisted all other efforts.
Actually education and equality which boost economics leads to a reduction in birth rates as well.
Falcon
Of course there's one thing you can say about Cuba, the millions of peasants all get plenty of food... Well, the ruling elite do anyway.
Did you even read the article I linked to? One reason for the success of city farms and gardens in Cuba was because the government allowed farmers to sell produce grown on vacant lots directly to consumers. Urban farmers were able to make 2 or tymes as much as rural farmers.
While there's no political freedom in Cuba, hopefully Raul Castro will allow politics to open up, economically Cuba is more open than it has been in a long tyme. There wasn't much political freedom under Fulgencio Batasta y Zaldívar either, he did stage a coup d'état on March 10, 1952 overthrowing the elected president. What I find weird is that at first the Communist Party in Cuba supported him. After the coup Fidel Castro tried to challenge the coup in the courts but was refused.
Falcon
It's really hard to fathom how stupid Adobe is. Is trivial to get a hacked copy. It's not trivial to do simple things like cross platform upgrades.
Yea, I agree. Even with GIMP and CinePaint I think Adobe could sell more Photoshop and the rest of their graphics software if they released versions of Linux. And if they lowered their prices. I don't know about switching platforms though, how hard it is that is.
It's not trivial to deal with activation / licensing on XP
Activation, and spyware like WGA, is one of the reasons I switched from Windows to Linux and OS X.
Falcon