I toyed with this idea, but you can still kill with a rubber bullet, and the "gun as defense" proponents will argue that if lethal force is unlikely, the threat of anyone holding a gun will be removed as the great equalizer. See, the argument for guns as a safety measure is that theoretically, every person on the street can kill you if you threaten them -- so society takes that into consideration and we treat everyone respectfully. If only criminals have metal jackets, that kind of takes the force out of "right to bear arms".
If you're in favor of treating non-citizens any differently than citizens with regards to rights, you're opposed to the principles the Constitution was written to uphold.
The US Constitution is a government, of, by, and for the citizens of the United States. It's nonsense to suggest otherwise. It was not the global police force, and not even the police force of everyone living in the US.
The US Constitution is not a government. It is a document of agreement about what is just and right. If you treat one person differently than another, you're talking contract, by-law or policy, and not constitution.
Unless, of course, you're saying that because someone is born somewhere other than inside the borders you defend, they are not human, and thus what is just and right for you is not the same as what is just and right for them -- and this is exactly the type of fascism that the US constitution was drafted to prevent. This has nothing to do with enforcing such views outside of one's own borders -- but it has everything to do with how a country governed by such a constitution treats humanity as a whole. Weasel out of a part of it, and the entire structure collapses. I believe this is partly what the civil war was about, wasn't it (other than money and politics)?
and thus to self-defense tools (but obviously, not to WMD's).
Absolutely.
We agree that there is a line, above which a weapon is not for civilians and below which it is a right. So now we only have to set that line.
I'm a legal firearms owner since the late 1970s (before that if you count the.22 that my dad gave me when I was 10). The only weapon that I own that is for defense is my Franchi Instinct (endorsed for home defense by Vice President Biden).
I'm glad that you don't assert that the right to defense protected by the Constitution has anything to do with protection from the government.
The only weapon that I own that is for defense is, well, pretty much everything I can lay hands on. If you get to the point where you need a firearm for defense, you've likely avoided using your brain and your body first.
When you get to the point where killing/maiming at a distance, or at least the threat of this, is absolutely necessary, you've got to the point where you need an offensive weapon, because anything else won't be effective enough against your attacker without preparation. At which point, you're no longer really defending yourself. Instead, you're protecting yourself from perceived threat with an offensive weapon.
Strangely, despite some of the places I've been, I've never had to resort to weapons to defend myself beyond my tongue, feet and hands (in that order). None of these will stand up against an APC, drone or aircraft carrier; all will work 90% of the time in civilian life (and for that 10%, you still need to have predicted the situation, meaning that you likely could have at least mitigated it to some degree instead of letting it get to the point where potentially lethal force is both available and effective).
Short answer: if we really want the ability to defend ourselves, we need more access to firehoses (sure, it can still be lethal, but it's more likely to deter an attacker than a gun or knife, and less likely to cause permanent harm to anyone).
Freedom of speech implies that the speech is true. If big donors are bribing scientists to falsify information then that's fraud.
No, bribery and fraud are two different things. The people committing fraud are those taking the bribes; those giving the bribes are committing bribery, and through not disclosing anything publicly, are exercising their freedom to speak only to the few. "Free speech" is not "everyone must be made to hear what I say" but "I get to choose when and where I speak, and on what topic."
As soon as you start forcing (aka limiting) "free" speech, freedom of expression has lost.
Fraud is already fraud; people are freely speaking in-authentically. The only problems here are 1) that fraud is being actively courted and paid for, and 2) that public figures and extremely large sums of money are being used to affect what society thinks on a topic, to the detriment of society and to the gain of a few (for a limited time). Free speech is (and should be) a neutral item in the debate It's neither good nor evil, just like your access to the internet is neither good nor evil (but can be used in both ways).
I think the big problem will be personal edge cases, times when someone has to drive somewhere they normally would not. A home charger, for me, would cover 99% of my usage, but every few years I need to drive to somewhere odd that would be outside that range, and not knowing if I will be able to recharge would be a worry. It is the same thing that makes me nervous about going diesel... easy to get locally once you know who carries it, but a few hundred miles away from home and that 'not every station' element becomes a concern.
Ask a trucker, or follow a truck route. You won't be able to use cardlock stations (unless you've got a card), but any large vehicle's going to use diesel. The stations that serve it tend to be where said vehicles can easily find them. Using this logic, I've never had problems finding a diesel station in unfamiliar territory. Once you get out of densely populated areas, it's actually MORE likely that a given station will carry it (you know, for the work vehicles).
On a side note: Who wants to drive that long on a weekend anyway?
In North America (and Australia), things are a bit more spread out. Some people who enjoy driving like doing what are called "road trips" -- where most of the fun is in the driving, not in the destination.
When you live somewhere where you can drive for a week and never cross a controlled border, but see all sorts of different places, road trips do have a draw for some people.
I think all we've seen here is that if you're planning to take a Roadster on a road trip, you're going to have to adapt to a different way of pacing yourself than you'd do with a road-trip-worthy gas-powered vehicle. That said, I don't think anyone's about to try taking the Roadster from New York to LA without well-paced overnight breaks.
I'm not a road-tripper, but fairly regularly do 6-8 hour stints to visit people. This usually includes one 15 min refuel stop/rest stop, one 1 hour meal break, and one 15 min "get out and stretch/rest stop" break (the more people you take, the more stops become necessary). Looks like I'd have to do some rebalancing to do such a trip with a Roadster, but it wouldn't be much.
That's actually the weird thing; if you look at the graphs Tesla have released, it appears he did only lose about 5% of charge overnight, but for some reason this caused the available range - again from their graphs, not relying on anything Broder said - to plummet from a safe 90 miles to an oh-fuck-can't-reach-the-Supercharger 20 miles.
This is why Broder should have actually run a test instead of relying on graphs. If a battery is kept at the lower temperature during operation, it is definitely possible, theoretically, for it to drop from 90 miles to 20 miles range. However, the act of using the battery *will warm it up* to regular operating temperature -- meaning that in reality, only about 5% (mostly during the warm-up phase) will be lost.
Graphs based on theoretical worst-case scenarios are meant for the lab; they don't have much to do with real life, anymore than Broder's test has anything to do with real life.
I'd be more interested in seeing what might happen if Broder had driven the car over a flooded road -- to see if it caught fire. It'd make for a better story, although he'd be putting his life on the line.
Broder had two main complaints. The first one was 'loosing' range during the cold night. The range lost there is what caused the problems for him, it all went downhill from there. CNN didn't park the car overnight and drove it in slightly better weather. Batteries tend to respond pretty badly to low temperatures so this might well be enough of a difference to explain the different outcome. His second problem seems to be bad advise from Tesla. Tesla wouldn't be making the same mistakes during a follow up test. Needing advice to complete a trip is bad enough though and CNN called Tesla during the trip as well.
So when done properly the system seems to work, but when stuff goes wrong it goes wrong badly. You either and up spending a long time a a slow charging point, or you ended being towed away. Even if Broder was being stupid, it still shows the system isn't as idiot proof as you'd hope. But that will hopefully improve over time.
All well and good, except that Broder already admitted that he made up the results based on projections. So the FUD you've just crafted (intentional or not) falls a bit flat. Broder's test is no baseline, as parts of the test were fabricated; the CNN test looks like more of a baseline. If someone wants to do the route again, but leave the battery packed in dry ice for a while at one of the stops, that's fine. As long as they document it.
Beyond this, why not get companies like ActiveState to weigh in? I'm sure they don't want ActivePython (MSRP $999) to suddenly be infringing.
Since I know some of the guys from ActiveState read Slashdot, I think the issue should be resolved within the day (after they sic their lawyers on the issue).
I remember people embedding "blink" inside "marquee" using a phased color shift. I guess some thought it was pretty....
These were never as annoying for me though as the sites that either a) depended on flash or they wouldn't load at all or b) had an embedded midi file in each page that autoplayed and couldn't be turned off.
Then there were the pages that had ALL of the above....
But can anyone explain why the US Chamber of Commerce is the top money giving lobbyist, by 3x?
I can: think "umbrella corporation". The US Chamber of Commerce is a conduit through which ANY business can funnel money while remaining relatively anonymous.
I notice that they took these samples from cigarettes and chewing gum. Seems to me that if you leave something like that in a public space, there's no privacy concern.
Lifting off of a used glass/hair follicle/sweaty towel at the gym/etc. would be a bit more worrying.
But since a person's features are more than their base structure, it's probably not too big an issue anyway. It's highly unlikely that they'll be able to model exactly what a person looks like at their current age/health.
This method could definitely help with missing persons issues though, as an adult model could be created based on a child's DNA that would look "similar" to the actual person.
I'd be interested if two runs on DNA samples from the same person would turn out faces that look the same....
Your accountants will be doing far more time wasting when it stops working or they get into anything complicated. It can work and will work for a time, but trust me I have been there it will lead to pain.
I think you've just explained why it'll never happen. Spreadsheets are what people use to look busy and productive.
I believe Adobe announced when they were hyping CS5 that all the original code was pretty much gone with that version; they wanted to start fresh with clean modular code instead of continuing to pile things on top of the mess that was the conversion from Mac Pascal to Win C++ (no insult meant). Adobe went for years just tweaking the codebase and adding things on, migrating the entire codebase from one architecture to another. With CS4, things had got to the point where continuing down that path would be even more prohibitive than starting over with only modern code -- so legacy code was tossed, a new framework built, and everything written back in to tie it together. CS6 then used the new framework to drop out a few of the other "less legacy" components for something "more modern" now that the underlying architecture was cleaned up and had endured a major revision of fixes and tweaks.
That said, I'm still using the headache that is CS4, as feature-wise, there's not really anything that's been added since that would be worth the upgrade cost. I'm guessing it'll stop working on 10.9, at which point I'll have to make a decision as to whether to migrate or just run it under a VM. I'm not willing to pay that much $$ to support Adobe's forced upgrade cycle though (security fixes only get applied against the latest versions?!?!?)
That's why shops like VistaPrint are popular and very profitable. Most people, even people who need signs and things for professional purposes just do not care.
Just thought I'd add to this that the reason I use VistaPrint is precisely BECAUSE they honor my CMYK profiles, crop marks and bleeds. There are very few prosumer printshops out there that do this (even among those who claim to). VistaPrint has got it right for me every time.
The only other places I've found that get this stuff right want runs of 1,000 at the minimum -- not too useful for 1-offs.
There are problems of course, like running Flash will always end up killing whatever browser that I'm using, but this is a well known and long unaddressed problem. Anther problem is that a lot of my favorite old software just won't run on it. Oh, well. Most of the old UNIX games are hidden in emacs now. And Stickies are wonderful. I do practically all my writing in Stickies, and cut and paste when necessary.
Remember when Flash was really cool? It ran just fine on my 132 MHz mac with 16 MB of RAM. Why did Adobe let it get so incredibly crappy? Oh, MacFortran ran in 16k of memory! It's memory management was superb, easily handling thirty year old code that took an hour to run on an IBM 1410, in just a couple of seconds.
Maybe you're onto something about that Twenty-First Capitalism thing.
BTW, you're allowed to stay on my lawn.
I'll stay on my own lawn, thank you:)
However, I highly recommend trying a Flash-fast; less security headaches, more speed and stability, and usually no productivity loss.
As for running old software: that's what you have the following for: MiniVmac running System 6.0.8 (Mac Plus ROM) (you can custom build this using the Mac II ROM and get color working too) Basilisk II running System 7.5.5 (IIx ROM) (optional -- the previous and next cover almost everything) Basilisk II running MacOS 8.1 (Quadra 650 ROM) SheepShaver running MacOS 9.0.4 with Finder 9.2 (New World ROM) PearPC (inside WineSkin) running OS X 10.4.11 PPC
With those five configs and 10.8.2, you can run almost* any MacOS software ever written. This does, of course, assume that you kept the OS and ROM from your old computers. These emulators even have networking capabilities and some method of copying files between your hard disk and their virtual hard disk.
* Except for stuff that requires specific third party hardware, stuff written for OS X Classic environment (post 9.0.4) and stuff taking advantage of specific features** in 10.0-10.3 that have been deprecated.
** anything taking advantage of these features 1) should have an update available and/or 2) was really buggy and isn't worth the pain of getting running. If you REALLY want to, you can always run the specific OS required inside an emulator or VM.
I really wish Apple had preserved more of NeXTstep in Mac OS X, or that there were easily accessible options to strip down the features to a parity w/ OPENSTEP 4.2 --- the performance of which on 200MHz+ machines was unbelievable.
I believe most of your old apps should live quite nicely on there. Beyond that, you can also run GNUStep on top of Darwin, if you want to be able to run non-aqua OS X software.
I'd guess that you could probably replace aqua with the GNUStep equivalent too, but that would take a LOT of fiddling, and not really be easily accessible.
Personally, I think that OS X has come a long way since OpenStep 4.2 -- not all changes have been good (stripping NIB files, for example), but the overall architecture is much more solid (which explains the performance hit).
Try GNUStep in VirtualBox and see how it handles your old software; if it does what you want, dual-boot:)
The main reason for this is that the early versions of the Macintosh System was written in Pascal -- hence why you had to deal with tStrings and tChars when writing in *any* language on the Mac. IIRC, there was a slow migration from Pascal to C between 1992 and 1995. Then you had the headache of dealing with both tStrings and cStrings.
I still remember the awesome hack that let you run MPW as a server with remote login... once my SliP connection was established over 1200 baud dialup, I could remotely log in to my Mac and use an MPW terminal from anywhere on the Internet*
*"anywhere on the Internet" being pretty much limited to academic institutions in those days.
How about some James Bond-esc features, like a: laser cutter, knife, garrote wire, etc. ??
^_^
I seem to recall one of the Bond watches had some sort of super-powerful electromagnet -- I don't think that would play nicely with the other circuitry (although it could be used for instant-wipe).
I see next to no good in zealotry of any kind. Do good if you want to - it's easy to see that doing good has benefits that have nothing to do with religion - but don't do bad because your holy book tells you it's OK. That's just using a very shaky belief system to justify and reinforce a decision you alone took.
May I be the first to say "preach it brother!"
It's true whether your shaky belief system is based on the Flying Spaghetti Monster or on modernism or humanism -- the problem is that people use these belief systems to ignore or attack what they don't like. Same thing goes on within science itself, but there's at least a neutral structure framing the arguments.
Any faith/religion/"science" that is based on zealotry and suppressing what you don't believe in is doomed, but will cause much pain in its death throes. Just remember that nobody is without a faith system; it shapes what you believe. Learn to identify your own before spending too much time attacking someone else's.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
The Enemies always have been and always will be ignorance and stupidity.
Open and shut case I'd say.
Are you saying that the US has been run by the treasonous for the treasonous?
The USA I've seen is NOT one where the ignorant and stupid were considered enemies. Usually they're considered friends or patsies by those in leadership positions. Those who question authority on the other hand....
Slashdot Mirror
I toyed with this idea, but you can still kill with a rubber bullet, and the "gun as defense" proponents will argue that if lethal force is unlikely, the threat of anyone holding a gun will be removed as the great equalizer. See, the argument for guns as a safety measure is that theoretically, every person on the street can kill you if you threaten them -- so society takes that into consideration and we treat everyone respectfully. If only criminals have metal jackets, that kind of takes the force out of "right to bear arms".
I don't think there's an easy answer.
If you're in favor of treating non-citizens any differently than citizens with regards to rights, you're opposed to the principles the Constitution was written to uphold.
The US Constitution is a government, of, by, and for the citizens of the United States. It's nonsense to suggest otherwise. It was not the global police force, and not even the police force of everyone living in the US.
The US Constitution is not a government. It is a document of agreement about what is just and right. If you treat one person differently than another, you're talking contract, by-law or policy, and not constitution.
Unless, of course, you're saying that because someone is born somewhere other than inside the borders you defend, they are not human, and thus what is just and right for you is not the same as what is just and right for them -- and this is exactly the type of fascism that the US constitution was drafted to prevent. This has nothing to do with enforcing such views outside of one's own borders -- but it has everything to do with how a country governed by such a constitution treats humanity as a whole. Weasel out of a part of it, and the entire structure collapses. I believe this is partly what the civil war was about, wasn't it (other than money and politics)?
Absolutely.
We agree that there is a line, above which a weapon is not for civilians and below which it is a right. So now we only have to set that line.
I'm a legal firearms owner since the late 1970s (before that if you count the .22 that my dad gave me when I was 10). The only weapon that I own that is for defense is my Franchi Instinct (endorsed for home defense by Vice President Biden).
I'm glad that you don't assert that the right to defense protected by the Constitution has anything to do with protection from the government.
The only weapon that I own that is for defense is, well, pretty much everything I can lay hands on. If you get to the point where you need a firearm for defense, you've likely avoided using your brain and your body first.
When you get to the point where killing/maiming at a distance, or at least the threat of this, is absolutely necessary, you've got to the point where you need an offensive weapon, because anything else won't be effective enough against your attacker without preparation. At which point, you're no longer really defending yourself. Instead, you're protecting yourself from perceived threat with an offensive weapon.
Strangely, despite some of the places I've been, I've never had to resort to weapons to defend myself beyond my tongue, feet and hands (in that order). None of these will stand up against an APC, drone or aircraft carrier; all will work 90% of the time in civilian life (and for that 10%, you still need to have predicted the situation, meaning that you likely could have at least mitigated it to some degree instead of letting it get to the point where potentially lethal force is both available and effective).
Short answer: if we really want the ability to defend ourselves, we need more access to firehoses (sure, it can still be lethal, but it's more likely to deter an attacker than a gun or knife, and less likely to cause permanent harm to anyone).
The entire country is bananas, and the US is to blame for that :)
Chiquita!
(Just pointing out that Mitnick is not the first social engineer hired to manage politics in Ecuador)
After securing the vote, Ecuador named their national drink after him, and then proceeded to give everyone in the country a Free Mitnick!
Well, obviously they can't harvest their own snow because it would adversely affect interstate snow harvesting commerce.
Ya know, with a freezer, you can grow your own? OMFG!!!111
Better make sure you have a license for medical snow before the power company catches up with you....
Freedom of speech implies that the speech is true. If big donors are bribing scientists to falsify information then that's fraud.
No, bribery and fraud are two different things. The people committing fraud are those taking the bribes; those giving the bribes are committing bribery, and through not disclosing anything publicly, are exercising their freedom to speak only to the few. "Free speech" is not "everyone must be made to hear what I say" but "I get to choose when and where I speak, and on what topic."
As soon as you start forcing (aka limiting) "free" speech, freedom of expression has lost.
Fraud is already fraud; people are freely speaking in-authentically. The only problems here are 1) that fraud is being actively courted and paid for, and 2) that public figures and extremely large sums of money are being used to affect what society thinks on a topic, to the detriment of society and to the gain of a few (for a limited time). Free speech is (and should be) a neutral item in the debate It's neither good nor evil, just like your access to the internet is neither good nor evil (but can be used in both ways).
I think the big problem will be personal edge cases, times when someone has to drive somewhere they normally would not. A home charger, for me, would cover 99% of my usage, but every few years I need to drive to somewhere odd that would be outside that range, and not knowing if I will be able to recharge would be a worry. It is the same thing that makes me nervous about going diesel... easy to get locally once you know who carries it, but a few hundred miles away from home and that 'not every station' element becomes a concern.
Ask a trucker, or follow a truck route. You won't be able to use cardlock stations (unless you've got a card), but any large vehicle's going to use diesel. The stations that serve it tend to be where said vehicles can easily find them. Using this logic, I've never had problems finding a diesel station in unfamiliar territory. Once you get out of densely populated areas, it's actually MORE likely that a given station will carry it (you know, for the work vehicles).
On a side note: Who wants to drive that long on a weekend anyway?
In North America (and Australia), things are a bit more spread out. Some people who enjoy driving like doing what are called "road trips" -- where most of the fun is in the driving, not in the destination.
When you live somewhere where you can drive for a week and never cross a controlled border, but see all sorts of different places, road trips do have a draw for some people.
I think all we've seen here is that if you're planning to take a Roadster on a road trip, you're going to have to adapt to a different way of pacing yourself than you'd do with a road-trip-worthy gas-powered vehicle. That said, I don't think anyone's about to try taking the Roadster from New York to LA without well-paced overnight breaks.
I'm not a road-tripper, but fairly regularly do 6-8 hour stints to visit people. This usually includes one 15 min refuel stop/rest stop, one 1 hour meal break, and one 15 min "get out and stretch/rest stop" break (the more people you take, the more stops become necessary). Looks like I'd have to do some rebalancing to do such a trip with a Roadster, but it wouldn't be much.
That's actually the weird thing; if you look at the graphs Tesla have released, it appears he did only lose about 5% of charge overnight, but for some reason this caused the available range - again from their graphs, not relying on anything Broder said - to plummet from a safe 90 miles to an oh-fuck-can't-reach-the-Supercharger 20 miles.
This is why Broder should have actually run a test instead of relying on graphs. If a battery is kept at the lower temperature during operation, it is definitely possible, theoretically, for it to drop from 90 miles to 20 miles range. However, the act of using the battery *will warm it up* to regular operating temperature -- meaning that in reality, only about 5% (mostly during the warm-up phase) will be lost.
Graphs based on theoretical worst-case scenarios are meant for the lab; they don't have much to do with real life, anymore than Broder's test has anything to do with real life.
I'd be more interested in seeing what might happen if Broder had driven the car over a flooded road -- to see if it caught fire. It'd make for a better story, although he'd be putting his life on the line.
Broder had two main complaints. The first one was 'loosing' range during the cold night. The range lost there is what caused the problems for him, it all went downhill from there. CNN didn't park the car overnight and drove it in slightly better weather. Batteries tend to respond pretty badly to low temperatures so this might well be enough of a difference to explain the different outcome. His second problem seems to be bad advise from Tesla. Tesla wouldn't be making the same mistakes during a follow up test. Needing advice to complete a trip is bad enough though and CNN called Tesla during the trip as well.
So when done properly the system seems to work, but when stuff goes wrong it goes wrong badly. You either and up spending a long time a a slow charging point, or you ended being towed away. Even if Broder was being stupid, it still shows the system isn't as idiot proof as you'd hope. But that will hopefully improve over time.
All well and good, except that Broder already admitted that he made up the results based on projections. So the FUD you've just crafted (intentional or not) falls a bit flat. Broder's test is no baseline, as parts of the test were fabricated; the CNN test looks like more of a baseline. If someone wants to do the route again, but leave the battery packed in dry ice for a while at one of the stops, that's fine. As long as they document it.
Beyond this, why not get companies like ActiveState to weigh in? I'm sure they don't want ActivePython (MSRP $999) to suddenly be infringing.
Since I know some of the guys from ActiveState read Slashdot, I think the issue should be resolved within the day (after they sic their lawyers on the issue).
I remember the "blink" tag.
I remember people embedding "blink" inside "marquee" using a phased color shift. I guess some thought it was pretty....
These were never as annoying for me though as the sites that either a) depended on flash or they wouldn't load at all or b) had an embedded midi file in each page that autoplayed and couldn't be turned off.
Then there were the pages that had ALL of the above....
But can anyone explain why the US Chamber of Commerce is the top money giving lobbyist, by 3x?
I can: think "umbrella corporation". The US Chamber of Commerce is a conduit through which ANY business can funnel money while remaining relatively anonymous.
I notice that they took these samples from cigarettes and chewing gum. Seems to me that if you leave something like that in a public space, there's no privacy concern.
Lifting off of a used glass/hair follicle/sweaty towel at the gym/etc. would be a bit more worrying.
But since a person's features are more than their base structure, it's probably not too big an issue anyway. It's highly unlikely that they'll be able to model exactly what a person looks like at their current age/health.
This method could definitely help with missing persons issues though, as an adult model could be created based on a child's DNA that would look "similar" to the actual person.
I'd be interested if two runs on DNA samples from the same person would turn out faces that look the same....
Your accountants will be doing far more time wasting when it stops working or they get into anything complicated. It can work and will work for a time, but trust me I have been there it will lead to pain.
I think you've just explained why it'll never happen. Spreadsheets are what people use to look busy and productive.
You can still get the MacApp framework with MPW from Apple. I've also still got a copy somewhere on my DVD archive of old ADC floppies.
I believe Adobe announced when they were hyping CS5 that all the original code was pretty much gone with that version; they wanted to start fresh with clean modular code instead of continuing to pile things on top of the mess that was the conversion from Mac Pascal to Win C++ (no insult meant). Adobe went for years just tweaking the codebase and adding things on, migrating the entire codebase from one architecture to another. With CS4, things had got to the point where continuing down that path would be even more prohibitive than starting over with only modern code -- so legacy code was tossed, a new framework built, and everything written back in to tie it together. CS6 then used the new framework to drop out a few of the other "less legacy" components for something "more modern" now that the underlying architecture was cleaned up and had endured a major revision of fixes and tweaks.
That said, I'm still using the headache that is CS4, as feature-wise, there's not really anything that's been added since that would be worth the upgrade cost. I'm guessing it'll stop working on 10.9, at which point I'll have to make a decision as to whether to migrate or just run it under a VM. I'm not willing to pay that much $$ to support Adobe's forced upgrade cycle though (security fixes only get applied against the latest versions?!?!?)
That's why shops like VistaPrint are popular and very profitable. Most people, even people who need signs and things for professional purposes just do not care.
Just thought I'd add to this that the reason I use VistaPrint is precisely BECAUSE they honor my CMYK profiles, crop marks and bleeds. There are very few prosumer printshops out there that do this (even among those who claim to). VistaPrint has got it right for me every time.
The only other places I've found that get this stuff right want runs of 1,000 at the minimum -- not too useful for 1-offs.
There are problems of course, like running Flash will always end up killing whatever browser that I'm using, but this is a well known and long unaddressed problem. Anther problem is that a lot of my favorite old software just won't run on it. Oh, well. Most of the old UNIX games are hidden in emacs now. And Stickies are wonderful. I do practically all my writing in Stickies, and cut and paste when necessary.
Remember when Flash was really cool? It ran just fine on my 132 MHz mac with 16 MB of RAM. Why did Adobe let it get so incredibly crappy? Oh, MacFortran ran in 16k of memory! It's memory management was superb, easily handling thirty year old code that took an hour to run on an IBM 1410, in just a couple of seconds.
Maybe you're onto something about that Twenty-First Capitalism thing.
BTW, you're allowed to stay on my lawn.
I'll stay on my own lawn, thank you :)
However, I highly recommend trying a Flash-fast; less security headaches, more speed and stability, and usually no productivity loss.
As for running old software: that's what you have the following for:
MiniVmac running System 6.0.8 (Mac Plus ROM) (you can custom build this using the Mac II ROM and get color working too)
Basilisk II running System 7.5.5 (IIx ROM) (optional -- the previous and next cover almost everything)
Basilisk II running MacOS 8.1 (Quadra 650 ROM)
SheepShaver running MacOS 9.0.4 with Finder 9.2 (New World ROM)
PearPC (inside WineSkin) running OS X 10.4.11 PPC
With those five configs and 10.8.2, you can run almost* any MacOS software ever written. This does, of course, assume that you kept the OS and ROM from your old computers. These emulators even have networking capabilities and some method of copying files between your hard disk and their virtual hard disk.
* Except for stuff that requires specific third party hardware, stuff written for OS X Classic environment (post 9.0.4) and stuff taking advantage of specific features** in 10.0-10.3 that have been deprecated.
** anything taking advantage of these features 1) should have an update available and/or 2) was really buggy and isn't worth the pain of getting running. If you REALLY want to, you can always run the specific OS required inside an emulator or VM.
I really wish Apple had preserved more of NeXTstep in Mac OS X, or that there were easily accessible options to strip down the features to a parity w/ OPENSTEP 4.2 --- the performance of which on 200MHz+ machines was unbelievable.
William
You can still install OpenStep on a Mac: http://www.gnustep.org/information/openstep.html
I believe most of your old apps should live quite nicely on there. Beyond that, you can also run GNUStep on top of Darwin, if you want to be able to run non-aqua OS X software.
I'd guess that you could probably replace aqua with the GNUStep equivalent too, but that would take a LOT of fiddling, and not really be easily accessible.
Personally, I think that OS X has come a long way since OpenStep 4.2 -- not all changes have been good (stripping NIB files, for example), but the overall architecture is much more solid (which explains the performance hit).
Try GNUStep in VirtualBox and see how it handles your old software; if it does what you want, dual-boot :)
The main reason for this is that the early versions of the Macintosh System was written in Pascal -- hence why you had to deal with tStrings and tChars when writing in *any* language on the Mac. IIRC, there was a slow migration from Pascal to C between 1992 and 1995. Then you had the headache of dealing with both tStrings and cStrings.
I still remember the awesome hack that let you run MPW as a server with remote login... once my SliP connection was established over 1200 baud dialup, I could remotely log in to my Mac and use an MPW terminal from anywhere on the Internet*
*"anywhere on the Internet" being pretty much limited to academic institutions in those days.
How about some James Bond-esc features, like a: laser cutter, knife, garrote wire, etc. ??
^_^
I seem to recall one of the Bond watches had some sort of super-powerful electromagnet -- I don't think that would play nicely with the other circuitry (although it could be used for instant-wipe).
I see next to no good in zealotry of any kind. Do good if you want to - it's easy to see that doing good has benefits that have nothing to do with religion - but don't do bad because your holy book tells you it's OK. That's just using a very shaky belief system to justify and reinforce a decision you alone took.
May I be the first to say "preach it brother!"
It's true whether your shaky belief system is based on the Flying Spaghetti Monster or on modernism or humanism -- the problem is that people use these belief systems to ignore or attack what they don't like. Same thing goes on within science itself, but there's at least a neutral structure framing the arguments.
Any faith/religion/"science" that is based on zealotry and suppressing what you don't believe in is doomed, but will cause much pain in its death throes. Just remember that nobody is without a faith system; it shapes what you believe. Learn to identify your own before spending too much time attacking someone else's.
This all reminds me to some degree of a Rowan Atkinson sketch....
Treason:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
The Enemies always have been and always will be ignorance and stupidity.
Open and shut case I'd say.
Are you saying that the US has been run by the treasonous for the treasonous?
The USA I've seen is NOT one where the ignorant and stupid were considered enemies. Usually they're considered friends or patsies by those in leadership positions. Those who question authority on the other hand....