Just a few weeks ago, I heard it quoted that MS used to say "DOS isn't done until Novell won't run", not Lotus.
I have a feeling this one may just be another urban legend, like the "640K should be enough for anyone" quote.
In any case, I think you're *always* going to see a little bit of favoritism when a company builds both an OS and supplies commercial applications made to run on that OS. They may not want to out-and-out break the competitor's app, but they'd at least be willing to make tweaks to their OS code that makes their own apps look better (EG. undocumented API calls). I'm confident that Apple has done/still does this with their OS, just like Microsoft does. The "3rd. parties" are on their own to make their apps run well.
I'll be the first to say I'm not a huge supporter of President Bush - but the parent poster's statement is questionable at best, and more likely pure FUD.
Hydrogen is being focused on as the "future" right now simply because it shows the most potential. We've already been through the whole superconductor thing, which turned out to largely be a fiasco. We have a pretty good handle on such energy sources as nuclear power and solar power, and already know where/when to use them, and where/when they're not really viable.
Yes, there might be a more immediately usable power source for automobiles in such things as producing fuel from plants, but the numbers I've seen run on this indicate it's not practical as a way to really migrate all of the U.S. cars and trucks away from petroleum products. (Farmers can't grow enough soybeans and other crops to supply all the demand we currently have for oil, even if you could magically convert every motor vehicle to run on these types of alternate fuels overnight.)
I believe it was well over a year ago, Slashdot linked to a story about people driving around an experimental hydrogren fuel cell powered van in the Chicago area. This technology isn't "pie in the sky". It's basically workable, and shows results for the money put into the research. I think it has little or nothing to do with some conspiracy theory about Bush backing it to protect the oil companies.
Unlike many people, I'm not convinced at all that a faster timetable for release of new game consoles would mean failure.
As long as consoles are relatively inexpensive (say $200 and under), they're viable as Xmas or even birthday gifts for many people. They're also within reach of any teenager working part-time cutting grass, working at a fast food place, or what-have-you. The older people who play console games will have no problem spending $150-200 for a newer model, as long as it still plays all the existing games in their collection.
(Don't forget, if you're quick enough about upgrading a console, your old one still has a fair bit of resale value - so it helps subsidize your upgrade cost.)
Just because consoles traditionally didn't get updated except every 6 years or so doesn't mean that's some sort of requirement for the future. The bottom line is, if you make a cool gadget at the right price-point, you'll have customers for it.
Yes! Although it might seem obvious, I'm glad you pointed out the benefit of LCD monitors being MUCH easier to move around. The last time I worked in corporate I.T., everyone was in the process of upgrading from their old 15" monitors to 17" models, and some people were starting to justify 19" and 21" models for specific needs.
The larger screens were great, except lugging them from a basement across the street to the other building, and then upstairs to the 2nd. floor got to be quite a chore. There was always the very real risk of someone accidently slipping and falling, smashing an expensive new monitor, or even injuring someone if it was, for example, dropped down a flight of stairs.
Perhaps more of an immediate problem were the shipping costs. We had several locations supported from a corporate HQ building, and the cost to ship a 17" or 19" monitor back and forth between locations a couple times probably made up for the price difference of going with an LCD instead.
Also, I remember some people putting up with their old 14" or 15" CRT only because they had such a limited space to work with. Since a 15" LCD panel gives pretty much equivalent screen real-estate to a 17" CRT, they'd have much more usability in spreadsheets and the like without taking up any more space on their desk at all.
It seems pretty obvious to me that, yes, this guy DID know in advance that he was having some difficulties. But I can still sympathize with him. I ran a BBS for almost 10 years straight, and as it grew in popularity, more and more people simply took it for granted. It's just human nature to get used to a free service and eventually just *expect* the person running it to keep on giving it away indefinitely (and heck, why not make some demands for changes and improvements too!).
By contrast, the longer you run a service like this, the less exciting it is for you. After a while, it really just seems like another chore you'd rather not do (like cutting the grass or washing the dishes).
It sounds to me like the guy just got burnt out on the whole thing, and probably felt like he wasn't really getting any personal benefit from providing the free service anymore. Why should he "owe" anyone advance notice, when surely doing so would just mean a flood of emails from people begging him to keep it online, offers of small payments that wouldn't really help in the long run anyway, and requests that he invest even MORE of his time in trying to transfer the whole thing over to some other party?
Wow! A sensible comment! I've recently run into several photographers while doing on-site PC service and support, and got into debates with 2 of them about this sort of thing. As far as I'm concerned, no matter which photography company claims exclusive "rights" to a photo of a person, that person or their immediate family and relatives should have rights that superceed all others.
This seems to become a sticky issue with most commercial photographers, especially when it comes to wedding photos. But as far as I'm concerned, they need to change their whole business model. Instead of the structure they claim to use (where the money isn't made off taking the initial photos, but only on the prints and reprints ordered later) - I say, just charge up front for your time to take the photos! Quit trying to use copyright law as leverage to collect money later on the reprints.
Surely, copyright law was never envisioned to be used in such a manner, preventing people from reproducing images of their OWN FACES (or their loved one's faces), just because those images were originally captured using someone else's camera and film.
I've always viewed photography as a service one performs. Anyone can buy a camera and take pictures. It's not rocket science. But photographers get hired mainly for the convenience, plus the understanding that they happen to be "better than the average person" at getting good photos. It seems most commercial photographers, however, are more caught up in the idea of reproducing and reselling prints from their stash of archived images. That's not what the whole profession should really be about!
Perhaps this illustrates why the educational system fails us, then? We're supposed to accept that a degree such as a pHD certifies an individual as trustworthy and competent? That's a foolish assumption. All it *really* shows is the person went through all of the courses required and managed to get decent grades in them, plus managed to put together a good thesis paper.
There's nothing guaranteeing an individual with a pHD didn't put in all that effort as part of his/her long-term plans for personal financial gain, is there? Degrees are usually just a "foot in the door" for a particular job. How one behaves once he/she gets in the door has relatively little to do with their college/university diploma.
After seeing what many of my friends have gone through with other carriers (including corporate accounts with a couple of them), and considering a few hassles I had with Verizon - I can still say that I see why Verizon is usually on top for customer service.
For starters, the majority of people don't really consider their phone a seperate issue from the service provided by a given carrier. EG. If you use a cheezy phone with relatively poor reception and/or battery life, you're likely to blame the resulting dropped call issues on your carrier. While this isn't really fair, I think Verizon does an "above average" job of only offering people phones that work pretty well at these basics. Therefore, they manage to keep these complaints down a little bit.
Also though, Verizon seems to have a pretty good customer satisfaction policy. Despite them screwing up my billing at least 2 different times, and giving me hassles about a new phone I purchased that starting acting up while still under their warranty, they always have resolved the issues in the end. Basically, with Verizon, you'll get to talk with your share of clueless cust. service associates, just like with the other carriers, *but* unlike some of them, Verizon mandates that if you complain enough, you will eventually have your issue resolved.
The biggest thing I think any of the carriers could do to please customers would be easing up on the contracts. That's likely the LAST thing they'll ever do, though, because it's too much of a cash cow for them.
RedBear, I have to admit, I haven't really used an older iMac with OS X Panther yet. The last time I tried it, 10.2.8 had just come out. (I worked for a guy who used an iMac as his "spare computer" for the secretary to type up papers on and check email, etc.)
I just recall that in OS X 10.2 on the iMac, it seemed "sluggish". Yes, it was usable/functional, but certainly not a "pleasure" to use. Once you used a program on his G4 tower, it was painful to go back to the iMac to do the same tasks.
Also, I wouldn't want to bet money on the next OS X release running better on the older iMacs. In fact, I imagine Apple would like to phase out support for them completely. They already did so with the beige G3's. Apple's really not that interested in keeping your investment in old hardware alive and kicking. They just want to make sure you get enough use and enjoyment out of a given system so you'll remain loyal to their product line, and buy a new Mac when the old one starts to feel too "outdated".
There are certain advantages to staying "behind the curve" and matching up an obsolete OS and software to obsolete hardware. That's why lots of folks still happily run Windows '98SE on their 4 or 5 year old PCs. (If you tried to upgrade them to Windows 2000 or XP, you'd suddenly feel like you crippled the machine and need to buy a new one - but they still run the old OS they shipped with as well as they ever did when they were new.)
In the case of older Macs, you can use things like SCSI scanners and ADB port devices (keyboards, mice, printers, etc.) that no longer work in OS X. All the people who upgraded to OS X will gladly give this stuff away to you, and it makes for nice add-ons to a coffee house computer.
I might be mistaken, but as I recall, FoolProof can be installed so you can't just hold down space at bootup and uncheck it. I believe that's just not one of the things it does in a default installation.
I know it also has such features as the ability to centrally administer FoolProof settings for a group of Macs on a network. (You won't get that kind of functionality in "At Ease".)
I'm not saying "At Ease" isn't a decent solution. For starters, it's free. I just remember FoolProof being vastly superior in a number of ways, back when I was looking at options for setting up older Macs for little kids at daycare centers.
If a MacOS 9.x system is properly locked down, I'd actually think it stands a better chance of being "hack proof" than OS X, simply because it's less complex. With the Unix core of OS X, you introduce a lot more underlying power in the operating system, bringing with it all sorts of creative new ways someone might find to open up security holes.
Although the argument that "the FCC is necessary to stop devices from interfering with each other" sounds convincing at first - I'm not so sure it's true.
Right now, we have to put up with a number of compromises that came about precisely BECAUSE the FCC controls the alloted spectrum, and multiple technologies and devices had to share the same little slice of it. (EG. Bluetooth and wi-fi both use the same part of the spectrum, so they have to be designed so they keep stepping out of each other's way when both are enabled simultaneously on a computer. This just serves to make them both slower than they'd otherwise be, and causes occasional conflicts/problems.)
Furthermore, it's going to be in the best interest of a manufacturer to make sure a given device works without lots of interference and unreliability. If I build computer monitors, for example, I'm not going to want them leaking out so much interference that people's cellphones don't work when they're sitting in front of their machines. Pretty soon, word would get out about my poor quality monitors and people would quit buying them! I think the FCC's present "mandates" on interference could be reduced to a set of govt. provided guidelines that designers would be strongly encouraged to adhere to, for best results.
I *really* think the FCC oversteps its usefulness when it comes to censorship of public broadcasts. Quite frankly, I think all of this should be strictly between the producers, the broadcasters, and the listening/viewing public. Don't like the offensive content on your local radio station? Write them and tell them so! Don't go running to the govt./FCC and begging them to strong-arm the broadcaster with a fine. That's a pretty socialist way to deal with one's issues, IMHO.
First of all, best of luck with this! I think it's a great idea. (Among other things, teens are already hanging out at several coffee houses in my area, and since they are commercial/for-profit establishments, it's a pretty expensive pastime for them. A non-profit version geared just for them might help them socialize without loads of cash getting pried from their fingers at the same time.)
But back to the Mac, have you considered the possibility of just using MacOS 9.1 on the grape iMac instead of OS X? I know this might seem foolish, but I bring it up for a couple reasons.
1. There's an excellent program for locking down a MacOS 9.1 (or earlier) desktop environment, called FoolProof. It's usually used in educational settings, but it's a very flexible way to prevent people from saving files to specific devices, deleting or rearranging icons on the desktop, and so on. (And yes, it even prevents people from trying to bypass it by booting without extensions enabled.) FoolProof is commercial software, but there's a good chance someone might have a copy they're no longer using that they could donate to the cause.
2. MacOS 9.1 would run much faster on an older iMac than OS X does, so it might give a better user experience in that respect.
3. You won't have a great choice of web browsers under MacOS 9.x - but at least you have Internet Explorer 5 for the Mac which was fairly recently patched to fix security issues/bugs, and feels familiar to most users. You also have the iCab browser which could be thrown on there as an alternate.
For what it's worth, a Dell Latitude CPi series laptop has a long (typically blue) battery just beneath the keyboard, after you take it apart. You can disconnect this backup battery and as long as the main battery is also detached (which I guess it would have to be, to properly disassemble the thing), that should make it forget any saved BIOS password.
There are solutions for scanning for and removing virii without having to run from the compromised environment!
http://www.avast.com/i_idt_154.html
But that fact aside, the real point to antivirus software is to prevent a virus-infected piece of code from being run on a previously uninfected machine. If a scanner works properly, it will identify the malicious code BEFORE the computer gets a chance to run it and allow it to cause damage. Why is this concept "doomed" from the start?? In my experience, it's exceedingly rare that someone gets a virus infection while running the most current version of a quality antivirus product. The trouble generally starts when people either stop getting regular signature updates *OR* keep renewing subscriptions for 2+ year old versions of scanners. (EG. If you run Norton AntiVirus 2001 on your Windows PC, having the latest signature updates may not do you loads of good, because the main "engine" that tries to match up code against the signatures isn't as intelligent as the "engine" used in their 2004 version of the product.)
I disagree with the premise behind your comment. Honestly, your argument sounds just like what I've heard coming from many other guys (both single and married) who just don't like (or refused to even try) computer or console games.
I know several guys in their 40's and 50's who still like to come home after a hard day of work and play a few rounds of boxing, or some car racing on their PS2 console - and these are married men in perfectly functional relationships.
Yes, if you're too "compulsive" about ANYTHING, it is bad for a relationship. But the accusation made that a person just needs to "grow up" if gaming causes conflict in their current relationship makes little sense. I dare say that in many households, the television sucks away at least as much "together/bonding time" with a significant other as gaming does - yet you probably wouldn't tell a guy to just "grow up" because he comes right home from work and flips on the nightly news, or watches the late night movie.
In the end, it's all about your priorities. Maybe you're with a girlfriend who honestly doesn't have many interests you can share in, and/or isn't much fun to just sit and talk with for long periods of time? I can easily see where I'd rather be gaming with my good friends than blowing hours listening to a woman drone on and on about fashion trends and styles, for example. Too many people hook up with someone else based first and foremost on physical looks/attraction, and then they wonder why the relationship has conflict in it when the initial infatuation wears off. If you like gaming, you might want to find a gal who enjoys playing the same ones you like. That seems to me much more logical than saying "Compromise! Give up something you like to please someone who doesn't share your interest!" This is no way to guarantee you'll be happier, if the woman in question doesn't offer you something just as fulfilling in return for what you gave up.
You are getting sleepy.... very sleepy.... By the time I count to 3, you will be asleep.... 1.... 2.... 3....
Ok, now repeat after me, "You've got plenty of liberties." "We're not headed down a slippery slope of losing liberty and safety."
Snap out of it, man! Complacency has toppled the best of the best, whether it be a country's political system or a successful product or service! Those in power in government are always going to seek ways to increase their power and control over the populace. Government is inherently evil and dangerous, but it seems to be a necessary evil. That's why a good, solid system of checks and balances are crucial - and it's the job of every citizen to continuously push back when government pushes more control at them. Most countries in the world are examples of what happens when government gets what they want. Their citizens were either unable or unwilling to fight back (in many cases, they became complacent - with a "we'd never win if we fought them anyway" attitude).
That's the very reason you're able to stand there today as a Canadian or an American, look around at the rest of the world, and say "Hey, we've got FAR more rights than most people!" That doesn't mean it's time to sit down, "enjoy the good life" and let government ensure there's proportionately less of it for your next of kin!
I think it's valid to keep reminding people that the Roku is, in fact, a Linux-based device. It simply adds credibility to the reviewer's assertions that the product is "half baked" and not ready for prime-time. If they're crashing that often on a *Linux* based unit, imagine how their code might behave on a less stable platform!
I think many people are starting to favor devices advertising the use of embedded Linux (Linksys routers, for example, or the Rio MP3 Car/Empeg Car players that were out a while ago) over competing products. For starters, they believe in the stability, but also, they know there is potential for 3rd. party modifications to add new functionality. It's important to be aware of exceptions to the rule, like this Roku product - so it doesn't tarnish the rep of Linux-based devices of all types.
Poker and card games in general....
on
Geeks and Poker?
·
· Score: 1
For what it's worth (probably not much!), I never really cared much for playing card games of any kind. Every so often, I get mild amusement playing a few hands of blackjack on a cellphone, computer or PDA - but it quickly gets boring.
I suspect part of it has to do with what you're brought up with as a kid, though. My parents never played cards when I was growing up, and in an ever-so-slight, indirect manner, even dropped a few hints that it was "bad stuff" I didn't want to get caught up in anyway. I played loads of board games, on the other hand.
When I got older, I seemed to run into more and more people playing card games - but I found the barrier to entry rather high. (Amazing how much "lingo" there is in the typical card game. Things everyone else assumed were understood by all were completely lost on me.) Furthermore, it seemed like part of the fascination of at least some card games was mastering a great complexity of rules, despite the deck of cards itself being such a simple, basic thing. I remember being taught how to play several card games that I can't even remember the rules for anymore, because it's been years since I played them. You really have to play some of these games regularly to keep all the rules straight. By contrast, I don't think I'm ever going to forget how to play Scrabble or Risk....
I beg to differ. The first 3 Star Wars films really were "masterpieces" in their own right. Other than Close Encounters of the 3rd. Kind, what other sci-fi movie of that era had anywhere near the quality?
The original Star Wars films introduced all sorts of new filming techniques and brought special effects to the next level.
Other than showcasing the "state of the art" in computer rendering of characters (the digital Yoda or Jar Jar, for example), what have the prequels offered us by comparison?
As for the storyline itself, I think the prequels have taken too much liberty with the concepts fans were originally introduced to. For example, I always had the sense that Jedis were somehow very special and not often seen in the universe. They seemed to be wise and do everything with foresight and deliberation. Hordes of Jedis running around, wacking at every robot in sight with hundreds of light-sabres everyplace ruins that whole image.
I don't deny that all of the films have been "entertaining". Certainly, I've seen much worse for my money. But there was a certain magic and nostalgia about the original 3 Star Wars films that seems to be completely lost on the preqels made to date.
Excellent point you just made, and if people are really paying attention, the Steve Jackson case is only one of MANY such instances in the "computer crimes" saga.
There's a pretty amazingly large list of computer bulletin board systems that listed "FBI raid/seizure" as their reason for finally going offline - yet no prosecutions were made in the vast majority of these cases. People simply dialed up one day, got a "number has been disconnected" message, and assumed the sysop didn't want to run his/her BBS anymore.
I first realized this when looking over one of the old collections of BBS numbers found on the Internet. (I think this was someplace on the www.bbsdocumentary.com web site, but as I look there right now - I only see lists of BBS names with phone numbers and sysops, but no notes as to why they went offline.)
It seems to me that right before the Internet really went mainstream, the feds were spending an awful lot of time seizing people's BBS hardware and software, with no real motivation other than attempting to break up the "BBS scene".
Actually, I don't find it all that surprising, given the bigger picture. As I understand it, the U.S. currently has the capacity to provide practically all of its own oil/gasoline needs - but instead we opt to keep buying from the 3rd. world OPEC providers. (Maybe this is due to environmentalists pressuring the oil producers not to drill in many of the profitable places, or maybe it's a U.S. govt. scheme to "preserve" our own supplies for a time in the future when everyone else runs out? Who knows....)
I really doubt we're using THAT much more oil than we did in the last 30 years or so. The average American car driven in the late 60's or early 70's was getting somewhere around the 8-15 miles per gallon range. The only vehicles I see on the road today getting that poor of gas mileage are exotic sports cars (Dodge Vipers, maybe, or Ferarri's - and those aren't being driven on long road trips or anything), or maybe the largest of the SUVs and trucks. (Again, generally not driven lots of miles each year by their owners - because it's more economical to buy a 2nd. economy car to drive around for daily use.)
Even if you argue that today, more Americans own multiple vehicles - that doesn't change the fact that a person can only drive one at a time.
I also understand that the entire west coast of the U.S. gets their oil from the Alaskan pipeline -- not OPEC nations, yet the prices for gas are *higher* out there than much of the rest of the U.S. That tells me it's largely artificial price gouging....
PayPal has grown increasingly hostile towards anyone accepting payments via their service if they do anything "out of the ordinary". Not long ago, I heard about a woman complaining because her PayPal account was suspended after she accepted donations to help keep her "size acceptance" web site going. (PayPal seemed to be afraid it was pornography-related in some way, since you had a female collecting money from her personal web site.) In reality, she was trying to boost the self-esteem of overweight women and let them know about events where they could meet guys interested in larger women.
They're also scared of anyone or any business that doesn't provide full disclosure of their whereabouts (complete address, phone/contact numbers, and so on). To put it in perspective though, don't forget they're just one of the arms of eBay nowdays - so their primary interest is simply being a facilitator for their own auction buyers and sellers to complete transactions. If you even so much as look vaguely like you do things in a similar way to eBay auction scammers, you'll get cut off in an instant.
Ah... you know how it is. We're always taking our purchasing advice from professional athletes and Hollywood celebs too....
But seriously, plenty of science-fiction writers turned out to do a pretty decent job of predicting things that eventually became real science. If nothing else, you're dealing with people who made a career out of thinking things through and imagining what things could be like, based on the present. That may not qualify them to give advice to the govt. - but they probably have more interesting input to offer than many people.
Nope.... as someone who rather likes my Apple systems, I still think this is total B.S. Apple is just as guilty as the rest of the corporations that want to throw everything at the patent office until some of it sticks.
Unfortunately, it's utter insanity to suggest boycotting a product over this behavior - because doing so would mean you'd be a luddite, with practically nothing electronic in the household.
Wow... Though this whole thing probably sounds very unlike Slashdot to report on in the first place, I do remember "The Spot" and how it was a pretty fresh, original idea at the time.
If I recall correctly though, one of the things that detracted from it was when it became pretty much public knowledge that the whole thing was fictional. Part of the early fascination of "The Spot" was the belief that you were actually reading about the daily lives and adventures of real individuals (hence, the "reality TV" type concept, long before it existed on TV!).
I seem to remember the advertising agency running it really wanting to remain hidden as long as possible, to keep readers believing they really were reading a site hosted by the 20-somethings writing their life stories online. When the truth came out (partly due to magazines like Wired spilling the beans), it just failed to interest me any more.
Slashdot Mirror
Just a few weeks ago, I heard it quoted that MS used to say "DOS isn't done until Novell won't run", not Lotus.
I have a feeling this one may just be another urban legend, like the "640K should be enough for anyone" quote.
In any case, I think you're *always* going to see a little bit of favoritism when a company builds both an OS and supplies commercial applications made to run on that OS. They may not want to out-and-out break the competitor's app, but they'd at least be willing to make tweaks to their OS code that makes their own apps look better (EG. undocumented API calls). I'm confident that Apple has done/still does this with their OS, just like Microsoft does. The "3rd. parties" are on their own to make their apps run well.
I'll be the first to say I'm not a huge supporter of President Bush - but the parent poster's statement is questionable at best, and more likely pure FUD.
Hydrogen is being focused on as the "future" right now simply because it shows the most potential. We've already been through the whole superconductor thing, which turned out to largely be a fiasco. We have a pretty good handle on such energy sources as nuclear power and solar power, and already know where/when to use them, and where/when they're not really viable.
Yes, there might be a more immediately usable power source for automobiles in such things as producing fuel from plants, but the numbers I've seen run on this indicate it's not practical as a way to really migrate all of the U.S. cars and trucks away from petroleum products. (Farmers can't grow enough soybeans and other crops to supply all the demand we currently have for oil, even if you could magically convert every motor vehicle to run on these types of alternate fuels overnight.)
I believe it was well over a year ago, Slashdot linked to a story about people driving around an experimental hydrogren fuel cell powered van in the Chicago area. This technology isn't "pie in the sky". It's basically workable, and shows results for the money put into the research. I think it has little or nothing to do with some conspiracy theory about Bush backing it to protect the oil companies.
Unlike many people, I'm not convinced at all that a faster timetable for release of new game consoles would mean failure.
As long as consoles are relatively inexpensive (say $200 and under), they're viable as Xmas or even birthday gifts for many people. They're also within reach of any teenager working part-time cutting grass, working at a fast food place, or what-have-you. The older people who play console games will have no problem spending $150-200 for a newer model, as long as it still plays all the existing games in their collection.
(Don't forget, if you're quick enough about upgrading a console, your old one still has a fair bit of resale value - so it helps subsidize your upgrade cost.)
Just because consoles traditionally didn't get updated except every 6 years or so doesn't mean that's some sort of requirement for the future. The bottom line is, if you make a cool gadget at the right price-point, you'll have customers for it.
Yes! Although it might seem obvious, I'm glad you pointed out the benefit of LCD monitors being MUCH easier to move around. The last time I worked in corporate I.T., everyone was in the process of upgrading from their old 15" monitors to 17" models, and some people were starting to justify 19" and 21" models for specific needs.
The larger screens were great, except lugging them from a basement across the street to the other building, and then upstairs to the 2nd. floor got to be quite a chore. There was always the very real risk of someone accidently slipping and falling, smashing an expensive new monitor, or even injuring someone if it was, for example, dropped down a flight of stairs.
Perhaps more of an immediate problem were the shipping costs. We had several locations supported from a corporate HQ building, and the cost to ship a 17" or 19" monitor back and forth between locations a couple times probably made up for the price difference of going with an LCD instead.
Also, I remember some people putting up with their old 14" or 15" CRT only because they had such a limited space to work with. Since a 15" LCD panel gives pretty much equivalent screen real-estate to a 17" CRT, they'd have much more usability in spreadsheets and the like without taking up any more space on their desk at all.
It seems pretty obvious to me that, yes, this guy DID know in advance that he was having some difficulties. But I can still sympathize with him. I ran a BBS for almost 10 years straight, and as it grew in popularity, more and more people simply took it for granted. It's just human nature to get used to a free service and eventually just *expect* the person running it to keep on giving it away indefinitely (and heck, why not make some demands for changes and improvements too!).
By contrast, the longer you run a service like this, the less exciting it is for you. After a while, it really just seems like another chore you'd rather not do (like cutting the grass or washing the dishes).
It sounds to me like the guy just got burnt out on the whole thing, and probably felt like he wasn't really getting any personal benefit from providing the free service anymore. Why should he "owe" anyone advance notice, when surely doing so would just mean a flood of emails from people begging him to keep it online, offers of small payments that wouldn't really help in the long run anyway, and requests that he invest even MORE of his time in trying to transfer the whole thing over to some other party?
Wow! A sensible comment! I've recently run into several photographers while doing on-site PC service and support, and got into debates with 2 of them about this sort of thing. As far as I'm concerned, no matter which photography company claims exclusive "rights" to a photo of a person, that person or their immediate family and relatives should have rights that superceed all others.
This seems to become a sticky issue with most commercial photographers, especially when it comes to wedding photos. But as far as I'm concerned, they need to change their whole business model. Instead of the structure they claim to use (where the money isn't made off taking the initial photos, but only on the prints and reprints ordered later) - I say, just charge up front for your time to take the photos! Quit trying to use copyright law as leverage to collect money later on the reprints.
Surely, copyright law was never envisioned to be used in such a manner, preventing people from reproducing images of their OWN FACES (or their loved one's faces), just because those images were originally captured using someone else's camera and film.
I've always viewed photography as a service one performs. Anyone can buy a camera and take pictures. It's not rocket science. But photographers get hired mainly for the convenience, plus the understanding that they happen to be "better than the average person" at getting good photos. It seems most commercial photographers, however, are more caught up in the idea of reproducing and reselling prints from their stash of archived images. That's not what the whole profession should really be about!
Perhaps this illustrates why the educational system fails us, then? We're supposed to accept that a degree such as a pHD certifies an individual as trustworthy and competent? That's a foolish assumption. All it *really* shows is the person went through all of the courses required and managed to get decent grades in them, plus managed to put together a good thesis paper.
There's nothing guaranteeing an individual with a pHD didn't put in all that effort as part of his/her long-term plans for personal financial gain, is there? Degrees are usually just a "foot in the door" for a particular job. How one behaves once he/she gets in the door has relatively little to do with their college/university diploma.
After seeing what many of my friends have gone through with other carriers (including corporate accounts with a couple of them), and considering a few hassles I had with Verizon - I can still say that I see why Verizon is usually on top for customer service.
For starters, the majority of people don't really consider their phone a seperate issue from the service provided by a given carrier. EG. If you use a cheezy phone with relatively poor reception and/or battery life, you're likely to blame the resulting dropped call issues on your carrier. While this isn't really fair, I think Verizon does an "above average" job of only offering people phones that work pretty well at these basics. Therefore, they manage to keep these complaints down a little bit.
Also though, Verizon seems to have a pretty good customer satisfaction policy. Despite them screwing up my billing at least 2 different times, and giving me hassles about a new phone I purchased that starting acting up while still under their warranty, they always have resolved the issues in the end. Basically, with Verizon, you'll get to talk with your share of clueless cust. service associates, just like with the other carriers, *but* unlike some of them, Verizon mandates that if you complain enough, you will eventually have your issue resolved.
The biggest thing I think any of the carriers could do to please customers would be easing up on the contracts. That's likely the LAST thing they'll ever do, though, because it's too much of a cash cow for them.
RedBear, I have to admit, I haven't really used an older iMac with OS X Panther yet. The last time I tried it, 10.2.8 had just come out. (I worked for a guy who used an iMac as his "spare computer" for the secretary to type up papers on and check email, etc.)
I just recall that in OS X 10.2 on the iMac, it seemed "sluggish". Yes, it was usable/functional, but certainly not a "pleasure" to use. Once you used a program on his G4 tower, it was painful to go back to the iMac to do the same tasks.
Also, I wouldn't want to bet money on the next OS X release running better on the older iMacs. In fact, I imagine Apple would like to phase out support for them completely. They already did so with the beige G3's. Apple's really not that interested in keeping your investment in old hardware alive and kicking. They just want to make sure you get enough use and enjoyment out of a given system so you'll remain loyal to their product line, and buy a new Mac when the old one starts to feel too "outdated".
There are certain advantages to staying "behind the curve" and matching up an obsolete OS and software to obsolete hardware. That's why lots of folks still happily run Windows '98SE on their 4 or 5 year old PCs. (If you tried to upgrade them to Windows 2000 or XP, you'd suddenly feel like you crippled the machine and need to buy a new one - but they still run the old OS they shipped with as well as they ever did when they were new.)
In the case of older Macs, you can use things like SCSI scanners and ADB port devices (keyboards, mice, printers, etc.) that no longer work in OS X. All the people who upgraded to OS X will gladly give this stuff away to you, and it makes for nice add-ons to a coffee house computer.
I might be mistaken, but as I recall, FoolProof can be installed so you can't just hold down space at bootup and uncheck it. I believe that's just not one of the things it does in a default installation.
I know it also has such features as the ability to centrally administer FoolProof settings for a group of Macs on a network. (You won't get that kind of functionality in "At Ease".)
I'm not saying "At Ease" isn't a decent solution. For starters, it's free. I just remember FoolProof being vastly superior in a number of ways, back when I was looking at options for setting up older Macs for little kids at daycare centers.
If a MacOS 9.x system is properly locked down, I'd actually think it stands a better chance of being "hack proof" than OS X, simply because it's less complex. With the Unix core of OS X, you introduce a lot more underlying power in the operating system, bringing with it all sorts of creative new ways someone might find to open up security holes.
Although the argument that "the FCC is necessary to stop devices from interfering with each other" sounds convincing at first - I'm not so sure it's true.
Right now, we have to put up with a number of compromises that came about precisely BECAUSE the FCC controls the alloted spectrum, and multiple technologies and devices had to share the same little slice of it. (EG. Bluetooth and wi-fi both use the same part of the spectrum, so they have to be designed so they keep stepping out of each other's way when both are enabled simultaneously on a computer. This just serves to make them both slower than they'd otherwise be, and causes occasional conflicts/problems.)
Furthermore, it's going to be in the best interest of a manufacturer to make sure a given device works without lots of interference and unreliability. If I build computer monitors, for example, I'm not going to want them leaking out so much interference that people's cellphones don't work when they're sitting in front of their machines. Pretty soon, word would get out about my poor quality monitors and people would quit buying them! I think the FCC's present "mandates" on interference could be reduced to a set of govt. provided guidelines that designers would be strongly encouraged to adhere to, for best results.
I *really* think the FCC oversteps its usefulness when it comes to censorship of public broadcasts. Quite frankly, I think all of this should be strictly between the producers, the broadcasters, and the listening/viewing public. Don't like the offensive content on your local radio station? Write them and tell them so! Don't go running to the govt./FCC and begging them to strong-arm the broadcaster with a fine. That's a pretty socialist way to deal with one's issues, IMHO.
First of all, best of luck with this! I think it's a great idea. (Among other things, teens are already hanging out at several coffee houses in my area, and since they are commercial/for-profit establishments, it's a pretty expensive pastime for them. A non-profit version geared just for them might help them socialize without loads of cash getting pried from their fingers at the same time.)
But back to the Mac, have you considered the possibility of just using MacOS 9.1 on the grape iMac instead of OS X? I know this might seem foolish, but I bring it up for a couple reasons.
1. There's an excellent program for locking down a MacOS 9.1 (or earlier) desktop environment, called FoolProof. It's usually used in educational settings, but it's a very flexible way to prevent people from saving files to specific devices, deleting or rearranging icons on the desktop, and so on. (And yes, it even prevents people from trying to bypass it by booting without extensions enabled.) FoolProof is commercial software, but there's a good chance someone might have a copy they're no longer using that they could donate to the cause.
2. MacOS 9.1 would run much faster on an older iMac than OS X does, so it might give a better user experience in that respect.
3. You won't have a great choice of web browsers under MacOS 9.x - but at least you have Internet Explorer 5 for the Mac which was fairly recently patched to fix security issues/bugs, and feels familiar to most users. You also have the iCab browser which could be thrown on there as an alternate.
For what it's worth, a Dell Latitude CPi series laptop has a long (typically blue) battery just beneath the keyboard, after you take it apart. You can disconnect this backup battery and as long as the main battery is also detached (which I guess it would have to be, to properly disassemble the thing), that should make it forget any saved BIOS password.
There are solutions for scanning for and removing virii without having to run from the compromised environment!
http://www.avast.com/i_idt_154.html
But that fact aside, the real point to antivirus software is to prevent a virus-infected piece of code from being run on a previously uninfected machine. If a scanner works properly, it will identify the malicious code BEFORE the computer gets a chance to run it and allow it to cause damage. Why is this concept "doomed" from the start?? In my experience, it's exceedingly rare that someone gets a virus infection while running the most current version of a quality antivirus product. The trouble generally starts when people either stop getting regular signature updates *OR* keep renewing subscriptions for 2+ year old versions of scanners. (EG. If you run Norton AntiVirus 2001 on your Windows PC, having the latest signature updates may not do you loads of good, because the main "engine" that tries to match up code against the signatures isn't as intelligent as the "engine" used in their 2004 version of the product.)
I disagree with the premise behind your comment. Honestly, your argument sounds just like what I've heard coming from many other guys (both single and married) who just don't like (or refused to even try) computer or console games.
I know several guys in their 40's and 50's who still like to come home after a hard day of work and play a few rounds of boxing, or some car racing on their PS2 console - and these are married men in perfectly functional relationships.
Yes, if you're too "compulsive" about ANYTHING, it is bad for a relationship. But the accusation made that a person just needs to "grow up" if gaming causes conflict in their current relationship makes little sense. I dare say that in many households, the television sucks away at least as much "together/bonding time" with a significant other as gaming does - yet you probably wouldn't tell a guy to just "grow up" because he comes right home from work and flips on the nightly news, or watches the late night movie.
In the end, it's all about your priorities. Maybe you're with a girlfriend who honestly doesn't have many interests you can share in, and/or isn't much fun to just sit and talk with for long periods of time? I can easily see where I'd rather be gaming with my good friends than blowing hours listening to a woman drone on and on about fashion trends and styles, for example. Too many people hook up with someone else based first and foremost on physical looks/attraction, and then they wonder why the relationship has conflict in it when the initial infatuation wears off. If you like gaming, you might want to find a gal who enjoys playing the same ones you like. That seems to me much more logical than saying "Compromise! Give up something you like to please someone who doesn't share your interest!" This is no way to guarantee you'll be happier, if the woman in question doesn't offer you something just as fulfilling in return for what you gave up.
You are getting sleepy.... very sleepy.... By the time I count to 3, you will be asleep.... 1.... 2.... 3....
Ok, now repeat after me, "You've got plenty of liberties." "We're not headed down a slippery slope of losing liberty and safety."
Snap out of it, man! Complacency has toppled the best of the best, whether it be a country's political system or a successful product or service! Those in power in government are always going to seek ways to increase their power and control over the populace. Government is inherently evil and dangerous, but it seems to be a necessary evil. That's why a good, solid system of checks and balances are crucial - and it's the job of every citizen to continuously push back when government pushes more control at them. Most countries in the world are examples of what happens when government gets what they want. Their citizens were either unable or unwilling to fight back (in many cases, they became complacent - with a "we'd never win if we fought them anyway" attitude).
That's the very reason you're able to stand there today as a Canadian or an American, look around at the rest of the world, and say "Hey, we've got FAR more rights than most people!" That doesn't mean it's time to sit down, "enjoy the good life" and let government ensure there's proportionately less of it for your next of kin!
I think it's valid to keep reminding people that the Roku is, in fact, a Linux-based device. It simply adds credibility to the reviewer's assertions that the product is "half baked" and not ready for prime-time. If they're crashing that often on a *Linux* based unit, imagine how their code might behave on a less stable platform!
I think many people are starting to favor devices advertising the use of embedded Linux (Linksys routers, for example, or the Rio MP3 Car/Empeg Car players that were out a while ago) over competing products. For starters, they believe in the stability, but also, they know there is potential for 3rd. party modifications to add new functionality. It's important to be aware of exceptions to the rule, like this Roku product - so it doesn't tarnish the rep of Linux-based devices of all types.
For what it's worth (probably not much!), I never really cared much for playing card games of any kind. Every so often, I get mild amusement playing a few hands of blackjack on a cellphone, computer or PDA - but it quickly gets boring.
I suspect part of it has to do with what you're brought up with as a kid, though. My parents never played cards when I was growing up, and in an ever-so-slight, indirect manner, even dropped a few hints that it was "bad stuff" I didn't want to get caught up in anyway. I played loads of board games, on the other hand.
When I got older, I seemed to run into more and more people playing card games - but I found the barrier to entry rather high. (Amazing how much "lingo" there is in the typical card game. Things everyone else assumed were understood by all were completely lost on me.) Furthermore, it seemed like part of the fascination of at least some card games was mastering a great complexity of rules, despite the deck of cards itself being such a simple, basic thing. I remember being taught how to play several card games that I can't even remember the rules for anymore, because it's been years since I played them. You really have to play some of these games regularly to keep all the rules straight. By contrast, I don't think I'm ever going to forget how to play Scrabble or Risk....
I beg to differ. The first 3 Star Wars films really were "masterpieces" in their own right. Other than Close Encounters of the 3rd. Kind, what other sci-fi movie of that era had anywhere near the quality?
The original Star Wars films introduced all sorts of new filming techniques and brought special effects to the next level.
Other than showcasing the "state of the art" in computer rendering of characters (the digital Yoda or Jar Jar, for example), what have the prequels offered us by comparison?
As for the storyline itself, I think the prequels have taken too much liberty with the concepts fans were originally introduced to. For example, I always had the sense that Jedis were somehow very special and not often seen in the universe. They seemed to be wise and do everything with foresight and deliberation. Hordes of Jedis running around, wacking at every robot in sight with hundreds of light-sabres everyplace ruins that whole image.
I don't deny that all of the films have been "entertaining". Certainly, I've seen much worse for my money. But there was a certain magic and nostalgia about the original 3 Star Wars films that seems to be completely lost on the preqels made to date.
Excellent point you just made, and if people are really paying attention, the Steve Jackson case is only one of MANY such instances in the "computer crimes" saga.
There's a pretty amazingly large list of computer bulletin board systems that listed "FBI raid/seizure" as their reason for finally going offline - yet no prosecutions were made in the vast majority of these cases. People simply dialed up one day, got a "number has been disconnected" message, and assumed the sysop didn't want to run his/her BBS anymore.
I first realized this when looking over one of the old collections of BBS numbers found on the Internet. (I think this was someplace on the www.bbsdocumentary.com web site, but as I look there right now - I only see lists of BBS names with phone numbers and sysops, but no notes as to why they went offline.)
It seems to me that right before the Internet really went mainstream, the feds were spending an awful lot of time seizing people's BBS hardware and software, with no real motivation other than attempting to break up the "BBS scene".
Actually, I don't find it all that surprising, given the bigger picture. As I understand it, the U.S. currently has the capacity to provide practically all of its own oil/gasoline needs - but instead we opt to keep buying from the 3rd. world OPEC providers. (Maybe this is due to environmentalists pressuring the oil producers not to drill in many of the profitable places, or maybe it's a U.S. govt. scheme to "preserve" our own supplies for a time in the future when everyone else runs out? Who knows....)
I really doubt we're using THAT much more oil than we did in the last 30 years or so. The average American car driven in the late 60's or early 70's was getting somewhere around the 8-15 miles per gallon range. The only vehicles I see on the road today getting that poor of gas mileage are exotic sports cars (Dodge Vipers, maybe, or Ferarri's - and those aren't being driven on long road trips or anything), or maybe the largest of the SUVs and trucks. (Again, generally not driven lots of miles each year by their owners - because it's more economical to buy a 2nd. economy car to drive around for daily use.)
Even if you argue that today, more Americans own multiple vehicles - that doesn't change the fact that a person can only drive one at a time.
I also understand that the entire west coast of the U.S. gets their oil from the Alaskan pipeline -- not OPEC nations, yet the prices for gas are *higher* out there than much of the rest of the U.S. That tells me it's largely artificial price gouging....
PayPal has grown increasingly hostile towards anyone accepting payments via their service if they do anything "out of the ordinary". Not long ago, I heard about a woman complaining because her PayPal account was suspended after she accepted donations to help keep her "size acceptance" web site going. (PayPal seemed to be afraid it was pornography-related in some way, since you had a female collecting money from her personal web site.) In reality, she was trying to boost the self-esteem of overweight women and let them know about events where they could meet guys interested in larger women.
They're also scared of anyone or any business that doesn't provide full disclosure of their whereabouts (complete address, phone/contact numbers, and so on). To put it in perspective though, don't forget they're just one of the arms of eBay nowdays - so their primary interest is simply being a facilitator for their own auction buyers and sellers to complete transactions. If you even so much as look vaguely like you do things in a similar way to eBay auction scammers, you'll get cut off in an instant.
Ah... you know how it is. We're always taking our purchasing advice from professional athletes and Hollywood celebs too....
But seriously, plenty of science-fiction writers turned out to do a pretty decent job of predicting things that eventually became real science. If nothing else, you're dealing with people who made a career out of thinking things through and imagining what things could be like, based on the present. That may not qualify them to give advice to the govt. - but they probably have more interesting input to offer than many people.
Nope.... as someone who rather likes my Apple systems, I still think this is total B.S. Apple is just as guilty as the rest of the corporations that want to throw everything at the patent office until some of it sticks.
Unfortunately, it's utter insanity to suggest boycotting a product over this behavior - because doing so would mean you'd be a luddite, with practically nothing electronic in the household.
Wow... Though this whole thing probably sounds very unlike Slashdot to report on in the first place, I do remember "The Spot" and how it was a pretty fresh, original idea at the time.
If I recall correctly though, one of the things that detracted from it was when it became pretty much public knowledge that the whole thing was fictional. Part of the early fascination of "The Spot" was the belief that you were actually reading about the daily lives and adventures of real individuals (hence, the "reality TV" type concept, long before it existed on TV!).
I seem to remember the advertising agency running it really wanting to remain hidden as long as possible, to keep readers believing they really were reading a site hosted by the 20-somethings writing their life stories online. When the truth came out (partly due to magazines like Wired spilling the beans), it just failed to interest me any more.