Mmm.... you may have a point, but personally, I'd just as soon they save that for a seperate publication.
The "ethics" of system administration doesn't seem to be very clear-cut anyway. Much is a matter of opinion, as I quickly saw when I worked in corporate systems administration.
Take something as seemingly simple as to whether some of our engineering staff should be allowed/able to install game software on their laptops and play it during their lunch hour. A couple of admins said "Sure! We won't support it if you have problems with it, but we're not here to police what you can and can't do on your lunch hour. If you're computer-savvy enough to install it properly, what's the harm?" A couple others in our dept. said "Absolutely not! It risks destabilizing the environment, and who knows how much network traffic they might chew up playing online games. We need to proactively delete any such software found on systems attached to our LAN!"
Umm... I understand the point you're trying to make, but actually - there's a *lot* to learn about what really goes on "behind the scenes" in the OS X environment.
It's not an issue of knowing "how to use MacOS" in this case... It's an issue of knowing all the inner workings well enough to feel comfortable being a sysadmin of a box running it.
Most OS X users probably have no idea how printing actually takes place, for example. People who dug into the OS deeply enough put together the (extremely nice and useful!) GIMP-Print and Ghostscript ESP packages for it so you can print to MANY more printers than were natively supported. I'd sure like to see the average MacOS user explain off the top of his/her head how you'd go about modifying the existing print engine to add CUPS printing like that.
Actually, I *sometimes* find a GUI tool very useful for Unix administration - but typically only for specific tasks.
For one example, setting the date/time on a box that's not connected to the Internet. (If it is, then obviously, the best bet is to have it synch with an Internet time server.) In Unix, I don't find it very intuitive or enjoyable trying to get the proper time and date entered from a command line tool.
More often, I find I really like the full-screen tools developed to run from a command line, but which provide more user-friendly alternatives to staight command line commands. (For file management, Midnight Commander is teriffic! Fast, efficient, and saves a lot of typing. For initial configuration of X, it's nice having a tool more flexible and friendly than just xf86config, especially when you need 3D support working with a more difficult to configure video board. RedHat's little "sndsetup" utility makes it a breeze to get a Soundblaster type audio card going. The list goes on, but you get the idea.....)
Heh.... I hate to say it, but I think Stan Lee might be the LAST person on earth to even consider a remotely "risque" situation in one of his comic strips.
As much as I think Spiderman is a great superhero concept, the Sunday comic strip (which Stan Lee supposedly does himself) is *lame*!
I guess he's trying to make sure it's ok for younger kids to read and everything, but come on! The stilted conversations are almost unbearable. There's much more suspense and sense of believability in the dialog of "Brenda Starr", for crying out loud!
Well, personally, I could see how Apple would port OS X to Intel architecture mainly to use it as leverage.
They may build and sell a lot of systems, but it's a mere drop in the bucket compared to the number of people using Intel or AMD processor in their machines.
Apple might have felt threatened that they couldn't push a chip-maker (like IBM) to give them a sucessor to the G4 quickly enough to prevent Apple computers from lagging too far behind PCs in the performance curve.
Therefore, they needed to make it clear that they weren't going to simply sit around and wait for someone to build them the next CPU. What better a way to send that message than to say "Hey, we have our OS running on existing AMD (or Intel) CPUs. If we're pushed up against a wall, we can go that route - and then we won't be buying *any* of the new CPUs you guys develop. So how about stepping up that timetable on production?"
I have to wonder if this isn't also part of a larger issue?
Namely, the creators of these fantasy/role-playing games and miniatures attained their initial glory and status in the "pre-Internet" era. (By that, I mean, John Q, Gamer wasn't actively using an Internet browser at home or playing many games online.)
Companies like TSR made oodles of cash selling D&D books at $30 a pop through the local hobby shops, and items like the minitatures were soon to follow.
Nowdays, the prevalence of computers,the net, and online gaming seems like it is eating into their market. I guess some companies adapted better than others. (Look at how TSR went into the computer simulation game business in a *big* way.) In general though, I suspect the changes are somewhat lost on them.
I can easily see how they'd view the web and computer gaming as "the enemy" - since it would seem to be drawing folks away from a world of using one's own imagination to game, while establishing a "concreteness" to the whole thing by the purchase of small figurines. (In the virtual world, you simply look at photos of your favorite characters - perhaps as wallpaper or screen savers? The games provide a multimedia experience so you don't need to imagine what some "dungeon master" is trying to describe to you with just words.)
Personally, I'm not convinced a smartcard is possibly an extremely secure device in the long-run. Look at all the smartcards used for Satellite TV receivers. Pretty much all hacked, or in the process of being hacked, despite 4+ generations of revisions, all supposedly "unbreakable this time around".
With current technologies in use, smartcards are pretty limited in their storage space. (Typically, code on them is 4K or maybe 8K in size!) Sure, more capacity is technically possible, but at what cost? Remember, smartcards have to be very inexpensive to produce - since they're being issued to every user (and the recipients would generally balk at having to actually pay an up-front fee to use the card).
Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems like any code-base consisting of under 100K total, including whatever actual data/figures are being held in it, is relatively "hackable" by nature. There's just not THAT much to disassemble and analyze/decompile/decrypt.
Re:Over-estimating the combined intelligence of /.
on
Building a Town-Wide LAN?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Really? And why, pray tell, is the combined intelligence and wisdom of this "community" any less valuable a resource than any other survey?
I mean, sure - if you want to decide whether or not a town-wide broadband rollout is feasible, the first thing to do is poll the potential users in that community.
Assuming this task is on the "to do" list (or was already completed), getting additional feedback from slashdot seems like a worthwhile endeavour.
The value in Slashdot largely comes from not necessarily having to read the "average thread" anyway. Thanks to the ability to moderate posts, it's easy to filter anything except for the exceptionally high-rated comments (or at least pay more attention to +4 and +5 rated comments).
Yeah, I realize they give out demo discs all the time in gaming magazines and so forth.
That isn't really what I was talking about though. I've never seen one of those discs come with a true "freeware" game title that was fully functional/playable through all the levels.
I've also never seen anything for a console that worked the way most computer shareware works. (EG. Fully functional except for a "nag" screen reminding you to register, to remove said banner, or alternately - fully functional for X number of days before it expires.)
Traditionally, a console was too limited to allow this functiionality, but it might be more doable with something like the X-Box that has an internal hard drive.
The game demos are really just marketing/advertising tools, trying to suck customers in so they'll pay up for the "real" program.
Hope this doesn't get tossed into "troll land", but I think it deserves pointing out.
Game consoles are entirely commercial endeavours, designed first and foremost to pry the maximum amount of money from your wallet for games played on them.
Whether you prefer Playstation 2, X-Box, Nintendo, or something else - I haven't seen any freeware or "try before you buy, $10 shareware" packages released for any of them.
Pretty much everything I've seen run on them could (and *usually* is) done about as well (if not better!) on a PC.
The obvious advantages game consoles have over computers are mostly convenience-releated. (EG. You can throw it on your big TV in the living room and boot a game right up in 10 seconds with no prior knowledge of operation, other than the power and "eject CD tray" buttons.)
If you want to pay their prices for the convenience, then great! I have no qualms with that. I just don't see why there would be any outcry (especially from *this* crowd) when a company like Microsoft tries to ensure a game title only comes out for their console?
I thought pretty much all of us interested in such concepts as "open source" or "shareware", or even "cross-platform availability" were using PCs!
One thing helping contribute to all the spam on ICQ is their lack of concern for ensuring that users of the system are really valid users.
Back when ICQ was brand new, I recall creating a user account which I've long since forgotten the password to. If I do a search in their directory for myself, I can find that old account in their system to this day!
It appears they almost never delete inactive accounts, and are more than happy to let people create as many new ones as they like. (I imagine they do this to get bragging rights about the HUGE number of users on their system when they want to sell advertising.)
If they did a little more pruning of old accounts and made it tougher to create multiple/new ones, they'd eliminate some of the people running automated spam scripts on their service.
I just now noticed this msg. thread - and hopefully this info/advice helps!
1. Beware an invasion of your privacy by the state! Because my wife happened to have some info on her health records/history about an attempted suicide incident back when she was 15, the state saw fit to force social workers upon us in the hospital recovery room, right after our first daughter was born. Attempts to let them know they weren't really welcome at that particular time only made matters worse.
2. Be prepared to have *much* less free time than you're accustomed to - but don't go overboard either. (I found that I got all kinds of pressure to spend "more time with my kid", because after all, "they grow up before you know it!". Don't discard the value of putting in some time to earn much-needed money merely out of a guilt-trip others lay on you about not spending all that time with your child. He/she won't really remember what you did anyway at less than 1 year old.)
I think anyone posting web pages/sites should be aware of the potential for the site attracting large numbers of viewers.
To think any other way is incredibly short-sighted!
Whether it's a surge in traffic brought about by one's "2 minutes of fame" on Slashdot, or simply because your new business starts catching on and everyone wants more info on your latest product - it's always a situation to consider.
I understand some people might simply be hosting their site off a home DSL connection, using personal web server or whatnot. Still, I'd expect these people to simply take the site down completely if it was innundated with traffic the bandwidth couldn't handle - and perhaps to seek out folks to kindly mirror it for them. Swapping your original pages with a page attacking Slashdot (or anyone else) for linking to it is in bad taste.
Yeah, I don't really disagree with much of what you said. Apple *is* innovative and creative. (Certainly, they are compared to most clone makers, if nothing else.)
I'm just not convinced their niche customer base would really change in any significant way if Apple clones were produced again. The folks that are happy and willing to pay the "fashion tax" and "R&D fees" that come as part of an Apple Mac system purchase will still do so when offered with alternatives of generic beige boxes running Apple's software.
(As one loyal Mac user recently told me, "I just wouldn't trust purchasing a Mac clone. The OS and the software are ultimately created and controlled by Apple, and what if some update(s) they did broke support on the clones? How quickly would a fix be produced for the problem, if ever?")
What it *would* do is potentially open up their niche market to other types of customers who ignore/avoid Apple right now. I'm talking about the "function over form!" guys who think it's insane to pay a few extra bucks for a system that has the LCD panel on an arm and looks like a lampshade. I'm also talking about those on limited budgets who resign themselves to buying the cheapest PC at Walmart or some eMachines clone at Best Buy - even if they fully agree that OS X would probably be a cooler operating system to use.
The fact that you can find a $95K "senior network engineer" job on Monster doesn't prove squat, IMHO.
The field is hurting right now, as evidenced by the large numbers of talented individuals who can't find anything other than spotty temp. work right now!
I spent months chasing after promising-sounding jobs offered on Monster, and I've found they're almost a complete waste of time to respond to. Many times, they're posted by H.R. departments running "fishing expeditions" to see what comes back. (Managers are something just "thinking about" hiring someone, and don't have budget approval for it yet. They'll put these job postings out there just to see if they happen across some candidate w/resume so incredibly perfect, they can use it as ammo to try to get that budget approval for their extra guy.)
Many other times, companies already know full-well who they're going to hire for an opening. The job posting is a simple formality to keep everything legal. I.T. managers quite often hire people they know personally, or people who come as direct recommendations from co-workers they already trust and respect. As a nobody, blasting an email out because of some Monster.com listing, your chance of getting the job are 0%.
I hear you, and I agree. The average *Unix* sysadmin might do much better than the $30-38K you're talking about, but how much demand is there for Unix admins, country-wide?
I live in St. Louis, Missouri, and I can tell you most certainly that we have relatively *few* job openings in this city for anything non-Microsoft. If you're an Apple Mac specialist or a Unix/Linux guy, good luck! Yes, there are a couple universities hiring a *few* admins for non-MS platforms, and there are always a handful of requests for AS/400 and AIX or Solaris people - but they're still needles in the job haystack.
I get the feel that the job situation for I.T. is better in some other markets (parts of Texas or even Chicago, for example) -- but it's pretty much like you're saying; high-stress, low reward and relatively low pay.
People do generally perceive PC support/sysadmin folks as the computer equivalent of an appliance repairman or auto mechanic. Worse yet, they generally feel that auto mechanics deserve more pay than computer guys, simply because computer techs. don't really "get their hands dirty" or have an obvious large arsenal of tools. (They quickly forget that the arsenal of tools in the computer world are often virtual, in the form of expensive software packages.)
I strongly disagree. Clones are *good* for Apple. An awful lot of Power Computing, UMax and Motorola Starmax Apple clones were sold in the past, and that didn't drive Apple out of business.
The crux of the issue is this: Apple is still chasing after an "everything is about the box" philosophy. They even go so far as to view their OS as just another tool to leverage to help sell their hardware. Instead of looking at things this way, they should instead be looking at their software and OS X as the *real* valuable products they produce and market. Unless/until they do this, they'll continue to fight many needless battles with their own userbase. EG. Apple feels a need to get more "Apple Certified" people out there, to help legitimize their offerings in the business world - yet they also constantly take steps that turn people off to Apple certification. They're too concerned with keeping all the "post-sale service" inside thier Apple stores to embrace individual "Apple certified consultants" taking any of that work from them.
If Apple's computers were *really* so innovative and superior, people wouldn't flock to boring, beige clones just to save a few hundred bucks. In reality, they're deathly afraid that folks will do just that. This *should* be a big red flag waving in their faces that they're putting the proverbial cart before the horse. The users want OS X more than they want Apple-branded hardware.
Actually, as a former Catholic turned atheist, I find your explanation about "purpose" intriguing, but perhaps flawed.
I can't speak for all organized religions, but certainly in the case of the Catholic faith - it's not implied or stated that we have the same sort of "purpose" as a bicycle or a door. The belief is that humans were given "free will", and are therefore free to accept or completely deny their creator. (By contrast, a bicycle does not have "free will" to travel wherever it likes. It simply goes when it is pedaled, and only where it is steered.)
In the case of the Catholic faith, the religion seeks to guide individuals along a path that will supposedly please God and lead to eternal reward after one's mortal death, but it's always understood that the individual has to consciously make those choices him/herself.
Re:I think therefore I am...
on
AI in Sci-Fi
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, that flat statement that "Descartes was wrong" bothered me, too - until I thought more about what the author was saying.
I believe his point was, if Descartes was going to discard everything else as not provably existing, then he'd have to, by logical extension, say the same of himself if he wasn't able to pin down exactly where the "self" lies.
Most tangible objects in our world would be considered "provably existant" by the majority of us, assuming we accept certain laws of physics as correct. If we're not even willing to do that much, then I think our own existance is just as questionable.
Re:Isn't this limited by what tools they have?
on
AI in Sci-Fi
·
· Score: 1
Yes, but as we move towards ubiquitous networking of devices - this could theoretically become a non-issue.
Many sci-fi books are tightly integrated with the idea that the Internet becomes a giant "neural network" of systems that achieve A.I. only by working together.
I could honestly see this type of player create a new marketplace niche if they released a line of decent digital camcorders that actually saved in DivX format natively.
Right now, DV camcorders are great - but it seems like most people spend a lot of time doing format conversions on their PC before they get to their final product.
DivX would be a pretty good default for a relatively space-saving format - assuming the compatibility on the set-top player end of things. Right now, it really sucks to download a video off my Sony camcorder through firewire, only to churn the results through all sorts of data conversions, to get a SVCD or VCD file out of it in the end.
Yeah, I haven't bought a music CD, period, in over 2 years now - and really don't plan on doing so. (I did seriously consider making an exception for the new Peter Gabriel CD - but I'm even "on the fence" about that one.)
The recording industry has simply been so inane with their stance on MP3 encoding and CD copy protection that I can't fathom why I'd want to assist them in profiting at all from screwing over the artists like they do.
As many others have noted though, a boycott on purchasing copy-protected CDs doesn't accomplish the goal of sending the record companies the message that we "won't accept copy protection". Only a public outcry really does that. When they see sales figures dip on new CD releases, they simply write it off as happening precisely because of the rampant MP3 encoding/swapping going on - and use it as more ammo to justify their push for still more copy protection measures and/or legislation.
I simply prefer not to buy *any* commercial music from these companies. It's not because I think it makes a statement. It's purely because I'm helping them perpetuate their stupidity when I help fund them.
I see your point on iDVD, except that's a poor assumption for Apple to make. What if someone bought a Mac with a Superdrive in it, and thereby legally obtained a copy of iDVD - but then wanted to use that copy on a different Mac system? Sure, it might be a stretch, but it's well within the realms of possibility.
Furthermore, iDVD can now be purchased seperately as part of iLife - yet Apple still isn't allowing OWC to release any drivers to enable it working with 3rd. party DVD-R drives.
Also, the argument about people running into problems with OSX on older, processor upgraded systems seems bogus. There are only a relative handful of machines out there than you can even upgrade with G3 or G4 cards. The vast majority of these were built by Apple themselves to begin with! It's really not a huge deal for Apple to conduct some Q.A. testing on OSX on those configurations and certify them as OSX compatible. Doing so would surely sell more copies of the operating system.
I stick by my belief that the *real* reason they refuse to do this is because they feel OSX is impressive enough to drive sales of new Mac hardware. They want the nice profit margin built into the $1500-3995 cost of a new G4 tower or Powerbook.... not just the $129 per copy of OSX.
Actually, I didn't buy them when they were new. I believe I owned a 286 12Mhz or 16Mhz computer already at the time I made my Osborne purchase.
I was in a used computer store, looking for interesting stuff, when I stumbled across one. I believe I purchased it for around $175, but the store owner threw in a second Osborne 1 in rather beat-up condition as part of the deal. (Supposedly, it was so I'd have spare parts for the good one if I ever needed them - but most likely, it was just an opportunity for them to get a hard-to-sell item off their shelves.)
The amusing thing I remember was a 3rd. party accessory that came with the unit; a magnifying glass on a metal rod that velcro'd to the top of the case. With the magnifier sticking out in front of the little screen, it made it a little easier to work with the system.
I recall it having an internal modem (300 baud, I believe), and I was lucky to find a BBS in town that ran and supported CP/M systems - so I downloaded a bunch of freeware and shareware, 90% or so of which worked properly.
Even though it was already a discontinued product by the time I bought mine, I got a fair amount of use out of it. As big as it was ("luggable" we called it, as opposed to "portable"), it was still pretty cool for the time. (The only thing cooler I remember was my friend's Corona portable 286 computer - and those puppies were expensive, and just as big as my Osborne.)
Personally, the new "feature" I fear most is Apple coding the new OSX revision to ensure it no longer runs on older hardware!
I have OSX running quite nicely on a beige G3 tower right now, and had it working well with XPostFacto on a PowerMac 7600 w/G3 upgrade.
In OSX, pre-Jaguar, you could still get it to install on some older systems without having to fork over the cash for a G3 or G4 upgrade. In 10.2 though, that was put to a stop.
Seeing how hard Apple tried to prevent people from doing so much as using DVD-R drives other than the exact models that came built into their new systems (even forcing Other World Computing to stop selling a patch they developed to make firewire DVD-R external drives work with iDVD), I can easily see how they'll attempt to block OSX usage with any processor upgraded system.
Sure, they *say* they do this to ensure a quality user experience and so forth. Let's face it folks. That's just P.R. jargon for "We're doing our best to force you to buy a *new* Mac to run our new software on!"
Slashdot Mirror
Mmm.... you may have a point, but personally, I'd just as soon they save that for a seperate publication.
The "ethics" of system administration doesn't seem to be very clear-cut anyway. Much is a matter of opinion, as I quickly saw when I worked in corporate systems administration.
Take something as seemingly simple as to whether some of our engineering staff should be allowed/able to install game software on their laptops and play it during their lunch hour. A couple of admins said "Sure! We won't support it if you have problems with it, but we're not here to police what you can and can't do on your lunch hour. If you're computer-savvy enough to install it properly, what's the harm?" A couple others in our dept. said "Absolutely not! It risks destabilizing the environment, and who knows how much network traffic they might chew up playing online games. We need to proactively delete any such software found on systems attached to our LAN!"
Umm... I understand the point you're trying to make, but actually - there's a *lot* to learn about what really goes on "behind the scenes" in the OS X environment.
It's not an issue of knowing "how to use MacOS" in this case... It's an issue of knowing all the inner workings well enough to feel comfortable being a sysadmin of a box running it.
Most OS X users probably have no idea how printing actually takes place, for example. People who dug into the OS deeply enough put together the (extremely nice and useful!) GIMP-Print and Ghostscript ESP packages for it so you can print to MANY more printers than were natively supported. I'd sure like to see the average MacOS user explain off the top of his/her head how you'd go about modifying the existing print engine to add CUPS printing like that.
Actually, I *sometimes* find a GUI tool very useful for Unix administration - but typically only for specific tasks.
For one example, setting the date/time on a box that's not connected to the Internet. (If it is, then obviously, the best bet is to have it synch with an Internet time server.) In Unix, I don't find it very intuitive or enjoyable trying to get the proper time and date entered from a command line tool.
More often, I find I really like the full-screen tools developed to run from a command line, but which provide more user-friendly alternatives to staight command line commands. (For file management, Midnight Commander is teriffic! Fast, efficient, and saves a lot of typing. For initial configuration of X, it's nice having a tool more flexible and friendly than just xf86config, especially when you need 3D support working with a more difficult to configure video board. RedHat's little "sndsetup" utility makes it a breeze to get a Soundblaster type audio card going. The list goes on, but you get the idea.....)
Heh.... I hate to say it, but I think Stan Lee might be the LAST person on earth to even consider a remotely "risque" situation in one of his comic strips.
As much as I think Spiderman is a great superhero concept, the Sunday comic strip (which Stan Lee supposedly does himself) is *lame*!
I guess he's trying to make sure it's ok for younger kids to read and everything, but come on! The stilted conversations are almost unbearable. There's much more suspense and sense of believability in the dialog of "Brenda Starr", for crying out loud!
Well, personally, I could see how Apple would port OS X to Intel architecture mainly to use it as leverage.
They may build and sell a lot of systems, but it's a mere drop in the bucket compared to the number of people using Intel or AMD processor in their machines.
Apple might have felt threatened that they couldn't push a chip-maker (like IBM) to give them a sucessor to the G4 quickly enough to prevent Apple computers from lagging too far behind PCs in the performance curve.
Therefore, they needed to make it clear that they weren't going to simply sit around and wait for someone to build them the next CPU. What better a way to send that message than to say "Hey, we have our OS running on existing AMD (or Intel) CPUs. If we're pushed up against a wall, we can go that route - and then we won't be buying *any* of the new CPUs you guys develop. So how about stepping up that timetable on production?"
I have to wonder if this isn't also part of a larger issue?
Namely, the creators of these fantasy/role-playing games and miniatures attained their initial glory and status in the "pre-Internet" era. (By that, I mean, John Q, Gamer wasn't actively using an Internet browser at home or playing many games online.)
Companies like TSR made oodles of cash selling D&D books at $30 a pop through the local hobby shops, and items like the minitatures were soon to follow.
Nowdays, the prevalence of computers,the net, and online gaming seems like it is eating into their market. I guess some companies adapted better than others. (Look at how TSR went into the computer simulation game business in a *big* way.) In general though, I suspect the changes are somewhat lost on them.
I can easily see how they'd view the web and computer gaming as "the enemy" - since it would seem to be drawing folks away from a world of using one's own imagination to game, while establishing a "concreteness" to the whole thing by the purchase of small figurines. (In the virtual world, you simply look at photos of your favorite characters - perhaps as wallpaper or screen savers? The games provide a multimedia experience so you don't need to imagine what some "dungeon master" is trying to describe to you with just words.)
Personally, I'm not convinced a smartcard is possibly an extremely secure device in the long-run. Look at all the smartcards used for Satellite TV receivers. Pretty much all hacked, or in the process of being hacked, despite 4+ generations of revisions, all supposedly "unbreakable this time around".
With current technologies in use, smartcards are pretty limited in their storage space. (Typically, code on them is 4K or maybe 8K in size!) Sure, more capacity is technically possible, but at what cost? Remember, smartcards have to be very inexpensive to produce - since they're being issued to every user (and the recipients would generally balk at having to actually pay an up-front fee to use the card).
Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems like any code-base consisting of under 100K total, including whatever actual data/figures are being held in it, is relatively "hackable" by nature. There's just not THAT much to disassemble and analyze/decompile/decrypt.
Really? And why, pray tell, is the combined intelligence and wisdom of this "community" any less valuable a resource than any other survey?
I mean, sure - if you want to decide whether or not a town-wide broadband rollout is feasible, the first thing to do is poll the potential users in that community.
Assuming this task is on the "to do" list (or was already completed), getting additional feedback from slashdot seems like a worthwhile endeavour.
The value in Slashdot largely comes from not necessarily having to read the "average thread" anyway. Thanks to the ability to moderate posts, it's easy to filter anything except for the exceptionally high-rated comments (or at least pay more attention to +4 and +5 rated comments).
Yeah, I realize they give out demo discs all the time in gaming magazines and so forth.
That isn't really what I was talking about though. I've never seen one of those discs come with a true "freeware" game title that was fully functional/playable through all the levels.
I've also never seen anything for a console that worked the way most computer shareware works. (EG. Fully functional except for a "nag" screen reminding you to register, to remove said banner, or alternately - fully functional for X number of days before it expires.)
Traditionally, a console was too limited to allow this functiionality, but it might be more doable with something like the X-Box that has an internal hard drive.
The game demos are really just marketing/advertising tools, trying to suck customers in so they'll pay up for the "real" program.
Hope this doesn't get tossed into "troll land", but I think it deserves pointing out.
Game consoles are entirely commercial endeavours, designed first and foremost to pry the maximum amount of money from your wallet for games played on them.
Whether you prefer Playstation 2, X-Box, Nintendo, or something else - I haven't seen any freeware or "try before you buy, $10 shareware" packages released for any of them.
Pretty much everything I've seen run on them could (and *usually* is) done about as well (if not better!) on a PC.
The obvious advantages game consoles have over computers are mostly convenience-releated. (EG. You can throw it on your big TV in the living room and boot a game right up in 10 seconds with no prior knowledge of operation, other than the power and "eject CD tray" buttons.)
If you want to pay their prices for the convenience, then great! I have no qualms with that. I just don't see why there would be any outcry (especially from *this* crowd) when a company like Microsoft tries to ensure a game title only comes out for their console?
I thought pretty much all of us interested in such concepts as "open source" or "shareware", or even "cross-platform availability" were using PCs!
One thing helping contribute to all the spam on ICQ is their lack of concern for ensuring that users of the system are really valid users.
Back when ICQ was brand new, I recall creating a user account which I've long since forgotten the password to. If I do a search in their directory for myself, I can find that old account in their system to this day!
It appears they almost never delete inactive accounts, and are more than happy to let people create as many new ones as they like. (I imagine they do this to get bragging rights about the HUGE number of users on their system when they want to sell advertising.)
If they did a little more pruning of old accounts and made it tougher to create multiple/new ones, they'd eliminate some of the people running automated spam scripts on their service.
I just now noticed this msg. thread - and hopefully this info/advice helps!
1. Beware an invasion of your privacy by the state! Because my wife happened to have some info on her health records/history about an attempted suicide incident back when she was 15, the state saw fit to force social workers upon us in the hospital recovery room, right after our first daughter was born. Attempts to let them know they weren't really welcome at that particular time only made matters worse.
2. Be prepared to have *much* less free time than you're accustomed to - but don't go overboard either. (I found that I got all kinds of pressure to spend "more time with my kid", because after all, "they grow up before you know it!". Don't discard the value of putting in some time to earn much-needed money merely out of a guilt-trip others lay on you about not spending all that time with your child. He/she won't really remember what you did anyway at less than 1 year old.)
I think anyone posting web pages/sites should be aware of the potential for the site attracting large numbers of viewers.
To think any other way is incredibly short-sighted!
Whether it's a surge in traffic brought about by one's "2 minutes of fame" on Slashdot, or simply because your new business starts catching on and everyone wants more info on your latest product - it's always a situation to consider.
I understand some people might simply be hosting their site off a home DSL connection, using personal web server or whatnot. Still, I'd expect these people to simply take the site down completely if it was innundated with traffic the bandwidth couldn't handle - and perhaps to seek out folks to kindly mirror it for them. Swapping your original pages with a page attacking Slashdot (or anyone else) for linking to it is in bad taste.
Yeah, I don't really disagree with much of what you said. Apple *is* innovative and creative. (Certainly, they are compared to most clone makers, if nothing else.)
I'm just not convinced their niche customer base would really change in any significant way if Apple clones were produced again. The folks that are happy and willing to pay the "fashion tax" and "R&D fees" that come as part of an Apple Mac system purchase will still do so when offered with alternatives of generic beige boxes running Apple's software.
(As one loyal Mac user recently told me, "I just wouldn't trust purchasing a Mac clone. The OS and the software are ultimately created and controlled by Apple, and what if some update(s) they did broke support on the clones? How quickly would a fix be produced for the problem, if ever?")
What it *would* do is potentially open up their niche market to other types of customers who ignore/avoid Apple right now. I'm talking about the "function over form!" guys who think it's insane to pay a few extra bucks for a system that has the LCD panel on an arm and looks like a lampshade. I'm also talking about those on limited budgets who resign themselves to buying the cheapest PC at Walmart or some eMachines clone at Best Buy - even if they fully agree that OS X would probably be a cooler operating system to use.
The fact that you can find a $95K "senior network engineer" job on Monster doesn't prove squat, IMHO.
The field is hurting right now, as evidenced by the large numbers of talented individuals who can't find anything other than spotty temp. work right now!
I spent months chasing after promising-sounding jobs offered on Monster, and I've found they're almost a complete waste of time to respond to. Many times, they're posted by H.R. departments running "fishing expeditions" to see what comes back. (Managers are something just "thinking about" hiring someone, and don't have budget approval for it yet. They'll put these job postings out there just to see if they happen across some candidate w/resume so incredibly perfect, they can use it as ammo to try to get that budget approval for their extra guy.)
Many other times, companies already know full-well who they're going to hire for an opening. The job posting is a simple formality to keep everything legal. I.T. managers quite often hire people they know personally, or people who come as direct recommendations from co-workers they already trust and respect. As a nobody, blasting an email out because of some Monster.com listing, your chance of getting the job are 0%.
I hear you, and I agree.
The average *Unix* sysadmin might do much better than the $30-38K you're talking about, but how much demand is there for Unix admins, country-wide?
I live in St. Louis, Missouri, and I can tell you most certainly that we have relatively *few* job openings in this city for anything non-Microsoft. If you're an Apple Mac specialist or a Unix/Linux guy, good luck! Yes, there are a couple universities hiring a *few* admins for non-MS platforms, and there are always a handful of requests for AS/400 and AIX or Solaris people - but they're still needles in the job haystack.
I get the feel that the job situation for I.T. is better in some other markets (parts of Texas or even Chicago, for example) -- but it's pretty much like you're saying; high-stress, low reward and relatively low pay.
People do generally perceive PC support/sysadmin folks as the computer equivalent of an appliance repairman or auto mechanic. Worse yet, they generally feel that auto mechanics deserve more pay than computer guys, simply because computer techs. don't really "get their hands dirty" or have an obvious large arsenal of tools. (They quickly forget that the arsenal of tools in the computer world are often virtual, in the form of expensive software packages.)
I strongly disagree. Clones are *good* for Apple. An awful lot of Power Computing, UMax and Motorola Starmax Apple clones were sold in the past, and that didn't drive Apple out of business.
The crux of the issue is this: Apple is still chasing after an "everything is about the box" philosophy. They even go so far as to view their OS as just another tool to leverage to help sell their hardware. Instead of looking at things this way, they should instead be looking at their software and OS X as the *real* valuable products they produce and market. Unless/until they do this, they'll continue to fight many needless battles with their own userbase. EG. Apple feels a need to get more "Apple Certified" people out there, to help legitimize their offerings in the business world - yet they also constantly take steps that turn people off to Apple certification. They're too concerned with keeping all the "post-sale service" inside thier Apple stores to embrace individual "Apple certified consultants" taking any of that work from them.
If Apple's computers were *really* so innovative and superior, people wouldn't flock to boring, beige clones just to save a few hundred bucks. In reality, they're deathly afraid that folks will do just that. This *should* be a big red flag waving in their faces that they're putting the proverbial cart before the horse. The users want OS X more than they want Apple-branded hardware.
Actually, as a former Catholic turned atheist, I find your explanation about "purpose" intriguing, but perhaps flawed.
I can't speak for all organized religions, but certainly in the case of the Catholic faith - it's not implied or stated that we have the same sort of "purpose" as a bicycle or a door. The belief is that humans were given "free will", and are therefore free to accept or completely deny their creator. (By contrast, a bicycle does not have "free will" to travel wherever it likes. It simply goes when it is pedaled, and only where it is steered.)
In the case of the Catholic faith, the religion seeks to guide individuals along a path that will supposedly please God and lead to eternal reward after one's mortal death, but it's always understood that the individual has to consciously make those choices him/herself.
Yeah, that flat statement that "Descartes was wrong" bothered me, too - until I thought more about what the author was saying.
I believe his point was, if Descartes was going to discard everything else as not provably existing, then he'd have to, by logical extension, say the same of himself if he wasn't able to pin down exactly where the "self" lies.
Most tangible objects in our world would be considered "provably existant" by the majority of us, assuming we accept certain laws of physics as correct. If we're not even willing to do that much, then I think our own existance is just as questionable.
Yes, but as we move towards ubiquitous networking of devices - this could theoretically become a non-issue.
Many sci-fi books are tightly integrated with the idea that the Internet becomes a giant "neural network" of systems that achieve A.I. only by working together.
I could honestly see this type of player create a new marketplace niche if they released a line of decent digital camcorders that actually saved in DivX format natively.
Right now, DV camcorders are great - but it seems like most people spend a lot of time doing format conversions on their PC before they get to their final product.
DivX would be a pretty good default for a relatively space-saving format - assuming the compatibility on the set-top player end of things. Right now, it really sucks to download a video off my Sony camcorder through firewire, only to churn the results through all sorts of data conversions, to get a SVCD or VCD file out of it in the end.
Yeah, I haven't bought a music CD, period, in over 2 years now - and really don't plan on doing so. (I did seriously consider making an exception for the new Peter Gabriel CD - but I'm even "on the fence" about that one.)
The recording industry has simply been so inane with their stance on MP3 encoding and CD copy protection that I can't fathom why I'd want to assist them in profiting at all from screwing over the artists like they do.
As many others have noted though, a boycott on purchasing copy-protected CDs doesn't accomplish the goal of sending the record companies the message that we "won't accept copy protection". Only a public outcry really does that. When they see sales figures dip on new CD releases, they simply write it off as happening precisely because of the rampant MP3 encoding/swapping going on - and use it as more ammo to justify their push for still more copy protection measures and/or legislation.
I simply prefer not to buy *any* commercial music from these companies. It's not because I think it makes a statement. It's purely because I'm helping them perpetuate their stupidity when I help fund them.
I see your point on iDVD, except that's a poor assumption for Apple to make. What if someone bought a Mac with a Superdrive in it, and thereby legally obtained a copy of iDVD - but then wanted to use that copy on a different Mac system? Sure, it might be a stretch, but it's well within the realms of possibility.
Furthermore, iDVD can now be purchased seperately as part of iLife - yet Apple still isn't allowing OWC to release any drivers to enable it working with 3rd. party DVD-R drives.
Also, the argument about people running into problems with OSX on older, processor upgraded systems seems bogus. There are only a relative handful of machines out there than you can even upgrade with G3 or G4 cards. The vast majority of these were built by Apple themselves to begin with! It's really not a huge deal for Apple to conduct some Q.A. testing on OSX on those configurations and certify them as OSX compatible. Doing so would surely sell more copies of the operating system.
I stick by my belief that the *real* reason they refuse to do this is because they feel OSX is impressive enough to drive sales of new Mac hardware. They want the nice profit margin built into the $1500-3995 cost of a new G4 tower or Powerbook.... not just the $129 per copy of OSX.
Actually, I didn't buy them when they were new. I believe I owned a 286 12Mhz or 16Mhz computer already at the time I made my Osborne purchase.
I was in a used computer store, looking for interesting stuff, when I stumbled across one.
I believe I purchased it for around $175, but the store owner threw in a second Osborne 1 in rather beat-up condition as part of the deal. (Supposedly, it was so I'd have spare parts for the good one if I ever needed them - but most likely, it was just an opportunity for them to get a hard-to-sell item off their shelves.)
The amusing thing I remember was a 3rd. party accessory that came with the unit; a magnifying glass on a metal rod that velcro'd to the top of the case. With the magnifier sticking out in front of the little screen, it made it a little easier to work with the system.
I recall it having an internal modem (300 baud, I believe), and I was lucky to find a BBS in town that ran and supported CP/M systems - so I downloaded a bunch of freeware and shareware, 90% or so of which worked properly.
Even though it was already a discontinued product by the time I bought mine, I got a fair amount of use out of it. As big as it was ("luggable" we called it, as opposed to "portable"), it was still pretty cool for the time. (The only thing cooler I remember was my friend's Corona portable 286 computer - and those puppies were expensive, and just as big as my Osborne.)
Personally, the new "feature" I fear most is Apple coding the new OSX revision to ensure it no longer runs on older hardware!
I have OSX running quite nicely on a beige G3 tower right now, and had it working well with XPostFacto on a PowerMac 7600 w/G3 upgrade.
In OSX, pre-Jaguar, you could still get it to install on some older systems without having to fork over the cash for a G3 or G4 upgrade. In 10.2 though, that was put to a stop.
Seeing how hard Apple tried to prevent people from doing so much as using DVD-R drives other than the exact models that came built into their new systems (even forcing Other World Computing to stop selling a patch they developed to make firewire DVD-R external drives work with iDVD), I can easily see how they'll attempt to block OSX usage with any processor upgraded system.
Sure, they *say* they do this to ensure a quality user experience and so forth. Let's face it folks. That's just P.R. jargon for "We're doing our best to force you to buy a *new* Mac to run our new software on!"