Truthfully, a parent has not "failed" because they let a kid play a game like GTA. Rather, they only failed if they didn't accompany it with some explanation....
I've actually let my 7 year old play GTA on my PS3, but I made it clear it's a game where you play a "very bad person" and it's a story about people doing things you're not supposed to do in real life. She played a little bit, had fun driving the cars around and so forth, and basically got bored with it after a few minutes. So now? It's not some big "taboo" thing anymore to her. It's just another one of those games for "older people", and she's not that interested in playing some bad guy doing bad stuff.....
Sure, I believe there are things best kept away from kids until they're old enough to really understand and deal with the topics they present. But it's the job of a parent to make those judgment calls for themselves. Sometimes, maybe they're wrong... but overall, who else knows a kid better than their own mom or dad? I'd argue that trying to simply lock up some video game like GTA to prevent a kid from ever playing it is parental laziness. You can't prevent your kid from ever seeing or playing the game at somebody else's house, some day..... You may as well confront the thing head on.
They might, but I'm not sure it's wise to go down that legal path of outlawing anything that might "trigger" a person to commit a crime?
It winds up being one step closer to "thought crime"... trying to stop crime before it happens, rather than punishing those who already commit one.
Are you really ready to outlaw all casinos because they tempt some people to ruin their lives, gambling away all their income with their addiction? The U.S. already tried to outlaw alcoholic beverages, seeing all the health issues and crime they caused when SOME people abused them. Didn't work out so well.
And yes, as you said yourself too... We certainly don't have the same standards for murder. If we did, we'd have outlawed all guns by now, as well as banning the viewing of a shooting on TV or in the movies. Wouldn't want to tempt someone to commit a murder, would we?
I've worked in I.T. long enough to know that the vast majority of security products and services out there are little more than selling companies a "bill of goods". Sometimes, it's a great investment, simply as a CYA move. (As a systems administrator, you're a lot less likely to get fired because of a hack if you can show you tried your best to secure everything, using products X, Y and Z, right?)
But ultimately, you can go with the most highly regarded firewall product, the top-rated anti-spyware and anti-virus solutions, implement policies requiring employees change their passwords every 30 days, encrypt sensitive information, and the whole 9 yards. But one employee who has been given access is all it takes to make it all come tumbling down. (And I imagine the vast majority of the time, that's a key component of successful hacks anyway. Remember the AOL credit card leaks a while back? Total inside job.)
In most cases, you really don't have much of a guarantee that a given product truly gives you the security it claims either. How do you REALLY know that expensive firewall doesn't have some kind of back-door in it that's never been publicized? Maybe one of their developers stuck it in there secretly, knowing he'd made FAR more than his salary selling the password to a few key hackers in the underground later?
Unless a product offers to cover all your expenses to recover from a hack, if their product or service is hacked, it's pretty weak insurance.
I have my own side business that has my last name as part of its title. Amazingly, when I went to register a domain name for it, I discovered that somebody had actually registered the name I wanted as a.com domain. (This is pretty unlikely, since my last name is uncommon AND spelled differently than most people who share a very similar last name. Not only that, but to register it with my business's full title was just weird!)
When I went to the web site, nothing pulled up at all, and the whois info informed me some business in China held the domain registration for it. Quite odd...
Rather than mess around with any of this (and wind up being asked to pay who knows how much to buy the domain), I went ahead and registered the.net version of my desired domain name instead, and used it for about a year. I paid GoDaddy about $5 for a year of "site monitoring", so they'd shoot me an email any time the status of the.com domain I wanted changed.
It was interesting to see, because after a while, I received several notifications about it changing status. (Someone appeared to be transferring it to someone else, who transferred it again. My guess is that some of these squatters are just buying "packages" of domains from other squatters?) By the 2nd. year I was in business, the domain had finally expired and I was able to register it myself for only a few bucks. I then ran my.com and.net domains simultaneously until the.net one expired.
Exactly! That's what I did. I disconnected the wires coming in to the box outside my house, to make sure the phone company wouldn't send anything down my copper wiring that might interfere, and then plugged a stand-alone adapter into one of the wall jacks, to feed the rest of the jacks with dial-tone from VoIP service.
I have a cellphone too, but I just don't see the "value" in trying to use it exclusively? I know the battery in mine always seems to be running low by the time I come home from work at the end of the day. Sucks when people start trying to call you after dinner and your battery is about dead.
For about the same price they'd charge you to bump up your cellphone's monthly minute plan to the next level, you can buy VoIP service with free unlimited calls anywhere in the U.S. (and likely Canada and several other countries too). Then you also get to re-use all your existing land-line phones. (After all, are you really going to find anyone to buy them off you, used, for even a few bucks per phone??) You won't have to run all over the house looking for that 1 cellphone you put down someplace and forget where when the phone rings, and you'll have a second number. (Nice when you need to give someone a callback number, but you really don't want them to have your cell - giving them a way to harass you with calls no matter where you go.)
Besides, I have one of those combo cordless Uniden phones with digital answering machine in it. I really like being able to still use that, vs. having to retrieve all of my voice mail by dialing in to some service being run by whoever my phone carrier is. The minute you walk in the door, you have an LED readout showing you how many messages you've got waiting, and you can listen to them with the push of just 1 button.
That's exactly the opinion a free software developer should have, IMHO.
I will say, though, that people discounting the value in devoting some time to becoming part of a "community" of software users are missing out on what's really the best type of support there is for a product.
I've encountered this even with costly commercial products we use where I work. For example, our document management software has a multi-thousand dollar per year "support contract", yet every time I've called in with issues - they weren't really able to resolve them for me. I wound up losing data on 2 different occasions, and ultimately, their only answer was to "create a new database container, and copy over all the salvageable data from the corrupt database, and then delete the damaged one". I could have done THAT without paying anyone for assistance! By contrast, a former employee of theirs created a small blog and discussion forum he invited developers and users to share, and I've already gotten 2 really helpful responses to questions about the product on there.
No, I honestly don't see it quite that way. I know what you're saying... but I think it's a little bit different in Apple's case.
Essentially, Apple is saying they spent the money on R&D for their operating system, OS X, so it could be bundled with their own hardware and sold as a set. The copies of OS X you can buy separately at retail are considered "upgrade licenses" by Apple, because despite the fact they WILL perform a full installation on a blank hard drive, that's done for user convenience. The *real* full OS X license was only able to be purchased as part of a new Mac purchase.
People screaming about this, as it relates to "Hackintoshes", are basically asserting their right to buy this upgrade edition of OS X and use it on whatever hardware they like. But really, we don't know how much money Apple wants to charge people for a "full" OS X license? I'm assuming it's considerably more than the $129 or so you paid for OS X off the shelf -- because that goes a long way towards explaining why Mac systems always seem to cost hundreds more than PC counterparts. (Windows users fuss about the "Mac tax" all the time, so they must understand this concept.)
Therefore, if push comes to shove on this issue? All I can see as an outcomes are:
1. Apple agrees to start selling everyone a "full" OS X version that IS legal for use on whatever hardware you want to try to load it on, but it goes for $349 or something. 2. Apple decides they're no longer going to be friendly about doing so much on the "honor system", and releases the next version of OS X so it does product activation, verifying you're really registered as a new Mac owner before it will activate for you (or alternately, makes you insert a recovery DVD from a new Mac system to prove you bought it). 3. Apple agrees to start allowing clone Mac builders again, like they did a long time ago. But just like before, you have to become authorized by Apple as a licensed clone builder - so only a few vendors will wind up legally allowed to do it anyway.
Really, you're not even comparing comparable products here, though.
You're talking about a Dell Mini 9 vs., anything available from Apple, when Apple has admitted openly that they don't make a "netbook" right now, and so far, have not even had an interest in that market segment!
I'd even go so far as to argue that Apple's current answer to netbooks like the Mini 9 is the iPod Touch or iPhone, both of which are comparably priced to the $300 you're talking about!
Just curious.... Did you do re-formats and fresh installs of RC1, or did you try to upgrade from build 7000 to 7100?
I've heard other people say Win 7 RC1 got slower than the beta builds, but I didn't notice that at all on 3 machines I've used both on so far. (The thing is though, all 3 systems I've tried had at least 4GB of RAM in them - so I can't speak for performance in lesser RAM configurations.)
It might basically be a big press release, but I don't know that it's fair to claim they compared it to Vista simply because "they knew it sucked".
I think for the typical Windows user, the issue today is that XP has been around since 2002. Microsoft is inching ever closer to stopping any support for the product. Furthermore, it doesn't seem to be a very good option for a 64-bit OS - and PCs are rapidly moving to 64-bit capable processors. Sure, it's still the best choice for existing hardware, but when you do the next round of hardware upgrades, is XP going to still be the best option from Microsoft for you? (Some of the new systems with integrated touch-screens have really poor touch-screen support under XP, but they have full support in Vista, and it looks like even better support is being integrated into Windows 7 for them.)
Given all of that? Yes, I think the relevant question is "In how many and which ways does Windows 7 really improve on Vista?"... because like it or not, Microsoft users are going to be moving to one or the other of those 2 options before long.
Yeah.... I believe they originally had ties to management/owners of Mindspring, and that became Earthlink when it was merged with them. So these days, who knows how much influence Scientologists still have over there?
I don't know.... As a PS3 owner myself, I found I spent more time playing GTA4 on it than most of the other titles I purchased for it. Even though I think the GTA series could do a lot of things to be better than it is, the graphics improvements in 4 really brought something to the series. (I know graphics are generally just "eye candy" and don't make a game "more fun"... but I think they're a big deal in a game that relies on you exploring a 3D virtual world. GTA has always been the kind of game where you spend a lot of time just roaming around and discovering things. The cooler all the stuff looks, the more rewarding the experience is.)
The biggest disappointment I've always had in the GTA games is the relative lack of sensible AI in them. The game could get a lot more interesting if you could do things like forcing shop-keepers to hand over money in their registers, instead of only having the option to buy items from them. (Even in the fast food places in the game, if you point a gun at them, they usually put their hands up in the air and scream, but it serves no purpose. You can't take one of them hostage, or ask them to go get you money out of their safe, or.....) And no matter how many times you car-jack an ambulance (or attack paramedics trying to help someone else you just ran over), they don't ever seem to treat you differently. It's the same old routine where doing X amount of violence causes another "star" on the wanted level. It'd be interesting if ambulance drivers started seeing you coming and tried to run YOU over or ganged up on you in back-alleys or something, after a while.
All the way around, they could make the game a lot less "linear"... As it is, you can roam all over and do all sorts of things, but all of it affects nothing in the main storyline they want you to follow. I'd like to see the story base itself around all the random stuff you do in the game. (Run over a whole lot of people on sidewalks? Suddenly, you're known as the "sidewalk mower"... and they start using you for missions where that skill comes in handy.)
You're not the only one. Scary, isn't it, how a corporation's name can get that ingrained in one's head that anything similar immediately looks like it?
I was thinking, "Well, that'll be kind of cool, if I can grab a $99 server computer at Wal-Mart."
As far as I can discern, there's no such thing as a right "scaling up". This is just made-up nonsense!
Rights are absolutes. Either you have a right or you don't.
The *only* place a right ends is where it begins infringing on another right.
The reason you view what Google is doing as a concern is because you feel their otherwise acceptable activities begin infringing on your "right to privacy" when assembled into a searchable "whole".
The problem there is, we don't seem to have an inherent "right to privacy". It's certainly not spelled out as such in the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights... and I don't believe any other nations grant their citizens an "inalienable right to absolute privacy" either?
I believe privacy is more of a desirable concept than an absolute right. We speak of "reasonable expectations" when it comes to privacy. There are philosophical arguments that a certain amount of privacy is indirectly granted based on other basic rights, for example.
But where is the line drawn in the sand? I imagine it's in a different place depending on people's "comfort zone" -- which varies by culture. (Americans, for example, tend to expect more "personal space" around them than those in Asia. What's "normal" to them might be seen as "constantly getting in my way" to an American.)
As we make use of new technologies, we have to balance their usefulness with their potential for reducing privacy, and keep making adjustments to what we'll allow and what we won't.
I happen to feel that as long as Google freely gives away the information they collect, they aren't doing anything wrong by collecting "street view" images or any other mapping activity involving capturing video in public places. It gets much more "iffy" if you talk about this information being sold commercially, and access to it restricted.
Well, first of all, because the original article specifically said "not including video editing" - this whole discussion doesn't really address the original question.
That said though, there's nothing wrong with extending the topic a bit....
It sounds to me like you're talking about creating a lot of special f/x and so forth, for video, vs. spending the majority of your time editing and cleaning up live footage.
I can't imagine why you wouldn't just buy a Mac and Final Cut Pro (or even Express if it meets your needs) and be done with it, if you're editing a lot of live footage?
Considering OS X is a Unix OS to begin with, I have no doubt it's POSSIBLE to do whatever you need to do in Linux, and after struggling through the learning curve, someone can make it happen. The point, though, is usually that you want the least headache and hassle possible, while getting the most usability. Final Cut is an industry standard for working with video, and many good plug-ins are available to add to its capabilities. Apple has a vested interest in spending time and money to keep new versions of it as compatible as possible with new video formats and communications protocols in new cameras, too. The open-source developer, by contrast, is usually only motivated if he/she personally buys something that doesn't work.
Actually, I think the "trick" is often to figure out what BOTH genders prefer, and offer one product that pleases both.
For example, I see this a lot with lawn care tools. You can choose from dozens of weed-trimmers with relatively big gasoline-powered engines. They all promise that they're built "to last", etc. etc.
Yet one of the best sellers I've seen on the shelves year after year, with no real product changes, was the Weed-Eater "Featherlite". Why? It's priced reasonably, for starters - but hugely important is the fact that it's really light-weight and comfortable to use.
I know quite a few women who do their own yard work, but they wind up paying someone to do the weed-trimming part, because the full-size trimmers everyone seems to be selling are too hard for them to handle.
The thing is though, as an average-sized guy, *I* bought one of those "Featherlites" too, and appreciated the same benefits. There's no reason to lug something around that's 4x heavier and uses more gas, to do what's a pretty basic job around the house and driveway.
When you're talking about computer tech, I think the majority of women are attracted to something that's easy to use, small and lightweight (if it's a portable computer), and that comes with the tools they need to be CREATIVE with it.
Again, this are all goals that most GUYS would appreciate as well. It's just that a guy is probably more likely to shop based more on "raw performance for the dollar" and figures he'll "get the other software rounded up and installed later".
Actually, I don't know almost anybody who views a book author as the "bad guy". I think students, more and more, have a negative attitude about textbook prices - but usually, the school bookstore is the "bad guy" there. (Alternately, students dislike professors who seem to publish new editions of their OWN texts on a regular basis, just so they can turn around and rip you off buying the "seventh edition" or whatever, with very minor changes, for the new semester's course. I'd use "book author" VERY loosely with most of those people.)
That said? Practically ANY type of IP that can be converted to a digital format is subject to mass duplication. Books used to escape a lot of the fate of other forms of media, simply because it was time consuming trying to scan in all the pages of a book so they were clear/readable, and stored in a digital format useful to the average potential recipient. With the advent of PDF as a document standard, better scanner technology, and broadband Internet - digitizing entire texts becomes much more viable.
I've always maintained that in the "digital age", anyone creating "intellectual property" needs to be comfortable with the idea that their material WILL be redistributed to people who didn't pay them for it first. I don't think it's really reasonable for anyone creating intangible works to expect they can make 1 or 2 works, and sit back forever, profiting handsomely from them. The key is to KEEP creating FRESH content, repeatedly. If your material has "value" to people, a certain percentage will always pay for it.
The FIRST person who wants it is going to HAVE to buy it, obviously... and so is anyone else who WANTS to "pirate" it but can't locate a pirated copy yet. That's before you factor in all the people who pay willingly, because they want to reward you for your hard work. The rest of them? Well, you're best served by ignoring the lot of them. Some may eventually work in your favor, as "advertising/marketing". Even if you can't see direct evidence of them boosting your sales - maybe they're boosting your credibility as an author in your field? Maybe people who pirated your earlier books are now far more likely to purchase something new that comes out with your name on it?
As for search engine results? I don't know... I think that's always been "hit or miss". There's so much money to be made by trying to "game" them, people are always going to excessive lengths to force their page to the top of the search results - even when the content of their page hardly justifies it. Plus, it's just such a massive undertaking and is mostly just automated -- I don't *expect* search providers to be that "responsible" for the quality of the results. If they're consistently poor, people use a competing search engine and they're forced to improve or die out. That's about all there is to it.....
For McDonalds, I think there's *some* profit in getting people to stay longer - simply because a number of people go back to get a McFlurry or sundae... some dessert-type item, if they're done with a meal and decide to stick around a while on a wi-fi connection. Others might even go back for one of those coffee drinks of theirs.
But essentially, you're right. I don't see why *unlimited* wireless is beneficial for them. On the flip-side though, most McD's around here seem to be offering that Wayport wi-fi access that AT&T gives you free as an iPhone user, but others have to pay some kind of subscription fee to access. If that's the situation, then you'd think McDonalds just serves as a distribution point for the service - and they could demand compensation from AT&T in return for letting them place the access points there?
Yep. The kid-friendly factor is key. I like Panera Bread, but I have yet to see a single one with a kid's "play place" in it.
There's also the related issue, that if you actually want some uninterrupted time to USE a wi-fi connection and read news, email, etc. while your kid is with you, you're NOT going to get it unless they offer things to keep your kid occupied at the same time.
I can't imagine taking even the most well-behaved kid to a regular restaurant, and expecting him/her to just quietly sit there, bored out of his/her mind, while I crack open my laptop and start reading and replying to messages, chatting with people on IM, or anything else.
A valid point, but what about the employee who has his (her?) own office, and looks at the material behind a closed door, perhaps only on their lunch hour?
I know plenty of sysadmins who discovered, upon close review of squid access logs and the like, that porn was being regularly viewed by upper management or even owners of the companies they worked for.
I think the bottom line is, no, people shouldn't be doing things in the workplace that they're not being paid to do. That includes everything from surfing porn to working crossword puzzles to making/taking personal phone calls during the day. But you can't treat "pr0n" as thought it's any "worse" than those other things, by default.
Sure, you take some measures to prevent it from becoming an issue. You block as many sites as possible with some filtering software, and you probably want employees to sign some kind of "Internet usage agreement" for H.R. to keep on file.
But as long as the person looking at the stuff does it so discreetly, it never offends someone who "accidentally sees it" -- then it's not offending anyone else, corrupting any children, etc. etc. At that point, you may as well treat it like anything else. If a person's boss/manager becomes concerned they're wasting time doing things that aren't benefiting the company, then they have a right to request log files for the person's web usage, or whatever else they may want to review. If not, then let it go if it hasn't become a concern for anybody.
Slashdot Mirror
Truthfully, a parent has not "failed" because they let a kid play a game like GTA. Rather, they only failed if they didn't accompany it with some explanation....
I've actually let my 7 year old play GTA on my PS3, but I made it clear it's a game where you play a "very bad person" and it's a story about people doing things you're not supposed to do in real life. She played a little bit, had fun driving the cars around and so forth, and basically got bored with it after a few minutes. So now? It's not some big "taboo" thing anymore to her. It's just another one of those games for "older people", and she's not that interested in playing some bad guy doing bad stuff.....
Sure, I believe there are things best kept away from kids until they're old enough to really understand and deal with the topics they present. But it's the job of a parent to make those judgment calls for themselves. Sometimes, maybe they're wrong ... but overall, who else knows a kid better than their own mom or dad? I'd argue that trying to simply lock up some video game like GTA to prevent a kid from ever playing it is parental laziness. You can't prevent your kid from ever seeing or playing the game at somebody else's house, some day..... You may as well confront the thing head on.
They might, but I'm not sure it's wise to go down that legal path of outlawing anything that might "trigger" a person to commit a crime?
It winds up being one step closer to "thought crime" ... trying to stop crime before it happens, rather than punishing those who already commit one.
Are you really ready to outlaw all casinos because they tempt some people to ruin their lives, gambling away all their income with their addiction? The U.S. already tried to outlaw alcoholic beverages, seeing all the health issues and crime they caused when SOME people abused them. Didn't work out so well.
And yes, as you said yourself too ... We certainly don't have the same standards for murder. If we did, we'd have outlawed all guns by now, as well as banning the viewing of a shooting on TV or in the movies. Wouldn't want to tempt someone to commit a murder, would we?
I've worked in I.T. long enough to know that the vast majority of security products and services out there are little more than selling companies a "bill of goods". Sometimes, it's a great investment, simply as a CYA move. (As a systems administrator, you're a lot less likely to get fired because of a hack if you can show you tried your best to secure everything, using products X, Y and Z, right?)
But ultimately, you can go with the most highly regarded firewall product, the top-rated anti-spyware and anti-virus solutions, implement policies requiring employees change their passwords every 30 days, encrypt sensitive information, and the whole 9 yards. But one employee who has been given access is all it takes to make it all come tumbling down. (And I imagine the vast majority of the time, that's a key component of successful hacks anyway. Remember the AOL credit card leaks a while back? Total inside job.)
In most cases, you really don't have much of a guarantee that a given product truly gives you the security it claims either. How do you REALLY know that expensive firewall doesn't have some kind of back-door in it that's never been publicized? Maybe one of their developers stuck it in there secretly, knowing he'd made FAR more than his salary selling the password to a few key hackers in the underground later?
Unless a product offers to cover all your expenses to recover from a hack, if their product or service is hacked, it's pretty weak insurance.
I have my own side business that has my last name as part of its title. Amazingly, when I went to register a domain name for it, I discovered that somebody had actually registered the name I wanted as a .com domain. (This is pretty unlikely, since my last name is uncommon AND spelled differently than most people who share a very similar last name. Not only that, but to register it with my business's full title was just weird!)
When I went to the web site, nothing pulled up at all, and the whois info informed me some business in China held the domain registration for it. Quite odd...
Rather than mess around with any of this (and wind up being asked to pay who knows how much to buy the domain), I went ahead and registered the .net version of my desired domain name instead, and used it for about a year. I paid GoDaddy about $5 for a year of "site monitoring", so they'd shoot me an email any time the status of the .com domain I wanted changed.
It was interesting to see, because after a while, I received several notifications about it changing status. (Someone appeared to be transferring it to someone else, who transferred it again. My guess is that some of these squatters are just buying "packages" of domains from other squatters?) By the 2nd. year I was in business, the domain had finally expired and I was able to register it myself for only a few bucks. I then ran my .com and .net domains simultaneously until the .net one expired.
Exactly! That's what I did. I disconnected the wires coming in to the box outside my house, to make sure the phone company wouldn't send anything down my copper wiring that might interfere, and then plugged a stand-alone adapter into one of the wall jacks, to feed the rest of the jacks with dial-tone from VoIP service.
I have a cellphone too, but I just don't see the "value" in trying to use it exclusively? I know the battery in mine always seems to be running low by the time I come home from work at the end of the day. Sucks when people start trying to call you after dinner and your battery is about dead.
For about the same price they'd charge you to bump up your cellphone's monthly minute plan to the next level, you can buy VoIP service with free unlimited calls anywhere in the U.S. (and likely Canada and several other countries too). Then you also get to re-use all your existing land-line phones. (After all, are you really going to find anyone to buy them off you, used, for even a few bucks per phone??) You won't have to run all over the house looking for that 1 cellphone you put down someplace and forget where when the phone rings, and you'll have a second number. (Nice when you need to give someone a callback number, but you really don't want them to have your cell - giving them a way to harass you with calls no matter where you go.)
Besides, I have one of those combo cordless Uniden phones with digital answering machine in it. I really like being able to still use that, vs. having to retrieve all of my voice mail by dialing in to some service being run by whoever my phone carrier is. The minute you walk in the door, you have an LED readout showing you how many messages you've got waiting, and you can listen to them with the push of just 1 button.
That's exactly the opinion a free software developer should have, IMHO.
I will say, though, that people discounting the value in devoting some time to becoming part of a "community" of software users are missing out on what's really the best type of support there is for a product.
I've encountered this even with costly commercial products we use where I work. For example, our document management software has a multi-thousand dollar per year "support contract", yet every time I've called in with issues - they weren't really able to resolve them for me. I wound up losing data on 2 different occasions, and ultimately, their only answer was to "create a new database container, and copy over all the salvageable data from the corrupt database, and then delete the damaged one". I could have done THAT without paying anyone for assistance! By contrast, a former employee of theirs created a small blog and discussion forum he invited developers and users to share, and I've already gotten 2 really helpful responses to questions about the product on there.
No, I honestly don't see it quite that way. I know what you're saying ... but I think it's a little bit different in Apple's case.
Essentially, Apple is saying they spent the money on R&D for their operating system, OS X, so it could be bundled with their own hardware and sold as a set. The copies of OS X you can buy separately at retail are considered "upgrade licenses" by Apple, because despite the fact they WILL perform a full installation on a blank hard drive, that's done for user convenience. The *real* full OS X license was only able to be purchased as part of a new Mac purchase.
People screaming about this, as it relates to "Hackintoshes", are basically asserting their right to buy this upgrade edition of OS X and use it on whatever hardware they like. But really, we don't know how much money Apple wants to charge people for a "full" OS X license? I'm assuming it's considerably more than the $129 or so you paid for OS X off the shelf -- because that goes a long way towards explaining why Mac systems always seem to cost hundreds more than PC counterparts. (Windows users fuss about the "Mac tax" all the time, so they must understand this concept.)
Therefore, if push comes to shove on this issue? All I can see as an outcomes are:
1. Apple agrees to start selling everyone a "full" OS X version that IS legal for use on whatever hardware you want to try to load it on, but it goes for $349 or something.
2. Apple decides they're no longer going to be friendly about doing so much on the "honor system", and releases the next version of OS X so it does product activation, verifying you're really registered as a new Mac owner before it will activate for you (or alternately, makes you insert a recovery DVD from a new Mac system to prove you bought it).
3. Apple agrees to start allowing clone Mac builders again, like they did a long time ago. But just like before, you have to become authorized by Apple as a licensed clone builder - so only a few vendors will wind up legally allowed to do it anyway.
Really, you're not even comparing comparable products here, though.
You're talking about a Dell Mini 9 vs., anything available from Apple, when Apple has admitted openly that they don't make a "netbook" right now, and so far, have not even had an interest in that market segment!
I'd even go so far as to argue that Apple's current answer to netbooks like the Mini 9 is the iPod Touch or iPhone, both of which are comparably priced to the $300 you're talking about!
Just curious.... Did you do re-formats and fresh installs of RC1, or did you try to upgrade from build 7000 to 7100?
I've heard other people say Win 7 RC1 got slower than the beta builds, but I didn't notice that at all on 3 machines I've used both on so far. (The thing is though, all 3 systems I've tried had at least 4GB of RAM in them - so I can't speak for performance in lesser RAM configurations.)
It might basically be a big press release, but I don't know that it's fair to claim they compared it to Vista simply because "they knew it sucked".
I think for the typical Windows user, the issue today is that XP has been around since 2002. Microsoft is inching ever closer to stopping any support for the product. Furthermore, it doesn't seem to be a very good option for a 64-bit OS - and PCs are rapidly moving to 64-bit capable processors. Sure, it's still the best choice for existing hardware, but when you do the next round of hardware upgrades, is XP going to still be the best option from Microsoft for you? (Some of the new systems with integrated touch-screens have really poor touch-screen support under XP, but they have full support in Vista, and it looks like even better support is being integrated into Windows 7 for them.)
Given all of that? Yes, I think the relevant question is "In how many and which ways does Windows 7 really improve on Vista?" ... because like it or not, Microsoft users are going to be moving to one or the other of those 2 options before long.
Yeah.... I believe they originally had ties to management/owners of Mindspring, and that became Earthlink when it was merged with them. So these days, who knows how much influence Scientologists still have over there?
I don't know.... As a PS3 owner myself, I found I spent more time playing GTA4 on it than most of the other titles I purchased for it. Even though I think the GTA series could do a lot of things to be better than it is, the graphics improvements in 4 really brought something to the series. (I know graphics are generally just "eye candy" and don't make a game "more fun" ... but I think they're a big deal in a game that relies on you exploring a 3D virtual world. GTA has always been the kind of game where you spend a lot of time just roaming around and discovering things. The cooler all the stuff looks, the more rewarding the experience is.)
The biggest disappointment I've always had in the GTA games is the relative lack of sensible AI in them. The game could get a lot more interesting if you could do things like forcing shop-keepers to hand over money in their registers, instead of only having the option to buy items from them. (Even in the fast food places in the game, if you point a gun at them, they usually put their hands up in the air and scream, but it serves no purpose. You can't take one of them hostage, or ask them to go get you money out of their safe, or .....) And no matter how many times you car-jack an ambulance (or attack paramedics trying to help someone else you just ran over), they don't ever seem to treat you differently. It's the same old routine where doing X amount of violence causes another "star" on the wanted level. It'd be interesting if ambulance drivers started seeing you coming and tried to run YOU over or ganged up on you in back-alleys or something, after a while.
All the way around, they could make the game a lot less "linear" ... As it is, you can roam all over and do all sorts of things, but all of it affects nothing in the main storyline they want you to follow. I'd like to see the story base itself around all the random stuff you do in the game. (Run over a whole lot of people on sidewalks? Suddenly, you're known as the "sidewalk mower" ... and they start using you for missions where that skill comes in handy.)
"Cocaine is a hell of a drug." - Rick James
You're not the only one. Scary, isn't it, how a corporation's name can get that ingrained in one's head that anything similar immediately looks like it?
I was thinking, "Well, that'll be kind of cool, if I can grab a $99 server computer at Wal-Mart."
Yeah... but whoever took this drive obviously knew they didn't even use OS X....
Speed doesn't kill anybody.... It's that coming to a sudden stop that gets you every time!
As far as I can discern, there's no such thing as a right "scaling up". This is just made-up nonsense!
Rights are absolutes. Either you have a right or you don't.
The *only* place a right ends is where it begins infringing on another right.
The reason you view what Google is doing as a concern is because you feel their otherwise acceptable activities begin infringing on your "right to privacy" when assembled into a searchable "whole".
The problem there is, we don't seem to have an inherent "right to privacy". It's certainly not spelled out as such in the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights ... and I don't believe any other nations grant their citizens an "inalienable right to absolute privacy" either?
I believe privacy is more of a desirable concept than an absolute right. We speak of "reasonable expectations" when it comes to privacy. There are philosophical arguments that a certain amount of privacy is indirectly granted based on other basic rights, for example.
But where is the line drawn in the sand? I imagine it's in a different place depending on people's "comfort zone" -- which varies by culture. (Americans, for example, tend to expect more "personal space" around them than those in Asia. What's "normal" to them might be seen as "constantly getting in my way" to an American.)
As we make use of new technologies, we have to balance their usefulness with their potential for reducing privacy, and keep making adjustments to what we'll allow and what we won't.
I happen to feel that as long as Google freely gives away the information they collect, they aren't doing anything wrong by collecting "street view" images or any other mapping activity involving capturing video in public places. It gets much more "iffy" if you talk about this information being sold commercially, and access to it restricted.
Well, first of all, because the original article specifically said "not including video editing" - this whole discussion doesn't really address the original question.
That said though, there's nothing wrong with extending the topic a bit ....
It sounds to me like you're talking about creating a lot of special f/x and so forth, for video, vs. spending the majority of your time editing and cleaning up live footage.
I can't imagine why you wouldn't just buy a Mac and Final Cut Pro (or even Express if it meets your needs) and be done with it, if you're editing a lot of live footage?
Considering OS X is a Unix OS to begin with, I have no doubt it's POSSIBLE to do whatever you need to do in Linux, and after struggling through the learning curve, someone can make it happen. The point, though, is usually that you want the least headache and hassle possible, while getting the most usability. Final Cut is an industry standard for working with video, and many good plug-ins are available to add to its capabilities. Apple has a vested interest in spending time and money to keep new versions of it as compatible as possible with new video formats and communications protocols in new cameras, too. The open-source developer, by contrast, is usually only motivated if he/she personally buys something that doesn't work.
If I could wave my magic wand...
I am made from the dust of the stars
And the oceans flow in my veins
Here I hide in the heart of the city
Like a stranger coming out of the rain
The evening plane rises up from the runway
Over constellations of light
I look down into a million houses
And wonder what you're doing tonight
Don't ask me
I'm just improvising
My illusion of careless flight
Can't you see
My temperature's rising
I radiate more heat than light
Actually, I think the "trick" is often to figure out what BOTH genders prefer, and offer one product that pleases both.
For example, I see this a lot with lawn care tools. You can choose from dozens of weed-trimmers with relatively big gasoline-powered engines. They all promise that they're built "to last", etc. etc.
Yet one of the best sellers I've seen on the shelves year after year, with no real product changes, was the Weed-Eater "Featherlite". Why? It's priced reasonably, for starters - but hugely important is the fact that it's really light-weight and comfortable to use.
I know quite a few women who do their own yard work, but they wind up paying someone to do the weed-trimming part, because the full-size trimmers everyone seems to be selling are too hard for them to handle.
The thing is though, as an average-sized guy, *I* bought one of those "Featherlites" too, and appreciated the same benefits. There's no reason to lug something around that's 4x heavier and uses more gas, to do what's a pretty basic job around the house and driveway.
When you're talking about computer tech, I think the majority of women are attracted to something that's easy to use, small and lightweight (if it's a portable computer), and that comes with the tools they need to be CREATIVE with it.
Again, this are all goals that most GUYS would appreciate as well. It's just that a guy is probably more likely to shop based more on "raw performance for the dollar" and figures he'll "get the other software rounded up and installed later".
Actually, I don't know almost anybody who views a book author as the "bad guy". I think students, more and more, have a negative attitude about textbook prices - but usually, the school bookstore is the "bad guy" there. (Alternately, students dislike professors who seem to publish new editions of their OWN texts on a regular basis, just so they can turn around and rip you off buying the "seventh edition" or whatever, with very minor changes, for the new semester's course. I'd use "book author" VERY loosely with most of those people.)
That said? Practically ANY type of IP that can be converted to a digital format is subject to mass duplication. Books used to escape a lot of the fate of other forms of media, simply because it was time consuming trying to scan in all the pages of a book so they were clear/readable, and stored in a digital format useful to the average potential recipient. With the advent of PDF as a document standard, better scanner technology, and broadband Internet - digitizing entire texts becomes much more viable.
I've always maintained that in the "digital age", anyone creating "intellectual property" needs to be comfortable with the idea that their material WILL be redistributed to people who didn't pay them for it first. I don't think it's really reasonable for anyone creating intangible works to expect they can make 1 or 2 works, and sit back forever, profiting handsomely from them. The key is to KEEP creating FRESH content, repeatedly. If your material has "value" to people, a certain percentage will always pay for it.
The FIRST person who wants it is going to HAVE to buy it, obviously ... and so is anyone else who WANTS to "pirate" it but can't locate a pirated copy yet. That's before you factor in all the people who pay willingly, because they want to reward you for your hard work. The rest of them? Well, you're best served by ignoring the lot of them. Some may eventually work in your favor, as "advertising/marketing". Even if you can't see direct evidence of them boosting your sales - maybe they're boosting your credibility as an author in your field? Maybe people who pirated your earlier books are now far more likely to purchase something new that comes out with your name on it?
As for search engine results? I don't know... I think that's always been "hit or miss". There's so much money to be made by trying to "game" them, people are always going to excessive lengths to force their page to the top of the search results - even when the content of their page hardly justifies it. Plus, it's just such a massive undertaking and is mostly just automated -- I don't *expect* search providers to be that "responsible" for the quality of the results. If they're consistently poor, people use a competing search engine and they're forced to improve or die out. That's about all there is to it.....
Bah.... IBM WebExplorer, FTW!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_WebExplorer
For McDonalds, I think there's *some* profit in getting people to stay longer - simply because a number of people go back to get a McFlurry or sundae ... some dessert-type item, if they're done with a meal and decide to stick around a while on a wi-fi connection. Others might even go back for one of those coffee drinks of theirs.
But essentially, you're right. I don't see why *unlimited* wireless is beneficial for them. On the flip-side though, most McD's around here seem to be offering that Wayport wi-fi access that AT&T gives you free as an iPhone user, but others have to pay some kind of subscription fee to access. If that's the situation, then you'd think McDonalds just serves as a distribution point for the service - and they could demand compensation from AT&T in return for letting them place the access points there?
Yep. The kid-friendly factor is key. I like Panera Bread, but I have yet to see a single one with a kid's "play place" in it.
There's also the related issue, that if you actually want some uninterrupted time to USE a wi-fi connection and read news, email, etc. while your kid is with you, you're NOT going to get it unless they offer things to keep your kid occupied at the same time.
I can't imagine taking even the most well-behaved kid to a regular restaurant, and expecting him/her to just quietly sit there, bored out of his/her mind, while I crack open my laptop and start reading and replying to messages, chatting with people on IM, or anything else.
A valid point, but what about the employee who has his (her?) own office, and looks at the material behind a closed door, perhaps only on their lunch hour?
I know plenty of sysadmins who discovered, upon close review of squid access logs and the like, that porn was being regularly viewed by upper management or even owners of the companies they worked for.
I think the bottom line is, no, people shouldn't be doing things in the workplace that they're not being paid to do. That includes everything from surfing porn to working crossword puzzles to making/taking personal phone calls during the day. But you can't treat "pr0n" as thought it's any "worse" than those other things, by default.
Sure, you take some measures to prevent it from becoming an issue. You block as many sites as possible with some filtering software, and you probably want employees to sign some kind of "Internet usage agreement" for H.R. to keep on file.
But as long as the person looking at the stuff does it so discreetly, it never offends someone who "accidentally sees it" -- then it's not offending anyone else, corrupting any children, etc. etc. At that point, you may as well treat it like anything else. If a person's boss/manager becomes concerned they're wasting time doing things that aren't benefiting the company, then they have a right to request log files for the person's web usage, or whatever else they may want to review. If not, then let it go if it hasn't become a concern for anybody.