However, just because it happened to one group of people, making the same thing happen to another group doesn't make it right.
While this is true, I would argue that if you let some Corporate Executives off with a slap of the wrist after throwing some punk kid in jail for essentially the same crime, you are playing favorites and perpetuate the notion that the rich can buy their way out of jail more easily than the poor (which is sadly more true than not).
I, personally, believe that Sony Executives acted with total disregard to the law in their zealous attempt to "protect" their rights. Their use of deceptive practices is no better than that of a virus or spyware author.
The problem with these EULAs are that they are so verbose that any important facts are lost and I believe that is the intention.
That is how these Spyware companies gain "permission" and certainly how Sony has gained "permission" to install anything they want. Most users aren't able to read a 5 page legal document squeezed into a tiny little box very effectively.
We need to write our Congressmen and Senators and tell them that EULAs should be simplified, even standardized. I'd even suggest that some sort of color coding be required to indicate the severity of changes to be made. Unlike Homeland Security's approach, I suggest three simple colors: GREEN, YELLOW, RED (You might recognize these colors from your local STOPLIGHT).
GREEN - This EULA just contains standard legal protections of the company for their software. YELLOW - This application will install some components to run at the same permission level as the user. RED - This application will install SYSTEM-LEVEL COMPONENTS.
This may not be perfect, but the 10-pages of legal mumbo-jumbo is hard for even the paranoid to go through. For example, I installed several updates to my Mac OS X system (10.4.3, Java, Quicktime, iTunes, Airport) and EACH ONE contained an EULA that was extremely long.
The current system is broken and, unfortunately, we need to change the law to fix it because I know that the large companies with their lawyers have no intention of fixing it.
I think that Windows may be *too* aggressive in its paging. I do think the algorithm could be improved as I compare my experience between Windows and Mac.
My experience with Mac OS X 10.3 on a Dual G4 with 1.5GB memory running for days (if not weeks) with zero (0) pageouts. My 1GB Powerbook currently reports zero pageouts with 51 processes running.
I'm sure some of that has to do with the way OS X pages in applications, but the result is seems to be a more efficient use of memory. To me, that says that Mac OS X does a better job of utilizing memory than Windows does.
Perhaps it is just perception, but I have seen very little benefit from adding lots of memory to a Windows machine.
The first article I saw on this issue said "with commercials", but apparently it depends. It sounds like DirecTV might be commercial free but Comcast's stuff is with commercials:
Comcast's service will be available starting in January to customers in markets with a CBS owned-and-operated television station, which includes the nation's seven largest media markets. The episodes will be available as early as midnight following a broadcast and will include commercials.
Then I don't understand why you are upset. This shouldn't really affect you because you already have a solution, your tivo.
The problem I have is these folks are basically rehashing OnDemand (which has been around for years w/o much impact) and trying to ride the iPod video buzz, even though they are not related at all.
I'm just calling it for what it is: a rehash of the same old technology and business models. This is not an advancement for the consumer?
Well, it wouldn't make sense for the company to offer a tv program for free without commercials. I would just miss all of my favorite shows on purpose to watch the free commercial-free version.
It would if you WERE PAYING FOR THEM. The point of ratings is to get viewers so they can charge folks for commercials. Now they want to make money on both ends. I believe this will only work for the most popular of shows and with limited success.
The people that watch their programs on time, when they are aired, won't be affected. But the people who miss their programs get the added benefit of watching them some other time, for a fee.
I'm sorry -- I don't subscribe to the antiquated belief that Networks should dictate WHEN I watch a show. I have a Tivo that let's ME control what I watch and when I watch it.
Fanatics no longer have to cancel all of their evening plans just to catch their favorite show's episode.
If folks are THAT tied to meet the Networks' Programming Schedule, they need some serious help (or a Tivo).
Network scheduling and "Primetime" are all artifacts of the early TV days when folks would sit around their tubes in a big family event (and it usually wasn't EVERY DAY). TV Networks still follow this model some 50+ years later, despite the fact that folks have busy lives and there is a lot more content on. In my opinion, this is their biggest mistake.
Like RIAA and the MPAA, TV Networks are still running today's business using a business model from 50 years ago. Times have changed. They will either adapt their business model, or it will die. Many old business models do not work today, those of the three organizations mentioned above are among the models that are on their way out.
This is proof that the Networks still don't understand this whole "internet" thing at all.
1. While downloading for iPod is mentioned in the article, NBC and CBS are referring to OnDemand (same ol' crap that cable companies have been pushing for years) with their set top boxes.
2. The article says that 99 cents is the cost, but it includes commercials. So you're paying $1 to watch a free show WITH commercials.
3. NBC still believes there "aren't enough protections" to put their content on the internet.
These guys don't realize that their shows are mediocre at best and placing any higher threshold on watching them will actually DECREASE viewers, not increase it. I'm not going to pay extra to watch a show with commercials (which you probably can't skip).
Apple's solution for $1.99 adds the benefit of watching it where you want and without commercials. It's great for the occasional missed episode that I can catch up with while traveling.
I've never used OnDemand TV (whether Cable or Satellite) and this won't be any different.
If I would have bought just a little bit of their stock with each "their going out of business" report throughout the years, I'd be a millionaire today!!
You forget that Apple is actually a hardware company. When the MacTel machines come out next year, they will be capable of running Mac OS X AND Windows Vista without a major performance penalty. I expect the transition to start early (Jan '06) and be mostly complete by Dec '06, depending on how quickly Intel's new chips are ready.
For the average user, the choice is easy. If I buy Apple hardware, I can CHOOSE Mac OS X or Windows (or run that occasional Windows app on my Mac OS X machine). So Apple will continue to sell more machines. MS doesn't care because it will mean another Windows Vista sale to them (they don't have a problem selling Virtual PC).
This solution will not likely work for hardcore gamers, but it will work for many business folks and the average user. My sister is already talking about the possibility (she has a couple Windows-only apps required for her business). I plan to have my enter family switched to MacTel machines by the end of '06 as well.
Finally, remember that much of the new stuff in Vista is old stuff in OS X Tiger (and the next major upgrade, OS X 10.5/Leopard. will be out at the same time as Vista).
I am a dyed-in-the-wool Sun guy who just got his first XP tablet/laptop last night (I use '98 on my desktop... hey, at least it's the devil I know). It has a half a gig of RAM, and swaps constantly, even after turning off all the eye candy. It's worse than Solaris 9!!!
I've seen my laptop paging out with 1GB of RAM, AT STARTUP
My experience has been that Windows likes to save the "real" memory, in case it needs it for the future. So it immediately starts swapping out memory at boot time. Wouldn't want that to accidently fill up the actual available memory, that might slow you down!!
You didn't mention which version of OS X, but I'll assume it is one of the later ones: 10.3 (Panther) or 10.4 (Tiger).
Try plugging a USB hard drive into it. It blackscreens...
You make it sound like ANY USB hard drive will crash OS X and that is not the case. Most likely, there is a driver issue with your particular brand of USB drive. Have you tried looking on the web for solutions, or do you prefer to keep the status quo so that you can claim that ANY USB drive doesn't work on OS X?
I had safari die on me the other day too - it died, I tried to force kill it - didn't work (it never works.. hardly worth having the option) and couldn't even kill -9 it from the terminal - had to reboot.
I've had Safari die on me in the past too, but force quit has ALWAYS worked for me. Again, you might consider addressing your particular machine, as there is something else going on here
OSX is *far* from perfect.
OS X is not perfect, but your description is also *far* from accurate in portraying OS X reliability. OS X does crash, but it is extremely rare event these days (in the early 10.0 days, it was much more common)
If the KEY is printed and thus has to be scanned, why don't they just print the information on there too? I mean, they are already planning to require you to put it across an optical scanner, so there must be another, unspoken, reason for using RFID.
The reasoning behind using RFID Passports seems *VERY* flawed. I am suspect of any agency that is a proponent of such reasoning. I'm sure terrorists and boogyman will be mentioned several times in the explanation as to why we should have this technology.
Both probably have about the same market share. I'm not sure why you think people want Mac OS X.
You do realize that the point of the original article was that Apple is working to require their hardware. And the comments are all about how Apple needs to allow the OS to run on every two-bit PC created, so apparently SOMEBODY wants it.
The complaints made about Apple aren't that they don't want the OS, but rather folks think the hardware that it requires is too expensive. Macs are selling very well and their market share is growing (I suspect it will grow even more when MacTel machines are available that can run the occasional Windows program without a lot of overhead).
The Pontiac Aztec was so ugly that no one wanted one, people mocked those that drove one, and GM executives were forced to drive them (partially because the inventory was so high). It has been called a huge failure of GM. People buying a Yugo didn't get as much grief as those that bought the Pontiac, at least they had an excuse (it was cheap).
A certain segment of the techie community like OS X, and a certain segment of the computer-as-fashion community as well.
And certain segment of creative professionals and a certain segment of mom & pops that just want to browse the web, read/write email and write a few letters without constantly worrying about their machine being turned into a bot. Yeah, hardly anyone wants it.
Most of the rest of us really aren't that interested.
If you weren't really that interested, why are you reading the article and comments? Seems like there is at least some interest on your part.
Good! The harder they work on keeping people from using it, the less effort they can put in making it good, and the fewer developers will come to the platform.
And if Apple doesn't do anything, then cheap-ass folks who call themselves developers will pirate the software. I don't think Apple is missing out on the "big" developer pool by not making their OS free
To me, this says that Linux is going to improve compared to OS X,
In what way? Linux sucks when it comes to user experiences. Developers on Linux seem to think that offers 100 command line options is a good UI for the average user. That's fine for the techies, but real folks want a real, full-blown user experience that is pleasant and seamless.
because Apple is investing effort in making their OS worse instead of better, and because they will fail to attract as many hackers as they could.
The OS is worse because they won't let you run it on some two-bit piece of hardware you threw together? Give me a break. How cheap are you really? As for failing to attract hackers -- who cares. I want folks that actually understand users to be writing the software, not some command-line, script-happy "hacker". And the reality is that Apple is attracting UNIX guys that are realizing that they can have their UNIX power and a real interface.
I already switched from OS X to Linux because I find it technically superior
I don't even know what that's supposed to mean, since technically superior is very vague. Windows is technically superior at running Active-X controls and if you need that, it would be the choice. In the end, it just sounds like you are trying to rationalize your decision to stay away from the mainstream desktop world. That's fine -- but don't expect 99% of the rest of the population to think like you. Linux has its uses, but running a Desktop is not one of them. Until there are folks that understand usability designing the entire Linux user experience, it won't make it into the mainstream.
The analogy is wrong. Mac OS X is not like a Pontiac Aztec, most folks actually want Mac OS X.
When comparing OS X to cars, it is better to choose BMW or Lexus. OS X, like a BMW or Lexus, is a premium brand that offers premium experience for an additional cost. In both cases, you have the option of getting a lower end model (Windows/Ford) that does the job, just not as elegantly.
As a small development company, I read this sort of stuff and cringe.
Add to that the fact that software runs in a very heterogeneous environment. The cost of testing the software with every combination of hardware and software for potential conflicts would take a $100 piece of software and push the cost up ten, maybe 100 times as much.
To use the doctor analogy, you don't see people come to see the doctor and complain because his right arm isn't working only to discover he decided to "upgrade" his left arm himself and cut a nerve to the right arm in the process. But folks are constantly installing new software, adding new hardware to their machines and then contacting me for problems related to my software (often times, it turns out the software added causes conflicts with a lot of software).
Yes, we need to focus more on security -- but this is not the approach. If we're going to hold people accountable, I'd like to see someone other than the lineman getting the shaft. Developers are often under unrealistic deadlines. Shouldn't the CEO or V's that created this situation be held responsible before the programmers?
The only people to benefit would be lawyers.
P.S. Does anyone find it ironic that this comes from someone in this administration, which has held zero people accountable for their actions and in fact has promoted people despite HUGE failures.
Along with some of the other arguments made, I will add this one. I don't watch naked TV. All my viewing is done through my PVR, so that I can watch shows when I want to, not when some schmuck at a Network wants me to. Must See Thursdays? Not here. I watch my Thursday shows when I want to.
So YES, this does break my TV. The point of the Broadcast Flag is for Networks to be able to control their content once it has reached into your living room.
Imagine if a magazine or book to erase its pages so that you couldn't view it after a fixed period of time. Or that when you tried to make a photocopy of a cool article, it actively prevented it. And in the more bit-oriented world. Imagine if you could only install a piece of software on one machine and only once. What your hard drive was trashed? Sorry, you'll have to buy another copy? You're moving to a new computer that's faster? You'll have to buy another copy. I doubt anyone would find the previous examples acceptable -- and the Broadcast Flag is no different. The same is true for Music DRM.
The one thing that these content companies fail to realize is that there is a threshold where we will seek alternatives. If you make is too difficult to allow me to watch a simple movie, TV show or listen to some music, I'll just find something else to do. Then MPAA/RIAA will blame piracy and seek more draconian measures stifling more folks, and they'll head into a downward spiral towards nothingness.
Today -- Banks take zero responsibility for phishing. They don't seek to educate their customers, they don't do much of anything because there isn't much incentive in it for them.
I'm not saying that some users aren't stupid enough to just give their information away. Some folks don't know better, some folks don't understand the web or links or HTML messages (and the fact that the name displayed can be different than the URL given).
Right now, however, all the responsibility lies on the customer. Extending this out, banks have been spewing private information and once again, due to lack of accountability, it becomes YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to determine if your information was taken and used to steal your identity.
So it comes down to a very simple fact: It's all about the money. You hold banks financially responsible and hit them hard when they don't take reasonable measures to secure their customers money and I guarantee that they will not only take notice, but take action. Then it isn't you and I fighting, by ourselves, against the phishers and the identity thieves -- the Banks and Credit Card companies will ACTIVELY (keyword there) be fighting them too.
I'm all for people taking personal responsibility -- but that doesn't let the large corporations off the hook. Financial institutions (being corporate entities) also have to take responsibility and currently, they are not. They are the ones with the resources to dramatically reduce phishing and identity theft, yet their current policies make it easy to take any information you have and open up a new account without verification, get a new credit card, etc.
Right now, there is no real incentive for Banks to fight phishing. If your identity is stolen, YOU have to fight to clear it up. Make the banks 100% responsible and they will be on your side (because it is in their best interest).
I also think that if a company exposes private information (especially financial, SSN), they need to be held responsible for more than just "letting you know". They should be required to pay for 2 years of credit reports every six months and if fraudulent activity comes up, they have to pay to help clean up the mess.
This is not unlike the idea of targeting the companies whose products are advertised in SPAM. You force them to pay up (and pay up big) and you'll see the problem start to diminish. You can't get rid of the guy that will spam, but if you target the companies that are taking advantage of this -- you will make a difference.
Big companies need to start taking responsibility (and not the hollow President version). Taking responsibility means accepting the consequences -- in these cases, the costs. Of course, company CEOs won't like it because it hits their short term bottom line, but the reality is that in the long term -- everyone will benefit.
The Music Industry is right about the need for variable pricing.
New tracks should be $0.99 Older tracks should be $0.50
Oh wait -- you actually think that a track is worth more than a buck even as you try to continue to limit how I listen to that track? I don't think so.
I'm not a huge fan of DRM, but Apple does make it fairly simple and it doesn't really get in your way for day to day uses like some others do.
RIAA's cut on these tracks is PURE PROFIT. They're not paying for the bandwidth to download the music. They're not paying for software changes to showcase the music. They just get a big, fat check. And as is typical with these greedy RIAA execs, they want more. Why not, they've been stealing from musicians for decades without providing real value added services, so they feel they should get a cut of everything. Hopefully they're going to get a dose of reality real soon.
101 Ways to Promote Piracy written by your favorite friends at RIAA and the MPAA.
Reason #88 - Copy Protected Memory
Not only will we be able to control the crappy music we're selling you, but we'll be able to limit your own works as well. We at RIAA do not like to encourage the creation of actual music and must take steps to protect our artists from such actions. This technology allows us to treat our customers like they are two-bit thugs and limit the creation of new works through our special filter software.
Note: Copy Protected Memory requires Windows XP. Will not work with Mac OS X, Linux, or pretty much anything else.
----
As if the fact that most content sucks these days isn't enough. These guys (with strong encouragement from RIAA and MPAA) are making it so difficult to "enjoy" the crappy content that it just isn't worth the effort anymore. Result -- I am more likely to just listen to my collection of 1200 CDs.
I'm not sure why people are freaking out over this. This is tied to the $150 rebate they offer and it looks like it works just like the cellphone plans. You get a phone for $49, but are required to stay with their service for 2 years. Oh wait, Tivo isn't requiring a 2-year commitment.
You're getting the $199 Tivo for $49 and are bitching that it is linked to a 1-year minimum contract. So you bitch about a $199 box and tell Tivo they should make it cheaper. They figure out a way to absorb the cost only to have you bitch about that.
P.S. Yes, I realize all the DRM crap Tivo is pulling -- but as far as I can tell, it is unrelated to the rebate/service agreement setup they've got going.
I used a Scientific Atlanta PVR when I first got TWC. I found a dozen major bugs within 20 minutes of usage. It lost programs, it had problems decoding, didn't record correctly. Worse yet, the interface is counter-intuitive. It has to have one of the worst user interfaces I've ever experienced. I went through several different boxes (they kept claiming the box must be bad). Needless to say, I returned it and told them to shove it. I don't need to be frustrated by the simple act of trying to watch TV.
I'm sorry, if you think that's the only difference -- then you haven't really used a Tivo. Season Passes and Wishlists are worth the cost alone. If you get a DVD Burning model (Humax), then there is absolutely no comparison. Record your shows and save them to DVD for on the road or later viewing.
Scientific Atlanta is the Geo Metro of PVRs. Yes, the Tivo costs more in both upfront and service, but you get what you pay for. Scientific Atlanta is a big giant turd as far as I'm concerned. They put out substandard crap that people accept because they don't realize that they shouldn't have to struggle with their PVR (they think it's just the norm).
Slashdot Mirror
However, just because it happened to one group of people, making the same thing happen to another group doesn't make it right.
While this is true, I would argue that if you let some Corporate Executives off with a slap of the wrist after throwing some punk kid in jail for essentially the same crime, you are playing favorites and perpetuate the notion that the rich can buy their way out of jail more easily than the poor (which is sadly more true than not).
I, personally, believe that Sony Executives acted with total disregard to the law in their zealous attempt to "protect" their rights. Their use of deceptive practices is no better than that of a virus or spyware author.
The problem with these EULAs are that they are so verbose that any important facts are lost and I believe that is the intention.
That is how these Spyware companies gain "permission" and certainly how Sony has gained "permission" to install anything they want. Most users aren't able to read a 5 page legal document squeezed into a tiny little box very effectively.
We need to write our Congressmen and Senators and tell them that EULAs should be simplified, even standardized. I'd even suggest that some sort of color coding be required to indicate the severity of changes to be made. Unlike Homeland Security's approach, I suggest three simple colors: GREEN, YELLOW, RED (You might recognize these colors from your local STOPLIGHT).
GREEN - This EULA just contains standard legal protections of the company for their software.
YELLOW - This application will install some components to run at the same permission level as the user.
RED - This application will install SYSTEM-LEVEL COMPONENTS.
This may not be perfect, but the 10-pages of legal mumbo-jumbo is hard for even the paranoid to go through. For example, I installed several updates to my Mac OS X system (10.4.3, Java, Quicktime, iTunes, Airport) and EACH ONE contained an EULA that was extremely long.
The current system is broken and, unfortunately, we need to change the law to fix it because I know that the large companies with their lawyers have no intention of fixing it.
I think that Windows may be *too* aggressive in its paging. I do think the algorithm could be improved as I compare my experience between Windows and Mac.
My experience with Mac OS X 10.3 on a Dual G4 with 1.5GB memory running for days (if not weeks) with zero (0) pageouts. My 1GB Powerbook currently reports zero pageouts with 51 processes running.
I'm sure some of that has to do with the way OS X pages in applications, but the result is seems to be a more efficient use of memory. To me, that says that Mac OS X does a better job of utilizing memory than Windows does.
Perhaps it is just perception, but I have seen very little benefit from adding lots of memory to a Windows machine.
Windows does agressively put pages into the standby list
I understand the basic concept of standby pages, but didn't you just make my argument for me?
The first article I saw on this issue said "with commercials", but apparently it depends. It sounds like DirecTV might be commercial free but Comcast's stuff is with commercials:
Then I don't understand why you are upset. This shouldn't really affect you because you already have a solution, your tivo.
The problem I have is these folks are basically rehashing OnDemand (which has been around for years w/o much impact) and trying to ride the iPod video buzz, even though they are not related at all.
I'm just calling it for what it is: a rehash of the same old technology and business models. This is not an advancement for the consumer?
Well, it wouldn't make sense for the company to offer a tv program for free without commercials. I would just miss all of my favorite shows on purpose to watch the free commercial-free version.
It would if you WERE PAYING FOR THEM. The point of ratings is to get viewers so they can charge folks for commercials. Now they want to make money on both ends. I believe this will only work for the most popular of shows and with limited success.
The people that watch their programs on time, when they are aired, won't be affected. But the people who miss their programs get the added benefit of watching them some other time, for a fee.
I'm sorry -- I don't subscribe to the antiquated belief that Networks should dictate WHEN I watch a show. I have a Tivo that let's ME control what I watch and when I watch it.
Fanatics no longer have to cancel all of their evening plans just to catch their favorite show's episode.
If folks are THAT tied to meet the Networks' Programming Schedule, they need some serious help (or a Tivo).
Network scheduling and "Primetime" are all artifacts of the early TV days when folks would sit around their tubes in a big family event (and it usually wasn't EVERY DAY). TV Networks still follow this model some 50+ years later, despite the fact that folks have busy lives and there is a lot more content on. In my opinion, this is their biggest mistake.
Like RIAA and the MPAA, TV Networks are still running today's business using a business model from 50 years ago. Times have changed. They will either adapt their business model, or it will die. Many old business models do not work today, those of the three organizations mentioned above are among the models that are on their way out.
This is proof that the Networks still don't understand this whole "internet" thing at all.
1. While downloading for iPod is mentioned in the article, NBC and CBS are referring to OnDemand (same ol' crap that cable companies have been pushing for years) with their set top boxes.
2. The article says that 99 cents is the cost, but it includes commercials. So you're paying $1 to watch a free show WITH commercials.
3. NBC still believes there "aren't enough protections" to put their content on the internet.
These guys don't realize that their shows are mediocre at best and placing any higher threshold on watching them will actually DECREASE viewers, not increase it. I'm not going to pay extra to watch a show with commercials (which you probably can't skip).
Apple's solution for $1.99 adds the benefit of watching it where you want and without commercials. It's great for the occasional missed episode that I can catch up with while traveling.
I've never used OnDemand TV (whether Cable or Satellite) and this won't be any different.
If I would have bought just a little bit of their stock with each "their going out of business" report throughout the years, I'd be a millionaire today!!
You forget that Apple is actually a hardware company. When the MacTel machines come out next year, they will be capable of running Mac OS X AND Windows Vista without a major performance penalty. I expect the transition to start early (Jan '06) and be mostly complete by Dec '06, depending on how quickly Intel's new chips are ready.
For the average user, the choice is easy. If I buy Apple hardware, I can CHOOSE Mac OS X or Windows (or run that occasional Windows app on my Mac OS X machine). So Apple will continue to sell more machines. MS doesn't care because it will mean another Windows Vista sale to them (they don't have a problem selling Virtual PC).
This solution will not likely work for hardcore gamers, but it will work for many business folks and the average user. My sister is already talking about the possibility (she has a couple Windows-only apps required for her business). I plan to have my enter family switched to MacTel machines by the end of '06 as well.
Finally, remember that much of the new stuff in Vista is old stuff in OS X Tiger (and the next major upgrade, OS X 10.5/Leopard. will be out at the same time as Vista).
So Apple ultimately wins with or without Vista.
I am a dyed-in-the-wool Sun guy who just got his first XP tablet/laptop last night (I use '98 on my desktop... hey, at least it's the devil I know). It has a half a gig of RAM, and swaps constantly, even after turning off all the eye candy. It's worse than Solaris 9!!!
I've seen my laptop paging out with 1GB of RAM, AT STARTUP
My experience has been that Windows likes to save the "real" memory, in case it needs it for the future. So it immediately starts swapping out memory at boot time. Wouldn't want that to accidently fill up the actual available memory, that might slow you down!!
You didn't mention which version of OS X, but I'll assume it is one of the later ones: 10.3 (Panther) or 10.4 (Tiger).
Try plugging a USB hard drive into it. It blackscreens...
You make it sound like ANY USB hard drive will crash OS X and that is not the case. Most likely, there is a driver issue with your particular brand of USB drive. Have you tried looking on the web for solutions, or do you prefer to keep the status quo so that you can claim that ANY USB drive doesn't work on OS X?
I had safari die on me the other day too - it died, I tried to force kill it - didn't work (it never works.. hardly worth having the option) and couldn't even kill -9 it from the terminal - had to reboot.
I've had Safari die on me in the past too, but force quit has ALWAYS worked for me. Again, you might consider addressing your particular machine, as there is something else going on here
OSX is *far* from perfect.
OS X is not perfect, but your description is also *far* from accurate in portraying OS X reliability. OS X does crash, but it is extremely rare event these days (in the early 10.0 days, it was much more common)
If the KEY is printed and thus has to be scanned, why don't they just print the information on there too? I mean, they are already planning to require you to put it across an optical scanner, so there must be another, unspoken, reason for using RFID.
The reasoning behind using RFID Passports seems *VERY* flawed. I am suspect of any agency that is a proponent of such reasoning. I'm sure terrorists and boogyman will be mentioned several times in the explanation as to why we should have this technology.
Someone is hiding something!!
Both probably have about the same market share. I'm not sure why you think people want Mac OS X.
You do realize that the point of the original article was that Apple is working to require their hardware. And the comments are all about how Apple needs to allow the OS to run on every two-bit PC created, so apparently SOMEBODY wants it.
The complaints made about Apple aren't that they don't want the OS, but rather folks think the hardware that it requires is too expensive. Macs are selling very well and their market share is growing (I suspect it will grow even more when MacTel machines are available that can run the occasional Windows program without a lot of overhead).
The Pontiac Aztec was so ugly that no one wanted one, people mocked those that drove one, and GM executives were forced to drive them (partially because the inventory was so high). It has been called a huge failure of GM. People buying a Yugo didn't get as much grief as those that bought the Pontiac, at least they had an excuse (it was cheap).
A certain segment of the techie community like OS X, and a certain segment of the computer-as-fashion community as well.
And certain segment of creative professionals and a certain segment of mom & pops that just want to browse the web, read/write email and write a few letters without constantly worrying about their machine being turned into a bot. Yeah, hardly anyone wants it.
Most of the rest of us really aren't that interested.
If you weren't really that interested, why are you reading the article and comments? Seems like there is at least some interest on your part.
Good! The harder they work on keeping people from using it, the less effort they can put in making it good, and the fewer developers will come to the platform.
And if Apple doesn't do anything, then cheap-ass folks who call themselves developers will pirate the software. I don't think Apple is missing out on the "big" developer pool by not making their OS free
To me, this says that Linux is going to improve compared to OS X,
In what way? Linux sucks when it comes to user experiences. Developers on Linux seem to think that offers 100 command line options is a good UI for the average user. That's fine for the techies, but real folks want a real, full-blown user experience that is pleasant and seamless.
because Apple is investing effort in making their OS worse instead of better, and because they will fail to attract as many hackers as they could.
The OS is worse because they won't let you run it on some two-bit piece of hardware you threw together? Give me a break. How cheap are you really? As for failing to attract hackers -- who cares. I want folks that actually understand users to be writing the software, not some command-line, script-happy "hacker". And the reality is that Apple is attracting UNIX guys that are realizing that they can have their UNIX power and a real interface.
I already switched from OS X to Linux because I find it technically superior
I don't even know what that's supposed to mean, since technically superior is very vague. Windows is technically superior at running Active-X controls and if you need that, it would be the choice. In the end, it just sounds like you are trying to rationalize your decision to stay away from the mainstream desktop world. That's fine -- but don't expect 99% of the rest of the population to think like you. Linux has its uses, but running a Desktop is not one of them. Until there are folks that understand usability designing the entire Linux user experience, it won't make it into the mainstream.
The analogy is wrong. Mac OS X is not like a Pontiac Aztec, most folks actually want Mac OS X.
When comparing OS X to cars, it is better to choose BMW or Lexus. OS X, like a BMW or Lexus, is a premium brand that offers premium experience for an additional cost. In both cases, you have the option of getting a lower end model (Windows/Ford) that does the job, just not as elegantly.
Sometimes it is true, you get what you pay for.
I'm with you 100% on that.
As a small development company, I read this sort of stuff and cringe.
Add to that the fact that software runs in a very heterogeneous environment. The cost of testing the software with every combination of hardware and software for potential conflicts would take a $100 piece of software and push the cost up ten, maybe 100 times as much.
To use the doctor analogy, you don't see people come to see the doctor and complain because his right arm isn't working only to discover he decided to "upgrade" his left arm himself and cut a nerve to the right arm in the process. But folks are constantly installing new software, adding new hardware to their machines and then contacting me for problems related to my software (often times, it turns out the software added causes conflicts with a lot of software).
Yes, we need to focus more on security -- but this is not the approach. If we're going to hold people accountable, I'd like to see someone other than the lineman getting the shaft. Developers are often under unrealistic deadlines. Shouldn't the CEO or V's that created this situation be held responsible before the programmers?
The only people to benefit would be lawyers.
P.S. Does anyone find it ironic that this comes from someone in this administration, which has held zero people accountable for their actions and in fact has promoted people despite HUGE failures.
Along with some of the other arguments made, I will add this one. I don't watch naked TV. All my viewing is done through my PVR, so that I can watch shows when I want to, not when some schmuck at a Network wants me to. Must See Thursdays? Not here. I watch my Thursday shows when I want to.
So YES, this does break my TV. The point of the Broadcast Flag is for Networks to be able to control their content once it has reached into your living room.
Imagine if a magazine or book to erase its pages so that you couldn't view it after a fixed period of time. Or that when you tried to make a photocopy of a cool article, it actively prevented it. And in the more bit-oriented world. Imagine if you could only install a piece of software on one machine and only once. What your hard drive was trashed? Sorry, you'll have to buy another copy? You're moving to a new computer that's faster? You'll have to buy another copy. I doubt anyone would find the previous examples acceptable -- and the Broadcast Flag is no different. The same is true for Music DRM.
The one thing that these content companies fail to realize is that there is a threshold where we will seek alternatives. If you make is too difficult to allow me to watch a simple movie, TV show or listen to some music, I'll just find something else to do. Then MPAA/RIAA will blame piracy and seek more draconian measures stifling more folks, and they'll head into a downward spiral towards nothingness.
Thanks for totally missing the point.
Today -- Banks take zero responsibility for phishing. They don't seek to educate their customers, they don't do much of anything because there isn't much incentive in it for them.
I'm not saying that some users aren't stupid enough to just give their information away. Some folks don't know better, some folks don't understand the web or links or HTML messages (and the fact that the name displayed can be different than the URL given).
Right now, however, all the responsibility lies on the customer. Extending this out, banks have been spewing private information and once again, due to lack of accountability, it becomes YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to determine if your information was taken and used to steal your identity.
So it comes down to a very simple fact: It's all about the money. You hold banks financially responsible and hit them hard when they don't take reasonable measures to secure their customers money and I guarantee that they will not only take notice, but take action. Then it isn't you and I fighting, by ourselves, against the phishers and the identity thieves -- the Banks and Credit Card companies will ACTIVELY (keyword there) be fighting them too.
I'm all for people taking personal responsibility -- but that doesn't let the large corporations off the hook. Financial institutions (being corporate entities) also have to take responsibility and currently, they are not. They are the ones with the resources to dramatically reduce phishing and identity theft, yet their current policies make it easy to take any information you have and open up a new account without verification, get a new credit card, etc.
I think you missed the point.
Right now, there is no real incentive for Banks to fight phishing. If your identity is stolen, YOU have to fight to clear it up. Make the banks 100% responsible and they will be on your side (because it is in their best interest).
I also think that if a company exposes private information (especially financial, SSN), they need to be held responsible for more than just "letting you know". They should be required to pay for 2 years of credit reports every six months and if fraudulent activity comes up, they have to pay to help clean up the mess.
This is not unlike the idea of targeting the companies whose products are advertised in SPAM. You force them to pay up (and pay up big) and you'll see the problem start to diminish. You can't get rid of the guy that will spam, but if you target the companies that are taking advantage of this -- you will make a difference.
Big companies need to start taking responsibility (and not the hollow President version). Taking responsibility means accepting the consequences -- in these cases, the costs. Of course, company CEOs won't like it because it hits their short term bottom line, but the reality is that in the long term -- everyone will benefit.
The MORE people that sue RIAA the better!!
The Music Industry is right about the need for variable pricing.
New tracks should be $0.99
Older tracks should be $0.50
Oh wait -- you actually think that a track is worth more than a buck even as you try to continue to limit how I listen to that track?
I don't think so.
I'm not a huge fan of DRM, but Apple does make it fairly simple and it doesn't really get in your way for day to day uses like some others do.
RIAA's cut on these tracks is PURE PROFIT. They're not paying for the bandwidth to download the music. They're not paying for software changes to showcase the music. They just get a big, fat check. And as is typical with these greedy RIAA execs, they want more. Why not, they've been stealing from musicians for decades without providing real value added services, so they feel they should get a cut of everything. Hopefully they're going to get a dose of reality real soon.
101 Ways to Promote Piracy
written by your favorite friends at RIAA and the MPAA.
Reason #88 - Copy Protected Memory
Not only will we be able to control the crappy music we're selling you, but we'll be able to limit your own works as well. We at RIAA do not like to encourage the creation of actual music and must take steps to protect our artists from such actions. This technology allows us to treat our customers like they are two-bit thugs and limit the creation of new works through our special filter software.
Note: Copy Protected Memory requires Windows XP. Will not work with Mac OS X, Linux, or pretty much anything else.
----
As if the fact that most content sucks these days isn't enough. These guys (with strong encouragement from RIAA and MPAA) are making it so difficult to "enjoy" the crappy content that it just isn't worth the effort anymore. Result -- I am more likely to just listen to my collection of 1200 CDs.
I'm not sure why people are freaking out over this. This is tied to the $150 rebate they offer and it looks like it works just like the cellphone plans. You get a phone for $49, but are required to stay with their service for 2 years. Oh wait, Tivo isn't requiring a 2-year commitment.
You're getting the $199 Tivo for $49 and are bitching that it is linked to a 1-year minimum contract. So you bitch about a $199 box and tell Tivo they should make it cheaper. They figure out a way to absorb the cost only to have you bitch about that.
P.S. Yes, I realize all the DRM crap Tivo is pulling -- but as far as I can tell, it is unrelated to the rebate/service agreement setup they've got going.
I used a Scientific Atlanta PVR when I first got TWC. I found a dozen major bugs within 20 minutes of usage. It lost programs, it had problems decoding, didn't record correctly. Worse yet, the interface is counter-intuitive. It has to have one of the worst user interfaces I've ever experienced. I went through several different boxes (they kept claiming the box must be bad). Needless to say, I returned it and told them to shove it. I don't need to be frustrated by the simple act of trying to watch TV.
I'm sorry, if you think that's the only difference -- then you haven't really used a Tivo. Season Passes and Wishlists are worth the cost alone. If you get a DVD Burning model (Humax), then there is absolutely no comparison. Record your shows and save them to DVD for on the road or later viewing.
Scientific Atlanta is the Geo Metro of PVRs. Yes, the Tivo costs more in both upfront and service, but you get what you pay for. Scientific Atlanta is a big giant turd as far as I'm concerned. They put out substandard crap that people accept because they don't realize that they shouldn't have to struggle with their PVR (they think it's just the norm).