Macs have 'administrator' accounts which are actually just members of a 'wheel' like group for sudoing. There is a 'root' account on OSX, which you can't even log into by default. You can set a password for it by doing a 'sudo -s' and then 'passwd'. This account can't be logged into in the GUI, merely on the command line.
Any coworker can rip your hard drive out and take it home too. If you don't have physical security, you don't have anything.
Then again, if your primary concern is anything but some random 13 year old dork with too much time on his hands, you probably have more secure physical AND network security than most offices need.
If I want to make it public domain and publish it on my website, that's my decision too. It's reasonable, and quite frankly moral, for my wishes regarding my work to be respected.
A reasonable compromise might be to buy some kind of media centre (preferably not running Windows:-) machine for watching video and listening to music, leaving your PC un-DRMed for stuff like programming, Internet access, etc.
Yeah, but we already have that. We call them "computers" and "televisions.":-)
Seriously, all the media industry is trying to do is adopt digital tech without going to all the trouble of creating a new business model. They're trying to turn general purpose computers into black box media devices. And Microsoft is only too happy to help. They've been trying to branch into media for *ages*.
Entry no longer means, 'getting in, figuring out which way is up, and fitting in making yourself helpful.'
This might be true with larger businesses. But I found a great position in a local small business that is exactly what you describe. It's a jack-of-all-trades affair, and I'm really learning a lot of new technologies fast.
Re:Those mentioning OS/2 in a positive light...
on
Windows 95 Turns 10
·
· Score: 1
It offers things that our proprietary app writers find get their job done better than any other platform.
I don't know. Objective-C and Cocoa (neé OpenStep) is a pretty darn productive environment.
Re:...the same features we delivered seven years a
on
Windows 95 Turns 10
·
· Score: 1
I've played with the beta of Monad, and it's certainly very cool. Not quite as cool as Python or Smalltalk, but still...
I'd say your argument about passing objects instead of plaintext is valid for some cases, but one thing I still love plaintext for is data rows. It may be a matter of taste, but I'd much rather be using sed and awk for that. Plus, I don't lose transparency and portability that way. It seems to me that one of the chief problems with Microsoft's approach is that they actively work to eliminate transparency everywhere possible instead of only where absolutely necessary.
We don't need another Constitution (and certainly not another Declaration of Independence, which has NOTHING to do with this). We just need to start using the one we already have.
Rights are not defined by the Constitution, nor by the first 10 amendments (the "Bill of Rights"). Rather, the Central Power is forbidden the abuse of our rights. All rights, many of which were not enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are reserved to the States and the People. When the Confederacy lost the war in 1865, this Federal system gave way to a truly National system of government in which rights were increasingly "created" by the Central Power.
Unless we can start convincing people that taking back moral authority from Washington is not the same as "reinstituting slavery" or "rolling back the clock on civil rights," we're doomed. But you try convincing a bunch of knee-jerk "Progressives" that States' Rights is a good thing and see how far you get. I guarantee it won't be far.
Stallman chose to *use* the twisted Copyright system to guarantee the continued Freedom of software instead of trying to overturn the Copyright regime itself. I seem to recall RMS stating that if Copyright were ever reformed or overturned and the GPL suffered, he wouldn't care because his goal was to create a buffer against proprietary software.
"the law of conservation of matter and energy" is an example of a really good theory. A large number of scientists would become extremely confused if it were ever disproven, but it's just another theory.
That's all true too. But my point was that the whole concept of natural laws is merely conjecture. We know the universe seems to be consistent, but why the universe is consistent can't be observed. That's why science and religion are not necessarily in conflict. Whether the universe is consistent because it just is (the Atheist view), or because everything is directly caused by the actions of a supremely consistent God (the Christian view), is irrelevant to questions of science.
OK, what happens when somebody doesn't have the juice to run a realtime physics engine? With rendering, they can turn down level of detail, bit depth, and so on. They can still interact with other players in an online environment. But reducing physics detail drastically unbalances the playing field for competitors with different hardware.
For me, the real question is whether improved physics would really make a game more enjoyable. I think this depends more on graphics than on anything else. As objects are made to look more realistic, it becomes more satisfying for them to have real-seeming interactions.
I'm not sure that advanced physics must be tied to graphical realism though. Advanced physics engines could become part of the challenge of the game rather than an immersive feature.
It's no trick. I just feel that there are a lot of people literally freaking out over this just because it gives their lives some semblance of meaning.
I know, but it doesn't make a difference. If we could wave a magic wand and all vehicles became electric overnight, people would start screaming about "Big Electricity" buying Senators, polluting in some other way, or just generally existing. If we switched to Hydrogen, the news media would run story after story about "Big Hydrogen." There is a large group of people who make a life out of nothing but being outraged about everything. Nothing will ever satisfy them. Personally, I wish they would all just go away.
Slashdot Mirror
Grrr. Countless Linux distros are NOT designed to separate you from your money.
Countless Linux distros are designed to separate you from your money.
It's amazing how a little evidence that Copyright isn't "property" can bring out the venom...
And this scheme has been in place since 1989!
Anyone who thinks it even remotely possible to "root out crime" understands neither the justice system nor human nature.
Then again, if your primary concern is anything but some random 13 year old dork with too much time on his hands, you probably have more secure physical AND network security than most offices need.
Only for 28 years.
The White Sea will be renamed the 'Glowing Green Sea.'
When these couples divorce, who gets the hyphen?
A handful of performing musicians are millionaires. 99.999999999999999999999999999% are flat broke.
Yeah, but we already have that. We call them "computers" and "televisions." :-)
Seriously, all the media industry is trying to do is adopt digital tech without going to all the trouble of creating a new business model. They're trying to turn general purpose computers into black box media devices. And Microsoft is only too happy to help. They've been trying to branch into media for *ages*.
*cough*Renaissance*cough*
This might be true with larger businesses. But I found a great position in a local small business that is exactly what you describe. It's a jack-of-all-trades affair, and I'm really learning a lot of new technologies fast.
I don't know. Objective-C and Cocoa (neé OpenStep) is a pretty darn productive environment.
I'd say your argument about passing objects instead of plaintext is valid for some cases, but one thing I still love plaintext for is data rows. It may be a matter of taste, but I'd much rather be using sed and awk for that. Plus, I don't lose transparency and portability that way. It seems to me that one of the chief problems with Microsoft's approach is that they actively work to eliminate transparency everywhere possible instead of only where absolutely necessary.
Rights are not defined by the Constitution, nor by the first 10 amendments (the "Bill of Rights"). Rather, the Central Power is forbidden the abuse of our rights. All rights, many of which were not enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are reserved to the States and the People. When the Confederacy lost the war in 1865, this Federal system gave way to a truly National system of government in which rights were increasingly "created" by the Central Power.
Unless we can start convincing people that taking back moral authority from Washington is not the same as "reinstituting slavery" or "rolling back the clock on civil rights," we're doomed. But you try convincing a bunch of knee-jerk "Progressives" that States' Rights is a good thing and see how far you get. I guarantee it won't be far.
Patent attorneys are parasites. Anything good for them is, by definition, bad for society.
My guess would be either homosexuals or Mel Gibson.
Stallman chose to *use* the twisted Copyright system to guarantee the continued Freedom of software instead of trying to overturn the Copyright regime itself. I seem to recall RMS stating that if Copyright were ever reformed or overturned and the GPL suffered, he wouldn't care because his goal was to create a buffer against proprietary software.
That's all true too. But my point was that the whole concept of natural laws is merely conjecture. We know the universe seems to be consistent, but why the universe is consistent can't be observed. That's why science and religion are not necessarily in conflict. Whether the universe is consistent because it just is (the Atheist view), or because everything is directly caused by the actions of a supremely consistent God (the Christian view), is irrelevant to questions of science.
Which, curiously enough, is all science is in the first place. But point taken.
OK, what happens when somebody doesn't have the juice to run a realtime physics engine? With rendering, they can turn down level of detail, bit depth, and so on. They can still interact with other players in an online environment. But reducing physics detail drastically unbalances the playing field for competitors with different hardware.
I'm not sure that advanced physics must be tied to graphical realism though. Advanced physics engines could become part of the challenge of the game rather than an immersive feature.
It's no trick. I just feel that there are a lot of people literally freaking out over this just because it gives their lives some semblance of meaning.
I know, but it doesn't make a difference. If we could wave a magic wand and all vehicles became electric overnight, people would start screaming about "Big Electricity" buying Senators, polluting in some other way, or just generally existing. If we switched to Hydrogen, the news media would run story after story about "Big Hydrogen." There is a large group of people who make a life out of nothing but being outraged about everything. Nothing will ever satisfy them. Personally, I wish they would all just go away.