Let's be honest here, 10.0 blew chunks. 10.1 was the first real OS X release. Vista is at least as good as 10.2, and maybe even 10.3. It tries to be a 10.4 imitator, but some of the copied features are just too poorly copied. Flip 3D sucks compared to Exposé, and Sidebar != Dashboard. It also requires about 3 times the resources. I mean, if Tiger had just launched, this wouldn't be half bad, but Leopard's on the horizon.
If a hacker was that smart, there would be little anyone could do about it. If a trusted source of code is compromised silently, that'd screw over MS, but also Apple. Linux might fair better (and certainly would in theory), but that assumes that anyone notices the hole.
You're in a bind. Drivers and speed issues with games are a mess for Vista right now, but a decent bit of that might be sorted out by year's end. And while there are no current DX10 games, they'll be coming within the year. So the answer is: XP for games now, Vista by the year's end.
Yeah, basically. The fact is that Windows is the largest operating system by a 15-to-1 margin over its closest competitors. When Joe Normal looks at a PC, he sees Windows. Therefore we're going to get a lot of tech stories on the subject. I mean, if the 10 o'clock news can cover it, we're going to see a lot of coverage in tech circles.
A smart hacker wouldn't release a virus now, because there's practically no market share for Vista at the moment. I have a feeling that any Vista viruses are gonna be waiting for it to affect more computers.
Migration to Vista will be slow, because business users just finished their XP SP2 migration, and home users are going to be reluctant to pay even $100 or so for an upgrade, because that's a 15-20 percent of the cost of a new PC. Gamers will see reduced performance for now under Vista, and so the only people who will grab Vista are non-gaming enthusiasts, developers, and people who get it delivered on their PCs.
The fact remains that a large percentage of the current Windows base can switch. Most home users (the people affected by this DRM in the first place), can migrate. And if corporations chose to support 2 or more OSes, then OS X could be used on most of those computers as well.
Your Macs can suck it. They are simply not adequate for many applications
What exactly are you referring to? I mean, I've used Macs for quite a while, and in terms of stuff I can't run, it boils down to
Stuff I don't need - like CAD, animation, or other professional programs. Not used by 99% of the population.
Windows DRM (WMV/WMA)
Latest Bleeding Edge Games
Stuff that there's a free/better replacement for
Honestly, the common answers for "What can't Macs do?" tend to be strawmen. "I can't use it to play OMG!!DX10-KILL_FEST-EXTREME" is pointless for the 95% of home computers that have integrated graphics or shared graphics memory and can scarcely do Aero. "It doesn't do AutoCAD/Access" is meaningless for all the computers in the world that don't use AutoCAD and Access. I haven't run into an ActiveX issue in 2 years, and I haven't had an OpenOffice/NeoOffice compatibility issue.
If someone's bullshitting or being dishonest here, it's you. I hate to put it negatively, but you at best completely missed the point.
I'm not casting my 2008 presidential vote just yet, and I don't see how you can read my comment that way at all. In fact, I didn't even cite any candidate's name at all, or even a particular issue or election. I simply said that a candidate at least acknowledging the existance of my side of an issue is a positive step. Generally, politicians like to portray things as one-sided, and often times that involves ignoring half the issue. This is especially true with technological issues, and issues without major lobbying groups on each side. I'm not talking about any particular candidate, or any particular party. I'm talking about all candidates.
Maybe I'm overly pessimistic here, but I'll take whatever small victories I can get. I'd certainly prefer to look at voting record, but in cases where I can't (because the vote doesn't exist), I appreciate it when candidates make something I care about an issue.
The problem I have is with Congresscritters making things into one-sided issues. For instance, the DMCA stuff is always "theft" or "piracy" with no discussion of "hey, I just want to play DVDs here...". A politician at least mentioning both sides of the issue is a step in the right direction.
Re:The right to privacy is underrated
on
The Privacy Candidate
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If they're willing to at least talk about it and make it an issue, they're already miles ahead of the other guys on the issue.
Except that doing that is the legal equivalent of walking up to a dragon, dropping your pants, and pissing at it. You give a giant dragon (hungry lawyers) the right/ability to come after you.
Not to mention that generally the people making the DMCA takedown request have a lot more power/time/money available.
Yes. I was actually in a position in which I was quoting and citing large sections of the bill, only to have people dispute that that was what the bill said, despite my source being the Library of Congress. Some stupid astroturfer's press release was given as large, if not larger, a sway as THE ACTUAL BILL.
I doubt this will eliminate onboard graphics. At the low-end price range and in the light-weight mobile market, they're simply necessary. But if Intel could produce an onboard graphics chip that would compete with the 300-series (low-end discrete) from Nvidia and ATi, that could change the game.
It's also unlikely Intel boards would have a GPU slot that's not PCIe (or PCIe 2.0), since no one would buy a motherboard that locks them into only Intel. Even Crossfire/SLI boards allow you to have one of the other guy's card.
Neither campaigns nor key points in the legislative calendar are really evenly distributed throughout the year, even though Congress is in session most of the year.
Correct. I never meant to imply it as a real even distribution, just that there's a way to justify drawing money every quarter. And blogs still need to be maintained during quiet-times too. A person could employ themselves year-round doing this if they so desired, and if their group was willing to pay for it. Additionally, they may have multiple clients.
The bill (and I've read the relevant section and quoted it to you several times) says that payment consists of getting $25,000 in a quarter from a client who retains the lobbyist for online activities. The covers whether that $25,000 a quarter is salary or just financing to do the work - either would fall under the law. That makes an average yearly salary of $100,000. Others have said that blog-lobbyists are likely seasonal, and they may be right, but money is well covered in the bill. I've quoted that section here on Slashdot. As to "astroturfing", it is a Net-speak term (that many slashdotters are familiar with) that refers to "fake grassroots", in particular someone paid by a company to simulate an actual grassroots movement or to simulate fan unconnected to the company. That's a fair description of the people the bill is designed to cover.
I don't think Linux would have made it easier or better either. I don't have to reboot as often when patching in Linux vs MS and OS X (yes, I have all three). That offers a bit of an advantage, in the sense of the lack of downtime encouraging patching more often (after testing, naturally)
You are correct on both counts. I assumed year-round employment (which is probably more reasonable than you think) because I figured that there is a lot of off-year lobbying on Capital Hill, and because I figured blogging is based on reputation, so bloggers won't start a blog for the 3-6 months before an election and go from there, they'll build off a working blog (and get paid to maintain it). Insofar as "reach" versus "attempt to influence", I figure that you're trying to influence most of the people who read your site. If not, well that only strengthens my argument, so I ignored it.
That's a very good question. However, I think there are US laws regulating the campaigns insofar as foreign donations and stuff like that. I guess no one has tried doing it independently of the campaigns. Prior to the 2000 and 2004 elections, it was rare to have all these 527s doing stuff completely independently. I imagine that something like what you describe will pop up in the next few years.
Putting another tool in their toolbox and saying we should fix the problem another way doesn't sound like a step forward.
It wouldn't be a step forward if this didn't solve other problems. I concur that the scenario you two describe is somewhat troubling, but we're talking about giving them one more reason to investigate people and simultaneously fighting astroturfing. Something slightly bad is offset (IMHO) by something moderately good.
The bill specifically used the word "client". This implies a specific relationship. Additionally, it says something to the effect of being given $25000 to spend, not spending $25000. I could spend a million dollars of my own money, but as long as I don't take $25000 or more from one or a group of companies or organizations whose causes I promote, I'm clear.
It's completely legal for a blogger to tell you to contact your representative. It's only illegal if he's paid money to influence you, and doesn't tell the FEC.
I did read it. Here's what it says: (19) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRM- The term `grassroots lobbying firm' means a person or entity that--
`(A) is retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients; and
`(B) receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period.'
$100,000 is an extrapolation of $25,000 over a whole year. The bill said simply that a person who makes $25,000 a quarter for political astroturfing ($100,000 a year salary) or is given the same amount to spend on astroturfing is a lobbyist. It's straightforward, true, and doesn't affect bloggers at all.
The phrase "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying" is not specifically defined in the bill; however, it is specifically defined that the bill does not affect blogs with less than 500 readers. This means you simply have to be a blog with 500 or more readers. Contrary to your little list, there is no minimum defined payment amount in the bill.
No. It's defined in Section 220 as "any paid attempt in support of lobbying contacts on behalf of a client to influence the general public or segments thereof to contact one or more covered legislative or executive branch officials (or Congress as a whole) to urge such officials (or Congress) to take specific action with respect to a matter described in section 3(8)(A), except that such term does not include any communications by an entity directed to its members, employees, officers, or shareholders.". It's in Definitions 18-A, which is right at the top of Section 220.
The payment part is in the definition of a grassroots lobbying firm, which is also in the Definitions section (right below the previous definition).
The LOC links, by the way, only seem to work for 5 minutes.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's be honest here, 10.0 blew chunks. 10.1 was the first real OS X release. Vista is at least as good as 10.2, and maybe even 10.3. It tries to be a 10.4 imitator, but some of the copied features are just too poorly copied. Flip 3D sucks compared to Exposé, and Sidebar != Dashboard. It also requires about 3 times the resources. I mean, if Tiger had just launched, this wouldn't be half bad, but Leopard's on the horizon.
If a hacker was that smart, there would be little anyone could do about it. If a trusted source of code is compromised silently, that'd screw over MS, but also Apple. Linux might fair better (and certainly would in theory), but that assumes that anyone notices the hole.
You're in a bind. Drivers and speed issues with games are a mess for Vista right now, but a decent bit of that might be sorted out by year's end. And while there are no current DX10 games, they'll be coming within the year. So the answer is: XP for games now, Vista by the year's end.
Yeah, basically. The fact is that Windows is the largest operating system by a 15-to-1 margin over its closest competitors. When Joe Normal looks at a PC, he sees Windows. Therefore we're going to get a lot of tech stories on the subject. I mean, if the 10 o'clock news can cover it, we're going to see a lot of coverage in tech circles.
A smart hacker wouldn't release a virus now, because there's practically no market share for Vista at the moment. I have a feeling that any Vista viruses are gonna be waiting for it to affect more computers.
Migration to Vista will be slow, because business users just finished their XP SP2 migration, and home users are going to be reluctant to pay even $100 or so for an upgrade, because that's a 15-20 percent of the cost of a new PC. Gamers will see reduced performance for now under Vista, and so the only people who will grab Vista are non-gaming enthusiasts, developers, and people who get it delivered on their PCs.
The fact remains that a large percentage of the current Windows base can switch. Most home users (the people affected by this DRM in the first place), can migrate. And if corporations chose to support 2 or more OSes, then OS X could be used on most of those computers as well.
What exactly are you referring to? I mean, I've used Macs for quite a while, and in terms of stuff I can't run, it boils down to
Honestly, the common answers for "What can't Macs do?" tend to be strawmen. "I can't use it to play OMG!!DX10-KILL_FEST-EXTREME" is pointless for the 95% of home computers that have integrated graphics or shared graphics memory and can scarcely do Aero. "It doesn't do AutoCAD/Access" is meaningless for all the computers in the world that don't use AutoCAD and Access. I haven't run into an ActiveX issue in 2 years, and I haven't had an OpenOffice/NeoOffice compatibility issue.
This is far superior to the "miss-to-kill" technology they were employing in previous models.
Which in turn beat the crap out of the "hit-to-annoy" technology used before that.
If someone's bullshitting or being dishonest here, it's you. I hate to put it negatively, but you at best completely missed the point.
I'm not casting my 2008 presidential vote just yet, and I don't see how you can read my comment that way at all. In fact, I didn't even cite any candidate's name at all, or even a particular issue or election. I simply said that a candidate at least acknowledging the existance of my side of an issue is a positive step. Generally, politicians like to portray things as one-sided, and often times that involves ignoring half the issue. This is especially true with technological issues, and issues without major lobbying groups on each side. I'm not talking about any particular candidate, or any particular party. I'm talking about all candidates.
Maybe I'm overly pessimistic here, but I'll take whatever small victories I can get. I'd certainly prefer to look at voting record, but in cases where I can't (because the vote doesn't exist), I appreciate it when candidates make something I care about an issue.
The problem I have is with Congresscritters making things into one-sided issues. For instance, the DMCA stuff is always "theft" or "piracy" with no discussion of "hey, I just want to play DVDs here...". A politician at least mentioning both sides of the issue is a step in the right direction.
If they're willing to at least talk about it and make it an issue, they're already miles ahead of the other guys on the issue.
One major problem is that with all the WP mirrors, it's easy to find half a dozen "sources" that back WP up (being copies of a week-old version of WP)
Except that doing that is the legal equivalent of walking up to a dragon, dropping your pants, and pissing at it. You give a giant dragon (hungry lawyers) the right/ability to come after you.
Not to mention that generally the people making the DMCA takedown request have a lot more power/time/money available.
Yes. I was actually in a position in which I was quoting and citing large sections of the bill, only to have people dispute that that was what the bill said, despite my source being the Library of Congress. Some stupid astroturfer's press release was given as large, if not larger, a sway as THE ACTUAL BILL.
I doubt this will eliminate onboard graphics. At the low-end price range and in the light-weight mobile market, they're simply necessary. But if Intel could produce an onboard graphics chip that would compete with the 300-series (low-end discrete) from Nvidia and ATi, that could change the game.
It's also unlikely Intel boards would have a GPU slot that's not PCIe (or PCIe 2.0), since no one would buy a motherboard that locks them into only Intel. Even Crossfire/SLI boards allow you to have one of the other guy's card.
Neither campaigns nor key points in the legislative calendar are really evenly distributed throughout the year, even though Congress is in session most of the year.
Correct. I never meant to imply it as a real even distribution, just that there's a way to justify drawing money every quarter. And blogs still need to be maintained during quiet-times too. A person could employ themselves year-round doing this if they so desired, and if their group was willing to pay for it. Additionally, they may have multiple clients.
The bill (and I've read the relevant section and quoted it to you several times) says that payment consists of getting $25,000 in a quarter from a client who retains the lobbyist for online activities. The covers whether that $25,000 a quarter is salary or just financing to do the work - either would fall under the law. That makes an average yearly salary of $100,000. Others have said that blog-lobbyists are likely seasonal, and they may be right, but money is well covered in the bill. I've quoted that section here on Slashdot. As to "astroturfing", it is a Net-speak term (that many slashdotters are familiar with) that refers to "fake grassroots", in particular someone paid by a company to simulate an actual grassroots movement or to simulate fan unconnected to the company. That's a fair description of the people the bill is designed to cover.
I don't think Linux would have made it easier or better either. I don't have to reboot as often when patching in Linux vs MS and OS X (yes, I have all three). That offers a bit of an advantage, in the sense of the lack of downtime encouraging patching more often (after testing, naturally)
You are correct on both counts. I assumed year-round employment (which is probably more reasonable than you think) because I figured that there is a lot of off-year lobbying on Capital Hill, and because I figured blogging is based on reputation, so bloggers won't start a blog for the 3-6 months before an election and go from there, they'll build off a working blog (and get paid to maintain it). Insofar as "reach" versus "attempt to influence", I figure that you're trying to influence most of the people who read your site. If not, well that only strengthens my argument, so I ignored it.
That's a very good question. However, I think there are US laws regulating the campaigns insofar as foreign donations and stuff like that. I guess no one has tried doing it independently of the campaigns. Prior to the 2000 and 2004 elections, it was rare to have all these 527s doing stuff completely independently. I imagine that something like what you describe will pop up in the next few years.
Putting another tool in their toolbox and saying we should fix the problem another way doesn't sound like a step forward.
It wouldn't be a step forward if this didn't solve other problems. I concur that the scenario you two describe is somewhat troubling, but we're talking about giving them one more reason to investigate people and simultaneously fighting astroturfing. Something slightly bad is offset (IMHO) by something moderately good.
The bill specifically used the word "client". This implies a specific relationship. Additionally, it says something to the effect of being given $25000 to spend, not spending $25000. I could spend a million dollars of my own money, but as long as I don't take $25000 or more from one or a group of companies or organizations whose causes I promote, I'm clear.
It's completely legal for a blogger to tell you to contact your representative. It's only illegal if he's paid money to influence you, and doesn't tell the FEC.
I did read it. Here's what it says:
(19) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRM- The term `grassroots lobbying firm' means a person or entity that--
`(A) is retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients; and
`(B) receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period.'
$100,000 is an extrapolation of $25,000 over a whole year. The bill said simply that a person who makes $25,000 a quarter for political astroturfing ($100,000 a year salary) or is given the same amount to spend on astroturfing is a lobbyist. It's straightforward, true, and doesn't affect bloggers at all.
The phrase "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying" is not specifically defined in the bill; however, it is specifically defined that the bill does not affect blogs with less than 500 readers. This means you simply have to be a blog with 500 or more readers. Contrary to your little list, there is no minimum defined payment amount in the bill.
No. It's defined in Section 220 as "any paid attempt in support of lobbying contacts on behalf of a client to influence the general public or segments thereof to contact one or more covered legislative or executive branch officials (or Congress as a whole) to urge such officials (or Congress) to take specific action with respect to a matter described in section 3(8)(A), except that such term does not include any communications by an entity directed to its members, employees, officers, or shareholders.". It's in Definitions 18-A, which is right at the top of Section 220.
The payment part is in the definition of a grassroots lobbying firm, which is also in the Definitions section (right below the previous definition).
The LOC links, by the way, only seem to work for 5 minutes.