This is nothing new - the 15" Studio LCD has not been available for quite some time. Three comments come to mind: - maybe they need them for the G4 iMac - maybe they need them for a new tablet Mac - this is just one more nail in the coffin of the CRT
MacOS X is really an upgrade of OpenStep/NextStep (essentially Darwin, Cocoa & display Postscript instead of Quartz). I'm pretty sure it is actually older than Linux - I'm certain the Mach microkernel is older than the Linux kernel.
It is older. You can see this on the history of Unix page. NextStep dates to 1988; Linux to 1991.
I totally agree. My company uses a homegrown calendar program, and I'm trying to get the IS director to allot some of my time to build a vCalendar interface so that those of us with OS X (i.e. the entire IS department) can use iCal and can sync our calendars with our PDAs.
Like the user to whose post you replied, I too am looking for an ICS-enabled web calendar similar to the very nice one at.Mac. The only reason I want to use another is for security -- I want to be able to control who can look at my calendar.
I found Net::ICal and Date::ICal, and I'm starting to look at them now. I know others are working on something simlar, in PHP. I set up my own WebDAV server, so now the only missing part is the ICS file parser.
As for iCal & WebDAV calendar publishing: in traditional Apple fashion, they have taken applications many people want and use, and have made them work together, and beautifully so. It's just amazing, and the possibilities are endless.
HAHA -- well, I see that I left the smiley out. Seeing as I am the admin, I can now let my machine back on the network running httpd and ssh.:)
Disabling the services is exactly what I did. I used the SSH workaround and I disabled Apache. Now I can reenable it. Oh, and this particular machine is outside the firewall.
My Linux box is so customised that I can't install Apache with RPM. I don't even have the drive space to compile httpd.:( Time for a rebuild on that one -- and a new hard drive. In the meantime, its web server is down -- which is unfortunate because that's my primary web server.:(
Well, first, the problems fixed here are not the fault of Apple -- they are security holes in popular third-party tools. Contrast that to Microsoft's own security holes in their own code.
Second, Apple took way too long to release the Apache update. Red Hat had a fix available the next day...Apple's fix is well over a week after the fact.
If, however, you can't get what you want because some third party has coercively interposed himself between buyer and seller, then the free market has been subverted.
That hasn't happened here -- yet -- because you can still go buy a competing device that doesn't have the ridiculous contract.
no free market will ever really exist because consumers will be prevented from having the choice of buying what they want altogether.
The free market does not guarantee that every product every consumer wishes to purchase will be made available for sale. You must recognize that, in this situation, you do still have the option to purchase or not purchase the specified product with the specified fine print.
Also, remember that in any contract negotiations -- and that's esentially what this is -- you can take the proposed contract and make a counteroffer without the offending parts. They may not accept your proposed contract, but you still have that right.
Here's another example: cell phones: I want a cellphone that includes 3000 minutes a month for $30 -- with no contract. One cannot get that service anywhere -- so would you argue that there isn't a free market in cell phones? I would hope not, because, while there are stupid rules and bogus choices in the cellphone industry -- so bogus that the industry is imploding as we speak -- there certainly is a free market there.
Remember that a free market is any place at which buyers and sellers exchange goods/services/money on mutually agreeable terms. Why "agreeable"? Well, if you don't agree to the terms, whatever they are, then you won't buy. Buying inherently means that you accept all terms of the sale. They might be grudgingly accepted, but accepted they are.
Come on, people. This is nothing to get bent out of shape about -- this is exactly what the free market is for! Yes, it might be a kewl product, but if you don't agree with the license, don't purchase the product. Get a TiVo or other similar device that doesn't have these ridiculous limitations. The policy will die a natural death when market share dries up because people who refuse to abide by the policy don't buy the product.
Note, too, that if you do disagree with the policy, and yet still purchase, you will have lost. Sonic Blue will have gotten your money, and that tells other companies that people accept this asanine policy. Don't buy!
Also, remember that click-through licenses are as yet unenforceable (but keep watch the DMCA, SSSCA, and sister laws). But I doubt any of us wants to be the guinea pig to drag this through the legal system.
As for me, I will not be buying this product, but I will be writing Sonic Blue to tell them just exactly why I won't be buying. To make it easier for you, here is Sonic Blue's contact page. I urge you to send them a similar letter if this policy bothers you.
Many people misunderstand the first amendment. The judge is correct: there is no first-amendment problem with a local government limiting such access.
Here is the first amendment to the Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Note that it says "Congress shall make no law..." -- it does not say that "No law shall be made by any government in the USA, whether federal, state, or local...."
A similar misunderstanding can be seen surrounding the "establishment" clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Note that it does not say that a local or state government cannot make a law regarding religion -- only that Congress cannot do that.
This is a fine point of Constitutional law that many people do not understand. And it is this unfortunate, widespread misunderstanding that has allowed groups like the ACLU (which does many good things) to all but remove religion from the public square. This was never the intent of the first amendment, but it is the interpretation of leftist groups like the ACLU, and it has unfortunately been upheld by some activist judges.
In their article, they say that trustworthiness is something earned. That's right. Microsoft's past security breaches and spyware have caused me to totally lose faith in the company. As a result, I am now a Mac OS X fan. (Well, that and the fact that OS X is for now the best desktop Unix around.)
Microsoft will have to drop its spyware and its insane licensing policies before I will try Windows again. Microsoft will have to drop the Globally Unique Identifier before I will use Windows Media Player.
In short, this is a good move for MS, but for me it is too little, too late. I have switched to Mac OS X and will never go back to Windows.
At first, I didn't understand the impact of this column by Cringley. Now, after seeing Jon Katz' column, I am beginning to see just how right Cringley is -- and how wrong Katz is.
In Steve's mind, he has won. Why? Because -- as the Woz said, "every computer today is essentially a Mac." And because every computer tomorrow will look like the new iMac. And because Windows XP tries to look like OS X. Microsoft is always following Apple. They will always be following Apple until they actually start... ahem... innovating.
Microsoft may have the lion's share of the market, but that doesn't matter to Steve Jobs. As Cringley said, Jobs has already won.
You should take note of what David Green pointed out as being the difference between killing and murder. Murder implies the intent to kill.
Note that in our legal system we allow for unintentional killing - we call it manslaughter. As in, if a young child runs out in front of your car and you kill him, then you will likely be convicted of vehicular manslaughter and not murder. You never intended on murdering (or even killing) that young child.
Note that my original comment said that murder is not justified. I never said that "killing is never justified." There is a key difference between the two words.
It is true that it is never justified to intentionally kill innocent people. "Killing innocent people is never justified" would not be a true statement, as David Green has pointed out. The key, again, is the implied intent with the word "murder."
To me (and many, many others) their morals are framed by thier beliefs (or lack thereof). To you, you are right and they are wrong. To them, they are right and you are wrong. Which is precicely why I say how the concepts of "right" and "wrong" are relative.
Just because one does not believe something, that does not make that something untrue. Just because you do not believe morality and truth are absolute, that does not cause the statement "morality and truth are absolute" to be any less true.
Similarly, one's lack of belief in their absolutes does not cause truth and morality to become relative.
You're right about one thing - tools are never evil, but their uses can be.
You're not right about the other - good and evil are not relative. If they were, there would be -- in someone's mind -- justification for the murder of 6,000+ innocent civilians in New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington last week. There is never any justification for the murder of innocents.
Wow - guess this is as good a place as any to ask this question, and this thread is probably the best to ask it in.
I'm in the market for a laptop. I want a laptop so I can take my Unix machine when I go on vacations, to do PHP development. Of course, I want to be able to run Apache with mod_php and mod_perl, and MySQL on that same machine.
So, what are the relative merits and demerits of OS X and Linux? I am considering an iBook running OS X - I didn't realise until this thread that Linux was available for it. I am also considering an Intel-based laptop running Linux, of course.
It'd be fun to have DVD and CD playback, but those aren't necessities. Pretty much all I want it for is remote (i.e. on vacation) PHP development.
I also don't really want a dual-boot machine, regardless of the benefits to doing that, and regardless of underlying hardware.
Yes, I read The Federalist. It's one of my favorite publications.
I'm not naiive. We do ultimately control who gets into office. Unfortunately most Americans are too lazy to pay attention to the goings-on in Washington, so they just vote for the incumbent, and we maintain status quo. It could be so much different (and better) if people would vote... and vote their hearts.
OK, I'm all for moderation, but how in the world was my previous post a "Troll"? It's a sad day when encouraging citizens to become knowledgeable about their politicians and vote them out of office is considered "trolling."
Overrated because of +1 bonus maybe, but not a troll.
"The United States has become a corporate republic"
I have to take issue with this remark. While I agree that our political system has been polluted by greedy politicians (no doubt taking money from corporations), we, the citizenry, are still ultimately in control.
"How's that?" you might ask. Well, we do still have free elections, the most recent one in November 2000. I'm sure you all remember it well.:) Ultimately the voters of each state elect their representatives. Sure, the scales are tilted toward the incumbent and away from the challenger, but still, ultimately, the citizens vote their representatives into office.
Corporations can't do that. No matter what other "rights" have been recognized for companies, they still can't vote.
Yet.
If you ("you" in general, that is..."you Slashdotters") want to complain about corporations ruling your life -- "I hate having no choice in my cable provider" or "I hate Microsoft" or whatever -- start by going to your local polling place and casting your vote. You have no right to complain unless you vote...which, unless you are a convicted felon, you do have once you reach the age of 18. (Provided, of course, you are a U.S. citizen.)
Vote the establishment out of office. But be careful who you vote into office. You can vote government-control-maximizing (and thereby corporation-control-maximizing) people into office (e.g. many Socialists, Democrats, and Greens; and Republicans who have sold out). Or you can vote minimalists/federalists into office (e.g. members of the Republican Liberty Caucus or the Libertarian Party). I think it's obvious that the Founding Fathers preferred a less intrusive government.
It's your choice, America.
PS - if you think that government can solve your "corporate control" problems, you need look no further than California's power crunch to see the fallacy in that. Government intervention created the problem in California, and the only solution is a relaxing of government control. To economists, this is quite obvious.
I have always heard of friends getting one-for-eight. That is, one hour's pay for eight hours of being on-call. Of course, you're no longer "on-call" but are "on the clock" when a crisis arises.
This US-China standoff crap really drives me nuts. What's worse, though, is that some Americans support our offering a formal apology for the incident.
First, since we have neither talked to our crewmen nor examined our airplane, we cannot know who was at fault. It would be inappropriate to apologise in such a situation.
Second, this is not about egos. It isn't about detainees. Let's call these guys what they are - hostages. China is holding our servicemen and women hostage. And for what?
Third, we were operating in international airspace. Notice the bolded word in that sentence - international. If you catch a spy inside your country, you can jail or expel him. However, it's a commonly accepted practice to spy on countries from outside their borders. There's nothing wrong with it!
Fourth, you don't use a semi-truck to knock a Porsche off the road. Similarly, to think that our klunky, large P3 (the semi) would run into their highly maneuverable, high-speed fighter jet (the Porsche) is ridiculous. There are reports that their fighter jet came to within three feet of our plane twice before the two collided.
Fifth, there's no reason to think that the Chinese will willingly and safely return our men and women, were we to offer some sort of ludicrious apology. Anyone who thinks China is our ally hasn't been paying attention.
You people who get your news from CNN or the major networks need to retune your TV sets and web browsers to FOX News Channel.
...but for those of us who listen for music content, mp3 is usually ok.
Absolutely. A friend was playing devil's advocate against me today and he said, "if MP3s 'suck' why are you so hot to convert all your CDs to MP3s?" The simple answer is that I want the flexibility that music streaming provides. I'm willing to give up a little bit of quality to have the flexibility to listen to my music wherever I want, whenever I want.
That goes right along with another post in this article's comments. That comment went something like, "Recording companies still don't get it. We don't want another format. We want the flexibility to do whatever we want, whenever we want."
Slashdot Mirror
This is nothing new - the 15" Studio LCD has not been available for quite some time. Three comments come to mind:
- maybe they need them for the G4 iMac
- maybe they need them for a new tablet Mac
- this is just one more nail in the coffin of the CRT
It is older. You can see this on the history of Unix page. NextStep dates to 1988; Linux to 1991.
I totally agree. My company uses a homegrown calendar program, and I'm trying to get the IS director to allot some of my time to build a vCalendar interface so that those of us with OS X (i.e. the entire IS department) can use iCal and can sync our calendars with our PDAs.
.Mac. The only reason I want to use another is for security -- I want to be able to control who can look at my calendar.
Like the user to whose post you replied, I too am looking for an ICS-enabled web calendar similar to the very nice one at
I found Net::ICal and Date::ICal, and I'm starting to look at them now. I know others are working on something simlar, in PHP. I set up my own WebDAV server, so now the only missing part is the ICS file parser.
As for iCal & WebDAV calendar publishing: in traditional Apple fashion, they have taken applications many people want and use, and have made them work together, and beautifully so. It's just amazing, and the possibilities are endless.
HAHA -- well, I see that I left the smiley out. Seeing as I am the admin, I can now let my machine back on the network running httpd and ssh. :)
:( Time for a rebuild on that one -- and a new hard drive. In the meantime, its web server is down -- which is unfortunate because that's my primary web server. :(
Disabling the services is exactly what I did. I used the SSH workaround and I disabled Apache. Now I can reenable it. Oh, and this particular machine is outside the firewall.
My Linux box is so customised that I can't install Apache with RPM. I don't even have the drive space to compile httpd.
Well, first, the problems fixed here are not the fault of Apple -- they are security holes in popular third-party tools. Contrast that to Microsoft's own security holes in their own code.
;)
Second, Apple took way too long to release the Apache update. Red Hat had a fix available the next day...Apple's fix is well over a week after the fact.
See, Red Hat got mentioned!
I totally agree. They took their sweet time with this one. At least now my sysadmin will let me back on the network now!
If, however, you can't get what you want because some third party has coercively interposed himself between buyer and seller, then the free market has been subverted.
That hasn't happened here -- yet -- because you can still go buy a competing device that doesn't have the ridiculous contract.
no free market will ever really exist because consumers will be prevented from having the choice of buying what they want altogether.
The free market does not guarantee that every product every consumer wishes to purchase will be made available for sale. You must recognize that, in this situation, you do still have the option to purchase or not purchase the specified product with the specified fine print.
Also, remember that in any contract negotiations -- and that's esentially what this is -- you can take the proposed contract and make a counteroffer without the offending parts. They may not accept your proposed contract, but you still have that right.
Here's another example: cell phones: I want a cellphone that includes 3000 minutes a month for $30 -- with no contract. One cannot get that service anywhere -- so would you argue that there isn't a free market in cell phones? I would hope not, because, while there are stupid rules and bogus choices in the cellphone industry -- so bogus that the industry is imploding as we speak -- there certainly is a free market there.
Remember that a free market is any place at which buyers and sellers exchange goods/services/money on mutually agreeable terms. Why "agreeable"? Well, if you don't agree to the terms, whatever they are, then you won't buy. Buying inherently means that you accept all terms of the sale. They might be grudgingly accepted, but accepted they are.
Come on, people. This is nothing to get bent out of shape about -- this is exactly what the free market is for! Yes, it might be a kewl product, but if you don't agree with the license, don't purchase the product. Get a TiVo or other similar device that doesn't have these ridiculous limitations. The policy will die a natural death when market share dries up because people who refuse to abide by the policy don't buy the product.
Note, too, that if you do disagree with the policy, and yet still purchase, you will have lost. Sonic Blue will have gotten your money, and that tells other companies that people accept this asanine policy. Don't buy!
Also, remember that click-through licenses are as yet unenforceable (but keep watch the DMCA, SSSCA, and sister laws). But I doubt any of us wants to be the guinea pig to drag this through the legal system.
As for me, I will not be buying this product, but I will be writing Sonic Blue to tell them just exactly why I won't be buying. To make it easier for you, here is Sonic Blue's contact page. I urge you to send them a similar letter if this policy bothers you.
Here is the first amendment to the Constitution:
Note that it says "Congress shall make no law..." -- it does not say that "No law shall be made by any government in the USA, whether federal, state, or local...A similar misunderstanding can be seen surrounding the "establishment" clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Note that it does not say that a local or state government cannot make a law regarding religion -- only that Congress cannot do that.
This is a fine point of Constitutional law that many people do not understand. And it is this unfortunate, widespread misunderstanding that has allowed groups like the ACLU (which does many good things) to all but remove religion from the public square. This was never the intent of the first amendment, but it is the interpretation of leftist groups like the ACLU, and it has unfortunately been upheld by some activist judges.
Microsoft will have to drop its spyware and its insane licensing policies before I will try Windows again. Microsoft will have to drop the Globally Unique Identifier before I will use Windows Media Player.
In short, this is a good move for MS, but for me it is too little, too late. I have switched to Mac OS X and will never go back to Windows.
In Steve's mind, he has won. Why? Because -- as the Woz said, "every computer today is essentially a Mac." And because every computer tomorrow will look like the new iMac. And because Windows XP tries to look like OS X. Microsoft is always following Apple. They will always be following Apple until they actually start ... ahem ... innovating.
Microsoft may have the lion's share of the market, but that doesn't matter to Steve Jobs. As Cringley said, Jobs has already won.
Yeah, no kidding. For cable (basic) + Road Runner + cellular + local + long-distance, my total is barely over $100/month.
What is the benefit of having TiVo support Real's formats? I just don't see it.
It's this moral relativism that continually gets us into trouble.
:)
That was exactly my point. Thanks for recognizing it.
You should take note of what David Green pointed out as being the difference between killing and murder. Murder implies the intent to kill.
Note that in our legal system we allow for unintentional killing - we call it manslaughter. As in, if a young child runs out in front of your car and you kill him, then you will likely be convicted of vehicular manslaughter and not murder. You never intended on murdering (or even killing) that young child.
Note that my original comment said that murder is not justified. I never said that "killing is never justified." There is a key difference between the two words.
It is true that it is never justified to intentionally kill innocent people. "Killing innocent people is never justified" would not be a true statement, as David Green has pointed out. The key, again, is the implied intent with the word "murder."
To me (and many, many others) their morals are framed by thier beliefs (or lack thereof). To you, you are right and they are wrong. To them, they are right and you are wrong. Which is precicely why I say how the concepts of "right" and "wrong" are relative.
Just because one does not believe something, that does not make that something untrue. Just because you do not believe morality and truth are absolute, that does not cause the statement "morality and truth are absolute" to be any less true.
Similarly, one's lack of belief in their absolutes does not cause truth and morality to become relative.
The point that I think David Greene was getting at is that he did not make the original post that you were quoting.
I did.
You're right about one thing - tools are never evil, but their uses can be.
You're not right about the other - good and evil are not relative. If they were, there would be -- in someone's mind -- justification for the murder of 6,000+ innocent civilians in New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington last week. There is never any justification for the murder of innocents.
I'm in the market for a laptop. I want a laptop so I can take my Unix machine when I go on vacations, to do PHP development. Of course, I want to be able to run Apache with mod_php and mod_perl, and MySQL on that same machine.
So, what are the relative merits and demerits of OS X and Linux? I am considering an iBook running OS X - I didn't realise until this thread that Linux was available for it. I am also considering an Intel-based laptop running Linux, of course.
It'd be fun to have DVD and CD playback, but those aren't necessities. Pretty much all I want it for is remote (i.e. on vacation) PHP development.
I also don't really want a dual-boot machine, regardless of the benefits to doing that, and regardless of underlying hardware.
So, any thoughts?
Yes, I read The Federalist . It's one of my favorite publications.
I'm not naiive. We do ultimately control who gets into office. Unfortunately most Americans are too lazy to pay attention to the goings-on in Washington, so they just vote for the incumbent, and we maintain status quo. It could be so much different (and better) if people would vote ... and vote their hearts.
Overrated because of +1 bonus maybe, but not a troll.
I have to take issue with this remark. While I agree that our political system has been polluted by greedy politicians (no doubt taking money from corporations), we, the citizenry, are still ultimately in control.
"How's that?" you might ask. Well, we do still have free elections, the most recent one in November 2000. I'm sure you all remember it well. :) Ultimately the voters of each state elect their representatives. Sure, the scales are tilted toward the incumbent and away from the challenger, but still, ultimately, the citizens vote their representatives into office.
Corporations can't do that. No matter what other "rights" have been recognized for companies, they still can't vote.
Yet.
If you ("you" in general, that is..."you Slashdotters") want to complain about corporations ruling your life -- "I hate having no choice in my cable provider" or "I hate Microsoft" or whatever -- start by going to your local polling place and casting your vote. You have no right to complain unless you vote...which, unless you are a convicted felon, you do have once you reach the age of 18. (Provided, of course, you are a U.S. citizen.)
Vote the establishment out of office. But be careful who you vote into office. You can vote government-control-maximizing (and thereby corporation-control-maximizing) people into office (e.g. many Socialists, Democrats, and Greens; and Republicans who have sold out). Or you can vote minimalists/federalists into office (e.g. members of the Republican Liberty Caucus or the Libertarian Party). I think it's obvious that the Founding Fathers preferred a less intrusive government.
It's your choice, America.
PS - if you think that government can solve your "corporate control" problems, you need look no further than California's power crunch to see the fallacy in that. Government intervention created the problem in California, and the only solution is a relaxing of government control. To economists, this is quite obvious.
At minimum, you should be getting one-for-eight.
First, since we have neither talked to our crewmen nor examined our airplane, we cannot know who was at fault. It would be inappropriate to apologise in such a situation.
Second, this is not about egos. It isn't about detainees. Let's call these guys what they are - hostages. China is holding our servicemen and women hostage. And for what?
Third, we were operating in international airspace. Notice the bolded word in that sentence - international. If you catch a spy inside your country, you can jail or expel him. However, it's a commonly accepted practice to spy on countries from outside their borders. There's nothing wrong with it!
Fourth, you don't use a semi-truck to knock a Porsche off the road. Similarly, to think that our klunky, large P3 (the semi) would run into their highly maneuverable, high-speed fighter jet (the Porsche) is ridiculous. There are reports that their fighter jet came to within three feet of our plane twice before the two collided.
Fifth, there's no reason to think that the Chinese will willingly and safely return our men and women, were we to offer some sort of ludicrious apology. Anyone who thinks China is our ally hasn't been paying attention.
You people who get your news from CNN or the major networks need to retune your TV sets and web browsers to FOX News Channel.
Absolutely. A friend was playing devil's advocate against me today and he said, "if MP3s 'suck' why are you so hot to convert all your CDs to MP3s?" The simple answer is that I want the flexibility that music streaming provides. I'm willing to give up a little bit of quality to have the flexibility to listen to my music wherever I want, whenever I want.
That goes right along with another post in this article's comments. That comment went something like, "Recording companies still don't get it. We don't want another format. We want the flexibility to do whatever we want, whenever we want."