Why do we still have these antiquated data caps?
You think bandwidth just grows on trees? Quite obviously, there is a bandwidth crisis. Bandwidth manufacturers are desperately trying to meet the demand with current processses, but they're falling short, which is why we so often have bandwidth outages. This high-profile push button topic inversely correlates to another well known problem no one can figure out how to even begin to solve, the data glut we've been in since our sensory organs evolved.
Now i feel old. I was there in the beginning.
Some how I doubt that.
RHEL too, but that will cost you
I have downloaded before a full version, non-evaluation, fully working copy of RHEL before.... I believe this option still exists for those seeking it, but it is one of those well kept secrets and the link is burried deep somewhere at Red Hat's site. i.e. RHEL can be used for free, without support. It is possible Red Hat may have discontinued this for the "30 day evaluation" variety of free download, and that download link is gone forever, but regardless, Red Hat does not sell operating systems, they sell support, and that is what you pay for that costs. However, CentOS is identical to RHEL and is free to download and use, i.e. costs nothing. Oracle Linux is also RHEL, and also free to download and use, I believe. So no, if you don't pay for the support, using RHEL will cost you nothing.
so they could use FreeDOS to play old DOS games
That's not dumb or anything, but superfluous, considering this exists.
But if you ask the typical user of OS X that never questions anything and always insists on new shiney, any OS older than 2 years old is "obsolete." So this OS is obsolete 10x over!!
disclaimer: I am a UNIX/Linux Windows & OS X systems admin, and prefer OS X for desktop, and even I can't stand the moronic whiney bullshit that the self-proclaimed "expert" mac users puke out... please see comments here to see what I mean, as if you didn't know already.
I see. So if I sell you my Mac and all the software therein, that contains an Aperture install, you could never use it. And being as you post on Slashdot, you are very respectful of software licensing, and you've never heard of The Pirate Bay.
You see you cant buy a disc with aperture on it,
And, with Aperture gone
Ok, its another terrible idea from Apple made with absolutely no regard to their very supportive and loyal user base, but you're exaggerating tremendously.
Let me remind you that, although most users seem to be compulsive in how they click "update" whenever there is one available, its is a really dumb thing to do blindly and unnecessary except for three reasons and only three reasons: 1) you have security concerns and the update patches security holes; 2) the update has bug fixes of bugs you keep bumping into 3) the update has new features that you want. If you update for any other reason, or for no reason, you should have your head examined.
Abandoning development on Aperture does not mean that you can't continue to use it until the end of time. If you're happy with how it works now, rest assured, it will continue to work that way forever.
So bash Apple when you get a chance, but ffs relax. Apple is not going to come into your computer and disable Aperture! Its going to keep working for you if its working for you now. And if you were hoping to use it, and are afraid it will disappear forever, well, again, relax, that is impossible. But if you'd like an alternative that has just as much functionality as Lightroom or Aperture, take a look at Darktable, which is Open Source and is not going anywhere.
Well, Ive was one of the most outstanding executive officers this company's ever produced. He was brave, outstanding in every way. And he was a good man, too, humanitarian man, a man of wit and humor. He joined the Software Engineering Group. After that, his... uh... ideas... methods... became... unsound... unsound.
Now he's crossed into California with this mountaineered army of his that... worship... the man... like a god, and follow every order, however ridiculous...
...very obviously, he has gone insane.
Your mission is to proceed down the San Francisco Bay in a Blue Navy petrol boat, pick up Sir Ive's path at Cupertino, follow it, learn what you can along the way. When you find the officer, infiltrate his team by (ahem-hem) whatever means available, and terminate the executive's position.
...terminate the executive...
...terminate with extreme prejudice.
On the other hand, I suspect that some version of SpaceX's Dragon will carry men into space long before Orion.
Perhaps. But I suspect Orion will carry men back from space long before anyone ever figures out what happened to Dragon and its crew.
I'm not saying I like it, and in fact I said I don't like it... but the case law is pretty clear and you're welcome to see for yourself:
It has been this way since 1979: there is no legitimate expectation of privacy regarding specific information when you knowingly give the information to a third party.
Its not a crock and I didn't make it up, as my references bear out. And again I stand by assessment that Slashdot has gone to the dogs and the idiots posting these days don't know much of anything.
In Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), the Supreme Court held individuals have no "legitimate expectation of privacy" regarding the telephone numbers they dial because they knowingly give that information to telephone companies when they dial a number. Therefore there is no search where officers monitor what phone numbers an individual dials, although the Congress has enacted laws that restrict such monitoring.
This case makes it clear that reasonable expectation of privacy regarding location is invalidated by carrying a cell phone because location information is given to a third party, the phone company. Thus there can be no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding location.
A strong case is already made in case law (more or less) that if an individual carries a cell phone they have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their location because they give their location information to a third party, the phone company. So the feds and the cops are foolish because they had no reason to lie and would have obtained their search warrants legally by telling the whole truth about their use of Stingrays.
But I don't think so, (and I don't want it to be so) because it fails the second part of Justice Harlan's test in Katz v US 389 U.S. 347 (1967).... because society at large would likely deem a persons expectation of privacy to be reasonable regarding their location (especially if out of sight, inside a private home) regardless of carrying a cell phone... because cell phones are ubiquitous, and the existence of cell phones should not invalidate the entire concept of reasonable expectation of privacy. But that's just my opinion, and, again, a strong dissenting case already exists in case law, and is the law of the land.
the issue here is cops are lying to judges under the direction of federal agents in order to obtain search warrants
That's bad, and judges should rightly be pissed off about it. But no citizens' rights were violated. The police already had the evidence that the individuals they were seeking already committed a crime... the arrest warrant was already obtained, and they're just searching for the suspects, not using this technology to oppress innocent civilians.
The real problem is not that the government is out of control. The government does not move with a single mind... it is aggregate and it is not after anyone but criminals. The real problem is that citizens, including everyone posting here, are uneducated blathering idiots, and do not understand their rights, and do not even realize that they have already forfeited their rights by previous actions, such as owning and carrying a cell phone. We fucked up. We let the steady advancement of technology eat our rights because we were not engaged and did not notice, and now its a bit late to start blaming anyone but ourselves.
We call them people.
The idea that it might not be possible at any point to produce something we *know* to be produceable (a human brain) seems rediculious. The idea, having accepted that we produce a human brain, that we cannot produce even a slight improvement seems equally silly....
No. We don't know *how*, but we know it can be done and is done every minute of every day by biological processes.
The fallacy that you are promoting as evidence that AI is possible or inevitable is known as argumentum ex silentio. And contrary to your unsupported beliefs, and much to the disappointment of sci fi writers and nerds everywhere, what we actually know is that it is not possible.