No. The normal way to install a screensaver is to double-click it. That opens prefs; prefs installs it.
No. The normal way to install a screensaver is to double-click it. That opens prefs; prefs installs it.
Allow me to demonstrate under the latest macOS (10.12 / Sierra):
1) Go get the screensaver bundle.
2) Open the
3) Now, from the drawer with all the screen savers, drag out Pipes.saver to your desktop. It's perfectly safe. Double-click it to install it.
Here's what happens:
First, you get a dialog that says "can't install pipes screensaver" from preferences (preferences is what is normally started when you go to install a screen saver.)
Then, from the Apple menu or the prefs icon, you go to preferences / security, and there is no button. Just as I described. Pipes.saver is not installed. And prefs will not install it no matter how many times you try this. You can verify this is the case by going to Preferences, and then Desktop & Screen Saver, and looking at the list of available savers. Pipes.saver is not there.
Okay, so that's the OS install behavior as it stands today.
Now, take the Pipes.saver file, and drag it using Finder into ~/Library/Screen Savers
Now again, open preferences / Desktop & Screen Saver, and look at the list. There it is. If you choose it, it runs just fine.
This concludes our demo of macOS Sierra refusing to install working software from non-appstore vendors.
It almost certainly won't be 30 years.
It'll be 1-3 years after the first one appears.
Apple's been boiling its frogs (sorry, I mean, customers) longer, and has moved from the ability to install any app you want, to the ability to install any app you want IF you set up preferences to allow it, to an inability to set up preferences to allow it, but if you try, a button appears (which you have to go into preferences to find) that may allow it (doesn't alway appear)...
They're one or two steps away from "app store only."
The frogs.... sorry, the customers... just one step from boiling now.
Interesting to see Microsoft begin to turn up the heat.
I guess pretty much everyone's a frog now.
Customer. I meant customer.
what's to stop consumers from voting for laws that make it illegal?
A representative republic? IOW, a system that doesn't allow consumers to vote for specific laws.
If this were real it would be effectively free energy.
Like that laughable idea, "solar cells." "Electricity from free light." Free energy! I mean, really. What utter nonsense, eh? Some people will believe anything.
It's racist, you plick!
This is a partial solution. It still doesn't let me organize my applications.
Nonetheless, patent protection is law, and innumerable business models depend upon it.
So basically what you are saying then, is that some business models that depend upon certain laws you object to are broken. Yes?
That's a stickier problem in electronics because of drm and other various anti piracy measures. At what point does an antipiracy device become a hinderance to repair?
From the point where it is actually implemented, onwards.
Which is higher priority?
The rights of people who have done no wrong are (okay, should be) higher priority.
Ideally, create fair laws that describe the bounds of legitimate behavior. Punish people who break these laws. Don't do things to people who are not breaking the law that prevent them from doing legitimate things based on the idea that someone, somewhere, might break the law.
The problem with DRM (Digital Rights Management) as it is presently constituted, is that the only rights that are being managed are those of the publishers. The rights of the consumer are being roundly trampled. It's appalling, really.
A business model that needs laws to prop it up is broken.
Copyright and Rights Licensing
Upon which the GPL is based, as well as just about the entire entertainment industry. It's difficult to imagine a studio spending tens or hundreds of millions on a production based on the hope that no one would copy and distribute the resulting product without seeing to it that they were compensated.
Upon which the drug industry, chip industry, etc., is based.
While these mechanisms are clearly not optimum, they do seem to benefit society in general. Certainly they are strong supporting factors for progress in the fields that they act as rights bulwarks for.
I really don't see that business models based on associated laws are inherently broken. Would you care to elaborate on your position?
Why do you want access to *the* filesystem?
So I can control and organize my data.
If you don't like iCloud Drive, you can use Google Drive, Dropbox, OneDrive and a few others. I believe all of the rest of them give you the ability to use folders.
I don't want to give my data to a third party. I want to be able to control my own data. I have plenty of local storage, and no need or desire whatsoever to place my information in someone else's hands. If you want to do so, of course, by all means. For myself, I'd just as soon not enter into the lottery of "which cloud service will suffer a security breach next", or the lottery of "which cloud service is sharing data with government / corporations / hackers / employees", or the lottery of "geee, the Intertubes are down, I guess I can't get at my data", or the "you must look at ads or pay a fee to get at your data lottery", or the "I'm on a plane and so I can't get at my data lottery", etc., etc., etc.
It's up to you to decide which documents will be stored locally on the device.
Indeed it is. And the answer is "all of them", except where I have also stored them on some other device I own and wholly control.
Why is this not happening with pizzerias or sneakers?
It most definitely is. A decent quality pizza worth less than $2.00 (I make them from scratch, and that's what they cost me in low quantity in a relatively isolated region where raw materials prices are high, so I'm quite sure of the number) often costs well over $10.00. Sneakers worth about $8.00 can cost far, far more than that -- no more than a little bit of canvas, plastic and metal off a mass production line. The gouging is blatant and obvious. The fact that you are willing to actually write as if it wasn't reveals that you have no actual sense of the economics of either matter.
Why am I paying the same price for 75 Mbps up/down today, that I used to pay for 35 Mpbs up/down 6 years ago?
Because US broadband is lagging far behind the state of the art, and prices are far too high. You should be running much faster, and paying much less. Same was true six years ago. And you are not even at the bottom of the low performance / high price heap. In many places, it's worse.
The answer: competition.
No, the answer is collusion.
The Federal Communications Commission plans to halt implementation of a privacy rule that requires ISPs to protect the security of its customers' personal information.
Not that the FCC was ever very much more than a corporate puppet, but it's fascinating to watch them, and the government in general, find ways to be of even less service to the people.
So far, in just a couple months, we've seen the elimination of the requirement that energy companies must disclose royalties and government payments; the elimination of rules preventing dumping of coal mining waste into rivers and streams; the funneling of even more money into our "only more costly than the next eight countries put together" military; assertion that we need more and better nuclear weapons; suspension of an insurance rate cut for new Federal Housing Administration loans; completely unjustified disruption of already-issued visas; the installation of a white supremacist on the national security council; an order to "review" a rule requiring financial managers to act in their clients' best interests when handling retirement accounts; an "easing" of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010; amplification of the drug war; amplification of the war against personal and consensual sexual choices; partisan filtering of the Whitehouse press pool; anti-free-press agitprop straight from the president... all this, along with a great deal of additional rhetoric that indicates more of this nature is likely on the way.
We no longer need turn to dystopian fiction to see just how badly our government can act out. A dystopian reality is rapidly establishing itself. The indicators are so strong at this point that some of the "peppers" are actually beginning to look like forward-thinkers.
I wonder just how much of this kind of damage the country can suffer before it undergoes some kind of seismic shift, or, if it will just deliquesce into a fully classist, corporatist nightmare.
I prefer to hope that the complacent have had a wake up call as to just how foolish and blind large segments of our population actually is; that they now understand that it is possible that without their active resistance, both at the voting booth and in general, all of this will continue apace while every tweet from President Trump, every bit of nonsense from Spicer and Conway, every craven abrogation of responsibility by congress, every unwise and harmful regulatory alteration, will be met with a blinkered nod-and-drool from the very people that saw to it that he reached the Oval Office — and that this will outright determine the future course of the country along these same destructive lines.
These are such very interesting times. We know we're not 1940's Germans; but we're finally going to get an answer as to whether we are better — or worse. I see little reason for optimism in this regard at this point in time, either.
The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Politico and BuzzFeed were also excluded from the meeting, which is known as a gaggle and is less formal than the televised Q-and-A session in the White House briefing room. The gaggle was held by White House press secretary Sean Spicer.
In a brief statement defending the move, administration spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said the White House "had the pool there so everyone would be represented and get an update from us today."
The pool usually includes a representative from one television network and one print outlet. In this case, four of the five major television networks — NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox News — were invited and attended the meeting, while only CNN was blocked.
And while The New York Times was kept out, conservative media organizations Breitbart News, The Washington Times and One America News Network were also allowed in.
Yet magic and hierarchy arise from the same source, and this source has a null pointer.