It's a stable and quite secure OS Indy, but remember that few games are natively Mac-compatible. For that reason, you may want to stick with XP or use a Linux/WINE system if you intend to continue your gaming experience .

I like the Mac OS as an operating system, and I think It would be really useful just for casual work and chatting. My issue with it is that Apple won't let it run on AMD. How exactly are they benefiting from only releasing it on Apple-sponsored computers?

Old habits die hard. Jobs always wanted strict exclusivity for both hardware and OS. He went with an open model for a few years in the 1990s but all that did was cannibalize his own hardware sales. Of course, it didn't work the same with the PC side of things but Jobs should have realized that. He didn't but he seems to think that those same factors for having got burned apply today.

I think most of us outside of Appleworld would disagree.

back on Chip's original topic - it's not M$ we have to worry about, it's the British Govt's single-minded determination to overturn our basic civil liberties. What with the decision to introduce biometric national ID cards, vastly increased Police powers and the politicisation of Police forces, attempts to repeal and/or undermine habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights, and now the attempt to introduce security backdoors into computer operating systems, is there ANY aspect of our lives that this Govt (or its successors) doesn't want to snoop on or interfere with in it's ongoing creation of a bureaucratic state? Does the govt have a right to read your e-mails or read your homework? Should a policeman be eavesdropping on your IM convos or looking at your modding code? because they'll be able to. Will that make society safer and stop Al-Quaida blowing stuff up?

something like this strikes at the very heart of our right to privacy, and most people don't even realise it's happeneing. The justification is of course the usual ones, preventing terrorism and crime. If these are measures that supposedly *have* to be introduced because of this all-pervading war on terror, when will we ever know when that war is ended? if we aquiesce for the sake of security, will we ever get these freedoms back? will the emergency ever be over? somehow I don't think so. A typical reejoinder for this is if you have nothing to hide you don't have anything to worry about etc etc - but you do. After all, we live in a pre-emptive world now where it's not what you DO (or have done) that makes you a suspect, but what you MIGHT do. You can be arrested now for what you MIGHT do and how can you ever prove your innocence against accusations of what you MIGHT do at some undisclosed point in the future. And that the onus is now on you to prove your innocence rather than the authorities to prove your guilt is another overturning of a fundamental right enshrined in law and our constitution for hundreds of years.

And somehow, despite the turning of the screws of authoritarianism, the terrorism and the crime goes on. things seem to go from bad to worse. where will it end? cameras on every street, surveillance of every home, subdermal barcodes, microchip ids, internal passports? why not? we're already going to be criminals in our country under the ID card system eventhough we have perfectly accepable forms of ID right now, and we're going to be made to PAY for the *privilege* of being made criminals in our own country. yes thats right, we have to stump up good hard cash just to get a piece of plastic that tells PC Plod everything about us, and if we move house we have to inform the authorities or go to jail. Something whcih only sex offenders and people on bail have had to do before.

it's very serious and very depressing, especially as most people will go along with it until it impacts directly ontheir lives, and then it will be too late. It may well be too late already, but if enough people are prepared to stand up and say *NO!* to these draconian measures, we might still be able to force a halt and maybe even get our liberties back. I recently signed up to the NO2ID pledge, and I will not be aquiescing to the law on ID cards. if that means i go to jail, then I will do so; as I'm refusing for political reasons (well actually straightforward principles of civil liberty) then I will be de facto a political prisoner. I will have committed no crime except to refuse to accept the destruction of our freedoms, and that's not a crime at all, is it?

Mrs Taw is also going to refuse to comply with the ID card law, at no insistence from me i might add, so bully for her! I love her more and more each day. My daughter will be past the age of majority when the scheme comes into force and she also is going to refuse to go along with it, again without any influence from either of us. We let her make her own decisions on such matters. So it looks like all 3 of us will be going to jail when the time comes! And we aren't the only ones, thousands of right-thinking people are horrified by this rapacious assault on our freedom, and if we all stand together and stay true, we can overcome this evil.

Edited by - Tawakalna on 2/28/2006 4:49:50 PM

Such things as Taw has mention are inevitabel in this world, and will grow with the tech that we have. In the US, there are chips for your pet, and the idea of using them for our kids has been around. Now there is talk fo adults too so they can be tracked to "Protect" them from harm. Pete, time, they are a getting bad.

Such "advances" may be inevitable Final, but that doesn't mean that we have to silently stand by and let them be introduced unopposed. The APATHY of the common man is the reason why things are bad, and are prepared to get steadily worse. There's no way in hell I'm going to let my privacy be invaded anymore than it already has been. As a case in point there is the proposed "Australia Card", which is supposed to "fight Terrorism". Give me a break! *Any* card can be copied, and how is it going to stop someone from blowing themselves up in a public place? The whole concept is a farce. Interestingly, the "Australia Card" was first proposed in the 1980's and one of its most vocal critics was the Troll-Man (the current Australian PM). Now, he is giving the idea some support. Funny how things change isn't it? *Spits in Howard's direction and hops off*

Well, I can see a reason for being able to decrypt data for "national security", but do not think police should be able to do this willy nilly.

Anti Terrorism is more about hard drives than fighting, and lets not forget, it's how they catch paedophiles and keep "our children safe" as well (I still think this is used as a panic tactic to ensure people won't ever fuss about it), but IMO, it should require the police to seek permission through the courts, presenting evidence as to why they need access, and not just "grab computer, get in and take a peek". In that respect, the key should be kept by MS, and require a court order to allow someone access to a computer or something.

The way it is reported, it sounds like the police will be able to simply pick up your computer without any real evidence, and then search it at their leisure. That, imo, is wrong.

the argument being of course that the Police suuposedely *need* those quasi-arbitrary powers in face of the shadowy threats of terrorism and paedophiles and that there's no actual evidence is not the point in the eyes of the authorities; a suspect *might* be committing a crime and it's that *might be* that's all the justification they need. As I said, we've moved from an evidence based criminal justice system to a suspicion based criminal justice system and on that basis we are all under suspicion, each and every one.

don't forget, if you're not doing anything wrong you haven't got anything to hide! Privacy is irrelevant!

did you know that if you're arrested for whatever reason, and arrest doesn't mean you've necessarily done anything at all, the Police make a lot of mistakes after all; even if you're released without charge, charges dropped, or you're found not guilty, your records stay on the Police database? And there is afaik no legal process to force the Police to remove them.



Edited by - Tawakalna on 3/1/2006 1:08:02 AM

I think my main worry is that it used to be (or I think it was ) that police would need suspicious activity to make them investigate you - they needed to suspect you of nerfarious activities.

The new laws, along with this sort of attempt by the government to have free access when they snatch your computer, is removing any need for suspicion. They don't need to suspect, they can arrest on any grounds without retribution, and then leisurely search every facet of your life looking for a wrongdoing.
It sounds like it could eventually (one day) head towards random raids on random people's homes to then search you/your computer to find a crime to convict you of. Starts to sound almost like second world war germany

Of course, a reassuring thing is that no-one goes to jail these days, it's all about being let out on "community service". Wait a minute, suddenly community service sounds very communist to me, and maybe all these "community service orders" is a modern day stalinist "build the motherland by forced love/labour". Hmm, I think I am getting paranoid - I should stop reading the news, and bury my head in the sand until I emigrate.

and as all motorists know, if the Police are looking that hard for something wrong, they'll find something - even if they have to invent it.

Sadly however most people will go along with it, bleating about it being *the Law* as if it's sent by God and is immutable. Most people already assume that if the Police are talking to you for whatever reason (even if you're only a witness or even a victim) you most probably have done something wrong. I used to mad at mother and father who always assumed that everyone was a priori guilty if they so much as walked into a Police station. So it's only when individuals themselves are directly affected by the new laws that they'll start thinking that there's something not right. Even then, if you've never been questioned by the Police before or had any dealings with them, you are easily intimidated by them, can incriminate yourself even when you've done nothing wrong, aren't necessarily advised correctly by them (eg rights to see the duty solicitor, something which under PACE they're supposed to tell you but they conveniently often don't) a common result being the acceptance of cautions by people just to get out of the Police station when they've committed no crime and the Police had no evidence. The Police will often misrepresent the caution but it is not the caution of old, a telling off by an Inspector, it is a registration of your name, address, and dna sampling onto a Police database which will never be removed.

I really dont beleive that any of us who disagree with this new dispensation should just accept it. its hard for people to to become active and agitated about things esp when we're all busy trying to earn a crust and look after our families, but if we aren't prepared to speak up for ourselves then maybe we deserve to live in a bureaucratic dictatorship? I had a discussion with my father-in-law about this the other night, he came out with the blinkered unquestioning pov that *we are at war and its an emergency measure that should be supported and even if we dont agree its the law and what's it to do with him anyway* and thats the kind of apathy that the authoroities rely on to get away with the things they do. That many people dont even vote and ignore political awareness and activity actually works to politicans' advantage.

Taw and others, you can always "Fight" the system, but the system is inevitble. It comes with "Progress". That is one reason I hate progress, its not always nessisary, and it brings unwanted elements with it. In the "Interest" of protecting us, we give up rights for the "Greater Good" only to never get them back. Something to think about, ehh?

Edited by - Finalday on 3/1/2006 4:54:37 AM

that's where I have to differ with you FD, I don't think it's inevitable. it only becomes so if we allow it to be. although my following examples are for the sake of brevity somewhat simplistic, if everyone adopted that view then we'd have had no Magna Carta, no parliamentary democracy, no Bill of Rights, no Habeas Corpus, you folks in the US of A would have no Revolution and no Constitution and we'd both be ruled by a monarchy with absolute power that claimed a divine right. Now we have bureaucracies that are increasingly unaccountable using technology to track our every action including in our own homes, restricting our movements, monitoring our private thoughts and opinions, and all to keep us safe from vague threats the nature of which we are told we shouldn't know, but to trust those in power to protect us from.

it's ironic that in the UK, much legislation was rushed in after the London Tube bombings, yet Central London was already prior to the bombings one of the most highly monitored city centres in the world, yet all this surveillance which has been in place for quite afew years, did NOT prevent the bombings. In fact, it directly contributed to the murder of an innocent man, Jean de Menezieres.

I'm well aware that much of the onward march of technology can't be stopped and in many ways in our current climate maybe it shouldn't, my concern is that the authorities are using it to institute a new regime and increasing their own power at the expence of the people, and are taking away our basic freedoms without sufficient justification. We've had Id cards before, during both World Wars; the last lot were isuued in 1939/40 but weren't repealed until 1952? and then only because people were so sick and fed up of policemen officiously demanding to see the papers of people they knew perfectly well, that the Govt of the day faced defeat in the elections over the issue. So you see, it's not inevtable and you can overturn it but only if you make the effort.

A further irony on the Vista issue is that anyone with sufficient computer skills will be able to get round it anyway, the people who will be most easily monitorable are the users without any technical knowledge, moms/dads/families etc who go and buy PCs off the shelf with pre-installed o/s. Any terrorist or cyber-criminal worthy of the name will get round it no problem (use a licence and an o/s from another country, for example) As the Govt and the Police certainly aren't stupid, what exactly is the purpose of such an initiative then?

Edited by - Tawakalna on 3/1/2006 6:58:02 AM

Not 'getting'..." have gotten" is considerably closer to the mark.As an item, consider the 'Onstar' system- this will tell someone every move you make, where you go, and how long you stay. And any system that can be activated remotely, can be monitored remotely. How would you like someone else hearing the details of a private conversation, no matter the topic or with whom it takes place with?

That technology is currently in place. And it gets even better...

Most people, if you were to ask them, would tell you that a service that could unlock your vehicle should you happen to lock your keys in the car is a good thing, especially if there is a child (or pet) on the inside- and this is true. And, of course, there is the ability to thwart thieves by rendering the vehicle powerless.This is also a true statement. However, many do not consider the corrollary (sp?): Any system that can remotely unlock your car for you , can also LOCK your vehicle , or even render you powerless to move- including exiting the vehicle, should you need to. The best part is, they get the person that owns the vehicle to pay for these 'Safety Features'. See, you get to pay to have your privacy invaded- or, you can choose not to have the service, which leads to..?

We don't know. Yet. But I think we're going to find out..

" O Brave New World that has such people in it"

Thing is that a back door is something that can be hacked. So. Who will be disadvantaged the most? Certainly not the would-be criminal.

If MS wanted to offer some type of a backdoor so that a Parent could better police how his or her kids used or abused their computer privileges, I wouldn't be quite so exercised about the whole thing ... being the parent I would own this back door and I would control how it could be opened (except of course and again, for hackers who are smarter than I am).

I don't see how this would work as desired. And I see a new secondary market opening up in which fake back door products are sold to attach to Vista.