To understand that, you will have to first realize that not all of the humanities are BS and that politics/philosophy is a discipline as structured as programming.
Perhaps, but if so, the focus in philosophy is merely on ensuring that your program compiles--not that it produces the expected output when run.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that Google's solution is better, Bruce, but...it's not the standard. The proper way to do this, and one I'd have been fine with, would be to support OpenID, plus this alternative that's much easier for the average user to understand. That's not what Google did, and I don't think we're out-of-line for faulting them for it.
Hell, I honestly think it's possible to root for Microsoft these days..NET, including the stuff they've just announced, is an open standard, and MS is encouraging competing implementations. They're working with Mono to ensure it has good Silverlight support, including proprietary codecs. They have their own cloud service, yet worked with Amazon so that Windows could be on EC2. They offer a free version of VisualStudio that's more than sufficient for hobbyist work, and ironically arguably have the most open and easy-to-target 3rd-gen gaming console for small development shops. They're supporting OpenID, making IE increasingly standards-compliant, and, with Windows 7, look like they might actually have a pretty nice operating system that I might not feel a pressing need to migrate away from. They're definitely not perfect—I'm still royally pissed at their behavior over OOXML—but they're doing an awful lot of things right these days.
Google, on the other hand, is going the opposite direction. They've done a proprietary fork of OpenID (which, despite the other comments on here, I definitely find offensive, because locks you into Google in exactly the same way Passport locked you into Microsoft). They closed their SOAP service and offer no alternative. They've basically said Gmail will never use IMAP properly, and they consider that a feature, not a bug. They do business in China on the argument that "well, someone had to do it, so why not us." They still do a tremendous amount of things right, but, just as I think we should acknowledge that Microsoft nowadays is doing a lot of things right, I think we need to start acknowledging that Google is doing a lot of things wrong.
Nobody's perfect, and situations can change surprisingly quickly. I remember when IBM was the evil overlord and Microsoft was our savior.
That was 1992.
Just because Google's been good up to now is no reason to assume they'll continue to be.
Everyone loves to trot out the Broken Window argument for WWII, but it's not applicable, for a number of reasons:
Fixing a broken window does not generate wealth; WWII did. WWII caused the developments of tons of technologies--new factories and machining processes, radar, massive advancements in airplane design, and even the first real computers--that resulted in wealth generation. Fixing a broken window just fixes that individual broken window. WWII (from an economic standpoint) was not zero-sum.
Even if net wealth decreases, average wealth may increase. Imagine you have a mansion in a town of glazers. All of the glazers are dirt-poor. One day, some nefarious vandal breaks all of your windows. The net wealth in the town may go down, but the average prosperity may skyrocket. This again means more people have the resources to engage in innovation, which again means that we may be able to have wealth generation (see point 1).
Once the glazer was done fixing the window, he didn't bother charging the homemaker, and in fact gave the homeowner tons of money. This has the same effect as the above.
It's not that the broken-window argument isn't valid--it most definitely is--but rather that WWII does not fit that argument's mold.
Yes and no. People innovate when they have a motivation to do so, and they innovate better when that motivation is positive (reward for innovation) rather than negative (execution for failure to innovate). There are actually lots of ways to provide that--money, sex, and fame being the obvious ones, but even simpler things, like vacations or even just personal appreciation from bosses and colleagues, can also do the trick. Some very socialist countries that value their educated class, like Israel and Norway, have done absolutely amazing things, despite very high income taxes and a relatively small income gap.
The point is, having some type of real reward helps. It so happens that in the United States right now, our society values money more than just about anything else, and so rewards, unfortunately, are best valued when they come in the form of money. I'm actually pretty disheartened by that fact, but getting society to begin valuing our scientists, engineers, and mathematicians--the prerequisites for non-monetary forms of appreciation--is going to be a long time coming. At least in the short term, monetary rewards probably really are the best.
Keying the end of the Depression to the return of the DJIA to 1929 levels is wrong, in my opinion. The only reason that the market of 1929 was as high as it was in the first place was that everyone was buying stock on margin, which resulted in hilariously large P/E ratios and absurd market caps. In 1929, as now, the market crashed because the "wealth" was really just debt and didn't really exist . So I don't think it's fair to say that the Depression didn't end until the market legitimately achieved the level that it had artificially achieved thirty years earlier.
A better mark--and why most people do consider that WWII ended the depression--is that the unemployment rate all but evaporated. In the Depression, unemployment was as high as 25-30%. By 1948--the first year in which we started properly tracking unemployment in the Federal Government--it was about 3.5%--a level it held relatively consistently until the 1970s oil crisis.
If you don't like the unemployment rate, let's look at the GDP. In 1929, the GDP was $103.6 billion. By 1933, it had declined to $56.4 billion. It had crawled back up to $92.2 billion by 1939.
By 1945, the end of WWII, it was $223.1 billion.
So, although you're correct that the Dow didn't return to its 1929 levels until 1960, I think trying to make the argument that the Depression didn't end until then is weak, and, ultimately, simply wrong.
Some deficit spending...and a 94% tax rate. Seriously.
Look: I'm extremely fiscally conservative. But even I'm more than willing to grant that there's a definite balance point between anarchic free-market capitalism and nanny-state socialism: putting aside morals, too much wealth centralized in the hands of too few kills the economy because no one can afford to buy anything, while too much wealth distribution kills the economy because no one's motivated to innovate.
During WWII, we had extremely aggressive taxes to pay for a massive war, where those taxes are going to local industries, thereby supplying tons of previously unemployed laborers jobs. That's effectively labor-based socialism. At the end of the war, Europe had bombed their industry to oblivion, while ours had just been rebuilt, so we were in a wonderful position to get rich--if we had buyers. Critically, the Marshal Plan basically amounted to international socialism, giving Europe money with which to buy American goods. They then used those goods to rebuild their own economies, giving them new income, with which to purchase American goods legitimately.
So, in summary: WWII caused domestic socialistic policies that got us out of the Depression, and the Cold War caused international socialistic policies that kept us out of it.
Can we all agree now that maybe a little wealth distribution isn't necessarily a bad thing 100% of the time?
But that's the difference. If I delete the file that a hard link points to, the file survives in the form of the hard link. I can still read it, modify it, and so on. If I delete the file an OS/2 shadow points to, the shadow now points nowhere; it's dead. I guess this is a trivial difference; the reason I was emphasizing it is that, as someone who's used OS/2, and then Mac OS, continuously since the late 90s, I'm used to this behavior, whereas Linux hard links caught me by surprise the first time I ran into them--but there is a difference here.
That's not the same, and you now it. OS/2 shadows, which are what he's talking about, are equivalent to softlinking to the inode. If you delete the original, it disappears, but if you rename or move the original, everything's fine. Mac OS 6-9, Mac OS X, and OS/2 all support this behavior. Windows NT can at a file-system level. Linux cannot. It's not that hard linking isn't useful--it definitely is--but it's a different beast. The fact remains that you cannot use soft links in Linux the way he described.
I actually have to disagree with your sentiment. It's long past time that Yahoo had a competitor to Analytics, because it dramatically increases the value of Yahoo's ad service.
Most people focus on Analytics as being good for web developers because it lets them track where their visitors come from. That's true, but missing the point: the value for web developers that Google cares about is that it helps you, both directly and indirectly, increase your ad revenue. In so doing, they increase their own revenue, both immediately (the more clicked-on ads you have, the more they get paid) and long-term (if you're making more money, you're more likely to keep using them). Analytics is the perfect loss-leader for online advertising.
Yahoo, meanwhile, lacks any such tool. Yes, the Yahoo Publisher Network lets you get basic ad stats, but it just doesn't approach the information Google can give me with their AdWords + Analytics combination. If I'm going to be using Analytics, why not just use AdWords/Double Click too, and be done with it? Acquiring an Analytics competitor gives Yahoo vertical integration on one of their key products in a way that should directly positively impact their bottom line.
Though this may be Yahoo "scrambling for market share," it's a smart scramble. More of this and fewer surreal pairings with AOL, and Yahoo could return to viability.
The iPhone does not currently support Google Gears, so the offline portion could not even theoretically work. Thankfully, you're saved from having to worry about that, because you can't currently edit Google Docs on the iPhone when you are connected, either; just view them.
You used to be correct, but that's thankfully changing. Parallels 3.0 now uses DirectX from WINE and a special driver for Windows to deliver 3D acceleration for Windows applications running on OS X. In my experience, I'd have to describe the result as "somewhat buggy, but overall impressive." You can see some videos if you're curious how well it actually works. VMware is rumored to be working on similar technology.
Every technology has both good and bad applications. Nuclear reactions can provide an almost limitless supply of energy, far beyond what we as a species need for the foreseeable future. It also lets us make massive atomic bombs, and even doomsday weapons that could wipe out all life on Earth. I think we've done a passable job using that technology thus far.
What about electricity itself? Electricity gave us the electric chair and modern mechanized warfare, It also has given us massive advances in medicine and technology.
This discovery will be no different. It furthers our understanding of our entire biology, getting us closer, inch-by-inch, to being able to cure all diseases, bring back extinct organisms, and likely usher in molecular computers and nano-machines that can self-replicate and help us fix the damage we've done to earth. I've no doubt it can also be used to kill all humans. I'm confident that we as a species will have matured enough by the time this technology becomes useful that our imminent demise won't be our top concern.
Oh, come off it, NDPTAL85. That's not even dimly officially supported at this point. I can also put a custom Linux distro on my Linksys router, but that's not exactly supported, either--and I certainly wouldn't call someone who said I couldn't install Apache on my Linksys "lying."
It's okay that the iPhone has some weaknesses right now. Having a fully locked-down phone for the moment means that Apple can guarantee a consistent user experience, minimize their phone crashing, and rigidly enforce a consistent set of UI guidelines. I'm still optimistic that the next version of the iPhone, or maybe even a later update, will come with a true, officially supported SDK. For the moment, though, pointing out that some hackers have managed to circumvent the iPhone's lock-down does not count as allowing third-party apps in the way that a Palm does.
That's completely wrong. Apple broke Claris in two: one half was left with the FileMaker database and reformed into FileMaker Inc.; the other half was reabsorbed directly into Apple. That's why ClarisWorks turned into AppleWorks and began being sold by Apple directly. Wikipedia, as always, has a nice overview.
Close. OpenStep for Windows NT made available FoundationKit and AppKit, which are the two major Objective-C frameworks of OS X and the core of Cocoa. They continued to be available on Windows through early versions of WebObjects 4, but are no longer available in any way from Apple. These are two of the frameworks that the GNUstep project aims to clone, with varying degrees of success.
CoreFoundation and CoreGraphics are APIs that were new in OS X. CoreFoundation is an object-oriented C-based API designed that parallels FoundationKit class-for-class. Although it's been (partially) available on Windows in the form of CF-Lite (http://developer.apple.com/opensource/cflite.html), it never shipped with any version of WebObjects. CoreGraphics is the technical name for what Apple marketing calls Quartz, and is Mac OS X's low-level C-based drawing API. This is the first time, as far as I know, that it's been available on Windows, though iTunes 7 probably uses it statically linked.
Forget the media; I've been trying to find the bill. Would someone be kind enough to provide the section of the Florida or Utah Code so that I can see the exact wording? Nothing relevant comes up at http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/, which seems as if it ought to have it, and the Utah Legislature's list of 2007 commerce bills does not seem to contain anything even dimly resembling the Ars Technica story. Could someone with access to LexisNexis or Westlaw please confirm whether these bills even exist, let alone passed?
Of course, one idea Mac OS 9 borrowed from Windows was making windows resizable by dragging at all four edges. I just wish Mac OS X had borrow that from Mac OS 9!
I don't mean to be pedantic, but especially since you claim to be a Mac OS fanboy: OS 8-style windows (which lasted mostly unchanged through Mac OS 9.2*) did not allow resizing from any side. What they did was allow dragging from any point on the window border that was neither a widget (e.g., the close box or the windowshade box) nor the drag corner. Current incarnations of Mac OS X do have a kind of modern take on this design decision: brushed-metal windows can be dragged from any part of the brushed-metal surface, for example, and applications with unified toolbars (e.g., Mail, Xcode, System Preferences, and iTunes 7) can be dragged from anywhere in their toolbars.
Interestingly, the developer previews for Rhapsody did allow resizing windows from any edge. I don't remember for sure, but I think this functionality was removed before the oft-forgotten Mac OS X Server 1.0 shipped, replaced by Mac OS 8-style dragging behavior. I could be wrong, though. If I am, this is likely what you're thinking of.
* Mac OS 8.5 added the proxy icon to the title bar for document windows, but did not change any existing window behavior.
If you miss Neon, you'll be happy to know that you can get about 90% of its implementation and 100% of its concepts in the form of PowerMops, which is open-source and runs great and natively on Leopard. I haven't used it for anything recently, but it's worked fine for hobbyist stuff I've done in the past. I strongly encourage you to check it out.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps, but if so, the focus in philosophy is merely on ensuring that your program compiles--not that it produces the expected output when run.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that Google's solution is better, Bruce, but...it's not the standard. The proper way to do this, and one I'd have been fine with, would be to support OpenID, plus this alternative that's much easier for the average user to understand. That's not what Google did, and I don't think we're out-of-line for faulting them for it.
Hell, I honestly think it's possible to root for Microsoft these days. .NET, including the stuff they've just announced, is an open standard, and MS is encouraging competing implementations. They're working with Mono to ensure it has good Silverlight support, including proprietary codecs. They have their own cloud service, yet worked with Amazon so that Windows could be on EC2. They offer a free version of VisualStudio that's more than sufficient for hobbyist work, and ironically arguably have the most open and easy-to-target 3rd-gen gaming console for small development shops. They're supporting OpenID, making IE increasingly standards-compliant, and, with Windows 7, look like they might actually have a pretty nice operating system that I might not feel a pressing need to migrate away from. They're definitely not perfect—I'm still royally pissed at their behavior over OOXML—but they're doing an awful lot of things right these days.
Google, on the other hand, is going the opposite direction. They've done a proprietary fork of OpenID (which, despite the other comments on here, I definitely find offensive, because locks you into Google in exactly the same way Passport locked you into Microsoft). They closed their SOAP service and offer no alternative. They've basically said Gmail will never use IMAP properly, and they consider that a feature, not a bug. They do business in China on the argument that "well, someone had to do it, so why not us." They still do a tremendous amount of things right, but, just as I think we should acknowledge that Microsoft nowadays is doing a lot of things right, I think we need to start acknowledging that Google is doing a lot of things wrong.
Nobody's perfect, and situations can change surprisingly quickly. I remember when IBM was the evil overlord and Microsoft was our savior.
That was 1992.
Just because Google's been good up to now is no reason to assume they'll continue to be.
Everyone loves to trot out the Broken Window argument for WWII, but it's not applicable, for a number of reasons:
It's not that the broken-window argument isn't valid--it most definitely is--but rather that WWII does not fit that argument's mold.
Yes and no. People innovate when they have a motivation to do so, and they innovate better when that motivation is positive (reward for innovation) rather than negative (execution for failure to innovate). There are actually lots of ways to provide that--money, sex, and fame being the obvious ones, but even simpler things, like vacations or even just personal appreciation from bosses and colleagues, can also do the trick. Some very socialist countries that value their educated class, like Israel and Norway, have done absolutely amazing things, despite very high income taxes and a relatively small income gap.
The point is, having some type of real reward helps. It so happens that in the United States right now, our society values money more than just about anything else, and so rewards, unfortunately, are best valued when they come in the form of money. I'm actually pretty disheartened by that fact, but getting society to begin valuing our scientists, engineers, and mathematicians--the prerequisites for non-monetary forms of appreciation--is going to be a long time coming. At least in the short term, monetary rewards probably really are the best.
The source for my GDP numbers, incidentally, was the US Department of Commerce. They have a chart of historical GDP back to 1929 available if you're interested.
Keying the end of the Depression to the return of the DJIA to 1929 levels is wrong, in my opinion. The only reason that the market of 1929 was as high as it was in the first place was that everyone was buying stock on margin, which resulted in hilariously large P/E ratios and absurd market caps. In 1929, as now, the market crashed because the "wealth" was really just debt and didn't really exist . So I don't think it's fair to say that the Depression didn't end until the market legitimately achieved the level that it had artificially achieved thirty years earlier.
A better mark--and why most people do consider that WWII ended the depression--is that the unemployment rate all but evaporated. In the Depression, unemployment was as high as 25-30%. By 1948--the first year in which we started properly tracking unemployment in the Federal Government--it was about 3.5%--a level it held relatively consistently until the 1970s oil crisis.
If you don't like the unemployment rate, let's look at the GDP. In 1929, the GDP was $103.6 billion. By 1933, it had declined to $56.4 billion. It had crawled back up to $92.2 billion by 1939.
By 1945, the end of WWII, it was $223.1 billion.
So, although you're correct that the Dow didn't return to its 1929 levels until 1960, I think trying to make the argument that the Depression didn't end until then is weak, and, ultimately, simply wrong.
Some deficit spending...and a 94% tax rate. Seriously.
Look: I'm extremely fiscally conservative. But even I'm more than willing to grant that there's a definite balance point between anarchic free-market capitalism and nanny-state socialism: putting aside morals, too much wealth centralized in the hands of too few kills the economy because no one can afford to buy anything, while too much wealth distribution kills the economy because no one's motivated to innovate.
During WWII, we had extremely aggressive taxes to pay for a massive war, where those taxes are going to local industries, thereby supplying tons of previously unemployed laborers jobs. That's effectively labor-based socialism. At the end of the war, Europe had bombed their industry to oblivion, while ours had just been rebuilt, so we were in a wonderful position to get rich--if we had buyers. Critically, the Marshal Plan basically amounted to international socialism, giving Europe money with which to buy American goods. They then used those goods to rebuild their own economies, giving them new income, with which to purchase American goods legitimately.
So, in summary: WWII caused domestic socialistic policies that got us out of the Depression, and the Cold War caused international socialistic policies that kept us out of it.
Can we all agree now that maybe a little wealth distribution isn't necessarily a bad thing 100% of the time?
Given that Mono runs on Windows, what happens if you try running a Win32 version of Mono under WINE?
But that's the difference. If I delete the file that a hard link points to, the file survives in the form of the hard link. I can still read it, modify it, and so on. If I delete the file an OS/2 shadow points to, the shadow now points nowhere; it's dead. I guess this is a trivial difference; the reason I was emphasizing it is that, as someone who's used OS/2, and then Mac OS, continuously since the late 90s, I'm used to this behavior, whereas Linux hard links caught me by surprise the first time I ran into them--but there is a difference here.
That's not the same, and you now it. OS/2 shadows, which are what he's talking about, are equivalent to softlinking to the inode. If you delete the original, it disappears, but if you rename or move the original, everything's fine. Mac OS 6-9, Mac OS X, and OS/2 all support this behavior. Windows NT can at a file-system level. Linux cannot. It's not that hard linking isn't useful--it definitely is--but it's a different beast. The fact remains that you cannot use soft links in Linux the way he described.
But thanks to the heavy use of "realistic" CGI at ILM, he won't actually have to!
I actually have to disagree with your sentiment. It's long past time that Yahoo had a competitor to Analytics, because it dramatically increases the value of Yahoo's ad service.
Most people focus on Analytics as being good for web developers because it lets them track where their visitors come from. That's true, but missing the point: the value for web developers that Google cares about is that it helps you, both directly and indirectly, increase your ad revenue. In so doing, they increase their own revenue, both immediately (the more clicked-on ads you have, the more they get paid) and long-term (if you're making more money, you're more likely to keep using them). Analytics is the perfect loss-leader for online advertising.
Yahoo, meanwhile, lacks any such tool. Yes, the Yahoo Publisher Network lets you get basic ad stats, but it just doesn't approach the information Google can give me with their AdWords + Analytics combination. If I'm going to be using Analytics, why not just use AdWords/Double Click too, and be done with it? Acquiring an Analytics competitor gives Yahoo vertical integration on one of their key products in a way that should directly positively impact their bottom line.
Though this may be Yahoo "scrambling for market share," it's a smart scramble. More of this and fewer surreal pairings with AOL, and Yahoo could return to viability.
The iPhone does not currently support Google Gears, so the offline portion could not even theoretically work. Thankfully, you're saved from having to worry about that, because you can't currently edit Google Docs on the iPhone when you are connected, either; just view them.
You used to be correct, but that's thankfully changing. Parallels 3.0 now uses DirectX from WINE and a special driver for Windows to deliver 3D acceleration for Windows applications running on OS X. In my experience, I'd have to describe the result as "somewhat buggy, but overall impressive." You can see some videos if you're curious how well it actually works. VMware is rumored to be working on similar technology.
Every technology has both good and bad applications. Nuclear reactions can provide an almost limitless supply of energy, far beyond what we as a species need for the foreseeable future. It also lets us make massive atomic bombs, and even doomsday weapons that could wipe out all life on Earth. I think we've done a passable job using that technology thus far.
What about electricity itself? Electricity gave us the electric chair and modern mechanized warfare, It also has given us massive advances in medicine and technology.
This discovery will be no different. It furthers our understanding of our entire biology, getting us closer, inch-by-inch, to being able to cure all diseases, bring back extinct organisms, and likely usher in molecular computers and nano-machines that can self-replicate and help us fix the damage we've done to earth. I've no doubt it can also be used to kill all humans. I'm confident that we as a species will have matured enough by the time this technology becomes useful that our imminent demise won't be our top concern.
We sure could, but sadly we don't have one right now. Thanks for the catch. (Seriously.)
Launch any recent version of Emacs and hit M-x viper. There you go.
Oh, come off it, NDPTAL85. That's not even dimly officially supported at this point. I can also put a custom Linux distro on my Linksys router, but that's not exactly supported, either--and I certainly wouldn't call someone who said I couldn't install Apache on my Linksys "lying."
It's okay that the iPhone has some weaknesses right now. Having a fully locked-down phone for the moment means that Apple can guarantee a consistent user experience, minimize their phone crashing, and rigidly enforce a consistent set of UI guidelines. I'm still optimistic that the next version of the iPhone, or maybe even a later update, will come with a true, officially supported SDK. For the moment, though, pointing out that some hackers have managed to circumvent the iPhone's lock-down does not count as allowing third-party apps in the way that a Palm does.
That's completely wrong. Apple broke Claris in two: one half was left with the FileMaker database and reformed into FileMaker Inc.; the other half was reabsorbed directly into Apple. That's why ClarisWorks turned into AppleWorks and began being sold by Apple directly. Wikipedia, as always, has a nice overview.
Close. OpenStep for Windows NT made available FoundationKit and AppKit, which are the two major Objective-C frameworks of OS X and the core of Cocoa. They continued to be available on Windows through early versions of WebObjects 4, but are no longer available in any way from Apple. These are two of the frameworks that the GNUstep project aims to clone, with varying degrees of success.
l ), it never shipped with any version of WebObjects. CoreGraphics is the technical name for what Apple marketing calls Quartz, and is Mac OS X's low-level C-based drawing API. This is the first time, as far as I know, that it's been available on Windows, though iTunes 7 probably uses it statically linked.
CoreFoundation and CoreGraphics are APIs that were new in OS X. CoreFoundation is an object-oriented C-based API designed that parallels FoundationKit class-for-class. Although it's been (partially) available on Windows in the form of CF-Lite (http://developer.apple.com/opensource/cflite.htm
I mucked that up. The link to the Utah Legislature's search form is at http://www.le.state.ut.us/asp/billsintro/. No matter how many times you preview...
Forget the media; I've been trying to find the bill. Would someone be kind enough to provide the section of the Florida or Utah Code so that I can see the exact wording? Nothing relevant comes up at http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/, which seems as if it ought to have it, and the Utah Legislature's list of 2007 commerce bills does not seem to contain anything even dimly resembling the Ars Technica story. Could someone with access to LexisNexis or Westlaw please confirm whether these bills even exist, let alone passed?
I don't mean to be pedantic, but especially since you claim to be a Mac OS fanboy: OS 8-style windows (which lasted mostly unchanged through Mac OS 9.2*) did not allow resizing from any side. What they did was allow dragging from any point on the window border that was neither a widget (e.g., the close box or the windowshade box) nor the drag corner. Current incarnations of Mac OS X do have a kind of modern take on this design decision: brushed-metal windows can be dragged from any part of the brushed-metal surface, for example, and applications with unified toolbars (e.g., Mail, Xcode, System Preferences, and iTunes 7) can be dragged from anywhere in their toolbars.
Interestingly, the developer previews for Rhapsody did allow resizing windows from any edge. I don't remember for sure, but I think this functionality was removed before the oft-forgotten Mac OS X Server 1.0 shipped, replaced by Mac OS 8-style dragging behavior. I could be wrong, though. If I am, this is likely what you're thinking of.
* Mac OS 8.5 added the proxy icon to the title bar for document windows, but did not change any existing window behavior.
If you miss Neon, you'll be happy to know that you can get about 90% of its implementation and 100% of its concepts in the form of PowerMops, which is open-source and runs great and natively on Leopard. I haven't used it for anything recently, but it's worked fine for hobbyist stuff I've done in the past. I strongly encourage you to check it out.