Sorry if that sounded like a troll - but I am simply admitting my ignorance, truthfully! In the old days, the < was added to emots as the dunce cap - remember this one? <:^( (in those days, we had noses, the ^ for example) - so I really did think that <3 was an asshat.
I accept the troll mod as a substitute for dumbass.:)
PS - I began writing math-solving programs in FORTRAN in 1972 and my first Apple was the ][+.
Welcome to my world. Do not get off of my lawn. I planted it so the neighborhood kids have someplace to play. I was a kid once, and I'm not the grump next door.:)
It's already kind of lame when someone spells it M$ or Micro$oft in a comment but...
Yeah. I'm one of the ones that had to learn to not be childish with that use on/.
Do you go back as far to CP/M? The history of CP/M, CP/M-86, QDOS and the *original* PC-DOS? If you had - and I suspect you don't - you might cut some people some slack for that usage.
There exists a pre-PC-DOS link to a statement that Bill Gates put out regarding piracy of BASIC and denigrating everyone for how much money he was losing, how much he and his guys had invested in time and dollars and so forth. It was a little whiney, but he was pretty much spot on regarding the whole piracy thing. http://www.digibarn.com/collections/newsletters/homebrew/V2_01/gatesletter.html
And in those days - just like today - we all paid close attention to Intel. The 8086 was out there, we were all waiting for CP/M-86 stability to get a better computing environment. And CP/M-86 was taking time because it was work and because it was going to be (and eventually was) a quality product.
Seattle Computer Products, a hardware mfgr, created the Quick and Dirty Operating System (QDOS) and despite revisionist history, to ostensibly debug their hardware in anticipation of CP/M-86.
But add up the history: BASIC w/ license disputes, QDOS w/ license disputes, OS/2 w/ license disputes, Windows w/ license disputes.
Microsoft was once a darling company to many of us. They freed us from the clutches of IBM mini-computers and mainframes at work. It was a pain in the ass, but we could do desktop programming in BASIC rather than getting time to do our FORTRAN calculations on an IBM.
IBM was under attack by the US Justice Dept. in the early 80s - we couldn't have been happier. Then, Microsoft - as a company - was becoming the new IBM, with all of its evil.
I - and many others - were quite accustomed to calling them Micro$oft and M$ by the mid-to-late 80s for their stunts.
I lived through that history. I watched a company that I supported putting the screws to people in the industry.
I was pissed the first time a pretty good post of mine was labeled troll and attacked with
Building a new rocket "is a hard thing," Dr. Crawley said, and initial test flights often end in embarrassment or even disaster because everything in a very complex system has to go right. "It's one strike and you're out," he said. "If you put every day of its development under a microscope, you'll find plenty of things to write about."
Right. I seem to recall having a lot of scrutiny from the Mercury moments on. We got to the moon. The American public shuddered at failures because we were behind in the space race - but they didn't kill the program. The arguments then were same as now - one side for, one side against the spending. But either way, the press provided what today's society needed a new term for - radical transparency (or some such buzz nonsense).
Didn't have that in the shuttle program. Part may have been the perceived lack of public interest (or abysmal NASA PR and abysmal reporting) - but either way, the press didn't step up to the plate and NASA was ok with that. In fact, NASA was insanely ok with that lack of oversight right down to the point that Dr. Richard Feynman - being ignored as an old man - sitting in the back row of a congressional hearing, decided to mention what happened to O-ring rubber in the styrofoam cup of ice water he was holding.
Think I'm out there or over-reacting? I can prove I'm not. Again, from the TFA, in reference to a competing system:
But that concept has gained few followers, and in April, Richard Gilbrech, NASA's associate administrator for exploration systems at the time, testified before the House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics that "we can't justify, based on laws of physics, the performance" claimed by the plan's proponents.
Let that sink in people.
We've got a guy from NASA telling the US House of Representatives that some people at NASA are able to propose programs but at the same time are incapable of doing proper energy balance equations where propulsion is concerned.
Read that last sentence again and tell me how this or any other program at NASA should not be put under the brightest microscope we can find - on a daily basis.
OK, we're simply shearing from different experiences. Most all of which is prolly fixable, so thanks for clarifying, I'll try to reciprocate as clearly.
My objection with the whole $15 confusion was that, from my knowledge, this is exactly what UAW workers at at least one plant are paid (up to $25) for painting. Oddly, the media has chosen that job at that location and identified it as a $71/hour position - it's not. I read your words of 50to70$ as more of the same - a miscommunication.
I don't have a problem with the market setting the rate for the job mentioned above. I do have a problem with mgmt replacing workers that have been on the job for quite some time with entry-level to save a buck - because 1) they don't save a buck, new employees are paid less to offset entry-level mistakes and 2) it's simply scapegoating, especially when telling the media that this is a much-higher paid job than it is. Say what you will about union benefits and their costs - but it's mgmt that sets the accountancy for all of that, and I seriously doubt its veracity.
Is it inappropriate to ask if your wife is UAW or auto-related? The reason I ask is that I too once thought of the unions as too greedy - I'm from Detroit - but I've seen a lot of concessions over the years that has mitigated a lot of that.
My sis was getting $25 as a painter. They laid her off, replaced her with $15 types and loaded them up with a surge of work, then canned all of them to avoid paying benefits whatsoever (there was some window - 90 days???? - not sure - that allowed this). Back in the 60s or 70s, I'd not be at all surprised if the same job wasn't worth double or triple in today's dollars (an example of a concession).
My point was that there is - for some stories - more greed by mgmt than by the unions, but that's not popular to portray sometimes.
You want to store wind energy with a mechanical solution? Two words: rubber bands. Proof: those little balsa airplanes with the rubber-banded propellers.
Now look at them today, and OSX and Linux are both great IMO. They've made vast improvements and continue to improve every day. Meanwhile, Microsoft has had all the resources in the world, and I'd say the improvement has been minimal.
Brushed metal was supposed to be used for interfaces connected to metal THINGS - then Apple screwed the pooch by adding it to Safari and Finder. Basically, a nightmare/free-for-all after that.
Leopard is supposed to fix it by doing away with it. I run Tiger and Leopard and have been so used to ignoring it (I hate the brushed metal) that I don't think I ever really noticed the improvement - although I think I noticed subconsciously.
The wiki sez that it was QT4 when this travesty occurred - given that the wiki is no better than my memory, I offer that as a "what-if" rather a correction to what you assert.
I agree with you, however, that SMS is a totally stupid thing and everybody should be using email or instant messaging instead.
If an SMS or email or IM is responded to, then all three are half-duplex communications. IM is inherently half-duplex, email and SMS may be broadcast or half-duplex.
Therefore to say that one (SMS) is stupid while the other means are valid is completely bogus. Each uses the same tried and true communication models, whether technical or interpersonal.
Not everyone can receive emails or IMs on their phones. I can use all three on my phone - goody for me, that's the exception, not the norm.
If I were stuck on the data plan I used to have, I'd rather have a 160 byte msg than an email whose header alone is guaranteed to exceed that.
There are many valid use cases for non-voice communication.
Despite the fact that you sound way more technologically smarter than I, I contend that SMS is a transport mechanism that fits the cellular phone medium almost perfectly - because it just works. I got SMS successfully when in the USA, Asia or Europe, so I'm ignorant of what's so stupid about it.
Besides bug-fixes and such, I don't really see any features that have been added to Windows since Win2k that actually help me in any way.
FWIW, my 2 cents is that I recently helped a broke friend resurrect a PC with Win2k - and the networking config was terrible compared to XP. I don't know if that's a bug fix or feature, though - honestly.
Mac Panther was sufficient, but I run Leopard. Win2k was sufficient, but I run XP and am interested in Win7. Why Leopard and why Win7? There are only 4 OS features I care about: speed, stability, security and ease-of-use (not necessarily in that order). Just about everything else is the Great Big So What for me, personally.
There are some interesting and possibly strange mods for this article.
However:
2. In a story about Macs, mentioning that you use any form of Windows will take you to karma hell, praising OS X will get you modded up, mentioning Linux will affect your karma based on your luck of draw moderators depending on which kind of fanboy they are. In any case, you will get a ton of long highly modded up replies about how OS X is better
I think that you're having a bad day and over-responding. The noise level is always high for OS X or Windows critical articles (where critical means what it means, not necessarily positive or negative).
If you find someone modded down unfairly, then post a "MOD PARENT UP" reply - it very often works, or at least draws attention to a decent post.
If you find someone modded up ridiculously, then post a "YOU ARE WRONG" reply - it sometimes works, but it at least draws attention to a counterpoint.
Mod points are there to focus attention and allow us at a glance to filter signal from noise. It's not a perfect system, but it is what it is.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry if that sounded like a troll - but I am simply admitting my ignorance, truthfully! In the old days, the < was added to emots as the dunce cap - remember this one? <:^( (in those days, we had noses, the ^ for example) - so I really did think that <3 was an asshat.
I accept the troll mod as a substitute for dumbass. :)
Happy New Year, all!
Cool! Is it just me, or were there references to "Apple$oft" - non-monetary, just clever (in those days, $ was also used for hex addrs, yes)?
Many thanks for the thoughtful words!
Happiest New Year to you!
Good one - very.
Best New Year to you.
OGC
Nah - from your comment history, your karma dropped like a rock a while ago.
I think you have a unique sense of humor and may be modded a bit harshly by people that don't get you, from what I see of your recent history.
I'd suggest keeping the same name and just hanging in there until things fit.
Worked for me.
Worry only about expressing yourself well and karma will follow. The more you think about karma, the more it drops.
That is, archaeology tells us that Isaiah would have composed his original in Hebrew, so there was no need to translate it into Hebrew.
Actually, I thought that Isaiah was a collection of writers using that name over time, and that this was a not-unheard-of practice.
Was I misinformed?
(Not nit-picking your otherwise excellent comment, just thinking you may be well-informed enough to answer.)
LMAO - I've actually believed that for some time - meaning, until today.
"I am NOT a 3 !!" Explains a lot of tiffs I've had.....
You must be new here.
mine:
( O Y O )
PS - I began writing math-solving programs in FORTRAN in 1972 and my first Apple was the ][+.
Welcome to my world. Do not get off of my lawn. I planted it so the neighborhood kids have someplace to play. I was a kid once, and I'm not the grump next door. :)
It's already kind of lame when someone spells it M$ or Micro$oft in a comment but...
Yeah. I'm one of the ones that had to learn to not be childish with that use on /.
Do you go back as far to CP/M? The history of CP/M, CP/M-86, QDOS and the *original* PC-DOS? If you had - and I suspect you don't - you might cut some people some slack for that usage.
There exists a pre-PC-DOS link to a statement that Bill Gates put out regarding piracy of BASIC and denigrating everyone for how much money he was losing, how much he and his guys had invested in time and dollars and so forth. It was a little whiney, but he was pretty much spot on regarding the whole piracy thing. http://www.digibarn.com/collections/newsletters/homebrew/V2_01/gatesletter.html
And in those days - just like today - we all paid close attention to Intel. The 8086 was out there, we were all waiting for CP/M-86 stability to get a better computing environment. And CP/M-86 was taking time because it was work and because it was going to be (and eventually was) a quality product.
Seattle Computer Products, a hardware mfgr, created the Quick and Dirty Operating System (QDOS) and despite revisionist history, to ostensibly debug their hardware in anticipation of CP/M-86.
The follow-on history is very nicely summarized right here: http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:tIEkLM0yDDkJ:maben.homeip.net/static/S100/software/microsoft/DOS/The%2520origins%2520of%2520MS-DOS.ppt+qdos+S-100+quick+and+dirty+operating+system&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us - that's the html/cached version, if you want the PPT file, it's here: http://maben.homeip.net/static/S100/software/microsoft/DOS/The%20origins%20of%20MS-DOS.ppt
Part of the backstory on his money loss was that the Osborne had come out, but then the KayPro did too, was doing better, and was getting a lot of attention for the superior (to MS) S-BASIC. So, sales of MS BASIC were not what the company expected. In fact, here's the backstory on Microsoft's creation and the importance of MS-BASIC. I putting the cached link and the orig - I couldn't get the orig server to respond as I write this: http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:kKA51ycXpCAJ:www.thocp.net/companies/microsoft/microsoft_company.htm+history+of+altair+basic&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us and http://www.thocp.net/companies/microsoft/microsoft_company.htm
But add up the history: BASIC w/ license disputes, QDOS w/ license disputes, OS/2 w/ license disputes, Windows w/ license disputes.
Microsoft was once a darling company to many of us. They freed us from the clutches of IBM mini-computers and mainframes at work. It was a pain in the ass, but we could do desktop programming in BASIC rather than getting time to do our FORTRAN calculations on an IBM.
IBM was under attack by the US Justice Dept. in the early 80s - we couldn't have been happier. Then, Microsoft - as a company - was becoming the new IBM, with all of its evil.
I - and many others - were quite accustomed to calling them Micro$oft and M$ by the mid-to-late 80s for their stunts.
I lived through that history. I watched a company that I supported putting the screws to people in the industry.
I was pissed the first time a pretty good post of mine was labeled troll and attacked with
There are also DLP TVs with LED engines.
BTW - DLP with LEDs is cool - it combines semiconducting with mechanics to produce a picture. :)
Just wanted to say well-written and thanks.
From TFA:
Building a new rocket "is a hard thing," Dr. Crawley said, and initial test flights often end in embarrassment or even disaster because everything in a very complex system has to go right. "It's one strike and you're out," he said. "If you put every day of its development under a microscope, you'll find plenty of things to write about."
Right. I seem to recall having a lot of scrutiny from the Mercury moments on. We got to the moon. The American public shuddered at failures because we were behind in the space race - but they didn't kill the program. The arguments then were same as now - one side for, one side against the spending. But either way, the press provided what today's society needed a new term for - radical transparency (or some such buzz nonsense).
Didn't have that in the shuttle program. Part may have been the perceived lack of public interest (or abysmal NASA PR and abysmal reporting) - but either way, the press didn't step up to the plate and NASA was ok with that. In fact, NASA was insanely ok with that lack of oversight right down to the point that Dr. Richard Feynman - being ignored as an old man - sitting in the back row of a congressional hearing, decided to mention what happened to O-ring rubber in the styrofoam cup of ice water he was holding.
Think I'm out there or over-reacting? I can prove I'm not. Again, from the TFA, in reference to a competing system:
But that concept has gained few followers, and in April, Richard Gilbrech, NASA's associate administrator for exploration systems at the time, testified before the House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics that "we can't justify, based on laws of physics, the performance" claimed by the plan's proponents.
Let that sink in people.
We've got a guy from NASA telling the US House of Representatives that some people at NASA are able to propose programs but at the same time are incapable of doing proper energy balance equations where propulsion is concerned.
Read that last sentence again and tell me how this or any other program at NASA should not be put under the brightest microscope we can find - on a daily basis.
OK, we're simply shearing from different experiences. Most all of which is prolly fixable, so thanks for clarifying, I'll try to reciprocate as clearly.
My objection with the whole $15 confusion was that, from my knowledge, this is exactly what UAW workers at at least one plant are paid (up to $25) for painting. Oddly, the media has chosen that job at that location and identified it as a $71/hour position - it's not. I read your words of 50to70$ as more of the same - a miscommunication.
I don't have a problem with the market setting the rate for the job mentioned above. I do have a problem with mgmt replacing workers that have been on the job for quite some time with entry-level to save a buck - because 1) they don't save a buck, new employees are paid less to offset entry-level mistakes and 2) it's simply scapegoating, especially when telling the media that this is a much-higher paid job than it is. Say what you will about union benefits and their costs - but it's mgmt that sets the accountancy for all of that, and I seriously doubt its veracity.
Is it inappropriate to ask if your wife is UAW or auto-related? The reason I ask is that I too once thought of the unions as too greedy - I'm from Detroit - but I've seen a lot of concessions over the years that has mitigated a lot of that.
My sis was getting $25 as a painter. They laid her off, replaced her with $15 types and loaded them up with a surge of work, then canned all of them to avoid paying benefits whatsoever (there was some window - 90 days???? - not sure - that allowed this). Back in the 60s or 70s, I'd not be at all surprised if the same job wasn't worth double or triple in today's dollars (an example of a concession).
My point was that there is - for some stories - more greed by mgmt than by the unions, but that's not popular to portray sometimes.
These guys claim to have fixed some crash problems - have you tried it? Just curious....
http://unsanity.com/haxies/wsx
You want to store wind energy with a mechanical solution? Two words: rubber bands. Proof: those little balsa airplanes with the rubber-banded propellers.
Now look at them today, and OSX and Linux are both great IMO. They've made vast improvements and continue to improve every day. Meanwhile, Microsoft has had all the resources in the world, and I'd say the improvement has been minimal.
I must say, I agree 100%.
Yeah - there were a lot of days I'd have been happier with the Win File Explorer than the Finder.
Brushed metal was supposed to be used for interfaces connected to metal THINGS - then Apple screwed the pooch by adding it to Safari and Finder. Basically, a nightmare/free-for-all after that.
Leopard is supposed to fix it by doing away with it. I run Tiger and Leopard and have been so used to ignoring it (I hate the brushed metal) that I don't think I ever really noticed the improvement - although I think I noticed subconsciously.
For those less familiar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brushed_Metal_(interface)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqua_(user_interface)
The wiki sez that it was QT4 when this travesty occurred - given that the wiki is no better than my memory, I offer that as a "what-if" rather a correction to what you assert.
BTW, I think you were too harsh on the lack of documentation for when to use metal - it used to be here:
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/OSXHIGuidelines/XHIGWindows/chapter_8_section_3.html
That page no longer exists, but the relevant points from it still exist and are copied here:
http://daringfireball.net/2004/10/brushedmetal
The up-to-date version of UI (they call it HI or human interface) guidelines is here:
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/AppleHIGuidelines/XHIGIntro/chapter_1_section_1.html
So, while I share some of your brushed metal frustration, I think you went just a bit far.
I agree with you, however, that SMS is a totally stupid thing and everybody should be using email or instant messaging instead.
If an SMS or email or IM is responded to, then all three are half-duplex communications. IM is inherently half-duplex, email and SMS may be broadcast or half-duplex.
Therefore to say that one (SMS) is stupid while the other means are valid is completely bogus. Each uses the same tried and true communication models, whether technical or interpersonal.
Not everyone can receive emails or IMs on their phones. I can use all three on my phone - goody for me, that's the exception, not the norm.
If I were stuck on the data plan I used to have, I'd rather have a 160 byte msg than an email whose header alone is guaranteed to exceed that.
There are many valid use cases for non-voice communication.
Despite the fact that you sound way more technologically smarter than I, I contend that SMS is a transport mechanism that fits the cellular phone medium almost perfectly - because it just works. I got SMS successfully when in the USA, Asia or Europe, so I'm ignorant of what's so stupid about it.
Besides bug-fixes and such, I don't really see any features that have been added to Windows since Win2k that actually help me in any way.
FWIW, my 2 cents is that I recently helped a broke friend resurrect a PC with Win2k - and the networking config was terrible compared to XP. I don't know if that's a bug fix or feature, though - honestly.
Mac Panther was sufficient, but I run Leopard. Win2k was sufficient, but I run XP and am interested in Win7. Why Leopard and why Win7? There are only 4 OS features I care about: speed, stability, security and ease-of-use (not necessarily in that order). Just about everything else is the Great Big So What for me, personally.
As I write this, the parent is modded Off-Topic for responding:
They never left. I use Vista, and it's as snappy as XP ever was.
To a DIRECT QUOTE from http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1074689&cid=26250025 that was at 5 as I write this.
That seems patently impossible.
There are some interesting and possibly strange mods for this article.
However:
2. In a story about Macs, mentioning that you use any form of Windows will take you to karma hell, praising OS X will get you modded up, mentioning Linux will affect your karma based on your luck of draw moderators depending on which kind of fanboy they are. In any case, you will get a ton of long highly modded up replies about how OS X is better
Then explain http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1074245&cid=26243365 that (as I post this) is at 5.
I think that you're having a bad day and over-responding. The noise level is always high for OS X or Windows critical articles (where critical means what it means, not necessarily positive or negative).
If you find someone modded down unfairly, then post a "MOD PARENT UP" reply - it very often works, or at least draws attention to a decent post.
If you find someone modded up ridiculously, then post a "YOU ARE WRONG" reply - it sometimes works, but it at least draws attention to a counterpoint.
Mod points are there to focus attention and allow us at a glance to filter signal from noise. It's not a perfect system, but it is what it is.
You've got a karma bonus modifier on your posts right now, so your karma is excellent - what's your real complaint??? I agree with maird's response, above - http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1074689&cid=26251033
Above all, do you metamod? That's a way to improve the system.
<humor>Thank goodness both of us are on our way to +5s for these posts, given that we're both completely off-topic!</humor>