My first Mac was a used 512KE. I still have it. It still runs. I have a Quadra 700 that still runs as well. Neither are currently set up though.
The machines I do have up and running are a TiBook, beige G3, Dell laptop, and a noname 1 GHz Athlon.
I mostly use the TiBook and can't wait until I can use OS X exclusively.
The only time I boot into OS 9 is when Palm Desktop beta starts acting funny and won't recognize my data. I boot into classic to run MS Office (I'm unemployed and don't have the cash to upgrade - feel free to send me a copy or give me a job) and Starry Night. The G3 is OS 9 and pretty much the only thing I run on it is Photoshop.
Fourteen or so years using the Mac OS and I find that it an app doesn't run native under OS X I don't want it.
I don't understand articles like those at Register.com and others blasting OS X. Yeah it is different and takes some time to learn. But it is much more stable. And the ability to run Darwin apps is just the icing on the cake.
... intent of that young man was to steal property (office XP)...
And just what would he do with "Office XP" on a Mac?
Steve M
Re:Since you were modded down for that Reply...
on
iWarez
·
· Score: 2
Exept maybe the kid.
Steve M
Re:...and there was much rejoicing.
on
Photoshop for OS X
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Again - what's the point?
The point is the right tool for the job.
As you clearly point out in your post, "... I like being able to choose my own processor and motherboard and then the case I want to put it in...", you have a much higher comfort level with computer technology then does Solios.
Thus the right tool is a Mac because that is what works for him/her.
It is not clear if you have ever used a Mac for any length of time. And your comment, "... and I'm proud to say not one is a Mac..." makes clear your anti-Mac bias. So despite claims to the contrary it would appear that you avoid Macs not because you don't see the point but because you don't like Macs.
I don't know how many computers there are in a bunch. I have four on my home network. Two Macs and two PCs. I run Mac OS (9 and X) apps, Linux apps, Windows apps, Darwin apps, and even the occasional Palm app (via an emulator).
My prefered system is my TiBook running OS X which also allows me to run OS 9 and Darwin apps. I've installed VPC on it and can run Windows apps as well (albeit slowly).
For me the TiBook is the right tool for the job. And as I said above, that is the point.
Evolution is going towards genes that favour a large amount of children.
Close but not quite that simple.
Evolution is about differential genetic success. That is, it is about getting your genes into future generations.
There are two main strategies for this. One is to have as many offspring as possible and invest minimal care in any one of them. You flood the world with offspring in the hope that some will survive. But the loss of any particular offspring is no big deal. Think salmon spawning.
The second main strategy is to have fewer offspring but to invest highly in their successful maturation to child bearing age. Think humans.
Now the key to success in the second model is getting your few children to the point where they can have children. For most of humankind's existance bringing up kids was a perilous endevour, with many children dieing well before reaching child bearing age. Thus an effective evolutionary strategy would be to have large families, increasing the odds that one or more children would make it to child bearing age.
Note that the parents didn't thnk in these terms. But the families that had a lot of kids left more offspring then the ones that didn't.
But there is a second pressure on these families. That is the ability to raise all these kids. It takes money to raise a kid. So the optimal family size is the one where you not only have kids that survive to have grand kids, but where you also provide that kids with the best chance of future economic success. (Survival of the fittest and struggle for existance are economic statements. The individuals struggle for limited resources (food, mates, etc.), they do not engage in combat against each other.)
In times when life didn't offer many career choices, most people were born on a farm and died on a farm, as long as you were strong and healthy you had the same chance as anyone else to succeed.
But in times where career choices are myraid the economic calculations become somewhat more involved. One example, those with a college degree tend to make more money (they are more economically successful) then those without. College can be expensive. Thus there is pressure to have fewer children.
Combine this with the fact that in the developed nations it is no longer difficult to raise a child to child bearing age. Thus a successful evolutionary strategy is to have a minimal number of childern and invest heavily in them. Which is what we are seeing today.
It is also noticeable that those who meet this criteria of social success have a higher mean IQ than those who do not. Anecdotally, I would observe that they also tend to have fewer congenital health problems.
So is the higher IQ a cause or an effect of having money?
There are a number of things that need to happen in the first several years of a child's life for that child to develop 'optimally' (note scare quotes, as optimally is not defined).
First during pregnancy no alcohol, no smoking, no drugs are allowed and good medical care as well as a balanced and sufficient diet are required.
Second during the first several years the child needs proper diet and medical care and a loving and stimulating environment.
Third during the years leading up to adolescence the child needs a proper diet, good medical care, a supportive and stimulating environment, and a proper learning environment (examples: good schools, libraries, access to a computer, etc.).
There is some component of IQ that is genetic. But even if IQ is 100% genetic if the child doesn't have the proper environment the genes will not have a chance to express themselves fully. As an extreme example of this, consider a plant seed. The seed holds all the genetic potential for a full grown plant. But if that seed falls on a concrete parking lot then none of that genetic potential will be expressed.
It is the same with humans. Unless the proper requirements for development are made available to the child it will not develop optimally.
Is it any wonder then that socially sucessful people tend to have socially successful children? Or that the socially successful have higher IQs?
Also note that having money means having regular access to heath care. For most successful people visiting a doctor is not an issue. For people with out medical insurance (i.e. the non successful) visits to a doctor can be very expensive. If the choice is between feeding the kids and visiting a doctor the kids usually win. Thus any real problems are not diagnosed promptly. And prompt diagnosis is usually crucial to successful treatment. So agian, is it any surprise that the successful have fewer health problems?
I think that "blind people being about to read eBooks" is just a plea to sympathy.
It is also an attempt to level the PR playing field.
The supporters of the DMCA such as the RIAA and the MPAA have done an excellent job portraying the users of such things as MP3s and DeCSS as hackers, criminals and pirates. They have gone as far as to call then terrorists.
The non-geek population is bombarded with the message "hacker = evil" followed up with "DMCA protects from hackers".
The DeCSS case has been hurt big time by this.
ElcomSoft is trying to play the RIAA/MPAA game to their advantage. This isn't a hacker tool, no, no, no. It is an empowerment tool for the blind!
Maybe it will work. Maybe it will just cancel out the hacker = evil propaganda and we'll have a trial on the merits of the case. Maybe it will get drowned out by the PR machines of the DMCA supporters.
Maybe it is even true.
In any case, you can't fault them for trying. I hope it works.
Furthermore, the exoskeleton has no real peaceful benefit.
Yeah, I mean, why would a parapalegic want to walk?
Did you bother to read the story? If you had you would have read:
But François Pin, who heads the Oak Ridge effort, sees dozens of nonmilitary uses as well. "Construction is a $4 billion industry in this country, and it's very primitive. We are injuring people every day. Cargo handling, search and rescue--the possibilities are endless." Ultimately, exoskeletons could transform society. The elderly could regain the physical abilities of youth, and paraplegics could walk. "
How often do you reposition the screen of your computer?
Well, seeing as how it is a laptop, quite frequently.
But freeing up desktop real estate is an actual benefit to many users.
And in truth the screen repositioning comment is a straw man. Given the weight and bulk of most CRT monitors, it is a non trival task to do so. So no nobody does it.
It is kinda like asking why anyone would want a walkman since you didn't see people walking around with table radios.
Apple understands that form and function are not independent variables. For Apple form is a basis for function.
Consider the new iMac. Here is a quote from yesterday's Ive interview reported on/.,
"The new shape emerged shortly afterwards: a dome is the only shape that lets the screen swivel without having "preferred" positions, maximises stability and offers lots of horizontal space. After that, it was the fine detail - of which there is a huge amount.
"
Thus we learn that the dome isn't there simply for asthetics, it is there for functional reasons.
And that is how Apple views design. Not as a veneer to be layered on a finished device but as an integral part of said device.
And I sincerly doubt it'll be low cost. The cost of implementing these systems is tremendous.
Exactly. That's why it costs so much to make a phone call! Consider long distance, I have Sprint and I have to pay five cents a minute! I don't know how anybody can afford to make a call!
While there are many things that the content, delivery, hardware, companies et. al. can do to screw this up I don't think cost will be one of them.
There is an immense amount of money to be made by providing content on demand. But it is a non starter if users can't afford it.
Maybe the players will let their greed and paranoia keep it from happening. They are certainly acting that way today. And yes they certainly haven't done a good job with the services they have been offered (MP3 pay services, video on demand, DIVX).
But other pay services, (cable TV, internet service) have shown that people will pay for perceived value.
There's no need for personal copies of centrally available media.
Unless your ISP goes out of business. Anybody @Home?
Or you're in an airplane at 30,000 feet. No use radio devices permitted, but feel free to use our $5 per minute GTE Airphone!
I'm sure there are other examples. These two are ones I've recently experienced.
Sure instant on, wireless broandband, with redundant servers, at an affordable price (hardware and service)would sure be nice.
You're right, someday there maybe little reason to own personal copies of such thing. But that isn't today. Until then I'll be wanting a personal copy thank you.
I enjoyed the movie. As mentioned the visuals were stunning. And I thought the casting was excellent, althought I expected the hobbits to be a bit plumper.
But I also felt that they missed the boat big time by focusing on the battles and not developing the characters.
Two that I particularly missed included the growing friendship between Legolas and Gimli. I was disappointed that the blindfold confrontation was left out along with Gimli getting a lock of Kate's (I can't spell her characters name, and I'm too lazy to look it up) hair.
The other was the development of Sam's loyalty especially as seen with respect to Bill the pony. (And it was pointed out to me after the fact, where did the pony come from? The only time we see it in the movie is when they are about to enter the mines of Moria.)
By focusing only on the adventure part of the tale, they left the fellowship part out of the 'Fellowship'. I described it to a friend as if the book was written by someone who was there, while the movie was done by a 'historian' after the fact.
And because of that I left the theater disappointed.
Does that mean now that the University OWNS everything that the student can ever do with [neat idea]?
It means that the patent owner can determine what is done with that idea for the life of the patent. In this case the university is the patent holder.
This is no different from a company or individual (not associated with a university) patenting an idea and then you reading the patent and using the idea in your product without permission. Why should those associated with universities be unable to patent their ideas?
This violates the very founding principle of College education!
And that principle would be?
One of the good things about the patent process is that it encourages the open sharing of knowledge while at the same time granting the right of exclusivity to the person who developed that knowledge. Contrast this with trade secrets where the knowledge remains secret.
The siderial month, the true period of the revolution of the mon around the earth is 27 days, 7 hours, 43 minutes and the period of axial rotation of the moon is 27 days, 7 hours, 43 minutes.
Thus the same side of the moon is always facing the earth.
Actually, since the moon 'woobles' a bit (libration) we can actually see about 59% of the moons surface, and 41% remains permanently hidden from view from the earth's surface.
Hence the terms 'far side' and 'dark side' of the moon.
Slashdot Mirror
My first Mac was a used 512KE. I still have it. It still runs. I have a Quadra 700 that still runs as well. Neither are currently set up though.
The machines I do have up and running are a TiBook, beige G3, Dell laptop, and a noname 1 GHz Athlon.
I mostly use the TiBook and can't wait until I can use OS X exclusively.
The only time I boot into OS 9 is when Palm Desktop beta starts acting funny and won't recognize my data. I boot into classic to run MS Office (I'm unemployed and don't have the cash to upgrade - feel free to send me a copy or give me a job) and Starry Night. The G3 is OS 9 and pretty much the only thing I run on it is Photoshop.
Fourteen or so years using the Mac OS and I find that it an app doesn't run native under OS X I don't want it.
I don't understand articles like those at Register.com and others blasting OS X. Yeah it is different and takes some time to learn. But it is much more stable. And the ability to run Darwin apps is just the icing on the cake.
I just don't get the "OS 9 or die mentality".
Steve M
And just what would he do with "Office XP" on a Mac?
Steve M
Exept maybe the kid.
Steve M
Again - what's the point?
The point is the right tool for the job.
As you clearly point out in your post, "... I like being able to choose my own processor and motherboard and then the case I want to put it in...", you have a much higher comfort level with computer technology then does Solios.
Thus the right tool is a Mac because that is what works for him/her.
It is not clear if you have ever used a Mac for any length of time. And your comment, "... and I'm proud to say not one is a Mac ..." makes clear your anti-Mac bias. So despite claims to the contrary it would appear that you avoid Macs not because you don't see the point but because you don't like Macs.
I don't know how many computers there are in a bunch. I have four on my home network. Two Macs and two PCs. I run Mac OS (9 and X) apps, Linux apps, Windows apps, Darwin apps, and even the occasional Palm app (via an emulator).
My prefered system is my TiBook running OS X which also allows me to run OS 9 and Darwin apps. I've installed VPC on it and can run Windows apps as well (albeit slowly).
For me the TiBook is the right tool for the job. And as I said above, that is the point.
Steve M
Worked fine via software update on my TiBook 667.
Steve M
That's the book I'm looking for now.
Steve M
Texas Instruments uses the 68K for their graphing calculators.
Steve M
So who's the plastic surgeon then?
Steve M
Wow, this guy must be good!
Steve M
Evolution is going towards genes that favour a large amount of children.
Close but not quite that simple.
Evolution is about differential genetic success. That is, it is about getting your genes into future generations.
There are two main strategies for this. One is to have as many offspring as possible and invest minimal care in any one of them. You flood the world with offspring in the hope that some will survive. But the loss of any particular offspring is no big deal. Think salmon spawning.
The second main strategy is to have fewer offspring but to invest highly in their successful maturation to child bearing age. Think humans.
Now the key to success in the second model is getting your few children to the point where they can have children. For most of humankind's existance bringing up kids was a perilous endevour, with many children dieing well before reaching child bearing age. Thus an effective evolutionary strategy would be to have large families, increasing the odds that one or more children would make it to child bearing age.
Note that the parents didn't thnk in these terms. But the families that had a lot of kids left more offspring then the ones that didn't.
But there is a second pressure on these families. That is the ability to raise all these kids. It takes money to raise a kid. So the optimal family size is the one where you not only have kids that survive to have grand kids, but where you also provide that kids with the best chance of future economic success. (Survival of the fittest and struggle for existance are economic statements. The individuals struggle for limited resources (food, mates, etc.), they do not engage in combat against each other.)
In times when life didn't offer many career choices, most people were born on a farm and died on a farm, as long as you were strong and healthy you had the same chance as anyone else to succeed.
But in times where career choices are myraid the economic calculations become somewhat more involved. One example, those with a college degree tend to make more money (they are more economically successful) then those without. College can be expensive. Thus there is pressure to have fewer children.
Combine this with the fact that in the developed nations it is no longer difficult to raise a child to child bearing age. Thus a successful evolutionary strategy is to have a minimal number of childern and invest heavily in them. Which is what we are seeing today.
Steve M
It is also noticeable that those who meet this criteria of social success have a higher mean IQ than those who do not. Anecdotally, I would observe that they also tend to have fewer congenital health problems.
So is the higher IQ a cause or an effect of having money?
There are a number of things that need to happen in the first several years of a child's life for that child to develop 'optimally' (note scare quotes, as optimally is not defined).
First during pregnancy no alcohol, no smoking, no drugs are allowed and good medical care as well as a balanced and sufficient diet are required.
Second during the first several years the child needs proper diet and medical care and a loving and stimulating environment.
Third during the years leading up to adolescence the child needs a proper diet, good medical care, a supportive and stimulating environment, and a proper learning environment (examples: good schools, libraries, access to a computer, etc.).
There is some component of IQ that is genetic. But even if IQ is 100% genetic if the child doesn't have the proper environment the genes will not have a chance to express themselves fully. As an extreme example of this, consider a plant seed. The seed holds all the genetic potential for a full grown plant. But if that seed falls on a concrete parking lot then none of that genetic potential will be expressed.
It is the same with humans. Unless the proper requirements for development are made available to the child it will not develop optimally.
Is it any wonder then that socially sucessful people tend to have socially successful children? Or that the socially successful have higher IQs?
Also note that having money means having regular access to heath care. For most successful people visiting a doctor is not an issue. For people with out medical insurance (i.e. the non successful) visits to a doctor can be very expensive. If the choice is between feeding the kids and visiting a doctor the kids usually win. Thus any real problems are not diagnosed promptly. And prompt diagnosis is usually crucial to successful treatment. So agian, is it any surprise that the successful have fewer health problems?
Steve M
I think that "blind people being about to read eBooks" is just a plea to sympathy.
It is also an attempt to level the PR playing field.
The supporters of the DMCA such as the RIAA and the MPAA have done an excellent job portraying the users of such things as MP3s and DeCSS as hackers, criminals and pirates. They have gone as far as to call then terrorists.
The non-geek population is bombarded with the message "hacker = evil" followed up with "DMCA protects from hackers".
The DeCSS case has been hurt big time by this.
ElcomSoft is trying to play the RIAA/MPAA game to their advantage. This isn't a hacker tool, no, no, no. It is an empowerment tool for the blind!
Maybe it will work. Maybe it will just cancel out the hacker = evil propaganda and we'll have a trial on the merits of the case. Maybe it will get drowned out by the PR machines of the DMCA supporters.
Maybe it is even true.
In any case, you can't fault them for trying. I hope it works.
Steve M
This is insightful how?
Steve M
Furthermore, the exoskeleton has no real peaceful benefit.
Yeah, I mean, why would a parapalegic want to walk?
Did you bother to read the story? If you had you would have read:
But François Pin, who heads the Oak Ridge effort, sees dozens of nonmilitary uses as well. "Construction is a $4 billion industry in this country, and it's very primitive. We are injuring people every day. Cargo handling, search and rescue--the possibilities are endless." Ultimately, exoskeletons could transform society. The elderly could regain the physical abilities of youth, and paraplegics could walk. "
Steve M
How often do you reposition the screen of your computer?
Well, seeing as how it is a laptop, quite frequently.
But freeing up desktop real estate is an actual benefit to many users.
And in truth the screen repositioning comment is a straw man. Given the weight and bulk of most CRT monitors, it is a non trival task to do so. So no nobody does it.
It is kinda like asking why anyone would want a walkman since you didn't see people walking around with table radios.
Steve M
Well if you clicked the link you would have found out.
And although it may be a foolish of me, I'll assume you know how to use a search engine.
Steve M
In a brief piece on the BBC web site, Donald Norman offers this opinion of Apple and the new iMac:
Apple is the best company in the world to make this because Apple understands consumers, understands design and understands computers.
Steve M
Apple understands that form and function are not independent variables. For Apple form is a basis for function.
Consider the new iMac. Here is a quote from yesterday's Ive interview reported on /.,
"The new shape emerged shortly afterwards: a dome is the only shape that lets the screen swivel without having "preferred" positions, maximises stability and offers lots of horizontal space. After that, it was the fine detail - of which there is a huge amount.
"
Thus we learn that the dome isn't there simply for asthetics, it is there for functional reasons.
And that is how Apple views design. Not as a veneer to be layered on a finished device but as an integral part of said device.
Steve M
And I sincerly doubt it'll be low cost. The cost of implementing these systems is tremendous.
Exactly. That's why it costs so much to make a phone call! Consider long distance, I have Sprint and I have to pay five cents a minute! I don't know how anybody can afford to make a call!
While there are many things that the content, delivery, hardware, companies et. al. can do to screw this up I don't think cost will be one of them.
There is an immense amount of money to be made by providing content on demand. But it is a non starter if users can't afford it.
Maybe the players will let their greed and paranoia keep it from happening. They are certainly acting that way today. And yes they certainly haven't done a good job with the services they have been offered (MP3 pay services, video on demand, DIVX).
But other pay services, (cable TV, internet service) have shown that people will pay for perceived value.
Here's hoping they get it right.
Steve M
There's no need for personal copies of centrally available media.
Unless your ISP goes out of business. Anybody @Home?
Or you're in an airplane at 30,000 feet. No use radio devices permitted, but feel free to use our $5 per minute GTE Airphone!
I'm sure there are other examples. These two are ones I've recently experienced.
Sure instant on, wireless broandband, with redundant servers, at an affordable price (hardware and service)would sure be nice.
You're right, someday there maybe little reason to own personal copies of such thing. But that isn't today. Until then I'll be wanting a personal copy thank you.
Steve M
I'm pretty sure that they don't become close friends until they fight side by side in the big battle in the middle of The Two Towers.
Yes, but the items I mention are the roots of that friendship.
Steve M
I enjoyed the movie. As mentioned the visuals were stunning. And I thought the casting was excellent, althought I expected the hobbits to be a bit plumper.
But I also felt that they missed the boat big time by focusing on the battles and not developing the characters.
Two that I particularly missed included the growing friendship between Legolas and Gimli. I was disappointed that the blindfold confrontation was left out along with Gimli getting a lock of Kate's (I can't spell her characters name, and I'm too lazy to look it up) hair.
The other was the development of Sam's loyalty especially as seen with respect to Bill the pony. (And it was pointed out to me after the fact, where did the pony come from? The only time we see it in the movie is when they are about to enter the mines of Moria.)
By focusing only on the adventure part of the tale, they left the fellowship part out of the 'Fellowship'. I described it to a friend as if the book was written by someone who was there, while the movie was done by a 'historian' after the fact.
And because of that I left the theater disappointed.
Steve M
Does that mean now that the University OWNS everything that the student can ever do with [neat idea]?
It means that the patent owner can determine what is done with that idea for the life of the patent. In this case the university is the patent holder.
This is no different from a company or individual (not associated with a university) patenting an idea and then you reading the patent and using the idea in your product without permission. Why should those associated with universities be unable to patent their ideas?
This violates the very founding principle of College education!
And that principle would be?
One of the good things about the patent process is that it encourages the open sharing of knowledge while at the same time granting the right of exclusivity to the person who developed that knowledge. Contrast this with trade secrets where the knowledge remains secret.
Steve M
More interesting would be an observatory headed for a black hole...I'd volunteer.
Yep a sure winner.
Steve M
The siderial month, the true period of the revolution of the mon around the earth is 27 days, 7 hours, 43 minutes and the period of axial rotation of the moon is 27 days, 7 hours, 43 minutes.
Thus the same side of the moon is always facing the earth.
Actually, since the moon 'woobles' a bit (libration) we can actually see about 59% of the moons surface, and 41% remains permanently hidden from view from the earth's surface.
Hence the terms 'far side' and 'dark side' of the moon.
Steve M