Its always apeared that its the apple apologists, not Apple, who make the excuse that grandma can use one button more easily.
There is nothing intuitive about the second mouse button. How many times have you told someone to "click on the icon/button/text" and they ask, "with which button?". Yes, once you know, it sounds like a stupid question, but people ask it all the damned time, so it's clearly something you can't just pretend doesn't happen.
I think the real reason is design and style. Apple has focused more on how the computer looks than on how easy it is to use.
No, it's really easy to make a two-button mouse look nice. None of Apple's mice, until the current "no-button" Pro Mouse, would not have been significantly uglier with two buttons. You're reading a marketing page, and pretending it's a technical page. The real innovation is that Apple made a one-button mouse far more powerful than your average five-button mouse.
From the site, "Stick with single-button simplicity or click with multibutton efficiency." *suggests* that they've known all along that the single button is less efficient.
Of course they've known it's more efficient, that's why they've supported multi-button mice since the '90s. Or perhaps, can be more efficient would be a better way to phrase it. For many people, the additional button isn't more efficient, it's less efficient, causing more confusion, wrong clicks, and motivates programmers to hide functions behind the other mouse buttons.
Clicking the "Design" link takes us to a page with the statement "Who has time for intuitive, elegant design when there is so much clicking to do", again suggesting that the primary driving force for the mouse has been form over function.
Yeah, it's real damning that the "Design" page would promote the, um, design of the product.
From that sentence alone, one would interpret it as running the simulation for 30 years.
I can see how that would be an initial impression (given the ambiguity of the statement), but it's one of those things where you think, "Oh, duh. I thought you meant the stupid, idiotic thing, not the reasonable and quite logical thing. haha", and not call them idiots.
But yeah, if they just want to run the same simulation on the same hardware for 30 years, well.. Err. Idiots.
Idiots... 30 years for a project like this? In 30 years we'll have much better methods of doing this, so any project started 3 years from now wouldn't be valid for so long.
You should put some thought into your words before saying, "Err. Idiots". They're not talking about running the same simulation on the same hardware for 30 years. What they want is for the project (not necessarily the simulation) to last 30 years (and beyond), and it's pretty idiotic to believe they'd learn all there is to learn in just 3 years.
30 years certainly seems like a long time, but on the subject of AI and alife, there's a *lot* yet to study. This 3 year simulation will answer just a handful of questions, and raise many more, leading to another simulation, and with the newer, faster hardware, and more capable software, they'll answer some of the new questions, raising yet more, and so on.
Those of you who have read Ray Kurzweil's essays probably know that there is a very good chance that we will pretty much understand how the human brain works by that time (like we understand the genome now).
Mapping the human genome (you've already noted this difference) is mere bookkeeping. It's raw data. Faster computers and newer methods sped up the project so that it was finished, it sometimes seems, before it even began. But that's just data, it's still going to take a *very* long time to really understand the data.
Take a simulation system far, far, far simpler than AI and alife--chess. Even after thousands(?) of years of study, and decades of computers aided study, we still have yet to fully explore that system--there's still work to be done, and will be, perhaps, forever. What makes you think AI and alife, which is far more complex than chess, will be so much easier that there won't be enough work to last even a mere 30 years?
As for Kurzweil's essay. He is making the case that we'll understand the brain in the same way a beginner at chess understands chess. We'll know pretty much what each part does, and how they work together in simple terms, but we won't have all the answers--there will *still* be work to be done.
If you'll ever clarify your thinking, you'll figure out that the government you hold so dear is nothing but a sanitized version of the street thug.
Objectively, your statement is absolutely false--there are clear and obvious differences (beyond the scope of "sanitized") between the government and a street thug. To gloss over those differences is to indulge in self-delusion.
You go right ahead with your irrational smugness in the meantime, but neither you nor "society" -- which is nothing but an artificial construction
Another irrational indulgence of yours. Society actually and truly exists, just as surely as you and I do. It borders on insanity to claim otherwise.
has any right to claim my time or my money.
That statement is based on the false premise that you are not a member of society. As long as you are a member of a society, you are subject to its rules. The most rational and freedom-supporting set of rules yet devised require taxes be paid--yes, that means by you.
I would rather taxes not be necessary (just as I'd rather do away with many of the unpleasantries of life), but as a rational being, I realize that they *are* necessary, and can understand that by funding services I will never use, if it makes society as a whole better, it makes my life better.
(1)Anybody who claims that he or she is OWED my money or my time is claiming the right to (2)enslave me against my will. I don't accept that anyone has the right to make me his slave without my consent(3). Of course, governments take my money against my will now, but it's only because they're able to back up their claims with the threat of force -- just as any street thug might(4).
Bunch of illogical, and irrational, tripe.
(1) Nobody claims you owe *them* money. Society demands, however, that you carry your weight. You're free to live in the hills as a hermit. If you want the benefits society has to offer, you must pay your dues.
(2) The word "slavery" has a specific meaning, and paying taxes is not slavery.
(3) No one is forcing you into slavery. As for consent, you are free to not pay taxes. See (1) above.
(4) If you prefer the street thug, be my guest. However, I prefer to pay a government which is restricted by law and constitution, a government that is democratic, and that is a representative republic.
And you avoid the word "theft" because your conscience won't let you admit that redistributive taxation is exactly that.
No, because it's *not* theft. On the other hand, it actually *is* taxes.
Theft is a specific thing, and taxes resemble theft in many ways, but is also different in many ways. However, if someone can convince you that taxes equals theft, then they can argue away any specific tax or government service they want. It's a philosophical and political trump card.
"Schools? You want schools? Yeah, they're nice, but they shouldn't be funded by theft!" Replace "schools" with anything you like. In fact, to be consistent, you must apply it to everything.
And he never said there should be NO taxes, btw.
Yes, he did, just not explicitly.
Either there should be some taxes, or there should be no taxes, right? If there should be some, then claiming they are theft is no argument against them, because your argument assumes that theft is necessary.
Futurama is an excellent candidate for a direct to download experiment. It's got geek appeal, has no network time slot, and is an established, legitimate show.
The word you were looking for is "tax", and you avoid it because it makes you look stupid to claim there should be no taxes. Like them or not, they are a necessity.
Regardless, people need to be free in order for innovation to flourish. It's not coincidence that there are a flurry of "where's the innovation" stories.
But then explain to me why Apple has been so against 3rd party extenders to iTunes.
They haven't. They haven't sued a *single* company for merely "extending iTunes".
For example, try to get your Pocket PC with iTunes. Until recently, you haven't been able to. Why? Companies that provide the apps get sued by Apple.
Again, wrong. Any company that wants to can write a plug-in to enable a PocketPC to sync with iTunes. What they *can't* do is circumvent the iTunes Music Store's DRM. If you want to listen to those songs on your PocketPC, you still can (legally) via burning to CD, then ripping into a format for your PocketPC, or (semi-legally) via Hymn.
How does this fit the "protect the musicians" model? It doesn't.
It most surely does, both directly and indirectly. Directly, it's necessary in order to sell music online. More sales == money, duh.
Indirectly, it challenges the music industry cartel's stranglehold. This gives smaller labels, and individual artists more opportunity and greater ability to control their own music.
Apple isn't stopping you from playing your music on your PocketPC, they just aren't letting others break their DRM. Even if you have 300 songs purchased, though, it would take less than a day to, fully legally, convert them to a format that plays on your PocketPC.
Beyond that, you can still just buy the CD's, or (gasp), buy an iPod (a far superior music player than the PocketPC).
But, in the end, even with DRM, the iTunes Music Store has provided *more* options for the consumer--even you--and has done so with extremely unobtrusive DRM.
Companies that still use OS/2 would apply pressure against such an action if IBM even considered it. The code hasn't been through the same review that Linux has been subjected to, and I'm sure there's an exploit or two in there that could be readily discovered if the code were available (think: "if you ever want us to purchase your services again, don't open-source it").
Why would that matter? Those companies would just run the patched version.
Okay, I don't want to argue with you but you it would be less likely if you would stick to the topic
The topic is, "Does SVG require native and built-in support from IE in order to become mainstream?", in the context of "Apple to officially support SVG".
instaead of pointing out completely unrelated (and at least in the case of Java and Real arguably not even mainstream) technologies.
FULL STOP! Java and Real *are* mainstream.
You still haven't explained while SVG will succeed now that it is being adopted to Apple.
You're an idiot. I have not claimed it *will* succeed. NEVER. Moron. Learn to read.
*You're* the one making the claim, and I'm saying your claim is *wrong*. Your claim is that a technology (in this case, SVG), requires IE support. You are wrong.
Your claim that "it only takes one other technology to show that I am wrong" is completely unfounded... argument and logic.
I'm done with you. You are an absolute fool.
When you claim something absolute (remember all your, "if it ain't in IE, it ain't mainstream. Period." tripe?), it only takes *one* counter-example to prove your claim, as it stands, is wrong.
That's, actually, both argument and logic.
I on-the-other hand did provide reasons for my view.
No, you haven't. Your "reasons" consisted of saying, "Period.", over and over.
You refuse to accept them because they don't meet your expectations.
Yeah, I expected you to concede your ideas to the laws of reason, and the facts of history.
I'm not claiming SVG will now become mainstream. I've only stated that:
A. It's far more likely now. B. Native IE support is not required.
And I've just added:
C. You're an idiot.
I've confidently stated, restated, and supported A and B, and any further discussion with you will only serve to strengthen the case for C, which really doesn't do much for me.
And remember, next time a site offers a PDF download, or CNN or the BBC provides a link to a Real video, just say to yourself, "That's not mainstream. Period." You need to keep repeating falsehoods to yourself in order to cancel out the contrary evidence reality constantly throws at you, lest the fear of self-doubt make you feel uncomfortable.
Better yet, accept reality, and cast off false notions. We all find ourselves believing a false thing is true. It's far superior to accept reality and move on. You only lose once by admitting a mistake, and it's the kind of loss no one will hold against you, but you keep losing if you try to maintain a notion contrary to reality.
Some of the assumptions in your arguments are true, but you're applying them a step or two beyond their validity (along with a few mistakes on facts, like when PDF's were introduced, or what "mainstream" means). It's like you're claiming that in order for something to fly, it must have wings, and the wings must flap. Some of the underlying ideas are correct, but the conclusion is false, and demonstrably so. Saying, "Period." or pretending "flying" means something other than it does, does not make you right. Jets and helicopters exist. Back up in your logic a step or two and reformulate your theory along the lines of: in order for something to fly, it requires a propulsion system. Flapping wings are one, jets, propellors, and rockets are some of the others.
In order for a web standard to become mainstream, it needs an impetus for adoption. Native support in IE makes adoption easier, but is not required, as proven by PDF, Java, Real, QuickTime, Flash (flash was mainstream before the plug-in was bundled), etc.
I can only show you the fact, it's up to you to think.
Dude, you aren't worth arguing with because you think you are right regardless of how little supports your view.
Since one can't really speak slowly on the web in a non-annoying way, I'll instead suggest you read this slowly.
*Your* view is that web standards (in this case, SVG) require native, built-in support in IE to become mainstream. *My* view is that your view is wrong.
It only takes one example to show your view wrong, but I can think of many. PDF, Java, Real and QuickTime come to mind immediately.
This is unassailable. You are wrong.
Perhaps SVG will require IE support for some reason. But just saying, "for some reason" is not enough, just like saying, "Period." is not enough. You actually need to think of a logical, and compelling reason. You have provided none.
You're being foolish--the question at hand is whether something must be supported natively by MS to become a standard.
This is clearly and obviously not true.
If SVG is different, and that it *does* need such support, it's up to you to explain why.
Think harder homer. When PDF hit the world, there was no CSS, no HTML, nothing in fact, except for proprietary page layout software and word processors.
You are absolutely wrong, and clearly have a limited understanding of the subject. You're thinking of PostScript.
As we already know, there are plugins for SVG for almost every browser on every platform yet it is decidedly not mainstream yet.
But something has changed--Apple is going to support SVG. If this comes to pass, there will be more SVG content on the web. It's possible (but not certain) that the sites that add SVG content will be enough to get Windows users to click the "get plugin" button. Also, I believe, Firefox has, or will have, native support for SVG built-in as well.
SVG needs IE adoption for success as does every web standard.
Like PDF, Real, QuickTime, Java, etc?
To say otherwise is to support a rather uncommon view of the word "mainstream".
You're the one with the flawed definition. Mainstream means it's in the common public realm. Firefox *is* mainstream, for example. Mainstream does not mean everyone uses it, or even that a majority of the populace uses it. Rap, for example, is mainstream, but that doesn't mean everyone listens to it. DVD's and CD's were mainstream long before the majority of content was sold in those formats.
In the end, you might be right that Apple adopting SVG won't be enough to take SVG mainstream, but there are just far too many examples of web technologies that have become mainstream without direct support in IE to take your argument seriously.
Not all of these products are still bundled with Windows/IE, but they were in the past. It surely helped their adoption.
Doesn't matter. Your claim was, "if it's not built in to the browser with the largest marketshare (Internet Explorer), it's not mainstream." Not that "being supported by MS helps make something mainstream". That's obvious. Just like being supported by Apple helps make something mainstream. Being supported by Apple is not critical, neither is being supported by MS.
Some of your general points are accurate, but you're trying to apply them one step beyond their validity. A technology does not need to be supported directly and natively by MS to become mainstream. There are just far too many examples to the contrary.
BTW, I never said that any technology not natively implemented by MS is not mainstream -- nice try at putting words in my mouth.
"I disagree--I think the GP got it right. If MS doesn't support it natively, it is not mainstream. Period."
You don't seem to appreciate the fact that SVG is a web standard and for acceptance it requires native adoption in a web browser. That means IE. Period.
You're wrong. Period. SVG can become mainstream without native support in IE. Period. You seem to think that if you say "period" after something, it's true. Period.
Your point is overly simplistic, and demonstrably wrong. Something does not have to be natively supported in IE to be mainstream. Java and Real are mainstream. Period.
OK, so maybe you mean only SVG needs to be supported natively by IE, but Java and Real don't. You haven't provided any arguments to back that up. Period.
You make a good point, and I'm not as familiar with SVG as you. Maybe I should refine my point to be, "if it's not built in to the browser with the largest marketshare (Internet Explorer), it's not mainstream."
That still fails to stand up to scrutiny. Java, Real, QuickTime, flash, etc, are all "mainstream" and none are built into MSIE.
Ad blocking, anti-spyware, anti-virus, are all mainstream and were before MS got (or announced getting) into those realms.
Mainstream just means it's legitimately in the common public vernacular or usage. Firefox is currently "mainstream", even though it's not the most common browser. The iPod is mainstream, even though it's not natively supported by MS.
Conversely, being supported by MS doesn't automatically make something "mainstream" either. It needs to be commonly (and to some extent, knowingly) used.
I disagree--I think the GP got it right. If MS doesn't support it natively, it is not mainstream. Period. It may suck hard, but that doesn't mean it isn't fact.
And just because it "may suck hard" doesn't make it fact, either.
MS doesn't support Java, Real, QuickTime, zip (maybe they do finally in XP?), flash, blah, blah, blah, either. But they are all "mainstream".
Your definition of "mainstream" is flawed. It's that it has to be natively supported by MS. That's clearly and obviously false. Just *one* example proves you wrong.
Being supported natively by MS makes being mainstream easier, but it's *not* the definition of mainstream.
The iPod is clearly mainstream, and it's more than obvious that the iPod is not natively supported by MS.
No. Because it's Apple. If it's on Microsoft, then it's mainstream.
The question wasn't "is SVG now mainstream", but "will SVG go mainstream". Technologies adopted by Apple tend to go mainstream, so it's a valid question, and one you didn't address.
Your response isn't very insightful, either.
SVG already *is* "on Microsoft". And on Apple, too. You just have to install a plug-in (just like Java and Real and other "mainstream" features).
Mainstream doesn't mean "on Microsoft", it just means it's common enough--that it's reached some threshold of popularity. SVG is "on Microsoft" right now, but it's not mainstream. If Mac users get good SVG support in Safari and web sites start to offer SVG content in greater numbers, SVG will be mainstream. Windows users will, as usual, just have to click the "get plugin" button--they're used to it.
Now that Apple is going to include native SVG support with Safari (assuming this comes to pass), the odds of SVG going mainstream really have increased tremendously.
True, however, the rapid, high heat that microwaving can cause can cause chemical reactions in the food (conventional cooking does, as well).
Exactly.
The question at hand is whether microwaves do something unnatural to food, as compared to "traditional cooking".
They don't. Yes, microwaving food is unique in the "signature" it leaves, but so it steaming, boiling, broiling, frying, baking, etc. It's fully in that same realm. It's *not* in the magical and scary realm that the original poster placed it.
The actual microwaves themselves do nothing except heat up the molecules that best absorb them. Beyond that, it's the normal mechanics of cooking--you heat something, and it heats the somethings around it, and the food cooks.
This isn't a debate on whether microwaved food tastes better than fried food, or whether it's healthier than steamed food, it's whether microwaving is the same basic process as the whole of "traditional cooking", which it is.
I suspect you are missing the context. You (I think) are trying to point out that the original poster's point that, "microwave cooking... induces molecular changes to the food that may be harmful to humans" is, in fact, true. The problem is that the context is compared to "traditional cooking".
That cooking food (including microwave cooking) changes the molecules is not in question. That microwave radiation does evil, non-natural things to food is.
Actually, microwaves/do/ have more of an effect on the nutritional contents of food, especially vegetables.
No, they don't. Microwave radiation does not affect food nutrition.
I wasn't addressing whether boiling or microwaving vegetables are equally healthy. I was addressing microwave radiation.
Re-read the poster I was replying to:
Of more concern... microwave cooking... induces molecular changes to the food that may be harmful to humans... the mechanics of microwave cooking are fundamentally different from traditional cooking
So you bring up numbers (bogus sounding numbers at that*) that say boiling a vegetable is a little worse than setting it in water, and that microwaving it is slightly worse than that. Big deal. It's not magical molecule transforming rays doing it, it's just heat. Same with frying, baking, flame broiling, deep frying, stewing, etc.
In other words, microwaving food is in the same realm as "traditional cooking", contrary to the pseudoscience the poster promoted.
You are bringing up an entirely different point, which is whether microwaving vegetables or boiling vegetables is healthier. Something to ponder, if you really care about a 5% nutrient difference, but entirely separate from the question at hand.
* 80% nutrient loss by setting a vegetable in cold water? Maybe if you mash it up, and set a small portion in a big bucket of water for a few days or something. Or maybe if you place a sliced apple in water for a half hour. How much does deep frying lose? I bet it's more than the supposed 15% in the microwave.
Beyond that, the numbers are too round. Is it 92% for boiling, and 93% for microwave? Or did it actually come out 80%, 90% and 95%? Are you under-boiling, but over-microwaving? What vegetable is it? Etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Its always apeared that its the apple apologists, not Apple, who make the excuse that grandma can use one button more easily.
There is nothing intuitive about the second mouse button. How many times have you told someone to "click on the icon/button/text" and they ask, "with which button?". Yes, once you know, it sounds like a stupid question, but people ask it all the damned time, so it's clearly something you can't just pretend doesn't happen.
I think the real reason is design and style. Apple has focused more on how the computer looks than on how easy it is to use.
No, it's really easy to make a two-button mouse look nice. None of Apple's mice, until the current "no-button" Pro Mouse, would not have been significantly uglier with two buttons. You're reading a marketing page, and pretending it's a technical page. The real innovation is that Apple made a one-button mouse far more powerful than your average five-button mouse.
From the site, "Stick with single-button simplicity or click with multibutton efficiency." *suggests* that they've known all along that the single button is less efficient.
Of course they've known it's more efficient, that's why they've supported multi-button mice since the '90s. Or perhaps, can be more efficient would be a better way to phrase it. For many people, the additional button isn't more efficient, it's less efficient, causing more confusion, wrong clicks, and motivates programmers to hide functions behind the other mouse buttons.
Clicking the "Design" link takes us to a page with the statement "Who has time for intuitive, elegant design when there is so much clicking to do", again suggesting that the primary driving force for the mouse has been form over function.
Yeah, it's real damning that the "Design" page would promote the, um, design of the product.
(read this post btw :))
Well, yeah, that's a joke though.
From that sentence alone, one would interpret it as running the simulation for 30 years.
I can see how that would be an initial impression (given the ambiguity of the statement), but it's one of those things where you think, "Oh, duh. I thought you meant the stupid, idiotic thing, not the reasonable and quite logical thing. haha", and not call them idiots.
But yeah, if they just want to run the same simulation on the same hardware for 30 years, well.. Err. Idiots.
Idiots... 30 years for a project like this? In 30 years we'll have much better methods of doing this, so any project started 3 years from now wouldn't be valid for so long.
You should put some thought into your words before saying, "Err. Idiots". They're not talking about running the same simulation on the same hardware for 30 years. What they want is for the project (not necessarily the simulation) to last 30 years (and beyond), and it's pretty idiotic to believe they'd learn all there is to learn in just 3 years.
30 years certainly seems like a long time, but on the subject of AI and alife, there's a *lot* yet to study. This 3 year simulation will answer just a handful of questions, and raise many more, leading to another simulation, and with the newer, faster hardware, and more capable software, they'll answer some of the new questions, raising yet more, and so on.
Those of you who have read Ray Kurzweil's essays probably know that there is a very good chance that we will pretty much understand how the human brain works by that time (like we understand the genome now).
Mapping the human genome (you've already noted this difference) is mere bookkeeping. It's raw data. Faster computers and newer methods sped up the project so that it was finished, it sometimes seems, before it even began. But that's just data, it's still going to take a *very* long time to really understand the data.
Take a simulation system far, far, far simpler than AI and alife--chess. Even after thousands(?) of years of study, and decades of computers aided study, we still have yet to fully explore that system--there's still work to be done, and will be, perhaps, forever. What makes you think AI and alife, which is far more complex than chess, will be so much easier that there won't be enough work to last even a mere 30 years?
As for Kurzweil's essay. He is making the case that we'll understand the brain in the same way a beginner at chess understands chess. We'll know pretty much what each part does, and how they work together in simple terms, but we won't have all the answers--there will *still* be work to be done.
Erm, Idiots indeed!
If you'll ever clarify your thinking, you'll figure out that the government you hold so dear is nothing but a sanitized version of the street thug.
Objectively, your statement is absolutely false--there are clear and obvious differences (beyond the scope of "sanitized") between the government and a street thug. To gloss over those differences is to indulge in self-delusion.
You go right ahead with your irrational smugness in the meantime, but neither you nor "society" -- which is nothing but an artificial construction
Another irrational indulgence of yours. Society actually and truly exists, just as surely as you and I do. It borders on insanity to claim otherwise.
has any right to claim my time or my money.
That statement is based on the false premise that you are not a member of society. As long as you are a member of a society, you are subject to its rules. The most rational and freedom-supporting set of rules yet devised require taxes be paid--yes, that means by you.
I would rather taxes not be necessary (just as I'd rather do away with many of the unpleasantries of life), but as a rational being, I realize that they *are* necessary, and can understand that by funding services I will never use, if it makes society as a whole better, it makes my life better.
(1)Anybody who claims that he or she is OWED my money or my time is claiming the right to (2)enslave me against my will. I don't accept that anyone has the right to make me his slave without my consent(3). Of course, governments take my money against my will now, but it's only because they're able to back up their claims with the threat of force -- just as any street thug might(4).
Bunch of illogical, and irrational, tripe.
(1) Nobody claims you owe *them* money. Society demands, however, that you carry your weight. You're free to live in the hills as a hermit. If you want the benefits society has to offer, you must pay your dues.
(2) The word "slavery" has a specific meaning, and paying taxes is not slavery.
(3) No one is forcing you into slavery. As for consent, you are free to not pay taxes. See (1) above.
(4) If you prefer the street thug, be my guest. However, I prefer to pay a government which is restricted by law and constitution, a government that is democratic, and that is a representative republic.
And you avoid the word "theft" because your conscience won't let you admit that redistributive taxation is exactly that.
No, because it's *not* theft. On the other hand, it actually *is* taxes.
Theft is a specific thing, and taxes resemble theft in many ways, but is also different in many ways. However, if someone can convince you that taxes equals theft, then they can argue away any specific tax or government service they want. It's a philosophical and political trump card.
"Schools? You want schools? Yeah, they're nice, but they shouldn't be funded by theft!" Replace "schools" with anything you like. In fact, to be consistent, you must apply it to everything.
And he never said there should be NO taxes, btw.
Yes, he did, just not explicitly.
Either there should be some taxes, or there should be no taxes, right? If there should be some, then claiming they are theft is no argument against them, because your argument assumes that theft is necessary.
How about Direct to Download?
Futurama is an excellent candidate for a direct to download experiment. It's got geek appeal, has no network time slot, and is an established, legitimate show.
Who said anything about "stealing"?
The word you were looking for is "tax", and you avoid it because it makes you look stupid to claim there should be no taxes. Like them or not, they are a necessity.
Regardless, people need to be free in order for innovation to flourish. It's not coincidence that there are a flurry of "where's the innovation" stories.
People tend to innovate when they are free.
They aren't free when they are afraid, in debt, and ill.
ICOS?
It would take a *lot* to slashdot the BBC. Especially BBC News!
But then explain to me why Apple has been so against 3rd party extenders to iTunes.
They haven't. They haven't sued a *single* company for merely "extending iTunes".
For example, try to get your Pocket PC with iTunes. Until recently, you haven't been able to. Why? Companies that provide the apps get sued by Apple.
Again, wrong. Any company that wants to can write a plug-in to enable a PocketPC to sync with iTunes. What they *can't* do is circumvent the iTunes Music Store's DRM. If you want to listen to those songs on your PocketPC, you still can (legally) via burning to CD, then ripping into a format for your PocketPC, or (semi-legally) via Hymn.
How does this fit the "protect the musicians" model? It doesn't.
It most surely does, both directly and indirectly. Directly, it's necessary in order to sell music online. More sales == money, duh.
Indirectly, it challenges the music industry cartel's stranglehold. This gives smaller labels, and individual artists more opportunity and greater ability to control their own music.
Apple isn't stopping you from playing your music on your PocketPC, they just aren't letting others break their DRM. Even if you have 300 songs purchased, though, it would take less than a day to, fully legally, convert them to a format that plays on your PocketPC.
Beyond that, you can still just buy the CD's, or (gasp), buy an iPod (a far superior music player than the PocketPC).
But, in the end, even with DRM, the iTunes Music Store has provided *more* options for the consumer--even you--and has done so with extremely unobtrusive DRM.
Companies that still use OS/2 would apply pressure against such an action if IBM even considered it. The code hasn't been through the same review that Linux has been subjected to, and I'm sure there's an exploit or two in there that could be readily discovered if the code were available (think: "if you ever want us to purchase your services again, don't open-source it").
Why would that matter? Those companies would just run the patched version.
Nerdvana
Okay, I don't want to argue with you but you it would be less likely if you would stick to the topic
... argument and logic.
The topic is, "Does SVG require native and built-in support from IE in order to become mainstream?", in the context of "Apple to officially support SVG".
instaead of pointing out completely unrelated (and at least in the case of Java and Real arguably not even mainstream) technologies.
FULL STOP! Java and Real *are* mainstream.
You still haven't explained while SVG will succeed now that it is being adopted to Apple.
You're an idiot. I have not claimed it *will* succeed. NEVER. Moron. Learn to read.
*You're* the one making the claim, and I'm saying your claim is *wrong*. Your claim is that a technology (in this case, SVG), requires IE support. You are wrong.
Your claim that "it only takes one other technology to show that I am wrong" is completely unfounded
I'm done with you. You are an absolute fool.
When you claim something absolute (remember all your, "if it ain't in IE, it ain't mainstream. Period." tripe?), it only takes *one* counter-example to prove your claim, as it stands, is wrong.
That's, actually, both argument and logic.
I on-the-other hand did provide reasons for my view.
No, you haven't. Your "reasons" consisted of saying, "Period.", over and over.
You refuse to accept them because they don't meet your expectations.
Yeah, I expected you to concede your ideas to the laws of reason, and the facts of history.
I'm not claiming SVG will now become mainstream. I've only stated that:
A. It's far more likely now.
B. Native IE support is not required.
And I've just added:
C. You're an idiot.
I've confidently stated, restated, and supported A and B, and any further discussion with you will only serve to strengthen the case for C, which really doesn't do much for me.
And remember, next time a site offers a PDF download, or CNN or the BBC provides a link to a Real video, just say to yourself, "That's not mainstream. Period." You need to keep repeating falsehoods to yourself in order to cancel out the contrary evidence reality constantly throws at you, lest the fear of self-doubt make you feel uncomfortable.
Better yet, accept reality, and cast off false notions. We all find ourselves believing a false thing is true. It's far superior to accept reality and move on. You only lose once by admitting a mistake, and it's the kind of loss no one will hold against you, but you keep losing if you try to maintain a notion contrary to reality.
Some of the assumptions in your arguments are true, but you're applying them a step or two beyond their validity (along with a few mistakes on facts, like when PDF's were introduced, or what "mainstream" means). It's like you're claiming that in order for something to fly, it must have wings, and the wings must flap. Some of the underlying ideas are correct, but the conclusion is false, and demonstrably so. Saying, "Period." or pretending "flying" means something other than it does, does not make you right. Jets and helicopters exist. Back up in your logic a step or two and reformulate your theory along the lines of: in order for something to fly, it requires a propulsion system. Flapping wings are one, jets, propellors, and rockets are some of the others.
In order for a web standard to become mainstream, it needs an impetus for adoption. Native support in IE makes adoption easier, but is not required, as proven by PDF, Java, Real, QuickTime, Flash (flash was mainstream before the plug-in was bundled), etc.
I can only show you the fact, it's up to you to think.
Dude, you aren't worth arguing with because you think you are right regardless of how little supports your view.
Since one can't really speak slowly on the web in a non-annoying way, I'll instead suggest you read this slowly.
*Your* view is that web standards (in this case, SVG) require native, built-in support in IE to become mainstream. *My* view is that your view is wrong.
It only takes one example to show your view wrong, but I can think of many. PDF, Java, Real and QuickTime come to mind immediately.
This is unassailable. You are wrong.
Perhaps SVG will require IE support for some reason. But just saying, "for some reason" is not enough, just like saying, "Period." is not enough. You actually need to think of a logical, and compelling reason. You have provided none.
That wasn't his claim. It was mine. You're flaming the wrong target.
:-)
Oops, thought I double-checked who I was replying too.
I don't think it was a flame, though, but yeah, wrong target.
You're being foolish--the question at hand is whether something must be supported natively by MS to become a standard.
This is clearly and obviously not true.
If SVG is different, and that it *does* need such support, it's up to you to explain why.
Think harder homer. When PDF hit the world, there was no CSS, no HTML, nothing in fact, except for proprietary page layout software and word processors.
You are absolutely wrong, and clearly have a limited understanding of the subject. You're thinking of PostScript.
As we already know, there are plugins for SVG for almost every browser on every platform yet it is decidedly not mainstream yet.
But something has changed--Apple is going to support SVG. If this comes to pass, there will be more SVG content on the web. It's possible (but not certain) that the sites that add SVG content will be enough to get Windows users to click the "get plugin" button. Also, I believe, Firefox has, or will have, native support for SVG built-in as well.
SVG needs IE adoption for success as does every web standard.
Like PDF, Real, QuickTime, Java, etc?
To say otherwise is to support a rather uncommon view of the word "mainstream".
You're the one with the flawed definition. Mainstream means it's in the common public realm. Firefox *is* mainstream, for example. Mainstream does not mean everyone uses it, or even that a majority of the populace uses it. Rap, for example, is mainstream, but that doesn't mean everyone listens to it. DVD's and CD's were mainstream long before the majority of content was sold in those formats.
In the end, you might be right that Apple adopting SVG won't be enough to take SVG mainstream, but there are just far too many examples of web technologies that have become mainstream without direct support in IE to take your argument seriously.
Not all of these products are still bundled with Windows/IE, but they were in the past. It surely helped their adoption.
Doesn't matter. Your claim was, "if it's not built in to the browser with the largest marketshare (Internet Explorer), it's not mainstream." Not that "being supported by MS helps make something mainstream". That's obvious. Just like being supported by Apple helps make something mainstream. Being supported by Apple is not critical, neither is being supported by MS.
Some of your general points are accurate, but you're trying to apply them one step beyond their validity. A technology does not need to be supported directly and natively by MS to become mainstream. There are just far too many examples to the contrary.
You don't seem to appreciate the fact that SVG is a web standard and for acceptance it requires native adoption in a web browser. That means IE. Period.
You're wrong. Period. SVG can become mainstream without native support in IE. Period. You seem to think that if you say "period" after something, it's true. Period.
Your point is overly simplistic, and demonstrably wrong. Something does not have to be natively supported in IE to be mainstream. Java and Real are mainstream. Period.
OK, so maybe you mean only SVG needs to be supported natively by IE, but Java and Real don't. You haven't provided any arguments to back that up. Period.
You make a good point, and I'm not as familiar with SVG as you. Maybe I should refine my point to be, "if it's not built in to the browser with the largest marketshare (Internet Explorer), it's not mainstream."
That still fails to stand up to scrutiny. Java, Real, QuickTime, flash, etc, are all "mainstream" and none are built into MSIE.
Ad blocking, anti-spyware, anti-virus, are all mainstream and were before MS got (or announced getting) into those realms.
Mainstream just means it's legitimately in the common public vernacular or usage. Firefox is currently "mainstream", even though it's not the most common browser. The iPod is mainstream, even though it's not natively supported by MS.
Conversely, being supported by MS doesn't automatically make something "mainstream" either. It needs to be commonly (and to some extent, knowingly) used.
I disagree--I think the GP got it right. If MS doesn't support it natively, it is not mainstream. Period. It may suck hard, but that doesn't mean it isn't fact.
And just because it "may suck hard" doesn't make it fact, either.
MS doesn't support Java, Real, QuickTime, zip (maybe they do finally in XP?), flash, blah, blah, blah, either. But they are all "mainstream".
Your definition of "mainstream" is flawed. It's that it has to be natively supported by MS. That's clearly and obviously false. Just *one* example proves you wrong.
Being supported natively by MS makes being mainstream easier, but it's *not* the definition of mainstream.
The iPod is clearly mainstream, and it's more than obvious that the iPod is not natively supported by MS.
No. Because it's Apple. If it's on Microsoft, then it's mainstream.
The question wasn't "is SVG now mainstream", but "will SVG go mainstream". Technologies adopted by Apple tend to go mainstream, so it's a valid question, and one you didn't address.
Your response isn't very insightful, either.
SVG already *is* "on Microsoft". And on Apple, too. You just have to install a plug-in (just like Java and Real and other "mainstream" features).
Mainstream doesn't mean "on Microsoft", it just means it's common enough--that it's reached some threshold of popularity. SVG is "on Microsoft" right now, but it's not mainstream. If Mac users get good SVG support in Safari and web sites start to offer SVG content in greater numbers, SVG will be mainstream. Windows users will, as usual, just have to click the "get plugin" button--they're used to it.
Now that Apple is going to include native SVG support with Safari (assuming this comes to pass), the odds of SVG going mainstream really have increased tremendously.
True, however, the rapid, high heat that microwaving can cause can cause chemical reactions in the food (conventional cooking does, as well).
... induces molecular changes to the food that may be harmful to humans" is, in fact, true. The problem is that the context is compared to "traditional cooking".
Exactly.
The question at hand is whether microwaves do something unnatural to food, as compared to "traditional cooking".
They don't. Yes, microwaving food is unique in the "signature" it leaves, but so it steaming, boiling, broiling, frying, baking, etc. It's fully in that same realm. It's *not* in the magical and scary realm that the original poster placed it.
The actual microwaves themselves do nothing except heat up the molecules that best absorb them. Beyond that, it's the normal mechanics of cooking--you heat something, and it heats the somethings around it, and the food cooks.
This isn't a debate on whether microwaved food tastes better than fried food, or whether it's healthier than steamed food, it's whether microwaving is the same basic process as the whole of "traditional cooking", which it is.
I suspect you are missing the context. You (I think) are trying to point out that the original poster's point that, "microwave cooking
That cooking food (including microwave cooking) changes the molecules is not in question. That microwave radiation does evil, non-natural things to food is.
Vote for the Death Star (you can figure out which one I mean)
Dude, the election was last November.
Don't worry, though. The Death Star won.
Actually, microwaves /do/ have more of an effect on the nutritional contents of food, especially vegetables.
... microwave cooking ... induces molecular changes to the food that may be harmful to humans ... the mechanics of microwave cooking are fundamentally different from traditional cooking
No, they don't. Microwave radiation does not affect food nutrition.
I wasn't addressing whether boiling or microwaving vegetables are equally healthy. I was addressing microwave radiation.
Re-read the poster I was replying to:
Of more concern
So you bring up numbers (bogus sounding numbers at that*) that say boiling a vegetable is a little worse than setting it in water, and that microwaving it is slightly worse than that. Big deal. It's not magical molecule transforming rays doing it, it's just heat. Same with frying, baking, flame broiling, deep frying, stewing, etc.
In other words, microwaving food is in the same realm as "traditional cooking", contrary to the pseudoscience the poster promoted.
You are bringing up an entirely different point, which is whether microwaving vegetables or boiling vegetables is healthier. Something to ponder, if you really care about a 5% nutrient difference, but entirely separate from the question at hand.
* 80% nutrient loss by setting a vegetable in cold water? Maybe if you mash it up, and set a small portion in a big bucket of water for a few days or something. Or maybe if you place a sliced apple in water for a half hour. How much does deep frying lose? I bet it's more than the supposed 15% in the microwave.
Beyond that, the numbers are too round. Is it 92% for boiling, and 93% for microwave? Or did it actually come out 80%, 90% and 95%? Are you under-boiling, but over-microwaving? What vegetable is it? Etc.