You can't maximize windows - you can toggle between two window shape states, neither of which stays consistant.
This is not true. Option-zoom box fills the screen with the current window. Also, I find the zoom box to be tremendously useful. WHY in HELL do you need a maximize button in the Finder? To take a window that has three icons in it and fill up the whole screen with it?!?! No thanks. (Individual applications, I can see. QuickTime, for example. But there should be an option in that program for maximization, then, such as Command-3 in QuickTime. Don't add a useless feature to the Finder just because some people might need it in a few applications!
Instead of having two mouse buttons with two functions they have one mouse button with two functions (single and double click) - that gives new users more trouble than two buttons from what I've seen.
I have never, EVER seen a mouse that had the right button set to double click something. How is this useful? To open programs THAT much quicker? No, this is a waste of a perfectly good contextual-menu button. BTW, I use a Mac on a daily basis. I also use contextual menus on a daily basis. I love CMs. I use the right button on my trackball. However, teaching a really new user about right-clicking is not in the cards. Let them learn to use the menus first. Then, if they feel comfortable with it, let them find out about the CM, or mention it in passing. They can get a new mouse if they want. The point is: 1 mouse button means far less confusion for grandma. That's where Apple has always stood on this issue.
In order to switch between running programs, you have to use a menu in the upper left corner. There's no convienient way to "minimize" a running app.
This is ALSO not true. Apple has had Command-Tab for program switching enabled since 8.5, I believe. It might have been 8.0. (I don't like Apple's implementation of this feature as much as M$'s, though. You can go forward [Cmd-Tab] and back [Shift-Cmd-Tab] through the programs, but it's alphabetically. Tacky, IMO. M$ has it right, where you go to the last program you were working on.)
As for minimizing a running app, simply click on the other app you want to begin working with while holding down the Option key. Presto, the new app is foremost, and the one you left is now hidden.
Mac OS X will merely add more problems to this.
Mac OS X will be something. No one yet knows what that will be. While I understand that your general opinions about Apple and their OS' are negative, I think most people agree that X is a great idea if they pull it off. "The power of UNIX, the ease-of-use of a Mac." I'm confident they will get it right, but then I'm an Apple bigot.;-)
Only time will tell. For Apple's sake, I hope they do the right thing and only cover up the ugliness of UNIX so that the end user will never be forced to see it if he doesn't want to. C'mon,/. is full of Linux people. It's all about choice, right? Give the newbie a cool-looking GUI that gets things done consistantly with the minimum fuss, and give the Power User the ability to use a Command Line. OS X is supposed to be both. If Apple pulls this one off, it has the potential to be a SPECTACULAR success. It will afford the newbie a state of the art OS that he doesn't have to learn much to use, and the hacker the meat that makes his life easier. The Holy Grail! Two faces in one OS...
In the future please double-check your facts before posting them -- I would almost think the last release of the Mac OS you had used was 7.5.5 or so....
If it ever comes up in a conversation, I have no problem with telling ANYONE that I viewed this article and it's comments. I know nothing about "ScienoSitter", but from what I hear it requires a Windows PC. *I* have a PowerMac G4. So there.;-)
I misspelled the name of the web site. You'll forgive me if I've never visited Xenu.net.
Will you ask yourself how someone can be sued for divulging 'copyrighted and trademarked' religious secrets that the Church claims he couldn't have got his hands on without self distructing from Theta-kickback?
I have been asking myself that for quite some time. The only explanation that I can come up with is that, while the consequences have obviously been exaggerated, you can't get anything close to the same amount of case gain and general gain in well-being by just reading the OT VIII course materials w/o the auditing to go along with it. Auditing is the reason that Scientology works, it's totally individualized.
OT VIII may seem like the product of some sci-fi writer's over-active imagination. But if you had regained your Whole Track memory from the training / auditing that you had done before Eight, you may have a different take on things. You may actually remember whatever it is that's in the OT VIII course pack. (And no, I'm NOT going to read it.).
Let's get this out of the way: I am a Scientologist.
OK, the interesting thing here is that not a SINGLE ONE of these posts has had a kind thing to say about the Church. I understand that people have problems with the way the CoS has their equivalent of thithing set up. But has no one ever had a positive experience when it comes to the CoS?
I'm a college student, and I have always considered myself a Scientologist. (My parents became involved with the Church before I was born.) And while I have not paid for any services in many years, I still find that there are basic Scientology principles that help me out on a daily basis. Things like the ARC triangle. The definition of an engram. The book Dianetics clearly spells out how the mind works in a practical way. And it makes sense! I can't hope to explain everything contained in the entire body of LRH's work in this post, but I can point you to the Church's website, and specifically the What is Scientology portion of it.
There are portions of LRH's writings that are not accessible to someone who walks in off the street. And, as people have pointed out, there is a fee required for those services. However, I have it on good authority (my parents', as well as many Scientologists I know who have taken these courses) that you do get a tremendous amount out of the training or auditing for the money that is invested. I myself have had many hours of auditing, all of which have been beneficial to me at a very personal level. It's difficult to explain how good it feels to examine experiences in one's life that are non-optimal to say the least and figure out exactly what's wrong with the situation and what needs to be done to handle it.
I alluded to this earlier, but I didn't explicitly state it: there are plenty of books that you can get which will allow you to learn about and apply Scientology principles. There are even some (such as the Way to Happiness pamphlet) that are routinely handed out for free. Scientology is NOT "all about the dollar signs". At least I have not experienced it to be so.
All this is completely off-topic with regards to the closing down of the website. I am personally of the belief that information posted on the Internet should not be censored in ANY way. I believe that the Church of Scientology has been and, in this case, continues to be guilty of free speech violations. In short, I have a problem with the Church's actions in this regard. This story should never have happened.
This is not to say that I agree with anything posted on Xandu.com. The resposibilty of the reader is implied by the very libertarian stance I articulated above: people need to be responsible for the accuracy of anything they read online.
My advice to you is this: check it out. Pick up a copy of Dianetics at a library and read it. There are many more books to read from there, including
Science of Survival, Scientology: A New Slant on Life and more than a hundred others. Read what LRH has to say. Then make a judgement call FOR YOURSELF.
LRH has said that only what is true for you is true. While this logic may be cyclic, it makes sense: if something doesn't make sense to you, or if you don't believe it, you will operate under the assumption that it is not, in fact, true. Once you have emperical proof that it is true -- *then* it will become true for you. As with anything else, Scientology is this way. Scientology's underlying doctrines (also see here) make sense. Period.
This post is not being placed here as flamebait, although I may be attacked by someone. I am merely trying to balance the extremely one-sided view of the Church that the readers of the comments would have received without this note.
I don't know about this "New" Kaffe, it's been around for a while. As a matter of fact, I'm running the Linux version at home as my Java VM (it's smaller and faster than the Blackdown port), and it has been on the RedHat distributions since at least 5.1.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not true. Option-zoom box fills the screen with the current window. Also, I find the zoom box to be tremendously useful. WHY in HELL do you need a maximize button in the Finder? To take a window that has three icons in it and fill up the whole screen with it?!?! No thanks. (Individual applications, I can see. QuickTime, for example. But there should be an option in that program for maximization, then, such as Command-3 in QuickTime. Don't add a useless feature to the Finder just because some people might need it in a few applications!
Instead of having two mouse buttons with two functions they have one mouse button with two functions (single and double click) - that gives new users more trouble than two buttons from what I've seen.
I have never, EVER seen a mouse that had the right button set to double click something. How is this useful? To open programs THAT much quicker? No, this is a waste of a perfectly good contextual-menu button. BTW, I use a Mac on a daily basis. I also use contextual menus on a daily basis. I love CMs. I use the right button on my trackball. However, teaching a really new user about right-clicking is not in the cards. Let them learn to use the menus first. Then, if they feel comfortable with it, let them find out about the CM, or mention it in passing. They can get a new mouse if they want. The point is: 1 mouse button means far less confusion for grandma. That's where Apple has always stood on this issue.
In order to switch between running programs, you have to use a menu in the upper left corner. There's no convienient way to "minimize" a running app.
This is ALSO not true. Apple has had Command-Tab for program switching enabled since 8.5, I believe. It might have been 8.0. (I don't like Apple's implementation of this feature as much as M$'s, though. You can go forward [Cmd-Tab] and back [Shift-Cmd-Tab] through the programs, but it's alphabetically. Tacky, IMO. M$ has it right, where you go to the last program you were working on.)
As for minimizing a running app, simply click on the other app you want to begin working with while holding down the Option key. Presto, the new app is foremost, and the one you left is now hidden.
Mac OS X will merely add more problems to this.
Mac OS X will be something. No one yet knows what that will be. While I understand that your general opinions about Apple and their OS' are negative, I think most people agree that X is a great idea if they pull it off. "The power of UNIX, the ease-of-use of a Mac." I'm confident they will get it right, but then I'm an Apple bigot. ;-)
Only time will tell. For Apple's sake, I hope they do the right thing and only cover up the ugliness of UNIX so that the end user will never be forced to see it if he doesn't want to. C'mon, /. is full of Linux people. It's all about choice, right? Give the newbie a cool-looking GUI that gets things done consistantly with the minimum fuss, and give the Power User the ability to use a Command Line. OS X is supposed to be both. If Apple pulls this one off, it has the potential to be a SPECTACULAR success. It will afford the newbie a state of the art OS that he doesn't have to learn much to use, and the hacker the meat that makes his life easier. The Holy Grail! Two faces in one OS...
In the future please double-check your facts before posting them -- I would almost think the last release of the Mac OS you had used was 7.5.5 or so....
I misspelled the name of the web site. You'll forgive me if I've never visited Xenu.net.
Will you ask yourself how someone can be sued for divulging 'copyrighted and trademarked' religious secrets that the Church claims he couldn't have got his hands on without self distructing from Theta-kickback?
I have been asking myself that for quite some time. The only explanation that I can come up with is that, while the consequences have obviously been exaggerated, you can't get anything close to the same amount of case gain and general gain in well-being by just reading the OT VIII course materials w/o the auditing to go along with it. Auditing is the reason that Scientology works, it's totally individualized.
OT VIII may seem like the product of some sci-fi writer's over-active imagination. But if you had regained your Whole Track memory from the training / auditing that you had done before Eight, you may have a different take on things. You may actually remember whatever it is that's in the OT VIII course pack. (And no, I'm NOT going to read it.).
---Wouldn't you like to be a Pepper too?---
OK, the interesting thing here is that not a SINGLE ONE of these posts has had a kind thing to say about the Church. I understand that people have problems with the way the CoS has their equivalent of thithing set up. But has no one ever had a positive experience when it comes to the CoS?
I'm a college student, and I have always considered myself a Scientologist. (My parents became involved with the Church before I was born.) And while I have not paid for any services in many years, I still find that there are basic Scientology principles that help me out on a daily basis. Things like the ARC triangle. The definition of an engram. The book Dianetics clearly spells out how the mind works in a practical way. And it makes sense! I can't hope to explain everything contained in the entire body of LRH's work in this post, but I can point you to the Church's website, and specifically the What is Scientology portion of it.
There are portions of LRH's writings that are not accessible to someone who walks in off the street. And, as people have pointed out, there is a fee required for those services. However, I have it on good authority (my parents', as well as many Scientologists I know who have taken these courses) that you do get a tremendous amount out of the training or auditing for the money that is invested. I myself have had many hours of auditing, all of which have been beneficial to me at a very personal level. It's difficult to explain how good it feels to examine experiences in one's life that are non-optimal to say the least and figure out exactly what's wrong with the situation and what needs to be done to handle it.
I alluded to this earlier, but I didn't explicitly state it: there are plenty of books that you can get which will allow you to learn about and apply Scientology principles. There are even some (such as the Way to Happiness pamphlet) that are routinely handed out for free. Scientology is NOT "all about the dollar signs". At least I have not experienced it to be so.
All this is completely off-topic with regards to the closing down of the website. I am personally of the belief that information posted on the Internet should not be censored in ANY way. I believe that the Church of Scientology has been and, in this case, continues to be guilty of free speech violations. In short, I have a problem with the Church's actions in this regard. This story should never have happened.
This is not to say that I agree with anything posted on Xandu.com. The resposibilty of the reader is implied by the very libertarian stance I articulated above: people need to be responsible for the accuracy of anything they read online.
This post is not being placed here as flamebait, although I may be attacked by someone. I am merely trying to balance the extremely one-sided view of the Church that the readers of the comments would have received without this note.---Wouldn't you like to be a Pepper too?---
I don't know about this "New" Kaffe, it's been around for a while. As a matter of fact, I'm running the Linux version at home as my Java VM (it's smaller and faster than the Blackdown port), and it has been on the RedHat distributions since at least 5.1.