Lol, did you even read up on the examples, which you are obviously not familiar with? Jim Wright was the Speaker of the House, and Jim McDermott was a congressman. Both had a handful of their democrat colleagues along with them. You don't have to get much further than the first page of a google search to see that they were undermining the diplomacy efforts of the executive branch. There are plenty of other examples like John Sparkman and George McGovern going to Cuba in 1975 which is where the earlier State Dept quote came from.
"some idiot visiting a lame regime" would be Jessie Jackson going to Cuba and Nicaragua, which also happened.
I think the John Kerry incident is notable because he wasn't even a congressman at the time. The argument could be made whether or not it's appropriate for a congressman to do that, but certainly not a private citizen.
The Logan act angle is a poorly thought out talking point. In 1975 even the State Dept said, "Nothing in section 953 . . . would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution".
No one has ever been convicted under the Logan act and in fact no one has even been charged with it in over 200 years, despite the long history of Democrats cozying up with communist dictators and the like.
How about John Kerry meeting with the North Vietnamese in Paris in 1971 while he was a private citizen?
Or maybe "Bagdad Jim" McDermott who met with the Iraqis in 2002 with a few other Democratic senators?
There's also former Speaker of the House Jim Wright (among others) who worked with Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua to undermine Reagan.
I'll stop there, but there are plenty more examples if you are looking for a Democrat to charge with a Logan Act violation.
IMHO, this is one of the most logical and intelligent comments I've seen on Slashdot in a while. The importance of our trade with other countries (especially China) is all but forgotten these days.
If this were Fark, I'd give them a big "You're doing it wrong". Microsoft has gotten so bold that they they have done the extend first by creating a "standard" that nobody can implement, now they are in the embrace stage (although it's the other way around) trying to get the world to accept it as an open standard (hard to type that without laughing). If that ever goes through, you can bet that ODF will be the target and possibly the victim of the Extinguish.
They've got balls, I'll give them that. Or maybe it's just that they have chairs?
I've been running Leopard on my 867MHz G4 12" Powerbook (probably the lowest system it is rated for) and I haven't have any problems aside from Time Machine backups screwing with Spotlight indexing. (I finally turned off Time Machine until the drive got indexed and it's been fine ever since) I also always do a format and clean install with each new 10.x.0 release.
I think most people's problems come from leftover crap on their system. Still, if Apple is going to offer an upgrade install it should work.
Disclaimer: I've been using Macs for over 15 years so I may have slight fanboi tendencies.
3. General Usability: Wow. That's all I can say. The improvements over even the latest Tiger release are impressive. Although synthetic benchmarks show a very slight speed decrease on this platform, the general "feel" of the OS is significantly improved. Application launch times, app switching and generally USING the operating system make it feel like the system's actually been significantly improved. It's noticeable, and I have not really noticed any speed decreases at all apart from still seeming slow when I have my XP VM running in Parallels (rarely). At the end of the day, I get the impression that Leopard is faster, even if that's not backed up by the benchmarks. If the operating itself feels better, who cares what the benchmarks say anyway? I've had the exact same experience. I installed Leopard on my 4 year old 12" Powerbook 867MHz G4 (yes, probably THE absolute slowest machine supported by Leopard) and I admit that the system felt a lot snappier. However I did notice that a recording off of my MythTV box (MPEG-2 file from a PVR-150) would not play smoothly with the latest copy of VLC. I never had problems playing these same recordings with VLC under Tiger (same version), but I'm going to give VideoLan a chance to release a few updates, it could be some kind of optimization issue.
Also, I thought that the "Coverflow" browsing would be a toy I'd bore of quickly. Quite the opposite... I've found it incredibly useful for going through busy and full folders so I can locate documents incredibly quickly. A+ on that feature! Same here, I laughed off cover flow as eye candy when Apple started pushing it everywhere, but it really is very useful.
The Stacks function... yuck. I don't like Stacks... I thought I would find it useful but it's just ugly. I found stacks to be more just limited than ugly. It reminds me of the pop-up tab windows in OS 9, except if they made it more customizable like a window then I'd probably find it very useful in grid mode. Speaking of which, the ability to modify the grid spacing for icon views may be my favorite goody of Leopard. It makes icon view usable again, something I've missed since OS 9. The only downside is that now I'll end up with a desktop full of 400 icons instead of 60!
Also, I've had one "grey curtains" failure (Mac owners know what I'm talking about) just a day after installation, but nothing since. I haven't even had an application crash yet much less a kernel pan^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H "grey curtains" yet, but then again I did do a clean reformat and install.
As I said in my subject, your mileage may vary... but my experience so far has been that Leopard is more than worth the upgrade... even if only for the significantly improved Finder. I couldn't agree more.
My wife teaches upper level High School Spanish in South Carolina and I came up with this same idea for her about 2 years ago. I was looking at the number of Spanish articles on Wikipedia (about 300,000) vs. the number of English articles on Wikipedia (about 2,000,000) and I figured that having her upper level students create or improve articles on es.wikipedia.org would have several benefits: 1) her students would get exposed to Wikipedia, 2) es.wikipedia.org would get some improvement, 3) her students would get to improve their spanish, 4) they would learn more about some topic, and 5) they would be contributing to society in general rather than doing work that only helps them learn. I feel like it is a win for everyone.
So I ask this question, would this type of thing be frowned upon by Wikipedia if there was sufficient supervision of the students to make sure what they were putting up was correct (factually and grammatically)? That was the biggest thing that prevented me from having her do this. I didn't want to run into admins or other contributors that had no patience with the process that would be involved. Would it be smart to explain what we were doing in the Talk page of each article?
Who else remembers when Panther came out and Apple promised a new Finder? Well, the same words are being used to described the "new finder" in Leopard. Shame on you, Apple.
This is spoken like someone who hasn't used OS X since the early days. Maybe you have, but if so you should remember how bad the Finder was in Cheetah, Puma, and Jaguar. Panther was a huge improvement in Finder responsiveness and appearance, no matter how much people want to bash it for it's shortcomings. If the Leopard Finder is as much of an improvement as the Panther Finder, then it will be awesome.
My copy of Leopard is currently "out for delivery" with UPS!
Apple's Time Machine is pretty but it 'needs' the applications to be time machine aware to take full advantage of the features.
MS technology just happens transparently at the FS level which OS X can't do and it also extends to backups like OS X's Time Machine. If Apple could have gotten ZFS working as the default FS, they could have used the feature that ZFS and NTFS share to make the on volume realtime backups like Vista does.
Your original statement of applications needing to be Time Machine aware implies that Time Machine doesn't otherwise offer a complete backup solution, which is false. The only things that applications need to do are follow the correct programming guidelines by specifying any files that should be excluded from backups (i.e. unusual temp files), providing Quick Look previews for any custom file formats, providing mdimporters for efficient spotlight indexing of said formats, and properly defining UTI's. All of these are just smart programming practices and are not required for Time Machine to backup any given files, they just make OS features like searching and previewing more efficient.
With the exception of defining files to exclude from searching, the other items aren't for Time Machine at all but for other systems services that are icing that Time Machine adds to the cake.
My apologies for the terminology confusion, I have never lived in the MS world.
Apple's Time Machine is pretty but it 'needs' the applications to be time machine aware to take full advantage of the features.
MS technology just happens transparently at the FS level which OS X can't do and it also extends to backups like OS X's Time Machine. If Apple could have gotten ZFS working as the default FS, they could have used the feature that ZFS and NTFS share to make the on volume realtime backups like Vista does. This is wrong. See my previous anonymous post.
Time Machine doesn't require any special changes to applications although it offers some cool stuff that way. It's main purpose is to be a complete backup system that actually gets used because it's helpful and doesn't get in the way. Vista's Shadow Copy doesn't backup to a second hard drive. Shadow Copy also doesn't restore files that have been deleted. Those are the two main purposes of Time Machine. From what I can tell Vista's Shadow Copy appears to be no lower to the file system than Time Machine and FSEvents.
What's with all the uneducated Time Machine hate? I posted the above reply and then registered for an account just to post this just so that my anonymous post wouldn't get lost. I've been reading slashdot for years and have resisted an account but this is too much.
Slashdot Mirror
Lol, did you even read up on the examples, which you are obviously not familiar with? Jim Wright was the Speaker of the House, and Jim McDermott was a congressman. Both had a handful of their democrat colleagues along with them. You don't have to get much further than the first page of a google search to see that they were undermining the diplomacy efforts of the executive branch. There are plenty of other examples like John Sparkman and George McGovern going to Cuba in 1975 which is where the earlier State Dept quote came from.
"some idiot visiting a lame regime" would be Jessie Jackson going to Cuba and Nicaragua, which also happened.
I think the John Kerry incident is notable because he wasn't even a congressman at the time. The argument could be made whether or not it's appropriate for a congressman to do that, but certainly not a private citizen.
Clearly you aren't interested in facts though.
The Logan act angle is a poorly thought out talking point. In 1975 even the State Dept said, "Nothing in section 953 . . . would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution". No one has ever been convicted under the Logan act and in fact no one has even been charged with it in over 200 years, despite the long history of Democrats cozying up with communist dictators and the like. How about John Kerry meeting with the North Vietnamese in Paris in 1971 while he was a private citizen? Or maybe "Bagdad Jim" McDermott who met with the Iraqis in 2002 with a few other Democratic senators? There's also former Speaker of the House Jim Wright (among others) who worked with Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua to undermine Reagan. I'll stop there, but there are plenty more examples if you are looking for a Democrat to charge with a Logan Act violation.
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/01/15/1829244
hmmm, I need to look into this /dev/null
:)
I've been running out of disk space on my MythTV box!
IMHO, this is one of the most logical and intelligent comments I've seen on Slashdot in a while. The importance of our trade with other countries (especially China) is all but forgotten these days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace%2C_extend_and_extinguish
If this were Fark, I'd give them a big "You're doing it wrong". Microsoft has gotten so bold that they they have done the extend first by creating a "standard" that nobody can implement, now they are in the embrace stage (although it's the other way around) trying to get the world to accept it as an open standard (hard to type that without laughing). If that ever goes through, you can bet that ODF will be the target and possibly the victim of the Extinguish.
They've got balls, I'll give them that. Or maybe it's just that they have chairs?
I've been running Leopard on my 867MHz G4 12" Powerbook (probably the lowest system it is rated for) and I haven't have any problems aside from Time Machine backups screwing with Spotlight indexing. (I finally turned off Time Machine until the drive got indexed and it's been fine ever since) I also always do a format and clean install with each new 10.x.0 release.
I think most people's problems come from leftover crap on their system. Still, if Apple is going to offer an upgrade install it should work.
Disclaimer: I've been using Macs for over 15 years so I may have slight fanboi tendencies.
Wow.
If only they'd ship the ModBook! Since the ModBook has been delayed, I wonder if that has anything to do with Apple.
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/ModBook/
http://www.macworld.com/2007/01/firstlooks/modbook_fl/index.php/
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/01/11/unofficial_mac_tablet_draws_record_crowd_at_macworld_high_res_photos.html/
My wife teaches upper level High School Spanish in South Carolina and I came up with this same idea for her about 2 years ago. I was looking at the number of Spanish articles on Wikipedia (about 300,000) vs. the number of English articles on Wikipedia (about 2,000,000) and I figured that having her upper level students create or improve articles on es.wikipedia.org would have several benefits: 1) her students would get exposed to Wikipedia, 2) es.wikipedia.org would get some improvement, 3) her students would get to improve their spanish, 4) they would learn more about some topic, and 5) they would be contributing to society in general rather than doing work that only helps them learn. I feel like it is a win for everyone.
So I ask this question, would this type of thing be frowned upon by Wikipedia if there was sufficient supervision of the students to make sure what they were putting up was correct (factually and grammatically)? That was the biggest thing that prevented me from having her do this. I didn't want to run into admins or other contributors that had no patience with the process that would be involved. Would it be smart to explain what we were doing in the Talk page of each article?
What do you think Slashdot?
This is spoken like someone who hasn't used OS X since the early days. Maybe you have, but if so you should remember how bad the Finder was in Cheetah, Puma, and Jaguar. Panther was a huge improvement in Finder responsiveness and appearance, no matter how much people want to bash it for it's shortcomings. If the Leopard Finder is as much of an improvement as the Panther Finder, then it will be awesome.
My copy of Leopard is currently "out for delivery" with UPS!
He should have called 911 right there and reported the robbery when the manager stole the drive from him. Although we all know how well that type of things turns out.
MS technology just happens transparently at the FS level which OS X can't do and it also extends to backups like OS X's Time Machine. If Apple could have gotten ZFS working as the default FS, they could have used the feature that ZFS and NTFS share to make the on volume realtime backups like Vista does.
Your original statement of applications needing to be Time Machine aware implies that Time Machine doesn't otherwise offer a complete backup solution, which is false. The only things that applications need to do are follow the correct programming guidelines by specifying any files that should be excluded from backups (i.e. unusual temp files), providing Quick Look previews for any custom file formats, providing mdimporters for efficient spotlight indexing of said formats, and properly defining UTI's. All of these are just smart programming practices and are not required for Time Machine to backup any given files, they just make OS features like searching and previewing more efficient.
With the exception of defining files to exclude from searching, the other items aren't for Time Machine at all but for other systems services that are icing that Time Machine adds to the cake.
My apologies for the terminology confusion, I have never lived in the MS world.
MS technology just happens transparently at the FS level which OS X can't do and it also extends to backups like OS X's Time Machine. If Apple could have gotten ZFS working as the default FS, they could have used the feature that ZFS and NTFS share to make the on volume realtime backups like Vista does. This is wrong. See my previous anonymous post.
Time Machine doesn't require any special changes to applications although it offers some cool stuff that way. It's main purpose is to be a complete backup system that actually gets used because it's helpful and doesn't get in the way. Vista's Shadow Copy doesn't backup to a second hard drive. Shadow Copy also doesn't restore files that have been deleted. Those are the two main purposes of Time Machine. From what I can tell Vista's Shadow Copy appears to be no lower to the file system than Time Machine and FSEvents.
What's with all the uneducated Time Machine hate? I posted the above reply and then registered for an account just to post this just so that my anonymous post wouldn't get lost. I've been reading slashdot for years and have resisted an account but this is too much.