While I like the specs of the new MacBooks, at their price point they don't quite cut it. Perhaps the second revision will make changes. Its just so hard to justify $600+ MacTax for 1lb of less weight and a few minor extras. Case in point CompUSA is selling an Acer duo, (1280x800 display x1400 graphics, 2GB memory, 120gb hdd, for 1299).
Well personally I'd be sold on "1lb of less weight" but also you casually dismissed as a "minor extra" MacOS X and iLife 06. Those aren't very minor to some people. To some people those are killer features.
This is all based on second-hand information, so some of it might be wrong, but here's my understanding of how it works.
Getting mail to to a WinCE PDA has always been easy. The standard technique was POP or IMAP over whatever Internet connection you can finagle (eg, GPRS). However that was always a pull technique and the thing about crackberry addicts is they want the mail to appear on their PDA as soon as it arrives at the mail server (push). One technique is to send an SMS every time a mail arrives so the PDA knows to check the server, another technique is to poll the server frequently, but both of those techniques can be very expensive.
The new WinCE enabled PDA achieves push by opening an HTTP XML request back to your Outlook Web Access server. It sends the username and then just waits. If any mail arrives then the OWA sends back a "ping" message that tells the PDA to pull the new mail. When the HTTP request times out the PDA simply opens a new connection. Effectively this works the same as push - mail "appears" on the PDA as soon as the Exchange server gets it - but without excessive bandwidth costs or SMS costs. It also means you don't need special crackberry servers or a crackberry subscription.
So my guess is that this will be the downfall of crackberry, and not a moment too soon.
After all, a guy with a $2000 blazing gaming PC will probably hesitate to buy a $250 Vista license just to play an MS game.
Let's be realistic. The guy with the $2000 PC will probably download the cracked version of Vista off eDonkey about 30 minutes after downloading the cracked version of the game.
Microsoft users are almost without exception a bunch of shameless pirates.
Re:So it's basically fixed point math.
on
More iTunes Math
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
This story has everything to do with what this site stands for. It directly involves Apple, mathematics, software design, software analysis, software realiability, and so forth.
Indeed, this is a very interesting story that should appeal perfectly to the general Slashdot audience.
The hacker audience who is interested in such things has been dwindling both in numbers and as a percentage. Now the "general Slashdot audience" prefers to fawn over the latest consumer product from Apple, to complain about Microsoft, or to inexpertly argue their "Rights Online".
Articles about technology, impressive hacks, homebrew projects, science and mathematics would be extremely welcome. Unfortunately the editors are infatuated with content-free articles that are little more than advertisements for products like the PS3 and Xbox and iPod.
Speaking of RMS, is it just me or does the GNU/. [slashdot.org] topic icon look like it is sucking it's thumb and holding a blanket. If it is, was this a stab at RMS?
It's a very unsubtle stab at the GNU/Linux debate. The figure depicted is a GNU acting as the character Linus from the comic strip Peanuts.
Under GPLV3, Bluehat needs to provide their private key with the kernel so that anyone can recompile an appropriately signed binary.
Yet the whole point of signing the binary is exclusively identifying it as coming from Bluehat.
You've got it wrong. Bluehat can still provide signed binaries and not provide the signing key for those binaries. However the hardware must allow the user to run unsigned binaries. That way you get the best of both worlds: you can use Bluehat's signed binaries if you so choose, or you can opt-out and run unsigned binaries, or Bluehat can provide the signing key and you can sign your own binaries. Everybody gets what they want (except maybe Bluehat).
All the GPL3 is trying to stop is the case where Bluehat produces hardware that only runs Bluehat binaries.
There are many things this can do. Functionally, the fastest way of minimising a window is to simply make it disappear. This, however, can be confusing because it is not obvious where the window went. A fancy window shrinking effect like on OS X thus improves usability. If done correctly you will not lose time on it either.
The problem even on OS X is that the application "shrinks" to the Dock where I can no longer see it. I have to raise the Dock by hovering my mouse down the bottom of the screen before I can see a small preview of my application in the Dock. I can leave the Dock permanently raised at the cost of 20% of my desktop. I think applications should shrink to the Desktop and stay there as icons, similar to the way mounted disks and documents appear on the Desktop as icons. That would at least be consistent with the rest of the interface.
MS started Avalon over D3D way back in 2003. I'm not contradicting your post, just making a factual observation.
Cairo, which is the closest Free Software equivalent of Avalon, also began back in 2003. However the comment you were not contradicting was about Vista, not Avalon.
What bothers me is that the FOSS community didn't seem to take this technology seriously until Microsoft announced it was going into Vista.
What bothers me is that you can make such statements with such conviction when they are entirely untrue. The FOSS community have been working on features like this since at least early 2004. The Xorg/XFree86 split was partially due to arguments over the Composite and Render extensions that are necessary foundations for this demo.
This technology hasn't appeared on your radar because you aren't looking at the right places. If you read xorg-devel, or planet gnome, or freedesktop, then you would be aware that this technology has been treated seriously. The Novell demo came from out of the blue but the FOSS community has been working on the technology for ages.
Compiz is just a compositing manager. As I understand it, it exists independently of Metacity or any other window manager you choose to use.
You understand incorrectly. Compiz is both a window manager and a compositing manager. There were technical reasons as to why it was done this way. Metacity will also be incorporating composite code directly rather than have a separate userspace process.
Why didn't the free software community develop anything as good as OS X?
They did. They developed GCC, which Apple uses in OS X. They devleoped Samba, which Apple uses in OS X. They developed CUPS, which Apple uses in OS X. Even if you don't use those subsystems (and you probably do) if Apple had to build all that from scratch then they wouldn't have had the resources to build the other good bits in OS X like Aqua. So all OS X users owe a great deal to the Free Software community for making OS X worth using.
Aside from our direct help, Apple still had an easier time of it than the Free Software community. The Free Software community has had to build literally everything from scratch. Apple just bought NeXtSteP!!1!1! which is older than most Slashdotters and revamped the windowing system. That's not a lot of effort compared to the Free Software community who in early 1997 didn't even have a desktop and only barely had a windowing system.
Yet despite starting from a disadvantage the Free Software community hasn't been idle. The windowing system is about to get an almighty boost from Compiz and Xgl, bringing it up to par with OS X and Vista. You might sneer at the achievements of the Free Software community, but we have been around a lot longer than the smug OS X users, and we will be around for longer still.
Would the author prefer a computer that was more TV than anything else, showing a lot of output but not taking any input from a user that could conceivably "gum up the works"?
Well, I'd like that. A computer that I didn't have to update, maintain, repair, tweak, and can't get the works gummed up... sounds like heaven. Why can't I have a computer that works more like a TV?
And no, MacOS X doesn't even come close. Keeping programs up to date on OS X is painful because only Apple software is automatically updated. If anything, Linux is easier in that respect.
While I'm dreaming, how about infinite undo for everything. Delete the wrong file? Undo. Delete some important text in a document? Undo to 4 weeks ago and retrieve the text. Move the icons on your desk to an undesirable arrangement? Undo, undo, undo.
Continuing the dream, why do I have to save? Give me infinite undo and persistent documents. Why in this day and age do I need to care about the distinction between memory and disk? I don't care that memory isn't persistent; that's a problem for the OS and the apps to solve. Let the OS and the apps do the realtime backup to persistent storage. If I turn my computer off at the wall I expect to turn it back on and see the same application window with the same document loaded, no data lost.
In fact, why make the distinction between applications and documents at all. I don't care about applications. I only care about documents. So make it so I just edit documents. I should never see the "File" menu. I should never have to "Open" a document. The file dialog is an abomination amongst UI design; I should just use the standard document manager (aka Nautilus) and click on documents to change their contents. When I minimise the document it becomes an icon again.
Automatic backups with no configuration; let the computer find spare storage around the network and splat copies there. If the only copy of my document is on a single disk I want the computer to tell me that the document's safety is at risk. I want the infinite undo to extend to network copies. In fact, I don't even want to know about network copies. I just want to say "this document is important, this one isn't as important" and let the OS figure it out.
Computers have a long way to go before they're as easy to use as I'd like them to be. Modern OSs and their WIMP desktops are just improved versions of research computers from the 1970s; I'm still stuck in this broken paradigm where disks, memory, processes, files and networks are exclusive entities and I'm constantly reminded of the limitations of each. There needs to be a revolution rather than continual polishing of the widgets.
It could be argued that Linux has done more to make Stallman relevant than anything Stallman has done himself.
You are confusing cause and effect. The Free Software movement didn't really explode onto the scene until the Internet became ubiquitous and affordable. It is no coincidence that Linux took off at exactly the same time as cheap dialup came into homes. Free software depends on 1000s of programmers from all over the world collaborating on a single project; that's not possible without the Internet. The Internet was the cause (actually one of many causes) and Linux was merely the effect.
I think the web browser was the next significant catalyst for the Free Software movement. It allowed the creation of web-based tools such as blogs, bug trackers and sites like Sourceforge. Those collaboration tools allowed Free Software to evolve from very programmer oriented environments (ksh and emacs) to much richer more complex user oriented environments such as GNOME and KDE. Once again, Linux was merely the effect.
The third significant catalyst was infusion of money from commercial interests. When the failing UNIX companies noticed that fighting amongst themselves had allowed the (at the time) pathetic Microsoft operating system to steal 90% of the market, and then they noticed that their own software was kind of crappy, and then they noticed that GNOME and Apache and GCC and BSD and Linux were much better products, it was inevitable that they'd jump on the Free Software bandwagon. Afterall, most UNIX companies are primarily hardware companies, the software is often merely an enticement to buy their hardware. Free Software allows the companies to work together with less chance of any single company deviating their product line until it is incompatible, as happened with UNIX.
I've been trying to figure out what the next catalyst will be, though predicting the future is obviously difficult. I think there needs to be a simpler way for users to contribute. At the moment it can be quite difficult to "enter" a project. For example I know there's a bug in the GNOME 2.13.90 background SVG rendering. I tried to download the necessary components to fix the bug but I was overwhelmed by the sheer quantity of stuff I need to get; it's too difficult for the casual developer to offer bugfixes back to projects. I see an analogy to how the web used to be, where you needed significant knowledge of HTML and Javascript to offer a "bug fix" to a website. That all changed when Wikis came along; suddenly anybody could simply click Edit and fix the mistake. I think the Free Software movement needs something equivalent to Wikis - in the sense of making it far easier for the casual developer to make changes - before it can progress to the next phase.
Most ppl are interested in the software, not the ideology.
Free software could not exist without the ideology, so whether they are interested in it or not, the ideology is still important.
A professional turns around a job in the same amount of time, regardless of his opinion of the other person.
Nonsense. Disregarding the opinions of another person is the sure sign of lack of professionalism. The other person's negative opinion can hinder the project. At best you want them onboard so they can contribute to the project. At worst you don't want them actively sabotaging or obstructing the project. Your job as a professional is to change their opinion, to find a compromise, or to recognise that your opinion was wrong and change your opinion.
It strikes me that the prime factor that determines a real professional (as opposed to somebody who just claims to be one) is understanding the opinions of others. Their opinion is quite likely as valuable as yours.
I have asshat coworkers as well. I bitch about them mightily, but I don't refuse to do my job just to spite them. Then I'm in the wrong and have no room to complain.
You're still in the wrong. Instead of bitching about them, try listening to them. You might find out that they're not all stupid "asshats" when compared to your brilliant magnificence.
And yet even at Microsoft's ridiculously discounted price only a small fraction of gamers are signed up for Live. In fact, Microsoft has yet to break the 10% barrier. It's a small wonder that Sony wasn't rushing to enable "online" gaming to the same extent that Microsoft has. As of this point there is little evidence that XBox Live will ever be a good investment. It is estimated that Microsoft has spent ove $1 billion dollars in the development and marketing of XBox Live and currently they have only 2 million users (Source [wsj.com]).
There's a reason for that. It's not the Live service itself; that's fine. It's not the technology; that's mature and stable. It's not the prerequisite ADSL; that's a sunken cost already. It's not even the subscription cost; that's so minor compared to the cost of hardware and ADSL and games that it barely registers on the credit card.
The problem with Live is the 2 million users... they're all asshats. Campers and twerps and abusers and nidjits and teasers and lamers but never a decent person worth playing a game with. It's all "ph0ck j00 l@mer i ph0cked j00r mom" and damn it to hell if I'm going to pay $29.95 per month to listen to that crap. The microphone headset was the stupidest thing Microsoft ever did; reading that abuse is bad enough but there's no way that I want to listen to some mouth-breathing 14 year old cursing in his pre-pubescent squeaky voice whenever I waste his talentless avatar.
Online games are ruined by the average gamer. No thanks. I'll play games with people I know, in the same room, so that the anonymity of Live can't tempt them into acting like an asshat.
We've been here before. Back in 1995, Sega announced their early release of the Saturn to get the drop on Sony. They were quite proud of themselves and thought that their $399 price tag (equivalent to Sony's expected price) combined with the early release would put them in the lead. Then the spokesperson got up to the microphone at the E3 and said three words that killed the Saturn on arrival.
Well, there was also the small matter that the PlayStation had significantly better 3D than the Saturn; the Saturn was strong in 2D but 3D seemed like an afterthought. Plus the PlayStation had the launch title of all launch titles... Tekken.
I appreciate that the urban legend is that the three magic words "two ninety nine" at E3 caused the Saturn to fail, but I don't buy it. Price alone is not that significant a factor. If it was then the Gamecube would have been far more popular than the PS2 or Xbox. It's more about the games and the PlayStation had the better games. That's also why the Dreamcast tanked; it was a better console but PS2 had better games.
It's time the bloggers and the users of the internet start lobbying for themselves....no not buying golfing trips but educating congress, educating the administrative branch, and educating the judiciary. Only through education can our government regulate the internet that they(Al Gore) created. Only through education can the internet's contribution to free society and the efficient spread of information be fully realized.
Pfft, education doesn't work. You're living in a fantasy world. The only way to influence politics is with bribes aka political donations. If you can't match the oppositions bribes then start a revolution, because you've got buckley's chance of changing the outcome any other way.
Fusion is up in the air at the moment, nuclear will work if you ever get round the environmentalists,
Yeah, because those damn environmentalists wield so much power and have so much money, why they're practically running the US government!
and wind and tidal power can provide about 5%.
That's nonsense. Slashdot ran an article on this just recently. Global wind power in class 3 areas alone could generate 72 terawatts which is 60 times global consumption. Class 3 wind turbines are financially comparable to brown coal. North America has the greatest number of class 3 areas in the world.
But let's not stop at wind power. A home with solar panels for hot water (not the expensive, dirty and inefficient photovoltaic) saves 50% on heating costs. The panels pay for themselves in 5 years and have a 25 year lifetime. They are maintenance free (they are effectively just black plastic pipes behind glass sheets) and easy to repair when damaged (simple plumbing that a home handyman could do).
But let's not stop at solar and wind power. Changing your light bulbs from incandescent to energy efficient flouros will save 75% on lighting costs. Modern flouros are compact, come in a variety of shapes, only need to be changed once every 5-10 years, degrade slowly rather than blowing suddenly at inconvenient times, and have equivalent candela output to a 75W incandescent.
But let's not stop at solar power and wind power and energy efficiency. Your SUV gets 10MPG yet a comfortable Subaru Legacy has equivalent seating and storage but gets 33MPG. Your average driver will save between $750 and $1250 per year while simultaneously slashing their automobile oil consumption by two thirds. That's financially sensible and enviromentally friendlier.
The solutions are here right now. You need to stop waiting for the magic silver bullet like fusion, or blaming "environmentalists" for preventing fission, or wondering why you're spending $2000+ per year on fuel for your gargantuan SUV, and simply start using the technology that is here right now and is economical right now and is practical right now. You can make the difference right now.
I don't KNOW you, so stop copping such a rotten attitude.
You didn't need to KNOW me. You just needed to READ THE FUCKING THREAD where I'd already said that RTF didn't cut it TWICE. You made it the THIRD TIME which is why I got SNAPPY AT YOU.
I believe that RTF files are commonly labeled "filename.DOC". As long as RTF functions for you, there's no reason to get uptight or call attention to it.
These clients aren't stupid. They're going to wonder what happened to the Track Changes, and the styles, and the floating frames, and the watermarks.
I wish you people would stop trying to be "helpful". Christ, do you think I wouldn't be using RTF if I could? I can't, so stop telling me to use fucking RTF.
Slashdot Mirror
Well personally I'd be sold on "1lb of less weight" but also you casually dismissed as a "minor extra" MacOS X and iLife 06. Those aren't very minor to some people. To some people those are killer features.
My guess is that your lap is going to be warming up just a little bit more too.
<somebody whispers in my ear>
Oh for pete's sake, no, because the CPU will run hotter, you deviant.
This is all based on second-hand information, so some of it might be wrong, but here's my understanding of how it works.
Getting mail to to a WinCE PDA has always been easy. The standard technique was POP or IMAP over whatever Internet connection you can finagle (eg, GPRS). However that was always a pull technique and the thing about crackberry addicts is they want the mail to appear on their PDA as soon as it arrives at the mail server (push). One technique is to send an SMS every time a mail arrives so the PDA knows to check the server, another technique is to poll the server frequently, but both of those techniques can be very expensive.
The new WinCE enabled PDA achieves push by opening an HTTP XML request back to your Outlook Web Access server. It sends the username and then just waits. If any mail arrives then the OWA sends back a "ping" message that tells the PDA to pull the new mail. When the HTTP request times out the PDA simply opens a new connection. Effectively this works the same as push - mail "appears" on the PDA as soon as the Exchange server gets it - but without excessive bandwidth costs or SMS costs. It also means you don't need special crackberry servers or a crackberry subscription.
So my guess is that this will be the downfall of crackberry, and not a moment too soon.
Let's be realistic. The guy with the $2000 PC will probably download the cracked version of Vista off eDonkey about 30 minutes after downloading the cracked version of the game.
Microsoft users are almost without exception a bunch of shameless pirates.
The hacker audience who is interested in such things has been dwindling both in numbers and as a percentage. Now the "general Slashdot audience" prefers to fawn over the latest consumer product from Apple, to complain about Microsoft, or to inexpertly argue their "Rights Online".
Articles about technology, impressive hacks, homebrew projects, science and mathematics would be extremely welcome. Unfortunately the editors are infatuated with content-free articles that are little more than advertisements for products like the PS3 and Xbox and iPod.
It's a very unsubtle stab at the GNU/Linux debate. The figure depicted is a GNU acting as the character Linus from the comic strip Peanuts.
You've got it wrong. Bluehat can still provide signed binaries and not provide the signing key for those binaries. However the hardware must allow the user to run unsigned binaries. That way you get the best of both worlds: you can use Bluehat's signed binaries if you so choose, or you can opt-out and run unsigned binaries, or Bluehat can provide the signing key and you can sign your own binaries. Everybody gets what they want (except maybe Bluehat).
All the GPL3 is trying to stop is the case where Bluehat produces hardware that only runs Bluehat binaries.
The problem even on OS X is that the application "shrinks" to the Dock where I can no longer see it. I have to raise the Dock by hovering my mouse down the bottom of the screen before I can see a small preview of my application in the Dock. I can leave the Dock permanently raised at the cost of 20% of my desktop. I think applications should shrink to the Desktop and stay there as icons, similar to the way mounted disks and documents appear on the Desktop as icons. That would at least be consistent with the rest of the interface.
Where's the funny mod?
Cairo, which is the closest Free Software equivalent of Avalon, also began back in 2003. However the comment you were not contradicting was about Vista, not Avalon.
No.
Only Compiz; the different compositors are not feature compatible.
No.
Yes.
No.
No.
Too late.
What bothers me is that you can make such statements with such conviction when they are entirely untrue. The FOSS community have been working on features like this since at least early 2004. The Xorg/XFree86 split was partially due to arguments over the Composite and Render extensions that are necessary foundations for this demo.
This technology hasn't appeared on your radar because you aren't looking at the right places. If you read xorg-devel, or planet gnome, or freedesktop, then you would be aware that this technology has been treated seriously. The Novell demo came from out of the blue but the FOSS community has been working on the technology for ages.
You understand incorrectly. Compiz is both a window manager and a compositing manager. There were technical reasons as to why it was done this way. Metacity will also be incorporating composite code directly rather than have a separate userspace process.
They did. They developed GCC, which Apple uses in OS X. They devleoped Samba, which Apple uses in OS X. They developed CUPS, which Apple uses in OS X. Even if you don't use those subsystems (and you probably do) if Apple had to build all that from scratch then they wouldn't have had the resources to build the other good bits in OS X like Aqua. So all OS X users owe a great deal to the Free Software community for making OS X worth using.
Aside from our direct help, Apple still had an easier time of it than the Free Software community. The Free Software community has had to build literally everything from scratch. Apple just bought NeXtSteP!!1!1! which is older than most Slashdotters and revamped the windowing system. That's not a lot of effort compared to the Free Software community who in early 1997 didn't even have a desktop and only barely had a windowing system.
Yet despite starting from a disadvantage the Free Software community hasn't been idle. The windowing system is about to get an almighty boost from Compiz and Xgl, bringing it up to par with OS X and Vista. You might sneer at the achievements of the Free Software community, but we have been around a lot longer than the smug OS X users, and we will be around for longer still.
Well, I'd like that. A computer that I didn't have to update, maintain, repair, tweak, and can't get the works gummed up... sounds like heaven. Why can't I have a computer that works more like a TV?
And no, MacOS X doesn't even come close. Keeping programs up to date on OS X is painful because only Apple software is automatically updated. If anything, Linux is easier in that respect.
While I'm dreaming, how about infinite undo for everything. Delete the wrong file? Undo. Delete some important text in a document? Undo to 4 weeks ago and retrieve the text. Move the icons on your desk to an undesirable arrangement? Undo, undo, undo.
Continuing the dream, why do I have to save? Give me infinite undo and persistent documents. Why in this day and age do I need to care about the distinction between memory and disk? I don't care that memory isn't persistent; that's a problem for the OS and the apps to solve. Let the OS and the apps do the realtime backup to persistent storage. If I turn my computer off at the wall I expect to turn it back on and see the same application window with the same document loaded, no data lost.
In fact, why make the distinction between applications and documents at all. I don't care about applications. I only care about documents. So make it so I just edit documents. I should never see the "File" menu. I should never have to "Open" a document. The file dialog is an abomination amongst UI design; I should just use the standard document manager (aka Nautilus) and click on documents to change their contents. When I minimise the document it becomes an icon again.
Automatic backups with no configuration; let the computer find spare storage around the network and splat copies there. If the only copy of my document is on a single disk I want the computer to tell me that the document's safety is at risk. I want the infinite undo to extend to network copies. In fact, I don't even want to know about network copies. I just want to say "this document is important, this one isn't as important" and let the OS figure it out.
Computers have a long way to go before they're as easy to use as I'd like them to be. Modern OSs and their WIMP desktops are just improved versions of research computers from the 1970s; I'm still stuck in this broken paradigm where disks, memory, processes, files and networks are exclusive entities and I'm constantly reminded of the limitations of each. There needs to be a revolution rather than continual polishing of the widgets.
You are confusing cause and effect. The Free Software movement didn't really explode onto the scene until the Internet became ubiquitous and affordable. It is no coincidence that Linux took off at exactly the same time as cheap dialup came into homes. Free software depends on 1000s of programmers from all over the world collaborating on a single project; that's not possible without the Internet. The Internet was the cause (actually one of many causes) and Linux was merely the effect.
I think the web browser was the next significant catalyst for the Free Software movement. It allowed the creation of web-based tools such as blogs, bug trackers and sites like Sourceforge. Those collaboration tools allowed Free Software to evolve from very programmer oriented environments (ksh and emacs) to much richer more complex user oriented environments such as GNOME and KDE. Once again, Linux was merely the effect.
The third significant catalyst was infusion of money from commercial interests. When the failing UNIX companies noticed that fighting amongst themselves had allowed the (at the time) pathetic Microsoft operating system to steal 90% of the market, and then they noticed that their own software was kind of crappy, and then they noticed that GNOME and Apache and GCC and BSD and Linux were much better products, it was inevitable that they'd jump on the Free Software bandwagon. Afterall, most UNIX companies are primarily hardware companies, the software is often merely an enticement to buy their hardware. Free Software allows the companies to work together with less chance of any single company deviating their product line until it is incompatible, as happened with UNIX.
I've been trying to figure out what the next catalyst will be, though predicting the future is obviously difficult. I think there needs to be a simpler way for users to contribute. At the moment it can be quite difficult to "enter" a project. For example I know there's a bug in the GNOME 2.13.90 background SVG rendering. I tried to download the necessary components to fix the bug but I was overwhelmed by the sheer quantity of stuff I need to get; it's too difficult for the casual developer to offer bugfixes back to projects. I see an analogy to how the web used to be, where you needed significant knowledge of HTML and Javascript to offer a "bug fix" to a website. That all changed when Wikis came along; suddenly anybody could simply click Edit and fix the mistake. I think the Free Software movement needs something equivalent to Wikis - in the sense of making it far easier for the casual developer to make changes - before it can progress to the next phase.
Free software could not exist without the ideology, so whether they are interested in it or not, the ideology is still important.
Nonsense. Disregarding the opinions of another person is the sure sign of lack of professionalism. The other person's negative opinion can hinder the project. At best you want them onboard so they can contribute to the project. At worst you don't want them actively sabotaging or obstructing the project. Your job as a professional is to change their opinion, to find a compromise, or to recognise that your opinion was wrong and change your opinion.
It strikes me that the prime factor that determines a real professional (as opposed to somebody who just claims to be one) is understanding the opinions of others. Their opinion is quite likely as valuable as yours.
You're still in the wrong. Instead of bitching about them, try listening to them. You might find out that they're not all stupid "asshats" when compared to your brilliant magnificence.
There's a reason for that. It's not the Live service itself; that's fine. It's not the technology; that's mature and stable. It's not the prerequisite ADSL; that's a sunken cost already. It's not even the subscription cost; that's so minor compared to the cost of hardware and ADSL and games that it barely registers on the credit card.
The problem with Live is the 2 million users... they're all asshats. Campers and twerps and abusers and nidjits and teasers and lamers but never a decent person worth playing a game with. It's all "ph0ck j00 l@mer i ph0cked j00r mom" and damn it to hell if I'm going to pay $29.95 per month to listen to that crap. The microphone headset was the stupidest thing Microsoft ever did; reading that abuse is bad enough but there's no way that I want to listen to some mouth-breathing 14 year old cursing in his pre-pubescent squeaky voice whenever I waste his talentless avatar.
Online games are ruined by the average gamer. No thanks. I'll play games with people I know, in the same room, so that the anonymity of Live can't tempt them into acting like an asshat.
Well, there was also the small matter that the PlayStation had significantly better 3D than the Saturn; the Saturn was strong in 2D but 3D seemed like an afterthought. Plus the PlayStation had the launch title of all launch titles... Tekken.
I appreciate that the urban legend is that the three magic words "two ninety nine" at E3 caused the Saturn to fail, but I don't buy it. Price alone is not that significant a factor. If it was then the Gamecube would have been far more popular than the PS2 or Xbox. It's more about the games and the PlayStation had the better games. That's also why the Dreamcast tanked; it was a better console but PS2 had better games.
Pfft, education doesn't work. You're living in a fantasy world. The only way to influence politics is with bribes aka political donations. If you can't match the oppositions bribes then start a revolution, because you've got buckley's chance of changing the outcome any other way.
Yeah, because those damn environmentalists wield so much power and have so much money, why they're practically running the US government!
That's nonsense. Slashdot ran an article on this just recently. Global wind power in class 3 areas alone could generate 72 terawatts which is 60 times global consumption. Class 3 wind turbines are financially comparable to brown coal. North America has the greatest number of class 3 areas in the world.
But let's not stop at wind power. A home with solar panels for hot water (not the expensive, dirty and inefficient photovoltaic) saves 50% on heating costs. The panels pay for themselves in 5 years and have a 25 year lifetime. They are maintenance free (they are effectively just black plastic pipes behind glass sheets) and easy to repair when damaged (simple plumbing that a home handyman could do).
But let's not stop at solar and wind power. Changing your light bulbs from incandescent to energy efficient flouros will save 75% on lighting costs. Modern flouros are compact, come in a variety of shapes, only need to be changed once every 5-10 years, degrade slowly rather than blowing suddenly at inconvenient times, and have equivalent candela output to a 75W incandescent.
But let's not stop at solar power and wind power and energy efficiency. Your SUV gets 10MPG yet a comfortable Subaru Legacy has equivalent seating and storage but gets 33MPG. Your average driver will save between $750 and $1250 per year while simultaneously slashing their automobile oil consumption by two thirds. That's financially sensible and enviromentally friendlier.
The solutions are here right now. You need to stop waiting for the magic silver bullet like fusion, or blaming "environmentalists" for preventing fission, or wondering why you're spending $2000+ per year on fuel for your gargantuan SUV, and simply start using the technology that is here right now and is economical right now and is practical right now. You can make the difference right now.
Yeah, poor Bush. All the criticism is entirely undeserved.
Doesn't work on PowerPC.
You didn't need to KNOW me. You just needed to READ THE FUCKING THREAD where I'd already said that RTF didn't cut it TWICE. You made it the THIRD TIME which is why I got SNAPPY AT YOU.
These clients aren't stupid. They're going to wonder what happened to the Track Changes, and the styles, and the floating frames, and the watermarks.
I wish you people would stop trying to be "helpful". Christ, do you think I wouldn't be using RTF if I could? I can't, so stop telling me to use fucking RTF.