Even if you use three times the power to transmit, if you can download the data three times faster, doesn't it come out the same in the end?
No it doesn't. I for one find it unacceptable to have to plug in my cell phone in the middle of the day. It's why I've opted for smart phones with fantastic battery life (Sony P800 and currently the Nokia e61). Until they announced the new battery life figures for the iPhone it was a non-starter for me, regardless of how cool it may be. There are plenty of times when I'm not near a power outlet, and since I'm on-call 24/7 there are also plenty of times when I don't want to be tethered to a power outlet. Long battery life means I can go where I want and do what I want without concern about the phone dying. I plug it in while I sleep and the next day it's ready to go all day again.
I've been to trade shows with people running around looking for power outlets so they can charge their phones. Tethered to one place for an hour or two at a time. Sorry, I've got places to go and things to do.
Is edge slow compared to 3G? Sure, it's what I had on the P800 and it's what I have on the e61 (T-Mobile doesn't do 3G). You know what? It's fast enough for email and web surfing is tolerable. I'm not downloading Gigabytes of data because IT'S A FREAKIN' PHONE! Is 3G faster? No doubt. But for email and web surfing edge is actually just fine. If I need faster access then most likely I also need the processing power in my laptop, not a phone. For those occasions I'm after a wi-fi hotspot anyway.
Having said all that, if the iPhone was 3G would it be better? Of course. But is 3G the "requirement" every seems to think? Hardly. Of course I'm also a weirdo who thinks the lack of flash support in Safari on the iPhone is actually a blessing.
+1 MS Fanboy Troll, but it's late and I have to wait on a long print job.
1) You can't make a phone call on a Newton. You can on a CE device. Both WindowsMobile and SmartPhone are CE devices.
Phone calls? No. The Newton is probably better compared to a tablet PC, and still people like you wouldn't like it because it wasn't a full "Windows" PC. My old Newton is still way "smarter" than any smart phone I've seen from any vendor running any OS. Granted it took Apple years to get it right. But the last iteration nailed it. It was the most useful device I ever owned. I'd still use it today if I could easily sync it with my current computer.
2) A vitual keyboard is not a keyboard. Don't BS me.
"Waaa, it's not the device I want!" *GASP* Could it possibly be you're not the target market? I have a smart phone, with a full qwerty keyboard. I'm afraid I have to side with Apple on this one. With my man sized thumbs typing on a virtual keyboard is certainly no less accurate than using my current Barbie Doll sized one. A virtual keyboard goes away when I don't need it, for instance when I'm trying to read a web page. I'll gladly take more screen space to display and a keyboard that only shows up when I need it.
3) 'Considering' is not the same as 'have had for 11 years.'
First is not always best, and not always the winner in the market. Microsoft proved that with Windows. Apple has re-proven it with the iPod, and now we'll find out shortly if they're going to do it with smart phones.
What's truly cool about the CE platform is you could recreate the entire Iphone experience with it and sell it - all probably before the Ibrick comes out.
And this is precisely why people say Microsoft doesn't innovate. Sure, they could have created the iPhone experience with CE, but they didn't. Microsoft doesn't innovate. They copy. I watched the iPhone introduction and Steve Jobs was right about one thing. In the smart phone market the killer app is MAKING PHONE CALLS! Everything else is just fluff. Since Jobs has returned to Apple they have been very focused on getting the primary functions right the first time, and making sure the fluff is damn good too.
The only reason Microsoft released this info is to try and steal some of Apple's thunder. Sure the iPhone isn't out yet. But in a months time it will be, and every other phone out there is going to be compared to it. I look forward to seeing how it stacks up and if it does well in the one thing I need my mobile phone to do well (MAKING PHONE CALLS) I have $500 ready to spend on it. All the features not related to MAKING PHONE CALLS are just a bonus.
Am I a sheep? No. I prefer to spend my money on things that just work when I need them too. Apple's got a much better track record of that than Microsoft.
Whether you believe in god(s) or not has no bearing on the fatuousness of your argument that belief and non-belief of claims which are both extrodinary and contradictory are both equally faith-based positions.
Um, no. And for the fourth time you provide more evidence for my supposition; atheists and theists are alike in the respect that they both feel the need to make others see the world from their single "correct" point of view.
"My way of thinking is the one 'true' way."
Honestly the more you try to claim atheism is not like theism as I've suggested, the more you support my argument. Which, for the last time, is: atheists and theists are alike in the respect that they both feel the need to make others see the world from their single "correct" point of view.
Why you've decided to bring Capt. Kirk into this is quite frankly bizarre and somewhat amusing. The simple fact of the matter is the more you attempt towers of logic to disprove God, the more you support my argument.
It is patently obvious that babies are taught religion, not vice versa.
"My way of thinking is the 'true' way." Followed with a statement designed to insult, which is not a good sign for your overall argument.
I can't prove there is a God. I can't prove there isn't one. Neither can you.
I'm not trying to.
Um, yes you are. You're implying there is no God because no one can provide you proof. You are trying to persuade me that your way of thinking is the correct way of thinking. Even though I've made no statement as to whether I believe in God or not.
All I did was make the correlation that theists and atheists are more similar than they care to be.
Theists can't prove there is a God, atheists can't prove there isn't a God.
We don't have to. All humans are born without a belief in a God
Prove it. You can't. But you did prove my point, and congratulations on being part of the circle.
I can't prove there is a God. I can't prove there isn't one. Neither can you. Stating that humans are born without belief is in itself just another belief. Something that you hold to be true even though there is no way to empirically demonstrate or test it.
There's too much criticism of Scientology. It may seem weird and wacky, but then so does Judaism. Or Islam. Or Christianity.
My measure of a valid religion is this: Can I go to the bookstore/library and obtain a copy their holy book? The book on which their entire religion is based? Can I read it and understand it for myself?
Is the basis of the 'religion' free and clear for anyone to see? Or is the "truth" hidden?
You can argue that all other religions are like this, but as I stated this is my measure. Scientology is not open for any kind of scrutiny. Even the Mormans will send me a copy of their holy book if I ask for it (for free even). Everything I can find about the inner workings of scientology is not positive. And they won't let you see the inner workings if you're not a "believer."
You know, in a way atheism is exactly like every other religion out there.
"My way of thinking is the one true way of thinking."
"Prove it."
"Um...I can't..."
Theists can't prove there is a God, atheists can't prove there isn't a God. Occasionally one will manage to convince the other, but not in a way as to convert all of the other. Thus both parties bring us back to:
"My way of thinking is the one true way of thinking."
IBM has far more to lose if software patents were banned that MS does.
While I will admit IBM stands to lose if software patents are invalidated in general, I think you are forgetting something; IBM is a serious innovator in the hardware arena. They spend a boatload of money every year advancing their hardware research and a non-trivial number of patents they receive are for their hardware advancements.
Microsoft, by comparison has much more to lose in this fight. If software patents are struck down, IBM still has all of their hardware patents. Microsoft will have nothing, or very close to nothing.
Even if software patents are upheld, it will be days before the OSS they are targeting is changed to be non-violating.
If they were really concerned about violations, they would come out and say what patents are being used by what software. The OSS community is already committed to changing things if there really is a violation. This really is just more FUD. They're trying to maintain their bottom line by scaring people away from OSS. This isn't the last we've heard of this by far. I predict they will start suing end-users, just like the RIAA, and I predict it will go a long way to destroying their business.
This is corporate evolution. Change with the times, or be out evolved. I leave it to the reader to decide if Microsoft is evolving or not.
Map memorization is what people are currently used to. Does it make a game smarter? No. Does it make it more fun? For some people it undoubtedly does. For me it only means that after a while I become bored with it.
You're right about one thing. Psychology would change. Instead of running straight to the choke point you know about, you have to find a choke point and then wonder if maybe your opponent may have found a different way in. Every time through it's a whole new game.
When I state I don't play anymore because people only ever want to play on the same maps, I'm basically stating that I'm bored with it. I know where the power-ups are. I know where the choke points are. The only thrill left at that point is if my opponent is actually better than me. When I stopped playing I was frequently accused of using an aim-bot. I never did. I was just good.
I would also say that tennis is boring for pretty much the same reason. The field is same every match, the only excitement comes from an opponent who is challenging.
A FPS where the map was different each and every match? Now here's a new challenge every time. Even if your opponent isn't as good as you, you also have to play against the terrain. In my opinion it ups the skill required to play effectively. It also means that pure twitch alone doesn't guarantee a win. A team that can identify and use terrain quickly and effectively can beat a team that can't.
Dynamic maps make the game smarter. You can no longer play a map endlessly till you have it so memorized you can do it in your sleep.
This adds another aspect to playing the game. You know what you have to do, but now you also need to explore the map and find the weapons, find the best choke points all while the other team is doing the same thing. And you have to do this every single time.
Team communication is going to be even more important now. Your team will have to be dynamic and adaptable to not only the enemy, but to the terrain as well.
As far as I'm concerned, eliminating the blind rush to see who can get the super weapon/power up first is a good thing. Making players think more is not making the game dumber. People who don't like to think, who don't like new challenges every time they enter the game, won't like it.
I stopped playing FPS' because I was bored with the maps. People played the same maps over and over and over and over. It was always a mad rush to the same known locations. While that can be fun too, after a while I need some variety.
Meaning the penalty for dieing in WoW is about 10 extra minutes of wasted time (if you figure in the time needed to farm the money for the repair bills). Yawn. That's so harsh, I'm just not sure I can bear it.
For yourself it's nothing, and that's fine. For me? I really don't like dieing. I work hard to avoid it. If there was a harsher penalty for dieing, say XP debt or loss of gear I would not be playing. Again, blizzard is shooting for mass appeal. They won't win masses by making death a frustrating thing. I like networked games. I like playing with/against other people. However I don't have unlimited time to game. A 10+ minute time debt while I make a corpse run is sufficient for me not to be reckless in my gaming.
See, most of what's considered "RPGs" now isn't about RP at all. Every *real* RPG ever had no grind at all. "Grinding" by its very nature pretty much precludes RP entirely. RP = Role Play. That means you imagine yourself as another character, and try to think like that character and act like that character would in whatever situations you find yourself in. RPG = Role-Playing Game, or a game made for Role Play.
There is grind to everything. However if you like the grind, it doesn't seem like grind. Games need to have some measure of success. Levels/skills/gear accomplish that. If what you are looking for is pure "Role Play" then what you want is a Myspace account. Be who ever you want. Interact with thousands of people. No skills, no mobs, no levels, no experience. Spend you entire time "gaming" convincing people you are who you say you are. Be the Doctor or Nuclear Engineer, the possibilities are endless!
/trollsilly "I hear if you cut off an extremity it'll grow back bigger...don't believe it."
WoW is horribly dumbed down. Almost no penalty for dieing,
Yes there is a penalty for dieing. I have to run back to my body, which in some places is a long fscking way away. If I die before a mob dies, I don't get XP for it. In a fare number of quests if I die, the area respawns before I can get back to my body. If I kill the mob I was after, but get killed by adds, sometimes the mob I want despawns before I can get back (meaning I have to wait around and do it all over again.) If I resurrect at the graveyard I have 10 minutes of being an utter weakling. Maybe it's not harsh enough for you. That's fine, the game isn't for you. Go play DDO, I hear the penalty for dieing there is quite a bit harsher.
There shouldn't be a need to grind,
Every RPG ever has grind. You go on quests, typically to kill things/get things to get experience to gain levels to improve your skills to go on more quests.
you should be able to raise your skills by simply using them
Which is, in itself, another form of grind.
Wow is designed to appeal to a broad base of people. The game is well polished, and fun to play. Like almost all Blizzard games. I still play Starcraft from time to time, because it's still fun. And that's why WoW wins. At the end of the day, it's the game that the most people find the most fun.
As a side note I had to laugh when on of my friends berated me for not joining LOTR (despite the fact there is no Mac client, and I'm not running Windows on my home box) and he told me it was completely different. Um, no. You still go on quests to kill stuff, to get stuff, to get better skills, to go on quests, to kill stuff....etc.
And besides, Tauren just look so cute and happy when they're jumping up and down!
I know it's a stretch for the average Slashdotter, and the comments already posted reinforce that notion, but RTFA.
Apple has met or exceeded environmental standards in just about every respect. They've been doing it for years. Longer than most tech companies.
So what are they really guilty of? What got Greenpeace's panties in a twist? Two things:
First, Apple didn't publicize their work. They pulled a Nike and "Just did it" instead of talking about it. For this Greenpeace ranked Apple lower than other companies that just talk about doing it. Because Apple had the audacity to implement things without talking about it, they've been marked.
Second, Apple has become amazingly successful thanks in no small part to the success of iPod/iTunes and Steve Jobs. I personally hate that they killed the Newton, but I love the price of my Apple stock. This makes Apple the "publicity target." If you want publicity, mention something really negative about Apple.
Greenpeace is media whore mongering. Plain and simple.
I for one am glad that Apple has responded, perhaps not directly to Greenpeace but in a round about way they bitch slapped them. Greenpeace deserves it. The organization should either do real work, or disappear. This attempt to keep themselves relevant is a joke. Greenpeace made no attempt to measure or show in any statistically sound way the real efforts by the companies they ranked.
Lead by example. Apple's got a history of that.
What's Greenpeace got? A bunch of nut cases who signed a petition against dihydrogen-monoxide?
Has Apple EVER strived for openness or interoperability?
Apple is about providing the best user experience in the consumer computing market. Millions of iPods sold agree. Billions spent at the iTunes music store agree.
DRM costs Apple money to maintain. Not having DRM would save them money and make customers happy. Steve is confident (and rightly so) that the Apple user experience and Apple designed products are strong enough to stand on their own without it. They didn't do DRM for Apple. They did DRM because the music industry demanded it. The music industry created their own problems. Now they're upset that they can't charge whatever they want at the iTunes store. They want to claim Apple is a monopoloy because their flexible pricing has been an utter failure at every other on-line music store. CD sales are falling. Gee no wonder. Why pay $15 for a whole CD when I can pay $1 and just buy the ONE good track from the CD?
Of course they also don't realize that what Jobs also said is very true. Despite the sales at the iTunes store, most iPods are not filled with DRM protected music. I've never bought a single DRM protected song. All my music has been ripped from my CD's.
In my experience Apple is more interoperable than Windows. Sure linux can be too, but Apple provides an experience I don't have to fiddle with. They also provide rock solid hardware with industrial design that's stylish and functional. Even if I loved Windows, I'd by Apple hardware to run it on.
It is too proprietary. It will never compete with the shear amount of software that is available for pocket pc's, and Palms.
You mean like the shear amount of software available for the Nokia e61, for which I plunked down $500 to get a non-hobbled-by-a-US-carrier version? Are you aware of how much crap software there is out there? When I got the e61 I too though as you do, "Boy, I'm going to be able to get all this cool stuff." Well, not even 6 months later guess how much cool software I have put on it?
Zero. You know why? A lot of apps are poorly implemented. Why should I spend $5-$15 on crappy software? It's just not worth it. Free software? I'm sorry, just because it's free doesn't mean it's worth it. The built in web browser is about as good as I've seen. The IM products are crap. Games? I'm much happier with a PSP. Music? My iPod is way better.
"OMG I CAN'T LOAD ANY SOFTWARE I WANT!" The people who are going to buy the iPhone don't want just any software. They want software that's going to work. Software they don't have to worry about. Software that's not going to crash their phone. In my history, I bought one (1) app for my P800 which was useful. That app was probably the reason that phone crashed two to three times a week. (It's really inconvienient to have your phone crash and you don't notice, even more inconvienient that the crash screen turns the backlight on full and drains the battery dead.) I've bought none (0) for my e61. Fortunatley the built in apps are adequate.
Argue all you want, Apple knows interface design like no one else. They know how to "just work." Steve's right. That keyboard on my e61? It's just in the way when I'm not using it. Takes up space when I want to surf the web. And lets be honest here, how many people are going to type a novel on a thumb pad? Yes I know some people who in fact have, but I won't. Show me a keyboard when I need it, and get it out of the way when I don't.
Everyone thinks there has to be some kind of "killer app" for the iPhone. Was no one paying attention when Steve said the killer app is making phone calls?
If the phone isn't good at that, it doesn't matter what else it can do. Visual voice mail alone has got me thinking I may buy it when it comes out. I won't buy unseen though. I'll wait to see reports of battery life, signal and sound quality first. However I've twice demonstrated that I'll pay money to get the devices I want (Had a Sony P800, and now a Nokia e61 both purchased unlocked and gray-market because US carriers didn't offer them). If the iPhone delivers on being a great phone first, and a fantastic interface for everything else second, I'll gladly be part of the first 1%.
All the whinging about no 3G, my God people, are you all idiots? Is 3G anywhere near widely deployed in North America? So why provide a phone with a feature that you can't use? 3G in Europe? Where you not paying attention? They already said they would be doing a 3G version for other markets.
Will business users switch? Probably not. But consider this, the iPhone is going to work with any POP mail service. If your corporate exchange servers already do POP, why pay more for some other service to get your email to your phone?
The iPhone is already rocking the world, and it's not even released yet. Interface matters. The iPod demonstrated that to the world. If the iPhone continues that trend, I will be a very happy Apple investor indeed.
In my experience, programmers/developers design some of the worst interfaces. Doing something interface wise just because you can, or just because it looks cool very rarely makes the interface intuitive let alone useable.
Granted Designers also fail on this point. The only difference is they're concerned with the "look" and have no concept of usability.
Unfortunately programers/designers who have a good grasp os usability are few and far between.
The topic did change, it being how to maximise a window.
Ah a revisionist historian I see. Fortunately we have the benefit of your original post to go back to:
"How can you fullscreen an application? it annoys me no end that maximise...doesn't"
Now had you left it just a question, you would be right. However you didn't. You expounded on the question by saying how annoyed you were about it. Thus broadening the topic to how one OS annoys you with it's behavior. My response was quite on topic by simply stating how the oposite behavior in another OS annoys me.
{snip} I'd intentionally left out shortcut keys as:
So in your original argument you should have stated that you have no intention of using keyboard short cuts. But you didn't, and thus my explanation of how to do what you wanted is quite valid.
it's still more efficient to direct click menu to menu when there are 3 or more apps open than tab through them or use expose.
This is a matter of conjecture. Although if one assumes that you've maximized your windows (from your original argument) you would first have to un-maximize them in order to see them all at once. That would hardly be more effcient than even Alt-Tabbing in Windows. Under your new argument that keyboard shortcuts are not allowed I think the Mac OS approach would still be more efficient given that you now have the extra process of clicking through all your maximized windows to make them smaller, and arrange them so you can see each one regardles of what's on top.
Besides it was merely a retort to your defensive 'it's BETTER {snip}
Better for me. Yes, of course I'm not hobbling myself by not using keyboard shortcuts. Let's take a minute to examine the deeper meaning of something I added to my previous two posts: Tomaytos, tomahtos. This is simply a shortening of the phrase, "You say tomatoe, I say tomatoe." Which in this forum works better if I spell it phonetically as, "You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to." In other words two different ways of doing the same thing. Neither is necessarily wrong, just different. Discourse on UI design was not part of your origninal topic. Personal preferences and annoyances was.
The matter of 'choice' in this cases context clearly was my amazement that you argue your tool of choice is better, because the user doesn't even have the OPTION to use it as they wish.
Again, your topic was really about personal preference. So in that light, yes my choice of Mac OS is the best option for me as it allows me to work the way I want to. Your choice is in no way limited. There are plenty of OS' out there that do indeed allow you to maximize your windows to be full screen if that is your hearts desire.
with other OS's (PLENTY more than windows) , that option is there, that people so often use it should simply prove to you that it's useful.
Again this is conjecture. Correlation is not causation, and thus I question why so many people find maximizing all of their windows so useful. There are some, no doubt, who simply like it that way. Fortunately for them, there are a host of OS' that allow them to do that.
I generally beleive in free choice,
And fortunately free choice abounds! Maximize to your hearts content in Windows or your favorite window manager in any number of other OS'.
to argue FOR a limitation of free choice seems pointlessly idiotic.
You're absolutely right. Arguing that everyone should tie their knees together is pointless and idiotic. Expressing a personal preference as a counter to your own expression is nothing more than expressing a counter opinion.
Here, lets be pointlessly argumentative, it's the in
I do however happen to particularly like being able to click straight from [menuSetA in app1] straight to [menuSetB in app2] (2 steps, single direct mouse movement), rather than go screentop -> change application -> screentop (3 steps, back and forth movement). That's an illogical disruption of flow, and imo it makes sense for an applications menus/options to be in the application.
You obviously want the Mac OS to operate just like Windows. Sorry, but windows it is not. (Thank God.) If you use each system every day and profficiently at that, then this really shouldn't be a problem for you. You want a two step for getting from application menu to application menu? Mouse top (step 1, and conveniently always at the very top, so you don't even have to focus on where to move your mouse. Just zip that puppy straight up, it'll stop when it gets to the edge of the screen.), change app (Command-Tab), done.
Tomaytos, tomahtos.
Back on topic, It seems to me your defending a lack of choice? I honestly thought there must be some shortcut I didn't know, this is totally mad...:o(
The topic never left. It just didn't go the way you wanted. As I pointed out, what you find superior on Windows drives others nuts. See the above for the ultra complex and hideously obfuscated process for changing apps on a Mac while NOT moving your mouse. (That's just step 2 in the above process in case you're wondering.)
Lack of choice? It seems you have plenty of choice. Windows, which has application menus on every window or Mac OS which has one appliation menu at the very top of the screen that changes depending on focus. Where's the lack of choice? You want the Mac OS to be exactly like Windows? Two different products that are exactly alike? You think that would be choice? That would be totally mad.
And it annoys me to no end that Windows users constantly Maximize everything. Of course this is simply the natural progression from having every window have it's own menu, all visible all the time even when that particular application isn't in the foreground. It annoys me even more that when I use Windows I have to Maximize every application to keep things clear, like all the other windows users.
Tomaytos, tomahtos.
I love games. I still buy Macs. You would not believe the amount of money I've saved by owning a computer that can't play all the latest games.;-)
There has been a fairly stable api in vista for the last 6 months and even before that there were little changes for the last year. Apple just decided not to fix thier software for whatever reason and now they are trying to make Vista look bad instead of taking the blame for being slow to support windows users.
And Microsoft has never purposefully designed their OS to interfere with another competitors product.
However, using something that sucks is a sign of expertise. Culturally, we associate "ugly and ineffective tool" with "brilliant and experienced user".
Would you hire a roofing contractor who uses a rock to drive nails? Would you hire a roofing contractor and then insist that he use a rock instead of a nail gun? After all rocks are "ugly and ineffective" and only "brilliant and experienced" roofers use them.
You can argue all you want that it's not the same thing, but it is. People accept "ugly and ineffective" with computers and that's a shame. It doesn't have to be that way. If you think people choose Macs because they're "ignorant and inexperienced" then you are misguided. I would definitely recommend a Mac to someone who doesn't know anything about computers true enough. But I also recommend to people who know computers to check out the Mac.
A colleague of mine recently bought a MacBook Pro. The second day he had it I asked him if he'd been playing around with it. Do you know what his response was? "Not really. I've found I don't really need to play around with it to do what I want." Stick with "ugly and ineffective" if that's what you like. While I'm sure some may consider it "brilliant" I for one, do not. Ugly I can and do live with. Ineffective? Not unless I'm being paid very well. Fortunately the Mac is neither ugly, nor ineffective. (My opinion to be sure, but the success of the iPod is driving people Apple's way for a reason.)
They just market to someone else. They market to the whiny little pussy who plays the Mac.
Apple is doing what they have to. Reminding people that computers don't have to be "ugly and ineffective." You're absolutely right about one thing, they are not marketing to you. You think "ugly and ineffective" is acceptable and people who deal with it are "brilliant." While there are lots of people who deal with it who are brilliant, "ugly and ineffective" != "brilliant".
Apple: Okay, it's $.99 or nothing. MusicExec: But... Apple: No. MusicExec: We need... Apple: No. MusicExec: It's not enough... Apple: No. MusicExec: Okay fine.
Apple came up with FairPlay to give the Music people some peace of mind. As far as DRM goes, it's about as consumer friendly as I've ever seen. They've also limited iTunes sharing to the local subnet only. However, Apple also recognized that in order to grow the market they have to provide value to the consumer. Argue against that all day if you want. Millions of iPods and billions of tracks sold at the iTunes Music Store prove that they are providing value.
Here's what happened at Microsoft:
MusicExec: We need... Microsoft: You got it. MusicExec: We want... Microsoft: Whatever makes you happy. MusicExec: Jump. Microsoft: How high?
Microsoft is not about creating value for consumers. It never has been. It's about dominating markets and doing whatever it takes to reach that end. Don't fool yourselves. Any value created for the consumer is an afterthought. This "limitation" was built into the Zune from the beginning. Microsoft is going to do whatever they can to get the labels to sign on so they have content to sell. This includes crippling the touted abilities of the Zune and paying the labels a percentage of each Zune sold. It has nothing to do with providing value to the customer.
Oh and one last thing. Do you really think the artists see anything of that $1 from each Zune sold?
For once in Apple's existance, they are competing in a market space with Microsoft where they are equal. They both sell music players, they both have music stores. May the best one win.
My company has a policy where by all purchase orders must be submitted using a form in Outlook. Forms are the one thing my Mac can't do because Microsoft dosen't want Macs to have Outlook. (Run OS 9 to get Outlook? Get real, I haven't run "classic" Mac OS in over 6 years. It's not even installed on any of my Macs.)
So I fire up my PC. Outlook is hosed. No problem, just uninstall and reinstall from the company file server. Connect to the VPN, go out to the file server and AUTHENTICATION DENIED.
WTF? Try several times, on the phone with company tech support. They check my permissions in the domain, still can't get in. Finally I say, "Hang on, let me try something."
I close the VPN tunnel on the PC. Connect to the VPN on my Mac. Go straight to the file server and login without a problem using the same domain credentials. Download the Outlook installer and then map a drive letter on my PC to my Mac to get the software to my PC.
Ironic isn't it? Windows would not authenticate with a Windows file server in a Windows Active Directory Domain. But my Mac just waltzed right in and got what I needed.
I don't hate Microsoft because of Windows. I hate Microsoft because they made mediocre software the standard.
While I've played with ruby, perl, C and work almost daily in a variety of shells I honestly don't have the background to fully understand what they've offered up here.
From the article (and based on my limited understanding) it relies on the shell and curl being resident in a known memory location? Can someone with deeper OS X internals knowledge explain why the system would always put the shell and curl into the same memory space? This seems to go contrary to what I would expect; that the system allocates memory when a program is executed and that memory can be any from the available pool.
If OS X is indeed always putting certain programs into specific memory addresses, then yes this is definitely a problem that Apple needs to fix now. Otherwise, an attack using this approach is more like firing a gun in a pitch black room and hoping you hit a target that may (or may not) be somewhere in the room. While there is a chance it will work, I would rather spend time picking numbers for the lottery (the potential payoff would be much better).
Their link to the Phrack article http://felinemenace.org/papers/p63-0x05_OSX_Heap_E xploitation_Technqiues.txt is a more interesting read. I can't make any claims that I understand that better but after reading through it, it makes more sense. Exploiting programs that use Apple's Webkit. Whether or not those exploits still exist, I don't know.
The consequences to the world economy of, say, an earthquake that devastated Tokyo would be appalling.
Been there. Done that. That's just Japan, but major quakes have caused severe damage in other parts of the world. Tragic? Yes. Severly damaging to the local economies? Yes. However, to say they had major consequences on the economy of the whole world? No.
And I think this statement sums up so much about the troubled psychology of so many climate change deniers. Because they worry about doom, they deny that we are causing it.
Correlation is not causation. Let me say that again; correlation is NOT causation. Would the world climate be changing if mankind was not here? Yes. This is undisputed. So what makes you so sure that mankind is all of a sudden the cause? If we are the cause then without mankind the climate would not change, yet science has demonstrated that the climate has been changing for quite some time, in cycles of heating and cooling long before mankind could possibly have any effect. Is it likely that mankind has some effect on the climate? Sure. But when you state that mankind is the cause you are making far more assumptions than hard science can support.
First, some science. We are causing it. We are pumping vast amounts of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.
I just thought I should point out that your statement contains no science what-so-ever. Plenty of conjecture, sure.
Secondly, no-one is talking about 'doom'....... However, it will cause serious problems.
Well statements like severe economic consequences world-wide sure sound like 'doom' to me. Will climate change cause problems? I have no doubt. Will they be serious? I guess it depends on where you live and what you consider serious. I will continue to take issue with people who think mankind is the sole cause of climate change.
Slashdot Mirror
No it doesn't. I for one find it unacceptable to have to plug in my cell phone in the middle of the day. It's why I've opted for smart phones with fantastic battery life (Sony P800 and currently the Nokia e61). Until they announced the new battery life figures for the iPhone it was a non-starter for me, regardless of how cool it may be. There are plenty of times when I'm not near a power outlet, and since I'm on-call 24/7 there are also plenty of times when I don't want to be tethered to a power outlet. Long battery life means I can go where I want and do what I want without concern about the phone dying. I plug it in while I sleep and the next day it's ready to go all day again.
I've been to trade shows with people running around looking for power outlets so they can charge their phones. Tethered to one place for an hour or two at a time. Sorry, I've got places to go and things to do.
Is edge slow compared to 3G? Sure, it's what I had on the P800 and it's what I have on the e61 (T-Mobile doesn't do 3G). You know what? It's fast enough for email and web surfing is tolerable. I'm not downloading Gigabytes of data because IT'S A FREAKIN' PHONE! Is 3G faster? No doubt. But for email and web surfing edge is actually just fine. If I need faster access then most likely I also need the processing power in my laptop, not a phone. For those occasions I'm after a wi-fi hotspot anyway.
Having said all that, if the iPhone was 3G would it be better? Of course. But is 3G the "requirement" every seems to think? Hardly. Of course I'm also a weirdo who thinks the lack of flash support in Safari on the iPhone is actually a blessing.
+1 MS Fanboy Troll, but it's late and I have to wait on a long print job.
1) You can't make a phone call on a Newton. You can on a CE device. Both WindowsMobile and SmartPhone are CE devices.Phone calls? No. The Newton is probably better compared to a tablet PC, and still people like you wouldn't like it because it wasn't a full "Windows" PC. My old Newton is still way "smarter" than any smart phone I've seen from any vendor running any OS. Granted it took Apple years to get it right. But the last iteration nailed it. It was the most useful device I ever owned. I'd still use it today if I could easily sync it with my current computer.
2) A vitual keyboard is not a keyboard. Don't BS me."Waaa, it's not the device I want!" *GASP* Could it possibly be you're not the target market? I have a smart phone, with a full qwerty keyboard. I'm afraid I have to side with Apple on this one. With my man sized thumbs typing on a virtual keyboard is certainly no less accurate than using my current Barbie Doll sized one. A virtual keyboard goes away when I don't need it, for instance when I'm trying to read a web page. I'll gladly take more screen space to display and a keyboard that only shows up when I need it.
3) 'Considering' is not the same as 'have had for 11 years.'First is not always best, and not always the winner in the market. Microsoft proved that with Windows. Apple has re-proven it with the iPod, and now we'll find out shortly if they're going to do it with smart phones.
What's truly cool about the CE platform is you could recreate the entire Iphone experience with it and sell it - all probably before the Ibrick comes out.And this is precisely why people say Microsoft doesn't innovate. Sure, they could have created the iPhone experience with CE, but they didn't. Microsoft doesn't innovate. They copy. I watched the iPhone introduction and Steve Jobs was right about one thing. In the smart phone market the killer app is MAKING PHONE CALLS! Everything else is just fluff. Since Jobs has returned to Apple they have been very focused on getting the primary functions right the first time, and making sure the fluff is damn good too.
The only reason Microsoft released this info is to try and steal some of Apple's thunder. Sure the iPhone isn't out yet. But in a months time it will be, and every other phone out there is going to be compared to it. I look forward to seeing how it stacks up and if it does well in the one thing I need my mobile phone to do well (MAKING PHONE CALLS) I have $500 ready to spend on it. All the features not related to MAKING PHONE CALLS are just a bonus.
Am I a sheep? No. I prefer to spend my money on things that just work when I need them too. Apple's got a much better track record of that than Microsoft.
Um, no. And for the fourth time you provide more evidence for my supposition; atheists and theists are alike in the respect that they both feel the need to make others see the world from their single "correct" point of view.
"My way of thinking is the one 'true' way."
Honestly the more you try to claim atheism is not like theism as I've suggested, the more you support my argument. Which, for the last time, is: atheists and theists are alike in the respect that they both feel the need to make others see the world from their single "correct" point of view.
Why you've decided to bring Capt. Kirk into this is quite frankly bizarre and somewhat amusing. The simple fact of the matter is the more you attempt towers of logic to disprove God, the more you support my argument.
And thank you for proving my point a third time.
It is patently obvious that babies are taught religion, not vice versa."My way of thinking is the 'true' way." Followed with a statement designed to insult, which is not a good sign for your overall argument.
I can't prove there is a God. I can't prove there isn't one. Neither can you.
I'm not trying to.
Um, yes you are. You're implying there is no God because no one can provide you proof. You are trying to persuade me that your way of thinking is the correct way of thinking. Even though I've made no statement as to whether I believe in God or not.
All I did was make the correlation that theists and atheists are more similar than they care to be.
Theists can't prove there is a God, atheists can't prove there isn't a God.
We don't have to. All humans are born without a belief in a God
Prove it. You can't. But you did prove my point, and congratulations on being part of the circle.
I can't prove there is a God. I can't prove there isn't one. Neither can you. Stating that humans are born without belief is in itself just another belief. Something that you hold to be true even though there is no way to empirically demonstrate or test it.
My measure of a valid religion is this: Can I go to the bookstore/library and obtain a copy their holy book? The book on which their entire religion is based? Can I read it and understand it for myself?
Is the basis of the 'religion' free and clear for anyone to see? Or is the "truth" hidden?
You can argue that all other religions are like this, but as I stated this is my measure. Scientology is not open for any kind of scrutiny. Even the Mormans will send me a copy of their holy book if I ask for it (for free even). Everything I can find about the inner workings of scientology is not positive. And they won't let you see the inner workings if you're not a "believer."
You know, in a way atheism is exactly like every other religion out there.
"My way of thinking is the one true way of thinking."
"Prove it."
"Um...I can't..."
Theists can't prove there is a God, atheists can't prove there isn't a God. Occasionally one will manage to convince the other, but not in a way as to convert all of the other. Thus both parties bring us back to:
"My way of thinking is the one true way of thinking."
Congratulations on being part of the circle.
While I will admit IBM stands to lose if software patents are invalidated in general, I think you are forgetting something; IBM is a serious innovator in the hardware arena. They spend a boatload of money every year advancing their hardware research and a non-trivial number of patents they receive are for their hardware advancements.
Microsoft, by comparison has much more to lose in this fight. If software patents are struck down, IBM still has all of their hardware patents. Microsoft will have nothing, or very close to nothing.
Even if software patents are upheld, it will be days before the OSS they are targeting is changed to be non-violating.
If they were really concerned about violations, they would come out and say what patents are being used by what software. The OSS community is already committed to changing things if there really is a violation. This really is just more FUD. They're trying to maintain their bottom line by scaring people away from OSS. This isn't the last we've heard of this by far. I predict they will start suing end-users, just like the RIAA, and I predict it will go a long way to destroying their business.
This is corporate evolution. Change with the times, or be out evolved. I leave it to the reader to decide if Microsoft is evolving or not.
Map memorization is what people are currently used to. Does it make a game smarter? No. Does it make it more fun? For some people it undoubtedly does. For me it only means that after a while I become bored with it.
You're right about one thing. Psychology would change. Instead of running straight to the choke point you know about, you have to find a choke point and then wonder if maybe your opponent may have found a different way in. Every time through it's a whole new game.
When I state I don't play anymore because people only ever want to play on the same maps, I'm basically stating that I'm bored with it. I know where the power-ups are. I know where the choke points are. The only thrill left at that point is if my opponent is actually better than me. When I stopped playing I was frequently accused of using an aim-bot. I never did. I was just good.
I would also say that tennis is boring for pretty much the same reason. The field is same every match, the only excitement comes from an opponent who is challenging.
A FPS where the map was different each and every match? Now here's a new challenge every time. Even if your opponent isn't as good as you, you also have to play against the terrain. In my opinion it ups the skill required to play effectively. It also means that pure twitch alone doesn't guarantee a win. A team that can identify and use terrain quickly and effectively can beat a team that can't.
Dynamic maps make the game smarter. You can no longer play a map endlessly till you have it so memorized you can do it in your sleep.
This adds another aspect to playing the game. You know what you have to do, but now you also need to explore the map and find the weapons, find the best choke points all while the other team is doing the same thing. And you have to do this every single time.
Team communication is going to be even more important now. Your team will have to be dynamic and adaptable to not only the enemy, but to the terrain as well.
As far as I'm concerned, eliminating the blind rush to see who can get the super weapon/power up first is a good thing. Making players think more is not making the game dumber. People who don't like to think, who don't like new challenges every time they enter the game, won't like it.
I stopped playing FPS' because I was bored with the maps. People played the same maps over and over and over and over. It was always a mad rush to the same known locations. While that can be fun too, after a while I need some variety.
For yourself it's nothing, and that's fine. For me? I really don't like dieing. I work hard to avoid it. If there was a harsher penalty for dieing, say XP debt or loss of gear I would not be playing. Again, blizzard is shooting for mass appeal. They won't win masses by making death a frustrating thing. I like networked games. I like playing with/against other people. However I don't have unlimited time to game. A 10+ minute time debt while I make a corpse run is sufficient for me not to be reckless in my gaming.
See, most of what's considered "RPGs" now isn't about RP at all. Every *real* RPG ever had no grind at all. "Grinding" by its very nature pretty much precludes RP entirely. RP = Role Play. That means you imagine yourself as another character, and try to think like that character and act like that character would in whatever situations you find yourself in. RPG = Role-Playing Game, or a game made for Role Play.There is grind to everything. However if you like the grind, it doesn't seem like grind. Games need to have some measure of success. Levels/skills/gear accomplish that. If what you are looking for is pure "Role Play" then what you want is a Myspace account. Be who ever you want. Interact with thousands of people. No skills, no mobs, no levels, no experience. Spend you entire time "gaming" convincing people you are who you say you are. Be the Doctor or Nuclear Engineer, the possibilities are endless!
/trollsilly "I hear if you cut off an extremity it'll grow back bigger...don't believe it."
Yes there is a penalty for dieing. I have to run back to my body, which in some places is a long fscking way away. If I die before a mob dies, I don't get XP for it. In a fare number of quests if I die, the area respawns before I can get back to my body. If I kill the mob I was after, but get killed by adds, sometimes the mob I want despawns before I can get back (meaning I have to wait around and do it all over again.) If I resurrect at the graveyard I have 10 minutes of being an utter weakling. Maybe it's not harsh enough for you. That's fine, the game isn't for you. Go play DDO, I hear the penalty for dieing there is quite a bit harsher.
There shouldn't be a need to grind,Every RPG ever has grind. You go on quests, typically to kill things/get things to get experience to gain levels to improve your skills to go on more quests.
you should be able to raise your skills by simply using themWhich is, in itself, another form of grind.
Wow is designed to appeal to a broad base of people. The game is well polished, and fun to play. Like almost all Blizzard games. I still play Starcraft from time to time, because it's still fun. And that's why WoW wins. At the end of the day, it's the game that the most people find the most fun.
As a side note I had to laugh when on of my friends berated me for not joining LOTR (despite the fact there is no Mac client, and I'm not running Windows on my home box) and he told me it was completely different. Um, no. You still go on quests to kill stuff, to get stuff, to get better skills, to go on quests, to kill stuff....etc.
And besides, Tauren just look so cute and happy when they're jumping up and down!
And no other reason.
I know it's a stretch for the average Slashdotter, and the comments already posted reinforce that notion, but RTFA.
Apple has met or exceeded environmental standards in just about every respect. They've been doing it for years. Longer than most tech companies.
So what are they really guilty of? What got Greenpeace's panties in a twist? Two things:
First, Apple didn't publicize their work. They pulled a Nike and "Just did it" instead of talking about it. For this Greenpeace ranked Apple lower than other companies that just talk about doing it. Because Apple had the audacity to implement things without talking about it, they've been marked.
Second, Apple has become amazingly successful thanks in no small part to the success of iPod/iTunes and Steve Jobs. I personally hate that they killed the Newton, but I love the price of my Apple stock. This makes Apple the "publicity target." If you want publicity, mention something really negative about Apple.
Greenpeace is media whore mongering. Plain and simple.
I for one am glad that Apple has responded, perhaps not directly to Greenpeace but in a round about way they bitch slapped them. Greenpeace deserves it. The organization should either do real work, or disappear. This attempt to keep themselves relevant is a joke. Greenpeace made no attempt to measure or show in any statistically sound way the real efforts by the companies they ranked.
Lead by example. Apple's got a history of that.
What's Greenpeace got? A bunch of nut cases who signed a petition against dihydrogen-monoxide?
http://video.google.com/url?docid=-38781988658601Apple is about providing the best user experience in the consumer computing market. Millions of iPods sold agree. Billions spent at the iTunes music store agree.
DRM costs Apple money to maintain. Not having DRM would save them money and make customers happy. Steve is confident (and rightly so) that the Apple user experience and Apple designed products are strong enough to stand on their own without it. They didn't do DRM for Apple. They did DRM because the music industry demanded it. The music industry created their own problems. Now they're upset that they can't charge whatever they want at the iTunes store. They want to claim Apple is a monopoloy because their flexible pricing has been an utter failure at every other on-line music store. CD sales are falling. Gee no wonder. Why pay $15 for a whole CD when I can pay $1 and just buy the ONE good track from the CD?
Of course they also don't realize that what Jobs also said is very true. Despite the sales at the iTunes store, most iPods are not filled with DRM protected music. I've never bought a single DRM protected song. All my music has been ripped from my CD's.
In my experience Apple is more interoperable than Windows. Sure linux can be too, but Apple provides an experience I don't have to fiddle with. They also provide rock solid hardware with industrial design that's stylish and functional. Even if I loved Windows, I'd by Apple hardware to run it on.
You mean like the shear amount of software available for the Nokia e61, for which I plunked down $500 to get a non-hobbled-by-a-US-carrier version? Are you aware of how much crap software there is out there? When I got the e61 I too though as you do, "Boy, I'm going to be able to get all this cool stuff." Well, not even 6 months later guess how much cool software I have put on it?
Zero. You know why? A lot of apps are poorly implemented. Why should I spend $5-$15 on crappy software? It's just not worth it. Free software? I'm sorry, just because it's free doesn't mean it's worth it. The built in web browser is about as good as I've seen. The IM products are crap. Games? I'm much happier with a PSP. Music? My iPod is way better.
"OMG I CAN'T LOAD ANY SOFTWARE I WANT!" The people who are going to buy the iPhone don't want just any software. They want software that's going to work. Software they don't have to worry about. Software that's not going to crash their phone. In my history, I bought one (1) app for my P800 which was useful. That app was probably the reason that phone crashed two to three times a week. (It's really inconvienient to have your phone crash and you don't notice, even more inconvienient that the crash screen turns the backlight on full and drains the battery dead.) I've bought none (0) for my e61. Fortunatley the built in apps are adequate.
Argue all you want, Apple knows interface design like no one else. They know how to "just work." Steve's right. That keyboard on my e61? It's just in the way when I'm not using it. Takes up space when I want to surf the web. And lets be honest here, how many people are going to type a novel on a thumb pad? Yes I know some people who in fact have, but I won't. Show me a keyboard when I need it, and get it out of the way when I don't.
Everyone thinks there has to be some kind of "killer app" for the iPhone. Was no one paying attention when Steve said the killer app is making phone calls? If the phone isn't good at that, it doesn't matter what else it can do. Visual voice mail alone has got me thinking I may buy it when it comes out. I won't buy unseen though. I'll wait to see reports of battery life, signal and sound quality first. However I've twice demonstrated that I'll pay money to get the devices I want (Had a Sony P800, and now a Nokia e61 both purchased unlocked and gray-market because US carriers didn't offer them). If the iPhone delivers on being a great phone first, and a fantastic interface for everything else second, I'll gladly be part of the first 1%.
All the whinging about no 3G, my God people, are you all idiots? Is 3G anywhere near widely deployed in North America? So why provide a phone with a feature that you can't use? 3G in Europe? Where you not paying attention? They already said they would be doing a 3G version for other markets.
Will business users switch? Probably not. But consider this, the iPhone is going to work with any POP mail service. If your corporate exchange servers already do POP, why pay more for some other service to get your email to your phone?
The iPhone is already rocking the world, and it's not even released yet. Interface matters. The iPod demonstrated that to the world. If the iPhone continues that trend, I will be a very happy Apple investor indeed.
In my experience, programmers/developers design some of the worst interfaces. Doing something interface wise just because you can, or just because it looks cool very rarely makes the interface intuitive let alone useable.
Granted Designers also fail on this point. The only difference is they're concerned with the "look" and have no concept of usability.
Unfortunately programers/designers who have a good grasp os usability are few and far between.
Ah a revisionist historian I see. Fortunately we have the benefit of your original post to go back to:
"How can you fullscreen an application? it annoys me no end that maximise ...doesn't"
Now had you left it just a question, you would be right. However you didn't. You expounded on the question by saying how annoyed you were about it. Thus broadening the topic to how one OS annoys you with it's behavior. My response was quite on topic by simply stating how the oposite behavior in another OS annoys me.
So in your original argument you should have stated that you have no intention of using keyboard short cuts. But you didn't, and thus my explanation of how to do what you wanted is quite valid.
This is a matter of conjecture. Although if one assumes that you've maximized your windows (from your original argument) you would first have to un-maximize them in order to see them all at once. That would hardly be more effcient than even Alt-Tabbing in Windows. Under your new argument that keyboard shortcuts are not allowed I think the Mac OS approach would still be more efficient given that you now have the extra process of clicking through all your maximized windows to make them smaller, and arrange them so you can see each one regardles of what's on top.
Better for me. Yes, of course I'm not hobbling myself by not using keyboard shortcuts. Let's take a minute to examine the deeper meaning of something I added to my previous two posts: Tomaytos, tomahtos. This is simply a shortening of the phrase, "You say tomatoe, I say tomatoe." Which in this forum works better if I spell it phonetically as, "You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to." In other words two different ways of doing the same thing. Neither is necessarily wrong, just different. Discourse on UI design was not part of your origninal topic. Personal preferences and annoyances was.
Again, your topic was really about personal preference. So in that light, yes my choice of Mac OS is the best option for me as it allows me to work the way I want to. Your choice is in no way limited. There are plenty of OS' out there that do indeed allow you to maximize your windows to be full screen if that is your hearts desire.
Again this is conjecture. Correlation is not causation, and thus I question why so many people find maximizing all of their windows so useful. There are some, no doubt, who simply like it that way. Fortunately for them, there are a host of OS' that allow them to do that.
And fortunately free choice abounds! Maximize to your hearts content in Windows or your favorite window manager in any number of other OS'.
You're absolutely right. Arguing that everyone should tie their knees together is pointless and idiotic. Expressing a personal preference as a counter to your own expression is nothing more than expressing a counter opinion.
You obviously want the Mac OS to operate just like Windows. Sorry, but windows it is not. (Thank God.) If you use each system every day and profficiently at that, then this really shouldn't be a problem for you. You want a two step for getting from application menu to application menu? Mouse top (step 1, and conveniently always at the very top, so you don't even have to focus on where to move your mouse. Just zip that puppy straight up, it'll stop when it gets to the edge of the screen.), change app (Command-Tab), done.
Tomaytos, tomahtos.
The topic never left. It just didn't go the way you wanted. As I pointed out, what you find superior on Windows drives others nuts. See the above for the ultra complex and hideously obfuscated process for changing apps on a Mac while NOT moving your mouse. (That's just step 2 in the above process in case you're wondering.)
Lack of choice? It seems you have plenty of choice. Windows, which has application menus on every window or Mac OS which has one appliation menu at the very top of the screen that changes depending on focus. Where's the lack of choice? You want the Mac OS to be exactly like Windows? Two different products that are exactly alike? You think that would be choice? That would be totally mad.
And it annoys me to no end that Windows users constantly Maximize everything. Of course this is simply the natural progression from having every window have it's own menu, all visible all the time even when that particular application isn't in the foreground. It annoys me even more that when I use Windows I have to Maximize every application to keep things clear, like all the other windows users.
;-)
Tomaytos, tomahtos.
I love games. I still buy Macs. You would not believe the amount of money I've saved by owning a computer that can't play all the latest games.
And Microsoft has never purposefully designed their OS to interfere with another competitors product.
Would you hire a roofing contractor who uses a rock to drive nails? Would you hire a roofing contractor and then insist that he use a rock instead of a nail gun? After all rocks are "ugly and ineffective" and only "brilliant and experienced" roofers use them.
You can argue all you want that it's not the same thing, but it is. People accept "ugly and ineffective" with computers and that's a shame. It doesn't have to be that way. If you think people choose Macs because they're "ignorant and inexperienced" then you are misguided. I would definitely recommend a Mac to someone who doesn't know anything about computers true enough. But I also recommend to people who know computers to check out the Mac.
A colleague of mine recently bought a MacBook Pro. The second day he had it I asked him if he'd been playing around with it. Do you know what his response was? "Not really. I've found I don't really need to play around with it to do what I want." Stick with "ugly and ineffective" if that's what you like. While I'm sure some may consider it "brilliant" I for one, do not. Ugly I can and do live with. Ineffective? Not unless I'm being paid very well. Fortunately the Mac is neither ugly, nor ineffective. (My opinion to be sure, but the success of the iPod is driving people Apple's way for a reason.)
Apple is doing what they have to. Reminding people that computers don't have to be "ugly and ineffective." You're absolutely right about one thing, they are not marketing to you. You think "ugly and ineffective" is acceptable and people who deal with it are "brilliant." While there are lots of people who deal with it who are brilliant, "ugly and ineffective" != "brilliant".
Here's what happened at Apple:
Apple: Okay, it's $.99 or nothing.
MusicExec: But...
Apple: No.
MusicExec: We need...
Apple: No.
MusicExec: It's not enough...
Apple: No.
MusicExec: Okay fine.
Apple came up with FairPlay to give the Music people some peace of mind. As far as DRM goes, it's about as consumer friendly as I've ever seen. They've also limited iTunes sharing to the local subnet only. However, Apple also recognized that in order to grow the market they have to provide value to the consumer. Argue against that all day if you want. Millions of iPods and billions of tracks sold at the iTunes Music Store prove that they are providing value.
Here's what happened at Microsoft:
MusicExec: We need...
Microsoft: You got it.
MusicExec: We want...
Microsoft: Whatever makes you happy.
MusicExec: Jump.
Microsoft: How high?
Microsoft is not about creating value for consumers. It never has been. It's about dominating markets and doing whatever it takes to reach that end. Don't fool yourselves. Any value created for the consumer is an afterthought. This "limitation" was built into the Zune from the beginning. Microsoft is going to do whatever they can to get the labels to sign on so they have content to sell. This includes crippling the touted abilities of the Zune and paying the labels a percentage of each Zune sold. It has nothing to do with providing value to the customer.
Oh and one last thing. Do you really think the artists see anything of that $1 from each Zune sold?
For once in Apple's existance, they are competing in a market space with Microsoft where they are equal. They both sell music players, they both have music stores. May the best one win.
(and yes I'm voting for Apple)
This happened just last week.
My company has a policy where by all purchase orders must be submitted using a form in Outlook. Forms are the one thing my Mac can't do because Microsoft dosen't want Macs to have Outlook. (Run OS 9 to get Outlook? Get real, I haven't run "classic" Mac OS in over 6 years. It's not even installed on any of my Macs.)
So I fire up my PC. Outlook is hosed. No problem, just uninstall and reinstall from the company file server. Connect to the VPN, go out to the file server and AUTHENTICATION DENIED.
WTF? Try several times, on the phone with company tech support. They check my permissions in the domain, still can't get in. Finally I say, "Hang on, let me try something."
I close the VPN tunnel on the PC. Connect to the VPN on my Mac. Go straight to the file server and login without a problem using the same domain credentials. Download the Outlook installer and then map a drive letter on my PC to my Mac to get the software to my PC.
Ironic isn't it? Windows would not authenticate with a Windows file server in a Windows Active Directory Domain. But my Mac just waltzed right in and got what I needed.
I don't hate Microsoft because of Windows. I hate Microsoft because they made mediocre software the standard.
While I've played with ruby, perl, C and work almost daily in a variety of shells I honestly don't have the background to fully understand what they've offered up here.
From the article (and based on my limited understanding) it relies on the shell and curl being resident in a known memory location? Can someone with deeper OS X internals knowledge explain why the system would always put the shell and curl into the same memory space? This seems to go contrary to what I would expect; that the system allocates memory when a program is executed and that memory can be any from the available pool.
If OS X is indeed always putting certain programs into specific memory addresses, then yes this is definitely a problem that Apple needs to fix now. Otherwise, an attack using this approach is more like firing a gun in a pitch black room and hoping you hit a target that may (or may not) be somewhere in the room. While there is a chance it will work, I would rather spend time picking numbers for the lottery (the potential payoff would be much better).
Their link to the Phrack article http://felinemenace.org/papers/p63-0x05_OSX_Heap_E xploitation_Technqiues.txt is a more interesting read. I can't make any claims that I understand that better but after reading through it, it makes more sense. Exploiting programs that use Apple's Webkit. Whether or not those exploits still exist, I don't know.
Been there. Done that. That's just Japan, but major quakes have caused severe damage in other parts of the world. Tragic? Yes. Severly damaging to the local economies? Yes. However, to say they had major consequences on the economy of the whole world? No.
Correlation is not causation. Let me say that again; correlation is NOT causation. Would the world climate be changing if mankind was not here? Yes. This is undisputed. So what makes you so sure that mankind is all of a sudden the cause? If we are the cause then without mankind the climate would not change, yet science has demonstrated that the climate has been changing for quite some time, in cycles of heating and cooling long before mankind could possibly have any effect. Is it likely that mankind has some effect on the climate? Sure. But when you state that mankind is the cause you are making far more assumptions than hard science can support.
I just thought I should point out that your statement contains no science what-so-ever. Plenty of conjecture, sure.
Well statements like severe economic consequences world-wide sure sound like 'doom' to me. Will climate change cause problems? I have no doubt. Will they be serious? I guess it depends on where you live and what you consider serious. I will continue to take issue with people who think mankind is the sole cause of climate change.