The paradigms are definitely different between Mac and Windows. Command+O has been the open shortcut in Mac OS for fifteen years. Why would they change that? You want to start the DVD again? Click on the disk icon on the desktop and type command+O. I would call that UI consistency.
Maybe we can have a contest. You find as many insanities on OS X as you can, and I'll find as many as I can on Windows.
There is one thing about a craft based manufacturing process: the true mastercraftsmen can produce a product of much higher quality than can be produced on an assembly line. The problem is that masters of the craft are few and far between, and they are never able to mass produce anything. It is true that many engines ran on a hope and a prayer. However, there were also gems that could never be matched in form or function by mass produced items.
Exactly the same thing can be seen in software development today. A small minority of programmers produce incredibly robust, elegant code. Thankfully, irregardless of how software "engineering" develops, there will always be masters at work.
In addition to the other reasons given, smaller engines with more combustion chambers (the cones on the engine) means much lower pressures in the combustion chambers. Lowering the pressures in the combustion chambers allows the chambers themselves to be made much cheaper. This can significantly reduce the cost of the rocket, provided that you don't blow too many up during development. As with any cost considerations in engineering, YMMV.
Not a stupid question. The answer is that the gravitational forces exceed the ability of the planet's materials to resist them. Thus the planet's shape assumes that which minimises the gravitationally induced stress, i.e. the sphere. Where the internal gravitational forces are weak, for example within your car or the asteriod Eros, this doesn't happen.
Could also mean that D3D is more difficult to use, hence the 1:4 ratio of Usenet posts, or that DirectX does more than just graphics. Not that one would expect anything but a fundamentally flawed analysis in an obvious troll.
I wouldn't necessarily consider that an upgrade. It really depends on what you intend to use it for. If you like playing games, then you will find few of the Linux titles run on PPC. So you end up with even fewer titles than you would have on MacOS.
The place that you will notice as perhaps the biggest upgrade is that you don't have to spend big bucks for software. Long live the GIMP!
I run Yellow Dog Linux on my old PowerCenter and it works great. Nobody is abandoning the PPC platform, believe me. In fact, I was debating getting a second HD for Linux on my G4, but have decided to wait for OS X.
It looks weird to see all that boot-up text fly by on a Mac. It jus' ain't right ah say!
It is important to understand that there are two ways to perform anti-aliasing, one for very small fonts (which is usually called hinting) and one for large fonts (usually called anti-aliasing.)
In PostScript Type 1 fonts, for example, each glyph has information contained within the file called rendering hints. These allows the font renderer to shift the "legs" and "stems" of the glyph so that they are on the pixel boundaries by informing the renderer how far it is allowed to move the boundaries without making the font look crappy (i.e. unreadable). These hints ensure that there is at least one "white" pixel between the legs of an 'h' at very small font sizes, where without hinting they would be rendered as a single two pixel wide bar, making 'h', 'b' and 'k' indistinguishable. Similarily, with very thin fonts, a renderer that doesn't use hinting may decide that a glyph doesn't cover enough of the pixel to be rendered at all. Suddenly, many 'I' glyphs would simply disappear...;-)
In this sense, hinting could technically be called anti-aliasing, but in my experience, the term anti-aliasing is usually reserved for the case of larger font sizes looking jaggy.
It sounds to me like you have anti-aliasing set to operate on too small of font sizes. You really want to have the boundaries of the glyphs to be much smaller than the average size of whitespace within the glyphs. What is happening is that the intensity of the whitespace within the gylphs is not completely "white", so that your eyes (and brain) have to work extra hard on recognising the boundaries of the glyphs.
So try upping the threshold at which anti-aliasing takes effect. You should notice an improvement and still get to see pretty typesetting on the screen.
Text of this sort is called "aliased", for reasons which escape me.
It is called aliased because of the boundary effects. In essence, when a glyph is rasterised for display without anti-aliasing, a binary decision is made as to whether or not a given pixel is on, depending on how much of the pixel would be filled if the screen were of infinite resolution. This causes an effect called aliasing, where the boundary of the glyph is not in the same place in the theoretical infinite resolution raster and the real screen (printer, whatever) resolution. The boundary of the glyph is aliased to the boundary of the pixel.
With anti-aliasing, the intensity of a pixel is a function of how much of the pixel is covered by the glyph being rasterised. For mid-to-large size fonts, this results in a much improved visual appearance, since, to the eye, the boundaries appear to be where they would be with a screen of much higher resolution. For small font sizes, anti-aliasing usually blurs the gylph beyond recognition.
So long as the circle isn't overtaken by hacksturbators, it is a great way to spend a sunny afternoon. Here in Victoria, BC, there are three or four people who can hack all day solo without the bag hitting the ground. Get them in a circle and it feels like all day in between the times that you get to kick it.
One of my favorite games of all time. Perhaps one day it will be ported to other platforms (namely Linux,) so that other people can enjoy it. As a Mac user, I feel privledged to have EV and EV: Override to play.
Sure, but not yet on MacOS. And the last version that will be available for MacOS 9 or less is 1.1.8. Basically, Mac users have to wait until MacOS X ships in late March, and then only if they are willing and able to upgrade to the new OS. For example, people with pre-G3 PPC's are out of the loop unless they go to some flavour of linux. Many Mac users will never make that step.
Too easy. You anchor a bouy to the bottom. Link (a big carabiner will work) a heavier than water object (you can add an anchor to this if necessary) to the bouy's anchor line. Voilà, deep sea elevator.
I recommend the Alarishi Empire. Don't like the government? Make your own! All you need are some class 3 batteries and a small fleet to defend yourself.
Is it any suprise that they are using MSIIS for there server? Or that the crackers almost certainly used a well-known exploit? Or that their server software probably did not have the most up to date patches installed?
This doesn't even begin to address the issue that I (and apparently others that have commented above) feel that storing CC#'s after the transaction has finished is highly negligent. When you go to a restaurant, do they maintain a database with your CC# to speed up your next purchase? NO! If they did, there would be serious hell to pay. So why to e-tailers (god I hate e-words) feel that it is an acceptable practice? And then they have the nerve wonder why people have little confidence in purchasing online. It's because we are not morons!!!
Security is always less strong than it's weakest link. It's about time that people start taking that fact seriously.
No, that doesn't make you a Luddite. Now, if you were a calculator from the pre-computer age, and ran around smashing computers because you felt they would ruin your livelihood, then you could be called a Luddite.
Personally, I think that both types of community are valuable. Sure, it is essential to have real people around you, but you get a much wider range of opinion online, from people you would not be able to communicate with. For example, a typical online forum will have people from the US, Canada, Australia, UK, Sweden, Germany, Finland, France, Italy,... You get the picture.
I think that there most definitely is something to worry about. It would be much more wise to fight it before it becomes law. If I were an American (I am Canadian, so anything that happens south of the border will have at least some effect) I would be writing letters daily, starting citizen petitions (of the ink on paper variety,) etc.
Fighting this in court should it become law would be prohibitively expensive for most of the people charged, unless they manage to gain the support of a group like the ACLU. And even then, your resources would be much better spent in a preemptive attack.
Even if those definitions were correct (although I believe they are more the result of "us vs. them" propaganda,) I still don't see the relationship to censorship. Of course, the Nazis and the Soviets made considerable use of censorship and propaganda, but so do all governments when pushing nationalist agendas. In some ways, copyright and patent laws can provide a highly effective vector for censorship, as can the Puritanical attitudes that prevail in the US.
Anyway, this is getting off-topic. Suffice to say that I think that the whole idea of censorship is incredibly dated. It appears that the main reason it is still being used is because it is far cheaper than education. A truly sad state of affairs, wouldn't you agree?
How so? Socialism does not inherently censor or limit free speech anymore than capitalism encourages it. I believe that you are referring to totalitarianism, or in the extreme, fascism.
I think that it is odd that Americans seem to feel that socialism is a dirty word. I suppose that it is simply a reflection of indoctrinated ignorance. Most seem happy to condemn socialism as evil while simultaneously lauding many of its principles when they are applied in friendly nations. As I said, it is odd...
Ah, yes. The "art" movie. I think that perhaps you are being too kind when you qualify your phrase with "mostly." I would classify it as an interesting experiment at best, which is actually quite a compliment, considering that it was a total insult to the subject matter. If the film had been based on original material (instead of JRRT's,) I might have actually liked it.
Not to mention that the man was dead before anyone picked up the Silmarillion, which is an absolutely amazing piece of work, once you take the time and patience to read it. The scope of it is simply incredible. To give people who have read the LotR perspective, that entire series' synopsis resides in the last six or so pages of the Silmarillion. It is that dense in its storytelling, and the stories are far more beautiful and fantastic. He tried to get it published several times before the Hobbit was even written, and nearly gave up in frustration. If he had, we never would have had the Hobbit, nor the LotR.
Don't you think that it would far less cynical to simply wait before condemning unfinished movies for not living up to your expectations? Not all movies have ruined the books they were based upon. For example, I thought that the Princess Bride was a rather good adaptation. Mostly I think it comes down to the ethics of the producers, the dedication of the director, a faithful screenplay and a well chosen cast. From what I have seen, all of these criteria are at least plausibly being met.
For this story, none of this applies, as it is simply Tolkein reading verbatim from his own manuscript. And that recording is old... Why not try and find more of these, as they are out there?
Slashdot Mirror
And how many OSs have you used besides Windows?
The paradigms are definitely different between Mac and Windows. Command+O has been the open shortcut in Mac OS for fifteen years. Why would they change that? You want to start the DVD again? Click on the disk icon on the desktop and type command+O. I would call that UI consistency.
Maybe we can have a contest. You find as many insanities on OS X as you can, and I'll find as many as I can on Windows.
There is one thing about a craft based manufacturing process: the true mastercraftsmen can produce a product of much higher quality than can be produced on an assembly line. The problem is that masters of the craft are few and far between, and they are never able to mass produce anything. It is true that many engines ran on a hope and a prayer. However, there were also gems that could never be matched in form or function by mass produced items.
Exactly the same thing can be seen in software development today. A small minority of programmers produce incredibly robust, elegant code. Thankfully, irregardless of how software "engineering" develops, there will always be masters at work.
That's right Mr. Editor. It's DISC Golf, not Frisbee Golf.
The 18th(?) Pender Island Classic this weekend. A Pender Bender is the truest form of Augmented Reality!
In addition to the other reasons given, smaller engines with more combustion chambers (the cones on the engine) means much lower pressures in the combustion chambers. Lowering the pressures in the combustion chambers allows the chambers themselves to be made much cheaper. This can significantly reduce the cost of the rocket, provided that you don't blow too many up during development. As with any cost considerations in engineering, YMMV.
When the iPod came out, everyone complained about its high price. Now we find out it can pay for itself in less than a minute! What a deal!
... to the third object? Does it seem odd to anyone else that it is nowhere to be seen?
Not a stupid question. The answer is that the gravitational forces exceed the ability of the planet's materials to resist them. Thus the planet's shape assumes that which minimises the gravitationally induced stress, i.e. the sphere. Where the internal gravitational forces are weak, for example within your car or the asteriod Eros, this doesn't happen.
Could also mean that D3D is more difficult to use, hence the 1:4 ratio of Usenet posts, or that DirectX does more than just graphics. Not that one would expect anything but a fundamentally flawed analysis in an obvious troll.
It is important to understand that there are two ways to perform anti-aliasing, one for very small fonts (which is usually called hinting) and one for large fonts (usually called anti-aliasing.)
In PostScript Type 1 fonts, for example, each glyph has information contained within the file called rendering hints. These allows the font renderer to shift the "legs" and "stems" of the glyph so that they are on the pixel boundaries by informing the renderer how far it is allowed to move the boundaries without making the font look crappy (i.e. unreadable). These hints ensure that there is at least one "white" pixel between the legs of an 'h' at very small font sizes, where without hinting they would be rendered as a single two pixel wide bar, making 'h', 'b' and 'k' indistinguishable. Similarily, with very thin fonts, a renderer that doesn't use hinting may decide that a glyph doesn't cover enough of the pixel to be rendered at all. Suddenly, many 'I' glyphs would simply disappear... ;-)
In this sense, hinting could technically be called anti-aliasing, but in my experience, the term anti-aliasing is usually reserved for the case of larger font sizes looking jaggy.
It sounds to me like you have anti-aliasing set to operate on too small of font sizes. You really want to have the boundaries of the glyphs to be much smaller than the average size of whitespace within the glyphs. What is happening is that the intensity of the whitespace within the gylphs is not completely "white", so that your eyes (and brain) have to work extra hard on recognising the boundaries of the glyphs.
So try upping the threshold at which anti-aliasing takes effect. You should notice an improvement and still get to see pretty typesetting on the screen.
Text of this sort is called "aliased", for reasons which escape me.
It is called aliased because of the boundary effects. In essence, when a glyph is rasterised for display without anti-aliasing, a binary decision is made as to whether or not a given pixel is on, depending on how much of the pixel would be filled if the screen were of infinite resolution. This causes an effect called aliasing, where the boundary of the glyph is not in the same place in the theoretical infinite resolution raster and the real screen (printer, whatever) resolution. The boundary of the glyph is aliased to the boundary of the pixel.
With anti-aliasing, the intensity of a pixel is a function of how much of the pixel is covered by the glyph being rasterised. For mid-to-large size fonts, this results in a much improved visual appearance, since, to the eye, the boundaries appear to be where they would be with a screen of much higher resolution. For small font sizes, anti-aliasing usually blurs the gylph beyond recognition.
So long as the circle isn't overtaken by hacksturbators, it is a great way to spend a sunny afternoon. Here in Victoria, BC, there are three or four people who can hack all day solo without the bag hitting the ground. Get them in a circle and it feels like all day in between the times that you get to kick it.
One of my favorite games of all time. Perhaps one day it will be ported to other platforms (namely Linux,) so that other people can enjoy it. As a Mac user, I feel privledged to have EV and EV: Override to play.
Sure, but not yet on MacOS. And the last version that will be available for MacOS 9 or less is 1.1.8. Basically, Mac users have to wait until MacOS X ships in late March, and then only if they are willing and able to upgrade to the new OS. For example, people with pre-G3 PPC's are out of the loop unless they go to some flavour of linux. Many Mac users will never make that step.
Too easy. You anchor a bouy to the bottom. Link (a big carabiner will work) a heavier than water object (you can add an anchor to this if necessary) to the bouy's anchor line. Voilà, deep sea elevator.
I recommend the Alarishi Empire. Don't like the government? Make your own! All you need are some class 3 batteries and a small fleet to defend yourself.
Is it any suprise that they are using MSIIS for there server? Or that the crackers almost certainly used a well-known exploit? Or that their server software probably did not have the most up to date patches installed?
This doesn't even begin to address the issue that I (and apparently others that have commented above) feel that storing CC#'s after the transaction has finished is highly negligent. When you go to a restaurant, do they maintain a database with your CC# to speed up your next purchase? NO! If they did, there would be serious hell to pay. So why to e-tailers (god I hate e-words) feel that it is an acceptable practice? And then they have the nerve wonder why people have little confidence in purchasing online. It's because we are not morons!!!
Security is always less strong than it's weakest link. It's about time that people start taking that fact seriously.
No, that doesn't make you a Luddite. Now, if you were a calculator from the pre-computer age, and ran around smashing computers because you felt they would ruin your livelihood, then you could be called a Luddite.
Personally, I think that both types of community are valuable. Sure, it is essential to have real people around you, but you get a much wider range of opinion online, from people you would not be able to communicate with. For example, a typical online forum will have people from the US, Canada, Australia, UK, Sweden, Germany, Finland, France, Italy, ... You get the picture.
I think that there most definitely is something to worry about. It would be much more wise to fight it before it becomes law. If I were an American (I am Canadian, so anything that happens south of the border will have at least some effect) I would be writing letters daily, starting citizen petitions (of the ink on paper variety,) etc.
Fighting this in court should it become law would be prohibitively expensive for most of the people charged, unless they manage to gain the support of a group like the ACLU. And even then, your resources would be much better spent in a preemptive attack.
Even if those definitions were correct (although I believe they are more the result of "us vs. them" propaganda,) I still don't see the relationship to censorship. Of course, the Nazis and the Soviets made considerable use of censorship and propaganda, but so do all governments when pushing nationalist agendas. In some ways, copyright and patent laws can provide a highly effective vector for censorship, as can the Puritanical attitudes that prevail in the US.
Anyway, this is getting off-topic. Suffice to say that I think that the whole idea of censorship is incredibly dated. It appears that the main reason it is still being used is because it is far cheaper than education. A truly sad state of affairs, wouldn't you agree?
How so? Socialism does not inherently censor or limit free speech anymore than capitalism encourages it. I believe that you are referring to totalitarianism, or in the extreme, fascism.
I think that it is odd that Americans seem to feel that socialism is a dirty word. I suppose that it is simply a reflection of indoctrinated ignorance. Most seem happy to condemn socialism as evil while simultaneously lauding many of its principles when they are applied in friendly nations. As I said, it is odd...
Ah, yes. The "art" movie. I think that perhaps you are being too kind when you qualify your phrase with "mostly." I would classify it as an interesting experiment at best, which is actually quite a compliment, considering that it was a total insult to the subject matter. If the film had been based on original material (instead of JRRT's,) I might have actually liked it.
Not to mention that the man was dead before anyone picked up the Silmarillion, which is an absolutely amazing piece of work, once you take the time and patience to read it. The scope of it is simply incredible. To give people who have read the LotR perspective, that entire series' synopsis resides in the last six or so pages of the Silmarillion. It is that dense in its storytelling, and the stories are far more beautiful and fantastic. He tried to get it published several times before the Hobbit was even written, and nearly gave up in frustration. If he had, we never would have had the Hobbit, nor the LotR.
Don't you think that it would far less cynical to simply wait before condemning unfinished movies for not living up to your expectations? Not all movies have ruined the books they were based upon. For example, I thought that the Princess Bride was a rather good adaptation. Mostly I think it comes down to the ethics of the producers, the dedication of the director, a faithful screenplay and a well chosen cast. From what I have seen, all of these criteria are at least plausibly being met.
For this story, none of this applies, as it is simply Tolkein reading verbatim from his own manuscript. And that recording is old... Why not try and find more of these, as they are out there?