Speaking of Emacs, The OS X 10.2 Terminal as a option to use the option key to the Meta key. This is the first time I've been able to use Emacs with a real Meta key and it rocks.
Terminal-EMACS? Yeowch... I know EMACS is great... but you need to see it in all its OSX glory...
Plus, what do I use each day? fvwm. xterm. Emacs. Mozilla. gcc. Perl. Ruby.
Essentially the same here. But I prefer to have an OS that includes DVD playback, DV editing, DVD-authoring, digital camera/MP3-player interface/management, and more access to commercial apps... all built-in.
That's really it. OS X really doesn't give me anything over what I currently use, the hardware is closed, the OS is closed, and it's expensive.
The hardware is less "closed" than you would think. All the components are essentially the same as what you would find on the P.C. The real issue is only that there is only one mother-board vendor.
"Expensive" is a relative term. Having to dual/triple-boot is "expensive" to me because it costs me time and effort. If I just get a machine that does it all from the beginning, that "expense" has been solved, with a few dollars.
I also don't care about pretty. Come look at my desktop if you don't believe me. My Emacs doesn't even have scrollbars or the cute little toolbar. I got rid of that stuff ages ago in the name of screen real estate.
Right there there with you on EMACS. I hate the scrollbar, and it's a complete waste if you commonly use C-v, M-v, or your mouse-wheel.
oh, but I forgot - having kewl broken technology out the door is more important than actually doing the engineering that is required to make it work well.
Yes... I agree. They should wait and let OSS pick this up (never) or have Microsoft do it (all-proprietary for more $$$ and control for Bill). And besides, everyone knows OSS and Microsoft always do it right the first time!;c)
The opportunity to cobble together a fully functional custom web browser with minimal effort has been available to COM and VB programmers in Windows since at least 1996. However, I don't see many IE clones floating around.
I view anything Microsoft does (even extinsible stuff) as a tar-Bush. The tar-bush will grow and develop quickly, but nothing will grow in its shadow on the tar-stained ground.
Is it really useful to encourage more people to create more "forks" based on the gecko engine? I'm not against people playing around or doing whatever they want, but shouldn't we encourage people to consider working together more on some of these alternatives?
That's because you are thinking in browser-centric terms instead of people-centric terms. Some developers (people) don't necessarily want to support and trouble-shoot a project they didn't create. But they will be happy to use Gecko to realize their own "vision" of what a browser should be.
Think of it as kinder-garten for a new and up-coming developer base that may have more to contribute to OSS than just doing duct-work.
It's a thin line to avoid the balloon and bloat of Mozilla while providing functionality that many desire. Many projects are doing this, but each needs more developers to seal the leaks and fix the cracks.
And now that there is something new, fresh, and important like a fully-featured browsers and alternatives-to-Microsoft in the offing, more developers will be attracted to OSS. You see this only as a way of splitting up an established OSS developer base, but opportunity like this is actually a way of growing a new OSS developer base. You are making the mistake of seeing this as a ZSG, "Zero-Sum Game."
When has Microsoft "outsmarted" anything? Their modus operandi have always been:
Buy the competition,
"Cut off their air-supply,"
Intimidate the OEM's into not including competition on their machines,
Copy whatever they want, "embrace, extend, extinguish" to get the de facto standard, and then,
Sit back on the piles money coming in from Microsoft Windows/Office while the army of lawyers hamstring the competition in court.
Rest assured "outsmart" is going to be one of these tried-and-true ploys or else is going to be lobbying for new laws to make non-M$DRM computing "illegal."
Come on! America is not rebellious because of the music industry, the music industry is selling rebellion because that's what America is. There's this little war we fought with another country you may have heard of called Great Britain. America was born in rebellion.
There are some who focus on the fight and others who focus on the values. So a rebillious attitude is more exciting to some peole than "we hold these truths to be self-evident."
"When the finger indicates the moon, the idiot points at the finger." -- Chinese Proverb
For two generations at least the music industry has been selling rebellion. Throw off any restraint with regard to authority, parents, morality. They have been in a small way part of what has made North american society what it is.Rebellious, indifferent -- hostile towards authority.
Now they have to somehow try to live within the society they have created.
They just want you to finally realize you have been rocking out with The Man(tm) all this time.
What was that song that had the line about "shaking hands with the devil" and then saying you were "only kidding?"
If I'm wrong, perhaps you can inform me what parts of IE are already loaded, because nobody else has that I've asked has managed to yet.
The parts of the browser that are actually part of the operating system... the technical details are probably in the minutes of the DOJ anti-trust trial that Microsoft has been in the past few years...
Why does Hollywood object to people seeing what they want in a movie by taking sex and violence out when the whole reason they put sex and violence in is because "that's what people want to see," and "we're just mirroring society?" Very curious.
yea... like I said... those issues you mentioned would never appear in a CleanFlicks movie, would they?
The point I was making is that they will never be edited out of a CleanFlicks movie... because they don't even exist in the "Disneyfied" sex/violence of mass-media films.
If overprotective parents want to shelter their children, then they need to be smacked upside the head, mackerel-style, for being lazy and too ignorant to discuss right and wrong with a child.
And they should go to school where other kids will harrass them mercilessly because they haven't seen the great teen-sex-romp-comedy du jour. And it's all their fault that their parents don't want them thinking and acting like all the other SHEEPLE who gobble down all the crap Hollywood puts out without a full-time therapist to discuss the subtle problems one might have accepting something sleazy at face value...
Funny how in today's world a fourteen year old can go see heads exploding in slow motion, but he can't see an exposed female breast.
And even funnier is the fact that he will be shouted down if he even thought about editing slow-motion exploding heads out of a copy of a movie he legally purchased for his own personal viewing.
These people are trying to Disney-fy mainstream media.
No... the true Disnification is a film that shows all the cool people have sex at the drop of a hat and all the "nerds" are virgins... and nobody ever has to deal with pregnancy, abortion, HPV, HIV, HSV, H[A/B/C/D/E]V, etc. ever.
If a large segment of the population "voted" with their pocketbooks by simply not renting films with violent/sexual content, then Hollywood would likely sense a market for more family-oriented films.
You would think that would be the case, but it isn't. Michael Medved, in his book Hollywood Vs. America shows statistics for ROI on G-rated films vs. R-rated films. It isn't even close -- G-ratings mean more $$$. But why make a "kiddie" movie, when you can make a "hard-hitting," "sophisticated," "adult," movie with an R-rating? The truth of the matter is that there are far more subtle (and overt) nuances of true humanity in a "kiddie" film like Monsters Inc. than there will ever be in most R-rated films out there.
Ultimately, this type of censorship is worse than banning art outright. This way, people have the impression that they've seen a film (why stop there? Shall we cover up Michaelangelo's David's naughty bits?) when they've seen a toothless abberation, a mere shadow of the actual artwork. To the users of MovieMask's and CleanFlicks's and a dozen others' services, do everybody a favour: either watch original films that you're comfortable with or, better yet, just throw out your TV.
That's right! Just tow the corporate line and worship "artists" and regard all your media as "holy," or become Amish! </sarcasm>
to rent a 30 minute movie. Because that's how long most two hour Hollywood flicks would be if you cut out the sex, violence, and profanity. Hey, while we're at it, can we cut out the product placement advertising as well? Then I could watch Minority Report in like 10 minutes.
For today's ADD-generation, that might be a good thing. Additionally, I saw Minority Report... it wouldn't have lost anything being 10 minutes long and the pointless sex scene between strangers wouldn't have kept me away from that film's "artistic vision."
One idea that might be an interesting compromise:
A lot of DVDs come with the viewer option to include deleted footage into the presentation of the film. Why couldn't this work in reverse? Flag scenes with ratings, and give the viewer the option of viewing the 'R' rated version (the original), the 'PG-13' version (slight edit), the 'PG' version (bigger edit), or the 'G' version (running time: 23 minutes). The DVD player would simply skip scenes that were rated higher than the chosen threshold. Then video rental companies could carry the standard DVD, but the viewer could choose their own level of "cleanliness".
Simple: that would be customer service... and Hollywood can't afford that. Corporations will always want you to just stick to the Vision(tm) if they can convince you it has something to do with art instead of what you want.
Which brings up another good point: why does Hollywood object to people seeing what they want by taking sex and violence out when the whole reason they put sex and violence in is because "that's what people want to see," and "we're just mirroring society?" Very curious.
As Ray Bradbury says, you have a choice to view my work or not to view it. If I make a movie about something that offends you, don't watch it. If you can't find enough movies you really like, make your own. But for the sake of everything good in this world, don't destroy someone elses blood sweat and passion because you have a queasy stomache.
Nice try. But it isn't the director's "vision" that has been found wanting, merely his discretion with sex and violence. Destroying someone elses "blood sweat and passion" has absolutely nothing to do with having an edited copy of a legally purchased film.
And nice try with dragging Ray Bradbury, my favorite author into this. I shook his hand at a dinner once, and the man has more integrity in the end of his pinky than all the people in Hollywood put together!
I wish I had made this post, dewd. This says it all from people like you and me who saw all the good-time-rock-n-roll-plastic-banana flicks of the late 80's and early 90's... it's not about entertainment or art anymore... it's about cultural homogeneity... through pop-cultural brainwashing (same cliches over and over).
Ironically, the counter-culture parade that is today's Hollywood can only win if people believe ultimately not in themselves, but in The Man(tm).
I guess that's what happens when former hippies become the establishment... "The Man" isn't the the big corporate machine anymore... it's the little guy who wants to live life on his own terms.
I think it has been pretty well established that there is no legal basis to sue a Value-Added service industry for providing a service when no copywrite has been abridged and everyone (including the directors) makes their money.
So what's this really all about?
Its about these directors playing to the brainless herd that is the Left in this nation who worship at the altar of Hollywood and its values. It's about these directors trying to "stand up to the little guy" for daring to question these "values" in their films -- like they are some sort of dignified sincere hero/artists full of character -- instead of the corporate shills they really are.
Unfortunately for them, they have made so many "stand up to the big guy" films that even the dullest bulb at the Hollywood slop bucket can see what's really going on between some Mom & Pop film-editing joint and the Evil Capitalist Hollywood Machine(tm).
Slashdot Mirror
"Expensive" is a relative term. Having to dual/triple-boot is "expensive" to me because it costs me time and effort. If I just get a machine that does it all from the beginning, that "expense" has been solved, with a few dollars. Right there there with you on EMACS. I hate the scrollbar, and it's a complete waste if you commonly use C-v, M-v, or your mouse-wheel.
Exactly. And I don't see anyone mentioning that Finder in jaguar finally got some features from Nautilus (thumbails, folder summaries).
It does have thumbnails in the Finder's column-view. Does showing what's in the folder in a seperate column count as a "summary?"
Think of it as kinder-garten for a new and up-coming developer base that may have more to contribute to OSS than just doing duct-work.And now that there is something new, fresh, and important like a fully-featured browsers and alternatives-to-Microsoft in the offing, more developers will be attracted to OSS. You see this only as a way of splitting up an established OSS developer base, but opportunity like this is actually a way of growing a new OSS developer base. You are making the mistake of seeing this as a ZSG, "Zero-Sum Game."
ANSWER: "By convincing the youth that he not really The Man(tm), only a Big Brother."
After all, Big Brother is only dangerous if he is the government... not as a large multi-national corporation, right?
How can The Man(tm) continue to foment and exploit the youthful rebellious attitude toward The Man(tm) while still making The Man(tm)-size Money?
- Buy the competition,
- "Cut off their air-supply,"
- Intimidate the OEM's into not including competition on their machines,
- Copy whatever they want, "embrace, extend, extinguish" to get the de facto standard, and then,
- Sit back on the piles money coming in from Microsoft Windows/Office while the army of lawyers hamstring the competition in court.
Rest assured "outsmart" is going to be one of these tried-and-true ploys or else is going to be lobbying for new laws to make non-M$DRM computing "illegal.""When the finger indicates the moon, the idiot points at the finger." -- Chinese Proverb
What was that song that had the line about "shaking hands with the devil" and then saying you were "only kidding?"
If I'm wrong, perhaps you can inform me what parts of IE are already loaded, because nobody else has that I've asked has managed to yet.
The parts of the browser that are actually part of the operating system... the technical details are probably in the minutes of the DOJ anti-trust trial that Microsoft has been in the past few years...
Why does Hollywood object to people seeing what they want in a movie by taking sex and violence out when the whole reason they put sex and violence in is because "that's what people want to see," and "we're just mirroring society?" Very curious.
yea... like I said... those issues you mentioned would never appear in a CleanFlicks movie, would they?
The point I was making is that they will never be edited out of a CleanFlicks movie... because they don't even exist in the "Disneyfied" sex/violence of mass-media films.
Funny how in today's world a fourteen year old can go see heads exploding in slow motion, but he can't see an exposed female breast.
And even funnier is the fact that he will be shouted down if he even thought about editing slow-motion exploding heads out of a copy of a movie he legally purchased for his own personal viewing.
Which brings up another good point: why does Hollywood object to people seeing what they want by taking sex and violence out when the whole reason they put sex and violence in is because "that's what people want to see," and "we're just mirroring society?" Very curious.
And nice try with dragging Ray Bradbury, my favorite author into this. I shook his hand at a dinner once, and the man has more integrity in the end of his pinky than all the people in Hollywood put together!
I wish I had made this post, dewd. This says it all from people like you and me who saw all the good-time-rock-n-roll-plastic-banana flicks of the late 80's and early 90's... it's not about entertainment or art anymore... it's about cultural homogeneity... through pop-cultural brainwashing (same cliches over and over).
Ironically, the counter-culture parade that is today's Hollywood can only win if people believe ultimately not in themselves, but in The Man(tm).
I guess that's what happens when former hippies become the establishment... "The Man" isn't the the big corporate machine anymore... it's the little guy who wants to live life on his own terms.
I think it has been pretty well established that there is no legal basis to sue a Value-Added service industry for providing a service when no copywrite has been abridged and everyone (including the directors) makes their money. So what's this really all about? Its about these directors playing to the brainless herd that is the Left in this nation who worship at the altar of Hollywood and its values. It's about these directors trying to "stand up to the little guy" for daring to question these "values" in their films -- like they are some sort of dignified sincere hero/artists full of character -- instead of the corporate shills they really are. Unfortunately for them, they have made so many "stand up to the big guy" films that even the dullest bulb at the Hollywood slop bucket can see what's really going on between some Mom & Pop film-editing joint and the Evil Capitalist Hollywood Machine(tm).
"By George, I think he's got it!"