Unofficial but true. Tom's Hardware has a bunch of benchmarks. The only dual core CPUs that manage 60 FPS are the i5s with hyper-threading, and they are beaten by less expensive Phenom II quad cores.
The driver is functional for your regular 2d needs. Browsing the web and moving windows around is fast enough. It doesn't crash all the time (only tried it for a few hours, and no problems so far), but it does lack video overlays, so it's not quite ready for media use just yet.
Sure, but what if 'tinkering is fun but hardly essential' crowd like MikeURL are the norm? What if controlling the platform is immensely more profitable than contributing to open platforms? Then a closed platform like Apple's may out-compete comparable platforms, and it will certainly out-compete unsupported formats, like FLAC and Vorbis. Not because Apple's alternatives are better, but because Apple is more popular and in control, and therefore consumer demand will be limited to formats Apple support.
So closed platforms simply aren't in the consumer's interest. It's like Microsoft's Office monopoly: everything else enters the market with a handicap, as the de-facto standard is broken and closed. Apple fans should know this as well as anybody -- and perhaps they do. They just want Apple to succeed.
You mean it's the only somewhat credible sales pitch for Apple's new gadget. And it's only credible because it's entirely abstract and out of touch with the real world.
An IPS panel is certainly neat, but as you can't really use the ipad for anything that actually demands that kind of screen, you're just grasping for positives. And the IPS panel is the only thing the ipad has going for it. It's the most overhyped product since the Segway.
The whole "Freedom == freedom of choice" lie is a fairly new invention that has more to do with consumerism than with actual liberty. Three locked-down platforms will give you a greater number of options to choose from than two open platforms, but they certainly give you no greater liberty at all.
Wow, you guys really have been hitting the kool-aid hard. Yes, Apple is officially a religion: every thing you have to forsake to use your computer is for the ultimate good and Jobs can do no wrong.
Why the hell should I care about your constitution? Or such hogwash as the idea of "natural rights"? It's only rhetoric. The U.S. is only a part of the world, and it's certainly not the country you want to dictate international copyright law (since U.S. copyright law again is dicated by Disney and is the most draconian around). Obviously, your constitution has been of absolutely no help.
Also, the restrictions on public consumption of culture you speak of evidently does not exist: you're practically drowning in cultural expressions, the majority produced in the country of perpetual copyright (which, as I've stated on numerous occasions in this thread, I do not support, and which you Slashbots still think is pertinent to bring up again and again despite it being a very poor strawman). Empirical evidence suggests your reasoning should lead you to the exact opposite conclusion of where you arrive. Which probably means you're not exactly honest in your intensions: you simply want things for free.
Wrong. Artistic people generally care a lot about technicalities, and guess what? Apple has exemplary colour management (not necessarily correct colours out of the box), which Linux just doesn't have. It's got a lot of fairly decent audio software that works well on Apple's limited range of laptops. Buying Windows is more of a risk (some times it works, some times it doesn't), and Linux is great if you have the time and knowledge to tailor-make your system to your needs. Some artists actually do that, most don't.
Oh, and the Mac is something of a standard for graphical work. Some people feel it's easier to collaborate with others when they use the same system, just like some people think using Microsoft Office is absolutely necessary in the real world. It isn't, but it can save you from a lot of problems.
You really don't know what you're talking about. If you want Windows games running on Wine on a non x86 platform, you will need to recompile the binaries for that platform. Which you can't, as they are closed source and proprietary.
It's not needed under current law, no one has argued its necessity, a name wouldn't fall under copyright law anyway, and there was certainly no reason to bring it up in the discussion. It's off topic. Or "+5, insightful" in Slashbot parlance.
No, it's an entirely American feature of copyright. The rest of your comment is a ludicrous fantasy, and would demand so much in bureaucratic manpower that it would cost the public a lot more than simply keeping the status quo.
It's an awfully long comment from someone who clearly do not understand what copyright is and what it's for, so you'll have to excuse me for only reading the first three paragraphs. Seriously: it's a waste of time, since your idiotic thoughts won't be taken seriously outside the "I want stuff for free" Slashbot segment.
New? 162 years? The registration bullshit is of course U.S. only, not elsewhere (1886), and is obviously grossly unfair to those who don't speak the language of bureaucracy.
Neither I nor LeGuin have advocated perpetual extensions, only the author's rights, so I don't see why you bring it up. I don't support perpetual copyrights, nor renewal of copyrights.
That's how copyright works and has worked throughout modern time. What's wrong with lifetime anyway? Better that than to sign away the movie rights to Disney for free after an arbitrary length of time, which would in effect give them control of the work.
No, jokes are rarely funny. Like the other guy said, there's no mention of your mama, knock knock or Chuck Norris -- other examples of (mostly) unfunny jokes.
And yes, it's evidently a joke, in that he combines two trite clichés in an absurd manner: 1) the whining about closed airports with 2) the threat of terrorism. It's someone who depends on the airport suggesting to destroy it, in order to get them to fix it. It's self-evidently absurd, i.e. an obvious joke. EOD.
The fact that you don't 'get it' does not make that any less evident, but it does say a bit about you. Asperger, am I right?
No, it sounds unmistakably like a joke, and the fact that you and three Slashdot moderators think otherwise is simply an indication of the high occurence of autism on this site.
There's no 'compiling of the kernel, no conf files to edit' in Debian or any other mainstream distro either. Hell, even Arch Linux does well without custom kernel compilations, and most editing of config files as well, IIRC (depends on usage of course; not that I'd recommend it to any newbie anyway).
The 'it just works' factor isn't something unique for Ubuntu: almost all the others have it as well (LFS an exception). The only thing Ubuntu gives you is a package that will mostly fit the average desktop user in the default install. Pretty much like Mandriva and others. Kernel compilation is not and has not been necessary for more than ten years for any of the mainstream distros.
Slashdot Mirror
Unofficial but true. Tom's Hardware has a bunch of benchmarks. The only dual core CPUs that manage 60 FPS are the i5s with hyper-threading, and they are beaten by less expensive Phenom II quad cores.
It worked after a git pull and make for me, no tweaks necessary.
The driver is functional for your regular 2d needs. Browsing the web and moving windows around is fast enough. It doesn't crash all the time (only tried it for a few hours, and no problems so far), but it does lack video overlays, so it's not quite ready for media use just yet.
Sure, but what if 'tinkering is fun but hardly essential' crowd like MikeURL are the norm? What if controlling the platform is immensely more profitable than contributing to open platforms? Then a closed platform like Apple's may out-compete comparable platforms, and it will certainly out-compete unsupported formats, like FLAC and Vorbis. Not because Apple's alternatives are better, but because Apple is more popular and in control, and therefore consumer demand will be limited to formats Apple support.
So closed platforms simply aren't in the consumer's interest. It's like Microsoft's Office monopoly: everything else enters the market with a handicap, as the de-facto standard is broken and closed. Apple fans should know this as well as anybody -- and perhaps they do. They just want Apple to succeed.
If I buy something, I expect to own it. That is, in fact, essential.
You mean it's the only somewhat credible sales pitch for Apple's new gadget. And it's only credible because it's entirely abstract and out of touch with the real world.
You mean because I don't use my signature line? Or do you seriously think you have an example of a more overhyped product since the Segway?
An IPS panel is certainly neat, but as you can't really use the ipad for anything that actually demands that kind of screen, you're just grasping for positives. And the IPS panel is the only thing the ipad has going for it. It's the most overhyped product since the Segway.
The whole "Freedom == freedom of choice" lie is a fairly new invention that has more to do with consumerism than with actual liberty. Three locked-down platforms will give you a greater number of options to choose from than two open platforms, but they certainly give you no greater liberty at all.
Wow, you guys really have been hitting the kool-aid hard. Yes, Apple is officially a religion: every thing you have to forsake to use your computer is for the ultimate good and Jobs can do no wrong.
Why the hell should I care about your constitution? Or such hogwash as the idea of "natural rights"? It's only rhetoric. The U.S. is only a part of the world, and it's certainly not the country you want to dictate international copyright law (since U.S. copyright law again is dicated by Disney and is the most draconian around). Obviously, your constitution has been of absolutely no help.
Also, the restrictions on public consumption of culture you speak of evidently does not exist: you're practically drowning in cultural expressions, the majority produced in the country of perpetual copyright (which, as I've stated on numerous occasions in this thread, I do not support, and which you Slashbots still think is pertinent to bring up again and again despite it being a very poor strawman). Empirical evidence suggests your reasoning should lead you to the exact opposite conclusion of where you arrive. Which probably means you're not exactly honest in your intensions: you simply want things for free.
Wrong. Artistic people generally care a lot about technicalities, and guess what? Apple has exemplary colour management (not necessarily correct colours out of the box), which Linux just doesn't have. It's got a lot of fairly decent audio software that works well on Apple's limited range of laptops. Buying Windows is more of a risk (some times it works, some times it doesn't), and Linux is great if you have the time and knowledge to tailor-make your system to your needs. Some artists actually do that, most don't.
Oh, and the Mac is something of a standard for graphical work. Some people feel it's easier to collaborate with others when they use the same system, just like some people think using Microsoft Office is absolutely necessary in the real world. It isn't, but it can save you from a lot of problems.
You really don't know what you're talking about. If you want Windows games running on Wine on a non x86 platform, you will need to recompile the binaries for that platform. Which you can't, as they are closed source and proprietary.
It's not needed under current law, no one has argued its necessity, a name wouldn't fall under copyright law anyway, and there was certainly no reason to bring it up in the discussion. It's off topic. Or "+5, insightful" in Slashbot parlance.
No, it's an entirely American feature of copyright. The rest of your comment is a ludicrous fantasy, and would demand so much in bureaucratic manpower that it would cost the public a lot more than simply keeping the status quo.
It's an awfully long comment from someone who clearly do not understand what copyright is and what it's for, so you'll have to excuse me for only reading the first three paragraphs. Seriously: it's a waste of time, since your idiotic thoughts won't be taken seriously outside the "I want stuff for free" Slashbot segment.
Come on. Let's beat that strawman to a pulp!
New? 162 years? The registration bullshit is of course U.S. only, not elsewhere (1886), and is obviously grossly unfair to those who don't speak the language of bureaucracy.
Neither I nor LeGuin have advocated perpetual extensions, only the author's rights, so I don't see why you bring it up. I don't support perpetual copyrights, nor renewal of copyrights.
I already answered that. How about spending 20 seconds reading a comment instead of just five?
And what's your alternative?
That's how copyright works and has worked throughout modern time. What's wrong with lifetime anyway? Better that than to sign away the movie rights to Disney for free after an arbitrary length of time, which would in effect give them control of the work.
No, jokes are rarely funny. Like the other guy said, there's no mention of your mama, knock knock or Chuck Norris -- other examples of (mostly) unfunny jokes.
And yes, it's evidently a joke, in that he combines two trite clichés in an absurd manner: 1) the whining about closed airports with 2) the threat of terrorism. It's someone who depends on the airport suggesting to destroy it, in order to get them to fix it. It's self-evidently absurd, i.e. an obvious joke. EOD.
The fact that you don't 'get it' does not make that any less evident, but it does say a bit about you. Asperger, am I right?
No, it sounds unmistakably like a joke, and the fact that you and three Slashdot moderators think otherwise is simply an indication of the high occurence of autism on this site.
There's no 'compiling of the kernel, no conf files to edit' in Debian or any other mainstream distro either. Hell, even Arch Linux does well without custom kernel compilations, and most editing of config files as well, IIRC (depends on usage of course; not that I'd recommend it to any newbie anyway).
The 'it just works' factor isn't something unique for Ubuntu: almost all the others have it as well (LFS an exception). The only thing Ubuntu gives you is a package that will mostly fit the average desktop user in the default install. Pretty much like Mandriva and others. Kernel compilation is not and has not been necessary for more than ten years for any of the mainstream distros.
Remember how Macs went from being "twice as fast on the same clock speed" when using PPC to being surprisingly twice as fast when switching to Intel?
Let me guess: you're the kind of person who wouldn't spot a joke if it wore a red nose, a wig, and big flabby shoes, right?