It's not the "style" I miss, but the speed. The older themes are less-demanding on the CPU and therefore run faster. Yeah Vista-style is pretty, but the XP or Classic style open-and-close windows without those annoying pregnant pauses.
Give me lean-and-fast over pretty-and-slow anyday.
>>>Apparently, someone disagrees with you on that, agreeing that they should be able to mod posts as Troll if they disagree with them:)
Yeah well, although most of the persons here are "adults" they are still stuck in junior hihg mentally. They think it's funny to subtract points from other people, simply because they disagree. i.e. Censorship.
Apparently they disagree with you too, since they modded you "0" and made you invisible. Isn't censorship of free speech fun?
I agree. We're only jumping +0.1 in version numbers (from Win6.2 to Win6.3). Anyone who has 6.2 should get a free upgrade to 6.3, just as on my XP machine I got a free upgrade from SP2 to SP3
I said "no" because the original post makes it sound like Apple caught some kind of disease that is only unique to Microsoft.
But Microsoft is not unique. Nearly all megacorps act in that fashion, due to a fear of loss. Apple is acting like your average, typical megacorporation. i.e. Perfectly predictable and to be expected.
Because the OP's comment makes it sound like Apple caught some kind of disease that is only unique to Microsoft.
But Microsoft is not unique. Nearly all megacorps act in that fashion, due to a fear of loss. Apple is acting like your average, typical megacorporation. i.e. Perfectly predictable and to be expected.
Well sure if you want a slow brain equivalent to an 8088 IBM PC. If you want the more-powerful brain that's the organic equivalent of the latest 4000 megahertz CPU, then you need a woman with a high IQ.
"Hello my name is Bill. I want to have children. Would you like to be the vessel to carry them?"
"Hello my name is Sally. I want to have children. Would you like to donate your sperm?"
If we were honest, then that's how we would all introduce ourselves. Perhaps those cultures with arranged marriages are being the most honest of all - marriage is for the purpose of creating children, not romance.
My annoyance is that "they" presume my downloading means they are losing money. I've been downloading a lot of recent movies lately, and no surprise, the movies are largely crap piled upon more crap (how they ever scored 7 or higher on imdb.com is a mystery to me). The RIAA/MPAA make the assumption that if I had not downloaded, I would have bought the DVD instead.
They presume wrong.
Out of some 20 movies downloaded there was precisely 1 that I will probably buy on DVD, and that's only because my niece wants to see Hannah Montana in 3D. Otherwise I don't waste my money on Hollyweird's shit unless it's exceptionally good. This past 2008-9 season almost nothing met that criteria. So for them to say, "We lost $400," is completely and totally inaccurate.
They are liars. They lost nothing because I'm not a spender. My money gets invested into the stockmarket, not shiny discs, which probably pisses them off.
You mean Vista 6.2 to Vista 6.3 (falsely named 7 by the liars aka marketers). Yes it should be a free upgrade since it's still the same major version number.
You're not supposed to subtract points from someone, just because you disagree with them.
If you disagree with someone's opinion, then post a reply that says, "I disagree because....." Don't abuse your mod point privilege by modding someone into invisibility (i.e. a 0 or -1 score). This isn't France. We don't censor free speech.
>>>Human brains remain the only high performance computer manufactured with unskilled labour.
I object! It takes a lot of skill to satisfy today's demanding women. And what happens if you lack that skill? They'll just jump ship to some other guy's bed. Unskilled labor indeed. It takes a lot of skill to convince Miss Prissy to let her guard down, bribe her with a 50,000 dollar wedding, remove the diaphragm, and let you impregnate her.
No I'm not bitter.
Although I do have this gnawing pain in my gut until I can taste the bile rising up my throat and into my mouth. Well. Maybe I'm a little bitter. Or else I just have heartburn; anybody have a TicTac?
We're already on Bubble 4.0. The first bubble was Goldman Sachs orchestration of the dot-com bubble (selling worthless websites to stock market speculators). The second was the mortgage bubble. Then Goldman Sachs orchestrated the oil bubble of 2008, and now they're creating another bubble built on money borrowed from China (aka the bailout bubble) which is not real production, but fiat.
That's 4.
So invest now in the market. Thanks to Goldman and their buds in the treasury/central bank (former GS employees), Bubble 4.0 will soar to 15,000 and sometime in 2004 will burst, so make sure to sell your stock in 2003. Aren't roller coasters fun?
You're right it's not a tax, because the MS fee is voluntary whereas taxes are not, however the MS fee is still hard to avoid. You mentioned the Dell N-series, but that series still forces you to pay for a Windows license fee, even though there's no Windows on the machine (i.e. an N-series PC is the same price as a Vista machine).
What I can't figure out is why amazon gave a refund to a guy who has Windows installed on his Net PC. That sounds kinda shady. I could quite easily buy a netbook, CLAIM I'm not using Windows, get my refund, and then continue using Windows. I have no objections about stealing from the soulless entity called "megacorporation". (1) That's no more harmful than stealing a rock from the ocean since corporations are not human beings, and (2) it steals from taxpayers all the time; a little reverse-theft merely restores the wealth to the poor who labored to earn it in the first place & to whom it rightfully belongs.
But I don't understand why amazon.uk would so easily agree to give a refund - it seems this makes them open to all kinds of liars. "No I don't use Windows. No sir. Not me. No way."
No. Apple is just like any other business that seeks to hold onto a monopoly. MS, Comcast, Cox, OPEC... they all act alike because they all share the same fundamental fear of loss. They don't want to lose the market, or the money that comes with it. It's basic human instinct made manifest at the mega-corporate level.
As for the DMCA Notice:
I wouldn't be happy, but I would look at it as an opportunity. First it's a chance to refuse to comply and stand-up for my second basic right of free speech (with the most basic right being ownership of my body and my mouth). Second I've never been inside a courtroom, so it would be a new and exciting experience (life is dull). And third given how long these things typically drag-out (4-5 years), I could earn a law degree. My thesis would be about my self and my case.
Okay I'm just joking on that last bit.
But I'd still look at the notice as an opportunity not a tragedy. Court cases are how you change legal interpretation for the better. Example: The guy who was sued by a local mall because he owned a website that provided mall information *prior* to the mall's existence. The mall called it cybersquatting, but the U.S. Supreme Court called it free speech. The interpretation of the law was changed in the favor of the average citizen.
>>>I think there is a very fundamental principle at work here. Apple is obsessed with usability.
That Apple Kool-Aid is really good isn't it?;-) Your reason is only a symptom, not the cause. The fundamental cause is that Apple is afraid of clone companies like Gateway or eMachines or Whoever coming-along and stealing their Mac/iPod/iPhone market the same way they took the IBM PC away from IBM.
Same motive that leads Apple to lock-up its Macintosh hardware. Apple is afraid they might end-up like IBM, who lost control of their PC invention and was undersold by the clones. IBM was lucky that it had lots of other businesses and didn't need the PC to survive, but Apple without the Mac or iPhone or iPod business would probably go bankrupt. Apple doesn't want to join the ranks of Atari or Commodore.
So they stringently enforce control over their hardware, to prevent potential loss of business to clones.
>>>>>To compress a JPEG to a lower size you would decrease the quality setting in whatever editing program you are using and reencode the picture.
>>That's not what i'm talking about. Nor what [commodore64_love] was referring to
Yes Will I was referring to that (adjusting the quality setting). You made the mistake of thinking the word "compression" meant lossless compression, but when my ISP squeezes a 100KB image to a 20KB image, they are using *lossy* compression.
Maddox says black text on a white background is like "Staring into a lightbulb". I never thought of it like that, but he makes a good point. Whe was the last time you saw a TV show display pure white background with black text on it?
Virtually never. The television world has learned the "friendliest" screen is a dark background (black, blue) with light-colored white test superimposed over it. Well computers use the same CRT or LCD technology as televisions. It makes sense to me they should follow the same lessons learned.
My own website is normal-sized text, but like Maddox it's white text with black background. Just like a TV presentation would be. I think that's easier on the eyes.
>>>[image compression is] not very common and it produces ugly results.
???. AOL has it. Netzero has it. Juno has it. Erols had it. Netscape has it. And you're right it produces ugly results, but if you're on dialup you're more-interested in speed than pretty pictures. Plus there's always the option to load the original image if, for example, you're viewing playboy.com. You don't have to use image compression.
>>>V.42bis on-the-fly compression, which is handled by the modem, is considerably more common - and that recompresses image files, making the files bigger. >>>
No it doesn't. V.42bis turns "off" when it encounters images, ZIPs, or other noncompressible files. That's why ISP-side compression is advantageous because it can open, recompress, and send a much smaller image, text, or flash file than V.42bis is capable of doing.
Yes. There's lossless compression where you take a text or executable file and squash it with ARC or ZIP. And then there's lossy compression where you take a photo and store it as a JPEG, or music and store it as MP2 or MP3. It's been that way for about twenty years now.... grandpa.;-)
>>>>>on slow connections virtually all dialup ISPs provide compression. So a 100 kilobyte photo would be squeezed to about 20 kilobyte before being sent over the phoneline... a mere 3 seconds.
>>Not even close. Photos are usually jpegs and therefore they're already compressed.
Bzzz. They are compressed, but they can still be compressed further. The ISP opens the JPEG or GIF image, resets the quality from 90 to 10* and then sends it over the phoneline. That's how an image can be compressed from 100KB to 20KB, and help to speedup your phoneline connection.
* *On my Netscape ISP the actual quality setting is set by me, the user.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not the "style" I miss, but the speed. The older themes are less-demanding on the CPU and therefore run faster. Yeah Vista-style is pretty, but the XP or Classic style open-and-close windows without those annoying pregnant pauses.
Give me lean-and-fast over pretty-and-slow anyday.
>>>Apparently, someone disagrees with you on that, agreeing that they should be able to mod posts as Troll if they disagree with them :)
Yeah well, although most of the persons here are "adults" they are still stuck in junior hihg mentally. They think it's funny to subtract points from other people, simply because they disagree. i.e. Censorship.
Apparently they disagree with you too, since they modded you "0" and made you invisible. Isn't censorship of free speech fun?
I feel like I'm in Iran.
I agree. We're only jumping +0.1 in version numbers (from Win6.2 to Win6.3). Anyone who has 6.2 should get a free upgrade to 6.3, just as on my XP machine I got a free upgrade from SP2 to SP3
>>>Although I had no problem with the remainder of the post "This isn't France. We don't censor free speech" is obvious trolling.
Grow a sense of humor, prude.
And no that wasn't a troll either. It's called an insult.
I said "no" because the original post makes it sound like Apple caught some kind of disease that is only unique to Microsoft.
But Microsoft is not unique. Nearly all megacorps act in that fashion, due to a fear of loss. Apple is acting like your average, typical megacorporation. i.e. Perfectly predictable and to be expected.
Because the OP's comment makes it sound like Apple caught some kind of disease that is only unique to Microsoft.
But Microsoft is not unique. Nearly all megacorps act in that fashion, due to a fear of loss. Apple is acting like your average, typical megacorporation. i.e. Perfectly predictable and to be expected.
Yeah but I don't have an Evil-X, so that automatically makes my visit to the courtroom ten times happier than your visits.
correction: "....soar to 15,000 and then burst in 2014, so make sure to sell your stock in 2013..."
Well sure if you want a slow brain equivalent to an 8088 IBM PC. If you want the more-powerful brain that's the organic equivalent of the latest 4000 megahertz CPU, then you need a woman with a high IQ.
"Hello my name is Bill. I want to have children. Would you like to be the vessel to carry them?"
"Hello my name is Sally. I want to have children. Would you like to donate your sperm?"
If we were honest, then that's how we would all introduce ourselves. Perhaps those cultures with arranged marriages are being the most honest of all - marriage is for the purpose of creating children, not romance.
My annoyance is that "they" presume my downloading means they are losing money. I've been downloading a lot of recent movies lately, and no surprise, the movies are largely crap piled upon more crap (how they ever scored 7 or higher on imdb.com is a mystery to me). The RIAA/MPAA make the assumption that if I had not downloaded, I would have bought the DVD instead.
They presume wrong.
Out of some 20 movies downloaded there was precisely 1 that I will probably buy on DVD, and that's only because my niece wants to see Hannah Montana in 3D. Otherwise I don't waste my money on Hollyweird's shit unless it's exceptionally good. This past 2008-9 season almost nothing met that criteria. So for them to say, "We lost $400," is completely and totally inaccurate.
They are liars. They lost nothing because I'm not a spender. My money gets invested into the stockmarket, not shiny discs, which probably pisses them off.
You mean Vista 6.2 to Vista 6.3 (falsely named 7 by the liars aka marketers). Yes it should be a free upgrade since it's still the same major version number.
You're not supposed to subtract points from someone, just because you disagree with them.
If you disagree with someone's opinion, then post a reply that says, "I disagree because ....." Don't abuse your mod point privilege by modding someone into invisibility (i.e. a 0 or -1 score). This isn't France. We don't censor free speech.
>>>Human brains remain the only high performance computer manufactured with unskilled labour.
I object! It takes a lot of skill to satisfy today's demanding women. And what happens if you lack that skill? They'll just jump ship to some other guy's bed. Unskilled labor indeed. It takes a lot of skill to convince Miss Prissy to let her guard down, bribe her with a 50,000 dollar wedding, remove the diaphragm, and let you impregnate her.
No I'm not bitter.
Although I do have this gnawing pain in my gut until I can taste the bile rising up my throat and into my mouth. Well. Maybe I'm a little bitter. Or else I just have heartburn; anybody have a TicTac?
We're already on Bubble 4.0. The first bubble was Goldman Sachs orchestration of the dot-com bubble (selling worthless websites to stock market speculators). The second was the mortgage bubble. Then Goldman Sachs orchestrated the oil bubble of 2008, and now they're creating another bubble built on money borrowed from China (aka the bailout bubble) which is not real production, but fiat.
That's 4.
So invest now in the market. Thanks to Goldman and their buds in the treasury/central bank (former GS employees), Bubble 4.0 will soar to 15,000 and sometime in 2004 will burst, so make sure to sell your stock in 2003. Aren't roller coasters fun?
You're right it's not a tax, because the MS fee is voluntary whereas taxes are not, however the MS fee is still hard to avoid. You mentioned the Dell N-series, but that series still forces you to pay for a Windows license fee, even though there's no Windows on the machine (i.e. an N-series PC is the same price as a Vista machine).
What I can't figure out is why amazon gave a refund to a guy who has Windows installed on his Net PC. That sounds kinda shady. I could quite easily buy a netbook, CLAIM I'm not using Windows, get my refund, and then continue using Windows. I have no objections about stealing from the soulless entity called "megacorporation". (1) That's no more harmful than stealing a rock from the ocean since corporations are not human beings, and (2) it steals from taxpayers all the time; a little reverse-theft merely restores the wealth to the poor who labored to earn it in the first place & to whom it rightfully belongs.
But I don't understand why amazon.uk would so easily agree to give a refund - it seems this makes them open to all kinds of liars. "No I don't use Windows. No sir. Not me. No way."
>>>In other words, Apple is the new Microsoft
No. Apple is just like any other business that seeks to hold onto a monopoly. MS, Comcast, Cox, OPEC... they all act alike because they all share the same fundamental fear of loss. They don't want to lose the market, or the money that comes with it. It's basic human instinct made manifest at the mega-corporate level.
As for the DMCA Notice:
I wouldn't be happy, but I would look at it as an opportunity. First it's a chance to refuse to comply and stand-up for my second basic right of free speech (with the most basic right being ownership of my body and my mouth). Second I've never been inside a courtroom, so it would be a new and exciting experience (life is dull). And third given how long these things typically drag-out (4-5 years), I could earn a law degree. My thesis would be about my self and my case.
Okay I'm just joking on that last bit.
But I'd still look at the notice as an opportunity not a tragedy. Court cases are how you change legal interpretation for the better. Example: The guy who was sued by a local mall because he owned a website that provided mall information *prior* to the mall's existence. The mall called it cybersquatting, but the U.S. Supreme Court called it free speech. The interpretation of the law was changed in the favor of the average citizen.
>>>I think there is a very fundamental principle at work here. Apple is obsessed with usability.
That Apple Kool-Aid is really good isn't it? ;-) Your reason is only a symptom, not the cause. The fundamental cause is that Apple is afraid of clone companies like Gateway or eMachines or Whoever coming-along and stealing their Mac/iPod/iPhone market the same way they took the IBM PC away from IBM.
>>>I have to ask: what's Apple's motive here?
Same motive that leads Apple to lock-up its Macintosh hardware. Apple is afraid they might end-up like IBM, who lost control of their PC invention and was undersold by the clones. IBM was lucky that it had lots of other businesses and didn't need the PC to survive, but Apple without the Mac or iPhone or iPod business would probably go bankrupt. Apple doesn't want to join the ranks of Atari or Commodore.
So they stringently enforce control over their hardware, to prevent potential loss of business to clones.
>>>>>To compress a JPEG to a lower size you would decrease the quality setting in whatever editing program you are using and reencode the picture.
>>That's not what i'm talking about. Nor what [commodore64_love] was referring to
Yes Will I was referring to that (adjusting the quality setting). You made the mistake of thinking the word "compression" meant lossless compression, but when my ISP squeezes a 100KB image to a 20KB image, they are using *lossy* compression.
When I use images, I make sure to provide the size parameters so the browser can display the page even if the images are still downloading.
Can't you do something similar with tables, such that the table can be displayed even if the content hasn't downloaded yet?
Maddox says black text on a white background is like "Staring into a lightbulb". I never thought of it like that, but he makes a good point. Whe was the last time you saw a TV show display pure white background with black text on it?
Virtually never. The television world has learned the "friendliest" screen is a dark background (black, blue) with light-colored white test superimposed over it. Well computers use the same CRT or LCD technology as televisions. It makes sense to me they should follow the same lessons learned.
My own website is normal-sized text, but like Maddox it's white text with black background. Just like a TV presentation would be. I think that's easier on the eyes.
>>>[image compression is] not very common and it produces ugly results.
???. AOL has it. Netzero has it. Juno has it. Erols had it. Netscape has it. And you're right it produces ugly results, but if you're on dialup you're more-interested in speed than pretty pictures. Plus there's always the option to load the original image if, for example, you're viewing playboy.com. You don't have to use image compression.
>>>V.42bis on-the-fly compression, which is handled by the modem, is considerably more common - and that recompresses image files, making the files bigger.
>>>
No it doesn't. V.42bis turns "off" when it encounters images, ZIPs, or other noncompressible files. That's why ISP-side compression is advantageous because it can open, recompress, and send a much smaller image, text, or flash file than V.42bis is capable of doing.
>>>So compression means two things now? Damn kids
Yes. There's lossless compression where you take a text or executable file and squash it with ARC or ZIP. And then there's lossy compression where you take a photo and store it as a JPEG, or music and store it as MP2 or MP3. It's been that way for about twenty years now.... grandpa. ;-)
>>>>>on slow connections virtually all dialup ISPs provide compression. So a 100 kilobyte photo would be squeezed to about 20 kilobyte before being sent over the phoneline... a mere 3 seconds.
>>Not even close. Photos are usually jpegs and therefore they're already compressed.
Bzzz. They are compressed, but they can still be compressed further. The ISP opens the JPEG or GIF image, resets the quality from 90 to 10* and then sends it over the phoneline. That's how an image can be compressed from 100KB to 20KB, and help to speedup your phoneline connection.
*
*On my Netscape ISP the actual quality setting is set by me, the user.