Yeah, I know, I was trying to make a point that people are being overly critical and not really just enjoying the story -- though I have to admit that as a science geek I can't stand that line either -- I do twitch when I hear it. I know it's a writer's goof that the tech/science consultant missed, but if you want to come up with an answer, the 'Most Efficent Trajectory' theory could work as choosing a balance between trip length and fuel requirements (for instance, Galileo's long circituous path to Jupiter and Cassini's long trip to Saturn) is a very important part of planning a space mission. (For instance, you don't need heat shields on your antenna and RTGs at Jupiter, but you do when you're swooping past the Sun, so Galileo had a few seemingly-unneeded parts). The trajectories could have been more direct, but that'd require a more powerful booster and a more complicated spacecraft -- both more expensive.
There was originally some English text on some consoles in the first three movies, and that was one of the things that was fixed via digital post-production for the DVD versions.
Too bad the chances of anyone speaking English who lived in another galaxy, prior to the existence of the human race (presumablyare so remote as to be nonexistent.
They just want to use their computer, like they just want to use their TVs and microwaves.
And then complain when it gets full of spyware and viruses. Other stuff you can "just use" and you don't have to worry about spyware and viruses. They complain about having to deal with it (use something that doesn't suffer from them), yet do nothing when you tell them how to avoid having to deal with it.
Oh, I'm sure you're not, and my setup is a lot like yours. I just find it frustrating that the public at large (NOT you and me specifically) are so accepting of such shoddy software design and that no one (again, general public) seems to care about actually using 'safer' alternatives. Like you, I don't have virus problems... it'd be nice if more people would wake up and realize they didn't HAVE to suffer the threat, though. They act like no other alternatives exist -- when there are in fact many.
But then, I could rant for a very long time about the uninformedness of the public on many issues!
I'm not sure about the corners (I recall there being a widget only at the bottom right). I wonder if there is a haxie (small system tweak; the site I linked you to should have an explanation somewhere?) that will do that?
As for the scroll arrows: actually, you can do that. That's how I do it. In the Appearance control panel, look for the "Place Scroll Arrows" option and check the "Together" radio button.
I'm using Tiger, but I'm pretty sure that option was there in Panther, too.
(At least, I think that's what you're looking for!)
Agreed (see comment #12648734 for my take on it and what I legitimately use 301 redirects for).
I haven't seen your books -- do the links on the pages link to your own site where you keep a database of where each link will go that you maintain manually? That's a good idea. Too many books about the Net go out of date fast because the links are out of date by the time the book gets published -- but someone's still got to keep up with it -- that would be you, if you do the database thing. How automated is it?
Just to clarify that a bit -- 301 redirects are not a hijack. They just mean that a resource is 'moved permanently' and search engines will change their databases to point to the new location. I have done this with two paths on my own website here at work and in time Google picked up on the redirections and cleaned its database. It's also useful because this way visitors who got to the site by clicking on old links don't get 404 errors and lose interest -- they just get redirected to the correct page. (It's implemented as ModRewrite instructions in the htaccess file for the site).
It's only a hijack if you're specifically targeting search bots with customized pages and doing sneaky things that way. Which this guy might or might not be doing... I couldn't verify anything in that blog post. None of the tests listed to reproduce what is described worked -- no hijacks are apparent anywhere, or even the guy's site, in the search results..
I'm primarily a Mac user but I also have a windows machine, and like you, I don't have security issues with it.
That said, I still have to keep a virus scanner, firewall, spyware checker, etc., installed, and know how to use and update them. It's always there at the back of your mind.
I prefer not even having to worry about such things.
Personally, I tend to change themes from time to time, and wander back to Aqua from time to time, but it's nice to be able to switch if I want to. Too bad too many menus etc. have hardcoded black letters and icons that assume the background is white and thus break dark themes.
It's a little late to fight against the use of 'spam' to mean 'junk email'. Genie. Out of bottle. Deal. (To these idiots, that is). To make the world change the way it uses language is pointless when the shift has already occurred. This word has gained a new meaning and just the fact that someone doesn't like it isn't going to stop the 99.9999999% of the people who know the new meaning from continuing to use it.
Save your money for something you can actually get a benefit from.
They're taking it slowly to ensure that nothing goes wrong. Once the rover drives up and out of the dune, it will then be directed over firmer-looking terrain back toward its original objective, but they want to be sure they understand how it's reacting as it moves.
I got a page like that one when trying to use a brand-new nightly, released THE NIGHT BEFORE, when trying to visit the Firefox extension list page. I had to hack my user-agent string to explicity claim to be 1.0.4 even though I was using a NIGHTLY OF THAT BROWSER, and it wouldn't let me in.
Yeesh. Some coder needed a good tongue-lashing that day.
Flash bogs down my system if it's too fancy. (I don't know why, but Flash on Mac Firefox seems to have that problem, at least on my 800 MHz TiBook). If it uses Flash when HTML would suffice, I ignore it. If it's using Flash where Flash does make sense and it bogs me down, I leave.
In 90% of Adsense 'installs', they look every bit as annoying as a banner. They disrupt the layout and keep my eye from scanning through to the text/info/photos on the page that I came to see. I came to read, not to have someone try to snooker me into buying shit I don't want.
But why distribute your own project if you haven't changed anything? What's the point? Still, if I did such a thing, I'd probably find a way to distribute my exact project complete with the extras -- it'd confuse people far less to just get it from me if it were my project than trust that some other site is the same stuff.
Airliners.net does this also. I'm an aviation enthusiast and I like to contribute to sites like it and to railphotos.net (I'm also a train enthusiast) and people get ads to look at my pictures. Yet airliners.net wants to charge me to post to their forums (I got as far as "reserving" a username before it refused to let me get the account without paying).
If they use my material, which I grant them permission to use (and they credit me, they don't transfer copyright to themselves) and they get ad revenue from putting ads on the pages showing my photos, why should I have to pay? I've already essentially paid by helping them get more ad views/clicks.
I let the "reservation" time out because I didn't agree with their policy.
Not so fast on the 'not so fast'. As long as you redistribute your app, you must give out the code. You can refuse to give the source if you don't redistribute the code -- but if you distribute, you must give out source.
... and how much more I prefer working on my Mac. I don't outright refuse to use Windows - I've used all three major platforms - I just honestly and simply do prefer OS X. Lack of security headaches is a large part of that. MS still hasn't been able to keep the crackers out. When they totally redo their OS to be more secure, I'll feel more comfortable about using it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I know, I was trying to make a point that people are being overly critical and not really just enjoying the story -- though I have to admit that as a science geek I can't stand that line either -- I do twitch when I hear it. I know it's a writer's goof that the tech/science consultant missed, but if you want to come up with an answer, the 'Most Efficent Trajectory' theory could work as choosing a balance between trip length and fuel requirements (for instance, Galileo's long circituous path to Jupiter and Cassini's long trip to Saturn) is a very important part of planning a space mission. (For instance, you don't need heat shields on your antenna and RTGs at Jupiter, but you do when you're swooping past the Sun, so Galileo had a few seemingly-unneeded parts). The trajectories could have been more direct, but that'd require a more powerful booster and a more complicated spacecraft -- both more expensive.
There was originally some English text on some consoles in the first three movies, and that was one of the things that was fixed via digital post-production for the DVD versions.
Too bad the chances of anyone speaking English who lived in another galaxy, prior to the existence of the human race (presumablyare so remote as to be nonexistent.
They just want to use their computer, like they just want to use their TVs and microwaves.
And then complain when it gets full of spyware and viruses. Other stuff you can "just use" and you don't have to worry about spyware and viruses. They complain about having to deal with it (use something that doesn't suffer from them), yet do nothing when you tell them how to avoid having to deal with it.
What kind of logic is there in that?
Oh, I'm sure you're not, and my setup is a lot like yours. I just find it frustrating that the public at large (NOT you and me specifically) are so accepting of such shoddy software design and that no one (again, general public) seems to care about actually using 'safer' alternatives. Like you, I don't have virus problems ... it'd be nice if more people would wake up and realize they didn't HAVE to suffer the threat, though. They act like no other alternatives exist -- when there are in fact many.
But then, I could rant for a very long time about the uninformedness of the public on many issues!
I'm not sure about the corners (I recall there being a widget only at the bottom right). I wonder if there is a haxie (small system tweak; the site I linked you to should have an explanation somewhere?) that will do that?
As for the scroll arrows: actually, you can do that. That's how I do it. In the Appearance control panel, look for the "Place Scroll Arrows" option and check the "Together" radio button.
I'm using Tiger, but I'm pretty sure that option was there in Panther, too.
(At least, I think that's what you're looking for!)
Agreed (see comment #12648734 for my take on it and what I legitimately use 301 redirects for).
I haven't seen your books -- do the links on the pages link to your own site where you keep a database of where each link will go that you maintain manually? That's a good idea. Too many books about the Net go out of date fast because the links are out of date by the time the book gets published -- but someone's still got to keep up with it -- that would be you, if you do the database thing. How automated is it?
Just to clarify that a bit -- 301 redirects are not a hijack. They just mean that a resource is 'moved permanently' and search engines will change their databases to point to the new location. I have done this with two paths on my own website here at work and in time Google picked up on the redirections and cleaned its database. It's also useful because this way visitors who got to the site by clicking on old links don't get 404 errors and lose interest -- they just get redirected to the correct page. (It's implemented as ModRewrite instructions in the htaccess file for the site).
... I couldn't verify anything in that blog post. None of the tests listed to reproduce what is described worked -- no hijacks are apparent anywhere, or even the guy's site, in the search results..
It's only a hijack if you're specifically targeting search bots with customized pages and doing sneaky things that way. Which this guy might or might not be doing
"With Mac, you spend your time actually working."
You forgot the rest of the sentence: "...to pay it off."
You forgot the qualifier: "... because of all the extra shit you have to buy and waste time with just to keep it safe".
I'm primarily a Mac user but I also have a windows machine, and like you, I don't have security issues with it.
That said, I still have to keep a virus scanner, firewall, spyware checker, etc., installed, and know how to use and update them. It's always there at the back of your mind.
I prefer not even having to worry about such things.
You can use thirdparty apps to do it if you don't like the default look:
[unsanity] ShapeShifter - Unsanity - Makers of Haxies, small useful utilities that enhance and redefine how Mac OS X works.
Personally, I tend to change themes from time to time, and wander back to Aqua from time to time, but it's nice to be able to switch if I want to. Too bad too many menus etc. have hardcoded black letters and icons that assume the background is white and thus break dark themes.
It's a little late to fight against the use of 'spam' to mean 'junk email'. Genie. Out of bottle. Deal. (To these idiots, that is). To make the world change the way it uses language is pointless when the shift has already occurred. This word has gained a new meaning and just the fact that someone doesn't like it isn't going to stop the 99.9999999% of the people who know the new meaning from continuing to use it.
Save your money for something you can actually get a benefit from.
There are those of us that care. Just like there are those who care whenever Darl gets a zit on his ever-lengthening nose.
They're taking it slowly to ensure that nothing goes wrong. Once the rover drives up and out of the dune, it will then be directed over firmer-looking terrain back toward its original objective, but they want to be sure they understand how it's reacting as it moves.
I got a page like that one when trying to use a brand-new nightly, released THE NIGHT BEFORE, when trying to visit the Firefox extension list page. I had to hack my user-agent string to explicity claim to be 1.0.4 even though I was using a NIGHTLY OF THAT BROWSER, and it wouldn't let me in.
Yeesh. Some coder needed a good tongue-lashing that day.
Flash bogs down my system if it's too fancy. (I don't know why, but Flash on Mac Firefox seems to have that problem, at least on my 800 MHz TiBook). If it uses Flash when HTML would suffice, I ignore it. If it's using Flash where Flash does make sense and it bogs me down, I leave.
Flash is overused wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much.
In 90% of Adsense 'installs', they look every bit as annoying as a banner. They disrupt the layout and keep my eye from scanning through to the text/info/photos on the page that I came to see. I came to read, not to have someone try to snooker me into buying shit I don't want.
But why distribute your own project if you haven't changed anything? What's the point? Still, if I did such a thing, I'd probably find a way to distribute my exact project complete with the extras -- it'd confuse people far less to just get it from me if it were my project than trust that some other site is the same stuff.
Airliners.net does this also. I'm an aviation enthusiast and I like to contribute to sites like it and to railphotos.net (I'm also a train enthusiast) and people get ads to look at my pictures. Yet airliners.net wants to charge me to post to their forums (I got as far as "reserving" a username before it refused to let me get the account without paying).
If they use my material, which I grant them permission to use (and they credit me, they don't transfer copyright to themselves) and they get ad revenue from putting ads on the pages showing my photos, why should I have to pay? I've already essentially paid by helping them get more ad views/clicks.
I let the "reservation" time out because I didn't agree with their policy.
It's not slander if it's true.
Sounds like HE didn't know what he was talking about and was trying to cover his ass by hanging up on you.
Not so fast on the 'not so fast'. As long as you redistribute your app, you must give out the code. You can refuse to give the source if you don't redistribute the code -- but if you distribute, you must give out source.
Inhabited? (I once had someone tell me they were 'uninhabited' instead of "uninhibited" and it's an injoke now among people who knew the person).
I think we've been trolled. :p
A window manager is not a platform.
... and how much more I prefer working on my Mac. I don't outright refuse to use Windows - I've used all three major platforms - I just honestly and simply do prefer OS X. Lack of security headaches is a large part of that. MS still hasn't been able to keep the crackers out. When they totally redo their OS to be more secure, I'll feel more comfortable about using it.