Hahaha, if I hadn't commented, I'd mod you up. Mark Twain and Benjamin Franklin have many misquotes, while Weird Al is given 'credit' (I don't he'd want to be associated with many of them) for lots of songs. I'm amazed at how badly labeled Weird Al P2P songs are. People sometimes don't believe me when I tell them the song they are listening to (with incorrect ID3 tags) is not really Weird Al.
Hey, speak for yourself. It seems many Californians love the Pacific Northwest. They keep coming up here to Seattle! Our population has grown quite a bit since I was born here and a large portion of the growth is from Californians (I believe). At least, that's what Almost Live told me;)
The woman doing the article has her students figure out why it doesn't work using the odd/even mismatch. However, he used the program again later (perhaps modified, I believe) to find a more close near-miss and one that isn't as easily disproved with the odd/even mismatch.
I read most of the article. A few years later (1995), David X Cohen wrote a small program to find numbers that fudge to make it look like Fermat's Last Theorem is false (near misses). He used the program to find three numbers that made the equation roughly equal, as in, if viewed on a calculator will low resolution (only showing 8-9 digits), they answers would appear to be equal. Here is one of the two equations used in the Simpsons:
1782^12 + 1841^12 =1922^12
Anyway, my point was that they knew how to write code.
Yeah, hehe, really. I saw a thing on like MadTV where they were advertising "Fat Guy Friday" on whatever channel. It had like King of Queens, uhh, that guy who used to be on Nickelodeon, and someone else. Then they had Raymond and were like, "Ray's not fat yet, but we're working on it."
My iChat/AOL IM icon is my head in a bald cap and painted blue. Before the WWDC keynote I joined the AIM chat room AppleInsider to talk about it. I thought nothing of it, because I use that icon a lot, but then this conversation happened and it amused me:
chat person 1: who teh fk is the guy with the blue face chat person 1: thats scary chat person 2: thats an intel man chat person 1: how apt
Hehe, I found it amusing. I didn't realize it at the time, but I was a harbinger of things to come.
I don't see Apple releasing a digital camera, camcorder, or even a PVR (although, that is the most likely of the bunch). Apple's whole thing is the digital hub, which is working well for them. They aren't trying to get 'convergence' (which I think is dumb) and they aren't trying to make every product you might need. Instead, they are making the box to make everything connect and empower the consumer. You could probably sum up Apple's stance with, "We don't want to make the components, we want to make them work better." Something along that lines. Actually, it seems like I've heard that before, hopefully I'm not mistaking Microsoft or someone's latest catch-phrase for Apple's:).
But yeah, Apple is not going to make all those apps. There is too much competition in those arenas (and in cell phones) and Apple wouldn't be able to bring much innovation to the field (like they did with the iPod). Apple will stick to managing the data from these devices and allowing you to be creative with it.
Be sure to report errors. I found an error in a listing in Seattle, e-mailed them, and it was fixed a few weeks later. It was too late for me, it already caused me to lose time, but it might help someone in the future.
I would hope if they go out of business they would make it easy for you to use your songs. Of course, I don't really see Apple going out of business anytime soon (and if they do, I have more problems then playing a few hundred dollars worth of songs). Either way, you can still burn all the purchased songs to a CD.
Sorry for being rude before. Anyway, yeah, if new music comes out that you want you would have to pay again, but if you are willing to wait, you could just sign up for a month every year or twice yearly and fill up your coffers.
Wow, you're an idiot. I'm sure the record companies would love to create a service like you describe. You would subscribe just long enough to download all the music (well, at least the music you want), and then stop the subscription. Lets say that takes two months. Now you just got hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of music for $40. Yeah, that's going to happen.
Why do you want programs to go away when you aren't using them? If you do, just hit command-Q. The thing is, you don't really need to close programs that often. If you aren't using them, they get paged out. OS X seems pretty smart with memory usage. All the apps I have launched load pretty quickly (slower if they were paged, but still quicker than launching from scratch). I just don't see why you would want to close programs so much that command-Q becomes a hassle.
Yeah, the default settings are kind of stupid in iTunes. Every time I have to configure iTunes, I automatically go to iTunes->Preferences and click the Audio tab. I make sure Cross fading and Sound Enhancer are disabled. I then go to Advanced and make sure "Keep iTunes Music folder organized" and "Copy files to iTunes Music folder when adding to library". Actually, now that I reread your question, I'm not sure what is happened to you. Did you click through when opening it the first time too quickly and have it scan your computer for music? One thing I don't like is when music files are automatically loaded in iTunes when opened. I think they should open in Quicktime and only add to iTunes if you drag them in.
I've never attempted adding keyboard shortcuts, so I can't comment there.
OS X isn't perfect, but I find it much more usable than Windows XP.
Well, obviously you didn't go to the right high school and to a lesser extent the right college. In high school the #1 complaint I heard about Macs were that they were slow. Some people really hold onto their old preconceptions.
It takes some getting used to, but I really like it. I was never really a fan of OS 9 and before, but I love OS X. Expose was a little weird at first, but now I can hit F9 blindfolded (it helps that I'm using a laptop so my hands are always near by). I also like how there is no MDI (every instance of an app is independent, not collapsed in one window; but this is becoming less of a deal in Windows; also, I do use tabbed browsing, but that is the only time I find MDI acceptable) and the menu bar is always easy to reach.
I know, really. I searched this out myself when the story came out and my download has gone from a measly 34 kBps to a pitiful 7.7 kBps. Thanks for linking to it!:(
I hope Apple doesn't try to marry themselves to Intel. I was surprised they ditched IBM so fast, lets hope they can do that again if Intel lags behind. It should be a very simple switch to AMD, so Apple should have lots of options about choosing the fastest or best chip for the job.
Good point. Close minded Winboys have always just said "Macs are slow" and dismissed them. Even if the G5 was king for a short while, they still dismissed it. Now that they'll be running on almost exactly the same hardware (the motherboard will probably be the biggest difference), the biggest performance changer will be software. And I can attest to how much OS X has improved in the last few years in terms of speed. I'd like to see a comparison of 'snapiness' and the like between the P4 and G5 PowerMacs.
Not to sound like a fan boy, but those have been nearly standard on Apple laptops for nearly forever. I remember when I first used 802.11b. It was five years ago and a teacher brought in a new laptop to show the tech folk at school. It was on old toilet seat iBook with wireless. I thought it was friggin' awesome that we were walking around the halls downloading movie trailers off Apple's site.
2.5 years ago my family got its first Mac in the form of a PowerBook. It had wireless (of course) and a DVD burner. Unfortunately, we've only burned one DVD ever, but at least we had it when we needed it. My current 12" doesn't have a DVD burner, but it does have Bluetooth, which should be a standard feature. I wonder how many years until DVD burners and Bluetooth is considered ubiquitous.
I have the same computer. Soon after I got it, I took a flight from Seattle to Vegas. I was typing a document in the airport with the screen on lowest brightness. I continued typing for most of the way on the airplane and by the end I was only down to 69%. These PowerBooks last forever, and I think it is even better with Tiger (more efficient, less processing). Right now I'm on wireless internet and listening to iTunes. I've been at this for like 22 minutes and have only lost 10% battery life. Quite good if you ask me:)
Sounds reasonable. Also, don't forget that miniaturization is also probably a lot cheaper now. Laptop hard drives and even smaller are readily available in laptops and HD digital music players. Desktops are being made smaller, from the Shuttle XPC systems to the Mac mini. Everything is being miniaturized, so the size difference between desktop and laptop components is likely shrinking. Sure, you have the huge, powerful graphics cards in Desktops, but you can still get older and slower graphics cards for laptop that still work well at low power.
I'm amazed at prices recently. Huge LCDs are very reasonable and the Crucial PowerBook RAM is down to $200 for 1 gig SO-DIMM. Everything is getting cheaper, so I'm sure it is a number of factors contributing to cheap laptops.
It doesn't matter if it is inefficient if it is never used. Taxing gas is better because then, assuming the vehicles travel the same amount, the more inefficient one has to pay more. Also, that way it penalizes people that drive more as well. With gas tax, you cover all the bases.
Why tax engine size? Why not tax how much fuel they use. Someone may have a huge SUV, but only drive it once a week to Costco. On the other hand, another person may have a compact, but drive 100 miles a day (I know people in California that due that). One person is using a lot more fuel and energy than the other, but with your plan, the amount they pay would be reversed. If stuff is paid for with tax, it should be paid for as accurately as possible to the users. If you are paying for roads, and you don't charge fees (which would be ideal), than tax the gas, since it is most proportional to wear.
I know, but I'm saying that it doesn't necessarily follow party lines. Zell Miller is more conservative than most Democrats, but he is still technically a Democrat.
That's why we are kind of stuck here in the states. Either we continue consuming and get completely raped by the cost of energy in the next decade, or we become smart and switch to green stuff. Unfortunately, since a lot of our businesses suck, we'd have to import green technology. Look at GM. If less people bought cars from them because GM doesn't produce efficient cars like the Japanese, GM would be even worse off, putting our economy in the shitter. What we need is for American companies to produce energy efficient stuff, so switching over and becoming more green would actually help our economy, instead of hurting it (by buying everything from other countries).
Slashdot Mirror
Hahaha, if I hadn't commented, I'd mod you up. Mark Twain and Benjamin Franklin have many misquotes, while Weird Al is given 'credit' (I don't he'd want to be associated with many of them) for lots of songs. I'm amazed at how badly labeled Weird Al P2P songs are. People sometimes don't believe me when I tell them the song they are listening to (with incorrect ID3 tags) is not really Weird Al.
Hey, speak for yourself. It seems many Californians love the Pacific Northwest. They keep coming up here to Seattle! Our population has grown quite a bit since I was born here and a large portion of the growth is from Californians (I believe). At least, that's what Almost Live told me ;)
The woman doing the article has her students figure out why it doesn't work using the odd/even mismatch. However, he used the program again later (perhaps modified, I believe) to find a more close near-miss and one that isn't as easily disproved with the odd/even mismatch.
And these were techy guys.
I read most of the article. A few years later (1995), David X Cohen wrote a small program to find numbers that fudge to make it look like Fermat's Last Theorem is false (near misses). He used the program to find three numbers that made the equation roughly equal, as in, if viewed on a calculator will low resolution (only showing 8-9 digits), they answers would appear to be equal. Here is one of the two equations used in the Simpsons:
1782^12 + 1841^12 =1922^12
Anyway, my point was that they knew how to write code.
Andrew
Yeah, hehe, really. I saw a thing on like MadTV where they were advertising "Fat Guy Friday" on whatever channel. It had like King of Queens, uhh, that guy who used to be on Nickelodeon, and someone else. Then they had Raymond and were like, "Ray's not fat yet, but we're working on it."
You'd probably have to be there. It was funny.
Yeah, that's right. Damn catchy TV commercial slogans. I'll be happy when I live somewhere without cable (but I'll miss The Daily Show).
My iChat/AOL IM icon is my head in a bald cap and painted blue. Before the WWDC keynote I joined the AIM chat room AppleInsider to talk about it. I thought nothing of it, because I use that icon a lot, but then this conversation happened and it amused me:
chat person 1: who teh fk is the guy with the blue face
chat person 1: thats scary
chat person 2: thats an intel man
chat person 1: how apt
Hehe, I found it amusing. I didn't realize it at the time, but I was a harbinger of things to come.
I don't see Apple releasing a digital camera, camcorder, or even a PVR (although, that is the most likely of the bunch). Apple's whole thing is the digital hub, which is working well for them. They aren't trying to get 'convergence' (which I think is dumb) and they aren't trying to make every product you might need. Instead, they are making the box to make everything connect and empower the consumer. You could probably sum up Apple's stance with, "We don't want to make the components, we want to make them work better." Something along that lines. Actually, it seems like I've heard that before, hopefully I'm not mistaking Microsoft or someone's latest catch-phrase for Apple's :).
But yeah, Apple is not going to make all those apps. There is too much competition in those arenas (and in cell phones) and Apple wouldn't be able to bring much innovation to the field (like they did with the iPod). Apple will stick to managing the data from these devices and allowing you to be creative with it.
At least, that's my opinion,
Andrew
Be sure to report errors. I found an error in a listing in Seattle, e-mailed them, and it was fixed a few weeks later. It was too late for me, it already caused me to lose time, but it might help someone in the future.
I would hope if they go out of business they would make it easy for you to use your songs. Of course, I don't really see Apple going out of business anytime soon (and if they do, I have more problems then playing a few hundred dollars worth of songs). Either way, you can still burn all the purchased songs to a CD.
Sorry for being rude before. Anyway, yeah, if new music comes out that you want you would have to pay again, but if you are willing to wait, you could just sign up for a month every year or twice yearly and fill up your coffers.
Wow, you're an idiot. I'm sure the record companies would love to create a service like you describe. You would subscribe just long enough to download all the music (well, at least the music you want), and then stop the subscription. Lets say that takes two months. Now you just got hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of music for $40. Yeah, that's going to happen.
Why do you want programs to go away when you aren't using them? If you do, just hit command-Q. The thing is, you don't really need to close programs that often. If you aren't using them, they get paged out. OS X seems pretty smart with memory usage. All the apps I have launched load pretty quickly (slower if they were paged, but still quicker than launching from scratch). I just don't see why you would want to close programs so much that command-Q becomes a hassle.
Yeah, the default settings are kind of stupid in iTunes. Every time I have to configure iTunes, I automatically go to iTunes->Preferences and click the Audio tab. I make sure Cross fading and Sound Enhancer are disabled. I then go to Advanced and make sure "Keep iTunes Music folder organized" and "Copy files to iTunes Music folder when adding to library". Actually, now that I reread your question, I'm not sure what is happened to you. Did you click through when opening it the first time too quickly and have it scan your computer for music? One thing I don't like is when music files are automatically loaded in iTunes when opened. I think they should open in Quicktime and only add to iTunes if you drag them in.
I've never attempted adding keyboard shortcuts, so I can't comment there.
OS X isn't perfect, but I find it much more usable than Windows XP.
Well, obviously you didn't go to the right high school and to a lesser extent the right college. In high school the #1 complaint I heard about Macs were that they were slow. Some people really hold onto their old preconceptions.
It takes some getting used to, but I really like it. I was never really a fan of OS 9 and before, but I love OS X. Expose was a little weird at first, but now I can hit F9 blindfolded (it helps that I'm using a laptop so my hands are always near by). I also like how there is no MDI (every instance of an app is independent, not collapsed in one window; but this is becoming less of a deal in Windows; also, I do use tabbed browsing, but that is the only time I find MDI acceptable) and the menu bar is always easy to reach.
I know, really. I searched this out myself when the story came out and my download has gone from a measly 34 kBps to a pitiful 7.7 kBps. Thanks for linking to it! :(
I hope Apple doesn't try to marry themselves to Intel. I was surprised they ditched IBM so fast, lets hope they can do that again if Intel lags behind. It should be a very simple switch to AMD, so Apple should have lots of options about choosing the fastest or best chip for the job.
Good point. Close minded Winboys have always just said "Macs are slow" and dismissed them. Even if the G5 was king for a short while, they still dismissed it. Now that they'll be running on almost exactly the same hardware (the motherboard will probably be the biggest difference), the biggest performance changer will be software. And I can attest to how much OS X has improved in the last few years in terms of speed. I'd like to see a comparison of 'snapiness' and the like between the P4 and G5 PowerMacs.
Beleaguered Apple switches to Intel. MemoryDragon confirms much rumored reports of Apple's demise. More at 11.
Not to sound like a fan boy, but those have been nearly standard on Apple laptops for nearly forever. I remember when I first used 802.11b. It was five years ago and a teacher brought in a new laptop to show the tech folk at school. It was on old toilet seat iBook with wireless. I thought it was friggin' awesome that we were walking around the halls downloading movie trailers off Apple's site.
2.5 years ago my family got its first Mac in the form of a PowerBook. It had wireless (of course) and a DVD burner. Unfortunately, we've only burned one DVD ever, but at least we had it when we needed it. My current 12" doesn't have a DVD burner, but it does have Bluetooth, which should be a standard feature. I wonder how many years until DVD burners and Bluetooth is considered ubiquitous.
I have the same computer. Soon after I got it, I took a flight from Seattle to Vegas. I was typing a document in the airport with the screen on lowest brightness. I continued typing for most of the way on the airplane and by the end I was only down to 69%. These PowerBooks last forever, and I think it is even better with Tiger (more efficient, less processing). Right now I'm on wireless internet and listening to iTunes. I've been at this for like 22 minutes and have only lost 10% battery life. Quite good if you ask me :)
Sounds reasonable. Also, don't forget that miniaturization is also probably a lot cheaper now. Laptop hard drives and even smaller are readily available in laptops and HD digital music players. Desktops are being made smaller, from the Shuttle XPC systems to the Mac mini. Everything is being miniaturized, so the size difference between desktop and laptop components is likely shrinking. Sure, you have the huge, powerful graphics cards in Desktops, but you can still get older and slower graphics cards for laptop that still work well at low power.
I'm amazed at prices recently. Huge LCDs are very reasonable and the Crucial PowerBook RAM is down to $200 for 1 gig SO-DIMM. Everything is getting cheaper, so I'm sure it is a number of factors contributing to cheap laptops.
Andrew
It doesn't matter if it is inefficient if it is never used. Taxing gas is better because then, assuming the vehicles travel the same amount, the more inefficient one has to pay more. Also, that way it penalizes people that drive more as well. With gas tax, you cover all the bases.
Why tax engine size? Why not tax how much fuel they use. Someone may have a huge SUV, but only drive it once a week to Costco. On the other hand, another person may have a compact, but drive 100 miles a day (I know people in California that due that). One person is using a lot more fuel and energy than the other, but with your plan, the amount they pay would be reversed. If stuff is paid for with tax, it should be paid for as accurately as possible to the users. If you are paying for roads, and you don't charge fees (which would be ideal), than tax the gas, since it is most proportional to wear.
I know, but I'm saying that it doesn't necessarily follow party lines. Zell Miller is more conservative than most Democrats, but he is still technically a Democrat.
That's why we are kind of stuck here in the states. Either we continue consuming and get completely raped by the cost of energy in the next decade, or we become smart and switch to green stuff. Unfortunately, since a lot of our businesses suck, we'd have to import green technology. Look at GM. If less people bought cars from them because GM doesn't produce efficient cars like the Japanese, GM would be even worse off, putting our economy in the shitter. What we need is for American companies to produce energy efficient stuff, so switching over and becoming more green would actually help our economy, instead of hurting it (by buying everything from other countries).