Perhaps you have 2 sound devices. I've seen similar situations when an aftermarket sound card was installed, but the device built into the mainboard was never disabled. Try going into the Volume Control program (double-click on the speaker icon) and check what device is being controlled. Then go into Multimeda Properties or whatever it's called and see what your default playback device is. If they're different, make them the same.
You appear to be wrong on every count. I have an EMusic membership, and I am extremely satisfied with it.
EMusic provides entirely standard 128kb/s MP3 files complete with ID3 tags. EMP is their album-downloading format, which I think is based off of Real's playlist format. It's not too difficult, being human-readable XML. I wrote my own custom download manager myself, actually. In any case, you can boycott all managers and still download song-by-song.
The only case in which an incomplete download could be "counted against" anyone is during the 100 song free trial. Normally there is no quota to count against.
As for the "too many downloads" issue, I've only ever heard of that being applied to people mirroring the entire EMusic servers (thousands of albums in a few days). Yes, it was lame when they enforced this after advertising as "unlimited", but now that it's in the ToS who cares? I've never had a problem, and I've sometimes downloaded 10 albums in 1 day.
It's obvious that you are either making a bad attempt at trolling or that your uninformed rant is because of a complete lack of research, as a simple glance at EMusic's front page would make it painfully obvious that you don't need to fork out any money to test the waters. What with the free trial and all.
OR - you can pay (lets be optimistic) $500 for a relatively nice Dell computer nowadays ($499 to be exact, so I don't know how you were being *optomistic*)
You do realize you look like a moron when you correct someone's spelling, and they were right all along, don't you?
No offense, just maybe look it up before you make a big deal of it...
If a network is unlocked/unprotected how do we know whether someone is being generous or being ignorant?
That's their business. If they don't take the trivial step of setting a password (which is clearly recommended in even the most dumbed-down wireless kits I have seen) why should I assume that their policy is anything different than what they've deliberately implemented technologically.
If something similar to what I suggest becomes common/standard then one can easily check if a network has been explicitly made open for public use and what the terms are, and whether there are other interesting and accessible local services/devices/people.
The http://here/ is an interesting idea. Easily getting information about ToS, local interests, etc, would be nice. But using something like that to say "please stay off my network" is quite simply asinine and redundant.
I note that your idea isn't likely to be implemented be the technological ignoramuses of the world, either.
Who to ask and how? There should be a standard so that you can easily find out whose network you are using. So in the absence of a "yes you can" polite people won't use it.
There is, and it's built in. It's called "don't have the password, don't have access".
I don't see why you're bothering with that question. Wireless networking has numerous forms of security available. Requiring a simple security key is such a trivial step that I would take the fact that he left it wide open as a crystal-clear implication that he intended it to be public. If it wasn't intentional, then clearly he ignored the shiny baubles labeled "security" and "password" and such in favor of the shiny bauble labeled "start up now" or whatever, meaning that he doesn't care whether other people access it or not. This is really only a very slight difference from the first situation.
If you went and cracked his WEP or something, then yes, we could have a discussion about the wrongness of that. But the system involved has clear methods for conveying security-related metadata, which have been explicitly set up as an open network with no authorization required. So stop wasting our time when the operator of the network has told you through these technological means that the network is free to all. Enjoy the free bandwidth.
My apologies for the bad phrasing. I certainly would not be one to assume that familiarity with a specific language or tool implies cognizance of the entirety of computer science and engineering. Rather, I listed the languages I did (C, Java, and Lisp) in an attempt to show the breadth of my knowledge, my ability to master different paradigms (low-level portable assembly languages, trendy and object-oriented BDSM languages, and (mostly) functional languages), and yes, my mastery of specific languages. Theory means nothing if you can't apply it.
As I said, I've also become used to HR people disinterested in general knowledge, looking for buzzwords and specific technologies. Hopefully my résumé is a little more generic and abstract (I didn't link to it before simply because I didn't want my post to be interpreted as a simple plea for work, although if anyone has an offer I'd gladly take it), and do I welcome any suggestions.
I am a rabid advocate of an abstract knowledge base and of personal adaptability; occasionally I forget that this is not widespread and I could be perceived otherwise. In an attempt to mollify your legitimate criticism, therefore, here are the reasons I believe myself to be highly employable:
Computers aren't just a career to me; they are a passion. Ever since I was a small child I've been fascinated by them. I like to think of myself as a hacker. My dad had a dual-head (CGA and Hercules) XT system when I was 4 or 5, something like that. I was curious how some programs used one and some used another, but he told me I didn't need to worry about that. Exploration led me to MS-DOS's MODE command, and I was hooked.
My personality type (INTP) means I am naturally drawn to theory and abstract representations, that I want things done "properly". My physics classes were a bit strange, as I wanted the formulas for collisions, rather than drawing them out on a piece of paper and having a 15% margin of error be "acceptable". I just figured it out myself (basic trig) and programmed it into my calculator for good measure. I'm a big fan of automation as well -- most error seems to come from human mistakes -- but only if the operator has a vague idea of what's going on in the guts of the machine (I disagree with Joel Spolsky on a fair number of things, but he's correct with the basic idea of "leaky abstractions".).
My early BASIC programs shunned GOTO in favor of GOSUB. I then moved to QuickBASIC, then Pascal and C, then stuck to Java for quite a while, always seeking something that would allow me to do things "right" and abstract away the implementational cruft. Eventually I found Common Lisp, and I'm quite happy with it for now; it seems a good blend of the theoretical and the pragmatic. It's also quite useful as I can "backport" what I learn from it into more mainstream languages, if need be.
I've implemented IRC clients, Web servers, interpreters, simple operating systems, various components of content management systems, and a smorgasbord of small utilities and integration tools. They may seem trivial, but the last are my favorites, simply because they have a tangible effect on the computing experience. Computers are supposed to make our lives easier, and it doesn't do much good if the disparate components have to be hand-massaged into usefulness and handled as discrete cases. In everything I make an effort to adhere to specs, to be platform-agnostic, and to plan for extensibility. This has helped me time and time again: the initial implementation may seem to drag a bit, but adding requested enhancements later is a matter of minutes or hours rather than days or weeks.
While I don't have an extensive formal training in computer science, I'm not half bad at developing efficient algorithms. At numerous times, I have sped up existing systems 10x or 100x by noticing poorly nested loops or redundant code. I've caught security holes caused by passing tainted strings to the databa
I'm sure it doesn't help that I'm in Colorado, which people tell me is one of the worst areas for jobs.
So don't call me blase. I know what I'm talking about here from first-hand experience.
As do I. I agree with the main thrust of your post; I only start taking offense when people imply that those of us who managed to fall off the gravy train are by definition second-rate, or that we are unenthusiastic about returning to our former prosperity.
Like I said, I want advice on how you would go about it. You've been successful; I wish to sit at your feet and glean insight.
There are other jobs out there if you're willing to put in the work to look (aka, don't just hit Monster).
Please explain in greater detail what you mean by this.
I got laid off ~2 years ago and have been working in retail and services since then (luckily I'm in a semi-skilled position right now, but it still doesn't really pay a living wage). I've done the online thing, polishing the résumé for hours. Nothing but automated spam. I've printed everything on nice paper, put it in a folder, and gone in person to the slightest hint of an opportunity listed in the classifieds. I've talked to people in the industry and asked them to put in a good word for me.
Despite this, nothing. I recently got rejected for 2 jobs lately. This was actually a good thing, because usually I don't hear anything back. Apparently I'm unqualified for a PC Technician position. Not a mismatch, not overqualified, underqualified.
I don't have a degree, but I've programmed in C since before I can remember, Java since pre-1.0, and Lisp for ~3 years now. I'm a heavy Unix-head, and administer Linux and FreeBSD machines at home. I'm also not afraid to learn, to ask questions and research, and I actually take pride in reading and following specs. I suppose I'm also what they like to call a "self-starter".
Maybe you can enlighten me on how I can be "willing to put in the work". I'm tired of getting home from work, showering, changing clothes, putting together a nice package with my résumé and everything, only to have to leave it with the secretary and never hear a thing back. I call and I'm either told "we already filled that position" or "we'll get back to you". Every day, then every few days, then every week, then once every month or so when the appeal of the pipe dream I see in the classifieds outweighs the crushing disappointment I know will be mine shortly.
So I'll just keep working my sub-$25k/year services job and wondering if the economy will ever recover. I'll ponder the remarks of people who suggest I should get more schooling, despite the people I know who got nothing out of it but heavy debt. I already know the futility of trying to please our corporate masters; my personal projects happen to be in something other than C++, Java, or C#, and that means I'm useless, because we are all, of course, mere Pavlovian monkeys who can't have actual theoretical abstract (like, professional) knowledge and yet specialize when the job requires it.
Sorry if I'm ranting incoherently now. It's just hard to remember when I had an apartment of my own and could do things like watch movies when I felt like it. It'd be nice if I could forget completely, but it seems I can't help being tormented by the memory of my temporary career success. Blasé remarks on Slashdot don't cheer me up.
sloppy focus is good if you don't mind having you mouse pointer cover part of your window.
You're referring to focus-follows-mouse, where focus is removed from a window when the mouse leaves. Sloppy focus, on the other hand, merely grants focus to a window when the mouse enters. This means you can move the mouse into a window to focus it, then move the mouse onto the root window to get the pointer out of the way.
I believe sloppy focus to be a vastly better model for the most part. I don't think WindowMaker, for example, even offers straight focus-follows-mouse as an option anymore... only click-to-focus and sloppy focus.
Very, very few people use Linux becaues they think that it's got a better GUI than Windows.
Linux doesn't have a GUI. Linux is a kernel.
That said, I use Linux in part because the standard windowing system has a plethora of available window managers, all of which fit different usage styles and 90% of which I would consider "a better GUI than Windows". I'm using WindowMaker right now and would easily consider it to be the best windowing system I've ever seen.
I'm annoyed any time I have to use Windows because of the inflexibility and quirkiness (to put it lightly) of its windowing system and widget set.
Is anyone else bothered by the complete lack of the synchronized keyword in his example code? So the ChangeUser Command can apparently be in between these 2 lines:
cmd-left-right go back/forward in your browsing session. (e.g. you probably can't go "forward" now, since you didn't just come back from somewhere)
quite clear?
Actually, now it's even less clear. "Back" and "forward" in the browser history is moving along the time axis. Meanwhile, switching between tabs is moving along the axis of distinct sections. So really, these orthogonal concepts being at right angles to each other in any rational representation, it makes no sense whatsoever to use the same left/right direction keys to move along the distinct axes.
Sorry if Cartesian geometry and multiple dimensions are difficult concepts for the Mac userbase.
As you know, Venezuela's overall standard of living has been on steady decline since the mid-80's. That decline has continued under Chavez in toto, but he has spread the consequences of that decline upstream. If your family got hit that bad, though, then it may be because it's higher up the slope than you thought it was (did you go to college? Then you aren't in that 80% which was under the poverty line.)
Wow, you manage to blend begging the question and an ad hominem attack into a single cruel classist insult.
Hugo Chavez is a great leader.
The only people being hurt by his policies are the rich, who deserve it.
Your family is being hurt, therefore your family is rich.
Your family deserves what Hugo Chavez does to them, proving that Hugo Chavez is a great leader.
I don't know enough about the Venezuela situation to be any kind of an expert on it, but my inclination is to be mistrustful of Chavez, simply because the only people defending him are whining leftists. "It's okay, the only ones who don't like him are rich people."
And has anyone noticed that if poor people ("poor" like those $100K/yr longshoremen) go on strike, it means they're striking a blow for freedom against the vile oppressors, but if rich people go on sttrike, it means they are the vile oppressors?
Did you read the parent? It said Cmd-Shift, not Ctrl-Shift. On a Mac keyboard (at least the one I'm using right now), Command is down on the bottom row, by the spacebar. Control is always either on the bottom left corner or on the far left side of the home row.
And I understand chording. It's not a difficult concept. I don't see how you can claim it's not an extra keystroke, when there is quite clearly another key being pressed.
I'm not claiming my choice is superior. I'm not advocating where your fingers "aren't supposed to stay". I was just refuting the specious claim that "Ctrl-PgUp and Ctrl-PgDown are nowehere near as intuitive as Cmd-Shift-Left, Cmd-Shift-Right". A random elitist Mac user claim with no evidence or statistics or anything to back it up.
Ctrl-PgUp and Ctrl-PgDown are nowehere near as intuitive as Cmd-Shift-Left, Cmd-Shift-Right.
I'm not sure how either one is really "intuitive" but oh well, go on your merry Mac way with that.
What I like is that Ctrl-PgUp and Ctrl-PgDn only make me move my right hand away from the home row, and I can hit Control with my pinky (I've swapped it with CapsLock on my keyboard, but before I did that I could easily hit Control with my palm). Meanwhile, Cmd-Shift-whatever is in a far more inconvenient place, is another extra keystroke, and requires me to move both hands away and back again, just to switch tabs.
In mozilla the shortcuts you mention don't show up in any menu not even the tab menu you get when you right click on a tab. I'm just pointing out that if a feature is there but not clearly listed it might as well not be there.
Yes, this should be fixed.
Cmd-Shift-Left/right is obvious since if Cmd-left/right go forward and back obviosuly you need a modifier to move through tabs and shift is the closest one.
I don't use Mac OS, but if you're saying Cmd-left/right go left and right with words in text, I'm not really sure how that's related to tabs.
Salvation came from a most unlikely place. Turns out that a secretary who they had fired only a few months ago had used the backup program that comes with Windows to archive the entire server drive on to her local machine. The data was 4 months out of date, but it beat the hell out of starting from scratch.
And how much more was her salary once they re-hired her?
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you have 2 sound devices. I've seen similar situations when an aftermarket sound card was installed, but the device built into the mainboard was never disabled. Try going into the Volume Control program (double-click on the speaker icon) and check what device is being controlled. Then go into Multimeda Properties or whatever it's called and see what your default playback device is. If they're different, make them the same.
Dell should do some shady backroom deals and convince HP to sue them for trademark violation by using the word "Tulip" in connection with computers.
EMusic provides entirely standard 128kb/s MP3 files complete with ID3 tags. EMP is their album-downloading format, which I think is based off of Real's playlist format. It's not too difficult, being human-readable XML. I wrote my own custom download manager myself, actually. In any case, you can boycott all managers and still download song-by-song.
The only case in which an incomplete download could be "counted against" anyone is during the 100 song free trial. Normally there is no quota to count against.
As for the "too many downloads" issue, I've only ever heard of that being applied to people mirroring the entire EMusic servers (thousands of albums in a few days). Yes, it was lame when they enforced this after advertising as "unlimited", but now that it's in the ToS who cares? I've never had a problem, and I've sometimes downloaded 10 albums in 1 day.
It's obvious that you are either making a bad attempt at trolling or that your uninformed rant is because of a complete lack of research, as a simple glance at EMusic's front page would make it painfully obvious that you don't need to fork out any money to test the waters. What with the free trial and all.
Then why did you emphasize it with asterisks? Maybe you ran your post through a John C. Dvorak filter...
No offense, just maybe look it up before you make a big deal of it...
"tractor feed".
I note that your idea isn't likely to be implemented be the technological ignoramuses of the world, either.
If you went and cracked his WEP or something, then yes, we could have a discussion about the wrongness of that. But the system involved has clear methods for conveying security-related metadata, which have been explicitly set up as an open network with no authorization required. So stop wasting our time when the operator of the network has told you through these technological means that the network is free to all. Enjoy the free bandwidth.
As I said, I've also become used to HR people disinterested in general knowledge, looking for buzzwords and specific technologies. Hopefully my résumé is a little more generic and abstract (I didn't link to it before simply because I didn't want my post to be interpreted as a simple plea for work, although if anyone has an offer I'd gladly take it), and do I welcome any suggestions.
I am a rabid advocate of an abstract knowledge base and of personal adaptability; occasionally I forget that this is not widespread and I could be perceived otherwise. In an attempt to mollify your legitimate criticism, therefore, here are the reasons I believe myself to be highly employable:
Computers aren't just a career to me; they are a passion. Ever since I was a small child I've been fascinated by them. I like to think of myself as a hacker. My dad had a dual-head (CGA and Hercules) XT system when I was 4 or 5, something like that. I was curious how some programs used one and some used another, but he told me I didn't need to worry about that. Exploration led me to MS-DOS's MODE command, and I was hooked.
My personality type (INTP) means I am naturally drawn to theory and abstract representations, that I want things done "properly". My physics classes were a bit strange, as I wanted the formulas for collisions, rather than drawing them out on a piece of paper and having a 15% margin of error be "acceptable". I just figured it out myself (basic trig) and programmed it into my calculator for good measure. I'm a big fan of automation as well -- most error seems to come from human mistakes -- but only if the operator has a vague idea of what's going on in the guts of the machine (I disagree with Joel Spolsky on a fair number of things, but he's correct with the basic idea of "leaky abstractions".).
My early BASIC programs shunned GOTO in favor of GOSUB. I then moved to QuickBASIC, then Pascal and C, then stuck to Java for quite a while, always seeking something that would allow me to do things "right" and abstract away the implementational cruft. Eventually I found Common Lisp, and I'm quite happy with it for now; it seems a good blend of the theoretical and the pragmatic. It's also quite useful as I can "backport" what I learn from it into more mainstream languages, if need be.
I've implemented IRC clients, Web servers, interpreters, simple operating systems, various components of content management systems, and a smorgasbord of small utilities and integration tools. They may seem trivial, but the last are my favorites, simply because they have a tangible effect on the computing experience. Computers are supposed to make our lives easier, and it doesn't do much good if the disparate components have to be hand-massaged into usefulness and handled as discrete cases. In everything I make an effort to adhere to specs, to be platform-agnostic, and to plan for extensibility. This has helped me time and time again: the initial implementation may seem to drag a bit, but adding requested enhancements later is a matter of minutes or hours rather than days or weeks.
While I don't have an extensive formal training in computer science, I'm not half bad at developing efficient algorithms. At numerous times, I have sped up existing systems 10x or 100x by noticing poorly nested loops or redundant code. I've caught security holes caused by passing tainted strings to the databa
Like I said, I want advice on how you would go about it. You've been successful; I wish to sit at your feet and glean insight.
I got laid off ~2 years ago and have been working in retail and services since then (luckily I'm in a semi-skilled position right now, but it still doesn't really pay a living wage). I've done the online thing, polishing the résumé for hours. Nothing but automated spam. I've printed everything on nice paper, put it in a folder, and gone in person to the slightest hint of an opportunity listed in the classifieds. I've talked to people in the industry and asked them to put in a good word for me.
Despite this, nothing. I recently got rejected for 2 jobs lately. This was actually a good thing, because usually I don't hear anything back. Apparently I'm unqualified for a PC Technician position. Not a mismatch, not overqualified, underqualified.
I don't have a degree, but I've programmed in C since before I can remember, Java since pre-1.0, and Lisp for ~3 years now. I'm a heavy Unix-head, and administer Linux and FreeBSD machines at home. I'm also not afraid to learn, to ask questions and research, and I actually take pride in reading and following specs. I suppose I'm also what they like to call a "self-starter".
Maybe you can enlighten me on how I can be "willing to put in the work". I'm tired of getting home from work, showering, changing clothes, putting together a nice package with my résumé and everything, only to have to leave it with the secretary and never hear a thing back. I call and I'm either told "we already filled that position" or "we'll get back to you". Every day, then every few days, then every week, then once every month or so when the appeal of the pipe dream I see in the classifieds outweighs the crushing disappointment I know will be mine shortly.
So I'll just keep working my sub-$25k/year services job and wondering if the economy will ever recover. I'll ponder the remarks of people who suggest I should get more schooling, despite the people I know who got nothing out of it but heavy debt. I already know the futility of trying to please our corporate masters; my personal projects happen to be in something other than C++, Java, or C#, and that means I'm useless, because we are all, of course, mere Pavlovian monkeys who can't have actual theoretical abstract (like, professional) knowledge and yet specialize when the job requires it.
Sorry if I'm ranting incoherently now. It's just hard to remember when I had an apartment of my own and could do things like watch movies when I felt like it. It'd be nice if I could forget completely, but it seems I can't help being tormented by the memory of my temporary career success. Blasé remarks on Slashdot don't cheer me up.
I believe sloppy focus to be a vastly better model for the most part. I don't think WindowMaker, for example, even offers straight focus-follows-mouse as an option anymore... only click-to-focus and sloppy focus.
That said, I use Linux in part because the standard windowing system has a plethora of available window managers, all of which fit different usage styles and 90% of which I would consider "a better GUI than Windows". I'm using WindowMaker right now and would easily consider it to be the best windowing system I've ever seen.
I'm annoyed any time I have to use Windows because of the inflexibility and quirkiness (to put it lightly) of its windowing system and widget set.
Meanwhile someone else can run an AddUser Command with the same username. Guess what happens when ChangeUser gets to that 2nd line?
Maybe when this radical new concept in databases can be presented in a way that avoids race conditions I'll pay a little more attention...
I got in an argument with a non-techie over this once and lost, embarassingly.
Actually, now it's even less clear. "Back" and "forward" in the browser history is moving along the time axis. Meanwhile, switching between tabs is moving along the axis of distinct sections. So really, these orthogonal concepts being at right angles to each other in any rational representation, it makes no sense whatsoever to use the same left/right direction keys to move along the distinct axes.
Sorry if Cartesian geometry and multiple dimensions are difficult concepts for the Mac userbase.
Wow, you manage to blend begging the question and an ad hominem attack into a single cruel classist insult.
- Hugo Chavez is a great leader.
- The only people being hurt by his policies are the rich, who deserve it.
- Your family is being hurt, therefore your family is rich.
- Your family deserves what Hugo Chavez does to them, proving that Hugo Chavez is a great leader.
I don't know enough about the Venezuela situation to be any kind of an expert on it, but my inclination is to be mistrustful of Chavez, simply because the only people defending him are whining leftists. "It's okay, the only ones who don't like him are rich people."And has anyone noticed that if poor people ("poor" like those $100K/yr longshoremen) go on strike, it means they're striking a blow for freedom against the vile oppressors, but if rich people go on sttrike, it means they are the vile oppressors?
But doesn't MacOS default to making little ticky sounds when you move windows around and stuff?
And I understand chording. It's not a difficult concept. I don't see how you can claim it's not an extra keystroke, when there is quite clearly another key being pressed.
I'm not claiming my choice is superior. I'm not advocating where your fingers "aren't supposed to stay". I was just refuting the specious claim that "Ctrl-PgUp and Ctrl-PgDown are nowehere near as intuitive as Cmd-Shift-Left, Cmd-Shift-Right". A random elitist Mac user claim with no evidence or statistics or anything to back it up.