Adobe Carbon code running on Mac OS X has nothing more in common with Unix than it did when it was running on Mac OS 9. Carbon is a subset of the old Toolbox APIs and really is about as far away from porting something to Unix as you can get. Sorry.
One of the funniest things my friend ever did was pick up the broadcast phone in Wal*Mart and repeat twice, "Security to lingeree." Two beats later, over the PA came, "What!?"
Nope. It's just that OO really isn't all that hot.
I'm not saying that Office is all that great, either. That's why there needs to be a _better_ office suite.
I find it remarkable that people are all bursting forth about how great Office for the Mac is. I would rank it near the very bottom of all Mac OS X programs. Nevertheless, it's so much better than Office for Windows, that it's praiseworthy. Disturbing, really.
For the average user, a Mac is incompatible with the standard. I'm not saying that that's a problem (note that I'm writing this from my PowerBook while writing a web app that is hosted on a Quicksilver G4,) I'm just saying that for the most part, Macs are (accurately or not) perceived as incompatible.
I'm also not saying that that's a problem. I've never really run into any major roadblocks being exclusively a Mac user, or being a NeXT user before that.
I'm honestly trying to think of what advantages Sun could bring to a desktop, and I can't think of any.
The "incompatible with the standard, but based on Unix and fun to use" dimension is covered by Apple. The "cheap and runs on your hardware, but is almost enterprise-ready" page has Linux written all over it.
It seems Sun would be better off writing software to kick MS's butt. A high quality office suite, or a set of network tools that make IE look like etch-a-sketch. It's not much, but it's something, and they need anything.
A second point is that many people consider blonde hair an attractive feature, and excessive fat an unattractive one. Why do you think he pick one of each, if his goal was to create a negative perception of her?
I think he picked fat because it's commonly conceived as an unattractive feature. I think he picked blonde because it's commonly associated with dumb people. Bam! Negative perception.
You mentioned in your previous post that he had a negative tone. I would think the same things about his post if he hadn't been as negative, but I wouldn't think that he meant them as strongly as I do now.
In any case, I am an anonymous poster, and so such a statement would only work in your favour among those who already hold the view the opinions of anonymous postsers are inherently of less value than those of others. If I were at all concerned with impressing such people, I'd obviously not be posting anonymously.
You earlier said that he's addressing an audience that has a negative view of fat people. I assert that he's also addressing an audience (even if that audience only containes himself) for which blondness is a negative trait. So, his desire for negative connotations would, in fact, have effect, according to your rules, as--in his mind as I understand it (regardless of the actual audience)--both of those traits contribute to a negative perception.
At the end of the day, if you're concerned about people who hold the opinions of fat people to be less valid than those of others, you should focus on them, and not on finding hidden motives in the comments of those who merely describe fat people as such. (This is assuming the comment is true, of course; if it isn't, the matter is entirely different.)
I really have no idea what she looks like. I've seen photographs of the Dixie Chicks, but I don't recall any of them ever being particularly overweight. I don't really care if he thinks that the opinions of the fat are of less value than those of the skinny, but if he uses it do call derision upon a person with whom he disagrees (particularly without providing any other evidence), then that's pretty lame. Besides, I'm not responding to his motives. His motives are clearly to have people not pay attention to the "Dixie Skanks." It's his contentless argument that I sought to highlight because, as so much of what I've heard from all sides in the past week, when we resort to sneering and sloganeering, then we might as well give up having conversations.
I'm self righteous because I believe myself to be right.
Calling her a "fat chick" is meant to have subtle influence on the positive/negative perception the reader has of the subject. If I addressed you as the "anonymous poster" in my response, do you honestly think that that was not a deliberate choice on my part that was intended to work in my favor?
meanwhile the website is reporting "Around 9 p.m. local time (1 p.m. EST), Baghdad's skies erupted in brilliant light and raining fire from explosions. The thunder from the explosions reverberated throughout the city." i would prefer that they say "today the government of america destroyed a city populated by over four million people"
Yea, I know, but the guy speculated that a second antenna in the TiBook may have been used for bluetooth. I didn't want someone to go and get one and be disappointed that his new Mac didn't have built-in bluetooth support.
Slashdot Mirror
I like chicken. I almost got rid of my Macs because they don't have native support for chicken. There are rumors that it's coming in 10.3.
Can we use it if we call it Freedom Linux?
Now where did I put my French Coke? I'd like to finish enjoying my French hamburger.
Nope. It runs in both Mac OS X and Mac OS 9. It's a Carbon app through and through. Doing it in Cocoa would have required a complete rewrite.
"Need a new software? get it in the list, click to download and install, you get it..."
:-)
Or get Debian
Does it take advantage of Intel Pentium III technology for that?
Not really.
It would thrill the crowd and result in some damned-ugly graphics on people's webpages. They'd then associate butt-ugly pictures with Mac OS X.
I think it's more likely that Apple will release its own line of processors. the iRISC will blow everything away. :-)
Adobe Carbon code running on Mac OS X has nothing more in common with Unix than it did when it was running on Mac OS 9. Carbon is a subset of the old Toolbox APIs and really is about as far away from porting something to Unix as you can get. Sorry.
And Lisa did not.
Microsoft makes mice. :-)
One of the funniest things my friend ever did was pick up the broadcast phone in Wal*Mart and repeat twice, "Security to lingeree." Two beats later, over the PA came, "What!?"
Was that before or after his company went out of business? :-)
As opposed to not restocking them?
"Microsoft."
I'm not saying that they're right or that that's what I believe, but for Joe Blow, if it doesn't "work with Microsoft," then he won't buy it.
That's my point. IE is lousy. Mozilla is lousy. Opera is pretty lousy. Netscape is lousy. There needs to be a worthwhile browser on the PC platform.
(I use a Mac, so I don't care a lot, but when I have to use PC browsers, I get pissed off pretty quickly.)
Nope. It's just that OO really isn't all that hot.
I'm not saying that Office is all that great, either. That's why there needs to be a _better_ office suite.
I find it remarkable that people are all bursting forth about how great Office for the Mac is. I would rank it near the very bottom of all Mac OS X programs. Nevertheless, it's so much better than Office for Windows, that it's praiseworthy. Disturbing, really.
For the average user, a Mac is incompatible with the standard. I'm not saying that that's a problem (note that I'm writing this from my PowerBook while writing a web app that is hosted on a Quicksilver G4,) I'm just saying that for the most part, Macs are (accurately or not) perceived as incompatible.
I'm also not saying that that's a problem. I've never really run into any major roadblocks being exclusively a Mac user, or being a NeXT user before that.
I'm honestly trying to think of what advantages Sun could bring to a desktop, and I can't think of any.
The "incompatible with the standard, but based on Unix and fun to use" dimension is covered by Apple. The "cheap and runs on your hardware, but is almost enterprise-ready" page has Linux written all over it.
It seems Sun would be better off writing software to kick MS's butt. A high quality office suite, or a set of network tools that make IE look like etch-a-sketch. It's not much, but it's something, and they need anything.
A second point is that many people consider blonde hair an attractive feature, and excessive fat an unattractive one. Why do you think he pick one of each, if his goal was to create a negative perception of her?
I think he picked fat because it's commonly conceived as an unattractive feature. I think he picked blonde because it's commonly associated with dumb people. Bam! Negative perception.
You mentioned in your previous post that he had a negative tone. I would think the same things about his post if he hadn't been as negative, but I wouldn't think that he meant them as strongly as I do now.
In any case, I am an anonymous poster, and so such a statement would only work in your favour among those who already hold the view the opinions of anonymous postsers are inherently of less value than those of others. If I were at all concerned with impressing such people, I'd obviously not be posting anonymously.
You earlier said that he's addressing an audience that has a negative view of fat people. I assert that he's also addressing an audience (even if that audience only containes himself) for which blondness is a negative trait. So, his desire for negative connotations would, in fact, have effect, according to your rules, as--in his mind as I understand it (regardless of the actual audience)--both of those traits contribute to a negative perception.
At the end of the day, if you're concerned about people who hold the opinions of fat people to be less valid than those of others, you should focus on them, and not on finding hidden motives in the comments of those who merely describe fat people as such. (This is assuming the comment is true, of course; if it isn't, the matter is entirely different.)
I really have no idea what she looks like. I've seen photographs of the Dixie Chicks, but I don't recall any of them ever being particularly overweight. I don't really care if he thinks that the opinions of the fat are of less value than those of the skinny, but if he uses it do call derision upon a person with whom he disagrees (particularly without providing any other evidence), then that's pretty lame. Besides, I'm not responding to his motives. His motives are clearly to have people not pay attention to the "Dixie Skanks." It's his contentless argument that I sought to highlight because, as so much of what I've heard from all sides in the past week, when we resort to sneering and sloganeering, then we might as well give up having conversations.
I'm self righteous because I believe myself to be right.
Calling her a "fat chick" is meant to have subtle influence on the positive/negative perception the reader has of the subject. If I addressed you as the "anonymous poster" in my response, do you honestly think that that was not a deliberate choice on my part that was intended to work in my favor?
And she's less legitimate because she's fat.
The Right, ladies and gentlemen!
Yea, I know, but the guy speculated that a second antenna in the TiBook may have been used for bluetooth. I didn't want someone to go and get one and be disappointed that his new Mac didn't have built-in bluetooth support.
As long as it adheres to the Bernoulli principle, I'm happy!
TiBooks don't have bluetooth built-in.