CRT-based 17" iMacs would nullify the #1 benefit of having an all-in-one computer. Stevie Wonder listened to the requests, waited until flat panels were cheap enough, and created the 17" eMac. It has the same footprint as the original iMac, which is a critical design prerequisite.
AND, education consumers have always been Apple's core business. The farcical proposed "settlement" in the other Microsoft suit, which involved donating a billion dollars of MS "goods" to schools, was all the motivation Stevie Wonder needed to deliver the real goods where and when it's most important.
Apple is not about "flooding" any market, so perhaps you need to "step out of the box" when contemplating why Apple does something. When you are doing something important, the best way is rarely the quickest. The part about listening to your customers also takes time and effort.
This is not a troll. An object which might possibly be the infamous 12th planet, Niribu, has been found in the sky. Looking where the object is calculated to be, based on data about its orbit. This might not be an object headed for a pass near Earth, but as the time nears we can get a better idea. There is the possibility that we will see signs of the purported changes our planet will undergo. The earth warming inside might be a sign. The Antarctic ice shelfs are melting on their underside, is this a sign too? Increase in the number of earthquakes might be one too. The magnetic poles are shifting a little faster than normal. I won't provide links, just look up some of this stuff and make up your own minds.
Come now, are you really that sold out to Slick Billy that you have to call today's technological revolution "anti-Microsoft hopefulness crap"? Get with the program, corporations that have poor business ethics suck in 2002. Used to be, the law would prevent restraints of trade and general theivery from consumers/investors.
Sony figures they need an ace in the hole because of Microsoft's track record. If you honestly think Sony is doing this for any reason OTHER than to deny Microsoft's latest attempted market take-over, well I'd have to call that "pro-Linux hopefulness crap". You are a fool for thinking that "Sony doesn't give a fuck about Microsoft" - or more concerned with thinking that Sony picked Linux because it's whiz-bang cool.
If there were no Microsoft Xbox, there would be no official Sony PS2 Linux. It really IS as simple as that.
You don't even realize that you are agreeing with him, 100%, do you? Game quality was essential when the focus WAS the game. Now the focus is usually the graphics first, then network play, then the gameplay. The games that get the awards are the ones who don't exactly follow that recipe.
Games these days are quite like women. They keep getting prettier, but not necessarily any better; they may provide more stimulus, but that doesn't guarantee more pleasure. Just some free association there... take offense only if you're the offensive type.
And speaking of the ladies, I know why you can't wait for the day when graphics are indistinguishable from real life... you naughty little boy. Get a real life, don't rely on graphics to make it look like you have one. "And what's wrong with trying to see what your new $300 video card is capable of?" Are you by chance the exact 14 year-old the previous poster was referring to?
"Remember the last time MS went after something with a vengeance?"
There's a big difference between putting Company ABC out of business and producing highly secure software. The former can be accomplished by the book, or by crook. The latter can only be accomplished by the book. It remains to be seen how willing Microsoft will be to do things this way, considering how unconventional they have become.
I think Microsoft has realized that their own software needs to be addressed first and foremost if they are to win the war against Linux. Of course, like in "War Games", the game can't be "won" per se. The only victory is NOT to play. Thus, the sooner Microsoft stops trying to "beat" Linux, the better for everyone.
Some consider it irrelevant that until recently, Microsoft could have cared less about security. They have hidden behind UCITA and their monolithic EULAs, all the while reducing security by increasing programmability. Their oversimplification, while giving developers more control, also gave hackers more control.
Choose to ignore facts if you wish, but your own credibility is at stake. To say what happened a year ago doesn't matter this year is just as dumb as saying this year doesn't matter once it's over. Responding to a "usual rebuttal" with an equally "usual rebuttal" isn't the best way to discredit them... or is it? You make the call.
Informative?? More like opinionated. Current PPC architecture (G4) is far better than Itanium, which is still vaporware. Pentium line can't compare on a technological level with PPC.
"Making programming easier" entails many things. Don't be too narrow in interpreting what "grasshopper" wrote. I see most of your points, such as less bugs, more code reuse, better maintainability, and simplification of procedural logic, as concepts which "making programming easier" would logically apply to.
You do make good points and provide further examples of why OO languages can save alot of time and effort. Which is yet another result of "making programming easier". I wouldn't be so quick to judge how much or how little benefit grasshopper sees in OO languages, if I were you. Seems to me grasshopper knows more than you give him credit for.
Of course, there is no problem with letting off steam, as long as nobody is getting hurt. But isn't that the hidden "catch" in most addictions? You aren't hurting anyone else... until the "problem" becomes a problem.
Someone who plays games here and there, to have fun, is not addicted. But someone who thinks all day about playing their favorite game when they get home from work, school, etc. and then spends the majority of their evening playing that game, has a problem.
If nothing else, they are locking themselves out of society, because they choose to stay alone or with a select group of people so often. People who have 16 hour gaming binges are not addicts, but when they have them every weekend, and have 8 hour binges throughout the week, those people are addicted to gaming.
Again, it isn't a big problem for those of us who are not addicted to gaming, but when the number of game-aholics starts increasing, the number of able-minded contributors to society decreases accordingly. Eventually, as with any "popular" addiction (nicotine, alcohol, gambling, sex) once the number of addicts reaches "critical mass" the society as a whole becomes affected.
Your insistence on grouping "everyone in the world" in reference to trust is misguided. Noone is saying that you have to trust everyone, so why do you feel it necessary to state things this way? You are supposed to be speaking about trust and friendship at work, so why not limit the scope appropriately? Although I do believe your statements accurately mirror someone who has a strong fear of betrayal.
You don't care if people trust you or not - congratulations. That kind of attitude is indicative of apathy. Usually when someone "doesn't care" about something, it is either because they do not understand it, they are too self-centered to be bothered with such external issues, or they are too lazy to think or feel anything. Or, in those rare cases, they know that their opinion is irrational/illogical and they can't think of a way to defend it.
My guess is more that you don't feel yourself to be highly trustworthy, thus you treat others similarly. Your primary concern seems to be avoiding being screwed over. Maybe you have been many times in the past. Regardless, you only stand to lose out on potentiality - in being overly self-sufficient, you become self-deficient. You will end up doing less in life yourself unless you find a way to trust someone to help you do more than you are individually capable of.
You continually choose to unnecessarily and inaccurately group people. I virtually guarantee that you trust someone you work with. That is okay, you don't have to act like it is a sign of weakness. In order to trust, one has to feel trusted. Apparently for you, somewhere in there something went wrong. You have easily posted over a dozen times on this topic in half a day, and you keep criticizing people who trust. What's your motivation?
Many people who experience a majority of their "life" online are just trying to escape the real life they do not enjoy. In a similar and yet opposite manner, the off button is merely a safety net. If they start to dislike their online life, they can "quit" and come back later. Which is why they are online so much as well - "quitting" real life when they dislike it.
HanzoSan, you are quick to assume that everyone in the world is like you. You say things like "don't trust anyone at work", "don't make friends at work", etc. These statements are typical of asocial behavior. You have quite a negative view of several aspects of the topic, except for the 'computers' part. Very telling, unless I have you figured wrong. One might assume themselves that YOU are not to be trusted at work, nor befriended.
What so many people fail to realize is that there are so many different types of people out there. Regardless of HOW you feel about each individual type, regardless whether or not you like YOUR individual type(s) - all these types are very real. Geeks, Jocks, Fanatics, Bullies, Sluts... I could go on but I hope you already get my point. For each stereotypical category, there are a million people who FIT into that category. Some people fit into several at once.
So, you yourself (HanzoSan and everyone else, including me) might not see yourself fitting into one or more of these stereotypes, but the "average stranger" does. People who do not know you, let alone know you as well as you know yourself, are going to "categorize" you. It is human nature - sometimes people don't, usually people do, and some people ALWAYS do. Get used to it.
I have found the following things to be nearly always true:
(1) Truly smart people do not require a *reason* to learn something
(2) Truly smart people can learn *something* from just about anything
(3) Truly smart people can and will admit to *not* knowing something
(4) Some smart people will never become *truly* smart people
(5) Some smart people are stupid people who have *tricked* you
(6) Some smart people know just enough to be *dangerous* to themselves
(7) Most stupid people really *don't care* that they are stupid
(8) Most stupid people *think* that smart people are truly smart
(9) Most stupid people comprise a *majority* in society
Open source evangelists DO NOT ASSERT that open source is a superior business model. Stop saying things that aren't true.
O.S. evangelists KNOW that open source is a superior DEVELOPMENT MODEL. Hundreds of thousands of skilled intellectuals contributing without direct compensation, 24 hours a day but each on their own time - can any company beat that model?
Too bad opinion wasn't open source, you might actually get a better one!
As for your sig, it's only *natural* for someone like Helen Keller to think that security and superstition don't exist, being blind and all.
Nobody's insisting that "free software" is the most sensible way to run a software business. That is something you said in your haste to sound intelligent.
To the contrary, Microsoft *is* insisting that "open source" is a legal danger to intellectual property. If Microsoft could snap their fingers and outlaw "free software" they surely would.
Open source evangelists are doing exactly what Microsoft knew they would - defend themselves against groundless claims. They are not trying to "kill" Microsoft, unlike what Microsoft is trying to do to them.
Your opinion about the "most insightful" part of Mundie's speech only proves how ignorant you are. Your parroting of the Microsoft party line indicates you are incapable of fathoming an independent viewpoint.
The point is to make errors in *bunches* in *fewer* than half the games, so that more than half are solved *correctly*. Two of the games have three wrong answers (six people). The other six games have two passes and one correct answer.
How about a nice warm cup of DUH?
In mammals, the main components of the circadian clock are found in cells in the brain. Inside these cells, the molecular components of the clock are "rewound" daily by the effects of light and other stimuli. There are nine genes governing circadian rhythms, eight of which code for DNA transcription factors or transcriptional regulators. CKIe is the only gene that codes for an enzyme.
The discovery of the tau mutation by Ralph and Menaker was the first mutation shown to alter circadian rhythm in a mammal. The mutation rendered the enzyme (CKIe) slower at switching on proteins produced by a key circadian rhythm gene called period. The regular rise and fall in levels of these circadian proteins governs the length of each cycle of the biological clock. The alteration in CKIe effectively changes the animals' circadian rhythm from 24 to 20 hours.
Someone who already replied to this particular sub-thread stated that the brain exhibits different wavelengths during different states of consciousness. While this is true, keep in mind (no pun intended) that brain waves are generally NOT periodic, but chaotic. This certainly discounts the theory that wave frequency is anything like the clock signal in microprocessors. Our brain isn't "faster" when our brain waves are of a higher frequency, either.
Slashdot Mirror
AND, education consumers have always been Apple's core business. The farcical proposed "settlement" in the other Microsoft suit, which involved donating a billion dollars of MS "goods" to schools, was all the motivation Stevie Wonder needed to deliver the real goods where and when it's most important.
Apple is not about "flooding" any market, so perhaps you need to "step out of the box" when contemplating why Apple does something. When you are doing something important, the best way is rarely the quickest. The part about listening to your customers also takes time and effort.
Bill Parish is one of the FEW people who are telling the truth about Microsoft's financials.
For all us non-accountants, he explains everything in understandable terms, using the actual financial figures.
His analysis of Microsoft is more credible than any other I have read. You should read it too.
This is not a troll. An object which might possibly be the infamous 12th planet, Niribu, has been found in the sky. Looking where the object is calculated to be, based on data about its orbit. This might not be an object headed for a pass near Earth, but as the time nears we can get a better idea. There is the possibility that we will see signs of the purported changes our planet will undergo. The earth warming inside might be a sign. The Antarctic ice shelfs are melting on their underside, is this a sign too? Increase in the number of earthquakes might be one too. The magnetic poles are shifting a little faster than normal. I won't provide links, just look up some of this stuff and make up your own minds.
Sony figures they need an ace in the hole because of Microsoft's track record. If you honestly think Sony is doing this for any reason OTHER than to deny Microsoft's latest attempted market take-over, well I'd have to call that "pro-Linux hopefulness crap". You are a fool for thinking that "Sony doesn't give a fuck about Microsoft" - or more concerned with thinking that Sony picked Linux because it's whiz-bang cool.
If there were no Microsoft Xbox, there would be no official Sony PS2 Linux. It really IS as simple as that.
Let's hope that website isn't right.
Games these days are quite like women. They keep getting prettier, but not necessarily any better; they may provide more stimulus, but that doesn't guarantee more pleasure. Just some free association there... take offense only if you're the offensive type.
And speaking of the ladies, I know why you can't wait for the day when graphics are indistinguishable from real life... you naughty little boy. Get a real life, don't rely on graphics to make it look like you have one. "And what's wrong with trying to see what your new $300 video card is capable of?" Are you by chance the exact 14 year-old the previous poster was referring to?
"Remember the last time MS went after something with a vengeance?"
There's a big difference between putting Company ABC out of business and producing highly secure software. The former can be accomplished by the book, or by crook. The latter can only be accomplished by the book. It remains to be seen how willing Microsoft will be to do things this way, considering how unconventional they have become.
I think Microsoft has realized that their own software needs to be addressed first and foremost if they are to win the war against Linux. Of course, like in "War Games", the game can't be "won" per se. The only victory is NOT to play. Thus, the sooner Microsoft stops trying to "beat" Linux, the better for everyone.
Some consider it irrelevant that until recently, Microsoft could have cared less about security. They have hidden behind UCITA and their monolithic EULAs, all the while reducing security by increasing programmability. Their oversimplification, while giving developers more control, also gave hackers more control.
Choose to ignore facts if you wish, but your own credibility is at stake. To say what happened a year ago doesn't matter this year is just as dumb as saying this year doesn't matter once it's over. Responding to a "usual rebuttal" with an equally "usual rebuttal" isn't the best way to discredit them... or is it? You make the call.
9.9 TB = approx 0.01 PetaByte
Don't hold your breath thinking about petabytes.
Also, RAID isn't for people who make stupid mistakes. Sorry about your 'rm' debacle.
Informative?? More like opinionated. Current PPC architecture (G4) is far better than Itanium, which is still vaporware. Pentium line can't compare on a technological level with PPC.
Accept it.
"Making programming easier" entails many things. Don't be too narrow in interpreting what "grasshopper" wrote. I see most of your points, such as less bugs, more code reuse, better maintainability, and simplification of procedural logic, as concepts which "making programming easier" would logically apply to.
You do make good points and provide further examples of why OO languages can save alot of time and effort. Which is yet another result of "making programming easier". I wouldn't be so quick to judge how much or how little benefit grasshopper sees in OO languages, if I were you. Seems to me grasshopper knows more than you give him credit for.
Concerning James Cameron's non-participation in this movie:
c ct 1.html
http://www.terminator3armageddon.com/conspira/j
Very chilling. Watch the movie, closely, and be careful of what you see. Life is imitating art very much these days.
Of course, there is no problem with letting off steam, as long as nobody is getting hurt. But isn't that the hidden "catch" in most addictions? You aren't hurting anyone else... until the "problem" becomes a problem.
Someone who plays games here and there, to have fun, is not addicted. But someone who thinks all day about playing their favorite game when they get home from work, school, etc. and then spends the majority of their evening playing that game, has a problem.
If nothing else, they are locking themselves out of society, because they choose to stay alone or with a select group of people so often. People who have 16 hour gaming binges are not addicts, but when they have them every weekend, and have 8 hour binges throughout the week, those people are addicted to gaming.
Again, it isn't a big problem for those of us who are not addicted to gaming, but when the number of game-aholics starts increasing, the number of able-minded contributors to society decreases accordingly. Eventually, as with any "popular" addiction (nicotine, alcohol, gambling, sex) once the number of addicts reaches "critical mass" the society as a whole becomes affected.
Your insistence on grouping "everyone in the world" in reference to trust is misguided. Noone is saying that you have to trust everyone, so why do you feel it necessary to state things this way? You are supposed to be speaking about trust and friendship at work, so why not limit the scope appropriately? Although I do believe your statements accurately mirror someone who has a strong fear of betrayal.
You don't care if people trust you or not - congratulations. That kind of attitude is indicative of apathy. Usually when someone "doesn't care" about something, it is either because they do not understand it, they are too self-centered to be bothered with such external issues, or they are too lazy to think or feel anything. Or, in those rare cases, they know that their opinion is irrational/illogical and they can't think of a way to defend it.
My guess is more that you don't feel yourself to be highly trustworthy, thus you treat others similarly. Your primary concern seems to be avoiding being screwed over. Maybe you have been many times in the past. Regardless, you only stand to lose out on potentiality - in being overly self-sufficient, you become self-deficient. You will end up doing less in life yourself unless you find a way to trust someone to help you do more than you are individually capable of.
You continually choose to unnecessarily and inaccurately group people. I virtually guarantee that you trust someone you work with. That is okay, you don't have to act like it is a sign of weakness. In order to trust, one has to feel trusted. Apparently for you, somewhere in there something went wrong. You have easily posted over a dozen times on this topic in half a day, and you keep criticizing people who trust. What's your motivation?
Many people who experience a majority of their "life" online are just trying to escape the real life they do not enjoy. In a similar and yet opposite manner, the off button is merely a safety net. If they start to dislike their online life, they can "quit" and come back later. Which is why they are online so much as well - "quitting" real life when they dislike it.
HanzoSan, you are quick to assume that everyone in the world is like you. You say things like "don't trust anyone at work", "don't make friends at work", etc. These statements are typical of asocial behavior. You have quite a negative view of several aspects of the topic, except for the 'computers' part. Very telling, unless I have you figured wrong. One might assume themselves that YOU are not to be trusted at work, nor befriended.
What so many people fail to realize is that there are so many different types of people out there. Regardless of HOW you feel about each individual type, regardless whether or not you like YOUR individual type(s) - all these types are very real. Geeks, Jocks, Fanatics, Bullies, Sluts... I could go on but I hope you already get my point. For each stereotypical category, there are a million people who FIT into that category. Some people fit into several at once.
So, you yourself (HanzoSan and everyone else, including me) might not see yourself fitting into one or more of these stereotypes, but the "average stranger" does. People who do not know you, let alone know you as well as you know yourself, are going to "categorize" you. It is human nature - sometimes people don't, usually people do, and some people ALWAYS do. Get used to it.
I have found the following things to be nearly always true:
(1) Truly smart people do not require a *reason* to learn something
(2) Truly smart people can learn *something* from just about anything
(3) Truly smart people can and will admit to *not* knowing something
(4) Some smart people will never become *truly* smart people
(5) Some smart people are stupid people who have *tricked* you
(6) Some smart people know just enough to be *dangerous* to themselves
(7) Most stupid people really *don't care* that they are stupid
(8) Most stupid people *think* that smart people are truly smart
(9) Most stupid people comprise a *majority* in society
That said...
Step 1. Generally criticize the subject's use of colloquial words and phrases, without giving a logical reason why they should not.
Step 2. Portray the subject as intolerant and a know-it-all, while attempting not to come across as intolerant and a know-it-all.
Step 3. Condemn the subject's analysis as illogical, trite, and insulting, simply because you weren't spoon-fed the way you like to be.
Step 4. Act like it's common sense to know what the subject is saying, in spite of previous attempts to discredit them.
(Optional) Step 5. Wait for a new subject, go to step 1.
Notnef Nayr
Here we go again. I suppose you will next ask for evidence that God exists.
How about YOU show us some evidence that MS Reader is uncrackable? Let me guess, you're under an NDA?
What some people will say to convince themselves that they are smart...
Or, if you could combine a brain with a point, you wouldn't speak without saying anything.
Wow, what an intellectual mind at work! Strangely enough, when I read your "comments" I had a mental image of a sheep saying "baaaah baaaah".
Open source evangelists DO NOT ASSERT that open source is a superior business model. Stop saying things that aren't true.
O.S. evangelists KNOW that open source is a superior DEVELOPMENT MODEL. Hundreds of thousands of skilled intellectuals contributing without direct compensation, 24 hours a day but each on their own time - can any company beat that model?
Too bad opinion wasn't open source, you might actually get a better one!
As for your sig, it's only *natural* for someone like Helen Keller to think that security and superstition don't exist, being blind and all.
Nobody's insisting that "free software" is the most sensible way to run a software business. That is something you said in your haste to sound intelligent.
To the contrary, Microsoft *is* insisting that "open source" is a legal danger to intellectual property. If Microsoft could snap their fingers and outlaw "free software" they surely would.
Open source evangelists are doing exactly what Microsoft knew they would - defend themselves against groundless claims. They are not trying to "kill" Microsoft, unlike what Microsoft is trying to do to them.
Your opinion about the "most insightful" part of Mundie's speech only proves how ignorant you are. Your parroting of the Microsoft party line indicates you are incapable of fathoming an independent viewpoint.
The point is to make errors in *bunches* in *fewer* than half the games, so that more than half are solved *correctly*. Two of the games have three wrong answers (six people). The other six games have two passes and one correct answer. How about a nice warm cup of DUH?
The only thing anyone owes you is a boatride across the river Styx. I pray to all Gods that you are paid, and soon.
The discovery of the tau mutation by Ralph and Menaker was the first mutation shown to alter circadian rhythm in a mammal. The mutation rendered the enzyme (CKIe) slower at switching on proteins produced by a key circadian rhythm gene called period. The regular rise and fall in levels of these circadian proteins governs the length of each cycle of the biological clock. The alteration in CKIe effectively changes the animals' circadian rhythm from 24 to 20 hours.
Someone who already replied to this particular sub-thread stated that the brain exhibits different wavelengths during different states of consciousness. While this is true, keep in mind (no pun intended) that brain waves are generally NOT periodic, but chaotic. This certainly discounts the theory that wave frequency is anything like the clock signal in microprocessors. Our brain isn't "faster" when our brain waves are of a higher frequency, either.