Within the last year, I know of two girls that switched from PC to Mac... Not all that much, but I don't know all that much people either. I used to use Apple, so they came to me for advice. Me? Not switching back to Apple, because the 2003 computer I have running Windows XP does all I need and I can maintain Windows machines correctly.
Of course, I'd expect any mechanic to say that maintaining a car is easy too:-P
I think it comes down to different people, different needs. A smart techie will recognise this and accept this. I tend to want to recommend a Mac, since for the most part they do their stuff well (and I have a slight bias), though not everyone wants one, can afford one, or has needs that a Mac can't fulfil. Computers are a tool and they should facilitate the job at hand and not act as a hindrance. I use Windows, Macs and Linux and depending on what I am doing will use one or the other.
I have a friend who spends his time tinkering with his car, ensuring that it has the best shocks, has the best air-flow through the engine, etc, but many people are just happy to have something that gets them from A to B. If the car looks good and does the job well, then its an extra convenience. In many way computers are no different.
Oh, they're expandable and upgradeable, all right, if you're willing to spend a fortune. I love having to buy video cards for my Macs featuring years-old technology for four times what the equivalent PC part is (even when all that's different is a different video BIOS).
Newer then. It was newer then using the ? which is what I learned.
The '?' approach is certainly the proper way to pass parameters. Whatever appears before '?' is considered to be the resource you are wanting, and everything afterwards is used to specify parameters that might modify the appearance of the resource. When using forms, using the GET method, this is the approach used. Of course, if you don't mind parsing the path yourself, then you can interpret things differently, but be sure to know the norms.
If you are using Java then define your servlet as handling the path/mypath* and anything starting with/mypath is yours to handle.
But wouldn't the real solution be to train government employees in the arcane art of not installing P2P applications on government computers in the first place? Or does that just make too much sense to be effective?
The argument they are using is pure hockus. They say P2P is an issue because a number of the searches are for private and confidential information. This sort of argument can also be applied to search engines such as Google or anything else on the internet. There is also a big difference between searching for something and actually getting matching results back. If there is private and confidential information around, then the issue is not so much the P2P networks, but the person who shared it in this first place. If there is a leak in the government, or any agency handling private and confidential data, then maybe they should check out their own networks first.
Given that I believe most early applications had to have it after a ? and the straight text is a fairly new thing, they might have done it early enough to be the first to do it.
I wouldn't call this new at all. I have been using this sort of thing for a while. What you have here is a virtual directory or file. You take whatever is after the '/' and based on the nature of your program decide what this virtual path corresponds to. I have used this sort of thing, since in many ways it is a nicer URL to share.
Its about time the internet was shut down. There is too much copyright infringement going on and it is the only solution. Hackers invariably get past the filters, so filters only work out to be a temporary solution. Maybe we should consider turning off TV transmission too, since those stealing pirates keeping on seeing our copyrighted work without paying us. If we can't have 100% control then we would rather have no one be able to see our work. The Spanish inquisition were taking the right approach.
Okay, so the copyright holders aren't saying the above, but their desire for total control makes the above scenario feel not to far from the reality that they seem to want.
I'm not sure how you can say they missed an opportunity until after some initial sales figures and responses come out. It took a while before the non-desire for Vista became apparent. It will take some time before people have a chance to respond (with their wallets) to Leopard.
I'll reserve judgement, buy generally I would rather have an OS that provides what I want and provided in a form the is convenient for me, than than OS that feels rushed out of the door. I believe Nintendo was quoted as saying more or less the following (though I can't find a reference):
"Nothing is late until it is delivered and a bad product will always be a bad product"
Why do I see the potential justification of this being similar to Amazon's justification of patenting 1-click ordering?
Very different. Amazon was most definitely not using their patent in the defensive form. A defensive patent would be used when a company tries to sue you and you show them your patent portfolio and they quickly realise its time to back down or get sued in return. Amazon used their patent to get money out of competitors and non-competitors who were using a method similar to that described in the patent.
I don't suppose anyone has considered that they might use said patent to sue trolls out of existence. Which would be neat, and altogether too ironic.
Well they could do. On the other hand when you see some of the latest patents IBM has applied for, then you get the feeling that IBM is trying to make a point. The point as I see it is how much the patents system needs fixing. IBM is a huge patent holder, but rarely do you see IBM actively pursuing any smaller players. From what I can tell most of IBMs patents are hardware related, so they don't lose out from a modified system that invalidates all software and business model patents. In many ways what you see here are more to the batch of 'defensive patents', ie patents that would never be used unless some shark decided to sue IBM for something ridiculous. I would even wonder whether a company could cite IBM's patent when defending themselves against these sharks?
Say what you will about Microsoft but these fonts looks better than anything on Linux and Mac.
If these fonts are freely distributable, then anyone with a Mac or Linux, will be able to use them. Also 'looks better' is very subjective and also depends what you are doing.
W3C says [w3.org] that the page isn't valid HTML - does that invalidate their claim?
The best way to respect that their copyright is not infringed, would be to prevent people visiting their site. Entities with heavy handy copyright expectations shouldn't expect to do business.
they define a 'supercomputer' as being "A mainframe computer that is among the largest, fastest, or most powerful of those available at a given time". This is suitably vague, since the point of reference changes all the time. On the other hand there is no point of reference in the definition. For example, does it have to be in the top 100 or 100x more powerful than the current top of the line PC? Without a suitable reference point anyone could call their cluster amongst, the "largest, fastest or most powerful".
I don't own a Mac and have only touched OSX a few times on friends machines (and at school) but I find the fact that applications never seem to really be able to maximize and there are huge amounts of wasted screen space. Now I know you can auto hide the launcher thingy on the bottom but it just seems to function worse than the newer start button designs. Am I missing something?
In many ways the behaviour of the maximise button is application specific. There are different behaviours that I have observed:
- Firefox resizes between allowing you to see the drive icons on the right and whatever it was previously
- Mail maximises completely and on second click goes back to the previous size
- Quicktime won't resize until you have manually adjusted the size and will toggle by default size and the previous user specified size
There may be an extension that unifies the behaviour, but I haven't seen one.
I'm going to hang back on ordering this. It's a year late, and Apple still haven't managed to release the Gold Master to developers. My feeling is that in order to get it out on time it hasn't been as well tested as previous versions.
You're lucky, turns out my Windows upgrade was 6 years late and it wasn't even worth it - well at least IMHO.
Yes,... 867MHz+ PPC. Isn't that a "new G4", rather than an "old G4"? I bet Leopard's not supported on my PowerMac with two 500MHz G4s.
Officially it won't run on anything less that an 800MHz G4. Unofficially you may be able to, but you will need to wait for the instructions to appear on the web and they won't be published by Apple.
It's just as well he's retired - looks like he's fighting long lost battles against cooperation with the Russians and Europeans.
Chances, given he is now retired, is that he was so brainwashed during the cold war era (having lived through it), that the prejudice won't wash off. Unfortunately there are people both sides of the American/Russia divide who can't get passed the their cold war era prejudices. Heck, in the USA we still see this sort of prejudice happening today with the inability to separate socialism and communism.
There is one thing being proud about national success, there is another that goes beyond the point that you can't accept that the other country is getting things right too.
While computers systems in the USA have probably been well ahead of what has been coming out of Russia, they certainly have the lead when it comes to certain aerospace technologies, such as vector-thrust, heavy lifting aircraft (think of the AN-225 - Ukranian, but with Russian Engineering) and ground-effect.
Both the USA and Russia have things going for them, but they also both have their failings.
m thinking about building one myself to get some numbers and see how well it scales
Cool! I'm sure a lot of people would love to see a project page for a DIY wind generator of this sort!
I too wind interested to build one. Given the low power output, I think that stacking a few together would help increase the resultant power output. As for pointing in th right direction, a wind vane would do the job. As for having the right tension for the wind speed, I wonder whether attaching a wind speed meter would do the job, or more mechanical approach. The mechanical approach I am thinking of would be to have the 'string' weighted and then tension adjusted according to a propellor lifting the weight - its a bit sketchy at the momemnt, so I haven't decided the exact setup.
This is brought to you by the same school that says Apple is dying and BSD is dead. Oh well.
For me the biggest issue with Wii is the lack of new games. I am waiting in anticipation for Mario Galaxy, Mario Kart and possibly some good RPGS. The other issue that needs to get sorted, is that the friend code system sucks (not the target audience - whatever) and there isn't much in the way of network game. In general I am happy with the Wii, but I believe the blame is currently on the software companies.
Flash used to have a limit of about 500,000 read/writes. That limit has since been surpassed. I gather it can exceed 1 million now, though Wikipedia still says the former.
What is the read/write limit of an average hard-drive, to put things into perspective?
At the moment, the Linux camp is milling around saying, "Patents, what patents? Show us the patents!" and it can be pretty well "documented" with press releases and blogs. Seems to me that it would be pretty darned hard to show any sort of evil intent.
This just reminds me of the whole SCO case (which was meant to be a front for Microsoft anyhow). We will threaten you without any evidence and hope that you are too scared to stand on your own. Does this not sound like Mafia tactics? Shouldn't this be illegal, if it isn't already?
Wasn't it announced *ahead of time* that the upgrade would brick unlocked phones?
That sure sounds like premeditation to me.
Nah, that sounds more like them taking into account that if you do some unsupported random modification, then there is no way for them to know what you did. And if they don't know what you did, how is the testing process going to know what to test for? Private APIs are always going to be changing, since they don't need to take into account third-party applications are using them and if they are they shouldn't be.
If you hack something then you should accept the risks associated with it. Yes I believe Apple should be making the iPhone more open, but until it is anything you do which is not officially supported is at your own risk.
BTW Haven't a number of people come up with solutions to unbrick the iPhone?
And if they didn't store the data then we wouldn't have the TJ Maxx crap like stuff going on in the first place. Storing it should be illegal - encrypted or not. There is no reason that numbers need to be stored - even for subscriptions. If worse comes to worse then get the lazy bastards to re-swipe or re-enter the card data.
Since it is the credit card companies that do the final validation of the credit card, and store the data anyhow, surely they can send back a unique confirmation ID. It would be the credit card companies who would hold on the transaction data and the stores would store the corresponding confirmation ID. With this approach if the store needs to confirm a transaction, that simply specify the unique confirmation ID. Any extra functionality added to the credit-card would be transparent to the shops since they already have the unique conformation ID. I am thinking of a format like:
--
Of course anything beyond the credit card company id would be up to the credit card company and all the stores needs to know is that they are storing alphanumeric confirmation strings. On the credit card company side they can hold all the information they want, such as store, card number, date, amount, status, etc. Since the unique confirmation ID does not contain the credit card number it is useless to anyone but the credit card company.
Slashdot Mirror
Within the last year, I know of two girls that switched from PC to Mac... Not all that much, but I don't know all that much people either. I used to use Apple, so they came to me for advice. Me? Not switching back to Apple, because the 2003 computer I have running Windows XP does all I need and I can maintain Windows machines correctly.
:-P
Of course, I'd expect any mechanic to say that maintaining a car is easy too
I think it comes down to different people, different needs. A smart techie will recognise this and accept this. I tend to want to recommend a Mac, since for the most part they do their stuff well (and I have a slight bias), though not everyone wants one, can afford one, or has needs that a Mac can't fulfil. Computers are a tool and they should facilitate the job at hand and not act as a hindrance. I use Windows, Macs and Linux and depending on what I am doing will use one or the other.
I have a friend who spends his time tinkering with his car, ensuring that it has the best shocks, has the best air-flow through the engine, etc, but many people are just happy to have something that gets them from A to B. If the car looks good and does the job well, then its an extra convenience. In many way computers are no different.
Oh, they're expandable and upgradeable, all right, if you're willing to spend a fortune. I love having to buy video cards for my Macs featuring years-old technology for four times what the equivalent PC part is (even when all that's different is a different video BIOS).
Is this still true for the Intel based systems?
Newer then. It was newer then using the ? which is what I learned.
/mypath* and anything starting with /mypath is yours to handle.
The '?' approach is certainly the proper way to pass parameters. Whatever appears before '?' is considered to be the resource you are wanting, and everything afterwards is used to specify parameters that might modify the appearance of the resource. When using forms, using the GET method, this is the approach used. Of course, if you don't mind parsing the path yourself, then you can interpret things differently, but be sure to know the norms.
If you are using Java then define your servlet as handling the path
But wouldn't the real solution be to train government employees in the arcane art of not installing P2P applications on government computers in the first place? Or does that just make too much sense to be effective?
The argument they are using is pure hockus. They say P2P is an issue because a number of the searches are for private and confidential information. This sort of argument can also be applied to search engines such as Google or anything else on the internet. There is also a big difference between searching for something and actually getting matching results back. If there is private and confidential information around, then the issue is not so much the P2P networks, but the person who shared it in this first place. If there is a leak in the government, or any agency handling private and confidential data, then maybe they should check out their own networks first.
Given that I believe most early applications had to have it after a ? and the straight text is a fairly new thing, they might have done it early enough to be the first to do it.
I wouldn't call this new at all. I have been using this sort of thing for a while. What you have here is a virtual directory or file. You take whatever is after the '/' and based on the nature of your program decide what this virtual path corresponds to. I have used this sort of thing, since in many ways it is a nicer URL to share.
If they would give him anything, and he only got 15K?????? What an idiot.
Maybe he signed the same contract most as most RIAA artists (there doesn't seem to be much between RIAA and MPAA).
Its about time the internet was shut down. There is too much copyright infringement going on and it is the only solution. Hackers invariably get past the filters, so filters only work out to be a temporary solution. Maybe we should consider turning off TV transmission too, since those stealing pirates keeping on seeing our copyrighted work without paying us. If we can't have 100% control then we would rather have no one be able to see our work. The Spanish inquisition were taking the right approach.
Okay, so the copyright holders aren't saying the above, but their desire for total control makes the above scenario feel not to far from the reality that they seem to want.
I'm not sure how you can say they missed an opportunity until after some initial sales figures and responses come out. It took a while before the non-desire for Vista became apparent. It will take some time before people have a chance to respond (with their wallets) to Leopard.
I'll reserve judgement, buy generally I would rather have an OS that provides what I want and provided in a form the is convenient for me, than than OS that feels rushed out of the door. I believe Nintendo was quoted as saying more or less the following (though I can't find a reference):
"Nothing is late until it is delivered and a bad product will always be a bad product"
Why do I see the potential justification of this being similar to Amazon's justification of patenting 1-click ordering?
Very different. Amazon was most definitely not using their patent in the defensive form. A defensive patent would be used when a company tries to sue you and you show them your patent portfolio and they quickly realise its time to back down or get sued in return. Amazon used their patent to get money out of competitors and non-competitors who were using a method similar to that described in the patent.
I don't suppose anyone has considered that they might use said patent to sue trolls out of existence. Which would be neat, and altogether too ironic.
Well they could do. On the other hand when you see some of the latest patents IBM has applied for, then you get the feeling that IBM is trying to make a point. The point as I see it is how much the patents system needs fixing. IBM is a huge patent holder, but rarely do you see IBM actively pursuing any smaller players. From what I can tell most of IBMs patents are hardware related, so they don't lose out from a modified system that invalidates all software and business model patents. In many ways what you see here are more to the batch of 'defensive patents', ie patents that would never be used unless some shark decided to sue IBM for something ridiculous. I would even wonder whether a company could cite IBM's patent when defending themselves against these sharks?
Turns out these fonts need a little leg work to get hold of, if you aren't using Vista. This page explains how to get hold of them 'legally':
.exe format, you will need to use something like Wine or Crossover, if you don't have access to a Windows PC.
http://labnol.blogspot.com/2007/03/download-windows-vista-fonts-legally.html
Since the downloads are in
Say what you will about Microsoft but these fonts looks better than anything on Linux and Mac.
If these fonts are freely distributable, then anyone with a Mac or Linux, will be able to use them. Also 'looks better' is very subjective and also depends what you are doing.
W3C says [w3.org] that the page isn't valid HTML - does that invalidate their claim?
The best way to respect that their copyright is not infringed, would be to prevent people visiting their site. Entities with heavy handy copyright expectations shouldn't expect to do business.
Looking at this page:
http://www.answers.com/topic/supercomputer?cat=biz-fin
they define a 'supercomputer' as being "A mainframe computer that is among the largest, fastest, or most powerful of those available at a given time". This is suitably vague, since the point of reference changes all the time. On the other hand there is no point of reference in the definition. For example, does it have to be in the top 100 or 100x more powerful than the current top of the line PC? Without a suitable reference point anyone could call their cluster amongst, the "largest, fastest or most powerful".
I don't own a Mac and have only touched OSX a few times on friends machines (and at school) but I find the fact that applications never seem to really be able to maximize and there are huge amounts of wasted screen space. Now I know you can auto hide the launcher thingy on the bottom but it just seems to function worse than the newer start button designs. Am I missing something?
In many ways the behaviour of the maximise button is application specific. There are different behaviours that I have observed:
- Firefox resizes between allowing you to see the drive icons on the right and whatever it was previously
- Mail maximises completely and on second click goes back to the previous size
- Quicktime won't resize until you have manually adjusted the size and will toggle by default size and the previous user specified size
There may be an extension that unifies the behaviour, but I haven't seen one.
I'm going to hang back on ordering this. It's a year late, and Apple still haven't managed to release the Gold Master to developers. My feeling is that in order to get it out on time it hasn't been as well tested as previous versions.
You're lucky, turns out my Windows upgrade was 6 years late and it wasn't even worth it - well at least IMHO.
will it run on the old G4's ?
... 867MHz+ PPC.
Yes,
Isn't that a "new G4", rather than an "old G4"? I bet Leopard's not supported on my PowerMac with two 500MHz G4s.
Officially it won't run on anything less that an 800MHz G4. Unofficially you may be able to, but you will need to wait for the instructions to appear on the web and they won't be published by Apple.
It's just as well he's retired - looks like he's fighting long lost battles against cooperation with the Russians and Europeans.
Chances, given he is now retired, is that he was so brainwashed during the cold war era (having lived through it), that the prejudice won't wash off. Unfortunately there are people both sides of the American/Russia divide who can't get passed the their cold war era prejudices. Heck, in the USA we still see this sort of prejudice happening today with the inability to separate socialism and communism.
There is one thing being proud about national success, there is another that goes beyond the point that you can't accept that the other country is getting things right too.
While computers systems in the USA have probably been well ahead of what has been coming out of Russia, they certainly have the lead when it comes to certain aerospace technologies, such as vector-thrust, heavy lifting aircraft (think of the AN-225 - Ukranian, but with Russian Engineering) and ground-effect.
Both the USA and Russia have things going for them, but they also both have their failings.
m thinking about building one myself to get some numbers and see how well it scales
Cool! I'm sure a lot of people would love to see a project page for a DIY wind generator of this sort!
I too wind interested to build one. Given the low power output, I think that stacking a few together would help increase the resultant power output. As for pointing in th right direction, a wind vane would do the job. As for having the right tension for the wind speed, I wonder whether attaching a wind speed meter would do the job, or more mechanical approach. The mechanical approach I am thinking of would be to have the 'string' weighted and then tension adjusted according to a propellor lifting the weight - its a bit sketchy at the momemnt, so I haven't decided the exact setup.
This is brought to you by the same school that says Apple is dying and BSD is dead. Oh well.
For me the biggest issue with Wii is the lack of new games. I am waiting in anticipation for Mario Galaxy, Mario Kart and possibly some good RPGS. The other issue that needs to get sorted, is that the friend code system sucks (not the target audience - whatever) and there isn't much in the way of network game. In general I am happy with the Wii, but I believe the blame is currently on the software companies.
Flash used to have a limit of about 500,000 read/writes. That limit has since been surpassed. I gather it can exceed 1 million now, though Wikipedia still says the former.
What is the read/write limit of an average hard-drive, to put things into perspective?
At the moment, the Linux camp is milling around saying, "Patents, what patents? Show us the patents!" and it can be pretty well "documented" with press releases and blogs. Seems to me that it would be pretty darned hard to show any sort of evil intent.
This just reminds me of the whole SCO case (which was meant to be a front for Microsoft anyhow). We will threaten you without any evidence and hope that you are too scared to stand on your own. Does this not sound like Mafia tactics? Shouldn't this be illegal, if it isn't already?
Wasn't it announced *ahead of time* that the upgrade would brick unlocked phones?
That sure sounds like premeditation to me.
Nah, that sounds more like them taking into account that if you do some unsupported random modification, then there is no way for them to know what you did. And if they don't know what you did, how is the testing process going to know what to test for? Private APIs are always going to be changing, since they don't need to take into account third-party applications are using them and if they are they shouldn't be.
If you hack something then you should accept the risks associated with it. Yes I believe Apple should be making the iPhone more open, but until it is anything you do which is not officially supported is at your own risk.
BTW Haven't a number of people come up with solutions to unbrick the iPhone?
And if they didn't store the data then we wouldn't have the TJ Maxx crap like stuff going on in the first place. Storing it should be illegal - encrypted or not. There is no reason that numbers need to be stored - even for subscriptions. If worse comes to worse then get the lazy bastards to re-swipe or re-enter the card data.
Since it is the credit card companies that do the final validation of the credit card, and store the data anyhow, surely they can send back a unique confirmation ID. It would be the credit card companies who would hold on the transaction data and the stores would store the corresponding confirmation ID. With this approach if the store needs to confirm a transaction, that simply specify the unique confirmation ID. Any extra functionality added to the credit-card would be transparent to the shops since they already have the unique conformation ID. I am thinking of a format like:
--
Of course anything beyond the credit card company id would be up to the credit card company and all the stores needs to know is that they are storing alphanumeric confirmation strings. On the credit card company side they can hold all the information they want, such as store, card number, date, amount, status, etc. Since the unique confirmation ID does not contain the credit card number it is useless to anyone but the credit card company.
Might I suggest naming it after another soon-to-be-extinct species, hence the "Zuneosaur".
Being Utah, maybe the Scosaur? I won't accept when it has been beaten and made itself irrelevant.