If you want middle-click-paste behavior on a Mac, it is pretty easy with most 3rd party mice I've seen.
I just love those "if you want [insert feature here] it's pretty easy if you use [product that I use]" posts. Not.
There are about two companies still making third-party mice for the Mac, and neither of them make mice that are less than painful for me to use. ALL the good mice are for Windows, and don't have Mac drivers.
To get the middle button behavior that I want I have to use three separate hacks to glue together the programs I need. Apple BADLY needs a general input manager preference pane that binds input events to application commands in ONE place that EVERY application can hook into without stepping on each others toes as they do in the current "clever" scheme.
It won't reduce mouse travel time, because it will increase inaccuracy.
Bullshit.
I know they talk up the mile high menu bar at Apple all the damn time, but it's just wrong. Do you miss hitting other targets on the screen just because they're not at the top of the page? I don't, even suffering from RSI.
The thing that Apple seems to have missed is that there's FIVE locations that are easy to hit. The four corners, and where the mouse already is. Xerox put the menu right under the mouse, using a separate menu button on the mouse. Apple had this idea that extra buttons on the mouse were inherently bad (and have this nasty passive-aggressive resistance to correcting that mistake) so pop-up menus were out. So they came up with the menu bar instead.
Get rid of it and put the global menu in the contextual menu... maybe on the left of the mouse pointer instead of the right, since it's too late to change now.
One quick flick of the wrist with cursor acceleration properly configured will get you where you need to be
Cursor acceleration is another patch over the original problem. No wonder you can't hit small targets if you're using aggressive acceleration. You're slowing down all cursor operations by making it so easy to overshoot.
All I want is spinning hypercubes with fricken lasers on their heads!
You can have your spinny cube in OS X, and there's been a couple of "3d desktops"... the problem isn't getting real 3d, the problem is that people think 3d means you can walk around in your desktop and tilt windows to their sides like Sun was doing a few years ago and Microsoft is trying to WOW you with now.
The third dimension needs to be attention. Don't give me "spaces", just let applications I haven't used in a while fade into the background and drift off to the side and eventually turn into dock-like icons when they hit the edge of the screen, and let me manipulate them in 3d using the scroll wheel to drag them forward or shove them into the literal background.
That would really rock, even if people kept complaining it was still only 2.5d.
Those are the "conventional wisdom" answers, and I think they're wrong.
* It's not that Apple throws you overboard after five years... in fact Apple has really only had ONE incident where they broke compatibility unilaterally... and that was the shift from Classic to OS X, and they did that because they had to... Classic had dragged their last two attempts to transition to a real operating system (Copland and A/UX) down to hell. Dropping Classic now is just the last echo of that transition. AND they gave people 10 years to get the hell out of Classic: Jobs announced that Classic was going away in 1997, and they released Carbon before OS 9.
* Microsoft doesn't write the majority of the device drivers, they just qualify them and bundle the drivers they collect from vendors. The overhead of maintaining device drivers is a tiny part of what's holding Microsoft back.
It's really corporate culture. Reading descriptions of Microsoft's development model and talking to people I know at Microsoft just make me shudder. They haven't figured out that they're not a one product startup any more and they're still trying to work like one.
MS technology just happens transparently at the FS level which OS X can't do
Sure it can. Modern versions of UFS support snapshots and Apple could easily provide legacy support for the last couple of features of HFS+ that haven't been emulated or done better at the vnode layer... they don't need ZFS for this, they've had a modern UFS since Panther.
Don't worry about ZFS. Apple's too enamored of HFS+ to replace it with a better file system... they've already proven that over and over again.
When I think of "backups", I tend to think "this will help me recover my files if my computer dies, is stolen, or is unexpectedly repossessed by nature".
That's why Apple goes on about making the backup to an external drive. Using the same drive is foolishness.
The Time Machine feature is more of an archive than a backup.
A real backup system needs to provide both mirroring and archiving facilities. Most "backup" software I've seen only does mirroring. Time Machine adds archiving to that.
No, I gave you even more of a pass than I should have in the OS quoted.
Apple DID include support for "non main OS level APIs" in OSX. It's how classic apps were supported up through Tiger, and they could have kept the stinking corpse on life support through Rosetta's Power PC emulation on the Intel processors. That they didn't probably cost them more than keeping the tubes and electrodes and tottering exoskeleton plugged in for another decade, because of the reaction from people like you who have no idea of the utter corruption that lived in the core of the Mac, the oozing corruption that had destroyed Apple's previous attempts to harmonize a real operating system with the travesty that Raskin's flawed brilliance birthed. A/UX collapsed under its weight of stinking dead flab. Copland got lost trying to carve a new nervous system through the rotting demyelinated fibers of its primitive brain. It even cast a horrible shadow of colors from outside space on the early versions of Windows thanks to Bill Gates misplaced affection for the beauty it had displayed in its use... Eller's description of how Bill bullied the Windows team into making the first version of Windows use the Mac's horrid cooperative "scheduling" model made me cringe.
No, they didn't kill Classic because they couldn't keep it alive, it was an act of mercy to cut the life support and let it pass on.
You are trying to give Apple a pass on an issue they really don't deserve one. They could have used even a nominal virtualization system if they were not going to create a subsystem capable OS structure like MS did with NT to ensure support for non main OS level APIs.
And it's a bloody good thing they didn't. OS 9 was not even up to the level of Windows 3.1. It wasn't up to the level of Win16 or Win32s. The classic Mac OS API was so bloody horrible that it should have been dragged screaming down to hell along with Yrkoon of Melnibone's black soul on Strombringer's burning blade. Steve Jobs did the whole computer industry when he shoved a stake in its curdled and stinking heart. It was so bad that when I read "Inside Mac" in 1985 I was convinced that the Mac was doomed and got an Amiga... it was like reading an orchestral score for the kazoo and 32 sackbutts in 17/23 time. The shenanigans you had to go through to safely use pointers. The complete lack of scheduling. God damn you to Moorcock's hell for making me remember this stuff... writing classic Mac applications was like writing device drivers for a pre-thread operating system... you had to put bloody sequence points in and guarantee that they got hit every N milliseconds or the whole grand multitasking illusion would come tumbling down. It was so bad that an early G3 running classic Mac OS was less responsive than a 68030 running NeXTSTeP... I had the two of them running next to each other and the contrast was appalling.
Apple's real crime was waiting as long as they did before killing it. And now it's dead I'm glad, I tell you, glad!
That leaves them open to attack everything from Samba to Red Hat Package Manager.
And, yes, I think it DOES matter.
Microsoft has managed to pretty much completely win everything that people keep saying they'd lost. This kind of thing is why I was skeptical of the EU deal from the start.
Ther is a bit of a double standard, yes, but dropping support for OS 9 isn't like droping support for Windows 98. The Win32 API in Vista is basically and ancestor of the Win32 API in Vista. OS 9 apps, on the other hand, are a whole different kettle of fish.
OS 9 wasn't a modern operating system. As an OS it was, in many ways, decades behind Windows 98. The OS 9 API was based on a model where memory management and scheduling by the OS simply didn't happen... the application got a chunk of REAL memory and until it voluntarily gave up the CPU noting could touch it. To work around this, they created a really gimpy partition model. Multitasking in classic Mac OS was handled conceptually through the window system... there really wasn't an OS underneath it at all, not even as much as there was in Windows 3.1.
Jobs wanted to get rid of the ghastly classic Mac OS API in 1997, but Adobe and a few other big manufacturers dug their heels in and told him they'd abandon the Mac if he didn't come up with a way forward.
So first of all he came up with a bridge API called "Carbon". Carbon applications got an API that couldn't do all the fugly old classic stuff, but were ready to at least run on Rhapsody (what OS X was originally going to be called) once it was revamped to support it. Carbon was introduced for OS 8 and became a standard part of OS 9. After OS X came out people really pushed developers to switch to Carbon... but there were still a bunch of die-hards that insisted on running some software from 1994 that had no Carbon version.
Several times in the early 2000s Jobs pulled the last G4 Powermac capable of booting OS 9 and running classic apps native, rather than under the "classic" emulation environment. Each time there was an outcry... until 2005, when it vanished and nobody complained. Six months later he announced the Intel macs that would not ever be able to run pre-carbon "classic" apps from the dark ages.
MOST apps released *for* OS 9 are not "classic", they're carbon-based, and run under Rosetta.
Most apps released before OS 9 have been carbonised.
NO intel macs have ever been able to run pre-carbon apps.
Don't think of this like Microsoft abandoning Windows 98 apps. Think of it like Microsoft abandoning apps that needed direct access to hardware registers and video memory. The kind of stuff you have to run under Bochs even on Windows XP. It just sounds worse because Apple left it SO late to get rid of that old "application-centric" environment and actually ship an operating system that was actually an operating system.
The real double standard is the resistance of Apple fanboys to admit just how bloody awful OS 9 was.
Sure you don't want to upgrade the 10.1.5 machine at least to 10.2.8... which you can almost certainly get a used copy of from someone for peanuts?
The difference between Puma and Jaguar was like night and day for me, even on my Powermac 7600 (with Sonnet G3/400). Jaguar was the first really solid version of OS X, and well worth taking the plunge on XPostFacto for.
There are none listed. There are references to signed applications but they don't seem to be a requirement, nor are signed drivers, and they disabled by default the Input Manager mechanism, out of some false idea that this improves security... but you can enable it if you choose to ignore their oddly phrased warning dialog.
I'm sticking with Windows 2000 for my Wintendo too.
Windows XP is more like a Windows 2000 Plus Pack, and Microsoft has had to deliberately break it Windows 2000 (doing things like putting checks for XP in installers) to get people to switch.
Theo tends to be cynical and pessimistic about just about anything that's got to do with security, and he's got good reasons to be... things that people push as security features turn out to be irrelevant or even actually dangerous a large proportion of the time. They're not batting 1.000, or even 0.500, by any means.
This doesn't mean that OpenBSD won't get some kind of virtualization support, it just means that he's being careful and conservative and letting other people be the pioneers. I think this is a good thing, on balance... you don't want to be pulling arrows out of your back because your secure OS decided to take you through unknown territory.
Yeh, he's got an emphatic way of putting things. You just gotta deal with it. Several years ago I asked him about stack protection and his response was eerily similar to this. A few years later OpenBSD enabled stack protection by default.
I think he's got a point, but he's comparing running separate computers to running separate OS instances on the same computer. If that's how you're using VMs, then yes, the resulting system is less secure overall... and for Windows that's often how VMs get used because Windows tends to make it unreasonably hard to run multiple instances of the same application on the same computer. If you're replacing less extreme isolation mechanisms on the same computer with VMs, though, then you're adding an extra layer of defence. Think of it as a hierarchy...
* Same application instance (eg, web server modules) * Separate applications (running multiple instances of apache) * User level separation (multiple accounts for the separate instances) * File system separation (multiple chrooted instances of apache) * OS-level separation (eg, FreeBSD jails and I think Solaris domains) * Hardware-assisted software virtualization (VMware, Xen) * Hardware virtualization (IBM VM "penguin farms") * Separate physical computers
It might be argued that IBM's virtual machines should be lumped with virtualization, or that separate computers should be split from blades, and things like NAS and SAN complicate things, but you get the idea.
Theo's looking at the hierarchy starting at the bottom, and seeing a reduction in security. Other people are starting at the top, and seeing an increase in security. Both sides are correct, it depends on where you start.
This is like claiming that someone "proved bumblebees couldn't fly". No, they didn't prove or claim to prove any such thing. What happened is someone did a static analysis of a bumblebee because that's the best they could do then, and discovered that if you treat a bumblebee as a glider it's not going to fly.
That's not a surprise, is it?
As the previous response to your message notes, when you analyse phone lines subject to ALL the limitations of ALL the hardware involved, they're limited to about 35k. The only way they got up to 56k was by changing the hardware at one end. Changing it at both ends is how you get higher speeds than that.
Yeh, the Power PC Mac mini couldn't do that, but it did OpenGL T&L in the GPU faster then the Intel Mac mini that replaced it. You've got an insanely fast little machine there, but it can *barely* (your words) keep up with the job it was supposedly designed for.
That's the result of the kinds of tradeoffs they made to make it that small.
It's also got a slow slow slow hard disk.
And unless they seriously upgraded the USB ports, it can't charge even an iPod Shuffle without an external powered hub.
Those compromises don't impact you, perhaps, but they're still very real.
I thought from the title that they had struck down requiring that porn sites verify the age of the viewer, not the actor. That sounded like a big deal, and kind of strange.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want middle-click-paste behavior on a Mac, it is pretty easy with most 3rd party mice I've seen.
I just love those "if you want [insert feature here] it's pretty easy if you use [product that I use]" posts. Not.
There are about two companies still making third-party mice for the Mac, and neither of them make mice that are less than painful for me to use. ALL the good mice are for Windows, and don't have Mac drivers.
To get the middle button behavior that I want I have to use three separate hacks to glue together the programs I need. Apple BADLY needs a general input manager preference pane that binds input events to application commands in ONE place that EVERY application can hook into without stepping on each others toes as they do in the current "clever" scheme.
Many Mac applications have no windows.
They all have dock icons, and dock icons have menus.
From your other post:
It's your job to figure out the best solution, don't burden the user with it.
It's not your job to shove a worse solution for me down my throat, just because you think it's the best one.
It won't reduce mouse travel time, because it will increase inaccuracy.
Bullshit.
I know they talk up the mile high menu bar at Apple all the damn time, but it's just wrong. Do you miss hitting other targets on the screen just because they're not at the top of the page? I don't, even suffering from RSI.
The thing that Apple seems to have missed is that there's FIVE locations that are easy to hit. The four corners, and where the mouse already is. Xerox put the menu right under the mouse, using a separate menu button on the mouse. Apple had this idea that extra buttons on the mouse were inherently bad (and have this nasty passive-aggressive resistance to correcting that mistake) so pop-up menus were out. So they came up with the menu bar instead.
Get rid of it and put the global menu in the contextual menu... maybe on the left of the mouse pointer instead of the right, since it's too late to change now.
One quick flick of the wrist with cursor acceleration properly configured will get you where you need to be
Cursor acceleration is another patch over the original problem. No wonder you can't hit small targets if you're using aggressive acceleration. You're slowing down all cursor operations by making it so easy to overshoot.
All I want is spinning hypercubes with fricken lasers on their heads!
You can have your spinny cube in OS X, and there's been a couple of "3d desktops"... the problem isn't getting real 3d, the problem is that people think 3d means you can walk around in your desktop and tilt windows to their sides like Sun was doing a few years ago and Microsoft is trying to WOW you with now.
The third dimension needs to be attention. Don't give me "spaces", just let applications I haven't used in a while fade into the background and drift off to the side and eventually turn into dock-like icons when they hit the edge of the screen, and let me manipulate them in 3d using the scroll wheel to drag them forward or shove them into the literal background.
That would really rock, even if people kept complaining it was still only 2.5d.
Those are the "conventional wisdom" answers, and I think they're wrong.
* It's not that Apple throws you overboard after five years... in fact Apple has really only had ONE incident where they broke compatibility unilaterally... and that was the shift from Classic to OS X, and they did that because they had to... Classic had dragged their last two attempts to transition to a real operating system (Copland and A/UX) down to hell. Dropping Classic now is just the last echo of that transition. AND they gave people 10 years to get the hell out of Classic: Jobs announced that Classic was going away in 1997, and they released Carbon before OS 9.
* Microsoft doesn't write the majority of the device drivers, they just qualify them and bundle the drivers they collect from vendors. The overhead of maintaining device drivers is a tiny part of what's holding Microsoft back.
It's really corporate culture. Reading descriptions of Microsoft's development model and talking to people I know at Microsoft just make me shudder. They haven't figured out that they're not a one product startup any more and they're still trying to work like one.
MS technology just happens transparently at the FS level which OS X can't do
Sure it can. Modern versions of UFS support snapshots and Apple could easily provide legacy support for the last couple of features of HFS+ that haven't been emulated or done better at the vnode layer... they don't need ZFS for this, they've had a modern UFS since Panther.
Don't worry about ZFS. Apple's too enamored of HFS+ to replace it with a better file system... they've already proven that over and over again.
When I think of "backups", I tend to think "this will help me recover my files if my computer dies, is stolen, or is unexpectedly repossessed by nature".
That's why Apple goes on about making the backup to an external drive. Using the same drive is foolishness.
The Time Machine feature is more of an archive than a backup.
A real backup system needs to provide both mirroring and archiving facilities. Most "backup" software I've seen only does mirroring. Time Machine adds archiving to that.
No, I gave you even more of a pass than I should have in the OS quoted.
Apple DID include support for "non main OS level APIs" in OSX. It's how classic apps were supported up through Tiger, and they could have kept the stinking corpse on life support through Rosetta's Power PC emulation on the Intel processors. That they didn't probably cost them more than keeping the tubes and electrodes and tottering exoskeleton plugged in for another decade, because of the reaction from people like you who have no idea of the utter corruption that lived in the core of the Mac, the oozing corruption that had destroyed Apple's previous attempts to harmonize a real operating system with the travesty that Raskin's flawed brilliance birthed. A/UX collapsed under its weight of stinking dead flab. Copland got lost trying to carve a new nervous system through the rotting demyelinated fibers of its primitive brain. It even cast a horrible shadow of colors from outside space on the early versions of Windows thanks to Bill Gates misplaced affection for the beauty it had displayed in its use... Eller's description of how Bill bullied the Windows team into making the first version of Windows use the Mac's horrid cooperative "scheduling" model made me cringe.
No, they didn't kill Classic because they couldn't keep it alive, it was an act of mercy to cut the life support and let it pass on.
You are trying to give Apple a pass on an issue they really don't deserve one. They could have used even a nominal virtualization system if they were not going to create a subsystem capable OS structure like MS did with NT to ensure support for non main OS level APIs.
And it's a bloody good thing they didn't. OS 9 was not even up to the level of Windows 3.1. It wasn't up to the level of Win16 or Win32s. The classic Mac OS API was so bloody horrible that it should have been dragged screaming down to hell along with Yrkoon of Melnibone's black soul on Strombringer's burning blade. Steve Jobs did the whole computer industry when he shoved a stake in its curdled and stinking heart. It was so bad that when I read "Inside Mac" in 1985 I was convinced that the Mac was doomed and got an Amiga... it was like reading an orchestral score for the kazoo and 32 sackbutts in 17/23 time. The shenanigans you had to go through to safely use pointers. The complete lack of scheduling. God damn you to Moorcock's hell for making me remember this stuff... writing classic Mac applications was like writing device drivers for a pre-thread operating system... you had to put bloody sequence points in and guarantee that they got hit every N milliseconds or the whole grand multitasking illusion would come tumbling down. It was so bad that an early G3 running classic Mac OS was less responsive than a 68030 running NeXTSTeP... I had the two of them running next to each other and the contrast was appalling.
Apple's real crime was waiting as long as they did before killing it. And now it's dead I'm glad, I tell you, glad!
That leaves them open to attack everything from Samba to Red Hat Package Manager.
And, yes, I think it DOES matter.
Microsoft has managed to pretty much completely win everything that people keep saying they'd lost. This kind of thing is why I was skeptical of the EU deal from the start.
Ther is a bit of a double standard, yes, but dropping support for OS 9 isn't like droping support for Windows 98. The Win32 API in Vista is basically and ancestor of the Win32 API in Vista. OS 9 apps, on the other hand, are a whole different kettle of fish.
OS 9 wasn't a modern operating system. As an OS it was, in many ways, decades behind Windows 98. The OS 9 API was based on a model where memory management and scheduling by the OS simply didn't happen... the application got a chunk of REAL memory and until it voluntarily gave up the CPU noting could touch it. To work around this, they created a really gimpy partition model. Multitasking in classic Mac OS was handled conceptually through the window system... there really wasn't an OS underneath it at all, not even as much as there was in Windows 3.1.
Jobs wanted to get rid of the ghastly classic Mac OS API in 1997, but Adobe and a few other big manufacturers dug their heels in and told him they'd abandon the Mac if he didn't come up with a way forward.
So first of all he came up with a bridge API called "Carbon". Carbon applications got an API that couldn't do all the fugly old classic stuff, but were ready to at least run on Rhapsody (what OS X was originally going to be called) once it was revamped to support it. Carbon was introduced for OS 8 and became a standard part of OS 9. After OS X came out people really pushed developers to switch to Carbon... but there were still a bunch of die-hards that insisted on running some software from 1994 that had no Carbon version.
Several times in the early 2000s Jobs pulled the last G4 Powermac capable of booting OS 9 and running classic apps native, rather than under the "classic" emulation environment. Each time there was an outcry... until 2005, when it vanished and nobody complained. Six months later he announced the Intel macs that would not ever be able to run pre-carbon "classic" apps from the dark ages.
MOST apps released *for* OS 9 are not "classic", they're carbon-based, and run under Rosetta.
Most apps released before OS 9 have been carbonised.
NO intel macs have ever been able to run pre-carbon apps.
Don't think of this like Microsoft abandoning Windows 98 apps. Think of it like Microsoft abandoning apps that needed direct access to hardware registers and video memory. The kind of stuff you have to run under Bochs even on Windows XP. It just sounds worse because Apple left it SO late to get rid of that old "application-centric" environment and actually ship an operating system that was actually an operating system.
The real double standard is the resistance of Apple fanboys to admit just how bloody awful OS 9 was.
Sure you don't want to upgrade the 10.1.5 machine at least to 10.2.8... which you can almost certainly get a used copy of from someone for peanuts?
The difference between Puma and Jaguar was like night and day for me, even on my Powermac 7600 (with Sonnet G3/400). Jaguar was the first really solid version of OS X, and well worth taking the plunge on XPostFacto for.
There are none listed. There are references to signed applications but they don't seem to be a requirement, nor are signed drivers, and they disabled by default the Input Manager mechanism, out of some false idea that this improves security... but you can enable it if you choose to ignore their oddly phrased warning dialog.
I'm sticking with Windows 2000 for my Wintendo too.
Windows XP is more like a Windows 2000 Plus Pack, and Microsoft has had to deliberately break it Windows 2000 (doing things like putting checks for XP in installers) to get people to switch.
Vista, of course, is out of the question.
Theo tends to be cynical and pessimistic about just about anything that's got to do with security, and he's got good reasons to be... things that people push as security features turn out to be irrelevant or even actually dangerous a large proportion of the time. They're not batting 1.000, or even 0.500, by any means.
This doesn't mean that OpenBSD won't get some kind of virtualization support, it just means that he's being careful and conservative and letting other people be the pioneers. I think this is a good thing, on balance... you don't want to be pulling arrows out of your back because your secure OS decided to take you through unknown territory.
Yeh, he's got an emphatic way of putting things. You just gotta deal with it. Several years ago I asked him about stack protection and his response was eerily similar to this. A few years later OpenBSD enabled stack protection by default.
I think he's got a point, but he's comparing running separate computers to running separate OS instances on the same computer. If that's how you're using VMs, then yes, the resulting system is less secure overall... and for Windows that's often how VMs get used because Windows tends to make it unreasonably hard to run multiple instances of the same application on the same computer. If you're replacing less extreme isolation mechanisms on the same computer with VMs, though, then you're adding an extra layer of defence. Think of it as a hierarchy...
* Same application instance (eg, web server modules)
* Separate applications (running multiple instances of apache)
* User level separation (multiple accounts for the separate instances)
* File system separation (multiple chrooted instances of apache)
* OS-level separation (eg, FreeBSD jails and I think Solaris domains)
* Hardware-assisted software virtualization (VMware, Xen)
* Hardware virtualization (IBM VM "penguin farms")
* Separate physical computers
It might be argued that IBM's virtual machines should be lumped with virtualization, or that separate computers should be split from blades, and things like NAS and SAN complicate things, but you get the idea.
Theo's looking at the hierarchy starting at the bottom, and seeing a reduction in security. Other people are starting at the top, and seeing an increase in security. Both sides are correct, it depends on where you start.
This is like claiming that someone "proved bumblebees couldn't fly". No, they didn't prove or claim to prove any such thing. What happened is someone did a static analysis of a bumblebee because that's the best they could do then, and discovered that if you treat a bumblebee as a glider it's not going to fly.
That's not a surprise, is it?
As the previous response to your message notes, when you analyse phone lines subject to ALL the limitations of ALL the hardware involved, they're limited to about 35k. The only way they got up to 56k was by changing the hardware at one end. Changing it at both ends is how you get higher speeds than that.
They wouldn't let them "monetize" missed lookups directly, so they're farming it out to domain pirates.
It's corrupting the top level either way.
Yeh, the Power PC Mac mini couldn't do that, but it did OpenGL T&L in the GPU faster then the Intel Mac mini that replaced it. You've got an insanely fast little machine there, but it can *barely* (your words) keep up with the job it was supposedly designed for.
That's the result of the kinds of tradeoffs they made to make it that small.
It's also got a slow slow slow hard disk.
And unless they seriously upgraded the USB ports, it can't charge even an iPod Shuffle without an external powered hub.
Those compromises don't impact you, perhaps, but they're still very real.
I thought from the title that they had struck down requiring that porn sites verify the age of the viewer, not the actor. That sounded like a big deal, and kind of strange.
It finally all came through, in dribs and drabs, filling in from both ends towards the middle.
I only got a handful of messages from a year ago.
I'm using Camino, and didn't get the IMAP option until I told it not to check my browser.
http://mail.google.com/mail?nocheckbrowser
Microsoft's trying for #38?
This is Slashdot, not the NRA.
If they're crazy enough to register ".EXE" in LaunchServices I'm not crazy enough to even consider installing them.