P55 chipset motherboards with Intel processors are super propietary.
I have run at least 4 or 5 different OS's on my new Apple laptop including MS-Windows.
What good is a phone application, if you can't run it in a phone?
You can run it on an iPhone, but you will have to own one in order to do that. And when did $99 a year for a service that essentially provides a huge distribution system on a scale that wasn't available to anyone but extremely large software companies before several years ago become an insufferable expense. The only thing you are deprived of when you don't pay the $99 to be in "developers club" (or whatever) is that you don't have an opportunity to make a bunch of money by releasing it in the app store. Would spending $99 dollars a year on your own website be a better deal for the developer? Maybe, but that is a choice the developer makes when they decide on a platform and distribution system or vector for their software. I have not spent a dime on software, yet I develop for the platform without paying my $99. No one or nothing has or will stop me. I can use almost any example of C source code however I feel like, and an excellent package for that came with my computer. A mac is one of the few computers that comes out of the box ready to be a developers system.
Here! Here! (Stomps foot approvingly on wooden floor a few times)
Xcode is really great stuff, if you don't like it, it's because you haven't tried to use it to it's full potential.
But, nobody has a monopoly on food - consumers can eat whatever the heck they want.
No one has a monopoly if every single person has a teleporter and a gold-making machine. Unfortunately as Americans we have no idea what most people go through to feed themselves. Food really is genuinely monopolized by people with very bad intentions in places like Somalia. Food trades have always been at the heart of some of the most brutal examples of colonialism as well (sugar anyone?). Food supplies rarely have anything to do with a free market. Farms in our nation have been incorporated into corporations like Cargill and Disney (Most of the fruits and vegetables sold in my local grocery-market are grown on Disney -as in Mickey Mouse- owned farms in Florida). RJR/Kraft/Nabisco supplies about half of the rest of the food in the store. I don't see much evidence of a free market. With this in mind, we then have to ask ourselves: "Would we rather have a tobacco company and the maker of some the worst and most intellectually corrupt entertainment control our food supply, or would we rather have our own democratic government?" I personally do not own stock in Disney or RJR-Kraft-Etc., I am however a registered voter/taxpayer. I think I would prefer an organization where I actually have a say in what effect it has on my life. I will take a publicly broadcasted senate meeting Instead of a locked board room in Virginia anyday.
... should not be thrown in the trash. (and broken things should be fixed) I am certain someone who has far less toys than you do can actually put it to better use than you ever did. It's amazing how much we take our own access to communications technology for granted. I am certainly against hoarding and excessive consumerism, I simply think we should make better use of what we already have before we start throwing perfectly good gear in the trash. Many old wireless routers can be made useful again with an alternative firmware like dd-wrt. I am using older routers as repeaters around my house to extend my network's range. Security isn't as tight as it could be, but certainly effective enough for my concerns and circumstances.
LATEX with the "apa.cls" class installed would be an excellent start:
http://www.ilsp.gr/homepages/protopapas/pdf/Protopapas_2007_Eutypon.pdf
To frame your argument, you would want use:
http://scholar.google.com/
to look for (free) electronically accessible research (there is plenty) that supports, frames, or possibly even discredits your argument or conclusion.
Mostly avoid first-person, and minimize (if not outright eliminate) all passive-voice.
If you want a computer's opinion on the quality of your writing try the COHmetrix system I use for linguistic research:
http://cohmetrix.memphis.edu/cohmetrixpr/index.html
Pay attention to the Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid reading level. High numbers are good on these scores, but numbers that are too high can mean the document is difficult to read.
Find a decent publication and prepare to be rejected 8 or so times, each time though you will make changes that make it increasingly more likely to be published.
This isn't the entire process, but it's some of the highlights.
I currently do this exact process for a living (I mostly edit other peoples work to make their papers APA 5 or 6 compliant), it's brutal, but it's entirely worth the trouble.
Whether the user can switch this feature off or not does not detract from the overall point you are making about the user experience. I honestly don't know how the world runs on Windows, it is very clunky in almost every sense of the word. A cheap computer that doesn't work well can be far more expensive than a more expensive computer that accomplishes the job more efficiently. Whether the IT departments or management of corporations see the value of spending ~20% more per unit on systems that last longer and have substantially less down-time as well as functionality that improves work flow by leaps and bounds (cough, cough, OS X, cough, cough) doesn't change the fact that it actually makes more economic sense to not invest in the cheapest garbage you can find when searching for adequate technology for a business.
Apple Open Directory is solid. If you can't make a modern OS X server do what you need it to, you need to brush up on your BSD. I have several esoteric programs I run in a "VirtualBoxed" version of Ubuntu which runs on a separate core in the machine from OS X, it's amazing how headache free such a setup is in OS X. I know this kind of setup can just as easily be done in XP or W7, the main difference being that it does everything really well and never freezes or crashes. My MacBook Air is so stable, it stays on for weeks at a time. I mainly only reboot it when it has an update. No memory leaks, no missing.dll files, no bullshit. My main point is that corporations can make all the poor IT decisions in the world, but it seems like true nerds should recognize how programmer/designer/networking friendly these things are. I really didn't care much for modern macs until I got one and slowly realized how powerful OS X is. The computer has an SDK on every install disc, how much more inviting can a system get? When I was in high-school in the 1990's I remember the constant nerd lament among my friends was that Linux was so powerful yet seemingly impossible to make stable enough to be an everyday computer ( admit that this was definitely the case in the mid 1990's if you wanted a GUI and were operating on a budget as we were). Apple seemed to make this a possibility by releasing OS X and then switching to standard hardware. Honestly, I am constantly amazed that they are not being applauded for such a move. I am not saying they are great heros of the open source world ( there are plenty of valid and accurate complaints about apple's use of licensing), but I don't see how that's less ideal than the morbid choices Microsoft offers it's customers. It just seems that if the only argument in favor of using Windows is that it is an industry standard, than it seems that the industry standard is worth changing. Michael Jackson had good advice on how to make big changes like industry standards. Start with the man in the mirror. I.T. guys can be brave and resist stupid ways of doing things. Be brave I.T. guys! Be brave!
It's not that XP is stuck in 1990's it's the IT community who hasn't left the twentieth century.
I think the original comment was meant to say that XP is 1990's technology, not that it literally was released in the 1990's
Microsoft will continue making garbage as long as IT departments continue purchasing their garbage by the pallet load. The fact that people who have college degrees in computer science find Microsoft software acceptable or suitable for anything absolutely astounds me. I have never had a problem with OS X that interfered with my ability to use the computer. Every nerdly thing I have wanted to do with OS X (I am hardly a surface level user) has been completely achievable through shell commands or open source options. I have not needed to purchase or steal software for my computer at all. I don't know if anyone on this site has ever bothered to take a peek at Xcode, but it seems like a "what more do you need or want" SDK to me. I honestly think the IT community is in complete denial that Apple has started to become the nerd environment of choice for anyone who thinks it's more fun to compute. Microsoft users spend so much time keeping their screens from freezing they never have time to smell the digital flowers and really try to make their computer do things that are not only useful, but novel as well. It's interesting that the debate here is whether a 9-year old OS that still doesn't work very well is worth keeping as the primary platform of an office. If capitalism worked the way libertarians claimed it did, Microsoft would have never survived the 1980's, Word can hardly read its own files accurately, why would you trust the same company to design something that manages most of the important informational services in your life. I know the common argument that if you just "do this" or "don't do that" then XP or W7 will run just fine. The problem is that a computer is a designed object that is intrinsically abstract and flexible, this means you should never need to tiptoe around the system assuming it was designed well to begin with. Far too many IT people seem to think that a computer SHOULD be complicated and the entire world simply needs to be less stupid about it's uses. The problem is that their is nothing about a computer that makes an intrinsic trade-off between functionality and flexibility. The very nature of a computer is that there are virtually no trade-offs necessary in design, the only limitations are the engineer's imaginations and their total resources.
Slashdot Mirror
P55 chipset motherboards with Intel processors are super propietary. I have run at least 4 or 5 different OS's on my new Apple laptop including MS-Windows.
What good is a phone application, if you can't run it in a phone?
You can run it on an iPhone, but you will have to own one in order to do that. And when did $99 a year for a service that essentially provides a huge distribution system on a scale that wasn't available to anyone but extremely large software companies before several years ago become an insufferable expense. The only thing you are deprived of when you don't pay the $99 to be in "developers club" (or whatever) is that you don't have an opportunity to make a bunch of money by releasing it in the app store. Would spending $99 dollars a year on your own website be a better deal for the developer? Maybe, but that is a choice the developer makes when they decide on a platform and distribution system or vector for their software. I have not spent a dime on software, yet I develop for the platform without paying my $99. No one or nothing has or will stop me. I can use almost any example of C source code however I feel like, and an excellent package for that came with my computer. A mac is one of the few computers that comes out of the box ready to be a developers system.
And then there's also the productivity penalties with having to learn an entirely new toolset from the ground up
Were you not using C before you started developing on a mac?
Here! Here! (Stomps foot approvingly on wooden floor a few times) Xcode is really great stuff, if you don't like it, it's because you haven't tried to use it to it's full potential.
But, nobody has a monopoly on food - consumers can eat whatever the heck they want.
No one has a monopoly if every single person has a teleporter and a gold-making machine. Unfortunately as Americans we have no idea what most people go through to feed themselves. Food really is genuinely monopolized by people with very bad intentions in places like Somalia. Food trades have always been at the heart of some of the most brutal examples of colonialism as well (sugar anyone?). Food supplies rarely have anything to do with a free market. Farms in our nation have been incorporated into corporations like Cargill and Disney (Most of the fruits and vegetables sold in my local grocery-market are grown on Disney -as in Mickey Mouse- owned farms in Florida). RJR/Kraft/Nabisco supplies about half of the rest of the food in the store. I don't see much evidence of a free market. With this in mind, we then have to ask ourselves: "Would we rather have a tobacco company and the maker of some the worst and most intellectually corrupt entertainment control our food supply, or would we rather have our own democratic government?" I personally do not own stock in Disney or RJR-Kraft-Etc., I am however a registered voter/taxpayer. I think I would prefer an organization where I actually have a say in what effect it has on my life. I will take a publicly broadcasted senate meeting Instead of a locked board room in Virginia anyday.
... should not be thrown in the trash. (and broken things should be fixed) I am certain someone who has far less toys than you do can actually put it to better use than you ever did. It's amazing how much we take our own access to communications technology for granted. I am certainly against hoarding and excessive consumerism, I simply think we should make better use of what we already have before we start throwing perfectly good gear in the trash. Many old wireless routers can be made useful again with an alternative firmware like dd-wrt. I am using older routers as repeaters around my house to extend my network's range. Security isn't as tight as it could be, but certainly effective enough for my concerns and circumstances.
LATEX with the "apa.cls" class installed would be an excellent start: http://www.ilsp.gr/homepages/protopapas/pdf/Protopapas_2007_Eutypon.pdf To frame your argument, you would want use: http://scholar.google.com/ to look for (free) electronically accessible research (there is plenty) that supports, frames, or possibly even discredits your argument or conclusion. Mostly avoid first-person, and minimize (if not outright eliminate) all passive-voice. If you want a computer's opinion on the quality of your writing try the COHmetrix system I use for linguistic research: http://cohmetrix.memphis.edu/cohmetrixpr/index.html Pay attention to the Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid reading level. High numbers are good on these scores, but numbers that are too high can mean the document is difficult to read. Find a decent publication and prepare to be rejected 8 or so times, each time though you will make changes that make it increasingly more likely to be published. This isn't the entire process, but it's some of the highlights. I currently do this exact process for a living (I mostly edit other peoples work to make their papers APA 5 or 6 compliant), it's brutal, but it's entirely worth the trouble.
All they need are some fresh developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers!
Microsoft doesn't develop, it acquires. Microsoft purchased DOS from another company.
Whether the user can switch this feature off or not does not detract from the overall point you are making about the user experience. I honestly don't know how the world runs on Windows, it is very clunky in almost every sense of the word. A cheap computer that doesn't work well can be far more expensive than a more expensive computer that accomplishes the job more efficiently. Whether the IT departments or management of corporations see the value of spending ~20% more per unit on systems that last longer and have substantially less down-time as well as functionality that improves work flow by leaps and bounds (cough, cough, OS X, cough, cough) doesn't change the fact that it actually makes more economic sense to not invest in the cheapest garbage you can find when searching for adequate technology for a business.
Apple Open Directory is solid. If you can't make a modern OS X server do what you need it to, you need to brush up on your BSD. I have several esoteric programs I run in a "VirtualBoxed" version of Ubuntu which runs on a separate core in the machine from OS X, it's amazing how headache free such a setup is in OS X. I know this kind of setup can just as easily be done in XP or W7, the main difference being that it does everything really well and never freezes or crashes. My MacBook Air is so stable, it stays on for weeks at a time. I mainly only reboot it when it has an update. No memory leaks, no missing .dll files, no bullshit. My main point is that corporations can make all the poor IT decisions in the world, but it seems like true nerds should recognize how programmer/designer/networking friendly these things are. I really didn't care much for modern macs until I got one and slowly realized how powerful OS X is. The computer has an SDK on every install disc, how much more inviting can a system get? When I was in high-school in the 1990's I remember the constant nerd lament among my friends was that Linux was so powerful yet seemingly impossible to make stable enough to be an everyday computer ( admit that this was definitely the case in the mid 1990's if you wanted a GUI and were operating on a budget as we were). Apple seemed to make this a possibility by releasing OS X and then switching to standard hardware. Honestly, I am constantly amazed that they are not being applauded for such a move. I am not saying they are great heros of the open source world ( there are plenty of valid and accurate complaints about apple's use of licensing), but I don't see how that's less ideal than the morbid choices Microsoft offers it's customers. It just seems that if the only argument in favor of using Windows is that it is an industry standard, than it seems that the industry standard is worth changing. Michael Jackson had good advice on how to make big changes like industry standards. Start with the man in the mirror. I.T. guys can be brave and resist stupid ways of doing things. Be brave I.T. guys! Be brave!
It's not that XP is stuck in 1990's it's the IT community who hasn't left the twentieth century. I think the original comment was meant to say that XP is 1990's technology, not that it literally was released in the 1990's Microsoft will continue making garbage as long as IT departments continue purchasing their garbage by the pallet load. The fact that people who have college degrees in computer science find Microsoft software acceptable or suitable for anything absolutely astounds me. I have never had a problem with OS X that interfered with my ability to use the computer. Every nerdly thing I have wanted to do with OS X (I am hardly a surface level user) has been completely achievable through shell commands or open source options. I have not needed to purchase or steal software for my computer at all. I don't know if anyone on this site has ever bothered to take a peek at Xcode, but it seems like a "what more do you need or want" SDK to me. I honestly think the IT community is in complete denial that Apple has started to become the nerd environment of choice for anyone who thinks it's more fun to compute. Microsoft users spend so much time keeping their screens from freezing they never have time to smell the digital flowers and really try to make their computer do things that are not only useful, but novel as well. It's interesting that the debate here is whether a 9-year old OS that still doesn't work very well is worth keeping as the primary platform of an office. If capitalism worked the way libertarians claimed it did, Microsoft would have never survived the 1980's, Word can hardly read its own files accurately, why would you trust the same company to design something that manages most of the important informational services in your life. I know the common argument that if you just "do this" or "don't do that" then XP or W7 will run just fine. The problem is that a computer is a designed object that is intrinsically abstract and flexible, this means you should never need to tiptoe around the system assuming it was designed well to begin with. Far too many IT people seem to think that a computer SHOULD be complicated and the entire world simply needs to be less stupid about it's uses. The problem is that their is nothing about a computer that makes an intrinsic trade-off between functionality and flexibility. The very nature of a computer is that there are virtually no trade-offs necessary in design, the only limitations are the engineer's imaginations and their total resources.