As you noted, single drivers in dedicated natural gas vehicles (NGVs)can use the carpool lanes in California. This is a HUGE perk and not to be overlooked.
At last check, this benefit was not available to hybrid electric vehicles. Especially in a large metro area like San Francisco or Los Angeles this perk alone can pay for itself.
The California Air Resources board provides a list of vehicles eligible for the carpool lane perk - choose carefully because not all alternative fuel vehicles are eligible!
A good resource to learn more is NGV.ORG (I've linked to google's cache... this is a small box, please don't hammer our server.) which provides a list of cofunding opportunities available for natural gas vehicle owners, including tax breaks and rebates from the state of California.
I don't see the problem, but based on your description, it sounds like they have defined the line height in pixels.
Web producers should be aware this can easily be resolved by specifying your font sizes and leading values in points rather than pixels. The effect will be the same, except that your reader will have more control over the font size.
Sometimes (clueless...) people don't like to do this, since it can break their pixel-perfect layout. But for considerate authors, the options to do it "right" are there in CSS.
I have no problem with that. But if that's 'Linux Way', then I wish the zealots would stop claiming that Linux is ready for the desktop because recompiling the kernel to enable hardware that came with the machine is not what desktop users expect, either x86 or PPC users.
Your statement actually says alot about that - Linux users encourage others to believe that they can successfuly use Linux. After the user installs/attempts to install, instead of admitting that the install process could be better, you explain the weaknesses by saying "it won't harm you to understand your system better", when in reality the problem is that the installer is stupid.
Well, seeing that you are running OS X exclusively, I'd like to ask you if you don't see any difference in performance when you compare Linux and OS X. I surely do with my iBook 2, but that's perhaps because I am using a G3-based machine.
I used to dual boot Mandrake PPC and OS X 10.1.4. Speed difference? There is no question. Going between the two was like night and day.
OS X was a slug, while Mandrake hummed right along. Web browsing especially was way faster under Linux. Booting back to OS X for 'real work' was always terribly disappointing. Waiting for a PROGRAM to do something complicated is one thing, but waiting for a GUI to do something simple is just unacceptable... I no longer own that iBook.
I've been terribly disappointed in Yellow Dog Linux (and frankly, Linux on PPC in general) in the past. Unlike x86, where RedHat et al have to make their stuff basically install on ANYTHING, YDL and the other PPC Linux vendors have a VERY limited set of hardware to support.
For the most part, G3 and G4 towers, iMacs, and portables. That isn't too much variety of hardware. Yet no one can get it right! Every linux on PPC I've tried has suffered from some terrible screwup!
The computer I was trying to use was an iBook2, about a year old. YDL, Mandrake, Suse, they all claim to support it. Yet no one can make the Airport card work as part of the install process! Sound frequently doesn't work, (i.e works in KDE but not Gnome or vice versa), and video problems abound.
It seems that for the most part these guys just copy what's already available in x86 land. I'm no programmer, so maybe I'm just misinformed. But would it REALLY be that hard to write a bit of code to enable the Airport card during the install? After all, there is only ONE card you need to support, Apple's! Instead, every PPC linux makes you dig up a how-to, type some command line mumbo jumbo, sacrifice a chicken, etc. I never could get it working.
FYI, as has already been stated, ColdFusion IS available for Linux, Solaris, and HP-UX as well as Windows.
As to the source not being available thing... I guess I can understand that. But consider this - what % of people would actually know what to do with the PHP source if they had it?
Nothing that I can think of off the top of my head. But that's besides the point - people aren't using ColdFusion because it has some unique feature set that nothing else has, they are using it because it is powerful and easy.
There's nothing wrong with Perl. But let's say you have someone that knows HTML and nothing else. Compare the time it takes that person to learn enough ColdFusion to build database applications with the time it takes to teach someone enough Perl to build database applications, and the advantages become obvious.
That's the funny thing, typically, any comparison between ColdFusion and PHP starts with someone spouting "LOL, ColdFusion sucks!" But the error is in the assumption that in order for PHP to be good, ColdFusion must suck, or vice versa.
Both are good and serve their intended purpose. If you have experience with C and Unix you will probably like PHP. If you are more familiar with Windows and don't have a programming background, you will probably like ColdFusion. Both can be used to achieve the same result.
Perhaps this can be explained by the fact that this album has had almost zero radio airplay (Los Angeles, anyway), whereas his last album had about 6 tracks on the radio constantly for like a year.
Radio still makes you or breaks you. In this case, for whatever reason, the radio stations aren't behind this album. Thus fewer people know about it. Thus fewer sales.
What's REALLY interesting is that everyone assumes that this article is in regards to Flash - but the guy who submitted the request to review the Macromedia license is working on CFML language development.
That's right, ColdFusion. In my opinion, an open-source ColdFusion would be a hell of a lot more interesting than an open source Flash.
The Flash format is already public, and there are 3rd party tools that can write.swf files. ColdFusion, on the other hand, would have all kinds of interesting possibilities if open-sourced. One positive effect might be the improvement of the ease of use of other languages...
Does this mean that they are going to try to pollute the world with more CFML? That is not a real language and will never perform or live up to expectations of a real language. I hate Cold Fusion!
That's right, 'real nerds' hate ColdFusion. Why? Not because it sucks, or it's slow... they hate it because it's too easy!
The.asp people I know HATE ColdFusion. When pressed for more information, the truth comes out - they hate it because it makes things TOO EASY, allowing 'non-nerds' to develop data driven web pages. Lord knows we can't have that!
Just admit it, the real reason you hate ColdFusion is that some guy can write the same app you'd write in Perl or.jsp in a third as many lines and that scares the shit out of you. It drives you nuts that someone without a Computer Science degree can build web applications too, doesn't it?
I can't say I blame you, really. If I'd just invested huge amounts of time and money into a language, only to have something new come along which eliminates the need for that knowledge, I guess I'd be PO'd too.
Would you build amazon.com using ColdFusion? No. But for the 99% of web apps that consist of "read info from database. display info from database. allow user to add to database" ColdFusion is perfect.
As the user, I don't particularly care that OS X is slow because it's running the GUI through PDF, and I suspect that quite a few others don't care either! I know it's slow because it's pdf. But I want it to be responsive, like Windows 2000, and the REASON it's not doesn't concern me. That's Apple's problem.
Does Mr. Mossberg point out the dramatic speed difference between the GUI of Windows 2000 and Mac OS X? He should, if he really wants to write an impartial article.
Many, many people get their computers via mail order and never have a chance to try them in person until they've already paid. Macs in particular can be VERY difficult to return for a refund once you've opened the box. Because of this, many people won't have the opportunity to use OS X prior to purchase.
OS X, even on the G4 iMac, still lags. People should know prior to making a purchase decision.
Currently I pay $25 a month to Verizon (Los Angeles), just so I can have a landline that I use only for dialup internet access. (I use cellular for voice). The local cable company provides neither internet access nor voice. $25 for a phone line is a rip, and I have no other alternative.
I could get DSL, but Verizon REQUIRES you to have voice in order to have DSL. This is outrageous, I have no need for a voice line, but they won't sell you DSL without one. So your bill becomes $25 (voice) + $50 (DSL).
I hate lawyers as much as the next guy, but if lawsuits help, then so be it. Especially for lower income people, there is no reason the phone company should get 5% of their monthly income, especially when they don't have to compete.
uh. no its not. its the same price as the bare drive that it encloses. explain how this is overpriced?
FOR THE LAST TIME -
The drive in the iPod USED to cost $399. TODAY, it costs $99, RETAIL. I imagine Apple gets them for way less. A FireWire hard drive incorporating the same Toshiba mechanism used in the 5 GB iPod can be purchased for $99. (The FireFly drive).
Makes you wonder why they never lowered the price of the iPod when the price of the drive went down, doesn't it? Perhaps some pressure from other vendors will persude them.
What is it with these tiny laptops that don't have longer battery life than an iBook or tiBook [apple.com] which has around 5 hours of battery life.
These tiny laptops are far, far smaller than even the already small iBook - smaller form factor means less space to put a battery.
The iBook also owes some of it's long battery life to that fact that it's a bit underpowered for the task - OS X is fairly slow in my opinion, whereas a PIII 700 will run Windows 2000 or Linux just fine without lag.
Sure you can buy a firewire HD for less. BUT have you put any thought into which HD the iPod is using? It has a HD smaller than most laptops use, let alone bulky external FW HD's. The form factor is what makes the iPod interesting - and expensive.
I'm aware that the iPod uses a unique mechanism that is not simply a laptop hard drive. That (Toshiba) mechanism is what we are talking about.
Here is a link to the smartdisk (the mfr.) store - Smartdisk store where they sell the device. They are $199, and I didn't even shop around.
LOL, well, that's not exactly the same thing, is it? Anyone can buy a G4, strip out the motherboard, and put it in a custom case.
But I think the point is that OF COURSE that computer runs OS X - it IS an Apple Macintosh. You'll note that their other PPC based computer DON'T run OS X, because they don't have the Apple 'guts'.
So, I'll make my same point again - only Apple sanctioned computers can run OS X. Currently, the only company producing sanctioned computers is Apple.
None but Apple that build iBooks, but TerraSoftSolutions(YDL producers) build rackmount computers that run MacOS X.
Wrong, TerraSoft's computers use the G4 chip, but they do not run OS X. I believe they ship with Linux installed.
As has been covered here before, Apple has a vested interest in making sure OS X runs on their hardware, and their hardware only. Neither TerraSoft, nor anyone else to my knowledge, has built a computer than can run OS X.
The HD in the iPod alone cosst more than the iPod. Obviously they get them in bulk, but probably the margins are as thin as consoles.
Stop propogating this myth, please. At one time, yes, the Toshiba mechanism in the iPod cost $399. However, these days you can buy a FireWire hard drive that uses the same mechanism for $199, (if not less by now).
Rest assured that Apple is doing just fine on the iPod, considering they probably get a nice quantity break and that they are still selling the 5 GB model for what, $375?
In the Treo, at least, when you are on the phone, you can't continue to use your applications. It seems to me that this will put Palm OS at a disadvantage as PDAs are integrated with cell phones.
Nice try, but this simply isn't true. I have a Treo, and you can switch to any other application while on the phone, EXCEPT for other wireless apps. (Microbrowser, for example). You certainly can flip over to your calendar or to do list.
You really should check out the Handspring Treo, it's a really well-designed device. It works great, IF you live in an area with good GSM coverage.
It's not just a Palm with the phone cobbled on, the mini keyboard is very useful and the phone book integration with the Palm/phone is handled nicely.
And you know what? For all the hype over high speed wireless access, the built in circuit switched data works just fine. Web pages appear almost instantly, even over the 'slow' 9600 dialup speed. Wireless data is now FREE with Cingular wireless too, you just get charged airtime.
If you're the really nerdy type, there is even a Palm implementation of VNC!
Um... no. In other words, it's fast - unless you're organizationally challenged, and keep every file you've ever worked on in a single folder. If you're going to be dumb, you have to be patient.
Whatever, man.
I love how Mac users will defend the platform to the death, even when they're wrong.
Mom - "Uh, why is this iMac so slow?"
MacDude - "You're doing it wrong. It's only slow because you put so much stuff in a single folder".
Mom - "but I like to put all my jazz MP3s together, all my Rock MP3s together... shouldn't I be allowed to?"
MacDude - "No, Steve says it's the user's fault, not a problem with the OS".
Mom - "Okay..." (Switches to PC, where you can put as many files as you want in a folder without it slowing down).
Look, clearly there is a problem with the Finder! Instead of blaming it on the user, why don't you lobby Apple to fix it?
It's ridiculous that a user should have to organize their folders in a certain way just to keep the system moving at a decent speed, and the fact that ANYONE would defend Apple with regards to this issue just shows how far Mac people will go to prop up the platform, even when it's clear that the problem is being caused by Apple!
Slashdot Mirror
At last check, this benefit was not available to hybrid electric vehicles. Especially in a large metro area like San Francisco or Los Angeles this perk alone can pay for itself.
The California Air Resources board provides a list of vehicles eligible for the carpool lane perk - choose carefully because not all alternative fuel vehicles are eligible!
A good resource to learn more is NGV.ORG (I've linked to google's cache... this is a small box, please don't hammer our server.) which provides a list of cofunding opportunities available for natural gas vehicle owners, including tax breaks and rebates from the state of California.
Good luck in your search!
Web producers should be aware this can easily be resolved by specifying your font sizes and leading values in points rather than pixels. The effect will be the same, except that your reader will have more control over the font size.
Sometimes (clueless...) people don't like to do this, since it can break their pixel-perfect layout. But for considerate authors, the options to do it "right" are there in CSS.
Your statement actually says alot about that - Linux users encourage others to believe that they can successfuly use Linux. After the user installs/attempts to install, instead of admitting that the install process could be better, you explain the weaknesses by saying "it won't harm you to understand your system better", when in reality the problem is that the installer is stupid.
I used to dual boot Mandrake PPC and OS X 10.1.4. Speed difference? There is no question. Going between the two was like night and day.
OS X was a slug, while Mandrake hummed right along. Web browsing especially was way faster under Linux. Booting back to OS X for 'real work' was always terribly disappointing. Waiting for a PROGRAM to do something complicated is one thing, but waiting for a GUI to do something simple is just unacceptable... I no longer own that iBook.
For the most part, G3 and G4 towers, iMacs, and portables. That isn't too much variety of hardware. Yet no one can get it right! Every linux on PPC I've tried has suffered from some terrible screwup!
The computer I was trying to use was an iBook2, about a year old. YDL, Mandrake, Suse, they all claim to support it. Yet no one can make the Airport card work as part of the install process! Sound frequently doesn't work, (i.e works in KDE but not Gnome or vice versa), and video problems abound.
It seems that for the most part these guys just copy what's already available in x86 land. I'm no programmer, so maybe I'm just misinformed. But would it REALLY be that hard to write a bit of code to enable the Airport card during the install? After all, there is only ONE card you need to support, Apple's! Instead, every PPC linux makes you dig up a how-to, type some command line mumbo jumbo, sacrifice a chicken, etc. I never could get it working.
FYI, as has already been stated, ColdFusion IS available for Linux, Solaris, and HP-UX as well as Windows.
As to the source not being available thing... I guess I can understand that. But consider this - what % of people would actually know what to do with the PHP source if they had it?
Nothing that I can think of off the top of my head. But that's besides the point - people aren't using ColdFusion because it has some unique feature set that nothing else has, they are using it because it is powerful and easy.
There's nothing wrong with Perl. But let's say you have someone that knows HTML and nothing else. Compare the time it takes that person to learn enough ColdFusion to build database applications with the time it takes to teach someone enough Perl to build database applications, and the advantages become obvious.
That's the funny thing, typically, any comparison between ColdFusion and PHP starts with someone spouting "LOL, ColdFusion sucks!" But the error is in the assumption that in order for PHP to be good, ColdFusion must suck, or vice versa.
Both are good and serve their intended purpose. If you have experience with C and Unix you will probably like PHP. If you are more familiar with Windows and don't have a programming background, you will probably like ColdFusion. Both can be used to achieve the same result.
Radio still makes you or breaks you. In this case, for whatever reason, the radio stations aren't behind this album. Thus fewer people know about it. Thus fewer sales.
What's REALLY interesting is that everyone assumes that this article is in regards to Flash - but the guy who submitted the request to review the Macromedia license is working on CFML language development.
That's right, ColdFusion. In my opinion, an open-source ColdFusion would be a hell of a lot more interesting than an open source Flash.
The Flash format is already public, and there are 3rd party tools that can write .swf files. ColdFusion, on the other hand, would have all kinds of interesting possibilities if open-sourced. One positive effect might be the improvement of the ease of use of other languages...
That's right, 'real nerds' hate ColdFusion. Why? Not because it sucks, or it's slow... they hate it because it's too easy!
The .asp people I know HATE ColdFusion. When pressed for more information, the truth comes out - they hate it because it makes things TOO EASY, allowing 'non-nerds' to develop data driven web pages. Lord knows we can't have that!
Just admit it, the real reason you hate ColdFusion is that some guy can write the same app you'd write in Perl or .jsp in a third as many lines and that scares the shit out of you. It drives you nuts that someone without a Computer Science degree can build web applications too, doesn't it?
I can't say I blame you, really. If I'd just invested huge amounts of time and money into a language, only to have something new come along which eliminates the need for that knowledge, I guess I'd be PO'd too.
Would you build amazon.com using ColdFusion? No. But for the 99% of web apps that consist of "read info from database. display info from database. allow user to add to database" ColdFusion is perfect.
As the user, I don't particularly care that OS X is slow because it's running the GUI through PDF, and I suspect that quite a few others don't care either! I know it's slow because it's pdf. But I want it to be responsive, like Windows 2000, and the REASON it's not doesn't concern me. That's Apple's problem.
Many, many people get their computers via mail order and never have a chance to try them in person until they've already paid. Macs in particular can be VERY difficult to return for a refund once you've opened the box. Because of this, many people won't have the opportunity to use OS X prior to purchase.
OS X, even on the G4 iMac, still lags. People should know prior to making a purchase decision.
I could get DSL, but Verizon REQUIRES you to have voice in order to have DSL. This is outrageous, I have no need for a voice line, but they won't sell you DSL without one. So your bill becomes $25 (voice) + $50 (DSL).
I hate lawyers as much as the next guy, but if lawsuits help, then so be it. Especially for lower income people, there is no reason the phone company should get 5% of their monthly income, especially when they don't have to compete.
FOR THE LAST TIME -
The drive in the iPod USED to cost $399. TODAY, it costs $99, RETAIL. I imagine Apple gets them for way less. A FireWire hard drive incorporating the same Toshiba mechanism used in the 5 GB iPod can be purchased for $99. (The FireFly drive).
Makes you wonder why they never lowered the price of the iPod when the price of the drive went down, doesn't it? Perhaps some pressure from other vendors will persude them.
How, exactly, do they justify those prices? Unless my memory fails me, isn't the G4 incredibly cheap to manufacture - like under $100?
About damn time. What exactly was the holdup? Not from PowerLogix but just from the upgrade manufacturers in general - was there some problem?
These tiny laptops are far, far smaller than even the already small iBook - smaller form factor means less space to put a battery.
The iBook also owes some of it's long battery life to that fact that it's a bit underpowered for the task - OS X is fairly slow in my opinion, whereas a PIII 700 will run Windows 2000 or Linux just fine without lag.
I'm aware that the iPod uses a unique mechanism that is not simply a laptop hard drive. That (Toshiba) mechanism is what we are talking about.
Here is a link to the smartdisk (the mfr.) store - Smartdisk store where they sell the device. They are $199, and I didn't even shop around.
LOL, well, that's not exactly the same thing, is it? Anyone can buy a G4, strip out the motherboard, and put it in a custom case.
But I think the point is that OF COURSE that computer runs OS X - it IS an Apple Macintosh. You'll note that their other PPC based computer DON'T run OS X, because they don't have the Apple 'guts'.
So, I'll make my same point again - only Apple sanctioned computers can run OS X. Currently, the only company producing sanctioned computers is Apple.
Wrong, TerraSoft's computers use the G4 chip, but they do not run OS X. I believe they ship with Linux installed.
As has been covered here before, Apple has a vested interest in making sure OS X runs on their hardware, and their hardware only. Neither TerraSoft, nor anyone else to my knowledge, has built a computer than can run OS X.
Stop propogating this myth, please. At one time, yes, the Toshiba mechanism in the iPod cost $399. However, these days you can buy a FireWire hard drive that uses the same mechanism for $199, (if not less by now).
Rest assured that Apple is doing just fine on the iPod, considering they probably get a nice quantity break and that they are still selling the 5 GB model for what, $375?
Nice try, but this simply isn't true. I have a Treo, and you can switch to any other application while on the phone, EXCEPT for other wireless apps. (Microbrowser, for example). You certainly can flip over to your calendar or to do list.
It's not just a Palm with the phone cobbled on, the mini keyboard is very useful and the phone book integration with the Palm/phone is handled nicely.
And you know what? For all the hype over high speed wireless access, the built in circuit switched data works just fine. Web pages appear almost instantly, even over the 'slow' 9600 dialup speed. Wireless data is now FREE with Cingular wireless too, you just get charged airtime.
If you're the really nerdy type, there is even a Palm implementation of VNC!
Whatever, man.
I love how Mac users will defend the platform to the death, even when they're wrong.
Mom - "Uh, why is this iMac so slow?"
MacDude - "You're doing it wrong. It's only slow because you put so much stuff in a single folder".
Mom - "but I like to put all my jazz MP3s together, all my Rock MP3s together... shouldn't I be allowed to?"
MacDude - "No, Steve says it's the user's fault, not a problem with the OS".
Mom - "Okay..." (Switches to PC, where you can put as many files as you want in a folder without it slowing down).
Look, clearly there is a problem with the Finder! Instead of blaming it on the user, why don't you lobby Apple to fix it?
It's ridiculous that a user should have to organize their folders in a certain way just to keep the system moving at a decent speed, and the fact that ANYONE would defend Apple with regards to this issue just shows how far Mac people will go to prop up the platform, even when it's clear that the problem is being caused by Apple!
howerver i would say the finder isn't that slow if you don't have 100's of files in one folder.
In other words, it's fast - until you try to use it?