I have the perfect solution for you! It's something new that allows you to use your calendar while sitting in front of any computer; you can view it, add appointments, to-do items, or free-form notes quickly and easily, with total privacy and security, using an amazingly intuitive user interface!
If you care so much about your personal calendar that you're concerned about transport-level encryption and digital certificates, your priorities may be completely out of whack. Better have them checked out by a qualified professional soonest.
Socialism would be far better than what we have right now.
Haven't you ever heard the expression, "The grass is always greener on the other side?" Anything would seem to be far better than what we have right now. It rarely turns out that way, of course.
Ironically, the same day Slashdot carries this story, MathWorks announces that MATLAB 6.5 is not, in fact, compatible with Jaguar. They sent out a letter.
As a current MATLAB on the Mac customer, we wanted to inform you that the new 10.2 (Jaguar) release of Mac OS X introduces incompatibilities that prevent MATLAB 6.5 and other applications from running correctly. The MathWorks and Apple are working together to develop a patch that will enable MATLAB to operate correctly with OS X version 10.2. We anticipate that this patch will be available in late September or early October. In the interim, we suggest that MATLAB users defer upgrading to 10.2 until this patch is available.
Yeah, the thing about the Atkins (or is it Adkins? I forget) diet is that you're trying to drastically change your metabolism. You can succeed, too. But if you ever go off of it, you'll be far worse off than you were before you started.
For a while, the Atkins diet was very big in the community of young doctors that I spend most of my social time with. It was always fun to listen to them talk about how they're peeing out ketones and proteins and all of this incredibly unhealthy stuff just so they can keep a 32-inch (or 24-inch, for the girls) waistline. Insane.
Of course, when you're a doctor you eat very much like a predator anyway. You'll go without eating anything for long stretches-- 18, 24, 36 hours-- and then you'll gorge yourself at a drug rep dinner and go right to sleep.
Drinking too much water can lead to a condition called hypervolemic hyponatremia, which can cause seizures, coma, and eventually death.
Everybody knows that the amount of sodium (and potassium, of course) in your body is a critical factor in the correct functioning of your nervous system. But not everybody realizes that the concentration of sodium is just as critical. If you throw that concentration off by drinking too much water, you can make yourself very sick.
(Don't get paranoid. To put yourself into hypervolemic hyponatremia you'd have to drink something like 10 gallons of water in a 4 hour period. Athletes can consume that much while running or bicycling long distances, but us mere mortals are in relatively little danger.)
So another way of making the same point is to say that any food, if misused, can kill you.
Okay, now you're just showing off. And I do not correct newspapers. Not since I started taking my Zoloft.
The idea of LPI applies to halftoned images.
Bzzt. Wrong again, Mal. The idea of LPI has been applied to halftoned images. By the time the image (which was originally a tint or a contone) has been halftoned, its line screen is no longer relevant to anybody but people who correct newspapers with red pens.
Not "bleed," - "dot gain." "Bleed" is what one does outside of trim marks and if one doesn't know how to use a cork-backed ruler at the glass-topped light table. "Dot gain" is what happens when you print on paper stock that has the relative absorbency of a paper towel and the ink spreads out like a juice spill.
Hmm. Seems to me that when ink bleeds, dots gain. Wouldn't you say?
BUT, the image you are trying to reproduce doesn't need to be 2400PPI - since a good deal of the printer dots are used just to represent a single shade.
Uh-oh. You're confusing (deliberately or otherwise) "pixel" with "sample."
In context of this discussion, pixels are physical objects, spots on a screen, transistors in the LCD. In a different context, pixels are numbers representing the color or luminance of a point in a raster, but that's a different context.
Here, it's more accurate to talk about "samples-per-inch," rather than pixels-per-inch. When you send data to an imagesetter for halftoning, you should have four image data samples for every halftone cell. In other words, your linear sample resolution should be twice your linear halftone resolution, which in turn is usually 16 times the linear spot resolution of your imagesetter.
If you're trying to clarify things, you're not doing a very good job by using the ambiguous words "dot" and "pixel" over and over again.
Since if somebody asked, what DPI is that picture, the answer is 2400, but the resolution of the image is no better than 300 PPI.
Actually, once you halftone screen the image, you have completely thrown away the excess resolution that was originally captured in scanning. The resolution of a printed photograph is its line screen, full stop. If that line screen is 133 lpi, then the resolution of the image is 133 lpi, and no more.
A more politically correct way of saying this would read: "it allows the user to choose the DPI of his or her monitor..." or even better "her [or] his monitor"
This is a common misconception. The English language is not strongly gendered, as are some Romance or Germanic languages. For example, English articles do not differentiate between the gender, or lack thereof, of their objects. We say "a man" and "a woman," and "the man" and "the woman." As such, we have no gender-neutral third-person animate pronoun. We have "it," which is a third-person inanimate pronoun, but native speakers will virtually universally reject calling a person of unspecified gender "it."
In informal speech, evidence of the third person plural being used as a neuter pronoun goes back for centuries, but such convention has never been adopted for formal or written speech. It's acceptable to say, "It allows the user to choose the DPI of their monitor" informally, according to some authorities, but it is frowned upon in formal speech, and it is never acceptable in writing.
The only correct usage of the third-person pronoun when speaking of a person (as opposed to an animal or a thing) or unspecified gender is to use the third person masculine form: "he," "his," "him."
The original speaker was only correct to say, "It allows the user to choose the DPI of her monitor," if referring specifically and exclusively to female users. The feminine third-person pronouns cannot be used in neutral context, unlike the masculine.
Saying "his or her monitor" is redundant, and should be avoided. The masculine pronoun applies to persons of either gender, which includes women.
People who find this offensive always amuse me, because I see it quite the opposite. When you say "he" or "him," you could be referring to just anybody, man or woman. But when you say "she" or "her," you're talking about a woman, and only a woman. The clear implication is that women are special, and that they deserve a category of their own. To find it any other way strikes me as backwards.
Yeah. I really don't mean to be an ass, but sometimes the only appropriate response is a flame. I personally don't subscribe to the no-first-use policy on ad hominem remarks. This guy, for instance, was just asking for it.
For example, to show a single 50% black square pixel - you'd need a 2x2 array of black dots (BWBW) - so if your image is 100PPI - you need a print device at least 200PPI to show the same resolution.
Wrongo. That's not even close to how single-color printing works. A 50% black square pixel will appear, on the printed page, as a round spot occupying about 50% of the area of a square cell. The process of rendering continuous tone images, like black-and-white photographs, as a pattern of cells filled with spots of varying sizes is called halftoning. The size of the cells you use, in cells per linear inch, is called the line screen. That's where we get the idea of lines-per-inch (or "LPI") from.
In order to draw those round dots, the printing device you use (typically an imagesetter that exposes photographic film or a metal printing plate) will use a laser to expose tiny spots in a pattern that forms a dot. The perfect imagesetter would be able to draw 256 different sizes of dots, to print what is effectively 257 levels of color, counting 0% and 100%. Obviously, to draw dots this way the resolution of your imagesetter has to be many times your line screen. A good guideline is 16 : 1. So printing a line screen of 150 lpi requires an imagesetter capable of resolving at least 2,400 spots to the linear inch. This isn't a problem for modern laser imagesetters, but it's a bit much for your average Lexmark.
Of course, it's important to realize that the idea of lines-per-inch only applies to tints or continuous tone images. For printing areas of solid ink, such as letters on a page, the imagesetter draws the shapes at full 2,400 (or whatever) spot-per-inch resolution. Film and printing plates actually have jagged edges on curved and angled edges, but because the imagesetter resolution is so high, you can only see them through a magnifying glass. And once ink hits paper, it bleeds just enough to smooth out all of those jaggies anyway.
Hey, look at that. I done made me an enemy. Ah-hyuk.
You're the kind of person who reads the newspaper and corrects it with a red marking pen and sends it back, aren't you?
No, because newspapers don't have this kind of mistake in them. Newspaper articles are written by people who have a functional grasp of the English language. They don't misspell, misuse, or mis-capitalize words out of ignorance. On those rare occasions when it does happen, mistakes make it into print only despite the careful diligence of the reporters, editors, typesetters, and others.
You, on the other hand, are a barely literate mouth-breather who lacks the self-confidence to simply admit that he made a mistake. I have to agree with snoozebutton, who called you a "useless IT fuck." Right on, snooze.
syncing of their iCal with an apache web server or some such?
Yup. Did it today. It was really tough. I had to actually type the whole URL of my WebDAV server into the "Publish..." dialog box. Apple better make it easier if they expect people to use this thing....
Ghutchis already answer your question as well as I could, but I have just one thing to add. The virtual memory system under OS X is far superior to what we used under OS 9. So if you're running an application that likes to have lots of RAM, like Photoshop, if RAM is constrained it'll be more responsive under OS X than it could have been under OS 9.
The best way I found to run Photoshop (in the pre-7.0 days) was to set the Classic memory allocation to a gigabyte or so and just let OS X's VM system handle the rest. Worked like a charm, and Photoshop felt much faster on my system as a result.
That's the same thing people say about: Virii, boxen and such.
No. See, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I thought you were making a consistent but incorrect error. As it turns out, you're just a fucking moron.
iMax is perfectly fine to say in a forum such as this
No, it's not. English is case-sensitive. When you say "IMAX," I know what you're talking about. When you say "iMax," I respond with "No such file or directory." Once I get what you're talking about, I have to do a little mental translation between what you wrote and what you actually meant. I have to correct you, in my head, because you did it wrong.
There's no situation in which consistently replacing "IMAX" with "iMax" is okay. Unless you were trying to be funny. Were you trying to be funny?
It isn't someone being stupid, these misspelling changes in capitolizations - use of obscure plural forms are intentional!
Was this sentence also intentional? I don't know where to even begin telling you what's wrong here. What you wrote just barely parses.
This is not an English class
That's too bad. If it were, you clearly would not be here.
There are a couple of different definitions of virtual machine. One is the vmware sense, which you mentioned. The other is the Java sense, which is different. That's why I avoided-- and you should probably avoid-- the phrase "virtual machine" when describing Classic.
You know what I hate? When somebody consistently screws up a trademark that's easy to get right. It's IMAX, all caps. Not "iMax," which looks like you were typing "iMac" and you fat-fingered it.
Don't think of Classic as an emulator, like Virtual PC. Think of it instead as just a program. Mac OS 9 was a shared-memory, cooperative multitasking system. Classic implements that entire system as a UNIX process. Within the process's address space, you have the entire Mac OS 9 operating system and all your apps. But the apps aren't running under emulation. They're executing native PowerPC binary code. In some cases, apps run faster under Classic than they did under OS 9.
Of course, some stuff had to change. Since Classic isn't really an OS, but just a process running under UNIX, it can't talk directly to the hardware. Some software-- not much, but some-- can't work under Classic because of this.
But it's not an emulator. It's more like vmware than it is like an emulator.
Slashdot Mirror
When was the last time you saw a commercial for BSD?
Just a couple of minutes ago, actually.
Mostly because this is one of the corner stones in the "movement".
Stones in your movements could indicate serious health problems. You should see your doctor immediately.
I have the perfect solution for you! It's something new that allows you to use your calendar while sitting in front of any computer; you can view it, add appointments, to-do items, or free-form notes quickly and easily, with total privacy and security, using an amazingly intuitive user interface!
Check it out!
(HHOS)
Dude, I think you said it best yourself:
I can't imagine what conclusion a rational person would draw, being myself a stark raving paranoid loon.
That pretty much says it all, I think.
If you care so much about your personal calendar that you're concerned about transport-level encryption and digital certificates, your priorities may be completely out of whack. Better have them checked out by a qualified professional soonest.
Socialism would be far better than what we have right now.
Haven't you ever heard the expression, "The grass is always greener on the other side?" Anything would seem to be far better than what we have right now. It rarely turns out that way, of course.
Yeah, the thing about the Atkins (or is it Adkins? I forget) diet is that you're trying to drastically change your metabolism. You can succeed, too. But if you ever go off of it, you'll be far worse off than you were before you started.
For a while, the Atkins diet was very big in the community of young doctors that I spend most of my social time with. It was always fun to listen to them talk about how they're peeing out ketones and proteins and all of this incredibly unhealthy stuff just so they can keep a 32-inch (or 24-inch, for the girls) waistline. Insane.
Of course, when you're a doctor you eat very much like a predator anyway. You'll go without eating anything for long stretches-- 18, 24, 36 hours-- and then you'll gorge yourself at a drug rep dinner and go right to sleep.
Drinking too much water can lead to a condition called hypervolemic hyponatremia, which can cause seizures, coma, and eventually death.
Everybody knows that the amount of sodium (and potassium, of course) in your body is a critical factor in the correct functioning of your nervous system. But not everybody realizes that the concentration of sodium is just as critical. If you throw that concentration off by drinking too much water, you can make yourself very sick.
(Don't get paranoid. To put yourself into hypervolemic hyponatremia you'd have to drink something like 10 gallons of water in a 4 hour period. Athletes can consume that much while running or bicycling long distances, but us mere mortals are in relatively little danger.)
So another way of making the same point is to say that any food, if misused, can kill you.
The idea of LPI applies to halftoned images.
Bzzt. Wrong again, Mal. The idea of LPI has been applied to halftoned images. By the time the image (which was originally a tint or a contone) has been halftoned, its line screen is no longer relevant to anybody but people who correct newspapers with red pens.
Not "bleed," - "dot gain." "Bleed" is what one does outside of trim marks and if one doesn't know how to use a cork-backed ruler at the glass-topped light table. "Dot gain" is what happens when you print on paper stock that has the relative absorbency of a paper towel and the ink spreads out like a juice spill.
Hmm. Seems to me that when ink bleeds, dots gain. Wouldn't you say?
BUT, the image you are trying to reproduce doesn't need to be 2400PPI - since a good deal of the printer dots are used just to represent a single shade.
Uh-oh. You're confusing (deliberately or otherwise) "pixel" with "sample."
In context of this discussion, pixels are physical objects, spots on a screen, transistors in the LCD. In a different context, pixels are numbers representing the color or luminance of a point in a raster, but that's a different context.
Here, it's more accurate to talk about "samples-per-inch," rather than pixels-per-inch. When you send data to an imagesetter for halftoning, you should have four image data samples for every halftone cell. In other words, your linear sample resolution should be twice your linear halftone resolution, which in turn is usually 16 times the linear spot resolution of your imagesetter.
If you're trying to clarify things, you're not doing a very good job by using the ambiguous words "dot" and "pixel" over and over again.
Since if somebody asked, what DPI is that picture, the answer is 2400, but the resolution of the image is no better than 300 PPI.
Actually, once you halftone screen the image, you have completely thrown away the excess resolution that was originally captured in scanning. The resolution of a printed photograph is its line screen, full stop. If that line screen is 133 lpi, then the resolution of the image is 133 lpi, and no more.
Karma to burn, baby.
A more politically correct way of saying this would read: "it allows the user to choose the DPI of his or her monitor..." or even better "her [or] his monitor"
This is a common misconception. The English language is not strongly gendered, as are some Romance or Germanic languages. For example, English articles do not differentiate between the gender, or lack thereof, of their objects. We say "a man" and "a woman," and "the man" and "the woman." As such, we have no gender-neutral third-person animate pronoun. We have "it," which is a third-person inanimate pronoun, but native speakers will virtually universally reject calling a person of unspecified gender "it."
In informal speech, evidence of the third person plural being used as a neuter pronoun goes back for centuries, but such convention has never been adopted for formal or written speech. It's acceptable to say, "It allows the user to choose the DPI of their monitor" informally, according to some authorities, but it is frowned upon in formal speech, and it is never acceptable in writing.
The only correct usage of the third-person pronoun when speaking of a person (as opposed to an animal or a thing) or unspecified gender is to use the third person masculine form: "he," "his," "him."
The original speaker was only correct to say, "It allows the user to choose the DPI of her monitor," if referring specifically and exclusively to female users. The feminine third-person pronouns cannot be used in neutral context, unlike the masculine.
Saying "his or her monitor" is redundant, and should be avoided. The masculine pronoun applies to persons of either gender, which includes women.
People who find this offensive always amuse me, because I see it quite the opposite. When you say "he" or "him," you could be referring to just anybody, man or woman. But when you say "she" or "her," you're talking about a woman, and only a woman. The clear implication is that women are special, and that they deserve a category of their own. To find it any other way strikes me as backwards.
(It would be nice to have a monitor to view our digital files at true size!)
;-)
Yeah, but you'll still need color proofs.
Yeah. I really don't mean to be an ass, but sometimes the only appropriate response is a flame. I personally don't subscribe to the no-first-use policy on ad hominem remarks. This guy, for instance, was just asking for it.
For example, to show a single 50% black square pixel - you'd need a 2x2 array of black dots (BWBW) - so if your image is 100PPI - you need a print device at least 200PPI to show the same resolution.
Wrongo. That's not even close to how single-color printing works. A 50% black square pixel will appear, on the printed page, as a round spot occupying about 50% of the area of a square cell. The process of rendering continuous tone images, like black-and-white photographs, as a pattern of cells filled with spots of varying sizes is called halftoning. The size of the cells you use, in cells per linear inch, is called the line screen. That's where we get the idea of lines-per-inch (or "LPI") from.
In order to draw those round dots, the printing device you use (typically an imagesetter that exposes photographic film or a metal printing plate) will use a laser to expose tiny spots in a pattern that forms a dot. The perfect imagesetter would be able to draw 256 different sizes of dots, to print what is effectively 257 levels of color, counting 0% and 100%. Obviously, to draw dots this way the resolution of your imagesetter has to be many times your line screen. A good guideline is 16 : 1. So printing a line screen of 150 lpi requires an imagesetter capable of resolving at least 2,400 spots to the linear inch. This isn't a problem for modern laser imagesetters, but it's a bit much for your average Lexmark.
Of course, it's important to realize that the idea of lines-per-inch only applies to tints or continuous tone images. For printing areas of solid ink, such as letters on a page, the imagesetter draws the shapes at full 2,400 (or whatever) spot-per-inch resolution. Film and printing plates actually have jagged edges on curved and angled edges, but because the imagesetter resolution is so high, you can only see them through a magnifying glass. And once ink hits paper, it bleeds just enough to smooth out all of those jaggies anyway.
Hey, look at that. I done made me an enemy. Ah-hyuk.
You're the kind of person who reads the newspaper and corrects it with a red marking pen and sends it back, aren't you?
No, because newspapers don't have this kind of mistake in them. Newspaper articles are written by people who have a functional grasp of the English language. They don't misspell, misuse, or mis-capitalize words out of ignorance. On those rare occasions when it does happen, mistakes make it into print only despite the careful diligence of the reporters, editors, typesetters, and others.
You, on the other hand, are a barely literate mouth-breather who lacks the self-confidence to simply admit that he made a mistake. I have to agree with snoozebutton, who called you a "useless IT fuck." Right on, snooze.
syncing of their iCal with an apache web server or some such?
Yup. Did it today. It was really tough. I had to actually type the whole URL of my WebDAV server into the "Publish..." dialog box. Apple better make it easier if they expect people to use this thing....
Ghutchis already answer your question as well as I could, but I have just one thing to add. The virtual memory system under OS X is far superior to what we used under OS 9. So if you're running an application that likes to have lots of RAM, like Photoshop, if RAM is constrained it'll be more responsive under OS X than it could have been under OS 9.
The best way I found to run Photoshop (in the pre-7.0 days) was to set the Classic memory allocation to a gigabyte or so and just let OS X's VM system handle the rest. Worked like a charm, and Photoshop felt much faster on my system as a result.
I knew exactly what you were referring to. I was pointing out the ambiguity inherent in the phrase.
That's the same thing people say about: Virii, boxen and such.
No. See, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I thought you were making a consistent but incorrect error. As it turns out, you're just a fucking moron.
iMax is perfectly fine to say in a forum such as this
No, it's not. English is case-sensitive. When you say "IMAX," I know what you're talking about. When you say "iMax," I respond with "No such file or directory." Once I get what you're talking about, I have to do a little mental translation between what you wrote and what you actually meant. I have to correct you, in my head, because you did it wrong.
There's no situation in which consistently replacing "IMAX" with "iMax" is okay. Unless you were trying to be funny. Were you trying to be funny?
It isn't someone being stupid, these misspelling changes in capitolizations - use of obscure plural forms are intentional!
Was this sentence also intentional? I don't know where to even begin telling you what's wrong here. What you wrote just barely parses.
This is not an English class
That's too bad. If it were, you clearly would not be here.
That sounds fairly typical. Thanks for correcting me.
There are a couple of different definitions of virtual machine. One is the vmware sense, which you mentioned. The other is the Java sense, which is different. That's why I avoided-- and you should probably avoid-- the phrase "virtual machine" when describing Classic.
See What I hate about iMax...
You know what I hate? When somebody consistently screws up a trademark that's easy to get right. It's IMAX, all caps. Not "iMax," which looks like you were typing "iMac" and you fat-fingered it.
isn't Classic that interpreter/emulator for OS 9?
No.
Don't think of Classic as an emulator, like Virtual PC. Think of it instead as just a program. Mac OS 9 was a shared-memory, cooperative multitasking system. Classic implements that entire system as a UNIX process. Within the process's address space, you have the entire Mac OS 9 operating system and all your apps. But the apps aren't running under emulation. They're executing native PowerPC binary code. In some cases, apps run faster under Classic than they did under OS 9.
Of course, some stuff had to change. Since Classic isn't really an OS, but just a process running under UNIX, it can't talk directly to the hardware. Some software-- not much, but some-- can't work under Classic because of this.
But it's not an emulator. It's more like vmware than it is like an emulator.
does anyone know a webdav server for free ?
Yeah, there's an obscure one that you probably haven't heard of.