it seems like a lot of Ja*a programmers feel this way
I'm confused. Is this a typo, or what? When people write "*nix" (an expression I really don't like, BTW), they're referring to all flavors and varieties of UNIX-like operating systems, including nominally non-UNIX OS's like Linux. So what do you mean by "Ja*a?" Is there a Jaba out there that I don't know about? Or a Jata, or a Jafa, or a Jaqa? What's the deal with the wildcard?
I'm criticizing him (the person who's griping about the cable box) because he appears to not understand how to solve his problem.
Let's not mince words. You insulted him, using derogatory language to describe him because you disagree with his decisions even though you are not, as you freely admit, fully informed.
Flames qua flames don't bother me as such, but at least be a man and stand by them. Don't try to back down and claim that it was just innocent "criticism."
Many Loyalists joined the Loyalist regiments AFTER being severly persecuted for their beliefs.
As I said in my last post, "insults, boycotting, and persecution," do not add up, in and of themselves, to violence. Loyalists fled the Colonies due to social and economic pressure, which is not the same thing as being the targets of organized military or paramilitary action. The question way (paraphrased) to name a revolution that didn't include organized attacks against civilians or civilian populations. Nothing we've talked about so far amounts to organized attacks against civilian populations.
Disclaimer: My Great-Great-Something-Grandfather fought for Washington during the Battle of Manhatten, was wounded, and after recovering joined a Loyalist regiment.
In my technique, the program would copy parts from 'f' and 'Turkish dotless i' glyphs and have the font designer stitch them together by editing the splines.
And you'll most likely end up with a font that is almost, if not entirely, awful.
Letter forms are not generated algorithmically. A "b" is not an upside-down "p." These things have to be drawn by hand by people with talent-- more talent than I have, to be sure-- and refined at a level of detail that you wouldn't believe. But, believe it or not, when you've got a page full of it, tiny, almost microscopic, differences in letter forms make a huge difference.
Chasing! If you look at the eyelids, during REM sleep they're moving like mad. Sometimes you see the legs twitching, I think this is a reaction to seeing something like a "prey" in the dream.
I think that's reasonable, but I have to wonder if he's dreaming about chasing or about being chased. It bothers me to think of my dog having nightmares. Which is kind of strange, because I'm not really a dog person, especially-- the dog is my girlfriend's, and I inherited him when we moved in together. But thinking of my dog lying there alone, in the dark, afraid of something... that bothers me more than I'd care to admit. So when he's dreaming, I always put my hand on him to either comfort him or wake him up a little, and he calms down. Of course, if he was dreaming about chasing pork spare ribs through an endless meadow, then I just royally fouled that up for him, didn't I?
I don't suppose it makes much sense to spend time thinking about dog dreams. But I do, I do.
You're attempting to prove that only irrational people get swayed by irrational arguments by taking as a given that rational people are not swayed my irrational arguments. Borrr-ing.
Nothing personal, but your comment was a waste of tablespace.
During the American Revolution, hundreds of Loyalists had to cross the border into Canada due to reprisals from the revolutionaries.
Do your homework. Most of the loyalists who fled to Canada during the Revolution were soldiers, members of the Royal Regiment of New York and other organized fighting units. Violence against armed and organized enemy soldiers can hardly be considered in the same breath as violence against civilians.
While there is other evidence-- mostly anecdotal, but some deriving from land grant records in the early 1780's-- that some refugees were civilians fleeing persecution in the Colonies, the consensus of opinion among historians is that these individuals and families were fleeing social and economic pressure, not out-and-out violence.
Um. That actually sounds like a terrible way to design a font. I've never done any font design myself, but I used to work for an agency that employed a guy who could. He was no Twohy or Slimbach or anything, but while I was there he designed three Latin-alphabet typefaces. He drew each glyph by hand on big sheets of paper, then scanned them and converted them to vector art. He spent weeks trying out tons of combinations of letters to see how the forms would look together, designing ligatures where it was appropriate. (A ligature is a single glyph that looks like two letters. The classic example is the "ae" ligature which looks like an "a" and an "e" smooshed together, but that's not terribly common. Every professional typeface, though, has ligatures for the letter combinations "fi," "ff", "fl", "ffi," and "ffl." Look at an "fi" in a book through a magnifying glass. You'll see that the bar of the f is connected to the i, and that the dot above the i is absent. It's a ligature.
Anyway, my point is that designing usable general-purpose fonts is a lot more work than you imply here.
Well, it's better than "Telemachus Sneezed," or "Penelope Burped"
This might be funny, if it didn't miss the point quite so much. Atlas Shrugged is a great title; remember who Atlas was? He carried the world on his shoulders. What would happen if the man who carried the world on his shoulders were to shift his burden suddenly?
I really liked Atlas Shrugged. It's a great read, whether or not you agree with the politics or the philosophy. But, in my opinion, the title is far better than the book itself.
In my experience, the only dangerous people (to me) are irrational.
It depends on how "dangerous" is used in context. It's quite likely that the irrational person should be a danger to the rational person, if you interpret "dangerous" to mean "a threat to the rationality of the rational person." How many otherwise rational people have been swayed into irrational opinions or beliefs through the persuasion of an irrational but charismatic individual?
In all people, there appears to be a sort of animal hind-brain that wants to be told what to do. Sentience is a burden, and it's one that we are all to quick to shrug off if given half a chance.
Relativists can escape any constraints.
The joke made over lunch today:
Dave: There are no absolutes in our culture. There's an exception to every rule.
Me: Gee, Dave, I don't think you can make a blanket statement like that.
Heh. I love the little synchronicities in life. Just these past few days, that's become something of a catch-phrase among myself and my co-workers. "What a maroon. What an ultra-maroon. What a nin-cow-poop."
The world's a big place, big enough for anything. Right now, somewhere, a baby is being born, an old person is dying, and somebody is saying, "What a maroon. What an ultra-maroon. What a nin-cow-poop."
She simply was justifying why men that rise to the top of the capitalist world, like Ken Lay, are a better sort of people, period.
See, this is the kind of conclusion that one can achieve if one forgets the "moral" part of "moral objectivism."
I'm not saying Rand was Right, exactly, but I don't think she was nearly as Wrong as you seem to think she was.
Rand's basic premise, in a nutshell, was that it is the natural order of things for people to act selfishly. Denial of selfishness leads directly to corruption. So acting out of moral self-interest is less likely to result in corruption or fascism than total, but ultimately false, altruism.
But like I said, I'm not trying to advocate that position, completely. I think, for example, that she was overly optimistic about the universality of the moral compass. It seems to me-- although my mind's not totally made up on this yet-- that most people that I've met have only the most basic moral compass. They might shy away from armed robbery, but they're not above shoplifting. Of course, I think that's more a problem of nurture than it is of nature, but that's another topic.
On a different, and actually significantly more important, topic, the whole time I've been writing this my dog has been lying on the couch next to me, dreaming. He's asleep, and every so often he sort of grumbles in his throat, and he legs twitch, and he tosses and turns for a bit. I put my hand on him and he quiets.
You have been bred in captivity just to upgrade...
It's become quite fashionable on Slashdot of late to criticize people by calling them "consumers," as if that were a dirty word. Used this way, "consumer" implies mindless obedience. It's meant to be an insult.
Ironically, I've found that these criticisms usually-- not always, but usually-- come from people who brag about spending their disposable income at the local Fry's buying the newest, fastest motherboard or CPU or RAID card.
I just find that particular juxtaposition interesting.
Don't forget the ultimate solution to a lot of life's problems: avoidance.
To avoidance: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.
(With apologies to Homer Simpson.)
Re:Doofus enlightenment attempt
on
LinuXbox Boots
·
· Score: 2
Does this answer your question?
Yes. It tells me that the people who are doing this have paranoid fantasies and delusions of grandeur, and wasting their time and money. "Telling people that they can be free," indeed.
Mod me as a troll if you like, but note well that I posted this under my own name. No "post anonymously" for me.
In the interest of reasoned debate, I want to challenge you on something. Feel free to ignore me; I'm just striking up a conversation.
You say-- or, more accurately, imply-- that you don't approve of Apple's using its control of the software against the will of the customer. I'm wondering if you really mean that in absolute terms, or if you're just generalizing. Because clearly there are cases in which the will of the customer can be contrary to Apple's best interest. For example, it might be the will of the customer to make copies of Jaguar CDs and sell them for $10 each, but that would clearly be an activity of which Apple would not approve, and which Apple would try very hard to stop.
Would you care to elaborate on what you meant by "uses its control of the software against the will of the customer?"
But the idea of refusing to remove a menace for fear of what might replace it is pretty asinine logic.
No, it isn't. It's a very mature and well-established idea embodied in the old saw, "Let sleeping dogs lie." Nature abhors a vacuum, and a political ecosystem abhors a power vacuum. Summarily eradicating one evil can quite easily lead to the eruption of an even worse one. Consider Russia. The revolutionists got rid of the Tsars, but an even worse regime rose up to take their place. There's a lesson in that.
You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about, do you?
Motorola makes the CPU. Motorola makes CPUs that don't support DDR access to memory.
Apple makes the motherboards. Apple implements DDR memory everywhere except in the CPU.
IBM just announced vector computing support in the Power4. Vector computing is a big part of Apple's strategy, and until recently it was only available from Motorola.
The new Power Macs have a heat dissipation mechanism that's capable of dealing with many times the heat load of the currently shipping systems. They added this feature despite the fact that the previous generation of Power Macs had no particular heat problems.
Can't you read the writing on the wall? Apple has designed this new Power Mac to accept new, faster processors, and lots of 'em. A four-processor system is not unreasonable given the amount of space and heat dissipation inside this new chassis. Six or eight processors might even be possible, if everything comes together just right.
Don't assume you have the first idea what Apple has planned until you get all the facts.
If you think FlexLM is spyware, then you obviously don't understand what it does or how it works.
Software needs to be nodelocked. That's the only way software vendors can prevent the sort of rampant piracy that's going on in the PC world right now. Piracy is an epidemic. In my office alone-- a small one, with about 12 employees-- I could probably find you 50 instances of pirated software. Not software pirated through malice, but simply through ignorance. People seem to honestly not understand that when you buy a copy of MS Office, you can run it on one computer. You didn't buy the right to run it on every computer in the office. Honestly, how could they understand that fact, unless they read every license agreement with a magnifying glass. It's an honest mistake.
So the end result of the situation is that every small and large company in the world, I'm willing to bet, has some degree of innocent software piracy going on within it. It's a bad situation all around, necessitating software license compliance audits and tons of money and effort wasted.
If every piece of commercial software were nodelocked, in some simple, foolproof way, this problem simply wouldn't exist. The guy down the hall would be unable to just grab the Office 2000 CD from the closet and install it on his new laptop without buying a license. The net result would be good, not bad.
The problem is that every attempt to nodelock software on personal computers has thus far been a miserable failure. Like the case described in the article that started this conversation, users end up fighting against the licensing mechanism, which is bad for everybody.
That's why I brought up FlexLM. I've been using it for years on SGIs, as I said, and it's painless. When you install new software, you just call the vendor up-- or, more often, go to a web page-- and give them your license host ID. They give you back a license string that will only work on that machine. You only have to do it once, but if you should happen to lose your license string for any reason, you just run through the process one more time to get it back. The whole thing takes about five minutes, and after that you forget about it.
I would love it if a foolproof mechanism could be found for nodelocking PC software. Sure, you're always going to have teenagers who try to steal software, and you're always going to have organized pirates in places like Malaysia who try to sell counterfeit licenses. You can never defend against those types perfectly. But-- and I know this sounds like doublethink, but just consider it-- you can actually help businesses by making it impossible, or at least disproportionately difficult, for them to make an innocent mistake that violates a software license. The good will far, far outweigh the bad.
And yes, I am certain iChat allows you to use your AIM screen name.
Not that it's necessary, but I'll second that. I've been using my old-as-the-hills AIM screen name with iChat for some time now to chat both with other iChat users (even over Rendezvous over AirPort, which is really cool) or AIM users on both platforms. Since I had an AIM screen name all along, it seemed unnecessary to use my.Mac user name.
That's why I linked to a graphical editor that expressed structure, not a wysiwyg:)
Yeah, about that, you linked to a domain that doesn't actually resolve for me. I don't know if you typo'd it or if there are upstream DNS problems or what, but you might want to double-check it.
Slashdot Mirror
it seems like a lot of Ja*a programmers feel this way
I'm confused. Is this a typo, or what? When people write "*nix" (an expression I really don't like, BTW), they're referring to all flavors and varieties of UNIX-like operating systems, including nominally non-UNIX OS's like Linux. So what do you mean by "Ja*a?" Is there a Jaba out there that I don't know about? Or a Jata, or a Jafa, or a Jaqa? What's the deal with the wildcard?
I'm criticizing him (the person who's griping about the cable box) because he appears to not understand how to solve his problem.
Let's not mince words. You insulted him, using derogatory language to describe him because you disagree with his decisions even though you are not, as you freely admit, fully informed.
Flames qua flames don't bother me as such, but at least be a man and stand by them. Don't try to back down and claim that it was just innocent "criticism."
Many Loyalists joined the Loyalist regiments AFTER being severly persecuted for their beliefs.
;-)
As I said in my last post, "insults, boycotting, and persecution," do not add up, in and of themselves, to violence. Loyalists fled the Colonies due to social and economic pressure, which is not the same thing as being the targets of organized military or paramilitary action. The question way (paraphrased) to name a revolution that didn't include organized attacks against civilians or civilian populations. Nothing we've talked about so far amounts to organized attacks against civilian populations.
Disclaimer: My Great-Great-Something-Grandfather fought for Washington during the Battle of Manhatten, was wounded, and after recovering joined a Loyalist regiment.
Traitor!
In my technique, the program would copy parts from 'f' and 'Turkish dotless i' glyphs and have the font designer stitch them together by editing the splines.
And you'll most likely end up with a font that is almost, if not entirely, awful.
Letter forms are not generated algorithmically. A "b" is not an upside-down "p." These things have to be drawn by hand by people with talent-- more talent than I have, to be sure-- and refined at a level of detail that you wouldn't believe. But, believe it or not, when you've got a page full of it, tiny, almost microscopic, differences in letter forms make a huge difference.
Chasing! If you look at the eyelids, during REM sleep they're moving like mad. Sometimes you see the legs twitching, I think this is a reaction to seeing something like a "prey" in the dream.
I think that's reasonable, but I have to wonder if he's dreaming about chasing or about being chased. It bothers me to think of my dog having nightmares. Which is kind of strange, because I'm not really a dog person, especially-- the dog is my girlfriend's, and I inherited him when we moved in together. But thinking of my dog lying there alone, in the dark, afraid of something... that bothers me more than I'd care to admit. So when he's dreaming, I always put my hand on him to either comfort him or wake him up a little, and he calms down. Of course, if he was dreaming about chasing pork spare ribs through an endless meadow, then I just royally fouled that up for him, didn't I?
I don't suppose it makes much sense to spend time thinking about dog dreams. But I do, I do.
You're attempting to prove that only irrational people get swayed by irrational arguments by taking as a given that rational people are not swayed my irrational arguments. Borrr-ing.
Nothing personal, but your comment was a waste of tablespace.
Then they weren't very rational to begin with hm?
Bah. Your tautologies hold no interest for me.
During the American Revolution, hundreds of Loyalists had to cross the border into Canada due to reprisals from the revolutionaries.
Do your homework. Most of the loyalists who fled to Canada during the Revolution were soldiers, members of the Royal Regiment of New York and other organized fighting units. Violence against armed and organized enemy soldiers can hardly be considered in the same breath as violence against civilians.
While there is other evidence-- mostly anecdotal, but some deriving from land grant records in the early 1780's-- that some refugees were civilians fleeing persecution in the Colonies, the consensus of opinion among historians is that these individuals and families were fleeing social and economic pressure, not out-and-out violence.
You can-- and evidently should-- learn more here.
Um. That actually sounds like a terrible way to design a font. I've never done any font design myself, but I used to work for an agency that employed a guy who could. He was no Twohy or Slimbach or anything, but while I was there he designed three Latin-alphabet typefaces. He drew each glyph by hand on big sheets of paper, then scanned them and converted them to vector art. He spent weeks trying out tons of combinations of letters to see how the forms would look together, designing ligatures where it was appropriate. (A ligature is a single glyph that looks like two letters. The classic example is the "ae" ligature which looks like an "a" and an "e" smooshed together, but that's not terribly common. Every professional typeface, though, has ligatures for the letter combinations "fi," "ff", "fl", "ffi," and "ffl." Look at an "fi" in a book through a magnifying glass. You'll see that the bar of the f is connected to the i, and that the dot above the i is absent. It's a ligature.
Anyway, my point is that designing usable general-purpose fonts is a lot more work than you imply here.
Well, it's better than "Telemachus Sneezed," or "Penelope Burped"
This might be funny, if it didn't miss the point quite so much. Atlas Shrugged is a great title; remember who Atlas was? He carried the world on his shoulders. What would happen if the man who carried the world on his shoulders were to shift his burden suddenly?
I really liked Atlas Shrugged. It's a great read, whether or not you agree with the politics or the philosophy. But, in my opinion, the title is far better than the book itself.
In my experience, the only dangerous people (to me) are irrational.
It depends on how "dangerous" is used in context. It's quite likely that the irrational person should be a danger to the rational person, if you interpret "dangerous" to mean "a threat to the rationality of the rational person." How many otherwise rational people have been swayed into irrational opinions or beliefs through the persuasion of an irrational but charismatic individual?
In all people, there appears to be a sort of animal hind-brain that wants to be told what to do. Sentience is a burden, and it's one that we are all to quick to shrug off if given half a chance.
Relativists can escape any constraints.
The joke made over lunch today:
Dave: There are no absolutes in our culture. There's an exception to every rule.
Me: Gee, Dave, I don't think you can make a blanket statement like that.
Only governments tax. What a maroon.
Heh. I love the little synchronicities in life. Just these past few days, that's become something of a catch-phrase among myself and my co-workers. "What a maroon. What an ultra-maroon. What a nin-cow-poop."
The world's a big place, big enough for anything. Right now, somewhere, a baby is being born, an old person is dying, and somebody is saying, "What a maroon. What an ultra-maroon. What a nin-cow-poop."
She simply was justifying why men that rise to the top of the capitalist world, like Ken Lay, are a better sort of people, period.
See, this is the kind of conclusion that one can achieve if one forgets the "moral" part of "moral objectivism."
I'm not saying Rand was Right, exactly, but I don't think she was nearly as Wrong as you seem to think she was.
Rand's basic premise, in a nutshell, was that it is the natural order of things for people to act selfishly. Denial of selfishness leads directly to corruption. So acting out of moral self-interest is less likely to result in corruption or fascism than total, but ultimately false, altruism.
But like I said, I'm not trying to advocate that position, completely. I think, for example, that she was overly optimistic about the universality of the moral compass. It seems to me-- although my mind's not totally made up on this yet-- that most people that I've met have only the most basic moral compass. They might shy away from armed robbery, but they're not above shoplifting. Of course, I think that's more a problem of nurture than it is of nature, but that's another topic.
On a different, and actually significantly more important, topic, the whole time I've been writing this my dog has been lying on the couch next to me, dreaming. He's asleep, and every so often he sort of grumbles in his throat, and he legs twitch, and he tosses and turns for a bit. I put my hand on him and he quiets.
There he goes again.
I wonder what dogs dream about?
Name me a revolution that doesn't include attacks on civilian targets and the murder of innocent people, and I'll... well... be very suprised.
How about the American Revolution? Unless, of course, you consider British soldiers or crates of tea to be "civilian targets" or "innocent people."
Surprise.
You have been bred in captivity just to upgrade...
It's become quite fashionable on Slashdot of late to criticize people by calling them "consumers," as if that were a dirty word. Used this way, "consumer" implies mindless obedience. It's meant to be an insult.
Ironically, I've found that these criticisms usually-- not always, but usually-- come from people who brag about spending their disposable income at the local Fry's buying the newest, fastest motherboard or CPU or RAID card.
I just find that particular juxtaposition interesting.
Don't forget the ultimate solution to a lot of life's problems: avoidance.
To avoidance: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.
(With apologies to Homer Simpson.)
Does this answer your question?
Yes. It tells me that the people who are doing this have paranoid fantasies and delusions of grandeur, and wasting their time and money. "Telling people that they can be free," indeed.
Mod me as a troll if you like, but note well that I posted this under my own name. No "post anonymously" for me.
That was awfully nice of you to say.
In the interest of reasoned debate, I want to challenge you on something. Feel free to ignore me; I'm just striking up a conversation.
You say-- or, more accurately, imply-- that you don't approve of Apple's using its control of the software against the will of the customer. I'm wondering if you really mean that in absolute terms, or if you're just generalizing. Because clearly there are cases in which the will of the customer can be contrary to Apple's best interest. For example, it might be the will of the customer to make copies of Jaguar CDs and sell them for $10 each, but that would clearly be an activity of which Apple would not approve, and which Apple would try very hard to stop.
Would you care to elaborate on what you meant by "uses its control of the software against the will of the customer?"
But the idea of refusing to remove a menace for fear of what might replace it is pretty asinine logic.
No, it isn't. It's a very mature and well-established idea embodied in the old saw, "Let sleeping dogs lie." Nature abhors a vacuum, and a political ecosystem abhors a power vacuum. Summarily eradicating one evil can quite easily lead to the eruption of an even worse one. Consider Russia. The revolutionists got rid of the Tsars, but an even worse regime rose up to take their place. There's a lesson in that.
You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about, do you?
Motorola makes the CPU. Motorola makes CPUs that don't support DDR access to memory.
Apple makes the motherboards. Apple implements DDR memory everywhere except in the CPU.
IBM just announced vector computing support in the Power4. Vector computing is a big part of Apple's strategy, and until recently it was only available from Motorola.
The new Power Macs have a heat dissipation mechanism that's capable of dealing with many times the heat load of the currently shipping systems. They added this feature despite the fact that the previous generation of Power Macs had no particular heat problems.
Can't you read the writing on the wall? Apple has designed this new Power Mac to accept new, faster processors, and lots of 'em. A four-processor system is not unreasonable given the amount of space and heat dissipation inside this new chassis. Six or eight processors might even be possible, if everything comes together just right.
Don't assume you have the first idea what Apple has planned until you get all the facts.
If you think FlexLM is spyware, then you obviously don't understand what it does or how it works.
Software needs to be nodelocked. That's the only way software vendors can prevent the sort of rampant piracy that's going on in the PC world right now. Piracy is an epidemic. In my office alone-- a small one, with about 12 employees-- I could probably find you 50 instances of pirated software. Not software pirated through malice, but simply through ignorance. People seem to honestly not understand that when you buy a copy of MS Office, you can run it on one computer. You didn't buy the right to run it on every computer in the office. Honestly, how could they understand that fact, unless they read every license agreement with a magnifying glass. It's an honest mistake.
So the end result of the situation is that every small and large company in the world, I'm willing to bet, has some degree of innocent software piracy going on within it. It's a bad situation all around, necessitating software license compliance audits and tons of money and effort wasted.
If every piece of commercial software were nodelocked, in some simple, foolproof way, this problem simply wouldn't exist. The guy down the hall would be unable to just grab the Office 2000 CD from the closet and install it on his new laptop without buying a license. The net result would be good, not bad.
The problem is that every attempt to nodelock software on personal computers has thus far been a miserable failure. Like the case described in the article that started this conversation, users end up fighting against the licensing mechanism, which is bad for everybody.
That's why I brought up FlexLM. I've been using it for years on SGIs, as I said, and it's painless. When you install new software, you just call the vendor up-- or, more often, go to a web page-- and give them your license host ID. They give you back a license string that will only work on that machine. You only have to do it once, but if you should happen to lose your license string for any reason, you just run through the process one more time to get it back. The whole thing takes about five minutes, and after that you forget about it.
I would love it if a foolproof mechanism could be found for nodelocking PC software. Sure, you're always going to have teenagers who try to steal software, and you're always going to have organized pirates in places like Malaysia who try to sell counterfeit licenses. You can never defend against those types perfectly. But-- and I know this sounds like doublethink, but just consider it-- you can actually help businesses by making it impossible, or at least disproportionately difficult, for them to make an innocent mistake that violates a software license. The good will far, far outweigh the bad.
How? I looked around quite a bit. Saw nothing.
Under the "View" menu, you can choose "Show as Text" or "Show as Balloons." Methinks you didn't look around quite as much as you say you did.
I'm not convinced it's one guy. I'll bet is a group of people posting from different time zones around the world.
He/she/they/whatever* is creative, I'll give 'em that.
* "On the Internet, no one can tell you're a dog."
And yes, I am certain iChat allows you to use your AIM screen name.
.Mac user name.
Not that it's necessary, but I'll second that. I've been using my old-as-the-hills AIM screen name with iChat for some time now to chat both with other iChat users (even over Rendezvous over AirPort, which is really cool) or AIM users on both platforms. Since I had an AIM screen name all along, it seemed unnecessary to use my
That's why I linked to a graphical editor that expressed structure, not a wysiwyg :)
Yeah, about that, you linked to a domain that doesn't actually resolve for me. I don't know if you typo'd it or if there are upstream DNS problems or what, but you might want to double-check it.