method 1:Use the PC file exchange to set up Windows file types/extensions. When I download a file from the internet (*.qif) without a file type in the resource fork...this file association will be automatic if I have that set up
I tried the PC file exchange application, and it was totally unintuitive. (I don't remember the details of why I thought that, but I do remember thinking that.) We did try to setup.qif-to-Quicken mappings, but they never worked correctly.
method 2:Did you try 'import' from the Quicken application?
Yep! And equally frustrating, the import window could never 'see' the quicken files we were trying to open. We would navigate to that directory on the HD, and those files would simply not appear, so we could not select them for importing!
A question then...What happens on Windows if two competing vendors of software decide to use the same extension? One installs over the other and the registry is all kinds of wacked. Is there some process/protocol/method to manage that sort of potential conflict?
No, but I never run into a problem. I usually don't have a filetype that I want to open in two different programs that often. But unlike what I say in the MacOS, I could drag a.html file into my text editor if I want to edit it, even though it is assocated with MSIE.
I agree that Be is a good OS. Tried it...liked it, but it has similar drawbacks to Linux to average joe end user, no?
Uhhh, no? BeOS is incredibly easy to use, more-so than Windows, and especially Linux. My brother (a total newbie) boots into BeOS simply because the CD burner that comes with R5 is so much easier to use than anything he has in Windows! Linux is by far THE hardest OS I've seen in terms of installation, configuration, maintenance, software upgrades, and driver installation/upgrades.:-/
That said...I'm very excited for OS X!!! Hope you enjoy it!
I hope so, too. Then again, I probably will not try it until Apple comes out with some less expensive hardware (and/or offers a money-back guarantee).
You just decided to quit. Maybe you figured you didn't want to be back learning basics, so decided to stick with what you know.
You're right... after 2 days of trying to figure out how to perform a simple operation on an OS claiming to be "user friendly," I gave up. If something so simple as opening a certain file type in the program of my choice was that confusing, I was literally afraid of how much time would be wasted on harder things.
The native OS/2 file system, HPFS, also has the ability to store attributes with files. And remember, HPFS was released in 1988 - 12 years ago.
Wow. Is it also a 64-bit journaled file system? Does it handle the attributes the same way as BFS? (Namely that searching attributes is SUPERFAST, and users can create their own attributes for files and folders.)
I love BeOS and use Windows all day at work. I've tried Linux several times, but have hated each time. Oh well, so it's not my cup of tea, but I gave it a shot. I'll try MacOS X eventually, too.
Anyway, I have an open mind, so I talked my roommate into buying an iMac instead of upgrading his Windows machine. Big mistake! I mean, I just ASSUMED MacOS was actually user friendly, since that's what all the Mac zealots are always throwing in our faces. The experience we had was definitely anything other than "user friendly."
First, we pull it out of the box. Cool design, cool keyboard, cool "zero-button" mouse, etc. We boot it up, the registration screens come right up to get us started. Mid-way through setting up the network, the thing freezes up solid. We wait 5 minutes and give up. Reboot. (Sound familiar?)
On the second attempt, it works OK. He starts trying out the different applications and getting used to it. He starts using the much-acclaimed MSIE for MacOS, and after browsing for awhile the system freezes up again. Reboot.
Later in the day, he wants some files off my Windows machine that he copied their before he trashed his old machine. Some MP3's. I figure, this'll be easy, right? It's fairly simple to access my Windows machine from my BeOS machine, so Mac must make it even more "user friendly."
Yeah right. Two hours (and several 3rd party application downloads) later, we've got a flaky connection to my PC using "DAVE." I don't remember the details (this happened a few months ago), but to put it mildly, DAVE was a pain in the ASS.
So we download these MP3's. Hmmm, what's this, some of them are not recognized? Oh shit the names got cut off because there was a shorter limit on MacOS filenames compared to my Windows MP3 filenames... so the ".mp3" got cut off and the Mac didn't make it too "user friendly" to get them working. (I ended up writing a perl script for the Windows machine to rename the long files before the transfer...)
The next day, he wants to get Quicken running again. I say, no problem, your iMac came with the latest version of Quicken! Surely this fine program will make it easy to import from your Windows Quicken files, right?
And so begins a day-long journey to get the Quicken files over to the iMac. I cannot describe how frustrating the MacOS file handler system is... it's ludicrous. BeOS is the king here with it's mimetype and smart filetype determination techniques. Windows at least let's me easily associate a program with a file extension. Christ I felt like a snake charmer trying to get MacOS to recognize the Quicken files we brought over from my machine! It was IMPOSSIBLE! The files would be sitting there, but you couldn't drag them onto Quicken to open them. If you double-clicked them, they opened in QuickTIME! I realize some Mac pro probably thinks I'm incredibly stupid, but I've been using computers for 18 years, and programming them for 5, and this was a huge pain in the ass!
Then on the third day, my roommate was getting pretty frustrated with the machine, and I was feeling real guilty for talking him into buying it. I tell him, if you will turn it back into Apple for a refund, I will build you a Windows PC that blows this iMac away.
Lo-and-behold, the company with the awesome hardware and "user friendly" operating system does NOT accept ANY returns WHATSOEVER. We told them everything -- it crashes, it's not user friendly, we are totally unsatisfied with the machine, etc. -- no deal! We complained to the BBB, and we got back a letter from Apple saying NO DEAL. I think that says a lot about their products. No money-back guarantee because they know (and I know now) that what sells the new Apple machines are the looks, and not the user-friendly OS!
So in rebuttal to the original post, the only way I'd give me grandma an iMac is if she put me in her will... if you know what I mean!
Though with Bush in office, the case against them will be dropped
Yeah right. The case was already won by the government. I've read many times over from the people really involved with the case that there is no way in hell Dubya is going to stick his foot in and try to bail Microsoft out. It'd be one thing if he somehow stopped the trial before it ended, or if Microsoft had won and he steps in to stop a government appeal, but it ended with a Microsoft loss! Too late!
Microsoft has no choice but to pay employees substantially in shares if it is to keep its present level of staffing, since if it had used cash in fiscal 2000 instead of shares, this would have increased the salary bill by $16 billion...
This is sort of a stretch. You're saying Microsoft would be losing money if not for this cute little tax trick, but you're assuming Microsoft would have to pay out as much in cash as their employees earned in stock options. I don't think this is realistic.
If I make $100,000 a year, and my employer grants me options, and the stock does as well as MSFT, and those options vest and are sold for $2 million, that is $2 million on top of my salary. If, on the other hand, we remain a private company, I would not expect my salary to be $2.1 million! The options are a perk.
In other words, the notion that Microsoft's empire would be losing money if it weren't for this tax trick is pretty absurd.
That's not entirely true. Technically, they are diluting ownership by share creation
They do not need to create shares. The company owns a certain number of shares itself. They sell CALL option contracts to employees for these shares, and if the employee exercises the contract, the shares are sold from the company's holdings to the employee. And I'm sure Microsoft routinely buys back its stock on the open market when it goes down.
I don't know any of this for sure, obviously, but they don't need to create the shares to do this...
The bottom line in any employer-employee contract is that the employee is free to leave at any time. If he does not, then he is not being 'abused' by the company for which he works.
Coming from someone who clearly has no experience dealing with a headhunter temp company.
Here's how it works (experience comes from a family member in the tech area).
Generally the people who go to work for these temp companies are out of work, and unable to find a job on their own. When the headhunter finds you a job, they may pay you $14 per hour while the hiring company pays the temp company $25 an hour. In addition, the hiring company usually cannot hire the temp worker directly without paying a huge fee to the headhunter.
So most of you are thinking, wouldn't it be cheaper to just pay the large fee, and then hire the temp worker directly for, say, $20 an hour? You're saving $5 an hour! But the hiring company wasn't paying you any benefits before -- that was handled by the headhunter (if you're lucky).
So the point is, for most people in these situations, you are stuck. Your job is decent, and you need the work, but you are totally shafted compared to the other people you work with that were hired directly instead of through a headhunter. In addition, it's much more difficult to get a raise or "move up" in the hiring company as a temp worker, due to the red tape involved with the headhunter contract.
So why not just quit the headhunter, and get hired directly by the company you worked for, for more money? No way, the headhunter will have something in your contract that stipulates you can't go to work for the company for a set length of time (usually one year).
The simple fact is that these employees have a choice, and they have chosen to work for Microsoft.
No... these people work for the headhunter. The headhunter has a contract with Microsoft. It is not the same thing as CHOOSING to go work for Microsoft. The headhunter doesn't say, "Hey, do you want to go work for Microsoft?" They tell you about the job, you sign the contract, then you start working at company X, which turns out to be Microsoft or whoever.
My father has gotten screwed over twice so far in these situations... and usually the headhunter companies are run by real assholes... YMMV.
I realise that last comment is controversial - it mentions Bill Gates! - but I said it to shock everyone into thinking for once, and stop being emotional and selfish
Let me get this straight.
You mentioned Bill Gates in a sentence on/. to get everyone thinking instead of being emotional.
Apparantly you are not familiar with the notion of SARCASM. My original post was sarcastic. Who the hell would be gullible enough to think I, making a comment about a subjectively classified group of people ("nerds"), was being totally serious?
I've found that a pretty good way of not going to jail is not to commit crimes like theft or forgery. Works for me.
A better way is to require restitution to the victim, in the form of a lump-sum payoff, or garnishing of wages. This is the libertarian way of doing things. If the person cannot or will not work to pay off their debt to the victim, then they would go to jail.
Jail simply turns people into criminals, and should be a last resort, not a first. IMHO.
Simply regulate the industry so that nobody's allowed to sell a domain name for more than, say $35.
Goodbye capitalism, hello communism.
it sure seems like it would cut out the majority of the dirtbags involved in domain reselling.
There are much better ways to do that without requiring the U.S. government to get involved in price-fixing.
The first problem to solve is Network Solutions holding on to domain names after they are no longer being paid. This is simply a legal matter. They have no right to hold onto those domain names. Their job is to facilitate the sale of domain names to people and companies, and to run the root DNS servers. They should have no control over who gets to buy the domain names, I think that's clear.
Second problem -- cybersquatters. It's similar to real estate. Instead of predicting where the next major boom is going to be, and buying all that land, 'squatters try to predict the hot names on the internet. The difference is that it is cheaper to squat a domain name than a piece of real estate. So what happens in the real world when a land squatter has bought up all the available land in an area, and wants a price the market considers "too high"? Simple... either the price comes down so the market will buy, or the market GOES ELSEWHERE. In the case of domain names, this means the market puts pressure on other top-level domains, e.g..biz,.sex,.bank, etc. They can (and probably will) learn a lot from the usenet-style naming conventions before long. wellsfargo.bank is just as easy to remember as wellsfargo.com.
And finally, technological innovations will eventually wipe out the cybersquatters just as it created them. If I still have to type "slashdot.org" in a stupid web browser in three years, I'll eat my hat.
"Hello Search Engine. View Slashdot."
WHAMMO.
So please, let's not get the government involved in yet another area of our lives.
Those are nifty devices, but here is what every true music/technology geek wants in their car:
A smart music device, with an interface similar to the empeg, but which:
- Starts up instantly.
- Has a slot to play regular CD's or MP3 CD's. Offers to store the music on the inserted disc on the internal hard drive.
- Can be pulled out and connected to your computer with USB like the empeg, BUT more importantly, has a built-in 802.11 wireless connection! You pull into your driveway, and sync up your car with your computer or Intertainment Appliance[TM]. That's at least 10 times faster than USB, and much more convenient.
I've been thinking of this dream device for a while now. I even tried building it using spare parts and BeOS R5, but the main stopping point for me was getting it to connect to my car audio system. I wanted to use a small tower in my trunk, and hook that up to the CD changer cables. Then I'd write a custom program to turn the CD changer commands into navigation commands... it got too expensive and too complicated so I gave up.
Then I read empeg would eventually be adding 802.11 wireless support... WHEN WHEN WHEN!?
Second, the actual database itself is composed of submissions. Unless, I explicitly disclaim ownership of the submitted data, how can cddb claim to own it?
Hate to break it to you, but YOU don't own jack shit, the record companies do!
penalize people who are wasting all the electricity on decorations before shutting down industry. People can find other less-wasteful ways to be creative for the holidays.
Please start conserving enery by shutting off your own computer. Thank you. Have a nice day.
I hope Microsoft had to pay a lot for the right to not mention HP in all the publicity.
Yes, the Microsoft *the corporation* did not create the new mouse technology. The article you linked to says Gary "co-created" the technology, but it doesn't say who else helped.
Rarely are the engineers themselves given credit for the new technology that comes out. Apple claims to have created FireWire, but actually an engineer or group of engineers (probably at Apple) created the technology.
The original person I was responding to was trying to imply that the technology in the new Microsoft mice wasn't a breakthrough... i.e. that similar mice already existed.
Slashdot Mirror
Is that Japanese for "bonus"?
How come I'm a "breathless Be advocate," but the guy I responded to is not a "breathless OS/2 advocate"?
Just curious.
method 1:Use the PC file exchange to set up Windows file types/extensions. When I download a file from the internet (*.qif) without a file type in the resource fork...this file association will be automatic if I have that set up
.qif-to-Quicken mappings, but they never worked correctly.
.html file into my text editor if I want to edit it, even though it is assocated with MSIE.
:-/
I tried the PC file exchange application, and it was totally unintuitive. (I don't remember the details of why I thought that, but I do remember thinking that.) We did try to setup
method 2:Did you try 'import' from the Quicken application?
Yep! And equally frustrating, the import window could never 'see' the quicken files we were trying to open. We would navigate to that directory on the HD, and those files would simply not appear, so we could not select them for importing!
A question then...What happens on Windows if two competing vendors of software decide to use the same extension? One installs over the other and the registry is all kinds of wacked. Is there some process/protocol/method to manage that sort of potential conflict?
No, but I never run into a problem. I usually don't have a filetype that I want to open in two different programs that often. But unlike what I say in the MacOS, I could drag a
I agree that Be is a good OS. Tried it...liked it, but it has similar drawbacks to Linux to average joe end user, no?
Uhhh, no? BeOS is incredibly easy to use, more-so than Windows, and especially Linux. My brother (a total newbie) boots into BeOS simply because the CD burner that comes with R5 is so much easier to use than anything he has in Windows! Linux is by far THE hardest OS I've seen in terms of installation, configuration, maintenance, software upgrades, and driver installation/upgrades.
That said...I'm very excited for OS X!!! Hope you enjoy it!
I hope so, too. Then again, I probably will not try it until Apple comes out with some less expensive hardware (and/or offers a money-back guarantee).
-thomas
You just decided to quit. Maybe you figured you didn't want to be back learning basics, so decided to stick with what you know.
You're right... after 2 days of trying to figure out how to perform a simple operation on an OS claiming to be "user friendly," I gave up. If something so simple as opening a certain file type in the program of my choice was that confusing, I was literally afraid of how much time would be wasted on harder things.
The native OS/2 file system, HPFS, also has the ability to store attributes with files. And remember, HPFS was released in 1988 - 12 years ago. Wow. Is it also a 64-bit journaled file system? Does it handle the attributes the same way as BFS? (Namely that searching attributes is SUPERFAST, and users can create their own attributes for files and folders.)
How about Intel?
Read up on Aura. The BFS plays heavily into how cool Aura will be. It is a LOT more than "networked MP3."
I love BeOS and use Windows all day at work. I've tried Linux several times, but have hated each time. Oh well, so it's not my cup of tea, but I gave it a shot. I'll try MacOS X eventually, too.
Anyway, I have an open mind, so I talked my roommate into buying an iMac instead of upgrading his Windows machine. Big mistake! I mean, I just ASSUMED MacOS was actually user friendly, since that's what all the Mac zealots are always throwing in our faces. The experience we had was definitely anything other than "user friendly."
First, we pull it out of the box. Cool design, cool keyboard, cool "zero-button" mouse, etc. We boot it up, the registration screens come right up to get us started. Mid-way through setting up the network, the thing freezes up solid. We wait 5 minutes and give up. Reboot. (Sound familiar?)
On the second attempt, it works OK. He starts trying out the different applications and getting used to it. He starts using the much-acclaimed MSIE for MacOS, and after browsing for awhile the system freezes up again. Reboot.
Later in the day, he wants some files off my Windows machine that he copied their before he trashed his old machine. Some MP3's. I figure, this'll be easy, right? It's fairly simple to access my Windows machine from my BeOS machine, so Mac must make it even more "user friendly."
Yeah right. Two hours (and several 3rd party application downloads) later, we've got a flaky connection to my PC using "DAVE." I don't remember the details (this happened a few months ago), but to put it mildly, DAVE was a pain in the ASS.
So we download these MP3's. Hmmm, what's this, some of them are not recognized? Oh shit the names got cut off because there was a shorter limit on MacOS filenames compared to my Windows MP3 filenames... so the ".mp3" got cut off and the Mac didn't make it too "user friendly" to get them working. (I ended up writing a perl script for the Windows machine to rename the long files before the transfer...)
The next day, he wants to get Quicken running again. I say, no problem, your iMac came with the latest version of Quicken! Surely this fine program will make it easy to import from your Windows Quicken files, right?
And so begins a day-long journey to get the Quicken files over to the iMac. I cannot describe how frustrating the MacOS file handler system is... it's ludicrous. BeOS is the king here with it's mimetype and smart filetype determination techniques. Windows at least let's me easily associate a program with a file extension. Christ I felt like a snake charmer trying to get MacOS to recognize the Quicken files we brought over from my machine! It was IMPOSSIBLE! The files would be sitting there, but you couldn't drag them onto Quicken to open them. If you double-clicked them, they opened in QuickTIME! I realize some Mac pro probably thinks I'm incredibly stupid, but I've been using computers for 18 years, and programming them for 5, and this was a huge pain in the ass!
Then on the third day, my roommate was getting pretty frustrated with the machine, and I was feeling real guilty for talking him into buying it. I tell him, if you will turn it back into Apple for a refund, I will build you a Windows PC that blows this iMac away.
Lo-and-behold, the company with the awesome hardware and "user friendly" operating system does NOT accept ANY returns WHATSOEVER. We told them everything -- it crashes, it's not user friendly, we are totally unsatisfied with the machine, etc. -- no deal! We complained to the BBB, and we got back a letter from Apple saying NO DEAL. I think that says a lot about their products. No money-back guarantee because they know (and I know now) that what sells the new Apple machines are the looks, and not the user-friendly OS!
So in rebuttal to the original post, the only way I'd give me grandma an iMac is if she put me in her will... if you know what I mean!
-thomas
Though with Bush in office, the case against them will be dropped
Yeah right. The case was already won by the government. I've read many times over from the people really involved with the case that there is no way in hell Dubya is going to stick his foot in and try to bail Microsoft out. It'd be one thing if he somehow stopped the trial before it ended, or if Microsoft had won and he steps in to stop a government appeal, but it ended with a Microsoft loss! Too late!
Your post is mostly interesting (if true), but:
Microsoft has no choice but to pay employees substantially in shares if it is to keep its present level of staffing, since if it had used cash in fiscal 2000 instead of shares, this would have increased the salary bill by $16 billion...
This is sort of a stretch. You're saying Microsoft would be losing money if not for this cute little tax trick, but you're assuming Microsoft would have to pay out as much in cash as their employees earned in stock options. I don't think this is realistic.
If I make $100,000 a year, and my employer grants me options, and the stock does as well as MSFT, and those options vest and are sold for $2 million, that is $2 million on top of my salary. If, on the other hand, we remain a private company, I would not expect my salary to be $2.1 million! The options are a perk.
In other words, the notion that Microsoft's empire would be losing money if it weren't for this tax trick is pretty absurd.
-thomas
That's not entirely true. Technically, they are diluting ownership by share creation
They do not need to create shares. The company owns a certain number of shares itself. They sell CALL option contracts to employees for these shares, and if the employee exercises the contract, the shares are sold from the company's holdings to the employee. And I'm sure Microsoft routinely buys back its stock on the open market when it goes down.
I don't know any of this for sure, obviously, but they don't need to create the shares to do this...
Errr... I think people usually just question their technical prowess, not their business sense.
The bottom line in any employer-employee contract is that the employee is free to leave at any time. If he does not, then he is not being 'abused' by the company for which he works.
... and usually the headhunter companies are run by real assholes... YMMV.
Coming from someone who clearly has no experience dealing with a headhunter temp company.
Here's how it works (experience comes from a family member in the tech area).
Generally the people who go to work for these temp companies are out of work, and unable to find a job on their own. When the headhunter finds you a job, they may pay you $14 per hour while the hiring company pays the temp company $25 an hour. In addition, the hiring company usually cannot hire the temp worker directly without paying a huge fee to the headhunter.
So most of you are thinking, wouldn't it be cheaper to just pay the large fee, and then hire the temp worker directly for, say, $20 an hour? You're saving $5 an hour! But the hiring company wasn't paying you any benefits before -- that was handled by the headhunter (if you're lucky).
So the point is, for most people in these situations, you are stuck. Your job is decent, and you need the work, but you are totally shafted compared to the other people you work with that were hired directly instead of through a headhunter. In addition, it's much more difficult to get a raise or "move up" in the hiring company as a temp worker, due to the red tape involved with the headhunter contract.
So why not just quit the headhunter, and get hired directly by the company you worked for, for more money? No way, the headhunter will have something in your contract that stipulates you can't go to work for the company for a set length of time (usually one year).
The simple fact is that these employees have a choice, and they have chosen to work for Microsoft.
No... these people work for the headhunter. The headhunter has a contract with Microsoft. It is not the same thing as CHOOSING to go work for Microsoft. The headhunter doesn't say, "Hey, do you want to go work for Microsoft?" They tell you about the job, you sign the contract, then you start working at company X, which turns out to be Microsoft or whoever.
My father has gotten screwed over twice so far in these situations
I realise that last comment is controversial - it mentions Bill Gates! - but I said it to shock everyone into thinking for once, and stop being emotional and selfish
/. to get everyone thinking instead of being emotional.
Let me get this straight.
You mentioned Bill Gates in a sentence on
Great idea!
Apparantly you are not familiar with the notion of SARCASM. My original post was sarcastic. Who the hell would be gullible enough to think I, making a comment about a subjectively classified group of people ("nerds"), was being totally serious?
> but JAIL???
I've found that a pretty good way of not going to jail is not to commit crimes like theft or forgery. Works for me.
A better way is to require restitution to the victim, in the form of a lump-sum payoff, or garnishing of wages. This is the libertarian way of doing things. If the person cannot or will not work to pay off their debt to the victim, then they would go to jail.
Jail simply turns people into criminals, and should be a last resort, not a first. IMHO.
-thomas
I mean, a civil action would be merited, and perhaps some monetary penalty, but JAIL???
I agree, but I think you are simply arguing about a libertarian system vs. our current legal system.
Simply regulate the industry so that nobody's allowed to sell a domain name for more than, say $35.
.biz, .sex, .bank, etc. They can (and probably will) learn a lot from the usenet-style naming conventions before long. wellsfargo.bank is just as easy to remember as wellsfargo.com.
Goodbye capitalism, hello communism.
it sure seems like it would cut out the majority of the dirtbags involved in domain reselling.
There are much better ways to do that without requiring the U.S. government to get involved in price-fixing.
The first problem to solve is Network Solutions holding on to domain names after they are no longer being paid. This is simply a legal matter. They have no right to hold onto those domain names. Their job is to facilitate the sale of domain names to people and companies, and to run the root DNS servers. They should have no control over who gets to buy the domain names, I think that's clear.
Second problem -- cybersquatters. It's similar to real estate. Instead of predicting where the next major boom is going to be, and buying all that land, 'squatters try to predict the hot names on the internet. The difference is that it is cheaper to squat a domain name than a piece of real estate. So what happens in the real world when a land squatter has bought up all the available land in an area, and wants a price the market considers "too high"? Simple... either the price comes down so the market will buy, or the market GOES ELSEWHERE. In the case of domain names, this means the market puts pressure on other top-level domains, e.g.
And finally, technological innovations will eventually wipe out the cybersquatters just as it created them. If I still have to type "slashdot.org" in a stupid web browser in three years, I'll eat my hat.
"Hello Search Engine. View Slashdot."
WHAMMO.
So please, let's not get the government involved in yet another area of our lives.
-thomas
Those are nifty devices, but here is what every true music/technology geek wants in their car:
A smart music device, with an interface similar to the empeg, but which:
- Starts up instantly.
- Has a slot to play regular CD's or MP3 CD's. Offers to store the music on the inserted disc on the internal hard drive.
- Can be pulled out and connected to your computer with USB like the empeg, BUT more importantly, has a built-in 802.11 wireless connection! You pull into your driveway, and sync up your car with your computer or Intertainment Appliance[TM]. That's at least 10 times faster than USB, and much more convenient.
I've been thinking of this dream device for a while now. I even tried building it using spare parts and BeOS R5, but the main stopping point for me was getting it to connect to my car audio system. I wanted to use a small tower in my trunk, and hook that up to the CD changer cables. Then I'd write a custom program to turn the CD changer commands into navigation commands... it got too expensive and too complicated so I gave up.
Then I read empeg would eventually be adding 802.11 wireless support... WHEN WHEN WHEN!?
Yeah, all real nerds are Protestant, chaste, clean mouthed, white teetotalers that use Linux... puhleeze...
Uhhh, no I think most nerds are not religious at all, actually. But I've met plenty of nerds, and none of them ever drank.
I love it when someone posts something stupid, trying to be serious, and then the moderators mod it as "+5 Funny".
I mean, c'mon, now THAT's funny!!
If this were really news for nerds, you'd be talking about a nano beer mug.
Yeah, like real nerds drink alcohol... something that damages brain cells... puhleeze...
Second, the actual database itself is composed of submissions. Unless, I explicitly disclaim ownership of the submitted data, how can cddb claim to own it?
Hate to break it to you, but YOU don't own jack shit, the record companies do!
penalize people who are wasting all the electricity on decorations before shutting down industry. People can find other less-wasteful ways to be creative for the holidays.
Please start conserving enery by shutting off your own computer. Thank you. Have a nice day.
I hope Microsoft had to pay a lot for the right to not mention HP in all the publicity.
Yes, the Microsoft *the corporation* did not create the new mouse technology. The article you linked to says Gary "co-created" the technology, but it doesn't say who else helped.
Rarely are the engineers themselves given credit for the new technology that comes out. Apple claims to have created FireWire, but actually an engineer or group of engineers (probably at Apple) created the technology.
The original person I was responding to was trying to imply that the technology in the new Microsoft mice wasn't a breakthrough... i.e. that similar mice already existed.