Not to say this particular quote isn't a bit hypocritical, but earlier versions of Solaris/x86 were jokes. I used both the x86 and SPARC versions of Solaris 7 and 8, and the x86 version, well, it just stunk. True, hardware was much slower in those days, but it just never felt like Sun paid much attention to it. Kinda like NT/Alpha. Anyway, I have to agree with Linus on this one: last I heard (or rather, used), Solaris/x86 was a joke.
As a mitigating factor, Sun has a load of full time engineers who are paid to support strange hardware. Linux has a drove of self-motivated volunteers who code for their own hardware setups. I'm more willing to forgive Linux for not supporting "strange hardware item X" than Sun.
Back in the halcyon days when Sun was bar none the biggest UNIX enterprise player, Sun probably said the same thing about some little upstart OS cobbled together by that one guy from Finland that only ran on 386 machines and was described by it's creator as a "just a hobby". So really, I think this can probably be filed under "turnabout is fair play."
Alright, it's a good idea. But the problem is, that good idea is merely a response to a gaping wound, like growing a scab. ActiveX controls, and the tight integration of IE with Windows is the gaping wound in the security of most Windows systems. I'd rather they fixed the problem at a fundamental level, over putting a pretty bandage on a gangrenous gash and saying the patient won't lose his arm.
Firefox doesn't have that level of integration, so it really doesn't need Internet Zones. And it does have "trusted sites." You can tell Firefox which sites to allow to install software, run Javascript, pop up windows (there is one site that I currently allow to do so). I don't remember what the default was any more, but I suspect it was disallow everybody from doing anything.
Thank you for that. I almost had to write the exact same thing. My parents are using a 1996 PowerMac 7500 with a 266 MHz G3 upgrade card. The *only* reason they need a new Mac is that my mother is a teacher, and more and more software is coming out that is OS X native. And since the eMac is the "education" Mac (note to PC Mag editors: you're dumbasses), that's what she needs. She doesn't play games. My dad plays solitaire, and that's it (thank you, DeltaTao). No one in their right mind is playing World of Warcraft on an eMac.
For what my (and many) parents do online, it's compact, easy to use, and not prone to the serious usability issues you get on an unmaintained Windows box. Because, let's face it, most parents aren't maintaining their Windows box.
I'll agree with you there. I personally much prefer the blue sky over the windmill farm near Palm Springs to the sickly brown sky over a coal fire plant.
As to birds . . . they're *birds*. Keeping the sky cleaner for *most* of them has got to be better than eventually killing off *all* of them. Besides, the ones that instinctively avoid or adapt to the windmills are more likely to procreate: evolution in action. Just like we did with dogs, cattle, cats, goats, sheep, those fish with the funky eyes that always look upwards . . .
There's only one person who could out-do Wilder in the Wonka role. And they cast him. The rest of the movie, we'll see. But Depp as Wonka is just . . . perfection.
To be fair, the original Ocean's 11 isn't a pace on the contemporary version. The original was a showcase for the Rat Pack and little more. The contemporary version is very well done, expertly directed and filmed, with an engaging plot and a fantastic ensemble cast. Now, Ocean's 12, I don't know. It'd have to be Godfather Part II good to make it in my book.
I gave up moderating this article to reply to this . . .
And the Windows players?
All their armor is beige, except for three mercenary blacksmiths who forged it to look like Alien/Doom/Sailor Moon armor.
Their armor works against every convcievable weapon and can be worn even by the poorest of warriors but . . .
It has a tendency to turn blue at inopportune moments, such as when trying to hide, or fighting a dragon, or standing in the middle of a field doing nothing in particular and . . .
The really good warriors who wear it spend little time actually fighting, rather they end up endlessly repairing holes that the armor's designers knew about months ago but refused to fix until 40% of the wearers were dead.
I don't think you deserved a troll though. I thought it was funny, and I am a Mac die-hard (even through the Mac's own beige days).
Otherwise, there is no excuse for this kind of stuff during times when children are watching.
You have this backwards . . . it should have read, "there is no excuse for children watching this kind of stuff." And, as a parent, that is my responsibility. And yours. I have some channels blocked during certain times of the day. My home theater system is so needlessly complicated most *adults* can't figure out how to use it without my help. By the time my daugther is able to figure it out on her own, she'll be able to make her own decisions about what to watch.
But most of all, I know what she's watching, I watch it with her, and I will be answering her questions when she is old enough to ask them.
It's all about choice. And I have just about had it with other people trying to limit my choices, especially when those choices have no affect what so ever on anyone but me and my family. If you think there is too much X on TV, turn the TV off. Or is your conservative mind so brainwashed that you think you can't?
This is probably redundant, but 0.5% of 90% of the browser share so far outwieghs 0.11% of 5% of the browser share that advertisers, who ought to interested in the actual absolute numbers of people who click on the ads, probably don't give a crap whether or not Firefox users click on anything. I'm using Firefox now, and have done for a while. I know I am in the minority. It's nice. I click on ads once in a while. But I also block pop-ups.
Advertisers should concentrate on what they are doing that only gets 0.5% of the most used broswer out there to click on their ads. Make the ads better (from the point of view of the *consumer*) and more people will click, regardless of the browser.
Travel overseas as well? I don't think they'll much care, since they'll be able to avail themselves. It's just the poor and middle class that will get the screw. But that's pretty much how it is now, so . . .
Take two cars? One parent in each? Families larger than 6 probably have at least one kid old enough to handle a ride in such a system by themselves. Maybe a system to "link" two or more cars together to form a family chain or something? Or we could all just try to have fewer kids. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to find a family with more than two or three kids in the kind of urban areas where these would most likely see the most use. It's probably a non- or trivial issue.
There are people who like driving, it's true. There are also people who like horseback riding. At one time, horseback riding (and horse-drawn carriages) were the best way of getting around. People still own horses, and still ride them, but more for recreational purposes. I think the same thing would happen with non-autonomous driving: there would be recreational areas where people could drive their classic cars, race them, show them off, etc.
I like driving for fun (I have a classic Studebaker). I hate driving to work. If I could get in an autonoous vehicle that would take me to work in the mornings, automatically avoiding traffic jams and accidents (which would be fewer anyway since everybody else's car would be trying to avoid them as well, and the network of cars would be able to relay accident information faster than my local AM radio station), I would, and I wouldn't care that I wasn't driving myself. Then, on the weekends, I'd take my Dodge Magnum (now a classic, and converted to, dunno, say, Mr. Fusion, 25 years on) to the local "car rodeo" and show it, race it around the track, whatever.
I can't think of anyone who enjoys driving for necessity. Maybe truck drivers. Heck, I am a car enthusiast and I hate driving because I have to, to get to work or the store. So, let's let driving a car be relagated to the status of riding a horse: something done for recreation, a few people are employed to do it (jockeys), and the let our chaufmobiles do the rest.
See, now, you're assuming that they'll even bother to rewrite. They can just take the piggy bank, put him in the sink with Buzz and Woody, and re-color the Lion King cells, just like they did with Jungle Book and Robin Hood (look at the Baloo-Ape and Little John-Fat Hen dance scenes if you don't believe Disney would do something so atrocious). Viola, Toy Story 3, straight to video.
Since almost all of the other sequels to successful franchises that Disney has made in the past are uniformly horrible with little additional character development and plots left over from the original, I sincerely doubt this will be any good.
As Skinner would say, though, "Prove me wrong, kids! Prove me wrong."
They can't. These guys are the very definition of a vampire, sucking the life out of those who can produce because they themselves cannot. As such, they cast no reflection in a mirror. Problem solved.
How about a property tax? That way, everyone who lives in the area pays for the law enforcement of that area. Businesses included. Renters would pay it as a portion of their rent. A federal property tax could be levied for the military and other government programs. People with more property (acreage, ludicrously over-sized homes, etc.) pay more, less property, less. Probably some adjustment for population density would also be required to keep the relative numbers of police to citizens reasonable in larger cities. People with property in several states pay some in each state as well. Loopholes for non-profits maybe (though they are still getting the benefits of military and law enforcement, so maybe a reduction rather than an exemption).
They've already started exploiting Toy Story with the Buzz Lightyear cartoons (mildly funny). So, Pixar has already seen it happen. And knows it will happen whether there is an agreement or not. Pixar seems pretty willing to leave the past in the past and move on to bigger and better things. Disney will be the loser here. Chicken Little? Home on the Range? Atlantis? Brother Bear? Disney needs an original hit, and bad. Pixar makes the hits happen.
Slashdot Mirror
As a mitigating factor, Sun has a load of full time engineers who are paid to support strange hardware. Linux has a drove of self-motivated volunteers who code for their own hardware setups. I'm more willing to forgive Linux for not supporting "strange hardware item X" than Sun.
Back in the halcyon days when Sun was bar none the biggest UNIX enterprise player, Sun probably said the same thing about some little upstart OS cobbled together by that one guy from Finland that only ran on 386 machines and was described by it's creator as a "just a hobby". So really, I think this can probably be filed under "turnabout is fair play."
Firefox doesn't have that level of integration, so it really doesn't need Internet Zones. And it does have "trusted sites." You can tell Firefox which sites to allow to install software, run Javascript, pop up windows (there is one site that I currently allow to do so). I don't remember what the default was any more, but I suspect it was disallow everybody from doing anything.
Have you considered that the iPod wheel is not the wheel you should be fiddling with in the car (I presume you're driving)?
For what my (and many) parents do online, it's compact, easy to use, and not prone to the serious usability issues you get on an unmaintained Windows box. Because, let's face it, most parents aren't maintaining their Windows box.
Go ahead, you know you want to, too.
As to birds . . . they're *birds*. Keeping the sky cleaner for *most* of them has got to be better than eventually killing off *all* of them. Besides, the ones that instinctively avoid or adapt to the windmills are more likely to procreate: evolution in action. Just like we did with dogs, cattle, cats, goats, sheep, those fish with the funky eyes that always look upwards . . .
There's only one person who could out-do Wilder in the Wonka role. And they cast him. The rest of the movie, we'll see. But Depp as Wonka is just . . . perfection.
To be fair, the original Ocean's 11 isn't a pace on the contemporary version. The original was a showcase for the Rat Pack and little more. The contemporary version is very well done, expertly directed and filmed, with an engaging plot and a fantastic ensemble cast. Now, Ocean's 12, I don't know. It'd have to be Godfather Part II good to make it in my book.
I think both Texans and non-Texans would be happy if Texas was it's own country.
And the Windows players?
- All their armor is beige, except for three mercenary blacksmiths who forged it to look like Alien/Doom/Sailor Moon armor.
- Their armor works against every convcievable weapon and can be worn even by the poorest of warriors but . . .
- It has a tendency to turn blue at inopportune moments, such as when trying to hide, or fighting a dragon, or standing in the middle of a field doing nothing in particular and . . .
- The really good warriors who wear it spend little time actually fighting, rather they end up endlessly repairing holes that the armor's designers knew about months ago but refused to fix until 40% of the wearers were dead.
I don't think you deserved a troll though. I thought it was funny, and I am a Mac die-hard (even through the Mac's own beige days).You have this backwards . . . it should have read, "there is no excuse for children watching this kind of stuff." And, as a parent, that is my responsibility. And yours. I have some channels blocked during certain times of the day. My home theater system is so needlessly complicated most *adults* can't figure out how to use it without my help. By the time my daugther is able to figure it out on her own, she'll be able to make her own decisions about what to watch.
But most of all, I know what she's watching, I watch it with her, and I will be answering her questions when she is old enough to ask them.
It's all about choice. And I have just about had it with other people trying to limit my choices, especially when those choices have no affect what so ever on anyone but me and my family. If you think there is too much X on TV, turn the TV off. Or is your conservative mind so brainwashed that you think you can't?
Advertisers should concentrate on what they are doing that only gets 0.5% of the most used broswer out there to click on their ads. Make the ads better (from the point of view of the *consumer*) and more people will click, regardless of the browser.
Formatted vs. unformatted? It's like an old floppy!
Two kinds of people ignore the law: those that break it, and those that make it.
"If you've ever handled a penny, the government's got your DNA. Why do you think they keep 'em in circulation?"
Travel overseas as well? I don't think they'll much care, since they'll be able to avail themselves. It's just the poor and middle class that will get the screw. But that's pretty much how it is now, so . . .
Never, ever, ever use the words "Gateway" and "Mac" in such close proximity.
Take two cars? One parent in each? Families larger than 6 probably have at least one kid old enough to handle a ride in such a system by themselves. Maybe a system to "link" two or more cars together to form a family chain or something? Or we could all just try to have fewer kids. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to find a family with more than two or three kids in the kind of urban areas where these would most likely see the most use. It's probably a non- or trivial issue.
I like driving for fun (I have a classic Studebaker). I hate driving to work. If I could get in an autonoous vehicle that would take me to work in the mornings, automatically avoiding traffic jams and accidents (which would be fewer anyway since everybody else's car would be trying to avoid them as well, and the network of cars would be able to relay accident information faster than my local AM radio station), I would, and I wouldn't care that I wasn't driving myself. Then, on the weekends, I'd take my Dodge Magnum (now a classic, and converted to, dunno, say, Mr. Fusion, 25 years on) to the local "car rodeo" and show it, race it around the track, whatever.
I can't think of anyone who enjoys driving for necessity. Maybe truck drivers. Heck, I am a car enthusiast and I hate driving because I have to, to get to work or the store. So, let's let driving a car be relagated to the status of riding a horse: something done for recreation, a few people are employed to do it (jockeys), and the let our chaufmobiles do the rest.
See, now, you're assuming that they'll even bother to rewrite. They can just take the piggy bank, put him in the sink with Buzz and Woody, and re-color the Lion King cells, just like they did with Jungle Book and Robin Hood (look at the Baloo-Ape and Little John-Fat Hen dance scenes if you don't believe Disney would do something so atrocious). Viola, Toy Story 3, straight to video.
As Skinner would say, though, "Prove me wrong, kids! Prove me wrong."
They can't. These guys are the very definition of a vampire, sucking the life out of those who can produce because they themselves cannot. As such, they cast no reflection in a mirror. Problem solved.
How about a property tax? That way, everyone who lives in the area pays for the law enforcement of that area. Businesses included. Renters would pay it as a portion of their rent. A federal property tax could be levied for the military and other government programs. People with more property (acreage, ludicrously over-sized homes, etc.) pay more, less property, less. Probably some adjustment for population density would also be required to keep the relative numbers of police to citizens reasonable in larger cities. People with property in several states pay some in each state as well. Loopholes for non-profits maybe (though they are still getting the benefits of military and law enforcement, so maybe a reduction rather than an exemption).
They've already started exploiting Toy Story with the Buzz Lightyear cartoons (mildly funny). So, Pixar has already seen it happen. And knows it will happen whether there is an agreement or not. Pixar seems pretty willing to leave the past in the past and move on to bigger and better things. Disney will be the loser here. Chicken Little? Home on the Range? Atlantis? Brother Bear? Disney needs an original hit, and bad. Pixar makes the hits happen.