Except you are wrong. Keeping people alive doesn't subvert evolution, it enhances. Having MORE genes means a larger pool to choose from.
In other words, the more keys you have on you, the more likely it is you will be able to unlock any random door you meet. Would you rather there be less genetic variety?
Evolution is in no way circumvented if people still mate selective, have children selectively, and die.
In fact what is occurring is that we are enriching the genepool through delayed optimisation. Instead of culling early we cull later, thereby allowing for more diverse genesets to be available.
Some evolutionary forces still in effect: Diabetes; those who evolve compensating factors will better be able to handle the high energy diets we now make common. That extra energy will then be available for growth/development without actually hurting the person. Vitamin-D production is going to be selected for as we increasingly live indoors (or we adapt and we all have UVB lamps in our houses).
Heck, fertility and health is being adapted for as people have kids older and fewer, so we better be much healthier in order to raise these kids.
Well, if you want to be pedantic, it shows MINIMIZED windows in a different Dock compartment. Otherwise it only shows you the running apps.
True, but that doesn't change my point.
Your point being? That the Dock is the same as the Taskbar?
On the flip side, Windows will show an entry per window where Mac will normally group them into a single Dock entry (exceptions for minimized windows as noted in above)
Windows XP introduced a feature called "Group similar taskbar buttons". I personally hate it.
That's because it's a stupid feature made necessary when your taskbar becomes too crowded.
I do quite often (in both), populating the QuickLaunch/Dock with my 80% used apps.
I'd much rather have the apps I use on a daily basis be on my desktop, but I suppose that's a matter of personal preference.
And functionality. I never see my desktop because I have several applications open.
I want to be able to see the buttons for the windows I have open, and the Quick Launch (and System Tray for that matter) compete for that space.
Which is why the Dock works so well; there is minimum competing buttons and the default is that each icon automatically groups windows (not that you like it)
It is also a feature they disabled by default in the current OS X revision.
This just makes me laugh. Even the people who created it finally decided it was annoying.
I liked it... When I have a huge desktop with a huge resolution, it really does help tell me where the mouse is.
No, you are using a different definition of scale. The Mac Dock allows you to change the SIZE of the icons where the Windows taskbar does not. If I drag the Windows taskbar in the same manner I get two, three, four, etc rows for items, but the actual height/size of each entry does not increase.
If your screen is so large that you need bigger taskbar buttons, why not increase the "Active Title Bar" font size (display properties, appearance, advanced) and the icons will scale automatically?
Because then all my titlebars become uselessly huge; my explorer windows, my multiple XL windows, my firefox windows, etc. And then the taskbar/system tray becomes too crowded because the launch/notification icons duplicate the taskbar.
Which goes back to MY point. The Dock unifies most of that, reduces redundancy, maintains usability, and doesn't make titlebars huge and useless.
Are you including the system tray in this discussion too? Because the system tray is only available for specialized items that specifically insert an item into the system tray. Regardless, those balloons do not offer a consistent way of displaying progress, counts, badges, or attention.
...because, as a general rule, people didn't think that minimized applications should be bothering them with such things.
But it isn't minimized applications (in the Mac world) that is being updated. It's running applications that may not be in the foreground, which means if there is an update you wouldn't know except for the Dock update.
If it's absolutely necessary the app can always just pop itself back up – or even just pop up a smaller dialog with the relevant information – and plenty of people would hate it for that even.
Which is why the OS X Dock is such an improvement. There is no service interruption the way a popup generates. If you have new email, the Mail app updates it's own count. If your encoding process is complete, the progressbar is updated appropriately. If you have a new IM, the indicator is lit up in the DOck.
Hmm, actually, on second thought I'm just going to respond to everything you said...
The Dock is a combined quicklaunch+task bar (Windows separates the two; Apple uses little indicators to tell if an app is running)
It doesn't combine the quick launch and task bar. The dock shows running apps by an accented icon and it shows open windows in a different dock compartment.
Well, if you want to be pedantic, it shows MINIMIZED windows in a different Dock compartment. Otherwise it only shows you the running apps.
The task bar shows open windows, and most Windows apps don't continue running after you close them so the accented icon feature isn't necessary in Windows. (Invisible processes can be seen using the Task Manager.)
On the flip side, Windows will show an entry per window where Mac will normally group them into a single Dock entry (exceptions for minimized windows as noted in above)
The Dock is a storage container (files, folders, etc), which the Windows quicklaunch area is like
Yes, and you can create custom toolbars too. Not that you'd want to. I don't even use the quick launch.
I do quite often (in both), populating the QuickLaunch/Dock with my 80% used apps.
The Dock magnifies as you scrub (Windows doesn't)
Thank god.
It is also a feature they disabled by default in the current OS X revision.
The Dock scales in height (Windows does not)
Unless it is locked, the Windows taskbar most certainly does scale.
No, you are using a different definition of scale. The Mac Dock allows you to change the SIZE of the icons where the Windows taskbar does not. If I drag the Windows taskbar in the same manner I get two, three, four, etc rows for items, but the actual height/size of each entry does not increase.
The Dock offers notifications (Windows only flashes, Mac has progress bars, badges, and counts)
All the people who hate Windows' notification balloons would like to speak with you.
Are you including the system tray in this discussion too? Because the system tray is only available for specialized items that specifically insert an item into the system tray. Regardless, those balloons do not offer a consistent way of displaying progress, counts, badges, or attention.
Considering that the Mac's Dock is a direct ancestor of NeXT's dock... from 1986... yeah, that history is pretty strong.
As for patentability: The Dock is a combined quicklaunch+task bar (Windows separates the two; Apple uses little indicators to tell if an app is running) The Dock is a storage container (files, folders, etc), which the Windows quicklaunch area is like The Dock magnifies as you scrub (Windows doesn't) The Dock gives live previews (Windows requires you to scrub over them in Vista) The Dock scales in height (Windows does not) The Dock offers notifications (Windows only flashes, Mac has progress bars, badges, and counts)
So there is plenty of stuff Windows has not yet copied, and if Apple patents them, MS would have to license or find another implementation.
Makes sense to me. Maybe you're just not smart enough? Sometimes I have a hard time with quantum mechanics or statistics, but a good night's sleep, some solid study, and a couple of good lectures make a big difference.
What does that have to do with Apple shutting down the music store then?
Absolutely nothing changes (this problem exists even with the music store running full tilt) and the point was that Apple exiting the US music market does nothing to the DRM.
This has nothing to do with Apple closing the Apple music store however. Their DRM servers will still be up and running (for movies, TV shows, games, etc) so this issue is simply FUD.
Nothing has changed. My point is completely opposite: We've had smartphones for years, but they were irrelevant until they were targeting consumers. The application developers under NDA we are talking about? Consumer applications, not enterprise applications (though enterprise applications and developers are sure to be attracted too).
And Handango... I wasn't familiar with it so I wasn't aware it also sold for Nokia and RIM. Thanks for the clarification.
Now you understand. The only real competitors for the iPhone are Blackberry and Nokia, not Palm or WinMo. And it looks like Android will remove Palm and WinMo from the map entirely:)
If we want to be specific/pedantic, we're talking about consumer oriented smartphones, and for the majority no Palm or Windows device qualified.
Nokia had a few, but they were expensive or largely unavailable (N95) until the iPhone was also available (in the US). If we are therefore talking about consumer smartphones and software, then NO, Palm, Nokia, and Microsoft have not been shipping software nor smartphones since the 90s. Consumer smartphones are a recent (in the last two or three years) thing.
1) Write app for iPhone 2) Release source; mention availability of source in app 3) Host source outside iPhone
Just because the end user needs a $99 dev key to upload the app to their phone doesn't make the app non Open Source. Does the requirement that you own a several hundred dollar computer make RockBox any less open source? In this case the cost of the devkey can be considered the cost of the PC.
What is going to happen in the future as more devices use open source but cannot themselves download, compile, or modify the source? Will it be not considered open source if you are forced to purchase a PC in order to modify and compile the source?
If what you imply is true, that MS, Palm, and Nokia are "competitors" to Apple, why are developers even bothering with the iPhone?
Let me answer: The iPhone is more lucrative, is growing faster, and is more attractive to the consumer.
If a developer could "simply" switch from the iPhone to a WinMo, Palm, or Symbian phone, then the iPhone wouldn't even need to exist in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Not if it means people are throwing away dead batteries...
What? Why is an iPhone any less synched than an iPod? You lose nothing in either case.
They aren't defects if they aren't killing people. They are merely mutations.
Like sickle cell. Which does kill people sometimes. But also confers an advantage against malaria.
Accumulate enough mutations and eventually we find a beneficial one. So these accumulations enrich our genetic pool, not detract from it.
Except you are wrong. Keeping people alive doesn't subvert evolution, it enhances.
Having MORE genes means a larger pool to choose from.
In other words, the more keys you have on you, the more likely it is you will be able to unlock any random door you meet. Would you rather there be less genetic variety?
They can't be that intelligent if they can't get a mate. That is a skill and endeavor like anything else.
Evolution is in no way circumvented if people still mate selective, have children selectively, and die.
In fact what is occurring is that we are enriching the genepool through delayed optimisation. Instead of culling early we cull later, thereby allowing for more diverse genesets to be available.
Some evolutionary forces still in effect: Diabetes; those who evolve compensating factors will better be able to handle the high energy diets we now make common. That extra energy will then be available for growth/development without actually hurting the person. Vitamin-D production is going to be selected for as we increasingly live indoors (or we adapt and we all have UVB lamps in our houses).
Heck, fertility and health is being adapted for as people have kids older and fewer, so we better be much healthier in order to raise these kids.
Well, if you want to be pedantic, it shows MINIMIZED windows in a different Dock compartment. Otherwise it only shows you the running apps.
True, but that doesn't change my point.
Your point being? That the Dock is the same as the Taskbar?
On the flip side, Windows will show an entry per window where Mac will normally group them into a single Dock entry (exceptions for minimized windows as noted in above)
Windows XP introduced a feature called "Group similar taskbar buttons". I personally hate it.
That's because it's a stupid feature made necessary when your taskbar becomes too crowded.
I do quite often (in both), populating the QuickLaunch/Dock with my 80% used apps.
I'd much rather have the apps I use on a daily basis be on my desktop, but I suppose that's a matter of personal preference.
And functionality. I never see my desktop because I have several applications open.
I want to be able to see the buttons for the windows I have open, and the Quick Launch (and System Tray for that matter) compete for that space.
Which is why the Dock works so well; there is minimum competing buttons and the default is that each icon automatically groups windows (not that you like it)
It is also a feature they disabled by default in the current OS X revision.
This just makes me laugh. Even the people who created it finally decided it was annoying.
I liked it... When I have a huge desktop with a huge resolution, it really does help tell me where the mouse is.
No, you are using a different definition of scale. The Mac Dock allows you to change the SIZE of the icons where the Windows taskbar does not. If I drag the Windows taskbar in the same manner I get two, three, four, etc rows for items, but the actual height/size of each entry does not increase.
If your screen is so large that you need bigger taskbar buttons, why not increase the "Active Title Bar" font size (display properties, appearance, advanced) and the icons will scale automatically?
Because then all my titlebars become uselessly huge; my explorer windows, my multiple XL windows, my firefox windows, etc. And then the taskbar/system tray becomes too crowded because the launch/notification icons duplicate the taskbar.
Which goes back to MY point. The Dock unifies most of that, reduces redundancy, maintains usability, and doesn't make titlebars huge and useless.
Are you including the system tray in this discussion too? Because the system tray is only available for specialized items that specifically insert an item into the system tray. Regardless, those balloons do not offer a consistent way of displaying progress, counts, badges, or attention.
...because, as a general rule, people didn't think that minimized applications should be bothering them with such things.
But it isn't minimized applications (in the Mac world) that is being updated. It's running applications that may not be in the foreground, which means if there is an update you wouldn't know except for the Dock update.
If it's absolutely necessary the app can always just pop itself back up – or even just pop up a smaller dialog with the relevant information – and plenty of people would hate it for that even.
Which is why the OS X Dock is such an improvement. There is no service interruption the way a popup generates. If you have new email, the Mail app updates it's own count. If your encoding process is complete, the progressbar is updated appropriately. If you have a new IM, the indicator is lit up in the DOck.
Hmm, actually, on second thought I'm just going to respond to everything you said...
The Dock is a combined quicklaunch+task bar (Windows separates the two; Apple uses little indicators to tell if an app is running)
It doesn't combine the quick launch and task bar. The dock shows running apps by an accented icon and it shows open windows in a different dock compartment.
Well, if you want to be pedantic, it shows MINIMIZED windows in a different Dock compartment. Otherwise it only shows you the running apps.
The task bar shows open windows, and most Windows apps don't continue running after you close them so the accented icon feature isn't necessary in Windows. (Invisible processes can be seen using the Task Manager.)
On the flip side, Windows will show an entry per window where Mac will normally group them into a single Dock entry (exceptions for minimized windows as noted in above)
The Dock is a storage container (files, folders, etc), which the Windows quicklaunch area is like
Yes, and you can create custom toolbars too. Not that you'd want to. I don't even use the quick launch.
I do quite often (in both), populating the QuickLaunch/Dock with my 80% used apps.
The Dock magnifies as you scrub (Windows doesn't)
Thank god.
It is also a feature they disabled by default in the current OS X revision.
The Dock scales in height (Windows does not)
Unless it is locked, the Windows taskbar most certainly does scale.
No, you are using a different definition of scale. The Mac Dock allows you to change the SIZE of the icons where the Windows taskbar does not. If I drag the Windows taskbar in the same manner I get two, three, four, etc rows for items, but the actual height/size of each entry does not increase.
The Dock offers notifications (Windows only flashes, Mac has progress bars, badges, and counts)
All the people who hate Windows' notification balloons would like to speak with you.
Are you including the system tray in this discussion too? Because the system tray is only available for specialized items that specifically insert an item into the system tray. Regardless, those balloons do not offer a consistent way of displaying progress, counts, badges, or attention.
Well, it gives lives previews of QuickTime movies... so the ability is there; it probably depends on the application to actually update the dock icon.
Considering that the Mac's Dock is a direct ancestor of NeXT's dock... from 1986... yeah, that history is pretty strong.
As for patentability:
The Dock is a combined quicklaunch+task bar (Windows separates the two; Apple uses little indicators to tell if an app is running)
The Dock is a storage container (files, folders, etc), which the Windows quicklaunch area is like
The Dock magnifies as you scrub (Windows doesn't)
The Dock gives live previews (Windows requires you to scrub over them in Vista)
The Dock scales in height (Windows does not)
The Dock offers notifications (Windows only flashes, Mac has progress bars, badges, and counts)
So there is plenty of stuff Windows has not yet copied, and if Apple patents them, MS would have to license or find another implementation.
In my Dock there are little indicators that tell you if an app is running or not. Maybe you need glasses?
Probably NeXT's Dock, in 1986... which by great coincidence was founded by Steve Jobs. So yeah, he has some claim here.
Makes sense to me. Maybe you're just not smart enough? Sometimes I have a hard time with quantum mechanics or statistics, but a good night's sleep, some solid study, and a couple of good lectures make a big difference.
And every single system will continue to authorize correctly until Apple also shuts down their DRM servers.
What does that have to do with Apple shutting down the music store then?
Absolutely nothing changes (this problem exists even with the music store running full tilt) and the point was that Apple exiting the US music market does nothing to the DRM.
This has nothing to do with Apple closing the Apple music store however. Their DRM servers will still be up and running (for movies, TV shows, games, etc) so this issue is simply FUD.
That 8% includes iPod accessories, movies, TV shows, games, and iPhone applications. As well as international music stores.
The US iTunes music store is probably much closer to 3% of the revenue... and on principle I think Apple would cut it loose.
Um... because you're fearmongering?
Try this: Buy an iTMS DRM track. Play it to verify it works. Disconnect the computer from the internet. Continue to verify that it works.
See that? No DRM server.
Nothing has changed. My point is completely opposite: We've had smartphones for years, but they were irrelevant until they were targeting consumers. The application developers under NDA we are talking about? Consumer applications, not enterprise applications (though enterprise applications and developers are sure to be attracted too).
And Handango... I wasn't familiar with it so I wasn't aware it also sold for Nokia and RIM. Thanks for the clarification.
Now you understand. The only real competitors for the iPhone are Blackberry and Nokia, not Palm or WinMo. And it looks like Android will remove Palm and WinMo from the map entirely :)
You're telling me that in 2006 and 2007 that the same people who would buy an iPod went out and bought WinMo and Treos?
http://www.phonemag.com/smartphone-sales-up-60-in-2007-iphone-captures-growing-market-share-02860.php
In 2007 when the iPhone was only available for half a year and only in the US, it was the number 2 handset!
If we want to be specific/pedantic, we're talking about consumer oriented smartphones, and for the majority no Palm or Windows device qualified.
Nokia had a few, but they were expensive or largely unavailable (N95) until the iPhone was also available (in the US). If we are therefore talking about consumer smartphones and software, then NO, Palm, Nokia, and Microsoft have not been shipping software nor smartphones since the 90s. Consumer smartphones are a recent (in the last two or three years) thing.
Why can't you?
1) Write app for iPhone
2) Release source; mention availability of source in app
3) Host source outside iPhone
Just because the end user needs a $99 dev key to upload the app to their phone doesn't make the app non Open Source. Does the requirement that you own a several hundred dollar computer make RockBox any less open source? In this case the cost of the devkey can be considered the cost of the PC.
What is going to happen in the future as more devices use open source but cannot themselves download, compile, or modify the source? Will it be not considered open source if you are forced to purchase a PC in order to modify and compile the source?
If what you imply is true, that MS, Palm, and Nokia are "competitors" to Apple, why are developers even bothering with the iPhone?
Let me answer: The iPhone is more lucrative, is growing faster, and is more attractive to the consumer.
If a developer could "simply" switch from the iPhone to a WinMo, Palm, or Symbian phone, then the iPhone wouldn't even need to exist in the first place.
They were probably waiting for Android to be released.