1. Not so obvious for the likes of Creative. Hook up a pair of decent (Sennheiser HD580) headphones to an iPod and they sound good. Do the same with a Creative unit, and it will sound like shit.
2. Well, guess what, I am subjective when it comes to things I'm buying for myself. So are a lot of other people. That's why iPod sells so well.
3. Same as #2, and it's quite relevant.
There's no player on the market that is more comfortable, easier to use (including software integration) and has better sound quality than iPod. Other manufacturers seem to have no clue whatsoever. And no, as I said I don't own an iPod, yet.
1. My player should have good audio quality 2. My player should be easy to use. No, scratch that, it should be _a pleasure_ to use. 3. My player should not look like an ass, should not weigh a ton, should exude quality. After all, I'm paying mad coin for it.
Myself, I don't give a rat's ass about FM. There's nothing but commercials on there anyway. I don't give a rat's ass about online stores either, because that's not where I buy music. Three things specified above are pretty much all I care about. And yeah, I'm gonna buy me an iPod when Apple releases the new generation with imporved battery life (another important thing).
Are they requiring publishers to submit PDF files for new entries yet? Or files in another open format? Man, I'd hate to see taxpayer's money wasted on doing work that they could avoid doing by simply mandating PDF submissions from publishers.
I can see that some publishers may just say, "oh, my book isn't gonna be in libraries if I don't submit PDF, so much the better, I'll sell more copies". I hope these fellas realize how badly they're shooting themselves in the foot.
On Windows, Office and MS SQL licensing and support fees. Now for someone from the outside, who Novell will charge through the nose by the hour for support, I bet "savings" will be a lot less substantial.
It requires some obscure *.so file which isn't even available in Fedora distribution. The only way to install mono on FC3 system is to get this library (libraries, actually) from an untrusted source (rpmfind).
I haven't skipped it. I _want_ the UI to remain in English. However, I also want to be able to type in my native language. In FC3 I can do this in three mouse clicks by adding another keyboard layout. In Ubuntu I need half a day of RTFM to do the same thing and then it's not guaranteed to work everywhere.
So I downloaded this newfangled Ubuntu distro, fired up VMWare and started installing. Installed everything, launched Gnome and internationalization is nowhere to be found! Not just that, there's no keyboard layout chooser either. If you speak French or German or Russian, you're required to RTFM intensively.
I'd like to remind you, folks, that it's year 2005 we're talking about here. Every god damn Windows app can accept unicode, and Windows itself can accept any language in five mouse clicks. I do realize Windows is $300, however, Fedora Core and SuSE offer these capabilities out of the box.
For me that's what differentiates the work of professionals from work of amateurs. Sorry, Ubuntu folks, you gotta have full support of languages other than English these days. Majority of the earth's population doesn't speak, read or write the language of your distro.
However, my policy is, if it won't install clear out of yum repository on Fedora Core 3 it's not ready for my use. I'm sorry, I work on my computer. I have better things to do than chasing down dependencies and installing RPMs from untrusted sources. In year 2005 I simply refuse to spend my time on this kind of shit.
So, Miguel, how about putting together a god damn yum repository that contains all required dependencies so that the users of one of the most popular distros would be able to at least try your software, if not "get" it? I remember back in Ximian days the only thing you needed to install Gnome was ssh connection.
That's why they pay you a lot more in salary than they would if you were an employee in the same position. Contractors get salaries, employees get "packages" consisting of salary (which is usually a lot less than for contractors) and benefits (for which contractors are not eligible). So, are you ready for pay cuts?
There isn't that much music out there that's even marginally interesting. I truly enjoy just a couple dozen albums out of tens of thousands they stock (both iTunes and any other music service). Why would I pay $180 a year (that's what $15 a month boils down to) to have access to them? Every year my favorite bands release maybe six CDs that are worth buying, total. That's roughly $60-70 in second hand CDs, complete with hard copy of non-DRM uncompressed audio and booklet. Three times LESS tha their "cheap" service.
I subscribed for Real Rhapsody for their trial period. There were a few CDs that I wanted to listen to before I bought them. At the end of this two week period I've cancelled my subscription.
That's what these services are for me - glorified "CD preview" shops. I think I'll subscribe for a month of their services later this year, because I've accumulated a list of CDs that I need to see if they're worth buying.
Yahoo service will not be all that successful and Yahoo management will drive it into the ground. A year later MSN will release something similar, but it will be a half baked unimaginative piece of shit that's 10 times worse than Yahoo Flickr (or whatever its remnants are called). Then Google releases their own picture gallery service and eats their breakfast, lunch and dinner with their first public beta.
I wonder how this bitkeeper thing compares to the state of the art, Perforce. Perforce charges $700 per seat, and after working with it for years, I can say it's worth it. Everything is just the way it should be. I wish someone would reimplement the damn thing under GPL license. After using Perforce at work, all other systems look like a joke.
They should release five hundred million copies of the browser supporting the shitty CSS2, and then when CSS2.1 or 3 comes out they should somehow persuade their Joe Sixpack customers to upgrade? I'd rather see them skip CSS2 altogether and go for a more mature standard. Remember, in best case scenario IE7 will come out towards the end of this year.
Having said all of the above, I'd rather see them implement CSS2 correctly than nothing at all in IE7.
You have to put in INCREDIBLE amount of effort to do make even the simplest things work. Ever tried centering a block object on the page _without_ using tables? I use CSS2 in my work, and it's suitable for simple things like borders, colors, fonts, etc. Unfortunately, for a lot of design tasks it's more pain than it's worth, even if you code for just Firefox.
Yup, if you used Intel Extreme graphics adapter you wouldn't be questioning this. You can literally see the UI redraws with it. Plus they could have used a WUXGA display which would make Intel graphics even slower.
Let's take a look at the specs of test systems side by side, shall we?
Intel system has this shitty "Extreme" integrated graphics with no dedicated RAM. If you've ever used a system with Intel Extreme integrated graphics, you know it's dog slow. Putting it into a laptop with slowish system bus doesn't make it any better.
Now let's look at AMD system. It has integrated GPU (!) from one of the leaders in computer graphics hardware with _32M_ of _dedicated_ Video RAM. I wonder if I've emphasized this clearly enough to get through your thick skull.
You don't have to be a genius to say that AMD system has an advantage when it comes to 3D graphics.
Wouldn't it be cool if instead of cooking the benchmarks AMD put the processors head to head and made them use the same Radeon Mobility 9600 card with 128M RAM? Why didn't they do this? Were they afraid of something?
I mean, come on, we all know that they make the best desktop processors at this point. Their mobile chips, however, leave much to be desired, and with the release of this Turion chip status quo remains the same.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Not so obvious for the likes of Creative. Hook up a pair of decent (Sennheiser HD580) headphones to an iPod and they sound good. Do the same with a Creative unit, and it will sound like shit.
2. Well, guess what, I am subjective when it comes to things I'm buying for myself. So are a lot of other people. That's why iPod sells so well.
3. Same as #2, and it's quite relevant.
There's no player on the market that is more comfortable, easier to use (including software integration) and has better sound quality than iPod. Other manufacturers seem to have no clue whatsoever. And no, as I said I don't own an iPod, yet.
Writing viruses is illegal. You'll be in jail 15 minutes after you claim your $25K.
1. My player should have good audio quality
2. My player should be easy to use. No, scratch that, it should be _a pleasure_ to use.
3. My player should not look like an ass, should not weigh a ton, should exude quality. After all, I'm paying mad coin for it.
Myself, I don't give a rat's ass about FM. There's nothing but commercials on there anyway. I don't give a rat's ass about online stores either, because that's not where I buy music. Three things specified above are pretty much all I care about. And yeah, I'm gonna buy me an iPod when Apple releases the new generation with imporved battery life (another important thing).
It's an open format. Adobe does not control it, just like they don't control TIFF or PostScript (despite having invented both).
Are they requiring publishers to submit PDF files for new entries yet? Or files in another open format? Man, I'd hate to see taxpayer's money wasted on doing work that they could avoid doing by simply mandating PDF submissions from publishers.
I can see that some publishers may just say, "oh, my book isn't gonna be in libraries if I don't submit PDF, so much the better, I'll sell more copies". I hope these fellas realize how badly they're shooting themselves in the foot.
Where's SELinux? I'm not gonna expose a server on the web without SELinux running on it.
On Windows, Office and MS SQL licensing and support fees. Now for someone from the outside, who Novell will charge through the nose by the hour for support, I bet "savings" will be a lot less substantial.
That's exactly why I'm complaining.
It requires some obscure *.so file which isn't even available in Fedora distribution. The only way to install mono on FC3 system is to get this library (libraries, actually) from an untrusted source (rpmfind).
Just google for mono fedora core 3.
I haven't skipped it. I _want_ the UI to remain in English. However, I also want to be able to type in my native language. In FC3 I can do this in three mouse clicks by adding another keyboard layout. In Ubuntu I need half a day of RTFM to do the same thing and then it's not guaranteed to work everywhere.
So I downloaded this newfangled Ubuntu distro, fired up VMWare and started installing. Installed everything, launched Gnome and internationalization is nowhere to be found! Not just that, there's no keyboard layout chooser either. If you speak French or German or Russian, you're required to RTFM intensively.
I'd like to remind you, folks, that it's year 2005 we're talking about here. Every god damn Windows app can accept unicode, and Windows itself can accept any language in five mouse clicks. I do realize Windows is $300, however, Fedora Core and SuSE offer these capabilities out of the box.
For me that's what differentiates the work of professionals from work of amateurs. Sorry, Ubuntu folks, you gotta have full support of languages other than English these days. Majority of the earth's population doesn't speak, read or write the language of your distro.
However, my policy is, if it won't install clear out of yum repository on Fedora Core 3 it's not ready for my use. I'm sorry, I work on my computer. I have better things to do than chasing down dependencies and installing RPMs from untrusted sources. In year 2005 I simply refuse to spend my time on this kind of shit.
So, Miguel, how about putting together a god damn yum repository that contains all required dependencies so that the users of one of the most popular distros would be able to at least try your software, if not "get" it? I remember back in Ximian days the only thing you needed to install Gnome was ssh connection.
That's why they pay you a lot more in salary than they would if you were an employee in the same position. Contractors get salaries, employees get "packages" consisting of salary (which is usually a lot less than for contractors) and benefits (for which contractors are not eligible). So, are you ready for pay cuts?
There isn't that much music out there that's even marginally interesting. I truly enjoy just a couple dozen albums out of tens of thousands they stock (both iTunes and any other music service). Why would I pay $180 a year (that's what $15 a month boils down to) to have access to them? Every year my favorite bands release maybe six CDs that are worth buying, total. That's roughly $60-70 in second hand CDs, complete with hard copy of non-DRM uncompressed audio and booklet. Three times LESS tha their "cheap" service.
I subscribed for Real Rhapsody for their trial period. There were a few CDs that I wanted to listen to before I bought them. At the end of this two week period I've cancelled my subscription.
That's what these services are for me - glorified "CD preview" shops. I think I'll subscribe for a month of their services later this year, because I've accumulated a list of CDs that I need to see if they're worth buying.
Yahoo service will not be all that successful and Yahoo management will drive it into the ground. A year later MSN will release something similar, but it will be a half baked unimaginative piece of shit that's 10 times worse than Yahoo Flickr (or whatever its remnants are called). Then Google releases their own picture gallery service and eats their breakfast, lunch and dinner with their first public beta.
Now add "synergistic on demand agile grid XML" to it, and do your IPO on wall street.
whose IQ is "off the scale". He should be able to spell in no less than five different languages.
You think English is my native language? Think again.
>> eighter of them
Apparently you aren't smart enough to learn good spelling. Which kinda puts you in the "arrogant bastard" category.
I wonder how this bitkeeper thing compares to the state of the art, Perforce. Perforce charges $700 per seat, and after working with it for years, I can say it's worth it. Everything is just the way it should be. I wish someone would reimplement the damn thing under GPL license. After using Perforce at work, all other systems look like a joke.
They should release five hundred million copies of the browser supporting the shitty CSS2, and then when CSS2.1 or 3 comes out they should somehow persuade their Joe Sixpack customers to upgrade? I'd rather see them skip CSS2 altogether and go for a more mature standard. Remember, in best case scenario IE7 will come out towards the end of this year.
Having said all of the above, I'd rather see them implement CSS2 correctly than nothing at all in IE7.
This doesn't work, and that was my point exactly. :0)
You have to put in INCREDIBLE amount of effort to do make even the simplest things work. Ever tried centering a block object on the page _without_ using tables? I use CSS2 in my work, and it's suitable for simple things like borders, colors, fonts, etc. Unfortunately, for a lot of design tasks it's more pain than it's worth, even if you code for just Firefox.
And for $49.95 extra, they'll give you wheel, too. This is gonna be a PR disaster.
Yup, if you used Intel Extreme graphics adapter you wouldn't be questioning this. You can literally see the UI redraws with it. Plus they could have used a WUXGA display which would make Intel graphics even slower.
Let me guess, you're an AMD fanboi.
Let's take a look at the specs of test systems side by side, shall we?
Intel system has this shitty "Extreme" integrated graphics with no dedicated RAM. If you've ever used a system with Intel Extreme integrated graphics, you know it's dog slow. Putting it into a laptop with slowish system bus doesn't make it any better.
Now let's look at AMD system. It has integrated GPU (!) from one of the leaders in computer graphics hardware with _32M_ of _dedicated_ Video RAM. I wonder if I've emphasized this clearly enough to get through your thick skull.
You don't have to be a genius to say that AMD system has an advantage when it comes to 3D graphics.
Wouldn't it be cool if instead of cooking the benchmarks AMD put the processors head to head and made them use the same Radeon Mobility 9600 card with 128M RAM? Why didn't they do this? Were they afraid of something?
I mean, come on, we all know that they make the best desktop processors at this point. Their mobile chips, however, leave much to be desired, and with the release of this Turion chip status quo remains the same.
Turion is faster than P-M, too. Except they "forgot" that Intel chip used integrated graphics.