Here in Portland, OR MetroFi and the city collaborated to provide a similar service. They haven't quite gotten all of the city done, but the core is covered (and is damned spiffy). Perhaps this opens the door for MetroFi, some other service, or maybe google alone to pick up the ball
Um try again. The translation is a derivative work. So while their translation does indeed have a copyright to his or her translation, without permission from the copyright holder they cannot distribute their work. Your argument that they were not spreading the whole work doesn't hold water. Excerpting is not an exemption to copyright law.
I've been here a long time, and I never claimed they were trying to fool me. What I am complaining about is that in an effort to post only april fools jokes, they post anything and everything, regardless of if it is funny. A deluge of bad humor is just that, a deluge of bad humor; or to put it another way: tedious and annoying...
Gimpshop is neat, but still not there for me to use for my work as a photographer. I need color management, better RAW conversion, and the single biggest blocker for me 16-bit per channel support. Until I have those I cannot even consider converting. There is a longer list of nice to haves that I would like to see as well.
Also if you look at the codeweavers site, you will see that the only version of Photoshop that is reported to be working is 7. That is two major releases back. I would be willing to fall back to CS (Photoshop 8, CS2 is Photoshop 9), but there is no way I would go back to 7 (even if I knew where that CD was).
No you can't have a UI for everything. But I would actually classify this (caching) behavior as important enough to have one. However what I was really complaining about was the snarky comment that seemed to imply it was my fault for not turning off a hidden default behavior.
I never said it was a bug, I said it was a problem. Additionally it isn't a feature that is obvious to turn off. Certainly not for the average user. If you look at the posts around here you will see that there are a number of people who are experiencing issues with FF consuming massive amounts of memory. It is a real issue, and not one that should be dismissed by blaming the user for not (in this case) disabling a hidden setting.
Because firefox continues to consume memory until it completely (or nearly completely) fills physical and virtual memory. We aren't talking a few tens of megabytes as you say, we are talking about the fact that, for me on multiple computers, a stock firefox will eventually leak hundreds and hundreds of megabytes. At that point it can take minutes to even close the program because of the burden to return that much memory to the system.
Whoah there boyo. You are saying that the Firefox boys implemented a cache poorly so that it can render the browser unusable or crash (0 plugins and default config) and it is MY FAULT because I didn't turn of the feature?
I have 0 extentions, and run as configured (on multiple machines). Say what you will about this feature, but it is poorly implemented if the is cannot gracefully deal with running out of memory.
I'm sorry the fact that Firefox will consume memory until it becomes unusably slow and/or crashes and has no way for me to free up that memory; that is a memory problem.
I will admit that pledge drives are annoying and I would prefer not to listen to them (and I am a member). However I do have to point out that in most radio markets they only happen 3-4 times per year (at fairly predictable times) and last no more than a week.
I personally find it isn't that hard to listen to other things for those 3 weeks and then enjoy 49 weeks of pledge drive free content the rest of the year.
The article is about why talking head webvideo will suck. Not all video podcasts. There aren't that many out there, but there are some gems such as RocketBoom and the risque KitKast
You have got to be kidding me. Considering the fact that the 68k mac was implemented using a 4 MHz processor with 4 MB of RAM and still somehow ran a GUI and was even capable of primitive multitasking with software add ons, I find this statement a bit hard to swallow
The original Mac had 128K or RAM (64K of ROM) and used a 8Mhz (actually a little less) processor. That is not to take away from your core point however
It would be nice if they factored in the cost of design, development, and manufacturing into that cost. I have worked on consumer electronics projects in the past, and the rule of thumb was adding $1 to the Bill-Of-Materials adds $4 to the retail price. Still it doesn't surprise me that the profit margin is high.
Because most of the time when I leave the house I have my iPod, my phone, and my radio on me. I would really like it if the radio were part of the phone or the iPod. I really don't care which..
So really what made GMail better was 1Gig of storage, not that it was better from a feature perspective. Regardless, I don't think Talk has to be somehow better than everything else to be considered worth doing. And by the bar you have set it is, since it is the only Instant messenger on the market from one of the big vendors that openly allows (and helps you) use third party clients.
That being said, you nor I can say how Talk fits within Google's plans or how it should be used. So I get back to my original point. It is brand new and it is beta, so maybe just maybe we should wait and see what they do. Use it or don't doesn't matter to me, but I don't see why you should declare it not worth the bother
Wait so because Talk cannot talk to other servers (in the same way that Y!, AIM, ICQ, and MSN can't), it is useless and should be pulled? I'm sorry I just don't see it. At the moment Talk is good enough to launch as a beta.
As for GMail being "clearly the obvious leader the instant it came out," when it launched it couldn't:
+ Read mail from another POP3 source (still can't) + Allow the use of other POP3 clients to read mail + Export contacts + Import contacts + Support rich text editing
It has been out for a week or so, and we should cut them some slack as they work out the kinks and add new features. GMail lacked a number of things I wanted it to have when it first came out, but Google seems to be slowly adding them with time. Google seems too happy to call things beta for just about forever, but at this stage I think we all should consider it as a real beta and just wait and see
This was a part of NextStep/OpenStep from way back. The application could have multiple binaries. So it would not be common to see a single app bundle that would run on OpenStep 68K, OpenStep x86, and OpenStep for Win32. Even the original Rhapsody was going to be like this supporting Rhapsody PPC, Rhapsody x86, Rhapsody on Win32.
Amazon already does this in the UK. Since learning about this from my friends over there, I figured it was just a matter of time before they brought the program over here.
Slashdot Mirror
Here in Portland, OR MetroFi and the city collaborated to provide a similar service. They haven't quite gotten all of the city done, but the core is covered (and is damned spiffy). Perhaps this opens the door for MetroFi, some other service, or maybe google alone to pick up the ball
When he made Harsh Realm?
Um try again. The translation is a derivative work. So while their translation does indeed have a copyright to his or her translation, without permission from the copyright holder they cannot distribute their work. Your argument that they were not spreading the whole work doesn't hold water. Excerpting is not an exemption to copyright law.
I've been here a long time, and I never claimed they were trying to fool me. What I am complaining about is that in an effort to post only april fools jokes, they post anything and everything, regardless of if it is funny. A deluge of bad humor is just that, a deluge of bad humor; or to put it another way: tedious and annoying...
ONE April Fools story is funny and clever. A WHOLE DAY of them is just stupid and tedious. One of these yearsthey are going to figure this out...
Gimpshop is neat, but still not there for me to use for my work as a photographer. I need color management, better RAW conversion, and the single biggest blocker for me 16-bit per channel support. Until I have those I cannot even consider converting. There is a longer list of nice to haves that I would like to see as well.
Also if you look at the codeweavers site, you will see that the only version of Photoshop that is reported to be working is 7. That is two major releases back. I would be willing to fall back to CS (Photoshop 8, CS2 is Photoshop 9), but there is no way I would go back to 7 (even if I knew where that CD was).
No you can't have a UI for everything. But I would actually classify this (caching) behavior as important enough to have one. However what I was really complaining about was the snarky comment that seemed to imply it was my fault for not turning off a hidden default behavior.
I never said it was a bug, I said it was a problem. Additionally it isn't a feature that is obvious to turn off. Certainly not for the average user. If you look at the posts around here you will see that there are a number of people who are experiencing issues with FF consuming massive amounts of memory. It is a real issue, and not one that should be dismissed by blaming the user for not (in this case) disabling a hidden setting.
Because firefox continues to consume memory until it completely (or nearly completely) fills physical and virtual memory. We aren't talking a few tens of megabytes as you say, we are talking about the fact that, for me on multiple computers, a stock firefox will eventually leak hundreds and hundreds of megabytes. At that point it can take minutes to even close the program because of the burden to return that much memory to the system.
Whoah there boyo. You are saying that the Firefox boys implemented a cache poorly so that it can render the browser unusable or crash (0 plugins and default config) and it is MY FAULT because I didn't turn of the feature?
I have 0 extentions, and run as configured (on multiple machines). Say what you will about this feature, but it is poorly implemented if the is cannot gracefully deal with running out of memory.
I'm sorry the fact that Firefox will consume memory until it becomes unusably slow and/or crashes and has no way for me to free up that memory; that is a memory problem.
I will admit that pledge drives are annoying and I would prefer not to listen to them (and I am a member). However I do have to point out that in most radio markets they only happen 3-4 times per year (at fairly predictable times) and last no more than a week.
I personally find it isn't that hard to listen to other things for those 3 weeks and then enjoy 49 weeks of pledge drive free content the rest of the year.
The article is about why talking head webvideo will suck. Not all video podcasts. There aren't that many out there, but there are some gems such as RocketBoom and the risque KitKast
They didn't say tamper-proof. They said resistant. The scheme they describe would make it rather hard to alter they bytestream.
The Titanic was really sink-resitant...
Yeah we saw much of this before in the InsLaw case
It would be nice if they factored in the cost of design, development, and manufacturing into that cost. I have worked on consumer electronics projects in the past, and the rule of thumb was adding $1 to the Bill-Of-Materials adds $4 to the retail price. Still it doesn't surprise me that the profit margin is high.
Because most of the time when I leave the house I have my iPod, my phone, and my radio on me. I would really like it if the radio were part of the phone or the iPod. I really don't care which..
So really what made GMail better was 1Gig of storage, not that it was better from a feature perspective. Regardless, I don't think Talk has to be somehow better than everything else to be considered worth doing. And by the bar you have set it is, since it is the only Instant messenger on the market from one of the big vendors that openly allows (and helps you) use third party clients.
That being said, you nor I can say how Talk fits within Google's plans or how it should be used. So I get back to my original point. It is brand new and it is beta, so maybe just maybe we should wait and see what they do. Use it or don't doesn't matter to me, but I don't see why you should declare it not worth the bother
Wait so because Talk cannot talk to other servers (in the same way that Y!, AIM, ICQ, and MSN can't), it is useless and should be pulled? I'm sorry I just don't see it. At the moment Talk is good enough to launch as a beta.
As for GMail being "clearly the obvious leader the instant it came out," when it launched it couldn't:
+ Read mail from another POP3 source (still can't)
+ Allow the use of other POP3 clients to read mail
+ Export contacts
+ Import contacts
+ Support rich text editing
It has been out for a week or so, and we should cut them some slack as they work out the kinks and add new features. GMail lacked a number of things I wanted it to have when it first came out, but Google seems to be slowly adding them with time. Google seems too happy to call things beta for just about forever, but at this stage I think we all should consider it as a real beta and just wait and see
This was a part of NextStep/OpenStep from way back. The application could have multiple binaries. So it would not be common to see a single app bundle that would run on OpenStep 68K, OpenStep x86, and OpenStep for Win32. Even the original Rhapsody was going to be like this supporting Rhapsody PPC, Rhapsody x86, Rhapsody on Win32.
Where is my flying car? It is the 21st century and we were promised flying cars. Where are they?
Amazon already does this in the UK. Since learning about this from my friends over there, I figured it was just a matter of time before they brought the program over here.