What I am saying is that Apple bundling software like iTunes, iChat, Safari etc etc is an abuse of monopoly (if they have one) on par with MS bundling IE.
How do you arrive at that conclusion? The other aspect of this was that MS was accused of intentionally making it difficult to remove their bundled apps as well as making it difficult to install those of their competition. Do you have any evidence that Apple does that? Every application you listed above can be removed by dragging them to the trash and it has no negative impact on the system. You can (as I have) easily install competing software. No adverse effects. I believe that wasn't judged to be the case with MS.
No, but a pattern of it does - as in the MS trial. And Apple is developing a pattern as I mentioned: IE v. Safari, Roxio v. iTunes, Premiere v. iMovie. It's developing into a pattern such that Apple is nudging out ISV's to a large extennt.
Again, that pattern would have to involve evidence that Apple was using their "monopoly" power to make it more difficult for competition to exist. Apple buying out a company with good software so they can bring its development in-house doesn't count because anyone can (and many do) create programs that compete without any intentional hampering from Apple.
I am not claiming it is illegal to be a monopoly,
It sounded like it to me.
but rather, that if Apple is a monopoly then they are showing signs (aka increased bundling [for 'free' no less]) of abuse of that power.
There exists now a connotation with the term "bundling" that seems to equate to abuse thanks in part to Microsoft's practices associated with bundling. How is bundling software inherently anti-competitive if I can sit down tonight and decide to create a music player to kick iTunes's ass? As long as Apple isn't hampering my ability to do that, then you'd have a very difficult time demonstrating that their act of bundling iTunes is an abuse. Yes, it makes it much less attractive to me as a developer because it's a niche that is amply filled, but it doesn't stop me from trying and it doesn't stop people from trying my product out. From what I understand, MS was causing problems for competitors of their bundled apps. Different scenario entirely.
The question then becomes, is Apple a *monopoly*. On the face, a ridiculous question. [...]At some point its not inconveivable that Apple could be the target of a Sherman related case.
Oh fercrissake! You are utterly talking out your ass! Attempt a deeper understanding of these issues before trying to theorize about it. Okay, it's not illegal to be monopoly. If it were, more companies than Apple would be suspect. What is illegal is using monopolistic power to undermine competition or to unfairly manipulate the market. So, even if you manage to play some semantic game to bolster the limp argument that Apple somehow constitutes a monopoly on PPC machines, then you still have an enormous distance to go in illustrating how they have abused that supposed power. BTW, a competitor voluntarily dropping a product because of stiff competition still doesn't establish that.
Sorry, I'm not trying to be unfriendly or set out flamebait, but I'm in no mood today to read half-arsed theories about what might happen if the law maybe were such-n-such. If you don't really know what you're talking about, don't talk about it.
If Slashdot is anything like other forums where this has been posted, we can all expect the predictable tripe along the lines of "but gosh, I thought everything from Apple 'just worked' and that MS was the only company with bugs... etc." from the pro-MS crowd. The real difference, btw, isn't whether or not OS X has bugs (probably has tons) but rather how Apple chooses to address the issue, particularly the security problem with the screen lockout. Unlike MS, you can count the hours until Apple releases an update to address this or patch the potential security hole. There will be no "shhh... if nobody knows, it's not a security issue" bullshit with Apple. So consider that before any of you bizarre, pro-MS trolls jump in here to cause trouble.
Whatever, I'm sure the slashkids will submit and be bought out for $75 worth of overpriced stuff from ThinkGeek. You're the same people who scream about the MPAA, but line up for The Matrix.
Holy shit, dude! Get out of the house a little more often, wouldja? I've never seen anyone go off on such a holy war rant about a fucking t-shirt contest. I think the radiation from the computer screen being in front of your face 24/7 is doing some real damage.
Here's an idea. Don't like the terms. Don't enter the contest.
I'm sure he has a general idea of how computers work, as in enough to use one for very basic uses, just like most people use their cars for very basic uses.
We elect these people to make laws that affect our lives with the implicit assumption that they will inform themselves enough to make sensible decisions in that regard. Having a "general idea of how computers work" doesn't cut it, especially if he throws out the moronic suggestion that a computer should be open to actual destruction if it's used for illegal purposes. Likewise, I wouldn't want a representative making laws about automobiles with just a "general idea" of how cars work. If a lawmaker is unwilling to educate himself in this regard, then he has no business being a lawmaker. The fact that Hatch makes silly suggestions about destroying computers and puts up a website with his name on it that contains illegally used software demonstrates to me that he has failed to educate himself about computers--regardless of who is directly responsible for the latter. These things betray his lack of knowledge in this area and, IMO, everything he utters in that regard should be taken no more seriously than a joke.
To sum up: 'building a web page' != general idea of how computers work.
But if he had some sense of how these things work, maybe he would have noticed this himself and questioned it. It's clear that he has not one whit of comprehension about the functioning of Web sites and involves himself no further than signing off on its design. He is a know-nothing in terms of computers. That's a statement I make from his actions and utterances. He could prove me wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.
Should senators not be able to make laws regarding auto safety until they can build their own fucking car?
I didn't say he had to build his own computer. I said he needed to illustrate in some way that he had some understanding of computers before he start suggesting legislation concerning them (my comment about him building his own web site was a less direct way of getting that point across.) Is that an unreasonable position to you? To put it back into your own analogy, shouldn't a lawmaker have some sense about how cars work before they pass legislation concerning cars? That's a closer analogy to what I said originally. You're exaggerating to muddy the valid point I was making.
Given that and the name-calling, I suspect you know that and don't care and are responding because the idea of criticizing Hatch's idiocy bothers you for some reason.
Surely the Senator didn't create the page himself? He might not even know what the Javascript is for. Sure, if he knew that the webmaster was doing something wrong, and he didn't stop it, then he would be at fault, but there's no proof of that here.
Fine, but that, IMO, is directly analogous to the idea of destroying a computer because it has been used for piracy. Consider the modern computing environment where multiple users may (and do) use one machine for a variety of purposes. Tell me, should all users of the machine suffer if one of them downloads music illegally? If all users on that one machine may be legally targetted because of the actions of one user on the same machine (which is basically Hatch's position) then surely he should be held accountable for someone else's work on his Web site. I mean, it's his site, not mine, not yours and certainly not his Webmaster's.
This only goes to show further how out-of-touch and un-informed Hatch really is about computers. He should be making no laws governing their usage until he can build his own fucking web site.
Not that any of you will read this now, but as the one who started this thread, I find in curious that all but one of you responding assumed I was a Democrat and offered a response/defense of Republicans and amounted to attacks on Democrats. Pointing out the faults of others doesn't negate the your own and likewise, doesn't adequately defend the faults of your own political party. I said nothing in my post that would indicate my political leanings. Disliking the hypocrisy of the Republicans doesn't automatically make you a Democrat nor does it make you a supporter of the Democrats. It also doesn't make me blind to the hypocrisy of the Democrats. Interesting that you self-proclaimed Republicans responding assume that anyone criticizing your party must be a Democrat.
And no, I'm not a communist either before you all get going down that route. >:^)
Reading this kind of story (and others like it) causes me to wonder why it is that Republicans continue to push (with much success, btw) the lie that their party represents freedom from government intrusion. How much more intrusive can you get? Punishment without a trial. Big Brother would be proud of Sen. Hatch. Where is the outcry from all the conservatives and fellow Republicans about this suggestion?
One's PC typically contains loads of personal information, documents, photos, etc. And are we to believe that law-enforcement never makes mistakes and that the only machines destroyed would be only those belonging to those whose activities warranted it? There are so many problems with this approach (i.e., what if one user on a multi-user computer is doing it--everyone on the machine must pay the price) that Hatch only shows how out-of-touch and ill-educated about modern computers he really is.
And once again, he makes himself a fine example of why Republicans are lying through their teeth when they spout platitudes about taming government intrusiveness and power.
Yeah, Jobs maybe thought it sucked, but here's a snippet of the conversation they left out on accident.
-----
Jobs: Will it come with Firewire?
Dean: Um... Firewire? Why would it--?
Jobs: Will it come with Firewire? Will it?
Dean: I don't understand what you're--
Jobs: You really ought to license Firewire from us and slap a logo on this thing and that's all there is to it.
Dean: But what on earth would people want--?
Jobs: Why would they not want the the most reliable, insanely fast connectivity solution built in to this revolutionary device? How will they sync their Palms and iPods to this? Have you thought about that?
Dean: That's ridiculous. I don't--
Jobs: Okay. Nevermind. This sucks.
------
Interesting note about some tips
on
Mac OS X Hints
·
· Score: 4, Informative
What I find curious about a lot of OS X hints and tips is that they require simply toggling a preference setting in some given.plist file. (For you non OS X-types, the.plist file is an XML config file in which applications and various system processes store their settings.) It's funny that Apple set up so many preferences/features that they simply never put a convenient UI on.
The most interesting one (one that I use myself and one that I believe is shown on the example pages on the O'Reilly site) is the entry in the com.apple.Dock.plist file that allows you to specify that hidden applications should appear as transparent icons in the dock. I find that kind of visual feedback useful and cannot image why Apple would have created such a feature and then fail to include a simple checkbox to activate it in the dock preferences pane.
Weird. And there are quite a few hints like that. Enough that programmers routinely release software to put a GUI on them. (Tinkertool and several Safari-related apps come to mind, but there are several others.)
I beg to differ. I don't know how Macosrumors got such a bad reputation, but I've been watching the site for nearly three years and it's hands-down the most accurate. Yes, it lacks the goodies that other sites have, but I've seen them report very little in terms of rumors that hasn't come to pass. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, they were the site that posted prototype drawings of the G4 iMac nearly a year-and-a-half before its introduction.
I think people are impressed with other rumor sites because of the sheer volume of stuff posted there. Macosrumors puts up stuff only when something is worth posting, from what I can tell--which sometimes translates to 1-2 weeks of no updates. However, if you look at the ratio of posted material to reliable info put on Macosrumors, I think it puts the site in a much better light.
In other words, what's the better rumor site: one that shoots at every target and gets the occasional bulls-eye or one that fires more judiciously and hits as many times?
Just my opinion, and no, I have nothing to do with the site or any Mac rumor site.
Introducing hardware at these kinds of shows has typically meant a big stage presentation showing off the benefits of the new machine, showing it on stage, announcing an availability date, taking pre-orders immediately and usually having the hardware on display for attendees to use, test out, touch, etc. If Jobs simply talks about the upcoming hardware for the benefit of developers, does that count as the traditional "introduction?"
cost for windows owner to upgrade to Linux: Nothing
cost for windows owner to upgrad to Apple: 1000 dollar min.
So how much does it cost to upgrade from Windows running Photoshop to Linux running Photoshop?
Just curious if you could illuminate that point.
I'm not trolling and I've got nothing against Linux or its users, but to simply hold up Linux and Mac OS X as if they were the same bloody thing (and therefore easily compared or evaluated on the basis of price) either shows that you have had no experience with either or that you have your Linux user blinders on so firmly that no amount of reality will get through.
This has probably already been pointed out, but I see everyone comparing Real's service with iTunes on a per-song basis. Despite the fact that Real doesn't even cleanly defeat iTunes on that basis (you have to download lots of songs for that to work out) I haven't yet seen anyone bring up the fact that iTunes music is cheaper per album. I've seen many album containing 16+ songs in iTunes for $9.99. That's significantly cheaper than Real's.79 per song + monthly subscription fee.
The second point I want to make is that RealPlayer sucks butt on the Mac platform so Real stands to make zero inroads into the Mac market. I don't know what Real is like on Windows or elsewhere, but the Mac software is mediocrity in action. I wouldn't use Real's service at half that price unless they improved the lousy piece of dung that they pass off as their player. (Let's see, I close the main window and the application's menu bar disappears so I have to force-quit the damn thing. That's the hallmark of quality software.)
My take on this is that it's pure vaporware. By some accounts Apple has taken two years to line up deals with the music industry. How on earth could MS do such a thing in such short notice? They can't.
So, one has to wonder about this. Hmm... could it be yet another attempt by Microsoft to scare potential customers away from what they perceive as a successful venture by announcing their own similar service COMING SOON! So whatever you do, don't get all tangled up with that other service because you know you want to stay on the winning MS team! Don't bother with that other stuff until our kick-ass music service is up and running, say in... um... late 2003 *cough cough* 2006 *cough* *cough* 2008 *cough* never.
I know I'm marking myself to be modded down into the lowest pits of Slashdot hell for doing this and will incur the wrath of hordes of indignant high school age geeks on this forum, but I can't say in all honesty that I'm against this. I've watched in the last few years as games have gotten far more realistic (shockingly so, in many cases) and borderline subversive. There have been reasonable complaints about this stuff and I've watched as those making a profit from it all have, for the most part, sat firmly on their thumb and blithely ignored the issue. With all that profit comes responsibility. If you disagree, clamp down on your next complaint about Microsoft, okay?
I'm not immediately in favor of legislating this kind of thing, but the video game industry, on the whole, has been pretty unresponsive to this issue. What have they done to prevent legislators from moving in this direction? Precious friggin' little, from what I can see. While you're busy complaining to your representative, fire off a letter of complaint to your favorite video game publisher too. They bear just as much blame.
Do I think people should have the right to play these games? Yes. Do I think keeping this stuff out of the hands of kids is an attack on free speech? No. I value free speech too much to allow some attorney for the video game industry to play emotional semantic games with that term. And that includes the term "censorship" too. It's not censorship, if it can be sold. It's not anti-free speech either.
Then there is the issue of public placement of violent video games. I called Regal Cinemas to complain once about some of the games they had on plain view in their lobby and the response was the typical, greedy corporate garbage I should have expected. To sum up, I was told that the games make good money and that my complaint was basically irrelevant. That is the kind of attitude that leads to stupid laws like this.
And before anyone think they need to take the predictable path of attacking me personally, bear in mind that I play many games myself that would be considered shockingly violent, but I do that in the privacy of my own home. I'm a big fan of video games. But I'm not a mindless consumer who isn't annoyed by bad behavior on the part of the companies I patronize. What bothers me is the apparent lack of concern for what kind of games are put out as demos in places like Toys R Us and on full public display in various places. If any of you don't see the problem with having games like House of the Dead on display in places like theaters and malls then you need to re-think your position a bit. It's not unreasonable to expect those things to be placed in appropriate areas.
I'd rather the video game industry had taken this up themselves and done something reaonable and responsible and respectable, but as they have consistently failed to acknowledge the issue, I guess it has to become a law. It's sad and could have been avoided.
I hope the clips are not representative of the final film because it looks stiff and unnatural, and everything has a weird smoothness to it. The God creature in clip 1 is damn cool, but overall the rest looks kind of bland. I'm probably spoiled with the kind of attention to detail and fluidity of Pixar films but these remind me of the CG Barbie movies that my daughter watches from time-to-time, and you can tell that those were made on a relatively low budget and as quickly as possible.
That's not to say I probably won't go see this film. It does look intriguing, but in terms of animation quality, it doesn't appear to be on the same level as many of the CG films to date.
The soldiers had been in Baghdad for all of 1 or 2 days when the looting started. They (our soldiers) probably didn't even know where the museums were, had no idea what was in those museums, had no orders to protect them - nor would they since they were not there to protect buildings, they were there to fight.
By our own government's admission, resistance to our entrance into Baghdad was minimal, characterized repeatedly by the phrase "pockets of resistance." Furthermore, numerous international groups concerned with the well-being of these priceless treasures had begged the Bush administration to protect the museums. The Bush administration had met with these groups prior to the start of the war, but apparently, the pleas fell on indifferent ears. We knew where these treasures were and we were warned about the potential for looting and destruction, and yet we chose to ignore it, even in the face of little resistance. (There are numerous stories in the press out there about this. I was going to look some up for you, but I will leave it as an exercise to you in your efforts to become an informed citizen of the world.)
On top of that, the Geneva Convention requires that we protect an invaded nation's treasures. I love how we can fail in that (as well as failing to maintain their infrastructure to avoid humanitarian crisis--also a stipulation in the Geneva Convention) and yet we get righteously pissed when the opposing army breaks with the Geneva Convention in showing our solders on TV.
Further, had they protected the buildings civilians probably would have died and you'd be ranting about how horrible it is that we're the new oppressors of Iraq.
Meanwhile, we're shooting protesters in Iraq, telling them that they can have any kind of government they want as long as it's the kind we tell them to have, and are ignoring their demands that we leave now that the goal of ousting Saddam has been achieved. What's you're definition of "oppressor" anyway?
I've about had it with you arm chair analysts who don't bother to look at the reality of a situation before you hand out your jenny jones-esque opinions in public. Morons. And I mean the moderators and the poster alike.
I look forward to you ceasing immediately in handing out your Jenny Jones-esque opinions in public. You wouldn't want to be a hyprocite, would you?
So yes asshole, in perspective it does seem so bad.
Don't you just love Bush's priorities in Iraq? Let countless, priceless antiquities in Iraq's museums, some of the oldest treasures mankind has, go to looters, thieves and Fox News cameramen, but let's make sure none of these Iraqis can steal music.
Remember the good ol' days when the worst thing a president did was bang an intern? Doesn't seem quite so bad in perspective, now, does it?
I see lots of carping about the price here and I'm puzzled. Frankly, I think.99 is a great price and the first thing that went through my head was the "15 songs are less than ave. CD price" point that others are already making. And with the convenience of getting it over the Internet, with no significantly restrictive DRM, I would think the geek crowd would love the concept. (What does it take to make some of you happy?)
Anyway, my first suspicion about the price is that it's higher than it will eventually be. And I'm right about that.
Crawford said the service is likely to change significantly in coming months, with price drops and big growth in the library of available music.
"It's a premium service at the moment," he said. "The audience that Apple is after here can afford the iPod and to pay for music like this. But by the time it comes to Windows, it'll be a lot different."
So those of you too cheap to pay up can sit back and wait for a while and stop griping. This service is going to cater to you as well.
I see some complaints about how "in this huge universe, all these characters just happen to keep having their paths cross which is totally unrealistic... yadda yadda...." Six degrees theories notwithstanding, I agree, however...
What if Lucas plans to make a side story about Chewbacca that never actually interacts with the main story? It's not totally inconceivable that we might have the main story concerning Anakin and Obi-Wan unfolding while we see occasional glimpses of whatever is happening with Chewbacca at the time. Why assume that, just because he'll be in the film, that his story line will directly intersect the stories of the main characters? There is the stuff with the Hutts that needs to be set up (recall that Han Solo was already in deep doo-doo in Episode IV.) Perhaps Chewbacca's appearance in the film will be brief flashes of the beginnings of that story line.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you arrive at that conclusion? The other aspect of this was that MS was accused of intentionally making it difficult to remove their bundled apps as well as making it difficult to install those of their competition. Do you have any evidence that Apple does that? Every application you listed above can be removed by dragging them to the trash and it has no negative impact on the system. You can (as I have) easily install competing software. No adverse effects. I believe that wasn't judged to be the case with MS.
No, but a pattern of it does - as in the MS trial. And Apple is developing a pattern as I mentioned: IE v. Safari, Roxio v. iTunes, Premiere v. iMovie. It's developing into a pattern such that Apple is nudging out ISV's to a large extennt.
Again, that pattern would have to involve evidence that Apple was using their "monopoly" power to make it more difficult for competition to exist. Apple buying out a company with good software so they can bring its development in-house doesn't count because anyone can (and many do) create programs that compete without any intentional hampering from Apple.
I am not claiming it is illegal to be a monopoly,
It sounded like it to me.
but rather, that if Apple is a monopoly then they are showing signs (aka increased bundling [for 'free' no less]) of abuse of that power.
There exists now a connotation with the term "bundling" that seems to equate to abuse thanks in part to Microsoft's practices associated with bundling. How is bundling software inherently anti-competitive if I can sit down tonight and decide to create a music player to kick iTunes's ass? As long as Apple isn't hampering my ability to do that, then you'd have a very difficult time demonstrating that their act of bundling iTunes is an abuse. Yes, it makes it much less attractive to me as a developer because it's a niche that is amply filled, but it doesn't stop me from trying and it doesn't stop people from trying my product out. From what I understand, MS was causing problems for competitors of their bundled apps. Different scenario entirely.
Oh fercrissake! You are utterly talking out your ass! Attempt a deeper understanding of these issues before trying to theorize about it. Okay, it's not illegal to be monopoly. If it were, more companies than Apple would be suspect. What is illegal is using monopolistic power to undermine competition or to unfairly manipulate the market. So, even if you manage to play some semantic game to bolster the limp argument that Apple somehow constitutes a monopoly on PPC machines, then you still have an enormous distance to go in illustrating how they have abused that supposed power. BTW, a competitor voluntarily dropping a product because of stiff competition still doesn't establish that.
Sorry, I'm not trying to be unfriendly or set out flamebait, but I'm in no mood today to read half-arsed theories about what might happen if the law maybe were such-n-such. If you don't really know what you're talking about, don't talk about it.
Holy shit, dude! Get out of the house a little more often, wouldja? I've never seen anyone go off on such a holy war rant about a fucking t-shirt contest. I think the radiation from the computer screen being in front of your face 24/7 is doing some real damage.
Here's an idea. Don't like the terms. Don't enter the contest.
Je deteste Microsoft!
You see:
I love the innovation and security that I get only with fine Microsoft products!
Of course, if you had read the 40-page EULA for this translation software, you'd have known that this was going to happen.
We elect these people to make laws that affect our lives with the implicit assumption that they will inform themselves enough to make sensible decisions in that regard. Having a "general idea of how computers work" doesn't cut it, especially if he throws out the moronic suggestion that a computer should be open to actual destruction if it's used for illegal purposes. Likewise, I wouldn't want a representative making laws about automobiles with just a "general idea" of how cars work. If a lawmaker is unwilling to educate himself in this regard, then he has no business being a lawmaker. The fact that Hatch makes silly suggestions about destroying computers and puts up a website with his name on it that contains illegally used software demonstrates to me that he has failed to educate himself about computers--regardless of who is directly responsible for the latter. These things betray his lack of knowledge in this area and, IMO, everything he utters in that regard should be taken no more seriously than a joke.
To sum up: 'building a web page' != general idea of how computers work.
But if he had some sense of how these things work, maybe he would have noticed this himself and questioned it. It's clear that he has not one whit of comprehension about the functioning of Web sites and involves himself no further than signing off on its design. He is a know-nothing in terms of computers. That's a statement I make from his actions and utterances. He could prove me wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.
Good luck defending him however.
I didn't say he had to build his own computer. I said he needed to illustrate in some way that he had some understanding of computers before he start suggesting legislation concerning them (my comment about him building his own web site was a less direct way of getting that point across.) Is that an unreasonable position to you? To put it back into your own analogy, shouldn't a lawmaker have some sense about how cars work before they pass legislation concerning cars? That's a closer analogy to what I said originally. You're exaggerating to muddy the valid point I was making.
Given that and the name-calling, I suspect you know that and don't care and are responding because the idea of criticizing Hatch's idiocy bothers you for some reason.
Fine, but that, IMO, is directly analogous to the idea of destroying a computer because it has been used for piracy. Consider the modern computing environment where multiple users may (and do) use one machine for a variety of purposes. Tell me, should all users of the machine suffer if one of them downloads music illegally? If all users on that one machine may be legally targetted because of the actions of one user on the same machine (which is basically Hatch's position) then surely he should be held accountable for someone else's work on his Web site. I mean, it's his site, not mine, not yours and certainly not his Webmaster's.
This only goes to show further how out-of-touch and un-informed Hatch really is about computers. He should be making no laws governing their usage until he can build his own fucking web site.
And no, I'm not a communist either before you all get going down that route. >:^)
One's PC typically contains loads of personal information, documents, photos, etc. And are we to believe that law-enforcement never makes mistakes and that the only machines destroyed would be only those belonging to those whose activities warranted it? There are so many problems with this approach (i.e., what if one user on a multi-user computer is doing it--everyone on the machine must pay the price) that Hatch only shows how out-of-touch and ill-educated about modern computers he really is.
And once again, he makes himself a fine example of why Republicans are lying through their teeth when they spout platitudes about taming government intrusiveness and power.
-----
Jobs: Will it come with Firewire?
Dean: Um... Firewire? Why would it--?
Jobs: Will it come with Firewire? Will it?
Dean: I don't understand what you're--
Jobs: You really ought to license Firewire from us and slap a logo on this thing and that's all there is to it.
Dean: But what on earth would people want--?
Jobs: Why would they not want the the most reliable, insanely fast connectivity solution built in to this revolutionary device? How will they sync their Palms and iPods to this? Have you thought about that?
Dean: That's ridiculous. I don't--
Jobs: Okay. Nevermind. This sucks.
------
The most interesting one (one that I use myself and one that I believe is shown on the example pages on the O'Reilly site) is the entry in the com.apple.Dock.plist file that allows you to specify that hidden applications should appear as transparent icons in the dock. I find that kind of visual feedback useful and cannot image why Apple would have created such a feature and then fail to include a simple checkbox to activate it in the dock preferences pane.
Weird. And there are quite a few hints like that. Enough that programmers routinely release software to put a GUI on them. (Tinkertool and several Safari-related apps come to mind, but there are several others.)
I beg to differ. I don't know how Macosrumors got such a bad reputation, but I've been watching the site for nearly three years and it's hands-down the most accurate. Yes, it lacks the goodies that other sites have, but I've seen them report very little in terms of rumors that hasn't come to pass. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, they were the site that posted prototype drawings of the G4 iMac nearly a year-and-a-half before its introduction.
I think people are impressed with other rumor sites because of the sheer volume of stuff posted there. Macosrumors puts up stuff only when something is worth posting, from what I can tell--which sometimes translates to 1-2 weeks of no updates. However, if you look at the ratio of posted material to reliable info put on Macosrumors, I think it puts the site in a much better light.
In other words, what's the better rumor site: one that shoots at every target and gets the occasional bulls-eye or one that fires more judiciously and hits as many times?
Just my opinion, and no, I have nothing to do with the site or any Mac rumor site.
Introducing hardware at these kinds of shows has typically meant a big stage presentation showing off the benefits of the new machine, showing it on stage, announcing an availability date, taking pre-orders immediately and usually having the hardware on display for attendees to use, test out, touch, etc. If Jobs simply talks about the upcoming hardware for the benefit of developers, does that count as the traditional "introduction?"
Who knows/cares?
cost for windows owner to upgrad to Apple: 1000 dollar min.
So how much does it cost to upgrade from Windows running Photoshop to Linux running Photoshop?
Just curious if you could illuminate that point.
I'm not trolling and I've got nothing against Linux or its users, but to simply hold up Linux and Mac OS X as if they were the same bloody thing (and therefore easily compared or evaluated on the basis of price) either shows that you have had no experience with either or that you have your Linux user blinders on so firmly that no amount of reality will get through.
This has probably already been pointed out, but I see everyone comparing Real's service with iTunes on a per-song basis. Despite the fact that Real doesn't even cleanly defeat iTunes on that basis (you have to download lots of songs for that to work out) I haven't yet seen anyone bring up the fact that iTunes music is cheaper per album. I've seen many album containing 16+ songs in iTunes for $9.99. That's significantly cheaper than Real's .79 per song + monthly subscription fee.
The second point I want to make is that RealPlayer sucks butt on the Mac platform so Real stands to make zero inroads into the Mac market. I don't know what Real is like on Windows or elsewhere, but the Mac software is mediocrity in action. I wouldn't use Real's service at half that price unless they improved the lousy piece of dung that they pass off as their player. (Let's see, I close the main window and the application's menu bar disappears so I have to force-quit the damn thing. That's the hallmark of quality software.)
My take on this is that it's pure vaporware. By some accounts Apple has taken two years to line up deals with the music industry. How on earth could MS do such a thing in such short notice? They can't.
So, one has to wonder about this. Hmm... could it be yet another attempt by Microsoft to scare potential customers away from what they perceive as a successful venture by announcing their own similar service COMING SOON! So whatever you do, don't get all tangled up with that other service because you know you want to stay on the winning MS team! Don't bother with that other stuff until our kick-ass music service is up and running, say in... um... late 2003 *cough cough* 2006 *cough* *cough* 2008 *cough* never.
I know I'm marking myself to be modded down into the lowest pits of Slashdot hell for doing this and will incur the wrath of hordes of indignant high school age geeks on this forum, but I can't say in all honesty that I'm against this. I've watched in the last few years as games have gotten far more realistic (shockingly so, in many cases) and borderline subversive. There have been reasonable complaints about this stuff and I've watched as those making a profit from it all have, for the most part, sat firmly on their thumb and blithely ignored the issue. With all that profit comes responsibility. If you disagree, clamp down on your next complaint about Microsoft, okay?
I'm not immediately in favor of legislating this kind of thing, but the video game industry, on the whole, has been pretty unresponsive to this issue. What have they done to prevent legislators from moving in this direction? Precious friggin' little, from what I can see. While you're busy complaining to your representative, fire off a letter of complaint to your favorite video game publisher too. They bear just as much blame.
Do I think people should have the right to play these games? Yes. Do I think keeping this stuff out of the hands of kids is an attack on free speech? No. I value free speech too much to allow some attorney for the video game industry to play emotional semantic games with that term. And that includes the term "censorship" too. It's not censorship, if it can be sold. It's not anti-free speech either.
Then there is the issue of public placement of violent video games. I called Regal Cinemas to complain once about some of the games they had on plain view in their lobby and the response was the typical, greedy corporate garbage I should have expected. To sum up, I was told that the games make good money and that my complaint was basically irrelevant. That is the kind of attitude that leads to stupid laws like this.
And before anyone think they need to take the predictable path of attacking me personally, bear in mind that I play many games myself that would be considered shockingly violent, but I do that in the privacy of my own home. I'm a big fan of video games. But I'm not a mindless consumer who isn't annoyed by bad behavior on the part of the companies I patronize. What bothers me is the apparent lack of concern for what kind of games are put out as demos in places like Toys R Us and on full public display in various places. If any of you don't see the problem with having games like House of the Dead on display in places like theaters and malls then you need to re-think your position a bit. It's not unreasonable to expect those things to be placed in appropriate areas.
I'd rather the video game industry had taken this up themselves and done something reaonable and responsible and respectable, but as they have consistently failed to acknowledge the issue, I guess it has to become a law. It's sad and could have been avoided.
I hope the clips are not representative of the final film because it looks stiff and unnatural, and everything has a weird smoothness to it. The God creature in clip 1 is damn cool, but overall the rest looks kind of bland. I'm probably spoiled with the kind of attention to detail and fluidity of Pixar films but these remind me of the CG Barbie movies that my daughter watches from time-to-time, and you can tell that those were made on a relatively low budget and as quickly as possible.
That's not to say I probably won't go see this film. It does look intriguing, but in terms of animation quality, it doesn't appear to be on the same level as many of the CG films to date.
You'd think with all the great games he's made, he wouldn't have to resort to this.
"Bush says invading Canada only way to free citizenry."
"Bush administration expresses concern about Canada's weapons of mass destruction."
Keep reading.
The soldiers had been in Baghdad for all of 1 or 2 days when the looting started. They (our soldiers) probably didn't even know where the museums were, had no idea what was in those museums, had no orders to protect them - nor would they since they were not there to protect buildings, they were there to fight.
By our own government's admission, resistance to our entrance into Baghdad was minimal, characterized repeatedly by the phrase "pockets of resistance." Furthermore, numerous international groups concerned with the well-being of these priceless treasures had begged the Bush administration to protect the museums. The Bush administration had met with these groups prior to the start of the war, but apparently, the pleas fell on indifferent ears. We knew where these treasures were and we were warned about the potential for looting and destruction, and yet we chose to ignore it, even in the face of little resistance. (There are numerous stories in the press out there about this. I was going to look some up for you, but I will leave it as an exercise to you in your efforts to become an informed citizen of the world.)
On top of that, the Geneva Convention requires that we protect an invaded nation's treasures. I love how we can fail in that (as well as failing to maintain their infrastructure to avoid humanitarian crisis--also a stipulation in the Geneva Convention) and yet we get righteously pissed when the opposing army breaks with the Geneva Convention in showing our solders on TV.
Further, had they protected the buildings civilians probably would have died and you'd be ranting about how horrible it is that we're the new oppressors of Iraq.
Meanwhile, we're shooting protesters in Iraq, telling them that they can have any kind of government they want as long as it's the kind we tell them to have, and are ignoring their demands that we leave now that the goal of ousting Saddam has been achieved. What's you're definition of "oppressor" anyway?
I've about had it with you arm chair analysts who don't bother to look at the reality of a situation before you hand out your jenny jones-esque opinions in public. Morons. And I mean the moderators and the poster alike.
I look forward to you ceasing immediately in handing out your Jenny Jones-esque opinions in public. You wouldn't want to be a hyprocite, would you?
So yes asshole, in perspective it does seem so bad.
Get a grip.
Remember the good ol' days when the worst thing a president did was bang an intern? Doesn't seem quite so bad in perspective, now, does it?
Anyway, my first suspicion about the price is that it's higher than it will eventually be. And I'm right about that.
This is from http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,58656-2
So those of you too cheap to pay up can sit back and wait for a while and stop griping. This service is going to cater to you as well.
What if Lucas plans to make a side story about Chewbacca that never actually interacts with the main story? It's not totally inconceivable that we might have the main story concerning Anakin and Obi-Wan unfolding while we see occasional glimpses of whatever is happening with Chewbacca at the time. Why assume that, just because he'll be in the film, that his story line will directly intersect the stories of the main characters? There is the stuff with the Hutts that needs to be set up (recall that Han Solo was already in deep doo-doo in Episode IV.) Perhaps Chewbacca's appearance in the film will be brief flashes of the beginnings of that story line.