The first few macs actually had 72 dpi screens. This was resolution chosen (among other reasons*) because the ImageWriter printer just happened to print at 72 dpi. It's also not a coincidence that the LaserWriter outputted 72 dpi. It made for some true WYSIWYG!
The original Macs were 72 dpi, the Image Writers were 144 dpi (they used the same bitmapped fonts just at twice the size). The Laser Writer (like the orignal HP Laser Jet) was 300 dpi (this caused some issues with WYSIWYG printing -- one option in the print dialog box was to shrink the output to 288 dpi).
Why should the artist get the lion's share of the money?
Because they're working on speculation. They don't get paid unless the music sells.
What about the people that wrote the music, wrote the lyrics,
They are just as much "the artists" as the musicians and singers.
recorded and mixed the tracks,
They are paid a salary.
corrected the artist's singing flaws during editing,
They are paid a salary.
the people who created the cover art,
They are paid a salary.
the people who advertise and market the album, etc. etc. etc.?
They are paid a salary. If all those people were willing to work for no salary and instead just take a cut of the proceeds then they should get some parity with the artists. As long as they insist on being paid whether the record sells or not (i.e. take no risk) they their potential reward shouldn't be as great.
I do, and so does the bible, according to it God refues to prove he exists (i.e. refuses to allow himself to be detected).
If I thought I couldn't detect Him and I still did believe him, then I WOULD be irrational. But I don't believe that about God - I don't think any religious person does.
But he can't be detected, you can delude yourself into beleiving in him but that's a far cry from detecting him.
So your counter-argument doesn't work all that well. I have reasons for believing in God - and many religious people do. Reasons that may not be quantifiable (and thus scientific) but reasons that are genuine and logical nonetheless.
Beleivig in God is no more rational or logical than beleiving in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny. Thor did not exist, Ra did not exist, Zeus did not exist, Apollo did not exist, Quetzalcoatl did not exist and Jesus did not exist.
There are two main points: 1 - You can be devoutly religious and also logical/rational/scientific.
No you can't. You can be logical, rational and scientific about other factors in your life but not about religion. There is no logical, rational or scientific evidence (let alone proof) that supports _any_ religious claim. Belief in an all-powerful undetectable superior being is illogical, irrational, and unscientific (even if those who believe are rational, logical or scientific in other matters).
2 - Some "scientific" and anti-religious people are just as bigotted, and illogical as the religious nuts.
So what? No one ever said that being an atheist means you're not bigotted or are totally logical. You are in fact using poor logic to try to "prove" your point.
When I say that anyone who believes in god is not being rational, I am NOT saying that anyone who is irrational beleives in god. If A then B, does not mean if B then A.
What is the alternative of a loved one to prayer? Nothing, nadda, zilch. Prayer may help, it may not. But if it's a choice between possibly useless prayer and definetly useless worrying, prayer makes more sense. (Pascals wager) If nothing else it makes you feel better.
If the delusional belief in an imaginary man who lives in the sky comforts you them I feel sorry for you.
btw, I dare ANY body who's watched a loved one suffer to deny that they said a few words to God 'Just in case'. It certainly can't hurt. I'm not religious, but I've been there.
Not only would I not pray for them it would never occur to me to pray for them any more than it would occur to me to write Santa, talk to the Easter Bunny or leave a note under my pillow for the Tooth Fairy.
But this imminent scientist tells correspondent Scott Pelley that the Bush administration is restricting who he can talk to and editing what he can say. Politicians, he says, are rewriting the science.
In other news the sun is hot, darkness is caused by a lack of light and the universe is big.
off side, i don't what kind of rattrap theaters you guys go to but the only ones i go to have what they call stadium seating with huge spacious seats, cushions, and cup holders, parking is free if you present your movie ticket stub. if other people are rude, you go complain to the manager and they kick em out and give you free concession coupons.
The point isn't that every movie is ruined by someone on a cell phone, or that every theater floor is sticky, or that there is something wrong with every theater's speaker system. The point is there is often at least one of those things wrong with every movie experience and there are ALWAYS commercials I can't mute and/or fast forward through and NONE of these things happen at home. At home I don't have to leave the show in the middle, go find the theater manager to complain to then hope he actually does something about it.
Most movies made during any one year have always sucked. It's not the suckyness of the movies, it that for the price of:
- parking
- the tickets
- the $4 small bags of popcorn
- the $3 box of raisinettes
- the $5 cokes I can buy a DVD, get a couple of pizza's delivered, open a bottle of wine (or a couple of beers), nuke a bag of popcorn and enjoy the movie on my schedule in a room with comfortable chairs that have lots of leg room, floors that aren't sticky and covered with garbage, a room without noisy assholes talking on their cell phones, stupid people constantly asking their friends "what did he say?" and "who's that?", a speaker system where the bass isn't being over driven and the center channel speakers aren't blown, a place where I don't have to sit through 15 to 30 minutes of commercials before the movie starts and if I have to get up in the middle I can pause the damn thing.
I don't go to the theater because the theater experience sucks.
In the past people went to the movies because it was an event, they looked forward to it for days or weeks ahead of time. Everyone was there to enjoy and drink-in the experience. Now we go to the movies because we don't have anything better to do.
Apple no longer offers their QuickTime without iTunes. Seriously annoying in a corporate environment, where you may need a video player but don't want a music shopping application that phones home on your machines.
True enough, but it is obvious that science has limitations.
1. Science can only be reasonably applied the things that can be observed. 2. Science can only be meaningfully applied to things that can be measured and repeated. 3. Science can only be absolutely applied to things that can be understood by humans.
While simplistic, sure I won't argue with the above. Of course no scientist is claiming otherwise. It's still a far sight better than religion making up answers to the questions that we can't know the answers to.
To presume that all knowledge and all truth must necessarily be confined by the above set of restrictions is ludicrous.
All human knowledge must be confined by what can be understood by humans. A human cannot understand what a human cannot understand -- by definition. When religion makes up answers they are not adding to the bulk of human knowledge.
If you honestly believe that science and humanity are capable of understanding and knowing everything, then you have trapped yourself by faith in science. That is, welcome to your pseudoreligion.
Please point me to a scientist that says we are capable of understanding and knowing everything. The, very scientific, Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle specifically says that we can't know both the position and velocity of a quantum object at the same time. Science has no problem answering a question with "I don't know".
Ultimately, science is all about answers. Religion is all about questions.
Ultimately science is about the search for answers and questioning the answers we already have. Religion is about making up answers and not questioning them.
This is different. Agreed, internal competition can actually damage morale in a company. However, what Apple has done is reward open source contribution for individuals who didn't expect the reward in the first place.
It also get's the new CPU'd systems into the hands of the people who are doing the most contributing. You know, encouraging development for the new instruction set?
Not knowing where the watch came from is the point. It doesn't come from anywhere, it just suddenly exists. It violates the law of conservation of energy. That's the point. It's like the question, what happens if you travel back in time and kill yourself? The point isn't to answer the question the point is to show the violations of (our known) physical laws.
However, I think what most people mean by "time travel" is something different, a causality loop. That is, they mean you do something (which they call "time travel") and this something lets you become your own grandpa, or influence the outcome of the Civil War, and so forth. Since, of course, those things influence the you that's influencing them (otherwise the story is not interesting), this makes a nice little loop of cause and effect: you influence x which influences you who influences x, and around and around.
Whether or not the physics of the universe allows such a thing, I can't see any obvious reason why it would cause big problems -- or even be interesting.
Time travel violates causality, it also violates the law of conservation of energy. I can give you a (theoretical) exmaple:
Walking down the street one day I spy a nifty watch laying on the side road. I pick it up and strap it on my wrist. Several years later I complete my time machine. After travelling back in time I see myself walking down the street and recognise the day as the day I found my watch. So I take the watch off my wrist and place it on the side of the road then hide in the bushes and observe myself finding the watch and strapping it to my wrist.
Before gaming can hit the big time on TV there is one key feature games need. Television production support. The TV crew needs the ability to place, move and control multiple cameras, in game, so that they can shoot the game as if the game was real. Give the producer a few dozen cameras, fixed and mobile, the ability to have the camera crews manipulate the cameras (move, pan, tilt, zoom, focus) and you've got a system that they can work with. Sport stadiums are designed with TV cameras in mind, video games producers will have to coordinate with the TV producers starting at the design stage of the game so the TV producers will have the tools they need.
For the most part the Jobsians just ignore the ranting and get on with enjoying their carefree life and laugh at all the sneezing, coughing and hospitalized Gatesians.
As a Mac user, I nodded at your extended analogy and laughed at your last sentence.
That's when I realized that Thompson is not entirely mistaken.
Thompson is wrong though, Mac users are at such less risk than Windows users they are justified being more lax security wise. Even with Mac users not worrying about security issues I'd lay 10:1 odds that the next wide-spread debilitating virus/worm/etc. is Windows based.
Computer security is an issue for everyone, Mac users included. But the theoretical possibility of a risk is not grounds for panic. Mac users should use basic security practices; don't use root or supervisor accounts for your normal day to day work; keep your system up to date; don't enter a supervisor password when requested unless you know why it's being asked for; be wary of software you receive from dodgy sources; don't enable system functions if you don't understand what they do; and if you have a full time internet connection use a hardware firewall (with network address translation).
Viruses, trojans, worms etc., are rare or nonexistant on Macs. You don't have to live your life in fear.
Right...this reminds me of an old Dilbert cartoon.
In the first pane, Dilbert and Dogbert are watching the news. From the newscast: "There hasn't been a murder in this town since 1978."
In the second pane, with the word "Optimist" floating over his head, Dilbert thinks "We're safe forever."
In the third pane, with the word "Pessimist" floating over his head, Dogbert thinks "We're due."
Well I guess in a black and white (i.e. cartoon) world if there is the slightest chance of a problem you have to be totally paranoid about it.
In the real world I'll be more careful of who I talk to and where I go in a town with a murder every 28 minutes than I an in a town with a murder every 28 years.
Then, a single infection wipes out the Jobsians because they had made no significant preparations for a disease pandemic.
Who is more likely to suffer a pandemic? The Gatesians who have weak immune systems (and have suffered numerous pandemics in the past) or the Jobsians who have strong immune systems and don't ever get sick?
On a planet far far away live two races of people; The Gatesians (who make up 90-95% of the poulation) and the Jobsians (who make up the rest).
The Gatesians have weak immune systems and frequently suffer from viral and bacterial infections, often necessitating a hospital stay. The problem is so bad that almost all Gatesians wear face masks and rubber gloves, use copious amounts of anti-bacterial soap, sterilize all items they come in contact with and get immunisation shots on a weekly basis. And despite all this they continue to get sick.
Jobsians, on the other hand, have very strong immune systems, so strong that no Jobsian has gotten so much as the sniffles in the last few years. Many Gatesians make the claim that the Jobsians don't get sick simply because there aren't enough of them for an infection to spread. The Jobsians point out that there are no known viruses or bacteria that affect Jobsians (the odd rumoured virus built in a secret government lab aside).
A few scare mongers (like Bill Thompson) like to argue that the Jobsians need to take the same precautions against disease that the Gatesians do and that if they don't if a virus or bacteria that can infect them ever shows up will wipe them all out. For the most part the Jobsians just ignore the ranting and get on with enjoying their carefree life and laugh at all the sneezing, coughing and hospitalized Gatesians.
Slashdot Mirror
...in truth it guarantees every seat will be scalped for the highest price with all the money going to ticketmaster.
Don't you mean, "with all the money going to the artist who's performing"?
It's easier to confiscate electronics than firearms. Well, less risky, anyway.
That's why people who want to protect their rights, need firearms.
I just found the worlds largest hole, all I have to do now is take all the dirt out of it...
The first few macs actually had 72 dpi screens. This was resolution chosen (among other reasons*) because the ImageWriter printer just happened to print at 72 dpi. It's also not a coincidence that the LaserWriter outputted 72 dpi. It made for some true WYSIWYG!
The original Macs were 72 dpi, the Image Writers were 144 dpi (they used the same bitmapped fonts just at twice the size). The Laser Writer (like the orignal HP Laser Jet) was 300 dpi (this caused some issues with WYSIWYG printing -- one option in the print dialog box was to shrink the output to 288 dpi).
Why should the artist get the lion's share of the money?
Because they're working on speculation. They don't get paid unless the music sells.
What about the people that wrote the music, wrote the lyrics,
They are just as much "the artists" as the musicians and singers.
recorded and mixed the tracks,
They are paid a salary.
corrected the artist's singing flaws during editing,
They are paid a salary.
the people who created the cover art,
They are paid a salary.
the people who advertise and market the album, etc. etc. etc.?
They are paid a salary. If all those people were willing to work for no salary and instead just take a cut of the proceeds then they should get some parity with the artists. As long as they insist on being paid whether the record sells or not (i.e. take no risk) they their potential reward shouldn't be as great.
No one said God was undetectable.
I do, and so does the bible, according to it God refues to prove he exists (i.e. refuses to allow himself to be detected).
If I thought I couldn't detect Him and I still did believe him, then I WOULD be irrational. But I don't believe that about God - I don't think any religious person does.
But he can't be detected, you can delude yourself into beleiving in him but that's a far cry from detecting him.
So your counter-argument doesn't work all that well. I have reasons for believing in God - and many religious people do. Reasons that may not be quantifiable (and thus scientific) but reasons that are genuine and logical nonetheless.
Beleivig in God is no more rational or logical than beleiving in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny. Thor did not exist, Ra did not exist, Zeus did not exist, Apollo did not exist, Quetzalcoatl did not exist and Jesus did not exist.
There are two main points: 1 - You can be devoutly religious and also logical/rational/scientific.
No you can't. You can be logical, rational and scientific about other factors in your life but not about religion. There is no logical, rational or scientific evidence (let alone proof) that supports _any_ religious claim. Belief in an all-powerful undetectable superior being is illogical, irrational, and unscientific (even if those who believe are rational, logical or scientific in other matters).
2 - Some "scientific" and anti-religious people are just as bigotted, and illogical as the religious nuts.
So what? No one ever said that being an atheist means you're not bigotted or are totally logical. You are in fact using poor logic to try to "prove" your point.
When I say that anyone who believes in god is not being rational, I am NOT saying that anyone who is irrational beleives in god. If A then B, does not mean if B then A.
What is the alternative of a loved one to prayer? Nothing, nadda, zilch. Prayer may help, it may not. But if it's a choice between possibly useless prayer and definetly useless worrying, prayer makes more sense. (Pascals wager) If nothing else it makes you feel better.
If the delusional belief in an imaginary man who lives in the sky comforts you them I feel sorry for you.
btw, I dare ANY body who's watched a loved one suffer to deny that they said a few words to God 'Just in case'. It certainly can't hurt. I'm not religious, but I've been there.
Not only would I not pray for them it would never occur to me to pray for them any more than it would occur to me to write Santa, talk to the Easter Bunny or leave a note under my pillow for the Tooth Fairy.
But this imminent scientist tells correspondent Scott Pelley that the Bush administration is restricting who he can talk to and editing what he can say. Politicians, he says, are rewriting the science.
In other news the sun is hot, darkness is caused by a lack of light and the universe is big.
off side, i don't what kind of rattrap theaters you guys go to but the only ones i go to have what they call stadium seating with huge spacious seats, cushions, and cup holders, parking is free if you present your movie ticket stub. if other people are rude, you go complain to the manager and they kick em out and give you free concession coupons.
The point isn't that every movie is ruined by someone on a cell phone, or that every theater floor is sticky, or that there is something wrong with every theater's speaker system. The point is there is often at least one of those things wrong with every movie experience and there are ALWAYS commercials I can't mute and/or fast forward through and NONE of these things happen at home. At home I don't have to leave the show in the middle, go find the theater manager to complain to then hope he actually does something about it.
Most movies made during any one year have always sucked. It's not the suckyness of the movies, it that for the price of:
- parking
- the tickets
- the $4 small bags of popcorn
- the $3 box of raisinettes
- the $5 cokes
I can buy a DVD, get a couple of pizza's delivered, open a bottle of wine (or a couple of beers), nuke a bag of popcorn and enjoy the movie on my schedule in a room with comfortable chairs that have lots of leg room, floors that aren't sticky and covered with garbage, a room without noisy assholes talking on their cell phones, stupid people constantly asking their friends "what did he say?" and "who's that?", a speaker system where the bass isn't being over driven and the center channel speakers aren't blown, a place where I don't have to sit through 15 to 30 minutes of commercials before the movie starts and if I have to get up in the middle I can pause the damn thing.
I don't go to the theater because the theater experience sucks.
In the past people went to the movies because it was an event, they looked forward to it for days or weeks ahead of time. Everyone was there to enjoy and drink-in the experience. Now we go to the movies because we don't have anything better to do.
Apple no longer offers their QuickTime without iTunes. Seriously annoying in a corporate environment, where you may need a video player but don't want a music shopping application that phones home on your machines.
Try going here...
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/
In the fuure you may want to check your facts before you post...
I'm saying "I would appreciate it if you don't look at porn on easily-visible computers because it's extremely rude."
And my reply would be "Please stop reading over my shoulder, it's extremely rude".
True enough, but it is obvious that science has limitations.
1. Science can only be reasonably applied the things that can be observed.
2. Science can only be meaningfully applied to things that can be measured and repeated.
3. Science can only be absolutely applied to things that can be understood by humans.
While simplistic, sure I won't argue with the above. Of course no scientist is claiming otherwise. It's still a far sight better than religion making up answers to the questions that we can't know the answers to.
To presume that all knowledge and all truth must necessarily be confined by the above set of restrictions is ludicrous.
All human knowledge must be confined by what can be understood by humans. A human cannot understand what a human cannot understand -- by definition. When religion makes up answers they are not adding to the bulk of human knowledge.
If you honestly believe that science and humanity are capable of understanding and knowing everything, then you have trapped yourself by faith in science. That is, welcome to your pseudoreligion.
Please point me to a scientist that says we are capable of understanding and knowing everything. The, very scientific, Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle specifically says that we can't know both the position and velocity of a quantum object at the same time. Science has no problem answering a question with "I don't know".
Ultimately, science is all about answers. Religion is all about questions.
Ultimately science is about the search for answers and questioning the answers we already have. Religion is about making up answers and not questioning them.
This is different. Agreed, internal competition can actually damage morale in a company. However, what Apple has done is reward open source contribution for individuals who didn't expect the reward in the first place.
It also get's the new CPU'd systems into the hands of the people who are doing the most contributing. You know, encouraging development for the new instruction set?
Gah! "Gifting"? Wtf? Gift is a fucking NOUN. What's wrong with "Apple gives MacBooks to top WebKit contributors"?
I totally agree with you. People, please! Stop verbing your nouns.
Not knowing where the watch came from is the point. It doesn't come from anywhere, it just suddenly exists. It violates the law of conservation of energy. That's the point. It's like the question, what happens if you travel back in time and kill yourself? The point isn't to answer the question the point is to show the violations of (our known) physical laws.
However, I think what most people mean by "time travel" is something different, a causality loop. That is, they mean you do something (which they call "time travel") and this something lets you become your own grandpa, or influence the outcome of the Civil War, and so forth. Since, of course, those things influence the you that's influencing them (otherwise the story is not interesting), this makes a nice little loop of cause and effect: you influence x which influences you who influences x, and around and around.
Whether or not the physics of the universe allows such a thing, I can't see any obvious reason why it would cause big problems -- or even be interesting.
Time travel violates causality, it also violates the law of conservation of energy. I can give you a (theoretical) exmaple:
Walking down the street one day I spy a nifty watch laying on the side road. I pick it up and strap it on my wrist. Several years later I complete my time machine. After travelling back in time I see myself walking down the street and recognise the day as the day I found my watch. So I take the watch off my wrist and place it on the side of the road then hide in the bushes and observe myself finding the watch and strapping it to my wrist.
Q: Where did the watch come from?
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Prince, Snoop Dogg, Ludacris, Bon Jovi, and U2 all have used technical support when on the road
Used tech support? With all their money you'd think they could afford new tech support.
Before gaming can hit the big time on TV there is one key feature games need. Television production support. The TV crew needs the ability to place, move and control multiple cameras, in game, so that they can shoot the game as if the game was real. Give the producer a few dozen cameras, fixed and mobile, the ability to have the camera crews manipulate the cameras (move, pan, tilt, zoom, focus) and you've got a system that they can work with. Sport stadiums are designed with TV cameras in mind, video games producers will have to coordinate with the TV producers starting at the design stage of the game so the TV producers will have the tools they need.
As a Mac user, I nodded at your extended analogy and laughed at your last sentence.
That's when I realized that Thompson is not entirely mistaken.
Thompson is wrong though, Mac users are at such less risk than Windows users they are justified being more lax security wise. Even with Mac users not worrying about security issues I'd lay 10:1 odds that the next wide-spread debilitating virus/worm/etc. is Windows based.
Computer security is an issue for everyone, Mac users included. But the theoretical possibility of a risk is not grounds for panic. Mac users should use basic security practices; don't use root or supervisor accounts for your normal day to day work; keep your system up to date; don't enter a supervisor password when requested unless you know why it's being asked for; be wary of software you receive from dodgy sources; don't enable system functions if you don't understand what they do; and if you have a full time internet connection use a hardware firewall (with network address translation).
Viruses, trojans, worms etc., are rare or nonexistant on Macs. You don't have to live your life in fear.
Right...this reminds me of an old Dilbert cartoon.
In the first pane, Dilbert and Dogbert are watching the news. From the newscast: "There hasn't been a murder in this town since 1978."
In the second pane, with the word "Optimist" floating over his head, Dilbert thinks "We're safe forever."
In the third pane, with the word "Pessimist" floating over his head, Dogbert thinks "We're due."
Well I guess in a black and white (i.e. cartoon) world if there is the slightest chance of a problem you have to be totally paranoid about it.
In the real world I'll be more careful of who I talk to and where I go in a town with a murder every 28 minutes than I an in a town with a murder every 28 years.
Then, a single infection wipes out the Jobsians because they had made no significant preparations for a disease pandemic.
Who is more likely to suffer a pandemic? The Gatesians who have weak immune systems (and have suffered numerous pandemics in the past) or the Jobsians who have strong immune systems and don't ever get sick?
On a planet far far away live two races of people; The Gatesians (who make up 90-95% of the poulation) and the Jobsians (who make up the rest).
The Gatesians have weak immune systems and frequently suffer from viral and bacterial infections, often necessitating a hospital stay. The problem is so bad that almost all Gatesians wear face masks and rubber gloves, use copious amounts of anti-bacterial soap, sterilize all items they come in contact with and get immunisation shots on a weekly basis. And despite all this they continue to get sick.
Jobsians, on the other hand, have very strong immune systems, so strong that no Jobsian has gotten so much as the sniffles in the last few years. Many Gatesians make the claim that the Jobsians don't get sick simply because there aren't enough of them for an infection to spread. The Jobsians point out that there are no known viruses or bacteria that affect Jobsians (the odd rumoured virus built in a secret government lab aside).
A few scare mongers (like Bill Thompson) like to argue that the Jobsians need to take the same precautions against disease that the Gatesians do and that if they don't if a virus or bacteria that can infect them ever shows up will wipe them all out. For the most part the Jobsians just ignore the ranting and get on with enjoying their carefree life and laugh at all the sneezing, coughing and hospitalized Gatesians.