Absolutely; as someone who savors a good shot of espresso, maybe with a dollop of foam if I'm feeling fancy, Starbucks is at best adequate. At least I can get espresso there, the only such supplier in most towns sadly, but their operations are not setup to serve great coffee, it's to serve 1200 calorie milk shakes disguised as "coffee drinks". Hell, in many of the Starbucks I stop in on my travels the staff calls it "expresso".
Still, as another poster said, it's the McD's of coffee; you go there for the consistent experience - and the wifi - not the quality. The quality isn't nearly as *bad* as McDonalds, but it's not nearly as good as many of the places I used to go, before they folded trying to compete with Starbucks. And I agree with others - they are a remarkably socially conscious big business, they treat employees well, they are fairly locally active, and I have no problem with their success.
What I always wonder about when this comes up is this: is it really more cost-effective for Microsoft, and better for the customers, to attempt to build in massive backwards compatibility in new products, or would it be more practical to simply support stable legacy products and let new products be free of this massive burden? Ultimately it would seem a more achievable prospect, not to mention much easier to determine when it's time to dump the legacy support.
In other words, if someone wan't Win98 compatibility, why not allow them to purchase Win98? And more importantly, given Microsoft's obvious interest in virtualization, why not pursue that as a means to backwards compatibility - not unlike what Apple has done - rather than the approach they've taken now for years?
Everytime they - and others like the parent - blame this compatibility demand for their myriad stability and security issues it makes me wonder why it wouldn't be in *their* interests to take a different approach since this one is clearly difficult to do well.
And right about the same time they inserted "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance; of course, most people these days assume these phrasings go back to the Founding Fathers, and are therefore sacred, but like many things these are just relics of cynical political machinations in the 50s.
You should see the apologists in the Windows Media community try to explain why this isn't so; I haven't seen such contortions since I saw Cirque du Soleil!
Any retailer worth a damn will happily provide a shopping assistant for the blind, or heck even for a little old lady who can't reach the shelf. I see it all the time at Trader Joes in my neighborhood, I've seen it at Ikea, Ralphs, even The Gap. I'm not passing judgement on Target's site as I've never visited it, but what I just described is the standard. Blind people are *not* left to fend for themselves at Target, or even the corner market, and any decent retailer would provide similar accomodations online and offline. If that means providing a phone number where the blind can call to speak with a customer rep who can assist them personally that'd probably be even better than the screen readers can do - in other words I couldn't care less what the actual implementation is like, but to suggest that brick & mortar retailers just let the blind literally stumble around the shop looking for product is insanely naive.
Heck, what works for the blind also works for anyone frustrated by not understanding a shitty Web site or not being able to find product in a store - you ought to be able to approach (or call) someone for assistance. That's basic customer service.
No, of course you're right (though $40 is an exagerration certainly, I get your point). That's the price Apple would charge me if I wasn't covered by warranty. And that's why, in general, they'd much rather replace the logic board than just hand me a new machine, even with two replacements. But the suggestion that they are just replacing anyone's grimy yellowed white plastic is false - I bought my Macbook the first day on the market (so it was certainly in that range) yet they've repeatedly refused. At first they even blamed it on me and my dirty hands, which was real classy.
They flat refused to repair or replace the massive yellowing on my Macbook that was apparent less than two months after purchase. I love this machine otherwise, but I see these claims made and it certainly isn't the case that they did this for everyone. They did replace my logic board twice, though, which made it all the more suprising that they'd rather put $2000 of parts in a $1200 machine than just give me a new one.
Neither you nor the GP seem to understand the purpose of RAW ("The only good thing..." is so wrong I won't even comment) - there is nothing in this specification that speaks to it serving as a RAW format.
You don't even need to email Apple; go into your account settings on iTMS (within iTunes) and you can de-authorize all your computers at once (can't do it one at a time from there) and then just re-authorize where you need it.
I think yours would be a little more accurate if we had the capability to un-execute people -- then for each error found (whether pre- or post-execution), it could be corrected, mooting concerns at least for the issue of the permanence of execution. Like Wiki
I don't see anywhere that's an issue in Australian copyright law - http://www.copyright.org.au/ has a good set of primers on Australian copyright law; it's certainly not mentioned as a requirement of a copyright holder, which rules seem virtually identical to those of the US. Regardless, Australia is irrelevant here - this is a US company, being sued in the US, by US publishers.
3. The real reason that publishers have to pursue this, even if it is ascertained that the program IS legal, is that copyright can be reneged if you are not seen to be defending your rights. It sets a precedent. In other words, if someone else came along wanting to copy your works, but you had not challenged Google, the courts COULD say (if it was argued) "You knew what Google was doing, you allowed it, therefore you are not really concerned about your copyright on these works. Thus, anyone else who wants to copy these works should be allowed." (Of course, that is a very simplistic version of an interpretation of the law.)
Nonesense, that's an issue in trademark and possibly patent disputes, but not with copyright; IANAL, but you certainly aren't either.
You're completely ignoring support, which *is* the incremental cost of new customers, which is why *no* software is essentially free after the initial development costs. Further, the more customers you have, the more configs you have to support, and ultimately the more development you put in to support those users.
And afterall, a few calls to support can easily erase any profit (even if it was 100%) a business made on the initial sale.
Mind explaining, step by step, how to burn a "Virtual CD-ROM with Toast" from iTunes? Really, I'd love to know, but it just doesn't work like that.
Perhaps there's some virtual CD-R drive that makes the system think you've got a CD-R installed when it's actually just writing to a disk image; but I've not seen that, and Toast certainly doesn't provide that functionality.
My girlfriend works at a gallery on the UC Irvine campus called the Beall Center for Art & Technology and they currently have an installation of some of the LEMUR "robots". Frankly, I was a little disappointed as they are more funky MIDI instrument than robot, but if you're in or near Orange County, CA, go check it out.
BS. On my Canon 20D, not the most expensive camera, I can shoot 9 full resolution RAW files in rapid burst, and then the buffering begins and I can continue until the card fills up at a reduced 1fps. There are several cameras with bigger buffers and faster CPUs than mine.
The camera does not become useless; it's fully functional (can view files while clearing the buffer, for instance) and can even keep shooting as the buffer clears.
Now, this new compressor won't make a difference for me as I shoot in RAW, not JPEG. If I was shooting in JPEG my buffer would hold somewhere over 20 shots before slowing down... in other words, nearly a full roll of 24 frame film in about 4 seconds.
Did you not notice that the terrorists who hijacked the planes on 9/11 didn't exactly value the life they might have after committing the act? Why would any terrorist be discouraged by some yahoo getting sent up for something this lame? You realize someone willing to give their life to kill a bunch of innocents isn't going to think twice about a possibly stiff prison sentence, don't you?
This guy was doing a stupid, possibly dangerous thing. It wasn't terrorism, however, and a multi-decade prison sentence isn't going to discourage actual terrorists (though it will hopefully discourage other idiots who don't have terroristic intent to pull similar crap - though I somehow doubt that too).
Of course that's just the theoretical top canvas size. I'd like to see you do anything in Photoshop that large with the current memory limits the way they are. The largest file's I've worked on in PS CS are panoramas around 70,000 x 15,000 or thereabouts, and boy that was fun (considering the 10 or 12 layers I had, plus adjustment layers). Reminds me of the old days!
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely; as someone who savors a good shot of espresso, maybe with a dollop of foam if I'm feeling fancy, Starbucks is at best adequate. At least I can get espresso there, the only such supplier in most towns sadly, but their operations are not setup to serve great coffee, it's to serve 1200 calorie milk shakes disguised as "coffee drinks". Hell, in many of the Starbucks I stop in on my travels the staff calls it "expresso".
Still, as another poster said, it's the McD's of coffee; you go there for the consistent experience - and the wifi - not the quality. The quality isn't nearly as *bad* as McDonalds, but it's not nearly as good as many of the places I used to go, before they folded trying to compete with Starbucks. And I agree with others - they are a remarkably socially conscious big business, they treat employees well, they are fairly locally active, and I have no problem with their success.
What I always wonder about when this comes up is this: is it really more cost-effective for Microsoft, and better for the customers, to attempt to build in massive backwards compatibility in new products, or would it be more practical to simply support stable legacy products and let new products be free of this massive burden? Ultimately it would seem a more achievable prospect, not to mention much easier to determine when it's time to dump the legacy support.
In other words, if someone wan't Win98 compatibility, why not allow them to purchase Win98? And more importantly, given Microsoft's obvious interest in virtualization, why not pursue that as a means to backwards compatibility - not unlike what Apple has done - rather than the approach they've taken now for years?
Everytime they - and others like the parent - blame this compatibility demand for their myriad stability and security issues it makes me wonder why it wouldn't be in *their* interests to take a different approach since this one is clearly difficult to do well.
And right about the same time they inserted "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance; of course, most people these days assume these phrasings go back to the Founding Fathers, and are therefore sacred, but like many things these are just relics of cynical political machinations in the 50s.
You should see the apologists in the Windows Media community try to explain why this isn't so; I haven't seen such contortions since I saw Cirque du Soleil!
And my point is Web sites aren't being held to a higher standard.
Any retailer worth a damn will happily provide a shopping assistant for the blind, or heck even for a little old lady who can't reach the shelf. I see it all the time at Trader Joes in my neighborhood, I've seen it at Ikea, Ralphs, even The Gap. I'm not passing judgement on Target's site as I've never visited it, but what I just described is the standard. Blind people are *not* left to fend for themselves at Target, or even the corner market, and any decent retailer would provide similar accomodations online and offline. If that means providing a phone number where the blind can call to speak with a customer rep who can assist them personally that'd probably be even better than the screen readers can do - in other words I couldn't care less what the actual implementation is like, but to suggest that brick & mortar retailers just let the blind literally stumble around the shop looking for product is insanely naive.
Heck, what works for the blind also works for anyone frustrated by not understanding a shitty Web site or not being able to find product in a store - you ought to be able to approach (or call) someone for assistance. That's basic customer service.
Hmmm, a colleague!
No, of course you're right (though $40 is an exagerration certainly, I get your point). That's the price Apple would charge me if I wasn't covered by warranty. And that's why, in general, they'd much rather replace the logic board than just hand me a new machine, even with two replacements. But the suggestion that they are just replacing anyone's grimy yellowed white plastic is false - I bought my Macbook the first day on the market (so it was certainly in that range) yet they've repeatedly refused. At first they even blamed it on me and my dirty hands, which was real classy.
They flat refused to repair or replace the massive yellowing on my Macbook that was apparent less than two months after purchase. I love this machine otherwise, but I see these claims made and it certainly isn't the case that they did this for everyone. They did replace my logic board twice, though, which made it all the more suprising that they'd rather put $2000 of parts in a $1200 machine than just give me a new one.
Neither you nor the GP seem to understand the purpose of RAW ("The only good thing..." is so wrong I won't even comment) - there is nothing in this specification that speaks to it serving as a RAW format.
According to whom? Aldus developed TIFF, Adobe maintains it now (after purchasing Aldus), what role did MS have?
You don't even need to email Apple; go into your account settings on iTMS (within iTunes) and you can de-authorize all your computers at once (can't do it one at a time from there) and then just re-authorize where you need it.
First, it was quite possible for an app to throw up a dialog and not halt the whole system. So you're wrong on that count.
Second, I think this very site proves almost daily that sites can be brought to their knees quite easily.
This was a lame attempt, try again!
Oh, I love bad analogies.
I think yours would be a little more accurate if we had the capability to un-execute people -- then for each error found (whether pre- or post-execution), it could be corrected, mooting concerns at least for the issue of the permanence of execution. Like Wiki
I don't see anywhere that's an issue in Australian copyright law - http://www.copyright.org.au/ has a good set of primers on Australian copyright law; it's certainly not mentioned as a requirement of a copyright holder, which rules seem virtually identical to those of the US. Regardless, Australia is irrelevant here - this is a US company, being sued in the US, by US publishers.
Show me where to opt-in to the Google index. No, it's an opt-out process to (via robots.txt) - you opt-in by being a public Web site.
You're completely ignoring support, which *is* the incremental cost of new customers, which is why *no* software is essentially free after the initial development costs. Further, the more customers you have, the more configs you have to support, and ultimately the more development you put in to support those users.
And afterall, a few calls to support can easily erase any profit (even if it was 100%) a business made on the initial sale.
That's not for OSX.
Mind explaining, step by step, how to burn a "Virtual CD-ROM with Toast" from iTunes? Really, I'd love to know, but it just doesn't work like that.
Perhaps there's some virtual CD-R drive that makes the system think you've got a CD-R installed when it's actually just writing to a disk image; but I've not seen that, and Toast certainly doesn't provide that functionality.
My girlfriend works at a gallery on the UC Irvine campus called the Beall Center for Art & Technology and they currently have an installation of some of the LEMUR "robots". Frankly, I was a little disappointed as they are more funky MIDI instrument than robot, but if you're in or near Orange County, CA, go check it out.
BS. On my Canon 20D, not the most expensive camera, I can shoot 9 full resolution RAW files in rapid burst, and then the buffering begins and I can continue until the card fills up at a reduced 1fps. There are several cameras with bigger buffers and faster CPUs than mine.
The camera does not become useless; it's fully functional (can view files while clearing the buffer, for instance) and can even keep shooting as the buffer clears.
Now, this new compressor won't make a difference for me as I shoot in RAW, not JPEG. If I was shooting in JPEG my buffer would hold somewhere over 20 shots before slowing down... in other words, nearly a full roll of 24 frame film in about 4 seconds.
Did you not notice that the terrorists who hijacked the planes on 9/11 didn't exactly value the life they might have after committing the act? Why would any terrorist be discouraged by some yahoo getting sent up for something this lame? You realize someone willing to give their life to kill a bunch of innocents isn't going to think twice about a possibly stiff prison sentence, don't you?
This guy was doing a stupid, possibly dangerous thing. It wasn't terrorism, however, and a multi-decade prison sentence isn't going to discourage actual terrorists (though it will hopefully discourage other idiots who don't have terroristic intent to pull similar crap - though I somehow doubt that too).
Thank you, Dr. Jones.
300,000 * 300,000 = 90,000,000,000
Yes, that's right - 90 gigapixels
Of course that's just the theoretical top canvas size. I'd like to see you do anything in Photoshop that large with the current memory limits the way they are. The largest file's I've worked on in PS CS are panoramas around 70,000 x 15,000 or thereabouts, and boy that was fun (considering the 10 or 12 layers I had, plus adjustment layers). Reminds me of the old days!