The cartoons were very cool, but why GL would create a script that sort of needs the viewer to have seen them beforehand (and most movie-goers haven't) is kind of silly.
To make people rush out and buy the cartoons, of course. The added profits from the shorts of the DVDs will be truly impressive.
Sure. What's the best selling Office suite for Mac?
Office for Mac, of course. Only once in its history has it ever used the same codebase as the Windows version: namely, version 6. That release was so bad, and had such a poor reputation and showing on the Mac, that they had to go back to selling the previous release.
Microsoft learned its lesson from that release: you do not cut corners on the Mac if you want to survive.
Some Windows software applications are well written; others take shortcuts. : How is this different from Mac software?
Developers who take shortcuts on the Mac don't survive. The Mac community is very picky about these things, and many programs have stood or fallen based more on reputation than anything else.
Windows users, it seems, aren't so picky. Even a badly-written app will thrive if it does what it's supposed to do half the time. Users do not demand the perfection they deserve, and they get what they pay for.
Memory Not all RAM is equal. Some works well. Cheap stuff doesn't. : Makes save you from this trouble by only allowing you to buy the expensive stuff
You mean the stuff that actually complies to the standards and doesn't cut corners?
Hard disks. Same problem: cheap or reliable. Your call. : Again, solved by Apple by not allowing "cheap".
If you're talking about SCSI versus IDE, Macs have used IDE drives for a long time. Frankly, I think this is more a Bad Thing than a Good Thing, and I hope it is not the start of a trend of cheap-before-good in Apple's products.
It's more accurate to say that PowerPC POWER, rather than that PowerPC != POWER..
There are several lines of chips based off of the POWER architecture. PowerPC is one of them, and as others have mentioned it has fixed-size 32-bit instructions. It's a subset of the POWER architecture which has this particular property, but that property might not apply to POWER itself.
The problem with this statement is that the man's idea of security is too simplistic. He sees the only security threat worth worrying about as stealing, altering, or erasing the user's data. Certainly this is a valid concern, and if it truly were the only thing to worry about on the Net then his complaint would be valid. Where it falls on its face, however, is the plain and simple fact that this is not the only thing to be concerned about, security-wise.
Nowadays, many malware authors don't actually care much about any data that's stored on disk. It's the data you enter every day, often without realizing it, that's [i]really[/i] interesting. What sites you visit, what ads you respond to, and such: these can be gleaned from history files with some success, but by the time you get that data it's already out of date. Getting it in realtime is better, and this is what spyware does.
Even this, however, is not the only reason malware exists. Very often, what malware authors want isn't even your data; they want your computer itself. That's what zombie networks are, essentially. This allows The Bad Guys (be they crackers, spammers, or whatever) to make use of your machine to perform their nefarious activities, and the hell of it is that they can do it in ways that make it look like you're the culprit.
Of course, even this doesn't cover everything. Adware doesn't usually bother to collect data (though it can), and often doesn't act as a zombie: it's just there to shove even more ads in your face. Yes, this is more annoying than destructive, but it's still malicious.
The point of all this: Data may be king, but a king is nothing without his court. That's the problem with this man: he's too ignorant to see any security problems outside of data theft. As a result, he advocates irresponsible computing, seeing no harm not because there isn't any harm -for there is- but because his concept of harm is not broad enough.
After looking at the font exception they mentioned, it looks to me as though this only applies if you embed the font in your document. Simply using the font doesn't trigger the source requirement, and the exemption would mean that embedding the font doesn't trigger the requirement either.
At least they recognize that the retarded second and hitherto-unknown brother actually is retarded and hitherto-unknown. We could have been stuck with a different-looking but intellectually-identical actor -I mean android- for the next several years.
There seems to be a fair bot of documentation on the code itself, and a set of language references, but I don't see any examples of code which actually uses these. How soon could we expect things like, say, a tutorial?
Don't get me wrong; these concepts are both very intriguing. However, without working examples, I don't see any real 'push' to examine them much further.
AltiVec was introduced with the G4 line. The Mac Mini has such a chip. If it were to use a G3 chip, then it wouldn't have AltiVec, but that is not the case.
How do you figure they've done anything that they could be convicted of treason for, then? I suppose it depends on the country, but in the US treason is very narrowly defined, and can only come from two actions: committing acts of war against the US, or aiding and abetting those who are.
Last I checked, India wasn't at war with the US. Quite the opposite, actually. Given that, I'm not sure you can make a treason charge stick.
Now, there are other nations with less-strict definitions of treason, and you might be able to make it stick there. Then again, how many of them are involved in the outsourcing stuff?
Shining a laser in someone's eyes is assault, plain and simple. I don't know if I'd call it terrorism, but I don't find criminal charges to be out of order.
That was being unfair. Being fair, according to TFA, Microsoft's solution to the security problems is to upgrade to the latest windows OS, i.e. XP. Not buy a new comp. Still not a solution per se. But, it's different from buying a new machine.
That was the solution for people who can't use SP2, not for the people who haven't upgraded. As such, it's quite fair, since if you can't upgrade then the problem is almost certainly a matter of hardware not supporting it.
It's really a shame about that program. It used to be the best office suite around for the price, and better than many of the more expensive ones.
Then, Apple bought it. This is not to say that Apple made it bad; rather, it's to say that Apple didn't do anything with it. They put in quite literally the bare minimum of effort to port it to OSX, and have done basically nothing with it since then. The port itself was so bad that it has permanently sullied the reputation of the Carbon API. There is still a faction of OSX users who won't use Carbon apps because of how bad the AppleWorks port was, three years after that port's release.
I guess it shows how important first impressions are. The first Carbon port was also the orignal Bad Carbon Port, and so to this day there are people who insist on only using Cocoa. Carbon got a bad rap because of Apple's lackluster effort in its first ports.
The author says there are "no means to resolve" but I beg to differ. There is clearly a means to resolve these inconsistencies in that particular article! Edit it!!
A reader can only edit an article reasonably if he knows where an answer can be found. The entire point of going to Wikipedia is to find answers, which implies that a reader has not yet found that which is needed to correct the article.
This is the fundamental problem with Wikipedia as a reliable information source: the "accumulation of accuracy" is based on circular logic. Readers will come looking for answers and then provide them. Further, since there is no measure of accuracy, it's not possible to know how accurate a given article may be. There cannot even be a general measure of accuracy, because it is inconsistent across the service and constantly changing.
Wikipedia is good for a quick smattering of information on some immediately-needed topic, I would never use it for serious research. The theory behind which it works is based on a logical fallacy, such that it can never achirve the noble dreams of its originators. It has its uses, but research isn't one of them.
There's no need for Apple to get into this. There are several dedicated porting shops already, including Aspyr and MacSoft (mentioned in the article) and Westlake Interactive.
Apple may do well to provide assistance to these shops, but frankly its own resources are stretched too thin already. Why do people have this blind and absurd obsession with everything being made by Apple, anyway?
The point of the system is to be at a retro level of power, so that you are forced to learn to optimize and such. If the things you'd asked for had been implemented -particularly the RAM- it would have "spoiled" the developers.
That's the opinion of the makers of the system, at at any rate. Whether or not you agree with them is up to you, but I have to say I have a hard time disagreeing. As for saying this system is only good for Tetris clones and MULE, though, I think you're sorely mistaken.
If AOL is smart, they'll capitalize on their investment into Mozilla by making the Mac version of AOL software use Gecko. That's more than enough users to make a dent in the market. AOL, last I heard, had two million Mac users. That'd be over twice the number of people that downloaded Firefox 1.0PR.
The Mac version of AOL already uses Gecko, and has for some time. Unfortunately, it's an old version of Gecko; roughly comparable to Netscape 6 if I'm not mistaken.
Dude, that was out of line by miles. The least you could do is be polite.
Nevertheless, you do bring up a valid question: could a high-tech baby monitor have saved your child? Sad to say, probably not. The research to date shows that monitors haven't had any significant effect in preventing SIDS deaths.
The urge to second-guess one's self after the death of a loved one, particularly a child, is only natural. But ultimately it doesn't do anyone any good.
Imagine if the Internet had started out with today's newest XML standards back in the early 90s. Imagine that browsers were strict and accepted only standards-compliant code.
Dare to dream...
To design a site you'd have to know strict XML and understand DOCTYPES and all that.
You wouldn't have to understand DOCTYPEs, actually. DOCTYPE-switching was only introduced as a direct result of browsers accepting malformed code. If the browsers had done it right from the beginning, DOCTYPE switching would never have been invented, as there would have been no need.
That leaves strict XML. The only thing that's even remotely difficult about this is keeping your tags balanced, and that's pretty freakin trivial.
The layout of your webpage would be strictly defined by CSS 2.0, which means you'd have to learn that too.
Again, extremely easy to learn. If we assume standards-compliant browsers, then the hacks would never have been invented either, which simplifies it even further.
Would the Internet have flourished? Maybe. But I bet adoption would have been slower. It would have certainly put off alot of people trying to create a simple functioning webpage.
Au contraire; it would have made things even easier. The only difference might be that we'd be holding HTML to the same standard as any decent programming or scripting language (get the syntax right or it doesn't work), but that's far from problematic.
Heck, it might have caused some genius to invent a simpler alternative to XML/CSS
There would have been no need. Most of the complications with XML/CSS have come from the non-standardization days, because of all the workarounds that need to be done (mostly for IE). The fact that you're not used to these standards does not make them harder.
Slashdot Mirror
The cartoons were very cool, but why GL would create a script that sort of needs the viewer to have seen them beforehand (and most movie-goers haven't) is kind of silly.
To make people rush out and buy the cartoons, of course. The added profits from the shorts of the DVDs will be truly impressive.
Sure. What's the best selling Office suite for Mac?
Office for Mac, of course. Only once in its history has it ever used the same codebase as the Windows version: namely, version 6. That release was so bad, and had such a poor reputation and showing on the Mac, that they had to go back to selling the previous release.
Microsoft learned its lesson from that release: you do not cut corners on the Mac if you want to survive.
Some Windows software applications are well written; others take shortcuts. : How is this different from Mac software?
Developers who take shortcuts on the Mac don't survive. The Mac community is very picky about these things, and many programs have stood or fallen based more on reputation than anything else.
Windows users, it seems, aren't so picky. Even a badly-written app will thrive if it does what it's supposed to do half the time. Users do not demand the perfection they deserve, and they get what they pay for.
Memory Not all RAM is equal. Some works well. Cheap stuff doesn't. : Makes save you from this trouble by only allowing you to buy the expensive stuff
You mean the stuff that actually complies to the standards and doesn't cut corners?
Hard disks. Same problem: cheap or reliable. Your call. : Again, solved by Apple by not allowing "cheap".
If you're talking about SCSI versus IDE, Macs have used IDE drives for a long time. Frankly, I think this is more a Bad Thing than a Good Thing, and I hope it is not the start of a trend of cheap-before-good in Apple's products.
It's more accurate to say that PowerPC POWER, rather than that PowerPC != POWER..
There are several lines of chips based off of the POWER architecture. PowerPC is one of them, and as others have mentioned it has fixed-size 32-bit instructions. It's a subset of the POWER architecture which has this particular property, but that property might not apply to POWER itself.
The problem with this statement is that the man's idea of security is too simplistic. He sees the only security threat worth worrying about as stealing, altering, or erasing the user's data. Certainly this is a valid concern, and if it truly were the only thing to worry about on the Net then his complaint would be valid. Where it falls on its face, however, is the plain and simple fact that this is not the only thing to be concerned about, security-wise.
Nowadays, many malware authors don't actually care much about any data that's stored on disk. It's the data you enter every day, often without realizing it, that's [i]really[/i] interesting. What sites you visit, what ads you respond to, and such: these can be gleaned from history files with some success, but by the time you get that data it's already out of date. Getting it in realtime is better, and this is what spyware does.
Even this, however, is not the only reason malware exists. Very often, what malware authors want isn't even your data; they want your computer itself. That's what zombie networks are, essentially. This allows The Bad Guys (be they crackers, spammers, or whatever) to make use of your machine to perform their nefarious activities, and the hell of it is that they can do it in ways that make it look like you're the culprit.
Of course, even this doesn't cover everything. Adware doesn't usually bother to collect data (though it can), and often doesn't act as a zombie: it's just there to shove even more ads in your face. Yes, this is more annoying than destructive, but it's still malicious.
The point of all this: Data may be king, but a king is nothing without his court. That's the problem with this man: he's too ignorant to see any security problems outside of data theft. As a result, he advocates irresponsible computing, seeing no harm not because there isn't any harm -for there is- but because his concept of harm is not broad enough.
A plugin that would let Gecko-based browsers use quite possibly the most fundamentally-flawed piece of software ever to have been written?
Gee, who'da thunk it?
After looking at the font exception they mentioned, it looks to me as though this only applies if you embed the font in your document. Simply using the font doesn't trigger the source requirement, and the exemption would mean that embedding the font doesn't trigger the requirement either.
It looks like someone needs to hang around the vi vs. emacs discussions a little more often. Or possibly GNOME vs.KDE.
Do they have thatched roofs? Do you get burninated instead of fired?
At least they recognize that the retarded second and hitherto-unknown brother actually is retarded and hitherto-unknown. We could have been stuck with a different-looking but intellectually-identical actor -I mean android- for the next several years.
There seems to be a fair bot of documentation on the code itself, and a set of language references, but I don't see any examples of code which actually uses these. How soon could we expect things like, say, a tutorial?
Don't get me wrong; these concepts are both very intriguing. However, without working examples, I don't see any real 'push' to examine them much further.
AltiVec was introduced with the G4 line. The Mac Mini has such a chip. If it were to use a G3 chip, then it wouldn't have AltiVec, but that is not the case.
How do you figure they've done anything that they could be convicted of treason for, then? I suppose it depends on the country, but in the US treason is very narrowly defined, and can only come from two actions: committing acts of war against the US, or aiding and abetting those who are.
Last I checked, India wasn't at war with the US. Quite the opposite, actually. Given that, I'm not sure you can make a treason charge stick.
Now, there are other nations with less-strict definitions of treason, and you might be able to make it stick there. Then again, how many of them are involved in the outsourcing stuff?
Non-technical users: Get a Mac.
Technically-advanced users: Install Linux, any of the BSDs, or whatever floats your boat.
Seriously. Windows is the problem. Other operating systems are the solution.
Where'd you get the numbers for this? This isn't intended as a flame; I've never heard this claim before, and so I'm honestly curious.
Shining a laser in someone's eyes is assault, plain and simple. I don't know if I'd call it terrorism, but I don't find criminal charges to be out of order.
That was being unfair. Being fair, according to TFA, Microsoft's solution to the security problems is to upgrade to the latest windows OS, i.e. XP. Not buy a new comp. Still not a solution per se. But, it's different from buying a new machine.
That was the solution for people who can't use SP2, not for the people who haven't upgraded. As such, it's quite fair, since if you can't upgrade then the problem is almost certainly a matter of hardware not supporting it.
It's really a shame about that program. It used to be the best office suite around for the price, and better than many of the more expensive ones.
Then, Apple bought it. This is not to say that Apple made it bad; rather, it's to say that Apple didn't do anything with it. They put in quite literally the bare minimum of effort to port it to OSX, and have done basically nothing with it since then. The port itself was so bad that it has permanently sullied the reputation of the Carbon API. There is still a faction of OSX users who won't use Carbon apps because of how bad the AppleWorks port was, three years after that port's release.
I guess it shows how important first impressions are. The first Carbon port was also the orignal Bad Carbon Port, and so to this day there are people who insist on only using Cocoa. Carbon got a bad rap because of Apple's lackluster effort in its first ports.
The author says there are "no means to resolve" but I beg to differ. There is clearly a means to resolve these inconsistencies in that particular article! Edit it!!
A reader can only edit an article reasonably if he knows where an answer can be found. The entire point of going to Wikipedia is to find answers, which implies that a reader has not yet found that which is needed to correct the article.
This is the fundamental problem with Wikipedia as a reliable information source: the "accumulation of accuracy" is based on circular logic. Readers will come looking for answers and then provide them. Further, since there is no measure of accuracy, it's not possible to know how accurate a given article may be. There cannot even be a general measure of accuracy, because it is inconsistent across the service and constantly changing.
Wikipedia is good for a quick smattering of information on some immediately-needed topic, I would never use it for serious research. The theory behind which it works is based on a logical fallacy, such that it can never achirve the noble dreams of its originators. It has its uses, but research isn't one of them.
There's no need for Apple to get into this. There are several dedicated porting shops already, including Aspyr and MacSoft (mentioned in the article) and Westlake Interactive.
Apple may do well to provide assistance to these shops, but frankly its own resources are stretched too thin already. Why do people have this blind and absurd obsession with everything being made by Apple, anyway?
The point of the system is to be at a retro level of power, so that you are forced to learn to optimize and such. If the things you'd asked for had been implemented -particularly the RAM- it would have "spoiled" the developers.
That's the opinion of the makers of the system, at at any rate. Whether or not you agree with them is up to you, but I have to say I have a hard time disagreeing. As for saying this system is only good for Tetris clones and MULE, though, I think you're sorely mistaken.
If AOL is smart, they'll capitalize on their investment into Mozilla by making the Mac version of AOL software use Gecko. That's more than enough users to make a dent in the market. AOL, last I heard, had two million Mac users. That'd be over twice the number of people that downloaded Firefox 1.0PR.
The Mac version of AOL already uses Gecko, and has for some time. Unfortunately, it's an old version of Gecko; roughly comparable to Netscape 6 if I'm not mistaken.
Dude, that was out of line by miles. The least you could do is be polite.
Nevertheless, you do bring up a valid question: could a high-tech baby monitor have saved your child? Sad to say, probably not. The research to date shows that monitors haven't had any significant effect in preventing SIDS deaths.
The urge to second-guess one's self after the death of a loved one, particularly a child, is only natural. But ultimately it doesn't do anyone any good.
Imagine if the Internet had started out with today's newest XML standards back in the early 90s. Imagine that browsers were strict and accepted only standards-compliant code.
Dare to dream...
To design a site you'd have to know strict XML and understand DOCTYPES and all that.
You wouldn't have to understand DOCTYPEs, actually. DOCTYPE-switching was only introduced as a direct result of browsers accepting malformed code. If the browsers had done it right from the beginning, DOCTYPE switching would never have been invented, as there would have been no need.
That leaves strict XML. The only thing that's even remotely difficult about this is keeping your tags balanced, and that's pretty freakin trivial.
The layout of your webpage would be strictly defined by CSS 2.0, which means you'd have to learn that too.
Again, extremely easy to learn. If we assume standards-compliant browsers, then the hacks would never have been invented either, which simplifies it even further.
Would the Internet have flourished? Maybe. But I bet adoption would have been slower. It would have certainly put off alot of people trying to create a simple functioning webpage.
Au contraire; it would have made things even easier. The only difference might be that we'd be holding HTML to the same standard as any decent programming or scripting language (get the syntax right or it doesn't work), but that's far from problematic.
Heck, it might have caused some genius to invent a simpler alternative to XML/CSS
There would have been no need. Most of the complications with XML/CSS have come from the non-standardization days, because of all the workarounds that need to be done (mostly for IE). The fact that you're not used to these standards does not make them harder.