I agree that Prism is the best combination of nice GUI, some decent linear and nonlinear analysis tools, and good ease of use. Its biggest liability is the fairly small number of graph types supported.
I've tried most of the other ones listed here. The X-windows based programs are fine, I particularly like R, but Christ almighty it's irritating getting them working. And besides, I want to use a *native* Mac (Aqua) application.
The two best programs I know from the Windows world are SigmaPlot and Origin--the former irritating and quirky, but both have good analytic capabilities, and a huge number of 2- and 3-D graph types. I've contacted both companies, requesting Mac versions, and encourage anyone else interested to do so:
http://www.spssscience.com/corpinfo/index.cfm h ttp://originlab.com/www/company/contact.asp
Apple's new browser (Safari) has a "snapback" feature, in effect a second back button that goes back in the stack to the last page loaded via a typed-in URL or bookmark. The user can also mark any page to be snapped back to.
This addresses one of the issues the authors of this study are looking at (getting out of a deeply-nested site), without modifying the familiar stack-based 'back' behavior used by all browsers.
No. See the many, many other discussion on/., ArsTechnica, etc., about G4 vector processing capabilities. This and laptops are the (only) areas where the G4 remains competitive or better than the P4.
Oh, please. If Galileo had access to modern copyright laws, intellectual property lawyers, etc., he would have used them too. It's called protecting your investment.
If anyone can use/copy/extend/subvert your invention as soon as you put it out there--if you can't make any rules at all about how it will be used, ever--what exactly is the incentive to innovate?
>I can't remember Microsoft ever taking defensive moves against Apple
Well, MS has a habit of making big announcements the week of Steve Jobs' Macworld keynotes--often that very morning. Apple may or may not be a threat, but Microsoft certainly tries to steal the spotlight at times.
I thought that S.E. was a funny mix of two things. For many of the chapters (Measuring human welfare, Life expectancy and health, Food and hunger, Prosperity... basically all of Part II, and parts of Part III and IV) he makes good arguments. But they're not new, and he's setting up straw men to knock them down--no scientists, for example, are out there arguing that we're running out of space to store our garbage. So he picks on groups like WorldWatch Institute. Fair enough, in my opinion--there's no question that many environmental groups, like any dependent on direct mail and memberships contribubtions, tend to benefit from a sense of crisis. But this argument has been made before, and much more eloquently, by Greg Easterbrook in his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist." If you haven't read it, do; it's much more readable than Mr. Lomborg's tome and its 3000 footnotes.
However, in a number of the chapters, S.E. is totally different. It has to be: while issues like biodiversity and global warming are tricky and complex, there *is* a scientific consensus here that is at odds with Mr. Lomborg's thesis (the Julian Simon most-people-are-getting-better-most-of-the-time one, extended to these topics). So he changes tactics, and the book becomes much more deceptive, in my opinion. Given that there is a broad scientific consensus (e.g., IPCC 2001 for global climate change), Lomborg has to become much more highly selective in his sources and assumptions; it's this selectivity that was noted most frequently by those critics in Scientific American.
One final note: the Economist is an excellent magazine, but it's not unbiased. I was surprised to read their claim that no evidence has been adduced against the book. Well, no, no one that I've read has found that S.E. said 1 when in reallity it's 2; but again, selectivity of sources and presentation is everything.
I've just installed the 10.2.3 update, and Classic refuses to start--the startup window is just hanging there. (Process is not hung, though.) This is a plain-vanilla Classic; nothing unusual installed at all. Anyway if you depend on it to do work, maybe hold off on updating until other reports come in.
I have no idea--sorry!--and as I said, wasn't particularly trying to make fun of your loss. It sucks. Hard to imagine why one large file would just vanish while doing the upgrade.
>What about a Macintosh Powerbook or a G4 makes them worth that much of an apple premium?
That's a reasonable question, but not in the context of this thread...the whole "Switch" campaign, and this software, is aimed at users whole will generally switch to a iMac or iBook. And those machines are actually pretty decent deals, especially compared to the pricey "pro" line.
And to a poster above...no, obviously this program won't transfer your custom auto-connect scripts. Duh. If you can do that, I bet you can get those puppies over yourself.
1) Can't verify homeschoolers (at least not easily). Every Joe would try to get a copy.
2) Very small number of people. "If Apple were to offer a homeschooling teacher this deal, they would be reaching as many people as they would through a public school..." Um, no.
No, the logic is straightforward. Arsenic, PCBS and other chlorinated compounds, toxic metals, etc., in the ground can get into the groundwater, and they're *very* hard to extract in situ. Once sequestered in lignin-based tissue (i.e., structural wood) they are (i) out of the ground, (ii) will not get in the groundwater, and (iii) amenable to further treatment. The ideal solution would be *poof!* and the toxins vanish; since we can't' do that, this is a pretty damn good one.
Incidentally, non-engineered plants do this as well. Populus (aspen and the like) is particularly good at it.
I think this article is many things, and somewhat interesting, but one thing it's NOT is well-written. The entire piece has a whining, bitchy air, it's repetitive, and little proof is given for any of his assertions. It's just "People I have talked to from Apple..."
Sure, OK, management can lead people on death marches. But the point has been better, and more eloquently, elsewhere.
You may have some other issues here with #1 and #2. Microsoft Word 98 and EndNote 4 both run fine under Classic on my Pismo PowerBook. (Because EndNote 4 DOES work like a charm with Word 98, in fact, is why I agree with you--why pay for an upgrade to it?)
I don't think anyone has said you can do everything under Classic that you can booting in OS9. But in my experience you can do most things.
Multiple bytes encode the color information for each pixel, allowing it to have one of many (up to "millions") of colors. So what this is saying is that the icons colors can be chosen from this large palette, not that millions are simultaneously present in a given icon.
Thanks for the clarification. But my point still seems to have some validity--even if it's a scripting issue, iPhoto *only* offers to use Apple's client. I think there are other ways this could have been handled that would have given the user more choice, even if it meant (e.g.) only supporting Entourage, Eudora, and Mail. This would not have been too onerous to add.
There is the occasional exception to the iApps "just" being stand-alone and models for developers. For instance, iPhoto ignores the email client setting in OS X, only offering to use Apple's Mail. (There are hacks to change this, but that's not the point.) This perhaps is an example of Microsoft-like, or at least dumb, behavior.
Also in the minor tidbit department: lots of people bitched about the command-tab in 10.1.x would shift between running apps linearly (i.e., order in the Dock) as opposed to a stack (i.e., in order of last use). This has changed in Jaguar, and makes app switching MUCH better.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that Prism is the best combination of nice GUI, some decent linear and nonlinear analysis tools, and good ease of use. Its biggest liability is the fairly small number of graph types supported.
h ttp://originlab.com/www/company/contact.asp
I've tried most of the other ones listed here. The X-windows based programs are fine, I particularly like R, but Christ almighty it's irritating getting them working. And besides, I want to use a *native* Mac (Aqua) application.
The two best programs I know from the Windows world are SigmaPlot and Origin--the former irritating and quirky, but both have good analytic capabilities, and a huge number of 2- and 3-D graph types. I've contacted both companies, requesting Mac versions, and encourage anyone else interested to do so:
http://www.spssscience.com/corpinfo/index.cfm
B
>I've been fairly unenthused with just about every game I've ever played
"Ferazel's Wand" excluded, of course...
Apple's new browser (Safari) has a "snapback" feature, in effect a second back button that goes back in the stack to the last page loaded via a typed-in URL or bookmark. The user can also mark any page to be snapped back to.
This addresses one of the issues the authors of this study are looking at (getting out of a deeply-nested site), without modifying the familiar stack-based 'back' behavior used by all browsers.
No. See the many, many other discussion on /., ArsTechnica, etc., about G4 vector processing capabilities. This and laptops are the (only) areas where the G4 remains competitive or better than the P4.
I saw this on Apple's web page and had the same reaction--but "expandible" is in the dictionary as an alternate spelling of "expandable."
Oh, please. If Galileo had access to modern copyright laws, intellectual property lawyers, etc., he would have used them too. It's called protecting your investment.
If anyone can use/copy/extend/subvert your invention as soon as you put it out there--if you can't make any rules at all about how it will be used, ever--what exactly is the incentive to innovate?
>I can't remember Microsoft ever taking defensive moves against Apple
Well, MS has a habit of making big announcements the week of Steve Jobs' Macworld keynotes--often that very morning. Apple may or may not be a threat, but Microsoft certainly tries to steal the spotlight at times.
I thought that S.E. was a funny mix of two things. For many of the chapters (Measuring human welfare, Life expectancy and health, Food and hunger, Prosperity... basically all of Part II, and parts of Part III and IV) he makes good arguments. But they're not new, and he's setting up straw men to knock them down--no scientists, for example, are out there arguing that we're running out of space to store our garbage. So he picks on groups like WorldWatch Institute. Fair enough, in my opinion--there's no question that many environmental groups, like any dependent on direct mail and memberships contribubtions, tend to benefit from a sense of crisis. But this argument has been made before, and much more eloquently, by Greg Easterbrook in his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist." If you haven't read it, do; it's much more readable than Mr. Lomborg's tome and its 3000 footnotes.
However, in a number of the chapters, S.E. is totally different. It has to be: while issues like biodiversity and global warming are tricky and complex, there *is* a scientific consensus here that is at odds with Mr. Lomborg's thesis (the Julian Simon most-people-are-getting-better-most-of-the-time one, extended to these topics). So he changes tactics, and the book becomes much more deceptive, in my opinion. Given that there is a broad scientific consensus (e.g., IPCC 2001 for global climate change), Lomborg has to become much more highly selective in his sources and assumptions; it's this selectivity that was noted most frequently by those critics in Scientific American.
One final note: the Economist is an excellent magazine, but it's not unbiased. I was surprised to read their claim that no evidence has been adduced against the book. Well, no, no one that I've read has found that S.E. said 1 when in reallity it's 2; but again, selectivity of sources and presentation is everything.
>I feel kinda dirty replying to my own post
You'll go blind if you do this too much...
Even easier: in Wisconsin it takes 20 seconds on a web site (http://nocall.wisconsin.gov).
I've just installed the 10.2.3 update, and Classic refuses to start--the startup window is just hanging there. (Process is not hung, though.) This is a plain-vanilla Classic; nothing unusual installed at all. Anyway if you depend on it to do work, maybe hold off on updating until other reports come in.
I have no idea--sorry!--and as I said, wasn't particularly trying to make fun of your loss. It sucks. Hard to imagine why one large file would just vanish while doing the upgrade.
Yeah, though, back up before system upgrades.
Regards,
B
Not to make light of your troubles, but see my prediction above:
& ci d=4647416
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=44782
Ten to one, I said. Should have given 100-1.
Extra battery is $129 at the Apple store.
You compromise the working classes? What does that mean? You get caught in bed with them?
>What about a Macintosh Powerbook or a G4 makes them worth that much of an apple premium?
That's a reasonable question, but not in the context of this thread...the whole "Switch" campaign, and this software, is aimed at users whole will generally switch to a iMac or iBook. And those machines are actually pretty decent deals, especially compared to the pricey "pro" line.
And to a poster above...no, obviously this program won't transfer your custom auto-connect scripts. Duh. If you can do that, I bet you can get those puppies over yourself.
1) Can't verify homeschoolers (at least not easily). Every Joe would try to get a copy.
2) Very small number of people. "If Apple were to offer a homeschooling teacher this deal, they would be reaching as many people as they would through a public school..." Um, no.
Another good one: I remember being dumped into MacsBug at the breakpoint "BowelsOfTheMemoryManager"!
No, the logic is straightforward. Arsenic, PCBS and other chlorinated compounds, toxic metals, etc., in the ground can get into the groundwater, and they're *very* hard to extract in situ. Once sequestered in lignin-based tissue (i.e., structural wood) they are (i) out of the ground, (ii) will not get in the groundwater, and (iii) amenable to further treatment. The ideal solution would be *poof!* and the toxins vanish; since we can't' do that, this is a pretty damn good one.
Incidentally, non-engineered plants do this as well. Populus (aspen and the like) is particularly good at it.
I think this article is many things, and somewhat interesting, but one thing it's NOT is well-written. The entire piece has a whining, bitchy air, it's repetitive, and little proof is given for any of his assertions. It's just "People I have talked to from Apple..."
Sure, OK, management can lead people on death marches. But the point has been better, and more eloquently, elsewhere.
You may have some other issues here with #1 and #2. Microsoft Word 98 and EndNote 4 both run fine under Classic on my Pismo PowerBook. (Because EndNote 4 DOES work like a charm with Word 98, in fact, is why I agree with you--why pay for an upgrade to it?)
I don't think anyone has said you can do everything under Classic that you can booting in OS9. But in my experience you can do most things.
Multiple bytes encode the color information for each pixel, allowing it to have one of many (up to "millions") of colors. So what this is saying is that the icons colors can be chosen from this large palette, not that millions are simultaneously present in a given icon.
Thanks for the clarification. But my point still seems to have some validity--even if it's a scripting issue, iPhoto *only* offers to use Apple's client. I think there are other ways this could have been handled that would have given the user more choice, even if it meant (e.g.) only supporting Entourage, Eudora, and Mail. This would not have been too onerous to add.
There is the occasional exception to the iApps "just" being stand-alone and models for developers. For instance, iPhoto ignores the email client setting in OS X, only offering to use Apple's Mail. (There are hacks to change this, but that's not the point.) This perhaps is an example of Microsoft-like, or at least dumb, behavior.
Also in the minor tidbit department: lots of people bitched about the command-tab in 10.1.x would shift between running apps linearly (i.e., order in the Dock) as opposed to a stack (i.e., in order of last use). This has changed in Jaguar, and makes app switching MUCH better.