What *POSSIBLE* justification is there for publishing material where an individual has done nothing wrong,
Would it be ok if the individual had done something wrong? If so, who decides if it's wrong or not? Clearly, some people think Anshe Chung deserves the embarrassment.
Apple's demand is only 5% of IBM's fab capacity...
I knew someone was going to jump on this without actually thinking about the context. It doesn't matter what IBM's fab capacity is. The yields of the G5 had remained crappy and showed no signs of improving. They could not meet demand. P.A. Semi might have a nice chip, but it hasn't even reached the fab yet, and even when it does yields are not going to be anywhere near Apple's current or projected demand out of the gate, if ever.
Maybe Apple could have put off the Switch after all...
P.A. Semi couldn't possibly have produced enough of these to meet Apple's demand. They would be using IBM's fabs, which we know were not able to meet Apple's demand in the past.
There are so many other options: from.mov to video containing mp3 files. Why.wmv?
90% or more of the potential audience will be able to view it, and from the producer's perspective, it doesn't suck that much. That's why WMV is popular.
So it's about the snapshot ability of ZFS, and that's exactly what will be needed for Time Machine.
A little bird told me that the current implementation of Time Machine operates on a much simpler and backwards-compatable principle. It doesn't need ZFS. That said, Time Machine is really more of an interface concept and API -- the back-end could be replaced by ZFS in the future.
...what he perceived the financial situation of the MacHeist promotion to be, even though he admitted multiple times in the article that he didn't have any first-hand knowledge of how the thing was actually structured.
Has anyone actually claimed that it was structured in a more equitable way?
The ruckus is that MacHeist's professed goal is to help the Mac shareware community, but in the end MacHeist is taking a far larger share of the profits than the participants, and due to the structure of the deal, the greater the sales, the larger the discrepancy becomes.
Thank you for ignoring my entire comment. It makes it easier to determine whether you're really an idiot or not.
The mac way of doing things made a lot more sense before practically every document got a preview. You could tell at a glance what application would open the file because it had a descriptive icon.
Better still is if you don't even have to look at an icon to know which application a file is going to open in, because it opens in the same application that you always open it in, unless you tell it otherwise. Kind of like how it works now.
If apple had put the filetype icon at the corner of thumbnails, then maybe it wouldn't be as confusing.
Or maybe if idiot users like yourself would turn off those "confusing" previews if they find icons so damned important. You're given options for a reason.
Unfortunately they did it because that's the way they've always done it, but without considering if it's a good idea in this age and if not, why, and how it could be improved.
Your smugness is unfounded. You are wrong and I have explained why. While you may continue to believe that the rest of the world is to stupid and illogical to understand them, your ideas suck.
VLC is a very significant piece of software, not just for Linux users (for whom its especially significant) but for anyone who watches a lot of movies or other media files.
This version introduces a number of new and long-requested features, beyond what the point-release number upgrade would lead you to believe.
Would you care to back up these statements? I personally find VLC to be more or less a big turd, and have never really understood the excitement about it. I'm interested to know what I'm missing.
We don't. We have Uniform Type Identifiers, which can be determined from file extensions, MIME types, or type/creator codes, depending on what's available.
It makes much more sense to have a single default application to open a single document type, and let you access alternate applications from the context menu.
It might be consistent but it's stupid. Let's say I save a file from Photoshop, close it, and then double-click on it in the Finder because I want to go back to what I was just doing with it. In your world, going back to what I was just doing takes a backseat to the "consistent" experience of having to choose Photoshop from a context menu every time I want to re-open a file that came from Photoshop in the first place. It would be a royal pain in the ass to have to constantly tell your computer that you want to do the same thing that you've always done.
If you want things to work your way on your computer, there are plenty of ways for you to do it. I'm sure you know what some of them are. "Consistency" is not a panacea.
Re:Hmmm....WMV9 on OS X?
on
VLC 0.8.6 Released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Ffmpeg codecs are another implementation (than Windows DLLs) achieved through reverse-engeenering (which also may be illegal to use in some countries)
Um, no. There is no reverse-engineering involved. Windows Media Video 9 (fourcc: WMV3) is the same as VC-1, which is an SMTPE standard, and a reference implementation has been available for a while now. I've been using ffmpeg builds with it for months.
Of course, I can't blame anyone for being confused, given how utterly useless the ffmpeg documentation is.
The fact that it is not proves that Apple is not serious about interface homogeneity.
I think the fact that they're called "Human Interface Guidelines" and not "Human Interface Rules" is enough to show that homogeneity was never the purpose. I don't think anywhere in the HIG it is stated "There is never any reason to do anything differently. We have thought of everything." In fact, I'm pretty sure it uses the word "should" quite a bit more than "must".
That should be the same key combination every time. No matter what.
Not even when doing to would incur the wrath of thousands of Photoshop users who have been using Cmd-H for years as something else? Not even when people insane about consistency that apparently do a lot of hiding when they use CS can just use Cmd-Shift-Opt-K and change the keyboard shortcuts themselves?
For all of the things that made Firefly awesome, I can't think of a single one that translates into a good MMORPG. Granted, I'm a snob and can't think of a single good MMORPG, but still... What makes anyone think it won't just be yet-another MMO version of Elite?
Maybe there is something that lets that happen right now and if so, I'd love to hear about it.
CalDAV is the standard upon which the Hula calendar was based, so that's a name for what you're looking for. Conveniently, the next version of iCal (included with Leopard) supports it, and the server portion is open source, in case anyone was going to start crying about that.
I feel like the only person in the world who has looked at Second Life and had absolutely zero interest in it.
For something you have zero interest in, it's kind of odd for you to take the time to post a comment on a story about it, don't you think?
...and it has shitty marketing!
on
The Zune Cometh
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If you look at the first run of commercials-- which you will undoubtedly be seeing every time you turn on the TV--you've got to wonder just what the hell Microsoft is thinking.
These ads show people out in public, at parties and concerts, with friends; there's talking, laughing, dancing; a DJ or a band playing music. And somehow you're supposed to make the connection that these are the perfect places to put on your headphones and listen to your own music.
"Wow, I'm glad I paid $20 for a ticket to this concert with all of these people! Now I'm going to listen to my $250 Zune by myself! Welcome to the Social."
Slashdot Mirror
What *POSSIBLE* justification is there for publishing material where an individual has done nothing wrong,
Would it be ok if the individual had done something wrong? If so, who decides if it's wrong or not? Clearly, some people think Anshe Chung deserves the embarrassment.
Apple's demand is only 5% of IBM's fab capacity...
I knew someone was going to jump on this without actually thinking about the context. It doesn't matter what IBM's fab capacity is. The yields of the G5 had remained crappy and showed no signs of improving. They could not meet demand. P.A. Semi might have a nice chip, but it hasn't even reached the fab yet, and even when it does yields are not going to be anywhere near Apple's current or projected demand out of the gate, if ever.
Maybe Apple could have put off the Switch after all...
P.A. Semi couldn't possibly have produced enough of these to meet Apple's demand. They would be using IBM's fabs, which we know were not able to meet Apple's demand in the past.
There are so many other options: from .mov to video containing mp3 files. Why .wmv?
90% or more of the potential audience will be able to view it, and from the producer's perspective, it doesn't suck that much. That's why WMV is popular.
Um... doesn't that require him to have physical access to the server anyway?
According to TFA, no. Now maybe you want to R it.
I can't remember the specifics, but I'm sure Apple did something similar a while ago.
Not the same thing. Apple gave laptops to the top contributors to the WebKit open source project., not just people that had said nice things about them.
So it's about the snapshot ability of ZFS, and that's exactly what will be needed for Time Machine.
A little bird told me that the current implementation of Time Machine operates on a much simpler and backwards-compatable principle. It doesn't need ZFS. That said, Time Machine is really more of an interface concept and API -- the back-end could be replaced by ZFS in the future.
If MacHeist took 10x the risk of the developers...
If you're saying they did, then you'd be wrong. If they had there would be no "schism".
Equity isn't quantitative, it's qualitative.
Thanks for stating the obvious. Now can we talk about reality?
What does "equitable" mean?
Perhaps an arrangement where MacHeist didn't make 10 times as much as any of the developers.
...what he perceived the financial situation of the MacHeist promotion to be, even though he admitted multiple times in the article that he didn't have any first-hand knowledge of how the thing was actually structured.
Has anyone actually claimed that it was structured in a more equitable way?
what's all the rucus about?
The ruckus is that MacHeist's professed goal is to help the Mac shareware community, but in the end MacHeist is taking a far larger share of the profits than the participants, and due to the structure of the deal, the greater the sales, the larger the discrepancy becomes.
I rest my case.
Your case rests on a one-letter typo? Jesus H.
Thank you for ignoring my entire comment. It makes it easier to determine whether you're really an idiot or not.
The mac way of doing things made a lot more sense before practically every document got a preview. You could tell at a glance what application would open the file because it had a descriptive icon.
Better still is if you don't even have to look at an icon to know which application a file is going to open in, because it opens in the same application that you always open it in, unless you tell it otherwise. Kind of like how it works now.
If apple had put the filetype icon at the corner of thumbnails, then maybe it wouldn't be as confusing.
Or maybe if idiot users like yourself would turn off those "confusing" previews if they find icons so damned important. You're given options for a reason.
Unfortunately they did it because that's the way they've always done it, but without considering if it's a good idea in this age and if not, why, and how it could be improved.
Your smugness is unfounded. You are wrong and I have explained why. While you may continue to believe that the rest of the world is to stupid and illogical to understand them, your ideas suck.
VLC is a very significant piece of software, not just for Linux users (for whom its especially significant) but for anyone who watches a lot of movies or other media files.
This version introduces a number of new and long-requested features, beyond what the point-release number upgrade would lead you to believe.
Would you care to back up these statements? I personally find VLC to be more or less a big turd, and have never really understood the excitement about it. I'm interested to know what I'm missing.
Why do we still have creator/type flags?
We don't. We have Uniform Type Identifiers, which can be determined from file extensions, MIME types, or type/creator codes, depending on what's available.
It makes much more sense to have a single default application to open a single document type, and let you access alternate applications from the context menu.
It might be consistent but it's stupid. Let's say I save a file from Photoshop, close it, and then double-click on it in the Finder because I want to go back to what I was just doing with it. In your world, going back to what I was just doing takes a backseat to the "consistent" experience of having to choose Photoshop from a context menu every time I want to re-open a file that came from Photoshop in the first place. It would be a royal pain in the ass to have to constantly tell your computer that you want to do the same thing that you've always done.
If you want things to work your way on your computer, there are plenty of ways for you to do it. I'm sure you know what some of them are. "Consistency" is not a panacea.
Ffmpeg codecs are another implementation (than Windows DLLs) achieved through reverse-engeenering (which also may be illegal to use in some countries)
Um, no. There is no reverse-engineering involved. Windows Media Video 9 (fourcc: WMV3) is the same as VC-1, which is an SMTPE standard, and a reference implementation has been available for a while now. I've been using ffmpeg builds with it for months.
Of course, I can't blame anyone for being confused, given how utterly useless the ffmpeg documentation is.
The fact that it is not proves that Apple is not serious about interface homogeneity.
I think the fact that they're called "Human Interface Guidelines" and not "Human Interface Rules" is enough to show that homogeneity was never the purpose. I don't think anywhere in the HIG it is stated "There is never any reason to do anything differently. We have thought of everything." In fact, I'm pretty sure it uses the word "should" quite a bit more than "must".
That should be the same key combination every time. No matter what.
Not even when doing to would incur the wrath of thousands of Photoshop users who have been using Cmd-H for years as something else?
Not even when people insane about consistency that apparently do a lot of hiding when they use CS can just use Cmd-Shift-Opt-K and change the keyboard shortcuts themselves?
So what is your solution?
To stop pretending that every country that we don't know much about must be corrupt and crime-ridden.
For all of the things that made Firefly awesome, I can't think of a single one that translates into a good MMORPG. Granted, I'm a snob and can't think of a single good MMORPG, but still... What makes anyone think it won't just be yet-another MMO version of Elite?
Maybe there is something that lets that happen right now and if so, I'd love to hear about it.
CalDAV is the standard upon which the Hula calendar was based, so that's a name for what you're looking for. Conveniently, the next version of iCal (included with Leopard) supports it, and the server portion is open source, in case anyone was going to start crying about that.
I don't see how this is much different from someone selling custom-made clothes for your Sims.
Nobody has become a millionaire selling custom-made clothes for your Sims.
I feel like the only person in the world who has looked at Second Life and had absolutely zero interest in it.
For something you have zero interest in, it's kind of odd for you to take the time to post a comment on a story about it, don't you think?
If you look at the first run of commercials-- which you will undoubtedly be seeing every time you turn on the TV--you've got to wonder just what the hell Microsoft is thinking.
These ads show people out in public, at parties and concerts, with friends; there's talking, laughing, dancing; a DJ or a band playing music. And somehow you're supposed to make the connection that these are the perfect places to put on your headphones and listen to your own music.
"Wow, I'm glad I paid $20 for a ticket to this concert with all of these people! Now I'm going to listen to my $250 Zune by myself! Welcome to the Social."
There's been at least one revision since then that was not released.
10.4.8 was released less than a month ago.
10.4.7 was released at the end of June, and the source was posted a little over a month later.
Apple has also noted that due to security concerns they have no intention of making any future version of MacOSX or Darwin publicly available.
Apple didn't say that. Tom Yager said that. And he was wrong.
Therein lies the point of contention that I was asking about.
Funny how you didn't mention it in your first comment.
MacOS X is NOT licensed GPL. It has nothing to do at all to do with GPL and "getting around" anything.
Yeah, I know. That's what I said.