I started using Ta-Da List the day it launched and haven't looked back since. It's incredibly simple, free, web-based, and endlessly useful. I have a dozen other tools on my computer that can handle to-do lists (with syncing, priorities, due dates, etc), but Ta-Da List's basic approach makes it more useful than any of them.
37signals (the makers), also run two similar-but-different web-based organization apps, Backpack and Basecamp, that I highly recommend. All of them can be used for free.
Re:Same old GNU/God Complex
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
Of course you can. What you can't do is un-GPL someone else's copy of that code, provided they haven't violated the license.
Indeed, that's what I meant. I couldn't think of how to phrase it properly, as you can't really "take back" your code, only change how you license it henceforth.
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps you're mixing up the original BSD license with the modified BSD licence?
Both are Free Software, but the original is incompatable with the GPL (which does not make it non-Free). That brings me back to my other point, which was that you don't need the GPL to have Free Software.
I didn't distinguish in my post because I didn't realize anybody still used the original style; I'm only really familiar with FreeBSD, which does not.
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
To make things crystal clear: You do not have to use the GPL to have Free Software.
Re:Same old GNU/God Complex
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
It is interesting to note that he maintains the copyright to the GPL license, though. Wouldn't it be more appropriate if the GPL were GPL'd, so to speak?
The power to license something comes from holding the copyright.
For example, even if you GPL some code, you still own the copyright. You can choose to relicense it any way you please. However, you can't un-GPL the code you GPLed.
When you can't remember what file format it was in, was that.doc or rtf? Did I write that back in May, or was it April. And damned, but I'm sure that that's gotta be a keyword for it! Or was it? Or, you remember all these things, and it still doesn't show up.
If you can't remember anything about it, how would you even remember it exists?
A worthwhile search system is capable of taking whatever you do remember and narrowing the range of possibilities accordingly. You don't need to be precise. Spotlight, et al. have gone a long way toward increasing the kinds of information that can be used.
It's easy to forget one piece of information about a file, while it's almost impossible to forget everything about it. Folder heirarchies don't take advantage of this, while modern search tools do.
The simple & dumb way as OS X handles packages is just that: it can not handle dependencies, or anything
Yeah, but with the advantage that you don't *need* to handle dependences the overwhelming majority of the time, because there's really only one version number the app should care about. Apps don't need to be statically linked, they just need to be linked to things that are part of the default install. Instead of worrying about foo 2.1.4b, bar 0.7.1, and baz 1.0, you can just say "This app requires Mac OS X 10.4 or later."
The open source way is more flexible, granted, but so far it's been total crap for a mainstream desktop. I think that desktop distributions need to step up and say "We're only going to support these packages for now, so don't use anything else if you want to run on our distro." Otherwise, they're never going to have a stable foundation for people to build upon.
I don't think the places you want to film are important to most people. Most people want a quality image and for now you can't do that in a small size.
Most people would know a quality image if it bit them on the ass. Further, the popularity of low-quality cameras in phones should be an indicator that people are more concerned with having a camera than having a good camera.
Elsewhere they have said, of course, they're not going to allow Mac OS X to run on non-Apple hardware. So it seems that if you want to dual-boot Mac OS X and Windows, you'll have to buy a Mac. (Or wait for the inevitible hack.)
Really I'm hoping that PPC binaries or FAT binaries will be available for at least 4 years.
Apple will still be *shipping* PPC hardware through the end of 2007. They'll obviously be supporting that (with fat binaries) for several years. It will be at least 2009 before PPC is truly dead, probably longer.
I would have waited to buy the powerbook, there was alot more information about G5's not being available for the powerbook. At over 2k for a 15" powerbook it was more expensive than the G5 iMac.
Did your PowerBook suddenly stop working today? No.
I could understand being upset if they released some kind of radically superior product today, or planned to immediately stop supporting older products. But they didn't. They announced plans to ship new products next year that are slightly different than what they've been putting out.
In other words, they did exactly what you're asking them to here: Had they let customers know, or at least quit denying the rumors, they still would have had a sale, just one year later!
Had they let customers know what? That they're going to release new products next year? Wow, I never would have guessed! They're probably going to release new stuff in 2007, 2008, 2009, and beyond.
I'm using a two year old PowerBook right now. The current model is more than twice as fast and costs a few hundred less. Does that mean I should have waited two years before buying?
They could make OS X a truly cross platform OS now, meaning that those of us who have been apple customers for years wouldn't have to uproot everything and throw out the support apps we're used to. Instead, no, they made OS X a platform locked OS, first locked into PPC, then x86. And those of us presently with PPCs are now locked out, because rather than making mac/x86 and mac/PPC equal alternatives Apple is simply phasing PPC out.
Woah there. I promise you that you didn't read anything about Mac OS X not being cross-platform in the future. All that's said in the press release is that Mac *hardware* will switch to Intel by 2007.
If they've been cross platform internally for the past 5 years, dispite not having any Intel hardware in the wild, why would they not be for the next 5, when there's tons of PPC hardware in the wild?
Eventually, I'm sure they'll drop PPC entirely, but it's not going to be as soon as you seem to think.
If I end up replacing my hardware in the next 2 years, I'll be the first one to sign up for any class action lawsuits demanding continued ppc support or compensation.
Have you read *anything* today that says PPC hardware will not be supported in 2 years?
No, you haven't.
New Macs will be Intel-based. New code will support both binaries. There is nothing to indicate that new versions of Mac OS won't support PPC as well as Intel. According to TFA, they've been supporting Intel internally for 5 years, while they had no Intel hardware. Why would you expect them to drop PPC support in 2 years when there is tons of PPC hardware already out there?
If any religious group decides to control a news source don't you think that they might be doing it to get yet another outlet for self-promotion?
Hence the name of the paper being the "Christian Science" Monitor, i.e. "the Monitor belonging to the Christian Science sect"; (often misread as something like "the Monitor of Science belonging to Christians"). It's a tool for self-promotion insofar as putting out a quality product is self-promotion.
Wouldn't you question their motives if a retarded islamic group created a news source? Wouldn't they have something in mind other than just showing you the story?
This is a silly question. You should question the motives of all news sources. That's why they're sources, and not the final word on a subject.
I'm often amazed however at how many non tech literate people I know simply refuse to even try OSX even when I offer to show them how to. These are people who are completely frustrated by Windows but stick with it only because it's what they know and cannot even fathom an alternative.
This is because they have been conditioned (yes, conditioned, by Microsoft, et al.'s misguided design philosophy), to think that computers are an arcane and mysterious thing that requires vast amounts of time and energy to learn to operate effectively without the aid of "wizards" and other forms of handholding.
The truly sad part is that this effects many highly technical people as well, including a fair number of (bad) interface designers, giving them reason to think that the only useful interface is a complex, arcane, and overwrought one.
Whoooooa there. You're already leaving out 99% of of what's going on in the world. Plus, the fact that you're even aware of these things means that Time not covering them is pretty inconsequencial. There's a few hundred other news outlets covering all of the issues you're concerned with. People aren't going to be significantly less informed just because Time spends an issue on a subject that doesn't scare them.
[flamebait]Anyway, if you're relying on Time for real news, you're probably already pretty uninformed.[/flamebait]
If every news outlet in the country spent every edition covering every big scary issue, the perpetual dialog in this country would be something like : "OHCRAPOHCRAPOHCRAPOHCRAPOHCRAP".
I think most bloggers would be categorized as "mostly useless".
Which is why so many people are offended by "Blogebrity" -- it destroys the veil of egalitarianism that the "blogosphere" makes such a stink about. The fact that there are "A-List" bloggers, whether you make a list of them or not, is offensive to many bloggers.
This is exactly why this made it to #3 on the Contagious Media Showdown, even before it was posted here. It's such a polarizing concept. Either you think it's tacky but cool (i.e., you're the kind of person that uses the term "blogosphere") or you think it's the stupidest thing you've ever heard of (i.e. you're the kind of person that lights others on fire for using the term "blog").
Even if you're kind of neutral on the subject of blogs you have to either feel like you're just not cool enough to understand it, or that it's too stupid for you to want to understand it. You really can't not have an opinion on it -- and when people have opinions, they can't not talk about them.
Now, if only people could see that this happens every day, Showdown or no Showdown, internet meme or mainstream media.
For those trying to determine if the submitter owns the site and/or is involved in the Contageous Media Showdown, the whois info is presented below.
It's really not that hard to determine. You can just go to the Contagious Media Shodown site which has all of the contestants and their current ranking.
I actually thought it was a clever idea on their part to submit to (and get accepted by) Slashdot - I bet all the other participents (I'm not) are jealous they didn't think of it earlier!;-)
The current front-runner, the frightfully contagious "Crying While Eating" site showed up on BoingBoing (the blog-world's Slashdot) on the first day. Somehow I don't think that it would have gotten posted on "news for nerds". I'm somewhat surprised that this one did.
If you RTFM -- in fact, the quoted blurb is TFA -- he doesn't recommend Apple, or anything else. When asked if someone should buy Apple, he said "Maybe."
Has someone asked if they should use Linux he probably would have said "Maybe" also.
Re:Why would you assume the PS3 would spank the Xb
on
Inside the Xbox 360
·
· Score: 1
For that matter, if the PS2/PS3 are so great, why aren't they _actually_ in the Top500 list? The best supercomputers from Japan aren't made by Sony - they're made by NEC. Where is their supercomputing architectural experience?
What exactly is your point here?
*Nobody ever claimed that that the PS3 would make the Top500. [Even IBM has stated that it would take at least 8 Cell processors to make the Top500 -- the PS3 has only one. Perhaps you're confusing the architecture with the product?]
*NEC built the Earth Simulator, yes, but most of the Top500 machines in Japan were built on HP, Fujitsu, Hitachi, and IBM.
*Why aren't you bitching about Microsoft and Nintendo not having "supercomping architectural experience"?
Ah, the Aeron... because nothing says "schmuck" like the $700 chair that everyone just had to have during the dotbomb.
During the boom, people wanted it because it was expensive and conspicuous. That doesn't mean it isn't a damn nice chair.
You may balk at the $700+ price tag, but it's pretty typical for high-end chairs, and a good investment if you're going to be using it almost every day for many years. There are plenty of other options under $500 or so.
So, really, you're only a schmuck if the Aeron is the only decent chair you even consider.
What kind of Idiot would do that to this sort of NEW, EXPENSIVE hardware?
Probably the kind of "idiot" that knows how to avoid frying his new, expensive chip. Overclocking doesn't cause chips to just randomly explode; it's incredibly easy to avoid damaging a processor, if you know what you're doing. And why would you even try if you didn't know what you were doing?
Question: If you frigging overclockers are so frigging smart, why don't you design faster chips? Answer: It's bleeding hard work.
What the hell does this have to do with anything?
Most chips are just higher-clocked versions of earlier bretheren. There are occasionally different cores, but the difference between Chip A @ 2.5GHz and Chip A @ 2.8GHz generally has nothing to do with differences in the design, and everything to do with pricing.
Of course the real laugher is what the overclockers do with their "extra" cycles. Nothing useful, let me assure you.
Are you going to assure me that when, many years ago, I overclocked a 300MHz chip to 450MHz, the >50% improvement in compile times wasn't "useful"? How about the fact that I saved about $300 overclocking a cheap chip instead of buying a faster-labeled one? Did that not actually happen? I remember it so clearly, too.
Slashdot Mirror
What about your 'To Do' List?"
I started using Ta-Da List the day it launched and haven't looked back since. It's incredibly simple, free, web-based, and endlessly useful. I have a dozen other tools on my computer that can handle to-do lists (with syncing, priorities, due dates, etc), but Ta-Da List's basic approach makes it more useful than any of them.
37signals (the makers), also run two similar-but-different web-based organization apps, Backpack and Basecamp, that I highly recommend. All of them can be used for free.
Of course you can. What you can't do is un-GPL someone else's copy of that code, provided they haven't violated the license.
Indeed, that's what I meant. I couldn't think of how to phrase it properly, as you can't really "take back" your code, only change how you license it henceforth.
Perhaps you're mixing up the original BSD license with the modified BSD licence?
Both are Free Software, but the original is incompatable with the GPL (which does not make it non-Free). That brings me back to my other point, which was that you don't need the GPL to have Free Software.
I didn't distinguish in my post because I didn't realize anybody still used the original style; I'm only really familiar with FreeBSD, which does not.
Free software is a GNU thing.
The BSD license is a Free Software license.
To make things crystal clear:
You do not have to use the GPL to have Free Software.
It is interesting to note that he maintains the copyright to the GPL license, though. Wouldn't it be more appropriate if the GPL were GPL'd, so to speak?
The power to license something comes from holding the copyright.
For example, even if you GPL some code, you still own the copyright. You can choose to relicense it any way you please. However, you can't un-GPL the code you GPLed.
When you can't remember what file format it was in, was that .doc or rtf? Did I write that back in May, or was it April. And damned, but I'm sure that that's gotta be a keyword for it! Or was it? Or, you remember all these things, and it still doesn't show up.
If you can't remember anything about it, how would you even remember it exists?
A worthwhile search system is capable of taking whatever you do remember and narrowing the range of possibilities accordingly. You don't need to be precise. Spotlight, et al. have gone a long way toward increasing the kinds of information that can be used.
It's easy to forget one piece of information about a file, while it's almost impossible to forget everything about it. Folder heirarchies don't take advantage of this, while modern search tools do.
The simple & dumb way as OS X handles packages is just that: it can not handle dependencies, or anything
Yeah, but with the advantage that you don't *need* to handle dependences the overwhelming majority of the time, because there's really only one version number the app should care about. Apps don't need to be statically linked, they just need to be linked to things that are part of the default install. Instead of worrying about foo 2.1.4b, bar 0.7.1, and baz 1.0, you can just say "This app requires Mac OS X 10.4 or later."
The open source way is more flexible, granted, but so far it's been total crap for a mainstream desktop. I think that desktop distributions need to step up and say "We're only going to support these packages for now, so don't use anything else if you want to run on our distro." Otherwise, they're never going to have a stable foundation for people to build upon.
I don't think the places you want to film are important to most people. Most people want a quality image and for now you can't do that in a small size.
Most people would know a quality image if it bit them on the ass. Further, the popularity of low-quality cameras in phones should be an indicator that people are more concerned with having a camera than having a good camera.
You're half-right...
-- MacWorld
Elsewhere they have said, of course, they're not going to allow Mac OS X to run on non-Apple hardware. So it seems that if you want to dual-boot Mac OS X and Windows, you'll have to buy a Mac. (Or wait for the inevitible hack.)
Really I'm hoping that PPC binaries or FAT binaries will be available for at least 4 years.
Apple will still be *shipping* PPC hardware through the end of 2007. They'll obviously be supporting that (with fat binaries) for several years. It will be at least 2009 before PPC is truly dead, probably longer.
I would have waited to buy the powerbook, there was alot more information about G5's not being available for the powerbook. At over 2k for a 15" powerbook it was more expensive than the G5 iMac.
Did your PowerBook suddenly stop working today? No.
I could understand being upset if they released some kind of radically superior product today, or planned to immediately stop supporting older products. But they didn't. They announced plans to ship new products next year that are slightly different than what they've been putting out.
In other words, they did exactly what you're asking them to here: Had they let customers know, or at least quit denying the rumors, they still would have had a sale, just one year later!
Had they let customers know what? That they're going to release new products next year? Wow, I never would have guessed! They're probably going to release new stuff in 2007, 2008, 2009, and beyond.
I'm using a two year old PowerBook right now. The current model is more than twice as fast and costs a few hundred less. Does that mean I should have waited two years before buying?
They could make OS X a truly cross platform OS now, meaning that those of us who have been apple customers for years wouldn't have to uproot everything and throw out the support apps we're used to. Instead, no, they made OS X a platform locked OS, first locked into PPC, then x86. And those of us presently with PPCs are now locked out, because rather than making mac/x86 and mac/PPC equal alternatives Apple is simply phasing PPC out.
Woah there. I promise you that you didn't read anything about Mac OS X not being cross-platform in the future. All that's said in the press release is that Mac *hardware* will switch to Intel by 2007.
If they've been cross platform internally for the past 5 years, dispite not having any Intel hardware in the wild, why would they not be for the next 5, when there's tons of PPC hardware in the wild?
Eventually, I'm sure they'll drop PPC entirely, but it's not going to be as soon as you seem to think.
If I end up replacing my hardware in the next 2 years, I'll be the first one to sign up for any class action lawsuits demanding continued ppc support or compensation.
Have you read *anything* today that says PPC hardware will not be supported in 2 years?
No, you haven't.
New Macs will be Intel-based. New code will support both binaries. There is nothing to indicate that new versions of Mac OS won't support PPC as well as Intel. According to TFA, they've been supporting Intel internally for 5 years, while they had no Intel hardware. Why would you expect them to drop PPC support in 2 years when there is tons of PPC hardware already out there?
You're tilting at windmills.
If any religious group decides to control a news source don't you think that they might be doing it to get yet another outlet for self-promotion?
Hence the name of the paper being the "Christian Science" Monitor, i.e. "the Monitor belonging to the Christian Science sect"; (often misread as something like "the Monitor of Science belonging to Christians"). It's a tool for self-promotion insofar as putting out a quality product is self-promotion.
Wouldn't you question their motives if a retarded islamic group created a news source? Wouldn't they have something in mind other than just showing you the story?
This is a silly question. You should question the motives of all news sources. That's why they're sources, and not the final word on a subject.
I'm often amazed however at how many non tech literate people I know simply refuse to even try OSX even when I offer to show them how to. These are people who are completely frustrated by Windows but stick with it only because it's what they know and cannot even fathom an alternative.
This is because they have been conditioned (yes, conditioned, by Microsoft, et al.'s misguided design philosophy), to think that computers are an arcane and mysterious thing that requires vast amounts of time and energy to learn to operate effectively without the aid of "wizards" and other forms of handholding.
The truly sad part is that this effects many highly technical people as well, including a fair number of (bad) interface designers, giving them reason to think that the only useful interface is a complex, arcane, and overwrought one.
Ok, So what's going on in the world...
Whoooooa there. You're already leaving out 99% of of what's going on in the world. Plus, the fact that you're even aware of these things means that Time not covering them is pretty inconsequencial. There's a few hundred other news outlets covering all of the issues you're concerned with. People aren't going to be significantly less informed just because Time spends an issue on a subject that doesn't scare them.
[flamebait]Anyway, if you're relying on Time for real news, you're probably already pretty uninformed.[/flamebait]
If every news outlet in the country spent every edition covering every big scary issue, the perpetual dialog in this country would be something like : "OHCRAPOHCRAPOHCRAPOHCRAPOHCRAP".
I think most bloggers would be categorized as "mostly useless".
Which is why so many people are offended by "Blogebrity" -- it destroys the veil of egalitarianism that the "blogosphere" makes such a stink about. The fact that there are "A-List" bloggers, whether you make a list of them or not, is offensive to many bloggers.
Give me a fucking break.
This is exactly why this made it to #3 on the Contagious Media Showdown, even before it was posted here. It's such a polarizing concept. Either you think it's tacky but cool (i.e., you're the kind of person that uses the term "blogosphere") or you think it's the stupidest thing you've ever heard of (i.e. you're the kind of person that lights others on fire for using the term "blog").
Even if you're kind of neutral on the subject of blogs you have to either feel like you're just not cool enough to understand it, or that it's too stupid for you to want to understand it. You really can't not have an opinion on it -- and when people have opinions, they can't not talk about them.
Now, if only people could see that this happens every day, Showdown or no Showdown, internet meme or mainstream media.
For those trying to determine if the submitter owns the site and/or is involved in the Contageous Media Showdown, the whois info is presented below.
;-)
It's really not that hard to determine. You can just go to the Contagious Media Shodown site which has all of the contestants and their current ranking.
I actually thought it was a clever idea on their part to submit to (and get accepted by) Slashdot - I bet all the other participents (I'm not) are jealous they didn't think of it earlier!
The current front-runner, the frightfully contagious "Crying While Eating" site showed up on BoingBoing (the blog-world's Slashdot) on the first day. Somehow I don't think that it would have gotten posted on "news for nerds". I'm somewhat surprised that this one did.
Maybe Apple is going to use intel hardware...
It's already been speculated upon, although not confirmed by either party.
In fact, it's been outright denied by both parties, and is every time this persistent rumor has come up over the past 15 or 20 years.
Why not Linux?
If you RTFM -- in fact, the quoted blurb is TFA -- he doesn't recommend Apple, or anything else. When asked if someone should buy Apple, he said "Maybe."
Has someone asked if they should use Linux he probably would have said "Maybe" also.
For that matter, if the PS2/PS3 are so great, why aren't they _actually_ in the Top500 list? The best supercomputers from Japan aren't made by Sony - they're made by NEC. Where is their supercomputing architectural experience?
What exactly is your point here?
*Nobody ever claimed that that the PS3 would make the Top500.
[Even IBM has stated that it would take at least 8 Cell processors to make the Top500 -- the PS3 has only one. Perhaps you're confusing the architecture with the product?]
*NEC built the Earth Simulator, yes, but most of the Top500 machines in Japan were built on HP, Fujitsu, Hitachi, and IBM.
*Why aren't you bitching about Microsoft and Nintendo not having "supercomping architectural experience"?
Ah, the Aeron... because nothing says "schmuck" like the $700 chair that everyone just had to have during the dotbomb.
During the boom, people wanted it because it was expensive and conspicuous. That doesn't mean it isn't a damn nice chair.
You may balk at the $700+ price tag, but it's pretty typical for high-end chairs, and a good investment if you're going to be using it almost every day for many years. There are plenty of other options under $500 or so.
So, really, you're only a schmuck if the Aeron is the only decent chair you even consider.
I think the real news here is that people are still using WinAmp.
Wow, that takes me back.
What kind of Idiot would do that to this sort of NEW, EXPENSIVE hardware?
Probably the kind of "idiot" that knows how to avoid frying his new, expensive chip. Overclocking doesn't cause chips to just randomly explode; it's incredibly easy to avoid damaging a processor, if you know what you're doing. And why would you even try if you didn't know what you were doing?
Question: If you frigging overclockers are so frigging smart, why don't you design faster chips?
Answer: It's bleeding hard work.
What the hell does this have to do with anything?
Most chips are just higher-clocked versions of earlier bretheren. There are occasionally different cores, but the difference between Chip A @ 2.5GHz and Chip A @ 2.8GHz generally has nothing to do with differences in the design, and everything to do with pricing.
Of course the real laugher is what the overclockers do with their "extra" cycles. Nothing useful, let me assure you.
Are you going to assure me that when, many years ago, I overclocked a 300MHz chip to 450MHz, the >50% improvement in compile times wasn't "useful"? How about the fact that I saved about $300 overclocking a cheap chip instead of buying a faster-labeled one? Did that not actually happen? I remember it so clearly, too.