wouldnt it be nice if i could play backups of my original copies, and not have to worry if that happens.
I have never encountered a disk that prevented one from making a bit-for-bit copy. Any disk-imaging program should work, and any disk-burning program will work on the image. If all you want to do is make a backup of what you've already got, there's nothing standing in your way.
Wait, I still use a VGA monitor, with a higher dot pitch than most any HD TV
If you're trying to suggest that your VGA monitor is better, I think you mean lower dot pitch...might mean something if people sat twenty inches away from their TV.
Really? Thousands? Somehow I think its less then that.
Apple has about 17,000 full-time employees according to their 2006 10-K filing. Unless they've got extremely talented and efficient programmers that never sleep, it stands to reason that a few thousand of them are developers.
As far as I know, Slashdot had avoided this particular type of adword blog post crap until now
It used to be that the web as a whole avoided this crap. Now, it's so easy to make stupid amounts of money from stupid content that a huge percentage of what gets submitted only even exists for the money -- it's like socially-acceptable spam. Digg is by far the worst confluence of this kind of crap, but the problem is web-wide, and damn near impossible to avoid.
Palm seems to be very proud of the fact that they hired an ex-Apple engineer, which seems rather silly considering that Apple has thousands of them. It gets better when you consider that ex-Apple in this case means that he last worked for the company about ten years ago. No story here, unless the subtext is that Palm OS is going to start looking like System 7
(try to find *anything* on OSX when you've been using the start menu for 5 years for example).
That's a terrible example. If you've been using Windows for 5 years, presumably you're used to the idea of a folder containing icons that open when you click on them, too.
I don't know, I haven't read all of them. Nor does it matter -- the existence of "bad" articles doesn't prevent me from accessing good articles, or writing better ones. My point is that Wikipedia is as big and broad as it is because of the low barrier to contribution. For all I know Wikipedia has the most informative articles on Sailor Moon available anywhere. And I'm almost certain it has the most informative article on Sailor Moon in Latin available.
I'm reminded of the argument a while back that Wikipedia sucked because there were only a thousand or so "Featured Articles", and that since that was a staggeringly small percentage of the total number of articles, that must mean Wikipedia sucks as a whole. That argument ignores the fact that an equally small percentage of articles ever even go through the FA review process. If every article had to go through administrative crap like that there would only be a few thousand articles.
The word "hybrid" has a meaning outside automobiles. Originally it was a biological term.
A hybrid drive is more like a hybrid car than a genetic hybrid. The components are distinct, like a Prius or an Insight, not integrated, like a Liger or a Zeedonk. While I sympathize with disdain for car analogies, this one is actually pretty accurate.
They are not being jerks, it's just the reality of the business model. You know making up your loss on selling the razor back on selling the razor blades.
It's their own damn fault they can't break even on a $600 device and a $20,000 dev kit. Nintendo is turning a profit on a $250 device, and a $1700 dev kit, and selling twice as many as Sony.
Does it really say that anything I learn from Numenta is confidential property of Numenta?
No. That line refers to anything you get from the company. Note that it doesn't say "and" in front of "anything you obtain..." -- it's referring to the same "HTM Algorithms, HTM Algorithms Source Code, etc." described before. It's definitely not referring to anything you learn by using it.
What, exactly, does this have to do with my rights online?
It concerns your right to be an AMD or Intel fanboy. If you're an AMD fanboy you have right to smugly assert that AMD's on-die memory controller makes them 50% less of an evil soulless corporation than Intel. If you're an Intel fanboy you have the right so smugly assert that Intel is is evil at smaller die sizes.
Ok, being online is now meaningless, except perhaps to get updates. So what about the network preferences?
What the hell are you talking about? What does this have to do with what I wrote? You asked what the difference between application and system preferences was, and I'm trying to give you a tangible explanation. In any event, you're still wrong -- even if you throw away everything in/Applications, you can still be online -- network preferences are part of the system. There is nothing about anything in/Applications that changes that.
Ah, so it's not enough that it's a preference that is used by every Application, it must also be a preference that doesn't mention any specific application?
You're an idiot, and you seem hell-bent on not understanding the difference between preferences that define how applications behave and preferences that define how the system behaves. Look, I just explained it in one sentence! I was illustrating my point by showing that system preferences aren't used to define the behavior of individual applications (which is exactly what you're suggesting they should do) -- it isn't as though default browser behavior is some exception to what's already going on.
That seems to me an arbitrary decision, as arbitrary as claiming "Internet Explorer is part of Windows". (Not as sinister, just as stupid.)
I'm talking about how things actually are in reality -- it isn't an arbitrary decision -- it's a fact. The screen saver runs under the WindowServer process (/Library/System/CoreServices/WindowServer) -- if you remove WindowServer, the system is fucked. Hence, it's a system preference, and not an application preference. If the screen saver was run by an app in/Applications, then it would be an application preference. This is very simple, and it seems like the only way you could not understand is by being willfully ignorant.
Which, by the way, is NOT done from within a text editor, if I remember
It's not done in System Preferences, either, which was my point. Now I suppose you think text editors should be handled the same way. A way that is completely different from how Mac OS has ever functioned.
I started to respond to this, but my eyes just rolled back into my head and I fainted.
What's an "application preference", as opposed to a "system preference"?
Take everything in/Applications, throw it in the garbage, except for the purposes of this experiment, System Preferences.app.
Every preference left is a system preference, in that it changes things that aren't specific to any application. The only exceptions I can think of are certain third-party preference panes and the Finder's preferences, which are clearly a special case. My point is that system preferences don't make reference to any user Applications.
And a default browser doesn't? Or is it that it's a per-user preference, and doesn't necessarily govern the whole system? In which case, what about screensaver settings and such -- why are they in System Preferences?
The screen saver isn't a function of a particular application. You can't remove the ability to run screen savers without mucking around in/System/Library. It is part of the system.
The choice of default browser is by definition an application-specific preference -- you're choosing which application to open a certain kind of data with -- it is not markedly different than the choice of default text editor.
And it does seem stupid to me that every browser for OS X has to re-implement an option that should've been in System Preferences.
Your original contention was that having the preference in Safari was a Microsoft-esque attempt at lock-in. This is, of course, bullshit, as any app can change that preference. Now suddenly you act like you meant that it was a poor design choice, without giving any kind of reason why, other than that you think it's stupid. Why shouldn't application preferences be in applications?
I suppose next you'll be telling me it make sense for your network settings to be in the browser?
Why the hell would I say that? That has nothing to do with anything I said. Network settings have system-wide effects, hence system preferences.
Make iWork a competent and interoperable competitor to MS Office, or throw their weight behind OOo. Either way, ODF needs to be supported on Macs, if only to push MS into a corner.
1) iWork is fine the way it is. It is not, and will not, ever be a direct competitor to Microsoft Office, because the overwhelming majority of people (including vast numbers of current Office users) don't need a lot of what Office does. Even Microsoft acknowledges this by continuing to sell Works Suite. Also, to target interoperability means letting Microsoft define a significant portion of the development Apple's own product, which is just not something they're likely to do.
2) Apple is not going to waste their time getting behind a suite whose Mac port is (to put it mildly) craptastic.
3) ODF is in Leopard's TextEdit, and presumably part of iWork'07.
Slashdot Mirror
because it requires circumventing the CSS encryption on the DVD
Making a backup does not require circumventing CSS.
This leads to the question. Is there any lag when things travel over HDMI due to the encryption?
As it is does in an dedicated chip, lag should be in the single-digit millisecond range at worst. Most people don't notice anything under 50ms.
That's not the point! The point is that we shouldn't have to break the law to use the media we legally purchased!
If you want to make a backup (and that's what everyone says they want to do, there's no law stopping you.
wouldnt it be nice if i could play backups of my original copies, and not have to worry if that happens.
I have never encountered a disk that prevented one from making a bit-for-bit copy. Any disk-imaging program should work, and any disk-burning program will work on the image. If all you want to do is make a backup of what you've already got, there's nothing standing in your way.
Wait, I still use a VGA monitor, with a higher dot pitch than most any HD TV
If you're trying to suggest that your VGA monitor is better, I think you mean lower dot pitch...might mean something if people sat twenty inches away from their TV.
Really? Thousands? Somehow I think its less then that.
Apple has about 17,000 full-time employees according to their 2006 10-K filing. Unless they've got extremely talented and efficient programmers that never sleep, it stands to reason that a few thousand of them are developers.
As far as I know, Slashdot had avoided this particular type of adword blog post crap until now
It used to be that the web as a whole avoided this crap. Now, it's so easy to make stupid amounts of money from stupid content that a huge percentage of what gets submitted only even exists for the money -- it's like socially-acceptable spam. Digg is by far the worst confluence of this kind of crap, but the problem is web-wide, and damn near impossible to avoid.
Palm seems to be very proud of the fact that they hired an ex-Apple engineer, which seems rather silly considering that Apple has thousands of them. It gets better when you consider that ex-Apple in this case means that he last worked for the company about ten years ago. No story here, unless the subtext is that Palm OS is going to start looking like System 7
(try to find *anything* on OSX when you've been using the start menu for 5 years for example).
That's a terrible example. If you've been using Windows for 5 years, presumably you're used to the idea of a folder containing icons that open when you click on them, too.
So, if we get Net Neutrality, does that mean that I my VoIP is going to go to shit every time my neighbor fires up BitTorrent?
How many of them are even worth reading?
I don't know, I haven't read all of them. Nor does it matter -- the existence of "bad" articles doesn't prevent me from accessing good articles, or writing better ones. My point is that Wikipedia is as big and broad as it is because of the low barrier to contribution. For all I know Wikipedia has the most informative articles on Sailor Moon available anywhere. And I'm almost certain it has the most informative article on Sailor Moon in Latin available.
I'm reminded of the argument a while back that Wikipedia sucked because there were only a thousand or so "Featured Articles", and that since that was a staggeringly small percentage of the total number of articles, that must mean Wikipedia sucks as a whole. That argument ignores the fact that an equally small percentage of articles ever even go through the FA review process. If every article had to go through administrative crap like that there would only be a few thousand articles.
Meh, I'm confused as to why anyone thought the wiki style of mass contributors was a good idea
Over a million and a half articles in six years, in English alone. Free contribution gets shit done.
Writing to flash takes power, leaving the flash on [so you can access it] takes power.
Flash only consumes about as much as RAM (i.e. less than a watt in large quantities).
But you can't use flash as random access memory.
This is irrelevant when the point is to use it as non-volatile cache for disk writes.
The word "hybrid" has a meaning outside automobiles. Originally it was a biological term.
A hybrid drive is more like a hybrid car than a genetic hybrid. The components are distinct, like a Prius or an Insight, not integrated, like a Liger or a Zeedonk. While I sympathize with disdain for car analogies, this one is actually pretty accurate.
They are not being jerks, it's just the reality of the business model. You know making up your loss on selling the razor back on selling the razor blades.
It's their own damn fault they can't break even on a $600 device and a $20,000 dev kit. Nintendo is turning a profit on a $250 device, and a $1700 dev kit, and selling twice as many as Sony.
(regardless of whether the information is in the public domain, is patented/copyrighted by someone else, etc).
They aren't providing either of these under that Agreement.
Does it really say that anything I learn from Numenta is confidential property of Numenta?
No. That line refers to anything you get from the company. Note that it doesn't say "and" in front of "anything you obtain..." -- it's referring to the same "HTM Algorithms, HTM Algorithms Source Code, etc." described before. It's definitely not referring to anything you learn by using it.
It's pretty easy to misread, I admit.
Why does what AMD's attorneys file in court reflect on the company at all?
Because those attorneys represent AMD in court.
What, exactly, does this have to do with my rights online?
It concerns your right to be an AMD or Intel fanboy. If you're an AMD fanboy you have right to smugly assert that AMD's on-die memory controller makes them 50% less of an evil soulless corporation than Intel. If you're an Intel fanboy you have the right so smugly assert that Intel is is evil at smaller die sizes.
Ok, being online is now meaningless, except perhaps to get updates. So what about the network preferences?
/Applications, you can still be online -- network preferences are part of the system. There is nothing about anything in /Applications that changes that.
/Applications, then it would be an application preference. This is very simple, and it seems like the only way you could not understand is by being willfully ignorant.
What the hell are you talking about? What does this have to do with what I wrote? You asked what the difference between application and system preferences was, and I'm trying to give you a tangible explanation. In any event, you're still wrong -- even if you throw away everything in
Ah, so it's not enough that it's a preference that is used by every Application, it must also be a preference that doesn't mention any specific application?
You're an idiot, and you seem hell-bent on not understanding the difference between preferences that define how applications behave and preferences that define how the system behaves. Look, I just explained it in one sentence! I was illustrating my point by showing that system preferences aren't used to define the behavior of individual applications (which is exactly what you're suggesting they should do) -- it isn't as though default browser behavior is some exception to what's already going on.
That seems to me an arbitrary decision, as arbitrary as claiming "Internet Explorer is part of Windows". (Not as sinister, just as stupid.)
I'm talking about how things actually are in reality -- it isn't an arbitrary decision -- it's a fact. The screen saver runs under the WindowServer process (/Library/System/CoreServices/WindowServer) -- if you remove WindowServer, the system is fucked. Hence, it's a system preference, and not an application preference. If the screen saver was run by an app in
Which, by the way, is NOT done from within a text editor, if I remember
It's not done in System Preferences, either, which was my point. Now I suppose you think text editors should be handled the same way. A way that is completely different from how Mac OS has ever functioned.
Hinted at, didn't quite say.
/Applications, throw it in the garbage, except for the purposes of this experiment, System Preferences.app.
/System/Library. It is part of the system.
I started to respond to this, but my eyes just rolled back into my head and I fainted.
What's an "application preference", as opposed to a "system preference"?
Take everything in
Every preference left is a system preference, in that it changes things that aren't specific to any application. The only exceptions I can think of are certain third-party preference panes and the Finder's preferences, which are clearly a special case. My point is that system preferences don't make reference to any user Applications.
And a default browser doesn't? Or is it that it's a per-user preference, and doesn't necessarily govern the whole system? In which case, what about screensaver settings and such -- why are they in System Preferences?
The screen saver isn't a function of a particular application. You can't remove the ability to run screen savers without mucking around in
The choice of default browser is by definition an application-specific preference -- you're choosing which application to open a certain kind of data with -- it is not markedly different than the choice of default text editor.
It had a fixed layout and grew from one end, so that the things at the top of the Dock always stayed put.
defaults write com.apple.dock pinning end
or
defaults write com.apple.dock pinning start
...and they do use the hardware (TPM) to make it difficult or impossible for non-Apple people to create hardware which an unmodified OS X can run on.
No they don't. For someone that seems to have a strong opinion on the subject you are strikingly ill-informed.
And it does seem stupid to me that every browser for OS X has to re-implement an option that should've been in System Preferences.
Your original contention was that having the preference in Safari was a Microsoft-esque attempt at lock-in. This is, of course, bullshit, as any app can change that preference. Now suddenly you act like you meant that it was a poor design choice, without giving any kind of reason why, other than that you think it's stupid. Why shouldn't application preferences be in applications?
I suppose next you'll be telling me it make sense for your network settings to be in the browser?
Why the hell would I say that? That has nothing to do with anything I said. Network settings have system-wide effects, hence system preferences.
Make iWork a competent and interoperable competitor to MS Office, or throw their weight behind OOo. Either way, ODF needs to be supported on Macs, if only to push MS into a corner.
1) iWork is fine the way it is. It is not, and will not, ever be a direct competitor to Microsoft Office, because the overwhelming majority of people (including vast numbers of current Office users) don't need a lot of what Office does. Even Microsoft acknowledges this by continuing to sell Works Suite. Also, to target interoperability means letting Microsoft define a significant portion of the development Apple's own product, which is just not something they're likely to do.
2) Apple is not going to waste their time getting behind a suite whose Mac port is (to put it mildly) craptastic.
3) ODF is in Leopard's TextEdit, and presumably part of iWork'07.