I agree that they may feel that way individually, but by letting the neocon types coopt their party, they are, to use a currently popular term, enablers of that mindset.
Believe it or not, I used to consider myself to be what I would later learn is called "paleoconservative." I simply referred to myself as fiscally conservative yet socially liberal, a position that is now popularly held to be libertarian (lowercase 'l', ianaL). I still feel that way of course, even though my thoughts on various details have evolved over the years. I've since aligned myself with the Democratic party, as the social conservatism of the Republicans is more onerous to me than the shortcomings of the Democratic party, all things considered.
And I'm curious as to your opinion on this one, since you're in many ways diametrically opposed to me on the single axis political spectrum, and I know you've got something of a Federalist fetish. Do you think it's possible that the majority in this case ruled the way they did because they felt the wording of the Constitution was [weak|vague|wrong], and that even though they might not necessarily feel that it could ever be right to use Eminent Domain on behalf of a coporate entity, it was better in the long run to highlight the weakness in the original text rather than interpret according to their own ethics, i.e. "legislate from the bench?"
Okay, after searching through a bunch of threads so that I may infest this post with links to evidence of this person's transgressions, I see instead that this is simply the new slashdot meme.
<angry_old_man>
And I would have gotten away with it
if it hadn't been for you damn kids
and your fucking memes! </angry_old_man>
Ya know how many (most?) side scrolling games have those terminal gaps in the map, the bottomless pits you gotta jump over? Well, in Super Mario Brothers, the lovable Yoshi would invariably head for one of those cracks as soon as you lost control of him. Me and my girlfriend at the time used to spend many, many hours smoking cigarettes and all sorts of groovy things whilst playing this game, and "Yoshi's a crackhead!" became a constant refrain.
Oh, and, uhh, the mushrooms? Hello! Waiter, could we get some subtlety over here? Thanks.
The reasoning I've heard for it that seems most believable is that by allowing AC posts, the janitors can claim to have no oversight when someone tries to sue to have a post deleted, i.e. something of a common carrier status. (Of course, it didn't work so well against the Scientologists, but what really does?)
If this is the case, they certainly couldn't admit to it, could they?
Also, don't I recall you making use of AC posting at one point a while back when trolling was being discussed in someone's journal?
Yeah, a lot of AdBlock users aggressively block all ads, period. But a good many of us don't. I block iFrame ads, I block blinky, seizure inducing ads, I block anything that interferes with my ability to *read* the content I'm seeking out. Other than that, I leave 'em in (although I don't load ads from any domain containing the string 'doubleclick,' but I don't think I'm alone there).
What am I getting at here, other than wasting time that could better be spent tweaking queries? Darwinism, selective adaptation, survival of the fittest (or at least the least obnoxious), call it what you will. But if *more* people used AdBlock, and used it selectively, advertisers would quickly learn that people go out of their way to avoid seeing things bouncing around and strobing at 15hz while trying to read the news.
And Flash-based ads... I do a lot of browsing on a laptop. A CPU intensive ad is not only demanding screen real estate, but it is directly limiting my browsing time by using an obscene amount of battery power. I feel *no* guilt at all in using Flash Click To Play to filter *all* those ads, no matter how obnoxious they are or aren't, and no matter how much I may wanna support the site they're on.
Adapt or die. Those advertisers that grep their server logs properly will improve and therefor prosper. The rest? Fuck 'em.
After seeing a screen shot or two, Krita suffers from one of the same problems as most other image editing apps: the interface elements are just too large and the open space around them too great. Most people using that type of software spend a lot of time with the interface, and tend to need a whole damn lot of interface on screen at all times; that begs for small, dense, highly visible widgets.
I get the impression that none of the windowing toolkits offer such widgets. Seems that Adobe had to roll their own for Windows and the old Mac OS (just checked Apple's dev tools: there are regular, small and mini sizes available for many things, if not all).
I think just having that look (and the increased efficiency of screen real estate it brings) would go a long way toward legitimizing open source graphics apps among their target audience.
As far as I'm concerned it's always a very good thing. Especially on my G3 iBook... displaying ads that are so CPU intensive on a battery powered machine means that I'm paying to see the site not only with my screen real estate, but with my run time as well. So if you think about it that way, FlashBlock enables me to view more ads!
Something like a master click-to-play for the entire page or domain for the duration of the browsing session would be nice, though; it took about elevety six mouse clicks to show that full Onion page.
What most people seem to be overlooking is that Apple isn't strictly getting developers to target x86... they're getting developers to target x86 and PPC simultaneously. Once fat binaries start shipping, Apple can put out a machine using either architecture. Portables with Intel Yomama chips, servers with six triple-core G5s, little tablets with FreeScale G4s, whatever fits the product best.
Frankly, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Apple is still shipping PPC chips in some product or another three years from now. They're in the process of achieving a level of versatility that no other platform has ever reached, and I think that's gonna do wonders for OS X's credibility in the long run. In addition, it'll let them pit four chipmakers against each other for the affection of the only platform enjoying double digit growth. That's gonna lead to some interesting hardware in the next few years, mark my words.
There were some Macs over the years without fans, but the vast majority of them had fans. I know the Mac Plus was fanless, and I think the Mac SE may have been, too (both of those are the old-school one piece with a 9" 1-bit screen), but I don't recall for sure.
With the exception of the Cube and the swing arm iMac, everything they've built in the past fifteen years has had a fan, even those squidgy little LCs with a 20mhz 68LC040 chip that could warm your toes if you set it on fire first.
it was MS that had to bail out Mac a few years back from going belly up
As part of an out-of-court settlement, MSFT bought $160 million worth of non-voting stock in AAPL which they later sold at quite a healthy profit. To this day it's hard to find exact info on which case that settled, the two most likely are for snaking QuickTime code for use in WiMP and for snaking NeXT kernel code for use in WinNT (by the time NeXT's lawsuit was settled, Apple owned them, hence Apple getting the settlement, if that is the case it was attached to).
And I believe Apple was down to ~2.5 billion in cash reserves at that time. So if that's "belly up," may I endure such hardships very soon!
Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
an independent author of a GUI theme was sued by Apple to remove circulation of a certain WindowMaker theme (not KDE, not Gnome, not IceWM) because it completely aroused the end-users perspective to the GUI that it justified not buying a Apple Mac OSX machine. Seriously, if that is all the division between an OS can be, I welcome free software allowing people to move to any architecture they see capable to their needs.
Aroused what who? Are you talking about one of those cases where Apple sicced their legal vultures on someone who was mimicing their UI graphics? We can debate till the cows come home the ethics of that aspect of copyright law, but I believe that one falls under the heading of "defend it or lose it." And whoever told you that the only reason to use OS X is to have your interface pixels arranged in that order is probably still happily plugging away with Windows ME.
Remember when Microsoft donated USD 160 million to Apple? Was that to keep the smallest competitor out of bankrupty and far from the predatory grips of anti-monopoly laws?
I've been following Apple for years (used to be key to my career), and I don't remember such a thing.
I do, however remember that as part of an out-of-court settlement, they bought $160 million worth of non-voting stock shares (which they later sold at quite a healthy profit). To this day it's hard to find exact info on which case that settled, the two most likely are for snaking QuickTime code for use in WiMP and for snaking NeXT kernel code for use in WinNT (and by the time NeXT's lawsuit was settled, Apple owned them, hence Apple getting the settlement).
The FUD is strong in this one, Master Ballmer.
As for the TCPA/DRM thing, that's the one aspect of the Apple/Intel deal that truly worries me. I can only hope you're as wrong about that as you are about everything else in your post. I fear you're not, though.
They did briefly open a similar hole with Widgets auto-installing in Safari, but they closed it real quick like. I suspect at least one product manager is still scrubbing toilets over that one.
Well, considering that Big Steve stated that they will be shipping towers with IBM PPCs in them for at least the next two years, a lot can happen in that timeframe.
My educational institution isn't listed on their site. To buy stuff from them at EDU prices, I call their 800 number, tell them the name of the institution and give them a credit card number. I don't have an ID# to give them if they did ask, which they haven't. Of course, I'm the one that issues ID cards, so I suppose any number I rattle off is official, being the registrar and all.
The driver situation for Linux is the same as Apple's. Either the manufacturer writes one, a developer for the platform writes one, or it doesn't happen and that peripheral only works under Windows. if Apple's market share suddenly goes through the roof, more manufacturers will write Mac drivers for their hardware (and hopefully throw some quality control at the effort), but fundamentally the equation doesn't change.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that they may feel that way individually, but by letting the neocon types coopt their party, they are, to use a currently popular term, enablers of that mindset.
Believe it or not, I used to consider myself to be what I would later learn is called "paleoconservative." I simply referred to myself as fiscally conservative yet socially liberal, a position that is now popularly held to be libertarian (lowercase 'l', ianaL). I still feel that way of course, even though my thoughts on various details have evolved over the years. I've since aligned myself with the Democratic party, as the social conservatism of the Republicans is more onerous to me than the shortcomings of the Democratic party, all things considered.
And I'm curious as to your opinion on this one, since you're in many ways diametrically opposed to me on the single axis political spectrum, and I know you've got something of a Federalist fetish. Do you think it's possible that the majority in this case ruled the way they did because they felt the wording of the Constitution was [weak|vague|wrong], and that even though they might not necessarily feel that it could ever be right to use Eminent Domain on behalf of a coporate entity, it was better in the long run to highlight the weakness in the original text rather than interpret according to their own ethics, i.e. "legislate from the bench?"
Is that you, trolling every single front page story tonig--
Okay, after searching through a bunch of threads so that I may infest this post with links to evidence of this person's transgressions, I see instead that this is simply the new slashdot meme.
<angry_old_man>
And I would have gotten away with it
if it hadn't been for you damn kids
and your fucking memes!
</angry_old_man>
*gets drunk*
Ya know how many (most?) side scrolling games have those terminal gaps in the map, the bottomless pits you gotta jump over? Well, in Super Mario Brothers, the lovable Yoshi would invariably head for one of those cracks as soon as you lost control of him. Me and my girlfriend at the time used to spend many, many hours smoking cigarettes and all sorts of groovy things whilst playing this game, and "Yoshi's a crackhead!" became a constant refrain.
Oh, and, uhh, the mushrooms? Hello! Waiter, could we get some subtlety over here? Thanks.
Fucking A, that rocked.
The reasoning I've heard for it that seems most believable is that by allowing AC posts, the janitors can claim to have no oversight when someone tries to sue to have a post deleted, i.e. something of a common carrier status. (Of course, it didn't work so well against the Scientologists, but what really does?)
If this is the case, they certainly couldn't admit to it, could they?
Also, don't I recall you making use of AC posting at one point a while back when trolling was being discussed in someone's journal?
You're looking at mostly comments in journal entries. Those are very rarely modded, so I would assume he meant comments to front page stories.
Anyone else ever wished for a (-1) Pedantic rating?
Umm, shouldn't that be (-1, Pedantic)?
allow users to verify that they had not been ripped off when buying a Winbox
Which would be a technological acheivement right up there with allowing people to commit suicide safely.
Yeah, a lot of AdBlock users aggressively block all ads, period. But a good many of us don't. I block iFrame ads, I block blinky, seizure inducing ads, I block anything that interferes with my ability to *read* the content I'm seeking out. Other than that, I leave 'em in (although I don't load ads from any domain containing the string 'doubleclick,' but I don't think I'm alone there).
What am I getting at here, other than wasting time that could better be spent tweaking queries? Darwinism, selective adaptation, survival of the fittest (or at least the least obnoxious), call it what you will. But if *more* people used AdBlock, and used it selectively, advertisers would quickly learn that people go out of their way to avoid seeing things bouncing around and strobing at 15hz while trying to read the news.
And Flash-based ads... I do a lot of browsing on a laptop. A CPU intensive ad is not only demanding screen real estate, but it is directly limiting my browsing time by using an obscene amount of battery power. I feel *no* guilt at all in using Flash Click To Play to filter *all* those ads, no matter how obnoxious they are or aren't, and no matter how much I may wanna support the site they're on.
Adapt or die. Those advertisers that grep their server logs properly will improve and therefor prosper. The rest? Fuck 'em.
After seeing a screen shot or two, Krita suffers from one of the same problems as most other image editing apps: the interface elements are just too large and the open space around them too great. Most people using that type of software spend a lot of time with the interface, and tend to need a whole damn lot of interface on screen at all times; that begs for small, dense, highly visible widgets.
I get the impression that none of the windowing toolkits offer such widgets. Seems that Adobe had to roll their own for Windows and the old Mac OS (just checked Apple's dev tools: there are regular, small and mini sizes available for many things, if not all).
I think just having that look (and the increased efficiency of screen real estate it brings) would go a long way toward legitimizing open source graphics apps among their target audience.
As far as I'm concerned it's always a very good thing. Especially on my G3 iBook... displaying ads that are so CPU intensive on a battery powered machine means that I'm paying to see the site not only with my screen real estate, but with my run time as well. So if you think about it that way, FlashBlock enables me to view more ads!
Something like a master click-to-play for the entire page or domain for the duration of the browsing session would be nice, though; it took about elevety six mouse clicks to show that full Onion page.
I hit the link and saw a veritible wallpaper of Flash click-to-play icons. I laughed for a moment, and then realized that *wasn't* the joke.
What most people seem to be overlooking is that Apple isn't strictly getting developers to target x86... they're getting developers to target x86 and PPC simultaneously. Once fat binaries start shipping, Apple can put out a machine using either architecture. Portables with Intel Yomama chips, servers with six triple-core G5s, little tablets with FreeScale G4s, whatever fits the product best.
Frankly, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Apple is still shipping PPC chips in some product or another three years from now. They're in the process of achieving a level of versatility that no other platform has ever reached, and I think that's gonna do wonders for OS X's credibility in the long run. In addition, it'll let them pit four chipmakers against each other for the affection of the only platform enjoying double digit growth. That's gonna lead to some interesting hardware in the next few years, mark my words.
There were some Macs over the years without fans, but the vast majority of them had fans. I know the Mac Plus was fanless, and I think the Mac SE may have been, too (both of those are the old-school one piece with a 9" 1-bit screen), but I don't recall for sure.
With the exception of the Cube and the swing arm iMac, everything they've built in the past fifteen years has had a fan, even those squidgy little LCs with a 20mhz 68LC040 chip that could warm your toes if you set it on fire first.
it was MS that had to bail out Mac a few years back from going belly up
As part of an out-of-court settlement, MSFT bought $160 million worth of non-voting stock in AAPL which they later sold at quite a healthy profit. To this day it's hard to find exact info on which case that settled, the two most likely are for snaking QuickTime code for use in WiMP and for snaking NeXT kernel code for use in WinNT (by the time NeXT's lawsuit was settled, Apple owned them, hence Apple getting the settlement, if that is the case it was attached to).
And I believe Apple was down to ~2.5 billion in cash reserves at that time. So if that's "belly up," may I endure such hardships very soon!
Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
So on your hands and knees is okay then, right?
an independent author of a GUI theme was sued by Apple to remove circulation of a certain WindowMaker theme (not KDE, not Gnome, not IceWM) because it completely aroused the end-users perspective to the GUI that it justified not buying a Apple Mac OSX machine. Seriously, if that is all the division between an OS can be, I welcome free software allowing people to move to any architecture they see capable to their needs.
Aroused what who? Are you talking about one of those cases where Apple sicced their legal vultures on someone who was mimicing their UI graphics? We can debate till the cows come home the ethics of that aspect of copyright law, but I believe that one falls under the heading of "defend it or lose it." And whoever told you that the only reason to use OS X is to have your interface pixels arranged in that order is probably still happily plugging away with Windows ME.
Remember when Microsoft donated USD 160 million to Apple? Was that to keep the smallest competitor out of bankrupty and far from the predatory grips of anti-monopoly laws?
I've been following Apple for years (used to be key to my career), and I don't remember such a thing.
I do, however remember that as part of an out-of-court settlement, they bought $160 million worth of non-voting stock shares (which they later sold at quite a healthy profit). To this day it's hard to find exact info on which case that settled, the two most likely are for snaking QuickTime code for use in WiMP and for snaking NeXT kernel code for use in WinNT (and by the time NeXT's lawsuit was settled, Apple owned them, hence Apple getting the settlement).
The FUD is strong in this one, Master Ballmer.
As for the TCPA/DRM thing, that's the one aspect of the Apple/Intel deal that truly worries me. I can only hope you're as wrong about that as you are about everything else in your post. I fear you're not, though.
Maybe?
Eh, what do they know?
They did briefly open a similar hole with Widgets auto-installing in Safari, but they closed it real quick like. I suspect at least one product manager is still scrubbing toilets over that one.
I am not the sort of person to try to generate argument by interpreting the word "usually" as a claim of unversality.
If you were though, your karma would probably be higher.
Well, considering that Big Steve stated that they will be shipping towers with IBM PPCs in them for at least the next two years, a lot can happen in that timeframe.
My educational institution isn't listed on their site. To buy stuff from them at EDU prices, I call their 800 number, tell them the name of the institution and give them a credit card number. I don't have an ID# to give them if they did ask, which they haven't. Of course, I'm the one that issues ID cards, so I suppose any number I rattle off is official, being the registrar and all.
The driver situation for Linux is the same as Apple's. Either the manufacturer writes one, a developer for the platform writes one, or it doesn't happen and that peripheral only works under Windows. if Apple's market share suddenly goes through the roof, more manufacturers will write Mac drivers for their hardware (and hopefully throw some quality control at the effort), but fundamentally the equation doesn't change.
Oh, and, uh, 13@s3d?