I myself use OS X daily for all my work and I have yet to use *any* services at all... I don't think my productivity is hurt very much. I've also not heard of any of my friends that use OS X using Services on a regular basis, either, to the point where *not* having access to Services for a particular function would be limiting.
Incidentally, if you're going to knock Mozilla/NN6+ for being carbon and not Cocoa, you might as well knock Office v.X, Photoshop 7, Dreamweaver MX, Flash MX, Fireworks MX, Acrobat 5.05, Illustrator 10, Codewarrior 7, and pretty much every other "professional" grade application that's been made available for OS X. So far, the only *significant* apps I've seen that are Cocoa native are from Apple (and maybe Omniweb). Hell, not even Aladdin Stuffit Deluxe or BBEdit are Cocoa apps, I don't believe... at least I don't see anything in "services" for them, eh?
Cocoa's nice and all, but for the time being, things are going to be Carbon and that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Even though Cocoa is based on NeXTStep's framework, I've read of a few significant problems with the Cocoa application framework that needed fixing by Apple. The Carbon API's been available for a bit longer than Cocoa, so from the stability/bugginess point of view, companies are going to use Carbon for a while longer. Not to mention wanting to share code-base with apps on other platforms, which Cocoa doesn't make very easy, it being Obj-C and all.
I guess the difference here is that many people think that OmniWeb is not an "equal product" to NS/Mozilla. I certainly don't think it is, after using it for a few weeks.
As for other versions of Mozilla specifically for OS X, they are working on a Mach-O version of Mozilla that *only* runs on OS X, not OS 9, and uses the UNIX subsystem with the Quartz graphics, much as Mozilla uses the unix subsystem with GTK+ on Linux (I think there's a port to KDE as well). I haven't seen much development on this front, but I believe it is still an active project! Should bring some OS X specific speed/stability improvements eventually.
No, it isn't an OS 9 application, it just happens to be able to run in OS 9 as well as OS X. Carbon != OS 9. This is a common misconception. Take for example BBEdit for OS X - definitely a Carbon app, not a Cocoa app: it doesn't run in OS 9. Carbon is just an API that Apple defined whose functionality, for the most part, could be implemented on both OS 9 and OS X. That does not make every Carbon app an OS 9 app, if anything, it makes every Carbon app an OS X app. The reason being that *any* Carbon app runs natively in OS X with all the GUI goodness and no need for Classic to be started. However, not every Carbon app runs in Classic or in OS 9. Carbon was introduced in preparation for OS X, hence it is really an OS X compatibility lib for OS 9, not the other way around.
Key thing is that an app does NOT have to be Cocoa to be native to OS X, not in the slightest. Apple isn't even pushing for this. True, certain features of OS X are only available through the Cocoa APIs/Frameworks, but even so, Carbon apps will be around a lot longer than people will be using OS 9!
The "Classic" theme uses native OS X widgets that don't make Mozilla look out of place at all... tabs look like OS X tabs, the app uses sheets for authentication pop-ups and javascript alerts. The buttons are Aqua, the authentication sheets use native Aqua widgets, etc.
Folks, its totally Aqua-fied. The only thing it *doesn't* do (thankfully) is use Aqua elements when it renders page content (form elements, mainly). This is GOOD... I think its horrible that IE uses Aqua elements to render form elements... no design takes this into account, and even IE's implementation is poor (you get shadow borders if form elements are on color backgrounds, etc.) All in all, having a standard set of GUI elements IN the rendered pages is a HUGE plus for Mozilla/NN6+
Folks - stop using IE in OS X because you think its the only game in town. Mozilla has been just fine for quite a while. Live a little:)
For the most part, this doesn't even matter. Most carbon apps don't do all the integration that a Cocoa app like Chimera does. NN6+ on OS X works quite well (Moz is probably even better, since a lot of development is ongoing in the OS X trunk). As stated before, the look 'n feel of Aqua/OS X can be achieved by using the "Classic" theme instead of "Modern" - this then allows the Aqua to shine through. For 98% of users out there, I imagine this is enough.
Incidentally, I can also integrate Mozilla into OS X as the default browser (instead of IE) and I can set it to be my default Mail/News app as well. No problems there. BBEdit allows me to preview to Mozilla/NN6+, Dreamweaver MX PR does as well, if I recall (before my trial expired, thank you MM). So, as far as integration goes, what more do I need? I'm sure Chimera does some cool stuff and is fast, but it isn't quite as feature rich yet and I, for one, don't have time to mess around with under-developed browsers. For a long time, Moz/NN6+ was in that category. In my opinion (not sacred by any means), Moz is now ready for production use and NN7+ will be as well.
Side note: I'm less than impressed with IE's speed and stability on OS X... I use it exclusively if a site won't admit me because of user-agent checking and half the time, IE still crashes, since the site tries to use something specific to IE on Windows. That's bad web production.
Any web production junkie (designers don't usually HTML, not at mid-to-large size agencies, at least) worth his marbles will be using primarily CSS to layout page elements... or, they'll use very basic HTML elements (nested tables, that sort of thing) in addition. This is what I do to a large extent... if something is beyond basic HTML/CSS to layout, use Flash or make an image... (I'd prefer the image to the Flash, but YMMV). I've started having less and less layout problems with IE/Moz/NN6+ over the past few months. Still having to target NN4 is a bit of a problem, though.
The point, though, is to use CSS as much as you can get away with... support for more and more CSS is on both Microsoft and Mozilla's plate. Considering that both have somewhat compatible DOMs now as well, production is getting quite a bit easier:) Damn NN4 requirements, though.
Enter in a text area in IE doesn't submit the form - same as NS/Moz. Otherwise, online email wouldn't ever have any line breaks, would it?!?
I use online mail daily (via my own server), so I know... as for auto submitting forms with enter, NS/Moz does even *better* than IE, allowing you to hit enter from drop-down list boxes (and a variety of other form elements) to submit forms, rather than just text fields... Obviously, IEs "feature" is limited to what they felt was needed, ie username/password entry.
All of these options work, none of them affect the symptoms you're seeing. To prevent pop-up ads from appearing, you need an option that isn't enabled in that GUI for NS (6 or 7)... its GUI enabled in Mozilla, but not in NS (for obvious reasons discussed above). Just set the pref in your prefs.js file and you'll be a happy camper.
I don't know about all that, being a web designer, I prefer developing for Moz/NS6. I despise developing for NS4, but I don't particularly *like* developing for IE for a variety of reasons: disparity between Mac/Windows versions (HUGE disparities), disparity between incremental updates (I can understand huge differences between 4 and 5 and 6... but within that, major things shouldn't change, and they do). I could go on, but my point is simply that IE is made to drive NS out of business, nothing more. It doesn't provide any bonuses to businesses (not easier to use or anything of that sort), so it really has no point besides driving NS out of business. Once that was achieved, IE started building in features that could make them money... integration.
So, get a Mac that can run OS X and download Fire.app - lets you chat with AOL, ICQ, Yahoo!, MSN, Jabber, and at least one other client that I'm forgetting... in any case, its the closest I've found to a fully integrated client. They all show up in the same list, with different icons indicating what service they're coming from. Here's a link:
Don't kid yourself. Any prediction of the technology landscape five years from now is a "fantasy"... Know of any reputable and accurate predictions of our current technology landscape from five years ago?!? Even three years ago would be pretty amazing...
what makes you think that IDE can't handle? IDE, as much as SCSI, is a line-level protocol. Fibre channel, as much as firewire/usb is more of a connection medium/protocol, as it has the option to use SCSI as its actuall communication protocol. The limitations of YOUR IDE subsystem are likely from your IDE controller's bus speed, 33MHz, 66MHz, etc.
Furthermore, this article isn't talking *at all* about a drive mechanism, but rather a technology for the media. The media may be extraordinarily large, but the access to it may be slow, think tape drives - as they've gotten larger, sure, storing to them has gotten somewhat faster, but it still takes a few hours to fill up a 40GB/80GB tape.
This technology article is more concerned about talking about the expansion of how much data can be stored on one piece of media rather than how that data would be accessed, what applications that access speed would lend itself to, etc. The above post on FMC technology talks about speed-ups from using multiple lasers, each reading different tracks/layers - this would speed up access, otherwise, your only option is to spin a disk faster, which has certain practical limits.
This is an article about a technology, not a product - to my knowledge, no such products have been created. So far, this is vapor/theory, in as far as "real-world" products are concerned.
Precisely my thoughts... blue screens are great for creating neat backgrounds and sets, but only if your actors can actually IMAGINE themselves being there. I don't think any of the actors Lucas has used recently (AotC/Menace) are strong enough at their craft to be able to support the way Lucas wants to create movies. Back when the first three episodes were being made, Lucas had actors of the caliber that could probably swing having no set around them... but they HAD sets back then... now, he says "no sets" and picks actors that distinctly lack imagination.
Haven't seen it myself, but here's a sampling of what critics are saying:
"Too much of the film is given over to a romance between Padme and Anakin in which they're incapable of uttering anything other than the most basic and weary romantic cliches, while regarding each other as if love was something to be endured rather than cherished. There is not a romantic word they exchange that has not long since been reduced to cliche."
"Surprisingly flat-footed dialogue scenes that feature wooden acting, dreary art direction and old-fashioned optical wipes are either intended as an homage to the sci-fi of the '50s or reflect the director's impatience with exposition."
"And for another, while "Attack of the Clones" is many things -- a two-hour-and-12-minute action-figure commercial, a demo reel heralding the latest advances in digital filmmaking, a chance for gifted actors to be handsomely paid for delivering the worst line readings of their careers -- it is not really much of a movie at all, if by movie you mean a work of visual storytelling about the dramatic actions of a group of interesting characters."
"Only a teenage boy could find this kind of stuff continually diverting, and only a teenage boy would not notice flimsy emotions and underdeveloped acting. It seems George Lucas, like Peter Pan, has never really grown up."
Too bad, really... Lucas used to be a good storyteller, but anymore, he doesn't appear to be. The UK papers heralded this as being better than Episode I, but it seems that Lucas has yet to meet, much less exceed, the movie-making seen in the first three released episodes.
At least one of the patents in question appears to be this one. (you may need a free registration to view)
I was only able to find one patent registered to Pangea (strange as they are an IP company... you'd think they'd have a few more show up). In any case, this particular patent was applied for in '97, if I'm reading the application correctly. If that's indeed the case, prior art should hardly need an actual hearing.
Good luck!
This is a link to the same patent at USPTO. The filer is supposedly The Pangea Project LLC whereas PanIP appears to be named Pangea Intellectual Property... dunno, quick inspection is all I have time for tonight!
It would seem to me that most render farms will continue to use what they're currently using... solaris, linux, etc... I think Apple's more interested in Pixar using OS X machines for desktops, not for machines doing grunt work... G4s are nice and all, but they're still commodity processors, not really comparable to the power and scalibility of Sun's offerings or even Intel's offerings (in that arena).
I've found that in my situation, maxing out the upload (say having to upload a multi-meg file to my Rackspace server) is worse, as it prevents me from being able to load *any* web pages... without it feeling like I'm on a 14.4 connection!
A very, very large percentage of cable broadband providers cap upload at 128Kbps (kilobits/second) which translates to a maximum of 15KB/s upload, in typical practice. While I've found this to be perfectly fine for things like SSH and such to remote servers, you really notice the cap when you need to upload large images (design comps for clients to view), PDFs (can be 1MB or more with placed hi-res, 300DPI images/artwork) or send an attachment via email that is a bit large (like a zipped Access.mdb file, ~500-600K: sending is not instantaneous by any means). Synchronizing large sites with multiple developers through Dreamweaver or other CVS type systems can be time consuming as well.
I wouldn't mind uncapping my upload to be 512Kbps instead of 128Kbps, but like the original poster, I'm not going to risk being banned. The 1.5Mbps downstream I get is still far better (and cheaper, still) than DSL in my area. And with my reverse path amplifier, I have practically no downtime from the bad cabling in my apartment complex.
Or, how 'bout those poor folks that don't live in a prosperous country that will have cinemas showing AotC? For the Star Wars fans (which I'm sure exist) in those countries, this is kind of nice. The internet has reached into many countries that general prosperity (and the spoils thereof, like movie theaters) hasn't reached. I don't generally condone any type of IP theft, but this struck me as "nice", in this particular case.
Since when is an accountant or an MD more professional than say a CCNE, an MCSE, someone with a CS masters, Ph.D.?!? Or, say, the CEO of a company?!? Seems strange that the CFO, if they're a CPA as well, can get.PRO, but the CEO, CTO, COO, etc. cannot.
In this case, nobody is ripping off anyone else's interface, they're merely following Apple's UI guidelines, by my guess. When Apple started seeding OS X, I'm certain they provided sample apps and recommendations on how to do things of this sort, so that all OS X interfaces might share a similar look 'n feel. Its the same on Windows - most apps use the same type of interface, Adobe/MM apps being a large digressor, since they follow the interfaces they set out on their Mac products (which are typically released first).
Slashdot Mirror
I myself use OS X daily for all my work and I have yet to use *any* services at all ... I don't think my productivity is hurt very much. I've also not heard of any of my friends that use OS X using Services on a regular basis, either, to the point where *not* having access to Services for a particular function would be limiting.
... at least I don't see anything in "services" for them, eh?
Incidentally, if you're going to knock Mozilla/NN6+ for being carbon and not Cocoa, you might as well knock Office v.X, Photoshop 7, Dreamweaver MX, Flash MX, Fireworks MX, Acrobat 5.05, Illustrator 10, Codewarrior 7, and pretty much every other "professional" grade application that's been made available for OS X. So far, the only *significant* apps I've seen that are Cocoa native are from Apple (and maybe Omniweb). Hell, not even Aladdin Stuffit Deluxe or BBEdit are Cocoa apps, I don't believe
Cocoa's nice and all, but for the time being, things are going to be Carbon and that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Even though Cocoa is based on NeXTStep's framework, I've read of a few significant problems with the Cocoa application framework that needed fixing by Apple. The Carbon API's been available for a bit longer than Cocoa, so from the stability/bugginess point of view, companies are going to use Carbon for a while longer. Not to mention wanting to share code-base with apps on other platforms, which Cocoa doesn't make very easy, it being Obj-C and all.
Enough.
I guess the difference here is that many people think that OmniWeb is not an "equal product" to NS/Mozilla. I certainly don't think it is, after using it for a few weeks.
As for other versions of Mozilla specifically for OS X, they are working on a Mach-O version of Mozilla that *only* runs on OS X, not OS 9, and uses the UNIX subsystem with the Quartz graphics, much as Mozilla uses the unix subsystem with GTK+ on Linux (I think there's a port to KDE as well). I haven't seen much development on this front, but I believe it is still an active project! Should bring some OS X specific speed/stability improvements eventually.
No, it isn't an OS 9 application, it just happens to be able to run in OS 9 as well as OS X. Carbon != OS 9. This is a common misconception. Take for example BBEdit for OS X - definitely a Carbon app, not a Cocoa app: it doesn't run in OS 9. Carbon is just an API that Apple defined whose functionality, for the most part, could be implemented on both OS 9 and OS X. That does not make every Carbon app an OS 9 app, if anything, it makes every Carbon app an OS X app. The reason being that *any* Carbon app runs natively in OS X with all the GUI goodness and no need for Classic to be started. However, not every Carbon app runs in Classic or in OS 9. Carbon was introduced in preparation for OS X, hence it is really an OS X compatibility lib for OS 9, not the other way around.
Key thing is that an app does NOT have to be Cocoa to be native to OS X, not in the slightest. Apple isn't even pushing for this. True, certain features of OS X are only available through the Cocoa APIs/Frameworks, but even so, Carbon apps will be around a lot longer than people will be using OS 9!
The "Classic" theme uses native OS X widgets that don't make Mozilla look out of place at all ... tabs look like OS X tabs, the app uses sheets for authentication pop-ups and javascript alerts. The buttons are Aqua, the authentication sheets use native Aqua widgets, etc.
... I think its horrible that IE uses Aqua elements to render form elements ... no design takes this into account, and even IE's implementation is poor (you get shadow borders if form elements are on color backgrounds, etc.) All in all, having a standard set of GUI elements IN the rendered pages is a HUGE plus for Mozilla/NN6+
:)
Folks, its totally Aqua-fied. The only thing it *doesn't* do (thankfully) is use Aqua elements when it renders page content (form elements, mainly). This is GOOD
Folks - stop using IE in OS X because you think its the only game in town. Mozilla has been just fine for quite a while. Live a little
For the most part, this doesn't even matter. Most carbon apps don't do all the integration that a Cocoa app like Chimera does. NN6+ on OS X works quite well (Moz is probably even better, since a lot of development is ongoing in the OS X trunk). As stated before, the look 'n feel of Aqua/OS X can be achieved by using the "Classic" theme instead of "Modern" - this then allows the Aqua to shine through. For 98% of users out there, I imagine this is enough.
... I use it exclusively if a site won't admit me because of user-agent checking and half the time, IE still crashes, since the site tries to use something specific to IE on Windows. That's bad web production.
Incidentally, I can also integrate Mozilla into OS X as the default browser (instead of IE) and I can set it to be my default Mail/News app as well. No problems there. BBEdit allows me to preview to Mozilla/NN6+, Dreamweaver MX PR does as well, if I recall (before my trial expired, thank you MM). So, as far as integration goes, what more do I need? I'm sure Chimera does some cool stuff and is fast, but it isn't quite as feature rich yet and I, for one, don't have time to mess around with under-developed browsers. For a long time, Moz/NN6+ was in that category. In my opinion (not sacred by any means), Moz is now ready for production use and NN7+ will be as well.
Side note: I'm less than impressed with IE's speed and stability on OS X
Any web production junkie (designers don't usually HTML, not at mid-to-large size agencies, at least) worth his marbles will be using primarily CSS to layout page elements ... or, they'll use very basic HTML elements (nested tables, that sort of thing) in addition. This is what I do to a large extent ... if something is beyond basic HTML/CSS to layout, use Flash or make an image ... (I'd prefer the image to the Flash, but YMMV). I've started having less and less layout problems with IE/Moz/NN6+ over the past few months. Still having to target NN4 is a bit of a problem, though.
... support for more and more CSS is on both Microsoft and Mozilla's plate. Considering that both have somewhat compatible DOMs now as well, production is getting quite a bit easier :) Damn NN4 requirements, though.
The point, though, is to use CSS as much as you can get away with
Enter in a text area in IE doesn't submit the form - same as NS/Moz. Otherwise, online email wouldn't ever have any line breaks, would it?!?
... as for auto submitting forms with enter, NS/Moz does even *better* than IE, allowing you to hit enter from drop-down list boxes (and a variety of other form elements) to submit forms, rather than just text fields ... Obviously, IEs "feature" is limited to what they felt was needed, ie username/password entry.
I use online mail daily (via my own server), so I know
All of these options work, none of them affect the symptoms you're seeing. To prevent pop-up ads from appearing, you need an option that isn't enabled in that GUI for NS (6 or 7) ... its GUI enabled in Mozilla, but not in NS (for obvious reasons discussed above). Just set the pref in your prefs.js file and you'll be a happy camper.
I don't know about all that, being a web designer, I prefer developing for Moz/NS6. I despise developing for NS4, but I don't particularly *like* developing for IE for a variety of reasons: disparity between Mac/Windows versions (HUGE disparities), disparity between incremental updates (I can understand huge differences between 4 and 5 and 6 ... but within that, major things shouldn't change, and they do). I could go on, but my point is simply that IE is made to drive NS out of business, nothing more. It doesn't provide any bonuses to businesses (not easier to use or anything of that sort), so it really has no point besides driving NS out of business. Once that was achieved, IE started building in features that could make them money ... integration.
So, get a Mac that can run OS X and download Fire.app - lets you chat with AOL, ICQ, Yahoo!, MSN, Jabber, and at least one other client that I'm forgetting ... in any case, its the closest I've found to a fully integrated client. They all show up in the same list, with different icons indicating what service they're coming from. Here's a link:
http://www.epicware.com/fire.html
You can still set the pref manually in your prefs.js file, there just isn't a UI for it ...
Don't kid yourself. Any prediction of the technology landscape five years from now is a "fantasy" ... Know of any reputable and accurate predictions of our current technology landscape from five years ago?!? Even three years ago would be pretty amazing ...
what makes you think that IDE can't handle? IDE, as much as SCSI, is a line-level protocol. Fibre channel, as much as firewire/usb is more of a connection medium/protocol, as it has the option to use SCSI as its actuall communication protocol. The limitations of YOUR IDE subsystem are likely from your IDE controller's bus speed, 33MHz, 66MHz, etc.
Furthermore, this article isn't talking *at all* about a drive mechanism, but rather a technology for the media. The media may be extraordinarily large, but the access to it may be slow, think tape drives - as they've gotten larger, sure, storing to them has gotten somewhat faster, but it still takes a few hours to fill up a 40GB/80GB tape.
This technology article is more concerned about talking about the expansion of how much data can be stored on one piece of media rather than how that data would be accessed, what applications that access speed would lend itself to, etc. The above post on FMC technology talks about speed-ups from using multiple lasers, each reading different tracks/layers - this would speed up access, otherwise, your only option is to spin a disk faster, which has certain practical limits.
This is an article about a technology, not a product - to my knowledge, no such products have been created. So far, this is vapor/theory, in as far as "real-world" products are concerned.
The poster above failed to provide his source for this post, here it is:
http://www.c-3d.net/technology.html
(from the horses mouth, as it were).
Precisely my thoughts ... blue screens are great for creating neat backgrounds and sets, but only if your actors can actually IMAGINE themselves being there. I don't think any of the actors Lucas has used recently (AotC/Menace) are strong enough at their craft to be able to support the way Lucas wants to create movies. Back when the first three episodes were being made, Lucas had actors of the caliber that could probably swing having no set around them ... but they HAD sets back then ... now, he says "no sets" and picks actors that distinctly lack imagination.
Too bad, really.
Haven't seen it myself, but here's a sampling of what critics are saying:
"Too much of the film is given over to a romance between Padme and Anakin in which they're incapable of uttering anything other than the most basic and weary romantic cliches, while regarding each other as if love was something to be endured rather than cherished. There is not a romantic word they exchange that has not long since been reduced to cliche."
"Surprisingly flat-footed dialogue scenes that feature wooden acting, dreary art direction and old-fashioned optical wipes are either intended as an homage to the sci-fi of the '50s or reflect the director's impatience with exposition."
"And for another, while "Attack of the Clones" is many things -- a two-hour-and-12-minute action-figure commercial, a demo reel heralding the latest advances in digital filmmaking, a chance for gifted actors to be handsomely paid for delivering the worst line readings of their careers -- it is not really much of a movie at all, if by movie you mean a work of visual storytelling about the dramatic actions of a group of interesting characters."
"Only a teenage boy could find this kind of stuff continually diverting, and only a teenage boy would not notice flimsy emotions and underdeveloped acting. It seems George Lucas, like Peter Pan, has never really grown up."
Too bad, really ... Lucas used to be a good storyteller, but anymore, he doesn't appear to be. The UK papers heralded this as being better than Episode I, but it seems that Lucas has yet to meet, much less exceed, the movie-making seen in the first three released episodes.
At least one of the patents in question appears to be this one. (you may need a free registration to view)
I was only able to find one patent registered to Pangea (strange as they are an IP company ... you'd think they'd have a few more show up). In any case, this particular patent was applied for in '97, if I'm reading the application correctly. If that's indeed the case, prior art should hardly need an actual hearing.
Good luck!
This is a link to the same patent at USPTO. The filer is supposedly The Pangea Project LLC whereas PanIP appears to be named Pangea Intellectual Property ... dunno, quick inspection is all I have time for tonight!
It would seem to me that most render farms will continue to use what they're currently using ... solaris, linux, etc ... I think Apple's more interested in Pixar using OS X machines for desktops, not for machines doing grunt work ... G4s are nice and all, but they're still commodity processors, not really comparable to the power and scalibility of Sun's offerings or even Intel's offerings (in that arena).
That makes sense, right?
I've found that in my situation, maxing out the upload (say having to upload a multi-meg file to my Rackspace server) is worse, as it prevents me from being able to load *any* web pages ... without it feeling like I'm on a 14.4 connection!
A very, very large percentage of cable broadband providers cap upload at 128Kbps (kilobits/second) which translates to a maximum of 15KB/s upload, in typical practice. While I've found this to be perfectly fine for things like SSH and such to remote servers, you really notice the cap when you need to upload large images (design comps for clients to view), PDFs (can be 1MB or more with placed hi-res, 300DPI images/artwork) or send an attachment via email that is a bit large (like a zipped Access .mdb file, ~500-600K: sending is not instantaneous by any means). Synchronizing large sites with multiple developers through Dreamweaver or other CVS type systems can be time consuming as well.
I wouldn't mind uncapping my upload to be 512Kbps instead of 128Kbps, but like the original poster, I'm not going to risk being banned. The 1.5Mbps downstream I get is still far better (and cheaper, still) than DSL in my area. And with my reverse path amplifier, I have practically no downtime from the bad cabling in my apartment complex.
Or, how 'bout those poor folks that don't live in a prosperous country that will have cinemas showing AotC? For the Star Wars fans (which I'm sure exist) in those countries, this is kind of nice. The internet has reached into many countries that general prosperity (and the spoils thereof, like movie theaters) hasn't reached. I don't generally condone any type of IP theft, but this struck me as "nice", in this particular case.
Since when is an accountant or an MD more professional than say a CCNE, an MCSE, someone with a CS masters, Ph.D.?!? Or, say, the CEO of a company?!? Seems strange that the CFO, if they're a CPA as well, can get .PRO, but the CEO, CTO, COO, etc. cannot.
Arbitrary limitations like this make me sick.
...without being able to verify it, which at the time detracted from the grandeur of it ... now, of course, we look at it as amazing :)
In this case, nobody is ripping off anyone else's interface, they're merely following Apple's UI guidelines, by my guess. When Apple started seeding OS X, I'm certain they provided sample apps and recommendations on how to do things of this sort, so that all OS X interfaces might share a similar look 'n feel. Its the same on Windows - most apps use the same type of interface, Adobe/MM apps being a large digressor, since they follow the interfaces they set out on their Mac products (which are typically released first).
Just a thought, really.