My own logs roughly jive with yours, but even more telling is TheCounter.com's global stats here
I always use thecounter.com's stats for making web dev decisions (should I not worry about writing for 640x480, or is that still a signifigant chunck of users out there?) since they represent roughly half a billion unique hits each month over thousands of web sites.
Two bits of trivia I do find funny:
- XP has fewer users than Linux or Web TV. - Linux has fewer users than Windows 3.x!
Just saw a commercial about how much more "intuative" OSX is than Windows. Apple's running these commercials all the time. They're definatly pushing it hard.
The person who submited the article is seriously overestimating the importance of this. People without computers don't hack their x-boxen. Trust me on this one. I doubt anyone is going to go out and buy an x-box just because of this. But I do wonder weather MS will think this a Good Thing(TM) or not.
You mean like the Direct X release parties when Alex St. John was still working there? Or the "DOS is dead" party? Or the "Midnight Madness" IE release party for 3.0? Or this party for IE5?
And you probably never heard of them because you know nothing about Microsoft, you just know "Oh, it's cool to hate Microsoft and always put 'M$' I'll do that and I'll be |_33+!" Read a book, do some digging. MS (at least used to) have an interesting corperate culture. High intensity with a high burnout rate for sure, but a lot of the industry's best and brightest have worked at Redmond.
</rant>
How ironic. I'm writing a post defending MS on a thread attached to a Mozilla article while using Mozilla 1.0 RC3.
"The code name for the product that became Netscape Navigator, and later Netscape Communicator. The name was derived from the fact that the first Netscape Navigator was intended to be the "Mosaic killer." Mosaic was the first graphical web browser and quite popular during its time."
Lt. Gen. Timothy J. Maude, U.S. Army deputy chief of staff for personnel
David Angell, creator and executive producer of 'Frasier'
Terrance "Terry" Lynch former Congressional staffer
Judy Larocque, Founder and CEO of research firm Market Perspectives
Daniel C. Lewin, 31, co-founder and CTO of Akamai Technologies (You mentioned him.)
James E. Hayden, CFO of software maker Netegrity Inc.
Edmund Glazer, CFO of California-based optical networking company MRV Communications
Jeff Mladenik, vice president of market development and interim CEO of ELogic
Andrew Curry Green, director of business development for ELogic
Barbara K. Olson, conservative TV commentator, lawyer and wife of Solicitor General of the U.S.
Now I must ask you. What does this have to do with anything? Even if there was nobody anyone had ever heard of on those flights or in those buildings that day, so what? Lots of people still died. What diffrence does it make WHO it was? I'm affraid I just don't see your point.
Are you saying that you don't think there was a hidden agenda? (Agreening with myself and the post you replied to) or that you think there IS a hidden agenda?
Do these books have titles? ISBNs? Would I be able to find them on bn.com or Amazon.com? Could I contact these professors for more information? Have they published any relevant papers or written any books themselves? Do they have homepages? Email?
I'm not saying your making it up (I think it may sound like I am) but your answer hardly leads us to more information proving your initial point. It's like saying "oh, I have my sources, trust me."
I just wanted to say that you made my day by saying "Big Two" rather than "big three" as most people say out of habbit. Mopar (Dymler-Chrystler) hasn't fit that description for a long, long time now. these days, I'd sooner put Toyota there than Mopar.
Also, for what it's worth I've heard propane conversions on gasoline engines are very straight-forward and easy (I know someone that's done a couple). So long as the engine was already fuel injected, you basicly just have to change out the fuel tank and lines. Then depending on the vehicle you may or may not have to modify the computer and / or ignition timing. Very easy to do.
I enjoy Star Trek. I mean I really love it. One of the only shows on TV I've ever watched. I realize it's not exactly the pinacle of writing acting, etc, but still, I have fun with it.
But stuff like that. The juror. It makes me want to cry. Or scream. Or both.
I've been a fan of Star Trek since The Next Generation came out when I was very young. But still, I've never been to a convention. Never wanted to.
People like that *realy bother me*.
It's not just them either. I *have* been to ren fairs. Not in character or costume or anything. Just to see what it was like. I had a good time. And I know a lot of people that do those things regularly. But there seem to be three types of people that go. 1) Those that go casualy. Perhaps not even in any type of costume. These people don't make a big deal about it. 2) Those that get costumes, and become part of the festival. Entertaining people that go by adding themselves to the "play" that is the ren fair, while having a good time themselves. These people know when the fair ends and real life begins. 3) Those people that go to the fairs, get REALLY into it (often times going way too far) and then still pretend they're at a ren fair even when they're not.
The woman in your links would appear to be the Star Trek equivelant of the third group. These are the ones to be very, very wary of.
I might point out though that if you were to actually read the article, this is a VIRTUAL convention. Nobody will be in the same place. But I just had to reply because I so, so agree with your sentiment. Even as a Star Trek fan myself. There is a very... undesirable element that these sort of things attract (or perhaps they actually foster it?).
Re:There is only ONE *real* submarine movie.
on
Review: U-571
·
· Score: 1
You seem to be forgetting. The shuttle isn't expensive on a per pound basis because it's reusable. It's expensive on a per pound basis because it needs to guarantee a certain level of SAFTEY. It needs to do that because it's manned.
You don't need these guarantees with unmanned payloads. Mostly because it's not economic.
Let's say you have a $50 Million Satellite you want to launch.
If you can build a disposable rocket with a 99.999% chance of success per launch, but it will cost you a cool $2 Billion per launch, why would you do that if you can build a rocket with a low 95% chance of success per launch for say, $200 Million?
Even if you loose the rocket and the payload on the pad, you're still ahead money-wise of the 99.999% launch vehicle buy building and launching the dangerous rocket *seven times*!
On the other hand, though, would you willingly get into a craft that you knew had a projected 1 in 20 failure rate?
*THAT* is why the shuttle is so expensive. The closer to 100% safe you get, it's an exponential curve in cost. The current effort to create a second generation reusable craft won't eliminate the curve, but it will (hopefully) lower it because of the lower costs of newer technologies.
As for reusability being a crock, that's not really true either. Although the shuttle is horrifically expensive (and I hope I just illustrated why) a disposable craft with similar capabilities would be even more costly. Not only that, but how do you create a craft that can retrieve satellites from orbit to the earth without replicating something like the shuttle? Once you've got something large enough to do that coming back to the earth as the crew return vehicle, it becomes more economical to refit that and relaunch it than it does to throw it away.
You're right... It *was* silly of him to presume that something that ACTUALLY FLEW IN SPACE (albeit without a crew) could possibly represent a potential option for spaceflight. How silly!
I use Linux AND Microsoft. I use both willingly. Each has it's strengths over the other. I tried BSD, but it's not fully compatible with some things I needed (long story). What does that say about me?
LOL! Oops. That's what I get for using a MS spellcheck! Too bad/. doens't have it's own. So I just run what I post through Word before I post so I don't look like a complete idiot. Talk about backfire, huh? Actually, in the last year or so MS finally learned how to do a spellcheck corectly. It even recognised Windows95esque as a word! From the example, it's got some smart code to recognize "creative" words, but I think it's still lacking in simple basic vocabulary.
BTW, you should see what I write *before* I spellcheck it. I make the/. editors look like... well, editors!
The Marines weren't in Mogadishu. That was Army Rangers, Delta, some other SF (USAF Pararescue and I believe a few SEALs). Also, I believe Army 10th Mountain Division was there as part of the UN forces (The Rangers, et al were not part of the UN forces, they were a separate US force, operating roughly in parallel to, not under the command of the UN forces.)
Just double checked my facts. The Marines WERE in-country in Somalia operating under UN command with the 10th Mountain Division. But they had pulled out by May 10th. You're right, of course. I just didn't remember them being there because they weren't there on 3 Oct during the Battle of the Black Sea (The famous battle which Blackhawk Down is based upon). No, I wasn't there and I'm not saying I was. But I have studied it at length.
As for weather the Marines should have to deal with that, remember, the USMC is tasked with a lot more than being "The world's police force" (TM). It's Marines that guard US Embassies. If there is a protest outside the US Embassy in Saudi Arabia or Israel or Russia or anywhere for that matter. The Marines are in a very difficult position. They *must* defend the embassy, which is sovereign US territory. However, the use of deadly force will almost certainly cause an international incident (or escalate an existing one).
This stuff gives them another tool to do this job better. Not just with embassy either. Marines often are put in the position of defending US and allied bases in other countries too. I see this as more of a tool for defending things like embassies, but you never know where it could be useful.
Remember also, that the Embassy duty is not a new job for the Marines. In High School, I was in JROTC. My Colonel was an Air Force pilot. He also flew in the Army Air Corps in WWII. He also happened to hate Marines. He was fond of putting down Marines that got too full of themselves talking about Iwo Jimo or other famous Pacific battles by saying that if they were so hot, how come the only place he'd seen a Marine in three years in Europe and North Africa (as infantry before becoming a pilot) was at the embassy?
Another antidote: I had two buddies that I knew in High School. They were inseparable. They lived the same life basically. You know the type. They were also gung-ho to get into the Marines. Well, Their Senior year, they enlisted. That summer they went away to boot camp. One of them got infantry. The other one got embassy duty.
The parallels and differences are startling. You might think that either one is ridiculous, but hear me out.
They both went through Basic together. So of course the training there is the same. Then they went off to technical school to learn their jobs. Here's where it gets interesting.
The infantryman got all the training you'd expect. Training on a variety of small arms weapons systems, training on small unit tactics, etc.
The embassy guard got training on a variety of small arms weapons systems, small unit tactics, closed quarters fighting, securing buildings, etc.
So far the differences are minor.
But while the infantry guy is learning how to move through the woods, eat bugs, set up ambushes, etc (just guessing on these parts) the Embassy guard was learning etiquette like how to drink his tea!
My point here is that everyone (even some Marines, it would seem by some of the above posts) thinks that the *only* job of the Marines is to kill people and destroy stuff. And, yeah, they do that. And yeah, they do that good. But, yeah, they also do more!
Don't short change the Marines. Their commanders want this and they probably know what they're doing. In my experience, when military commanders ask for something, it's something that will make their jobs easier, or allow them to do their jobs better in some way. Unless this stuff doesn't work as well as advertised, or it's prohibitively expensive (which I can't see being true, compared to other military expenditures), this sounds like a good thing to me. Hopefully it will save lives.
DH - No, no, no, Light speed's too slow! CS - Light speed to slow? DH - That's right we'll have to go straight to Ludacrious Speed! CS - <shock> Ludacrious speed! Sir, we've never gone that fast before! DH - WHAT's THE MATTER COLONEL SANDERS?!? CHICKEN?!? CS - <voice cracking> Prepare ship! </voice cracking>Perpare ship for Ludacrious speed! Close all shops in the mall, secure all animals in the zoo! Cancel the three ring circus! DH - <grabbing microphone> Give me that you petty excuse for an officer! Now hear this! Ludacrious speed! CS - Sir, you better buckle up! DH - Awww, bucke this! Ludacrious speed! GO! ****************
No, no, no. Our troops don't actually eat the desert. They just sometimes fight in it. If they could, think of how much easier it would have been logistically in the Gulf War! It would have been like fighting in a giant bowl of coco-puffs!
(Check my previos posts and realize that I'm the LAST person in the world who can claim to be a spelling nazi. I just couldn't resist.)
I think you answered your own question on that one. Photoshop is aimed at "bitmap pros" only. It's not aimed at the casual graphic artist or even the average webmaster or end user (read: it's not for you). That's why it costs so much. While it may be "nice" to select features to install, Adobe probably realizes who it's developing for and is catering to them. People who *will* need many/most of those features and who (as likely as not) do not want / know how to remove them.
I agree with you in sentiment, but Photoshop is a bad example here. Did you really pay $600 for a program that you just wanted to play with? Somehow I doubt it. That's why PSP is a $100 product (and people like you and I use it.) and Photoshop is a $600 product, because basically only graphic professionals use it. Anyone that is not a professional (or professional caliber) artist who's using Photoshop is probably pirating it, since most people can't / won't pay $600 just to occasionally remove red-eye, crop, or resize little Billy's school portrait for their geocities homepage.
Hell, I can't even justify it and I deal with graphics DAILY as part of my job. PSP works great for me!
Getting back on the subject of the article, like I said, I do agree with you in principal. And I believe that a setup like MS Office has is ideal. EVERY-FSCING-THING is configurable to either install to hard drive, run from CD, or prompt when needed. (IIRC, it may be slightly different) That, in my opinion is ideal for an especially large application or large suite of programs.
Keep in mind this is the *advanced* setup. Setup will prompt you for either "typical" or "advanced" install. This in IMHO is as it should be.
One last thing, don't do like Netscape's taken to doing with that. IF you install many Netscape products (not to single just them out, but they come to mind as an example), there is a similar "typical" and "advanced" dialog. Click on "advanced" and everything is grayed out! It makes you install (for example) Navigator *and* AIM *and* NS Mail *and* Winamp, etc...
Don't fall into the Henry Ford Trap... "You can have your Model T in any color you like. As long as it's black."
www.amatuer-hour.net? Sounds like a pr0n site (correct me if I'm wrong). How much game software does a company publishing a porn site use? For that matter, how much game software does any company use?
Slashdot Mirror
It's "You sass that hoopie Ford Prefect? There's a frood who really knows where his towel is."
;
Hoopie means really together guy.
Frood means really amazingly together guy.
I'll leave sass as an exercise for someone else. (
Wow, I have no life...
Hmmm...
My own logs roughly jive with yours, but even more telling is TheCounter.com's global stats here
I always use thecounter.com's stats for making web dev decisions (should I not worry about writing for 640x480, or is that still a signifigant chunck of users out there?) since they represent roughly half a billion unique hits each month over thousands of web sites.
Two bits of trivia I do find funny:
- XP has fewer users than Linux or Web TV.
- Linux has fewer users than Windows 3.x!
Just saw a commercial about how much more "intuative" OSX is than Windows. Apple's running these commercials all the time. They're definatly pushing it hard.
The person who submited the article is seriously overestimating the importance of this. People without computers don't hack their x-boxen. Trust me on this one. I doubt anyone is going to go out and buy an x-box just because of this. But I do wonder weather MS will think this a Good Thing(TM) or not.
You mean like the Direct X release parties when Alex St. John was still working there? Or the "DOS is dead" party? Or the "Midnight Madness" IE release party for 3.0? Or this party for IE5?
And you probably never heard of them because you know nothing about Microsoft, you just know "Oh, it's cool to hate Microsoft and always put 'M$' I'll do that and I'll be |_33+!" Read a book, do some digging. MS (at least used to) have an interesting corperate culture. High intensity with a high burnout rate for sure, but a lot of the industry's best and brightest have worked at Redmond.
</rant>
How ironic. I'm writing a post defending MS on a thread attached to a Mozilla article while using Mozilla 1.0 RC3.
From the NewZilla FAQ:
"The code name for the product that became Netscape Navigator, and later Netscape Communicator. The name was derived from the fact that the first Netscape Navigator was intended to be the "Mosaic killer." Mosaic was the first graphical web browser and quite popular during its time."
The Mosaic it's refering to is NCSA Mosaic: the first web browser. Some of it's principal developers went on to form Netscape Communications Corporation.
I'm not sure what your point is, but here goes...
Lt. Gen. Timothy J. Maude, U.S. Army deputy chief of staff for personnel
David Angell, creator and executive producer of 'Frasier'
Terrance "Terry" Lynch former Congressional staffer
Judy Larocque, Founder and CEO of research firm Market Perspectives
Daniel C. Lewin, 31, co-founder and CTO of Akamai Technologies (You mentioned him.)
James E. Hayden, CFO of software maker Netegrity Inc.
Edmund Glazer, CFO of California-based optical networking company MRV Communications
Jeff Mladenik, vice president of market development and interim CEO of ELogic
Andrew Curry Green, director of business development for ELogic
Barbara K. Olson, conservative TV commentator, lawyer and wife of Solicitor General of the U.S.
Now I must ask you. What does this have to do with anything? Even if there was nobody anyone had ever heard of on those flights or in those buildings that day, so what? Lots of people still died. What diffrence does it make WHO it was? I'm affraid I just don't see your point.
Are you saying that you don't think there was a hidden agenda? (Agreening with myself and the post you replied to) or that you think there IS a hidden agenda?
Do these books have titles? ISBNs? Would I be able to find them on bn.com or Amazon.com? Could I contact these professors for more information? Have they published any relevant papers or written any books themselves? Do they have homepages? Email?
I'm not saying your making it up (I think it may sound like I am) but your answer hardly leads us to more information proving your initial point. It's like saying "oh, I have my sources, trust me."
I just wanted to say that you made my day by saying "Big Two" rather than "big three" as most people say out of habbit. Mopar (Dymler-Chrystler) hasn't fit that description for a long, long time now. these days, I'd sooner put Toyota there than Mopar.
Also, for what it's worth I've heard propane conversions on gasoline engines are very straight-forward and easy (I know someone that's done a couple). So long as the engine was already fuel injected, you basicly just have to change out the fuel tank and lines. Then depending on the vehicle you may or may not have to modify the computer and / or ignition timing. Very easy to do.
And they make Volkswagons. That makes up for it. ( :
Nice UIN! ( ;
I enjoy Star Trek. I mean I really love it. One of the only shows on TV I've ever watched. I realize it's not exactly the pinacle of writing acting, etc, but still, I have fun with it.
But stuff like that. The juror. It makes me want to cry. Or scream. Or both.
I've been a fan of Star Trek since The Next Generation came out when I was very young. But still, I've never been to a convention. Never wanted to.
People like that *realy bother me*.
It's not just them either. I *have* been to ren fairs. Not in character or costume or anything. Just to see what it was like. I had a good time. And I know a lot of people that do those things regularly. But there seem to be three types of people that go. 1) Those that go casualy. Perhaps not even in any type of costume. These people don't make a big deal about it. 2) Those that get costumes, and become part of the festival. Entertaining people that go by adding themselves to the "play" that is the ren fair, while having a good time themselves. These people know when the fair ends and real life begins. 3) Those people that go to the fairs, get REALLY into it (often times going way too far) and then still pretend they're at a ren fair even when they're not.
The woman in your links would appear to be the Star Trek equivelant of the third group. These are the ones to be very, very wary of.
I might point out though that if you were to actually read the article, this is a VIRTUAL convention. Nobody will be in the same place. But I just had to reply because I so, so agree with your sentiment. Even as a Star Trek fan myself. There is a very... undesirable element that these sort of things attract (or perhaps they actually foster it?).
...and he said DOS, not Unix or NT. ( :
You seem to be forgetting. The shuttle isn't expensive on a per pound basis because it's reusable. It's expensive on a per pound basis because it needs to guarantee a certain level of SAFTEY. It needs to do that because it's manned.
You don't need these guarantees with unmanned payloads. Mostly because it's not economic.
Let's say you have a $50 Million Satellite you want to launch.
If you can build a disposable rocket with a 99.999% chance of success per launch, but it will cost you a cool $2 Billion per launch, why would you do that if you can build a rocket with a low 95% chance of success per launch for say, $200 Million?
Even if you loose the rocket and the payload on the pad, you're still ahead money-wise of the 99.999% launch vehicle buy building and launching the dangerous rocket *seven times*!
On the other hand, though, would you willingly get into a craft that you knew had a projected 1 in 20 failure rate?
*THAT* is why the shuttle is so expensive. The closer to 100% safe you get, it's an exponential curve in cost. The current effort to create a second generation reusable craft won't eliminate the curve, but it will (hopefully) lower it because of the lower costs of newer technologies.
As for reusability being a crock, that's not really true either. Although the shuttle is horrifically expensive (and I hope I just illustrated why) a disposable craft with similar capabilities would be even more costly. Not only that, but how do you create a craft that can retrieve satellites from orbit to the earth without replicating something like the shuttle? Once you've got something large enough to do that coming back to the earth as the crew return vehicle, it becomes more economical to refit that and relaunch it than it does to throw it away.
You're right... It *was* silly of him to presume that something that ACTUALLY FLEW IN SPACE (albeit without a crew) could possibly represent a potential option for spaceflight. How silly!
While you post does evoke rather... interesting visuals. KISS is generaly understood to stand for "Keep It Simple, Stupid".
I know. He's so pompus and concieted in that email. It's the most convincing part. If this weren't 1 April, I'd probably believe it.
I use Linux AND Microsoft. I use both willingly. Each has it's strengths over the other. I tried BSD, but it's not fully compatible with some things I needed (long story). What does that say about me?
"What a bunch of apes...
No strike that, you don't rate that good!"
LOL! Oops. That's what I get for using a MS spellcheck! Too bad /. doens't have it's own. So I just run what I post through Word before I post so I don't look like a complete idiot. Talk about backfire, huh? Actually, in the last year or so MS finally learned how to do a spellcheck corectly. It even recognised Windows95esque as a word! From the example, it's got some smart code to recognize "creative" words, but I think it's still lacking in simple basic vocabulary.
/. editors look like... well, editors!
BTW, you should see what I write *before* I spellcheck it. I make the
The Marines weren't in Mogadishu. That was Army Rangers, Delta, some other SF (USAF Pararescue and I believe a few SEALs). Also, I believe Army 10th Mountain Division was there as part of the UN forces (The Rangers, et al were not part of the UN forces, they were a separate US force, operating roughly in parallel to, not under the command of the UN forces.)
Just double checked my facts. The Marines WERE in-country in Somalia operating under UN command with the 10th Mountain Division. But they had pulled out by May 10th. You're right, of course. I just didn't remember them being there because they weren't there on 3 Oct during the Battle of the Black Sea (The famous battle which Blackhawk Down is based upon). No, I wasn't there and I'm not saying I was. But I have studied it at length.
As for weather the Marines should have to deal with that, remember, the USMC is tasked with a lot more than being "The world's police force" (TM). It's Marines that guard US Embassies. If there is a protest outside the US Embassy in Saudi Arabia or Israel or Russia or anywhere for that matter. The Marines are in a very difficult position. They *must* defend the embassy, which is sovereign US territory. However, the use of deadly force will almost certainly cause an international incident (or escalate an existing one).
This stuff gives them another tool to do this job better. Not just with embassy either. Marines often are put in the position of defending US and allied bases in other countries too. I see this as more of a tool for defending things like embassies, but you never know where it could be useful.
Remember also, that the Embassy duty is not a new job for the Marines. In High School, I was in JROTC. My Colonel was an Air Force pilot. He also flew in the Army Air Corps in WWII. He also happened to hate Marines. He was fond of putting down Marines that got too full of themselves talking about Iwo Jimo or other famous Pacific battles by saying that if they were so hot, how come the only place he'd seen a Marine in three years in Europe and North Africa (as infantry before becoming a pilot) was at the embassy?
Another antidote: I had two buddies that I knew in High School. They were inseparable. They lived the same life basically. You know the type. They were also gung-ho to get into the Marines. Well, Their Senior year, they enlisted. That summer they went away to boot camp. One of them got infantry. The other one got embassy duty.
The parallels and differences are startling. You might think that either one is ridiculous, but hear me out.
They both went through Basic together. So of course the training there is the same. Then they went off to technical school to learn their jobs. Here's where it gets interesting.
The infantryman got all the training you'd expect. Training on a variety of small arms weapons systems, training on small unit tactics, etc.
The embassy guard got training on a variety of small arms weapons systems, small unit tactics, closed quarters fighting, securing buildings, etc.
So far the differences are minor.
But while the infantry guy is learning how to move through the woods, eat bugs, set up ambushes, etc (just guessing on these parts) the Embassy guard was learning etiquette like how to drink his tea!
My point here is that everyone (even some Marines, it would seem by some of the above posts) thinks that the *only* job of the Marines is to kill people and destroy stuff.
And, yeah, they do that.
And yeah, they do that good.
But, yeah, they also do more!
Don't short change the Marines. Their commanders want this and they probably know what they're doing. In my experience, when military commanders ask for something, it's something that will make their jobs easier, or allow them to do their jobs better in some way. Unless this stuff doesn't work as well as advertised, or it's prohibitively expensive (which I can't see being true, compared to other military expenditures), this sounds like a good thing to me. Hopefully it will save lives.
DH - No, no, no, Light speed's too slow!
CS - Light speed to slow?
DH - That's right we'll have to go straight to Ludacrious Speed!
CS - <shock> Ludacrious speed! Sir, we've never gone that fast before!
DH - WHAT's THE MATTER COLONEL SANDERS?!? CHICKEN?!?
CS - <voice cracking> Prepare ship! </voice cracking>Perpare ship for Ludacrious speed! Close all shops in the mall, secure all animals in the zoo! Cancel the three ring circus!
DH - <grabbing microphone> Give me that you petty excuse for an officer! Now hear this! Ludacrious speed!
CS - Sir, you better buckle up!
DH - Awww, bucke this! Ludacrious speed! GO!
****************
What's truly sad is it's all from memory...
No, no, no. Our troops don't actually eat the desert. They just sometimes fight in it. If they could, think of how much easier it would have been logistically in the Gulf War! It would have been like fighting in a giant bowl of coco-puffs!
(Check my previos posts and realize that I'm the LAST person in the world who can claim to be a spelling nazi. I just couldn't resist.)
I think you answered your own question on that one. Photoshop is aimed at "bitmap pros" only. It's not aimed at the casual graphic artist or even the average webmaster or end user (read: it's not for you). That's why it costs so much. While it may be "nice" to select features to install, Adobe probably realizes who it's developing for and is catering to them. People who *will* need many/most of those features and who (as likely as not) do not want / know how to remove them.
I agree with you in sentiment, but Photoshop is a bad example here. Did you really pay $600 for a program that you just wanted to play with? Somehow I doubt it. That's why PSP is a $100 product (and people like you and I use it.) and Photoshop is a $600 product, because basically only graphic professionals use it. Anyone that is not a professional (or professional caliber) artist who's using Photoshop is probably pirating it, since most people can't / won't pay $600 just to occasionally remove red-eye, crop, or resize little Billy's school portrait for their geocities homepage.
Hell, I can't even justify it and I deal with graphics DAILY as part of my job. PSP works great for me!
Getting back on the subject of the article, like I said, I do agree with you in principal. And I believe that a setup like MS Office has is ideal. EVERY-FSCING-THING is configurable to either install to hard drive, run from CD, or prompt when needed. (IIRC, it may be slightly different) That, in my opinion is ideal for an especially large application or large suite of programs.
Keep in mind this is the *advanced* setup. Setup will prompt you for either "typical" or "advanced" install. This in IMHO is as it should be.
One last thing, don't do like Netscape's taken to doing with that. IF you install many Netscape products (not to single just them out, but they come to mind as an example), there is a similar "typical" and "advanced" dialog. Click on "advanced" and everything is grayed out! It makes you install (for example) Navigator *and* AIM *and* NS Mail *and* Winamp, etc...
Don't fall into the Henry Ford Trap... "You can have your Model T in any color you like. As long as it's black."
www.amatuer-hour.net? Sounds like a pr0n site (correct me if I'm wrong). How much game software does a company publishing a porn site use? For that matter, how much game software does any company use?