i know some jackass always says it, but I'm not paying $129.95 for the latest upgrade.
Apple doesn't include any activation or copy protection system in OS X, so it just takes one alpha geek to buy a copy and then it filters down when people see something cool and ask them to install it on their Mac, usually proffering beer and liasons with loose women in gratitude. Remember, most Mac users, like most Windows users, don't have much idea what version of the OS they're using.
I suspect this is part of Apple's distribution strategy, otherwise they'd at least ask for a serial number or something.
RSS aggregation has been available for years in OSX through a number of third party utilities. Best of all, some of them do not require you to use Safari as your main browser. What we really need imho is an RSS tool that builds a hierarchical menu of sites and articles in your menubar rather than in a separate application window or a browser window. But the kind of tool Apple seems to be supplying here is almost a step backwards. It will be cool for Safari users, but the rest of us will still be looking for better RSS tools in third party apps.
You're looking for NewsYouCanUse, a small application that sits in your menubar and tells you when RSS feeds have updated. Works with RSS 0.92, 2.0 and Atom, drag and drop interface, hierarchical menus, priority feeds, and an elegant minimalist design.
Improve used to mean to make good use what was available (this meaning lives on as improvise).
So when Washington said "True policy, as well as good faith, in my opinion, binds us to improve the occasion." he didn't mean he was bound to make the occasion better, rather he was bound to make good use of the opportunity presented.
Now improve means to enhance, so the word is recursive.
The first is that radio stations pay artists to play songs,
Nope. Commercial radio stations don't pay a cent for what they play. If the labels had their way, they'd still be able to pay the stations to play their songs, like in the payola days.
Since the tower requires liquid cooling to prevent it from overheating, and the XServe is normally several months behind the towers, they are probably using the dual 2.0 G5s.
They probably are, but I'm not sure Apple will transfer the liquid cooling to the XServes. Apple went with the liquid cooling for quietness rather than out of thermal desperation. If anything, we're more likely to see it in a PowerBook than an XServe.
Well we all want to be able to buy tickets to Earth orbit. Just because the X-Prize is for sub-orbital flights doesn't mean we aren't much closer to orbital.
Reasoning: think of how much money is tied up in aviation. Aviation, both commercial and military, is big business. None of that money is funding non-governmental space access because there is no track record for that kind of thing. When Rutan succeeds, the image of the space entrepreneur will be considerably less flaky and investment in private projects will increase.
An environment that humans can live comfortably in, with natural resources they can take advantage of in a sustainable way, is a good environment. Anything that moves toward that is good for the environment; anything that moves away from it is bad for the environment.
This topic is an irony magnet. If you're defining the environment in terms of how well it suits humans then you're missing the point. By that logic we should drain wetlands so we can build towns on the land, kill all the bears and wolves because they are unfriendly to humans, and we might as well drill away in Alaska because it wouldn't bother the humans.
Something that is "good for the environment" is never just that; suppose you decide that elephants are something you want to protect. Elephants eat trees and totally trash the ecosystems where they live. Suppose you decide that using solar cells is better than running a gasoline generator, forgetting that solar cells generate massive amounts of toxic waste when they are made. Suppose you decide that damming a river will cause too much damage to the ecosystem, and too bad that it would generate hydroelectric power.
Just because the truth is complex doesn't mean it's the opposite of what people believe. It may take two pounds of cardboard to replace one pound of wood (that's an example, I don't know the real number). It may even take more energy to process it.
Did you even read my post? Paper is made from crop trees - Sitka spruces I think. If you increase recycling in a dubious economical exercise these plantations will be less viable and so there will be fewer trees rather than more.
Cut down the rainforests ! Burn them all to the ground !
You are arguing that the rainforests should be exploited for research and tourism that is of use to wealthy countries, but not for the economic development of the countries that actually own the rainforest. Why don't the rich countries do the research in their own complex ecosystems? Oh yes, that's right, we already trashed them so we could become rich and powerful.
Biodiesel : domestic, renewable, clean, and in the fuel tank of my bone stock 2002 New Beetle TDI
I mean this is the nub of the crux. You are proudly asserting how environmentally sound your new car is. What do you think the environmental impact of producing a new car is? You're really proud that because you're using biodiesel you are not polluting as much as if you were using gasoline.
You bought the car and chose that fuel because it makes you feel better about yourself. Think about that next time you're driving cyclists off the road.
I guess the hyperbole got the better of me. The point I was trying to make is that environmentalism is essentially a mode of consumption; it doesn't really matter if something is good or bad for the environment - as if such a simple dichotomy made any sense anyway - it's how it makes you feel when you buy it.
So even if it did make sense to kill the whales, people would not accept the idea. Our attitude towards the environment is totemic rather than rational.
For example, using recycled paper uses more resources and energy than new paper, and it doesn't lock down any carbon. People believe recycled paper is better because a simple lie is easier to accept than a complex truth.
I don't believe this for one second. Glass recycling schemes predate the whole green thing by decades. In the UK back when virtually every soft drink came in glass bottle form, virtually every bottle had a rebate available to people who returned the bottle.
That's bottle recycling, not glass recycling. Your refreshing bottle of Vimto or Dandelion and Burdock had to be returned intact because the manufacturer wanted to clean and re-use the bottle. This actually makes sense both economically and environmentally.
Most glass recycling in the US is less logical; here in New York you are legally obliged to recycle glass. The glass is carefully sorted into three categories - clear, green and brown - before being mixed in with regular garbage for landfill because no one wants to buy the raw glass.
A year ago Mayor Bloomberg lifted the recycling requirement, to howls of anguish from armchair environmentalists. The recycling requirement is back in place now, but the glass still gets mixed back in with the regular garbage.
This is not always the case. I remember the story of paper manufacturing that the real cost of making recycled paper is actually worse for the enviroment than using virgin fibres. The public wants recycled paper, so that is what they get.
Exactly right. People have the idea that paper is made with the pulp of virgin rainforest. Almost all paper is made from crop trees which are locking down carbon dioxide.
The final irony is whales and the rainforest, which people feel are somehow 'good'. People think the rainforest generates most of the oxygen in the air, but rainforests only produce something like 5% of it; most oxygen comes from algae in the sea. Who's eating the algae? That's right, the whales.
So the upshot is that if you want to make a real contribution to the environment you would be campaigning to cut down the rainforest to make harpoons to kill the whales with.
So you're saying that glass, which can simply be remelted and recast, is more expensive than obtaining sillica, dyeing, melting, and casting it?
That's exactly right. Even worse, most recycled products that are generated to satisfy 'green' consumer demand use more energy to produce than normal products and so are worse for the environment.
Perhaps their real concern is that if the courts see them without any real products, then they are even less likely to take them seriously.
SCO's final product is themself. Look at who they appointed as CFO: Bert Young. Anyone involved with marchFIRST should recognize that name.
From SCO's recent conference call, as listed on Groklaw: "Bert brings to SCO a seasoned background in executive level management responsibilities from a variety of information technology companies, including worldwide finance operations and M&A expertise."
Now why does SCO want a mergers and acquisitions expert? They aren't in a position to buy anyone up as they are low in cash and their stock is in the toilet. They're hoping to get bought out themselves.
When it comes to things that end in -ize, Americans use -ize and British use -ise. This is way too much thought put into something that was essentially just me telling a moron to go fornicate himself with a stick.;)
Mac System 7 had "publish and subscribe", which was similar to this idea in the sense that it made a lot of sense, saved time, had a consistent metaphor, and was used by nobody.
I guess it would have been harder for him to have told his father this:
"We went out one day and noticed that no one was buying our cows because everyone was getting free cows. So we went over to where the free cows were and accused the free cow people of stealing our cows because they had horns and udders just like our cows. We want $699 per cow. Then it turned out that the cows aren't related but we had a showdown with the IBM boys because they had bought our cows in the past and had made bells for them and they were putting similar bells on the free cows. In the meantime it turns out that our cows don't actually belong to us, but to Mr Novell, who pays us to look after them -- it's as simple as that."
Slashdot Mirror
i know some jackass always says it, but I'm not paying $129.95 for the latest upgrade.
Apple doesn't include any activation or copy protection system in OS X, so it just takes one alpha geek to buy a copy and then it filters down when people see something cool and ask them to install it on their Mac, usually proffering beer and liasons with loose women in gratitude. Remember, most Mac users, like most Windows users, don't have much idea what version of the OS they're using.
I suspect this is part of Apple's distribution strategy, otherwise they'd at least ask for a serial number or something.
RSS aggregation has been available for years in OSX through a number of third party utilities. Best of all, some of them do not require you to use Safari as your main browser. What we really need imho is an RSS tool that builds a hierarchical menu of sites and articles in your menubar rather than in a separate application window or a browser window. But the kind of tool Apple seems to be supplying here is almost a step backwards. It will be cool for Safari users, but the rest of us will still be looking for better RSS tools in third party apps.
You're looking for NewsYouCanUse, a small application that sits in your menubar and tells you when RSS feeds have updated. Works with RSS 0.92, 2.0 and Atom, drag and drop interface, hierarchical menus, priority feeds, and an elegant minimalist design.
BTW: Can anyone give a view on how much truth-twisting is done in "Fahrenheit"?
You're implicitly stating that there exists an untwisted truth.
You forgot:
4) Is Britney on the way out? We talk to her doorman. Also, hear about one member of the government death squad who's getting mad - about a parrot!
Define "improve".
Improve used to mean to make good use what was available (this meaning lives on as improvise).
So when Washington said "True policy, as well as good faith, in my opinion, binds us to improve the occasion." he didn't mean he was bound to make the occasion better, rather he was bound to make good use of the opportunity presented.
Now improve means to enhance, so the word is recursive.
Nope. ASCAP collects a pittance for songwriters, not the artists. In the US radio stations are exempt from paying labels to play material.
The first is that radio stations pay artists to play songs,
Nope. Commercial radio stations don't pay a cent for what they play. If the labels had their way, they'd still be able to pay the stations to play their songs, like in the payola days.
Safari with default settings has a status bar which displays links on mouseover.
Rockets are missiles, but missiles can be anything. Rocks are missiles if you throw them.
Anyway, almost every one of them has a Stgw 90 at home, no SIG or whatever you call it. It was developed by the swiss army.
It's the world's first assault rifle with a built-in corkscrew.
Since the tower requires liquid cooling to prevent it from overheating, and the XServe is normally several months behind the towers, they are probably using the dual 2.0 G5s.
They probably are, but I'm not sure Apple will transfer the liquid cooling to the XServes. Apple went with the liquid cooling for quietness rather than out of thermal desperation. If anything, we're more likely to see it in a PowerBook than an XServe.
Sorry but your knowledge of basic high school physics (first semester) is appalling (leads me to believe that you're a little young ).
Also space rockets only work inside the atmosphere, where there is air to push against. There was a special on Fox all about it.
Well we all want to be able to buy tickets to Earth orbit. Just because the X-Prize is for sub-orbital flights doesn't mean we aren't much closer to orbital.
Reasoning: think of how much money is tied up in aviation. Aviation, both commercial and military, is big business. None of that money is funding non-governmental space access because there is no track record for that kind of thing. When Rutan succeeds, the image of the space entrepreneur will be considerably less flaky and investment in private projects will increase.
An environment that humans can live comfortably in, with natural resources they can take advantage of in a sustainable way, is a good environment. Anything that moves toward that is good for the environment; anything that moves away from it is bad for the environment.
This topic is an irony magnet. If you're defining the environment in terms of how well it suits humans then you're missing the point. By that logic we should drain wetlands so we can build towns on the land, kill all the bears and wolves because they are unfriendly to humans, and we might as well drill away in Alaska because it wouldn't bother the humans.
Something that is "good for the environment" is never just that; suppose you decide that elephants are something you want to protect. Elephants eat trees and totally trash the ecosystems where they live. Suppose you decide that using solar cells is better than running a gasoline generator, forgetting that solar cells generate massive amounts of toxic waste when they are made. Suppose you decide that damming a river will cause too much damage to the ecosystem, and too bad that it would generate hydroelectric power.
Just because the truth is complex doesn't mean it's the opposite of what people believe. It may take two pounds of cardboard to replace one pound of wood (that's an example, I don't know the real number). It may even take more energy to process it.
Did you even read my post? Paper is made from crop trees - Sitka spruces I think. If you increase recycling in a dubious economical exercise these plantations will be less viable and so there will be fewer trees rather than more.
Cut down the rainforests ! Burn them all to the ground !
You are arguing that the rainforests should be exploited for research and tourism that is of use to wealthy countries, but not for the economic development of the countries that actually own the rainforest. Why don't the rich countries do the research in their own complex ecosystems? Oh yes, that's right, we already trashed them so we could become rich and powerful.
Biodiesel : domestic, renewable, clean, and in the fuel tank of my bone stock 2002 New Beetle TDI
I mean this is the nub of the crux. You are proudly asserting how environmentally sound your new car is. What do you think the environmental impact of producing a new car is? You're really proud that because you're using biodiesel you are not polluting as much as if you were using gasoline.
You bought the car and chose that fuel because it makes you feel better about yourself. Think about that next time you're driving cyclists off the road.
I guess the hyperbole got the better of me. The point I was trying to make is that environmentalism is essentially a mode of consumption; it doesn't really matter if something is good or bad for the environment - as if such a simple dichotomy made any sense anyway - it's how it makes you feel when you buy it.
So even if it did make sense to kill the whales, people would not accept the idea. Our attitude towards the environment is totemic rather than rational.
For example, using recycled paper uses more resources and energy than new paper, and it doesn't lock down any carbon. People believe recycled paper is better because a simple lie is easier to accept than a complex truth.
I don't believe this for one second. Glass recycling schemes predate the whole green thing by decades. In the UK back when virtually every soft drink came in glass bottle form, virtually every bottle had a rebate available to people who returned the bottle.
That's bottle recycling, not glass recycling. Your refreshing bottle of Vimto or Dandelion and Burdock had to be returned intact because the manufacturer wanted to clean and re-use the bottle. This actually makes sense both economically and environmentally.
Most glass recycling in the US is less logical; here in New York you are legally obliged to recycle glass. The glass is carefully sorted into three categories - clear, green and brown - before being mixed in with regular garbage for landfill because no one wants to buy the raw glass.
A year ago Mayor Bloomberg lifted the recycling requirement, to howls of anguish from armchair environmentalists. The recycling requirement is back in place now, but the glass still gets mixed back in with the regular garbage.
This is not always the case. I remember the story of paper manufacturing that the real cost of making recycled paper is actually worse for the enviroment than using virgin fibres. The public wants recycled paper, so that is what they get.
Exactly right. People have the idea that paper is made with the pulp of virgin rainforest. Almost all paper is made from crop trees which are locking down carbon dioxide.
The final irony is whales and the rainforest, which people feel are somehow 'good'. People think the rainforest generates most of the oxygen in the air, but rainforests only produce something like 5% of it; most oxygen comes from algae in the sea. Who's eating the algae? That's right, the whales.
So the upshot is that if you want to make a real contribution to the environment you would be campaigning to cut down the rainforest to make harpoons to kill the whales with.
So you're saying that glass, which can simply be remelted and recast, is more expensive than obtaining sillica, dyeing, melting, and casting it?
That's exactly right. Even worse, most recycled products that are generated to satisfy 'green' consumer demand use more energy to produce than normal products and so are worse for the environment.
The goddamned hippies are ruining the planet.
Perhaps their real concern is that if the courts see them without any real products, then they are even less likely to take them seriously.
SCO's final product is themself. Look at who they appointed as CFO: Bert Young. Anyone involved with marchFIRST should recognize that name.
From SCO's recent conference call, as listed on Groklaw:
"Bert brings to SCO a seasoned background in executive level management responsibilities from a variety of information technology companies, including worldwide finance operations and M&A expertise."
Now why does SCO want a mergers and acquisitions expert? They aren't in a position to buy anyone up as they are low in cash and their stock is in the toilet. They're hoping to get bought out themselves.
although the Americans have learnt some of the tricks the Russians have found and are catching up.
For example, the USA spent trillions of dollars developing an urban legend that could work in zero-gravity, while the Russians simply used a pencil.
When it comes to things that end in -ize, Americans use -ize and British use -ise. This is way too much thought put into something that was essentially just me telling a moron to go fornicate himself with a stick. ;)
Way to chastize him, dude.
Mac System 7 had "publish and subscribe", which was similar to this idea in the sense that it made a lot of sense, saved time, had a consistent metaphor, and was used by nobody.
I guess it would have been harder for him to have told his father this:
"We went out one day and noticed that no one was buying our cows because everyone was getting free cows. So we went over to where the free cows were and accused the free cow people of stealing our cows because they had horns and udders just like our cows. We want $699 per cow. Then it turned out that the cows aren't related but we had a showdown with the IBM boys because they had bought our cows in the past and had made bells for them and they were putting similar bells on the free cows. In the meantime it turns out that our cows don't actually belong to us, but to Mr Novell, who pays us to look after them -- it's as simple as that."