Since the word "beta" was used to describe the software to be tested, that should disallow any minor feature enhancement?
Traditionally, beta meant that the product was feature-complete and was now in testing. If it were not feature-complete it was considered to be still in alpha.
That line has unfortunately blurred. The thinking was that adding new features during beta would obviously negate the prior beta testing. What a quaint and silly notion that it's not a good idea to keep adding features until the night before GM.
Can you recommend a registrar that *just* registers domains without upselling me on 47 other services I don't want or need?
Well I'm very happy with A Small Orange as a hosting service, so now I just register with them too, even though it's a couple of bucks more ($10 a year I think.) I don't miss the few dollars.
Perhaps it was a temporary friendship, minus an accent mark.
That's the kind of stuff I used to suggest as I struggled to comprehend Spanish. I found out it's a good way to get quizzical looks.:-)
Now to me it just sounds totally wrong, without consciously thinking about it.
I was laughed at for my Spanish more times than I can remember. When I learned contigo, for instance, I naturally assumed I could also say the opposite, sintigo. For a good laugh, try that one out in a room full of native speakers.
In my experience, I've had nothing but good prices & service from them for the last 8 years. YMMV.
Other than the fact that each time I pay for something I have to traverse a minefield of add-on sales pitches and be sure to not accidentally agree to something, I've not had any trouble. However, that minefield is enough to drive me elsewhere for any new business.
There is, but it no longer shows up on the front page. Sometimes when I submit a comment, I then get offered to meta-mod.
I can go to what they are now calling "metamoderation" at any time. It's just that it is no longer actual metamoderation, but rather random comments that for the most part have not been moderated. So how that is meta is beyond me.
Your argument seems to be centered around the notion that by far the most important thing is that the artists get paid as much as they possibly can, and that trumps everything else. But the cost for that is very dear.
Short-term, there is no doubt that the world would be markedly better if all works were freely available to everyone. Longer term, the issue is giving artists incentive to create. Current copyright laws do a poor job of addressing that need. Life + 70 years serves only to allow the old cows to continue to be milked. It sparks no creativity and perhaps even stifles it.
Your point relies on the notion that the fact that you can somehow get it to work that it is therefore not an upgrade. So your "point" is simply not very well thought out. And since now you've ceased thinking, I imagine it's not going to change.
You are missing the point, seemingly deliberately. Why would Apple have to ensure that it couldn't possibly work otherwise in order for it to be an upgrade? You seem to be taking the position that if you can figure out some particular setup that enables you to get it to run then Apple forfeits the ability to sell it as an upgrade. That's just silly.
hat if Apple does not WANT people to be able to install their OS on non-Apple produced hardware, then their course of action is clear: not to sell the OS without hardware.
They don't, they only sell upgrades. Psystar wants to install it on a computer that does not already have a copy of the OS. If Apple sold a non-upgrade version for, say, $1,000, then it would be obvious that Psystar could not instead just use the less expensive upgrade version. It shouldn't require the existence of the $1,000 version to make that clear.
Shouldn't that be poor website design + NoScript makes the web useless?
Poor design isn't going away any time soon. There are zillions of sites. The majority built by either someone dabbling at home or someone under time and budget constraints. Making a site that works well both with and without scripts is hard and time consuming.
Why is it that every time some-ones' favourite interpreter is compared to a compiled language, speed is not an issue, and many arguments are given as to why not. Yet when it comes to comparing interpreted languages, suddenly speed becomes all important ?
Humans are lazy. We look for easy ways to compare things, even if the comparison is not actually valid. Comparing languages by their speed of execution makes little sense, but it can be boiled down to a number, and that makes it attractive.
The research that has been put into various Smalltalk/JavaScript implementations hasn't quite made it into the main release of Ruby yet. Unfortunately, this is still the one a lot of people are running their websites on.
So what if it is? I run my whole business on ruby. Speed of execution is not an issue even in the slightest. But what is an issue is that I can make improvements and additions very quickly. *That* speed is very important to me.
Slashdot Mirror
My guess is the single biggest difference is the switch from "I wish I hadn't bought that" to "I'm glad I didn't pay for that crap."
Traditionally, beta meant that the product was feature-complete and was now in testing. If it were not feature-complete it was considered to be still in alpha.
That line has unfortunately blurred. The thinking was that adding new features during beta would obviously negate the prior beta testing. What a quaint and silly notion that it's not a good idea to keep adding features until the night before GM.
Well I'm very happy with A Small Orange as a hosting service, so now I just register with them too, even though it's a couple of bucks more ($10 a year I think.) I don't miss the few dollars.
That's the kind of stuff I used to suggest as I struggled to comprehend Spanish. I found out it's a good way to get quizzical looks. :-)
Now to me it just sounds totally wrong, without consciously thinking about it.
I was laughed at for my Spanish more times than I can remember. When I learned contigo, for instance, I naturally assumed I could also say the opposite, sintigo. For a good laugh, try that one out in a room full of native speakers.
Other than the fact that each time I pay for something I have to traverse a minefield of add-on sales pitches and be sure to not accidentally agree to something, I've not had any trouble. However, that minefield is enough to drive me elsewhere for any new business.
es, not esta. - Su amigo, el Nazi Gramática
I can go to what they are now calling "metamoderation" at any time. It's just that it is no longer actual metamoderation, but rather random comments that for the most part have not been moderated. So how that is meta is beyond me.
As far as I can tell, there is no more actual metamoderation.
Texting is like someone cracking their knuckles over and over and over again.
Short-term, there is no doubt that the world would be markedly better if all works were freely available to everyone. Longer term, the issue is giving artists incentive to create. Current copyright laws do a poor job of addressing that need. Life + 70 years serves only to allow the old cows to continue to be milked. It sparks no creativity and perhaps even stifles it.
Your point relies on the notion that the fact that you can somehow get it to work that it is therefore not an upgrade. So your "point" is simply not very well thought out. And since now you've ceased thinking, I imagine it's not going to change.
You really think there are 750 paid full-time developers working on the Linux kernel?
Cool. Are you also the guy who came up with "King of Prussia"?
You are missing the point, seemingly deliberately. Why would Apple have to ensure that it couldn't possibly work otherwise in order for it to be an upgrade? You seem to be taking the position that if you can figure out some particular setup that enables you to get it to run then Apple forfeits the ability to sell it as an upgrade. That's just silly.
So then do you agree that if it were an upgrade that Psystar would have no leg to stand on?
If you travel much it's a lot easier to carry a Kindle than it is to haul around your dead tree stack.
So you're saying that in a free market I would not be permitted to enter into a licensing agreement? That seems retarded.
They don't, they only sell upgrades. Psystar wants to install it on a computer that does not already have a copy of the OS. If Apple sold a non-upgrade version for, say, $1,000, then it would be obvious that Psystar could not instead just use the less expensive upgrade version. It shouldn't require the existence of the $1,000 version to make that clear.
You paid for an upgrade.
Poor design isn't going away any time soon. There are zillions of sites. The majority built by either someone dabbling at home or someone under time and budget constraints. Making a site that works well both with and without scripts is hard and time consuming.
You mean you might have had it but somehow didn't realize it?
Humans are lazy. We look for easy ways to compare things, even if the comparison is not actually valid. Comparing languages by their speed of execution makes little sense, but it can be boiled down to a number, and that makes it attractive.
So what if it is? I run my whole business on ruby. Speed of execution is not an issue even in the slightest. But what is an issue is that I can make improvements and additions very quickly. *That* speed is very important to me.
I like that. Is it original?
I put my data at Microsoft's SavesForSure portal, because I know there's no way they would turn their back on anything named like that.