So your iMac that you bought less than a year ago came with iLife bundled (which I think we're all in agreement about), and then you did a fresh install of Mac OS X 10.5 on an old G4... and then installed a copy of the latest version of iLife. Where did you obtain that copy of iLife 09? Did you buy it, or did you install the bundled copy that came with your iMac?
I don't get it. Why would anyone pirate iPhoto? It comes with every Mac sold, already installed.
The current version comes with every new Mac. If you have an older Mac, you may not have iPhoto, or you may have an old version that doesn't have some of the new features you want. iPhoto cannot be purchased separately; it's part of the iLife suite which sells for $79 and there is no discount for upgrading from a previous version.
Chrome does have adblocking now. Does it not work for you?
Another poster explained that Chrome's ad-blocking still downloads the ad, but doesn't display it. This is a problem for anybody on a metered or low-bandwidth connection (e.g. tethering through a cell phone, as I'm doing now) who don't want to download the ads, regardless of whether or not they get displayed. Of course, most people have broadband connections and don't care what gets downloaded in the background, as long as they don't have to see it.
In theory, web sites could try to detect whether an ad was downloaded or not, and refuse to display content unless you've also downloaded the ads. In practice, this isn't normally done, but if it were, with Chrome the web site would still work.
HELL YES. I've been doing this at work - dual 22" LCDs, the main one in landscape mode and the second one in portrait mode. I can drag things between them depending on what I'm working on and what size works better.
I'd like to see high dpi displays for computer displays. It is kinda funny running the android emulator at 800x480 and having it almost not fit on a 1600x900 laptop display.
Software support is getting better, but isn't there yet. Lots of stuff is still impossibly tiny or obnoxiously mangled when you try to run desktop apps at higher resolution than normal.
But I'm not sure how helpful it is to actually quantify it. The amount of oil spewing into the Gulf doesn't really have any impact on the efforts to stop it; it simply must be stopped at all costs and BP is doing everything they can to try to make that happen. If the leak were twice as big, or half as big, the appropriate response would be precisely the same.
So next we have the issue of cleanup of beaches. The amount of oil reaching the beaches is good to know, but not necessarily directly correlated with the amount of oil gushing out of the well - there's a lot of coastline, and the amount of oil hitting each spot will vary.
As for the amount of oil that remains in the gulf itself, it seems to me there's not a whole lot we can do about that at this point. So while there's certainly value in understanding the nature and scope of the problem, in purely practical terms I don't really see how it matters.
When you say "you should look at who is downplaying it," do you mean people who are saying this isn't really that big a deal, and it's not really that much oil? Or do you mean people who are saying the exact amount of oil isn't relevant to the task at hand? If the former, I agree with you, but if you mean the latter, you may want to reconsider.
That sucks. Not even IMs and e-mails -- two common Internet things. Wow.:(
Some do use IM, which is fine if they happen to be online at precisely the same moment I am. And they generally can all receive e-mail, but they wouldn't send me e-mail for anything that wasn't really important; for just generally staying in touch it's not the medium of choice.
I know, it seems crazy, because e-mail is such a huge part of our lives, but the unenlightened see things differently.
Sometimes, stupid things are funny. I don't live in a bubble, and if my friends think something stupid is funny or interesting, I want to see it, because I care about what my friends think and because I find value in sharing an experience and because it might actually be worth my time.
I don't have to use Facebook, but it's how a lot of my friends choose to communicate, and my social life is healthier because of it. Many of them aren't geographically close enough to see them in person often, and those that are don't always have a compatible schedule, so Facebook allows me to stay in contact with people I wouldn't otherwise be able to (indeed, I've reconnected with people on Facebook that I haven't seen in over a decade, who are on the other side of the globe).
I think it's reasonable to expect that when I click a link to a web page, nothing bad should happen to me. In fact, nothing did happen - I'm not sure if that's because Facebook has already blocked this, or my browser has built-in security measures in place to prevent it, or (more likely) the exploit failed due to some bug or incompatibility. I looked at the HTML, saw what it was trying to do, saw that it was malicious, and went no further. That's how I WANT things to work.
I encountered this on Facebook a few minutes before seeing it on Slashdot. I'm not sure why, but it didn't work for me. Does Safari have any sort of built-in protections against this sort of thing? Or has Facebook blocked it already? Or did it just not work due to a bug somewhere?
Re:The same can be said for Microsoft's domination
on
Why Apple Is So Sticky
·
· Score: 1
People are stuck with DOS? Seriously?
Not anymore, obviously.
And people aren't "stuck" with Windows, they're "stuck" with the applications they use. If a vendor releases an app for Windows only, how is "the cost to switch too great"? What are they going to switch to?
A lot of people have built entire businesses around some combination of apps that are only available for Windows. Unless the app vendors port their apps to another platform (highly unlikely), or a comparable alternative app becomes available, they're locked into Windows, because nothing else will run the apps that their business relies on. In many cases, that may be as simple as Microsoft Outlook, but there are a lot of specialized apps out there.
The good news is, Microsoft has dug their own grave. Many of the people who thought they were stuck with Windows have discovered that they're actually stuck with Windows XP, and if they have to bite the bullet and go through the pain and expense of switching to a different OS, it might be just as easy to switch to Mac OS X as to Windows 7.
Using MS Office certainly doesn't tie you to Windows - you can use it on a Mac.
No, you can use Office for Mac on a Mac. That's not the same, although in many cases it may be good enough (or even superior - the MBU does pretty good work). If you need Access or Publisher or Outlook*, you're out of luck.
* Entourage is not Outlook. Entourage is Outlook Express with some crazy half-assed Exchange support tacked on, and a decent calendar. When I say "crazy", I mean it doesn't talk to the server using the same protocols that Outlook uses, and depending on how the server is configured, it may not work at all (even though Outlook works fine) until your Exchange administrator mucks around with settings they don't understand in hopes of stumbling across something that will fix it. The next version of Office for Mac, though, will include a Mac version of Office. It still won't be 100% compatible with the Windows version, but it should be at least close.
We finally changed our rule and told him that even though those aren't bad words, the way he's saying it isn't very nice. He made the decision that he doesn't want to do something that's 'ugly' and doesn't say it any longer.
Good for him! And good for you. That's an excellent way to frame the problem, and a far better solution than banning certain words.
Why is 'crap' not a bad word, then? Please explain the distinction between 'shit' and 'crap' for all of us.
My recollection is that "crap" used to be just as bad as the rest of them, but then somehow suddenly it wasn't. This change occurred sometime around 1997 or so, and nobody seems to know why.
From what I see they've complied with all currently applicable laws, IOW they aren't guilt of anything.
I'd bet that laws were broken; obviously we'll have to wait for the courts to sort that out. And of course they should be presumed innocent, until proven otherwise, but I feel like presuming otherwise. If BP broke no law, then our laws are inadequate and need to be fixed.
It's pretty obvious what changes need to be made to prevent the next disaster before it happens. BP is guilty of criminal negligence, to a degree that shouldn't have been possible.
But let's get back to the matter at hand. None of that will help to stop this disaster.
Sadly, it takes time to drill and case a well and then prepare to kill the reservoir. That time is something we don't have in a media-obsessed world that demands instant gratification.
How about, that time is something we don't have while thousands of barrels of oil are gushing into the Gulf every day? Who cares what the media is obsessed with.
I agree with you, relief wells are likely to be the answer, but in the mean time, we need to do everything possible to stop or slow down the problem some other way.
Including IE in Windows and making it the default browser isn't a barrier to using another browser. If it were nobody would be using other browsers today.
You clearly don't remember this, but from IE4 to IE6, Microsoft tried as hard as they could to push web developers toward proprietary technologies that were only compatible with Internet Explorer. They went out of their way to make IE's rendering engine try to guess what developers might have meant when writing sloppy non-standard code, which resulted in web sites that were designed exclusively for IE not working in any other browser (and being an enormous pain in the ass to fix). Also, because IE's support for the standards that other browsers were trying to implement was so shoddy, web sites designed for other browsers wouldn't work correctly in IE (also an enormous pain in the ass to fix), so there was a huge disincentive for developers who used IE as their primary browser (because it was bundled with Windows) to even try to support anything else.
With ~90% market share, Microsoft decided that IE6 was "good enough" and shut down development. But IE6 wasn't good enough, and somebody decided to take the Mozilla Suite, strip out all the non-browser stuff (the email client, the address book, the WYSIWYG HTML editor, the IRC client, etc. etc.) and try to make a stand-alone browser people actually wanted to use. And, after awhile, people started using it, and Microsoft was embarrassed.
So, they tried to clean up a few things with the release of XP Service Pack 2, then began an active attempt to make a browser that doesn't completely suck ass. They're years behind, and they know it, but they're slowly attempting to catch up. They also know they're not the leader of the pack anymore, so they have to cooperate with other browser developers and play the game on their turf, which is a weird thing for Microsoft to be doing.
Slashdot Mirror
Safari also has a built-in option. Enable the Develop menu in Preferences/Advanced.
So your iMac that you bought less than a year ago came with iLife bundled (which I think we're all in agreement about), and then you did a fresh install of Mac OS X 10.5 on an old G4... and then installed a copy of the latest version of iLife. Where did you obtain that copy of iLife 09? Did you buy it, or did you install the bundled copy that came with your iMac?
I'm confused. What do you think I'm wrong about?
I don't get it. Why would anyone pirate iPhoto? It comes with every Mac sold, already installed.
The current version comes with every new Mac. If you have an older Mac, you may not have iPhoto, or you may have an old version that doesn't have some of the new features you want. iPhoto cannot be purchased separately; it's part of the iLife suite which sells for $79 and there is no discount for upgrading from a previous version.
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Just because the law doesn't SAY it's a right, doesn't mean it's not a right.
I know! BP has even been finding massive quantities of DHMO around the site of the Deepwater Horizon disaster.
Chrome does have adblocking now. Does it not work for you?
Another poster explained that Chrome's ad-blocking still downloads the ad, but doesn't display it. This is a problem for anybody on a metered or low-bandwidth connection (e.g. tethering through a cell phone, as I'm doing now) who don't want to download the ads, regardless of whether or not they get displayed. Of course, most people have broadband connections and don't care what gets downloaded in the background, as long as they don't have to see it.
In theory, web sites could try to detect whether an ad was downloaded or not, and refuse to display content unless you've also downloaded the ads. In practice, this isn't normally done, but if it were, with Chrome the web site would still work.
Did someone call for a UID fight?
HELL YES. I've been doing this at work - dual 22" LCDs, the main one in landscape mode and the second one in portrait mode. I can drag things between them depending on what I'm working on and what size works better.
I'd like to see high dpi displays for computer displays. It is kinda funny running the android emulator at 800x480 and having it almost not fit on a 1600x900 laptop display.
Software support is getting better, but isn't there yet. Lots of stuff is still impossibly tiny or obnoxiously mangled when you try to run desktop apps at higher resolution than normal.
But I'm not sure how helpful it is to actually quantify it. The amount of oil spewing into the Gulf doesn't really have any impact on the efforts to stop it; it simply must be stopped at all costs and BP is doing everything they can to try to make that happen. If the leak were twice as big, or half as big, the appropriate response would be precisely the same.
So next we have the issue of cleanup of beaches. The amount of oil reaching the beaches is good to know, but not necessarily directly correlated with the amount of oil gushing out of the well - there's a lot of coastline, and the amount of oil hitting each spot will vary.
As for the amount of oil that remains in the gulf itself, it seems to me there's not a whole lot we can do about that at this point. So while there's certainly value in understanding the nature and scope of the problem, in purely practical terms I don't really see how it matters.
When you say "you should look at who is downplaying it," do you mean people who are saying this isn't really that big a deal, and it's not really that much oil? Or do you mean people who are saying the exact amount of oil isn't relevant to the task at hand? If the former, I agree with you, but if you mean the latter, you may want to reconsider.
Using patent language borrowed from both the Apache and GPLv3 patent clauses...
I'm not sure about the Apache license, but the FSF holds the copyright to the GPL itself. Is Google infringing?
That sucks. Not even IMs and e-mails -- two common Internet things. Wow. :(
Some do use IM, which is fine if they happen to be online at precisely the same moment I am. And they generally can all receive e-mail, but they wouldn't send me e-mail for anything that wasn't really important; for just generally staying in touch it's not the medium of choice.
I know, it seems crazy, because e-mail is such a huge part of our lives, but the unenlightened see things differently.
Can't you use e-mails, IMs, IRC, etc. instead?
No, because many of my friends won't use them.
Sometimes, stupid things are funny. I don't live in a bubble, and if my friends think something stupid is funny or interesting, I want to see it, because I care about what my friends think and because I find value in sharing an experience and because it might actually be worth my time.
I don't have to use Facebook, but it's how a lot of my friends choose to communicate, and my social life is healthier because of it. Many of them aren't geographically close enough to see them in person often, and those that are don't always have a compatible schedule, so Facebook allows me to stay in contact with people I wouldn't otherwise be able to (indeed, I've reconnected with people on Facebook that I haven't seen in over a decade, who are on the other side of the globe).
I think it's reasonable to expect that when I click a link to a web page, nothing bad should happen to me. In fact, nothing did happen - I'm not sure if that's because Facebook has already blocked this, or my browser has built-in security measures in place to prevent it, or (more likely) the exploit failed due to some bug or incompatibility. I looked at the HTML, saw what it was trying to do, saw that it was malicious, and went no further. That's how I WANT things to work.
I encountered this on Facebook a few minutes before seeing it on Slashdot. I'm not sure why, but it didn't work for me. Does Safari have any sort of built-in protections against this sort of thing? Or has Facebook blocked it already? Or did it just not work due to a bug somewhere?
People are stuck with DOS? Seriously?
Not anymore, obviously.
And people aren't "stuck" with Windows, they're "stuck" with the applications they use. If a vendor releases an app for Windows only, how is "the cost to switch too great"? What are they going to switch to?
A lot of people have built entire businesses around some combination of apps that are only available for Windows. Unless the app vendors port their apps to another platform (highly unlikely), or a comparable alternative app becomes available, they're locked into Windows, because nothing else will run the apps that their business relies on. In many cases, that may be as simple as Microsoft Outlook, but there are a lot of specialized apps out there.
The good news is, Microsoft has dug their own grave. Many of the people who thought they were stuck with Windows have discovered that they're actually stuck with Windows XP, and if they have to bite the bullet and go through the pain and expense of switching to a different OS, it might be just as easy to switch to Mac OS X as to Windows 7.
Using MS Office certainly doesn't tie you to Windows - you can use it on a Mac.
No, you can use Office for Mac on a Mac. That's not the same, although in many cases it may be good enough (or even superior - the MBU does pretty good work). If you need Access or Publisher or Outlook*, you're out of luck.
* Entourage is not Outlook. Entourage is Outlook Express with some crazy half-assed Exchange support tacked on, and a decent calendar. When I say "crazy", I mean it doesn't talk to the server using the same protocols that Outlook uses, and depending on how the server is configured, it may not work at all (even though Outlook works fine) until your Exchange administrator mucks around with settings they don't understand in hopes of stumbling across something that will fix it. The next version of Office for Mac, though, will include a Mac version of Office. It still won't be 100% compatible with the Windows version, but it should be at least close.
I have no mod points, but thank you for contributing to this discussion with actual information. :-)
We finally changed our rule and told him that even though those aren't bad words, the way he's saying it isn't very nice. He made the decision that he doesn't want to do something that's 'ugly' and doesn't say it any longer.
Good for him! And good for you. That's an excellent way to frame the problem, and a far better solution than banning certain words.
Why is 'crap' not a bad word, then? Please explain the distinction between 'shit' and 'crap' for all of us.
My recollection is that "crap" used to be just as bad as the rest of them, but then somehow suddenly it wasn't. This change occurred sometime around 1997 or so, and nobody seems to know why.
Any logical person can see that banning porn would likely make the rape situation even worse.
Not necessarily. You're assuming rape is about sex. It's often about power. Porn isn't a substitute for that.
From what I see they've complied with all currently applicable laws, IOW they aren't guilt of anything.
I'd bet that laws were broken; obviously we'll have to wait for the courts to sort that out. And of course they should be presumed innocent, until proven otherwise, but I feel like presuming otherwise. If BP broke no law, then our laws are inadequate and need to be fixed.
It's pretty obvious what changes need to be made to prevent the next disaster before it happens. BP is guilty of criminal negligence, to a degree that shouldn't have been possible.
But let's get back to the matter at hand. None of that will help to stop this disaster.
Sadly, it takes time to drill and case a well and then prepare to kill the reservoir. That time is something we don't have in a media-obsessed world that demands instant gratification.
How about, that time is something we don't have while thousands of barrels of oil are gushing into the Gulf every day? Who cares what the media is obsessed with.
I agree with you, relief wells are likely to be the answer, but in the mean time, we need to do everything possible to stop or slow down the problem some other way.
Wait, wait, wait just a darn minute...
So Microsoft is *paying* someone to do what Mozilla and FireFox evangelists are already doing.. for free?
The lights are on, but it's looking like no one's home at MS...
Surely you're not suggesting that Microsoft could get someone to be an IE evangelist without paying them?
Including IE in Windows and making it the default browser isn't a barrier to using another browser. If it were nobody would be using other browsers today.
You clearly don't remember this, but from IE4 to IE6, Microsoft tried as hard as they could to push web developers toward proprietary technologies that were only compatible with Internet Explorer. They went out of their way to make IE's rendering engine try to guess what developers might have meant when writing sloppy non-standard code, which resulted in web sites that were designed exclusively for IE not working in any other browser (and being an enormous pain in the ass to fix). Also, because IE's support for the standards that other browsers were trying to implement was so shoddy, web sites designed for other browsers wouldn't work correctly in IE (also an enormous pain in the ass to fix), so there was a huge disincentive for developers who used IE as their primary browser (because it was bundled with Windows) to even try to support anything else.
With ~90% market share, Microsoft decided that IE6 was "good enough" and shut down development. But IE6 wasn't good enough, and somebody decided to take the Mozilla Suite, strip out all the non-browser stuff (the email client, the address book, the WYSIWYG HTML editor, the IRC client, etc. etc.) and try to make a stand-alone browser people actually wanted to use. And, after awhile, people started using it, and Microsoft was embarrassed.
So, they tried to clean up a few things with the release of XP Service Pack 2, then began an active attempt to make a browser that doesn't completely suck ass. They're years behind, and they know it, but they're slowly attempting to catch up. They also know they're not the leader of the pack anymore, so they have to cooperate with other browser developers and play the game on their turf, which is a weird thing for Microsoft to be doing.