About those font resources, do you remember that it was also possible to put fonts in applications instead of the system file, using Font/DA mover? Those fonts would be only accessible to the patched application itself, of course. If I remember correctly you could still do this in System 7.
You can do it with ResEdit; I wasn't aware that Font/DA Mover would let you copy a font into an application, but perhaps so. Actually, you can put font resources into a document that will be opened by the application - for example, put a font in a SimpleText document, use that font within the document, send it to someone who doesn't have that font installed, and the font will work because the font is available to SimpleText as long as that document is open. And yes, this works in all versions of classic Mac OS as far as I know.
By the way, speaking of fonts, four bitmapped fonts are stored in the ROM and will always be available even if you remove all fonts from your system: Chicago 12, Geneva 9, Geneva 12 and Monaco 9.
I challenge you to present any SCIENTIFIC evidence whatsoever that these facts are wrong, misguided, overstated, misrepresented, or otherwise incorrect. Really, I am waiting.
Bleh, I had hoped to avoid getting this far into this topic; I am NOT a scientist, nor did I intend to imply that I was (so at least I succeeded in that part). I merely wanted to raise the issue of unpopular ideas not being accepted, regardless of merit.
Really, I am waiting. I will personally counter any such evidence you can present.
If you're really interested, you could browse here and here; a good start might be this and this.
but if you donate the book to me, I will read it and personally tear it apart and hunt down the author to argue with him about it.
I don't have a copy of it, and I'm currently unemployed so trying to avoid spending money unnecessarily. I'll think about it though, if you're serious. By the way, the book is a compilation of essays by 50 different people; you'd have plenty of tracking down to do.
You make unscientific, unqualified, speculative statements about the time-scale of sediment formation.
Unfortunately while sources were given, I don't remember them, and don't have references - as I said, I'm not a scientist; I don't actually know what I'm talking about. Which doesn't necessarily make me wrong, but makes me a useless debater.
Leave the science to the scientists,
Doing that as much as I can. Take a look at the sites I linked to.
Play the SIT tone into the microphone at a LOUD level, TWO TIMES in a row.
You only need to play it once. Loud is good though. Call it from a friend's house to see how it sounds.
Then wait two seconds and say, "I'm sorry, the number you called is not taking calls right now, please call back later." and repeat the SIT tone two more times loudly. Set the answering machine to announce only, answer on 4th ring and don't let it record messages.
Completely unnecessary. When the SIT tone is done, record a normal greeting. Set the machine to go ahead and record messages. More SIT tones at the end of your message are annoying and will not help you. Remember that there will be people calling that you actually want to talk to, and you don't want to scare them away.
A telemarketer's computer will detect the SIT tone (the first time) and remove the number from their list, as you said. Or, a live telemarketer will hear the SIT tone and immediately hang up, thinking the number is disconnected - the faster they hang up, the faster they can move on to the next call, and they get paid commission. Your friends/family/etc. will probably stop to listen to your message, which sounds like a normal answering machine, and they'll just leave a message.
When you ARE home, answer the phone normally; don't use the answering machine. If a telemarketer calls, simply tell them: "Please add this number to your Do Not Call list." Notice the difference between "add this number" and "remove this number". The SIT tone on the answering machine when you're not home will have the same effect as asking for your number to be removed - it's better than nothing, but you'll always wind up on some other list. Do Not Call lists are taken VERY seriously.
They have a computer that dials and listens for human voices. That's why you get silence when you answer it. When it hears you say "hello" it knows there is a living human there and it switches you to a semi-human operator so they can harrass you for 10 minutes.
Wrong. The reason you get silence is, their predictive dialing system got a little too aggressive.
Basically what happens is, say you've got 500 employees logged in, all on the phone. A phone call takes X seconds on average. It takes an average of Y seconds to dial a phone number, wait for it to connect, and a hapless victim to answer. Based on these statistics, there should be an employee finished with his/her current call and ready to take a new one in Z seconds (Z is X minus how long ago they started their current call). Wait until Z=Y, and start dialing, even though all employees are still on other calls and nobody's available to talk to a victim. As soon as an employee becomes available, connect them to the number you just dialed. The problem is, since Z can fluctuate by quite a bit, you may have dialed too soon, so when Y seconds go by and the victim answers, no employees have finished with the calls they're already on yet, and the victim gets silence until someone becomes available to connect the call to.
Those are surely bill-able hours right? And it's on the weekend, wahey! Double rates!
I think you're assuming quite a bit about the current economy and job market. You actually think companies are paying overtime for this sort of thing anymore?
All the administrators of web-servers that WERE defaced will HAVE to examine the security of their web-servers. Improvements will HAVE to be made.
I think you're assuming quite a bit about PHBs and beancounters. Why go to all that trouble, really? It's going to cost how much? Can you explain again why this is important? Can't you just restore the site from backup? We have a firewall, and it was bloody expensive; we shouldn't need to do all that other work you're talking about, especially if you want to get paid overtime for it.
Perhaps a lot of administrators (and PHB's) will notice that the most commonly defaced web-servers were (or are likely to be) those that run M$ software of some sort.
Or perhaps they'll be Linux boxes running Apache with buggy PHP scripts. Windows Server 2003 to the rescue!
Perhaps/.'s troll ratio will drop, and IRC will become a pleasant experience....NOT!:^D
Yeah, not. Slashdot trolls don't know how to hack web sites. They only wish they were that l33t.
However, so-called creation "science" is anything but. It is not a matter of "finding solid scientific evidence" of a 10,000 year old earth, it is a matter of contradicting VAST amounts of scientific evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines showing that the earth is billions of years old.
Sometimes contradicting (suggesting that the methods used to obtain the evidence are flawed), but mostly disagreeing with the conclusions drawn from that evidence, and drawing new conclusions from the same evidence based on a different hypothesis. For example, the Grand Canyon is made up of many different layers of different types of rock, with a river at the bottom. Explanation #1, based on an old-earth and uniformitarian viewpoint: the rock layers built up over millions of years, then the river eroded a canyon in the middle over more millions of years. Explanation #2, based on a young-earth catastrophic viewpoint with a global flood around 2,000-4,000 BC: sediment mixed up underwater and settled out into layers by density, then once that water had drained and the rock had settled, a huge volume of more water suddenly broke through something and carved the canyon quickly. Observations of the rock support the accepted theory, but do not contradict the alternative theory.
Right off the top of my head, a 10,000 year old earth is at odds with: Archaeology, Paleoclimatology, Geology, Quantum Mechanics, Physics, Astrophysics, Biology, and Paleontology. I probably left out a few. "Young Earth" doesn't hold up under the slightest scrutiny.
Really europe makes some extremely dence laws, netherlands introduced a.5 to 1 euro tax on dvd recordables,
Unless the proceeds from the tax are being paid to media companies (as I believe is the case here in the US with the tax on CD-Rs), how is this substantially different from a tax on alcohol, tobacco, gasoline or rental cars?
The GPL doesn't apply for users, only for distributors.
When I loan someone my Slackware CD, as is apt to happen at an install party, have I not just become a distributor? I have obtained the software legally, but copyright law prevents me from giving someone else a copy of it, which is why I could not legally loan someone a Windows XP CD to install on their system (if I had one, which I don't). However, the GPL grants me a license to give them a copy of Slackware. If the GPL is invalid, then I no longer have that legal right, and cannot loan them my CD, thus putting a damper on the festivities.
Never mind the excessive geekiness of having install parties to begin with.;-)
This is just more of the system protecting the sytem.
Excellent point. New scientific ideas cannot gain acceptance, because they conflict with established scientific beliefs. Do you really think if someone found solid scientific evidence that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, that it would be accepted in the scientific community? Hell no. Anything less than 4 billion and you're a lunatic. That's one reason why information about creation science is generally either a bit silly or unashamedlyreligious - the mainstream scientific community will never accept it anyway, so why bother presenting it in a way they could accept if they were willing? Bleh.
The recent "Fast Food" trial calls are an example.
What about the guy who sued Nabisco for using partially hydrogenated soybean oil? Even if it's as grossly unhealthy as he claims, a lawsuit is not the correct way to go about seeking change. I bought a package of Oreos in protest. The lawsuit was quickly withdrawn.
You may not notice a difference, but clean one and see how much crap it pulled out of the air. To those who are more sensitive to crap in the air, the benefits are more noticeable - or so I've heard. I don't have one myself.
As I remember Apple actually used "G3" chips for early G4. Anyone back me up there, or shoot me down?
You're thinking of the motherboard, not the processor. The new motherboard Apple developed for the G4 wasn't ready by the time His Royal Steveness wanted to ship the G4 system, so they hacked up a G3 motherboard to make it work with the G4 processor, code-named it "Yikes!" because of the time crunch, and shipped it. Apple officially refers to this system as the "PowerMac G4 (PCI Graphics)" since it has no AGP slot. The next revision was the "PowerMac G4 (AGP Graphics)", with the motherboard originally planned for the G4, code-named "Sawtooth".
With Apple's announcing that beige G3s won't be supported for Panther, that's probably an indication of Apple moving away from the six year old processor.
No, it's an indication they're moving away from the six year old motherboard. Blue & white G3s are still fully supported, as are G3 iMacs and iBooks, and I expect this to be the case until they drop support for everything older than Sawtooth.
Besides, Apple hasn't improved their font management at all since they added the font folder back in OS 8 (or was it 9?), it was due for an overhaul.
It was 7.1.
Prior to System 7.0, fonts were resources inside the System suitcase which could only be managed via applications like Font/DA Mover, or ResEdit and similar. In 7.0, the System suitcase could be opened in the Finder, which showed the fonts, sounds and keyboard layouts it contained. Each of these could be dragged out of the System suitcase into a font or sound suitcase, or into a folder to create a stand-alone file. Useless trivia: dragging items into or out of a suitcase is the only time you'll see a "Move" progress window in the classic Mac OS Finder.
System 7.1 introduced the Fonts folder, using an interesting hack: all resources in font suitcases or stand-alone font files (new in 7.0) in the Fonts folder were treated as if they were part of the System file itself; these resources were available to all applications. As I recall, the Finder would not allow fonts to be removed from the Fonts folder while applications other than the Finder were running, and new fonts were only available to applications launched after the new fonts were added. Naturally, fonts could no longer be added to the System suitcase.
Only slightly less useless trivia: notice I said ALL resources in font files and font suitcases in the Fonts folder would be used - not just fonts. When I used System 7.1.2 (the first version of the Mac OS to support the PowerPC, mostly via an m68k emulator), I was playing around with ResEdit and discovered how to make color versions of the many black-and-white icons used throughout the system without actually removing or modifying the original icons; I put the color icons into a font suitcase which you can download here if you're feeling so inclined. Simply drop it into the Fonts folder, and you'll have color icons!
Wow. This is all truly worthless. I should be ashamed of myself. Are there any other serious Mac geeks out there who actually remember all of this stuff? Speak up, so that we may all be pitied together.
It occurs to me that when PC users said Macs were toys for computer-illiterate people and couldn't be customized like PCs could, this is the sort of stuff they never imagined, and the reason we smugly laughed at them. Apple's GUI is so nice that people often don't realize there's anything under the hood.
JavaScript is dead (unless you're masochist enough trying to be complatible with IE and Netscape)
Huh? Almost every site uses JavaScript these days.
I think browsers like Mozilla, Safary and Opera do a cool job; Others like lynx let you do usefull job with little and some others like IE5 are just useless (i mean no competition == no inovation).
No competition? You just listed Mozilla and Opera, both of which compete with IE on Windows. Since IE 4, Microsoft hasn't really had any serious competition from Netscape, but I think they've noticed other competition heating up. I expect Microsoft to add interesting things to future versions. Nothing innovative, most likely; they'll just copy everybody else - but IE users will think it's cool.
Any time I sign up for anything, I always create a special e-mail address just for that company or organization. However, there's just one address I actually USE for communicating with friends/family, which I'm careful not to post anywhere. I've been doing this for quite some time now.
I have come to the conclusion that no businesses or organizations actually sell my e-mail address.
I do not get spam at the addresses I create for companies/organizations, with the exception of those that post my e-mail address on the Web (such as eBay, Mozilla's Bugzilla, and Slashdot before they began obfuscating e-mail addresses) and it gets harvested by spiders. When this does happen, it's easy to create a new address, update the site to use the new one, and delete the old one to stop receiving that spam.
Other sources of spam are the address I use for domain registrations (harvested from the registrar's whois database, in violation of the registrar's terms of service), and GPL'd software I released (listed here without obfuscation).
Aside from that, nearly all my spam is sent to the one address I actually use for communicating with friends and family. Thank God for RBLs and bayesian filtering.
Well, you can switch back to the login screen without actually logging out. So then your girlfriend could log in, and your stuff would keep going, and you'd need a password to log back in to your environment.
How, if switching users (or getting back to the login screen) is done from a menu, and the menu is inaccessible while the password-protected screen saver is on?
Is there a "switch user" button on the screen saver's password dialog? That would make sense.
Slashdot Mirror
About those font resources, do you remember that it was also possible to put fonts in applications instead of the system file, using Font/DA mover? Those fonts would be only accessible to the patched application itself, of course. If I remember correctly you could still do this in System 7.
You can do it with ResEdit; I wasn't aware that Font/DA Mover would let you copy a font into an application, but perhaps so. Actually, you can put font resources into a document that will be opened by the application - for example, put a font in a SimpleText document, use that font within the document, send it to someone who doesn't have that font installed, and the font will work because the font is available to SimpleText as long as that document is open. And yes, this works in all versions of classic Mac OS as far as I know.
By the way, speaking of fonts, four bitmapped fonts are stored in the ROM and will always be available even if you remove all fonts from your system: Chicago 12, Geneva 9, Geneva 12 and Monaco 9.
and the "News for Nerds" part appears to be in Arial or Helvetica.
I disagree. The "m" is too narrow. It's very similar to both Arial and Helvetica, but I can't reproduce it with either of those.
Everyone seems to be trashing the Mozilla mail client, but the bayesian spam filtering really clinches it for me.
Mail.app does bayesian filtering too. Eudora 6 will have it as well, although I haven't tried the beta.
I challenge you to present any SCIENTIFIC evidence whatsoever that these facts are wrong, misguided, overstated, misrepresented, or otherwise incorrect. Really, I am waiting.
Bleh, I had hoped to avoid getting this far into this topic; I am NOT a scientist, nor did I intend to imply that I was (so at least I succeeded in that part). I merely wanted to raise the issue of unpopular ideas not being accepted, regardless of merit.
Really, I am waiting. I will personally counter any such evidence you can present.
If you're really interested, you could browse here and here; a good start might be this and this.
but if you donate the book to me, I will read it and personally tear it apart and hunt down the author to argue with him about it.
I don't have a copy of it, and I'm currently unemployed so trying to avoid spending money unnecessarily. I'll think about it though, if you're serious. By the way, the book is a compilation of essays by 50 different people; you'd have plenty of tracking down to do.
You make unscientific, unqualified, speculative statements about the time-scale of sediment formation.
Unfortunately while sources were given, I don't remember them, and don't have references - as I said, I'm not a scientist; I don't actually know what I'm talking about. Which doesn't necessarily make me wrong, but makes me a useless debater.
Leave the science to the scientists,
Doing that as much as I can. Take a look at the sites I linked to.
Play the SIT tone into the microphone at a LOUD level, TWO TIMES in a row.
You only need to play it once. Loud is good though. Call it from a friend's house to see how it sounds.
Then wait two seconds and say,
"I'm sorry, the number you called is not taking calls right now, please call back later." and repeat the SIT tone two more times loudly.
Set the answering machine to announce only, answer on 4th ring and don't let it record messages.
Completely unnecessary. When the SIT tone is done, record a normal greeting. Set the machine to go ahead and record messages. More SIT tones at the end of your message are annoying and will not help you. Remember that there will be people calling that you actually want to talk to, and you don't want to scare them away.
A telemarketer's computer will detect the SIT tone (the first time) and remove the number from their list, as you said. Or, a live telemarketer will hear the SIT tone and immediately hang up, thinking the number is disconnected - the faster they hang up, the faster they can move on to the next call, and they get paid commission. Your friends/family/etc. will probably stop to listen to your message, which sounds like a normal answering machine, and they'll just leave a message.
When you ARE home, answer the phone normally; don't use the answering machine. If a telemarketer calls, simply tell them: "Please add this number to your Do Not Call list." Notice the difference between "add this number" and "remove this number". The SIT tone on the answering machine when you're not home will have the same effect as asking for your number to be removed - it's better than nothing, but you'll always wind up on some other list. Do Not Call lists are taken VERY seriously.
They have a computer that dials and listens for human voices. That's why you get silence when you answer it. When it hears you say "hello" it knows there is a living human there and it switches you to a semi-human operator so they can harrass you for 10 minutes.
Wrong. The reason you get silence is, their predictive dialing system got a little too aggressive.
Basically what happens is, say you've got 500 employees logged in, all on the phone. A phone call takes X seconds on average. It takes an average of Y seconds to dial a phone number, wait for it to connect, and a hapless victim to answer. Based on these statistics, there should be an employee finished with his/her current call and ready to take a new one in Z seconds (Z is X minus how long ago they started their current call). Wait until Z=Y, and start dialing, even though all employees are still on other calls and nobody's available to talk to a victim. As soon as an employee becomes available, connect them to the number you just dialed. The problem is, since Z can fluctuate by quite a bit, you may have dialed too soon, so when Y seconds go by and the victim answers, no employees have finished with the calls they're already on yet, and the victim gets silence until someone becomes available to connect the call to.
Those are surely bill-able hours right?
/.'s troll ratio will drop, and IRC will become a pleasant experience....NOT! :^D
And it's on the weekend, wahey! Double rates!
I think you're assuming quite a bit about the current economy and job market. You actually think companies are paying overtime for this sort of thing anymore?
All the administrators of web-servers that WERE defaced will HAVE to examine the security of their web-servers. Improvements will HAVE to be made.
I think you're assuming quite a bit about PHBs and beancounters. Why go to all that trouble, really? It's going to cost how much? Can you explain again why this is important? Can't you just restore the site from backup? We have a firewall, and it was bloody expensive; we shouldn't need to do all that other work you're talking about, especially if you want to get paid overtime for it.
Perhaps a lot of administrators (and PHB's) will notice that the most commonly defaced web-servers were (or are likely to be) those that run M$ software of some sort.
Or perhaps they'll be Linux boxes running Apache with buggy PHP scripts. Windows Server 2003 to the rescue!
Perhaps
Yeah, not. Slashdot trolls don't know how to hack web sites. They only wish they were that l33t.
However, so-called creation "science" is anything but. It is not a matter of "finding solid scientific evidence" of a 10,000 year old earth, it is a matter of contradicting VAST amounts of scientific evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines showing that the earth is billions of years old.
Sometimes contradicting (suggesting that the methods used to obtain the evidence are flawed), but mostly disagreeing with the conclusions drawn from that evidence, and drawing new conclusions from the same evidence based on a different hypothesis. For example, the Grand Canyon is made up of many different layers of different types of rock, with a river at the bottom. Explanation #1, based on an old-earth and uniformitarian viewpoint: the rock layers built up over millions of years, then the river eroded a canyon in the middle over more millions of years. Explanation #2, based on a young-earth catastrophic viewpoint with a global flood around 2,000-4,000 BC: sediment mixed up underwater and settled out into layers by density, then once that water had drained and the rock had settled, a huge volume of more water suddenly broke through something and carved the canyon quickly. Observations of the rock support the accepted theory, but do not contradict the alternative theory.
Right off the top of my head, a 10,000 year old earth is at odds with: Archaeology, Paleoclimatology, Geology, Quantum Mechanics, Physics, Astrophysics, Biology, and Paleontology. I probably left out a few. "Young Earth" doesn't hold up under the slightest scrutiny.
This book might interest you. But probably not.
or God put those glaciers there to trick us and test our faith.
I have no idea, but unfortunately that can't be disproven.
Really europe makes some extremely dence laws, netherlands introduced a .5 to 1 euro tax on dvd recordables,
Unless the proceeds from the tax are being paid to media companies (as I believe is the case here in the US with the tax on CD-Rs), how is this substantially different from a tax on alcohol, tobacco, gasoline or rental cars?
The GPL doesn't apply for users, only for distributors.
;-)
When I loan someone my Slackware CD, as is apt to happen at an install party, have I not just become a distributor? I have obtained the software legally, but copyright law prevents me from giving someone else a copy of it, which is why I could not legally loan someone a Windows XP CD to install on their system (if I had one, which I don't). However, the GPL grants me a license to give them a copy of Slackware. If the GPL is invalid, then I no longer have that legal right, and cannot loan them my CD, thus putting a damper on the festivities.
Never mind the excessive geekiness of having install parties to begin with.
Our friends at SCO must be so conflicted right now.
You have friends at SCO?
And they're still your friends?
The parent comment was funny. Yours was not.
Oh come on, it wasn't that bad. Lighten up. Have an Oreo.
This is just more of the system protecting the sytem.
Excellent point. New scientific ideas cannot gain acceptance, because they conflict with established scientific beliefs. Do you really think if someone found solid scientific evidence that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, that it would be accepted in the scientific community? Hell no. Anything less than 4 billion and you're a lunatic. That's one reason why information about creation science is generally either a bit silly or unashamedly religious - the mainstream scientific community will never accept it anyway, so why bother presenting it in a way they could accept if they were willing? Bleh.
The recent "Fast Food" trial calls are an example.
What about the guy who sued Nabisco for using partially hydrogenated soybean oil? Even if it's as grossly unhealthy as he claims, a lawsuit is not the correct way to go about seeking change. I bought a package of Oreos in protest. The lawsuit was quickly withdrawn.
ionic breeze air purifiers
You may not notice a difference, but clean one and see how much crap it pulled out of the air. To those who are more sensitive to crap in the air, the benefits are more noticeable - or so I've heard. I don't have one myself.
This is what Apple calls anything that's the same as a previous product, but accelerated or enhanced.
Airport Extreme and Quartz Extreme, yes, but not computers or processors. They have used "SE" though, as in "iMac SE".
As I remember Apple actually used "G3" chips for early G4. Anyone back me up there, or shoot me down?
You're thinking of the motherboard, not the processor. The new motherboard Apple developed for the G4 wasn't ready by the time His Royal Steveness wanted to ship the G4 system, so they hacked up a G3 motherboard to make it work with the G4 processor, code-named it "Yikes!" because of the time crunch, and shipped it. Apple officially refers to this system as the "PowerMac G4 (PCI Graphics)" since it has no AGP slot. The next revision was the "PowerMac G4 (AGP Graphics)", with the motherboard originally planned for the G4, code-named "Sawtooth".
With Apple's announcing that beige G3s won't be supported for Panther, that's probably an indication of Apple moving away from the six year old processor.
No, it's an indication they're moving away from the six year old motherboard. Blue & white G3s are still fully supported, as are G3 iMacs and iBooks, and I expect this to be the case until they drop support for everything older than Sawtooth.
Or maby its due to the fact that the beige g3' boxes dont have AGP ports on the motherboard
Neither do blue & white G3s or the "Yikes!" G4s, which are fully supported.
Besides, Apple hasn't improved their font management at all since they added the font folder back in OS 8 (or was it 9?), it was due for an overhaul.
It was 7.1.
Prior to System 7.0, fonts were resources inside the System suitcase which could only be managed via applications like Font/DA Mover, or ResEdit and similar. In 7.0, the System suitcase could be opened in the Finder, which showed the fonts, sounds and keyboard layouts it contained. Each of these could be dragged out of the System suitcase into a font or sound suitcase, or into a folder to create a stand-alone file. Useless trivia: dragging items into or out of a suitcase is the only time you'll see a "Move" progress window in the classic Mac OS Finder.
System 7.1 introduced the Fonts folder, using an interesting hack: all resources in font suitcases or stand-alone font files (new in 7.0) in the Fonts folder were treated as if they were part of the System file itself; these resources were available to all applications. As I recall, the Finder would not allow fonts to be removed from the Fonts folder while applications other than the Finder were running, and new fonts were only available to applications launched after the new fonts were added. Naturally, fonts could no longer be added to the System suitcase.
Only slightly less useless trivia: notice I said ALL resources in font files and font suitcases in the Fonts folder would be used - not just fonts. When I used System 7.1.2 (the first version of the Mac OS to support the PowerPC, mostly via an m68k emulator), I was playing around with ResEdit and discovered how to make color versions of the many black-and-white icons used throughout the system without actually removing or modifying the original icons; I put the color icons into a font suitcase which you can download here if you're feeling so inclined. Simply drop it into the Fonts folder, and you'll have color icons!
Wow. This is all truly worthless. I should be ashamed of myself. Are there any other serious Mac geeks out there who actually remember all of this stuff? Speak up, so that we may all be pitied together.
It occurs to me that when PC users said Macs were toys for computer-illiterate people and couldn't be customized like PCs could, this is the sort of stuff they never imagined, and the reason we smugly laughed at them. Apple's GUI is so nice that people often don't realize there's anything under the hood.
JavaScript is dead (unless you're masochist enough trying to be complatible with IE and Netscape)
Huh? Almost every site uses JavaScript these days.
I think browsers like Mozilla, Safary and Opera do a cool job; Others like lynx let you do usefull job with little and some others like IE5 are just useless (i mean no competition == no inovation).
No competition? You just listed Mozilla and Opera, both of which compete with IE on Windows. Since IE 4, Microsoft hasn't really had any serious competition from Netscape, but I think they've noticed other competition heating up. I expect Microsoft to add interesting things to future versions. Nothing innovative, most likely; they'll just copy everybody else - but IE users will think it's cool.
Any time I sign up for anything, I always create a special e-mail address just for that company or organization. However, there's just one address I actually USE for communicating with friends/family, which I'm careful not to post anywhere. I've been doing this for quite some time now.
I have come to the conclusion that no businesses or organizations actually sell my e-mail address.
I do not get spam at the addresses I create for companies/organizations, with the exception of those that post my e-mail address on the Web (such as eBay, Mozilla's Bugzilla, and Slashdot before they began obfuscating e-mail addresses) and it gets harvested by spiders. When this does happen, it's easy to create a new address, update the site to use the new one, and delete the old one to stop receiving that spam.
Other sources of spam are the address I use for domain registrations (harvested from the registrar's whois database, in violation of the registrar's terms of service), and GPL'd software I released (listed here without obfuscation).
Aside from that, nearly all my spam is sent to the one address I actually use for communicating with friends and family. Thank God for RBLs and bayesian filtering.
Well, you can switch back to the login screen without actually logging out. So then your girlfriend could log in, and your stuff would keep going, and you'd need a password to log back in to your environment.
How, if switching users (or getting back to the login screen) is done from a menu, and the menu is inaccessible while the password-protected screen saver is on?
Is there a "switch user" button on the screen saver's password dialog? That would make sense.
H. Having an action behave differently each time you use it, see: popup here, slide there, sucks.
What are you talking about?
I. Spring loaded folders creates window clutter.
J. Window clutter sucks.
All the intermediate windows close automatically as soon as you finish dragging.
...and racking up a great big for her.
That sounds like a lot of the spam I get.
NOTE: This may be an urban legend, so take it with a grain of salt.
It is.