I've said from the beginning that the major problem with Wikipedia is that it tries to be everything to everyone.
In the past 20 years or so, media has become extremely niche (if you're a bicycle rider into tarantulas, there's probably a magazine for you). The benefit of this is that you often get experts and people genuinely interested in the subject writing the articles.
I tried Wikipedia and gave up in disgust (particularly that articles about GNAA trolls, filled with lies and editorials, were kept). I since have spent some time with the (admitally silly) Homestar Wiki at http://www.hrwiki.org, and have found it to be a much different environment. No brass arguments, no format wars -- just people adding bits and pieces of what they like about their favorite web cartoon. I've thought about setting up a similar MST3K wiki.
The point is, all-encompassing media is dead. No one expects CNN/Fox News/etc. to focus on every story available, and no one should expect the same from internet sites. Niche media will continue to thrive.
Tivo doesn't suck. Tivo with DirecTV... that sucks. Don't get me wrong: the high-defintion box works well.
But I absolutely HATE the fact that they don't enable the USB ports (you can enable them, but the next time they update their software they're disabled again). And absolutely no Home Media option.
Why? Because the content providers are too afraid that the pristine MPEG I'm getting direct from satellite is "too" clean, and thus sharing should be made as difficult as humanly possible (even just copying to a laptop -- exactly what Tivo is now allowing). Which was exactly the reason I got DirecTV Tivo in the first place: a nice clean picture.
You know, I was toying around with that idea. Central windowing server (Windows, Linux, take your pick) in the basement. Tablets to roam around the house, connecting through Terminal Services and the like. WiFi is fast enough that this would work, and since most of these setups allow multiple terminal service sessions, every tablet would have identical screens and access to the same information.
Some of us like big-budget games made by major studios (*cough* World of Warcraft *cough*) because the artwork, sense of "success" and even gameplay is plain old better. Same reason why we flock to New Line's version of Lord of the Rings instead of watching the old hobbit cartoon -- it's just higher quality.
You know, I keep reading that no one trusted Passport because of Microsoft's history of security. I know that's one reason I didn't (my only Passport account hooks up with Hotmail and Xbox Live) but let me ask you this:
Would you go for a universal authentication system if it was run by Apple? How about if open source folks developed a system aside from Sun's and tried to market that? I wouldn't.
There's nothing inherently more secure about having my passwords stored on a single server out there than the current system, and, quite frankly, there's not much more convience in it.
The only "true" solution I could see for universal passwords is something akin to Keychain on Apple, or, to a lesser extent, saved passwords in Windows. Something that would store all passwords locally, encrypted, and would allow the user to use one login. Match that up with, say, a biometric recognition scheme, and I'd be all for it.
No one said anything about the government buying back the company. All they have to do is allow Ubisoft to buy back its own shares from the public (which is perfectly legal), which would prevent EA from getting its hands on 50%. Simple.
"3.) Safari has the weirdest Bookmark behavior. Try to drag a bookmark to the trashcan and it's impossible. Drag a bookmark to the page displayed in the Safari window, and it DELETES THE BOOKMARK with a poof.
I dunno, but it looks like you answered your own question. Also, have you tried just simply clicking the bookmark? That's not weird behavior, it's just common sense."
Yes, common sense. Like: since the Finder and all other Apple apps use dragging to the trashcan to delete, the same would hold true in Safari. I'm not saying there is no way to delete, I'm saying it should be consistent among apps.
And dragging an icon to the desktop creates a link, while dragging it to the trashcan does nothing... does that make sense at all?
"4.) I have found no way to get a Mac notebook to hibernate. Not sleep, hibernate. Neither have my users. Why is it if my machine is about to die I can't save the RAM on the hard drive like just about every Windows notebook out there. Why do I have to completely shutdown if I can't find a plug, stopping all my work?
Apparently you really haven't used a battery all the way out."
I have. Apparently you haven't used a PowerBook on a business trip, where access to an outlet was not immediately available after you get off the plane. Guess what happens to standby when the power completely drains? Now see why hibernation is valuable?
Also, I'm at a loss to understand your comments about PC hibernation. We have had a fleet of laptops that have never had a problem coming out of hibernation. The only issue we had, and this was more the user's fault than anything, was putting a laptop into hibernation and then dropping it. The hard drive got a few bad sectors (some of which were probably where the hibernation data was stored) and when the system restored it instead gave the option to a normal boot. No harm, no foul.
"off, if the I/O error is critical enough, you might have to reinstall your system, which I have seen happen before."
*Scratches head* What kind of system? Windows 2000/XP stores the hibernation data much in the same way it stores virtual memory: a area of the local drive effectively partitioned off from the file system. All that section is is a copy of RAM,. I can't see why you'd ever need to reinstall a system because of it, because none of the "system" is ever overwritten. We're just placing volatile data in a permanent storage area, then reinputting it back into RAM. By definition, losing the volatile data doesn't affect the system.
"The best way to handle this is to put in an OS X server. Bind it to your AD for Users and Groups. Use AD to manage your users, groups, and windows machines, and use OS X and Workgroup Manager to manage your OS X machines."
We have already spent tens of thousands of dollars on a Windows infrastructure that works. Why should we buy a separate OS X server (in essence, another directory server) when we already have directory servers in place? That makes no sense.
"The consequence that I have found in training PC users to use OS X, is that they already understand how a feature is supposed to work except that in OS X, it actually WORKS like they expect it to finally."
Well, no, not exactly. Cases-in-point (training our users).
1.) On the PCs a number of drives would map automatically when a user logged in. These were stored in the user profile, and were customizable through Active Directory. On the Mac, there was no way to get the machines to properly pull the scripts from AD, so each had to be custom placed on the desktops. Not to mention that none of the drives had the same name, and there was no easy way to rename them (try teaching the mount terminal command to a newbie).
2.) Every single user I've seen who tried Expose for the first time tries to move the Windows. Every single one. They naturally assume the system is cleaning up the desktop by placing windows into neat areas, which they can then move around. Not so: it's simply showing you the windows. No way to change this.
3.) Safari has the weirdest Bookmark behavior. Try to drag a bookmark to the trashcan and it's impossible. Drag a bookmark to the page displayed in the Safari window, and it DELETES THE BOOKMARK with a poof.
4.) I have found no way to get a Mac notebook to hibernate. Not sleep, hibernate. Neither have my users. Why is it if my machine is about to die I can't save the RAM on the hard drive like just about every Windows notebook out there. Why do I have to completely shutdown if I can't find a plug, stopping all my work?
"It's harder to convince senior management to put out $20,000 for a ten box trial, but $5000 is much more palatable
So go Apple! Build your boxes; they'll sell like hotcakes (especially if you make a $700 headless mac / iPod bundle)."
Like a big rush of air coming from a punctured hot air balloon, you just defeated your entire argument in two sentences.:) No one is going to "convince management" if they threw in 20 iPods with those 20 headless Macs. They want working machines, period.
Besides, the money saved would still need to be spent on integrating the Mac boxes properly to the rest of the network. We have a few Macs at work right now, and while I agree they're much better than yesteryear (Samba has a lot to do with it) having them access servers anything beyond basic window shares is a bitch and using Active Directory to set permissions locally is next to impossible. Not to mention that most users need to be retrained (something as simple as "open your X: drive" becomes ridiculously complicated unless you create scripts to put the drives on the desktop). In short, that $5000 becomes $20,000 including IT costs in no time.
This idea has already been tried with blade servers and, to a lesser extent, thin clients. Apple also produced a "pizza box" style Macintosh many years ago that took off in schools but not much elsewhere.
The problem with these designs is that they're missing the goal of having one invisible, large storage box providing desktop "heads" for all the monitors in a home. Servers are still too geeky/complicated for the average home user. Apple is still thinking small (1 or 2 tiny PCs sprinkled around the house). The company that comes up with a single server for the home that provides multiple desktop heads and enough storage for media will "win".
Ho boy, flamewar. Personally I think SNES9x has been the best/most reliable, and has been updated far more frequently. And before people say "it's Windows only", it's not. I have a port sitting on my Mac OS X dock right now. Don't know if there's a Linux port.
Uh, you do also realize that there were a large number of Christian tourists at these beaches, correct? I was reading articles about people snorkelling/sunbathing being swept away. If God's after the "non-believers", he shouldn't wave his hand and wipe away hundreds/thousands of his own disciples.
Slashdot Mirror
I've said from the beginning that the major problem with Wikipedia is that it tries to be everything to everyone.
In the past 20 years or so, media has become extremely niche (if you're a bicycle rider into tarantulas, there's probably a magazine for you). The benefit of this is that you often get experts and people genuinely interested in the subject writing the articles.
I tried Wikipedia and gave up in disgust (particularly that articles about GNAA trolls, filled with lies and editorials, were kept). I since have spent some time with the (admitally silly) Homestar Wiki at http://www.hrwiki.org, and have found it to be a much different environment. No brass arguments, no format wars -- just people adding bits and pieces of what they like about their favorite web cartoon. I've thought about setting up a similar MST3K wiki.
The point is, all-encompassing media is dead. No one expects CNN/Fox News/etc. to focus on every story available, and no one should expect the same from internet sites. Niche media will continue to thrive.
Tivo doesn't suck. Tivo with DirecTV... that sucks. Don't get me wrong: the high-defintion box works well.
But I absolutely HATE the fact that they don't enable the USB ports (you can enable them, but the next time they update their software they're disabled again). And absolutely no Home Media option.
Why? Because the content providers are too afraid that the pristine MPEG I'm getting direct from satellite is "too" clean, and thus sharing should be made as difficult as humanly possible (even just copying to a laptop -- exactly what Tivo is now allowing). Which was exactly the reason I got DirecTV Tivo in the first place: a nice clean picture.
Oh dear god! They smashed the spaceship into Slashdot!
You know, I was toying around with that idea. Central windowing server (Windows, Linux, take your pick) in the basement. Tablets to roam around the house, connecting through Terminal Services and the like. WiFi is fast enough that this would work, and since most of these setups allow multiple terminal service sessions, every tablet would have identical screens and access to the same information.
The definition of most EQ players I've heard is suburban mothers, yes. All those stories about EverCrack breaking up marriages?
Well, actually, no. A very large number of MMORPG players are "soccer moms". Almost half of Everquest players are women.
Some of us like big-budget games made by major studios (*cough* World of Warcraft *cough*) because the artwork, sense of "success" and even gameplay is plain old better. Same reason why we flock to New Line's version of Lord of the Rings instead of watching the old hobbit cartoon -- it's just higher quality.
The US has a LOT of private donors. I wouldn't be surprised if we match the now $350 million (look at today's news) that our government gives.
I think perhaps you need to have put a more firm warning...
"unfortunately it will be made entirely of flowers and will not attempt to enslave the crowd"
Ah, but so they think! First hayfever, then the world!
You know, I keep reading that no one trusted Passport because of Microsoft's history of security. I know that's one reason I didn't (my only Passport account hooks up with Hotmail and Xbox Live) but let me ask you this:
Would you go for a universal authentication system if it was run by Apple? How about if open source folks developed a system aside from Sun's and tried to market that? I wouldn't.
There's nothing inherently more secure about having my passwords stored on a single server out there than the current system, and, quite frankly, there's not much more convience in it.
The only "true" solution I could see for universal passwords is something akin to Keychain on Apple, or, to a lesser extent, saved passwords in Windows. Something that would store all passwords locally, encrypted, and would allow the user to use one login. Match that up with, say, a biometric recognition scheme, and I'd be all for it.
"I've always considered security a feature."
Most don't. Most consider "does this browser work with my banking site" as a feature. If it doesn't, they pass up Firefox/Opera/Safari.
No one said anything about the government buying back the company. All they have to do is allow Ubisoft to buy back its own shares from the public (which is perfectly legal), which would prevent EA from getting its hands on 50%. Simple.
"I'm onto you Trebek!" And let's not forget the Warcraft 3 unit quote that one dwarf had (captured the Sean Connery voice perfectly).
"3.) Safari has the weirdest Bookmark behavior. Try to drag a bookmark to the trashcan and it's impossible. Drag a bookmark to the page displayed in the Safari window, and it DELETES THE BOOKMARK with a poof.
I dunno, but it looks like you answered your own question. Also, have you tried just simply clicking the bookmark? That's not weird behavior, it's just common sense."
Yes, common sense. Like: since the Finder and all other Apple apps use dragging to the trashcan to delete, the same would hold true in Safari. I'm not saying there is no way to delete, I'm saying it should be consistent among apps.
And dragging an icon to the desktop creates a link, while dragging it to the trashcan does nothing... does that make sense at all?
"4.) I have found no way to get a Mac notebook to hibernate. Not sleep, hibernate. Neither have my users. Why is it if my machine is about to die I can't save the RAM on the hard drive like just about every Windows notebook out there. Why do I have to completely shutdown if I can't find a plug, stopping all my work?
Apparently you really haven't used a battery all the way out."
I have. Apparently you haven't used a PowerBook on a business trip, where access to an outlet was not immediately available after you get off the plane. Guess what happens to standby when the power completely drains? Now see why hibernation is valuable?
Also, I'm at a loss to understand your comments about PC hibernation. We have had a fleet of laptops that have never had a problem coming out of hibernation. The only issue we had, and this was more the user's fault than anything, was putting a laptop into hibernation and then dropping it. The hard drive got a few bad sectors (some of which were probably where the hibernation data was stored) and when the system restored it instead gave the option to a normal boot. No harm, no foul.
"off, if the I/O error is critical enough, you might have to reinstall your system, which I have seen happen before."
*Scratches head* What kind of system? Windows 2000/XP stores the hibernation data much in the same way it stores virtual memory: a area of the local drive effectively partitioned off from the file system. All that section is is a copy of RAM,. I can't see why you'd ever need to reinstall a system because of it, because none of the "system" is ever overwritten. We're just placing volatile data in a permanent storage area, then reinputting it back into RAM. By definition, losing the volatile data doesn't affect the system.
"The best way to handle this is to put in an OS X server. Bind it to your AD for Users and Groups. Use AD to manage your users, groups, and windows machines, and use OS X and Workgroup Manager to manage your OS X machines."
We have already spent tens of thousands of dollars on a Windows infrastructure that works. Why should we buy a separate OS X server (in essence, another directory server) when we already have directory servers in place? That makes no sense.
"The consequence that I have found in training PC users to use OS X, is that they already understand how a feature is supposed to work except that in OS X, it actually WORKS like they expect it to finally."
Well, no, not exactly. Cases-in-point (training our users).
1.) On the PCs a number of drives would map automatically when a user logged in. These were stored in the user profile, and were customizable through Active Directory. On the Mac, there was no way to get the machines to properly pull the scripts from AD, so each had to be custom placed on the desktops. Not to mention that none of the drives had the same name, and there was no easy way to rename them (try teaching the mount terminal command to a newbie).
2.) Every single user I've seen who tried Expose for the first time tries to move the Windows. Every single one. They naturally assume the system is cleaning up the desktop by placing windows into neat areas, which they can then move around. Not so: it's simply showing you the windows. No way to change this.
3.) Safari has the weirdest Bookmark behavior. Try to drag a bookmark to the trashcan and it's impossible. Drag a bookmark to the page displayed in the Safari window, and it DELETES THE BOOKMARK with a poof.
4.) I have found no way to get a Mac notebook to hibernate. Not sleep, hibernate. Neither have my users. Why is it if my machine is about to die I can't save the RAM on the hard drive like just about every Windows notebook out there. Why do I have to completely shutdown if I can't find a plug, stopping all my work?
"It's harder to convince senior management to put out $20,000 for a ten box trial, but $5000 is much more palatable
:) No one is going to "convince management" if they threw in 20 iPods with those 20 headless Macs. They want working machines, period.
So go Apple! Build your boxes; they'll sell like hotcakes (especially if you make a $700 headless mac / iPod bundle)."
Like a big rush of air coming from a punctured hot air balloon, you just defeated your entire argument in two sentences.
Besides, the money saved would still need to be spent on integrating the Mac boxes properly to the rest of the network. We have a few Macs at work right now, and while I agree they're much better than yesteryear (Samba has a lot to do with it) having them access servers anything beyond basic window shares is a bitch and using Active Directory to set permissions locally is next to impossible. Not to mention that most users need to be retrained (something as simple as "open your X: drive" becomes ridiculously complicated unless you create scripts to put the drives on the desktop). In short, that $5000 becomes $20,000 including IT costs in no time.
The fact that Apple is totally missing the point by creating self-contained boxes. They SHOULD be making thin clients.
This idea has already been tried with blade servers and, to a lesser extent, thin clients. Apple also produced a "pizza box" style Macintosh many years ago that took off in schools but not much elsewhere.
The problem with these designs is that they're missing the goal of having one invisible, large storage box providing desktop "heads" for all the monitors in a home. Servers are still too geeky/complicated for the average home user. Apple is still thinking small (1 or 2 tiny PCs sprinkled around the house). The company that comes up with a single server for the home that provides multiple desktop heads and enough storage for media will "win".
Correct. Absolutely correct.
"The best SNES emulator"
Ho boy, flamewar. Personally I think SNES9x has been the best/most reliable, and has been updated far more frequently. And before people say "it's Windows only", it's not. I have a port sitting on my Mac OS X dock right now. Don't know if there's a Linux port.
Wow, welcome to 2001. You do know they changed the controllers, right?
Uh, you do also realize that there were a large number of Christian tourists at these beaches, correct? I was reading articles about people snorkelling/sunbathing being swept away. If God's after the "non-believers", he shouldn't wave his hand and wipe away hundreds/thousands of his own disciples.
"Every kid should have one for Christmas morning."
Nah, give me an Xbox.