Jar Jar is no more annoying than C3PO in the Episodes IV-VI or a screenful of Ewoks.
Personally, I don't find Jar Jar to be annoying; I do find the slapstick and lowbrow scenes he's in very annoying; such as stepping in shit, for example. When Jar Jar first appeared on the screen, I liked the character; I just can't stand the fart-smelling or the tongue-in-engine gag or the flailing around in the battlefield. That's why I prefer that stuff edited out.
C3PO was never funny. Now Chewbacca wanting to tear somebody's arm off - that's funny! And the Ewoks are adorable.
This is another example of Apple using open standards to leverage their platform, and for that, one must applaud their efforts.
We must applaud that Apple is using open standards for their own good? What's in it for us?
Apple looks more like a friend of Linux and the Open Source community more and more as time goes on.
More like the other way around - their contributions (while very welcome) are few and far between.
iCal (open file format)
But not open itself.
Safari (built on Open Source code)
But itself totally proprietary, except for WebCore, which is currently primarily usable for cocoa (e.g. proprietary) developers.
iTunes protocol and code is proprietary. OS X uses and relies on proprietary drivers (Broadcom, are you listening?). iChat primarily uses AIM instead of Jabber.
Sure, sometimes the iMac does win out over the iBook. (Screen size, performance, more ports, and being more user servicable are some of the advantages; and I really do hope its got better speakers and sound.) I was just pointing out that the parent was in error in several of the points s/he made. (Primarily price and noise, and a few (including me, though) would say GPU.)
And "doesn't need a laptop" sounds like nonsense (unless taken in the context of the first paragraph, in which case it's just redundant), and "all of the above" doesn't apply if it's just the hard drive issue that's applicable among the listed points.
That's a dumb non-argument, yet I see it all the time on/.
Yes, publicly traded businesses have the stated goal to increase stock value only. That doesn't mean that everybody has to think that's a good thing, and that that's what (e.g.) Microsoft should do.
If I state the goal to increase my personal monetary wealth only, will advocates on/. say "STFU, Sunnan is not a charity organization" for me whenever someone has any complaints or questions regarding my ethics? Actually, I hope not.
The poster is referring to a feature in Enlightenment where you can set all windows to be translucent while moving them, and yes, you can see other windows stacked beneath it.
Switching to Mac OS X would either 1) require me to get used to a whole new set of programs, or 2) do massive porting work, especially with the music programs that use ALSA, or other programs that use linux-specific subsystems. I know I can get Sodipodi, Gimp, Emacs etc for Mac OS X, but is it worth the hassle?
And then, I'd have to switch back. But that is just a technical/personal reason; that's not the big issue here. It's that Mac OS X isn't free, open source software.
But being upset with Apple for charging for their product is silly.
Well, it's the exact opposite of what benefits me as a consumer; becoming reliant on a single vendor, not getting all the source code, the cost...
Mac OS X does have some advantages but I was arguing against the original poster who seemed to imply that there was no reason at all to use another unix than Apple's, and I think there is.
Two; both iBooks - the second because the first one got the famous logic board error; and I'm still waiting for Apple to fix it. (They said they'd send me a box, but it never showed up. I'll call 'em right now, thanks for reminding me.)
You can't just upgrade to Panther without coughing up cash. That's a non-technical obstacle. Maybe you're not annoyed by that, but I am, and that's one of the mayor reasons I'm not using Mac OS X right now.
When people say that they don't like being forced to pay $129 yearly, Apple apologists say "no one's twisting their arms to upgrade, they can stick with the old versions, they're fine!", and when people say that they don't like being forced to stick with the old versions, Apple apologists say "no one's twisting their arms to stick with the old stuff, they can cough up the dough!"
You just can't win with you people, can you?
And when I say that "You can use Apple's OS all you want, I'll stick with Debian" I get dissed for that, too!
Apple's decision to make Mac OS X their proprietary, profit-making product has drawbacks for consumers.
I prefer GNU/Linux to Mac OS X. Partly because it's free software, partly because I use ALSA, partly because upgrades are cheaper and easier (I use Debian, which is such a gift). I don't need to worry about my "Panther" becoming obsolete because "Tiger" comes out.
The current iBook G4 costs less than the iMac G5, is as silent, and has a non-nVidia-card, which matters to many.
Basically your most valid point is 3, hard drive space.
The iBook G4 makes sense in a lot of cases where the original iMac made sense when it first arrived, and then some.
(I don't want to plug Apple's products - there are other good computers out there. I'm just saying that in the battle of iBook vs iMac, the former wins a lot of the time, for a lot of people.)
Try driving in the wrong lane five times in a week, and see if there's an accident. Sound dumb? Of course; but our traffic system is based on the idea that everybody do as good as they can, and don't intentionally try to fuck things up.
The same applies to wikipedia. Fix errors you see, watch the changelogs, and don't deliberately insert errors.
I know of a (proprietary) dictionary service that costs $50 a year - if people would spend time according to that amount on helping wikipedia, since they benefit from it, maybe quality would improve even more.
I view Wikipedia as a basic research tool; it's easier to doublecheck info after I read it, than it is to find it the first time.
But maybe it's time to revive the project that wikipedia spun off; but using wikipedia as a source. An "audited" wikipedia. (I'd still just use wikipedia.)
It's one pixel on all four sides. It's just the arches that aren't corner-to-corner.
Correct algorithm would be this one, which basically every programm supports, just gimp doesn't:
(proper link) Gimp uses a more advanced algorithm that works for more complex paths; the algorithm you've linked to plots one pixel for every step along the x-axis, unlike the gimp's version, which only plots orthogonally.
Personally, I'd argue that the one the gimp draws looks more even. It's a little thick at the arches, while xpaint's is a little thin. Both are imperfect, but a pixel circle has to be.
If you prefer xpaint's algorithm, you might argue for the possibility to choose your line-drawing algorithm from within gimp. Maybe that feature will come, one day. I'm not a gimp developer (though I'm kind of interested).
Anyway, you went from "Gimp can't even [...]" to a rather specific (and narrow) request; a request that xpaint (a free program!) can already handle, so there's rather low priority to add that functionality to the gimp. Maybe you should look into helping out?
It works fine for me, with pencil and one-pixel brush. pixel-circle.png
It uses a different algorithm than xpaint; in that it never relies on just diagonal connections between pixels; but as you see at the top and at the sides, it's indeed one pixel.
If you mean the latter, then I'm curious how you think those dudes should fund their research into stuff like that.
They couldn't have planned to use MP3 patent fees to "fund their research" since they never meant for that technology to be used like that (consumers encoding songs) anyway.
So-called "research" only for the power of claiming exclusive deeds in the landscape of human thought does more harm than good, in this case at least.
What happens when prominent members of the independent music scene get sued by incumbent music publishers for allegedly subconsciously copying copyrighted songs into their own songs?
Right, that's still a problem, but that's unrelated to the issue of allowing non-DRM:ed-downloads or not.
I stumbled on Audio Lunchbox by accident and I wondered why I hadn't heard about it. They've got mp3's and Ogg Vorbis, both around 192 kbps, no DRM at all, and you can download either mp3, Vorbis or both. (I just want oggs.) Ninety-nine cents, and the service has been good.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I don't find Jar Jar to be annoying; I do find the slapstick and lowbrow scenes he's in very annoying; such as stepping in shit, for example. When Jar Jar first appeared on the screen, I liked the character; I just can't stand the fart-smelling or the tongue-in-engine gag or the flailing around in the battlefield. That's why I prefer that stuff edited out.
C3PO was never funny. Now Chewbacca wanting to tear somebody's arm off - that's funny!
And the Ewoks are adorable.
Yeah, 'cause everybody uses Dylan and Hypercard now.
We must applaud that Apple is using open standards for their own good? What's in it for us?
More like the other way around - their contributions (while very welcome) are few and far between.
But not open itself.
But itself totally proprietary, except for WebCore, which is currently primarily usable for cocoa (e.g. proprietary) developers.
iTunes protocol and code is proprietary. OS X uses and relies on proprietary drivers (Broadcom, are you listening?). iChat primarily uses AIM instead of Jabber.
I think using the protocol for sensors such as that is a bit overkill. There has to be a simpler way.
Sure, sometimes the iMac does win out over the iBook. (Screen size, performance, more ports, and being more user servicable are some of the advantages; and I really do hope its got better speakers and sound.) I was just pointing out that the parent was in error in several of the points s/he made. (Primarily price and noise, and a few (including me, though) would say GPU.)
And "doesn't need a laptop" sounds like nonsense (unless taken in the context of the first paragraph, in which case it's just redundant), and "all of the above" doesn't apply if it's just the hard drive issue that's applicable among the listed points.
That's a dumb non-argument, yet I see it all the time on /.
/. say "STFU, Sunnan is not a charity organization" for me whenever someone has any complaints or questions regarding my ethics? Actually, I hope not.
Yes, publicly traded businesses have the stated goal to increase stock value only. That doesn't mean that everybody has to think that's a good thing, and that that's what (e.g.) Microsoft should do.
If I state the goal to increase my personal monetary wealth only, will advocates on
The poster is referring to a feature in Enlightenment where you can set all windows to be translucent while moving them, and yes, you can see other windows stacked beneath it.
And then, I'd have to switch back. But that is just a technical/personal reason; that's not the big issue here. It's that Mac OS X isn't free, open source software.
Well, it's the exact opposite of what benefits me as a consumer; becoming reliant on a single vendor, not getting all the source code, the cost...
Mac OS X does have some advantages but I was arguing against the original poster who seemed to imply that there was no reason at all to use another unix than Apple's, and I think there is.
Two; both iBooks - the second because the first one got the famous logic board error; and I'm still waiting for Apple to fix it. (They said they'd send me a box, but it never showed up. I'll call 'em right now, thanks for reminding me.)
You can't just upgrade to Panther without coughing up cash. That's a non-technical obstacle. Maybe you're not annoyed by that, but I am, and that's one of the mayor reasons I'm not using Mac OS X right now.
When people say that they don't like being forced to pay $129 yearly, Apple apologists say "no one's twisting their arms to upgrade, they can stick with the old versions, they're fine!", and when people say that they don't like being forced to stick with the old versions, Apple apologists say "no one's twisting their arms to stick with the old stuff, they can cough up the dough!"
You just can't win with you people, can you?
And when I say that "You can use Apple's OS all you want, I'll stick with Debian" I get dissed for that, too!
Apple's decision to make Mac OS X their proprietary, profit-making product has drawbacks for consumers.
Use Jaguar all you want, that's your choice.
Personally, I'm not amused by being forced to use older versions for purely nontechnical reasons.
I prefer GNU/Linux to Mac OS X. Partly because it's free software, partly because I use ALSA, partly because upgrades are cheaper and easier (I use Debian, which is such a gift). I don't need to worry about my "Panther" becoming obsolete because "Tiger" comes out.
The current iBook G4 costs less than the iMac G5, is as silent, and has a non-nVidia-card, which matters to many.
Basically your most valid point is 3, hard drive space.
The iBook G4 makes sense in a lot of cases where the original iMac made sense when it first arrived, and then some.
(I don't want to plug Apple's products - there are other good computers out there. I'm just saying that in the battle of iBook vs iMac, the former wins a lot of the time, for a lot of people.)
Try driving in the wrong lane five times in a week, and see if there's an accident. Sound dumb? Of course; but our traffic system is based on the idea that everybody do as good as they can, and don't intentionally try to fuck things up.
The same applies to wikipedia. Fix errors you see, watch the changelogs, and don't deliberately insert errors.
I know of a (proprietary) dictionary service that costs $50 a year - if people would spend time according to that amount on helping wikipedia, since they benefit from it, maybe quality would improve even more.
I view Wikipedia as a basic research tool; it's easier to doublecheck info after I read it, than it is to find it the first time.
But maybe it's time to revive the project that wikipedia spun off; but using wikipedia as a source. An "audited" wikipedia. (I'd still just use wikipedia.)
No, that's not it, see this sister comment for a good explanation.
(proper link)
Gimp uses a more advanced algorithm that works for more complex paths; the algorithm you've linked to plots one pixel for every step along the x-axis, unlike the gimp's version, which only plots orthogonally.
Personally, I'd argue that the one the gimp draws looks more even. It's a little thick at the arches, while xpaint's is a little thin. Both are imperfect, but a pixel circle has to be.
If you prefer xpaint's algorithm, you might argue for the possibility to choose your line-drawing algorithm from within gimp. Maybe that feature will come, one day. I'm not a gimp developer (though I'm kind of interested).
Anyway, you went from "Gimp can't even [...]" to a rather specific (and narrow) request; a request that xpaint (a free program!) can already handle, so there's rather low priority to add that functionality to the gimp. Maybe you should look into helping out?
It works fine for me, with pencil and one-pixel brush.
pixel-circle.png
It uses a different algorithm than xpaint; in that it never relies on just diagonal connections between pixels; but as you see at the top and at the sides, it's indeed one pixel.
Do a circular selection, then Edit -> stroke selection.
Personally, I don't like iTunes' interface at all, and I never did. I like Muine much better.
They couldn't have planned to use MP3 patent fees to "fund their research" since they never meant for that technology to be used like that (consumers encoding songs) anyway.
So-called "research" only for the power of claiming exclusive deeds in the landscape of human thought does more harm than good, in this case at least.
But nVidia doesn't have open source drivers, either.
Right, that's still a problem, but that's unrelated to the issue of allowing non-DRM:ed-downloads or not.
I don't know, but meanwhile, there's always independent music.
If you're right-handed, you'll smudge the text with your hand if you write right-to-left.
I stumbled on Audio Lunchbox by accident and I wondered why I hadn't heard about it. They've got mp3's and Ogg Vorbis, both around 192 kbps, no DRM at all, and you can download either mp3, Vorbis or both. (I just want oggs.) Ninety-nine cents, and the service has been good.