Well, yes, it ran ok on an SE/30 if memory serves... however it was mostly only useful on that platform to people doing 2-bit graphics or for someone who was just doing file format conversions... Mind you at the time 2-bit graphics were no laughing matter considering the lack of color output options or existing standards for same. A lot of DTP was output in 2-bit, until people started outputting gray-scale photos etc on laser printers, and there was nearly no electronic publishing method like the www. People forget that it was only well after the IIx came out that 24(and then 32)-bit color was even supported at the system level. It was all 8-bit before that.
BTW: here are the original sys reqs for PS 1.0.7:
Macintosh SE, SE/30, II, IIx, IIci, IIcx with a minimum of 2 megabytes of RAM
System software 6.0.3
Oddly, the SE had the same 8mhz 68k processor as the Plus, and both were upgradable over the 2MB minimum, so I'm not sure why the Plus was excluded. Might be worth a try.
...and if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. But she doesn't, so she's not. Similarly, hemp will never be grown in this country until pot is deregulated, because it's visually identical to industrial hemp and would make enforcing pot farm sweeps impossible.
And you know this. Everybody knows this. It's the only reason the patchouli set are so enamored of hemp products, out of a quaint belief that it'll serve as an end run around the war on drugs. Sorry, not gonna happen. Get over it, or work on deregulating pot directly. Don't waste our time with the 'miracles' of hemp.
Murdoch owns HarperCollins. Fiction is only a part of their business, and I wouldn't assume the biggest part. Fiction has a higher rate of failure than nonfiction, which offsets the reduced production costs and also requires more marketing.
Yes, the advantages are huge, there's no doubt. No warehouse space, no shipping. It's fantastic. But again, all the other costs remain. If it cost me $37.5k dollars to produce a book (in salaries, royalties and all that other stuff), I have to sell, at $15 retail, maybe 5k copies before I break even, assuming that I'm making $7.50 wholesale. Of course, beyond that it's all profit, except for the royalties.
Now, if I don't manage to sell that 5k, say I only sell 1500. I've just lost $26k. Even worse, I've been wasting time when we could have been producing something profitable.
I can guarantee that when we finally do enter the ebook market, we'll maintain the same profit margin we currently have. We want the books as cheap as possible too, while being able to keep everyone employed.
The problem is that this new market is artificially cheaper. Amazon forced publishers to sign them up as a sub publisher, which allowed them to set the prices of other people's content to below what the original publisher needs to make in order to stay in business.
The only reason Amazon is doing this is to entice people to buy their reader and get locked into their walled garden as quickly as possible before better alternatives come along. They don't mind running all of their publishers and by extension, authors, into the ground to make this happen.
Of course, I manage a small publishing company, so I'm not unbiased. I've worked with Amazon for years, and while on the physical book side they are pretty good to work with, on the ebook side they are just vicious, casting aside the long term for short term gain.
Because it's not a fungible resource. i.e. steel, gasoline, standardized screws, and the like.
A particular book is unique, it's not interchangeable with any other book from another publisher. (yes exceptions like, say, the bible or Shakespeare exist, but those are unusual) Because only one company holds the rights to sell say, the new Tom Clancy in the US, there's nobody to price fix with. The publisher can charge whatever they want, and if you don't like it, too bad. Read something else. Borrow it from the library.
Anti competitive? how? there's only one source for this product. Who are you competing with?
I can sense you're going to respond with a car analogy, so let me nip that in the bud: cars within a certain market segment, are functionally interchangeable and thus subject to price fixing laws. i.e. a toyota camry, honda accord, nissan altima, all fulfill the same role. They aren't identical obviously, but in the eyes of the law they are close enough to make them equivalent. The purpose of a Tom Clancy book, however, is to fill you with the overly technical military jargon of Mr Tom Clancy. A Dan Brown novel will not suffice, and is not interchangeable. i.e. not fungible.
I manage a (very) small publishing company, and the parent post is entirely correct.
Actual printing, storage and shipping is less than one quarter the wholesale cost of the book. Author's advance, researchers, royalties, marketing, editing, illustration and production costs are the rest. These costs don't disappear just because there's no physical book.
Now, if you have a super mega hyper bestseller, then yes: aside from royalties, every one of those costs gets spread over the millions of copies you're not having to ship physically. Unfortunately, super mega hyper bestsellers do not grow on trees. More common are the books that just barely make enough money to keep us in business. Almost as common are books that bleed money and end up in a bulk recycler by the thousands.
We're looking at going the ebook route, but honestly we're not sure if we could even stay in business at $10 or even $15 retail. (our most profitable book is in a specialty category, 700+ pages for $35.95 retail)
I don't think anyone's implying that they are mutually exclusive, but... Apple's clearly got a strategy they are following on this device which pretty firmly puts it in the category of "not for general computing purposes." Does every device have to be easily tinkerable? Is it important to be able to get root on your cell phone? I don't know. YMMV.
I mean, there are craploads of tablets out there that run windows or whatever... totally hackable, run linux or w/e. why isn't anyone excited about those? I think what's scaring people is not that this thing exists or that it's relatively locked down, it's that most people just don't seem to care.
It's that it appears to be a successful strategy. The times they are a-changin'.
Well... this is one device that isn't even for sale yet. I'll start to worry when nice, open, fidgetable devices aren't completely fricking ubiquitous anymore. I mean, look around you. There have never been this many machines to hack and play with in the entire history of computing, and it's just going up from there. All this "back in my day" stuff just makes a guy sound old and crotchety, and I say this as someone who is in fact old and crotchety. I don't think anyone will be forced to dust off a C64 any time soon, my local goodwill has a stack of P4-class machines stacked outside the back door to haul off... I bet yours does too.
While this is certainly true for the iPad, iPhone etc, it's really not true at all for OSX. OSX comes with a bunch of dev tools on the install disk, in a way that was not true way back when. Those kinds of utilities existed, but getting ahold of them was non-trivial for someone out in the boonies.
The iPad isn't a general purpose computer, although it seems like it's blurring the line a bit. Certainly no reason for doom and gloom.
I always find it a little sad when I read something like this, though. Part of the joy of those days was exploring something new and interesting, finding terra incognita... the problem is that your kids probably won't get that joy in exactly the same way, and very well may not be interested in those things at all... they are actual individuals with individual tastes and interests, not a bunch of little clones running around. It seems like every time someone goes to great lengths to recreate his precise childhood for his kids, it's just doomed to failure, just because they're kids. Unpredictable.
Hey man, just cause you're not reading them, doesn't mean they aren't being written. You also seem to think that writing is a zero-sum game: that the more is blogged, the less is published in a more permanent fashion. It just ain't so: today's blog is often just a more sharable and immediate addition to lab notes. The phrase is still "publish or perish", not "post or perish".
Well, you might need the $70 Apple Care, or you might not. I've had my 3G since launch day (though my wife is using it now) and the battery life is still good. If that changes, it's $86 to have them replace it.
I prefer to pay for things when I actually need them, though, instead of buying in advance on the assumption that I will someday need it.
I doubt this hypothesis for the following reason: the difference between "minor" and "major" brain damage is one of scale, not a qualitative difference. Young animals are treated roughly, injured by their peers and predators more or less constantly. Among humans, minor brain injury resulting in the individual in question just being a bit stupid or clumsy for the rest of their lives is shockingly common, and incredibly so in agrarian societies: the village idiot wasn't always born that way. Having a disability like that is a great breeding disadvantage.
The ability to heal these types of injuries to a greater degree than we do now would be a significant advantage. Then again, so would eyes in the back of our heads, but we don't have those either.
You are quite uninformed. As a card-carrying beer geek, I can tell you that craft and micro beers brewed with actual, real coffee are a significant niche. They are always advertised as such, so we're not talking about your Young's Double Chocolate or Old Rasputin Russian Imperial Stout here. (as much as I enjoy those, they do not contain actual coffee)
Some of these beers have significant amounts of caffeine. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but regular and decaffeinated coffee taste quite different. That's because to get decaffeinated beans, they are soaked in a solvent to remove as much of the caffeine as possible, up to 8 or 10 times. Considering that there are over 400 different chemicals in coffee that comprise the flavor of the final drink, it's not surprising that a lot of richness and subtlety is lost in this process.
To put it mildly, I'm quite concerned about this investigation. The FDA has a record of passing down heavy-handed, poorly-written rulings based as much on press as science: laws so broadly written and interpreted that the law of unintended consequences will be in full effect.
People grieve in different ways, and it really isn't up to you or anyhow else to tell them what the "right" and "wrong" ways are.
In some cases--especially sudden, unexpected death of young person--it can be helpful to have a place where people can talk to each other and share their feelings and memories. It's a human thing.
Population won't continue to grow exponentially, as third world countries become more urbanized. There's a big correlation between education of the female population and low birth rates.
Even soap operas on TV have an effect. A young woman watches these glamorous characters, with few or no children, and she begins to realize that she has other options than becoming a baby-factory. It's happening all over the world, and nothing can stop it.
The reason for the current population explosion is that there's been a lag between the implementation of intensive farming techniques that can feed more people and the social reforms that happen when women can decide how many children they are having.
Well yes, the domestic dog does not live in the wild very often, outside of feral packs (which do exist). However, we do have examples of a number of species of wild dogs, from whom we can make some extrapolations regarding diet. In addition, there are edge cases such as dingos. Quoth the wiki: "The Dingo (Canis familiaris dingo) is a domestic dog which has reverted to a wild state for thousands of years and today lives largely independent from humans in the majority of its distribution."
So it's at best a half-truth to say that dogs don't exist in the wild. Specific breeds most certainly don't live wild (in any appreciable number) but to say that wild dogs don't exist at all is, well, wrong. All in all, it's probably better to use the phrase "canids" when making generalizations regarding multiple species.
Diet-wise, Australian dingos seem to be near-exclusive carnivores, although this quote is interesting: "In Asia, only a few dingoes live completely independent from humans, and their main food consists of carbohydrates (rice, fruits, and other leftovers) provided by humans."
Sorry, but you're the one who can't seem to understand that you're stretching and defining the category of religionist to suit yourself, which is precisely the point of the fallacy.
When presented with an example of a religionist who contradicts your ideal example, you quickly and conveniently redefine the boundaries of who is and who is not a religionist. This is precisely what the fallacy is about.
It has nothing to do with the boolean nature of being a Scotsman. (Which really is not so clear-cut after all: I know plenty of self-identified Italians who have never been to Europe, and have met a few self-identified Pakistanis born in Scotland.)
As for tolerance: I refuse to tolerate the intolerance of others. Sue me.
Others justify their own evil, violence, intolerance and bigotry by invoking God's name. I have it on good authority that God doesn't approve of the latter group. I hear he is pretty sure that they aren't even real fans. He feels used.
Ah, that's a wonderful example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Sorry, but just because you're ashamed of the behavior of your fellow god-botherers doesn't mean that you can willy-nilly redefine them into a category you're comfortable with.
Mindless bigotry? It's a learned response to negative stimuli.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course you're right. I must be getting old.
Well, yes, it ran ok on an SE/30 if memory serves... however it was mostly only useful on that platform to people doing 2-bit graphics or for someone who was just doing file format conversions... Mind you at the time 2-bit graphics were no laughing matter considering the lack of color output options or existing standards for same. A lot of DTP was output in 2-bit, until people started outputting gray-scale photos etc on laser printers, and there was nearly no electronic publishing method like the www. People forget that it was only well after the IIx came out that 24(and then 32)-bit color was even supported at the system level. It was all 8-bit before that.
BTW: here are the original sys reqs for PS 1.0.7:
Macintosh SE, SE/30, II, IIx, IIci, IIcx with a minimum of 2 megabytes of RAM
System software 6.0.3
Oddly, the SE had the same 8mhz 68k processor as the Plus, and both were upgradable over the 2MB minimum, so I'm not sure why the Plus was excluded. Might be worth a try.
...and if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. But she doesn't, so she's not. Similarly, hemp will never be grown in this country until pot is deregulated, because it's visually identical to industrial hemp and would make enforcing pot farm sweeps impossible.
And you know this. Everybody knows this. It's the only reason the patchouli set are so enamored of hemp products, out of a quaint belief that it'll serve as an end run around the war on drugs. Sorry, not gonna happen. Get over it, or work on deregulating pot directly. Don't waste our time with the 'miracles' of hemp.
Murdoch owns HarperCollins. Fiction is only a part of their business, and I wouldn't assume the biggest part. Fiction has a higher rate of failure than nonfiction, which offsets the reduced production costs and also requires more marketing.
Yes, the advantages are huge, there's no doubt. No warehouse space, no shipping. It's fantastic. But again, all the other costs remain. If it cost me $37.5k dollars to produce a book (in salaries, royalties and all that other stuff), I have to sell, at $15 retail, maybe 5k copies before I break even, assuming that I'm making $7.50 wholesale. Of course, beyond that it's all profit, except for the royalties.
Now, if I don't manage to sell that 5k, say I only sell 1500. I've just lost $26k. Even worse, I've been wasting time when we could have been producing something profitable.
I can guarantee that when we finally do enter the ebook market, we'll maintain the same profit margin we currently have. We want the books as cheap as possible too, while being able to keep everyone employed.
The problem is that this new market is artificially cheaper. Amazon forced publishers to sign them up as a sub publisher, which allowed them to set the prices of other people's content to below what the original publisher needs to make in order to stay in business.
The only reason Amazon is doing this is to entice people to buy their reader and get locked into their walled garden as quickly as possible before better alternatives come along. They don't mind running all of their publishers and by extension, authors, into the ground to make this happen.
Of course, I manage a small publishing company, so I'm not unbiased. I've worked with Amazon for years, and while on the physical book side they are pretty good to work with, on the ebook side they are just vicious, casting aside the long term for short term gain.
Because it's not a fungible resource. i.e. steel, gasoline, standardized screws, and the like.
A particular book is unique, it's not interchangeable with any other book from another publisher. (yes exceptions like, say, the bible or Shakespeare exist, but those are unusual) Because only one company holds the rights to sell say, the new Tom Clancy in the US, there's nobody to price fix with. The publisher can charge whatever they want, and if you don't like it, too bad. Read something else. Borrow it from the library.
Anti competitive? how? there's only one source for this product. Who are you competing with?
I can sense you're going to respond with a car analogy, so let me nip that in the bud: cars within a certain market segment, are functionally interchangeable and thus subject to price fixing laws. i.e. a toyota camry, honda accord, nissan altima, all fulfill the same role. They aren't identical obviously, but in the eyes of the law they are close enough to make them equivalent. The purpose of a Tom Clancy book, however, is to fill you with the overly technical military jargon of Mr Tom Clancy. A Dan Brown novel will not suffice, and is not interchangeable. i.e. not fungible.
I manage a (very) small publishing company, and the parent post is entirely correct.
Actual printing, storage and shipping is less than one quarter the wholesale cost of the book. Author's advance, researchers, royalties, marketing, editing, illustration and production costs are the rest. These costs don't disappear just because there's no physical book.
Now, if you have a super mega hyper bestseller, then yes: aside from royalties, every one of those costs gets spread over the millions of copies you're not having to ship physically. Unfortunately, super mega hyper bestsellers do not grow on trees. More common are the books that just barely make enough money to keep us in business. Almost as common are books that bleed money and end up in a bulk recycler by the thousands.
We're looking at going the ebook route, but honestly we're not sure if we could even stay in business at $10 or even $15 retail. (our most profitable book is in a specialty category, 700+ pages for $35.95 retail)
This isn't the music business, trust me.
I don't think anyone's implying that they are mutually exclusive, but... Apple's clearly got a strategy they are following on this device which pretty firmly puts it in the category of "not for general computing purposes." Does every device have to be easily tinkerable? Is it important to be able to get root on your cell phone? I don't know. YMMV.
I mean, there are craploads of tablets out there that run windows or whatever... totally hackable, run linux or w/e. why isn't anyone excited about those? I think what's scaring people is not that this thing exists or that it's relatively locked down, it's that most people just don't seem to care.
It's that it appears to be a successful strategy. The times they are a-changin'.
Well... this is one device that isn't even for sale yet. I'll start to worry when nice, open, fidgetable devices aren't completely fricking ubiquitous anymore. I mean, look around you. There have never been this many machines to hack and play with in the entire history of computing, and it's just going up from there. All this "back in my day" stuff just makes a guy sound old and crotchety, and I say this as someone who is in fact old and crotchety. I don't think anyone will be forced to dust off a C64 any time soon, my local goodwill has a stack of P4-class machines stacked outside the back door to haul off... I bet yours does too.
While this is certainly true for the iPad, iPhone etc, it's really not true at all for OSX. OSX comes with a bunch of dev tools on the install disk, in a way that was not true way back when. Those kinds of utilities existed, but getting ahold of them was non-trivial for someone out in the boonies.
The iPad isn't a general purpose computer, although it seems like it's blurring the line a bit. Certainly no reason for doom and gloom.
I always find it a little sad when I read something like this, though. Part of the joy of those days was exploring something new and interesting, finding terra incognita... the problem is that your kids probably won't get that joy in exactly the same way, and very well may not be interested in those things at all... they are actual individuals with individual tastes and interests, not a bunch of little clones running around. It seems like every time someone goes to great lengths to recreate his precise childhood for his kids, it's just doomed to failure, just because they're kids. Unpredictable.
You're half right: He's a tool.
Right, because nobody writes about stuff like that any more.
Hey man, just cause you're not reading them, doesn't mean they aren't being written. You also seem to think that writing is a zero-sum game: that the more is blogged, the less is published in a more permanent fashion. It just ain't so: today's blog is often just a more sharable and immediate addition to lab notes. The phrase is still "publish or perish", not "post or perish".
Well, you might need the $70 Apple Care, or you might not. I've had my 3G since launch day (though my wife is using it now) and the battery life is still good. If that changes, it's $86 to have them replace it.
I prefer to pay for things when I actually need them, though, instead of buying in advance on the assumption that I will someday need it.
Correction: Dailykos has a moderate right bias, and Fox has a right-of-Mussolini bias. We don't have an active left wing in this country.
...or a Mac and any browser.
I doubt this hypothesis for the following reason: the difference between "minor" and "major" brain damage is one of scale, not a qualitative difference. Young animals are treated roughly, injured by their peers and predators more or less constantly. Among humans, minor brain injury resulting in the individual in question just being a bit stupid or clumsy for the rest of their lives is shockingly common, and incredibly so in agrarian societies: the village idiot wasn't always born that way. Having a disability like that is a great breeding disadvantage.
The ability to heal these types of injuries to a greater degree than we do now would be a significant advantage. Then again, so would eyes in the back of our heads, but we don't have those either.
...Yes, it cost $6b.
To put this in perspective, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle program cost $5.6b, and the resulting machine sucks.
Which is the bigger waste?
M-
You are quite uninformed. As a card-carrying beer geek, I can tell you that craft and micro beers brewed with actual, real coffee are a significant niche. They are always advertised as such, so we're not talking about your Young's Double Chocolate or Old Rasputin Russian Imperial Stout here. (as much as I enjoy those, they do not contain actual coffee)
No, we're talking about lovely beers like Beer Geek Breakfast, from Denmark. The 2008 World Beer Cup had 24 different entries in the Coffee Beer category. Here's a nice article to acquaint you with the basics.
Some of these beers have significant amounts of caffeine. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but regular and decaffeinated coffee taste quite different. That's because to get decaffeinated beans, they are soaked in a solvent to remove as much of the caffeine as possible, up to 8 or 10 times. Considering that there are over 400 different chemicals in coffee that comprise the flavor of the final drink, it's not surprising that a lot of richness and subtlety is lost in this process.
To put it mildly, I'm quite concerned about this investigation. The FDA has a record of passing down heavy-handed, poorly-written rulings based as much on press as science: laws so broadly written and interpreted that the law of unintended consequences will be in full effect.
People grieve in different ways, and it really isn't up to you or anyhow else to tell them what the "right" and "wrong" ways are.
In some cases--especially sudden, unexpected death of young person--it can be helpful to have a place where people can talk to each other and share their feelings and memories. It's a human thing.
M-
Population won't continue to grow exponentially, as third world countries become more urbanized. There's a big correlation between education of the female population and low birth rates.
Even soap operas on TV have an effect. A young woman watches these glamorous characters, with few or no children, and she begins to realize that she has other options than becoming a baby-factory. It's happening all over the world, and nothing can stop it.
The reason for the current population explosion is that there's been a lag between the implementation of intensive farming techniques that can feed more people and the social reforms that happen when women can decide how many children they are having.
Well yes, the domestic dog does not live in the wild very often, outside of feral packs (which do exist). However, we do have examples of a number of species of wild dogs, from whom we can make some extrapolations regarding diet. In addition, there are edge cases such as dingos. Quoth the wiki: "The Dingo (Canis familiaris dingo) is a domestic dog which has reverted to a wild state for thousands of years and today lives largely independent from humans in the majority of its distribution."
So it's at best a half-truth to say that dogs don't exist in the wild. Specific breeds most certainly don't live wild (in any appreciable number) but to say that wild dogs don't exist at all is, well, wrong. All in all, it's probably better to use the phrase "canids" when making generalizations regarding multiple species.
Diet-wise, Australian dingos seem to be near-exclusive carnivores, although this quote is interesting: "In Asia, only a few dingoes live completely independent from humans, and their main food consists of carbohydrates (rice, fruits, and other leftovers) provided by humans."
Curious.
Sorry, wrong URL. You're looking for http://www.adultsheepfinder.co.nz/
Sorry, but you're the one who can't seem to understand that you're stretching and defining the category of religionist to suit yourself, which is precisely the point of the fallacy.
When presented with an example of a religionist who contradicts your ideal example, you quickly and conveniently redefine the boundaries of who is and who is not a religionist. This is precisely what the fallacy is about.
It has nothing to do with the boolean nature of being a Scotsman. (Which really is not so clear-cut after all: I know plenty of self-identified Italians who have never been to Europe, and have met a few self-identified Pakistanis born in Scotland.)
As for tolerance: I refuse to tolerate the intolerance of others. Sue me.
Others justify their own evil, violence, intolerance and bigotry by invoking God's name. I have it on good authority that God doesn't approve of the latter group. I hear he is pretty sure that they aren't even real fans. He feels used.
Ah, that's a wonderful example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Sorry, but just because you're ashamed of the behavior of your fellow god-botherers doesn't mean that you can willy-nilly redefine them into a category you're comfortable with.
Mindless bigotry? It's a learned response to negative stimuli.
M-
No, it didn't insult your intelligence. Instead, it erroneously assumed that you would read the entire comparison:
To get a grasp of that kind of speed, consider that a femtosecond is to a second what a second is to about 32 million years.
That's not 1/32 million, unless you believe a year to have only one second in it.