So let me get this straight, your idea of radical is moving back the screen a few inches from the design of the Mac Portable, but keeping the "good old" keyboard where it belongs for a DOS computer and keeping those WIMP interfaces where they belong, at Xerox PARC.
Not to mention that the radical design of the Compaq LTE was almost identical to the 7.5 years older GRiD Compass. But that didn't run DOS, so obviously Compaq was a real innovator with the LTE.
Unless you think a lack of (or maybe instead shady) business creds automatically gives you geek creds... But please do tell what geeky things they have done? Is building a cheap PC (with "good" old BIOS), putting EFI on it, pretending they made it, and selling it for far more than cost geeky?
It never ceases to amaze me how many people read about a brand new beta version and drop all to hurry and download the previous stable version. Not to mention all the people who try really hard to not notice the link to something they "want" even though it sticks out like a sore thumb.
Yeah it's really fucking hard to gain share when the browser comes bundled with your OS, way to go Apple, fucking bravo. I think I will spend the day screaming "Go Steve" at random occasions, as a tribute to this fucking moonlanding Apple just did.
So your argument is that it wasn't actually Safari that had a huge jump in market-share, but actually Mac OS X. Does that prove you're an Apple fanboi?
As I pointed out in a previous article, that doesn't work on Windows.
No, you actually have to edit a XML file to do that on Windows. http://observationpoint.org/articles/2009/02/ The com.apple.Safari.plist file is located in the C:\Documents and Settings\\Application Data\Apple Computer\Preferences folder.
I'd like to point out that during the Revolutionary War, it was possible to drag cannon across the Hudson River in Winter, because it was frozen solid. By 1830, that would have been impossible, and by about 1850, it had stopped freezing over. This shows (qualitatively, not quantitatively) that the climate was getting warmer before 1900, when the Hockey Stick starts climbing. If you go through the historical record of the era, you'll see numerous other examples, all of them inconsistent with the flat line of the graph. Face it: the graph simply doesn't represent history accurately, and if it doesn't, why should I expect it to predict the future?
So apart from the fact that "the Hockey Stick" starts climbing in 1700 - the difference between "local" and "global" doesn't just apply to the present. But please don't let facts get in the way of your argument.
Without MMS, I have to ask him for his email address, and have to remember/write it down somewhere (no copy/paste on iPhone), or get him to send me a text message with his email address. This just adds more steps to the equation.
Actually, you could just ask them to send an MMS to your email address, and then reply. Heck, tell them to contact you that way instead of publishing your phone number where every phone spammer can see it.
No it hasn't. That period includes The Little Ice Age, which, among other things, froze out the Viking colony on the West Coast of Greenland as well making it impossible to grow grapes for wine in England.
Ignoring all other blather, if the LIA supposedly made it impossible to grow grapes in England, why didn't it make it impossible in Werder upon Havel that is in a colder climatic zone? There is good indication that the British stopped growing wine not because of the declining climate but simply because they could get finally get better wine due to improved trade relations with the continent.
1. We heat up the earth with our tiny fraction of man-made greenhouse gases and make the earth inhabitable.
"Tiny fraction of man-made greenhouse gases": the logical fallacy that everything else being the same, a tiny change can be ignored (if you don't like the result).
Slashdot Mirror
You have presented no evidence to show that they are not geeks. Thank you for playing.
You can't prove a negative. And YOU can't prove a positive.
Oh, really? Well, that must mean Psystar have become geeks since then, hrmm?
This article looked like a pro-Apple slashvertisement to you?
Make that Nehalem Xeon processor.
Not to mention that the radical design of the Compaq LTE was almost identical to the 7.5 years older GRiD Compass. But that didn't run DOS, so obviously Compaq was a real innovator with the LTE.
Oh, before I forget: Where would you put the trackball/-pad in your radical design? The back of the screen?
Apple was first with the palm rest.
That seems something of an abuse of the term "radical design".
Well, then let's agree that everybody else copied it because it wasn't as radical to the wrist as all those radical designs.
Unless you think a lack of (or maybe instead shady) business creds automatically gives you geek creds... But please do tell what geeky things they have done? Is building a cheap PC (with "good" old BIOS), putting EFI on it, pretending they made it, and selling it for far more than cost geeky?
And before you say "Psystar", they aren't "geeks".
Who uses babelfish these days anyway? Google translate has eclipsed it pretty decisively,
Among the blind, the blind who claims he can see is king.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people read about a brand new beta version and drop all to hurry and download the previous stable version. Not to mention all the people who try really hard to not notice the link to something they "want" even though it sticks out like a sore thumb.
Chrome needed almost a month...
Yeah it's really fucking hard to gain share when the browser comes bundled with your OS, way to go Apple, fucking bravo. I think I will spend the day screaming "Go Steve" at random occasions, as a tribute to this fucking moonlanding Apple just did.
So your argument is that it wasn't actually Safari that had a huge jump in market-share, but actually Mac OS X. Does that prove you're an Apple fanboi?
Safari is made by Apple, that fact alone is enough for a very sizable portion of the Slashdot readership to ignore any reason to dislike it.
Safari is made by Apple, that fact alone is enough for an even more sizable portion of the Slashdot readership to hate it no matter what.
As I pointed out in a previous article, that doesn't work on Windows.
No, you actually have to edit a XML file to do that on Windows. http://observationpoint.org/articles/2009/02/ The com.apple.Safari.plist file is located in the C:\Documents and Settings\\Application Data\Apple Computer\Preferences folder.
How many times do you have to be told?
Oh, BTW, mind looking at the blue curve, not the 50 year avareged black one?
I'd like to point out that during the Revolutionary War, it was possible to drag cannon across the Hudson River in Winter, because it was frozen solid. By 1830, that would have been impossible, and by about 1850, it had stopped freezing over. This shows (qualitatively, not quantitatively) that the climate was getting warmer before 1900, when the Hockey Stick starts climbing. If you go through the historical record of the era, you'll see numerous other examples, all of them inconsistent with the flat line of the graph. Face it: the graph simply doesn't represent history accurately, and if it doesn't, why should I expect it to predict the future?
So apart from the fact that "the Hockey Stick" starts climbing in 1700 - the difference between "local" and "global" doesn't just apply to the present. But please don't let facts get in the way of your argument.
Without MMS, I have to ask him for his email address, and have to remember/write it down somewhere (no copy/paste on iPhone), or get him to send me a text message with his email address. This just adds more steps to the equation.
Actually, you could just ask them to send an MMS to your email address, and then reply. Heck, tell them to contact you that way instead of publishing your phone number where every phone spammer can see it.
Bad example. Japan doesn't want anyone (U.S. or otherwise) entering their country at will and damaging their domestic industries.
Quite unlike the USA.
Why yes, I was being sarcastic.
Unlike the Global Warming Fanatics, I don't claim to be able to explain everything.
Yeah, only such things as that the "the Hockey Stick Graph" is obviously wrong because the British "could not" grow grapes any more.
1. They aren't being increased by every boiling pot in America, or every breathing child, or every AC unit in America?
Since most ACs in the US are used to cool - they actually condense water vapor.
No it hasn't. That period includes The Little Ice Age, which, among other things, froze out the Viking colony on the West Coast of Greenland as well making it impossible to grow grapes for wine in England.
Ignoring all other blather, if the LIA supposedly made it impossible to grow grapes in England, why didn't it make it impossible in Werder upon Havel that is in a colder climatic zone? There is good indication that the British stopped growing wine not because of the declining climate but simply because they could get finally get better wine due to improved trade relations with the continent.
1. We heat up the earth with our tiny fraction of man-made greenhouse gases and make the earth inhabitable.
"Tiny fraction of man-made greenhouse gases": the logical fallacy that everything else being the same, a tiny change can be ignored (if you don't like the result).
With the Cuban missile crisis, we had very little to lose by reducing the risk of a nuclear attack.
About half of Kennedy's advisors didn't think so at all.
So your argument is actually we should go back to the stone age. Gee, could have fooled me.