You couldn't be more wrong... Every time I see somebody who thinks they've got the "serious work" situation that breaks the old-style Mac Finder, it turns out they just think it can't be done because they've never seen it done.
Ah, but you get me wrong, dude. (and, you're preaching to the choir I might add.) I wasn't refering to Finder Classic's ability to display several thousand files at a go, it's more than up to that; I meant that, considering the very heavily nested nature of your typical iTunes/iPhoto folder structures - which is something that will become increasingly more common under OS X - using Classic Finder would be really cumbersome in these situations. You're gotta pick between a pile of windows (and I mean a pile of windows), or one gigantically long List View, all tree'd-out to hell and back.
Column View is made to address this very thing. I love Classic Finder as much as anyone but it was not ever designed with the sheer numbers of files in a UNIX. At a quick count I just did (system disks only) , my OS 9 partition weighs in at around 4000 files. OS X is somewhere over 30,000. Kind of a lame example but you see what I mean hopefully.
Spatial Finder, etc.
on
A Better Finder?
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
The article is pretty good at explaining the idea of a Spatial Finder, but I think that a lot of people give this idea too much credit.
My impression is that, when Mr. Siracusa speaks of spatial orientation, many times he is actually referring to basic consistency.
First points: labels and pop-up windows are a bit of a moot point, as they are coming in Panther. (Yes, I've seen builds.) So don't sweat it.
Spatial qualities are useful; however they are just that, qualities. The original Finder was very much in the vein the author describes; a window was a folder which contained icons that were your files. The current iteration of OS X, I might point out, pretty much sticks to this as long as you have the toolbar collapsed (that underused widget in the right side of the toolbar). Collapsing this toolbar will give you something very very similar to what we had before. Furthermore OS X takes it even futher with the use of packages - I'm surprised he didn't mention this - which allows whole applications to keep their guts in one place. Therefore the icon is the application now, as well. I could see Apple taking this further: imagine being able to install a Photoshop plug-in by just dragging it onto the single Photoshop icon.
Now, as far as spatially oriented interfaces being insufficient for the task of managing many thousands of files... there is something to that. The old Finder would have absolutely choked on certain computing situations common now (giant nested MP3/photo folders, for instance). It just doesn't scale to that many files cleanly.
Having said that, it shouldn't have to. A user generally has far fewer abstractions they are mentally adhering to than what is presented in your interface. I think this is where half-baked implementations like favourites really fall down. Favourites is a great idea. When you save something, or move something, you are generally thinking about the project you are working on. Odds are you have one master folder for this project, with several sub-folders divided the way you like. The data contained within these folders takes various forms (text, code, media). Depending on what kind of work you are doing, one 'view' that is entirely appropriate for say, code, is not appropriate for graphics previewing. You want to work in the view that is appropriate, and have it 'stick'. You don't want to drill through 'My Computer -> My Documents -> My Whatever' to get to it, if possible. This mixing of standard OS bits and pieces with your actual 'work' files is what causes people to lose their work in some loopy abstraction. While the idea of just having a filename field and a pull-down for a Save dialog is great, people just don't take the time to define Favourites as they are quite used to simply creating folders when they need them, and then navigating each time to that folder. OS X could do a better job by remembering which folder you last saved to, no matter what. I hate it when Flash constantly thinks I want to save Flash projects in the Flash application directory. If you could tell the OS, when you create a folder, that is is a project folder, and have it automatically add it to your Favourites (I like 'Projects', can you tell?), that would be spiffy.
So Mr. Siracuse's idea of Finder plug-ins is sound. I might just add that you only really need one plug-in, QuickTime, which can handle damn near anything you throw at it. What QuickTime can't catch, Quartz sure can (i.e. previews of PDFs and other vector artwork). The idea that the Finder should be an end-all to every kind of work is somewhat mad. The author's ideas about metadata are great, and I also think Apple is working on this (that Be guy they hired). I'm not sure about abstracting the Finder to a true 'browser' even more, I can't make up my mind on that. What I don't want to see is a schizo metaphor like Windows, where you have two distinct ways of browsing and no preference given to either (i.e. re
I hope this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, as distant as it seems. Great joke, but I actually think this would be a fantastic setting for a GTA game.
When you say, Processing an icon takes another level of brain processing, another level of indirection
... I'm assuming you experience this yourself.
In heavily left-brained individuals, the icons can actually begin to lose their meaning due to reliance on the converse side of the brain. It works both ways, too; a heavily right-brained person will have much more trouble manipulating something like a pull-down menu than, say, the OS X Dock.
It's actually not very common either, to have a prevalence of one-sidedness (literal) to your brain that would work to impede the ability to derive meaning from both glyphs and word-shapes.
Having said that, icons are a well-proven visual tool that work extremely well most of the time, given proper usage, and there's bucketloads of information backing this up right through pre-history to your first carbon cave-scratchings.
It is possible that you don't see them this way. And, on another note, did you really think that all those little pictures in every single end-user operating system were just spurious fluff?
What if design pros don't want to have to deal with linear mouse acceleration that makes fine adjustments akin to slow torture?
Man, I am glad someone else noticed this? I thought I was losing my mind.
I've used PS for enough years that I've gotten quite good at bulls-eyeing individual pixels for selection without having to zoom. When I use a PC, I cannot for the life of me get the mouse to not jump 2-pixel increments on small movements, no matter what. I've fiddled with the control panel to no end. It's a nice Logitech optical mouse, too.
Good point. Apple bundling all that software with their systems is just like Microsoft bundling Explorer with Windows (except for the monopoly - except that for Apple users, Apple IS the monopoly.
Not really the same thing. Apple apps are uninstallable by dragging a single icon to the trash, and they do not insist on being the 'default' for anything. Apple does not insist that removing their software will 'break' the OS. Safari is a good example of this.
Sony is a monopoly on Sony products too (damn their memory sticks!). Saying Apple has a monopoly on Apple products is kind of nonsensical.
The interesting thing is that I seem to recall that Apple bought the main technology for video editing 3-4 years back... from Adobe? Anyone know anything about this?
Well, as I understand it, it went something like this:
Adobe had a great team of programmers working on Premiere once upon a time. They created Premiere 4 which was a staple of low-cost video editing (and where many of us got our start). It was a quirky program but very flexible and people liked it.
This team had a radical new idea for the next version of Premiere, but for whatever reason it didn't work out with Adobe. That team, possibly in its entirety, left Adobe, as a purchase by Macromedia.
Macromedia continued to work on what was now known as Final Cut and Adobe hired a new team which have birth to the abortion (my opinion) that was Premiere 5.
Apple then cut some sort of deal with Macromedia (possibly when Avid were being dicks) and picked up Final Cut.
Rest is history. You could see how Adobe is sore. They would never have given Apple the Final Cut project but somehow it ended up being 'laundered' through Macromedia.
If anyone has any corrections to this feel free to reply.
So Steve: Port Mac OS/X to x86 *soon* before you let Apple die in obsolescence.
Isn't there some version of Godwin's Law that states when someone claims 'Apple is dead' the thread comes to a complete halt?
Seriously. The Mac x86 argument has been flogged, flayed, stepped on, dismembered, burned, and then danced upon. Apple would be slitting its own throat. It'll never happen.
We all know the G4s are lagging, that is old news. We know. Everyone knows. Wait for the G5. It's very close now (3-4 months away). Then let's talk. I don't know if the PPC 970 chip will beat whatever Intel has in July but I bet it'll be a lot closer.
Incidentally, I'm surprised no one else had the same reaction I did... there's nothing stopping you from having your cake and eating it too. Doing video work myself, I prefer the Mac interface. I do my editing and compositing (project mode) on the Mac, and then send it to a cluster of headless PCs for network rendering. Cheap PC hardware is a bonus.
The Mac OS and interface is the best.
The Intel/AMD CPU speed is the best.
Media work that relies on rendering is time-sensitive (and therefore money sensitive) so I hear the plight of the Mac people who want to speed things up. For video work, a day's worth of billables will buy you at least 1 stripped-but-fast PC easily. I just use them as 'spare brains' and continue with my Mac. After Effects has great network rendering, so does LightWave, etc.
Ahh, but the question is; is it hardware architecture, or superior underlying OS code? Could it be calls to Win32 or DirectX that makes the difference?
Uh.... no?
Or maybe you could clarify which 'superior' parts you are referring to? I'm not trolling, I really want to know. Not sure about Win32 but I don't see DirectX speeding up CPU-bound Photoshop calculations.
Please stop pissing us off. You've created products to compete with us in photo management. You've added nonlicensed PDF capabilities to your new OS (which we had to update for OS X!) and you've utterly stolen the video editing market from us - which was quite profitable, despite the absolutely abysmal Premiere.
We will continue to promote PCs as the better machine on our website, despite the fact that we ship for both platforms, because you've stepped on our toes. We recommend you go back to making machines and stop with the polished, useful, FREE software.
Busting someone for drugs earns the department all the cash and assets of the person. Busting someone for hit and run gets them nothing but paperwork, and the expense of dealing with it.
Soooo... cops are less inclinded to 'bust' people when there's no money in it for them?
Dude, you preface your statement with a literal 'I'm about to talk out of my ass', and then of course you do so.
Apple is a failed monopoly
Every company but Microsoft is a failed monopoly. What is your point? Or, are monopolies good on Saturdays? I forget.
Your mightily aged Mac trolls are telling, too. Listen, you don't like it, that's fine. But you don't even know what the hell you're talking about by your own admission. So, seriously, why are you posting? You're nothing but noise in here. Karma-to-burn norwithstanding.
Blah blah blah, you love your PCs. Wonderful. Run along now.
It's actually surprisingly tricky to do this because of the way MP3 files are structures. Having said that, for DJ mixed albums I just rip the whole thing as one file: use the Join CD Tracks command in iTunes, under the Advanced menu.
Or what about showing the "All Songs" list for an Artist in alphabetical order (it could be an option, but I consider the current behavior a bug). I have 230 Zappa tracks on my pod right now and finding a particular one in the list is quite difficult.
Huh. Mine does what you say. Browse -> Artist -> All gives you an alphabetical listing of all songs by that artist.
Anyone want ogg support?
I'm sure some do. I'd much rather have AAC support though. Don't see Ogg happening anytime soon.
Dude.. 45 countries have supported us. thats three TIMES the number who would have had to vote positive in the UN. Of those who dont, only a handful really matter. get the facts straight. (And realize several of them are the neighboring states..w hich brings us to... )
Ah yes. Cameroon and Eritrea have provided some amazing logistical support, I'm sure. I love the spin. "Now with 30% more countries!"
Get your own 'facts' stright: It's the US, UK, Spain, and Portugal. Portugal has no troops, nor do ANY of the other signatories on that list - which is just that, a list, nothing more than PR.
The real reason is threefold, at least. One) Hussein will use the weapons he is undoubtedly building against Israel soon enough. That is a doomsday scenario you dont want to see. Two) He (hussein) has been thumbing his nose at us for 12 years, ignoring our sanctions, and recently, openly mouthing off.
So you profess to know the mind of Saddam? Has he been biding his time all these years? In case you hadn't noticed, he didn't attack the US; in fact, he's done fuck-all, other than try to rebuild his water supply in the last 12. Of course everyone knows he's a bastard - no one will argue otherwise - but there is NO PROOF. NONE. If there is, the CIA and FBI would like it, because they are still asking for it.
Besides, even if that were true, you cannot invade another nation because they will 'probably' attack. You just can't, and maintain any sort of moral high ground at all. Tell me, when North Korea invades the South for suspected terrorist weapons, what will we say?
If we leave the US as a huge target that never retaliates, there is _nothing_ stopping every islamic crackpot in the world from taking a shot at us
News flash: there's nothing stopping them NOW. Iraq likely has no real WMD (being that the only real WMD are nuclear), but Terrorists worldwide can shop elsewhere.
Invading Iraq means no one is safer today than they were yesterday. I know you think there's irrefutable proof. I don't. And millions are not convinced.
A Patriot is someone who loves their country, and works to help better it.
A Patriot is not silent on government corruption, illegal wars, or anything else that they think hurts the long-term health of the country.
A Patriot does criticize. They criticize at times of extreme political unrest. They ask questions when questions need to be asked.
And yes, a Patriot will perform acts of civil disobedience, when extreme situations warrent it.
A Patriot does not, under any circumstances, cowtow to the party line and 'fall in' as to not 'cause ripples'. A Patriot stands up and shouts to the fucking ceiling, 'something is wrong', when they feel something is wrong.
(And you know what's really funny? I'm Canadian. You know, one of those countries that's not 'the greatest nation in the whole world'. Whattajoke that phrase is. The hubris knows no bounds.)
Really? 35+ other nations agree with us and vocally back the US. Again, not to repeat myself, but the UN agreed that Iraq is a threat that must be neutralized, by about three months ago.
4 principal nations agree with 'us' (including the US), and the remainder agreed to put their names on a list. Or do you think Cameroon and Eritrea are offering any sort of logitical support?
And, why do you think waiting won't help? I'm of the opinion that Saddam was under a microscope, and the inspectors were very close to deciding that there was very little, if anything else, to be found. Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis. JFK trotted out nice high-res photos of the threat, and stated the thread. And the international community (such as it was) went along, because the threat was clear, and documented. Colin Powell certainly didn't help his case by falsifying nuclear arms details from a university term paper (and the fact that no one got fired over that is a major embarrasment). Had the inspectors finished and not found anything, that could have been even more embarrasing for the embattled US envoys.
I don't have any intelligence information, obviously. I'm not privy to any of that, and an cognizant of that fact. I am aware that the Inspectors repeatedly asked for this intelligence, the whereabouts of these WMDs, and was rebuffed. As was the CIA and the FBI, who are still asking for that information to this day. People are resigning over this left and right. This is public knowledge, and can be corroborated by the resignation speeches those people have released.
I can resort to 'a lot of Americans' as it's not a generalization, it's what I can witness. You do sound cocky when you simply decree your opinion of matters to be 'the truth'. But you seem like a reasonable person so I apologize.
If you're interested in learning where I formulate my opinion, read this.
You said the answer to your question in your question. CLINTON bombed Kosovo. Clinton was a liberal. Liberals are protesting the war. THe only reason 99% of the protests are happening is because a Republican is in charge. Clinton had five separate military attacks without UN approval during his presidency. Not once did we hear anything like this in the media.
Sorry folks, I know you hate to hear it, but the truth speaks for itself.
That's great. Your 'truth' is obviously impervious to facts.
Kosovo had the backing of the UN, and the EU, and every single member of the security council. Including France and Germany.
The reason people have a problem, amazing that you haven't deduced this yet, is that the US is acting without any agreement in the international community. The US is jumping the gun on inspections that should hae been finished. In short, the US is acting on its own accord, citing incredibly shaky terrorist evidence.
But of course, I won't convince you. That's the amazing thing about a lot of Americans; their rights don't need defending. They are automatically self-censoring.
Actually, I love to hear about the new precision weapons we have. I thank God that I live in a day and age in which it is actually possible to minimize the extent of civilian casualties to the extent that we do.
I do a lot of graphic work, and I have to agree: the CRT is just more reliable. I have an iBook I preview stuff on to see what a design looks like on LCD (a lot of light-coloured stuff on white will literally dissapear on LCD), but I always work on the CRT (nice 17" Trinitron flatscreen, mind you).
About the games, though... I've played Wolfenstein and other fast-moving things on an iMac and I didn't see what the big deal was for those. It looked great to me.
You know what you should do,
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
you should make a documentary about your views, or write something, and back it up.
Just saying 'Moore is obviously an idiot' doesn't cut it. Your opinion, sure, that's fine. You gotta back it up. Moore exagerrates a lot of things, but his core facts are sound. Stupid White Men is full of verifiable facts, I've checked them myself (often because they were too incredible to believe).
"Using Adobe Acrobat 5.0.5 and Acrobat Reader 5.0.5 and Mac OS X v.10.2
Adobe Acrobat 5.0.5 and Acrobat Reader 5.0.5 offer native mode support for Mac OS X v.10.04, 10.1, and 10.2 (Acrobat Distiller® still runs in Classic mode)."
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, but you get me wrong, dude. (and, you're preaching to the choir I might add.) I wasn't refering to Finder Classic's ability to display several thousand files at a go, it's more than up to that; I meant that, considering the very heavily nested nature of your typical iTunes/iPhoto folder structures - which is something that will become increasingly more common under OS X - using Classic Finder would be really cumbersome in these situations. You're gotta pick between a pile of windows (and I mean a pile of windows), or one gigantically long List View, all tree'd-out to hell and back.
Column View is made to address this very thing. I love Classic Finder as much as anyone but it was not ever designed with the sheer numbers of files in a UNIX. At a quick count I just did (system disks only) , my OS 9 partition weighs in at around 4000 files. OS X is somewhere over 30,000. Kind of a lame example but you see what I mean hopefully.
My impression is that, when Mr. Siracusa speaks of spatial orientation, many times he is actually referring to basic consistency.
First points: labels and pop-up windows are a bit of a moot point, as they are coming in Panther. (Yes, I've seen builds.) So don't sweat it.
Spatial qualities are useful; however they are just that, qualities. The original Finder was very much in the vein the author describes; a window was a folder which contained icons that were your files. The current iteration of OS X, I might point out, pretty much sticks to this as long as you have the toolbar collapsed (that underused widget in the right side of the toolbar). Collapsing this toolbar will give you something very very similar to what we had before. Furthermore OS X takes it even futher with the use of packages - I'm surprised he didn't mention this - which allows whole applications to keep their guts in one place. Therefore the icon is the application now, as well. I could see Apple taking this further: imagine being able to install a Photoshop plug-in by just dragging it onto the single Photoshop icon.
Now, as far as spatially oriented interfaces being insufficient for the task of managing many thousands of files... there is something to that. The old Finder would have absolutely choked on certain computing situations common now (giant nested MP3/photo folders, for instance). It just doesn't scale to that many files cleanly.
Having said that, it shouldn't have to. A user generally has far fewer abstractions they are mentally adhering to than what is presented in your interface. I think this is where half-baked implementations like favourites really fall down. Favourites is a great idea. When you save something, or move something, you are generally thinking about the project you are working on. Odds are you have one master folder for this project, with several sub-folders divided the way you like. The data contained within these folders takes various forms (text, code, media). Depending on what kind of work you are doing, one 'view' that is entirely appropriate for say, code, is not appropriate for graphics previewing. You want to work in the view that is appropriate, and have it 'stick'. You don't want to drill through 'My Computer -> My Documents -> My Whatever' to get to it, if possible. This mixing of standard OS bits and pieces with your actual 'work' files is what causes people to lose their work in some loopy abstraction. While the idea of just having a filename field and a pull-down for a Save dialog is great, people just don't take the time to define Favourites as they are quite used to simply creating folders when they need them, and then navigating each time to that folder. OS X could do a better job by remembering which folder you last saved to, no matter what. I hate it when Flash constantly thinks I want to save Flash projects in the Flash application directory. If you could tell the OS, when you create a folder, that is is a project folder, and have it automatically add it to your Favourites (I like 'Projects', can you tell?), that would be spiffy.
So Mr. Siracuse's idea of Finder plug-ins is sound. I might just add that you only really need one plug-in, QuickTime, which can handle damn near anything you throw at it. What QuickTime can't catch, Quartz sure can (i.e. previews of PDFs and other vector artwork). The idea that the Finder should be an end-all to every kind of work is somewhat mad. The author's ideas about metadata are great, and I also think Apple is working on this (that Be guy they hired). I'm not sure about abstracting the Finder to a true 'browser' even more, I can't make up my mind on that. What I don't want to see is a schizo metaphor like Windows, where you have two distinct ways of browsing and no preference given to either (i.e. re
I hope this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, as distant as it seems. Great joke, but I actually think this would be a fantastic setting for a GTA game.
When you say,
Processing an icon takes another level of brain processing, another level of indirection
In heavily left-brained individuals, the icons can actually begin to lose their meaning due to reliance on the converse side of the brain. It works both ways, too; a heavily right-brained person will have much more trouble manipulating something like a pull-down menu than, say, the OS X Dock.
It's actually not very common either, to have a prevalence of one-sidedness (literal) to your brain that would work to impede the ability to derive meaning from both glyphs and word-shapes.
Having said that, icons are a well-proven visual tool that work extremely well most of the time, given proper usage, and there's bucketloads of information backing this up right through pre-history to your first carbon cave-scratchings.
It is possible that you don't see them this way. And, on another note, did you really think that all those little pictures in every single end-user operating system were just spurious fluff?
Man, I am glad someone else noticed this? I thought I was losing my mind.
I've used PS for enough years that I've gotten quite good at bulls-eyeing individual pixels for selection without having to zoom. When I use a PC, I cannot for the life of me get the mouse to not jump 2-pixel increments on small movements, no matter what. I've fiddled with the control panel to no end. It's a nice Logitech optical mouse, too.
Not really the same thing. Apple apps are uninstallable by dragging a single icon to the trash, and they do not insist on being the 'default' for anything. Apple does not insist that removing their software will 'break' the OS. Safari is a good example of this.
Sony is a monopoly on Sony products too (damn their memory sticks!). Saying Apple has a monopoly on Apple products is kind of nonsensical.
Well, as I understand it, it went something like this:
Adobe had a great team of programmers working on Premiere once upon a time. They created Premiere 4 which was a staple of low-cost video editing (and where many of us got our start). It was a quirky program but very flexible and people liked it.
This team had a radical new idea for the next version of Premiere, but for whatever reason it didn't work out with Adobe. That team, possibly in its entirety, left Adobe, as a purchase by Macromedia.
Macromedia continued to work on what was now known as Final Cut and Adobe hired a new team which have birth to the abortion (my opinion) that was Premiere 5.
Apple then cut some sort of deal with Macromedia (possibly when Avid were being dicks) and picked up Final Cut.
Rest is history. You could see how Adobe is sore. They would never have given Apple the Final Cut project but somehow it ended up being 'laundered' through Macromedia.
If anyone has any corrections to this feel free to reply.
Isn't there some version of Godwin's Law that states when someone claims 'Apple is dead' the thread comes to a complete halt?
Seriously. The Mac x86 argument has been flogged, flayed, stepped on, dismembered, burned, and then danced upon. Apple would be slitting its own throat. It'll never happen.
We all know the G4s are lagging, that is old news. We know. Everyone knows. Wait for the G5. It's very close now (3-4 months away). Then let's talk. I don't know if the PPC 970 chip will beat whatever Intel has in July but I bet it'll be a lot closer.
Incidentally, I'm surprised no one else had the same reaction I did... there's nothing stopping you from having your cake and eating it too. Doing video work myself, I prefer the Mac interface. I do my editing and compositing (project mode) on the Mac, and then send it to a cluster of headless PCs for network rendering. Cheap PC hardware is a bonus.
The Mac OS and interface is the best.
The Intel/AMD CPU speed is the best.
Media work that relies on rendering is time-sensitive (and therefore money sensitive) so I hear the plight of the Mac people who want to speed things up. For video work, a day's worth of billables will buy you at least 1 stripped-but-fast PC easily. I just use them as 'spare brains' and continue with my Mac. After Effects has great network rendering, so does LightWave, etc.
Uh.... no?
Or maybe you could clarify which 'superior' parts you are referring to? I'm not trolling, I really want to know. Not sure about Win32 but I don't see DirectX speeding up CPU-bound Photoshop calculations.
I think it's just the processor and bus speed.
Please stop pissing us off. You've created products to compete with us in photo management. You've added nonlicensed PDF capabilities to your new OS (which we had to update for OS X!) and you've utterly stolen the video editing market from us - which was quite profitable, despite the absolutely abysmal Premiere.
We will continue to promote PCs as the better machine on our website, despite the fact that we ship for both platforms, because you've stepped on our toes. We recommend you go back to making machines and stop with the polished, useful, FREE software.
Thanks,
Adobe
Soooo... cops are less inclinded to 'bust' people when there's no money in it for them?
Wicked.
*spark spark*
puuuuffffffffff
*cough* I love cops... *cough*
This made me laugh.
Dude, you preface your statement with a literal 'I'm about to talk out of my ass', and then of course you do so.
Apple is a failed monopoly
Every company but Microsoft is a failed monopoly. What is your point? Or, are monopolies good on Saturdays? I forget.
Your mightily aged Mac trolls are telling, too. Listen, you don't like it, that's fine. But you don't even know what the hell you're talking about by your own admission. So, seriously, why are you posting? You're nothing but noise in here. Karma-to-burn norwithstanding.
Blah blah blah, you love your PCs. Wonderful. Run along now.
What on earth do you mean? My iPod looks like every other digital clock, complete with arabic numerals...?
It's actually surprisingly tricky to do this because of the way MP3 files are structures. Having said that, for DJ mixed albums I just rip the whole thing as one file: use the Join CD Tracks command in iTunes, under the Advanced menu.
Or what about showing the "All Songs" list for an Artist in alphabetical order (it could be an option, but I consider the current behavior a bug). I have 230 Zappa tracks on my pod right now and finding a particular one in the list is quite difficult.
Huh. Mine does what you say. Browse -> Artist -> All gives you an alphabetical listing of all songs by that artist.
Anyone want ogg support?
I'm sure some do. I'd much rather have AAC support though. Don't see Ogg happening anytime soon.
Ah yes. Cameroon and Eritrea have provided some amazing logistical support, I'm sure. I love the spin. "Now with 30% more countries!"
Get your own 'facts' stright: It's the US, UK, Spain, and Portugal. Portugal has no troops, nor do ANY of the other signatories on that list - which is just that, a list, nothing more than PR.
The real reason is threefold, at least. One) Hussein will use the weapons he is undoubtedly building against Israel soon enough. That is a doomsday scenario you dont want to see. Two) He (hussein) has been thumbing his nose at us for 12 years, ignoring our sanctions, and recently, openly mouthing off.
So you profess to know the mind of Saddam? Has he been biding his time all these years? In case you hadn't noticed, he didn't attack the US; in fact, he's done fuck-all, other than try to rebuild his water supply in the last 12. Of course everyone knows he's a bastard - no one will argue otherwise - but there is NO PROOF. NONE. If there is, the CIA and FBI would like it, because they are still asking for it.
Besides, even if that were true, you cannot invade another nation because they will 'probably' attack. You just can't, and maintain any sort of moral high ground at all. Tell me, when North Korea invades the South for suspected terrorist weapons, what will we say?
If we leave the US as a huge target that never retaliates, there is _nothing_ stopping every islamic crackpot in the world from taking a shot at us
News flash: there's nothing stopping them NOW. Iraq likely has no real WMD (being that the only real WMD are nuclear), but Terrorists worldwide can shop elsewhere.
Invading Iraq means no one is safer today than they were yesterday. I know you think there's irrefutable proof. I don't. And millions are not convinced.
people should keep their opinions to themselves
Fuck that. This is never true. It's the very thing America fights for. That's the Freedom that we like to spout off about.
So no, I won't keep my bloody opinion to myself, thank you. And I consider myself all the more patriotic for it.
A Patriot is someone who loves their country, and works to help better it.
A Patriot is not silent on government corruption, illegal wars, or anything else that they think hurts the long-term health of the country.
A Patriot does criticize. They criticize at times of extreme political unrest. They ask questions when questions need to be asked.
And yes, a Patriot will perform acts of civil disobedience, when extreme situations warrent it.
A Patriot does not, under any circumstances, cowtow to the party line and 'fall in' as to not 'cause ripples'. A Patriot stands up and shouts to the fucking ceiling, 'something is wrong', when they feel something is wrong.
(And you know what's really funny? I'm Canadian. You know, one of those countries that's not 'the greatest nation in the whole world'. Whattajoke that phrase is. The hubris knows no bounds.)
4 principal nations agree with 'us' (including the US), and the remainder agreed to put their names on a list. Or do you think Cameroon and Eritrea are offering any sort of logitical support?
And, why do you think waiting won't help? I'm of the opinion that Saddam was under a microscope, and the inspectors were very close to deciding that there was very little, if anything else, to be found. Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis. JFK trotted out nice high-res photos of the threat, and stated the thread. And the international community (such as it was) went along, because the threat was clear, and documented. Colin Powell certainly didn't help his case by falsifying nuclear arms details from a university term paper (and the fact that no one got fired over that is a major embarrasment). Had the inspectors finished and not found anything, that could have been even more embarrasing for the embattled US envoys.
I don't have any intelligence information, obviously. I'm not privy to any of that, and an cognizant of that fact. I am aware that the Inspectors repeatedly asked for this intelligence, the whereabouts of these WMDs, and was rebuffed. As was the CIA and the FBI, who are still asking for that information to this day. People are resigning over this left and right. This is public knowledge, and can be corroborated by the resignation speeches those people have released.
I can resort to 'a lot of Americans' as it's not a generalization, it's what I can witness. You do sound cocky when you simply decree your opinion of matters to be 'the truth'. But you seem like a reasonable person so I apologize.
If you're interested in learning where I formulate my opinion, read this.
(+1, Too Insightful For Many Americans To Handle)
Sorry folks, I know you hate to hear it, but the truth speaks for itself.
That's great. Your 'truth' is obviously impervious to facts.
Kosovo had the backing of the UN, and the EU, and every single member of the security council. Including France and Germany.
The reason people have a problem, amazing that you haven't deduced this yet, is that the US is acting without any agreement in the international community. The US is jumping the gun on inspections that should hae been finished. In short, the US is acting on its own accord, citing incredibly shaky terrorist evidence.
But of course, I won't convince you. That's the amazing thing about a lot of Americans; their rights don't need defending. They are automatically self-censoring.
You thank God for that? Really?
I do a lot of graphic work, and I have to agree: the CRT is just more reliable. I have an iBook I preview stuff on to see what a design looks like on LCD (a lot of light-coloured stuff on white will literally dissapear on LCD), but I always work on the CRT (nice 17" Trinitron flatscreen, mind you).
About the games, though... I've played Wolfenstein and other fast-moving things on an iMac and I didn't see what the big deal was for those. It looked great to me.
Just saying 'Moore is obviously an idiot' doesn't cut it. Your opinion, sure, that's fine. You gotta back it up. Moore exagerrates a lot of things, but his core facts are sound. Stupid White Men is full of verifiable facts, I've checked them myself (often because they were too incredible to believe).
That's just beautiful. Mod him up, someone. *sniff*
Check this.
"Using Adobe Acrobat 5.0.5 and Acrobat Reader 5.0.5 and Mac OS X v.10.2
Adobe Acrobat 5.0.5 and Acrobat Reader 5.0.5 offer native mode support for Mac OS X v.10.04, 10.1, and 10.2 (Acrobat Distiller® still runs in Classic mode)."