Oh, yeah, one I forgot: Garth Nix's Sabriel series. It's really, really good. Main characters are 2 teenage girls (well, one grows up, then the other one's the main character). High and deep fantasy.
Lackey, who wrote the Heralds of Valdemar series, is about as perfect as you can get for a teenage girl--for one thing, three of the first books, Arrows of the Queen, Arrow's Flight, and Arrow's Fall have a teenage girl as the main character. All of them are fun to read, and most of them are at least pretty good books. Light fantasy.
Bujold is the author of the Miles Vorkosigan series, which has something of everything, as well as the Chalion series and a few other books. They're also excellent. The former are usually termed "space opera" (I'd call them "light SF"), and the latter are rather deep fantasy.
From what I can tell from TFA, this is no more likely than Apple changing their fixed-rate pricing policy, which EMI was loudly claiming they were certain Apple would do, too. With no evidence.
Come on, people, EMI is just making noise and hoping it makes them more money.
(Kind of like many of the artists the labels promote these days...)
And Slashdot jumps in with a sensationalist headline proclaiming certitude,
(Just to reply to my own post for a second)
And now, fortunately, they've changed the headline to add a question mark...which is all it would have taken to begin with to make it clearer that this is nothing remotely like a done deal. I'm not usually too critical of the editors here, but even I have to roll my eyes at some of the silly things they manage to do...
From what TFA says, this is based on what one music industry exec thinks Steve Jobs might do. Now, if it was something the exec had heard that Jobs was going to do, that might be something.
This looks to me like nothing more than wishful thinking. And Slashdot jumps in with a sensationalist headline proclaiming certitude, never one to let a little thing like reality (or sanity) get in the way of a nice flamewar...
Yeah, maybe in the short term. But in the long term, when Apple folds due to lack of revenue, that's bad for the consumer, 'cause there won't be anything for there to be clones *of* anymore.
Why is it that some people seem to think that all OS names, when they have a qualifier of some kind attached to the generic term, need a slash to separate them? Just because GNU/Linux is written that way does not mean it's some kind of law, people...
It's Windows XP. That's WINDOWS {SPACE} XP. And Mac OS X. Spaces. No slashes.
It was also the simplest answer to the problem (don't tell me that "successive gradual beneficial developments being passed to offspring" is a more convoluted proposition than "positing the existence of an omnipotent, self-created being who can violate known laws of physics at will, create an entire universe and yet who still has a parochial interest in one tiny, unremarkable corner of it... and often displays suspiciously human motives and emotions").
Disclaimer: I'm on the side of Evolution all the way--I just like to poke holes in people's arguments;-)
Except you're forgetting one very important point: the existence of such a being does not have to be posited to those who support Creationism/ID--it is a first principle. What needs to be posited is that said being, rather than having the forethought to create sensible, self-sustaining systems to carry out the work of running the world and shaping it to his will, had to go in and do lots of shaping by hand.
See, you'll never, ever get anywhere arguing with a religious person by claiming that their God doesn't exist. You have to accept that that is a basic tenet of their logic, and work around it. It's still not hard to argue from a standpoint of reason.
As for me, I am able to accept that people are born homosexual and that there is nothing 'wrong with them'. I am also able to accept the fact that some people are born 'religious', and while self-defeating, there is nothing wrong with them either.
Actually, no; no one is "born religious." That is entirely the fault of their parents, who fill their heads with their own particular brand of brainwashing from birth.
Well, it's far from ideal, I admit, but this is the real world, and I'm much happier that the incumbents be somewhat favoured...than that the rich are highly favoured.
I will refer you to this comment on this same discussion, 'cause I think he voices at least as well as I could the reasons why paid political speech is very different than just plain political speech.
The church of England is more about tea and biscuits than about God
Erm...not so much.
C of E is another name for the Anglican Church--which, in America, is called the Episcopal Church. Not exactly tea and biscuits--but from all I've seen, one of the more inclusive religions in the world.
And yes, I say this as one who was raised in the American Episcopal Church, though one who no longer quite believes what it (or any other organized religion) teaches.
Given Sony's record with DVD playback on the PS2, it's a pretty safe bet that the DVD playback on the PS3 with be plagued with bugs. Despite multiple revisions, the PS2 still has trouble with simple things like layer transitions, chapter changes, and video/audio artifacts during playback. If Sony can't even fix those simple things - things that Chinese manufacturers with far smaller budgets and few skilled laborers can do - it's a safe bet that the PS3 is going to suck for movie playback.
Well, as a long-time owner of a PS2, which is my only non-laptop DVD player, I can confidently say that I don't know what the heck you're talking about.
I've never had any problem with the PS2's DVD-playing ability--and I'm very pleased with its ability to skip the stuff regular DVD players won't (like that pesky FBI warning).
It doesn't make sense (to me, at least, but I didn't grow up with Windows or KDE) to have the shell be able to accept a webpage URL just as easily as a local pathname. The Web is the Web, and webpages should be treated completely differently than directories or files on the local machine.
If you want to add support for browsing NFS, SMB, AFP, FTP, or any other kind of file shares through the shell, that at least makes some sense. But not browsing the web.
And saying that Internet Explorer is as much different from the Windows Explorer as Firefox is from its Acrobat plugin is quite disingenuous. The plugin is, well, a plugin, that you have to specifically install, and is clearly a separate piece from the application. IE tries its best to make the boundaries between your machine and the rest of the world disappear--particularly with the abomination that is Active Desktop.
The point, in the end, is that if you can remotely exploit the browser, and the browser is that tightly linked to the shell, you have a problem.
That's as may be, and you're right that I don't know the implementation details, but I would still say that making them the same program, so that you can type either a file system URL or an internet URL in the address bar, is not a good idea, even if only from a psychological perspective.
Err...the only one of those that has the web browser integrated with the file system browser is KDE, so that's the only one that I would consider "insecure and really, really dumb." I guess I worded myself slightly injudiciously, though...either of the two is only monopolistic if done by--guess what--a monopoly.
Um, no. Having the browser BUNDLED allows you to go online and download Firefox
I am pretty sure I said this, wait let's see "As I have said before, having the browser integrated allows me to go online and get hte browser that I want to use"....yea that's what I said... so why are you disagreeing with me?
Please read my post. Bundled != integrated. Then go back and read it again, and maybe you'll get it.
1) Isn't that bloatware? I mean, do I really want to jam four different browsers in my computer, make that five, we need to be fair to AOL...and hell there are more browsers, MS shouldn't discriminate - let's include Netscape and the rest.
No; bloatware is when a single program tries to do more than it should. It may, however, be redundant; that's not the point. Anyway, a) they can put all the browsers that will run on XP in there and it won't take up too much space, b) it's the default install, and you can remove all the ones you don't want; in fact, it would be trivial for them to give you that option when you select the one or two that you want to keep, c) see below.
2) Why should MS have to support their competitors? Does Symantec have to include a copy of CA ezTrust, or McAfee? Does Half-Life 2 have to include a copy of Everquest 2? No...that is silly, really it is.
Because they're a monopoly, and monopolies have to play by different rules.
Let me repeat that, 'cause you don't seem to be getting it: Microsoft is legally a monopoly, regardless of what you would like to believe, and they must therefore play by different rules.
Microsoft is the only single company in the world with that much power, and that's more power than any single entity of any type should be given. It doesn't matter what your definition of a monopoly is: by the US's, the EU's, and probably that of every other place in the world that has such a definition, they are a monopoly, and so are no longer allowed to be anticompetitive.
Oh, and you're either an idiot or an astroturfer. Either way, go away.
As I have said before, having the browser integrated allows me to go online and get hte browser that I want to use...and guess what, I don't have to worry about IE anymore - that is unless Mozilla distributers are including viruses in their version of firefox...oh wait.
Um, no. Having the browser BUNDLED allows you to go online and download Firefox. And Microsoft could just as easily include IE, Firefox, Mozilla, and Opera as co-equal browsers on the default install, and let you pick your favourite the first time you boot the system.
Do try and get your terminology straight, mate. There's a BIG difference between bundled and integrated--one's just somewhat monopolistic, the other is monopolistic, insecure, and really, really dumb.
Ah, but if you did that, you'd be accused of discriminating against practicing Christians--after all, they have to go to church on Sundays, and some might even view voting on Sunday as violating the prohibition against working on the Sabbath!
They're idiots, of course, particularly since the Sabbath (the seventh day, when God rested) is, I believe, Saturday...and they don't have to go to church *all* day...but that's what some people would say, I guarantee it.
If the attachment is a data attachment (text, document, spreadsheet, image, audio, video, whatever), the recipient clicks on it and it opens, using the appropriate viewing app (an app which, of course, was already installed on the machine and is presumably trusted.) But if the attachment is an executable, when the recipient clicks on it either nothing happens, or a dialog offers to save it to disk, but the point is that it is dignificantly difficult (if not impossible) to just go and run that attachment.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, yeah, one I forgot: Garth Nix's Sabriel series. It's really, really good. Main characters are 2 teenage girls (well, one grows up, then the other one's the main character). High and deep fantasy.
Dan Aris
Lackey, who wrote the Heralds of Valdemar series, is about as perfect as you can get for a teenage girl--for one thing, three of the first books, Arrows of the Queen, Arrow's Flight, and Arrow's Fall have a teenage girl as the main character. All of them are fun to read, and most of them are at least pretty good books. Light fantasy.
Bujold is the author of the Miles Vorkosigan series, which has something of everything, as well as the Chalion series and a few other books. They're also excellent. The former are usually termed "space opera" (I'd call them "light SF"), and the latter are rather deep fantasy.
Dan Aris
From what I can tell from TFA, this is no more likely than Apple changing their fixed-rate pricing policy, which EMI was loudly claiming they were certain Apple would do, too. With no evidence.
Come on, people, EMI is just making noise and hoping it makes them more money.
(Kind of like many of the artists the labels promote these days...)
Dan Aris
And Slashdot jumps in with a sensationalist headline proclaiming certitude,
(Just to reply to my own post for a second)
And now, fortunately, they've changed the headline to add a question mark...which is all it would have taken to begin with to make it clearer that this is nothing remotely like a done deal. I'm not usually too critical of the editors here, but even I have to roll my eyes at some of the silly things they manage to do...
Dan Aris
Yeah, but is anything really going to happen?
From what TFA says, this is based on what one music industry exec thinks Steve Jobs might do. Now, if it was something the exec had heard that Jobs was going to do, that might be something.
This looks to me like nothing more than wishful thinking. And Slashdot jumps in with a sensationalist headline proclaiming certitude, never one to let a little thing like reality (or sanity) get in the way of a nice flamewar...
Dan Aris
Yeah, maybe in the short term. But in the long term, when Apple folds due to lack of revenue, that's bad for the consumer, 'cause there won't be anything for there to be clones *of* anymore.
Dan Aris
Ah, that's possible, too.
It's still stupid...clinging to the last vestiges of a long-dead OS...
Dan Aris
Entirely OT, I know, but...
Why is it that some people seem to think that all OS names, when they have a qualifier of some kind attached to the generic term, need a slash to separate them? Just because GNU/Linux is written that way does not mean it's some kind of law, people...
It's Windows XP. That's WINDOWS {SPACE} XP. And Mac OS X. Spaces. No slashes.
...
I don't know why I even bother...
Dan Aris
Episcopalian, actually. I attended Sunday school for most of my childhood, though I doubt it was quite like a Catholic Sunday school...
Dan Aris
You are invited to his wedding banquet
Who's He marrying?
(Just one more of the bizarre analogies that crops up a lot in the Bible that really doesn't make much sense to me...)
Dan Aris
It was also the simplest answer to the problem (don't tell me that "successive gradual beneficial developments being passed to offspring" is a more convoluted proposition than "positing the existence of an omnipotent, self-created being who can violate known laws of physics at will, create an entire universe and yet who still has a parochial interest in one tiny, unremarkable corner of it... and often displays suspiciously human motives and emotions").
Disclaimer: I'm on the side of Evolution all the way--I just like to poke holes in people's arguments ;-)
Except you're forgetting one very important point: the existence of such a being does not have to be posited to those who support Creationism/ID--it is a first principle. What needs to be posited is that said being, rather than having the forethought to create sensible, self-sustaining systems to carry out the work of running the world and shaping it to his will, had to go in and do lots of shaping by hand.
See, you'll never, ever get anywhere arguing with a religious person by claiming that their God doesn't exist. You have to accept that that is a basic tenet of their logic, and work around it. It's still not hard to argue from a standpoint of reason.
Dan Aris
As for me, I am able to accept that people are born homosexual and that there is nothing 'wrong with them'. I am also able to accept the fact that some people are born 'religious', and while self-defeating, there is nothing wrong with them either.
Actually, no; no one is "born religious." That is entirely the fault of their parents, who fill their heads with their own particular brand of brainwashing from birth.
Dan Aris
Well, it's far from ideal, I admit, but this is the real world, and I'm much happier that the incumbents be somewhat favoured...than that the rich are highly favoured.
Dan Aris
I will refer you to this comment on this same discussion, 'cause I think he voices at least as well as I could the reasons why paid political speech is very different than just plain political speech.
Dan Aris
There's nothing in the freedom of speech clause that says its only free speech up to a certain artificially imposed spending limit.
And just where in the 1st Amendment does it say that money is equivalent to speech, and thus Constitutionally protected?
...
Yeah, thought not.
Dan Aris
The church of England is more about tea and biscuits than about God
Erm...not so much.
C of E is another name for the Anglican Church--which, in America, is called the Episcopal Church. Not exactly tea and biscuits--but from all I've seen, one of the more inclusive religions in the world.
And yes, I say this as one who was raised in the American Episcopal Church, though one who no longer quite believes what it (or any other organized religion) teaches.
Dan Aris
Given Sony's record with DVD playback on the PS2, it's a pretty safe bet that the DVD playback on the PS3 with be plagued with bugs. Despite multiple revisions, the PS2 still has trouble with simple things like layer transitions, chapter changes, and video/audio artifacts during playback. If Sony can't even fix those simple things - things that Chinese manufacturers with far smaller budgets and few skilled laborers can do - it's a safe bet that the PS3 is going to suck for movie playback.
Well, as a long-time owner of a PS2, which is my only non-laptop DVD player, I can confidently say that I don't know what the heck you're talking about.
I've never had any problem with the PS2's DVD-playing ability--and I'm very pleased with its ability to skip the stuff regular DVD players won't (like that pesky FBI warning).
Dan Aris
It doesn't make sense (to me, at least, but I didn't grow up with Windows or KDE) to have the shell be able to accept a webpage URL just as easily as a local pathname. The Web is the Web, and webpages should be treated completely differently than directories or files on the local machine.
If you want to add support for browsing NFS, SMB, AFP, FTP, or any other kind of file shares through the shell, that at least makes some sense. But not browsing the web.
And saying that Internet Explorer is as much different from the Windows Explorer as Firefox is from its Acrobat plugin is quite disingenuous. The plugin is, well, a plugin, that you have to specifically install, and is clearly a separate piece from the application. IE tries its best to make the boundaries between your machine and the rest of the world disappear--particularly with the abomination that is Active Desktop.
The point, in the end, is that if you can remotely exploit the browser, and the browser is that tightly linked to the shell, you have a problem.
Dan Aris
That's as may be, and you're right that I don't know the implementation details, but I would still say that making them the same program, so that you can type either a file system URL or an internet URL in the address bar, is not a good idea, even if only from a psychological perspective.
Dan Aris
Err...the only one of those that has the web browser integrated with the file system browser is KDE, so that's the only one that I would consider "insecure and really, really dumb." I guess I worded myself slightly injudiciously, though...either of the two is only monopolistic if done by--guess what--a monopoly.
Dan Aris
Please read my post. Bundled != integrated. Then go back and read it again, and maybe you'll get it.
No; bloatware is when a single program tries to do more than it should. It may, however, be redundant; that's not the point. Anyway, a) they can put all the browsers that will run on XP in there and it won't take up too much space, b) it's the default install, and you can remove all the ones you don't want; in fact, it would be trivial for them to give you that option when you select the one or two that you want to keep, c) see below.
Because they're a monopoly, and monopolies have to play by different rules.
Let me repeat that, 'cause you don't seem to be getting it: Microsoft is legally a monopoly, regardless of what you would like to believe, and they must therefore play by different rules.
Microsoft is the only single company in the world with that much power, and that's more power than any single entity of any type should be given. It doesn't matter what your definition of a monopoly is: by the US's, the EU's, and probably that of every other place in the world that has such a definition, they are a monopoly, and so are no longer allowed to be anticompetitive.
Oh, and you're either an idiot or an astroturfer. Either way, go away.
Dan Aris
Um, no. Having the browser BUNDLED allows you to go online and download Firefox. And Microsoft could just as easily include IE, Firefox, Mozilla, and Opera as co-equal browsers on the default install, and let you pick your favourite the first time you boot the system.
Do try and get your terminology straight, mate. There's a BIG difference between bundled and integrated--one's just somewhat monopolistic, the other is monopolistic, insecure, and really, really dumb.
Dan Aris
Ah, but if you did that, you'd be accused of discriminating against practicing Christians--after all, they have to go to church on Sundays, and some might even view voting on Sunday as violating the prohibition against working on the Sabbath!
They're idiots, of course, particularly since the Sabbath (the seventh day, when God rested) is, I believe, Saturday...and they don't have to go to church *all* day...but that's what some people would say, I guarantee it.
Dan Aris
Dude, learn to format...that might have been a nice post, but I can't read it.
Dan Aris
Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying ;-)
Dan Aris