The difference is that cable companies could have ads and keep subscribers because they provided something that terrestrial radio didn't have: their own shows.
Satellite radio plays music that's available in other places. The only incentive anyone would have to have satellite radio is if there are no commercials, or if there was unique content that was significantly better than what's available elsewhere.
I'm a happy Sirius subscriber, but if they ever start playing ads, all of the sudden there would be no big difference between their service and terrestrial radio, and there would be no reason to subscribe to their service anymore.
A total knockoff of Mac OSX graphics that will somehow not run on the current years' hardware, when OSX can run on freaking underpowered Apple computers from the last 5 years!
The current version of OS X runs fine on my old Mac tower from 1999, seven years ago.
Agreed. If competition wasn't prohibited by the government(s), then the price for increased speeds would be likely to fall.
By being the only game in town, the cable companies and the phone companies have been able to charge excessive amounts for a long time. While people say "those companies had to pay for the infrastructure," the fact that they were monopolies and were able to keep prices artificially high paid for a lot of that infrastructure.
If there's any doubt that the monopolies are making money hand over fist, then every six months when I call Comcast to cancel and move to Qwest, why does Comcast offer me service at half-price?
Is it because they're just barely scraping by with the $60/month they get from me for internet and television service I don't use?
If competition were allowed, then prices would have fallen significantly, and paying for the bandwidth you actually use would be a much fairer proposition for the customer. But the monopoly service providers want to both have monopoly prices and charge per bandwidth used.
I think he got that, but there are actually people who want Al Gore or Hillary Clinton to be President. I'd love if Al Gore became President, because I know he actually has some good ideas.
"For those who want to attack my view, let me save you the trouble of reading the entire book. On pages 325 and 326, I wrote:'It ought to be possible to establish a coordinated global program to accomplish the strategic goal of completely eliminating the internal combustion engine over, say, a twenty-five-year period.' It is possible; it needs to be done; it will create more jobs, not destroy jobs. I'm proud that I wrote those words in 1992, and I reaffirm them today."
People's freedom is important. But telecoms are not people, and regulating business is not the same as putting regulations on people.
These telecoms were granted monopolies by the government. Making sure that people only have one choice for phone service, cable service, et cetera is closer to a dictatorship than to "free market economy".
Letting those granted monopolies do things which wouldn't be possible if there really was competition, and then trying to claim that doing so agrees with the principals of the free market is just a load of crap.
Just because Macs can run Windows doesn't mean that Mac users will prefer to or even want to run Windows.
There's still just as much reason to develop those programs for OS X, and now, with marketshare bound to increase, some number of people will be switchers who try out OS X and don't want to go back to Windows, or don't want to even have Windows installed.
While the number of Mac + Windows users will probably be substantial, there will be a number of users who just don't like Windows, and that number will be going up from where it is now.
Re:Don't they know anything about SHARING?
on
On Apple vs Apple
·
· Score: 1
I'm going to assume you mean "company" or "corporation", not "computer".
Yes, mea culpa.
Also, from what I understand, there didn't just "happen to be" a record company name Apple, but rather the Steves chose the name as a homage to the Beatles.
I've heard that rumor, but Steve Jobs is also a vegan who said he named the company Apple because he spent time working at an apple orchard when he was younger. Steve Wozniak says that yes, Jobs spent time working at an Apple Orchard, so yes, I'd say there's a very strong probability that he named the company after the orchard and there just happened to be a record company named Apple Corps.
Re:Don't they know anything about SHARING?
on
On Apple vs Apple
·
· Score: 2, Informative
No they didn't.
Apple Computer paid Rob Janoff to create the Apple logo. There just happened to be a record company who had chosen to name their computer after a common fruit, who just happened to be founded eight years before(in 1968), and who doesn't seem to do anything anymore except sue Apple Computer.
When Apple Computer was founded in 1976, the two companies didn't do anything that would cause them to be confused, so after Apple Corps' 1978 lawsuit was settled in 1981, Apple Computer was allowed to use the trademark "Apple", as long as they didn't sell music media. As of now, they still don't.
No. Anyone with deep pockets can outspend and out-litigate someone who actually creates something.
Like most "intellectual property" ideas, instead of spurring innovation, patents prevent innovation and competition, and push money into the hands of the people who already have it.
Re:Vista Graphics could be an issue
on
Apple Joins BAPCo
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Because the customers might use the capability.
Even if a customer bought a Mac, uninstalled OS X and ran Windows on the Mac until it died, Apple still got a sale out of the deal.
And if being Windows-compatible attracts Windows users to buy a Mac and switch completely, that's even better.
-like the way most Americans write dates.
Most Americans write in this order: March 25, 2006
or: 03-25-2006
The second one is more specific, while the third is less specific.
It would make more sense to write 2006-03-26, so the numbers get more specific, or 26-03-2006, like other countries, so the numbers get less specific.
Not if you've got middle-click assigned to Exposé, which is common among Mac users. Also not if you don't have middle click, which is also common among Mac users.
I would prefer the close tab button to be on the right side of the tab, though. Tabs have relatively little space, and in that situation, I think the favicon is more important because it helps differentiate between tabs, so I think the favicon should stay on the left.
Both of those take less effort than middle-clicking, and double-clicking on a tab to close it is more consistent with opening a new tab by double-clicking on the tab bar.
What's the deal with the "x" button not exiting the application? What is making it different than "_" minimize in most cases? Why on earth is "x" different than file->exit? Thats one thing I can't get used to.
Since none of the other replies seem to address this completely, I'll go ahead.
OS X keeps apps running so that when you accidentally close the last window, you don't have to go looking for the icon or the menu to re-launch the application. Looking for that icon or menu takes more time than just hitting apple n. It also takes less time because you don't have to wait for the app to re-launch.
I don't know if you noticed, but for apps that only have a single window and don't open any other windows(like System Preferences), if you close the window, the application does quit.
Yeah. They use the cable company's investment right now to save themselves some money, and by the time that capacity has been saturated, they'll be able to finish the upgrade correctly for a fraction of what it would cost right now, and will have already have gotten the money from gouging the customers.
Here's a simpler test. Fill an ice cube tray to the top and put it in your freezer. Wait a few hours. Pull out the ice cube tray, and note whether the ice has greater volume compared to the water.
If they were less blatantly anti-consumer, and if they focused more on providing a product that consumers want, they might be able to compete.
But as for now, when people think of Sony, they think of a company that produces mediocre products and treats them like criminals. And that's not going to help the company move its merchandise.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft released IE 5 for OS 9 on March 27, 2000, and OS X betas shipped with IE 5.
.9.3 for OS X on August 4, 2001.
.7 on March 6, 2003.
.6 followed soon after on May 16, 2003.
The Omni Group, which had previously released Omniweb on OpenStep, had Omniweb 4 running on OS X's betas.
Mozilla released version
Opera released Opera 5.0b1 for OS X on August 31, 2001.
Apple released the first Safari beta on January 7, 2003.
Camino (then Chimera), which was meant to be a lighter version of Mozilla Phoenix, released version
Firefox (then Phoenix) first created an alpha for OS X on April 7, 2003. Firebird
Microsoft officially dropped Mac IE development on June 13, 2003. As of April 21, 2006, all of the other listed browsers are still being updated.
pornography?
The difference is that cable companies could have ads and keep subscribers because they provided something that terrestrial radio didn't have: their own shows.
Satellite radio plays music that's available in other places. The only incentive anyone would have to have satellite radio is if there are no commercials, or if there was unique content that was significantly better than what's available elsewhere.
I'm a happy Sirius subscriber, but if they ever start playing ads, all of the sudden there would be no big difference between their service and terrestrial radio, and there would be no reason to subscribe to their service anymore.
The current version of OS X runs fine on my old Mac tower from 1999, seven years ago.
By being the only game in town, the cable companies and the phone companies have been able to charge excessive amounts for a long time. While people say "those companies had to pay for the infrastructure," the fact that they were monopolies and were able to keep prices artificially high paid for a lot of that infrastructure.
If there's any doubt that the monopolies are making money hand over fist, then every six months when I call Comcast to cancel and move to Qwest, why does Comcast offer me service at half-price?
Is it because they're just barely scraping by with the $60/month they get from me for internet and television service I don't use?
If competition were allowed, then prices would have fallen significantly, and paying for the bandwidth you actually use would be a much fairer proposition for the customer. But the monopoly service providers want to both have monopoly prices and charge per bandwidth used.
If you got some more memory, maybe 1GB, that would probably make everything faster.
No, if you read the second link I posted, Omnigraffle Pro can open Visio documents and export to Visio format.
There's a Mac program called OmniGraffle, which is much more capable than Visio and which is also easier to use. There's also OmniGraffle Pro, which is generally more than is needed, but either way, there's no need for Mac users to get Visio.
Consider part of the foreword from Al Gore's book, Earth in the Balance:
On the other hand, who really voted for Kerry?These telecoms were granted monopolies by the government. Making sure that people only have one choice for phone service, cable service, et cetera is closer to a dictatorship than to "free market economy".
Letting those granted monopolies do things which wouldn't be possible if there really was competition, and then trying to claim that doing so agrees with the principals of the free market is just a load of crap.
There's still just as much reason to develop those programs for OS X, and now, with marketshare bound to increase, some number of people will be switchers who try out OS X and don't want to go back to Windows, or don't want to even have Windows installed.
While the number of Mac + Windows users will probably be substantial, there will be a number of users who just don't like Windows, and that number will be going up from where it is now.
Yes, mea culpa.
Also, from what I understand, there didn't just "happen to be" a record company name Apple, but rather the Steves chose the name as a homage to the Beatles.
I've heard that rumor, but Steve Jobs is also a vegan who said he named the company Apple because he spent time working at an apple orchard when he was younger. Steve Wozniak says that yes, Jobs spent time working at an Apple Orchard, so yes, I'd say there's a very strong probability that he named the company after the orchard and there just happened to be a record company named Apple Corps.
Apple Computer paid Rob Janoff to create the Apple logo. There just happened to be a record company who had chosen to name their computer after a common fruit, who just happened to be founded eight years before(in 1968), and who doesn't seem to do anything anymore except sue Apple Computer.
When Apple Computer was founded in 1976, the two companies didn't do anything that would cause them to be confused, so after Apple Corps' 1978 lawsuit was settled in 1981, Apple Computer was allowed to use the trademark "Apple", as long as they didn't sell music media. As of now, they still don't.
Apple Corps' website has been a placeholder page since at least 1999. If it weren't for the potential lawsuit that the idea of "Intellectual Property" gives them, I doubt that anyone would even remember "Apple Corps".
Comcast's usenet cap is 2GB per month per email address.
Like most "intellectual property" ideas, instead of spurring innovation, patents prevent innovation and competition, and push money into the hands of the people who already have it.
Because the customers might use the capability.
Even if a customer bought a Mac, uninstalled OS X and ran Windows on the Mac until it died, Apple still got a sale out of the deal.
And if being Windows-compatible attracts Windows users to buy a Mac and switch completely, that's even better.
-like the way most Americans write dates. Most Americans write in this order: March 25, 2006 or: 03-25-2006 The second one is more specific, while the third is less specific. It would make more sense to write 2006-03-26, so the numbers get more specific, or 26-03-2006, like other countries, so the numbers get less specific.
You can't remember FCKEditor? The name seems pretty memorable to me once you say it.
I would prefer the close tab button to be on the right side of the tab, though. Tabs have relatively little space, and in that situation, I think the favicon is more important because it helps differentiate between tabs, so I think the favicon should stay on the left.
As for closing tabs quickly, I would recommend using the Tab Clicking Options extension, which I have set to close tabs on double-click, and the All-in-one Gestures extension, which lets you close tabs by making an "L" gesture.
Both of those take less effort than middle-clicking, and double-clicking on a tab to close it is more consistent with opening a new tab by double-clicking on the tab bar.
Uh oh.
What's the deal with the "x" button not exiting the application? What is making it different than "_" minimize in most cases? Why on earth is "x" different than file->exit? Thats one thing I can't get used to.
Since none of the other replies seem to address this completely, I'll go ahead.
OS X keeps apps running so that when you accidentally close the last window, you don't have to go looking for the icon or the menu to re-launch the application. Looking for that icon or menu takes more time than just hitting apple n. It also takes less time because you don't have to wait for the app to re-launch.
I don't know if you noticed, but for apps that only have a single window and don't open any other windows(like System Preferences), if you close the window, the application does quit.
Yeah. They use the cable company's investment right now to save themselves some money, and by the time that capacity has been saturated, they'll be able to finish the upgrade correctly for a fraction of what it would cost right now, and will have already have gotten the money from gouging the customers.
Or maybe they had something else planned, and were not able to get it ready in time?
Here's a simpler test. Fill an ice cube tray to the top and put it in your freezer. Wait a few hours. Pull out the ice cube tray, and note whether the ice has greater volume compared to the water.
But as for now, when people think of Sony, they think of a company that produces mediocre products and treats them like criminals. And that's not going to help the company move its merchandise.