I honestly bought a Mac to do many things, including but not limited to gaming. I wanted and needed a computer, and a) I'm flat-out not getting a Windows machine because of my feelings towards Microsoft, and b) I wanted something easy and fun to use; for me, the best answer to those two conditions was a Mac. As long as I have it, I'll use it for games along with other things.
I play on a Mac, and after the original Half-Life debacle on our platform I think many Mac gamers are so resentful of Valve they'll probably refuse to touch the sequel even if it's ported and it's a great game.
Of course, not everyone would behave this way, but still, Half-Life is a very sore subject for Mac gamers. That said, if it showed us anything, it turned out it's indeed true one can have a satisfying gaming experience on the platform without having a specific "A-list" title, and I'm sure that's true for Linux as it is on the Mac, even if there are fewer Linux games than Mac ones. Certainly my own biggest problem isn't too small a selection of games, but too little time to play the ones I have and too little money to get the rest of the ones I want, smaller though the Mac selection may be. Even with more money and time, though, I wouldn't do Windows for games. One has to have principles.;)
Yes, of course - we might as well irk both the RIAA and the MPAA at the same time, for efficiency's sake...;)
Just for comparison's sake...
on
Genome Surprise
·
· Score: 1
... how many MB does a full install of a recent version of Office use, anyway?;)
Kidding aside, a lot of the purported "implications" of the finding aren't exactly new. From the article:
The low number of genes discovered raises intriguing issues. One is that there is no genetic basis for race. All humans share 99.99 per cent of their genetic information and there is more variation within racial groups than between them.
That's nothing new, though - scientists have known a long time there's no scientific basis for the concept of "race" as applied to humans. It's a cultural construct.
Shape and size (height and weight changed slightly, I think this was due to CRT changes)
The case design retained the same basic look, but was actually changed fairly significantly in 1999 when they introduced the DV models. The original iMacs had an FCC-mandated metal RF shield surrounding most of the components and visible through the translucent case, obscuring the view of most of the actual functioning stuff; the surface of the plastic case was molded with a slight texture that somewhat artfully obscured the view of the shield/interior, allowing a "hint" of a glimpse of it. In late 1999, when Apple introduced the DV models, they introduced a new case design (codenamed "Kihei") that incorporated the RF shielding in the plastic, eliminating the need for the metal shield (and hence making the interior more interesting to look at). They slightly resculpted the entire case to be slightly shorter (taking up a tiny bit less space) and eliminated the texturing, making it easier to see through to the actual components inside; this also facilitated the convection cooling you mention. The new case also got rid of the door that covered the ports on the side of the old case, exposing the ports in a recess on the side, and also replaced the tray-loading optical drive with a car-style slot-loading one.
I agree with most of your post, except (ironically) for the part where you specifically say what you think/.'ers might agree with:
I don't think there are many./'ers who don't agree that market forces are how we weed out what is really good and what really stinks.
I think most/.'ers would agree market forces haven't been much good at weeding out what stinks from what what's good when it comes to OSes, actually, among other things (or is Windows really soooo much "better" than Linux, Mac OS, Be, etc.?).
I was amazed at the same thing. Of course, if one thinks about it, it's possible he may be more insightful than anyone realizes...
As Slashdotters have been saying for a while now, technological advancements like MP3, etc. will eventually force the music labels to change their business models, no matter how hard they kick and scream. They may win concessions that will piss off people like those here, but at some point they simply will not be able to sell nearly as many CDs at the same high prices they've been pushing, no matter what. Now, here are Sony and Philips, who not only sell creative works, but also sell the hardware needed to play the media. While their music publishing arms might suffer, the overall conglomerates still stand to stay in business even if music sales plummet to zero, since they'll still sell the hardware needed to play it. Suppose they decide to just write off the already-dwindling gravy train from publishing, and instead go all out on the hardware, seeing it as where the real money either already lies or eventually will?
Of course, somebody will figure out a way to make money from the music itself (even if it can no longer generate the kinds of revenues it has in the past). Even so, tech changes should ultimately transform the business; tech changes have always signalled changes in business models, and while some will die, others will arise. I just hope the music publishers don't gunk things up too much with the legislation they'll undoubtedly buy in their death throes as they try to stave it off.
Bah. Even the trees were a bad move; we should never have left the oceans.;)
I didn't know this was new...
on
Ozone As Pesticide
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Several years ago I was a laborer at the NCO Club at Eglin AFB, Florida, and we once brought in some ozone generators specifically for pest control. I don't know how common the practice is, but it's definitely been done before.
Is the discovery that it can be used directly around foodstuffs what makes it news? I didn't even know that was a big deal, but now that I think about it, I don't recall us using those generators in the kitchen.
MacAddict and others are reporting that the press release has been removed from IBM's site; clicking the link to it in this story now takes one to a listing of IBM's German press releases. The pr on the 2.5 GHz 970 seems to have been completely removed. Might the announcement have been premature?
I'm not sure I agree with your first paragraph, but I'm definitely in complete agreement with the rest of your post. As it happens, I'm in the market for a printer, and I was exploring various models and options. It's a tough decision; I'm almost grateful to Lexmark for making the decision process easier. Whatever printer I get now, it won't be a Lexmark.
I'd argue Mystery Science Theater 3000 was good even then. Actually, one of my best buddies and I, with whom I watched the show, both had expectations it would go downhill with the departure of Trace Beaulieu, but were we ever gloriously wrong. Somehow, all the changes made during the eighth season (the first Sci-Fi season) - the switch from Dr. F to Pearl, "Brain Guy," and Bobo, continuing storylines in the host segments, the SoL and the Widowmaker running around the universe rather than being tied to Earth, etc. - really freshened the show, even while the focus remained on riotous derisive remarks directed at bad movies. It was as if the show got a rejuvenatiing shot in the arm; so many of the eighth season shows had us laughing absolutely hysterically.
My perception of MST3K is that the show was always generally good, but in particular had two "glory periods" (whereas most shows have just one, if that): the first one being the two- or three-year period surrounding the transition from Joel to Mike (seasons four through six), and season eight, perhaps peaking in season five and the early part of six, and the second one being season eight. After season eight, it seemed to us it fell back a bit, but its star was still bright throughout the remaining two seasons, and it remained great. In fact, the weakest point in the show's run appears to me to be the first season, when the writers/cast were still feeling their way through this show that was so different from most TV, and even that first season was entertaining at the time; it's only now, after seeing how much more fully the show lived up to the potential of the premise in later seasons and getting used to that level of keen writing, that the first season seems so rough.
Mac users tend to hold on to their computers longer because replacing them is such an expensive proposition. If I was looking at a huge investment to replace my PC, then I guess I would replace it less often, too.
Actually, Mac users tend to hold on to their computers for reasons having nothing to do with the expense of upgrading; a lot of Mac users become attached their machines, and don't want to give them up even after they get newer, faster ones. Some of them even collect computers; can you imagine looking for older, slower PCs after you already have a perfectly good, reasonably new one? It happens all the time in the Mac world. I have a number of friends who hoard Macs; one of them has accumulated a slew of ancient "toaster"-style Macs *since* getting a G4 two years ago. Altogether, I think she has something like 15 Macs; she also has a couple PCs which she needs for work, but doesn't care about them nearly as much. Multiple other friends of mine have scads of Macs - more than they could ever possibly have any true need for - and continue to acquire more. I myself have three Macs (when I presently have any use for just one), and I'd have more if I weren't an impoverished grad student in a tiny studio apartment. I've seen this pattern over and over again, both with people I known for years, people I know *of*, random strangers I've met, etc. A couple years ago, I surveyed a small group of randomly-selected students about their computers for a class I was taking, and all but one were PC users (most running various versions of Windows, but one used BSD); the sole Mac person I interviewed had five Macs, while none of the PC users had more than three computers, and most had only one.
No, I'm not saying *all* (or even most) Mac people exhibit this kind of hoarding behavior (I'm sure the majority don't), but it does clearly illustrate there's a lot more to the tendency of many Mac people to keep their machines longer than PC people do than simply the inability to afford newer computers.
If that were a concern, the constant stream of radio, TV and other telecommunications signals we've been pumping into space for most of the 20th century would be a far bigger problem. There's effectively a big sphere of signals expanding around Earth in all directions at the speed of light, and anyone in space who chanced to stumble across any of our physical probes like Pioneer 10 would most likely have already detected us long, long before. Earth really calls a lot of attention to itself with its broadcasts, and our signals just get stronger and more blanketing as time goes by. Not only that, but even if we stopped all broadcasts tomorrow, there'd still be all our old signals moving out through space, and anyone out there with the wherewithal to detect them would be have several of our earth decades of opportunity in which to do so.
Moreover, many think it's profoundly unlikely any alien races would be interested in conquering us. Even assuming others out there are hostile, the effort and expenditure of resources to get from there to here would probably mean the payoff for attacking us wouldn't be worth the trip.
It's also been argued that any extraterrestrial civilizations capable of detecting us will almost certainly be much older and more advanced (the thinking being that on the cosmic timescale, we're just starting off, and any civilization even a little younger than ours wouldn't have the tech to detect us, and the odds are high against another civ reaching this stage of development against the exact same time we do, so if they can hear us they've probably been around a while), and that (presumably, anyway) anyone so advanced wouldn't be warlike, so we'd probably have a lot more to gain than to lose from others finding out about us. I'm certainly no expert, but this does strike me as a fairly reasonable line of thought.
I've sure as heck never seen a Linux-specific game on a shelf at Best Buy or some other place like that.
I do realize it's an aberration, but FWIW I saw the Linux versions of both Quake III Arena and Myth II: Soulblighter at a Babbage's in Gainesville, Florida.
I'm in agreement that lots of DVDs offer much more entertainment value for one's dollars than most CDs, but what does the MPAA have to do with creating the DVD?
Hero who sings a classic 1958 song on stage ("Since I Don't Have You," "Johnny B. Goode") but doesn't finish it.
Friend of hero (*SPOILER*) seemingly killed partway through film remains alive and well at conclusion (Rawhide resurrected for dam site parade in end credits, Doc Brown wears bulletproof vest to thwart terrorists:)
Slashdot Mirror
I honestly bought a Mac to do many things, including but not limited to gaming. I wanted and needed a computer, and a) I'm flat-out not getting a Windows machine because of my feelings towards Microsoft, and b) I wanted something easy and fun to use; for me, the best answer to those two conditions was a Mac. As long as I have it, I'll use it for games along with other things.
Of course, not everyone would behave this way, but still, Half-Life is a very sore subject for Mac gamers. That said, if it showed us anything, it turned out it's indeed true one can have a satisfying gaming experience on the platform without having a specific "A-list" title, and I'm sure that's true for Linux as it is on the Mac, even if there are fewer Linux games than Mac ones. Certainly my own biggest problem isn't too small a selection of games, but too little time to play the ones I have and too little money to get the rest of the ones I want, smaller though the Mac selection may be. Even with more money and time, though, I wouldn't do Windows for games. One has to have principles. ;)
;)
Yes, of course - we might as well irk both the RIAA and the MPAA at the same time, for efficiency's sake... ;)
Kidding aside, a lot of the purported "implications" of the finding aren't exactly new. From the article:
That's nothing new, though - scientists have known a long time there's no scientific basis for the concept of "race" as applied to humans. It's a cultural construct.
;)
;)
The case design retained the same basic look, but was actually changed fairly significantly in 1999 when they introduced the DV models. The original iMacs had an FCC-mandated metal RF shield surrounding most of the components and visible through the translucent case, obscuring the view of most of the actual functioning stuff; the surface of the plastic case was molded with a slight texture that somewhat artfully obscured the view of the shield/interior, allowing a "hint" of a glimpse of it. In late 1999, when Apple introduced the DV models, they introduced a new case design (codenamed "Kihei") that incorporated the RF shielding in the plastic, eliminating the need for the metal shield (and hence making the interior more interesting to look at). They slightly resculpted the entire case to be slightly shorter (taking up a tiny bit less space) and eliminated the texturing, making it easier to see through to the actual components inside; this also facilitated the convection cooling you mention. The new case also got rid of the door that covered the ports on the side of the old case, exposing the ports in a recess on the side, and also replaced the tray-loading optical drive with a car-style slot-loading one.
I think most /.'ers would agree market forces haven't been much good at weeding out what stinks from what what's good when it comes to OSes, actually, among other things (or is Windows really soooo much "better" than Linux, Mac OS, Be, etc.?).
As Slashdotters have been saying for a while now, technological advancements like MP3, etc. will eventually force the music labels to change their business models, no matter how hard they kick and scream. They may win concessions that will piss off people like those here, but at some point they simply will not be able to sell nearly as many CDs at the same high prices they've been pushing, no matter what. Now, here are Sony and Philips, who not only sell creative works, but also sell the hardware needed to play the media. While their music publishing arms might suffer, the overall conglomerates still stand to stay in business even if music sales plummet to zero, since they'll still sell the hardware needed to play it. Suppose they decide to just write off the already-dwindling gravy train from publishing, and instead go all out on the hardware, seeing it as where the real money either already lies or eventually will?
Of course, somebody will figure out a way to make money from the music itself (even if it can no longer generate the kinds of revenues it has in the past). Even so, tech changes should ultimately transform the business; tech changes have always signalled changes in business models, and while some will die, others will arise. I just hope the music publishers don't gunk things up too much with the legislation they'll undoubtedly buy in their death throes as they try to stave it off.
No, I didn't - I thought for the Slashdot readership, I could just assume everyone would recognize the original source. ;)
Yeah, but still, if it's good enough for Chewbacca, Wicket, Prince Barin, and Cosmo Fishhawk, it's got to be good enough for us, right? ;)
Bah. Even the trees were a bad move; we should never have left the oceans. ;)
Is the discovery that it can be used directly around foodstuffs what makes it news? I didn't even know that was a big deal, but now that I think about it, I don't recall us using those generators in the kitchen.
"Twiki?" Was there ever a Battlestar Galactica character by that name, or are you thinking of Buck Rogers in the 25th Century?
MacAddict and others are reporting that the press release has been removed from IBM's site; clicking the link to it in this story now takes one to a listing of IBM's German press releases. The pr on the 2.5 GHz 970 seems to have been completely removed. Might the announcement have been premature?
I'm not sure I agree with your first paragraph, but I'm definitely in complete agreement with the rest of your post. As it happens, I'm in the market for a printer, and I was exploring various models and options. It's a tough decision; I'm almost grateful to Lexmark for making the decision process easier. Whatever printer I get now, it won't be a Lexmark.
My perception of MST3K is that the show was always generally good, but in particular had two "glory periods" (whereas most shows have just one, if that): the first one being the two- or three-year period surrounding the transition from Joel to Mike (seasons four through six), and season eight, perhaps peaking in season five and the early part of six, and the second one being season eight. After season eight, it seemed to us it fell back a bit, but its star was still bright throughout the remaining two seasons, and it remained great. In fact, the weakest point in the show's run appears to me to be the first season, when the writers/cast were still feeling their way through this show that was so different from most TV, and even that first season was entertaining at the time; it's only now, after seeing how much more fully the show lived up to the potential of the premise in later seasons and getting used to that level of keen writing, that the first season seems so rough.
Well, whenever anyone confirms the veracity of something M$ says, I think it counts as news... ;)
Actually, Mac users tend to hold on to their computers for reasons having nothing to do with the expense of upgrading; a lot of Mac users become attached their machines, and don't want to give them up even after they get newer, faster ones. Some of them even collect computers; can you imagine looking for older, slower PCs after you already have a perfectly good, reasonably new one? It happens all the time in the Mac world. I have a number of friends who hoard Macs; one of them has accumulated a slew of ancient "toaster"-style Macs *since* getting a G4 two years ago. Altogether, I think she has something like 15 Macs; she also has a couple PCs which she needs for work, but doesn't care about them nearly as much. Multiple other friends of mine have scads of Macs - more than they could ever possibly have any true need for - and continue to acquire more. I myself have three Macs (when I presently have any use for just one), and I'd have more if I weren't an impoverished grad student in a tiny studio apartment. I've seen this pattern over and over again, both with people I known for years, people I know *of*, random strangers I've met, etc. A couple years ago, I surveyed a small group of randomly-selected students about their computers for a class I was taking, and all but one were PC users (most running various versions of Windows, but one used BSD); the sole Mac person I interviewed had five Macs, while none of the PC users had more than three computers, and most had only one.
No, I'm not saying *all* (or even most) Mac people exhibit this kind of hoarding behavior (I'm sure the majority don't), but it does clearly illustrate there's a lot more to the tendency of many Mac people to keep their machines longer than PC people do than simply the inability to afford newer computers.
Moreover, many think it's profoundly unlikely any alien races would be interested in conquering us. Even assuming others out there are hostile, the effort and expenditure of resources to get from there to here would probably mean the payoff for attacking us wouldn't be worth the trip.
It's also been argued that any extraterrestrial civilizations capable of detecting us will almost certainly be much older and more advanced (the thinking being that on the cosmic timescale, we're just starting off, and any civilization even a little younger than ours wouldn't have the tech to detect us, and the odds are high against another civ reaching this stage of development against the exact same time we do, so if they can hear us they've probably been around a while), and that (presumably, anyway) anyone so advanced wouldn't be warlike, so we'd probably have a lot more to gain than to lose from others finding out about us. I'm certainly no expert, but this does strike me as a fairly reasonable line of thought.
I do realize it's an aberration, but FWIW I saw the Linux versions of both Quake III Arena and Myth II: Soulblighter at a Babbage's in Gainesville, Florida.
I'm in agreement that lots of DVDs offer much more entertainment value for one's dollars than most CDs, but what does the MPAA have to do with creating the DVD?
Co-producer Neil Canton.
Co-star Christopher Lloyd.
Hero who sings a classic 1958 song on stage ("Since I Don't Have You," "Johnny B. Goode") but doesn't finish it.
Friend of hero (*SPOILER*) seemingly killed partway through film remains alive and well at conclusion (Rawhide resurrected for dam site parade in end credits, Doc Brown wears bulletproof vest to thwart terrorists :)
... is it in fact known that she isn't a shape shifter? Or that shape shifters aren't otherwise in this one?