Note how the 17" MBP is smaller in every single dimension. In your comparison, you made a huge compromise, and that was on the laptop's size. You can argue whether that's worth $1200, but it probably isn't worth $0.
Par for the course on Slashdot, but basically the entire basis of his gripe is the glossy screen, hence the complaint about viewing angles.
Then there's this gem:
It's important to remember that, even though the late-2008 MacBook Pro 15 inch doesn't keep up in either colour accuracy or viewing angle with laptops from IBM/Lenovo, its display is still quite good and still falls on the right side of the line of acceptable display quality for field use by a working photographer, at least in ambient light that discourages reflections.
From earlier:
Sum it up, and what you have is a very good 15.4 inch (diagonal), 1440 x 900 pixel screen. Good, that is, for a laptop. Its characteristics are very similar to the MacBook Pro 15 inch we wrote about in July 2007, and others we've set up since. The display has some colour quirks that put it one or two steps below a good desktop display, and it's important to maintain a consistent, front-and-centre viewing angle, but as with the previous generation of this Apple laptop, display quality is absolutely acceptable and usable for image assessment and simple Photoshop edits in the field, as long as you're aware of the display's particular blend of strengths and weaknesses.
Basically, if you hate glossy screens, and it would appear these individuals do, the glossy can be a deal-breaker. Which anyone with half a brain could have told you without the trollish tone
FWIW, the 17-inch MBP comes with a matte-screen option. Time will tell if such an option trickles back down to the 15".
Really? Your only option to something you don't like is "pirate often?" How about not getting the game?
They don't owe you the game. You don't owe them your money. If you truly believed in voting with your dollars, free market etc., then you wouldn't even give them the satisfaction of a +1 piracy statistic.
Taking a very principled stand and then proceeding to just pirate the game because you want it that badly is just cowardice and selfishness. Remember, video games are not a need and you don't *have* to have it.
I don't know if anyone actually *made* women pay for rape kits, but the fact remains that the chief of police in Wasilla pushed heavily against it, and was the only town in Alaska to do so. There's no evidence that indicates Palin had any direct involvement in that discussion, but it's hard to believe that someone like the mayor of a town isn't completely aware of a high-profile stance like this by the police chief.
It's a beta browser guys... Should they really be *that* worried if interest drops off after the initial peak and very first release? Between FF, Safari, and dare I say it Opera, there's plenty of non-IE choices out there in the world to satisfy everyone.
Let Google do their thing, and if they're on the right track they'll pick up users as they inch closer to a non-beta status. Though this being Google...
Not sure about phones, but Apple offers you 10% off on the spot if you return an old and busted iPod to them. Nice bit of encouragement if you tilt towards getting a new player on the value proposition.
Thing reads like an ad for nvidia GPUs, which doesn't come across as a huge surprise when all the quotes are from an nvidia PR rep.
FWIW, as far as I can tell there's no reason why the Photoshop enhancements won't work on an SM3-capable AMD GPU like the X1000-series and up. Might even work on SM3 capable intel graphics, if such a beast exists.
McCain's income is missing his wife's, which should be fair game to include. All reasonable people would consider that "household" income anyway. Good job playing games with the percentages though.
Weâ(TM)ve been working for a while to fix some objections to both the presentation of a EULA and the content of the EULA in certain Linux distributions. The issue came to light because of a change in settings in the 3.0 builds, that turned on the EULA display at installation, similar to the Windows environment. This caused two big problems. One, it put a EULA in front of a set of end-users who are not accustomed to seeing such agreements. Second, the license grant itself was inconsistent with the values of many of the users in the Linux communities and our own. They viewed the EULA as improperly imposing restrictions on the use of Firefox. Red Hat and Fedora were staunch advocates for making a change, and helped us understand the problem and potential fixes.
Upon review, they were right. So over the past few months weâ(TM)ve redrafted the license agreement and changed the presentation requirements. This was a significant change for us from a licensing perspective, perhaps long overdue in the eyes of others. We believe the new terms address the objections we heard from both a substantive and presentation perspective. The plan was to post about it this week, so I guess that part is coming true, but not quite the setting Iâ(TM)d imagined.
The new agreement (shown below) isnâ(TM)t yet in the builds, but hereâ(TM)s what it does:
Makes the license grant parallel to the MPL; It has optional terms that govern services provided by Mozilla through the browser (e.g. anti-malware and anti-phishing services). A user may opt of the services and continue using the browser;
The license grant excludes trademark rights; and
The license doesnâ(TM)t require explicit click through.
It is essentially structured in two portions, one dealing with the code, and one dealing with the services. The first part describes the license applicable to the code itself. The second part contains terms that govern use of optional services. From a presentation perspective, weâ(TM)re of the view that itâ(TM)s good for users to easily be able to see the license terms associated with their software; however, this doesnâ(TM)t mean it has to be a poor user experience. We have adopted an approach that tries to conform to the way the distributor presents license info. In cases where there is only a first run page presented, weâ(TM)ve proposed language to inform the user that there is a license agreement, and they can click a link to view the terms. In other cases, like corporate builds where an IT administrator is already presented with EULA terms, weâ(TM)ve asked distributors to include the terms with the terms that are already presented.
Over the next few days, weâ(TM)ll review any comments, and re-evaluate the draft language in light of the feedback.
Ubuntu recently included a patch that causes an End User License Agreement for Firefox to appear. This has caused great concern on several topics. One is the content of the agreement. Another is the presentation. A third is whether thereâ(TM)s any reason for a license at all.
The most important thing here is to acknowledge that yes, the content of the license agreement is wrong. The correct content is clear that the code is governed by FLOSS licenses, not the typical end user license agreement language that is in the current version. We created a license that points to the FLOSS licenses, but weâ(TM)ve made a giant error in not getting this to Ubuntu, other distributors, and posted publicly for review. Weâ(TM)ll correct
Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
To be fair, Gecko bumped the version number for Mozilla to 5.0 when they released. It is Mozilla Gecko after all:)
For all that the Mozilla team isn't worried, they've got a long history of developers rejecting Gecko for other engines: first AOL rejected it in preference for IE (and then again on the Mac in preference for WebKit), then Apple (again for WebKit), and now Google (once again for WebKit). In the mobile space it isn't doing all that much better, with developers rejecting it in favor of Opera. In quite a few cases, including AOL and Google, we've even seen this rejection when the company previously had a history of active support for, and even paying developers to work on, the Gecko engine.
AOL is an interesting case. On the Windows side, I doubt AOL was ever really interested in using Gecko other than a bargaining chip against Microsoft to get preferential desktop placement in XP. I suppose if they were ever really interested in doing Gecko in AOL Win, they could have as it was pretty well known that they had internal builds running that way.
As for AOL Mac, I'd say the issue there is that development stagnated in general on their Mac client side. Seriously, the version of Gecko they had shipping for the longest while was something like 0.9.8, meaning pre-Mozilla 1.0 and pre-Firefox 1.0 by a long shot! Somewhere in between that version and their newer version, they fired all of their Netscape employees and shut that division down. At that point, it only makes sense to use Webkit because you don't have any resources capable of leveraging Gecko any more.
As for Google, that'll be an interesting question for the time being. It's worth noting that Android uses WebKit, so it could simply be a case of leveraging the work already done there to understand the platform. It's well known that Gecko needs to lose a lot of fat around the edges to make it from Desktop to Mobile platforms, so that's a good reasoning for that choice there.
It could simply be a case that Firefox is too much of a beast for third-parties to jump in and start hacking on the code. Remember that it was borne out of 1998-era Netscape code, and while they had to restart at least once in there, you're probably going to get some crud that makes it complicated.
You think they're getting a free pass? I've seen at least 5 articles touching on this in the past week, and several from here. Then you've got the few articles that make it to AP feeds and go from there.
I think your definition of free pass differs from reality. But hey, if you want it so, you can just claim so on slashdot and everyone believes you.
Well, now that this download record attempt is over, there's probably millions of places to get it from now. It looks like mozilla.com has returned to normal, and BitTorrent's a solid option:)
Oh, and good luck to the Firefox team trying to save the "E" logo from this year's cake! That thing is HUGE!
It's also worth noting that this whole story could be a ploy for a brand-new startup to get some infinitely useful data off of slashdotters, diggers, etc.
I'm not going to say anything about what the data means, but I am going to call into question the data itself. The site is based on two different types of surveys, employer ratings and salary numbers, and the site has different response results on both.
So how much does a Google software engineer really make? The average, based on ten submissions, is $97,840. And the range is between $80,000 and $150,000, with annual cash bonuses coming in anywhere from $20,000 to $45,000. Adding salary and bonus together, the Google engineers that have entered information on Glassdoor average $112,573 in take-home pay. (And then there are stock options on top of that). Yahoo and Microsoft engineers get about the same salaries, but smaller bonuses, leaving their take-home pay at an average of $105,642 and $105,375, respectively. Apple software engineers make only about $89,000, on average, but they get to create some of the most loved products on Earth.
I'm pretty sure with only 10 responses, this data is completely meaningless. However, now that people know about this site, maybe we'll see some more interesting results as more people report in.
These ratings are by no means scientific. They are based on 124 responses for Microsoft, 50 for Yahoo, and 37 for Google, all collected during the companyâ(TM)s private beta. The more honest responses the site collects from any given company, the more accurate the results will be.
Uh, totally not true. The iPhone has required a 2-year contract from day one with AT&T.
It just so happens that AT&T hasn't been quite as anal with first generation iPhone upgrades, probably due to the lack of subsidization. We'll see how that works going forward.
Everything you're asking for was at MacWorld. Official AIM client through app store. Someone somewhere is probably working on an Adium client through the app store.
No one ever said this was the desktop mail client. That was the MobileMe web app. I'll give you that spam filtering is good to have, but server-side has always been the "better" solution.
1st gen iphones will handle location just as they always have - a little location button in Maps with cell tower and wifi triangulation. You'll need the latest released iPhone firmware.
Uh, the iPhone most certainly was subsidized by a 2 year service contract, which is why on AT&T a 2-year contract is required. It may not have been fully subsidized up front, but it was subsidized in some way through the use of revenue sharing agreements with Apple and the carriers.
User-friendly means not inundating the AOL/myspace crowd with bugzilla links and technical jargon. User-friendly means presenting those users with the officially supported release versions instead of the developer targeted nightlies, alphas, betas, or RCs.
I don't think your perception of user-friendly means what you think it does. Perhaps what you're looking for is "developer-friendly" or "obsessive geek friendly," in which case you might be better off going to http://developer.mozilla.org
"unlike Safari, which misleadingly labeled the Safari install as an "update"(1) [but has] since correctly changed to an 'install.'".
Great, so the Apple update checking thingy now has two sections(2). One for actual updates, and one below that for -completely unrelated applications- to be peddled onto your machine. Still selected by default.
No longer labeling it as an 'update' is a good step, but it's not the major gripe with this practice in the first place.
1) http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee248/msanto/One-Offs%202008/AppleUpdateSafari.jpg
2) http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee248/msanto/One-Offs%202008/AppleUpdateSafari2.jpg
Please, please, please Mozilla... don't start peddling Thunderbird to Firefox users in the update checks; or if you do, make sure it's -not selected- by default. The second window isn't so bad.
Not to mention, comparing the two practices are more and less apples and oranges. What we're really comparing is how the browsers make themselves the default. Safari asks at startup if you would like it to be default, and never a moment sooner, which is exactly the same behavior as Firefox 2.0. Firefox 3 simply changes the behavior to during install, which is probably not a huge deal.
This is much worse than Steam though - Steam lets you go up to either 30 or 90 days (I forget which) before complaining, which is much better. The likelihood of not having internet for a whole month is low, but 10 days? A long vacation could easily encompass that.
I'd say RTFA, but the clarifying details were on the second page so I won't.:)
For clarity, though, an internet connection is not required to install, just to activate the first time, and every 10 days after. You can be completely connectionless for 9 days and encounter no problems playing Mass Effect. And you don't need the disk in the drive to play.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought it was meant to be funny. Shame to see it marked as "insightful."
Dell XPS M1730:
Weight: Starting at 10.6 lbs10 (4.81 kg)
Width: 16.0" (406 mm)
Height: 2.00" (50.7 mm)
Depth: 11.9" (302.6 mm)
17" MacBook Pro
Height:
0.98 inch (2.50 cm)
Width:
15.47 inches (39.3 cm)
Depth:
10.51 inches (26.7 cm)
Weight:
6.6 pounds (2.99 kg)1
Note how the 17" MBP is smaller in every single dimension. In your comparison, you made a huge compromise, and that was on the laptop's size. You can argue whether that's worth $1200, but it probably isn't worth $0.
Then there's this gem:
From earlier:
Basically, if you hate glossy screens, and it would appear these individuals do, the glossy can be a deal-breaker. Which anyone with half a brain could have told you without the trollish tone
FWIW, the 17-inch MBP comes with a matte-screen option. Time will tell if such an option trickles back down to the 15".
They don't owe you the game. You don't owe them your money. If you truly believed in voting with your dollars, free market etc., then you wouldn't even give them the satisfaction of a +1 piracy statistic.
Taking a very principled stand and then proceeding to just pirate the game because you want it that badly is just cowardice and selfishness. Remember, video games are not a need and you don't *have* to have it.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_sarah_palin_make_rape_victims_pay.html
It's a beta browser guys... Should they really be *that* worried if interest drops off after the initial peak and very first release? Between FF, Safari, and dare I say it Opera, there's plenty of non-IE choices out there in the world to satisfy everyone.
Let Google do their thing, and if they're on the right track they'll pick up users as they inch closer to a non-beta status. Though this being Google...
Not sure about phones, but Apple offers you 10% off on the spot if you return an old and busted iPod to them. Nice bit of encouragement if you tilt towards getting a new player on the value proposition.
It's too bad Apple's completely missing out on the cell phone business.
waitaminute... ;)
Thing reads like an ad for nvidia GPUs, which doesn't come across as a huge surprise when all the quotes are from an nvidia PR rep.
FWIW, as far as I can tell there's no reason why the Photoshop enhancements won't work on an SM3-capable AMD GPU like the X1000-series and up. Might even work on SM3 capable intel graphics, if such a beast exists.
Except you can take it to up to 5 computers, and an unlimited number of iPods. Sony's method is quantifiably worse.
McCain's income is missing his wife's, which should be fair game to include. All reasonable people would consider that "household" income anyway. Good job playing games with the percentages though.
http://lockshot.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/firefox-eula-in-linux-distributions/
The post itself has the current draft.
http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/09/15/ubuntu-firefox-and-license-issues/
To be fair, Gecko bumped the version number for Mozilla to 5.0 when they released. It is Mozilla Gecko after all :)
For all that the Mozilla team isn't worried, they've got a long history of developers rejecting Gecko for other engines: first AOL rejected it in preference for IE (and then again on the Mac in preference for WebKit), then Apple (again for WebKit), and now Google (once again for WebKit). In the mobile space it isn't doing all that much better, with developers rejecting it in favor of Opera. In quite a few cases, including AOL and Google, we've even seen this rejection when the company previously had a history of active support for, and even paying developers to work on, the Gecko engine.
AOL is an interesting case. On the Windows side, I doubt AOL was ever really interested in using Gecko other than a bargaining chip against Microsoft to get preferential desktop placement in XP. I suppose if they were ever really interested in doing Gecko in AOL Win, they could have as it was pretty well known that they had internal builds running that way.
As for AOL Mac, I'd say the issue there is that development stagnated in general on their Mac client side. Seriously, the version of Gecko they had shipping for the longest while was something like 0.9.8, meaning pre-Mozilla 1.0 and pre-Firefox 1.0 by a long shot! Somewhere in between that version and their newer version, they fired all of their Netscape employees and shut that division down. At that point, it only makes sense to use Webkit because you don't have any resources capable of leveraging Gecko any more.
As for Google, that'll be an interesting question for the time being. It's worth noting that Android uses WebKit, so it could simply be a case of leveraging the work already done there to understand the platform. It's well known that Gecko needs to lose a lot of fat around the edges to make it from Desktop to Mobile platforms, so that's a good reasoning for that choice there.
It could simply be a case that Firefox is too much of a beast for third-parties to jump in and start hacking on the code. Remember that it was borne out of 1998-era Netscape code, and while they had to restart at least once in there, you're probably going to get some crud that makes it complicated.
As for clients that embed Gecko, here you go: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/mozilla-based.html
You think they're getting a free pass? I've seen at least 5 articles touching on this in the past week, and several from here. Then you've got the few articles that make it to AP feeds and go from there.
I think your definition of free pass differs from reality. But hey, if you want it so, you can just claim so on slashdot and everyone believes you.
It's also worth noting that this whole story could be a ploy for a brand-new startup to get some infinitely useful data off of slashdotters, diggers, etc.
Uh, totally not true. The iPhone has required a 2-year contract from day one with AT&T.
It just so happens that AT&T hasn't been quite as anal with first generation iPhone upgrades, probably due to the lack of subsidization. We'll see how that works going forward.
Everything you're asking for was at MacWorld. Official AIM client through app store. Someone somewhere is probably working on an Adium client through the app store.
No one ever said this was the desktop mail client. That was the MobileMe web app. I'll give you that spam filtering is good to have, but server-side has always been the "better" solution.
1st gen iphones will handle location just as they always have - a little location button in Maps with cell tower and wifi triangulation. You'll need the latest released iPhone firmware.
Uh, the iPhone most certainly was subsidized by a 2 year service contract, which is why on AT&T a 2-year contract is required. It may not have been fully subsidized up front, but it was subsidized in some way through the use of revenue sharing agreements with Apple and the carriers.
I don't think your perception of user-friendly means what you think it does. Perhaps what you're looking for is "developer-friendly" or "obsessive geek friendly," in which case you might be better off going to http://developer.mozilla.org
This is much worse than Steam though - Steam lets you go up to either 30 or 90 days (I forget which) before complaining, which is much better. The likelihood of not having internet for a whole month is low, but 10 days? A long vacation could easily encompass that.