Sure, most pop stuff is like this; but you've not looked -nearly- hard enough if you believe that. And, with a name containing "punk", you'd think you'd know about some of those indie bands (Or indie-bands-gone-mainstream) that are damn good. AFI, Stutterfly, System of a Down, or Millencolin anyone? How about Dashboard Confessional? Or how about The Offspring? Bright Eyes? Thursday? Glassjaw?
Not paying for -good- musician's music is a crime, both morally and legally. No matter how little of the money goes to that musician, they've worked hard for it. And they deserve to be paid it if you listen to it.
If it's cheap and mass produced, don't listen to it. If it's good, and you like it, then pay for it, enjoy it, and support the artists.
Complaining that it's cheap mass-produced advertising, and then listening to it is pure hypocritical bullshit. Why, may I ask, are you listening to it if it's so bad?
Actually, that's a great idea. If you could -imbed- the Bochs and WINE code in a process, and then allow it to act as a compatibility lawyer (e.g. Classic), then it -would- beat VPC, as it would only be running the PROGRAM'S code, and not a big OS (Linux, Windows).
Apple's beta of GUI Scripting allows for Applescript to click menus and buttons like a person; a fun addition you should check out if you're into Applescript.
It adds a whole new dimension of customizability to Mac OS X; now you can script your Mac to the same level you can script Linux/*BSD/Unix. =)
Before y'all go blaming Apple, this isn't Apple; instead, it's a different company.
And if you want a Non-MS Virtual PC solution, check out either Bochs, or Blue Label.
Blue Label is a nice, albeit slow, PC emulator for Mac OS 8/9.x. Sadly, Blue Label isn't Mac OS X native, either; but, for people using Mac on Linux, it works fine. I think it will work in Classic, too, so no worries. Bochs, on the other hand, is Mac OS X native; however, it's open source, and therefore takes some tinkering. It does work very well, however.
There -are- alternatives; you just need to look around. =)
Mac OS X can multi-task (The old OSes could, but I'm with you; they suck); in fact, it does so unbelievably well. I've had, in my year of Mac OS X, 1 crash. ONE.
So, maybe the Old Mac OSes sucked, but Mac OS X is better than you can imagine. It's even more stable than Linux, for me.
MS hasn't debundled IE from the OS; they've instead created two separate processes: explorer.exe, and internetexplorer.exe. Both are essentially the same program.
As far as them fragmenting their OS, those are the -same- OS; some merely have different feature sets.
Microsoft has not given out all of its sourcecode; instead, only some pieces have been given out. NOT the entire thing.
Yea, they did make a fictional character.
I don't know about South African magazines.
But, as far as it goes, the connections between Infospace Inc. and MS are -minimal- at best.
Yea, but see, the point was that the guys at Infospace Inc didn't make the site at all; someone using Go2net's hosting made if wayyy back before Infospace Inc & Go2net were even one company.
a search for Microsoft brings up, on the SECOND link:
Microsoft warns of critical IE flaws(MSNBC - Aug. 21)
Microsoft Windows: Insecure by Design(Washington Post - Aug. 24)
Microsoft finds security flaws(Boston Globe - Aug. 22)
Oh, and for those too lazy to read my writeup, I figure I'll make life easy for yas =p From my Journal:
"Well, I just couldn't believe the insanity of this claim, so I did some research. Turns out Infospace, Inc does own linuxsucks.com. However, it was originally owned by Go2Net (scroll down to the bottom), and Go2Net was bought by Infospace Inc in 2000, so the domain is now hosted by Infospace Inc/Go2Net. Go2Net offers hosting, and is therefore hosting the site as a subsidiary of Infospace Inc; it has been hosting LinuxSucks.com since before Infospace Inc's acquisition.
Hence, LinuxSucks.comis an amateur effort; it was neither created, nor funded my Infospace Inc, nor was it created or funded by Microsoft.
As for Microsoft's supposed ties to Infospace Inc? Microsfot did a case study of Infospace Inc's use of "Microsoft Message Queing 3.0", and how it "Reduces Costs While Improving Reliability at InfoSpace". Hardly the deep, cash infused ties this tin-foil hat wearing zealot implies.
Sorry, but that was just SO moronic I couldn't stand it."
1. Hype the piss out of a movie
2. Everyone goes to see it, due to hype
3. People hate it, but others see it BEFORE it can be categorized as crap by Word-Of-Mouth
4. ???
5. Profit!
I love the fact they know it's crap, but hype it and bank upon the fact people take a while to have the movie labeled as shit. "Oh no!" they say, "Now they can categorize it faster! What will we do?!"
"Make good movies?! No! We'll blame those damn texting teens!"
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, most pop stuff is like this; but you've not looked -nearly- hard enough if you believe that. And, with a name containing "punk", you'd think you'd know about some of those indie bands (Or indie-bands-gone-mainstream) that are damn good. AFI, Stutterfly, System of a Down, or Millencolin anyone? How about Dashboard Confessional? Or how about The Offspring? Bright Eyes? Thursday? Glassjaw?
Not paying for -good- musician's music is a crime, both morally and legally. No matter how little of the money goes to that musician, they've worked hard for it. And they deserve to be paid it if you listen to it.
If it's cheap and mass produced, don't listen to it. If it's good, and you like it, then pay for it, enjoy it, and support the artists.
Complaining that it's cheap mass-produced advertising, and then listening to it is pure hypocritical bullshit. Why, may I ask, are you listening to it if it's so bad?
Wow, this really cleared up how this works for me! Thanks for such a clear, informative diagram!
D'oh! And it sounded so cool, too!
That's actually an awesome idea...
Ron-De-Voo. =)
Apple.slashdot.org
ApPLe.slashdot.org
apple.slashdot.org
This is the right link I swear. Sorry! =)
Sorry, the link should be: this. Slight typo; sorry.
It adds a whole new dimension of customizability to Mac OS X; now you can script your Mac to the same level you can script Linux/*BSD/Unix. =)
No, it's much faster than Bochs, but slower than VPC 6.
Go install fink. =)
And, if you want a nice, pretty, tinker-free version of Bochs, check out Wintel, from OpenOSX.
And if you want a Non-MS Virtual PC solution, check out either Bochs, or Blue Label.
Blue Label is a nice, albeit slow, PC emulator for Mac OS 8/9.x. Sadly, Blue Label isn't Mac OS X native, either; but, for people using Mac on Linux, it works fine. I think it will work in Classic, too, so no worries. Bochs, on the other hand, is Mac OS X native; however, it's open source, and therefore takes some tinkering. It does work very well, however.
There -are- alternatives; you just need to look around. =)
Probably uses its own environment (bootable) for the test; that way, everything is consistent. I could be wrong, though.
Honestly, however, I don't get effected by it much, and I play games, program, surf the web, etc...all on a 600mhz iBook.
And I don't run Safari, so that doesn't effect me. =p Omniweb all the way!
Mac OS X can multi-task (The old OSes could, but I'm with you; they suck); in fact, it does so unbelievably well. I've had, in my year of Mac OS X, 1 crash. ONE.
So, maybe the Old Mac OSes sucked, but Mac OS X is better than you can imagine. It's even more stable than Linux, for me.
Holy crap! They made jeebus?!
So creative, so original...right.
(It's a redux of the old mac being slow versus new pc being fast to stir up posters, if you don't know..)
I'd like to point out:
MS hasn't debundled IE from the OS; they've instead created two separate processes: explorer.exe, and internetexplorer.exe. Both are essentially the same program.
As far as them fragmenting their OS, those are the -same- OS; some merely have different feature sets.
Microsoft has not given out all of its sourcecode; instead, only some pieces have been given out. NOT the entire thing.
Yea, they did make a fictional character.
I don't know about South African magazines.
But, as far as it goes, the connections between Infospace Inc. and MS are -minimal- at best.
I know plenty of people who talk like that, and are damn smart to boot.
Yea, but see, the point was that the guys at Infospace Inc didn't make the site at all; someone using Go2net's hosting made if wayyy back before Infospace Inc & Go2net were even one company.
a search for Microsoft brings up, on the SECOND link:
Microsoft warns of critical IE flaws(MSNBC - Aug. 21)
Microsoft Windows: Insecure by Design(Washington Post - Aug. 24)
Microsoft finds security flaws(Boston Globe - Aug. 22)
Their search engine is just bad, not biased.
"Well, I just couldn't believe the insanity of this claim, so I did some research. Turns out Infospace, Inc does own linuxsucks.com. However, it was originally owned by Go2Net (scroll down to the bottom), and Go2Net was bought by Infospace Inc in 2000, so the domain is now hosted by Infospace Inc/Go2Net. Go2Net offers hosting, and is therefore hosting the site as a subsidiary of Infospace Inc; it has been hosting LinuxSucks.com since before Infospace Inc's acquisition.
Hence, LinuxSucks.com is an amateur effort; it was neither created, nor funded my Infospace Inc, nor was it created or funded by Microsoft.
As for Microsoft's supposed ties to Infospace Inc? Microsfot did a case study of Infospace Inc's use of "Microsoft Message Queing 3.0", and how it "Reduces Costs While Improving Reliability at InfoSpace". Hardly the deep, cash infused ties this tin-foil hat wearing zealot implies.
Sorry, but that was just SO moronic I couldn't stand it."
You're just plain wrong, and here's the proof.
Sorry, but methinks you've had too much tinfoil to the brain.
1. Hype the piss out of a movie
2. Everyone goes to see it, due to hype
3. People hate it, but others see it BEFORE it can be categorized as crap by Word-Of-Mouth
4. ???
5. Profit!
I love the fact they know it's crap, but hype it and bank upon the fact people take a while to have the movie labeled as shit. "Oh no!" they say, "Now they can categorize it faster! What will we do?!"
"Make good movies?! No! We'll blame those damn texting teens!"