If they added a full-fledged spreadsheet application to iWork then they could pull support for Office and I for one would be quite happy about it. I prefer Word to Pages for some things, of course, but I think if Apple was really trying to make iWork compete with Office (as far as I am concerned, when Jobs is using time in his keynote speech to reassure people that Office works in Rosetta, they're not competing products) then they would do a heck of a job.
I haven't had the problems you've experienced on my Mac. I have had the problem that a lot of people have made reference to, which is that videos will stop playing half way through, or the buffering stinks, etc. Either way, I read this story this morning, deleted WMP, downloaded Flip4Mac, and we'll see how it goes. I'm looking forward to not having to clear those AOLTemp.html garbage files from the trash every time I reboot, too.
There isn't much there that is actually damaging aside from the fact that he was a major proponent of the rave scene, which would, to say the least, not go over well among Utah's culturally conservative voters.
When I installed Office:mac on my iBook, there was nothing about Internet Explorer. It didn't install, and I don't think it even offered. So, I would say that there will be no impact on Office for Mac except maybe that it will improve because I read in the last thread that Microsoft may be moving the developers off the IE for Mac project and over to Office for Mac.
As a side note, Office for Mac is a great piece of software in my experience. If they're putting more emphasis on that, then I think that's a good thing. Besides, Safari is a perfectly good browser. It hangs sometimes for me when I have a lot of tabs open in multiple windows, or some sites (mlb.com) give it trouble. All in all though, it's probably best that Microsoft divert its resources to other projects.
Good point. If I had moderator points, I would definitely mod this up.
The argument would be the same as it's been in the past with other things: computer buyers would be having [insert Microsoft software here] forced upon them, and this would be a gross violation of all that is good in the world.
Frankly, if Microsoft was distributing Office along with Windows, I would be a happy camper. I didn't and don't like paying that much money for an office suite. I used OpenOffice.org for a while on my old Toshiba laptop running Windows XP, and it was decent enough if a bit slow and ugly for formatting purposes. I wouldn't want to go back to it though now that I have Office for Mac on my new machine.
I had some things that I had to do through a website with custom plugins that worked only for Windows and Internet Explorer. Luckily, my fiancee has a ThinkPad running Windows XP, so I was able to do the work on that machine.
However, if I only had my iBook and not access to a Windows machine, I would have been up the creek without a paddle.
Yeah, okay, but there is a reason for the name "Pajamas Media."
An old media person claimed that bloggers have no checks and balances on their work, saying that it's "a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas."
So, they decided to take that and spin it to their own advantage. I'm with you on there being too many stupid names in online media, but at least this one sort of makes sense. You can explain Gentoo Linux to me all day though if you want.
Like other fast media, they no longer see the purpose in getting it right the first time, but rather just being the first people out with something that is kind of like the truth.
Newspapers are a slow medium. The progression in the media that you have outlined has gone from fast to faster to faster yet to fastest.
Bloggers often are able to update their websites faster than online newspaper sites like nytimes.com, for example. So is it any surprise, then, that more people will go to a blog for breaking news than to a newspaper's website?
It's an information generation. I frankly don't think it's such a bad thing that people want more information faster. I would prefer not to go back to the days when people were comfortable reading about yesterday's news the next morning. The faster the medium, the more involved people are in it.
You're right about one thing: Mozilla/Firefox has been touted as a more secure alternative to Internet Explorer. This fact remains true. Mozilla/Firefox is still more secure than Internet Explorer.
However, this certainly doesn't mean that it's perfect. Far from it, no one's claimed that Firefox is completely secure, has no security flaws, and cannot be exploited. If someone has done that, well, then you know what to think of them.
Firefox will become a larger target for people who are trying to find exploits. Unlike Microsoft, though, the Firefox and Mozilla people are very diligent in making sure that there are quick-fix security solutions for the immediate short term as well as developing a quality long-term fix.
Microsoft doesn't do these things very much, at least not to the extent that Mozilla does. So, until that happens, I think it's more than fair to say that Mozilla/Firefox is more secure than Internet Explorer. But, that's just my opinion. I've used both for an extended period of time, and I think if you practice safe computing, it doesn't matter which web browser you use. You will be a lot better off.
Are you sure the Moon would really be in that position when the asteroid passed? The caption for the animated GIF says "The Moon's orbit is also shown, for scale." You would think NASA would have the Moon in the right place, but who knows?
I have since switched to Firefox and Thunderbird, but I used the Mozilla suite for some time. I liked the fact that it would stay in memory so I could open a new browser window very quickly even if I didn't have the browser already open.
At the time, I also used Mozilla Composer a little bit for a very simple website I was running. I don't like FrontPage or any of the other programs, and I had never used a WYSIWYG HTML program before Mozilla Composer. I always wrote websites in a text editor, but not for this one. Since I have stopped maintaining that website, I had no reason to keep Mozilla around.
I like to keep Thunderbird open all the time, and I've found that Firefox + Thunderbird takes up less memory than the entire Mozilla suite being open all the time.
I installed eDonkey once, but I didn't like it. It installed spyware on my computer, and nothing really worked right. I downloaded it straight from download.com, so I didn't just get a bum copy. The program itself is crap. It wouldn't even connect to the Overnet server.
Virus writers are inevitably going to try to take advantage of the routes used by the highest number of people. The problem lies in the fact that government involvement in P2P is more likely to eliminate the higher number of networks, servers, and front-ends we have available to us. When there are less networks, less servers, and less front-ends, it actually makes it easier for virus writers to target one network, one server, or one front-end because a higher concentration of people are using it.
Plus, when the government gets involved, some people tend to believe that the problem has been solved and that, through regulation, it's now safe to use. Do we want people to be using P2P networks willy-nilly, not even thinking twice before they download something, execute it, infect their entire machine, and then share all their other infected files with other machines on the network?
I think it's a better idea to eliminate government regulation on this sort of thing. It means that a network that is secure with smart users is more likely to be successful, and it means that those of us who practice safe computing don't have to worry about the government locking us into an insecure system.
Final result is that government isn't going to solve the problem.
Re:So when will Kerry
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The Heinz company is Republican-linked, has endorsed George W. Bush, and opposes John Kerry.
If you recall, Senator Kerry's wife was originally married to Senator John Heinz, a Republican from Pennsylvania, but then he died in a plane crash and subsequently married John Kerry.
Neither John nor Teresa have any real control over where Heinz' factories are. But, it is not uncommon to blame the Senator for all sorts of things that are not his fault or doing.
What difference does it make? Remember -- Microsoft basically says that Internet Explorer doesn't exist anymore. It's a part of Windows, they say. So why does it matter if an MSN online magazine recommends Firefox as a stand-alone web browser on top of Windows, when Internet Explorer is already an integral part of Windows?
It's not as if Slate recommended that users switch to Linux or something like that. They're still using Windows, which means, whether they like it or not, they're still using Internet Explorer.
It's more likely that Microsoft would try to strong-arm the editors and the writers responsible for something like that into resigning rather than selling the entire magazine. I think they just don't care about it anymore and don't care to pay for it if someone else will.
Slashdot Mirror
If they added a full-fledged spreadsheet application to iWork then they could pull support for Office and I for one would be quite happy about it. I prefer Word to Pages for some things, of course, but I think if Apple was really trying to make iWork compete with Office (as far as I am concerned, when Jobs is using time in his keynote speech to reassure people that Office works in Rosetta, they're not competing products) then they would do a heck of a job.
I haven't had the problems you've experienced on my Mac. I have had the problem that a lot of people have made reference to, which is that videos will stop playing half way through, or the buffering stinks, etc. Either way, I read this story this morning, deleted WMP, downloaded Flip4Mac, and we'll see how it goes. I'm looking forward to not having to clear those AOLTemp.html garbage files from the trash every time I reboot, too.
There isn't much there that is actually damaging aside from the fact that he was a major proponent of the rave scene, which would, to say the least, not go over well among Utah's culturally conservative voters.
The whole point is having them far apart. You don't want to accidentally hit them and reset the machine. It should be as deliberate as possible.
Wouldn't you then claim that Microsoft was just ripping off Apple?
And he appears to have developed his site using Netscape Composer. Big deal.
I think you may be working from the presumption that Microsoft is more sinister than it really is.
When I installed Office:mac on my iBook, there was nothing about Internet Explorer. It didn't install, and I don't think it even offered. So, I would say that there will be no impact on Office for Mac except maybe that it will improve because I read in the last thread that Microsoft may be moving the developers off the IE for Mac project and over to Office for Mac.
What state government is that?
As a side note, Office for Mac is a great piece of software in my experience. If they're putting more emphasis on that, then I think that's a good thing. Besides, Safari is a perfectly good browser. It hangs sometimes for me when I have a lot of tabs open in multiple windows, or some sites (mlb.com) give it trouble. All in all though, it's probably best that Microsoft divert its resources to other projects.
Good point. If I had moderator points, I would definitely mod this up.
The argument would be the same as it's been in the past with other things: computer buyers would be having [insert Microsoft software here] forced upon them, and this would be a gross violation of all that is good in the world.
Frankly, if Microsoft was distributing Office along with Windows, I would be a happy camper. I didn't and don't like paying that much money for an office suite. I used OpenOffice.org for a while on my old Toshiba laptop running Windows XP, and it was decent enough if a bit slow and ugly for formatting purposes. I wouldn't want to go back to it though now that I have Office for Mac on my new machine.
Most people don't have a second computer.
I had some things that I had to do through a website with custom plugins that worked only for Windows and Internet Explorer. Luckily, my fiancee has a ThinkPad running Windows XP, so I was able to do the work on that machine.
However, if I only had my iBook and not access to a Windows machine, I would have been up the creek without a paddle.
I think this would be ideal. It's one of the things that I most appreciated when I migrated from Windows XP to Mac OS X this past summer.
Yeah, okay, but there is a reason for the name "Pajamas Media."
An old media person claimed that bloggers have no checks and balances on their work, saying that it's "a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas."
So, they decided to take that and spin it to their own advantage. I'm with you on there being too many stupid names in online media, but at least this one sort of makes sense. You can explain Gentoo Linux to me all day though if you want.
Netcraft has confirmed: IRC is dead.
Like other fast media, they no longer see the purpose in getting it right the first time, but rather just being the first people out with something that is kind of like the truth.
The point is simply speed.
Newspapers are a slow medium. The progression in the media that you have outlined has gone from fast to faster to faster yet to fastest.
Bloggers often are able to update their websites faster than online newspaper sites like nytimes.com, for example. So is it any surprise, then, that more people will go to a blog for breaking news than to a newspaper's website?
It's an information generation. I frankly don't think it's such a bad thing that people want more information faster. I would prefer not to go back to the days when people were comfortable reading about yesterday's news the next morning. The faster the medium, the more involved people are in it.
Just my two cents.
It might not be so bad if Russia and Eastern Europe were to form their own network. That would eliminate at least half of the hax0r types out there.
Yakov Smirnoff.
Wikipedia Article
You're right about one thing: Mozilla/Firefox has been touted as a more secure alternative to Internet Explorer. This fact remains true. Mozilla/Firefox is still more secure than Internet Explorer.
However, this certainly doesn't mean that it's perfect. Far from it, no one's claimed that Firefox is completely secure, has no security flaws, and cannot be exploited. If someone has done that, well, then you know what to think of them.
Firefox will become a larger target for people who are trying to find exploits. Unlike Microsoft, though, the Firefox and Mozilla people are very diligent in making sure that there are quick-fix security solutions for the immediate short term as well as developing a quality long-term fix.
Microsoft doesn't do these things very much, at least not to the extent that Mozilla does. So, until that happens, I think it's more than fair to say that Mozilla/Firefox is more secure than Internet Explorer. But, that's just my opinion. I've used both for an extended period of time, and I think if you practice safe computing, it doesn't matter which web browser you use. You will be a lot better off.
Are you sure the Moon would really be in that position when the asteroid passed? The caption for the animated GIF says "The Moon's orbit is also shown, for scale." You would think NASA would have the Moon in the right place, but who knows?
I have since switched to Firefox and Thunderbird, but I used the Mozilla suite for some time. I liked the fact that it would stay in memory so I could open a new browser window very quickly even if I didn't have the browser already open.
At the time, I also used Mozilla Composer a little bit for a very simple website I was running. I don't like FrontPage or any of the other programs, and I had never used a WYSIWYG HTML program before Mozilla Composer. I always wrote websites in a text editor, but not for this one. Since I have stopped maintaining that website, I had no reason to keep Mozilla around.
I like to keep Thunderbird open all the time, and I've found that Firefox + Thunderbird takes up less memory than the entire Mozilla suite being open all the time.
I installed eDonkey once, but I didn't like it. It installed spyware on my computer, and nothing really worked right. I downloaded it straight from download.com, so I didn't just get a bum copy. The program itself is crap. It wouldn't even connect to the Overnet server.
Virus writers are inevitably going to try to take advantage of the routes used by the highest number of people. The problem lies in the fact that government involvement in P2P is more likely to eliminate the higher number of networks, servers, and front-ends we have available to us. When there are less networks, less servers, and less front-ends, it actually makes it easier for virus writers to target one network, one server, or one front-end because a higher concentration of people are using it.
Plus, when the government gets involved, some people tend to believe that the problem has been solved and that, through regulation, it's now safe to use. Do we want people to be using P2P networks willy-nilly, not even thinking twice before they download something, execute it, infect their entire machine, and then share all their other infected files with other machines on the network?
I think it's a better idea to eliminate government regulation on this sort of thing. It means that a network that is secure with smart users is more likely to be successful, and it means that those of us who practice safe computing don't have to worry about the government locking us into an insecure system.
Final result is that government isn't going to solve the problem.
The Heinz company is Republican-linked, has endorsed George W. Bush, and opposes John Kerry.
If you recall, Senator Kerry's wife was originally married to Senator John Heinz, a Republican from Pennsylvania, but then he died in a plane crash and subsequently married John Kerry.
Neither John nor Teresa have any real control over where Heinz' factories are. But, it is not uncommon to blame the Senator for all sorts of things that are not his fault or doing.
What difference does it make? Remember -- Microsoft basically says that Internet Explorer doesn't exist anymore. It's a part of Windows, they say. So why does it matter if an MSN online magazine recommends Firefox as a stand-alone web browser on top of Windows, when Internet Explorer is already an integral part of Windows?
It's not as if Slate recommended that users switch to Linux or something like that. They're still using Windows, which means, whether they like it or not, they're still using Internet Explorer.
It's more likely that Microsoft would try to strong-arm the editors and the writers responsible for something like that into resigning rather than selling the entire magazine. I think they just don't care about it anymore and don't care to pay for it if someone else will.