Having said that, there are a number of other options available:
1. Web access - although you can only view entries you "own"- kills the shared calendar concept.
2. Virtual PC. Pricey. A bit of a hassle to get set up on an NT domain (our admins don't like adding it...).
3. Citrix. Works great (I use the Java client instead of the OS X client) if you've got a Citrix install and an admin who's not a dickhead.
Citrix works pretty well, but users sometimes complain about not getting "seamless" windows like in the Windows and other *n*x clients. It can be an inconvenient way to work. For a while I was bundling the Java client into double clickable.apps for each pubished app, but now I find the OS X client works better. Last I tried it the Java client couldn't print under OS X, even with the new Metaframe XP print architecture. It was also prone to display anomolies (artifacts within its window).
More importantly, Citrix client access licenses are expensive and the leases stick clients for an unreasonably long period (I forget the exact numbers). IIRC, VPC would actually be cheaper (assuming you own OS licenses).
Why? If you've got an Exchange server that you need to talk to, Microsoft gives Outlook for Mac away for free. And if you don't have an Exchange server, Mail, Address Book, and iCal make for a better set of personal information tools.
Outlook 2001 is gratis, but it is a MacOS app not an OS X app. As it stands it is the only Classic app we put on our standard OS X hard drive image. This is merely an adequate solution and Mac users are clamoring for a native Exchange client. It is quite possible MS will never provide one. They have shown no indication that they will ever port Outlook. On the contrary, they really push Entourage, which has little Exchange integration.
That would be what I most want to see on freshmeat, a Cocoa port of Evolution. Increasingly that looks like OS X's only hope for native Exchange compatibility. MS doesn't seem to be budging on Outlook. If we users ported Evolution, Ximian would surely give us Connector. They can make money selling Exchange connectivity to Mac users.
I would start the project myself if I were competent.
John H. really appreciated your comments and asked that you give him a call. Hope you have e-mail notification turned on in your/. prefs.
BTW, I think you put way too much faith in the moderation system by browsing at +3. For instance you missed John's own comments here.
Ducati fits a 90 degree twin by rotating it forward enough so the rear cylinder clears. Aesthetically, their design looks like an "L", not a "V". The number one identifying feature of cruiser design is the vertical "V" engine configuration.
Umh, yeah. That was my point (and I mentioned the forward canted motor, BTW). It is a purely asthetic decision. They, and most "cruiser" manufacturers just want the bike to look like old Harleys. Or more accurately, that is what HD's customers want. HD engineers have toyed with the idea of moving to something more functional. AMF developed an inline liquid cooled four in parallel with the Evolution project (yes the Evo was developed, although not released, before the 1981 LBO). Although not really an HD project, there was also Eric Buell's square four design.
If Harley (or any manufacturer) tried to build a large displacement vertically oriented "V" twin with a 90 degree included angle, the engine would be too long front-back to fit in any reasonably sized frame.
Having squeezed big engines into small frames, I am quite certain a misguided person could slide a big Ducati engine into a cruiser form factor. In the 80s Cagiva built a cruiser around the 650 Pantah/Allazzura engine (I forget the name). The overall size difference between the various belt cam Ducati motors is not that great. IIRC the 600F2 and 750 F1 used the same frame, as did the 90-91 750s and 900ss (Europe only). If they could build a 650 cruiser they could build a 900. I remember the reviews saying that Cagiva outhandled any cruiser on the market. No doubt part of that was due to the lower center of gravity the forward canted motor afforded.
There is a reason why nobody builds a vertical V-twin with an included angle greater than 60 degrees - it just wouldn't fit. All of the 90 degree twins are either rotated forward from vertical or are longitudinally mounted. There are a few 90 degree V4 engines that are roughly vertical, but they have a much, much shorter stroke than a Harley big twin.
The Yamaha Virago has an 75 degree vertical V. Not that it helps. I worked on one once and if you twisted the throttle while on the side-stand it would vibrate itself accross the shop floor like a plastic football player on a magnetic field. I feel that the correct included angles for V twins (from a balance standpoint) are 90 and 180 degrees (flat). Otherwise you have to play games with the crank pins and balancers to make them usable. It also helps with air cooling (if you want that), weight distribution and simplifies ignition timing (or at least makes simple single coil schemes work smoothly).
Off the top of my head, this seems an apt anology. Brand loyalty aside, HD and Apple had some similar problems and solutions. Both had worn product lines and chaotic manufacturing. Apple had slightly diluted their branding with forays into niche markets and software; HD had lost total control of their trademark and faced fresh competition from ID diluting clones.
Under Gil Amelio, Apple revamped its manufacturing, introduced JIT inventories and eliminated their single source supply problems. They simplified the product line to three models with many interchangable parts. Amelio and Fred Anderson straightened out the companies finances by selling some assets (ARM stock, mfg. facilities) and issuing a bond (in this case a convertible debenture). When Jobs returned Apple completely revamped their product line, modernizing it and retargeting mainstream consumers with flashy new products, including an attractive entry level offering.
Similarly, the LBO team at HD completely revamped the product line. Their modernized (Evolution) engine and upgraded asthetics appealed to broader and wealthier markets. They fixed a scary financial situation by going public and issuing a bond. They introduced JIT inventories, multiple suppliers and statistical production controls. The new HD set their lawyers on the thousands of merchandisers who used HD trademarks without authorization and capitalized on the notable differences between their product and the clones. They introduced a killer entry level product (the Evolution 883 Sporty) analogous to the iMac, and a market shaping high end retro model (the Springer) that put some distance between them and the clones.
I'm not sure the tarrif increase was that helpful. It only applied to bikes larger than 750cc. The big four de-stroked their 750s to 700cc and kept on selling. IIRC, there weren't a lot of litre class cruisers (other than HDs) at the time the tarrif went into effect. In some cases, notably the Honda Gold Wing which was big and competed directly with HD's high end, the tarrif didn't apply at all because the bikes were "made" in the US.
Actually, they stick with the 45 deg. angle so that the rear cylinder clears the oil tank.
I don't buy it. Bevel cam Ducatis with their forward canted cylinders easily have room for an HD style under seat tank. Furthermore, they could just put the oil tank someplace else. Honda put the Nighthawk S tank in the frame backbone. OTOH, they could use wet sump lubrication like everybody else.
There's more efficient designs, I'm sure, but I *love* the fact that the whole crank and rod assembly is on roller bearings.
I don't see why. Plain bearings are stronger and simpler. The only advantage I see to to roller bearings is that they stand up better to oil starvation...oh I get it;-)
Also, it would be massively expensive to redesign the crankcase, leading to questions of backwards compatibility.
They have already redesigned them several times. They just never moved the jugs.
That said, you *can* put a modern set of cylinders on say, a flathead case and ride it every day. For that matter, I've seen people put Chevy pistons in 'em -- 1500 + cc's can be fun!
I have never dissected a Chevy, but I have trouble believing their piston design is any better than HD's. Why not just use good pistons and get a decent valve and port job? Someone must make decent pistons for HD (Wiseco? Not best quality, I know, but common).
The only functional advantage I can see for the 45 is short length, but HD punts that with their huge external gearbox. OTOH, if HD were to go with a 90 the bike would no longer look "like a Harley." Likewise it wouldn't sound like one, since the motor would be capable of idling smoothly off a single coil.
I can't say any Harley I have ridden impressed me. However, I have never ridden an XR750, XR1000 or XLCR. All three appeal to me for different reasons.
The best thing about H/D is the sound, two cylinder firing 90 degrees apart, just like the old John Deere 2 cylinder tractors which also have a fanatical following
The included angle between Harley Davidson cylanders is 45 degrees. I agree that 90 degree Vs sound better. They also have a variety of engineering advantages over 45s. HD sticks with the the 45 purely for marketing and brand ID reasons. It is an inferior design.
You are right about cost cutting being a problem during the AMF era, the other problem was AMF dramatically increased production without investing in more/better tooling, and so they had to cut the quality of the hand assembly and fitting work to make due.
I don't exactly agree and neither does the current HD management team, IIRC. AMF actually invested a lot of money in R & D. Vastly more than the Davidson family did when they owned the company. This was actually key to the new HD's success, as they did not have to develop the Evolution engine themselves. AMF had already spent that money (there was also a moder liquid cooled four on the shelf). AMF also invested lots of money in automated production equipment that never performed properly.
The AMF management team's problem was Taylorism. They tried to squeeze productivity out of the workforce by increasing their workload and automating. This not only created poor worker relations (supposedly dealers sometimes had to clean sanwiches out of the bikes airboxes when they arrived) it alienated the worker from the production and process. To AMF, workers were simply tools. There were other problems too, like a horribly wasteful inventopry management system.
When the young turks of the management team LBOed the company at a then record, now laughable, $80 million, they wisely went to the industry leader for advice on how to fix the production system. That leader was Honda USA. At Honda's Marrysville plant they found no computerized/overhead conveyer inventory system like they had at home. Honda's tech's delivered parts as needed in shopping carts. When the HD guys asked where all the computers were, the Honda chaps became flustered and mumbled Japanese to each other before finally takeing them to a lonely room with an accountant and an Apple][e.
Basically, HD took away three important concepts from the visit.
1) Just in time inventories. HD bought parts by the truckload and stored them until they needed them. In the worst case they went bad (rusted or whatever) on the shelf. In the best they were wasted investment. Honda's suppliers had to fill orders each day, often on hours notice.
2) Statistical operator controls. Rather than treat workers as robots (Taylorism), Honda gave workers the statistical tools to track the effect of process changes on productivity. Essentially, they put some controll of process in the hands of the people who best understood it. This is basic W. Edwards Deming,UPENN stuff. This has been SOP in Japanese industry since Deming worked for SCAP (Supreme Command Allied Powers) during the occupation.
3) OK, I have forgotten the catch phrase for this one, but it is the whole quality circle touchy feely, make everyone feel tied to the QC process thing. I don't think this is as important as the other two, largely because Statistical controls procedurally tie the worker to the QC process. This stuff is mostly window dressing. However, It may provide another channel for worker's process improvements to work back upstream.
One example of statistical controls working at HD was crank pins. A worker documented the difference in machining crank pins for the two basic bottom ends. He also documented the time he wasted reconfiguring his tools between runs of each. Then he showed how with minor design changes, both engines could use the same pins. HD implemented his change and reaped huge savings.
I read most of the specific examples in a book HD commissioned called Well Made In AmericaThe rest is basic production management. Obviously, I have drstically simplified, probably to the point of misrepresentation, the concepts involved. But the basic jist of my thrust holds true.
John asked me to dispel a few misconceptions about the Caregroup/BIDMC network. He wrote and I quote:
Since there is so much chatter about a parallel network that is just
wrong, could you post an entry (feel free to use my name) that states:
1. Yes, our network had a flat topology which was required by multiple
legacy apps. Our network downtime was caused by having a layer 2 based
enterprise network with VLANs that crossed the core.
2. We restored the network by moving portions of the network from
switched to routed and eliminating all loops
3. Over the next 6 months we will retire all the offending legacy apps
and move to a network that is routed at the distribution and core
layers.
4. There was never an attempt or design to build a parallel network.
Cisco flew in a few spare 6509's and configured them just in case our
existing 5509's were unable to handle the traffic of our new topology.
Since the 6509's were configured by a different team than the team
fixing the existing 5509's, this was work done in parallel. The press
described this as a parallel network, which it was not.
I hope this resolves the controversy. CIO magazine will devote it's
February issue to an in depth look at the architectual flaws in the
network. NPR will have a major story next week about the human side.
Our hope is that we can broadly share our lessons learned so that other
institutions that grew by merger and acquisition will examine their
networks and eliminate any flat topologies, preventing the kind of
downtime we experienced.
I think you miss the point. Where are all the other GUIs from the early 90's (Windows 3.0/3.1 NT 3.51 Gui, the OS/2 gui, DRDos gui...?). All of these GUIs were not designed around a very open and abstract hardware process and thus were tied to very specific notions of how hardware would work. Aqua has the same problem. X conversely does not. X can easily support a 3D virtual reality GUI served up to 10,000 way parellel subsystems... if such things existed. Unix technologies tend to be designed to scale both up to faster system and into the future.
Can you be more specific? I'm not sure how mean this. Are you talking about the benefits of client server network transparency? Quartz (Aqua is essentially just the theme) is based on the same model. It is fully capable of network transparency. OpenStep and Rhapsody's DPS engines supported it. Apparently the hooks are still in there. I once saw them documented in detail on a GnuStep mailing list, but I can't google it and their archive does not seem to be searchable. I did find a mention of them on Ars Technica and Planet PDF. My Apple reps refuse to comment on whether Apple has plans for exploiting this capability.
BTW, Apple continues to update and publish the OpenStep standard and Quartz remains OpenStep compliant. From the GnuStep FAQ:
1.3.2 Is GNUstep following Changes to OpenStep and MacOSX?
Yes, gnustep-base already contains the documented changes in the Foundation library. GNUstep aims to be compatible with both the OpenStep specification and with MacOS-X. It should be easy to write an application that compiles cleanly under both GNUstep and Cocoa.
I thought the point behind capitalism is that the best product/service wins, without any help from having an illegal monopoly?
Actually, capitalism is an ownership model, not a market model. Its defining characteristic is private ownership of production. This can just as easily mean state granted monopolies, as in the fascist model, as as it can free markets. Likewise, socialism does not preclude free markets. American Individualist Anarchist Benjamin Tucker's ideology is an example of market socialism.
That said you are correct that the original poster's assertion that free software is somehow socialist and proprietary software capitalist is unfounded.
I once saw this (the legacy hooks in Quartz) documented in detail on a GnuStep mailing list, but I can't google it and their archive does not seem to be searchable.
My Apple tech reps don't want to discuss it, or anything else interesting for that matter. I did find a mention of it on Ars Technica and Planet PDF.
Unfortunatly the formula is flawed, because a component of GDP is actually computing power/cost. A major part of the reported productivity gains for the past several years is due soley to the fact that the cost of computing power is way down.
I actually meant this partially as a criticism of the formula, which Alan Greenspan's speeches have exalted to mythic proportions in recent years. Greenspan agrees with you on computing power's contribution to productivity, although I think he stresses communications advances more. I think the jury is still out on how much of the gain is electronics driven and how much is due to employment policies. Of course, the two are not unrelated, for obvious reasons.
That link got me a 404 with a notice that John Maynard Keynes' General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money was no longer available on the site. Too bad. I assume that is a Bono Act issue (He published it in 1936 IIRC).
basically the GDP counts the cost of the computer as what it would have been in '95(?) terms.
(ex. this compter we sell is four times as fast as one sold in 95, so it's GDP contribution is four times the '95 computer cost, regardless of the fact that the computer's $ cost is less)
I don't think I agree with that statement. Only a portion of that increased power is exploited. Office computers running Word and POP for instance exploit very little of their increased power. I don't know what the increased contribution of computing is, but I doubt it is directly proportional to the increase in raw computing power.
Or in some measures, GDP/number of workers. Productivity sounds like some magic economic formula but it is pretty simple. If you reduce the number of workers and the hours they work, but not the collective product, productivity goes up by definition. This is hardly news. Why else would they lay people off?
And if it's a Windowsism, why do Mac apps have context menus at all?
He didn't say contextual menus were a Windowsism, he said right-click contextual menus were.
The original poster's inability to get a contextual menu without a modifier key or second mouse button is an IE issue not an OS issue. The correct single button action is click-hold. Try it under Mozilla. You'll get the same menu you get from a right-click.
The stories were essentially the same in everything but tense. He helpfully pasted my post into the new one to save me the trouble. BTW, so far the answer is no, it doesn't fix WINS.
I missed the fact that this is a new story. I saw his version and couldn't find mine. Just being hypertest illiterate. I'm sure he is just being helpful.
Can someone explain how this guy removed my identical post of this morning? He cut and pasted my text. The only change he made was removing the word sure from the title.
I guess this is one way for me to be modded higher than 5.
I Sure Hope They Fixed WINS
on
10.2.2 Is Coming
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Apple claims CIFS compatibility, but they horribly broke WINS in their Samba implementation. If you add a WINS server you can't browse across subnets. All you can see is the WINS server itself. If you remove WINS you can browse your local subnet normally.
For some reason, I seem to be the only person who cares about this. I have never seen it mentioned and nobody responds when I post about it. My local Apple Tech rep didn't even know aout it. I did find it documented in this technote.
The only genocide that article mentions is the well documented German genocide of Namibians. In the words of German General Trotha, " "Within the German borders, every Herero, whether armed or unarmed, with or without cattle, will be shot. I shall not accept any more women or children."
From your article.
Herero and Nama peoples from the arid central and southern regions mounted a rebellion against the colonial authorities in 1904.
Tens of thousands of the rebels were massacred and stripped of their lands. Those who were left were rounded up into native reserves and used as pools of cheap labour for German colonial farmers.
About 3,500 white commercial farmers own around 30 million hectares of farmland, most of which is semi-arid and used for cattle ranching and trophy hunting for wealthy European and American tourists. Since gaining independence from South Africa in 1990, the Government has resettled 30,000 people on 7.5 per cent of commercial farmland bought from white farmers. But another 240,000 people still want to be resettled.
Namibians also suffered horribly under South African rule and thousands served as slaves or near slaves in the diamond and uranium mines.
My mistake. At least they refund my GST when I take my gay lit/porn out of the country.
Great country you guys have up there, BTW. Always been a fan. My uncle lived on an island in Parry Sound (which as every Canadian child knows was the home of Bobby Orr).
Slashdot Mirror
Citrix works pretty well, but users sometimes complain about not getting "seamless" windows like in the Windows and other *n*x clients. It can be an inconvenient way to work. For a while I was bundling the Java client into double clickable
More importantly, Citrix client access licenses are expensive and the leases stick clients for an unreasonably long period (I forget the exact numbers). IIRC, VPC would actually be cheaper (assuming you own OS licenses).
Outlook 2001 is gratis, but it is a MacOS app not an OS X app. As it stands it is the only Classic app we put on our standard OS X hard drive image. This is merely an adequate solution and Mac users are clamoring for a native Exchange client. It is quite possible MS will never provide one. They have shown no indication that they will ever port Outlook. On the contrary, they really push Entourage, which has little Exchange integration.
That would be what I most want to see on freshmeat, a Cocoa port of Evolution. Increasingly that looks like OS X's only hope for native Exchange compatibility. MS doesn't seem to be budging on Outlook. If we users ported Evolution, Ximian would surely give us Connector. They can make money selling Exchange connectivity to Mac users.
I would start the project myself if I were competent.
John H. really appreciated your comments and asked that you give him a call. Hope you have e-mail notification turned on in your
Umh, yeah. That was my point (and I mentioned the forward canted motor, BTW). It is a purely asthetic decision. They, and most "cruiser" manufacturers just want the bike to look like old Harleys. Or more accurately, that is what HD's customers want. HD engineers have toyed with the idea of moving to something more functional. AMF developed an inline liquid cooled four in parallel with the Evolution project (yes the Evo was developed, although not released, before the 1981 LBO). Although not really an HD project, there was also Eric Buell's square four design. Having squeezed big engines into small frames, I am quite certain a misguided person could slide a big Ducati engine into a cruiser form factor. In the 80s Cagiva built a cruiser around the 650 Pantah/Allazzura engine (I forget the name). The overall size difference between the various belt cam Ducati motors is not that great. IIRC the 600F2 and 750 F1 used the same frame, as did the 90-91 750s and 900ss (Europe only). If they could build a 650 cruiser they could build a 900. I remember the reviews saying that Cagiva outhandled any cruiser on the market. No doubt part of that was due to the lower center of gravity the forward canted motor afforded. The Yamaha Virago has an 75 degree vertical V. Not that it helps. I worked on one once and if you twisted the throttle while on the side-stand it would vibrate itself accross the shop floor like a plastic football player on a magnetic field. I feel that the correct included angles for V twins (from a balance standpoint) are 90 and 180 degrees (flat). Otherwise you have to play games with the crank pins and balancers to make them usable. It also helps with air cooling (if you want that), weight distribution and simplifies ignition timing (or at least makes simple single coil schemes work smoothly).
Off the top of my head, this seems an apt anology. Brand loyalty aside, HD and Apple had some similar problems and solutions. Both had worn product lines and chaotic manufacturing. Apple had slightly diluted their branding with forays into niche markets and software; HD had lost total control of their trademark and faced fresh competition from ID diluting clones.
Under Gil Amelio, Apple revamped its manufacturing, introduced JIT inventories and eliminated their single source supply problems. They simplified the product line to three models with many interchangable parts. Amelio and Fred Anderson straightened out the companies finances by selling some assets (ARM stock, mfg. facilities) and issuing a bond (in this case a convertible debenture). When Jobs returned Apple completely revamped their product line, modernizing it and retargeting mainstream consumers with flashy new products, including an attractive entry level offering.
Similarly, the LBO team at HD completely revamped the product line. Their modernized (Evolution) engine and upgraded asthetics appealed to broader and wealthier markets. They fixed a scary financial situation by going public and issuing a bond. They introduced JIT inventories, multiple suppliers and statistical production controls. The new HD set their lawyers on the thousands of merchandisers who used HD trademarks without authorization and capitalized on the notable differences between their product and the clones. They introduced a killer entry level product (the Evolution 883 Sporty) analogous to the iMac, and a market shaping high end retro model (the Springer) that put some distance between them and the clones.
I'm not sure the tarrif increase was that helpful. It only applied to bikes larger than 750cc. The big four de-stroked their 750s to 700cc and kept on selling. IIRC, there weren't a lot of litre class cruisers (other than HDs) at the time the tarrif went into effect. In some cases, notably the Honda Gold Wing which was big and competed directly with HD's high end, the tarrif didn't apply at all because the bikes were "made" in the US.
I don't buy it. Bevel cam Ducatis with their forward canted cylinders easily have room for an HD style under seat tank. Furthermore, they could just put the oil tank someplace else. Honda put the Nighthawk S tank in the frame backbone. OTOH, they could use wet sump lubrication like everybody else.
I don't see why. Plain bearings are stronger and simpler. The only advantage I see to to roller bearings is that they stand up better to oil starvation...oh I get it
They have already redesigned them several times. They just never moved the jugs.
I have never dissected a Chevy, but I have trouble believing their piston design is any better than HD's. Why not just use good pistons and get a decent valve and port job? Someone must make decent pistons for HD (Wiseco? Not best quality, I know, but common).
The only functional advantage I can see for the 45 is short length, but HD punts that with their huge external gearbox. OTOH, if HD were to go with a 90 the bike would no longer look "like a Harley." Likewise it wouldn't sound like one, since the motor would be capable of idling smoothly off a single coil.
I can't say any Harley I have ridden impressed me. However, I have never ridden an XR750, XR1000 or XLCR. All three appeal to me for different reasons.
The included angle between Harley Davidson cylanders is 45 degrees. I agree that 90 degree Vs sound better. They also have a variety of engineering advantages over 45s. HD sticks with the the 45 purely for marketing and brand ID reasons. It is an inferior design.
The AMF management team's problem was Taylorism. They tried to squeeze productivity out of the workforce by increasing their workload and automating. This not only created poor worker relations (supposedly dealers sometimes had to clean sanwiches out of the bikes airboxes when they arrived) it alienated the worker from the production and process. To AMF, workers were simply tools. There were other problems too, like a horribly wasteful inventopry management system.
When the young turks of the management team LBOed the company at a then record, now laughable, $80 million, they wisely went to the industry leader for advice on how to fix the production system. That leader was Honda USA. At Honda's Marrysville plant they found no computerized/overhead conveyer inventory system like they had at home. Honda's tech's delivered parts as needed in shopping carts. When the HD guys asked where all the computers were, the Honda chaps became flustered and mumbled Japanese to each other before finally takeing them to a lonely room with an accountant and an Apple][e.
Basically, HD took away three important concepts from the visit.
1) Just in time inventories. HD bought parts by the truckload and stored them until they needed them. In the worst case they went bad (rusted or whatever) on the shelf. In the best they were wasted investment. Honda's suppliers had to fill orders each day, often on hours notice.
2) Statistical operator controls. Rather than treat workers as robots (Taylorism), Honda gave workers the statistical tools to track the effect of process changes on productivity. Essentially, they put some controll of process in the hands of the people who best understood it. This is basic W. Edwards Deming
3) OK, I have forgotten the catch phrase for this one, but it is the whole quality circle touchy feely, make everyone feel tied to the QC process thing. I don't think this is as important as the other two, largely because Statistical controls procedurally tie the worker to the QC process. This stuff is mostly window dressing. However, It may provide another channel for worker's process improvements to work back upstream.
One example of statistical controls working at HD was crank pins. A worker documented the difference in machining crank pins for the two basic bottom ends. He also documented the time he wasted reconfiguring his tools between runs of each. Then he showed how with minor design changes, both engines could use the same pins. HD implemented his change and reaped huge savings.
I read most of the specific examples in a book HD commissioned called Well Made In America The rest is basic production management. Obviously, I have drstically simplified, probably to the point of misrepresentation, the concepts involved. But the basic jist of my thrust holds true.
John asked me to dispel a few misconceptions about the Caregroup/BIDMC network. He wrote and I quote:
Can you be more specific? I'm not sure how mean this. Are you talking about the benefits of client server network transparency? Quartz (Aqua is essentially just the theme) is based on the same model. It is fully capable of network transparency. OpenStep and Rhapsody's DPS engines supported it. Apparently the hooks are still in there. I once saw them documented in detail on a GnuStep mailing list, but I can't google it and their archive does not seem to be searchable. I did find a mention of them on Ars Technica and Planet PDF. My Apple reps refuse to comment on whether Apple has plans for exploiting this capability.
BTW, Apple continues to update and publish the OpenStep standard and Quartz remains OpenStep compliant. From the GnuStep FAQ:
'She's on drugs.'
No she's not; she's thinking. Go get her a Pepsi.
.........
She's not cazy!
Institutionalized!
Actually, capitalism is an ownership model, not a market model. Its defining characteristic is private ownership of production. This can just as easily mean state granted monopolies, as in the fascist model, as as it can free markets. Likewise, socialism does not preclude free markets. American Individualist Anarchist Benjamin Tucker's ideology is an example of market socialism.
That said you are correct that the original poster's assertion that free software is somehow socialist and proprietary software capitalist is unfounded.
I once saw this (the legacy hooks in Quartz) documented in detail on a GnuStep mailing list, but I can't google it and their archive does not seem to be searchable.
My Apple tech reps don't want to discuss it, or anything else interesting for that matter. I did find a mention of it on Ars Technica and Planet PDF.
That link got me a 404 with a notice that John Maynard Keynes' General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money was no longer available on the site. Too bad. I assume that is a Bono Act issue (He published it in 1936 IIRC). I don't think I agree with that statement. Only a portion of that increased power is exploited. Office computers running Word and POP for instance exploit very little of their increased power. I don't know what the increased contribution of computing is, but I doubt it is directly proportional to the increase in raw computing power.
Or in some measures, GDP/number of workers. Productivity sounds like some magic economic formula but it is pretty simple. If you reduce the number of workers and the hours they work, but not the collective product, productivity goes up by definition. This is hardly news. Why else would they lay people off?
He didn't say contextual menus were a Windowsism, he said right-click contextual menus were.
The original poster's inability to get a contextual menu without a modifier key or second mouse button is an IE issue not an OS issue. The correct single button action is click-hold. Try it under Mozilla. You'll get the same menu you get from a right-click.
The stories were essentially the same in everything but tense. He helpfully pasted my post into the new one to save me the trouble. BTW, so far the answer is no, it doesn't fix WINS.
I missed the fact that this is a new story. I saw his version and couldn't find mine. Just being hypertest illiterate. I'm sure he is just being helpful.
Creepy. How did he do this?
Can someone explain how this guy removed my identical post of this morning? He cut and pasted my text. The only change he made was removing the word sure from the title. I guess this is one way for me to be modded higher than 5.
Apple claims CIFS compatibility, but they horribly broke WINS in their Samba implementation. If you add a WINS server you can't browse across subnets. All you can see is the WINS server itself. If you remove WINS you can browse your local subnet normally.
For some reason, I seem to be the only person who cares about this. I have never seen it mentioned and nobody responds when I post about it. My local Apple Tech rep didn't even know aout it. I did find it documented in this technote.
The only genocide that article mentions is the well documented German genocide of Namibians. In the words of German General Trotha, " "Within the German borders, every Herero, whether armed or unarmed, with or without cattle, will be shot. I shall not accept any more women or children."
From your article.
Namibians also suffered horribly under South African rule and thousands served as slaves or near slaves in the diamond and uranium mines.
My mistake. At least they refund my GST when I take my gay lit/porn out of the country.
Great country you guys have up there, BTW. Always been a fan. My uncle lived on an island in Parry Sound (which as every Canadian child knows was the home of Bobby Orr).