By releasing Boot Camp, Apple relieved me of worrying about whether I'd have to keep buying PCs every so often, just to play some dang games. I would like to see more x86 come to Macs now (since they're x86 now), but until then, my new iMac runs Oblivion much faster than my 2 year old 3.0GHz PC, and in widescreen, even.
And incidentally, I can only assume that Boot Camp allows you to emulate a traditional BIOS for Windows (or whatever the real issue was that prevented Windows from booting up normally). If that's so, then how far could we possibly be from allowing Linux installations on the Macs?
Every time I've tried to alter network access and authentication for PostgreSQL, it has broken. The format of the files, at least the last time I did it, possibly a year or so ago, is unclear, and altering it feels very fragile.
BUT: It looks like Apple is still handling the boot process (i.e. it's not "just partitioning the disk"), so there's no need to worry about not being compatible with the BIOS, etc. So if Apple (or someone?) wanted to, they could make a Boot Camp for Linux, too.
And by defining your price as relative to the variable mostExpensivePrice, rather than a fixed amount, you are assured to have the most expensive music player, forever:-)
Steve Ballmer is a chanter. Chanters need things in their lives to be explainable in single words (in this case, "NO!!", "BAD!!", or "CRUSHHH!!!") -- that's all they understand. This rule is followed consistently; it may as well be written into their DNA. This results in confusion when what is really meant is not properly expressed (e.g. "DEVELOPERS!!!" instead of "Hi, I'm Steve Ballmer. We have a delightful set of SDKs for you to peruse."). Acronyms help. XP, ME, CE, NT. All releases of Windows can be referred to in one word, and that's not an accident. Prior to the standardization of consumers to one version of Windows (i.e. XP), there were disparate platforms to support and talk about on a daily basis, which is why the seemingly random ME, CE, and NT monickers were chosen to form one word, CEMENT, so that top-level management could keep not only the entire suite of Windows solutions available in their brain in the same day, but also to capture some of the trademark (literally trademarked) Microsoft attitude toward customers and competitors (e.g. - shoes, - support, - innovation). And who said Microsoft wasn't clever?
Actually, it's easy to uninstall the IE7 Beta (the one I used, anyway): All you have to do is go into Add/Remove Programs, click [Show Updates], and scroll down to IE7 and uninstall.
Hey, at least now we'll have a choice other than "Scantily-clad woman with back problems A," "Scantily-clad woman with back problems B," and "Illogically-clad woman enhanced with mammary-bouncing algorithm.":-)
In the video, I heard Will say that world/universe data from other users would be downloaded and then simulated on your computer. I actually like that idea, so you don't have to worry about lag and whatnot. And it can allow the computer to keep the game more balanced as you advance and do different things, which sounds like a fundamental game mechanic from what I understand. "Flashing" the universe would just keep things interesting and dynamic. I'm very interested to see how it works.
What you say assumes that the group of people responsible for taking action against this type of content are frivolous, strangers to common sense, and do not take their grave task seriously.
Yes perhaps you're right: perhaps I just don't have the needs or desires that others legitimately have. And incidentally, I just got a Sidekick, so...:-)
Is the best approach really to try and emulate a full-size computer as small as possible? I mean, is it better to try and have a usable web browser, or is it better to try and do what we really want in a different way: leverage worldwide connectivity in as small a form-factor as is usable? So instead of having a web browser that can present websites in a legible format (which does in fact require a screen bigger than would fit in your pocket), you'd have programs that leverage the power of the web, and present data in ways usable on a mobile device -- and do so in ways that take advantage of the portability and convenience of the device in truly idiosyncratic and innovative ways. So you'd have, for example, programs that detect proximity to certain things or people, and allow you to do something with or about them, wirelessly. OnStar and moblogging are good examples, I suppose. If I could think of better ones, I'd probably be working on them rather than divulging them openly;-) Right?
So in other words, I don't know that I want to carry around a big tablet just to browse the web and read email and watch movies on a small screen. I recently moved to an iMac, and I'm happy to park myself in a certain room and concentrate on programming or watching a movie. I don't need to be able to pick that up and move.
Why would people use Windows Messenger for office IM? At least partly because it's built into Windows and is branded by Microsoft -- so it comes with support and guarantees from the people they already give so much money to. And now AOL is trying to compete in this arena. At least that's the way I see it; call it pessimistic, but I don't know that this is an olive branch being extended to the OSS or freelance developer.
A Microsoft rep just told me this morning that Frontpage will be renamed to something like "Sharepoint site administrator" -- something with "Sharepoint" in the title, and a step away from generic web publishing, anyway. And the rep said that this was to be expected because that's what "Frontpage is anyway." So perhaps Microsoft really is pulling away from consumer web-page creation. I can see why they would: how can you justify offline creation of webpages to people who are perceived to be blog-addicted? It's all online now. Well, that's what I'd suspect them of thinking, anyway.
Though, I'm sure you can still create HTML with MS Word:-)
Since the new Macs are based on Intel chips, it seems - at least theoretically - like you could get Windows programs running pretty easily, assuming some sort of Windows compatibility (e.g. WINE) environment. Well, it wouldn't be easy, but at least you wouldn't have to emulate a processor. If I thought I could run any Windows program in OS X, I feel like I'd be ready and willing to sell my PC and buy an iMac. That is, I don't know that I'd necessarily need a full Windows installation. And it would actually be not-ideal to have to reboot into Windows, because it changes my whole context, and I feel like I'd want to use Windows for really specific reasons, and don't want to have to close down everything I'm doing in OS X at the time.
Yeah, I guess I just don't consider that a true choice; it's a tained choice that challenges nothing and enlightens nobody. It's not about being right; it's about learning.
I don't think you can really "choose to continue believing." I believe that you must re-choose. It's not hard to continue believing something. It's not hard to, for example, say "I choose to drive a car." This is not the case; no choice was really made. Having religion is much too deeply rooted to simply say "I choose to continue believing this." Why, just ask yourself if you choose to continue eating meat, or if you should become a vegetarian. If you're not familiar with the reasons for being vegetarian, you might respond with incredulity, and say "well, of course I eat meat! Don't even ask me again." This is, I believe, what is meant when it is said that "the unexamined life is not worth living" (Socrates).
I agree. I found it very hard to give up christianity, but I have to say it was mostly out of fear of going to hell (and it can't be any easier now, with people who don't believe in hell being labeled heretics). Few things in life can be said to be free of influence (which is why you must be mindful, which is one reason I'm Buddhist, and incidentally, Buddhism requires little or no beliefs other than faith in the goodness of your teacher and the teachings). People "think" or "believe," without ever really having made a conscious choice to do so. I think that's bad, and I worry about that when it comes time to raise kids.
It's good to know that they can use things other than meat, but this country uses so much meat that I feel like there would be a lot of meat in there. I thought they used corn?
It is not cost effective to raise animals explicitly for biodiesel production, thus, it won't be that way. Ever.
I don't agree with that, because people buy beef even though they complain about it, and they buy cars when they could take the bus.
I can sympathize with what you're saying about not worrying about it, but I don't agree with that. I feel like everything is deemed as a "little evil," but that belies the truth. When you guy a gallon of gas, you're contributing to a lot of bad things. When you buy meat, especially non-organic meat, you're contributing to a lot of bad things (for example, see Kentucky Fried Cruelty.
Now that I know what bio-diesel is, I don't support it. I went vegetarian because I didn't like how people treat animals and because I don't want animals to die just so I can live my life. I won't support bio-diesel for the same reasons. In fact, I don't know which seems less personally moral to me: regular gas, or bio-diesel.
Slashdot Mirror
By releasing Boot Camp, Apple relieved me of worrying about whether I'd have to keep buying PCs every so often, just to play some dang games. I would like to see more x86 come to Macs now (since they're x86 now), but until then, my new iMac runs Oblivion much faster than my 2 year old 3.0GHz PC, and in widescreen, even.
And incidentally, I can only assume that Boot Camp allows you to emulate a traditional BIOS for Windows (or whatever the real issue was that prevented Windows from booting up normally). If that's so, then how far could we possibly be from allowing Linux installations on the Macs?
Every time I've tried to alter network access and authentication for PostgreSQL, it has broken. The format of the files, at least the last time I did it, possibly a year or so ago, is unclear, and altering it feels very fragile.
BUT: It looks like Apple is still handling the boot process (i.e. it's not "just partitioning the disk"), so there's no need to worry about not being compatible with the BIOS, etc. So if Apple (or someone?) wanted to, they could make a Boot Camp for Linux, too.
And by defining your price as relative to the variable mostExpensivePrice, rather than a fixed amount, you are assured to have the most expensive music player, forever :-)
Steve Ballmer is a chanter. Chanters need things in their lives to be explainable in single words (in this case, "NO!!", "BAD!!", or "CRUSHHH!!!") -- that's all they understand. This rule is followed consistently; it may as well be written into their DNA. This results in confusion when what is really meant is not properly expressed (e.g. "DEVELOPERS!!!" instead of "Hi, I'm Steve Ballmer. We have a delightful set of SDKs for you to peruse."). Acronyms help. XP, ME, CE, NT. All releases of Windows can be referred to in one word, and that's not an accident. Prior to the standardization of consumers to one version of Windows (i.e. XP), there were disparate platforms to support and talk about on a daily basis, which is why the seemingly random ME, CE, and NT monickers were chosen to form one word, CEMENT, so that top-level management could keep not only the entire suite of Windows solutions available in their brain in the same day, but also to capture some of the trademark (literally trademarked) Microsoft attitude toward customers and competitors (e.g. - shoes, - support, - innovation). And who said Microsoft wasn't clever?
Actually, it's easy to uninstall the IE7 Beta (the one I used, anyway): All you have to do is go into Add/Remove Programs, click [Show Updates], and scroll down to IE7 and uninstall.
This is our chance to get rid of RealPlayer once and for all! Let's all support this!
Are you sure "Halo Effect" isn't just the rumored name of Halo 3?
Hey, at least now we'll have a choice other than "Scantily-clad woman with back problems A," "Scantily-clad woman with back problems B," and "Illogically-clad woman enhanced with mammary-bouncing algorithm." :-)
In the video, I heard Will say that world/universe data from other users would be downloaded and then simulated on your computer. I actually like that idea, so you don't have to worry about lag and whatnot. And it can allow the computer to keep the game more balanced as you advance and do different things, which sounds like a fundamental game mechanic from what I understand. "Flashing" the universe would just keep things interesting and dynamic. I'm very interested to see how it works.
Two questions:
1. When does this come out?
2. Will it run on my new iMac 20" (w/ 2.0GHz Intel Core Duo)?
What you say assumes that the group of people responsible for taking action against this type of content are frivolous, strangers to common sense, and do not take their grave task seriously.
Yes perhaps you're right: perhaps I just don't have the needs or desires that others legitimately have. And incidentally, I just got a Sidekick, so... :-)
Is the best approach really to try and emulate a full-size computer as small as possible? I mean, is it better to try and have a usable web browser, or is it better to try and do what we really want in a different way: leverage worldwide connectivity in as small a form-factor as is usable? So instead of having a web browser that can present websites in a legible format (which does in fact require a screen bigger than would fit in your pocket), you'd have programs that leverage the power of the web, and present data in ways usable on a mobile device -- and do so in ways that take advantage of the portability and convenience of the device in truly idiosyncratic and innovative ways. So you'd have, for example, programs that detect proximity to certain things or people, and allow you to do something with or about them, wirelessly. OnStar and moblogging are good examples, I suppose. If I could think of better ones, I'd probably be working on them rather than divulging them openly ;-) Right?
So in other words, I don't know that I want to carry around a big tablet just to browse the web and read email and watch movies on a small screen. I recently moved to an iMac, and I'm happy to park myself in a certain room and concentrate on programming or watching a movie. I don't need to be able to pick that up and move.
Why would people use Windows Messenger for office IM? At least partly because it's built into Windows and is branded by Microsoft -- so it comes with support and guarantees from the people they already give so much money to. And now AOL is trying to compete in this arena. At least that's the way I see it; call it pessimistic, but I don't know that this is an olive branch being extended to the OSS or freelance developer.
A Microsoft rep just told me this morning that Frontpage will be renamed to something like "Sharepoint site administrator" -- something with "Sharepoint" in the title, and a step away from generic web publishing, anyway. And the rep said that this was to be expected because that's what "Frontpage is anyway." So perhaps Microsoft really is pulling away from consumer web-page creation. I can see why they would: how can you justify offline creation of webpages to people who are perceived to be blog-addicted? It's all online now. Well, that's what I'd suspect them of thinking, anyway.
:-)
Though, I'm sure you can still create HTML with MS Word
Since the new Macs are based on Intel chips, it seems - at least theoretically - like you could get Windows programs running pretty easily, assuming some sort of Windows compatibility (e.g. WINE) environment. Well, it wouldn't be easy, but at least you wouldn't have to emulate a processor. If I thought I could run any Windows program in OS X, I feel like I'd be ready and willing to sell my PC and buy an iMac. That is, I don't know that I'd necessarily need a full Windows installation. And it would actually be not-ideal to have to reboot into Windows, because it changes my whole context, and I feel like I'd want to use Windows for really specific reasons, and don't want to have to close down everything I'm doing in OS X at the time.
Yeah, I guess I just don't consider that a true choice; it's a tained choice that challenges nothing and enlightens nobody. It's not about being right; it's about learning.
I don't think you can really "choose to continue believing." I believe that you must re-choose. It's not hard to continue believing something. It's not hard to, for example, say "I choose to drive a car." This is not the case; no choice was really made. Having religion is much too deeply rooted to simply say "I choose to continue believing this." Why, just ask yourself if you choose to continue eating meat, or if you should become a vegetarian. If you're not familiar with the reasons for being vegetarian, you might respond with incredulity, and say "well, of course I eat meat! Don't even ask me again." This is, I believe, what is meant when it is said that "the unexamined life is not worth living" (Socrates).
I agree. I found it very hard to give up christianity, but I have to say it was mostly out of fear of going to hell (and it can't be any easier now, with people who don't believe in hell being labeled heretics). Few things in life can be said to be free of influence (which is why you must be mindful, which is one reason I'm Buddhist, and incidentally, Buddhism requires little or no beliefs other than faith in the goodness of your teacher and the teachings). People "think" or "believe," without ever really having made a conscious choice to do so. I think that's bad, and I worry about that when it comes time to raise kids.
He got insulted. He doesn't have to be happy with that.
I don't agree with that, because people buy beef even though they complain about it, and they buy cars when they could take the bus.
I can sympathize with what you're saying about not worrying about it, but I don't agree with that. I feel like everything is deemed as a "little evil," but that belies the truth. When you guy a gallon of gas, you're contributing to a lot of bad things. When you buy meat, especially non-organic meat, you're contributing to a lot of bad things (for example, see Kentucky Fried Cruelty.
Now that I know what bio-diesel is, I don't support it. I went vegetarian because I didn't like how people treat animals and because I don't want animals to die just so I can live my life. I won't support bio-diesel for the same reasons. In fact, I don't know which seems less personally moral to me: regular gas, or bio-diesel.