As I have a very strong suspicion that the iPod "photo" will, with a software upgrade, be a TV/Movie player, "media device" fits a lot better than a mere MP3 player.
It's not that MY child needs protecting, it's that YOU and YOUR child need to be protected, as you're obviously incapable of doing so to my satisfaction.
I'm aware of the "larger target" design choice from my Mac work in 1983 (correct date), but you're correct in that larger monitors are negating those benefits. Which is why the option would be nice...
software vendors will feel even less of an incentive to port applications (games) to Mac OS X
Why would you care? Most games take over the entire screen and UI anyway. If you can do an instantaneous user/OS/context switch, or run PC applications within a "virtual" window, then why does it matter that it's not an OSX app?
As such, for the cost of an XP license you could run everything, not just those apps who've been ported...
Of all things on a Mac, that REALLY needs to be an option. It wasn't bad on all-in-one Macs with small screens, but on a 30" or dual-23s that universal, top-of-screen menu is all to often WAY OVER THERE...
Which is precisely what pagerank, in essence, was designed to prevent. YOU can't make it popular, other people have to choose to do it by deciding your site is interesting and by linking it.
As such, Google only reflects your popularity. If everyone could manipulate their results to "get it popular" on Google, then no one's site would be.
As to getting yours popular, write articles, participate in blogs, get/.'ed.
(Of course, if you have no money for advertising then you can't afford to get/.'ed....)
If you don't use your own chips, you don't write drivers for them, either.
Uh huh. Never in the history of mankind has a company bought a processor from A, a ADC from B, a USB controller from C, and never had to write a driver to make that custom integration hang together.
We're not talking chips, we're talking about talking to devices that actually do something, and.... never mind. I'm talking to an idiot.
At least in a table when you say cellpadding="2" all the current browsers get it right, unlike CSS "padding" where some include it in the width and some don't and you have to rely on broken parser hacks to get them straight.
There's doing it right... and doing it the hard way.
Yes, but if you're wireless card company "A" and you spent hundreds of hours (and tens of thousands of dollars) developing those drivers why release the source so company "B" can order the same chip, incorporate the driver for free, and undercut your price since THEY didn't spend those dollars.
In essence, it's the "patent" argument. All information may be "free", but the first person who spends money creating it is the loser, as the other parsites sponge off their work and don't need to recoup those dollars.
This used to be the place where the OTHER sites got their leads. Now it seems all/. can do is rehash and repeat (several times) week-old news reported elsewhere...
OTOH, if that program is Photoshop (as an example) and you only need it once in a while on an occasional image, then you are using it, and more to the point, the fact that you have it and use it means that you didn't purchase a cheaper program like Elements or Paint Shop.
It may not be that you ever would have purchased PS, but as long as you have it and use it you're not purchasing a cheaper alternative either.
And besides, if you have no use for it, then why do you have it?
You mean that $150 bread machine whose costs you need to amortize into each loaf, right? That bread machine that requires power each cycle, right? That bread machine that has to be prepped and washed and cleaned each time, right? That bread machine that wears out and needs to be replaced about every year or so, right?
Linux developers generally follow their Unix predecessors' design philosophy: simple programs that do one thing well, linked together for more complex features...
You can sell it but I'm not buying any. From my perspective FOSS developers revel in adding every cool feature and function they and five other people will use.
Don't believe me? Check out the function lists of something like mySQL or, better yet, PHP. Or the number of programs that have known bugs on a given platform, but hey, at least they can be skinned...
It's not IQ so much as age. The groups mentioned all appeal and are marketed to the teen and pre-teen set. It's a bit much to expect a 12-year-old to have sophisticated tastes...
Millions of users protesting against high prices - by using online sharing. And they CAN'T be stopped.
And that is just wishful thinking. Push them hard enough, and they will find additional legal and technological solutions that we will NOT like.
Mistreat "fair use" to a large enough extent, and there will be no fair use - at all.
We'd all be MUCH better off if people supported alternative sources that have free or reasonably-priced music. Which is what we say we want and which is something they can NOT defend against.
Steal, however, and they will use every weapon in their arsenal, and feel justified in doing so.
With Open Source, a patch can be released right away and users can compile in the new sources themselves. Any issues can be immediately identified and reported back to the maintainers...
Which is basically a fancy way of saying you're going to treat your user base as guinea pigs and let them test your patch for you.
Hopefully any "issues" they have will not have been fatal...
One branch should be in charge of making laws, and the other repealing laws. AND it should take a 2/3s majority to create a law, but only a 1/3 vote to repeal a law.
Slashdot Mirror
As I have a very strong suspicion that the iPod "photo" will, with a software upgrade, be a TV/Movie player, "media device" fits a lot better than a mere MP3 player.
Or Time Enough For Love by RAH.
It's not that MY child needs protecting, it's that YOU and YOUR child need to be protected, as you're obviously incapable of doing so to my satisfaction.
Unfortuantely, no one has given me a 60" plasma screen for Christmas. Bummer.
I'm aware of the "larger target" design choice from my Mac work in 1983 (correct date), but you're correct in that larger monitors are negating those benefits. Which is why the option would be nice...
Why would you care? Most games take over the entire screen and UI anyway. If you can do an instantaneous user/OS/context switch, or run PC applications within a "virtual" window, then why does it matter that it's not an OSX app?
As such, for the cost of an XP license you could run everything, not just those apps who've been ported...
Of all things on a Mac, that REALLY needs to be an option. It wasn't bad on all-in-one Macs with small screens, but on a 30" or dual-23s that universal, top-of-screen menu is all to often WAY OVER THERE...
Doesn't mean a thing. Smaller sites "borrow" images and icons from other sites all the time.
Which is precisely what pagerank, in essence, was designed to prevent. YOU can't make it popular, other people have to choose to do it by deciding your site is interesting and by linking it.
As such, Google only reflects your popularity. If everyone could manipulate their results to "get it popular" on Google, then no one's site would be.
As to getting yours popular, write articles, participate in blogs, get /.'ed.
(Of course, if you have no money for advertising then you can't afford to get /.'ed....)
Nice philosophy. Lord knows you never want people making products that you actually want and buy to make money...
Wonderful, a PDA that does... nothing at all. I suppose I could always amuse myself doing directory listings...
Uh huh. Never in the history of mankind has a company bought a processor from A, a ADC from B, a USB controller from C, and never had to write a driver to make that custom integration hang together.
We're not talking chips, we're talking about talking to devices that actually do something, and.... never mind. I'm talking to an idiot.
At least in a table when you say cellpadding="2" all the current browsers get it right, unlike CSS "padding" where some include it in the width and some don't and you have to rely on broken parser hacks to get them straight.
There's doing it right... and doing it the hard way.
In essence, it's the "patent" argument. All information may be "free", but the first person who spends money creating it is the loser, as the other parsites sponge off their work and don't need to recoup those dollars.
This used to be the place where the OTHER sites got their leads. Now it seems all /. can do is rehash and repeat (several times) week-old news reported elsewhere...
It may not be that you ever would have purchased PS, but as long as you have it and use it you're not purchasing a cheaper alternative either.
And besides, if you have no use for it, then why do you have it?
That bread machine?
You can sell it but I'm not buying any. From my perspective FOSS developers revel in adding every cool feature and function they and five other people will use.
Don't believe me? Check out the function lists of something like mySQL or, better yet, PHP. Or the number of programs that have known bugs on a given platform, but hey, at least they can be skinned...
It's not IQ so much as age. The groups mentioned all appeal and are marketed to the teen and pre-teen set. It's a bit much to expect a 12-year-old to have sophisticated tastes...
And that is just wishful thinking. Push them hard enough, and they will find additional legal and technological solutions that we will NOT like.
Mistreat "fair use" to a large enough extent, and there will be no fair use - at all.
We'd all be MUCH better off if people supported alternative sources that have free or reasonably-priced music. Which is what we say we want and which is something they can NOT defend against.
Steal, however, and they will use every weapon in their arsenal, and feel justified in doing so.
It should not, no. But unless you're omniscient and can see EVERY possible ramification of your change, especially in a large code base, it should.
And since most of us aren't all-seeing, how hard is it to rerun your unit tests?
No unit tests? Probably not a well-controlled system then, is it?
Which is basically a fancy way of saying you're going to treat your user base as guinea pigs and let them test your patch for you.
Hopefully any "issues" they have will not have been fatal...
Someone has been reading too much Heinlein...
Doesn't help if they're supposed to be developing for OSX or XP. They need to be eating their own dog food.
Fine. YOU try finding decent developers...