I doubt that people will be so put off by the DRM as to not purchase Spore. Plus you think EA executives will know WHY people gave Spore a negative review? All you're really doing is telling them "Hey we don't want games like this anymore!" Nothing short of a lawsuit against game companies for putting DRM on content you should legally be entitled to use unrestricted. Obviously putting the game on a website and sharing with the world should remain illegal, but the DRM should not be forced on anything you legally own a copy of.
Besides DRM doesn't even work. I paid for the game a week before it came out and downloaded it online. I didn't realize I was only pre-downloading most of the game. After two hours the download software told me the game is released on September 7th. I thought that was quite dumb since I paid for it, I downloaded 99%, why can't you just let me play? So I went off to the pirate bay and there was spore already cracked and waiting to be downloaded. I still haven't installed a legit copy of spore since I can't find the EA Downloaded to get the game on my home computer (I downloaded the game at work.)
So far I think the game is terrific, it goes a bit fast to the space stage and there's hardly anything to the tribal stage. My only complaint is that I can't install it on my MacBook Pro since the game requires Leopard (I have 10.4.) This game is probably going to be my only reason for updating my laptop to Leopard.
Most of the stoners in my life respond to high stress situations by telling their boss to kiss their ass, going home, and laughing hysterically at their DVD of "The Last Dragon" for about 12 hours.
Hmmm that's interesting, most of the stoners in my life responded very well to high stress situations. Most went to ivy league schools, a couple went to Harvard Law, others graduated from schools like NYU (where just about every student I've met smokes pot.)
Perhaps your friends smoke entirely too much pot (multiple times a day) and don't have any serious responsibility (are they working at Burger King?), but my stoner friends are doing very well in life and have handled many stressful situations in a professional manner. Sure that doesn't apply to everyone, it depends where you know the people from. If you go to MIT and meet a bunch of stoners (which isn't hard) most likely they wouldn't be like your stoner friends.
It works quite well, the security's a welcome addition.
What security? You mean that little pop-up thing asking you "are you sure you want to do that?" every time you click something. The little pop-up that annoys people to the point where they begin to just ignore it, or figure out how to turn it off? Or is there some other amazing new security features in Windows Vista that I'm not aware of?
Perhaps because the mods realized I was making a point about the approaching obsolescence of physical media.
Yes, I understood that point, it's still not insightful. MP3s made CDs more popular as a storage medium by allowing people to download a collection of songs from their favorite source, then burn it to a cheap CD to share with their friends, listen to in the car, sell in Chinatown, etc. The CD isn't going away any time soon, it's still a very convenient method for getting data, whether it's music, movies or even games.
This is especially true in less populated areas where broadband is still limited to a few places, or the speeds are too low to do anything useful. You can just go to the local Walmart and buy a CD in areas where you can't get anything faster than dial up. Plus CDs are perfect for people who aren't very tech savvy, sure there are some people who are hopeless (I had to explain to someone their DVDs weren't playing because they were putting them in upside down) but there are also plenty of people who can't figure out computers but can understand something as simple as playing a CD.
I know this is slashdot and we're all for getting rid of the record companies, but CDs aren't evil by nature, they're perfect for what they do. The death of the old distribution methods (record companies charging $20 for a cheap round plastic disc with audio information on it) doesn't mean the death of the CD.
Hell, I'd pay more for a system with no cd player, no memory, and only a headphone jack than I'd play for any other type of car audio system without the headphone jack, and I'm not alone.
I've never seen a car with just an ipod jack although I'm sure they exist. My current car is a 2008 Ford Mustang, it comes with a headphone jack in an out of the way location (it's in the center console.) I leave a little 3' wire with two male headphone connections so when someone with an mp3 player comes in my car we can listen to their music.
It's quite nice, although if I didn't have that it wouldn't be too hard to run an RCA to headphone connection to the back of the stereo, as most car stereos I've seen have axillary RCA inputs.
CDs are a storage medium, MP3s are a file format. You can rip all of your CDs and make a bunch of MP3 files but unless you have something to put them on they're useless, that's where CDs come in. If you haven't noticed, CDs are cheap, easily available, easy to write to, and they don't require a computer or an internet connection for transferring media (you can't just go into a store and buy a bunch of MP3s, you need something to put them on, like a CD.)
The eyes narrow and cant upward at the outside, cheeks change shape slightly due to muscle tensions, hell the hairline and ears even move slightly. This is all lacking.
Someone didn't watch the video (or at least didn't understand it.) The hairline and ears are real, how could that possibly be lacking when she smiles? Everything her actual face does, the virtual face will mimic, but only the face is virtual the rest of her is real.
I own a Canon EOS 5D and a few lenses, one of them is a fairly large 70-200mm f2.8L. I usually bring it to outdoor events that my younger family members might be in (sports, graduation, anything where I'll be far from what I'm trying to shoot) and I always feel like people think I'm a creep. They see the huge camera and think "I hope he's not taking pictures of MY kid!"
I think people have an idea from movies that the bad guys always have some huge fancy cameras and they need to take dozens of photos before they can do their evil deeds. I don't think they realize there already exist hundreds of photos of any potential targets online, and someone would be better off with a small concealable camera, or even a hidden video camera recording the area as you go around.
There's so much paranoia about cameras, and this isn't just because of 9/11. It's been illegal to photograph the Verrazano bridge from on the bridge or at the toll booths for years before 9/11. I've almost had a camera confiscated taking a photo at the toll booth of a man on a motorcycle waving his ezpass around trying to get it to read.
Does anyone realize that the passwords would have never been given to the DA's office if it wasn't for his actions? The passwords would then not be part of public record. Do you think the person at the IT office would have made the list of passwords public if Childs left gracefully?
Someone at the the DA's office is the incompetent person in this case, but that does not validate his locking out of everyone competent enough to take care of the system (the people that would have replaced him at the IT department.)
Sometimes the majority or the cultural norms rule. That's life. No shoes, no shirt, no service.
I like that you end on that. It's like you don't get the meaning of the previous post at all. All of those activities ar"No shoes, no shirt, no service." is a decision entirely left up to the business owner. For smoking, someone stepped in and figured business owners were too dumb to determine that smoking is bad, so they asked the government to make it illegal to smoke in a bar or restaurant.
I don't smoke, but I still don't like the idea that a business is legally restricted from allowing customers to do something that is perfectly legal in public.
Seriously, if they are in a meeting - or elsewhere where a ringing phone is frowned upon - have them silence the thing.
A silenced phone makes a lot of noise in a quiet setting while it vibrates in your pocket.
I'd like sometimes to go straight to a persons voice mail. Sometimes you just don't have enough time to fully talk to a person but texting is inconvenient. You can just leave a quick voice mail and they'll get your message.
What is being proposed is to dump a bunch of lime into the ocean, where it will react with the overabundance of CO2 to produce calcium carbonate, thereby removing the CO2 which is ALREADY THERE, and AT THE SAME TIME sequestering it on the bottom of the ocean where it will eventually sediment back into limestone, which probably won't be dumped into anyone's gas tank for a few million years AT LEAST.
I did read the article
FTA -
Adding lime to seawater increases alkalinity, boosting seawater's ability to absorb CO2 from air and reducing the tendency to release it back again.
They're changing the pH of the ocean and allowing it to absorb more CO2, also reducing the tendency to release it back into the air. All of that sounds like a potentially bad situation, I don't see anyone saying "Oh it's no problem because this is what happens to the CO2 once it's absorbed into the ocean."
Now, I've been against a lot of the ideas so far, but this one smacks of fucking genius, and has the potential to actually do something about the problem, which is something your unrealistic utopian ramblings will never have.
Yes it might be a good idea now, but what about 50 years from now?
"Well 90% of all marine life died, we dumped that lime into the ocean and it started absorbing CO2 at an unprecedented rate, the fish started to suffocate because there was too high a concentration of CO2 in the ocean and not enough O2, it seemed like a good idea at the time. Plus since we rallied around the idea that the ocean would absorb the CO2 we did invested less in stopping our overproduction of it, now the ocean is saturated with CO2 and our atmosphere's not looking too good..."
Making a bike produces a negligible amount of CO2 compared to driving a car, your statement is downright false.
It's not making the bike, it's riding the bike.
The person riding the bike will consume more food because they're burning more calories, the food comes from all over in large trucks that create more pollution than a car, plus if you're eating more meat that's even more pollution since raising livestock creates all sorts of greenhouse gases.
Then there is also the reasoning that the person ends up extending their lifespan due to being more active. Over the extended lifespan they end up burning more CO2 than if they just drove their car to work and died of a heart attack at a young age.
well, that's just the reasoning, not entirely sure if it's 100% true as I haven't personally checked the figures on how much CO2 is created getting the fuel to the car then driving to work as compared to harvesting and shipping the extra food you will now have to eat, and any CO2 you will create during your extended lifespan (if your lifespan is extended at all.)
It's easy to sit in an arm chair and say sarcastic things such as "What Could Possibly Go Wrong?" and then use that as an excuse to do nothing. This may not be an ideal solution. But given the alternatives, it may be worth trying.
Asking "What could possibly go wrong?" isn't exactly justification for doing nothing, although I really do want to know "What could possibly go wrong?" I would imagine dumping large amounts of lime into the oceans might somehow affect the marine life. Plus what happens to all of the CO2 once it's been absorbed into the water? Can it also become a hazard to marine life? What happens when the lime becomes saturated with CO2 and it can no longer absorb anymore?
Unless the lime converts the CO2 into something harmless this isn't a very good solution. We'll have to rely on cutting down the production of CO2 eventually, not saying that this won't help just that we shouldn't rely on only this (and we should really figure out the negatives first.)
You can also left click and hold the mouse down on the non-responding app in the dock, which invokes the right-click menu (not all apps, but many).
Yes... I know, I said that right before the part you copied.
"The problem is, sometimes that doesn't work (like when finder is dying and you need to restart it, which you can only do through the right click menu)"
I've only recently discovered there's a mac equivalent to Ctrl+Alt+Del to bring up some force quit menu, but before that I'd have to right click on an item in the dock and do force quit, although for finder this option is changed to restart finder.
In any case, your example is dubious, as I'm not really sure where you would right click on the Finder, since the Finder doesn't have an icon to right click on to invoke the "force quit" option.
Yes it does, it's the icon on the far left of the dock that you can't remove (it's like the Mac version of the "Start" button.) You don't click "Force Quit" instead for Finder it says "Restart Finder."
And in contrast, take a user with no very little experience with either system, and I think you'll see why the Mac is generally considered to be more user-friendly. Figuring things out requires less prerequisite knowledge.
Sure, lets take a person who has never seen a computer in their life. Now having not seen a computer they wouldn't know what icons do what, on a Windows XP computer after a fresh install they will most likely see the blank desktop and the little "Start" button. Well they'd probably click that since they want to start using the computer, now they see a few icons, one of them says "Internet Explorer" well they've heard of the internet and they know that's what you need a computer for, so they click it. Now they're presented with a website (probably the MSN site) this will probably confuse them since they've never been to a website before and don't know what they're doing (although some people pick up things rather quickly.) On a Mac they'd look at all the different icons, maybe they'd hover over them and see the names, well they're not interested in animals so why would they click on "Safari"? Well they'll click on "Finder" since they want to find the "Internet", maybe they'll know what an "Application" is and maybe they'll click on that. Oh, they see "Internet Explorer" well they know they want to go on the internet so they'll probably open that.
What makes Macs easier to use is that there's less you can do to "break" the computer. You're not going to install the latest malware on your computer since the weird popup that says your computer is infected doesn't look right (since it's modeled after a windows error), and when you try to "clean" your computer the software won't install.
Plus, it's easier to set the computer up so they don't have to get someone else to do it or read the instructions (although some people are helpless and can't figure out how to plug in something as simple as a laptop and somehow can't figure out the instructions.) Once it's going they still need to learn what everything is for, it's not more obvious on a mac how to get online or how to check your e-mail (by default the start menu says "Internet" above your default browser and "E-Mail" above your default e-mail client, and most people would start with the "Start" menu.) On a mac you've got an icon of a compass and an icon of what's supposed to be a post card with a bird on it? What is that supposed to even mean? Plus once you've got an application open on a mac you've got a few things on top, a red button a yellow button and a green button... So what, the green one makes the program go, the yellow one slows it down and the red one pauses it? At least Windows gives you a visual representation of what's going to happen.
Plus in software like Preview, I click the green button to maximize but it gets smaller than it just was and now I gotta restore down so I can re-size the window to be bigger than it was whi
Perhaps many photography studios don't have large networks where external drives are considered inconvenient?
Large networks? Even a small network (I'm talking 3 computers) generally has a server people upload all of their important work files to. Plus, what if they do have a large network with a main file server. Apple supports writing files to a networked computer, and you can mount the network drive, but for some reason the only backup option available on a computer that comes standard with gigabit ethernet is a device attached to firewire? Why? What makes firewire so great that you can only save to firewire attached devices and nothing on a network?
My problem with a portable storage device is that the more you move it, the more likely it is that it will get banged around, and we all know with hard drives the more you bang them around the less likely it is your data will survive. Plus all I'm looking to do is copy my files to my home computer, that's it. I just want the raw images from my camera which are stored in an Aperture library on my windows computer. The Aperture library won't copy over to my computer (says something about special characters that can't be displayed, since the Aperture library is basically a folder with many files in it, which I can only access as a group from my mac as far as I can tell.) I saw the vault option and thought "Cool I'll backup to our file server", nope, Mac wants you to go buy an external drive hooked up via firewire. I guess not enough people were using firewire devices and that upset someone at Apple? Maybe they want us to switch from ethernet cables for networking to firewire?
Try and install your licensed XP copy on a new machine to replace the one that died. Wait forever, reboot, reboot, reboot...
I worked in a computer shop, it took about 30 minutes to install windows, reboot ONCE, install all the drivers, reboot again, systems done. Okay you want updates, Install IE7, reboot, install all the other updates, reboot. Not very difficult or time consuming.
If you want to compare repairing a dead system why not compare the cost or ease of replacement? Let's say the monitor dies on your iMac... now what? Sure you can get another monitor on your desk in front of the imac (which would be rather annoying) or you can go through all the trouble of finding a new panel, taking out the old one and replacing it.
Or you can buy one of Macs tower systems. Like the Mac mini. Which is a $600 mac unless you want a monitor (which costs an extra $600 for the cheapest display Mac offers.) Or if you want something slightly more powerful with a video card you can upgrade, your only option is a $2,500 Mac Pro. Oh, you want something cheaper in a standard sized tower that doesn't come with a $1,000 Quad Core Xeon? Sucks for you.
Configuring most things on the Mac are simple and the advanced ones are pretty much equal to Linux.
Not quite, Mac generally has it's own methods of doing most of the config things that you can easily edit a file for in Linux. There always seems to be some extra step when I edit a file, gotta reload some database or application using that file, and I never know what it is, just that editing the file didn't work.
The registry on Windows is a nightmare. Trying to get your software properly uninstalled is a nightmare. I love it when the Add/Remove Program utility fails and leave the entry in you program list forever.
Takes about two seconds to find where the Add/Remove Program list is in the registry (or you can just search the name you see in the program list), plus Windows will ask you if you want to remove the program from the list when it can't find any files for it. Plus windows programs generally save all their install files in one location, and it's generally in Program Files, so you find the folder in there, delete it, and all the files are gone no longer taking up space on your computer. With the mac I never know if something is completely removed since it (being a Unix system) doesn't have one main place that it keeps a program and all of it's files. There's a config directory, a directory for documentation, a directory for the binaries, a directory for plugins. In Unix that's great since things are exactly where they should be, and you can just make uninstall to delete any files it created on installation. Unfortunately for a Mac that doesn't exist and you have to hope moving the programs icon from Applications to the trash actually removes all the files that were created on install.
How your post was modded to "informative" completely escapes me. You should have gotten a 5 for misinformative!
As there are tons of websites, forum threads, IRC chat logs, from Mac users discussing all of the problems I've addressed (especially the finder and uninstall issues) I'd say it's because most people who have a Mac and aren't die hard Steve Jobs worshiping mac fanboys agree that Macs aren't perfect and have some design flaws. Most of the problems I've mentioned were addressed in 10.5 but they've existed for a while and they still aren't 100%. Plus you have to realize it took about 7 years for 10.5 to come out, so that's quite a long time waiting for something as simple as supporting a networked file and settings transfer (there's no reason the Mac shouldn't have treated the drive like a local disk, that's the behavior in Unix when you mount a disk.) Same thing with Finder remembering the settings across all directories (by the way, the option doesn't seem to exist in 10.4, so everyone telling me "It's so easy!" you're talking about 10.5, you're wrong, or there's something fundamentally wrong with my Mac OS X install.)
You keep writing this but everyone keeps pointing out that it is wrong. I'm not sure if you are legitimately missing the responses or are afraid to admit your mistake.
Exactly which part of that is wrong? I'm talking about a laptop, I'd rather use a touchpad. A computer with only one mouse button shouldn't have right click menus. All of those mentioned methods rely on software to emulate a right click during certain actions, it doesn't usually work when the software is barfing.
Another one that you keep repeating but again you keep missing the posts that correct you on this. You do not need to enable the root account to edit the/etc/hosts file. There is sudo at the prompt and a gui method.
Sudo wasn't working on my old computer computer (bought a used Mac so maybe it was some option somewhere, but it just didn't work) so I had to enable the root account, for whatever reason I was only able to do that in single user mode. Plus the gui method for adding new hosts is annoying to find and use, I'd rather just edit/etc/hosts, it's much faster since it's just editing a text file. You just need to get OS X configured properly to use the/etc/hosts file, the problem I have is that it shouldn't overwrite the behavior of Unix, but it does because it wants to provide an easier experience for normal users. Although that doesn't make it easier, they could of made the gui component a front end to the/etc/hosts file, which would be easy for both beginners and power users who have used unix systems.
The Mac transfers everything regardless of whether the software saved things in "normal" locations.
I doubt that the software would transfer your files if you decided to save everything in/etc/files/bob it wouldn't know that it should copy that, and it wouldn't want to copy/etc/* in the off chance it breaks something.
As for copying from an old computer, the Migration Assistant can transfer files using a network. I don't know if this is enabled when the Mac first boots, but I've just checked on my MacBook Pro running 10.5. When it asks you to hook up the firewire cable, there's a "network" button that can let you transfer over ethernet or wireless.
The key there is you're using 10.5. All the annoyances I listed went unfixed from the original Mac OS X up till 10.4 and mostly fixed with the release of 10.5 (the Finder issue where it just randomly forgets what view you picked I've heard is still a problem.)
You have no fucking idea what your talking about do you!?!?!?
Single user mode?!?! Huh?!?!!?!?
This is how I stop my daughter from accessing myspace. I direct it to 127.0.0.1.
Works every time...And there isn't ANYTHING special about her install..
Perhaps it's an issue with Mac OS 10.3 but here's instructions from a website -
Configuring/etc/hosts
Making MacOS X consult/etc/hosts before the DNS server seems rather difficult. In fact, even making MacOS X consult/etc/hosts AT ALL seems rather difficult.
MacOS X uses NetInfo instead of flat files, or it at least wants to do so. In order to get/etc/hosts to work and be consulted first, you should do this:
* Create (as root or using sudo) "/etc/hosts".
* Read the file into NetInfo: "niload hosts .
* Create a directory "/etc/lookupd".
* Create a file "hosts" in that directory.
* Make it contain this line: "LookupOrder FFAgent NIAgent DNSAgent" [2]
* Reboot the machine or HUP lookupd. [3]
I think I had to boot into single user mode because sudo wasn't working and there wasn't a root password set (so I couldn't use su.) Even without booting into single user mode, it's still easier to change the hosts file in Windows (it doesn't require a reset or restarting any services.)
Yes you can. Open a finder window, set it to the view type you want to set as default. I use List View (Cmd+2). Press Cmd+J to show the View Options pane. Notice how this pane changes as you cycle through the different view modes (Cmd+1-4). Once you adjust the settings to your liking, simply click "Use as Defaults" on the bottom of the View Options pane.
Are you sure that's not just a Leopard option?
Here's an article that describes how frustrating the finder view stuff is in 10.4, I'd try your technique if only I brought in my laptop today.
In the Keyboard & Mouse section of System Preferences, under "Trackpad" you can check an option labeled "Tap trackpad using two fingers for secondary click." I use it all the time.
I will try that, but my point was that when finder crashes, these software based right click methods don't work. So I can't right click on finder and force it to restart.
That method doesn't work on a default Mac OS X install, you need to reboot into single user mode and run some commands to set it up to use the/etc/hosts file. Windows by default will use it's version of the hosts file.
have you ever really liked the mouse that came with your PC? I never have... Always bought a better one.
I build all of my own PCs so I buy whatever mouse I want. Although I'm talking about a laptop not a desktop. I'd rather use the touchpad, my point was more they shouldn't have right click menus on a computer that doesn't come with a right mouse button.
remembering per-folder views is actually a FEATURE, one I WISH I could get in Vista!
The default behavior in Vista is to remember per-folder views. Whatever you're doing, you're doing it wrong. Plus I should be allowed to turn off features I don't want (I can turn off Vista's ability to remember per-folder views but I can't do that on my Mac.)
You can back up to network locations, but you have to mount the disk first...
No, I can't. It simply says it's not supported, I can only backup to an external hard drive. I was going to backup to my networks file server which has raid and nightly backups to a separate device. Unfortunately I can't do that.
If diving into the registry is what it takes to fix an issue, and you don't think enabling root to be able to edit/etc/hosts is a problem, I don;t know what to say.
It's not as easy as just enabling root, it's that Mac OSX wasn't designed to read the/etc/hosts file, you have to do something like set it up that way in single user mode, it's a real hassle and involves restarting the computer twice, at least out of the box updating Window's version of the/etc/hosts file doesn't require a restart or any special config options. It "just works."
OS X isn't perfect, but overall, c'mon, just look at the satisfaction ratings.
I'm not saying OS X is bad, I'm just saying I've had more headaches doing simple tasks on Mac OS X then I've ever had doing anything in Windows XP.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt that people will be so put off by the DRM as to not purchase Spore. Plus you think EA executives will know WHY people gave Spore a negative review? All you're really doing is telling them "Hey we don't want games like this anymore!" Nothing short of a lawsuit against game companies for putting DRM on content you should legally be entitled to use unrestricted. Obviously putting the game on a website and sharing with the world should remain illegal, but the DRM should not be forced on anything you legally own a copy of.
Besides DRM doesn't even work. I paid for the game a week before it came out and downloaded it online. I didn't realize I was only pre-downloading most of the game. After two hours the download software told me the game is released on September 7th. I thought that was quite dumb since I paid for it, I downloaded 99%, why can't you just let me play? So I went off to the pirate bay and there was spore already cracked and waiting to be downloaded. I still haven't installed a legit copy of spore since I can't find the EA Downloaded to get the game on my home computer (I downloaded the game at work.)
So far I think the game is terrific, it goes a bit fast to the space stage and there's hardly anything to the tribal stage. My only complaint is that I can't install it on my MacBook Pro since the game requires Leopard (I have 10.4.) This game is probably going to be my only reason for updating my laptop to Leopard.
Most of the stoners in my life respond to high stress situations by telling their boss to kiss their ass, going home, and laughing hysterically at their DVD of "The Last Dragon" for about 12 hours.
Hmmm that's interesting, most of the stoners in my life responded very well to high stress situations. Most went to ivy league schools, a couple went to Harvard Law, others graduated from schools like NYU (where just about every student I've met smokes pot.)
Perhaps your friends smoke entirely too much pot (multiple times a day) and don't have any serious responsibility (are they working at Burger King?), but my stoner friends are doing very well in life and have handled many stressful situations in a professional manner. Sure that doesn't apply to everyone, it depends where you know the people from. If you go to MIT and meet a bunch of stoners (which isn't hard) most likely they wouldn't be like your stoner friends.
It works quite well, the security's a welcome addition.
What security? You mean that little pop-up thing asking you "are you sure you want to do that?" every time you click something. The little pop-up that annoys people to the point where they begin to just ignore it, or figure out how to turn it off? Or is there some other amazing new security features in Windows Vista that I'm not aware of?
Perhaps because the mods realized I was making a point about the approaching obsolescence of physical media.
Yes, I understood that point, it's still not insightful. MP3s made CDs more popular as a storage medium by allowing people to download a collection of songs from their favorite source, then burn it to a cheap CD to share with their friends, listen to in the car, sell in Chinatown, etc. The CD isn't going away any time soon, it's still a very convenient method for getting data, whether it's music, movies or even games.
This is especially true in less populated areas where broadband is still limited to a few places, or the speeds are too low to do anything useful. You can just go to the local Walmart and buy a CD in areas where you can't get anything faster than dial up. Plus CDs are perfect for people who aren't very tech savvy, sure there are some people who are hopeless (I had to explain to someone their DVDs weren't playing because they were putting them in upside down) but there are also plenty of people who can't figure out computers but can understand something as simple as playing a CD.
I know this is slashdot and we're all for getting rid of the record companies, but CDs aren't evil by nature, they're perfect for what they do. The death of the old distribution methods (record companies charging $20 for a cheap round plastic disc with audio information on it) doesn't mean the death of the CD.
Hell, I'd pay more for a system with no cd player, no memory, and only a headphone jack than I'd play for any other type of car audio system without the headphone jack, and I'm not alone.
I've never seen a car with just an ipod jack although I'm sure they exist. My current car is a 2008 Ford Mustang, it comes with a headphone jack in an out of the way location (it's in the center console.) I leave a little 3' wire with two male headphone connections so when someone with an mp3 player comes in my car we can listen to their music.
It's quite nice, although if I didn't have that it wouldn't be too hard to run an RCA to headphone connection to the back of the stereo, as most car stereos I've seen have axillary RCA inputs.
How did you get modded "Insightful"?
CDs are a storage medium, MP3s are a file format. You can rip all of your CDs and make a bunch of MP3 files but unless you have something to put them on they're useless, that's where CDs come in. If you haven't noticed, CDs are cheap, easily available, easy to write to, and they don't require a computer or an internet connection for transferring media (you can't just go into a store and buy a bunch of MP3s, you need something to put them on, like a CD.)
The eyes narrow and cant upward at the outside, cheeks change shape slightly due to muscle tensions, hell the hairline and ears even move slightly. This is all lacking.
Someone didn't watch the video (or at least didn't understand it.) The hairline and ears are real, how could that possibly be lacking when she smiles? Everything her actual face does, the virtual face will mimic, but only the face is virtual the rest of her is real.
I own a Canon EOS 5D and a few lenses, one of them is a fairly large 70-200mm f2.8L. I usually bring it to outdoor events that my younger family members might be in (sports, graduation, anything where I'll be far from what I'm trying to shoot) and I always feel like people think I'm a creep. They see the huge camera and think "I hope he's not taking pictures of MY kid!"
I think people have an idea from movies that the bad guys always have some huge fancy cameras and they need to take dozens of photos before they can do their evil deeds. I don't think they realize there already exist hundreds of photos of any potential targets online, and someone would be better off with a small concealable camera, or even a hidden video camera recording the area as you go around.
There's so much paranoia about cameras, and this isn't just because of 9/11. It's been illegal to photograph the Verrazano bridge from on the bridge or at the toll booths for years before 9/11. I've almost had a camera confiscated taking a photo at the toll booth of a man on a motorcycle waving his ezpass around trying to get it to read.
Does anyone realize that the passwords would have never been given to the DA's office if it wasn't for his actions? The passwords would then not be part of public record. Do you think the person at the IT office would have made the list of passwords public if Childs left gracefully?
Someone at the the DA's office is the incompetent person in this case, but that does not validate his locking out of everyone competent enough to take care of the system (the people that would have replaced him at the IT department.)
Sometimes the majority or the cultural norms rule. That's life. No shoes, no shirt, no service.
I like that you end on that. It's like you don't get the meaning of the previous post at all. All of those activities ar"No shoes, no shirt, no service." is a decision entirely left up to the business owner. For smoking, someone stepped in and figured business owners were too dumb to determine that smoking is bad, so they asked the government to make it illegal to smoke in a bar or restaurant.
I don't smoke, but I still don't like the idea that a business is legally restricted from allowing customers to do something that is perfectly legal in public.
Seriously, if they are in a meeting - or elsewhere where a ringing phone is frowned upon - have them silence the thing.
A silenced phone makes a lot of noise in a quiet setting while it vibrates in your pocket.
I'd like sometimes to go straight to a persons voice mail. Sometimes you just don't have enough time to fully talk to a person but texting is inconvenient. You can just leave a quick voice mail and they'll get your message.
What is being proposed is to dump a bunch of lime into the ocean, where it will react with the overabundance of CO2 to produce calcium carbonate, thereby removing the CO2 which is ALREADY THERE, and AT THE SAME TIME sequestering it on the bottom of the ocean where it will eventually sediment back into limestone, which probably won't be dumped into anyone's gas tank for a few million years AT LEAST.
I did read the article
FTA -
Adding lime to seawater increases alkalinity, boosting seawater's ability to absorb CO2 from air and reducing the tendency to release it back again.
They're changing the pH of the ocean and allowing it to absorb more CO2, also reducing the tendency to release it back into the air. All of that sounds like a potentially bad situation, I don't see anyone saying "Oh it's no problem because this is what happens to the CO2 once it's absorbed into the ocean."
Now, I've been against a lot of the ideas so far, but this one smacks of fucking genius, and has the potential to actually do something about the problem, which is something your unrealistic utopian ramblings will never have.
Yes it might be a good idea now, but what about 50 years from now?
"Well 90% of all marine life died, we dumped that lime into the ocean and it started absorbing CO2 at an unprecedented rate, the fish started to suffocate because there was too high a concentration of CO2 in the ocean and not enough O2, it seemed like a good idea at the time. Plus since we rallied around the idea that the ocean would absorb the CO2 we did invested less in stopping our overproduction of it, now the ocean is saturated with CO2 and our atmosphere's not looking too good..."
Uhm no?
Making a bike produces a negligible amount of CO2 compared to driving a car, your statement is downright false.
It's not making the bike, it's riding the bike.
The person riding the bike will consume more food because they're burning more calories, the food comes from all over in large trucks that create more pollution than a car, plus if you're eating more meat that's even more pollution since raising livestock creates all sorts of greenhouse gases.
Then there is also the reasoning that the person ends up extending their lifespan due to being more active. Over the extended lifespan they end up burning more CO2 than if they just drove their car to work and died of a heart attack at a young age.
well, that's just the reasoning, not entirely sure if it's 100% true as I haven't personally checked the figures on how much CO2 is created getting the fuel to the car then driving to work as compared to harvesting and shipping the extra food you will now have to eat, and any CO2 you will create during your extended lifespan (if your lifespan is extended at all.)
It's easy to sit in an arm chair and say sarcastic things such as "What Could Possibly Go Wrong?" and then use that as an excuse to do nothing. This may not be an ideal solution. But given the alternatives, it may be worth trying.
Asking "What could possibly go wrong?" isn't exactly justification for doing nothing, although I really do want to know "What could possibly go wrong?" I would imagine dumping large amounts of lime into the oceans might somehow affect the marine life. Plus what happens to all of the CO2 once it's been absorbed into the water? Can it also become a hazard to marine life? What happens when the lime becomes saturated with CO2 and it can no longer absorb anymore?
Unless the lime converts the CO2 into something harmless this isn't a very good solution. We'll have to rely on cutting down the production of CO2 eventually, not saying that this won't help just that we shouldn't rely on only this (and we should really figure out the negatives first.)
You can also left click and hold the mouse down on the non-responding app in the dock, which invokes the right-click menu (not all apps, but many).
Yes... I know, I said that right before the part you copied.
"The problem is, sometimes that doesn't work (like when finder is dying and you need to restart it, which you can only do through the right click menu)"
I've only recently discovered there's a mac equivalent to Ctrl+Alt+Del to bring up some force quit menu, but before that I'd have to right click on an item in the dock and do force quit, although for finder this option is changed to restart finder.
In any case, your example is dubious, as I'm not really sure where you would right click on the Finder, since the Finder doesn't have an icon to right click on to invoke the "force quit" option.
Yes it does, it's the icon on the far left of the dock that you can't remove (it's like the Mac version of the "Start" button.) You don't click "Force Quit" instead for Finder it says "Restart Finder."
And in contrast, take a user with no very little experience with either system, and I think you'll see why the Mac is generally considered to be more user-friendly. Figuring things out requires less prerequisite knowledge.
Sure, lets take a person who has never seen a computer in their life. Now having not seen a computer they wouldn't know what icons do what, on a Windows XP computer after a fresh install they will most likely see the blank desktop and the little "Start" button. Well they'd probably click that since they want to start using the computer, now they see a few icons, one of them says "Internet Explorer" well they've heard of the internet and they know that's what you need a computer for, so they click it. Now they're presented with a website (probably the MSN site) this will probably confuse them since they've never been to a website before and don't know what they're doing (although some people pick up things rather quickly.) On a Mac they'd look at all the different icons, maybe they'd hover over them and see the names, well they're not interested in animals so why would they click on "Safari"? Well they'll click on "Finder" since they want to find the "Internet", maybe they'll know what an "Application" is and maybe they'll click on that. Oh, they see "Internet Explorer" well they know they want to go on the internet so they'll probably open that.
What makes Macs easier to use is that there's less you can do to "break" the computer. You're not going to install the latest malware on your computer since the weird popup that says your computer is infected doesn't look right (since it's modeled after a windows error), and when you try to "clean" your computer the software won't install.
Plus, it's easier to set the computer up so they don't have to get someone else to do it or read the instructions (although some people are helpless and can't figure out how to plug in something as simple as a laptop and somehow can't figure out the instructions.) Once it's going they still need to learn what everything is for, it's not more obvious on a mac how to get online or how to check your e-mail (by default the start menu says "Internet" above your default browser and "E-Mail" above your default e-mail client, and most people would start with the "Start" menu.) On a mac you've got an icon of a compass and an icon of what's supposed to be a post card with a bird on it? What is that supposed to even mean? Plus once you've got an application open on a mac you've got a few things on top, a red button a yellow button and a green button... So what, the green one makes the program go, the yellow one slows it down and the red one pauses it? At least Windows gives you a visual representation of what's going to happen.
Plus in software like Preview, I click the green button to maximize but it gets smaller than it just was and now I gotta restore down so I can re-size the window to be bigger than it was whi
Perhaps many photography studios don't have large networks where external drives are considered inconvenient?
Large networks? Even a small network (I'm talking 3 computers) generally has a server people upload all of their important work files to. Plus, what if they do have a large network with a main file server. Apple supports writing files to a networked computer, and you can mount the network drive, but for some reason the only backup option available on a computer that comes standard with gigabit ethernet is a device attached to firewire? Why? What makes firewire so great that you can only save to firewire attached devices and nothing on a network?
My problem with a portable storage device is that the more you move it, the more likely it is that it will get banged around, and we all know with hard drives the more you bang them around the less likely it is your data will survive. Plus all I'm looking to do is copy my files to my home computer, that's it. I just want the raw images from my camera which are stored in an Aperture library on my windows computer. The Aperture library won't copy over to my computer (says something about special characters that can't be displayed, since the Aperture library is basically a folder with many files in it, which I can only access as a group from my mac as far as I can tell.) I saw the vault option and thought "Cool I'll backup to our file server", nope, Mac wants you to go buy an external drive hooked up via firewire. I guess not enough people were using firewire devices and that upset someone at Apple? Maybe they want us to switch from ethernet cables for networking to firewire?
Try and install your licensed XP copy on a new machine to replace the one that died. Wait forever, reboot, reboot, reboot...
I worked in a computer shop, it took about 30 minutes to install windows, reboot ONCE, install all the drivers, reboot again, systems done. Okay you want updates, Install IE7, reboot, install all the other updates, reboot. Not very difficult or time consuming.
If you want to compare repairing a dead system why not compare the cost or ease of replacement? Let's say the monitor dies on your iMac... now what? Sure you can get another monitor on your desk in front of the imac (which would be rather annoying) or you can go through all the trouble of finding a new panel, taking out the old one and replacing it.
Or you can buy one of Macs tower systems. Like the Mac mini. Which is a $600 mac unless you want a monitor (which costs an extra $600 for the cheapest display Mac offers.) Or if you want something slightly more powerful with a video card you can upgrade, your only option is a $2,500 Mac Pro. Oh, you want something cheaper in a standard sized tower that doesn't come with a $1,000 Quad Core Xeon? Sucks for you.
Configuring most things on the Mac are simple and the advanced ones are pretty much equal to Linux.
Not quite, Mac generally has it's own methods of doing most of the config things that you can easily edit a file for in Linux. There always seems to be some extra step when I edit a file, gotta reload some database or application using that file, and I never know what it is, just that editing the file didn't work.
The registry on Windows is a nightmare. Trying to get your software properly uninstalled is a nightmare. I love it when the Add/Remove Program utility fails and leave the entry in you program list forever.
Takes about two seconds to find where the Add/Remove Program list is in the registry (or you can just search the name you see in the program list), plus Windows will ask you if you want to remove the program from the list when it can't find any files for it. Plus windows programs generally save all their install files in one location, and it's generally in Program Files, so you find the folder in there, delete it, and all the files are gone no longer taking up space on your computer. With the mac I never know if something is completely removed since it (being a Unix system) doesn't have one main place that it keeps a program and all of it's files. There's a config directory, a directory for documentation, a directory for the binaries, a directory for plugins. In Unix that's great since things are exactly where they should be, and you can just make uninstall to delete any files it created on installation. Unfortunately for a Mac that doesn't exist and you have to hope moving the programs icon from Applications to the trash actually removes all the files that were created on install.
How your post was modded to "informative" completely escapes me. You should have gotten a 5 for misinformative!
As there are tons of websites, forum threads, IRC chat logs, from Mac users discussing all of the problems I've addressed (especially the finder and uninstall issues) I'd say it's because most people who have a Mac and aren't die hard Steve Jobs worshiping mac fanboys agree that Macs aren't perfect and have some design flaws. Most of the problems I've mentioned were addressed in 10.5 but they've existed for a while and they still aren't 100%. Plus you have to realize it took about 7 years for 10.5 to come out, so that's quite a long time waiting for something as simple as supporting a networked file and settings transfer (there's no reason the Mac shouldn't have treated the drive like a local disk, that's the behavior in Unix when you mount a disk.) Same thing with Finder remembering the settings across all directories (by the way, the option doesn't seem to exist in 10.4, so everyone telling me "It's so easy!" you're talking about 10.5, you're wrong, or there's something fundamentally wrong with my Mac OS X install.)
You keep writing this but everyone keeps pointing out that it is wrong. I'm not sure if you are legitimately missing the responses or are afraid to admit your mistake.
/etc/hosts file. There is sudo at the prompt and a gui method.
/etc/hosts, it's much faster since it's just editing a text file. You just need to get OS X configured properly to use the /etc/hosts file, the problem I have is that it shouldn't overwrite the behavior of Unix, but it does because it wants to provide an easier experience for normal users. Although that doesn't make it easier, they could of made the gui component a front end to the /etc/hosts file, which would be easy for both beginners and power users who have used unix systems.
Exactly which part of that is wrong? I'm talking about a laptop, I'd rather use a touchpad. A computer with only one mouse button shouldn't have right click menus. All of those mentioned methods rely on software to emulate a right click during certain actions, it doesn't usually work when the software is barfing.
Another one that you keep repeating but again you keep missing the posts that correct you on this. You do not need to enable the root account to edit the
Sudo wasn't working on my old computer computer (bought a used Mac so maybe it was some option somewhere, but it just didn't work) so I had to enable the root account, for whatever reason I was only able to do that in single user mode. Plus the gui method for adding new hosts is annoying to find and use, I'd rather just edit
The Mac transfers everything regardless of whether the software saved things in "normal" locations.
/etc/files/bob it wouldn't know that it should copy that, and it wouldn't want to copy /etc/* in the off chance it breaks something.
I doubt that the software would transfer your files if you decided to save everything in
As for copying from an old computer, the Migration Assistant can transfer files using a network. I don't know if this is enabled when the Mac first boots, but I've just checked on my MacBook Pro running 10.5. When it asks you to hook up the firewire cable, there's a "network" button that can let you transfer over ethernet or wireless.
The key there is you're using 10.5. All the annoyances I listed went unfixed from the original Mac OS X up till 10.4 and mostly fixed with the release of 10.5 (the Finder issue where it just randomly forgets what view you picked I've heard is still a problem.)
You have no fucking idea what your talking about do you!?!?!? Single user mode?!?! Huh?!?!!?!? This is how I stop my daughter from accessing myspace. I direct it to 127.0.0.1. Works every time...And there isn't ANYTHING special about her install..
/etc/hosts
/etc/hosts before the DNS server seems rather difficult. In fact, even making MacOS X consult /etc/hosts AT ALL seems rather difficult.
/etc/hosts to work and be consulted first, you should do this:
Perhaps it's an issue with Mac OS 10.3 but here's instructions from a website -
Configuring
Making MacOS X consult
MacOS X uses NetInfo instead of flat files, or it at least wants to do so. In order to get
* Create (as root or using sudo) "/etc/hosts".
* Read the file into NetInfo: "niload hosts . * Create a directory "/etc/lookupd".
* Create a file "hosts" in that directory.
* Make it contain this line: "LookupOrder FFAgent NIAgent DNSAgent" [2]
* Reboot the machine or HUP lookupd. [3]
I think I had to boot into single user mode because sudo wasn't working and there wasn't a root password set (so I couldn't use su.) Even without booting into single user mode, it's still easier to change the hosts file in Windows (it doesn't require a reset or restarting any services.)
Yes you can. Open a finder window, set it to the view type you want to set as default. I use List View (Cmd+2). Press Cmd+J to show the View Options pane. Notice how this pane changes as you cycle through the different view modes (Cmd+1-4). Once you adjust the settings to your liking, simply click "Use as Defaults" on the bottom of the View Options pane.
Are you sure that's not just a Leopard option?
Here's an article that describes how frustrating the finder view stuff is in 10.4, I'd try your technique if only I brought in my laptop today.
In the Keyboard & Mouse section of System Preferences, under "Trackpad" you can check an option labeled "Tap trackpad using two fingers for secondary click." I use it all the time.
I will try that, but my point was that when finder crashes, these software based right click methods don't work. So I can't right click on finder and force it to restart.
Open terminal
/etc/hosts
/etc/hosts file. Windows by default will use it's version of the hosts file.
sudo pico
How is that jumping through hoops???
You must be doing it wrong....
That method doesn't work on a default Mac OS X install, you need to reboot into single user mode and run some commands to set it up to use the
have you ever really liked the mouse that came with your PC? I never have... Always bought a better one.
/etc/hosts is a problem, I don;t know what to say.
/etc/hosts file, you have to do something like set it up that way in single user mode, it's a real hassle and involves restarting the computer twice, at least out of the box updating Window's version of the /etc/hosts file doesn't require a restart or any special config options. It "just works."
I build all of my own PCs so I buy whatever mouse I want. Although I'm talking about a laptop not a desktop. I'd rather use the touchpad, my point was more they shouldn't have right click menus on a computer that doesn't come with a right mouse button.
remembering per-folder views is actually a FEATURE, one I WISH I could get in Vista!
The default behavior in Vista is to remember per-folder views. Whatever you're doing, you're doing it wrong. Plus I should be allowed to turn off features I don't want (I can turn off Vista's ability to remember per-folder views but I can't do that on my Mac.)
You can back up to network locations, but you have to mount the disk first...
No, I can't. It simply says it's not supported, I can only backup to an external hard drive. I was going to backup to my networks file server which has raid and nightly backups to a separate device. Unfortunately I can't do that.
If diving into the registry is what it takes to fix an issue, and you don't think enabling root to be able to edit
It's not as easy as just enabling root, it's that Mac OSX wasn't designed to read the
OS X isn't perfect, but overall, c'mon, just look at the satisfaction ratings.
I'm not saying OS X is bad, I'm just saying I've had more headaches doing simple tasks on Mac OS X then I've ever had doing anything in Windows XP.