Does that mean that if I want to find out what airbags are like, Peugeot will come and install them in my 1995 model 306 GLX for free?
I mean, I guess I could get an open source car and build it for free in my garage and install my own airbags, but what if I don;t have the time or I like the convenience of having someone else do it for me. Will my mechanic install these airbags into my open source car for free if I don;t want to do it?
But Microsoft sells their OS at a price that takes that into account, and it is sold as such. I have no doubt that MS gets a lot a flak for "windows being crappy" when it's installed on shitty PCs made out of tissue paper and Chinese orphans' teeth with a Dell sticker on the front, but that's part of MS' business model.
Apple's OS is sold to run on Mac boxes, and is cheaper as a result. Part of the cost of supporting the OS is paid when you buy the hardware. Not that Apple is saying that Psystar is stealing profit from Apple (it's an extra $129 that they wouldn't otherwise have had after all) just that it's not something they want to deal with and is against the terms of the licence.
If the case had gone the other way, I expect Apple would simply have increased the price of OS X hugely and offered a discount at the point of sale or with a mail in rebate if you can prove you own a Mac to install it on. But no one wants that! Part of the niceness of of installing OS X is that it has no serials, codes, or other protections. Well, apart from the gigantic dongle with the screen and hard drive and Apple symbol on the side that also doubles as a computer.
Except that Apple doesn't charge for "minor upgrades" - those come for free.
The "major upgrades" are just named in single decimal increments, seemingly to confuse people into thinking that they are being charged for minor upgrades, when in reality they're not.
No one seems to complain that W95>W98>W2000>WinXP>Vista were all paid upgrades in the same way that 10.1>10.2>10.3>10.4>10.5 were, both lineages with an equally large (or small) amount of development time and work.
Otherwise, your restaurant analogy is pretty good.
I think the spirit of what your post drives at is what Apple wants to do, but as with any large company it's not as simple as it should be.
With KHTML, Apple has given a lot back to the community with Webkit (even with the teething problems associated with releasing code back to the community that may or may not have been overblown by sensationalist slashdot stories). Either way, Webkit is out there, with a lot of development time from Apple in it, for anyone to use if they like. And while Apple doesn't directly profit from Safari, they have a vested interest in ensuring it's a major player in the browser market.
They're trying, is what I'm trying to say I guess. My iBook way back in 2003 came with a full copy of Apple's IDE and it has been available free ever since. OK, it's targeted at OS X development, but I would say that was a good thing to give to the community- there were not many free development suites at the time as I remember (other than fully open source stuff).
I disagree with Ford profiting off the car, which they did not initially create.
I disagree with Edison profiting off electricity which he didn't initially create.
I disagree with your assessment that OSS is somehow immune from future development and profitability if it is further developed by anyone that wants to have a go at it.
Perhaps you have a thing against Apple because you somehow see it as "stealing" the good work of people who put their code out there as open source (you know, free for anyone to use as long as they follow the licence) and Apple did just that.
So, for example, rather than writing their own HTML engine from scratch, they decided to build on the good work of the KHTML team, and then released Webkit back into the wild for anyone to do with as they see fit.
They did the same with with the underpinnings of OS X. The top side of OS X is closed source, however, but that actually was written closed from the start.
Unless you are of the opinion that *only* OSS can exist and even a single line of closed source code is abhorrent to the human race, then I can't see what Apple is doing as wrong. Would you feel differently if Apple used Red Hat's approach and had a fully open source system and charged for support? Hey. wait, Red Hat are making money off OSS which they didn't initially create! Heathens! Burn them!!!!
Then I'd say (as you've discovered yourself) that OS X isn't the platform for you.
SMB has always been slow on the Mac - it;s one of my many complaints with it, but I have been using it to serve files to Windows boxes since OS X 10.2. All versions of OS X that I have used serve files to Windows boxes via SMB with no problems - I have one connected to this machine as we speak, so I'm not sure what happened with your attempts. I know it sometimes throws a shit fit and just displays the network shares as a blank window (on OS X) that may be related to slowness, but you can usually jiggle it back into life by opening and closing the window. I've never had a problem with Windows being able to connect as an authenticated user though.
OS X has many, many flaws, much like Windows does. I've never used any flavour of Linux on the desktop or as a server so I can't comment on that, but for the "big commercial two" neither has got it fully right yet.
I am struggling to think of a peripheral that doesn't just work on Mac (after a driver install) the same way as it "just works" on windows - even esoteric PS2 keyboard/serial adapters with no documentation have been persuaded to work on some of the macs I have owned. Every printer I've ever tried, every camera, ever scanner, external drive, memory card reader, gps positioning tool, colour calibrator, video camera has worked.
I think I came across a USB webcam once that didn't work on OS X, but that was a long time ago, and of course the data features and fast-capture aspects of Sony's Hi-MD, but that's about it.
I'm a long way from praising OS X from the be all and end all - right tool for the right job and so on, and it sounds like it's just not the thing for you.
Oh definitely. I have several Macs of my own that I use all the time and I'll be the first one to say they have problems. The biggest of which is the Finder. Even with the spruce up it received recently, it is still a terrible part of the OS and I am desperately hoping that Apple has a full rewrite of it hidden inside One Infinite Loop and that they'll release it soon.
My point was just that the article is Mac bashing with no verified claims whatsoever.
The single menu idea is another thing that has stuck since the early days, before dual monitors were really considered, and I guess right click context menus for far-disembodied windows is meant to be the stopgap. I like the single menu at the top of the screen though, but I only use a single monitor on my main Mac, and my dual screen one just uses the second monitor as a break out for palettes and windows. Perhaps there could be a way to mate the menu to the top of the screen that the primary window of the app is on at the time, or give apps the ability to break out the menu and dock it to the top of an app window if required, Windows-style.
Perhaps the bigger starships (Galaxy class and so on) are too big to be built on the ground, and too big to land and take off, but I know that the Intrepid class can land on a planet and take off again and is equipped with landing gear for that purpose (as seen in the Demon Planet episode of Voyager).
Given that Voyager is a small ship by Trek standards and probably similar in size to the Enterprise A, I don't see that as a departure from 'trek lore' as it were.
The Enterprise D was built in orbit of Mars at the orbital shipyards, but that was after a long time in space for humanity and a lot of technological advance of the Federation.
You're not the first, or only one to bring up the lack of documentation.
I tried to get into a little programming as a total newbie, since the Developer Tools came free and it seemed like an interesting thing to try.
It's still something I would like to have a go at, but I got nowhere when I went to look at some parts of the documentation and saw all those gaps.
I should probably start with a simpler language, but the temptation was the tools were right there and I could start making some simple applications for OS X. Not as easy as it looks though!
I was going to weigh in on this, but maybe I'm the anti-first-post guy, there were no comments when I came back from the article and I was trying to compose my thoughts.
I don't think there's anywhere to go with this other than a biased writer grudgingly writing a story about a platform he hates because he needs to pay the bills this month.
The article makes me want to go through it with the "wikipedia editing brush" like a schoolmaster grading the entries that appear on the site:
"Yet for many [who?], the Mac remains sluggish and poorly tuned for development [citation?].."
Is this the new Karl Rove strategy to get the Repubs back in the white house in 2012? Re-categorize Hitler as left wing, and thus by extension, connect Obama and his ideals with one of the most reviled men in history? (as was already done earlier in this thread).
Even Godwin's law can jump the shark.
I can see the TV campaigns now. *shudder*
As black and white as you want to paint it, and it seems that in the right wing anti-Obama world, there's only "you're either with us, or you're a terrorist/communist/socialist/baby-killer/muslim/america-hater", but it's just not that simple.
The fact that Palin's entire argument during the presidential campaign consisted of throwing mud at her opponent, and trying to get him hated by association, is further evidence of this. The fact that it backfired on her means there's at least some hope for the future of humanity.
I consider myself pretty left wing, am totally in favour of a national health service and a welfare state, but that does not mean that I want to take everyone's cows and then dole them out, one per person. It seems like you can't advocate a social system that helps those less privileged members of society without being called a "dangerous subversive who wants to destroy democracy and the free market".
The free market is doing a good enough job destroying itself it seems. Less time at the $200,000 per head banquets near sun soaked beaches and more time begging the Government to bail them out I think.
The sound goes a long way, for sure. I don't it hurting the whales at that distance but it's certainly doing something, even if it's just freaking them out and causing them to rush to the surface faster than they should, or beaching themselves to escape it.
I will agree that there are some environmentalists like you describe, but that's the same as me claiming that all Republicans/Big Business advocates are like Haliburton and Enron, out to scam, cheat, steal and lie their way to maximum profits at any expense, human or otherwise, with no morals or ethics of any kind beyond "must make money".
Look at Greenpeace. They have an overall ideology that I can agree with - saving the planet and generally being green and eco-friendly. However, they go about it in the same way Rush Limbaugh represents the christian right, so I want nothing to do with them. Their hopeless propaganda film about the evils and dangers of nuclear power with the "no more chernobyls" tagline is about as factual as me making a film trying to protest air travel by saying "no more Hindenburgs!". Their general approach just annoys me.
Or the animal rights protesters that dug up the graves of relatives of the owners of a science lab here in the UK that does animal testing. They held the remains hostage until the animal testing stopped. Not something I can agree with.
I don;t think you can generalise that even the leadership of the environmental movement is anti-american and anti-human. Al Gore , I would classify as one of those people, and he's on the boards of some big companies, and has been strong on "green" issues long before it was ever popular, or before he was famous. I don;t think it;s possible to consider him anti-american or anti-human.
Then you have people like me - a petrol head engineer who is pro-nuclear, pro-environment, pro-renewable energy, pro-industrial expansion, pro-car, pro-public transport, pro recycling.....
I believe that we can be eco-friendly and continue the technical advancement of the human race - they're not mutually exclusive goals.
So the Navy does these vital training exercises, oh, I don't know, somewhere else? Somewhere where whales are not.
Someone said earlier in the post, when the sound of the Navy's high powered sonar was just like an F22 jet breaking the sound barrier 100 feet above your house (ie, loud enough to cause you physical pain and hearing damage) that if there were jets doing that, they would simply move. It's a little hard for the whales to do that, because apart from the fact that the sonar travels for hundreds of miles in water, in the shallow portions of the coast where these exercises take place, there aren't a lot of places for the whales to escape to.
I don;t think I'm going to convince you to consider other arguments though, given your immediate leap to the unpatriotic "why do you hate america?" spiel and your general axe that you seem to want to grind regarding people who aren't just thinking about number 1 all the time.
Try poking your head above the Halliburton-sponsored propaganda materials for a few minutes, you might learn something. Ohh, I went there. Probably shouldn't have, but you have to keep the flames going I guess.
I never claimed it was the yardstick by which all intelligence should be measured, but my point is that America puts itself on that pedestal, so claims that the way America is perceived globally are irrelevant is just folly.
As I explained in another post, I got the 65% figure from Michael Moore's "Sicko" film, because it was showing on Sky Movies here the other night so the number was fresh in my memory. I cannot vouch for its voracity beyond that.
Some of the most intelligent people I have ever known have been Americans, as well as some of the most stupid. That same statement is true of Europeans too.
It was actually me, in reply to the guy questioning my post, that suggested the parallel of a European finding a US state on the map when not labelled, so please attribute that correctly.
Well, that's a city in a country, as opposed to a whole country itself. Given the relative size of the US and UK, a closer comparison would be locating a specific non-obvious state in the US when they're all unlabelled (excluding easy ones like Florida or Alaska), like Wyoming or Kentucky.
I personally could locate Washington DC on an unlabelled US map, but then I'm probably in the minority of Brits who could. If we're getting down to the city level, can you locate the four capitals of the United Kingdom on an unlabelled map - London, Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh?
If you're anywhere near the midlands you can see some of the 797's smaller brothers right on the A5 in Cannock - Finning/CAT's uk base is there with a yard full of huge trucks. I don't think they keep 797's there, but they do have some of the smaller versions, with the 240 ton bed.
I've been on the ground around many 797's and they may be gigantic, but they can move surprisingly quickly, not just top speed but acceleration and changing direction too.
They are remarkably agile for their bulk - much like an elephant; most people are surprised to learn that a human can't outrun an elephant despite the pachyderm being unable to jump and weighing up to 10 tons.
Slashdot Mirror
MAC = Media Access Control
Mac = Short for Apple Macintosh.
My friend, I fear that the computer you chose to use will have no bearing on what people already think of your intelligence.
Does that mean that if I want to find out what airbags are like, Peugeot will come and install them in my 1995 model 306 GLX for free?
I mean, I guess I could get an open source car and build it for free in my garage and install my own airbags, but what if I don;t have the time or I like the convenience of having someone else do it for me. Will my mechanic install these airbags into my open source car for free if I don;t want to do it?
But Microsoft sells their OS at a price that takes that into account, and it is sold as such. I have no doubt that MS gets a lot a flak for "windows being crappy" when it's installed on shitty PCs made out of tissue paper and Chinese orphans' teeth with a Dell sticker on the front, but that's part of MS' business model.
Apple's OS is sold to run on Mac boxes, and is cheaper as a result. Part of the cost of supporting the OS is paid when you buy the hardware. Not that Apple is saying that Psystar is stealing profit from Apple (it's an extra $129 that they wouldn't otherwise have had after all) just that it's not something they want to deal with and is against the terms of the licence.
If the case had gone the other way, I expect Apple would simply have increased the price of OS X hugely and offered a discount at the point of sale or with a mail in rebate if you can prove you own a Mac to install it on. But no one wants that! Part of the niceness of of installing OS X is that it has no serials, codes, or other protections. Well, apart from the gigantic dongle with the screen and hard drive and Apple symbol on the side that also doubles as a computer.
Except that Apple doesn't charge for "minor upgrades" - those come for free.
The "major upgrades" are just named in single decimal increments, seemingly to confuse people into thinking that they are being charged for minor upgrades, when in reality they're not.
No one seems to complain that W95>W98>W2000>WinXP>Vista were all paid upgrades in the same way that 10.1>10.2>10.3>10.4>10.5 were, both lineages with an equally large (or small) amount of development time and work.
Otherwise, your restaurant analogy is pretty good.
launchd seemingly shaved about 8 weeks* off boot time of my already fast-booting mac. For that alone it is cool.
*actual time may be less than stated.
I think the spirit of what your post drives at is what Apple wants to do, but as with any large company it's not as simple as it should be.
With KHTML, Apple has given a lot back to the community with Webkit (even with the teething problems associated with releasing code back to the community that may or may not have been overblown by sensationalist slashdot stories). Either way, Webkit is out there, with a lot of development time from Apple in it, for anyone to use if they like. And while Apple doesn't directly profit from Safari, they have a vested interest in ensuring it's a major player in the browser market.
They're trying, is what I'm trying to say I guess. My iBook way back in 2003 came with a full copy of Apple's IDE and it has been available free ever since. OK, it's targeted at OS X development, but I would say that was a good thing to give to the community- there were not many free development suites at the time as I remember (other than fully open source stuff).
I disagree with Ford profiting off the car, which they did not initially create.
I disagree with Edison profiting off electricity which he didn't initially create.
I disagree with your assessment that OSS is somehow immune from future development and profitability if it is further developed by anyone that wants to have a go at it.
Perhaps you have a thing against Apple because you somehow see it as "stealing" the good work of people who put their code out there as open source (you know, free for anyone to use as long as they follow the licence) and Apple did just that.
So, for example, rather than writing their own HTML engine from scratch, they decided to build on the good work of the KHTML team, and then released Webkit back into the wild for anyone to do with as they see fit.
They did the same with with the underpinnings of OS X. The top side of OS X is closed source, however, but that actually was written closed from the start.
Unless you are of the opinion that *only* OSS can exist and even a single line of closed source code is abhorrent to the human race, then I can't see what Apple is doing as wrong. Would you feel differently if Apple used Red Hat's approach and had a fully open source system and charged for support? Hey. wait, Red Hat are making money off OSS which they didn't initially create! Heathens! Burn them!!!!
I could say the same about your post, Anon.
Then I'd say (as you've discovered yourself) that OS X isn't the platform for you.
SMB has always been slow on the Mac - it;s one of my many complaints with it, but I have been using it to serve files to Windows boxes since OS X 10.2. All versions of OS X that I have used serve files to Windows boxes via SMB with no problems - I have one connected to this machine as we speak, so I'm not sure what happened with your attempts. I know it sometimes throws a shit fit and just displays the network shares as a blank window (on OS X) that may be related to slowness, but you can usually jiggle it back into life by opening and closing the window. I've never had a problem with Windows being able to connect as an authenticated user though.
OS X has many, many flaws, much like Windows does. I've never used any flavour of Linux on the desktop or as a server so I can't comment on that, but for the "big commercial two" neither has got it fully right yet.
I am struggling to think of a peripheral that doesn't just work on Mac (after a driver install) the same way as it "just works" on windows - even esoteric PS2 keyboard/serial adapters with no documentation have been persuaded to work on some of the macs I have owned. Every printer I've ever tried, every camera, ever scanner, external drive, memory card reader, gps positioning tool, colour calibrator, video camera has worked.
I think I came across a USB webcam once that didn't work on OS X, but that was a long time ago, and of course the data features and fast-capture aspects of Sony's Hi-MD, but that's about it.
I'm a long way from praising OS X from the be all and end all - right tool for the right job and so on, and it sounds like it's just not the thing for you.
Oh definitely. I have several Macs of my own that I use all the time and I'll be the first one to say they have problems. The biggest of which is the Finder. Even with the spruce up it received recently, it is still a terrible part of the OS and I am desperately hoping that Apple has a full rewrite of it hidden inside One Infinite Loop and that they'll release it soon.
My point was just that the article is Mac bashing with no verified claims whatsoever.
The single menu idea is another thing that has stuck since the early days, before dual monitors were really considered, and I guess right click context menus for far-disembodied windows is meant to be the stopgap. I like the single menu at the top of the screen though, but I only use a single monitor on my main Mac, and my dual screen one just uses the second monitor as a break out for palettes and windows. Perhaps there could be a way to mate the menu to the top of the screen that the primary window of the app is on at the time, or give apps the ability to break out the menu and dock it to the top of an app window if required, Windows-style.
And it has James Spader. I think that Trek missed out by *not* having him appear in any series.
Perhaps the bigger starships (Galaxy class and so on) are too big to be built on the ground, and too big to land and take off, but I know that the Intrepid class can land on a planet and take off again and is equipped with landing gear for that purpose (as seen in the Demon Planet episode of Voyager).
Given that Voyager is a small ship by Trek standards and probably similar in size to the Enterprise A, I don't see that as a departure from 'trek lore' as it were.
The Enterprise D was built in orbit of Mars at the orbital shipyards, but that was after a long time in space for humanity and a lot of technological advance of the Federation.
You're not the first, or only one to bring up the lack of documentation.
I tried to get into a little programming as a total newbie, since the Developer Tools came free and it seemed like an interesting thing to try.
It's still something I would like to have a go at, but I got nowhere when I went to look at some parts of the documentation and saw all those gaps.
I should probably start with a simpler language, but the temptation was the tools were right there and I could start making some simple applications for OS X. Not as easy as it looks though!
I was going to weigh in on this, but maybe I'm the anti-first-post guy, there were no comments when I came back from the article and I was trying to compose my thoughts.
I don't think there's anywhere to go with this other than a biased writer grudgingly writing a story about a platform he hates because he needs to pay the bills this month.
The article makes me want to go through it with the "wikipedia editing brush" like a schoolmaster grading the entries that appear on the site:
"Yet for many [who?], the Mac remains sluggish and poorly tuned for development [citation?].."
Move along, nothing to see here folks.
And the largest exporter in the world I believe.
Goodness me.
Is this the new Karl Rove strategy to get the Repubs back in the white house in 2012? Re-categorize Hitler as left wing, and thus by extension, connect Obama and his ideals with one of the most reviled men in history? (as was already done earlier in this thread).
Even Godwin's law can jump the shark.
I can see the TV campaigns now. *shudder*
As black and white as you want to paint it, and it seems that in the right wing anti-Obama world, there's only "you're either with us, or you're a terrorist/communist/socialist/baby-killer/muslim/america-hater", but it's just not that simple.
The fact that Palin's entire argument during the presidential campaign consisted of throwing mud at her opponent, and trying to get him hated by association, is further evidence of this. The fact that it backfired on her means there's at least some hope for the future of humanity.
I consider myself pretty left wing, am totally in favour of a national health service and a welfare state, but that does not mean that I want to take everyone's cows and then dole them out, one per person. It seems like you can't advocate a social system that helps those less privileged members of society without being called a "dangerous subversive who wants to destroy democracy and the free market".
The free market is doing a good enough job destroying itself it seems. Less time at the $200,000 per head banquets near sun soaked beaches and more time begging the Government to bail them out I think.
The sound goes a long way, for sure. I don't it hurting the whales at that distance but it's certainly doing something, even if it's just freaking them out and causing them to rush to the surface faster than they should, or beaching themselves to escape it.
I will agree that there are some environmentalists like you describe, but that's the same as me claiming that all Republicans/Big Business advocates are like Haliburton and Enron, out to scam, cheat, steal and lie their way to maximum profits at any expense, human or otherwise, with no morals or ethics of any kind beyond "must make money".
Look at Greenpeace. They have an overall ideology that I can agree with - saving the planet and generally being green and eco-friendly. However, they go about it in the same way Rush Limbaugh represents the christian right, so I want nothing to do with them. Their hopeless propaganda film about the evils and dangers of nuclear power with the "no more chernobyls" tagline is about as factual as me making a film trying to protest air travel by saying "no more Hindenburgs!". Their general approach just annoys me.
Or the animal rights protesters that dug up the graves of relatives of the owners of a science lab here in the UK that does animal testing. They held the remains hostage until the animal testing stopped. Not something I can agree with.
I don;t think you can generalise that even the leadership of the environmental movement is anti-american and anti-human. Al Gore , I would classify as one of those people, and he's on the boards of some big companies, and has been strong on "green" issues long before it was ever popular, or before he was famous. I don;t think it;s possible to consider him anti-american or anti-human.
Then you have people like me - a petrol head engineer who is pro-nuclear, pro-environment, pro-renewable energy, pro-industrial expansion, pro-car, pro-public transport, pro recycling.....
I believe that we can be eco-friendly and continue the technical advancement of the human race - they're not mutually exclusive goals.
So the Navy does these vital training exercises, oh, I don't know, somewhere else? Somewhere where whales are not.
Someone said earlier in the post, when the sound of the Navy's high powered sonar was just like an F22 jet breaking the sound barrier 100 feet above your house (ie, loud enough to cause you physical pain and hearing damage) that if there were jets doing that, they would simply move. It's a little hard for the whales to do that, because apart from the fact that the sonar travels for hundreds of miles in water, in the shallow portions of the coast where these exercises take place, there aren't a lot of places for the whales to escape to.
I don;t think I'm going to convince you to consider other arguments though, given your immediate leap to the unpatriotic "why do you hate america?" spiel and your general axe that you seem to want to grind regarding people who aren't just thinking about number 1 all the time.
Try poking your head above the Halliburton-sponsored propaganda materials for a few minutes, you might learn something. Ohh, I went there. Probably shouldn't have, but you have to keep the flames going I guess.
And yes, almost anyone can drive, own a gun, or become a televangelist.
All of those things do more harm to people and society in the hands of irresponsible people than a few chemicals.
I'm going deeper undergrou.....
oh god, there goes £15,000 of therapy down the drain!
I never claimed it was the yardstick by which all intelligence should be measured, but my point is that America puts itself on that pedestal, so claims that the way America is perceived globally are irrelevant is just folly.
As I explained in another post, I got the 65% figure from Michael Moore's "Sicko" film, because it was showing on Sky Movies here the other night so the number was fresh in my memory. I cannot vouch for its voracity beyond that.
Some of the most intelligent people I have ever known have been Americans, as well as some of the most stupid. That same statement is true of Europeans too.
It was actually me, in reply to the guy questioning my post, that suggested the parallel of a European finding a US state on the map when not labelled, so please attribute that correctly.
Ok, so I got that statistic from Michael Moore (he used it in "Sicko") but I cannot vouch for its accuracy beyond that.
Well, that's a city in a country, as opposed to a whole country itself. Given the relative size of the US and UK, a closer comparison would be locating a specific non-obvious state in the US when they're all unlabelled (excluding easy ones like Florida or Alaska), like Wyoming or Kentucky.
I personally could locate Washington DC on an unlabelled US map, but then I'm probably in the minority of Brits who could. If we're getting down to the city level, can you locate the four capitals of the United Kingdom on an unlabelled map - London, Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh?
A 797 is indeed too big for a standard road.
If you're anywhere near the midlands you can see some of the 797's smaller brothers right on the A5 in Cannock - Finning/CAT's uk base is there with a yard full of huge trucks. I don't think they keep 797's there, but they do have some of the smaller versions, with the 240 ton bed.
I've been on the ground around many 797's and they may be gigantic, but they can move surprisingly quickly, not just top speed but acceleration and changing direction too.
They are remarkably agile for their bulk - much like an elephant; most people are surprised to learn that a human can't outrun an elephant despite the pachyderm being unable to jump and weighing up to 10 tons.