I keep switching stations, and I'm tired of hearing about "6 Americans and 1 Israeli". 7 people were in that shuttle. It's frustrating that the media can't let go of war sensationalism even now, at a time like this.
If this upsets you, get rid of your TV! I got rid of my TV in 1997 (and haven't owned one since). It's one of the smartest decisions I've ever made.
Even if you dont own a TV you will be exposed to the media, but TV pervays the worst prepared, most informal 'journalism'. In other words, its largely useless as a source of information. What information you do glean from the TV, you can find in more trustworthy print media sources and internet sources.
Maybe you like TV because of its shoddy presentation of facts and sensationalism. Some people enjoy getting angry at the TV. I often wonder what my dad would do if he couldn't yell at his omnidirectional sludge box.
That's interesting, my Moms eMachine power supply just died. Shes not even much of a computer user. I just put her on a Powerbook G3... her first statement: "I plugged the printer in and it just worked!?". Apparently she had been unable to get the printer working on the eMachine PC, poor woman.
No I'm one of those geeks that can't spell sh*t. An oxford professor once told me that only a genius can create a new word (that catches on)...there's hope for me yet.
If you think naitive sounds dumb, you should see my "I blaim bush" thread. It took 50 people to reply before someone pointed out the typo:
My statement needs clarification. Of course, IE for the Mac is dog slow (its carbon, not naitive cocoa code)
The term naitive is ambiguous. One may be refering to naitive to the PowerPC platform for example. Im not in this case.
When I say naitive I mean that OS X's roots are in nextstep. OS X's first API was cocoa from nextstep. To me, this makes cocoa the naitive API for the OS. Apps that are written in cocoa hence are more naitive. The next API to be added to OS X was actually the Java API, and then (after pleas from developers) came carbon.
I realize that today carbon and cocoa are closely tied. I realize that the performance of one API is not consistently better than the other. But carbon is legacy and was added to the yellow box spec as a technology to bridge legacy classic code.
Yes, I realize carbon is widely used in OS X e.g. the finder. IE is still dog slow... it has taken a performance hit from being ported to OS X. Chimera, built from the ground up for OS X (and Im sure it contains carbon code too) is the better performer.
I originally posted the following comment in response to a linux journal article about Apple's Safari. I feel the comment also applies to this discussion: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.p hp?sid=6565&m ode=thread&order=0&thold=0
In summary, there are many good rendering engines but very few great user interfaces, and in the end, UI is the crucial differentiator b/w browsers.
In response to the whole rendering engine discussion I see here... IMHO Rendering engine/render speed is not everything... Of course, IE for the Mac is dog slow (its carbon, not naitive cocoa code)...and Apple was *forced* to create an alternative or fall behind. The IE for the Mac team was disintegrated long ago to make Web TV, Ultimate TV (a cancelled MS project),etc.
But for most people, more important than rendering speed is an efficient, productive UI (because rendering speed problems have largely been solved in todays best browsers).
Because the web has become so central to computing...UI is more important than ever in browsers. Safari beta (so far) offers a very nice bookmark manager but lacks tabbed browsing (or something like it).
For now, I like Chimera for OS X because it has tabbed browsing and lightning fast rendering performance. On a dial up connection, a user can open pages in new tabs and queue the downloads. This is a very very efficient method of browsing that Safari so far, have chosen to ignore. Tabbed browsing in Chimera is faster and more efficient than IE 6 for Windows. I use a technique whereby each new chimera window contains catagorys of tabs... ebay auction tabs in one window, news tabs in another window, stock data tabs in a third window. By managing topics of tabs by window I never find myself hunting for the correct tab (In IE for windows, I would find myself hunting for the right tab along the Start bar. With too many windows open the start bar becomes cluttered and useless as an interface.)
Chimera (Gecko based) is faster than Safari in my own independent testing...particularly at downloading and rendering JPEGs. When it comes to rendering raw HTML I can't tell the difference between Chimera and Safari but toss in a few jpegs and chimera wins. I imagine this is only noticeable on dial up connections.
I expect Safari will surpass Chimera and therefore all other browsers in UI and performance at some point in the near future because apple is so damn good at what they do.
PS. I should probably add that I think Chimera is the still the best browser and Apple's Safari is not yet very usable. I would hate to see the Chimera team give up so soon. I think Chimera has a lot to offer...especially because it uses a different rendering engine (great for checking standards compliance, etc). So keep up the good work Chimera! I want to see version.7 badly!
There is no way you're going to be able to stuff an 802.11b/a transceiver into an already high priced, low battery life phone.
I see no reason why not. I dont know where you are coming from when you say high priced and low battery life.
First, they have 802.11b tranceivers in the compact flash and memory stick form factors. They dont cost that much to manufacture, certainly less than $100. Im sure the 802.11 technology would be even smaller and cheaper if it were designed for a high volume (im avoiding the phrase "mass produced" since mass production has been superceded by lean production) cell phone design.
Im guessing an 802.11 tranceiver would require less power than a phone...not more because, in general, you are much closer to your WiFi access point than you are a cell tower.
Next, 802.11b is likely much cheaper to implement than a custom designed cell phone based on the ARM processor... Ive worked in that industry and can tell you that every single handset is unique and represents millions of dollars in development costs. Standardizing on 802.11 could save a lot of money for the handset manufacturers.
Finally, the real cost savings would be in the distributed network infrastructure. No cell phone towers to maintain. Just route calls through public access points. When you think of the billions of dollars wasted on the 3G networks, WiFi is like a free/cheap 3G infrastructure that is building itself all over the world.
Rob Galbraith is dumb and wrong to draw conclusions about platform superiority from benchmarks of the Canon File Viewer Utility. The slashdot comments here are equally irrelevant because none of you seem to be photographers that use this software (I see 0 comments discussing RAW image conversion out of 237).
Canon's RAW image convertor is a proprietary piece of software that turns the RAW data off the camera's CCD (or CMOS sensor in the case of the high end Canon SLRs) into TIFF or JPEG files.
Canon's RAW image conversion software is HORRIBLE on BOTH Mac and PC (measured by performance and UI). It has to be one of the most poorly written pieces of software I've ever used. Benchmarking a platform with this software is inane! It's like comparing two cars by screwing on concrete wheels.
Canon's software is obviously written by amateur programmers (or maybe even AN amateur programmer). It was poorly coded for the PC and, in turn, that bad code was then ported to the mac. Where Canon digital cameras are ingenious...the best of breed, their desktop software is clueless, worst of breed.
Further, the Canon File Viewer 1.1 code on the mac is not naitive, it's carbonized (and only just barely carbonized...it was released just a few months ago and has recieved no updates from its initial 1.1.1.22 version). The classic mode Canon RAW Image Convertor actually works better (from a UI and performance standpoint) on the Macintosh than the carbonized Canon File Viewer 1.1. (Im testing with a Powerbook G4 800).
Canon's horrible software has driven third parties to attempt to build better RAW image convertors. Alas, Canon has not released the algorithm for RAW image conversion to the public (nor licensed it commercially). This has left developers guessing how to decypher the RAW file format. No third party including Bibble (which Rob Galbraith uses as another benchmark...bonehead) has achieved any performance improvements over Canon's bad software because of its closed source nature.
The bottom line is that your OS selection should not be based on Rob Galbraiths data but on more refined aspects of each OS, like how productive you will be on each platform over a period of years.
----------- PS. You slashdotters enjoy your flame war about mac vs PC. An OS is what you make of it. I'm sure all of you have settled on a favourite platform already... so why are you arguing which is better? And if you haven't decided on a platform...I'll save you some time, buy an Apple G4 running OS X.;-)
I'm sure you are joking. Apple owns Filemaker Inc.. Filemaker Pro 6 beats the pants off MS Access. Filemaker is the secret weapon of so many companies... MS Access is more the achilles heel of the companies that choose to use it.
If you need to see the pros and cons of filemaker over Access go here. This document is outdated but there is plenty of material when you search for "filemaker vs access" on google:
Why would you reccomend buying a lesser mac and then wasting your money on a PC and LCD monitor?
iBook+PC+LCD==$2500 minimum (in your scenario).
You could buy either the best mac desktop or the best mac laptop for that amount (either way ending up with an LCD as your monitor). Furthermore, there is nothing productive that the PC can do that the Mac cant do better. I said productive, dont give me video game BS.
I assume that Bush is attributable to this. Hes tried to fuck the environment, start a war, increase oil consumption, and now brain wash the masses.
Hes going to hell, plain and simple.
I propose that the military stole their own hardware to cover up patterns of data. Patterns that would reveal the true causes of the 'gulf war syndrome' and evidence that it is a legitamate ailment.
Its wrong and it hurts musicians and people in the industry.
This should read: Its wrong and it hurts musicians and people in the music theft industry.
Let me explain. The musician makes music with revenue potential. The crafty music theft industry executive provides incentives to the musician to sign on the bottom line (or merely fools the musician into signing without fullfilling said incentives). The musician no longer owns the noteworthy music, nor governs how it is used.
Now, due to file sharing, the scenario can change. Let me explain. The musician makes music with revenue potential. The crafty geeks of the net develop distribution technology such as P2P. The musician no longer governs how the music is used but *does* still own said music. Fewer barriers between musician and listener increases the rate and volume of distribution of said music to the public. Listener discovers and aquires new music 10x faster than when music was controlled by the music theft industry e.g. controlled radio playlists. Listener becomes very interested in hearing newly discovered music live. Musician makes money touring.
Is the new scenario better? Definitely for the listener. Definitely not for the record theft industry. And for the musician...? If the musician was previously discovered and getting fat on music theft industry incentives, then probably not better. If the musician is not on the inside track to the music theft industry (ie. does not have enough revenue potential or has undiscovered revenue potential or is not even interested in revenue) then the new scenario is much better. This latter group of musicians represents the larger of the two groups by far.
Record companies are a thing of the past. No one has record players anymore. (DJ's please dont flame, you represent a niche...some might say fad.)
Here is the link for Gtk Gnutella:
http://gtk-gnutella.sourceforge.net/
I think it can be run on OS X. The www page says some people have it running on Xdarwin. What exactly does that mean? What are peoples experiences with this client? Does Gtk use the same network as WinMX? If not, is there an OS X WinMX client?
Im on a powerbook G4 800. I noticed that I couldnt wake my powerbook from sleep after I unplugged it from the power cord. Plugging the power cord back in immediately awakened the mac. This may have been because the battery was dead but I am pretty sure the battery was full...unless the machine wasnt really sleeping to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a Map of Nacogdoches, Texas (depicted by large red star southeast of Dallas):
i ty=Nacogdoches&state=TX&csz=Nacogdoches,+TX&slt=31 .603310&sln=-94.655212&zip=&country=us&BFKey=&BFCa t=&BFClient=&cs=7&name=&desc=&poititle=&poi=&uz=75 961&ds=n&mag=2&off=w
http://maps.yahoo.com/py/maps.py?Pyt=Tmap&addr=&c
The shuttle was said to have crossed over California, Southern Nevada, New Mexico, Dallas,Tx before crashing.
I keep switching stations, and I'm tired of hearing about "6 Americans and 1 Israeli". 7 people were in that shuttle. It's frustrating that the media can't let go of war sensationalism even now, at a time like this.
If this upsets you, get rid of your TV! I got rid of my TV in 1997 (and haven't owned one since). It's one of the smartest decisions I've ever made.
Even if you dont own a TV you will be exposed to the media, but TV pervays the worst prepared, most informal 'journalism'. In other words, its largely useless as a source of information. What information you do glean from the TV, you can find in more trustworthy print media sources and internet sources.
Maybe you like TV because of its shoddy presentation of facts and sensationalism. Some people enjoy getting angry at the TV. I often wonder what my dad would do if he couldn't yell at his omnidirectional sludge box.
DPReview covers the MacBibble 3 announcement here:
l ev3.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0301/03012901macbibb
That's interesting, my Moms eMachine power supply just died. Shes not even much of a computer user. I just put her on a Powerbook G3... her first statement: "I plugged the printer in and it just worked!?". Apparently she had been unable to get the printer working on the eMachine PC, poor woman.
Maybe they can print me a foreskin. Ive always wondered what one of those felt like.
If you think naitive sounds dumb, you should see my "I blaim bush" thread. It took 50 people to reply before someone pointed out the typo:
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=49192&ci d=4975601
My statement needs clarification. Of course, IE for the Mac is dog slow (its carbon, not naitive cocoa code)
The term naitive is ambiguous. One may be refering to naitive to the PowerPC platform for example. Im not in this case.
When I say naitive I mean that OS X's roots are in nextstep. OS X's first API was cocoa from nextstep. To me, this makes cocoa the naitive API for the OS. Apps that are written in cocoa hence are more naitive. The next API to be added to OS X was actually the Java API, and then (after pleas from developers) came carbon.
I realize that today carbon and cocoa are closely tied. I realize that the performance of one API is not consistently better than the other. But carbon is legacy and was added to the yellow box spec as a technology to bridge legacy classic code.
Yes, I realize carbon is widely used in OS X e.g. the finder. IE is still dog slow... it has taken a performance hit from being ported to OS X. Chimera, built from the ground up for OS X (and Im sure it contains carbon code too) is the better performer.
I originally posted the following comment in response to a linux journal article about Apple's Safari. I feel the comment also applies to this discussion:p hp?sid=6565&m ode=thread&order=0&thold=0
.7 badly!
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.
In summary, there are many good rendering engines but very few great user interfaces, and in the end, UI is the crucial differentiator b/w browsers.
In response to the whole rendering engine discussion I see here... IMHO Rendering engine/render speed is not everything... Of course, IE for the Mac is dog slow (its carbon, not naitive cocoa code)...and Apple was *forced* to create an alternative or fall behind. The IE for the Mac team was disintegrated long ago to make Web TV, Ultimate TV (a cancelled MS project),etc.
But for most people, more important than rendering speed is an efficient, productive UI (because rendering speed problems have largely been solved in todays best browsers).
Because the web has become so central to computing...UI is more important than ever in browsers. Safari beta (so far) offers a very nice bookmark manager but lacks tabbed browsing (or something like it).
For now, I like Chimera for OS X because it has tabbed browsing and lightning fast rendering performance. On a dial up connection, a user can open pages in new tabs and queue the downloads. This is a very very efficient method of browsing that Safari so far, have chosen to ignore. Tabbed browsing in Chimera is faster and more efficient than IE 6 for Windows. I use a technique whereby each new chimera window contains catagorys of tabs... ebay auction tabs in one window, news tabs in another window, stock data tabs in a third window. By managing topics of tabs by window I never find myself hunting for the correct tab (In IE for windows, I would find myself hunting for the right tab along the Start bar. With too many windows open the start bar becomes cluttered and useless as an interface.)
Chimera (Gecko based) is faster than Safari in my own independent testing...particularly at downloading and rendering JPEGs. When it comes to rendering raw HTML I can't tell the difference between Chimera and Safari but toss in a few jpegs and chimera wins. I imagine this is only noticeable on dial up connections.
I expect Safari will surpass Chimera and therefore all other browsers in UI and performance at some point in the near future because apple is so damn good at what they do.
PS. I should probably add that I think Chimera is the still the best browser and Apple's Safari is not yet very usable. I would hate to see the Chimera team give up so soon. I think Chimera has a lot to offer...especially because it uses a different rendering engine (great for checking standards compliance, etc). So keep up the good work Chimera! I want to see version
No, Bush didn't say nuclear! He said nucuular!
There is no way you're going to be able to stuff an 802.11b/a transceiver into an already high priced, low battery life phone.
I see no reason why not. I dont know where you are coming from when you say high priced and low battery life.
First, they have 802.11b tranceivers in the compact flash and memory stick form factors. They dont cost that much to manufacture, certainly less than $100. Im sure the 802.11 technology would be even smaller and cheaper if it were designed for a high volume (im avoiding the phrase "mass produced" since mass production has been superceded by lean production) cell phone design.
Im guessing an 802.11 tranceiver would require less power than a phone...not more because, in general, you are much closer to your WiFi access point than you are a cell tower.
Next, 802.11b is likely much cheaper to implement than a custom designed cell phone based on the ARM processor... Ive worked in that industry and can tell you that every single handset is unique and represents millions of dollars in development costs. Standardizing on 802.11 could save a lot of money for the handset manufacturers.
Finally, the real cost savings would be in the distributed network infrastructure. No cell phone towers to maintain. Just route calls through public access points. When you think of the billions of dollars wasted on the 3G networks, WiFi is like a free/cheap 3G infrastructure that is building itself all over the world.
Rob Galbraith is dumb and wrong to draw conclusions about platform superiority from benchmarks of the Canon File Viewer Utility. The slashdot comments here are equally irrelevant because none of you seem to be photographers that use this software (I see 0 comments discussing RAW image conversion out of 237).
;-)
Canon's RAW image convertor is a proprietary piece of software that turns the RAW data off the camera's CCD (or CMOS sensor in the case of the high end Canon SLRs) into TIFF or JPEG files.
Canon's RAW image conversion software is HORRIBLE on BOTH Mac and PC (measured by performance and UI). It has to be one of the most poorly written pieces of software I've ever used. Benchmarking a platform with this software is inane! It's like comparing two cars by screwing on concrete wheels.
Canon's software is obviously written by amateur programmers (or maybe even AN amateur programmer). It was poorly coded for the PC and, in turn, that bad code was then ported to the mac. Where Canon digital cameras are ingenious...the best of breed, their desktop software is clueless, worst of breed.
Further, the Canon File Viewer 1.1 code on the mac is not naitive, it's carbonized (and only just barely carbonized...it was released just a few months ago and has recieved no updates from its initial 1.1.1.22 version). The classic mode Canon RAW Image Convertor actually works better (from a UI and performance standpoint) on the Macintosh than the carbonized Canon File Viewer 1.1. (Im testing with a Powerbook G4 800).
Canon's horrible software has driven third parties to attempt to build better RAW image convertors. Alas, Canon has not released the algorithm for RAW image conversion to the public (nor licensed it commercially). This has left developers guessing how to decypher the RAW file format. No third party including Bibble (which Rob Galbraith uses as another benchmark...bonehead) has achieved any performance improvements over Canon's bad software because of its closed source nature.
The bottom line is that your OS selection should not be based on Rob Galbraiths data but on more refined aspects of each OS, like how productive you will be on each platform over a period of years.
-----------
PS. You slashdotters enjoy your flame war about mac vs PC. An OS is what you make of it. I'm sure all of you have settled on a favourite platform already... so why are you arguing which is better? And if you haven't decided on a platform...I'll save you some time, buy an Apple G4 running OS X.
I'm sure you are joking. Apple owns Filemaker Inc.. Filemaker Pro 6 beats the pants off MS Access. Filemaker is the secret weapon of so many companies... MS Access is more the achilles heel of the companies that choose to use it.
If you need to see the pros and cons of filemaker over Access go here. This document is outdated but there is plenty of material when you search for "filemaker vs access" on google:
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:PRK03pY0GFcC: www.filemaker.com/downloads/pdf/fm_access_comparis on.pdf+filemaker+vs+access&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Also available as PDF:
http://www.filemaker.com/downloads/pdf/fm_access_c omparison.pdf
iBook+PC+LCD==$2500 minimum (in your scenario).
You could buy either the best mac desktop or the best mac laptop for that amount (either way ending up with an LCD as your monitor). Furthermore, there is nothing productive that the PC can do that the Mac cant do better. I said productive, dont give me video game BS.
Actually some eink and any ordinary sheet of paper will work too.
I assume that Bush is attributable to this. Hes tried to fuck the environment, start a war, increase oil consumption, and now brain wash the masses. Hes going to hell, plain and simple.
Breakout was written and included by a former apple/pixo/connectix software engineer.
I propose that the military stole their own hardware to cover up patterns of data. Patterns that would reveal the true causes of the 'gulf war syndrome' and evidence that it is a legitamate ailment.
This should read:
Its wrong and it hurts musicians and people in the music theft industry.
Let me explain. The musician makes music with revenue potential. The crafty music theft industry executive provides incentives to the musician to sign on the bottom line (or merely fools the musician into signing without fullfilling said incentives). The musician no longer owns the noteworthy music, nor governs how it is used.
Now, due to file sharing, the scenario can change. Let me explain. The musician makes music with revenue potential. The crafty geeks of the net develop distribution technology such as P2P. The musician no longer governs how the music is used but *does* still own said music. Fewer barriers between musician and listener increases the rate and volume of distribution of said music to the public. Listener discovers and aquires new music 10x faster than when music was controlled by the music theft industry e.g. controlled radio playlists. Listener becomes very interested in hearing newly discovered music live. Musician makes money touring.
Is the new scenario better? Definitely for the listener. Definitely not for the record theft industry. And for the musician...? If the musician was previously discovered and getting fat on music theft industry incentives, then probably not better. If the musician is not on the inside track to the music theft industry (ie. does not have enough revenue potential or has undiscovered revenue potential or is not even interested in revenue) then the new scenario is much better. This latter group of musicians represents the larger of the two groups by far.
Record companies are a thing of the past. No one has record players anymore. (DJ's please dont flame, you represent a niche...some might say fad.)
Here is the link for Gtk Gnutella:
http://gtk-gnutella.sourceforge.net/
I think it can be run on OS X. The www page says some people have it running on Xdarwin. What exactly does that mean? What are peoples experiences with this client? Does Gtk use the same network as WinMX? If not, is there an OS X WinMX client?
Im on a powerbook G4 800. I noticed that I couldnt wake my powerbook from sleep after I unplugged it from the power cord. Plugging the power cord back in immediately awakened the mac. This may have been because the battery was dead but I am pretty sure the battery was full...unless the machine wasnt really sleeping to begin with.
They should have been shutdown ages ago! Check out this guys posing:
l d=0&commentsort=3&tid=181&mode=thread&pid=4861104# 4861122
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=47319&thresho