That's like installing MS Office to view a 1kb readme.txt file. I don't need anything on that list all I want is something that lets me look at basic PDF files, not something that is bloated all to hell from useless features, like Quicktime embedded into PDF files.
The Onion really should do an article about people who link to that article.
On a more serious note, I wonder how many people just recently gave up TV, atleast partly due to the writers' strike, only to never return now that they have found something better to do with their time? My guess is that it will take a long time for the ratings to recover, if they ever actually do recover.
I think it's a combination of a couple of things. First, people who use Linux (and especially those that program it) are power users, and like having a lot of options, and the ability to heavily tweak the UI to their tastes. They enjoy having a "cluttered" UI, as they are comfortable with all the information that's being thrown up on the screen, and like having all those buttons and whatnot available for when they need them. Inevitably, this means the UI ends up looking more like Windows than the Mac. The minimal, overly simplistic, and relatively inconfigurable OSX interface really isn't for them. Secondly, some of the "Macisms" such as the Dock, the menu bar stuck at the top of the screen, no maximize button, only allowing windows to be resized in one corner, and stuff like that are actually pretty crappy UI elements, and that's the reason why they aren't widely copied.
It's a good idea, but I would be worried about getting myself on a junk faxer's list, then you would get calls at all hours of the day and night. My solution was to just have my computer pick up the phone and then immediately hang up on junk callers. Eventually, I just changed it to pick up and hang up on any call that didn't provide caller ID, as I found that 100% of those calls were junk (atleast for me).
Why not? The typical office user only needs the PC for a set number of basic tasks. They wouldn't need to do anything like install their own software, figure out how to get X piece of hardware working, or ever have to look at the command line.
The problem isn't so much the stops, it's that the stops are going to each add something like 20 minutes each for people to board the train, etc. What if the train instead had something like flatbed cars, and the passenger compartments could be quickly mounted and dismounted from these flatbed cars? Each car on the train would then have a specific destination. When the train stopped there, the cars would quickly slide off the train, the already loaded and ready cars for the people leaving that stop would slide on, and the train would continue on it's journey. Done right, I could see each stop (besides big ones like LA, Chicago) taking less than a minute.
While I don't really buy the story either, the units used in his example are totally irrelevant. The number pi is a ratio of lengths, and works the same whether you use cubits, meters, or floopies.
Apple wants the largest portion of the pie for itself, hence the reason they want to make others' portions as small as possible. Though admittedly, I don't think it would work. Even if this goes through, the labels are just going to pocket the difference anyway.
How so? I see in that list coupes, sedans, wagons, and even an "ute" (truck). They may share a lot of the same unpinnings (don't know enough about Fords to say), but it's still like saying all the different distrobutions of Linux are essentially the same.
The sun produces a massive amount of energy, and contrary to what some people seem to believe, continues to burn even after it sets in the sky. If we could tap even a billionth of the sun's output, we would have all the energy we need. The sun is clearly the winner in the solar system, nothing else even comes close the amount of energy available. You may be right about solar cells and batteries, but to dismiss solar energy outright is just stupid.
The EPA defines "routine maintanence" as anything that doesn't exceed 20% of the powerplant's value.
In 5 years you could rebuild that powerplant doing nothing more than EPA approved routine maintanence.
Is the value the actual value of the plant, or the cost to build a new plant? A car analogy might be in order here: If I have a 15 year old clunker that cost $20,000 new and is worth $500 now, am I allowed to only do $100 in maintance per year (which could have the car off the road fairly quickly), or $4,000 in maintance per year?
It could tell you if it was left at work, at home, or at a friend's house, and so forth. It would be atleast a start, if you have no idea where you left it.
At some point slashdot is going to become just another crap-fest of left-wing circle jerks where people with other opinions are unwelcome regardless. So much for the party of tolerance.
So, you base this grand observation of yours on a poorly worded post about Romney that sounds more like a talking point than anything else (the post does nothing to back up the assertions it makes), and a +5 funny post referencing the tired old joke that stemmed from taking a statement from Al Gore out of context?
That's probably because the MBP uses it's own memory to cache the drive image for the VM, and hence the VM's pagefile actually exists, atleast partially, in ram. That's why I find starving a virtual machine for ram really doesn't hurt the performance nearly as much as a physical machine starved for ram.
I wouldn't imagine it would be really hard to build a machine for a graphics designer. Here's how I would do it:
1. Get some really nice display(s) 2. Appropiate video card to drive those display(s) 3. A lot of ram (4-8GB+) 4. A motherboard that will support the above, preferably with some room to expand atleast the ram in the future 5. A reasonable higher end CPU, faster is better of course, but the bang-for-the-buck ratio isn't that great here 6. Fill in the details such as optical drive, harddrive(s), case, etc. as appropiate
The difference between doing it yourself and buying a Mac in terms of hardware is that the Mac Pro comes with a really high end Xeon CPU, which while nice, is also really expensive. It also requires expensive ram. Or you could get an iMac, which leaves you stuck with Apple's LCD screen and video card, and also requires expensive laptop ram. But if you want OSX, that's the only way you're going to get it.
It is, however, Windows' fault that for a long time in the late '90s and early '00s Windows was a festering pit of security holes that practically begged spammers and other maltards to abuse it.
So, would it be Linux's fault if he had brought over his rooted Linux box and hooked it up to the network instead?
You'll find quite a few of them. I remember hearing it quite a bit until the cheapest, crappiest new computer you could buy would run XP quite well (same for Windows 98 too).
It's probably because the laptop has a 5400RPM (or slower) drive compared to the desktop with a 7200RPM drive. My laptop is considerably better spec'd in terms of processor/memory/video than my considerably older desktop, though for general use I would consider them about a tie in terms of speed. But for something like encoding video, the laptop flies.
That sounds great, but keep in mind that instead of investing that extra $80 into R&D to make better and new drugs, the drug companies instead take most of that $80 and spend it on marketing in order to try to convince more people to buy that drug at $100.
Yet at the same time, insurance companies are pressing for cures instead of "maintenance" regimes.
So you're a conspiracy nut.
I would say that Big Pharma has the upper hand here. Thanks to patents, you can only get a drug at one source, but you can get medical insurance from many sources. The drug companies can write the rules, and the insurance companies can either accept it, or risk people switching to over plans to get the medicines they need.
Slashdot Mirror
That's like installing MS Office to view a 1kb readme.txt file. I don't need anything on that list all I want is something that lets me look at basic PDF files, not something that is bloated all to hell from useless features, like Quicktime embedded into PDF files.
The Onion really should do an article about people who link to that article.
On a more serious note, I wonder how many people just recently gave up TV, atleast partly due to the writers' strike, only to never return now that they have found something better to do with their time? My guess is that it will take a long time for the ratings to recover, if they ever actually do recover.
I think it's a combination of a couple of things. First, people who use Linux (and especially those that program it) are power users, and like having a lot of options, and the ability to heavily tweak the UI to their tastes. They enjoy having a "cluttered" UI, as they are comfortable with all the information that's being thrown up on the screen, and like having all those buttons and whatnot available for when they need them. Inevitably, this means the UI ends up looking more like Windows than the Mac. The minimal, overly simplistic, and relatively inconfigurable OSX interface really isn't for them. Secondly, some of the "Macisms" such as the Dock, the menu bar stuck at the top of the screen, no maximize button, only allowing windows to be resized in one corner, and stuff like that are actually pretty crappy UI elements, and that's the reason why they aren't widely copied.
It's a good idea, but I would be worried about getting myself on a junk faxer's list, then you would get calls at all hours of the day and night. My solution was to just have my computer pick up the phone and then immediately hang up on junk callers. Eventually, I just changed it to pick up and hang up on any call that didn't provide caller ID, as I found that 100% of those calls were junk (atleast for me).
Why not? The typical office user only needs the PC for a set number of basic tasks. They wouldn't need to do anything like install their own software, figure out how to get X piece of hardware working, or ever have to look at the command line.
The problem isn't so much the stops, it's that the stops are going to each add something like 20 minutes each for people to board the train, etc. What if the train instead had something like flatbed cars, and the passenger compartments could be quickly mounted and dismounted from these flatbed cars? Each car on the train would then have a specific destination. When the train stopped there, the cars would quickly slide off the train, the already loaded and ready cars for the people leaving that stop would slide on, and the train would continue on it's journey. Done right, I could see each stop (besides big ones like LA, Chicago) taking less than a minute.
While I don't really buy the story either, the units used in his example are totally irrelevant. The number pi is a ratio of lengths, and works the same whether you use cubits, meters, or floopies.
Apple wants the largest portion of the pie for itself, hence the reason they want to make others' portions as small as possible. Though admittedly, I don't think it would work. Even if this goes through, the labels are just going to pocket the difference anyway.
How so? I see in that list coupes, sedans, wagons, and even an "ute" (truck). They may share a lot of the same unpinnings (don't know enough about Fords to say), but it's still like saying all the different distrobutions of Linux are essentially the same.
I think he meant that Hilary will encourage the Republican base to come out and vote...against her, that is.
What matters of opinion? We're still waiting for your list of ex-Presidents that were senators from New York, dumbass.
The sun produces a massive amount of energy, and contrary to what some people seem to believe, continues to burn even after it sets in the sky. If we could tap even a billionth of the sun's output, we would have all the energy we need. The sun is clearly the winner in the solar system, nothing else even comes close the amount of energy available. You may be right about solar cells and batteries, but to dismiss solar energy outright is just stupid.
The EPA defines "routine maintanence" as anything that doesn't exceed 20% of the powerplant's value.
In 5 years you could rebuild that powerplant doing nothing more than EPA approved routine maintanence.
Is the value the actual value of the plant, or the cost to build a new plant? A car analogy might be in order here: If I have a 15 year old clunker that cost $20,000 new and is worth $500 now, am I allowed to only do $100 in maintance per year (which could have the car off the road fairly quickly), or $4,000 in maintance per year?
Every new AT&T activation is a two-year contract. It's not apple's fault. Sorry, please play again.
Are you dense? Apple wasn't forced to partner with AT&T.
It could tell you if it was left at work, at home, or at a friend's house, and so forth. It would be atleast a start, if you have no idea where you left it.
At some point slashdot is going to become just another crap-fest of left-wing circle jerks where people with other opinions are unwelcome regardless. So much for the party of tolerance.
So, you base this grand observation of yours on a poorly worded post about Romney that sounds more like a talking point than anything else (the post does nothing to back up the assertions it makes), and a +5 funny post referencing the tired old joke that stemmed from taking a statement from Al Gore out of context?
This can only mean one thing: He's using Vi to browse the internet!
You fool! Vi can't browse the internet. He must be using emacs!
That's probably because the MBP uses it's own memory to cache the drive image for the VM, and hence the VM's pagefile actually exists, atleast partially, in ram. That's why I find starving a virtual machine for ram really doesn't hurt the performance nearly as much as a physical machine starved for ram.
I wouldn't imagine it would be really hard to build a machine for a graphics designer. Here's how I would do it:
1. Get some really nice display(s)
2. Appropiate video card to drive those display(s)
3. A lot of ram (4-8GB+)
4. A motherboard that will support the above, preferably with some room to expand atleast the ram in the future
5. A reasonable higher end CPU, faster is better of course, but the bang-for-the-buck ratio isn't that great here
6. Fill in the details such as optical drive, harddrive(s), case, etc. as appropiate
The difference between doing it yourself and buying a Mac in terms of hardware is that the Mac Pro comes with a really high end Xeon CPU, which while nice, is also really expensive. It also requires expensive ram. Or you could get an iMac, which leaves you stuck with Apple's LCD screen and video card, and also requires expensive laptop ram. But if you want OSX, that's the only way you're going to get it.
It is, however, Windows' fault that for a long time in the late '90s and early '00s Windows was a festering pit of security holes that practically begged spammers and other maltards to abuse it.
So, would it be Linux's fault if he had brought over his rooted Linux box and hooked it up to the network instead?
You'll find quite a few of them. I remember hearing it quite a bit until the cheapest, crappiest new computer you could buy would run XP quite well (same for Windows 98 too).
It's probably because the laptop has a 5400RPM (or slower) drive compared to the desktop with a 7200RPM drive. My laptop is considerably better spec'd in terms of processor/memory/video than my considerably older desktop, though for general use I would consider them about a tie in terms of speed. But for something like encoding video, the laptop flies.
I had to check for myself, so I did a search. I guess it was available, sorry about that.
That sounds great, but keep in mind that instead of investing that extra $80 into R&D to make better and new drugs, the drug companies instead take most of that $80 and spend it on marketing in order to try to convince more people to buy that drug at $100.
Yet at the same time, insurance companies are pressing for cures instead of "maintenance" regimes.
So you're a conspiracy nut.
I would say that Big Pharma has the upper hand here. Thanks to patents, you can only get a drug at one source, but you can get medical insurance from many sources. The drug companies can write the rules, and the insurance companies can either accept it, or risk people switching to over plans to get the medicines they need.