I can't say i share the experience of the 2 posters above - SMB is now better for me than it has been ever. So well in fact that it's annoying. I get all the windoze servers at my work place showing up automatically on every Finder window's "Server" section. Passwords to sever shares are now finally remembered properly and I continuously log in to these with no probems.
Unless it was some other kind of ailment, i suspect these users may be the minority.
My 2 cents...
because of all the HUGE amount of stuff already stored in the ROM. Gigabytes, at least. Of course, by "gigabytes at least" you mean maximally 512 K ROM, which was the largest size ROM produced for the Mac Classic in 1990... (this was a re-issue of the Mac Plus with a much larger ROM from which it could boot up. Ahhh, those were the days...)
...what if somebody wanted to bind a positron emitter to a monoclonal antibody for instance... for therapeutic use... Sounds good in (oversimplified) theory - which is why research has been going on for this for some time - i can remember talk of this when i was a medical student in the 1980s (not only for radioactive substances, but also for drug delivery, e.g. chemotherapy or gene therapy with for example viruses), but to my knowledge this has never been successful or safe enough for widespread use.
No doubt some one will eventually come up with a delivery system/vector that will be effective and safe, but to come back to the original topic, anti-matter per se has nothing to do with this. Current ionising radiation, particle beams, chemotherapy etc are all effective cancer cell killers, particularly in vitro, but as cancer cells live in a sea of normal cells that is not the limiting factor but rather the "operation was a success but the patient died" scenario...
Non-specific refers to the fact that to get to cancer cells (assuming you can localise them) you have to get through normal tissue, often a lot of it.
If it were simply a matter of "aim a particle beam" while adjusting other properties, it would have been done decades ago. Current non-anti-matter-particle beams or EM radiation are more than potent to kill cancer cells. Unfortunately it is equally deadly to normal tissues, which restricts it's current use. Radiotherapy in various forms has been around for ages and is effective, but is limited because of it's non-specificity.
How then is "anti-matter" any better? and to my knowledge, PET is a diagnostic test, not a therapeutic intervention (yes, i AM a doctor).
Somehow, monitoring the radioactive beta decay of a short-lived tracer in a PET scan doesn't quite seem as "interesting" as non-specifically bombarding body tissue indiscriminantly with high energy (be it conventional methods or "anti-matter"). To say that "Already been done" is stretching reality just a little (well, to the point i though i heard it scream).
Well, what I really want is a laptop maker that allows me to piecemeal-upgrade the way PC Desktops can [snip]. Unfortunately I don't think PC laptops can do that.
What is it you miss so much from laptops that you must have this? Is it the monster 3D card (most of which are thicker than the acutal laptops) so you can play the latest games? Really, I'm curious.
But with dual-boot, I can go at both 5mph and 45mph(Linux) while Apples are stuck at 25mph.
Hmm, I must be missing something here - How's this: run Parallels Desktop on your Mac and run WIndows or Linux or whatever intel-based OS you want at native speeds without rebooting. Or use Boot Camp and dual-boot into windows.
You're implying that you have more choice with a "pc" - the opposite is in fact true.
even though I have about 8000 entries in my inbox, it can handle it in no time
No intention to flame, but do you not think that it's pine is the reason you have 8000 emails in your inbox?
Do you consider that an optimal state of archiving?
And in this day and age, i would not exactly boast about being pround that my email client can handle pictures and URLs, but only after configuring them.
Well, I don't know what settings you use, but on both my PCs (XP boxen) and my mac laptops, iTunes does not move files, it copies them. I.e. if i open my mp3's etc in iTunes, it creates copies of them in the iTunes Music folder. The original files remain intact. This is with the default install as i don't have the time or inclination to tinker its settings...
It probably is possible to set iTunes to move files. But it is not default behaviour.
Spotilight has nothing to do with this either - why would you need to spotlight it if you can search iTunes instead? At least for my uses, iTunes is all the file management i need. Speaking for myself, i have no need to keep files organised in any other way. If i want a group of files, i can create a playlist (then available to iLife apps or if needed can just be dragged to another folder from iTunes and will create copies...)
Interface issues aside, you are wrong (not that i agree that right-clicking is a better interface).
iTunes doesn't move files, it copies them. Existing files won't magically disappear, and the fact that your wife can't find them is interesting enough topic on many levels (do you really have a wife? if so, does she even know how to turn on a computer?), but nothing to do with iTunes;*)
Well, yeah, it doesn't have any "functional purpose", neither to almost all other interface things. Interfaces are not about adding functions, but about allowing you easier access to functions already there and adding preferences panels to the backside of a window seems like a good improvment, not earth shattering, but definitvly a good thing.
I don't disagree with what you mean.
But being functional does not mean adding a function, it means facilitating function.
Here's a tip: if I hear your phone sing (I use the term loosely) "pick up da phone, got some money comin' in" one more time, I'm going to introduce your phone to Mr. Sledgehammer. And then maybe your head, too. I figure I should get a medal for preventing all the crimes you were going to commit in the coming years.
IANAL, but I would've thought that the court/judge should have verified that Apple "thoroughly" investigated it's staff in-house, before violating the journalist's freedoms.
After all, if any one could just show up in court and say: "Looky here judge, it's like i say it is, y'hear?" then there wouldn't be much of a judicial process, would there...
But please correct me if i'm wrong...
Serious disease can affect any one, and we walk about every day not realising how close to the edge we may find ourselves.
In some unlucky people it can be complicated by medical errors made in good faith or by malpractice. Slandering some one on a web site cannot arbitrate between the two and only expresses one side of the story; medical staff are bound by confidentiality not to respond in kind.
I am a physician and find this discussion intriguing... Are patients allowed to "badmouth" their doctors online? How is this different (apart from scope) from "word of mouth"? Are doctors not allowed recourse to protect they "good name", particularly those with private practices where this would essentially equate to their livelihood?
There is merit to most of the comments made above.
However, keep in mind that there are many factors that are not immediately obvious to many of the posters here:
1) Medicine *is difficult*. You cannot become a doctor simply by memorising rules for 4 years (or 6 years in most countries). Unfortunately, human minds and bodies refuse to obey fixed rules and often there are more exceptions than there are rules. While many illnesses may be both straightforward and easy to diagnose and treat, invariably one has to deal with patients where things are not clear, where the diagnosis is not obvious, where the standard treatment for specified condition may do more harm than good; being supremely skilled at invasive procedures does not guarantee that a patient may not come to harm from a complication.
There is no "black or white", no definitive test to diagnose everything, not golden therapy to treat everything.Situations like these can only be dealt with using knowledge and drawing from personal and collective experience. That does mean unfortunately that it's not always possible to get it right - wrong diagnoses are made, wrong treatments are given, complications may occur from a procedure - but that does not necessarily make a doctor "bad". For the patient though this may be catastrophic, something which doctors are acutely aware of. But if an error occured in good faith, should that doctor be splattered on a web page?
2) As with any profession, there are people in it for the money only and will stop at nothing to get it. However, in most cases this is not what affects patients. In many european countries (i can't speak for the USA) doctors are put in a position where they have to deal with rare and serious conditions outside of their expertise and/or are made to do so in extremely stressful environments (long hours, being paged by 6 different people simultaneously etc). Medical and para-medical staff do their best to cope, in most cases successfully, but occasionally problems will arise from this. Just think: If you were trying to calculate your taxes after working for 36 hours and people kept phoning you and knocking on your door and your 3-year old kept screaming - how well do you think you'd do?
3) A surprising number of patients seek medical attention without any real physical disease; anxiety is a common theme and can lead to great problems in the patient-doctor relationship. It is tough for medical/nursing staff to deal with very anxious people, as they are treated as emotional punching bags and it can be tough for these patients as anxiety often cannot be "talked away"; they really feel unwell and cannot understand why. At the same time this does not mean that there is nothing wrong with the patient. To put it bluntly - just because they're mad doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with 'em. But not infrequently it is people with high degree of anxiety that are the most vitriolic against medical staff, in spite best efforts from both nurses and doctors.
These are just a few points from a medical perspective. One of the greatest problems in patient-doctor relationships is communication. Problems here are what frequently will lead to litigation for various reasons. But the problem may not necessarily lie with the doctor, as communication is a 2-way street (for example, i make it common practice to repeat myself ad nauseam as it can be startling what some people just don't retain or refuse to take in [denial]).
Of course, there are doctors not up to the task and perhaps should not be practising medicine for whatever reason. But I believe that these should be investigated by a professional body to assess their
Surely it's Perfect 10's job to police their own copyright?
If scammingpirates are stealing their product, then scammingpirates should be sued, etc. Sure, it's more work for them, but they can use google to track down the sites:D
It's just silly that Google is even held responsible for this. That's my view anyway.
Not as tired as we are about hearing how Microsoft stole everybody blind while everybody else was completely innocent and lovable and did no wrong.
Yes well the difference of course is that in the beginning "everybody else" payed to licence concepts, while Microsoft did steal, in the sense of ripping off DOS initially and then the GUI.
It's not like MS licenced the GUI concept from Xerox PARC, in spite it's similarities with other OS's that had done just that.
Yes, Apple did steal the idea for a graphic user interface from the demo visit that Jobs and crew made to Xerox PARC.
Interesting concept of steal: From TFA (which you no doubt read before offering your incisive wisdom):
Steve Jobs, convinced that the technology at PARC could help Apple usher in the eighties, offered Xerox a killer deal. Apple, which was still privately owned at the time, would allow Xerox to invest $1 million, which was sure to soar in value when the company went public in 1981 for two guided tours of PARC's technology. Xerox happily accepted, and gave Steve and a team of engineers from the Lisa project a tour of the technologies at PARC
Is any one else tired of hearing this shit about how Apple ripped off Xerox?
Slashdot Mirror
I can't say i share the experience of the 2 posters above - SMB is now better for me than it has been ever. So well in fact that it's annoying. I get all the windoze servers at my work place showing up automatically on every Finder window's "Server" section. Passwords to sever shares are now finally remembered properly and I continuously log in to these with no probems. Unless it was some other kind of ailment, i suspect these users may be the minority. My 2 cents...
Sounds good in (oversimplified) theory - which is why research has been going on for this for some time - i can remember talk of this when i was a medical student in the 1980s (not only for radioactive substances, but also for drug delivery, e.g. chemotherapy or gene therapy with for example viruses), but to my knowledge this has never been successful or safe enough for widespread use.
No doubt some one will eventually come up with a delivery system/vector that will be effective and safe, but to come back to the original topic, anti-matter per se has nothing to do with this. Current ionising radiation, particle beams, chemotherapy etc are all effective cancer cell killers, particularly in vitro, but as cancer cells live in a sea of normal cells that is not the limiting factor but rather the "operation was a success but the patient died" scenario...
If it were simply a matter of "aim a particle beam" while adjusting other properties, it would have been done decades ago. Current non-anti-matter-particle beams or EM radiation are more than potent to kill cancer cells. Unfortunately it is equally deadly to normal tissues, which restricts it's current use. Radiotherapy in various forms has been around for ages and is effective, but is limited because of it's non-specificity.
How then is "anti-matter" any better? and to my knowledge, PET is a diagnostic test, not a therapeutic intervention (yes, i AM a doctor).
Somehow, monitoring the radioactive beta decay of a short-lived tracer in a PET scan doesn't quite seem as "interesting" as non-specifically bombarding body tissue indiscriminantly with high energy (be it conventional methods or "anti-matter"). To say that "Already been done" is stretching reality just a little (well, to the point i though i heard it scream).
What is it you miss so much from laptops that you must have this? Is it the monster 3D card (most of which are thicker than the acutal laptops) so you can play the latest games? Really, I'm curious.
Again, not really that well informed, are we? http://www.apple.com/macpro/
Hmm, I must be missing something here - How's this: run Parallels Desktop on your Mac and run WIndows or Linux or whatever intel-based OS you want at native speeds without rebooting. Or use Boot Camp and dual-boot into windows.
You're implying that you have more choice with a "pc" - the opposite is in fact true.
No intention to flame, but do you not think that it's pine is the reason you have 8000 emails in your inbox? Do you consider that an optimal state of archiving?
And in this day and age, i would not exactly boast about being pround that my email client can handle pictures and URLs, but only after configuring them.
Well, I don't know what settings you use, but on both my PCs (XP boxen) and my mac laptops, iTunes does not move files, it copies them. I.e. if i open my mp3's etc in iTunes, it creates copies of them in the iTunes Music folder. The original files remain intact. This is with the default install as i don't have the time or inclination to tinker its settings...
It probably is possible to set iTunes to move files. But it is not default behaviour.
Spotilight has nothing to do with this either - why would you need to spotlight it if you can search iTunes instead? At least for my uses, iTunes is all the file management i need. Speaking for myself, i have no need to keep files organised in any other way. If i want a group of files, i can create a playlist (then available to iLife apps or if needed can just be dragged to another folder from iTunes and will create copies...)
Interface issues aside, you are wrong (not that i agree that right-clicking is a better interface).
;*)
iTunes doesn't move files, it copies them. Existing files won't magically disappear, and the fact that your wife can't find them is interesting enough topic on many levels (do you really have a wife? if so, does she even know how to turn on a computer?), but nothing to do with iTunes
I don't disagree with what you mean.
But being functional does not mean adding a function, it means facilitating function.
can't wait to see Monty's version!
You must be new here...
< P >
No, but tell us how you really feel!
Well, a quote (don't know who said this) comes to mind:
Capitalism is where man exploits man.
Communism is exactly the opposite.
Windows XP is not the answer, it is the Question. The answer is "No"
IANAL, but I would've thought that the court/judge should have verified that Apple "thoroughly" investigated it's staff in-house, before violating the journalist's freedoms. After all, if any one could just show up in court and say: "Looky here judge, it's like i say it is, y'hear?" then there wouldn't be much of a judicial process, would there... But please correct me if i'm wrong...
Serious disease can affect any one, and we walk about every day not realising how close to the edge we may find ourselves. In some unlucky people it can be complicated by medical errors made in good faith or by malpractice. Slandering some one on a web site cannot arbitrate between the two and only expresses one side of the story; medical staff are bound by confidentiality not to respond in kind.
Are patients allowed to "badmouth" their doctors online? How is this different (apart from scope) from "word of mouth"?
Are doctors not allowed recourse to protect they "good name", particularly those with private practices where this would essentially equate to their livelihood?
There is merit to most of the comments made above.
However, keep in mind that there are many factors that are not immediately obvious to many of the posters here:
1) Medicine *is difficult*. You cannot become a doctor simply by memorising rules for 4 years (or 6 years in most countries). Unfortunately, human minds and bodies refuse to obey fixed rules and often there are more exceptions than there are rules. While many illnesses may be both straightforward and easy to diagnose and treat, invariably one has to deal with patients where things are not clear, where the diagnosis is not obvious, where the standard treatment for specified condition may do more harm than good; being supremely skilled at invasive procedures does not guarantee that a patient may not come to harm from a complication.
There is no "black or white", no definitive test to diagnose everything, not golden therapy to treat everything.Situations like these can only be dealt with using knowledge and drawing from personal and collective experience. That does mean unfortunately that it's not always possible to get it right - wrong diagnoses are made, wrong treatments are given, complications may occur from a procedure - but that does not necessarily make a doctor "bad". For the patient though this may be catastrophic, something which doctors are acutely aware of.
But if an error occured in good faith, should that doctor be splattered on a web page?
2) As with any profession, there are people in it for the money only and will stop at nothing to get it. However, in most cases this is not what affects patients. In many european countries (i can't speak for the USA) doctors are put in a position where they have to deal with rare and serious conditions outside of their expertise and/or are made to do so in extremely stressful environments (long hours, being paged by 6 different people simultaneously etc). Medical and para-medical staff do their best to cope, in most cases successfully, but occasionally problems will arise from this.
Just think: If you were trying to calculate your taxes after working for 36 hours and people kept phoning you and knocking on your door and your 3-year old kept screaming - how well do you think you'd do?
3) A surprising number of patients seek medical attention without any real physical disease; anxiety is a common theme and can lead to great problems in the patient-doctor relationship. It is tough for medical/nursing staff to deal with very anxious people, as they are treated as emotional punching bags and it can be tough for these patients as anxiety often cannot be "talked away"; they really feel unwell and cannot understand why. At the same time this does not mean that there is nothing wrong with the patient. To put it bluntly - just because they're mad doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with 'em.
But not infrequently it is people with high degree of anxiety that are the most vitriolic against medical staff, in spite best efforts from both nurses and doctors.
These are just a few points from a medical perspective. One of the greatest problems in patient-doctor relationships is communication. Problems here are what frequently will lead to litigation for various reasons. But the problem may not necessarily lie with the doctor, as communication is a 2-way street (for example, i make it common practice to repeat myself ad nauseam as it can be startling what some people just don't retain or refuse to take in [denial]).
Of course, there are doctors not up to the task and perhaps should not be practising medicine for whatever reason. But I believe that these should be investigated by a professional body to assess their
If scammingpirates are stealing their product, then scammingpirates should be sued, etc. Sure, it's more work for them, but they can use google to track down the sites :D
It's just silly that Google is even held responsible for this. That's my view anyway.
I fully agree with you, realvideo is a stinking pile of poo... but i don't get why your post is modded "Score:2, Informative".
Whatever the mods are smoking, please pass some my way!
Yes well the difference of course is that in the beginning "everybody else" payed to licence concepts, while Microsoft did steal, in the sense of ripping off DOS initially and then the GUI.
It's not like MS licenced the GUI concept from Xerox PARC, in spite it's similarities with other OS's that had done just that.
Interesting concept of steal: From TFA (which you no doubt read before offering your incisive wisdom):
Steve Jobs, convinced that the technology at PARC could help Apple usher in the eighties, offered Xerox a killer deal. Apple, which was still privately owned at the time, would allow Xerox to invest $1 million, which was sure to soar in value when the company went public in 1981 for two guided tours of PARC's technology. Xerox happily accepted, and gave Steve and a team of engineers from the Lisa project a tour of the technologies at PARC
Is any one else tired of hearing this shit about how Apple ripped off Xerox?