Yeah, but you have to actually have something to reveal enticingly through the smoke, or reflect dazzlingly in the mirrors.
Precisely. Having beautiful products helps with the whole mystique thing, and Windows "Fisher Price" XP on some cheap shitty HP or Dell box doesn't really have quite the same impact.
Anyway, I'd go as far as to say that even WinFS wouldn't have been worth, what, four...five years of waiting.
"Microsoft's own Blogger" has to go ask someone from their PR firm (i.e., third-party, hired-help, outside MS) for accurate information about what's going on at Microsoft.
I thought the same - how strange it seemed. But it all makes sense really. The PR/Marketing department has been running Microsoft for a long time - Apple have shown that the smoke and mirrors, done well, really helps the sales figures - so I suppose it's not surprising that they are giving it a go. Still, odd that Scoble, supposedly the insider, is even Marketing's bitch.
Fact is, of course there will be no rewrite. It's Windows XP with a new theme and, in keeping with Microsoft tradition, appropriately adjusted hardware requirements to boot.
Read the grandparent again. Then read it again. Read it maybe three or four times more. Pay particular attention to font weights.
Then make your comment again.
*sigh*
iqu:|
Re:Utter Bunk - Compatibility Not That Great
on
Why Windows is Slow
·
· Score: 1
Bullshit. Try out DOSBox sometime.
I think it hardly need be said that what is being talked about here is Windows as shipped. Once you add third-party software in, obviously the situation changes.
But that's not as fun as a reactionary retort.
Idiot.
iqu:|
Utter Bunk - Compatibility Not That Great
on
Why Windows is Slow
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This is poor, even for the NYT - a shameless puff piece trotted out by someone presumably in Bill G's pocket. It helps to deflect attention hitherto focused on the Vista delay announcement. "Oh, poor Microsoft," we cry. "How they have suffered to make Windows so very backward compatible. This must be the reason for the delay." And so it continues ad nauseam.
Rubbish. Utter rubbish. As numerous people have attested in this disucssion, it is often necessary to retain Windows 9x boxen in order to ensure compatibility with a particular piece of software on which one has to depend. And that ignores the innumerable hiccups encountered in the switch from DOS/Windows 3.x to Windows 95. It was ten years ago, now, so I will grant that some may have forgotten (or, at a guess, given the profusion of Myspace-era teens on Slashdot these days, they were not around to even remember), but a lot broke in that switch. At that age, my particular peeve was games, although the experienced - among which I like to include myself - were generally able to continue wrestling with fancy memory configurations in order to get such software to run. Still, it certainly wasn't easy, by any means.
The switch to the NT kernel has brought even more difficulties, many of them insurmountable. If you still have a piece of DOS software that NT won't run, there is no MS-DOS mode to restart in; the command prompt is sufficient for some but not all requirements. Certainly anyone who still wants to crack out an old DOS game under Windows XP is totally fucked, although one might like to remind them that it is time to move on...
Still, all of this would be as naught if it were not for the perpetual insistence on attributing the resplendent brilliance of Apple's Mac OS X to its willingness to shirk a supposed responsibility for backwards compatibility, the idea being that Windows sucks because it has excellent backwards compatibility. I have never understood this argument.
Probably because it is bunk. Among a diverse array of boxen at home - running, I might add, DOS, Linux, OpenBSD and Windows - I run Mac OS X 10.4 on a PowerBook G4. I am not about to indulge in a lengthy diatribe about the myriad ways in which Mac OS X is superior to Windows (or Linux, or...), because that has been ably done already, but I feel a short note on backwards compatibility is in order, seeing as it is that which is under attack.
Mac OS X has excellent backwards compatibility. I would argue in fact that from a user's perspective it is in some ways better than, say, that of Windows XP. It is beyond doubt that from a technical perspective, Mac OS X's backwards compatibility is superior to that of Windows XP. Consider why:
A quick perusal of various of the abandonware sites will render unto you a very plethora of old software for your DOS PC or Mac box. The difference is that you'll need an emulator to run the for-DOS stuff. Most of the time, anyway. On Mac OS X, assuming the Classic environment is installed (and I grant that it no longer is by default, but it is supplied on the Install DVD), you just double click the icon and within, say, a minute, you are playing a way on a classic version of Monkey Island from the early 90s. Maybe earlier. Oh, and with sound. Or perhaps the first version of Microsoft Word floats your boat. I have an old Japanese version of Microsoft Office on here which has proved indispensible on more than one occasion.
What is impressive is that some of this software is 20 years old and still works. Not only was it written for a totally different operating system, but it was written for a totally different chip architecture too. It integrates well too. An icon for a Mac OS 9 (or earlier) application can simply be placed in the Dock like any other application, and it runs - with menu bar and everything - just as it would in Mac OS 9. Whatever you may make of Windows or the Mac, that kind of compatibility is amazing
Really lame. I'd pen a post lamenting what Slashdot has come to these days, but that would only serve to convey an expectation of something greater, which, frankly, is just sad...
So SM posts this for shits and giggles. Fair enough. It brings the Gentoo Ricer crowd out, which is entertaining for the rest of us and generates page views ergo ad revenue. I can almost see a four steps to profit cliché here, but I'll leave that to someone else.
Seriously though, what a load of bollocks. I certainly can't claim to have the vintage of some of the 20+ years sysadmins on here, but I've been a Linux user for 7-8 years now and that is evidently long enough to come to understand the merits of package management. Yes, when you're fat and fifteen and still living in your parent['s|s'] basement with nothing better to do all day than stick it out watching makefile lines scroll by, Gentoo seems like a good idea. If you're really fucking sad, you might even notice a perceptible difference.
But fuck, please stop trolling like a bunch of Mac/Ogg/etc zealots telling the rest of us about it - we don't fucking care. We have jobs to do, partners to go home to, lives to get on with. If I did still care for Linux on my main machine, Ubuntu would have me up and running in an hour or so - I couldn't have my computer out of action for a day because it's...er...compiling.
Now don't get me wrong - I understand the mentality. I know the mentality. It's the same mentality that led me to reinstall Windows anything as frequently as once a week for a period in an attempt to get it running tip top. It's about the struggle, the fun of getting there, the war, the conflict, the strife - that's the fun part. I am of a computing generation that cut its teeth editing CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT files with elaborate startup menu configurations to optimise memory availability for specific applications (remember expanded memory, anyone?).* And it was great - we loved it, well, some of us did - until we actually had to get some work done.
Now I have to get work done, so I use a Mac. And countless Linux sysadmins out there will say the same thing - in the real world, you have to deliver results. Real, actual results. Dependability. Not downing the server every evening for a recompile. Reliability. Actual rather than theoretical uptime. We simply don't have time to be sitting round waiting for X to build so we can just sling some graphics on the screen.
And if y'all were doing something useful with your lives, neither would you...
iqu:|
(* Kudos to John Gruber for reminding me (through quoting someone else) of the glory days of MS-DOS - choice quote: "As a PC user, enduring the grotesqueries of that experience is something that we are actually proud of.")
Virgin Mobile, one of the largest cellular service providers
Erm, Virgin Mobile is probably one of the smallest networks. It's certainly not one of the largest, and it uses T-Mobile's transmitters rather than having its own.
...it seems all too likely that the next rev will include legacy bios support...
Really? Where'd you hear that? Because that would make a lot of sense, building a totally new legacy-free laptop just like Macs have been for years (ADB excepted:P) and then going back for Rev B and putting the legacy crap in. Yeah, that really makes sense.
One character every two seconds? Way too slow. I'll stick to T9 predictive input thank you. And I'm not one of the textaholic types that the article refers to.
This is rather disheartening news. One of the most wonderful things about Japan is its thriving second hand market, and I for one spent an awful lot of money in shops like Sofmap, mostly on Mac stuff.
It all seemed to work so well. The Japanese have, to put it mildly, something of a penchant for things shiny and new, so what they toss out would be regarded by Westerners as nearly new. So rather than putting all this nearly new stuff to waste, they sell it to shops like Sofmap, who sell it on to people like me, who are quite happy with a nearly new bargain. Contrast that with, say, Britain, where, the mobile phone market excepted, we make the most of our computers and such - the term the Japanese use is tsukaikomu.
It's not as though this is going to net the computer companies much more profit - people buy new things anyway, as stated above.
Shame. I had hoped to net myself a Flower Power iMac next time I was out there...
But, unfortunately, with the FCC relaxing it's definition of monopolies, it's not exactly a free market anymore.
I'm sorry, but what? What are you on about? What do you think a free market is? Unbridled competition without state intervention (which, for the avoidance of doubt, includes the FCC), is exactly what the free market is. This is not a defence of it, you understand - I firmly believe that unrestricted, unfettered capitalism, rapacious as it naturally is, does more harm than good, and tends inevitably to anarchy (an undesirable state of affairs, for those uncertain). Some form of control is necessary, but when you have control, you no longer have a free market.
It always amuses me when somebody points out someone's egregious spelling error and then promptly makes one of their own.
In fairness, and for the sake of pedantry, the grandparent was not actually pointing out a spelling error in the great-grandparent's post, rather just seeking clarification as to which meaning was intended. This seems prudent, given that the average Slashdotter's spelling skills are especially poor of late.
*sigh* Oh to have been there to convince him otherwise:
Marx: Ja, I am writing dis new book, ja, about zer oppressif kapitalists, und how ze proletariat will...
Visionary: Dude that is, like, so passé. Like, you know, so boring. You should write a book about the capitals of the world. You could call it...Das Kapital...
Marx: You relly sink zey vill like zis? Zis buch of kapitals?
Visionary: Yeah, yeah, totally. You know, for coffee tables and stuff. Something for the opium dens. Like, way cool.
Marx: I...I not so sure...but I am liking ze title...
Or something. I've been smoking a lot of crack lately, which may explain the above.*
Far be it from me to instruct you guys - as Americans - on the use of American English, for I am a Brit and as such there are sure to be others better qualified to make the observation I am about to make, but in the absence of such, I humbly submit as follows:
It's "capital", not "capitol". Go. Check now. Go on. I am fortunate enough to have a copy of the Oxford American Dictionary only a keypress away, which defines "capitol", or rather "Capitol" as:
Capitol |?kapitl| (usu. the Capitol) 1 the seat of the U.S. Congress in Washington, DC. ( capitol) a building housing a legislative assembly : 50,000 people marched on New Jersey's state capitol. 2 the temple of Jupiter on the Capitoline Hill in ancient Rome.
Thus the usage in the submitter's blurb - "the state capitol, Indianapolis" - is incorrect, as, unless I am very much mistaken, the building implied by the term "capitol" is not named "Indianapolis". I presume the submitter intended the wording "state capital", and only namedropped Indianapolis after a comma for the benefit of international readers like myself who, unlike Americans, are sometimes unfamiliar with certain of the state capitals. Otherwise, if "capitol" was intended, might I suggest "the state capitol, (in|located in|situated in) Indianapolis". Incidentally, it is worth noting that the word "capitol" does not really exist in British English.
The British are wont to decry the ill effect America has had on the English language. At least try to prove them wrong in matters concerning your own coinages. This is the second time this has happened this week, if memory serves!
iqu:)
(N.B. The tone of this post is playful. It is not intended to invite lengthy flames. If you do not understand British humour, think twice before replying.)
I am not normally moved to put pen to paper these days, but I feel I ought to make an exception for your folly. I shall keep it simple, for it is clear that you are of a reactionary bent and I fear that a lengthy response might be a little too much for your poor little brain, triggering what I believe is termed a "buffer overflow".
I like to count myself amongst those of a gramatically Naziist persuasion, but I am always mindful of one golden rule - the central tenet of pointing out the mistakes of others, as it were - make damn well sure you are right before jumping into the fire. Failure to do so will result inevitably in a demonstration of your limited intellect to all and sundry, as is the case here.
I can only note in closing that it is a pity that you lack even the self-belief to attach a name to your comments - the anonymous grammar Nazi is perhaps held lower in the collective self-esteem than are the goatse and BSD trolls.
Are you foreign? Sorry, but I just read the title, re-read it, and couldn't help but think it sounded like the stuff of a Babelfish translation, maybe translating something like "Two wrongs make a right, right?" from, say, Korean into English.
The one great thing about the x86 platform was that we could put what operating system we wanted on it.
This is not the direction we need to go.
Oh piss off. This is nothing but theatrical hyperbole. Since when has x86 ever been anything as conscious as a movement?
The only merit in your post was the words "one great thing" - the invalidity of that which followed confirmed what most of us already knew - that x86 has no redeeming features.
But at least we live in the world's oldest democracy...
Well, almost. I believe that Iceland (the Althing was founded in 930, although underwent a 45 year suspension from 1799) and the Isle of Man (quoth Wikipaedia, "The island arguably has the oldest continuous parliament in the world, the Tynwald, nominally founded in 979 AD (both the Icelandic parliament and the Faroese parliament are older, but...).") have prior art, as may others.
The BBC coverage of the rioting has been unapologetically anti-authority, if not ostensibly so then with a clear leftist undertone. They don't condone the rioters' actions, but are not afraid to cite the likely causes - neglect of what have become inner-city ghettoes and discrimination against the inhabitants.* Of course, CNN would be given its marching orders if it was even seen to be being anti-white/Christian/etc. and pro-Islam.
And I for one cannot say that I am even slightly surprised by the rioting. The white French attitude has always been shamelessly xenophobic, and finally it has come back to bite them in the arse, so to speak.
In Britain, anyway, we've always known the French like a bit of authoritarianism. So the censoring of blogs doesn't come as much of a surprise.
iqu:D
(* This is not to say that the UK is not without its racial tensions. Indeed, that country is at the moment engaged in something of a debate over "multiculturalism" - whatever that is - as it tries to decide how best to respond to the bombings of 7th July. But as so many will attest, in France, there is no shame in xenophobia, and it permeates the entire system, from the layman on the street to the judiciary and the politicians. Perfick tho' it most certainly ain't, there is at least some sense that xenophobia and discrimination are wrong.)
Re:Slow development
on
OpenBSD Turns 10
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Hear hear!
I think I came to OpenBSD at about 2.7, and I have always been impressed by its simplicity. After a few years spent struggling with Linux, it was such a relief. I'd say something like the install isn't for the faint of heart, as it doesn't even sport a Debian-style ncurses-based interface, but it works surprisingly well, and, like you say, anyone with reasonable UN*X experience should be able to install it.
I'm a big fan of the Mac now, but see the same kind of brilliant design and engineering that goes into Mac OS X in OpenBSD. It really is wonderful.
Despite your somewhat incoherent post, you would do well to remember that the iPod does play Apple Lossless files (as well as WAV and AIFF files) for the audiophiles amongst us. No, it isn't FLAC, but to audiophiles, it's a lossless compression format, so it does the job just fine.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but you have to actually have something to reveal enticingly through the smoke, or reflect dazzlingly in the mirrors.
:D
Precisely. Having beautiful products helps with the whole mystique thing, and Windows "Fisher Price" XP on some cheap shitty HP or Dell box doesn't really have quite the same impact.
Anyway, I'd go as far as to say that even WinFS wouldn't have been worth, what, four...five years of waiting.
(Disclaimer: I use a Mac, so...)
iqu
"Microsoft's own Blogger" has to go ask someone from their PR firm (i.e., third-party, hired-help, outside MS) for accurate information about what's going on at Microsoft.
:|
I thought the same - how strange it seemed. But it all makes sense really. The PR/Marketing department has been running Microsoft for a long time - Apple have shown that the smoke and mirrors, done well, really helps the sales figures - so I suppose it's not surprising that they are giving it a go. Still, odd that Scoble, supposedly the insider, is even Marketing's bitch.
Fact is, of course there will be no rewrite. It's Windows XP with a new theme and, in keeping with Microsoft tradition, appropriately adjusted hardware requirements to boot.
iqu
Are you incredibly stupid, or...?
:|
Read the grandparent again. Then read it again. Read it maybe three or four times more. Pay particular attention to font weights.
Then make your comment again.
*sigh*
iqu
Bullshit. Try out DOSBox sometime.
:|
I think it hardly need be said that what is being talked about here is Windows as shipped. Once you add third-party software in, obviously the situation changes.
But that's not as fun as a reactionary retort.
Idiot.
iqu
This is poor, even for the NYT - a shameless puff piece trotted out by someone presumably in Bill G's pocket. It helps to deflect attention hitherto focused on the Vista delay announcement. "Oh, poor Microsoft," we cry. "How they have suffered to make Windows so very backward compatible. This must be the reason for the delay." And so it continues ad nauseam.
Rubbish. Utter rubbish. As numerous people have attested in this disucssion, it is often necessary to retain Windows 9x boxen in order to ensure compatibility with a particular piece of software on which one has to depend. And that ignores the innumerable hiccups encountered in the switch from DOS/Windows 3.x to Windows 95. It was ten years ago, now, so I will grant that some may have forgotten (or, at a guess, given the profusion of Myspace-era teens on Slashdot these days, they were not around to even remember), but a lot broke in that switch. At that age, my particular peeve was games, although the experienced - among which I like to include myself - were generally able to continue wrestling with fancy memory configurations in order to get such software to run. Still, it certainly wasn't easy, by any means.
The switch to the NT kernel has brought even more difficulties, many of them insurmountable. If you still have a piece of DOS software that NT won't run, there is no MS-DOS mode to restart in; the command prompt is sufficient for some but not all requirements. Certainly anyone who still wants to crack out an old DOS game under Windows XP is totally fucked, although one might like to remind them that it is time to move on...
Still, all of this would be as naught if it were not for the perpetual insistence on attributing the resplendent brilliance of Apple's Mac OS X to its willingness to shirk a supposed responsibility for backwards compatibility, the idea being that Windows sucks because it has excellent backwards compatibility. I have never understood this argument.
Probably because it is bunk. Among a diverse array of boxen at home - running, I might add, DOS, Linux, OpenBSD and Windows - I run Mac OS X 10.4 on a PowerBook G4. I am not about to indulge in a lengthy diatribe about the myriad ways in which Mac OS X is superior to Windows (or Linux, or...), because that has been ably done already, but I feel a short note on backwards compatibility is in order, seeing as it is that which is under attack.
Mac OS X has excellent backwards compatibility. I would argue in fact that from a user's perspective it is in some ways better than, say, that of Windows XP. It is beyond doubt that from a technical perspective, Mac OS X's backwards compatibility is superior to that of Windows XP. Consider why:
A quick perusal of various of the abandonware sites will render unto you a very plethora of old software for your DOS PC or Mac box. The difference is that you'll need an emulator to run the for-DOS stuff. Most of the time, anyway. On Mac OS X, assuming the Classic environment is installed (and I grant that it no longer is by default, but it is supplied on the Install DVD), you just double click the icon and within, say, a minute, you are playing a way on a classic version of Monkey Island from the early 90s. Maybe earlier. Oh, and with sound. Or perhaps the first version of Microsoft Word floats your boat. I have an old Japanese version of Microsoft Office on here which has proved indispensible on more than one occasion.
What is impressive is that some of this software is 20 years old and still works. Not only was it written for a totally different operating system, but it was written for a totally different chip architecture too. It integrates well too. An icon for a Mac OS 9 (or earlier) application can simply be placed in the Dock like any other application, and it runs - with menu bar and everything - just as it would in Mac OS 9. Whatever you may make of Windows or the Mac, that kind of compatibility is amazing
(It's all live too, no bitmaps here.)
:|
So is Exposé, if that was your implication.
iqu
Really lame. I'd pen a post lamenting what Slashdot has come to these days, but that would only serve to convey an expectation of something greater, which, frankly, is just sad...
:|
So SM posts this for shits and giggles. Fair enough. It brings the Gentoo Ricer crowd out, which is entertaining for the rest of us and generates page views ergo ad revenue. I can almost see a four steps to profit cliché here, but I'll leave that to someone else.
Seriously though, what a load of bollocks. I certainly can't claim to have the vintage of some of the 20+ years sysadmins on here, but I've been a Linux user for 7-8 years now and that is evidently long enough to come to understand the merits of package management. Yes, when you're fat and fifteen and still living in your parent['s|s'] basement with nothing better to do all day than stick it out watching makefile lines scroll by, Gentoo seems like a good idea. If you're really fucking sad, you might even notice a perceptible difference.
But fuck, please stop trolling like a bunch of Mac/Ogg/etc zealots telling the rest of us about it - we don't fucking care. We have jobs to do, partners to go home to, lives to get on with. If I did still care for Linux on my main machine, Ubuntu would have me up and running in an hour or so - I couldn't have my computer out of action for a day because it's...er...compiling.
Now don't get me wrong - I understand the mentality. I know the mentality. It's the same mentality that led me to reinstall Windows anything as frequently as once a week for a period in an attempt to get it running tip top. It's about the struggle, the fun of getting there, the war, the conflict, the strife - that's the fun part. I am of a computing generation that cut its teeth editing CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT files with elaborate startup menu configurations to optimise memory availability for specific applications (remember expanded memory, anyone?).* And it was great - we loved it, well, some of us did - until we actually had to get some work done.
Now I have to get work done, so I use a Mac. And countless Linux sysadmins out there will say the same thing - in the real world, you have to deliver results. Real, actual results. Dependability. Not downing the server every evening for a recompile. Reliability. Actual rather than theoretical uptime. We simply don't have time to be sitting round waiting for X to build so we can just sling some graphics on the screen.
And if y'all were doing something useful with your lives, neither would you...
iqu
(* Kudos to John Gruber for reminding me (through quoting someone else) of the glory days of MS-DOS - choice quote: "As a PC user, enduring the grotesqueries of that experience is something that we are actually proud of.")
Virgin Mobile, one of the largest cellular service providers
:|
Erm, Virgin Mobile is probably one of the smallest networks. It's certainly not one of the largest, and it uses T-Mobile's transmitters rather than having its own.
iqu
...it seems all too likely that the next rev will include legacy bios support...
:P) and then going back for Rev B and putting the legacy crap in. Yeah, that really makes sense.
:|
Really? Where'd you hear that? Because that would make a lot of sense, building a totally new legacy-free laptop just like Macs have been for years (ADB excepted
Idiot.
iqu
One character every two seconds? Way too slow. I'll stick to T9 predictive input thank you. And I'm not one of the textaholic types that the article refers to.
:|
iqu
This is rather disheartening news. One of the most wonderful things about Japan is its thriving second hand market, and I for one spent an awful lot of money in shops like Sofmap, mostly on Mac stuff.
:s
It all seemed to work so well. The Japanese have, to put it mildly, something of a penchant for things shiny and new, so what they toss out would be regarded by Westerners as nearly new. So rather than putting all this nearly new stuff to waste, they sell it to shops like Sofmap, who sell it on to people like me, who are quite happy with a nearly new bargain. Contrast that with, say, Britain, where, the mobile phone market excepted, we make the most of our computers and such - the term the Japanese use is tsukaikomu.
It's not as though this is going to net the computer companies much more profit - people buy new things anyway, as stated above.
Shame. I had hoped to net myself a Flower Power iMac next time I was out there...
iqu
But, unfortunately, with the FCC relaxing it's definition of monopolies, it's not exactly a free market anymore.
:|
I'm sorry, but what? What are you on about? What do you think a free market is? Unbridled competition without state intervention (which, for the avoidance of doubt, includes the FCC), is exactly what the free market is. This is not a defence of it, you understand - I firmly believe that unrestricted, unfettered capitalism, rapacious as it naturally is, does more harm than good, and tends inevitably to anarchy (an undesirable state of affairs, for those uncertain). Some form of control is necessary, but when you have control, you no longer have a free market.
iqu
It always amuses me when somebody points out someone's egregious spelling error and then promptly makes one of their own.
:)
In fairness, and for the sake of pedantry, the grandparent was not actually pointing out a spelling error in the great-grandparent's post, rather just seeking clarification as to which meaning was intended. This seems prudent, given that the average Slashdotter's spelling skills are especially poor of late.
iqu
...and saved the world an awful lot of bother!
:P
*sigh* Oh to have been there to convince him otherwise:
Marx: Ja, I am writing dis new book, ja, about zer oppressif kapitalists, und how ze proletariat will...
Visionary: Dude that is, like, so passé. Like, you know, so boring. You should write a book about the capitals of the world. You could call it...Das Kapital...
Marx: You relly sink zey vill like zis? Zis buch of kapitals?
Visionary: Yeah, yeah, totally. You know, for coffee tables and stuff. Something for the opium dens. Like, way cool.
Marx: I...I not so sure...but I am liking ze title...
Or something. I've been smoking a lot of crack lately, which may explain the above.*
iqu
(* I haven't really.)
Far be it from me to instruct you guys - as Americans - on the use of American English, for I am a Brit and as such there are sure to be others better qualified to make the observation I am about to make, but in the absence of such, I humbly submit as follows:
It's "capital", not "capitol". Go. Check now. Go on. I am fortunate enough to have a copy of the Oxford American Dictionary only a keypress away, which defines "capitol", or rather "Capitol" as:
Thus the usage in the submitter's blurb - "the state capitol, Indianapolis" - is incorrect, as, unless I am very much mistaken, the building implied by the term "capitol" is not named "Indianapolis". I presume the submitter intended the wording "state capital", and only namedropped Indianapolis after a comma for the benefit of international readers like myself who, unlike Americans, are sometimes unfamiliar with certain of the state capitals. Otherwise, if "capitol" was intended, might I suggest "the state capitol, (in|located in|situated in) Indianapolis". Incidentally, it is worth noting that the word "capitol" does not really exist in British English.
:)
The British are wont to decry the ill effect America has had on the English language. At least try to prove them wrong in matters concerning your own coinages. This is the second time this has happened this week, if memory serves!
iqu
(N.B. The tone of this post is playful. It is not intended to invite lengthy flames. If you do not understand British humour, think twice before replying.)
Sir,
:|
I am not normally moved to put pen to paper these days, but I feel I ought to make an exception for your folly. I shall keep it simple, for it is clear that you are of a reactionary bent and I fear that a lengthy response might be a little too much for your poor little brain, triggering what I believe is termed a "buffer overflow".
I like to count myself amongst those of a gramatically Naziist persuasion, but I am always mindful of one golden rule - the central tenet of pointing out the mistakes of others, as it were - make damn well sure you are right before jumping into the fire. Failure to do so will result inevitably in a demonstration of your limited intellect to all and sundry, as is the case here.
I can only note in closing that it is a pity that you lack even the self-belief to attach a name to your comments - the anonymous grammar Nazi is perhaps held lower in the collective self-esteem than are the goatse and BSD trolls.
Yours faithfully
iqu
"Two negatives make a positive, correct?
:P
Are you foreign? Sorry, but I just read the title, re-read it, and couldn't help but think it sounded like the stuff of a Babelfish translation, maybe translating something like "Two wrongs make a right, right?" from, say, Korean into English.
iqu
The one great thing about the x86 platform was that we could put what operating system we wanted on it.
:|
This is not the direction we need to go.
Oh piss off. This is nothing but theatrical hyperbole. Since when has x86 ever been anything as conscious as a movement?
The only merit in your post was the words "one great thing" - the invalidity of that which followed confirmed what most of us already knew - that x86 has no redeeming features.
Besides, remember MCA?
iqu
But at least we live in the world's oldest democracy...
:D
Well, almost. I believe that Iceland (the Althing was founded in 930, although underwent a 45 year suspension from 1799) and the Isle of Man (quoth Wikipaedia, "The island arguably has the oldest continuous parliament in the world, the Tynwald, nominally founded in 979 AD (both the Icelandic parliament and the Faroese parliament are older, but...).") have prior art, as may others.
iqu
I mean, locking people up for 90 days without charge is hardly authoritarian, is it?
...supported by 70% of the population...
:P
:D
28 days. Thank fuck for MPs with a conscience.
70% of Mail readers is not 70% of the population.
But fair enough on shit like the RIP.
iqu
Having re-read my comment, I note that my parenthesised footnote makes no sense. The last sentence should read:
:/
"Perfick tho' it most certainly ain't, in the UK there is at least some sense that xenophobia and discrimination are wrong."
Whoops.
iqu
The BBC coverage of the rioting has been unapologetically anti-authority, if not ostensibly so then with a clear leftist undertone. They don't condone the rioters' actions, but are not afraid to cite the likely causes - neglect of what have become inner-city ghettoes and discrimination against the inhabitants.* Of course, CNN would be given its marching orders if it was even seen to be being anti-white/Christian/etc. and pro-Islam.
:D
And I for one cannot say that I am even slightly surprised by the rioting. The white French attitude has always been shamelessly xenophobic, and finally it has come back to bite them in the arse, so to speak.
In Britain, anyway, we've always known the French like a bit of authoritarianism. So the censoring of blogs doesn't come as much of a surprise.
iqu
(* This is not to say that the UK is not without its racial tensions. Indeed, that country is at the moment engaged in something of a debate over "multiculturalism" - whatever that is - as it tries to decide how best to respond to the bombings of 7th July. But as so many will attest, in France, there is no shame in xenophobia, and it permeates the entire system, from the layman on the street to the judiciary and the politicians. Perfick tho' it most certainly ain't, there is at least some sense that xenophobia and discrimination are wrong.)
Hear hear!
:)
I think I came to OpenBSD at about 2.7, and I have always been impressed by its simplicity. After a few years spent struggling with Linux, it was such a relief. I'd say something like the install isn't for the faint of heart, as it doesn't even sport a Debian-style ncurses-based interface, but it works surprisingly well, and, like you say, anyone with reasonable UN*X experience should be able to install it.
I'm a big fan of the Mac now, but see the same kind of brilliant design and engineering that goes into Mac OS X in OpenBSD. It really is wonderful.
iqu
Despite your somewhat incoherent post, you would do well to remember that the iPod does play Apple Lossless files (as well as WAV and AIFF files) for the audiophiles amongst us. No, it isn't FLAC, but to audiophiles, it's a lossless compression format, so it does the job just fine.
:|
iqu
Commentary on the new releases today can also be found over here on The Apple Blog.
:)
iqu