The problem is CC is passing it off as a local program. Governments and corporations fight free press mainly because it's much harder to oppose the unknown. What is really needed is to ensure the program is clearly announced as a syndicated program, whether or not it is tailored for the local song order. Without knowledge, people aren't really voting for or against it, they're just assuming Carson did a whole show just for their town, and support or don't support based on that erroneous assumption.
Shooting the whole story down because it was brought up by a union is fairly short-sighted. Obviously, they are going to try to fight for their members - that's the whole point of a union. Granted, fighting for another hour for a local DJ is less grandiose than fighting for safe working conditions. Union's can do stupid things. There's one grocery worker union here that pickets a Super-K, even though the workers inside don't want to be union. And that shipping shutdown a few months ago. So while whether we should or shouldn't care about the union is one issue, truth in broadcasting is the larger issue.
No only is it calling ketchup a vegetable, it's a vegetable made out of recycled newspaper. This is yet another step in Clear Channel's goal to cut out DJ's entirely to stream the music that they get the most payola for without and local resistance.
Does anyone know how much it would take to write a simple wireless receiver that can grab any free wireless network and tune up a streaming music site? Slap an Airport on, and we may have the killer app for the Linux iPod.
It had a mediocre plot with poor subplots and subtexts (not to mention holes the Enterprise would fit through), bad release timing, genre competition, and unimpressive villains. And no Wesley.
Personally, I found it mildly entertaining, but I went in expecting a silly romp. Which is pretty much what it was. Unfortunately, it was shot down early and the 'peripheral' geeks chose to see LOTR:TT instead, so it had little to no chance of recovery. I think a better test of how good it really was will come from rental returns.
Nothing, but it has a lot to do with the statement it replied to.
Although financially, if it were possible to have a functional computer on an iPod then that would compete with their computer sales. Sort of. Theoretically. Though not in any practical sense, since anyone crazy/geeky enough to do that would probably never buy a Mac to begin with.
In reality, they probably would have rather iPods would have worked as a selling point to buy Macs, but they probably knew from the start that that was a pipe dream. While I'm sure the margin on iPods isn't bad, and the wider ranges of stores they can go in will help, Apple would probably rather sell laptops.
No, the problem isn't voting. The problem is believing voting is the only say you have in government. Anyone can and should fax/write their representatives about issues they care about. If they think a lot of people would agree with them, they should put the word out for those people to do the same*. The Congressional Vacuum works both ways - if the only people talking to them are lobbyist, those are the only 'facts' they can base decisions on.
Of course, the level of success this has will very from representative to representative, and how close the issue is to what they ran on and their parties are taking stands on. For example, it would take a lot more voter pressure to get a candidate to flip on taxation, which they generally are well defined towards, as opposed to the DMCRA vs. the DMCA, of which they've only heard about from Big Businesses.
Actually, how they react might depend on what can be done with the software. While they didn't make it impossible to get mp3's back off of it, they didn't make it easy either. If the work looks like it might get them flak, they may react or in the very least put out the message that installing unauthorized software violates the warranty, and possibly a license. Don't have one {sniff} so I'm not sure about any licenses, and I don't recall that they have much of a manufacture's warranty, but issuing a statement to that effect would probably be the least offensive method of covering they're butts.
As the rest of that paragraph says: "It is arguable that evolution of free will, memory, and speech (not necessarily in that order) created emotional dependencies and then humanity." The word Creator does not imply divinty. At least, not from an objective point of view.
The constitution deals with defining the government body that would create and enforce the laws of the land. The Bill of Rights attempts to get a jump start of what the government will not be allowed to do, that the government it revolted from had been doing.
I'm not at all certain where you're going with the last bit. I'm mean, it reads like you want to deny those rights to people who don't believe they have immortal souls, or even just ones you don't believe have souls.
You know, I just re-read your first post and you're just confused. Enron certainly wasn't immortal. As for other legends and texts, are you implying that greek myths are meaningful in a modern context? Wouldn't a christian just assume that ancient greeks were the spawn of Cain, since they didn't believe the same god? How can those religious texts have any value, unless they are all just attempts of the ignorant to explain the world around them?
And according to Revelations (since you want to get literal), only 144,000 Israelites are getting their souls into Heaven, 12,000 each from 12 tribes. (Rev. 7:4 and following) Are you among them? Keep in mind 14:4 "These are they who are not defiled with women; for they are virgins."
And no, you can't argue that this is meaningless - you've already quoted the 7 heads/ten horns business, you can't flip your faith in the literalness now.
Arguing rights from a religious point of view is always doomed, since all religions eventually wish to deny rights to those who don't agree. Ask the Native Americans. Or the Africans who were enslaved. Or anyone living near the "Cradle of Civilization" who doesn't share the beliefs of their neighbors. Or anyone who as in the World Trade Center. Or the countless slain by the Taliban. Or if you prefer a biblical reference, the 200 Philistines whose foreskins David used to purchase a wife (1 Sam 18:25-27).
I could go on, but if you can't see it yet you never will.
You contradict yourself. The quotation just says "Creator", not "divine creator". It is arguable that evolution of free will, memory, and speech (not necessarily in that order) created emotional dependencies and then humanity.
In fact, your argument is entirely useless - the phrase you refer to is part of the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution, essentially a Declaration of War with no other legal implications. What is important from the constitution (see the same link) is "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The main body deals with the mechanics of the government, and the Bill of Rights was introduced to establish restrictions against the very behaviors that founded the states' uprising in the first place, thus securing the "Blessings of Libery."
In other words, we are not guaranteed rights by a "divine" creator, we have them because the founding fathers delineated them. Though if we don't watch King George and his corporate buddies, we may yet lose them.
In other words, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
I've found that the best reason to use a book is the option to just sit and read, away from the computer. Other good reasons include being able to scribble in the corner and underline or highlight exactly what you might want to refer to.
I will grant you that it is rare to find a good pure reference book, and that for reference purposes web sites are usually better. I would propose that unless you have a large display, a broadband connection, and plenty of patience for hunting through disconnected information to make a coherent whole, using a book as a coherent whole to start with is generally an easier way to learn. (Though obviously, ones own habits/tendenancies might override this.)
And yes, I picked up this particular book and am working through it in my spare time, so to speak. Having worked with other scripting and database languages before, I found parts of it skipable or over-talkative, but it does give good information. My biggest complaint is that it doesn't have instructions on how to set up in OS X. However, going back and forth with it and information on Marc Liyanage's pages, I was able to get everything working reasonably easily.
OK. Maybe my caffeine hasn't kicked in yet, but what good does this do? I mean, it sounds like there is an encryption chip on each card or drive, essentially. Is this really that much better than a smaller chip with just a password control? Is someone really going to separate whatever passes for a platter, try to read it somewhere else, and then hit the encryption? If it requires a password, wouldn't it be possible to write something that basically just keeps throwing things at it until it cracks?
Maybe there is more to it than was there, or I missed it, but it seems that the encryption may just be marketing. I don't see how to access the drive without the chip.
While it is true that rumors are not researched facts, we could go on a whole tangent about how much research into an article constitutes it being news.
However, when something is heard second hand it is generally harder to determine truth, and this is in fact more damaging to due process then the rumor itself. If something is revealed in an early phase of a pre-trial that is later dismissed, it could end up on the 'rumor' site and later repeated. Any person having heard this would then be 'tainted' (from a certain point of view).
The battle between "the public's right to know" vs. "due process" probably dates back to the first days they both existed together. Or, in US terms, there is always a battle between the mentioned first amendment ("...no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...") vs. the sixth ("...the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury..."). {Full Bill of Rights
Note that the trial should be public BUT impartial. One of the main ways of guaranteeing impartiality is ignorance, and that is probably what the judge is hoping to accomplish, though for presumably Canadian legal equivalents.
A similarly baseless comparison would be "Novels and dictionaries are the same thing, mathematically speaking, since they both have words."
A programming language is something used to build (read: design & write) a coherent body of logical statements (read: code) that could be set in motion (read: executed) usually with the goal of reacting to its environment (read: use input & generate output). On the other had, an operating system, however it came to be, is something previously written and ready to execute and perform input and output functionality. The fact that it has API's that other executing code can use is analogous to a book having page numbers that can be referred to by other books.
Of course, that distinction can get muddled when looking at script languages. Script languages seem to be used more for queueing commands to programs than for being individual persistant programs, since they aren't often directly interactive. (By that I mean they are passed or read certain attributes at the start of execution, and quit when their goals are accomplished.) In this way, they are more of a to-do list for instructing other, whether against an operating system or some other program like a web or database server.
And yes, the line between clear-cut programming languages and clear-cut scripting languages is getting blurrier. However, the results of both can be split along behavior between 'script-like' and 'interactive', regardless of how they were created.
Too make a long reply short (too late), operating systems are created using programming languages, but they are specific things that actually accomplish specific objectives. Programming languages are merely constructs for creating a variety of things to accomplish various objectives.
Actually, even better would be if they'd put out songs that say they're one thing, but actually encode a song that's the same length but entirely the opposite. Imagine downloading what you think is Offspring and hearing Barry Manilow. People would be turned off a lot quicker than simple noise, just from the sickness factor.
And before this erupts into a music taste argument, the opposite direction would be just as effective.
Multiple instances would go back to having to cycle through all applications instead of just browsing windows, which is probably moot since while they may or may not add tabs they probably won't remove multiple windows. Also, you only have no alternative if you must use tabs, not if you prefer tabs.
I will agree that tabs can be useful and in all honesty if they were in a browser I was using there would be instances where I would use them. However, I generally have a couple of overlapping windows so I can keep track of which ones have finished loading, though that probably has more to do with my modem speed then anything else.;) In that case, tabs would be a hinderance compared to glancing right or left.
And just in case the tabs do say whether a page has finished loading, I will clarify that while using a modem I don't really care if all of the page loads, just what I want to see.
Personally, what I'd prefer to either of these solutions is a key-combination that would pop up a list of open windows with name, site, %loaded, if it is still loading, etc.. It would allow arrow navigation to select, close or refresh. Yes, that's pretty radical, but I do find the window menu limiting. I just don't want ten tabs that would either shrink to unreadable or use up way too much real estate on my monitor.
Saying 'Mac users are especially prone to want tabbed browsing' is self-based presumption. Many people are perfectly comfortable with the 1-window, 1-site tree(or whatever you want to call it) approach. Command-~ cycles through windows. What more is needed? Is clicking on tabs that may move if the window moves really that much easier than clicking on the Windows menu?
Personally, I find the Task Bar useless. It takes me maybe ten windows/programs tops before they are all reduced to ugly icons. To use them I'd either have to have hover my mouse (yeah, that's fast) or cycle through all open windows.
From posts I've seen no, you are not alone in wanting tabs. However, I am probably not alone in not wanting them. It's all a matter of how a person gets use to working, and what each finds convenient.
Personally, I don't think Apple will add tabs across the top, as it seems that that would conflict with their UI goal. I have heard it suggested that they might branch a different way and use a drawer to the side which would also hold bookmarks, history, etc. {c.f. the mailboxes feature in Mail.} Whether they can succeed in making it seem natural, or even if they will try, only time will tell.
I think the "ass hat" is that ring you'd have to sit on after getting gored by the rhino that came out of the safari since it is only a beta. So it's a warning to be careful.
Or they've had to much caffeine to type coherently. One or the other.
Somewhat related to the 'billion dollars a minute', where does this stand against Clear Channel's new Public Scare Announcement? Essentially it goes on in this manner: "Think about how many mp3's are on your computer. Now multiply that by, let's say, $1 each. Now multiply that by a thousand. That's how much you can be fined..." It makes absolutely no distinction about whether or not you are allowed to have them - if you've ripped them on your own, if they were installed by software, or even if they came on the computer when you bought it. If only I could get other stations in this office.
What do you mean Clear Channel owns them all? Well, that's a seperate rant.
Proof is only subjective if it is used to support faith, and then it's not really proof, it's more of an opinion. Saying "I have faith car A is the best race car." is a subjective opinion. Saying "Because it has run 48 of 50 races, car B appears to be the best race car in those races." is an objective conclusion based on "proof". If you call that subjective and go with the first statement, you aren't really basing anything proof.
True, not every proof begins with an absolute baseline, but it can always be traced back to one. Your argument about school textbooks illustrates only that without complete data sets, conclusions can be wrong. Wow.
And just which "debunkers" are you referring to? Debunkers of creationism, or debunkers of evolution? They have fairly different arguments. On the one side you have observed (the flu evoles to survive, you know) and inferred evolutionary occurances, both of which are willing to incorporate new data to smooth out the edges, or move entirely as appropriate. On the other you get twisted logic (the world is too ordered to not be created) and egotism (we are not related to monkeys!). I don't see either of these using absense of proof.
Or are there other debunkers your referring to? Debunkers of Holocaust? Debunkers of Santa Clause? Debunkers of the moon landing? Granted none of these may be the ones you were generalizing, but I'm guessing the first two were the ones from how you openned your post.
I wouldn't expect that MS would make it easy for MPEG-4 to coexist if they aren't forced, especially if they move forward and use DRM arguments against it. In one possible future, require that their codec is used in order for code to be deemed "trusted".
On the flip side, I'm not taking any position on MPEG-4 licenses. I mean, who's getting that money? The codec's been made, right? Is there a real financial reason they can't lower the fee, other than needing an ivory back scratcher?
Now I'm really confused. Wouldn't multiple browsing windows be a multiple document interface?
And if what people want is easy flipping, why not enable keyboard menu commands and use the Window menu? {Ctrl-F1 and Ctrl-F2; typing 'Full Keyboard Access shortcuts for activating access' in Help should give more info, or view article 61466 from Apple Support.}
Personally, I'd think having a keyboard shortcut that pops up a Window list would be more useful than tabs - it wouldn't waste space, and would be quick and informative.
Exactly what language would you like this magical debugger work for?
Most of these points are, well, let's say unfeasable:
2) Where would this stack of previous values go? What if it's the control for a loop? A buffer variable that updates every second?
3) Same point, just makes the stack bigger. Should it cross reference all variables so you can see what that all were at that point?
6) So the debugger should be able to wrestle a process away from the processor without previously having linked into it, and then map memory locations to variables and procedures? That would be impressive.
7) While stepping this would be relatively easy, but if you mean while running outside the debugger see 6).
I think more reasonable wants would be, many of which many do do:
1) Find all errors at once. {If anyone knows how to get VB6 how to do this, I would love to hear. And I don't mean simple syntax errors that turn red.} {Don't ask, it's a job.}
2) Recognize and issue warnings about possible semantic problems. e.g. Using uninitialized variables, = instead of ==, etc.
Asking a debugger to do more turns it into a crutch. If you want to know the history of a variable, add a dump window/file/database and send it there. MSSQL stored procedures have no debugger, but they aren't undebuggable. {Again, don't ask.}
Out of the thousands of problems I've debugged in a dozen languages, all code problems have boiled into basically two types: semantic/typos, which are simply carelessness, or poor logic. Having a variable tracking system may help with carelessness, though so would the semantics checker I refered to. But without tracing through the code manually to see where it goes bad, how can you possibly fix poor logic?
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is CC is passing it off as a local program. Governments and corporations fight free press mainly because it's much harder to oppose the unknown. What is really needed is to ensure the program is clearly announced as a syndicated program, whether or not it is tailored for the local song order. Without knowledge, people aren't really voting for or against it, they're just assuming Carson did a whole show just for their town, and support or don't support based on that erroneous assumption.
Shooting the whole story down because it was brought up by a union is fairly short-sighted. Obviously, they are going to try to fight for their members - that's the whole point of a union. Granted, fighting for another hour for a local DJ is less grandiose than fighting for safe working conditions. Union's can do stupid things. There's one grocery worker union here that pickets a Super-K, even though the workers inside don't want to be union. And that shipping shutdown a few months ago. So while whether we should or shouldn't care about the union is one issue, truth in broadcasting is the larger issue.
No only is it calling ketchup a vegetable, it's a vegetable made out of recycled newspaper. This is yet another step in Clear Channel's goal to cut out DJ's entirely to stream the music that they get the most payola for without and local resistance.
Does anyone know how much it would take to write a simple wireless receiver that can grab any free wireless network and tune up a streaming music site? Slap an Airport on, and we may have the killer app for the Linux iPod.
It had a mediocre plot with poor subplots and subtexts (not to mention holes the Enterprise would fit through), bad release timing, genre competition, and unimpressive villains. And no Wesley.
Personally, I found it mildly entertaining, but I went in expecting a silly romp. Which is pretty much what it was. Unfortunately, it was shot down early and the 'peripheral' geeks chose to see LOTR:TT instead, so it had little to no chance of recovery. I think a better test of how good it really was will come from rental returns.
Nothing, but it has a lot to do with the statement it replied to.
Although financially, if it were possible to have a functional computer on an iPod then that would compete with their computer sales. Sort of. Theoretically. Though not in any practical sense, since anyone crazy/geeky enough to do that would probably never buy a Mac to begin with.
In reality, they probably would have rather iPods would have worked as a selling point to buy Macs, but they probably knew from the start that that was a pipe dream. While I'm sure the margin on iPods isn't bad, and the wider ranges of stores they can go in will help, Apple would probably rather sell laptops.
No, the problem isn't voting. The problem is believing voting is the only say you have in government. Anyone can and should fax/write their representatives about issues they care about. If they think a lot of people would agree with them, they should put the word out for those people to do the same*. The Congressional Vacuum works both ways - if the only people talking to them are lobbyist, those are the only 'facts' they can base decisions on.
Of course, the level of success this has will very from representative to representative, and how close the issue is to what they ran on and their parties are taking stands on. For example, it would take a lot more voter pressure to get a candidate to flip on taxation, which they generally are well defined towards, as opposed to the DMCRA vs. the DMCA, of which they've only heard about from Big Businesses.
* Cheap example plug
Actually, how they react might depend on what can be done with the software. While they didn't make it impossible to get mp3's back off of it, they didn't make it easy either. If the work looks like it might get them flak, they may react or in the very least put out the message that installing unauthorized software violates the warranty, and possibly a license. Don't have one {sniff} so I'm not sure about any licenses, and I don't recall that they have much of a manufacture's warranty, but issuing a statement to that effect would probably be the least offensive method of covering they're butts.
This is straying way off-topic, but here goes.
As the rest of that paragraph says: "It is arguable that evolution of free will, memory, and speech (not necessarily in that order) created emotional dependencies and then humanity." The word Creator does not imply divinty. At least, not from an objective point of view.
The constitution deals with defining the government body that would create and enforce the laws of the land. The Bill of Rights attempts to get a jump start of what the government will not be allowed to do, that the government it revolted from had been doing.
I'm not at all certain where you're going with the last bit. I'm mean, it reads like you want to deny those rights to people who don't believe they have immortal souls, or even just ones you don't believe have souls.
You know, I just re-read your first post and you're just confused. Enron certainly wasn't immortal. As for other legends and texts, are you implying that greek myths are meaningful in a modern context? Wouldn't a christian just assume that ancient greeks were the spawn of Cain, since they didn't believe the same god? How can those religious texts have any value, unless they are all just attempts of the ignorant to explain the world around them?
And according to Revelations (since you want to get literal), only 144,000 Israelites are getting their souls into Heaven, 12,000 each from 12 tribes. (Rev. 7:4 and following) Are you among them? Keep in mind 14:4 "These are they who are not defiled with women; for they are virgins."
And no, you can't argue that this is meaningless - you've already quoted the 7 heads/ten horns business, you can't flip your faith in the literalness now.
Arguing rights from a religious point of view is always doomed, since all religions eventually wish to deny rights to those who don't agree. Ask the Native Americans. Or the Africans who were enslaved. Or anyone living near the "Cradle of Civilization" who doesn't share the beliefs of their neighbors. Or anyone who as in the World Trade Center. Or the countless slain by the Taliban. Or if you prefer a biblical reference, the 200 Philistines whose foreskins David used to purchase a wife (1 Sam 18:25-27).
I could go on, but if you can't see it yet you never will.
You contradict yourself. The quotation just says "Creator", not "divine creator". It is arguable that evolution of free will, memory, and speech (not necessarily in that order) created emotional dependencies and then humanity.
In fact, your argument is entirely useless - the phrase you refer to is part of the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution, essentially a Declaration of War with no other legal implications. What is important from the constitution (see the same link) is "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The main body deals with the mechanics of the government, and the Bill of Rights was introduced to establish restrictions against the very behaviors that founded the states' uprising in the first place, thus securing the "Blessings of Libery."
In other words, we are not guaranteed rights by a "divine" creator, we have them because the founding fathers delineated them. Though if we don't watch King George and his corporate buddies, we may yet lose them.
In other words, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
I've found that the best reason to use a book is the option to just sit and read, away from the computer. Other good reasons include being able to scribble in the corner and underline or highlight exactly what you might want to refer to.
I will grant you that it is rare to find a good pure reference book, and that for reference purposes web sites are usually better. I would propose that unless you have a large display, a broadband connection, and plenty of patience for hunting through disconnected information to make a coherent whole, using a book as a coherent whole to start with is generally an easier way to learn. (Though obviously, ones own habits/tendenancies might override this.)
And yes, I picked up this particular book and am working through it in my spare time, so to speak. Having worked with other scripting and database languages before, I found parts of it skipable or over-talkative, but it does give good information. My biggest complaint is that it doesn't have instructions on how to set up in OS X. However, going back and forth with it and information on Marc Liyanage's pages, I was able to get everything working reasonably easily.
OK. Maybe my caffeine hasn't kicked in yet, but what good does this do? I mean, it sounds like there is an encryption chip on each card or drive, essentially. Is this really that much better than a smaller chip with just a password control? Is someone really going to separate whatever passes for a platter, try to read it somewhere else, and then hit the encryption? If it requires a password, wouldn't it be possible to write something that basically just keeps throwing things at it until it cracks?
Maybe there is more to it than was there, or I missed it, but it seems that the encryption may just be marketing. I don't see how to access the drive without the chip.
While it is true that rumors are not researched facts, we could go on a whole tangent about how much research into an article constitutes it being news.
... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...") vs. the sixth ("...the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury..."). {Full Bill of Rights
However, when something is heard second hand it is generally harder to determine truth, and this is in fact more damaging to due process then the rumor itself. If something is revealed in an early phase of a pre-trial that is later dismissed, it could end up on the 'rumor' site and later repeated. Any person having heard this would then be 'tainted' (from a certain point of view).
The battle between "the public's right to know" vs. "due process" probably dates back to the first days they both existed together. Or, in US terms, there is always a battle between the mentioned first amendment ("...no law
Note that the trial should be public BUT impartial. One of the main ways of guaranteeing impartiality is ignorance, and that is probably what the judge is hoping to accomplish, though for presumably Canadian legal equivalents.
A similarly baseless comparison would be "Novels and dictionaries are the same thing, mathematically speaking, since they both have words."
A programming language is something used to build (read: design & write) a coherent body of logical statements (read: code) that could be set in motion (read: executed) usually with the goal of reacting to its environment (read: use input & generate output). On the other had, an operating system, however it came to be, is something previously written and ready to execute and perform input and output functionality. The fact that it has API's that other executing code can use is analogous to a book having page numbers that can be referred to by other books.
Of course, that distinction can get muddled when looking at script languages. Script languages seem to be used more for queueing commands to programs than for being individual persistant programs, since they aren't often directly interactive. (By that I mean they are passed or read certain attributes at the start of execution, and quit when their goals are accomplished.) In this way, they are more of a to-do list for instructing other, whether against an operating system or some other program like a web or database server.
And yes, the line between clear-cut programming languages and clear-cut scripting languages is getting blurrier. However, the results of both can be split along behavior between 'script-like' and 'interactive', regardless of how they were created.
Too make a long reply short (too late), operating systems are created using programming languages, but they are specific things that actually accomplish specific objectives. Programming languages are merely constructs for creating a variety of things to accomplish various objectives.
Actually, even better would be if they'd put out songs that say they're one thing, but actually encode a song that's the same length but entirely the opposite. Imagine downloading what you think is Offspring and hearing Barry Manilow. People would be turned off a lot quicker than simple noise, just from the sickness factor.
And before this erupts into a music taste argument, the opposite direction would be just as effective.
Multiple instances would go back to having to cycle through all applications instead of just browsing windows, which is probably moot since while they may or may not add tabs they probably won't remove multiple windows. Also, you only have no alternative if you must use tabs, not if you prefer tabs.
;) In that case, tabs would be a hinderance compared to glancing right or left.
I will agree that tabs can be useful and in all honesty if they were in a browser I was using there would be instances where I would use them. However, I generally have a couple of overlapping windows so I can keep track of which ones have finished loading, though that probably has more to do with my modem speed then anything else.
And just in case the tabs do say whether a page has finished loading, I will clarify that while using a modem I don't really care if all of the page loads, just what I want to see.
Personally, what I'd prefer to either of these solutions is a key-combination that would pop up a list of open windows with name, site, %loaded, if it is still loading, etc.. It would allow arrow navigation to select, close or refresh. Yes, that's pretty radical, but I do find the window menu limiting. I just don't want ten tabs that would either shrink to unreadable or use up way too much real estate on my monitor.
Saying 'Mac users are especially prone to want tabbed browsing' is self-based presumption. Many people are perfectly comfortable with the 1-window, 1-site tree(or whatever you want to call it) approach. Command-~ cycles through windows. What more is needed? Is clicking on tabs that may move if the window moves really that much easier than clicking on the Windows menu?
Personally, I find the Task Bar useless. It takes me maybe ten windows/programs tops before they are all reduced to ugly icons. To use them I'd either have to have hover my mouse (yeah, that's fast) or cycle through all open windows.
From posts I've seen no, you are not alone in wanting tabs. However, I am probably not alone in not wanting them. It's all a matter of how a person gets use to working, and what each finds convenient.
Personally, I don't think Apple will add tabs across the top, as it seems that that would conflict with their UI goal. I have heard it suggested that they might branch a different way and use a drawer to the side which would also hold bookmarks, history, etc. {c.f. the mailboxes feature in Mail.} Whether they can succeed in making it seem natural, or even if they will try, only time will tell.
I think the "ass hat" is that ring you'd have to sit on after getting gored by the rhino that came out of the safari since it is only a beta. So it's a warning to be careful.
Or they've had to much caffeine to type coherently. One or the other.
Really? I thought it was "The most popular, dynamic tool for delivering pointless diversions."
An example
(For the record, I haven't tried it under the update yet.)
Somewhat related to the 'billion dollars a minute', where does this stand against Clear Channel's new Public Scare Announcement? Essentially it goes on in this manner: "Think about how many mp3's are on your computer. Now multiply that by, let's say, $1 each. Now multiply that by a thousand. That's how much you can be fined..." It makes absolutely no distinction about whether or not you are allowed to have them - if you've ripped them on your own, if they were installed by software, or even if they came on the computer when you bought it. If only I could get other stations in this office.
What do you mean Clear Channel owns them all? Well, that's a seperate rant.
Proof is only subjective if it is used to support faith, and then it's not really proof, it's more of an opinion. Saying "I have faith car A is the best race car." is a subjective opinion. Saying "Because it has run 48 of 50 races, car B appears to be the best race car in those races." is an objective conclusion based on "proof". If you call that subjective and go with the first statement, you aren't really basing anything proof.
True, not every proof begins with an absolute baseline, but it can always be traced back to one. Your argument about school textbooks illustrates only that without complete data sets, conclusions can be wrong. Wow.
And just which "debunkers" are you referring to? Debunkers of creationism, or debunkers of evolution? They have fairly different arguments. On the one side you have observed (the flu evoles to survive, you know) and inferred evolutionary occurances, both of which are willing to incorporate new data to smooth out the edges, or move entirely as appropriate. On the other you get twisted logic (the world is too ordered to not be created) and egotism (we are not related to monkeys!). I don't see either of these using absense of proof.
Or are there other debunkers your referring to? Debunkers of Holocaust? Debunkers of Santa Clause? Debunkers of the moon landing? Granted none of these may be the ones you were generalizing, but I'm guessing the first two were the ones from how you openned your post.
C) Make a better product than MS'
I wouldn't expect that MS would make it easy for MPEG-4 to coexist if they aren't forced, especially if they move forward and use DRM arguments against it. In one possible future, require that their codec is used in order for code to be deemed "trusted".
On the flip side, I'm not taking any position on MPEG-4 licenses. I mean, who's getting that money? The codec's been made, right? Is there a real financial reason they can't lower the fee, other than needing an ivory back scratcher?
Now I'm really confused. Wouldn't multiple browsing windows be a multiple document interface?
And if what people want is easy flipping, why not enable keyboard menu commands and use the Window menu? {Ctrl-F1 and Ctrl-F2; typing 'Full Keyboard Access shortcuts for activating access' in Help should give more info, or view article 61466 from Apple Support.}
Personally, I'd think having a keyboard shortcut that pops up a Window list would be more useful than tabs - it wouldn't waste space, and would be quick and informative.
Exactly what language would you like this magical debugger work for? Most of these points are, well, let's say unfeasable:
2) Where would this stack of previous values go? What if it's the control for a loop? A buffer variable that updates every second?
3) Same point, just makes the stack bigger. Should it cross reference all variables so you can see what that all were at that point?
6) So the debugger should be able to wrestle a process away from the processor without previously having linked into it, and then map memory locations to variables and procedures? That would be impressive.
7) While stepping this would be relatively easy, but if you mean while running outside the debugger see 6).
I think more reasonable wants would be, many of which many do do:
1) Find all errors at once. {If anyone knows how to get VB6 how to do this, I would love to hear. And I don't mean simple syntax errors that turn red.} {Don't ask, it's a job.}
2) Recognize and issue warnings about possible semantic problems. e.g. Using uninitialized variables, = instead of ==, etc.
Asking a debugger to do more turns it into a crutch. If you want to know the history of a variable, add a dump window/file/database and send it there. MSSQL stored procedures have no debugger, but they aren't undebuggable. {Again, don't ask.}
Out of the thousands of problems I've debugged in a dozen languages, all code problems have boiled into basically two types: semantic/typos, which are simply carelessness, or poor logic. Having a variable tracking system may help with carelessness, though so would the semantics checker I refered to. But without tracing through the code manually to see where it goes bad, how can you possibly fix poor logic?