Mac enthusiasts spouted off about the superiority of their favourite computing architecture, and now Apple is switching to Intel.
This is not simply about the architecture. It's about IBM being unable to make it's production goals. Whether it's because it is harder with the architecture, or simply an IBM business failure, no longer matters.
It is entirely possible that if Mac OS X had the marketshare of Windows it would be compromised as often.
Compare:
It is entirely possible that if brick houses had the market share of straw houses the Big Bad Wolf would have been able to blow it over.
If that doesn't reveal just how idiotic your statement is, nothing will. There are more viruses for certain cell phones that have less market share than Apple, for Bob's sake! Virus writers would love to infect Macs, just to prove it can be done.
(I know everyone likes to use the IIS vs. Apache market share/vulnerability comparison here, but the three little pigs is so much better at illustrating the absurdity of the argument to laymen. Vulnerability is based on design and implementation, not on popularity or market share.)
It gets to the site fine, but is given a different style (.css) sheet. Opening the page in Safari as Safari and opening it in Safari as Explorer yield different-looking pages. On the main page I think it is a difference in headings only, but sometimes story pages format horribly if msnbc doesn't think you are IE.
I don't know if Firefox let's you pretend to be another browser. If it does try this:
1) Open msnbc in one window.
2) Open a second window.
3) Set the new window's agent to IE6
4) In this window go to msnbc
5) Compare the two windows.
Again, not usually a huge difference. But a pointless difference, all the same if the pages adhere to standards.
I don't have anywhere to host pictures, but using Safari just changing the User Agent gets you different style sheets. Net effect is some stories render horribly when it serves a Safari page, but fine when it serves an I.E., both in Safari. I'm not going to accuse them that that is their goal, but it has definitely happened and changing the User Agent reveals no problems that required a separate style sheet.
The only thing that was even vaguely troubling was that it was never stated the item would be auto-installed in the dashboard.
It's only 'vaguely troubling' because you aren't used to it being done. Installing known files for the user is a good idea in concept. The problem is leaving safeguards so the 'bad files' don't get installed.
They are kind of caught between a rock and a hard place here. They want to move forward and make things easy for the user to get and install without needing to understand how things are done, but they still need to prevent 'bad things'. And yes, power users want to control every step and don't mind decompressing and moving files by hand, but they are trying to get the more casual user with the 'It just works' paradigm.
I wish I could help, but no. My thoughts were to look for any glaring obvious problems, but I see nothing here blatant. Maybe try an Apple support board.
It was amazingly hard to find again since BBC rearranged their site and google points wrong, but I think you'll find
this interesting. They took the script for Shada (and other uncompleted Dr. Who) and recorded them with flash animation. Pretty good really.
As to the sequels, I don't see how they can be even close to the originals.
SPOILER ALERT (Like anyone here hasn't seen it yet)
They completely changed why the Vogons were after them; Zaphod has to do something to close the entirely new subplot; Trillian is with Arthur so will not be depressed with Zaphod; there were no outraged philosophers over the Question to continue chasing Arthur; Arthur won't end up with Fenchurch... it's as if Adams had a whole bunch of possible changes he was going to choose from, but they went and mangled them all together. In all instances of Adam's versions the Earth was unequivocally destroyed, and the dolphins definitely left for good.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the movie by itself. (The opening dolphin musical was a hoot.) But any future ones would pretty much be completely new inventions with bits and pieces from the books,
*All* macs I've come across since OS X debuted have this problem.
Mine doesn't, and I'm still on Panther.
There are two things you can do. One, hold Command-V to boot in Verbose mode and watch Unix stream by, which might show you what the problem is. Or, since it might go by too fast, you can just go to Applications->Utilites->Console and look at the System Log from there. It might help to go there, clean it, and reboot since I'm not sure if it cleans itself each time.
Did you install OS X on an older system, or did it come dual-bootable? If the former, there may be a disk error that fsck catches each boot but can't fix if you never enabled journalling. You may need to boot into single user mode and repeatedly run fsck. I used to have to occasionally on my iMac up to 10.2; I think older programs running from booted in OS 9 would do 'odd' things. I know running OS 9 Norton really messed it up once; never run it's optimizer/defragger again! OS X doesn't need it, and running in OS 9 only introduces problems.
Anyway, It does sound like it's your computer, whether it has problems or is simply old.
The reason that there is so little malware for the mac - is beacuse very few people are writing mainstream applications for the OS.
And the reason the Big Bad Wolf couldn't blow down the brick house was because so few pigs used brick houses. They weren't stronger; surely the wolf could have blown it down if he put his mind to it.
In other words, your two cents are worthless. An item's popularity has no direct relation to its capabilities. There are quite a few virus writers who would love to be the first to write an actual destructive Mac virus. The fact is, there just aren't enough vulnerabilities for them to do so.
And why the hell would anyone buy "Joe's Recipe Database"? It's buggy, crashes if you also have "Jill's Doll Database" installed, uses non-standard shortcuts, and requires you to run in admin mode.
Apparently, you haven't seen the third trailer yet where the guide clearly defines that modern movie trailers require a main character, "In a world...", things blowing up, a girl in a bikini, physical violence, etc.
So I don't believe I'm trolling when I ask: can somebody explain to me why I shouldn't consider the failure of this to become a movie anything other than a benefit to mankind?
Well, that's a very tunnel-visioned, self-centered approach, isn't it? Whether you find it enjoyable or not Bablylon 5 is clearly of value to many people. Are you seriously suggesting your opinion on what is and isn't good should determine what others are allowed to enjoy?
I mean, exactly how is it a benefit to mankind that people who like the series and who work with the series don't succeed in getting it made? I'm just an armchair philosopher here, but if they'd succeeded, and the people involved with it and the people who wanted to see it all derived enjoyment from it, isn't that a good thing?
There's no advertising on the site, so they aren't directly making money from it. In fact, every map burns bandwidth, so every person who uses it without contributing is a loss for them.
I remember bandwidth issues during Open Beta, and I figured that for them to handle access from a portion of 5,000 players to a portion of 500,000 (or whatever) the original guys just bought space on someone else, or had it donated to them. I could be wrong there, but I'm pretty sure it at least started as fan-based, even if it's not now.
It's the Terms of Service you agree to online when you give them a credit card number and say 'Yes, I Agree' in order to play. Whatever questionable status EULA's may have, if this isn't enforceable then no online contract is.
If you don't agree to that, then you don't click through, don't create an account, and do something else. This is a valid, 2-party contract. Deal with it.
Try again. There are two reasons space exploration stagnated: war and money. We had great plans once, but between tax cuts and lack of commercial reason to explore there just isn't money to move quickly.
Of course, as several folks have er, kindly pointed out, Apple is selling a converter so you *could* connect it to an NTSC display if you wanted... and of course, DVI is DVI which some HD TV displays do support. To which I say, it's an *accessory* people, not part of the mini itself! Jeez! Like a VGA to video cable is something *new* for cryin' out loud!
They could also point out your arguing semantics, since to connect anything you'll need cables. Whether it's a straight DVI cable or it converts to VGA, S-Video, or standard video is really irrelevant to the fact there is a port which allows you to connect to a TV, as opposed to having to tear the cover off and solder wires to the video card, for example.
The argument could be made it would be easier for the people that want it if it were standard, but that's true of many things. It also only has an 1/8 Audio out, so you'll probably need to split it to stereo if you want it piped through your amp. But no one seems to mention that.
I'm not really certain what you're quoting, but the EULA is not what Blizzard would use. They would use the Terms of Service you have to agree to to play online. That is an enforceable contract, or all online business is unenforceable. The EULA mostly has points about the software, not the online service.
It really has nothing to do with IP or copyright. It states clearly you will not attempt to make money off of your online playing in any manner. It's the same as a contract to use a golf course that has a clause saying you can host your own tournament.
Or you can download Cosmos, unzip it, pull the QuestMinion directory from AddOns and move it to your real AddOns directory. While the main cosmos interface may control it, it has no real dependencies with it. You can technically do this with any package out there to mix and match them, but be aware that if two (or more) try to do the same thing there will probably be issues. but you just have to quit and remove individual ones until it works. Soon Blizzard plans to have a front end to enable/disable at will which would make this easier.
You can use this procedure to pick and choose what you want out of any package. Just check the ModName.toc file for its dependancies.
It depends on how you define 'taken a stand'. There is a known bot that will fish for a player. They have disabled the high level fishing areas to prevent a flood of high level items from these bots. Presumably they are working on either a sure-fire way of detecting the bot from someone who's fishing and doesn't feel like responding to people talking to him, or they are reworking how fishing works to break the bot and make it harder to use.
So they've identified the problem, and taken immediate action to limit the damage it can do. Since they aren't about to just remove fishing, they are definitely working on ways to identify people doing it.
I wouldn't be surprised if they've already been banning bots; the problem is they would generally have to watch a character for 36 hours straight to be reasonably certain it's not a single person.
I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes
me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war,
corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places
will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong
its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.
'The prejudices of the people'? I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to see if they can come up with any recent examples of this.
These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people, and now that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people's money to settle the quarrel.
To answer those who won't read the link as to why he uses the term 'capitalists', in regards to Lincoln's time: "this is invariably in the context of a nation where NO MORE THAN ONE MAN IN EIGHT is a Capitalist or a Laborer, ie, where 7/8 of the population are "self-employed" on their own farms and homesteads."
You could go against a mob 20 levels above you and easily wipe the floor with it, while another mob around your level would kick your butt.
Then what the hell's the point of having levels? What you described sounds like someone taking a 2 week crash course beating up a black belt, then having some guy off the street beat them up. It sounds like that game may have been too inconsistent for some players. For me, it's not that I want to know I'm always going to win a fight, but I'd like my chances to be consistent and readily apparent.
FWIW, knowing whether to use a blunt or pointed weapon, or fire or ice, or whatever, will make a small difference in a fight but WoW went for the concept that any two characters of equal level fighting each at least have a shot of winning, assuming they are using level-appropriate equipment Taking something on that is a lot higher is essentially suicide. Frankly, even when I think of PnP* RPGs that's what I would expect. At, say, level 12 I wouldn't expect a single kobold to present any trouble, but I also wouldn't expect to stand much of a chance against a red dragon. Granted, in PnP you have more freedom to stage/fall victim to ambushes, but one-on-one levels are pretty important.
(* PnP - Pencil & Paper, whatever system you want.)
Slashdot Mirror
Considering iTunes was just Casady & Greene's SoundJam app which they bought, this seems spurious.
Two ways to counter the 'HP-Brand OS X', depending whether you like History or Mathematics better.
1) History: Power Computing (and others) cannobolizing hardware sales and paying only OS licenses went horribly.
2) Mathematics:
x = Profit of Hardware Sale
y = Profit of OS Sale
z = Number of machines running OS X
By definition, x > y.
Apple only, profit will equal z(x + y) = zx + zy
Splitting with HP at 50%, profit will equal z(x + y)/2 + zy/2 = zx/2 + zy.
If you can show how (zx/2 + zy) is equal to (zx + zy), I'll be impressed.
Because you can be damn sure the profit from a machine Apple sells itself will be far greater than the 1% of $499 kickback you propose from HP.
Mac enthusiasts spouted off about the superiority of their favourite computing architecture, and now Apple is switching to Intel.
This is not simply about the architecture. It's about IBM being unable to make it's production goals. Whether it's because it is harder with the architecture, or simply an IBM business failure, no longer matters.
It is entirely possible that if Mac OS X had the marketshare of Windows it would be compromised as often.
Compare:
It is entirely possible that if brick houses had the market share of straw houses the Big Bad Wolf would have been able to blow it over.
If that doesn't reveal just how idiotic your statement is, nothing will. There are more viruses for certain cell phones that have less market share than Apple, for Bob's sake! Virus writers would love to infect Macs, just to prove it can be done.
(I know everyone likes to use the IIS vs. Apache market share/vulnerability comparison here, but the three little pigs is so much better at illustrating the absurdity of the argument to laymen. Vulnerability is based on design and implementation, not on popularity or market share.)
It gets to the site fine, but is given a different style (.css) sheet. Opening the page in Safari as Safari and opening it in Safari as Explorer yield different-looking pages. On the main page I think it is a difference in headings only, but sometimes story pages format horribly if msnbc doesn't think you are IE.
I don't know if Firefox let's you pretend to be another browser. If it does try this:
1) Open msnbc in one window.
2) Open a second window.
3) Set the new window's agent to IE6
4) In this window go to msnbc
5) Compare the two windows.
Again, not usually a huge difference. But a pointless difference, all the same if the pages adhere to standards.
How does it count people using a browser that reports it is a different browser to not be blocked from content?
*Cough*
I don't have anywhere to host pictures, but using Safari just changing the User Agent gets you different style sheets. Net effect is some stories render horribly when it serves a Safari page, but fine when it serves an I.E., both in Safari. I'm not going to accuse them that that is their goal, but it has definitely happened and changing the User Agent reveals no problems that required a separate style sheet.
The only thing that was even vaguely troubling was that it was never stated the item would be auto-installed in the dashboard.
It's only 'vaguely troubling' because you aren't used to it being done. Installing known files for the user is a good idea in concept. The problem is leaving safeguards so the 'bad files' don't get installed.
They are kind of caught between a rock and a hard place here. They want to move forward and make things easy for the user to get and install without needing to understand how things are done, but they still need to prevent 'bad things'. And yes, power users want to control every step and don't mind decompressing and moving files by hand, but they are trying to get the more casual user with the 'It just works' paradigm.
When do we start calling them 'beleaguered'? That's what I want to know.
I wish I could help, but no. My thoughts were to look for any glaring obvious problems, but I see nothing here blatant. Maybe try an Apple support board.
It was amazingly hard to find again since BBC rearranged their site and google points wrong, but I think you'll find this interesting. They took the script for Shada (and other uncompleted Dr. Who) and recorded them with flash animation. Pretty good really.
As to the sequels, I don't see how they can be even close to the originals.
SPOILER ALERT (Like anyone here hasn't seen it yet)
They completely changed why the Vogons were after them; Zaphod has to do something to close the entirely new subplot; Trillian is with Arthur so will not be depressed with Zaphod; there were no outraged philosophers over the Question to continue chasing Arthur; Arthur won't end up with Fenchurch... it's as if Adams had a whole bunch of possible changes he was going to choose from, but they went and mangled them all together. In all instances of Adam's versions the Earth was unequivocally destroyed, and the dolphins definitely left for good.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the movie by itself. (The opening dolphin musical was a hoot.) But any future ones would pretty much be completely new inventions with bits and pieces from the books,
*All* macs I've come across since OS X debuted have this problem.
Mine doesn't, and I'm still on Panther.
There are two things you can do. One, hold Command-V to boot in Verbose mode and watch Unix stream by, which might show you what the problem is. Or, since it might go by too fast, you can just go to Applications->Utilites->Console and look at the System Log from there. It might help to go there, clean it, and reboot since I'm not sure if it cleans itself each time.
Did you install OS X on an older system, or did it come dual-bootable? If the former, there may be a disk error that fsck catches each boot but can't fix if you never enabled journalling. You may need to boot into single user mode and repeatedly run fsck. I used to have to occasionally on my iMac up to 10.2; I think older programs running from booted in OS 9 would do 'odd' things. I know running OS 9 Norton really messed it up once; never run it's optimizer/defragger again! OS X doesn't need it, and running in OS 9 only introduces problems.
Anyway, It does sound like it's your computer, whether it has problems or is simply old.
The reason that there is so little malware for the mac - is beacuse very few people are writing mainstream applications for the OS.
And the reason the Big Bad Wolf couldn't blow down the brick house was because so few pigs used brick houses. They weren't stronger; surely the wolf could have blown it down if he put his mind to it.
In other words, your two cents are worthless. An item's popularity has no direct relation to its capabilities. There are quite a few virus writers who would love to be the first to write an actual destructive Mac virus. The fact is, there just aren't enough vulnerabilities for them to do so.
And why the hell would anyone buy "Joe's Recipe Database"? It's buggy, crashes if you also have "Jill's Doll Database" installed, uses non-standard shortcuts, and requires you to run in admin mode.
Apparently, you haven't seen the third trailer yet where the guide clearly defines that modern movie trailers require a main character, "In a world...", things blowing up, a girl in a bikini, physical violence, etc.
Quicktime, "large".
Other sizes/formats, go through the movie's site.
In all fairness, many Windows API's are holes in the ground.
At least, that's where the documentation is kept.
So I don't believe I'm trolling when I ask: can somebody explain to me why I shouldn't consider the failure of this to become a movie anything other than a benefit to mankind?
Well, that's a very tunnel-visioned, self-centered approach, isn't it? Whether you find it enjoyable or not Bablylon 5 is clearly of value to many people. Are you seriously suggesting your opinion on what is and isn't good should determine what others are allowed to enjoy?
I mean, exactly how is it a benefit to mankind that people who like the series and who work with the series don't succeed in getting it made? I'm just an armchair philosopher here, but if they'd succeeded, and the people involved with it and the people who wanted to see it all derived enjoyment from it, isn't that a good thing?
Link to the damn post! I followed the only link in the body and got royally confused by it.
Yeah, I figured it out quickly enough, but without a real link isn't this just hearsay?
I for one will not be using thottbot any longer.
Not use, or not contribute to?
There's no advertising on the site, so they aren't directly making money from it. In fact, every map burns bandwidth, so every person who uses it without contributing is a loss for them.
I remember bandwidth issues during Open Beta, and I figured that for them to handle access from a portion of 5,000 players to a portion of 500,000 (or whatever) the original guys just bought space on someone else, or had it donated to them. I could be wrong there, but I'm pretty sure it at least started as fan-based, even if it's not now.
It's the Terms of Service you agree to online when you give them a credit card number and say 'Yes, I Agree' in order to play. Whatever questionable status EULA's may have, if this isn't enforceable then no online contract is.
Read it yourself.
If you don't agree to that, then you don't click through, don't create an account, and do something else. This is a valid, 2-party contract. Deal with it.
Try again. There are two reasons space exploration stagnated: war and money. We had great plans once, but between tax cuts and lack of commercial reason to explore there just isn't money to move quickly.
Of course, as several folks have er, kindly pointed out, Apple is selling a converter so you *could* connect it to an NTSC display if you wanted... and of course, DVI is DVI which some HD TV displays do support. To which I say, it's an *accessory* people, not part of the mini itself! Jeez! Like a VGA to video cable is something *new* for cryin' out loud!
They could also point out your arguing semantics, since to connect anything you'll need cables. Whether it's a straight DVI cable or it converts to VGA, S-Video, or standard video is really irrelevant to the fact there is a port which allows you to connect to a TV, as opposed to having to tear the cover off and solder wires to the video card, for example.
The argument could be made it would be easier for the people that want it if it were standard, but that's true of many things. It also only has an 1/8 Audio out, so you'll probably need to split it to stereo if you want it piped through your amp. But no one seems to mention that.
I'm not really certain what you're quoting, but the EULA is not what Blizzard would use. They would use the Terms of Service you have to agree to to play online. That is an enforceable contract, or all online business is unenforceable. The EULA mostly has points about the software, not the online service.
It really has nothing to do with IP or copyright. It states clearly you will not attempt to make money off of your online playing in any manner. It's the same as a contract to use a golf course that has a clause saying you can host your own tournament.
Or you can download Cosmos, unzip it, pull the QuestMinion directory from AddOns and move it to your real AddOns directory. While the main cosmos interface may control it, it has no real dependencies with it. You can technically do this with any package out there to mix and match them, but be aware that if two (or more) try to do the same thing there will probably be issues. but you just have to quit and remove individual ones until it works. Soon Blizzard plans to have a front end to enable/disable at will which would make this easier.
You can use this procedure to pick and choose what you want out of any package. Just check the ModName.toc file for its dependancies.
It depends on how you define 'taken a stand'. There is a known bot that will fish for a player. They have disabled the high level fishing areas to prevent a flood of high level items from these bots. Presumably they are working on either a sure-fire way of detecting the bot from someone who's fishing and doesn't feel like responding to people talking to him, or they are reworking how fishing works to break the bot and make it harder to use.
So they've identified the problem, and taken immediate action to limit the damage it can do. Since they aren't about to just remove fishing, they are definitely working on ways to identify people doing it.
I wouldn't be surprised if they've already been banning bots; the problem is they would generally have to watch a character for 36 hours straight to be reasonably certain it's not a single person.
What's sad is how well Lincoln predicted it.
I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.
'The prejudices of the people'? I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to see if they can come up with any recent examples of this.
These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people, and now that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people's money to settle the quarrel.
To answer those who won't read the link as to why he uses the term 'capitalists', in regards to Lincoln's time: "this is invariably in the context of a nation where NO MORE THAN ONE MAN IN EIGHT is a Capitalist or a Laborer, ie, where 7/8 of the population are "self-employed" on their own farms and homesteads."
You could go against a mob 20 levels above you and easily wipe the floor with it, while another mob around your level would kick your butt.
Then what the hell's the point of having levels? What you described sounds like someone taking a 2 week crash course beating up a black belt, then having some guy off the street beat them up. It sounds like that game may have been too inconsistent for some players. For me, it's not that I want to know I'm always going to win a fight, but I'd like my chances to be consistent and readily apparent.
FWIW, knowing whether to use a blunt or pointed weapon, or fire or ice, or whatever, will make a small difference in a fight but WoW went for the concept that any two characters of equal level fighting each at least have a shot of winning, assuming they are using level-appropriate equipment Taking something on that is a lot higher is essentially suicide. Frankly, even when I think of PnP* RPGs that's what I would expect. At, say, level 12 I wouldn't expect a single kobold to present any trouble, but I also wouldn't expect to stand much of a chance against a red dragon. Granted, in PnP you have more freedom to stage/fall victim to ambushes, but one-on-one levels are pretty important.
(* PnP - Pencil & Paper, whatever system you want.)