How is CTRL-A not working? I think I might be confused as to the definition of either "text boxes" or what CTRL-A is supposed to do for you (Like how, IIRC, the HOME key doesn't behave in the Terminal like it does on most Linux/etc boxes). It's incredible how many little things pop up that make you go "Huh?" when you're coming from the other side of things, eh?:)
About the quad core thing I was describing the entry-level Mac Pro compared to the system I got from Dell, the requirements are basically what I would consider base-line for modern computing (Heck, I can't even really run Crisis outside of setting detail rather low on my box), and when I was talking about the components I was pretty much trying to point out how you get less but pay more when you go the Apple hardware route. The quad core Mac Pro at $2300 is still, IMHO, an outrageous price, but if other people find it acceptable *shrug*. The only thing that 2,799$ box has on mine was four extra cores that almost nobody is going to need to use anytime soon.
As for the laptops, well, I admit readily that that's a topic I'm not very well versed in at all. I don't have much of a use for a laptop myself and anytime someone has asked me to price out a laptop for them it always ends up being out of their price range (~1000$) for what they want it for (Usually gaming).
I already conceded the other point with regards to keeping a process running in a few of my other posts tho, heh.
I can't believe that I forgot about the biggest feature I love in OS X, Expose. Argh I feel like I should don the dunce cap now because I must agree it's superior to any other system I've seen and worked with. Thanks for the other post as well, which seems to be the sentiment most people share with modern computing. The resources are there, why not use them up for what you are likely to be doing as opposed to being able to brag "Look at how SLIM my bare boot is!"
Could you provide an example scenario where it would be preferable to keep pure GUI applications running in the background when any way of interacting with that program is removed
When you close all of the windows, ram/cpu usage should become minimal. On top of that, I don't like waiting for Microsoft Office to load every time I open a document so it makes a shit load of sense.
That's an excellent point that on a lot of older hardware it would make sense that you don't want to wait for larger apps to load, but don't you think for older hardware it would be more efficient for large applications to simply offer their quick-start as an option to the user? Your example of ram/cpu usage dropping also assumes that the application is well-behaved, and the vast majority are. Sometimes though the app might not be, and it's those corner cases that make the whole idea seem bad. Overall though, it was always just a minor aesthetic annoyance for myself. I still really like the system.
Could you provide an example scenario where it would be preferable to keep pure GUI applications running in the background when any way of interacting with that program is removed
You are using a 16MB Mac Performa 630 and it takes 3 minutes to start Netscape. Also if you close the app and try to reopen it, you get an out-of-memory error due to the shitty memory manager. Also your disk cache is only 128K.
In other words it's mostly a legacy of the old MacOS that traditional Mac users are comfortable with.
Thank you very much! The other responses outline various reasons why one might prefer the way Mac OS does things for the sake of conveniences where modern hardware can handle it but it's nice to hear that there's at least one technical reason why this route was chosen by the developers in the first place. A very informative discussion I must say, all the responses I got.
Some programs in Windows have a service that runs in the background to accomplish a similar thing, but the Macintosh way gives the user the ability to control exactly what stays loaded.
You make it sound like it's difficult to stop a service, and the closest thing I can see the default behaviour of Mac OS being to is the infamous "Quick Start" of OOo and MS Office, among other applications who think it's a good idea to use up resources in case an application might be used. Then again, I'm typing this from Vista with SuperFetch so I don't have a whole lot of room to complain about how different OSes deal with the same problem roughly.
Most applications these days on Windows provide a MDI interface if there is any possibility you will be using the application to view or modify multiple things at once. Close this document and close this window are not the same thing on Windows in any application that is well-designed. By default, you've got the window titlebar with the control fuctions for that window on the whole. Then you've got the toolbar that has the same functions only they are applicable to the specific document you are currently working with. When speaking of things like web browsers it's a little different and I wish they'd change it but in the File-> menu you have Close Window and Close Tab, generally. We really are running into a situation here where users have become adapted to different environments for better or for worse, I'm just trying to get down to the bottom of which is more efficient.
I guess I'm not really too much of a fan of an application-oriented interface because very few systems use it and even fewer people feel comfortable with them in my experiences. I don't think either of them are any more consistent than the other by nature, they can only be consistent when developers decide they want to do things the way people generally agree they should be done.
The Dock takes a bit of getting used to and in some ways I can see it as superior but in other ways I can't. Sometimes I have a lot of windows open for a single app and having them all condensed into one icon or button only creates another step for me to go through in getting to the one window I do want. This is why I disable the "Grouping" feature of the taskbar on Windows and other interfaces like KDE. Minimizing the windows is logical on Mac but that comes at the expense of being able to always find that window in the same place. Every minimize/restore mixes and moves the portion of the Dock that deals with such activity and it was easy for me to lose track of where I was. Also, why would I not want to access non-minimized tasks as easily as I would minimized ones? I wish the Dock were more like the taskbar because I don't minimize a window whenever it leaves my focus, though it's not like ALT-TAB is so horribly hard to use.
In Windows, each open window usually spawns its own button on the taskbar, yes. No applications collapse all windows into a single stack unless you turn on "Group similar taskbar buttons". This is not a behavior that is decided on a per-application level, it is determined by the Windows GUI itself so there should never really be any inconsistency, it behaves as you've configured it to behave. It is very annoying how so many applications decide minimize means minimize to the tray, I completely agree with you on that and wish application developers would stop annoying users in such a fashion and just make it an option in the preferences, not on by default.
And it seems from your final sentence that we both have the same frustration with each others method of managing windows -- Stuff running when not actually doing anything right now. I don't remember any Mac OS X application closing out entirely after closing every window in the GUI, and it was most annoying to me when using Firefox because if I wanted to restart it it was a different process than on Windows or Linux so I had to figure out why it kept telling me there was already an instance of the program running.
It's a design choice sure, but I and many others simply don't see what the wisdom is in said design choice. Could you provide an example scenario where it would be preferable to keep pure GUI applications running in the background when any way of interacting with that program is removed (I.E. - Closing every window for the app)? I can only really see it is a waste of system resources and added step to achieving a goal. I'd love to be enlightened though because maybe I'm missing out on some great functionality I haven't dusted off yet.
Perhaps I can be of assistance on this one: Many people (myself included) are unfamiliar with the idea that a process should continue to run after the last window for a graphical application is closed. The worst that we have to deal with in that regard on Windows/Linux/etc... is an application will minimize to the system tray or task bar on close and we have to be bothered with doing a force quit through some other method than the logical "I closed the last window for the program, it should be gone".
It surprises me and also interests me deeply that you feel there's any sort of conundrum when it comes to this functionality. Nobody is saying that closing a single window of an application should close out every single window of said application and shut it down. That's not what we mean. What we mean is that when we his the "Close/Exit" button on the window, if it's the last open window for the program, it's nothing but a waste of resources and potential cause of issues having the process still running. When I close out of my two Firefox windows (One for each monitor and different content) I don't want to be bothered with doing the CTRL-Q (Forgive me for having only had extensive experience with Hackintosh and only passing experience with "legit" boxes) thing after realizing the process is still running and I have to go at it. The amount of resources OSX 10.5.2 (The version I used) takes is amazing to me in terms of how high it is, and I think I remember that being attributed to how Apple does their binaries. They work in more places (hardware/software configurations) but they are as a result larger. Apparently Snow Leopard is going to address that and from what I've seen I like the tweaks they made to the size of the OS.
Long post short, if I close the last window an application has open, there's no reason for the application to still be running when there is no visual representation of the app. I am not using it, it should go away. Most PC users don't like dealing with that "quirky" behaviour.
Disclaimer: I would gladly buy a Mac if they would lower their prices to be more reasonable for a new system. My quad core cost me about 1 grand from Dell, the equivalent system as far as I can see from Apple's Shop Mac Store is the Mac Pro which weighs in at a whopping $2,799.00. Smaller hard drive, slightly slower video card, 4 more cores (As if anyone but heavy video/graphics professionals will need that), less hard drive space. I don't like OS X enough to pay the Apple Premium on their hardware.
So everyone gets boned because of one idiot who broke the law? This isn't a classroom where the person who doesn't fess up makes the whole class have to stay late after school. What justification do you have for ignoring the law to the great benefit of a few, turning away the rest of the people who did nothing wrong? Strange twist on justice and the rule of law you have there.
Please have the courtesy of reserving judgement until such a time all the facts are in.
You mean the facts from the investigation the McCain/Palin camp has been trying to stall ever since she got put on the ticket? Now she simply is doing what her current mentors do when they get subpoenaed: Act like they're above the law and ignore it. I'm all for working with the facts, but so far the only facts we have to work on is that the communication we have heard about using private email accounts is that they want to make sure those communications on those accounts are sealed from the public. You do not use your personal email address for official government business and correspondence, period. That's why she and McCain are so afraid of getting nailed before the election is done.
This is a governor whos administration has been openly hostile to an open and transparent mode of operation. Bill McAllister, her communication director as governor, provides a voice clip here where you can find out just how desperate these people are to make excuses for doing nothing more than finding loopholes in the law to try and disguise what they really are talking about. At the end he says "in fact the final decisions will be public, will be documented and will be substantiated and they always have been."
So basically, shut up and stop trying to listen in on what's going on behind the curtain and be happy with what we decide to show you is the real deal. If she's this disdainful of actually wanting to prove to her constituents in Alaska that she's done no wrong and doesn't want to do anything wrong, then why doesn't she just backtrack and say you know what, you're right, I talked about transparency and open government, let's get right on that.
The fact that anyone can look at all this and not see anything suspicious just goes to show how blindly one can follow a political ideology, regardless of who's "championing" the cause, which she certainly is not as far as what Republicans truly want in office. Is it really enough for you that she wants to drill? That she wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade? What on Earth can people see in this snake? I can understand Alaskans loving her because she's always talked up Alaska first Alaska first but the rest of the nation should be terrified that Palin takes the exact same approach to governing as Bush and Cheney when it comes to divulging information.
P.S. -- Remember that "Bridge to Nowhere"? Still going on. And now there's the completed "Road to nowhere". Oh joy, she's just full of straight talk just like Johnny.
Legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners.
"Teach education" is what they do, when preparing teachers. Compare with "Teach Mathematics".
So it was somebody else's foot in your mouth, I see...
This is legislation he didn't sponsor
He was not accused of sponsoring it — only of voting for it. Technically, the ad was true...
Your first point identifies how much of a pointlessly pedantic debater you are. Your second point is purely ludicrous and false, it was chalked up as his one accomplishment, why would anyone seriously say that it's anything of an accomplishment to simply vote for a bill? Technically, the ad was false and it used heavy suggestion and spin to make it seem like Obamas position included teaching "comprehensive sex education" to kindergartners.
I'm done feeding this troll, all you're interested in doing is trying to justify the dishonorable campaign a man I used to respect has been running. Instead of backpedaling when you should realize you were shown wrong, you insist on trying to cloud the real topic of discussion, just like the man you're defending.
We should stop wasting our efforts with any kind of government sponsored sex-ed. Leave it to the parents.
Besides, none of it works, anyway.
You might find this interesting if you truly believe that no sex-ed works other than what a parent passes on to their children. There's a world of difference when it comes to the effectiveness of comprehensive sexual education as opposed to none or abstinence-only programs, and if we look at pregnancy rates and STD rates in areas where young people aren't being informed properly, we start to see that maybe we should look at re-examining our approach to a subject that has a deep impact on everyone in our society.
A McCain-Palin campaign ad claims Obama's "one accomplishment" in the area of education was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners." But the claim is simply false, and it dates back to Alan Keyes' failed race against Obama for an open Senate seat in 2004.
Legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners. If you're going to try to argue semantics at least do it right you typical windbag. Furthermore, as outlined in the page I just linked you to, "And the bill, which would have allowed only 'age appropriate' material and a no-questions-asked opt-out policy for parents, was not his accomplishment to claim in any case, since he was not even a cosponsor - and the bill never left the state Senate."
So what the hell are you talking about again? This is legislation he didn't sponsor that had plenty of ways for parents to keep the information away from their children if they so desired. Get a clue before you start trying to act like some pathetic internet toughguy on Slashdot.
P.S. -- You don't have to answer every single goddamn "WHY?" question a child asks, and if you're trying to tell them don't talk to strangers, don't take candy from strangers, and don't let strangers treat you like you're their best friend, and here's what to look out for, you are in no way saying the bad man wants to get off on you with his penis. Jesus Christ, you must be a horrible person to ask for directions and advice for sensitive subjects if you haven't the slightest idea how to speak in generalities and non-specifics when necessary.
Uhhh, that was my point, that no child was taught about sex-education or was going to be taught sex-education and yet McCain's campaign loudly proclaimed it so. Is there a plane whooshing over my head right now because honestly, I don't see how my post was saying anything but there was no children being taught about sex-education. Lies shouldn't have been put in quotation marks in your message, as that's quite literally the kind of mud the Republicans have been slinging.
How is it technically true at all to claim, among other things, that Obama sponsored legislation meant to teach kindergarten students about sex-ed, when really it was mandating that children be informed about sexual predators and what to do if caught in a bad situation? Oh, wait, it's not, it is an outright lie. If I were to start a self-defense class that also happens to focus on what to do in a rape scenario, are you seriously going to argue that I'm teaching sex-ed?
That's a good question, and I guess when it comes down to it I don't endorse it but I don't frown upon it either. People manage to get private WoW servers, I think that's cool and fine, but obviously Blizzard doesn't. My experience with them was less than satisfactory though, personally. Too much lag and not enough players, and it's easy to see why. If you want a free MMO, there are plenty to choose from anyways from my viewpoint.
As for his question, World of Warcraft is DRM free, and the upcoming WOTLK is also supposed to be free of it too!
I guess that count as a particularly major title:)
Not sure how you can say that World of Warcraft is DRM free. You are required to pay a periodic licensing fee and authenticate every time you try to use the software. If you have not paid your licensing fee the software will not operate. That is a form of DRM.
Not saying that I endorse this sort of thing but World of Warcraft can easily be made to play on servers other than the Blizzard ones, so you don't really have to pay for anything unless you actually want to play on Blizzards servers.
Most/. users do make backups. Most users do not make backups. These are two very different groups and an important distinction to make when you're talking about system security. People are simply pointing out that personal documents are far more valuable than a hosed system a lot of the time, and rather than saying you have an interesting point and just accepting the fact of the matter, you make the excuse that people should be performing regular backups in the first place. This is the real world, and most people do not bother with that step even if it were feasible for them to do so.
Besides, how do backups help you when your personal information is stolen? Does the fact that you still have it once it's wiped change the fact that the attacker now has it as well? Backups prevent you from losing data, not from having it stolen.
I didn't play around much with Time Machine when I had 10.5.2 installed on my box but I don't think I could've used it a whole lot anyways since, among other things, it doesn't really work well with FileVault. Hopefully in future revisions to Time Machine they address these deficiencies and turn it into the great product it should be. More to the point of the discussion, would it not be possible for the malware to simply tamper with the Time Machine backup while it's doing its damage? Up until not too long ago you could even launch applications automatically from within a Time Machine backup.
Yeah, the tiny flaw in that plan is the "keeping your dick in your pants" part.
Where does personal responsibility - specifically, facing the consequences of your actions - enter in your world?
Supremely amusing to see people getting their panties in a twist over simply trying to make sure that people take every precaution possible with whatever course of action they take. Unless you're not taking the position that sex-ed promotes risky behavior. If there's anything that studies have shown about sex-ed it's that it has a drastic effect on reducing teen pregnancy and STD transmission rates. Sorry bub, but safe sex is not a myth, and people need to be educated about it.
Personal responsibility and safe sex go hand in hand, abstinence-only education is the truly irresponsible and in my eyes indefensible position considering all the evidence gathered thus far.
You tell me who's going to wind up getting an STD, little Jimmy who knows what to look for and what to do to be safe when things get hot and heavy, or little Johnny who doesn't know the first thing about safe sex and things to look out for. I'd wager Jimmy has a higher chance of not getting screwed by someone who is not honest with him about their sexual history while Johnny laments that he was never encouraged and educated on the proper ways to be safe while playing with fire.
Really, I think what the abstinence-only crowds driving motivation is is that they simply can't stand the notion that people are getting away with having more sex than them with more partners than them and have to find some way to bitch and piss and moan about it. Was gonna post anonymously but I just don't give a hoot anymore what this does to my karma, goodness knows I've got years of it to burn.
I didn't address that issue in my reply to that other post because I happen to agree that it's at best stupid to try to prevent someone from releasing their source code for something they wrote and spent time creating. Slapping a FORBIDDEN sticker on a chunk of knowledge/information is not an effective way to combat it, and Blizzard would be much better off whether they realize it now or not by actually letting these programs have the source code completely exposed. All the easier to patch your client and keep up the arms race. Stupid at best, and a combination of dangerous/difficult to enforce/unethical at worst, but the question is if it's without precedent, and I would think there is a significant chance that there is.
I've seen macroing from the Ultima Online days and I've seen Glider use from the more modern World of Warcraft. They are nowhere near the same thing nor are they anywhere near the same realm of ease of use. You really are sounding like you've never seen just how easy Glider makes it to play your character without ever actually playing your character. Take a look at how things work.
Slashdot Mirror
Then don't spend 70$ on a graphics card like this when you can easily get by spending 10-25$ at Newegg for something that suits your needs.
Price:
$10 - $25 (27)
$25 - $50 (125)
These are cards that are far more than you need for the tasks you mention.
How is CTRL-A not working? I think I might be confused as to the definition of either "text boxes" or what CTRL-A is supposed to do for you (Like how, IIRC, the HOME key doesn't behave in the Terminal like it does on most Linux/etc boxes). It's incredible how many little things pop up that make you go "Huh?" when you're coming from the other side of things, eh? :)
About the quad core thing I was describing the entry-level Mac Pro compared to the system I got from Dell, the requirements are basically what I would consider base-line for modern computing (Heck, I can't even really run Crisis outside of setting detail rather low on my box), and when I was talking about the components I was pretty much trying to point out how you get less but pay more when you go the Apple hardware route. The quad core Mac Pro at $2300 is still, IMHO, an outrageous price, but if other people find it acceptable *shrug*. The only thing that 2,799$ box has on mine was four extra cores that almost nobody is going to need to use anytime soon.
As for the laptops, well, I admit readily that that's a topic I'm not very well versed in at all. I don't have much of a use for a laptop myself and anytime someone has asked me to price out a laptop for them it always ends up being out of their price range (~1000$) for what they want it for (Usually gaming).
I already conceded the other point with regards to keeping a process running in a few of my other posts tho, heh.
I can't believe that I forgot about the biggest feature I love in OS X, Expose. Argh I feel like I should don the dunce cap now because I must agree it's superior to any other system I've seen and worked with. Thanks for the other post as well, which seems to be the sentiment most people share with modern computing. The resources are there, why not use them up for what you are likely to be doing as opposed to being able to brag "Look at how SLIM my bare boot is!"
Could you provide an example scenario where it would be preferable to keep pure GUI applications running in the background when any way of interacting with that program is removed
When you close all of the windows, ram/cpu usage should become minimal. On top of that, I don't like waiting for Microsoft Office to load every time I open a document so it makes a shit load of sense.
That's an excellent point that on a lot of older hardware it would make sense that you don't want to wait for larger apps to load, but don't you think for older hardware it would be more efficient for large applications to simply offer their quick-start as an option to the user? Your example of ram/cpu usage dropping also assumes that the application is well-behaved, and the vast majority are. Sometimes though the app might not be, and it's those corner cases that make the whole idea seem bad. Overall though, it was always just a minor aesthetic annoyance for myself. I still really like the system.
Could you provide an example scenario where it would be preferable to keep pure GUI applications running in the background when any way of interacting with that program is removed
You are using a 16MB Mac Performa 630 and it takes 3 minutes to start Netscape. Also if you close the app and try to reopen it, you get an out-of-memory error due to the shitty memory manager. Also your disk cache is only 128K.
In other words it's mostly a legacy of the old MacOS that traditional Mac users are comfortable with.
Thank you very much! The other responses outline various reasons why one might prefer the way Mac OS does things for the sake of conveniences where modern hardware can handle it but it's nice to hear that there's at least one technical reason why this route was chosen by the developers in the first place. A very informative discussion I must say, all the responses I got.
Some programs in Windows have a service that runs in the background to accomplish a similar thing, but the Macintosh way gives the user the ability to control exactly what stays loaded.
You make it sound like it's difficult to stop a service, and the closest thing I can see the default behaviour of Mac OS being to is the infamous "Quick Start" of OOo and MS Office, among other applications who think it's a good idea to use up resources in case an application might be used. Then again, I'm typing this from Vista with SuperFetch so I don't have a whole lot of room to complain about how different OSes deal with the same problem roughly.
Most applications these days on Windows provide a MDI interface if there is any possibility you will be using the application to view or modify multiple things at once. Close this document and close this window are not the same thing on Windows in any application that is well-designed. By default, you've got the window titlebar with the control fuctions for that window on the whole. Then you've got the toolbar that has the same functions only they are applicable to the specific document you are currently working with. When speaking of things like web browsers it's a little different and I wish they'd change it but in the File-> menu you have Close Window and Close Tab, generally. We really are running into a situation here where users have become adapted to different environments for better or for worse, I'm just trying to get down to the bottom of which is more efficient.
I guess I'm not really too much of a fan of an application-oriented interface because very few systems use it and even fewer people feel comfortable with them in my experiences. I don't think either of them are any more consistent than the other by nature, they can only be consistent when developers decide they want to do things the way people generally agree they should be done.
The Dock takes a bit of getting used to and in some ways I can see it as superior but in other ways I can't. Sometimes I have a lot of windows open for a single app and having them all condensed into one icon or button only creates another step for me to go through in getting to the one window I do want. This is why I disable the "Grouping" feature of the taskbar on Windows and other interfaces like KDE. Minimizing the windows is logical on Mac but that comes at the expense of being able to always find that window in the same place. Every minimize/restore mixes and moves the portion of the Dock that deals with such activity and it was easy for me to lose track of where I was. Also, why would I not want to access non-minimized tasks as easily as I would minimized ones? I wish the Dock were more like the taskbar because I don't minimize a window whenever it leaves my focus, though it's not like ALT-TAB is so horribly hard to use.
In Windows, each open window usually spawns its own button on the taskbar, yes. No applications collapse all windows into a single stack unless you turn on "Group similar taskbar buttons". This is not a behavior that is decided on a per-application level, it is determined by the Windows GUI itself so there should never really be any inconsistency, it behaves as you've configured it to behave. It is very annoying how so many applications decide minimize means minimize to the tray, I completely agree with you on that and wish application developers would stop annoying users in such a fashion and just make it an option in the preferences, not on by default.
And it seems from your final sentence that we both have the same frustration with each others method of managing windows -- Stuff running when not actually doing anything right now. I don't remember any Mac OS X application closing out entirely after closing every window in the GUI, and it was most annoying to me when using Firefox because if I wanted to restart it it was a different process than on Windows or Linux so I had to figure out why it kept telling me there was already an instance of the program running.
It's a design choice sure, but I and many others simply don't see what the wisdom is in said design choice. Could you provide an example scenario where it would be preferable to keep pure GUI applications running in the background when any way of interacting with that program is removed (I.E. - Closing every window for the app)? I can only really see it is a waste of system resources and added step to achieving a goal. I'd love to be enlightened though because maybe I'm missing out on some great functionality I haven't dusted off yet.
Perhaps I can be of assistance on this one: Many people (myself included) are unfamiliar with the idea that a process should continue to run after the last window for a graphical application is closed. The worst that we have to deal with in that regard on Windows/Linux/etc... is an application will minimize to the system tray or task bar on close and we have to be bothered with doing a force quit through some other method than the logical "I closed the last window for the program, it should be gone".
It surprises me and also interests me deeply that you feel there's any sort of conundrum when it comes to this functionality. Nobody is saying that closing a single window of an application should close out every single window of said application and shut it down. That's not what we mean. What we mean is that when we his the "Close/Exit" button on the window, if it's the last open window for the program, it's nothing but a waste of resources and potential cause of issues having the process still running. When I close out of my two Firefox windows (One for each monitor and different content) I don't want to be bothered with doing the CTRL-Q (Forgive me for having only had extensive experience with Hackintosh and only passing experience with "legit" boxes) thing after realizing the process is still running and I have to go at it. The amount of resources OSX 10.5.2 (The version I used) takes is amazing to me in terms of how high it is, and I think I remember that being attributed to how Apple does their binaries. They work in more places (hardware/software configurations) but they are as a result larger. Apparently Snow Leopard is going to address that and from what I've seen I like the tweaks they made to the size of the OS.
Long post short, if I close the last window an application has open, there's no reason for the application to still be running when there is no visual representation of the app. I am not using it, it should go away. Most PC users don't like dealing with that "quirky" behaviour.
Disclaimer: I would gladly buy a Mac if they would lower their prices to be more reasonable for a new system. My quad core cost me about 1 grand from Dell, the equivalent system as far as I can see from Apple's Shop Mac Store is the Mac Pro which weighs in at a whopping $2,799.00. Smaller hard drive, slightly slower video card, 4 more cores (As if anyone but heavy video/graphics professionals will need that), less hard drive space. I don't like OS X enough to pay the Apple Premium on their hardware.
So everyone gets boned because of one idiot who broke the law? This isn't a classroom where the person who doesn't fess up makes the whole class have to stay late after school. What justification do you have for ignoring the law to the great benefit of a few, turning away the rest of the people who did nothing wrong? Strange twist on justice and the rule of law you have there.
Please have the courtesy of reserving judgement until such a time all the facts are in.
You mean the facts from the investigation the McCain/Palin camp has been trying to stall ever since she got put on the ticket? Now she simply is doing what her current mentors do when they get subpoenaed: Act like they're above the law and ignore it. I'm all for working with the facts, but so far the only facts we have to work on is that the communication we have heard about using private email accounts is that they want to make sure those communications on those accounts are sealed from the public. You do not use your personal email address for official government business and correspondence, period. That's why she and McCain are so afraid of getting nailed before the election is done.
This is a governor whos administration has been openly hostile to an open and transparent mode of operation. Bill McAllister, her communication director as governor, provides a voice clip here where you can find out just how desperate these people are to make excuses for doing nothing more than finding loopholes in the law to try and disguise what they really are talking about. At the end he says "in fact the final decisions will be public, will be documented and will be substantiated and they always have been."
So basically, shut up and stop trying to listen in on what's going on behind the curtain and be happy with what we decide to show you is the real deal. If she's this disdainful of actually wanting to prove to her constituents in Alaska that she's done no wrong and doesn't want to do anything wrong, then why doesn't she just backtrack and say you know what, you're right, I talked about transparency and open government, let's get right on that.
The fact that anyone can look at all this and not see anything suspicious just goes to show how blindly one can follow a political ideology, regardless of who's "championing" the cause, which she certainly is not as far as what Republicans truly want in office. Is it really enough for you that she wants to drill? That she wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade? What on Earth can people see in this snake? I can understand Alaskans loving her because she's always talked up Alaska first Alaska first but the rest of the nation should be terrified that Palin takes the exact same approach to governing as Bush and Cheney when it comes to divulging information.
P.S. -- Remember that "Bridge to Nowhere"? Still going on. And now there's the completed "Road to nowhere". Oh joy, she's just full of straight talk just like Johnny.
"Teach education" is what they do, when preparing teachers. Compare with "Teach Mathematics".
So it was somebody else's foot in your mouth, I see...
He was not accused of sponsoring it — only of voting for it. Technically, the ad was true...
Your first point identifies how much of a pointlessly pedantic debater you are. Your second point is purely ludicrous and false, it was chalked up as his one accomplishment, why would anyone seriously say that it's anything of an accomplishment to simply vote for a bill? Technically, the ad was false and it used heavy suggestion and spin to make it seem like Obamas position included teaching "comprehensive sex education" to kindergartners.
I'm done feeding this troll, all you're interested in doing is trying to justify the dishonorable campaign a man I used to respect has been running. Instead of backpedaling when you should realize you were shown wrong, you insist on trying to cloud the real topic of discussion, just like the man you're defending.
We should stop wasting our efforts with any kind of government sponsored sex-ed. Leave it to the parents.
Besides, none of it works, anyway.
You might find this interesting if you truly believe that no sex-ed works other than what a parent passes on to their children. There's a world of difference when it comes to the effectiveness of comprehensive sexual education as opposed to none or abstinence-only programs, and if we look at pregnancy rates and STD rates in areas where young people aren't being informed properly, we start to see that maybe we should look at re-examining our approach to a subject that has a deep impact on everyone in our society.
Are you a fucking moron? From the first paragraph:
Legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners. If you're going to try to argue semantics at least do it right you typical windbag. Furthermore, as outlined in the page I just linked you to, "And the bill, which would have allowed only 'age appropriate' material and a no-questions-asked opt-out policy for parents, was not his accomplishment to claim in any case, since he was not even a cosponsor - and the bill never left the state Senate."
So what the hell are you talking about again? This is legislation he didn't sponsor that had plenty of ways for parents to keep the information away from their children if they so desired. Get a clue before you start trying to act like some pathetic internet toughguy on Slashdot.
P.S. -- You don't have to answer every single goddamn "WHY?" question a child asks, and if you're trying to tell them don't talk to strangers, don't take candy from strangers, and don't let strangers treat you like you're their best friend, and here's what to look out for, you are in no way saying the bad man wants to get off on you with his penis. Jesus Christ, you must be a horrible person to ask for directions and advice for sensitive subjects if you haven't the slightest idea how to speak in generalities and non-specifics when necessary.
Uhhh, that was my point, that no child was taught about sex-education or was going to be taught sex-education and yet McCain's campaign loudly proclaimed it so. Is there a plane whooshing over my head right now because honestly, I don't see how my post was saying anything but there was no children being taught about sex-education. Lies shouldn't have been put in quotation marks in your message, as that's quite literally the kind of mud the Republicans have been slinging.
How is it technically true at all to claim, among other things, that Obama sponsored legislation meant to teach kindergarten students about sex-ed, when really it was mandating that children be informed about sexual predators and what to do if caught in a bad situation? Oh, wait, it's not, it is an outright lie. If I were to start a self-defense class that also happens to focus on what to do in a rape scenario, are you seriously going to argue that I'm teaching sex-ed?
That's a good question, and I guess when it comes down to it I don't endorse it but I don't frown upon it either. People manage to get private WoW servers, I think that's cool and fine, but obviously Blizzard doesn't. My experience with them was less than satisfactory though, personally. Too much lag and not enough players, and it's easy to see why. If you want a free MMO, there are plenty to choose from anyways from my viewpoint.
As for his question, World of Warcraft is DRM free, and the upcoming WOTLK is also supposed to be free of it too!
I guess that count as a particularly major title :)
Not sure how you can say that World of Warcraft is DRM free. You are required to pay a periodic licensing fee and authenticate every time you try to use the software. If you have not paid your licensing fee the software will not operate. That is a form of DRM.
Not saying that I endorse this sort of thing but World of Warcraft can easily be made to play on servers other than the Blizzard ones, so you don't really have to pay for anything unless you actually want to play on Blizzards servers.
Most /. users do make backups. Most users do not make backups. These are two very different groups and an important distinction to make when you're talking about system security. People are simply pointing out that personal documents are far more valuable than a hosed system a lot of the time, and rather than saying you have an interesting point and just accepting the fact of the matter, you make the excuse that people should be performing regular backups in the first place. This is the real world, and most people do not bother with that step even if it were feasible for them to do so.
Besides, how do backups help you when your personal information is stolen? Does the fact that you still have it once it's wiped change the fact that the attacker now has it as well? Backups prevent you from losing data, not from having it stolen.
I didn't play around much with Time Machine when I had 10.5.2 installed on my box but I don't think I could've used it a whole lot anyways since, among other things, it doesn't really work well with FileVault. Hopefully in future revisions to Time Machine they address these deficiencies and turn it into the great product it should be. More to the point of the discussion, would it not be possible for the malware to simply tamper with the Time Machine backup while it's doing its damage? Up until not too long ago you could even launch applications automatically from within a Time Machine backup.
Yeah, the tiny flaw in that plan is the "keeping your dick in your pants" part.
Where does personal responsibility - specifically, facing the consequences of your actions - enter in your world?
Supremely amusing to see people getting their panties in a twist over simply trying to make sure that people take every precaution possible with whatever course of action they take. Unless you're not taking the position that sex-ed promotes risky behavior. If there's anything that studies have shown about sex-ed it's that it has a drastic effect on reducing teen pregnancy and STD transmission rates. Sorry bub, but safe sex is not a myth, and people need to be educated about it.
Personal responsibility and safe sex go hand in hand, abstinence-only education is the truly irresponsible and in my eyes indefensible position considering all the evidence gathered thus far.
You tell me who's going to wind up getting an STD, little Jimmy who knows what to look for and what to do to be safe when things get hot and heavy, or little Johnny who doesn't know the first thing about safe sex and things to look out for. I'd wager Jimmy has a higher chance of not getting screwed by someone who is not honest with him about their sexual history while Johnny laments that he was never encouraged and educated on the proper ways to be safe while playing with fire.
Really, I think what the abstinence-only crowds driving motivation is is that they simply can't stand the notion that people are getting away with having more sex than them with more partners than them and have to find some way to bitch and piss and moan about it. Was gonna post anonymously but I just don't give a hoot anymore what this does to my karma, goodness knows I've got years of it to burn.
I didn't address that issue in my reply to that other post because I happen to agree that it's at best stupid to try to prevent someone from releasing their source code for something they wrote and spent time creating. Slapping a FORBIDDEN sticker on a chunk of knowledge/information is not an effective way to combat it, and Blizzard would be much better off whether they realize it now or not by actually letting these programs have the source code completely exposed. All the easier to patch your client and keep up the arms race. Stupid at best, and a combination of dangerous/difficult to enforce/unethical at worst, but the question is if it's without precedent, and I would think there is a significant chance that there is.
I've seen macroing from the Ultima Online days and I've seen Glider use from the more modern World of Warcraft. They are nowhere near the same thing nor are they anywhere near the same realm of ease of use. You really are sounding like you've never seen just how easy Glider makes it to play your character without ever actually playing your character. Take a look at how things work.