Not mentioning the 90nm problem that plagues more than just IBM, I think speed bumps are fine these days, and a "massive" update is not necessary, even for the Mac faithful... People bitch when Apple doesn't release anything for a long time, and people bitch when they do, and it's not the super 800% jump they were promised. Some people just plain like to bitch, I guess. I don't think the Mac faithful are "defending" the speed bump. I think the detractors are just trying to find a way to say "LOOK! I told YOU APPLE SUCKED!! SEE?!?!?" And the Apple faithful, strangely, like to feed the trolls.
3.0GHZ would be a "modest" bump too in terms of comparisons. It's not like they doubled processor speed if they went from 2.5 to 3.:) Look at some of Intel's recent bumps. Ignoring price, their updates have been less than dramatic to say the least. Thank goodness AMD is eating at their heels and forcing Intel to at least do a 64-bit chip that doesn't sink like the Titanic.
Super chip updates are slowing down across the board.. That's fine with me... Powermacs, and even the new iMacs are marvels of design, and they sound like a mere whisper compared to my PCs. They are reliable and powerful. They are a testament to Apple's engineering skill. And I love OS X. Windows can jump in a lake for all I care.
When they go dual core, I'll think about another Powermac to co-exist with my current DP2.0 G5. Until then, it's nice to see that Apple's moving the line forward. And should I ever get a wild hair and replace my venerable G4-733.... It'll be another Powermac.:) Apple just makes good stuff... at least it's been my experience...
If they weren't so all fired in a hurry to try and steal Apple's thunder, they'd have kept it under wraps a bit longer. This is their attempt to "look at me! look at me!" and then wondering why no one is looking. They should not try to out-market Apple right now. They can't.... Not with a pre-beta product compared to a mature OS in it's 4th major revision. That's not a slam against Microsoft, it's just their corporate culture blundering them into things that are going to under-whelm.
"Look at our houseframe! It's TONS better than that completed mansion over there! No really!"
Nope. iTunes CD: $10 Store CD: $13 minimum. usually $15.
$5 savings for not buying it in the store. Simple math, even you can figure it out.
Hate the DRM? Burn to CD, rip back to itUnes. Apple can tell you the music's not yours anymore, but not the ones I ripped back to mp3. Sorry, that argument doesn't hold water AT all. Think things through...
No more rental. No more DRM. No problem. No Apple control. It's NOT rental if I can do that.
Try that with the "burn capable songs" of a rental places like Napster. Oh wait, they tell YOU what you can burn and cannot burn to CD. THAT is rental. Sure it might work for "some" tracks, but if they can tell you what you can and can't burn to CD, THAT is rental in my book.
I for one would rather Apple have more leverage in this with regard to their negotiations with the tyrannical RIAA. If they did, you'd see considerably less restriction on the music, if any at all. Remember, Apple isn't the one pushing the DRM, the RIAA is. Apple couldn't care less if the music got shared by some people. Attractive pricing, a good model (iTunes/iPod fit like a glove), and an ever-growing catalog of music (including independent and niche artists) are what is driving Apple's success. The DRM is a lead weight that keeps it from becoming even more huge, thanks to the RIAA.
In the case of the Apple DRM, It's at least easy, if not slightly convenient, to remove the DRM if you had to, but that's really not the point I suppose. This whole "copy protected" music idea has done nothing that it was intended to do, except inconvenience those of us who don't use P2P to get our music.
I am glad I can put the tunes on my iPod and iPod Shuffle, and I am glad I can burn copies for my archive and my road mixes. If the store were to close tomorrow, I have an advantage over other online music purchasers.... I get to keep my music. They don't. THANKS, RIAA!:)
I can't understand how anyone would allow themselves to be subjected to MUSIC RENTAL. It's got to be the DUMBEST idea since Divx. (the dvd "rental" model.)
As for crippled CD's, I've gotten two so far. Both of them from record labels that I would consider non-mainstream. I won't buy any more of their records. Period. If they consider that to be a "loss to piracy", they can get bent. It's a loss because my stereo (my macintosh) won't play the music. Sell me a broken product, and you won't have me as a customer very long. I don't give second chances.
I had college friends who dropped out because of MUDs... couldn't stop playing them, even to the detriment of their schoolwork. It was easy to find them, though. They never left the computer labs..
Of course all I call that is a lack of discipline. Like this "brilliant" kid. Tell him _NO_ once in a while so he can get used to it when he grows up... and maybe he won't be Everquest (or MUD) fodder.:)
Spoiled little brats... getting all that they can possibly want, and appreciating none of it.
I didn't mention it before (it's late.. heh) but I appreciate your insights in the discussion. You've been able to wade through the hype and hyperbole, and that is always a good thing(TM).:)
It wasn't me who brought this up the first time, so I'll reiterate what the poster in the scribus mailing list said:
"True. Also, it is note worthy to point out that using gpl licensed fonts in a document makes the document a derived work of the font and therefore, subject to the gpl."
Perhaps we need a definition of "document"? The format of the document? The layout codes and so forth? That I'd buy. The content? That is a tough sell.
The question remains, can the GPL be interpreted as such? I realize it is not suitable for fonts if this is the case, however, no one has made any clear distinction between what was said and what was interpreted in the mailing list.
First, the salesman of the hammer does not require you to submit to not reselling, abusing, or loaning the hammer to whom you see fit. You sign no license agreement with the hammer maker or seller to use the hammer in any way, subject to any method the hammer is used for. Want to drive screws in with your hammer? Home Depot is not going to sue you for violating the hammer's license. If the GPL font owner requires derivative works to be GPL also, the font is not like a hammer in any way. It is more like a library used to build a program, which the font is not.
However, what your analogy is showing (and I am only going on the scribus mailing list) is that if you use the GPLed hammer in your house, that you now must license your house as a derived work of the hammer. Now, someone is either mistaking the intent of the GPL, or it's all a lot of hot air.
The assumption here is, as you said "once you remove the font you can do what you want with your copyrighted text." That cannot be the case, even with embedded fonts, because the font was not used in creation of the work itself and the work itself can exist without the font. Therefore it was not used in the creation of the document as would be required to GPL it.
My point is, you should be able to do what you want with it _with_ the font in the document. The true meaning of a font is like a real hammer. It is used to build the document, but you can use your fist or a shoe if you have to, the house will not look as pretty, but it will still be a house. Once you've built the house, the hammer is no longer required, regardless of how it was used. Even if you keep it in the garage once you're done.
The only really conclusive point to this story is how the GPL is being interpreted. And it is showing how people can fundamentally misunderstand the meaning of the content. If that is the case, it needs to be clarified rather than argued over in forums.
Otherwise, confusion will still reign. Regardless of how "misunderstood" the whole font or typeface issue is. Simply put, we're still at square one until someone clarifies the GPL or proclaims that the GPL cannot be used for fonts.
Not bad, considering 98 and XP cost me more. ($99 + $199) So it happened farther apart. Add 2000 into that mix and I'd really be paying through the nose...
Just because it comes out faster, doesn't make it THAT much more expensive. I could've waited for Tiger had I wanted to, despite all the trolls saying "you gotta have the latest..." no you don't, Not even Microsoft forces you to upgrade. If it works for you, use it. If not, get the newer version. Simple as that.
And by "you guys" I assume a Mac user? You guys need to lighten up with the penis envy. You really do. Buy a Mini. They're cheap enough even for you Windows Fanbois.
By "own" I meant Microsoft dictating what license you can apply to the document. They have standard license stuff, I'm sure, but nothing that says _what_ you write in Word belongs to, is subject to, any other license than what you put on it yourself. The distinction is how to handle the difference between the document "format" and the content of the document. Since both are not necessarily mutually exclusive, the kneejerk initial interpretation is "the words are now GPLed until you ditch the font."
The fact that this can be interpreted as possible under the GPL with GPL'ed fonts is somewhat disturbing. Clarification is in order, to be sure. The original post from the Scribus mailing list wasn't all that clear either.
If you can re-license it any way you please, as long as it's GPL, that's not really any way you please, is it? It saddles you with a certain obligation that documents should never have. End documents that embed fonts aren't the same as, to my way of looking at it, code. It's just not the same conceptual model in my head.
This sounds kinda like Henry Ford saying "you can buy the Ford in any color you want, as long as it's black."
The words can still be used without the font, and the meaning, value, or level of protection needed do not change as a result of removing the font (other than how the document looks), how can the GPL "infect" the content of the document? I am confusing myself just thinking about it all.:)
IOW, the font is not dictating the content of the message. The font is merely the display of the message. Having that dictate the license is confusing...
Simple solution: Make the font GPL, but if you use it in documentation, it's not subject to GPL, only if the font's used in a program like Scribus, Word, Open Office, and so forth.
That way the font can be used by anyone to make a proprietary document, but if you intend to use the font for your program, you have to abide by the GPL.
Thus, end users are exempted from putting their documents under the GPL (that just sounds dang odd... my words are now GPLed because of the font I used?) I don't recall Microsoft owning my documents because I used their Wingdings font. (file formats are another matter, however indirect they may be...)
I could be wrong, but I'm sure that would've popped up by now.
Since Windows XP comes with most computers, and well, 98 with most PCs before that. It cost $99 to "upgrade" to XP. (or more for Pro)... So for $30, you get an OS that is more than 2000 with a new skin. And home's not the same as Tiger. There is no "home" edition of Tiger, crippled for the masses.
Of course 98 -> XP was a good deal. But 2000 -> XP wasn't such a big leap. And since XP Pro was considerably more to upgrade to, 2000 -> XP Home lost you a few features.
I'll pay the extra $30 (and with rebates, I am paying less than the upgrade price for XP) for an OS as good as Tiger.
Just thought I'd give some perspective on pricing. $129 seems like a lot, but considering the price of XP, well, you get the idea.
heheh. Like the local cable service here saying "what business does the power company have doing cable service?"
Before we got the local (municipally owned) power company's broadband/cable service, the local Comcast affiliate was "waiting on equipment" for broadband rollout (waiting forever almost.) And since SBC (Phht. ACK. Spit on their GRAVES) doesn't roll out DSL city-wide, we were waiting for some competition to spur on the monopolies. (put it in the poorest section, don't get many subscribers, then claim there's no market for it? GREAT IDEA local phone monopoly!).
Once the vote for our power company to do cable/internet service was in, not more than a week later, broadband was suddenly available from Comcast "city-wide." Uh huh. Must've been waiting for the universal remote to control the broadband or something, and it came in via UPS in the nick of time.
VERY Cool. This sort of thing should catch on more. I hope it does, really. Because we've seen the Japanese love of their game soundtracks start to trickle over here, so as it begins to grow, perhaps the US can pick up that habit as well.
Of course anyone who was into the Amiga can attest to their disks full of demos and mods.:)
The Machinae Supremacy game soundtrack "Jets'N'Guns" is very good, actually.
the RIAA sues for extortion money. NOT the same. Poor college students PAY $$ to the RIAA to avoid being taken to court. Thinksecret would've never been sued if they'd given up the name of the Apple employee who leaked the info. Not even in small-claims court.
BIG DIFFERENCE. And if Thinksecret gave up their source of the leak, NO lawsuit. Can you say that about the RIAA? Nope. Not hardly.
Not even the same species. If you can't see that, well....
Precisely what I was driving at, and yes, we are all fickle.. which is why I'm glad we don't get to make the decisions sometimes. (Though sometimes we do.)
I just strongly disagree that Apple is anywhere NEAR the RIAA.
They're not suing their customers. They're suing to get information. The RIAA is extorting money from its customers. BIG DIFFERENCE.
Keep thinking that... your moral high ground, as it were. I can see by the thread that there is no convincing you of the situation.
To you, it's "EEEEVIL CORPORATION #120321309123" vs. "Super duper Little Guy!"
It's obvious you have blinders on, and if you're this inflexible when the facts do not bear you out, I can imagine you're just plain inflexible.
Apple/Microsoft/whoever. This is not anywhere NEAR the situation you paint it to be.... but hey, I'm just a person in a long line of people trying to convince you of that.
Type away... If it helps you sleep better at night, have at it. Just don't pretend you're right... because you're not.
No, it's not. Microsoft, Little Green Men, Apple, The Government of Zamunda.... IT DOESN'T MATTER.
It's whether the information gathered by ThinkSecret is "in the public's interest" and thereby protected Journalist->Source privilege. It has to be decided ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. AS the judge has RULED on the matter. And guess what? Leaked NDA protected items from Apple about upcoming products is NOT in the public's interest. Surprised? I certainly hope not.
READ, people. Just READ... It's not hard to do... just READ.
I'd rather think it's not necessarily that it is aimed at Americans, but those who it is aimed at aren't in tune with the rest of the population (studio execs, as it were).
I think when genuinely funny/talented/witty writers get to hollywood, they fall into the trap of "I must make a safe picture to get money so I can do my dream picture", and they never get to do the latter, because no one accepts anything but the original "safe" screenplay originally produced.
Not to mention Hollywood's run like the world's worst corporation.:) I am never truly enthused anymore about book to movie deals, because unless the book's a "safe" story, the movie will be "safe" regardless of the original author's intent.
I'll go see the movie, simply because a bad adaptation of HHGTG is better than nothing.:)
Eh... it's just more illustration that Lucas is trying to take a story and gear it towards kids. I'm not entirely angry that he does things this way, but I do think the last two movies have been about how much CGI one can cram into a scene.
It's like the first time you figure out how to do something in Photoshop and you make pictures with 1000 effects exactly the same...:) It's as if he has found you can put CGI into something and make it look realistic, so let's add the kitchen sink!
No doubt the visuals are stunning, but at the expense of moving the story along, I think that has made Lucas lose his way.
George, (because I KNOW he reads Slashdot)....
Let ILM do the thinking about CGI. You concentrate on the story and see what they come up with.:) Don't visit every 20 seconds asking "hey, can we put in a 500 foot fish in this scene? You know, just swimming by..." And don't write your story around what you can put in the CGI scenes. Don't spend 3 days making engine sounds unique for the Pod Racers.
Of course they're going to say "yes", George. You're their boss.:)
"In episode 31 where you're on planet blah blah and have to get into the safe to extract a nublimean stinkfoffer... my friends and I have been in an argument for some time over this...
I actually found TNG simplistic and overly preachy. It was what Rodenberry wanted to do with the original, but the networks wanted more violence and conflict in general. According to him, they wanted "Wagon Train in space". Which is not such a bad thing, considering the direction he took TNG. But like you said... I am not a Trek-nut either. I wanted to be entertained, and rarely did TNG do that for me. Heck, the cheesy original series had more entertaining moments... mostly courtesy of James "bang it if it's female" Kirk.:)
If I had to pick a good Trek series besides the original, it'd have to be Deep Space 9. It was slow to start off, but once it got its groove, it was a highly entertaining show and had some decent elements in it without trying to preach to me the evils of fossil fuels and totally wimping out at the first sign of an alien lifeboat throwing pebbles at a Galaxy class starship.
I mean honestly. "Let's negotiate." - Picard. "They're shootin!" - Worf. "We surrender!" - Picard.:)
I know it wasn't all that bad, but I liked at least ONCE in a while to violate the prime directive towards violence, rather than some sappy moralistic whatnot.
I'm not a Sci-Fi snob either.. I find most hardcore Sci Fi to be crap. Perhaps a good afternoon's reading once in a while, but most of the time, it's not.
Slashdot Mirror
Not mentioning the 90nm problem that plagues more than just IBM, I think speed bumps are fine these days, and a "massive" update is not necessary, even for the Mac faithful... People bitch when Apple doesn't release anything for a long time, and people bitch when they do, and it's not the super 800% jump they were promised. Some people just plain like to bitch, I guess. I don't think the Mac faithful are "defending" the speed bump. I think the detractors are just trying to find a way to say "LOOK! I told YOU APPLE SUCKED!! SEE?!?!?" And the Apple faithful, strangely, like to feed the trolls.
:) Look at some of Intel's recent bumps. Ignoring price, their updates have been less than dramatic to say the least. Thank goodness AMD is eating at their heels and forcing Intel to at least do a 64-bit chip that doesn't sink like the Titanic.
:) Apple just makes good stuff... at least it's been my experience...
3.0GHZ would be a "modest" bump too in terms of comparisons. It's not like they doubled processor speed if they went from 2.5 to 3.
Super chip updates are slowing down across the board.. That's fine with me... Powermacs, and even the new iMacs are marvels of design, and they sound like a mere whisper compared to my PCs. They are reliable and powerful. They are a testament to Apple's engineering skill. And I love OS X. Windows can jump in a lake for all I care.
When they go dual core, I'll think about another Powermac to co-exist with my current DP2.0 G5. Until then, it's nice to see that Apple's moving the line forward. And should I ever get a wild hair and replace my venerable G4-733.... It'll be another Powermac.
If they weren't so all fired in a hurry to try and steal Apple's thunder, they'd have kept it under wraps a bit longer.
This is their attempt to "look at me! look at me!" and then wondering why no one is looking. They should not try to out-market Apple right now. They can't.... Not with a pre-beta product compared to a mature OS in it's 4th major revision. That's not a slam against Microsoft, it's just their corporate culture blundering them into things that are going to under-whelm.
"Look at our houseframe! It's TONS better than that completed mansion over there! No really!"
Nope. iTunes CD: $10 Store CD: $13 minimum. usually $15.
$5 savings for not buying it in the store. Simple math, even you can figure it out.
Hate the DRM? Burn to CD, rip back to itUnes. Apple can tell you the music's not yours anymore, but not the ones I ripped back to mp3. Sorry, that argument doesn't hold water AT all. Think things through...
No more rental. No more DRM. No problem. No Apple control. It's NOT rental if I can do that.
Try that with the "burn capable songs" of a rental places like Napster. Oh wait, they tell YOU what you can burn and cannot burn to CD. THAT is rental. Sure it might work for "some" tracks, but if they can tell you what you can and can't burn to CD, THAT is rental in my book.
iTunes doesn't. Simple.
I for one would rather Apple have more leverage in this with regard to their negotiations with the tyrannical RIAA. If they did, you'd see considerably less restriction on the music, if any at all. Remember, Apple isn't the one pushing the DRM, the RIAA is. Apple couldn't care less if the music got shared by some people. Attractive pricing, a good model (iTunes/iPod fit like a glove), and an ever-growing catalog of music (including independent and niche artists) are what is driving Apple's success. The DRM is a lead weight that keeps it from becoming even more huge, thanks to the RIAA.
:)
In the case of the Apple DRM, It's at least easy, if not slightly convenient, to remove the DRM if you had to, but that's really not the point I suppose. This whole "copy protected" music idea has done nothing that it was intended to do, except inconvenience those of us who don't use P2P to get our music.
I am glad I can put the tunes on my iPod and iPod Shuffle, and I am glad I can burn copies for my archive and my road mixes. If the store were to close tomorrow, I have an advantage over other online music purchasers.... I get to keep my music. They don't. THANKS, RIAA!
I can't understand how anyone would allow themselves to be subjected to MUSIC RENTAL. It's got to be the DUMBEST idea since Divx. (the dvd "rental" model.)
As for crippled CD's, I've gotten two so far. Both of them from record labels that I would consider non-mainstream. I won't buy any more of their records. Period. If they consider that to be a "loss to piracy", they can get bent. It's a loss because my stereo (my macintosh) won't play the music. Sell me a broken product, and you won't have me as a customer very long. I don't give second chances.
Horse shit.
Nixon? Andrew Jackson? Andrew Johnson? It's interesting that two of those 3 administrations were impeached.
I leave you to look them up.
I had college friends who dropped out because of MUDs... couldn't stop playing them, even to the detriment of their schoolwork. It was easy to find them, though. They never left the computer labs..
:)
Of course all I call that is a lack of discipline. Like this "brilliant" kid. Tell him _NO_ once in a while so he can get used to it when he grows up... and maybe he won't be Everquest (or MUD) fodder.
Spoiled little brats... getting all that they can possibly want, and appreciating none of it.
I didn't mention it before (it's late.. heh) but I appreciate your insights in the discussion. You've been able to wade through the hype and hyperbole, and that is always a good thing(TM). :)
It wasn't me who brought this up the first time, so I'll reiterate what the poster in the scribus mailing list said:
"True. Also, it is note worthy to point out that using gpl licensed fonts in a document makes the document a derived work of the font and therefore, subject to the gpl."
Perhaps we need a definition of "document"? The format of the document? The layout codes and so forth? That I'd buy. The content? That is a tough sell.
The question remains, can the GPL be interpreted as such? I realize it is not suitable for fonts if this is the case, however, no one has made any clear distinction between what was said and what was interpreted in the mailing list.
First, the salesman of the hammer does not require you to submit to not reselling, abusing, or loaning the hammer to whom you see fit. You sign no license agreement with the hammer maker or seller to use the hammer in any way, subject to any method the hammer is used for. Want to drive screws in with your hammer? Home Depot is not going to sue you for violating the hammer's license. If the GPL font owner requires derivative works to be GPL also, the font is not like a hammer in any way. It is more like a library used to build a program, which the font is not.
However, what your analogy is showing (and I am only going on the scribus mailing list) is that if you use the GPLed hammer in your house, that you now must license your house as a derived work of the hammer. Now, someone is either mistaking the intent of the GPL, or it's all a lot of hot air.
The assumption here is, as you said "once you remove the font you can do what you want with your copyrighted text." That cannot be the case, even with embedded fonts, because the font was not used in creation of the work itself and the work itself can exist without the font. Therefore it was not used in the creation of the document as would be required to GPL it.
My point is, you should be able to do what you want with it _with_ the font in the document. The true meaning of a font is like a real hammer. It is used to build the document, but you can use your fist or a shoe if you have to, the house will not look as pretty, but it will still be a house. Once you've built the house, the hammer is no longer required, regardless of how it was used. Even if you keep it in the garage once you're done.
The only really conclusive point to this story is how the GPL is being interpreted. And it is showing how people can fundamentally misunderstand the meaning of the content. If that is the case, it needs to be clarified rather than argued over in forums.
Otherwise, confusion will still reign. Regardless of how "misunderstood" the whole font or typeface issue is. Simply put, we're still at square one until someone clarifies the GPL or proclaims that the GPL cannot be used for fonts.
BTW, I'm not panicked. I'm just curious.
$129 X 2.
Not bad, considering 98 and XP cost me more. ($99 + $199) So it happened farther apart. Add 2000 into that mix and I'd really be paying through the nose...
Just because it comes out faster, doesn't make it THAT much more expensive. I could've waited for Tiger had I wanted to, despite all the trolls saying "you gotta have the latest..." no you don't, Not even Microsoft forces you to upgrade. If it works for you, use it. If not, get the newer version. Simple as that.
And by "you guys" I assume a Mac user? You guys need to lighten up with the penis envy. You really do. Buy a Mini. They're cheap enough even for you Windows Fanbois.
By "own" I meant Microsoft dictating what license you can apply to the document. They have standard license stuff, I'm sure, but nothing that says _what_ you write in Word belongs to, is subject to, any other license than what you put on it yourself. The distinction is how to handle the difference between the document "format" and the content of the document. Since both are not necessarily mutually exclusive, the kneejerk initial interpretation is "the words are now GPLed until you ditch the font."
:)
The fact that this can be interpreted as possible under the GPL with GPL'ed fonts is somewhat disturbing. Clarification is in order, to be sure. The original post from the Scribus mailing list wasn't all that clear either.
If you can re-license it any way you please, as long as it's GPL, that's not really any way you please, is it? It saddles you with a certain obligation that documents should never have. End documents that embed fonts aren't the same as, to my way of looking at it, code. It's just not the same conceptual model in my head.
This sounds kinda like Henry Ford saying "you can buy the Ford in any color you want, as long as it's black."
The words can still be used without the font, and the meaning, value, or level of protection needed do not change as a result of removing the font (other than how the document looks), how can the GPL "infect" the content of the document? I am confusing myself just thinking about it all.
IOW, the font is not dictating the content of the message. The font is merely the display of the message. Having that dictate the license is confusing...
You've Got Lawsuit!
Simple solution: Make the font GPL, but if you use it in documentation, it's not subject to GPL, only if the font's used in a program like Scribus, Word, Open Office, and so forth.
That way the font can be used by anyone to make a proprietary document, but if you intend to use the font for your program, you have to abide by the GPL.
Thus, end users are exempted from putting their documents under the GPL (that just sounds dang odd... my words are now GPLed because of the font I used?) I don't recall Microsoft owning my documents because I used their Wingdings font. (file formats are another matter, however indirect they may be...)
I could be wrong, but I'm sure that would've popped up by now.
Since Windows XP comes with most computers, and well, 98 with most PCs before that. It cost $99 to "upgrade" to XP. (or more for Pro)... So for $30, you get an OS that is more than 2000 with a new skin. And home's not the same as Tiger. There is no "home" edition of Tiger, crippled for the masses.
Of course 98 -> XP was a good deal. But 2000 -> XP wasn't such a big leap. And since XP Pro was considerably more to upgrade to, 2000 -> XP Home lost you a few features.
I'll pay the extra $30 (and with rebates, I am paying less than the upgrade price for XP) for an OS as good as Tiger.
Just thought I'd give some perspective on pricing. $129 seems like a lot, but considering the price of XP, well, you get the idea.
heheh. Like the local cable service here saying "what business does the power company have doing cable service?"
:)
Before we got the local (municipally owned) power company's broadband/cable service, the local Comcast affiliate was "waiting on equipment" for broadband rollout (waiting forever almost.) And since SBC (Phht. ACK. Spit on their GRAVES) doesn't roll out DSL city-wide, we were waiting for some competition to spur on the monopolies. (put it in the poorest section, don't get many subscribers, then claim there's no market for it? GREAT IDEA local phone monopoly!).
Once the vote for our power company to do cable/internet service was in, not more than a week later, broadband was suddenly available from Comcast "city-wide." Uh huh. Must've been waiting for the universal remote to control the broadband or something, and it came in via UPS in the nick of time.
Imagine if we had voted no?
VERY Cool. This sort of thing should catch on more. I hope it does, really. Because we've seen the Japanese love of their game soundtracks start to trickle over here, so as it begins to grow, perhaps the US can pick up that habit as well.
:)
Of course anyone who was into the Amiga can attest to their disks full of demos and mods.
The Machinae Supremacy game soundtrack "Jets'N'Guns" is very good, actually.
You're not getting it.
Apple sued to get the names of the leakers.
the RIAA sues for extortion money. NOT the same. Poor college students PAY $$ to the RIAA to avoid being taken to court. Thinksecret would've never been sued if they'd given up the name of the Apple employee who leaked the info. Not even in small-claims court.
BIG DIFFERENCE. And if Thinksecret gave up their source of the leak, NO lawsuit. Can you say that about the RIAA? Nope. Not hardly.
Not even the same species. If you can't see that, well....
Precisely what I was driving at, and yes, we are all fickle.. which is why I'm glad we don't get to make the decisions sometimes. (Though sometimes we do.)
I just strongly disagree that Apple is anywhere NEAR the RIAA.
They're not suing their customers. They're suing to get information. The RIAA is extorting money from its customers. BIG DIFFERENCE.
If the people were sheep, they'd be GUARANTEED the 8 bucks.
Keep thinking that... your moral high ground, as it were. I can see by the thread that there is no convincing you of the situation.
To you, it's "EEEEVIL CORPORATION #120321309123" vs. "Super duper Little Guy!"
It's obvious you have blinders on, and if you're this inflexible when the facts do not bear you out, I can imagine you're just plain inflexible.
Apple/Microsoft/whoever. This is not anywhere NEAR the situation you paint it to be.... but hey, I'm just a person in a long line of people trying to convince you of that.
Type away... If it helps you sleep better at night, have at it. Just don't pretend you're right... because you're not.
No, it's not. Microsoft, Little Green Men, Apple, The Government of Zamunda.... IT DOESN'T MATTER.
It's whether the information gathered by ThinkSecret is "in the public's interest" and thereby protected Journalist->Source privilege. It has to be decided ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. AS the judge has RULED on the matter. And guess what? Leaked NDA protected items from Apple about upcoming products is NOT in the public's interest. Surprised? I certainly hope not.
READ, people. Just READ... It's not hard to do... just READ.
It's actually people like him who won't be told by some stuffy "paid to be a reviewer" or "has a stake in something" what to think.
Pay your $8, make up your own mind. Don't be a sheep.
Hollywood would rather have the sheep.
I'd rather think it's not necessarily that it is aimed at Americans, but those who it is aimed at aren't in tune with the rest of the population (studio execs, as it were).
:) I am never truly enthused anymore about book to movie deals, because unless the book's a "safe" story, the movie will be "safe" regardless of the original author's intent.
:)
I think when genuinely funny/talented/witty writers get to hollywood, they fall into the trap of "I must make a safe picture to get money so I can do my dream picture", and they never get to do the latter, because no one accepts anything but the original "safe" screenplay originally produced.
Not to mention Hollywood's run like the world's worst corporation.
I'll go see the movie, simply because a bad adaptation of HHGTG is better than nothing.
Eh... it's just more illustration that Lucas is trying to take a story and gear it towards kids. I'm not entirely angry that he does things this way, but I do think the last two movies have been about how much CGI one can cram into a scene.
:) It's as if he has found you can put CGI into something and make it look realistic, so let's add the kitchen sink!
:) Don't visit every 20 seconds asking "hey, can we put in a 500 foot fish in this scene? You know, just swimming by..." And don't write your story around what you can put in the CGI scenes. Don't spend 3 days making engine sounds unique for the Pod Racers.
:)
It's like the first time you figure out how to do something in Photoshop and you make pictures with 1000 effects exactly the same...
No doubt the visuals are stunning, but at the expense of moving the story along, I think that has made Lucas lose his way.
George, (because I KNOW he reads Slashdot)....
Let ILM do the thinking about CGI. You concentrate on the story and see what they come up with.
Of course they're going to say "yes", George. You're their boss.
"In episode 31 where you're on planet blah blah and have to get into the safe to extract a nublimean stinkfoffer... my friends and I have been in an argument for some time over this...
:)
What was the combination to the safe?"
"GET A LIFE, PEOPLE!"
I actually found TNG simplistic and overly preachy. It was what Rodenberry wanted to do with the original, but the networks wanted more violence and conflict in general. According to him, they wanted "Wagon Train in space". Which is not such a bad thing, considering the direction he took TNG. But like you said... I am not a Trek-nut either. I wanted to be entertained, and rarely did TNG do that for me. Heck, the cheesy original series had more entertaining moments... mostly courtesy of James "bang it if it's female" Kirk. :)
:)
If I had to pick a good Trek series besides the original, it'd have to be Deep Space 9. It was slow to start off, but once it got its groove, it was a highly entertaining show and had some decent elements in it without trying to preach to me the evils of fossil fuels and totally wimping out at the first sign of an alien lifeboat throwing pebbles at a Galaxy class starship.
I mean honestly. "Let's negotiate." - Picard. "They're shootin!" - Worf. "We surrender!" - Picard.
I know it wasn't all that bad, but I liked at least ONCE in a while to violate the prime directive towards violence, rather than some sappy moralistic whatnot.
I'm not a Sci-Fi snob either.. I find most hardcore Sci Fi to be crap. Perhaps a good afternoon's reading once in a while, but most of the time, it's not.