I really wish there was one. I have never owned any apple system and hacn't used one since those shoebox looking ones with the 5' screen. I am hesitant to buy one without having any real experience with one.
That is part of democracy. You support the individual(s) whose election will benefit you or your company the most. This support can come in the form of votes or donations.
The screen size is the turnoff to me. A 12' screen is way too small for me to get anything done on.
I was considering buying the 12 inch powerbook until I actually saw the screen sitting next to the 15. Now I am sure that I do not want a twelve inch but don't want to pay the extra for the 15 inch.
I agree that this is agood idea. Instead of blocking all mail that is not on their list what about just taking a cue from the current spam filtering technologies and put "[unverified]" in the subject line. That way the user could have a choice of whether or not to block all mail from unverified domains.
No, that is the democracy that the US is based on.
The fathers of the US Government were very careful to not have a direct democracy. It is impossible to keep all the voters informed completely about the situatino they are to vote on.
So you elect intelligent people that you believe will act in the best interst of you and the country. This is what the US congress did. Congress has available to it vast amounts of intelligence that the general public does not get to see.
This thread alone is enough of a argument against direct democracy: hundreds of false statements based on ignorance and propeganda on both sides of the issue.
I know there was a brief period of racially related vandalism and discrimination against arab-americans and even indian-americans. That was brief. But saying there were lots of race-related murders is flat otu distorting the facts and trolling.
Comparing a few ingnorant murders to a government sponsored genocide killing millions of people is a little off.
) are the Iraqis (in general) actually any better off now than they were under Saddam?
b) will they be better off than they were under Saddam a year after the US occupation ends?
c) does the same justification apply to Libera, the Congo, the USA, etc?
I do pity the Iraqis who suffered under Saddam and his cronies, but I fear we've done them a great harm under a false pretext. After they've suffered a US invasion, a resistance movement to the US occupation, and a civil war when ever the US finally pulls out, do you really suppose they'll be sending us a thank-you note?
I have a very good friend who is an officer in western Iraq at this moment. He has access to the Internet and news media so he knows whats being reported and how its being reported and can compare that to what he is experiencing. He told me to flat out not believe it. It may be true in some areas but not in all of Iraq. There is very little violence where he is located, the people are appreciative of what the US has done there.
I know thi sis not true for all of the country. I also know that all of the country is not worse off after the war.
...and after Saddam one of his (possibly even more brutal) sons was set to take power.
From what I understand that was one of the main reasons for not taking out Saddam after the first war. The goal of the first war was not regime change. The US believed that if Saddam was killed, his successor would be much worse.
I havn't looked that that site for some time. I wasn't awre that there is a dropdown. In that case, it sounds like thet site is broken and they obviously don't care enough about the European users to fix it.
I guess I don't see the big deal here. Mapquest is a US based company is it not? You can't drive from Paris, KY to Paris, France so why should a US based map provider provide those directions?
You can however drive between different European countries so I can see where those sites would find Paris France.
Perhaps an additional dropdown taht specifies the country would take care of the need for so many different mapquests.
This may be true if they use the exact same compression scheme. Here is a very basic example: say one technology (A) to compress the number 213 devides by 7 and another (B) devides by 9. To encode by A, decode by A and encode by B:
Now when you go to decode B, you get 23*9 = 207. So you see, there is no way to get back to the original number. It's the same idea here with audio compression.
The odd thing about it is there is a un-maximize button that serves no purpose without a maximize button (this is the same button on Windows, for those that don't know - it changes states depending on the state the window is in). It has the effect of slightly resizing the window in an unpredictable way. The whole thing is just not well thought out.
Double-clicking the titlebar kind of serves as a maximize button but not completely. I haven't played around with to too much but seemed that if you double click it and set the size you want, after you hit the restore button and double click, it would go back to that size. I could be wrong about this and I don't know whether or not it is saved on application close.
When I hear the term "Market Share," I once again think of profit. Perhaps that is incorrect though.
I don't doubt one bit that any non-IE browser that makes headway will be great for the online community. I just see no reason why apple should spend their time and money to port safari where they would receive no profit.
iTunes was also ported, at least partially, to slow the adoption of WMA
While that is definitely a positive benefit, the windows port to iTunes is definitely profit based. No profit-oriented company would spend months of development and untold amounts of money just to stop the spread of wma.
WMA is not going away. All new portible players except the iPod support WMA, none that I know of support AAC other then the iPod. So basically Apple had the choice of add in support of wma to the iPod, port iTunes to windows or lose the popularity of the iPod on windows.
So it was a no brainer; port iTunes to windows, maintain and possibly increase the iPods user base and profit from the music store.
It is very naive to think this this decision was anything other then profit based. Apple exists to make profit, not to spite Microsoft
Apple would sell more Macs because willing people previously unable to switch because of that Windows-only web site they had to use as part of their job would then be able to.
I think you are way here as well. I have not used IE on a personal level for over a year now and, although I know they exist, I have yet to find a web site that is not Mozilla compatible. I seriously doubt that non-IE incompatible web sites are keeping users from switching to mac. Plus, even though it's no longer supported, there is an IE for the mac.
I just don't see any economic benefit to apple porting safari.
I bought a 2-year warrenty from best-buy when i bout the iPod because of the battery problems I had heard of. I think my iPod is suddenly experiencing those problems. Anyway, now I can get a 20GB iPod for what I paid for my 10GB...and the new ones have Solitaire on them! What more could a Windows user want?
You obviously either didn't read the description of the update or my original post. This update is for the iPods with the dock, i.e. 3rd generation iPods.
Could we see Safari for Windows soon? Or more "insanely great" software on Windows--and not from Microsoft
No. iTunes was only proted because Apple will profit from it. Apple will not profit one bit from a port of Safari or any of the other iLife suite. Further ports would probably hurt them more then it would help them. If all of apples software is available for windows, that's one less reason to switch to mac
Is the performance decent? Does it "feel" like a windows application and not some crummy port like Quicktime?
(I realize I am going to get a bunch of smart-assed remarks about how it doesn't feel like a windows app because it doesn't crash. You all know that's not what I'm asking.)
First of all, my 2nd generation Windows ipod still does not play AAC files. Apple should have released an update with iTunes. They did, update the 3rd generation iPods to use all those nifty new accessories like the mic.
Secondly, anyone know the download size of iTunes?
Slashdot Mirror
Too bad there's no 2-week test drive option
I really wish there was one. I have never owned any apple system and hacn't used one since those shoebox looking ones with the 5' screen. I am hesitant to buy one without having any real experience with one.
That is part of democracy. You support the individual(s) whose election will benefit you or your company the most. This support can come in the form of votes or donations.
yeah but the powerbook is so much prettier...
I am planning on looking at that. I was just commenting on why someone wouldnt want that "excellent deal" for under $1000
The screen size is the turnoff to me. A 12' screen is way too small for me to get anything done on.
I was considering buying the 12 inch powerbook until I actually saw the screen sitting next to the 15. Now I am sure that I do not want a twelve inch but don't want to pay the extra for the 15 inch.
I agree that this is agood idea. Instead of blocking all mail that is not on their list what about just taking a cue from the current spam filtering technologies and put "[unverified]" in the subject line. That way the user could have a choice of whether or not to block all mail from unverified domains.
No, that is the democracy that the US is based on.
The fathers of the US Government were very careful to not have a direct democracy. It is impossible to keep all the voters informed completely about the situatino they are to vote on.
So you elect intelligent people that you believe will act in the best interst of you and the country. This is what the US congress did. Congress has available to it vast amounts of intelligence that the general public does not get to see.
This thread alone is enough of a argument against direct democracy: hundreds of false statements based on ignorance and propeganda on both sides of the issue.
Lots??? Back that up with numbers.
I know there was a brief period of racially related vandalism and discrimination against arab-americans and even indian-americans. That was brief. But saying there were lots of race-related murders is flat otu distorting the facts and trolling.
Comparing a few ingnorant murders to a government sponsored genocide killing millions of people is a little off.
) are the Iraqis (in general) actually any better off now than they were under Saddam?
b) will they be better off than they were under Saddam a year after the US occupation ends?
c) does the same justification apply to Libera, the Congo, the USA, etc?
I do pity the Iraqis who suffered under Saddam and his cronies, but I fear we've done them a great harm under a false pretext. After they've suffered a US invasion, a resistance movement to the US occupation, and a civil war when ever the US finally pulls out, do you really suppose they'll be sending us a thank-you note?
I have a very good friend who is an officer in western Iraq at this moment. He has access to the Internet and news media so he knows whats being reported and how its being reported and can compare that to what he is experiencing. He told me to flat out not believe it. It may be true in some areas but not in all of Iraq. There is very little violence where he is located, the people are appreciative of what the US has done there.
I know thi sis not true for all of the country. I also know that all of the country is not worse off after the war.
...and after Saddam one of his (possibly even more brutal) sons was set to take power.
From what I understand that was one of the main reasons for not taking out Saddam after the first war. The goal of the first war was not regime change. The US believed that if Saddam was killed, his successor would be much worse.
Well that's the difference here. Once side has facts. The other does not.
I havn't looked that that site for some time. I wasn't awre that there is a dropdown. In that case, it sounds like thet site is broken and they obviously don't care enough about the European users to fix it.
Besides...There is SOOO much more to do in Paris, Ky then in Paris, France.
I guess I don't see the big deal here. Mapquest is a US based company is it not? You can't drive from Paris, KY to Paris, France so why should a US based map provider provide those directions?
You can however drive between different European countries so I can see where those sites would find Paris France.
Perhaps an additional dropdown taht specifies the country would take care of the need for so many different mapquests.
More likely because of the feuding between the Beatle's Apple record label and Apple's iTMS.
This may be true if they use the exact same compression scheme. Here is a very basic example:
say one technology (A) to compress the number 213 devides by 7 and another (B) devides by 9. To encode by A, decode by A and encode by B:
213 -encodeA-> (int) 213/7 = 30
30 -decodeA-> 30 * 7 = 210
210 -encodeB-> 210/13 = 23
Now when you go to decode B, you get 23*9 = 207. So you see, there is no way to get back to the original number. It's the same idea here with audio compression.
The odd thing about it is there is a un-maximize button that serves no purpose without a maximize button (this is the same button on Windows, for those that don't know - it changes states depending on the state the window is in). It has the effect of slightly resizing the window in an unpredictable way. The whole thing is just not well thought out.
Double-clicking the titlebar kind of serves as a maximize button but not completely. I haven't played around with to too much but seemed that if you double click it and set the size you want, after you hit the restore button and double click, it would go back to that size. I could be wrong about this and I don't know whether or not it is saved on application close.
Go to the source of the Internet....Al Gore
When I hear the term "Market Share," I once again think of profit. Perhaps that is incorrect though.
I don't doubt one bit that any non-IE browser that makes headway will be great for the online community. I just see no reason why apple should spend their time and money to port safari where they would receive no profit.
iTunes was also ported, at least partially, to slow the adoption of WMA
While that is definitely a positive benefit, the windows port to iTunes is definitely profit based. No profit-oriented company would spend months of development and untold amounts of money just to stop the spread of wma.
WMA is not going away. All new portible players except the iPod support WMA, none that I know of support AAC other then the iPod. So basically Apple had the choice of add in support of wma to the iPod, port iTunes to windows or lose the popularity of the iPod on windows.
So it was a no brainer; port iTunes to windows, maintain and possibly increase the iPods user base and profit from the music store.
It is very naive to think this this decision was anything other then profit based. Apple exists to make profit, not to spite Microsoft
Apple would sell more Macs because willing people previously unable to switch because of that Windows-only web site they had to use as part of their job would then be able to.
I think you are way here as well. I have not used IE on a personal level for over a year now and, although I know they exist, I have yet to find a web site that is not Mozilla compatible. I seriously doubt that non-IE incompatible web sites are keeping users from switching to mac. Plus, even though it's no longer supported, there is an IE for the mac.
I just don't see any economic benefit to apple porting safari.
I bought a 2-year warrenty from best-buy when i bout the iPod because of the battery problems I had heard of. I think my iPod is suddenly experiencing those problems. Anyway, now I can get a 20GB iPod for what I paid for my 10GB...and the new ones have Solitaire on them! What more could a Windows user want?
You obviously either didn't read the description of the update or my original post. This update is for the iPods with the dock, i.e. 3rd generation iPods.
u pd ate13.html
This is the most recent 2nd generation update
http://www.apple.com/ipod/download/ipodsoftware
Could we see Safari for Windows soon? Or more "insanely great" software on Windows--and not from Microsoft
No. iTunes was only proted because Apple will profit from it. Apple will not profit one bit from a port of Safari or any of the other iLife suite. Further ports would probably hurt them more then it would help them. If all of apples software is available for windows, that's one less reason to switch to mac
I seriously doubt it. iTunes was ported for profit. Safari would not be worth the trouble.
Is the performance decent? Does it "feel" like a windows application and not some crummy port like Quicktime?
(I realize I am going to get a bunch of smart-assed remarks about how it doesn't feel like a windows app because it doesn't crash. You all know that's not what I'm asking.)
First of all, my 2nd generation Windows ipod still does not play AAC files. Apple should have released an update with iTunes. They did, update the 3rd generation iPods to use all those nifty new accessories like the mic.
Secondly, anyone know the download size of iTunes?