I'm not making a snide remark. Furthermore, my original message, while sharp, was personal-attack free. Yours was not. I see that you have trouble arguing this on the merits. That's the sign of a weak argument.
If the poor are content, why did they vote out the rich, elitist Indian government in the last election--something that was a surprise to the elite classes? Could it be that you, like those people who were voted out, were out of touch and didn't see that they were NOT content with the poverty and disease around them? How obnoxiously presumptuous of you.
If you're doing this for symbolic, hopeful reasons, there are FAR better things to do. For example, India could do something that HASN'T BEEN DONE BEFORE so that its symbol isn't one of an also-ran.
As for the "skip your lattes and donate yourself" charge, how dare you assume that I don't already. I'm not exactly doing that well financially, yet I put my money where my mouth is and donate in small and large ways on a very regular basis.
I have every right to assign guilt, and I am doing so. Do not call me a hypocrite.
India has one of the world's largest gaps between the richest and the poor. Literally hundreds of millions of people in the country are starving. The government-supported medical system is an abject failure, with doctors bribing people to get out of their work taking care of the less fortunate while continuing to be paid as if they had actually performed health care services. There are oases of IT work in the biggest cities surrounded by people living in shacks who, due to the social and educational systems of the country, have absolutely no chance at upwards mobility. More minor problems exist too: trains and roads are broken, and the electrical infrastructure is in tatters.
So they want to go to the moon, a feat already accomplished by mankind? How stupid. There's no way the aeronautics industry will contribute to the 'rising tide.'
Seriously, if the country is going to spend money not fixing its rotting social and physical infrastructure, at least pick a problem not yet solved.
When HP was spying on journalists, it was just a trial run for their new partnership with Unisys for spying on victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^H prospective customers.
Indeed, Unisys IS spying on these executives through a company named PHD (which suspiciously contains HP in its name)
"To guarantee the executives in question would see the billboards erected near their offices, field teams from PHD tried to figure out how they might commute to work. In some cases, such as around Citigroup's building on Lexington Avenue in New York, PHD staffers even scoped out local coffee shops and eateries to see where an executive might grab a sandwich, Mr. Von Kennel says."
So how come competition hasn't guaranteed neutrality on the cell phone networks? How come existing cell phone carriers aren't in violation of collusion/monopoly laws?
This is not a situation where competition will magically make things better.
Check out #10: "10. Communications protocols. Microsoft will make available, on commercially reasonable terms, all of the communications protocols that it has built into Windows and that are used to facilitate communication with server versions of Windows"
Where I work, one of my friends was able to use his shopper's club card to get access to doors he didn't have access to, but I did. I thought the odds of that happening must be astronomical, but apparently it's more common than I thought.
If you have Verizon, MCI, AT&T, SBC, or BellSouth for local phone service or long distance, DIAL 0 and complain to the operator.
If you have Cingular, AT&T, or Verizon for cell phone service, DIAL 611 and get a customer service rep on the line to complain to. REMIND THEM THEY ARE IN VIOLATION OF THEIR AGREEMENT WITH YOU, AND THAT YOU CAN SWITCH TO ANOTHER PROVIDER WITHOUT PENALTY.
It's an okay metric for measuring value, but it's the wrong metric to use here.
I'd probably use net revenue. Google obviously can't use its market cap to pay the additional fees that the ISPs will be charging them--they need to use real money. Hence it's probably a much better metric, it makes it clearer that what the ISPs are looking to do is get a cut of Google's revenues. After all, the ISPs keep talking about giving Google etc. a "free ride" -- which is just another way of saying that they want a piece of the action.
Heh, I read the article (as evidenced by me quoting the article). I agree with you. Did you read my post? I was providing quotes which are clearly biased to make the telecom companies look like they're NOT double-dipping. The author of the article was trying to make us feel bad for the 'little' telecom companies against 'big bad Microsoft and Google.' I tried to show that in my post. I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough for you to understand that.
McCullagh's (the author) views on this are well-known. He is against nearly ALL regulation. He WANTS the telecom companies to be able to do whatever they please, including double-dip. I was trying to call attention to his own words that show he's not doing a good job covering this stuff.
I hope this doesn't get modded (-1, flame) but the article is atrocious. McCullagh's libertarian views are well-known, and obvious to any reader of this article. Lowlights:
"levied extensive regulations" -- why not just levied regulations? it's certainly not an objective fact that the regulations are extensive
"broadband providers will be free to design their networks as they see fit" -- why not "free to charge additional fees to content providers?"
"By 'very large companies,' Markey was not referring to Microsoft, which has a market value of $287 billion, but its much smaller value of $101 billion." Not only is that not a valid metric (market value is a crap metric--Google's market value, for example, is egregiously inflated) but pointless: Microsoft will make the same amount of money regardless of regulation.
The worst one is "the Internet industry is being outspent in Washington by more than a 3-to-1 margin." This ignores the tremendous lobbying the Internet industry does in every state, lobbying public utility commissions to shut out rivals everywhere. In Louisiana, the Internet industry is lobbying the state to shut down the free emergency WiFi mesh network in New Orleans--not only disgusting, but an act that requires money that McCullagh isn't counting.
It's possible to have a rational argument about this, but McCullagh's not-veiled-at-all slant doesn't help. What a moron.
I'm going to define 'at the expense of' a little differently. Instead of looking at it as a fixed-cost, such that the original malicious act has an 'expense' which is divided up among all viewers, let's look at it as a necessary precondition. The arousal happens strictly because a malicious act has occurred. There was no other way for that arousal to occur save for committing a malicious act. Hence, though copying a CD is not a malicious act itself, you can't separate arousal from the malicious act.
The CD is a device designed to arouse because it records an illegal, malicious act. If you remove the act, the CD is useless. There is no way to separate the two; it's not a question that there just happens to be kiddie porn on the CD--it is the defining characteristic of the CD that it contains kiddie porn; therefore, it is just as bad as any other copy of the CD (because all of those CDs depend on the original malicious act).
Thus it, and all copies, are at the expense of the original malicious act because they all necessarily depend on that act to have occurred in order to be 'useful' in their purpose of arousing.
I'd prefer to save my strict-interpretation-of-the-law arguments for something less reprehensible.
First, let's presume child porn is immoral. It's not based on an archaic sexual norm because our society holds that underage kids are not capable of making fully competent decisions. Sure, some are: but how do we make a law that coherently defines what a competent underage person is? It doesn't seem possible, so the under-18 standard seems 'good enough' to me. There is very little harm done by preventing under-18s from making porn--nothing that would cause me to get pissed about it. [I would, on the other hand, be willing to argue that they should be able to vote. But let's fix that one before we start trying to define a competent-to-make-sexual decisions under-18]. On the other hand, even allowing one child to be manipulated and molested by participating in creating child porn IS a significant harm--significant enough to override other concerns about sexual mores.
Next let's look at why this is CREATING NEW PORN by looking at what porn is: visual materials designed to arouse an adult. Creating an additional copy of porn (printed or digital) allows another adult to be aroused. In this case, it's arousal at the expense of an underage child who was likely molested against her will. To say that it's not new is to say that there's no effect of that additional copy--an inherently absurd idea.
I think civil liberties should be vigorously defended, and I think there's a line to be drawn about how much regulation should be imposed in order to prevent child porn. (For example, it's absurd to snoop on all Internet users to prevent it--the harm to society posed by a government who spies on everyone is perhaps the greatest possible evil). But to say that knowingly copying a CD containing child porn isn't an act that should be prosecuted under child porn statutes is absurd and only weakens civil libertarians' arguments when they're really important to be made (such as with the NSA spying).
By following these steps, the iMacs that had difficulty with certain EFI modules appear to have been restored to a functioning state:
1. Disconnect the internal hard disk 2. Disconnect the iMac from AC power 3. Plug in AC while holding the power button 4. Power up the iMac and zap NVRAM (cmd-opt-P-R) The hard disk can be reformatted and the operating system restored.
From: Nitesh Dhanjani Subject: Re: Will XCode+ObjC ever suck less? Date: December 25, 2005 5:27:02 PM CST To: sjobs@apple.com
I look forward to the improvements! Thanks,
Nitesh.
On Dec 25, 2005, at 5:10 PM, Steve Jobs wrote:
I guess we disagree. First of all,.NET with CLI and managed code runs SLOW, so most serious developers can't use it because of performance. Second, the libraries in C# are FAR less mature and elegant than those in Cocoa. We are working on a better implementation for garbage collection than we've seen out there so far, but in the end its a performance hit and an unpredictable time that is not good for some kinds of apps.
Steve
On Dec 25, 2005, at 2:36 PM, Nitesh Dhanjani wrote:
Objective C is old and clunky. Its almost 2006, and I _still_ have to look out for yucky pointers? I'd love to be able to write native apps with Ruby (or even C#!.) There are open community projects in progress that are trying to bind ruby and C# (mono) with Cocoa, but I'd love for Apple to step in and make this happen faster. Today, Microsoft seems to be _way_ ahead of the development curve - with their.NET implementation, you are allowed to code using a plethora of languages (C#, Python, VB, etc), as long as the interpreter/compiler follows the IL specification - pointers don't matter, garbage collection is done for you - ah the beautiful world of managed code.
Having said that, most native OSX apps are still beautiful and well designed. Imagine how much better we could do if the developers had a more flexible choice of languages? I can _bet_ you a lot of OSX app developers use Objective C because they have no other choice.
Nitesh.
On Dec 25, 2005, at 3:11 PM, Steve Jobs wrote:
Actually, Objective C is pretty great. Its far nicer than most other ways of writing apps. What don't you like about it? What do you like better?
Steve
On Dec 25, 2005, at 11:59 AM, Nitesh Dhanjani wrote:
Hi Steve
Will it ever be easy to write native OSX GUI apps? Objective C sucks.
"Capacitive sensors under Mighty Mouse's seamless top shell detect where your fingers are and predict your clicking intentions, so you don't need two buttons"
http://www.apple.com/mightymouse/design.html - also note the picture of the sensors. The site is filled with references to this thing not having buttons. The audible clicks come from "a tiny speaker inside Mighty Mouse [that] produces button-clicking and Scroll Ball-rolling sound effects."
The scroll-ball effects sound obnoxious, and the interface screenshots show no way to turn them off. Hmm. Soldering-iron?
Your argument about the US revolution is pretty lacking. One can still accept the revolution as being a 'good thing' ethically and such and still see that rich white men in charge. For most of history, rich white men have been in charge, and they somewhat continue to be in charge today.
The US was built by a lot of hardworking and honest people and by a lot of crooks too. A lot of people profited, but a lot of people died who shouldn't have.
I'm reading about the soldiers who had a serious problem killing Indians right now -- these are good, honest people who IN THE FUCKING EIGHTEENTH CENTURY knew that it was a bad idea for them to be going around and killing Indians. One (a US SOLDIER!) even went so far as to say it was going to doom the country.
So stop spewing right wing crap and think. Also, learn how to spell. It makes you look dumb.
I'll agree with you that there are some college grads who expect those things, but there are also tons who have had many all nighters and have met some really great people who they want to work hard with.
Apple posts Intel docs; No OpenFirmware on x86
on
Apple Switching to Intel
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Apple posted Intel Universal Binary documentation to their website. It's interesting, and everyone should read it. Notable is a caveat that OpenFirmware is going away. That seems to point towards more standard hardwware.
I want something to replace tape backup too -- but this isn't it. The article only talks about pressed HD DVD's, not recordable ones. Place your hopes elsewhere.
Except you'll notice that the article doesn't talk about a triple-layer HD DVD-R format. That's because the DVD forum hasn't really been moving too swiftly on multi-layer recordables at all. Notice that there's no DVD-R DL (that's the Toshiba-led DVD Forum's format) -- only DVD+R DL (the competing Philips-led camp.)
Since we're not going to see DVD-R DL until at least the end of the year, that means we're probably not going to see HD DVD-R until next year, and HD DVD-R triple-layer for years!
The backwards compatibility is great and all. HOWEVER, I'm selfish -- I care far more about a cheap and fast recordable format.
The triple-layer action sounds about as non-recordable as it gets. Given that HD DVD without it has far lower capacity than Blu Ray, I really, really want HD DVD to lose.
Looking at Safari developer Dave Hyatt's blog it looks like he's provided some patches. I'm sure it will take some work to get those into KHTML, but that seems to be a pretty good start to me.
Activate Dashboard, the iChat/Volume/Battery/Clock menus in the menu bar still work and pop up over the Dashboard layer.
Not correct. A click outside a widget dismisses Dashboard.
It's a subtle bug (and I am using a legit final copy of 8A428): 1. Activate Dashboard 2. Move a widget (I tried a sticky and the weather widget) over the Menu Extras area (i.e. iChat/Volume/Clock) 3. Release the mouse button. 4. Click AND HOLD on the widget over where a Menu Extra would appear (i.e. click on the widget where the menu bar clock would be). 5. Drag the mouse. The Menu Extra's menu is revealed.
This does not affect the any of the 'standard' menu items, nor the Apple or Spotlight Menus. It is also possible to initially position the widget over any location in the menu bar, click and hold the widget such that the mouse pointer is over the menu bar, then drag the widget over the menu extras and see the same error.
It's not a big deal. But the problem is still there. =) I accidentally encountered this problem last night.
That is unbelievable. Customer expectations are profit opportunities -- and if he's not willing to satisfy them, someone else will. He's actually angry that customers want service to keep improving!
"They want it to work in the elevator; they want it to work in the basement."
If Verizon won't provide the technology to make that happen, someone will.
How did he get so far? He reminds me of someone who'd say "I wish those customers would stop calling!"
Then again, when you're the CEO of a company that has a monopoly in most of its markets, I guess you can tell customers to f--- off with impunity.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not making a snide remark. Furthermore, my original message, while sharp, was personal-attack free. Yours was not. I see that you have trouble arguing this on the merits. That's the sign of a weak argument.
If the poor are content, why did they vote out the rich, elitist Indian government in the last election--something that was a surprise to the elite classes? Could it be that you, like those people who were voted out, were out of touch and didn't see that they were NOT content with the poverty and disease around them? How obnoxiously presumptuous of you.
If you're doing this for symbolic, hopeful reasons, there are FAR better things to do. For example, India could do something that HASN'T BEEN DONE BEFORE so that its symbol isn't one of an also-ran.
As for the "skip your lattes and donate yourself" charge, how dare you assume that I don't already. I'm not exactly doing that well financially, yet I put my money where my mouth is and donate in small and large ways on a very regular basis.
I have every right to assign guilt, and I am doing so. Do not call me a hypocrite.
India has one of the world's largest gaps between the richest and the poor. Literally hundreds of millions of people in the country are starving. The government-supported medical system is an abject failure, with doctors bribing people to get out of their work taking care of the less fortunate while continuing to be paid as if they had actually performed health care services. There are oases of IT work in the biggest cities surrounded by people living in shacks who, due to the social and educational systems of the country, have absolutely no chance at upwards mobility. More minor problems exist too: trains and roads are broken, and the electrical infrastructure is in tatters.
So they want to go to the moon, a feat already accomplished by mankind? How stupid. There's no way the aeronautics industry will contribute to the 'rising tide.'
Seriously, if the country is going to spend money not fixing its rotting social and physical infrastructure, at least pick a problem not yet solved.
When HP was spying on journalists, it was just a trial run for their new partnership with Unisys for spying on victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^H prospective customers.
Indeed, Unisys IS spying on these executives through a company named PHD (which suspiciously contains HP in its name)
"To guarantee the executives in question would see the billboards erected near their offices, field teams from PHD tried to figure out how they might commute to work. In some cases, such as around Citigroup's building on Lexington Avenue in New York, PHD staffers even scoped out local coffee shops and eateries to see where an executive might grab a sandwich, Mr. Von Kennel says."
So how come competition hasn't guaranteed neutrality on the cell phone networks? How come existing cell phone carriers aren't in violation of collusion/monopoly laws?
This is not a situation where competition will magically make things better.
Check out #10:
"10. Communications protocols. Microsoft will make available, on commercially reasonable terms, all of the communications protocols that it has built into Windows and that are used to facilitate communication with server versions of Windows"
That closes out Open Source, no?
Where I work, one of my friends was able to use his shopper's club card to get access to doors he didn't have access to, but I did. I thought the odds of that happening must be astronomical, but apparently it's more common than I thought.
I think it's time to Slashdot these companies.
6
If you have Verizon, MCI, AT&T, SBC, or BellSouth for local phone service or long distance, DIAL 0 and complain to the operator.
If you have Cingular, AT&T, or Verizon for cell phone service, DIAL 611 and get a customer service rep on the line to complain to. REMIND THEM THEY ARE IN VIOLATION OF THEIR AGREEMENT WITH YOU, AND THAT YOU CAN SWITCH TO ANOTHER PROVIDER WITHOUT PENALTY.
More info here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/11/91046/796
It's an okay metric for measuring value, but it's the wrong metric to use here.
I'd probably use net revenue. Google obviously can't use its market cap to pay the additional fees that the ISPs will be charging them--they need to use real money. Hence it's probably a much better metric, it makes it clearer that what the ISPs are looking to do is get a cut of Google's revenues. After all, the ISPs keep talking about giving Google etc. a "free ride" -- which is just another way of saying that they want a piece of the action.
Heh, I read the article (as evidenced by me quoting the article). I agree with you. Did you read my post? I was providing quotes which are clearly biased to make the telecom companies look like they're NOT double-dipping. The author of the article was trying to make us feel bad for the 'little' telecom companies against 'big bad Microsoft and Google.' I tried to show that in my post. I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough for you to understand that.
McCullagh's (the author) views on this are well-known. He is against nearly ALL regulation. He WANTS the telecom companies to be able to do whatever they please, including double-dip. I was trying to call attention to his own words that show he's not doing a good job covering this stuff.
I hope this doesn't get modded (-1, flame) but the article is atrocious. McCullagh's libertarian views are well-known, and obvious to any reader of this article. Lowlights:
"levied extensive regulations" -- why not just levied regulations? it's certainly not an objective fact that the regulations are extensive
"broadband providers will be free to design their networks as they see fit" -- why not "free to charge additional fees to content providers?"
"By 'very large companies,' Markey was not referring to Microsoft, which has a market value of $287 billion, but its much smaller value of $101 billion." Not only is that not a valid metric (market value is a crap metric--Google's market value, for example, is egregiously inflated) but pointless: Microsoft will make the same amount of money regardless of regulation.
The worst one is "the Internet industry is being outspent in Washington by more than a 3-to-1 margin." This ignores the tremendous lobbying the Internet industry does in every state, lobbying public utility commissions to shut out rivals everywhere. In Louisiana, the Internet industry is lobbying the state to shut down the free emergency WiFi mesh network in New Orleans--not only disgusting, but an act that requires money that McCullagh isn't counting.
It's possible to have a rational argument about this, but McCullagh's not-veiled-at-all slant doesn't help. What a moron.
I'm going to define 'at the expense of' a little differently. Instead of looking at it as a fixed-cost, such that the original malicious act has an 'expense' which is divided up among all viewers, let's look at it as a necessary precondition. The arousal happens strictly because a malicious act has occurred. There was no other way for that arousal to occur save for committing a malicious act. Hence, though copying a CD is not a malicious act itself, you can't separate arousal from the malicious act.
The CD is a device designed to arouse because it records an illegal, malicious act. If you remove the act, the CD is useless. There is no way to separate the two; it's not a question that there just happens to be kiddie porn on the CD--it is the defining characteristic of the CD that it contains kiddie porn; therefore, it is just as bad as any other copy of the CD (because all of those CDs depend on the original malicious act).
Thus it, and all copies, are at the expense of the original malicious act because they all necessarily depend on that act to have occurred in order to be 'useful' in their purpose of arousing.
I'd prefer to save my strict-interpretation-of-the-law arguments for something less reprehensible.
First, let's presume child porn is immoral. It's not based on an archaic sexual norm because our society holds that underage kids are not capable of making fully competent decisions. Sure, some are: but how do we make a law that coherently defines what a competent underage person is? It doesn't seem possible, so the under-18 standard seems 'good enough' to me. There is very little harm done by preventing under-18s from making porn--nothing that would cause me to get pissed about it. [I would, on the other hand, be willing to argue that they should be able to vote. But let's fix that one before we start trying to define a competent-to-make-sexual decisions under-18]. On the other hand, even allowing one child to be manipulated and molested by participating in creating child porn IS a significant harm--significant enough to override other concerns about sexual mores.
Next let's look at why this is CREATING NEW PORN by looking at what porn is: visual materials designed to arouse an adult. Creating an additional copy of porn (printed or digital) allows another adult to be aroused. In this case, it's arousal at the expense of an underage child who was likely molested against her will. To say that it's not new is to say that there's no effect of that additional copy--an inherently absurd idea.
I think civil liberties should be vigorously defended, and I think there's a line to be drawn about how much regulation should be imposed in order to prevent child porn. (For example, it's absurd to snoop on all Internet users to prevent it--the harm to society posed by a government who spies on everyone is perhaps the greatest possible evil). But to say that knowingly copying a CD containing child porn isn't an act that should be prosecuted under child porn statutes is absurd and only weakens civil libertarians' arguments when they're really important to be made (such as with the NSA spying).
From Dave Schroeder, posted to http://nak.journalspace.com/?cmd=displaycomments&d cid=407&entryid=407
By following these steps, the iMacs that had difficulty with certain EFI modules appear to have been restored to a functioning state:
1. Disconnect the internal hard disk
2. Disconnect the iMac from AC power
3. Plug in AC while holding the power button
4. Power up the iMac and zap NVRAM (cmd-opt-P-R)
The hard disk can be reformatted and the operating system restored.
Here are the emails:
.NET with CLI and managed code runs SLOW, so most serious developers can't use it because of performance. Second, the libraries in C# are FAR less mature and elegant than those in Cocoa. We are working on a better implementation for garbage collection than we've seen out there so far, but in the end its a performance hit and an unpredictable time that is not good for some kinds of apps.
.NET implementation, you are allowed to code using a plethora of languages (C#, Python, VB, etc), as long as the interpreter/compiler follows the IL specification - pointers don't matter, garbage collection is done for you - ah the beautiful world of managed code.
From: Nitesh Dhanjani
Subject: Re: Will XCode+ObjC ever suck less?
Date: December 25, 2005 5:27:02 PM CST
To: sjobs@apple.com
I look forward to the improvements! Thanks,
Nitesh.
On Dec 25, 2005, at 5:10 PM, Steve Jobs wrote:
I guess we disagree. First of all,
Steve
On Dec 25, 2005, at 2:36 PM, Nitesh Dhanjani wrote:
Objective C is old and clunky. Its almost 2006, and I _still_ have to look out for yucky pointers? I'd love to be able to write native apps with Ruby (or even C#!.) There are open community projects in progress that are trying to bind ruby and C# (mono) with Cocoa, but I'd love for Apple to step in and make this happen faster. Today, Microsoft seems to be _way_ ahead of the development curve - with their
Having said that, most native OSX apps are still beautiful and well designed. Imagine how much better we could do if the developers had a more flexible choice of languages? I can _bet_ you a lot of OSX app developers use Objective C because they have no other choice.
Nitesh.
On Dec 25, 2005, at 3:11 PM, Steve Jobs wrote:
Actually, Objective C is pretty great. Its far nicer than most other ways of writing apps. What don't you like about it? What do you like better?
Steve
On Dec 25, 2005, at 11:59 AM, Nitesh Dhanjani wrote:
Hi Steve
Will it ever be easy to write native OSX GUI apps? Objective C sucks.
Thanks,
Nitesh.
Ohhh... I missed the "full body button" on the specs page. This is a rather clever design then.
Let's just hope the speaker doesn't need to be disconnected manually =)
Sorry, but this is a rare, correct submission.
"Capacitive sensors under Mighty Mouse's seamless top shell detect where your fingers are and predict your clicking intentions, so you don't need two buttons"
http://www.apple.com/mightymouse/design.html - also note the picture of the sensors. The site is filled with references to this thing not having buttons. The audible clicks come from "a tiny speaker inside Mighty Mouse [that] produces button-clicking and Scroll Ball-rolling sound effects."
The scroll-ball effects sound obnoxious, and the interface screenshots show no way to turn them off. Hmm. Soldering-iron?
Your argument about the US revolution is pretty lacking. One can still accept the revolution as being a 'good thing' ethically and such and still see that rich white men in charge. For most of history, rich white men have been in charge, and they somewhat continue to be in charge today.
The US was built by a lot of hardworking and honest people and by a lot of crooks too. A lot of people profited, but a lot of people died who shouldn't have.
I'm reading about the soldiers who had a serious problem killing Indians right now -- these are good, honest people who IN THE FUCKING EIGHTEENTH CENTURY knew that it was a bad idea for them to be going around and killing Indians. One (a US SOLDIER!) even went so far as to say it was going to doom the country.
So stop spewing right wing crap and think. Also, learn how to spell. It makes you look dumb.
I'll agree with you that there are some college grads who expect those things, but there are also tons who have had many all nighters and have met some really great people who they want to work hard with.
Apple posted Intel Universal Binary documentation to their website. It's interesting, and everyone should read it. Notable is a caveat that OpenFirmware is going away. That seems to point towards more standard hardwware.
business in meatspace, and try to move it to cyberspace, (I hate that word)
But you like the word "meatspace?"
I want something to replace tape backup too -- but this isn't it. The article only talks about pressed HD DVD's, not recordable ones. Place your hopes elsewhere.
Except you'll notice that the article doesn't talk about a triple-layer HD DVD-R format. That's because the DVD forum hasn't really been moving too swiftly on multi-layer recordables at all. Notice that there's no DVD-R DL (that's the Toshiba-led DVD Forum's format) -- only DVD+R DL (the competing Philips-led camp.)
Since we're not going to see DVD-R DL until at least the end of the year, that means we're probably not going to see HD DVD-R until next year, and HD DVD-R triple-layer for years!
They should give up and join forces with Blu Ray.
The backwards compatibility is great and all. HOWEVER, I'm selfish -- I care far more about a cheap and fast recordable format.
The triple-layer action sounds about as non-recordable as it gets. Given that HD DVD without it has far lower capacity than Blu Ray, I really, really want HD DVD to lose.
Looking at Safari developer Dave Hyatt's blog it looks like he's provided some patches. I'm sure it will take some work to get those into KHTML, but that seems to be a pretty good start to me.
Activate Dashboard, the iChat/Volume/Battery/Clock menus in the menu bar still work and pop up over the Dashboard layer.
Not correct. A click outside a widget dismisses Dashboard.
It's a subtle bug (and I am using a legit final copy of 8A428):
1. Activate Dashboard
2. Move a widget (I tried a sticky and the weather widget) over the Menu Extras area (i.e. iChat/Volume/Clock)
3. Release the mouse button.
4. Click AND HOLD on the widget over where a Menu Extra would appear (i.e. click on the widget where the menu bar clock would be).
5. Drag the mouse. The Menu Extra's menu is revealed.
This does not affect the any of the 'standard' menu items, nor the Apple or Spotlight Menus. It is also possible to initially position the widget over any location in the menu bar, click and hold the widget such that the mouse pointer is over the menu bar, then drag the widget over the menu extras and see the same error.
It's not a big deal. But the problem is still there. =) I accidentally encountered this problem last night.
"The customer has come to expect so much."
That is unbelievable. Customer expectations are profit opportunities -- and if he's not willing to satisfy them, someone else will. He's actually angry that customers want service to keep improving!
"They want it to work in the elevator; they want it to work in the basement."
If Verizon won't provide the technology to make that happen, someone will.
How did he get so far? He reminds me of someone who'd say "I wish those customers would stop calling!"
Then again, when you're the CEO of a company that has a monopoly in most of its markets, I guess you can tell customers to f--- off with impunity.