Congrats to KOOPA for proving that you don't need might -- or force -- to be more than a starving artist.
Amen! Indeed, all you need to be is GOOD. It might take a while, and a lot of hard work, but if you're good, you'll gain the fanbase, and eventually make it. What the music industry have done over the last goodness-knows-how-many years is to subvert that process by taking mediocre talent and marketing the hell out of it. In the end, nobody (expect them) wins. They know this, and they are running scared. Well, har-har! You've ridden the gravy train into the ground. It's gone. Get used to it.
Just to be pedantic - you don't need to test for *this* before autoreleasing it - it is legal to send messages to nil in Objective-C, it becomes a no-op.
I think the idea is flawed but on the right track. Direct solar energy to electricity conversion is currently about 10-15% efficient, so you need very large areas to get a decent output. On the other hand, absorbing solar energy as heat in a medium such as water is vastly more efficient, but the problem is to get useful energy out of the heat. Using a Stirling engine and an ordinary alternator could be one practical way, and you'd still end up with overall system efficiencies (maybe up to 50%) that direct solar conversion engineers can only dream of. What surprises me is that it's not being more actively researched, as far as I know. Stirling engines are a very old concept that have not been given the refinement work that they might deserve - certainly in theory they could yield good efficiencies, if only someone would throw a few million in their direction (internal combustion engines started out pretty poor but they are now working at close to their theoretical maximum efficiencies after 100 years development).
There are nearly an infinite number of ways to compare complex beasts like operating systems. I'm going to skip low-level issues, like comparing driver architectures.
Ie: we'll ignore all the places Vista is a clear winner, because then we wouldn't be able to say OS X is da shiznit...
In what way is OS X's driver model inferior to Vista's? From the developers perspective, it's incredibly easy to write a driver for OS X - just subclass a system object and write a few lines of code. From the user's perspective: Err, what's a driver? Users never see them, never interact with them as such, and usually don't even have to know what one is. That's a win in my book. Bad drivers can take down both systems, but writing bad drivers on the Mac *should* be harder, because the base class is already not a bad driver. I do concede however, that some vendors do write crappy driver-level software for Mac nevertheless - I'm looking at you, Canon. Anecdotally, it seems to me the driver situation is far, far worse on Windows.
That's because it *is* "active" - Windows does not require a window be in the foreground for its widgets to be used.
Same with many apps on OS X. This is neither an advantage nor disadvantage for either system.
look at the Catholic church. It's been around for two thousand years. It's got just a few layers of management and at the top 183 cardinals report to the Pope
Pretty impressive when you consider that for all that time their ONLY product has been vapourware.
The Mac's marketshare is (still) microscopic and irrelevent
It's small, true, but not irrelevant. Why are Windows users all so keen to see Vista? Because it lets them catch up a but with OS X. If it weren't for Apple, you'd still be using 3.1 and liking it.
one who kills himself for not being rich or famous enough (especially if he's already rich and very famous in certain circles as was Kildall) probably is a miserable person anyway and in need of psychiatric help
Ah, you're all heart. How's that "getting a girlfriend" project going?
I don't complain about it, because they don't "foist" anything on me. I occasionally choose to run Software Update, which tells me what's available. I then have the choice to pick what gets installed, or I can cancel. Same with OS upgrades - if I wanted to stick with 10.3 for example (as my work machine is), I can do so and I still get various patches and so on if I wish. This is totally unlike the aggressive "proactive" rollout of IE7 which simply arrived unannounced an unasked for. It's got nothing to do with what's cool (and nothing with an MS label ever is, nor ever could be, but that's not relevant), it's to do with respecting that the owner of the hardware is me.
>But it's Microsoft's Operating System. You are just a licensee! And Microsoft could choose to withdraw its license at anytime. Microsoft could argue that it has a right to to the "necessary" with its software. After all you agreed to its licensing terms when you installed it.
Maybe this is a big part of what is wrong with MS. With no other consumer product would people put up with this. New car sir? Certainly - just sign here to say you agree that GM can install speed restrictor "upgrades" at any time, or remove the engine if they wish. Passengers? You need to sign these extra "per seat" licenses... oh, and don't mind us if you get in your car one morning and overnight the entire dashboard and controls have been completely redesigned and repositioned so you don't know how to use your own car, and when you do figure it out it only goes at 30mph. Why do people accept that this is normal for computers?
Microsoft should advertise on the desktops themselves
No thanks. I'm sick of Microsoft assuming they own my bloody computer! It's mine, not theirs! The way IE7 is foisted on us whether we like it or not - that's just plain arrogant. Microsoft doesn't get this either - it's MY BLOODY COMPUTER!
Actually I use a Mac, so I'm only empathising with those who suffer from this, like most of my colleagues at work, who are now trying to clean up after the mess left by IE7's crappy and unwanted install. This is another reason that Macs suck much less - Apple don't assume they own your machine.
why must men be rational? Why don't I just live moment by moment and be inconsistent
From where I'm sitting, taking the sum total of mankind into account, this seems to be more or less what we do do.
Re:What if Apple had 90% market share...
on
Leopard Vs. Vista
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
No it wouldn't be a better world, because we'd still be stuck with Mac OS 9, or 7, or 6...
It's never healthy for one company to dominate to this extent, whoever they are. A truly healthy consumer PC market would have at least three equally strong players, with about 33% market share each. Just think of the innovation that would drive. The ironic thing is that computers would by now have considerably exceeded the current abilities they are now endowed with in terms of features and usability, and it's quite likely that the whole market would be larger as a result. Meaning that companies like MS would still be making just as much if not more revenue. It's in nobody's interest to have a stranglehold on the market the way MS do - not even MS's, in the long run. I think they are afraid of innovation because they are in fact pretty bad at it. They should hire better staff, relax and let competition have its way. It will get them in the end anyway, it's just a matter of time. Does anyone here really think we'll still be using any form of Windows in 2106?
In 2006, when you say "computer" most people think "I buy a box from someone and install an OS from someone else on it".
Nah. Most geeks might think that, possibly, but not most people. Most people can't even tell the difference between "PC" and "Windows" and use the terms interchangeably. They go to a retailer like PC World and see an array of machines. Most of them can't tell what they're looking at, what the differences are, what features are really worth having and which are mere bolt-on goodies never to be used. They buy on price and styling half the time, and since they all run Windows, there's little to differentiate them in terms of software features anyway.
Apples, where they are on display and backed up with proper sales staff (forget PC World) still struggle to make their presence felt because ignorant people by and large are suspicious of differences, don't understand the differences, and tend to a herd mentality. Prejudice also sometimes comes into it - I overheard one woman in PC World say to the sales assistant when he (unusually, and quite correctly, given what she'd outlined as her needs to him) suggested a Mac - "I wouldn't touch one with a barge-pole!". I was tempted to enquire why but clearly she'd made her mind up without hearing any arguments. Now it's possible that she had genuinely had a former bad experience with Macs but more likely it was just prejudice fueled by the herd mentality - certainly judging from other comments she made it was obvious she didn't have a clue about computers.
The problem for Apple is overcoming human nature - they need to be different in ways that don't scare the average punter. I'm not sure they succeed all that well - they appeal to people who either are able to think for themselves, or have enough technical knowledge to appreciate the differences for what they are, but they are viewed with suspicion by a lot of folk who are neither of these. Linus has the same battle on its hands - or possibly even tougher, because it doesn't have a strong brand image going for it. This is one of the really insidious things about the Windows monopoly - obviously it stifles technical innovation because it stifles genuine market choice. The appearance of choice is illusory - forget Apple's "any colour you like as long as it's white", in the Windows world, it's "any shiny box you like, it doesn't matter as they're all absolutely identical as far as what you need. Sir."
In 1995-1996 I was running a popular web site I set up called The CDPLAYER.INI Project.
Ummmm... well, in 1992/3 when Apple had their first CD-ROM units out and the System 7 version of the CD Audio Player utility, me and a number of other Mac users at university were sharing around our local copies of the track listing data file. At first we'd merge these by hand using ResEdit, but then we put together a little utility to do that for us. Then somebody (oh ok, it was me) said, hey this newfangled "internet" thingy is quite cool, maybe we could have this on the web so that we didn't have to keep passing the merged track files around on floppy disks... but we didn't know how to do that at that stage so we didn't do it. But the IDEA was certainly floating around at least then.
Of course the real solution is for CD publishers to include the track listing on the disc itself... never could understand why that wasn't thought of when the CD was invented.
What's the point with those tags anyway? Are they mini-posts or what? They certainly can't be used for searching...
Indeed, they have no point. They are a typical example of something that sounds good on paper, in a meeting, etc, but actually doesn't work at all in practice, because the human element wasn't factored in. Sounds like Vista, actually! Since every tag is the same, it conveys no signal, just noise. So here's the noise you have to subtract to make it even slightly useful:
If you aren't far left by the age of 18 you have no heart. If you aren't far right by 30 you have no brain.
Having a sig like this, which you supposedly think is a witty remark, proves you have no brain. You know what FAR left/right MEANS I suppose? Why not check?
Is anyone else really fucked off and angry about this? And the state of the world in general? How's it ever going to improve? We just keep voting in the same old same old retards who continue to take us all down the road of fascism and other unwanted miseries. Who wants this? Does it solve anything? Something is going to have to change, or we are just watching ourselves on a slow downhill spiral into a world where nothing benefits anybody, and no-one is happy. Why are we doing this to ourselves? It's an old adage that we get the governments we deserve, so for fuck's sake, let's start by changing that!
But longer-term, something completely new is needed. A whole new way of thinking about how humankind can take measures to actually improve things for ourselves, instead of half-assed stuff that ultimately has the opposite effect. A big new idealogy is needed; something that over the next 100-150 years will gather momentum until political parties and then governments can form around it. I only wish I knew what this might be. It sure isn't anything like what we have now, and it sure isn't anything like other big ideologies that have been tried in the past, and failed, like Marxism. We'd have a chance to formulate it if only we started to respect our society's intellectuals again, like they did back in the 17th and 18th centuries. Seems to me that everything that is crappy about the world today, from wars to terrorism to surveillance to the plight of the poor is entirely fixable, basically because on the whole (ignoring a few fanatics and morally bankrupt world leaders), nobody WANTS any of this stuff. The only reason it's perpetuated is because there isn't a coherent mass-movement saying: enough.
One of the reasons I emigrated from the UK to Australia is because I'd had enough of this sort of crap - Australia isn't as bad though it's heading in the same direction. Why? I don't know - nobody wants it here either, but it's still happening. "Sleepwalking" is exactly the right phrase. In some ways emigration is giving up on the problem, and to a degree I am happy just to opt out as far as possible. However, as a new dad I really would rather prefer to see the world taking steps for the better. We are capable of great things, just look at the eradication of disease and so forth (at least for the rich of the world), but overall the crap we propagate outweighs the good. Just watching the news the other night with my daughter made me realise that when I was a small child forty odd years ago, the news stories were EXACTLY THE SAME. Israel at war, terrorism, America at war, nuclear proliferation, religious bigotry, damaging the planet... is this just going to continue forever, or are we going to wake up, grow up, take control of our own destiny, and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT?
Only viruses need to do that. The RNA itself has code for reverse transcriptase, and we see it in our chromosomes all over the place, this gene that is useful to viruses and no one else.
Was the original genome 1.0 written by Microsoft, by any chance? I suggest we start looking in our DNA for Bill Gates' copyright notices.
I don't know why Bush and his cronies bother with all this subtle stuff. Why not just get it over with, burn down the Reichstag (Capitol) and declare unilaterally all other parties illegal? Don't worry, we'll come and save your asses once he annexes Mexico.
Slashdot Mirror
Congrats to KOOPA for proving that you don't need might -- or force -- to be more than a starving artist.
Amen! Indeed, all you need to be is GOOD. It might take a while, and a lot of hard work, but if you're good, you'll gain the fanbase, and eventually make it. What the music industry have done over the last goodness-knows-how-many years is to subvert that process by taking mediocre talent and marketing the hell out of it. In the end, nobody (expect them) wins. They know this, and they are running scared. Well, har-har! You've ridden the gravy train into the ground. It's gone. Get used to it.
This is a great day for music lovers.
Just to be pedantic - you don't need to test for *this* before autoreleasing it - it is legal to send messages to nil in Objective-C, it becomes a no-op.
Have some children. They will really shift your world view. And everything else in the process.
Maybe so, but this is Slashdot after all... So what's Plan B?
I think the idea is flawed but on the right track. Direct solar energy to electricity conversion is currently about 10-15% efficient, so you need very large areas to get a decent output. On the other hand, absorbing solar energy as heat in a medium such as water is vastly more efficient, but the problem is to get useful energy out of the heat. Using a Stirling engine and an ordinary alternator could be one practical way, and you'd still end up with overall system efficiencies (maybe up to 50%) that direct solar conversion engineers can only dream of. What surprises me is that it's not being more actively researched, as far as I know. Stirling engines are a very old concept that have not been given the refinement work that they might deserve - certainly in theory they could yield good efficiencies, if only someone would throw a few million in their direction (internal combustion engines started out pretty poor but they are now working at close to their theoretical maximum efficiencies after 100 years development).
There are nearly an infinite number of ways to compare complex beasts like operating systems. I'm going to skip low-level issues, like comparing driver architectures.
Ie: we'll ignore all the places Vista is a clear winner, because then we wouldn't be able to say OS X is da shiznit...
In what way is OS X's driver model inferior to Vista's? From the developers perspective, it's incredibly easy to write a driver for OS X - just subclass a system object and write a few lines of code. From the user's perspective: Err, what's a driver? Users never see them, never interact with them as such, and usually don't even have to know what one is. That's a win in my book. Bad drivers can take down both systems, but writing bad drivers on the Mac *should* be harder, because the base class is already not a bad driver. I do concede however, that some vendors do write crappy driver-level software for Mac nevertheless - I'm looking at you, Canon. Anecdotally, it seems to me the driver situation is far, far worse on Windows.
That's because it *is* "active" - Windows does not require a window be in the foreground for its widgets to be used.
Same with many apps on OS X. This is neither an advantage nor disadvantage for either system.
I was like "no way - those things were recalled" and they were like "you rode it and you are still alive" and I was all like "yeah, ...
And I'm like, wtf? What's wrong with the verb "said"?
look at the Catholic church. It's been around for two thousand years. It's got just a few layers of management and at the top 183 cardinals report to the Pope
Pretty impressive when you consider that for all that time their ONLY product has been vapourware.
The Mac's marketshare is (still) microscopic and irrelevent
It's small, true, but not irrelevant. Why are Windows users all so keen to see Vista? Because it lets them catch up a but with OS X. If it weren't for Apple, you'd still be using 3.1 and liking it.
one who kills himself for not being rich or famous enough (especially if he's already rich and very famous in certain circles as was Kildall) probably is a miserable person anyway and in need of psychiatric help
Ah, you're all heart. How's that "getting a girlfriend" project going?
I don't complain about it, because they don't "foist" anything on me. I occasionally choose to run Software Update, which tells me what's available. I then have the choice to pick what gets installed, or I can cancel. Same with OS upgrades - if I wanted to stick with 10.3 for example (as my work machine is), I can do so and I still get various patches and so on if I wish. This is totally unlike the aggressive "proactive" rollout of IE7 which simply arrived unannounced an unasked for. It's got nothing to do with what's cool (and nothing with an MS label ever is, nor ever could be, but that's not relevant), it's to do with respecting that the owner of the hardware is me.
>But it's Microsoft's Operating System. You are just a licensee! And Microsoft could choose to withdraw its license at anytime. Microsoft could argue that it has a right to to the "necessary" with its software. After all you agreed to its licensing terms when you installed it.
Maybe this is a big part of what is wrong with MS. With no other consumer product would people put up with this. New car sir? Certainly - just sign here to say you agree that GM can install speed restrictor "upgrades" at any time, or remove the engine if they wish. Passengers? You need to sign these extra "per seat" licenses... oh, and don't mind us if you get in your car one morning and overnight the entire dashboard and controls have been completely redesigned and repositioned so you don't know how to use your own car, and when you do figure it out it only goes at 30mph. Why do people accept that this is normal for computers?
Microsoft should advertise on the desktops themselves
No thanks. I'm sick of Microsoft assuming they own my bloody computer! It's mine, not theirs! The way IE7 is foisted on us whether we like it or not - that's just plain arrogant. Microsoft doesn't get this either - it's MY BLOODY COMPUTER!
Actually I use a Mac, so I'm only empathising with those who suffer from this, like most of my colleagues at work, who are now trying to clean up after the mess left by IE7's crappy and unwanted install. This is another reason that Macs suck much less - Apple don't assume they own your machine.
stories from the bible ... fairytales.
You said it, bud.
why must men be rational? Why don't I just live moment by moment and be inconsistent
From where I'm sitting, taking the sum total of mankind into account, this seems to be more or less what we do do.
No it wouldn't be a better world, because we'd still be stuck with Mac OS 9, or 7, or 6...
It's never healthy for one company to dominate to this extent, whoever they are. A truly healthy consumer PC market would have at least three equally strong players, with about 33% market share each. Just think of the innovation that would drive. The ironic thing is that computers would by now have considerably exceeded the current abilities they are now endowed with in terms of features and usability, and it's quite likely that the whole market would be larger as a result. Meaning that companies like MS would still be making just as much if not more revenue. It's in nobody's interest to have a stranglehold on the market the way MS do - not even MS's, in the long run. I think they are afraid of innovation because they are in fact pretty bad at it. They should hire better staff, relax and let competition have its way. It will get them in the end anyway, it's just a matter of time. Does anyone here really think we'll still be using any form of Windows in 2106?
In 2006, when you say "computer" most people think "I buy a box from someone and install an OS from someone else on it".
Nah. Most geeks might think that, possibly, but not most people. Most people can't even tell the difference between "PC" and "Windows" and use the terms interchangeably. They go to a retailer like PC World and see an array of machines. Most of them can't tell what they're looking at, what the differences are, what features are really worth having and which are mere bolt-on goodies never to be used. They buy on price and styling half the time, and since they all run Windows, there's little to differentiate them in terms of software features anyway.
Apples, where they are on display and backed up with proper sales staff (forget PC World) still struggle to make their presence felt because ignorant people by and large are suspicious of differences, don't understand the differences, and tend to a herd mentality. Prejudice also sometimes comes into it - I overheard one woman in PC World say to the sales assistant when he (unusually, and quite correctly, given what she'd outlined as her needs to him) suggested a Mac - "I wouldn't touch one with a barge-pole!". I was tempted to enquire why but clearly she'd made her mind up without hearing any arguments. Now it's possible that she had genuinely had a former bad experience with Macs but more likely it was just prejudice fueled by the herd mentality - certainly judging from other comments she made it was obvious she didn't have a clue about computers.
The problem for Apple is overcoming human nature - they need to be different in ways that don't scare the average punter. I'm not sure they succeed all that well - they appeal to people who either are able to think for themselves, or have enough technical knowledge to appreciate the differences for what they are, but they are viewed with suspicion by a lot of folk who are neither of these. Linus has the same battle on its hands - or possibly even tougher, because it doesn't have a strong brand image going for it. This is one of the really insidious things about the Windows monopoly - obviously it stifles technical innovation because it stifles genuine market choice. The appearance of choice is illusory - forget Apple's "any colour you like as long as it's white", in the Windows world, it's "any shiny box you like, it doesn't matter as they're all absolutely identical as far as what you need. Sir."
... that microsoft is the beginning and end of computing...
Well, that's certainly HALF right.
Green vs Libertarian would make for a great election, don't you think?
What if you are green AND libertarian?
Why doesn't everyone just use Microsoft Word format? It's available to everyone, and it's not like the internal format is going to change or anything
That wasn't true then, has never been true and never will be true.
In 1995-1996 I was running a popular web site I set up called The CDPLAYER.INI Project.
Ummmm... well, in 1992/3 when Apple had their first CD-ROM units out and the System 7 version of the CD Audio Player utility, me and a number of other Mac users at university were sharing around our local copies of the track listing data file. At first we'd merge these by hand using ResEdit, but then we put together a little utility to do that for us. Then somebody (oh ok, it was me) said, hey this newfangled "internet" thingy is quite cool, maybe we could have this on the web so that we didn't have to keep passing the merged track files around on floppy disks... but we didn't know how to do that at that stage so we didn't do it. But the IDEA was certainly floating around at least then.
Of course the real solution is for CD publishers to include the track listing on the disc itself... never could understand why that wasn't thought of when the CD was invented.
What's the point with those tags anyway? Are they mini-posts or what? They certainly can't be used for searching...
Indeed, they have no point. They are a typical example of something that sounds good on paper, in a meeting, etc, but actually doesn't work at all in practice, because the human element wasn't factored in. Sounds like Vista, actually! Since every tag is the same, it conveys no signal, just noise. So here's the noise you have to subtract to make it even slightly useful:
yes, no, maybe, fud, notfud, itsatrap, itsnotatrap, duh, doh, oops, haha, wtf
If you aren't far left by the age of 18 you have no heart. If you aren't far right by 30 you have no brain.
Having a sig like this, which you supposedly think is a witty remark, proves you have no brain. You know what FAR left/right MEANS I suppose? Why not check?
Is anyone else really fucked off and angry about this? And the state of the world in general? How's it ever going to improve? We just keep voting in the same old same old retards who continue to take us all down the road of fascism and other unwanted miseries. Who wants this? Does it solve anything? Something is going to have to change, or we are just watching ourselves on a slow downhill spiral into a world where nothing benefits anybody, and no-one is happy. Why are we doing this to ourselves? It's an old adage that we get the governments we deserve, so for fuck's sake, let's start by changing that!
But longer-term, something completely new is needed. A whole new way of thinking about how humankind can take measures to actually improve things for ourselves, instead of half-assed stuff that ultimately has the opposite effect. A big new idealogy is needed; something that over the next 100-150 years will gather momentum until political parties and then governments can form around it. I only wish I knew what this might be. It sure isn't anything like what we have now, and it sure isn't anything like other big ideologies that have been tried in the past, and failed, like Marxism. We'd have a chance to formulate it if only we started to respect our society's intellectuals again, like they did back in the 17th and 18th centuries. Seems to me that everything that is crappy about the world today, from wars to terrorism to surveillance to the plight of the poor is entirely fixable, basically because on the whole (ignoring a few fanatics and morally bankrupt world leaders), nobody WANTS any of this stuff. The only reason it's perpetuated is because there isn't a coherent mass-movement saying: enough.
One of the reasons I emigrated from the UK to Australia is because I'd had enough of this sort of crap - Australia isn't as bad though it's heading in the same direction. Why? I don't know - nobody wants it here either, but it's still happening. "Sleepwalking" is exactly the right phrase. In some ways emigration is giving up on the problem, and to a degree I am happy just to opt out as far as possible. However, as a new dad I really would rather prefer to see the world taking steps for the better. We are capable of great things, just look at the eradication of disease and so forth (at least for the rich of the world), but overall the crap we propagate outweighs the good. Just watching the news the other night with my daughter made me realise that when I was a small child forty odd years ago, the news stories were EXACTLY THE SAME. Israel at war, terrorism, America at war, nuclear proliferation, religious bigotry, damaging the planet... is this just going to continue forever, or are we going to wake up, grow up, take control of our own destiny, and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT?
Only viruses need to do that. The RNA itself has code for reverse transcriptase, and we see it in our chromosomes all over the place, this gene that is useful to viruses and no one else.
Was the original genome 1.0 written by Microsoft, by any chance? I suggest we start looking in our DNA for Bill Gates' copyright notices.
I don't know why Bush and his cronies bother with all this subtle stuff. Why not just get it over with, burn down the Reichstag (Capitol) and declare unilaterally all other parties illegal? Don't worry, we'll come and save your asses once he annexes Mexico.