The story isn't the solution; the story is that there's yet another defect with Apple portables. The somewhat recent changes to Apple's hardware quality are surprising considering the past obsessiveness with getting the design right. That's why these stories keep coming up.
I find oowriter's style system so useful that it makes using Word downright painful.
You should try Word's style system some time. You may be pleasantly surprised.
I want OOo to succeed - really, I do - but they're simply nowhere near Office yet. Like the ad itself, OOo has an excellent idea but a lousy implementation.
let [sic] hope they don't put a stupid "Created with OOo" thing at the bottom
Actually, that should really be in there. Not for the markup they have, of course, but definitely for the final ad. Using your own dogfood is something that people expect from software manufacturers.
I don't read this as saying that the ownership of IP is something to worry about. I think the writer's point is that the most important IP is not what SCO and the MAFIAA are suing people about...it's the creators of that IP. This is especially the case with code, since it needs to be maintained for longer periods of time than other kinds of IP. When you have software that is the lifeblood of your company, and the team that wrote it retires or gets hit by a bus, you have big problems.
Yes, the Netscape portal in the state it's in today is pretty boring, but when it first debuted in 1999, it was years ahead of its time. The major competition was My Yahoo!, and My Netscape had two killer features: the ability to drag-and-drop modules (imagine that) and a way to let publishers add their content to My Netscape, using a new file format called RDF Site Summary.
Netscape was a visionary company. If Microsoft hadn't squished them, they would single-handedly control the Internet today. You still see some of their ideas manifested in a myriad of places - Mozilla, feeds, open-ended portals, and applications-in-the-browser (what some call Web 2.0).
Maybe there's a whole big contingent of people out there who think listening to music without paying for it is actually stealing.
I'm not going to defend the MAFIAA, but I am going to take a stand and say that the concept of copyright is a good thing. I agree that it's been completely taken out of proportion and now favors the industry instead of the public, as it's supposed to. That doesn't mean we should scrap the whole idea.
I would strongly support a ten-year term or two five-year terms, or possibly longer if there was a requirement that the work must be widely available at a reasonable price to retain protection.
Yes, I think listening to music without paying, when that's what the artist expects you to do, is stealing. I also think they're asking for too much, which is why I haven't bought music for over a year. The two schools of thought aren't mutually exclusive.
I wonder if strong leadership and extensive organization could effect the degree of change the world needs before everything really goes to hell.
Possibly, but I wouldn't hold my breath. I don't think there's enough forward-thinking politicians to elect that could affect a vote.
DSL signals drop off because they demand better quality from the line. A typical telephone reproduces audio frequencies between 300 and 3,400 Hz - the acoustical range necessary to understand human voice. (In comparison, a typical studio mic probably picks up sounds between 20 and 20,000 Hz.)
The reason you can piggyback DSL on a telephone line without affecting voice calls is that DSL uses frequencies outside of the human voice range to transmit the data. The farther away you get from the central office, the worse the signal gets, and speeds are impacted.
In other words, the reason you can call somebody in Japan is because the audio quality does suck.
But the majority of Christians aren't trying to take rights away - only a (relatively speaking) small number of extremists. You could just as easily say that most suicide bombers identify as Muslims. It doesn't mean anything.
The Christians that understand the faith they claim to practice support Constitutionally-enumerated liberties. To do otherwise would be counterproductive - you can't force somebody to be saved.
We elect officals to be our proxies to a government THAT MAINTAINS SECRETS. It's the officals job to represent you and me.
The government shouldn't be maintaining nearly as many secrets as they do. Secrets should be about protecting military infrastructure from attack by a foreign power. It should never be a way to hide policies and embarrasments from your constituency. We elect officials to represent us, and we expect them to be accountable for their actions. How can we hold them accountable if we don't know what the actions are? And if they do something wrong, how do we remove them? We only get the opportunity every 2-6 years; in contrast, a business can fire a misbehaving employee the same day.
It is not our job to find and disclose secrets of our Government.
It is if the government is keeping secrets that it shouldn't be. If we don't, who will?
We have far too many checks and balances to require such a revolutionary movement.
When designing the checks and balances, the founding fathers didn't anticipate that almost all candidates would be from two political organizations, which control millions (billions?) of dollars, much of which come from businesses seeking to influence the government to improve their profit margin. A leader in the U.S. simply must have money to build enough name recognition to win an election, and only the (a) filthy rich and (b) adherents to the party line can afford to do so. If a congresscritter votes counter to the way they're supposed to often enough, they'll get cut off and replaced with a conformer. In practice, that means that the checks and balances are ineffective because everybody is voting the way the party tells them to.
We're too old of a system to require that measure for such low impact 'perceived' threats.
An attack on our liberty, our way of life, and our very country is not a "low impact 'perceived ' threat."
You had senators who were ON the Select Committee on Intelligence publicly voice dissent over something they privately voted for, approved during quaterly reviewes, and more importantly got their blocs to vote the funding for the programs.
Actually, no. Neither of my senators are on the committee. As a result, I don't get a voice (even a 'perceived' one) about these illegal activities.
Both sides agreed on the process put in place, the checks, the amount of information gathered, the hands it went to, and the oversight of such information.
The minority of both sides agreed. The vast majority of Congressional delegates didn't get a say - they were uninformed about the program, and therefore couldn't complain even if they were concerned about it. That would be like saying that American citizens didn't complain about the program when it was created, so it must be okay with them.
Additionally, because the committee meeting was closed, we don't know that they were all okay with it. What if the program passed by a slim margin? What if there was no vote, and the senators were concerned about legal sanctions if they revealed classified information? We simply can't know, because we weren't there, and because the government keeps secrets from its people.
This is pure politics at the expense of National Security.
Spying on your citizens is not a matter of national security. The infrastructure which enables that illegal spying is not a matter of national security. The violation of constitutionally-protected privacy rights is not a matter of national security.
If the process fails, if the system invokes an unhandled exception, then take to the streets.
The process has failed. Regardless, we're not taking it to the streets - we're allowing the press to actually do its job for a change and hold the government accountable for its actions. Bravo to the people at Wired for being true patriots.
If later we determine the process was too slow, if it was ripe for strong-arm tacti
Because the average person won't notice. I didn't until I started fiddling with the customization controls. For what it's worth, I independently discovered this, and I get the same number as you - $150 difference in price between the white MacBook with (80 GB hard drive upgrade), and black MacBook (standard). The specs are otherwise identical.
I have a related question: will the next Office still produce bloated documents, such that a few rows in a spreadsheet or a couple pages in a Word document will approach a megabyte in size after a few edit sessions, without even turning tracking on, or is it designed more intelligently this time around?
That's a feature, not a bug. (The bug is how poorly what's going on is documented.)
The Office file format is designed to make it unnecessary to write the complete file every time it's saved. This feature is called "Fast Saves." Instead of re-writing the entire file at each save, the changes are tacked on the end. This is different than revision tracking; the end-user can't tell what the changes are.
It's easy to shrink the files - just turn off Fast Saves. In Word 2003, the necessary option is in Tools...Options...Save. Once you turn off Fast Saves and save a bloated file, the size should shrink to a more reasonable level.
Vim Crash Course :wq
on
Vim 7 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
In addition to the above (all excellent, and probably recommended, resources), here's an absolute beginner's crash course to getting around in vim. (RTFM for much, much more.)
Once you launch vim, you're in command mode. You do stuff in command mode. When you need to type something, you need to switch to insert mode. Type i in command mode for that.
Type all of these in command mode to use them. To move from insert mode to command mode, press ESC.
j - move down k - move up h - move left l - move right i - insert mode:w - save file:q - quit:wq - save file and quit:q! - quit without saving:help - self-explanitory
If this was all vim was, nobody would use it. The power comes in the ability to do complicated text manipulations with just a few keypresses. For example, you can do many commands more than once by prefixing them with a number. Typing 25l is equivalent to pressing the right arrow key 25 times in a typical text editor. You just saved 22 button presses.
I would personally recommend vimtutor, as another poster suggested. Just type that at a shell and vim will start with a text file that explains how it works. That's how I learned the basics. It took about 10 hours over the span of five days to go from absolutely no knowledge to being comfortable using vim regularly.
Possibly, but not necessarily. iTMS was launched in early 2001, which means the contracts were almost definitely were in place in late 2000. It would be odd for a contract like this to last six years, IMHO - it's not a round number. That's why I think it was actually five years, and it began late 2000 or early 2001.
Five years wasn't a typo, though it might be inaccurate. We don't know without knowing the details of the contract.
But microsoft do not include google, or anything other than msn, in the default list...
We know that Google's in Firefox's default list because they were paid to include them. The Firefox drivers have stated as much. Do we know that that isn't the case for the remainder of the engines?
We also don't know if Microsoft is willing to take search engines given enough money or not. We do know that there's a "Get Engines" option in IE that links here, so it's not like they've completely shunned Google.
If the music was available without the DRM, people would still play it on their iPods. It was already the market leader before the iTMS opened for business, just as it is in countries where the iTMS isn't yet available.
Exactly, and I think that's what the parent was getting at. The DRM mandated by the RIAA ended up giving Apple leverage. The industry had a choice - they could either agree to Apple's terms, or drop DRM so that the iPod could play the music from a competitor. The third possible option - dumping Apple and going with a more cooperative company - wasn't available because the DRM wouldn't work with the iPod.
In other words, the RIAA's stubbornness in 2000 came back to haunt them five years later.
Sounds like a good plan except when you notice that CD sales are down according to the RIAA and they don't blame it on themselves or crappy CDs, they blame it on piracy. So the more we boycott, the more it shows they're right.
You're right, but I don't see that I have any other options. I'm one of the people that doesn't buy music, but also doesn't share it. I think copyright's a good thing, in general - definitely not when it's protecting stuff for 100 years, but if it were 10 years, I'd support it wholeheartedly. Despite what others say, I don't think we'd have enough selfless people to produce quality content for the public without some form of revenue attached.
So, if I want to send a message to the RIAA, how would you suggest I do that? I've been boycotting music purchases since June 14, 2005. What's the next step? Keep in mind:
1. I won't share music. Two wrongs don't make a right, and I feel copying music en masse is ripping people off. 2. I won't purchase anything with DRM. 3. My congresscritters are squarely in the MAFIAA's pocket, so writing them won't do any good. I keep voting against them, but that doesn't seem to work either. 4. I'm the only geek nearby. My friends and relatives don't care about any of this, despite efforts to get them involved.
I'd really like to know, if you have any suggestions. Thanks:)
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, oh. They're going to come after us now.
The story isn't the solution; the story is that there's yet another defect with Apple portables. The somewhat recent changes to Apple's hardware quality are surprising considering the past obsessiveness with getting the design right. That's why these stories keep coming up.
http://code.google.com/apis/checkout/
No lasting dmage has been done to anyone
Felony arrests usually show up on background checks. I hope he doesn't need to find a job any time soon.
I find oowriter's style system so useful that it makes using Word downright painful.
You should try Word's style system some time. You may be pleasantly surprised.
I want OOo to succeed - really, I do - but they're simply nowhere near Office yet. Like the ad itself, OOo has an excellent idea but a lousy implementation.
let [sic] hope they don't put a stupid "Created with OOo" thing at the bottom
Actually, that should really be in there. Not for the markup they have, of course, but definitely for the final ad. Using your own dogfood is something that people expect from software manufacturers.
Both Yahoo! and Google support that - just not as an operator. Click "Advanced Search."
Would you please kindly tell your esteemed senator to get his butt into gear and run for President already?
:)
Thanks
I don't read this as saying that the ownership of IP is something to worry about. I think the writer's point is that the most important IP is not what SCO and the MAFIAA are suing people about...it's the creators of that IP. This is especially the case with code, since it needs to be maintained for longer periods of time than other kinds of IP. When you have software that is the lifeblood of your company, and the team that wrote it retires or gets hit by a bus, you have big problems.
The anonymous submitter was apparently too cowardly to submit a link to the article. I think that's the one he wanted.
Yes, the Netscape portal in the state it's in today is pretty boring, but when it first debuted in 1999, it was years ahead of its time. The major competition was My Yahoo!, and My Netscape had two killer features: the ability to drag-and-drop modules (imagine that) and a way to let publishers add their content to My Netscape, using a new file format called RDF Site Summary.
Netscape was a visionary company. If Microsoft hadn't squished them, they would single-handedly control the Internet today. You still see some of their ideas manifested in a myriad of places - Mozilla, feeds, open-ended portals, and applications-in-the-browser (what some call Web 2.0).
What sort of remote access does XP have built in that OS X doesn't?
You must be new here. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Maybe there's a whole big contingent of people out there who think listening to music without paying for it is actually stealing.
I'm not going to defend the MAFIAA, but I am going to take a stand and say that the concept of copyright is a good thing. I agree that it's been completely taken out of proportion and now favors the industry instead of the public, as it's supposed to. That doesn't mean we should scrap the whole idea.
I would strongly support a ten-year term or two five-year terms, or possibly longer if there was a requirement that the work must be widely available at a reasonable price to retain protection.
Yes, I think listening to music without paying, when that's what the artist expects you to do, is stealing. I also think they're asking for too much, which is why I haven't bought music for over a year. The two schools of thought aren't mutually exclusive.
I wonder if strong leadership and extensive organization could effect the degree of change the world needs before everything really goes to hell.
Possibly, but I wouldn't hold my breath. I don't think there's enough forward-thinking politicians to elect that could affect a vote.
DSL signals drop off because they demand better quality from the line. A typical telephone reproduces audio frequencies between 300 and 3,400 Hz - the acoustical range necessary to understand human voice. (In comparison, a typical studio mic probably picks up sounds between 20 and 20,000 Hz.)
The reason you can piggyback DSL on a telephone line without affecting voice calls is that DSL uses frequencies outside of the human voice range to transmit the data. The farther away you get from the central office, the worse the signal gets, and speeds are impacted.
In other words, the reason you can call somebody in Japan is because the audio quality does suck.
But the majority of Christians aren't trying to take rights away - only a (relatively speaking) small number of extremists. You could just as easily say that most suicide bombers identify as Muslims. It doesn't mean anything.
The Christians that understand the faith they claim to practice support Constitutionally-enumerated liberties. To do otherwise would be counterproductive - you can't force somebody to be saved.
It's the old intentionally-misunderstood-punchline-to-start-a-f lamewar trick.
We elect officals to be our proxies to a government THAT MAINTAINS SECRETS. It's the officals job to represent you and me.
The government shouldn't be maintaining nearly as many secrets as they do. Secrets should be about protecting military infrastructure from attack by a foreign power. It should never be a way to hide policies and embarrasments from your constituency. We elect officials to represent us, and we expect them to be accountable for their actions. How can we hold them accountable if we don't know what the actions are? And if they do something wrong, how do we remove them? We only get the opportunity every 2-6 years; in contrast, a business can fire a misbehaving employee the same day.
It is not our job to find and disclose secrets of our Government.
It is if the government is keeping secrets that it shouldn't be. If we don't, who will?
We have far too many checks and balances to require such a revolutionary movement.
When designing the checks and balances, the founding fathers didn't anticipate that almost all candidates would be from two political organizations, which control millions (billions?) of dollars, much of which come from businesses seeking to influence the government to improve their profit margin. A leader in the U.S. simply must have money to build enough name recognition to win an election, and only the (a) filthy rich and (b) adherents to the party line can afford to do so. If a congresscritter votes counter to the way they're supposed to often enough, they'll get cut off and replaced with a conformer. In practice, that means that the checks and balances are ineffective because everybody is voting the way the party tells them to.
We're too old of a system to require that measure for such low impact 'perceived' threats.
An attack on our liberty, our way of life, and our very country is not a "low impact 'perceived ' threat."
You had senators who were ON the Select Committee on Intelligence publicly voice dissent over something they privately voted for, approved during quaterly reviewes, and more importantly got their blocs to vote the funding for the programs.
Actually, no. Neither of my senators are on the committee. As a result, I don't get a voice (even a 'perceived' one) about these illegal activities.
Both sides agreed on the process put in place, the checks, the amount of information gathered, the hands it went to, and the oversight of such information.
The minority of both sides agreed. The vast majority of Congressional delegates didn't get a say - they were uninformed about the program, and therefore couldn't complain even if they were concerned about it. That would be like saying that American citizens didn't complain about the program when it was created, so it must be okay with them.
Additionally, because the committee meeting was closed, we don't know that they were all okay with it. What if the program passed by a slim margin? What if there was no vote, and the senators were concerned about legal sanctions if they revealed classified information? We simply can't know, because we weren't there, and because the government keeps secrets from its people.
This is pure politics at the expense of National Security.
Spying on your citizens is not a matter of national security. The infrastructure which enables that illegal spying is not a matter of national security. The violation of constitutionally-protected privacy rights is not a matter of national security.
If the process fails, if the system invokes an unhandled exception, then take to the streets.
The process has failed. Regardless, we're not taking it to the streets - we're allowing the press to actually do its job for a change and hold the government accountable for its actions. Bravo to the people at Wired for being true patriots.
If later we determine the process was too slow, if it was ripe for strong-arm tacti
How is this supposed to be a tempting deal?
Because the average person won't notice. I didn't until I started fiddling with the customization controls. For what it's worth, I independently discovered this, and I get the same number as you - $150 difference in price between the white MacBook with (80 GB hard drive upgrade), and black MacBook (standard). The specs are otherwise identical.
(202) 775-0101
I have a related question: will the next Office still produce bloated documents, such that a few rows in a spreadsheet or a couple pages in a Word document will approach a megabyte in size after a few edit sessions, without even turning tracking on, or is it designed more intelligently this time around?
That's a feature, not a bug. (The bug is how poorly what's going on is documented.)
The Office file format is designed to make it unnecessary to write the complete file every time it's saved. This feature is called "Fast Saves." Instead of re-writing the entire file at each save, the changes are tacked on the end. This is different than revision tracking; the end-user can't tell what the changes are.
It's easy to shrink the files - just turn off Fast Saves. In Word 2003, the necessary option is in Tools...Options...Save. Once you turn off Fast Saves and save a bloated file, the size should shrink to a more reasonable level.
In addition to the above (all excellent, and probably recommended, resources), here's an absolute beginner's crash course to getting around in vim. (RTFM for much, much more.)
:w - save file :q - quit :wq - save file and quit :q! - quit without saving :help - self-explanitory
Once you launch vim, you're in command mode. You do stuff in command mode.
When you need to type something, you need to switch to insert mode. Type i in command mode for that.
Type all of these in command mode to use them. To move from insert mode to command mode, press ESC.
j - move down
k - move up
h - move left
l - move right
i - insert mode
If this was all vim was, nobody would use it. The power comes in the ability to do complicated text manipulations with just a few keypresses. For example, you can do many commands more than once by prefixing them with a number. Typing 25l is equivalent to pressing the right arrow key 25 times in a typical text editor. You just saved 22 button presses.
I would personally recommend vimtutor, as another poster suggested. Just type that at a shell and vim will start with a text file that explains how it works. That's how I learned the basics. It took about 10 hours over the span of five days to go from absolutely no knowledge to being comfortable using vim regularly.
Good luck.
Possibly, but not necessarily. iTMS was launched in early 2001, which means the contracts were almost definitely were in place in late 2000. It would be odd for a contract like this to last six years, IMHO - it's not a round number. That's why I think it was actually five years, and it began late 2000 or early 2001.
Five years wasn't a typo, though it might be inaccurate. We don't know without knowing the details of the contract.
But microsoft do not include google, or anything other than msn, in the default list...
We know that Google's in Firefox's default list because they were paid to include them. The Firefox drivers have stated as much. Do we know that that isn't the case for the remainder of the engines?
We also don't know if Microsoft is willing to take search engines given enough money or not. We do know that there's a "Get Engines" option in IE that links here, so it's not like they've completely shunned Google.
If the music was available without the DRM, people would still play it on their iPods. It was already the market leader before the iTMS opened for business, just as it is in countries where the iTMS isn't yet available.
Exactly, and I think that's what the parent was getting at. The DRM mandated by the RIAA ended up giving Apple leverage. The industry had a choice - they could either agree to Apple's terms, or drop DRM so that the iPod could play the music from a competitor. The third possible option - dumping Apple and going with a more cooperative company - wasn't available because the DRM wouldn't work with the iPod.
In other words, the RIAA's stubbornness in 2000 came back to haunt them five years later.
Sounds like a good plan except when you notice that CD sales are down according to the RIAA and they don't blame it on themselves or crappy CDs, they blame it on piracy. So the more we boycott, the more it shows they're right.
:)
You're right, but I don't see that I have any other options. I'm one of the people that doesn't buy music, but also doesn't share it. I think copyright's a good thing, in general - definitely not when it's protecting stuff for 100 years, but if it were 10 years, I'd support it wholeheartedly. Despite what others say, I don't think we'd have enough selfless people to produce quality content for the public without some form of revenue attached.
So, if I want to send a message to the RIAA, how would you suggest I do that? I've been boycotting music purchases since June 14, 2005. What's the next step? Keep in mind:
1. I won't share music. Two wrongs don't make a right, and I feel copying music en masse is ripping people off.
2. I won't purchase anything with DRM.
3. My congresscritters are squarely in the MAFIAA's pocket, so writing them won't do any good. I keep voting against them, but that doesn't seem to work either.
4. I'm the only geek nearby. My friends and relatives don't care about any of this, despite efforts to get them involved.
I'd really like to know, if you have any suggestions. Thanks