I didn't play with the configs that much, but I transfered all my stuff from a G4 and updated to universal apps whenever possible. Maybe some plugins I use are still ppc binaries or a combination of old and new applications causes trouble. I'd like to install a fresh system, but since Leopard will be out in the foreseeable future I don't want to do all the work just to upgrade a few weeks later.
On a side note: I never reboot and I love to open more tabs in my browser, than my screen can handle. After living with ~15 open tabs for 2 weeks I sometimes decide that it's time to clean up a little. What used to happen with Firefox is that I closed one or two tabs featuring flash content and the wheel of death would turn up permanently. It's just an annoyance, if it wouldn't slow down everything else...
To be honest I also had one problem with Safari 2: It doesn't resize pictures in wordpress blogs correctly if they are bigger than the container they are in. But the beta fixed this and I haven't encountered any other problems. That's everything that bothered me...
If I were you and I had problems with sites I use frequently I'd use Firefox as well.
I can't imagine any reason that anyone would want to actually use Safari Hmm... is there a reason not to use it just because its market share is substantially lower? As long as it renders the pages as intended and works with all the services I use on the net I don't see a point in this argument.
Instead, I've encountered so many problems using Firefox 2.0 on an intel mac like random crashes or running out of RAM for no reason. My MacBook sounds like a hair-dryer whenever I visit a flash-page on Firefox. Maybe my configuration is just borked, but Safari seems to be way quicker and more responsive than ff right now.
On Windows and Linux however, I use Firefox whenever I can, because on those OS's it works as intended.
Keep in mind that this is a beta version - they can fix things without having to check wether this will break anything. Plus: One can assume that it takes less work to fix a new program which has a clean and fresh design. The code base doesn't get more logical/cleaner when you already applied a gazillion patches (e.g. IE 6)
I'll try to update now - for some reason Software Update tells me that there's nothing to install.
I had a similar type problem with Firefox for about a year, so I switched back to Safari recently (well, after updating to ff 2.0 I had "some" new problems - the type error occurred not often enough to make me switch)
Anyways, the beta works like a charm for me an I'll keep using Safari *if* someone ports Adblock or writes a good plugin which works as good as Adblock. I personally don't like PithHelmet that much.
The 'rights' to the AK47 lie entirely with the Soviet state. NOT Russia - but the Soviet Union, which is a different animal entirely. It doesn't make much difference in this case (for reasons you perfectly pointed out), but the Russian Federation is the de facto successor of the USSR. Just think about what happened with the USSR's UN seat or who paid all the debts the SU had when it collapsed. However, I don't have any clue about the legal side of this matter.
if it would cost just a 100th it would be really cool for people with non qwerty layouts, because it actually happens quite often that one has to type qwerty on a keyboard with different labels.
For me it's usually not so bad, because I touch type and my layout is qwertz, which isn't that different (I actually prefer qwerty, but I need 4 letters which don't exist on qwerty). If I install an OS which I haven't localized yet it gets quite annoying finding special keys, which are not that common (e.g. []|{}).
Since the optimus costs way too much I should stop complaining and get a printed version of the qwerty layout I guess...
Another idea: Why think of this keyboard as a device for people using multiple layouts? Might just as well be very useful for internet cafes with customers from all over the world - in this case the price tag might even be right...
Are you suggesting that the current system can't be improved? Or it's just not possible to improve it enough to meet your (presumably arbitrary) threshhold of "reasonable"?
Of course I believe that there's space for improvement.
All I'm saying is that most solutions to keep costs in a reasonable range in the health care area result in higher costs because:
those facing treatment won't act as anticipated and
those making a living by medical treatment will find ways to manipulate the system so they earn as much as they used to.
Management of a medical facility or a single doctor being too honest will be out of business after a while leaving more profit for manipulators. So there's a reward for fiddling bills without much consequence for those doing it - after all the well being of humans is involved and nobody wants to question an operation if health is at stake.
Game theory might help when you are a broker or the CEO of a major company, but does it help you to reduce cost when it comes to heart surgeries in the US (just for example)?
I'd say that small people just get used to having more space above (just like they are used to looking up when they speak to someone of average height). They will perceive a low ceiling exactly like a really tall person.
A personal side note: I had the luxury of growing up in an apartment with 3 meter ceilings (~10 foot). It's nothing special - just an older building in Europe. However, growing up under such conditions, I find it quite hard to accept any place where someone of average height can touch the ceiling. It's just like a cave to me plus the air is much worse. It might be more costly to build and to heat such buildings, but seriously: Do we have the best trade-off between construction, maintenance and living standard if the inhabitants can barely move without destroying e.g. the chandelier?
But I personally don't believe that there will ever be a system immune to betrayal. I've grown up in a country where almost everyone is insured (by legislation) and the health system works properly. The downside is that medical treatment is extremely expensive and those receiving treatment don't really care about it (since they don't directly pay for the cost they cause). This system works quite well as long as there is a reasonable amount of doctors offering service and as long as those treating people don't start to "optimize" their diagnosis. In my country there is a abundance of people having studied medical science and there are various programs available helping doctors to shape their diagnosis in a manner which maximizes profit.
In my opinion it's outright impossible to find a reasonable tradeoff between health, profit and cost in such a system.
"In all other free countries, anyone can and is muzzled for violating "hate speech" laws which are purposefully kept vague and ambiguous"
And you call them "free countries" nevertheless? From my (very unamerican) point of view most "free countries" meet the same criteria regarding free speech (my country makes just one exception regarding Nazi symbols - but with our history I don't see a reason to complain). Most people using the internet are not US citizens and they are more worried about US copyright issues like the DMCA. Just think what would happen to anti-scientology sites if this terrific law system would be applied to all servers worldwide.
Just don't tell me your system is superior just because there's an emphasis on free speech - it lacks plenty in other fields...
I'm sure this plays a minor role compared to the VHS/Betamax war, because Sony not wanting it doesn't mean that they will have to face major obstacles to release it this time.
The problem is that the "pr0n industry" hasn't decided yet - some studios release in HD-DVD, others in Blu-Ray.
Disclaimer: I'm just keeping an eye on this industry because they really indicate which standard will win from time to time - not that I'm a geek drooling in mom's basement. Seriously;)
I just received several docx files from fellow students and couldn't open them with Word 2004 (the last version for Apple's OSX). There is some script magic available on the net for free, which allows me to read such documents. However, when it comes to editing and sending changes back they are not really a choice, because the formatting isn't preserved. If I just wanted to read the content I would have asked for a pdf (or a txt), but most of the time people exchange word documents in order to make changes to them without making the entire document look insanely ugly.
So yes, it is possible to look at those documents even without a compatibility pack for your OS of choice, but in the end you are forced to upgrade just because you are fed up with bothering everyone's workflow.
Up till now I made sure that nobody sends me another docx just by getting extremely angry (or pretending to be in such a state), however, when the new version becomes "the standard" I'm quite sure that I can only hope for Office 2008 for Mac (which comes out at the end of 2007). Thinking about prior experiences with 20+ pages in Word 2003/4 I'm actually in doubt that they'll manage to render the same document format identical in different versions of Office. Right now I'm working on a BP with 3 other guys using Office 2003 and I wouldn't even dare to edit anything in 2004, because even opening the document messes with the page breaks, indents, etc. . If I make changes I send it to one of them in a txt file with details what it replaces. Taking into consideration that we are talking about the standard for business text editing it's such a shame...
If we assume that all physical processes can be simulated by a computer (given complete knowledge of the laws of physics), which seems to be a safe assumption, the question boils down to "is intelligence a physical process?"
I believe that we should worry about size and power consumption before we get to the rather philosophical aspects. Afterall the human brain is still by magnitudes more complex than any computer we can build nowadays (not taking into account computers bigger than our solar system and/or computers consuming more than the power of a couple of suns).
But to get back to more basic or philosophical considerations: Maybe we're simply not able to create structures more complex than ourselves...
I doubt it. Might be the first simulation that isn't forced to take any shortcuts to simulate the behavior of a life form (highly unlikely, because there's too much left regarding genes which we don't fully understand) But even if this is a complete simulation: Is it really that interesting to watch such a simulation if it doesn't interact with other models of the same quality? It's not that interesting to watch a allegedly perfect simulation of a virus on its own, because results are not going to vary much from the simplified models we used so far. So the point it gets interesting is when there's a second simulation of a different life form to interact with the one of the mosaic virus.
Just make sure your filesystem rarely does or needs defragging, and does not log every read.
On a flash drive it's not really important into how many segments a file is split or where they are located since there's no head spinning back and forth. So there's only a problem if your fs does defraging automatically, but it's quite easy to switch this off (at least for developers) Guess we have to reconsider some habits we've got accustomed to if traditional hds are replaced.
So if this new technology is going to be 100 times faster on both mediums why are they planning to use wires at all? Maybe it's because the wireless solution will suck so many frequency bands that it can't unleash it's full power unless you are living in a really remote area where other APs are quite unlikely.
Clearly, analog data distribution is dead. On the digital side, the importance lies in the method of distribution.
If this is the case there is no reason to keep publishing newspapers at all, right?
I believe that newspapers in general have adapted to many new trends in the last decade and that it did more harm than benefit in most cases. IMO the problem for publishers is that they fail to convince young people that they might be better off with a traditional newspaper subscribtion than 20 RSS feeds from various souces. I use both sources and I'm quite often disappointed by the lack of background commentary and information of reputable sites like the bbc or faz.net (the latter is a German site). My guess is that most traditional newspapers and TV networks try to tie new customers to their original services without providing too much information online. This might be contemporary problem and I will cancel my newspaper subscription the moment I believe that there's better information available online. But I'm not in need of a more flashy version of the mediocre online content I'm reading occasionally. On the other hand we're talking about Rupert Murdoch here, so there's no new need to complain about a lack of vision (we could discuss how this lack results in high mass circulation afterall, but this is a different topic)
I mostly agree (and I definately don't want to discuss every minor point till it gets really boring and single minded). But your argument about young non-college men kind of bugs me, because it's not like young men in other countries have nothing else to do than joining their respective army.
From a democratic point of view it is unreasonable to reintroduce a draft (and especially a lottery system like it has been practized during periods of the Vietnam war), but from a pragmatic standpoint it might be a good tool to keep bellicosity of legislation within reason (and I hope that this is what you refer to by saying "I can see what you mean"). Might be a theoretical point of view, but I'm quite sure that there's quite a lot of truth in it.
Reguarding the draft, who do you think would be more likely to fight successfully?
There's no doubt that those "wanting to be there" will be more motivated on average to get the job done. I just wanted to point out that it's easier for governments to go to war in remote areas if they rely on a professional army. I could elaborate on this for hours, but since we all have limited time (and I need my sleep) I'll try put it all into one sentence: On the one hand it's easier to go to war with professionals, but on the other it seperates the public from what is going on, because the higher class isn't directly involved anymore (since most of the sons in this "class" only participates by watching CNN). So if effectiveness is the ultimate aim it's extremely reasonable to opt for a professional army, but a democratic society should also take into account that war is a serious issue and personal involvement sometimes works miracles in this case... I mean it's not like every declaration of war the US government has issued in the last 100 years was based on reason afterwards, right? Furthermore the current stategy might be effective in the short run (as we've seen it in Iraq recently), but in a mid-term perspective it's not enough to conquer a capital and some important cities, because someone living in a village will not feel like it's game over. Would you abandon your core believes without having seen your (victorious) enemy at all? Just imagine how people in e.g. North Dakota would act if some foreign power took over New York and Washington D.C....
This was much more than one sentence and I might regret going on for tomorrow's sake, but there's another sidenote I'd like to tell (which isn't related to war at all). I've been born in the American Sector of West-Berlin. Everyone having grown up at this place agrees that it was fun before the draft got abandoned, because all the interesting people were gone at once and (at least my family) had a lot of problems with drunken soldiers driving into our parking cars at night. Might be unrelated to wars in general, but a loss of sympathy definately helps to lose one. The US might stay the #1 power for the forseeable future, but if they fail to take the other's point of view into account they might lose this status quicker than expected.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't play with the configs that much, but I transfered all my stuff from a G4 and updated to universal apps whenever possible. Maybe some plugins I use are still ppc binaries or a combination of old and new applications causes trouble. I'd like to install a fresh system, but since Leopard will be out in the foreseeable future I don't want to do all the work just to upgrade a few weeks later.
On a side note: I never reboot and I love to open more tabs in my browser, than my screen can handle. After living with ~15 open tabs for 2 weeks I sometimes decide that it's time to clean up a little. What used to happen with Firefox is that I closed one or two tabs featuring flash content and the wheel of death would turn up permanently. It's just an annoyance, if it wouldn't slow down everything else...
To be honest I also had one problem with Safari 2: It doesn't resize pictures in wordpress blogs correctly if they are bigger than the container they are in. But the beta fixed this and I haven't encountered any other problems. That's everything that bothered me...
If I were you and I had problems with sites I use frequently I'd use Firefox as well.
Instead, I've encountered so many problems using Firefox 2.0 on an intel mac like random crashes or running out of RAM for no reason. My MacBook sounds like a hair-dryer whenever I visit a flash-page on Firefox. Maybe my configuration is just borked, but Safari seems to be way quicker and more responsive than ff right now.
On Windows and Linux however, I use Firefox whenever I can, because on those OS's it works as intended.
Keep in mind that this is a beta version - they can fix things without having to check wether this will break anything.
Plus: One can assume that it takes less work to fix a new program which has a clean and fresh design. The code base doesn't get more logical/cleaner when you already applied a gazillion patches (e.g. IE 6)
I'll try to update now - for some reason Software Update tells me that there's nothing to install.
I had a similar type problem with Firefox for about a year, so I switched back to Safari recently (well, after updating to ff 2.0 I had "some" new problems - the type error occurred not often enough to make me switch)
Anyways, the beta works like a charm for me an I'll keep using Safari *if* someone ports Adblock or writes a good plugin which works as good as Adblock. I personally don't like PithHelmet that much.
...I'd be ordering a couple. Just imagine doing job interviews in/on such a thing :D
However, I don't have any clue about the legal side of this matter.
if it would cost just a 100th it would be really cool for people with non qwerty layouts, because it actually happens quite often that one has to type qwerty on a keyboard with different labels.
For me it's usually not so bad, because I touch type and my layout is qwertz, which isn't that different (I actually prefer qwerty, but I need 4 letters which don't exist on qwerty). If I install an OS which I haven't localized yet it gets quite annoying finding special keys, which are not that common (e.g. []|{}).
Since the optimus costs way too much I should stop complaining and get a printed version of the qwerty layout I guess...
Another idea: Why think of this keyboard as a device for people using multiple layouts? Might just as well be very useful for internet cafes with customers from all over the world - in this case the price tag might even be right...
Of course I believe that there's space for improvement.
All I'm saying is that most solutions to keep costs in a reasonable range in the health care area result in higher costs because:
- those making a living by medical treatment will find ways to manipulate the system so they earn as much as they used to.
Management of a medical facility or a single doctor being too honest will be out of business after a while leaving more profit for manipulators. So there's a reward for fiddling bills without much consequence for those doing it - after all the well being of humans is involved and nobody wants to question an operation if health is at stake.Game theory might help when you are a broker or the CEO of a major company, but does it help you to reduce cost when it comes to heart surgeries in the US (just for example)?
I'd say that small people just get used to having more space above (just like they are used to looking up when they speak to someone of average height). They will perceive a low ceiling exactly like a really tall person.
A personal side note: I had the luxury of growing up in an apartment with 3 meter ceilings (~10 foot). It's nothing special - just an older building in Europe. However, growing up under such conditions, I find it quite hard to accept any place where someone of average height can touch the ceiling. It's just like a cave to me plus the air is much worse. It might be more costly to build and to heat such buildings, but seriously: Do we have the best trade-off between construction, maintenance and living standard if the inhabitants can barely move without destroying e.g. the chandelier?
Agreed.
But I personally don't believe that there will ever be a system immune to betrayal. I've grown up in a country where almost everyone is insured (by legislation) and the health system works properly. The downside is that medical treatment is extremely expensive and those receiving treatment don't really care about it (since they don't directly pay for the cost they cause). This system works quite well as long as there is a reasonable amount of doctors offering service and as long as those treating people don't start to "optimize" their diagnosis. In my country there is a abundance of people having studied medical science and there are various programs available helping doctors to shape their diagnosis in a manner which maximizes profit.
In my opinion it's outright impossible to find a reasonable tradeoff between health, profit and cost in such a system.
"In all other free countries, anyone can and is muzzled for violating "hate speech" laws which are purposefully kept vague and ambiguous" And you call them "free countries" nevertheless? From my (very unamerican) point of view most "free countries" meet the same criteria regarding free speech (my country makes just one exception regarding Nazi symbols - but with our history I don't see a reason to complain). Most people using the internet are not US citizens and they are more worried about US copyright issues like the DMCA. Just think what would happen to anti-scientology sites if this terrific law system would be applied to all servers worldwide. Just don't tell me your system is superior just because there's an emphasis on free speech - it lacks plenty in other fields...
Not as effective, but viable (and convenient): Just put the sponge in the dishwasher from time to time.
Replacing them at regular intervals works miracles btw. Afterall sponges are not that expensive...
I'm sure this plays a minor role compared to the VHS/Betamax war, because Sony not wanting it doesn't mean that they will have to face major obstacles to release it this time.
The problem is that the "pr0n industry" hasn't decided yet - some studios release in HD-DVD, others in Blu-Ray.
;)
Disclaimer: I'm just keeping an eye on this industry because they really indicate which standard will win from time to time - not that I'm a geek drooling in mom's basement. Seriously
I just received several docx files from fellow students and couldn't open them with Word 2004 (the last version for Apple's OSX). There is some script magic available on the net for free, which allows me to read such documents. However, when it comes to editing and sending changes back they are not really a choice, because the formatting isn't preserved. If I just wanted to read the content I would have asked for a pdf (or a txt), but most of the time people exchange word documents in order to make changes to them without making the entire document look insanely ugly.
So yes, it is possible to look at those documents even without a compatibility pack for your OS of choice, but in the end you are forced to upgrade just because you are fed up with bothering everyone's workflow.
Up till now I made sure that nobody sends me another docx just by getting extremely angry (or pretending to be in such a state), however, when the new version becomes "the standard" I'm quite sure that I can only hope for Office 2008 for Mac (which comes out at the end of 2007). Thinking about prior experiences with 20+ pages in Word 2003/4 I'm actually in doubt that they'll manage to render the same document format identical in different versions of Office. Right now I'm working on a BP with 3 other guys using Office 2003 and I wouldn't even dare to edit anything in 2004, because even opening the document messes with the page breaks, indents, etc. . If I make changes I send it to one of them in a txt file with details what it replaces. Taking into consideration that we are talking about the standard for business text editing it's such a shame...
This just made my day. Thanks a lot.
But to get back to more basic or philosophical considerations: Maybe we're simply not able to create structures more complex than ourselves...
I doubt it. Might be the first simulation that isn't forced to take any shortcuts to simulate the behavior of a life form (highly unlikely, because there's too much left regarding genes which we don't fully understand)
But even if this is a complete simulation: Is it really that interesting to watch such a simulation if it doesn't interact with other models of the same quality? It's not that interesting to watch a allegedly perfect simulation of a virus on its own, because results are not going to vary much from the simplified models we used so far. So the point it gets interesting is when there's a second simulation of a different life form to interact with the one of the mosaic virus.
Guess we have to reconsider some habits we've got accustomed to if traditional hds are replaced.
So if this new technology is going to be 100 times faster on both mediums why are they planning to use wires at all?
Maybe it's because the wireless solution will suck so many frequency bands that it can't unleash it's full power unless you are living in a really remote area where other APs are quite unlikely.
If you leave out AOL CDs, mail advertisements might fill this gap rather well.
I believe that newspapers in general have adapted to many new trends in the last decade and that it did more harm than benefit in most cases. IMO the problem for publishers is that they fail to convince young people that they might be better off with a traditional newspaper subscribtion than 20 RSS feeds from various souces. I use both sources and I'm quite often disappointed by the lack of background commentary and information of reputable sites like the bbc or faz.net (the latter is a German site). My guess is that most traditional newspapers and TV networks try to tie new customers to their original services without providing too much information online. This might be contemporary problem and I will cancel my newspaper subscription the moment I believe that there's better information available online. But I'm not in need of a more flashy version of the mediocre online content I'm reading occasionally.
On the other hand we're talking about Rupert Murdoch here, so there's no new need to complain about a lack of vision (we could discuss how this lack results in high mass circulation afterall, but this is a different topic)
I mostly agree (and I definately don't want to discuss every minor point till it gets really boring and single minded).
But your argument about young non-college men kind of bugs me, because it's not like young men in other countries have nothing else to do than joining their respective army.
From a democratic point of view it is unreasonable to reintroduce a draft (and especially a lottery system like it has been practized during periods of the Vietnam war), but from a pragmatic standpoint it might be a good tool to keep bellicosity of legislation within reason (and I hope that this is what you refer to by saying "I can see what you mean"). Might be a theoretical point of view, but I'm quite sure that there's quite a lot of truth in it.
There's no doubt that those "wanting to be there" will be more motivated on average to get the job done. I just wanted to point out that it's easier for governments to go to war in remote areas if they rely on a professional army. I could elaborate on this for hours, but since we all have limited time (and I need my sleep) I'll try put it all into one sentence: On the one hand it's easier to go to war with professionals, but on the other it seperates the public from what is going on, because the higher class isn't directly involved anymore (since most of the sons in this "class" only participates by watching CNN).
So if effectiveness is the ultimate aim it's extremely reasonable to opt for a professional army, but a democratic society should also take into account that war is a serious issue and personal involvement sometimes works miracles in this case... I mean it's not like every declaration of war the US government has issued in the last 100 years was based on reason afterwards, right?
Furthermore the current stategy might be effective in the short run (as we've seen it in Iraq recently), but in a mid-term perspective it's not enough to conquer a capital and some important cities, because someone living in a village will not feel like it's game over. Would you abandon your core believes without having seen your (victorious) enemy at all? Just imagine how people in e.g. North Dakota would act if some foreign power took over New York and Washington D.C....
This was much more than one sentence and I might regret going on for tomorrow's sake, but there's another sidenote I'd like to tell (which isn't related to war at all). I've been born in the American Sector of West-Berlin. Everyone having grown up at this place agrees that it was fun before the draft got abandoned, because all the interesting people were gone at once and (at least my family) had a lot of problems with drunken soldiers driving into our parking cars at night. Might be unrelated to wars in general, but a loss of sympathy definately helps to lose one. The US might stay the #1 power for the forseeable future, but if they fail to take the other's point of view into account they might lose this status quicker than expected.