Without a backup GP lost data. There should be a blatant warning that files are going to be removed from the filesystem during a simple move operation.
Ah, you didn't read the GP post carefully. Let me quote him:
The finder asked me something, I clicked OK. I was dismayed to find that the dialog had asked me "Would you like to replace directory C, with A?"
So he acknowledges that he received the kind of warning that you are asking for. Furthermore, the actual text of the dialog is:
An item named "C" already exists in this location. Do you want to replace it with the one you are moving?
(Stop) (Replace)
The GP actually clicked on a button that said REPLACE!
Hmm... it seems some people need reading comprehension classes here...;-)
I guess you are trying to be derisive, but English is not my native language. Furthermore, no setting will automatically translate the English text in webpages and other documents that I read daily. Additionally, I sometimes find weird words like "lagniappe" that even most native speakers don't know. Thus, the dictionary service is invaluable to me.
On the other hand, I frequently feel frustrated when I want to use that feature while reading text in my native language, so I guess that even native speakers may find it useful.
You don't even need to highlight the word. Just hit Control + Command + D, and the definition of whatever is under the cursor appears in a panel underneath it. If you hold on to Control + Command, you can move the mouse around and get the definition of everything the cursor touches. I use it all the time.
Well, while I think it would fiscally be a good move, how many companies that have been in lawsuits with one another for decades tend to want to work together? I'm sure some bad blood still exists, and that working together would chafe at apple music's egos.
Maybe, but the solo works of ALL four Beatles are now on iTunes. George Harrison's catalog was the only one missing and it was added maybe last week.
As a semi-anonymous Slashdot user you have almost as much credibility as anyone else. You can claim that YOU designed TMI, but unless you provide a link or a citation to a reputable source you might as well say that the FSM told you.
...
And at this point I get the joke, feel like a retard, but nevertheless hit the Submit button. Cheers!
I don't think the iPod touch has integrated speaker (not really needed) or microphone. The microphone is necessary, of course. But I think there are voice recording accessories for the old iPods that should work with this one, so I'm sure someone will hack everything together eventually.
Now, the problem is that your phone only works in hotspots. Not as sexy as the iPhone anyway.
While all the reasons you give are valid for writing "...beyond the scope of this paper," I would venture to say that, by FAR the most usual reason is the one given by the GP.
Unless you really HAVE punched a dog in the face in order to launch a new application in OS X - in which case I wonder if you should be allowed near technology at all.
No, no. In order to launch Fetch from the Dock you actually have to punch a dog in the face. And twice if you launch it from a Finder window!
From the CIA World Factbook: USA: Area:
total: 9,826,630 sq km
land: 9,161,923 sq km
water: 664,707 sq km
note: includes only the 50 states and District of Columbia so this inclides Alaska Area - comparative: about half the size of Russia; about three-tenths the size of Africa; about half the size of South America (or slightly larger than Brazil); slightly larger than China; more than twice the size of the European Union
Australia: Area:
total: 7,686,850 sq km
land: 7,617,930 sq km
water: 68,920 sq km
note: includes Lord Howe Island and Macquarie Island Area - comparative: slightly smaller than the US contiguous 48 states
From Wikipedia: Alaska: Area: - Total 663,267 sq mi (1,717,855 km)
- % water 13.77
So, the land area of Australia is 83.15% of the land area of the US including Alaska, and over 99% of the land area of the US without Alaska.
Conclusion: though Alaska is huge, the comparison of Australia's area to the US (with or without Alaska) is a reasonable one.
Advanced Audio Coding is MPEG-2 part 7, with enhancements in MPEG-4 part 3. It's not a replacement for MP3 (MPEG-2 part 3), it's an alternative, which has existed for just as long as MP3 has.
This International Standard describes the MPEG-2 audio non-backwards compatible standard called MPEG-2 Advanced Audio Coding, AAC [1], a higher quality multichannel standard than achievable while requiring MPEG-1 backwards compatibility.
Thus, what the GP said, ("AAC [wikipedia.org] isn't Apple's codec. It's the MPEG group's replacement for MP3."), is pretty much correct.
I think you are a bit confused as to the definition of cloning.
No, precisely his point is that most people (including you) are very confused as to what cloning really means. It just turns out that cloning vegetables is so much easier than cloning animals, that we have been doing it for -literally- centuries.
You are not getting it. "Mac OS X" is just a marketing name, just as "Microsoft Windows" or "Microsoft Windows Vista" is. When looking for a final name for Rhapsody, Apple realized that in order to avoid alienating the (classic) Mac OS users it was a good idea to give a similar name to the new operating system (just like Windows NT vs old Windows). And since the next mayor version was 10, they decided to call the new OS "Mac OS X", with the X in Roman to differentiate it.
Well, Jobs and his cronies found out that they really liked the big X, and quite frankly XI isn't that appealing, so they decided to name subsequent major versions as 10.2, 10.3, etc. Some day that will wear off, but meanwhile marketing-wise it's working. Minor (point) versions, the equivalent of a less-juicy but more-frequent Windows Service Pack, are named 10.x.y.
The best way to get your mind untangled is to look at Darwin, the underlying OS. It started with a major screw-up with the version numbers, but then Apple recognized that: 1) Darwin/Mac OS X is more a descendant of NeXTSTEP and OPENSTEP than of MacOS. 2) Puma (10.1) was more like a huge service pack for Cheetah (10.0). That's not true for the subsequent cats.
Thus, they revised the numbering so that Darwin would fit in the NeXTSTEP lineage. The Darwin versions and the corresponding Mac OS X versions can be found here. Now you see that Jaguar, Panther and Tiger are all major versions.
So, assuming that we can make a similar argument for Windows NT 5.1 (aka "XP"), since the year 2000 Microsoft has released: Windows 2000 and 2000 Server (NT 5.0) (Windows ME doesn't count, since it was not an NT). Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 (NT 5.1 & 5.2) Windows Vista (NT 6.0) (Longhorn Server may be released this year, or more likely next).
And Apple has released: Cheetah + Server (I'm not counting Puma, which was anyway a free upgrade) (Darwin (screwedup-number)-5.x) Jaguar + Server (Darwin 6.x) Panther + Server (Darwin 7.x) Tiger + Server (Darwin 8.x) Leopard (+ Server) on October. (Darwin 9.x)
If you want to count all the service packs, MS made around 12 major+minor releases, Apple almost 40. But that's not very significant, since Microsoft packs more into each service pack than Apple does, and that's OK. Only major releases matter.
Worse still, the menu for an app running on your secondary screen is on the primary screen! It can be a mile away, and if you're like me and have a laptop with a small screen (i.e. something moved around frequently) and a large external monitor, it can be very difficult working out where you need to exit the screen to get to the menu.
In such a scenario it's better to set the larger, external monitor as the primary screen. This can be done by dragging the mini-title bar from one "monitor" to the other in the Arrangement tab of the "Displays" System Preferences panel. If you disconnect the external monitor (say, to take the laptop home), the menu bar will return to the internal monitor. When you reconnect the monitor, the menu bar returns to it.
I know this doesn't solve the "application with windows in the secondary screen issue", but what you are saying kind of implies that you can't change which is the primary monitor, and that's not the case.
Tell me again how a more secure Windows OS becomes good news for Symantec.
The perception that Windows security is improving will stop many users from migrating away from that platform. But since that perception does not fit reality (i.e., Windows isn't really more secure), those same users will continue buying Symantec software.
Symantec does not benefit from a more secure Window OS, but from a Windows OS that is falsely perceived as more secure.
Although I was raised as a Catholic (and even attended a Catholic school for all twelve years), I never paid much attention to Job. Due to this discussion, I decided to read the book, from bible.com, New International Version, although I also skimmed through the King James Version. I only got to Chapter 6, and could more or less tell what the gist of the rest of the book was about, so I can see why you don't have issues with anything after Chapter 4.
It is evident that the GP poster is referring to Chapters 1 and 2, though. Let me summarize them: on two occasions, God met with Satan and bragged to him about how Job was totally loyal to him. Satan dares Him (God) to allow him (Satan) to test Job's faith, and God takes the dare. After some minor faltering from Job, God eventually wins the bet (or so I think, as I didn't finish the book).
Meanwhile, in these two chapters God allowed Satan to:
Kill (almost) all the servants who were taking care of the oxen and donkeys (through the Sabeans).
Burn (to death?) all the sheep and (almost) all the servants who were shepherding them.
Kill (almost) all the servants who were taking care of the camels (through the Chaldeans).
Kill all his sons and daughters after destroying his son's house.
Afflict poor Job with painful sores covering all his skin.
Steal all the surviving animals.
Well, I do find a problem when I have to tell my kids: "See how God acts in Job 1-2? Well, don't ever do that to any living thing, specially a human being. What God did there was selfish and outright evil. Don't ever be like God if you get to a position of power."
I'm sorry, Joshua: the God described in those two chapters is a horrible role model. In fact, in most of the Old Testament, God is a horrible role model: He's angry, vengeful, intolerant, checks His followers with all kind of mean tests.... heck, He even killed EVERY ONE on Earth, except Noah's relatives! Only in the New Testament did he become the God of love, peace and compassion that is supposed to be the base of Christian faith.
Wow, you didn't get it at all. The problem isn't that Word 97 doesn't open Word 2000 files (although I think it actually does). The problem is that a file created in a version of Word tends to get mangled when opened in a different format. Specifically the page layouts tend to get screwed up, something specially infuriating for long documents like a book or a thesis.
This is not only true when transferring files from a Mac to a PC or vice versa. It also happens among different versions of Word for Windows (or for the Mac, for that matter). Heck, sometimes even moving a file between two PCs with the SAME version of Word screws the layout! (In this case the culprit may be different versions of a font or specifying a different printer).
For comparison, a document written in LaTeX will look fine when rendered in different versions of LaTeX. Maybe not exactly identical, but at least it will almost always look great anyway. Or consider PDF files, which look and print perfectly on any system/viewer/printer (although they are a pain to edit).
'Cuz, you see, on Windows, it's easier: Every new version is a real new version. A whole number, not some wimpy little decimated digit to the RIGHT of the decimal point.
No. Windows 2000 is the marketing name for Windows NT 5.0. But Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 are marketing names for NT 5.1 and 5.2. See here. According to your definition, since those are "wimpy little decimated digit(s) to the RIGHT of the decimal point" they were not "real new versions".
You don't see us Windows users trying to boot OS X on our computers do you?
Although you are right, it so happens that in English (and in practically all European languages for that matter), Indian also refers to American Natives (American as in from any of the Americas). Yes, it's due to a mistake made over 500 years ago, but it's officially in the language, look it up in a dictionary.
Currently there is some concern that a fungus is going to wipe out the Cavendish banana (the variety we all eat) in the near future.
Huh? There are easily over a dozen varieties of edible bananas. I can recall out of the top of my head six different types, three of them real bananas (not plantains, i.e., "bananas" that must be cooked before eating - though it's more accurate to say that bananas are a class of plantains and not the other way around).
Of those three types of real ("dessert") bananas that I can recall, one is extremely different from the common one: it's much, much smaller (the size of a big and fat man's thumb), much sweeter and much better tasting. The other one is purple, but not as interesting.
The problem here is that people in the US are very monotonous when it comes to food: they are afraid to try things that haven't been here forever, and hence the "new" stuff doesn't get a market. Look at the types of fruit that are imported. When apples, grapes and pears are not in season here, we import apples, grapes and pears from Chile. Nothing against Chile but if we are going to import fruit, shouldn't we go for the many dozens of delicious fruits produced worldwide?
I can assure you that if Cavendish bananas were wiped off, there will be many varieties replacing it. As long as people buy them, that is.
It's like people that think that Hawaii was part of US in time of Pearl Harbor.
Actually, Hawaii was a US territory at the time of Pearl Harbor. It wasn't a state, and did not become one until 1959, but it was part of the US nevertheless.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, you didn't read the GP post carefully. Let me quote him:
So he acknowledges that he received the kind of warning that you are asking for. Furthermore, the actual text of the dialog is:
An item named "C" already exists in this location.
Do you want to replace it with the one you are moving?
(Stop) (Replace)
The GP actually clicked on a button that said REPLACE!
Hmm... it seems some people need reading comprehension classes here...
I guess you are trying to be derisive, but English is not my native language. Furthermore, no setting will automatically translate the English text in webpages and other documents that I read daily. Additionally, I sometimes find weird words like "lagniappe" that even most native speakers don't know. Thus, the dictionary service is invaluable to me.
On the other hand, I frequently feel frustrated when I want to use that feature while reading text in my native language, so I guess that even native speakers may find it useful.
You don't even need to highlight the word. Just hit Control + Command + D, and the definition of whatever is under the cursor appears in a panel underneath it. If you hold on to Control + Command, you can move the mouse around and get the definition of everything the cursor touches. I use it all the time.
Yes, you're absolutely right. It's described in the fourth part of Gulliver's Travels.
Oh, come on!
Is there anything more Fisher-Price-y than a computer running Luna? Look at the color scheme, the widgets, the general look-and-feel! It's a whole trip back to your infancy!
That's one aspect in which both Win2k and Vista (let alone OS X) are far superior to XP!
Maybe, but the solo works of ALL four Beatles are now on iTunes. George Harrison's catalog was the only one missing and it was added maybe last week.
Unless the monkey has telekinetic powers, how is your DNA going to end in Mary from the trailer park that way?
And at this point I get the joke, feel like a retard, but nevertheless hit the Submit button. Cheers!
I don't think the iPod touch has integrated speaker (not really needed) or microphone. The microphone is necessary, of course. But I think there are voice recording accessories for the old iPods that should work with this one, so I'm sure someone will hack everything together eventually.
Now, the problem is that your phone only works in hotspots. Not as sexy as the iPhone anyway.
While all the reasons you give are valid for writing "...beyond the scope of this paper," I would venture to say that, by FAR the most usual reason is the one given by the GP.
See the Academese->English translator.
Unless you really HAVE punched a dog in the face in order to launch a new application in OS X - in which case I wonder if you should be allowed near technology at all.
No, no. In order to launch Fetch from the Dock you actually have to punch a dog in the face. And twice if you launch it from a Finder window!
Amazing. You beat me to it. No, really!
From the CIA World Factbook:
USA:
Area:
total: 9,826,630 sq km
land: 9,161,923 sq km
water: 664,707 sq km
note: includes only the 50 states and District of Columbia so this inclides Alaska
Area - comparative: about half the size of Russia; about three-tenths the size of Africa; about half the size of South America (or slightly larger than Brazil); slightly larger than China; more than twice the size of the European Union
Australia:
Area:
total: 7,686,850 sq km
land: 7,617,930 sq km
water: 68,920 sq km
note: includes Lord Howe Island and Macquarie Island
Area - comparative: slightly smaller than the US contiguous 48 states
From Wikipedia:
Alaska:
Area: - Total 663,267 sq mi (1,717,855 km)
- % water 13.77
So, the land area of Australia is 83.15% of the land area of the US including Alaska, and over 99% of the land area of the US without Alaska.
Conclusion: though Alaska is huge, the comparison of Australia's area to the US (with or without Alaska) is a reasonable one.
Close.
Except that MP3 was originally MPEG-1 part 3. And from page 1 of ISO/IEC 13818-7 (warning:PDF file) (page 7 of the PDF):
Thus, what the GP said, ("AAC [wikipedia.org] isn't Apple's codec. It's the MPEG group's replacement for MP3."), is pretty much correct.
I think you are a bit confused as to the definition of cloning.
No, precisely his point is that most people (including you) are very confused as to what cloning really means. It just turns out that cloning vegetables is so much easier than cloning animals, that we have been doing it for -literally- centuries.
You are not getting it. "Mac OS X" is just a marketing name, just as "Microsoft Windows" or "Microsoft Windows Vista" is. When looking for a final name for Rhapsody, Apple realized that in order to avoid alienating the (classic) Mac OS users it was a good idea to give a similar name to the new operating system (just like Windows NT vs old Windows). And since the next mayor version was 10, they decided to call the new OS "Mac OS X", with the X in Roman to differentiate it.
Well, Jobs and his cronies found out that they really liked the big X, and quite frankly XI isn't that appealing, so they decided to name subsequent major versions as 10.2, 10.3, etc. Some day that will wear off, but meanwhile marketing-wise it's working. Minor (point) versions, the equivalent of a less-juicy but more-frequent Windows Service Pack, are named 10.x.y.
The best way to get your mind untangled is to look at Darwin, the underlying OS. It started with a major screw-up with the version numbers, but then Apple recognized that:
1) Darwin/Mac OS X is more a descendant of NeXTSTEP and OPENSTEP than of MacOS.
2) Puma (10.1) was more like a huge service pack for Cheetah (10.0). That's not true for the subsequent cats.
Thus, they revised the numbering so that Darwin would fit in the NeXTSTEP lineage. The Darwin versions and the corresponding Mac OS X versions can be found here. Now you see that Jaguar, Panther and Tiger are all major versions.
(For another famous mash-up of version numbers, look at SunOS vs Solaris and the jump of Solaris 2.6 to Solaris 7.)
So, assuming that we can make a similar argument for Windows NT 5.1 (aka "XP"), since the year 2000 Microsoft has released:
Windows 2000 and 2000 Server (NT 5.0)
(Windows ME doesn't count, since it was not an NT).
Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 (NT 5.1 & 5.2)
Windows Vista (NT 6.0) (Longhorn Server may be released this year, or more likely next).
And Apple has released:
Cheetah + Server (I'm not counting Puma, which was anyway a free upgrade) (Darwin (screwedup-number)-5.x)
Jaguar + Server (Darwin 6.x)
Panther + Server (Darwin 7.x)
Tiger + Server (Darwin 8.x)
Leopard (+ Server) on October. (Darwin 9.x)
If you want to count all the service packs, MS made around 12 major+minor releases, Apple almost 40. But that's not very significant, since Microsoft packs more into each service pack than Apple does, and that's OK. Only major releases matter.
Worse still, the menu for an app running on your secondary screen is on the primary screen! It can be a mile away, and if you're like me and have a laptop with a small screen (i.e. something moved around frequently) and a large external monitor, it can be very difficult working out where you need to exit the screen to get to the menu.
In such a scenario it's better to set the larger, external monitor as the primary screen. This can be done by dragging the mini-title bar from one "monitor" to the other in the Arrangement tab of the "Displays" System Preferences panel. If you disconnect the external monitor (say, to take the laptop home), the menu bar will return to the internal monitor. When you reconnect the monitor, the menu bar returns to it.
I know this doesn't solve the "application with windows in the secondary screen issue", but what you are saying kind of implies that you can't change which is the primary monitor, and that's not the case.
Tell me again how a more secure Windows OS becomes good news for Symantec.
The perception that Windows security is improving will stop many users from migrating away from that platform. But since that perception does not fit reality (i.e., Windows isn't really more secure), those same users will continue buying Symantec software.
Symantec does not benefit from a more secure Window OS, but from a Windows OS that is falsely perceived as more secure.
Although I was raised as a Catholic (and even attended a Catholic school for all twelve years), I never paid much attention to Job. Due to this discussion, I decided to read the book, from bible.com, New International Version, although I also skimmed through the King James Version. I only got to Chapter 6, and could more or less tell what the gist of the rest of the book was about, so I can see why you don't have issues with anything after Chapter 4.
It is evident that the GP poster is referring to Chapters 1 and 2, though. Let me summarize them: on two occasions, God met with Satan and bragged to him about how Job was totally loyal to him. Satan dares Him (God) to allow him (Satan) to test Job's faith, and God takes the dare. After some minor faltering from Job, God eventually wins the bet (or so I think, as I didn't finish the book).
Meanwhile, in these two chapters God allowed Satan to:
Well, I do find a problem when I have to tell my kids: "See how God acts in Job 1-2? Well, don't ever do that to any living thing, specially a human being. What God did there was selfish and outright evil. Don't ever be like God if you get to a position of power."
I'm sorry, Joshua: the God described in those two chapters is a horrible role model. In fact, in most of the Old Testament, God is a horrible role model: He's angry, vengeful, intolerant, checks His followers with all kind of mean tests.... heck, He even killed EVERY ONE on Earth, except Noah's relatives! Only in the New Testament did he become the God of love, peace and compassion that is supposed to be the base of Christian faith.
Wow, you didn't get it at all. The problem isn't that Word 97 doesn't open Word 2000 files (although I think it actually does). The problem is that a file created in a version of Word tends to get mangled when opened in a different format. Specifically the page layouts tend to get screwed up, something specially infuriating for long documents like a book or a thesis.
This is not only true when transferring files from a Mac to a PC or vice versa. It also happens among different versions of Word for Windows (or for the Mac, for that matter). Heck, sometimes even moving a file between two PCs with the SAME version of Word screws the layout! (In this case the culprit may be different versions of a font or specifying a different printer).
For comparison, a document written in LaTeX will look fine when rendered in different versions of LaTeX. Maybe not exactly identical, but at least it will almost always look great anyway. Or consider PDF files, which look and print perfectly on any system/viewer/printer (although they are a pain to edit).
So, dude, you suck it.
No. Windows 2000 is the marketing name for Windows NT 5.0. But Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 are marketing names for NT 5.1 and 5.2. See here. According to your definition, since those are "wimpy little decimated digit(s) to the RIGHT of the decimal point" they were not "real new versions".
Yes, all the time. You should try it also.
Not really. And unlike you we have had spelling checkers in our browsers for many years.
That's right: it doesn't work on Safari, but it does work in Firefox 2.0 for OS X.
Nice, but not smooth enough to be addictive (like Google Earth is).
Although you are right, it so happens that in English (and in practically all European languages for that matter), Indian also refers to American Natives (American as in from any of the Americas). Yes, it's due to a mistake made over 500 years ago, but it's officially in the language, look it up in a dictionary.
Here you have one:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indian
We may not like the misuse of terms like Indian and American, but unfortunately we will have to live with them.
Huh? There are easily over a dozen varieties of edible bananas. I can recall out of the top of my head six different types, three of them real bananas (not plantains, i.e., "bananas" that must be cooked before eating - though it's more accurate to say that bananas are a class of plantains and not the other way around).
Of those three types of real ("dessert") bananas that I can recall, one is extremely different from the common one: it's much, much smaller (the size of a big and fat man's thumb), much sweeter and much better tasting. The other one is purple, but not as interesting.
The problem here is that people in the US are very monotonous when it comes to food: they are afraid to try things that haven't been here forever, and hence the "new" stuff doesn't get a market. Look at the types of fruit that are imported. When apples, grapes and pears are not in season here, we import apples, grapes and pears from Chile. Nothing against Chile but if we are going to import fruit, shouldn't we go for the many dozens of delicious fruits produced worldwide?
I can assure you that if Cavendish bananas were wiped off, there will be many varieties replacing it. As long as people buy them, that is.
It's like people that think that Hawaii was part of US in time of Pearl Harbor.
Actually, Hawaii was a US territory at the time of Pearl Harbor. It wasn't a state, and did not become one until 1959, but it was part of the US nevertheless.