So I can now get seamless drag-and-drop text manipulation between applications on Linux?! Excellent! My next machine might not be a PowerBook after all!!!
Or by "Mac OS X UI" did you mean, "Mac OS X's color scheme on KDE?"
Ahem. "The Apple GUI was derived from Xerox's original idea
MIT's Sutherland's dissertation in '63, which has equal if not more claim to be one of the roots of the "gui" concept Fair point.
ou've also neglected to mention Vannevar Bush (1945), who Engelbart himself acknowledges as having given him the idea in the first place Bush's system was a mechanical hyperlinking system. It used projection, not graphics.
A 64-bit application has to be broken into two executables, a 32-bit GUI front-end and a 64-bit engine.
Technically, yes, but the way OS X handles executable packages, both executables can be bound together, so that the user sees only one "application." If done well, both executables will look like one, unless you run top.
Too many people think of a BS in Comp Sci as a degree in programming.
Yeah, like the people who came up with the curriculum at my university. (Which is a pretty highly regarded school for CS, at least at the graduate level, in US News' survey.)
The undergrad CS program trains programmers. There is exactly one theory course which is required. Other than that, the classes are all practical and programming-oriented. Presumably the grad programs cover more of the 'S' in CS. But at least where I went to school, BS in CS was definitely a BS in programming.
"Plug and play" used to be a phrase used by Mac users to describe the installation of new hardware.
With Windows 95, Microsoft created a "standard" called Plug And Play. Of course, the Microsoft version involved the Add Hardware Wizard, which, in the opinion of many Macintosh users then and now, is entirely contrary to the idea of plug and play. (To be fair, the classic Mac OS wasn't always literally plug and play, either, but OS X almost always is.)
I can only wonder what the It Just Works philosophy will give us.
True, a particular Hyundai might be more reliable than a particular Toyota. Every now and then Toyota will issue a recall or a major service action, just like every other manufacturer.
Worse than being a slave to advertising is overreacting to shocking events. Humans are also susceptible to fundamental attribution error: we assume that every act is intrinsic to the entity that performs it. So if Bob slips and spills his coffee, it's because Bob's a klutz. If Toyota makes a boneheaded engineering decision, it's because Toyota's reputation is overrated. If you slip and spill your coffee, it's because they just waxed the floor.
Companies don't get reputations because of advertising alone. Toyota has built up a reputation in the minds of mechanics and in surveys by JD Power and the like. You can't just advertise your way into that. Otherwise the domestic carmakers, which spend far more on advertising, would have done it years ago.
Every manufacturer of any type of product will eventually turn out a batch of crappy stuff. The good ones just do it less often.
CDMA is a method for dividing up the spectrum, just as TDMA (the scheme used in current GSM) is. GSM is actually being replaced by UMTS, which uses a technology called WidebandCDMA (which is totally different from, and incompatible with, the IS-95 CDMA technology used in the US by Verizon.)
That CDMA will be replaced by CDMA2000, which is comparable to WCDMA as a 3G system.
Both CDMA (IS-95) and GSM are obsolete, and on the way out.
I've heard nothing about Microsoft phasing out MSN Messenger or Office:mac.
They've dropped IE (Why compete with Safari?) and the MSN internet service client (Seriously, what were they thinking?) but Office:mac is a significant source of revenue. Microsoft has said that Office:mac is bringing in respectable amounts of money and that they plan to support Tiger and that a new version of Messenger would be coming out soon.
That said, MS has repeatedly said that IE will only be developed as a part of Windows from now on; I'd put a Linux IE version slightly ahead of Linux Office on the probability scale.
Do you crave the cloying adulation people give you when you dazzle them with rarely-seen currency? Do you also pass around $.50 coins too?
So what if he does? If it gives him his jollies, more power to him. It's perfectly legal and harmless.
I don't know what's worse, some poor Best Buy employee not up to date on his currency or people like you that just have to have $2 and nothing else.
Well, since the BB employee's job is to handle currency, and (s)he is apparently not doing it properly, I'd say that's worse.
$1 and $5 are for the peons, it's $2 bills or nothing, eh?
Poster never said that. You're putting words in his mouth.
If loved ones give you fullscreen DVD's, do you feign enthusiasm and then later toss the perfectly good movie in the trash because it's widescreen or nothing, right?
What does this have to do with anything? So the poster likes Twos. He didn't say that he only accepts Twos, or that he throws out all the Ones and Fives that he gets because it's Twos or nothing. He just said that, when he makes withdrawals, he specifies Twos.
In the end it comes down to what do I dislike more, a cashier less than completely aware of all United States currency denominations or individuals such as yourself that inconvenience yourself and the bank you inconvenience just so perfect strangers can have one of your lucky special elite $2 bills.
The banks aren't required to stock Twos. Plenty of banks don't, or so I hear, since there's so little demand for them. If a bank chooses to fulfil its customers requests by stocking the unusual currency, I wouldn't consider that an inconvenience, just good service.
As for the cashiers, the Twos are legal tender. Frankly, I'd rather be paid with a dozen $2 bills than 24 $1 bills; it's that much easier to count. For that matter, I'd much rather get the Twos than 2400 pennies. Being a retail clerk has only two real requirements: collect the customers' money, and keep the customers sufficiently happy that they come back.
For that matter, would Apple sell me a Mac mini ($499) with a bare hard drive and a refund for...
- the OS ($129 retail) - AppleWorks ($79 retail) - iLife '05 ($79 retail) - Quicken 2005 ($69 retail) (all included with a Mac mini)...For a $143-after-rebate Mac?
Something tells me that there's no corresponding clause in the Apple licensing agreements for an unused-software refund.
With regards to the first three items on the list, these are best described as "vestigial" stuctures. That is, they're body parts that evolution forgot--they once served a useful purpose, but no longer have any value or function.
The same thing can be said of wisdom teeth, for example. Or paralell ports.
Presumably, as these structures continue to cause problems for some members of the species, while providing no advantages, evolutionary processes would eventually eliminate them.
The issue is, are you paying for a line, or a voice line?
Presumably it costs the phone company some amount of money to run a copper cable out to your house, some additional amount to provide voice service over that cable, and some other amount to provide data service over that cable.
If you don't need the voice portion of that service, why should you have to pay for it? The phone company would not have to switch calls into your line, issue you a phone number, or provide operator services to your home. The result is, a reduction in costs to the company. Not to mention the various taxes that are applied to voice lines in the USA.
But shouldn't f(a) < f(a+b) ? Assuming some nonzero b?
Right now my bill is something like $20 for a landline and $45 for DSL. If I didn't use the landline, should I still have to pay $65? Even $55 or $60 for DSL-only would be an improvment over the course of a year.
I'd be happy if they broke it down into some f(a+b+c), for some a (cost of running a line out) b (cost of providing voice over that line) and c (cost of providing high-speed data over that line.) Then I could pay f(a+c) and be perfectly happy.
True. As it happens, most of the artists to whom I referred were graphic designers, at least in their "professional" lives.
At least one has since acquired a cappucino machine of his own.
Laptops, PowerBooks, and Thinkpads
on
Hacking Mac OS X
·
· Score: 1
I see this debate often, and it's always done badly.
Usually goes something like this:
------
Poster 1: *something something* laptop *something something*
Poster 2: The PowerBook was the first modern laptop. All laptops today are descended from the PowerBook.
Poster 3: No, not the PowerBook, the ThinkPad
------
Firstly, there were lots of okay laptops before the PowerBook, with the standard flip-up screen and keyboard. The PowerBook made a few contributions to modern laptop design:
A. Dark gray/black colored case (still very popular, despite the growth in silver-colored cases after the Titanium PowerBook.)
B. Integrated pointing device (trackball) as opposed to clip-ons.
C. Large palmrests on either side of said pointing device, with the keyboard pushed back toward the screen
Fairly minor changes if you ask me, but influential nonetheless.
The ThinkPad came out in 1992, a year after the PowerBook, and it had A and B. It didn't get C until about 1996. The ThinkPad added a color screen, which the PowerBook wouldn't offer until a year later.
Both were (and are) very fashionable laptops, and both contrubuted elements to the shape and feel of the modern laptop, but neither the PowerBook nor the ThinkPad is the sole source of modern laptop design.
Known quite a few artists. None of them wore berets, they were mostly a t-shirt and jeans crowd. Most couldn't afford to drink anything but Maxwell House. No kidding.
The people you see in front of the Starbucks dressed in fashionable black with the berets cocked on their brows are probably art dealers or self-styled critics, not artists.
Slashdot Mirror
...why would HP want to buy an overvalued, declining asset?
*cough* Compaq *cough*
So I can now get seamless drag-and-drop text manipulation between applications on Linux?! Excellent! My next machine might not be a PowerBook after all!!!
Or by "Mac OS X UI" did you mean, "Mac OS X's color scheme on KDE?"
Guess those big fat juicy aerospace and defence contracts are won purely on merit.
You mean like the fat juicy aerospace and defense contracts that EADS and BAE (the parent companies of Airbus) get?
Is it an African or European airline?
Is it powered by RR or GE/P&W engines?
Whatever, according to the manufacturer, the maximum speed is 0.89 Mach.
I don't recall saying that Xerox invented the GUI
Ahem. " The Apple GUI was derived from Xerox's original idea
MIT's Sutherland's dissertation in '63, which has equal if not more claim to be one of the roots of the "gui" concept
Fair point.
ou've also neglected to mention Vannevar Bush (1945), who Engelbart himself acknowledges as having given him the idea in the first place Bush's system was a mechanical hyperlinking system. It used projection, not graphics.
My God! How long must this crap be perpetrated.
XEROX DID NOT INVENT THE GUI.
SRI (then the Stanford Research Institute) invented the GUI.
SRI was where Douglas Engelbart worked. SRI was where the mouse was invented. SRI also invented the GUI, as part of their NLS project.
XEROX DID NOT INVENT THE GUI.
Xerox implemented the first commercial GUI-based systems. They failed in the marketplace, largely because Xerox failed to understand and market them.
Apple made major refinements to the GUI, including the menu bar, double clicking, click-and-drag, and the icons-objects/menus-commands relationship.
In case you're still wondering, XEROX DID NOT INVENT THE GUI.
IBM will file a lawsuit, claiming that it's trade secrets were violated, and demanding damages.
Oh wait, that's a different company....
A 64-bit application has to be broken into two executables, a 32-bit GUI front-end and a 64-bit engine.
Technically, yes, but the way OS X handles executable packages, both executables can be bound together, so that the user sees only one "application." If done well, both executables will look like one, unless you run top.
Too many people think of a BS in Comp Sci as a degree in programming.
Yeah, like the people who came up with the curriculum at my university. (Which is a pretty highly regarded school for CS, at least at the graduate level, in US News' survey.)
The undergrad CS program trains programmers. There is exactly one theory course which is required. Other than that, the classes are all practical and programming-oriented. Presumably the grad programs cover more of the 'S' in CS. But at least where I went to school, BS in CS was definitely a BS in programming.
Win 95 had preemptive multitasking?
News to me. Why did they take that ability out of XP?
Seriously, the multitasking capabilities of Win95 were no better than the cooperative multitasking capabilities of System 7 in practice.
Windows did have a multithreaded file browser first.
Nice headline, provocative article, but no information on how this "survey of befuddled volunteers." was conducted, or how it came to its conclusions.
I'm sure someone will post the original survey. When they do, they'll probably get mod points. (Hint, hint.)
"Plug and play" used to be a phrase used by Mac users to describe the installation of new hardware.
With Windows 95, Microsoft created a "standard" called Plug And Play. Of course, the Microsoft version involved the Add Hardware Wizard, which, in the opinion of many Macintosh users then and now, is entirely contrary to the idea of plug and play. (To be fair, the classic Mac OS wasn't always literally plug and play, either, but OS X almost always is.)
I can only wonder what the It Just Works philosophy will give us.
True, a particular Hyundai might be more reliable than a particular Toyota. Every now and then Toyota will issue a recall or a major service action, just like every other manufacturer.
Worse than being a slave to advertising is overreacting to shocking events. Humans are also susceptible to fundamental attribution error: we assume that every act is intrinsic to the entity that performs it. So if Bob slips and spills his coffee, it's because Bob's a klutz. If Toyota makes a boneheaded engineering decision, it's because Toyota's reputation is overrated. If you slip and spill your coffee, it's because they just waxed the floor.
Companies don't get reputations because of advertising alone. Toyota has built up a reputation in the minds of mechanics and in surveys by JD Power and the like. You can't just advertise your way into that. Otherwise the domestic carmakers, which spend far more on advertising, would have done it years ago.
Every manufacturer of any type of product will eventually turn out a batch of crappy stuff. The good ones just do it less often.
CDMA is a method for dividing up the spectrum, just as TDMA (the scheme used in current GSM) is. GSM is actually being replaced by UMTS, which uses a technology called WidebandCDMA (which is totally different from, and incompatible with, the IS-95 CDMA technology used in the US by Verizon.)
That CDMA will be replaced by CDMA2000, which is comparable to WCDMA as a 3G system.
Both CDMA (IS-95) and GSM are obsolete, and on the way out.
I've heard nothing about Microsoft phasing out MSN Messenger or Office:mac.
They've dropped IE (Why compete with Safari?) and the MSN internet service client (Seriously, what were they thinking?) but Office:mac is a significant source of revenue.
Microsoft has said that Office:mac is bringing in respectable amounts of money and that they plan to support Tiger and that a new version of Messenger would be coming out soon.
That said, MS has repeatedly said that IE will only be developed as a part of Windows from now on; I'd put a Linux IE version slightly ahead of Linux Office on the probability scale.
Please take your complaints here:
HM Customs and Excise
The US price does not include US state sales tax (Often around 6%)
Tiger Up-To -Date details
Do you crave the cloying adulation people give you when you dazzle them with rarely-seen currency? Do you also pass around $.50 coins too?
So what if he does? If it gives him his jollies, more power to him. It's perfectly legal and harmless.
I don't know what's worse, some poor Best Buy employee not up to date on his currency or people like you that just have to have $2 and nothing else.
Well, since the BB employee's job is to handle currency, and (s)he is apparently not doing it properly, I'd say that's worse.
$1 and $5 are for the peons, it's $2 bills or nothing, eh?
Poster never said that. You're putting words in his mouth.
If loved ones give you fullscreen DVD's, do you feign enthusiasm and then later toss the perfectly good movie in the trash because it's widescreen or nothing, right?
What does this have to do with anything? So the poster likes Twos. He didn't say that he only accepts Twos, or that he throws out all the Ones and Fives that he gets because it's Twos or nothing. He just said that, when he makes withdrawals, he specifies Twos.
In the end it comes down to what do I dislike more, a cashier less than completely aware of all United States currency denominations or individuals such as yourself that inconvenience yourself and the bank you inconvenience just so perfect strangers can have one of your lucky special elite $2 bills.
The banks aren't required to stock Twos. Plenty of banks don't, or so I hear, since there's so little demand for them. If a bank chooses to fulfil its customers requests by stocking the unusual currency, I wouldn't consider that an inconvenience, just good service.
As for the cashiers, the Twos are legal tender. Frankly, I'd rather be paid with a dozen $2 bills than 24 $1 bills; it's that much easier to count. For that matter, I'd much rather get the Twos than 2400 pennies. Being a retail clerk has only two real requirements: collect the customers' money, and keep the customers sufficiently happy that they come back.
For that matter, would Apple sell me a Mac mini ($499) with a bare hard drive and a refund for...
...For a $143-after-rebate Mac?
- the OS ($129 retail)
- AppleWorks ($79 retail)
- iLife '05 ($79 retail)
- Quicken 2005 ($69 retail)
(all included with a Mac mini)
Something tells me that there's no corresponding clause in the Apple licensing agreements for an unused-software refund.
With regards to the first three items on the list, these are best described as "vestigial" stuctures. That is, they're body parts that evolution forgot--they once served a useful purpose, but no longer have any value or function.
The same thing can be said of wisdom teeth, for example. Or paralell ports.
Presumably, as these structures continue to cause problems for some members of the species, while providing no advantages, evolutionary processes would eventually eliminate them.
The issue is, are you paying for a line, or a voice line?
Presumably it costs the phone company some amount of money to run a copper cable out to your house, some additional amount to provide voice service over that cable, and some other amount to provide data service over that cable.
If you don't need the voice portion of that service, why should you have to pay for it? The phone company would not have to switch calls into your line, issue you a phone number, or provide operator services to your home. The result is, a reduction in costs to the company. Not to mention the various taxes that are applied to voice lines in the USA.
But shouldn't f(a) < f(a+b) ? Assuming some nonzero b?
Right now my bill is something like $20 for a landline and $45 for DSL. If I didn't use the landline, should I still have to pay $65? Even $55 or $60 for DSL-only would be an improvment over the course of a year.
I'd be happy if they broke it down into some f(a+b+c), for some a (cost of running a line out) b (cost of providing voice over that line) and c (cost of providing high-speed data over that line.) Then I could pay f(a+c) and be perfectly happy.
True. As it happens, most of the artists to whom I referred were graphic designers, at least in their "professional" lives. At least one has since acquired a cappucino machine of his own.
I see this debate often, and it's always done badly. Usually goes something like this: ------ Poster 1: *something something* laptop *something something* Poster 2: The PowerBook was the first modern laptop. All laptops today are descended from the PowerBook. Poster 3: No, not the PowerBook, the ThinkPad ------ Firstly, there were lots of okay laptops before the PowerBook, with the standard flip-up screen and keyboard. The PowerBook made a few contributions to modern laptop design: A. Dark gray/black colored case (still very popular, despite the growth in silver-colored cases after the Titanium PowerBook.) B. Integrated pointing device (trackball) as opposed to clip-ons. C. Large palmrests on either side of said pointing device, with the keyboard pushed back toward the screen Fairly minor changes if you ask me, but influential nonetheless. The ThinkPad came out in 1992, a year after the PowerBook, and it had A and B. It didn't get C until about 1996. The ThinkPad added a color screen, which the PowerBook wouldn't offer until a year later. Both were (and are) very fashionable laptops, and both contrubuted elements to the shape and feel of the modern laptop, but neither the PowerBook nor the ThinkPad is the sole source of modern laptop design.
Known quite a few artists. None of them wore berets, they were mostly a t-shirt and jeans crowd. Most couldn't afford to drink anything but Maxwell House. No kidding.
The people you see in front of the Starbucks dressed in fashionable black with the berets cocked on their brows are probably art dealers or self-styled critics, not artists.