In case you didn't notice, your statement is telling people it is morally wrong to say what is and isn't morally wrong. Therefore, by your own definition, your statement is unethical.
First, look up moral and ethical in a dictionary so that you are clear on the definitions. Next, you are right. I mis-phrased my statement. What I meant was "But just because most people are unethical and want to force other people to do what they think is morally right (as if they were some sort of authority) instead of allowing them to make their own judgements."
I agree completely that they should be able to say anything they damn well please, just not pass laws forcing people to abide by their beliefs about what is right and wrong. Sorry for the confusion.
Marriage is a term that applies to a union between a man and a women.
To me marriage means "two things joining to become one." That is its original meaning and is still used in other contexts. I find the concept of marriage to be unethical. It forces people who do not want to be together to be together for convenience and often leads to people taking each other for granted or believing they no longer have to put any effort into a relationship.
Within the Judeo-christian tradition it was originally a property transfer as the woman belonged to her father and was transferred to a husband. This is horribly degrading and something most people would prefer to forget about the practice.
All of that, however, is immaterial to the issue. In the U.S. on both a federal and and state level the word marriage is a legally defined term. Thousands of laws have been written that rely upon that legal term. For example, if you die, the law says in absence of a will your property transfers to the person to whom you are married. The fight is about same sex couples being given all the same legal protections as mixed gender couples without having to pass thousands of laws on both a federal and state level all around the country.
Although it may offend your sensibilities you have to remember that marriage is a legal entity in this country, performed by the state and does not necessarily involve a religion at all. If you did not want it to be a legal concept and wanted it to remain solely a religious term you should not have passed laws regarding and including it. The U.S. government is bound to treat all religions equitably. If some say gays can marry, passing laws to stop it is very much a violation of that equality.
This is a fight over legal rights and the term "marriage" is necessary to acquire those rights. The argument you use is one that has been put forth by people that know this, but want to muddy the issue and deny rights to people out of spite, religious indignation, puritanical interventionism, and hate. Please stop buying into that argument.
The majority is not always right, and neither is the minority. Just like you I vote my conscience, and my conscience says that homosexuality is a sin
OK, so their are at least two possibilities. One, homosexuality is "wrong" for some reason and two homosexuality is not "wrong." If you are right, great, don't have sex with people of the same sex and you're just fine. Why do you need to pass a law to force others to follow your religious beliefs? OK, now assume you are wrong (you are not perfect you know, you could be wrong right?) In that case you are trying to pass a law to enforce your preference in behaviors upon everyone else. we're talking about behaviors that do not affect you in any way. It would be like a powerful religious lobby passing a law that says women must wear shoes at all times, even in private. It is zealots making religious choices for individuals. You do realize several parts of the biblical teachings of Jesus specifically tell you not to try and keep others from sinning right?
So basically you are defying your own religion to try to force others to follow one of its precepts. Hello hypocrite.
Mmm-hmmmm. So you want to tell 80% of the people to go fuck themselves?
If they're wrong I'll gladly tell 99% of the population. Numbers don't make you any more right. Especially when that large percentage is trying to tell me what to do regarding my personal life or doing anything that is not their concern. I'm not gay, but I should go fuck a guy just to piss you self-righteous wankers off. You don't know what is right and what is wrong and the christian bible tells you so (if you happen to be christian, just an educated guess). Look to your own actions and leave others to theirs.
It is not going to happen. It is going to make for more violence.
Hopefully whomever initiates the violence is prepared for the consequences. You see in some places being christian is enough to get you murdered. Some day that may be the case in the U.S. In the U.S. currently the law forbids discriminating against christians, don't worry once the Bill of rights is tossed out, nothing will protect you from being fired for your beliefs either, or even for just being the wrong sect of christian (whichever ones don't win). I hope you enjoy it.
Black is not a choice. Homosexuality is.
Homosexuality is as much of a choice as choosing to believe that the earth revolves around the sun.
It is no different than people who want to have sex with children, or people who want to have sex with animals.
Children and animals cannot consent in an informed way. It is a completely separate issue and in no way analogous.
I'm sorry you can't deal with your own homosexual feelings and believe in some superstitions that make you think you will be punished for it. Maybe you should turn of the nice man on the 700 club and actually think for your own self. Please don't reproduce.
If you look at the DSM-III, before the 4th edition, you will see homosexuality listed as a disease.
Historically, psychology and medicine in general, has a piss poor record for determining what is and isn't a disease. This is the same discipline that pushed frontal lobotomies as a valid "treatment" right up until the 60's.
Why is it states are passing referendums, public referendums, where homosexual marrige is outlawed by votes over 80%?
Because the U.S. is full of prejudiced, racist, intolerant, uneducated, fuckheads.
The republican party found one single issue they can bank on. As long as the republicans supply a candidate who is for defending marrige as defined between a man and a woman, they will keep winning elections. It is the ONLY reason bush won the last election.
You're probably right. But just because most people are unethical and want to tell other people what is and is not morally right and wrong (as if they were some sort of authority) a few of us like to vote our consciences, even if we are a minority. You see a hundred years ago the majority of people thought black people were an inferior race. Two hundred years ago the majority of people thought women were inferior to men, weaker and less intelligent and should not be allowed to own property of their own. Four hundred years ago anyone who said the earth revolved around the sun was declared an evil heretic who had to be burned to protect society.
The majority is not always right. The Bill of rights exists to protect the people from the government and the minorities from the majorities. Ben Franklin said, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep trying to decide what to have for dinner." It is the reason for the limits on the government's power.
You see just because you are a prejudiced mental reject does not mean that if some day prejudiced mental rejects are in the minority open-minded people should be able to discriminate against them in the workplace if their religion does not get in the way of their job.
iTunes, for example, and the whole brushed metal is basicly an excuse for making cool-looking apps. I like brushed metal, but apple has changed the HIG to morph around what they think looks best. There really should only be 1 window gui, aqua.
Brushed metal was originally applied to windows that simulated real world devices. iTunes=stereo. DVD Player=TV+DVD player. Later on it was applied to most of the interface and I for one am very glad. It provides better contrast with window contents. Finder windows have a default white background as do many text style documents like PDFs, Word files, etc. Most editors and terminal windows are best with white text on a black background for maximum contrast with minimal eyestrain. This means about half my windows are primarily white and half are primarily black. Now what color is halfway between white and black, does not grab the eye, and does not clash with any other color? Gee that would be only one...gray. Add a little texture and you get the brushed metal look. Apple designers probably realized why people like the brushed metal, but most people just like it because it looks good. It looks good because it is pretty much the best color you can use from a UI design perspective.
I wish. Framemaker is designed with technical books and manuals in mind and is by far the best tool for writing them. InDesign is 100% designed for making magazines which is obvious to anyone who has tried to use it for a book. Auto layouts are weak, auto numbering and versions are basically nonexistent in comparison, auto cross-references don't exist, conditional text is completely missing, style mappings within a document and from imports are buggy and unusable, and long document support is very poor.
Since Adobe killed Framemaker for the Mac I know a number of professionals who had to switch to Windows and a number who just run a really old version in the Classic environment. I'm sure InDesign is a godsend for magazine publishers, but is is piss poor for technical writers. Quark is actually a better option in many cases.
Frame is a pretty high-maintenance path to converting XML files to print but a network of consultants support Adobe's marketing and I would be very surprised if Adobe intends to kill Frame off.
They already have for Mac users, which comprised a fair number of their customers. In InDesign CS they added the XML processing and authoring features. Now in CS2 Studio they have spun the XML features into a seperate product called InCopy.
I was advised by a former employee that if I wanted to choose a new layout application to avoid framemaker because it is dead there. Having seen what has happened over the last few years has pretty much confirmed this. Sorry, a lot of us know that InDesign does not cut it, and nothing really stacks up to the features in Framemaker for several markets, but I seriously doubt Adobe is going to magically pull their collective heads out of their butts and save it. Start looking for alternatives.
I suppose that makes sense. The question this raises, though, is whether there are any games designed to work better on hyperthreaded/multiprocessor systems.
I very much doubt it. I've always thought of Blizzard as being one of the better companies when it came to "doing it right" with regard to coding their games. I know playing Warcraft III it always consumed 100% of one processor and did not put a dent in the other. I have not noticed any games that do a better job.
How? Microsoft and Adobe are not competitors. They offer products that are completely different. The only real competition at all is between Cold Fusion and ASP, but that's a brand new development and really is a non-issue.
Unless Adobe is going into operating systems and office software or Microsoft is going into graphics design the two companies have pretty close to zero overlap.
It is entirely likely that MS will go into graphics design, layout, publishing, and vector graphics at some point. They already have a number of (horrible) offerings like Publisher. The entire MS business model depends upon constant growth, so they constantly have to move into new areas and leverage their monopoly to kill the existing players.
Aside from that, Adobe threatens MS with several things that currently exist or could be implemented. First, Mac OS support keeps MS from dominating the graphics and publishing markets and provides a good stream of revenue to MS's competitor. Next Linux support for Adobe products would be a huge affirmation of the viability of Linux for the corporate world. Third, HTML from Adobe is still HTML not the pseudo HTML spewed out by frontpage. This is a thorn in MS's side and helps thwart its attempt to hijack the web. Fourth, PDF and several other adobe sponsored open standards threaten MS's lock-in using proprietary formats. These are all reasons for MS to buy Adobe and remove the threat they pose.
Eventually corporations will start working in PDF directly, rather than farming out the PDFication of data to a specialist department. They will start liscencing Framemaker to all its staff.
Framemaker was an acquisition so Adobe is slowly killing off Framemaker. They have not released a Mac OS X version, the Linux port was killed after releasing a working beta, and the Windows version has gained basically zero features in the last several years. They would cancel it today if not for the thousands of users who would migrate to Quark.
The basic idea is keep everything pre-indexed by meta-data for instant searching. If I grab some tunes from a band I like I can type the first letter of the song name in the search bar and all the songs with album, band, or song names starting with that letter are instantly what is shown in the listing. As I type the next letter the list is refined (instantly) to show just the bands, songs, and albums starting with the first two letters. By the third letter I usually have about 20 songs left and can see what I want.
The main two points are everything indexed automatically by metadata (in spotlight this includes the contents of images, word files, text files pdfs etc. as well as all the normal metadata) and fast, fast, fast. The searches happen as fast as you can type.
I think they mean that they were inspired by the search feature in itunes, which is often used as an example of how spotlight will work when it is released in a few days.
1. You use their software voluntarily for storing *your* data.
Except that MS is a monopoly in the field and illegally abused that monopoly to make it very hard for anyone to use anything else via several illegal acts including illegal OEM bundling contracts and illegally withholding Win95 32-bit APIs.
2. Your data is - and remains - perfectly accessible via the software they provide, that you voluntarily purchased to use
Except it is impossible to buy a new copy of that software and in some cases illegal to transfer that software to a new computer when your current one dies. Also much of the information we are talking about here belongs to "THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" whose politicians unwisely and after being given large donations decided to put documents owned by the people into that format. I'd say it is decidedly in the public interest to either force those formats to be public so the information is preserved and available or convert all those documents now and pass laws prohibiting storing documents owned by the people in a format that is owned by a private entity. Other governments have and are in the process of doing that very thing.
Someone care to explain WHY Nikon would get upset about a software company making their software compatible with Nikon's hardware?! Why the hell would they encrypt information like this anyways?!
Nikon sells software to do this. They just want to lock out competitors. They are too stupid to realize that easy import into photoshop is more important than any other features on their camera that other camera manufacturers might not have.
Last time I looked at Opera the mac version sucked donkey balls. Has Opera ever upgraded it to be on par with the windows version? What about Linux? Sorry guys until it works well on my primary system, I'm certainly not going to pay for a proprietary, closed source browser on one of my tertiary machines.
So- I am not saying that Microsoft should, or should not open up their system more. I am just saying that there is always at least ONE jackass out there who feels that the world owes them everything, just for the honor of having the jackass use their software.
You're extrapolating your experiences and applying them to Microsoft. Unfortunately you are failing to account for the fact that Microsoft does not behave the same way you do. First they are a monopoly convicted of abusing that monopoly position to illegally crush competitors and force both behaviors and financial penalties upon their customers. The fact that the government has not mandated open formats from MS is a clear indication of just how corrupt they are.
Users deserve an alternative to being locked in by a monopoly and if someone feels like yelling that at a representative of these criminals, I'm all for it.
I don't think code is the problem, programmers might be willing to work for free but professional artists expect to get paid.
Actually, many graphic artists would be happy to contribute models, textures, icons, and misc. artwork to gaming projects. Graphics students and amateurs are especially willing as it allows them to build up a portfolio of work. The problem is that these people need to be recruited to open source gaming efforts. The crossover between graphic artists with free time and people who read open source software forums is very, very small. Someone working on the project has to do more than post on the developer forum and ask , "hey can anybody make some graphics for this?" There are a few free art projects online that are good places to look and as I said earlier graphics programs in universities are also good.
One final thing, in addition to finding artists, they need to be welcomed. I had two different friends volunteer some work to an open source game several years ago. One was completely ignored and could not get anyone to talk to them. The other was flamed for offering graphics in the wrong format (the right format was not listed anywhere in the documentation and none of the flamers even bothered to mention what it was.) Both of them gave up on working on open source gaming projects in record time. The attitude among developers and lack of respect they give to artists is as much a problem as recruiting is.
If Firefox wants to be taken seriously as a native browser on the Mac, it has a long way to go to catch up to Safari in terms of aesthetics and usability.
I disagree. Firefox serves a valid need by maintaining as much as possible across a variety of platforms. For people who regularly switch from platform to platform, Firefox's interface can be a great boon.
If you want a more native interface to the codebase try the Camino variant. It uses the native UI elements form OS X. That said, it still fails to make proper use of services, like spellchecking and translation.
As most designers will hopefully agree, Adobe's software is stable, well designed, consistent in operation and relatively intuitive.
OK, I want you to put down the crack pipe now and go get some help.
Adobe's products are not stable, consistent, or intuitive. If you think toolbars with hundreds of unlabeled icons only a quarter of which are visible at any given time is intuitive then I can only shake my head in disbelief. As far as stable goes I'm tracking a half dozen bugs that consistently crash Adobe applications, are over a year old, and work across platforms. I also have the misfortune of using InDesign on a relatively large project. Why is it that half of the floating palettes have menus that work when minimized and half don't? My guess is it depends upon which developer coded them. So I'm going to have to disagree with you on your assertions here. Adobe makes big, useful, buggy, half-finished, unintuitive, and moderately affordable applications. They don't make intuitive, stable, or well designed applications.
Seashore is a simple image editor for OS X, with a native front end that reuses a lot of code from the Gimp. It is still pretty rudimentary, but seems like the right approach to me. This is exactly what the previous poster is talking about. One guy writes a GPL editor, posts it on sourceforge. Right now it is functional and useful. Once it integrates the coreimage capabilities, it will start to be a useful replacement for photoshop for some low-end users. This is exactly the type of project that could take off and put the hurt on photoshop (who just announced that they are acquiring macromedia by the way).
It isn't contested that this man lived. Not by any accepted authority
What religion (not religious official or group of adherents to a religion) aside from christianity recognizes that there was a man named Jesus of Nazareth? As far as I know, Judaism might in some holy work recognize the existence of Jesus as a prophet, but aside from that, no major religion either affirms nor denies the existence of said person. Now what the original poster probably meant was that most leaders of organized religions and most reasonably well read persons of any religion do not dispute that such a person existed. That is not, however, what the original poster wrote, hence my clarification. You seem to have somehow not only misunderstood the meaning of the original sentence, but also of my clarification to it.
The English language can be difficult to parse at times, especially if it is not your first language. There is a big difference between religions recognizing a historical fact and religions not disputing a historical fact.
Slashdot Mirror
In case you didn't notice, your statement is telling people it is morally wrong to say what is and isn't morally wrong. Therefore, by your own definition, your statement is unethical.
First, look up moral and ethical in a dictionary so that you are clear on the definitions. Next, you are right. I mis-phrased my statement. What I meant was "But just because most people are unethical and want to force other people to do what they think is morally right (as if they were some sort of authority) instead of allowing them to make their own judgements."
I agree completely that they should be able to say anything they damn well please, just not pass laws forcing people to abide by their beliefs about what is right and wrong. Sorry for the confusion.
Marriage is a term that applies to a union between a man and a women.
To me marriage means "two things joining to become one." That is its original meaning and is still used in other contexts. I find the concept of marriage to be unethical. It forces people who do not want to be together to be together for convenience and often leads to people taking each other for granted or believing they no longer have to put any effort into a relationship.
Within the Judeo-christian tradition it was originally a property transfer as the woman belonged to her father and was transferred to a husband. This is horribly degrading and something most people would prefer to forget about the practice.
All of that, however, is immaterial to the issue. In the U.S. on both a federal and and state level the word marriage is a legally defined term. Thousands of laws have been written that rely upon that legal term. For example, if you die, the law says in absence of a will your property transfers to the person to whom you are married. The fight is about same sex couples being given all the same legal protections as mixed gender couples without having to pass thousands of laws on both a federal and state level all around the country.
Although it may offend your sensibilities you have to remember that marriage is a legal entity in this country, performed by the state and does not necessarily involve a religion at all. If you did not want it to be a legal concept and wanted it to remain solely a religious term you should not have passed laws regarding and including it. The U.S. government is bound to treat all religions equitably. If some say gays can marry, passing laws to stop it is very much a violation of that equality.
This is a fight over legal rights and the term "marriage" is necessary to acquire those rights. The argument you use is one that has been put forth by people that know this, but want to muddy the issue and deny rights to people out of spite, religious indignation, puritanical interventionism, and hate. Please stop buying into that argument.
The majority is not always right, and neither is the minority. Just like you I vote my conscience, and my conscience says that homosexuality is a sin
OK, so their are at least two possibilities. One, homosexuality is "wrong" for some reason and two homosexuality is not "wrong." If you are right, great, don't have sex with people of the same sex and you're just fine. Why do you need to pass a law to force others to follow your religious beliefs? OK, now assume you are wrong (you are not perfect you know, you could be wrong right?) In that case you are trying to pass a law to enforce your preference in behaviors upon everyone else. we're talking about behaviors that do not affect you in any way. It would be like a powerful religious lobby passing a law that says women must wear shoes at all times, even in private. It is zealots making religious choices for individuals. You do realize several parts of the biblical teachings of Jesus specifically tell you not to try and keep others from sinning right?
So basically you are defying your own religion to try to force others to follow one of its precepts. Hello hypocrite.
Mmm-hmmmm. So you want to tell 80% of the people to go fuck themselves?
If they're wrong I'll gladly tell 99% of the population. Numbers don't make you any more right. Especially when that large percentage is trying to tell me what to do regarding my personal life or doing anything that is not their concern. I'm not gay, but I should go fuck a guy just to piss you self-righteous wankers off. You don't know what is right and what is wrong and the christian bible tells you so (if you happen to be christian, just an educated guess). Look to your own actions and leave others to theirs.
It is not going to happen. It is going to make for more violence.
Hopefully whomever initiates the violence is prepared for the consequences. You see in some places being christian is enough to get you murdered. Some day that may be the case in the U.S. In the U.S. currently the law forbids discriminating against christians, don't worry once the Bill of rights is tossed out, nothing will protect you from being fired for your beliefs either, or even for just being the wrong sect of christian (whichever ones don't win). I hope you enjoy it.
Black is not a choice. Homosexuality is.
Homosexuality is as much of a choice as choosing to believe that the earth revolves around the sun.
It is no different than people who want to have sex with children, or people who want to have sex with animals.
Children and animals cannot consent in an informed way. It is a completely separate issue and in no way analogous.
I'm sorry you can't deal with your own homosexual feelings and believe in some superstitions that make you think you will be punished for it. Maybe you should turn of the nice man on the 700 club and actually think for your own self. Please don't reproduce.
If you look at the DSM-III, before the 4th edition, you will see homosexuality listed as a disease.
Historically, psychology and medicine in general, has a piss poor record for determining what is and isn't a disease. This is the same discipline that pushed frontal lobotomies as a valid "treatment" right up until the 60's.
Why is it states are passing referendums, public referendums, where homosexual marrige is outlawed by votes over 80%?
Because the U.S. is full of prejudiced, racist, intolerant, uneducated, fuckheads.
The republican party found one single issue they can bank on. As long as the republicans supply a candidate who is for defending marrige as defined between a man and a woman, they will keep winning elections. It is the ONLY reason bush won the last election.
You're probably right. But just because most people are unethical and want to tell other people what is and is not morally right and wrong (as if they were some sort of authority) a few of us like to vote our consciences, even if we are a minority. You see a hundred years ago the majority of people thought black people were an inferior race. Two hundred years ago the majority of people thought women were inferior to men, weaker and less intelligent and should not be allowed to own property of their own. Four hundred years ago anyone who said the earth revolved around the sun was declared an evil heretic who had to be burned to protect society.
The majority is not always right. The Bill of rights exists to protect the people from the government and the minorities from the majorities. Ben Franklin said, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep trying to decide what to have for dinner." It is the reason for the limits on the government's power.
You see just because you are a prejudiced mental reject does not mean that if some day prejudiced mental rejects are in the minority open-minded people should be able to discriminate against them in the workplace if their religion does not get in the way of their job.
iTunes, for example, and the whole brushed metal is basicly an excuse for making cool-looking apps. I like brushed metal, but apple has changed the HIG to morph around what they think looks best. There really should only be 1 window gui, aqua.
Brushed metal was originally applied to windows that simulated real world devices. iTunes=stereo. DVD Player=TV+DVD player. Later on it was applied to most of the interface and I for one am very glad. It provides better contrast with window contents. Finder windows have a default white background as do many text style documents like PDFs, Word files, etc. Most editors and terminal windows are best with white text on a black background for maximum contrast with minimal eyestrain. This means about half my windows are primarily white and half are primarily black. Now what color is halfway between white and black, does not grab the eye, and does not clash with any other color? Gee that would be only one...gray. Add a little texture and you get the brushed metal look. Apple designers probably realized why people like the brushed metal, but most people just like it because it looks good. It looks good because it is pretty much the best color you can use from a UI design perspective.
Wasn't Framemaker the basis for Indesign???
I wish. Framemaker is designed with technical books and manuals in mind and is by far the best tool for writing them. InDesign is 100% designed for making magazines which is obvious to anyone who has tried to use it for a book. Auto layouts are weak, auto numbering and versions are basically nonexistent in comparison, auto cross-references don't exist, conditional text is completely missing, style mappings within a document and from imports are buggy and unusable, and long document support is very poor.
Since Adobe killed Framemaker for the Mac I know a number of professionals who had to switch to Windows and a number who just run a really old version in the Classic environment. I'm sure InDesign is a godsend for magazine publishers, but is is piss poor for technical writers. Quark is actually a better option in many cases.
Frame is a pretty high-maintenance path to converting XML files to print but a network of consultants support Adobe's marketing and I would be very surprised if Adobe intends to kill Frame off.
They already have for Mac users, which comprised a fair number of their customers. In InDesign CS they added the XML processing and authoring features. Now in CS2 Studio they have spun the XML features into a seperate product called InCopy.
I was advised by a former employee that if I wanted to choose a new layout application to avoid framemaker because it is dead there. Having seen what has happened over the last few years has pretty much confirmed this. Sorry, a lot of us know that InDesign does not cut it, and nothing really stacks up to the features in Framemaker for several markets, but I seriously doubt Adobe is going to magically pull their collective heads out of their butts and save it. Start looking for alternatives.
I suppose that makes sense. The question this raises, though, is whether there are any games designed to work better on hyperthreaded/multiprocessor systems.
I very much doubt it. I've always thought of Blizzard as being one of the better companies when it came to "doing it right" with regard to coding their games. I know playing Warcraft III it always consumed 100% of one processor and did not put a dent in the other. I have not noticed any games that do a better job.
Right now, all Adobe really has going for them is PDF
Yeah, it's not like photoshop is a valuable asset or anything.
How? Microsoft and Adobe are not competitors. They offer products that are completely different. The only real competition at all is between Cold Fusion and ASP, but that's a brand new development and really is a non-issue. Unless Adobe is going into operating systems and office software or Microsoft is going into graphics design the two companies have pretty close to zero overlap.
It is entirely likely that MS will go into graphics design, layout, publishing, and vector graphics at some point. They already have a number of (horrible) offerings like Publisher. The entire MS business model depends upon constant growth, so they constantly have to move into new areas and leverage their monopoly to kill the existing players.
Aside from that, Adobe threatens MS with several things that currently exist or could be implemented. First, Mac OS support keeps MS from dominating the graphics and publishing markets and provides a good stream of revenue to MS's competitor. Next Linux support for Adobe products would be a huge affirmation of the viability of Linux for the corporate world. Third, HTML from Adobe is still HTML not the pseudo HTML spewed out by frontpage. This is a thorn in MS's side and helps thwart its attempt to hijack the web. Fourth, PDF and several other adobe sponsored open standards threaten MS's lock-in using proprietary formats. These are all reasons for MS to buy Adobe and remove the threat they pose.
Eventually corporations will start working in PDF directly, rather than farming out the PDFication of data to a specialist department. They will start liscencing Framemaker to all its staff.
Framemaker was an acquisition so Adobe is slowly killing off Framemaker. They have not released a Mac OS X version, the Linux port was killed after releasing a working beta, and the Windows version has gained basically zero features in the last several years. They would cancel it today if not for the thousands of users who would migrate to Quark.
Wait this could be useful. Think of the pr0n.
Storing your pr0n in word format is the most horrible thing I've ever heard of. You need help.
Your link is broken. The correct link is: http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/tiger.
The basic idea is keep everything pre-indexed by meta-data for instant searching. If I grab some tunes from a band I like I can type the first letter of the song name in the search bar and all the songs with album, band, or song names starting with that letter are instantly what is shown in the listing. As I type the next letter the list is refined (instantly) to show just the bands, songs, and albums starting with the first two letters. By the third letter I usually have about 20 songs left and can see what I want.
The main two points are everything indexed automatically by metadata (in spotlight this includes the contents of images, word files, text files pdfs etc. as well as all the normal metadata) and fast, fast, fast. The searches happen as fast as you can type.
Do they mean "Spotlight?"
I think they mean that they were inspired by the search feature in itunes, which is often used as an example of how spotlight will work when it is released in a few days.
1. You use their software voluntarily for storing *your* data.
Except that MS is a monopoly in the field and illegally abused that monopoly to make it very hard for anyone to use anything else via several illegal acts including illegal OEM bundling contracts and illegally withholding Win95 32-bit APIs.
2. Your data is - and remains - perfectly accessible via the software they provide, that you voluntarily purchased to use
Except it is impossible to buy a new copy of that software and in some cases illegal to transfer that software to a new computer when your current one dies. Also much of the information we are talking about here belongs to "THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" whose politicians unwisely and after being given large donations decided to put documents owned by the people into that format. I'd say it is decidedly in the public interest to either force those formats to be public so the information is preserved and available or convert all those documents now and pass laws prohibiting storing documents owned by the people in a format that is owned by a private entity. Other governments have and are in the process of doing that very thing.
Someone care to explain WHY Nikon would get upset about a software company making their software compatible with Nikon's hardware?! Why the hell would they encrypt information like this anyways?!
Nikon sells software to do this. They just want to lock out competitors. They are too stupid to realize that easy import into photoshop is more important than any other features on their camera that other camera manufacturers might not have.
Last time I looked at Opera the mac version sucked donkey balls. Has Opera ever upgraded it to be on par with the windows version? What about Linux? Sorry guys until it works well on my primary system, I'm certainly not going to pay for a proprietary, closed source browser on one of my tertiary machines.
So- I am not saying that Microsoft should, or should not open up their system more. I am just saying that there is always at least ONE jackass out there who feels that the world owes them everything, just for the honor of having the jackass use their software.
You're extrapolating your experiences and applying them to Microsoft. Unfortunately you are failing to account for the fact that Microsoft does not behave the same way you do. First they are a monopoly convicted of abusing that monopoly position to illegally crush competitors and force both behaviors and financial penalties upon their customers. The fact that the government has not mandated open formats from MS is a clear indication of just how corrupt they are.
Users deserve an alternative to being locked in by a monopoly and if someone feels like yelling that at a representative of these criminals, I'm all for it.
I don't think code is the problem, programmers might be willing to work for free but professional artists expect to get paid.
Actually, many graphic artists would be happy to contribute models, textures, icons, and misc. artwork to gaming projects. Graphics students and amateurs are especially willing as it allows them to build up a portfolio of work. The problem is that these people need to be recruited to open source gaming efforts. The crossover between graphic artists with free time and people who read open source software forums is very, very small. Someone working on the project has to do more than post on the developer forum and ask , "hey can anybody make some graphics for this?" There are a few free art projects online that are good places to look and as I said earlier graphics programs in universities are also good.
One final thing, in addition to finding artists, they need to be welcomed. I had two different friends volunteer some work to an open source game several years ago. One was completely ignored and could not get anyone to talk to them. The other was flamed for offering graphics in the wrong format (the right format was not listed anywhere in the documentation and none of the flamers even bothered to mention what it was.) Both of them gave up on working on open source gaming projects in record time. The attitude among developers and lack of respect they give to artists is as much a problem as recruiting is.
If Firefox wants to be taken seriously as a native browser on the Mac, it has a long way to go to catch up to Safari in terms of aesthetics and usability.
I disagree. Firefox serves a valid need by maintaining as much as possible across a variety of platforms. For people who regularly switch from platform to platform, Firefox's interface can be a great boon.
If you want a more native interface to the codebase try the Camino variant. It uses the native UI elements form OS X. That said, it still fails to make proper use of services, like spellchecking and translation.
As most designers will hopefully agree, Adobe's software is stable, well designed, consistent in operation and relatively intuitive.
OK, I want you to put down the crack pipe now and go get some help.
Adobe's products are not stable, consistent, or intuitive. If you think toolbars with hundreds of unlabeled icons only a quarter of which are visible at any given time is intuitive then I can only shake my head in disbelief. As far as stable goes I'm tracking a half dozen bugs that consistently crash Adobe applications, are over a year old, and work across platforms. I also have the misfortune of using InDesign on a relatively large project. Why is it that half of the floating palettes have menus that work when minimized and half don't? My guess is it depends upon which developer coded them. So I'm going to have to disagree with you on your assertions here. Adobe makes big, useful, buggy, half-finished, unintuitive, and moderately affordable applications. They don't make intuitive, stable, or well designed applications.
Seashore is a simple image editor for OS X, with a native front end that reuses a lot of code from the Gimp. It is still pretty rudimentary, but seems like the right approach to me. This is exactly what the previous poster is talking about. One guy writes a GPL editor, posts it on sourceforge. Right now it is functional and useful. Once it integrates the coreimage capabilities, it will start to be a useful replacement for photoshop for some low-end users. This is exactly the type of project that could take off and put the hurt on photoshop (who just announced that they are acquiring macromedia by the way).
It isn't contested that this man lived. Not by any accepted authority
What religion (not religious official or group of adherents to a religion) aside from christianity recognizes that there was a man named Jesus of Nazareth? As far as I know, Judaism might in some holy work recognize the existence of Jesus as a prophet, but aside from that, no major religion either affirms nor denies the existence of said person. Now what the original poster probably meant was that most leaders of organized religions and most reasonably well read persons of any religion do not dispute that such a person existed. That is not, however, what the original poster wrote, hence my clarification. You seem to have somehow not only misunderstood the meaning of the original sentence, but also of my clarification to it.
The English language can be difficult to parse at times, especially if it is not your first language. There is a big difference between religions recognizing a historical fact and religions not disputing a historical fact.