From reading at least part of the "article", what I gathered was the whole "oh look, you only have to sign for 2 years" while in fact there was a standing agreement between Apple and AT&T that Apple wouldn't provide access to other carriers for at least five years was a big no-no.
Gay couples probably have roughly as many problems as anyone else. But one can argue that if you're in a state that's very prejudiced against homosexuality, you're likelier to have closet cases marrying "straight", which is a recipe for a failed marriage.
If you'd bothered to RTFM, you'd know that this particular test was done measuring power on to disk/CPU idle, not starting bluetooth at all, cups and nfs only starting on demand, network services started but not necessarily having acquired a connection, and quite a few more details of the sort.
it's really quite interesting. i also often times wonder why elephants have such large brains. yeah they're the largest land animal, but what could they possibly be doing with those brains?
Size doesn't matter nearly as much as connectedness does -- which is why humans with abnormally large heads aren't necessarily smarter than people with average skull sizes.
Well, F# is a perfect fourth up from C#, which offers better resolution than moving to E#, a major third up. At least they didn't go for G, at which point they'd have you begging for G#.
If you define ignorance absolutely, then you're right: either there is or there isn't a god out there, and belief has nothing to do with that, only knowing whether or not that god exists. However, ignorance is usually measured as being relative to what society as a whole knows. And, as much as we know about the universe, we can't even nearly claim to know everything.
You can be an educated person and still believe that a deity of some denomination or another is the answer to at least part of the remaining questions, where you and I believe that god needn't exist for the universe to make sense.
Any spore installation (or any other program for that matter) is copied millions of times in the course of normal use on a single computer (regardless of whether money was given to some 3rd party). It is loaded from the hard disk to RAM, occasionally swapped back to disk and vice versa. What makes this copying "OK" and other copying not "OK"?
It's because of stupid semantics arguments like this that barely-readable legalese EULAs crop up. If you know that things get copied back and forth from HDD to RAM, you should also know the difference between copying back and forth to RAM for the purpose of execution or backup and making a separate copy on (semi-)permanent storage to hand the data over to somebody else. Pretending it's all the same is disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst.
This is my personal experience, of course, and YMMV, but I find that my 12" iBook (the very last model) is extremely rugged, and has withstood a lot of punishment that most other laptops wouldn't survive, without a hitch. The hinge isn't loose, the battery still lasts me ~4 hours with medium screen brightness, wifi on and bluetooth off (and I tend to use in the hectic, on-again off-again, sort of way that is traditionally associated with screwing batteries up). My OS X install is still the original install (that is, the re-install with all my personal preferences that immediately followed the purchase, not the factory install), and has none of the bit-rot or quirky behaviour that all my windows installs have had.
All in all, it's a computer that's aged very well, above and beyond "it still runs the software I need".
Long post short, if I close the last window an application has open, there's no reason for the application to still be running when there is no visual representation of the app. I am not using it, it should go away. Most PC users don't like dealing with that "quirky" behaviour.
Let's turn that upside down. Why the fsck can't I close the document I have open and then open/create another one without closing down the entire application? Why is it that closing a window sometimes means "close this document" and others it means "close this application"?
I think you're failing to see one fundamental difference in design philosophy. The desktop metaphor for Windows (and Linux, for the most part) is entirely window-oriented. Mac OS X is fully application-oriented. I like Apple's better, and find it much more consistent, but to each his own.
In OS X, I think the only regular application I've ever seen that doesn't behave normally (that is, staying alive when all windows are closed) is the System Preferences panel (and, for the sake of completeness, less than regular Java and Python stuff tends to close down completely when you close all windows. It shouldn't, it's inconsistent, but at least there's a clear pattern behind the inconsistency). You minimize the window and it goes into right side of the Dock, end of story. Also, each open application has precisely one icon on the Dock (minus minimized windows, which are clearly divided).
In windows, each open window (usually) spawns its own bar on the taskbar. Some applications collapse all windows into one single stack, others will do that only when there are "too many" applications listed, some more not even that, I think. Yet some more, not even that. All of this while only actually having one instance of the program open, of course. Then you start minimizing stuff. Some stuff will minimize normally. Other stuff will minimize to tray. Yet some more stuff will minimize normally or to tray depending on configuration. Some more offer minimize to tray functionality when you close the window. Way too many programs end up using the system tray as some sort of short cut bar or the "I'm running but not actually doing anything right now" spot.
Strictly "free as in speech" means that even if the first generation product isn't free as in beer, anybody who bought it can make a second generation one that is (think RedHat/CentOS).
Like I said: I don't know how well it's implemented, but under any sane implementation of such a scheme there'd be a "user xyz on behalf of user abc" bit on the header.
I know, it doesn't sound like that sort of thing would be all that important, and it's not even clear all the time that it makes a lot of sense, but there are companies that run on this sort of procedure.
Hell, I read what you described and thought "damn, that's a really good idea, hope it's also a well thought out and implemented feature". The idea that I can easily give you permission to act on my behalf is probably the single best way to kill account promiscuity. Plus the example you gave is also a damned practical one too, and a good way to prove that this is a feature, and not a solution looking for a problem.
So there are a bunch of random things like shared calendars and push-email to phones that people don't want to live without, and unless you can provide a seamless replacement, you're stuck with Exchange.
In other news, when a piece of software is truly convenient, you use it, even if it's not perfect.
Nobody believed the bubble wouldn't burst. I bet very few people ever thought "I'll stop, because it might burst tomorrow". Ultimately, that's what matters: "Nobody" believed the value would stop rising (tomorrow).
More like "anti-aliased/sub-pixel rendered text is slower than plain rendered text on your standard GUI, but it's fast enough that you can't really notice, so you might as well call it 'as fast as'".
Chrome is all new and bright and shiny, Firefox has some (plenty?) memory leaks, and all of a sudden we go from comparing browsers to making sweeping statements over their respective rendering engines? Why?
How is a rendering engine that scores 85% on ACID3 "outdated"? Why should Mozilla drop a codebase that is quite successful in the marketplace, and that they know intimately and have full control over in favour of one they don't know all that well and is controlled by Apple, just because it's (arguably) king of the hill right now?
Frankly, the summary is a troll -- and the article feels like little more than a jab at free clicks.
problem is keeping the private key in its private state. When the key is, by necessity, burnt into the RFID chip somehow, how do you prevent dissection of the chip to reveal it? This is, btw, an honest question. Only way I see of doing that is by using some sort of tamper proof casing around it, which is not necessarily practical for all implementations.
It's like all those idiotic solid-state music players that list "XXXX" songs, assuming a certain bitrate and length.
Those are actually not that bad, because, most of the time, they actually do have the average length/bitrate listed. That gives the non-techies a ballpark figure, and gives us tech-heads all of: actual storage capacity, estimated song capacity, and parameters for that estimation. If you can spot that the estimated song capacity is bogus, you can bet your arse something else will be wrong somewhere else.
Well, five nines means 0.001% UNplanned downtime. Granted, for many applications the planned downtime should border zero (utilities, more general banking applications), but for all intents and purposes you do have what effectively amounts to over 10 hours/day of "planned downtime" on stock markets, even if the machines aren't powered down, since those are periods when the service is unavailable.
Slashdot Mirror
Part of the agreement involves not making a CDMA version.
From reading at least part of the "article", what I gathered was the whole "oh look, you only have to sign for 2 years" while in fact there was a standing agreement between Apple and AT&T that Apple wouldn't provide access to other carriers for at least five years was a big no-no.
Try seven.
Gay couples probably have roughly as many problems as anyone else. But one can argue that if you're in a state that's very prejudiced against homosexuality, you're likelier to have closet cases marrying "straight", which is a recipe for a failed marriage.
If you'd bothered to RTFM, you'd know that this particular test was done measuring power on to disk/CPU idle, not starting bluetooth at all, cups and nfs only starting on demand, network services started but not necessarily having acquired a connection, and quite a few more details of the sort.
which is why humans with abnormally large heads aren't necessarily smarter than people with average skull sizes.
They just think they are! (Sorry, just had to reply to myself to complete the post)
it's really quite interesting. i also often times wonder why elephants have such large brains. yeah they're the largest land animal, but what could they possibly be doing with those brains?
Size doesn't matter nearly as much as connectedness does -- which is why humans with abnormally large heads aren't necessarily smarter than people with average skull sizes.
Or thinner.
Well, F# is a perfect fourth up from C#, which offers better resolution than moving to E#, a major third up. At least they didn't go for G, at which point they'd have you begging for G#.
If you define ignorance absolutely, then you're right: either there is or there isn't a god out there, and belief has nothing to do with that, only knowing whether or not that god exists. However, ignorance is usually measured as being relative to what society as a whole knows. And, as much as we know about the universe, we can't even nearly claim to know everything.
You can be an educated person and still believe that a deity of some denomination or another is the answer to at least part of the remaining questions, where you and I believe that god needn't exist for the universe to make sense.
Any spore installation (or any other program for that matter) is copied millions of times in the course of normal use on a single computer (regardless of whether money was given to some 3rd party). It is loaded from the hard disk to RAM, occasionally swapped back to disk and vice versa. What makes this copying "OK" and other copying not "OK"?
It's because of stupid semantics arguments like this that barely-readable legalese EULAs crop up. If you know that things get copied back and forth from HDD to RAM, you should also know the difference between copying back and forth to RAM for the purpose of execution or backup and making a separate copy on (semi-)permanent storage to hand the data over to somebody else. Pretending it's all the same is disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst.
This is my personal experience, of course, and YMMV, but I find that my 12" iBook (the very last model) is extremely rugged, and has withstood a lot of punishment that most other laptops wouldn't survive, without a hitch. The hinge isn't loose, the battery still lasts me ~4 hours with medium screen brightness, wifi on and bluetooth off (and I tend to use in the hectic, on-again off-again, sort of way that is traditionally associated with screwing batteries up). My OS X install is still the original install (that is, the re-install with all my personal preferences that immediately followed the purchase, not the factory install), and has none of the bit-rot or quirky behaviour that all my windows installs have had.
All in all, it's a computer that's aged very well, above and beyond "it still runs the software I need".
Long post short, if I close the last window an application has open, there's no reason for the application to still be running when there is no visual representation of the app. I am not using it, it should go away. Most PC users don't like dealing with that "quirky" behaviour.
Let's turn that upside down. Why the fsck can't I close the document I have open and then open/create another one without closing down the entire application? Why is it that closing a window sometimes means "close this document" and others it means "close this application"?
I think you're failing to see one fundamental difference in design philosophy. The desktop metaphor for Windows (and Linux, for the most part) is entirely window-oriented. Mac OS X is fully application-oriented. I like Apple's better, and find it much more consistent, but to each his own.
In OS X, I think the only regular application I've ever seen that doesn't behave normally (that is, staying alive when all windows are closed) is the System Preferences panel (and, for the sake of completeness, less than regular Java and Python stuff tends to close down completely when you close all windows. It shouldn't, it's inconsistent, but at least there's a clear pattern behind the inconsistency). You minimize the window and it goes into right side of the Dock, end of story. Also, each open application has precisely one icon on the Dock (minus minimized windows, which are clearly divided).
In windows, each open window (usually) spawns its own bar on the taskbar. Some applications collapse all windows into one single stack, others will do that only when there are "too many" applications listed, some more not even that, I think. Yet some more, not even that. All of this while only actually having one instance of the program open, of course. Then you start minimizing stuff. Some stuff will minimize normally. Other stuff will minimize to tray. Yet some more stuff will minimize normally or to tray depending on configuration. Some more offer minimize to tray functionality when you close the window. Way too many programs end up using the system tray as some sort of short cut bar or the "I'm running but not actually doing anything right now" spot.
Strictly "free as in speech" means that even if the first generation product isn't free as in beer, anybody who bought it can make a second generation one that is (think RedHat/CentOS).
Even if it is accompanied by trendy, fresh terms like "Neo" ???
I don't know about fresh, but the term is definitely new
.
Bah, COBOL is outdated, nowadays we program with objects! And, for that, ADD 1 TO COBOL GIVING COBOL is a great language!
Like I said: I don't know how well it's implemented, but under any sane implementation of such a scheme there'd be a "user xyz on behalf of user abc" bit on the header.
I know, it doesn't sound like that sort of thing would be all that important, and it's not even clear all the time that it makes a lot of sense, but there are companies that run on this sort of procedure.
Hell, I read what you described and thought "damn, that's a really good idea, hope it's also a well thought out and implemented feature". The idea that I can easily give you permission to act on my behalf is probably the single best way to kill account promiscuity. Plus the example you gave is also a damned practical one too, and a good way to prove that this is a feature, and not a solution looking for a problem.
So there are a bunch of random things like shared calendars and push-email to phones that people don't want to live without, and unless you can provide a seamless replacement, you're stuck with Exchange.
In other news, when a piece of software is truly convenient, you use it, even if it's not perfect.
It's when you hit two stones with one bird you know you've achieved mastery though.
Nobody believed the bubble wouldn't burst. I bet very few people ever thought "I'll stop, because it might burst tomorrow". Ultimately, that's what matters: "Nobody" believed the value would stop rising (tomorrow).
More like "anti-aliased/sub-pixel rendered text is slower than plain rendered text on your standard GUI, but it's fast enough that you can't really notice, so you might as well call it 'as fast as'".
Chrome is all new and bright and shiny, Firefox has some (plenty?) memory leaks, and all of a sudden we go from comparing browsers to making sweeping statements over their respective rendering engines? Why?
How is a rendering engine that scores 85% on ACID3 "outdated"? Why should Mozilla drop a codebase that is quite successful in the marketplace, and that they know intimately and have full control over in favour of one they don't know all that well and is controlled by Apple, just because it's (arguably) king of the hill right now?
Frankly, the summary is a troll -- and the article feels like little more than a jab at free clicks.
problem is keeping the private key in its private state. When the key is, by necessity, burnt into the RFID chip somehow, how do you prevent dissection of the chip to reveal it? This is, btw, an honest question. Only way I see of doing that is by using some sort of tamper proof casing around it, which is not necessarily practical for all implementations.
It's like all those idiotic solid-state music players that list "XXXX" songs, assuming a certain bitrate and length.
Those are actually not that bad, because, most of the time, they actually do have the average length/bitrate listed. That gives the non-techies a ballpark figure, and gives us tech-heads all of: actual storage capacity, estimated song capacity, and parameters for that estimation. If you can spot that the estimated song capacity is bogus, you can bet your arse something else will be wrong somewhere else.
Well, five nines means 0.001% UNplanned downtime. Granted, for many applications the planned downtime should border zero (utilities, more general banking applications), but for all intents and purposes you do have what effectively amounts to over 10 hours/day of "planned downtime" on stock markets, even if the machines aren't powered down, since those are periods when the service is unavailable.