I must be the only one in the world who hates the Dock with a passion. "Hey, lets mix running application icons with non-running application icons! How intuitive!"
Or maybe you are just the only one who hasn't figured out the obvious solution. Simply pull all of the non-running applications out of the dock, and watch them vanish in a puff of smoke. If you want a special place for non-running favorite applications, you can alias them to a folder, and drag the folder to the document part of the bar, and launch them from the pop-up menu. Or use one of the many launcher programs that provide a separate dock for this purpose.
The real problem is that the next oldest media industry is starting to get scared of the Internet. They see what the RIAA is claiming to suffer from. They see the movie industry starting to take precautionary measures in case any of what the RIAA turns out to be even remotely truthful. And they're getting scared.
In this case, however, it is not the publishers who are panicking. It is, the Writers Guild, an organaization that purports to represent the artists.
Likewise, photocopying books is cheap, but not lazy-cheap. Having an automated program fetch the book for you, and then sit and wait for it to print (akin to sitting and waiting for a movie to download) strikes me as the perfect definition of lazy-cheap.
So our "lazy" person is going to go to the trouble to set up a bunch of Amazon accounts with different credit cards (since no one person can download an entire book), and figure out and program an appropriate search strategy to download all those chunks of text and assemble the book in the right order without skips or duplications? I'm too lazy to do all that stuff. I'd rather just go to the library and photocopy it. Or simply read it and take notes...
With a system like this, coupled with even two or three people per class who knew how to abuse it, a class as a whole could (like I theorized in my above post) have a 'book party' where the three people who downloaded their sections of the book meet with everyone at the library, they all pay their $15 to print the couple hundred pages, and they all get their books.
Instead of simply borrowing one coy from the library and photocopying it for everybody as they do now?
Their other example is college students banding together to print out entire volumes.
If a whole bunch of people want it, they could band together, buy (or borrow from the library) one copy, and xerox it at a self-service xerox machine. It happens now and then, but for most people it is simply more trouble than it is worth. Assembling an entire book from a bunch of searches would be even more inconvenient.
f you read the article, they bring up the examples of travel books or cookbooks. If I can just search to get info on a city I'm going to or a certain pie I want to bake, why buy the whole book?
I certainly wouldn't. Indeed, I never have. I just go to a library or bookstore with my notebook, copy down the info I want, and put the book back on the shelf. Of course, sometimes while doing this, I discover there's more of interest to me than I expected. And I end up buying the book.
Only one person at a time can read the book checked out of the library. Many libraries buy many multiple copies of popular books, because they know they'll be read by many people.
For the great majority of books, the likelihood that more than one person will be accessing them at any given time on Amazon is close to zero. Not to mention the books on the shelves in bookstores, many of which allow patrons to browse through the books--I've even gone into bookstores and taken notes on books. And for the great majority of books, the likelihood that more than one person at a time will be accessing them is nearly zero.
The Writers' Guild is screwing over writers by raising objections. I'd be astonished if an appreciable number of sales are lost, and the feature will doubtless sell many books. The fact is that hardly anybody ever buys a book to read a few pages. And reading large sections of a book this way is so laborious that most people would rather simply order a hardcopy.
You don't own a Mac do you? It's a pretty lonely world for people who don't upgrade their software. Newer Apple software packages generally require near current versions of the OS, and many other software vendors go the same route.
Newer Apple software packages aren't free. They are part of what you are paying for in the upgrade package. As an antipiracy measure, the software requires you to have the rest of the upgrade package. As an antipiracy measure, it seems fairly benign, especially compared to the increasingly common packages that have to "phone home" before they will activate.
Can anyone explain why a fresh OS install is preferable to an update OS install?
Suppose that something has gone wrong with your old system. Maybe a hard disk glitch corrupted a system file, or some third-party installer modified one. But your current system is tolerant to that particular problem, so everything seems to works OK, and you don't know about it. But the new OS happens to use that file in a different way, so now it crashes.
That makes it an Apple.1 upgrade/bugfix/annual tithing. Almost everything they make (along with others) doesn't work on pre-10.2
Nonsense. I know plenty of people who never bothered to upgrade to Jaguar, and their software still works fine. The only things that don't work on 10.1 are the completely new applications, which are a big part of what Apple is selling with these major (even though the put the version number after the decimal instead of before) upgrades. Apple tends to promote it as an OS upgrade that includes some bonus applications, but it is at least as reasonable to say that you are paying for a set of new applications and utilities that also includes a bonus OS upgrade.
The word "presumably" identifies something that is presumed--i.e. not known for a fact. I presume that money has changed hands when I see a particular new book given a more conspicuous bookstore display than others, or when I see the name of a product ostentatiously displayed in a movie, but I don't know this for a fact. It is certainly possible that Mr. Gates has mysteriously lost his business acumen, and is now providing favored treatment to specific music dealers for free.
so you're thinking that microsoft will let some hacker put malicious code on their update site? If updating windows is all you use it for I don't see a problem
It was a problem for us. We have a Windows computer being used in an instrument control application. There's no reason for anybody to be browsing the web on this computer, so we wanted to remove Internet Explorer. But it turns out that removing Internet Explorer also disables the ability to apply Microsoft's ever-more-frequent critical security patches.
Rhetoric about "choice" aside, this is clearly Microsoft's real objections to iTunes for Windows--it bypasses Microsoft's efforts to channel less sophisticated users to Microsoft's favored music vendors--presumably those that pay Microsoft a kickback.
If people will not massively abuse potentially possible AAC-CD-MP3-P2P route. If customers will demand the non-DRM music to be able to play it everywhere.
Why would people "massively abuse" it? If you want to make a bunch of mp3 copies for your friends, you'll probably get them to kick in the few extra bucks for the actual CD, and you'll get a rip of better quality. For most people, however, "everywhere" boils down to 2 or 3 devices. If you already have the AAC version, and you just want an mp3 copy for your cell phone, you'll write to CD and rip, and you probably won't much care that the quality isn't quite what you'd get off the CD.
Uhm, well I suppose I shouldn't go corrupting youngsters on/., but in the real world heavy users of coke and meth shoot up.
That used to be true, but crack changed that. It's cheap, efficient, and you don't have to poke yourself with a needle. These days, most people who get into trouble with cocaine are smoking it.
But I doubt you will find any statistics about strokes or heart attacks associated with low doses of Coke. You do realize where the cola brand gets its name, right? It's American as apple pie and tobacco. It won't hurt ya in low doses.
At the kind of low doses you are talking about, cocaine is about as euphoric as caffeine. But you won't find any statistics showing that it is safe, even at those low doses. Some people seem to be extremely sensitive to the damaging effects of cocaine on the heart, so I wouldn't be surprised if people were dropping dead here and there from cocaine colas, and nobody noticed. Back then, nobody kept track.
If it isn't totally effective, it is only a small step to leave it out completely.
I presume, then, that you never bother to lock your house or car, and your files are not password-protected? After all, no lock is totally effective, and no password is unguessable.
Apple is clearly seeking a compromise between the wishes of the recording company to lock out copying altogether and the wishes of the user to perserve traditional fair use options. The nature of a compromise, of course, is that it is not perfectly satisfactory to anybody.
The whole argument against, for instance, coke, heroin and amphetamines becomes quite different when you take out overdoses, needles and high temperature pipes.
True for heroin, false for cocaine, questionable for amphetamines. There is nothing particularly hazardous about a crack pipe (so long as you aren't trying to freebase the cocaine yourself). But cocaine is an inherently dangerous drug, being both intensely habit-forming and carrying with it a substantial risk of heart attack and stroke.
The body is not a 'static problem', but a 'dynamic process'. (Okay, no kill -9 jokes, please).A microchip, despite all the possible intelligence, does not take into account that the body is (rather should be) capable of taking care of itself.
Therapeutic drugs are used when the body's systems for "taking care of itself" fail, a situation known as "disease." For the most part, drugs are administered in such a way as to keep the amount of drug in the bloodstream fairly constant. The first generation of drug chips will be designed to do the same thing. But eventually, there will be dynamic chips designed to respond to changing circumstances, such as a chip that releases varying levels of insulin depending upon blood glucose levels.
So, how do you get it out if you have a reaction to the medication? Vomit? No, then Xacto or Dremel?
The FDA has already approved forms of implantable sustained-release medication, so this is just an improved technology for doing something that is already routinely done. You can check for reactions before going to an implantable form of a drug--and if worse comes to worst, it's not really that big a deal to cut it out.
So if they are in fact targeting existing anime fans, I feel they would be more successful to have it subbed, whereas if they are targeting the new fans/fringe fans, then perhaps yes, they should do dubbed.
Considering that every previous Disney DVD Miyazaki release has included both the Japanese version and a high-quality dubbed version, they are obviously interested in appealing to both audiences. Disney deserves a lot of credit for investing in the top-quality voice talent that is required if these titles are to reach a wider audience in English-speaking countries. Unfortunately, they will apparently have to do so on video, because while the guys developing these Miyazaki works for DVD clearly appreciate that they are dealing with classics on the level of Cinderalla or Sleeping Beauty, the guys making Disney's promotional decisions just as obviously don't "get it." Spirited Away received only a very limited "art house" release until it won the Academy Award, and only a tiny fraction of the promotional budget that was wasted on Treasure Planet, which tanked anyway.
There is nothing about preferring subbing that makes one snobbish, nor is someone "normal" because they don't have the patience to watch something in its original format as the creator intended for it to be viewed
No, it is not snobbish to merely prefer to watch something in the original language. A snobbish attitude would be something along the lines of "I just can't bear to watch in in its dubbed format--it utterly ruins it for me. Anybody who would watch a dubbed version would have to somebody with a short attention span." Or who presumes to know for certain that its creator really intended it to be viewed in a subtitled format by non-Japanese speakers.
The reality, no matter how distasteful you may find it, is that a large fraction of the viewing public (as opposed to self-styled "anime fans") finds subtitles distracting, and a major obstacle to their enjoyment. And many of those people, no matter how much you may sneer at them, would enjoy a work like Nausicaa if they had a chance to view it in English.
Spirited Away won an Academy Award and is available in multiple copies in just about every video store in America. That's a pretty remarkable reception for something that is still somewhat alien, culturally speaking.
The nice thing about the DVD versions is that you have your choice: a clearly subtitled version and an excellent dub. So you can watch it in Japanese with your snobbish fan friends, and still show it to your more "normal" friends who wouldn't sit still for a subtitled cartoon in a foreign languange. Personally, I enjoy both--it's nice to see how talented English speaking actors reinterpret a brilliant Japanese anime, like listening to a cover of an old favorite song by a great band.
Nausicaa is a wonderful early animated film by Miyazaki, more famous in the US for the Academy Award-winning "Spirited Away" and for "Princess Mononoke." Until now, it has only been legally available in the US as a mangled (missing about 20 minutes) dubbed version called "Warriors of the Wind," which still can be found on the shelves of some video rental shops.
Slashdot Mirror
Or maybe you are just the only one who hasn't figured out the obvious solution. Simply pull all of the non-running applications out of the dock, and watch them vanish in a puff of smoke. If you want a special place for non-running favorite applications, you can alias them to a folder, and drag the folder to the document part of the bar, and launch them from the pop-up menu. Or use one of the many launcher programs that provide a separate dock for this purpose.
In this case, however, it is not the publishers who are panicking. It is, the Writers Guild, an organaization that purports to represent the artists.
For the great majority of books, the likelihood that more than one person will be accessing them at any given time on Amazon is close to zero. Not to mention the books on the shelves in bookstores, many of which allow patrons to browse through the books--I've even gone into bookstores and taken notes on books. And for the great majority of books, the likelihood that more than one person at a time will be accessing them is nearly zero.
The Writers' Guild is screwing over writers by raising objections. I'd be astonished if an appreciable number of sales are lost, and the feature will doubtless sell many books. The fact is that hardly anybody ever buys a book to read a few pages. And reading large sections of a book this way is so laborious that most people would rather simply order a hardcopy.
Yep. Better not circulate the radioactive material. Probably better to leave it inside the reactor where it belongs.
The word "presumably" identifies something that is presumed--i.e. not known for a fact. I presume that money has changed hands when I see a particular new book given a more conspicuous bookstore display than others, or when I see the name of a product ostentatiously displayed in a movie, but I don't know this for a fact. It is certainly possible that Mr. Gates has mysteriously lost his business acumen, and is now providing favored treatment to specific music dealers for free.
Rhetoric about "choice" aside, this is clearly Microsoft's real objections to iTunes for Windows--it bypasses Microsoft's efforts to channel less sophisticated users to Microsoft's favored music vendors--presumably those that pay Microsoft a kickback.
I presume, then, that you never bother to lock your house or car, and your files are not password-protected? After all, no lock is totally effective, and no password is unguessable.
Apple is clearly seeking a compromise between the wishes of the recording company to lock out copying altogether and the wishes of the user to perserve traditional fair use options. The nature of a compromise, of course, is that it is not perfectly satisfactory to anybody.
Considering that every previous Disney DVD Miyazaki release has included both the Japanese version and a high-quality dubbed version, they are obviously interested in appealing to both audiences. Disney deserves a lot of credit for investing in the top-quality voice talent that is required if these titles are to reach a wider audience in English-speaking countries. Unfortunately, they will apparently have to do so on video, because while the guys developing these Miyazaki works for DVD clearly appreciate that they are dealing with classics on the level of Cinderalla or Sleeping Beauty, the guys making Disney's promotional decisions just as obviously don't "get it." Spirited Away received only a very limited "art house" release until it won the Academy Award, and only a tiny fraction of the promotional budget that was wasted on Treasure Planet, which tanked anyway.
The reality, no matter how distasteful you may find it, is that a large fraction of the viewing public (as opposed to self-styled "anime fans") finds subtitles distracting, and a major obstacle to their enjoyment. And many of those people, no matter how much you may sneer at them, would enjoy a work like Nausicaa if they had a chance to view it in English.
Spirited Away won an Academy Award and is available in multiple copies in just about every video store in America. That's a pretty remarkable reception for something that is still somewhat alien, culturally speaking.
The nice thing about the DVD versions is that you have your choice: a clearly subtitled version and an excellent dub. So you can watch it in Japanese with your snobbish fan friends, and still show it to your more "normal" friends who wouldn't sit still for a subtitled cartoon in a foreign languange. Personally, I enjoy both--it's nice to see how talented English speaking actors reinterpret a brilliant Japanese anime, like listening to a cover of an old favorite song by a great band.
Nausicaa is a wonderful early animated film by Miyazaki, more famous in the US for the Academy Award-winning "Spirited Away" and for "Princess Mononoke." Until now, it has only been legally available in the US as a mangled (missing about 20 minutes) dubbed version called "Warriors of the Wind," which still can be found on the shelves of some video rental shops.