Not so much "could become" as "is." Automator is based on the idea of creating ad-hoc workflow pipelines, just like the UNIX command line. Except you're not limited to textual input and output, and the workflows can be saved for later execution.
Think of it as the natural evolution of the pipeline aspects of the command line.
On the Mac, nobody uses Acrobat unless they have a specific need for it. We all use Preview.
Given that the PDF specification is wide-ass open to anybody who wants to implement it, why hasn't any clever programmer put his big ol' brain to the problem of writing a good PDF display program for Windows and Linux and whatever the hell else, so y'all who are still using 20th-century computers can quite your whining about PDF?
I use PDF for practically everything. It's fantastic. Why are y'all letting the absence of a high-quality, 21st-century display program hold you back?
I, and many other folks, recently got set to having 50 invites left. While before it was already close to true...
Okay, look, I'm not deliberately going out of my way to be a jerk here, but when you typed that, a thousand English teachers cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
A piece of advice, particularly for those who don't speak English as their native language: Stick to simple sentences. Noun-verb-object. It might not be as florid, but you're way more likely to be actually understood by your audience.
You are talking about the thousands of paper MCSEs that showed up 6-8 years ago.
No, friend. I'm talking about you.
Last night the President announced an initiative to increase federal funding to our country's community and junior colleges. If I were you, I'd find one fast and start taking night classes. In a matter of just a few years, your job is going to vanish forever.
You said that you wanted to see something other than title, artist, album, cover art, rating and duration. What that "something other" might be, God himself can only guess. Then you said that you "prefer" the extra step that the other thingy makes you jump thorough, but that's obviously based on your confusion about how to use playlists and scrollwheels. Then you said that the iPod doesn't let you create playlists, which is wrong. Then you said that the scroll wheel is either too sensitive or not sensitive enough, which is again based on the fact that you don't understand how to use it.
No, the point is that for all practical purposes, Apple did invent the music player. If it weren't for Apple, they'd still be, well, about as popular as the "PJB-100."
Your "different opinion" is conspicuous and suspicious. You have no reason to like the other product better than the iPod; you just insist that you do. You claim that the other product's joystick is superior to the scroll wheel when (1) it clearly is not, and (2) you don't even know how to use the scroll wheel. Et cetera, et cetera.
To me, that all adds up to the conclusion that you're not actually sharing your opinion. You're just talking down the iPod for some reason. Hell, for all I know maybe you work for some company that wants to compete with Apple, so you go on the Internet and reverse-astroturf. I have no idea.
I'm just saying that your "different opinion" makes no sense, so it seems like you're trolling.
Also, the silly wheel metaphor is OK I suppose, but at least on the 4g is way too sensitive on some menus and not sensative enough in others. Tuning is required here.
Or, possibly, reading the fucking manual.
The scroll wheel is shaped like a doughnut, right, with an inner edge and an outer edge. If you run your finger around the inside edge of the wheel, the cursor moves quickly. If you run your finger around the outside edge it moves more slowly. If you run it in the middle, it moves at a speed between the two extremes.
Back when the Mac was first introduced, it came with a fairly lengthy tutorial on how to use the mouse. It taught people things like "if you reach the edge of your desk, pick the mouse up and move it back to the center." If you didn't have this instruction, you'd be just as frustrated with a mouse as you are with a scroll wheel.
(As for the rest of your blather...in your opinion, everything that's good about the iPod and iTunes is really bad, and everything that's bad about the competition is really good. I'm starting to suspect that you're just trolling.)
And nobody --nobody --remembers it. Which was precisely my point. It doesn't matter who was the first. What matters is who was the first to do it right.
Sigh. The sad thing is that there are lots of people out there who will read this and believe that there really is a "US Patriot Act" and that it really is possible to violate it.
This fucking country went to hell in a handbasket the day, the very day, we stopped teaching "how a bill becomes a law" in government classes.
Since the theft of intellectual property is covered under Title 18 of the United States Code adjacent to other crimes of property, nonsense analogies made by people who really, really want to believe that it's less of a crime than it is are kind of meaningless.
A license is a specific type of contract. An express license --like the Gnu license --is legally a contract, and as such must be accepted by overt act. Because the Gnu license is an express license with only implicit acceptance, it's not legally binding. It is not, in other words, worth the paper it's printed on.
Acceptance of the terms and conditions of a contract does not have to be in writing.
No, but it has to be overt. It can't be implicit. A contract which is only accepted implicitly isn't binding.
The reason why the Gnu license isn't comparable to pumping gas is that the gas station has a big sign out front that says "$1.69 a gallon" or something. The terms of sale are spelled out right up front. Software distributed under the Gnu license, however, is advertised as "free." Heck, even the name of the controlling authority, the Free Software Foundation, contains the word "free."
If you want a better analogy, it would be like a gas station with a big sign that reads "FREE GAS." You go, you pump, you start to drive away, and then the attendant comes out and demands you pay him $1.69 a gallon. The phrase you're looking for here is "laughed out of court."
Performing any action that would be illegal without the other party's specific permission consitutes overt acceptance.
No, it doesn't. Besides, even if that were true, the other party specifically says that anybody who wants one can take a copy without paying any fee for it. That's the IP equivalent of hoisting a sign that reads "FREE KITTENS."
The problem arises when you say after the fact, "Oh, but if you take a kitten, you have to promise to kill and eat it," or something. That's where the problems arise.
And yet, despite all these contributions, none of these guys are remembered by history. Daimler is the name of a car company, a name with as much connection to the history of the automobile as Toyota or Hyundai.
Henry Ford is remembered as the father of the automobile because he's the first one who got it right.
That's why Apple is the father of the portable music player, and people who argue that "Apple didn't invent it" and that "so-n-so had a steam-powered phonograph in 1922" are completely off the mark.
Slashdot Mirror
Not so much "could become" as "is." Automator is based on the idea of creating ad-hoc workflow pipelines, just like the UNIX command line. Except you're not limited to textual input and output, and the workflows can be saved for later execution.
Think of it as the natural evolution of the pipeline aspects of the command line.
Also, your chair is too comfortable. Consider trading it in for a nice, hard piece of plywood supported by two cinderblocks.
And it's too warm in your office. Consider turning off the heat.
And it's too easy to type with all ten fingers intact. Consider breaking three. Any three. Doesn't matter.
I bet there are a lot of other really good suggestions for people who are into massive amounts of pain.
Of course, anybody who writes end-user applications in Java is also into inflicting massive amounts of pain. But that's another conversation.
Okay, here's a serious question for you.
On the Mac, nobody uses Acrobat unless they have a specific need for it. We all use Preview.
Given that the PDF specification is wide-ass open to anybody who wants to implement it, why hasn't any clever programmer put his big ol' brain to the problem of writing a good PDF display program for Windows and Linux and whatever the hell else, so y'all who are still using 20th-century computers can quite your whining about PDF?
I use PDF for practically everything. It's fantastic. Why are y'all letting the absence of a high-quality, 21st-century display program hold you back?
a user number 840,000 above mine
Let us be men. I'll drop my pants, you can hold the ruler.
Hmm. Five rapid "overrated" moderations on five successive comments. How very interesting. How very interesting indeed.
You found Squat? Man, you're in for a treat. She's great.
No more calls, please. We have our winner in the "world's biggest nerd" contest.
I, and many other folks, recently got set to having 50 invites left. While before it was already close to true ...
Okay, look, I'm not deliberately going out of my way to be a jerk here, but when you typed that, a thousand English teachers cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
A piece of advice, particularly for those who don't speak English as their native language: Stick to simple sentences. Noun-verb-object. It might not be as florid, but you're way more likely to be actually understood by your audience.
Just America and America Jr.
SunOne Web Server, IBM WebSphere and IBM/Tivoli Access Manager, LDAP administration, PERL scripting, REXX scripting, and software distribution
That's good. Seriously, that's just fantastic. It's kind of a shame, though, that that's all 20th-century stuff, WAY behind the technology curve.
Seriously: Start taking night classes. You don't want to be the last buggy-whip manufacturer in town, do you?
You are talking about the thousands of paper MCSEs that showed up 6-8 years ago.
No, friend. I'm talking about you.
Last night the President announced an initiative to increase federal funding to our country's community and junior colleges. If I were you, I'd find one fast and start taking night classes. In a matter of just a few years, your job is going to vanish forever.
No, you didn't.
You said that you wanted to see something other than title, artist, album, cover art, rating and duration. What that "something other" might be, God himself can only guess. Then you said that you "prefer" the extra step that the other thingy makes you jump thorough, but that's obviously based on your confusion about how to use playlists and scrollwheels. Then you said that the iPod doesn't let you create playlists, which is wrong. Then you said that the scroll wheel is either too sensitive or not sensitive enough, which is again based on the fact that you don't understand how to use it.
You didn't list anything. You just trolled.
No, the point is that for all practical purposes, Apple did invent the music player. If it weren't for Apple, they'd still be, well, about as popular as the "PJB-100."
Your "different opinion" is conspicuous and suspicious. You have no reason to like the other product better than the iPod; you just insist that you do. You claim that the other product's joystick is superior to the scroll wheel when (1) it clearly is not, and (2) you don't even know how to use the scroll wheel. Et cetera, et cetera.
To me, that all adds up to the conclusion that you're not actually sharing your opinion. You're just talking down the iPod for some reason. Hell, for all I know maybe you work for some company that wants to compete with Apple, so you go on the Internet and reverse-astroturf. I have no idea.
I'm just saying that your "different opinion" makes no sense, so it seems like you're trolling.
Also, the silly wheel metaphor is OK I suppose, but at least on the 4g is way too sensitive on some menus and not sensative enough in others. Tuning is required here.
...in your opinion, everything that's good about the iPod and iTunes is really bad, and everything that's bad about the competition is really good. I'm starting to suspect that you're just trolling.)
Or, possibly, reading the fucking manual.
The scroll wheel is shaped like a doughnut, right, with an inner edge and an outer edge. If you run your finger around the inside edge of the wheel, the cursor moves quickly. If you run your finger around the outside edge it moves more slowly. If you run it in the middle, it moves at a speed between the two extremes.
Back when the Mac was first introduced, it came with a fairly lengthy tutorial on how to use the mouse. It taught people things like "if you reach the edge of your desk, pick the mouse up and move it back to the center." If you didn't have this instruction, you'd be just as frustrated with a mouse as you are with a scroll wheel.
(As for the rest of your blather
And nobody --nobody --remembers it. Which was precisely my point. It doesn't matter who was the first. What matters is who was the first to do it right.
Sigh. The sad thing is that there are lots of people out there who will read this and believe that there really is a "US Patriot Act" and that it really is possible to violate it.
This fucking country went to hell in a handbasket the day, the very day, we stopped teaching "how a bill becomes a law" in government classes.
If you want original shows, get HBO and tune into Carnivàle.
The first season of which, incidentally, was written by the same guy who created and wrote most of "Battlestar Galactica."
Um. You didn't seriously get your legal advice from "Wikipedia," did you?
Since the theft of intellectual property is covered under Title 18 of the United States Code adjacent to other crimes of property, nonsense analogies made by people who really, really want to believe that it's less of a crime than it is are kind of meaningless.
Without agreeing to the contract, NO.
But there is no overt act of agreement.
The GPL is not a contract at all, but a license.
A license is a specific type of contract. An express license --like the Gnu license --is legally a contract, and as such must be accepted by overt act. Because the Gnu license is an express license with only implicit acceptance, it's not legally binding. It is not, in other words, worth the paper it's printed on.
Acceptance of the terms and conditions of a contract does not have to be in writing.
No, but it has to be overt. It can't be implicit. A contract which is only accepted implicitly isn't binding.
The reason why the Gnu license isn't comparable to pumping gas is that the gas station has a big sign out front that says "$1.69 a gallon" or something. The terms of sale are spelled out right up front. Software distributed under the Gnu license, however, is advertised as "free." Heck, even the name of the controlling authority, the Free Software Foundation, contains the word "free."
If you want a better analogy, it would be like a gas station with a big sign that reads "FREE GAS." You go, you pump, you start to drive away, and then the attendant comes out and demands you pay him $1.69 a gallon. The phrase you're looking for here is "laughed out of court."
Performing any action that would be illegal without the other party's specific permission consitutes overt acceptance.
No, it doesn't. Besides, even if that were true, the other party specifically says that anybody who wants one can take a copy without paying any fee for it. That's the IP equivalent of hoisting a sign that reads "FREE KITTENS."
The problem arises when you say after the fact, "Oh, but if you take a kitten, you have to promise to kill and eat it," or something. That's where the problems arise.
And yet, despite all these contributions, none of these guys are remembered by history. Daimler is the name of a car company, a name with as much connection to the history of the automobile as Toyota or Hyundai.
Henry Ford is remembered as the father of the automobile because he's the first one who got it right.
That's why Apple is the father of the portable music player, and people who argue that "Apple didn't invent it" and that "so-n-so had a steam-powered phonograph in 1922" are completely off the mark.
Thanks.