This is so true and can't be overestimated. The whole design and printing world rests on Mac nowadays, and there's very good reason. Apple, Laser Writer, and Aldus made it all possible.
You: "I'm also of the opinion that there should be some sort of cost of entry to access the complete tome of science. Something has to set it off from blogs and wikpedia's [sic]".
Perhaps the superority of their content? If indeed they are better, then let them be better.
What you are saying is that the action may not be just, and pains must be gone to in order to find out for sure. This is a contrast from the grandparent, which says the action would indeed be just, but must be performed by authority.
So I pose to you the question:
If an action, such as a punishment, is indeed just and deserved, may an individual mete it out as well as authority? And if not, why not?
Is justice justice, or is it what authority happens to do?
Ninety percent of the "top twenty-five"? That has got to be one of the most ridiculous manipulations of statistics I've seen. Twenty-five is not a pool large enough to be exemplar of anything. And who decides the "top"?
I think what you developers don't realize is that a user isn't tiptoing through your app, box by box, like an old lady at a teaparty -- "everything works so well!" -- no, he's leaning on your app like a roadworker on a jackhammer, clicking three buttons at once, and copying while he pastes -- "let's get this job done". There's all the difference in the world between "testing" and "using". Also, keep in mind that we're interacting with some of these apps ten hours a day -- if it crashes the JVM once in that day, that may seem good odds to you, but to us it's too much.
I am not talking about webserver apps. Users interact with those indirectly and over the web. I am not even talking about web-client apps -- one expects them to be slow and unstable for other reasons. What I am talking about is someone coding, say, the equivalent of MS Word in Java, and expecting users not to notice the odd window-behavior or that it is being compiled at runtime, leading to slowness and crashes. Yes, there are companies who are doing this, and, yes, they are cheapskates. We users notice.
If you call slow and prone to crash "almost pefectly", then I agree with you. It's becoming tiring to encounter what should be a full-fledged Windows or Mac program coded in Java because a software-maker was too stingy to develop a proper application. Remember -- programming is for users, not for developers, and if to users your program hampers productivity and feels wrong, then it is wrong.
Not standing up for this "pastor" -- but you've got that quote all wrong. What he is saying is that Blacks require protection in law because of their historical mistreatment by laws -- in our very Constitution they are to be counted one-fifth a citizen for representational purposes. Then he is saying that homosexuals do not require protection in law because they have not been historically mistreated by laws -- for exampe, "homosexuals have never been considered one-fifth of a human being" by our Constitution.
Better to understand with whom you disagree before commencing argument.
If they're smart, they'll keep Freehand and call it Illustrator. Freehand is the superior product, while Illustrator has widest name-recognition (mostly just because it is a member of the Adobe suite).
There are great Objective C programmers out there that "everyone" is refusing to hire. Why pay specialists for good code when you can rehash old or, if you must rewrite, pay peanuts to have your app programmed in Java?
I assure you that it is "that big of a deal" for a program such as Photoshop or Illustrator. Someone who has spent enough time in the programs, as we do hours every day, and has a little knowledge of how code works, can tell when a hiccup or pause or crash is due to Carbon. If you still doubt me, try any intensive work in Acrobat Pro 7 that you have previously done in Pro 6 -- I mean editing objects, distilling complex PostScript, &c. -- and tell me you can't tell a world of difference between the two programs -- whose main difference is really just code. Pro 7 is Cocoa through-and-through, and you'll see that it "feels' rock-solid, that its performance is lightning, comparatively -- the difference is truly remarkable.
You're right that artists and printers (and publishers and prepress) use Macs. But we are being, over the last few years, repeatedly insulted by Adobe, who is making pretty clear their impatience with supporting two platforms, and often telling us in so many words to move to Windows if we want the best Adobe has to offer. (Fortunately, their Windows products are still inferior to their Mac products, due to Windows unsuitability for Postscript, color-managment, &c. &c.) Adobe's development and support for the Mac are *not* what they were five years ago, and that is -- frankly -- abominable. It's Macs that made Adobe -- they are biting the hand that's fed them and some of us are pissed.
This blows. As my fellow prepress and publishing professionals know, Adobe has begun to act more and more hostilely toward the Macintosh platform. An important VP there -- brought over from Microsoft, no less -- has repeatedly spread ridiculous anti-Mac FUD, in everything from press releases to book reviews, and Adobe's development for OS X has been dreadful -- still nothing, except for the very latest version of Acrobat, is Cocoa, and Adobe has insisted that Photoshop will not take advantage of OS X's best graphics-performance features.
In all this, some of us had hoped Macromedia would, eventually, save the day. Of course, they have a very long way to go to offer a professional replacement for Adobe products, especially Photoshop, but we still entertained some hope. And, as previous posters have pointed out, at least there was healthy competition.
DTP and prepress are huge consumers of the Mac -- one may go so far to say that they are what has kept Apple afloat through bad and good times. Now what? If Adobe continues to push Windows, DTP and prepress may be forced to make that odious switch, and Apple may be jeopardized. Let's devoutly hope my predictions don't prove true.
You are making the usual layman's mistake of confusing "erronious" with "erroneous". The meaning of the two words is not at all the same, as you can tell from the context in the sentence.
The Rights of the people are theirs until some law explicitly takes them away. You seem to think the people have no Rights until some law explicitly provides them. Your thinking is atithetical to humanism and democracy, and is in similar vein to thinking that all are guilty until a court proves their innocence, or that all property is government's until a tax agency "forgives" the people that debt, in some portion.
Kids' entertainment nowadays is just one big oversized commercial. A kids' world is one of nonstop consumerist propoganda. Pity their young brainwashed minds.
Everything you've listed there is a legitimate right of the people. This is how inured you've become to tyranny -- you no longer know what it means to be free.
You're a silly son of a cabbage. A license or copyright is a tool -- how it is used is what gives that tool meaning. A fence can be used to keep cattle safe from coyotes, or it can be used to wrongfully imprison someone. Your whining about "inconsist attitudes toward fences" in those cases would only net you incredulous derision. Which is what your whining about "inconsistent attitudes toward copyright" will net you here.
That's brilliant. And what is stopping you flying to the moon? Seriously: Do the phrases "biased laws", "international influence", and "vast capital" mean nothing to you?
Randism is damned entertaining in that its loudest proponents are often unremarkable except for their loudness -- a sort of self-unfulfilling prophecy -- but they do not seem to notice any irony but other people's.
How does it feel to be superior to the rest of us by dint of often saying you are so?
Slashdot Mirror
This is so true and can't be overestimated. The whole design and printing world rests on Mac nowadays, and there's very good reason. Apple, Laser Writer, and Aldus made it all possible.
You: "I'm also of the opinion that there should be some sort of cost of entry to access the complete tome of science. Something has to set it off from blogs and wikpedia's [sic]".
Perhaps the superority of their content? If indeed they are better, then let them be better.
What you are saying is that the action may not be just, and pains must be gone to in order to find out for sure. This is a contrast from the grandparent, which says the action would indeed be just, but must be performed by authority.
So I pose to you the question:
If an action, such as a punishment, is indeed just and deserved, may an individual mete it out as well as authority? And if not, why not?
Is justice justice, or is it what authority happens to do?
If it's just for the justice system to do it, then why isn't it just for anyone to do it?
Great satire! Keep it up man.
Ninety percent of the "top twenty-five"? That has got to be one of the most ridiculous manipulations of statistics I've seen. Twenty-five is not a pool large enough to be exemplar of anything. And who decides the "top"?
If a person is already being raped in several ways, that is a poor argument against why he should dislike to be raped with something larger.
I think what you developers don't realize is that a user isn't tiptoing through your app, box by box, like an old lady at a teaparty -- "everything works so well!" -- no, he's leaning on your app like a roadworker on a jackhammer, clicking three buttons at once, and copying while he pastes -- "let's get this job done". There's all the difference in the world between "testing" and "using". Also, keep in mind that we're interacting with some of these apps ten hours a day -- if it crashes the JVM once in that day, that may seem good odds to you, but to us it's too much.
Hear hear.
I am not talking about webserver apps. Users interact with those indirectly and over the web. I am not even talking about web-client apps -- one expects them to be slow and unstable for other reasons. What I am talking about is someone coding, say, the equivalent of MS Word in Java, and expecting users not to notice the odd window-behavior or that it is being compiled at runtime, leading to slowness and crashes. Yes, there are companies who are doing this, and, yes, they are cheapskates. We users notice.
If you call slow and prone to crash "almost pefectly", then I agree with you. It's becoming tiring to encounter what should be a full-fledged Windows or Mac program coded in Java because a software-maker was too stingy to develop a proper application. Remember -- programming is for users, not for developers, and if to users your program hampers productivity and feels wrong, then it is wrong.
Not standing up for this "pastor" -- but you've got that quote all wrong. What he is saying is that Blacks require protection in law because of their historical mistreatment by laws -- in our very Constitution they are to be counted one-fifth a citizen for representational purposes. Then he is saying that homosexuals do not require protection in law because they have not been historically mistreated by laws -- for exampe, "homosexuals have never been considered one-fifth of a human being" by our Constitution. Better to understand with whom you disagree before commencing argument.
If they're smart, they'll keep Freehand and call it Illustrator. Freehand is the superior product, while Illustrator has widest name-recognition (mostly just because it is a member of the Adobe suite).
There are great Objective C programmers out there that "everyone" is refusing to hire. Why pay specialists for good code when you can rehash old or, if you must rewrite, pay peanuts to have your app programmed in Java?
I assure you that it is "that big of a deal" for a program such as Photoshop or Illustrator. Someone who has spent enough time in the programs, as we do hours every day, and has a little knowledge of how code works, can tell when a hiccup or pause or crash is due to Carbon. If you still doubt me, try any intensive work in Acrobat Pro 7 that you have previously done in Pro 6 -- I mean editing objects, distilling complex PostScript, &c. -- and tell me you can't tell a world of difference between the two programs -- whose main difference is really just code. Pro 7 is Cocoa through-and-through, and you'll see that it "feels' rock-solid, that its performance is lightning, comparatively -- the difference is truly remarkable.
You're right that artists and printers (and publishers and prepress) use Macs. But we are being, over the last few years, repeatedly insulted by Adobe, who is making pretty clear their impatience with supporting two platforms, and often telling us in so many words to move to Windows if we want the best Adobe has to offer. (Fortunately, their Windows products are still inferior to their Mac products, due to Windows unsuitability for Postscript, color-managment, &c. &c.) Adobe's development and support for the Mac are *not* what they were five years ago, and that is -- frankly -- abominable. It's Macs that made Adobe -- they are biting the hand that's fed them and some of us are pissed.
This blows. As my fellow prepress and publishing professionals know, Adobe has begun to act more and more hostilely toward the Macintosh platform. An important VP there -- brought over from Microsoft, no less -- has repeatedly spread ridiculous anti-Mac FUD, in everything from press releases to book reviews, and Adobe's development for OS X has been dreadful -- still nothing, except for the very latest version of Acrobat, is Cocoa, and Adobe has insisted that Photoshop will not take advantage of OS X's best graphics-performance features.
In all this, some of us had hoped Macromedia would, eventually, save the day. Of course, they have a very long way to go to offer a professional replacement for Adobe products, especially Photoshop, but we still entertained some hope. And, as previous posters have pointed out, at least there was healthy competition.
DTP and prepress are huge consumers of the Mac -- one may go so far to say that they are what has kept Apple afloat through bad and good times. Now what? If Adobe continues to push Windows, DTP and prepress may be forced to make that odious switch, and Apple may be jeopardized. Let's devoutly hope my predictions don't prove true.
Now perhaps you could explain Sun's versioning scheme for us.
You are making the usual layman's mistake of confusing "erronious" with "erroneous". The meaning of the two words is not at all the same, as you can tell from the context in the sentence.
The Rights of the people are theirs until some law explicitly takes them away. You seem to think the people have no Rights until some law explicitly provides them. Your thinking is atithetical to humanism and democracy, and is in similar vein to thinking that all are guilty until a court proves their innocence, or that all property is government's until a tax agency "forgives" the people that debt, in some portion.
You may not need crossover -- straight ethernet will do, as the Mac's NIC will "cross" the connection if it senses it needs to.
Kids' entertainment nowadays is just one big oversized commercial. A kids' world is one of nonstop consumerist propoganda. Pity their young brainwashed minds.
Everything you've listed there is a legitimate right of the people. This is how inured you've become to tyranny -- you no longer know what it means to be free.
You're a silly son of a cabbage. A license or copyright is a tool -- how it is used is what gives that tool meaning. A fence can be used to keep cattle safe from coyotes, or it can be used to wrongfully imprison someone. Your whining about "inconsist attitudes toward fences" in those cases would only net you incredulous derision. Which is what your whining about "inconsistent attitudes toward copyright" will net you here.
That's brilliant. And what is stopping you flying to the moon? Seriously: Do the phrases "biased laws", "international influence", and "vast capital" mean nothing to you?
Randism is damned entertaining in that its loudest proponents are often unremarkable except for their loudness -- a sort of self-unfulfilling prophecy -- but they do not seem to notice any irony but other people's.
How does it feel to be superior to the rest of us by dint of often saying you are so?