Strange, if you are so confident on the platform, why don't you blow away your money on a G5 iMac, or PowerMac? Just a Mac Mini? I'm confused...
Maybe I shouldn't answer for him, but I'm guessing it's because he doesn't -need- a PowerMac, or even an iMac. There are millions of people who don't need computers any more powerful than a Mac Mini, so why would they spend the extra money? Just for the sake of spending money? I don't think so.
I call shenanigans on this survey. I've worked educational and corporate IT, and Macs have NEVER been this prevalent. This article's suggesting that 1 in 5 business desktops are macs. Sales show this is more like 10x the real figure.
Of course, sales are not a good measure of installed base, as has been discussed here before. If we assume that Macs are sitting on desks longer before upgrades (which from my university seems to be the case), the Macs could very well have this kind of installed base, even with much lower sales.
I'm not saying it's impossible that TWENTY ONE PERCENT of the businesses out there exclusively use Macs... I think it's unlikely, and that the article is misrepresenting the data...
Didn't RTFA, but from the summary it said that in those businesses, 21% of their employees were using Macs, not that 21% of those businesses had 100% of their employees using Macs. I'm thinking one of us is confused...and I'm looking your way.:)
I don't see that list view in Windows is such a great thing, and I've been using Windows since 2.0. List view in OS X gives you more information than Windows, but that's touted as a disadvantage? It doesn't cost you anything more. If you don't want to see the rest of the information, just resize the Window so that you don't have to be bothered by all that confusing date and size information. I always found the existence of both a "List" view and a "Details" view in Windows redundant.
You can also use Column view mode in OS X and again resize the window so that only shows you a list of files and small icons. Finder has some usability issues, but this isn't one of them as far as I'm concerned. And it beats the crap out of Explorer like a red-headed stepchild (no insult intended to those red-headed step-children here).
I didn't claim that the List view giving more info in OSX was a disadvantage...I was just pointing out that the List view is the equivalent of "Details" in Windows, and that OSX has no equivalent to the Windows version of "List." In other words, Windows has both "Details" and "List" (in their terminology) and OSX has only "Details" (in Windows terminology). Though, as you pointed out, OSX has Columns, and given the choice between losing Columns and having the Windows "List" mode, or keeping Columns and not having Windows "List," I'll keep Columns...it is more useful in general.
And while you could use either Column mode or List mode in OSX and adjust them to give only a list of filenames and icons (with no other info), neither duplicates the functionality of the List mode that Windows gives, which is that it will use the entire window, no matter how large you make it, to list multiple columns of files from that one directory. So instead of removing the extra info and making the window smaller to get rid of the extra info, I can make the window larger (wider, specifically) and it will use that extra space to show even more files.
No view mode in Finder can show the same number of files from one directory, at the same font size and window size, as the "List" mode in Explorer. I almost wish I could come up with a screenshot of it, just to make sure people know exactly what I'm talking about here. It is a view mode in Explorer for which Finder has absolutely no equivalent (much the same way Columns is a view mode of Finder for which Explorer has no equivalent).
And yes, I like Finder better than Explorer in general, but this is one feature Finder is lacking that I actually miss. (The "Filmstrip" view mode for directories full of pictures is the only other one I can think of...then again, that's when you start bloating your file-management application and making it less stable, so maybe not having things like that in Finder is a good thing)
It's amazing how accurate the roads they do show are, though - most online mapping tools (MapQuest, MSN) aren't very close, especially on the local college campus. Google, however, has everything nailed. Well... at least until the college decided to rip up all the streets, but that's another story. I wonder where they get their data...
While they've nailed the streets in well-populated areas, and around points of interest (such as my college campus), it's funny to see how far off some of the streets are when overlaid on the satellite view...or at least how far offset they are from each other. The street my parents live on, for instance, runs right through their backyard. And no, they don't live in the boonies, they just live in an out-of-the-way neighborhood in a medium-sized town.
Still, this is pretty good stuff...I can see a lot of good uses for it, when giving directions to people from out of town, for instance.
A lot of people have already lost their land line and are now using just cell phones. Service on cell phones is certainly not 99.99999%, nor even 94.8% (my guess). But people still use them vs. a land line.
If you're talking about using your cell phone from home (which when you're talking about replacing a landline you should only compare it to home use) your cell phone likely gets one of two levels of reliability...99.99% (if you live in a quasi-populated area), or straight-up 0% (if you don't). Generally the reliability of cellphones comes into question when travelling...but from home they are actually quite reliable.
There are, of course, exceptions...I imagine if you live towards the center of an apartment building, it might not be so good either...or other such scenarios. But again, you would probably know this before you ditch your landline, and it would be pretty consistant...generally using a cellphone from a static location will render either 4 or 5 nines of reliability, or zero.
Unless you're my wife, and constantly forget to charge your cellphone...then your reliability can also go to shit.:)
When the power went out in the northeast of the US a year or two ago, VoIP was toast. And that's exactly the sort of time you don't want your phone going down.
If you are going to be using VoIP for your primary phone line (which honestly I wouldn't recommend, however you may hate the phone company) the first thing you should do is invest in a small UPS, to run your modem and phone in case of power outage. Considering that it's a long term investment, which has other uses (should you ditch VoIP later), it's a no-brainer.
I've actually done this, and I don't even use VoIP. But the power in my neighborhood is so unreliable that finally I put my cordless phone, DSL modem, and WAP on a UPS so I could continue to work on schoolwork that may or may not require internet access when the power would go out...at least for a good while. Also beats having to run for the corded phone.
you mean like list view? this has been a part of mac os since, well..., since mac os has existed. it's cmd-2 in the finder to change a window to list mode. unless i'm confuses as to what you're requesting.
Nope, what OSX considers to be "List" view is more like "Details" in Windows. Windows has a view option in Explorer that lists ONLY the filename (and extension, if you don't have it hidden) and a small version of the icon next to it, nothing else about the file. And if you widen the window, it will display the files in that directory in multiple columns.
It's pretty handy for single directories that have large numbers of files, for which you don't really need any extra info other than the name (and possibly icon to denote type, if you have extensions hidden). Can't think of a good example offhand, however. I know it's probably the view mode I used the most in Explorer.
P.S. Not to bash the parent, because he was trying to help out, and he certainly didn't mod himself informative...but mods, you need to make sure the post is actually informative before you mark it as such. He misread the guy's question, and gave him a wrong answer. Not his fault, but it doesn't make him any more informative.
My point about "law enforcement" was that speeding is not considered a crime per se. going 75 in a 40 is reckless endangerment I'd assume. I know it's a sticky line between law and code, and IANAL, but there is a difference. A crime by default must cause the loss of rights or freedom, etc., to someone. murder, assault, vandalism, etc.
I believe the difference you are looking for is "criminal violation" versus "civil violation." While both involve laws, they have different standards of evidence, possible penalties, and reflect on your record differently. Civil traffic offenses, such as minor speeding violations, generally do not require one to appear in court, do not entitle one to a lawyer, etc...but they also do not appear on a criminal record (just a driving record) and do not carry penalties involving jail or prison time. Criminal traffic violations (DUIs in most states, driving without a license in Arizona (been there, done that), hit and run, etc.) DO generally require court appearances, DO entitle you to a lawyer, and can carry jail/prison sentences.
So, for instance, while I have had 4 speeding tickets in my lifetime, the only criminal record I have is 1 misdemeanor traffic violation (driving on a suspended license).
This doesn't just apply to traffic laws, either. From what I've heard a couple states now treat minor possession of marijuana as a civil offense as well.
Anybody with a little more legal education can (such as any), of course, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on any of this.
All that said, it's great that Apple's unit shipments are up and growing faster than the industry. What's interesting is the iPod has helped Apple's Macintosh sales better than any ad campaign they've run.
Unless, of course, you consider the iPod itself to be nothing but the most brilliant ad campaign in history. Getting users to buy your ad for the Mac (some of them paying hundreds of dollars), and show it to friends, who will also go out and pay money for that same Mac ad...amazing. And it's working...I'm one of those 400,000.:)
There is only one feature (or rather, group of features) I miss from Windows. Image viewing, outside of iPhoto.
Yes, there is Preview. And it is better than the default Image and Fax Viewer in Windows in many ways. But, for instance, I like that I can load one image in IaFV in Windows and immediately I have the option of using the arrow keys to browse other pictures in the same directory...I would love to see it integrated into Preview. I also like "Filmstrip" mode in Windows.
iPhoto is a great app, but I don't always want to use it for browsing through pictures...I generally just use it for pictures from my digital camera.
This should be totally optional to the customer. If they don't want to set it up.. fine.. that's their problem, not OURS...
Yes, it should be, and if the US weren't so sue-happy, it probably would be. As it stands, they are much less likely to be sued by forcing you to activate E911 than by allowing you to not have it. Because even if they had paperwork on file with your signature declining E911 service, they have no guarantee that that paperwork won't get lost...and in the event of your untimely death, in which a lack of 911 covereage was a factor, the inability to produce that document has the possibility of making your family very, very rich.
Of course, the easiest course of action to take would be a waiver, on the initial service contract, that explains that they make no guarantees whatsoever regarding 911 service. It might scare off a few customers, but it would cover their ass pretty effectively (because every customer would have signed it, regardless of whether they set up E911), and prevent stupid situations like what's happening to you.
'the credibility and utility of the initial ESRB rating has been seriously undermined.'"
I don't really see how. They rating they had given it deemed the content inappropriate for anybody under 17. The mod doesn't really add anything that wouldn't make it into an R-rated movie, which are also deemed inappropriate for those under 17. Thus the rating was still spot-on.
The problem is that parents don't know what the ESRB ratings really mean (and that at times they can be inconsistant...I've seen some definite bad calls between the T and M ratings). The ESRB gave GTA:SA, along with every other GTA game, the highest rating that is generally given to games.
To me, it would have give the ESRB more credibility to leave the rating on GTA:SA an M. Perhaps it would finally convince the parents of the US that, much like movies the MPAA rates as R-rated, M-rated games are not appropriate for younger kids. Period. Any attempt to keep M-rated games more "familiy-friendly" just waters down the rating system further.
Had they defended the M-rating, they could have established M, rather than AO, as the cutoff where games are likely to be unsuitable for younger kids. Instead they caved, creating even more confusion as to what exactly an M rating means.
A parent can, however, choose to buy an NC-17 rated movie on DVD and give it to their kids.
But it isn't on video that an NC-17 rating really hurts a movie...it's in theatrical release. Very few theaters will cary NC-17 movies, but plenty of smaller video chains, in towns and cities across the country, will. Even Blockbuster will carry titles that -would- be NC-17 now, as long as they are "unrated" instead...even though that makes little sense to me.
Of course, NC-17 movies tend to rent quite a bit less than the rest, but one could argue that that is still because of limited theatrical release, and thus limited publicity.
The point I was making is that, discounting the fact that many stores won't carry them, AO titles are not much different from M titles, because parents still have the option to (and many would still be dumb enough to) buy them for their kids. NC-17 movies, on the other hand, are quite a bit different from R-rated movies because for a large portion of their revenue and publicity generating lives (theatrical release), they are not accessible to minors, regardless of parental consent.
This is why I consider both M and AO rated games to be the equivalent of R rated movies (and even content-wise, GTA:SA, even with the minigame intact and accessible WITHOUT a mod, would still be tamer than many R rated movies, no?). NC-17, to me, is a rating with no real ESRB equivalent.
Censorship exists in the US, just in the guise of something else.
Oh, you mean the FCC? Yes, censorship exists in the US, as censorship.
But Wal-Mart not stocking AO games is something entirely different.
Would you still be able to get GTA:SA if it was rated AO? Of course. You may have to resort to going online, but it would still be accessible, especially to those 18 and over.
Stores like Wal-Mart bowing to public pressure is not an example of censorship, it's an example of a free-market economy at work. People want a place to shop where porn isn't sold, where CD's have the word "fuck" magically removed, and Wal-Mart gives it to them. More power to them. It's not censorship, because the government isn't forcing it and there are still alternatives.
Would Rockstar sell less copies of GTA if it was rated AO? Of course. But that would be the economic price they would (and in my opinion, should) pay for creating a game that treads the line of what is morally acceptable in our society. And I'm not one of the puritans...I love the sex and violence. I just always thought that the GTA series (from 3 on, at least) was just sex and violence for the sake of sex and violence...the games themselves never managed to impress me.
They banked on males 12-25 (yes, I think they banked on the stupidity of parents allowing their younger kids to have it) wanting it just because it was inappropriate or offensive. Same reason South Park is so popular (except South Park does it well, IMO). And it has paid off for several years. It just bit them on the ass this time.
Oh well. A billion dollars or so later they can wipe their tears away with portraits of their friend Benjamin.
If a parent can't trust the rating to reflect what a kid will be exposed to (since a lot of kids WILL download the unlock), then the rating is completely meaningless.
But if the kid is under 17, the parent might as well shut the hell up, because the game was already deemed, by the ESRB, to be appropriate for those 17 and older.
And if your kid is 17 or older, there is a very real probability that they have had actual real-life sex already, so who cares if they download the Hot Coffee mod? And even if they haven't had sex yet, they have definitely seen worse in the movies or on cable TV (and I'm not talking about HBO or Skinamax...I'm talking about shows like "The Shield").
If your kid is under 17, the ESRB already told you the game was not appropriate for them. It already told you it contains "Sexual Content." You were already warned. If you didn't listen, then you were already a bad parent.
The difference between the M rating and the AO rating is *one year* and a bunch of sales - it's stupid. It's exactly the same with movies, too.
No, even with movies the difference between R and NC-17 is a lot larger. For those that may not know, any parent can take their 6 year old kid into an R-rated movie at the theater. But if a movie is rated NC-17, children CANNOT attend, even with parents present. This is the reason that most theaters will not take up screenspace with NC-17 movies...the market is a lot smaller, because parents are unable to make the decision for themselves.
A parent can, however, choose to buy an AO rated game for their kids.
If you, as parent, approved of GTA for your child last week, and now don't because a patch downloaded from the internet can show you non-explicit sex, then you're a shitty excuse for a parent and a worse one for a human, and regardless what Rockstar did or didn't do, and regardless of they hypocritical bullshit pandering that the ESRB and our politicians do, you shouldn't have any say in what *any* child does. To anyone with half a brain, this is a non-issue.
Especially because last week the game was already rated M, and recommended only for age 17 and up. Unless I'm mistaken, a large portion of American teenagers age 17 and up have already had sex. It's the stupid-ass parents who didn't understand what an M rating meant and bought it for their 12 year olds that are getting so upset. And I say screw those idiots.
i think i am going to look for an advocacy group, one that wants to remove offensive skits from tv. one that will sue the television companies, and file complaints with the FCC on my behalf. a special interest group that will tell the government my community does not want homosexuals, lesbians, or anything offensive on tv. and get rid of all the alcohol advertising. can't a dad and his son watch a baseball game without seeing 100 different advertisments for beer?
OH NO! BEER! IT'S THE DEVIL'S WORK!
Seriously, I don't think it's the government's job to regulate what kind of commercials or skits are shown during TV shows...it's supply and demand. Obviously, if a majority of people are truly offended by it, the ratings will show it, the advertisers will pull out, and the show will either change or be cancelled. Ask Bill Maher about that one.
And if the idea of a beer commercial during a ballgame offends you, I think you will never be happy. Should they stop selling beer at the ballgame as well? Stop selling beer entirely? Back to prohibition? Perhaps you should consider moving to Salt Lake City...I hear they have a pretty strong anti-beer stance there.
Or, as an alternative, you could enlist in the military and request to be stationed in Germany...then you can watch the ballgames (and any other shows) with ALL the commercials removed. No beer commercials in sight (though you should prepare yourself for a ton of really bad PSAs and army-produced commercials).
Also, I have to say that the more real violence you see, the less likely you are to feel it's "good clean fun." And lesbians ARE homosexuals. And rather than declare them "offensive," you should probably go with "offensive to me," or "offensive to some people." Because despite what you might think, your opinions are not the yardstick by which all should be measured. Same goes for "nobody wants to see that crap." Try "I don't want to see that crap."
I am a person who believes it is a SCAM when colleges buy bran spanking new computers every 2 years, and use property tax to do it. Whenever I have walked around a computer lab, all I see is Word and papers being written, IE and the web being surfed, and the very occasional comp sci student writing code. All this could be done on PIII's. Hell, PII's would work, although it would take a few minutes to load software.
My university has its fair share of PIIs and PIIIs laying around, too. It's funny, though, that the P4s always seem to be sitting on some secretary's desk with nothing but Word, or possibly Outlook, open, while the PIIs are sitting in Chemistry and Physics labs running software they can just barely (or can't really) handle.
I was talking to a guy once who complained that some cd he bought wouldn't play on his computer (where he listens to all his music) because of the copy protection. We eventually decided the best thing for him to do would be to return it. They'd replace it with another copy. The next day he could return that, and so on. Just pick a music store that's not out of your way. At least you can be a big pain in the ass.
If you're willing to be a little dishonest, you can also just find a store that doesn't bother to remove the shrink-wrap when they replace software/music/movies. Just say it wouldn't play, get a replacement, then take that to a different store (or the same store the next day) and replace it for a different item (since it will now be unopened).
In a situation such as this (where the CD will not play on your hardware), I wouldn't even consider it unethical. Though, of course, opinions are bound to vary on that one.
He called support, and they sent him new cd's - but not his cd-key.
I can imagine how this call would have gone if it had been me..."Oh sure, no problem. Don't need my CD-key. I'll just jump online and download a keygen for it. And while I'm at it, I might as well grab keygens for every other game you guys put out. And some disc images for all those, too. Hey, why am I even talking to you? Have a nice day, I think you've solved my problem without even knowing it. My problem, of course, being that whole 'giving you money' thing."
Nobody said it was legal...they just said you could do it...:)
And since most people are only using it on music they've purchased anyway (there isn't exactly a huge market for 128k AAC versions of music that is already widely available in MP3 format, in varying bitrates, on the P2P networks), I don't think it has become a high-profile target.
And in the meantime it's people like me, people who actually paid for the game, who get to put up with hassles like:
- being locked out of a game I've paid for, because the CD got scratched.
I've started to wonder whether or not this is actually a planned benefit for media companies, rather than an unintended side-effect. This way, when you scratch your video game/DVD/software CD you are forced to either buy a new one, or at the least pay the (gradually increasing, I've noticed) fee they require to replace the disk, which is always quite a bit more than the cost of the disk itself. And since anything copy-protected is illegal to make archive copies of under the DMCA, there's nothing you can do.
And to address your complaints about all the other fun side-effects from copy protection (mostly bug-related), companies just don't care. Once they have your money, you aren't getting it back, because the return policy on all entertainment media is same-copy-only exchange once it's opened. And while they claim it's only to reduce piracy, it does have the wonderful benefit for them that evey sale is absolutely final once you try the product.
Seems to me that software/entertainment publishers are just using piracy as a good excuse to pillage their customers nowadays. Hell, you could argue that piracy is the best thing that ever happened to them.
I did use it, many moons ago, and I can say that it most definitely didn't deserve to die. When it came out, it was a fantastic OS. While it hasn't been terribly important since, I think it deserves a short moment of silence nonetheless.
Slashdot Mirror
Strange, if you are so confident on the platform, why don't you blow away your money on a G5 iMac, or PowerMac? Just a Mac Mini? I'm confused...
Maybe I shouldn't answer for him, but I'm guessing it's because he doesn't -need- a PowerMac, or even an iMac. There are millions of people who don't need computers any more powerful than a Mac Mini, so why would they spend the extra money? Just for the sake of spending money? I don't think so.
I call shenanigans on this survey. I've worked educational and corporate IT, and Macs have NEVER been this prevalent. This article's suggesting that 1 in 5 business desktops are macs. Sales show this is more like 10x the real figure.
Of course, sales are not a good measure of installed base, as has been discussed here before. If we assume that Macs are sitting on desks longer before upgrades (which from my university seems to be the case), the Macs could very well have this kind of installed base, even with much lower sales.
I'm not saying it's impossible that TWENTY ONE PERCENT of the businesses out there exclusively use Macs... I think it's unlikely, and that the article is misrepresenting the data...
:)
Didn't RTFA, but from the summary it said that in those businesses, 21% of their employees were using Macs, not that 21% of those businesses had 100% of their employees using Macs. I'm thinking one of us is confused...and I'm looking your way.
I don't see that list view in Windows is such a great thing, and I've been using Windows since 2.0. List view in OS X gives you more information than Windows, but that's touted as a disadvantage? It doesn't cost you anything more. If you don't want to see the rest of the information, just resize the Window so that you don't have to be bothered by all that confusing date and size information. I always found the existence of both a "List" view and a "Details" view in Windows redundant.
You can also use Column view mode in OS X and again resize the window so that only shows you a list of files and small icons. Finder has some usability issues, but this isn't one of them as far as I'm concerned. And it beats the crap out of Explorer like a red-headed stepchild (no insult intended to those red-headed step-children here).
I didn't claim that the List view giving more info in OSX was a disadvantage...I was just pointing out that the List view is the equivalent of "Details" in Windows, and that OSX has no equivalent to the Windows version of "List." In other words, Windows has both "Details" and "List" (in their terminology) and OSX has only "Details" (in Windows terminology). Though, as you pointed out, OSX has Columns, and given the choice between losing Columns and having the Windows "List" mode, or keeping Columns and not having Windows "List," I'll keep Columns...it is more useful in general.
And while you could use either Column mode or List mode in OSX and adjust them to give only a list of filenames and icons (with no other info), neither duplicates the functionality of the List mode that Windows gives, which is that it will use the entire window, no matter how large you make it, to list multiple columns of files from that one directory. So instead of removing the extra info and making the window smaller to get rid of the extra info, I can make the window larger (wider, specifically) and it will use that extra space to show even more files.
No view mode in Finder can show the same number of files from one directory, at the same font size and window size, as the "List" mode in Explorer. I almost wish I could come up with a screenshot of it, just to make sure people know exactly what I'm talking about here. It is a view mode in Explorer for which Finder has absolutely no equivalent (much the same way Columns is a view mode of Finder for which Explorer has no equivalent).
And yes, I like Finder better than Explorer in general, but this is one feature Finder is lacking that I actually miss. (The "Filmstrip" view mode for directories full of pictures is the only other one I can think of...then again, that's when you start bloating your file-management application and making it less stable, so maybe not having things like that in Finder is a good thing)
It's amazing how accurate the roads they do show are, though - most online mapping tools (MapQuest, MSN) aren't very close, especially on the local college campus. Google, however, has everything nailed. Well... at least until the college decided to rip up all the streets, but that's another story. I wonder where they get their data...
While they've nailed the streets in well-populated areas, and around points of interest (such as my college campus), it's funny to see how far off some of the streets are when overlaid on the satellite view...or at least how far offset they are from each other. The street my parents live on, for instance, runs right through their backyard. And no, they don't live in the boonies, they just live in an out-of-the-way neighborhood in a medium-sized town. Still, this is pretty good stuff...I can see a lot of good uses for it, when giving directions to people from out of town, for instance.
A lot of people have already lost their land line and are now using just cell phones. Service on cell phones is certainly not 99.99999%, nor even 94.8% (my guess). But people still use them vs. a land line.
:)
If you're talking about using your cell phone from home (which when you're talking about replacing a landline you should only compare it to home use) your cell phone likely gets one of two levels of reliability...99.99% (if you live in a quasi-populated area), or straight-up 0% (if you don't). Generally the reliability of cellphones comes into question when travelling...but from home they are actually quite reliable.
There are, of course, exceptions...I imagine if you live towards the center of an apartment building, it might not be so good either...or other such scenarios. But again, you would probably know this before you ditch your landline, and it would be pretty consistant...generally using a cellphone from a static location will render either 4 or 5 nines of reliability, or zero.
Unless you're my wife, and constantly forget to charge your cellphone...then your reliability can also go to shit.
When the power went out in the northeast of the US a year or two ago, VoIP was toast. And that's exactly the sort of time you don't want your phone going down.
If you are going to be using VoIP for your primary phone line (which honestly I wouldn't recommend, however you may hate the phone company) the first thing you should do is invest in a small UPS, to run your modem and phone in case of power outage. Considering that it's a long term investment, which has other uses (should you ditch VoIP later), it's a no-brainer.
I've actually done this, and I don't even use VoIP. But the power in my neighborhood is so unreliable that finally I put my cordless phone, DSL modem, and WAP on a UPS so I could continue to work on schoolwork that may or may not require internet access when the power would go out...at least for a good while. Also beats having to run for the corded phone.
you mean like list view? this has been a part of mac os since, well..., since mac os has existed. it's cmd-2 in the finder to change a window to list mode. unless i'm confuses as to what you're requesting.
Nope, what OSX considers to be "List" view is more like "Details" in Windows. Windows has a view option in Explorer that lists ONLY the filename (and extension, if you don't have it hidden) and a small version of the icon next to it, nothing else about the file. And if you widen the window, it will display the files in that directory in multiple columns.
It's pretty handy for single directories that have large numbers of files, for which you don't really need any extra info other than the name (and possibly icon to denote type, if you have extensions hidden). Can't think of a good example offhand, however. I know it's probably the view mode I used the most in Explorer.
P.S. Not to bash the parent, because he was trying to help out, and he certainly didn't mod himself informative...but mods, you need to make sure the post is actually informative before you mark it as such. He misread the guy's question, and gave him a wrong answer. Not his fault, but it doesn't make him any more informative.
My point about "law enforcement" was that speeding is not considered a crime per se. going 75 in a 40 is reckless endangerment I'd assume. I know it's a sticky line between law and code, and IANAL, but there is a difference. A crime by default must cause the loss of rights or freedom, etc., to someone. murder, assault, vandalism, etc.
I believe the difference you are looking for is "criminal violation" versus "civil violation." While both involve laws, they have different standards of evidence, possible penalties, and reflect on your record differently. Civil traffic offenses, such as minor speeding violations, generally do not require one to appear in court, do not entitle one to a lawyer, etc...but they also do not appear on a criminal record (just a driving record) and do not carry penalties involving jail or prison time. Criminal traffic violations (DUIs in most states, driving without a license in Arizona (been there, done that), hit and run, etc.) DO generally require court appearances, DO entitle you to a lawyer, and can carry jail/prison sentences.
So, for instance, while I have had 4 speeding tickets in my lifetime, the only criminal record I have is 1 misdemeanor traffic violation (driving on a suspended license).
This doesn't just apply to traffic laws, either. From what I've heard a couple states now treat minor possession of marijuana as a civil offense as well.
Anybody with a little more legal education can (such as any), of course, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on any of this.
All that said, it's great that Apple's unit shipments are up and growing faster than the industry. What's interesting is the iPod has helped Apple's Macintosh sales better than any ad campaign they've run.
:)
Unless, of course, you consider the iPod itself to be nothing but the most brilliant ad campaign in history. Getting users to buy your ad for the Mac (some of them paying hundreds of dollars), and show it to friends, who will also go out and pay money for that same Mac ad...amazing. And it's working...I'm one of those 400,000.
There is only one feature (or rather, group of features) I miss from Windows. Image viewing, outside of iPhoto.
Yes, there is Preview. And it is better than the default Image and Fax Viewer in Windows in many ways. But, for instance, I like that I can load one image in IaFV in Windows and immediately I have the option of using the arrow keys to browse other pictures in the same directory...I would love to see it integrated into Preview. I also like "Filmstrip" mode in Windows.
iPhoto is a great app, but I don't always want to use it for browsing through pictures...I generally just use it for pictures from my digital camera.
This should be totally optional to the customer. If they don't want to set it up.. fine.. that's their problem, not OURS...
Yes, it should be, and if the US weren't so sue-happy, it probably would be. As it stands, they are much less likely to be sued by forcing you to activate E911 than by allowing you to not have it. Because even if they had paperwork on file with your signature declining E911 service, they have no guarantee that that paperwork won't get lost...and in the event of your untimely death, in which a lack of 911 covereage was a factor, the inability to produce that document has the possibility of making your family very, very rich.
Of course, the easiest course of action to take would be a waiver, on the initial service contract, that explains that they make no guarantees whatsoever regarding 911 service. It might scare off a few customers, but it would cover their ass pretty effectively (because every customer would have signed it, regardless of whether they set up E911), and prevent stupid situations like what's happening to you.
'the credibility and utility of the initial ESRB rating has been seriously undermined.'"
I don't really see how. They rating they had given it deemed the content inappropriate for anybody under 17. The mod doesn't really add anything that wouldn't make it into an R-rated movie, which are also deemed inappropriate for those under 17. Thus the rating was still spot-on.
The problem is that parents don't know what the ESRB ratings really mean (and that at times they can be inconsistant...I've seen some definite bad calls between the T and M ratings). The ESRB gave GTA:SA, along with every other GTA game, the highest rating that is generally given to games.
To me, it would have give the ESRB more credibility to leave the rating on GTA:SA an M. Perhaps it would finally convince the parents of the US that, much like movies the MPAA rates as R-rated, M-rated games are not appropriate for younger kids. Period. Any attempt to keep M-rated games more "familiy-friendly" just waters down the rating system further.
Had they defended the M-rating, they could have established M, rather than AO, as the cutoff where games are likely to be unsuitable for younger kids. Instead they caved, creating even more confusion as to what exactly an M rating means.
A parent can, however, choose to buy an NC-17 rated movie on DVD and give it to their kids.
But it isn't on video that an NC-17 rating really hurts a movie...it's in theatrical release. Very few theaters will cary NC-17 movies, but plenty of smaller video chains, in towns and cities across the country, will. Even Blockbuster will carry titles that -would- be NC-17 now, as long as they are "unrated" instead...even though that makes little sense to me.
Of course, NC-17 movies tend to rent quite a bit less than the rest, but one could argue that that is still because of limited theatrical release, and thus limited publicity.
The point I was making is that, discounting the fact that many stores won't carry them, AO titles are not much different from M titles, because parents still have the option to (and many would still be dumb enough to) buy them for their kids. NC-17 movies, on the other hand, are quite a bit different from R-rated movies because for a large portion of their revenue and publicity generating lives (theatrical release), they are not accessible to minors, regardless of parental consent.
This is why I consider both M and AO rated games to be the equivalent of R rated movies (and even content-wise, GTA:SA, even with the minigame intact and accessible WITHOUT a mod, would still be tamer than many R rated movies, no?). NC-17, to me, is a rating with no real ESRB equivalent.
Censorship exists in the US, just in the guise of something else.
Oh, you mean the FCC? Yes, censorship exists in the US, as censorship.
But Wal-Mart not stocking AO games is something entirely different.
Would you still be able to get GTA:SA if it was rated AO? Of course. You may have to resort to going online, but it would still be accessible, especially to those 18 and over.
Stores like Wal-Mart bowing to public pressure is not an example of censorship, it's an example of a free-market economy at work. People want a place to shop where porn isn't sold, where CD's have the word "fuck" magically removed, and Wal-Mart gives it to them. More power to them. It's not censorship, because the government isn't forcing it and there are still alternatives.
Would Rockstar sell less copies of GTA if it was rated AO? Of course. But that would be the economic price they would (and in my opinion, should) pay for creating a game that treads the line of what is morally acceptable in our society. And I'm not one of the puritans...I love the sex and violence. I just always thought that the GTA series (from 3 on, at least) was just sex and violence for the sake of sex and violence...the games themselves never managed to impress me.
They banked on males 12-25 (yes, I think they banked on the stupidity of parents allowing their younger kids to have it) wanting it just because it was inappropriate or offensive. Same reason South Park is so popular (except South Park does it well, IMO). And it has paid off for several years. It just bit them on the ass this time.
Oh well. A billion dollars or so later they can wipe their tears away with portraits of their friend Benjamin.
If a parent can't trust the rating to reflect what a kid will be exposed to (since a lot of kids WILL download the unlock), then the rating is completely meaningless.
But if the kid is under 17, the parent might as well shut the hell up, because the game was already deemed, by the ESRB, to be appropriate for those 17 and older.
And if your kid is 17 or older, there is a very real probability that they have had actual real-life sex already, so who cares if they download the Hot Coffee mod? And even if they haven't had sex yet, they have definitely seen worse in the movies or on cable TV (and I'm not talking about HBO or Skinamax...I'm talking about shows like "The Shield").
If your kid is under 17, the ESRB already told you the game was not appropriate for them. It already told you it contains "Sexual Content." You were already warned. If you didn't listen, then you were already a bad parent.
Deal with it.
The difference between the M rating and the AO rating is *one year* and a bunch of sales - it's stupid. It's exactly the same with movies, too.
No, even with movies the difference between R and NC-17 is a lot larger. For those that may not know, any parent can take their 6 year old kid into an R-rated movie at the theater. But if a movie is rated NC-17, children CANNOT attend, even with parents present. This is the reason that most theaters will not take up screenspace with NC-17 movies...the market is a lot smaller, because parents are unable to make the decision for themselves.
A parent can, however, choose to buy an AO rated game for their kids.
If you, as parent, approved of GTA for your child last week, and now don't because a patch downloaded from the internet can show you non-explicit sex, then you're a shitty excuse for a parent and a worse one for a human, and regardless what Rockstar did or didn't do, and regardless of they hypocritical bullshit pandering that the ESRB and our politicians do, you shouldn't have any say in what *any* child does. To anyone with half a brain, this is a non-issue.
Especially because last week the game was already rated M, and recommended only for age 17 and up. Unless I'm mistaken, a large portion of American teenagers age 17 and up have already had sex. It's the stupid-ass parents who didn't understand what an M rating meant and bought it for their 12 year olds that are getting so upset. And I say screw those idiots.
i think i am going to look for an advocacy group, one that wants to remove offensive skits from tv. one that will sue the television companies, and file complaints with the FCC on my behalf. a special interest group that will tell the government my community does not want homosexuals, lesbians, or anything offensive on tv. and get rid of all the alcohol advertising. can't a dad and his son watch a baseball game without seeing 100 different advertisments for beer?
OH NO! BEER! IT'S THE DEVIL'S WORK!
Seriously, I don't think it's the government's job to regulate what kind of commercials or skits are shown during TV shows...it's supply and demand. Obviously, if a majority of people are truly offended by it, the ratings will show it, the advertisers will pull out, and the show will either change or be cancelled. Ask Bill Maher about that one.
And if the idea of a beer commercial during a ballgame offends you, I think you will never be happy. Should they stop selling beer at the ballgame as well? Stop selling beer entirely? Back to prohibition? Perhaps you should consider moving to Salt Lake City...I hear they have a pretty strong anti-beer stance there.
Or, as an alternative, you could enlist in the military and request to be stationed in Germany...then you can watch the ballgames (and any other shows) with ALL the commercials removed. No beer commercials in sight (though you should prepare yourself for a ton of really bad PSAs and army-produced commercials).
Also, I have to say that the more real violence you see, the less likely you are to feel it's "good clean fun." And lesbians ARE homosexuals. And rather than declare them "offensive," you should probably go with "offensive to me," or "offensive to some people." Because despite what you might think, your opinions are not the yardstick by which all should be measured. Same goes for "nobody wants to see that crap." Try "I don't want to see that crap."
I am a person who believes it is a SCAM when colleges buy bran spanking new computers every 2 years, and use property tax to do it. Whenever I have walked around a computer lab, all I see is Word and papers being written, IE and the web being surfed, and the very occasional comp sci student writing code. All this could be done on PIII's. Hell, PII's would work, although it would take a few minutes to load software.
My university has its fair share of PIIs and PIIIs laying around, too. It's funny, though, that the P4s always seem to be sitting on some secretary's desk with nothing but Word, or possibly Outlook, open, while the PIIs are sitting in Chemistry and Physics labs running software they can just barely (or can't really) handle.
That's my IT fee at work, baby.
I was talking to a guy once who complained that some cd he bought wouldn't play on his computer (where he listens to all his music) because of the copy protection. We eventually decided the best thing for him to do would be to return it. They'd replace it with another copy. The next day he could return that, and so on. Just pick a music store that's not out of your way. At least you can be a big pain in the ass.
If you're willing to be a little dishonest, you can also just find a store that doesn't bother to remove the shrink-wrap when they replace software/music/movies. Just say it wouldn't play, get a replacement, then take that to a different store (or the same store the next day) and replace it for a different item (since it will now be unopened).
In a situation such as this (where the CD will not play on your hardware), I wouldn't even consider it unethical. Though, of course, opinions are bound to vary on that one.
Soda just came out my nose. Thanks. :)
He called support, and they sent him new cd's - but not his cd-key.
I can imagine how this call would have gone if it had been me..."Oh sure, no problem. Don't need my CD-key. I'll just jump online and download a keygen for it. And while I'm at it, I might as well grab keygens for every other game you guys put out. And some disc images for all those, too. Hey, why am I even talking to you? Have a nice day, I think you've solved my problem without even knowing it. My problem, of course, being that whole 'giving you money' thing."
Nobody said it was legal...they just said you could do it... :)
And since most people are only using it on music they've purchased anyway (there isn't exactly a huge market for 128k AAC versions of music that is already widely available in MP3 format, in varying bitrates, on the P2P networks), I don't think it has become a high-profile target.
Yet.
And in the meantime it's people like me, people who actually paid for the game, who get to put up with hassles like:
- being locked out of a game I've paid for, because the CD got scratched.
I've started to wonder whether or not this is actually a planned benefit for media companies, rather than an unintended side-effect. This way, when you scratch your video game/DVD/software CD you are forced to either buy a new one, or at the least pay the (gradually increasing, I've noticed) fee they require to replace the disk, which is always quite a bit more than the cost of the disk itself. And since anything copy-protected is illegal to make archive copies of under the DMCA, there's nothing you can do.
And to address your complaints about all the other fun side-effects from copy protection (mostly bug-related), companies just don't care. Once they have your money, you aren't getting it back, because the return policy on all entertainment media is same-copy-only exchange once it's opened. And while they claim it's only to reduce piracy, it does have the wonderful benefit for them that evey sale is absolutely final once you try the product.
Seems to me that software/entertainment publishers are just using piracy as a good excuse to pillage their customers nowadays. Hell, you could argue that piracy is the best thing that ever happened to them.
I've never used it (maybe it deserves to die)
........
I did use it, many moons ago, and I can say that it most definitely didn't deserve to die. When it came out, it was a fantastic OS. While it hasn't been terribly important since, I think it deserves a short moment of silence nonetheless.
Goodbye, OS/2.