Right now, Toronto is sitting at a dozen or so degrees below zero and three feet of snow, but on new years day I went down to the beach here in Van without a jacket and soaked up some sunshine...
well to each their own, but personally i couldn't stand the Vancouver weather: it was way too depressing. the lack of sunshine and constant rainy weather for almost five months straight is too much for me. i much prefer the weather to be bitterly cold with mostly sunny days than Vancouver's consistantly overcast winters. i would also prefer -15 and snowing to +5 and raining any day.
oh yeah, Vancouver. where you get to enjoy that miserable drizzle and lousy weather! no wonder it has one of the highest suicide rates in Canada!:)
but seriously, i love Canada. i've lived elsewhere (including the 'States) but i still prefer it here in Toronto. the weather does get cold in the Winter, but trust me: you get used it it:), and the summers are goreous.
to get back on topic: with regards to freedoms, Canada does tend to be more liberal than the US, but we still follow the lead of the US if they push us at all. still, in the end, i think it's "safer" to be here, both in terms of individual freedoms and in terms of a lower crime rate.
i'm sure this isn't what you're asking, but here's an intersting case from my experience. a good friend of mine was arrested a couple of years ago for manufacturing a few million dollars worth of illegal narcotics, mostly Ecstacy. the Canadian legal system let him finish his University degree before going to trial (under "house arrest"). he then spent six months in a minimum security farm prison. he's now free, and though he says he's "wasted a year of my life," he's doing fine. had he lived in the United States he would be in jail for life, period, no questions asked. the point is that the Canadian legal system determined that despite all his charges and his "interesting" oppinions on drug laws, he was still an intelligent talented individual, and a benefit to society.
although Canada is heavily influenced by the whims of the US, in the end, i think Canada values the freedoms and choices of its citizens considerably more than the United States.
ok, i haven't been following the Napster news all that closely as i prefer less mainstream music, but i'd like to know if anybody can answer this: how will fee-based Napster work?
Napster is a P2P (kinda) filesharing service. when Napster implements their fee-based service (presumeably with "legitimate" material on it), what will be the difference between Napster and, say, an FTP site? i assume it will no longer be P2P, right? (or at least, the "illegal" stuff will not be on the P2P section anymore).
so is it basically going to be like an FTP site that you search through the Napster client? if so, what the hell's the point? why not just make it a web-based service? i guess the "point" will be that clueless people are getting used to using "Napster" to get files, and would like to continue using it that way. still, it seems silly to use this "Napster" protocol and proprietary client to do soemthing that would be better served by exisiting technologies.
now again, i haven't been following Napster too closely, but some please: enlighten me!
this posting on slashdot is pretty disturbing. i know we all suspected that the editors rarely read the links they post in any detail, but i would never have expected this kind of sloppy journalism. i know slashdot is hardly the New York Times, but this is bad, even for slashdot.
it's funny how people are willing to instantly believe something if it fits nicely into their point of view, wether there's proof or not. it's pretty obviously that Taco dislikes Apple, and he patently (hah) despises patents. when the two are put together, it's just so overwhelmingly good news, why even bother to follow the link?
for some reason i was reminded of the infamous "LSD user blinded by staring at the sun" hoax that went around a long while ago. the story spread like wildfire, and morphed the details each time. every major news outlet (the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Newsweek and Time Magazine among others) reported this horrible story about four "normal" college kids that were perminantly blinded while "holding a religious conversation with the sun."
the whole story was found to be a hoax constructed by a Dr. Yoder from the Institute of the Blind in Pennsylvania, who admitted he had made up the story "because I am concerned about the illicit use of LSD and other drugs."
so how is it that all these reputable news outlets all published the same obviously false article? because it nicely fit the popular opinion of the editors and readers
so i suppose if this can happen to the most established news outlets, then we shouldn't really expect any different from slashdot. if you ever thought slashdot was a better breed than your mainstream media, what the hell were you thinking? at any rate, i think the moral here is this: remember that slashdot is ignorant and biased as any other media outlet. don't let the fact that it generally supports your views to cloud your own judgement.
(ps: Apple isn't quite as "evil" as you think they are, despite what slashdot feeds you)
now that would be funny (in a sick sort of way). it's entirely possible too: incompetant coder A steals GPL code to write a program, then is later fired or resigns. after many moons, coder B is put in charge of the project and discoveres that a GPL program has the same code. this person could very easily decide that coder A (or anybody else really) leaked this code to the GPL program and gets lawyers A through ZZ to take care of the problem.
in a situation like this, who will win? the GPL programmers or the big software company with the cash and the lawyers?
at any rate, i'm very interested to see what the future will bring with regards to the GPL.
i would imagine that this is the case here: i mean hell, the coders weren't even smart enough to get rid of the "visit the EveryBuddy website" string for Christ's sake! that's pretty pathetic.
True, they are good lyrics, but they don't say much and have the worst presentation I can think of. I think I'll stick to TS Eliott for good writing.
uhrm, when i say they have good writers, i mean music writers (ie. composers), not lyracists. their hamonies are well done, their "hooks" are excellent, and the songs are very well produced. their lyrics are cheesy as hell, but i never understood this: who listens to music for the lyrics?! that is the strangest thing to me. most lyrics in most bands are written by some highschool dropout (or in the case of the boy bands, written to appeal to teenagers). i completely agree that if i want "lyrics" i'll read poetry. but that wasn't what i was saying: it's the music that's written well.
The rave/techno scene in its multitudinously fragmented genres is pumping out awesome stuff left and right, though.
true, true. but even the "rave/techno scene" is being infected by "big business," especially trance music. the stuff that Jules is playing these days, and the countless Ibiza bullshit albums are complete toilet.
plus there's lot of people who have no clue what they're doing producing underground music. part of the problem (or as i say, the fun) is that it's completely unfiltered: you have to search out what you like from a mountain of garbage. this turns a lot of people off "techno," as they actually have to listen to the music and follow the labels and producers they like. of course most people take the "easy" way out, and just latch on to a favourite dj and have them do the filtering. i'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but it's interesting to consider what that means--that djs are now the "rock stars" instead of the "musicians."
but you're right: if you want to find the truly imaginative and ground-breaking music, it's in the "techno" scene. and i always say, if you're not finding something you like, you're not looking hard enough. from breaks to jungle to trance to house to drum'n'bass, there has to be something that interestes most people.
i've found what i like the most: UK Hard House. it has a lot of "sameness" to it, but there are some very talented people writing this stuff, and it's your basic fun "party" music. i listen to other music for sitting around, but when you want to go out, have fun, and dance your ass off, you can't really beak UK Hard House or Nu-NRG.
but we're way off topic here, and i'm probably going to loose some of my precious karma (heaven forbid). i'd be intersted in seeing what this kid likes to listen to as well. of course, it's entirely possible that he's not that interested in music, and then just listens to something "easy" (like for instance, what's played on the radio, like Modern Rock or something).
(of course, there's nothing necessarily wrong with "easy" music. i'm a closet Backstreet Boys and N-SYNC fan myself. you know, the do hire some of the best writers in the business!)
No, actually, at its inception (sometime in the 20's or 30's), QWERTY was designed to actually slow people down
ok, i know this one is a myth. QWERTY was designed to make typewriter jams happen infrequently. this wasn't done by slowing people down, but rather making peopl type adjacent letters on alternate hands (as i mentioned in my original post).
watch it when you type -- most words are spelled alternating back and forth. this was the primary method of keeping the keys from jamming. in most tests i've seen, QWERTY is arguably the same speed as a DVORAK keyboard, even though the latter is specifically designed to have often-used letters on the home row.
all of these new-fangled keyboards always put a note about how users can "acheive 90% of their orginal typing speed," or something like it. i know that the idea behind these designs is to reduce strain on the hands and wrists, but when is somebody going to come out with a keyboard that can increase my typing speed?
QWERTY is designed for fast typing (most words are back and forth, left right left right), but it's certainly not ideal. does anybody know of a keyboard could let me type faster. i already type at about 100wpm, but anything that could help me type even faster (perhaps by reducing the error rate at high speeds) would be great.
i would be willing to hook electrodes up to my skull to achieve this too;)
i've asked this so many times in threads like this, but i always seem to get in too late to get any responses. i'd like to ask once again what's wrong with PDF documents?
it's my understanding the PDF is an open format. in fact, i've even heard that part of the reason why Apple used DisplayPDF in MacOS X is because they would have had to license Postscript from Adobe while PDF was royalty-free. if this is the case, why is it that opensource advocates hail Postscript, but denounce PDF?
i know that PDF is the format when you want to ensure that pages are printed correctly. that being said, they're still able to store text-content, they're compressed so they're a resonable size, and they're cross-platform (lots of programs can read PDFs these days, not just Acrobat)
now for the topic at hand, i understand that standards definitions would be best presented in a format that doesn't waste so much space on presentation: content is what should matter, which is why a Framemaker file format or XML might be best. but for casual documents, why don't we use PDF? it's surely a lot better than DOC.
so i'm asking: what's wrong with PDF? why can't more programs write to PDF as an export option? why can't more programs read PDFs for editing? am i missing something here?
Why would you want to do this? OSX is more than BSD+Aqua. You'd be missing all kinds of neat stuff (like Cocoa, WebObjects, and Quartz) that is not available (nor will ever be available for that matter) in Darwin.
well it was actually more of a joke than anything. but after using Nautilus i've realized that i'd love to see some of the components make it into a Finder replacement for OS X, but not as a replacement for the Quartz engine.
PR1 was advertised as "beta" software. Their mistake was calling alpha software as beta.
well perhaps by calling it "beta" they attracted more of a "finished product" crowd than they normally would have, but it still proves my point: releasing alpha software in binary can have a negative effect on interest level of that software.
this sounds like a good idea, but we're talking about alpha software here! do you really want people who need to be enticed by binaries to be running alpha software? sure they may not be able to compile it, but by the same token, they may not even be able to run it!
i would think the fear of releasing a binary "too early" would be that you run the risk of turning off a lot of people. remember the response when Netscape released their PR1 version of their browser? i know people who wrote them off forever for that, despite my attempts to convince them that the Mozilla nightlies are coming along nicely.
i would still argue that keeping it source-only would be best. though i fail to see the logic (from the original article post) of why screenshots are bad. i would like to think that you entice people with pretty screenshots if you're going to entice them with anything. but alpha-code binaries? that seems risky.
Mozilla already allows you to block sites from loading images, in almost exactly this fashion. Right-click on the banner that you dislike, and choose 'Block image from loading' from the menu. This blocks all images from that site - fine for ads.doubleclick.net, etc. but it doesn't allow you to have a part-path yet - that may come. You can review which sites are currently blocked in the Image manager.
dear lord this is useful, thanks for the tip! i've been using Mozilla as my "primary browser" since the early nightlies this month, and this is great to find!
anyhow, the feature could use some tweaking (as you've noted), but it's working well in many cases already. thanks again!
excellent point. you do realize that Mac OS X addresses everything you've said here, right?
OS X may not be perfect, but i'd say it'll be the best operating system for the "use everyday" computer (unfortunately due to my heavy reliance on Adobe apps and high-end Audio, i can't use Linux on my primary work machine). i'm definitely looking forward to it.
and hey, if you find another TCP/IP bug, then just download the Darwin source and fix it yourself. it's definitely a step in the right direction.
ack. i think the general consensus here is that nobody is obsessed enough with English grammar to really know or care:). but yes, "effect" can be used as a transitive verb just as "affect" can.
i've changed it back to "affected" because that pisses less people off (so far:), and i think it's probably the most right.
Your sig needs correcting: it should read "affected" not "effected".
are you sure? i'm not grammar expert, but my father was an English teacher and i was under the impression that it was effected
it's funny you should mention it, because the very same sentence has started a controversy on another web-board about which it should be.
Webster's has this to say about it:
The confusion of the verbs affect and effect is not only quite common but has a long history. Effect was used in place of 3affect as early as 1494 and in place of 2affect as early as 1652. If you think you want to use the verb effect but are not certain, check the definitions in this dictionary. The noun affect is sometimes mistakenly used for effect. Except when your topic is psychology, you will seldom need the noun affect.
perhaps this is one of those cases where the 'topic is psychology,' but honestly, i don't know. any comments anybody?
- j
i am the very model of a modern civil citizen
on
Deja.com Vu!
·
· Score: 1
uhm, why was this moderated as funny? i really do use Deja's reviews, honest! i do find them useful!
...no, i don't use AOL, why would you ask me that?
why are you looking at me that way? there is nothing wrong with using deja for the reviews!!
why is it that i keep coming back to slashdot every day anyways? screw you guys, i'm going home.
well technically the "index" (i assume you're talking about the Sherlock index) on a MacOS volume is stored in a separate file. the other difference from BFS is that the index isn't automatically updated everytime a file is changed. instead, it's more of a hack, where Sherlock's "scheduler" runs at midnight (default) and updates the day's changes in the index file. BFS does all of this behind the scenes and in real-time, along with many other niceties (such as storing attributes along with the files as mentioned in the article).
so really what they're saying is correct, though misleading. they make it sound as though you can't do the same thing with MacOS. you can of course, it's just not as elegant a solution.
i was a big Be fan a back a few years ago but i gave up on them (especially after their "Apple screwed us" FUD when they dropped Mac support). i'll stick with my Mac, with some real applications and enough niceties for my taste. besides, i always liked NeXT-Step, and i'll get to use once again, but on my G3s!:)
Slashdot Mirror
Right now, Toronto is sitting at a dozen or so degrees below zero and three feet of snow, but on new years day I went down to the beach here in Van without a jacket and soaked up some sunshine...
well to each their own, but personally i couldn't stand the Vancouver weather: it was way too depressing. the lack of sunshine and constant rainy weather for almost five months straight is too much for me. i much prefer the weather to be bitterly cold with mostly sunny days than Vancouver's consistantly overcast winters. i would also prefer -15 and snowing to +5 and raining any day.
but again, to each their own :)
- j
oh yeah, Vancouver. where you get to enjoy that miserable drizzle and lousy weather! no wonder it has one of the highest suicide rates in Canada! :)
but seriously, i love Canada. i've lived elsewhere (including the 'States) but i still prefer it here in Toronto. the weather does get cold in the Winter, but trust me: you get used it it :), and the summers are goreous.
to get back on topic: with regards to freedoms, Canada does tend to be more liberal than the US, but we still follow the lead of the US if they push us at all. still, in the end, i think it's "safer" to be here, both in terms of individual freedoms and in terms of a lower crime rate.
i'm sure this isn't what you're asking, but here's an intersting case from my experience. a good friend of mine was arrested a couple of years ago for manufacturing a few million dollars worth of illegal narcotics, mostly Ecstacy. the Canadian legal system let him finish his University degree before going to trial (under "house arrest"). he then spent six months in a minimum security farm prison. he's now free, and though he says he's "wasted a year of my life," he's doing fine. had he lived in the United States he would be in jail for life, period, no questions asked. the point is that the Canadian legal system determined that despite all his charges and his "interesting" oppinions on drug laws, he was still an intelligent talented individual, and a benefit to society.
although Canada is heavily influenced by the whims of the US, in the end, i think Canada values the freedoms and choices of its citizens considerably more than the United States.
- j
ok, i haven't been following the Napster news all that closely as i prefer less mainstream music, but i'd like to know if anybody can answer this: how will fee-based Napster work?
Napster is a P2P (kinda) filesharing service. when Napster implements their fee-based service (presumeably with "legitimate" material on it), what will be the difference between Napster and, say, an FTP site? i assume it will no longer be P2P, right? (or at least, the "illegal" stuff will not be on the P2P section anymore).
so is it basically going to be like an FTP site that you search through the Napster client? if so, what the hell's the point? why not just make it a web-based service? i guess the "point" will be that clueless people are getting used to using "Napster" to get files, and would like to continue using it that way. still, it seems silly to use this "Napster" protocol and proprietary client to do soemthing that would be better served by exisiting technologies.
now again, i haven't been following Napster too closely, but some please: enlighten me!
- j
this posting on slashdot is pretty disturbing. i know we all suspected that the editors rarely read the links they post in any detail, but i would never have expected this kind of sloppy journalism. i know slashdot is hardly the New York Times, but this is bad, even for slashdot.
it's funny how people are willing to instantly believe something if it fits nicely into their point of view, wether there's proof or not. it's pretty obviously that Taco dislikes Apple, and he patently (hah) despises patents. when the two are put together, it's just so overwhelmingly good news, why even bother to follow the link?
for some reason i was reminded of the infamous "LSD user blinded by staring at the sun" hoax that went around a long while ago. the story spread like wildfire, and morphed the details each time. every major news outlet (the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Newsweek and Time Magazine among others) reported this horrible story about four "normal" college kids that were perminantly blinded while "holding a religious conversation with the sun."
the whole story was found to be a hoax constructed by a Dr. Yoder from the Institute of the Blind in Pennsylvania, who admitted he had made up the story "because I am concerned about the illicit use of LSD and other drugs."
so how is it that all these reputable news outlets all published the same obviously false article? because it nicely fit the popular opinion of the editors and readers
so i suppose if this can happen to the most established news outlets, then we shouldn't really expect any different from slashdot. if you ever thought slashdot was a better breed than your mainstream media, what the hell were you thinking? at any rate, i think the moral here is this: remember that slashdot is ignorant and biased as any other media outlet. don't let the fact that it generally supports your views to cloud your own judgement.
(ps: Apple isn't quite as "evil" as you think they are, despite what slashdot feeds you)
- j
now that would be funny (in a sick sort of way). it's entirely possible too: incompetant coder A steals GPL code to write a program, then is later fired or resigns. after many moons, coder B is put in charge of the project and discoveres that a GPL program has the same code. this person could very easily decide that coder A (or anybody else really) leaked this code to the GPL program and gets lawyers A through ZZ to take care of the problem.
in a situation like this, who will win? the GPL programmers or the big software company with the cash and the lawyers?
at any rate, i'm very interested to see what the future will bring with regards to the GPL.
- j
i would imagine that this is the case here: i mean hell, the coders weren't even smart enough to get rid of the "visit the EveryBuddy website" string for Christ's sake! that's pretty pathetic.
- j
True, they are good lyrics, but they don't say much and have the worst presentation I can think of. I think I'll stick to TS Eliott for good writing.
uhrm, when i say they have good writers, i mean music writers (ie. composers), not lyracists. their hamonies are well done, their "hooks" are excellent, and the songs are very well produced. their lyrics are cheesy as hell, but i never understood this: who listens to music for the lyrics?! that is the strangest thing to me. most lyrics in most bands are written by some highschool dropout (or in the case of the boy bands, written to appeal to teenagers). i completely agree that if i want "lyrics" i'll read poetry. but that wasn't what i was saying: it's the music that's written well.
- j
The rave/techno scene in its multitudinously fragmented genres is pumping out awesome stuff left and right, though.
true, true. but even the "rave/techno scene" is being infected by "big business," especially trance music. the stuff that Jules is playing these days, and the countless Ibiza bullshit albums are complete toilet.
plus there's lot of people who have no clue what they're doing producing underground music. part of the problem (or as i say, the fun) is that it's completely unfiltered: you have to search out what you like from a mountain of garbage. this turns a lot of people off "techno," as they actually have to listen to the music and follow the labels and producers they like. of course most people take the "easy" way out, and just latch on to a favourite dj and have them do the filtering. i'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but it's interesting to consider what that means--that djs are now the "rock stars" instead of the "musicians."
but you're right: if you want to find the truly imaginative and ground-breaking music, it's in the "techno" scene. and i always say, if you're not finding something you like, you're not looking hard enough. from breaks to jungle to trance to house to drum'n'bass, there has to be something that interestes most people.
i've found what i like the most: UK Hard House. it has a lot of "sameness" to it, but there are some very talented people writing this stuff, and it's your basic fun "party" music. i listen to other music for sitting around, but when you want to go out, have fun, and dance your ass off, you can't really beak UK Hard House or Nu-NRG.
but we're way off topic here, and i'm probably going to loose some of my precious karma (heaven forbid). i'd be intersted in seeing what this kid likes to listen to as well. of course, it's entirely possible that he's not that interested in music, and then just listens to something "easy" (like for instance, what's played on the radio, like Modern Rock or something).
(of course, there's nothing necessarily wrong with "easy" music. i'm a closet Backstreet Boys and N-SYNC fan myself. you know, the do hire some of the best writers in the business!)
- j
..and that's why i keep the sig. i get a hell of a laugh from people who think they're clever when really they're too clueless to get the joke :)
- j
ahah .. i can't believe somebody wasted moderator points marking me down for that!
phear the karma drain!
- j
No, actually, at its inception (sometime in the 20's or 30's), QWERTY was designed to actually slow people down
ok, i know this one is a myth. QWERTY was designed to make typewriter jams happen infrequently. this wasn't done by slowing people down, but rather making peopl type adjacent letters on alternate hands (as i mentioned in my original post).
watch it when you type -- most words are spelled alternating back and forth. this was the primary method of keeping the keys from jamming. in most tests i've seen, QWERTY is arguably the same speed as a DVORAK keyboard, even though the latter is specifically designed to have often-used letters on the home row.
- j
all of these new-fangled keyboards always put a note about how users can "acheive 90% of their orginal typing speed," or something like it. i know that the idea behind these designs is to reduce strain on the hands and wrists, but when is somebody going to come out with a keyboard that can increase my typing speed?
QWERTY is designed for fast typing (most words are back and forth, left right left right), but it's certainly not ideal. does anybody know of a keyboard could let me type faster. i already type at about 100wpm, but anything that could help me type even faster (perhaps by reducing the error rate at high speeds) would be great.
i would be willing to hook electrodes up to my skull to achieve this too ;)
- j
i've asked this so many times in threads like this, but i always seem to get in too late to get any responses. i'd like to ask once again what's wrong with PDF documents?
it's my understanding the PDF is an open format. in fact, i've even heard that part of the reason why Apple used DisplayPDF in MacOS X is because they would have had to license Postscript from Adobe while PDF was royalty-free. if this is the case, why is it that opensource advocates hail Postscript, but denounce PDF?
i know that PDF is the format when you want to ensure that pages are printed correctly. that being said, they're still able to store text-content, they're compressed so they're a resonable size, and they're cross-platform (lots of programs can read PDFs these days, not just Acrobat)
now for the topic at hand, i understand that standards definitions would be best presented in a format that doesn't waste so much space on presentation: content is what should matter, which is why a Framemaker file format or XML might be best. but for casual documents, why don't we use PDF? it's surely a lot better than DOC.
so i'm asking: what's wrong with PDF? why can't more programs write to PDF as an export option? why can't more programs read PDFs for editing? am i missing something here?
please, somebody knowledgeable: enlighten me.
- j
Why would you want to do this? OSX is more than BSD+Aqua. You'd be missing all kinds of neat stuff (like Cocoa, WebObjects, and Quartz) that is not available (nor will ever be available for that matter) in Darwin.
well it was actually more of a joke than anything. but after using Nautilus i've realized that i'd love to see some of the components make it into a Finder replacement for OS X, but not as a replacement for the Quartz engine.
- j
Umm, well we are doing that.
i think the best part about this new sig is all the idiots who completely miss the point.
- j
man, i hope somebody eventually makes Easel available for MacOS X. now that would be an operating system environment worth using!
- j
PR1 was advertised as "beta" software. Their mistake was calling alpha software as beta.
well perhaps by calling it "beta" they attracted more of a "finished product" crowd than they normally would have, but it still proves my point: releasing alpha software in binary can have a negative effect on interest level of that software.
- j
this sounds like a good idea, but we're talking about alpha software here! do you really want people who need to be enticed by binaries to be running alpha software? sure they may not be able to compile it, but by the same token, they may not even be able to run it!
i would think the fear of releasing a binary "too early" would be that you run the risk of turning off a lot of people. remember the response when Netscape released their PR1 version of their browser? i know people who wrote them off forever for that, despite my attempts to convince them that the Mozilla nightlies are coming along nicely.
i would still argue that keeping it source-only would be best. though i fail to see the logic (from the original article post) of why screenshots are bad. i would like to think that you entice people with pretty screenshots if you're going to entice them with anything. but alpha-code binaries? that seems risky.
- j
sounds like a job for ....
MARKETING!
guess you geeks still need us Marketroids after all :)
- j
Mozilla already allows you to block sites from loading images, in almost exactly this fashion. Right-click on the banner that you dislike, and choose 'Block image from loading' from the menu. This blocks all images from that site - fine for ads.doubleclick.net, etc. but it doesn't allow you to have a part-path yet - that may come. You can review which sites are currently blocked in the Image manager.
dear lord this is useful, thanks for the tip! i've been using Mozilla as my "primary browser" since the early nightlies this month, and this is great to find!
anyhow, the feature could use some tweaking (as you've noted), but it's working well in many cases already. thanks again!
- j
excellent point. you do realize that Mac OS X addresses everything you've said here, right?
OS X may not be perfect, but i'd say it'll be the best operating system for the "use everyday" computer (unfortunately due to my heavy reliance on Adobe apps and high-end Audio, i can't use Linux on my primary work machine). i'm definitely looking forward to it.
and hey, if you find another TCP/IP bug, then just download the Darwin source and fix it yourself. it's definitely a step in the right direction.
- j
ack. i think the general consensus here is that nobody is obsessed enough with English grammar to really know or care :). but yes, "effect" can be used as a transitive verb just as "affect" can.
:), and i think it's probably the most right.
i've changed it back to "affected" because that pisses less people off (so far
whatever.
- j
Your sig needs correcting: it should read "affected" not "effected".
are you sure? i'm not grammar expert, but my father was an English teacher and i was under the impression that it was effected
it's funny you should mention it, because the very same sentence has started a controversy on another web-board about which it should be.
Webster's has this to say about it:
perhaps this is one of those cases where the 'topic is psychology,' but honestly, i don't know. any comments anybody?- j
uhm, why was this moderated as funny? i really do use Deja's reviews, honest! i do find them useful!
...no, i don't use AOL, why would you ask me that?
why are you looking at me that way? there is nothing wrong with using deja for the reviews!!
why is it that i keep coming back to slashdot every day anyways? screw you guys, i'm going home.
- j
well technically the "index" (i assume you're talking about the Sherlock index) on a MacOS volume is stored in a separate file. the other difference from BFS is that the index isn't automatically updated everytime a file is changed. instead, it's more of a hack, where Sherlock's "scheduler" runs at midnight (default) and updates the day's changes in the index file. BFS does all of this behind the scenes and in real-time, along with many other niceties (such as storing attributes along with the files as mentioned in the article).
so really what they're saying is correct, though misleading. they make it sound as though you can't do the same thing with MacOS. you can of course, it's just not as elegant a solution.
i was a big Be fan a back a few years ago but i gave up on them (especially after their "Apple screwed us" FUD when they dropped Mac support). i'll stick with my Mac, with some real applications and enough niceties for my taste. besides, i always liked NeXT-Step, and i'll get to use once again, but on my G3s! :)
- j