Agreed, but it's more about use than about opinion, so those most arguing over what is "best" between mac or windows don't know what is going on behind the GUI - nor do they need nor want to know, in many cases. GUI-level people are happy if it just works.
I went the other way around - Mac to *nix - but once I did and began understanding the "under the hood" workings of the Mac OS, my discovery of how outdated some of the *nix system distributions Leopard used (the SSH protocol for example - four years out of date until 10.5.4) kind of lowered my overall opinion of mac. I could create an equally-functioning (if not better-functioning) OS using Debian (for example), with even more functionality (access to ALL each program's commands) but without the GUI.
Mac's forte is the user experience - they do have talent for discerning/providing for what a modern computer user likes/needs. Yet the functionality behind the GUI is at the total discretion of the mac OS creators. If the user wants to do/know more within a certain system application, he has to go under the hood; at least he can.
Here in France, the Mo (Mega-octet) has been in widespread use by both production and public since years already. I do agree that calculating kilo/mega/giga/terra octets is a PITA, but at least we know what we're getting in the box.
You're on to something there - perhaps the white guy was photoshopped with a black guy for the American market ; P
No, wait. That would only work if having a "black right hand" (cue Nick Cave) had some sort of symbolic signifigance the Polish. Damn my cultural ignorance...
A lower post answered correctly that it's more to do with the equipment than the wire - although there is a difference between 'black' fibre cables (higher capacity) and regular, and how many strands you lay. Generally a 'home' connection is a single strand divided between several users upon its arrival to a certain quarter/building; the speed you get will depend on how many other users are on the same strand (the origin of often misleading ISP advertising claiming 'xxx giga/s!' when you could only get that speed if you were the only one using your shared 'home' connection), whereas the speed from a direct fibre point-to-point connection is undivided in any way.
Eye sonny, eet ees you steel hangeeng on to an outrrrrageosuley outdated counteeng sysdem. (twirling moustache) Er, by zee way, eesn't counting in feet rahzer... smelly?
Only 100mbs? And how is this "next generation"? Our company has a 1go fibre-optic connection straight into the web backbone. If you're going to do all that digging yourself, you might as well lay some decent cable and connections.
Whoa whoa whoa there. What you say is true for some news sources, but many (even most) others tailor their news to what they think 'the people' ~should~ (or shouldn't) hear. This is a power often abused, and corporate-sponsored-and-promoting 'dumb the consumers down, scare 'em silly and make them buy and obey' Fox news is a prime example.
People dont pay for 'Facts' or 'news' per se - but they do pay for opinions.
...whoa, there. Facts are costly: they have to be researched and referenced to have any credibility; opinion is based on fact (or should be). Any blowhard can have an opinion on any fact, but who's going to foot the bill for finding fact in the first place?
This is one of the reasons why modern media is so biased and uninformative - it's easier and cheaper for them to parrot the 'facts' spoon-fed to them by the government/corporate organisations, or 'facts' (usually originating from the same spoon-feeders, but with an added note of hysteria) gleaned from the web. Real reporting = $ = less profit ( = angry 'sponsors').
But everybody: Shhhhhhhh! Let Murdoch dig his own grave.
PS: I forgot to mention: In 'tailoring' the market to the younger age bracket, the music industry screwed themselves: the younger once put the hits of their favourite idols high on the list of their limited parent-contributed pocket-money priorities, but now that they can have the same for "free" (in their limited understanding of market and morals), today they choose to spend their money on other things.
The music industry has always been fucking us over, it's only their tactics that have changed; it is interesting to note that their 'jump the shark' moment came when they were making the most money, because it was then that they refused to evolve with the market.
To elaborate on the evolution of 'fucking over': From its early (quite honest) goals of trying to appeal to as many listeners as possible, the music industry tried to influence and control the airwaves (airtime = records sold) to make themselves even more the only 'door' to stardom... but as we grew more educated (especially in recent years), the industry began targeting a younger and younger audience (explaining the '13-17-year-old' statistics mentioned ITFA - even the thought that this bracket is considered by them to be a major source of income is disgusting) and even 'creating' artists (with doubtful talents) especially for them. They have been stuck in this rut since the CD heyday - from the early 90's. In short, the music industry is failing because they are failing, through all their (expensive) manipulations, to keep the market mentality and structure exactly the way it was then.
I personally don't care who gets the money when I buy an album, but hearing a catchy tune that interests me is not easy these days - I used to rely on internet radio stations, but these seem to be coming under the influence of the mainstream as well. The more popular streaming sites (Deezer, etc) will probably go that way as well.
The irony of it all is that I can't help but thinking that the early music-industry days could be a good model: when there was only radio and records, we would buy the record to get the entire album (also instead of having to wait by the radio for hours to hear our favourite song); even when cassettes appeared, there was no comparing the quality of an original album to the sound of a cassette copy.
If the music industry really wanted to protect itself, it would have to evolve with the market, as well as working (objectively, not profit-oriented-ly) with other organisations to find a definite definition of 'piracy' that could be put into law.
The music industry would fare much better if it were illegal to a) make an entire album available in one place at one time for free and/or b) provide for free music above a certain quality.
What I dislike most about any major-news-source published "article" on climate change, the story presented most always tries to 'prove' one pre-decided position (usually exaggeration or denial) of the subject through presenting a selective choice of fact. I would like to see an objective article on the subject - and I'm sure many already exist - especially in the mainstream media. Instead of the usual 'he said, "many people say"' vagueries often presented as arguments, an objective article should research and present the following in a clear and constructive manner:
1) What percentage of scientists (ALL groups confounded) arrive at what conclusion? 2) From research taken from the above, what would the majority of scientists consider to be a "normal" global warming/cooling trend without human activity? 3) From the above question, how much global warming emissions does nature release into the atmosphere? 4) Again from question 3, how much global warming emissions does human activity release into the atmosphere? 5) How do questions 3 and 4 compare - and what are the combined results?
If all the above is answered clearly, with citations and statistics presented as a median comparison across all conclusions of the entire scientific community, we can come to a clearer comprehension - and opinion - on the matter.
I enjoy any article that can provide concrete evidence of innovation or progress - about any company!
No matter the bend or the origin of any "review" article, the product it talks about has to be up to snuff to outlast the buzz any fanboy-ism may generate.
I have seen many times over the decades one company trying to "drown" another product proving itself better than its competitors through fanboy-ism and misinformation... at the same time as seeing that companies who resort to those kind of tactics have only fanboy-ism and endoctrination as a means of keeping their followers faithful.
It's all about the product, not the "noise" it makes.
Ditto. XHTML is just another "combined technology" term like DHTML (although standardised) imho; it was an incomplete compromise between two still-developing technologies.
XHTML's demise was a natural one. HTML is the foremost "static" web language, and has been for decades already; it is only normal that the "best" of other lesser-used languages be integrated into it to make a more performant protocol whole.
NumLock is like CapsLock - once pressed, it remains activated. My argument is that the numeric keypad should always be activated with no need to push any button at all.
...and since the ctrl-alt-delete keys are so often used in Windows PC's, why don't they regroup them to their own region of the keyboard? In fact, why not combine them into a unique oversized (and possibly bright red) "panic button"? But I digress... keyboards should reflect progressive user habits; not the failings of the operating system they control.
Key size is not the only pre-90's "tradition" that has to go - the "num lock" key is rather pointless for most desktop users - the numeric pad has been an integrated part of most all desktop keyboards since decades - mac recognised this trait quite early in the game.
You're onto something there, but I think the bike doesn't have everything to do with it - your best advice is in your later steps.
The things women most dislike about geeks is there lack of personal style/confidence - in the "selection" code of human behaviour, these latter traits speak volumes about class/earning potential. Yes, some may argue that this is a trend that should have been left in the stone ages, but unfortunately we're still clinging to many of our old methods as we head into more intellectual climes.
I've been an IT guy since around a year and a half now, taking a break from a photography career of twenty years, and I can say as far as my social life goes, my style habits saved me. My present work doesn't interest my "usual" entourage at all (save for my closest friends), so I've had to turn to other networks for social - er - development. I've found that most people don't ~care~ what trade you do after you make it past the "first impression" stage.
So, yeah, definitely get into taking care of your "look" - as long as do it seriously, for you, with passion, it may at least give you a foot in the door.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed, but it's more about use than about opinion, so those most arguing over what is "best" between mac or windows don't know what is going on behind the GUI - nor do they need nor want to know, in many cases. GUI-level people are happy if it just works.
I went the other way around - Mac to *nix - but once I did and began understanding the "under the hood" workings of the Mac OS, my discovery of how outdated some of the *nix system distributions Leopard used (the SSH protocol for example - four years out of date until 10.5.4) kind of lowered my overall opinion of mac. I could create an equally-functioning (if not better-functioning) OS using Debian (for example), with even more functionality (access to ALL each program's commands) but without the GUI.
Mac's forte is the user experience - they do have talent for discerning/providing for what a modern computer user likes/needs. Yet the functionality behind the GUI is at the total discretion of the mac OS creators. If the user wants to do/know more within a certain system application, he has to go under the hood; at least he can.
P.S. :
Here in France, the Mo (Mega-octet) has been in widespread use by both production and public since years already. I do agree that calculating kilo/mega/giga/terra octets is a PITA, but at least we know what we're getting in the box.
Bingo. We should define a solid standard for the byte itself - a term that has never been standardised - rather than quibbling about megabytes.
You're on to something there - perhaps the white guy was photoshopped with a black guy for the American market ; P
No, wait. That would only work if having a "black right hand" (cue Nick Cave) had some sort of symbolic signifigance the Polish. Damn my cultural ignorance...
Microsoft Poland is anti-PC.
(They're shooting themselves in the foot no matter how you read it).
A lower post answered correctly that it's more to do with the equipment than the wire - although there is a difference between 'black' fibre cables (higher capacity) and regular, and how many strands you lay. Generally a 'home' connection is a single strand divided between several users upon its arrival to a certain quarter/building; the speed you get will depend on how many other users are on the same strand (the origin of often misleading ISP advertising claiming 'xxx giga/s!' when you could only get that speed if you were the only one using your shared 'home' connection), whereas the speed from a direct fibre point-to-point connection is undivided in any way.
Eye sonny, eet ees you steel hangeeng on to an outrrrrageosuley outdated counteeng sysdem. (twirling moustache) Er, by zee way, eesn't counting in feet rahzer... smelly?
Only 100mbs? And how is this "next generation"? Our company has a 1go fibre-optic connection straight into the web backbone. If you're going to do all that digging yourself, you might as well lay some decent cable and connections.
Whoa whoa whoa there. What you say is true for some news sources, but many (even most) others tailor their news to what they think 'the people' ~should~ (or shouldn't) hear. This is a power often abused, and corporate-sponsored-and-promoting 'dumb the consumers down, scare 'em silly and make them buy and obey' Fox news is a prime example.
Zargog says that his brother was lynched after he landed in Mississippi - try landing in one of the blue-coloured states!
People dont pay for 'Facts' or 'news' per se - but they do pay for opinions.
...whoa, there. Facts are costly: they have to be researched and referenced to have any credibility; opinion is based on fact (or should be). Any blowhard can have an opinion on any fact, but who's going to foot the bill for finding fact in the first place?
This is one of the reasons why modern media is so biased and uninformative - it's easier and cheaper for them to parrot the 'facts' spoon-fed to them by the government/corporate organisations, or 'facts' (usually originating from the same spoon-feeders, but with an added note of hysteria) gleaned from the web. Real reporting = $ = less profit ( = angry 'sponsors').
But everybody: Shhhhhhhh! Let Murdoch dig his own grave.
Why did I read the title 'Large Hardon Collider Struggling'? Christ, I must be at home here.
The phrase you corrected was referring to the kids, not the industry - my bad grammar, my bad.
PS: I forgot to mention: In 'tailoring' the market to the younger age bracket, the music industry screwed themselves: the younger once put the hits of their favourite idols high on the list of their limited parent-contributed pocket-money priorities, but now that they can have the same for "free" (in their limited understanding of market and morals), today they choose to spend their money on other things.
The music industry has always been fucking us over, it's only their tactics that have changed; it is interesting to note that their 'jump the shark' moment came when they were making the most money, because it was then that they refused to evolve with the market.
To elaborate on the evolution of 'fucking over': From its early (quite honest) goals of trying to appeal to as many listeners as possible, the music industry tried to influence and control the airwaves (airtime = records sold) to make themselves even more the only 'door' to stardom... but as we grew more educated (especially in recent years), the industry began targeting a younger and younger audience (explaining the '13-17-year-old' statistics mentioned ITFA - even the thought that this bracket is considered by them to be a major source of income is disgusting) and even 'creating' artists (with doubtful talents) especially for them. They have been stuck in this rut since the CD heyday - from the early 90's. In short, the music industry is failing because they are failing, through all their (expensive) manipulations, to keep the market mentality and structure exactly the way it was then.
I personally don't care who gets the money when I buy an album, but hearing a catchy tune that interests me is not easy these days - I used to rely on internet radio stations, but these seem to be coming under the influence of the mainstream as well. The more popular streaming sites (Deezer, etc) will probably go that way as well.
The irony of it all is that I can't help but thinking that the early music-industry days could be a good model: when there was only radio and records, we would buy the record to get the entire album (also instead of having to wait by the radio for hours to hear our favourite song); even when cassettes appeared, there was no comparing the quality of an original album to the sound of a cassette copy.
If the music industry really wanted to protect itself, it would have to evolve with the market, as well as working (objectively, not profit-oriented-ly) with other organisations to find a definite definition of 'piracy' that could be put into law.
The music industry would fare much better if it were illegal to a) make an entire album available in one place at one time for free and/or b) provide for free music above a certain quality.
Finally, Stevie Wonder will be able to impress Eddie Murphy.
What I dislike most about any major-news-source published "article" on climate change, the story presented most always tries to 'prove' one pre-decided position (usually exaggeration or denial) of the subject through presenting a selective choice of fact. I would like to see an objective article on the subject - and I'm sure many already exist - especially in the mainstream media. Instead of the usual 'he said, "many people say"' vagueries often presented as arguments, an objective article should research and present the following in a clear and constructive manner:
1) What percentage of scientists (ALL groups confounded) arrive at what conclusion?
2) From research taken from the above, what would the majority of scientists consider to be a "normal" global warming/cooling trend without human activity?
3) From the above question, how much global warming emissions does nature release into the atmosphere?
4) Again from question 3, how much global warming emissions does human activity release into the atmosphere?
5) How do questions 3 and 4 compare - and what are the combined results?
If all the above is answered clearly, with citations and statistics presented as a median comparison across all conclusions of the entire scientific community, we can come to a clearer comprehension - and opinion - on the matter.
I enjoy any article that can provide concrete evidence of innovation or progress - about any company!
No matter the bend or the origin of any "review" article, the product it talks about has to be up to snuff to outlast the buzz any fanboy-ism may generate.
I have seen many times over the decades one company trying to "drown" another product proving itself better than its competitors through fanboy-ism and misinformation... at the same time as seeing that companies who resort to those kind of tactics have only fanboy-ism and endoctrination as a means of keeping their followers faithful.
It's all about the product, not the "noise" it makes.
Ditto. XHTML is just another "combined technology" term like DHTML (although standardised) imho; it was an incomplete compromise between two still-developing technologies.
XHTML's demise was a natural one. HTML is the foremost "static" web language, and has been for decades already; it is only normal that the "best" of other lesser-used languages be integrated into it to make a more performant protocol whole.
Then perhaps you shouldn't cycle naked.
NumLock is like CapsLock - once pressed, it remains activated. My argument is that the numeric keypad should always be activated with no need to push any button at all.
...and since the ctrl-alt-delete keys are so often used in Windows PC's, why don't they regroup them to their own region of the keyboard? In fact, why not combine them into a unique oversized (and possibly bright red) "panic button"? But I digress... keyboards should reflect progressive user habits; not the failings of the operating system they control.
Key size is not the only pre-90's "tradition" that has to go - the "num lock" key is rather pointless for most desktop users - the numeric pad has been an integrated part of most all desktop keyboards since decades - mac recognised this trait quite early in the game.
You're onto something there, but I think the bike doesn't have everything to do with it - your best advice is in your later steps.
The things women most dislike about geeks is there lack of personal style/confidence - in the "selection" code of human behaviour, these latter traits speak volumes about class/earning potential. Yes, some may argue that this is a trend that should have been left in the stone ages, but unfortunately we're still clinging to many of our old methods as we head into more intellectual climes.
I've been an IT guy since around a year and a half now, taking a break from a photography career of twenty years, and I can say as far as my social life goes, my style habits saved me. My present work doesn't interest my "usual" entourage at all (save for my closest friends), so I've had to turn to other networks for social - er - development. I've found that most people don't ~care~ what trade you do after you make it past the "first impression" stage.
So, yeah, definitely get into taking care of your "look" - as long as do it seriously, for you, with passion, it may at least give you a foot in the door.
He said ~women~, not senior citizens ; )
Someone tell Kirk's grandma to stop hanging behind the command chair.