Anybody care to comment on how Quartz Extreme will affect PDF performance, particularly viewing PDFs in Adobe Acrobat? I've noticed that under X, scrolling performance is just plain terrible.
Here's a comparison with the same 12 page PDF (a report from RHK on Internet bandwidth versus revenue for 2002 -- hey, I'm at work, you know! But the document is two columns, in color, and has plenty of charts)
800 MHz Dell Latitude (Windows 2000. 256 MB RAM, Acrobat Reader 5.0, scrolling on the internal LCD): 50 seconds
667 MHz PowerBook G4 (512 MB memory, Mac OS 10.1.4, Acrobat 5.0, scrolling on LCD, but with a second monitor connected): about 8.5 minutes.
Note that during this time, the Windows computer is scrolling the document fast enough that the text is blurry, and I didn't notice appreciable popup of the images, so it looked reasonably smooth.
Under Mac OS X, the scrolling was so slow, that I had to switch to the click-lock function on my mouse because my index finger got tired. Generally, the page would stop rendering about half-way through until the previous page completely disappeared off the screen. I don't recall Mac OS 9 being this bad.
Launching Classic and running Acrobat 4.0 on the same PowerBook, I got these results: scrolling on the internal CD (and this time, playing a MP3 in iTunes): 2.5 minutes.
Is this just Adobe making a crappy port of Acrobat to Mac OS X? Is it a lack of hardware acceleration? Is it a Carbon problem? At this point, I don't care what's causing the problem, but the performance just stinks and it makes OS X look bad.
According to the web site, there are no per user fees:
No per-user "taxes"
Xserve lets you eliminate the most galling expense in your department's budget: the usurious per-user "tax" you've been obliged to pay for using server software. Since Xserve comes with an unlimited-client license of the UNIX-based, industrial-strength Mac OS X Server, you can serve thousands of additional users -- without spending thousands of additional dollars in licensing fees.
If I understand correctly, this is a signficant differentiator between Apple's offerings and companies providing Windows XP on their servers. This is because the hardware OEM would have to negotiate a great deal with Microsoft to do a similar "unlimited deal". Either that, or they'd have to absorb the costs, an unlikely scenario.
Of course, the hardware OEM could install Linux instead, but we all know that Microsoft generally frowns on OEMs picking between Windows and Linux:
Kuney introduced a Microsoft memo to Ballmer, from the spring of 2000, that called into question Dell Computer Corp.'s backing of Linux. The memo said it was "untenable that a Windows Premier Partner would be promoting Linux."
So, if Apple sees any sort of success with Xserve, you'll probably see the other OEMs putting pressure on Microsoft to let them offer Linux or at least reduce their Windows licensing fees, meaning more, cheaper choices for the customers.
> I don't think the legal issues are really all > that jumbled. It's just a question of whether > a parody of this form qualifies as a "fair use".
There's a built-in way of protecting this form of... well, it's not music; let's call it "expression".
If the recording artist sues, Dictionaraoke can threaten to submit each song as evidence during the trial, forcing the court to listen to each one. After about five or six of them, the prosecution will definitely move to dismiss the case!
The moral of the story is, if you insist on breaking the law, try to do it in a fashion as annoying as possible.
> When I sat down at my first Mac in the summer of > '84, I went through a fairly lengthy training > program about how to use the mouse.
"Fairly lengthy"? You mean the "Mousing Around" tutorial? The one with the fish bowl and the little piano keyboard? I'm not sure I'd describe it as "lengthy".
How many times did you have to do it before you finally got the hang of it? I mean, we're talking about the proverbial single-button mouse. A la Homer Simpson: mouse goes up, mouse goes down. Cursor goes up, cursor goes down.
> They mention that in 1953, the BWM 502 had 26 > control and indicator functions. In the late > 90's, the 7-series had over 70 functions, with > as many indicators, and over 35 control elements > (buttons, etc.) > Something *had* to be done to reduce the complexity of the cockpit.
Clearly the next step is to have each car come with a a midget or a hyper-intelligent monkey that carries out your direct voice commands.
"Antonio, please find me a soft jazz station and adjust my headrest. Then massage my buttocks."
> Without a key, a floor shifter or really any > buttons, this might be the future for cars, are > the masses ready to wrestle with computers just > to go to Wawa for milk?"
I agree that this could be a problem.
In the maddening drive for car manufacturers trying to differentiate their cars, they're going to end up causing more harm than good.
The good thing about cars is they all generally have the same interface. So if you've got more than one car in the family or you're renting a car, you generally know how to use it without having to take a 3-hour class as suggested by BMW in the article.
With each manufacturer trying to come up with their own nifty interface, you're suddenly going to have lots of cars with wildly different user interfaces. BMW with their weird iDrive thing, Mercedes with their voice recognition, and who knows what Audi and Lexus will come up with.
Of course there are few chances for someone to rent a 740i as a rental, but if this sort of thing filters down to the entry level cars, expect chaos.
Cars aren't like computers, where a non-standard interface causes a major catastrophe. Click the wrong button on a computer because you're unfamiliar with what it does may, at worst, delete a file you didn't intend to delete. In a car, unfamiliarity with the controls can cause an accident.
Here's an example. After having all Japanese cars, I recently bought a German roadster. In my car the cruise control knob is right next to the turn signal, which is in turn mounted kind of low. When I first got it, the first few times I tried to make a right turn, I ended up engaging the cruise control. That was disorienting, to say the least. I eventually got used to it and it was just one interface problem.
I can imagine what it'll be like if you can't work the iDrive dial-thingy.
Has anyone tried the new iPhoto yet? It mentions that it can separate photos imported from a folder into different rolls, but what about segmenting existing rolls?
I imported my pictures with iPhoto 1.0, and now I've got rolls with 280-something pictures in it. It would be nice if I could separate those out into smaller, more manageable rolls.
> As a fun experiment I replaced "Apple" with > "Microsoft" and "OS X" with ".Net". The result > shows just how hypocritical slashdot visitors > are when it comes to Microsoft vs how much they > praise Apple/Linux/Whoever for the same thing...
I've got mod points to assign, but I'm going to respond anyway.
What you've discovered is not hypocrisy, but context. As someone pointed out earlier, the actions of a monopolist are treated differently than those of just another company. Don't like it? Well, to paraphrase and reinterpret Mel Brooks, sometimes it sucks to be the king.
In other words, underdog companies trying to struggle out from under the thumb of a company convicted of illegally abusing their monopoly and said monopolist are generally treated differently. Read the former as Apple and Microsoft respectively. If you don't understand this, try reading the following examples for additional edification.
Statement: "My dad ate the last slice of ham? I'm going to kill him!" When said by you: just a statement When said by a convicted sociopath and murderer: probably a parole violation
Statement: "Whoa, nice rack" When said by 14-year old boy: probably normal When said by 41-year old female priest: She'd better be talking about lamb!
Statement: "I made a poopie in my pants" When said by 1 year old child: probably cute When said by the guy sitting next to you on the bus: very disturbing
Statement: "Soon we'll be laying off 120% of our staff" When said by a your disgruntled co-worker at lunch after a recent layoff: vaguely humorous When said by your CEO: scary
Statement: "I'll rip his head off, and shit down his neck! And I'll laugh like a motherfucka! I'll laugh like a motherfucka! 'Cause I hate her! 'Cause I hate her!" When said by Alain Jourgenson of Ministry: you're probably slam dancing circa 1990 When said by your father: you're probably talking to a police officer a few hours later
See context can be fun! Statements can take a wildly different meaning depending whom the statement is related to. Last one.
"We're going to take unfair advantage of the fact we own both the hardware and the software." Steve Jobs originally said this about a year ago. Considering he's CEO of Apple, a company that has been struggling to increase their market share from 5%, and almost went out of business 1997. To hear him say this is to hear that he's serious about building differentiators into the Macintosh. And seeing where Mac OS X is today, it's good to hear.
If Bill Gates or Steve Balmer had said this? You're darn tootin' we'd probably be done with this whole antitrust case and some geek with glasses would be fending off the amorous advances of the ham-eatin' sociopath from the first example.
Don't like it? Don't think it's fair to Microsoft? Don't feel bad; Microsoft would rather be in this position than in the case where they have to scrape and claw their way from 5% market share. If they didn't want to deal with the hassles, they shouldn't have broken the law in the first place.
Okay, look, just because Microsoft's witnesses have proved that they didn't read the settlement, got favors from Microsoft to testify, or generally can't tell between an operating system and an old shoe doesn't mean that Microsoft is doing poorly in the case.
I mean, you're acting like illegally abusing your monopoly to shut out competition and reduce consumer choice with hopes of cornering the market on desktop operating systems, office productivity software, media, and the Internet is a crime or something. What you're failing to take into account is I got Solitare for free. That's right, FOR FREE! Is that the sign of a heartless monopoly? No, of course not. And do I see you offering me free, cheapo quality shovelware? No, all I get from you are a bunch of "facts" and "news". Well, you can keep your "facts", Mister-- I've got a game of Klondike I must win!
> I saw the digital projection of The Phantom > Menace in New Jersey, and was impressed.
I agree. I saw it in Plano, TX, and the result was incredible. Very crystal clear and lifelike. What's interesting is when the scenes with the real actors appeared, they looked grainer and worse than the digitally rendered scenes. I'm looking forward to 'Clones in a digital theatre.
The obvious solution is for the Bush Administration to appoint a Computerland Security Advisor and then enact a "Computer Virus Warning System" that uses a different color code to indicate the severity of the computer virus/trojan/worm.
I recommend the following levels: GREEN: Open any file or email attachment with inpunity YELLOW: Don't open any attachment that contains a virus ORANGE: Don't open any email client RED: Turn off your computer
They can send an email each morning (or whenever the status changes) to all computer users so we know how to gauge the virus threat and take appropriate measures.
> The proper discussion is in any second > semester college physics class, but I'm > sure there are books out there that can > provide a better explanation than a slashdot > forum.
Haliday and Resnek have the definitive college-level text on physics, and I think it was called "Fundamentals of Physics" or something like that. If I remember correctly, look in the second half of the book for the chapters on modern physics.
Or, if you wish a nontechnical, but more entertaining answer, try the Straight Dope. Cecil Adams provides a pretty simple explanation of the answer.
> Darwin by no means disproves creationism. > Evolutionary theory is simply that; a theory > that describes things the best way we know > how using what we can observe about the > world around us.
Well, science (and evolution specifically) does rule out a literal six days for the creation of the universe, which is typically called creationism or misleadingly"creation-science". One cannot do true science if one invokes a miracle or relies on "faith" to describe anything not presently understood.
In my experience even "scientists" that believe in creationism rely on natural law for whatever discipline they understand, but then invoke miracles for phenomenon outside their discipline that they do not understand.
Science (and specifically evolution) do not however rule out the existance of God. In fact, science is not interested in the existance of God because it's fundamentally a non-scientific question -- i.e., not a study of natural law. That's not to say that it's not an interesting question. Of course not! It just means that the tools of science cannot be used to determine the existance or non-existance of God.
That's why many people get annoyed when atheists and theists alike invoke science to promote their agenda.
> At the worst, if we find out evolution to be > true (and there are some issues with that), it > goes in contridiction to a literal interpratation > of the bible, but not the spirit.
If you're looking for truth (strictly speaking), you'd better get out of science class. As many have said before, Science is the search for *fact* not truth. Evolution will never be found to be true, because that's not the purpose of science. The most science can do is determine that evolution has not been proved false yet. And universally, biologists have determined that evolution is a fact, the questions come in regarding what mechanisms caused it to happen the way it did.
> Heck, I know a lot of physcists who still think > we can't exceed the speed of light. They > cling to that just as strongly as a hard core > fundimentalists clings to a perfect literal > reading of the bible.
As for exceeding the speed of light, your response is typical of someone unfamiliar with modern science: demanding a simple, short answer to a question that requires complex answer to be accurate. Physicists do not rely on faith regarding the speed of light limitations any more than they rely on faith to determine the trajectory of a object thrown across the room. The proper discussion is in any second semester college physics class, but I'm sure there are books out there that can provide a better explanation than a slashdot forum.
> At the busiest time of the year for those > districts, Microsoft is demanding that they > conduct an internal software audit to "certify > licensing compliance." In a March letter, the > software giant gave Portland Public Schools > 60 days to inventory its 25,000 computers.
To me, this sounds like Microsoft is threatening to have its goons "audit" the school at a time when the school probably can't afford the staff to do the audit.
> Ah, but wait. Microsoft has an offer it thinks > you can't refuse, if only to avoid the audit: the > vaunted Microsoft School Agreement. Under > the terms of this agreement, a school or > district simply counts its computers and > pays Microsoft somewhere in the > neighborhood of $42 per machine for one > systemwide annual license.
If the school can't afford the audit, they can pay Microsoft a yearly tribute to not audit them, but they lose access to the software once they stop paying. And they have to pay for even non-Microsoft computers, like iMacs.
> The school districts are considered guilty of > software piracy until they can prove they're in > licensing compliance. If the district can't > drum up the staff to manage the inventory, > Microsoft is willing to show up with its own > audit crew, but if a single computer is found > with illegal or undocumented software, the > district must pay for the audit.
I wouldn't be surprised if once they get schools into this subscription idea, eventually the annual tribute for Microsoft software for Apple computers will be higher than that of Windows-based computers.
Man, someone should stop them before they become a monopoly!
> We don't know the plums yet - that's what we're trying to solict.
How about if subscribers get a 20 minute advantage on posting comments to a story? So for non-subscribers, during the first 20 minutes a story appears on slashdot, they can only read it without making comments.
Or maybe, subscribers get their username shown in a cool color or some icon (and not a little picture of a lollypop or "sucker" ).
Or maybe, just maybe, subscribers actually get a story submission accepted FOR ONCE! DAMMIT, EVERY SINGLE STORY I'VE SUBMITTED HAS BEEN REJECTED! WHAT DO YOU GUYS HAVE AGAINST A STORY TALKING ABOUT THE NEED FOR ALTERNATIVES TO MICROSOFT MESSENGER FOR NEXT GENERATION TELECOMMUNICATIONS USING SIP?!
> Anybody who has OS X should consider > leaving there machine up all night so these > run... It will resolve a great many problems > that you're having
I didn't see the MacAddict article, so I'm not sure about the details. How often does one have to do this? Once a week? Once a month?
I assume that the Mac has to be awake for these chron tasks to run, right? Should you turn off function that makes the Mac go to sleep after a certain amount of time?
> Our system doesn't trigger an alert until your car is actually in motion.
Pretty funny.
Actually, it has two triggers. One will alert MB if the car alarm goes off because the door was opened without turning off the alarm. It also has the ability to tell if the car's incline shifts dramatically. That means that if you try to tow the car (or even just lift up the car to steal the wheels), the alarm will go off, too, and then contact Mercedes, so they can call you.
I think MB will only release the coordinates of the vehicle to a police department, so I don't think you can use the system to check up on a spouse or whatever. But you'd still have to be a moron to try to steal one of those cars.
MB's TeleAid system is pretty cool because they can also do some basic diagnostics remotely as well. Mine was doing some weird beeping noise, so I called them to ask what the deal was, and the guy said, "Oh, let me clear that for you." and it was gone.
Since the thing tracks how many miles it has to go before needing an oil change, I expect future models will check their mileage, and then automatically call the closest dealership (determined by GPS) to schedule an appointment. Reminds me of Professor Frink's autodialer, with the built in wheels: "Well, let's get you back to Frinky. Hope your wheels still work."
> You know, there is an off chance that Jerry > Sanders actually believes what he is saying, > and is testifying in court that the states' > remedy is bad because he (gasp!) believes > that the states' remedy is bad.
Because Sanders said otherwise.
As being reported by Reuters, Sanders admitted that he asked for a favor from Microsoft in exchange for his testamony in court, and he hadn't even read the proposed sanctions; Gates just told him "they were 'crazy' and would fragment the Windows operating system."
Somehow, I think AMD just made Microsoft's case a little worse.
> So this is really no different to the iPhoto/ > Kodak situation you describe, except I can't > remove IE just like I can't remove QuickTime > from OS X.
There's a big difference.
QuickTime is a set of APIs that support certain types of codecs (Sorenson, being one). To play media that supports QuickTime's API's, you have an *application* called, "QuickTime Player". One can remove QuickTime Player, and the Mac OS will run fine. QuickTime (as a set of APIs and collection of codecs) is very different from Microsoft shoving Internet Explorer application into Windows and intertwining it as much as possible.
Of course, there's always the point that Microsoft was found by a court and an appeals court to have illegally abused their monopoly. So if you want to yell at Apple about QuickTime, convince the DOJ to take 'em to court over monopoly charges. Good luck trying to prove that.
Slashdot Mirror
Anybody care to comment on how Quartz Extreme will affect PDF performance, particularly viewing PDFs in Adobe Acrobat? I've noticed that under X, scrolling performance is just plain terrible.
Here's a comparison with the same 12 page PDF (a report from RHK on Internet bandwidth versus revenue for 2002 -- hey, I'm at work, you know! But the document is two columns, in color, and has plenty of charts)
800 MHz Dell Latitude (Windows 2000. 256 MB RAM, Acrobat Reader 5.0, scrolling on the internal LCD): 50 seconds
667 MHz PowerBook G4 (512 MB memory, Mac OS 10.1.4, Acrobat 5.0, scrolling on LCD, but with a second monitor connected): about 8.5 minutes.
Note that during this time, the Windows computer is scrolling the document fast enough that the text is blurry, and I didn't notice appreciable popup of the images, so it looked reasonably smooth.
Under Mac OS X, the scrolling was so slow, that I had to switch to the click-lock function on my mouse because my index finger got tired. Generally, the page would stop rendering about half-way through until the previous page completely disappeared off the screen. I don't recall Mac OS 9 being this bad.
Launching Classic and running Acrobat 4.0 on the same PowerBook, I got these results: scrolling on the internal CD (and this time, playing a MP3 in iTunes): 2.5 minutes.
Is this just Adobe making a crappy port of Acrobat to Mac OS X? Is it a lack of hardware acceleration? Is it a Carbon problem? At this point, I don't care what's causing the problem, but the performance just stinks and it makes OS X look bad.
If I understand correctly, this is a signficant differentiator between Apple's offerings and companies providing Windows XP on their servers. This is because the hardware OEM would have to negotiate a great deal with Microsoft to do a similar "unlimited deal". Either that, or they'd have to absorb the costs, an unlikely scenario.
Of course, the hardware OEM could install Linux instead, but we all know that Microsoft generally frowns on OEMs picking between Windows and Linux:
Source was eWeek, March 18, 2002.
So, if Apple sees any sort of success with Xserve, you'll probably see the other OEMs putting pressure on Microsoft to let them offer Linux or at least reduce their Windows licensing fees, meaning more, cheaper choices for the customers.
I guess competition is good after all.
Thanks for the details.
How does it run compared to Mac OS 9?
> I don't think the legal issues are really all
... well, it's not music; let's call it "expression".
> that jumbled. It's just a question of whether
> a parody of this form qualifies as a "fair use".
There's a built-in way of protecting this form of
If the recording artist sues, Dictionaraoke can threaten to submit each song as evidence during the trial, forcing the court to listen to each one. After about five or six of them, the prosecution will definitely move to dismiss the case!
The moral of the story is, if you insist on breaking the law, try to do it in a fashion as annoying as possible.
> When I sat down at my first Mac in the summer of
> '84, I went through a fairly lengthy training
> program about how to use the mouse.
"Fairly lengthy"? You mean the "Mousing Around" tutorial? The one with the fish bowl and the little piano keyboard? I'm not sure I'd describe it as "lengthy".
How many times did you have to do it before you finally got the hang of it? I mean, we're talking about the proverbial single-button mouse. A la Homer Simpson: mouse goes up, mouse goes down. Cursor goes up, cursor goes down.
> They mention that in 1953, the BWM 502 had 26
> control and indicator functions. In the late
> 90's, the 7-series had over 70 functions, with
> as many indicators, and over 35 control elements
> (buttons, etc.)
> Something *had* to be done to reduce the complexity of the cockpit.
Clearly the next step is to have each car come with a a midget or a hyper-intelligent monkey that carries out your direct voice commands.
"Antonio, please find me a soft jazz station and adjust my headrest. Then massage my buttocks."
> Without a key, a floor shifter or really any
> buttons, this might be the future for cars, are
> the masses ready to wrestle with computers just
> to go to Wawa for milk?"
I agree that this could be a problem.
In the maddening drive for car manufacturers trying to differentiate their cars, they're going to end up causing more harm than good.
The good thing about cars is they all generally have the same interface. So if you've got more than one car in the family or you're renting a car, you generally know how to use it without having to take a 3-hour class as suggested by BMW in the article.
With each manufacturer trying to come up with their own nifty interface, you're suddenly going to have lots of cars with wildly different user interfaces. BMW with their weird iDrive thing, Mercedes with their voice recognition, and who knows what Audi and Lexus will come up with.
Of course there are few chances for someone to rent a 740i as a rental, but if this sort of thing filters down to the entry level cars, expect chaos.
Cars aren't like computers, where a non-standard interface causes a major catastrophe. Click the wrong button on a computer because you're unfamiliar with what it does may, at worst, delete a file you didn't intend to delete. In a car, unfamiliarity with the controls can cause an accident.
Here's an example. After having all Japanese cars, I recently bought a German roadster. In my car the cruise control knob is right next to the turn signal, which is in turn mounted kind of low. When I first got it, the first few times I tried to make a right turn, I ended up engaging the cruise control. That was disorienting, to say the least. I eventually got used to it and it was just one interface problem.
I can imagine what it'll be like if you can't work the iDrive dial-thingy.
Has anyone tried the new iPhoto yet? It mentions that it can separate photos imported from a folder into different rolls, but what about segmenting existing rolls?
I imported my pictures with iPhoto 1.0, and now I've got rolls with 280-something pictures in it. It would be nice if I could separate those out into smaller, more manageable rolls.
Anyone played with it yet?
According to the iPhoto site, they say, "Apple Mail", not just "mail". That makes sense since "Apple Mail" is the official name for the application.
> As a fun experiment I replaced "Apple" with
> "Microsoft" and "OS X" with ".Net". The result
> shows just how hypocritical slashdot visitors
> are when it comes to Microsoft vs how much they
> praise Apple/Linux/Whoever for the same thing...
I've got mod points to assign, but I'm going to respond anyway.
What you've discovered is not hypocrisy, but context. As someone pointed out earlier, the actions of a monopolist are treated differently than those of just another company. Don't like it? Well, to paraphrase and reinterpret Mel Brooks, sometimes it sucks to be the king.
In other words, underdog companies trying to struggle out from under the thumb of a company convicted of illegally abusing their monopoly and said monopolist are generally treated differently. Read the former as Apple and Microsoft respectively. If you don't understand this, try reading the following examples for additional edification.
Statement: "My dad ate the last slice of ham? I'm going to kill him!"
When said by you: just a statement
When said by a convicted sociopath and murderer: probably a parole violation
Statement: "Whoa, nice rack"
When said by 14-year old boy: probably normal
When said by 41-year old female priest: She'd better be talking about lamb!
Statement: "I made a poopie in my pants"
When said by 1 year old child: probably cute
When said by the guy sitting next to you on the bus: very disturbing
Statement: "Soon we'll be laying off 120% of our staff"
When said by a your disgruntled co-worker at lunch after a recent layoff: vaguely humorous
When said by your CEO: scary
Statement: "I'll rip his head off, and shit down his neck! And I'll laugh like a motherfucka! I'll laugh like a motherfucka! 'Cause I hate her! 'Cause I hate her!"
When said by Alain Jourgenson of Ministry: you're probably slam dancing circa 1990
When said by your father: you're probably talking to a police officer a few hours later
See context can be fun! Statements can take a wildly different meaning depending whom the statement is related to. Last one.
"We're going to take unfair advantage of the fact we own both the hardware and the software."
Steve Jobs originally said this about a year ago. Considering he's CEO of Apple, a company that has been struggling to increase their market share from 5%, and almost went out of business 1997. To hear him say this is to hear that he's serious about building differentiators into the Macintosh. And seeing where Mac OS X is today, it's good to hear.
If Bill Gates or Steve Balmer had said this? You're darn tootin' we'd probably be done with this whole antitrust case and some geek with glasses would be fending off the amorous advances of the ham-eatin' sociopath from the first example.
Don't like it? Don't think it's fair to Microsoft? Don't feel bad; Microsoft would rather be in this position than in the case where they have to scrape and claw their way from 5% market share. If they didn't want to deal with the hassles, they shouldn't have broken the law in the first place.
Okay, look, just because Microsoft's witnesses have proved that they didn't read the settlement, got favors from Microsoft to testify, or generally can't tell between an operating system and an old shoe doesn't mean that Microsoft is doing poorly in the case.
I mean, you're acting like illegally abusing your monopoly to shut out competition and reduce consumer choice with hopes of cornering the market on desktop operating systems, office productivity software, media, and the Internet is a crime or something. What you're failing to take into account is I got Solitare for free. That's right, FOR FREE! Is that the sign of a heartless monopoly? No, of course not. And do I see you offering me free, cheapo quality shovelware? No, all I get from you are a bunch of "facts" and "news". Well, you can keep your "facts", Mister-- I've got a game of Klondike I must win!
> The idea that stars and planets being in certain
> alignments controls one's destiny flies in the
> face of common sense and reason!
Such anger in you. What are you, a Taurus?
:-)
> I saw the digital projection of The Phantom
> Menace in New Jersey, and was impressed.
I agree. I saw it in Plano, TX, and the result was incredible. Very crystal clear and lifelike. What's interesting is when the scenes with the real actors appeared, they looked grainer and worse than the digitally rendered scenes. I'm looking forward to 'Clones in a digital theatre.
The obvious solution is for the Bush Administration to appoint a Computerland Security Advisor and then enact a "Computer Virus Warning System" that uses a different color code to indicate the severity of the computer virus/trojan/worm.
I recommend the following levels:
GREEN: Open any file or email attachment with inpunity
YELLOW: Don't open any attachment that contains a virus
ORANGE: Don't open any email client
RED: Turn off your computer
They can send an email each morning (or whenever the status changes) to all computer users so we know how to gauge the virus threat and take appropriate measures.
> The proper discussion is in any second
> semester college physics class, but I'm
> sure there are books out there that can
> provide a better explanation than a slashdot
> forum.
Haliday and Resnek have the definitive college-level text on physics, and I think it was called "Fundamentals of Physics" or something like that. If I remember correctly, look in the second half of the book for the chapters on modern physics.
Or, if you wish a nontechnical, but more entertaining answer, try the Straight Dope. Cecil Adams provides a pretty simple explanation of the answer.
> Darwin by no means disproves creationism.
> Evolutionary theory is simply that; a theory
> that describes things the best way we know
> how using what we can observe about the
> world around us.
Well, science (and evolution specifically) does rule out a literal six days for the creation of the universe, which is typically called creationism or misleadingly"creation-science". One cannot do true science if one invokes a miracle or relies on "faith" to describe anything not presently understood.
In my experience even "scientists" that believe in creationism rely on natural law for whatever discipline they understand, but then invoke miracles for phenomenon outside their discipline that they do not understand.
Science (and specifically evolution) do not however rule out the existance of God. In fact, science is not interested in the existance of God because it's fundamentally a non-scientific question -- i.e., not a study of natural law. That's not to say that it's not an interesting question. Of course not! It just means that the tools of science cannot be used to determine the existance or non-existance of God.
That's why many people get annoyed when atheists and theists alike invoke science to promote their agenda.
> At the worst, if we find out evolution to be
> true (and there are some issues with that), it
> goes in contridiction to a literal interpratation
> of the bible, but not the spirit.
If you're looking for truth (strictly speaking), you'd better get out of science class. As many have said before, Science is the search for *fact* not truth. Evolution will never be found to be true, because that's not the purpose of science. The most science can do is determine that evolution has not been proved false yet. And universally, biologists have determined that evolution is a fact, the questions come in regarding what mechanisms caused it to happen the way it did.
> Heck, I know a lot of physcists who still think
> we can't exceed the speed of light. They
> cling to that just as strongly as a hard core
> fundimentalists clings to a perfect literal
> reading of the bible.
As for exceeding the speed of light, your response is typical of someone unfamiliar with modern science: demanding a simple, short answer to a question that requires complex answer to be accurate. Physicists do not rely on faith regarding the speed of light limitations any more than they rely on faith to determine the trajectory of a object thrown across the room. The proper discussion is in any second semester college physics class, but I'm sure there are books out there that can provide a better explanation than a slashdot forum.
Good luck!
> At the busiest time of the year for those
> districts, Microsoft is demanding that they
> conduct an internal software audit to "certify
> licensing compliance." In a March letter, the
> software giant gave Portland Public Schools
> 60 days to inventory its 25,000 computers.
To me, this sounds like Microsoft is threatening to have its goons "audit" the school at a time when the school probably can't afford the staff to do the audit.
> Ah, but wait. Microsoft has an offer it thinks
> you can't refuse, if only to avoid the audit: the
> vaunted Microsoft School Agreement. Under
> the terms of this agreement, a school or
> district simply counts its computers and
> pays Microsoft somewhere in the
> neighborhood of $42 per machine for one
> systemwide annual license.
If the school can't afford the audit, they can pay Microsoft a yearly tribute to not audit them, but they lose access to the software once they stop paying. And they have to pay for even non-Microsoft computers, like iMacs.
> The school districts are considered guilty of
> software piracy until they can prove they're in
> licensing compliance. If the district can't
> drum up the staff to manage the inventory,
> Microsoft is willing to show up with its own
> audit crew, but if a single computer is found
> with illegal or undocumented software, the
> district must pay for the audit.
I wouldn't be surprised if once they get schools into this subscription idea, eventually the annual tribute for Microsoft software for Apple computers will be higher than that of Windows-based computers.
Man, someone should stop them before they become a monopoly!
> We don't know the plums yet - that's what we're trying to solict.
How about if subscribers get a 20 minute advantage on posting comments to a story? So for non-subscribers, during the first 20 minutes a story appears on slashdot, they can only read it without making comments.
Or maybe, subscribers get their username shown in a cool color or some icon (and not a little picture of a lollypop or "sucker" ).
Or maybe, just maybe, subscribers actually get a story submission accepted FOR ONCE! DAMMIT, EVERY SINGLE STORY I'VE SUBMITTED HAS BEEN REJECTED! WHAT DO YOU GUYS HAVE AGAINST A STORY TALKING ABOUT THE NEED FOR ALTERNATIVES TO MICROSOFT MESSENGER FOR NEXT GENERATION TELECOMMUNICATIONS USING SIP?!
*cough*
ahem.
Just a thought.
> Anybody who has OS X should consider
> leaving there machine up all night so these
> run... It will resolve a great many problems
> that you're having
I didn't see the MacAddict article, so I'm not sure about the details. How often does one have to do this? Once a week? Once a month?
I assume that the Mac has to be awake for these chron tasks to run, right? Should you turn off function that makes the Mac go to sleep after a certain amount of time?
Thanks.
> Our system doesn't trigger an alert until your car is actually in motion.
Pretty funny.
Actually, it has two triggers. One will alert MB if the car alarm goes off because the door was opened without turning off the alarm. It also has the ability to tell if the car's incline shifts dramatically. That means that if you try to tow the car (or even just lift up the car to steal the wheels), the alarm will go off, too, and then contact Mercedes, so they can call you.
I think MB will only release the coordinates of the vehicle to a police department, so I don't think you can use the system to check up on a spouse or whatever. But you'd still have to be a moron to try to steal one of those cars.
MB's TeleAid system is pretty cool because they can also do some basic diagnostics remotely as well. Mine was doing some weird beeping noise, so I called them to ask what the deal was, and the guy said, "Oh, let me clear that for you." and it was gone.
Since the thing tracks how many miles it has to go before needing an oil change, I expect future models will check their mileage, and then automatically call the closest dealership (determined by GPS) to schedule an appointment. Reminds me of Professor Frink's autodialer, with the built in wheels: "Well, let's get you back to Frinky. Hope your wheels still work."
> You know, there is an off chance that Jerry
> Sanders actually believes what he is saying,
> and is testifying in court that the states'
> remedy is bad because he (gasp!) believes
> that the states' remedy is bad.
Because Sanders said otherwise.
As being reported by Reuters, Sanders admitted that he asked for a favor from Microsoft in exchange for his testamony in court, and he hadn't even read the proposed sanctions; Gates just told him "they were 'crazy' and would fragment the Windows operating system."
Somehow, I think AMD just made Microsoft's case a little worse.
This sounds like a great idea, but the web page is useless unless you can read Japanese. Maybe they could have done it in Engrish:
"Many happy video for your tape with iMac! I am disrespectful to commercials. Can you not see that I am serious?"
(No offense to our Japanese friends...)
Go here.
I'm sure Mapquest or whatever could point you in the right direction.
> So this is really no different to the iPhoto/
> Kodak situation you describe, except I can't
> remove IE just like I can't remove QuickTime
> from OS X.
There's a big difference.
QuickTime is a set of APIs that support certain types of codecs (Sorenson, being one). To play media that supports QuickTime's API's, you have an *application* called, "QuickTime Player". One can remove QuickTime Player, and the Mac OS will run fine. QuickTime (as a set of APIs and collection of codecs) is very different from Microsoft shoving Internet Explorer application into Windows and intertwining it as much as possible.
Of course, there's always the point that Microsoft was found by a court and an appeals court to have illegally abused their monopoly. So if you want to yell at Apple about QuickTime, convince the DOJ to take 'em to court over monopoly charges. Good luck trying to prove that.
> Granted, most of the /. crowd build their own
> boxes
Probably a significant number build their own boxes, but I doubt one could say, "most"