These were the benchmarks left by an Intel Core Duo. Compare that to the benchmarks left by the G5 laptop I built out of my old iMac. Clearly, the G5 burns Intel Core Duo out of business. That's why Apple had to stop making them, G5 was actually too good for its own good - there wasn't the technology to keep those blindingly fast processors cool. Some days, I'd go to work only to find my computer was so fast it'd already opened my apps, written my code, saved the changes, compiled the new build, shut down, and caused a fire hazard, all before I'd finished my morning coffee. Clearly Apple no longer cares about it's customers, that's why it's downgrading to Intel. Clearly Apple is embarrassed by the fact that the G5 iMac outperforms the Intel iMac, that's why they stopped manufacturing the G5. Clearly, and I'll use a programming construct to phrase this because I'm so much more iNtelligent than you (though I'm loath to use those 5 letters that spelled the downfall of the Apple empire in the eyes of yours truly), the difference between (the difference between the announced iMac processor speed and the then G5 processor speed) and (the difference between the released iMac processor speed and the G5 processor speed) is revealing of the fact that Apple actually opened up all the old G5 units and removed the welded-in processors to downgrade them rather than upgrading the Intel machines between announcement and release... etc.
Only time will tell for sure, but don't underestimate the training of Best Buy sales reps to spin deals based on 'technical details'. Average Joe hears the resolution difference ("1080? Does that mean it's better? I want the best!") and think he's getting a better product, just like he did with his digital camera ("8 megapixels? Does that mean it's better? I want the best!"), just like he did with HDTV ("HD? Does that mean it's better? I want the best!"), personal digital music player ("80 Megabytes? Does that mean it's better? I want the best!"), personal computer ("Intel? Does that mean it's better? I want the best!"), hifi ("500 Whats? [sic] Does that mean it's better? I want the best!"), etc.
That's because Google Groups is a different service. Google provides a number of services. Those mentioned in my earlier comment (plus several others) recently came out of 'beta' status. Several new features were added to Google Groups in Feb, but, unlike those services mentioned in my previous comment, it has not been officially released from 'beta' status. Google does release products from 'beta' when they are ready.
You mean why not have a button in GMail that opens a textbox so you can type in a new calendar appointment in case it's not automatically recognized? I think that's a grand idea! Suggest it to Google! Do it! Now! Or else!
This is the great thing about public betas.
Of course it's beta, Google and other freeware developers are appreciated for releasing beta products to the general public, but it does work, as this screenshot shows. A beta version is by definition a product in which some features are buggy or incomplete or even not implemented. This feature, however incomplete, does work, and I'm positive Google will continue to improve the criteria for automatically detecting appointments to add - it's not an easy thing to guess every way an appointment could be written. In the meantime it's good to see that functionality at all! I have to agree with you that it's slightly surprising it's able to pull apart an e-mail to find a date reference but doesn't yet work with Outlook appointments, but not every developer will think the same way. Also, we are the serious testing for this product, that's why it says 'beta'!
Gmail integration Gmail now recognizes when messages mention events, so when you get emailed about an event, you can add it to Google Calendar with just a couple clicks. Look for the Google Calendar links on the right side of your Gmail window.
It'd be neat if iCal/Apple Mail had a feature like Gcal's Gmail integration.
The only situation where virtualization (such as the Intel Mac compatible Parallels Workstation) is preferable to reboot is when testing. For all other products and purposes, it is preferable to use Mac versions of the Windows product or a Mac product that accomplishes the same purpose. Yes, it's costly, and that should be considered when deciding whether the time is right to 'switch'. It's also why they call it 'switching' in the first place - changing operating system actually means changing operating system, not looking back over your shoulder through virtualization.
Gamers will not want to run their Windows games in any kind of virtualization software. Let me rephrase that, gamers cannot run their Windows games in any kind of virtualization software (unless the game is Solitaire or Minesweeper). For Windows gamers, such as our first poster, Boot Camp is great. Now they can finally switch over to OSX without throwing away their games collection.
Scroll down to the "Quality Guidelines - basic principles" section of the Google Webmasters Guidelines:
Make pages for users, not for search engines. Don't deceive your users or present different content to search engines than you display to users, which is commonly referred to as "cloaking."
Google accused BMW of littering their doorways with high-ranking search terms (and using doorways in the first place). This wouldn't apply as we would actually be doing the opposite - removing text that contained potentially misleading terms (as tabloid headlines often are) and instead placing them as images.
It could be argued that hiding the relevant headline using CSS is "presenting different content to search engines than... to users". However, we would be hiding the text headline only because it is redundant when presented alongside the image headline and maintaining the text headline's presence in the document for the sake of users viewing the site in text browsers or browsers where images are disabled. Still, if it raises concern, don't hide the relevant headline, display it underneath the image. The rest of the article would be displayed either way.
Avoid tricks intended to improve search engine rankings. A good rule of thumb is whether you'd feel comfortable explaining what you've done to a website that competes with you. Another useful test is to ask, "Does this help my users? Would I do this if search engines didn't exist?"
"Does keeping a relevant headline in text form help my users?" Yes, it helps screen readers that may not pick up on the alt text of the image or may have difficulty reading the vernacular language of the original tabloid headline.
"Does keeping the tabloid image headline help my users?" Yes, it mirrors the article in the newspaper and therefore helps users match articles they have read in the newspaper to articles on the website. It also allows for more ornate newspaper headlines and fonts/text types that a reader may not have available.
"Would I be doing this if search engines didn't exist?" We would still want to provide support for screen readers and newspaper readers if search engines didn't exist.
Google's webmaster guidelines are used to stop search engine abuse and make Google more useful, more reliable, and safer for its users. Google isn't opposed to hidden text on a page unless it is used for the purpose of misleading a user. What I'm proposing is for the very opposite purpose.
Generally, tabloid headlines are a form of cloak, misguiding or sensationalizing without actually contradicting fact (except when they are); big bold simple words that leave a strong impression. It's an advertising method that perks interest and therefore sells, which is a great thing if you happen to be a media corporation. Dry headlines sell fewer papers, as you noted.
When articles are lifted directly from the article to be printed and put on the web, 'witty' headlines can mean lower page rankings. But when articles are written for the web and then printed, high-ranking articles may earn few newsstand readers.
If news writers insist on doing one or the other, it's obvious where their priorities should lie: income. Does the paper earn more from page rankings and advertisements, or does it earn more from its print edition?
Better yet - why not opt for two headlines, one for print and one for web.
Advanced CSS (such as would cause browser problems) isn't really needed to do this - just use an image for the flashy section name (scene) and alt text and a hidden span containing the plain text name (lifestyle).
The same could actually be done with headlines - as the story is uploaded, it would be uploaded with two headlines, one a 'witty' headline, the other relevant. The 'witty' headline could be converted to an image (there are several server-scripts out there to do this) while the relevant headline remains text. The relevant headline could be displayed immediately under the 'witty' headline image while the 'witty' headline is displayed as text link in the news index.
Obvious solution: use images to display the witty section names (scene) and alt text and hidden span text displaying the boring name (lifestyle). With a little work, the same could be applied to headlines.
That boom box would have been a bit more attractive if they'd added integrated AirTunes built in out the box. Man, that would have been sweet. As it is, it's like, "Oh, another iPod boom box, just what the world needs."
Only Apple's is an iPod boom box you can't even carry around without your iPod falling out...
I agree, a TiVo killer feature would've been sweet in the Mini.
Thanks for the advice (as I said before, I'm an OS X noob).
I already had Open Safe Files disabled, I was just worried I'd open a bad zip even by double-clicking and mess things up that way.
I've got all my zips associated with StuffIt now. Thanks again!
True. At the moment, I'm running OS X in a Managed user w/all but Terminal enabled 'just in case' I open a dodgy zip (though the only 'abusive' zips I've opened have been harmless vulnerability proof-of-concept demos).
It's a pain in the bum, a lot of things don't work w/out Terminal: Dashboard's been quirky, the ctrl+command+D dictionary shortcut doesn't work, etc. Plus, no terminal! This is the price I pay for the paranoia Windows has dragged me into over my decades as a Windows user (I only just switched this Jan)
It'd be nice if Apple could come up with something fairly pronto...
The important news in this slashdot was completely overlooked. We've already heard about the bugs, but here's what's really important: Apple's response to the recent problems:
"Apple takes security very seriously. We're working on a fix so that this doesn't become something that could affect customers. Apple always advises Mac users to only accept files from vendors and Web sites that they know and trust."
If I recall correctly, it took Microsoft 8 days to release a patch for the WMF bug after it was discovered. In those 8 days, many computers were affected, but still, 8 days is impressive. Let's see how long it takes Apple...
True, but the command was just to load 'calculator.app', that doesn't require the current user to be on sudo list. So, how many potentially malicious commands can be executed on terminal without sudo privileges? (Please excuse my ignorance on this, I'm an OS X newbie.) Deletion of user documents maybe? (Script may not be aware of user name, but terminal loads inside the current user's directory)
I'm not trying to downplay the threat, I think Secunia were right to call it 'extremely critical', I'm just curious what, in worst case scenario, this thing could do to a standard user. Is there a way we can set up OS X so that certain commands (delete, for example) require a superuser?
Slashdot Mirror
Troll? Gee, sorry, I was only joking around!
These were the benchmarks left by an Intel Core Duo. Compare that to the benchmarks left by the G5 laptop I built out of my old iMac. Clearly, the G5 burns Intel Core Duo out of business. That's why Apple had to stop making them, G5 was actually too good for its own good - there wasn't the technology to keep those blindingly fast processors cool. Some days, I'd go to work only to find my computer was so fast it'd already opened my apps, written my code, saved the changes, compiled the new build, shut down, and caused a fire hazard, all before I'd finished my morning coffee. Clearly Apple no longer cares about it's customers, that's why it's downgrading to Intel. Clearly Apple is embarrassed by the fact that the G5 iMac outperforms the Intel iMac, that's why they stopped manufacturing the G5. Clearly, and I'll use a programming construct to phrase this because I'm so much more iNtelligent than you (though I'm loath to use those 5 letters that spelled the downfall of the Apple empire in the eyes of yours truly), the difference between (the difference between the announced iMac processor speed and the then G5 processor speed) and (the difference between the released iMac processor speed and the G5 processor speed) is revealing of the fact that Apple actually opened up all the old G5 units and removed the welded-in processors to downgrade them rather than upgrading the Intel machines between announcement and release...
etc.
Writes it, too.
Only time will tell for sure, but don't underestimate the training of Best Buy sales reps to spin deals based on 'technical details'. Average Joe hears the resolution difference ("1080? Does that mean it's better? I want the best!") and think he's getting a better product, just like he did with his digital camera ("8 megapixels? Does that mean it's better? I want the best!"), just like he did with HDTV ("HD? Does that mean it's better? I want the best!"), personal digital music player ("80 Megabytes? Does that mean it's better? I want the best!"), personal computer ("Intel? Does that mean it's better? I want the best!"), hifi ("500 Whats? [sic] Does that mean it's better? I want the best!"), etc.
That's because Google Groups is a different service. Google provides a number of services. Those mentioned in my earlier comment (plus several others) recently came out of 'beta' status. Several new features were added to Google Groups in Feb, but, unlike those services mentioned in my previous comment, it has not been officially released from 'beta' status. Google does release products from 'beta' when they are ready.
Did you link to the wrong logo? That's the google Groups logo. Google News logo is here, Google Earth logo is here.
Google Maps/Local left beta last October. Google News and Google Earth both left beta in January. Google Desktop left beta about this time last month.
(etc.)
Not sure what the deal is with Groups.
You mean why not have a button in GMail that opens a textbox so you can type in a new calendar appointment in case it's not automatically recognized? I think that's a grand idea! Suggest it to Google! Do it! Now! Or else! This is the great thing about public betas.
Of course it's beta, Google and other freeware developers are appreciated for releasing beta products to the general public, but it does work, as this screenshot shows. A beta version is by definition a product in which some features are buggy or incomplete or even not implemented. This feature, however incomplete, does work, and I'm positive Google will continue to improve the criteria for automatically detecting appointments to add - it's not an easy thing to guess every way an appointment could be written. In the meantime it's good to see that functionality at all! I have to agree with you that it's slightly surprising it's able to pull apart an e-mail to find a date reference but doesn't yet work with Outlook appointments, but not every developer will think the same way. Also, we are the serious testing for this product, that's why it says 'beta'!
Works fine for me (and I actually got the image right this time!)
You're probably right, though, their recognition criteria will probably become more elaborate as the service becomes more established.
PS: I uploaded a screenshot of this working: here ya go. Pretty slick, non?
A Microsoft Sam voice says, "Welcome home, Bill."
The only situation where virtualization (such as the Intel Mac compatible Parallels Workstation) is preferable to reboot is when testing. For all other products and purposes, it is preferable to use Mac versions of the Windows product or a Mac product that accomplishes the same purpose. Yes, it's costly, and that should be considered when deciding whether the time is right to 'switch'. It's also why they call it 'switching' in the first place - changing operating system actually means changing operating system, not looking back over your shoulder through virtualization.
Gamers will not want to run their Windows games in any kind of virtualization software. Let me rephrase that, gamers cannot run their Windows games in any kind of virtualization software (unless the game is Solitaire or Minesweeper). For Windows gamers, such as our first poster, Boot Camp is great. Now they can finally switch over to OSX without throwing away their games collection.
It could be argued that hiding the relevant headline using CSS is "presenting different content to search engines than
"Does keeping the tabloid image headline help my users?" Yes, it mirrors the article in the newspaper and therefore helps users match articles they have read in the newspaper to articles on the website. It also allows for more ornate newspaper headlines and fonts/text types that a reader may not have available.
"Would I be doing this if search engines didn't exist?" We would still want to provide support for screen readers and newspaper readers if search engines didn't exist.
Google's webmaster guidelines are used to stop search engine abuse and make Google more useful, more reliable, and safer for its users. Google isn't opposed to hidden text on a page unless it is used for the purpose of misleading a user. What I'm proposing is for the very opposite purpose.
Generally, tabloid headlines are a form of cloak, misguiding or sensationalizing without actually contradicting fact (except when they are); big bold simple words that leave a strong impression. It's an advertising method that perks interest and therefore sells, which is a great thing if you happen to be a media corporation. Dry headlines sell fewer papers, as you noted. When articles are lifted directly from the article to be printed and put on the web, 'witty' headlines can mean lower page rankings. But when articles are written for the web and then printed, high-ranking articles may earn few newsstand readers. If news writers insist on doing one or the other, it's obvious where their priorities should lie: income. Does the paper earn more from page rankings and advertisements, or does it earn more from its print edition? Better yet - why not opt for two headlines, one for print and one for web.
Advanced CSS (such as would cause browser problems) isn't really needed to do this - just use an image for the flashy section name (scene) and alt text and a hidden span containing the plain text name (lifestyle). The same could actually be done with headlines - as the story is uploaded, it would be uploaded with two headlines, one a 'witty' headline, the other relevant. The 'witty' headline could be converted to an image (there are several server-scripts out there to do this) while the relevant headline remains text. The relevant headline could be displayed immediately under the 'witty' headline image while the 'witty' headline is displayed as text link in the news index.
Obvious solution: use images to display the witty section names (scene) and alt text and hidden span text displaying the boring name (lifestyle). With a little work, the same could be applied to headlines.
That boom box would have been a bit more attractive if they'd added integrated AirTunes built in out the box. Man, that would have been sweet. As it is, it's like, "Oh, another iPod boom box, just what the world needs." Only Apple's is an iPod boom box you can't even carry around without your iPod falling out... I agree, a TiVo killer feature would've been sweet in the Mini.
Thanks for the advice (as I said before, I'm an OS X noob). I already had Open Safe Files disabled, I was just worried I'd open a bad zip even by double-clicking and mess things up that way. I've got all my zips associated with StuffIt now. Thanks again!
True. At the moment, I'm running OS X in a Managed user w/all but Terminal enabled 'just in case' I open a dodgy zip (though the only 'abusive' zips I've opened have been harmless vulnerability proof-of-concept demos).
It's a pain in the bum, a lot of things don't work w/out Terminal: Dashboard's been quirky, the ctrl+command+D dictionary shortcut doesn't work, etc. Plus, no terminal! This is the price I pay for the paranoia Windows has dragged me into over my decades as a Windows user (I only just switched this Jan)
It'd be nice if Apple could come up with something fairly pronto...
The important news in this slashdot was completely overlooked. We've already heard about the bugs, but here's what's really important: Apple's response to the recent problems:
"Apple takes security very seriously. We're working on a fix so that this doesn't become something that could affect customers. Apple always advises Mac users to only accept files from vendors and Web sites that they know and trust."
If I recall correctly, it took Microsoft 8 days to release a patch for the WMF bug after it was discovered. In those 8 days, many computers were affected, but still, 8 days is impressive. Let's see how long it takes Apple...
I agree. And first impressions on the Z5's looks?
http://www.samsunghq.com/content/view/183/5/
It sure is ugly..
Not only is it not news, it never was; it's an opinion, nothing more. I don't know why this is on Slashdot.
True, but the command was just to load 'calculator.app', that doesn't require the current user to be on sudo list. So, how many potentially malicious commands can be executed on terminal without sudo privileges? (Please excuse my ignorance on this, I'm an OS X newbie.) Deletion of user documents maybe? (Script may not be aware of user name, but terminal loads inside the current user's directory)
I'm not trying to downplay the threat, I think Secunia were right to call it 'extremely critical', I'm just curious what, in worst case scenario, this thing could do to a standard user. Is there a way we can set up OS X so that certain commands (delete, for example) require a superuser?