Also TiVo Desktop *is* compatible with OS X 10.4.2 and 10.4.3 (I've heard but not confirmed 10.4.4 as well). There was an incompatibility with 10.4.0 and 10.4.1, but the later releases of Tiger worked well. The installer gives a false "failed" message, but it does install and it does work very well (better than 10.3.x).
Perhaps you're correct that you can get it to work on 10.4, but as the download page says, it's not supported and they apparently could care less if it works. The fact that you're saying it does work and they haven't bothered to update their download page shows the lack of care they have for mac users.
The only question remains is whether TiVo will provide Mac software that *pulls* (or pushes) the files from the TiVo to the Mac. If they don't, there are plenty of ways of getting around it, but I can't imagine TiVo wouldn't dedicate the couple of hours to develop this software on the Mac.
I think you might want to be prepared for disappointment . TivoToGo is a terrible solution, even for windows users. Tivo has turned in to a company more interested in making a feature-list than making a good product. These half-baked solutions are proof of that, this ipod compatibility is likely another half-baked solution.
I'd be willing to bet that all this is going to be is a program for windows that will convert the show to a 320x240 sized mpeg 4 video file. That's it. So this means it will take about 1 hour to transfer the show, 20 minutes to convert it, then however long to put it on your ipod. I'd love to be wrong about this, but I don't think I will be.
As much as I would love to get excited about this and hope that it gives me new things to play with on my Tivo, I'm doubtful. Tivo already has their home media extensions library where apps on a computer can publish themselves on the network and display custom screens on the Tivo. From what i've seen so far, cool things can be done but it's very hard to make the interface useable.
The highly regarded tivo interface already seems to be falling apart. They're trying to tack on too many
sources for additional ad revenue. The main screen usually has two extra advertising items, which by no surprise are the ones that stand out the most. They're desperately trying to add on features to make the tivo more of a home media box than just a tv recorder. Which is cool, but they must have fired all their original developers and outsourced to india or something, cause the new features feel like tacked-on afterthoughts.
For example, there's a cool new feature that will share a directory on your PC with video files so that it shows up in Tivo's now playing list. Very cool, until you try using it. First off, the files need to be in a format the tivo understands, and I can't fault them for that, it'd be hard to allow the tivo to decode every possible codec. Although, if they're serious about this home media thing, they really should at least try. I think it'll just play MPEG right now. Second, once you locate a video you'd like to watch, selecting it and hitting play doesn't play it. You need to first select the video so that you see the details, then you need to select "Transfer this video". After doing this, you will be given an option of watching it while it transfers, but on my 802.11b wireless network, the transfer isn't anywhere near fast enough to watch on the fly. Trying to do so seems to confuse the tivo, since this whole watching as a show downloads from the network feature is really just a crappy hack. If you do wait for the transfer, you can then watch the show, but it's now taking up space on your tivo, so what's the freaking point of having it on your PC?
I'm sorry for getting a bit sidetracked on one particular feature, but I think it's indicative of a growing trend over at Tivo. They're trying to make a feature list instead of a good product. All the new features that sound really cool, starting with Tivo ToGo, end up working like total crap. I still can't transfer videos recorded on my tivo to my mac without hacking to the tivo. It's been almost a year.
So I guess what I'm trying to say with this rant is don't bother getting excited about this. It'll just be a few tacked on a features that nobody will ever use because they're just a kludge implementation so that they can list it as a feature on their website.
Probably not. You need to realize that this is Slashdot where everyone, and myself included, bitch and moan about every event. A lot of people are threatening to get rid of their Tivos and invest 500 bucks, an entire week, and 1/4 of their living room to setup a MythTV box. These people are likely just using empty threats hoping to scare Tivo in to reversing the software update. Most likely, Tivo won't back off, and in a month all of this will be forgotten as long as the flag doesn't come up on regular tv shows for any other people.
We've gone through this process with Tivo users before. The TivoToGo release took too long so there were claims of canceling their service and going to MythTV. Mac users still can't download shows from their tivo and watch them on their mac without going through a PC first, as far as I know. And through it all, the people who bitched and moaned are most likely still using Tivo.
I own a Tivo. I use a mac. I hate DRM. I constantly think about how I should build a MythTV box, which shouldn't be too hard for me since I have a lot of linux experience. But I get home from work, plop on the couch, and tun on my TV to see if any good shows are waiting for me on the Tivo. There needs to be a serious and obvious interruption to my Tivo service to get me off my lazy ass so that I switch to something else.
But as far as IPTV and the such, I think podcasts might do a lot to get people moving in that direction. If you don't believe me, download iTunes (or figure out how to use some other podcast software) and subscribe to Diggnation, Systm, Rocketboom, Dawn and Drew show, and This Week in Tech. People are really starting to make some cool stuff that is totally independent and free of DRM nastiness. The content is surprisingly good. The only real problems are wading through the thousands of crappy podcasts so that you can find the rare good one, and the bandwidth needs of podcasters who get popular. But podcasts have really shown people that anyone can make a show, and some of them might even be good. So now there should be a lot of creative thinkers figuring out how to make it easier to find shows and for shows to handle the bandwidth needs. Of course there will also be a lot of creative thinkers figuring out how they can DRM podcasts in hopes of making money.... sigh.
And this is supposed to be so much better than taping? The time shifting abilities of PRV's are great when watching live shows, but really the only people for whom the PVR experience is "revolutionary" are folks too stupid to program their VCR's to begin with.
You can't be serious. So here's your solution:
Find a show you're interested in
Look up the time the show should air in your TV guide
Set your VCR to record that given timeslot
Make sure there is a blank tape inserted in to VCR
Turn the VCR off, it will not record if it's on
Rush home from work to swap the tape that just got show A taped to before show B starts taping
Return to step 4
And here's the Tivo/PVR/DVR/whatever solution:
Find the tv show you wish to record using the search by name feature, or hitting record button while it's on.
Tell the PVR to sign up for a "Season Pass"
Yeah, definitely for people too stupid to program their VCRs. I own a Tivo and I can say, it's got it's share of problems. I think it's idiotic that I need to pay 13 bucks a month just so it can know when a TV show is on. I already bought the damn box. But to say the idea/technology behind Tivo is useless - well I'd have to disagree with that.
Now, if you wanted to make the point that TV isn't that great to spend the money on a device that records it, well you might be on to something there. But man, I love sitting down when I get home from work and having new episodes of shows I actually want to watch there waiting for me.
No, but you could run YDL on both a G5 and a X86 processor and perform benchmarks.
I agree with the grand parent, I expected a nice comparison of G5 to X86 by using the same OS and applications on each. Obviously this wouldn't be a conclusive experiment as there's always optimizations which usually favor the more popular X86 platform, but still, it would be interesting.
So it can tell you that you burned the thing your searching for to a CD at some point in your life? How exactly do you expect it to prompt you for the proper CD?
"Please insert the CD on which you wrote "MY NUDIE PICS' in blue marker."
This advice is probably too late for you, but you can actually tell iTunes not to reorganize your music folder in the preferences.
I agree this seems like a stupid thing to have turned on by default. I also find the behavior where it copies mp3s that you play to the music folder automatically strange. But I guess some people would get confused that deleting a file from their desktop makes it not playable in itunes anymore. *shrug*
Very few programmers use assembly, and I fail to see how the fact that Apple now uses an intel processor makes it closer to linux development for the others who aren't. Mac OS X already has the unix core, they were already similar for many types of programming. So why now, with the introduction of Intel chips, will it be more likely for open-source coders to switch to Apple? Maybe you could explain it.
Now, Apple users switching to linux makes a bit more sense. Some may be peeved at this decision to move to intel on ideoligical reasons, and now don't see much reason to stick with Apple. But that's probabably not a large number.
It seems many people are making the assumption that using an intel chip means that Mac OS X will run on their PC. I really doubt that. Most likely it'll be exactly the same as things were, you'll still need to plop down a large sum of money if you want to use Mac OS X. That is after all Apple's business model.
PRICE! $5/month subscription service with subscription downloads (transfer your downloads to your subscription-capable device). Yes, this is the same set of features that Napster is charging you $15 for. This is what they call an "introductory price", kids. Buy a year now.
For someone who is talking "human to human" this is laying the marketing on pretty thick. I find it funny that it's a subscription service, and your music will not work without the subscription (right?). This Ian guy says, as if this is a great reason to sign up, that the 5 dollars a month is an introductory price. So once you buy all those shiny cool WMA files, they'll jack up the price and you'll have to pay more if you want to keep listening to them.
Or am I wrong, and you can burn these to CD?
I also found it funny that he dismisses all the other music store programs out there as a way for the companies who own them to just sell you something. Well, yeah. And Yahoo is just selling something too. And if iTunes is little more than a way to "sell you a utlity," how come I use it and like it and don't own an ipod? Also, how come if he has this opinion of iTunes the Yahoo player looks like little more than iTunes drawn with purple crayons?
Personally, I'm getting a little sick of the iTunes is bad because it locks you in to Apple. So let's go to a different music store and get locked in to Microsoft. Yup, problem solved.
I will say though. There are some neat things that a subscription service can provide, such as the "listen to whatever your friends are listening to" feature that this program has. That's a pretty cool idea. I just don't like the idea of owning something only as long as I keep pouring out the money. I'd rather own than rent.
Actually, I want a computer that can move a window around the screen without causing all the windows behind it to do a nasty refresh. I want a computer that can resize windows without having terrible lag with redrawing the widgets to match the new size. This is what I want, and if they can tack on some wobbly windows and other effects, well that's cool too.
Woops, looks like there is more to this. According to this post the 877 number didn't exist until after the movie opened.
I do still feel the same way about the movie as a whole though, had good ideas but was presented in a way that's easy for Bush supporters to just dodge dealing with the questions raised in the film because it is so biased.
I think you better admit defeat here. An "800 number" is pretty much slang for any toll-free number. Apparently an 877 number still qualifies as a toll-free number. So, uhhh, yeah.
I'm sick of Bush and probably fall in the category of liberal, but you must admit when Moore just flat out deceives. The movie has good points, it's too bad Moore had to use such cruddy tactics to sensationalize it. I believe the message could have been much better if it seriously tackled the problems with the bush administration, instead of just painting a huge weak target on all "liberals."
Look at the ABB (Anybody But Bush) crowd. Their hatred is equally emotional and irrational. A bunch I know scream about him being a former alcoholic and alleged coke user. "He's no better than anyone else." Curiously, those that scream the most are the ones who refuse to get control of their own substance abuse issues. And isn't it curious that the party that has made abortion rights a perpetual issue is accusing Bush of having one? Yes, they claim hypocracy, but don't they have a mirror in their house?
And you know that these people have substance abuse problems? How did you find this information out? You state it as a fact, so I'd be curious to know more about this fact.
I didn't read your entire post cause you lost me at that point, but I think I got the idea of it. If anyone is claiming Bush had an abortion (first I've heard of it) I'd think it's more based on the fact that this man who tries to put everything in terms of right and wrong, honorable or not honorable, faithful and non-faithful, doesn't fit so perfectly in to these rigid categories, and really nobody does.
So the way I see it, it is more of a message to the far right to get off their high horse, cause nobody is perfect.
But I'm probably giving too much faith in people, and it's probably just a cheap tactic to lure votes away from Bush. Nonetheless, if Bush is going to make this strong stances to please the evangelical right, then why is it too much to ask that he hold himself to them as well?
And so exactly how is that turning his back on fellow veterans? You just quoted him saying exactly what the parent you were replying to said. That there were orders given to soldiers that qualified as war crimes. So, what's the beef?
I'm always surprised that there's so much resistance to patent law among the open software crowd. One point of patents is to get the methods out into the open. If it weren't for patents, true inventions (even inventive processes) would often be held as trade secrets for much longer than patent protection lasts.
I'm a little unclear about this. If something is a trade secret as you say patents are saving us from, does that mean if I develop it by myself using my own process and it happens to be the same, they can sue me? Or does a trade secret just protect them from having me come in and steal their code and learning how they do something?
If it is just the latter, then I don't see how you could say patents save us from trade secrets. A trade secret would make much more sense, keep people from stealing your ideas without them doing the work to get there. But a patent just keeps people from using the same method, even if they come up with it all by themselves.
Perhaps I just have a misunderstanding of how trade secrets work. And if I do, then maybe others do and that would explain why people are against patents.
Actually, it's ctrl + l (lowercase L), which stands for location and is pretty much what any free software using person is use to as it is how to focus on the location bar in all the mozilla browsers (mozilla/firefox/galeon/epiphany) as well as how nautilus focuses on it's location bar in gnome 2.4 and I've heard the spatial nautilus pops up a location entry in 2.6.
Very easy to type, much easier for me than alt+d, which is Microsoft's choice for the same behavior in IE.
Anyways, I think complaints about this are unnessecary since if you're planning on typing in a file path, then your hands should already be over the keyboard. Typing ctrl+l shouldn't cost you much for extra time. And it simplifies the interface for people who don't plan on typing a file path (and most wouldn't, since this is only for when you open a file). My only gripe would be that theres no way to know about it unless someone tells you, or you go read the help section for opening a file (I dobut many people would do that).
I really don't believe this will be a big deal. Most likely it'll just be a very basic virus scanner. The people who bought commercial virus scanners will keep doing so for a fuller product.
I don't see Microsoft pumping too much effort in to their virus scanner, as just having one will probably be good enough to make most people feel fuzzy. I have a hard time imagining another Netscape-like situation, and I'll tell you why.
Microsoft went all out with IE, not because they simply felt a browser should be included with windows, but because they were threatened. Netscape (and just the web in general) was turning out to be a whole new platform. Interesting technologies like Java were starting to make it clear that the web could be used to make platform-agnostic apps.
You really have to credit Microsoft with having the foresight to notice this was a threat, cause it was. However, the threat was really just that it would have leveled the playing field, which they obviously don't want.
So back to my point, virus scanning is just virus scanning. It doesn't really keep people locked in to a platform other than comparing to other OSes might be favorable. For example, "OS A has virus scanning builtin, while OS B does not." That is why I can't imagine them investing too much money in it or getting in to a competition with a current virus scanner.
Re:I really enjoy KDE thanks for the great job peo
on
Koffice 1.3 Released
·
· Score: 1
Just to throw my 2 bits in:
I would agree that KDE is much more mature when it comes to functionality. Stuff generally just works in KDE, such as the KIO Slaves (I think that's what they're called) which let you access remote networks or devices just as you would your local filesystem. Gnome has this with their gnome-vfs but it seems really buggy, at least their ssh/sftp ones are.
But as for ease of use, I'd have to say Gnome kicks KDE's butt. KDE is a mess of program menus, buttons, and don't even get me started about the kde control center.
Just look at Konqueror's toolbar. I just find it overwhelming.
Some may find GNOME's policies of simplifying their interfaces to be overkill but I personally think it's paying off. Many would agree that MacOS X has a great interface, and I think part of the reason is this same general philosophy.
So, I choose to use GNOME for this reason. If KDE was to do a massive UI cleanup I'd probably switch because their framework seems to be much more sound. But GNOME is catching up quick, and has a very nice interface as well.
You start out saying the problem you've found with mozilla is so and so. Yet the problem you've found was really just with your preference setting, whcih is not the default preference setting. Not so sure it makes since to say that's a problem with mozilla.
Like all the other posters have said, I've switched a couple people to Mozilla (Mozilla 1.x or sometimes Firebird) and I've had very positive results.
The only reason people seem to ever go back to IE is that programs constantly start IE even though you have mozilla set to default browser, so it feels like you're going against the grain so to speak. Oh and another thing is the trend of a lot of programs to rely on IE. Examples are most of the windows online music store services and I believe McAffee crud (for updates and stuff).
Re:Other goodies to look foward to in gimp 1.3.x
on
GIMP goes SVG
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
What exactly do you believe "want" is a contraction for? I notice you keep writing "wan't".
I guess the idea behind the menu editing was they wanted it to be as easy as possible, and everyone knows how to move/delete/add files to folders.
The UNIX philosphy is still somewhat alive as it's actually the gnome-vfs doing a lot of the work I think. So you should be able to write a simple stand alone program that plugs in to gnome-vfs and does menu editing.
There is actually a lot of cool stuff you can do with menu system they have now, like merge folders together in to one menu. Just not the most obvious if you're trying to edit the files yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Also TiVo Desktop *is* compatible with OS X 10.4.2 and 10.4.3 (I've heard but not confirmed 10.4.4 as well). There was an incompatibility with 10.4.0 and 10.4.1, but the later releases of Tiger worked well. The installer gives a false "failed" message, but it does install and it does work very well (better than 10.3.x).
Mac OS X v10.2 - v10.3.x
(Not compatible with Mac OS X 10.4: Tiger)
- Tivo Desktop Download Page
Perhaps you're correct that you can get it to work on 10.4, but as the download page says, it's not supported and they apparently could care less if it works. The fact that you're saying it does work and they haven't bothered to update their download page shows the lack of care they have for mac users.
The only question remains is whether TiVo will provide Mac software that *pulls* (or pushes) the files from the TiVo to the Mac. If they don't, there are plenty of ways of getting around it, but I can't imagine TiVo wouldn't dedicate the couple of hours to develop this software on the Mac.
I think you might want to be prepared for disappointment . TivoToGo is a terrible solution, even for windows users. Tivo has turned in to a company more interested in making a feature-list than making a good product. These half-baked solutions are proof of that, this ipod compatibility is likely another half-baked solution.
I'd be willing to bet that all this is going to be is a program for windows that will convert the show to a 320x240 sized mpeg 4 video file. That's it. So this means it will take about 1 hour to transfer the show, 20 minutes to convert it, then however long to put it on your ipod. I'd love to be wrong about this, but I don't think I will be.
As much as I would love to get excited about this and hope that it gives me new things to play with on my Tivo, I'm doubtful. Tivo already has their home media extensions library where apps on a computer can publish themselves on the network and display custom screens on the Tivo. From what i've seen so far, cool things can be done but it's very hard to make the interface useable.
The highly regarded tivo interface already seems to be falling apart. They're trying to tack on too many sources for additional ad revenue. The main screen usually has two extra advertising items, which by no surprise are the ones that stand out the most. They're desperately trying to add on features to make the tivo more of a home media box than just a tv recorder. Which is cool, but they must have fired all their original developers and outsourced to india or something, cause the new features feel like tacked-on afterthoughts.
For example, there's a cool new feature that will share a directory on your PC with video files so that it shows up in Tivo's now playing list. Very cool, until you try using it. First off, the files need to be in a format the tivo understands, and I can't fault them for that, it'd be hard to allow the tivo to decode every possible codec. Although, if they're serious about this home media thing, they really should at least try. I think it'll just play MPEG right now. Second, once you locate a video you'd like to watch, selecting it and hitting play doesn't play it. You need to first select the video so that you see the details, then you need to select "Transfer this video". After doing this, you will be given an option of watching it while it transfers, but on my 802.11b wireless network, the transfer isn't anywhere near fast enough to watch on the fly. Trying to do so seems to confuse the tivo, since this whole watching as a show downloads from the network feature is really just a crappy hack. If you do wait for the transfer, you can then watch the show, but it's now taking up space on your tivo, so what's the freaking point of having it on your PC?
I'm sorry for getting a bit sidetracked on one particular feature, but I think it's indicative of a growing trend over at Tivo. They're trying to make a feature list instead of a good product. All the new features that sound really cool, starting with Tivo ToGo, end up working like total crap. I still can't transfer videos recorded on my tivo to my mac without hacking to the tivo. It's been almost a year.
So I guess what I'm trying to say with this rant is don't bother getting excited about this. It'll just be a few tacked on a features that nobody will ever use because they're just a kludge implementation so that they can list it as a feature on their website.
Probably not. You need to realize that this is Slashdot where everyone, and myself included, bitch and moan about every event. A lot of people are threatening to get rid of their Tivos and invest 500 bucks, an entire week, and 1/4 of their living room to setup a MythTV box. These people are likely just using empty threats hoping to scare Tivo in to reversing the software update. Most likely, Tivo won't back off, and in a month all of this will be forgotten as long as the flag doesn't come up on regular tv shows for any other people.
We've gone through this process with Tivo users before. The TivoToGo release took too long so there were claims of canceling their service and going to MythTV. Mac users still can't download shows from their tivo and watch them on their mac without going through a PC first, as far as I know. And through it all, the people who bitched and moaned are most likely still using Tivo.
I own a Tivo. I use a mac. I hate DRM. I constantly think about how I should build a MythTV box, which shouldn't be too hard for me since I have a lot of linux experience. But I get home from work, plop on the couch, and tun on my TV to see if any good shows are waiting for me on the Tivo. There needs to be a serious and obvious interruption to my Tivo service to get me off my lazy ass so that I switch to something else.
But as far as IPTV and the such, I think podcasts might do a lot to get people moving in that direction. If you don't believe me, download iTunes (or figure out how to use some other podcast software) and subscribe to Diggnation, Systm, Rocketboom, Dawn and Drew show, and This Week in Tech. People are really starting to make some cool stuff that is totally independent and free of DRM nastiness. The content is surprisingly good. The only real problems are wading through the thousands of crappy podcasts so that you can find the rare good one, and the bandwidth needs of podcasters who get popular. But podcasts have really shown people that anyone can make a show, and some of them might even be good. So now there should be a lot of creative thinkers figuring out how to make it easier to find shows and for shows to handle the bandwidth needs. Of course there will also be a lot of creative thinkers figuring out how they can DRM podcasts in hopes of making money.... sigh.
You can't be serious. So here's your solution:
And here's the Tivo/PVR/DVR/whatever solution:
Yeah, definitely for people too stupid to program their VCRs. I own a Tivo and I can say, it's got it's share of problems. I think it's idiotic that I need to pay 13 bucks a month just so it can know when a TV show is on. I already bought the damn box. But to say the idea/technology behind Tivo is useless - well I'd have to disagree with that.
Now, if you wanted to make the point that TV isn't that great to spend the money on a device that records it, well you might be on to something there. But man, I love sitting down when I get home from work and having new episodes of shows I actually want to watch there waiting for me.
No, but you could run YDL on both a G5 and a X86 processor and perform benchmarks.
I agree with the grand parent, I expected a nice comparison of G5 to X86 by using the same OS and applications on each. Obviously this wouldn't be a conclusive experiment as there's always optimizations which usually favor the more popular X86 platform, but still, it would be interesting.
Seriously? Is there still a GNOME vs KDE flamewar? I thought that died back in 2001.
So it can tell you that you burned the thing your searching for to a CD at some point in your life? How exactly do you expect it to prompt you for the proper CD?
"Please insert the CD on which you wrote "MY NUDIE PICS' in blue marker."
This advice is probably too late for you, but you can actually tell iTunes not to reorganize your music folder in the preferences.
I agree this seems like a stupid thing to have turned on by default. I also find the behavior where it copies mp3s that you play to the music folder automatically strange. But I guess some people would get confused that deleting a file from their desktop makes it not playable in itunes anymore. *shrug*
Deltron. Nice.
Which programmers, assembly programmers?
Very few programmers use assembly, and I fail to see how the fact that Apple now uses an intel processor makes it closer to linux development for the others who aren't. Mac OS X already has the unix core, they were already similar for many types of programming. So why now, with the introduction of Intel chips, will it be more likely for open-source coders to switch to Apple? Maybe you could explain it.
Now, Apple users switching to linux makes a bit more sense. Some may be peeved at this decision to move to intel on ideoligical reasons, and now don't see much reason to stick with Apple. But that's probabably not a large number.
It seems many people are making the assumption that using an intel chip means that Mac OS X will run on their PC. I really doubt that. Most likely it'll be exactly the same as things were, you'll still need to plop down a large sum of money if you want to use Mac OS X. That is after all Apple's business model.
PRICE! $5/month subscription service with subscription downloads (transfer your downloads to your subscription-capable device). Yes, this is the same set of features that Napster is charging you $15 for. This is what they call an "introductory price", kids. Buy a year now.
For someone who is talking "human to human" this is laying the marketing on pretty thick. I find it funny that it's a subscription service, and your music will not work without the subscription (right?). This Ian guy says, as if this is a great reason to sign up, that the 5 dollars a month is an introductory price. So once you buy all those shiny cool WMA files, they'll jack up the price and you'll have to pay more if you want to keep listening to them.
Or am I wrong, and you can burn these to CD?
I also found it funny that he dismisses all the other music store programs out there as a way for the companies who own them to just sell you something. Well, yeah. And Yahoo is just selling something too. And if iTunes is little more than a way to "sell you a utlity," how come I use it and like it and don't own an ipod? Also, how come if he has this opinion of iTunes the Yahoo player looks like little more than iTunes drawn with purple crayons?
Personally, I'm getting a little sick of the iTunes is bad because it locks you in to Apple. So let's go to a different music store and get locked in to Microsoft. Yup, problem solved.
I will say though. There are some neat things that a subscription service can provide, such as the "listen to whatever your friends are listening to" feature that this program has. That's a pretty cool idea. I just don't like the idea of owning something only as long as I keep pouring out the money. I'd rather own than rent.
Actually, I want a computer that can move a window around the screen without causing all the windows behind it to do a nasty refresh. I want a computer that can resize windows without having terrible lag with redrawing the widgets to match the new size. This is what I want, and if they can tack on some wobbly windows and other effects, well that's cool too.
Woops, looks like there is more to this. According to this post the 877 number didn't exist until after the movie opened.
I do still feel the same way about the movie as a whole though, had good ideas but was presented in a way that's easy for Bush supporters to just dodge dealing with the questions raised in the film because it is so biased.
I think you better admit defeat here. An "800 number" is pretty much slang for any toll-free number. Apparently an 877 number still qualifies as a toll-free number. So, uhhh, yeah.
I'm sick of Bush and probably fall in the category of liberal, but you must admit when Moore just flat out deceives. The movie has good points, it's too bad Moore had to use such cruddy tactics to sensationalize it. I believe the message could have been much better if it seriously tackled the problems with the bush administration, instead of just painting a huge weak target on all "liberals."
Look at the ABB (Anybody But Bush) crowd. Their hatred is equally emotional and irrational. A bunch I know scream about him being a former alcoholic and alleged coke user. "He's no better than anyone else." Curiously, those that scream the most are the ones who refuse to get control of their own substance abuse issues. And isn't it curious that the party that has made abortion rights a perpetual issue is accusing Bush of having one? Yes, they claim hypocracy, but don't they have a mirror in their house?
And you know that these people have substance abuse problems? How did you find this information out? You state it as a fact, so I'd be curious to know more about this fact.
I didn't read your entire post cause you lost me at that point, but I think I got the idea of it. If anyone is claiming Bush had an abortion (first I've heard of it) I'd think it's more based on the fact that this man who tries to put everything in terms of right and wrong, honorable or not honorable, faithful and non-faithful, doesn't fit so perfectly in to these rigid categories, and really nobody does.
So the way I see it, it is more of a message to the far right to get off their high horse, cause nobody is perfect.
But I'm probably giving too much faith in people, and it's probably just a cheap tactic to lure votes away from Bush. Nonetheless, if Bush is going to make this strong stances to please the evangelical right, then why is it too much to ask that he hold himself to them as well?
And so exactly how is that turning his back on fellow veterans? You just quoted him saying exactly what the parent you were replying to said. That there were orders given to soldiers that qualified as war crimes. So, what's the beef?
But of the two sides, they are clearly the ones who are more fighting on principle, with less to personally gain.
Yeah, cause I'd hate to lose my fetus-killing Fridays. Exactly what personal gain are you speaking of here?
I'm always surprised that there's so much resistance to patent law among the open software crowd. One point of patents is to get the methods out into the open. If it weren't for patents, true inventions (even inventive processes) would often be held as trade secrets for much longer than patent protection lasts.
I'm a little unclear about this. If something is a trade secret as you say patents are saving us from, does that mean if I develop it by myself using my own process and it happens to be the same, they can sue me? Or does a trade secret just protect them from having me come in and steal their code and learning how they do something?
If it is just the latter, then I don't see how you could say patents save us from trade secrets. A trade secret would make much more sense, keep people from stealing your ideas without them doing the work to get there. But a patent just keeps people from using the same method, even if they come up with it all by themselves.
Perhaps I just have a misunderstanding of how trade secrets work. And if I do, then maybe others do and that would explain why people are against patents.
Actually, it's ctrl + l (lowercase L), which stands for location and is pretty much what any free software using person is use to as it is how to focus on the location bar in all the mozilla browsers (mozilla/firefox/galeon/epiphany) as well as how nautilus focuses on it's location bar in gnome 2.4 and I've heard the spatial nautilus pops up a location entry in 2.6.
Very easy to type, much easier for me than alt+d, which is Microsoft's choice for the same behavior in IE.
Anyways, I think complaints about this are unnessecary since if you're planning on typing in a file path, then your hands should already be over the keyboard. Typing ctrl+l shouldn't cost you much for extra time. And it simplifies the interface for people who don't plan on typing a file path (and most wouldn't, since this is only for when you open a file). My only gripe would be that theres no way to know about it unless someone tells you, or you go read the help section for opening a file (I dobut many people would do that).
I really don't believe this will be a big deal. Most likely it'll just be a very basic virus scanner. The people who bought commercial virus scanners will keep doing so for a fuller product.
I don't see Microsoft pumping too much effort in to their virus scanner, as just having one will probably be good enough to make most people feel fuzzy. I have a hard time imagining another Netscape-like situation, and I'll tell you why.
Microsoft went all out with IE, not because they simply felt a browser should be included with windows, but because they were threatened. Netscape (and just the web in general) was turning out to be a whole new platform. Interesting technologies like Java were starting to make it clear that the web could be used to make platform-agnostic apps.
You really have to credit Microsoft with having the foresight to notice this was a threat, cause it was. However, the threat was really just that it would have leveled the playing field, which they obviously don't want.
So back to my point, virus scanning is just virus scanning. It doesn't really keep people locked in to a platform other than comparing to other OSes might be favorable. For example, "OS A has virus scanning builtin, while OS B does not." That is why I can't imagine them investing too much money in it or getting in to a competition with a current virus scanner.
Just to throw my 2 bits in:
I would agree that KDE is much more mature when it comes to functionality. Stuff generally just works in KDE, such as the KIO Slaves (I think that's what they're called) which let you access remote networks or devices just as you would your local filesystem. Gnome has this with their gnome-vfs but it seems really buggy, at least their ssh/sftp ones are.
But as for ease of use, I'd have to say Gnome kicks KDE's butt. KDE is a mess of program menus, buttons, and don't even get me started about the kde control center.
Just look at Konqueror's toolbar. I just find it overwhelming.
Some may find GNOME's policies of simplifying their interfaces to be overkill but I personally think it's paying off. Many would agree that MacOS X has a great interface, and I think part of the reason is this same general philosophy.
So, I choose to use GNOME for this reason. If KDE was to do a massive UI cleanup I'd probably switch because their framework seems to be much more sound. But GNOME is catching up quick, and has a very nice interface as well.
You start out saying the problem you've found with mozilla is so and so. Yet the problem you've found was really just with your preference setting, whcih is not the default preference setting. Not so sure it makes since to say that's a problem with mozilla.
Like all the other posters have said, I've switched a couple people to Mozilla (Mozilla 1.x or sometimes Firebird) and I've had very positive results.
The only reason people seem to ever go back to IE is that programs constantly start IE even though you have mozilla set to default browser, so it feels like you're going against the grain so to speak. Oh and another thing is the trend of a lot of programs to rely on IE. Examples are most of the windows online music store services and I believe McAffee crud (for updates and stuff).
What exactly do you believe "want" is a contraction for? I notice you keep writing "wan't".
I'm just curious.
Just put a blatant plug for it in the form of a question on Slashdot.
Oh, wait. Nevermind.
For real though, just post it on freshmeat and if people have an interest it'll get popular quick.
I guess the idea behind the menu editing was they wanted it to be as easy as possible, and everyone knows how to move/delete/add files to folders.
The UNIX philosphy is still somewhat alive as it's actually the gnome-vfs doing a lot of the work I think. So you should be able to write a simple stand alone program that plugs in to gnome-vfs and does menu editing.
There is actually a lot of cool stuff you can do with menu system they have now, like merge folders together in to one menu. Just not the most obvious if you're trying to edit the files yourself.