Facebook had already been at my college for a while by the time I graduated two years ago, but in my experience it's nowhere near as popular as MySpace among people with an interest in music, design, and the arts. College kids I meet today still friend you on MySpace, but friend requests on Facebook are much rarer.
At least here in New York. Maybe it's a regional thing?
If you're annoyed by personalization like "music, pictures, and other bullshit," there are sites more appropriate to your tastes, like facebook.com. Why would you bother posting a comment to this discussion bitching about myspace? I don't post to facebook discussions bitching about how facebook is bland, characterless, and full of fratboys.
Try Safari. Lean, mean, beautiful, elegant, and somewhat more standards-compliant than Gecko for the standards that matter (i.e., CSS). Oh, and plugins too (that page is maintained by the guy who drew the Firefox icon, who has since switched to Safari).
I fully agree. Not only does the site look wonderful, navigation is pleasant and intuitive too. I suspect the Slashdotters contributing to this discussion suffer a severly impaired sense of aesthetic judgment.
That's exactly the kind of beauty the article describes, a point that most of the responses here have missed ("But doesn't Google Earth look prettier than Acquisition?").
Beauty, in the sense the author uses here, has very little to do with visual appearance. It's more about the way the application behaves (the "feel" of "look and feel") and the elegance and intuitiveness of that behavior in light of the overall Mac experience. In this regard, Google Earth is probably the single ugliest program still to reside in my Applications folder. Acquisition, on the other hand, just plain feels right to me as a Mac user of over 20 years, though I don't know if I'd put it in the top ten most beautiful Mac apps. On most of the others, I'm in complete agreement with the author.
Some people just plain don't get along with OS X. Not everybody cares about aesthetics (not just looks, mind you) or elegance the same way Apple does. Some people just work better textually. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
Mac OS X, like any other system, is infinitely extensible--you just have to know where to look.
Just one example: I rewrote and recompiled a kernel extension to quiet my PowerBook's fan. There are dozens of community sites built around hacking the system. Easy things easy, hard things hard, complexity beneath elegance and all that.
Smells can be trademarked, like the distinctive scent of Singapore Airlines cabin interiors (no, I'm not kidding--it's actually really nice). Actually, it looks like it's a patent instead. Shouldn't this sort of thing fall under trademark, not patent, law?
It only takes one European crossing the ocean to make Americans start popping out babies with European heritage. Let simmer a few generations and the whole idea becomes plausible.
Note that it could just as easily have been a lone American crossing to Europe.
It's not that simple. Think it through. Even with a number of almost entirely separate populations, all it takes for everyone to be descended from one person in the recent past is a few individual "tourists," no more. In short, if everyone can trace their ancestry to a single person who lived 5,000 years ago, that doesn't mean the other 99.99% of their ancestors from the same time period weren't different.
Don't believe me? Draw a chart. Or maybe someone else can explain this better than I have.
You're the Floridian who voted for Nader in 2000, aren't you? You fucking disgust me. Is anyone really still so brickheaded as to believe there was no difference between Bush and Gore?
People come to the platform expecting Apple to have the same shit service as companies like Dell and Toshiba, so they don't even bother trying. If they ever did, they might be pleasantly surprised; on the occasions I've had to send a computer back to Apple, they've paid for shipping both ways, and turnaround time has never been more than two days (not even during the dark Sculley-Spindler-Amelio interregnum).
I posted this to an earlier discussion, where it seems to be eliciting no replies, so I'll ask again here. The Wikipedia entry states: "The successors to 45nm technology will be 32 nm, 22 nm, and then 16 nm technology; it is possible that these numbers are arbitrary, but it is also possible that they reflect fundamental physical limits of some sort." So which is it, arbitrary or fundamental physical limits?
Slashdot Mirror
Facebook had already been at my college for a while by the time I graduated two years ago, but in my experience it's nowhere near as popular as MySpace among people with an interest in music, design, and the arts. College kids I meet today still friend you on MySpace, but friend requests on Facebook are much rarer.
At least here in New York. Maybe it's a regional thing?
If you're annoyed by personalization like "music, pictures, and other bullshit," there are sites more appropriate to your tastes, like facebook.com. Why would you bother posting a comment to this discussion bitching about myspace? I don't post to facebook discussions bitching about how facebook is bland, characterless, and full of fratboys.
Try Safari. Lean, mean, beautiful, elegant, and somewhat more standards-compliant than Gecko for the standards that matter (i.e., CSS). Oh, and plugins too (that page is maintained by the guy who drew the Firefox icon, who has since switched to Safari).
"The governor of California is WHO?!?"
Even though I know you know he's just joking... ***WHOOSH!***
Devil's advocate, a post above points out the efficacy of hemispherectomies, which is essentially a 1/2-brain lobotomy.
I guess the difference between Terri Schiavo and this guy is that this guy was at least "minimally conscious."
Spell different, square.
I fully agree. Not only does the site look wonderful, navigation is pleasant and intuitive too. I suspect the Slashdotters contributing to this discussion suffer a severly impaired sense of aesthetic judgment.
That's exactly the kind of beauty the article describes, a point that most of the responses here have missed ("But doesn't Google Earth look prettier than Acquisition?").
Beauty, in the sense the author uses here, has very little to do with visual appearance. It's more about the way the application behaves (the "feel" of "look and feel") and the elegance and intuitiveness of that behavior in light of the overall Mac experience. In this regard, Google Earth is probably the single ugliest program still to reside in my Applications folder. Acquisition, on the other hand, just plain feels right to me as a Mac user of over 20 years, though I don't know if I'd put it in the top ten most beautiful Mac apps. On most of the others, I'm in complete agreement with the author.
FWIW, I'm a "Mac nerd," have been since '84, and I laffed.
Some people just plain don't get along with OS X. Not everybody cares about aesthetics (not just looks, mind you) or elegance the same way Apple does. Some people just work better textually. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
I foresee a problem: They'll all tie for first-place ugliest application. The only exception, Firefox, will show at #2.
Mac OS X, like any other system, is infinitely extensible--you just have to know where to look.
Just one example: I rewrote and recompiled a kernel extension to quiet my PowerBook's fan. There are dozens of community sites built around hacking the system. Easy things easy, hard things hard, complexity beneath elegance and all that.
Smells can be trademarked, like the distinctive scent of Singapore Airlines cabin interiors (no, I'm not kidding--it's actually really nice). Actually, it looks like it's a patent instead. Shouldn't this sort of thing fall under trademark, not patent, law?
It only takes one European crossing the ocean to make Americans start popping out babies with European heritage. Let simmer a few generations and the whole idea becomes plausible.
Note that it could just as easily have been a lone American crossing to Europe.
It's not that simple. Think it through. Even with a number of almost entirely separate populations, all it takes for everyone to be descended from one person in the recent past is a few individual "tourists," no more. In short, if everyone can trace their ancestry to a single person who lived 5,000 years ago, that doesn't mean the other 99.99% of their ancestors from the same time period weren't different.
Don't believe me? Draw a chart. Or maybe someone else can explain this better than I have.
Solution: Move out of red-state territory.
C'mon. I might be more inclined to believe you if you'd left out the gratuitous dig at "Bushco." And I'm on your side.
Hey, look, a Windows user!
And that, unfortunately, is something I think we can both agree on. (FWIW, I voted for Voinovich and for Bloomberg.)
You're the Floridian who voted for Nader in 2000, aren't you? You fucking disgust me. Is anyone really still so brickheaded as to believe there was no difference between Bush and Gore?
People come to the platform expecting Apple to have the same shit service as companies like Dell and Toshiba, so they don't even bother trying. If they ever did, they might be pleasantly surprised; on the occasions I've had to send a computer back to Apple, they've paid for shipping both ways, and turnaround time has never been more than two days (not even during the dark Sculley-Spindler-Amelio interregnum).
Apple: officially "beleaguered" again.
I posted this to an earlier discussion, where it seems to be eliciting no replies, so I'll ask again here. The Wikipedia entry states: "The successors to 45nm technology will be 32 nm, 22 nm, and then 16 nm technology; it is possible that these numbers are arbitrary, but it is also possible that they reflect fundamental physical limits of some sort." So which is it, arbitrary or fundamental physical limits?