Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:WTF?!?!?! (Score 1) 251

by Anonym0us Cow Herd (#44052631) Attached to: Microsoft To Start Dumping Surface RT To Schools For $199
Are you talking about the same Mac OS 6 and Mac OS 7 that I remember?

Mac OS 6 was good, as you say. But 'System 7' as they called it, was a huge improvement.

* MultiFinder only (no more single-finder)
* Aliases (eg, file system links to folders or files like symlink)
* Organized subfolders within System Folder to fix the clutter. Seperate subfolders for Startup Items, Desk Accessories, Fonts, etc.
* The Apple Menu folder. You could now customize the Apple menu. What items appeared in the Apple menu was dictated by the Apple Menu folder within the System folder. You could now put more than DA's in the Apple menu. You could put apps there. Or aliases to apps or other folders or frequently opened files. Oh, and nevermind that putting a real folders in the Apple Menu made it into a hierarchical menu. This added tremendous flexibility, customizability and convenience to the Mac.
* Fonts as separate files instead of resources within the System file. No more Font/DA Mover.
* DAs as separate files within the Apple menu. No more Font/DA Mover.
* An invisible temp folder where applications could create active temp files. If the app crashed, these moved into the trash can as recoverable files. The most notable example was Microsoft Word (on Mac). If it crashed, of if the entire system crashed, your unsaved changed file could be found in the trash can and simply dragged out.

I'm sure I'm leaving out some things. But those are the ones I remember best from twenty plus years ago.

System 7 was a gigantic step forward for the classic Mac OS. System 8 and 9 not so much. System 8 had a few improvements, like dockable folders that could appear as tabs at the bottom of the screen. System 9 had no visible improvements. Then by that time classic Mac OS was beginning to stagnate by the late 1990's, Apple was fumbling with their new OS, and it was beginning to be obvious.

Comment: Newsflash: Current flows in the other direction (Score 1) 216

From TFA . . .

One is a positive pole, and the other is used to return the current.

Current flows from the negative pole to the positive pole. It's just an accident of history how the two poles got named. It wasn't discovered until later that the particle (electron) is negative.

Comment: Re:Make metal ilegal too... (Score 1) 551

by Anonym0us Cow Herd (#43811689) Attached to: Australian Police Move To Make 3D Printed Guns Illegal
> If police don't want people to print guns they should just fill Youtube with videos of plastic guns exploding.

That would probably work as effectively as filling YouTube with teenage boys hitting each other in the balls in order to prevent such behavior. Monkey see, monkey do. Hey, cool! That looks like fun!

Comment: Re:5 years from now (Score 1) 123

by Anonym0us Cow Herd (#42546213) Attached to: An Oven That Runs Android
> When android 4.0 is completely obsolete, and so is the hardware in the oven, what are you going to do?

You mean like an iMac that integrates a quickly obsolete computer with an expensive monitor that would normally have economic value over multiple generations of computer? That kind of obsolete? Or did you mean something different?

Comment: SCO recap.... (Score 5, Insightful) 266

by Anonym0us Cow Herd (#15757551) Attached to: SCO Accuses IBM of Destruction of Evidence
As I posted elsewhere earlier...

Now that I have finally managed to stop laughing, let me see if I understood this correctly.

SCO had such a strong case and so much evidence of "millions of lines of code", and "truckloads" of code from their "deep dive" proving that "the DNA of Linux is comming from UNIX", etc. that they were "ready for trial" in 2003 and they "don't need any discovery".

SCO needs all versions of AIX. Not only that, but they also need every unreleased internal iteration of code from CMVC, all programmer's notes, etc., at great expense.

SCO could not disclose specific code for M&C because they couldn't know what code was in the minds of IBM engineers when IBM disclosed the M&C.

IBM destroyed the evidence. So SCO cannot show what code, or M&C was copied. This, even though SCO has access to ALL of the code, and Linux code is publicly available.

No doubt, it must somehow be IBM's doing that SCO is unable to answer IBM's interrogatory asking for SCO to identify lines of Linux code that SCO claims to own rights in.

So in the end...
  • Linux code is out in the open
  • SCO cannot point to _anything_ specific in Linux
  • Some vague nebulous blob of M&C was disclosed

Of the vague nebulous blob of M&C...
  • It must be in Linux...somewhere (trust us on this)
  • It must be IBM that disclosed it (because they have deep pockets)
  • The disclosure (by whoever, however) must have been improper, somehow (otherwise how will we make a profit?)

Because of IBM's unfair, unethical and illegal actions, SCO is unable to...
  • describe exactly what the M&C is
  • point to where it is
  • identify where it came from
  • show that it has been disclosed
  • show how (or who) disclosed it
  • prove ownership of it

So in conclusion, ladies and gentlemen of this fine Utah jury, IBM is guilty. They did it. Trust us. Now do the right thing. Award Billions in damages to the plaintiff please.

Thank you.

Journal: Thoughts on the Holy Trinity 50

Journal by Bible_Study_Guys
If you are familiar with Christianity and the Bible, you know that Christians are monodeists who beleive that God is a trinity of the Father (Jehovah, Elohim), Son (Jesus Christ), and Holy Spirit. Some people have had trouble understanding how God can be made up of three parts. In Bible study last night, we were talking about how the Bible says, "Let us make man in our image", and how this was referring to the Trinity. As I was driving to work this morning, I was contemplating t
User Journal

Journal: Taking a break... 19

Journal by Bible_Study_Guys
Well guys, we turned out 3 pretty good topics I think. Eugene said before the last topic that he though he should take a break. GLH and I have both been very busy also, and I think it is better that we don't try to do any more topics until after the first of the year. Most of you are busy also and really won't have time to read and do the research that many of you do when preparing your comments.

MATH AND ALCOHOL DON'T MIX! Please, don't drink and derive. Mathematicians Against Drunk Deriving