Veracohr

Ooh, I found a much better option! There's a Windows emulator called CrossOver that has the program I need to use (LTSpice) in their database of software that works. Plus a user comment that it works well. Only $50. I'm downloading the demo tonight!

I think I'm gonna go with putting Windows on my Mac, mostly to save money.

I guess I just don't want to take up so much space with a second OS that I need only for one small program. I suppose I could get a larger hard drive for my computer. A guy I work with told me yesterday that while Mac is OK working with Windows, Windows 7 has problems sharing a machine with another OS. Not sure how true that is. No, but if I got another computer I'd like to get something that wasn't a dinosaur. I don't have any Windows computers lying about. I've never been a Windows user except at work.

Don Cheadle is Captain Planet

Here's the deal: I use a Mac, but for school and long-term use in the realm of electronic circuit simulating, I need Windows in order to use a Windows-only simulation program. My options are: - Pay $200 to buy Windows that I can load and use on my Mac, which I'd rather not do; - Pay a little more and get a cheap, used laptop with Windows already on it, and have a dedicated computer just for such purposes, plus keep unwanted stuff off my Mac. I'm having a tough time deciding, but I need to make a decision soon. I stopped at a used computer store today to look at options; there was a $175 laptop but the thing was huge and had only a Pentium 4. It would work for what I need (the simulation software doesn't need much power) but it's always good to plan for the future. Plus the thing was huge. There was also a $300 computer that was much smaller, kind of a small step up from a netbook. Powered by an AMD something. It would be much nicer to carry around, but of course it's a little more expensive. Still, only $100 more than putting Windows on my Mac, although this computer comes with Windows XP (both did), while the $200 to put it on my Mac would be for Windows 7. Not that the simulation software cares; it can run on anything from Windows 98 to Windows 7. Someone give me some advice please! Edit: oh yeah, I can get a student price of $70 I think for an upgrade to Windows 7. The student price is only for the upgrade, not a full install. Having never owned Windows I don't know how the licensing works. If I get a used computer with Windows XP loaded on it, will Microsoft consider me a legitimate owner of Windows and thus eligible for an upgrade license?

Is anyone else not getting email notifications? I have my preferences set up to auto-follow topics I reply to, but there's nothing in my "Your Notifications" list and I'm not getting emails.

Ah, yes, I believe you understood right! I only glanced at that briefly, but what I saw sounded spot on. Unfortunately the concept depends on a stable population, and with large numbers of people in the world whose attitude toward procreation being influenced by religions that say "make lots of babies!"...

I agree dude. Simple yet awesome! Edit: oh wait, I was thinking of the one that starts at 1:05.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/14/tech/innovation/dennis-ritchie-obit-bell-labs/index.html Dennis Ritchie was the co-creator of both the C programming language and the UNIX operating system.

Wasn't Chuck Palhunik a Portlander? You'd think there would already be one.

^ That brings to mind something I've always thought about regarding official statements of economic state; like "we're doing great" or "the economy's slowing down" etc. Even when they say things are slowing down, even when they speak of recessions, there's almost always still a measure of growth. I've seen statements like "...saw a growth of only x% last year, and economists are warning of recession..." blah blah blah. How do people think we can have growth forever? The whole framework of our economy seems to be based on growth, but runaway growth is called cancer when it's in a living being. With finite resources as we have in the real world, the economy should be based on a concept of sustainability, not constant growth.

Why do I feel like I've seen this topic before? I could swear I even remember the replies, but it was some time ago. Hey, I heard that Colin guy from OOOD listens to psy!

Man this mod thing just gets better and better!

^ You seem to have a pretty low view of women. I don't think psy is dominated by men because women can't make it.

It's good to be king, whatever it pays.

Oh, I never read comments on news articles. We can always count on people to be assholes, eh?

Where did you see people saying he deserved it?

He definitely deserves praise, but I see a lot of overdoing it. As an entirely unprovable guess, I think many of the technical achievements he's praised for would have been introduced by someone else if he hadn't. I'd say the style of Apple is where he shined.

^ Yeah, goa/psy is small, but comparing electronic music as a whole (even just trance in all its flavors) is WAY more widely popular than metal. But even if you just compare trance to metal, most of the weight on the trance side is fluffy Euro trance, not psy.

I'm a Mac user, but not of the "Apple cult", "Apple fanboy" type. I respect Steve Jobs as a successful CEO and member of a successful product development organization, but it's kind of been bugging me how much I see/hear people deifying him. People who, just months ago, wouldn't have given a shit one way or the other about him, are now saying what a visionary he was, what a genius he was, blah blah blah. I also keep feeling a strong inference underlying a lot of these comments that every Apple product that has ever existed was conceived and developed by Steve Jobs, with maybe secondary assistance by others. Hardly. Just today at work I heard one co-worker say to another "I've never heard anyone say anything bad about him..." Really? What about the board of directors who voted him out in the late 80's? I bet they had some bad things to say. Of course, they ended up eating their hats in the long run, but the guy did have a reputation. The kind of reputation that is irritating and hard to work with when a company is small and of minor influence, but when the company becomes big and of great influence, is magically transformed into 'visionary', and the meaning of the word 'uncompromising' suddenly transforms from a bad one to a good one. If Steve Jobs had died before Apple introduced the iPod, he would be remembered as the co-founder of a small and quirky computer company that peaked in the early years of the PC era. But since Apple has transformed from primarily a computer company to primarily a company of hugely popular consumer devices, people perceive him differently. I say that whatever genius people see in him now he had back when Apple was talked about with sarcasm by all but a small percentage of people, and whatever drawbacks he had back then he had even when everyone and their dog had an iSomething. Perception appears to be the biggest influence on the man's legacy. To sum it up: he was a good businessman, but not all good businessmen end up heading successful companies. Good ideas don't always catch on, there's an element of chance in what becomes popular. Apple almost wasn't a successful company. And don't anyone forget that Steve Jobs didn't create Apple. Without Steve Wozniak, there would have been no Apple Computer.

I'm aware I'm replying to an old post here but I'm going to do it anyway. I also once thought, not even that long ago, how inconceivable it seemed that I might get tired of goa. But with a limited pool of artists and releases to listen to (me personally), some of the golden oldies are looking a little long in the tooth. And I've only seriously been into goa/psy since just a little before the date I joined this forum (see at left). If I extrapolate that out to include more artists and releases but also a longer timeline, I can easily see how people who listened to goa in the golden era would get tired of it.

That right there was my point. It's arbitrary, and I feel something less arbitrary would be a better physical basis for our pretend money. I don't know what that could be, but to me gold just doesn't make a lot of sense. What you said about gold being useful in jewelry: I agree, but that goes back to what I said about value being based on a concept of "ooh pretty!"

Ah, I didn't notice that. The possibilities... Just killing the last few minutes at work.