"Ten free apps to install on every new Mac"
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Woody on 18 May 2010 06:11 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > > > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > As I said from the joke, I am never going to learn those other > > > > > > languages so why do I need them? > > > > > > > > > > Why waste time doing things like that? > > > > > > > > It takes hardly any time, and the time it does take is machine time, so > > > > why not? > > > > > > <puzzled> But you had to find out all about doing the job - that took > > > time. And there are always risks that something'll go wrong when you do > > > things like that. > > > > Yeh, but low risks. I didn't have spend time to find out, someone posted > > about it just up there ^ > > Riight - so when someone posts info here that you find useful, it ends > up directly inserted into your brain without you having to spend any > time at all doing things like reading? Hmm? I don't get what you mean, I have already read. Someone said 'here is a list of 10 tools' and I have read the article, regardless if I intend to act upon the information. Using the tool takes no additional minutes of reading does it? > You need to count your minutes more carefully, you do. What additional reading do I need to do? > > > And it's not just machine time! You have to tell the machine to do the > > > job, and then you spend time checking what it's done, and has it done it > > > properly, and so on. > > > > download, run. What else is there to find out? > > Where to download, what it does, what the consequences are, doing the > backup before doing the job, and so on. Lots human time involved. Where to download is in the article that I have already read, and if it wasn't, google would take far less than a minute to download. Assuming a badly written website at their end, I am sure i could find the download within a minute. the consequences are obvious and don't need any reading, the laptop is already backed up.. so what else? All of this is far less time than the time to search my disk for 1.9 GB of other stuff to delete, which would take real time > > And what time to I need to spend to find out if it worked? it either did > > or it didn't, there is no point me spending time finding out if it did. > > The point would be to save you the bother of clearing up the mess it > made, if mess it had made. If it made a mess, I would have to clear up the mess regardless of whether I checked it afterwards to find out it worked. If it worked I would have more free space and my apps would still work. I am certainly not going through every app to find out if it still works. > > > > > That's my line. <shrug> The > > > > > big space users these days are video and music files, aren't they? > > > > > > > > Maybe. But if I lose 1.9GB of music files, there are 1.9GB of music I > > > > can't listen to. If I lose 1.9GB of localisation files I lose nothing I > > > > need. > > > > > > If and only if you're running out of HD space and if and only if you > > > have another 1.9GB of music you really want to put on it. > > > > I have already said I am low on space > > Yers, but that's a subjective judgement on your part which does not > inform me of anything useful. It doesn't have to. My feelings on whether I am low on space or not are entirely a matter for me, as that is the only one it affects. > > > btw, ~10GB is ~1.3 days worth of music in ALC format (so sez my chamber > > > music playlist). > > > > I don't use ALC, I use acc > > I care about quality and sanity. There's not a lot of advantage in > using lossily compressed audio if you ask me - 320 kbit/s is only about > 1/3-1/2 the data rate of losslessly compressed audio, so why bother? Becasue I use less than 320kb, as you may remember from previous conversations. And half or third the size of a file is a huge difference. The difference between me having the music on my iPhone, so I can listen to it, or not having the music on my iPhone, so I don't. > > > Seems to me that you're wanting to use your laptop as your music store > > > and you really shouldn't be thinking of doing that unless it's got a > > > really really big HDD. > > > > Why? Its my laptop, I want all my music on it (or a sizeable subset) as > > I want to sync it with my iPod. > > If you want all your music on it (and I assume that means losslessly > compressed, being the only sane way to do it), you need a HDD big > enough. And you need the HDD big enough for all the music and all of > everything else. > > And that means something a bit more than 320GB, I'd've thought. I have what I have. My laptop is very important to me (much more so than the iMac), so I have the compromise of what I need. And I dont' care about loslessly compressed audio, as I have said. I can't tell the difference so why is it insane? > [snip] > > > > > > I've just thrown away quite a few GB from my 1TB HDD. I've got > > > > > hundreds of GB free. > > > > > > > > Thats nice. I don't have a TB hdd in my macbook pro. > > > > > > But if you want your laptop to be your multimedia file store, you really > > > should be thinking about a big store like that. > > > > I really don't. I have had my music stored on many computers, and very > > few of them have 1TB. Only now my iMac has 1TB and my PC has 2TB. > > Yeah, but that's useless for a decent multimedia file store. But it isn't. It may be for you, but it is fine for me, which is in this instance the only thing that actually matters. -- Woody
From: Rowland McDonnell on 18 May 2010 06:20 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said from the joke, I am never going to learn those other > > > > > > > languages so why do I need them? > > > > > > > > > > > > Why waste time doing things like that? > > > > > > > > > > It takes hardly any time, and the time it does take is machine > > > > > time, so why not? > > > > > > > > <puzzled> But you had to find out all about doing the job - that > > > > took time. And there are always risks that something'll go wrong > > > > when you do things like that. > > > > > > Yeh, but low risks. I didn't have spend time to find out, someone > > > posted about it just up there ^ > > > > Riight - so when someone posts info here that you find useful, it ends > > up directly inserted into your brain without you having to spend any > > time at all doing things like reading? Hmm? > > I don't get what you mean, I have already read. Someone said 'here is a > list of 10 tools' and I have read the article, regardless if I intend to > act upon the information. Using the tool takes no additional minutes of > reading does it? > > > You need to count your minutes more carefully, you do. > > What additional reading do I need to do? It's not additional reading that I'm talking about, it's the reading in the first place: that's human time used, in doing the job in hand. [snip] I give up. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Woody on 18 May 2010 06:37 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > > > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said from the joke, I am never going to learn those other > > > > > > > > languages so why do I need them? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why waste time doing things like that? > > > > > > > > > > > > It takes hardly any time, and the time it does take is machine > > > > > > time, so why not? > > > > > > > > > > <puzzled> But you had to find out all about doing the job - that > > > > > took time. And there are always risks that something'll go wrong > > > > > when you do things like that. > > > > > > > > Yeh, but low risks. I didn't have spend time to find out, someone > > > > posted about it just up there ^ > > > > > > Riight - so when someone posts info here that you find useful, it ends > > > up directly inserted into your brain without you having to spend any > > > time at all doing things like reading? Hmm? > > > > I don't get what you mean, I have already read. Someone said 'here is a > > list of 10 tools' and I have read the article, regardless if I intend to > > act upon the information. Using the tool takes no additional minutes of > > reading does it? > > > > > You need to count your minutes more carefully, you do. > > > > What additional reading do I need to do? > > It's not additional reading that I'm talking about, it's the reading in > the first place: that's human time used, in doing the job in hand. > > [snip] > > I give up. I know I spent time reading, but you know that I have already done that. Your question is (was) why waste time doing it. It is already done, there is no waste as I can't unread what I read. -- Woody
From: Jaimie Vandenbergh on 18 May 2010 06:41 On Tue, 18 May 2010 11:37:29 +0100, usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk (Woody) wrote: >Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > >> I give up. > >I know I spent time reading, but you know that I have already done that. >Your question is (was) why waste time doing it. It is already done, >there is no waste as I can't unread what I read. I'm *quite* sure that more time was wasted in the creation of this thread than discovering Monolingual, downloading it, running it, and filling up another 1.9gig with more music. Cheers - Jaimie -- Women's breasts are like electric train sets. They're meant for kids, but usually it's the fathers who wind up playing with them.
From: Woody on 18 May 2010 07:33
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > On Tue, 18 May 2010 11:37:29 +0100, usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk (Woody) > wrote: > >Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > >> I give up. > > > >I know I spent time reading, but you know that I have already done that. > >Your question is (was) why waste time doing it. It is already done, > >there is no waste as I can't unread what I read. > > I'm *quite* sure that more time was wasted in the creation of this > thread than discovering Monolingual, downloading it, running it, and > filling up another 1.9gig with more music. Certainly was -- Woody |