Shawn King of
The Mac Show Live talked a few days ago with Apple co-founder and knowledge-omnivore Steve (
The Woz) Wozniak. Shawn graciously agreed to post the interview, formerly Quicktime only (
downloadable or
streaming), as an
MP3 file -- so now most anyone can listen. This is an interview worth listening to: Woz talks about his lifelong motivations, his years with Apple (up to the present), OS X, the Newton, and what the future holds for him. He also talks about building TV jammers and the only prank he got caught for in high school, one which might not fly so well right now. (The interview starts about 55 minutes into the show, and lasts for nearly an hour.) What's this got to do with typing madly? Well, since Shawn's program is all-audio (no pictures, and only the barest explanitory text), it's a lot less useful to those on text-only or just-plain-slow links than it could be. Read on below for your chance to change that with just a few minutes of your time.
Update: 10/20 20:43 GMT by
T : Thanks to everyone who's volunteered to transcribe, and to the several alternates who are already in line! No need for more voluneers right now :)
Transcribing an hour of text takes a long time. But if you (yes, you!) are willing to transcribe a 3-minute (well. 3:15) chunk of this interview, I will spend my putative day off gluing chunks of interview together. Shoot me an email with "WozScript" in the subject if you'd like to participate, and I'll give the first volunteers (it shouldn't take that many) a randomly-drawn three-minute segment to type up, as well as more instructions on how to format it. No compensation except your name in lights, and the knowledge that lynx users everywhere appreciate your efforts. I'll update this story if and when the transcription is complete. (And if anyone can suggest a good Quicktime audio --> .ogg converter, Shawn and I would both appreciate it.)
Suggestions (Score:4, Informative)
A) Go from the mp3 to a high-quality ogg file. There are plenty of mp3-->ogg converters. And don't bitch about the quality, it's a freaking interview, notMozart.
B) On a related note, this would be a fascinating job for a text-to-speech editor. I say, slap the
entire interview through one, and then just edit. I'll bet it takes less than half the time.
Quicktime - wav - ogg (Score:2)
Re:Suggestions (Score:4, Informative)
Or, if you're looking for an open source solution, try using Quicktime for XMMS [sourceforge.net] or other Quicktime players for Linux, redirecting the sound to a
The only Quicktime player that plays this is Apple (Score:2)
Sorenson is exclusively licensed to apple. The Linux programs that play and make Quicktime fils do so with other codecs. You can play the films made on Linux back under Windows Quicktime, but 99.95% of the content avaliable on the web won't play under these Linux players, because they're Sorenson, and the players don't support Sorenson.
For Quicktime under Linux, use Codeweavers crossover [codeweavers.com]
Re:The only Quicktime player that plays this is Ap (Score:1)
This is a QuickTime AUDIO file. There is no Sorenson audio codec, therefore it's not likely to be encoded with Sorenson.
Re:The only Quicktime player that plays this is Ap (Score:2)
You're right. The audio track is encoded using the QDesign Music 2 codec
Re:Suggestions (Score:1)
Speech-to-Text (Score:1)
"Text to speech editor" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This guy has vision (Score:5, Interesting)
I found it interesting that in this interview, he acknowledges that the industry has shifted to cheap, commodity hardware and that Apple continues to suffer from it - but he was absolutely correct in pointing out that blind brand loyalty by "artsy types" was keeping them in business. Though Steve's strengths are obviously technical in nature, he possesses an innate understanding of a lot of issues on the business side of things that helped to keep him ahead of the curve.
-CT
Re:This guy has vision (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:This guy has vision (Score:4, Insightful)
And the fact of the matter is that the mac is only still alive because it is really good at 2d graphics and audio/video editing. If it wasn't, then it wouldn't be around.
Re:This guy has vision (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not an "artsy" type in the least. I'm a system integrator. After a long day of work fixing the piece of shit that is Windows, for unappreciative clients that get mad at me because the software they chose is constantly getting fucked up, I want to come home, sit down, and use a computer that works right all the time. As long as Apple continues to make computers that fit that criteria, I will be loyal to them.
Once a month I rebuild my desktop, and I run Norton Disk Doctor quarterly as preventative maintenance. A virus? What's that? I saw one once on my Mac, in 1992. (MDEF, IIRC, a non-malicious virus that could be removed by a desktop rebuild).
Being artsy or not has little to do with why people choose Macs.
~Philly
Re:This guy has vision (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This guy has vision (Score:1)
Re: mac crashing (Score:2)
I have heard, though, some major horror stories about iMac/iBook/G3/G4 stability with versions of Mac OS prior to 9.1, especially when using USB devices. Luckilly 9.1 and 9.2.1 are a free upgrade to 9.X. 8.6 is the free upgrade to 8.5.X. There is no free upgrade from 8.X to 9.X.
Woz on Digital Village Radio (Score:4, Informative)
Speech to text recognition (Score:4, Insightful)
Which bring the question. What are the alternatives for a voice recognition application that sould take a sound sample and convert it to text? Sort of like OCR (Optical Character Recognition) softwares does with a scanned image?
Re:Speech to text recognition (Score:2)
Re:Speech to text recognition (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Speech to text recognition (Score:1)
Re:Speech to text recognition (Score:1)
Re:Speech to text recognition (Score:3, Interesting)
Ahh, here it is: It's called CueVideo and it's aimed at Multimedia indexing: http://www.almaden.ibm.com/cs/cuevideo/ [ibm.com]
---
Here's an almost unrelated article: http://www-4.ibm.com/software/speech/news/2000082
http://www.acm.org/sigs/sigmm/MM98/electronic_pro
Download it here: (Score:2)
Re:Speech to text recognition (Score:2)
Shouldn't that be Cue::Video?
sphinx: free GPL-incompatible(?) speech recognizer (Score:3, Informative)
At LinuxWorld in San Francisco, Geoff Harrison (sp?), co-author of the Enlightenment window manager, talked about text/speech conversion. If I recall his talk correctly, most proprietary voice recognition software is derived from the free sphinx [cmu.edu] system developed at Carnegie-Mellon University, which also has a sourceforge area [cmu.edu]. The web page at CMU talks about a sphinx3 program that is slower but more accurate, which sounds like a better fit for transcribing a previously recorded interview, but I did not see a link to the source code for it.
Geoff's employer, Cepstral [cepstral.com], also claims to have released [cepstral.com] some related software under "relatively liberal" permissions. (Sorry, I could not find any download links or texts of the corresponding copying permissions.)
The sphinx2 copying permissions have an advertising restriction similar to the one that made the old BSD copying conditions GPL incompatible but "free" [fsf.org] in the opinion of the Free Software Foundation. I do not know about the situtation with sphinx, sphinx3 or any Cepstral contributions.
Correction on sphinx2 sourceforge link (Score:3, Informative)
Re:sphinx: free GPL-incompatible(?) speech recogni (Score:1, Funny)
Time index of interview (Score:5, Informative)
How about algorithmic voice transcription? (Score:5, Funny)
I thought we were suppsed to be geeks? Come on guys. Transcribing an hour of audio into text should take one line to fire up a voice recognition code, and no more time than the wall time required to listen to the interview..
There's a huge group of people hear who would love to see a free variant of *NIX that can compete with windows for the desktop market. I think that before this happens you're going to need to sit down, spend some time in your local technical library researching voice, image, pattern recognition algorithms.. I'd love to be able to type:
and get a transcribed version of a speech, or lecture notes.. How about combining this with an answering machine app to record and transcribe messages then send those messages to the IMAP server or atleast place them in a searchable database for future reference..This is way off-topic but it's something I started thinking about when rumors bagan floating around concerning Apple's iPhoto app.. I thought it would be pretty incredible if Apple could piece together an app to project photos onto an empirical basis set and then use the coefficients from that projection to sort images.. Think of it like a generalized face recognition routine only more useful..
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that gnome and kde are nice, but to take over the desktop market you we really need to crawl out of the box, and burn it to the ground!
Online voice transcription (Score:4, Funny)
1) Pick up your phone and dial the voice transcription service (any number will do)
2) Give the transcription start command: "bin laden"
3) Play the sample to be transcribed
4) E-mail carnivore@fbi.gov to receive your free transcript!
Re:Online voice transcription (Score:1)
Scary. It hasn't bounced. Must be a valid email address.
Or they simply choose not to bounce email to invalid addresses.
Re:How about algorithmic voice transcription? (Score:1)
I think that before this happens you're going to need to sit down, spend some time in your local technical library researching voice, image, pattern recognition algorithms.. I'd love to be able to type:
[...]
I'd love to be able to type:
voice2text -mp3 woz.mp3 woz_interview.text and get a transcribed version of a speech, or lecture notes..
I'd love that too, but I also think that it's going to take a *lot* of time and reasearch before voice2text even gets to the alpha stage...the last time I checked, speech recognition was still a buggy proposition at the best of times. Most solutions required a significant amount of "training" with the user who's speech they are to recognize -- a pretty large step away from recognizing, interpreting, and correctly attributing the speech of two (or more) people during a recorded interview.
When you add in the editing issues (on the most basic level, is your program even smart enough to consistently determine from context whether the speaker said "there," their," or "they're"), you've got a project that is rather chunky to say the least.
Very interesting, yes, but it reminds me a lot of the meetings with my CEO that start with the words "I've had a really exciting new idea, and your guys are all going to be really excited about it..."
Re:How about algorithmic voice transcription? (Score:2)
Very interesting, yes, but it reminds me a lot of the meetings with my CEO that start with the words "I've had a really exciting new idea, and your guys are all going to be really excited about it..."
*grin* ... I completely understand the time and research problems involved in doing this right. I'm not suggesting that a voice2text utility would be as easy to construct.. I'm merely tossing this idea out there for the /. readers to ponder..
Re:How about algorithmic voice transcription? (Score:2)
Re:Semi-algorithmic - Hullfishing (Score:2)
Re:How about algorithmic voice transcription? (Score:2, Funny)
"There are limits to what a person will do when they know they aren't going to get paid for it." Like create an OS, perhaps?
Re:How about algorithmic voice transcription? (Score:2)
What?
I'm confused? No one will develop an OS unless they can make money on it, right? No one will bother workng on something as mundane as office software unless they can make money on it, right?.. Wrong! And not only are you wrong, but your arguement is irrelevant because what I'm talking about is something that could be very interesting (the kind of thing some people enjoy studying as hobbies) and useful (think reporter, folklorists, historians, etc)...
Woz is a true 'hacker' in every sense of the word (Score:5, Insightful)
He is almost the exact opposite of William Gates III. He is the Anti-Gates! :-)
Its good to see he's still around.
Re:Woz is a true 'hacker' in every sense of the wo (Score:2)
Re:Woz is a true 'hacker' in every sense of the wo (Score:2)
This is the mark of a multi-milionaire lifestyle? Eccentric? Yes, but I could go to the bank and use $2 bills instead of $20 yuppie food stamps. doesn't make me a millionaire, any more than using sacabucks.
Re:Woz is a true 'hacker' in every sense of the wo (Score:2)
~Philly
Re:Woz is a true 'hacker' in every sense of the wo (Score:1)
My e-mail to Timmothy: (Score:4, Funny)
OK, I'll tpye.
How long do I have, BTW?
TIA
Soko
File Sizes - Slashdot Poll (Score:5, Interesting)
a) Quick Time quality sucks.
b) MP3 compression sucks.
c) Cowboy Neal sucks.
Re:File Sizes - Slashdot Poll (Score:1)
Bill
Re:File Sizes - Slashdot Poll (Score:2)
Re:File Sizes - Slashdot Poll (Score:1)
Re:File Sizes - Slashdot Poll (Score:1)
Re:File Sizes - Slashdot Poll (Score:2)
There I go jumping the gun...
(Thanks for not flaming my butt.)
Re:File Sizes - Slashdot Poll (Score:2)
d) The offered mp3 file was arbitrarily encoded at a higher bitrate than the offered quicktime file was.
Just in case someone would like me to continue stating the obvious: According to the "Movie Info" dialog in my copy of Quicktime Player, the quicktime file used the QDesign Music 2 codec and was encoded at 22.05 kHz and a bitrate of 2.4 kilobytes per second of sound (19.2 Kbps), and the mp3 file was encoded at 11.025 kHz and a bitrate of 2.9 kilobytes per second of sound (23.2 Kbps). Also for some unclear reason the mp3 version is about a minute longer, although given they're both just over two hours that probably wouldn't have much effect on the file size.
I personally think the (smaller) QDesign encoding sounds much clearer, but i'd definitely rather listen to the mp3 version-- the QDesign version seems kind of higher-pitched and grating for some reason. That, however, doesn't really reflect much on either codec, since the quality of files of this sort tends to vary wildly depending on how good a job the specific encoder program does of, um, encoding, and different formats have different ranges of bitrates where they perform better than other ranges..
And of course it probably isn't quite fair to compare QDesign directly to mp3, seeing as as far as i can gather QDesign was designed much more as a format for being flexibly streamed than it was as a format for good storage quality. The QDesign codec, for the record, is probably a more advanced codec than mp3 (if i remember correctly, it's a couple years newer than mp3 is), but i've no idea how it would stack up against mp3pro or ogg.
Hey, you asked.
Re:File Sizes - Slashdot Poll (Score:1)
original --> QDesign --> mp3 --> ogg --> repeat
You'll find that the artifacts introduced at each stage make it harder for the next encoder to encode. Resulting in an output file that will increase in size after each stage while simultaneously decreasing in quality.
t.
Re:File Sizes - Slashdot Poll (Score:1)
t.
QDesign Music 2 CODEC.. (Score:2)
The Quicktime clip was encoded using the QDesign Music 2 codec as a16 bit Mono recording at 22.05kHz.
Note: the sound is a little hollow.. I imagine the mp3 file sounds about the same, and the compression could probably be better if the signal had not been compressed on the fly, i.e. off-line compression can be better because the whole track is known and the optimization routine could be tuned to minimize the file size.
Re:File Sizes - Slashdot Poll (Score:1)
The Woz (Score:3, Informative)
Eggplants! [eggforge.net]
As I Listen... (Score:1)
I know that Nolan Bushnell [thetech.org] was a key player in Atari's early years, and that the Amiga and Atari ST were actually "swapped" between companies where execs "jumped ship" - but what about Commodore's early years?
I took a quick look for historical links, and came up pretty much empty-handed. Anyone have better resources?
Re:As I Listen... (Score:1)
Re:As I Listen... (Score:1)
Chuck Peddle, Mr. 6502 (Score:1)
The closest to a Woz that Commodore had was Chuck Peddle, who designed the 6502 which Apple, Atari, Commodore et al all used. He also built the PET.
commodorehistory.com omits quite a few useful details - for example, it talks about the Amiga and AmigaDOS but is silent on Dr. Tim King, whose team was responsible for the upper layers of AmigaDOS, and who was later involved in the Great Amiga Transputer Experiment. There's plenty of data out there, though.
Re:As I Listen... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:As I Listen... (Score:1)
Re:As I Listen... (Score:1)
Another Interview (Score:4, Informative)
Plenty of other references on Steve's site, as well...
Re:Another Interview (Score:1)
Do you have any favourite sites?
Macintosh hardware and software developers and the (see www.geekculture.com/) [geekculture.com]
:-)
Re:Another Interview (fixed link) (Score:1)
....a part of the Guardian interview....
Do you have any favourite sites?
Macintosh hardware and software developers and the Geek Culture cartoon [geekculture.com] (see www.geekculture.com/)
On Listening (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:On Listening (Score:1)
Re:On Listening (Score:1)
That was fun :) (Score:1)
The Question is... (Score:3, Funny)
If a hundred Slashdotters spend a thousand minutes typing out 20 million bytes worth of audio, will it be Shakespeare?
Or something like that...
-R
perhaps it would be more cost effective (Score:1, Offtopic)
I Can't Believe I Found This... (Score:1)
See for yourself in this article [scripophily.net]. (You'll have to search for "Steve" or something...) In the famous words of Johnny Carson: "I did not know that!" ;-p
Re:I Can't Believe I Found This... (Score:2)
They offered the Apple II to both Atari and HP and were laughed at. So they sold it themselves and now we have home computers.
Nolan Bushnell... (Score:1)
Re:I Can't Believe I Found This... (Score:1)
This is a nit, but I'm not sure that "wrote" is the right verb. I think arcade games of that era didn't use microprocessors. They had to create it using digital logic.
Re:I Can't Believe I Found This... (Score:2)
Willy Higinbotham invented a sort of ur-pong called "Tennis for Two" in the late 50's. And there was another pong precursor on the Magnavox Odyssey in the very early 70's.
Nolan Bushnell and Al Alcorn developed Pong in the early 70's.
At that time, Jobs, who knew very little about electronics, despite what he claimed ("Infinite Loop" has some scathing comments on this) would've either been a senior in high school, or in college in Oregon, in the process of dropping out and not eating.
Jobs didn't work at Atari until the mid-70's. He was over his head right away, enlisted Woz who was actually responsible for Breakout, and wound up with a design that was indeed so unusual that it had to be redesigned anyway.
Bushnell promised and delivered $5000 to Jobs for it. Jobs promised Woz half -- of $700. (i.e. $350) Woz didn't find out until years later that he had been cheated.
Funny you should say that... (Score:1)
Nolan Bushnell hires Steve Jobs to create Breakout. Jobs joins with Steve Wozniak and design the game in five days. Bushnell pays Jobs $5,000; Jobs pays $350 to Wozniak, and takes sole credit for Breakout.
taken from The Atari Timeline [digiserve.com]
I'll catch up l8tr...goin for pizza...;-()
Open-Source Alternative for good voice compression (Score:1)
I wonder... (Score:2)
MP3 player (enuf of those) is one thought, but I personally think the kickin ass device would be a Portable DivX player...Imagine an iBook screen, with a (DPg3?), ffmpeg codec (divx.jamby.net for you X.1 users and get the "old player" divx.max.st to "doctor" the
DivX, maybe DVD, to go and music... Stripped down OS X...drool.
On a G4-400 DivX is *flawless* videowise.
Sound, depends on the datarate, it seems.
I liked when he called "Dr. Mac" an hourse' d'ourve..heh, cute...and Dr. Mac's comment about X.1 of "it's safe now. He recommend for 10.1 don't pay 129 bucks to beta test.
Moose.
ps. Does the lack of slash dot posts mean there is no enthusiams about these topics, or are all the LOTR
pps. See my rant in the LOTR topic if you feel the need to mod ppl down for joking around.
Get a grip/clue/BJ/sense of humor, something...if you can't appreciate my sense of humor...dammit, that is *your* problem.
Close ... (Score:1)
A portable quicktime (and mp3) player would be interesting, with a case shaped like the software QT player.
Did I hear "Woz" correctly? (Score:2)
The response was he was "burned" pretty badly by the pre X.1, but Mail, utilities and such (with mention to Office for X, too) everything in X.1 "seemed 'good enough'".
Correct me if I am wrong, please, but is that not a statement normally associated with Microsoft's applications? Even in the Microsoft, Linux, Unix and Mac camp's I've heard this so much it stood out as if shouted from a rooftop.
Tell me honestly; Is that comment a compliment or a slap in the face?
I'm still mulling it over.
Anyone have a non-Fraunhofer conversion? (Score:2)
Anyone have a non-Fraunhofer conversion? The one they have out there is not working very well.
But where is the text? (Score:1)
Re:But where is the text? (Score:2)
SJ - "And the last one being one year at Berkeley that the bluebox here at Steve Jobs. I wouldn't have traded Apple for that whole year"
SK - "Explain to the audience what that Blue Box year is."
SJ - "Blue Boxes, you know, I don't even think they worked the year that I left. But the year I was there, it's like, you could put the right tones into a telephone and just control all the switching circuits of the phone network of the world and make free calls anywhere and talk to operators in other countries and reroute signals back to the phone next to you."
SK - "Completely illegal by the way."
SJ - "Pardon?"
SK - "Completely illegal by the way."
SJ - "Completely Illegal and I kind of thought of myself as an ethical hacker. I won't make these calls. I wouldn't make bluebox calls. Any call I made to like friends, relatives, I paid for. I developed that thinking about it early on. I only used the bluebox to experiment with the system and explore it. But, I have helped other people build blueboxes, redboxes, blackboxes and pass out information to them and doing that - that I feel badly about looking back. Like that was really kind of illegal. I was helping other people cheat the system and, you know, not pay for things they should pay for."
SK - "Well, at that time, that was kind of a, uh, don't you see that as part of the experimentation of youth, that, and granted, we're both probably just justifying our past indiscretions, but isn't it, because nobody really got hurt, isn't it...serve"
SJ - "Well, very close. Young people will often, if they have these abilities to do this - almost nobody has the ability - they make up blueboxes, you know, just their technical and engineering ability and stumbling onto it and being interested in certain articles, but, you know, you mentioned my shyness earlier? This was the first time in my life that, for that one year, I was also out of my shyness because I was master of ceremonies. I could talk for an hour describing the bluebox stories, the technology, how it worked, giving demos, talking about famouse phone phreaks, and wierd stories of strange things they've done and how they beat the system and that basically was the first time in my life I could kind of talk and be the MC."
SK - "It's sort of a hacker ethic that you're talking about is, and that's obviously still to a certain degree has a great deal of effect in your life at Apple and your life after Apple, correct?"
SJ - "Ummm, I would say just all my life I guess that the way I operate then is probably still, it's still the same now.I'm sure if you had heard some of the things I've done in the recent years you'd say, 'He's still doing it.' But, ummm, the best thing came out the bluebox for Apple was just a chance to experiment, trying to get my designs as tiny as possible with the perfect set of chips, and I did some designs in the bluebox that I never did anything that good, even at Apple. But at least the timing circuits were the exact same chip structure of the synchronous counter chips that I used for the TV counting signals of the Apple 1 and 2."
SK - "Mm hmm"
SJ - "So it's carried over a little."
SK - "That's something we'll definately get into in the next segment we're going to talk about your life at Apple. But in the meantime folks I would go to Woz.org [woz.org]. He's got a very extensive FAQ there that has all kinds of letters, all kinds of answers to questions that you can find out what he's doing now, what he was doing in the past, what his thoughts are about various things including sounds like the much hated A&E Billionaire Biography, right?"
SJ - "Uhh, repeat that?"
SK - "It sounds like you weren't a big fan of the A&E Billionaire biography about you?"
Re:Need more Mice Buttons (Score:1)
Are these comments trolls? Or are people just uninformed?
The answer is: whenever you plug in the multibutton mouse of your choice.
I'm using a cordless optical Logitech mouse that doesn't even "support" Mac in OS X 10.1, and the scroller scrolls and the second button brings up contextual menus.
--MMN
Re:Need more Mice Buttons (Score:1)
The answer is: whenever you plug in the multibutton mouse of your choice.
It's only recently such a simple answer. This wasn't a cheap nor easy thing to do when Macs had just ADB ports. There weren't many multibutton ADB pointing devices out there, and they weren't cheap, either. (Then again, most Mac peripherals aren't cheap.)
I did find a cool driver that'd let you plug in a PC mouse into one of the serial ports (with appropriate adapter) and use that it.
Re:Need more Mice Buttons (Score:1)
Re:Need more Mice Buttons (Score:2)
Yeah, I was just kidding, but actually, the lack of two buttons on the iBook is one of the things that's keeping me from buying one. It is not very convenient to carry around a mouse as well.
Re:Need more Mice Buttons (Score:2)
> the things that's keeping me from buying one
Macs have an extra keyboard modifier key
I used Windows for years, doing desktop publishing, graphic design, and some music and audio (which it really, really, really wasn't suited for). I always used a two-button mouse, of course, and could get around with the best of them. I put a two-button mouse on my first Mac right away, but went back to the one-button mouse after a couple of months because I realized that I had stopped using the right mouse button in favor of the menu bar, which is always available, and is, itself, context-sensitive.
You won't miss the second button on an iBook.
Re:Need more Mice Buttons (Score:1)
Sounds like I'd need two hands to browse the web... yech!
There's something to be said for a clean UI, but I think this single-button stuff was just a mistake. Modifier keys are not simpler than different buttons.
Re:Need more Mice Buttons (Score:5, Insightful)
When you cross platforms, you realize that there are a lot of inherant assumptions in each platform. If you use your right mouse button all day long, it's hard to imagine a system where it's not needed. The Mac has a pervasive, context-sensitive, "infinitely-deep" menu bar (you can't overshoot it since it's at the edge of the display). It's easy to slam your cursor up there and hit any particular menu in no time at all. If the menu bar were smaller, and sitting between a row of buttons and a window title bar, then there would be more utility in context menus. It's just a different approach. Windows users go "right-click / New Folder" and Mac users go "File > New Folder". The Mac user will be faster, I guarantee it, if they have used a Mac for more than a week. And if you want to work the Windows way, that is available too. Plug the same USB mouse from your Windows machine into a Mac and it works just fine, with scroller and multiple buttons and context menus.
I love the Apple mouse I got with my PowerMac G4, and I just bought an identical mouse for $59 to use with my PowerBook G4. They are great mouses. Good to the hands, easy to use, easy to travel with because there are no pieces to fall off (the only moving part is an internal hinge).
> especially with high prices that Apple is
> already charging them
Check out today's Mac prices
That's why Apple is opening stores where all the display products are plugged-in, working, even with third-party software installed and ready to use, so you can try it out before buying
Re:Need more Mice Buttons (Score:1, Informative)
mmm... contextual menus..
Re:Lynx users everywhere... (Score:2, Funny)
And deaf users should get with the program and install a new pair of ears, right?
Text is good because nearly everyone can use it one way or another.
Re:Lynx users everywhere... (Score:1)
Re:Lynx users everywhere... (Score:1)
If I have a slow link and were blind I might rather download a text version and use a text to speech program.
His point is that text is a good universal format, useable by nearly everyone. The existence of a single example where the audio-to-text is not so useful does not make a text file any less universal
Re:Good Idea, But... (Score:1, Redundant)
Never mind...
-- Shamus
Re:Good Idea, But... (Score:1)
Shoot me an email with "WozScript" in the subject if you'd like to participate, and I'll give the first volunteers (it shouldn't take that many) a randomly-drawn three-minute segment to type up, as well as more instructions on how to format it.
Re:Steve Wozniak's Starting Capital (Score:5, Insightful)
The mouse and hypertext was invented by the Englebart team at SRI in Menlo Park, CA (on Ravenswood near a really good bar, coffee shop and book store).
The original 1968 presentation which includes the world's introduction to hypertext and windowing is available on video at: http://sloan.stanford.edu/MouseSite/1968Demo.html [stanford.edu]