Devils Don't Need No Advocate Mac OS
Devil’s advocacy is when you take a position you do not believe in order to have a debate over it to explore the idea. It’s a really useful tool for exploring ideas that you want to think through.
I can select the XP operating system with startup in system preferences and select a Mac operating system for startup in XP. This is also possible on startup with the option key. (Here you have to click the wireless mouse to get it to work.) I am using a wireless keyboard and mouse with XP, but you may need a USB keyboard and mouse to set that up. The Devil Doesn’t Need an Advocate; He Needs an Adversary. Problem finding is not a skill. No boss would promote a problem finder. No marriage is better because one spouse is a problem finder. No organization is in desperate need of a problem finder. The Devil's Advocate is a 1997 film about a hotshot lawyer who gets more than he bargained for when he learns his new boss is Lucifer himself. Genre: Drama, Horror Director(s): Taylor Hackford. The Devil's Advocate - Kinky iMacs, iTunes, & Other Apple Patents TMO Scoop by - May 11th, 2004 Despite the claims from some that see very little Intellectual Property (IP) coming from it these.
Unfortunately, it has quite a bad reputation, especially amongst feminist circles (who are particularly used to having it used badly against them). Given the way it’s misused, it’s an entirely deserved reputation.
Fundamentally I think there are two major types of misuse that lead to this: The first is that many people who say they are playing devil’s advocate are not, in fact, playing devil’s advocate: They are using the claim that they are playing devil’s advocate in order to avoid being held accountable for their beliefs. Secondly, people fail to realise that often even if they do legitimately want to play devil’s advocate, it is not always going to be welcome.
I think this is a shame given that when it’s used properly it’s an extremely useful technique, so I’d like to propose the following as the basic etiquette required for playing devil’s advocate usefully and politely. It’s mostly “use words honestly” and “behave with common courtesy”, but given the existing usage patterns it seems to be helpful to spell out specific applications
Devils Don't Need No Advocate Mac Os Sierra
- Be honest about your devil’s advocacy. Do not use it as a cover for just arguing for beliefs you actually hold but don’t want to be held accountable for. You are only entitled to play devil’s advocate for a position if you do not hold that position.
- Never play devil’s advocate without explicit up front consent from the person you are discussing things with. Something along the lines of “I would like to explore this issue. Do you mind if I play devil’s advocate for a bit?”. Be prepared for the answer “Yes I do”, and if you get it don’t argue. Also remember that, as always, consent can be revoked as well as granted – if someone asks you to stop after previously having agreed then stop.
- Don’t even try to play devil’s advocate in emotionally charged situations – e.g. when your position is going to be “I know you’re upset, but have you considered things from your attacker’s perspective?” this is never going to go well and you shouldn’t even try.
If you follow these rules, you’re both dramatically less likely to upset people and more likely to have productive conversations. This seems like a good thing, so I’d encourage you to do so unless you like having useless conversations where you upset people.
PS. Anyone who response to this post with hilarious comments which declare they’re “just playing devil’s advocate” will be responded to solely through the medium of “Your argument is invalid” gifs.
by John Kheit
MS's ClearType KOs Apple's Quartz In The Lightweight Division
May 23rd, 2003
Everyone seems to believe that Apple's Quartz rendering engine produces the best screen display. Unfortunately, I don't think that's indisputably so. Recently, I installed Windows XP under Virtual PC, and I found there's something interesting going on. Although Quartz rasterizations are superior in every other way (i.e., font spacing, kerning, etc.), however, text in XP, even under emulation, looks a bit clearer at smaller sizes than text under OS X. Then I double-checked by placing my PowerBook next to my PC's LCD display to much the same effect. This is impressive considering Quartz employs Display PDF for rendering. Windows XP uses ClearType technology. These technologies provide partial pixel rasterization, i.e., on LCDs and CRTs each atomic pixel is actually made up of red, green and blue sub-pixels. ClearType manipulates the intensity of such sub-pixels in effect to roughly triple the available resolution of a display. Quartz and Adobe Acrobat both do something similar, but with lesser results at smaller font sizes (at least on my PowerBook).
Apple's and oranges, but on Apples
For comparison's sake, I took a screen shot of my Mac OS X screen, above, with Windows having the exact same sample text at roughly the same sizes (if anything I zoomed the test document (to 137%) to produce slightly larger text under Quartz, thus, giving it the advantage of more pixels and raster area in which to work). The Tahoma font was taken from Windows XP and placed in my OS X font directory, while Times New Roman and Arial fonts are native to each OS. I took the screen grab with OS X font smoothing set to 'medium,' which was not significantly improved under other System Preference panel settings.
Click the thumbnail for the full size image
In a larger, pixel-for-pixel accurate screengrab, above, you might be able see that text under ClearType looks markedly clearer. If you're using an LCD (or a CRT with properly aligned sub-pixels) the difference should be relatively striking. Even if you don't have an appropriate monitor, odds are you'll still notice a slightly more fine-tuned rasterization provided by Microsoft's ClearType.
Now of course, perceptions of text rastering are highly subjective and depend on several factors, not the least of which are the quality of your sight and monitor and the distance you sit from your display. It also may depend on your preference for seeing details over your aversion to seeing pixelization. For example, at about 6' from your display, assuming you're not far sighted, you should easily be able to see the pixelization, i.e., the jaggies with globs of techno-colored grays, in the above XP or OS X samples of text. At about 12' from the screen, you should see a mixed bag.
The Nitty Gritty
In some spots, more pixelization is visible under ClearType. For example, the Times New Roman 12 Point 'S' in 'JUMPS' [See Figure 2 below] is a bit more pixelated under ClearType, but at least you can see the serif [Editor's Note: The linked page works in IE, Camino, or Mozilla, but not in Safari], which seems blurred out of existence under Quartz [See Figure 1 below]. However the 'W's and 'Z's seem more pixelated under QuartzDevils Don't Need No Advocate Mac Os 7
[See Figure 3 below] than ClearType
[See Figure 4 below]. This gets worse with smaller type fonts. The Times New Roman 8 Point 'O' in 'OVER' (reminding me of a song, but I digress) just disintegrates into a smoky ring under Quartz [See Figure 5 below], while under ClearType it stays sharp [See Figure 6 below], but slightly more pixelated. At about 20' to 24' inches from the display, which is my average reading distance, I don't really see significant pixelization under either Quartz or ClearType. However, when I compare Quartz and ClearType text at that distance, the ClearType is far more legible. When alternating my glance back and forth between the Quartz and ClearType samples (try it yourself in the pixel-for-pixel accurate screen grab above), I feel like I should wipe the mud away or get corrective lenses to view the Quartz text (and no, I don't need corrective lenses, my near sight is fine). Generally, the Quartz rendering obliterates font detail at such sizes. For example, serifs are easier to spot and discern on the ClearType text sample.Figure 3 (Quartz) | Figure 5 (Quartz) | |
Figure 2 (ClearType) | Figure 4 (ClearType) | Figure 6 (ClearType) |
Halo, it's not just for Xbox
Generally, Quartz seems to raster fonts unnecessarily thick so it can apply what looks like a pseudo-sloppy, Gaussian blur filter resulting in fuzzy 'halo' looking text. Now at larger sizes, this may make some sense, but on the smaller fonts (14 Point and smaller) it seems to decrease legibility. Fonts at small sizes particularly benefit from increased resolution, and ClearType seems to excel beyond Quartz in 'creating' usable sub-pixel resolution by applying anti-aliasing more discriminately and not over-blurring the results. Perhaps a pseudo MultipleMaster's approach to sub-pixel rastering might be more optimal, where the 'halo' effect is reduced for fonts at smaller sizes and increased at larger sizes.
So why did Apple implement a 'halo' anti-aliasing model (when ClearType and Adobe's Acrobat text anti-aliasing seem more exacting)? The answer may lie in patents over the technology. If Apple cannot obtain a license on Microsoft's low resolution (i.e., small font size) sub-pixel rendering techniques, then we may simply have to wait until April 10, 2020 (when Microsoft's patent runs out).
Legally illegible?
Apple may actually posses a license to this technology as part of Microsoft's US$150 million investment back in 1997. However, it's uncertain that their patent portfolio cross-licensing agreement encompasses technology made after 1997. If Apple has a free license to this technology, then it should certainly use it; not employing the Microsoft, sub-pixel, rastering techniques at (least at) smaller sizes in Quartz might boil down to hubris. Regardless, Apple should continue to improve their display technology, perhaps through the use of ultra-high definition screens. Providing higher resolution displays would make the problem of over-blurred text at smaller sizes evaporate.
Screen display quality is important to the average person with regard to legibility. We read more and more on our computers. Reducing eyestrain can only help people. Further, display fidelity is crucial in the publishing industry, and improving its technology would only enhance Apple's position in the marketplace.
P.S. This post-article nugget is one that can help you greatly improve the quality of your display. SuperCal does a great job of calibrating your display without requiring extra hardware. It takes a bit of time to go through the calibration, especially the first time, but it can be well worth the effort.
John Kheitis an attorney. Please don't hold that against him. This work does not necessarily reflect the views and/or opinions of The Mac Observer, any third parties, or even John for that matter. No assertions of fact are being made, but rather the reader is simply asked to consider the possibilities.
You can send your comments directly to me, or you can also post your comments below.
Most Recent Columns From The Devil's Advocate
- Mac UI Ain't All That: The Future & History of the User Interface - August 15th
- MacWindows: The New Trojan Wars - April 4th
- TMO Scoop: Apple Files Patent for Looking Glass - January 25th
The Devil's Advocate Archives