Slashdot Mirror

This is an imperfect solution which assumes that redrawing inside the window (which is the OpenGL texture) is done quickly enough. It also splits the system into two parts: the hardware-accelerated window compositing part and the unaccelerated drawing part.

More sophisticated solutions exist. Examples:
Using distance fields in OpenGL shaders for font rendering
Using textures for anti-aliased vector graphics rendering
Spline rendering in the GPU for non-affine vector graphics rendering (including text)

Such techniques assume the presence of a GPU. Forget about abstracting that away with a painter-based architecture. The fundamental problem is that the painter acts at a level that is too low. This is the reason for the higher-level QML scenegraph. As for the missing C++ bindings, thats debatable, but if some appear one day, expect a high level API. Nothing else makes sense.

It should be noted that the Enlightenment Foundation Libraries do something very similar with the combination of Evas and Edje.

These are lenticular clouds. I saw a similar set five years ago in Alaska.

http://garote.bdmonkeys.net/alaska/pages-full/day_31/20040616-083000-more_morning_clouds.html

You must be under 25. Nethack requires an imagination. Check out this description of Nethack, and a story of one persons ascention with the Amulet, http://garote.bdmonkeys.net/nethack/index.html

There's always industrial humor .

Wildly varied. Free downloads (5 albums x 74:00 minutes.) And more copyright infringement than you can shake a stick at.

But if you turn it upsidedown, swap the letters round...

you mean anus? http://bdmonkeys.net/brown.png

And use a logo you can't flip upside down to read anus.

http://bdmonkeys.net/brown.png

It's pretty useful as a source of jokes.

I mean, how many other logos can you make look like a cat-butt?

No coincidence about the logo design, is there?

I mean, they couldn't have done that by mistake...

I mean, the logo looks like a little cat butt...

Given the above debate, what do you think of this chain of reasoning?

this will help!

...

Children should be presented with an accurate view of life and the world. And right now, it's either gang-banging subjugation of women or ignorance.

When I type 'sex' into google and hit search, I get two pages of very helpful links. What do you type? 'gang bang'?

If your argument is that 'gang bang' sites simply outnumber 'sex' sites, then the explanation is obvious: those sites are more profitable. Then the immediate question becomes, 'Why?'. To which the most general response is, 'They're popular'. Asking 'Why?' to that leads us to, 'Because they're exotic."

Perhaps -- or perhaps not -- in the same way that large breasts, foot fetishists, cross-dressers, hermaphrodites, felching, blah blah etc are 'exotic'. ... they're interesting departures from the norm.

Trust me, if they became the norm -- something that everyone sought and found in their own bedrooms -- then they'd drop off the internet proportionally. Maybe this is why 'regular plain normal consensual sex' doesn't get very many helpful hits.

You know what else is popular on the internet? Violent online gaming. When I was a teenager, I played 'Doom', and went rampaging around a martian base with a shotgun, fragging my best friend, while he tried to dismember me with a chainsaw. That was something that he and I sought out, in fact we had to agonize over COM port settings for hours to get it to work properly. But we laughed and laughed and had a great old time. If a game of scrabble won't send us to "hell", then neither will that. And if a nice picture of a girl won't destroy my community-instilled sense of values, then why would anything else?

In addition, it writes out an XML file containing an easily-parsed facsimile of the contents of the database, so that other programs, even third-party programs, can access iPhoto's data very easily in a read-only fashion. You could write (and I have written) a Perl program to generate your own webpage photo albums by slurping the XML into a bunch of hashes. In this regard, iPhoto makes it _easier_ for you to access your photos by outside means -- not harder!

I think the idea behind iPhoto is that, once all your pictures are in, you can use search tools on them, and browse them by looking at the actual picture, laid out against the others. (Browsing pictures via the Finder, sorting them by filename, is behavior that makes a tacit assumption: That the filenames are always more important than the visual appearance of the picture, in helping you locate what you want. Clearly, when you think of a picture you want to find, you think of the picture! Not a string of letters and digits!)

> Order should be cumulative. iTunes lets me add order to the
>folders of MP3 files; iPhoto takes away order from the folders of JPEG files.

If you want, you can recreate your folder tree by making subfolders in the iPhoto 5 interface, and then dropping your single folders into an open spot of the folder-tree pane, which will make a new album for each folder. So you can still organize the photos exactly the way you want. That layout won't be 100% reflected in a similar folder tree in the filesystem, but ... is that really a problem? (And if it is, why use iPhoto at all?)

The keystone of open source projects is their appeal to previously anonymous contributors, and without the Internet, they could not be anonymous. They'd be part of a users' group, a lab, a company, a readership -- even if they were all just customers at the same coffee shop, there would be no reason for them not to form a body and take legal ownership of their work, and seek compensation for distributing it.

This also explains why, to wired-up geek collectives like the slashdot crowd, the world appears lethargic in its adoption of open-source tactics. We forget that a big chunk of what could be called "the software industry" doesn't give two shits about the internet (except perhaps as an extra storefront).

Embedded-systems developers, coders for proprietary gaming consoles, DoD contractors, and wranglers of copyrighted databases like navigational systems and medical data -- many companies in these areas have only a tenuous connection to the internet, and very little interest in making their code publicly available. Many of them work within specs that are provided to them under strict NDA. An open-source approach is worse than useless for them.

The truth is, open-source isn't a "movement", spreading from one company to another. It's an "attractor", drawing in projects that are suited to the approach, drawing in developers with idle hands and a keen interest, from the corners of the internet. Some companies have the projects and the connectivity to go this route, others don't.

I can even do it myself. Observe!

late night coding session.

...the main domain