GMail with chat. I'm kinda hooked on that, and even the Safari 3 beta doesn't support that. (Though that is probably Google's doing.) Also, I much prefer the fine-grained control over cookies that Camino provides. If it weren't for those things, I'd probably be using Safari too.
It is a really good compromise between the Mac behavior of Safari and the feature set of Firefox. It supports the websites that Safari hasn't worked with, and offers the look and feel and integration that FF can't.
For that implementation, yes. But that would leave things open for implementing it differently. If it turns out that there is only practical way to implement something, that pretty much makes that implementation obvious.
Actually, there is an SDK for the desktop versions of OS X. Multiple ones, in fact. But they are included on the OS install disk, along with XCode and the other developer tools.
Not really. Bugs are inevitable, and the bugs in question have yet to be confirmed. Yes, Safari has been getting a lot of press, but it is still clearly labeled as a beta product. After the Vista betas, most windows users should understand that "beta" means buggy, despite Google's efforts to the contrary.
This is the first public beta of a freshly-ported piece of software. I'd be surprised if there weren't some pretty major bugs. Apple's programmers probably don't have a ton of experience with making a Windows app secure. Is this reason to not release the software? Of course not. The term "beta release" exists for this purpose!
On the other hand, we have a "security expert" with a dubious reputation announcing the discovery of some pretty serious bugs. Strangely, he refuses to disclose the details to the public (sounds like MS's security practices). Furthermore, he brags about withholding the information from the developers. This destroys the credibility of his claims, and any reasonable person should doubt that he knows of any such bugs.
Apple's actions are clearly not irresponsible, or at least, no worse than standard practices for the software industry. Maynor's actions don't seem all that irresponsible either. Instead, the terms that come to mind are "grandstanding", "snake oil", and "astroturfing". Though perhaps that last term should be saved for you.
Not quite. Look straight through a flat piece of glass. Not a whole lot of distortion. Now look through a piece of glass with the same radius and volume, but thicker in the center than at the edges. Pretty different, huh?
The light has to both enter and leave the lens. That's two transitions between materials with different indices of refraction. It matters very much what the angles of incidence are and the relative differences between them.
The way you've worded your post is pretty much a flat contradiction of all optics since Newton. Go look up what a lens is.
You come across as even more uninformed than the GPP. Look up Transgaming's Cider: it's basically their version of wine for OS X, but they license it only to developers. Several games have already been ported with it. Those games do in fact include the same exe files as the windows versions. It also has very good DirectX support, so even DX9 games can be run on OS X. (It still includes the inherent performance limitations of using Wine.)
For most games, EA would be stupid to do a port rather than just repackage the Windows version with Cider. Ports are very expensive and time consuming, whereas Cider takes no time and is cheap.
You're pretty much right, except for one thing: consumer connections are sold as a "best effort" service. That means the ISP cannot legally do anything to prevent you from achieving the advertised speed, because that would not qualify as a "best effort". The advertised speed cannot be above the maximum attainable speed (which means they can't advertise an arbitrary upper bound).
Funny - I can easily get a 2.6 kernel under 1000Kb. All I have to do is disable the subsystems that I don't need on my circa 1996 PC. Things like USB, SCSI, AGP, and MD add quite a bit to the kernel. In fact, with all hotplug systems disabled (and no modern systems like sysfs) it isn't hard to get a kernel down to 620kb.
I think you've been adding a lot of features without knowing it.
Another one with a lot of dynamic range: the finale to Beethoven's Ninth symphony. In just a few minutes, it goes from a quiet cello solo to a very loud full orchestra.
I haven't been able to get to TFA yet (slashdotted), but all the comments so far seem to be reffering to easter eggs. Aren't those pretty much supposed to be weird? Why not make an article about weird moments that weren't intentionally oddball?
So imagine that the consumer sues the company. The burden of proof would be on the company to show that the consumer gave up the right to sue. The company has as evidence a digitally stored signature. The consumer would swear under oath that he was not allowed to read the full EULA, and misled as to the contents. The company would have no defense against that: they couldn't bring in the original technician upon risk of immediate loss, and it might even be possible to show that it was impossible for the consumer to have read the full agreement, another immediate loss for the company.
This clearly doesn't show beyond a reasonable doubt that the consumer can't sue, and a single digital signature isn't much of a preponderance of evidence. Furthermore, the court would be inclined to side with the consumer simply for trying to read the EULA.
Almost everybody who can write better assembly than GCC is already working on compilers and optimization. Even GCC is better than most programmer's hand-optimized assembly. I've seen many times over the past several years where open source projects have thrown away assembly source because it is faster and more readable in C. (WINE in particular benchmarked their hand-optimized routines and found themselves soundly beat by GCC.)
These days, a similar thing is happening with vectorization. If programmers try to do it manually, odds are that they won't do better than the compiler, but they will have wasted a lot of time on it. Eventually, we will probably see the same thing for multi-threading workloads. Compilers aren't stupid, and compiler writers are some of the best programmers around when it comes to optimization.
Not all imperfect analogies are straw man attacks.
I highly doubt that, every time you mail something in an envelope, you consciously think about the possibility of the mail falling out if you didn't seal it. Also, with most envelopes, you can simply tuck the flap in and it will be secure enough that the contents won't fall out.
I wasn't trying to troll about Office. I simply haven't been able to use recent versions to evaluate whether Office is worth my money yet. I asked if Office had PDF exporting, and was told (wrongly, apparently) that it still isn't built in. Sure, I could have googled it, but that really isn't worth my time.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. There are plenty of providers. The fact that AT&T owns the wires doesn't matter, because for dial-up, their common carrier status does matter.
GMail with chat. I'm kinda hooked on that, and even the Safari 3 beta doesn't support that. (Though that is probably Google's doing.) Also, I much prefer the fine-grained control over cookies that Camino provides. If it weren't for those things, I'd probably be using Safari too.
Hence, Camino.
It is a really good compromise between the Mac behavior of Safari and the feature set of Firefox. It supports the websites that Safari hasn't worked with, and offers the look and feel and integration that FF can't.
Oh, come on! You should at least be using ELinks, so that you can get all the fancy JS and CSS support.
It's summer in NC. Cold veggie oil is not a problem. It is very possible that there is not a single drop of standard diesel in that car.
For that implementation, yes. But that would leave things open for implementing it differently. If it turns out that there is only practical way to implement something, that pretty much makes that implementation obvious.
Actually, there is an SDK for the desktop versions of OS X. Multiple ones, in fact. But they are included on the OS install disk, along with XCode and the other developer tools.
Not really. Bugs are inevitable, and the bugs in question have yet to be confirmed. Yes, Safari has been getting a lot of press, but it is still clearly labeled as a beta product. After the Vista betas, most windows users should understand that "beta" means buggy, despite Google's efforts to the contrary.
This is the first public beta of a freshly-ported piece of software. I'd be surprised if there weren't some pretty major bugs. Apple's programmers probably don't have a ton of experience with making a Windows app secure. Is this reason to not release the software? Of course not. The term "beta release" exists for this purpose!
On the other hand, we have a "security expert" with a dubious reputation announcing the discovery of some pretty serious bugs. Strangely, he refuses to disclose the details to the public (sounds like MS's security practices). Furthermore, he brags about withholding the information from the developers. This destroys the credibility of his claims, and any reasonable person should doubt that he knows of any such bugs.
Apple's actions are clearly not irresponsible, or at least, no worse than standard practices for the software industry. Maynor's actions don't seem all that irresponsible either. Instead, the terms that come to mind are "grandstanding", "snake oil", and "astroturfing". Though perhaps that last term should be saved for you.
Not quite. Look straight through a flat piece of glass. Not a whole lot of distortion. Now look through a piece of glass with the same radius and volume, but thicker in the center than at the edges. Pretty different, huh?
The light has to both enter and leave the lens. That's two transitions between materials with different indices of refraction. It matters very much what the angles of incidence are and the relative differences between them.
The way you've worded your post is pretty much a flat contradiction of all optics since Newton. Go look up what a lens is.
You come across as even more uninformed than the GPP. Look up Transgaming's Cider: it's basically their version of wine for OS X, but they license it only to developers. Several games have already been ported with it. Those games do in fact include the same exe files as the windows versions. It also has very good DirectX support, so even DX9 games can be run on OS X. (It still includes the inherent performance limitations of using Wine.)
For most games, EA would be stupid to do a port rather than just repackage the Windows version with Cider. Ports are very expensive and time consuming, whereas Cider takes no time and is cheap.
The Linux version came first. It's called Konqueror.
You're pretty much right, except for one thing: consumer connections are sold as a "best effort" service. That means the ISP cannot legally do anything to prevent you from achieving the advertised speed, because that would not qualify as a "best effort". The advertised speed cannot be above the maximum attainable speed (which means they can't advertise an arbitrary upper bound).
Funny - I can easily get a 2.6 kernel under 1000Kb. All I have to do is disable the subsystems that I don't need on my circa 1996 PC. Things like USB, SCSI, AGP, and MD add quite a bit to the kernel. In fact, with all hotplug systems disabled (and no modern systems like sysfs) it isn't hard to get a kernel down to 620kb.
I think you've been adding a lot of features without knowing it.
Another one with a lot of dynamic range: the finale to Beethoven's Ninth symphony. In just a few minutes, it goes from a quiet cello solo to a very loud full orchestra.
I haven't been able to get to TFA yet (slashdotted), but all the comments so far seem to be reffering to easter eggs. Aren't those pretty much supposed to be weird? Why not make an article about weird moments that weren't intentionally oddball?
So imagine that the consumer sues the company. The burden of proof would be on the company to show that the consumer gave up the right to sue. The company has as evidence a digitally stored signature. The consumer would swear under oath that he was not allowed to read the full EULA, and misled as to the contents. The company would have no defense against that: they couldn't bring in the original technician upon risk of immediate loss, and it might even be possible to show that it was impossible for the consumer to have read the full agreement, another immediate loss for the company.
This clearly doesn't show beyond a reasonable doubt that the consumer can't sue, and a single digital signature isn't much of a preponderance of evidence. Furthermore, the court would be inclined to side with the consumer simply for trying to read the EULA.
With luck, Cheney would have a heart attack when he found out that his diabolical plan finally worked.
Almost everybody who can write better assembly than GCC is already working on compilers and optimization. Even GCC is better than most programmer's hand-optimized assembly. I've seen many times over the past several years where open source projects have thrown away assembly source because it is faster and more readable in C. (WINE in particular benchmarked their hand-optimized routines and found themselves soundly beat by GCC.)
These days, a similar thing is happening with vectorization. If programmers try to do it manually, odds are that they won't do better than the compiler, but they will have wasted a lot of time on it. Eventually, we will probably see the same thing for multi-threading workloads. Compilers aren't stupid, and compiler writers are some of the best programmers around when it comes to optimization.
Your sig is ironically on-topic. Lotus Notes is a horrible piece of software.
Not all imperfect analogies are straw man attacks.
I highly doubt that, every time you mail something in an envelope, you consciously think about the possibility of the mail falling out if you didn't seal it. Also, with most envelopes, you can simply tuck the flap in and it will be secure enough that the contents won't fall out.
I wasn't trying to troll about Office. I simply haven't been able to use recent versions to evaluate whether Office is worth my money yet. I asked if Office had PDF exporting, and was told (wrongly, apparently) that it still isn't built in. Sure, I could have googled it, but that really isn't worth my time.
It's way beyond my budget?
Oh, so Word can't actually export PS or PDF yet. You still have to use a third-party, system-wide printer driver. That's not news. That's a kludge.
Since when? I haven't bought Office in a long time, but I don't recall any of the versions I've used being able to export PS.
FYI: LaTeX is all macros and templates, on top of TeX. No special editor required.
Hmmmm... Somehow, I get the feeling that TiVos don't have many of those installed.