The people who have the qualifications to understand scientific papers (the ones with science education) can usually get better-paying jobs in science, rather than science journalism.
Just thought it worth repeating. Nevermind the intentional fibbing - when you write about things you do not have a decent grasp of, dumb analogy is almost inevitable... Think slashdot car analogies that aren't even funny.
That sounds more familiar - mechanical design in molecular scale is what was referred as nano tech back in my school days. But I'm wondering how it is distinct from the general modern chemistry.
Heh, I thought it was the Chinese that invented bureaucracy. And they don't even have Lamborghini. On the other hand, they have the General Tso's Chicken.
Hm... there is a pattern here. Folks with noodles are all tangled up.
You are claiming that, unlike MS, Apple did this so that it doesn't f*ck up older apps performance-wise, that linked to WebKit, not to f*ck up 3rd party developers in general.
And I'm persuaded.
But the point about internal Apple developers making use of non-public information and the associated advantages stand. WebKit developers had and have advantage over 3rd party developers on Mac platform. I ain't "feigning" no innocence.
What I'm reading is this. WebKit team, an Apple team, makes use of info available only to Apple people, and not to 3rd party development houses.
Apple not being a convicted monopoly, this may be an acceptable practice, but technically, this is exactly the same thing (actually, one of many things) people accuse MS of, regardless of the underlying motive, and to argue that this is somehow different is dishonest.
That's that - I'm not trying to read too much into it. Carry on.:-)
Actually no, if you read that the WebKit/Safari team have to suck it up and deal with tons of maintenance problems ('many many hours of regressions'). They aren't getting anything _better_, just using non-public stuff to work around things that would otherwise cause problems within Safari/WebKit.
I thought I read in the comment (presumably by someone close to/in the WebKit team) that the reason for not simply swapping out the private linkage with equivalent public API is the performance. So WebKit does not have performance edge over 3rd party app/library through private linkage to the OS service?
There is a public way to do the same thing. They just added a total hack to the API to automatically do something by default when WebKit is embedded, instead of requiring a configuration value to be set. They didn't want it to be publicly available since they want the call to die as soon as they figure out a better way to do it. This isn't MS style stuff. There is no hidden feature. You can run the exact same code in a public way, and the it won't break when your user upgrades WebKit.
So, no, you aren't getting it right.
If the public interface allows you to do the exact same things the WebKit does via private linkage, it should be simple to remove the linkage within WebKit. Why the impliedly tortous wait for the call to die out? What else is calling these private methods, and why aren't they using the public API instead?
The gist is: is the private methods provide some advantage over the public ones?
Btw, the question of Apple apps on Mac having advantage over 3rd party app is a separate issue, Apple not being a convicted monopoly, but the main question remains.
Many of the private methods that WebKit uses are private for a reason. Either they expose internal structures that can't be depended on, or they are part of something inside a framework that may not be fully formed. WebKit subclasses several private NSView methods for example, and it cost us many many man hours to deal with the regressions caused by the internal changes that were made to NSViews in Leopard.
Bear with me, I'm not familiar with Mac OSX development.
So WebKit is tightly integrated with the underlying OS service like Internet Explorer is alleged to be with Windows. So, if you use WebKit, you benefit from the private, "better" linkage to the OS service, but if you don't, your performance (or perhaps other qualities) will suffer. Am I getting that right?
This is just an exploitation of the well known fact that numbers in restaurants, including time measurements, dance to different tunes. Some guy wrote about it, like, years ago, in some book about hitchhiking.
my bad - I was wrong to throw that diatribe against biology. Physics reporting is just as bad, but biology comes off worse because her reporting is lensed through medical industry interest and their moral/intellectual hypocrisy, which was my true target.
Another "DING" against biology (more specifically "medicine") or at least its mainstream media reporting. I realize that the biology (or at least medicine) is more time-critical than, say, "is the Big Bang Theory true?", but I'd like to see bit more modesty in the subject reported. Consult with your doctor, that same scumbag AMA member that try to team up with tobacco industry? (Yeah, I'm changing my primary physician).
Anyways, perhaps DNA isn't the sole "source code" of biological phenomena?
Once companies discovers they have to fire the vast majority of their employees because there just aren't as many cookiecutter droids as HR had hoped, and society collapses.
I read that as cocksucker - guess it's time to wrap up my afternoon drinking session.
Slashdot Mirror
Just thought it worth repeating. Nevermind the intentional fibbing - when you write about things you do not have a decent grasp of, dumb analogy is almost inevitable... Think slashdot car analogies that aren't even funny.
But how are we to train science writers?
Is that a rhetorical question?
reads like a Vogon poetry. Death is too good for this guy.
Gov't and her employees are in the unique position to abuse their power - it is *SUPPOSED TO BE* different from corporations.
I know, it's hard to tell these days.
Looks like Mueller is fessing up more than expected, but perhaps not surprising given that this is Bush's last year.
I look forward to watch if/how the US will try to restore the rule-of-law.
That sounds more familiar - mechanical design in molecular scale is what was referred as nano tech back in my school days. But I'm wondering how it is distinct from the general modern chemistry.
What's the general characteristic for something to be called "nano" something?
Heh, I thought it was the Chinese that invented bureaucracy. And they don't even have Lamborghini. On the other hand, they have the General Tso's Chicken.
Hm... there is a pattern here. Folks with noodles are all tangled up.
'Right, Enough pre-morning-coffee gibberish.
It doesn't look like I've got it "wrong".
You are claiming that, unlike MS, Apple did this so that it doesn't f*ck up older apps performance-wise, that linked to WebKit, not to f*ck up 3rd party developers in general. And I'm persuaded.
But the point about internal Apple developers making use of non-public information and the associated advantages stand. WebKit developers had and have advantage over 3rd party developers on Mac platform. I ain't "feigning" no innocence.
Replying to my own post. :-)
What I'm reading is this. WebKit team, an Apple team, makes use of info available only to Apple people, and not to 3rd party development houses.
Apple not being a convicted monopoly, this may be an acceptable practice, but technically, this is exactly the same thing (actually, one of many things) people accuse MS of, regardless of the underlying motive, and to argue that this is somehow different is dishonest.
That's that - I'm not trying to read too much into it. Carry on. :-)
If the public interface allows you to do the exact same things the WebKit does via private linkage, it should be simple to remove the linkage within WebKit. Why the impliedly tortous wait for the call to die out? What else is calling these private methods, and why aren't they using the public API instead?
The gist is: is the private methods provide some advantage over the public ones?
Btw, the question of Apple apps on Mac having advantage over 3rd party app is a separate issue, Apple not being a convicted monopoly, but the main question remains.
Bear with me, I'm not familiar with Mac OSX development.
So WebKit is tightly integrated with the underlying OS service like Internet Explorer is alleged to be with Windows. So, if you use WebKit, you benefit from the private, "better" linkage to the OS service, but if you don't, your performance (or perhaps other qualities) will suffer. Am I getting that right?
Our corporate system encourages normal/good people to do "evil" things, systematically, and Google is no exception. Check out this film:
http://www.thecorporation.com/
It's a liberal diatribe (there are Michael Moore's bits in it), but I found many of the points very persuasive.
How do we tweak the system to limit corporate abuse while maintaining her economic efficiency?
This is just an exploitation of the well known fact that numbers in restaurants, including time measurements, dance to different tunes. Some guy wrote about it, like, years ago, in some book about hitchhiking.
my bad - I was wrong to throw that diatribe against biology. Physics reporting is just as bad, but biology comes off worse because her reporting is lensed through medical industry interest and their moral/intellectual hypocrisy, which was my true target.
Huh. That sounded bit too much like unstable equilibrium, so got me to look up wikipedia - says it's stable but dynamic equilibrium. Thanks.
Another "DING" against biology (more specifically "medicine") or at least its mainstream media reporting. I realize that the biology (or at least medicine) is more time-critical than, say, "is the Big Bang Theory true?", but I'd like to see bit more modesty in the subject reported. Consult with your doctor, that same scumbag AMA member that try to team up with tobacco industry? (Yeah, I'm changing my primary physician). Anyways, perhaps DNA isn't the sole "source code" of biological phenomena?
Please, one of you smartees elucidate us why the "far-side" of the moon stay that way.
No, I don't want to google or go to wiki. I want to read from here, /., the "news for nerds" where the SMART nerds hang.
Guess this is meant for "tube" speakers in D.C. Science News has this piece on proposed federal R&D funding, including that for NSF: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20080209/fob7.asp
Hell, two birds with one stone: fuse carbon into somtething else.
See, you don't need a MIT PhD to bullshit right along with these jokers*.
*The list makers, not the parent poster.
Respectable news source in the US? Yes:
http://www.nakednews.com/
They have "nothing to hide". What's that? Canada isn't the US? You just keep on watching, boy.