No, but SIOD fits into 75K, has a track record with the Gimp and game extension, and has a use-it-any-way-you-want license. I've used it for web-related stuff and sysadminish things, too.
Yes, and I remember SIOD fondly, but I think Lua is still a better choice. I slightly prefer SIOD's syntax to Lua's, but Lua's syntax is going to be far easier to pick up for programmers that have grown up on Java and C++. In terms of built-in data structures, I think Lua beats SIOD hands down, both in terms of usability and familiarity.
If the game had been written in Perl/Python/Ruby in the first place, no additional scripting language would be needed.
True, but there are often reasons for not doing that.
Does it matter?
The fact that Lua fits into 150kbytes doesn't matter that much, but the fact that it has no external dependencies (script libraries, etc.) is often crucial. In many applications, it's also important that its standard library is minimal, i.e., that it does not have a lot of built-in functionality.
Not trying to troll, but in all honesty with tons of other proven languages out there, why did blizzard bank on this one? what makes this language so great?
Lua was designed as an embedded scripting language, and it's far more "proven" in that domain than other languages: there are dozens of commercial games that use it (probably far more than any other single scripting language). The reason people like to use it is because Lua is really fast, tiny, easy to interface with, easy to embed, easy to package, and easy to learn.
You can embed Python, Ruby, or Perl, but it's a lot more work and often doesn't work as well as Lua in practice.
I think that tells you more about the SFX readership than about what the "best" SciFi films of all times are.
As far as I'm concerned like Blade Runner, Alien, The Day The Earth Stood Still, Forbidden Planet, Gattaca, Dr. Strangelove, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, or The Thing have more more of a claim to a top title than either Star Wars or Serenity.
Yes, that is what it is intended to do. And in order to do this, they need to reward disclosure, as they do. They do not reward invention without disclosure. If you don't disclose, you don't get a patent, and if you just sit on your invention without disclosing it and someone else discloses the same idea, they get the patent, not you. That's the law.
"First-to-invent" is merely a principle in the US for resolving priority disputes when you file a patent application. If you don't diligently pursue a patent application after your invention, first-to-invent doesn't matter, even in the US.
In different words, first-to-file doesn't give you the ability to invent something and then sit on it without patenting it.
It doesn't matter whether they (or anybody) used it before then. The patent system does not reward invention, it rewards disclosure.
If you invent something and you don't disclose it fully and publicly, you lose your right to use your invention if someone else patents it. That's what the patent system is intended to accomplish.
So you're saying that the pic with the bigger size, regardless of content, is the one to be picked at all times, right?
No. I'm saying that there are automated procedures that people use for determining what a "better" image is and I gave you one example of it. I suspect Google uses something more complicated than that. Nevertheless, almost all of them would evaluate the pre-Katrina images to be better than the post-Katrina images.
In other words, why would the katrina pics have gone up, then gone down, if the info hadn't changed? Why would it have ever put them up?
There are many possibilities. The most likely are:
* They may just have written the software to do automatic image selection; it may simply not have existed before.
* The software may have existed, but it may not have gotten around to processing those images yet.
Either way, it makes sense that the default was to show the newest version of any map area first, until the software got around to determining that an older image had higher quality.
Furthermore, why is there and automated process out there that exists to say which pic is better based on some random criterion like file size?
Because satellite and aerial imagery frequently contains bad images, due to bad weather, smoke, smog, fog, transmission errors, etc., and it makes sense to get rid of those images. Given the amount of digital imagery Google is putting on the web, obviously, they can't look through all of them by hand.
Here's another example, a 150ft giant bug that's now been removed from Google:
That shows you that Google does look for bad images, they do remove bad images, and it's almost certainly a partially automated process (although they also have shown that, occasionally, they will intervene manually, and I'm sure they will restore the post-Katrina images).
New Orleans was photographed by sat. over and over and over again, with such detail that you could see individual waves in the flood. Why would they think that these pre-k pics were simply better?
At the same compression level, when saved as JPEG, the left half takes about 10kbytes more than the right half. This is an indication that it contains "more information". As a result, an automated process that picks the best available images would pick the "before" picture, not the "after" picture.
I would say it appears they don't since they did take down the post-Katrina images to put up pre-Katrina images to start with, causing all of this.
Google's entire business is built on automated data handling, not manual processing. I doubt anybody at Google ever even looked at those images. I mean, there are more cities in the US than there are employees at Google.
Most likely, they actually use some automated process to pick the "best" images for each map area, and that process concluded that the pre-Katrina images were of better quality than the post-Katrina images.
Many of these 48% are the same people who are pushing to go to war and kill thousands of innocents on the flimsiest of evidence, yet a century of carefully researched, incontrovertible evidence for evolution fails to convince them. Newton's laws are more likely to be wrong at this point than evolution.
And may of these 48% are the same people who think that the closer a market economy approximates social Darwinism, the better, yet when the same principles apply to evolution, they all of a sudden become an instrument of evil.
All I can say is that, with any luck, those same 48% of Americans will be rejected by evolution.
Who knows why they changed it? Who cares? I suspect Google management has better things to do than to sit around discussing whether to put up pre- or post-Katrina images.
Just use Google Earth if you're going to do anything GIS-related.
Yet another reason why gTLDs were a fundamentally bad idea.
Well, yes, just keep in mind: when they started out, they weren't "generic", they were effectively US TLDs.
The mistake was failure to either declare those domains to be US domains, or to migrate them to.co.us and similar domains and discontinue the old domains, when the Internet became commercial and international.
It's not. I'm using it on a low-end MacBook, and speed simply isn't an issue.
As well as being slow, the Java/Cocoa (Mocha) bridge is now deprecated.
Apple isn't continuing to support it, probably for strategic and political reasons, but providing Cocoa interfaces from other languages isn't hard.
No new APIs will be added to it. I believe this happened before 10.4, so you can't even get at things like Spotlight via Mocha. This will make it very difficult for NeoOffice/J to keep up.
Whatever APIs NeoOffice needs can be plugged into Java through JNI. Furthermore, NeoOffice does work with spotlight.
A Carbon/Cocoa port is the 'correct' way of doing things.
I disagree. I think the more things can be moved away from Objective-C and C++ to higher level languages, the better.
Of course, I am not an OpenOffice.org developer, so this is second (or third) hand information. If you're interested, I suggest you talk to the developers directly.
Well, you probably do a good job representing their views, since they are likely to be similar to yours.
I guess I can't get very excited about it: I think OpenOffice is enough of a mess already, but I'd prefer if the OOo folks focus on Linux and Windows and the OOo interested in Mac focus on one implementation.
I mean, it's not like these projects have a lot of useful life or development left in them anyway: I give big, bloated C/C++-based office suites like that another 10 years at most.
Powered USB sounds like a mess. But I wouldn't count those people out. Keep in mind that USB 1.0 looked like it was never going to make it compared to FireWire.
Furthermore, with wireless USB, the whole thing is up in the air: wireless data with wired power may well be a better way to go overall, and Powered USB may simply not be aimed at the consumer at all.
Incidentally, the set of FireWire-powered devices seems similar to the set of USB-powered devices, meaning that the higher power available from FireWire doesn't seem to be sufficient to enable a whole lot of new applications.
Despise his work for Microsoft that guy developed brilliant systems.
It makes no difference to me who he worked for, but I think if you look at his work, you'll see he had a knack for following the zeitgeist and fashion in what he chose to implement. Multiple granularity locking, OLAP cubes, and some ideas around commits are not deep insights. And other than that, implementing System R, and later managing the implementation of Terraserver and other big database efforts show more of a knack for flash than anything else.
Compare his record with that of people like the inventors of RSA; I think there is absolutely no comparison.
I'm sorry something bad happened to the guy. But while he was doubtlessly a good and smart hacker and manager, and while he was widely published, I'm not particularly impressed by his scientific record.
I want the epic movies that took years of hard work to produce. If the pre-recorded film industry is wiped out by piracy and this lame "solution" is the replacement, I'm not going to be a happy camper.
Well, too bad for you. The "interactive version" of those epic movies is called "gaming", and I very much prefer it to the static, ready-made variety.
The question isn't why OpenOffice can't use NeoOffice code, the question is why there are two separate OOo efforts for Mac. That is, why is anybody else bothering to make a second, incompatible port?
Slashdot Mirror
No, but SIOD fits into 75K, has a track record with the Gimp and game extension, and has a use-it-any-way-you-want license. I've used it for web-related stuff and sysadminish things, too.
Yes, and I remember SIOD fondly, but I think Lua is still a better choice. I slightly prefer SIOD's syntax to Lua's, but Lua's syntax is going to be far easier to pick up for programmers that have grown up on Java and C++. In terms of built-in data structures, I think Lua beats SIOD hands down, both in terms of usability and familiarity.
If the game had been written in Perl/Python/Ruby in the first place, no additional scripting language would be needed.
True, but there are often reasons for not doing that.
Does it matter?
The fact that Lua fits into 150kbytes doesn't matter that much, but the fact that it has no external dependencies (script libraries, etc.) is often crucial. In many applications, it's also important that its standard library is minimal, i.e., that it does not have a lot of built-in functionality.
Not trying to troll, but in all honesty with tons of other proven languages out there, why did blizzard bank on this one? what makes this language so great?
Lua was designed as an embedded scripting language, and it's far more "proven" in that domain than other languages: there are dozens of commercial games that use it (probably far more than any other single scripting language). The reason people like to use it is because Lua is really fast, tiny, easy to interface with, easy to embed, easy to package, and easy to learn.
You can embed Python, Ruby, or Perl, but it's a lot more work and often doesn't work as well as Lua in practice.
I think that tells you more about the SFX readership than about what the "best" SciFi films of all times are.
As far as I'm concerned like Blade Runner, Alien, The Day The Earth Stood Still, Forbidden Planet, Gattaca, Dr. Strangelove, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, or The Thing have more more of a claim to a top title than either Star Wars or Serenity.
Yes, that is what it is intended to do. And in order to do this, they need to reward disclosure, as they do. They do not reward invention without disclosure. If you don't disclose, you don't get a patent, and if you just sit on your invention without disclosing it and someone else discloses the same idea, they get the patent, not you. That's the law.
"First-to-invent" is merely a principle in the US for resolving priority disputes when you file a patent application. If you don't diligently pursue a patent application after your invention, first-to-invent doesn't matter, even in the US.
r st_to_invent
In different words, first-to-file doesn't give you the ability to invent something and then sit on it without patenting it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_fi
It doesn't matter whether they (or anybody) used it before then. The patent system does not reward invention, it rewards disclosure.
If you invent something and you don't disclose it fully and publicly, you lose your right to use your invention if someone else patents it. That's what the patent system is intended to accomplish.
Releasing a product is insufficient. In order to count as prior art, it must be described in the published literature.
The purpose of the patent system is not to reward invention, nor productization, it is to reward publication and disclosure.
The Slashdot submitter got it wrong. The patent says "Filed: September 5, 2006". That is, 2006.
Go read for yourself. Come on, you know you want to.
Right. Based on that description, I'd have guessed he's a web startup CEO desperate for funding.
For a quick charge, just put your cell phone into the microwave.
So you're saying that the pic with the bigger size, regardless of content, is the one to be picked at all times, right?
e n-bug/
No. I'm saying that there are automated procedures that people use for determining what a "better" image is and I gave you one example of it. I suspect Google uses something more complicated than that. Nevertheless, almost all of them would evaluate the pre-Katrina images to be better than the post-Katrina images.
In other words, why would the katrina pics have gone up, then gone down, if the info hadn't changed? Why would it have ever put them up?
There are many possibilities. The most likely are:
* They may just have written the software to do automatic image selection; it may simply not have existed before.
* The software may have existed, but it may not have gotten around to processing those images yet.
Either way, it makes sense that the default was to show the newest version of any map area first, until the software got around to determining that an older image had higher quality.
Furthermore, why is there and automated process out there that exists to say which pic is better based on some random criterion like file size?
Because satellite and aerial imagery frequently contains bad images, due to bad weather, smoke, smog, fog, transmission errors, etc., and it makes sense to get rid of those images. Given the amount of digital imagery Google is putting on the web, obviously, they can't look through all of them by hand.
Here's another example, a 150ft giant bug that's now been removed from Google:
http://googlesightseeing.com/2006/09/18/giant-ali
That shows you that Google does look for bad images, they do remove bad images, and it's almost certainly a partially automated process (although they also have shown that, occasionally, they will intervene manually, and I'm sure they will restore the post-Katrina images).
New Orleans was photographed by sat. over and over and over again, with such detail that you could see individual waves in the flood. Why would they think that these pre-k pics were simply better?
o re-after.jpg
Take this image:
http://mediaspin.com/blog/wp-images/superdome_bef
At the same compression level, when saved as JPEG, the left half takes about 10kbytes more than the right half. This is an indication that it contains "more information". As a result, an automated process that picks the best available images would pick the "before" picture, not the "after" picture.
I would say it appears they don't since they did take down the post-Katrina images to put up pre-Katrina images to start with, causing all of this.
Google's entire business is built on automated data handling, not manual processing. I doubt anybody at Google ever even looked at those images. I mean, there are more cities in the US than there are employees at Google.
Most likely, they actually use some automated process to pick the "best" images for each map area, and that process concluded that the pre-Katrina images were of better quality than the post-Katrina images.
Many of these 48% are the same people who are pushing to go to war and kill thousands of innocents on the flimsiest of evidence, yet a century of carefully researched, incontrovertible evidence for evolution fails to convince them. Newton's laws are more likely to be wrong at this point than evolution.
And may of these 48% are the same people who think that the closer a market economy approximates social Darwinism, the better, yet when the same principles apply to evolution, they all of a sudden become an instrument of evil.
All I can say is that, with any luck, those same 48% of Americans will be rejected by evolution.
Who knows why they changed it? Who cares? I suspect Google management has better things to do than to sit around discussing whether to put up pre- or post-Katrina images.
Just use Google Earth if you're going to do anything GIS-related.
What does it give you that Bluetooth or Wi-fi doesn't?
Foremost, USB driver compatibility. That alone would be sufficient.
Also, higher data rate, shorter range (yes, that's a plus), easier configuration, lower cost, easier management.
Setting Grand Theft Auto in the safest big city in America would be like setting Halo in Disneyland.
Seems like a good idea to me.
The mayor does not support any video game where you earn points for injuring or killing police officers.
That's OK. It's a video game, his "support" isn't required. A better question would be what kinds of killing Bloomberg actually does support.
Yet another reason why gTLDs were a fundamentally bad idea.
.co.us and similar domains and discontinue the old domains, when the Internet became commercial and international.
Well, yes, just keep in mind: when they started out, they weren't "generic", they were effectively US TLDs.
The mistake was failure to either declare those domains to be US domains, or to migrate them to
NeoOffice/J is (very) slow
It's not. I'm using it on a low-end MacBook, and speed simply isn't an issue.
As well as being slow, the Java/Cocoa (Mocha) bridge is now deprecated.
Apple isn't continuing to support it, probably for strategic and political reasons, but providing Cocoa interfaces from other languages isn't hard.
No new APIs will be added to it. I believe this happened before 10.4, so you can't even get at things like Spotlight via Mocha. This will make it very difficult for NeoOffice/J to keep up.
Whatever APIs NeoOffice needs can be plugged into Java through JNI. Furthermore, NeoOffice does work with spotlight.
A Carbon/Cocoa port is the 'correct' way of doing things.
I disagree. I think the more things can be moved away from Objective-C and C++ to higher level languages, the better.
Of course, I am not an OpenOffice.org developer, so this is second (or third) hand information. If you're interested, I suggest you talk to the developers directly.
Well, you probably do a good job representing their views, since they are likely to be similar to yours.
I guess I can't get very excited about it: I think OpenOffice is enough of a mess already, but I'd prefer if the OOo folks focus on Linux and Windows and the OOo interested in Mac focus on one implementation.
I mean, it's not like these projects have a lot of useful life or development left in them anyway: I give big, bloated C/C++-based office suites like that another 10 years at most.
Powered USB sounds like a mess. But I wouldn't count those people out. Keep in mind that USB 1.0 looked like it was never going to make it compared to FireWire.
Furthermore, with wireless USB, the whole thing is up in the air: wireless data with wired power may well be a better way to go overall, and Powered USB may simply not be aimed at the consumer at all.
Incidentally, the set of FireWire-powered devices seems similar to the set of USB-powered devices, meaning that the higher power available from FireWire doesn't seem to be sufficient to enable a whole lot of new applications.
Despise his work for Microsoft that guy developed brilliant systems.
It makes no difference to me who he worked for, but I think if you look at his work, you'll see he had a knack for following the zeitgeist and fashion in what he chose to implement. Multiple granularity locking, OLAP cubes, and some ideas around commits are not deep insights. And other than that, implementing System R, and later managing the implementation of Terraserver and other big database efforts show more of a knack for flash than anything else.
Compare his record with that of people like the inventors of RSA; I think there is absolutely no comparison.
I'm sorry something bad happened to the guy. But while he was doubtlessly a good and smart hacker and manager, and while he was widely published, I'm not particularly impressed by his scientific record.
I want the epic movies that took years of hard work to produce. If the pre-recorded film industry is wiped out by piracy and this lame "solution" is the replacement, I'm not going to be a happy camper.
Well, too bad for you. The "interactive version" of those epic movies is called "gaming", and I very much prefer it to the static, ready-made variety.
The question isn't why OpenOffice can't use NeoOffice code, the question is why there are two separate OOo efforts for Mac. That is, why is anybody else bothering to make a second, incompatible port?
It really hardly matters whether you have Windows sitting on your desk if you're a UNIX system engineer; install an ssh, X11, or VNC client.