Probably the best way to look at it is like a fork statement in a Unix program. Suddenly, one program becomes two, with different PIDs, etc. And you could make the case that the one with the original PID is the original program, and I suppose that in many ways you'd be right, but the fact remains that the new PID begins with EXACTLY the same memory and EXACTLY the same register states. The only thing different is where that memory is located. Clearly, the programs are seperate entities, yet they'll follow exactly the same patterns (ignoring their different data input) and we might argue that, from the program's perspective, the PID is entirely artbitrary and it has absolutely no way of knowing which one was not the original program, since they start off in identical states but respond to different stimuli. I actually think that twins are a very good metaphor, only you have to imagine that the twins both have common memories for a certain number of years.
I honestly don't think words like "dual consciousness" or "death" even apply in situations like this; we need some new vocabulary.
It wouldn't work like that. Imagine that the copy of your mind is uploaded into a new body before you die. Do you think your consciousness would suddenly transfer to the new body? All the copying could do is create a new consciousness in the new body, your old one (ie, you) would still grow old and die in the old body, never to return.
You're right and wrong at the same time. The thing is, the new body will presumably have all of your memories and remember the transfer process, right? So from his perspective, your mind really did switch bodies, and you can't even make the argument that "well, since I'm here now, before the transfer process, sentient, I won't be able to go into the new body," because he will remember having had the exact same thought in the past as well yet will be in the new body. So saying that you die and the other body is not you is certainly the wrong way to look at it, even though at first it seems highly intuitive. The right way to look at it gets even more complicated, and if it's OK with you, I'm going to stop contemplating it before my mind explodes.
While my memory is very hazy, I am 90% sure that WordStar 3.3 had two sister programs: SpellStar, which came from the era when spellcheckers were separate programs, and then I am pretty darn sure it came with MailStar as a messaging solution. Can anyone who actually used the program comment? Was it just mail-merge or was it an electronic messaging solution?
I'm on a 667 MHz G4 PowerBook with 512 MB RAM, and while I dislike IE for the sole reason that it does not have popup protection, there is no way you're going to convince me that Moz 1.2 is loading as fast as IE. Chimera does, but not Moz 1.2. The Mac version of Mozilla proper still has a long way to go before I would consider foisting it on anyone.
Re:Music Notation vs Intuative
on
Blender Is GPL
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If I were to guess you play modern and not classical music, and further that you do all composition on the computer, would I be correct? I make those assumption for two reasons:
Classical music alternates frequently between very long notes (sometimes held across eight or nine measures) and very quick notes (sixteenths very frequently, occasionally thirty-seconds or faster). Representing both of those notes in a human-readable form, without changing your scale every measure and thereby negating the whole point, would be very difficult. If you try to avoid that by defining the standard measure width by the most cramped measure, you're still in trouble because you'll end up with such long measures that you cannot easily guage the distance of your notes and therefore also negate the value of the system. In other words, you'll have to add other notations to your staff until you negate the benefit which you are proposing.
Your solution works great for computer, but I want you to try to tell musicians who notate pieces (which would be any professional musician anywhere and any half-decent music student as well) that they should bring a ruler to practice to ensure their notes are the proper width. There is a major value to our current system, which is I can do it with an unsteady hand and a pencil on sheet music propped in front of me at 45 degrees. With your system I'd have to lay it flat, take out a ruler, figure out how wide the measures were, divide that width by the width of the note I wanted to draw, line that note up with the end of the previous note, and then draw the right length. I fail to see this catching on.
There are other problems with your system too--for example, what happened to rests?--but quite frankly I think the above two complaints are sufficient enough.
the Cocoa Java API [gets compiled to PPC binaries, lots of APIs available [think Google], but absolutely no decent documentation to be found]
First, Java Cocoa is not native. Your application will still run on the Java VM. In my mind, it fills a very narrow purpose: it allows you to quickly turn a 100% Java application into an application that behaves exactly like a truly native OS X application and which can take advantage of the niceties that provides (for example, Services support, Sheets, Quartz, etc.). Secondly, I hear the complaint about the lack of Java API documentation all of the time, and I honestly don't understand it. Admitting that I've been working in NEXTSTEP and later OpenStep and then Cocoa for a very long time, Apple provides a detailed Java API reference that has class-for-class and method-for-method documentation exactly on par with the ObjC documentation and also provides a tutorial for Java developers that literally produces exactly the same application as the ObjC Cocoa tutorial. You need merely do both tutorials to see how exactly the two APIs line up. The only somewhat legitimate complaint is that Apple examples typically come as ObjC, but how hard is it, honestly, to figure out that [aSpellingChecker ignoreWord: @"bodacious" inSpellDocumentWithTag: myTag] becomes aSpellingChecker.ignoreWord("bodacious", myTag)? The rules for ObjC-to-Java conversion of APIs and code are very straight-forward:
Any code relating to autorelease pools may be deleted and ignored (at least in basic code; by the time you need to make use of manual garbage collection in Java Cocoa (multithreaded code in the GUI being a big one), bluntly, you'll already know enough that it won't bother you)
Java class names remain identical to their ObjC counterparts, and are in either com.apple.cocoa.foundation if they are part of the ObjC FoundationKit and part of com.apple.cocoa.application if they are part of the ObjC AppKit. (QuickTime is in its own API and really is a separate discussion, since "QuickTime for Java" has existed for several years now and is more a part of Carbon than Cocoa.)
Method names for Java always consist of the first part of the ObjC identifier and always take the same parameters (except that NSStrings become java.lang.String). For example, (void)NSSpellChecker>>ignoreWord:(NSString *)inSpellDocumentWithTag:(int) becomes void NSSpellChecker.ignoreWord(String, int).
All that said, I would strongly recommend you take the time to learn ObjC Cocoa. I use Java Cocoa when I am grafting a Cocoa UI onto Java code, but ObjC is still faster (though the gap is narrowing) and I still honestly believe the language is still a bit more productive due to things such as Categories, Smalltalk-style method names, and other things. If you know C and Java and are familiar with the concepts of reference-counted garbage collection, learning ObjC will take you the better part of a morning.
Calligrapher was only used for the Newton's cursive recognition. The print recognition is and always has been exclusively Apple technology; that's why Apple can ship InkWell with Jaguar (which not surprisingly lacks cursive recognition).
Look, even I think that FSF politics can be a hinderance, but saying that FSF politics caused Hurd to fail requires that you overlook a massive, massive project that was nevertheless very successful: GCC. I think that we should probably try to find why it failed elsewhere (for example, its emergence as a microkernel design just as microkernels were being declared a failed experiment due to Mach's poor task switching).
hen what OS would you recommend that *does* have a standard software installation mechanism?
Mac OS X has only one install mechanism, though arguably two procedures. In many cases, the entire application and all support files are in a bundle, so there is no real install; just, if you want, you can drag the application to whatever folder you want to run it from, but I do want to emphasize that that's not necessary if you'd rather leave it in its download folder. Almost all applications except those that need to install system files, those from Apple, and those from Microsoft fall into this category. The only official mechanism to install programs is the Installer application, which always presents not only the same UI, but the same procedure (i.e., same sequence of events) for installing applications. This is used by any application that needs to install system files, plus a few rogue apps whose creators, for one reason or another, decided they needed to force the user to use Installer. So I could make a good case that OS X has one install mechanism and two procedures.
(Having said all that, Microsoft's Internet Explorer and Palm's PalmDesktop applications, for reasons I cannot fathom, use their own weird installers, but as far as I know, they are the only two applications that use whatever it is they're using.)
...or does this sound like a Distributed.net-style of spam? I am not kidding. Maybe it's necessary in some countries to get the message across, but are we sure this is the only option? The potential for abuse here is utterly insane...
I don't understand where this comes from. You cannot easily integrate Darwin's source directly into the kernel, but certainly all of their independent libraries and programs are absolutely fine, and unless someone has a really convincing argument otherwise, since closed-source drivers can be linked with the kernel through loadable modules, I would assume that any of this code can be linked that way as well. In fact, while it is no longer under development, there was a project to integrate NetInfo with Linux. They apparently saw no problem. So what, specifically, makes this impossible, in your opinion?
* Apple sued developers of the KDE and Gnome themes that were "confusingly similar" to their Aqua theme?
Like it or not, Apple spent a good deal of money developing Aqua and cultivating its image. When users see Aqua, they immediately recognize it as an OS X system. It's like the distinctive styling of Jaguars and BMW that make it so easy to identify them even from a good distance. The KDE and GNOME themes threatened to destroy that branding before it got off the ground. I fail to see what's wrong with that. Apple didn't ban KDE or GNOME from transparency, or blueness, or even clumping all the window widgets together on the left. They just didn't want them copying their branding. Is it that hard to come up with your own unique theme without copying someone else? Or do you just have to have permission to flat out plagiarize everything you see?
* Made the decision to keep their window manager closed, in order to keep the community from benefiting?
So, just to make sure I'm entirely and 100% clear on this, your basic problem is that Apple only released all of their base system (which included many parts--NetInfo, OpenDirectory, OpenTransport, the HFS+ filing system, CoreFoundation, OpenPlay, and Rendezvous, just to name a few--that they had absolutely no requirement whatsoever to release) and not the entire system. Apple did not release that core because it is what distinguishes the experience from so many other pgorams, but still, look at all of the stuff you did get. Instead of focusing on the fact that Quartz, which probably cost millions to develop, remained closed, why not be happy that they have given you an excellent directory technology (NetInfo) and some very good networking technologies under an open-source license.
As for your complaint about the APSL: the APSL is recognized by OSI as a valid license, so unless your beef is with all of OSI, I'm not going to accept your complaint about the APSL unless you can be more specific about how it's taking rights away.
Well, at least on my OS X system, it might have something to do with the fact that if you type "top" in the terminal, Mozilla is always listed as having really big numbers...
I don't see how Yet Another Freaking Window Manager for Linux is going to give the benefits the Mac does.
If you go to the website and read a bit about GNUstep, you will discover that GNUstep is not a window manager at all, but a complete replica of the Cocoa API and the full NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP/OS X experience. This includes the use of frameworks and packages for easier file management, a replica of both the Finder and the older WorkspaceManager, services support for text exchange within applications, clones for ProjectBuilder and InterfaceBuilder, etc. Programs written for GNUstep can be very easily ported to OS X and vice-versa. This means that if GNUstep ever took off, any Cocoa application could be very easily ported to GNUstep without a rewrite. The two Linux distros I pointed you to, meanwhile, take that and then are attempting to add all of the under-the-hood improvements of OS X, such as the complete obsoletion of/usr/lib and so forth. They even hope to eventually integrate NetInfo and OpenDirectory and remove depencies on/etc. Calling GNUstep a window manager is like calling BeOS a Mac program.
That said, if the Mac is right for you, then buy a Mac. I strongly feel that the wonderful hardware/software integration is a key selling point. However, since some people say that they cannot afford a Mac or do not like the proprietary aspects of Mac OS X and would like an open-source or free solution instead, I still think that GNUstep has tremendous promise if only it could acquire more developer resources.
Apple will almost certainly never port to generic x86. Ignoring every other argument about whether or not it would be profitable for them to do so, Apple still needs Microsoft Office, and I promise you that the second that Mac OS X runs on generic x86 boxes is the second that Office development stops and the Mac's life support lines get pulled. (Don't get me wrong; the Mac's user base has been revitalized and the software lineup is infinitely better than four years ago when Office 98 was the rage, but if you think that the Mac would run without Office v.X in the business world, you've got another thing coming. As long as the Mac continues to have this dependancy, I will consider it on life support systems that are run by Microsoft.)
Meanwhile, if the idea of a very OS X-like environment on your box is highly appealing, stick your coding where you mouth is and go help the GNUstep project. They are improving every day, and ever little contribution that brings them more in line with OS X will help tremendously. Recently, two projects --LinuxStep and Simply GNUstep--were even spawned to create GNUstep-centric Linux distros. I am very hopeful that these will mature into a fully open-source desktop OS that is just as easy as OS X from a user standpoint and also returns the Mac's kickass development system to the Linux world. Go check them out, give them a hand if you can. And don't say, "It's not nearly complete enough"; it's a circular argument. The only solution to that is to go help.
The Handspring Visor Neo sells at $99 at my local target, and that has 8 MB of memory, a 33 MHz DragonBall (double most Palms), and, of course, the expansion slot. If you need a cheap one, that'd probably be a good route to take.
You need to create one. The file is intentially not created by default, as it's only for your own prefs. Find yours prefs.js file and put your user.js file beside it. This prevents you from having to modify the prefs.js file directly.
Slashdot Mirror
Problem: even if a majority of Germans wanted greater freedom of speech, try to imagine the public outcry if a candidate campaigned on the platform:
Candidate: Und eef I am electet, I vill also leat a coalition to repeal ze anti-Nazi censorship rules in ze constitution, ja?
Even in Germany I have trouble seeing that flying with the voters or the press.
Probably the best way to look at it is like a fork statement in a Unix program. Suddenly, one program becomes two, with different PIDs, etc. And you could make the case that the one with the original PID is the original program, and I suppose that in many ways you'd be right, but the fact remains that the new PID begins with EXACTLY the same memory and EXACTLY the same register states. The only thing different is where that memory is located. Clearly, the programs are seperate entities, yet they'll follow exactly the same patterns (ignoring their different data input) and we might argue that, from the program's perspective, the PID is entirely artbitrary and it has absolutely no way of knowing which one was not the original program, since they start off in identical states but respond to different stimuli. I actually think that twins are a very good metaphor, only you have to imagine that the twins both have common memories for a certain number of years.
I honestly don't think words like "dual consciousness" or "death" even apply in situations like this; we need some new vocabulary.
Did you mean to have that double-entendre or did it happen by accident? :)
(For the curious.)
While my memory is very hazy, I am 90% sure that WordStar 3.3 had two sister programs: SpellStar, which came from the era when spellcheckers were separate programs, and then I am pretty darn sure it came with MailStar as a messaging solution. Can anyone who actually used the program comment? Was it just mail-merge or was it an electronic messaging solution?
I'm on a 667 MHz G4 PowerBook with 512 MB RAM, and while I dislike IE for the sole reason that it does not have popup protection, there is no way you're going to convince me that Moz 1.2 is loading as fast as IE. Chimera does, but not Moz 1.2. The Mac version of Mozilla proper still has a long way to go before I would consider foisting it on anyone.
- Classical music alternates frequently between very long notes (sometimes held across eight or nine measures) and very quick notes (sixteenths very frequently, occasionally thirty-seconds or faster). Representing both of those notes in a human-readable form, without changing your scale every measure and thereby negating the whole point, would be very difficult. If you try to avoid that by defining the standard measure width by the most cramped measure, you're still in trouble because you'll end up with such long measures that you cannot easily guage the distance of your notes and therefore also negate the value of the system. In other words, you'll have to add other notations to your staff until you negate the benefit which you are proposing.
- Your solution works great for computer, but I want you to try to tell musicians who notate pieces (which would be any professional musician anywhere and any half-decent music student as well) that they should bring a ruler to practice to ensure their notes are the proper width. There is a major value to our current system, which is I can do it with an unsteady hand and a pencil on sheet music propped in front of me at 45 degrees. With your system I'd have to lay it flat, take out a ruler, figure out how wide the measures were, divide that width by the width of the note I wanted to draw, line that note up with the end of the previous note, and then draw the right length. I fail to see this catching on.
There are other problems with your system too--for example, what happened to rests?--but quite frankly I think the above two complaints are sufficient enough.All that said, I would strongly recommend you take the time to learn ObjC Cocoa. I use Java Cocoa when I am grafting a Cocoa UI onto Java code, but ObjC is still faster (though the gap is narrowing) and I still honestly believe the language is still a bit more productive due to things such as Categories, Smalltalk-style method names, and other things. If you know C and Java and are familiar with the concepts of reference-counted garbage collection, learning ObjC will take you the better part of a morning.
If you want the linguistic equivalent of RISC then, check out toki pona [sic] with its whopping 128-word vocabulary.
Q: Ok, tell me this - where do you draw the line between high traffic commercial websites, and (for instance), mine?
A: Wherever the lawyers with the most money decide the line looks best.
Calligrapher was only used for the Newton's cursive recognition. The print recognition is and always has been exclusively Apple technology; that's why Apple can ship InkWell with Jaguar (which not surprisingly lacks cursive recognition).
Look, even I think that FSF politics can be a hinderance, but saying that FSF politics caused Hurd to fail requires that you overlook a massive, massive project that was nevertheless very successful: GCC. I think that we should probably try to find why it failed elsewhere (for example, its emergence as a microkernel design just as microkernels were being declared a failed experiment due to Mach's poor task switching).
(Having said all that, Microsoft's Internet Explorer and Palm's PalmDesktop applications, for reasons I cannot fathom, use their own weird installers, but as far as I know, they are the only two applications that use whatever it is they're using.)
Your signature was attributed to Dan Quayle in "The 776 Stupidest Things Ever Said," which was written in 1991. Just FYI.
...or does this sound like a Distributed.net-style of spam? I am not kidding. Maybe it's necessary in some countries to get the message across, but are we sure this is the only option? The potential for abuse here is utterly insane...
As for your complaint about the APSL: the APSL is recognized by OSI as a valid license, so unless your beef is with all of OSI, I'm not going to accept your complaint about the APSL unless you can be more specific about how it's taking rights away.
Well, at least on my OS X system, it might have something to do with the fact that if you type "top" in the terminal, Mozilla is always listed as having really big numbers...
That said, if the Mac is right for you, then buy a Mac. I strongly feel that the wonderful hardware/software integration is a key selling point. However, since some people say that they cannot afford a Mac or do not like the proprietary aspects of Mac OS X and would like an open-source or free solution instead, I still think that GNUstep has tremendous promise if only it could acquire more developer resources.
Apple will almost certainly never port to generic x86. Ignoring every other argument about whether or not it would be profitable for them to do so, Apple still needs Microsoft Office, and I promise you that the second that Mac OS X runs on generic x86 boxes is the second that Office development stops and the Mac's life support lines get pulled. (Don't get me wrong; the Mac's user base has been revitalized and the software lineup is infinitely better than four years ago when Office 98 was the rage, but if you think that the Mac would run without Office v.X in the business world, you've got another thing coming. As long as the Mac continues to have this dependancy, I will consider it on life support systems that are run by Microsoft.)
Meanwhile, if the idea of a very OS X-like environment on your box is highly appealing, stick your coding where you mouth is and go help the GNUstep project. They are improving every day, and ever little contribution that brings them more in line with OS X will help tremendously. Recently, two projects --LinuxStep and Simply GNUstep--were even spawned to create GNUstep-centric Linux distros. I am very hopeful that these will mature into a fully open-source desktop OS that is just as easy as OS X from a user standpoint and also returns the Mac's kickass development system to the Linux world. Go check them out, give them a hand if you can. And don't say, "It's not nearly complete enough"; it's a circular argument. The only solution to that is to go help.
The Handspring Visor Neo sells at $99 at my local target, and that has 8 MB of memory, a 33 MHz DragonBall (double most Palms), and, of course, the expansion slot. If you need a cheap one, that'd probably be a good route to take.
You need to create one. The file is intentially not created by default, as it's only for your own prefs. Find yours prefs.js file and put your user.js file beside it. This prevents you from having to modify the prefs.js file directly.
It's OK. All they're requiring is that you have said some BS about software and hardware. I'd think any of us could do that.
Or is that not what they meant?