For flash videos, sure. But there's a lot of flash content that is integral to the page being viewed, and not modal, like videos generally are.
The fact is, there are a lot of problems putting flash onto the iPhone, and no single problem is a deal-breaker. The deal-breaker is doing it right. As a general rule, Apple would rather not do something at all if they don't think they are doing it right. Why do you think cut-copy-and-paste took so long? Or for that matter, that third-party apps didn't arrive until version 2?
Not quite. Safari doesn't keep running, it just saves its state. Mail doesn't stay resident, it just runs a cron/LaunchServices job at specified intervals to check for new mail.
The only two apps that might always be running are Phone and iPod, for I think fairly obvious reasons. Even for those apps, the apps themselves may not actually be running, but some daemon that they interface with does.
How many boxes is that, total? Are you saying your case counts as "generally"?
Just because you don't have Apache installed, doesn't mean that most Linux installs don't have Apache installed. As far as Windows security goes, you're the analog of someone who doesn't run IE, or doesn't run as Administrator, etc. You're the exception, not the rule.
The plain language meaning of that phrase implies that shared accounts are not allowed.
No, it's saying you are responsible for what happens to your account, so you shouldn't hand out your password. It's boilerplate security advice. It does not imply that shared accounts are disallowed. If they were disallowed, it would explicitly state it.
You're inferring what isn't implied to make a point which isn't valid. This is exceedingly obvious if you read the part where you can have multiple accounts authorized on the same computer and can sync multiple accounts with iPods, iPhones and AppleTVs.
(iv) You shall be able to store Products from up to five different Accounts on certain devices, such as an iPod or iPhone, and Apple TV at a time; provided that each iPhone may sync ring tone Products with only a single Apple-authorized device at a time, and that syncing an iPhone with another Apple-authorized device will cause any ring tone Products stored on such iPhone to be erased and, if you so choose, to be replaced with any ring tone Products stored on such other Apple-authorized device. Additional restrictions apply to Movies Rentals, as described below.
This then becomes a situation of people simply displaying it publicly in hopes to look important or culturally elite, as no doubt all of us have seen quite more than we'd care to.
And your post isn't the same? "I'm so much better than those sheeple who buy iPhones!"
Bah. Let people have their baubles if they want them. Don't put them down unless they first put you down, lest you become just another variation of that which you despise.
UAC is a lot like requiring sudo without a password
Thank you. That explains just about everything right there.
How, exactly? The password requirement for sudo is to identify that the user has been given permission to administer the computer. Windows uses "Administrator" accounts to determine the same thing.
It's not the computer's ability to identify computer administrators that is in question, it's requiring deliberate human interaction that is in question, and both sudo and UAC accomplish this.
And I would say you're too smart for your own good. A sense is an aspect of the physical world you can detect, it's *not* the type of physical phenomena being utilized in the sense. Otherwise, all senses are just chemical (or electro-chemical, if you want).
The sense of up and down is distinct from the sense of rough or smooth, even though both use pressure, just like a radio antenna and a roll of photographic film are distinct even though they both measure electromagnetism.
If your sig is all about control being an illusion, and seeming to embrace the chaos that is the actual world, why are you arguing against chaos and for the order imposed by people being forced to view (or at least, wait through) commercials?
Do you think in our calculations it's as important to distinguish between 2147483648 and 2147483649 as between 5 and 6?
Ummm...yes? One's correct and one's incorrect. If you're going to do something, do it right...
Every computer has a limit to the numbers it can deal with. I'm quite fine with the numerical limitation of my computer, as such numbers are outside of my needs (even indirectly, such as 3d games or audio/video processing).
However, if my computer couldn't deal with numbers greater than 5? Yeah, I'd have a big problem with that. Even the OP's chosen number of 2147483648 would be a problem for me, but it would be a much lesser problem than not being able to deal with a 6!
The only example that readily comes to mind where the numerical limitations come into play are in generating fractals, although strictly speaking, fractal software tends to cut off on precision far before the actual limitation of the computer. Besides which, I'd much rather go without fractal software than to go without anything above 5.
I agree with what you're saying - but in the context of what I was replying to, what I said made sense, irrespective of the points you have made
Only if you ignore the greater context, which is whether Google should be doing this sort of thing in the first place.
In Kenya, a lot of people died when someone lit a cigarette near an overturned tanker. In the context of lighting a cigarette, what he did made perfect sense. In the context of being near petrol fumes, it was fundamentally foolish.
This is the problem most geek pedant asperger idiot-savants seem to make. They chime in with irrelevant, but technically correct, minutia which not only provides no value to the topic at hand, but is often a harmful influence. In the tanker incident, the harm is readily apparent. In your case, it's more subtle, but you're essentially promoting the idea that it's the user who is to blame, not Google, even though you don't hold that point of view.
That's what's most astonishing to me about this, how often I see someone argue against their own opinion merely for the benefit of being technically correct about some irrelevant point.
Instead of buying music and films you like, you're supposed to buy music and films that meet your ideological requirements?
Whenever people talk about not buying music from a certain label (i.e., Sony) in response to actions they've taken, I can understand it. When those people then go on to say, "don't even download it", I have to wonder does somehow the label involved alter whether you like the song? Music isn't a fungible commodity. If you like one song, you can't just go buy some other song and get the same results.
Your line of argument ignores one extremely critical fact: music is a monopolistic market. You can boycott Exxon, and still get fuel from Chevron. You can boycott Sony, and still buy TVs from Samsung. But you can't boycott the RIAA and still buy The White Album.
Why waste your life listening to music you don't prefer[*] just because the stuff you'd rather listen to is controlled by the likes of the RIAA? Your protest isn't going to amount to jack. You're only hurting yourself.
[*] By definition, this has to be true. If you did prefer it, you wouldn't have to actively avoid certain music, because you'd already be buying the non-RIAA music in the first place.
Most engineers understand the concept of "supply and demand". Basically, there are more people capable and willing to do children's theater than business analysis. How would you "correct" this?
Most engineers are familiar with the concept of controlling natural flows to create more useful devices.
"Supply and demand" is just a simple natural law, like that of electricity flowing through a circuit. If engineers treated electricity the same way free market fundamentalists treated economics, electronics would just be a thick wire connecting the positive and negative terminals of a power supply since anything else goes against the basic fundamental law of electricity flowing due to differences in potential.
The advantage of this method over Gaskell's is that there is no dependency on sunlight-based data. I fail to see what is new here...
You stated one of the things that are new. He used shadows.
It need not be new, or first, or best, to be interesting. People have been making accurate measurements from distances for thousands of years. That doesn't make this any less cool.
If you're feeling left out, maybe you should have published a paper.
Fixed that for you. Unless you dual boot into Windows of course.
Unless you're EA, or have very loose definitions of "old" and "slowly".
The fact remains, that translating from DirectX to OpenGL is not only possible, not only usable, but it's going on every day, regardless of what you think would be the case. How can you take something that is solely a function of your mind and claim it supersedes something that actually exists?
"This thing in front of me cannot exist, because I cannot conceive of it."
So much for everything working in reality. Unless by reality you mean what loudmouth evangelists like you post whenever anyone points out flaws with Wine's approach of emulating DirectX on OpenGL when the graphics card hardware is optimized for DirectX.
Yet I can run DirectX games on my Mac.
Wine can be complete crap. I really don't care, I don't use it. The point is, there are DirectX games that run just fine, using translation, on systems that don't support DirectX. Whether one specific benchmark works or doesn't, whether one specific system works, or doesn't, doesn't matter.
At all.
Your claim was never that Wine is crap. It's that translating from DirectX to OpenGL is impractical. The fact that it happens every day proves you wrong. EA is using this very method to support their games on the Mac.
Clearly not the case, since Comodo is still trusted.
Yet. It's not like such a thing would happen instantly. I highly suspect that there will be browser updates from MS, Apple and Mozilla that rectify this shortly.
The browser maker (or someone else - the government security agency?) would need a team of people constantly testing the certificate issuers, trying every ruse possible to get bogus certificates issued. If any issuer fell for it then they would be struck off the list of trusted issuers (and the updated list would be pushed out as a security update). I don't see this happening.
It's happening right now. The first step is identification. We've just identified what appears to be an untrustworthy CA. Next step is to remove them from the list. We'll see how that goes. If it doesn't happen, then there's definitely something wrong with the system. Presently, however, it's too early to tell.
Navel-gazing is no substitute for reality. Right now every DirectX game running on Linux and Mac OS X translates DirectX into OpenGL. You're pontificating that such a procedure would be horribly slow, such that it's not worth it, while at the exact same moment there are people doing just that without complaint.
Just because you can't imagine how it would work, doesn't mean that other, more capable people, can't do it, especially in light of the fact that they are doing it right now. No matter how sound your theory, theory must always give way to reality.
If I hadn't seen such systems working myself, I would probably agree with your analysis. However, reality is a far more compelling argument.
If that's the case, maybe Windows 7 will actually be fairly stable and we can try to pretend Vista never happened,
And maybe Lucy won't pull the ball away this time.
The best way to deal with Microsoft is to not hope anything. Instead, when they talk up a future product, the best response is "show me," and leave it at that.
Since the very foundation of the company, MS's tactic has been to lie about features of upcoming products. That's how they got the DOS deal with IBM. That's how they got the software deal with Apple, which lead to them writing Windows. That's how they got the OS/2 deal with IBM, which lead to NT.
They are liars, and they've lied up to their most recent OS (Vista). Is there any reason to believe they're not lying this time?
Windows 7 is little more than a re-skinned Vista. Definitely a handful of neat UI features, but still Vista, through-and-through. If you like Vista, you'll probably like Windows 7 even more. If you hate Vista, you're going to find Windows 7 is little more than Vista SP4.
I think that will suck unless you can kick Linux off the video hardware completely and let the guest Windows OS drive it directly.
Why? The video card doesn't care anymore than the CPU cares that Windows is running in a VM.
How do you think games work on Windows and Mac? Do you think the OS suspends itself while a game is running? How do you think running a game in windowed mode works?
Any sort of virtualisation of DirectX will be painfully slow, and trying to emulate it on top of a OpenGL driver just seems doomed to bad performance.
Yet somehow it works for Wine, Cedega, and pretty much any port of a DirectX game to Mac OS X and Linux.
You'll regret that decision when your hard drive crashes & you lose all you purchased music.
I have a Time Machine backup. If both my main iTunes library, and my Time Machine backup (and my iPhone, etc) all get blown to hell, then two things come to mind.
First is, I'll have to repurchase all my music. Life is full of risks. The risk, which I've mitigated, is worth the convenience.
Second, for that to happen, odds are good I've got more significant things to worry about than a few thousand songs.
Stop me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the capitalists who reached the Moon?
"Ceci n'est pas une pipe"
In other words, a label doesn't make a thing so.
Apollo wasn't a capitalist endeavor. It was a public project, not private. Or, to turn it around, if Apollo (and NASA in general) *are* capitalism, then why are people making such a big deal about the various private space initiatives as being examples of how capitalism will revolutionize space?
BTW, capitalism will revolutionize space. The first space revolution, however, was socialist. It couldn't have happened any other way, except to put it off for decades, perhaps centuries, until the private sector decided the profits were worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
For flash videos, sure. But there's a lot of flash content that is integral to the page being viewed, and not modal, like videos generally are.
The fact is, there are a lot of problems putting flash onto the iPhone, and no single problem is a deal-breaker. The deal-breaker is doing it right. As a general rule, Apple would rather not do something at all if they don't think they are doing it right. Why do you think cut-copy-and-paste took so long? Or for that matter, that third-party apps didn't arrive until version 2?
Not quite. Safari doesn't keep running, it just saves its state. Mail doesn't stay resident, it just runs a cron/LaunchServices job at specified intervals to check for new mail.
The only two apps that might always be running are Phone and iPod, for I think fairly obvious reasons. Even for those apps, the apps themselves may not actually be running, but some daemon that they interface with does.
My Linux boxes don't have Apache on them.
How many boxes is that, total? Are you saying your case counts as "generally"?
Just because you don't have Apache installed, doesn't mean that most Linux installs don't have Apache installed. As far as Windows security goes, you're the analog of someone who doesn't run IE, or doesn't run as Administrator, etc. You're the exception, not the rule.
The plain language meaning of that phrase implies that shared accounts are not allowed.
No, it's saying you are responsible for what happens to your account, so you shouldn't hand out your password. It's boilerplate security advice. It does not imply that shared accounts are disallowed. If they were disallowed, it would explicitly state it.
You're inferring what isn't implied to make a point which isn't valid. This is exceedingly obvious if you read the part where you can have multiple accounts authorized on the same computer and can sync multiple accounts with iPods, iPhones and AppleTVs.
Quote or no QED.
From the iTunes user agreement:
QED
This then becomes a situation of people simply displaying it publicly in hopes to look important or culturally elite, as no doubt all of us have seen quite more than we'd care to.
And your post isn't the same? "I'm so much better than those sheeple who buy iPhones!"
Bah. Let people have their baubles if they want them. Don't put them down unless they first put you down, lest you become just another variation of that which you despise.
UAC is a lot like requiring sudo without a password
Thank you. That explains just about everything right there.
How, exactly? The password requirement for sudo is to identify that the user has been given permission to administer the computer. Windows uses "Administrator" accounts to determine the same thing.
It's not the computer's ability to identify computer administrators that is in question, it's requiring deliberate human interaction that is in question, and both sudo and UAC accomplish this.
Apache while an important application is NOT Linux.
Very few Windows viruses attack the Windows kernel.
Linux, the kernel, is one thing, and immune to an Apache exploit. Linux, the OS, generally includes Apache.
I would say we have only 4 senses
And I would say you're too smart for your own good. A sense is an aspect of the physical world you can detect, it's *not* the type of physical phenomena being utilized in the sense. Otherwise, all senses are just chemical (or electro-chemical, if you want).
The sense of up and down is distinct from the sense of rough or smooth, even though both use pressure, just like a radio antenna and a roll of photographic film are distinct even though they both measure electromagnetism.
These Colbert naming games are funny, until they happen to you.
Now I have to redo all my stationery...
If your sig is all about control being an illusion, and seeming to embrace the chaos that is the actual world, why are you arguing against chaos and for the order imposed by people being forced to view (or at least, wait through) commercials?
Ummm...yes? One's correct and one's incorrect. If you're going to do something, do it right...
Every computer has a limit to the numbers it can deal with. I'm quite fine with the numerical limitation of my computer, as such numbers are outside of my needs (even indirectly, such as 3d games or audio/video processing).
However, if my computer couldn't deal with numbers greater than 5? Yeah, I'd have a big problem with that. Even the OP's chosen number of 2147483648 would be a problem for me, but it would be a much lesser problem than not being able to deal with a 6!
The only example that readily comes to mind where the numerical limitations come into play are in generating fractals, although strictly speaking, fractal software tends to cut off on precision far before the actual limitation of the computer. Besides which, I'd much rather go without fractal software than to go without anything above 5.
I agree with what you're saying - but in the context of what I was replying to, what I said made sense, irrespective of the points you have made
Only if you ignore the greater context, which is whether Google should be doing this sort of thing in the first place.
In Kenya, a lot of people died when someone lit a cigarette near an overturned tanker. In the context of lighting a cigarette, what he did made perfect sense. In the context of being near petrol fumes, it was fundamentally foolish.
This is the problem most geek pedant asperger idiot-savants seem to make. They chime in with irrelevant, but technically correct, minutia which not only provides no value to the topic at hand, but is often a harmful influence. In the tanker incident, the harm is readily apparent. In your case, it's more subtle, but you're essentially promoting the idea that it's the user who is to blame, not Google, even though you don't hold that point of view.
That's what's most astonishing to me about this, how often I see someone argue against their own opinion merely for the benefit of being technically correct about some irrelevant point.
Instead of buying music and films you like, you're supposed to buy music and films that meet your ideological requirements?
Whenever people talk about not buying music from a certain label (i.e., Sony) in response to actions they've taken, I can understand it. When those people then go on to say, "don't even download it", I have to wonder does somehow the label involved alter whether you like the song? Music isn't a fungible commodity. If you like one song, you can't just go buy some other song and get the same results.
Your line of argument ignores one extremely critical fact: music is a monopolistic market. You can boycott Exxon, and still get fuel from Chevron. You can boycott Sony, and still buy TVs from Samsung. But you can't boycott the RIAA and still buy The White Album.
Why waste your life listening to music you don't prefer[*] just because the stuff you'd rather listen to is controlled by the likes of the RIAA? Your protest isn't going to amount to jack. You're only hurting yourself.
[*] By definition, this has to be true. If you did prefer it, you wouldn't have to actively avoid certain music, because you'd already be buying the non-RIAA music in the first place.
Most engineers understand the concept of "supply and demand". Basically, there are more people capable and willing to do children's theater than business analysis. How would you "correct" this?
Most engineers are familiar with the concept of controlling natural flows to create more useful devices.
"Supply and demand" is just a simple natural law, like that of electricity flowing through a circuit. If engineers treated electricity the same way free market fundamentalists treated economics, electronics would just be a thick wire connecting the positive and negative terminals of a power supply since anything else goes against the basic fundamental law of electricity flowing due to differences in potential.
The advantage of this method over Gaskell's is that there is no dependency on sunlight-based data. I fail to see what is new here...
You stated one of the things that are new. He used shadows.
It need not be new, or first, or best, to be interesting. People have been making accurate measurements from distances for thousands of years. That doesn't make this any less cool.
If you're feeling left out, maybe you should have published a paper.
Yet I can run old DirectX games slowly
Fixed that for you. Unless you dual boot into Windows of course.
Unless you're EA, or have very loose definitions of "old" and "slowly".
The fact remains, that translating from DirectX to OpenGL is not only possible, not only usable, but it's going on every day, regardless of what you think would be the case. How can you take something that is solely a function of your mind and claim it supersedes something that actually exists?
"This thing in front of me cannot exist, because I cannot conceive of it."
It exists, it works. Get over it.
So much for everything working in reality. Unless by reality you mean what loudmouth evangelists like you post whenever anyone points out flaws with Wine's approach of emulating DirectX on OpenGL when the graphics card hardware is optimized for DirectX.
Yet I can run DirectX games on my Mac.
Wine can be complete crap. I really don't care, I don't use it. The point is, there are DirectX games that run just fine, using translation, on systems that don't support DirectX. Whether one specific benchmark works or doesn't, whether one specific system works, or doesn't, doesn't matter.
At all.
Your claim was never that Wine is crap. It's that translating from DirectX to OpenGL is impractical. The fact that it happens every day proves you wrong. EA is using this very method to support their games on the Mac.
You're wrong. Get over it.
Clearly not the case, since Comodo is still trusted.
Yet. It's not like such a thing would happen instantly. I highly suspect that there will be browser updates from MS, Apple and Mozilla that rectify this shortly.
The browser maker (or someone else - the government security agency?) would need a team of people constantly testing the certificate issuers, trying every ruse possible to get bogus certificates issued. If any issuer fell for it then they would be struck off the list of trusted issuers (and the updated list would be pushed out as a security update). I don't see this happening.
It's happening right now. The first step is identification. We've just identified what appears to be an untrustworthy CA. Next step is to remove them from the list. We'll see how that goes. If it doesn't happen, then there's definitely something wrong with the system. Presently, however, it's too early to tell.
Navel-gazing is no substitute for reality. Right now every DirectX game running on Linux and Mac OS X translates DirectX into OpenGL. You're pontificating that such a procedure would be horribly slow, such that it's not worth it, while at the exact same moment there are people doing just that without complaint.
Just because you can't imagine how it would work, doesn't mean that other, more capable people, can't do it, especially in light of the fact that they are doing it right now. No matter how sound your theory, theory must always give way to reality.
If I hadn't seen such systems working myself, I would probably agree with your analysis. However, reality is a far more compelling argument.
If that's the case, maybe Windows 7 will actually be fairly stable and we can try to pretend Vista never happened,
And maybe Lucy won't pull the ball away this time.
The best way to deal with Microsoft is to not hope anything. Instead, when they talk up a future product, the best response is "show me," and leave it at that.
Since the very foundation of the company, MS's tactic has been to lie about features of upcoming products. That's how they got the DOS deal with IBM. That's how they got the software deal with Apple, which lead to them writing Windows. That's how they got the OS/2 deal with IBM, which lead to NT.
They are liars, and they've lied up to their most recent OS (Vista). Is there any reason to believe they're not lying this time?
Windows 7 is little more than a re-skinned Vista. Definitely a handful of neat UI features, but still Vista, through-and-through. If you like Vista, you'll probably like Windows 7 even more. If you hate Vista, you're going to find Windows 7 is little more than Vista SP4.
All that aside, I'm trying to be optimistic that 7 will be what Vista promised to be.
That's impossible. Windows 7 is not adding any of the features previously promised for Vista, and subsequently axed.
I think that will suck unless you can kick Linux off the video hardware completely and let the guest Windows OS drive it directly.
Why? The video card doesn't care anymore than the CPU cares that Windows is running in a VM.
How do you think games work on Windows and Mac? Do you think the OS suspends itself while a game is running? How do you think running a game in windowed mode works?
Any sort of virtualisation of DirectX will be painfully slow, and trying to emulate it on top of a OpenGL driver just seems doomed to bad performance.
Yet somehow it works for Wine, Cedega, and pretty much any port of a DirectX game to Mac OS X and Linux.
You'll regret that decision when your hard drive crashes & you lose all you purchased music.
I have a Time Machine backup. If both my main iTunes library, and my Time Machine backup (and my iPhone, etc) all get blown to hell, then two things come to mind.
First is, I'll have to repurchase all my music. Life is full of risks. The risk, which I've mitigated, is worth the convenience.
Second, for that to happen, odds are good I've got more significant things to worry about than a few thousand songs.
Stop me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the capitalists who reached the Moon?
"Ceci n'est pas une pipe"
In other words, a label doesn't make a thing so.
Apollo wasn't a capitalist endeavor. It was a public project, not private. Or, to turn it around, if Apollo (and NASA in general) *are* capitalism, then why are people making such a big deal about the various private space initiatives as being examples of how capitalism will revolutionize space?
BTW, capitalism will revolutionize space. The first space revolution, however, was socialist. It couldn't have happened any other way, except to put it off for decades, perhaps centuries, until the private sector decided the profits were worth it.