I'd love to be able to tell my Tivo: "Show me all the movie trailers for movies coming out Friday." Or something similar.
Get a Season Pass to (I think it's called) "Coming Attractions" on "E". You'll need to fast forward through some inane chatter but the show is mostly trailers for current or soon-to-be-current movies.
No, a casual user will think the side buttons are non-functional tabs just like they are on the Apple Pro Mouse.
The side buttons are not non-functional tabs on the Apple Pro mouse. They are used to allow the mouse to be picked up and moved mid-drag. Since the Pro mouse, rather than having a button, is a button, when you run out of space mid-drag you wouldn't normally be able to pick up the mouse, move it back a few inches, put it back down and continue dragging. The squeeze tabs allow this capability and make it very natural (I discovered this by just doing it and realizing afterwards how it worked). I assume this is true with the Mighty Mouse, but I'd like to hear so from someone that actually has tried it.
you can't just 'sudo cat hosts.txt >>/etc/hosts', you have to 'sudo -s'
I'm not anywhere I can test this right now but I can make some suppositions that might or might not hold up.
It appears to me that the problem with your command is that the append redirection ('>>') is being executed by the same shell by which sudo is being executed. This means that it does not have the permissions that are granted by sudo to the child shell that executes the "cat" command. What you would want to do would be something like:
sudo bash -c 'cat hosts.txt >>/etc/hosts'
That way the redirection is done within the child bash process that is running under sudo, not in the parent shell in which sudo is executed.
A couple of caveats: I haven't used bash specifically that much, so I'm not sure if it takes the -c argument the same as the Bourne shell does, so it may be that rather than "bash -c" you should be using "sh -c". I haven't used the command line that much under OS X, so it may be that "sh -c" is not available there, but I find it almost impossible to believe that it isn't.
Why would you "admit" that RMS is a commie when in fact RMS himself says he is not (in TFA)? Or is anyone who questions any facet of capitalism automatically a communist?
Even better, why do we give a damn if he is or he isn't? Is Free Software or Open Source suddenly a bad idea if one of its proponents supports a different political system?
You've been propagandized into submission. The correct definitions are:
Capitalism and Communism are economic systems.
Democracy and Totalitarianism are political systems.
Lets put it this way. Is it OK for the press to publish your bank account numbers and pass phrase that a hacker gave them? Is it OK for them to publish the codes to launch nuclear missiles given to them by a foreign spy? Is it OK for them to publish slanderous and completely untrue information in order to inflate their own stock price? The answer to all of these questions is "no."
The reason is because they break laws. [emphasis mine]
Okay, I agree with pretty much everything you said (including the parts not quoted here) except for the last line above.
The reason things are wrong is NEVER because they break laws. The reason we have made laws against them is because they are wrong, or, in the case of bad laws, because enough lawmakers believe they are wrong. Sometimes the lawmakers get it wrong (e.g. DMCA) and it is up to "we, the people" to fight those laws by every means available, including breaking them.
Just, please, never get that one thing backwards, things are not wrong because they are illegal, they are illegal because they are wrong.
And even some things that are "wrong" should not be illegal. They should only be illegal if they cause harm to someone that does not choose to accept that harm. But I really don't want to get off on a whole ethics discussion that would undermine the point above, so I'll just shut up now...
I'd much rather have something simple but super-small just for contacts, scheduling and notes. I don't need 32-bit VGA screens to check a phone number, four shades B&W would be plenty.
As long as you just want to read the notes, not take them, Apple makes something that does this. It's called an iPod. It will carry notes that are entered on your Mac. It automatically syncs up with the contacts entered in AddressBook. It automatically syncs up with iCal, for your schedule.
Of course, this doesn't work so well if your desktop machine isn't a Mac.
Oh, and it also does MP3s, and one model does photos.
Graham is advocating exploration of that which interests you -- in my mind, I should've been spending more time practicing social skills... since in high school I was most interested in my female classmates.
You're missing his real point. Yes, he advocates exploring that which interests you, but more to the point, he advocates looking at the things which interest you and figuring out which of them open up more possiblities for your future, then explore those. Given the multiple paths which lie ahead of you, some of them will narrow your choices in life and some of them will broaden them. He wants you to look for those differences, and if you have a similar level of interest in a narrowing path and a broadening path, take the broadening one.
That's not the only usable advice he gives but it's one of the key ones. Probably the biggest other one (to my mind, anyway), is that things take work but not an impossible amount of work. Plug away at things and you may be surprised how far you can get.
There is something truly wrong if Apple can get this kid to divulge the source of his "leaker" when comparatively, Robert Novak can leak the name of an undercover CIA agent any [sic] not have to divulge his source?
It's a question of friends in high places.
What Robert Novak did is a crime and needs to be prosecuted by the federal government. The problem is that he (allegedly) did what he did on behalf of the people at the top of the branch of the federal government that needs to do the prosecuting, so he is, in essence, immune from prosecution.
Nick dePlume, on the other hand, may have broken civil law and so can be sued (prosecuted) by the entity that he (allegedly) wronged, if they believe that the wrong was egregious enough to warrant it.
It is both sad and liberating that we cannot afford to prosecute every wrong in our society. Sad, because so much injustice is allowed to stand unchallenged. Liberating, because so many unjust laws are not enforced. But, in this case, the comparative wrongs are prosecuted in separate court systems (civil versus criminal) and so, in the small picture, the prosecution of one has nothing to do with the lack of prosecution of the other.
Last time they did this I went out looking for the products and did some comparisons and calculations. What I found was that, in every supermarket that had the promotional bottles, the promotional bottles were only sold singly, generally out of refrigerated display cases, while the six-packs were non-promotional bottles. Some quick calculations showed that the price difference for buying the six-packs was enough cheaper than the individual bottles that, assuming I hit the average of one in three bottles actually giving me a free song, I would end up paying more per song than the US$.99 that the ITMS charged.
Now this time they've spiked the deal by the inclusion of drawings for special edition (has the Pepsi logo) iPod Minis, so that skews the calculation, but only very slightly.
Eventually, this might reduce the amount of comment spam.
But somehow I don't think spammers really care if a blog uses this system or not. It's probably easier to just spam all blogs than to figure out which are useless. Just like email spammers don't care much if an address is valid or not.
Some people think that adding spam filters to an email account reduces the spam sent, while it only reduces the amount of spam received. This solution does neither.
However, all efforts to fight spam should be welcomed and supported. Despite my pessimism, it will be interesting to see how it turns out.
Reducing spam is only one goal. Even if this does not reduce spam, it should increase the quality of search results. I suspect there's a lot more people using the search engines than reading the blogs, so the greatest benefit may result even if the spam is not reduced.
Also, it would be nice to see Slashdot, for instance, implement this such that the attribute would not be added to links posted by members with sufficient karma to suggest that they are not spamming the comments. And while I'm suggesting things to Slashdot, I'd say the attribute should always be added to links in signatures, since they have no specific relevance to the topic being commented on.
The fact is, ASCII is a binary format. It just happens to be a format that has become universally accepted. As the article says, there are certainly benefits to having ASCII-based XML: "The fact that XML is ordinary plain text that you can pull into Notepad... has turned out to be a boon, in practice," he said. "Any time you depart from that straight-and-narrow path, you risk loss of interoperability."
Not that anybody will care but...
XML is not ASCII. XML is Unicode. That's why Tim Bray said "plain text" not ASCII.
Because it was such a long hard road for ASCII to become the universal data format that it is for English text the creators of Unicode wisely made sure that there was backwards compatibility such that any valid ASCII texts (ones that do not include OS-specific, proprietary extensions in the range above 0x7F) are also valid Unicode texts when the encoding is UTF-8.
I also don't understand, financial considerations aside, what would posess an artist to relinquish so much artistic control over their material, that such complaints ever need to be raised. With Tolkein or Heinlein, it makes sense that they might not be respected by a screenplay writer -- but this author is alive.
Does Stephen King have this problem?
Yes.
Compare Stephen King's The Shining, a book about a malevolent presence imbued into the very fabric of a resort and its hunger to capture the psychic strength of an extraordinary child, to Stanley Kubrick's The Shining a movie about cabin fever.
Disney, on the other hand... what's the last movie they did by themselves? Operation Dumbo Drop? Pocahantas II?
Actually the last (theatrically released, animated) movie they did on their own was Home on the Range. On the basis of that I predict bad things for Toy Story 3.
Natural language, while easier for beginners, would make for horribly inefficient code and would be undesirable for any sizeable application.
And there was a time when, by the standards of the day, Java or C++ would've been considered inefficient and undesireable for any sizeable application. Moore's Law is giving us the luxury to think about things other than how to optimize every last byte out of a program.
I understand that the goal is to have the user just tell the computer what to do in English.
And if you had read the article you would not understand any such thing.
The goal is to determine the natural steps and abstractions that people without any programming training use to solve problems, then to make programming languages that support those sorts of steps and abstractions.
Where the work cited in the article fails, in my limited opinion, is that the example problems they are working with are much too simple. The types of tools that they discuss, I fear, will prove too hard to write in a way that works with complex problems. I hope I'm wrong in this. Perhaps the sorts of work they're doing will prove feasible within specific problem domains and we'll end up with an array of limited domain tools that handle the bulk of programming needs, but we still use old line tools like C and Java for more esoteric work.
While I agree that the iPod is a great little device...well designed, and great sounding for a portable player....
I hardly think you can call it audiophile quality without seriously cheapening the work [sic] audiophile.
There are two reasons that combined allowed the reviewer to claim (and rightly so) that the iPod is audiophile quality. First, you can use it to play music that is ripped to AIFF, which is not compressed and therefore not lossy. Second, the (current max) capacity of 40GB means that you can actually put a significant amount of music onto the iPod even in the space-hogging AIFF format. [To the pedants, I apologize for the redundancy of "AIFF format".]
In addition, he goes to some lengths to explain that the iPod is actually a general storage device that has some additional capability to render to its audio out jacks music from several different file formats and that this suggests that in the future Apple might be convinced to support formats with even better resolution than CDs.
It's all relative man. Take a look at the Hulk movie which you used as an example - about $131 million in earnings, on a production budget of $120 million. That's $11 million in profits, or about 9% return.
Except that of that $131 million a significant percentage goes to the theaters, who are not figured in to the production budget. In films the production budget can largely be considered to be the R&D expense. Once you've got a film you then have to market it, produce prints, split proceeds with the theaters, pay off anyone who gets a percentage of the gross, etc. On the other hand, the box office receipts are only the start of the money coming in, you've got to figure more money will come in from sales to cable, to airlines, to home video, to broadcast television, and in some cases such ancillary things as Happy Meal toys. And, of course, all of this is designed so that the studios can somehow make a profit while the film somehow doesn't...
"The cloverleaf/puppy foot symbol is the symbol for the apple key."
Actually the "cloverleaf" key is called the "command" key. Prior to release of the Macintosh it vacillated between being called "feature" or "command", as the symbol was taken from the international symbol for an extraordinary feature but they eventually settled on "command".
However, another team just had to programmers who sucked at managing the process, design and documentation and both just tended to write out code. This led to conflict both in how the code worked (each coded a section without thinking how it would work with the other section) and between the two programmers.
I don't know what your team was doing but it wasn't "pair programming". In pair programming it is not possible for "each" to "code a section", they both code both sections together. Only one will be typing at a time, but they are both responsible for what is typed and are both engaged with the screen while it is being typed.
Agreed, but perhaps I want to edit my hidden file with an Aqua text editor? I can't access the hidden files in any Aqua file dialog box.
I'm not at home, so I can't check this out (and I can't find it on Apple's site, either) but there's a command ("open", I think) that you can use at the shell prompt to launch an application the same as if you had double-clicked it in the Finder. It's not too far fetched, thereby, to think that "open bbedit.hidden_file" might let you edit a hidden file with a GUI editor (obviously substituting your editor of choice and the actual file name). Not as easy as drag-and-drop, but better than nothing.
Anyway, it looks like a repeat with the current range - the dual 1.25ghz system is only about 25% faster in mhz and is 32% more expensive. Might not be so bad if the total performance was 32% better, but it's probably not since it doesn't have a memory subsystem or disks that are 32% faster. I would have certainly gone for the high-end machine if it had been $2,999, but for $3,299 it seems like they're pushing it.
What do you think? Is the.25ghz extra worth $800 more?
For that $800 you also get a 120GB hard drive instead of 80GB ($100 in build-to-order) and 512MB of ram instead of 256MB ($200 in build-to-order), so technically you're only paying $500 for the.25MHZ per processor.
Slashdot Mirror
Medical Marijuana has been approved by 10 states, however the recent U. S. Supreme court ruling means that it is legal in none of them.
It remains to be seen if the feds will actually pursue this.
It appears to me that the problem with your command is that the append redirection ('>>') is being executed by the same shell by which sudo is being executed. This means that it does not have the permissions that are granted by sudo to the child shell that executes the "cat" command. What you would want to do would be something like:
That way the redirection is done within the child bash process that is running under sudo, not in the parent shell in which sudo is executed.
A couple of caveats: I haven't used bash specifically that much, so I'm not sure if it takes the -c argument the same as the Bourne shell does, so it may be that rather than "bash -c" you should be using "sh -c". I haven't used the command line that much under OS X, so it may be that "sh -c" is not available there, but I find it almost impossible to believe that it isn't.
At this point I'd like to make some witty rejoinder about embrace and extend, but it's just not worth the effort.
Capitalism and Communism are economic systems.
Democracy and Totalitarianism are political systems.
The reason things are wrong is NEVER because they break laws. The reason we have made laws against them is because they are wrong, or, in the case of bad laws, because enough lawmakers believe they are wrong. Sometimes the lawmakers get it wrong (e.g. DMCA) and it is up to "we, the people" to fight those laws by every means available, including breaking them.
Just, please, never get that one thing backwards, things are not wrong because they are illegal, they are illegal because they are wrong.
And even some things that are "wrong" should not be illegal. They should only be illegal if they cause harm to someone that does not choose to accept that harm. But I really don't want to get off on a whole ethics discussion that would undermine the point above, so I'll just shut up now...
Of course, this doesn't work so well if your desktop machine isn't a Mac.
Oh, and it also does MP3s, and one model does photos.
That's not the only usable advice he gives but it's one of the key ones. Probably the biggest other one (to my mind, anyway), is that things take work but not an impossible amount of work. Plug away at things and you may be surprised how far you can get.
What Robert Novak did is a crime and needs to be prosecuted by the federal government. The problem is that he (allegedly) did what he did on behalf of the people at the top of the branch of the federal government that needs to do the prosecuting, so he is, in essence, immune from prosecution.
Nick dePlume, on the other hand, may have broken civil law and so can be sued (prosecuted) by the entity that he (allegedly) wronged, if they believe that the wrong was egregious enough to warrant it.
It is both sad and liberating that we cannot afford to prosecute every wrong in our society. Sad, because so much injustice is allowed to stand unchallenged. Liberating, because so many unjust laws are not enforced. But, in this case, the comparative wrongs are prosecuted in separate court systems (civil versus criminal) and so, in the small picture, the prosecution of one has nothing to do with the lack of prosecution of the other.
Now this time they've spiked the deal by the inclusion of drawings for special edition (has the Pepsi logo) iPod Minis, so that skews the calculation, but only very slightly.
Also, it would be nice to see Slashdot, for instance, implement this such that the attribute would not be added to links posted by members with sufficient karma to suggest that they are not spamming the comments. And while I'm suggesting things to Slashdot, I'd say the attribute should always be added to links in signatures, since they have no specific relevance to the topic being commented on.
XML is not ASCII. XML is Unicode. That's why Tim Bray said "plain text" not ASCII.
Because it was such a long hard road for ASCII to become the universal data format that it is for English text the creators of Unicode wisely made sure that there was backwards compatibility such that any valid ASCII texts (ones that do not include OS-specific, proprietary extensions in the range above 0x7F) are also valid Unicode texts when the encoding is UTF-8.
Compare Stephen King's The Shining, a book about a malevolent presence imbued into the very fabric of a resort and its hunger to capture the psychic strength of an extraordinary child, to Stanley Kubrick's The Shining a movie about cabin fever.
Disney, on the other hand ... what's the last movie they did by themselves? Operation Dumbo Drop? Pocahantas II?
Actually the last (theatrically released, animated) movie they did on their own was Home on the Range. On the basis of that I predict bad things for Toy Story 3.
Natural language, while easier for beginners, would make for horribly inefficient code and would be undesirable for any sizeable application.
And there was a time when, by the standards of the day, Java or C++ would've been considered inefficient and undesireable for any sizeable application. Moore's Law is giving us the luxury to think about things other than how to optimize every last byte out of a program.
I understand that the goal is to have the user just tell the computer what to do in English.
And if you had read the article you would not understand any such thing.
The goal is to determine the natural steps and abstractions that people without any programming training use to solve problems, then to make programming languages that support those sorts of steps and abstractions.
Where the work cited in the article fails, in my limited opinion, is that the example problems they are working with are much too simple. The types of tools that they discuss, I fear, will prove too hard to write in a way that works with complex problems. I hope I'm wrong in this. Perhaps the sorts of work they're doing will prove feasible within specific problem domains and we'll end up with an array of limited domain tools that handle the bulk of programming needs, but we still use old line tools like C and Java for more esoteric work.
Probably too late to help you but...
While I agree that the iPod is a great little device...well designed, and great sounding for a portable player.... I hardly think you can call it audiophile quality without seriously cheapening the work [sic] audiophile.
There are two reasons that combined allowed the reviewer to claim (and rightly so) that the iPod is audiophile quality. First, you can use it to play music that is ripped to AIFF, which is not compressed and therefore not lossy. Second, the (current max) capacity of 40GB means that you can actually put a significant amount of music onto the iPod even in the space-hogging AIFF format. [To the pedants, I apologize for the redundancy of "AIFF format".]
In addition, he goes to some lengths to explain that the iPod is actually a general storage device that has some additional capability to render to its audio out jacks music from several different file formats and that this suggests that in the future Apple might be convinced to support formats with even better resolution than CDs.
Agreed, but perhaps I want to edit my hidden file with an Aqua text editor? I can't access the hidden files in any Aqua file dialog box.
.hidden_file" might let you edit a hidden file with a GUI editor (obviously substituting your editor of choice and the actual file name). Not as easy as drag-and-drop, but better than nothing.
I'm not at home, so I can't check this out (and I can't find it on Apple's site, either) but there's a command ("open", I think) that you can use at the shell prompt to launch an application the same as if you had double-clicked it in the Finder. It's not too far fetched, thereby, to think that "open bbedit