The reality is that the net is full of stuff some people shouldn't see. My daughters, 2 & 4, are already on the net playing games at zoogdisney.com, mamamedia.com, etc. I really don't think it's for them to see porn. I'm not a prude but banner ads of animated oral sex is too much for children.
For an interesting counterperspective, my friend Andrea is a 20-year old single mother of twin 18-month old girls. She has no problem with them seeing sex when they're 14, or 7, or 4, or now, she believes sex is healthy and fun -- but she is a committed pacifist and wants to protect the kiddies from viewing any violence.
Do you have ANY idea how hard it is to do that in our society? I didn't have any clue how hard it actually was until I saw her trying. You've got Teletubbies and... umm... ummm... well, try it for yourself and see how hard it is:)
Personally, I agree with her that sex shouldn't be treated as something dirty even around infants, North American society is very sick in that regard, but I think that by trying to raise them as pacifists she's letting them in for a life of victimization. But I've never known anyone who goes to the length she does to remove all depictions of violence from their formative years, so it's going to fascinate me to see how they do turn out...
all it took was a small annual fee, and you had full access to all alpha/beta releases from their ADC site, plus steep hardware discounts
Looking at it another way, everything you actually need to develop for the Mac is free on Apple's website now, and the full retail margin now is less than the steeply discounted margin was then.
*shrug* I don't pay through the nose for AppleLink anymore, and I'm not paying several hundred a year for a basic developer membership anymore, the only thing I've bought for almost four years now is CodeWarrior. Seems to me things have improved, really.
Who's the nitwit that marked that Flamebait? In a language like English where upper and lower case letters resemble each other so much, there's a pretty darn solid argument to be made that case preserving but insensitive is the most user friendly way for a file system to act.
For $12500 I could build a streetrod that would make a Porsche 911 huddle in a corner and beg for mercy.
I'd rather just go buy the stylishly packaged and quite sufficient for my needs alternative, thank you very much.
This is how a Mac user thinks. We're just not interested in being penny-scratching bottom feeders. You want to, hey good on you mate. Just don't ever think that you're going to make a Mac user do anything other than pity you.
(Moderators: This is not flamebait. Ask your nearest Mac user. Troll, maybe:)
I also find it hard to believe that anybody is born with a personality, much less a M-B result.
Hmmmm, I dunno. My friend Andrea has 20-month old twins, I don't know if they're actually identical but they're close enough that I can't tell any difference, and the two of them have VERY distinctively different personalities. despite her treating them absolutely identically as far as I can tell...
Anyone who actually does business in third world countries (and yes, Russia outside those five cities does qualify) will tell you that DHL is the most competent service by a great deal. Anybody can fly a box to Stuttgart, it's when you need to get something to darkest Sierra Leone that you see who really knows what they're doing:)
So jump through whatever hoops there are to use DHL, and you'll have at least as good a chance of getting your stuff where it's supposed to go as you will with any other service, you can be quite confident of that.
And you won't get any of this stupid screwing around like you describe either. They know what they're doing, they don't toss stuff on the next plane going that direction and hope for the best:)
Could you imagine emacs ported to OS X (I mean, using Aqua instead of X windows)? I'd pay money for that!
Heh. Observe this post from the macosx-dev list yesterday. Might be closer than you think:)
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 14:25:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Emacs.app
From: Marc Respass
To:
CC: Mike Elston ,
on 9/12/00 12:54 PM, Michael B. Johnson at wave@pixar.com wrote:
> Marc Respass wrote:
>>
>> How is Emacs.app different from running emacs in Terminal? I've never seen
>> Emacs.app
>>
>
> Emacs.app was a wonderful, reasonably full-on native port of gnu-emacs for
> NeXTSTEP. It integrated
> seemlessly into the old, old Project Builder (i.e. double-click on a compile
> error in PB, it brought
> you to the correct line and file in Emacs.app). It had color, fonts, multiple
> windows, all the
> things one is used to under UNIX/X11 with gnu-emacs, but are sorely missed
> from bring "emacs" up in
> a Terminal.
>
> Now that I'm dipping my toe back in OSX, I miss it terribly as well.
Oh, that sounds awesome. Is the source to Emacs.app available somewhere? I'd
love to have a look.
I don't think anyone's pointed out yet that "Project Builder", the IDE for Mac OS X Cocoa developers, doesn't seem to be included in the beta.
Separate CD which gets mailed out to Select/Premier developers.
It strikes me as likely that they'll allow Online (free signup) developers to order and/or download the tools CD... but only because I agree with your logic that a $400 entry barrier to playing with the dev tools would be insanely fucking stupid.
Not that mere insane fucking stupidity in any way disqualifies a course of action from Apple embracing it, it seems. *shrug* We'll know within 24 hours:)
That sucks. I don't think I'm alone in saying that the Quicktime player really, really sucks (this subject came up before, and I was definitely not alone). It's bug-ridden, and the interface blows.
Erm, the standard player relates to QuickTime in approximately the same way that WinAMP relates to the MP3 specification. It's just an app that calls the movie-playing APIs. Don't like it? Write your own.
No, I'm not being sarcastic. I did exactly that for QDesign last summer.
IIRC the format for MPEG 4 is based on QuickTime. That means the container format has info about how to interpret the contents
Errrrm... not really. It just means that the atom-based file structure of QuickTime is used to achieve a high level of interoperability.
"The QuickTime file format, as explained in this book, has been incorporated by reference into the ISO/IEC 14496:1999 (MPEG-4) standard, published as of December 1999. The MP4 file format, developed by Apple Computer and IBM Corp., is designed to present a flexible and extensible format that facilitates the interchange, management, editing, and presentation of media. A presentation may be local to the system containing the presentation, or it may be via a network or other streamed delivery mechanism."
-- Inside QuickTime: QuickTime File Format
You might be able to leverage that when writing a codec.
Codecs are completely orthogonal to the MPEG-4 file format... that's the POINT of using QuickTime's format, because it's the best out there at separating them:)
But what does that person have a rifle for anyway then?
Well, anywhere north of the 56th parallel or so, the chances are about 85% they're a subsistence hunter and about 15% they're a trophy hunter on a guided tour.
Between the 49th and 56th parallel, it's probably around 20% subsistence hunter, 50% sport hunter, 20% trophy hunter, 9% target shooter, and 1% SWAT team.
(Numbers pulled out of my butt, but they are honest best estimates and I would be very surprised if they were wrong in any substantive fashion.)
Other than thinking trophy hunters are dickheads and you shouldn't kill anything unless you're going to eat it or it's about to hurt somebody, I don't have any problem with any of this.
I've never heard the expression "chew them down" for bargaining. Is it possible this is a cleaned-up "Jew them down"
"chew" is a fairly common replacement for "talk" in rural BC where I grew up. As in "Whacha doin? Chewin' wit porges," y'know, eh? I'm quite sure it's just from that and has no anti-Semitic connotations whatsoever. It quite certainly wasn't used like that there... there ARE no Jews in rural BC so there's nothing to be anti about -- local racism is reserved for Indians, er, First Nations people:)
No, but they depend on individuals' financial activity being cross-referencible to detect infringement of their regulations. This technology makes that detection very much harder. They won't like that.
I guarantee you that purchases you make with your "disposable" CC numbers will show up on your regular Amex bill. Not that the IRS gets copies of peoples' Amex bills to begin with.
Exactly so! They depend on the traceability of your CC number to detect individuals contravening the norms and thus throwing up "AUDIT ME" red flags which let them get into AmEx's records. Remove that traceability, and you have what amounts to a financial radar jammer, making it that much harder to detect who's playing games with money.
if you hadn't bolded it, I mighta let it slip by, but this is a geek forum, so let's use geek terms accurately: if theory does not agree with reality, it's not a theory.
True. Okay, the hypothesis is that anonymizing an individual transaction removes no accountability. In reality, we will find that since a single point of contact can be used for individually anonymous transactions, the detectability of unlawful currency flows will be decreased greatly.
If your current credit card is not against the law, why would more credit card numbers be against the law?
CC numbers aren't illegal. Evading reporting regulations on currency transfers is illegal. With regular credit cards possessing a single number their use to evade these requirements is not practical. With an individual identifying number per transaction with no connectivity apparent outside the AmEx databases, coupled with some fairly basic effort to not make all transactions come from the same IP or something stupid like that, it suddenly becomes VERY practical indeed to shove funds around in pretty much complete confidence that you won't show up on anybody's radar.
(I don't think this is flamebait either... buddy is a little bit slow, that's all;)
Can you elaborate on the potential abuses you forsee?
Much of tax evasion and illegal activity detection is based on detecting patterns in otherwise unrelated financial data. Data gathered in audits and submitted by financial institutions is placed into one big soup from which patterns are detected and individuals are picked to have the microscope placed upon.
By providing a next to anonymous conduit for an individual transaction, the possibility of detecting currency flows by means other than direct AmEx record access is reduced by orders of magnitude. This would make IRS fishing expeditions next to useless, and require subpoenas to get at financial information that now can be found/deduced through the regular audit process.
Slashdot Mirror
The private sector would be better for safety? That's so funny it's sad. Hmm, let's see: Tobacco Industry - nope
So you are asserting the existence of safe tobacco products produced by the public sector, then.
Please document this claim, I was previously unaware of such products.
I never understood why he's so popular
Because he's the hoopy kind of frood who knows where his towel is.
You'd like to be a ruthless mercenary in real life?
Well, I do work as a bouncer at underground parties, which isn't all that far off...
The reality is that the net is full of stuff some people shouldn't see. My daughters, 2 & 4, are already on the net playing games at zoogdisney.com, mamamedia.com, etc. I really don't think it's for them to see porn. I'm not a prude but banner ads of animated oral sex is too much for children.
... umm ... ummm ... well, try it for yourself and see how hard it is :)
For an interesting counterperspective, my friend Andrea is a 20-year old single mother of twin 18-month old girls. She has no problem with them seeing sex when they're 14, or 7, or 4, or now, she believes sex is healthy and fun -- but she is a committed pacifist and wants to protect the kiddies from viewing any violence.
Do you have ANY idea how hard it is to do that in our society? I didn't have any clue how hard it actually was until I saw her trying. You've got Teletubbies and
Personally, I agree with her that sex shouldn't be treated as something dirty even around infants, North American society is very sick in that regard, but I think that by trying to raise them as pacifists she's letting them in for a life of victimization. But I've never known anyone who goes to the length she does to remove all depictions of violence from their formative years, so it's going to fascinate me to see how they do turn out...
But seriously, I think this is going to be better than Episode I for two reasons.
I KNOW it will for one reason.
The return of Boba Fett.
Hey, he's the only character in the Star Wars universe that *I* identify with...
all it took was a small annual fee, and you had full access to all alpha/beta releases from their ADC site, plus steep hardware discounts
Looking at it another way, everything you actually need to develop for the Mac is free on Apple's website now, and the full retail margin now is less than the steeply discounted margin was then.
*shrug* I don't pay through the nose for AppleLink anymore, and I'm not paying several hundred a year for a basic developer membership anymore, the only thing I've bought for almost four years now is CodeWarrior. Seems to me things have improved, really.
Who's the nitwit that marked that Flamebait? In a language like English where upper and lower case letters resemble each other so much, there's a pretty darn solid argument to be made that case preserving but insensitive is the most user friendly way for a file system to act.
Or maybe I'm just a lazy typer, too.
And for $1500 (us) I just built
:)
Snort.
For $12500 I could build a streetrod that would make a Porsche 911 huddle in a corner and beg for mercy.
I'd rather just go buy the stylishly packaged and quite sufficient for my needs alternative, thank you very much.
This is how a Mac user thinks. We're just not interested in being penny-scratching bottom feeders. You want to, hey good on you mate. Just don't ever think that you're going to make a Mac user do anything other than pity you.
(Moderators: This is not flamebait. Ask your nearest Mac user. Troll, maybe
I also find it hard to believe that anybody is born with a personality, much less a M-B result.
Hmmmm, I dunno. My friend Andrea has 20-month old twins, I don't know if they're actually identical but they're close enough that I can't tell any difference, and the two of them have VERY distinctively different personalities. despite her treating them absolutely identically as far as I can tell...
Anyone who actually does business in third world countries (and yes, Russia outside those five cities does qualify) will tell you that DHL is the most competent service by a great deal. Anybody can fly a box to Stuttgart, it's when you need to get something to darkest Sierra Leone that you see who really knows what they're doing :)
:)
So jump through whatever hoops there are to use DHL, and you'll have at least as good a chance of getting your stuff where it's supposed to go as you will with any other service, you can be quite confident of that.
And you won't get any of this stupid screwing around like you describe either. They know what they're doing, they don't toss stuff on the next plane going that direction and hope for the best
Could you imagine emacs ported to OS X (I mean, using Aqua instead of X windows)? I'd pay money for that!
:)
Heh. Observe this post from the macosx-dev list yesterday. Might be closer than you think
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 14:25:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Emacs.app
From: Marc Respass
To:
CC: Mike Elston ,
on 9/12/00 12:54 PM, Michael B. Johnson at wave@pixar.com wrote:
> Marc Respass wrote:
>>
>> How is Emacs.app different from running emacs in Terminal? I've never seen
>> Emacs.app
>>
>
> Emacs.app was a wonderful, reasonably full-on native port of gnu-emacs for
> NeXTSTEP. It integrated
> seemlessly into the old, old Project Builder (i.e. double-click on a compile
> error in PB, it brought
> you to the correct line and file in Emacs.app). It had color, fonts, multiple
> windows, all the
> things one is used to under UNIX/X11 with gnu-emacs, but are sorely missed
> from bring "emacs" up in
> a Terminal.
>
> Now that I'm dipping my toe back in OSX, I miss it terribly as well.
Oh, that sounds awesome. Is the source to Emacs.app available somewhere? I'd
love to have a look.
--Marc R
so it looks like multiple monitor support is still in the "sort of works, but unsupported" category.
Well, close. The "Works fine with the right cards" category.
Virtually any recent ATI card is almost certainly fine.
I don't think anyone's pointed out yet that "Project Builder", the IDE for Mac OS X Cocoa developers, doesn't seem to be included in the beta.
... but only because I agree with your logic that a $400 entry barrier to playing with the dev tools would be insanely fucking stupid.
:)
Separate CD which gets mailed out to Select/Premier developers.
It strikes me as likely that they'll allow Online (free signup) developers to order and/or download the tools CD
Not that mere insane fucking stupidity in any way disqualifies a course of action from Apple embracing it, it seems. *shrug* We'll know within 24 hours
Video apps.
:)
Steve Jobs believes that desktop video is the next desktop publishing. Witness his iMovie 2 demo at MWNY.
Also witness Apple's purchases of MPEG2 compression technology and of DVD utility software writers this spring.
Also witness the fact that QuickTime 5 is codenamed 'Capra'.
And now we're sheeting pretty close to the NDA wind, if you know what I mean and I think you do
Okay, doesn't ANYBODY have some Funny mod points to spare? This is a GEM.
oh great first it was the "cube" and now its "mail"
Actually, Mail.app and the Cube debuted together...
...with NeXTStep 1.0.
It's just both have undergone some minor facelifts since.
That sucks. I don't think I'm alone in saying that the Quicktime player really, really sucks (this subject came up before, and I was definitely not alone). It's bug-ridden, and the interface blows.
Erm, the standard player relates to QuickTime in approximately the same way that WinAMP relates to the MP3 specification. It's just an app that calls the movie-playing APIs. Don't like it? Write your own.
No, I'm not being sarcastic. I did exactly that for QDesign last summer.
this, and all the files are in .sit (Mac StuffIt) format... I guess they only want the extensive Mac hacking community working on this one.
Stuffit Expanders for Windows, DOS, and Linux can all be found here.
once the codec is created, how can acceptance be encouraged?
Provide the content, and people will download your codec to watch it, trust me here.
How many Windows users installed QuickTime just to watch {Phantom Menace | X-Men | LOTR | etc.} trailers?
Correct answer: "A fucking whack."
IIRC the format for MPEG 4 is based on QuickTime. That means the container format has info about how to interpret the contents
... not really. It just means that the atom-based file structure of QuickTime is used to achieve a high level of interoperability.
... that's the POINT of using QuickTime's format, because it's the best out there at separating them :)
Errrrm
"The QuickTime file format, as explained in this book, has been incorporated by reference into the ISO/IEC 14496:1999 (MPEG-4) standard, published as of December 1999. The MP4 file format, developed by Apple Computer and IBM Corp., is designed to present a flexible and extensible format that facilitates the interchange, management, editing, and presentation of media. A presentation may be local to the system containing the presentation, or it may be via a network or other streamed delivery mechanism."
-- Inside QuickTime: QuickTime File Format
You might be able to leverage that when writing a codec.
Codecs are completely orthogonal to the MPEG-4 file format
But what does that person have a rifle for anyway then?
Well, anywhere north of the 56th parallel or so, the chances are about 85% they're a subsistence hunter and about 15% they're a trophy hunter on a guided tour.
Between the 49th and 56th parallel, it's probably around 20% subsistence hunter, 50% sport hunter, 20% trophy hunter, 9% target shooter, and 1% SWAT team.
(Numbers pulled out of my butt, but they are honest best estimates and I would be very surprised if they were wrong in any substantive fashion.)
Other than thinking trophy hunters are dickheads and you shouldn't kill anything unless you're going to eat it or it's about to hurt somebody, I don't have any problem with any of this.
I've never heard the expression "chew them down" for bargaining. Is it possible this is a cleaned-up "Jew them down"
... there ARE no Jews in rural BC so there's nothing to be anti about -- local racism is reserved for Indians, er, First Nations people :)
"chew" is a fairly common replacement for "talk" in rural BC where I grew up. As in "Whacha doin? Chewin' wit porges," y'know, eh? I'm quite sure it's just from that and has no anti-Semitic connotations whatsoever. It quite certainly wasn't used like that there
The income tax people have nothing to do with it.
No, but they depend on individuals' financial activity being cross-referencible to detect infringement of their regulations. This technology makes that detection very much harder. They won't like that.
I guarantee you that purchases you make with your "disposable" CC numbers will show up on your regular Amex bill. Not that the IRS gets copies of peoples' Amex bills to begin with.
Exactly so! They depend on the traceability of your CC number to detect individuals contravening the norms and thus throwing up "AUDIT ME" red flags which let them get into AmEx's records. Remove that traceability, and you have what amounts to a financial radar jammer, making it that much harder to detect who's playing games with money.
if you hadn't bolded it, I mighta let it slip by, but this is a geek forum, so let's use geek terms accurately: if theory does not agree with reality, it's not a theory.
... buddy is a little bit slow, that's all ;)
True. Okay, the hypothesis is that anonymizing an individual transaction removes no accountability. In reality, we will find that since a single point of contact can be used for individually anonymous transactions, the detectability of unlawful currency flows will be decreased greatly.
If your current credit card is not against the law, why would more credit card numbers be against the law?
CC numbers aren't illegal. Evading reporting regulations on currency transfers is illegal. With regular credit cards possessing a single number their use to evade these requirements is not practical. With an individual identifying number per transaction with no connectivity apparent outside the AmEx databases, coupled with some fairly basic effort to not make all transactions come from the same IP or something stupid like that, it suddenly becomes VERY practical indeed to shove funds around in pretty much complete confidence that you won't show up on anybody's radar.
(I don't think this is flamebait either
Can you elaborate on the potential abuses you forsee?
:)
Much of tax evasion and illegal activity detection is based on detecting patterns in otherwise unrelated financial data. Data gathered in audits and submitted by financial institutions is placed into one big soup from which patterns are detected and individuals are picked to have the microscope placed upon.
By providing a next to anonymous conduit for an individual transaction, the possibility of detecting currency flows by means other than direct AmEx record access is reduced by orders of magnitude. This would make IRS fishing expeditions next to useless, and require subpoenas to get at financial information that now can be found/deduced through the regular audit process.
Like I said, they gonna freak