I've almost finished ripping them to MP3, too, so who needs streaming? It's all classical music, which I doubt Apple include in their new offering, so people like me don't needn't worry about being denied Taylor Swift's mind-numbing bilge. For the rest of us, there's always Radio Swiss's free online streaming radio (Jazz, Pop, and Classical)
My media centre PC (Win 7) has been offering me a Win 10 upgrade for a few weeks, but I'm not taking it because I'll lose media centre. Eventually I'll have to go back to Myth TV I guess, but I have enjoyed veging out these past few years with something that's easier to setup and use with my MCE remote.
I would have to agree. It just lacks polish. I still use OOo Calc for my budget spreadsheet (not having bothered to start using Apple's Numbers yet.... one day I will) but that's about it. Regarding another high-profile open source application, The GIMP, I recently stumped up almost AUD $40 for Pixelmator because The GIMP just feels old and nasty on the Mac: windows appearing behind others when they should bring themselves to the front and file dialogues that look nasty and never remember their position (like tool windows) are just two annoyances I finally grew tired of.
Linux on the desktop is dead so I don't care about maintaining an exit strategy with all my files any more. About a year or so after Ubuntu started messing the GNOME after 10.04 is when I finally decided to switch to Mac. I've never looked back.
At the risk of incurring the wrath of "the old ones" of programming, why on earth not? Multiplying by 0 results in 0, so dividing by 0 could equal 0 too. Better still, if you're dividing it by 0, then you're not even dividing it at all, so perhaps the result should be the number other than 0? And if you're dividing 0 by 0 then the answer should also be 0.
I've never used Ruby and I'm sure most Apple people haven't, too. I would have preferred a c# syntax but as it is, Swift's syntax isn't that bad. It's a LOT better than Objective-C!!!
Exactly. I've grown tired of all these new languages that claim to be better than the real thing. You're far better of using "the real thing", and I've never liked IDEA as an IDE (mind you, I think XCode's code editor and workspace tabs suck, too, but I've learned to tolerate it).
We may not be able to prove that a particular app isn't spying on us, but I can state with a high degree of confidence that said app isn't installing spyware on my device!
It's Microsoft's biggest asset (as well as client/server development platforms). Just because somebody else seems to be doing well in the mobile space, why does Microsoft see a need to translate that into ruining one of the good things going for them? If Microsoft trashes the desktop PC they do so at their peril. And I say this as an avid Mac user at home and Win8/.NET/SQL Server developer at work. The vast majority of 5 x 7 workers are NOT going to be productive with a tablet. They ARE going to be productive on "traditional" desktop computers (whether they use apps in a web browser all day or not).
Re:Apple Developer Program now all inclusive
on
WWDC 2015 Roundup
·
· Score: 1
You can give away your binaries to 30,000,000 people with XCode, too, without having to have a developer license (when making an OS X app which you don't wish to distribute through the App Store, that is). People will have to go into System Preferences and "Allow From Anywhere", though (but most haven't or won't).
Re:Apple Developer Program now all inclusive
on
WWDC 2015 Roundup
·
· Score: 0
This is the biggest piece of good news from the WWDC. I have an iOS developer program license ($150 in Australia) and have been holding off on buying one for OS X until my app is mostly ready (why pay for it and let time tick by without having an app in the App Store?). Now I won't have to:-)
And to MildlyTangy (in reply to Cutting_Crew's post) yes, we have to pay, but only if we want to distribute apps through the App Store. We're free to build OS X apps and put them on the 'net for free, but to distribute an iOS app, there is no free method (unless you and all your users are into jailbreaking, which kinda limits your customer base!).
Funny. He said "GNOME's outstanding interface designs" when it was the death of Gnome after 2.32 that made me decide to buy a Mac two years ago. I've been happy ever since. GNOME 3 is *still* borked all this time later. I used to be one of those people who thought Linux would conquer the world one day... eventually. I now have to admit that it will be a nerd's plaything for as long as I live, at least.
For the same reason Bach cantatas do it for me. I have 60 CDs of them (performed by the Bach Collegium Japan conducted by Masaaki Suzuki... the best there is). Not exactly Japanese music, though:-) But I hear you.
I'm not buying it if there are no previews. In any case, there's already Radio Swiss Classic or my own vast MP3 collection (ripped from legal CDs!) or Stan Getz bossa nova or Schiller.
I'd call such people "realists" because the warming isn't happening, and hasn't happened for 18 to 19 years. Michael Mann's infamous "hockey stick" graph was called that for a reason: it predicted a sharp turn upwards in temperatures - WHICH HAS NOT HAPPENED. Q. E. D.
Mann starts off lamenting the ad hominem attacks on scientists, then goes on to describe those who disagree with him as "deniers-for-hire". He's clearly comfortable with double standards, at least. His hockey stick graph has no credibility because temperatures in the past 18 to 19 years have NOT taken a sharp turn upwards as he predicted. Scientists tend to call this a falsification of the hypothesis, unless you're a "climate scientist", that is.
That's just the kind of non-sequitur intelligent people have come to expect from single issue progressives. The human race will "dumb" itself out of existence before we get a chance to use the nukes
Ah, biomass. Chopping down forests in the USA so that it can be classified as "sustainable" fuel for biomass plants in the UK. Own goal for the environment. Coal is one of the most dense and cheapest forms of energy on the planet, so it involves much less harm to the environment than biomass, solar, and wind turbines (the last two of which require land clearing for any large installations).
You're also forgetting that the developing world cannot now, and will not for many decades to come at least, afford these "renewable" forms of energy. Preventing them from using coal is immoral, and smacks of green self-righteousness.
I have always cared about ACTUAL environmentalism, not this global warming alarmist claptrap by watermelon greenies. It's sad how real environmentalism has been thrown under the bus for the sake of a few iconic baubles to satisfy the new eco-puritans who don't even realise the damage they support.
No wind turbine (or field of same) is going to generate enough electricity to smelt iron ore. If greenies weren't so prejudiced against nuclear power, we might take them seriously about climate change.
The embedded emissions in wind and solar are so high as to render them a complete waste of time. You do realise that coking coal is used in smelters to make all the steel to build these worthless contraptions? And the cement foundations for the wind turbines; cement is made from heating limestone & shale, releasing vast amounts CO2. You then have all the steel needed to prop up the solar panels, also made by burning coal. It all adds up, you know.
Just because you can see a shiny new wind turbine (that kills birds and bats in high numbers, by the way) doesn't mean all that CO2 released into the atmosphere during its production doesn't exist. Then you have the fact that wind turbines in cold areas draw electricity from coal-fired grids to keep them spinning during low wind conditions to prevent ice formation. Turbines also have to shut down in high wind conditions to stop them from breaking apart. A coal-fired plant is needed to back them up anyway, and you can't just flick the switch on a coal plant the moment the wind dies down, they take a day or more to get going. It would be funny if we all weren't paying for this huge waste of time.
The data relied upon by climate "scientists" are so tortured they no longer resemble original readings. Adjusting temperature records and making them up where there were none proves only the extent of this massive fraud.
You do know that there's PLENTY of scientific evidence out there which ISN'T funded by big oil refuting the ridiculous notion that carbon-dioxide is pollution? Just because something is funded by people with whom you have an ideological dispute it doesn't alter the quality (or lack thereof, as the case may be) of the writing on the page.
Most "climate science" is produced by rent-seeking alarmists whose jobs are dependent on a steady stream of government-funded group-think for their livelihoods. I would argue that this is the BIGGEST problem today. In fact, the state of "climate change" evidence (if you could call it that) is very analogues to medieval Catholicism:
Hypocritical Pope: Al Gore (flies about in jets all the time and has several electricity-guzzling mansions) Heretics: "deniers" Indulgences: carbon credits Inquisition: the gullible mainstream media Excommunication: the so-called "peer review" process which refuses to publish anything that doesn't toe the "CO2 is pollution" line
The past two to three decades have been an utter waste of time and money spent on this crap. You people could have been helping the world's poor by not providing them with unreliable/intermittent/costly "renewable" energy and letting them have coal-fired power plants to lift them out of poverty. But no, you prefer to hold them back. This is the great moral bankruptcy of this whole charade.
Slashdot Mirror
I've almost finished ripping them to MP3, too, so who needs streaming? It's all classical music, which I doubt Apple include in their new offering, so people like me don't needn't worry about being denied Taylor Swift's mind-numbing bilge. For the rest of us, there's always Radio Swiss's free online streaming radio (Jazz, Pop, and Classical)
My media centre PC (Win 7) has been offering me a Win 10 upgrade for a few weeks, but I'm not taking it because I'll lose media centre. Eventually I'll have to go back to Myth TV I guess, but I have enjoyed veging out these past few years with something that's easier to setup and use with my MCE remote.
I would have to agree. It just lacks polish. I still use OOo Calc for my budget spreadsheet (not having bothered to start using Apple's Numbers yet.... one day I will) but that's about it. Regarding another high-profile open source application, The GIMP, I recently stumped up almost AUD $40 for Pixelmator because The GIMP just feels old and nasty on the Mac: windows appearing behind others when they should bring themselves to the front and file dialogues that look nasty and never remember their position (like tool windows) are just two annoyances I finally grew tired of.
Linux on the desktop is dead so I don't care about maintaining an exit strategy with all my files any more. About a year or so after Ubuntu started messing the GNOME after 10.04 is when I finally decided to switch to Mac. I've never looked back.
At the risk of incurring the wrath of "the old ones" of programming, why on earth not? Multiplying by 0 results in 0, so dividing by 0 could equal 0 too. Better still, if you're dividing it by 0, then you're not even dividing it at all, so perhaps the result should be the number other than 0? And if you're dividing 0 by 0 then the answer should also be 0.
I've never used Ruby and I'm sure most Apple people haven't, too. I would have preferred a c# syntax but as it is, Swift's syntax isn't that bad. It's a LOT better than Objective-C!!!
Exactly. I've grown tired of all these new languages that claim to be better than the real thing. You're far better of using "the real thing", and I've never liked IDEA as an IDE (mind you, I think XCode's code editor and workspace tabs suck, too, but I've learned to tolerate it).
We may not be able to prove that a particular app isn't spying on us, but I can state with a high degree of confidence that said app isn't installing spyware on my device!
It's Microsoft's biggest asset (as well as client/server development platforms). Just because somebody else seems to be doing well in the mobile space, why does Microsoft see a need to translate that into ruining one of the good things going for them? If Microsoft trashes the desktop PC they do so at their peril. And I say this as an avid Mac user at home and Win8/.NET/SQL Server developer at work. The vast majority of 5 x 7 workers are NOT going to be productive with a tablet. They ARE going to be productive on "traditional" desktop computers (whether they use apps in a web browser all day or not).
You can give away your binaries to 30,000,000 people with XCode, too, without having to have a developer license (when making an OS X app which you don't wish to distribute through the App Store, that is). People will have to go into System Preferences and "Allow From Anywhere", though (but most haven't or won't).
This is the biggest piece of good news from the WWDC. I have an iOS developer program license ($150 in Australia) and have been holding off on buying one for OS X until my app is mostly ready (why pay for it and let time tick by without having an app in the App Store?). Now I won't have to :-)
And to MildlyTangy (in reply to Cutting_Crew's post) yes, we have to pay, but only if we want to distribute apps through the App Store. We're free to build OS X apps and put them on the 'net for free, but to distribute an iOS app, there is no free method (unless you and all your users are into jailbreaking, which kinda limits your customer base!).
Funny. He said "GNOME's outstanding interface designs" when it was the death of Gnome after 2.32 that made me decide to buy a Mac two years ago. I've been happy ever since. GNOME 3 is *still* borked all this time later. I used to be one of those people who thought Linux would conquer the world one day... eventually. I now have to admit that it will be a nerd's plaything for as long as I live, at least.
Can I get an Amen?! Anything Bach, really.
For the same reason Bach cantatas do it for me. I have 60 CDs of them (performed by the Bach Collegium Japan conducted by Masaaki Suzuki... the best there is). Not exactly Japanese music, though :-) But I hear you.
I'm not buying it if there are no previews. In any case, there's already Radio Swiss Classic or my own vast MP3 collection (ripped from legal CDs!) or Stan Getz bossa nova or Schiller.
Michael Mann is just protecting his gravy train. I suppose you can't blame him, really, but he is totally unworthy of respect as a consequence.
I'd call such people "realists" because the warming isn't happening, and hasn't happened for 18 to 19 years. Michael Mann's infamous "hockey stick" graph was called that for a reason: it predicted a sharp turn upwards in temperatures - WHICH HAS NOT HAPPENED. Q. E. D.
Mann starts off lamenting the ad hominem attacks on scientists, then goes on to describe those who disagree with him as "deniers-for-hire". He's clearly comfortable with double standards, at least. His hockey stick graph has no credibility because temperatures in the past 18 to 19 years have NOT taken a sharp turn upwards as he predicted. Scientists tend to call this a falsification of the hypothesis, unless you're a "climate scientist", that is.
That's just the kind of non-sequitur intelligent people have come to expect from single issue progressives. The human race will "dumb" itself out of existence before we get a chance to use the nukes
Ah, biomass. Chopping down forests in the USA so that it can be classified as "sustainable" fuel for biomass plants in the UK. Own goal for the environment. Coal is one of the most dense and cheapest forms of energy on the planet, so it involves much less harm to the environment than biomass, solar, and wind turbines (the last two of which require land clearing for any large installations).
You're also forgetting that the developing world cannot now, and will not for many decades to come at least, afford these "renewable" forms of energy. Preventing them from using coal is immoral, and smacks of green self-righteousness.
I have always cared about ACTUAL environmentalism, not this global warming alarmist claptrap by watermelon greenies. It's sad how real environmentalism has been thrown under the bus for the sake of a few iconic baubles to satisfy the new eco-puritans who don't even realise the damage they support.
No wind turbine (or field of same) is going to generate enough electricity to smelt iron ore. If greenies weren't so prejudiced against nuclear power, we might take them seriously about climate change.
You don't think that a totalitarian regime might have something to do with poverty in North Korea?
The embedded emissions in wind and solar are so high as to render them a complete waste of time. You do realise that coking coal is used in smelters to make all the steel to build these worthless contraptions? And the cement foundations for the wind turbines; cement is made from heating limestone & shale, releasing vast amounts CO2. You then have all the steel needed to prop up the solar panels, also made by burning coal. It all adds up, you know.
Just because you can see a shiny new wind turbine (that kills birds and bats in high numbers, by the way) doesn't mean all that CO2 released into the atmosphere during its production doesn't exist. Then you have the fact that wind turbines in cold areas draw electricity from coal-fired grids to keep them spinning during low wind conditions to prevent ice formation. Turbines also have to shut down in high wind conditions to stop them from breaking apart. A coal-fired plant is needed to back them up anyway, and you can't just flick the switch on a coal plant the moment the wind dies down, they take a day or more to get going. It would be funny if we all weren't paying for this huge waste of time.
There's no point trying to argue with somebody who HIMSELF has fingers in his ears about the actual data, which is here:
8 New Years Resolutions For Climate Scientists:
http://www.globalclimatescam.c...
The data relied upon by climate "scientists" are so tortured they no longer resemble original readings. Adjusting temperature records and making them up where there were none proves only the extent of this massive fraud.
You do know that there's PLENTY of scientific evidence out there which ISN'T funded by big oil refuting the ridiculous notion that carbon-dioxide is pollution? Just because something is funded by people with whom you have an ideological dispute it doesn't alter the quality (or lack thereof, as the case may be) of the writing on the page.
Most "climate science" is produced by rent-seeking alarmists whose jobs are dependent on a steady stream of government-funded group-think for their livelihoods. I would argue that this is the BIGGEST problem today. In fact, the state of "climate change" evidence (if you could call it that) is very analogues to medieval Catholicism:
Hypocritical Pope: Al Gore (flies about in jets all the time and has several electricity-guzzling mansions)
Heretics: "deniers"
Indulgences: carbon credits
Inquisition: the gullible mainstream media
Excommunication: the so-called "peer review" process which refuses to publish anything that doesn't toe the "CO2 is pollution" line
The past two to three decades have been an utter waste of time and money spent on this crap. You people could have been helping the world's poor by not providing them with unreliable/intermittent/costly "renewable" energy and letting them have coal-fired power plants to lift them out of poverty. But no, you prefer to hold them back. This is the great moral bankruptcy of this whole charade.