God was pushed into those gaps by science. Older religions don't have such concepts of God as omniscient and "outside time." Most of them depicted gods as basically human but immortal, with control over some force of nature, or embodying some abstract principle (as in the Greek pantheon).
This is just my own speculation, but I think the concept of gods came about because we are intentional and empathetic beings, and ascribed intentionality to the natural world because it was easy to project purpose onto blind, indifferent natural forces.
Because we do things for a reason, it's perfectly natural to believe that when something beyond our control happens by chance, there is actually some reason behind it.
Ergo, with the discovery of more natural laws and seeing their blind indifference, God necessarily had to become more powerful, ineffable, and remote.
In an evolutionary world, sin doesn't exist, hence christ has no purpose hence Christianity is false. Period
I have news for you - even in a fundamentalist Christian world, sin doesn't exist.
Sin is, by definition, behavior that God does not want. But if God is the omnipotent, omniscient creator, he must have known that humans would sin and yet he created them anyway.
It's a logical impossibility for such a God to create a world that he does not want.
Theologians do a lot of handwaving to avoid this conundrum, but nobody has successfully solved it. If sin exists, it's because God wanted it to be so, and blames us for being how he made us.
I was about to write that. If I ever find out you pit me in such a situation, and provided I do want that job, I will cut any corner possible to hit that milestone first.
Aren't you assuming that the competition is for speed and not quality?
The article recommends continuing with the programmer "you like best," and if you're just going by who's faster, you're probably going to suffer for it.
So don't use it, if you hate it so much. It works fine for me.
The shortcuts have never been intuitive - that's why they are shortcuts. Even the drag-to-trash to eject is a shortcut for an intuitive (or shall we say obvious) menu command.
When I click an icon on the dock, I don't know if I'm clicking on a task or a launcher. ...Well I guess there's a little dot beside the icon when its a task
You said it yourself... the dot tells you whether it's running or not. Is that difficult to understand?
but that just indicates the app is loaded, not that I've had it open...
Not sure what you mean here by "had it open" - maybe you mean it stays there after you quit the program? Try right-clicking (or Ctrl-left-clicking) the program when it's running and select "Keep in Dock"
many of those dots are there because MacOS decided to start that app at boot.
No, the OS only launches Finder at boot unless you add programs to your startup preferences. Right-click the program in the Dock and choose "Open at Login."
If you have more than one window open in a single app, There's no easy way to switch between them.
Command-~ (tilde) or use the "Window" menu. Most apps support this. Some used tabbed windows or a "set of pages" format like Preview. Try the arrow keys or page-up and page-down.
When you use expose the windows are always in a different spot so you have to re-orient yourself everytime you use it. With a real taskbar, the button for your window is always in the same location.
Try it the old-fashioned way, use Command-tab to switch to the program you want. Then use Command-~ to switch to the window you want or click the Window menu, which also has a "Bring all to front" command.
If I want to open a new window for an app, I have to check for a tiny dot. If there isn't one then just click the icon on the dock. If there is a dot, then I have to right-click and select new window.
Command-tab to the app, then Command-N to get a new window. Easy and quick.
I guess you're not supposed to have more than one window open for a single app in MacOS.
Almost every Mac app supports multiple windows open at once, which is why the Dock isn't littered with window items like in Windows. Recently iLife apps like iMovie and Garage Band have moved away from this standard, allowing only one project open at a time (and quits if you have none open) which really really bugs me as a long-time Mac user. Also bugs me that Windows apps quit when you close the last window. They pretty much have to because the app menus are tied to the windows, unlike on the Mac.
...except if you want to move a file to a different folder you have to have two finder windows open because MacOSX doesn't allow you to cut and paste files.
True, you can't cut and paste, but drag and drop is not hard. If you make a shortcut to the destination folder in the Sidebar or Dock, it's even easier.
You need to right-click more often in MacOSX than any other OS
No, you don't, if you know what you're doing.
The dock makes it difficult to manage an application that has more than one window open, so it discourages you from having multiple windows open for a single app
The Dock is not for managing windows. That's why they introduced Expose and Spaces, but as I said you can still do it the old-fashioned way with Command-tab and Command-tilde.
My experieince with MacOSX in general is that if you do things the way Steve Jobs thinks you should be doing things, everything works fine. But if you stray from that path, everything becomes unnecessarily difficult. The Apple slogan shouldn't be "think different" it should be "think like steve jobs".
Be fair here - EVERY operating system makes you do things the way the designers think. It's different from Windows and Linux, but I find Mac OS much more ple
isn't the entire premise of friction basically shifted (sorry for the pun) to the device that will stop or let go of the lower shaft, which needs to be stopped for the torque to be transmitted to the wheels for example?
I'm no engineer either, but AFAICS the two counter-rotating shafts share the load between them, and the forward/reverse motion is the difference of the two.
So if one shaft is strong enough to transmit full torque from input to output, there's no problem if you split it between them because the load will always be less than full-power in either direction.
It's not like that at all, since end-users don't need licenses to use any patented technology in any of the products they buy.
Actually, I just got schooled on this myself - the law itself (US Code 271) states that "whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent."
The "whoever" doesn't distinguish between manufacturers and end users, it applies to everyone. The patent holder has to authorize you to use the invention, even if you build it yourself! When you buy a patented product, you are usually authorized by the patent holder to use it for any purpose. If the patent holder decides not to authorize certain uses, tough luck!
"A patent owner has the right to exclude others from making, using, or
selling the patented invention or design in the United States during the
term of the patent. Anyone who makes, uses, or sells a patented invention
or design within the United States during the term of the patent without
permission from the patent owner is an infringer - even if he or she did
not copy the patented invention or design or even know about it."
No, that is not what they are doing. All they are doing is saying 'if you want a license to make commercial works, it will cost you x, if you want to make non-commercial works, it will cost you y'.
Correct, but to my knowledge, patent law doesn't cover such things. It only covers the invention itself, EULAs cover terms of use.
They are not putting limitations on YOUR product, they are putting limitations on your use of THEIR product.
Incorrect. The sales and distribution of your video have ZERO to do with how H.264 works. You don't have to replicate an invention to use it, and there's no technical or legal reason for them to have control over how you use the invention. And since you can't produce your product using theirs without those limitations, there's no practical distinction IMHO.
We can debate whether software should be patentable all day, but video codecs are a pretty clear example of a piece of software that are very expensive to develop and probably do need some kind of patent protection.
There's nothing wrong with reasonable patents on inventions, but the point is to allow the maker to profit from producing the invention itself - and they can license other manufacturers to make similar inventions based on the patented design.
The reason this is different is because they're treating it like selling a video recorded with their invention is the same as duplicating the invention itself. They're putting limitations on the product of the codec as though you were taking away part of their business by selling an equivalent codec. I'm sorry, but I can't see that as a legitimate use of patents.
And in a very screwy way, that's actually how the whole patent game is "supposed" to work, i.e., find some reasonable amount to charge for a license, then do it.
Yeah, but the difference is how it used to be that the manufacturer paid for a license, sold you the product (cost of license built-in), and you used it for whatever you wanted.
Nowadays, they want to control not just how the product is made and sold, but how it is USED. That's just plain too much power.
Yeah, that's true about downloadable songs - but there are still lots of songs that are unavailable, and the labels were pretty much dragged kicking and screaming to the table after Napster and IMS showed them how outdated their business model was. They still overcharge for CDs, though.
Mostly I was thinking of the MPAA and TV producers. The time is LONG overdue when I should be able to pull up a movie or TV episode on demand and not have to pay an arm and a leg for it. I have Netflix streaming, which is a big step in the right direction - but again, not everything is available for download and if I really want to watch that particular episode of M*A*S*H right now, I'm not going to go chasing around town to buy the whole-season box for $80.
People will buy something if they get a perceived value, and the convenience saves them the trouble of going out and finding it. Witness iTunes Music Store.
If they feel they're being ripped off, they'll go out of their way to pirate it.
RIAA, MPAA - why don't you just sell your product for a reasonable price so that more people will buy it? Make it easily downloadable and hassle-free (standard formats with no DRM).
Wouldn't that be easier than the technical and legislative shenanigans you seem so enamored of??
I my applications are "originally written in" in neurons, which requires the use of intermediate code being expressed in various languages on whiteboards, notebooks, conversations, etc. before any code reaches C or other language.
> Whether you hide behind a runtime is entirely irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant if it saves you from having to include all those #IFDEFs in your own code vs. someone else's existing code.
Of course, you can do this with cross-platform libraries that are native, not interpreted. So why exactly do they persist in re-inventing this particular wheel?:-/
There should be such a law. In fact, I think police officers should be required to be in counseling while in active, non-desk service. For their sake as well as our own: constantly experiencing the underbelly of society can turn anyone into an asshole.
Great idea! The government can pass another stimulus bill with more borrowed money to hire all the currently unemployed as counselors.
When the seedy underbelly infects the cops, the counselors will be there to listen. Then the counselors will get infected. They will return home to their wives, husbands, and kids as assholes. The kids will bring the assholishness to school. A huge effort will be undertaken to find a vaccine before it's too late, until the worst-case scenario comes to pass: the ENTIRE USA becomes a nation of assholes in just under 3 months.
Then Charlton Heston comes back from the grave to fight the asshole hordes from a boarded-up house and a 1970 Ford Mustang.
Slashdot Mirror
God was pushed into those gaps by science. Older religions don't have such concepts of God as omniscient and "outside time." Most of them depicted gods as basically human but immortal, with control over some force of nature, or embodying some abstract principle (as in the Greek pantheon).
This is just my own speculation, but I think the concept of gods came about because we are intentional and empathetic beings, and ascribed intentionality to the natural world because it was easy to project purpose onto blind, indifferent natural forces.
Because we do things for a reason, it's perfectly natural to believe that when something beyond our control happens by chance, there is actually some reason behind it.
Ergo, with the discovery of more natural laws and seeing their blind indifference, God necessarily had to become more powerful, ineffable, and remote.
I have news for you - even in a fundamentalist Christian world, sin doesn't exist.
Sin is, by definition, behavior that God does not want. But if God is the omnipotent, omniscient creator, he must have known that humans would sin and yet he created them anyway.
It's a logical impossibility for such a God to create a world that he does not want.
Theologians do a lot of handwaving to avoid this conundrum, but nobody has successfully solved it. If sin exists, it's because God wanted it to be so, and blames us for being how he made us.
But if you cut corners, it will end up being more costly in the long run.
I'm sure the managers aren't thinking about that, though.
Aren't you assuming that the competition is for speed and not quality?
The article recommends continuing with the programmer "you like best," and if you're just going by who's faster, you're probably going to suffer for it.
So don't use it, if you hate it so much. It works fine for me.
The shortcuts have never been intuitive - that's why they are shortcuts. Even the drag-to-trash to eject is a shortcut for an intuitive (or shall we say obvious) menu command.
BTW, command-tab goes back to Mac OS 8.
You said it yourself... the dot tells you whether it's running or not. Is that difficult to understand?
Not sure what you mean here by "had it open" - maybe you mean it stays there after you quit the program? Try right-clicking (or Ctrl-left-clicking) the program when it's running and select "Keep in Dock"
No, the OS only launches Finder at boot unless you add programs to your startup preferences. Right-click the program in the Dock and choose "Open at Login."
Command-~ (tilde) or use the "Window" menu. Most apps support this. Some used tabbed windows or a "set of pages" format like Preview. Try the arrow keys or page-up and page-down.
Try it the old-fashioned way, use Command-tab to switch to the program you want. Then use Command-~ to switch to the window you want or click the Window menu, which also has a "Bring all to front" command.
Command-tab to the app, then Command-N to get a new window. Easy and quick.
Almost every Mac app supports multiple windows open at once, which is why the Dock isn't littered with window items like in Windows. Recently iLife apps like iMovie and Garage Band have moved away from this standard, allowing only one project open at a time (and quits if you have none open) which really really bugs me as a long-time Mac user. Also bugs me that Windows apps quit when you close the last window. They pretty much have to because the app menus are tied to the windows, unlike on the Mac.
True, you can't cut and paste, but drag and drop is not hard. If you make a shortcut to the destination folder in the Sidebar or Dock, it's even easier.
No, you don't, if you know what you're doing.
The Dock is not for managing windows. That's why they introduced Expose and Spaces, but as I said you can still do it the old-fashioned way with Command-tab and Command-tilde.
Be fair here - EVERY operating system makes you do things the way the designers think. It's different from Windows and Linux, but I find Mac OS much more ple
I'm no engineer either, but AFAICS the two counter-rotating shafts share the load between them, and the forward/reverse motion is the difference of the two.
So if one shaft is strong enough to transmit full torque from input to output, there's no problem if you split it between them because the load will always be less than full-power in either direction.
"The great thing about hypocrisy is that once you accept it in yourself, you are free to condemn it in others." :)
I think he was talking about this Dirk based on the "large parts" comment...
Better yet, turn on captions while watching a Day Job Orchestra Trek dub!!
Actually, I just got schooled on this myself - the law itself (US Code 271) states that "whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent."
The "whoever" doesn't distinguish between manufacturers and end users, it applies to everyone. The patent holder has to authorize you to use the invention, even if you build it yourself! When you buy a patented product, you are usually authorized by the patent holder to use it for any purpose. If the patent holder decides not to authorize certain uses, tough luck!
Well, that comes as a surprise to me, but I'm not ashamed to admit when I'm wrong!
Also found this: An Intellectual Property Law Primer For Multimedia And Web Developers
"A patent owner has the right to exclude others from making, using, or selling the patented invention or design in the United States during the term of the patent. Anyone who makes, uses, or sells a patented invention or design within the United States during the term of the patent without permission from the patent owner is an infringer - even if he or she did not copy the patented invention or design or even know about it."
Cite please? I have tons of patented stuff in my house that I bought and own, and don't need any license to use it!
Correct, but to my knowledge, patent law doesn't cover such things. It only covers the invention itself, EULAs cover terms of use.
Incorrect. The sales and distribution of your video have ZERO to do with how H.264 works. You don't have to replicate an invention to use it, and there's no technical or legal reason for them to have control over how you use the invention. And since you can't produce your product using theirs without those limitations, there's no practical distinction IMHO.
There's nothing wrong with reasonable patents on inventions, but the point is to allow the maker to profit from producing the invention itself - and they can license other manufacturers to make similar inventions based on the patented design.
The reason this is different is because they're treating it like selling a video recorded with their invention is the same as duplicating the invention itself. They're putting limitations on the product of the codec as though you were taking away part of their business by selling an equivalent codec. I'm sorry, but I can't see that as a legitimate use of patents.
Yeah, but the difference is how it used to be that the manufacturer paid for a license, sold you the product (cost of license built-in), and you used it for whatever you wanted.
Nowadays, they want to control not just how the product is made and sold, but how it is USED. That's just plain too much power.
You can run Mini vMac on it:
http://aoc.3lavie.com/2009/02/mac-os-classic-on-iphone.html
...I heard Mac OS X 10.7 'Cougar' will attract lots of young developers... :)
Yeah, that's true about downloadable songs - but there are still lots of songs that are unavailable, and the labels were pretty much dragged kicking and screaming to the table after Napster and IMS showed them how outdated their business model was. They still overcharge for CDs, though.
Mostly I was thinking of the MPAA and TV producers. The time is LONG overdue when I should be able to pull up a movie or TV episode on demand and not have to pay an arm and a leg for it. I have Netflix streaming, which is a big step in the right direction - but again, not everything is available for download and if I really want to watch that particular episode of M*A*S*H right now, I'm not going to go chasing around town to buy the whole-season box for $80.
> What price beats free?
People will buy something if they get a perceived value, and the convenience saves them the trouble of going out and finding it. Witness iTunes Music Store.
If they feel they're being ripped off, they'll go out of their way to pirate it.
RIAA, MPAA - why don't you just sell your product for a reasonable price so that more people will buy it? Make it easily downloadable and hassle-free (standard formats with no DRM).
Wouldn't that be easier than the technical and legislative shenanigans you seem so enamored of??
Fine, just DON'T use butterflies!
> Whether you hide behind a runtime is entirely irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant if it saves you from having to include all those #IFDEFs in your own code vs. someone else's existing code.
Of course, you can do this with cross-platform libraries that are native, not interpreted. So why exactly do they persist in re-inventing this particular wheel? :-/
To the mod who marked my joke "Flamebait" : I see you have already been infected!
Great idea! The government can pass another stimulus bill with more borrowed money to hire all the currently unemployed as counselors.
When the seedy underbelly infects the cops, the counselors will be there to listen. Then the counselors will get infected. They will return home to their wives, husbands, and kids as assholes. The kids will bring the assholishness to school. A huge effort will be undertaken to find a vaccine before it's too late, until the worst-case scenario comes to pass: the ENTIRE USA becomes a nation of assholes in just under 3 months.
Then Charlton Heston comes back from the grave to fight the asshole hordes from a boarded-up house and a 1970 Ford Mustang.