. Of course, the U.S. Government put those tyrants and dictators into power...
Really? We put the taliban in power in afganistan and saddam in power in iraq?
Only if you think we're responsible for everything that happens in the world.
Those countries are not kept poor because we want them to be-- you don't understand economics. Those countries being rich is what we wnat htem to be-- then we could sell them everything.
Imagine if the average income of every person in china trippled overnight-- it would not only be great for china, fueling their economy, but would create the largest growth in US stocks we've ever seen in a matter of weeks. Because they'd all have money to buy our stuff.
Capitalism combined with democracys is the ONLY THING that's ever solved poverty. To deny it is to flat out deny reality. Look at india-- it had a socialist planned economy after independance for many years, and went nowhere. In the last 20 years they have moved to a capitalist economy and the *AVERAGE INCOME* of an indian (including ALL THE POOR PEOPLE) has DOUBLED in 20 years.
Democracy and capitalism are curing poverty in India. Why won't you let them do so here?
The idea that wealth "needs" to be spread evenly or that capitalism is unfair is nieve-- and a bill of goods sold to you by people who want your money.
The difference between them and capitalists is they use guns, and capitalists use free choice-- you don't have to buy their products, but you have to pay taxes. The "war on poverty" is an excuse to get you to not complain when you pay-- but don't be so stupid to start believing that crap.
Instead of whining about other's hobbies, why arent' YOU doing these things?
Anyway, there are more people with more money racing to cure HIV than there are entering americas cup. Sheesh.
Likewise alternative energy.
As to feeding starving people or giving money to schools, people give copious food to the point that nobody starves in the US (unless they are unable to find a food bank.. where I live there are 6 foodbanks that would all give me enough food to survive on for free).... and after having so much of our income taken by gunpoint to pay for pointless schools, who wants to give more?
I oppose the US school system. Its a waste of money, doesn't work, and is paid for with theft. ITs time to get rid of it and let people who know how to educate compete with each other for the parent's money to educate their kids. Those who can't afford it can get scholarships and other charity... just like anyone who applies themselves can go to college these days. If there was any social benefit to schooling, its long gone. Up in smoke of the bureaucracy and corruption that all such communist endeavors create.
We have the richest poor people in the world. Our poorest are richer than the average person in many countries.
And when you look at it, you notice that the difference between this country and those is that they were not free, or not capitalistic for the last 100 years.
You could line every country up based on how much democracy, freedom and capitalism has-- from very much to almost none. And whne you do so, you can then look at the average standard of living.
Without exception the average standard of living is a proxy for how free and capitalistic the country is.
That's why, say, france is poorer than the US-- rather free, but too socialistic and it hurts their economy.
To bring it on topic, France has a great boat building industry (worlds' supplier of luxury catamarans) and a hell of a sailing industry as well, second only to england in sailing tradition (or maybe ahead of england). But their America's cup competitors are less able to draw on the resources of large companies because they have fewere large companies.
In a sense, socialism will probably cause france to loose the americas cup again!
No, Capitalism happens in the real world. No idealism is necessary for it. That's one of the big differences between it and communism. Its robust, it is not based on any assumptions about human nature, only on market forces.
Market forces happen in a lillypond with no human involvement-- too many flys means too many frogs, next season there are not enough flies.
Capitalism HAPPENS IN NATURE.
The reason you see tones of poor people in western countries is all the efforts to cure poverty. In the US they've spent 3 trillion dollars with the excuse of curing poverty and they have only made it worse. Eliminate the taxes and poverty will go away in a generation. Counter intuitive, but true. The only way to eliminate poverty is to have people have JOBS. Giving them money only makes the situation worse. and taxing others to get the money to give them, just removes money from the economy that would otherwise be CREATING JOBS.
The proof that capitalism doesn't require an ideal world is that it still survives quite well in our country run by neo-communist liberals and neo-fascist conservatives-- both of whom oppose freedom and deomocracy. Hell, capitalism worked in russia-- it was always breaking out. And China has found that its the only solution to their economic woes and so they are embracing it. Now if they'd only embrace freedom as well.
This idea that Capitalism only works in an ideal world is just as stupid as insisting that the earth is flat, and should not be tolerated.
It doesn't matter how much technology is on the boat or how many computers, you still sail with your hands, eyes, ears, and instincts.
Technology gives you improved perception-- a better idea of what the wind is likely to do, better knowledge of what the wind is doing mid mast rather than just on the deck or at the top, a better idea of what sail trim you should have....
But you still have to use your mind, body and muscles to execute the excellent control over the boat necessary. You make it sound like they could sit at home and tell the boats to sail themselves. They probably could if they outfitted the boats with the autopilot stuff that's available, but they would LOSE and LOSE BAD if they did.
I'm not the biggest fan of sailboat racing-- I think boats are more fun cruising around away from the mass of humanity-- but I have raced and I have raced on relatively high tech boats at a level that -- if sailing were as popular as football is-- would be televised.
All the technology in the world can only give you an idea of what the current situation is with the wind, water, and boat. But you can't win a race knowing the current situation-- to win you have to know the best tactics and use the your best judgement about whats *going to happen* to change the current situation, and execute those tactics flawlessly.
The televised america's cup racing I've seen has been a blast, and rather exciting-- I just wish they gave us more on the boat coverage and less quick cutting of the races.... to hear the crew chatter about tactics and where they think the wind is going to go during a race and then to see how it actually goes and how they handle it would be wonderful.
But so it goes. Sailing is one of the last competitive sports where so much technology is *necessary* to compete at that level, but still so ineffective compared to the human level. Ball games are low tech, hockey is low tech. Technology doesn't matter for them. Formula one racing-- technology makes a huge difference but you know where the track is and you just go-- and there's one driver so he has perfect coordination of his actiosn.
With sailing you have to have both the best technology and the best human brains and the best coordination of your team in order to win. IF you seriously lack any of those, then you loose.
You're wrong-- The americas cup is still about real sailors. Anyone who enters the americas cup without the stamina and fearlessness and judgment of a free climber combined with the technical prowess of your average programmer is going to loose.
It is not a sport for the idle wealthy, weak, easily scared or technically ignorant.
Well, since you admit you are a lawyer I should assume everything you say is a lie.
Anyway, if you are afraid of your wife finding out, or of being hauled into court, then either threat is extortion by your definition and you, yourself, are a criminal if you have ever mentioned meeting someone in court to settle a dispute.
By the way, you don't get to claim to be an authority "I am a lawyer" and then claim to not be giving legal advice. IF you aren't willing to be bound by what you say, shut up about being a lawyer. On the net, nobody can tell you're a dog.
Furthermore, the law is irrelevant to this discussion-- the poster asked about MORALITY, not the law. The law has nothing to do with morality, and, in fact, a very large portion of the laws are flat out immoral. (Such as taxation for services not received-- anyone paying property taxes to schools who doesn't have kids is being stolen from immorally.)
So you want to do a "reasonable comparison" by turning off floating point path processing and compare two floating point math chips?
You just admitted macs are faster-- photoshop, which is optimized for BOTH platforms, runs much faster on a mac.
Could it be because of the Altivec accelleration? You say yes, and you're right! The G4 IS much faster!
Sheesh.
Tell you what... if you want that to be your standard, then I will insist we run both processors at the same clock speed. Just to be fair, after all, right!
Oh, I know the difference. But I'll take the automatic gabage collection of autoreleased objects over the ands off- "we're going to stop everything for 30 seconds" garbage collection of Java anyday.
L:iterally, our program was stopping with all threads blocked for 30 seconds while Java did its garbage collection.
The automatic collection of autorelease does the trick nicely.
Yeah, you can have memory leaks, but you're not doing pointer math and its rather easy to have no memory leaks or issues at all with only a little bit of discipline.
I'll take disciplined code over java's "We'll take care of it for you, but it will cost you" anyday.
Still like java, its just not ready for performance or large scale applications (without work to get around the GC)
While Macs are faster than PCs, I was really joking. I don't wish to seriously debate the issue-- there are people who would rather get paid $100 every week than $1,200 every 60 days... and those people buy PCs and think they are twice as fast. No matter how much I tell them the latter is a better deal, they go "but I get paid 8 times more often!" They confuse frequency with bandwidth.
But since you said Apple says this is so, could you provide a link to Apple's test results showing AMD's much faster?
IT sounded like they got an empty case to put this motherboard in, right? They didn't buy a G4 and then downgrade it with that really slow processor, did they?
Well, if you have a slow processor and a spare empty case, why not put them together. I really don't see what the big deal is.
If you can't afford the whole computer, sure, why not cobble something together from parts. There's not reason to feel "rotten" just cause you don't have G4 running inside-- hell if you didn't go and tell the whole world, only the people who saw your machine running would know its slow.
Oh, you're right. I was so stupid. We should have shipped our product, knowing that it would periodically pause for 30 seconds and not return any web pages to the customers while it GCed the objects in memory. After all, eventually Moores law would have taken care of it, right?
Oh, and thanks for your advices that since "nobody" except for Apple is using Objective C, I should just use the industry standard, which would be what, C?
And what was I thinking appreciating Objective C when obviously the only reason I could like it is because Apple's using it. Stupid me, I haven't seen productivity gains over java, and I'm not writing an application that reads data off of Firewire, and since only Apple's using it, I won't be able to port my Mac Only product to Windows cause GCC doesn't exist for Windows, right?
And, on top of it, I apologize for whining "too slow, I want more control" -- which I seem to not remember saying when I said "Objective C is the best programming language I've found so far."
And I won't even be so stupid as to point out that Objective-C doesn't seem to have any serious deficiencies, needing correcting over the last 15 years because clearly I'm wrong-- I mean, obviously its still compiled rather than interpreted, and its just not smalltalk.
But I do think you need to clarify how applications like OmniWeb, OmniOutliner, OmniGraffle, and the Cocoa frameworks are hurting the Macintosh, after all the lower barriers to development allows those (and many more applications like them) to be viable with one or two programmers developing them, rather than the cadres it takes to develop a comparable App using carbon. Maybe you meant apple should keep Cocoa and make it Java only like WebObjects and then everyone can just write in Java-- since clearly its the only language people should be allowed to use-- after all, nobody needs "real time", first person shooters are over-rated, people don't really want to use their computers for entertainment, watching or editing movies, or encoding MP3s. After all, Office has been ported to Carbon, so its no wonder there are few jobs for programmers-- what possible need could there be for other applications?
Yes, in response to someone who was saying Objective C sucked because it didn't have garbage collection.
In my opinion, its the best memory management system I've used yet.
You haven't made your case that it is "poor". Java and Smalltalk are interpreted languages. Releasing memory as part of the event loop is the best I've worked with, and I'd hate to go back to Java for realtime work (I'd enjoy the work, but hate dealing with GC issues.)
I don't see objective C as "gobbling up memory"... especially when compared to Java (or smalltalk for that matter). Unless you have a memory leak, Objective C is far more memory efficient than java-- mostly because of VM overhead.
And certainly nobody has made the case that Objective C is a pale imitation of the state of OO from the 70s, as was the original claim I'm responding to.
The book is pretty good.
on
ChronoSpace
·
· Score: 2
I enjoyed it. I was surprised at how negative the review was... it is entertainment, not science. I didn't take it too seriously and I enjoyed the book.
Lately I've been reading some heinlein I missed when I went thru the obligatory hienlein phase in high school. Of course, some of what I'm reading was written in the 50s, and the science is just plain wrong. OK, fine. The science isn't that critical for a story-- and I'm someone who hates stories where the science is wrong. But you can't expect someone to predict science accurately 50 years into the future and then be unhappy when they are wrong. you have to suspend some disbelief.
IF you went into a time travel story without suspending disbelief, no wonder you were unhappy! By its nature, time travel stories are always going to be incorrect
Anyway, I'm not saying this is a golden book. The ending wasn't the greatest, but it was entertaining and thus, worth my time reading it.
Best book by steele (I think it was steele, it was a long time ago) is Kaleidascope Century. Really good book.
Chronospace is a good weekend read when you want to get away from reality for awhile.
Having problems is not the issue. Being irrational about it- that is the issue.
You're clearly someone with an axe to grind. I'm not the first person to point this out to you.
Hell, you're the one who claimed the next people lied about what they were delivering to apple. Which is kinda funny, given that history shows the not to be the case.
But whats the point-- you seem to enjoy complaining about apple and you will continue to do so... its just worth letting others know that there is an ulterior motive.
This company was full of people who really thought they knew their stuff when it came to computers. I watched one of the Linux gurus there sheepishly admit that he didn't know that removing an NT box from a domain removed his ability to log in with his domain account.
This is becoming my opinion of the average slashdot poster. Thinks they know a lot, but actually doesn't. Hey but at least they're better than the columnists for ars technica. Nobody assumes the slashdot dweeb knows what they are talking about, but many people are foolish enough to believe what they read in ars technica articles.
Just admit it all you Linux fans. You'd be much happier with a macintosh... and they are cheaper and faster, so go pick one up today.
It runs unix. Its open sourced. It has better games. And they are priced to move. You don't have to thank me... and one day you'll look back at yourself now and laugh and laugh...
Oh really? As far as shipping systems, they are the epitome of GUI. There isn't much competition-- X windiws which is blatently crappy, Windows XP et. al,. which are poor copies of Mac OS X and Linux which is an even poorer copy of Windows. No, its the epitome of GUIs, that goes without there's not disputing that.
Unless, of course, you're one of those people who thinks Apple should ship a laptop with a 23 inch display, quad G4s running at 1GHz and 20 hours of battery life nad a price of only $250, to compete with the XBOX. Some people are just unreasonable.
Like I said, there's nothing important left out of Objective-C. All the things you mentioned are irrelevant. You, like the other guy, are complaining that its objectiveC and not smalltalk. If you want smalltalk, fine, use it, but don't expect everyone in the world to use small talk for every situation. Hell, all three of the things you mentioned are included in ObjectiveC.
As to your bashing compiled applications, well, I should have known. There's no arguing with you-- you want the laptop I described above. you see no reason why things shouldn't be perfectly the way you want, and I suspect you have no idea why they aren't.
This is a form of intolerance that is common on slashdot. There are a lot of people here who have some ideological world view and wish to insist that everything must fit it... and so they will ignore superior technology, or bash it, merely because it doesn't fit their purpose.
Most of the complaints about Mac OSX are that its not Windows.... yet these people are too stupid to realize that Windows is what they are actually advocating. Why is there not an outcry that Linux just has a ripped off windows UI instead of soemthing useful? Because the customer base for Linux is windows users who want to feel "cool".
Whatever. It seems pretty silly that you are complaining that a language that is not smalltalk is not smalltalk.
If you want to use smalltalk, use smalltalk.
You haven't shown any problems or issues or weaknesses in Objective C... you have only pointed out that it is a different language. Something we all knew going in.
Objective-C has garbage collection, in fact, it has the best implementation I've used so far.
When objects are autoreleased, they are GCed at the end of the event loop.
This is much better than, say, Java, where you can never predict when GC will occur (and I've spend countless hours trying to get a product to work even though it will randomly stop and check EVERYTHING IN MEMORY to see if it should be deleted.... when doing a large server with gigabytes of objects in memory this impact is a major PITA) With objective-C memory management is semi-automatic. A better solution than Java and FAR better than C/C++.
I don't know what you mean by "real exceptions" but basically, every languages has its differences and the person I was responding to was just wrong in saying that Objective-C is a pale ripoff of smalltalk.
Who was fired (or otherwise bitterly parted ways) from Apple after apparently mismanaging a major development project.
Apparently at least in one case, the PHBs he's ranting about are him.
Not to say he's worthless, but he does fit the general description "Apple basher". He needs to let go of his bitterness and get a better perspective on things.
There is nothing important that Smalltalk has, that Objective-C lacks.
In fact, Objective-C is superior to small talk for its given market: compiled applications that can be shipped in shrink wrapped form.
Call C++ a pale shadow of smalltalk and I agree with you, but don't knock Objective C. Its wonderful, and has no problems or poor aspects that from what I see.
There's a lot of whining about OS X and I just don't get it-- it is far and away the best OS I've ever worked with as a user, or developed for as a developer. Far better than Classic Mac OS, better than windows, better than Unix.
I think people want to complain about some idealized impossibly perfect idea of what something could be... but in terms of reality-- shipping products-- its the best there is right now, and well ahead of everything else out there.
I cited my source. Where did you hear this rumor? Hell,you can go to the star wars website and find any of the press releases--- it has been the Lucas position all along that they filmed AOTC entirely in HD.
I just figured you had heard the wrong thing, now that you've gotten beligerant about it, I realize you're a luddite out to spread misinformation.
Slashdot Mirror
. Of course, the U.S. Government put those tyrants and dictators into power...
Really? We put the taliban in power in afganistan and saddam in power in iraq?
Only if you think we're responsible for everything that happens in the world.
Those countries are not kept poor because we want them to be-- you don't understand economics. Those countries being rich is what we wnat htem to be-- then we could sell them everything.
Imagine if the average income of every person in china trippled overnight-- it would not only be great for china, fueling their economy, but would create the largest growth in US stocks we've ever seen in a matter of weeks. Because they'd all have money to buy our stuff.
Capitalism combined with democracys is the ONLY THING that's ever solved poverty. To deny it is to flat out deny reality. Look at india-- it had a socialist planned economy after independance for many years, and went nowhere. In the last 20 years they have moved to a capitalist economy and the *AVERAGE INCOME* of an indian (including ALL THE POOR PEOPLE) has DOUBLED in 20 years.
Democracy and capitalism are curing poverty in India. Why won't you let them do so here?
The idea that wealth "needs" to be spread evenly or that capitalism is unfair is nieve-- and a bill of goods sold to you by people who want your money.
The difference between them and capitalists is they use guns, and capitalists use free choice-- you don't have to buy their products, but you have to pay taxes. The "war on poverty" is an excuse to get you to not complain when you pay-- but don't be so stupid to start believing that crap.
Instead of whining about other's hobbies, why arent' YOU doing these things?
Anyway, there are more people with more money racing to cure HIV than there are entering americas cup. Sheesh.
Likewise alternative energy.
As to feeding starving people or giving money to schools, people give copious food to the point that nobody starves in the US (unless they are unable to find a food bank.. where I live there are 6 foodbanks that would all give me enough food to survive on for free).... and after having so much of our income taken by gunpoint to pay for pointless schools, who wants to give more?
I oppose the US school system. Its a waste of money, doesn't work, and is paid for with theft. ITs time to get rid of it and let people who know how to educate compete with each other for the parent's money to educate their kids. Those who can't afford it can get scholarships and other charity... just like anyone who applies themselves can go to college these days. If there was any social benefit to schooling, its long gone. Up in smoke of the bureaucracy and corruption that all such communist endeavors create.
We have the richest poor people in the world. Our poorest are richer than the average person in many countries.
And when you look at it, you notice that the difference between this country and those is that they were not free, or not capitalistic for the last 100 years.
You could line every country up based on how much democracy, freedom and capitalism has-- from very much to almost none. And whne you do so, you can then look at the average standard of living.
Without exception the average standard of living is a proxy for how free and capitalistic the country is.
That's why, say, france is poorer than the US-- rather free, but too socialistic and it hurts their economy.
To bring it on topic, France has a great boat building industry (worlds' supplier of luxury catamarans) and a hell of a sailing industry as well, second only to england in sailing tradition (or maybe ahead of england). But their America's cup competitors are less able to draw on the resources of large companies because they have fewere large companies.
In a sense, socialism will probably cause france to loose the americas cup again!
No, Capitalism happens in the real world. No idealism is necessary for it. That's one of the big differences between it and communism. Its robust, it is not based on any assumptions about human nature, only on market forces.
Market forces happen in a lillypond with no human involvement-- too many flys means too many frogs, next season there are not enough flies.
Capitalism HAPPENS IN NATURE.
The reason you see tones of poor people in western countries is all the efforts to cure poverty. In the US they've spent 3 trillion dollars with the excuse of curing poverty and they have only made it worse. Eliminate the taxes and poverty will go away in a generation. Counter intuitive, but true. The only way to eliminate poverty is to have people have JOBS. Giving them money only makes the situation worse. and taxing others to get the money to give them, just removes money from the economy that would otherwise be CREATING JOBS.
The proof that capitalism doesn't require an ideal world is that it still survives quite well in our country run by neo-communist liberals and neo-fascist conservatives-- both of whom oppose freedom and deomocracy. Hell, capitalism worked in russia-- it was always breaking out. And China has found that its the only solution to their economic woes and so they are embracing it. Now if they'd only embrace freedom as well.
This idea that Capitalism only works in an ideal world is just as stupid as insisting that the earth is flat, and should not be tolerated.
Don't be stupid. Study economics.
And the BOC Challenge, or whatever the Around the World alone race is now called.
Those rock!
Talk about "real sailors"!
It doesn't matter how much technology is on the boat or how many computers, you still sail with your hands, eyes, ears, and instincts.
Technology gives you improved perception-- a better idea of what the wind is likely to do, better knowledge of what the wind is doing mid mast rather than just on the deck or at the top, a better idea of what sail trim you should have....
But you still have to use your mind, body and muscles to execute the excellent control over the boat necessary. You make it sound like they could sit at home and tell the boats to sail themselves. They probably could if they outfitted the boats with the autopilot stuff that's available, but they would LOSE and LOSE BAD if they did.
I'm not the biggest fan of sailboat racing-- I think boats are more fun cruising around away from the mass of humanity-- but I have raced and I have raced on relatively high tech boats at a level that -- if sailing were as popular as football is-- would be televised.
All the technology in the world can only give you an idea of what the current situation is with the wind, water, and boat. But you can't win a race knowing the current situation-- to win you have to know the best tactics and use the your best judgement about whats *going to happen* to change the current situation, and execute those tactics flawlessly.
The televised america's cup racing I've seen has been a blast, and rather exciting-- I just wish they gave us more on the boat coverage and less quick cutting of the races.... to hear the crew chatter about tactics and where they think the wind is going to go during a race and then to see how it actually goes and how they handle it would be wonderful.
But so it goes. Sailing is one of the last competitive sports where so much technology is *necessary* to compete at that level, but still so ineffective compared to the human level. Ball games are low tech, hockey is low tech. Technology doesn't matter for them. Formula one racing-- technology makes a huge difference but you know where the track is and you just go-- and there's one driver so he has perfect coordination of his actiosn.
With sailing you have to have both the best technology and the best human brains and the best coordination of your team in order to win. IF you seriously lack any of those, then you loose.
You're wrong-- The americas cup is still about real sailors. Anyone who enters the americas cup without the stamina and fearlessness and judgment of a free climber combined with the technical prowess of your average programmer is going to loose.
It is not a sport for the idle wealthy, weak, easily scared or technically ignorant.
Well, since you admit you are a lawyer I should assume everything you say is a lie.
Anyway, if you are afraid of your wife finding out, or of being hauled into court, then either threat is extortion by your definition and you, yourself, are a criminal if you have ever mentioned meeting someone in court to settle a dispute.
By the way, you don't get to claim to be an authority "I am a lawyer" and then claim to not be giving legal advice. IF you aren't willing to be bound by what you say, shut up about being a lawyer. On the net, nobody can tell you're a dog.
Furthermore, the law is irrelevant to this discussion-- the poster asked about MORALITY, not the law. The law has nothing to do with morality, and, in fact, a very large portion of the laws are flat out immoral. (Such as taxation for services not received-- anyone paying property taxes to schools who doesn't have kids is being stolen from immorally.)
You're quite wrong.
Otherwise every lawyer and debt collector in that state would be out of business.
Its only illegal if what he were to tell the VC was untrue-- then it would be threatening to misrepresent them in a bad light.
Telling the VC the truth about the situation is not wrongful, and therefore would not constitute extortion.
Its only extortion if your threat is to do something illegal.
Oh, that's really funny!
So you want to do a "reasonable comparison" by turning off floating point path processing and compare two floating point math chips?
You just admitted macs are faster-- photoshop, which is optimized for BOTH platforms, runs much faster on a mac.
Could it be because of the Altivec accelleration? You say yes, and you're right! The G4 IS much faster!
Sheesh.
Tell you what... if you want that to be your standard, then I will insist we run both processors at the same clock speed. Just to be fair, after all, right!
Oh, I know the difference. But I'll take the automatic gabage collection of autoreleased objects over the ands off- "we're going to stop everything for 30 seconds" garbage collection of Java anyday.
L:iterally, our program was stopping with all threads blocked for 30 seconds while Java did its garbage collection.
The automatic collection of autorelease does the trick nicely.
Yeah, you can have memory leaks, but you're not doing pointer math and its rather easy to have no memory leaks or issues at all with only a little bit of discipline.
I'll take disciplined code over java's "We'll take care of it for you, but it will cost you" anyday.
Still like java, its just not ready for performance or large scale applications (without work to get around the GC)
While Macs are faster than PCs, I was really joking. I don't wish to seriously debate the issue-- there are people who would rather get paid $100 every week than $1,200 every 60 days... and those people buy PCs and think they are twice as fast. No matter how much I tell them the latter is a better deal, they go "but I get paid 8 times more often!" They confuse frequency with bandwidth.
But since you said Apple says this is so, could you provide a link to Apple's test results showing AMD's much faster?
Thanks.
IT sounded like they got an empty case to put this motherboard in, right? They didn't buy a G4 and then downgrade it with that really slow processor, did they?
Well, if you have a slow processor and a spare empty case, why not put them together. I really don't see what the big deal is.
If you can't afford the whole computer, sure, why not cobble something together from parts. There's not reason to feel "rotten" just cause you don't have G4 running inside-- hell if you didn't go and tell the whole world, only the people who saw your machine running would know its slow.
Oh, you're right. I was so stupid. We should have shipped our product, knowing that it would periodically pause for 30 seconds and not return any web pages to the customers while it GCed the objects in memory. After all, eventually Moores law would have taken care of it, right?
Oh, and thanks for your advices that since "nobody" except for Apple is using Objective C, I should just use the industry standard, which would be what, C?
And what was I thinking appreciating Objective C when obviously the only reason I could like it is because Apple's using it. Stupid me, I haven't seen productivity gains over java, and I'm not writing an application that reads data off of Firewire, and since only Apple's using it, I won't be able to port my Mac Only product to Windows cause GCC doesn't exist for Windows, right?
And, on top of it, I apologize for whining "too slow, I want more control" -- which I seem to not remember saying when I said "Objective C is the best programming language I've found so far."
And I won't even be so stupid as to point out that Objective-C doesn't seem to have any serious deficiencies, needing correcting over the last 15 years because clearly I'm wrong-- I mean, obviously its still compiled rather than interpreted, and its just not smalltalk.
But I do think you need to clarify how applications like OmniWeb, OmniOutliner, OmniGraffle, and the Cocoa frameworks are hurting the Macintosh, after all the lower barriers to development allows those (and many more applications like them) to be viable with one or two programmers developing them, rather than the cadres it takes to develop a comparable App using carbon. Maybe you meant apple should keep Cocoa and make it Java only like WebObjects and then everyone can just write in Java-- since clearly its the only language people should be allowed to use-- after all, nobody needs "real time", first person shooters are over-rated, people don't really want to use their computers for entertainment, watching or editing movies, or encoding MP3s. After all, Office has been ported to Carbon, so its no wonder there are few jobs for programmers-- what possible need could there be for other applications?
Thanks for setting me straight.
Yes, in response to someone who was saying Objective C sucked because it didn't have garbage collection.
In my opinion, its the best memory management system I've used yet.
You haven't made your case that it is "poor". Java and Smalltalk are interpreted languages. Releasing memory as part of the event loop is the best I've worked with, and I'd hate to go back to Java for realtime work (I'd enjoy the work, but hate dealing with GC issues.)
I don't see objective C as "gobbling up memory"
And certainly nobody has made the case that Objective C is a pale imitation of the state of OO from the 70s, as was the original claim I'm responding to.
I enjoyed it. I was surprised at how negative the review was... it is entertainment, not science. I didn't take it too seriously and I enjoyed the book.
Lately I've been reading some heinlein I missed when I went thru the obligatory hienlein phase in high school. Of course, some of what I'm reading was written in the 50s, and the science is just plain wrong. OK, fine. The science isn't that critical for a story-- and I'm someone who hates stories where the science is wrong. But you can't expect someone to predict science accurately 50 years into the future and then be unhappy when they are wrong. you have to suspend some disbelief.
IF you went into a time travel story without suspending disbelief, no wonder you were unhappy! By its nature, time travel stories are always going to be incorrect
Anyway, I'm not saying this is a golden book. The ending wasn't the greatest, but it was entertaining and thus, worth my time reading it.
Best book by steele (I think it was steele, it was a long time ago) is Kaleidascope Century. Really good book.
Chronospace is a good weekend read when you want to get away from reality for awhile.
Having problems is not the issue. Being irrational about it- that is the issue.
You're clearly someone with an axe to grind. I'm not the first person to point this out to you.
Hell, you're the one who claimed the next people lied about what they were delivering to apple. Which is kinda funny, given that history shows the not to be the case.
But whats the point-- you seem to enjoy complaining about apple and you will continue to do so... its just worth letting others know that there is an ulterior motive.
This company was full of people who really thought they knew their stuff when it came to computers. I watched one of the Linux gurus there sheepishly admit that he didn't know that removing an NT box from a domain removed his ability to log in with his domain account.
This is becoming my opinion of the average slashdot poster. Thinks they know a lot, but actually doesn't. Hey but at least they're better than the columnists for ars technica. Nobody assumes the slashdot dweeb knows what they are talking about, but many people are foolish enough to believe what they read in ars technica articles.
Just admit it all you Linux fans. You'd be much happier with a macintosh... and they are cheaper and faster, so go pick one up today.
It runs unix. Its open sourced. It has better games. And they are priced to move. You don't have to thank me... and one day you'll look back at yourself now and laugh and laugh...
Have fun.
Oh really? As far as shipping systems, they are the epitome of GUI. There isn't much competition-- X windiws which is blatently crappy, Windows XP et. al,. which are poor copies of Mac OS X and Linux which is an even poorer copy of Windows. No, its the epitome of GUIs, that goes without there's not disputing that.
Unless, of course, you're one of those people who thinks Apple should ship a laptop with a 23 inch display, quad G4s running at 1GHz and 20 hours of battery life nad a price of only $250, to compete with the XBOX. Some people are just unreasonable.
Like I said, there's nothing important left out of Objective-C. All the things you mentioned are irrelevant. You, like the other guy, are complaining that its objectiveC and not smalltalk. If you want smalltalk, fine, use it, but don't expect everyone in the world to use small talk for every situation. Hell, all three of the things you mentioned are included in ObjectiveC.
As to your bashing compiled applications, well, I should have known. There's no arguing with you-- you want the laptop I described above. you see no reason why things shouldn't be perfectly the way you want, and I suspect you have no idea why they aren't.
This is a form of intolerance that is common on slashdot. There are a lot of people here who have some ideological world view and wish to insist that everything must fit it... and so they will ignore superior technology, or bash it, merely because it doesn't fit their purpose.
Most of the complaints about Mac OSX are that its not Windows.... yet these people are too stupid to realize that Windows is what they are actually advocating. Why is there not an outcry that Linux just has a ripped off windows UI instead of soemthing useful? Because the customer base for Linux is windows users who want to feel "cool".
Whatever. ITs pointless to argue about.
Whatever. It seems pretty silly that you are complaining that a language that is not smalltalk is not smalltalk.
If you want to use smalltalk, use smalltalk.
You haven't shown any problems or issues or weaknesses in Objective C... you have only pointed out that it is a different language. Something we all knew going in.
You can do a hell of a lot of stuff dynamically at runtime in Objective-C.
But yes, its compiled. That's a good thing. The tradeoff is worth it.
There's a reason why interpreted languages have had a tough experience.
Objective-C has garbage collection, in fact, it has the best implementation I've used so far.
When objects are autoreleased, they are GCed at the end of the event loop.
This is much better than, say, Java, where you can never predict when GC will occur (and I've spend countless hours trying to get a product to work even though it will randomly stop and check EVERYTHING IN MEMORY to see if it should be deleted.... when doing a large server with gigabytes of objects in memory this impact is a major PITA) With objective-C memory management is semi-automatic. A better solution than Java and FAR better than C/C++.
I don't know what you mean by "real exceptions" but basically, every languages has its differences and the person I was responding to was just wrong in saying that Objective-C is a pale ripoff of smalltalk.
Who was fired (or otherwise bitterly parted ways) from Apple after apparently mismanaging a major development project.
Apparently at least in one case, the PHBs he's ranting about are him.
Not to say he's worthless, but he does fit the general description "Apple basher". He needs to let go of his bitterness and get a better perspective on things.
There is nothing important that Smalltalk has, that Objective-C lacks.
In fact, Objective-C is superior to small talk for its given market: compiled applications that can be shipped in shrink wrapped form.
Call C++ a pale shadow of smalltalk and I agree with you, but don't knock Objective C. Its wonderful, and has no problems or poor aspects that from what I see.
There's a lot of whining about OS X and I just don't get it-- it is far and away the best OS I've ever worked with as a user, or developed for as a developer. Far better than Classic Mac OS, better than windows, better than Unix.
I think people want to complain about some idealized impossibly perfect idea of what something could be... but in terms of reality-- shipping products-- its the best there is right now, and well ahead of everything else out there.
I cited my source. Where did you hear this rumor?
Hell
I just figured you had heard the wrong thing, now that you've gotten beligerant about it, I realize you're a luddite out to spread misinformation.
Well, you got caught this time.