furthermore, you cannot label humanism as just a version of western arrogance. fucking bullshit. humanism is humanism is humanism. sure, you can say i don't have a lock on what humanism is, that i'm no authority and i am wrong on certain points. in no way i am saying i am authority. but humanism, the concept of universal humanism, having nothing pro-western or anti-western or anything western about it, is a real and valid concept, regardless of how wrong i might be
My point was, humanism (or human rights) as a RATIONAL ethic...even moreso as a rational and UNIVERSAL ethic is very much a Western conception. My point about two of the other dominant cultures that view human rights very differently is that they believe their conceptions are the best and of course the right ones. When it comes to ethics and philosophy, it ultimately boils down to a moral base. What is right and what is wrong.
As I said before, I'm a proud adherent of the western standards of freedom and human rights, but don't be duped into believing that other cultures don't believe in theirs every bit as strongly. It's got nothing to do with "pro-western" or "anti-western" it has to do with underlying beliefs.
could you contrast that with the society you want to live in?
I WANT to live in a society where people who drive too slowly in the fast lane are arrested, where people who talk loudly on cellphones in public places are shunned and fined, and where there are no streetlights at night because I hate light pollution. Most of those things would rather infringe on other people's freedoms though!
oh, right: islamic fundamentalist nutjobs are the product of american policies. as opposed to being products of strict religious backgrounds?
which do you believe?
I believe it's complicated:-) Islam has long had resilient and resurgent strains of fundamentalism. Even if you take the US out of the picture there is Muslim fighting in Africa (Nigeria, Sudan, etc), in South Asia (India, etc), in the Middle East, etc. The US acts as a great foil for many of these groups, as the world's foremost symbol of the West.
lets put it this way: if the usa NEVER EXISTED, would there still be islamic nutjobs blowing up their fellow muslims?
Sure. The word assassin for instance comes from the Nizari Ismailis, a sect of Muslim who pioneered (to put it one way) spectacular political events. Using a combination of propaganda and violence. Spectacularly public assassinations, etc.
darling: when you cross the rio grande, or the straights of bosporus, or the ural mountains, or the rock of gibraltar, human rights don't magically warp into some other concepts. human rights are human rights are human rights
A lot of people would disagree with you. You actually betray a certain grounding in Western universalism when you make that statement--as if human rights are some objective ideal. Hell, I actually happen to agree with you! But for instance talk to the Chinese government--they don't take the same view of what human rights are. Talk to many leading Islamic clerics. They would not agree with what human rights are.
but surely you don't believe that when someone is unfree somewhere else in this world, that that has no effect on you, and you don't have to get involved, and the effect of lack of freedom elsewhere won't come bite you in the ass someday, WHATEVER the usa did in the cold war? (the typcial braindead way of explaining away what religious nutjobs do to the west, as somehow deserved by the west, is what the west did in the last century when fighting the soviets. please!)
I think I see what you're getting at, though I'm not entirely clear. I do take some issue with this. My personal (imho) view of the situation is that the global theme of much of the 20th century was communism vs capitalism. In many ways and for many countries this became aligned with West vs Non-west. Russia (and her proxies) vs US (and her proxies). Then the Soviet Union fell...that was a big change. A lot of freed up energies, and a lot of freed up peoples. As as professor friend of mine likes to say "the global red menace in a few short years changed from being red to being green [Muslim]." With the power vacuum left by the Soviets, stuff HAD to change. Iraq...Afghanistan...These changes were accompanied with an outburst of renewed Islamic interest. Some of those energies in Islamic growth went to things like today's HUGE Islam banking industry (which is weathering the global storm far better than many!) and some others went to restoring the pure Islamic way of life. Some of those chose violence. It's no coincidence that so many mujahideen got their feet wet fighting in Afghanistan in the 80s, and Bosnia/Yugoslavia/etc and Chechnya in the 90s.
But anyway, to answer your question, at heart I'm an isolationist. I don't know that it's my right (nor my job) to go around the world telling other people how to live and how to order their societies. Of all the Iraq/Afghan war arguments, I do not fall in with the spreading democracy ones. If it's a side effect, great. Afghanistan was necessary to destroy AQ's base, and Iraq was necessary to clean up the mess we helped create there in the 80s and 90s.
the contrast between freedom and security is a false dichotomy. terrorists are not people who take advantage of freedoms in order to make havoc, therefore showing us the need to constrain freedoms. rather, terrorists are people produced form societies with no freedoms at all. thereby showing us the need to maintain freedoms and EXTEND them
Brilliant idea--let's go into two of the most notoriously unfree countries in the world--Iraq and Afghanistan--and we'll EXTEND our freedoms there. Saudi Arabia ain't great either, let's EXTEND our freedom there. Because, like you said "terrorists are people producted from socieities with no freedoms"... your conclusions is we need to extend freedom. Mission accomplished!
Secondly, freedom and security is indeed a false dichotomy that you injected into this conversation.
you don't have the freedom to be irresponsible in such a way that it hurts me, my environment, that i share with you. the notion of freedom never ever included your right to be irresponsible in such a way that it hurts other people. when you litter, you impose on my freedom, and i, in the name of my freedom, and the freedom of y societ yot have a clean environment, will fight lazy irresponsible assholes like you, who don't even understand what freedom really is
What you've just spoken on is the tyranny of the masses and the worst in oppressive tendencies of the left. I assume you threw in the "hunting blind" example I assume this is just a classist way of attacking your political enemies? In any case, the parent said absolutely nothing about being allowed to throw beer cans on the ground--yet another one of your straw man arguments you keep tossing out.
is that enough "straight talk" for you genius? am i unclear on any concepts?
You are ABSOLUTELY unclear on what true freedom is, yes. You make your point--and what kind of society you want to live in--absolutely clear.
the issue is american car companies aren't even trying to solve the problem. meaning there is no advances in the technology that could make the replacement economically efficient
So you're claiming that American car companies are NOT working on hybrid technology, electric technology and hydrogren technology? This woudl seem pretty easy to refute, please clarify?
there is also the issue of american consumers, who will blindly buy SUVs while they send their sons and daughters to die in the middle east to fight for the oilfields needed to drive their precious SUVs
Ok, who is forcing their children to join the army? If you have proof of this, there is no doubt some major lawsuits in site. Please share.
How much American oil comes from Iraq btw?
simple market dynamic only drives us into the status quo, since consumer demand is not coupled with the geopolitical realities about fossil fuels
This and your party-line talking points right before it are of course nonsense. Where have you been the past year? Did you not see the price of oil skyrocket? In response did you not see the sales of hybrids likewise skyrocket? Did you not see miles travelled and gasoline consumption absolutely plummet in response? That is exactly what the market does.
wake the fuck up conservatards
You won--Congress, senate, president. 2010 senate at least will probably go more your way. The ball is in your court, you don't need to keep demonizing your political opponents and relying on the rhetoric of hatred for your opponents.
No, I don't think you're right. I'm relying on Wikipedia for the dates here (articles "IE for Mac" and "OS X")...
IE5 was first released in 2000, released major point revisions until 2002 and security updates etc into 2003. I believe you're incorrect when you say that "OSX...only had a single release of IE." Yes, they had a single major version number (5) but point releases that added new features etc. For comparison Windows went from 1999-2001 with "only a single release of IE" and from 2001-2006 again with "only a single release of IE."
Relatedly, Apple released the first beta of Safari in Jan 2003, well before MS announced they would stop developing IE for Mac. Safari was then included with 10.3 which was released later in 2003. WebCore as it was called back then--even though based off of KHTML--isn't exactly a small project, so you've got to assume that Safari was in the works for awhile.
According to wikipedia (though unsourced) IE6 for Mac was under development in 2002.
Exactly like I said in my post "there is still a plugin you can get (flip4mac)--MS distributed"
You are correct that it doesn't support DRM, which is something I have never run into on Windows nor Mac, and I suspect the vast majority of users haven't as well.
Which goes back to my point... what the GP did was "find a list of programs that had minimal usage on Mac and then make them examples of something greater"
Thanks for the links. However from the 2nd cnet article, I don't think an email from a manager to Gates saying that "threatening" to cancel Office was the strongest bargaining chip microsoft had against Apple is at all the same as "Microsoft nearly did kill Office for the Mac, but was a required part of a dispute settlement." From the court document (1st link) that actually has the text of the email, the manager who makes that statement even goes on to say he thinks microsoft should indeed ship Office! Indeed, much of the email is positive about mac as a platform and why office more mac is a good thing! Gates (at least in that email) doesn't say anything about canceling office.
I just don't see it. All the evidence here seems to me to make it very clear that Microsoft viewed the THREAT of canceling office as enough, and there was no intent to actually do so.
Microsoft nearly did kill Office for the Mac, but was a required part of a dispute settlement. Now, it's too profitable to kill off. That's called a dilemma.
Yeah, I don't have a problem with that...the GP did the right thing imho by saying "I don't know much, but it seems to me that....etc"
My problem is when I google a weird system error, or a potential hardware problem, etc, there are just so many junk answers from people who just obviously have no clue what they're talking about it, but act authoritative.
I think it also has a lot to do with Linux/etc becoming so much more popular. The sad truth is that a lot of linux users nowadays think they are l33t because they know a few console commands and can compile their apps through portage or something, but don't know shit.
Microsoft stopped developing IE for OSX when Apple started Safari. Frankly, there wasn't a need for it anymore. Until that point, IE for Mac was a pretty damn good browser, better in many ways than IE for windows, IMHO.
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Are we pretending to be profound by appeals to authority through well known quotes? You're wrong--Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
Clever--what you've done (in the few cases when you're not actually factually wrong) is find a list of programs that had minimal usage on Mac and then make them examples of something greater?
WMP for Mac -- there is still a plugin you can get (flip4mac)--MS distributed.
VBA for OSX -- is coming back in the next version of Office (thank god)
I'm not at all a C++ expert, or even particularly knowledgeable when it comes to STL, etc, so I don't really have a clue. Seems a weird outcome to me as well. I just often like to try compiling snippets of code people post on slashdot.
And yet, you still decided that your opinions on this subject are worth sharing with the world. I love slashdot.
God, that's the story of the Internet now.
Have you noticed how in the past 5 years or so, googling answers to technical issues has become horrible? It seems like anywhere somebody asks a question, dozens of people who don't have a CLUE will chime in. The real, SMART responses get lost in the noise.
Is it really that hard to NOT answer a question if you don't know the answer?
No doubt the same people that do this are the ones who marked you flamebait.....
You're being a bit disingenious implying that Silverlight code works on Firefox. Some of it does, but a great deal of it does not. Much of it even requires a Windows client.
Are you being disingenuous now? Fully featured silverlight exists for Mac, where you can run it with Firefox, Safari, etc.
Mono will always be behind and you can count on MacOSX support being dropped quite soon.
Except ActiveX was more or less impossible to be cross platform. Silverlight is not.
You're also the second person I've seen trotting out the meme that Microsoft is "just about to" kill Silverlight on the Mac. What makes you believe that?
As for trotting out apple, you're hopelessly naive if you think that microsoft won't kill the OSX version of silverlight the minute apple's market share gets a little bigger than microsoft would like.
No doubt just like they killed Office.
I would tend to think you're hopelessly paranoid on the topic, if we're going to be tossing around superlatives.
Actually... that code shouldn't blow up. It should result in a string with zero length. At least in modern compilers it'll be seen as an implicit cast from a constant 'C-String' to a C++ class, which will instantiate the class and assign the value of the c-style string to it.
Well, it's not exactly valid stl c++ as written..but..I think an exact stl translation would be:
#include<iostream> #include<string>
main() {
std::string tmp = NULL;
if(tmp.length() > 0) {
std::cout << "Length greater than 0" << std::endl;
} else {
std::cout << "Length not greater than 0" << std::endl;
} }
Which produces (fwiw, g++ (GCC) 4.2.1 20070719 [FreeBSD])...
terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::logic_error'
what(): basic_string::_S_construct NULL not valid Abort (core dumped)
So I'd say, yeah, it does barf. Doesn't change that your example is a more direct example of null pointer reference.
I never really understood how Faux not only greenlit so many wonderful shows but also murdered them in the cradle after barely a season. It seems too much to be coincidence, I think it must be some sort of pathology amongst their programming directors. Keen Eddie, Futurama, Firefly, Dollhouse, all axed. (Ok, might be jumping the gun on Dollhouse by a few weeks.)
Really? Dollhouse? You're putting Dollhouse in the same category as Futurama (which ran for multiple years) or Firefly (which was passed on by UPN, Scifi, etc...I'm sure all of them regret it, but it wasn't just Fox that made that call)? I own several seasons of Buffy, Firefly, and Dr Horrible...and I could barely sit through the first episode of Dollhouse. I too am expecting it to be cancelled, and no doubt, there will be many upset Whedon fans. (And add Arrested Development to your list)
It just makes me wish the inevitable decline and destruction of the company would happen sooner before they tease me with any more shows I might like.
Out of curiosity, what is the ideal? That is to say, what network lives up to your programming expectations? For me personally I would say HBO is about as good as it gets, but you also pay for it...
than that bloviating, closet-case fucktard and all of his ass-hatted minions.
Wow, angry much? (to use a Whedonism...) Did he also run over your dog or something? You seem to be taking that stuff pretty personally (and taking Fox programming decisions pretty personally as well)..
You mean, I assume in terms of processor, motherboard, graphics card, etc? Because you can replace/upgrade the memory and disk with little hassle (easier than most pcs to do the memory for instance). Really an absolute non-issue for us, and I think for most people.
2. Not Expandable
Meaning? What would you expand? Disk space? We use portable externals. Works great for us, and gives us offsite backup.
3. +25% to 50% more sticker price for a fashion statement
Maybe +25% more for OSX and generally quality components. If we could build an OSX computers with off the shelf parts, we probably would. Fashion doesn't enter into it. This seems to be the last bugaboo of the anti-mac crowd.
4. Requires a minimum 20" monstrosity of a monitor on a poor receptionist's desk. But Steve knows best so ya just have to make room for it, nope, no 15" monitors for tight spaces.
It really takes up less space than most other computers... At work the smallest monitor we have anywhere is a 17", even for the poor receptionist:p
6. Part of a complete product line, able to affordably outfit every employee from the receptionist to the engineers. Diversity == complexity in the eyes of the corporate types. No they won't green field replace everything but they want the option to have a migration path. The only reason they would be considering Macs is because they are tired of Windows and afraid of Linux. That switch argument gets really blunted when they realize half their network can't switch without wasting a crapload of money putting two or three times the machine on a lot of desks than needed. So they would be looking at supporting both forever; still fighting Windows infestations AND supporting Macs.
So when you say "business class" you're really talking about pretty dumb terminals that do email/web/microsoft office? I would not argue that mac is competitive pricewise if that's the only feature set you're looking for.
Yes OS X is better than Windows but it isn't THAT much better, Linux, when properly admined of course, is better than Windows AND cheaper to boot and we are having hell achieving World Domination. How does Apple expect to get a foot in the door of a corporate IT dept (a few graphics guys in the Ad dept excepted) until they get the Mac premium down to 10-20% at most for the average desktop?
The easy answer is, I don't think they're too interested in the corporate market. At work we have software that can only run on macs, and software that can only run on PCs. Makes some choices really simple for us.
What a retard. How can anyone with a room temp IQ even argue the point? Ignoring the Mini, which is a solution in search of a problem, the cheapest Mac is a fairly bottom of the barrel laptop going for a cool G and the bottom end non-toy desktop starts at $2700. You can argue that the $2700 machine is a good deal compared to a $2700 Dell Xeon monstrosity all you like, the bottom line is Apple offers no business class product for under $2700. Hello, the '80s called and are wondering WTF Apple is smoking.
Are you forgetting the iMac? The low-end imac is I believe $1100? At my office we have a handful of them. They run Quark xpress/Adobe CS/etc. If they're not "business class" I don't know what is.
We also have a handful of those ~$400-500 shit PCs. We also end up replacing them a lot more often...
I DO agree that there is a missing link in the Apple product lineup. I would never buy an Apple desktop for my home because they are so incredibly expensive. We don't even need them at work. At home, I have a shitty quadcore dell with a shitty 24" monitor from dell that I got for around $800. I also have a MBP. I use the MBP almost exclusively. Yeah, I could have gotten more notebook for the buck, but then I wouldn't have OSX...makes the difference for me.
Though with respect to UAC the real issue is that you cannot easily apply it to Windows.
Why not? What is inherit in Windows architecture that doesn't allow a practical UAC interface?
In a Linux/UNIX world I have the ability to install an application in my local home directory. Whereas Windows has the issue that it wants to install in my home, program files, and windows system.
You've said this a couple times before, and I think you're rather confused... here's a tip that might save you a lot of heartache! You can install an application where you want it. You can install it to your Desktop, to your My Music folder, to C:\Games, wherever. The sky's the limit! Hope this helps.
"C:\Program Files" is roughly equivalent to/usr/local
"C:\Users\you" (or "C:\Documents and Settings\you" etc) is the same as/home/you
The registry (at least most of the keys application r/w to) is like centralizing all of the dot files and directories that live in your *nix home directory into one database.
I agree, Windows can sometimes be a little more complicated if you don't understand these things, but since windows 2000, there are just so many analogues between windows and nix/bsd, that your comments just really don't make any sense.
'/usr/home/you' is considered a bad idea./usr is a local system directory and shouldn't have user accounts in it. '/home/you' is more the norm.
I disagree. FreeBSD (not a poorly known OS and one with a long history and respect for precedent) default home location is/usr/home. I have it on a separate partition. Home is home. Whether it's nfs, an afs directory 10 layers deep,/usr/home,/home,/Users (osx), it's just semantics. Utterly irrelevant.
And I can see which version of Windows you run. Your user directory might be 'c:\' or it might be 'c:\windows\profiles\you' or it might be 'c:\profiles\you' or it might be 'c:\Documents\you' or it might be 'c:\Documents and Settings\you'. The directory above it might be hidden, or it might be visible.
C:\Documents and Settings\ is Win2k, WinXP, Win2k3. This location stayed the same for what--8 years? WinNT was different (much of WinNT is different), yes... it's also long dead.
C:\Users is Vista and the presumable future location.
3 locations over 15 years doesn't seem like a big deal. sure, it's perhaps not ideal, but it's not as messed up as you make it seem either. Apps which hardcode home paths are braindead from the go.
I should first note that it has been awhile since I've installed Office--and I haven't installed an edition since 2003, but anyway. The unfortunate thing about that example is that MS treats Office almost like an extension to the OS...bad--yes.
Visual Studio I don't know about, but it wouldn't surprise me if it needs system access for it's debugging faculties...which seems perfectly natural and acceptable.
Anyway, you've neglected to point out any actual WINDOWS problems, and completely ignored the parts of my post where I pointed this out. Yes, there is a problem with some (lazy/bad) application developers--sometimes this includes Microsoft!--but there is a reason why when Vista came out with its strict enforcement, some apps had no problems.
Slashdot Mirror
furthermore, you cannot label humanism as just a version of western arrogance. fucking bullshit. humanism is humanism is humanism. sure, you can say i don't have a lock on what humanism is, that i'm no authority and i am wrong on certain points. in no way i am saying i am authority. but humanism, the concept of universal humanism, having nothing pro-western or anti-western or anything western about it, is a real and valid concept, regardless of how wrong i might be
My point was, humanism (or human rights) as a RATIONAL ethic...even moreso as a rational and UNIVERSAL ethic is very much a Western conception. My point about two of the other dominant cultures that view human rights very differently is that they believe their conceptions are the best and of course the right ones. When it comes to ethics and philosophy, it ultimately boils down to a moral base. What is right and what is wrong.
As I said before, I'm a proud adherent of the western standards of freedom and human rights, but don't be duped into believing that other cultures don't believe in theirs every bit as strongly. It's got nothing to do with "pro-western" or "anti-western" it has to do with underlying beliefs.
could you contrast that with the society you want to live in?
I WANT to live in a society where people who drive too slowly in the fast lane are arrested, where people who talk loudly on cellphones in public places are shunned and fined, and where there are no streetlights at night because I hate light pollution. Most of those things would rather infringe on other people's freedoms though!
oh, right: islamic fundamentalist nutjobs are the product of american policies. as opposed to being products of strict religious backgrounds?
which do you believe?
I believe it's complicated :-) Islam has long had resilient and resurgent strains of fundamentalism. Even if you take the US out of the picture there is Muslim fighting in Africa (Nigeria, Sudan, etc), in South Asia (India, etc), in the Middle East, etc. The US acts as a great foil for many of these groups, as the world's foremost symbol of the West.
lets put it this way: if the usa NEVER EXISTED, would there still be islamic nutjobs blowing up their fellow muslims?
Sure. The word assassin for instance comes from the Nizari Ismailis, a sect of Muslim who pioneered (to put it one way) spectacular political events. Using a combination of propaganda and violence. Spectacularly public assassinations, etc.
darling: when you cross the rio grande, or the straights of bosporus, or the ural mountains, or the rock of gibraltar, human rights don't magically warp into some other concepts. human rights are human rights are human rights
A lot of people would disagree with you. You actually betray a certain grounding in Western universalism when you make that statement--as if human rights are some objective ideal. Hell, I actually happen to agree with you! But for instance talk to the Chinese government--they don't take the same view of what human rights are. Talk to many leading Islamic clerics. They would not agree with what human rights are.
but surely you don't believe that when someone is unfree somewhere else in this world, that that has no effect on you, and you don't have to get involved, and the effect of lack of freedom elsewhere won't come bite you in the ass someday, WHATEVER the usa did in the cold war? (the typcial braindead way of explaining away what religious nutjobs do to the west, as somehow deserved by the west, is what the west did in the last century when fighting the soviets. please!)
I think I see what you're getting at, though I'm not entirely clear. I do take some issue with this. My personal (imho) view of the situation is that the global theme of much of the 20th century was communism vs capitalism. In many ways and for many countries this became aligned with West vs Non-west. Russia (and her proxies) vs US (and her proxies). Then the Soviet Union fell...that was a big change. A lot of freed up energies, and a lot of freed up peoples. As as professor friend of mine likes to say "the global red menace in a few short years changed from being red to being green [Muslim]." With the power vacuum left by the Soviets, stuff HAD to change. Iraq...Afghanistan...These changes were accompanied with an outburst of renewed Islamic interest. Some of those energies in Islamic growth went to things like today's HUGE Islam banking industry (which is weathering the global storm far better than many!) and some others went to restoring the pure Islamic way of life. Some of those chose violence. It's no coincidence that so many mujahideen got their feet wet fighting in Afghanistan in the 80s, and Bosnia/Yugoslavia/etc and Chechnya in the 90s.
But anyway, to answer your question, at heart I'm an isolationist. I don't know that it's my right (nor my job) to go around the world telling other people how to live and how to order their societies. Of all the Iraq/Afghan war arguments, I do not fall in with the spreading democracy ones. If it's a side effect, great. Afghanistan was necessary to destroy AQ's base, and Iraq was necessary to clean up the mess we helped create there in the 80s and 90s.
the contrast between freedom and security is a false dichotomy. terrorists are not people who take advantage of freedoms in order to make havoc, therefore showing us the need to constrain freedoms. rather, terrorists are people produced form societies with no freedoms at all. thereby showing us the need to maintain freedoms and EXTEND them
Brilliant idea--let's go into two of the most notoriously unfree countries in the world--Iraq and Afghanistan--and we'll EXTEND our freedoms there. Saudi Arabia ain't great either, let's EXTEND our freedom there. Because, like you said "terrorists are people producted from socieities with no freedoms" ... your conclusions is we need to extend freedom. Mission accomplished!
Secondly, freedom and security is indeed a false dichotomy that you injected into this conversation.
you don't have the freedom to be irresponsible in such a way that it hurts me, my environment, that i share with you. the notion of freedom never ever included your right to be irresponsible in such a way that it hurts other people. when you litter, you impose on my freedom, and i, in the name of my freedom, and the freedom of y societ yot have a clean environment, will fight lazy irresponsible assholes like you, who don't even understand what freedom really is
What you've just spoken on is the tyranny of the masses and the worst in oppressive tendencies of the left. I assume you threw in the "hunting blind" example I assume this is just a classist way of attacking your political enemies? In any case, the parent said absolutely nothing about being allowed to throw beer cans on the ground--yet another one of your straw man arguments you keep tossing out.
is that enough "straight talk" for you genius? am i unclear on any concepts?
You are ABSOLUTELY unclear on what true freedom is, yes. You make your point--and what kind of society you want to live in--absolutely clear.
the issue is american car companies aren't even trying to solve the problem. meaning there is no advances in the technology that could make the replacement economically efficient
So you're claiming that American car companies are NOT working on hybrid technology, electric technology and hydrogren technology? This woudl seem pretty easy to refute, please clarify?
there is also the issue of american consumers, who will blindly buy SUVs while they send their sons and daughters to die in the middle east to fight for the oilfields needed to drive their precious SUVs
Ok, who is forcing their children to join the army? If you have proof of this, there is no doubt some major lawsuits in site. Please share.
How much American oil comes from Iraq btw?
simple market dynamic only drives us into the status quo, since consumer demand is not coupled with the geopolitical realities about fossil fuels
This and your party-line talking points right before it are of course nonsense. Where have you been the past year? Did you not see the price of oil skyrocket? In response did you not see the sales of hybrids likewise skyrocket? Did you not see miles travelled and gasoline consumption absolutely plummet in response? That is exactly what the market does.
wake the fuck up conservatards
You won--Congress, senate, president. 2010 senate at least will probably go more your way. The ball is in your court, you don't need to keep demonizing your political opponents and relying on the rhetoric of hatred for your opponents.
No, I don't think you're right. I'm relying on Wikipedia for the dates here (articles "IE for Mac" and "OS X")...
IE5 was first released in 2000, released major point revisions until 2002 and security updates etc into 2003. I believe you're incorrect when you say that "OSX ...only had a single release of IE." Yes, they had a single major version number (5) but point releases that added new features etc. For comparison Windows went from 1999-2001 with "only a single release of IE" and from 2001-2006 again with "only a single release of IE."
Relatedly, Apple released the first beta of Safari in Jan 2003, well before MS announced they would stop developing IE for Mac. Safari was then included with 10.3 which was released later in 2003. WebCore as it was called back then--even though based off of KHTML--isn't exactly a small project, so you've got to assume that Safari was in the works for awhile.
According to wikipedia (though unsourced) IE6 for Mac was under development in 2002.
Exactly like I said in my post "there is still a plugin you can get (flip4mac)--MS distributed"
You are correct that it doesn't support DRM, which is something I have never run into on Windows nor Mac, and I suspect the vast majority of users haven't as well.
Which goes back to my point ... what the GP did was "find a list of programs that had minimal usage on Mac and then make them examples of something greater"
Thanks for the links. However from the 2nd cnet article, I don't think an email from a manager to Gates saying that "threatening" to cancel Office was the strongest bargaining chip microsoft had against Apple is at all the same as "Microsoft nearly did kill Office for the Mac, but was a required part of a dispute settlement." From the court document (1st link) that actually has the text of the email, the manager who makes that statement even goes on to say he thinks microsoft should indeed ship Office! Indeed, much of the email is positive about mac as a platform and why office more mac is a good thing! Gates (at least in that email) doesn't say anything about canceling office.
I just don't see it. All the evidence here seems to me to make it very clear that Microsoft viewed the THREAT of canceling office as enough, and there was no intent to actually do so.
Microsoft nearly did kill Office for the Mac, but was a required part of a dispute settlement. Now, it's too profitable to kill off. That's called a dilemma.
When was this?
Yeah, I don't have a problem with that...the GP did the right thing imho by saying "I don't know much, but it seems to me that....etc"
My problem is when I google a weird system error, or a potential hardware problem, etc, there are just so many junk answers from people who just obviously have no clue what they're talking about it, but act authoritative.
I think it also has a lot to do with Linux/etc becoming so much more popular. The sad truth is that a lot of linux users nowadays think they are l33t because they know a few console commands and can compile their apps through portage or something, but don't know shit.
Meh, pet peeve of mine...
IE for OSX.
Microsoft stopped developing IE for OSX when Apple started Safari. Frankly, there wasn't a need for it anymore. Until that point, IE for Mac was a pretty damn good browser, better in many ways than IE for windows, IMHO.
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Are we pretending to be profound by appeals to authority through well known quotes? You're wrong--Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
Clever--what you've done (in the few cases when you're not actually factually wrong) is find a list of programs that had minimal usage on Mac and then make them examples of something greater?
WMP for Mac -- there is still a plugin you can get (flip4mac)--MS distributed.
VBA for OSX -- is coming back in the next version of Office (thank god)
MSN Messenger -- can't say I've ever used it on Mac or PC, but a very quick google shows that you are entirely wrong (they are making current releases, and plan a large new release soon): http://www.officeformac.com/blog/An-Update-on-Messenger-for-Mac/
Rotor -- Yeah, project is dead in the water.
I'm not at all a C++ expert, or even particularly knowledgeable when it comes to STL, etc, so I don't really have a clue. Seems a weird outcome to me as well. I just often like to try compiling snippets of code people post on slashdot.
That's how I learned that in:
int i = 1;
int j = ++i + ++i;
j was not at all what I expected! :p
And yet, you still decided that your opinions on this subject are worth sharing with the world. I love slashdot.
God, that's the story of the Internet now.
Have you noticed how in the past 5 years or so, googling answers to technical issues has become horrible? It seems like anywhere somebody asks a question, dozens of people who don't have a CLUE will chime in. The real, SMART responses get lost in the noise.
Is it really that hard to NOT answer a question if you don't know the answer?
No doubt the same people that do this are the ones who marked you flamebait.....
You're being a bit disingenious implying that Silverlight code works on Firefox. Some of it does, but a great deal of it does not. Much of it even requires a Windows client.
Are you being disingenuous now? Fully featured silverlight exists for Mac, where you can run it with Firefox, Safari, etc.
Mono will always be behind and you can count on MacOSX support being dropped quite soon.
Except ActiveX was more or less impossible to be cross platform. Silverlight is not.
You're also the second person I've seen trotting out the meme that Microsoft is "just about to" kill Silverlight on the Mac. What makes you believe that?
As for trotting out apple, you're hopelessly naive if you think that microsoft won't kill the OSX version of silverlight the minute apple's market share gets a little bigger than microsoft would like.
No doubt just like they killed Office.
I would tend to think you're hopelessly paranoid on the topic, if we're going to be tossing around superlatives.
Actually... that code shouldn't blow up. It should result in a string with zero length. At least in modern compilers it'll be seen as an implicit cast from a constant 'C-String' to a C++ class, which will instantiate the class and assign the value of the c-style string to it.
Well, it's not exactly valid stl c++ as written..but..I think an exact stl translation would be:
#include<iostream>
#include<string>
main()
{
std::string tmp = NULL;
if(tmp.length() > 0) {
std::cout << "Length greater than 0" << std::endl;
} else {
std::cout << "Length not greater than 0" << std::endl;
}
}
Which produces (fwiw, g++ (GCC) 4.2.1 20070719 [FreeBSD])...
terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::logic_error'
what(): basic_string::_S_construct NULL not valid
Abort (core dumped)
So I'd say, yeah, it does barf. Doesn't change that your example is a more direct example of null pointer reference.
I lived in Chicago for several years (only big city where I've gotten parking tickets) and not a one of them was under $50...
That's good to know... I could barely sit through the first episode. Maybe I'll give the second a shot after all.
I never really understood how Faux not only greenlit so many wonderful shows but also murdered them in the cradle after barely a season. It seems too much to be coincidence, I think it must be some sort of pathology amongst their programming directors. Keen Eddie, Futurama, Firefly, Dollhouse, all axed. (Ok, might be jumping the gun on Dollhouse by a few weeks.)
Really? Dollhouse? You're putting Dollhouse in the same category as Futurama (which ran for multiple years) or Firefly (which was passed on by UPN, Scifi, etc...I'm sure all of them regret it, but it wasn't just Fox that made that call)? I own several seasons of Buffy, Firefly, and Dr Horrible...and I could barely sit through the first episode of Dollhouse. I too am expecting it to be cancelled, and no doubt, there will be many upset Whedon fans. (And add Arrested Development to your list)
It just makes me wish the inevitable decline and destruction of the company would happen sooner before they tease me with any more shows I might like.
Out of curiosity, what is the ideal? That is to say, what network lives up to your programming expectations? For me personally I would say HBO is about as good as it gets, but you also pay for it...
than that bloviating, closet-case fucktard and all of his ass-hatted minions.
Wow, angry much? (to use a Whedonism...) Did he also run over your dog or something? You seem to be taking that stuff pretty personally (and taking Fox programming decisions pretty personally as well)..
Here is why the iMac isn't a contender:
1. Not Upgradable
You mean, I assume in terms of processor, motherboard, graphics card, etc? Because you can replace/upgrade the memory and disk with little hassle (easier than most pcs to do the memory for instance). Really an absolute non-issue for us, and I think for most people.
2. Not Expandable
Meaning? What would you expand? Disk space? We use portable externals. Works great for us, and gives us offsite backup.
3. +25% to 50% more sticker price for a fashion statement
Maybe +25% more for OSX and generally quality components. If we could build an OSX computers with off the shelf parts, we probably would. Fashion doesn't enter into it. This seems to be the last bugaboo of the anti-mac crowd.
4. Requires a minimum 20" monstrosity of a monitor on a poor receptionist's desk. But Steve knows best so ya just have to make room for it, nope, no 15" monitors for tight spaces.
It really takes up less space than most other computers... At work the smallest monitor we have anywhere is a 17", even for the poor receptionist :p
6. Part of a complete product line, able to affordably outfit every employee from the receptionist to the engineers. Diversity == complexity in the eyes of the corporate types. No they won't green field replace everything but they want the option to have a migration path. The only reason they would be considering Macs is because they are tired of Windows and afraid of Linux. That switch argument gets really blunted when they realize half their network can't switch without wasting a crapload of money putting two or three times the machine on a lot of desks than needed. So they would be looking at supporting both forever; still fighting Windows infestations AND supporting Macs.
So when you say "business class" you're really talking about pretty dumb terminals that do email/web/microsoft office? I would not argue that mac is competitive pricewise if that's the only feature set you're looking for.
Yes OS X is better than Windows but it isn't THAT much better, Linux, when properly admined of course, is better than Windows AND cheaper to boot and we are having hell achieving World Domination. How does Apple expect to get a foot in the door of a corporate IT dept (a few graphics guys in the Ad dept excepted) until they get the Mac premium down to 10-20% at most for the average desktop?
The easy answer is, I don't think they're too interested in the corporate market. At work we have software that can only run on macs, and software that can only run on PCs. Makes some choices really simple for us.
What a retard. How can anyone with a room temp IQ even argue the point? Ignoring the Mini, which is a solution in search of a problem, the cheapest Mac is a fairly bottom of the barrel laptop going for a cool G and the bottom end non-toy desktop starts at $2700. You can argue that the $2700 machine is a good deal compared to a $2700 Dell Xeon monstrosity all you like, the bottom line is Apple offers no business class product for under $2700. Hello, the '80s called and are wondering WTF Apple is smoking.
Are you forgetting the iMac? The low-end imac is I believe $1100? At my office we have a handful of them. They run Quark xpress/Adobe CS/etc. If they're not "business class" I don't know what is.
We also have a handful of those ~$400-500 shit PCs. We also end up replacing them a lot more often...
I DO agree that there is a missing link in the Apple product lineup. I would never buy an Apple desktop for my home because they are so incredibly expensive. We don't even need them at work. At home, I have a shitty quadcore dell with a shitty 24" monitor from dell that I got for around $800. I also have a MBP. I use the MBP almost exclusively. Yeah, I could have gotten more notebook for the buck, but then I wouldn't have OSX...makes the difference for me.
Though with respect to UAC the real issue is that you cannot easily apply it to Windows.
Why not? What is inherit in Windows architecture that doesn't allow a practical UAC interface?
In a Linux/UNIX world I have the ability to install an application in my local home directory. Whereas Windows has the issue that it wants to install in my home, program files, and windows system.
You've said this a couple times before, and I think you're rather confused... here's a tip that might save you a lot of heartache! You can install an application where you want it. You can install it to your Desktop, to your My Music folder, to C:\Games, wherever. The sky's the limit! Hope this helps.
"C:\Program Files" is roughly equivalent to /usr/local
"C:\Users\you" (or "C:\Documents and Settings\you" etc) is the same as /home/you
The registry (at least most of the keys application r/w to) is like centralizing all of the dot files and directories that live in your *nix home directory into one database.
I agree, Windows can sometimes be a little more complicated if you don't understand these things, but since windows 2000, there are just so many analogues between windows and nix/bsd, that your comments just really don't make any sense.
'/usr/home/you' is considered a bad idea. /usr is a local system directory and shouldn't have user accounts in it. '/home/you' is more the norm.
I disagree. FreeBSD (not a poorly known OS and one with a long history and respect for precedent) default home location is /usr/home. I have it on a separate partition. Home is home. Whether it's nfs, an afs directory 10 layers deep, /usr/home, /home, /Users (osx), it's just semantics. Utterly irrelevant.
And I can see which version of Windows you run. Your user directory might be 'c:\' or it might be 'c:\windows\profiles\you' or it might be 'c:\profiles\you' or it might be 'c:\Documents\you' or it might be 'c:\Documents and Settings\you'. The directory above it might be hidden, or it might be visible.
C:\Documents and Settings\ is Win2k, WinXP, Win2k3. This location stayed the same for what--8 years? WinNT was different (much of WinNT is different), yes... it's also long dead.
C:\Users is Vista and the presumable future location.
3 locations over 15 years doesn't seem like a big deal. sure, it's perhaps not ideal, but it's not as messed up as you make it seem either. Apps which hardcode home paths are braindead from the go.
I should first note that it has been awhile since I've installed Office--and I haven't installed an edition since 2003, but anyway. The unfortunate thing about that example is that MS treats Office almost like an extension to the OS...bad--yes.
Visual Studio I don't know about, but it wouldn't surprise me if it needs system access for it's debugging faculties...which seems perfectly natural and acceptable.
Anyway, you've neglected to point out any actual WINDOWS problems, and completely ignored the parts of my post where I pointed this out. Yes, there is a problem with some (lazy/bad) application developers--sometimes this includes Microsoft!--but there is a reason why when Vista came out with its strict enforcement, some apps had no problems.