Yes. But why did they release the buggy version at all. Why risk people's computers needlessly with a known exploit? Why not just wait a day and release the right thing the first time?
Compose is used to enter things like e-actue and e-grave (ie, accented characters) on a US/UK Sun keyboard.
Alt Gr is something you also used to see on PC keyboards. I believe electrically the left and right alt keys are actually different and could be assigned to different functions.
But Windows treats the left and right one as the same (as does Mac OS with it's equivalent, the Option key) and I think therefore manufacturers stopped labelling them differently.
I believe it stood for Alt Gr(aphics). I think you still see it on PC keyboards in the UK and it may even be still be used specially in some other parts of Europe.
The OAC was a part of the BSD license which used to say you had to print out a message when your program started up giving props to the Regents of the University of Berkley, CA or some such.
This was probably the only real difference between the MIT and BSD licenses, but since the BSD license dropped this clause, they're the same for all intents and purposes.
There's some truth in what you say
on
Holub on Patterns
·
· Score: 1
There's some truth in what you say, but you're overstating it. Some patterns fit more easily in some langauges, and indeed some are unnecessary in more dynamic languages.
However, the original Gang of Four patterns book rather disproves your assertion:
" The dirty unacknowledged secret of design patterns is that they're strongly coupled to a language. "
The examples in that book are all given in C++ and Smalltalk, which are pretty much at opposite ends of the O-O spectrum, and yet the patterns are applicable to both languages and also to Java and C#.
There are probably patterns out there that only make sense in one language, and many are "better" or "easier" in lanague X or language Y, but I've seen little evidence that the majority of patterns are only useful in one language, and plently of evidence they're broadly applicable.
For some patterns I doubt you even need an OO langauge.
I agree with most everything you say, but I don't think Design Patterns is a good example.
It weighs in at 395 pages, which isn't the thinnest but way short of the 1000 page plus behemoths you're talking about.
Most of that page count is actually showing you example implementations (in C++ and SmallTalk). Sure, you could leave those out, but examples are useful when your book is about abstract concepts.
Heh, the Borg are a rip off of Doctor Who's the Cybermen, who were introduced in 1965 IIRC.
The Cybermen were once human but had gradually replaced their body parts with more and more machines. They were cold, logical and emotionless and they went around the universe looking for more humans to convert into Cybermen just like themselves.
In fairness the Borg had the whole hive mind concept (at least until that stupid Borg Queen idea ruined it) and their special effects were about 10,000% better, but the basic idea was suspiciously similar.
2nd most famous Doctor Who villan after the Daleks, and frankly a lot more interesting. Of course, the trouble now is that most people are more familiar with the Borg, so if Doctor Who tries to use its own idea it'll have to be careful that people don't think its ripping off Star Trek. Sheesh!
Hrm, well, the Timelords and Gallifrey didn't even exist up until the very last story of the 2nd Doctor, and most of the history of Gallifrey was fleshed out even later in the mid 70s and the 1980s.
Actually, the BBC shifted their entire audio drama range to an alternate universe where there was no Gallifrey or Time Lords, leaving the Doctor as a mysterious wanderer as he originally was.
So I'd actually say Gallifrey and the Timelords aren't integral to the whole idea at all. Doctor Who is a very different beast to something like Babylon 5 or even modern Trek: it has resisted all attempts to force any real continuity onto it. [*]
[*] I suppose that's true of modern Trek, if one is counting "Enterprise", which has deliberately dumped continuity too.
All AAC files can either be protected with DRM or not..m4a files are not DRM'd.m4p files are DRM'd.
I'm sure the new Apple Lossless Encoding (ALE) is similar. If you have an ALE encoded file ending in.m4a its not DRM'd, if you saw one with.m4p it will be.
I'm sure AAC is just a container format like Quicktime Most Quicktime files will be.mov, but the video encoding could be any one of 20 different codecs (Cinepak, Sorension, Indeo etc) and ditto for the audio encoding on the movie. The filename extension is telling you the overall container format, not the specific algorithms used to encode the file.
iTunes can play any audio file that Quicktime can play, so we could very easily have FLAC in iTunes if someone with the relevant expertise could be found to make a Quicktime Component that plays back FLAC.
There's already one for Ogg-Vorbis, but it doesn't seem to do Ogg-FLAC.
Of course, this wouldn't be as good as native FLAC support in iTunes, because I doubt things like the track meta data tags would be recognized through Quicktime. Still, it would be cool...
Many recent computer books run $50-60. You can get a cheap PC for $300. So that's 5 books to one computer.
Of course, the PC may cost more in India, and the books may cost less each.
And of course, people may have much more need for books other than computer books, and these might have lower prices due to more copies being printed (and the amount the market is willing to pay).
But your example of "hundreds" of books to one computer is way off base if you're assuming up to date technical books is what people would want.
Sure, you can probably get lots of copies of 'To Kill a Mocking Bird' for the price of a PC in India. However, I doubt that's what people in an Indian village would want to read online, had they access to the Internet.
> It's very similar to the strategy followed by LOTR.
Except for the inconvenient fact Peter Jackson told the truth up front about there being two releases.
If they ever release hyper-super-extended editions, then you can make that comparison. In any case, there might be legitimate reasons for another release of many movies, if HD-DVD becomes the norm.
Of course, if you think regular DVDs are already good enough, no one is forcing anyone ot upgrade.
Actually, I'd assume that most of the re-used code (if there is any) would be down in the Darwin layer, so a simple "grep" would probably work.
I swear I once saw some stuff from the source of mount_hfs that was of A/UX vintage.
That would make perfect sense... A/UX would have needed to be able to access System 7 disks for the Macintosh Application Compatibility Environment (MACE) and its unlikely Free/Open/Net BSD's HFS filesystem support would have been better than Apple's own A/UX implementation...
If I knew more about how Darwin's source is organized, I'd check myself.
Usually it would mean that if you has a (shared) library that was compiled with XLC, you could use it in a program compiled with gcc or vice versa. Perhaps there's more to it than that, but that would be the minimum requirement, I think.
The extreme case would be that Apple could compile OS X with XLC ($) but still allow people to run applications written with gcc (free).
I love Heinlein, but when I picked up "I will fear no evil" last year.
I'd rather read the Number of the Beast 6 times back-to-back! Or maybe 6x6x6 times;) At least Beast one has the root of some of the ideas in Time Enough For Love and Friday in it.
No. Its been a while since 1 billion = 1 million million was common usage in Britain.
We use 1000 Million like the US now. Well, I'm sure there are *some people* who don't. You know how people get attached to archaic measurements. But the common usage is 1000 Million.
I'm not sure that's true. NYC currently uses 212, 646, 347, 718 and 917, and I know I've seen cell Phones in everything except 212.
Which I guess doesn't disprove that everything in 917 is a cell phone, but it certainly isn't true that every cell phone is in 917. (but then you didn't really say that) I thought 917 was used for landlines in one of the counties outside of the five boroughs...
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. But why did they release the buggy version at all. Why risk people's computers needlessly with a known exploit? Why not just wait a day and release the right thing the first time?
Compose is used to enter things like e-actue and e-grave (ie, accented characters) on a US/UK Sun keyboard.
Alt Gr is something you also used to see on PC keyboards. I believe electrically the left and right alt keys are actually different and could be assigned to different functions.
But Windows treats the left and right one as the same (as does Mac OS with it's equivalent, the Option key) and I think therefore manufacturers stopped labelling them differently.
I believe it stood for Alt Gr(aphics). I think you still see it on PC keyboards in the UK and it may even be still be used specially in some other parts of Europe.
That's not the obnoxious advertising clause.
The OAC was a part of the BSD license which used to say you had to print out a message when your program started up giving props to the Regents of the University of Berkley, CA or some such.
This was probably the only real difference between the MIT and BSD licenses, but since the BSD license dropped this clause, they're the same for all intents and purposes.
There's some truth in what you say, but you're overstating it. Some patterns fit more easily in some langauges, and indeed some are unnecessary in more dynamic languages.
However, the original Gang of Four patterns book rather disproves your assertion:
" The dirty unacknowledged secret of design patterns is that they're strongly coupled to a language. "
The examples in that book are all given in C++ and Smalltalk, which are pretty much at opposite ends of the O-O spectrum, and yet the patterns are applicable to both languages and also to Java and C#.
There are probably patterns out there that only make sense in one language, and many are "better" or "easier" in lanague X or language Y, but I've seen little evidence that the majority of patterns are only useful in one language, and plently of evidence they're broadly applicable.
For some patterns I doubt you even need an OO langauge.
No, you get to *choose* which one of the three you accept the code under. If they chose the GPL then they're using it under the terms of the GPL.
If you're just trolling then I guess I'm wasting my time, but it really seems like you don't get it.
I've not yet lived anywhere in NYC where I couldn't get service from RCN.
Hell, I wish there was some way to prevent them from sending me endless flyers trying to persuade me to switch.
Truth is, the Manhattan Time Warner service is pretty reliable.
I agree with most everything you say, but I don't think Design Patterns is a good example.
It weighs in at 395 pages, which isn't the thinnest but way short of the 1000 page plus behemoths you're talking about.
Most of that page count is actually showing you example implementations (in C++ and SmallTalk). Sure, you could leave those out, but examples are useful when your book is about abstract concepts.
This book is worth its (light) weight in gold.
Heh, the Borg are a rip off of Doctor Who's the Cybermen, who were introduced in 1965 IIRC.
The Cybermen were once human but had gradually replaced their body parts with more and more machines. They were cold, logical and emotionless and they went around the universe looking for more humans to convert into Cybermen just like themselves.
In fairness the Borg had the whole hive mind concept (at least until that stupid Borg Queen idea ruined it) and their special effects were about 10,000% better, but the basic idea was suspiciously similar.
2nd most famous Doctor Who villan after the Daleks, and frankly a lot more interesting. Of course, the trouble now is that most people are more familiar with the Borg, so if Doctor Who tries to use its own idea it'll have to be careful that people don't think its ripping off Star Trek. Sheesh!
Hrm, well, the Timelords and Gallifrey didn't even exist up until the very last story of the 2nd Doctor, and most of the history of Gallifrey was fleshed out even later in the mid 70s and the 1980s.
Actually, the BBC shifted their entire audio drama range to an alternate universe where there was no Gallifrey or Time Lords, leaving the Doctor as a mysterious wanderer as he originally was.
So I'd actually say Gallifrey and the Timelords aren't integral to the whole idea at all. Doctor Who is a very different beast to something like Babylon 5 or even modern Trek: it has resisted all attempts to force any real continuity onto it. [*]
[*] I suppose that's true of modern Trek, if one is counting "Enterprise", which has deliberately dumped continuity too.
Back then lawyers were nice cudly things, and evil media empires (which the BBC isn't, anyway) didn't have the thumbscrews on so tight.
I believe for BBC shows older than a certain date, they actually have to pay the actors more money when they re-run them or release them on DVD.
All AAC files can either be protected with DRM or not. .m4a files are not DRM'd .m4p files are DRM'd.
.m4a its not DRM'd, if you saw one with .m4p it will be.
.mov, but the video encoding could be any one of 20 different codecs (Cinepak, Sorension, Indeo etc) and ditto for the audio encoding on the movie. The filename extension is telling you the overall container format, not the specific algorithms used to encode the file.
I'm sure the new Apple Lossless Encoding (ALE) is similar. If you have an ALE encoded file ending in
I'm sure AAC is just a container format like Quicktime Most Quicktime files will be
Hi Josh,
iTunes can play any audio file that Quicktime can play, so we could very easily have FLAC in iTunes if someone with the relevant expertise could be found to make a Quicktime Component that plays back FLAC.
There's already one for Ogg-Vorbis, but it doesn't seem to do Ogg-FLAC.
Of course, this wouldn't be as good as native FLAC support in iTunes, because I doubt things like the track meta data tags would be recognized through Quicktime. Still, it would be cool...
Americans shopping in the EU get tax back and customs. People from the EU shopping in the US don't get sales tax back.
At least, I've never ever heard of such a thing.
Life isn't fair. Then again, even at the insanely high for the US rate of 8.625% in NYC, it still feels like a bargin compared to most of the EU.
It was a feature of Mac OS 9, yes.
:)
So you're not going crazy.
Well, at least imagining that preference isn't a symptom of your madness
Many recent computer books run $50-60. You can get a cheap PC for $300. So that's 5 books to one computer.
Of course, the PC may cost more in India, and the books may cost less each.
And of course, people may have much more need for books other than computer books, and these might have lower prices due to more copies being printed (and the amount the market is willing to pay).
But your example of "hundreds" of books to one computer is way off base if you're assuming up to date technical books is what people would want.
Sure, you can probably get lots of copies of 'To Kill a Mocking Bird' for the price of a PC in India. However, I doubt that's what people in an Indian village would want to read online, had they access to the Internet.
> It's very similar to the strategy followed by LOTR.
Except for the inconvenient fact Peter Jackson told the truth up front about there being two releases.
If they ever release hyper-super-extended editions, then you can make that comparison. In any case, there might be legitimate reasons for another release of many movies, if HD-DVD becomes the norm.
Of course, if you think regular DVDs are already good enough, no one is forcing anyone ot upgrade.
OK, but I'm not at my Mac right now, so I can't try this.
If I download MSN Explorer, is it any use without the $10 (minimum) subscription to MSN?
Can I use it as a regular web browser for site compatibility reasons?
Actually, I'd assume that most of the re-used code (if there is any) would be down in the Darwin layer, so a simple "grep" would probably work.
I swear I once saw some stuff from the source of mount_hfs that was of A/UX vintage.
That would make perfect sense... A/UX would have needed to be able to access System 7 disks for the Macintosh Application Compatibility Environment (MACE) and its unlikely Free/Open/Net BSD's HFS filesystem support would have been better than Apple's own A/UX implementation...
If I knew more about how Darwin's source is organized, I'd check myself.
Um, IIRC Netscape 4 saves its local mail in mbox format, which is the closest thing to an open standard there is.
I certainly had no problem importing the mailboxes into other clients when I stopped using it.
I truly open standard would be nice, but I don't think Netscape 4 has major client lockin issues.
According to that chart, there's no code from Apple's 1980's UNIX (A/UX) in Darwin/Mac OS X at all.
Why do I find that *very* hard to believe?
Usually it would mean that if you has a (shared) library that was compiled with XLC, you could use it in a program compiled with gcc or vice versa. Perhaps there's more to it than that, but that would be the minimum requirement, I think.
The extreme case would be that Apple could compile OS X with XLC ($) but still allow people to run applications written with gcc (free).
I love Heinlein, but when I picked up "I will fear no evil" last year.
;) At least Beast one has the root of some of the ideas in Time Enough For Love and Friday in it.
I'd rather read the Number of the Beast 6 times back-to-back! Or maybe 6x6x6 times
>And FINALLY we get to see someone turn a fighter
:)
> around and fly backwards to shoot at missiles!
Babylon 5 did something very like this in Season 1 in the early 90s.
Nice to see everyone else finally catching up
No. Its been a while since 1 billion = 1 million million was common usage in Britain.
We use 1000 Million like the US now. Well, I'm sure there are *some people* who don't. You know how people get attached to archaic measurements. But the common usage is 1000 Million.
I'm not sure that's true. NYC currently uses 212, 646, 347, 718 and 917, and I know I've seen cell Phones in everything except 212.
Which I guess doesn't disprove that everything in 917 is a cell phone, but it certainly isn't true that every cell phone is in 917. (but then you didn't really say that) I thought 917 was used for landlines in one of the counties outside of the five boroughs...