Mac OS will create a button for you, if you ask it, but, like most modern OSes it will also just "draw" a button without any of the logic behind it, there is an API for that sort of thing.
So you get the look of a button without any of the native widget.
I once spent some time with a guy at netscape implementing a new protocol which basically took advantage of that.
You wrote something like:
theme://button?title=OK
and it returned a GIF containing a perfect looking OK button in the present Mac OS theme, be that Platinum on OS 9 or Aqua on OS X.
Finshing this work would allow very high quality Aqua themes, as it wouldn't be "as" emulated. The OS would be drawing all of the controls.
This would also satisfy Apple - they don't really care about Aqua themes so much as making sure those themes *only* work on Mac OS. As the theme: protocol needs native code to work, it will only run on Mac OS (9 or X)
The theme protocol might also be needed on Linux (window manager theme support) and to do Windows XP properly.
Somewhat off topic, but the Open Firmware system used to boot all current Sun, Apple Macintosh and I think also IBM machines is a Forth implementation.
Basically its a Forth interpreter with a stack, and a device tree. You can literally 'cd' and 'ls' around the PCI and other busses on Sun workstations.
Hmm, I seem to remember reading a very convinving analysis which said about 3000x2000 was what was required to match standard 35mm film *well projected* in an average size theatre.
I don't have a link, but it was all to do with the physical optics of the eye and the point at which the eye can't tell the difference between one dot and two dots when projected onto the opposite wall. Sooner or later you just don't have enough retinal cells to be able to see any more detail.
My fear is that by pushing this through a couple of years too early at this slightly lower resolution we'll see a net loss of quality. If the switch to digital was to happen in 5 years time then theatres' projectors and studio's cameras would be more likely to be 3000x2000 equipment.
If the public accepts the lower resolution, why spend the money on upgrading.
That said I saw Akira digitally projected this year on a huge screen (of course, it was originally film, not digital tape) and it was beautiful.
Of course, given most movies most of us see are projected using dirty equipment by an untrained 16 year old at a multiplex it probably doesn't make any difference. The current resolution is probably good enough. A bit like DVD and HDTV.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?mode_u=off& mo de_w=on&site=www.humanclock.com&submit=Examine
Besides, the webserver page claims all the data for the images is stored on a TDK cassette tape. They say "we estimate we can get 4gb on the tape before we have to turn it over".
[yeah, and this monkey should have hit preview. Damn stupid defaults]
uh huh. Good troll in the first sentence there. I take my hat off to someone who can stereotype 99,999 people based solely on an ID number.
I love the binary distinction people like you are trying to make between "kids movies" and "adult movies". You really must sit down and draw me a picture sometime, I'm sure it'd be fascinating.
>Many "child movies" do attempt to explore
> great themes.
Right. Which makes them "child movies" which incororate elements designed to engage adults and children on different levels. You just blew away your own argument.
But then its fundamentally a troll:
>Face it, people always love what they grew
>up with as kids.
Classic tactics. If anyone attempts to disagree with you, you can just go "hah hah, look who never grew up and doesn't realise it. I'm the adult who knows exactly what an *adult* movie is." Yawn.
uh huh. Good troll in the first sentence there. I take my hat off to someone who can stereotype 99,999 people based solely on an ID number.
I love the binary distinction people like you are trying to make between "kids movies" and "adult movies". You really must sit down and draw me a picture sometime, I'm sure it'd be fascinating.
>Many "child movies" do attempt to explore
> great themes.
Right. Which makes them "child movies" which incororate elements designed to engage adults and children on different levels.
You just blew away your own argument.
But then its fundamentally a troll:
>Face it, people always love what they grew
>up with as kids.
Classic tactics. If anyone attempts to disagree with you, you can just go "hah hah, look who never grew up and doesn't realise it. I'm the adult who knows exactly what an *adult* movie is."
Yawn. Move along please.
Having actually built client/server commerce sites, I'd say "hell yes" *never* trust the client.
No, you don't sell something at the price the client returns to you.
What has this to do with JavaScript though? It applies regarless of whether you're using URL parameters, POSTed forms or Cookies to track what's going on.
Your comment about JavaScript makes no sense. Its either programmed correctly or its not. All JavaScript does in this situation is allow you to utilise the (mostly idle) client processor and improve your user experience (when done right).
Indeed, but the character numbers were initially orderded in something resembling common usage. At least, all of the 1 byte characters correspond (very closely or exactly) to latin-1 encoding, of which the first half corresponds to ascii, of course
This is a pretty good assumption on probability of occurance today's Internet, I won't try to predict the future:)
In the UK it would be illegal even to stand in range and see if you can connect. You don't have to actively probe anything to break the law.
It is illegal to receive any radio broadcast that was not intended for your use
Probably originally introduced to make police or army radio scanners illegal, but has also been used to criminalise all radar detectors (think speed traps) and things like intercepting satellite transmissions (think watching shows not intended for the UK market.
In other words, like all overly broad laws, whatever its original intent was it has been twisted to shut down anything anyone with enough power doesn't like.
Having lived in major cities in the UK for most of my life, I find the figure of 2.8% extremely hard to believe. I guess as a percentage of the population as a whole its plausible, but my experience (admitedly the last few years I lived in the UK were in London, which is much more mixed) has been closer to 30% than to 2.8%.
That said, I have no idea what the acutal percentage is, it could be 2.8% but that would more accurately reflect rural life than urban. Judging from the time I spend in Pennsylvania and New York in the US, I'd say that's pretty true here too. (ie, it depends a lot on where you are)
Channel 4 in the UK use PAL Plus for some broadcasts. e.g. they used to use if for their Sunday night movie, a couple of years back.
Basically the sidebands and used to store additional vertical resolution, taking PAL's 625 line res (compare 525 for NTSC) up to around 8-900 hundred lines (dunno the exact figure).
The best thing is that because its in the sidebands, it makes no difference to ordinary TV viewers. If your TV can use it, you're in luck, if it can't it has no effect. Cool.
All in all a bit link anamorphic DVDs.
I saw "The Shawshank Redemption" on a 16:9 widescreen TV, broadcast in PAL +. Easily the most beautiful broadcast TV I ever saw. It just looked wonderful (OK, well the source material isn't exactly poor).
Clearly having different length area codes and numbers is *both* more confusing for people *and* harder to maintain because you don't have flexibility to reallocate things and each system written for telephone exchanges must be able to handle lots of different number formats.
Not to mention writing computer registration forms in the UK is harder because there are more different possibilities you have to do validation for.
I don't understand your comment. You believe having no consistency is in some way technically superior? The only reason its the way it is is historical lock in. No one in their right mind would deliberately design a system this complicated, unmaintainable and confusing.
I am English but I prefer the US way on this one! Lord Pixel - The cat who walks through walls
The single biggest advantage is Size. If you build everything static, you include the code you link to. A large app that exercises a fair sized chunk of the operating system (e.g. a web browser) could end up including a fair sized chunk of the operating system in its executable. With shared libraries (dll's on Windows, Code Fragments on Mac OS,.so files on Linux) you only have to install the common code once, no matter how many apps use it.
The trouble is you need a decent versioning system, otherwise apps will use the wrong version of a shared library:-( This means you often end up shipping exact versions of libraries bundled with an app. Each app then installs these somewhere where only it can see them, and you're back to square one.
This seems to be worst on windows, where different versions of dlls are more frequently incompatible than on Unix (or even on Mac OS).
Apple have an interesting new scheme that addresses this problem on Mac OS X. Its kinda neat. developer.apple.com has a PDF called System Overview (in the OS X section). This explains it. Lord Pixel - The cat who walks through walls
I'm definately not a lawyer, but the point about British libel law is that the defendants in this case are required to prove every single point in their leaflets otherwise MacDonalds "win" the case.
If you really care about the facts they're easy to find. stick "McLibel verdict" into Google. Seems this guy is mostly accurate, but somewhat biased towards McDonalds.
C++ uses a mixture of early and late binding. So does Java. I'd be stunned if the same wasn't true of C#. Late binding is the only way to do some things. Perhaps C# does more early binding than Java.
Then there's the question of Java's Hotspot, which can remove the late binding overhead in Java at runtime once its optimised a piece of code. It can even de-optimise and switch back to late binding then re-optimise if you starty doing dynamic class loading. This is a big and complex subject, and I'm not sure I could explain it here even if I had the time...
I submit the most likely reason for the performance of your Java program is that it wasn't as well written as the C++ one. Binding is a tiny tiny part of the difference between the 2 languages. There any many other factors which are more likely to account for the difference.
As for the DLL thing - that sounds great - except whe nyou come to deploy your application the user doesn't have the same version of the myDLL that you did on you super dev box. Hence the user gets a reference to a non existant object. Early binding really has nothing to do with this. It sounds like its being used to implement a nice feature in the IDE, not a solution to the age old library versioning problem that people are discussing in the Lets Make Unix not suck thread Lord Pixel - The cat who walks through walls
Re:Anyone tried this with Quake 3 on MacOS?
on
Multi-Head Gaming
·
· Score: 1
I am being aware of the procedure.
Not having three monitors to try it with, I was asking if anyone could confirm that it actually works. Not all Mac software automatically supports multiple monitors. Lord Pixel - The cat who walks through walls
Slashdot Mirror
So you get the look of a button without any of the native widget.
I once spent some time with a guy at netscape implementing a new protocol which basically took advantage of that.
You wrote something like:
theme://button?title=OK
and it returned a GIF containing a perfect looking OK button in the present Mac OS theme, be that Platinum on OS 9 or Aqua on OS X.
The code to do this is here:t ocol/theme/
http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/netwerk/pro
Finshing this work would allow very high quality Aqua themes, as it wouldn't be "as" emulated. The OS would be drawing all of the controls.
This would also satisfy Apple - they don't really care about Aqua themes so much as making sure those themes *only* work on Mac OS. As the theme: protocol needs native code to work, it will only run on Mac OS (9 or X)
The theme protocol might also be needed on Linux (window manager theme support) and to do Windows XP properly.
And HP's J2EE effort: http://www.bluestone.com
I said:
;)
.... computers to boot themselves" might have been clearer...
>the Open Firmware system used to boot all
>current Sun, Apple Macintosh and I think also
>IBM machines is a Forth implementation.
You said:
> What do you mean "Used to"?
I meant precisely what I said! It is the system _used_ _to_ boot these computers at present
I suppose "Open Firmware is used by
Somewhat off topic, but the Open Firmware system used to boot all current Sun, Apple Macintosh and I think also IBM machines is a Forth implementation.
Basically its a Forth interpreter with a stack, and a device tree. You can literally 'cd' and 'ls' around the PCI and other busses on Sun workstations.
Hmm, I seem to remember reading a very convinving analysis which said about 3000x2000 was what was required to match standard 35mm film *well projected* in an average size theatre.
I don't have a link, but it was all to do with the physical optics of the eye and the point at which the eye can't tell the difference between one dot and two dots when projected onto the opposite wall. Sooner or later you just don't have enough retinal cells to be able to see any more detail.
My fear is that by pushing this through a couple of years too early at this slightly lower resolution we'll see a net loss of quality. If the switch to digital was to happen in 5 years time then theatres' projectors and studio's cameras would be more likely to be 3000x2000 equipment.
If the public accepts the lower resolution, why spend the money on upgrading.
That said I saw Akira digitally projected this year on a huge screen (of course, it was originally film, not digital tape) and it was beautiful.
Of course, given most movies most of us see are projected using dirty equipment by an untrained 16 year old at a multiplex it probably doesn't make any difference. The current resolution is probably good enough. A bit like DVD and HDTV.
Slashdot comment wrapping may break this URL:
& mo de_w=on&site=www.humanclock.com&submit=Examine
;)
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?mode_u=off
Besides, the webserver page claims all the data for the images is stored on a TDK cassette tape. They say "we estimate we can get 4gb on the tape before we have to turn it over".
Its a joke guys. A funny one, but a joke
[yeah, and this monkey should have hit preview. Damn stupid defaults]
uh huh. Good troll in the first sentence there. I take my hat off to someone who can stereotype 99,999 people based solely on an ID number.
I love the binary distinction people like you are trying to make between "kids movies" and "adult movies". You really must sit down and draw me a picture sometime, I'm sure it'd be fascinating.
>Many "child movies" do attempt to explore
> great themes.
Right. Which makes them "child movies" which incororate elements designed to engage adults and children on different levels. You just blew away your own argument.
But then its fundamentally a troll:
>Face it, people always love what they grew
>up with as kids.
Classic tactics. If anyone attempts to disagree with you, you can just go "hah hah, look who never grew up and doesn't realise it. I'm the adult who knows exactly what an *adult* movie is." Yawn.
Move along please.
uh huh. Good troll in the first sentence there. I take my hat off to someone who can stereotype 99,999 people based solely on an ID number. I love the binary distinction people like you are trying to make between "kids movies" and "adult movies". You really must sit down and draw me a picture sometime, I'm sure it'd be fascinating. >Many "child movies" do attempt to explore > great themes. Right. Which makes them "child movies" which incororate elements designed to engage adults and children on different levels. You just blew away your own argument. But then its fundamentally a troll: >Face it, people always love what they grew >up with as kids. Classic tactics. If anyone attempts to disagree with you, you can just go "hah hah, look who never grew up and doesn't realise it. I'm the adult who knows exactly what an *adult* movie is." Yawn. Move along please.
Having actually built client/server commerce sites, I'd say "hell yes" *never* trust the client.
No, you don't sell something at the price the client returns to you.
What has this to do with JavaScript though? It applies regarless of whether you're using URL parameters, POSTed forms or Cookies to track what's going on.
Your comment about JavaScript makes no sense. Its either programmed correctly or its not. All JavaScript does in this situation is allow you to utilise the (mostly idle) client processor and improve your user experience (when done right).
I think we have the same box.
It has blanking plates for FireWire ports... they're labelled as such but they're not there on that model.
Be interesting to see what could be achieved with a model which did have the ports wired up. All fair use, of course.
Lord Pixel - The cat who walks through walls
Indeed, but the character numbers were initially orderded in something resembling common usage. At least, all of the 1 byte characters correspond (very closely or exactly) to latin-1 encoding, of which the first half corresponds to ascii, of course
This is a pretty good assumption on probability of occurance today's Internet, I won't try to predict the future :)
Lord Pixel - The cat who walks through walls
Variable length encoding, 8, 16 or 24 bits depending on how common the character is
Lord Pixel - The cat who walks through walls
coolness. score one for common sense.
not that a condone dangerous speeding, but it is a good precedent for more reasonable activities
Lord Pixel - The cat who walks through walls
In the UK it would be illegal even to stand in range and see if you can connect. You don't have to actively probe anything to break the law.
It is illegal to receive any radio broadcast that was not intended for your use
Probably originally introduced to make police or army radio scanners illegal, but has also been used to criminalise all radar detectors (think speed traps) and things like intercepting satellite transmissions (think watching shows not intended for the UK market.
In other words, like all overly broad laws, whatever its original intent was it has been twisted to shut down anything anyone with enough power doesn't like.
Lord Pixel - The cat who walks through walls
Having lived in major cities in the UK for most of my life, I find the figure of 2.8% extremely hard to believe. I guess as a percentage of the population as a whole its plausible, but my experience (admitedly the last few years I lived in the UK were in London, which is much more mixed) has been closer to 30% than to 2.8%.
That said, I have no idea what the acutal percentage is, it could be 2.8% but that would more accurately reflect rural life than urban. Judging from the time I spend in Pennsylvania and New York in the US, I'd say that's pretty true here too. (ie, it depends a lot on where you are)
Lord Pixel - The cat who walks through walls
Channel 4 in the UK use PAL Plus for some broadcasts. e.g. they used to use if for their Sunday night movie, a couple of years back.
Basically the sidebands and used to store additional vertical resolution, taking PAL's 625 line res (compare 525 for NTSC) up to around 8-900 hundred lines (dunno the exact figure).
The best thing is that because its in the sidebands, it makes no difference to ordinary TV viewers. If your TV can use it, you're in luck, if it can't it has no effect. Cool.
All in all a bit link anamorphic DVDs.
I saw "The Shawshank Redemption" on a 16:9 widescreen TV, broadcast in PAL +. Easily the most beautiful broadcast TV I ever saw. It just looked wonderful (OK, well the source material isn't exactly poor).
Shame it never really caught on...
Lord Pixel - The cat who walks through walls
What?
Technically bad numbering plan?
Clearly having different length area codes and numbers is *both* more confusing for people *and* harder to maintain because you don't have flexibility to reallocate things and each system written for telephone exchanges must be able to handle lots of different number formats.
Not to mention writing computer registration forms in the UK is harder because there are more different possibilities you have to do validation for.
I don't understand your comment. You believe having no consistency is in some way technically superior? The only reason its the way it is is historical lock in. No one in their right mind would deliberately design a system this complicated, unmaintainable and confusing.
I am English but I prefer the US way on this one!
Lord Pixel - The cat who walks through walls
In the UK things are a terrible mess because BT won't spend the money to clean it up.
:-(
e.g. area codes can be anything from 3 to 5 digits and numbers anything from 6 to 8 digits. (I *think* all of the old 5 digit numbers are gone now)
e.g. London
(020) XXXX XXXX
Cambridge
(01223) XXX XXX
Newcastle
(0191) XXX XXXX
Note how the local part (call a friend) varies in length, as does the area code.
There's no way to tell how to group the digits in a given number. You just have to knowl.
Lord Pixel - The cat who walks through walls
Is the *real* solution to this. But when? This year? This decade...
Lord Pixel - The cat who walks through walls
AFAIK the royalties Apple receives for Firewire/1394 only apply to version 1, the current 400Mbps technology.
Firewire 2, the 800 Mbps version, and later versions are royalty free.
Lord Pixel - The cat who walks through walls
Firwire 1.0 tops out at 400Mb/s 2.0 does 800 Mb/s and its better at sustaining it
Lord Pixel - The cat who walks through walls
The single biggest advantage is Size. If you build everything static, you include the code you link to. A large app that exercises a fair sized chunk of the operating system (e.g. a web browser) could end up including a fair sized chunk of the operating system in its executable. With shared libraries (dll's on Windows, Code Fragments on Mac OS, .so files on Linux) you only have to install the common code once, no matter how many apps use it.
:-( This means you often end up shipping exact versions of libraries bundled with an app. Each app then installs these somewhere where only it can see them, and you're back to square one.
The trouble is you need a decent versioning system, otherwise apps will use the wrong version of a shared library
This seems to be worst on windows, where different versions of dlls are more frequently incompatible than on Unix (or even on Mac OS).
Apple have an interesting new scheme that addresses this problem on Mac OS X. Its kinda neat. developer.apple.com has a PDF called System Overview (in the OS X section). This explains it.
Lord Pixel - The cat who walks through walls
Seems a but out of left field
I'm definately not a lawyer, but the point about British libel law is that the defendants in this case are required to prove every single point in their leaflets otherwise MacDonalds "win" the case.
If you really care about the facts they're easy to find. stick "McLibel verdict" into Google. Seems this guy is mostly accurate, but somewhat biased towards McDonalds.
Lord Pixel - The cat who walks through walls
C++ uses a mixture of early and late binding. So does Java. I'd be stunned if the same wasn't true of C#. Late binding is the only way to do some things. Perhaps C# does more early binding than Java.
Then there's the question of Java's Hotspot, which can remove the late binding overhead in Java at runtime once its optimised a piece of code. It can even de-optimise and switch back to late binding then re-optimise if you starty doing dynamic class loading. This is a big and complex subject, and I'm not sure I could explain it here even if I had the time...
I submit the most likely reason for the performance of your Java program is that it wasn't as well written as the C++ one. Binding is a tiny tiny part of the difference between the 2 languages. There any many other factors which are more likely to account for the difference.
As for the DLL thing - that sounds great - except whe nyou come to deploy your application the user doesn't have the same version of the myDLL that you did on you super dev box. Hence the user gets a reference to a non existant object. Early binding really has nothing to do with this. It sounds like its being used to implement a nice feature in the IDE, not a solution to the age old library versioning problem that people are discussing in the Lets Make Unix not suck thread
Lord Pixel - The cat who walks through walls
I am being aware of the procedure.
Not having three monitors to try it with, I was asking if anyone could confirm that it actually works. Not all Mac software automatically supports multiple monitors.
Lord Pixel - The cat who walks through walls