Yeah, but there still aren't any ShutdownItems on Mac OS X to complement the StartUpItems, so it looks like I have to write an AppleScript app so my client can shut down PostgresSQL safely. And they have to remember to run it every time they want to switch off their iMac.
Most services that have StartupItem's in/System/Library/StartupItems define three functions: StartService(), StopService(), and RestartService(). The StopService() function is executed at restart/shutdown, afaik. Just define the function to shutdown however you want it to, such as: pg_ctl stop -D DATA_DIR -m fast. You'll have to do some other things, but the easiest way to do this is to use a setup that is provided by someone else and just tweak it. Also, you should put the StartupItem in/Library/StartupItems, not/System/Library/StartupItems.
My other thought is this particular example plays right into the strength of Java's JIT. Since the same code is run over and over, it can be compiled once at runtime. The code is very short, so the just-in-time compilation doesn't take much time. And it can fully exploit Java's key performance advantage: the ability to incorporate runtime profiling information into the optimization process.
Static compilers make "eduated" guesses as how to best optimize code. When it comes to a fork in the road it, since they don't have actual run-time information, they have to do the best they can and move on. Java can leverage run-time information against the statically compiled bytecode and utilize dynamic optimization. Granted completely linear code will always run better when statically compiled to machine code, but if at any point in the compilation process the compiler has to make an "educated" guess, a better decision can be made at run-time through dynamic optimization. General information on dynamic optimization can be found here.
It's big and slow. Very big. Very slow. Java apps/applets aren't usable on my P2 266
Java is good at some things, worse at others. Look at the following for instance:
[MyMachine:~] mylogin% uname -a Darwin Roadrunner.local. 6.2 Darwin Kernel Version 6.2: Tue Nov 5 22:00:03 PST 2002; root:xnu/xnu-344.12.2.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc [MyMachine:~] mylogin% gcc -v Reading specs from/usr/libexec/gcc/darwin/ppc/3.1/specs Thread model: posix Apple Computer, Inc. GCC version 1161, based on gcc version 3.1 20020420 (prerelease) [MyMachine:~] mylogin% cat fib.c #include <stdio.h>
int fib(int n) {
if (n < 2) return 1;
else return fib(n-1)+fib(n-2); }
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
printf("%d\n", fib(atoi(argv[1])));
The results get even more interesting as you compute higher and higher numbers of the Fibonacci sequence. When computing the 43rd Fibonacci number the java bytecode beats the statically compiled C machinecode by a full 10 seconds. For the 44th number it beats it be 19 seconds.
Does this mean that java bytecode is faster than machinecode in all cases? No. Does the fact that a few java applets on your P2 run poorly mean java itself is slow? No. It is true that Java has poor performance in the GUI realm, but it is great for backend server applications. So making the blanket statement that java is slow or fast in general based on a single or handful of benchmarks is just plain wrong.
* I'm not running some special optimized pre-release version of Apple's JVM. It's the pre-release 1.4.1 implementation. Nothing that isn't available on Windows, Linux, Solaris, etc.
This is just a bad advert for someone's cobbled together install, and an out-of-date one at that. I doubt it's based on Darwin 6.0.2 (basis of Mac OS X 10.2 Jaguar), the Mozilla included is old and so on...
[MyMachine:~] mylogin% uname -v Darwin Kernel Version 6.2: Tue Nov 5 22:00:03 PST 2002; root:xnu/xnu-344.12.2.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC
Now I am running Mac OS X 10.2.2 (6F21), but I don't think even Mac OS 10.2 used Darwin 6.0.x, rather 6.2.x.
Just as Mac users would be worse off if Windows didn't exist, Intel users will be much worse now that AMD will no longer compete.
Don't you mean Windows users would be worse off if Macintoshes and the Mac OS didn't exist? Microsoft and PC manufacturers have to get their ideas from somewhere. Outside of slapping in the latest bus and RAM architecture, they develop little else.
First, Ocaml is one in a loooooong line of lanugage that claiming to be safer than C/C++ while simultaneously claiming to be faster. I have not seen one new language in the last five years NOT claim to (in "some cases") be faster than C/C++, yet they never can back this claim up in the average case.
Can't measure up in the average case? Take a look at this.
BBEdit 7.0 is $180. You can download BBEdit Lite and be eligible for the $120 "crossover" purchase, but still... Would you rather pay $120 or finally learn how to use emacs? I guess it depends on how much you make per hour.
If only Apple could reform Cocoa so it would have a genuinely platform independent file object then port the API to Windows. Java and.NET would be wannabes.
I know this isn't quite the same, but OpenStep was available for Windows, NeXTStep, and Solaris and it didn't exactly take the world by storm. The now defunct OpenStep is Cocoa.
Re:Isn't everything in OS X late-binding?
on
Is Mac OS X Slow?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The "binding" you're talking about is for function calls to dynamic libraries. The "binding" that the original poster is talking about is Objective-C method calls in general. Updating the pre-bindings in Mac OS X won't get rid of late-binding in Objective-C. It has nothing to do with it. Pre-binding just calculates where a function will be at run-time so the caller doesn't have to figure it out on their own. Late-binding in Objective-C is where you don't know what type of object you are interfacing with but know the partial (base class) interface. The reason why you don't know its type is because it's determined at run-time. Again, updating the pre-bindings has nothing to do with this.
Re:Isn't everything in OS X late-binding?
on
Is Mac OS X Slow?
·
· Score: 1
No. If this were true, then you could just as easily say that Windows is slow because MFC uses late-binding. Also Java doesn't suffer performance because of late-binding, it suffers in performance because it is interpreted bytecode. Java does allow for run-time optimization though, which allows it to outperform statically optimized C/C++ code at times, but that is beyond the scope of this post.
While late-binding is slower (albeit slightly--direct jump vs. indirect jump) there is no fundamental flaw with it nor is there a fundamental flaw in Objective-C/Cocoa or Java for using it.
LinkSys only offers a specialized Windows firmware upgrading tool. The router itself has a Java applet that it supposed to work, but didn't for me in Mozilla 1.2b or IE 5.2.2. A friend directed me here. It has instructions on how to upgrade the firmware in Mac OS 9/X using their specialized tool. I worked for me.
If i've spent £1000+ on a uberPC with everything, I dont want to have to switch hardware to run MacOS. Apple will never seduce Windows users while their investment in hardware cannot be transported over.
Aside from your motherboard, ram, and CPU all of your PC parts can be transported to a Mac. IDE hard drives, SCSI hard drives, CD-ROM drives, DVD drives, USB mice, USB keyboards, USB cameras, USB scanners, Firewire hard drives, etc. all can work. Also, quite a few PCI/AGP cards will work with ROM flashing and/or Mac drivers. Did you want to be able to use your PC case or something?
We all know that M$ is an evil monopoly but I think the reason why they're a monopoly is because Apple refused to compete with microsoft on the commodity PC platform. For years microsoft had no decent rival on platform that brought computing to the masses. OS2? I was a joke at best. Apple had (and has) decent software, but until they grow some balls and decide to play with the big boys.
We see the effect and penetration that Linux is developing on the desktop in the Red Hat and SuSe form, and that is fighting against the established monopoly. This proves that there is, and probably always has been, a market for a real alternative to Windows for existing windows users, but which has been left sadly vacant for years.
Linux has made penetration in the server market. Penetration in the desktop market is marginal. If you find a large number casual computer users worldwide that switched from Windows to Linux for general office/personal work, I'll be amazed. This isn't to say that Linux isn't up to the task, but it isn't AverageJoe's desktop OS.
Had Apple decided to stop making hardware and just sold software, perhaps we would not be in the trouble we are now in regarding MS vs DOJ etc.
Apple is and always has been a hardware company. I don't see how having a hardware company switch to just making their one major software product would do them any benefit. Also, how can you blame MS' illegal activities on Apple? MS bullies people out of markets and tries to control them. Remember Netscape? Microsoft realized the missed the boat on an Internet browser so they gave IE away free and strong-armed manufacturers into not being able to ship their computers with NS installed. The fault lies in MS, not Apple.
Microsoft may be evil, but Apple could be accused of having done nothing to stop it, when perhaps they were the only ones who could have.
Apple makes a good OS and doesn't force it on anyone. MS makes a crappy OS and crams it down everyone's throats. Again, you can't blame Apple for MS' actions.
"We forced everyone to go to Macs for the desktops," he said. "The support load dropped to almost nothing and the only complaints were from people who couldn't play games on their machines any longer. So sorry, no games at work. We are so mean."
"I've used Macs for the last six years," he said. "I had a PC before that, but Macs were fun and more reliable. I don't play computer games so that might help explain why I don't miss the Windows box."
"We avoid the Windows operating system since it is such a huge security risk," he explained. "We didn't want to have viruses blowing up systems that we depend on for navigation and monitoring engines and other systems. And since nothing seems to be able to stop all of these Windows viruses, the best way to win is to just stop using Windows."
Two paragraphs noting that Mac's don't have as many games, and one noting that Mac's are more secure that Windows machines. If I hadn't read the Slashdot headline I would've thought this article was about a game-hating sailor.
Re:Possible response from iD
on
Doom 3 Alpha Leaked
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Xian> They don't seem to care about strict enforcement of NDA's
ATI does seem to habitually violate NDA, or at least confidentiality agreements. A year ago at MWNY ATI made a press release about how their new graphics chip would be used in the yet to be released new iMac. This PR came out two days before Steve Jobs was supposed to officially announce the machines. He got so pissed off he cancelled all ATI demonstrations for his keynote speech and even had ATI's built-to-order options removed on all of the new machines. This probably made NVidia very happy.
This pattern is mirrored by the overt digital attack data collected for 2002, which demonstrates this has been the worst year on record with 57,977 attacks having already taken place. The most attacked operating system in 2002 has been Microsoft Windows with 31,431 attacks (54%) followed by Linux with 17,218 attacks (30%), BSD (6%) and Solaris (5%). Apple Mac's OS suffered only 31 overt digital attacks, ie, 0.05% of all attacks in 2002 although Apple Mac has roughly 3% of the world's computer market share. SCO Unix suffered 165 digital attacks (0.2%) and Compaq Tru64 suffered 10 attacks (0.02%).
The above uses attacks per overall attacks as the rating for the OS. What should be done is OS specific attacks per installed machines running the particular OS.
MA -- machine attacks TA -- total attacks MI -- machines installed TI -- total installed
The article gives MA/TA, but we want MA/MI. MA/MI gives the vulnerability of a particular OS seperated from the quantity of attacks. I don't know the total number of installed computers, but say it's 10,000,000. Then the MA/MI for Mac's is:
10,000,000 * 0.03 = 300,000 31/300,000 = 0.000103
So about 0.0103%. By contract look at the Windows numbers. Suppose Windows has 75% market share.
So about 0.41908%. These numbers show what percentage of installed machines will be affected instead of what portion of all attacks they represent. Another way to think about it is say you have 1 machine running CrappyOS and that machine is attacked. It will only represent 1/57,978 hacks performed in 2002. By contrast MA/MI will be 100%, meaning that every single machine running CrappyOS was hacked.
If the P4 takes a narrow and deep approach to performance and the G4e takes a wide and shallow approach, the 970's approach could be characterized as wide and deep.
I saw a short blip on CNN Headline News this morning about GTA: Vice City. At first I expected it to be another bashing of violent video games and have it somehow tie into the current sniper issue, but much to my surprise it didn't. It involved the news anchor telling a game magazine writer how much he liked GTA3 and wanted to know if GTA: Vice City would live up to it's predecessor's success. They also made the point that this was a mature game intended for adults and thus excessive violence wasn't really an issue. Wow.
Nested template error messages can be somewhat understandable if typedef's are used for all intermediate types. But yes, when g++ starts ranting about basic_string or basic_stream jargon you're toast. I've actually had MSVC++ generate a secondary error for each template error becaues the template error message was too long and had to be truncated. My favorite compiler error of all time though is found in gcc:
gcc: too many errors, bailing out.
That surely strikes confidence into the heart of would be programmers.
On a slightly offtopic note, I heard an anchor on MSNBC this morning commenting on the possibility of the east coast sniper being a terrorist. They said that the notes left on the tarot cards, which read, "I am God," would be blasphemous to any Muslim and thus the sniper couldn't a terrorist. Ugh, idiots.
So Gumson and a Miami Beach, Fla.-based disability rights group, Access Now, filed lawsuits in U.S. District Court in Miami in June and July against Dallas-based Southwest and Dallas-based American Airlines under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Since it was founded four years ago, Access Now has filed more than 440 ADA lawsuits in courts across the country, but only now is it targeting Internet sites.
So now it's up to 441+ lawsuits? Are the organizations vehemently denying to provide accomodations for disabled patrons or is this Access Now organization just suing organizations left and right? From the wording but only now is it targeting Internet sites it seems as if it is the latter. I seriously doubt that Southwest and American Airlines said they didn't give a shit about blind people when or if Mr. Gumson and/or Access Now contacted them, forcing litigation.
Alas, it was not to be. Sound Check is not true compression; it works by determining the maximum volume of the track, then adjusting the volume of the whole track by one value. So you are SOL if the song is partly quiet and partly loud.
Isn't that what you want? An evenly scaled song? I don't see why you would want a non-linear scaling of the song's waveform. That would distort the song by making the quiet parts have the same volume as the loud parts.
- Airlines handcuff you to your seat, unless you can prove that you've gone through some rigid (and expensive) background investigation.
- Retail stores escort you around the store while you do your shopping, and frisk you on your way out.
- The state requires you to submit to a breathalizer test every time you get behind the wheel of your car.
While I agree with your argment, you have to realize that software piracy can be done in the safety of your own home without anyone else knowing. This is a far cry from hijacking a plane, shoplifting, or driving drunk. Each of those actions require you to be visible prior to, during, and after the crime. You can lock yourself in your room dressed in perhaps only your underwear and download software without anyone being the wiser. At most your IP will be logged somewhere.
The problem with software piracy is it is too easy. It's just a few clicks in a virtual world that doesn't really exist.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but there still aren't any ShutdownItems on Mac OS X to complement the StartUpItems, so it looks like I have to write an AppleScript app so my client can shut down PostgresSQL safely. And they have to remember to run it every time they want to switch off their iMac.
/System/Library/StartupItems define three functions: StartService(), StopService(), and RestartService(). The StopService() function is executed at restart/shutdown, afaik. Just define the function to shutdown however you want it to, such as: pg_ctl stop -D DATA_DIR -m fast. You'll have to do some other things, but the easiest way to do this is to use a setup that is provided by someone else and just tweak it. Also, you should put the StartupItem in /Library/StartupItems, not /System/Library/StartupItems.
Most services that have StartupItem's in
My other thought is this particular example plays right into the strength of Java's JIT. Since the same code is run over and over, it can be compiled once at runtime. The code is very short, so the just-in-time compilation doesn't take much time. And it can fully exploit Java's key performance advantage: the ability to incorporate runtime profiling information into the optimization process.
Static compilers make "eduated" guesses as how to best optimize code. When it comes to a fork in the road it, since they don't have actual run-time information, they have to do the best they can and move on. Java can leverage run-time information against the statically compiled bytecode and utilize dynamic optimization. Granted completely linear code will always run better when statically compiled to machine code, but if at any point in the compilation process the compiler has to make an "educated" guess, a better decision can be made at run-time through dynamic optimization. General information on dynamic optimization can be found here.
Java is good at some things, worse at others. Look at the following for instance:And now for Java:The results get even more interesting as you compute higher and higher numbers of the Fibonacci sequence. When computing the 43rd Fibonacci number the java bytecode beats the statically compiled C machinecode by a full 10 seconds. For the 44th number it beats it be 19 seconds.
Does this mean that java bytecode is faster than machinecode in all cases? No. Does the fact that a few java applets on your P2 run poorly mean java itself is slow? No. It is true that Java has poor performance in the GUI realm, but it is great for backend server applications. So making the blanket statement that java is slow or fast in general based on a single or handful of benchmarks is just plain wrong.
* I'm not running some special optimized pre-release version of Apple's JVM. It's the pre-release 1.4.1 implementation. Nothing that isn't available on Windows, Linux, Solaris, etc.
This is just a bad advert for someone's cobbled together install, and an out-of-date one at that. I doubt it's based on Darwin 6.0.2 (basis of Mac OS X 10.2 Jaguar), the Mozilla included is old and so on...
[MyMachine:~] mylogin% uname -v
Darwin Kernel Version 6.2: Tue Nov 5 22:00:03 PST 2002; root:xnu/xnu-344.12.2.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC
Now I am running Mac OS X 10.2.2 (6F21), but I don't think even Mac OS 10.2 used Darwin 6.0.x, rather 6.2.x.
Just as Mac users would be worse off if Windows didn't exist, Intel users will be much worse now that AMD will no longer compete.
Don't you mean Windows users would be worse off if Macintoshes and the Mac OS didn't exist? Microsoft and PC manufacturers have to get their ideas from somewhere. Outside of slapping in the latest bus and RAM architecture, they develop little else.
You know - I'm a tried and true perl and open source hacker and believer.
But in terms of pure technological merit, c# is a damn good language!
Compared to Perl, everything looks like a damn good language.
First, Ocaml is one in a loooooong line of lanugage that claiming to be safer than C/C++ while simultaneously claiming to be faster. I have not seen one new language in the last five years NOT claim to (in "some cases") be faster than C/C++, yet they never can back this claim up in the average case.
Can't measure up in the average case? Take a look at this.
BBEdit 7.0 is $180. You can download BBEdit Lite and be eligible for the $120 "crossover" purchase, but still... Would you rather pay $120 or finally learn how to use emacs? I guess it depends on how much you make per hour.
If only Apple could reform Cocoa so it would have a genuinely platform independent file object then port the API to Windows. Java and .NET would be wannabes.
I know this isn't quite the same, but OpenStep was available for Windows, NeXTStep, and Solaris and it didn't exactly take the world by storm. The now defunct OpenStep is Cocoa.
The "binding" you're talking about is for function calls to dynamic libraries. The "binding" that the original poster is talking about is Objective-C method calls in general. Updating the pre-bindings in Mac OS X won't get rid of late-binding in Objective-C. It has nothing to do with it. Pre-binding just calculates where a function will be at run-time so the caller doesn't have to figure it out on their own. Late-binding in Objective-C is where you don't know what type of object you are interfacing with but know the partial (base class) interface. The reason why you don't know its type is because it's determined at run-time. Again, updating the pre-bindings has nothing to do with this.
No. If this were true, then you could just as easily say that Windows is slow because MFC uses late-binding. Also Java doesn't suffer performance because of late-binding, it suffers in performance because it is interpreted bytecode. Java does allow for run-time optimization though, which allows it to outperform statically optimized C/C++ code at times, but that is beyond the scope of this post.
While late-binding is slower (albeit slightly--direct jump vs. indirect jump) there is no fundamental flaw with it nor is there a fundamental flaw in Objective-C/Cocoa or Java for using it.
LinkSys only offers a specialized Windows firmware upgrading tool. The router itself has a Java applet that it supposed to work, but didn't for me in Mozilla 1.2b or IE 5.2.2. A friend directed me here. It has instructions on how to upgrade the firmware in Mac OS 9/X using their specialized tool. I worked for me.
If you read the Wired article you would see that is not the case.
Er... I quoted from the article. I obviously read it.
If i've spent £1000+ on a uberPC with everything, I dont want to have to switch hardware to run MacOS. Apple will never seduce Windows users while their investment in hardware cannot be transported over.
Aside from your motherboard, ram, and CPU all of your PC parts can be transported to a Mac. IDE hard drives, SCSI hard drives, CD-ROM drives, DVD drives, USB mice, USB keyboards, USB cameras, USB scanners, Firewire hard drives, etc. all can work. Also, quite a few PCI/AGP cards will work with ROM flashing and/or Mac drivers. Did you want to be able to use your PC case or something?
We all know that M$ is an evil monopoly but I think the reason why they're a monopoly is because Apple refused to compete with microsoft on the commodity PC platform. For years microsoft had no decent rival on platform that brought computing to the masses. OS2? I was a joke at best. Apple had (and has) decent software, but until they grow some balls and decide to play with the big boys.
Read some history.
We see the effect and penetration that Linux is developing on the desktop in the Red Hat and SuSe form, and that is fighting against the established monopoly. This proves that there is, and probably always has been, a market for a real alternative to Windows for existing windows users, but which has been left sadly vacant for years.
Linux has made penetration in the server market. Penetration in the desktop market is marginal. If you find a large number casual computer users worldwide that switched from Windows to Linux for general office/personal work, I'll be amazed. This isn't to say that Linux isn't up to the task, but it isn't AverageJoe's desktop OS.
Had Apple decided to stop making hardware and just sold software, perhaps we would not be in the trouble we are now in regarding MS vs DOJ etc.
Apple is and always has been a hardware company. I don't see how having a hardware company switch to just making their one major software product would do them any benefit. Also, how can you blame MS' illegal activities on Apple? MS bullies people out of markets and tries to control them. Remember Netscape? Microsoft realized the missed the boat on an Internet browser so they gave IE away free and strong-armed manufacturers into not being able to ship their computers with NS installed. The fault lies in MS, not Apple.
Microsoft may be evil, but Apple could be accused of having done nothing to stop it, when perhaps they were the only ones who could have.
Apple makes a good OS and doesn't force it on anyone. MS makes a crappy OS and crams it down everyone's throats. Again, you can't blame Apple for MS' actions.
"We forced everyone to go to Macs for the desktops," he said. "The support load dropped to almost nothing and the only complaints were from people who couldn't play games on their machines any longer. So sorry, no games at work. We are so mean."
"I've used Macs for the last six years," he said. "I had a PC before that, but Macs were fun and more reliable. I don't play computer games so that might help explain why I don't miss the Windows box."
"We avoid the Windows operating system since it is such a huge security risk," he explained. "We didn't want to have viruses blowing up systems that we depend on for navigation and monitoring engines and other systems. And since nothing seems to be able to stop all of these Windows viruses, the best way to win is to just stop using Windows."
Two paragraphs noting that Mac's don't have as many games, and one noting that Mac's are more secure that Windows machines. If I hadn't read the Slashdot headline I would've thought this article was about a game-hating sailor.
Xian> They don't seem to care about strict enforcement of NDA's
ATI does seem to habitually violate NDA, or at least confidentiality agreements. A year ago at MWNY ATI made a press release about how their new graphics chip would be used in the yet to be released new iMac. This PR came out two days before Steve Jobs was supposed to officially announce the machines. He got so pissed off he cancelled all ATI demonstrations for his keynote speech and even had ATI's built-to-order options removed on all of the new machines. This probably made NVidia very happy.
This pattern is mirrored by the overt digital attack data collected for 2002, which demonstrates this has been the worst year on record with 57,977 attacks having already taken place. The most attacked operating system in 2002 has been Microsoft Windows with 31,431 attacks (54%) followed by Linux with 17,218 attacks (30%), BSD (6%) and Solaris (5%). Apple Mac's OS suffered only 31 overt digital attacks, ie, 0.05% of all attacks in 2002 although Apple Mac has roughly 3% of the world's computer market share. SCO Unix suffered 165 digital attacks (0.2%) and Compaq Tru64 suffered 10 attacks (0.02%).
The above uses attacks per overall attacks as the rating for the OS. What should be done is OS specific attacks per installed machines running the particular OS.
MA -- machine attacks
TA -- total attacks
MI -- machines installed
TI -- total installed
The article gives MA/TA, but we want MA/MI. MA/MI gives the vulnerability of a particular OS seperated from the quantity of attacks. I don't know the total number of installed computers, but say it's 10,000,000. Then the MA/MI for Mac's is:
10,000,000 * 0.03 = 300,000
31/300,000 = 0.000103
So about 0.0103%. By contract look at the Windows numbers. Suppose Windows has 75% market share.
10,000,000 * 0.75 = 7,500,000
31,431/7,500,000 = 0.0041908
So about 0.41908%. These numbers show what percentage of installed machines will be affected instead of what portion of all attacks they represent. Another way to think about it is say you have 1 machine running CrappyOS and that machine is attacked. It will only represent 1/57,978 hacks performed in 2002. By contrast MA/MI will be 100%, meaning that every single machine running CrappyOS was hacked.
Numbers don't lie, people do.
If the P4 takes a narrow and deep approach to performance and the G4e takes a wide and shallow approach, the 970's approach could be characterized as wide and deep.
Watch it, this is a family website.
Spelling Nazis sux0r but this particular word is misspelt a bit too often on Slashdot.
You spelled misspelled as misspelt.
I saw a short blip on CNN Headline News this morning about GTA: Vice City. At first I expected it to be another bashing of violent video games and have it somehow tie into the current sniper issue, but much to my surprise it didn't. It involved the news anchor telling a game magazine writer how much he liked GTA3 and wanted to know if GTA: Vice City would live up to it's predecessor's success. They also made the point that this was a mature game intended for adults and thus excessive violence wasn't really an issue. Wow.
Nested template error messages can be somewhat understandable if typedef's are used for all intermediate types. But yes, when g++ starts ranting about basic_string or basic_stream jargon you're toast. I've actually had MSVC++ generate a secondary error for each template error becaues the template error message was too long and had to be truncated. My favorite compiler error of all time though is found in gcc:
gcc: too many errors, bailing out.
That surely strikes confidence into the heart of would be programmers.
On a slightly offtopic note, I heard an anchor on MSNBC this morning commenting on the possibility of the east coast sniper being a terrorist. They said that the notes left on the tarot cards, which read, "I am God," would be blasphemous to any Muslim and thus the sniper couldn't a terrorist. Ugh, idiots.
So Gumson and a Miami Beach, Fla.-based disability rights group, Access Now, filed lawsuits in U.S. District Court in Miami in June and July against Dallas-based Southwest and Dallas-based American Airlines under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Since it was founded four years ago, Access Now has filed more than 440 ADA lawsuits in courts across the country, but only now is it targeting Internet sites.
So now it's up to 441+ lawsuits? Are the organizations vehemently denying to provide accomodations for disabled patrons or is this Access Now organization just suing organizations left and right? From the wording but only now is it targeting Internet sites it seems as if it is the latter. I seriously doubt that Southwest and American Airlines said they didn't give a shit about blind people when or if Mr. Gumson and/or Access Now contacted them, forcing litigation.
Alas, it was not to be. Sound Check is not true compression; it works by determining the maximum volume of the track, then adjusting the volume of the whole track by one value. So you are SOL if the song is partly quiet and partly loud.
Isn't that what you want? An evenly scaled song? I don't see why you would want a non-linear scaling of the song's waveform. That would distort the song by making the quiet parts have the same volume as the loud parts.
While I agree with your argment, you have to realize that software piracy can be done in the safety of your own home without anyone else knowing. This is a far cry from hijacking a plane, shoplifting, or driving drunk. Each of those actions require you to be visible prior to, during, and after the crime. You can lock yourself in your room dressed in perhaps only your underwear and download software without anyone being the wiser. At most your IP will be logged somewhere.
The problem with software piracy is it is too easy. It's just a few clicks in a virtual world that doesn't really exist.