Actually, Snow Leopard is certified as well. You need to click on the link for the company, Apple, and it will show all their certified products. Here's the link
Anyone still using 10.4 (i.e., Tiger) who wants certified Unix (for whatever reason) can upgrade to either of the two leopards. Tiger is two OS revs and 4 years old at this point. Having said this, Mac OS X has been Unix compatible from the very start, with a bsd subsystem available from the very first developer previews.
You don't need an IDE, just a decent editor that can do autocompletion. These sorts of editors have been widespread since the 1980s.
A better reason for shorter names, and one I still heard seriously argued less than a decade ago, was the relatively narrow, 80 character screen width. Long names can eat this up fast, especially if your function bodies contain nested, indented blocks.
However, we now live in an era where 80 character screens are unlikely to be a limit to working programmers, though, as I said, I've heard it argued that sticking to this 80 column limit allows multiple, side by side program text windows on a single monitor, and so should continue to be standard.
Exactly. Con10uum (as they call it) is a reasonable idea for mobile devices with limited screen real estate. For modern desktop systems, it's a complete non-starter. I get the distinct impression we're dealing with someone who grew up with Windows 3.1 where this sort of one-app-at-a-time interaction paradigm was the norm. For people who have been using overlapping windows effectively since 1985 (i.e., long time Mac users or long time X users), this is a giant step backwards.
I routinely have more than two windows in active use at once, keyboard shortcutting between them to cut, paste, type, contextual menu click, etc. The linear interaction is clearly a control freak's attempt to reduce disorder at the expense of reducing interaction possibilities.
I personally think the ideal input device would be a keyboard whose spacebar is separated into two halves with a multi-touch trackpad/clickpad in between the two halves of the spacebar of the keyboard, and a shortened height bottom row of keys from V to N to allow for a gteater vertical extent of the trackpad. Apple's newer laptops are close, but they place the multi-touch trackpad/clickpad below the spacebar of the keyboard, which requires one to move ones' fingers from the home keys when using the trackpad. If the trackpad were between the left and right halves of the spacebar then one could use the thumb and forefinger of either or both hands on the multi-touch trackpad without removing the second, third, and fourth fingers from the home keys of the keyboard.
In order for this argument to hold you'd have to show that Apple's iTunes portal meets the legal definition of a monopoly which is the ability to set prices without regard for the offerings of others. Last time I checked iTunes tracks were not priced so far above other online music stores that any court would find that Apple hold a monopoly market position. Apple have a large share of the market because many consumers prefer their offerings, not because they have some sort of stranglehold on the market. The proof courts use to judge this distinction is the price of the supposed monopoly holder's offerings. By that standard, the legal one which actually counts in courts of law, Apple's iTunes music store is not a monopoly.
The actual legal standard for a monopoly is the ability to set prices without regard to the offerings of competitors. MS was ruled a monopoly on PC OSes because they could set the price of Windows at several hundred dollars (retail) and ~$50.00 for OEMs even though their competition, (linux, the various open source BSDs, etc.) cost zero dollars.
In order for Apple to be ruled a monopoly in the digital music player market, they would need to be proven to have the ability to set the prices for ipods without regard for the price of other music players. This would be a very tough sell in a court of law.
The argument that iTunes has any sort of monopoly would be even tougher because it is free, and the legal definition relates to *inflated* price of the supposed monopoly holder's offering.
The argument that the iTunes music store is any sort of monopoly would similarly have to rely on Apple being able to price their song offings at an exorbitantly high level. Again this would be a very tough sell.
So, from an anti-trust perspective, it would be very hard for Palm or anyone else to argue that Apple is a monopoly.
Paul may (or may not) have a legal argument for using Apple's vendor ID from the perspective of interoperability, but the monopoly argument is not very likely to fly for the simple reason that Apple has real competitors in all these areas. These competitors' products are not prices so wildly below Apple's that Apple could be considered a legal monopoly in any of these three areas (digital music player, pc software for organizing/playing/purchasing digital music, online sales of digital music).
Apple is just winning because their offerings are preferred by the buying public, not because they've got any sort of lock-in strangle hold on the market.
Pathetic. I won't be born for another 5 millenia and I already have Ph.D.s in every major scientific, technical, and mathematical discipline. It's been nice talking to you, but I have to go back in time now and ghost write Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica for some dopey January baby. Thanks to what I'm about to do you'll certainly have heard of him - Isaac Newton. The funny part is that even after I've explained mechanics and calculus to him, he keeps insisting that he can find the Philosopher's Stone and alchemically transmogrify base metals into gold, the limey fsck-tard.
Or you could just use a timeout on the lock. You could even include a countdown timer on the edit page so the user knows how much time they have before the record is unlocked again and any unsaved changes will be lost. A lot of ticketing web sites use this method. You select a set of tickets to review and a timer starts running. If you don't approve them (seat location, price, etc.) and enter your payment information before the timer expires, then they go back into the general pool - essentially record locking where the records are theater tickets.
This way if the user locking a record closes his browser, goes to lunch, starts watching hulu, has a browser or system crash, etc., when the timer runs out the record is unlocked and others can edit it.
But when mainstream news organizations cease to exist, the tweets will have nothing to point at except unverified rumor. The core value we pay for in news it that which differentiates it from mere rumor - research and verification.
This is where the mainstream is shooting itself in the foot. In the rush to be "relevant" and "entertaining" they've all but abandoned the traditional standards of journalism - i.e., actual quality research and verification. Look at CNN's recent screw-up with the Coast Guard exercise. That could never have happened if they weren't falling over themselves to be "timely" and "relevant" at the expense of actual verification, the one thing that separates real news from worthless rumor.
Not that I'm defending wasteful military spending, but the reason they want this is not so much for the dollar savings on fuel, but for the logistical advantages of needing less fuel: extended range of existing aircraft, reduced need for aerial refueling, more sorties on the same fuel budget, etc.
But there's an important difference between space and the deep ocean. The energetic cost of getting a kilo of payload into space are several orders of magnitude larger than they are for getting the equivalent payload size into the deep ocean. Because of this we can afford to overbuild and over-engineer submersibles in a way that we cannot possibly hope to do for space vehicles where every gram costs us dearly. As a result, any space vehicle of a reasonable cost (read billions rather than trillions) will be inherently more risky, because it will be, by comparison with the submersible, built to the absolute minimum engineering tolerances for strength, durability, etc., Basically, anything that adds weight will be built to the absolute minimum tolerance on a space vehicle. A submersible will be significantly overbuilt for hull strength, resistance to pressure, etc. because the cost of moving this extra weight around under water is much, much lower, than the cost of sending the equivalent extra weight into orbit.
From TFA: The Symbolics company was the first to use an internet domain name to guide Internet viewers to its line of Lisp machines
"internet viewers?" Were they "viewing" the internet via email or via usenet?:) This was 1985. There was an internet but there was no world wide web because Tim Berners-Lee had yet to invent it. The world's first web site didn't go live for another 6 years.
This is why it didn't seem stupid at the time - there was no point in having a catchy domain name since there was no world wide web for people to surf to your catchy domain name on. Domains were just for mapping ip addresses to something easier to remember, not for luring in clueless web surfers.
The overwhelming majority of mail volume today is advertising (i.e. junk mail), not personal correspondence. This was not the case even within living memory, much less the 19th c.
People wrote *much* more before the advent of the telephone for the simple reason that they had no other choice.
Maybe I'm a bit older than you; maybe I'm just a bit more familiar with history than you are. You might want to reflect on the era before the telephone. When people of that time wanted to communicate with others some distance away, they wrote letters. Consider how much you would write if your only means of communicating with others you didn't meet face to face was by writing letters. For every literate person of this era, this correspondence constituted a significant body of work outside of formal education.
One summer I traveled to a part of Peru without telephone service. The only way to communicate with my then girlfriend was by letter. Now my wife, she still has a 2" stack of our onionskin letters to each other, and that was only two months worth of correspondence.
As you and others have suggested, it is simply a spectrum issue. In the age of mostly print media the mass culture was exposed only to the output of the more highly literate. Publishers were not about to waste limited print space on the poorly educated and semi-literate. Now that the means of publication are more widely available, we're seeing the full spectrum, from highly literate and well educated, to barely literate and poorly educated. Naturally, much of this spectrum is not as pleasant or illuminating to read as the high-end-only media of the past. On the other hand, there are bound to be a few diamonds in the rough as it were among the part of the spectrum formerly excluded from publication.
These things are completely predictable, in a general sense, from simple statistics. The chances of finding a Shakespeare among those of indifferent education are small, but non zero. So reading the copious output of the low end is going to be rather like sifting through a pile of verbal manure looking for gold. You'll find some, but might wish you hadn't made the effort.
The GPL gives the end user the right to the source if that end user pays for the app/product. It doesn't guarantee the end user any rights wrt re-deployment on specific commercial platforms beyond the right to the source code. Any issues that arise wrt re-deployment are the end user's to deal with, not the distributing developer. As long as the developer is making the source available to purchasers, then the developer is in compliance.
Read the GPL itself; it is very instructive. Nowhere does it require that the developer/distributor make any sorts of guarantees to the buyer/end user about how easy it will be for the end user to redistribute a re-compilation beyond the requirement that the source be provided in "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it."
The important bit here is that "The 'Corresponding Source' for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities." [emphasis added]
Note that this is not "all the developer permissions from Apple needed to run the object code," just "all the source code." Think about it; if devs were required to provide everything needed to run a GPL program, then they would have to provide a Windows license for every GPL program written to run on Windows.
Certainly the dadaists would like you to believe that. Some of us still have actual aesthetic standards though. I agree with my grandparent - just because it's difficult to precisely characterize doesn't mean there is no scale of relative merit in art.
No worries mate. Only Americans who have lost their sense of smell would actually eat Vegemite in the first place. These are all old geezers, not members of the armed forces.
Only if we continued to use the available arable in the same way. If your aim is sustainability, you devote most of the land currently used to produce meat (~10x less efficiently than soybeans, for example) to the production of other, more efficient crops.
This is an agribusiness fallacy. If the aim really were sustainable agriculture, then the vast acreage devoted to meat production would be largely repurposed for much higher yield crops. There's plenty of land under cultivation to feed the current world population and more using sustainable methods, just not enough to continue the vast oversupply of meat for the affluent.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Snow Leopard is certified as well. You need to click on the link for the company, Apple, and it will show all their certified products. Here's the link
Anyone still using 10.4 (i.e., Tiger) who wants certified Unix (for whatever reason) can upgrade to either of the two leopards. Tiger is two OS revs and 4 years old at this point. Having said this, Mac OS X has been Unix compatible from the very start, with a bsd subsystem available from the very first developer previews.
and it's implicitly concurrent, which sidesteps a whole range of self-inflicted damage.
You don't need an IDE, just a decent editor that can do autocompletion. These sorts of editors have been widespread since the 1980s.
A better reason for shorter names, and one I still heard seriously argued less than a decade ago, was the relatively narrow, 80 character screen width. Long names can eat this up fast, especially if your function bodies contain nested, indented blocks.
However, we now live in an era where 80 character screens are unlikely to be a limit to working programmers, though, as I said, I've heard it argued that sticking to this 80 column limit allows multiple, side by side program text windows on a single monitor, and so should continue to be standard.
Exactly. Con10uum (as they call it) is a reasonable idea for mobile devices with limited screen real estate. For modern desktop systems, it's a complete non-starter. I get the distinct impression we're dealing with someone who grew up with Windows 3.1 where this sort of one-app-at-a-time interaction paradigm was the norm. For people who have been using overlapping windows effectively since 1985 (i.e., long time Mac users or long time X users), this is a giant step backwards.
I routinely have more than two windows in active use at once, keyboard shortcutting between them to cut, paste, type, contextual menu click, etc. The linear interaction is clearly a control freak's attempt to reduce disorder at the expense of reducing interaction possibilities.
I personally think the ideal input device would be a keyboard whose spacebar is separated into two halves with a multi-touch trackpad/clickpad in between the two halves of the spacebar of the keyboard, and a shortened height bottom row of keys from V to N to allow for a gteater vertical extent of the trackpad.
Apple's newer laptops are close, but they place the multi-touch trackpad/clickpad below the spacebar of the keyboard, which requires one to move ones' fingers from the home keys when using the trackpad. If the trackpad were between the left and right halves of the spacebar then one could use the thumb and forefinger of either or both hands on the multi-touch trackpad without removing the second, third, and fourth fingers from the home keys of the keyboard.
how is this not modded insightful?
In order for this argument to hold you'd have to show that Apple's iTunes portal meets the legal definition of a monopoly which is the ability to set prices without regard for the offerings of others. Last time I checked iTunes tracks were not priced so far above other online music stores that any court would find that Apple hold a monopoly market position. Apple have a large share of the market because many consumers prefer their offerings, not because they have some sort of stranglehold on the market. The proof courts use to judge this distinction is the price of the supposed monopoly holder's offerings. By that standard, the legal one which actually counts in courts of law, Apple's iTunes music store is not a monopoly.
Ditto their digital music player offerings.
Paul may (or may not) have a legal argument...
should be Palm of course.
The actual legal standard for a monopoly is the ability to set prices without regard to the offerings of competitors. MS was ruled a monopoly on PC OSes because they could set the price of Windows at several hundred dollars (retail) and ~$50.00 for OEMs even though their competition, (linux, the various open source BSDs, etc.) cost zero dollars.
In order for Apple to be ruled a monopoly in the digital music player market, they would need to be proven to have the ability to set the prices for ipods without regard for the price of other music players. This would be a very tough sell in a court of law.
The argument that iTunes has any sort of monopoly would be even tougher because it is free, and the legal definition relates to *inflated* price of the supposed monopoly holder's offering.
The argument that the iTunes music store is any sort of monopoly would similarly have to rely on Apple being able to price their song offings at an exorbitantly high level. Again this would be a very tough sell.
So, from an anti-trust perspective, it would be very hard for Palm or anyone else to argue that Apple is a monopoly.
Paul may (or may not) have a legal argument for using Apple's vendor ID from the perspective of interoperability, but the monopoly argument is not very likely to fly for the simple reason that Apple has real competitors in all these areas. These competitors' products are not prices so wildly below Apple's that Apple could be considered a legal monopoly in any of these three areas (digital music player, pc software for organizing/playing/purchasing digital music, online sales of digital music).
Apple is just winning because their offerings are preferred by the buying public, not because they've got any sort of lock-in strangle hold on the market.
Pathetic. I won't be born for another 5 millenia and I already have Ph.D.s in every major scientific, technical, and mathematical discipline. It's been nice talking to you, but I have to go back in time now and ghost write Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica for some dopey January baby. Thanks to what I'm about to do you'll certainly have heard of him - Isaac Newton. The funny part is that even after I've explained mechanics and calculus to him, he keeps insisting that he can find the Philosopher's Stone and alchemically transmogrify base metals into gold, the limey fsck-tard.
Or you could just use a timeout on the lock. You could even include a countdown timer on the edit page so the user knows how much time they have before the record is unlocked again and any unsaved changes will be lost. A lot of ticketing web sites use this method. You select a set of tickets to review and a timer starts running. If you don't approve them (seat location, price, etc.) and enter your payment information before the timer expires, then they go back into the general pool - essentially record locking where the records are theater tickets.
This way if the user locking a record closes his browser, goes to lunch, starts watching hulu, has a browser or system crash, etc., when the timer runs out the record is unlocked and others can edit it.
But when mainstream news organizations cease to exist, the tweets will have nothing to point at except unverified rumor. The core value we pay for in news it that which differentiates it from mere rumor - research and verification.
This is where the mainstream is shooting itself in the foot. In the rush to be "relevant" and "entertaining" they've all but abandoned the traditional standards of journalism - i.e., actual quality research and verification. Look at CNN's recent screw-up with the Coast Guard exercise. That could never have happened if they weren't falling over themselves to be "timely" and "relevant" at the expense of actual verification, the one thing that separates real news from worthless rumor.
left out the most important one: ability to carry more ordinance per sortie.
Not that I'm defending wasteful military spending, but the reason they want this is not so much for the dollar savings on fuel, but for the logistical advantages of needing less fuel: extended range of existing aircraft, reduced need for aerial refueling, more sorties on the same fuel budget, etc.
But there's an important difference between space and the deep ocean. The energetic cost of getting a kilo of payload into space are several orders of magnitude larger than they are for getting the equivalent payload size into the deep ocean. Because of this we can afford to overbuild and over-engineer submersibles in a way that we cannot possibly hope to do for space vehicles where every gram costs us dearly. As a result, any space vehicle of a reasonable cost (read billions rather than trillions) will be inherently more risky, because it will be, by comparison with the submersible, built to the absolute minimum engineering tolerances for strength, durability, etc., Basically, anything that adds weight will be built to the absolute minimum tolerance on a space vehicle. A submersible will be significantly overbuilt for hull strength, resistance to pressure, etc. because the cost of moving this extra weight around under water is much, much lower, than the cost of sending the equivalent extra weight into orbit.
From TFA:
The Symbolics company was the first to use an internet domain name to guide Internet viewers to its line of Lisp machines
"internet viewers?" Were they "viewing" the internet via email or via usenet? :) This was 1985. There was an internet but there was no world wide web because Tim Berners-Lee had yet to invent it. The world's first web site didn't go live for another 6 years.
This is why it didn't seem stupid at the time - there was no point in having a catchy domain name since there was no world wide web for people to surf to your catchy domain name on. Domains were just for mapping ip addresses to something easier to remember, not for luring in clueless web surfers.
The overwhelming majority of mail volume today is advertising (i.e. junk mail), not personal correspondence. This was not the case even within living memory, much less the 19th c.
People wrote *much* more before the advent of the telephone for the simple reason that they had no other choice.
Maybe I'm a bit older than you; maybe I'm just a bit more familiar with history than you are. You might want to reflect on the era before the telephone. When people of that time wanted to communicate with others some distance away, they wrote letters. Consider how much you would write if your only means of communicating with others you didn't meet face to face was by writing letters. For every literate person of this era, this correspondence constituted a significant body of work outside of formal education.
One summer I traveled to a part of Peru without telephone service. The only way to communicate with my then girlfriend was by letter. Now my wife, she still has a 2" stack of our onionskin letters to each other, and that was only two months worth of correspondence.
As you and others have suggested, it is simply a spectrum issue. In the age of mostly print media the mass culture was exposed only to the output of the more highly literate. Publishers were not about to waste limited print space on the poorly educated and semi-literate. Now that the means of publication are more widely available, we're seeing the full spectrum, from highly literate and well educated, to barely literate and poorly educated. Naturally, much of this spectrum is not as pleasant or illuminating to read as the high-end-only media of the past. On the other hand, there are bound to be a few diamonds in the rough as it were among the part of the spectrum formerly excluded from publication.
These things are completely predictable, in a general sense, from simple statistics. The chances of finding a Shakespeare among those of indifferent education are small, but non zero. So reading the copious output of the low end is going to be rather like sifting through a pile of verbal manure looking for gold. You'll find some, but might wish you hadn't made the effort.
The GPL gives the end user the right to the source if that end user pays for the app/product. It doesn't guarantee the end user any rights wrt re-deployment on specific commercial platforms beyond the right to the source code. Any issues that arise wrt re-deployment are the end user's to deal with, not the distributing developer. As long as the developer is making the source available to purchasers, then the developer is in compliance.
Read the GPL itself; it is very instructive. Nowhere does it require that the developer/distributor make any sorts of guarantees to the buyer/end user about how easy it will be for the end user to redistribute a re-compilation beyond the requirement that the source be provided in "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it."
The important bit here is that "The 'Corresponding Source' for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities." [emphasis added]
Note that this is not "all the developer permissions from Apple needed to run the object code," just "all the source code." Think about it; if devs were required to provide everything needed to run a GPL program, then they would have to provide a Windows license for every GPL program written to run on Windows.
Heck, a ten-thousandth of a mountain could kill you if it fell on you!
Certainly the dadaists would like you to believe that. Some of us still have actual aesthetic standards though. I agree with my grandparent - just because it's difficult to precisely characterize doesn't mean there is no scale of relative merit in art.
No worries mate. Only Americans who have lost their sense of smell would actually eat Vegemite in the first place. These are all old geezers, not members of the armed forces.
It does mean less pesticide residue though, since organic farmers have stricter standards on the application of pesticides than non-organic farmers.
Only if we continued to use the available arable in the same way. If your aim is sustainability, you devote most of the land currently used to produce meat (~10x less efficiently than soybeans, for example) to the production of other, more efficient crops.
This is an agribusiness fallacy. If the aim really were sustainable agriculture, then the vast acreage devoted to meat production would be largely repurposed for much higher yield crops. There's plenty of land under cultivation to feed the current world population and more using sustainable methods, just not enough to continue the vast oversupply of meat for the affluent.