Quartz is based around a PDF model (though it's not "Display PDF" in the same way as DPS is based upon PostScript), it really doesn't have any roots in QuickDraw. The PDF orientation gives you some nice extras, such as the ability to "print" anything as a PDF without any extra work on the developer's side and without the usual bug-laden pseudo-print driver where PostScript is converted to PDF on the fly with varying degrees of success.
If you were to design a modern graphics system, you certainly wouldn't go back to QuickDraw to get it. QD was an optimized, standardized, 2D graphics library designed at a time when small memories and 8MHz CPUs were the norm (indeed, IIRC, QD was originally designed for the even slower Lisa.) I'm surprised anyone would even think that Quartz has QuickDraw roots.
Doesn't it seem reasonable that if most computers start being multi-CPU in some way (SMP, dual core, etc), most new software will take advantage of it?
Back in the mid-nineties, there wasn't a lot of software that made use of 3D accelation hardware in graphics cards either. That didn't stop the graphics cards manufacturers from going for 3D though.
They didn't. They bought the same brand of fire starter as he did.
Honestly people, think. At least more so than your average detective. There is nothing extraordinary about two people buying the same brand of fire starter.
I'm thinking that there's a limited number of brands of fire starter available in any one area and therefore the chances of an arsonist purchasing the same brand as a victim is extremely high.
I think it's a little absurd to come up with explanations like your's. You make it sound like the cop's logic was sane to start with. It wasn't. These investigators should be reprimanded or even fired for taking this as far as they did.
LinuxMafia is what became LinuxPackages. If it's showing an "under construction" page it just means the domain's been resold.
You made it sound like you were compiling everything; that's why I wondered. If you were aware you could download binary packages for Slackware's package management system then that's ok:) I know I had to compile my own stuff from time to time, but usually the same kinds of things I'd have had problems getting a decent RPM for or finding an entry in BSD ports for too.
Slack also has an option to convert RPMs to Slackware packages. Unfortunately, you lose the dependency information when you do and it's rarely in the documentation.
Actually, telescope technology now being what it is, I'm surprised nobody's noticed that the flag at the supposed Apollo 11 landing site is actually French. I saw it last night with my cheap Wal*Mart Amateur Astronomy Set.
Apparently the French landed there in the 1930s. They kept it quiet, never being a group to blow their own horn, and then the Americans wanted footage to "prove" they had gone to the moon, the French were all to happy to provide it (which was then doctored to include a US flag instead) due to their gratitude for America's contribution to WW2.
Why did you do the./configure ; make ; make install stuff with Slackware, rather than download pre-compiled packages from places like Linux Packages/Linux Mafia.net?
I agree about the chasing dependencies, but generally most packages I downloaded included dependency information in the documentation anyway.
Nobody said the widescreen version would have boom mics. The full screen version will if (a) the original print was 4:3, (b) the film was shot at 4:3 but with the intent to show it letter boxed, (c) the director didn't really care much about boom mics appearing in the area he/she intended to letterbox and (d) the TV/fullscreen version is a straight copy of the original 4:3 print, not a pan and scan version of the letterboxed film.
And yes, the equipment, not the film, usually determines whether the film will be 4:3 or some widescreen format. Widescreen on 35mm film is usually achieved either through anamorphic lenses or by shooting, as described, straight 4:3 and then blacking out the top and bottom.
If the director didn't intend for me to see something, it wouldn't have ended up on film.
Of course it would. What kind of comment is that?
If the film is shot on 4:3 film, then the top and bottom of the film is not intended for your viewing, but it certainly ended up on film.
And try googling "out-takes".
I thought i did own some movies that that were panning, and thought that it was wierd. I guess this would explain it.
No, it doesn't. No panning and scanning is going on. As I said, despite the dumb Slashdot write up, this is about films filmed on 4:3 being letterboxed. MGM is emphatically not selling pan and scanned films letterboxed.
These theatrical widescreen versions are the full screen versions with the tops and bottoms cut off. However, the full screen versions are not Pan and Scan, as you imply ("that have had the left and right chopped off"), they're the original 4:3 what-came-out-of-the-not-widescreen-camera footage.
Many films are shot in 4:3 with an view to letterboxing them. 4:3 equipment is cheap.
So actually MGM hasn't done much wrong here. The nearest thing you could argue is that the descriptions MGM had of them implied there was more cutting with the full screen DVDs. That's not quite accurate, the full screen copies were not cut when they should have been.
NOTE TO EVERYONE: This has NOTHING to do with pan and scan. The Slashdot summary is wrong. If you prefer your DVDs to look the same as the cinema releases, you should keep your existing widescreen DVDs. If you're interested in raw footage, boom mikes showing, etc, then MGM's full screen DVDs will give you that.
Why can't MGM answer a simple question -- did they letterbox a pan-and-scan cut of a movie and try to pass it off as a widescreen movie?
According to this post, they haven't been letterboxing Pan and Scan cuts at all. It's more that the original was 4:3, it was letterboxed for cinematic release (and the director almost certainly intended for it to be shown in that letterboxed version, so that's not a bad thing), and then the TV release was, mostly, the original 4:3 version of the film.
Given the number of movies on that list that were from companies like America International (Roger Corman's old stomping grounds, used to make directors make several movies a month using budgets that were barely in four digits, which even in the fifties wasn't a lot), I can well believe that this is the case. And, of course, some directors, like Stanley Kubrick, wanted their stuff shown as 4:3 in the first place.
So actually I'm inclined to believe that MGM is probably not in the wrong here. The lawsuit's validity, for the most part, is that you could argue that MGM is in the wrong claiming that the "full-screen" versions were cut in some way (the usual disclaimer that pops up at the beginning saying that the film has been modified to fit on your screen): in fact, the full screen versions are the unformatted, not-even-the-director-had-edited-that-part-yet, versions. It's the wide screen version that was modified to fit on a screen.
Maybe MGM would be better off describing the films as formatted "as the artists intended", "for cinematic", or "for TV".
The vast majority of wireless users get service from Cingular and Verizon.
Cingular is BellSouth, AT&T's wireless division, and... SBC, the subject of this article.
Verizon Wireless is majority owned by Verizon (with Vodafone taking up the slack.) Verizon is... BellAtlantic.
All of the companies mentioned, with the exception of Vodafone (which doesn't control Verizon Wireless), are parts of Ma Bell in some shape or form. The nearest thing to one that isn't is, ironically, AT&T Wireless in that that company joined the AT&T family after the break-up (it being McCaw Cellular before it merged with the long distance giant in the late eighties.)
If the statistic you quoted it accurately worded (ie we're talking about Americans who smoke cigarettes, who die as a result of smoking those cigarettes), then we're talking about mostly consensual deaths. That's not really the same thing as terror.
Please, do the world a favour, and don't use that particular argument when criticising governments. It's seriously fucked up, and it merely advocates making the war on (some) drugs even more draconian, overbearing, and far reaching.
Memory was accessed, by programmers, using eight bit addressing. The 6502 split its memory into 256 256-byte "pages", which is where you may get the "It could address 64k therefore used 16 bit addressing" from.
I was indeed thinking of the eight bit index registers, that's kind of the point! If it had had sixteen bit index registers, then it'd have been legitimate to talk in terms of 16 bit addressing. But it didn't. That's what made it horrible.
I've heard contradictory stories about why IBM chose the 8086. The one I believe, because it's the one I heard at the time, is that IBM was trying to build a natural successor to the 8080/Z80 based S100 CP/M systems that were considered the only respectable microcomputers at the time. The 8086 was largely source compatable with the 8080 (though not binary compatable...) so mainstream CP/M programs, theoretically, could be ported with ease to the new platform.
Since then the story has morphed from that to "IBM had a license to make 8086s" and other tales. I suspect, ultimately, it was a range of factors, and probably a management decision, not an engineering one.
He came up with the idea. His was the original company wide memo that suggested a self-contained simplified easy to use computer. That project then became the Macintosh project.
In many ways, "Father of the Macintosh" is a very apt term to describe him - he did the work right at the beginning, and then went off to work on other things.
The Apple was based upon the 6502, whose only relationship to Motorola was that the original designers had left after designing the 6800.
If I remember the story properly, the original chip out of MOS Technologies was the 6501, a 6800 clone. They then made some "minor" modifications (*shudder*, the ultra-8bittiness of the 6502 where even addressing was eight bit all has to do with those modifications. Quite why people loved it is something I'll never understand. Sure, it was fast, so was the 6809, and that was a beautiful chip) when Motorola threatened to sue, and called this the 6502.
The 6502, and its variants, become standard amongst half the 8 bit computers, with the Z80 being the other major chip of its day. The chips that inspired them, the 6800 and 8080, ended up becoming relatively obscure, except to lead to their eventual successors, the 68000 and 8086, that powered the new generation of "16 bit" machines.
Anyone find this funny, considering the Macintosh's infamous one-buttoned mouse?
It's even funnier if you know that Jef was actually opposed to mice on the original Macintosh. He wanted the thing controlled by a set of dedicated function keys.
Not that it's bad or anything. Jef obviously has learned to love the mouse, as half the computer industry had to in the mid-eighties.
Quite. Insofar as there was a problem with the lawsuit, it was more that it would have been largely ineffectual, not that Ellison's anger was misplaced. It certainly wasn't "frivolous" by any common meaning of the term.
Unfortunately, this is Slashdot, a forum whose bulk of members look at a few abuses of copyright (overly long terms, "Access Control Mechanisms", etc), looks at one specific industry that really doesn't need copyright but has it anyway (software - 90% of all programming is done for private institutions, not as software for sale), and promptly declares copyright evil and unnecessary, and anyone trying to make a living from it likewise.
Kind of surprising really that the biggest thread under this isn't comprised of someone quoting the "frivolous lawsuit" comment, followed by hundreds of Slashbots responding "me too"...
note how often they do it for Republicans and not Democrats
1. As far as I can see, it's about equal on a ratio basis.
2. What do you care? This isn't a negative story. If every time the AP reported on sex scandals they mentioned the affiliation of those connected with party A but never those with B, then that'd be one thing. But this story is nothing like that.
3. Why shouldn't they report it? Information about elected government officers is usually incomplete without their affiliation. IF someone says "The governor of West Dakota said today...", then most of us will wonder who the hell that governor is and something that says something about them. (We'll then ask where the hell West Dakota is.)
It doesn't really matter. If these phones are as cheap as made out (that's a big if), then the entire loss-leader phone-subsidy system is irrelevent, so making the major problem with signing up to a plan (the contract) redundant.
So "signing up for a service plan" wouldn't be the big deal it is today.
Slashdot Mirror
Look familiar? ;-)
If you were to design a modern graphics system, you certainly wouldn't go back to QuickDraw to get it. QD was an optimized, standardized, 2D graphics library designed at a time when small memories and 8MHz CPUs were the norm (indeed, IIRC, QD was originally designed for the even slower Lisa.) I'm surprised anyone would even think that Quartz has QuickDraw roots.
Isn't Rush Limbaugh a Mac user? I don't know anyone to the left of Hitler that'd consider him "liberal".
Back in the mid-nineties, there wasn't a lot of software that made use of 3D accelation hardware in graphics cards either. That didn't stop the graphics cards manufacturers from going for 3D though.
Honestly people, think. At least more so than your average detective. There is nothing extraordinary about two people buying the same brand of fire starter.
Actually it's making fun of Francophobia. But, well, whatever.
Or it might just be a kid, in which case the decision to prosecute would also be uncertain. It doesn't have to be the firefighter's kid.
I think it's a little absurd to come up with explanations like your's. You make it sound like the cop's logic was sane to start with. It wasn't. These investigators should be reprimanded or even fired for taking this as far as they did.
You made it sound like you were compiling everything; that's why I wondered. If you were aware you could download binary packages for Slackware's package management system then that's ok :) I know I had to compile my own stuff from time to time, but usually the same kinds of things I'd have had problems getting a decent RPM for or finding an entry in BSD ports for too.
Slack also has an option to convert RPMs to Slackware packages. Unfortunately, you lose the dependency information when you do and it's rarely in the documentation.
(Cite)
Apparently the French landed there in the 1930s. They kept it quiet, never being a group to blow their own horn, and then the Americans wanted footage to "prove" they had gone to the moon, the French were all to happy to provide it (which was then doctored to include a US flag instead) due to their gratitude for America's contribution to WW2.
I agree about the chasing dependencies, but generally most packages I downloaded included dependency information in the documentation anyway.
And yes, the equipment, not the film, usually determines whether the film will be 4:3 or some widescreen format. Widescreen on 35mm film is usually achieved either through anamorphic lenses or by shooting, as described, straight 4:3 and then blacking out the top and bottom.
If the film is shot on 4:3 film, then the top and bottom of the film is not intended for your viewing, but it certainly ended up on film.
And try googling "out-takes".
No, it doesn't. No panning and scanning is going on. As I said, despite the dumb Slashdot write up, this is about films filmed on 4:3 being letterboxed. MGM is emphatically not selling pan and scanned films letterboxed.These theatrical widescreen versions are the full screen versions with the tops and bottoms cut off. However, the full screen versions are not Pan and Scan, as you imply ("that have had the left and right chopped off"), they're the original 4:3 what-came-out-of-the-not-widescreen-camera footage.
Many films are shot in 4:3 with an view to letterboxing them. 4:3 equipment is cheap.
So actually MGM hasn't done much wrong here. The nearest thing you could argue is that the descriptions MGM had of them implied there was more cutting with the full screen DVDs. That's not quite accurate, the full screen copies were not cut when they should have been.
NOTE TO EVERYONE: This has NOTHING to do with pan and scan. The Slashdot summary is wrong. If you prefer your DVDs to look the same as the cinema releases, you should keep your existing widescreen DVDs. If you're interested in raw footage, boom mikes showing, etc, then MGM's full screen DVDs will give you that.
Given the number of movies on that list that were from companies like America International (Roger Corman's old stomping grounds, used to make directors make several movies a month using budgets that were barely in four digits, which even in the fifties wasn't a lot), I can well believe that this is the case. And, of course, some directors, like Stanley Kubrick, wanted their stuff shown as 4:3 in the first place.
So actually I'm inclined to believe that MGM is probably not in the wrong here. The lawsuit's validity, for the most part, is that you could argue that MGM is in the wrong claiming that the "full-screen" versions were cut in some way (the usual disclaimer that pops up at the beginning saying that the film has been modified to fit on your screen): in fact, the full screen versions are the unformatted, not-even-the-director-had-edited-that-part-yet, versions. It's the wide screen version that was modified to fit on a screen.
Maybe MGM would be better off describing the films as formatted "as the artists intended", "for cinematic", or "for TV".
Cingular is BellSouth, AT&T's wireless division, and... SBC, the subject of this article.
Verizon Wireless is majority owned by Verizon (with Vodafone taking up the slack.) Verizon is... BellAtlantic.
All of the companies mentioned, with the exception of Vodafone (which doesn't control Verizon Wireless), are parts of Ma Bell in some shape or form. The nearest thing to one that isn't is, ironically, AT&T Wireless in that that company joined the AT&T family after the break-up (it being McCaw Cellular before it merged with the long distance giant in the late eighties.)
Please, do the world a favour, and don't use that particular argument when criticising governments. It's seriously fucked up, and it merely advocates making the war on (some) drugs even more draconian, overbearing, and far reaching.
I was indeed thinking of the eight bit index registers, that's kind of the point! If it had had sixteen bit index registers, then it'd have been legitimate to talk in terms of 16 bit addressing. But it didn't. That's what made it horrible.
I've heard contradictory stories about why IBM chose the 8086. The one I believe, because it's the one I heard at the time, is that IBM was trying to build a natural successor to the 8080/Z80 based S100 CP/M systems that were considered the only respectable microcomputers at the time. The 8086 was largely source compatable with the 8080 (though not binary compatable...) so mainstream CP/M programs, theoretically, could be ported with ease to the new platform.
Since then the story has morphed from that to "IBM had a license to make 8086s" and other tales. I suspect, ultimately, it was a range of factors, and probably a management decision, not an engineering one.
In many ways, "Father of the Macintosh" is a very apt term to describe him - he did the work right at the beginning, and then went off to work on other things.
If I remember the story properly, the original chip out of MOS Technologies was the 6501, a 6800 clone. They then made some "minor" modifications (*shudder*, the ultra-8bittiness of the 6502 where even addressing was eight bit all has to do with those modifications. Quite why people loved it is something I'll never understand. Sure, it was fast, so was the 6809, and that was a beautiful chip) when Motorola threatened to sue, and called this the 6502.
The 6502, and its variants, become standard amongst half the 8 bit computers, with the Z80 being the other major chip of its day. The chips that inspired them, the 6800 and 8080, ended up becoming relatively obscure, except to lead to their eventual successors, the 68000 and 8086, that powered the new generation of "16 bit" machines.
Not that it's bad or anything. Jef obviously has learned to love the mouse, as half the computer industry had to in the mid-eighties.
Unfortunately, this is Slashdot, a forum whose bulk of members look at a few abuses of copyright (overly long terms, "Access Control Mechanisms", etc), looks at one specific industry that really doesn't need copyright but has it anyway (software - 90% of all programming is done for private institutions, not as software for sale), and promptly declares copyright evil and unnecessary, and anyone trying to make a living from it likewise.
Kind of surprising really that the biggest thread under this isn't comprised of someone quoting the "frivolous lawsuit" comment, followed by hundreds of Slashbots responding "me too"...
2. What do you care? This isn't a negative story. If every time the AP reported on sex scandals they mentioned the affiliation of those connected with party A but never those with B, then that'd be one thing. But this story is nothing like that.
3. Why shouldn't they report it? Information about elected government officers is usually incomplete without their affiliation. IF someone says "The governor of West Dakota said today...", then most of us will wonder who the hell that governor is and something that says something about them. (We'll then ask where the hell West Dakota is.)
So "signing up for a service plan" wouldn't be the big deal it is today.