To install most new applications on Mac OS X, you drag the application's icon to your hard disk.
To install something that includes a system extension (ie something installed in/System or/Library) you need to enter an administrator's password. That's pretty much the only time.
I'm quite sure, if they ask the FCC nicely, the FCC will happily remove Verizon's 850MHz allocation (you know, the bands they received by default because they, for the most part, are made up of various old Bell companies who all got nice "B" frequency allocations) and give them some crummy 1900MHz spectrum instead.
No, it just means the Nextel cell phones will have to be replaced with ones that work on the new frequency. Unless Motorola has been very forward thinking...
Erm, 4y and 16y respectively. Must. Learn. To. Hit. Preview. Button.
And now that damned stupid two minute thing has kicked in. Time to find a joke to cut 'n' paste:
Seems there was a young soldier, who, just before battle, told his sergeant that he didn't have a rifle.
"That's no problem, son," said the sergeant. "Here, take this broom. Just point it at the Germans, and go 'Bangety Bang Bang'."
"But what about a bayonet, Sarge?" asked the young (and gullible) recruit.
The sergeant pulls a piece of straw from the end of the broom, and attaches it to the handle end. "Here, use this... just go, 'Stabity Stab Stab'."
The recruit ends up alone on the battlefield, holding just his broom. Suddenly, a German soldier charges at him.
The recruit points the broom. "Bangety Bang Bang!" The German falls dead. More Germans appear. The recruit, amazed at his good luck, goes "Bangety Bang Bang! Stabity Stab Stab!" He mows down the enemy by the dozens.
Finally, the battlefield is clear, except for one German soldier walking slowly toward him. "Bangety Bang Bang! shouts the recruit.
The German keeps coming.
"Bangety Bang Bang!" repeats the recruit, to no avail. He gets desperate. "Bangety Bang Bang! Stabity Stab Stab!"
It's no use. The German keeps coming. He stomps the recruit into the ground, and says...
May I suggest you try doing *(x+y) because you'll see I'm right and you missed a critical comment from me.
When you add an integer to a pointer, the integer is multipled by the object size before the addition takes place. Eg, for a 32 bit machine with a flat memory space:
char *x = (char *)NULL; printf("%d\n", x+1);
will print "1".
Wheras:
int *x = (char *)NULL; printf("%d\n", x+1);
will print "4".
So your sizeof is actually inappropriate. Instead of, for (32 bit) int *y, "*(x + sizeof(*x)*y )" adding 4x, it'll add 16x!
That's why x[y] == *(x+y) == y[x]. It's the same operation in all cases. x[y] is always equivalent to *(x+y), it's actually defined by ANSI.
This is also why x++ and x+=1 are always equivalent. Because if x (on a 32 bit machine) is an integer pointer, both will add four to x, not one. This is because:
x+=1 == x=x+(1). If x is a pointer, then pointer arithmetic is used, so the integer portion is multipled by the object size before the addition takes place. Four gets added to x.
No, it's still right. You're misunderstanding what's going on.
x is not being mysteriously changed to a pointer in x[y], it's still being read as an integer. So, if x is 1, and y is 4e00, in x[y] it's still being evaluated by the compiler as 1[(int *)4e00]
However, in C (I just wrote this, damn it!) a[b] is exactly the same as *(a+(b)). A pointer plus an integer is always a pointer to the same type as the original, offset by the integer multiplied by the object size. And it doesn't matter what order you do it in, *(a+b) == *(b+a).
So in the above case, x[y] == *(x+(y)) == *(x+y) ; y[x] == *(y+(x)) == *(y+x) == *(x+y).
That's how it works, honestly. Internally, the C compiler is doing something like:
Write out code to evaluate x into register A
Write out code to evaluate y into register B
# We're adding an integer to a pointer, so multiply integer portion by object size
Multiple A by four
Add A to B
Get byte from memory location B
That's why they're the same. And you can set x to be any type you like as long as it can be automatically cast to an integer.
It will. anything[somethingelse] in C is syntactically identical to *(anything+(somethingelse)), so you can, quite legitimately, have an integer outside the brackets and a pointer on the inside.
Of course, you're more likely to want to turn the integer (offset) part of the dereference into an non-trivial calculation than the pointer part.
I'd imagine the reference is to the UK (actually EU) sales tax, "VAT" (Value Added Tax), which will be 17.5% for this DVD set. Why is this relevent? Well, in the UK the custom (by law) is to quote prices including sales taxes. So the 44.99GBP price includes that 17.5% making the pre-tax price... erm... 38.29GPB.
So to get the US price, you need to start with 38.29GBP and convert that to dollars, not 44.99GBP. Otherwise you're also converting the sales tax.
It wasn't disappointing because it followed Matrix 2 which was so awful that, frankly, if Spiderman 2 had been called "Matrix 3" it would have seemed like a quality sequel.
That said, my opinion of Matrix 3 has lowered since I watched it originally. I don't think it was the piece of crap most people claimed it was, but it certainly wasn't a worthy sequel to the original.
So - since you obviously do not like Linux - what OS would you suggest?
I love Linux, two of my six (active) computers at home run Linux (two run OpenBSD, and two run Mac OS X.) I was merely making an OS advocacy joke.
That said, I think it's a little unnecessary for a voting machine to run Linux, unless it's a minimal kernel with a minimal userland that just does the job. I'm really unsure of how we've got to the point that single purpose non-complex-application machines need to have full blown desktop or server operating systems installed.
What's this thing going to do? Display a bunch of buttons and record the results? This needs less intelligence than a Commodore VIC 20, and yet Diebold thinks it needs to run Windows, and others are arguing for Linux? Why?
I'd suggest a DOS (PCDOS, FreeDOS, and OpenDOS/DR DOS are still commercially/communally supported in some variety), as it's an interface people are familiar with, that everyone knows the faults of, that doesn't, by default, includes anything unfamiliar, runs on commodity hardware, with a wealth of development tools.
Probably because the central concept is of you getting updates from Microsoft over the Internet. Given the popular equation of Internet = WWW, Microsoft can be forgiven for considering the most user friendly way of representing this as being visiting a website. That way there's no ambiguity, you must be connected to the Internet and able to reach the website Microsoft provides.
I'm not sure I necessarily agree that the update process has to be that user friendly, I like Apple's "Don't worry, we'll tell you about it when the conditions are right" approach with software update (eg it checks once a week, automatically, as long as you're online.) This is, arguably, a superior approach as it doesn't require the user do anything. But Microsoft's approach to dealing with a situation where a user manually initiates updates seems fairly rational to me, and exactly what an ordinary user would find the most obvious and friendly.
All of these are trusted applications - applications that are not sandboxed in anyway (and none of these run within your browser, which is what the windows-update.com system is meant to do.)
Why doesn't Windows Update support Firefox? I'm using Linux now, so it's not that important to me, but I'd like to have an answer.
Windows Update uses ActiveX. IE is the only web browser that supports ActiveX (with good reason...)
Ironically, the very reason people avoid ActiveX - the fact that, once an applet is "trusted" it can do pretty much anything - is the reason Windows Update uses the technology (how else can you update your system without an applet trusted to do anything?)
We download the movies because it is convienient to do so (ala iTunes).
That's right. It's a hell of a lot easier to download a 500Mb MPEG from a dodgy site and then sit in front of the computer for a couple of hours watching a blurry image on a 17" monitor than it is to pass by the cinema or buy a DVD.;-)
We also download the movies because the theatres charge entirely too much money (anywhere from $8 to $11 from what I have seen) to watch it.
Aha! The REAL reason!
You should try the matinee/afternoon showings BTW, usually they're just over $5 at most US cinemas I've seen.
I agree with the rest of what you wrote BTW, I just don't think downloading movies and watching them has reached the iTunes+iPod level of ease and comfort yet.
Most third party mice, my own included, do not come with "drivers". Logitech may include them, but the vast majority of manufacturers expect the operating system to already include support for mice, and they build devices that conform to HID specifications so that they "just work".
Besides which, why the hell would I want my middle mouse button to emulate command-click? That's not going to go down well for well behaved Mac OS X apps now is it? It'll certainly mess with X11.
The Mozilla team recognizes that this is an actual bug (#151249), I've voted for the bug in bugzilla, we're just waiting now to see a release of Mozilla and Firebird with the proposed bug fix in place.
The middle button does not open a link in a new tab on Firefox for OS X. I'm not sure what you mean "map the middle button to send a command-click", if you mean "use third party tools to reverse the command-click/middle-click relationship", then that's about the last thing I want to do! Firefox needs to work properly, I shouldn't need to hack my OS to get Firefox/Mozilla to work...
The NeoOffice/J version of OO is much more OS X integrated than the main OO.o. It is still dependent on x11 but it allows cutting and pasting with other applications outside of x11 and runs much faster.
NeoOffice/J doesn't need X11.
I'm not sure that OO.o's slowness has anything to do with Java or X11, it's just slow. It's slow under Linux and under Windows and was slow when it was StarOffice and had nothing to do with Java. I suspect over time the code is going to be reviewed and this particular issue resolved.
Try NeoOffice/J. This is a workable, usable, version of OO.o which is built upon Java. While it's as butt-ugly as the X11 version, it at least doesn't require starting X11 seperately. It feels fractionally more like an OS X app.
The eventual aim of the NeoOffice people is to produce a genuine OS Xified OO.o, so it's a project worth following. They have a technology preview of that branch of the project called Flaming Yeti, which you can play with, but it's far from being complete. Don't download it if you were one of the people who played with early versions of Mozilla and wrote Mozilla off as a result.
SPF is not a good anti-spam system -- it doesn't stop spam unless everyone uses it perfectly Internet-wide (which doesn't work).
If everyone did use it Internet wide, how would that help? The vast bulk of the spam I see comes from addresses used legitimately. Spammers will always be able to register domains.
You should be able to get something between $80 and $150 for it, depending on its condition. Probably a better bet than using it as a trade in and then trying to sell the Dell (for which you might make a profit of $100 if you're able to find someone who'd be willing to buy it full price on eBay. There are people who are that stupid, I've seen them on eBay, but they're not that numerous.)
Remember, over 50% of all email is now spam. Anything so lightweight that will block so much of it for those of us who use that tool, and force the rest of the email to be so much more easily tracked as being from a forgery friendly domain, is a big deal.
While over 50% of all email may be spam, it's doubtful that over 50% of all email comprises of joe-jobs. Certainly, that's not reflected in my Yahoo Bulk mail folder.
Please remember that despite the enthusiastic over selling of SPF's proponents, SPF is not an anti-spam system and shouldn't be viewed as one. It's an anti-joe-job system. In some ways, it's sorely needed, but if anyone expects this to make any kind of major dent in the volumes of spam these days, they're likely to be majorly disappointed.
And Ted Bundy BROKE THE LAW by torturing and killing people.
Kind of reminds me of the "They laughed at Gallileo, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown" quote.
BTW, putting someone in the same category as these four is a little absurd. Is he being unfairly accused and/or merely and harmlessly without affect to others practising a religion? Is he merely stating something he considers to be the truth? Is he being treated as sub-human and, if so, is he trying to deal with that? Is he a nation being forced to buy tea from a monopoly?
No, he's trying to ensure that others can watch a movie for free, without those people paying the makers of that movie, the only way the people who made the movie can both make it and eat. (And yeah, I know, Spiderman is very profitable, but (a) it'll not be if they're not paid, and (b) profitable movies fund unprofitable ones.)
Slashdot Mirror
To install most new applications on Mac OS X, you drag the application's icon to your hard disk.
To install something that includes a system extension (ie something installed in /System or /Library) you need to enter an administrator's password. That's pretty much the only time.
I guess you could compile the X11 version to run under Cygwin/X11. But I'm not sure that counts as "cross platform"...
Verizon doesn't have a leg to stand on.
No, it just means the Nextel cell phones will have to be replaced with ones that work on the new frequency. Unless Motorola has been very forward thinking...
And now that damned stupid two minute thing has kicked in. Time to find a joke to cut 'n' paste:
Yeah, I thought it sucked too.When you add an integer to a pointer, the integer is multipled by the object size before the addition takes place. Eg, for a 32 bit machine with a flat memory space:
char *x = (char *)NULL; printf("%d\n", x+1);
will print "1".
Wheras:
int *x = (char *)NULL; printf("%d\n", x+1);
will print "4".
So your sizeof is actually inappropriate. Instead of, for (32 bit) int *y, "*(x + sizeof(*x)*y )" adding 4x, it'll add 16x!
That's why x[y] == *(x+y) == y[x]. It's the same operation in all cases. x[y] is always equivalent to *(x+y), it's actually defined by ANSI.
This is also why x++ and x+=1 are always equivalent. Because if x (on a 32 bit machine) is an integer pointer, both will add four to x, not one. This is because:
x+=1 == x=x+(1). If x is a pointer, then pointer arithmetic is used, so the integer portion is multipled by the object size before the addition takes place. Four gets added to x.
x is not being mysteriously changed to a pointer in x[y], it's still being read as an integer. So, if x is 1, and y is 4e00, in x[y] it's still being evaluated by the compiler as 1[(int *)4e00]
However, in C (I just wrote this, damn it!) a[b] is exactly the same as *(a+(b)). A pointer plus an integer is always a pointer to the same type as the original, offset by the integer multiplied by the object size. And it doesn't matter what order you do it in, *(a+b) == *(b+a).
So in the above case, x[y] == *(x+(y)) == *(x+y)
; y[x] == *(y+(x)) == *(y+x) == *(x+y).
That's how it works, honestly. Internally, the C compiler is doing something like:
Write out code to evaluate x into register A
Write out code to evaluate y into register B
# We're adding an integer to a pointer, so multiply integer portion by object size
Multiple A by four
Add A to B
Get byte from memory location B
That's why they're the same. And you can set x to be any type you like as long as it can be automatically cast to an integer.
Of course, you're more likely to want to turn the integer (offset) part of the dereference into an non-trivial calculation than the pointer part.
So to get the US price, you need to start with 38.29GBP and convert that to dollars, not 44.99GBP. Otherwise you're also converting the sales tax.
That said, my opinion of Matrix 3 has lowered since I watched it originally. I don't think it was the piece of crap most people claimed it was, but it certainly wasn't a worthy sequel to the original.
That said, I think it's a little unnecessary for a voting machine to run Linux, unless it's a minimal kernel with a minimal userland that just does the job. I'm really unsure of how we've got to the point that single purpose non-complex-application machines need to have full blown desktop or server operating systems installed.
What's this thing going to do? Display a bunch of buttons and record the results? This needs less intelligence than a Commodore VIC 20, and yet Diebold thinks it needs to run Windows, and others are arguing for Linux? Why?
I'd suggest a DOS (PCDOS, FreeDOS, and OpenDOS/DR DOS are still commercially/communally supported in some variety), as it's an interface people are familiar with, that everyone knows the faults of, that doesn't, by default, includes anything unfamiliar, runs on commodity hardware, with a wealth of development tools.
I'm not sure I necessarily agree that the update process has to be that user friendly, I like Apple's "Don't worry, we'll tell you about it when the conditions are right" approach with software update (eg it checks once a week, automatically, as long as you're online.) This is, arguably, a superior approach as it doesn't require the user do anything. But Microsoft's approach to dealing with a situation where a user manually initiates updates seems fairly rational to me, and exactly what an ordinary user would find the most obvious and friendly.
All of these are trusted applications - applications that are not sandboxed in anyway (and none of these run within your browser, which is what the windows-update.com system is meant to do.)
Ironically, the very reason people avoid ActiveX - the fact that, once an applet is "trusted" it can do pretty much anything - is the reason Windows Update uses the technology (how else can you update your system without an applet trusted to do anything?)
You should try the matinee/afternoon showings BTW, usually they're just over $5 at most US cinemas I've seen.
I agree with the rest of what you wrote BTW, I just don't think downloading movies and watching them has reached the iTunes+iPod level of ease and comfort yet.
Besides which, why the hell would I want my middle mouse button to emulate command-click? That's not going to go down well for well behaved Mac OS X apps now is it? It'll certainly mess with X11.
The Mozilla team recognizes that this is an actual bug (#151249), I've voted for the bug in bugzilla, we're just waiting now to see a release of Mozilla and Firebird with the proposed bug fix in place.
The middle button does not open a link in a new tab on Firefox for OS X. I'm not sure what you mean "map the middle button to send a command-click", if you mean "use third party tools to reverse the command-click/middle-click relationship", then that's about the last thing I want to do! Firefox needs to work properly, I shouldn't need to hack my OS to get Firefox/Mozilla to work...
(They're both great browsers and, in my view, vast improves on Safari which itself is fairly nice. I hope they fix the issues in both of them.)
I'm not sure that OO.o's slowness has anything to do with Java or X11, it's just slow. It's slow under Linux and under Windows and was slow when it was StarOffice and had nothing to do with Java. I suspect over time the code is going to be reviewed and this particular issue resolved.
The eventual aim of the NeoOffice people is to produce a genuine OS Xified OO.o, so it's a project worth following. They have a technology preview of that branch of the project called Flaming Yeti, which you can play with, but it's far from being complete. Don't download it if you were one of the people who played with early versions of Mozilla and wrote Mozilla off as a result.
You should be able to get something between $80 and $150 for it, depending on its condition. Probably a better bet than using it as a trade in and then trying to sell the Dell (for which you might make a profit of $100 if you're able to find someone who'd be willing to buy it full price on eBay. There are people who are that stupid, I've seen them on eBay, but they're not that numerous.)
Please remember that despite the enthusiastic over selling of SPF's proponents, SPF is not an anti-spam system and shouldn't be viewed as one. It's an anti-joe-job system. In some ways, it's sorely needed, but if anyone expects this to make any kind of major dent in the volumes of spam these days, they're likely to be majorly disappointed.
Kind of reminds me of the "They laughed at Gallileo, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown" quote.
BTW, putting someone in the same category as these four is a little absurd. Is he being unfairly accused and/or merely and harmlessly without affect to others practising a religion? Is he merely stating something he considers to be the truth? Is he being treated as sub-human and, if so, is he trying to deal with that? Is he a nation being forced to buy tea from a monopoly?
No, he's trying to ensure that others can watch a movie for free, without those people paying the makers of that movie, the only way the people who made the movie can both make it and eat. (And yeah, I know, Spiderman is very profitable, but (a) it'll not be if they're not paid, and (b) profitable movies fund unprofitable ones.)