If you're talking about Jim Hugunin, he handed the project off to others before he left it. But development just plain hasn't been the same since he left.
Dive Into Python is great, but it has the problem of being old. So old, in fact, that so far I haven't found anything from it that doesn't work perfectly in Jython. That might not seem like much, until you realize that Jython is still not quite at the Python 2.2 stage yet: more than three years behind.
Not that I dislike Jython. Quite the contrary: I use it more than I use cPython, for a variety of reasons. But its development is going slowly enough that it's making me want to brush up on my Java so I could help out.
As long as they don't try and call this "Free Software," then I suppose I can't really find much of a problem here. Is it naive and foolish for them to do this? Certainly. But is it wrong? No, not really.
At the same time, last I checked, the Free Software movement is about not restricting how people use software. That opens up the potential for abuse, perhaps, but the underlying premise of the movement is that the potential for abuse is worth the benefits. If the developers have decided otherwise, that's their decision, but then that is where they and the movement that spawned them need to part ways. Ideally, they should have written up their own license, rather than patching the GPL, in order to clear up confusion. But there are certainly worse ways they could have gone about this.
And Firefox 2 doesn't pass Acid 2 because no work has been done on Gecko (it still uses 1.8, the same as Deer Park)
If the Firefox team decides to de-prioritize the standards that people care about and instead work on fluff, then they deserve all the criticism they get for it. To gain your popularity from standards and then consciously choose to allow yourself to fall into dead last among modern browsers in standards support is, to say the least, disturbingly hypocritical.
What's so complicated about his interpretation: that it's the intent of giving that matters more than the amount given? The widow put in what she believed she could give, and that makes her as good as anyone else's, even though others gave far more than she. Giving is not good simply because you suffer; it's good because you give, and if you give what you believe you can, then you have done good. The evil or greedy ones are the ones who know what they could give but give less, or the ones who simply never think about giving at all. How much you suffer by your giving has nothing to do with how good it is.
I don't think that the post which touched this thread off is about sour grapes (unlike this post's grandparent). But I do think it's misguided in the same way that monks who beat their own flesh with whips are misguided: they think that good comes through suffering on another's behalf. That can indeed be good when there's meaning to it -gratuitous suffering is exactly that: gratuitous, not good- but it is not the only path to goodness, and it is not necessarily greater than any other path.
I loathe most of the things Gates has done, and I loathe him for having been able to do them without so much as batting an eye. But that doesn't mean I won't give him credit when he does something good; even the devil deserves his due. I know far less about Buffet and his actions, but that would only make it even less fair if I were to decry his incredibly generous gift as "not good enough" because of some childish idea that he hasn't suffered enough.
Nah; it needs more than just layout changes. It needs a guy who knows what he's talking about at the helm. Seriously; his sheer ignorance probably does more to promote CSS than most CSS advocates do with their knowledge.
It applies inside the padding so that the width and height you specify are that of your content. Visual design is not content, which is why these are not included in the height/width consideration.
Or at least, that's how the logic behind the decision supposedly goes.
OTOH, why would SCO even do this? Any belief that it will give them some cash flow or some other position that benefits them is irrational.
Oh, they don't plan to release the code at all. This is a setup on their part; they want to get sued for violating the GPL. They will then attempt to argue in court that the GPL is "unenforceable" and therefore invalid. If they win in court (a very big [i]if[/i], given that this has been tried before but it's always failed), then they'll claim ownership over all of the Linux codebase and that will be that.
They'll lose, of course; it takes little more than common sense to see that. But since when has common sense ever reigned in that company?
I agree with you that DRM is an inherently bad technology, but I can't help but agree that the protests are better directed at more draconian schemes. The RIAA doesn't need Apple: should Apple pull out of the DRM game, the RIAA will simply move to stores with even worse models; God knows there are enough of those to keep the RIAA satisfied.
If the protests are to be truly effective, then they need to recognize that RIAA will always be as draconian as they possibly can. Thus, the protests should be focused to push RIAA to less draconian schemes than the status quo, not more. You don't do that by targeting moderates like Apple; you do it by targeting the more draconian stores. Then, as RIAA is forced to become accustomed to less draconian schemes (because the market won't stand for more draconian ones), you tighten the noose, continually pushing RIAA toward better schemes until you finally get them off of DRM completely.
Is this more difficult than simply targeting the largest vendor? Of course it is. It's also much slower. But it has a far lower chance of unintended consequences.
I'm not sure it's the principle of DRM, per se, that the FSF opposes. What they oppose is the fact that current DRM implementations trample all over the legitimate fair-use rights of legitimate users, in the name of catching casual thieves. If a DRM scheme were to be devised that allowed complete and unfettered exercise of fair-use rights, I don't think the FSF would oppose that.
However, I'm skeptical that such a scheme will ever be devised by the mainstream media distributors, because I don't think they're really after trying to protect their existing rights. Existing law is more than sufficient for that. Instead, they want to take away the rights of legitimate users, so that they can generate new income streams by selling those rights back to us. I, for one, strongly oppose this.
People made the same argument against adding memory protection to Mac OS 9 and its predecessors. I'm rather ashamed to admit that I used to do it myself. I came to my senses about that some time ago, though. Is the driver situation really any different?
At least in theory, it's quite possible for SQLite to use human-readable files. Doing so requires parsers and exporters very similar to the ones currently used. Except that instead of working with data in whatever structures Firefox currently uses, a parser would insert data into an in-memory database while the exporter would extract it from said database. On the export side, the situation is similar: it takes its data from the in-memory database, but other than that works like the current exporters.
It would seem to me that this approach would give the best of both worlds, at least when dealing with formats such as bookmarks where a human-readable file format is desirable. You keep the benefits of using a relational database while the program is actually running, but the file format remains human-readable.
The Kingdom Hearts series is many things, most of them good, but "difficult" isn't one of them. If you want a challenge, then only play KH2 on the hardest difficulty level it offers. This holds true for the rest of the series.
On one other note, the GBA game Chain of Memories was not a card-battler. Although cards were used as an interface metaphor, you never once set out for any remotely-traditional card game. It feels more like Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles than solitaire.
Eh? I don't plan to get a new DS either -my current one works fine, thank you very much- but what's the big deal if the GBA cartridges stick out a little bit? How is this an attempt by Nintendo to get people to play more DS games? For that matter, how was this true with the GBA, when original Game Boy games stuck out a little bit?
This is an honest question; I've no clue what difference it could possibly make. As far as I can tell, you're just whining over a minor aesthetic issue.
'Ugly' is nothing more than a matter of taste, and 'slow' is similarly problematic to judge. But what about the Mac UI is "unfeatured" or "confusing"? Further, how do you propose to resolve either one of these without making the other even worse?
To think that Kojima himself would have so little respect for his own creations. Yes, video games contain art, but presenting that art is an art in itself. If he is so blind as to not see this, then I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to respect him the way I once did.
Quite a shame, too. The man has made some of the best pieces of art which the medium has to offer, and he can't even appreciate what he's done. It's a shame when the fans do the art more justice than the artist himself.
OSX supports Java. I use both the official client and Azureus on it. The official client on Mac uses a different GUI than the other versions (PyObjC/Cocoa instead of wxPython/GTK), but other than that it's the same.
No research should be relying so heavily on Wikipedia that if access goes down the whole project is in danger, except perhaps for research about Wikipedia itself. The same would be true of any encyclopedia. The kind of knowledge you find in an encyclopedia is shallow and unauthoritiative, and that's OK; it's what that type of reference material is meant to be. But for serious research, the only real value of an encyclopedia is in its bibliography. Wikipedia's cross-linking capability gives it a bit more use in its regard, but the fact remains that for real research, an encyclopedia's main use is in its own sources, not in its ability to act as a source itself.
Seriously. Whoever admitted that his thesis was in danger because Wikipedia went down doesn't deserve the degree he's going for unless that thesis was actually about Wikipedia. There are many reasons that access to Wikipedia can go down, and most of them are far less sinister than government censorship. No graduate worth his salt should have such poor research skills that they're crippled because they can't get to, of all things, an encyclopedia.
Again I say to you, what the Chinese government is doing with Wikipedia is loathsome in the extreme: after all, it [i]is[/i] censorship. The evil of this does not need to be inflated even further by claiming that it harms serious research.
I suppose I am being a bit more inflammatory than I might otherwise be. But it's not my intent to troll. I honestly believe what I'm saying here, and I am in fact done with the Mac. The Apple tax used to come with superior technology, which made it worth it. Now it doesn't. So I'm done.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're talking about Jim Hugunin, he handed the project off to others before he left it. But development just plain hasn't been the same since he left.
Dive Into Python is great, but it has the problem of being old. So old, in fact, that so far I haven't found anything from it that doesn't work perfectly in Jython. That might not seem like much, until you realize that Jython is still not quite at the Python 2.2 stage yet: more than three years behind.
Not that I dislike Jython. Quite the contrary: I use it more than I use cPython, for a variety of reasons. But its development is going slowly enough that it's making me want to brush up on my Java so I could help out.
As long as they don't try and call this "Free Software," then I suppose I can't really find much of a problem here. Is it naive and foolish for them to do this? Certainly. But is it wrong? No, not really.
At the same time, last I checked, the Free Software movement is about not restricting how people use software. That opens up the potential for abuse, perhaps, but the underlying premise of the movement is that the potential for abuse is worth the benefits. If the developers have decided otherwise, that's their decision, but then that is where they and the movement that spawned them need to part ways. Ideally, they should have written up their own license, rather than patching the GPL, in order to clear up confusion. But there are certainly worse ways they could have gone about this.
Can I get a talking parrot that says "Jesus is watching you"?
And Firefox 2 doesn't pass Acid 2 because no work has been done on Gecko (it still uses 1.8, the same as Deer Park)
If the Firefox team decides to de-prioritize the standards that people care about and instead work on fluff, then they deserve all the criticism they get for it. To gain your popularity from standards and then consciously choose to allow yourself to fall into dead last among modern browsers in standards support is, to say the least, disturbingly hypocritical.
I hereby dub this The Jockstrap Announcement.
What's so complicated about his interpretation: that it's the intent of giving that matters more than the amount given? The widow put in what she believed she could give, and that makes her as good as anyone else's, even though others gave far more than she. Giving is not good simply because you suffer; it's good because you give, and if you give what you believe you can, then you have done good. The evil or greedy ones are the ones who know what they could give but give less, or the ones who simply never think about giving at all. How much you suffer by your giving has nothing to do with how good it is.
I don't think that the post which touched this thread off is about sour grapes (unlike this post's grandparent). But I do think it's misguided in the same way that monks who beat their own flesh with whips are misguided: they think that good comes through suffering on another's behalf. That can indeed be good when there's meaning to it -gratuitous suffering is exactly that: gratuitous, not good- but it is not the only path to goodness, and it is not necessarily greater than any other path.
I loathe most of the things Gates has done, and I loathe him for having been able to do them without so much as batting an eye. But that doesn't mean I won't give him credit when he does something good; even the devil deserves his due. I know far less about Buffet and his actions, but that would only make it even less fair if I were to decry his incredibly generous gift as "not good enough" because of some childish idea that he hasn't suffered enough.
Nah; it needs more than just layout changes. It needs a guy who knows what he's talking about at the helm. Seriously; his sheer ignorance probably does more to promote CSS than most CSS advocates do with their knowledge.
It applies inside the padding so that the width and height you specify are that of your content. Visual design is not content, which is why these are not included in the height/width consideration.
Or at least, that's how the logic behind the decision supposedly goes.
OTOH, why would SCO even do this? Any belief that it will give them some cash flow or some other position that benefits them is irrational.
Oh, they don't plan to release the code at all. This is a setup on their part; they want to get sued for violating the GPL. They will then attempt to argue in court that the GPL is "unenforceable" and therefore invalid. If they win in court (a very big [i]if[/i], given that this has been tried before but it's always failed), then they'll claim ownership over all of the Linux codebase and that will be that.
They'll lose, of course; it takes little more than common sense to see that. But since when has common sense ever reigned in that company?
I agree with you that DRM is an inherently bad technology, but I can't help but agree that the protests are better directed at more draconian schemes. The RIAA doesn't need Apple: should Apple pull out of the DRM game, the RIAA will simply move to stores with even worse models; God knows there are enough of those to keep the RIAA satisfied.
If the protests are to be truly effective, then they need to recognize that RIAA will always be as draconian as they possibly can. Thus, the protests should be focused to push RIAA to less draconian schemes than the status quo, not more. You don't do that by targeting moderates like Apple; you do it by targeting the more draconian stores. Then, as RIAA is forced to become accustomed to less draconian schemes (because the market won't stand for more draconian ones), you tighten the noose, continually pushing RIAA toward better schemes until you finally get them off of DRM completely.
Is this more difficult than simply targeting the largest vendor? Of course it is. It's also much slower. But it has a far lower chance of unintended consequences.
I'm not sure it's the principle of DRM, per se, that the FSF opposes. What they oppose is the fact that current DRM implementations trample all over the legitimate fair-use rights of legitimate users, in the name of catching casual thieves. If a DRM scheme were to be devised that allowed complete and unfettered exercise of fair-use rights, I don't think the FSF would oppose that.
However, I'm skeptical that such a scheme will ever be devised by the mainstream media distributors, because I don't think they're really after trying to protect their existing rights. Existing law is more than sufficient for that. Instead, they want to take away the rights of legitimate users, so that they can generate new income streams by selling those rights back to us. I, for one, strongly oppose this.
People made the same argument against adding memory protection to Mac OS 9 and its predecessors. I'm rather ashamed to admit that I used to do it myself. I came to my senses about that some time ago, though. Is the driver situation really any different?
They flare up at the slightest amount of heat.
At least in theory, it's quite possible for SQLite to use human-readable files. Doing so requires parsers and exporters very similar to the ones currently used. Except that instead of working with data in whatever structures Firefox currently uses, a parser would insert data into an in-memory database while the exporter would extract it from said database. On the export side, the situation is similar: it takes its data from the in-memory database, but other than that works like the current exporters.
It would seem to me that this approach would give the best of both worlds, at least when dealing with formats such as bookmarks where a human-readable file format is desirable. You keep the benefits of using a relational database while the program is actually running, but the file format remains human-readable.
The Kingdom Hearts series is many things, most of them good, but "difficult" isn't one of them. If you want a challenge, then only play KH2 on the hardest difficulty level it offers. This holds true for the rest of the series.
On one other note, the GBA game Chain of Memories was not a card-battler. Although cards were used as an interface metaphor, you never once set out for any remotely-traditional card game. It feels more like Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles than solitaire.
The protocols you describe deal serve very different purposes. Bonjour complements them, rather than replacing them.
To put it another way, TCP/IP is about transport, DHCP is about configuration, and Bonjour/Zeroconf is about discovery.
Would this work? At $500US, it comes in well below your price range.
Eh? I don't plan to get a new DS either -my current one works fine, thank you very much- but what's the big deal if the GBA cartridges stick out a little bit? How is this an attempt by Nintendo to get people to play more DS games? For that matter, how was this true with the GBA, when original Game Boy games stuck out a little bit?
This is an honest question; I've no clue what difference it could possibly make. As far as I can tell, you're just whining over a minor aesthetic issue.
...is a Strong Bad-style DELETED! button.
'Ugly' is nothing more than a matter of taste, and 'slow' is similarly problematic to judge. But what about the Mac UI is "unfeatured" or "confusing"? Further, how do you propose to resolve either one of these without making the other even worse?
To think that Kojima himself would have so little respect for his own creations. Yes, video games contain art, but presenting that art is an art in itself. If he is so blind as to not see this, then I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to respect him the way I once did.
Quite a shame, too. The man has made some of the best pieces of art which the medium has to offer, and he can't even appreciate what he's done. It's a shame when the fans do the art more justice than the artist himself.
OSX supports Java. I use both the official client and Azureus on it. The official client on Mac uses a different GUI than the other versions (PyObjC/Cocoa instead of wxPython/GTK), but other than that it's the same.
No research should be relying so heavily on Wikipedia that if access goes down the whole project is in danger, except perhaps for research about Wikipedia itself. The same would be true of any encyclopedia. The kind of knowledge you find in an encyclopedia is shallow and unauthoritiative, and that's OK; it's what that type of reference material is meant to be. But for serious research, the only real value of an encyclopedia is in its bibliography. Wikipedia's cross-linking capability gives it a bit more use in its regard, but the fact remains that for real research, an encyclopedia's main use is in its own sources, not in its ability to act as a source itself.
Seriously. Whoever admitted that his thesis was in danger because Wikipedia went down doesn't deserve the degree he's going for unless that thesis was actually about Wikipedia. There are many reasons that access to Wikipedia can go down, and most of them are far less sinister than government censorship. No graduate worth his salt should have such poor research skills that they're crippled because they can't get to, of all things, an encyclopedia.
Again I say to you, what the Chinese government is doing with Wikipedia is loathsome in the extreme: after all, it [i]is[/i] censorship. The evil of this does not need to be inflated even further by claiming that it harms serious research.
I suppose I am being a bit more inflammatory than I might otherwise be. But it's not my intent to troll. I honestly believe what I'm saying here, and I am in fact done with the Mac. The Apple tax used to come with superior technology, which made it worth it. Now it doesn't. So I'm done.