it is not possible to call the Cocoa frameworks from C++. Cocoa is available only through Objective C and Java interfaces.
What about the Objective C++ compiler? I thought the whole idea was that you could make Cocoa calls (written in Objective C) from inside your C++ objects.
They include a single-button mouse in the box because the people who need it aren't going to be able to buy their own mouse.
I understand both arguments. I'm willing to trust Apple's research as well.
What I fail to understand is why they don't have a build-to-order option at the Apple store for a multi-button mouse. By default, they should ship with one-button mice. But people who know what they're doing should have the option to buy a multi-button mouse along with their new computer.
Last time I bought a mac, I almost immediately gave the Apple Mouse to my toddler to play with as a toy, while I hooked up an MS Wireless Intellimouse Explorer for my real mouse.
As someone work works on some of the computers at LLNL, I'd like to suggest that maybe the simulations that run on these computers have a wider scope than you imagine.
How about safety calculations? How about high energy physics? How about global climate research? How about new material simulations?
I think there's a high probability that you may be missing some applications.
Yeah, whereas changing proxy settings in Safari requires that you go to Edit->Preferences-> one of the preference panes -> Then it launches System Prefrerences, a completely separate application that changes default proxy settings for every web app on the machine! In Mozilla it's integrated into the preferences directly.
Most times I read at +5 since I don't have a tremendous amount of time. But when a comment looks particularly interesting, I'll click the "14 replies below your threshold" link to read the whole thread.
I'd like to be able to squelch comments under a score of +1. This is similar to "hard thresholds", but it wouldn't matter what threshold I'm currently browsing at. It would just apply for a specific hard threshold that I've set.
Or am I the only one who would like something like this?
(I've thought about wandering into slashcode to see if I could easily add this.)
The only thing I was adding was the fact that it's possible not to trust at one level (rogue attachments) while still trusting them at another (not running rogue APs). Saying that you don't trust your employees at something fairly small doesn't mean that you distrust them completely.
State in no uncertain terms when someone joins your company that setting up rogue access points will result in immediate termination and referral to the FBI.
Sounds like a reasonable policy to me!
I'd go one step further and make it more general, so that providing access to anyone unauthorized will result in immediate termination. That way it covers any new technology down the road.
Trusting your employees to only open attachments that are safe is one thing.
Trusting your employees not to provide access to company resources to unauthorized persons is another.
Really bad viruses notwithstanding, I think we can safely say that the consequences of violating the former is significantly less serious than violating the latter.
This guy is just spinning them fast on a dremel tool and watching them shatter when they hit the ceiling
Almost. While there are a number of CDs which did that, the full video shows at least two CDs which distintegrate while on the dremel tool itself. Too bad they didn't have any way to determine the rotational velocity when it shattered.
I also wanted a laboratory-grade high-speed camera taking video of the material failure. That would have been a lot cooler than watching a CD bounce against a door.
Security-enhanced Linux includes patches to the Linux kernel and patches to a number of standard tools and utilities. It also includes a number of new utilities, support files, and documentation. By far the easiest way to build and install Security-enhanced Linux currently is to duplicate our source trees (lsm-2.4 and selinux) and follow the instructions in selinux/README. We have provided compressed archives of our source trees, as well as several ways to build it by acquiring only our modifications from our web site (http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/). As time permits, we intend to create or modify the RPM spec files as appropriate and provide SRPM format files.
The download should verify this. In fact, I downloaded the patch to the 2.4.20 kernel, and it topped out at just over 40,000 LOC changed, including what looks to be a good amount of documentation. While that's a decent chunk of code to review, it's not the 5,399,647 LOC (I just counted) that go into the 2.4.20 kernel itself.
No, not that image. That's an image used to determine the fidelity of a digital camera. Higher megapixels (or higher-fidelity chips like the Foveon) will resolve higher-detail features.
A grid, such as that generated by taking a picture of graph paper, is exactly what you need to correct for barrel distortions and the like.
Am I to understand you start it up, go to bed, and wakeup to having a buncha unknown files on your computer? And this is a good thing?
Compared the alternative of starting up a program, spending hours searching for stuff mainly by filename, only to end up with files with, fundamentally, unknown content on your computer.... Yes, it's a good thing. I get to sleep!
While I could tout a lot of reasons why I like using my PDA (and many reasons I find it annoying), one feature above all makes it useful to me:
The ability to search all of the data.
Yeah, a lot of the grunt work that PDAs do could be replicated by pen and paper: writing down when your meetings are, keeping track of phone numbers and addresses, taking notes about stuff. But pen and paper can't easily answer things like "Tell me what project it was that had that cool umpitty-ump technology". As long as I entered "umpitty-ump" in my meeting notes somewhere, the PDA can find it in seconds. That's so useful that I'll put up with a lot of annoying things just to have the ability.
Uh, that patent looks pretty darn specific to me. It talks about specific shaped connectors, how wind drag affects certain-shaped spokes, their specific shape, etc. It looks like a non-obvious specific solution to a general problem. And there is a drawing of a particular implementation. It is not a generic patent for "spoked wheels", which is what I infer you meant by saying that the existence of prior art had no bearing on this particular patent.
Incidentally, why are you posting as an AC, rather than attach a name? Attaching a name would allow me to find other posts of yours that might be similarly clueful.
Interesting point. While the original poster didn't specifically say that "devolve" was the opposite of "evolve", it does seem to imply that.
Though a process of natural variation over time is truly called "evolution", as you point out, what if we also wanted to convey a judgement about the relative value of such varations? Considering that the word "devolve" denotes downward motion, would it not be a decent candidate word for the concept of evolutionary change that is detrimental?
Slashdot Mirror
it is not possible to call the Cocoa frameworks from C++. Cocoa is available only through Objective C and Java interfaces.
What about the Objective C++ compiler? I thought the whole idea was that you could make Cocoa calls (written in Objective C) from inside your C++ objects.
They include a single-button mouse in the box because the people who need it aren't going to be able to buy their own mouse.
I understand both arguments. I'm willing to trust Apple's research as well.
What I fail to understand is why they don't have a build-to-order option at the Apple store for a multi-button mouse. By default, they should ship with one-button mice. But people who know what they're doing should have the option to buy a multi-button mouse along with their new computer.
Last time I bought a mac, I almost immediately gave the Apple Mouse to my toddler to play with as a toy, while I hooked up an MS Wireless Intellimouse Explorer for my real mouse.
(sigh)
(5) Profit!
*WHAP!* Hey, what was that f...oh. Sorry!
I meant "who works". How `bout that "Preview" button, Sean?!
As someone work works on some of the computers at LLNL, I'd like to suggest that maybe the simulations that run on these computers have a wider scope than you imagine.
How about safety calculations? How about high energy physics? How about global climate research? How about new material simulations?
I think there's a high probability that you may be missing some applications.
Yeah, whereas changing proxy settings in Safari requires that you go to Edit->Preferences-> one of the preference panes -> Then it launches System Prefrerences, a completely separate application that changes default proxy settings for every web app on the machine! In Mozilla it's integrated into the preferences directly.
In Soviet Rush, today's Tom Sawyer gets high on you.
Uh...the "Soviet" joke is normally to turn a common phrase around. The lyric from the song "Tom Sawyer" by Rush is:That's the same as your sig. You have the joke backwards.
It should instead be something like "In Soviet Rush, you get high on Tom Sawyer."
Devil's advocate here...
To deny Him, you must first believe in Him.
Not really. I deny that 12-eyed, sumo wrestling, green pop stars from Venus exist. Doesn't mean that I have to believe in them first.
(I may have been trolled.)
Here's another request:
Most times I read at +5 since I don't have a tremendous amount of time. But when a comment looks particularly interesting, I'll click the "14 replies below your threshold" link to read the whole thread.
I'd like to be able to squelch comments under a score of +1. This is similar to "hard thresholds", but it wouldn't matter what threshold I'm currently browsing at. It would just apply for a specific hard threshold that I've set.
Or am I the only one who would like something like this?
(I've thought about wandering into slashcode to see if I could easily add this.)
"Beer, please" in Elvish
Oh, please share!
I think we're in violent agreement here.
The only thing I was adding was the fact that it's possible not to trust at one level (rogue attachments) while still trusting them at another (not running rogue APs). Saying that you don't trust your employees at something fairly small doesn't mean that you distrust them completely.
State in no uncertain terms when someone joins your company that setting up rogue access points will result in immediate termination and referral to the FBI.
Sounds like a reasonable policy to me!
I'd go one step further and make it more general, so that providing access to anyone unauthorized will result in immediate termination. That way it covers any new technology down the road.
There's trust and then there's trust.
Trusting your employees to only open attachments that are safe is one thing.
Trusting your employees not to provide access to company resources to unauthorized persons is another.
Really bad viruses notwithstanding, I think we can safely say that the consequences of violating the former is significantly less serious than violating the latter.
your pizza will taste funny the next time you use the microwave oven to prepare it.
You use a microwave to prepare your pizzas???
I dunno about the funny taste, but I can guarantee that you're gonna have a nice rubber pizza next time you do that...
This guy is just spinning them fast on a dremel tool and watching them shatter when they hit the ceiling
Almost. While there are a number of CDs which did that, the full video shows at least two CDs which distintegrate while on the dremel tool itself. Too bad they didn't have any way to determine the rotational velocity when it shattered.
I also wanted a laboratory-grade high-speed camera taking video of the material failure. That would have been a lot cooler than watching a CD bounce against a door.
But that's just me.
Offtopic question, but I have to ask...
I strip sigs so that I can't see them. You should too!
Why should I do something like that? I'm seriously curious to know why you believe that everyone should strip sigs.
Hence the ever famous paragon of technical society: "What is Linux?"
Unfortunately, no one can be told what Linux is. You have to see it for yourself.
49 20 68 61 76 65 20 74 6F 6F 20 6D 75 63 68 20 66 72 65 65 20 74 69 6D 65 2E
Yes, you do.
41 70 70 61 72 61 6E 74 6C 79 2C 20 73 6F 20 64 6F 20 49 2E
From their FAQ:The download should verify this. In fact, I downloaded the patch to the 2.4.20 kernel, and it topped out at just over 40,000 LOC changed, including what looks to be a good amount of documentation. While that's a decent chunk of code to review, it's not the 5,399,647 LOC (I just counted) that go into the 2.4.20 kernel itself.
So if you're really paranoid, go check it out.
No, not that image. That's an image used to determine the fidelity of a digital camera. Higher megapixels (or higher-fidelity chips like the Foveon) will resolve higher-detail features.
A grid, such as that generated by taking a picture of graph paper, is exactly what you need to correct for barrel distortions and the like.
Me'sa horny.
Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
The juxtaposition of those two quotes is hilarious!
Am I to understand you start it up, go to bed, and wakeup to having a buncha unknown files on your computer? And this is a good thing?
Compared the alternative of starting up a program, spending hours searching for stuff mainly by filename, only to end up with files with, fundamentally, unknown content on your computer.... Yes, it's a good thing. I get to sleep!
While I could tout a lot of reasons why I like using my PDA (and many reasons I find it annoying), one feature above all makes it useful to me:
The ability to search all of the data.
Yeah, a lot of the grunt work that PDAs do could be replicated by pen and paper: writing down when your meetings are, keeping track of phone numbers and addresses, taking notes about stuff. But pen and paper can't easily answer things like "Tell me what project it was that had that cool umpitty-ump technology". As long as I entered "umpitty-ump" in my meeting notes somewhere, the PDA can find it in seconds. That's so useful that I'll put up with a lot of annoying things just to have the ability.
Uh, that patent looks pretty darn specific to me. It talks about specific shaped connectors, how wind drag affects certain-shaped spokes, their specific shape, etc. It looks like a non-obvious specific solution to a general problem. And there is a drawing of a particular implementation. It is not a generic patent for "spoked wheels", which is what I infer you meant by saying that the existence of prior art had no bearing on this particular patent.
Unless you're seeing something I'm not seeing...
Interesting points, thanks for posting.
Incidentally, why are you posting as an AC, rather than attach a name? Attaching a name would allow me to find other posts of yours that might be similarly clueful.
Interesting point. While the original poster didn't specifically say that "devolve" was the opposite of "evolve", it does seem to imply that.
Though a process of natural variation over time is truly called "evolution", as you point out, what if we also wanted to convey a judgement about the relative value of such varations? Considering that the word "devolve" denotes downward motion, would it not be a decent candidate word for the concept of evolutionary change that is detrimental?