I've mentioned this before, but the primary difference between a C/UNIX programmer and a C#/Java/Windows programmer is the perception of what constitutes a program.
In UNIX, a program is usually a tiny little thing which passes its output to other tiny little things, creating a network of programs controlled by a lightweight master program. Because of this, programs HAVE to have a small footprint and have to start up and close down quickly. A good UNIX program does only what it's supposed to, and then it quits.
In a Java/C#/Windows program, you generally start the program once per day/week/year. The program, once started, calls objects with functions that operate the same as individual programs in the UNIX paradigm. Because the program is doing all of the work and all of the flow control, it doesn't matter if the thing starts or stops quickly, doesn't matter if it uses a lot of memory, because you're not going to be using that memory for a whole lot else. A good Java program does so much, it's almost like its own windowing or operating system.
The essence of "I don't understand OOP, it's full of bloat" is the perception of what a program is and does. If you think a program should do one small thing and then pass its output or control to another program, you're essentially in the OOP mentality already...substituting processes for objects and programs for functions. On the other hand, if you believe as I do that programs should sit open and ready to use on a whim, even the fast startup time of the average UNIX utility is too much. You need the memory allocated, the commands loaded and ready to handle whatever you've got to do -- which is why OOP makes sense. You don't start your notebook every time you need to jot a note (I don't anyway)...you just pick it up and write.
Anyway, to get on topic: I always thought Java *WAS* cool. All the under-40 programmers I know LOVE Java, even if they don't use it. It's almost a spiritual thing (I plainly remember wearing a "Java is the Way" back when I was a Java coder) and it's even more mysterious because the older generation of C coders didn't like it. Not disposing of objects and relying on GC is the programmatic equivalent of not cleaning your room. And a good UML diagram reads like a map of a futuristic city.
Of course, man. You're a lazy fuck who wants all the benefits with none of the hassles. Kids without work, movies without paying...jeez, I'm glad you don't plan on breeding, because it's your gimmee-gimmee sort of attitude that's driving all of our jobs to India.
Uh yeah. You're right, what was I thinking. The fact that social injustice exists is justification for downloading first-run films using the internet.
In a world where everybody is trying to fuck the system and get over each and every way he can, sometimes the system has trouble processing everybody fairly. Maybe the reason you're so upset with your life and the world in general is you haven't learned to come to terms with that very simple adage: sometimes, life isn't fair. Candor is in the eye of the beholder and has little or nothing to do with the real structure of society. If you expect a meteor full of money to land on your house, it probably won't happen, and kicking your neighbour's telescope isn't bringing that meteor down any faster.
Your negative worldview is the cause of your negative perception. Consider buying a kitten.
My library has a selection of DVDs. I get them for my wife's little cousins whenever they come over. They have some kickass classics too, also a bunch of books-on-CD and so on. Several local theatre groups do kids shows in the park for free or $5 a head, and they have friends to borrow films from as well.
There are so many great options for things to do with kids for little or no money, you would have to be an incredible slezebag to steal telesync films just because they were "cheaper."
All you've done here is proven my point. I define a thief as many people do: "one who steals" and stealing as "taking things we have no rights to," so it includes copyright infringement, fraud and graft. You're a thief, even if you're not a felon, stealing in front of children and acting like it's "okay" simply because you aren't willing to pay for it. Children learn by what we do, not by what we say, and by infringing on other peoples' copyrights just because you don't want to spend money you're telling the kids that this behavior is correct.
Which it isn't. Not in the eyes of the law, and certainly not in the eyes of anybody who thinks about it for more than thirty seconds. You may find it more convenient to download films that suck, but again, that doesn't make it right. If you think it's absurd, wait for the DVD. But don't steal the thing and think you're vindicated because prices are high.
Consistancy, I'd wager. It doesn't make perfect sense.
And, if there are large areas of the screen that are not for user data, those areas are wasted
Uh uh. Wrong. There will always be a TON of necessarily empty space (underneath labels, along the border, etc). Far better to use that space to do something rather than just sit there being border.
Apple's own use of the two UIs is inconsistent.
No, one UI, two look and feels. And they aren't even that different. It makes far, far better sense than skinable applications like WMP for Windows.
"Not being a thief" and "not braking the law in front of children" do not make me perfect. They just make me not a terrible parent, something I hope you never make a claim to.
I have a plaque on my desk with a series of 9 principles of Object Oriented design that I stole from Bruce Eckel's outstanding Thinking in Patterns with Java. I made the plaque not because I'm a huge fan of OO (which I am), but because many of them are equally useful when designing human interfaces.
Don't be astonishing. In other words, don't do something in a completely new way and don't spring new concepts onto users without educating them first. I've used many designs that were fantastic after a bit of training (Blender comes to mind) but WITHOUT that training you can't do a damned thing. That's astonishing. That's bad design. That's the reason why Apple mice have only one button and the HI guidelines BEG you not to require contextual menus. And for god's sake, don't use a menu called "Script-Fu" and expect people to know what the fuck it does!
Make common things easy, and rare things possible. In other words, allow people to do what they have to do most often in a clear cut way with minimal interaction. If you have additional options, hide them. They don't have to go far away, but don't sour your main interface for an option 99% of users will never need.
Consistancy The A1 most important thing. If you perform actions with the control key on one screen, and with the alt key on another, you've got a crappy interface. If your program uses drop downs for some things and autofill text boxes for others, you've got a crappy interface. Choose one method for managing each type of relationship, one hotkey for each type of function, lay things out in similar fashions, etc. Using visual inheritance helps.
Law of Demeter (don't talk to strangers) A window should only have power over the information inside it, information passed to it and information it sends back. A Tools window that has a save button is useless.
Subtraction A design is only finished when you can't take anything else away and have it be useful. Get rid of all those bullshit options and useless features, they're just making the app bloated and confusing.
Simplicity before Generality A general purpose app that is not simple is not worth using. I point and laugh when I see interfaces like Novell's terrible management utility. Drilling through a tree where every node does something different with no explanation of what they something does is only good if you charge several grand for certifications on that interface. For everybody else, it sucks.
Reflexivity Don't change more than one variable per control, and don't use more than one control per variable. If you've got a drop down that says "Change Name to Rob and Street to Youngstown," you need two controls.
Independence / orthogonality "Express independent ideas independently," something we can argue about as it sort of breaks the simplicity/generality idea. But the concept is this: if you're editing user information on a screen/tab/etc, there shouldn't be anything about filenames on it. If you do have independent ideas that have to share space (say, addresses with names), separate them with different colours, spaceing, group boxes, whatever, so that users know they are different ideas grouped together.
Once and Only Once I could argue this too...the idea that there should only be a single way of entering or editing data is a sound one, but there are many times where it is more convenient for duplicating data or editing multiple records to use two different interfaces. But the basic idea is sound...and if you do allow more than one entry point, it should only be to make things simpler for users -- and maybe the two interfaces should share code (in.NET, I use a lot of User Controls to create "panels" of functionality, thus preserving this principle of design while reproducing the functionality).
Say, there's a great thing to teach kids. "Hey kids, we're gonna be pirating a movie tonight, because it's slightly cheaper! Maybe if we like the movie we stole, we'll buy a used copy of the DVD in six months time!"
I cannot get my head around the mentality that says it is alright to take content just because it is expensive and there's no obvious victim. This is the same mentality that leads to people throwing trash on the side of the road, because it's just one diaper and nobody's watching. If you can't afford to take your girlfriends' kids to a movie, stay the fuck home. Rent one of thousands of kick ass classics on DVD. Otherwise you're teaching those kids that stealing is alright if they can't afford it and there's little chance of getting caught. This is wrong no matter how you nicely you slice it.
Sort of like when I set up the RF switch box on my 40" WEGA hi def so I could play the Coleco Alpha (4 differen pong games). Or when I installed the adapter in my VW to use my Clarion 8 disk CD changer with the factory head unit.
They don't act the same...not QUITE, anyway. The big difference is in handling the window. Aqua applications can only be moved around using their toolbar. Metal applications can be moved around by grabbing any part of the metal surface.
The whole POINT of this is that it is good UI to allow a person to manage a window using as much of the non-dynamic visual real estate as possible. But there's no way for a user to know what's dynamic and what's static.
This is what the metal look acheives. It says, "Hey, this part of the screen is not for user entry. So you can grab it." It is intended for data management forms and application launcher forms that have mostly static content aras -- programs that are mostly for dynamic user managed information (such as Word document windows, etc) should really be Aqua, because you're going to want to use as much of the screen as possible for user information.
I like the idea of Metal (because I like the idea of using otherwise useless space as a way to get a grip on the window), but I will admit it's damned confusing the way some windows CHANGE their L&F when their context changes. For example, if you close the toolbar on a Finder window (using the bubble in the upper right hand side), the window's L&F changes. It's a real WTF moment, especially since I don't consider the document source selector on the left hand side of the screen to be a toolbar.
I will not argue whether aqua or metal is the nicer interface. It doesn't really matter to me...they're both simple, monochrome designs that abstract the utilitarian nature of windows from the work inside them. They're pleasant without overshadowing the importance of the controls inside them.
Even Microsoft realizes Access is a piece of shit. In the MSDN article on pricing software from Friday, the guy used Access as an example of a program that would be VERY valuable if replaced by a better interface with plugins to an open source database.
And yes, there is an open source JDBC driver for Access. But it is so poorly supported (by developers that have no time to even write documenation of how to use it and who don't speak English) that you are much better off dropping $100 or so on one of the commercial replacements or writing your own.
And I'm sure when you're willing to purchase 10 or 20 thousand iPods, they'll be more than willing to port iTunes to Linux.
Otherwise, it wouldn't be worth the development time, the support calls or the advertisement.
There just aren't that many Linux users period, even fewer who use a particular desktop toolkit (GNOME or KDE) and even fewer who would buy the iPod even if iTunes for Linux was available. If there's no money, there's no reason to port.
Besides, there are dozens of iPod management tools for Linux. Why not use one of those if you really want one? It's not like Apple's dogged support of market leading software platforms is preventing you from doing pretty much whatever you want with an iPod on Linux, BSD, PocketPC or whatever you like.
I don't think it really matters all that much. When you think about it, you don't really gain anything with fat binaries besides a single bloated binary. You still need to code for and test on each of your platforms -- for various windowing toolkits that may not have compatible widgets. Since users will know which platform they're going to be using when they installl your software, you gain nothing other than reusing your model/controller obejcts, and that's the easiest part to port anyway.
With Mono and/or Java, you gain the ability to use a single UI toolkit BESIDES the ability to have a single binary. That's an effective way to reduce coding and testing time as you have a single target platform in the VM/Framework, and that's a lot more meaningful than being able to have multiple architectures supported in a single file.
Oh, the goddamn memists would have it that even your outrage is the result archetypical response to stimuli. I say, why worry about biophysical predestination when there's nothing you can do about it? Hang the sense of it, and just keep yourself occupied.
That's a very cool solution, indeed. Especially if you're saddled by problems like "people wanting to communicate with you." Not being accessible by any of the cell phones of the world or by anybody who doesn't have your particular internet phone client is a serious liability. In fact, it effectively limits your contacts to only those people you actively IM in the first place. And if a great deal of your friends aren't tethered to computers, you will never hear from them.
Trust me, holmes. The month I went without a cell phone, I didn't leave my house ONCE. But I got a lot of emails telling me I "shoulda hung out" from people I couldn't contact. I did spend some quality time iChatting with my buddy JT...but it's no substitute for being invited to the blues bar.
These same points could be applied to the leaders of business, education, religion and public service groups.
The point here is not that government is full of greedy bastards just trying to make a quick buck. It's that in a capitalist economy, power comes along with money. This is a universal constant. In fact, in any case where you have a powerful person without money, you should look to see who's really pulling the strings. Martin Luther King had some very wealthy backers.
If you stop worrying about the EXISTANCE of corruption, something you can't stop, and start worrying about the SCOPE and DIRECTION of corruption, you'll be much more effective at controlling government. This is why I'm voting democrat in the fall...yeah, they're manipulative, sleazy, exagerating cheats who want our tax money, but at least they pay lip service to environmental groups and education. The republicans pay THEIR lip service to defense contractors and old world industry. I want to see at least drippings of my taxes go back to my community, and the current administration ain't making that happen.
I disagree. Copyright infringement ALWAYS involves an actual loss of money. The argument "I wasn't going to pay for the things I stole, anyway" is kind of moot, especially when banks are insured against fraud and stores against theft. Nobody should ever lose actual money after fraud or theft -- but it's still a crime, because the criminal has obtained property they have no rights to. What's the value of the thing they stole? Well, it's much harder to judge. You can either say "The item is worth it's MSRP times the number of downloads" or you can say "the item is woth that much DIVIDED by the percentage of downloaders who might have bought the thing, actually."
Since the latter statistic involves a percentage -- one that is completely arbitrary and untestable and therefore useless from a legal standpoint -- you set the value arbitrarily high, with full knowledge that the number is high. Judges know it's not REALLY a million dollar loss, and they prosecute with that knowledge. If Mitnick had robbed a bank for the losses software companies claim he caused, he'd still be in prison.
Of course, when such a study surfaces -- and they often do, independent testing agencies are NOT all the unethical, money hungry fill-in-the-blanks sociologist paint them to be -- it won't be promoted. They'll sit on the study and never release it, as it their right.
Anyhow, if your choice is biased statistics or biased anecdotes as offered by Slashdot ("I always buy the movies I download or movie t-shirts and therefore everybody does it"), pick the statistics. You can argue with dumb numbers. You can't argue with dumb people.
Actually, a restoration like mine is pretty expensive. They aren't making any more of them and if you sink $3200 into your interior and another $2000 on paint, you insure that shit even if it's a daily driver. Mine's show insured (both comp and collision) for up to $10k. But you know, troll on brother. Posting without knowing anything is what it's all about.
That's your right. It's not your right to get upset about what I do. I was once in a documentary film...am I a bloody fool for letting some cinema student put a camera in my truck for two weeks?
I didn't even get paid for that shit.
It is my opinion that if your prize your privacy so much that you can't voluntary give it up, you're probably paranoid on an anti-social level. I'm not afraid of anything. I'm not ashamed of the way I drive and I don't drive dangerous. If you will give me money if I can prove it, I'll put my money where my mouth is. Fuck it.
How many times have we heard that the information can be controlled by the end user only to find out later that the agreement was modified and hidden code was activated for purposes of monitoring habbits for "better user experience"
This has never happened to me. Of course, I try an evaluate things pretty well before installing them and when I get software like RealPlayer 8 that hides options from me and ignores what I tell it, I don't install it. No porno is worth this.
If this kind of thing happens to you all the time, you have ever right to be paranoid -- because it's obvious clear thinking isn't working for you.
Slashdot Mirror
I've mentioned this before, but the primary difference between a C/UNIX programmer and a C#/Java/Windows programmer is the perception of what constitutes a program.
In UNIX, a program is usually a tiny little thing which passes its output to other tiny little things, creating a network of programs controlled by a lightweight master program. Because of this, programs HAVE to have a small footprint and have to start up and close down quickly. A good UNIX program does only what it's supposed to, and then it quits.
In a Java/C#/Windows program, you generally start the program once per day/week/year. The program, once started, calls objects with functions that operate the same as individual programs in the UNIX paradigm. Because the program is doing all of the work and all of the flow control, it doesn't matter if the thing starts or stops quickly, doesn't matter if it uses a lot of memory, because you're not going to be using that memory for a whole lot else. A good Java program does so much, it's almost like its own windowing or operating system.
The essence of "I don't understand OOP, it's full of bloat" is the perception of what a program is and does. If you think a program should do one small thing and then pass its output or control to another program, you're essentially in the OOP mentality already...substituting processes for objects and programs for functions. On the other hand, if you believe as I do that programs should sit open and ready to use on a whim, even the fast startup time of the average UNIX utility is too much. You need the memory allocated, the commands loaded and ready to handle whatever you've got to do -- which is why OOP makes sense. You don't start your notebook every time you need to jot a note (I don't anyway)...you just pick it up and write.
Anyway, to get on topic: I always thought Java *WAS* cool. All the under-40 programmers I know LOVE Java, even if they don't use it. It's almost a spiritual thing (I plainly remember wearing a "Java is the Way" back when I was a Java coder) and it's even more mysterious because the older generation of C coders didn't like it. Not disposing of objects and relying on GC is the programmatic equivalent of not cleaning your room. And a good UML diagram reads like a map of a futuristic city.
Of course, man. You're a lazy fuck who wants all the benefits with none of the hassles. Kids without work, movies without paying...jeez, I'm glad you don't plan on breeding, because it's your gimmee-gimmee sort of attitude that's driving all of our jobs to India.
Fuck you and the whore you rode in on.
Uh yeah. You're right, what was I thinking. The fact that social injustice exists is justification for downloading first-run films using the internet.
In a world where everybody is trying to fuck the system and get over each and every way he can, sometimes the system has trouble processing everybody fairly. Maybe the reason you're so upset with your life and the world in general is you haven't learned to come to terms with that very simple adage: sometimes, life isn't fair. Candor is in the eye of the beholder and has little or nothing to do with the real structure of society. If you expect a meteor full of money to land on your house, it probably won't happen, and kicking your neighbour's telescope isn't bringing that meteor down any faster.
Your negative worldview is the cause of your negative perception. Consider buying a kitten.
My library has a selection of DVDs. I get them for my wife's little cousins whenever they come over. They have some kickass classics too, also a bunch of books-on-CD and so on. Several local theatre groups do kids shows in the park for free or $5 a head, and they have friends to borrow films from as well.
There are so many great options for things to do with kids for little or no money, you would have to be an incredible slezebag to steal telesync films just because they were "cheaper."
All you've done here is proven my point. I define a thief as many people do: "one who steals" and stealing as "taking things we have no rights to," so it includes copyright infringement, fraud and graft. You're a thief, even if you're not a felon, stealing in front of children and acting like it's "okay" simply because you aren't willing to pay for it. Children learn by what we do, not by what we say, and by infringing on other peoples' copyrights just because you don't want to spend money you're telling the kids that this behavior is correct.
Which it isn't. Not in the eyes of the law, and certainly not in the eyes of anybody who thinks about it for more than thirty seconds. You may find it more convenient to download films that suck, but again, that doesn't make it right. If you think it's absurd, wait for the DVD. But don't steal the thing and think you're vindicated because prices are high.
This is exactly what I was thinking when I wrote that post.
The Simpsons may suck now, but old passions die hard.
In theory, you're right...so why is Safari metal?
Consistancy, I'd wager. It doesn't make perfect sense.
And, if there are large areas of the screen that are not for user data, those areas are wasted
Uh uh. Wrong. There will always be a TON of necessarily empty space (underneath labels, along the border, etc). Far better to use that space to do something rather than just sit there being border.
Apple's own use of the two UIs is inconsistent.
No, one UI, two look and feels. And they aren't even that different. It makes far, far better sense than skinable applications like WMP for Windows.
"Not being a thief" and "not braking the law in front of children" do not make me perfect. They just make me not a terrible parent, something I hope you never make a claim to.
I have a plaque on my desk with a series of 9 principles of Object Oriented design that I stole from Bruce Eckel's outstanding Thinking in Patterns with Java. I made the plaque not because I'm a huge fan of OO (which I am), but because many of them are equally useful when designing human interfaces.
.NET, I use a lot of User Controls to create "panels" of functionality, thus preserving this principle of design while reproducing the functionality).
Don't be astonishing. In other words, don't do something in a completely new way and don't spring new concepts onto users without educating them first. I've used many designs that were fantastic after a bit of training (Blender comes to mind) but WITHOUT that training you can't do a damned thing. That's astonishing. That's bad design. That's the reason why Apple mice have only one button and the HI guidelines BEG you not to require contextual menus. And for god's sake, don't use a menu called "Script-Fu" and expect people to know what the fuck it does!
Make common things easy, and rare things possible. In other words, allow people to do what they have to do most often in a clear cut way with minimal interaction. If you have additional options, hide them. They don't have to go far away, but don't sour your main interface for an option 99% of users will never need.
Consistancy The A1 most important thing. If you perform actions with the control key on one screen, and with the alt key on another, you've got a crappy interface. If your program uses drop downs for some things and autofill text boxes for others, you've got a crappy interface. Choose one method for managing each type of relationship, one hotkey for each type of function, lay things out in similar fashions, etc. Using visual inheritance helps.
Law of Demeter (don't talk to strangers) A window should only have power over the information inside it, information passed to it and information it sends back. A Tools window that has a save button is useless.
Subtraction A design is only finished when you can't take anything else away and have it be useful. Get rid of all those bullshit options and useless features, they're just making the app bloated and confusing.
Simplicity before Generality A general purpose app that is not simple is not worth using. I point and laugh when I see interfaces like Novell's terrible management utility. Drilling through a tree where every node does something different with no explanation of what they something does is only good if you charge several grand for certifications on that interface. For everybody else, it sucks.
Reflexivity Don't change more than one variable per control, and don't use more than one control per variable. If you've got a drop down that says "Change Name to Rob and Street to Youngstown," you need two controls.
Independence / orthogonality "Express independent ideas independently," something we can argue about as it sort of breaks the simplicity/generality idea. But the concept is this: if you're editing user information on a screen/tab/etc, there shouldn't be anything about filenames on it. If you do have independent ideas that have to share space (say, addresses with names), separate them with different colours, spaceing, group boxes, whatever, so that users know they are different ideas grouped together.
Once and Only Once I could argue this too...the idea that there should only be a single way of entering or editing data is a sound one, but there are many times where it is more convenient for duplicating data or editing multiple records to use two different interfaces. But the basic idea is sound...and if you do allow more than one entry point, it should only be to make things simpler for users -- and maybe the two interfaces should share code (in
Say, there's a great thing to teach kids. "Hey kids, we're gonna be pirating a movie tonight, because it's slightly cheaper! Maybe if we like the movie we stole, we'll buy a used copy of the DVD in six months time!"
I cannot get my head around the mentality that says it is alright to take content just because it is expensive and there's no obvious victim. This is the same mentality that leads to people throwing trash on the side of the road, because it's just one diaper and nobody's watching. If you can't afford to take your girlfriends' kids to a movie, stay the fuck home. Rent one of thousands of kick ass classics on DVD. Otherwise you're teaching those kids that stealing is alright if they can't afford it and there's little chance of getting caught. This is wrong no matter how you nicely you slice it.
because. they. want. a. mac. but. have. unportable. custom. windows. apps!
Sort of like when I set up the RF switch box on my 40" WEGA hi def so I could play the Coleco Alpha (4 differen pong games). Or when I installed the adapter in my VW to use my Clarion 8 disk CD changer with the factory head unit.
So long as those crappy Windows apps include Doom 3, MS Access/Outlook and suchlike, I'll be a happy man.
They don't act the same...not QUITE, anyway. The big difference is in handling the window. Aqua applications can only be moved around using their toolbar. Metal applications can be moved around by grabbing any part of the metal surface.
The whole POINT of this is that it is good UI to allow a person to manage a window using as much of the non-dynamic visual real estate as possible. But there's no way for a user to know what's dynamic and what's static.
This is what the metal look acheives. It says, "Hey, this part of the screen is not for user entry. So you can grab it." It is intended for data management forms and application launcher forms that have mostly static content aras -- programs that are mostly for dynamic user managed information (such as Word document windows, etc) should really be Aqua, because you're going to want to use as much of the screen as possible for user information.
I like the idea of Metal (because I like the idea of using otherwise useless space as a way to get a grip on the window), but I will admit it's damned confusing the way some windows CHANGE their L&F when their context changes. For example, if you close the toolbar on a Finder window (using the bubble in the upper right hand side), the window's L&F changes. It's a real WTF moment, especially since I don't consider the document source selector on the left hand side of the screen to be a toolbar.
I will not argue whether aqua or metal is the nicer interface. It doesn't really matter to me...they're both simple, monochrome designs that abstract the utilitarian nature of windows from the work inside them. They're pleasant without overshadowing the importance of the controls inside them.
Even Microsoft realizes Access is a piece of shit. In the MSDN article on pricing software from Friday, the guy used Access as an example of a program that would be VERY valuable if replaced by a better interface with plugins to an open source database.
And yes, there is an open source JDBC driver for Access. But it is so poorly supported (by developers that have no time to even write documenation of how to use it and who don't speak English) that you are much better off dropping $100 or so on one of the commercial replacements or writing your own.
And I'm sure when you're willing to purchase 10 or 20 thousand iPods, they'll be more than willing to port iTunes to Linux.
Otherwise, it wouldn't be worth the development time, the support calls or the advertisement.
There just aren't that many Linux users period, even fewer who use a particular desktop toolkit (GNOME or KDE) and even fewer who would buy the iPod even if iTunes for Linux was available. If there's no money, there's no reason to port.
Besides, there are dozens of iPod management tools for Linux. Why not use one of those if you really want one? It's not like Apple's dogged support of market leading software platforms is preventing you from doing pretty much whatever you want with an iPod on Linux, BSD, PocketPC or whatever you like.
I don't think it really matters all that much. When you think about it, you don't really gain anything with fat binaries besides a single bloated binary. You still need to code for and test on each of your platforms -- for various windowing toolkits that may not have compatible widgets. Since users will know which platform they're going to be using when they installl your software, you gain nothing other than reusing your model/controller obejcts, and that's the easiest part to port anyway.
With Mono and/or Java, you gain the ability to use a single UI toolkit BESIDES the ability to have a single binary. That's an effective way to reduce coding and testing time as you have a single target platform in the VM/Framework, and that's a lot more meaningful than being able to have multiple architectures supported in a single file.
Oh, the goddamn memists would have it that even your outrage is the result archetypical response to stimuli. I say, why worry about biophysical predestination when there's nothing you can do about it? Hang the sense of it, and just keep yourself occupied.
It baffles me why Americans are not rioting in the streets.
Easy. The streets are not a designated free speech zone.
That's a very cool solution, indeed. Especially if you're saddled by problems like "people wanting to communicate with you." Not being accessible by any of the cell phones of the world or by anybody who doesn't have your particular internet phone client is a serious liability. In fact, it effectively limits your contacts to only those people you actively IM in the first place. And if a great deal of your friends aren't tethered to computers, you will never hear from them.
Trust me, holmes. The month I went without a cell phone, I didn't leave my house ONCE. But I got a lot of emails telling me I "shoulda hung out" from people I couldn't contact. I did spend some quality time iChatting with my buddy JT...but it's no substitute for being invited to the blues bar.
These same points could be applied to the leaders of business, education, religion and public service groups.
The point here is not that government is full of greedy bastards just trying to make a quick buck. It's that in a capitalist economy, power comes along with money. This is a universal constant. In fact, in any case where you have a powerful person without money, you should look to see who's really pulling the strings. Martin Luther King had some very wealthy backers.
If you stop worrying about the EXISTANCE of corruption, something you can't stop, and start worrying about the SCOPE and DIRECTION of corruption, you'll be much more effective at controlling government. This is why I'm voting democrat in the fall...yeah, they're manipulative, sleazy, exagerating cheats who want our tax money, but at least they pay lip service to environmental groups and education. The republicans pay THEIR lip service to defense contractors and old world industry. I want to see at least drippings of my taxes go back to my community, and the current administration ain't making that happen.
I disagree. Copyright infringement ALWAYS involves an actual loss of money. The argument "I wasn't going to pay for the things I stole, anyway" is kind of moot, especially when banks are insured against fraud and stores against theft. Nobody should ever lose actual money after fraud or theft -- but it's still a crime, because the criminal has obtained property they have no rights to. What's the value of the thing they stole? Well, it's much harder to judge. You can either say "The item is worth it's MSRP times the number of downloads" or you can say "the item is woth that much DIVIDED by the percentage of downloaders who might have bought the thing, actually."
Since the latter statistic involves a percentage -- one that is completely arbitrary and untestable and therefore useless from a legal standpoint -- you set the value arbitrarily high, with full knowledge that the number is high. Judges know it's not REALLY a million dollar loss, and they prosecute with that knowledge. If Mitnick had robbed a bank for the losses software companies claim he caused, he'd still be in prison.
Of course, when such a study surfaces -- and they often do, independent testing agencies are NOT all the unethical, money hungry fill-in-the-blanks sociologist paint them to be -- it won't be promoted. They'll sit on the study and never release it, as it their right.
Anyhow, if your choice is biased statistics or biased anecdotes as offered by Slashdot ("I always buy the movies I download or movie t-shirts and therefore everybody does it"), pick the statistics. You can argue with dumb numbers. You can't argue with dumb people.
Actually, a restoration like mine is pretty expensive. They aren't making any more of them and if you sink $3200 into your interior and another $2000 on paint, you insure that shit even if it's a daily driver. Mine's show insured (both comp and collision) for up to $10k. But you know, troll on brother. Posting without knowing anything is what it's all about.
That's your right. It's not your right to get upset about what I do. I was once in a documentary film...am I a bloody fool for letting some cinema student put a camera in my truck for two weeks?
I didn't even get paid for that shit.
It is my opinion that if your prize your privacy so much that you can't voluntary give it up, you're probably paranoid on an anti-social level. I'm not afraid of anything. I'm not ashamed of the way I drive and I don't drive dangerous. If you will give me money if I can prove it, I'll put my money where my mouth is. Fuck it.
How many times have we heard that the information can be controlled by the end user only to find out later that the agreement was modified and hidden code was activated for purposes of monitoring habbits for "better user experience"
This has never happened to me. Of course, I try an evaluate things pretty well before installing them and when I get software like RealPlayer 8 that hides options from me and ignores what I tell it, I don't install it. No porno is worth this.
If this kind of thing happens to you all the time, you have ever right to be paranoid -- because it's obvious clear thinking isn't working for you.