Having just studied the Cocoa text system I'd be willing to bet they simply hooked up another field editor class to project builder's text system.
Cocoa's text system is, shall we say, different when compared with other toolkits. It exposes this amazing API that lays the fondation for text editors, word processors, desktop publishing, web browsers (Berners-Lee used cocoa's predecessors), and anything else which does any kind of text management or layout.
The only drawback I can see to it is that a programmer who expects to do one-off writing of text to a drawing surface is really in for a surprise. However, I'm in the process of porting wxWindows to run atop of Cocoa and have found that even one-off text drawing hardly takes much effort once you realize how the classes (NSTextStorage, NSLayoutManager, and NSTextContainer) interact with each other.
I noticed in that entire article that there was not one comment from he or his wife or anyone closer than a coworker (who may or may not be a good friend).
A few things though. He is being held in solitairy confinement as a "material witness". Perhaps they want him to testify against the charity. If he were to claim that he had no idea they were sending money to terrorists then it could make a great case for fraud against the charity.
It may be that the people who run this charity with ties to terrorism want him dead. So perhaps he is somewhat willingly hanging out in solitairy. Note that he's not in general population, perhaps that is why. Normally people don't START in solitairy confinement.
In any case, I don't know. The article is rather sensationalistic. There's a lot of information we simply do not have and cannot speak of. I certainly hope that he makes it through this ordeal. If it becomes clear that he is in fact being held entirely against his will for doing nothing wrong, then I will champion his cause. Until then I refuse to take a position either way.
And yes, what the government did to Mitnick was horribly, horribly wrong. But don't start acting like we don't have the power to change any of this. We do. Tell your friends and neighbors Kevin's story. Tell them how he did not intend to cause any damage and that any damage he did cause was indirect. Tell them how he was held without being charged for years. Tell them how he was held without a trial for years after that. But by god do NOT start championing the cause of someone that nobody really knows anything about (hell, for all we know he actually COULD be a terrorist) because then it really weakens your argument against the wrongs that were committed against Mr. Mitnick.
Wow, what a strong post! Though your tone is disrespectful, I will choose to take it as complimentary that you have troubled to address my argument so extensively. I am impressed, though I must say that you have succeded in refuting several of your own points for me. Nonetheless, I will be happy to address them.
Well, I don't believe I'm contradicting myself, but that's because I know what I am saying and obviously I have not clearly explained some of the finer points to you. I am very happy to have controlled, rational discussion. Tempers can (and sometimes should) flare, but not to the point of being irrational which is what so many of the anti-war protesters you see on TV are doing. Of course, that goes along with the comment I made about the outspoken assholes-- they exist on both sides and I refuse to stoop to that level.
"Might-makes-right?" Oh please. Is that what you think this is all about?
Well, now, let's see... the US goes to the UN and asks for legal justification for doing something it plainly intends to do anyway no matter what anyone else says or thinks. They are denied that justification for any number of good reasons. Bush subsequently claims that the US has the authority to act unilaterally and without UN support (even though the UN clearly has legal authority in disputes between member states). The US then goes ahead and invades a sovereign nation, acting as a direct agressor over the explicit protests of other national leaders, populations, and a significant number of its own people. Yeah, that sounds like a might-makes-right mentality to me.
You probably won't like this opinion, but neither the U.S. nor any other nation is governed by the U.N. The U.N. certainly has a role in maintaining diplomacy and dictating how wars should be fought (i.e. don't shoot POWs). We all (the entire U.N.) did a great job. We all tried for 12 years to get Saddam to give up his weapons in accordance with the treaty he signed. For every inch we gave him, he took a foot. But then a funny thing happened that Saddam didn't count on. We (the U.S.) decided that we'd been jerked around for long enough. Saddam isn't going to get rid of weapons of mass murder. He won't stop funding terrorist groups-- and don't kid yourself, they're all the same, even if they aren't al queda any and all terrorist groups are a threat not only to the U.S. but the entire world.
I do not feel bad for going in and taking out Saddam. He openly and repeatedly spat in all of our faces making a feeble attempt to woo the hearts and minds of the unsuspecting public into believing that he is some god and that we (the U.S). only want to take Iraq for ourselves. He is doing exactly the kind of shit that any other dictator before him has done. And because he has weapons of mass destruction, and because he openly hates us, and because he funds groups that have taken terrorist actions against us we feel we have the right to take him out. If the U.N. doesn't agree, too bad, we're a sovereign nation as well. We're certainly not perfect (so don't bring up that jingoism crap on me again:-) but we are doing what we believe is right. And don't think that Germany, France, and Russia are perfect either. In other words, don't be a jingoist for them thinking that everything they are doing is absolutely perfect and showing it not through the typical response to go to war, but through an odd (though nearly identical in that it is still extreme) response to not go to war. Besides, I think it's time we ask Germany, France, and Russia why exactly they don't want us in Iraq. Could it be that maybe their leaders really don't give two shits about human life but are just using it as an elaborate smokescreen to hide the fact that they've done just as many (if not more) shady deals with the Iraqi regime? It's time to knock the big three off their high horse and find out the kind of people they really are. In
I do think, in all seriousness, that taking your case to a forum such as this is likely to be far more effective than anything you can do in November. It also gives an opportunity for non-Americans (remember, there are some other countries out there, guys!) to express their opinions, which I think are important. So I'll take my case to slashdot, thanks, and you can take yours to the voting booth if you like, for all the good it's going to do you.
Oh my god! You talk the talk but do you even realize what you just said!? This forum is worthless unless we all use the knowledge and insight we gain from it at the polls. Do you realize the implications when everybody bitches on Slashdot (or to their buddies, or sometimes on camera to CNN) but nobody goes and votes? That is giving away every right you have. We must take to the polls or everything we talk about is meaningless. That is why we must have rational discussion and try to understand each other so that we can decide in advance which candidate is worth voting for.
What you just mentioned is a major problem with this country and really the whole rest of the world as well: apathy. Nobody is willing to take a stand except to complain. Apathy enforces mob rule (which will always be the potential downfall of democracy looming around the corner). This is why I say that people who only want to put down Bush are making a grave mistake by not effectively airing the true problems that are bothering them. Can anyone honestly say that the next clown we might put into office will be any better? Can you really say that everything Bush is doing is wrong? (again, to be addressed in another mail).
People get too polarized on issues these days. Abortion is a big one. Pro lifers don't want any abortion and so they vote right wing even when it is not the best person for the job. Likewise, pro choice people make the mistake of voting against a candidate with otherwise good views because he takes a stand against something he doesn't believe is right. However misguided either side may be it is a miscarriage of the electoral system to polarize like that. Personally, I, and the silent majority of Americans, are really not strongly in favor of or against abortions. It's not a difficult choice to make: do we like them? not particularly, do we tolerate them? yes, definitely. Why? Because this country is not supposed to be about what a few select group of people think is good for everyone. Sadly, few people can debate at this level and instead get caught up in these polarizing issues like "Bush stole the ficticious election therefore everything he does is bad." which is absolute 100% pure and total illogical bull shit (the cause does not necessarily lead to the supposed effect). Bush may have stolen the election (can anyone really say he did or didn't with any reasonable amount of certainty), but you should judge him by his actions as a president. In other words, if you don't like him because you don't like the war he has started, then that's fine-- we'll debate that, but don't dislike him because he may or may not have stolen the election.
Anyway. That is all I'm trying to say about that. The whole "Bush is illigitamate" argument potentially drives us more towards mob rule and Nazism than away from it. It's exactly how Hitler took over Germany and how any dictator takes over a country-- by convincing the public that the existing government is a total sham and proceeding to set up an even bigger sham.
As for degenerating into a flame-fest, this entire debate hasn't been much else since it started several days ago! Even the most sober and mature of slashdotters have found themselves calling each other names and getting visibly angry. This is a volatile issue. This is why my last journal entry actually encourages this sort of flame war. We need a free and unrestricted exchange of ideas about this, and if that involves name-calling and recriminations, then so be it.
I disagree with that. I think we need more level headed (but fierce is okay) debate like we have been having. Please take a moment to read Dorothy L. Sayers's excellent essay "The Lost Tools of Learning" which touches heavily on this subject.
I don't think you are a Nazi. In fact, I don't think that you believe half of the things you are saying, not in your heart. I don't see how you could.
I think you misconstrued a few of the things I said. I'll address it there. I'm gonna go grab some fast food for lunch and write over my lunch hour... it's a rather lengthy post to write during work while compiling some code. Suffice it to say that you are right that there is a very dangerous line between what I said and what the Nazis did. It's a fine line that I am prepared to walk. And you are absolutely correct that any argument which justifies the Nazis must be wrong. My take on it is that those arguments are probably missing that often very fine distinction between living in the real world and living in the Nazi world. Benevolence and some degree of selflessness are some distinctions, among others. Not everybody in this country is just looking to go kill some A-rabs. In fact, the majority don't want that, only a few outspoken assholes need to justify a war with violence. (strange thing to do, isn't it?) That's of course the problem right there, that they are outspoken assholes, not the silent majority of good hearted people that do make up this country.
LOL! Like the last election had anything to do with voting booths! That's a good one, oh jeeze, it's nice to see some humor in this debate! Ha ha ha ha!
As a matter of fact, the last national election (as the sibling post to this has already mentioned) did in fact have a lot to do with voting booths. Despite our predominantly left-wing news media [1] (CNN, MSNBC, NYT) that constantly portrays republicans as being evil (with the exception of Fox News which is so right-wing biased it makes me sick) our people overwhelmingly voted for republican congress critters.
Now, if you are referring to the election back in 2000 then look at it this way. The popular vote was so close as to be entirely meaningless and so was the electoral vote. So close in fact that as the dems and republicans fought to have the vote counted one way or another it swayed from side to side.
Really, the only thing that can be said about that election is that nobody really gave a shit whether Gore or Bush was elected as they were both good candidates. Our electoral college worked exactly as intended by our founding fathers. The electoral college serves to put power in the individual states. When all this was going down there were a couple of very insightful posts on slashdot about the mathematical principles underlying the system. Because each state (with few exceptions) votes entirely one way or the other, one persons vote has a much greater chance of swinging an entire state and thus swinging an entire election than if the popular vote was used in which case we'd be pulling dangerously close to mob rule.
I really wish this "Bush is illegitimate" crap would stop. It's really not helping any arguments about his policies and it only polarizes people and makes them avoid the real issues. Somewhat like Michael "flamebait" Moore did the other night.
Footnotes:
Our news media exists to serve themselves. They generally take whatever side will get them more viewers (either hating them or loving them). While it's not perfect (a little more objectivity and less laziness would be nice) it's not horribly wrong either. It could be worse, there's always the fear that our government controls the media. It's something we are definitely aware of, but I don't think it's even come remotely close to government controlled despite what some people believe.
Godwin's law states that if you call your opponent a Nazi then the conversation has degenerated into a flame fest and should end immediately. I don't personally believe that to be the case here. The subject about which we are talking is going to involve discussing Hitler and the Nazi party. There is no getting around it as it directly applies to the situation. So I will be replying to your also well written comment in due time.
Are you suggesting that the US simply walk away from Iraq and hope that Saddam doesn't spread chemical weapons (which he clearly has) or bio weapons? Should we just rely on good 'ol Saddam to do the right thing? Are you really that fucking moronic?
This is insightful?
Well, as a matter of fact, with the exception of the F word I'd say that statement is extremely insightful. [Read on]
The flame war over the war continues! I say, To Arms!, fellow slashdotters, and flame on!
Yeah, posting more irational arguments is really going to help the situation.
To rebut the parent's lunacy:
The poster was overzealous. At least his ideas were generally well thought out and are backed by hundreds of years of history. A lot of people seem to confuse overzealousness with a bad argument. Most often they do in fact go hand in hand, but here it is not the case.
Nobody with any sense is suggesting that the US, or anybody else for that matter, should just do nothing. However, there are many other options in any conflict situation besides doing nothing and killing people. The US should try to address the problems which underlie the instability of the region, as well as those which underlie what is often called the "campaign of hatred" against the US by the Muslim world. The US should attempt to address these issues in a reasonable and civilized manner, instead of reverting to the basest barbarism, xenophobia, and might-makes-right mentality.
"Might-makes-right?" Oh please. Is that what you think this is all about? That we just love to go see our troops die because we have a hard-on for violence? This is completely illogical and irrational. Where exactly did you form your opinion about Americans? Did you spend a significant amonut of time in the U.S. or are you basing your opinions on what your news media is telling you?
Oh wait...I guess the US should walk away and lift the sanctions. Then Saddam can do whatever he wants.
I fail to see how the sanctions were preventing Saddam from committing atrocities. Their purpose was clearly to soften up Iraq for this invasion, which has been in the works since before Sept. 11 [...]
Duh!
Wait, let's do it your way. Have no sanctions at all, let Saddam build up his regime so he's harder to fight when we inevitably must. The sanctions directly contributed to Saddam building up his force and committing even more atrocities than he already has, both in the past and more specifically in the present.
[...] (see the Project for a New American Century for an explanation of the real causes behind this war) and had nothing to do with preventing atrocities. In a very real sense the first Gulf War never ended, the US has been killing Iraqis ever since and shows no signs of wanting to stop. Violence and killing will never stop atrocities, only create new ones.
Indeed, you are correct, the first gulf war never really ended. Saddam signed the treaty in bad faith and has continued to build up his arsenal for the last twelve years. And the U.N. has continued to perform little operations here and there that entire time, and finally sent in some weapons inspectors. You are certainly wrong about us showing "no signs of wanting to stop." We are showing the biggest sign of wanting to stop by going in and putting an end to this madness that has gone on for at least twelve years. This action is merely the beginning of the end to the violence. You are also clearly incorrect in your implied statement that violence and killing will not stop atrocities. Going to war has in the past done exactly this. Have you already forgetten how we bailed the world's ass out in WWII? I think that is a clear sign that violence and killing did stop atrocities. Again, another
In the case of medical marijuana I suppose one could grow it and avoid giving money to the criminals[1] that typically supply it.
In the case of this I suppose one could write their own circumvention devices and avoid the "criminals"[2] that supply it.
Footnotes:
Yes, like it or not, eventually your weed dollar could go to some asshole in another country and support terrorism. However, the simple solution here is to make marijuana legal and thus avoid all of the problems of sending money off shore. Unfortunately, were the Bush administration to do that, they'd lose the support of their "christian" (term used VERY loosely) constutients. What would Jesus have done? I'll tell you what he'd have done, he'd have sparked up a joint-- read the bible, he clearly wasn't out to stop people from drinking and smoking in a sociable manner.
The term criminal here is used in the loosest sense of the word. How we can call someone who writes a program a criminal is beyond me.
Try the Mac OS X Unleashed book from SAMS. It is also written by Mac OS 9 users, but the authors have certainly embraced OS X (with a few gripes about springloaded folders and the like which actually do exist in Jaguar now). I assume the book has since been updated for Jaguar, so most likely this extra fluff will be gone.
Well, flame me if you'd like, but I fail to see why anyone would write a comment about an old 300 MHz Mac running OS < X in a story pertaining to OS X.
Your comment is 100% offtopic, is a troll, and flamebait. Nice try.
To address your argument though. Yes, OS X has issues when you overload it with too many extensions just like a Windows machine does. Considering the OS < X architecture is really a hack on a hack on a hack of a not very well designed API from 1984 then I suppose it's pretty amazing that it works at all. NOTE: Win32 is actually in the same boat. The API is a hack on a hack on a hack of a poorly designed API from the 80s (Win16).
I'm sure if you knew as much about Mac OS as you did about Windows (and spent all of that time on Mac OS instead of Windows) then you'd surely know how to fix the problem you're having (disable unneeded extensions). Of course, I never was an OS < X user and even I know to do something as simple as that.
Vaio's? Ick. Those are like wannabe Apple machines. They are certainly more pricey than a typical PC as well, and when you load them up with all the goodies you wind up almost (not quite) paying as much for a Vaio as you would have for an equivalent Apple.
Furthermore, I think there are a lot of hidden costs with running Windows. Sure, a good Mac user won't have too many problems adjusting to Windows XP, but I have typically found (especially with Windows XP) that Windows is quite annoying. Every few seconds some new baloon or alert comes up as if it really required my immediate attention. After using a PC for a few hours I literally start feeling stressed out[1]. In other words, you say that the switch was easy for your users, but I think you're only looking at the surface.
There are also other more technical hidden costs. Networking Windows PCs is a chore. I don't care how great Microsoft thinks Active Directory is, it's a pain in the ass. A better directory system is Novell's NDS, although that has problems because it does not integrate as smoothly with Microsoft Windows (gee, wonder why).
When you look at the total cost of ownership that Microsoft is so fond of pointing out, I think you find that in general an Apple machine is going to be equivalent to a Windows PC. A Linux system will be cheaper because of the lack of software licenses, though the lack of a really solid desktop interface (bad clones of Win32 do not count) really hurts Linux. Don't get me wrong, the desktops are getting there, and in many respects the Linux desktops are better than Win32, but they don't compare to OS X by a long shot.
Couple that with the fact that the next generation Apples will be coming out Real Soon Now and I'd say the better long term choice is to stick with Apple.
Footnotes:
I am a long time computer user who has used DOS, Win16, OS/2, Win32, Linux, and Mac OS X. I can say with absolute certainty that OS X is by far the superior operating environment. OS/2 would probably be a close second (though it is harder to use than OS X, it is quite powerful). Linux (GNOME, KDE, whatever, all the same) would be next followed by Win32, DOS, and Win16. The stress I refer to has to do with the fact that I always feel as though I have to work much too hard to get anything substantial done in Windows, where substantial is defined as pretty much everything Microsoft didn't think of (which is quite a bit).
Sorry, that post does NOT deserve Score 5 insightful.
The problem the poster is referring to is actually a problem with Windows itself (it affects all versions). It is especially annoying on a Windows 2000 system where the driver must be installed by an administrative user. On XP one is at least prompted for an admin login/password.
The only thing to do is do exactly what the manufacturer recommends and install the driver on each USB port. It's a well known problem. It even effects mice and keyboards!
I still can't understand why Microsoft did things this way, but they did, so all you can do is live with it or go get a real OS.
I agree, which is why I use a three button/scroll wheel mouse on all my Macs. It really doesn't cost that much, and I don't have to spend any energy frustrated about what Steve Jobs thinks.;-)
Very true. Though oddly enough, I've taken a liking to the one-button hinged mouse. At home I use a Microsoft trackball. I'd prefer a logitech but they haven't come up with a decent trackball since the Trackman Vista, which was, to put it succinctly, KICK ASS! So, the MS Trackman Explorer it is.
Anyway, at work my options are a bit more limited. I haven't (on my personal machines) used a mouse in ages. The problem with most mice is overall clunkiness. Unless you are into twitch mode, they must be picked up somewhat frequently. Take a look at some of the newer Microsoft mouse designs. The damn things are huge. I think some of the featherweight laptops actually weigh less than these damn things do.
The hockey puck is cool because it is so light and easy to pick up. Furthermore, the fact that the whole damn thing is a button is really cool. Every so often I kinda catch myself just pressing the whole thing down (like, using index, middle, and ring fingers in tandem) and I am somewhat awe struck.
Yeah, I know it sounds sappy, but it is seriously true. Don't discount the idea of a 1 button mouse. Having used Windows (16-bit), OS/2, Windows (32-bit), KDE, and GNOME (in approximately chronologic order) with the occasional use of IRIX, CDE, ROX, and others I can say with certainty that all the different mouse systems have their plusses and minuses. For example, OS/2 has a very logically defined right mouse button. KDE mostly copies Win32 behavior. GNOME is more akin to old school UNIX (3 button mice exist for a reason dammit!). But the Mac is rather unique in that the mouse and keyboard are designed to be used together. Modifier keys are a very cool thing.
One big bonus. For some strange reason, it seems easier to click. It's like boom, I clicked. I didn't think about which finger to do it with, I just did it! And I've been using computers for years. Watch newbies use computers and you'll definitely see why one mouse button is the answer.
Of course, as the parent post says, choice is good too. Some people really do prefer a 2 or 3 button rodent, often times with one of those wheel thingies because the thing is so clunky that without it scrolling is quite akward.
Well, that's an excellent justification. Let's go kill thousands of arabs (who cares about them anyway?), so you can carry your fat ass around in some big gas guzzler without having to worry about high gas prices. Has your regard for human life completely gone amok?
Fancy that, another poster on Slashdot with a lot to say and no time to read. Had you actually read the post that you'd replied to you might have realized that the remark about gas prices was a quip.
The original poster was trying to say that just because we will benefit from the war doesn't in and of itself make it unjustified. However, when I read your post I see what amounts to
America's actions are like those of street criminals
We have to kill Arabs because we need cheap gas
We don't have enough checks and balances to prevent war based solely on ill intentions because we are more concerned with our pocketbooks than the life of some Arab.
America is like Nazi[1] germany. Our administration is running the propaganda machine through our news outlets.
America is a bully that wants to steal its neighbors' money.
Saddam has only shown just a little contempt for the U.N. He's not all bad. Come on, give him a chance. The U.S. has no business acting in its best interests. That's what the U.N. is for silly!
America is only interested in the war because we are all mesmerized by our televisions and we needed something better to watch than the crap they've been showing lately.
It's better to devote our military budget to tasks which benefit U.N. interests rather than tasks that benefit U.S. interests.
We should be scared because some of our friends don't like what we're doing right now.
Okay, so it's pretty laughable when you say it all that way. You have only 3 core arguments. 1) The U.S. is a bully that wants low gas prices. 2) We should always put what our neighbors think is in their best interest ahead of what we believe to be in everyone's best interest. 3) The American government is a propaganda machine like Nazi germany.
For one thing, this is not all about our "low gas prices". Do you seem to remember a year and a half ago we got attacked? Do you seem to remember we went in and cleaned house in Afghanistan? Did you think we were finished? You make it sound like we're supposed to sit and wait while Saddam voices his distaste for America and builds up his arsenal of weapons. Yeah, that's a great idea.
Oh, and as a bonus, we might even bring about some stability in the region. And as the grand prize, yeah, we get to keep low gas prices. Like the original poster said, it's a nice touch.
Is it so wrong to do what is best for your country? Not in and of itself. What's wrong is doing it by bullying innocents. Saddam is no innocent. Not by a long shot. We already have good enough reasons to go into Iraq. We don't want to kill people. We might still have peace! Even at this time, there have been very few casualties. But we're on the war path. It's pressure. We are delivering the message in the one way that Saddam will understand it. By force. No one can reasonably claim that we didn't give Saddam enough time to meet our demands. We told him not to have weapons of mass destructiion in accordance with a treaty we all signed.
Saddam essentially spat in our face. He continued to build more weapons. Hell, certain countries continued to trade weapons for oil while their media and citizens cried foul about the U.S. having ulterior motives as if they were squeaky clean.
Finally, I'll deal with your last core argument. You suggested heavily that the administration of the U.S. drives the propaganda machine that is formed by the U.S. news outlets. Well, buddy, I got some news for you. From here it sure as hell looks like you got that backwards. What's really been happening is simple and obvious, yet most people haven't quite realized it. The news outlets are the dr
An essay by Dorothy L. Sayers I recently read contains a wealth of information pertinent to this topic. You can find the essay at the following URL:
http://www.gbt.org/text/sayers.html
The essay talks about the "dumbing down" of education, as well as the loss of vision by educators. It's central argument is simple: our schools are not teaching our pupils how to learn. Instead, we are teaching specific subjects as if they were entirely unrelated.
Sorry, I fail to see your logic here. You claim the 24-bit samples make more sense, but for what reason? They merely increase the granularity of the dynamic range. Personally, I have no issues with the dynamic range on a CD (16-bit samples). Often, the dynamic range has been expanded so much, it helps to compress it so that the softer sounds are at least somewhat audible.
However, increasing the sample rate to 96kHz brings the audio vastly closer to the analog domain where there is no upper limit on the frequency. Because of harmonics and other phenomenon, it's quite desirable to increase the sample rate as much as possible.
Of course, this is a Sound Buster card, so there's not much to say. To Creative, 96 kHz 24-bit is just fancy talk for "buy me 'cause my numbers are high". And Creative's customers will happily shell out the dough for this card and they'll actually think they can hear the difference between 44.1 kHz and 96 kHz on their shitty computer speakers.
How many times have you reached to hit the eject button on the CD-ROM drive and then had to wait? I've found that nearly every time I hit the eject button on a CD-ROM drive I have to wait long enough that I'm sitting there wondering why I'm leaning over waiting for the disc to come out!
I hardly think I'm the only person who has experienced this. There are a lot of factors going in to the time it takes for the disc to eject. First of all, the volume must be dismounted by the operating system so that all writes are flushed (if rewritable) and all files are closed. Then the drive must wait for the disc to spin down (ever had one of those crapy Gateway drives that didn't?) and then physically dismount and eject the disc. Even ignoring the software dismount it still takes a good few seconds to actually eject a disc.
So, instead let's say I'm using the disc (from the computer via the mouse and keyboard as usual), and when I'm done with it I toss it in the trash or use a menu choice if I'm of that persuasion. I could even simply tap that eject button in the top right of most newer Apple keyboards. By the time I reach down to get it out of the drive, it's ready for me to pick up.
So tell me again why when I'm using a disc on the computer I'd want to reach down to the CD-ROM drive, hit the button and wait for the disc when I can instead eject the disc using the mouse/keyboard I'm already using and then have the disc ready for me to grab when I reach down?
After the Mac had it's trash can, NeXT had it's recycler (in the dock). So actually no, Microsoft did not take Apple's trash can and make it a recycle bin. Jobs's company NeXT did that long before Microsoft did.
For those who don't know, Mac OS X is essentially NextStep with a lot of the Apple stuff hacked into it.
Anyway.. as far as the patent goes, it seems it is just on that very specific design of a trash can which I do not have a problem with. Notice that they even cited prior art because the claim doesn't seem to be that they are the first trash can, the claim seems to be that they are the first trashcan with this particular design.
In all seriousness, every group uses scare tactics. Some are more prevalent than others. For instance, terrorism is by definition all about scare tactics. The mob also uses scare tactics. And in this case, we're talking about large corporations using scare tactics.
Scare tactics are nothing new. It's helpful to recognize where scare tactics are used so that you do not fall victim to them. For instance, we live in this supposedly "sue happy" country. In reality the "sue happy USA" is a scare tactic used by those with money and power to make those without submit to their wishes. By modifying your behavior to avoid doing things which are not illegal, but which somebody might not like, you are inviting that somebody to run your life.
Fortunately, it is still possible in this country that once you understand the above, you rise above it and then you become the person with money and power. What you choose to do with it is then entirely up to you.
Actually. I agree with your statement about free software. You are the one who didn't apply my statement to free software as well as proprietary. I, on the other hand, am fair and applied it to everybody.
No one should get sued because they included a one liner from a a GPL program. And so far, the cases have been ones where there was a clear usage of a serious portion of code. I don't think the FSF intends to go after every little person, nor do I think it would be beneficial to their cause.
I do however think that gross violators of the GPL should be prosecuted, and likewise I feel that gross violators of any real (upholdable by law) license terms should be prosecuted. It rarely does any good to sweat the small stuff.
Whether you realize it or not, your argument that we should all be afraid of including even a snippet of GPL code is a classic FUD tactic because it attempts to make people afraid of working with GPL software.
Slashdot Mirror
See for yourself!
Sorry :-)
In all seriousness, keep up the good work.
Having just studied the Cocoa text system I'd be willing to bet they simply hooked up another field editor class to project builder's text system.
Cocoa's text system is, shall we say, different when compared with other toolkits. It exposes this amazing API that lays the fondation for text editors, word processors, desktop publishing, web browsers (Berners-Lee used cocoa's predecessors), and anything else which does any kind of text management or layout.
The only drawback I can see to it is that a programmer who expects to do one-off writing of text to a drawing surface is really in for a surprise. However, I'm in the process of porting wxWindows to run atop of Cocoa and have found that even one-off text drawing hardly takes much effort once you realize how the classes (NSTextStorage, NSLayoutManager, and NSTextContainer) interact with each other.
I noticed in that entire article that there was not one comment from he or his wife or anyone closer than a coworker (who may or may not be a good friend).
A few things though. He is being held in solitairy confinement as a "material witness". Perhaps they want him to testify against the charity. If he were to claim that he had no idea they were sending money to terrorists then it could make a great case for fraud against the charity.
It may be that the people who run this charity with ties to terrorism want him dead. So perhaps he is somewhat willingly hanging out in solitairy. Note that he's not in general population, perhaps that is why. Normally people don't START in solitairy confinement.
In any case, I don't know. The article is rather sensationalistic. There's a lot of information we simply do not have and cannot speak of. I certainly hope that he makes it through this ordeal. If it becomes clear that he is in fact being held entirely against his will for doing nothing wrong, then I will champion his cause. Until then I refuse to take a position either way.
And yes, what the government did to Mitnick was horribly, horribly wrong. But don't start acting like we don't have the power to change any of this. We do. Tell your friends and neighbors Kevin's story. Tell them how he did not intend to cause any damage and that any damage he did cause was indirect. Tell them how he was held without being charged for years. Tell them how he was held without a trial for years after that. But by god do NOT start championing the cause of someone that nobody really knows anything about (hell, for all we know he actually COULD be a terrorist) because then it really weakens your argument against the wrongs that were committed against Mr. Mitnick.
Right, because you know how an application written for GNOME compiles and links against the KDE libraries.
Well, I don't believe I'm contradicting myself, but that's because I know what I am saying and obviously I have not clearly explained some of the finer points to you. I am very happy to have controlled, rational discussion. Tempers can (and sometimes should) flare, but not to the point of being irrational which is what so many of the anti-war protesters you see on TV are doing. Of course, that goes along with the comment I made about the outspoken assholes-- they exist on both sides and I refuse to stoop to that level.
You probably won't like this opinion, but neither the U.S. nor any other nation is governed by the U.N. The U.N. certainly has a role in maintaining diplomacy and dictating how wars should be fought (i.e. don't shoot POWs). We all (the entire U.N.) did a great job. We all tried for 12 years to get Saddam to give up his weapons in accordance with the treaty he signed. For every inch we gave him, he took a foot. But then a funny thing happened that Saddam didn't count on. We (the U.S.) decided that we'd been jerked around for long enough. Saddam isn't going to get rid of weapons of mass murder. He won't stop funding terrorist groups-- and don't kid yourself, they're all the same, even if they aren't al queda any and all terrorist groups are a threat not only to the U.S. but the entire world.
I do not feel bad for going in and taking out Saddam. He openly and repeatedly spat in all of our faces making a feeble attempt to woo the hearts and minds of the unsuspecting public into believing that he is some god and that we (the U.S). only want to take Iraq for ourselves. He is doing exactly the kind of shit that any other dictator before him has done. And because he has weapons of mass destruction, and because he openly hates us, and because he funds groups that have taken terrorist actions against us we feel we have the right to take him out. If the U.N. doesn't agree, too bad, we're a sovereign nation as well. We're certainly not perfect (so don't bring up that jingoism crap on me again :-) but we are doing what we believe is right. And don't think that Germany, France, and Russia are perfect either. In other words, don't be a jingoist for them thinking that everything they are doing is absolutely perfect and showing it not through the typical response to go to war, but through an odd (though nearly identical in that it is still extreme) response to not go to war. Besides, I think it's time we ask Germany, France, and Russia why exactly they don't want us in Iraq. Could it be that maybe their leaders really don't give two shits about human life but are just using it as an elaborate smokescreen to hide the fact that they've done just as many (if not more) shady deals with the Iraqi regime? It's time to knock the big three off their high horse and find out the kind of people they really are. In
Oh my god! You talk the talk but do you even realize what you just said!? This forum is worthless unless we all use the knowledge and insight we gain from it at the polls. Do you realize the implications when everybody bitches on Slashdot (or to their buddies, or sometimes on camera to CNN) but nobody goes and votes? That is giving away every right you have. We must take to the polls or everything we talk about is meaningless. That is why we must have rational discussion and try to understand each other so that we can decide in advance which candidate is worth voting for.
What you just mentioned is a major problem with this country and really the whole rest of the world as well: apathy. Nobody is willing to take a stand except to complain. Apathy enforces mob rule (which will always be the potential downfall of democracy looming around the corner). This is why I say that people who only want to put down Bush are making a grave mistake by not effectively airing the true problems that are bothering them. Can anyone honestly say that the next clown we might put into office will be any better? Can you really say that everything Bush is doing is wrong? (again, to be addressed in another mail).
People get too polarized on issues these days. Abortion is a big one. Pro lifers don't want any abortion and so they vote right wing even when it is not the best person for the job. Likewise, pro choice people make the mistake of voting against a candidate with otherwise good views because he takes a stand against something he doesn't believe is right. However misguided either side may be it is a miscarriage of the electoral system to polarize like that. Personally, I, and the silent majority of Americans, are really not strongly in favor of or against abortions. It's not a difficult choice to make: do we like them? not particularly, do we tolerate them? yes, definitely. Why? Because this country is not supposed to be about what a few select group of people think is good for everyone. Sadly, few people can debate at this level and instead get caught up in these polarizing issues like "Bush stole the ficticious election therefore everything he does is bad." which is absolute 100% pure and total illogical bull shit (the cause does not necessarily lead to the supposed effect). Bush may have stolen the election (can anyone really say he did or didn't with any reasonable amount of certainty), but you should judge him by his actions as a president. In other words, if you don't like him because you don't like the war he has started, then that's fine-- we'll debate that, but don't dislike him because he may or may not have stolen the election.
Anyway. That is all I'm trying to say about that. The whole "Bush is illigitamate" argument potentially drives us more towards mob rule and Nazism than away from it. It's exactly how Hitler took over Germany and how any dictator takes over a country-- by convincing the public that the existing government is a total sham and proceeding to set up an even bigger sham.
I disagree with that. I think we need more level headed (but fierce is okay) debate like we have been having. Please take a moment to read Dorothy L. Sayers's excellent essay "The Lost Tools of Learning" which touches heavily on this subject.
I think you misconstrued a few of the things I said. I'll address it there. I'm gonna go grab some fast food for lunch and write over my lunch hour... it's a rather lengthy post to write during work while compiling some code. Suffice it to say that you are right that there is a very dangerous line between what I said and what the Nazis did. It's a fine line that I am prepared to walk. And you are absolutely correct that any argument which justifies the Nazis must be wrong. My take on it is that those arguments are probably missing that often very fine distinction between living in the real world and living in the Nazi world. Benevolence and some degree of selflessness are some distinctions, among others. Not everybody in this country is just looking to go kill some A-rabs. In fact, the majority don't want that, only a few outspoken assholes need to justify a war with violence. (strange thing to do, isn't it?) That's of course the problem right there, that they are outspoken assholes, not the silent majority of good hearted people that do make up this country.
As a matter of fact, the last national election (as the sibling post to this has already mentioned) did in fact have a lot to do with voting booths. Despite our predominantly left-wing news media [1] (CNN, MSNBC, NYT) that constantly portrays republicans as being evil (with the exception of Fox News which is so right-wing biased it makes me sick) our people overwhelmingly voted for republican congress critters.
Now, if you are referring to the election back in 2000 then look at it this way. The popular vote was so close as to be entirely meaningless and so was the electoral vote. So close in fact that as the dems and republicans fought to have the vote counted one way or another it swayed from side to side.
Really, the only thing that can be said about that election is that nobody really gave a shit whether Gore or Bush was elected as they were both good candidates. Our electoral college worked exactly as intended by our founding fathers. The electoral college serves to put power in the individual states. When all this was going down there were a couple of very insightful posts on slashdot about the mathematical principles underlying the system. Because each state (with few exceptions) votes entirely one way or the other, one persons vote has a much greater chance of swinging an entire state and thus swinging an entire election than if the popular vote was used in which case we'd be pulling dangerously close to mob rule.
I really wish this "Bush is illegitimate" crap would stop. It's really not helping any arguments about his policies and it only polarizes people and makes them avoid the real issues. Somewhat like Michael "flamebait" Moore did the other night.
Footnotes:
Godwin's law states that if you call your opponent a Nazi then the conversation has degenerated into a flame fest and should end immediately. I don't personally believe that to be the case here. The subject about which we are talking is going to involve discussing Hitler and the Nazi party. There is no getting around it as it directly applies to the situation. So I will be replying to your also well written comment in due time.
Well, as a matter of fact, with the exception of the F word I'd say that statement is extremely insightful. [Read on]
Yeah, posting more irational arguments is really going to help the situation.
The poster was overzealous. At least his ideas were generally well thought out and are backed by hundreds of years of history. A lot of people seem to confuse overzealousness with a bad argument. Most often they do in fact go hand in hand, but here it is not the case.
"Might-makes-right?" Oh please. Is that what you think this is all about? That we just love to go see our troops die because we have a hard-on for violence? This is completely illogical and irrational. Where exactly did you form your opinion about Americans? Did you spend a significant amonut of time in the U.S. or are you basing your opinions on what your news media is telling you?
Duh!
Wait, let's do it your way. Have no sanctions at all, let Saddam build up his regime so he's harder to fight when we inevitably must. The sanctions directly contributed to Saddam building up his force and committing even more atrocities than he already has, both in the past and more specifically in the present.
Indeed, you are correct, the first gulf war never really ended. Saddam signed the treaty in bad faith and has continued to build up his arsenal for the last twelve years. And the U.N. has continued to perform little operations here and there that entire time, and finally sent in some weapons inspectors. You are certainly wrong about us showing "no signs of wanting to stop." We are showing the biggest sign of wanting to stop by going in and putting an end to this madness that has gone on for at least twelve years. This action is merely the beginning of the end to the violence. You are also clearly incorrect in your implied statement that violence and killing will not stop atrocities. Going to war has in the past done exactly this. Have you already forgetten how we bailed the world's ass out in WWII? I think that is a clear sign that violence and killing did stop atrocities. Again, another
Interesting analogy.
In the case of medical marijuana I suppose one could grow it and avoid giving money to the criminals[1] that typically supply it.
In the case of this I suppose one could write their own circumvention devices and avoid the "criminals"[2] that supply it.
Footnotes:
No no no, isn't that "Freedom company?" Like "Fredom Fries" and "Freedom Toast?"
I'll tell ya, we sure have some stupid congressmen in our country.
Try the Mac OS X Unleashed book from SAMS. It is also written by Mac OS 9 users, but the authors have certainly embraced OS X (with a few gripes about springloaded folders and the like which actually do exist in Jaguar now). I assume the book has since been updated for Jaguar, so most likely this extra fluff will be gone.
Hah.. I've seen that before
I'm still hoping that it's a really bad joke. :-(
Sadly, there are certainly people who will believe this crap. Even worse (as a sibling post has mentioned) these people can vote.
Well, flame me if you'd like, but I fail to see why anyone would write a comment about an old 300 MHz Mac running OS < X in a story pertaining to OS X.
Your comment is 100% offtopic, is a troll, and flamebait. Nice try.
To address your argument though. Yes, OS X has issues when you overload it with too many extensions just like a Windows machine does. Considering the OS < X architecture is really a hack on a hack on a hack of a not very well designed API from 1984 then I suppose it's pretty amazing that it works at all. NOTE: Win32 is actually in the same boat. The API is a hack on a hack on a hack of a poorly designed API from the 80s (Win16).
I'm sure if you knew as much about Mac OS as you did about Windows (and spent all of that time on Mac OS instead of Windows) then you'd surely know how to fix the problem you're having (disable unneeded extensions). Of course, I never was an OS < X user and even I know to do something as simple as that.
Vaio's? Ick. Those are like wannabe Apple machines. They are certainly more pricey than a typical PC as well, and when you load them up with all the goodies you wind up almost (not quite) paying as much for a Vaio as you would have for an equivalent Apple.
Furthermore, I think there are a lot of hidden costs with running Windows. Sure, a good Mac user won't have too many problems adjusting to Windows XP, but I have typically found (especially with Windows XP) that Windows is quite annoying. Every few seconds some new baloon or alert comes up as if it really required my immediate attention. After using a PC for a few hours I literally start feeling stressed out[1]. In other words, you say that the switch was easy for your users, but I think you're only looking at the surface.
There are also other more technical hidden costs. Networking Windows PCs is a chore. I don't care how great Microsoft thinks Active Directory is, it's a pain in the ass. A better directory system is Novell's NDS, although that has problems because it does not integrate as smoothly with Microsoft Windows (gee, wonder why).
When you look at the total cost of ownership that Microsoft is so fond of pointing out, I think you find that in general an Apple machine is going to be equivalent to a Windows PC. A Linux system will be cheaper because of the lack of software licenses, though the lack of a really solid desktop interface (bad clones of Win32 do not count) really hurts Linux. Don't get me wrong, the desktops are getting there, and in many respects the Linux desktops are better than Win32, but they don't compare to OS X by a long shot.
Couple that with the fact that the next generation Apples will be coming out Real Soon Now and I'd say the better long term choice is to stick with Apple.
Footnotes:
Sorry, that post does NOT deserve Score 5 insightful.
The problem the poster is referring to is actually a problem with Windows itself (it affects all versions). It is especially annoying on a Windows 2000 system where the driver must be installed by an administrative user. On XP one is at least prompted for an admin login/password.
The only thing to do is do exactly what the manufacturer recommends and install the driver on each USB port. It's a well known problem. It even effects mice and keyboards!
I still can't understand why Microsoft did things this way, but they did, so all you can do is live with it or go get a real OS.
Very true. Though oddly enough, I've taken a liking to the one-button hinged mouse. At home I use a Microsoft trackball. I'd prefer a logitech but they haven't come up with a decent trackball since the Trackman Vista, which was, to put it succinctly, KICK ASS! So, the MS Trackman Explorer it is.
Anyway, at work my options are a bit more limited. I haven't (on my personal machines) used a mouse in ages. The problem with most mice is overall clunkiness. Unless you are into twitch mode, they must be picked up somewhat frequently. Take a look at some of the newer Microsoft mouse designs. The damn things are huge. I think some of the featherweight laptops actually weigh less than these damn things do.
The hockey puck is cool because it is so light and easy to pick up. Furthermore, the fact that the whole damn thing is a button is really cool. Every so often I kinda catch myself just pressing the whole thing down (like, using index, middle, and ring fingers in tandem) and I am somewhat awe struck.
Yeah, I know it sounds sappy, but it is seriously true. Don't discount the idea of a 1 button mouse. Having used Windows (16-bit), OS/2, Windows (32-bit), KDE, and GNOME (in approximately chronologic order) with the occasional use of IRIX, CDE, ROX, and others I can say with certainty that all the different mouse systems have their plusses and minuses. For example, OS/2 has a very logically defined right mouse button. KDE mostly copies Win32 behavior. GNOME is more akin to old school UNIX (3 button mice exist for a reason dammit!). But the Mac is rather unique in that the mouse and keyboard are designed to be used together. Modifier keys are a very cool thing.
One big bonus. For some strange reason, it seems easier to click. It's like boom, I clicked. I didn't think about which finger to do it with, I just did it! And I've been using computers for years. Watch newbies use computers and you'll definitely see why one mouse button is the answer.
Of course, as the parent post says, choice is good too. Some people really do prefer a 2 or 3 button rodent, often times with one of those wheel thingies because the thing is so clunky that without it scrolling is quite akward.
:-D
Fancy that, another poster on Slashdot with a lot to say and no time to read. Had you actually read the post that you'd replied to you might have realized that the remark about gas prices was a quip.
The original poster was trying to say that just because we will benefit from the war doesn't in and of itself make it unjustified. However, when I read your post I see what amounts to
Okay, so it's pretty laughable when you say it all that way. You have only 3 core arguments. 1) The U.S. is a bully that wants low gas prices. 2) We should always put what our neighbors think is in their best interest ahead of what we believe to be in everyone's best interest. 3) The American government is a propaganda machine like Nazi germany.
For one thing, this is not all about our "low gas prices". Do you seem to remember a year and a half ago we got attacked? Do you seem to remember we went in and cleaned house in Afghanistan? Did you think we were finished? You make it sound like we're supposed to sit and wait while Saddam voices his distaste for America and builds up his arsenal of weapons. Yeah, that's a great idea.
Oh, and as a bonus, we might even bring about some stability in the region. And as the grand prize, yeah, we get to keep low gas prices. Like the original poster said, it's a nice touch.
Is it so wrong to do what is best for your country? Not in and of itself. What's wrong is doing it by bullying innocents. Saddam is no innocent. Not by a long shot. We already have good enough reasons to go into Iraq. We don't want to kill people. We might still have peace! Even at this time, there have been very few casualties. But we're on the war path. It's pressure. We are delivering the message in the one way that Saddam will understand it. By force. No one can reasonably claim that we didn't give Saddam enough time to meet our demands. We told him not to have weapons of mass destructiion in accordance with a treaty we all signed.
Saddam essentially spat in our face. He continued to build more weapons. Hell, certain countries continued to trade weapons for oil while their media and citizens cried foul about the U.S. having ulterior motives as if they were squeaky clean.
Finally, I'll deal with your last core argument. You suggested heavily that the administration of the U.S. drives the propaganda machine that is formed by the U.S. news outlets. Well, buddy, I got some news for you. From here it sure as hell looks like you got that backwards. What's really been happening is simple and obvious, yet most people haven't quite realized it. The news outlets are the dr
An essay by Dorothy L. Sayers I recently read contains a wealth of information pertinent to this topic. You can find the essay at the following URL: http://www.gbt.org/text/sayers.html
The essay talks about the "dumbing down" of education, as well as the loss of vision by educators. It's central argument is simple: our schools are not teaching our pupils how to learn. Instead, we are teaching specific subjects as if they were entirely unrelated.
It's long, but well worth a read.
Sorry, I fail to see your logic here. You claim the 24-bit samples make more sense, but for what reason? They merely increase the granularity of the dynamic range. Personally, I have no issues with the dynamic range on a CD (16-bit samples). Often, the dynamic range has been expanded so much, it helps to compress it so that the softer sounds are at least somewhat audible.
However, increasing the sample rate to 96kHz brings the audio vastly closer to the analog domain where there is no upper limit on the frequency. Because of harmonics and other phenomenon, it's quite desirable to increase the sample rate as much as possible.
Of course, this is a Sound Buster card, so there's not much to say. To Creative, 96 kHz 24-bit is just fancy talk for "buy me 'cause my numbers are high". And Creative's customers will happily shell out the dough for this card and they'll actually think they can hear the difference between 44.1 kHz and 96 kHz on their shitty computer speakers.
Well, that's one way to look at it.
How many times have you reached to hit the eject button on the CD-ROM drive and then had to wait? I've found that nearly every time I hit the eject button on a CD-ROM drive I have to wait long enough that I'm sitting there wondering why I'm leaning over waiting for the disc to come out!
I hardly think I'm the only person who has experienced this. There are a lot of factors going in to the time it takes for the disc to eject. First of all, the volume must be dismounted by the operating system so that all writes are flushed (if rewritable) and all files are closed. Then the drive must wait for the disc to spin down (ever had one of those crapy Gateway drives that didn't?) and then physically dismount and eject the disc. Even ignoring the software dismount it still takes a good few seconds to actually eject a disc.
So, instead let's say I'm using the disc (from the computer via the mouse and keyboard as usual), and when I'm done with it I toss it in the trash or use a menu choice if I'm of that persuasion. I could even simply tap that eject button in the top right of most newer Apple keyboards. By the time I reach down to get it out of the drive, it's ready for me to pick up.
So tell me again why when I'm using a disc on the computer I'd want to reach down to the CD-ROM drive, hit the button and wait for the disc when I can instead eject the disc using the mouse/keyboard I'm already using and then have the disc ready for me to grab when I reach down?
After the Mac had it's trash can, NeXT had it's recycler (in the dock). So actually no, Microsoft did not take Apple's trash can and make it a recycle bin. Jobs's company NeXT did that long before Microsoft did.
For those who don't know, Mac OS X is essentially NextStep with a lot of the Apple stuff hacked into it.
Anyway.. as far as the patent goes, it seems it is just on that very specific design of a trash can which I do not have a problem with. Notice that they even cited prior art because the claim doesn't seem to be that they are the first trash can, the claim seems to be that they are the first trashcan with this particular design.
:-)
In all seriousness, every group uses scare tactics. Some are more prevalent than others. For instance, terrorism is by definition all about scare tactics. The mob also uses scare tactics. And in this case, we're talking about large corporations using scare tactics.
Scare tactics are nothing new. It's helpful to recognize where scare tactics are used so that you do not fall victim to them. For instance, we live in this supposedly "sue happy" country. In reality the "sue happy USA" is a scare tactic used by those with money and power to make those without submit to their wishes. By modifying your behavior to avoid doing things which are not illegal, but which somebody might not like, you are inviting that somebody to run your life.
Fortunately, it is still possible in this country that once you understand the above, you rise above it and then you become the person with money and power. What you choose to do with it is then entirely up to you.
Actually. I agree with your statement about free software. You are the one who didn't apply my statement to free software as well as proprietary. I, on the other hand, am fair and applied it to everybody.
No one should get sued because they included a one liner from a a GPL program. And so far, the cases have been ones where there was a clear usage of a serious portion of code. I don't think the FSF intends to go after every little person, nor do I think it would be beneficial to their cause.
I do however think that gross violators of the GPL should be prosecuted, and likewise I feel that gross violators of any real (upholdable by law) license terms should be prosecuted. It rarely does any good to sweat the small stuff.
Whether you realize it or not, your argument that we should all be afraid of including even a snippet of GPL code is a classic FUD tactic because it attempts to make people afraid of working with GPL software.