I'm no programmer... I can hack out ugly code in PHP, Perl, and JavaScript, and that's about it. And I can't answer your question w/ regards to developing in Java...
But... I do know that Eclipse is a general-purpose IDE which happens to be written in Java... You can use Eclipse to develop in other languages by installing the appropriate language plug-in.
I just installed Eclipse last week & I'm going to use it for PHP development...
I was just kidding, of course, about being perfect etc...
However, once again, I am pleased to inform you that you've gottne what you hoped for. I never got into file sharing, and I can honestly say that I've never downloaded a copyright protected file for other than permitted or fair use, AFAIK.
There's a difference between "making a mistake" and willfully breaking into a computer system to which you are not allowed access.
...but you're doing a disservice by "enabling" people to continue using standards-ignorant browsers. The sooner these people get a clue, the better... for all of us. By coding to standards now, we hasten the pace of standards compliance, thus making the present discussion moot. It's a chicken-and-egg kind of thing.
CSS1 became a w3c recommendation in Dec. 1996. There's been plenty of time for browsers, and browser users, to come up to speed.
Well, with your puerile name-calling, I'd suggest that it is you who are a troll. Nonetheless, I'll respond.
I did not propose any hypothesis. I merely stated the simple philosophical idea that what we see as "old" may in fact not be. I don't claim that there are scientific facts to back that up, nor do I suspect there ever will be.
"It's pretty clear that soil today comes from decaying plant matter, etc. Why did the first soil have to be any different?" Why did it have to be exactly the same? Because all the forces of nature procede at the same pace and in the same way that they always have? Because you know for certain that there was no Creator who did anything more than "plant the seeds?"
Call me a moron if you wish. Or a fervent believer (which in your book is probably worse than a moron). It's clear from your response that this thread is destined to become a flame war, so this will be my last post on the subject.
But you're assuming the Creator made it "look" old merely as a deception. What if he needed to make it look old?
Say you had the power to create, say, a small tree. Someone cuts down the tree the next day and says, "Aha! This tree has 23 growth rings, so it must be 23 years old." They did not know, however that you made it just the day before. And you made it with growth rings because, among other things, those growth rings provided the necessary structural support for the tree. Similar arguments could be made for the presence of "mature" leaves, branches, bark, roots, etc.
Furthermore, that tree needs to be nourished. It gets it nourishment from soil, which is made up of sand, dissolved minerals, and decaying organic matter. Now, to someone examining the soil, those ingredients could only be the products of decay and erosion. But to you, the creator, the soil is a bit of "designed maturity" necessary to support the tree.
Not scientific proof to be sure, but it is a reasonable explanation as to why the Creator may have made the universe in a mature state. This concept would encompass everything from the universe as a whole to the mountains down to sub-atomic particles and electromagnetic fields.
If this info came to light because UPS just went public and their books are now open to outside scrutiny? (Although I'm sure their books were scrutinized prior to the IPO).
Try Dr. Edell's site He's a former opthamologist, is pretty credible, and isn't trying to sell anything (except his book and his website). He should have some good info there. IFAIK, he's pretty positive about PK and LASIK.
BTW, PK (Photo Keratectomy, I think) is where they just burn the surface of the cornea with the laser. LASIK is where they slice a flap off the cornea, which is left attached by a little "hinge". They then burn the cornea to reshape it, then fold the flap back over. This apparently speeds healing and helps prevent infection and other complications. "Burn," BTW, is a bit of a misnomer, but you understand.
If the rumor is true, then you can bet on two things:
The license will be a modified open-source license, not even close to the GPL.
MS will offer some monetary incentive to lure developers. Since they know they have no credibility in the OS community, they'll have to appeal to the greed factor.
As he acknowledged, he works alongside a lot of "talented" people. Many of the things he does, he does merely as team leader. For all of those people who like to harp on Jobs' inflated ego (and I'm not saying it isn't), he seems to give a lot of credit to his "team". Thus, in the context in which he was speaking, the use of "we" seemed appropriate.
You'll notice that when he described his daily routine (waking up, logging on, eating breakfast with his kids, etc...) he didn't use the "royal we", and appropriately so.
If you or I were answering the same questions, I doubt we'd use language that was much different.
Ok, son. Time to put down your Pokemon cards and Learn a little bit about computer history. You see, before he sold all of that colored plastic, he actually sold quite a bit of beige plastic. In fact, way back in the mid 80s, when you were just a gleam in you parents' eyes, Mr. Jobs and his partner Steve Wozniak introduced a funky looking little box called the Macintosh computer. And, surprisingly, that underpowered, tiny-screened, expensive little chunk of plastic did change the world. See, there's this other old dude named Chuck Geshke who developed a language that could put pretty pictures and cute letters on paper using another overpriced, underpowered, slow, expensive beige plastic box called a laser printer. And yet another old dude named John Warnock created a slow, underpowered, clunky program called PageMaker, which ran on Steve Jobs' little beige box and printed out pretty pages on Chuck Geshke's little beige box. The result was something called "desktop publishing" which really did change the world by making quality printed communication much more accessible to common folk who didn't have big DEC PDP-11s or phototypesetting machines in their garages. Sure, he didn't bring world peace or end world hunger, but he did change the world in his own small way, and with a lot of help from others. And he's done much more than just sell a lot of colored plastic. Now go on back to your Pokemons.
The original poster conceded the fact (as does Jobs himself in the Time article re: USB) that they weren't Jobs' original ideas. It's just that Jobs successfully brought the innovations to market. And AFAIK, Jobs did so with the blessings of the original developers, in most cases.
Were it not for Jobs, those innovations we now take for granted may have died a slow death in a lab somewhere in Palo Alto... or at least they'd have been embraced by the market much later, and our current state of the art would still be a few years off (Windows 1.0, anyone?).
Why can't you praise them both? I don't know anything about Foundation Imaging, but just because their CGI may be better than Pixar doesn't mean Pixar doesn't deserve all the kudos that's coming to them.
Plus, CGI sophistication is only a part of good moviemaking... "Roughnecks" may have phenomenal CGI but if the story sucks, the movie sucks IMHO.
The reason "Toy Story" and "A Bug's Life" were both such excellent movies is because they had excellently-written storylines, exceptional voice talent, etc. The great accomplishment of the CGI is that you forgot that it was CGI.
--
Re:Movie making possibities
on
The Cat Cam
·
· Score: 1
It would make the "Blair Witch Project" look like an amateurish piece of fluff...
First, copyright infringement != privacy risk. By posting your comments in a public forum, you've made those comments public, not private.
Second, anyone who posted to the original article should have known that their comments could show up in the Jane's article. That was, after all, the whole idea of soliciting comments from slashdot. As the gentleman from Jane's states in the original slashdot article:
When we publish the article (17 November), if you'd like to be contactable on this issue use your real email address and we'll attribute your comments, otherwise use 'anonymous coward' .
If you didn't want to "risk your privacy" then you should've posted as AC.
How can it be an privacy risk? He said (paraphrased): "Contact us, and we'll pay you what you're due." If you don't want to risk your privacy, don't respond. Simple, no?
But doesn't the "e" stand for "electronic"? Therefore, eCommerce and eBusiness make some sense, since the "e" helps to differentiate from bricks-and-mortar commerce and business.
"eCPU" and "eChip", however, are redundant, since CPUs and chips are, by there very nature, electronic.
Unless we're talking about potato chips... but I can't envision what an e(potato)Chip might be. Poker eChips, OTOH, might have some application in on-line gambling.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm no programmer... I can hack out ugly code in PHP, Perl, and JavaScript, and that's about it. And I can't answer your question w/ regards to developing in Java...
But... I do know that Eclipse is a general-purpose IDE which happens to be written in Java... You can use Eclipse to develop in other languages by installing the appropriate language plug-in.
I just installed Eclipse last week & I'm going to use it for PHP development...
I was just kidding, of course, about being perfect etc...
However, once again, I am pleased to inform you that you've gottne what you hoped for. I never got into file sharing, and I can honestly say that I've never downloaded a copyright protected file for other than permitted or fair use, AFAIK.
There's a difference between "making a mistake" and willfully breaking into a computer system to which you are not allowed access.
I am, and I wont.
Are hackers sentenced too harshly, or are "comparable" criminals not sentenced harshly enough?
...but you're doing a disservice by "enabling" people to continue using standards-ignorant browsers. The sooner these people get a clue, the better... for all of us. By coding to standards now, we hasten the pace of standards compliance, thus making the present discussion moot. It's a chicken-and-egg kind of thing.
CSS1 became a w3c recommendation in Dec. 1996. There's been plenty of time for browsers, and browser users, to come up to speed.
I did not propose any hypothesis. I merely stated the simple philosophical idea that what we see as "old" may in fact not be. I don't claim that there are scientific facts to back that up, nor do I suspect there ever will be.
"It's pretty clear that soil today comes from decaying plant matter, etc. Why did the first soil have to be any different?" Why did it have to be exactly the same? Because all the forces of nature procede at the same pace and in the same way that they always have? Because you know for certain that there was no Creator who did anything more than "plant the seeds?"
Call me a moron if you wish. Or a fervent believer (which in your book is probably worse than a moron). It's clear from your response that this thread is destined to become a flame war, so this will be my last post on the subject.
--
--
--
BTW, PK (Photo Keratectomy, I think) is where they just burn the surface of the cornea with the laser. LASIK is where they slice a flap off the cornea, which is left attached by a little "hinge". They then burn the cornea to reshape it, then fold the flap back over. This apparently speeds healing and helps prevent infection and other complications. "Burn," BTW, is a bit of a misnomer, but you understand.
--
--
--
You must spend a lot of time sulking, considering the staggering number of accomplishments made by all-male teams
--
Anyway, the idea of the project is to eventually produce arrays of these mini-sats, all communicating w/ one another and mission control.
I hate to say it... but sounds like (no--don't say it) a perfect application (someone stop me!) for a (Noooooooo!) Beowulf Cluster!
--
You'll notice that when he described his daily routine (waking up, logging on, eating breakfast with his kids, etc...) he didn't use the "royal we", and appropriately so.
If you or I were answering the same questions, I doubt we'd use language that was much different.
--
--
C'mon, girl. You can stop posting AC now
(If I had a moderator widget, I'dve upped this one)
--
Were it not for Jobs, those innovations we now take for granted may have died a slow death in a lab somewhere in Palo Alto... or at least they'd have been embraced by the market much later, and our current state of the art would still be a few years off (Windows 1.0, anyone?).
Ah, but history never reveals its alternatives.
--
Plus, CGI sophistication is only a part of good moviemaking... "Roughnecks" may have phenomenal CGI but if the story sucks, the movie sucks IMHO.
The reason "Toy Story" and "A Bug's Life" were both such excellent movies is because they had excellently-written storylines, exceptional voice talent, etc. The great accomplishment of the CGI is that you forgot that it was CGI.
--
It doesn't already?
--
Second, anyone who posted to the original article should have known that their comments could show up in the Jane's article. That was, after all, the whole idea of soliciting comments from slashdot. As the gentleman from Jane's states in the original slashdot article:
If you didn't want to "risk your privacy" then you should've posted as AC.
--
--
Probably not next, but you can probably count on Apple to be first to eliminate the keyboard (or at least make it optional).
--
s/Too bad/Thank God/
--
"eCPU" and "eChip", however, are redundant, since CPUs and chips are, by there very nature, electronic.
Unless we're talking about potato chips... but I can't envision what an e(potato)Chip might be. Poker eChips, OTOH, might have some application in on-line gambling.
--
I can see it now:
"Joe, I'm reading 14% hubbub coming over this line--can you try to reduce it to 5%?"
Or even make it an actual unit of measure:
"Man, the rating on that party must have been 23.6 Khb." (Kilohubbubs)
Of course, that's assuming it'd be a metric measure. If it gets adopted here in the U.S. of A first, the above example might be 8 11/16 hb.
We need more technological terms like this
--