Holy crap, I've blathered on forever, and done so about a platform I don't even care much about. If you've made it this far, congratulations.
Frighteningly enough, I did.
I'm an OS X user/fanboy (pick your adjective), but by no means an OS X app developer, so your comments were very interesting.
Two questions:
1) Has Apple made any moves to move closer to being more "UNIX-ish" in any of these areas?
2) In some areas, like launchd, Apple seems to be trying to implement something new that is not part of the accepted UNIX best-practices, but which nonetheless works better than their historical counterparts. How much of this can be chalked up to attempts at "making things better"?
I don't know many developers who work on 512M machines. If that's all you have, then yes, your experience will be slow. Painfully slow. I have 2G on my box and it flies like the wind. If that is a company machine, though, I would demand more memory. No Java developer should be working on a machine with less than a gig.
I'm also waiting for a good vi-style plugin for eclipse. To be able to jump around the editor quickly without taking my hands off the keyboard is essential -- arrow keys and pageup/pagedown are just too inefficient.
There is a vi plugin for Eclipse. I wasn't impressed with it the last time I tried it, though.
Having said that, as a long-time (and current) vim user I can say that I have no problems navigating with the keyboard in Eclipse. I'm able to jump to just about any section in the file -- imports, class declaration, method XXX, etc. -- entirely with the keyboard. I can bring up any class in my classpath with a shift-ctrl-t, and switch between tabs with ctrl-e. ctrl-. takes me to the next error or warning, and ctrl-enter adds unused imports or does a smart fix of the error if it's able to.
I still use vim for editing configuration files, but for Java development Eclipse does the job quite nicely.
Having said that, I have recently worked with someone who uses IntelliJ, and they have convinced me to give that a whirl. Very impressive, but I cannot speak to it for I haven't actually used it, just seen it.
I have heard this over and over again. "Macs don't have viruses because they don't have marketshare." I have seen people saying that for years, and it's starting to grow extremely stale. Macs are inherently more secure machines. They are not susceptible to viruses. Until proven otherwise, this remains a truism.
I have had a PowerMac for almost two years now. I have done nothing special in regards to security other than the Security Updates. I have never had a single problem, nor have I see any reported. Until shown otherwise, the belief that OS X is susceptible to viruses is a matter of faith, not fact.
So please help us understand what specific, technological or contract, parts of Apple DRM we should be trying to make more widespread. Why is "Fairplay(TM)" so superior, other then the fact that it lives within the safe confines of the Apple reality distortion field, guarded by a phalanx of Apple fanbois?
You had me right up until "fanbois."
The major rebuttal to your point is simple marketplace acceptance: as it stands Apple has been able to (a) get products to the user and (b) sell those products by the bucketload. Are they the only ones who can? No. Is their solution the best for everyone? No.
A Mac version? Please? I know women of loose virtues with whom I could aquaint you! And gee whiz, with enough alcohol my virtues are known to flutter around a bit! Let's make a deal!
Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of countries out there with similar, or worse restrictions than the U.S. But let's not kid ourselves and think ANY country is truly free, or above cracking down on the internet if it has the power.
I do not. (Great links, btw.) But claims of hypocrisy, however justified, do not address the underlying issue of, well, righteousness. Is supporting freedom a good that transcends individual transgressions? I believe it does.
The reality is, of course, far more complicated. Diplomatic relationships, economic pressures, and other factors influence both the effectiveness and desirability of certain efforts. But nonetheless it should be a goal underlying every decision, and should never be allowed to be trampled upon.
As a show of hands, if you agree that the US should maintain controll of the internet for the Freedom of Expression for All Humanity (even though outside of the US jurisdiction), and you agree that US should have invaded Iraq even if they hadn't had WMD, because we were deposing a hated dictator, who was a threat to world security.
I oppose the Iraq war. I support the notion that the US should encourage freedom, because liberty is a human right, not an American one. How this affects the current debate about control of the root DNS servers I am still contemplating.
Rather, we're going in with our culture, and our technology, and doing the same thing. One country forcing another sovereign country to do something against its own will, is wrong.
No one, I don't think, is forcing China to do anything. They have many filters in place, their own technological controls, etc. Again, I am not necessarilly defending the US's unilateralism here. I don't know enough about the topic to judge.
I energetically agree with you, even though I have only a small clue as to what you are talking about.
Anyhoo, I am American. Fifth generation Texan. The way socialism is defined here is "government spending to enhance the public good". Not as any step between capitalism and communism, but as a thing in and of itself that is used more or less synonymously with communism. It's ridiculous, of course, but true.
Hence the opposition to Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare (except by Bush &c), public schools, and so forth: they're all communist ventures.
So while I am well aware of the Marxist connotations of the word "socialism" and it being a step on the road to communism, that is not how it is commonly used in this country today.
Still, though, why should the federal government subsidize broadband Internet access for everybody?
Do you know the preamble by heart? Say it to yourself. Here it is, if you need a reminder:
We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Socialism may provide all of these welfare services and "extras" like free high-speed broadband internet access, but it comes at a cost (and much more than paying heavy taxes): your freedom.
This sophomoric notion that you can have a civil society without taxes and that "taxation is theft" is just stupid beyond words. I'm sorry to degenerate into this, but it is.
I'm sorry, but I don't and won't accept socialism of any form.
I see. Like most libertarians I have encountered you are in fact a religious zealot. "Even if it is proven that [insert belief system X] is right and mine is wrong, I will still reject it. Somehow this makes me intelligent."
Socialism to me just leads to a slippery slope leading to totalitarianism and communism.
Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. To use it as the central clause in your sentence is slightly problematic. Every modern nation-state is socialist. Every one. The only exception I can think of is Somalia, which tends to prove the point.
And if socialism works so well, why isn't Johnson's "Great Society" a reality today? The democrats had decades to implement plans to eliminate poverty, racism and social injustice from the federal level... so why isn't poverty eliminated?
Because the goal was to reduce it, not eliminate it. Poverty can (probably) never be eliminated, and outside of political speeches no serious student of public policy would ever make such a claim. This sounds suspiciously close to a straman.
Be that as it may the results of the Great Society are still alive and well, thank you. AFDC, WIC, Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, etc. These have all been successes. Between 1963 and 1970 America saw a full 10% decrease in the number of Americans living below the poverty line; this was the most dramatic decrease in the nation's history.
This is where most liberals miss one of the key points of federalism. If you want to live in the Great Society, do it from a state or local level.
But you said it yourself: the economy of scale means that the federal government can do it more efficiently than the states can.
Fundamentally this is an ideological issue. Libertarianism works in theory, socialism works in practice. For evidence you need look no further than the world at large. And whereas it is nice to believe that we have fully earned every penny of our paychecks, the simple fact is that we owe our personal successes not only to our own hard work but also to the society as a whole and the government which set up the support structures, from educational systems to laws on corporate governance to SEC regulations and fair hiring regulations.
So to sum it all up, it's not just a cost/benefit issue. It's also a political, moral and "freedom" issue. Even if the cost/benefit analysis looks good your solution (for me at least) fails on the other issues.
So like the OP, you are willing to sacrifice personal (and even social) gain for the sake of ideological purity. You would reject something that works better for no reason other than the adjective attached to it.
Pardon me if I think that is... silly. What is the justification for a belief system if not the underlying belief that it works better?
All the states listed are pretty socialist, compared to the US anyway. I wonder if France and Canada and so-forth have subsidised internet from the government. I'm not certain I want my tax dollars (and tax increases) going towards discounting broadband for everyone.
But what if you gained more in the amount saved than you paid in taxes? Or what if you didn't actually have to pay anything extra in taxes, and the funds were just reallocated from, say, defense spending? Other countries have proved its possible, and that it works better for more people than the way America does it. Will you really be so foolish as to let ideology stand in opposition to demonstrated proof of benefit to your own person?
Taboo to say round these parts, I know, but socialism works pretty well. Taxes are the cost we pay for a civilized society.
Re:From a newer Linux user's POV
on
Vim 6.4 Released
·
· Score: 1
These are text editors, right? Or what? What is their purpose?
Why are they so complicated to use?
Because they are advanced tools. If you are a developer or admin you spend much of your time editing text files, typically text files that are structured in some form. And since you're dealing with text files, you're hands are on the keyboard; moving to the mouse takes time.
I'm typing this message in vim. Why? Because I can edit better with it. If I wanted to change the third sentence back, I just hit esc-3-( and I'm there. Bottom of the document? esc-]-]. Top of the window? H. Bottom? L. Would a scroll bar do the same thing? Sure. But it takes more time. Yes, it takes time to learn vim, but it is worth it in the long run because you are able to work more efficiently.
Basically it's the same difference that is between any general vs. specific tool: they both are able to achieve more or less the same results, but one gets the job done and the other gets the job done efficiently.
Read the article. The bill specifically mentions employment and the primary business purpose of your employer as considerations in to what constitutes a journalist. The first draft of the bill defines journalist as:
any entity that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or other means and that publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical in print or electronic form; operates a radio or television station (or network of such stations), cable system, or satellite carrier, or channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier; or operates a news agency or wire service.
I fail to see how this contradicts anything I have said. And Lugar himself, the author of the bill, specifically stated that bloggers would not be considered journalists.
Don't be so cynical. Of course putting a (D) next to your name doesn't make you immune from corruption, but based upon reasearch I have done myself I believe the Republican party to be far, FAR more corrupt than the Democratic.
I leave such exercises up to you, if you so desire. But by no means don't take my word for it.
Remind us, please, how many Democrats are currently under indictment. Or hell, go back 10 years, 20. Take your pick.
Democrats have had their problems, but they have never even approached the levels of corruption the Republican party has perfected and institutionalized.
Journalists carry a moral responsability to be impartial (except on op-ed pieces), check their sources, check their sources' statements, and to print the truth... It's kind of a stretch to say that the guy setting up a blog explicitly intended to badmouth his employer will follow the same standards.
This is laughable. I have seen far more critiques of the facts presented by blogs -- and subsequent retractions, addendums, and changes -- than I see in newspapers, newsmagazines, and etc. Far more. Further, blogs themselves have served as fact checking vehicles for the mainstream media, and have frequently done a bang up job at it.
Modern print and broadcast journalism is driven by profit, not facts, not any underlying dedication to the truth. Take away the profit motive, as you do with blogs, and you have more of an incentive to print facts, not less.
A journalist is someone who makes a bona-fide attempt to report news reasonably seen as in the public interest. For example, reporting or commentary on politics, religion, Tara Reid's breasts is all news. Reposting an article from the Times is not.
According to the first draft of the Free Flow of Information Act of 2005, the
"covered person" protected by the bill's terms includes "any entity that
disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical,
photographic, electronic, or other means and that publishes a newspaper, book,
magazine, or other periodical in print or electronic form; operates a radio or
television station (or network of such stations), cable system, or satellite
carrier, or channel or programming service for any such station, network,
system, or carrier; or operates a news agency or wire service." The legislation
also covers employees, contractors or other persons who "gathers, edits,
photographs, records, prepares, or disseminates news or information for any such
entity."
Why am I not surprised?
A grassroots news dissemination method comes into being and the powers-that-be are
doing what they can to crimp it so that it doesn't cause them so much squirming.
Journalism is an something you do, not who you are employed by. And as much as I hate that fucktard Rush Limbuagh and his innumerable clones on the radio were they bloggers instead of government propagandists I would demand the same protections for them as given to anyone who communicates information to an audience.
The bill is necessary to help the United States regain its status as an "exemplar" of press freedom, Lugar told the IAPA. "Even as we are advocating for free press (abroad)... we'd better clean up our own act," Lugar said.
I believe that about as much as I believe anything said by the aforementioned Rush Limbaugh, et. al. This bill is, intentionally or not, an usurpation of our rights. Calling feces "cake" does not make it edible, Senator.
Yes, it's a tiny video screen, but you can attach the iPod to a monitor using S-Video plus audio cabling. How can an organization like the RIAA justify wanting more than 99 cents per song when you can purchase 44 minutes of audio and video for two dollars?
Actually, that's a very good point, and one that may serve to undermine the RIAA's case. Very astute.
The fact that Microsoft can do this is just astounding. I understand their freedom within the marketplace, yes, but should their anti-virus segment prove profitable then they would then have a financial disincentive to fixing their security flaws that is directly proportional to the underlying success of their security product. This can be neither good for Windows nor the world at large.
Microsoft: Spend your energies fixing the problems, not undercutting them! This seems to me like the smoker who uses asthma medicine to take care of his wheezing. It's a temporary fix, sure, but the larger problem remains.
Slashdot Mirror
Holy crap, I've blathered on forever, and done so about a platform I don't even care much about. If you've made it this far, congratulations.
Frighteningly enough, I did.
I'm an OS X user/fanboy (pick your adjective), but by no means an OS X app developer, so your comments were very interesting.
Two questions:
1) Has Apple made any moves to move closer to being more "UNIX-ish" in any of these areas?
2) In some areas, like launchd, Apple seems to be trying to implement something new that is not part of the accepted UNIX best-practices, but which nonetheless works better than their historical counterparts. How much of this can be chalked up to attempts at "making things better"?
I'm also waiting for a good vi-style plugin for eclipse. To be able to jump around the editor quickly without taking my hands off the keyboard is essential -- arrow keys and pageup/pagedown are just too inefficient.
There is a vi plugin for Eclipse. I wasn't impressed with it the last time I tried it, though.
Having said that, as a long-time (and current) vim user I can say that I have no problems navigating with the keyboard in Eclipse. I'm able to jump to just about any section in the file -- imports, class declaration, method XXX, etc. -- entirely with the keyboard. I can bring up any class in my classpath with a shift-ctrl-t, and switch between tabs with ctrl-e. ctrl-. takes me to the next error or warning, and ctrl-enter adds unused imports or does a smart fix of the error if it's able to.
I still use vim for editing configuration files, but for Java development Eclipse does the job quite nicely.
Having said that, I have recently worked with someone who uses IntelliJ, and they have convinced me to give that a whirl. Very impressive, but I cannot speak to it for I haven't actually used it, just seen it.
I have had a PowerMac for almost two years now. I have done nothing special in regards to security other than the Security Updates. I have never had a single problem, nor have I see any reported. Until shown otherwise, the belief that OS X is susceptible to viruses is a matter of faith, not fact.
LSD is like taking a squeegee to your third eye. Seriously, though, acid is an incredible tool in the right hands.
You had me right up until "fanbois."
The major rebuttal to your point is simple marketplace acceptance: as it stands Apple has been able to (a) get products to the user and (b) sell those products by the bucketload. Are they the only ones who can? No. Is their solution the best for everyone? No.
A Mac version? Please? I know women of loose virtues with whom I could aquaint you! And gee whiz, with enough alcohol my virtues are known to flutter around a bit! Let's make a deal!
Another slashdotter said it best; You guys (mac users) are way too emotional to be nerds.
For Siddhartha's sake go back and reread your message and ask yourself how emotional you were being.
Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of countries out there with similar, or worse restrictions than the U.S. But let's not kid ourselves and think ANY country is truly free, or above cracking down on the internet if it has the power.
I do not. (Great links, btw.) But claims of hypocrisy, however justified, do not address the underlying issue of, well, righteousness. Is supporting freedom a good that transcends individual transgressions? I believe it does.
The reality is, of course, far more complicated. Diplomatic relationships, economic pressures, and other factors influence both the effectiveness and desirability of certain efforts. But nonetheless it should be a goal underlying every decision, and should never be allowed to be trampled upon.
-= James
As a show of hands, if you agree that the US should maintain controll of the internet for the Freedom of Expression for All Humanity (even though outside of the US jurisdiction), and you agree that US should have invaded Iraq even if they hadn't had WMD, because we were deposing a hated dictator, who was a threat to world security.
I oppose the Iraq war. I support the notion that the US should encourage freedom, because liberty is a human right, not an American one. How this affects the current debate about control of the root DNS servers I am still contemplating.
Rather, we're going in with our culture, and our technology, and doing the same thing. One country forcing another sovereign country to do something against its own will, is wrong.
No one, I don't think, is forcing China to do anything. They have many filters in place, their own technological controls, etc. Again, I am not necessarilly defending the US's unilateralism here. I don't know enough about the topic to judge.
And libertarians say liberals are pie-in-the sky dreamers. Holy crap.
Anyhoo, I am American. Fifth generation Texan. The way socialism is defined here is "government spending to enhance the public good". Not as any step between capitalism and communism, but as a thing in and of itself that is used more or less synonymously with communism. It's ridiculous, of course, but true.
Hence the opposition to Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare (except by Bush &c), public schools, and so forth: they're all communist ventures.
So while I am well aware of the Marxist connotations of the word "socialism" and it being a step on the road to communism, that is not how it is commonly used in this country today.
Still, though, why should the federal government subsidize broadband Internet access for everybody?
Do you know the preamble by heart? Say it to yourself. Here it is, if you need a reminder:
Socialism may provide all of these welfare services and "extras" like free high-speed broadband internet access, but it comes at a cost (and much more than paying heavy taxes): your freedom.
This sophomoric notion that you can have a civil society without taxes and that "taxation is theft" is just stupid beyond words. I'm sorry to degenerate into this, but it is.
I'm sorry, but I don't and won't accept socialism of any form.
I see. Like most libertarians I have encountered you are in fact a religious zealot. "Even if it is proven that [insert belief system X] is right and mine is wrong, I will still reject it. Somehow this makes me intelligent."
Socialism to me just leads to a slippery slope leading to totalitarianism and communism.
Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. To use it as the central clause in your sentence is slightly problematic. Every modern nation-state is socialist. Every one. The only exception I can think of is Somalia, which tends to prove the point.
And if socialism works so well, why isn't Johnson's "Great Society" a reality today? The democrats had decades to implement plans to eliminate poverty, racism and social injustice from the federal level... so why isn't poverty eliminated?
Because the goal was to reduce it, not eliminate it. Poverty can (probably) never be eliminated, and outside of political speeches no serious student of public policy would ever make such a claim. This sounds suspiciously close to a straman.
Be that as it may the results of the Great Society are still alive and well, thank you. AFDC, WIC, Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, etc. These have all been successes. Between 1963 and 1970 America saw a full 10% decrease in the number of Americans living below the poverty line; this was the most dramatic decrease in the nation's history.
This is where most liberals miss one of the key points of federalism. If you want to live in the Great Society, do it from a state or local level.
But you said it yourself: the economy of scale means that the federal government can do it more efficiently than the states can.
Fundamentally this is an ideological issue. Libertarianism works in theory, socialism works in practice. For evidence you need look no further than the world at large. And whereas it is nice to believe that we have fully earned every penny of our paychecks, the simple fact is that we owe our personal successes not only to our own hard work but also to the society as a whole and the government which set up the support structures, from educational systems to laws on corporate governance to SEC regulations and fair hiring regulations.
So to sum it all up, it's not just a cost/benefit issue. It's also a political, moral and "freedom" issue. Even if the cost/benefit analysis looks good your solution (for me at least) fails on the other issues.
So like the OP, you are willing to sacrifice personal (and even social) gain for the sake of ideological purity. You would reject something that works better for no reason other than the adjective attached to it.
Pardon me if I think that is... silly. What is the justification for a belief system if not the underlying belief that it works better?
Open your eyes and look at the world around you. With the exception of Somalia there is no nation-state that is *not* socialist.
All the states listed are pretty socialist, compared to the US anyway. I wonder if France and Canada and so-forth have subsidised internet from the government. I'm not certain I want my tax dollars (and tax increases) going towards discounting broadband for everyone.
But what if you gained more in the amount saved than you paid in taxes? Or what if you didn't actually have to pay anything extra in taxes, and the funds were just reallocated from, say, defense spending? Other countries have proved its possible, and that it works better for more people than the way America does it. Will you really be so foolish as to let ideology stand in opposition to demonstrated proof of benefit to your own person?
Taboo to say round these parts, I know, but socialism works pretty well. Taxes are the cost we pay for a civilized society.
These are text editors, right? Or what? What is their purpose? Why are they so complicated to use?
Because they are advanced tools. If you are a developer or admin you spend much of your time editing text files, typically text files that are structured in some form. And since you're dealing with text files, you're hands are on the keyboard; moving to the mouse takes time.
I'm typing this message in vim. Why? Because I can edit better with it. If I wanted to change the third sentence back, I just hit esc-3-( and I'm there. Bottom of the document? esc-]-]. Top of the window? H. Bottom? L. Would a scroll bar do the same thing? Sure. But it takes more time. Yes, it takes time to learn vim, but it is worth it in the long run because you are able to work more efficiently.
Basically it's the same difference that is between any general vs. specific tool: they both are able to achieve more or less the same results, but one gets the job done and the other gets the job done efficiently.
any entity that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or other means and that publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical in print or electronic form; operates a radio or television station (or network of such stations), cable system, or satellite carrier, or channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier; or operates a news agency or wire service.
I fail to see how this contradicts anything I have said. And Lugar himself, the author of the bill, specifically stated that bloggers would not be considered journalists.
Don't be so cynical. Of course putting a (D) next to your name doesn't make you immune from corruption, but based upon reasearch I have done myself I believe the Republican party to be far, FAR more corrupt than the Democratic.
I leave such exercises up to you, if you so desire. But by no means don't take my word for it.
New Orleans was a failure at every level, not criminal. (Cynical replies of "that's what you think" or some such do not change this.)
Whitewater resulted in one conviction of a former business partner of the Clintons, not anyone associated with the Democratic party.
Ruby Ridge was an FBI op, and while tragic and borderline criminal, says nothing about endemic corruption in the party. Ditto Waco.
Clinton was impeached for lying to a grand jury about a private sexual affair, not for corruption.
Would you like to compare this with DeLay, Frist, Rove, Libby, Abramoff, and etc.? Because I would be happy to.
Ah yes, cynicism.
Remind us, please, how many Democrats are currently under indictment. Or hell, go back 10 years, 20. Take your pick.
Democrats have had their problems, but they have never even approached the levels of corruption the Republican party has perfected and institutionalized.
Journalists carry a moral responsability to be impartial (except on op-ed pieces), check their sources, check their sources' statements, and to print the truth... It's kind of a stretch to say that the guy setting up a blog explicitly intended to badmouth his employer will follow the same standards.
This is laughable. I have seen far more critiques of the facts presented by blogs -- and subsequent retractions, addendums, and changes -- than I see in newspapers, newsmagazines, and etc. Far more. Further, blogs themselves have served as fact checking vehicles for the mainstream media, and have frequently done a bang up job at it.
Modern print and broadcast journalism is driven by profit, not facts, not any underlying dedication to the truth. Take away the profit motive, as you do with blogs, and you have more of an incentive to print facts, not less.
A journalist is someone who makes a bona-fide attempt to report news reasonably seen as in the public interest. For example, reporting or commentary on politics, religion, Tara Reid's breasts is all news. Reposting an article from the Times is not.
Yeah? Says who?
Why am I not surprised?
A grassroots news dissemination method comes into being and the powers-that-be are doing what they can to crimp it so that it doesn't cause them so much squirming. Journalism is an something you do, not who you are employed by. And as much as I hate that fucktard Rush Limbuagh and his innumerable clones on the radio were they bloggers instead of government propagandists I would demand the same protections for them as given to anyone who communicates information to an audience.
The bill is necessary to help the United States regain its status as an "exemplar" of press freedom, Lugar told the IAPA. "Even as we are advocating for free press (abroad)... we'd better clean up our own act," Lugar said.
I believe that about as much as I believe anything said by the aforementioned Rush Limbaugh, et. al. This bill is, intentionally or not, an usurpation of our rights. Calling feces "cake" does not make it edible, Senator.
Yes, it's a tiny video screen, but you can attach the iPod to a monitor using S-Video plus audio cabling. How can an organization like the RIAA justify wanting more than 99 cents per song when you can purchase 44 minutes of audio and video for two dollars?
Actually, that's a very good point, and one that may serve to undermine the RIAA's case. Very astute.
Microsoft: Spend your energies fixing the problems, not undercutting them! This seems to me like the smoker who uses asthma medicine to take care of his wheezing. It's a temporary fix, sure, but the larger problem remains.