Um, it isn't "on the front page." You have selected "Collapse Sections" in your preferences, which puts section-only stories on the front page. If I had a dime for every time people complained about this sort of thing, I'd have... oh, a few bucks.
I am vexed by your implication. In your suggestion that I learn more, you either mean that there are people who don't need to learn more -- and surely no such person exists -- or that my speech above is evidence that I am especially lacking in learning. There's no evidence for either suggestion. Thornton Wilder said, "Many great writers have been extraordinarily awkward in daily exchange, but the greatest give the impression that their style was nursed by the closest attention to colloquial speech." If my speech was, as you suggest, a propos to the topic of television, then perhaps I've done my job properly.
This particular article was not exceptionally humorous to me, but I figured most of us could use a bit of an antidote to the "serious" rumors that have been floating around. YMMV.
Yeah, we'll see how iTunes does it, when it is released, if it is released. And maybe it will give Whamb some ideas of how to improve its support. And yeah, there's the Ogg.:-)
The author of MacPerl once wrote a Perl OSA component. It was an essentially failed experiment, though I couldn't tell you all the reasons why. What I can say is that I don't think it's necessary for most purposes. MacPerl can speak Apple events, and now perl under Mac OS X can too, with Mac::Carbon. Soon Mac::Glue will also be ported to Mac OS X, allowing you to directly access "AppleScript" vocabulary from Perl, with stuff like:
#!/usr/bin/perl -w use Mac::Glue;
my $iTunes = new Mac::Glue 'iTunes'; my $tracks = $iTunes->obj( tracks => playlist => 'Blues' );
$iTunes->activate; $iTunes->play( $tracks );
That's hopefully coming to Mac OS X in January or Frburary, but don't hold me to it.
No, it is not logical. It would be logical if somehow Apple had changed midstream to upset these people and make them leave. But that's not the case. Apple was from the beginning covering Darwin with the APSL. Nothing changed for the worse (in fact, the APSL is more acceptable to the FSF now than when Darwin was first released).
This would be like if Mary Matalin decided to divorce James Carville because he's too liberal. She well knew what he was when she married him. Did they think their love and devotion to Apple would change Apple's mind? It's not logical, it's quite warped.
Launch the Script Editor application (located in the Applications: AppleScript folder) and type the following:
try tell application "Internet Explorer" GetURL "http://apple.slashdot.org/" Activate end tell on error end try
To use a browser other than Internet Explorer, enter its name within the quotation marks after tell application. To open more sites in separate windows, add new GetURL commands with the other pages' addresses.
Bleah. You shouldn't need to know the browser name, or what events are understood by the app, or what arguments it accepts. Just use this:
open location "http://apple.slashdot.org/"
It uses your default http handler, and should work fine with all the browsers (and if not, send in a bug report to the maker of browser you're using).
Mac::AppleEvents / Mac::Glue allows it. Mac::AppleEvents is currently being ported to Mac OS X, but you can use it from MacPerl in Classic to talk to iTunes in Mac OS X in the meantime.
use Mac::Glue; my $iTunes = new Mac::Glue 'iTunes'; # optionally talk to another host # $iTunes->ADDRESS(eppc => 'iTunes', 'otherhost');
my %track; my $name = $iTunes->prop(name => of => 'current track'); $track{name} = $iTunes->get($name);
$iTunes->pause;
No AppleScript required or used, all raw Apple events, with the AppleScript *vocabulary* used (by parsing the aete resource to do the AppleScript->AE mapping, all done transparently and automatically, after simply dropping the target application on a droplet once). Hopefully, when it is ready for Mac OS X, it can be used as a more efficient and friendly alternative to AppleScript.
Coming soon to Mac OS X box near you, as part of the already-released Mac::Carbon distribution. I am so gonna have fun with this when it is released...
disney.kids.us can set a.kids.us cookie to be read by any other.kids.us site, like nickelodeon.kids.us. Companies can get together and share user -- kids -- preferences.
I've been told that modern browsers won't allow this with country-code (2-letter) TLDs. I don't see that in the spec, but I don't know.
Eh, I was just screwing around. When I thought what I thought, I was wrong. Transit can do what I thought it could not. I should go moderate myself as a Troll.
Re:All are missing the one thing I need (Mac OS X)
on
Thursday Release Party
·
· Score: 2
No, I was right. I said "as best I can tell," and as best as I could tell at the time, Transit could not do that. It just so happens that my best was not good enough, but that doesn't make my statement wrong!
Re:All are missing the one thing I need (Mac OS X)
on
Thursday Release Party
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The point was integration with BBEdit, though, and Transit and fugu don't do that, as best I can tell.
Re:All are missing the one thing I need (Mac OS X)
on
Thursday Release Party
·
· Score: 2
Interarchy 6.0 has SFTP. Interarchy has some BBEdit integration (you can "edit" a file from Interarchy to BBEdit, and saving a file in BBEdit will upload the new version via Interarchy, etc.).
IIRC, I had to use MSIE to sign up for TitanTV, but I used Mozilla fine with it. I needed to manually modify my browser settings (I forget how) so it would call EyeTV when it got that certain file type, etc. But as noted in my review, TitanTV is unnecessary, and IMO not preferable, to using Watson.
Sure, it's very possible Apple is just trying to gain some sort of leverage, either more space, discounts, more control, or even just to look like they are in control (yes, that matters to Apple). But while I think that is very possible, I wouldn't trust ThinkSecret.
This may be off-topic, but you're wrong about the Big Dig being federally funded. There is *some* federal aid, but much of the burden is being placed on the Massachusetts tax payers.
This may be off-topic, but federal aid == being federally funded. The U.S. government is paying billions for the Big Dig. At last check, the majority of the money came from the U.S. government, not the Massachusetts government. And technically, the original poster was sorta correct, because it is not Boston residents paying, it is MA residents paying, but more than that, it is U.S. residents paying.
It's not an invisible location, I believe; it's in your iDisk, in (IIRC) Library/Application Support/iSync/. Although, right now, it appears iDisk/.Mac is down, or somesuch, because I can't get to anything.
I've never thought about a non-Apple version of Classic, so I couldn't guess. I am talking about mol, which isn't such a beast as you envision. Classic is an environment to run Mac OS apps under Mac OS X, alongside the rest of the OS. mol is an environment to run all of Mac OS in a separate box, mostly detached from the rest of the OS.
It's a different sort of thing, and anyone who has run mol and Classic any significant amount of time knows the advantages each one has. If you want integration in the OS, you want something like Classic. If you want everything to work as designed and expected, you want something like mol.
Then Apple's smart engineers can figure out how to make it suck less and add value to it; XFree86 on OS X doesn't cut it.
Well, let's see. I've shown that it is easier to install and configure than on any other OS (except for the very few PCs that actually come with it preinstalled). You've shown that you can't double-click on things, and that if you want to use Terminal.app, then you need to set an environment variable first.
And somehow this comes does to "it sucks". Riiiiiiight.
it's a market opportunity that Apple would be foolish to miss.
There is no one who wouldn't buy a Mac merely because they needed to install X11 separately. These people do not exist. Anyone who says they are such people clearly have other issues.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, it isn't "on the front page." You have selected "Collapse Sections" in your preferences, which puts section-only stories on the front page. If I had a dime for every time people complained about this sort of thing, I'd have ... oh, a few bucks.
I am vexed by your implication. In your suggestion that I learn more, you either mean that there are people who don't need to learn more -- and surely no such person exists -- or that my speech above is evidence that I am especially lacking in learning. There's no evidence for either suggestion. Thornton Wilder said, "Many great writers have been extraordinarily awkward in daily exchange, but the greatest give the impression that their style was nursed by the closest attention to colloquial speech." If my speech was, as you suggest, a propos to the topic of television, then perhaps I've done my job properly.
This particular article was not exceptionally humorous to me, but I figured most of us could use a bit of an antidote to the "serious" rumors that have been floating around. YMMV.
Yeah, we'll see how iTunes does it, when it is released, if it is released. And maybe it will give Whamb some ideas of how to improve its support. And yeah, there's the Ogg. :-)
Would be nice if darwin was released in a more open way
... not open ... enough. Yeah.
Yeah, because having the entire Darwin sources available under an Open Source license is just
No, it is not logical. It would be logical if somehow Apple had changed midstream to upset these people and make them leave. But that's not the case. Apple was from the beginning covering Darwin with the APSL. Nothing changed for the worse (in fact, the APSL is more acceptable to the FSF now than when Darwin was first released).
This would be like if Mary Matalin decided to divorce James Carville because he's too liberal. She well knew what he was when she married him. Did they think their love and devotion to Apple would change Apple's mind? It's not logical, it's quite warped.
There's a crash-free version of Mac OS X? Where can I get it?
open didn't even open http URLs before 10.2 ...
Coming soon to Mac OS X box near you, as part of the already-released Mac::Carbon distribution. I am so gonna have fun with this when it is released
disney.kids.us can set a .kids.us cookie to be read by any other .kids.us site, like nickelodeon.kids.us. Companies can get together and share user -- kids -- preferences.
I've been told that modern browsers won't allow this with country-code (2-letter) TLDs. I don't see that in the spec, but I don't know.
Eh, I was just screwing around. When I thought what I thought, I was wrong. Transit can do what I thought it could not. I should go moderate myself as a Troll.
No, I was right. I said "as best I can tell," and as best as I could tell at the time, Transit could not do that. It just so happens that my best was not good enough, but that doesn't make my statement wrong!
The point was integration with BBEdit, though, and Transit and fugu don't do that, as best I can tell.
Interarchy 6.0 has SFTP. Interarchy has some BBEdit integration (you can "edit" a file from Interarchy to BBEdit, and saving a file in BBEdit will upload the new version via Interarchy, etc.).
IIRC, I had to use MSIE to sign up for TitanTV, but I used Mozilla fine with it. I needed to manually modify my browser settings (I forget how) so it would call EyeTV when it got that certain file type, etc. But as noted in my review, TitanTV is unnecessary, and IMO not preferable, to using Watson.
If this ThinkSecret source is correct,
Isn't that all you need to know right there?
Sure, it's very possible Apple is just trying to gain some sort of leverage, either more space, discounts, more control, or even just to look like they are in control (yes, that matters to Apple). But while I think that is very possible, I wouldn't trust ThinkSecret.
This may be off-topic, but you're wrong about the Big Dig being federally funded. There is *some* federal aid, but much of the burden is being placed on the Massachusetts tax payers.
This may be off-topic, but federal aid == being federally funded. The U.S. government is paying billions for the Big Dig. At last check, the majority of the money came from the U.S. government, not the Massachusetts government. And technically, the original poster was sorta correct, because it is not Boston residents paying, it is MA residents paying, but more than that, it is U.S. residents paying.
Technically, Apple didn't buy back Newton Inc., because it always wholly owned Newton Inc.
It's not an invisible location, I believe; it's in your iDisk, in (IIRC) Library/Application Support/iSync/. Although, right now, it appears iDisk/.Mac is down, or somesuch, because I can't get to anything.
I've never thought about a non-Apple version of Classic, so I couldn't guess. I am talking about mol, which isn't such a beast as you envision. Classic is an environment to run Mac OS apps under Mac OS X, alongside the rest of the OS. mol is an environment to run all of Mac OS in a separate box, mostly detached from the rest of the OS.
It's a different sort of thing, and anyone who has run mol and Classic any significant amount of time knows the advantages each one has. If you want integration in the OS, you want something like Classic. If you want everything to work as designed and expected, you want something like mol.
Um ... well, um ... is this a trick question? Of course. Classic sucks in some major ways.
I suppose I wasn't clear. I want mol to run ON Mac OS X. As a replacement for Classic. momosx.
Then Apple's smart engineers can figure out how to make it suck less and add value to it; XFree86 on OS X doesn't cut it.
Well, let's see. I've shown that it is easier to install and configure than on any other OS (except for the very few PCs that actually come with it preinstalled). You've shown that you can't double-click on things, and that if you want to use Terminal.app, then you need to set an environment variable first.
And somehow this comes does to "it sucks". Riiiiiiight.
it's a market opportunity that Apple would be foolish to miss.
There is no one who wouldn't buy a Mac merely because they needed to install X11 separately. These people do not exist. Anyone who says they are such people clearly have other issues.