I'm always amused by bitter Apple-haters and their generic, non-specific criticisms. Absolutely nobody is forced to buy an Apple device, they're not "controlling" me in any way, and Apple's app screening is required for quality control and the fact AT&T requires them to because apps are using their wireless network. Stop being goofy and melodramatic. You'll die happier.
They avoided multitasking until this point because it's a crashy, battery-draining piece of shit on other platforms. Multitasking on iOS is just a Grand Central Dispatch block that your app submits to be run in the background. Your bitterness is amusing.
Sorry, but a flood of Slashbots is going to respond and tell you "Storm-chasers have a RIGHT!" even though nobody is talking about rights. It doesn't matter to them that these scientists are trying to do government-funded, life-saving research because, apparently, morons with beer-hats and cell phone cameras are to be defended against those mean, ol' scientists trying to figure out how tornadoes work.
This isn't about rights. Nobody's saying they don't have the right to do something. Why do people always assume that criticism means someone is trying to take a right away?
The amateurs aren't scientists, and they're hampering legitimate research because they want to be "omg storm chasers." The dumbasses should get the fuck out of the way so people with a real reason to be there can do real work.
You'll find a lot of misinformation about the Safari Reader feature because it removes ads and combines those incredibly annoying multi-page articles into one page, so online publishers don't want anyone using it. Arstechnica staff came out against it, with one contributor saying, "Jobs can go fuck himself." Needless to say, my desire to use it when reading their site increased.
This doesn't sound like an Onion story to me. The Times is trying to establish a professional standard of writing, and "tweet" is a silly slang phrase that very well could be obsolete next year if Twitter is no longer as popular. The submitter's quip at the end is trying to turn this into a social media versus old media fight, but the Times is right on this one.
I guess you haven't been following the Clang/LLVM project and how it's superior to GCC on both a technical basis and a political one. GCC's days really are numbered, and this is one of the last pieces of the puzzle.
I can only guess you're thinking of the TCP/IP stack, which is a myth that was long ago been disproved.
The "GPL being free for users" statements makes you look like an ideological kook. Users don't give a shit about the license of the source code for the apps they use.
Nope, but if those proprietary forks compete against anyone doing work on the main branch those people now have a strong incentive to stop contributing because their own work would be used against their own financial interest. At which point the entire project starts to stagnate.
Another hypothetical. I especially like how you bring up an imaginary "financial interest" from people doing volunteer work on a free project.
I think we're in violent agreement there; my only objection was to positing LLDB as a possible killer feature that prompts mass switching away from GCC.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm always amused by bitter Apple-haters and their generic, non-specific criticisms. Absolutely nobody is forced to buy an Apple device, they're not "controlling" me in any way, and Apple's app screening is required for quality control and the fact AT&T requires them to because apps are using their wireless network. Stop being goofy and melodramatic. You'll die happier.
See you in line for an iPhone 4.
They avoided multitasking until this point because it's a crashy, battery-draining piece of shit on other platforms. Multitasking on iOS is just a Grand Central Dispatch block that your app submits to be run in the background. Your bitterness is amusing.
PDF viewing is very fast on OS X, and Safari has natively displayed PDFs for a long time. I blame Adobe's reader.
Sorry, but a flood of Slashbots is going to respond and tell you "Storm-chasers have a RIGHT!" even though nobody is talking about rights. It doesn't matter to them that these scientists are trying to do government-funded, life-saving research because, apparently, morons with beer-hats and cell phone cameras are to be defended against those mean, ol' scientists trying to figure out how tornadoes work.
When government agencies like the National Science Foundation and NOAA funded their research.
I'm really surprised at all the Slashdotters defending the moronic "storm chasers." I thought this site was pro-science?
This isn't about rights. Why do people automatically assume criticism of a behavior means someone is trying to take away the right to do it?
This is about morons with beer hats getting in the way of professionals trying to do legitimate, life-saving research.
This isn't about rights. Nobody's saying they don't have the right to do something. Why do people always assume that criticism means someone is trying to take a right away?
The amateurs aren't scientists, and they're hampering legitimate research because they want to be "omg storm chasers." The dumbasses should get the fuck out of the way so people with a real reason to be there can do real work.
People with numerical suffixes, such as "III" or "the 3rd."
You say there's nothing new here, then you say your bookmarklet doesn't combine multiple pages. Safari Reader does.
You'll find a lot of misinformation about the Safari Reader feature because it removes ads and combines those incredibly annoying multi-page articles into one page, so online publishers don't want anyone using it. Arstechnica staff came out against it, with one contributor saying, "Jobs can go fuck himself." Needless to say, my desire to use it when reading their site increased.
No, it will not forever be the term. "Tweet" is a very Twitter-specific term, and a stupid one at that.
This doesn't sound like an Onion story to me. The Times is trying to establish a professional standard of writing, and "tweet" is a silly slang phrase that very well could be obsolete next year if Twitter is no longer as popular. The submitter's quip at the end is trying to turn this into a social media versus old media fight, but the Times is right on this one.
But you don't have any proof that it's Google's stark white background
Why the hell should a user have to bother with this?
I guess you haven't been following the Clang/LLVM project and how it's superior to GCC on both a technical basis and a political one. GCC's days really are numbered, and this is one of the last pieces of the puzzle.
Yes, actually. Even FreeBSD wants to rid themselves of GCC.
Xcode 4 is LLVM by default.
What are you talking about?
I can only guess you're thinking of the TCP/IP stack, which is a myth that was long ago been disproved.
The "GPL being free for users" statements makes you look like an ideological kook. Users don't give a shit about the license of the source code for the apps they use.
Another hypothetical. I especially like how you bring up an imaginary "financial interest" from people doing volunteer work on a free project.
Clang is already that killer feature.
We know where it's transmitting from.
Maybe it's just supposed to be something fun to talk about on a Sunday. Lighten up.
Welcome to the culmination of all those decades of effort to build the internet, folks.
What posters here are claiming something evil is going to happen? Who are you even addressing in your comment?
Question to net neutrality supporters--does this teach you yet that government control of the internet is very, very bad?