KDE's team was naive to expect they would get a free lunch in return for handing out free lunches.
Correction: KDE's users were naïve to expect that they would get a free lunch in return for KDE developers handing out free lunches.
The KDE developers understood the license, and its ramifications, when they chose to release their code under it. They have acknowledged that Apple is playing fair, and is completely within their rights. However, Apple has not gone as far above and beyond the requirements of the LGPL as some Konqueror users expected, and THOSE people are upset. The developers are a bit disappointed, but they're not upset at Apple.
the kind that the victim is prohibited by law to revealing to anyone, even a lawyer!
If you did share it with a lawyer, wouldn't the lawyer be bound by attorney-client privilege, so you couldn't get in trouble for doing so? Assuming, of course, that you didn't decide to take further action.
so what IS the correct way to render that? It's not valid HTML, so the browser has to pick something; is there a documented standard saying what the correct behavior is? Where exactly?
I think my guess would be, interpret the < as < and the rest as text. Or, if there's a > later it can match with, maybe treat b/test/. as the name of a tag, and ignore it.
They've probably already ported WebCore - iTunes uses it to render the iTMS.
I believe you're wrong - iTunes 4.0 (with iTMS) was introduced before WebCore existed outside of Safari, and iTunes is a Carbon application while Safari/WebCore use Cocoa. iTMS does not use HTML. Updates to iTunes do not include updates to WebCore and vice-versa.
I've heard more than one person say they were surprised and impressed by the sound quality they get from their iPod.
When people think, playing music on a mobile phone, they think, playing it over the phone's built-in speaker, either for the world to hear (like a ring tone) or with the phone held up to the user's ear. I'll guarantee nobody wants either of these! The only way a mobile phone could become successful as an iPod competitor is if you could plug a pair of headphones (or earbuds) into it, and use it as an iPod, folded up and clipped to your belt. The only way this really makes sense is to also build a microphone into the headphones, so they can also be used the way mobile phone headsets are used now... but unlike current mobile phone headsets, you need good quality stereo sound.
I can see some interesting features resulting from the integration - when the phone rings, the music automatically pauses and you hear the ring in your headphones, instead of disturbing everyone around you. iTMS downloads over 3G wireless. Sync your MP3s over BlueTooth. Merge overlapping features like a contact list, calendar, and the iPod Photo stuff (mobile phones have built-in cameras now).
So then you have the issue of storage. Is 1GB of flash memory (the larger iPod shuffle size) enough (or 2GB as costs come down), or do you want to bring your whole 40GB collection everywhere you go? Who wants to carry a hard drive around in their cell phone? Remember that people will also want to be able to use it as a normal phone without headphones, which means holding it up to their ear. How big and heavy will that battery need to be, to play music all day AND stay in touch with the cell towers?
I think Gates is just upset that so many Microsoft employees are wearing iPods, made by one of Microsoft's biggest competitors, around the campus.
I mean, let's look at that statement by John Kerry. He tried to tell everyone that situation wasn't as clear cut as they thought,
Yeah, that worked really well. His opponents used his explanation as a sound bite to portray him as changing his mind - exactly the opposite of what he was trying to explain. This contributed to his losing the election.
Really though, people that have been paying attention know that we've waited until now to armor our vehicles in combat... even re-writing the bill to remove the rider wouldn't have taken this long (3 years!). It's the Pentagon who has failed to equip or men and women in battle...
I disagree with this approach on my privacy and overall rights to freedom, but I don't blame the way it was passed. I blame them for passing it. I don't care what it was attached to, if enough people loudly objected Senators from everywhere could remove this "post-it note".
You're missing the point. You're saying they shouldn't have passed this - but because it was attached to something unrelated, not passing this would have meant also not passing the rest of the bill, which (in the view of pretty much everyone who doesn't read Slashdot) would have been much worse. You can't vote for buying armor to protect our soldiers in battle and against this Real-ID thing when they're both the same bill and you only get one vote! That's why attaching random crap to unrelated bills shouldn't be legal (and as others have pointed out, in many states it isn't).
If we spoke up more often we could get our way. Let's stop being afraid to do it.
Who's "we"? Slashdotters? I heard about this this morning, and it's already passed. The general public may have heard a mention of it, but they have no idea why it might be important - isn't that what we elect Congressmen for? To figure out complicated stuff like this?
A trivial example is if you go to an online bookshop say, and you order a book. If you hit the 'back' button, you may get very confused if you start to see out of date information 'huh? It says that I haven't ordered this book yet, but I did'.
Are you insane?
The alternatives in your example are:
1) resubmit the page and buy the book again (whoops!) 2) fail to load the page at all because it was the result of an HTTP POST and reloading it could potentially result in buying the book again
Currently, most browsers pop up a dialog box asking whether you'd like option #1 or option #2. Are you happy with that, or did you have something else in mind?
The penalties are far less harsh if you're caught. However, unless you know what you're doing, the odds of getting caught while shoplifting are much higher than the odds of getting downloading a file.
My point was, this gap is narrowing (as getting caught downloading becomes increasingly more likely), which will begin to make shoplifting more attractive than it currently is.
As you said, "unless you know what you're doing" - people will learn.
That's why web standards should be followed, so you don't end up with spagetti code trying to support different browser versions.
Most of the time, when I hack my way around browser bugs, I do it by taking standards-compliant HTML that validates at validator.w3.org but looks wrong in a particular browser, and changing it into different standards-compliant HTML that still validates but looks the way I want.
Please don't tell web designers to "just follow the standards". It's REALLY not that simple.
I for one actually LIKE the concept of the HTML rendering engine being a core part of the operating system.
As do I - but I rather prefer Apple's idea of making a clear distinction between the HTML rendering engine, the operating system that rendering engine is included with, and the browser that uses that rendering engine.
Safari can be deleted without affecting other apps that use WebCore. WebCore can be upgraded without affecting the rest of Mac OS X. And of course the kicker is, WebCore is open source...
Fifth, could you actually make it work with java?????.... no I mean the real java from Sun.
I'm sure you're trolling, but if you install the actual JRE from Sun, it works fine.
And the same with the "real" javascript too now that I'm thinking about it.
There is no such thing. Each implementation is different. For example, Mozilla's JavaScript implementation allows a list to have a trailing comma (handy when you've got one item per line, so you can move them around or add/delete items without worrying about the last line being the only one to lack a comma); Safari's implementation does not allow this (it's a syntax error and the whole script will fail to load).
Actually, forget this, mozilla's not perfict, but at least it's going in the right directions.
IE is much further from perfect, but is also going in the right direction.
Slashdot Mirror
KDE's team was naive to expect they would get a free lunch in return for handing out free lunches.
Correction: KDE's users were naïve to expect that they would get a free lunch in return for KDE developers handing out free lunches.
The KDE developers understood the license, and its ramifications, when they chose to release their code under it. They have acknowledged that Apple is playing fair, and is completely within their rights. However, Apple has not gone as far above and beyond the requirements of the LGPL as some Konqueror users expected, and THOSE people are upset. The developers are a bit disappointed, but they're not upset at Apple.
the kind that the victim is prohibited by law to revealing to anyone, even a lawyer!
If you did share it with a lawyer, wouldn't the lawyer be bound by attorney-client privilege, so you couldn't get in trouble for doing so? Assuming, of course, that you didn't decide to take further action.
so what IS the correct way to render that? It's not valid HTML, so the browser has to pick something; is there a documented standard saying what the correct behavior is? Where exactly?
I think my guess would be, interpret the < as < and the rest as text. Or, if there's a > later it can match with, maybe treat b/test/. as the name of a tag, and ignore it.
They've probably already ported WebCore - iTunes uses it to render the iTMS.
I believe you're wrong - iTunes 4.0 (with iTMS) was introduced before WebCore existed outside of Safari, and iTunes is a Carbon application while Safari/WebCore use Cocoa. iTMS does not use HTML. Updates to iTunes do not include updates to WebCore and vice-versa.
I could certainly be mistaken.
Gates was saying everyone would switch to Tablet PCs a while ago.
Well, if that patent is any indication, Apple could fulfill Gates' dream someday...
I've heard more than one person say they were surprised and impressed by the sound quality they get from their iPod.
When people think, playing music on a mobile phone, they think, playing it over the phone's built-in speaker, either for the world to hear (like a ring tone) or with the phone held up to the user's ear. I'll guarantee nobody wants either of these! The only way a mobile phone could become successful as an iPod competitor is if you could plug a pair of headphones (or earbuds) into it, and use it as an iPod, folded up and clipped to your belt. The only way this really makes sense is to also build a microphone into the headphones, so they can also be used the way mobile phone headsets are used now... but unlike current mobile phone headsets, you need good quality stereo sound.
I can see some interesting features resulting from the integration - when the phone rings, the music automatically pauses and you hear the ring in your headphones, instead of disturbing everyone around you. iTMS downloads over 3G wireless. Sync your MP3s over BlueTooth. Merge overlapping features like a contact list, calendar, and the iPod Photo stuff (mobile phones have built-in cameras now).
So then you have the issue of storage. Is 1GB of flash memory (the larger iPod shuffle size) enough (or 2GB as costs come down), or do you want to bring your whole 40GB collection everywhere you go? Who wants to carry a hard drive around in their cell phone? Remember that people will also want to be able to use it as a normal phone without headphones, which means holding it up to their ear. How big and heavy will that battery need to be, to play music all day AND stay in touch with the cell towers?
I think Gates is just upset that so many Microsoft employees are wearing iPods, made by one of Microsoft's biggest competitors, around the campus.
I mean, let's look at that statement by John Kerry. He tried to tell everyone that situation wasn't as clear cut as they thought,
Yeah, that worked really well. His opponents used his explanation as a sound bite to portray him as changing his mind - exactly the opposite of what he was trying to explain. This contributed to his losing the election.
Really though, people that have been paying attention know that we've waited until now to armor our vehicles in combat... even re-writing the bill to remove the rider wouldn't have taken this long (3 years!). It's the Pentagon who has failed to equip or men and women in battle...
I don't disagree with this point.
I disagree with this approach on my privacy and overall rights to freedom, but I don't blame the way it was passed. I blame them for passing it. I don't care what it was attached to, if enough people loudly objected Senators from everywhere could remove this "post-it note".
You're missing the point. You're saying they shouldn't have passed this - but because it was attached to something unrelated, not passing this would have meant also not passing the rest of the bill, which (in the view of pretty much everyone who doesn't read Slashdot) would have been much worse. You can't vote for buying armor to protect our soldiers in battle and against this Real-ID thing when they're both the same bill and you only get one vote! That's why attaching random crap to unrelated bills shouldn't be legal (and as others have pointed out, in many states it isn't).
If we spoke up more often we could get our way. Let's stop being afraid to do it.
Who's "we"? Slashdotters? I heard about this this morning, and it's already passed. The general public may have heard a mention of it, but they have no idea why it might be important - isn't that what we elect Congressmen for? To figure out complicated stuff like this?
I have a serious question. what happens in dual monitor set up?
You can rotate each monitor individually.
A trivial example is if you go to an online bookshop say, and you order a book. If you hit the 'back' button, you may get very confused if you start to see out of date information 'huh? It says that I haven't ordered this book yet, but I did'.
Are you insane?
The alternatives in your example are:
1) resubmit the page and buy the book again (whoops!)
2) fail to load the page at all because it was the result of an HTTP POST and reloading it could potentially result in buying the book again
Currently, most browsers pop up a dialog box asking whether you'd like option #1 or option #2. Are you happy with that, or did you have something else in mind?
look at your location, slashdot just redirects the https to http,
If you're logged in as a subscriber, you can use https.
An "agnostic atheist" says Christians should put less faith in the Bible? Hmm.
For the record, I haven't had a problem with IMAPS in Mail.app with 10.3.9. The server is UW imapd, FWIW.
You could always... .xchat2 Library/X-Chat .xchat2
cd ~
mv
ln -s !$
The problem with XML is that it is big and bulky. It will take the system sometime to parse through the whole thing.
Um, yeah, parsing XML on a 486 would be pretty slow. Apple doesn't ship computers that slow anymore.
Any clues on how to get Firefox to use the Apple Keychain?
Not gonna happen. Camino does, but Camino is still horribly buggy.
It's not like somebody's going to go running Tiger on a Power Mac 9600.
:-P
Oh come on, you know darn well SOMEBODY will.
I just want to say, thanks, IMHO it was the right choice. :-)
The penalties are far less harsh if you're caught. However, unless you know what you're doing, the odds of getting caught while shoplifting are much higher than the odds of getting downloading a file.
My point was, this gap is narrowing (as getting caught downloading becomes increasingly more likely), which will begin to make shoplifting more attractive than it currently is.
As you said, "unless you know what you're doing" - people will learn.
If you don't fix your client websites, your reputation will go the way of the dodo. If you do you'll have weeks upon weeks of unpaid work.
Who says? The sites worked fine in IE6; that's what we got paid for. If they don't work in IE7, we can be paid again to fix them.
That's why web standards should be followed, so you don't end up with spagetti code trying to support different browser versions.
Most of the time, when I hack my way around browser bugs, I do it by taking standards-compliant HTML that validates at validator.w3.org but looks wrong in a particular browser, and changing it into different standards-compliant HTML that still validates but looks the way I want.
Please don't tell web designers to "just follow the standards". It's REALLY not that simple.
I for one actually LIKE the concept of the HTML rendering engine being a core part of the operating system.
As do I - but I rather prefer Apple's idea of making a clear distinction between the HTML rendering engine, the operating system that rendering engine is included with, and the browser that uses that rendering engine.
Safari can be deleted without affecting other apps that use WebCore. WebCore can be upgraded without affecting the rest of Mac OS X. And of course the kicker is, WebCore is open source...
Wow, you're talking about shifting to a whole new paradigm! Really thinking outside the box there.
I'm surprised Firefox didn't, not because I'm a fan boy or anything, but because I presumed Firefox was in accordance with most of the standards.
That was a pretty silly assumption. Don't believe everything you hear on Slashdot.
Fifth, could you actually make it work with java????? .... no I mean the real java from Sun.
I'm sure you're trolling, but if you install the actual JRE from Sun, it works fine.
And the same with the "real" javascript too now that I'm thinking about it.
There is no such thing. Each implementation is different. For example, Mozilla's JavaScript implementation allows a list to have a trailing comma (handy when you've got one item per line, so you can move them around or add/delete items without worrying about the last line being the only one to lack a comma); Safari's implementation does not allow this (it's a syntax error and the whole script will fail to load).
Actually, forget this, mozilla's not perfict, but at least it's going in the right directions.
IE is much further from perfect, but is also going in the right direction.