Exploit the power of QuickTime 3! Write directly with any of the nearly 90 media types supported by QuickTime, including TIFF, JPEG, or PICT images; AVI; or QuickTime videoeven [sic] QuickTime VR.
With that kind of power, only a fool would choose another development platform. Why, I'll bet they don't even use QuickTime VR!
I contacted Apex about the GPL violation, and I contacted him about a violation of his privacy policy (UBB was giving out cookies, his privacy policy said his site didn't give out cookies).
As a result, he removed his privacy policy and posted a notice on his web site that he was "Working to comply fully with the GPL license."
I have to say that it's not really all that hard to comply with the GPL for him... he just needs to tar and gzip the source of the package he's working on after he makes any changes and make it available for download. Not a big deal if he started out that way. Certainly slightly harder if he deleted his old source, but he really should have known about the requirement to make source accessible. (Hell, he could just say, "If you ask me for the source, I'll send it to you." That would be compliant.
AFAIK, work is being done to bring Darwin to Nubus based machines. At least David Gatwood, the main (only?) developer for MkLinux has said that he would like to move some MkLinux code into Darwin (licensing issues?), which means mainly Nubus support, and some Darwin code into MkLinux, which would mean Darwin's Mach microkernel.
Right now, I don't believe you can run Darwin on x100s, no.
Another interesting project would be to make Darwin run as a server for the Mach microkernel, and then run the Linux server used in MkLinux next to it!
Maybe they're going to print out all the email and distribute it that way. Actually, I know that at Reed College, that's the default way to get your email. Kind of a waste of paper, especially when you're trying to figure out why your 50 test messages aren't showing up on the IMAP server...
If they're going to block internet access, they must have a firewall anyway... either that or they are just going to change the router/gateway setting on every workstation. Not having a firewall is just kind of stupid, though.
It doesn't matter so much if you use NAT to protect the internal network, simply denying access to internal machines from the outside world would protect machines inside from getting hit by Nimda-type worms.
I'm not saying that NAT isn't a good idea (don't need all those IP addresses!), I'm just saying it's not necessary for security.
I think the root issue here is that many IT people, especially ones trained to run Microsoft servers, have no clue about security. (Well, Microsoft has no clue about security, but that's a whole 'nother rant...) This is especially bad since keeping a server somewhat secure is not that hard -- read Bugtraq, apply all security patches, and don't do anything stupid like give out the root password to people claiming to be from the ISP. Oh, and always try and keep access as low as possible. If someone needs a mail account, don't give them shell access too! Or, firewall the internal network so that the outside world can't get to it. Really, it's not all that hard.
Privacy is a protected right because a (representative) democracy is supposed to represent the people, not just control what the people can and can't do. In many ways, it is another balance in the system of checks and balances.
For example, during the civil rights movement many black Americans were persecuted by the government for standing up for themselves. If they had no right to privacy, how much harder would it have been for them to "gain" their rights?
There are many people today who disagree with the US government's aggressive foreign policy, especially when it comes to Afghanistan. Can those people trust the government to accept their views instead of prosecuting and persecuting them? Certainly the government should be trustworthy. But, history has shown that it would be foolish to trust many governments, including the US government, in such a way.
Unfortunately, Darwin's console is really slow. In 1.3.1 (the basis for 10.0.1) the console was probably slower than my 6100/66 running MkLinux!
There were numerous permission bugs in Darwin 1.3.7; I hope Apple has fixed them in 1.4.1 (the basis for 10.1). Actually, they haven't posted a binary release of Darwin 1.4.1 yet... it should be at http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/darwin/ when they release it.
Of course, it is supposed to be possible to update via source from CVS... but that seems to be rather difficult. Ironic.
What about Switzerland? I believe there are a number of European countries that are more "free" about guns than the US is.
I'm getting kind of disgusted with this idea that the US is a great country because we have all of these freedoms that supposedly no other countries recognize, or at least that very few other countries recognize.
First, there are other countries that are just as free as the US is, especially when you take into account the US's human rights record, and its history as an aggressor (remember Guatemala, Nicaragua, Iran...?).
Second, why do some people think that criticizing the US is equal to saying that its the worst country that ever existed? When I criticize the US the point is that it (we) could improve. I realize that the original poster seemed to be saying that the US was not really free, but that does not mean that the US is not freer than other countries... what constitutes free? Look at BSD v. GPL... (OK, so this is kind of tenuous, but some people see BSD as free and some people see GPL as free... I don't think I'm making sense.)
Anyway, it's nice to live in the US, but I really don't think we're a free country, mainly because I don't see all of our rights being recognized and protected. The point is that the US can be improved -- hopefully in a way that is agreeable to most people.
Oh, OK. Sometimes I'm just really stupid.
on
ICFP 2001 Task
·
· Score: 1
I think I'm missing something.
I see what I'm missing. Color nesting makes it hard. To get around that we can simply "move" color end tags if they're right before a color start tag to right after the next color end tag.
Actually, we need to check the next set of start tags in general to see if we can use a plain tag. Of course, this makes it more inefficient...
Re:Doesn't sound too hard...
on
ICFP 2001 Task
·
· Score: 1
Hmm... actually you wouldn't need to make an array at all. My brain really isn't functioning. You could do it on the fly.
Hmm... but there's a plain tag... that could make it harder...
I think I'm missing something.;-)
Doesn't sound too hard...
on
ICFP 2001 Task
·
· Score: 2
...but it might be hard to make it really fast. Maybe if you wrote it in assembly?
A somewhat simple but slow way of doing it would be to create an array in which each non-tag character has a set of flags for bold, italic, whatever and a set of fields for color, size, etc. Then simply go through the newly created array and put in tags when ever the flags of fields change.
It should be possible to optimize that... but I imagine significantly more efficient ways to do it will be found.
I think this method will create highly optimized output... I can't think of anything to screw it up off the top of my head... but maybe I'm just missing something really obvious.
Perhaps if some of the tags turn other tags off? I don't remember. That could screw it up.
There should also be an inner circle of moderators (say, automatic +5 posting bonus) that have the right to post articles without being pre-reviewed. These should need to be nominated by the approved moderators, and approved by the inner circle (or vice-versa).
I'm not sure that allowing the "inner circle" members to post articles without being reviewed is a good idea... they ought to be at least reviewed by inner circle members first.
I think a +5 or +4 posting bonus is a bit high, at least in the current/. system. Perhaps a better system would go on a scale of -5 to 30, where non-approved moderators can mod up or down by 1, approved moderators by, say, 3, and the inner circle members by 3 as well, or perhaps 4. The advantage is that one person, who might be an idiot, or might miss-read something, would not have as great an impact when they mod badly.
Furthermore, before articles are posted for all to see, they should be looked at by inner circle members, then voted on. If an article gets more than x votes (say x is 20% of the number of inner circle members... it shouldn't be over 50%) then it gets posted... this prevents one person from discarding an article because they think the author is an idiot, and helps get views presented that might not be generally accepted.
Also, to increase objectivity, the inner circle should not be able to see who is submitting the article.
Oh, and IMHO (like everything else) "inner circle" sounds a bit... cultish. (-;
I haven't a clue as to what he's talking about either.
That said, I think that the point is that there are a lot of things that haven't been tried, and that there is knowledge out there to do a lot of new and interesting things -- it's just a matter of putting that knowledge together.
Although I don't really think it matters if what this guy said is correct, I ought to add that most of it seems valid vocabulary-wise. He uses a lot of IUPAC nomenclature, and a lot of the words look familiar to this ex-chemistry student.
Of course, I was thinking of posting something filled with fancy words that sounded valid just for laughs. I've often wondered how many times people are taken in here on Slashdot (or anywhere else) by big words.
A somewhat related example: Anyone remember the "Ban Dihydrogen-monoxide" petition that was circulating a few years ago? Dangerous stuff, that water.
If he violated [the code of conduct], then they have no obligation to support his speech by lending him their servers, bandwidth, domain name, etc.
Did it say anywhere whether it was his server or theirs? Even if it was their server, did he own the content? I didn't notice a copyright notice when I looked at the cached version.
If the University never asked him to make the site, then I think that it's his.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. A lawyer is probably a better person to ask about this issue rather than Slashdot...
I doubt he was [defamed], else he wouldn't be trying to weasel it to a local jurisdiction.
That's kind of like saying that a murder suspect must be guilty because they want a lawyer that will represent them. (Why can't English have an official gender non-specific pronoun?)
The Australian businessman may feel that justice will be better served in his country (which probably means that he thinks he is more likely to win... but my point is that he may very well have legitimate reasons).
I think the problem is that it only gives the number of pixels, it doesn't describe the size of the monitor.
1280x1024 pixels is more descriptive than 1.3 megapixels, IMO.
Also, there was no reason for them to mention DVDs at all -- they could have just given the maximum resolution, which would have meant a lot more. I can guess 2880x1920 based on that information, but that's only 5.5 megapixels.
Slashdot Mirror
A brief excerpt from the description:
With that kind of power, only a fool would choose another development platform. Why, I'll bet they don't even use QuickTime VR!
I contacted Apex about the GPL violation, and I contacted him about a violation of his privacy policy (UBB was giving out cookies, his privacy policy said his site didn't give out cookies).
As a result, he removed his privacy policy and posted a notice on his web site that he was "Working to comply fully with the GPL license."
I have to say that it's not really all that hard to comply with the GPL for him... he just needs to tar and gzip the source of the package he's working on after he makes any changes and make it available for download. Not a big deal if he started out that way. Certainly slightly harder if he deleted his old source, but he really should have known about the requirement to make source accessible. (Hell, he could just say, "If you ask me for the source, I'll send it to you." That would be compliant.
AFAIK, work is being done to bring Darwin to Nubus based machines. At least David Gatwood, the main (only?) developer for MkLinux has said that he would like to move some MkLinux code into Darwin (licensing issues?), which means mainly Nubus support, and some Darwin code into MkLinux, which would mean Darwin's Mach microkernel.
Right now, I don't believe you can run Darwin on x100s, no.
Another interesting project would be to make Darwin run as a server for the Mach microkernel, and then run the Linux server used in MkLinux next to it!
That would be another way to do it.
But, apparently they're still going to get email.
Maybe they're going to print out all the email and distribute it that way. Actually, I know that at Reed College, that's the default way to get your email. Kind of a waste of paper, especially when you're trying to figure out why your 50 test messages aren't showing up on the IMAP server...
If they're going to block internet access, they must have a firewall anyway... either that or they are just going to change the router/gateway setting on every workstation. Not having a firewall is just kind of stupid, though.
It doesn't matter so much if you use NAT to protect the internal network, simply denying access to internal machines from the outside world would protect machines inside from getting hit by Nimda-type worms.
I'm not saying that NAT isn't a good idea (don't need all those IP addresses!), I'm just saying it's not necessary for security.
I think the root issue here is that many IT people, especially ones trained to run Microsoft servers, have no clue about security. (Well, Microsoft has no clue about security, but that's a whole 'nother rant...) This is especially bad since keeping a server somewhat secure is not that hard -- read Bugtraq, apply all security patches, and don't do anything stupid like give out the root password to people claiming to be from the ISP. Oh, and always try and keep access as low as possible. If someone needs a mail account, don't give them shell access too! Or, firewall the internal network so that the outside world can't get to it. Really, it's not all that hard.
I have to disagree.
Privacy is a protected right because a (representative) democracy is supposed to represent the people, not just control what the people can and can't do. In many ways, it is another balance in the system of checks and balances.
For example, during the civil rights movement many black Americans were persecuted by the government for standing up for themselves. If they had no right to privacy, how much harder would it have been for them to "gain" their rights?
There are many people today who disagree with the US government's aggressive foreign policy, especially when it comes to Afghanistan. Can those people trust the government to accept their views instead of prosecuting and persecuting them? Certainly the government should be trustworthy. But, history has shown that it would be foolish to trust many governments, including the US government, in such a way.
Unfortunately, Darwin's console is really slow. In 1.3.1 (the basis for 10.0.1) the console was probably slower than my 6100/66 running MkLinux!
There were numerous permission bugs in Darwin 1.3.7; I hope Apple has fixed them in 1.4.1 (the basis for 10.1). Actually, they haven't posted a binary release of Darwin 1.4.1 yet... it should be at http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/darwin/ when they release it.
Of course, it is supposed to be possible to update via source from CVS... but that seems to be rather difficult. Ironic.
What about Switzerland? I believe there are a number of European countries that are more "free" about guns than the US is.
I'm getting kind of disgusted with this idea that the US is a great country because we have all of these freedoms that supposedly no other countries recognize, or at least that very few other countries recognize.
First, there are other countries that are just as free as the US is, especially when you take into account the US's human rights record, and its history as an aggressor (remember Guatemala, Nicaragua, Iran...?).
Second, why do some people think that criticizing the US is equal to saying that its the worst country that ever existed? When I criticize the US the point is that it (we) could improve. I realize that the original poster seemed to be saying that the US was not really free, but that does not mean that the US is not freer than other countries... what constitutes free? Look at BSD v. GPL... (OK, so this is kind of tenuous, but some people see BSD as free and some people see GPL as free... I don't think I'm making sense.)
Anyway, it's nice to live in the US, but I really don't think we're a free country, mainly because I don't see all of our rights being recognized and protected. The point is that the US can be improved -- hopefully in a way that is agreeable to most people.
I think I'm missing something.
I see what I'm missing. Color nesting makes it hard. To get around that we can simply "move" color end tags if they're right before a color start tag to right after the next color end tag.
Actually, we need to check the next set of start tags in general to see if we can use a plain tag. Of course, this makes it more inefficient...
Hmm... actually you wouldn't need to make an array at all. My brain really isn't functioning. You could do it on the fly. Hmm... but there's a plain tag... that could make it harder... I think I'm missing something. ;-)
...but it might be hard to make it really fast. Maybe if you wrote it in assembly?
A somewhat simple but slow way of doing it would be to create an array in which each non-tag character has a set of flags for bold, italic, whatever and a set of fields for color, size, etc. Then simply go through the newly created array and put in tags when ever the flags of fields change.
It should be possible to optimize that... but I imagine significantly more efficient ways to do it will be found.
I think this method will create highly optimized output... I can't think of anything to screw it up off the top of my head... but maybe I'm just missing something really obvious.
Perhaps if some of the tags turn other tags off? I don't remember. That could screw it up.
Comments?
There should also be an inner circle of moderators (say, automatic +5 posting bonus) that have the right to post articles without being pre-reviewed. These should need to be nominated by the approved moderators, and approved by the inner circle (or vice-versa).
I'm not sure that allowing the "inner circle" members to post articles without being reviewed is a good idea... they ought to be at least reviewed by inner circle members first.
I think a +5 or +4 posting bonus is a bit high, at least in the current /. system. Perhaps a better system would go on a scale of -5 to 30, where non-approved moderators can mod up or down by 1, approved moderators by, say, 3, and the inner circle members by 3 as well, or perhaps 4. The advantage is that one person, who might be an idiot, or might miss-read something, would not have as great an impact when they mod badly.
Furthermore, before articles are posted for all to see, they should be looked at by inner circle members, then voted on. If an article gets more than x votes (say x is 20% of the number of inner circle members... it shouldn't be over 50%) then it gets posted... this prevents one person from discarding an article because they think the author is an idiot, and helps get views presented that might not be generally accepted.
Also, to increase objectivity, the inner circle should not be able to see who is submitting the article.
Oh, and IMHO (like everything else) "inner circle" sounds a bit... cultish. (-;
I haven't a clue as to what he's talking about either.
That said, I think that the point is that there are a lot of things that haven't been tried, and that there is knowledge out there to do a lot of new and interesting things -- it's just a matter of putting that knowledge together.
Although I don't really think it matters if what this guy said is correct, I ought to add that most of it seems valid vocabulary-wise. He uses a lot of IUPAC nomenclature, and a lot of the words look familiar to this ex-chemistry student.
Of course, I was thinking of posting something filled with fancy words that sounded valid just for laughs. I've often wondered how many times people are taken in here on Slashdot (or anywhere else) by big words.
A somewhat related example: Anyone remember the "Ban Dihydrogen-monoxide" petition that was circulating a few years ago? Dangerous stuff, that water.
If he violated [the code of conduct], then they have no obligation to support his speech by lending him their servers, bandwidth, domain name, etc.
Did it say anywhere whether it was his server or theirs? Even if it was their server, did he own the content? I didn't notice a copyright notice when I looked at the cached version.
If the University never asked him to make the site, then I think that it's his.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. A lawyer is probably a better person to ask about this issue rather than Slashdot...
I doubt he was [defamed], else he wouldn't be trying to weasel it to a local jurisdiction.
That's kind of like saying that a murder suspect must be guilty because they want a lawyer that will represent them. (Why can't English have an official gender non-specific pronoun?)
The Australian businessman may feel that justice will be better served in his country (which probably means that he thinks he is more likely to win... but my point is that he may very well have legitimate reasons).
So does the term megapixel have any basis in reality? Is it based on bit depth or something?
I think the problem is that it only gives the number of pixels, it doesn't describe the size of the monitor.
1280x1024 pixels is more descriptive than 1.3 megapixels, IMO.
Also, there was no reason for them to mention DVDs at all -- they could have just given the maximum resolution, which would have meant a lot more. I can guess 2880x1920 based on that information, but that's only 5.5 megapixels.
Or am I missing something completely?