Treat XML like a database. It has rules of operation, but what you contain and how you describe the data are completely arbitrary.
Anyone who has used XML knows perfectly well that it's entirely possible to describe the complete dataset for content, layout, and presentation, within an XML document, in a form which can be easily parsed by humans and software alike. Completely. Using open standards, even.
Consequently, it's also possible to wrap it all up in 'parseable', yet 'unhandleable-unless-you're-on-the-inside' data blobs which mean nothing to no-one, yet still use 'XML' as a wrapper.
It's a liability of having such an open design, and Microsoft are exploiting this fact, in the context of *CLEAR* market-division tactics.
*They* created the artificial 'Professional/Enterprise/Standard' labels. Not the Users.
MS' use of XML here is perverted. It serves no purpose other than to give MS an opportunity to blag press release points about how their software uses 'the latest open standards' to people who have *NO CLUE* what they're talking about...
It's intended to store "content" as opposed to "presentation", leaving "presentation" up to the app, much as was the original intent of HTML. Rather than an evil Microsoft plot, they are in fact conforming to the spec when they produce such a file.
This is just the sort of disinfo that MS themselves love to seed. Classic post, nice try.
It's just not true. XML is *NOT* 'just' a presentation format, a la HTML (nice smear), nor is it 'inevitable' that the fileformat ends up like Postscript.
XML is a text-based system for data storage and retrieval, intended to be *self documenting*. In other words, the details on what fonts are used, what settings The User has set for individual parts of the documents, the parameters for those setting, etc. ARE ALL SUPPOSED TO BE STORED IN READABLE FORMAT WITHIN XML TAGS, CONFORMING TO A KNOWN, PUBLISHED DOCUMENT DESCRIBING THE CONTENT.
You're trying to swing the definition, and it's not working here, buddy.
XML *IS* a solution to the problem of data longevity.
Microsofts' perversion of it, is a solution to theirs.
Ummm... sorry to burst your pretty bubble, but 'professional grade' field recordings of concerts *can* be done with sub-$1000 microphones, well rigged to a portable system such as described here.
There's nothing that says "Pro = digital multitrack with multiple busses from the house mix".
My only advice to you is to ignore the software market as much as possible, and decide on a *stable* platform that does the job that you need - musically - and then leave it at that.
So many people get into music software and lose all impetus to make music because they're always "trying out" the latest and greatest tools/releases from over-zealous manufacturers who release things at a blinding pace.
It *is* possible to get a basic set of tools working under Linux for music writing. Such things as Ardour, Rosegarden, etc. are all viable solutions - though I wouldn't encourage you to get involved with Linux for Audio right now if you're finding that you're already not making music because of computer issues.
Try taking *Just The Basics* out of a package. For example, maybe you don't *need* all the features of Logic, which is getting in the way of your creativity. There is a *lot* of 'keeping up with the Joneses' facter in the musical instrument business these days.
If you want cheap, easy to use, and more importantly PRODUCTIVE software, try the fringe:
But always remember this: If you're not writing music at a pace with which you are satisfied, your music tools are not working.
Scale them back as much as possible. Just because "Joe DJ" uses "Brand X" does not mean that you need to go through the nightmare/headach configuration that they went through only to end up getting 'endorsed'...
Right, well when I said "OSS" I of course meant to say "Free Software". Sorry, I frequently mix the two, conceptually... I don't consider software 'free' unless the source is actually available.
But I wouldn't be so quick to assume that there's no connection between Apache's being Open Source and it's popularity. I know, I know, can of worms, but I just wouldn't be so quick to swing the bat in the other direction, if you know what I mean...
You could just as easily say that Apache is popular because it was first, but there's plenty of arguments against that, too.
Meaning is defined by language, not the other way around.
Ummm, rubbish. Car *does* still mean 'two-wheeled Celtic chariot', otherwise you wouldn't have an argument.
Language is defined by what the words mean, and if you don't know what a word means, you can't properly use it in language.
Otherwise, I could just say "gooke beke fumf goosh dorf" and *DEMAND* that you understand this as "asshole, your hair is burning". However, until I get all the Dictionaries in order, I'll have to keep demanding... all the while wondering why people don't understand me.
Your attempt at righteousness has failed utterly. In fact, I'd say it's been decimated.
... is the insinuation that Microsoft once 'had' dominance in the webserver sphere. As far as I can remember (and I could be wrong, though I've been on the 'net since before the Web and this is my perception) Apache has *always* been the #1 web server, with IIS only ever coming close to playing catchup.
So it wasn't that MS' dominance was ever 'beaten', its just that they cannot beat the dominant methodology for web servers, which is Open Source.
I think there's a difference between saying 'beaten back' and just 'beaten from the gate'.
Dunno about Lance Bass, but give me a sufficiently well-built environment-suit - something like a 'mini-shuttle', just for me, and I'd be quite happy to strap on a couple of these rockets and blast off into wherever it takes me.
I don't understand why the spacesuit guys don't team up with the rocket guys and just combine the two into something small and feasible, designed to get *just one body* into orbit.
Who needs a cockpit? Just give me a good suit with rockets on it.
Re:Integrating Finder with Terminal
on
A Better Finder?
·
· Score: 1
You might find Launchbar handy... check Versiontracker.
Re:I don't agree with the article
on
A Better Finder?
·
· Score: 1
I don't agree either.
I've used practically every OS in existence which offers a GUI, and so far, OSX (combined with Launchbar) has given me the most satisfying personal productivity experience.
Finder is something I rarely use for anything more than just quick-click launching of files, and for basic file management.
But I have to say that Launchbar has definitely become the #1 reason it's so productive to use OSX these days. If you're on OSX and you haven't tried Launchbar, you're missing out on a power tool.
Aside from a total lack of aesthetic sensibility on all space instruments except ours
By 'ours', do you mean a particular company, or some nation?
I always thought the early Russian satellites and whatnot were particularly interesting-looking. Some of them are just downright funky, but that could just be because my 'fashion' sense has been honed so far from any CCCP-era style sensibilities that I only think its cool because... once... it wasn't.
Still. My sat's gonna look bitchin'. Whenever I get around to designing it, that is...;)
Anyone know why there's an overhead geographical map being used to display eyeport orientation on the panorama app?
Seems sort of odd to me... but maybe they're re-using some codebase for which an overhead geo map was appropriate - say, for an outside panorama shot?
I have to say, that looks like one nice piece of hardware, though its hard to get a feeling for its construction from far back. One thing I've always been impressed with is just how much junk there always appears to be on the outside of satellites and such...
I guess there's no point making it aesthetic (i.e. with smooth panels and such) given the conditions of launch (cost per pound) and the fact that once it's up, nobody is going to see it ever again... well, except for those with the shiny spacesuits and the grey skin and the pointy bits around their head, that is...
Slashdot Mirror
a) What, you can't stick 'gzip' in your pipe and smoke it?
... this is good.
and:
b) It's *GREAT* for usefulness. Docs that depend on each other are 'stuck' together and commute well
Treat XML like a database. It has rules of operation, but what you contain and how you describe the data are completely arbitrary.
...
Anyone who has used XML knows perfectly well that it's entirely possible to describe the complete dataset for content, layout, and presentation, within an XML document, in a form which can be easily parsed by humans and software alike. Completely. Using open standards, even.
Consequently, it's also possible to wrap it all up in 'parseable', yet 'unhandleable-unless-you're-on-the-inside' data blobs which mean nothing to no-one, yet still use 'XML' as a wrapper.
It's a liability of having such an open design, and Microsoft are exploiting this fact, in the context of *CLEAR* market-division tactics.
*They* created the artificial 'Professional/Enterprise/Standard' labels. Not the Users.
MS' use of XML here is perverted. It serves no purpose other than to give MS an opportunity to blag press release points about how their software uses 'the latest open standards' to people who have *NO CLUE* what they're talking about
It's intended to store "content" as opposed to "presentation", leaving "presentation" up to the app, much as was the original intent of HTML. Rather than an evil Microsoft plot, they are in fact conforming to the spec when they produce such a file.
This is just the sort of disinfo that MS themselves love to seed. Classic post, nice try.
It's just not true. XML is *NOT* 'just' a presentation format, a la HTML (nice smear), nor is it 'inevitable' that the fileformat ends up like Postscript.
XML is a text-based system for data storage and retrieval, intended to be *self documenting*. In other words, the details on what fonts are used, what settings The User has set for individual parts of the documents, the parameters for those setting, etc. ARE ALL SUPPOSED TO BE STORED IN READABLE FORMAT WITHIN XML TAGS, CONFORMING TO A KNOWN, PUBLISHED DOCUMENT DESCRIBING THE CONTENT.
You're trying to swing the definition, and it's not working here, buddy.
XML *IS* a solution to the problem of data longevity.
Microsofts' perversion of it, is a solution to theirs.
Ummm... sorry to burst your pretty bubble, but 'professional grade' field recordings of concerts *can* be done with sub-$1000 microphones, well rigged to a portable system such as described here.
There's nothing that says "Pro = digital multitrack with multiple busses from the house mix".
... here.
Right, like we couldn't have seen this coming from a looong way off.
.DOC files completely - thanks to .PDF, it's been mostly successful.
I've given up on Office completely. I even try to reject
"Compatability" is still a bitches game.
That's some sick shit you're fantasizing about there buddy.
The best way is to both, try and keep anyone from knowing it exists in the first place AND to cover your ass.
No, the best way is to just not do anything illegal in the first place.
Of course, in this day and age, that may be more difficult than it sounds.
But regardless, I find the suggested uses for this wireless hard drive to be despicable. "Hide porn", indeed.
If you can't be open and honest about the porn you're looking at, then you're looking at bad porn.
More to the point, since legal porn is legal, what sort of porn would you *NOT* want the cops to find?
/.'s suggested use for this device is insidious and despicable.
If you've got illegal porn (what would that be, kiddy porn?) then
I found it a despicable suggestion, anyway. Just what sort of porn would you *not* want the cops to find?
Disgusted.
We all want this because we have no friends.
My only advice to you is to ignore the software market as much as possible, and decide on a *stable* platform that does the job that you need - musically - and then leave it at that.
...
So many people get into music software and lose all impetus to make music because they're always "trying out" the latest and greatest tools/releases from over-zealous manufacturers who release things at a blinding pace.
It *is* possible to get a basic set of tools working under Linux for music writing. Such things as Ardour, Rosegarden, etc. are all viable solutions - though I wouldn't encourage you to get involved with Linux for Audio right now if you're finding that you're already not making music because of computer issues.
Try taking *Just The Basics* out of a package. For example, maybe you don't *need* all the features of Logic, which is getting in the way of your creativity. There is a *lot* of 'keeping up with the Joneses' facter in the musical instrument business these days.
If you want cheap, easy to use, and more importantly PRODUCTIVE software, try the fringe:
Raw Material Software Tracktion
Cheap, works, is easy to use, and easy to configure.
If you're on the Mac, try:
Intuem
But always remember this: If you're not writing music at a pace with which you are satisfied, your music tools are not working.
Scale them back as much as possible. Just because "Joe DJ" uses "Brand X" does not mean that you need to go through the nightmare/headach configuration that they went through only to end up getting 'endorsed'
No, actually I'm Australian as well. :)
But, I've lived in the US for almost half my life, though find myself currently residing very happily in Germany.
I hate it even more when Germans say it!
It's *WRONG* to say 'disorientate'. It's not a word people, puh-lease!!!
Right, well when I said "OSS" I of course meant to say "Free Software". Sorry, I frequently mix the two, conceptually... I don't consider software 'free' unless the source is actually available.
But I wouldn't be so quick to assume that there's no connection between Apache's being Open Source and it's popularity. I know, I know, can of worms, but I just wouldn't be so quick to swing the bat in the other direction, if you know what I mean
You could just as easily say that Apache is popular because it was first, but there's plenty of arguments against that, too.
Which is why IIS is beaten and always has been beaten, because it came after Apache.
... albeit in typical Microsoft "embrace, extend, embroil, embeat, emblaze..." fashion...
If anything, IIS has been 'cloning' Apache since day one
My pet hate is when people say "disorientated".
Man that gives me irks.
Meaning is defined by language, not the other way around.
... all the while wondering why people don't understand me.
Ummm, rubbish. Car *does* still mean 'two-wheeled Celtic chariot', otherwise you wouldn't have an argument.
Language is defined by what the words mean, and if you don't know what a word means, you can't properly use it in language.
Otherwise, I could just say "gooke beke fumf goosh dorf" and *DEMAND* that you understand this as "asshole, your hair is burning". However, until I get all the Dictionaries in order, I'll have to keep demanding
Your attempt at righteousness has failed utterly. In fact, I'd say it's been decimated.
Heh heh - you said 'head'.
That's funny.
... is the insinuation that Microsoft once 'had' dominance in the webserver sphere. As far as I can remember (and I could be wrong, though I've been on the 'net since before the Web and this is my perception) Apache has *always* been the #1 web server, with IIS only ever coming close to playing catchup.
So it wasn't that MS' dominance was ever 'beaten', its just that they cannot beat the dominant methodology for web servers, which is Open Source.
I think there's a difference between saying 'beaten back' and just 'beaten from the gate'.
Dunno about Lance Bass, but give me a sufficiently well-built environment-suit - something like a 'mini-shuttle', just for me, and I'd be quite happy to strap on a couple of these rockets and blast off into wherever it takes me.
I don't understand why the spacesuit guys don't team up with the rocket guys and just combine the two into something small and feasible, designed to get *just one body* into orbit.
Who needs a cockpit? Just give me a good suit with rockets on it.
You might find Launchbar handy ... check Versiontracker.
I don't agree either.
I've used practically every OS in existence which offers a GUI, and so far, OSX (combined with Launchbar) has given me the most satisfying personal productivity experience.
Finder is something I rarely use for anything more than just quick-click launching of files, and for basic file management.
But I have to say that Launchbar has definitely become the #1 reason it's so productive to use OSX these days. If you're on OSX and you haven't tried Launchbar, you're missing out on a power tool.
Aside from a total lack of aesthetic sensibility on all space instruments except ours
... once ... it wasn't.
... ;)
By 'ours', do you mean a particular company, or some nation?
I always thought the early Russian satellites and whatnot were particularly interesting-looking. Some of them are just downright funky, but that could just be because my 'fashion' sense has been honed so far from any CCCP-era style sensibilities that I only think its cool because
Still. My sat's gonna look bitchin'. Whenever I get around to designing it, that is
Ummm... The US (and its citizens) is in no position to preach to other countries about human rights abuses.
American arrogance is the new enemy.
If the war is getting you down, get off your couch and get out there and Protest.
Television/the web will do one thing - keep you riveted in one spot, inactive and docile.
The thing for Americans to be doing right now, if the war is getting them down, is *PROTEST THE WAR* AT ALL COSTS!
Anyone know why there's an overhead geographical map being used to display eyeport orientation on the panorama app?
...
...
Seems sort of odd to me... but maybe they're re-using some codebase for which an overhead geo map was appropriate - say, for an outside panorama shot?
I have to say, that looks like one nice piece of hardware, though its hard to get a feeling for its construction from far back. One thing I've always been impressed with is just how much junk there always appears to be on the outside of satellites and such
I guess there's no point making it aesthetic (i.e. with smooth panels and such) given the conditions of launch (cost per pound) and the fact that once it's up, nobody is going to see it ever again... well, except for those with the shiny spacesuits and the grey skin and the pointy bits around their head, that is