Why should 3DRealms make Duke Nuke'm Forever after all this time? Because when it finally ships it will receive the most free PR from the trade press and every other press under the sun ever.
If you don't understand this, you're not the target market.
Not really following. My guess is, if the target market sees a histogram offered as a tool in a $500 app, it's going to expect the histogram to actually work and provide accurate results. People are focusing on RAW and such (which is valid), but that part of the review wigged me out more than anything.
Apple never advertised Q2DE. It was mentioned at the WWDC, but that is a developers conference - and developers can enable it for testing purposes.
WWDC is now as much of an advertising and announcement thing as a developer thing, but to your point: They did have it as one of the coming things in 10.4 (They used to have a section of their site on what was coming in Tiger) and then demoed it to developers as coming in 10.4, and even had a video of it up on their site.
This is definitely serious. Extreme insight and deconstruction went into that article and you have to at least start to see it the author's way.
That one sees what one really, really wants to see?
Who we are is in what we do, but at some point these deconstructions become much more about the one doing them than what they're interpreting. Sometimes a fucked up edit or transition is just a fucked up edit or transition, and sometimes lame dialogue is just lame dialogue.
"So, here's the question: Are we talking about the operating system, or someone's ability to run./configure? Are we talking about "Apache being slow", or "the bog standard install being slow"?"
Pretty sure we're just talking about buying a server solution that can't keep up with other solutions if performance matters to you. If you want to use MySQL or some other things, it would appear the Mac isn't what you want to use right now.
However, if you wanted to write your own database server for the Mac, keeping a bunch of Mac-specific things in mind, we might be close to whatever the hell it is you're talking about...
That being said, the FreeBSD part doesn't do a whole hell of a lot. Apple has mostly replaced the traditional Unix bits with NextStep Frameworks.
This is insanity, and not anywhere close to true. In fact it's almost the reverse, with Mach being more of a background technology. There are very few app that need to modified to keep Mach-specific things in minds, for the most part the system appears as a BSD variant with a different executable format. Rip out the BSD in OS X, and nothing can do anything.
The advantage to these frameworks is that they're much more object oriented and easier to work with than their rather primitive ancestors. The downside is that these frameworks are written in ObjectiveC, which means fun times for driver writers.:-/
The frameworks are primarily about GUI apps, which is where you'll find Obj-C. Obj-C isn't found at the lower levels you're talking about. I believe IOKit had Obj-C interfaces available in the NeXT Days, but its a restricted subset of C++ for drivers in OS X.
YES THEY DO HAVE TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE. The only way to avoid that is to ship the source with the binaries. Otherwise you have to give the source to anyone who asks ("any third party") for no more than a nominal fee.
"No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public."
The GPL FAQ, under "What does this "written offer valid for any third party" mean? Does that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no matter what??" says:
""Valid for any third party" means that anyone who has the offer is entitled to take you up on it. If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.
The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you."
It would appear someone would have to receive that 'offer' in some way (I.E., the company distributed it to them) in order to be entitled to ask for the source, with the 'third party' bit coming in once a fellow user distributes it to you. Basically, if the company or someone else hasn't given you the software, the company doesn't have to give you anything.
Ryan's heart was in the right place, but if you could please use one of the many mirrors to both get it and possibly create your own, we can hopefully avoid the server being destroyed again...:)
Perhaps? My understanding is that the support is coming eventually, but that right now it's basically a technology preview and not meant for real consumption... I know you can pass the compiler the flag, but have no clue what'll come out at the other end. IBM's page on XL just lists Obj-C support as a technology preview, so someone more knowledgeable will have to speak up.
My understanding is that XLC does not do Obj-C, which means Apple can use it for some of the underpinnings, but not in general... Although if you're writing a Cocoa app, it's not uncommon to drop down to straight C and compile that separately, in which case you can purchase and use something like XLC. I believe, anyways.
Yeah, it was more than a little slow for awhile there. That initial surge made things wig out a bit -- this was a particularly bad one. It's evened out now after a few minutes and should be fine.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say that a member of the press cannot be required to divulge their sources, either. Once again, Slashdotters are lecturing others on the first amendment without, apparently, reading it themselves. The constitution says:
The constitution doesn't say a whole lot of things -- which is fine, as it's not necessarily about what the constitution specifically says as what the constitution means and the spirit it embodies. That's like saying you're entitled to what is in the constitution only, which is a cul-de-sac of logic if you really want a stable democracy in 100 years.
Has anybody else noticed that Apple is not suing ThinkSecret? They are not pursuing damages from ThinkSecret. They are not trying to bully ThinkSecret into disappearing from the web.
Yes they are, and you seem to really have misunderstood the story. This was about subpoenas issued to other websites in relation to the ThinkSecret case, which is very much after driving them into the ground, under the idea that they illegally illicited trade secrets.
Slashdot is not much of a news agency. It's more of a community, one that is spurred into discussion via news aggregation. Except for the occasional interview,/. editors put very little effort into creating content, they don't research, they don't break stories, they don't fact-check.
I've done every one of those things on my blog -- well, maybe not breaking big news, but all the rest. What does that make me?
Strange how you seem to follow my blog around from site to site then isn't it?:) It's humorous, and I personally don't care, but this situation just doesn't seem to be the place for your agenda and I'm sorry you don't seem to realize it.
I don't want to get accused of shooting the messenger here, but it's worth noting that the author of "Drunken Blog" has, in the recent past, been caught posting lengthy tracts of stuff that just isn't true.
This seems to be about High PPI problem, a blog post I put up about increasing pixel density and resolution independence and the problems faced with moving to the new models. There was one part that I considered to be wrong: which was that Apple didn't seem to be working on it going by what had been released publicly and what I knew to be in Longhorn and newer versions of X.
Is this relevant to the subject at hand? Almost certainly not. But I'm a big believer in context..
This line was from my "Yin and Yang" post, which means I probably pissed you off somehow. No problem if you have a problem with me, but using it to take shots at a kid probably isn't kosher.
Personally, I'm kinda honored to have my own hate club.:)
When my significant other died, it would have meant all the world for her (much) younger sister to have access to her yahoo account, for two reasons:
1. things happened suddenly, and suddenly everything left behind by that person was now precious. everything. imagine you're slipping over a cliff, and desperately grabbing at any sort of purchase you can find. it's sort of like that.
2. she associated that SN with her sister, which they would talk on and email often because her family was in australia. the idea of somehow seeing it in use by someone else was... not sure how to explain this, except it wouldn't be something one would want to experience. yes you can take the person off your messenger, and you can block the list... but it's just the idea.
I have to admit that I spent hours and hours late at night trying to guess her password, and some other things after yahoo said no, but will also admit i was one of many things I was doing to try to keep my mind busy and off of everything else.
I do recognize that there is a right to privacy, and that aspects of things might not be healthy... but it doesn't work that way when you're going through it. Your world is upside down, and what is rational and what isn't doesn't really matter. Yes, not having it isn't the end of the world... but seeing one more piece of that person just slip away into the ether, while possibly romantic to a 16 year old, is just a horrid thing to contemplate.
When you're living your life in your mid-20s, you don't think about throwing your yahoo password in your will for your significant other... or often a will at all. This isn't something I expect a typical slashdotter to understand, it's just how it is... I'll leave it at that, as I'm finding myself way outside of my comfort zone at the moment.
Slashdot Mirror
How'd that work out for Daikatana?
I can't tell if you're being facetious or not...
Not really following. My guess is, if the target market sees a histogram offered as a tool in a $500 app, it's going to expect the histogram to actually work and provide accurate results. People are focusing on RAW and such (which is valid), but that part of the review wigged me out more than anything.
WWDC is now as much of an advertising and announcement thing as a developer thing, but to your point: They did have it as one of the coming things in 10.4 (They used to have a section of their site on what was coming in Tiger) and then demoed it to developers as coming in 10.4, and even had a video of it up on their site.
That one sees what one really, really wants to see?
Who we are is in what we do, but at some point these deconstructions become much more about the one doing them than what they're interpreting. Sometimes a fucked up edit or transition is just a fucked up edit or transition, and sometimes lame dialogue is just lame dialogue.
"So, here's the question: Are we talking about the operating system, or someone's ability to run ./configure? Are we talking about "Apache being slow", or "the bog standard install being slow"?"
Pretty sure we're just talking about buying a server solution that can't keep up with other solutions if performance matters to you. If you want to use MySQL or some other things, it would appear the Mac isn't what you want to use right now.
However, if you wanted to write your own database server for the Mac, keeping a bunch of Mac-specific things in mind, we might be close to whatever the hell it is you're talking about...
That being said, the FreeBSD part doesn't do a whole hell of a lot. Apple has mostly replaced the traditional Unix bits with NextStep Frameworks.
:-/
This is insanity, and not anywhere close to true. In fact it's almost the reverse, with Mach being more of a background technology. There are very few app that need to modified to keep Mach-specific things in minds, for the most part the system appears as a BSD variant with a different executable format. Rip out the BSD in OS X, and nothing can do anything.
The advantage to these frameworks is that they're much more object oriented and easier to work with than their rather primitive ancestors. The downside is that these frameworks are written in ObjectiveC, which means fun times for driver writers.
The frameworks are primarily about GUI apps, which is where you'll find Obj-C. Obj-C isn't found at the lower levels you're talking about. I believe IOKit had Obj-C interfaces available in the NeXT Days, but its a restricted subset of C++ for drivers in OS X.
I was going by the GPL FAQ, which I've found to be very helpful but I could be misinterpreting something... Under "If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge?
"No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public."
The GPL FAQ, under "What does this "written offer valid for any third party" mean? Does that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no matter what??" says:
""Valid for any third party" means that anyone who has the offer is entitled to take you up on it.
If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.
The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you."
It would appear someone would have to receive that 'offer' in some way (I.E., the company distributed it to them) in order to be entitled to ask for the source, with the 'third party' bit coming in once a fellow user distributes it to you. Basically, if the company or someone else hasn't given you the software, the company doesn't have to give you anything.
Like I said, I could well be misinterpreting.
Ryan's heart was in the right place, but if you could please use one of the many mirrors to both get it and possibly create your own, we can hopefully avoid the server being destroyed again... :)
CoreImage is heavily optimized to the extreme max!
Rosyna, that sentence is evil, even for you...
Perhaps? My understanding is that the support is coming eventually, but that right now it's basically a technology preview and not meant for real consumption... I know you can pass the compiler the flag, but have no clue what'll come out at the other end. IBM's page on XL just lists Obj-C support as a technology preview, so someone more knowledgeable will have to speak up.
My understanding is that XLC does not do Obj-C, which means Apple can use it for some of the underpinnings, but not in general... Although if you're writing a Cocoa app, it's not uncommon to drop down to straight C and compile that separately, in which case you can purchase and use something like XLC. I believe, anyways.
Yeah, this was a nasty one. It should be just fine now, though.
Yeah, it was more than a little slow for awhile there. That initial surge made things wig out a bit -- this was a particularly bad one. It's evened out now after a few minutes and should be fine.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say that a member of the press cannot be required to divulge their sources, either. Once again, Slashdotters are lecturing others on the first amendment without, apparently, reading it themselves. The constitution says:
The constitution doesn't say a whole lot of things -- which is fine, as it's not necessarily about what the constitution specifically says as what the constitution means and the spirit it embodies. That's like saying you're entitled to what is in the constitution only, which is a cul-de-sac of logic if you really want a stable democracy in 100 years.
Has anybody else noticed that Apple is not suing ThinkSecret? They are not pursuing damages from ThinkSecret. They are not trying to bully ThinkSecret into disappearing from the web.
Yes they are, and you seem to really have misunderstood the story. This was about subpoenas issued to other websites in relation to the ThinkSecret case, which is very much after driving them into the ground, under the idea that they illegally illicited trade secrets.
Where, anywhere, anywhere at all does it say that whoever leaked things was paid?
I've done every one of those things on my blog -- well, maybe not breaking big news, but all the rest. What does that make me?
I can certainly say he's not getting 'mad funding', and if you'll notice there's no 'donate' link or anything like that. :/
My impression is that he's really averse to asking people to pay for his own mistake...
Are you kidding? "Drunkenbatman" will look awesome on the guy's future Pulitzer Prize.
Damn straight...
Star Trek's roots are in social criticism, raw idealism, and triumphalism about the human spirit.
Odd, I thought its roots were unnecessary man-to-man fist fights that are way too slow and choreographed, spaceships, and space pussy.
Here's a mirror.... Thanks for throwing it up, appreciated.
Strange how you seem to follow my blog around from site to site then isn't it? :) It's humorous, and I personally don't care, but this situation just doesn't seem to be the place for your agenda and I'm sorry you don't seem to realize it.
I don't want to get accused of shooting the messenger here, but it's worth noting that the author of "Drunken Blog" has, in the recent past, been caught posting lengthy tracts of stuff that just isn't true.
:)
This seems to be about High PPI problem, a blog post I put up about increasing pixel density and resolution independence and the problems faced with moving to the new models. There was one part that I considered to be wrong: which was that Apple didn't seem to be working on it going by what had been released publicly and what I knew to be in Longhorn and newer versions of X.
Is this relevant to the subject at hand? Almost certainly not. But I'm a big believer in context..
This line was from my "Yin and Yang" post, which means I probably pissed you off somehow. No problem if you have a problem with me, but using it to take shots at a kid probably isn't kosher.
Personally, I'm kinda honored to have my own hate club.
When my significant other died, it would have meant all the world for her (much) younger sister to have access to her yahoo account, for two reasons:
1. things happened suddenly, and suddenly everything left behind by that person was now precious. everything. imagine you're slipping over a cliff, and desperately grabbing at any sort of purchase you can find. it's sort of like that.
2. she associated that SN with her sister, which they would talk on and email often because her family was in australia. the idea of somehow seeing it in use by someone else was... not sure how to explain this, except it wouldn't be something one would want to experience. yes you can take the person off your messenger, and you can block the list... but it's just the idea.
I have to admit that I spent hours and hours late at night trying to guess her password, and some other things after yahoo said no, but will also admit i was one of many things I was doing to try to keep my mind busy and off of everything else.
I do recognize that there is a right to privacy, and that aspects of things might not be healthy... but it doesn't work that way when you're going through it. Your world is upside down, and what is rational and what isn't doesn't really matter. Yes, not having it isn't the end of the world... but seeing one more piece of that person just slip away into the ether, while possibly romantic to a 16 year old, is just a horrid thing to contemplate.
When you're living your life in your mid-20s, you don't think about throwing your yahoo password in your will for your significant other... or often a will at all. This isn't something I expect a typical slashdotter to understand, it's just how it is... I'll leave it at that, as I'm finding myself way outside of my comfort zone at the moment.