Because microsoft forged a strong alliance with the current WH administration, which enabled microsoft to essentially "press delete" on the antitrust trial.
This MS constant lying is first degree deception, outright intentional..... and they are very persistant about it.
a perfect match with politicians, don't you think?
send the individuals responsible to prison sure. that rarely happens, but it needs to happen more often.
for organizations which habitually act criminally (eg riaa, mpaa, microsoft) they need to get eg 15 years "frozen". after all, corporations legally are persons. they should face the same punishments.
given that the only major cause of radiation in space is the sun
True, however... objects like jupiter tend to do nasty things with that radiation. Like sweep it up and blast it into Io.
Earth's van allen belts pose a serious hazard to satellites, which is why most spacecraft are placed specifically in orbits to avoid them. The sun fuels the belts...
shielding machines against solar radiation isn't actually that hard
True again. Now design a probe which can survive the environment of Io or Europa for extended periods of time. Not just brief encounters either, think about Io/Europa orbiters and landers.
csi claims they use real techniques and real forensic science in their program.
csi's official homepage has "online reference" they use to bolster this claim.
and csi's claims to be using real techniques and real science are impeding real cases.
true -- people are stupid, but CSI has an ethnical responsibility to make it clear their program is entirely fiction. the producers deliberately chose to mislead their audience into believing their program is scientifically and technically accurate in the name of profit. do you want a jury loaded with CSI propaganda judging your case?
People who can think for themselves are harder to manipulate and snow with jingles like "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit"* or race bait or other such things
actually several jurors stated (post-acquittal) they felt the defendant was in fact guilty, they acquitted for reasons other than being baited or being snowed by the attorneys.
drives with perpendicular recording are already shipping. however iirc they are mainly in 1.8" and 2.5" drives where the cost/performance can be justified.
this isn't the only aqua inconsistency, but it's a great example because:
1) it's apple's fault. if they don't follow their own rules, why should developers? 2) it's stock so anyone can replicate it. 3) it violates almost ALL of apple's own guidelines, simultaneously!
no no no, you see, it's a giant conspiracy by everyone not-apple to subvert the marketplace. customers really do want one-button hockey puck mice, they just don't know they do -- they've been corrupted by microsoft and linux.
xcode? hah. it's a pile of doggie poo, regardless of the hardware you run it on. the internal crashes get pretty old. for osx development i end up using scons and pico.
of course apple managed to break pico (they busted the -w option, long lines will wrap), and that takes real talent. i mean come on, break pico?! good lord. thankfully one can download the source and compile it from scratch, and get a nice un-broken pico to replace apple's broken distro of it.
yeah i would hope adium runs ok on a g3, just like i'd expect vi to run ok on a g3. next thing you're going to do is tell me how well Calculator runs on your g3?:P
maybe TextEdit or iTerm "runs great", but applications like Firefox -- you will spend lots of time waiting.
of course one should not recommend a G3 to anyone but your worst enemy. a friend's G3 ibook is affectionately named "ibork" as it has gone in for logic board repairs so many times he's lost count. it's spent more time being repaired than actually being used.
but then it kinda sounds like the G3 and you were made for each other.
What about the thing in the top left corner telling you which window actually has focus? (hint: it's the one with the exact same fucking name).
Bzzt. Wrong!
If that's not enough, what about the fact that one window seems to be 'hovering' a little 'higher' than the rest of the windows (casting a shadow double the size of unfocussed windows).
Bzzt. Wrong again! Thanks for playing.
I really don't see how anyone who's used OS X for more than 5 minutes could have trouble telling which window has focus.
Then I guess you haven't used OS X for more than 5 minutes.
When windows are unfocussed, OS X offers a title bar style change, title bar text changes color, windows get visibly larger shadows, and a boldfaced, 13 pt label that is always at the same point on the screen.
That's the way it should work. This is not the case here though.
The window you think has focus actually does not.
Try it.
BIG HINT: It's NOT the software update window. If it did, the OK button would be blue. Therefore, the software update window does not have focus.
And no, this isn't a photoshopped image either. It's straight from OSX 10.3.9.
What more do you want? Should the window flash orange and red every five seconds? Should it speak the name of the focussed window? What would make you happy?
I thought it was about the applications, of which most of them would not run very well on a $100 laptop, if at all. OSX barely runs at all on a G3 these days (you can coerce it, but it's awful). can't imagine how painful a $100 laptop would be.
menu at the top of the screen was great for singletasking OSes back in 1985, but it's no good at all for multitasking OSes of 2000+.
apple also abandoned much of their well researched (decades!) UI guidelines when they made aqua. apple abandoned good UI design in favor of eye candy. yeuccch.
now you have menubar at top, dock at bottom (or side, ugh!). having the dock jump out at you every time you touch the edge isn't a good UI design either.
and how's this for bad design? a lot of "mac experts" get it wrong, what's a novice to think? this would never have happened under the old MacOS UI guidelines. it's disturbingly typical of aqua.
nextstep did many of these things right, osx often feels like a braindamaged next.
You obviously have no clue what you're talking about. Or you simply can't read.
Bounds checking might be "cheap", but all the other checking you have to do in order to have a "completely stable, secure system" - as parent poster referred to - is very costly.
But please, do go ahead and build your "completely stable, secure system" by only using bounds checks. You are obviously so confident that bounds checking will save you from everything, you really deserve what you get;)
Slashdot Mirror
http://sources.redhat.com/ecos/ http://sources.redhat.com/redboot/ http://sourceware.org/jffs2/ http://cygwin.com/ http://people.redhat.com/mingo/exec-shield/ http://sourceware.org/insight/ http://sourceware.org/cluster/ http://sourceware.org/systemtap/
and don't forget ext3 is largely bankrolled by redhat.
there's lots more. just because you're unaware of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
why don't you ask them?
why don't you ask them?
yes. sure, redhat employs kernel devs like alan, ingo and arjen. redhat also pays to employ gcc and gdb developers. and others.
yep.
really? who wrote rpm then? should you not then lambast mandrake and suse for using rpm, because they didn't write it?
sure there are legitimate gripes about fedora. that's no reason to make stuff up.
Because microsoft forged a strong alliance with the current WH administration, which enabled microsoft to essentially "press delete" on the antitrust trial.
a perfect match with politicians, don't you think?
Actually, a functional engine made out of paper would explode first. The confetti left over would then burn.
send the individuals responsible to prison sure. that rarely happens, but it needs to happen more often.
for organizations which habitually act criminally (eg riaa, mpaa, microsoft) they need to get eg 15 years "frozen". after all, corporations legally are persons. they should face the same punishments.
given that the only major cause of radiation in space is the sun
True, however... objects like jupiter tend to do nasty things with that radiation. Like sweep it up and blast it into Io.
Earth's van allen belts pose a serious hazard to satellites, which is why most spacecraft are placed specifically in orbits to avoid them. The sun fuels the belts...
shielding machines against solar radiation isn't actually that hard
True again. Now design a probe which can survive the environment of Io or Europa for extended periods of time. Not just brief encounters either, think about Io/Europa orbiters and landers.
send the CEOs to prison, and fine them too.
best of both worlds.
csi claims they use real techniques and real forensic science in their program.
csi's official homepage has "online reference" they use to bolster this claim.
and csi's claims to be using real techniques and real science are impeding real cases.
true -- people are stupid, but CSI has an ethnical responsibility to make it clear their program is entirely fiction. the producers deliberately chose to mislead their audience into believing their program is scientifically and technically accurate in the name of profit. do you want a jury loaded with CSI propaganda judging your case?
People who can think for themselves are harder to manipulate and snow with jingles like "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit"* or race bait or other such things
actually several jurors stated (post-acquittal) they felt the defendant was in fact guilty, they acquitted for reasons other than being baited or being snowed by the attorneys.
video games don't claim to be reality.
csi does.
awaiting your data point :-)
too bad about the controller placement. it would have made an excellent portable mame platform.
you are confusing command queuing with journaling filesystems.
drives with perpendicular recording are already shipping. however iirc they are mainly in 1.8" and 2.5" drives where the cost/performance can be justified.
this isn't the only aqua inconsistency, but it's a great example because:
1) it's apple's fault. if they don't follow their own rules, why should developers?
2) it's stock so anyone can replicate it.
3) it violates almost ALL of apple's own guidelines, simultaneously!
Office indistinguishable between an 800mhz G3 and a 1.8ghz G5? Now I know you're smoking something.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and apple users capacity for self-delusion. And i'm not sure about the former.
no no no, you see, it's a giant conspiracy by everyone not-apple to subvert the marketplace. customers really do want one-button hockey puck mice, they just don't know they do -- they've been corrupted by microsoft and linux.
xcode? hah. it's a pile of doggie poo, regardless of the hardware you run it on. the internal crashes get pretty old. for osx development i end up using scons and pico.
:P
of course apple managed to break pico (they busted the -w option, long lines will wrap), and that takes real talent. i mean come on, break pico?! good lord. thankfully one can download the source and compile it from scratch, and get a nice un-broken pico to replace apple's broken distro of it.
yeah i would hope adium runs ok on a g3, just like i'd expect vi to run ok on a g3. next thing you're going to do is tell me how well Calculator runs on your g3?
I don't know what someone tagged you as flamebait for responding
:P
welcome to apple.slashdot.org, where the RDF is ultradense and permeates everywhere. do you really have to ask why truth is modded down here?
maybe TextEdit or iTerm "runs great", but applications like Firefox -- you will spend lots of time waiting.
of course one should not recommend a G3 to anyone but your worst enemy. a friend's G3 ibook is affectionately named "ibork" as it has gone in for logic board repairs so many times he's lost count. it's spent more time being repaired than actually being used.
but then it kinda sounds like the G3 and you were made for each other.
me? I'll stick with my G4.
What about the thing in the top left corner telling you which window actually has focus? (hint: it's the one with the exact same fucking name).
Bzzt. Wrong!
If that's not enough, what about the fact that one window seems to be 'hovering' a little 'higher' than the rest of the windows (casting a shadow double the size of unfocussed windows).
Bzzt. Wrong again! Thanks for playing.
I really don't see how anyone who's used OS X for more than 5 minutes could have trouble telling which window has focus.
Then I guess you haven't used OS X for more than 5 minutes.
When windows are unfocussed, OS X offers a title bar style change, title bar text changes color, windows get visibly larger shadows, and a boldfaced, 13 pt label that is always at the same point on the screen.
That's the way it should work. This is not the case here though.
The window you think has focus actually does not.
Try it.
BIG HINT: It's NOT the software update window. If it did, the OK button would be blue. Therefore, the software update window does not have focus.
And no, this isn't a photoshopped image either. It's straight from OSX 10.3.9.
What more do you want? Should the window flash orange and red every five seconds? Should it speak the name of the focussed window? What would make you happy?
A bit of consistency would be make me happy.
I thought it was about the applications, of which most of them would not run very well on a $100 laptop, if at all. OSX barely runs at all on a G3 these days (you can coerce it, but it's awful). can't imagine how painful a $100 laptop would be.
menu at the top of the screen was great for singletasking OSes back in 1985, but it's no good at all for multitasking OSes of 2000+.
apple also abandoned much of their well researched (decades!) UI guidelines when they made aqua. apple abandoned good UI design in favor of eye candy. yeuccch.
now you have menubar at top, dock at bottom (or side, ugh!). having the dock jump out at you every time you touch the edge isn't a good UI design either.
and how's this for bad design? a lot of "mac experts" get it wrong, what's a novice to think? this would never have happened under the old MacOS UI guidelines. it's disturbingly typical of aqua.
nextstep did many of these things right, osx often feels like a braindamaged next.
which is pretty funny coming from someone in the UK
RTFA? It's all explained in there.
moron.
You obviously have no clue what you're talking about. Or you simply can't read.
;)
Bounds checking might be "cheap", but all the other checking you have to do in order to have a "completely stable, secure system" - as parent poster referred to - is very costly.
But please, do go ahead and build your "completely stable, secure system" by only using bounds checks. You are obviously so confident that bounds checking will save you from everything, you really deserve what you get