Apple is now requiring third-party eBook sellers like Amazon to also make their titles available through the Apple store
Apple is NOT requiring Amazon's books to be listed in the Apple iBook Store. It's requiring the Kindle app to allow users to buy books within the Kindle app. Right now the Kindle app gives you a link to the Amazon website, where you can buy books.
It sounds like users can still go to the Amazon website to buy books, and not have to pay the 30% fee. Amazon just needs to give users the OPTION of buying books in-app and paying a 30% fee.
...where the name of the game is cramming as much information as possible into a small amount of space. Paper's dominant limiting factor was space. He says the iPhone's stocks widget could fit more information on-screen than it does. He criticizes the web browser for not using transparent buttons that would let the user see information on the web page through them.
But with dynamic displays, the game is all about minimizing the amount of retrieval time, not space. Users can tell the computer to pull up a graph for a new stock, or scroll the page downward with their finger to view the info under the buttons, or completely off-screen, with minimal effort. The biggest limiting factor is interaction. Let's keep the buttons visible, because they enable far more information than they hide.
If we sacrificed usability for screen real-estate, we'd end up with marginless documents and 4-pixel icons, which incidentally would look like windows mobile.
There's no need for you to check the type and throw an error with dynamic typing. It will happen automatically for you when you call the function to reference the string `a' at index `b', and throw a "type error" if the arguments aren't a string and an integer.
You're basically using a statically-typed style to write code in a dynamically-typed language. The whole point of dynamic typing is to let you not worry about specifying type issues in the language!
MS has *never* been on the forefront of good UI design.
Dude MS invented the freaking taskbar.
Now everyone's got one or a variant of it. No OS actually tries to "iconify" windows into little things on your desktop, hidden behind all the other windows, anymore. Man that was hell. God bless the microsoft taskbar!
The invented the start menu.
KDE, Gnome, and almost every other learnable desktop has one now. (Apple newbies still have trouble figuring out where their programs that aren't on the dock, because they don't know where to "start" looking.)
Now they invent a totally new UI style for office apps. People love it.
Give these dudes some credit. They designed and created some fundamental shit that's been copied everywhere.
In a nutshell, there are TWO completely different clipboards implemented in X:
The "select->middle click" clipboard
And the "copy->paste" clipboard
These two clipboards do not affect or interact with each other.
Other OS's (like Windows) only have the second kind. Modern Unix applications (like anything based on GTK, QT, or Mozilla) support both clipboards simultaneously and independently.
Old X Windows applications like XTerm only support the first kind. This is why you can't copy from or paste into an XTerm using C-c and C-v.
So if you are using modern applications, you should always be able to use C-c and C-v. If you have to copy or paste something into an XTerm, you will have to select it and middle-click. The solution is to use a moderm terminal, like gnome-terminal, instead of XTerm.
If you read the article, you'll learn that there are actually three different clipboards in X (one of which is never used), and that Emacs and XEmacs then implement yet another fourth clipboard!
Re:I'll have to see the bandwidth tests first.
on
A Sound Server For X
·
· Score: 1
The *only* problems I have encountered involved XEmacs doing silly things with the cut-buffer and pausing momentarily.
You can fix this by putting (setq x-selection-strict-motif-ownership nil) in your.xemacs/init.el file. This disables a poor implementation of the motif clipboard protocol that uses up a few megs of bandwidth per cut/paste operation.
If this is the *only* problem you're having with X connections, it'll soon be absolutely perfect!
Actually, compilers already do as much of this as they can. The problem is that they can't do much. It won't "work with a lot of code", like you assert.
If you can come up with a compile-time analysis that does any better than the state of the art, you've got yourself an instant PHD thesis.
It is painful for me to hear people continue to attempt to defend this position.
The stance that it is somehow idealogically immoral to put constraints on the availability of dangerous information in our current society is not only without a rational defense, but completely ignores the reality that such information can directly lead to a massive amount of harm.
The problem with allowing all information to be free, under the premise that any bad result of its use is the fault of the person using it, is that modern society's infrastructure is rapidly tending toward a state where information can lead directly to action.
Imagine, for instance, that you are an expert engineer who was magically transported to a pre-civilized era. Would the vast body of knowledge that you posessed help you, in that era, take actions that effect any significant amount of change? Would you, in fact, be able to do anything with the advanced information that you posess in such a situation?
In earlier times, it was entirely ok to spread any and all information, because the worst that the information could do would be to change somebody's opinion on a political matter or teach somebody how to make a shoddy weapon (read: a stick) of minor consequence. In the near future, one will be able to transmit a digital specification for a weapon to be fabricated on one's personal fab-lab. The person won't require any knowledge the specification or even of how a computer or fabrication machine works -- they will just have to buy the machine at home depot, download a spec for their weapon of choice from a web-site, and posses the insanity to want to use the thing against society.
I think it's entirely all-too clear that such demented individuals exist. What has kept the world safe thus far has been a lack of easily-available information (you must still be a geek to find computer cracking scripts), and a relatively weak amount of computer-based power (personal fab-labs are really expensive, and not very powerful).
But this won't be the case in the future. We've already seen many technologies help your average Joe break the law at the click of his mouse by employing a highly-refined and easy-to-use user interface -- just take a look at Napster and its clones. Clearly the very availability of Napster enabled thousands and millions to break laws that they would have not broken previously. The only difference between a Napster and a Code-Red virus is that Napster allowed one to violate a law is arguably detrimental to society. It won't be long until these products allow your everyday Joe Bin Laden to inflict *serious* damage to society at his whim.
It'd be great if information could always be free, but unless we restrict dangerous forms of it, we are simply giving up our safe way of life. Although one might *want* to give arbitrary individuals access to all information, you're essentially allowing arbitrary individuals the power to do anything they desire. This system will eventually lead to catastrophe, because you cannot make the entire world's population obey an honor system.
You can, actually, use scheme as well as Java and C/C++.
Just make one person memorize the code for a scheme interpreter beforehand. Have him type it in at the beginning of the test (while the other students think about the problems), and voila -- your whole team suddenly becomes a couple-hundred IQ points smarter.
You just have to get used to writing scheme code embedded inside of a gigantic string constant...
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think anyone believes he's not actually a US citizen. The point of conflict is that the US President is required to be a natural-born citizen.
Let's be honest here: the point of conflict is that he's black.
Is there any reason Amazon can't just sell the ebooks for 30% more in Apple's store than in its own?
Woah there, apple isn't requiring Apple to put the books in the Apple store. Just inside the Kindle app, and charge 30% for purchases in that app.
The story is even more wrong than that. It's not requiring Amazon to list books in the Apple Store. Just inside the Kindle app itself.
This is not true:
Apple is NOT requiring Amazon's books to be listed in the Apple iBook Store. It's requiring the Kindle app to allow users to buy books within the Kindle app. Right now the Kindle app gives you a link to the Amazon website, where you can buy books.
It sounds like users can still go to the Amazon website to buy books, and not have to pay the 30% fee. Amazon just needs to give users the OPTION of buying books in-app and paying a 30% fee.
...where the name of the game is cramming as much information as possible into a small amount of space. Paper's dominant limiting factor was space. He says the iPhone's stocks widget could fit more information on-screen than it does. He criticizes the web browser for not using transparent buttons that would let the user see information on the web page through them.
But with dynamic displays, the game is all about minimizing the amount of retrieval time, not space. Users can tell the computer to pull up a graph for a new stock, or scroll the page downward with their finger to view the info under the buttons, or completely off-screen, with minimal effort. The biggest limiting factor is interaction. Let's keep the buttons visible, because they enable far more information than they hide.
If we sacrificed usability for screen real-estate, we'd end up with marginless documents and 4-pixel icons, which incidentally would look like windows mobile.
There's no need for you to check the type and throw an error with dynamic typing. It will happen automatically for you when you call the function to reference the string `a' at index `b', and throw a "type error" if the arguments aren't a string and an integer.
You're basically using a statically-typed style to write code in a dynamically-typed language. The whole point of dynamic typing is to let you not worry about specifying type issues in the language!
We had been hearing for so long that Bush was ignoring scientists!
Dude MS invented the freaking taskbar.
Now everyone's got one or a variant of it. No OS actually tries to "iconify" windows into little things on your desktop, hidden behind all the other windows, anymore. Man that was hell. God bless the microsoft taskbar!
The invented the start menu.
KDE, Gnome, and almost every other learnable desktop has one now. (Apple newbies still have trouble figuring out where their programs that aren't on the dock, because they don't know where to "start" looking.)
Now they invent a totally new UI style for office apps. People love it.
Give these dudes some credit. They designed and created some fundamental shit that's been copied everywhere.
In a nutshell, there are TWO completely different clipboards implemented in X:
These two clipboards do not affect or interact with each other.
Other OS's (like Windows) only have the second kind. Modern Unix applications (like anything based on GTK, QT, or Mozilla) support both clipboards simultaneously and independently.
Old X Windows applications like XTerm only support the first kind. This is why you can't copy from or paste into an XTerm using C-c and C-v.
So if you are using modern applications, you should always be able to use C-c and C-v. If you have to copy or paste something into an XTerm, you will have to select it and middle-click. The solution is to use a moderm terminal, like gnome-terminal, instead of XTerm.
If you read the article, you'll learn that there are actually three different clipboards in X (one of which is never used), and that Emacs and XEmacs then implement yet another fourth clipboard!
Also see the freedesktop.org reference.
If this is the *only* problem you're having with X connections, it'll soon be absolutely perfect!
Actually, compilers already do as much of this as they can. The problem is that they can't do much. It won't "work with a lot of code", like you assert.
If you can come up with a compile-time analysis that does any better than the state of the art, you've got yourself an instant PHD thesis.
Hey, that feature IS in sawfish.
On my debian box, the setting is at control-center -> sawfish -> focus -> "ugliness".
It is painful for me to hear people continue to attempt to defend this position.
The stance that it is somehow idealogically immoral to put constraints on the availability of dangerous information in our current society is not only without a rational defense, but completely ignores the reality that such information can directly lead to a massive amount of harm.
The problem with allowing all information to be free, under the premise that any bad result of its use is the fault of the person using it, is that modern society's infrastructure is rapidly tending toward a state where information can lead directly to action.
Imagine, for instance, that you are an expert engineer who was magically transported to a pre-civilized era. Would the vast body of knowledge that you posessed help you, in that era, take actions that effect any significant amount of change? Would you, in fact, be able to do anything with the advanced information that you posess in such a situation?
In earlier times, it was entirely ok to spread any and all information, because the worst that the information could do would be to change somebody's opinion on a political matter or teach somebody how to make a shoddy weapon (read: a stick) of minor consequence. In the near future, one will be able to transmit a digital specification for a weapon to be fabricated on one's personal fab-lab. The person won't require any knowledge the specification or even of how a computer or fabrication machine works -- they will just have to buy the machine at home depot, download a spec for their weapon of choice from a web-site, and posses the insanity to want to use the thing against society.
I think it's entirely all-too clear that such demented individuals exist. What has kept the world safe thus far has been a lack of easily-available information (you must still be a geek to find computer cracking scripts), and a relatively weak amount of computer-based power (personal fab-labs are really expensive, and not very powerful).
But this won't be the case in the future. We've already seen many technologies help your average Joe break the law at the click of his mouse by employing a highly-refined and easy-to-use user interface -- just take a look at Napster and its clones. Clearly the very availability of Napster enabled thousands and millions to break laws that they would have not broken previously. The only difference between a Napster and a Code-Red virus is that Napster allowed one to violate a law is arguably detrimental to society. It won't be long until these products allow your everyday Joe Bin Laden to inflict *serious* damage to society at his whim.
It'd be great if information could always be free, but unless we restrict dangerous forms of it, we are simply giving up our safe way of life. Although one might *want* to give arbitrary individuals access to all information, you're essentially allowing arbitrary individuals the power to do anything they desire. This system will eventually lead to catastrophe, because you cannot make the entire world's population obey an honor system.
Just make one person memorize the code for a scheme interpreter beforehand. Have him type it in at the beginning of the test (while the other students think about the problems), and voila -- your whole team suddenly becomes a couple-hundred IQ points smarter.
You just have to get used to writing scheme code embedded inside of a gigantic string constant...