Mac OS X ships with a library called PDFKit for rendering PDFs. Preview.app uses PDFKit. I believe the SchubertIT plugin also used PDFKit. Safari also uses PDFKit to render PDFs. This doesn't mean that Safari's PDF support is the same thing as SchubertIT.
I like how lack of evidence that Google did anything is being taken as proof of their guilt. Google doesn't necessarily cache every revision of every document, and their search results often return documents that used to contain the search string, but no longer do. Thus, this situation could occur if the following events happened:
The document is posted with incriminating information
Google and Baidu index it.
The server admin sees his logs, thinks "Oh shit", and alters the spreadsheet
Google indexes it again, and updates their cache.
The server admin gets a little more afraid, having had time to think about it, and removes the document completely.
Since there is no evidence Google did anything wrong here, I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt until such evidence surfaces.
And are you really surprised that MDFs, created by proprietary Windows software, don't have a convenient tool on Mac? Try using an open format instead.
Some of the more well-known ones are the Apache License (version 2, compatible with GPL3 but not GPL2), the modified BSD License, the X11 License, and others.
GPL2 wasn't very compatible with other licenses because it forbade adding more restrictions (such as indemnification requirements) out of concern that people might add restrictions that served to make the software non-free. GPL3 section 7 specifically allows you to add certain restrictions that are common in other free software licenses, so it's more compatible with other licenses (at the cost of not being compatible with GPL2 unless the 'or any later version' clause was used).
Yeah, it's complex. But RMS's goal was first and foremost to make sure your rights as a user couldn't be taken away by a competent but unfriendly developer, and other people have had different goals. (e.g., it's safe to say that GPL focuses on the rights of the user, while BSD focuses on the rights of the developer.) In the real world, when goals conflict, complexity happens.
If you're using FileVault and you want safety, you're an idiot. Because god knows encrypting your entire home directory as a single disk image could never blow up in your face.
Suppose that someone in the middle-ages was abducted by aliens and proctologically examined? How do you think they might describe it? Being visited by sex-crazed demons, perhaps? Could be a change in terminology, nothing more.
N.B. I believe in neither sex-crazed demons nor proctologically-crazed aliens. But I do value critical thinking.
Why are people attributing that to Jordan, as if he made it up? He didn't. It's a Japanese saying:
". . . be resolved that duty is heavier than a mountain, while death is lighter than a feather."-First Precept of the Imperial Rescript to Japanese Soldiers and Sailors
Re:a Rose by any other name is still full of crap
on
IsoHunt Shut Down?
·
· Score: 1
I don't think anyone here is arguing that the people who spent five years making a movie like The Incredibles aren't entitled to compensation. The main (rational) point is that the current system whereby we attempt to enforce the compensation is broken and perhaps obsolete.
I know I would be happy with a system whereby I pay Pixar (or whoever it is who deserves compensation for the particular work) $5 or so (which is more than they get off a dvd sale, I expect), and in return I have the right to make use of that movie in whatever format I choose; I could burn it to a DVD, or encode it to MPEG-4 and put it on my ipod, or stream it over a network to a TV in my living room, whatever. Divorce the license from the physical representation, and if you really want the physical representation, you can buy it. The problem is that the movie studios don't want to do this, and there's no infrastructure in place to handle the transactions.
But I really think it is incumbent on the religious who are not "nuts," as you characterize yourself, to do a better job at shouting him down.
What makes you think he'd listen to us any more than he listens to you? Fundamentalists are real good at rationalizing along these lines: "Mr. X claims he's a Christian, but he's not a fundamentalist like me. I bet he's not really a Christian at all, or he'd have similar opinions to mine."
My mom uses that sort of reasoning all the time, and it drives me crazy.
people will continue to buy from them instead of switching to the non DRM competition.
And that'd be what, exactly? Emusic just has indie stuff, allofmp3.com is still in a legal grey area as far as most people are concerned, and has some other issues (audible pops in the music, incorrect id3 tags (Everything I get is tagged 'Blues' for genre, for instance), strangely limited selection for many artists; the list goes on). I'd like to know where there's a legal service of the same quality as iTunes, but without the DRM.
Does Matroska actually work on any platform but Windows? I know the faq claims it works on Linux, but that's if you can get multimedia working, which I typically can't. My main platform is OS X, and a media format that requires VLC is a non-starter.
That would hardly have done any good. Dropping the packets once they reach his network is of no use, since the damage is already done. The problem is the bandwidth consumed to reach his network.
It's a textbook that until last year was used for the Intro to Comp Sci class at my university. They switched to a different textbook because this one didn't come with enough prewritten homework assignments for them, but I'm sure it'll be perfectly fine for you. You can probably skip Chapter 1, it's mostly terminology.
I'm fairly certain "The user is a frakking idiot" falls outside of the range of situations Google can be held accountable for. If you install their software of your own free will, it's your responsibility to read the TOS and make sure the software is compatible with your administrator's allowable software policy. If you are lazy and do not do this, that's not Google's fault.
All of which is very nice. Except when you walk into your average music shop, you will find a shrinkwrapped LatestPopStar cd, and possibly a cardboard standup and a TV playing music videos from MTV. The customer can't open the cd and listen to it before buying, the way he can examine the quality of the Acme Wizmaster. Apples to apples, please.
In addition to the standard volume for AIFF files, there's a smaller extra partition for "enhanced" content. I was surprised to find a "Start.app" Mac application in addition to the expected Windows-related files. Running this app brings up a long legal agreement, clicking Continue prompts you for your username/password (uh-oh!), and then promptly exits. Digging around a bit, I find that Start.app actually installs 2 files: PhoenixNub1.kext and PhoenixNub12.kext.
So, you have to insert the CD, ignore the fact that OS X automatically launches iTunes (unless you have turned that off or specified some other application), manually find, and manually run this program. Nobody in their right mind will think they have to use this program to play the CD. About the only semi-sane reason for running the program is "I wonder what this will do," except you should never enter your admin password after thinking that.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you can download and run javascript based apps offline on the iPhone and iPad.
Objective-C
Mac OS X ships with a library called PDFKit for rendering PDFs. Preview.app uses PDFKit. I believe the SchubertIT plugin also used PDFKit. Safari also uses PDFKit to render PDFs. This doesn't mean that Safari's PDF support is the same thing as SchubertIT.
So you're saying she should trade the illusion of sexual attraction for computer services? Fuck off and die.
That is exactly his point; he's decrying the need to use outrage to avoid being tarred with a sympathizer brush.
I like how lack of evidence that Google did anything is being taken as proof of their guilt. Google doesn't necessarily cache every revision of every document, and their search results often return documents that used to contain the search string, but no longer do. Thus, this situation could occur if the following events happened:
Since there is no evidence Google did anything wrong here, I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt until such evidence surfaces.
Handling RARs in Mac is done with The Unarchiver
And are you really surprised that MDFs, created by proprietary Windows software, don't have a convenient tool on Mac? Try using an open format instead.
There's a long list of licenses compatible with the GPL at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses .
Some of the more well-known ones are the Apache License (version 2, compatible with GPL3 but not GPL2), the modified BSD License, the X11 License, and others.
GPL2 wasn't very compatible with other licenses because it forbade adding more restrictions (such as indemnification requirements) out of concern that people might add restrictions that served to make the software non-free. GPL3 section 7 specifically allows you to add certain restrictions that are common in other free software licenses, so it's more compatible with other licenses (at the cost of not being compatible with GPL2 unless the 'or any later version' clause was used).
Yeah, it's complex. But RMS's goal was first and foremost to make sure your rights as a user couldn't be taken away by a competent but unfriendly developer, and other people have had different goals. (e.g., it's safe to say that GPL focuses on the rights of the user, while BSD focuses on the rights of the developer.) In the real world, when goals conflict, complexity happens.
No, Apple allows you to uninstall the application (dragging the app into the trash).
If you're using FileVault and you want safety, you're an idiot. Because god knows encrypting your entire home directory as a single disk image could never blow up in your face.
Suppose that someone in the middle-ages was abducted by aliens and proctologically examined? How do you think they might describe it? Being visited by sex-crazed demons, perhaps? Could be a change in terminology, nothing more.
N.B. I believe in neither sex-crazed demons nor proctologically-crazed aliens. But I do value critical thinking.
Yeah, that's the face they present to the writers.
Check out the face they present to the publishers: http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/005131.html
I don't think anyone here is arguing that the people who spent five years making a movie like The Incredibles aren't entitled to compensation. The main (rational) point is that the current system whereby we attempt to enforce the compensation is broken and perhaps obsolete.
I know I would be happy with a system whereby I pay Pixar (or whoever it is who deserves compensation for the particular work) $5 or so (which is more than they get off a dvd sale, I expect), and in return I have the right to make use of that movie in whatever format I choose; I could burn it to a DVD, or encode it to MPEG-4 and put it on my ipod, or stream it over a network to a TV in my living room, whatever. Divorce the license from the physical representation, and if you really want the physical representation, you can buy it. The problem is that the movie studios don't want to do this, and there's no infrastructure in place to handle the transactions.
people will continue to buy from them instead of switching to the non DRM competition.
And that'd be what, exactly? Emusic just has indie stuff, allofmp3.com is still in a legal grey area as far as most people are concerned, and has some other issues (audible pops in the music, incorrect id3 tags (Everything I get is tagged 'Blues' for genre, for instance), strangely limited selection for many artists; the list goes on). I'd like to know where there's a legal service of the same quality as iTunes, but without the DRM.
Does Matroska actually work on any platform but Windows? I know the faq claims it works on Linux, but that's if you can get multimedia working, which I typically can't. My main platform is OS X, and a media format that requires VLC is a non-starter.
That would hardly have done any good. Dropping the packets once they reach his network is of no use, since the damage is already done. The problem is the bandwidth consumed to reach his network.
I give this about five minutes before someone shows how that Dell's prices aren't any better than Apple's, as happens in every story.
Zarf's Book-Scanning Project overview may be of use.
I would recommend How to Think Like a Computer Scientist: Learning with Python.
It's a textbook that until last year was used for the Intro to Comp Sci class at my university. They switched to a different textbook because this one didn't come with enough prewritten homework assignments for them, but I'm sure it'll be perfectly fine for you. You can probably skip Chapter 1, it's mostly terminology.
I'm fairly certain "The user is a frakking idiot" falls outside of the range of situations Google can be held accountable for. If you install their software of your own free will, it's your responsibility to read the TOS and make sure the software is compatible with your administrator's allowable software policy. If you are lazy and do not do this, that's not Google's fault.
All of which is very nice. Except when you walk into your average music shop, you will find a shrinkwrapped LatestPopStar cd, and possibly a cardboard standup and a TV playing music videos from MTV. The customer can't open the cd and listen to it before buying, the way he can examine the quality of the Acme Wizmaster. Apples to apples, please.