Okay, so what you wanted to say was, that the American news stations have a relationship with the government similar to what stations owned by their government in third world countries have?
Ever wonder why resizing a window is so slow on OS X? ATSUI is the reason
Text is slow on the Mac, but it's actually the layout, not the drawing, so hardware acceleration for drawing wouldn't help (much), but caching the layout will, and most (if not all) programs already do that.
But generally everything (except OpenGL) on Mac is cpu rendered and then uploaded as a texture to the graphics card, it is mainly this latter part (uploading) which slows it down (since the graphics bus is a bottleneck).
When resizing, the entire bitmap is invalidated and needs re-uploading, which you can verify by resizing an empty window, which is approximately the same speed as one containing text.
I thought this was the standard approach for web-services (to return a redirect when the resource returned changes with each invocation of GET), exactly to avoid problems with caching? But perhaps this convention was "invented" after the patent...
Also, what if I use a redirect for other purposes than to avoid caching?
Being from Denmark I am a bit surprised to read things like:
everybody knows somebody who has been killed or severely injured by knife, usually by a complete stranger
About once a month now, you see headlines about somebody killing or attacking other people at random
I mean, the parts of the country I know resemble Denmark quite a bit and there are less than 9 million people "over there", which is a bit more than here, but we have on average less than a murder pr. week in the entire country, and in most cases the victim knew the perpetrator (and often they are both "known by the police").
Unfortunately I am not able to find a link, but during the US trial against Microsoft, an engineer from Apple did state that Microsoft deliberately had some of the APIs crash (randomly?) when it detected that the calling application was the Quicktime player.
Similarly the file explorer would not show search results when the file type was Real Audio -- although Microsoft was quick to say that this was just a bug which they had fixed.
I would be happy if someone could add links to articles mentioning the two incidents (searching for microsoft, trial, real, quicktime etc. doesn't tighten the net).
So instead of choosing a name that makes it clear that he thinks this is the successor to C, then he should select one that require no additional words to be entered in Google when searching for it?
First hit with "D Programming" gave the language homepage... what is the difference between typing "D Programming" versus "DProgramming"?
I once formatted a harddisk as UFS believing it would be easier to read from a linux machine, but the partition info is still in mac-format, and the UFS Apple uses is in fact an OpenStep-modified version of the old UFS.
So I am puzzled to why Apple has this option, and more to whom would actually use it?
For the records, it turned out that linux understood HFS+ quite well, unlike the Apple UFS, for which it only had read-only access.
Between my colleagues and myself at work, we probably use three or four different scripting languages, and pretty much everyone will have at least Perl on their system, so producing the log file is as almost easy as with your command line shell of choice.
Ehm... so you are saying that the shell is obsolete, because you have Perl? Well... Perl is *not* a GUI, Perl is (more or less) a superset of the shell, and the shell is a (possibly interactive) interpreter for a programming language designed for extensibility and data-exchange between "commands" (programs).
So I am not sure what your argumentation boils down to? Are you saying that it is the interactive element of the shell we no longer need? Because that seems to be the difference between how you work with Perl and how the OP just entered his commands into his shell of choice.
Sorry if this is a strawman, but I'd say that this is a step *back* -- in fact many scripting languages come with an interactive interpreter, which makes things a lot easier -- of cause most of the time you manipulate files in the shell, and so the toolset found in/bin is probably to prefer over the commands of the scripting language used, even though it can execute shell commands (since that require more typing).
A play-queue (i.e. play this track/album *after* the current),
Ability to see a thumbnail of the mp3 (as a sample), especially useful when having to find a particular spot in a track,
Remove the 0.2 seconds delay between tracks, at least when the tracks are from the same album -- really spoils a lot of my albums with that stupid pause!
If only the firmware was open source, but it ain't, so the next best thing is to replace it with one that is...
I agree, but would like to add that there is a difference in having a shell as an extra package and something which existed from day one.
At least when I was using Windows with cygwin I had to compile a lot of programs myself which was not part of the standard package, where some did not easily compile under cygwin without some porting first (which changes the "I can do that in a minute" to "I might be able to do that given an hour or so").
The integration I am talking about is having commands to interact with the clipboard, have the mp3 player read the data from standard-in, have the GUI program able to execute shell commands a.s.o.
but none of it has much to do with a command line interface per se.
Other than the command line is currently "implementing" these things, and probably the only interface which does!?!
Working on my GUI system, I could just as easily [...]
Not sure I really understand this -- is this a fictional GUI system which should allow for the same tasks to be performed? or can you actually do this?
I am using Mac OS X, I love the graphical user interface (been using it since '92) and hated MS-DOS (4DOS, Q-DOS, N-DOS or whatever), but I can simply not live without a decent shell as complement to my GUI, it lets me do so much more.
The shell is just a (successful) domain specific language, i.e. programming language, just like C++, SQL, Ruby etc. which also allow you to do a lot of stuff that there is currently no GUI to achieve.
But maybe you just refer to the "frame" of entering the shell commands (i.e. often the terminal)? one reason that it is as "simple" as that is, that a shell could be running on a different computer and the only mean of communication is by sending text between these, so you want to keep it simple.
But the shell does come in other disguises, for example I can enter a shell command in any text field (thanks to TextExtras), press ctrl-r and get it executed, this includes the current text field in my browser of choice, IM client etc. etc., and it is actually very handy, sometimes just to get the date or cal, but other times I e.g. need to expand tabs to spaces or fmt, tr, fold or similar, some text I copied from a webpage that I wish to send to a friend over ICQ...
The problem is that showing a special flag when the page is secure does not remind the user about the problems when a page is not secure.
So we would need to indicate that the page is not secure, but that's 99% of all pages... and so the user will quikckly learn to ignore it.
I think the solution to having people input their credit card details and pincode on a webpage after receiving an E-mail should not be solved by the browser, after all, the E-mail could also have told them to phone in their information...
A radical solution would be to print the wrong info on the credit card, but provide the user with the correct info on request, that way, everybody would be made aware of the problem (about not giving away this info), except those who never request the correct info, but then they won't be doing any harm with it either...
However, lately Carter seems to have taken on Trek-like problem-solving skills: "well, we could [insert improbable but ultimately 100% accurate solution 60 seconds after being presented with problem]." That bugs me a little.
Similarly, O'neal tends to be extremely dumb -- I mean, for a highly decorated military officer whom others admire based on his reports etc. he really ought to be smarter, I mean, he is really depicted as below average intelligence -- no way they would let him command the "flagship" star-gate team.
Bad code arise when the requirements change and the code needs to be updated to these.
Bad code arise when the beautiful algorithm needs to deal with real-world constraints.
Bad code arise when the program grows over a certain size and too many modules depend on each other (this is often not avoidable).
Bad code arise for many reasons -- premature optimizations is not a problem I face often (in my 15 years of programming), and I have worked with a lot of bad code, much of it my own, which did not start out to suck, but most successful projects will grow to a complexity that affect the code badly.
Try to work with some "hard" problems and I bet your code will not look intuitive, like an arithmetic encoder, C++ parser, GIF decoder or a HTML parser which is compatible with the HTML on the net (as the users expect it to be!).
It is interesting to note, however, that not only is a man on a bicycle more energy efficient than a swimming dolphin, but he is more energy efficient than the same man riding a horse.
To me it sounds like biking is a rather inefficient form of exercising then? i.e. it would be much better just to walk?
While the priority queue implementation would provide O(1) retrieval from the queue, deletion and insertion of new processes execute in O(logn) time. The linked list implementation is even worse [...] surprisingly still used in many operating systems
I think the reason is quite simple: Generally you have very few running tasks, so even though inserting a new one is O(lg N), it's basically free, whereas checking 160 bits (to find the first one set), can only be done efficiently by exploiting (hopefully existing) architecture specific assembler instructions, and is still slower than using a normal priority queue (assuming more than 32 task priorities are defined).
Adding to this, one does not need to keep a priority queue of all active tasks, but can use a priority queue of at which priorities we have tasks running, and use buckets like in Ingolfs schedular -- that way we get an upper bound on inserting/removing: logarithmic in the number of priorities (so O(1)).
So that gives us a faster schedule, but a worst-case slower insert/remove (but still O(1)). So what to prefer? That depends on how the machine will be used (and if it even allows efficient bit field operations).
From the article it sounds like other things were also changed with the introduction of Ingolfs schedular (like changing the timer frequency), and that may explain the perceived performance increase? I do not use Linux myself, so I cannot comment on these subjective things.
Surely they do not pay retail price for this -- giving away a $.99 song for something which probably costs a few dollars makes no sense, since the consumer might not even go and download the actual song.
I would also think that Apple stands to gain a lot from this sort of deal, cause a lot of people will install iTunes and investigate the ITMS, which they probably would not have done, if they were not given a free song.
The system allows the next 256 numbers produced by the PRNG, so given that I know the algorithm behind this, a negative response would allow me to skip the next 256 numbers and try again, effectively exhausting 256 times as many numbers as actual transmissions -- and I could even skip numbers I had already tried.
But of course, if the PRNG is good and the number transmitted is of many bits, then that would probably not help a lot.
In fact Panther tries to improve this by letting you build your target for different versions of the OS (10.1, 10.2 and 10.3) and InterfaceBuilder will also show how many incompatibilities would be present in the nib-file, if used on a 10.1 system.
As a developer though, I would always write for the latest version, due to bug fixes and new enhanced APIs, not to mention the new binding system in 10.3.
When I try to do anything object-oriented, specifically anything involving polymorphism, it seems to be fighting me all the way.
I am curious, what is it that you try to do?
I have done OOP in many different languages, and although I do miss a few features, like extending classes without sub classing or real message passing, i.e. where a message can be sent to any object which implement it, then it certainly does support polymorphism, and neither of these features are present in Java, and unlike C++, Java does not support operator overloading or implicit type conversions (which make it really ugly to introduce your own types like a vector or matrix) nor are the native types objects, which again makes it ugly when these are to go in a standard container or similar, not to mention all the typecasts which are generally required due to all the implicit upcasting -- so I definitely do not hope that it is Java which is your frame of reference.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, so what you wanted to say was, that the American news stations have a relationship with the government similar to what stations owned by their government in third world countries have?
And here I thought you were defending Fox... :)
Text is slow on the Mac, but it's actually the layout, not the drawing, so hardware acceleration for drawing wouldn't help (much), but caching the layout will, and most (if not all) programs already do that.
But generally everything (except OpenGL) on Mac is cpu rendered and then uploaded as a texture to the graphics card, it is mainly this latter part (uploading) which slows it down (since the graphics bus is a bottleneck).
When resizing, the entire bitmap is invalidated and needs re-uploading, which you can verify by resizing an empty window, which is approximately the same speed as one containing text.
I thought this was the standard approach for web-services (to return a redirect when the resource returned changes with each invocation of GET), exactly to avoid problems with caching? But perhaps this convention was "invented" after the patent...
Also, what if I use a redirect for other purposes than to avoid caching?
Can anyone from Sweden vouch for this story?
Being from Denmark I am a bit surprised to read things like:
I mean, the parts of the country I know resemble Denmark quite a bit and there are less than 9 million people "over there", which is a bit more than here, but we have on average less than a murder pr. week in the entire country, and in most cases the victim knew the perpetrator (and often they are both "known by the police").
Unfortunately I am not able to find a link, but during the US trial against Microsoft, an engineer from Apple did state that Microsoft deliberately had some of the APIs crash (randomly?) when it detected that the calling application was the Quicktime player.
Similarly the file explorer would not show search results when the file type was Real Audio -- although Microsoft was quick to say that this was just a bug which they had fixed.
I would be happy if someone could add links to articles mentioning the two incidents (searching for microsoft, trial, real, quicktime etc. doesn't tighten the net).
So instead of choosing a name that makes it clear that he thinks this is the successor to C, then he should select one that require no additional words to be entered in Google when searching for it?
First hit with "D Programming" gave the language homepage... what is the difference between typing "D Programming" versus "DProgramming"?
I just have to ask, why UFS?
I once formatted a harddisk as UFS believing it would be easier to read from a linux machine, but the partition info is still in mac-format, and the UFS Apple uses is in fact an OpenStep-modified version of the old UFS.
So I am puzzled to why Apple has this option, and more to whom would actually use it?
For the records, it turned out that linux understood HFS+ quite well, unlike the Apple UFS, for which it only had read-only access.
So I am not sure what your argumentation boils down to? Are you saying that it is the interactive element of the shell we no longer need? Because that seems to be the difference between how you work with Perl and how the OP just entered his commands into his shell of choice.
Sorry if this is a strawman, but I'd say that this is a step *back* -- in fact many scripting languages come with an interactive interpreter, which makes things a lot easier -- of cause most of the time you manipulate files in the shell, and so the toolset found in /bin is probably to prefer over the commands of the scripting language used, even though it can execute shell commands (since that require more typing).
I would further like
If only the firmware was open source, but it ain't, so the next best thing is to replace it with one that is...
I agree, but would like to add that there is a difference in having a shell as an extra package and something which existed from day one.
At least when I was using Windows with cygwin I had to compile a lot of programs myself which was not part of the standard package, where some did not easily compile under cygwin without some porting first (which changes the "I can do that in a minute" to "I might be able to do that given an hour or so").
The integration I am talking about is having commands to interact with the clipboard, have the mp3 player read the data from standard-in, have the GUI program able to execute shell commands a.s.o.
Other than the command line is currently "implementing" these things, and probably the only interface which does!?!
Not sure I really understand this -- is this a fictional GUI system which should allow for the same tasks to be performed? or can you actually do this?
I am using Mac OS X, I love the graphical user interface (been using it since '92) and hated MS-DOS (4DOS, Q-DOS, N-DOS or whatever), but I can simply not live without a decent shell as complement to my GUI, it lets me do so much more.
The shell is just a (successful) domain specific language, i.e. programming language, just like C++, SQL, Ruby etc. which also allow you to do a lot of stuff that there is currently no GUI to achieve.
But maybe you just refer to the "frame" of entering the shell commands (i.e. often the terminal)? one reason that it is as "simple" as that is, that a shell could be running on a different computer and the only mean of communication is by sending text between these, so you want to keep it simple.
But the shell does come in other disguises, for example I can enter a shell command in any text field (thanks to TextExtras), press ctrl-r and get it executed, this includes the current text field in my browser of choice, IM client etc. etc., and it is actually very handy, sometimes just to get the date or cal, but other times I e.g. need to expand tabs to spaces or fmt, tr, fold or similar, some text I copied from a webpage that I wish to send to a friend over ICQ...
I think instead of people you wanted to say Python programmers who have never programmed in C.
Seriously, I have never ever seen such a bug and would like to know from wher you have "the fact that many C bugs are of the form".
The problem is that showing a special flag when the page is secure does not remind the user about the problems when a page is not secure.
So we would need to indicate that the page is not secure, but that's 99% of all pages... and so the user will quikckly learn to ignore it.
I think the solution to having people input their credit card details and pincode on a webpage after receiving an E-mail should not be solved by the browser, after all, the E-mail could also have told them to phone in their information...
A radical solution would be to print the wrong info on the credit card, but provide the user with the correct info on request, that way, everybody would be made aware of the problem (about not giving away this info), except those who never request the correct info, but then they won't be doing any harm with it either...
AmigaBasic was written by Microsoft and one of the only programs I recall not working when the operating system was upgraded to V2.0.
Similarly, O'neal tends to be extremely dumb -- I mean, for a highly decorated military officer whom others admire based on his reports etc. he really ought to be smarter, I mean, he is really depicted as below average intelligence -- no way they would let him command the "flagship" star-gate team.
Bad code arise when the requirements change and the code needs to be updated to these.
Bad code arise when the beautiful algorithm needs to deal with real-world constraints.
Bad code arise when the program grows over a certain size and too many modules depend on each other (this is often not avoidable).
Bad code arise for many reasons -- premature optimizations is not a problem I face often (in my 15 years of programming), and I have worked with a lot of bad code, much of it my own, which did not start out to suck, but most successful projects will grow to a complexity that affect the code badly.
Try to work with some "hard" problems and I bet your code will not look intuitive, like an arithmetic encoder, C++ parser, GIF decoder or a HTML parser which is compatible with the HTML on the net (as the users expect it to be!).
To me it sounds like biking is a rather inefficient form of exercising then? i.e. it would be much better just to walk?
I think the reason is quite simple: Generally you have very few running tasks, so even though inserting a new one is O(lg N), it's basically free, whereas checking 160 bits (to find the first one set), can only be done efficiently by exploiting (hopefully existing) architecture specific assembler instructions, and is still slower than using a normal priority queue (assuming more than 32 task priorities are defined).
Adding to this, one does not need to keep a priority queue of all active tasks, but can use a priority queue of at which priorities we have tasks running, and use buckets like in Ingolfs schedular -- that way we get an upper bound on inserting/removing: logarithmic in the number of priorities (so O(1)).
So that gives us a faster schedule, but a worst-case slower insert/remove (but still O(1)). So what to prefer? That depends on how the machine will be used (and if it even allows efficient bit field operations).
From the article it sounds like other things were also changed with the introduction of Ingolfs schedular (like changing the timer frequency), and that may explain the perceived performance increase? I do not use Linux myself, so I cannot comment on these subjective things.
Didn't know the names so found this link, and they sure as well would also freak me out! :-)
But the page says: Centipedes require moist habitats. If they are plentiful, there may be an underlying moisture problem that should be corrected.
Just wanted to bring it to your attention!
Surely they do not pay retail price for this -- giving away a $.99 song for something which probably costs a few dollars makes no sense, since the consumer might not even go and download the actual song.
I would also think that Apple stands to gain a lot from this sort of deal, cause a lot of people will install iTunes and investigate the ITMS, which they probably would not have done, if they were not given a free song.
The system allows the next 256 numbers produced by the PRNG, so given that I know the algorithm behind this, a negative response would allow me to skip the next 256 numbers and try again, effectively exhausting 256 times as many numbers as actual transmissions -- and I could even skip numbers I had already tried.
But of course, if the PRNG is good and the number transmitted is of many bits, then that would probably not help a lot.
In fact Panther tries to improve this by letting you build your target for different versions of the OS (10.1, 10.2 and 10.3) and InterfaceBuilder will also show how many incompatibilities would be present in the nib-file, if used on a 10.1 system.
As a developer though, I would always write for the latest version, due to bug fixes and new enhanced APIs, not to mention the new binding system in 10.3.
I am curious, what is it that you try to do?
I have done OOP in many different languages, and although I do miss a few features, like extending classes without sub classing or real message passing, i.e. where a message can be sent to any object which implement it, then it certainly does support polymorphism, and neither of these features are present in Java, and unlike C++, Java does not support operator overloading or implicit type conversions (which make it really ugly to introduce your own types like a vector or matrix) nor are the native types objects, which again makes it ugly when these are to go in a standard container or similar, not to mention all the typecasts which are generally required due to all the implicit upcasting -- so I definitely do not hope that it is Java which is your frame of reference.
The silk is taken directly from the spider, not the web it spins -- and for research purposes spiders have been "farmed".
The silk from silkworms OTOH is from the cocoon it spins (which you unwind).