No. Win32 is just an API for programming for Windows. It's not any kind of ANSI/ISO-ratified standard. It's not even a Microsoft standard because there's also MFC and.Net. It's not a standard by any definition. Also, a "standard" in relation to computers and engineering has a very strict meaning as opposed to a social "standard" ("custom," really).
But the standard application APIs are Win32, Cocoa, and QT/GTK...
Really? What are their respective ANSI or ISO standards numbers? The only one in my original list that is actually is true standard is POSIX. Win32 is no more a standard than any given module on CPAN is.
... we spent 30 years creating operating systems with standard application APIs,
and now everyone is trying to throw that work out and start totally from scratch...
There are a lot of APIs: POSIX, Linux-specific, Win32, MFC,.Net, Cocoa, Java, Swing, CPAN, Qt, etc., (and none of these are web-related) and more are being created all the time. It's not a new phenomenon.
I hardly think that any business wakes up in the morning and says I am going alienate 5% of my customers.
Maybe not wuite like that, but, historically, at least banks and other financial institutions required IE due to perceived security reasons. (Banks tend to be extra careful with people's money, at least on the web.) Presumably, they simply didn't want to spend the time/money to test in other browsers. And they already have your money and I highly doubt customers are going to close their accounts and move elsewhere due to the bank's site not working in a non-IE browser.
... an anonymous source in Taiwan has leaked that Apple has ordered some 10 inch touch-screens from WinTek, the maker of the touch-screen for the iPhone. It looks like an Apple netbook could possibly be in the works for a delivery date in Q3 of this year, in time for back-to-school sales.
I can't remember the last time I've gone a month without hearing of somebody dying due to their own stupidity.
And that's pretty good evidence of Natural Selection at work.
(However, in order for it to work well, they have to kill themselves before procreating.)
In recent years, fact-based reporting about Apple and its products has been almost completely overwhelmed by gossip, predictions, and speculation -- an amazing percentage of which is embarrassingly wrong.
They generally politely try to excuse themselves if they disagree with something or avoid the issue, rather than lambasting you about whatever their pet issue is.
... and instead break open their checkbooks and send tons of money to the Yes on 8 campaign in a state that isn't even theirs. Yeah, that's so much better.
I'm curious if a patent ever is a good thing for the public. it really only ever seems to do exactly this.
No, it's just that these are the kinds of patent stories that usually only make the news. In general, however, a patent certainly offers protection to "the little guy" from having his invention ripped off by some company. (A lot of patent lawyers would probably take the case on a contingency basis with the possible windfall of licensing money.) However, you can't just afford patents to "the little guy": they have to be afforded to all entities, companies included. Indeed, it also prevents a case like, say, Microsoft from ripping off Apple after Apple is the entity that spend all the R&D money.
Which means that all the patent does, in this case, is retard progress for twenty years by preventing anyone else from beginning to compete with the iPhone.
Not necessarily. Assuming Apple is willing to license the technology (and we don't know what they're willing to do yet), then all anybody else has to do is license it. Certainly, if it's another big company, they can afford it. It also gives Apple leverage to license other patented inventions of other companies: cross licensing. But, even if Apple refuses to license anything, it's their right to do so since they're the ones that spent the R&D money to bring the thing to market and raise the bar on cell phones. Over-night, we went from crappy phone browsers, teeny keyboards, and answering-machine-style voice-mail (and settling for it), to the iPhone and forcing other companies to innovate. Indeed, one way to circumvent a patent is to invent something totally new. It can also force innovation rather than hinder it.
I realize this view isn't popular with the/. crowd, so if you disagree, respond with an intelligent argument rather than modding down.
Actually, it isn't. Mars has only about 1/3rd the gravity of Earth. Humans would still experience bone loss.
However, it's work-around-able by spending less than an hour a day in a centrifuge.
What is up with all of the voyeurism lately? Are peoples' lives so pathetic that they have to spend inordinate amounts of time and effort to gawk at others'?
The advantage of a DVCS is... that all [emphasis added] operations can be done offline...
Except for a submit (push) or update (pull), the only thing I ever do that requires me to be online is to retrieve a revision of a particular file prior to the most recent. What other common operations would one do that ordinarily would require one to be online that one can do offline with a DVCS?
... if you are in a coffee shop and you want Sue to have your devel history, you can push to Sue instead of having Sue pull from you.
Sure, OK; but I don't want to have to (a) keep track of which people might want my changes and (b) push said changes to each and every one of them manually.
... you can set up another git repository on your home server which has a static IP. Then, you pull from and push to your home server, which you can access from anywhere with your laptop, and other people also pull from your home server.
If I (and everyone else who works for my company and who also works from various locations as I do) would have to do that, then why not simply have one repository on a company server and everyone pushes/pulls from that? But then we're back to a central server. To me, it seems as though distributed VCS is a useless feature in practice.
The thing I don't understand about any distributed VCS is how (for example) others could pull stuff from my repository if I don't have a static IP. Also note that I don't mean "don't have a static IP" only in the usual sense of "having a dynamic IP at home": I also mean in the sense that my development machine is my laptop and I often work at coffee shops and other places and so I'm often behind NATs.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple's DOS 3.3 had nothing to do with Microsoft's DOS (MS-DOS). The former was written by Wozniak himself.
I fondly remember ProDOS for the Apple //.
No. Win32 is just an API for programming for Windows. It's not any kind of ANSI/ISO-ratified standard. It's not even a Microsoft standard because there's also MFC and .Net. It's not a standard by any definition. Also, a "standard" in relation to computers and engineering has a very strict meaning as opposed to a social "standard" ("custom," really).
Really? What are their respective ANSI or ISO standards numbers? The only one in my original list that is actually is true standard is POSIX. Win32 is no more a standard than any given module on CPAN is.
There are a lot of APIs: POSIX, Linux-specific, Win32, MFC, .Net, Cocoa, Java, Swing, CPAN, Qt, etc., (and none of these are web-related) and more are being created all the time. It's not a new phenomenon.
Out of curiosity: (a) What was the old system? (b) What is the new system? (c) Where is "Here"?
Maybe not wuite like that, but, historically, at least banks and other financial institutions required IE due to perceived security reasons. (Banks tend to be extra careful with people's money, at least on the web.) Presumably, they simply didn't want to spend the time/money to test in other browsers. And they already have your money and I highly doubt customers are going to close their accounts and move elsewhere due to the bank's site not working in a non-IE browser.
Yet another example of how this is so true.
And that's pretty good evidence of Natural Selection at work. (However, in order for it to work well, they have to kill themselves before procreating.)
This has been going on for a long time.
I never said I didn't blame the catholics. I was merely counting the "Mormons are so nice" comment.
Except towards gays and lesbians.
Just because Obama supports the delay doesn't mean it's either his or his administration's focus.
I just looked at Google's CSE. I don't see any way to blacklist domains. You can whitelist, but not blacklist.
No, it's just that these are the kinds of patent stories that usually only make the news. In general, however, a patent certainly offers protection to "the little guy" from having his invention ripped off by some company. (A lot of patent lawyers would probably take the case on a contingency basis with the possible windfall of licensing money.) However, you can't just afford patents to "the little guy": they have to be afforded to all entities, companies included. Indeed, it also prevents a case like, say, Microsoft from ripping off Apple after Apple is the entity that spend all the R&D money.
Not necessarily. Assuming Apple is willing to license the technology (and we don't know what they're willing to do yet), then all anybody else has to do is license it. Certainly, if it's another big company, they can afford it. It also gives Apple leverage to license other patented inventions of other companies: cross licensing. But, even if Apple refuses to license anything, it's their right to do so since they're the ones that spent the R&D money to bring the thing to market and raise the bar on cell phones. Over-night, we went from crappy phone browsers, teeny keyboards, and answering-machine-style voice-mail (and settling for it), to the iPhone and forcing other companies to innovate. Indeed, one way to circumvent a patent is to invent something totally new. It can also force innovation rather than hinder it.
I realize this view isn't popular with the /. crowd, so if you disagree, respond with an intelligent argument rather than modding down.
When I find my code in tons of trouble,
Friends and colleagues come to me,
Speaking words of wisdom:
Write in C.
As the deadline fast approaches,
And bugs are all that I can see,
Somewhere, someone whispers:
Write in C.
Write in C, write in C,
Write in C, oh, write in C.
LOGO's dead and buried,
Write in C.
I used to write a lot of FORTRAN,
For science it worked flawlessly.
Try using it for graphics!
Write in C.
If you've just spent nearly 30 hours,
Debugging some assembly,
Soon you will be glad to
Write in C.
Write in C, Write in C,
Write in C, yeah, Write in C.
BASIC's not the answer.
Write in C.
Write in C, Write in C
Write in C, oh, Write in C.
Pascal won't quite cut it.
Write in C.
Actually, it isn't. Mars has only about 1/3rd the gravity of Earth. Humans would still experience bone loss. However, it's work-around-able by spending less than an hour a day in a centrifuge.
The government runs the Fire Departments and yet I don't think there's anybody who speaks ill of Fire Departments (especially in a post-9/11 world).
Apparently, yes.
Individual rights should never be subject to the tyranny of the majority. What somebody else does is none of your damn business.
Except for a submit (push) or update (pull), the only thing I ever do that requires me to be online is to retrieve a revision of a particular file prior to the most recent. What other common operations would one do that ordinarily would require one to be online that one can do offline with a DVCS?
Sure, OK; but I don't want to have to (a) keep track of which people might want my changes and (b) push said changes to each and every one of them manually.
If I (and everyone else who works for my company and who also works from various locations as I do) would have to do that, then why not simply have one repository on a company server and everyone pushes/pulls from that? But then we're back to a central server. To me, it seems as though distributed VCS is a useless feature in practice.
The thing I don't understand about any distributed VCS is how (for example) others could pull stuff from my repository if I don't have a static IP. Also note that I don't mean "don't have a static IP" only in the usual sense of "having a dynamic IP at home": I also mean in the sense that my development machine is my laptop and I often work at coffee shops and other places and so I'm often behind NATs.
Apple doesn't run MacWorld. They have no control over the date. As to whether Apple has asked MacWorld to move the date, I have no idea.