My wife Jane uses it as her primary browser and absoltely refuses to use anything else - including Mozilla (she doesn't know what Mozilla is).
Jane has an iBook and runs MacOS 10.2. She recently switched from her PowerMac 7100/80 running system 8.6 to the iBook recently when I bought a new PowerBook. It was being able to use Airport that convinced her to change machines - not the speed of the machine. She still prefers the 7100 over any other machine we have. I haven't yet been able to figure out why. (Maybe the big metal case seems sturdier than an iMac?)
Her main question about OS X was "Will it run Netscape?"
She uses www.netscape.com as her primary interface for the web (left over from the days when Netscape was the only browser and defaulted to www.netscape.com). She uses a netscape.net email account.
I haven't tried to get her to use Safari. I got her to try IE for Mac once a long time ago and she said "It doesn't work". After some discussion, I learned that "It doesn't work" means that it doesn't default to "www.netscape.net" when she launches the browser.
She started using the web regularly in 1995. She knows very little about computers but is married to a Mac software developer (me). Recently she got a cell phone. When the lady at the store was trying to show her how to setup voice mail, she said, "I've used Newtons before". (I guess that was supposed to impress her, but the sales lady didn't have any idea what Jane was talking about.) Jane still hasn't figured out how to use the voice mail.
If Jane is an average Netscape user, then I guess I can see why they are so doomed. My guess is that years from now, she will still be using Netscape. She isn't even using a recent version.
>>Patents? Hmm, I seem to remember that particular >>lawsuit being over several tens of thousands of lines of >>actual source code that slipped directly out of the >>Quicktime codebase and into the Microsoft Media Player >>codebase, through the intermediary of a third party >>contractor that both Apple and Microsoft hired at >>different points.
Canyon Software allegedly took code they developed for QuickTime for Windows and dropped it into Video for Windows. This was one of several IP disputes that were going both directions between Apple and Microsoft at the time of the Jobs - Gates detente.
In exchange for releasing MS Office for Mac (which MS had already finished, but was holding back) and continuing its Mac development efforts, Apple dropped its IP complaints against MS. The companies agreed to share IP for a period of time, and Microsoft got to buy $150 in non-voting stock in Apple at a cheap price. (And they made a ton of money on it, by the way as Apple's stock price rose from around $18 to around $150 immediately following. Then the stock split and then the price went back down, but I believe MS sold their stock when it was pretty high.)
This was the second time (although probably not the last time - meaning I think Microsoft will try it again) that MS threatened to cancel MS Office and demanded big concessions from Apple. The first was in 1985. I personally believe that if Steve Jobs had been in charge of Apple in 1985 and MS had made the demand of him that they made to Sculley, he would have told them to stick Office up their @ss.
I think that Apple probably would be worth a hell of a lot more money now if the Apple board of directors had sided with Jobs instead of Sculley back then. I think the NeXT people, if they had been in charge at Apple instead of on their own, would have made something that built directly off the Mac and capitalized on its existing applications. Imagine if you had something similar to OS X coming out about the same time as the NeXT cube. That would have been sweet. Instead, Apple let the Mac be a sitting duck for 10 years and the world got Windows.
Unfortunately the "check it out" link is slash dotted...
What I'd like added to the C++ language would be the ability to dynamically iterate through the inheritance structure of an object using type_info structures at runtime.
For example, you have an inheritance structure where:
A inherits from B inherits from C inherits from D.
I get an A* as an argument. Right now, I can call typeid and find out is actually a D*. If I know about class B, I can dynamic_cast it as B. However, my code doesn't know about class C (let's say I'm a DLL or something), I can't really find about class C.
It should also handle cases of multiple inheritance.
There was a real-world case where I needed this. Sure, if the system had been properly designed in the first place I wouldn't have needed it, but I had to fix something and it would have been easier if I could have dynamically asked for a list of the type_info structures that the class with some type_info structure inherited from.
The case was that I was dispatching some objects to handlers that had registered for objects by their type_info structure. In my stupidly named ficticious example above, if you register for class C and nobody else registered for D, you would get any D's that are dispatched. My code treated all these classes as anonymous and only knew about A.
I kept a std::map around for doing the dispatches.
I solved it non-elegantly by requiring that any class derived from A call a base class method called SaveTypeInfo in all versions of their constructors.
SaveTypeInfo did somehting like:
mTypeStack.push(&typeid(self));
where mTypeStack is a std::stack in the base class A.
What that results in is a stack of type_info*s poiting to:
D
C
B
A (bottom of stack)
Then I would compare the top of the stack to the map, if it exists in the map, dispatch it, if it doesn't then pop it off and try again until the stack is empty.
Create a similar virus which also installs some software that has some moderate or nominal value...by accepting this license you agree to be billed by $XXX on a monthly basis. Furthermore, you agree that this software will search your harddrive and mail any interesting files to us which may be used to gather personal information to bill you. You authorize us to file negative credit items on your credit file with TRW, if you do not promptly pay when billed...
Take your linux laptop and watch the movie in front of the police station and tell all cops who walk by exactly which law you are breaking (maybe with a big sign.)
If you're doing warez for the reasons he cites:
- the fun of setting up the networks
- the fun of talking to people about warez... then you should setup warez sites to distribute free copies of:
- Linux
- GnuPG
- the Gimp
- DarwinOS
etc. All the fun of running a warez site with none of that pesky risk of prison! Just think of it!
Many of our "anti-violence" laws have gone *way* too far. For example, laws in some states outlaw weapons such as switchblades and shurikens which are not a serious threat to anyone (except in movies.) Unfortunately, these laws ruin our freedoms as they outlaw switchblades as self defense weapons (they are good for this!) and even outlaw table saw blades.
The police and prosecutors are completely out of control. I'm very afraid of the police. I'm *not* afraid of crime. Look at all the people in prison that are being exonerated by DNA evidence. These people were innocent, but were convicted anyway. In the majority of these cases, I think the police framed them. If the police are framing people, then what will stop them from framing people and planting DNA evidence? Nothing. They are out of control and need to be stopped. I'd love to see someone donate a million dollars to roll back some of these "anti-violence" (read: anti-freedom) laws.
You should point out to management that if they fire the whole QA department, they can reduce their headcount AND get the products out the door faster.;-)
I don't disagree with your points. However, I have come to the conclusion that there are really two kinds of freedom.
The first kind of freedom is what we have in the USA. It is the freedom of the majority to be able to change things when the majority is dissatisfied. The American colonies didn't have that under british rule.
The second kind of freedom is personal freedom which we no longer have (or maybe never really had) in the USA. This is the freedom to do whatever I want as long as it hurts no one. For example, prostitution hurts no one, but is illegal in the USA except in rural nevada. Gambling used to be illegal most places (because it was morally wrong), then the majority of americans decided it was morally okay and now we have it just about everywhere. The war on drugs is really a war against a minority of US citizens and has more in comon with a "war on high prices" than a real war.
Freedom of religion? You have the freedom to practice some religions, but not others. For example, if you are a mormon and part of your religion involves polygamy, you are forbidden from practicing it. Why? Only because the majority of americans are against it for no reason that is obvious to me.
Alcohol used to be illegal because it was "morally wrong". Now it is okay. (I guess God changed his mind.)
Slavery used to be legal. Jim Crow used to be legal. Jim Crow only changed because the majority changed their minds. Slavery was only outlawed because the civil war was going on so the south didn't get to vote on it.
If you are an atheist, you are basically demonized by the majority and by the current government. I can't turn around without some bozo telling me about Jesus. (Guess what, I have heard your stupid ideas already - get a clue.)
There was a time when there was "voluntary" prayer in school. My father was severely beaten regularly after school for not participating in this "voluntary" prayer.
That's all Christians are - a gang of thugs who will use whatever violent, branwashing techniques they can to further their idiotic ideas.
I would be for respecting their freedom if they would respect mine, but they won't and they never will. That's why we must use any means necessary to fight christianity - the enemy of thinking people.
What you are describing is a lack of good Program Management. A good Program Manager can head off these problems and prevent you from ever coding something that isn't what the customer wants. Such a person invariably has to have excellent communication skills and a technical (i.e. programming and maybe QA) background. They also should understand business and have a strong fear of Murphy's Law.
Such a person is not a magic bullet, but can eliminate 90% of your problem, decrease your time to market, and shield developers from the insane headaches described.
I disagree. Apple would be the dominant OS maker today if Jobs had never left. Here's why:
In 1985, Sculley made a really bad decision to sign a contract that later doomed their "look and feel" lawsuit against Microsoft. Sculley signed the contract because Microsoft threatened to cancel Office for Mac (sound familiar, anyone?)
I think Jobs would have flown them the bird in 1985 if he had been sitting at the table instead of Sculley and I think that would saved Apple right there.
Right! There will always be mallicious people out there who would try to jam certain radio frequencies, such as the example you cited. Or people might jam stations that air views they disagree with. So, I agree you don't want to totally get rid of the FCC and have a free-for-all. I agree that maybe the FCC should be reformed.
They'd do it in a second if they could get the FCC to count these as PSAs.
My dad's friend did a similar thing in the 60s.
on
Hacking the Highways
·
· Score: 2, Funny
My dad was a division manager for a southern california construction company that did work for California Division of Highways and the federal government a lot. Anyway, he had a buddy who complaigned to him that he had a dangerous intersection near his house that really needed a stop sign. He asked my dad about the process of getting the city to put one up. My dad just ordered him an extra sign the next time he ordered signs. He had the guy pay him the $18 the stop sign cost, then helped him put it up. The guy asked "won't they notice?". Not only didn't they notice, the cops even gave some guy a ticket for running it about a week after they put it up.
The post I'm replying to could be confusing to some C++ or STL newbies.
If I use *a* vector to hold fifteen different objects *of the same type*, the compiler generates one vector class (and one instance of that class).
If I use *vectors* to hold fifteen different types of objects, then I'll be using at least fifteen different vectors and causing fifteen different classes to be generated.
I sent the following to her via her website:
I have recently heard about the "Family Privacy and Protection Act" in a news story on CNN. I am generally in favor of solving the problem that the bill is trying to solve. However, I would like to be sure that the bill doesn't prevent certain legitimate uses of hidden cameras in our homes.
"Nanny-Cams"
Many people have made use of hidden cameras to verify that a babysitter is taking proper care of their children. I think it is important that the bill not criminalize this practice.
Security cameras
Many people have installed security cameras in their homes. I would hope that a burgaler would not be able to use this law to claim that he or she was improperly filmed in a private home during a burgalary, thus turning the victim into a criminal.
Public Security or Traffic Cameras
I am concerned that any camera installed in a public place could be in jeopardy by this law. For example, a camera used to monitor traffic congestion might have an apartment window in the background of a wide shot. Would this not be in violation of your proposed law?
New top level domain for adult content
With regards to forcing certain content into a.prn top level domain, I think the diversity of community standards throughout the country would cause a lot of confusion about what content should be in this new domain and what should be in.com or other traditional top level domains. This is especially true with something as difficult to define as "hate speech". Most news talk-back forums would probably have to move to the.prn domain since you can never tell when someone might type an expletive into a talk back forum, or might express an opinion that could be defined by someone as "hateful". I would think that most people who can't afford high priced lawyers would be either be exposing themselves to legal risk or would have to move all of their content to.prn, even if it was not content intended to be pornographic.
Maybe a better top level domain for this would be ".free" meaning that information in that domain would be free from the threat of prosecution.
You want to use a Mac to do things, but use Linux for real work like programming? Programming what?
If you are writing applications for yourself, wouldn't you write them for the platform you actually use?
Personally, I like Codewarrior on Mac for programming.
Slashdot Mirror
GodD&*Mnit!!
We don't want to hear about any more GOOD IDEAS!!!
We only want to hear about PANACEAS!!!
Don't post any more articles unless it describes something that that is an END ALL - BE ALL for ALL situations.
Otherwise, we're just not interested!!
No, it says if you upload a file. Any file. Even a file you created yourself. (Unless I read the article and headline incorrectly.)
My wife Jane uses it as her primary browser and absoltely refuses to use anything else - including Mozilla (she doesn't know what Mozilla is).
Jane has an iBook and runs MacOS 10.2. She recently switched from her PowerMac 7100/80 running system 8.6 to the iBook recently when I bought a new PowerBook. It was being able to use Airport that convinced her to change machines - not the speed of the machine. She still prefers the 7100 over any other machine we have. I haven't yet been able to figure out why. (Maybe the big metal case seems sturdier than an iMac?)
Her main question about OS X was "Will it run Netscape?"
She uses www.netscape.com as her primary interface for the web (left over from the days when Netscape was the only browser and defaulted to www.netscape.com). She uses a netscape.net email account.
I haven't tried to get her to use Safari. I got her to try IE for Mac once a long time ago and she said "It doesn't work". After some discussion, I learned that "It doesn't work" means that it doesn't default to "www.netscape.net" when she launches the browser.
She started using the web regularly in 1995. She knows very little about computers but is married to a Mac software developer (me). Recently she got a cell phone. When the lady at the store was trying to show her how to setup voice mail, she said, "I've used Newtons before". (I guess that was supposed to impress her, but the sales lady didn't have any idea what Jane was talking about.) Jane still hasn't figured out how to use the voice mail.
If Jane is an average Netscape user, then I guess I can see why they are so doomed. My guess is that years from now, she will still be using Netscape. She isn't even using a recent version.
>> In fact most of my friends are all between 5'5" and 6'4" and are an average of 200lbs
Especially the women!
>>Patents? Hmm, I seem to remember that particular
>>lawsuit being over several tens of thousands of lines of
>>actual source code that slipped directly out of the
>>Quicktime codebase and into the Microsoft Media Player
>>codebase, through the intermediary of a third party
>>contractor that both Apple and Microsoft hired at
>>different points.
Canyon Software allegedly took code they developed for QuickTime for Windows and dropped it into Video for Windows. This was one of several IP disputes that were going both directions between Apple and Microsoft at the time of the Jobs - Gates detente.
In exchange for releasing MS Office for Mac (which MS had already finished, but was holding back) and continuing its Mac development efforts, Apple dropped its IP complaints against MS. The companies agreed to share IP for a period of time, and Microsoft got to buy $150 in non-voting stock in Apple at a cheap price. (And they made a ton of money on it, by the way as Apple's stock price rose from around $18 to around $150 immediately following. Then the stock split and then the price went back down, but I believe MS sold their stock when it was pretty high.)
This was the second time (although probably not the last time - meaning I think Microsoft will try it again) that MS threatened to cancel MS Office and demanded big concessions from Apple. The first was in 1985. I personally believe that if Steve Jobs had been in charge of Apple in 1985 and MS had made the demand of him that they made to Sculley, he would have told them to stick Office up their @ss.
I think that Apple probably would be worth a hell of a lot more money now if the Apple board of directors had sided with Jobs instead of Sculley back then. I think the NeXT people, if they had been in charge at Apple instead of on their own, would have made something that built directly off the Mac and capitalized on its existing applications. Imagine if you had something similar to OS X coming out about the same time as the NeXT cube. That would have been sweet. Instead, Apple let the Mac be a sitting duck for 10 years and the world got Windows.
I've got power of attorney for several animals on the endangered species list that live in areas often hit by small meteors.
Where can I sign up?
Can I get my genius back if I get a divorce?
Unfortunately the "check it out" link is slash dotted... What I'd like added to the C++ language would be the ability to dynamically iterate through the inheritance structure of an object using type_info structures at runtime. For example, you have an inheritance structure where: A inherits from B inherits from C inherits from D. I get an A* as an argument. Right now, I can call typeid and find out is actually a D*. If I know about class B, I can dynamic_cast it as B. However, my code doesn't know about class C (let's say I'm a DLL or something), I can't really find about class C. It should also handle cases of multiple inheritance. There was a real-world case where I needed this. Sure, if the system had been properly designed in the first place I wouldn't have needed it, but I had to fix something and it would have been easier if I could have dynamically asked for a list of the type_info structures that the class with some type_info structure inherited from. The case was that I was dispatching some objects to handlers that had registered for objects by their type_info structure. In my stupidly named ficticious example above, if you register for class C and nobody else registered for D, you would get any D's that are dispatched. My code treated all these classes as anonymous and only knew about A. I kept a std::map around for doing the dispatches. I solved it non-elegantly by requiring that any class derived from A call a base class method called SaveTypeInfo in all versions of their constructors. SaveTypeInfo did somehting like: mTypeStack.push(&typeid(self)); where mTypeStack is a std::stack in the base class A. What that results in is a stack of type_info*s poiting to: D C B A (bottom of stack) Then I would compare the top of the stack to the map, if it exists in the map, dispatch it, if it doesn't then pop it off and try again until the stack is empty.
Create a similar virus which also installs some software that has some moderate or nominal value. ..by accepting this license you agree to be billed by $XXX on a monthly basis. Furthermore, you agree that this software will search your harddrive and mail any interesting files to us which may be used to gather personal information to bill you. You authorize us to file negative credit items on your credit file with TRW, if you do not promptly pay when billed...
Take your linux laptop and watch the movie in front of the police station and tell all cops who walk by exactly which law you are breaking (maybe with a big sign.)
If you're doing warez for the reasons he cites: - the fun of setting up the networks - the fun of talking to people about warez ... then you should setup warez sites to distribute free copies of:
- Linux
- GnuPG
- the Gimp
- DarwinOS
etc. All the fun of running a warez site with none of that pesky risk of prison! Just think of it!
Many of our "anti-violence" laws have gone *way* too far. For example, laws in some states outlaw weapons such as switchblades and shurikens which are not a serious threat to anyone (except in movies.) Unfortunately, these laws ruin our freedoms as they outlaw switchblades as self defense weapons (they are good for this!) and even outlaw table saw blades.
The police and prosecutors are completely out of control. I'm very afraid of the police. I'm *not* afraid of crime. Look at all the people in prison that are being exonerated by DNA evidence. These people were innocent, but were convicted anyway. In the majority of these cases, I think the police framed them. If the police are framing people, then what will stop them from framing people and planting DNA evidence? Nothing. They are out of control and need to be stopped. I'd love to see someone donate a million dollars to roll back some of these "anti-violence" (read: anti-freedom) laws.
You should point out to management that if they fire the whole QA department, they can reduce their headcount AND get the products out the door faster. ;-)
I don't disagree with your points. However, I have come to the conclusion that there are really two kinds of freedom.
The first kind of freedom is what we have in the USA. It is the freedom of the majority to be able to change things when the majority is dissatisfied. The American colonies didn't have that under british rule.
The second kind of freedom is personal freedom which we no longer have (or maybe never really had) in the USA. This is the freedom to do whatever I want as long as it hurts no one. For example, prostitution hurts no one, but is illegal in the USA except in rural nevada. Gambling used to be illegal most places (because it was morally wrong), then the majority of americans decided it was morally okay and now we have it just about everywhere. The war on drugs is really a war against a minority of US citizens and has more in comon with a "war on high prices" than a real war.
Freedom of religion? You have the freedom to practice some religions, but not others. For example, if you are a mormon and part of your religion involves polygamy, you are forbidden from practicing it. Why? Only because the majority of americans are against it for no reason that is obvious to me.
Alcohol used to be illegal because it was "morally wrong". Now it is okay. (I guess God changed his mind.)
Slavery used to be legal. Jim Crow used to be legal. Jim Crow only changed because the majority changed their minds. Slavery was only outlawed because the civil war was going on so the south didn't get to vote on it.
If you are an atheist, you are basically demonized by the majority and by the current government. I can't turn around without some bozo telling me about Jesus. (Guess what, I have heard your stupid ideas already - get a clue.)
There was a time when there was "voluntary" prayer in school. My father was severely beaten regularly after school for not participating in this "voluntary" prayer.
That's all Christians are - a gang of thugs who will use whatever violent, branwashing techniques they can to further their idiotic ideas.
I would be for respecting their freedom if they would respect mine, but they won't and they never will. That's why we must use any means necessary to fight christianity - the enemy of thinking people.
What you are describing is a lack of good Program Management. A good Program Manager can head off these problems and prevent you from ever coding something that isn't what the customer wants. Such a person invariably has to have excellent communication skills and a technical (i.e. programming and maybe QA) background. They also should understand business and have a strong fear of Murphy's Law.
Such a person is not a magic bullet, but can eliminate 90% of your problem, decrease your time to market, and shield developers from the insane headaches described.
There is a lot of good software out there that is highly reliable, does what it is supposed to do without more than an occasional problem.
Let me name some software companies that do things right!
Cassidy and Greene
Connectix
Aladdin Systems
The Omni Group
(and dare I say it?) Apple
There's always a market for quality. It just isn't very large. Apple's 5% marketshare proves that.
I disagree. Apple would be the dominant OS maker today if Jobs had never left. Here's why: In 1985, Sculley made a really bad decision to sign a contract that later doomed their "look and feel" lawsuit against Microsoft. Sculley signed the contract because Microsoft threatened to cancel Office for Mac (sound familiar, anyone?) I think Jobs would have flown them the bird in 1985 if he had been sitting at the table instead of Sculley and I think that would saved Apple right there.
Right! There will always be mallicious people out there who would try to jam certain radio frequencies, such as the example you cited. Or people might jam stations that air views they disagree with. So, I agree you don't want to totally get rid of the FCC and have a free-for-all. I agree that maybe the FCC should be reformed.
They'd do it in a second if they could get the FCC to count these as PSAs.
My dad was a division manager for a southern california construction company that did work for California Division of Highways and the federal government a lot. Anyway, he had a buddy who complaigned to him that he had a dangerous intersection near his house that really needed a stop sign. He asked my dad about the process of getting the city to put one up. My dad just ordered him an extra sign the next time he ordered signs. He had the guy pay him the $18 the stop sign cost, then helped him put it up. The guy asked "won't they notice?". Not only didn't they notice, the cops even gave some guy a ticket for running it about a week after they put it up.
I saw the headline and thought it was about fancy dances involving fire extinguishers. Imagine my disappointment...
The post I'm replying to could be confusing to some C++ or STL newbies. If I use *a* vector to hold fifteen different objects *of the same type*, the compiler generates one vector class (and one instance of that class). If I use *vectors* to hold fifteen different types of objects, then I'll be using at least fifteen different vectors and causing fifteen different classes to be generated.
One word: Tivo!
I sent the following to her via her website: I have recently heard about the "Family Privacy and Protection Act" in a news story on CNN. I am generally in favor of solving the problem that the bill is trying to solve. However, I would like to be sure that the bill doesn't prevent certain legitimate uses of hidden cameras in our homes. "Nanny-Cams" Many people have made use of hidden cameras to verify that a babysitter is taking proper care of their children. I think it is important that the bill not criminalize this practice. Security cameras Many people have installed security cameras in their homes. I would hope that a burgaler would not be able to use this law to claim that he or she was improperly filmed in a private home during a burgalary, thus turning the victim into a criminal. Public Security or Traffic Cameras I am concerned that any camera installed in a public place could be in jeopardy by this law. For example, a camera used to monitor traffic congestion might have an apartment window in the background of a wide shot. Would this not be in violation of your proposed law? New top level domain for adult content With regards to forcing certain content into a .prn top level domain, I think the diversity of community standards throughout the country would cause a lot of confusion about what content should be in this new domain and what should be in .com or other traditional top level domains. This is especially true with something as difficult to define as "hate speech". Most news talk-back forums would probably have to move to the .prn domain since you can never tell when someone might type an expletive into a talk back forum, or might express an opinion that could be defined by someone as "hateful". I would think that most people who can't afford high priced lawyers would be either be exposing themselves to legal risk or would have to move all of their content to .prn, even if it was not content intended to be pornographic.
Maybe a better top level domain for this would be ".free" meaning that information in that domain would be free from the threat of prosecution.
You want to use a Mac to do things, but use Linux for real work like programming? Programming what? If you are writing applications for yourself, wouldn't you write them for the platform you actually use? Personally, I like Codewarrior on Mac for programming.