It's a very complete, elegant and large OO framework for quickly developing applications of any kind, even CLI ones.
could you _puuhhleaasse_ take a hint I'm and/or "NEVER commented on the APIs them self, all I said it (gnuStep/OpenStep) looked awful on linux/unix vs Mac Os X... a comment more on 'how the/a widge(s) look(s/ed)'... rather then 'programming interface...'"
2nd of all (now I'm gonna imply something about the API)/* as someone other (or others) have commented... */ if it's such a "Best thing since sliced bread" and it's been around for the past 10 years.... why hasn't it been adopted at any large xor larger rate/scale? isn't the 'defacto standard' everyone of us use(s)? *hmm*... I mean, there has to _be_ something to it, of why it's still quite unheard off to some people (That's other ppl then the type 'you and I' are... GEEKs and/or überGEEKs!)?
so why is it not? why is it not used in a larger scale then the 'tiny' fraction that it is used today?
I NEVER commented on the APIs them self, all I said it (gnuStep/OpenStep) looked awful on linux/unix vs Mac Os X... a comment more on 'how the/a widge(s) look(s/ed)'... rather then 'programming interface...'
... I guess there are after all some who do favor / are gnuStep/OpenStep biased:) *hihi*
Re:I'll be the 1st one to say *iirrk*, take it awa
on
10 Years of OpenStep
·
· Score: 1
em' you know I ment 'unix' as in the bsd's (etc...)... and NOT Mac Os X (which btw, resides on-top of a Unix Kernel! - so 'OS X' doesn't have anything to do with Unix - more then that 'Mac OS X' utilizes a Unix kernel...and I thoght we where talking GUI...)
I'll be the 1st one to say *iirrk*, take it away
on
10 Years of OpenStep
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Well, at least on linux/unix gnuStep/OpenStep looks awful.
as a KDE-biased user, I'd rather switch to GNOME, then one of *Em's*... just head over to their Application Database and compare linux/unix screenshots of <which ever> versus Mac OS X...
No one can (or should) deny that 'looks actually' matter(s)... and I'll bet somehere actually does like the feel of gnuStep/OpenStep has on linux/unix... but, I'm pretty certian not many KDE's or GNOMES do. *FSCK* my CLI looks/has a better feel then gnuStep/OpenStep:)
So what I'm saying, Ya' better redo those gnuStep/OpenStep widgets for linux/unix, if you'd want 'it must look *fancy* nice/good - before I will use it'--folks:)
Baahh, don't think many 'slashdotters' like to use the phone much at all.
Instead, if everyone started encrypting their emails, or for that fact anything we'd send over the internet (to someone), with a 1024-bit or 4096-bit PGP-key(s)... it'll be a big set back for them. Not that they aren't able to break the encryption... is just that it'll take them a few seconds to break ONE ${ITEM}... so if ONE billion people (we are approaching that many no. of users) sent around encrypted ${ITEMS} it'll saturate their computing power quite effectivelly
and sure, they'll be able to eventually boost up their breaking... but then what we'd all have to do is just boost up our key to...say a 16384-bit PGP key... and they'll be crawling on their knees again
... and the thing is, THEY are 100% aware of the fact... it's just that WE (all of us) aren't acting in a unified manner... and this suits them. It's the basic 'A Bugs Life'-story, they are the 'grasshoppers' and we are the 'Ants'... and we are 'dim' enough not to realize that we are 'stronger' then them... IF we would all join in on a joint force against them.
>What's the point? They can already endure the vertical-launch G forces just fine.
B-I-N-G-O, =)... you've just said it yourself, 'They' - as in they the astronaut/kosmonaut.
Sure, under the present topic (To Mars and Back in Ninety Days), this is irrelevant... But, last time I checked, we are also moving toward 'humans space travel solutions', as in 'all of the humans on this planet - not just a 'rare breed' of people' that have to pass physical test of making it into space....
A 2nd point that can be derived from my 1st (from the above) - is greater forces that come into play, greater endurance and sturdier things have to be built - So there is a balancing-act between spend more/less on 'take-off costs' vs 'building costs'./* PS - as you might allready know, things that got into space (till present day) have had to be built not only to survive in space, but 1st'ly survive the launch process... and there are a-hell-of-a-lot of other things to dissect too, not only one or a few 'stages' in a whole process, before one can make a well informed opinion... */
>What you don't seem to be realizing is [...]
Ohh No, I'm _well aware_ of that factor(s)...
>In summary, you seem to be claiming a positive benefit that offsets a problem that isn't a problem, and to be overlooking a very large negative to taking off at an angle at low altitude.
Em', NO *again* - What I did is try to summarize the BASIC theories of BOTH methods (without trying to 'pick a favorite'...). And then, I said "Now one has to start to dissect the +positives/-negatives of both methods, and look at what is possible to achieve with the available resources at hand."... and made some remarks on trying of keeping ones eyes as wide open as possible... that I kinda emphasized a tid-bit hard on.
I'd so like (actually luve), that people would start linking to the 'external material(s)' they are quoating/refering to... so one could (if one wanted to) read all of the 'external material(s)' the person used, and assess if 'he or she' did a fair (enough) interpretation of the 'material(s)'
This isn't ssooo oddly uncommon, or whole scientific processes is built upon this very notion, that one provides all the info one has used to come to a conclusion - so it can be verified by <WHOEVER>... and during/under the process settle intechnicallities or other disputes, and in the long end actually have 'something' everyone agrees with (well, there will allways be people still thinking/believing the earths flat.... so I mean 'all' in the sense of 'people with a fair amount of commonsense')
>You probably should stick with something like "that ought to make things clear, or at least clearer".
AND
>Your logic is incorrect
Em' no, I think my 'logic gate(s)' are in-check/just fine (look-up/at 'OR' and 'XOR' in the url)...my 'kernel' couldn't cope with the statement where both 'clear' & 'clearer' would have been true at the same time... it would just have 'kernel panic'-ed in a atto second:-)
But, I can't help wonder if we the fans couldn't get it back - I don't mean on TV... but try something totally 'of the future'... where we the fans would finace it, pay 'them' (the artists and matt-of-the-simpsons... etc) to make them, and 'we the project' would take care of the distribution&the.small.payment to get/watch the show. I really do think that there are enough futurama fans around the world to sustain production of futurama... and even enough that there would be same profits over for 'them'.
Then again, we'd have to *litterally* start doing stuff (setting up a website, wake peoples attention, contact matt&who.ever.else... etc)... and not just spew 'idéas' here on slashdot.
I'm in, I mean it, but I think there has to be others as well who'd be interested in helping getting the 'project' to overcome the initial inertia that is associated with such an undertaking:)
I think we do - as we fail to aknowledge the +positives/-negatives of both options.
In a vertical lift-off, the person(s) would have to endure a greatter amount of G-force due to the amount of force unleashed in a fraction of a second to achive the inertia needed to start lifting and contiune accelerating toward achiving proper amount of velocity(ies)...etc
In a horizontal lift-off, the person(s) wouldn't have to endure the same amount of G-forces, as in a 1st stage one would only have to achive the inertia to overwin the air/frition-resistance, and sure at a 2nd stage one would still have to overwin the Gravity-force that's keeping us so firmly on the ground to achive orbitit - but the main difference in this take-off method is that one can/could adjust the amount in inclination and therefor be able to control the amount of G-force the person(s) would feel/endure. (btw, yes one would also have to achive a proper amount of horizontal velocity (aka, orbiting velocity) o achive the destined orbit...).
So basic knowledge of physics and mathematical skills in doing x-axis/y-axis component calculation is needed to start calculaning out the scenarios... nothing fancy. (NOTE: Though, greater skills are required at calculating with/at pin-point accuracy! - thats start sending ppl to space... - but for theories, basic skills are enough)
---
Now one has to start to dissect the +positives/-negatives of both methods, and look at what is possible to achive with the available resorces at hand. One good thing to note is that just because one has used one method at a period doesn't mean that that has to be the defacto standard for all comming time either - that that lator in life a method prior thought unusable might become our next new 'best thing since sliced bread':)
We evolve, we improve ourselfs and our capabilites (technologies, etc...), we uncover xor learn of new things, and as a consecvence we change over time. So our understanding of a matter can't be 'put into stone' for an indefinite period because of our nature - constans 'state of flux' we humans are in.
what it is, is a 'Central Processing Multi-Core Unit' or CPMCU, *technically* still a (one) 'Central Processing' Unit:-)... that has the capability of processing more 'threads' at a time due to its 'multi-core' architecture
... it's just the 'voracious business men' who would see it as more then one CPU, as they are highly Xor extremely biased on squeezing more money out of ones pocket(s)...
My thoughts are that coders can become morally challenged when you examine what we're up against today. We are up against shady corporations who lack the motivation to really give us our fair due.
come on... is it a fair argument you asses there, and thru out your whole pice.
I mean, his no 'Robbin Hood' stealing from 'those bad companies' and giving to the 'poor' (like himself...)... but rather makes life hard for the 'poor' and doesn't do anything about the 'bad companies' at all.
Has been one question I've poundered countless times over and over again...
One of my thoughts is that, Advertising is more effective then anyone else has previously estimated it to be. That if 'they' didn't advertise 'their <said> product' so furiously... less people would know about it, and less would be persuade/feel the urge to 'see/want/have' it... that if they didn't have the amount of currency at-hand (say, they've allready spent the amount of money they had - face it, most people aren't that rich that it pours out from their wallet(s)) they'd think of alternative methods of getting it...
I should also say, I don't mean the 'persuade/feel the urge', that one is 'brainwashed' by the advertisement. But rather 'the <said> product' directly (you like it) or in-directly (someone from your 'close circle' of friends, etc - likes it - and after a while you to start to like it...)....
So then the Q would be, why would people go to alternative methods of gaining '<said> product'... that the simple 'just let it go/be' action is ignored?!
Another thought, is that businesses have a voracious appetite toward 'money' (Think 'gollum' -JRR Tolkein, did indeed write a masterpiece:-)) - they take take take take, more then they give give - that after a while there is a great imbalance, that weather one likes it or not, will lead to some sort of 'force/action' back toward equilibrium.
cortex - the tissue forming the outer layer of an organ or structure in plant or animal. medulla - the inner part of an organ or structure in plant or animal.
I think Kerry's 'shorter' answers are more appealing to 'us youngsters'... I mean, politics is bad enough (from the youghts POV)... but politics with mile-long answers is like...[after the third sentence] *em ok, next canditate please*
and it looks like the kerry-ppl took consideration to this, and tried to keep themself 'as short as possible'.
'Global Digital Content Archive/With Variable PayPerView Content' - MultiCasting
Global - so global an eskimo could watch something that is locally australian-oriented content...
Public Content - is freely available to view at any time; like political debates, legislative sessions, educational programs, etc....Stuff that needs to be available so people can make well informed decisions... and so forth, funded by local taxes or other means (but not by the individual at hand!)
Private Content - is available on a PayPerView basis, financed by the audience (derivied from "'production costs' + 'actual casting costs' + '$Some PROFITS margin$' and divided by the audience at hand" - like say: produciton is $100000, casting is $2000, profit is at 100% and the audience is in the one millions ppl-range, predicted price would be $0.204)
The individual is in full control - He/She chooses what and when to watch the content
My only prerogative 'why to implement something like what I proposed' - is I'd like to control where and to what my money goes to - I'd like to be active in deciding in what to spend it on.
Anywho, my main point is to eliminate the whole 'someone other then you decides what is deemed air-able or not' - so things like stopping 'Futurama' (or ~enter your own favorite show that was cancelled, instead~) from airing couldn't happen. - and not so much 'public' vs 'private'.
if it would all just be financed by yet another tax-fee/fee, I'd loose any active say in what content I'd like to look at - and choose from what 'someone else' has deemed 'proper/worth' wachable.
then again, all of those things you count up - they wouldn't 'cost' much at all - much of those are simple 'record and provide' - not much 'production cost' but only nominal 'broadcasting costs'... so it wouldn't 'cost' the user(s) much to finance that sort of thing(s). and part of or in whole of it could allready be financed by diverting a little bit out of the existing money from current taxes.
..and for the record, 'public' and 'private' broadcasting isn't that different from my point of view - 'private broadcasting' bring that whole 'palete of tastes' over a/the 'plain vanilla' taste as 'public broadcasting' could be compared to/against (mostly inpart of it beeing more 'production cost' entertainment, and such) - So the end part would be/is the price/cost and I'd say the NO-DRMvsDRM'd content.
And now that I have written this, maybe I should substitute the 'public' out of it, to be:
'Global Digital PayPerView Content Broadcasting'
:-); and let 'whoever in the world' provide 'whatever' out of the broad content that is out there in this world, and let 'us' the users choose what we'd like to watch - in/within the same 'Standard' *my head spins when thinking of how many duplicate standards there are out there - to accomplish the same basic stuff:)*
Slashdot Mirror
could you _puuhhleaasse_ take a hint I'm and/or " NEVER commented on the APIs them self, all I said it (gnuStep/OpenStep) looked awful on linux/unix vs Mac Os X ... a comment more on 'how the/a widge(s) look(s/ed)' ... rather then 'programming interface...'"
2nd of all (now I'm gonna imply something about the API) /* as someone other (or others) have commented... */ if it's such a "Best thing since sliced bread" and it's been around for the past 10 years .... why hasn't it been adopted at any large xor larger rate/scale? isn't the 'defacto standard' everyone of us use(s)? *hmm* ... I mean, there has to _be_ something to it, of why it's still quite unheard off to some people (That's other ppl then the type 'you and I' are... GEEKs and/or überGEEKs!)?
so why is it not? why is it not used in a larger scale then the 'tiny' fraction that it is used today?
I NEVER commented on the APIs them self, all I said it (gnuStep/OpenStep) looked awful on linux/unix vs Mac Os X ... a comment more on 'how the/a widge(s) look(s/ed)' ... rather then 'programming interface...'
... I guess there are after all some who do favor / are gnuStep/OpenStep biased :) *hihi*
em' you know I ment 'unix' as in the bsd's (etc...) ... and NOT Mac Os X (which btw, resides on-top of a Unix Kernel! - so 'OS X' doesn't have anything to do with Unix - more then that 'Mac OS X' utilizes a Unix kernel...and I thoght we where talking GUI...)
as a KDE-biased user, I'd rather switch to GNOME, then one of *Em's* ... just head over to their Application Database and compare linux/unix screenshots of <which ever> versus Mac OS X ...
No one can (or should) deny that 'looks actually' matter(s) ... and I'll bet somehere actually does like the feel of gnuStep/OpenStep has on linux/unix ... but, I'm pretty certian not many KDE's or GNOMES do. *FSCK* my CLI looks/has a better feel then gnuStep/OpenStep :)
So what I'm saying, Ya' better redo those gnuStep/OpenStep widgets for linux/unix, if you'd want 'it must look *fancy* nice/good - before I will use it'--folks :)
BTW, I wonder what 'they' take for such a 'slashdot story ad'
guess *I'll* have to 'google' it ( as in 'search for it' not 'google-google' for it, :))
if you have a decent eye, you'll see quit a subtle 'bad quality' in all of non-X3 CCD's ... due to it not beeing *of course* able to capture the some Red Green Blue wavelenghts per pixel/amount of 'photons', but instead utilizes a 'mosaic matrix' to compose the image *which is uurrrkkk, urruk, 'bad quality'* - I mean, just look at this interactive tutoral (java), see how many 'photons' a non-X3 misses? ... then think about that a camera then tries to compose a picture with that amount of 'phonon' count loss... *iirrk*
*crawls back to his geek-hideout :)*
PS. BTW $0.03 that this post is just one of those 'slashdot Post Ads'
Instead, if everyone started encrypting their emails, or for that fact anything we'd send over the internet (to someone), with a 1024-bit or 4096-bit PGP-key(s) ... it'll be a big set back for them. Not that they aren't able to break the encryption ... is just that it'll take them a few seconds to break ONE ${ITEM} ... so if ONE billion people (we are approaching that many no. of users) sent around encrypted ${ITEMS} it'll saturate their computing power quite effectivelly
and sure, they'll be able to eventually boost up their breaking ... but then what we'd all have to do is just boost up our key to ...say a 16384-bit PGP key ... and they'll be crawling on their knees again
- >What's the point? They can already endure the vertical-launch G forces just fine.
B-I-N-G-O, =)Sure, under the present topic (To Mars and Back in Ninety Days), this is irrelevant ... But, last time I checked, we are also moving toward 'humans space travel solutions', as in 'all of the humans on this planet - not just a 'rare breed' of people' that have to pass physical test of making it into space....
A 2nd point that can be derived from my 1st (from the above) - is greater forces that come into play, greater endurance and sturdier things have to be built - So there is a balancing-act between spend more/less on 'take-off costs' vs 'building costs'. /* PS - as you might allready know, things that got into space (till present day) have had to be built not only to survive in space, but 1st'ly survive the launch process... and there are a-hell-of-a-lot of other things to dissect too, not only one or a few 'stages' in a whole process, before one can make a well informed opinion ... */
- >What you don't seem to be realizing is [...]
Ohh No, I'm _well aware_ of that factor(s)...- >In summary, you seem to be claiming a positive benefit that offsets a problem that isn't a problem, and to be overlooking a very large negative to taking off at an angle at low altitude.
Em', NO *again* - What I did is try to summarize the BASIC theories of BOTH methods (without trying to 'pick a favorite'...). And then, I said "Now one has to start to dissect the +positives/-negatives of both methods, and look at what is possible to achieve with the available resources at hand."I'd so like (actually luve), that people would start linking to the 'external material(s)' they are quoating/refering to ... so one could (if one wanted to) read all of the 'external material(s)' the person used, and assess if 'he or she' did a fair (enough) interpretation of the 'material(s)'
This isn't ssooo oddly uncommon, or whole scientific processes is built upon this very notion, that one provides all the info one has used to come to a conclusion - so it can be verified by <WHOEVER> ... and during/under the process settle intechnicallities or other disputes, and in the long end actually have 'something' everyone agrees with (well, there will allways be people still thinking/believing the earths flat .... so I mean 'all' in the sense of 'people with a fair amount of commonsense')
- >You deliberately use exclusive or, indicating that what you linked to ought to make things either clear or clearer but not both.
Exactly, as it's defined: 0 XOR 0 = 0 0 XOR 1 = 1 1 XOR 0 = 1 1 XOR 1 = 0- >You probably should stick with something like "that ought to make things clear, or at least clearer".
Em' no, I think my 'logic gate(s)' are in-check/just fine (look-up/at 'OR' and 'XOR' in the url)AND
>Your logic is incorrect
Please read: This Thread I'm having with 'geg81' ... all the way to my last comment/reply: 'Global Digital Content Archive/With Variable PayPerView Content' - MultiCasting
That ought to make clear xor clearer a few things, that someone might had been wondering ...
But, I can't help wonder if we the fans couldn't get it back - I don't mean on TV ... but try something totally 'of the future' ... where we the fans would finace it, pay 'them' (the artists and matt-of-the-simpsons... etc) to make them, and 'we the project' would take care of the distribution&the.small.payment to get/watch the show. I really do think that there are enough futurama fans around the world to sustain production of futurama ... and even enough that there would be same profits over for 'them'.
Then again, we'd have to *litterally* start doing stuff (setting up a website, wake peoples attention, contact matt&who.ever.else ... etc) ... and not just spew 'idéas' here on slashdot.
I'm in, I mean it, but I think there has to be others as well who'd be interested in helping getting the 'project' to overcome the initial inertia that is associated with such an undertaking :)
In a vertical lift-off, the person(s) would have to endure a greatter amount of G-force due to the amount of force unleashed in a fraction of a second to achive the inertia needed to start lifting and contiune accelerating toward achiving proper amount of velocity(ies)...etc
In a horizontal lift-off, the person(s) wouldn't have to endure the same amount of G-forces, as in a 1st stage one would only have to achive the inertia to overwin the air/frition-resistance, and sure at a 2nd stage one would still have to overwin the Gravity-force that's keeping us so firmly on the ground to achive orbitit - but the main difference in this take-off method is that one can/could adjust the amount in inclination and therefor be able to control the amount of G-force the person(s) would feel/endure. (btw, yes one would also have to achive a proper amount of horizontal velocity (aka, orbiting velocity) o achive the destined orbit...).
So basic knowledge of physics and mathematical skills in doing x-axis/y-axis component calculation is needed to start calculaning out the scenarios... nothing fancy. (NOTE: Though, greater skills are required at calculating with/at pin-point accuracy! - thats start sending ppl to space... - but for theories, basic skills are enough)
---
Now one has to start to dissect the +positives/-negatives of both methods, and look at what is possible to achive with the available resorces at hand. One good thing to note is that just because one has used one method at a period doesn't mean that that has to be the defacto standard for all comming time either - that that lator in life a method prior thought unusable might become our next new 'best thing since sliced bread' :)
We evolve, we improve ourselfs and our capabilites (technologies, etc...), we uncover xor learn of new things, and as a consecvence we change over time. So our understanding of a matter can't be 'put into stone' for an indefinite period because of our nature - constans 'state of flux' we humans are in.
what it is, is a 'Central Processing Multi-Core Unit' or CPMCU, *technically* still a (one) 'Central Processing' Unit :-) ... that has the capability of processing more 'threads' at a time due to its 'multi-core' architecture
- Luck really is the only thing that determines whether programmers/designers get to work for a gem
*again* come on,sure there is a 'gamble' there - like all things in life - but way not the only only way of getting to work for a 'gem' (as you say).
I'd say lack in determination & imagination is a sure way to start a fixation on counting on 'lady lucky'.
correction.
come on... is it a fair argument you asses there, and thru out your whole pice.
I mean, his no 'Robbin Hood' stealing from 'those bad companies' and giving to the 'poor' (like himself...) ... but rather makes life hard for the 'poor' and doesn't do anything about the 'bad companies' at all.
One of my thoughts is that, Advertising is more effective then anyone else has previously estimated it to be. That if 'they' didn't advertise 'their <said> product' so furiously ... less people would know about it, and less would be persuade/feel the urge to 'see/want/have' it ... that if they didn't have the amount of currency at-hand (say, they've allready spent the amount of money they had - face it, most people aren't that rich that it pours out from their wallet(s)) they'd think of alternative methods of getting it...
I should also say, I don't mean the 'persuade/feel the urge', that one is 'brainwashed' by the advertisement. But rather 'the <said> product' directly (you like it) or in-directly (someone from your 'close circle' of friends, etc - likes it - and after a while you to start to like it...) ....
So then the Q would be, why would people go to alternative methods of gaining '<said> product' ... that the simple 'just let it go/be' action is ignored?!
Another thought, is that businesses have a voracious appetite toward 'money' (Think 'gollum' -JRR Tolkein, did indeed write a masterpiece
According to WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn], 'War' is:
I'd say it's a mix of 1st (face it, they've used armed forces to 'bust' ppl down) and 4th (and used this as an excues, for their actions)
*me'sa suspec'ta some'ona see'na to'a mann'a SCIFI-movi'/seri'as =)*
cortex - the tissue forming the outer layer of an organ or structure in plant or animal.
medulla - the inner part of an organ or structure in plant or animal.
small correction
and it looks like the kerry-ppl took consideration to this, and tried to keep themself 'as short as possible'.
something like that???
Anywho, my main point is to eliminate the whole 'someone other then you decides what is deemed air-able or not' - so things like stopping 'Futurama' (or ~enter your own favorite show that was cancelled, instead~) from airing couldn't happen. - and not so much 'public' vs 'private'.
if it would all just be financed by yet another tax-fee/fee, I'd loose any active say in what content I'd like to look at - and choose from what 'someone else' has deemed 'proper/worth' wachable.
then again, all of those things you count up - they wouldn't 'cost' much at all - much of those are simple 'record and provide' - not much 'production cost' but only nominal 'broadcasting costs' ... so it wouldn't 'cost' the user(s) much to finance that sort of thing(s). and part of or in whole of it could allready be financed by diverting a little bit out of the existing money from current taxes.
And now that I have written this, maybe I should substitute the 'public' out of it, to be:
'Global Digital PayPerView Content Broadcasting'