What happens though when all new CDs won't even play on a Mac? Even if you couldn't burn a mix on an IBM, it's better than nothing.
If you want to break the ability to play a CD in a mac, you're going to have to break the ability to play it in regular CD players, as well. The market will not support a change to a new CD format simply because Jack V. needs another house.
Re:Recycle Bins - don't you just hate them?
on
Undelete In Linux
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I've said it before, I'll say it again: ctrl-s saved, ctrl-d deletes. They should not be that close together.
You know, choice of OS or ISP isn't a measure of intelligence. The idea is to make computers easier to use, not more difficult.
No, at least not necessarily. I am sure some very intelligent people use AOL, or WinME, etc.
Still, it is a sign of how proficient you are with a computer, and this may have a more direct correlation to intelligence. Intelligent people usually like to play, and the more they play with the internet, the more likely they are to realize that there is more out there than what AOL is pushing at them. The more proficient they are with their computer, the more they are likely to want things there way, not AOL's way.
My first home connection was AOL; I minimized it and ran explorer anyway, because I didn't like the AOL interface. Soon, I had dropped AOL altogether. I imagine that just about any average-to-above-average computer user would have the same reaction.
I can uninstall software; that's no problem... if I can find it. Can anyone direct us on how to remove the stealware from our systems?
I had Kazaa on my system once upon a time. I used AdAware to get rid of it's dirty little secrets. Even after that, though, I reformatted and reinstalled; I wasn't being paranoid, I just like a clean system. My windows box typically get's reformatted every three months or so.
You know, if this keeps up, the RIAA isn't going to need that pro-hacking bill; hacktivists are going to get so fed up with Kazaa that they take them down on their own.
Seriously, the more I deal with the computer and related industries, the more disgusted I become. I miss the days when people basically did what they want, and were mostly harmless. And I'm only 22.
OK, my statement was an exaggeration. However it is true that most people don't need Firewire and certainly don't need 1GBit LAN.
I look at it like an SUV. 99% of the people that buy them are never going to need 4-wheel drive, but they like to know it's there. "uh-oh, gravel...better slide this baby into overdrive!"
left clicking a mouse is just like clicking a Mac mouse. Right clicking is equivilant to holding ctrl and left clicking. Middle clicking is equivilant to holding alt (or option in Mac land) and left clicking. IIRC, there are also equivilants to esc and meta, but since they aren't supported everywhere, I rarely program them.
What in God's name you need to hang around for, when you could have a perfectly good right mouse button, is beyond me.
My first experience using a Mac was to do layout for an on-line newspaper. It went something like this:
[me] Grumble grumble stupid Mac this would be so much easier if I could right click this thing...
[editor-in-chief] Oh, just click-and-hold. The menu will pop up.
[me, clicks-and-holds, blinks a few times] Hey, you're right. Grumble grumble stupid Mac this would be so much faster if I could right click this thing...
well, I don't remember my combinatorial math, but something like 5! * 6 = a hell of a lot of different ways to click or scroll
That bothers me almost as much as the single-button mice. I was using some other guy's computer the other day, and his mouse had buttons on top of the buttons; two main mouse buttons, a scroll wheele that was also a button, a button on the right side, two buttons on the left side...I couldn't move the bloody thing without clicking something.
I find having two primary buttons, with a center scroll-wheele/button, gives a very nice balance between "I can make this do what I want to" and "I can use this thing without thinking about it." Of course, I'm not a gamer, so I also don't need 600 possible combinations on my right hand.
There are a number of layers you must consider when talking about computers.
At the lowest level is the hardware. In this case, it is the Motorola chips that Apple uses in the Mac.
One step up is the operating system. This operating system must be compiled specifically for whatever hardware it is going to run on. In the case of MacOSX, the operating system is Darwin, and it can be compiled to run on either Motorola chips, or the Intel-esqe chips everyone else uses.
On top of the operating system, there are libraries that programmers use to build their applications. Examples of these are the std libraries in C++ (which is were we get cout from, allowing us to print stuff to the screen), and Cocoa, which is the gui toolkit Apple uses to make all of those pretty buttons and things appeare on the screen. Libraries must be compiled to the specific hardware and operating system they are going to run on. In the case of OSX, Cocoa has only been compiled for darwin on motorola, and therefor will not run on intel-based darwin.
Finally, there are the applications themselves. These are the Mozillas, Words, and iTunes that we all know and (mostly) love. They have to be compiled for the specific hardware and operating system, with the appropriate libraries, in order to run. Most Mac applications have only been compiled for Darwin on Motorola chips, using the Cocoa libraries only available for darwin on motorola chips. Therefore, Mac programs will also not run on intel-based darwin.
You know, I honestly don't care what MS does in the game market. MS dominating the console wars won't force DRM down my throat, or force me to boot in to Windows to read those damn.doc files people keep sending me, or make me curse people for using those proprietary extensions to HTML that IE seems to love.
So MS is buying up game studios. I'll get over it. I've got better things to worry about, like the EULA on XP's SP1.
I don't think the job is worth $100k (I know the stuff so well, I think it's no big deal sometimes), but 40??? Am I weird?
Probably, if you're on/., but we still love you.
Anyway, $40k/year is ridiculous. I got more than that fresh out of college in upstate New York. Now, I do know a bit more than the average college grad (you can compile from the command line? halleluja!), but still; a UNIX admin should be making at least $80k, and when you take in cost-of-living in the Big Apple, $100k doesn't seem high at all.
Numbers. More than 3 million people downloaded kazaa last week, or about 120 million in total.
Now, lets say that 10 percent of there people are actually using it. That's 12 million people. Lets say that only 10 percent of these people bother to rate files. That's still 1.2 million people rating files. For the RIAA/MPAA/etc to screw with ratings, they would need at least 50 percent of the votes, or about 600,000 active accounts. That is an awful lot of people to throw at the problem.
If someone wrote an open-source restrictions-management system, the decryption keys would no longer be obscured, since you could simply glean them from the source code.
A Palladium-type system could, at least in theory, continue to operate if the source code was released, if 1) the keys were loaded from a "trusted thrid party" and 2) the kernel was checksumed when it attempted to load a key. This would, however, defeat the purpose of having an open-source solution anyway.
I'm fairly sure that there are ways to get around this "problem," but to be honest, I don't want to wast the brain cycles. I've got better things to do than figure out how to help people hide things from me.
Again we all must wonder how secure this is. But really, I'm more worried about a patent - which might give them exclusive rights to thier little piece of technology. Arg.
You mean I might have to pay rolaties to chmod og-rwx? Drat!
I am not sure of the intent of your post. Are you merely providing information? Or are you implying that because the term originated to describe something other than what it is commonly thought to mean, what I thought it meant is not a valid point?
Pretty much just tossing out a nugget of info. I talk to myself, too. Such is slashdot. Hope you're not offended.
there is a reason to why gambling is regulated. it is not a good thing for people. it preys on the poor. but hey, why stop w/ gambling? I'm an expert swordsman and i don't see why the government is getting in my business about killing people.
There is a fundamental difference. Killing someone harms another person. Gambing is a choice made by (normally) an adult. The government is not our parent. They do not exist to protect us from ourselves. If someone's life is being ruined by gambling, that person's family should seek help for them. The government should not say "well, he can't handle it, so none of you are allowed to do it, either."
As an aside, I have a few swords laying around, too; the government does not interfear with that. They do interfear when I try to whack someone with them (see my sig).
Back when the phrase "you can't judge a book by it's cover" came into being, all books were printed with the same plain-brown cover; you litterally could not tell what book you had in your hands simply by looking at the cover. This is no longer true, and this phrase is now inappropriatly used to imply that the way something looks has no relationship to what something is.
I don't agree w/ the extent that the law reaches. the should just have made it so if you have an arcade that pays out that you get fined a ridiculous amount and some mandatory 5 years in prison. that would certainly make shop owners think twice.
Yeah, tht would work. Or, you know, they could leave people the hell alone. I don't like gambling. I don't gamble. But I like govenrment regulation less. If people feel the need to blow their life savings away, so be it, but don't punish everyone else because of it.
Sure he does...I talk to people online that do stuff like that all the time. I sometimes wonder if they atually know the entire set of keystrokes to make a real word.
That's actually one of the biggest clues that someone has only been online for a short period of time; they usually calm down after enough people tell them that it hurts to read their messeages.
Have each user vote for each server they download from. If a specific server gives out bad files, the users would vote as a bad server. Then it would not be able to connect to the P2P network.
This would be moderation however, it would be the smartest way as each user would have their word on who is allowed and not allowed on the network.
The problem with that is that you loose anonymity. If everyone knows server 127.0.0.1 has the best whatever, that is the server that gets targeted when you want to shut the network down.
I think a better solution would to moderate/rate individual files based on an MD5 checksum; each file on the network would have an associated MD5, which users would be able rate (say from 0-5). When a search was executed, the requesting node could then generate a rating based on the average rating given to that MD5.
This would sacrifice no more anonimity than is currently available (right now you can find out that computer X has Teen Pop Artist - My Sucky Song.mp3, with this system you would know that it has Teen Pop Artist - My Sucky Song.mp3 MD5 = xyz), and would allow for peer review of the content you are offering for download.
Now, if that isn't biased crap then I must be the guy bending over at goatse.cx. The rest of the article goes on in much the same way.
Actually, IIRC, C# supports some syntactic sugar called "accessors;" basically, label.font.bold = true maps to a call to label.getFont().setBold(true). They didn't make the member data publically acessible, they just lowered the keystrokes to call simple mutator methods.
Slashdot Mirror
What happens though when all new CDs won't even play on a Mac? Even if you couldn't burn a mix on an IBM, it's better than nothing.
If you want to break the ability to play a CD in a mac, you're going to have to break the ability to play it in regular CD players, as well. The market will not support a change to a new CD format simply because Jack V. needs another house.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: ctrl-s saved, ctrl-d deletes. They should not be that close together.
I have a problem with the whole sentence. The "suspect" part just makes it worse.
You know, choice of OS or ISP isn't a measure of intelligence. The idea is to make computers easier to use, not more difficult.
No, at least not necessarily. I am sure some very intelligent people use AOL, or WinME, etc.
Still, it is a sign of how proficient you are with a computer, and this may have a more direct correlation to intelligence. Intelligent people usually like to play, and the more they play with the internet, the more likely they are to realize that there is more out there than what AOL is pushing at them. The more proficient they are with their computer, the more they are likely to want things there way, not AOL's way.
My first home connection was AOL; I minimized it and ran explorer anyway, because I didn't like the AOL interface. Soon, I had dropped AOL altogether. I imagine that just about any average-to-above-average computer user would have the same reaction.
I can uninstall software; that's no problem... if I can find it. Can anyone direct us on how to remove the stealware from our systems?
I had Kazaa on my system once upon a time. I used AdAware to get rid of it's dirty little secrets. Even after that, though, I reformatted and reinstalled; I wasn't being paranoid, I just like a clean system. My windows box typically get's reformatted every three months or so.
Not much different of an attitude from the RIAA.
You know, if this keeps up, the RIAA isn't going to need that pro-hacking bill; hacktivists are going to get so fed up with Kazaa that they take them down on their own.
Seriously, the more I deal with the computer and related industries, the more disgusted I become. I miss the days when people basically did what they want, and were mostly harmless. And I'm only 22.
OK, my statement was an exaggeration. However it is true that most people don't need Firewire and certainly don't need 1GBit LAN.
I look at it like an SUV. 99% of the people that buy them are never going to need 4-wheel drive, but they like to know it's there. "uh-oh, gravel...better slide this baby into overdrive!"
left clicking a mouse is just like clicking a Mac mouse. Right clicking is equivilant to holding ctrl and left clicking. Middle clicking is equivilant to holding alt (or option in Mac land) and left clicking. IIRC, there are also equivilants to esc and meta, but since they aren't supported everywhere, I rarely program them.
What in God's name you need to hang around for, when you could have a perfectly good right mouse button, is beyond me.
My first experience using a Mac was to do layout for an on-line newspaper. It went something like this:
[me] Grumble grumble stupid Mac this would be so much easier if I could right click this thing...
[editor-in-chief] Oh, just click-and-hold. The menu will pop up.
[me, clicks-and-holds, blinks a few times] Hey, you're right. Grumble grumble stupid Mac this would be so much faster if I could right click this thing...
well, I don't remember my combinatorial math, but something like 5! * 6 = a hell of a lot of different ways to click or scroll
That bothers me almost as much as the single-button mice. I was using some other guy's computer the other day, and his mouse had buttons on top of the buttons; two main mouse buttons, a scroll wheele that was also a button, a button on the right side, two buttons on the left side...I couldn't move the bloody thing without clicking something.
I find having two primary buttons, with a center scroll-wheele/button, gives a very nice balance between "I can make this do what I want to" and "I can use this thing without thinking about it." Of course, I'm not a gamer, so I also don't need 600 possible combinations on my right hand.
Esentially.
There are a number of layers you must consider when talking about computers.
At the lowest level is the hardware. In this case, it is the Motorola chips that Apple uses in the Mac.
One step up is the operating system. This operating system must be compiled specifically for whatever hardware it is going to run on. In the case of MacOSX, the operating system is Darwin, and it can be compiled to run on either Motorola chips, or the Intel-esqe chips everyone else uses.
On top of the operating system, there are libraries that programmers use to build their applications. Examples of these are the std libraries in C++ (which is were we get cout from, allowing us to print stuff to the screen), and Cocoa, which is the gui toolkit Apple uses to make all of those pretty buttons and things appeare on the screen. Libraries must be compiled to the specific hardware and operating system they are going to run on. In the case of OSX, Cocoa has only been compiled for darwin on motorola, and therefor will not run on intel-based darwin.
Finally, there are the applications themselves. These are the Mozillas, Words, and iTunes that we all know and (mostly) love. They have to be compiled for the specific hardware and operating system, with the appropriate libraries, in order to run. Most Mac applications have only been compiled for Darwin on Motorola chips, using the Cocoa libraries only available for darwin on motorola chips. Therefore, Mac programs will also not run on intel-based darwin.
You know, I honestly don't care what MS does in the game market. MS dominating the console wars won't force DRM down my throat, or force me to boot in to Windows to read those damn .doc files people keep sending me, or make me curse people for using those proprietary extensions to HTML that IE seems to love.
So MS is buying up game studios. I'll get over it. I've got better things to worry about, like the EULA on XP's SP1.
You don't need an admin to make a phone call, nor to follow explicit support instructions.
Wanna bet? Try walking someone through fdisk over the phone; it's a riot.
I don't think the job is worth $100k (I know the stuff so well, I think it's no big deal sometimes), but 40??? Am I weird?
/., but we still love you.
Probably, if you're on
Anyway, $40k/year is ridiculous. I got more than that fresh out of college in upstate New York. Now, I do know a bit more than the average college grad (you can compile from the command line? halleluja!), but still; a UNIX admin should be making at least $80k, and when you take in cost-of-living in the Big Apple, $100k doesn't seem high at all.
Numbers. More than 3 million people downloaded kazaa last week, or about 120 million in total.
Now, lets say that 10 percent of there people are actually using it. That's 12 million people. Lets say that only 10 percent of these people bother to rate files. That's still 1.2 million people rating files. For the RIAA/MPAA/etc to screw with ratings, they would need at least 50 percent of the votes, or about 600,000 active accounts. That is an awful lot of people to throw at the problem.
Isn't Lobo already a DC character?
If someone wrote an open-source restrictions-management system, the decryption keys would no longer be obscured, since you could simply glean them from the source code.
A Palladium-type system could, at least in theory, continue to operate if the source code was released, if 1) the keys were loaded from a "trusted thrid party" and 2) the kernel was checksumed when it attempted to load a key. This would, however, defeat the purpose of having an open-source solution anyway.
I'm fairly sure that there are ways to get around this "problem," but to be honest, I don't want to wast the brain cycles. I've got better things to do than figure out how to help people hide things from me.
Again we all must wonder how secure this is. But really, I'm more worried about a patent - which might give them exclusive rights to thier little piece of technology. Arg.
:-)
You mean I might have to pay rolaties to chmod og-rwx? Drat!
I am not sure of the intent of your post. Are you merely providing information? Or are you implying that because the term originated to describe something other than what it is commonly thought to mean, what I thought it meant is not a valid point?
Pretty much just tossing out a nugget of info. I talk to myself, too. Such is slashdot. Hope you're not offended.
there is a reason to why gambling is regulated. it is not a good thing for people. it preys on the poor. but hey, why stop w/ gambling? I'm an expert swordsman and i don't see why the government is getting in my business about killing people.
There is a fundamental difference. Killing someone harms another person. Gambing is a choice made by (normally) an adult. The government is not our parent. They do not exist to protect us from ourselves. If someone's life is being ruined by gambling, that person's family should seek help for them. The government should not say "well, he can't handle it, so none of you are allowed to do it, either."
As an aside, I have a few swords laying around, too; the government does not interfear with that. They do interfear when I try to whack someone with them (see my sig).
Back when the phrase "you can't judge a book by it's cover" came into being, all books were printed with the same plain-brown cover; you litterally could not tell what book you had in your hands simply by looking at the cover. This is no longer true, and this phrase is now inappropriatly used to imply that the way something looks has no relationship to what something is.
I don't agree w/ the extent that the law reaches. the should just have made it so if you have an arcade that pays out that you get fined a ridiculous amount and some mandatory 5 years in prison. that would certainly make shop owners think twice.
Yeah, tht would work. Or, you know, they could leave people the hell alone. I don't like gambling. I don't gamble. But I like govenrment regulation less. If people feel the need to blow their life savings away, so be it, but don't punish everyone else because of it.
Sure he does...I talk to people online that do stuff like that all the time. I sometimes wonder if they atually know the entire set of keystrokes to make a real word.
That's actually one of the biggest clues that someone has only been online for a short period of time; they usually calm down after enough people tell them that it hurts to read their messeages.
Have each user vote for each server they download from. If a specific server gives out bad files, the users would vote as a bad server. Then it would not be able to connect to the P2P network.
This would be moderation however, it would be the smartest way as each user would have their word on who is allowed and not allowed on the network.
The problem with that is that you loose anonymity. If everyone knows server 127.0.0.1 has the best whatever, that is the server that gets targeted when you want to shut the network down.
I think a better solution would to moderate/rate individual files based on an MD5 checksum; each file on the network would have an associated MD5, which users would be able rate (say from 0-5). When a search was executed, the requesting node could then generate a rating based on the average rating given to that MD5.
This would sacrifice no more anonimity than is currently available (right now you can find out that computer X has Teen Pop Artist - My Sucky Song.mp3, with this system you would know that it has Teen Pop Artist - My Sucky Song.mp3 MD5 = xyz), and would allow for peer review of the content you are offering for download.
Now to file the requisit patents...
This is typical code you might write in Java or C++:
foo.setSize (getSize () + 1);
label.getFont().setBold (true);
The same code you would write like this in C#:
foo.size++;
label.font.bold = true;
Now, if that isn't biased crap then I must be the guy bending over at goatse.cx. The rest of the article goes on in much the same way.
Actually, IIRC, C# supports some syntactic sugar called "accessors;" basically, label.font.bold = true maps to a call to label.getFont().setBold(true). They didn't make the member data publically acessible, they just lowered the keystrokes to call simple mutator methods.