It's the "hang-up" button: on some phones that's the button with the picture of the red handset (as opposed to the green handset you use to start a call).
Where I live we have to rub two sticks together to make a fire and then shear a passing sheep, spin the wool, weave it into a blanket and use that to make smoke signals to a passing ship asking them to drop off our message the next time they make port.
And you tell that to kids today and they just don't believe you!
If it's unobtrusive or, even better, adds to the game then all well and good. If it jars or is too blatant then back goes the game to the store.
I would compare the appearance of Omega watches and Aston-Martins in James Bond and Starbucks in Shrek (which I think was all well done) with the appearance of Audi in I,Robot and BMW in James Bond: both of which I felt jarred and reduced my enjoyment of the film.
I don't see how you can claim they "nailed" Apple several times when a) there's only one case and b) two out of three of the complaints were rejected: The G5 was the world's first 64 bit personal computer and the first to break the 4GB memory limit.
The claim that their ads were MISLEADING was upheld. It wasn't claimed that what they said was false.
The reason it's misleading is because they were comparing chalk (1 Linux image running on some heavyweight iron that could take 20 times the load) versus cheese (some high-end PC hardware running 1 Windows image). They then used this to make a misleading claim.
Two years and you STILL haven't found/Library/Java/Extensions ? I guess your one of those developers who spends too much time reading/. and too little time reading about how to do your job.
goto is bad, the fact that Java doesn't have them is a good thing.
Java is an object-oriented language: you shouldn't split data and function therefore there is no need for structs. Although if you're a really crap developer you can replicate the effect in Java:
public class MyStruct { public int someValue; public String someString; }
1) Java in OSX (as an example) doesn't require a classpath at all.
2) Two problems with pointers: a) even "real" programmers make mistakes. b) in real, rather than one-developer toy, development who owns an object/lump of memory and therefore can/must delete it is an issue.
Agreed. Swing is truly awful. However, and at the risk of appearing condescending, experience of writing code as part of a course isn't actually that useful in determining a language's worth in producing code to do a job. Firstly because the examples and exemplar solutions are written by academics who too often write worse code than the most naive and inexperienced of professional developer (it's the old amateur/professional thing: there really is several orders of magnitude of difference between the two). And because in academia you have different goals in writing code: you're either learning stuff or demonstrating you've learnt stuff. In the real world neither are important: you have to deliver good-enough functionality to a deadline.
Having cut my teeth on assembler then C then C++ I can categorically state that as a language Java has all of them beat in pretty much every situation except where a small footprint is absolutely critical. And yeah I have written tiny footprint applications that have to be dynamically relocatable: relying on loaders to fix up addresses is for pussys;-)
In every other situation Java wins because ease of maintenance trumps every other consideration.
That said and for exactly the same reasons I think that Java is often used where other languages (eg PHP, Perl) would be much, much better. I also think some major elements of Java (in the broadest sense) are premiership crap: all EJBs except Message Driven Beans fall into that category.
Edward
PS I see you've been modded flamebait: I think that's grossly unfair. I love Java and I think you're 100% spot-on: GUI development in Java sucks and always has: AWT was just embarassing. Swing was barely adequate when it came out and hasn't noticably improved.
I think this fully vindicates RMS's objections to Open software. It can easily be subverted in the manner that MS are doing: they come up with something entirely self-serving and closed and still call it Open Source.
In contrast they couldn't call it Free Software and get away with this crap because Free Software disdanes the pragmatic crap associated with Open Software (eg Linus' famous "Bitkeeper" defence.
And as an aside to the many posters that have made this mistake. Open Software does not equal software that runs on Linux!
Well, they did switch out their rendering farm to a linux cluster right in the middle of making the second movie.
And as a film goer I care why?
It is also the first (or so lucas says) movie to be shot solely with digital cameras.
And a a film goer I care why?
The CG stuff is bleeding-edge CG stuff, even if it is still just CG stuff.
I cannot remember a single "wow" moment in the entire movie. Or, as was the case with LOTR, thinking back afterwards: "wow that was impressive and I didn't even realise it was using CG". With the latest SW there simply has been nothing that looked impressive regardless of how (inapprpriately perhaps) complex the implementaion was. For example I know some people creamed their pants over the pod racing scene: my reaction was one big YAWN!.
Yoda isn't a puppet in the second movie, he's a CG character.
Sure but it was either a) poor CG or b) poorly used CG because he still behaved like a Jim Henson puppett: talk about stiff. And the "fight" scene with Dogo was just a joke! Oooh look Yoda is so powerful because he can do back-flips. Well I've been watching more impressive gymnastics in the Olympics: and there they make no claims to have mastery of the force.
And, as usual, Lucas is still a pompous ass, and he's innovating new ground in that area every day.
Personally I wouldn't care if he made all his minions bow down and call him lord. The problem is that it shines through in his movies. (Just like Tarantino and the Kill Bill movies: now those are strong challengers to Lucas' claim to the crappest movies of the 21st century".
Well if you were looking to get an entry into the interface hall of shame then you've certainly made a contender. I kind of assume you weren't looking to make a career of web design? If you were I'd start researching how food coupons work.
Exactly. Whilst my point was serious I simply could not be bothered to look up the spelling of amygdala and if I make a weak Amidala pun people will sill get the point (although the grandparent to this post proves you can never going wrong overestimating the stupidity of people).
Well I suppose if you want to see how technology was going about 10 years ago then yes watch one of the SW prequels.
I don't recall *anything* in either of the recent SW movies that could be described as innovative, cutting edge etc etc.
The first Matrix movie and all the LOTR movies beat both the SW films into a bloody pulp. An average episode of ST:Enterprise has more advanced special effects that SW.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the "hang-up" button: on some phones that's the button with the picture of the red handset (as opposed to the green handset you use to start a call).
Where I live we have to rub two sticks together to make a fire and then shear a passing sheep, spin the wool, weave it into a blanket and use that to make smoke signals to a passing ship asking them to drop off our message the next time they make port.
And you tell that to kids today and they just don't believe you!
Cobblers. I regularly buy games and return them if they're crap under the shop I buy them from's 10 day no quibble returns.
If it's unobtrusive or, even better, adds to the game then all well and good. If it jars or is too blatant then back goes the game to the store.
I would compare the appearance of Omega watches and Aston-Martins in James Bond and Starbucks in Shrek (which I think was all well done) with the appearance of Audi in I,Robot and BMW in James Bond: both of which I felt jarred and reduced my enjoyment of the film.
I don't see how you can claim they "nailed" Apple several times when a) there's only one case and b) two out of three of the complaints were rejected: The G5 was the world's first 64 bit personal computer and the first to break the 4GB memory limit.
RTFA!
The claim that their ads were MISLEADING was upheld. It wasn't claimed that what they said was false.
The reason it's misleading is because they were comparing chalk (1 Linux image running on some heavyweight iron that could take 20 times the load) versus cheese (some high-end PC hardware running 1 Windows image). They then used this to make a misleading claim.
The word you were struggling for was immoral or perhaps amoral.
And nope you're right, there are no immoral or amoral companies outside of the US.
What a silly bunt.
Two years and you STILL haven't found /Library/Java/Extensions ? I guess your one of those developers who spends too much time reading /. and too little time reading about how to do your job.
No. It. Doesn't.
Like Java is doing- and C++ has still to do you mean?
I'm confused in that case, what was your problem with Java?
Check and Mate ;-)
That was a deliberate decision in order to avoid the monster mistake Bjarne made with C++ templates.
Java 1.5 introduces generics: the ability to define type-able collections and does them in a much, much more elegant way than C++'s abomination.
Huh? You trolling or something.
goto is bad, the fact that Java doesn't have them is a good thing.
Java is an object-oriented language: you shouldn't split data and function therefore there is no need for structs. Although if you're a really crap developer you can replicate the effect in Java:
As to separate .class files: why do you care?
1) Java in OSX (as an example) doesn't require a classpath at all.
2) Two problems with pointers: a) even "real" programmers make mistakes. b) in real, rather than one-developer toy, development who owns an object/lump of memory and therefore can/must delete it is an issue.
Agreed. Swing is truly awful. However, and at the risk of appearing condescending, experience of writing code as part of a course isn't actually that useful in determining a language's worth in producing code to do a job. Firstly because the examples and exemplar solutions are written by academics who too often write worse code than the most naive and inexperienced of professional developer (it's the old amateur/professional thing: there really is several orders of magnitude of difference between the two). And because in academia you have different goals in writing code: you're either learning stuff or demonstrating you've learnt stuff. In the real world neither are important: you have to deliver good-enough functionality to a deadline.
Having cut my teeth on assembler then C then C++ I can categorically state that as a language Java has all of them beat in pretty much every situation except where a small footprint is absolutely critical. And yeah I have written tiny footprint applications that have to be dynamically relocatable: relying on loaders to fix up addresses is for pussys ;-)
In every other situation Java wins because ease of maintenance trumps every other consideration.
That said and for exactly the same reasons I think that Java is often used where other languages (eg PHP, Perl) would be much, much better. I also think some major elements of Java (in the broadest sense) are premiership crap: all EJBs except Message Driven Beans fall into that category.
Edward
PS I see you've been modded flamebait: I think that's grossly unfair. I love Java and I think you're 100% spot-on: GUI development in Java sucks and always has: AWT was just embarassing. Swing was barely adequate when it came out and hasn't noticably improved.
I think this fully vindicates RMS's objections to Open software. It can easily be subverted in the manner that MS are doing: they come up with something entirely self-serving and closed and still call it Open Source.
In contrast they couldn't call it Free Software and get away with this crap because Free Software disdanes the pragmatic crap associated with Open Software (eg Linus' famous "Bitkeeper" defence.
And as an aside to the many posters that have made this mistake. Open Software does not equal software that runs on Linux!
Well, they did switch out their rendering farm to a linux cluster right in the middle of making the second movie.
And as a film goer I care why?
It is also the first (or so lucas says) movie to be shot solely with digital cameras.
And a a film goer I care why?
The CG stuff is bleeding-edge CG stuff, even if it is still just CG stuff.
I cannot remember a single "wow" moment in the entire movie. Or, as was the case with LOTR, thinking back afterwards: "wow that was impressive and I didn't even realise it was using CG". With the latest SW there simply has been nothing that looked impressive regardless of how (inapprpriately perhaps) complex the implementaion was. For example I know some people creamed their pants over the pod racing scene: my reaction was one big YAWN!.
Yoda isn't a puppet in the second movie, he's a CG character.
Sure but it was either a) poor CG or b) poorly used CG because he still behaved like a Jim Henson puppett: talk about stiff. And the "fight" scene with Dogo was just a joke! Oooh look Yoda is so powerful because he can do back-flips. Well I've been watching more impressive gymnastics in the Olympics: and there they make no claims to have mastery of the force.
And, as usual, Lucas is still a pompous ass, and he's innovating new ground in that area every day.
Personally I wouldn't care if he made all his minions bow down and call him lord. The problem is that it shines through in his movies. (Just like Tarantino and the Kill Bill movies: now those are strong challengers to Lucas' claim to the crappest movies of the 21st century".
Well if you were looking to get an entry into the interface hall of shame then you've certainly made a contender. I kind of assume you weren't looking to make a career of web design? If you were I'd start researching how food coupons work.
Till then I'm on good old portable CD/MP3 player (read as poor man's ipod)
Nah that's Creative's Zen.
The phrase you were looking for was "the technologically disabled err.... differently-abled's ipod" ;-)
Exactly. Whilst my point was serious I simply could not be bothered to look up the spelling of amygdala and if I make a weak Amidala pun people will sill get the point (although the grandparent to this post proves you can never going wrong overestimating the stupidity of people).
Well I suppose if you want to see how technology was going about 10 years ago then yes watch one of the SW prequels.
I don't recall *anything* in either of the recent SW movies that could be described as innovative, cutting edge etc etc.
The first Matrix movie and all the LOTR movies beat both the SW films into a bloody pulp. An average episode of ST:Enterprise has more advanced special effects that SW.
Easy. "Libertarians" aka "Anarchists" don't use their brains for thinking. For them it's a convenient shock absorber and nothing more.
So? I don't believe the article said the number Queen Amidala's in your brain didn't change over time.
Despite Blunkett/Blair's attempts to the contrary we still have the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate ourselves.
Surely your last point is prevented by the right to silence and the right not to incriminate yourself?