I'm praying it will mean fewer messages like the following from the Finder:
"The disk "Such-and-Such" is in use and could not be ejected. Try quitting applications and try again."
Really, this sort of error message is an embarrassment. Try quitting applications?! Screw you! You're the bloody computer, tell me which fucking file is in use, and by which sodding application.
I've always assumed HFS+ is unable to provide such information, though I've never tried installing procfs to find out...
I'd much rather have a hereditary peer as a check on the power of commons than a retired politician, and the balance is continually shifting in favour of the latter...
Some background to the particular bee in my bonnet: OS X is designed with a certain folder structure repeated in various different places:/System/Library (for Apple),/Library (for systemwide installation), ~/Library (for individual users),/Network/Library (for all machines on a network). These folders form a sort of search path, rather like/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin but for all sorts of things (preferences, fonts, plugins, etc.)
However, the GUI installation tool only allows for installation by default into/Library. It is possible to override this at the command line, but it's not possible to create an installer that gives the user the option of installing into ~/Library, or does so by default.
The upshot of this is that every install that uses Apple's installer asks you for your admin password (so that it can write to/Library). Not because it necessarily needs to write system-wide stuff, but because as an application developer, you'd have to hack it to be able to write to ~/Library.
In other words, Apple has been training users these past 8 years to type their admin password at the drop of a hat.
You can state things as "inescapable facts" all you like, but it doesn't make them true. I asked you for examples of tools better than Objective-C for GUI programming, and you have given me none. However, you did give me an example of something you thought C++ was better for, which leads me to conclude that despite your claims, this debate is not about safety. Incidentally, Objective-C does much less name-mangling than C++, so it's considerably easier to use with existing C libraries, which makes it a better choice than C++ for plenty of processor-intensive stuff too (not to mention that scientific tools often have GUIs).
You also seem to confuse success with merit. Coca-Cola is the most popular soft drink in the world, yet not the most nutritious. VHS was technically inferior to Betamax.
I have coded extensively in both C++ and Objective-C, and I can tell you that Objective-C is better in every single area save integration with existing C++ code (and even that is as straightforward as integrating C and C++).
It's always easy to spot someone who hasn't ever really used Objective-C: they think that C++ is better than it.
And you give the impression of not being particularly smart, since you confuse a programming language (Objective-C) with an API (Cocoa). I do no such thing. If you were at all familiar with Cocoa, you would know that such a framework could not be used with such a static language as C++.
Just about any language that isn't intrinsically unsafe, regardless of which API you use with it, even Cocoa. For GUI programming, there is simply no better toolkit that Cocoa. You may prefer the Ruby or Python bindings, but I prefer Objective-C.
But if you cared about safety, you wouldn't recommend C++ for anything, so I will have to conclude that you are merely trolling.
As it happens I do know how to code in objective C, but have no need for it personally, nor, as I said, have I seen any jobs that require it. In that case, perhaps there are no jobs that require it! In fact, have you checked you didn't dream the whole language?
since there are better tools than either of them You give the impression of never having used Cocoa. At least give some examples of what you consider to be better!
If it has expanded just a minute smidgen (technical term) faster or slower, then matter wouldn't have happened. I am quite prepared to believe this, but you've missed my point. Imagine a universe in which there was no matter, but instead there was spleegiwobz. Now imagine a mind in that universe considering our universe, and saying "there is no way life could exist there, because they don't even have spleegiwobz".
That certainly isn't the case. The evidence for a historical Jesus is very scant, far less than the amount of evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar and Alexander say, Well, yes. The historical evidence for Princess Diana far outstrips the historical evidence for my uncle, but that doesn't mean he didn't exist. Anyway, a debate about whether or not some chap called Jesus existed is a waste of time. He probably even believed he was the son of god; you can find dozens of such people in every city in the world. The question is: was he really the son of god? And the answer is: if you have to ask, you'll never know.
Of course "the Universe would not exist as we know it". After all, we are the ones doing the knowing of it. If the constants were different, others would have to be the ones doing the knowing of it. Maybe that knowledge would not be borne by creatures of carbon and water, but to say "life would not form"? That's just an extension of the anthropomorphism we have come to expect from religious grandeur-delusional thinking.
Solitaire is different to the Rubik's cube in that you can shuffle a pack of cards into an unwinnable game of solitaire, but you can't shuffle a Rubik's cube into an unsolvable configuration -- you have to take it apart for that.
In the beginning, FLOSS was nothing more than a hobbyist movement. It continued to be that for a long time, until corporations like IBM got into the game You seem to be using "hobbyist" pejoratively, but it must have been worth a lot more than your "just" implies for IBM to have decided to get into the game...
The technology uses a computer algorithm to scour Google's image database for faces, then blurs them having first stored the location and probable identity of each. There, fixed that for ya.
Have a look at Amit Singh's procfs (a MacFUSE filesystem) -- if you read the file for the camera device it takes a photo, and it's open source software.
As I see it, it's far easier for a space program to plug along without any real measure of success and failure. If you've discovered a way of getting billions of dollars of funding without having any clear objectives, please contact me privately at yeahrightwhatever@gmail.com.
Mysticism isn't about the delta in scientific knowledge over time. It is about the places where scientific knowledge will never take us. Ever. Hmmm... "There are known unknowns..."
I used to use the word "God" to describe this concept: the sum total of things we can never understand. You can never know the nature of God; you can never know the difference between the things you don't know and the things you can't know. I don't use the word much any more, as it turns out that most people get confused when it turns out you're not talking about a bloke in the sky with a beard.
Slashdot Mirror
I can assure you that many Rangers and Celtic casuals meet nowhere near the stadia in question!
I'm praying it will mean fewer messages like the following from the Finder:
"The disk "Such-and-Such" is in use and could not be ejected. Try quitting applications and try again."
Really, this sort of error message is an embarrassment. Try quitting applications?! Screw you! You're the bloody computer, tell me which fucking file is in use, and by which sodding application.
I've always assumed HFS+ is unable to provide such information, though I've never tried installing procfs to find out...
I'd much rather have a hereditary peer as a check on the power of commons than a retired politician, and the balance is continually shifting in favour of the latter...
Tell me about it.
Some background to the particular bee in my bonnet: OS X is designed with a certain folder structure repeated in various different places:
However, the GUI installation tool only allows for installation by default into
The upshot of this is that every install that uses Apple's installer asks you for your admin password (so that it can write to
In other words, Apple has been training users these past 8 years to type their admin password at the drop of a hat.
This will certainly come back to bite them.
You can state things as "inescapable facts" all you like, but it doesn't make them true. I asked you for examples of tools better than Objective-C for GUI programming, and you have given me none. However, you did give me an example of something you thought C++ was better for, which leads me to conclude that despite your claims, this debate is not about safety. Incidentally, Objective-C does much less name-mangling than C++, so it's considerably easier to use with existing C libraries, which makes it a better choice than C++ for plenty of processor-intensive stuff too (not to mention that scientific tools often have GUIs).
You also seem to confuse success with merit. Coca-Cola is the most popular soft drink in the world, yet not the most nutritious. VHS was technically inferior to Betamax.
I have coded extensively in both C++ and Objective-C, and I can tell you that Objective-C is better in every single area save integration with existing C++ code (and even that is as straightforward as integrating C and C++).
It's always easy to spot someone who hasn't ever really used Objective-C: they think that C++ is better than it.
But if you cared about safety, you wouldn't recommend C++ for anything, so I will have to conclude that you are merely trolling.
£2.50 a month, with free calls to family members? I don't believe such a deal exists here in the UK.
Anyway, a debate about whether or not some chap called Jesus existed is a waste of time. He probably even believed he was the son of god; you can find dozens of such people in every city in the world. The question is: was he really the son of god? And the answer is: if you have to ask, you'll never know.
Of course "the Universe would not exist as we know it". After all, we are the ones doing the knowing of it. If the constants were different, others would have to be the ones doing the knowing of it. Maybe that knowledge would not be borne by creatures of carbon and water, but to say "life would not form"? That's just an extension of the anthropomorphism we have come to expect from religious grandeur-delusional thinking.
Solitaire is different to the Rubik's cube in that you can shuffle a pack of cards into an unwinnable game of solitaire, but you can't shuffle a Rubik's cube into an unsolvable configuration -- you have to take it apart for that.
I think he probably understood the joke. He just thought it didn't deserve to be treated like one.
Eric Jon Phelps? Is that you?
Q: Option A or option B?
A: Yes.
Have a look at Amit Singh's procfs (a MacFUSE filesystem) -- if you read the file for the camera device it takes a photo, and it's open source software.
Wuss.
Seriously, if you think 6lbs is a lot to carry, get a better bag. Preferably one with two shoulder straps, and use them both.
I get to define pretty much any word the way I want. But when I start talking to other people, it becomes more useful to use a shared definition.
I used to use the word "God" to describe this concept: the sum total of things we can never understand. You can never know the nature of God; you can never know the difference between the things you don't know and the things you can't know. I don't use the word much any more, as it turns out that most people get confused when it turns out you're not talking about a bloke in the sky with a beard.