The address is for a UPS Store in San Francisco. It's the same address as the return address of the mysterious packages of honey that arrived in some folks' mailboxes last Friday.
That's nothing. At one point during The Beast, calling a given game-related phone number connected you with an actual, life person, an actor playing a game character. He was a security guard, if I recall, and you had to convince him over the phone to do something to advance the plot of the story.
Then there was the time players who had called a certain number some months before found their phones ringing in the middle of the night...
Seriously, I don't know what the hell you're talking about here. FUD? Are you sure you responded to the correct post?
I told you, I have no opinion about Windows stuff. I've never used it, ever. I had an Apple II when I was a kid and Macs ever since. I'm not saying anything good or bad about Windows. I'm not saying anything at all about Windows.
Well, except this: if you can do what I envisioned with Windows, Microsoft is doing a fine job of keeping it a secret from their potential customers.
Let me get this straight. Windows Journal, Microsoft Imaging, and the Windows indexing service, are all fine, but PDF is "proprietary crap?"
Whatever, dude.
I didn't say anything about Windows because I don't know anything about Windows. Never used it. If they've got the kinds of features I described, then maybe their marketing needs some help, because it ain't common knowledge. Whereas Apple is trumpeting that kind of application-data-application integration from the battlements.
Yes, yes, mock the poor boy. Tell him to buy a legal pad. Fine.
But that ignores the fact that his is a really cool idea, in that far-distant-future kind of way.
Did you guys watch the Apple video of the Tiger demo, the one where they previewed their Spotlight search technology? Spotlight provides a service for indexing and searching not only metadata about your files but the content of the files themselves.
Stretch the idea a little. You take notes in class. Asynchronously (to keep CPU and power requirements down) the tablet translates your handwritten notes to machine-readable text. (Don't worry about how. Assume a magical handwriting-recognition engine.)
It then indexes your notes and stores them away. Four months later when you're studying for your final, you can use something like Spotlight technology to search all the notes you've ever taken--all the emails you've ever sent or received, all the electronic textbooks on your tablet, all the PDF-format handouts your prof gave you, all the audio recordings of all the lectures you attended.
It's a cool idea.
Expand it further. Every note you take is stored with a timestamp, of course. That's a given. But put a GPS receiver in your tablet (somehow; again, assume it's magic) and you can store every note with a location stamp, too. At any time, you can call up a "where am I?" dialog box that lets you assign a name to a given point on the surface of the Earth. Four months later when you're studying, you can see that you took that particular note while you were sitting in Bovard Auditorium... or whatever. Your tablet will look at the lat/long of the note and compare it to the lat/long of the location preset you called "Bovard Auditorium," see that they're only about 30 feet apart, and conclude that that's where you were, then store that metadata as part of the note.
Now go further. Associate an entry on your calendar with a location: Freshman seminar, Tuesday at 3:00, Bovard Auditorium. Associate an address book entry with it too: Professor Smelting. Now your computer knows that the notes you took on Tuesday between 3 and 4 within some distance of the point defined as Bovard Auditorium are associated with your Freshman Seminar and also with Prof. Smelting. Which means, without entering any additional data at all, you can ask your tablet to call up all the notes for your Freshman Seminar, and poof. There they are. As well as all the emails you got between September and December from Prof. Smelting. As well as logs of the phone calls you made to or received from Prof. Smelting's office during the same period. (Your tablet knows about your calls because you paired your Bluetooth phone with it.) As well as all the audio recordings you made during your Freshman Seminar. If you also postulate a magical speech-to-text transcription engine, you'll have transcripts of those recordings as well, and all those will have the same time-, place-, appointment-, and person-related metadata, so they'll come up too.
Think of it like a relational database, if you're familiar with those. You've got multiple sets of data--addresses, calendar entries, places, notes--that are linked together in predefined ways. Once you set up those links, like associated Prof. Smelting's address book record with your Freshman Seminar appointments, the computer can be very clever about helping you find things.
With a bit more software and a bit more hardware we can find ourselves in "Knowledge Navigator" territory.
Yes, you could do all that with a laptop, probably more easily because you don't have all the handwriting recognition hurdles to get over. But laptops are harder to use effectively for the average schmoe; writing is something most of us learn by the time we're 6.
Don't be so quick to poo-poo his idea. Yes, today it's a dumb idea because it's impractical, but will it still be a dumb idea when it's practical? I tend to think not.
Yes indeedy. Apple has made the source code for a POSIX implementation of the Rendezvous daemon available on their web site so you can download it and build and run it on any POSIX-compliant system. (So they say. I haven't touched it myself in nearly a year.)
For something like a printer, your best bet would be a Rendezvous proxy service that runs on machine X and advertises a printer service on printer Y. It requires configuration on your part, but only once for each device or service you want to proxy. I believe the source for a POSIX proxy responder is included in the Apple source tree as well.
Ben Charny is my b1tch... that article is a total clusterfsck...
Your keyboard appears to be broken. You should have it looked at. Hope this helps.
Re: Cell phone / Remote phone privacy
on
VoIP Questioned
·
· Score: 1
Lawyers can't legally demand attorney-client privilege for any information discussed over cell or cordless phones.
That's complete bullshit. The standard is a "reasonable expectation of privacy." A reasonable person expects their phone conversations to be private. If they didn't, we wouldn't need laws governing wiretaps.
Hell, privilege even extends to a call made from a pay phone in a public place.
The standard is not whether it's possible for you to be overheard. The standard is whether you can reasonably expect to be overheard.
Okay, if we're talking about SF, that's a different matter. SF units often have to immerse in the local environment and work closely with indigenous forces. In that case, it's their job to make friends. In that particular context, I'll take back everything I said.
But the whole idea of giving every soldier a crash-course in how not to piss off the natives--or, as I have personal hands-on experience, giving every journalist who goes in-country such a crash-course--is bogus. It's not our job to become Arabs or Pashtuns or Muslims or whatever. It's their job, as human beings, to tolerate us.
We need less emphasis on sensitivity for the nasty, dirty infidel barbarians and more on tolerance for the natives. Just because you've never seen a clean-shaven white Christian person before, Mohammed, doesn't mean it's okay for you to freak out and try to blow him up.
Hardly. When's the last time you had an Arab cab driver? He barely knew the language and smelled like the underside of a Indian family's hide-a-bed, didn't he? Did you assemble a homemade bomb and blow it up outside a police station? No, you fucking dealt with it.
They apparently like their customs the way they are.
And they're completely 100% free to practice them. If they want to go home and smear goat entrails all over themselves and listen to Wayne Newton 45's on 78, that's their business. But if they expect us to do the same, they're in for a disappointment.
Maybe we can catch more with sugar than vinegar..
Fuck that. Seriously: fuck that. The whole problem with the Jihadist culture--Arab, Muslim, whatever any individual participant happens to be--is that they can't deal with pluralism. They can't deal with people who don't want to grow beards as long as their fist or who don't want to pray to Mecca or who don't want to cover their wives' faces in public. So they blow shit up. Their culture is broken, and the last thing we need to do is perpetuate the idea that a broken culture is just fine, no problems, welcome to the modern world.
Because it is a pluralist world, we--non-Muslims, non-Arabs, non-whatever--are not going to do things their way. That's because we're free. All of us, fundamentally, are free. That means I don't have to do shit the way they want me to. Laws, yes. I have to obey laws. But customs? Not my problem. If they don't like that, tough shit. Let 'em grouse about the infidel barbarians and then get over it, just like we have to when one of them drives our cab or runs our convenience store or joins our graduate research project or marries into our family or becomes our boss or whatever. When people from two different cultures have to interrelate, they have a responsibility to be accepting and tolerant. This one-way tolerance shit is for the birds.
Me? I'd really like it if Arab men would learn that aftershave is not the same as a bath. But am I getting my wish? No way, man. It's a free planet, and if they don't wanna get friendly with Mr. Soap, there's nothing I can do about it. I'm polite as I can be, I may occasionally complain about it in the third person. That's all I expect of anybody. Be polite, complain when I'm not around, just generally deal.
I don't suck your cock, you don't suck my cock. We just tolerate each other and then go home.
Why this isn't blindingly obvious to everybody is a question that will always baffle me.
So here comes the first massively politically incorrect, flame me back into the stone age comment of the night.
I've about had it with this whole "Ooh, let's tiptoe around the Arabs" thing. You know what? The Arabs do not live on an Arab planet. The Muslims do not live on a Muslim planet. I'm sure there are lots of folks in both groups who wish it were so, but it just ain't.
When's the last time you heard about the Army training its soldiers in the customs of the Chinese so we don't deeply offend Chinese people? Or the Dutch? Do we tiptoe around the Dutch? Or the Argentines, or the Poles, or the Russians, or the South Africans? Do we all get sent to special sensitivity training workshops to avoid pissing off the Uzbeks?
Fuck, no. Nor do the Chinese, the Dutch, the Argentines, the Poles, the Russians, the South Africas, or the Uzbeks worry themselves sick over the possibility of offending us.
The Arabs live on a big blue planet with lots of other kinds of people. Some of them know and respect Arab customs. Some don't. The sooner they, as a culture, learn to deal with this fact, the better for everybody.
Colossal waste of money this is. Teach 'em Arabic, definitely. And Farsi and Pashto. But don't waste a red cent teaching 'em how to kowtow in the suks. The Arabs are just gonna have to learn to deal.
Whether or not that is the correct thing to do is something I'll have to be educated on.
It's not. Italic type is used to indicate emphasis, or to set off things like the titles of books or the names of ships. Sure, there's room for style, but just arbitrarily italicizing everything in parentheses is a great way to confuse and frustrate your readers.
So long as I'm being all rude and bitching at you for no good reason, next time it might be cool if you went through and got rid of the "ichatisms" like "IMHO" and "WTF." Expanding those acronyms would have made the interview a lot easier on the reader. If you look at a "real" interview (if you'll pardon the expression) you'll see that the author didn't transcribe every um and ah. It's part of the writer's job to take the interviewee's words and polish them into complete sentences so the prose doesn't get in the way of the ideas.
Okay, I'll quit being a pedantic little shit now. For the time being.
Tritium gas most certainly is used to boost the yield of nuclear bombs. It's not the only option, but it's definitely an option.
In fact, lots of folks hold the opinion that Cold War-era Soviet warheads would be much less dangerous on the black market today because they would have lost most of their tritium. Tritium has a bad habit of escaping even from sealed stainless steal enclosures and has to be "refreshed" periodically. The warheads in Kazakhstan, for instance, haven't been "refreshed" in more than a decade now, so their yield if detonated would be much lower than it should be.
Re:This is only worrying
on
Hacking Quartz
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
If apple's apps then call these APIs.
Well, they don't, not really. There are two sets of calls he was talking about. There are the calls related to organizing the window hierarchy and splitting it. Nobody uses those calls. They may--this could be completely wrong, because I have done zero reading on the subject--date back to NEXTSTEP. Lots of little things in Cocoa do.
The other set is related to the rotating-cube transition. Only one process calls that code.
So these aren't pieces of code that are widely reused within Apple's programs.
I don't really understand why Apple doesn't offer them.
It's not that hard. I don't understand why you don't get it.
More of Apple's customers want other things.
The other comments about Apple's design philosophy and all that... those are well and good. But the bottom line is that more of Apple's customers and potential customers want other features than want desktop-switching.
It's a real simple business decision. When a small number of people want a feature that few others will use, those people have to wait in line or go without, or find their solution elsewhere.
What the hell could be easier than just typing the name of the app?
It's not just typing the name of the application. There's that business of "setting up your mirrors properly." Then there's the mystical incantation "urpmi," a word which doesn't even mean anything and is therefore damn near impossible to remember. And before any of those things, there's the question of how to get the "typing" window up on the screen.
But set all that aside. The question is not whether it's easy or hard to do that thing the second time. The question is whether it's easy or hard to do it the first time.
How is the new user supposed to know that setting up mirrors, opening a terminal window, and typing "urpmi" is the way to install software? Where do they receive this arcane knowledge?
On a Mac--the universally accepted benchmark among human interfaces--the answer is right there under the Apple menu. And all the hard work is carried out inside a browser window, which is an interface that every 21st-century computer user already understands intimately.
there's even a gui with the list of all possible things to install.
That still doesn't get around the "setting up your mirrors properly" problem, nor the "how is the new user to know?" problem. And it creates a whole new problem, a "how do I use this program?" problem.
It's MUCH, MUCH easier to install things in linux than in any other OS.
Okay, well, I don't think anybody really believes that, so... you know... whatever.
Once you set up your mirrors properly, typing urpmi programname to install something is more user intuitive to me than any other system I can think of.
Is this some kind of a joke? Seriously: are you trying to be witty or ironic?
Imagine you use a Mac. You've heard a lot about this program called Foobar.app and you want to give it a try. Where, oh where, do you begin?
You go to the Apple menu and select "Mac OS X Software." Your browser opens and displays a page hosted at apple.com that shows you most software available for the Mac. If Foobar.app isn't right there in front of you--the new, popular stuff is--you type it in the search box. Click, click. It downloads to your computer, decodes, and appears on your desktop as a double-clickable icon. Not an installer, either. The actual Foobar.app program is now on your desktop. If you like it, you can drag it to the Applications folder, or to anywhere else.
Until things work like that in Linux, don't give me any more of that "I don't see what's so hard about it" shit.
It's not impossible to use, it's just slightly harder than windows.
"Impossible to use" is nothing more or less than "I got frustrated with it and moved on to something better." In all your defending, you need to realize that the difference between intuitively obvious and utterly baffling is very small.
In real life, tritium's a gas. It's not a metal at anything anywhere close to room temperature and one atmosphere.
Which brings me to my point. Would you be more satisfied if the substance had just been referred to as bolognium, or less satisfied? In other words, are you giving them points for putting the ideas "tritium" and "fusion" in proximity to one another, or taking off points for getting the amount of tritium wrong?
Slashdot Mirror
Since "Blade Runner," the title of the movie, isn't actually a trademark, the whole thing is kinda moot, huh?
The address is for a UPS Store in San Francisco. It's the same address as the return address of the mysterious packages of honey that arrived in some folks' mailboxes last Friday.
It's not a hoax, you numbskull. It's a game.
That's nothing. At one point during The Beast, calling a given game-related phone number connected you with an actual, life person, an actor playing a game character. He was a security guard, if I recall, and you had to convince him over the phone to do something to advance the plot of the story.
Then there was the time players who had called a certain number some months before found their phones ringing in the middle of the night...
These games are pretty immersive.
415-248-2617
"Hi, this is Dana. Leave me a message, and... blah, blah, blah." (three quick beeps) "This person's mailbox is full. Please try again later."
What?
Seriously, I don't know what the hell you're talking about here. FUD? Are you sure you responded to the correct post?
I told you, I have no opinion about Windows stuff. I've never used it, ever. I had an Apple II when I was a kid and Macs ever since. I'm not saying anything good or bad about Windows. I'm not saying anything at all about Windows.
Well, except this: if you can do what I envisioned with Windows, Microsoft is doing a fine job of keeping it a secret from their potential customers.
Let me get this straight. Windows Journal, Microsoft Imaging, and the Windows indexing service, are all fine, but PDF is "proprietary crap?"
Whatever, dude.
I didn't say anything about Windows because I don't know anything about Windows. Never used it. If they've got the kinds of features I described, then maybe their marketing needs some help, because it ain't common knowledge. Whereas Apple is trumpeting that kind of application-data-application integration from the battlements.
Yes, yes, mock the poor boy. Tell him to buy a legal pad. Fine.
But that ignores the fact that his is a really cool idea, in that far-distant-future kind of way.
Did you guys watch the Apple video of the Tiger demo, the one where they previewed their Spotlight search technology? Spotlight provides a service for indexing and searching not only metadata about your files but the content of the files themselves.
Stretch the idea a little. You take notes in class. Asynchronously (to keep CPU and power requirements down) the tablet translates your handwritten notes to machine-readable text. (Don't worry about how. Assume a magical handwriting-recognition engine.)
It then indexes your notes and stores them away. Four months later when you're studying for your final, you can use something like Spotlight technology to search all the notes you've ever taken--all the emails you've ever sent or received, all the electronic textbooks on your tablet, all the PDF-format handouts your prof gave you, all the audio recordings of all the lectures you attended.
It's a cool idea.
Expand it further. Every note you take is stored with a timestamp, of course. That's a given. But put a GPS receiver in your tablet (somehow; again, assume it's magic) and you can store every note with a location stamp, too. At any time, you can call up a "where am I?" dialog box that lets you assign a name to a given point on the surface of the Earth. Four months later when you're studying, you can see that you took that particular note while you were sitting in Bovard Auditorium... or whatever. Your tablet will look at the lat/long of the note and compare it to the lat/long of the location preset you called "Bovard Auditorium," see that they're only about 30 feet apart, and conclude that that's where you were, then store that metadata as part of the note.
Now go further. Associate an entry on your calendar with a location: Freshman seminar, Tuesday at 3:00, Bovard Auditorium. Associate an address book entry with it too: Professor Smelting. Now your computer knows that the notes you took on Tuesday between 3 and 4 within some distance of the point defined as Bovard Auditorium are associated with your Freshman Seminar and also with Prof. Smelting. Which means, without entering any additional data at all, you can ask your tablet to call up all the notes for your Freshman Seminar, and poof. There they are. As well as all the emails you got between September and December from Prof. Smelting. As well as logs of the phone calls you made to or received from Prof. Smelting's office during the same period. (Your tablet knows about your calls because you paired your Bluetooth phone with it.) As well as all the audio recordings you made during your Freshman Seminar. If you also postulate a magical speech-to-text transcription engine, you'll have transcripts of those recordings as well, and all those will have the same time-, place-, appointment-, and person-related metadata, so they'll come up too.
Think of it like a relational database, if you're familiar with those. You've got multiple sets of data--addresses, calendar entries, places, notes--that are linked together in predefined ways. Once you set up those links, like associated Prof. Smelting's address book record with your Freshman Seminar appointments, the computer can be very clever about helping you find things.
With a bit more software and a bit more hardware we can find ourselves in "Knowledge Navigator" territory.
Yes, you could do all that with a laptop, probably more easily because you don't have all the handwriting recognition hurdles to get over. But laptops are harder to use effectively for the average schmoe; writing is something most of us learn by the time we're 6.
Don't be so quick to poo-poo his idea. Yes, today it's a dumb idea because it's impractical, but will it still be a dumb idea when it's practical? I tend to think not.
Yes indeedy. Apple has made the source code for a POSIX implementation of the Rendezvous daemon available on their web site so you can download it and build and run it on any POSIX-compliant system. (So they say. I haven't touched it myself in nearly a year.)
For something like a printer, your best bet would be a Rendezvous proxy service that runs on machine X and advertises a printer service on printer Y. It requires configuration on your part, but only once for each device or service you want to proxy. I believe the source for a POSIX proxy responder is included in the Apple source tree as well.
Ben Charny is my b1tch... that article is a total clusterfsck...
Your keyboard appears to be broken. You should have it looked at. Hope this helps.
Lawyers can't legally demand attorney-client privilege for any information discussed over cell or cordless phones.
That's complete bullshit. The standard is a "reasonable expectation of privacy." A reasonable person expects their phone conversations to be private. If they didn't, we wouldn't need laws governing wiretaps.
Hell, privilege even extends to a call made from a pay phone in a public place.
The standard is not whether it's possible for you to be overheard. The standard is whether you can reasonably expect to be overheard.
It's not $100 less. It's 33% larger.
I'm also told it's got twice the stain-busting power of the other leading brand, but I have yet to verify this myself.
the bomb is actually 2 foci of an ellipsoid with an interior reflective to both neutrons and radiation.
That's just one of many different designs that have been tried at different points in the past (nearly) sixty years.
From what I can tell the only thing that got significantly more advanced (last few decades) in terms of weapon design was the guidance systems.
Oh, no. Well, yes, but not just that. Compare a W62 to a W88 and you'll find dramatic differences reflective of the 18 years that separated them.
Most of the warhead designs that are published (I dont see why they would lie about this)
Are you kidding?
Okay, if we're talking about SF, that's a different matter. SF units often have to immerse in the local environment and work closely with indigenous forces. In that case, it's their job to make friends. In that particular context, I'll take back everything I said.
But the whole idea of giving every soldier a crash-course in how not to piss off the natives--or, as I have personal hands-on experience, giving every journalist who goes in-country such a crash-course--is bogus. It's not our job to become Arabs or Pashtuns or Muslims or whatever. It's their job, as human beings, to tolerate us.
We need less emphasis on sensitivity for the nasty, dirty infidel barbarians and more on tolerance for the natives. Just because you've never seen a clean-shaven white Christian person before, Mohammed, doesn't mean it's okay for you to freak out and try to blow him up.
yet we expect them to tiptoe around us..
Hardly. When's the last time you had an Arab cab driver? He barely knew the language and smelled like the underside of a Indian family's hide-a-bed, didn't he? Did you assemble a homemade bomb and blow it up outside a police station? No, you fucking dealt with it.
They apparently like their customs the way they are.
And they're completely 100% free to practice them. If they want to go home and smear goat entrails all over themselves and listen to Wayne Newton 45's on 78, that's their business. But if they expect us to do the same, they're in for a disappointment.
Maybe we can catch more with sugar than vinegar..
Fuck that. Seriously: fuck that. The whole problem with the Jihadist culture--Arab, Muslim, whatever any individual participant happens to be--is that they can't deal with pluralism. They can't deal with people who don't want to grow beards as long as their fist or who don't want to pray to Mecca or who don't want to cover their wives' faces in public. So they blow shit up. Their culture is broken, and the last thing we need to do is perpetuate the idea that a broken culture is just fine, no problems, welcome to the modern world.
Because it is a pluralist world, we--non-Muslims, non-Arabs, non-whatever--are not going to do things their way. That's because we're free. All of us, fundamentally, are free. That means I don't have to do shit the way they want me to. Laws, yes. I have to obey laws. But customs? Not my problem. If they don't like that, tough shit. Let 'em grouse about the infidel barbarians and then get over it, just like we have to when one of them drives our cab or runs our convenience store or joins our graduate research project or marries into our family or becomes our boss or whatever. When people from two different cultures have to interrelate, they have a responsibility to be accepting and tolerant. This one-way tolerance shit is for the birds.
Me? I'd really like it if Arab men would learn that aftershave is not the same as a bath. But am I getting my wish? No way, man. It's a free planet, and if they don't wanna get friendly with Mr. Soap, there's nothing I can do about it. I'm polite as I can be, I may occasionally complain about it in the third person. That's all I expect of anybody. Be polite, complain when I'm not around, just generally deal.
I don't suck your cock, you don't suck my cock. We just tolerate each other and then go home.
Why this isn't blindingly obvious to everybody is a question that will always baffle me.
So here comes the first massively politically incorrect, flame me back into the stone age comment of the night.
I've about had it with this whole "Ooh, let's tiptoe around the Arabs" thing. You know what? The Arabs do not live on an Arab planet. The Muslims do not live on a Muslim planet. I'm sure there are lots of folks in both groups who wish it were so, but it just ain't.
When's the last time you heard about the Army training its soldiers in the customs of the Chinese so we don't deeply offend Chinese people? Or the Dutch? Do we tiptoe around the Dutch? Or the Argentines, or the Poles, or the Russians, or the South Africans? Do we all get sent to special sensitivity training workshops to avoid pissing off the Uzbeks?
Fuck, no. Nor do the Chinese, the Dutch, the Argentines, the Poles, the Russians, the South Africas, or the Uzbeks worry themselves sick over the possibility of offending us.
The Arabs live on a big blue planet with lots of other kinds of people. Some of them know and respect Arab customs. Some don't. The sooner they, as a culture, learn to deal with this fact, the better for everybody.
Colossal waste of money this is. Teach 'em Arabic, definitely. And Farsi and Pashto. But don't waste a red cent teaching 'em how to kowtow in the suks. The Arabs are just gonna have to learn to deal.
Whether or not that is the correct thing to do is something I'll have to be educated on.
It's not. Italic type is used to indicate emphasis, or to set off things like the titles of books or the names of ships. Sure, there's room for style, but just arbitrarily italicizing everything in parentheses is a great way to confuse and frustrate your readers.
So long as I'm being all rude and bitching at you for no good reason, next time it might be cool if you went through and got rid of the "ichatisms" like "IMHO" and "WTF." Expanding those acronyms would have made the interview a lot easier on the reader. If you look at a "real" interview (if you'll pardon the expression) you'll see that the author didn't transcribe every um and ah. It's part of the writer's job to take the interviewee's words and polish them into complete sentences so the prose doesn't get in the way of the ideas.
Okay, I'll quit being a pedantic little shit now. For the time being.
Tritium gas most certainly is used to boost the yield of nuclear bombs. It's not the only option, but it's definitely an option.
In fact, lots of folks hold the opinion that Cold War-era Soviet warheads would be much less dangerous on the black market today because they would have lost most of their tritium. Tritium has a bad habit of escaping even from sealed stainless steal enclosures and has to be "refreshed" periodically. The warheads in Kazakhstan, for instance, haven't been "refreshed" in more than a decade now, so their yield if detonated would be much lower than it should be.
If apple's apps then call these APIs.
Well, they don't, not really. There are two sets of calls he was talking about. There are the calls related to organizing the window hierarchy and splitting it. Nobody uses those calls. They may--this could be completely wrong, because I have done zero reading on the subject--date back to NEXTSTEP. Lots of little things in Cocoa do.
The other set is related to the rotating-cube transition. Only one process calls that code.
So these aren't pieces of code that are widely reused within Apple's programs.
I don't really understand why Apple doesn't offer them.
It's not that hard. I don't understand why you don't get it.
More of Apple's customers want other things.
The other comments about Apple's design philosophy and all that... those are well and good. But the bottom line is that more of Apple's customers and potential customers want other features than want desktop-switching.
It's a real simple business decision. When a small number of people want a feature that few others will use, those people have to wait in line or go without, or find their solution elsewhere.
What the hell could be easier than just typing the name of the app?
It's not just typing the name of the application. There's that business of "setting up your mirrors properly." Then there's the mystical incantation "urpmi," a word which doesn't even mean anything and is therefore damn near impossible to remember. And before any of those things, there's the question of how to get the "typing" window up on the screen.
But set all that aside. The question is not whether it's easy or hard to do that thing the second time. The question is whether it's easy or hard to do it the first time.
How is the new user supposed to know that setting up mirrors, opening a terminal window, and typing "urpmi" is the way to install software? Where do they receive this arcane knowledge?
On a Mac--the universally accepted benchmark among human interfaces--the answer is right there under the Apple menu. And all the hard work is carried out inside a browser window, which is an interface that every 21st-century computer user already understands intimately.
there's even a gui with the list of all possible things to install.
That still doesn't get around the "setting up your mirrors properly" problem, nor the "how is the new user to know?" problem. And it creates a whole new problem, a "how do I use this program?" problem.
It's MUCH, MUCH easier to install things in linux than in any other OS.
Okay, well, I don't think anybody really believes that, so... you know... whatever.
Once you set up your mirrors properly, typing urpmi programname to install something is more user intuitive to me than any other system I can think of.
Is this some kind of a joke? Seriously: are you trying to be witty or ironic?
Imagine you use a Mac. You've heard a lot about this program called Foobar.app and you want to give it a try. Where, oh where, do you begin?
You go to the Apple menu and select "Mac OS X Software." Your browser opens and displays a page hosted at apple.com that shows you most software available for the Mac. If Foobar.app isn't right there in front of you--the new, popular stuff is--you type it in the search box. Click, click. It downloads to your computer, decodes, and appears on your desktop as a double-clickable icon. Not an installer, either. The actual Foobar.app program is now on your desktop. If you like it, you can drag it to the Applications folder, or to anywhere else.
Until things work like that in Linux, don't give me any more of that "I don't see what's so hard about it" shit.
It's not impossible to use, it's just slightly harder than windows.
"Impossible to use" is nothing more or less than "I got frustrated with it and moved on to something better." In all your defending, you need to realize that the difference between intuitively obvious and utterly baffling is very small.
The fact that most people don't know what tritium is doesn't make them "dumb shits." And the fact that you and I do doesn't make us smart.
And you need to relax a little, and remember that it's not a personal affront to you.
There was the "jump" scene midway through
That was a call-back to a similar scene in the first movie. Right after Peter discovered his powers, he went hopping from rooftop to rooftop.
and there was the "lying in state" bit in the subway scene.
Much more likely that both moments were inspired by countless other similar moments in other, older, more famous movies.
In real life, tritium's a gas. It's not a metal at anything anywhere close to room temperature and one atmosphere.
Which brings me to my point. Would you be more satisfied if the substance had just been referred to as bolognium, or less satisfied? In other words, are you giving them points for putting the ideas "tritium" and "fusion" in proximity to one another, or taking off points for getting the amount of tritium wrong?