As the other poster said, I have never seen files of the same type with the wrong type code.
"Hard-coding applications for documents": Not hardly. The separation of type and creator allows an app to own files, but it also allows apps to acquire files. An app that supports files of type JPEG can open all JPEG files regardless of creator. If you drag a JPEG file to it, it will open normally. If you drag that JPEG to a program that doesn't support JPEG, you can't open it, instead of opening it and getting garbage as happens in this review. If you double-click on the file, the app that created it launches. Best of all worlds.
On the contrary, name-calling cheapens your argument and makes you look immature. It's no different from calling Bill Gates a doodoohead. Use facts and real arguments to win, not crapflooding.
That is a really great analogy... Imagine if all your kitchen equipment would randomly move around or change into a different model (or device) when you bought something new. That's something laypeople are very familiar with, and can grasp much more easily than file extensions when you try to explain it.
The Mac's file system stores 2 equivalents to the file extension for each file, the type and creator codes. The type code indicates what type of file it is, the creator code indicates the application that created it. The key concept here is that on a Mac, those 2 bits of metadata are orthogonal, and with a simple file extension they cannot be without some serious filesystem hacking, which MS hasn't bothered to do.
Also worth noting that Mac OS X has most of the features this guy requests; you can remap a file's ownership from the Get Info window, and make your change global from the same location.
Look at it this way: Motorola traded a 40% increase in pipeline length for a nearly 100% increase in clock speed (the fastest current Mac is at 867Mhz). Sounds pretty good to me...
To everyone complaining about Carnivore
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2
Fuck you. You should be thanking god you didn't lose any friends or family. And if you did and think that prattling about privacy issues is more important, fuck you again.
The non-centralized design of the WTC towers was what allowed them to survive the 1993 bombing (in fact, I recall an architect saying that the building is basically immune to a single reasonably-sized bomb). You just can't win them all...
Enforced openness. Require MS to publish details of all windows APIs, network protocols, and file formats. Have strict limits placed on replacing, or breaking compatibility with, any existing instance of the above categories.
A more proper analogy would be a mysterious stranger walking into Radio Shack, pulling random parts off the shelf, and building a functional Apple II out of them in 15 minutes. If that ever happened, it probably would be strong evidence that it was Woz himself.
We're straying into science fiction here, but I don't think a pet that lives forever is really a good thing to give children. They have to learn that things die sooner or later, and better that this come as the death of a pet when they're 6 than the death of a friend or relative when they're 30.
How is this any different from any other issue facing search engines? Whether it's an image or text being deep-linked is a purely client-side issue, if you screw with your browser long enough you can easily get it to display one as the other or vice versa (YMMV with regards to reading it:) ).
I could see a problem with sites such as Google that present a preview of the image found... Perhaps unfair-use claims could be avoided if the quality of the preview was lowered. A pixel-doubled image looks enough like the original that a human can make decisions based on it, but it's useless for anything a computer would want to do with it.
Prisoners are not like other people. They broke a law and are being punished by the local legal authority. If that involves giving up various rights/privileges the law affords normal people, fuck 'em. Should have thought of that before they committed a crime.
Perhaps I didn't make this completely clear, but the payments would not be required at all. The stream is free, the high-quality songs would be paid for.
What would happen if someone added micropayment downloads to Internet radio? This would require a custom player, which would be capable of both streaming and downloading (with secure payment). It would work something like this: In addition to the normal netradio controls, there would be a "buy" button on the interface. Clicking that button would cause the player to charge you a small amount ($1?) to download a high-quality version of the song that is currently playing. There could be additional "Would you like to know more?" buttons that would take you to more information on the artist, customized streams, user ratings, etc.
To me this reads, if you're going to use your work (that you had to give to us) to make a buck, we want some of that
money.
If I understand open-source development properly, you would be using some of your work, some work by a whole lot of other people, and a huge amount of work by Sistina, to make a buck. Damn right they want some of that, and they deserve it. If you want to cut them out of the loop, remove their contributions to the code (i.e. most of it).
Congratulations, you have just invented vector-based graphics. It's already possible to make streaming cartoons of decent quality in Flash and related programs, so all we need now is a scene-description language capable of generating Keanu Reeves from a small file.
(Alternative objection: You have merely passed me a query to my brain's database which happens to contain a large amount of preprocessed information regarding The Matrix. Had I not seen the movie, I would not be able to decompress your scene.)
The Internet doesn't need to be 100% free of corporations to be "the last bastion". People still spend 49.6% of their time at sites not run by the 4 biggest corporations. When that number drops to zero, it will be dead. Until then, it's mixed.
As many people have said by now, when we first discovered the web we "surfed", visiting hundreds of pages and different ones every time. Now, we (at least me) stick with a fairly static collection of regularly updated pages.
The web has finally become a tool iunstead of a novelty, one that is not seen as interesting by itself any more because it's been around for too long. Surfing around for eclectic content has become the online equivalent of calling random strangers to try out your amazing new telephone.
Slashdot Mirror
As the other poster said, I have never seen files of the same type with the wrong type code.
"Hard-coding applications for documents": Not hardly. The separation of type and creator allows an app to own files, but it also allows apps to acquire files. An app that supports files of type JPEG can open all JPEG files regardless of creator. If you drag a JPEG file to it, it will open normally. If you drag that JPEG to a program that doesn't support JPEG, you can't open it, instead of opening it and getting garbage as happens in this review. If you double-click on the file, the app that created it launches. Best of all worlds.
On the contrary, name-calling cheapens your argument and makes you look immature. It's no different from calling Bill Gates a doodoohead. Use facts and real arguments to win, not crapflooding.
That is a really great analogy... Imagine if all your kitchen equipment would randomly move around or change into a different model (or device) when you bought something new. That's something laypeople are very familiar with, and can grasp much more easily than file extensions when you try to explain it.
A more technical explanation:
The Mac's file system stores 2 equivalents to the file extension for each file, the type and creator codes. The type code indicates what type of file it is, the creator code indicates the application that created it. The key concept here is that on a Mac, those 2 bits of metadata are orthogonal, and with a simple file extension they cannot be without some serious filesystem hacking, which MS hasn't bothered to do.
Also worth noting that Mac OS X has most of the features this guy requests; you can remap a file's ownership from the Get Info window, and make your change global from the same location.
Oh my god that thing was so much fun... probably gave me irreperable finger damage from wrangling the tracks and grippers, but man...
Look at it this way: Motorola traded a 40% increase in pipeline length for a nearly 100% increase in clock speed (the fastest current Mac is at 867Mhz). Sounds pretty good to me...
Fuck you. You should be thanking god you didn't lose any friends or family. And if you did and think that prattling about privacy issues is more important, fuck you again.
Building WAS immune. I guess I still haven't fully accepted this...
The non-centralized design of the WTC towers was what allowed them to survive the 1993 bombing (in fact, I recall an architect saying that the building is basically immune to a single reasonably-sized bomb). You just can't win them all...
That's no worse a fate than that suffered by thousands of people dying in the rubble of the World Trade Center as we speak.
Enforced openness. Require MS to publish details of all windows APIs, network protocols, and file formats. Have strict limits placed on replacing, or breaking compatibility with, any existing instance of the above categories.
Somebody please explain to me how to lose four games and end up with the score being 8-0.
A more proper analogy would be a mysterious stranger walking into Radio Shack, pulling random parts off the shelf, and building a functional Apple II out of them in 15 minutes. If that ever happened, it probably would be strong evidence that it was Woz himself.
We're straying into science fiction here, but I don't think a pet that lives forever is really a good thing to give children. They have to learn that things die sooner or later, and better that this come as the death of a pet when they're 6 than the death of a friend or relative when they're 30.
How is this any different from any other issue facing search engines? Whether it's an image or text being deep-linked is a purely client-side issue, if you screw with your browser long enough you can easily get it to display one as the other or vice versa (YMMV with regards to reading it :) ).
I could see a problem with sites such as Google that present a preview of the image found... Perhaps unfair-use claims could be avoided if the quality of the preview was lowered. A pixel-doubled image looks enough like the original that a human can make decisions based on it, but it's useless for anything a computer would want to do with it.
Prisoners are not like other people. They broke a law and are being punished by the local legal authority. If that involves giving up various rights/privileges the law affords normal people, fuck 'em. Should have thought of that before they committed a crime.
Perhaps I didn't make this completely clear, but the payments would not be required at all. The stream is free, the high-quality songs would be paid for.
What would happen if someone added micropayment downloads to Internet radio? This would require a custom player, which would be capable of both streaming and downloading (with secure payment). It would work something like this: In addition to the normal netradio controls, there would be a "buy" button on the interface. Clicking that button would cause the player to charge you a small amount ($1?) to download a high-quality version of the song that is currently playing. There could be additional "Would you like to know more?" buttons that would take you to more information on the artist, customized streams, user ratings, etc.
If I understand open-source development properly, you would be using some of your work, some work by a whole lot of other people, and a huge amount of work by Sistina, to make a buck. Damn right they want some of that, and they deserve it. If you want to cut them out of the loop, remove their contributions to the code (i.e. most of it).
Congratulations, you have just invented vector-based graphics. It's already possible to make streaming cartoons of decent quality in Flash and related programs, so all we need now is a scene-description language capable of generating Keanu Reeves from a small file.
(Alternative objection: You have merely passed me a query to my brain's database which happens to contain a large amount of preprocessed information regarding The Matrix. Had I not seen the movie, I would not be able to decompress your scene.)
The Internet doesn't need to be 100% free of corporations to be "the last bastion". People still spend 49.6% of their time at sites not run by the 4 biggest corporations. When that number drops to zero, it will be dead. Until then, it's mixed.
Dude, your sig fucking rules :P
Get a Mac, run the latest Virtual PC (for OS X, almost out). It can run multiple OSes, each in a seperate window.
As many people have said by now, when we first discovered the web we "surfed", visiting hundreds of pages and different ones every time. Now, we (at least me) stick with a fairly static collection of regularly updated pages.
The web has finally become a tool iunstead of a novelty, one that is not seen as interesting by itself any more because it's been around for too long. Surfing around for eclectic content has become the online equivalent of calling random strangers to try out your amazing new telephone.
Hmm... I left out the phrase "on phone booths" from my first sentence :\