Oh come on. I loved Starship Troopers. What most people who complain about the movie's lack of adherence to the book don't get is that the movie is actually lambasting Heinlein's fascist ideas. As far as I'm concerned, they got the treatment they deserved. Starship Troopers was fun and just laugh-out-loud funny at some parts.
"The enemy cannot push the button if you disable his hand" still cracks me up every time.
Except if they're running on a non-Windows, non-x86 architecture, like Mac OS X. Then the system is simply incapable of executing the binary code in the plug-in. I've run into this little problem at work with the oh-so-wonderful Magic Helpdesk software. This kludge requires Internet Explorer 6 on Windows because it uses proprietary ActiveX controls which are not portable. And they actually advertise it as being able to support multiple platforms! Really? So anyone doing Mac support has to fire up a PC just to log tickets? That's brilliant!
In my case, we got around it by setting up a remote Windows 2000 terminal server that the other Mac analyst and I could access from our G5s with RDC for OS X. Still a patently asinine solution.
The special effects were good, that's for sure. But honestly, this production needs light as badly as Doom 3. I actually used QuickTime's brightness and contrast controls on it.
And another thing. What's with people and using Sorenson 3? This is the fucking year 2005. Use XviD, 3ivx or at the very least DivX for crying out loud. All are viable options on QuickTime. And whose brilliant idea was it to encode with the black bars?
Being able to access to network search based on the network system policies, where clients store their queries (again with network system policies, some parts of your metadata should be visible for you from anywhere, but JoeSixPack shouldn't even get them visible as possible results) on server (if server is present).
Tiger's metadata is stored on a directory-by-directory basis. In other words, if I mount a share point from a Tiger server on my Tiger client, I can only search metadata in that share point. So, if you don't have read access to a directory, you don't have read access to its metadata either. Queries aren't stored on the server, but the metadata associated with a share point is stored on the server, not duplicated by the client.
Never argued how integrated it is, it probably is very well, that's one of the features of closed software. But it is still not client/server, which it makes desktop and as such much simpler piece of code.
What do you mean, it's not "client/server"? Metadata can easily be transferred among machines running Tiger.
M$ is making WinFS client/server capable, which is a lot bigger plan.
And currently, a plan that is vaporware.
Reindexing constantly is not needed, that is why kernel hooks for watching file system serve. You just hook on notifications and process when and where changes occur.
Which is exactly how Spotlight works. There is an initial indexing period, and that's it. Applications which support Spotlight directly will write metadata automatically when saving their files, and plug-ins for applications that do not (like Word) will be notified when that app saves a file and then write the appropriate metadata out.
Second whing you need is that filetype is supported and provides possibility to describe it self.
Having everything working on client/server is a completely different case. You have to take case of privileges, network locations and client cooperation. If you do something on neighbours computer and store there?
Of course you need supported file types. The operating system isn't psychic. In the case of unrecognized types, only basic metadata (like Date Created, Date Modified, etc...) will be written out. But I still can't decipher what this "client/server" rambling of yours actually means.
Won't Longhorn have support for larger icons? And doesn't XP have support for 64x64 icons anyway?
While they're ripping off Tiger (which I believe features a max icon size of 256x256, whereas it was formerly 128x128), maybe they could glean some features from 10.0, as well.;)
Well, I imagine that (similar to what Apple is doing with meta-data indexing in Tiger) Microsoft will do it through a plug-in architecture. So the OS will call a plug-in which uses Word's renderer to create an icon preview. I would also imagine that they'll provide an SDK so that other app developers (like Adobe or Macromedia) can create plug-ins to render their custom document formats in the form they think is best.
That particular feature seemed like a stupid idea, to me. Why would I want to see the first page of any Word document in a 128x128 pixel frame? All that tells me is that it's a document containing text of some sort, not necessarily that it's a Word document. It doesn't make identifying the document easier and it blurs distinctions among other similar types. What's so great about it again?
As far as I'm concerned, being entertained has become a war between me and advertisers. Advertisers have polluted every medium I can think of with their filth in incredibly obtrusive manners. What's next? I'm violating my social contract if I get up to take a piss during a commercial break?
When cable first came out, they heralded it as the new golden age of TV because, since people paid for it, there'd be no need for commercials! Well guess how well that worked out? The businessmen at the cable companies said, "Hey, we can make even more money by letting people advertise while gouging our customers!" Watch as Sirius and XM go down the exact same path. I pay my cable fee, and I pay for my Internet access. That's over $100/month. As far as I'm concerned, I can skip any fucking ads I want.
I think that would solve this, but how do you enforce it? Do you charge people a royalty for buying a hard drive, because they might store MP3s on it? That's ridiculous.
Honestly, if it would shut the fucking RIAA up, yes, I would pay an extra $1 tax on my HDDs. The problem with this solution is that it's the RIAA. They've already got taxes on CD-Rs, and yet they still bitch and moan about how much file sharing is costing them. But if I could just pay an extra buck for hard drives, CD-R 50 packs and the like and get, in return, a guarantee of unimpeded free music downloading and a clean conscience, you bet your ass I'd do it. Right now, all I get is a clean conscience.
Yep. It's pretty well agreed by anybody with significant expertise that access control lists are a superior solution to the quickly-aging permissions system in place on a *Nix machine.
ACLs, at least as they are implemented in various *nix distributions, are meant to complement existing permission schemes, not replace them. Both can co-exist comfortably. If standard OGE permissions are good enough for one file, why put an ACL on it? In the next version of Mac OS X, for example, ACLs will be added to files. So while a group may have access to a certain file, you can put an access control on it saying that a certain member of that group has different access.
Who decided the change was fair? Apple. What if I don't have 2 other computers but lots of CD burns required? I have now lost.
But the vast majority of customers have won. Even the geeks I know don't need to burn the same song 7 times to a CD. And if you need to burn the song more than 7 times that badly, just rerip it as an uncompressed DRM-less track and burn that one. You'll have the exact same quality and unlimited burns. This is not rocket science.
In other words, there are extremely simple workarounds which will allow you to burn unlimited copies of a song you purchased from iTMS without violating the TOS. There are no such workarounds (i.e. ones that do not violate the TOS) for playing them on more computers than allowed, so Apple gave people more computers and less burns. How does anyone lose here?
If apple came to each user and said "we want to change. Do you want to accept the change" and allowed a valid yes or a no, THEN it is a trade.
It's Apple's service, and you accepted the terms when you signed up for it. Anything they do within the terms of that contract is fair.
If Apple would stop making the DRM more restrictive with every release we wouldnt need people like him doing what he does.
I hardly think of taking away 3 CD burns and giving you 2 additional computers is "more restrictive." If anything, it's a fair trade.
I dont mind Apple having some form of DRM in iTunes. I do mind them changing it up after I already agreed to one form of it.
Yeah, who would want them to loosen restrictions? The major actions they've taken have been to combat Johansen's software. Normal users have so far gone unaffected.
Does this only refer to Windows Media video clips or any video clip? I'm not too familiar with Word's behavior in this regard; is it possible to put a QuickTime movie clip in there without going through some Windows Media API?
They hired the head programmer at Cassady & Greene, maker of the best OS9 MP3 software called SoundJam, and hired him to help make iTunes which is virtually a clone of that software, and now C&G is out of business.
Uh, no. They bought SoundJam and took a few developers from C&G, too. As a property, SoundJam is Apple's, and they used the code in iTunes. It's not a "clone." There is still plenty of SoundJam code under iTunes' hood.
They are including "widgets" in Tiger, which is now accomplished by a 3rd party utility called Konfabulator, who will not be able to sell any more software when Tiger starts shipping.
Konfabulator was just a re-implementation of desk accessories with fancy alpha blending. And desk accessories were an Apple innovation -- programs that just sat on the desktop, below other windows. Apple re-implemented them for Tiger with Dashboard, which they have every right to do, because it was, you know, their idea. The only thing you could argue that Apple "stole" is the idea to use JavaScript for the widgets. Otherwise, Apple chose to put the widgets in an off-screen environment that users could invoke with a keystroke. Konfabulator just lets them sit on the desktop like desk accessories.
You are talking about two completely different things. There is an innate reluctance to bring harm to another human being in most folks. In some folks who have sociopathic tendencies, this inhibition is already missing. They are pre-wired to be disinhibited to commit violence. The question is: Do video games have any influence on somebody who otherwise would not commit a violent act to become disinhibited and lower the threshold for violence.
Exactly, that is the question. And that was the argument I was making. There's no question that playing videogames regularly increases hand-eye coordination and desensitizes the player to violence to a certain degree, but those are factors that only come into play when someone has already decided to kill someone else. The Columbine kids' motivation was clearly not even related to videogames. Their motivation came from being socially outcast. There are millions of kids out there who play violent videogames every day and don't see violence as the first solution to their problems.
Basically, a violent videogame may help you kill, but it won't point you in that direction. So I guess it's very much like Marine training.
There is a reason that the armed services are looking at video games to desensitize soldiers to pulling the trigger on a human being. As far back as the 1930's, the armed forces have known there is an innate reluctance to pulling the trigger on another human being (in most cases), and this resistance has to be overcome by training. Therefore, whereas the first targets were simply targets, modern targets have become more and more realistic, culminating today in video games that are more immersive. When I did the USMC ROTC bootcamp a dozen years ago or so, we had serious serious training to react, react, REACT! when confronted with an enemy target. This training is deeply ingrained so that at what is called "the moment of truth", you will not hesitate.
This is a flawed analogy. The training you went through was designed to not only desensitize you to the idea of killing another human being but also to instill a second-nature reaction so you could effectively defend yourself. Your training did not (I'm assuming) cause you to go on a killing spree. Videogames do contribute to a desensitization, but only when the "moment of truth" arrives. Getting to that moment is an entirely different thing. The Columbine kids consciously decided to go on a killing spree. Now, playing Doom may have helped them desensitize their classmates and pull the trigger, but you'd be hard-pressed to argue that Doom gave them the idea to kill lots of people at school.
I never insulted your character to support an argument. I called your a moron as an aside. That's an insult, not an ad hominem. Had I said, "You're wrong because you're an obvious technophobe," it would've been an ad hominem.
If you think you can weasel out of all the legitimate counter-arguments I offered by flinging around the names of logical fallacies as some sort of argumentative trump card, you're mistaken. Some people actually know what they mean.
Any program more complex than "Hello, World!" is prone to errors because humans are the ones programming it. What's likely to produce more errors, counting the number of voting slips, or having a human-written program to do it for you? Your argument fails under it's own weight.
I'd say human counting, since humans can be distracted, become fatigued and lose count. But that's just my silly old common sense talking.
This is not the reason that computers are useful. Computers are useful because they are faster at doing things than humans are. Say you have a list of a hundred multi-digit numbers that you want to add up. You can use a piece of paper, a pencil, and your brain, and it'll take a minute or three. Or you can use a computer spreadsheet and have it done much quicker. Errors in the pencil and paper calculation? Contra that off against manual entry errors into the spreadsheet. There's always human input (and therefore potentially inaccurate input) with any kind of computer work. The benefit is not reliability, but speed.
False dilemma fallacy. You're arguing that if a method of counting cannot be 100% error-proof, then we should discard it in favor of less efficient methods. Of course there will always be errors. But that doesn't mean that all potential errors are of the same magnitude or as easily diagnosable. It's much easier for me to diagnose an error in user input than find one in a hand calculation of significant size. There is a benefit in reliability and redundancy, whether you want to admit it or not. Just ask a scientist who prefers using computers to numerically solve differential equations rather than doing it by hand.
It's about transparency and trust. If I go to Amazon and buy a book for $50, I get an expected end result (the book) at an exactly described cost ($50). The cost is verifiable by checking my credit card statement.
And any decent electronic voting system would allow for the same accountability while preserving anonymity. Public scrutiny of the source code would help ensure this.
The issue at hand is one of integrity. If Amazon agreed to sell the book for $50 but my credit card was charged $60, I would complain because I knew I was being stiffed.
What if I didn't see the credit card charge? What if a body of people processed my book-buying, and the charges were manually applied to my account, and there was a double check that all was correct? Would that be perfect? No, but if it was not possible to see my credit card charge for anonymity reasons (like in voting), then to me that's the best way. Far better than having a program announce that the numbers stacked up and there's nothing-to-see-here-move-along.
I would be far more willing to trust an open-source voting machine than a human with vote counting. And don't act like there's absolutely no way to check your vote using electronic voting. All the machine has to do is produce a paper receipt with a unique ID number. If someone is unsure of how his vote turned out, he can check it online using the unique number with another randomly-generated password. This is not a difficult concept, and it makes the whole process far more accountable than completely anonymous ballots counted by humans who are prone to mental fatigue after repetitive tasks.
When it comes to matters more important than $50 books (like how the country is run), then if I can't check myself, I want a trusted human (or appointed body) to do it for me. Don't we all deserve that when it comes to democracy?
Then you're a foolish technophobe. An open-source voting machine would allow for more accountable, faster and verifiable results. Your only reason for discarding this as an option is, "I don't trust computers." So let me get this straight. You trust humans to count your vote, but you don't trust humans to design and implement an automated system that does it faster?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh come on. I loved Starship Troopers. What most people who complain about the movie's lack of adherence to the book don't get is that the movie is actually lambasting Heinlein's fascist ideas. As far as I'm concerned, they got the treatment they deserved. Starship Troopers was fun and just laugh-out-loud funny at some parts.
"The enemy cannot push the button if you disable his hand" still cracks me up every time.
Except if they're running on a non-Windows, non-x86 architecture, like Mac OS X. Then the system is simply incapable of executing the binary code in the plug-in. I've run into this little problem at work with the oh-so-wonderful Magic Helpdesk software. This kludge requires Internet Explorer 6 on Windows because it uses proprietary ActiveX controls which are not portable. And they actually advertise it as being able to support multiple platforms! Really? So anyone doing Mac support has to fire up a PC just to log tickets? That's brilliant!
In my case, we got around it by setting up a remote Windows 2000 terminal server that the other Mac analyst and I could access from our G5s with RDC for OS X. Still a patently asinine solution.
The special effects were good, that's for sure. But honestly, this production needs light as badly as Doom 3. I actually used QuickTime's brightness and contrast controls on it.
And another thing. What's with people and using Sorenson 3? This is the fucking year 2005. Use XviD, 3ivx or at the very least DivX for crying out loud. All are viable options on QuickTime. And whose brilliant idea was it to encode with the black bars?
Won't Longhorn have support for larger icons? And doesn't XP have support for 64x64 icons anyway?
;)
While they're ripping off Tiger (which I believe features a max icon size of 256x256, whereas it was formerly 128x128), maybe they could glean some features from 10.0, as well.
Well, I imagine that (similar to what Apple is doing with meta-data indexing in Tiger) Microsoft will do it through a plug-in architecture. So the OS will call a plug-in which uses Word's renderer to create an icon preview. I would also imagine that they'll provide an SDK so that other app developers (like Adobe or Macromedia) can create plug-ins to render their custom document formats in the form they think is best.
That particular feature seemed like a stupid idea, to me. Why would I want to see the first page of any Word document in a 128x128 pixel frame? All that tells me is that it's a document containing text of some sort, not necessarily that it's a Word document. It doesn't make identifying the document easier and it blurs distinctions among other similar types. What's so great about it again?
As far as I'm concerned, being entertained has become a war between me and advertisers. Advertisers have polluted every medium I can think of with their filth in incredibly obtrusive manners. What's next? I'm violating my social contract if I get up to take a piss during a commercial break?
When cable first came out, they heralded it as the new golden age of TV because, since people paid for it, there'd be no need for commercials! Well guess how well that worked out? The businessmen at the cable companies said, "Hey, we can make even more money by letting people advertise while gouging our customers!" Watch as Sirius and XM go down the exact same path. I pay my cable fee, and I pay for my Internet access. That's over $100/month. As far as I'm concerned, I can skip any fucking ads I want.
Why would I want to see Dashboard widgets all the time?
... I was gonna say, those drug smugglers sure are getting ambitious.
In other words, there are extremely simple workarounds which will allow you to burn unlimited copies of a song you purchased from iTMS without violating the TOS. There are no such workarounds (i.e. ones that do not violate the TOS) for playing them on more computers than allowed, so Apple gave people more computers and less burns. How does anyone lose here? It's Apple's service, and you accepted the terms when you signed up for it. Anything they do within the terms of that contract is fair.
This guy makes it sound like Microsoft invented the concept of virtual memory. Uh, dude, ever heard of Unix?
Does this only refer to Windows Media video clips or any video clip? I'm not too familiar with Word's behavior in this regard; is it possible to put a QuickTime movie clip in there without going through some Windows Media API?
You do have such an option to convert on your hard drive. Burn a virtual CD-ROM with Toast, mount it with Toast, and rip from that. No CD's involved.
And of course, the the response from a Star Wars fan.
Basically, a violent videogame may help you kill, but it won't point you in that direction. So I guess it's very much like Marine training.
I never insulted your character to support an argument. I called your a moron as an aside. That's an insult, not an ad hominem. Had I said, "You're wrong because you're an obvious technophobe," it would've been an ad hominem.
If you think you can weasel out of all the legitimate counter-arguments I offered by flinging around the names of logical fallacies as some sort of argumentative trump card, you're mistaken. Some people actually know what they mean.
I'd say human counting, since humans can be distracted, become fatigued and lose count. But that's just my silly old common sense talking.
False dilemma fallacy. You're arguing that if a method of counting cannot be 100% error-proof, then we should discard it in favor of less efficient methods. Of course there will always be errors. But that doesn't mean that all potential errors are of the same magnitude or as easily diagnosable. It's much easier for me to diagnose an error in user input than find one in a hand calculation of significant size. There is a benefit in reliability and redundancy, whether you want to admit it or not. Just ask a scientist who prefers using computers to numerically solve differential equations rather than doing it by hand.
And any decent electronic voting system would allow for the same accountability while preserving anonymity. Public scrutiny of the source code would help ensure this.
I would be far more willing to trust an open-source voting machine than a human with vote counting. And don't act like there's absolutely no way to check your vote using electronic voting. All the machine has to do is produce a paper receipt with a unique ID number. If someone is unsure of how his vote turned out, he can check it online using the unique number with another randomly-generated password. This is not a difficult concept, and it makes the whole process far more accountable than completely anonymous ballots counted by humans who are prone to mental fatigue after repetitive tasks.
Then you're a foolish technophobe. An open-source voting machine would allow for more accountable, faster and verifiable results. Your only reason for discarding this as an option is, "I don't trust computers." So let me get this straight. You trust humans to count your vote, but you don't trust humans to design and implement an automated system that does it faster?