Obviously, you are a troll (you don't know what you're talking about and are unnecessary rude about GNUstep).
I will respond nonetheless because some could genuinely ask why there is effectively so few applications.
First, as previously noted, there isn't just "5" applications but around 40. As you say, yes, it's not that much, for such an old project. But it could be interesting to know something: the majority of theses apps are very recent (
Now, the reason why there is so few applications is quite simple: for many years, the graphic part of GNUstep -- eg, the AppKit implementation -- was sub-optimal. And we didn't have a good InterfaceBuilder equivalent. But actually, we have an AppKit implementation that is useable (not perfect, but nearly complete, and complete enough that we start to have applications), and moreover, we have a very good InterfaceBuilder equivalent with GORM (available on the GNUstep cvs). Add on top of that the buzz around Cocoa (OpenStep and Objective-C), and it explains the recent interest of developers for GNUstep.
By the way, the reason of the slow progresses of GNUstep, is, like in many cases, the lack of developers. We don't have as much developers, by far, than GNOME or KDE. This lack of developers is mainly because few developers in the free software community knew about NeXT/OpenStep/Objective-C in the early years of the project -- and this is why we have more and more developers at the moment, because more and more people know about OpenStep/Objective-C, due to MacOSX.
The second reason of the slow progresses is simply because, contrary to KDE or GNOME, the project's goal is to implement a (complex) specification, and without the full (or nearly full) implementation, it was difficult to use GNUstep (contrary to KDE/GNOME, where it was possible to create desktops incrementaly). Now that the implementation is more or less complete, we start to see applications that uses it.
Is that a lot of places aren't going to want to contact/depend on a set of developers when they would rather do it themselves. Are there any docs for doing this somewhere?
>
You just need to recreate your nibs... GNUstep uses exactly the same paradigm as OpenStep/Cocoa, and GNUstep apps uses "nibs" too. It's just that the Cocoa nibs aren't compatible with the GNUstep nibs.
In fact, all the components of your user interface are objects : windows, buttons, etc. The "nib" contains the serialization of thoses objects and their relations. You could create your user interfaces programmatically, but InterfaceBuilder will let you create them faster (and easier). GNUstep has a program similar to InterfaceBuilder, GORM.
So, to sum up, if you know how to use InterfaceBuilder, using GORM is basically the same thing. The grandparent post just say that, if you don't want to maintain yourself the gorm files (ie, the GNUstep "nibs") of your Cocoa program, it sure wouldn't be difficult to find somebody to do it for you in the GNUstep community (well, if your program is free software obviously)
By the way, the fact that nibs and gorm files are not compatible isn't entirely because of a lack of documentation. Nibs are just serialized objects; the way they are serialized and what you put in is implementation dependant... that's why it's difficult to have 1:1 compatibility. But, recently Apple introduced XML serialized nibs, and thus it will probably possible in the future to read/write compatible nibs between GNUstep and Cocoa -- some works had been done recently for that on the GNUstep cvs.
We already have one with GNUstep; More exactly, GNUstep uses a PostScript display model, and all the drawing (widgets, etc.) are vectoriel. This has the advantage of not duplicate code between display and printer (as it is PostScript).
Yes, and GNUstep is a free, LGPL implementation of the OpenStep specifications (Cocoa is also an OpenStep implementation), running on Linux/BSD. It uses a PostScript rendering model, so it is as vectoriel as you'd want. Note that's not really useful for the moment (300 DPI screens aren't yet cheaply available), but it has at least the BIG advantage of writing the same code for the display and the printer -- basically, a GNUstep drawing backend is a big vectoriel canvas.
The proprrietary library he's referring to is the Cocoa UI layer.
Two comments :
1) OpenStep (ie, cocoa) is one of the best programming framework available, and InterfaceBuilder is alone in its category. Thus, you could program GUI apps waaaaay faster. Depends of what you want, but just dismiss it without even dare to try it seems foolish. Moreover as all the development tools are free and downloadable on Apple developer's site.
2) Sure, Cocoa is proprietary. But if OSS programmers, instead of ranting about the great product offered by Apple (based on NeXT), had helped GNUstep (a free software implementation of OpenStep !!), well, we'll be in a better world;-)
Last Note : GNUstep is, nonetheless, available, and there is an IB equivalent (Gorm). Sadly, GNUstep is yet another forgotten GNU project -- even if with the Buzz about Cocoa and Objective-C, many people seems to come now on GNUstep (plus one of the reason is that, obviously, GNUstep is quite usable, even if bugs remains).
You forgot one thing... Saddam decided to change from USD to Euro... and as USA finance their deficit with USD, the trend of the oil states to go with Euro was a very bad thing. Obviously it wasn't the sole reason for the war:-) but I believe it was one of the reasons.
France and Germany's governments want patents so there you go
???
All political french parties stated that they are against software patents... ok.. it was during the previous presidential elections... the current political party in charge seems to have slowed down their positions against software patents:-/
... but anyway all parties, from left wing to right wing, communists to ultra-liberals, stated recently that they are against software patents.
Last week, some big industrial organisations (CEA-PME,CEDI,ESBA, representing 2 millions of small companies) stated that they too are against software patents. the CIGREF (an organisation of big french companies) stated the same thing. Even big industrial players like Renault recently stated that they are against software patents.
So, it seems that things progress, and the game isn't over yet. Of course, if you remains actionless, waiting for the bill, you could only blame yourself. Write snail mails to your MEP, send money to the FFII, attend the manifestations, etc.
I agree, it's quite shameful that he didn't even dared to mention it.
GNUstep is a true object oriented framework, running on Linux and other Unices, and there is even a port for Windows in early stage. It's an OpenStep implementation, as MacOS X's Cocoa, thus you could port GNUstep applications on MacOS X and MacOS X application on GNUstep very easily. GNUstep also has great RAD tools like Gorm, modeled after NeXT's InterfaceBuilder.
GNUstep supports distributed objects out of the box, has a great database library (you just deal with objects, define a link between thoses objects and your database's model, and hop, no need to SQL), support scripting very easily, uses the PostScript imaging model (no need to maintain two versions of your code for display and printing), etc.
A good example of a GNUstep application compiling both on MacOSX and GNUstep is GNUMail, available on http://www.collaboration-world.com/gnumail...
I urge people to check http://www.gnustep.org website:-)
You could find informations and articles about GNUstep on http://www.roard.com/docs , there is also the gnustep's wiki (http://wiki.gnustep.org), a good GNUstep's site for news on http://www.gnustep.us and a great guide for installing GNUstep (http://gnustep.made-it.com)
It's really a shame that so few people contribute to this great project...
Please tell me why you can't have a well determined position as a function of time and be in motion as well?
If you assume that there is no atomic unit of time, then any representation of an "instant" in time actually represents a delta of time. In any delta of time, an object in motion is changing position -- which means that while you may get a pretty acurate measure of an items position, it is impossible to measure it's exact position.
Exactly. And the theory appears logic to my Im-not-a-physic-guy notions, as we can't spot at the same time a particule's position and velocity (heisenberg uncertainty principle). So this theory fits well in this view, no ?
What he's also stipulating is that if it was possible to have an atomic unit of time, and it was possible to take an exact measure of the position of an item, then it wouldn't be possible for that item to be in motion. An item is in motion if it is changing position -- but if you can measure it's exact position, then it isn't changing position. At least I think that's what he's trying to get across.
Yes, and I believe it's right; it really seems to link to the heisenberg's principle, from my low understanding of physics...
And the fact that the heisenberg's principle is verified in the real world let me thinks that this guy's theory about time is perhaps true.
In fact what's intriguing for me (apart the asshole who read the two first paragraphs and then had a definite position about the entire paper), is the fact that this idea seems quite evident... But I'm not a physicit, I'm a computer science guy...
After reading the story, I found this theorically really interesting... And in fact I'm starting to believe he's right;-)
Ok, let do a computer analogy (hey we're on/.)
... if time is continuous and that there isn't a thing like single points in time (which effectively explain some things), why do you, human, believe that we could measure single points ? Could it be that computers functions even more identically to our brain that we suspected ?
I mean, one of the big difference between the brain and computer, is that the computer digitalize the information, it quantify it. I thought previously that the brain functionned more in an analog mode...
But if his hypothesis is right, and if single points in time aren't a "true" reality... and are just a human point of view...
Then the fact that we function like that, is perhaps because our brain effectively "digitalize"/quantify the information, like a computer. Only that the brain "digitalize" better (ie, we don't seem to even see that it is "digitalized", we only see continuous electric signals), but in a deep real way, the brain really function like a computer : to understand the world, it quantify it. So we could have artefacts and loss of the "true" reality...
And this would explain why we are then able to quantify things like the movement -- because we accept the error of our "digitalization" of the world. It's also find an echo on the uncertainty principle of heisenberg...
Wouldn't it be a funny thing if we realize that we function like a computer and we approximize the real world, and not only the real world (after all we know that our senses are prone to error), but that this quantification of the world affect deeply the way we consider/understand the universe itself ?:-)
In this case, Apple was unable to obtain non-US rights. To my way of thinking, that's a fairly minor issue for people. The biggest drawback is that a US citizen might become comfortable buying music in the US from Apple, then move, and not be able to use the route he has come to prefer.
Well, I won't speak about the others issues of DRM... but you seem to consider that the USA are the center of the world ? so it's not a big deal if you can't use Apple's solution on thoses stranges and unknown foreign countries (do they only have phone system btw ?). I mean, it won't affect much american people, so who cares ?
You're a moron -- quit this americano-centrism way of thinking, you will see, it's refreshing.
Well, the fact that no releases dates are setted are more a good point than a bad one ! Of course, in an ideal world where software would be released on dates (!), they won't have bugs either. But in the real world, must proprietary software aren't on schedules, and anyway, when they are, this is often at the detriment of the number of remaining bugs and/or dismiss of some features.
In the free software world, the software is released when ready. So, of course they don't set release date (generally speaking -- some projects have regular releases). But I hardly see that as an obvious bad point. It could be on the contrary one of the strength of the free software.
At least, programmers on free software releases when they are happy with the code.
No, its not normal. Normally, lanaguages evolve by their speakers, not by a government based commission.
That's right, but you know, it will be only for official documents. They won't force people to use it for daily use (well they couldn't do it anyway:)
But as a government, and as the word "courriel" sounds nice and some people use it, well, I think it's logic for them to use this word and prefers it rather than e-mail. Courriel is used a bit by people -- even if the majority use "mail" or "e-mail". In the end, the word will only be used broadly if people like it, but a small push from the gvt like this decision won't hurt.
oui:-)) effectivement j'ai fait un peu preuve d'ethnocentrisme, désolé.
But hey, this guy clearly stated something false, at least I never heard people claming they don't like Quebec. I don't know, perhaps sometimes some Quebec people ended on some assholes in France, but frankly, imho the majority of french just love Quebec.
I was in Canada some years ago (just for holidays), and it's right that it was surprising to speak in french, responded back in english, etc.
and you could add that you aren't banned to work more, 35hours is just the *legal* working hours for a week, but you could do additional hours of works -- it's just that they will then be paid with a higher ratio.
But as you say, anyway many people were "exempted", and even more, this law served many companies to calculate the working hours not on a week basis, but on the entire year ("annualisation"). So for some people, while "at 35hours" works in fact way, way more, and even with very weird schedules.
In many cases, this law screwed the employees. And for the some cases were it didn't, well, the current liberal gvt practically shunted the law.
Are you kidding ? We love the Quebec accent:-)
sometimes they use some words we could find funny, but that's it. I never heard somebody saying that he "does not like Quebec french". And really, people love Quebec (at least that's my point of view, and I think it's shared by a majority of french ! ). Mind you, a french-speaking country in the love-hated america's continent...
Then, rewrite him with extensive informations, if possible comments of small companies, etc. Sorry my own links are in French;-) but I'm sure you could find many links against software patents, with models letters to send to your MEP, etc.
Another good method is to check some (already granted, even if near illegally) EU patents, and send a mail to the potential affected companies you could know.
One thing with EU patents is that the majority of people, developers and companies, absolutely don't know about them, and when asked about, they absolutely don't know the potential risks of software patents. So pattents lobbiers carefully presents patents as a good thing of course.
The only thing to do then is to spread the information ! we only have 2 months !!
Sticky menus : you could trace their origin to others sources than windows (damn, even on my old Atari I didn't have to click to get a menu)
Apples TextEdit program in MacOS X produces files in RTF format, a format developed by Microsoft. : what a big deal:-) microsoft crippled their own format in fact. And TextEdit come directly from NeXTSTEP, were the RTF format was the default to save enriched text
A major idea that Apple borrowed from Microsoft is Context Menus. Contexts menus didn't existed on Unix then ?
In MacOS X, when you move the mouse over the close box in the window titlebar, it shows an "X" for the close box, a dash for minimize, and a plus for maximize, just like MS Windoze. And you never looked at the NeXTSTEP UI vs Windows 95 UI ?
And then there is the Dock in MacOS X. It's a suspiciously similar idea to the Start/Task Bar in Windoze -- the things you have open listed horizontally on a bar across the bottom of the screen. Honnestly, I think he's kidding... The Dock's origin is obviously NeXTSTEP, even if the behavior is a bit different
MacOS X also has the "Computer" icon, like the "My Computer" in Windoze.No, NeXTSTEP strikes again.
MacOS X is shifting towards using file name extensions ("myfile.doc") instead of type/creator codes.Nope, again, a NeXTSTEP's heritage.
Apple noticed how well the.DLL (Dynamic Link Library) idea worked in Windoze so they copied the idea and produced their own version of it called a "Shared Library". Ok, that one is stupid. Shared libraries came from Unix, and as NeXTSTEP, MacOS X use them.
Also worth mentioning is that Apple copied GUI ideas from Xerox PARC.NO, they LICENSED it ! I'm not at all in favor of software patents and such, but Apple licensed the idea, they didn't copied it. And they came with a bunch of their own improvments.
Then, what I didn't answered :
In MacOS X, next to the time there is a little sound icon, same as Windoze.
The way that you sort columns in a file list has changed to the Windoze way -- instead of the ascending/descending triangle being in the right-top corner like MacOS 9, now in MacOS X it is actually on the column itself, like Windoze.
Apple copied the idea of showing a little arrow on aliases/shortcuts.
And the idea of arrow cursors with an extra symbol added, such as arrow and a plus sign (copy).
For a long time, MS Windows could update your clock for Daylight Savings Time automatically, whereas Mac users had to do it manually. Apple eventually realized that automatic updating was a good idea, and copied the idea.
Indeed, what a bunch of astounding ideas. Come on, they are pretty straightforward improvements.
In France, you (or your employer) could call yourself an engineer, it doesn't matters -- but you CAN'T call yourself "diplomed engineer". This is the title which is protected, not the function. And engineer IS a function.
In the educational system here, there is two big ways for beeing a software engineer (both publics) : universities and school of engineering.
Thoses schools are quite prestigious, with a limited number of persons by promotion, and earn you after 5 years the title of engineer from the school. Universities on the other hand has a lower entry level; but frankly, I don't think there is much differences in CS skills at the end.
The differences are that generally, the "real" engineers end up quickly in management roles (after just a few years), as the training includes a good knowledge of scientific fields, with also an emphasing on management, communication, etc. Some end up as specialists.
The same thing happened to the UK film industry. In order to fight against films produced in Hollywood, a law was passed requiring a certain percentage of all films to be produced in the UK. Since the general public wanted Hollywood films, the only way to comply was to show supporting features produced in the UK. Since this was more profitable than producing feature films, the UK film industry ended up producing supporting features about candlemaking in Birmingham. So it died. We are now seeing some recovery, but only after at least two decades of decline.
In France, we had a similar law for films and for radio; on radio, a minimum percentage of french songs should be broadcasted, etc.
But in fact, it worked really well ! a great bunch of good french movies came out of this politic (for example, Amélie), and same for songs (new singers/band, etc.).
Of course, it's not always perfect, but it worked. It's perhaps due to local characteristics (heavy support of private firms (french tv channels such as Canal+ or TF1) for films, etc.), it was perhaps less "state driven" than in UK, I don't know.
Anyway, the "cultural" protectionnism at least could works. I think it's possible that thoses sorts of things works, if only there is a real incentive to let people produce things locally, not only simply less or more taxes, but a real implication of local actors (private firms and state).
before he flew planes into our buildings
Excuse me ? I missed something ? it was IRAQIAN PLANES ? it was IRAQIAN TERRORISTS ? damn, thoses 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabi !
Saddam is a dictator, and you could say many things for or against the war. But frankly, the connection between Iraq and Terrorism is particularly weak.
Slashdot Mirror
the majority of theses apps are very recent ( the majority of theses apps are very recent (less than a year)
Obviously, you are a troll (you don't know what you're talking about and are unnecessary rude about GNUstep). I will respond nonetheless because some could genuinely ask why there is effectively so few applications.
First, as previously noted, there isn't just "5" applications but around 40. As you say, yes, it's not that much, for such an old project. But it could be interesting to know something: the majority of theses apps are very recent (
Now, the reason why there is so few applications is quite simple: for many years, the graphic part of GNUstep -- eg, the AppKit implementation -- was sub-optimal. And we didn't have a good InterfaceBuilder equivalent. But actually, we have an AppKit implementation that is useable (not perfect, but nearly complete, and complete enough that we start to have applications), and moreover, we have a very good InterfaceBuilder equivalent with GORM (available on the GNUstep cvs). Add on top of that the buzz around Cocoa (OpenStep and Objective-C), and it explains the recent interest of developers for GNUstep.
By the way, the reason of the slow progresses of GNUstep, is, like in many cases, the lack of developers. We don't have as much developers, by far, than GNOME or KDE. This lack of developers is mainly because few developers in the free software community knew about NeXT/OpenStep/Objective-C in the early years of the project -- and this is why we have more and more developers at the moment, because more and more people know about OpenStep/Objective-C, due to MacOSX.
The second reason of the slow progresses is simply because, contrary to KDE or GNOME, the project's goal is to implement a (complex) specification, and without the full (or nearly full) implementation, it was difficult to use GNUstep (contrary to KDE/GNOME, where it was possible to create desktops incrementaly). Now that the implementation is more or less complete, we start to see applications that uses it.
> You just need to recreate your nibs ... GNUstep uses exactly the same paradigm as OpenStep/Cocoa, and GNUstep apps uses "nibs" too. It's just that the Cocoa nibs aren't compatible with the GNUstep nibs.
In fact, all the components of your user interface are objects : windows, buttons, etc. The "nib" contains the serialization of thoses objects and their relations. You could create your user interfaces programmatically, but InterfaceBuilder will let you create them faster (and easier). GNUstep has a program similar to InterfaceBuilder, GORM.
So, to sum up, if you know how to use InterfaceBuilder, using GORM is basically the same thing. The grandparent post just say that, if you don't want to maintain yourself the gorm files (ie, the GNUstep "nibs") of your Cocoa program, it sure wouldn't be difficult to find somebody to do it for you in the GNUstep community (well, if your program is free software obviously)
By the way, the fact that nibs and gorm files are not compatible isn't entirely because of a lack of documentation. Nibs are just serialized objects; the way they are serialized and what you put in is implementation dependant... that's why it's difficult to have 1:1 compatibility. But, recently Apple introduced XML serialized nibs, and thus it will probably possible in the future to read/write compatible nibs between GNUstep and Cocoa -- some works had been done recently for that on the GNUstep cvs.
You mean, a problem between his chair and the iMac screen ?
We already have one with GNUstep; More exactly, GNUstep uses a PostScript display model, and all the drawing (widgets, etc.) are vectoriel. This has the advantage of not duplicate code between display and printer (as it is PostScript).
Yes, and GNUstep is a free, LGPL implementation of the OpenStep specifications (Cocoa is also an OpenStep implementation), running on Linux/BSD. It uses a PostScript rendering model, so it is as vectoriel as you'd want. Note that's not really useful for the moment (300 DPI screens aren't yet cheaply available), but it has at least the BIG advantage of writing the same code for the display and the printer -- basically, a GNUstep drawing backend is a big vectoriel canvas.
The proprrietary library he's referring to is the Cocoa UI layer.
;-)
Two comments :
1) OpenStep (ie, cocoa) is one of the best programming framework available, and InterfaceBuilder is alone in its category. Thus, you could program GUI apps waaaaay faster. Depends of what you want, but just dismiss it without even dare to try it seems foolish. Moreover as all the development tools are free and downloadable on Apple developer's site.
2) Sure, Cocoa is proprietary. But if OSS programmers, instead of ranting about the great product offered by Apple (based on NeXT), had helped GNUstep (a free software implementation of OpenStep !!), well, we'll be in a better world
Last Note : GNUstep is, nonetheless, available, and there is an IB equivalent (Gorm). Sadly, GNUstep is yet another forgotten GNU project -- even if with the Buzz about Cocoa and Objective-C, many people seems to come now on GNUstep (plus one of the reason is that, obviously, GNUstep is quite usable, even if bugs remains).
You forgot one thing... Saddam decided to change from USD to Euro ... and as USA finance their deficit with USD, the trend of the oil states to go with Euro was a very bad thing. Obviously it wasn't the sole reason for the war :-) but I believe it was one of the reasons.
France and Germany's governments want patents so there you go :-/
... but anyway all parties, from left wing to right wing, communists to ultra-liberals, stated recently that they are against software patents.
???
All political french parties stated that they are against software patents... ok.. it was during the previous presidential elections... the current political party in charge seems to have slowed down their positions against software patents
Last week, some big industrial organisations (CEA-PME,CEDI,ESBA, representing 2 millions of small companies) stated that they too are against software patents.
the CIGREF (an organisation of big french companies) stated the same thing. Even big industrial players like Renault recently stated that they are against software patents.
So, it seems that things progress, and the game isn't over yet. Of course, if you remains actionless, waiting for the bill, you could only blame yourself. Write snail mails to your MEP, send money to the FFII, attend the manifestations, etc.
I should also add that it will be *really* great if more people sign the petition to ask Sun to release the LighHouse Design applications ! the petition is here : http://www.petitiononline.com/laafs/petition.html Sun doesn't use thoses software at all, yet some are really great (for example, Quantrix, a multidimensionnal spreadshit, or VarioBuilder, a tool to create small database-based applications like MSAccess).
If Sun choose to release some of theses apps, it would be possible to port them on GNUstep and MacOSX !
So please, sign the petition !
I agree, it's quite shameful that he didn't even dared to mention it.
...
:-)
GNUstep is a true object oriented framework, running on Linux and other Unices, and there is even a port for Windows in early stage. It's an OpenStep implementation, as MacOS X's Cocoa, thus you could port GNUstep applications on MacOS X and MacOS X application on GNUstep very easily. GNUstep also has great RAD tools like Gorm, modeled after NeXT's InterfaceBuilder.
GNUstep supports distributed objects out of the box, has a great database library (you just deal with objects, define a link between thoses objects and your database's model, and hop, no need to SQL), support scripting very easily, uses the PostScript imaging model (no need to maintain two versions of your code for display and printing), etc.
A good example of a GNUstep application compiling both on MacOSX and GNUstep is GNUMail, available on http://www.collaboration-world.com/gnumail
I urge people to check http://www.gnustep.org website
You could find informations and articles about GNUstep on http://www.roard.com/docs , there is also the gnustep's wiki (http://wiki.gnustep.org), a good GNUstep's site for news on http://www.gnustep.us and a great guide for installing GNUstep (http://gnustep.made-it.com)
It's really a shame that so few people contribute to this great project...
In fact, be outside the system wouldn't be a definite answer : a known effect in physic is that the observator modify what he observes ...
... and that's true in others branches (behavior sciences, electronic, etc.)
Please tell me why you can't have a well determined position as a function of time and be in motion as well? If you assume that there is no atomic unit of time, then any representation of an "instant" in time actually represents a delta of time. In any delta of time, an object in motion is changing position -- which means that while you may get a pretty acurate measure of an items position, it is impossible to measure it's exact position.
... But I'm not a physicit, I'm a computer science guy ...
Exactly. And the theory appears logic to my Im-not-a-physic-guy notions, as we can't spot at the same time a particule's position and velocity (heisenberg uncertainty principle). So this theory fits well in this view, no ?
What he's also stipulating is that if it was possible to have an atomic unit of time, and it was possible to take an exact measure of the position of an item, then it wouldn't be possible for that item to be in motion. An item is in motion if it is changing position -- but if you can measure it's exact position, then it isn't changing position. At least I think that's what he's trying to get across.
Yes, and I believe it's right; it really seems to link to the heisenberg's principle, from my low understanding of physics...
And the fact that the heisenberg's principle is verified in the real world let me thinks that this guy's theory about time is perhaps true.
In fact what's intriguing for me (apart the asshole who read the two first paragraphs and then had a definite position about the entire paper), is the fact that this idea seems quite evident
After reading the story, I found this theorically really interesting... And in fact I'm starting to believe he's right ;-)
/.)
... if time is continuous and that there isn't a thing like single points in time (which effectively explain some things), why do you, human, believe that we could measure single points ? Could it be that computers functions even more identically to our brain that we suspected ?
...
... :-)
Ok, let do a computer analogy (hey we're on
I mean, one of the big difference between the brain and computer, is that the computer digitalize the information, it quantify it. I thought previously that the brain functionned more in an analog mode...
But if his hypothesis is right, and if single points in time aren't a "true" reality... and are just a human point of view...
Then the fact that we function like that, is perhaps because our brain effectively "digitalize"/quantify the information, like a computer. Only that the brain "digitalize" better (ie, we don't seem to even see that it is "digitalized", we only see continuous electric signals), but in a deep real way, the brain really function like a computer : to understand the world, it quantify it. So we could have artefacts and loss of the "true" reality
And this would explain why we are then able to quantify things like the movement -- because we accept the error of our "digitalization" of the world.
It's also find an echo on the uncertainty principle of heisenberg
Wouldn't it be a funny thing if we realize that we function like a computer and we approximize the real world, and not only the real world (after all we know that our senses are prone to error), but that this quantification of the world affect deeply the way we consider/understand the universe itself ?
In this case, Apple was unable to obtain non-US rights. To my way of thinking, that's a fairly minor issue for people. The biggest drawback is that a US citizen might become comfortable buying music in the US from Apple, then move, and not be able to use the route he has come to prefer.
Well, I won't speak about the others issues of DRM... but you seem to consider that the USA are the center of the world ? so it's not a big deal if you can't use Apple's solution on thoses stranges and unknown foreign countries (do they only have phone system btw ?). I mean, it won't affect much american people, so who cares ?
You're a moron -- quit this americano-centrism way of thinking, you will see, it's refreshing.
Well, the fact that no releases dates are setted are more a good point than a bad one ! Of course, in an ideal world where software would be released on dates (!), they won't have bugs either. But in the real world, must proprietary software aren't on schedules, and anyway, when they are, this is often at the detriment of the number of remaining bugs and/or dismiss of some features.
In the free software world, the software is released when ready. So, of course they don't set release date (generally speaking -- some projects have regular releases). But I hardly see that as an obvious bad point. It could be on the contrary one of the strength of the free software.
At least, programmers on free software releases when they are happy with the code.
No, its not normal. Normally, lanaguages evolve by their speakers, not by a government based commission.
:)
That's right, but you know, it will be only for official documents. They won't force people to use it for daily use (well they couldn't do it anyway
But as a government, and as the word "courriel" sounds nice and some people use it, well, I think it's logic for them to use this word and prefers it rather than e-mail. Courriel is used a bit by people -- even if the majority use "mail" or "e-mail". In the end, the word will only be used broadly if people like it, but a small push from the gvt like this decision won't hurt.
oui :-)) effectivement j'ai fait un peu preuve d'ethnocentrisme, désolé.
But hey, this guy clearly stated something false, at least I never heard people claming they don't like Quebec. I don't know, perhaps sometimes some Quebec people ended on some assholes in France, but frankly, imho the majority of french just love Quebec.
I was in Canada some years ago (just for holidays), and it's right that it was surprising to speak in french, responded back in english, etc.
and you could add that you aren't banned to work more, 35hours is just the *legal* working hours for a week, but you could do additional hours of works -- it's just that they will then be paid with a higher ratio.
But as you say, anyway many people were "exempted", and even more, this law served many companies to calculate the working hours not on a week basis, but on the entire year ("annualisation"). So for some people, while "at 35hours" works in fact way, way more, and even with very weird schedules.
In many cases, this law screwed the employees. And for the some cases were it didn't, well, the current liberal gvt practically shunted the law.
Are you kidding ? We love the Quebec accent :-)
sometimes they use some words we could find funny, but that's it. I never heard somebody saying that he "does not like Quebec french". And really, people love Quebec (at least that's my point of view, and I think it's shared by a majority of french ! ). Mind you, a french-speaking country in the love-hated america's continent...
Then, rewrite him with extensive informations, if possible comments of small companies, etc. Sorry my own links are in French ;-) but I'm sure you could find many links against software patents, with models letters to send to your MEP, etc.
Another good method is to check some (already granted, even if near illegally) EU patents, and send a mail to the potential affected companies you could know.
One thing with EU patents is that the majority of people, developers and companies, absolutely don't know about them, and when asked about, they absolutely don't know the potential risks of software patents. So pattents lobbiers carefully presents patents as a good thing of course.
The only thing to do then is to spread the information ! we only have 2 months !!
- Sticky menus : you could trace their origin to others sources than windows (damn, even on my old Atari I didn't have to click to get a menu)
- Apples TextEdit program in MacOS X produces files in RTF format, a format developed by Microsoft. : what a big deal
:-) microsoft crippled their own format in fact. And TextEdit come directly from NeXTSTEP, were the RTF format was the default to save enriched text
- A major idea that Apple borrowed from Microsoft is Context Menus. Contexts menus didn't existed on Unix then ?
- In MacOS X, when you move the mouse over the close box in the window titlebar, it shows an "X" for the close box, a dash for minimize, and a plus for maximize, just like MS Windoze. And you never looked at the NeXTSTEP UI vs Windows 95 UI ?
- And then there is the Dock in MacOS X. It's a suspiciously similar idea to the Start/Task Bar in Windoze -- the things you have open listed horizontally on a bar across the bottom of the screen. Honnestly, I think he's kidding... The Dock's origin is obviously NeXTSTEP, even if the behavior is a bit different
-
MacOS X also has the "Computer" icon, like the "My Computer" in Windoze.No, NeXTSTEP strikes again.
- MacOS X is shifting towards using file name extensions ("myfile.doc") instead of type/creator codes.Nope, again, a NeXTSTEP's heritage.
- Apple noticed how well the
.DLL (Dynamic Link Library) idea worked in Windoze so they copied the idea and produced their own version of it called a "Shared Library". Ok, that one is stupid. Shared libraries came from Unix, and as NeXTSTEP, MacOS X use them.
-
Also worth mentioning is that Apple copied GUI ideas from Xerox PARC. NO, they LICENSED it ! I'm not at all in favor of software patents and such, but Apple licensed the idea, they didn't copied it. And they came with a bunch of their own improvments.
Then, what I didn't answered :- In MacOS X, next to the time there is a little sound icon, same as Windoze.
-
The way that you sort columns in a file list has changed to the Windoze way -- instead of the ascending/descending triangle being in the right-top corner like MacOS 9, now in MacOS X it is actually on the column itself, like Windoze.
- Apple copied the idea of showing a little arrow on aliases/shortcuts.
-
And the idea of arrow cursors with an extra symbol added, such as arrow and a plus sign (copy).
-
For a long time, MS Windows could update your clock for Daylight Savings Time automatically, whereas Mac users had to do it manually. Apple eventually realized that automatic updating was a good idea, and copied the idea.
Indeed, what a bunch of astounding ideas. Come on, they are pretty straightforward improvements.In France, you (or your employer) could call yourself an engineer, it doesn't matters -- but you CAN'T call yourself "diplomed engineer". This is the title which is protected, not the function. And engineer IS a function.
In the educational system here, there is two big ways for beeing a software engineer (both publics) : universities and school of engineering.
Thoses schools are quite prestigious, with a limited number of persons by promotion, and earn you after 5 years the title of engineer from the school. Universities on the other hand has a lower entry level; but frankly, I don't think there is much differences in CS skills at the end.
The differences are that generally, the "real" engineers end up quickly in management roles (after just a few years), as the training includes a good knowledge of scientific fields, with also an emphasing on management, communication, etc. Some end up as specialists.
In France, we had a similar law for films and for radio; on radio, a minimum percentage of french songs should be broadcasted, etc.
But in fact, it worked really well ! a great bunch of good french movies came out of this politic (for example, Amélie), and same for songs (new singers/band, etc.).
Of course, it's not always perfect, but it worked. It's perhaps due to local characteristics (heavy support of private firms (french tv channels such as Canal+ or TF1) for films, etc.), it was perhaps less "state driven" than in UK, I don't know.
Anyway, the "cultural" protectionnism at least could works. I think it's possible that thoses sorts of things works, if only there is a real incentive to let people produce things locally, not only simply less or more taxes, but a real implication of local actors (private firms and state).
before he flew planes into our buildings Excuse me ? I missed something ? it was IRAQIAN PLANES ? it was IRAQIAN TERRORISTS ? damn, thoses 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabi ! Saddam is a dictator, and you could say many things for or against the war. But frankly, the connection between Iraq and Terrorism is particularly weak.