You know, I'm not so sure. Yesterday, if someone had said, "the nuke launch security code was set to 000000000 on all systems for many years", I would have said "Yeah, right".
A launch code of 00000000 is plausible though--it's sloppiness in something that was in the specs. A phone line isn't the kind of thing that would have been in the specs at all. Whoever designed the system wouldn't have just decided to spend extra time and money on something that wasn't requested.
Makes lots of seemingly 'implausible' films about unauthorised nuke launches and hacking, a lot less implausible.
Um, assuming your talking about Wargames, no it doesn't. Let's see:
1. The systems to control launch are COTS units with acoustic couplers. Huh? 2. There's a public phone line attached to it. Yeah, right. 3. If you dial in, you get a listing of options. But instead of picking one, you just type an English command and it somehow knows what you mean and decides to launch a nuclear strike. *Snort*. 4. The only way to stop the launch is to make the computer play tic-tac-toe (a launch system has software to play tic-tac-toe?) and "realize how stupid and pointless war is." Gag me with a logging chain. The people who wrote this movie don't even understand the difference between strong and weak AI, do they?
Why is it that everything changes if the U.S. is the subject of the conversation?
Because we're responsible with our weapons and Iraq isn't. If we weren't, the entire middle east would be nothing but radioactive dust right now, along with France and Germany. But thanks for playing, dumbass.
Opponents of the war have completely twisted the WMD issue into something it was never intended to be in the first place. This is the President's reasoning:
1. Saddam undoubtedly had weapons (chemical and biological) at one time. This cannot be disputed. He used them openly.
2. Saddam undoubtedly had ongoing programs to develop such weapons. We saw evidence of this throughout the 90s.
3. Saddam kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out in 1998.
4. Saddam claimed to have destroyed all his weapons (and weapons programs and plans). Yet, even once weapons inspectors returned, Saddam bugged their phones and placed suspicious restrictions on where they could go and when. His word cannot be trusted.
5. Saddam had friendly relationships with terrorist organizations. If sales of raw materials (or even full-blown wepaons systems) are made, the effects could be devastating. A moderate amount of VX or Sarin dumped into Times Square would kill millions.
6. The ONLY responsible thing to do in this situation is to take out Saddam as quickly as possible. End of story.
A President who doesn't invade in a situation like this isn't qualified to run a fucking hot dog stand, much less the United States. You can disagree but you're still wrong.
Carmack did all his development on NeXT machines for a long time and used Objective-C to rapidly build development tools. But, as you say, he didn't actually use Objective-C for the games themselves. There was an interview with him in Game Developer magazine back in 1994 where he raves on and on about the greatness of NeXT and shows a lot of DooM code in ProjectBuilder.
But: Cocoa seems heavily oriented towards Objective C. It seems possible to mix C++ and Obj-C in an app, but how feasible is it for me to implement a version of my lib that exposes a C++ interface, yet uses Cocoa/ObjC internally? And even if it works, would it be full of nasty hacks?
I wouldn't do it. Objective-C++ is really intended for making calls to C++ libraries from Objective-C code. The languages are just too different to be very robust for the kind of thing you want to do. I understand that templates cause great difficulty, for example.
Please note that such insight does not include "You should just use Objective C for everything", just to warn you in advance.
My advice: just use Objective-C.:-) On a more serious note, I think if you're absolutely committed to porting your libraries, Carbon is probably the way to go. I've never used it; but I think it's more similar to your current win32 backend code than Cocoa will be anyway.
Objective C might be absolutely wonderful, but as all I ever hear about it is this fantastic new (sic) idea called MVC, it's hard to tell:-)
Heh, you probably got hold of one of those "introductions to Objective-C" that was written by NeXT marketing back in 1988. One of the things Apple did was to take the old NeXT documents, replace all instances of 'NeXT' with 'Apple' and slap them up on their website. They've been steadily updating and replacing them but there's still a lot of old cruft in there. Briefly, Objective-C is Smalltalk grafted onto ANSI C. You get dynamic binding and typing and all that good jazz, while still having fast native-compiled code. If it helps to place the concepts, Java was heavily modeled on Objective-C.
If I'm going to learn/use a different language, I'd rather try something really portable like Python. Objective C still seems like an 'oddball' language to me, that's only used on Macs.
Actually, it is portable. The language itself is supported by GCC. And GNUstep is an LGPL'd implementation of the Foundation and ApplicationKit frameworks which runs on UNIX and Windows systems.
The actual compiler guys from Apple are (gradually) contributing their changes back into GCC mainline. I think they're even working on Objective-C++ support in GCC.
The App Database (and the web design itself) is new and not everything has been moved yet. They probably should have waited on replacing the old site until things were a little more complete, though.
Objective-C++ is serviceable for its initial purpose: making easy calls to C++ libraries from Objective-C code. But it's kind of like the infamous flying car: the design philosophies are so divergent that it just doesn't work when you try to make serious use of it.
Personally, I find Objective-C to be a problematic, weird language, with an unappealing syntax.
Amusingly, I feel the same about C++. It seems kind of confusing to reuse procedural syntax for OO functionality. And don't even get me started on operator overloading...
Can I ask, if you're running it on Linux, what distribution?
I've used RedHat and Gentoo. I'm not sure who maintains the Debian packages (or even *if* they're maintained). I always build from CVS since it's usually stable and there are often improvements and additions.
If you're going to do development with it, you might consider trying Renaissance. You describe your user interface in XML and it's portable to other platforms, languages, or themes. There's no GUI builder for it yet, however.
If you have any trouble, feel free to ask for help: jhclouse -at- juno -dot- com. You can also ask questions on the mailing list.
I've been playing with GNUstep happily for quite some time now. And one thing you absolutely *have* to see (if you haven't already) is Renaissance. You define your GUI with an XML document (including targets, actions, and outlets) and it's automagically laid out on both OS X and GNUstep. This not only makes porting much easier, it will also make it much easier for your GUIs to adapt to foreign languages, the upcoming GNUstep theme support, and different end-user fonts.
It's still in development, and there isn't a graphical builder for it yet, but it's very promising.
I wonder how long he spent looking at it. The GNUstep-base (Foundation) reached 1.0 a long, long, long time ago (currently at 1.9.1) and is stable and featureful on both UNIX and Windows. GNUstep-gui (AppKit) is at 0.9.2 and is also very stable and useful on UNIX, getting there on Windows.
GNUstep has very fine InterfaceBuilder and ProjectBuilder clones, a quickly growing number of excellent end-user applications.
Also, it seems to me that the install is *not* difficult. Granted, I've been working with it for a long time, so maybe I'm just used to it. And I'm sure Hillegass wasn't used to dealing with Linux (or BSD, or Solaris, or whatever he tried to install it on).
But considering the very small number of people working on the GNUstep core, I'm amazed at the quality and completeness of the project.
There are a lot of fundamentalist religious groups in the world who would love to see a "super-AIDS" wipe out the homosexuals and scare the rest of us into monogamy or abstinence.
While there are some people who feel this way, they certainly don't represent the majority. What few people realize is that, for a great deal of religious people, the concern is for the well-being of homosexuals. They oppose homosexuality because they believe souls will be condemned for all eternity because of it. Now, you may not agree with their belief--but no one can say that such a motive is negative or hateful (although their wording might occasionally lead you to believe so).
It doesn't even have to be a screw-up. It can just be something that pisses a woman off. Like existing in her presence against her will. Works with mothers, daughters, sisters, or cow-orkers, as well as wives.
Slashdot Mirror
When you have thousands of warheads they do, buttmunch. Your turn.
A launch code of 00000000 is plausible though--it's sloppiness in something that was in the specs. A phone line isn't the kind of thing that would have been in the specs at all. Whoever designed the system wouldn't have just decided to spend extra time and money on something that wasn't requested.
Um, assuming your talking about Wargames, no it doesn't. Let's see:
1. The systems to control launch are COTS units with acoustic couplers. Huh?
2. There's a public phone line attached to it. Yeah, right.
3. If you dial in, you get a listing of options. But instead of picking one, you just type an English command and it somehow knows what you mean and decides to launch a nuclear strike. *Snort*.
4. The only way to stop the launch is to make the computer play tic-tac-toe (a launch system has software to play tic-tac-toe?) and "realize how stupid and pointless war is." Gag me with a logging chain. The people who wrote this movie don't even understand the difference between strong and weak AI, do they?
Because we're responsible with our weapons and Iraq isn't. If we weren't, the entire middle east would be nothing but radioactive dust right now, along with France and Germany. But thanks for playing, dumbass.
1. Saddam undoubtedly had weapons (chemical and biological) at one time. This cannot be disputed. He used them openly.
2. Saddam undoubtedly had ongoing programs to develop such weapons. We saw evidence of this throughout the 90s.
3. Saddam kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out in 1998.
4. Saddam claimed to have destroyed all his weapons (and weapons programs and plans). Yet, even once weapons inspectors returned, Saddam bugged their phones and placed suspicious restrictions on where they could go and when. His word cannot be trusted.
5. Saddam had friendly relationships with terrorist organizations. If sales of raw materials (or even full-blown wepaons systems) are made, the effects could be devastating. A moderate amount of VX or Sarin dumped into Times Square would kill millions.
6. The ONLY responsible thing to do in this situation is to take out Saddam as quickly as possible. End of story.
A President who doesn't invade in a situation like this isn't qualified to run a fucking hot dog stand, much less the United States. You can disagree but you're still wrong.
Carmack did all his development on NeXT machines for a long time and used Objective-C to rapidly build development tools. But, as you say, he didn't actually use Objective-C for the games themselves. There was an interview with him in Game Developer magazine back in 1994 where he raves on and on about the greatness of NeXT and shows a lot of DooM code in ProjectBuilder.
I wouldn't do it. Objective-C++ is really intended for making calls to C++ libraries from Objective-C code. The languages are just too different to be very robust for the kind of thing you want to do. I understand that templates cause great difficulty, for example.
Please note that such insight does not include "You should just use Objective C for everything", just to warn you in advance.
My advice: just use Objective-C. :-) On a more serious note, I think if you're absolutely committed to porting your libraries, Carbon is probably the way to go. I've never used it; but I think it's more similar to your current win32 backend code than Cocoa will be anyway.
Objective C might be absolutely wonderful, but as all I ever hear about it is this fantastic new (sic) idea called MVC, it's hard to tell :-)
Heh, you probably got hold of one of those "introductions to Objective-C" that was written by NeXT marketing back in 1988. One of the things Apple did was to take the old NeXT documents, replace all instances of 'NeXT' with 'Apple' and slap them up on their website. They've been steadily updating and replacing them but there's still a lot of old cruft in there. Briefly, Objective-C is Smalltalk grafted onto ANSI C. You get dynamic binding and typing and all that good jazz, while still having fast native-compiled code. If it helps to place the concepts, Java was heavily modeled on Objective-C.
If I'm going to learn/use a different language, I'd rather try something really portable like Python. Objective C still seems like an 'oddball' language to me, that's only used on Macs.
Actually, it is portable. The language itself is supported by GCC. And GNUstep is an LGPL'd implementation of the Foundation and ApplicationKit frameworks which runs on UNIX and Windows systems.
The actual compiler guys from Apple are (gradually) contributing their changes back into GCC mainline. I think they're even working on Objective-C++ support in GCC.
The App Database (and the web design itself) is new and not everything has been moved yet. They probably should have waited on replacing the old site until things were a little more complete, though.
Objective-C++ is serviceable for its initial purpose: making easy calls to C++ libraries from Objective-C code. But it's kind of like the infamous flying car: the design philosophies are so divergent that it just doesn't work when you try to make serious use of it.
Amusingly, I feel the same about C++. It seems kind of confusing to reuse procedural syntax for OO functionality. And don't even get me started on operator overloading...
I've used RedHat and Gentoo. I'm not sure who maintains the Debian packages (or even *if* they're maintained). I always build from CVS since it's usually stable and there are often improvements and additions.
If you're going to do development with it, you might consider trying Renaissance. You describe your user interface in XML and it's portable to other platforms, languages, or themes. There's no GUI builder for it yet, however.
If you have any trouble, feel free to ask for help: jhclouse -at- juno -dot- com. You can also ask questions on the mailing list.
It's still in development, and there isn't a graphical builder for it yet, but it's very promising.
GNUstep has very fine InterfaceBuilder and ProjectBuilder clones, a quickly growing number of excellent end-user applications.
Also, it seems to me that the install is *not* difficult. Granted, I've been working with it for a long time, so maybe I'm just used to it. And I'm sure Hillegass wasn't used to dealing with Linux (or BSD, or Solaris, or whatever he tried to install it on).
But considering the very small number of people working on the GNUstep core, I'm amazed at the quality and completeness of the project.
Right now. Far too silly.
Once aliens hear what passes for MUSIC in an airport, they'll all start freaking out.
There's no money on P2P networks though.
But I still like Objective-C and OpenStep probably will until I die...
Except that you have to develop with the shitty Windows API. At least until GNUstep is stable on Win32.
While there are some people who feel this way, they certainly don't represent the majority. What few people realize is that, for a great deal of religious people, the concern is for the well-being of homosexuals. They oppose homosexuality because they believe souls will be condemned for all eternity because of it. Now, you may not agree with their belief--but no one can say that such a motive is negative or hateful (although their wording might occasionally lead you to believe so).
Same here. Now I'm disappointed. But I should have known by the capitalization.
Yeah, it could be publishing date. I do know that I've seen it on albums from American labels though. The mystery grows deeper and deeper...
Yes, but will your CDs still be readable 500 years from now?
It doesn't even have to be a screw-up. It can just be something that pisses a woman off. Like existing in her presence against her will. Works with mothers, daughters, sisters, or cow-orkers, as well as wives.
I think the 'Circle-P' symbol is for a performance copyright.