As Larry Niven says, "Think of it as evolution in action!"
Unless you think permanently damaging their hearing because they like listening to loud music is going to make them less likely to procreate, that's a complete non sequitur.
I doubt it. If Bill Gates and a homeless guy were equally responsible for a car accident, do you think the victim could be accused of extortion because they decided not to try suing the homeless guy?
What could they possibly hope to gain by suing open source developers? Mozilla was a lot less likely to buy a license than Microsoft was.
They say they might not know how many subscribers they have (how this is possible is beyond me).
You've obviously never dealt with Verizon before. I wouldn't be shocked if they said they might not be able to figure out what their own phone number is.
Oh, thank goodness you live in a country where you can be fined for kissing in public at your wedding, not one where the government wants to crack down on children looking at pornography. That's much less scary.
No, it wasn't. GP's assertion is that maybe Apple's insistence on $.99 songs isn't in fact consumer-oriented, because if they abandoned it you might be able to get bargain-bin CDs from iTunes for a price comparable to what you'd pay in the record store rather than for $10. You wouldn't.
The cable company doesn't care if you record and redistribute content. It's not hypocritical for them to do it themselves.
On the other hand, you can bet the owners of the content are going to have a problem with the cable companies time-shifting their content and getting paid for it, unless they're getting a cut of the fees and they're convinced it will make it more difficult for the end users to record, redistribute, and skip commercials. I'm sure they'd love to see the cable companies take as much DVR functionality away from the customers as they can get away with.
You're right, we're all extremely unfortunate to be living in a period when no great art is being produced.
I'm extremely jealous of people who were alive in Vincent van Gough's time. They all got to appreciate his fresh art as it was being created.
For the sarcastically-challenged: Did you ever consider that great art is rarely recognized as great during the artist's lifetime, and assuming that no great art is being produced today is just incredibly moronic?
Oh please. Do you really think the labels want to force Apple to charge less than $.99 for less popular songs? If they got their tiered-pricing wishes, those bargain bin artists' songs would be $.99, and anything in heavy rotation on your local top-40 station would be $3.99 per song. You can be sure no record company wants to get less for each individual song than they're getting now.
To be clear, I was referring to the ability of PPC Macs running OS 7(?)-9 to execute 680x0 code, not OS X's Classic, which allows a PPC running OS X to run non-Carbon PPC binaries from the older OS. This is, of course, nothing like what Rosetta does.
As for Rosetta not being an emulator, I suppose that's may be technically true for some definition of "emulator." From the user's point of view, though, it's doing the same thing as emulation, just using a more efficient mechanism. I'd argue that on some level, an emulator is doing the same thing that Rosetta's doing: translating instructions from one architecture to another. The only difference is that true "emulation" uses a virtual processor as an abstraction rather than skipping the middleman and directly translating.
This is because the framers never figured that it wouldn't take long for Congress and the Presidency to be filled with a bunch of idiots who don't bother to actually read the Constitution, let alone follow it.
It probably never occurred to them that if the Constitution said they weren't allowed to do something, that you'd have to set up a completely different process to make sure they didn't do it anyway. They probably figured that any blatantly unconstitutional law wouldn't get a majority in both houses of congress in the first place, and if it did, that the President would be sensible enough to veto it. Obviously they weren't very good students of human nature.
The other threads don't block. The problem with Finder is technically not that it's single-threaded, it's that it doesn't use multiple threads is a very smart way.
I think Apple intends it as a learning tool for programmers who think that multi-threading is some sort of panacea. "Look, developer! If you choose what to run in a separate thread really badly, you'll end up with a crappy application like this one!"
I don't see it being fixed any time soon. NeXTStep had the same sort of problems 15 years ago. Using the file browser thingy on a system with AFS was painful, since half the mountpoints in the/afs/ directory were always broken and when the system tried to stat them the entire thing hung for minutes at a time.
The architecture does support Universal Binaries, which have code for both PPC and intel processors. This isn't really anything new or magical, the OS is just smart enough to know which code to execute. The same thing existed in the classic MacOS to support both PPC and 680x0 systems with FAT binaries.
As with the classic MacOS, there's also an emulator involved, so the newer architecture can run (most) binaries compiled on the older architecture.
However, compile something just for the Intel processors, and it won't run on your PPC hardware. If I understand your question correctly, if things worked the way you were assuming, Mach-O itself would guarantee any Mach-O binary would run on either system.
It should, yes. Oddly enough, if you're using OS X, it only usually works. The only thing more frustrating that a process that ignores SIGKILL is being told that root doesn't have permission to do something.
No, but I've heard that maxim repeated by lots of people, including science teachers.
In high school I asked my physics teacher to explain how you can get more amps running through your body, assuming you're not changing your resistance, without increasing the voltage. Ah, the cognitive dissonance created by realizing that either you don't know what the formula you're asking your students to memorize actually means, or that some quote you heard from somewhere might not be scientifically rigorous.
And Apple Computer has billions of dollars in cash. They're greedy bastards if they don't just shut down and stop doing business. They obviously have no need to earn any more money, ever. Their stockholders must be urging the continued production of iPods and Macs out of some misguided principle, or because they're all crazy.
Shall we go on to the logical conclusion that capitalism is a mental disease, or do I need to go find some homeless person who think that you've got too much money if you can afford a computer, and that you shouldn't complain if he robs you?
Yes. They're very worried that their productivity software won't be able to compete in the market with a gaming console. I know I haven't decided yet which one I'm going to buy for my spreadsheet needs.
Slashdot Mirror
Just goes to show that it's better to release an ugly solution early than make every nice and pretty and user friendly and get beat to market.
Unless you think permanently damaging their hearing because they like listening to loud music is going to make them less likely to procreate, that's a complete non sequitur.
What could they possibly hope to gain by suing open source developers? Mozilla was a lot less likely to buy a license than Microsoft was.
Not to be pedantic, but there's no such thing as 540C liquid water, and 100C steam burns a hell of a lot less than 540C steam.
I apologize profusely for misspelling a Dutch name. How ignorant of me.
You've obviously never dealt with Verizon before. I wouldn't be shocked if they said they might not be able to figure out what their own phone number is.
Oh, thank goodness you live in a country where you can be fined for kissing in public at your wedding, not one where the government wants to crack down on children looking at pornography. That's much less scary.
No, it wasn't. GP's assertion is that maybe Apple's insistence on $.99 songs isn't in fact consumer-oriented, because if they abandoned it you might be able to get bargain-bin CDs from iTunes for a price comparable to what you'd pay in the record store rather than for $10. You wouldn't.
Usage by the vast majority of native speakers of a language is what defines words, not one pathetic wanker with a "jargon file". Get over it.
The cable company doesn't care if you record and redistribute content. It's not hypocritical for them to do it themselves.
On the other hand, you can bet the owners of the content are going to have a problem with the cable companies time-shifting their content and getting paid for it, unless they're getting a cut of the fees and they're convinced it will make it more difficult for the end users to record, redistribute, and skip commercials. I'm sure they'd love to see the cable companies take as much DVR functionality away from the customers as they can get away with.
I'm extremely jealous of people who were alive in Vincent van Gough's time. They all got to appreciate his fresh art as it was being created.
For the sarcastically-challenged: Did you ever consider that great art is rarely recognized as great during the artist's lifetime, and assuming that no great art is being produced today is just incredibly moronic?
Granted, that doesn't make an extremely stupid phrase any better; I only take exception with your reasoning, not your conclusion.
Oh please. Do you really think the labels want to force Apple to charge less than $.99 for less popular songs? If they got their tiered-pricing wishes, those bargain bin artists' songs would be $.99, and anything in heavy rotation on your local top-40 station would be $3.99 per song. You can be sure no record company wants to get less for each individual song than they're getting now.
Oh wait, that's not me that I'm thinking of.
NOTE: I'm not part of the conspiracy against you. I promise.
As for Rosetta not being an emulator, I suppose that's may be technically true for some definition of "emulator." From the user's point of view, though, it's doing the same thing as emulation, just using a more efficient mechanism. I'd argue that on some level, an emulator is doing the same thing that Rosetta's doing: translating instructions from one architecture to another. The only difference is that true "emulation" uses a virtual processor as an abstraction rather than skipping the middleman and directly translating.
It probably never occurred to them that if the Constitution said they weren't allowed to do something, that you'd have to set up a completely different process to make sure they didn't do it anyway. They probably figured that any blatantly unconstitutional law wouldn't get a majority in both houses of congress in the first place, and if it did, that the President would be sensible enough to veto it. Obviously they weren't very good students of human nature.
I think Apple intends it as a learning tool for programmers who think that multi-threading is some sort of panacea. "Look, developer! If you choose what to run in a separate thread really badly, you'll end up with a crappy application like this one!"
I don't see it being fixed any time soon. NeXTStep had the same sort of problems 15 years ago. Using the file browser thingy on a system with AFS was painful, since half the mountpoints in the /afs/ directory were always broken and when the system tried to stat them the entire thing hung for minutes at a time.
The architecture does support Universal Binaries, which have code for both PPC and intel processors. This isn't really anything new or magical, the OS is just smart enough to know which code to execute. The same thing existed in the classic MacOS to support both PPC and 680x0 systems with FAT binaries.
As with the classic MacOS, there's also an emulator involved, so the newer architecture can run (most) binaries compiled on the older architecture.
However, compile something just for the Intel processors, and it won't run on your PPC hardware. If I understand your question correctly, if things worked the way you were assuming, Mach-O itself would guarantee any Mach-O binary would run on either system.
It should, yes. Oddly enough, if you're using OS X, it only usually works. The only thing more frustrating that a process that ignores SIGKILL is being told that root doesn't have permission to do something.
In high school I asked my physics teacher to explain how you can get more amps running through your body, assuming you're not changing your resistance, without increasing the voltage. Ah, the cognitive dissonance created by realizing that either you don't know what the formula you're asking your students to memorize actually means, or that some quote you heard from somewhere might not be scientifically rigorous.
Shall we go on to the logical conclusion that capitalism is a mental disease, or do I need to go find some homeless person who think that you've got too much money if you can afford a computer, and that you shouldn't complain if he robs you?
The 1970s started on Jan. 1, 1970. The fact that the 0s only lasted 9 years is irrelevant.
Yes. They're very worried that their productivity software won't be able to compete in the market with a gaming console. I know I haven't decided yet which one I'm going to buy for my spreadsheet needs.