Rucumbents are only faster on relatively flat stages. Trying to keep up with a traditional bike on an actual climb is virtually impossible. All those speed records you reference are in areas similar to the salt flats.
Also, the Apple Titanium's cracked underneath the wrists of people who used them often. My "weak" aluminum powerbook has not cracked, however, even though it goes through extensive use.
Learning from others mistakes is a much easier way to learn than learning from your own.
Its easy for someone to point fingers at people that have stood out and done outstanding things and claim cheating. Consider the facts, however. Armstrong has been tested for performance enhancing drugs more times than any athlete on the entire planet and has never once tested positive. If you've got no more beef with someone other than that they have won where winning seemed impossible it behooves you to not throw allegations around that are unfounded and unproven. Greg LeMond won because he used superior bike technology and was the best. Laurent Fignon came out with no aero-helmet on that last time trial in 1989, his pony tail flapping in the wind, with no aero bars and a classical riding position. Lemond had tri-bars on his bike, an aerodynamic helmet, and a aerodynamic riding position. Even if the two riders were roughly as strong as each other, of course LeMond won.
I wouldn't be so naive to say that there is no possibility that any of the three you mentioned were doping. But I personally, and I suspect you, have no serious evidence in my position to point empty allegations towards them.
As to Floyd, here is an interesting article on how Phonak is dealing with dopers within its team: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/17/sports/bike .php It seems that Floyd could be putting his job very much on the line within Phonak if he is doping. So until proven guilty, I'll assume innocence.
I say we should keep looking for extra terrestrials in the hope that they already have the cure to cancer (and all other illnesses)! I think THAT would be the best use of my computer cycles.
I figured there must be a way to do it but I didn't know how, thank you. When I started out in Cocoa programming all tutorials and books typically had you connecting things like that in the interface builder. Do you think programming graphically or by hand is better when dealing with Cocoa?
If you mean development frameworks then Cocoa is the way to go. Carbon is older and mostly included for backwards compatibility. Cocoa is the new hotness. As far as IDE's go, I use XCode2 and InterfaceBuilder. They are easy to use once you know where things are. I wish they had some sort of tabbed editor and I would reccomend dual monitors while developing due to the number of windows you will have open, but other than that it is a great product.
A couple of notes:
I, like you, come from a Java background and have recently begun to write native Mac apps. I use XCode and InterfaceBuilder and they work together really well to write Cocoa apps very quickly. I decided to learn Objective-C because for some reason I thought it would be idea to know yet another language, but Java-Cocoa should work just as well.
I'm not sure if this is the same for Java-Cocoa, but in Objective-C/Cocoa the hardest thing for me to get used to was the graphical nature of the programming. In many languages you have API's that allow you to do things like Hello World programs and/or more complex programs like a simple browser without writing a line of code. You design the interface graphically and hit run and it works. The difference between most of those (for isntance JBuilder) and Cocoa development is that in JBuilder, even if you don't physically write the interface code, it gets coded to your class file as standard Java code. In cocoa this isn't the case. The interface is housed in a file called a NIB file. Your average programmer will probably not ever have to look directly at the contents of a NIB. Also connections between classes is created graphically. For instance, if you want to have a button do something when it is clicked you don't add an onclick listener anywhere in the code. Instead you have a special type of method in your controller class that handles actions and then in interface builder you control click on the button and drag it to the instance of your class and tell it to connect to the action. AFAIK, this MUST be done graphically. It can't be coded. Or at least, it is strongly discouraged. This graphical nature took me quite awhile to get used to.
Playing devil's advocate: If I put a basketball goal on my property along the street, I have every right to tell someone else not to use it-even though it is easily available to ball players on the street, I have every right to say no. Why should wireless networking be any different, do you think?
I would gladly pay Apple $3 extra if only to save the time for pumping the $3 gallon of gas it would take to get to Best Buy and back through city traffic (ok, so slightly exaggerated). But seriously, how many old movies do you buy a week, or even a year? If I buy a DVD it's a new release-and $9.99 is way cheaper than the $17.00+ you'll spend at Best Buy. As for old movies or "classics": I either own them already, or would rather netflix them.
If you are learning python you aren't trying to learn how to program "close to the raw". I think they should at least be allowed IDLE for syntax highlighting. Programming in pico may be the way we used to do it, but there is no harm in allowing a little color. With Java, also, I don't think many people use the jdb debugger. Java is about enterprise programming, python is about ease-of-use programming. Neither of those things need to be taught "close to the raw".
And why does he believe that the higher price of Apple's hardware makes it only appealing to Enterprise users when it's quite obviously home users who use it?
It seems to me that by "enterprise" (not Enterprise) he is speaking about the Operating System industry, so his statement, "The lack of operability on commodity hardware makes Apple a specialty product in the enterprise." could easily be read "The lack of cheap Apple hardware makes Apple a specialty company in the industry." This is further supported by his next sentence: "People who can afford Apple products have a special devotion to the Mac and OS X." That suggests that he is saying that once people (read "home users") who can afford it tend to be very devoted to it (which, incidentally, is my experience; Almost every Mac user I meet loves there Mac, as few Windows users do; I know many linux/FreeBSD/whatever users love their OSes also, but they tend to be more of my pursuasion a.k.a. "Geeks" whereas the rabid mac users seem to cross all bounds of age, gender, and interest).
I also don't think the author is trying to compare OSes. He is rather comparing the possibility of adoption en-masse of Linux in general. His last few sentences adequately sum his (rather fair IMO) argument up: "Windows will remain the preferred desktop for the masses. Macintosh will remain the connoisseur's choice of operating systems. Ubuntu will continue as a mid-level desktop and a popular platform for developers."
In a sense he is not "dodging" the key positives and negatives of the system, because he is not talking about positives and negatives at all. He is merely describing the reasons that ordinary people are going to stay with Windows. I'm a pretty solid priest in the Mac cult myself (I converted after a long stint in the Linux world) but when I try converting someone else to a Mac their first oposition is, "Well my favorite little piece of software for doing X doesn't run on it." This is basically the point of the argument, and it is extremely. Even if Linux quickly became WAY EASIER to use than Windows, that would not be enough to change the mind of large technologically illiterate people groups. My grandfather browses the internet and does his taxes on his computer. If he can't do either one of those things, he has no use for the computer. If linux doesn't allow him to easily do both those things, then he has no use for linux. He could care less about the security issues sorrounding Windows, he could care less about the stability of Linux, as long as his computer works the way he is used to it working he will be fine.
Misquote: I'm totally astounded by the amount of fact twisting and intellectual contorsionism almost all windows zealots subject themselves to in order to escape reality. How can you all keep breathing with those tons of sand over your heads ?
Read me lips: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SECURE OS. PERIOD. AND THERE NEVER WILL BE. EVER. GET IT ?
(I call that the pirate line, right up there with "shiver me timbers")
There are only two absolutes regarding computer security:
1) Hackers will ALWAYS be better and more skilled than security experts;
2) Users will ALWAYS be clueless assholes that will click on whatever the heck that little box on the screen tells them to click on.
1.) Why do you think some 11 year old kid, or a Russian mafioso will be smarter than a (for instance Harvard) trained Security expert with a background in number theory or extensive experience coding assembly? By what reasoning do you come by this conclusion? How many "haxors" do you know, and are they really as brilliant evil genious as you make them out to be.
2.) Nobody said that a user couldn't make a system insecure. I can install a telnet server on my computer with a administrator logon with no password. This would be idiotic and extremely insecure but it isn't the fault of the OS and therefore is NOT relevant in anyway to this discussion.
It is true that there ARE no secure OSs at the moment. Since no OS has been completely and utterly designed with only security in mind (Reference: the secure box is the unplugged box joke). No one has proven that the concept is not possible however, and I challenge you to come up with a proof. For example: I'm pretty sure that it would be a fairly simple task to create an OS to run just a network driver and a monitor that would connect to the internet and download static web pages only that would have no security bugs whatsoever. Now that would be pretty useless but your premise that "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SECURE OS" is in theory (though currently not in practice) ridiculous.
i tried to use it once for a win98 program and it failed horribly (the installation program would barely start up before crashing, and it had worked before i installed xp), however a single case is nowhere near enough information to prove a theory so...
gotcha, and i wasn't out to start a distro war, i could care less what distro you or anyone else runs (plus the redhat service is free for one computer anyway) i just wouldn't have updated this myself probably for a few days had redhat not told me i needed too.
A distro is just a collection of programs, and I add so many programs that aren't on any distro I don't think it would make any difference to me what I was running.
This is why I use package management. Hours before I read about this vulnerability on slashdot (read it just now) my redhat monitor had gone red and I had updated the rsync vulnerability without even a thought to when it was discovered. Its interesting that Redhat had the update so quickly though... good to know.
perhaps they haven't heard of anyone saying they use OSS because its better because no one who uses OSS cares enough to talk to microsoft. I certainly haven't personally e-mailed Bill to tell him, maybe we should? Anyone have his email address?
I tend to agree, and I am a Gnome User. I like the way panels are set up in Gnome, they are more intuitive for me than KDE and they look better to me. Other than that, KDE definately wins out... but not for my use, because I use a terminal for my file system, and yes Nautalis is SLOW and PAINFUL. It takes forever to load my home directory... I don't use it. And the update for Gnome is horrible. The fact that it is about 50 different packages makes it nearly impossible to get everything installed easily. And no, GARNOME! did not work. Anyway, I will probably install KDE at some point to test it out. I happen to like XFCE alot tho... clean, no desktop icons, taskbar and a panel. It is very elegant and easy to use and fast.
I might as well install KDE tho'... better get out those install CDs...
If only I could use Gnome panels and everything else KDE. (well keep metacity, I like it)
Or if XFCE had a desktop...
or salvage the desktop I wrote in Java... I can assure you it was faster than Nautilus it just took heavy sawfish editing to make it remain in the background... and no taskbar, but ahh whatever who needs it...
It's really wierd how two people can have exactly opposite opinions for the same reason. I've always felt that Gnome was easier to pick up (at least for me) when I migrated from Windows to Linux. Well, ok, KDE wasn't difficult to use, but it to me even with customizations is not as elegant. To me, Gnome also allows easy migration from other OS's such as MacOS because of the application bar. Of course this is all in my opinion, i just thought it was wierd how two opinions could be opposite for the same reason.
I recently discovered this problem with a batch of memorex CD-Rs. Aparently the cheap Memorex CD-Rs' reflective strip is part of the label. So when my label got a chip in it after a couple of weeks the cd was rendered unusable. Do they make CD-Rs where the reflective strip is embedded inside the plastic?
I agree. That's why my company (who use macromedia products) generally contract out a graphics designer so we can work on the functionality. Dreamweaver MX 2004 gives an almost Borland JBuilder like IDE for programming many different languages. Our sites have the aesthetics, but the functionality is our chief concern, and we have our clients trust in that. Flash is nice because it allows creation of custom rather than native interfaces for an application and is getting to be quite powerful as a scripting environ. I am so glad that CodeWeavers has done this, I may finally be able to use linux at work!
well yeah, his use of "shady" just made me wonder. Is it illegal? I mean why would the government be setting a trap for shadiness if it weren't? (I'm just curious. Although can the government even regulate something like the internet? What if the web crawler is not American?
Why would a webcrawler follow the robots.txt file? Is it governed by law or is it just standard practice? I guess your calling them "shady" spiders must mean its illegal... wierd.
Slashdot Mirror
Rucumbents are only faster on relatively flat stages. Trying to keep up with a traditional bike on an actual climb is virtually impossible. All those speed records you reference are in areas similar to the salt flats.
Also, the Apple Titanium's cracked underneath the wrists of people who used them often. My "weak" aluminum powerbook has not cracked, however, even though it goes through extensive use. Learning from others mistakes is a much easier way to learn than learning from your own.
Its easy for someone to point fingers at people that have stood out and done outstanding things and claim cheating. Consider the facts, however. Armstrong has been tested for performance enhancing drugs more times than any athlete on the entire planet and has never once tested positive. If you've got no more beef with someone other than that they have won where winning seemed impossible it behooves you to not throw allegations around that are unfounded and unproven. Greg LeMond won because he used superior bike technology and was the best. Laurent Fignon came out with no aero-helmet on that last time trial in 1989, his pony tail flapping in the wind, with no aero bars and a classical riding position. Lemond had tri-bars on his bike, an aerodynamic helmet, and a aerodynamic riding position. Even if the two riders were roughly as strong as each other, of course LeMond won.
e .php It seems that Floyd could be putting his job very much on the line within Phonak if he is doping. So until proven guilty, I'll assume innocence.
I wouldn't be so naive to say that there is no possibility that any of the three you mentioned were doping. But I personally, and I suspect you, have no serious evidence in my position to point empty allegations towards them.
As to Floyd, here is an interesting article on how Phonak is dealing with dopers within its team: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/17/sports/bik
I say we should keep looking for extra terrestrials in the hope that they already have the cure to cancer (and all other illnesses)! I think THAT would be the best use of my computer cycles.
I figured there must be a way to do it but I didn't know how, thank you. When I started out in Cocoa programming all tutorials and books typically had you connecting things like that in the interface builder. Do you think programming graphically or by hand is better when dealing with Cocoa?
If you mean development frameworks then Cocoa is the way to go. Carbon is older and mostly included for backwards compatibility. Cocoa is the new hotness. As far as IDE's go, I use XCode2 and InterfaceBuilder. They are easy to use once you know where things are. I wish they had some sort of tabbed editor and I would reccomend dual monitors while developing due to the number of windows you will have open, but other than that it is a great product.
A couple of notes:
I, like you, come from a Java background and have recently begun to write native Mac apps. I use XCode and InterfaceBuilder and they work together really well to write Cocoa apps very quickly. I decided to learn Objective-C because for some reason I thought it would be idea to know yet another language, but Java-Cocoa should work just as well.
I'm not sure if this is the same for Java-Cocoa, but in Objective-C/Cocoa the hardest thing for me to get used to was the graphical nature of the programming. In many languages you have API's that allow you to do things like Hello World programs and/or more complex programs like a simple browser without writing a line of code. You design the interface graphically and hit run and it works. The difference between most of those (for isntance JBuilder) and Cocoa development is that in JBuilder, even if you don't physically write the interface code, it gets coded to your class file as standard Java code. In cocoa this isn't the case. The interface is housed in a file called a NIB file. Your average programmer will probably not ever have to look directly at the contents of a NIB. Also connections between classes is created graphically. For instance, if you want to have a button do something when it is clicked you don't add an onclick listener anywhere in the code. Instead you have a special type of method in your controller class that handles actions and then in interface builder you control click on the button and drag it to the instance of your class and tell it to connect to the action. AFAIK, this MUST be done graphically. It can't be coded. Or at least, it is strongly discouraged. This graphical nature took me quite awhile to get used to.
Playing devil's advocate: If I put a basketball goal on my property along the street, I have every right to tell someone else not to use it-even though it is easily available to ball players on the street, I have every right to say no. Why should wireless networking be any different, do you think?
I would gladly pay Apple $3 extra if only to save the time for pumping the $3 gallon of gas it would take to get to Best Buy and back through city traffic (ok, so slightly exaggerated). But seriously, how many old movies do you buy a week, or even a year? If I buy a DVD it's a new release-and $9.99 is way cheaper than the $17.00+ you'll spend at Best Buy. As for old movies or "classics": I either own them already, or would rather netflix them.
Just to add to this. Goto: http://www.idiom.com/~zilla/Computer/javaCbenchmar k.html
If you are learning python you aren't trying to learn how to program "close to the raw". I think they should at least be allowed IDLE for syntax highlighting. Programming in pico may be the way we used to do it, but there is no harm in allowing a little color. With Java, also, I don't think many people use the jdb debugger. Java is about enterprise programming, python is about ease-of-use programming. Neither of those things need to be taught "close to the raw".
It seems to me that by "enterprise" (not Enterprise) he is speaking about the Operating System industry, so his statement, "The lack of operability on commodity hardware makes Apple a specialty product in the enterprise." could easily be read "The lack of cheap Apple hardware makes Apple a specialty company in the industry." This is further supported by his next sentence: "People who can afford Apple products have a special devotion to the Mac and OS X." That suggests that he is saying that once people (read "home users") who can afford it tend to be very devoted to it (which, incidentally, is my experience; Almost every Mac user I meet loves there Mac, as few Windows users do; I know many linux/FreeBSD/whatever users love their OSes also, but they tend to be more of my pursuasion a.k.a. "Geeks" whereas the rabid mac users seem to cross all bounds of age, gender, and interest).
I also don't think the author is trying to compare OSes. He is rather comparing the possibility of adoption en-masse of Linux in general. His last few sentences adequately sum his (rather fair IMO) argument up: "Windows will remain the preferred desktop for the masses. Macintosh will remain the connoisseur's choice of operating systems. Ubuntu will continue as a mid-level desktop and a popular platform for developers."
In a sense he is not "dodging" the key positives and negatives of the system, because he is not talking about positives and negatives at all. He is merely describing the reasons that ordinary people are going to stay with Windows. I'm a pretty solid priest in the Mac cult myself (I converted after a long stint in the Linux world) but when I try converting someone else to a Mac their first oposition is, "Well my favorite little piece of software for doing X doesn't run on it." This is basically the point of the argument, and it is extremely. Even if Linux quickly became WAY EASIER to use than Windows, that would not be enough to change the mind of large technologically illiterate people groups. My grandfather browses the internet and does his taxes on his computer. If he can't do either one of those things, he has no use for the computer. If linux doesn't allow him to easily do both those things, then he has no use for linux. He could care less about the security issues sorrounding Windows, he could care less about the stability of Linux, as long as his computer works the way he is used to it working he will be fine.
2.) Nobody said that a user couldn't make a system insecure. I can install a telnet server on my computer with a administrator logon with no password. This would be idiotic and extremely insecure but it isn't the fault of the OS and therefore is NOT relevant in anyway to this discussion.
It is true that there ARE no secure OSs at the moment. Since no OS has been completely and utterly designed with only security in mind (Reference: the secure box is the unplugged box joke). No one has proven that the concept is not possible however, and I challenge you to come up with a proof. For example: I'm pretty sure that it would be a fairly simple task to create an OS to run just a network driver and a monitor that would connect to the internet and download static web pages only that would have no security bugs whatsoever. Now that would be pretty useless but your premise that "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SECURE OS" is in theory (though currently not in practice) ridiculous.
...It's on to precrime! Hail the minority report.
i tried to use it once for a win98 program and it failed horribly (the installation program would barely start up before crashing, and it had worked before i installed xp), however a single case is nowhere near enough information to prove a theory so...
I'm sure Kazaa lite is available on Kazaa.
gotcha, and i wasn't out to start a distro war, i could care less what distro you or anyone else runs (plus the redhat service is free for one computer anyway) i just wouldn't have updated this myself probably for a few days had redhat not told me i needed too.
A distro is just a collection of programs, and I add so many programs that aren't on any distro I don't think it would make any difference to me what I was running.
This is why I use package management. Hours before I read about this vulnerability on slashdot (read it just now) my redhat monitor had gone red and I had updated the rsync vulnerability without even a thought to when it was discovered. Its interesting that Redhat had the update so quickly though... good to know.
perhaps they haven't heard of anyone saying they use OSS because its better because no one who uses OSS cares enough to talk to microsoft. I certainly haven't personally e-mailed Bill to tell him, maybe we should? Anyone have his email address?
I tend to agree, and I am a Gnome User. I like the way panels are set up in Gnome, they are more intuitive for me than KDE and they look better to me. Other than that, KDE definately wins out... but not for my use, because I use a terminal for my file system, and yes Nautalis is SLOW and PAINFUL. It takes forever to load my home directory... I don't use it. And the update for Gnome is horrible. The fact that it is about 50 different packages makes it nearly impossible to get everything installed easily. And no, GARNOME! did not work. Anyway, I will probably install KDE at some point to test it out. I happen to like XFCE alot tho... clean, no desktop icons, taskbar and a panel. It is very elegant and easy to use and fast.
I might as well install KDE tho'... better get out those install CDs...
If only I could use Gnome panels and everything else KDE. (well keep metacity, I like it)
Or if XFCE had a desktop...
or salvage the desktop I wrote in Java... I can assure you it was faster than Nautilus it just took heavy sawfish editing to make it remain in the background... and no taskbar, but ahh whatever who needs it...
i think he does. Isn't debian going to use the anaconda installer from here on out? Yeah they are, i just found the article.
It's really wierd how two people can have exactly opposite opinions for the same reason. I've always felt that Gnome was easier to pick up (at least for me) when I migrated from Windows to Linux. Well, ok, KDE wasn't difficult to use, but it to me even with customizations is not as elegant. To me, Gnome also allows easy migration from other OS's such as MacOS because of the application bar. Of course this is all in my opinion, i just thought it was wierd how two opinions could be opposite for the same reason.
I recently discovered this problem with a batch of memorex CD-Rs. Aparently the cheap Memorex CD-Rs' reflective strip is part of the label. So when my label got a chip in it after a couple of weeks the cd was rendered unusable. Do they make CD-Rs where the reflective strip is embedded inside the plastic?
I agree. That's why my company (who use macromedia products) generally contract out a graphics designer so we can work on the functionality. Dreamweaver MX 2004 gives an almost Borland JBuilder like IDE for programming many different languages. Our sites have the aesthetics, but the functionality is our chief concern, and we have our clients trust in that. Flash is nice because it allows creation of custom rather than native interfaces for an application and is getting to be quite powerful as a scripting environ. I am so glad that CodeWeavers has done this, I may finally be able to use linux at work!
well yeah, his use of "shady" just made me wonder. Is it illegal? I mean why would the government be setting a trap for shadiness if it weren't? (I'm just curious. Although can the government even regulate something like the internet? What if the web crawler is not American?
Why would a webcrawler follow the robots.txt file? Is it governed by law or is it just standard practice? I guess your calling them "shady" spiders must mean its illegal... wierd.