He's been under the same rock I have. I've never had the experience of coding for ActiveX. From his experiences, I think I'll stay here under the rock, thank you very much.
I've got a Qt app I distribute for Mac. It looks native because it *IS* native. It uses the native Qt/Aqua. The widgets are genuine Aqua widgets because Qt uses Aqua to draw them. The menu bar is placed at the top of the screen. The configuration menu was moved as appropriate. Etc, etc, etc. With a few carefully placed #ifdefs and a properly constructed icon and application bundle, no one can tell it's really developed under FreeBSD.
Re:How lightweight, if it requires gtk+?
on
Xfce 4.2.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Try Blackbox or one of its relations (fluxbox, etc). I don't know what you mean by "modern", but they're small, efficient window managers that don't do anything but manage windows.
I've got a piece of software I release for Unix, Mac and Windows. When I originally created the Windows version I simply put all the files into one directory, zipped that up, and distributed it. To install, merely unzip to the location of your choice. Finished.
I had complaints with this simple scheme. So I had to make the a self extracting archive. Sigh.
What hole? Windows Exporer *IS* Internet Explorer. Or close enough that it makes no difference. The two programs may use different shells, but the central component is identical.
Re:Overclocking damage via software, Possible on P
on
Overclockix 3.7 Released
·
· Score: 3, Funny
I remember doing that (accidentally) a few times. Quite embarassing. But the really cool trick with some printers was to make themr actually "walk" across the room with a series of carefully timed carriage returns. Also you could get some printers to play music (of a sort).
Speaking of FreeBSD and brewing, check out QBrew. Open Source brewing software for FreeBSD (or Linux, Unix, OSX, Windows, etc). It's developed on FreeBSD, and as far as I know it's the only (stable and released) native brewing software for Linux, BSD, Unix and OSX. Get it at http://www.usermode.org/code.html and start Open Source brewing today!
p.s. That last link of the story blurb goes to some folks who claim to have brewed the world's first Open Source beer. Balderdash! They're greenhorn newbies when it comes to Open Source beers and ales! My brewing software and recipes have been Open Source for years prior to their arrival. Heck, they even predate the license they use! So get the Original(tm) Open Source Beer and get QBrew!
p.p.s. Okay, I'm done blowing my own horn now. I won't do this again until the next beer/brewing story appears on Slashdot...
All you would do is increase payroll (and associated) expenses by 25%. Twenty five percent! That money has to come from somewhere. Since sales aren't increasing by 25% either, it's got to come from the operating budget, research and development, cutting back on janitorial services, denying that erognomic chair you requested for your bad back last week, replacing the soft toilet paper in the stalls with that stuff that gives you butt splinters, etc, etc.
Or they'll just go bankrupt because their margins got fucked, or they'll move operations out of the country. In either case you will be unemployed and blaming your misfortune on someone else.
Last I heard the Big Bang was the accepted theory for the origin of the universe. If the Big Bang happened a finite amount of time ago (15 billion years more or less), and the universe has been expanding at a finite rate (the speed of light, more or less), then you end up with a finite universe.
There may indeed be an infinite expanse of nothingness for our finite universe to expand into, but since no events can possibly occur there, it doesn't concern us.
Except that current though doesn not hold that the universe is infinite. If the big bang happened, then it happened a finite amount of time ago with the universe expanding at a finite rate. You encounter other finite limits with other theories.
The only possibility to get us infinity is the belief that there are an infinite number of universes. But wait! Isn't that in and of itself a huge leap of faith?
Except that the odds of evolving a life form as complex as homo sapiens isn't one in a billion. It's more like one in a trillion trillion trillion (or more).
Then go read his followup paper, which is linked to in the first. It addresses that very point.
Those articles aren't meant to convert anyone. They aren't claiming that other mechanisms are any more probable than evolution, only that evolution itself is incredibly improbable.
Just because a large number of people believe in something does not make it fact.
I wasn't talking about "fact". I was talking about who does or does not get to use the bully pulpit of the government school system. While we all wish "fact" would be taught in the government schools, evolution isn't necessarily "fact". While it has a preponderance of evidence behind it, and is useful theory to apply to the science of biology, it has not been demonstrably proven.
This case in point is about teaching creationism in schools, but about NOT telling children that evolution is undisputed "fact". There is a difference. Not everyone who distrusts evolution is a Christian creationist. Some are Jewish or Islamic creationists. Others aren't creationists at all but merely think there might be a third mechanism. Still others think evolution to be the most probably mechanism, but aren't willing to place their complete trust in it.
Sidenote: the only reason this controversy exists is because there is no separation of School and State. If there were, then you could send your kid to a school that did teach evolution to be undeniably true if you so wished. That other people would send their children elsewhere would be none of your concern. But as long as we have a one-size-fits-all education system, it unfortunately has to be a lowest-common-denominator system run by politicians and bureaucrats.
Re:Ich bin Schnappi das kleine Krokodil
on
KDE 3.4 goes Beta
·
· Score: 1
If you want to listen to it, I'm shure you'll find it in your favourite p2p network if you search for "Schnappi".
I used Motif yesterday in fact. While certainly ugly and headache prone, it does have some significant advantages. It's ubiquitous and available everywhere. It's fully documented. It has stable API (unheard of with other high level X11 toolkits). And it's much much much easier than using bare Xlib.
I wouldn't recommend it to most people, as it's still low level enough to bog you down in the UI instead of the backend. But it's hardly "abandonware".
The closer you get to conformance with POSIX with the *default* install, the more Unix-y you are. That's because POSIX is pretty much the definition of Unix. Windows does have some POSIX-ness, and you can install Cygwin or MKS, but it isn't the default.
You can think of Unix-y to be: having a certain subset of system calls, having a certain style of filesystem behavior and layout, a minimum set of "standard" utilities, the availability of a bourne compatible shell, the concept of "everything is a file", and an emphasis on text formats for data and configuration.
At my company the Microsoft salesmen outmaneuvered out defensive blockers, and managed to talk to management. As a result, that thought that productivity could be vastly improved by porting a million line embedded LynxOS/Motif system to WinXPe. "Ten people should be able to do it in a year!" It's now three years later with fifty people and there is still no sign of a light ever being found at the end of this tunnel.
A minor anecdote to illustrate the problem. Yesterday I performed a code review on a trivial piece of code. I wrote the Motif version in three days. They wrote the Windows version in one month. My code (using the horribly "bloated" Motif) was 850 lines. Their code using MFC was 5200 lines of code. Before you blame an outdated MFC and recommend moving to.NET, the non-UI portion of my code was approximately 250 lines, while theirs was still over a five hundred.
No, no, no, no, no! Read the second followup paper (linked to in the first). Infinity is not an option. Astronomers now say that the universe is finite, but it doesn't matter even if it were infinite, because we're only talking about this one particular solar system. And we don't have an infinite amount of time, because the universe is only 15 billion years or so old.
The number of possible atoms in the universe times the number of possible time intervals (planck time being the smallest possible interval) gives the maximum number of events that could have occured since the beginning of the universe. This number is finite!
There is no such thing as "effective infinity". Either it's infinity, or it is a finite number infinitely smaller than infinity. There is no inbetween. In fact, mathematics itself changes between the finite and the infinite!
When you use terms like "effectively infinity", you're leaving the realm of probability and entering the realm of faith. In an infinite universe, everything is not only possible, they've ALL happened an infinite number of times! If you define God as "omniptent", then a belief in an infinite universe is a belief in God. (of course, to prevent a universe of Zelazny-esque chaos, you need to throw "omniscient" into the mix as well...)
It's not the red states, it's the red counties. But if you get rid of the red counties, the only things that will be left are large cities, university towns, and a few odd "bedroom" communities for those who work in the former.
You may hate the red states, but what I truly hate is the attitude that 95% of the US geographical landmass should be nuked out of spite. The last two months have demonstrated quite clearly that the last thing the Democrats and Greens stand for is tolerance.
Though I wouldn't quite call it spontanious, unless you're speaking in geological timeframes.
Nope. Not even geological timeframes are long enough. See http://www.nutters.org/docs/monkeys for a mathematical analysis of the probabilities required for the evolution of complex life forms. The probabilities required for evolution are so miniscule that it truly does take a leap of faith to believe that random chance alone is responsible.
Except that there are a significant number of people who do not believe in evolution. The number in the millions. The members of the Flat Earth Society (who actually believe the Earth to be flat, as opposed to those members who joined as a joke) number in the low dozens.
Sidenote: Of course, this whole controversy could be cleared up if we had a separation of school and state...
There has never been an observation of one species evolving into another. What has been observed is something completely different: changes *within a species.
Slashdot Mirror
He's been under the same rock I have. I've never had the experience of coding for ActiveX. From his experiences, I think I'll stay here under the rock, thank you very much.
I've got a Qt app I distribute for Mac. It looks native because it *IS* native. It uses the native Qt/Aqua. The widgets are genuine Aqua widgets because Qt uses Aqua to draw them. The menu bar is placed at the top of the screen. The configuration menu was moved as appropriate. Etc, etc, etc. With a few carefully placed #ifdefs and a properly constructed icon and application bundle, no one can tell it's really developed under FreeBSD.
Try Blackbox or one of its relations (fluxbox, etc). I don't know what you mean by "modern", but they're small, efficient window managers that don't do anything but manage windows.
I've got a piece of software I release for Unix, Mac and Windows. When I originally created the Windows version I simply put all the files into one directory, zipped that up, and distributed it. To install, merely unzip to the location of your choice. Finished.
I had complaints with this simple scheme. So I had to make the a self extracting archive. Sigh.
What hole? Windows Exporer *IS* Internet Explorer. Or close enough that it makes no difference. The two programs may use different shells, but the central component is identical.
I remember doing that (accidentally) a few times. Quite embarassing. But the really cool trick with some printers was to make themr actually "walk" across the room with a series of carefully timed carriage returns. Also you could get some printers to play music (of a sort).
Go grab my QBrew software. It includes several recipes that are reinheitsgebot, Open Source, and predate this guy's "world's first" by several years.
If you're talking Americans, Brits or Germans, I would agree, but those Flemish dudes can do some amazing things with coriander and malt...
Speaking of FreeBSD and brewing, check out QBrew. Open Source brewing software for FreeBSD (or Linux, Unix, OSX, Windows, etc). It's developed on FreeBSD, and as far as I know it's the only (stable and released) native brewing software for Linux, BSD, Unix and OSX. Get it at http://www.usermode.org/code.html and start Open Source brewing today!
p.s. That last link of the story blurb goes to some folks who claim to have brewed the world's first Open Source beer. Balderdash! They're greenhorn newbies when it comes to Open Source beers and ales! My brewing software and recipes have been Open Source for years prior to their arrival. Heck, they even predate the license they use! So get the Original(tm) Open Source Beer and get QBrew!
p.p.s. Okay, I'm done blowing my own horn now. I won't do this again until the next beer/brewing story appears on Slashdot...
How dare you throw facts into a holy discussion on the evils of corporations!
All you would do is increase payroll (and associated) expenses by 25%. Twenty five percent! That money has to come from somewhere. Since sales aren't increasing by 25% either, it's got to come from the operating budget, research and development, cutting back on janitorial services, denying that erognomic chair you requested for your bad back last week, replacing the soft toilet paper in the stalls with that stuff that gives you butt splinters, etc, etc.
Or they'll just go bankrupt because their margins got fucked, or they'll move operations out of the country. In either case you will be unemployed and blaming your misfortune on someone else.
Last I heard the Big Bang was the accepted theory for the origin of the universe. If the Big Bang happened a finite amount of time ago (15 billion years more or less), and the universe has been expanding at a finite rate (the speed of light, more or less), then you end up with a finite universe.
There may indeed be an infinite expanse of nothingness for our finite universe to expand into, but since no events can possibly occur there, it doesn't concern us.
If you have an infinite universe
Except that current though doesn not hold that the universe is infinite. If the big bang happened, then it happened a finite amount of time ago with the universe expanding at a finite rate. You encounter other finite limits with other theories.
The only possibility to get us infinity is the belief that there are an infinite number of universes. But wait! Isn't that in and of itself a huge leap of faith?
If something is a one in a billion chance...
Except that the odds of evolving a life form as complex as homo sapiens isn't one in a billion. It's more like one in a trillion trillion trillion (or more).
Then go read his followup paper, which is linked to in the first. It addresses that very point.
Those articles aren't meant to convert anyone. They aren't claiming that other mechanisms are any more probable than evolution, only that evolution itself is incredibly improbable.
Just because a large number of people believe in something does not make it fact.
I wasn't talking about "fact". I was talking about who does or does not get to use the bully pulpit of the government school system. While we all wish
"fact" would be taught in the government schools, evolution isn't necessarily "fact". While it has a preponderance of evidence behind it, and is useful theory to apply to the science of biology, it has not been demonstrably proven.
This case in point is about teaching creationism in schools, but about NOT telling children that evolution is undisputed "fact". There is a difference. Not everyone who distrusts evolution is a Christian creationist. Some are Jewish or Islamic creationists. Others aren't creationists at all but merely think there might be a third mechanism. Still others think evolution to be the most probably mechanism, but aren't willing to place their complete trust in it.
Sidenote: the only reason this controversy exists is because there is no separation of School and State. If there were, then you could send your kid to a school that did teach evolution to be undeniably true if you so wished. That other people would send their children elsewhere would be none of your concern. But as long as we have a one-size-fits-all education system, it unfortunately has to be a lowest-common-denominator system run by politicians and bureaucrats.
If you want to listen to it, I'm shure you'll find it in your favourite p2p network if you search for "Schnappi".
Why not just use the link I provided?
I used Motif yesterday in fact. While certainly ugly and headache prone, it does have some significant advantages. It's ubiquitous and available everywhere. It's fully documented. It has stable API (unheard of with other high level X11 toolkits). And it's much much much easier than using bare Xlib.
I wouldn't recommend it to most people, as it's still low level enough to bog you down in the UI instead of the backend. But it's hardly "abandonware".
The closer you get to conformance with POSIX with the *default* install, the more Unix-y you are. That's because POSIX is pretty much the definition of Unix. Windows does have some POSIX-ness, and you can install Cygwin or MKS, but it isn't the default.
You can think of Unix-y to be: having a certain subset of system calls, having a certain style of filesystem behavior and layout, a minimum set of "standard" utilities, the availability of a bourne compatible shell, the concept of "everything is a file", and an emphasis on text formats for data and configuration.
At my company the Microsoft salesmen outmaneuvered out defensive blockers, and managed to talk to management. As a result, that thought that productivity could be vastly improved by porting a million line embedded LynxOS/Motif system to WinXPe. "Ten people should be able to do it in a year!" It's now three years later with fifty people and there is still no sign of a light ever being found at the end of this tunnel.
.NET, the non-UI portion of my code was approximately 250 lines, while theirs was still over a five hundred.
A minor anecdote to illustrate the problem. Yesterday I performed a code review on a trivial piece of code. I wrote the Motif version in three days. They wrote the Windows version in one month. My code (using the horribly "bloated" Motif) was 850 lines. Their code using MFC was 5200 lines of code. Before you blame an outdated MFC and recommend moving to
No, no, no, no, no! Read the second followup paper (linked to in the first). Infinity is not an option. Astronomers now say that the universe is finite, but it doesn't matter even if it were infinite, because we're only talking about this one particular solar system. And we don't have an infinite amount of time, because the universe is only 15 billion years or so old.
The number of possible atoms in the universe times the number of possible time intervals (planck time being the smallest possible interval) gives the maximum number of events that could have occured since the beginning of the universe. This number is finite!
There is no such thing as "effective infinity". Either it's infinity, or it is a finite number infinitely smaller than infinity. There is no inbetween. In fact, mathematics itself changes between the finite and the infinite!
When you use terms like "effectively infinity", you're leaving the realm of probability and entering the realm of faith. In an infinite universe, everything is not only possible, they've ALL happened an infinite number of times! If you define God as "omniptent", then a belief in an infinite universe is a belief in God. (of course, to prevent a universe of Zelazny-esque chaos, you need to throw "omniscient" into the mix as well...)
It's not the red states, it's the red counties. But if you get rid of the red counties, the only things that will be left are large cities, university towns, and a few odd "bedroom" communities for those who work in the former.
You may hate the red states, but what I truly hate is the attitude that 95% of the US geographical landmass should be nuked out of spite. The last two months have demonstrated quite clearly that the last thing the Democrats and Greens stand for is tolerance.
Though I wouldn't quite call it spontanious, unless you're speaking in geological timeframes.
Nope. Not even geological timeframes are long enough. See http://www.nutters.org/docs/monkeys for a mathematical analysis of the probabilities required for the evolution of complex life forms. The probabilities required for evolution are so miniscule that it truly does take a leap of faith to believe that random chance alone is responsible.
Except that there are a significant number of people who do not believe in evolution. The number in the millions. The members of the Flat Earth Society (who actually believe the Earth to be flat, as opposed to those members who joined as a joke) number in the low dozens.
Sidenote: Of course, this whole controversy could be cleared up if we had a separation of school and state...
Evolution is a fact. It's been observed.
There has never been an observation of one species evolving into another. What has been observed is something completely different: changes *within a species.