At this point the only thing that keeps the iPad being a truly viable replacement for a computer is the need to sync it to a computer. But if you buy in an Apple Store you can have them set it up there, and then just buy apps and media on the device going forward (though it makes me cringe at the thought of people doing that and not backing up the device regularly).
Yeah, I can't imagine doing it myself, but it's not as bad as you might think... Apps can be re-downloaded (you'd lose save games, of course). If you use google/yahoo/mobileme/exchange for your mail/contacts/calendar/notes, that will all be backed up on the server. It's really just the media (music/movies/books) that are problematic - but that's the fault of the publishers.
So, let me get this streight. You can copy an MP3 file to your iDevice WITHOUT using iTunes? You can listen to that file on your iDevice? You can later connect your iDevice to another computer and then copy that file off?
There's an app for that:) (don't you hate when Apple fanboys say that?)
It's called Dropbox.
the fact that you can't upload videos unless you are using the windows client (I usually just use the web).
I have Picasa for Mac OS X and it uploads videos. Maybe you were talking about Linux?
Oh, and +1 for Picasa. I am paying $5/yr for 20GB of storage. Good deal.
I want a "server in the cloud", that works preferably just like a server on my desk, except with a faster internet connection and better cooling etc.
But it still needs to do things like letting me see it's screen, replug, reconfigure the network, add/remove disks,...
The advantages of the cloud would be :
-> ridiculous disk sizes possible (and for-rent - no capital cost)
-> no capital investment
-> someone else does hardware repair (and does it promptly)
-> fast scaling, that means fast access to more & bigger memory, cpu, disk,...
Yes. The feature you are looking for is called capturing. Generally you use parens to indicate capture groups. The specifics of how you then access the captured components vary wildly from language to language.
The idea of apple allowing corp-specific apps is ludicrous. They have no reason to, it would not benefit them in any way, but the freedom would be dangerous to their profit margins. If those apps contained code that allowed more freedom in use of the iPad, then some users would be filtered off through alternative manners of acquiring applications and could potentially harm their profits. At the same time, companies will not be willing to submit their own code to apple so that apple can approve it and allow it. There is no reason whatsosever that this is likely. You speak as if things are obvious out of assumptions, but your assumptions have no logical backing. If you are going to say something, base it on logic.
Well, your logic sounds nice and all, but you are 100% dead wrong. Apple does in fact allow you to write your own corp-specific apps. It's called the Enterprise Developer Program and it costs $250/yr. The only thing you need is a company of 500 or more and a Dun & Bradstreet number. You can then distribute your own apps to your employees outside of the App Store.
You could even use Private APIs and get away with it - there is no App Store review process.
Yes, if a corporation dares to choose a widely-used product with a large install base, which fits their use requirements, as opposed to a relatively new, only moderate install base with different features available (no Firefox/Opera with H.264, no Safari/iPhone with Theora, no Internet Explorer period), which does not fit their use requirements on even one browser, then they must be 'in cahoots' with the company who makes that product.
I know you were going for a better-than-average first post without too much thought, but really, stop listening to Apple. Adobe is not a conspiracy.
What we have here might be a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem. HTML5 would have a larger installed base if there were more content available. In turn, there'd be more content available if HTML5 had a larger, more established installed base.
No, the original poster had it right - there simply isn't consistent browser support yet to make HTML5 more than an interesting sideline.
Well Flash accelerates nicely on Windows, and is supposed to be getting the ability to do so on the Mac (not sure on the status, I don't have a Mac).
Flash has been working just fine on the Mac for like 15 years now. You're thinking of the iPhone/iPad.
No he isn't. He's thinking of hardware-assisted video decoding. Windows can already use the host video card's H.264 decoder if it has one. Mac OS just opened up those APIs (and it will only work on newer Macs). There's a beta of Flash Player for Mac now (or soon, I forget, and my mac is too old to take advantage of it anyway) with hardware-assisted video decoding.
The title of the article is wrong. It's only transcoding if you're moving from one codec to another. Repackaging existing H.264 video streams in mp4 containers (instead of flv containers) would be called remuxing.
Second of all, Flash Player has been able to play H.264 video in an MP4 container for several years now. Anybody with an ounce of sense making a video site would do well to create their videos in that fashion. It gives maximum compatibility with Flash Player, iPhones, iPads, etc. Now with the HTML5 video tag, browsers that support H.264 in MP4 (right now: Chrome, Safari but notably NOT Firefox) don't need to use a flash-based video player component.
one thing that is very important to general purpose computing is the ability to run more than one program simultaneously. iphone cannot do that nor will it be able to in the foreseeable future. no the hack in iphone4 does not count.
Guess I just imagined checking my mail while listening to a podcast and downloading app updates then.
This is just insane. If you write free software, you have to accept that people might want to use it for things of which you don't approve. If you can't handle that, don't write free software.
It's got a very rich set of features that are aimed straight at making web development dead simple. The syntax is fairly straightforward and familiar, being a typical mishmash of shell scripting, C and perlisms. It was built from day one to integrate with Apache, it's not a nasty bolt-on hack like mod_perl. It's in-process so there's no startup overhead like with CGI.
I've been using it on some pretty large web sites for years and it's never let me down.
As to original topic of programmers all being forced to not wear headphones, that is just something we all have to deal with.
Really? I guess I have lived a sheltered life but at the 9 or so jobs I've had spanning the last 20 years, I have NEVER been asked to remove my headphones. And I've been at tiny startups and some of the biggest companies in the biz (Oracle, Yahoo).
Especially in cubicle farms, I would literally be unable to work without music.
I don't use any Firefox extensions and I feel like it's bloated. Extensions aren't the problem, they're the solution.
Firefox has slowly become more and more like what really bothered me about IE. Nothing specific -- but it's getting slower and buggier. Just like IE. It's not quick and light like it used to be. I'm ready to try Chrome on my Mac.
I thought Firefox was getting slower, so I disabled all the auto-update checking on launch. That made it start up as fast as Safari on my Mac. I've switched between Safari and FF for day to day browsing and I don't really feel any speed difference to be honest.
Oh man, you took me right back to a horror job I had once. They launched a site (on a weekend) for a big client. It was suppose to provide some sort of contract job market. One of the links was for "full time jobs". It was taking 40 seconds to generate the page. They called me (on the weekend) to ask me to get the ops team to add another CPU to the database server. I said, "Yes, that's a great plan, it will definitely get your 40 second query down to 38 seconds. How are you finding out if the job is full time?" "Oh jobs are entered in by hand and we do a SELECT * FROM JOBS WHERE JOB_TYPE LIKE '%full%'."
I started looking for a new job on Monday.
Re:One thing Google could do about incoming spam..
on
Spammers Choose GMail
·
· Score: 1
Give me a damn drop down that says "I speak English, anything not in English is not to me".
i've been using gmail for 3+ years now and i don't think it has ever caught a legit message. i used to check the spam box regularly for false positives but after a while i stopped because it seemed like it never happened. i just looked again and it's still clean.
I think a much better test would be to see a single window with 30 tabs. I don't know anyone that would have 30 windows of a browser running. All this proves to me is that FF does a better job of sharing resources across instances. Does anyone use windows rather than tabs to manage their browsing? I use both. I've got a 24" monitor and i do a lot of development, so it's not unusual to have the requirements doc in one window, bugzilla in #2, the actual development site in #3, and a fourth debugging window. Plus dedicated windows for google mail/reader/docs, and so on. Tabs are great but most web pages aren't useful at 1900 pixels wide. I can have 2 or 3 windows side by side and get more information on screen at once.
The official site states clearly that all of Volumes I-IV are under Creative Commons share-alike. So technically it is totally kosher for you to download the entire thing without paying NIN, just as long as you don't pay anyone else either. (At least, that's my understanding).
check out amiestreet.com. bands upload their music, it starts out free, but as it gains popularity, it starts to cost money, until it hits the cap of US$0.98 per track. they just partnered with some well known indie labels (4ad, beggars banquet) so you can get a lot of the old cocteau twins and gary numan catalog legally for free (or very cheap):)
artists get 70% of the revenue once each song has sold $5.
Except that I never get more than my apportioned amount. In other words, my SpeedBoost never goes faster than the 6MB I actually pay for. I think that's what the person who wrote the article is saying too: "Goes at the speed they paid for, which is really fast, for a short time period and then drops to something like 1.2 MB, which is clearly slower than most comcast plans." That person should call up and complain. We were paying for 8MB, it was not running that fast, they checked and realized our modem needed a configuration reload, after which we were back up to our paid speed with a credit on our account for the time missed.
Also, not all older cable modems are compatible with the "SpeedBoost" technology, they may need to trade in for a newer model.
Slashdot Mirror
At this point the only thing that keeps the iPad being a truly viable replacement for a computer is the need to sync it to a computer. But if you buy in an Apple Store you can have them set it up there, and then just buy apps and media on the device going forward (though it makes me cringe at the thought of people doing that and not backing up the device regularly).
Yeah, I can't imagine doing it myself, but it's not as bad as you might think... Apps can be re-downloaded (you'd lose save games, of course). If you use google/yahoo/mobileme/exchange for your mail/contacts/calendar/notes, that will all be backed up on the server. It's really just the media (music/movies/books) that are problematic - but that's the fault of the publishers.
No, Apple customers still lose. They still can't run Flash
I'm an Apple customer and I consider that a win.
So, let me get this streight. You can copy an MP3 file to your iDevice WITHOUT using iTunes? You can listen to that file on your iDevice? You can later connect your iDevice to another computer and then copy that file off?
There's an app for that :) (don't you hate when Apple fanboys say that?)
It's called Dropbox.
the fact that you can't upload videos unless you are using the windows client (I usually just use the web).
I have Picasa for Mac OS X and it uploads videos. Maybe you were talking about Linux? Oh, and +1 for Picasa. I am paying $5/yr for 20GB of storage. Good deal.
I want a "server in the cloud", that works preferably just like a server on my desk, except with a faster internet connection and better cooling etc.
But it still needs to do things like letting me see it's screen, replug, reconfigure the network, add/remove disks, ...
The advantages of the cloud would be : -> ridiculous disk sizes possible (and for-rent - no capital cost) -> no capital investment -> someone else does hardware repair (and does it promptly) -> fast scaling, that means fast access to more & bigger memory, cpu, disk, ...
Congratulations, you just described Amazon AWS.
Yes. The feature you are looking for is called capturing. Generally you use parens to indicate capture groups. The specifics of how you then access the captured components vary wildly from language to language.
The idea of apple allowing corp-specific apps is ludicrous. They have no reason to, it would not benefit them in any way, but the freedom would be dangerous to their profit margins. If those apps contained code that allowed more freedom in use of the iPad, then some users would be filtered off through alternative manners of acquiring applications and could potentially harm their profits. At the same time, companies will not be willing to submit their own code to apple so that apple can approve it and allow it. There is no reason whatsosever that this is likely. You speak as if things are obvious out of assumptions, but your assumptions have no logical backing. If you are going to say something, base it on logic.
Well, your logic sounds nice and all, but you are 100% dead wrong. Apple does in fact allow you to write your own corp-specific apps. It's called the Enterprise Developer Program and it costs $250/yr. The only thing you need is a company of 500 or more and a Dun & Bradstreet number. You can then distribute your own apps to your employees outside of the App Store. You could even use Private APIs and get away with it - there is no App Store review process.
Yes, if a corporation dares to choose a widely-used product with a large install base, which fits their use requirements, as opposed to a relatively new, only moderate install base with different features available (no Firefox/Opera with H.264, no Safari/iPhone with Theora, no Internet Explorer period), which does not fit their use requirements on even one browser, then they must be 'in cahoots' with the company who makes that product.
I know you were going for a better-than-average first post without too much thought, but really, stop listening to Apple. Adobe is not a conspiracy.
What we have here might be a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem. HTML5 would have a larger installed base if there were more content available. In turn, there'd be more content available if HTML5 had a larger, more established installed base.
No, the original poster had it right - there simply isn't consistent browser support yet to make HTML5 more than an interesting sideline.
Flash has been working just fine on the Mac for like 15 years now. You're thinking of the iPhone/iPad.
No he isn't. He's thinking of hardware-assisted video decoding. Windows can already use the host video card's H.264 decoder if it has one. Mac OS just opened up those APIs (and it will only work on newer Macs). There's a beta of Flash Player for Mac now (or soon, I forget, and my mac is too old to take advantage of it anyway) with hardware-assisted video decoding.
The title of the article is wrong. It's only transcoding if you're moving from one codec to another. Repackaging existing H.264 video streams in mp4 containers (instead of flv containers) would be called remuxing. Second of all, Flash Player has been able to play H.264 video in an MP4 container for several years now. Anybody with an ounce of sense making a video site would do well to create their videos in that fashion. It gives maximum compatibility with Flash Player, iPhones, iPads, etc. Now with the HTML5 video tag, browsers that support H.264 in MP4 (right now: Chrome, Safari but notably NOT Firefox) don't need to use a flash-based video player component.
one thing that is very important to general purpose computing is the ability to run more than one program simultaneously. iphone cannot do that nor will it be able to in the foreseeable future. no the hack in iphone4 does not count.
Guess I just imagined checking my mail while listening to a podcast and downloading app updates then.
This is just insane. If you write free software, you have to accept that people might want to use it for things of which you don't approve. If you can't handle that, don't write free software.
It's got a very rich set of features that are aimed straight at making web development dead simple. The syntax is fairly straightforward and familiar, being a typical mishmash of shell scripting, C and perlisms. It was built from day one to integrate with Apache, it's not a nasty bolt-on hack like mod_perl. It's in-process so there's no startup overhead like with CGI. I've been using it on some pretty large web sites for years and it's never let me down.
As to original topic of programmers all being forced to not wear headphones, that is just something we all have to deal with.
Really? I guess I have lived a sheltered life but at the 9 or so jobs I've had spanning the last 20 years, I have NEVER been asked to remove my headphones. And I've been at tiny startups and some of the biggest companies in the biz (Oracle, Yahoo). Especially in cubicle farms, I would literally be unable to work without music.
I don't use any Firefox extensions and I feel like it's bloated. Extensions aren't the problem, they're the solution. Firefox has slowly become more and more like what really bothered me about IE. Nothing specific -- but it's getting slower and buggier. Just like IE. It's not quick and light like it used to be. I'm ready to try Chrome on my Mac.
I thought Firefox was getting slower, so I disabled all the auto-update checking on launch. That made it start up as fast as Safari on my Mac. I've switched between Safari and FF for day to day browsing and I don't really feel any speed difference to be honest.
There's adblock for safari on mac. http://burgersoftware.com/en/safariadblock Works fine on Snow Leopard if you set Safari to 32 bit mode.
The point is that Childs (rightly or wrongly) believed he was protecting people from a 'bus crash' by his actions.
Oh man, you took me right back to a horror job I had once. They launched a site (on a weekend) for a big client. It was suppose to provide some sort of contract job market. One of the links was for "full time jobs". It was taking 40 seconds to generate the page. They called me (on the weekend) to ask me to get the ops team to add another CPU to the database server. I said, "Yes, that's a great plan, it will definitely get your 40 second query down to 38 seconds. How are you finding out if the job is full time?" "Oh jobs are entered in by hand and we do a SELECT * FROM JOBS WHERE JOB_TYPE LIKE '%full%'." I started looking for a new job on Monday.
Give me a damn drop down that says "I speak English, anything not in English is not to me".
god yes. i have wished for this constantly.
i've been using gmail for 3+ years now and i don't think it has ever caught a legit message. i used to check the spam box regularly for false positives but after a while i stopped because it seemed like it never happened. i just looked again and it's still clean.
The official site states clearly that all of Volumes I-IV are under Creative Commons share-alike. So technically it is totally kosher for you to download the entire thing without paying NIN, just as long as you don't pay anyone else either. (At least, that's my understanding).
Amazon is DRM-free.
check out amiestreet.com. bands upload their music, it starts out free, but as it gains popularity, it starts to cost money, until it hits the cap of US$0.98 per track. they just partnered with some well known indie labels (4ad, beggars banquet) so you can get a lot of the old cocteau twins and gary numan catalog legally for free (or very cheap) :)
artists get 70% of the revenue once each song has sold $5.