so they convoluted it into a bastardized C++,C# mess.
Huh? It is almost exactly the same as C#, but with different syntax. I don't get what's so hard about printing, either. Create a PrintDocument class, add graphics elements to its Graphics(GDI+) class. What's a PITA about that?
I thought the reviewer did a fine job of brining out positive points:
"The auto-stacking seen in the import dialog and elsewhere in the interface uses capture date info to group items into stacks. It's a handy feature, especially if you have a ton of images in a single flat list that aren't related."
"On top of the standard EXIF and IPTC metadata tags, Aperture has a rating system for isolating pics. Once you've set some ratings and keywords, sorting through the items is very elegant and well thought out. If there's one thing Apple knows how to do, it's help you find things easily."
Despite the continuing legacy of the OS X Finder to disappoint new and old users, Apple knows how to make you drool with the look of a program. Like the newer version of iTunes, the bezels are cleaner and there is no brushed metal. This is almost definitely where the OS X Leopard interface is going and for the most part it's a welcome change.
Also, there's a fairly complete list of both pros and cons at the end.
The point is that it is all voluntary and cooperative. Nobody is forced to do anything. The proposal to replace voluntary cooperation with quasi-governmental force is perverse.
Actually, you didn't build most of it nor do you own anything more than a small fraction of it.
True, but part of that small fraction is the authoritative root zone server. Disregarding the irrelevant fact that we invented it, we do own it. It is our property, and we don't force anyone to use it who doesn't want to. Thus, there is no moral or paractical justification to try to seize our property.
No, you are dumb. Nuclear batteries aren't tiny reactors, they are powered by the energy released through radioactive decay. They have no moving parts, the exist, and they work.
But, given the trend of the current US military thinking, I suspect Pentagon generals appreciate the benefits of an independent military bot far more than you or I.
I agree, and the first applications will be jobs that are (a) easily automated, or (b) push the current limits of the abilities of humans to perform them. Under (a), you will have AI for things like navigation and logistics. Under (b), you will have semi-autonomous UAV, which will largely replace the use of fighter aircraft for reconnaisance, escort, and patrol duties, being able to far outperform any human pilot due to the biophysical limits of human pilots. You probably will also have smart bombers, which can be programmed with mission parameters and intelligently make flight and evasion decisions. The ultra-hazardous nature of this job would make it desirable to remove the need for human pilots.
I can't believe PHB's are using "postmortem!" The term they are looking for is "After-Action Report", or "AAR" in mil-speak. Tell them that using military terms makes them sound bold and dynamic, while using medical pathology terms makes them sound weak and dying.
One possible (though not inexpensive) solution is to use Radio Shack's Adaptaplug products. You will still need one adapted for every discrete voltage you require, and they'll need to be beefy ones, probably. But each transformer has a socket on the end, like this, which you can then split as many times as necessary with a bunch of these or these. Purchase the appropriate tip for each of your devices, connect it to a lead from the appropriate voltage source, and you should be able to drastically reduce your power outlet usage. If you're really clever, use a surplus PC switching power supply as a single voltage source for all your rails (built in 12v and 5v, use voltage regulators to get the rest).
Any IM client/server system I use must be able to connect with a SIP server like Asterisk, so that I get automatic phone presence information and phone control in my IM client. Jive Messenger has this, so far, and so does Microsoft Office Communicator (though I'm not sure if that actually works with Asterisk - I doubt it;)
Asterisk is definitely the definitive VoIP PBX-in-software, is FOSS, and runs on Linux. I've been testing it for a bit now, and it is a very nice, configurable, and reliable piece of software. If you use SIP phones, no additional hardware is required - the phones plug right into your LAN.
Where it starts getting tricky is how to connect your LAN-phones to the outside world. You can use POTS lines, or a BRI or PRI, or a T1, but that all requires additional hardware from Digium. You can get VOIP service from many cable companies and CallVantage and Vonage and such but beware! If the VoIP service requires you to use their hardware adapters, you STILL need additional hardware. You might save a little money, but other than that there is no advantage for POTS if you have to use their adapters. Plus, what a kludge that is. Your incoming call goes digial(in)--> analog(adapter)--> digital(PBX)--> analog(phone)--> digital(PBX)--> analog(adapter)--> digital(out) JUST in your PBX! If you can get/can afford the bandwidth, a 100% digital solution requires minimal hardware investment (only the phones and the PBX server). There still don't seem to be that many providers, though. But I have had pretty good luck with a couple. Broadvoice has a BYOD (bring your own device) line of rate plans that are compatible with Asterisk, though you can only have 2 simultaneous lines per account. Teliax has a flat-rate plan with up to 4 simultaneous calls, and you can have an unlimited number of simultaneous calls (subject to bandwidth constraints) using the Pay-As-You-Go plan. The other nice thing about Teliax is that it supports audio codecs other than the standard 64kbps(per incoming and outgoing channel) that Broadvoice supports. Using more efficient codecs will allow you to pack more simultaneous calls in the same amount of bandwidth.
Oh, and use a high-quality router that supports QTos packet prioritization.
I don't think that's as strong a point as you think it is. For example, for-profit industries have been our primary source of war materiel and defense procurements since just about the founding of the Republic, and this has not seriously weakened the country as a result. In fact, where advancement is needed the most, the incentive for profit is increased, because, unsurprisingly, the chance for big rewards leads people to take big risks. So I don't think the proper response to necessity or importance is to make profit illegal (quite the opposite, in fact) - the solution is to have better requirements in the first place. In other words, the government needs to be a much more savvy consumer and stop buying whatever crap is put in front of them. Essentially, this is what's happening in this case: the state is saying, this product does not meet our requirements. Diebold has the choice with complying with the requirements or losing the sales. If the motive for profit is strong enough, other companies with products that do meet the requirements will then compete to be selected. The state wins, the companies win, freedom wins.
I don't buy the premise that the ability to categorize a game means it is not fun, or even unoriginal. Just like in books, movies, and art good story and craft can transcend any genre - conversely, genre-bending unclassifiable works can be utter dreck.
The underlying unix architecture is just superior.
I wonder, is this an example of delusion that the author referred to? Do you really know enough about low-level kernel resource management and subsystems to judge that the unix architecture is superior? Or is this just something you "know" to be true?
Maybe I'm way off base and you have very specific reasons for believing that the unix architecture is fundamentally better. But almost everyone I talk to who complains about the "architecture" is really complaining about tools, like shells and programs (e.g., PHP, Perl, etc.), and is relatively clueless about the OS architecture (disclosure, I think the modern NT kernel is pretty well-designed, even if the default tools are sub-par.)
Slashdot Mirror
QBasic still runs on every version of Windows.
Huh? It is almost exactly the same as C#, but with different syntax. I don't get what's so hard about printing, either. Create a PrintDocument class, add graphics elements to its Graphics(GDI+) class. What's a PITA about that?
Also, there's a fairly complete list of both pros and cons at the end.
The point is that it is all voluntary and cooperative. Nobody is forced to do anything. The proposal to replace voluntary cooperation with quasi-governmental force is perverse.
True, but part of that small fraction is the authoritative root zone server. Disregarding the irrelevant fact that we invented it, we do own it. It is our property, and we don't force anyone to use it who doesn't want to. Thus, there is no moral or paractical justification to try to seize our property.
No, you are dumb. Nuclear batteries aren't tiny reactors, they are powered by the energy released through radioactive decay. They have no moving parts, the exist, and they work.
Yes.
You only have to know that it's enough power to render toy story in real time.
I agree, and the first applications will be jobs that are (a) easily automated, or (b) push the current limits of the abilities of humans to perform them. Under (a), you will have AI for things like navigation and logistics. Under (b), you will have semi-autonomous UAV, which will largely replace the use of fighter aircraft for reconnaisance, escort, and patrol duties, being able to far outperform any human pilot due to the biophysical limits of human pilots. You probably will also have smart bombers, which can be programmed with mission parameters and intelligently make flight and evasion decisions. The ultra-hazardous nature of this job would make it desirable to remove the need for human pilots.
Eyehome, bah. Nothing so special. I can do every single thing you said with a $100 used Xbox, and the Xbox even plays games!
Still?
Has it occurred to you that the NAVY's mission (this was on a NAVAL vessel, filled with NAVY personnel) was in fact accomplished?
Could this open some eyes and increase interest in alternative (Linux, Mac) offerings?
I can't believe PHB's are using "postmortem!" The term they are looking for is "After-Action Report", or "AAR" in mil-speak. Tell them that using military terms makes them sound bold and dynamic, while using medical pathology terms makes them sound weak and dying.
One possible (though not inexpensive) solution is to use Radio Shack's Adaptaplug products. You will still need one adapted for every discrete voltage you require, and they'll need to be beefy ones, probably. But each transformer has a socket on the end, like this, which you can then split as many times as necessary with a bunch of these or these. Purchase the appropriate tip for each of your devices, connect it to a lead from the appropriate voltage source, and you should be able to drastically reduce your power outlet usage. If you're really clever, use a surplus PC switching power supply as a single voltage source for all your rails (built in 12v and 5v, use voltage regulators to get the rest).
Any IM client/server system I use must be able to connect with a SIP server like Asterisk, so that I get automatic phone presence information and phone control in my IM client. Jive Messenger has this, so far, and so does Microsoft Office Communicator (though I'm not sure if that actually works with Asterisk - I doubt it ;)
Do the sysadmins play as the Q?
Where it starts getting tricky is how to connect your LAN-phones to the outside world. You can use POTS lines, or a BRI or PRI, or a T1, but that all requires additional hardware from Digium. You can get VOIP service from many cable companies and CallVantage and Vonage and such but beware! If the VoIP service requires you to use their hardware adapters, you STILL need additional hardware. You might save a little money, but other than that there is no advantage for POTS if you have to use their adapters. Plus, what a kludge that is. Your incoming call goes digial(in)--> analog(adapter)--> digital(PBX)--> analog(phone)--> digital(PBX)--> analog(adapter)--> digital(out) JUST in your PBX! If you can get/can afford the bandwidth, a 100% digital solution requires minimal hardware investment (only the phones and the PBX server). There still don't seem to be that many providers, though. But I have had pretty good luck with a couple. Broadvoice has a BYOD (bring your own device) line of rate plans that are compatible with Asterisk, though you can only have 2 simultaneous lines per account. Teliax has a flat-rate plan with up to 4 simultaneous calls, and you can have an unlimited number of simultaneous calls (subject to bandwidth constraints) using the Pay-As-You-Go plan. The other nice thing about Teliax is that it supports audio codecs other than the standard 64kbps(per incoming and outgoing channel) that Broadvoice supports. Using more efficient codecs will allow you to pack more simultaneous calls in the same amount of bandwidth.
Oh, and use a high-quality router that supports QTos packet prioritization.
I don't think that's as strong a point as you think it is. For example, for-profit industries have been our primary source of war materiel and defense procurements since just about the founding of the Republic, and this has not seriously weakened the country as a result. In fact, where advancement is needed the most, the incentive for profit is increased, because, unsurprisingly, the chance for big rewards leads people to take big risks. So I don't think the proper response to necessity or importance is to make profit illegal (quite the opposite, in fact) - the solution is to have better requirements in the first place. In other words, the government needs to be a much more savvy consumer and stop buying whatever crap is put in front of them. Essentially, this is what's happening in this case: the state is saying, this product does not meet our requirements. Diebold has the choice with complying with the requirements or losing the sales. If the motive for profit is strong enough, other companies with products that do meet the requirements will then compete to be selected. The state wins, the companies win, freedom wins.
I don't buy the premise that the ability to categorize a game means it is not fun, or even unoriginal. Just like in books, movies, and art good story and craft can transcend any genre - conversely, genre-bending unclassifiable works can be utter dreck.
The real story here is that they got a Webcam AND a sound card working under Linux...on the same box.
Must have been the "crazy" in "crazyphilman" that threw me off. It's a joke, son, laugh a little.
What the - you sound like George McFly. "What if the system were to fail? I just don't think I could handle that kind of rejection!"
"To avoid criticism, say nothing, do nothing, be nothing."
- Elbert Hubbard
I wonder, is this an example of delusion that the author referred to? Do you really know enough about low-level kernel resource management and subsystems to judge that the unix architecture is superior? Or is this just something you "know" to be true?
Maybe I'm way off base and you have very specific reasons for believing that the unix architecture is fundamentally better. But almost everyone I talk to who complains about the "architecture" is really complaining about tools, like shells and programs (e.g., PHP, Perl, etc.), and is relatively clueless about the OS architecture (disclosure, I think the modern NT kernel is pretty well-designed, even if the default tools are sub-par.)
Well, then, s/introvert/psychopath.