conversations which take place over iMessage and FaceTime are protected by end-to-end encryption so no one but the sender and receiver can see or read them. Apple cannot decrypt that data.
conversations which take place over iMessage and FaceTime are protected by end-to-end encryption so no one but the sender and receiver can see or read them. Apple cannot decrypt that data. Only the NSA can.
Quite aside from the other purchase stoppers, I have a projection system, and the Kinect simply doesn't work in that environment -- I know this -- we tried it. It's blinded by the projector just to start, and when you stand where it can see your outline blocking the projector, you're an annoying shadow on the display anyway. Complete non-starter. We threw our Kinect in a box and never took it out again.
Reading old Python? Easy. Reading old C? Easy. Even reading old C++? Not too bad.
But... reading old Perl after a break from the language? I need to go re-learn the language, find out what all the obscure special variables do, do a complete refresh on regular expressions (remember when that was how people routinely parsed text? omg/lol), re-learn the broken parts (like, no 2D or higher arrays) and how the work-arounds look, and that only *preps* you to read the old code... it's still like slogging uphill in molasses.
I give Perl credit where it's due: It's pretty fast for a scripting language. Back when I wrote in it, knowing a lot less, and pre-Python, it did seem like the best choice. That was the mid- to late-90's.
But I would *never* use it again. Right now, for scripting, Python (2-series) is the choice I'd make, I'm utterly comfortable in it, it's totally easy, almost transparent to read, or at least the way I write it, it is, it's powerful as heck and it is also very fast, the exception mechanisms allow really solid, dependable code to be written in a very, to me, intuitive manner. Database interface is a doddle, in fact pretty much any common task is a doddle. Just a great language all around.
I do keep one snippet of perl code around: The code that lets me call an external Python procedure, so that when old Perl needs attention, if it isn't time-critical, it can get it by replacement. A huge time saver, many times over.
Otherwise, C or C++, depending on what the task is. I can read my old c code easily; I was always very conservative and consistent about bracing, tabbing, and so on, and I'm a liberal commenter, so generally the code is well explained too. Other people's code does throw me though... all you have to do is throw K&R style formatting in there and I immediately lose track of the brace levels, and it goes downhill from there. Luckily, I'm not in a position where I have to deal with anyone else's code except those who work for me, and therefore do it my way anyhow.
Honestly guys, would you all feel comfortable attending with a bunch of bros in banana hammocks?
Yes, perfectly comfortable. With or without my SO, who is most definitely a lady. She'd be fine with it too. Nothing offensive about men's bodies for me; they don't trip my trigger sexually, but they certainly don't bother me. Next question?
Good grief, are you ever bewildered. The dictionary definition of misogyny is hatred of women. Feminism is not the "notion that women are people"; it is the advancement of women to rights parity with men, something that badly needed doing, more so in the past, but still not fully addressed. Radical feminism brews sexuality into the whole thing in a pathological fashion, sundering gender identity, creating completely uncalled for barriers to social interaction, unasked for and unneeded, but forced, "protection" of women who don't buy into their worldview (that's what we call repression, son), and worse.
PS - You have NO idea what my relationship with women is. The idea that you, as confused as you are, think you can call such insights out is nothing short of hilarious. I"m not even sure you know what the word "people" means. Protip: It doesn't mean that they are who you expect them to be.
Not only that, but the new Mac Pro is probably the most original desktop computer design since.. desktop computers were invented.
Look, I *own* a Mac Pro. It's a great machine. The new one... it's neither innovative or great.
A machine that requires external expansion? Not new since Sinclair ZX-80 (or probably earlier.) A high power design that uses a vertical cooling tower? Audio's been doing this forever; all kinds of actually innovative cooling designs can be found in the history of audio power amplifiers. Tunnels, polygons, forced air, liquid, even semiconductor. Odd physical configuration? Tons of 'em out there. Raspberry pi. Mini ITX. or this. The new Mac Pro has a new CPU in it, as does virtually every iteration of these machines; it has a flash boot drive, like a lot of computers; and you're gonna have to spend a lot more money to make a worthwhile computer out of it... like a ZX-80. It's also likely to be very, very expensive. You know what that spells? "Not Buying"
But hey. You can always by a Mac Mini or an iMac. Those, at least, are working multicore computers out of the box. Or, I hasten to add, the current generation Mac Pro, which is a great machine.
It's even older than that. Sinclair ZX-80. Out of the box, basically neutered - 1k. Expansion port + devices (like RAM) and suddenly you could do stuff. And you know what people often did with it? Took it out of the stock case and moved it into one where they could add more stuff.
Apple's new Mac Pro... the very best idea I've heard of so far is a case that the new Mac Pro would load right into, in which the drive bays and video conversion connectors to standard video tech would be placed. Bingo... you get the horsepower of the machine, the clean design of a proper all in one system, the physical and vibrational security of enclosed drives, single power supply, perhaps even a PCI chassis. And best of all? You don't have a stupid trashcan on your desk.
Of course, if they price that trashcan where I expect them to, that's the end of that.
Yet if you ask people around what they think of prostitution, they'll think it's disgusting and that those women are whores.
For some values of "people", yes. For this person, no -- on both counts. Society at large is pretty dysfunctional when it comes to these issues. That's why such confusion about sexuality in general, paid or not, reigns in the minds of many.
There's a truism that always rises to the top when women claim such behavior is "beneath" them, and that they'll not engage in sexual behavior until married, etc. We've already established that you're trading for your sexual favors; what we're arguing about now is simply the price. When men argue about it on a woman's behalf... same answer, really.
Pretty much everything is a trade. To suddenly draw a line and say that *this* can't be traded for *that* in the face of an informed adult's choice to do so? That's just being retarded.
Of course not. Racism is about hatred for inherent qualities. Appreciating a sexy person isn't. You're utterly bewildered.
do you think misogyny should be more widely accepted
Mr. Hanky... I hate to be the one to break it to you, but those of us who admire the sexual presence, poise and potential of women in general don't hate women.
To suggest that we do... that's not very insightful, fella.
I will say that the nonsense spewed by those of you who think that the joyous and interested participation in the roles of the sexes should be categorized as misogyny -- the hatred of women -- should be a lot less widely accepted.
It's a perfect match. Tweaking the libido is entertainment. Games are entertainment. The age group here is largely young adult, sexually aware.
So, several things. First, the idea that the female psyche isn't tweaked by up front sexuality? That's dead at the door. It's a social thing right now to pretend that sexuality is "mommy magic" and shouldn't be in play, but that is, and has been for decades, just a toxic result of radical women's lib propaganda. Now that is not saying that women shouldn't have equal opportunity in jobs, salary, medical care, marriage, etc -- not at all. Equal opportunity in matters that are not themselves tied to one's sexuality is good (I don't need equal access to an obstetrician, women don't need equal access to a dick doctor. Few will hire a fellow to strip for other fellows, likewise few would hire women to strip for other women. Etc.) But it is saying that the sexes are different, and that's a good thing, and an interesting thing, and altogether something to be celebrated, elevated, emphasized and above all enjoyed.
Next, and standing all by itself, there's *nothing* wrong with marketing one's natural advantages. We do it with minds that are able to wrap around programming and engineering. Athletes do it with bodies that are able to excel under the stresses of sports, pro and amateur. Actors and models do it with looks that please the audience. And so on, ad infinitum. What's absolutely disgusting is when some idiot steps in and decides that some characteristic, sensuality and looks being perfect examples, isn't "appropriate" for someone to use, either personally, or by employing a third party to "bring" it.
Do people with natural advantages have an easier time going down various roads in life? Yes, they do. Do we have *any* right to say that they should not, or cannot, use those advantages to travel those roads? No, we don't -- there's nowhere to derive such a right from.
Here's an important tip on the term "liberation": When you find yourself saying "sure, you can choose to do that if you like", most probably, you're engaged in something along the lines of liberation. However, when you find yourself saying "you can't do that", you really need to look hard at what you're saying because most likely, what you're engaged in is repression, probably direct and senseless repression at that.
If there's something to question about the marketing here, it might be raised as, "Where are the handsome guys as marketing tweaks for the ladies"? If the buying audience is truly equally distributed between the sexes, then if the game companies have any sense (debatable, where's my new MechAssault?) then they'll hit the women in the same nerve centers. You think they don't enjoy interacting with hunky guys? Oh, silly, silly you.:)
And of course, if good looking people, highly sexual people, or people with moles offend ye, then avoid them, by all means. Just don't tell the rest of us what it is we can, should, or will enjoy.
I raise my glass to those who make personal, informed choices.
I raise my middle finger to those who would interfere with them.
Nor have they said, as yet, anywhere, "The new mac pro can drive up to six 2k displays"
You would think, given that very few people have 4k displays, and very few are interested in such, and even fewer could afford them even if they *are* interested, that they might have mentioned normal monitor capabilities.
Now, you may be perfectly correct in your assertion, what I am telling you is that Apple hasn't said *anything* that backs you up as yet. If they do, then we're down to the firewire brick problem. If they don't, then it's a 3-monitor white elephant of absolutely no interest.
Those words, in the context and parlance of the day the document was signed, mean a consistently armed and supplied citizen. They do not mean "national guard" or other formal government organization. See the definitions from that time.
Understood properly, that phrase means that each citizen should have, and bring to any call-up of citizens by the government, particular arms of a relatively uniform character, so much shot, so much powder, as these things are necessary to the security of a free state.
By term, "well regulated" meant what "consistent" does in modern parlance; and militia meant "ordinary citizen."
Definition: Militia -- A militia is a fighting force composed of ordinary citizens rather than government soldiers.
Definition: Well regulated: Consistent, uniform, regular
Even so, this phrase is explanatory -- it is not an instruction to the government, it is an explanation for the reader. The instruction is that the right to keep and carry shall not be infringed. There's no if, ands, or buts; there's no implication of any kind that only the government should be armed; and if you simply think about it, the presence of the statement in the bill of rights for the people isn't a sane place to put a statement that would mean "and the government shall have guns." No, when they say the right to "keep and carry", they are talking about the rights of you and I. Not Sgt. Doe of the official armed forces.
Please. Do a little research. The facts are right there for anyone who takes a few minutes to look them up.
I'm not saying that the 2nd is appropriate, or even sufficient, for the conditions we face today. I am saying that the legitimate way to change it is with article V, rather than with bullshit laws and deliberate mischaracterization or intentionally promoted naiveté that violate the spirit and the wording of the constitution.
If you want to change the 2nd, you don't do it by revisionist (or naive) misinterpretation of the actual wording: You do it with article V, "amendment." And if you think change is the way to go, by all means, get after that. But don't pretend the intent wasn't to have armed citizens. It was precisely that.
Why not change it arbitrarily, if it is insufficient to our needs today? Because if you can change the 2nd arbitrarily, you can change anything else arbitrarily, and then what is the constitution? Instead of a document that limits the the government in such a way as to not being authorized to infringe on your rights, it would become, as George Bush put it, "just a piece of paper." At that point, we're no better than any 3rd world dictatorship -- the government can do anything it wants, just because it wants to.
The fact is, at this point in time, all legislation about arms that imposes licenses, waiting periods, limits, or forbids ownership to any US citizen is an unauthorized, and therefore illegal and reprehensible imposition of arbitrary will. Why? Because such legislation infringes, that's why. Such bills are in direct violation of the US constitution. Any elected member of the government, or appointed member of the judiciary that is complicit in the production, support, or implementation of such bills is in abject violation of the oath they swore to obey and protect the constitution of the United States. There's nothing liberal or conservative about it. It's just government officials engaging in criminal activity -- no more, no less.
At this time, there is so much government malfeasance of this nature, it is almost certain that we can no longer stop or even slow our slide into arbitrary dictatorship. But it is still worth your while to know how the system was supposed to work, what happened to it, and therefore be able to make a start at thinking about what one might want to do about it.
The voters *did* throw out Bush (II), but SCOTUS handed the win to Bush anyway. Subsequent recounts showed SCOTUS to have been entirely wrong, but that doesn't matter, because, you know, "it had been decided."
Wouldn't have mattered a whit, though. Gore is a disingenuous, lying sack of shit. So is Bush. So is Obama. So is Romney. Those are the choices we get: turd sandwich or shit croissant. All the while, congress is selected the same way -- meaning all the choices we get on both sides are total shit -- but institutionally maintains a position well below that of any individual: together, acting as a group, congress achieves levels of perfidy and corruption that one person, acting alone in the office of president, could not even hope to reach. As for the forest of unelected TLA operators... game over, kids.
Actually, the way to say it is: More than half the people are IQ 100 or under. Because the peak of the curve is 100, there are just about as many people at 100 as there are at 99, leaving less than half under 100 (and less than half over 100 as well); Or, you could say there are just as many people with IQ's under 100 as there are with IQ's over 100.
One thing it isn't, is a joke. It's math. Sad math, but math nonetheless.
You couldn't be more wrong. They do not use the legacy file system as you know it. They use a task specific file system. It's evident in every aspect of iCloud, and iTunes.
You're bewildered. The device uses a filesystem just as we know it. The user doesn't get to see it, but it is there. Additionally, there's a filesystem exposed to the user that consists of app-on-desk and/or-app-in-folder; this is horribly broken, but nonetheless allows the user to organize apps in the way that the computing community has long determined to be desirable.
You should ask yourself this: Why are there named user folders in iOS in the first place? There are two obvious reasons: to reduce clutter, and so you can *organize* your apps: games, photography, etc. To argue that organization at the user defined level isn't Apple's goal is ridiculous, that's exactly what the folders have done all along. They just have not done it well. Now that the count limits have been sundered, they'll be better; but you mark my words, these other limits are also impacting the device's ability to do work, and creating one-app-only zones where anything that can be done to a file must be in the one app that owns it, with the notable exception of the photos, where Apple has made the mistake of again creating a unique filesystem for them that doesn't benefit anything else. It is form over function, and it's well known to be the wrong path. Why did it work with iOS at all? Because these devices started out as non-general-purpose computing platforms. But now they're much more powerful, and so they're going to have to come with a general purpose filesystem to complement them. There are several ways to do that, but the current implementation is only a partial image of one of them, and amusingly in the case of your arguing position, it's a limited version of the bog-standard computer filesystem we're all familiar with.
You see the files specific to the task you are working on.
No. You don't. That's part of the problem. If I have a text file, there should be all manner of apps that might have business with that file. Text editors. Log viewers. Spellcheckers. Many more. But because the paradigm is primarily app-owns-file, this sharing is crippled. You can't use the synergy of multiple apps to work on files, and that shoots the device, and the user, right in the foot. If, on the other hand, one could organize one's data and access it via that organization, without relying on a broken idea of app-owns-document, then that synergy would be brought up to the level of a modern computer system. It's a failed, crippled vision and Apple has already begun to revise it with iOS 7. Further, not only should apps be able to see whatever files you want them to, you should be able to put one swatch of (for instance) text files in one folder, related to one task, and another swatch for another task in another folder. This prevents you from having to wade through every file for every task that you ever did.
I'm not looking at it from the perspective of a "geek", as you wrongly assume, or the least bit concerned about multiple shells, etc.; I'm looking at it from the perspective of a business owner for whom the functionality of iOS falls far short of what I need just with conventional file management for mundane, non-geeky files. Would geeks benefit from such changes? Sure. Would the left side of the Gaussian be bewildered and lost? Unlikely. The existence of the ability to create subfolders does not have to be used. The search facility is still there, much like Spotlight exists on OSX. You *can* use such a system like a drooling idiot; but it makes no sense whatsoever to limit everyone to that status.
Imagine the iOS device after years of use. Full of files, many perhaps of the same name. You search for "mom" but there are 40 instances. Which one is the one you want? Without folder organization, how can you tell? This is just one of the obvious pitfa
Wrong. The apps on desk, apps in folders functionality IS a filesystem. It's broken, and stupid, but it's still a filesystem. There's a perfectly good filesystem within the context of the actual OS -- it couldn't run without one -- but the user has their own. Apple partially addressed their mistakes with iOS 7, allowing many items in a folder (finally) and I expect they'll allow subfolders next time around as people continue to demand them. It's entirely irrelevant if they expose *the* filesystem, the point was, the unit USES a filesystem, and the user needs A filesystem; the apps=on-desk and/or-in-folder functionality IS, in fact, A filesystem, albeit a crippled and pitiful one. Apple will either up the iPad's game to be more capable or it will be left in the dust as this class of devices becomes more powerful overall. People on the right side of the Gaussian are interested in doing real work on these tablets (and perhaps even on the phones.) You can't do that until applications can work in synergy, apps don't have to reinvent every feature in order to make use of it, apps can share data, there's a reasonable way to organize both apps *and* data, and limits on folder content count are lifted (and as I said, Apple's already addressing the fact that they screwed that up badly.)
When I download or create a file, I need to be able to get at it with all of the apps that can deal with it. I need to be able to put it somewhere so that I can find it again with minimal effort -- and no, that doesn't mean typing its name into a search box -- it means "tap."
You'll see. Apple's stuck in the 1970s. Back then, we looked at, and tried, no folders, and limited file counts. We got past that as fast as we could, because it sucks. Apple's always had a problem with form over function; the mac mini is an example where they realized it and fixed it. The new Mac Pro and the filesystem exposed to the user in iOS are two areas you'll see change in rather short order now.
Have you ever taken LSD? It's an experience that cannot be described to someone who has not; there is no frame of reference. Trying to describe an LSD trip is like trying to describe what the color red looks like to a man blind since birth. It's called a hallucinogen but you don't really hallucinate, rather you misinterpret your senses, which completely overload your brain. A normal brain filters the senses, LSD removes its ability to do that. When you come down you can't really remember exactly what it was like; your brain is not the same.
Yes. Many times. I even spent a year and a half incarcerated in my teens for my LSD adventures. You need to keep in mind that your description is your take on your experience. You didn't have my experience, or anyone else's for that matter. No consensuality. No repeatability. I might have seen flaming leaves; you might have smelled polka dots. I might have found the experience discomfiting; you might have found it revelatory. Or infinite variations of a similar disjoint nature.
Of course not, unless they believe that the experience is real.
I think you're selling the theater of the mind quite short. Again, your experience is not my experience. A well written book will can transport me (and let me admit here that I own a literary agency, and am the son of one of the golden age SF writers, a hugo, and other, award winner... I know at least a little bit about well written books.) For that matter, you're selling theater short. Take a horror movie. Why do people scream when watching them? It's just a movie, and underneath that, it's a complete fiction, and they absolutely know that going in. Yet they scream. What's that about, other than accepting the experience as what's actually happening? I mean, either that, or they're faking like a bunch of fools pretending to speak in tongues. Which -- quite frankly -- I don't buy. Screams and other reactions are too common and too well aligned with what's going on on-screen or on-stage to be that kind of fakery.
I can't agree with your diagram at all
That's fine. You're entitled to your own opinion; you just aren't entitled to mine. Looking at the rest of what you said there, particularly your idea of how many scientists are religious... I'm also compelled to remind you that the real world disagrees with your perception. You might want to look into that.
No. I'm thinking, based on what info Apple has provided so far on this specific machine, rather than making assumptions. You should try it.
You have six TB ports, which are Mini-DisplayPort compatible
You're making an assumption here, when Apple has, this far, said the machine can drive three monitors. Your assumption may, or may not, be a good one. I, on the other hand, am not making any assumptions. However, if it turns out that all of these can drive monitors, that's good, but then that leaves me with firewire drives, which isn't.
Where do you put put it? You put the new Pro and an good external RAID box, and maybe a nice potted plant, in the huge empty space on your desk left by not having a huge tower case full of fans.
You assume I want a raid box. I don't. You assume all this will have a smaller and safer footprint than a current gen mac pro. It won't. You're going to need power strips, power bricks, and HD bricks *at a minimum*. As for space, the old Mac Pro (I have an 8-core, externally physically like the current gen), and do you see it inconveniencing me here? No, you don't. And I don't plan to go there, either.
Encapsulate this Mac Pro core cylinder inside a normal chassis of your choice, that has all the hard drive mounting space you could want, and contain all the wires that you're worried about your cat or Bubba unplugging. You can even bolt your custom chassis to the desk.
There are some issues -- like power up and down access -- but it's not a bad idea at all, really. Case with a big exhaust fan on top. If the cylinder fits inside a standard case. Or -- perhaps -- someone will build a solution so this machine is reasonable to use. Seems like a market opportunity.
Are you telling me that your cat keeps unplugging your mouse and keyboard too? Or has your solution been to go Bluetooth for those and invest in Duracell?
Yeah, my cat has unplugged my USB stuff many times. There's a fair bit of it. Powermate, MIDI control surface, microscope, scanner, oscilloscope, SDR, DSLR, guitar/bass input, keyboard... the mouse, happily, is bluetooth. See no reason to deal with a tail there. It's pretty annoying when I get "catted", but rarely even comes close to reaching the level of crazy that would be experienced if data on a drive was damaged. IMHO, drives belong in a safe, secure, vibration free environment. Which my desk most definitely is not. Other's milage may vary; but mine doesn't. I actually like your case-around-a-case idea, though.
but DVI is limited to 8-bit color while the displayport can supply the monitor with 10-bit color;
That's perfectly fine. The human eye can't discern a 1/256th step when the entire range lies within the normal human brightness capability without iris variance (which, if your monitor is adjusted correctly, is always the case when looking at one.) Try looking at a 256 level greyscale on a high quality linear (meaning, probably not an LCD) monitor one day; you simply can't pick out a single change -- and your eye is most sensitive to greyscale changes. You're even less able to tell the difference of one step out of a 16 million color range; compared to your rods, your cones kinda suck.:) Where extra bit depth actually benefits you the most is in the data of an image so you can recover very low contrast detail and stretch ranges without creating banding; not in its final display. And my DSLR and editing software have that handled quite well.
All thunderbolt ports are half PCIe and half displayport, meaning all 6 are also displayports. You can drive 6 2K monitors off this thing.
That's been the case, but the ads for this thing talk -- consistently -- about being able to drive three monitors at up to 4k. It's quite possible that they didn't hook a graphics engine to three of the ports, but instead, only the general bus stuff. Not saying they did or didn't, just that the marketing to date on the Apple site and at devcon really doesn't lay this out explicitly. So until they say "can drive six monitors directly", I'm not assuming that's the case. And, if it *is* the case, then I'm left with firewire for the drives -- desk-bricks -- which makes me pretty unhappy, especially when the current model has no such problem. So does the flash boot drive. I'm not yet to the point where I trust flash to survive for long, limited writes and etc (and on a system that writes logs constantly!), and although the flash is apparently replaceable, a replace and reinstall of the OS, plus possible disruption of apps... that's not exactly my favorite vision of the evening, you know?
Uhmmm... 3 x 4k monitors. I guess it can drive more than that using "normal" monitors.
You guess? Where does it actually say this? If it can actually drive six or more monitors at reasonable resolutions (4k is silly, frankly, unless you have a 40 foot wide display) without external graphics bricks, that's definitely of interest. It doesn't solve the external drive brick problem, though.
and you can daisy chain those
What are you talking about "daisy chain" -- I'm talking about DVI, VGA, etc. They don't daisy chain. Are you talking about monitors that are "thunderbolt" or whatever? Don't own any, don't think it makes any sense to own any, already have a forest of perfectly good monitors anyway.
Why waste space with internal drives and connectors that are slower than the external ones?
So your desk doesn't turn into a garbage dump? So you don't knock the drive off onto the floor? So the cat doesn't yank the plug out during a write? So Bubba doesn't walk off with my drives? So the drive noise is muted by the case? So the drives get power and cooling inside, instead of from some noisy-ass switcher brick? So there aren't more power strips on the desk than pics of the family? So I can pick it up and move it without a scad of external stuff trailing along behind it? And this is a machine that apparently is going to need all six of those fancy new plugs with DVI or VGA adapters to drive monitors, if in fact it can do that -- so the only option left is firewire drives, which present all the same problems.
The bandwidth in thunderbolt 2 should be enough for some serious raid configurations, right?
Where? In your desk drawer? Glued to the ceiling? In the refrigerator? Seriously, this "put it all external" nonsense just isn't going to fly. USB is bad enough. Not going to exacerbate the brick problem. If the machine can't operate as a single unit, it's not for me, that's all. You want one, cheers, enjoy. I'm sure someone will want one. I'm also pretty sure they'll hate the thing once they face the reality of all that desk cruft, but I admit, it's only an opinion.:)
External disk makers are going to be very happy
With you, perhaps. All they're getting out of me is laughter. It's a dumb design. It's form over function. Something Apple has a real problem with, although sometimes, as with the Mac Mini, they come along and fix it later.
Slashdot Mirror
conversations which take place over iMessage and FaceTime are protected by end-to-end encryption so no one but the sender and receiver can see or read them. Apple cannot decrypt that data. Only the NSA can.
Bundling bags. They solve all manner of problems.
Quite aside from the other purchase stoppers, I have a projection system, and the Kinect simply doesn't work in that environment -- I know this -- we tried it. It's blinded by the projector just to start, and when you stand where it can see your outline blocking the projector, you're an annoying shadow on the display anyway. Complete non-starter. We threw our Kinect in a box and never took it out again.
I can vouch for this.
Reading old Python? Easy. Reading old C? Easy. Even reading old C++? Not too bad.
But... reading old Perl after a break from the language? I need to go re-learn the language, find out what all the obscure special variables do, do a complete refresh on regular expressions (remember when that was how people routinely parsed text? omg/lol), re-learn the broken parts (like, no 2D or higher arrays) and how the work-arounds look, and that only *preps* you to read the old code... it's still like slogging uphill in molasses.
I give Perl credit where it's due: It's pretty fast for a scripting language. Back when I wrote in it, knowing a lot less, and pre-Python, it did seem like the best choice. That was the mid- to late-90's.
But I would *never* use it again. Right now, for scripting, Python (2-series) is the choice I'd make, I'm utterly comfortable in it, it's totally easy, almost transparent to read, or at least the way I write it, it is, it's powerful as heck and it is also very fast, the exception mechanisms allow really solid, dependable code to be written in a very, to me, intuitive manner. Database interface is a doddle, in fact pretty much any common task is a doddle. Just a great language all around.
I do keep one snippet of perl code around: The code that lets me call an external Python procedure, so that when old Perl needs attention, if it isn't time-critical, it can get it by replacement. A huge time saver, many times over.
Otherwise, C or C++, depending on what the task is. I can read my old c code easily; I was always very conservative and consistent about bracing, tabbing, and so on, and I'm a liberal commenter, so generally the code is well explained too. Other people's code does throw me though... all you have to do is throw K&R style formatting in there and I immediately lose track of the brace levels, and it goes downhill from there. Luckily, I'm not in a position where I have to deal with anyone else's code except those who work for me, and therefore do it my way anyhow.
Yes, perfectly comfortable. With or without my SO, who is most definitely a lady. She'd be fine with it too. Nothing offensive about men's bodies for me; they don't trip my trigger sexually, but they certainly don't bother me. Next question?
Good grief, are you ever bewildered. The dictionary definition of misogyny is hatred of women. Feminism is not the "notion that women are people"; it is the advancement of women to rights parity with men, something that badly needed doing, more so in the past, but still not fully addressed. Radical feminism brews sexuality into the whole thing in a pathological fashion, sundering gender identity, creating completely uncalled for barriers to social interaction, unasked for and unneeded, but forced, "protection" of women who don't buy into their worldview (that's what we call repression, son), and worse.
PS - You have NO idea what my relationship with women is. The idea that you, as confused as you are, think you can call such insights out is nothing short of hilarious. I"m not even sure you know what the word "people" means. Protip: It doesn't mean that they are who you expect them to be.
Look, I *own* a Mac Pro. It's a great machine. The new one... it's neither innovative or great.
A machine that requires external expansion? Not new since Sinclair ZX-80 (or probably earlier.) A high power design that uses a vertical cooling tower? Audio's been doing this forever; all kinds of actually innovative cooling designs can be found in the history of audio power amplifiers. Tunnels, polygons, forced air, liquid, even semiconductor. Odd physical configuration? Tons of 'em out there. Raspberry pi. Mini ITX. or this. The new Mac Pro has a new CPU in it, as does virtually every iteration of these machines; it has a flash boot drive, like a lot of computers; and you're gonna have to spend a lot more money to make a worthwhile computer out of it... like a ZX-80. It's also likely to be very, very expensive. You know what that spells? "Not Buying"
But hey. You can always by a Mac Mini or an iMac. Those, at least, are working multicore computers out of the box. Or, I hasten to add, the current generation Mac Pro, which is a great machine.
It's even older than that. Sinclair ZX-80. Out of the box, basically neutered - 1k. Expansion port + devices (like RAM) and suddenly you could do stuff. And you know what people often did with it? Took it out of the stock case and moved it into one where they could add more stuff.
Apple's new Mac Pro... the very best idea I've heard of so far is a case that the new Mac Pro would load right into, in which the drive bays and video conversion connectors to standard video tech would be placed. Bingo... you get the horsepower of the machine, the clean design of a proper all in one system, the physical and vibrational security of enclosed drives, single power supply, perhaps even a PCI chassis. And best of all? You don't have a stupid trashcan on your desk.
Of course, if they price that trashcan where I expect them to, that's the end of that.
For some values of "people", yes. For this person, no -- on both counts. Society at large is pretty dysfunctional when it comes to these issues. That's why such confusion about sexuality in general, paid or not, reigns in the minds of many.
There's a truism that always rises to the top when women claim such behavior is "beneath" them, and that they'll not engage in sexual behavior until married, etc. We've already established that you're trading for your sexual favors; what we're arguing about now is simply the price. When men argue about it on a woman's behalf... same answer, really.
Pretty much everything is a trade. To suddenly draw a line and say that *this* can't be traded for *that* in the face of an informed adult's choice to do so? That's just being retarded.
Of course not. Racism is about hatred for inherent qualities. Appreciating a sexy person isn't. You're utterly bewildered.
Mr. Hanky... I hate to be the one to break it to you, but those of us who admire the sexual presence, poise and potential of women in general don't hate women.
To suggest that we do... that's not very insightful, fella.
I will say that the nonsense spewed by those of you who think that the joyous and interested participation in the roles of the sexes should be categorized as misogyny -- the hatred of women -- should be a lot less widely accepted.
Most at 30 are just smart enough to pretend otherwise to avoid arousing politically correct morons.
FTFY
It's a perfect match. Tweaking the libido is entertainment. Games are entertainment. The age group here is largely young adult, sexually aware.
So, several things. First, the idea that the female psyche isn't tweaked by up front sexuality? That's dead at the door. It's a social thing right now to pretend that sexuality is "mommy magic" and shouldn't be in play, but that is, and has been for decades, just a toxic result of radical women's lib propaganda. Now that is not saying that women shouldn't have equal opportunity in jobs, salary, medical care, marriage, etc -- not at all. Equal opportunity in matters that are not themselves tied to one's sexuality is good (I don't need equal access to an obstetrician, women don't need equal access to a dick doctor. Few will hire a fellow to strip for other fellows, likewise few would hire women to strip for other women. Etc.) But it is saying that the sexes are different, and that's a good thing, and an interesting thing, and altogether something to be celebrated, elevated, emphasized and above all enjoyed.
Next, and standing all by itself, there's *nothing* wrong with marketing one's natural advantages. We do it with minds that are able to wrap around programming and engineering. Athletes do it with bodies that are able to excel under the stresses of sports, pro and amateur. Actors and models do it with looks that please the audience. And so on, ad infinitum. What's absolutely disgusting is when some idiot steps in and decides that some characteristic, sensuality and looks being perfect examples, isn't "appropriate" for someone to use, either personally, or by employing a third party to "bring" it.
Do people with natural advantages have an easier time going down various roads in life? Yes, they do. Do we have *any* right to say that they should not, or cannot, use those advantages to travel those roads? No, we don't -- there's nowhere to derive such a right from.
Here's an important tip on the term "liberation": When you find yourself saying "sure, you can choose to do that if you like", most probably, you're engaged in something along the lines of liberation. However, when you find yourself saying "you can't do that", you really need to look hard at what you're saying because most likely, what you're engaged in is repression, probably direct and senseless repression at that.
If there's something to question about the marketing here, it might be raised as, "Where are the handsome guys as marketing tweaks for the ladies"? If the buying audience is truly equally distributed between the sexes, then if the game companies have any sense (debatable, where's my new MechAssault?) then they'll hit the women in the same nerve centers. You think they don't enjoy interacting with hunky guys? Oh, silly, silly you. :)
And of course, if good looking people, highly sexual people, or people with moles offend ye, then avoid them, by all means. Just don't tell the rest of us what it is we can, should, or will enjoy.
I raise my glass to those who make personal, informed choices.
I raise my middle finger to those who would interfere with them.
Now, let the politically correct bunk commence.
Nor have they said, as yet, anywhere, "The new mac pro can drive up to six 2k displays"
You would think, given that very few people have 4k displays, and very few are interested in such, and even fewer could afford them even if they *are* interested, that they might have mentioned normal monitor capabilities.
Now, you may be perfectly correct in your assertion, what I am telling you is that Apple hasn't said *anything* that backs you up as yet. If they do, then we're down to the firewire brick problem. If they don't, then it's a 3-monitor white elephant of absolutely no interest.
That's just... loopy
Those words, in the context and parlance of the day the document was signed, mean a consistently armed and supplied citizen. They do not mean "national guard" or other formal government organization. See the definitions from that time.
Understood properly, that phrase means that each citizen should have, and bring to any call-up of citizens by the government, particular arms of a relatively uniform character, so much shot, so much powder, as these things are necessary to the security of a free state.
By term, "well regulated" meant what "consistent" does in modern parlance; and militia meant "ordinary citizen."
Definition: Militia -- A militia is a fighting force composed of ordinary citizens rather than government soldiers.
Definition: Well regulated: Consistent, uniform, regular
Even so, this phrase is explanatory -- it is not an instruction to the government, it is an explanation for the reader. The instruction is that the right to keep and carry shall not be infringed. There's no if, ands, or buts; there's no implication of any kind that only the government should be armed; and if you simply think about it, the presence of the statement in the bill of rights for the people isn't a sane place to put a statement that would mean "and the government shall have guns." No, when they say the right to "keep and carry", they are talking about the rights of you and I. Not Sgt. Doe of the official armed forces.
Please. Do a little research. The facts are right there for anyone who takes a few minutes to look them up.
I'm not saying that the 2nd is appropriate, or even sufficient, for the conditions we face today. I am saying that the legitimate way to change it is with article V, rather than with bullshit laws and deliberate mischaracterization or intentionally promoted naiveté that violate the spirit and the wording of the constitution.
If you want to change the 2nd, you don't do it by revisionist (or naive) misinterpretation of the actual wording: You do it with article V, "amendment." And if you think change is the way to go, by all means, get after that. But don't pretend the intent wasn't to have armed citizens. It was precisely that.
Why not change it arbitrarily, if it is insufficient to our needs today? Because if you can change the 2nd arbitrarily, you can change anything else arbitrarily, and then what is the constitution? Instead of a document that limits the the government in such a way as to not being authorized to infringe on your rights, it would become, as George Bush put it, "just a piece of paper." At that point, we're no better than any 3rd world dictatorship -- the government can do anything it wants, just because it wants to.
The fact is, at this point in time, all legislation about arms that imposes licenses, waiting periods, limits, or forbids ownership to any US citizen is an unauthorized, and therefore illegal and reprehensible imposition of arbitrary will. Why? Because such legislation infringes, that's why. Such bills are in direct violation of the US constitution. Any elected member of the government, or appointed member of the judiciary that is complicit in the production, support, or implementation of such bills is in abject violation of the oath they swore to obey and protect the constitution of the United States. There's nothing liberal or conservative about it. It's just government officials engaging in criminal activity -- no more, no less.
At this time, there is so much government malfeasance of this nature, it is almost certain that we can no longer stop or even slow our slide into arbitrary dictatorship. But it is still worth your while to know how the system was supposed to work, what happened to it, and therefore be able to make a start at thinking about what one might want to do about it.
The voters *did* throw out Bush (II), but SCOTUS handed the win to Bush anyway. Subsequent recounts showed SCOTUS to have been entirely wrong, but that doesn't matter, because, you know, "it had been decided."
Wouldn't have mattered a whit, though. Gore is a disingenuous, lying sack of shit. So is Bush. So is Obama. So is Romney. Those are the choices we get: turd sandwich or shit croissant. All the while, congress is selected the same way -- meaning all the choices we get on both sides are total shit -- but institutionally maintains a position well below that of any individual: together, acting as a group, congress achieves levels of perfidy and corruption that one person, acting alone in the office of president, could not even hope to reach. As for the forest of unelected TLA operators... game over, kids.
Actually, the way to say it is: More than half the people are IQ 100 or under. Because the peak of the curve is 100, there are just about as many people at 100 as there are at 99, leaving less than half under 100 (and less than half over 100 as well); Or, you could say there are just as many people with IQ's under 100 as there are with IQ's over 100.
One thing it isn't, is a joke. It's math. Sad math, but math nonetheless.
You're bewildered. The device uses a filesystem just as we know it. The user doesn't get to see it, but it is there. Additionally, there's a filesystem exposed to the user that consists of app-on-desk and/or-app-in-folder; this is horribly broken, but nonetheless allows the user to organize apps in the way that the computing community has long determined to be desirable.
You should ask yourself this: Why are there named user folders in iOS in the first place? There are two obvious reasons: to reduce clutter, and so you can *organize* your apps: games, photography, etc. To argue that organization at the user defined level isn't Apple's goal is ridiculous, that's exactly what the folders have done all along. They just have not done it well. Now that the count limits have been sundered, they'll be better; but you mark my words, these other limits are also impacting the device's ability to do work, and creating one-app-only zones where anything that can be done to a file must be in the one app that owns it, with the notable exception of the photos, where Apple has made the mistake of again creating a unique filesystem for them that doesn't benefit anything else. It is form over function, and it's well known to be the wrong path. Why did it work with iOS at all? Because these devices started out as non-general-purpose computing platforms. But now they're much more powerful, and so they're going to have to come with a general purpose filesystem to complement them. There are several ways to do that, but the current implementation is only a partial image of one of them, and amusingly in the case of your arguing position, it's a limited version of the bog-standard computer filesystem we're all familiar with.
No. You don't. That's part of the problem. If I have a text file, there should be all manner of apps that might have business with that file. Text editors. Log viewers. Spellcheckers. Many more. But because the paradigm is primarily app-owns-file, this sharing is crippled. You can't use the synergy of multiple apps to work on files, and that shoots the device, and the user, right in the foot. If, on the other hand, one could organize one's data and access it via that organization, without relying on a broken idea of app-owns-document, then that synergy would be brought up to the level of a modern computer system. It's a failed, crippled vision and Apple has already begun to revise it with iOS 7. Further, not only should apps be able to see whatever files you want them to, you should be able to put one swatch of (for instance) text files in one folder, related to one task, and another swatch for another task in another folder. This prevents you from having to wade through every file for every task that you ever did.
I'm not looking at it from the perspective of a "geek", as you wrongly assume, or the least bit concerned about multiple shells, etc.; I'm looking at it from the perspective of a business owner for whom the functionality of iOS falls far short of what I need just with conventional file management for mundane, non-geeky files. Would geeks benefit from such changes? Sure. Would the left side of the Gaussian be bewildered and lost? Unlikely. The existence of the ability to create subfolders does not have to be used. The search facility is still there, much like Spotlight exists on OSX. You *can* use such a system like a drooling idiot; but it makes no sense whatsoever to limit everyone to that status.
Imagine the iOS device after years of use. Full of files, many perhaps of the same name. You search for "mom" but there are 40 instances. Which one is the one you want? Without folder organization, how can you tell? This is just one of the obvious pitfa
Wrong. The apps on desk, apps in folders functionality IS a filesystem. It's broken, and stupid, but it's still a filesystem. There's a perfectly good filesystem within the context of the actual OS -- it couldn't run without one -- but the user has their own. Apple partially addressed their mistakes with iOS 7, allowing many items in a folder (finally) and I expect they'll allow subfolders next time around as people continue to demand them. It's entirely irrelevant if they expose *the* filesystem, the point was, the unit USES a filesystem, and the user needs A filesystem; the apps=on-desk and/or-in-folder functionality IS, in fact, A filesystem, albeit a crippled and pitiful one. Apple will either up the iPad's game to be more capable or it will be left in the dust as this class of devices becomes more powerful overall. People on the right side of the Gaussian are interested in doing real work on these tablets (and perhaps even on the phones.) You can't do that until applications can work in synergy, apps don't have to reinvent every feature in order to make use of it, apps can share data, there's a reasonable way to organize both apps *and* data, and limits on folder content count are lifted (and as I said, Apple's already addressing the fact that they screwed that up badly.)
When I download or create a file, I need to be able to get at it with all of the apps that can deal with it. I need to be able to put it somewhere so that I can find it again with minimal effort -- and no, that doesn't mean typing its name into a search box -- it means "tap."
You'll see. Apple's stuck in the 1970s. Back then, we looked at, and tried, no folders, and limited file counts. We got past that as fast as we could, because it sucks. Apple's always had a problem with form over function; the mac mini is an example where they realized it and fixed it. The new Mac Pro and the filesystem exposed to the user in iOS are two areas you'll see change in rather short order now.
Yes. Many times. I even spent a year and a half incarcerated in my teens for my LSD adventures. You need to keep in mind that your description is your take on your experience. You didn't have my experience, or anyone else's for that matter. No consensuality. No repeatability. I might have seen flaming leaves; you might have smelled polka dots. I might have found the experience discomfiting; you might have found it revelatory. Or infinite variations of a similar disjoint nature.
I think you're selling the theater of the mind quite short. Again, your experience is not my experience. A well written book will can transport me (and let me admit here that I own a literary agency, and am the son of one of the golden age SF writers, a hugo, and other, award winner... I know at least a little bit about well written books.) For that matter, you're selling theater short. Take a horror movie. Why do people scream when watching them? It's just a movie, and underneath that, it's a complete fiction, and they absolutely know that going in. Yet they scream. What's that about, other than accepting the experience as what's actually happening? I mean, either that, or they're faking like a bunch of fools pretending to speak in tongues. Which -- quite frankly -- I don't buy. Screams and other reactions are too common and too well aligned with what's going on on-screen or on-stage to be that kind of fakery.
That's fine. You're entitled to your own opinion; you just aren't entitled to mine. Looking at the rest of what you said there, particularly your idea of how many scientists are religious... I'm also compelled to remind you that the real world disagrees with your perception. You might want to look into that.
No. I'm thinking, based on what info Apple has provided so far on this specific machine, rather than making assumptions. You should try it.
You're making an assumption here, when Apple has, this far, said the machine can drive three monitors. Your assumption may, or may not, be a good one. I, on the other hand, am not making any assumptions. However, if it turns out that all of these can drive monitors, that's good, but then that leaves me with firewire drives, which isn't.
You assume I want a raid box. I don't. You assume all this will have a smaller and safer footprint than a current gen mac pro. It won't. You're going to need power strips, power bricks, and HD bricks *at a minimum*. As for space, the old Mac Pro (I have an 8-core, externally physically like the current gen), and do you see it inconveniencing me here? No, you don't. And I don't plan to go there, either.
note: I didn't say anything about a raid array. I just said HD.
Q: What happens when I pull a monitor, mouse or keyboard cable? A: Nothing. I put it back and go on with life. No harm done.
Q: What happens when I pull a drive cable? A: Anything. I could lose a lot.
Q: What happens when someone steals my mouse? A: I get a new one, no problem.
Q: What happens when someone steals my HD? A: You don't wanna know.
In reality, one cable is not the same as the next cable, now, is it?
There are some issues -- like power up and down access -- but it's not a bad idea at all, really. Case with a big exhaust fan on top. If the cylinder fits inside a standard case. Or -- perhaps -- someone will build a solution so this machine is reasonable to use. Seems like a market opportunity.
Yeah, my cat has unplugged my USB stuff many times. There's a fair bit of it. Powermate, MIDI control surface, microscope, scanner, oscilloscope, SDR, DSLR, guitar/bass input, keyboard... the mouse, happily, is bluetooth. See no reason to deal with a tail there. It's pretty annoying when I get "catted", but rarely even comes close to reaching the level of crazy that would be experienced if data on a drive was damaged. IMHO, drives belong in a safe, secure, vibration free environment. Which my desk most definitely is not. Other's milage may vary; but mine doesn't. I actually like your case-around-a-case idea, though.
That's perfectly fine. The human eye can't discern a 1/256th step when the entire range lies within the normal human brightness capability without iris variance (which, if your monitor is adjusted correctly, is always the case when looking at one.) Try looking at a 256 level greyscale on a high quality linear (meaning, probably not an LCD) monitor one day; you simply can't pick out a single change -- and your eye is most sensitive to greyscale changes. You're even less able to tell the difference of one step out of a 16 million color range; compared to your rods, your cones kinda suck. :) Where extra bit depth actually benefits you the most is in the data of an image so you can recover very low contrast detail and stretch ranges without creating banding; not in its final display. And my DSLR and editing software have that handled quite well.
That's been the case, but the ads for this thing talk -- consistently -- about being able to drive three monitors at up to 4k. It's quite possible that they didn't hook a graphics engine to three of the ports, but instead, only the general bus stuff. Not saying they did or didn't, just that the marketing to date on the Apple site and at devcon really doesn't lay this out explicitly. So until they say "can drive six monitors directly", I'm not assuming that's the case. And, if it *is* the case, then I'm left with firewire for the drives -- desk-bricks -- which makes me pretty unhappy, especially when the current model has no such problem. So does the flash boot drive. I'm not yet to the point where I trust flash to survive for long, limited writes and etc (and on a system that writes logs constantly!), and although the flash is apparently replaceable, a replace and reinstall of the OS, plus possible disruption of apps... that's not exactly my favorite vision of the evening, you know?
You guess? Where does it actually say this? If it can actually drive six or more monitors at reasonable resolutions (4k is silly, frankly, unless you have a 40 foot wide display) without external graphics bricks, that's definitely of interest. It doesn't solve the external drive brick problem, though.
What are you talking about "daisy chain" -- I'm talking about DVI, VGA, etc. They don't daisy chain. Are you talking about monitors that are "thunderbolt" or whatever? Don't own any, don't think it makes any sense to own any, already have a forest of perfectly good monitors anyway.
So your desk doesn't turn into a garbage dump? So you don't knock the drive off onto the floor? So the cat doesn't yank the plug out during a write? So Bubba doesn't walk off with my drives? So the drive noise is muted by the case? So the drives get power and cooling inside, instead of from some noisy-ass switcher brick? So there aren't more power strips on the desk than pics of the family? So I can pick it up and move it without a scad of external stuff trailing along behind it? And this is a machine that apparently is going to need all six of those fancy new plugs with DVI or VGA adapters to drive monitors, if in fact it can do that -- so the only option left is firewire drives, which present all the same problems.
Where? In your desk drawer? Glued to the ceiling? In the refrigerator? Seriously, this "put it all external" nonsense just isn't going to fly. USB is bad enough. Not going to exacerbate the brick problem. If the machine can't operate as a single unit, it's not for me, that's all. You want one, cheers, enjoy. I'm sure someone will want one. I'm also pretty sure they'll hate the thing once they face the reality of all that desk cruft, but I admit, it's only an opinion. :)
With you, perhaps. All they're getting out of me is laughter. It's a dumb design. It's form over function. Something Apple has a real problem with, although sometimes, as with the Mac Mini, they come along and fix it later.