It's inevitable though that there will be a major OSX infection, so it's time for Mac users to get more conscious of this stuff.
"Pshaw! OS X will seamlessly update my applications wirelessly while I brew and sip my moca-latte, all with real time AJAX and SOAP requests over https with COCA SVG Widget bindings.
Mac users do not suffer from the contagions of the common masses."
I would imagine that it is something akin to the Official Secrets Act in the UK. This one is like reading the Riot Act, only it's never read aloud, you're not entitled to tell anyone it's been read to you and they are fully authorised to kill or imprision for life anyone who does not do exactly what they say, how they say it.
Which is a short way of saying that if the CIA wants Google to do something, Google will do it.
Yeah! I mean, what's the big deal. It's just super powerful government agencies flagrantly breaking the law. It's not like this is a bad thing. How could it be bad? The CIA is good. The government is good. They can't do bad things. It's just impossible. This is not bad. Ergo, it is good.
Gammas are the best class. I sure wouldn't want to be one of those Alphas or Betas.
How so? There is nothing inherent about xul that makes dynamic document generation easier. In fact, it's the same, using the DOM.
XUL, unlike DHTML, is build from the ground up to be dynamic. Working with XUL button tags is a lot handier than essentially hacking HTML input tags to be buttons.
Comparing AJAX to XUL is comparing apples to oranges. Because? XUL is just AJAX with DHTML replaced by something saner.
Care to elaborate? What is it about javascript that is so bad? What hassle? I find it to be one of the easiest object oriented languages.
There is no "class" keyword. You have to use "function" to create a class. I could go on, but this really says it all right there.
I personally have fired an MIT grad and opted to retain the community college grad, based on actual peformance, work ethic, and team mindedness.
In the end, tertiary education does not count for as much as some people think it does, especially in the business world. Tertiary education simply primes your for a certain kind of job. It does no actual on the job training. Sure, you got an 4.0 in your business degree, but can you actually sell product and make money?
Once you begin working, that is when your true worth becomes apparent.
When one thinks of digital music, one thinks mp3. People refer to their digital music collection as their "mp3" collection, despite the fact that there may be few or no mp3's in the entire archive.
Mp3 is ubiquitous. Despite Fraunhofer and Thomson's patents, portable music players will almost certainly support the standard, as will every single ripping application, somewhere in the background. Naturally, every sound player under the sun can play mp3 files, sometimes even when they can't play pcm or wav files.
Mp3 is here to stay, like; txt, html, avi, csv, vi and ascii. The quality might not be as good, but you can rely on the fact that it will play on virtually everything. Encoders like LAME will help keep it alive too. It will be surpassed yes, but never usurped. It might be the lowest common denominator, but sometimes that's exactly what you reach for.
Bitrates, surround sound, sample rates, quality, size, etc, etc. These are important to audiophiles, but the simple fact is; to most of the population, 128kbps stereo mp3 files encoded with something as good as LAME sound perfect as far as they are concerned.
Hardly anyone I know even uses surround sound to listen to their music anyway. That's for TV. I have two ears, and one channel in each is plenty. Unless humans evolve three more ears , no one realistically needs 5.1 on their iPods.
As to bitrate, quality, etc. Again, few people actually care, and even when they do, storage space is dirt cheap. I can buy 200GB for less than $100, so why waste my time encoding to a lower bitrate on a superior format? I don't know a single person who's ever filled up an iPod with greater than 40GB capacity. Lossless formats like FLAC will become popular long before people demand better quality mp3 sound.
Even id3 tags will probably stand the test of time. id3v2 is a flexible standard, and can keep growing while maintaining backwards compatability. There's also potential for a huge amount of data in there, and again most people won't really care. What they need is simply ripping applications that enter information for them, and they're done.
Mp3 isn't going anywhere. Its future is as the most used, listened to, encoded to and supported compressed sound format. It's competitors are more likely to bow out before mp3 hangs up its hat. The moral of todays story is; 'Sometimes, "Good Enough", is all it takes.'
Bit-Tech is reporting that the Ricky Gervais Show will cost $7 a month starting next week."
I suppose I just won't listen to the show then. Not that I've ever heard of it before anyway. Needless to say though, if Mr Gervais thinks he's going to get all his listeners to pony up $7 a month, I think he's going to have to come up witha much, much better act.
It's a bar. It holds icons, menu buttons, widgets, gadgets, notification areas, the whole nine yards. It's a toolbar, taskbar, menubar, chocolate bar, whatever! It's the same danm thing as the one on the bottom of the screen and I don't need two of them. It takes up space and accomplishes nothing in return.
As for spatial browsing --- the OS X Finder is the most widely hated piece of the OS among Apple users...
Only the louder users. Most relish in the sanity. Have you seen apple sales decline recently. Need I state that the great J man himself has given spatial browsing the touch of death, as do most Gnome users.
What second taskbar? There is only one taskbar. The thing at the top is a menu bar. It's there because the top and bottom of the screen are easiest to access, so it makes sense to use them fully for important functions like launching and switching apps.
It's a taskbar! And it's there because some bigshot at Gnome said it should be there. It has nothing to do with usability of any kind. HiG studies my ass. Is this from the same genius that thought up spatial browsing in Nautilus? Even the boys at Apple dropped that one.
I like Gnome, but I think that whoever is calling the shots there is becoming ever more removed from reality.
Gnome's decision to put the second taskbar on the top. Very irritating. Had to change everything around. Took ages. Didn't like it. Bad decision. IMHO.
Yes, GNOME 2.14 will be in both Fedora Core 5 and Ubuntu 6.04 aka Dapper Drake.
Fine. All I ask is that they don't try and force me into that wretched OSX two taskbar thing. One on the top?! What is this? Just buy the danm mac you hippies!!
Just because math is involved in creating software, it is not the same as saying that math IS the software.
The software IS the maths.
If my code uses a fourier transform, why should Microsoft be able to take me to court over copyright just because their code uses the same algorithim?
Now, change fourier transform for any software technique you can think of. Sorting lists, compression using wavelet transforms, traversing data structures, obtaining user input, whatever. The same arguments apply as all these operations are mathematical algorithims.
I thought "sweet!!!" now we don't need to have Firefox, or Mozilla on a system to run XUL-based programs (not that I don't love Firefox), but the download for XULRunner is bigger than the Firefox download.
I don't think XUL apps should really be used outside the browser. XUL is really designed to be an easy to program javascript frontend enviornment for clients. It should be a slim-client connecting to your main application on the server.
XUL is very good RAD tool. Much.. much much better than HTML.
I would classify XUL as a good GUI development tool. It's rapidity is quickly lost if one delves into any XPCOM backends.
However, for simple, client side, frontend GUI operations, XUL is a very, very useful tool. It gives you the ability of DHTML in a way that isn't a hack.
Here's a good example of XUL's layout capabilities. IN terms of pure layout, there not really that much here that is different from HTML. However when you get dynamic, XUL really shines. People go on about AJAX, but XUL offers a huge amount of potential.
Personally, I feels XUL's only achilles heel is javascript. That language needs a serious overhawl if anyone is to be able to use it without all that hassle.
As a GUI application development tool, I would expect XUL and XAML to replace older methods such as GTK and *shudder* Windows "Visual" code. It's faster, cleaner, makes more sense, and you don't need 300 lines of code plus libraries to draw a hello world window.
It's not about controlling that 1% of consumers. It's about reinforcing the idea of THIS DVD IS BELONGS TO THE STUDIO NOT YOU", in the minds of the other 99%.
These restrictions are required to keep people fearful of the mighty power of the studios, to spook them into not downloading films and music. "If they can do this to the TV makers, just think what they can do to me!"
I'm not a big fan of "near-identical" copyrighting source code.. It's almost like copyrighting mathematical equations.
It's not just like it. It is copyrighting mathematical equations, or more appropriately, mathematical algorithms. All software is a mathematical algorithm.
Of course, publications containing mathematical algorithms are copyrighted every day. Papers, books, lecture notes, etc, etc. But to argue that if I've used a Fourier Transform in my paper means you can't is obviously a fallacy. To argue that you can't even if you change the symbols or the presentation is ludacrious.
The grammar Nazi's might bemoan it, but the use of "like" in the article summary was more effective than if Hemos had used an exclamation mark. For example.
No one's written a truly new story in like five thousand years No one's written a truly new story in five thousand years!
In the first sentence, it's clear that the emphasis is on "five thousand years", as the author intended. In the second it is not clear where the emphasis is. Is it on the "truely new story", "no one's", "written". Is the entire sentence meant to be taken as exclamatory?
True, the editor could have used "...in over five thousand years" or perhaps even "...a truly new story; in five thousand years!", but I think the "like" gives enough pause and emphasis to the sentance to truely carry across the authors point.
People aren't using "like" flippantly for no reason. Sometimes it is used like "umm" and "aaa", but sometimes it is, like, very useful in emphasising certain sections of the sentence. OK?
Slashdot Mirror
I predict the N-Gage's future, much like this comments page, will be devoid of any real content.
It's inevitable though that there will be a major OSX infection, so it's time for Mac users to get more conscious of this stuff.
"Pshaw! OS X will seamlessly update my applications wirelessly while I brew and sip my moca-latte, all with real time AJAX and SOAP requests over https with COCA SVG Widget bindings.
Mac users do not suffer from the contagions of the common masses."
I would imagine that it is something akin to the Official Secrets Act in the UK. This one is like reading the Riot Act, only it's never read aloud, you're not entitled to tell anyone it's been read to you and they are fully authorised to kill or imprision for life anyone who does not do exactly what they say, how they say it.
Which is a short way of saying that if the CIA wants Google to do something, Google will do it.
Yeah! I mean, what's the big deal. It's just super powerful government agencies flagrantly breaking the law. It's not like this is a bad thing. How could it be bad? The CIA is good. The government is good. They can't do bad things. It's just impossible. This is not bad. Ergo, it is good.
Gammas are the best class. I sure wouldn't want to be one of those Alphas or Betas.
I'm wondering; is all this model driven code generation just a paradigm shift from text-based programming to graph-based programming?
I don't know about you, but when I program in text, I'm thinking in terms of some kind of graphical structure. Code indentation helps lots here.
How so? There is nothing inherent about xul that makes dynamic document generation easier. In fact, it's the same, using the DOM.
XUL, unlike DHTML, is build from the ground up to be dynamic. Working with XUL button tags is a lot handier than essentially hacking HTML input tags to be buttons.
Comparing AJAX to XUL is comparing apples to oranges.
Because? XUL is just AJAX with DHTML replaced by something saner.
Care to elaborate? What is it about javascript that is so bad? What hassle? I find it to be one of the easiest object oriented languages.
There is no "class" keyword. You have to use "function" to create a class. I could go on, but this really says it all right there.
what is this radioshack thing? is shaquille o'neal taking over it?
No. Rogers won.
I personally have fired an MIT grad and opted to retain the community college grad, based on actual peformance, work ethic, and team mindedness.
In the end, tertiary education does not count for as much as some people think it does, especially in the business world. Tertiary education simply primes your for a certain kind of job. It does no actual on the job training. Sure, you got an 4.0 in your business degree, but can you actually sell product and make money?
Once you begin working, that is when your true worth becomes apparent.
I think he is dealing with it... By um... Not purchasing the services... And spending the money on something else of more value.
That is capitalism too ya know.
That's not capitalism!!! That's UNAMERICAN!! You're supporting the terrorists!! Lynch him!!
When one thinks of digital music, one thinks mp3. People refer to their digital music collection as their "mp3" collection, despite the fact that there may be few or no mp3's in the entire archive.
Mp3 is ubiquitous. Despite Fraunhofer and Thomson's patents, portable music players will almost certainly support the standard, as will every single ripping application, somewhere in the background. Naturally, every sound player under the sun can play mp3 files, sometimes even when they can't play pcm or wav files.
Mp3 is here to stay, like; txt, html, avi, csv, vi and ascii. The quality might not be as good, but you can rely on the fact that it will play on virtually everything. Encoders like LAME will help keep it alive too. It will be surpassed yes, but never usurped. It might be the lowest common denominator, but sometimes that's exactly what you reach for.
Bitrates, surround sound, sample rates, quality, size, etc, etc. These are important to audiophiles, but the simple fact is; to most of the population, 128kbps stereo mp3 files encoded with something as good as LAME sound perfect as far as they are concerned.
Hardly anyone I know even uses surround sound to listen to their music anyway. That's for TV. I have two ears, and one channel in each is plenty. Unless humans evolve three more ears , no one realistically needs 5.1 on their iPods.
As to bitrate, quality, etc. Again, few people actually care, and even when they do, storage space is dirt cheap. I can buy 200GB for less than $100, so why waste my time encoding to a lower bitrate on a superior format? I don't know a single person who's ever filled up an iPod with greater than 40GB capacity. Lossless formats like FLAC will become popular long before people demand better quality mp3 sound.
Even id3 tags will probably stand the test of time. id3v2 is a flexible standard, and can keep growing while maintaining backwards compatability. There's also potential for a huge amount of data in there, and again most people won't really care. What they need is simply ripping applications that enter information for them, and they're done.
Mp3 isn't going anywhere. Its future is as the most used, listened to, encoded to and supported compressed sound format. It's competitors are more likely to bow out before mp3 hangs up its hat. The moral of todays story is; 'Sometimes, "Good Enough", is all it takes.'
* IP environmentalists hurling red paint at Patent Office employees while chanting 'Patents are Murder! Patents are Murder!'.
Well, million die every day because of pharmaceutical patents, so they wouldn't be far off the mark there.
Bit-Tech is reporting that the Ricky Gervais Show will cost $7 a month starting next week."
I suppose I just won't listen to the show then. Not that I've ever heard of it before anyway. Needless to say though, if Mr Gervais thinks he's going to get all his listeners to pony up $7 a month, I think he's going to have to come up witha much, much better act.
How is it a taskbar? I doesn't hold any tasks!
It's a bar. It holds icons, menu buttons, widgets, gadgets, notification areas, the whole nine yards. It's a toolbar, taskbar, menubar, chocolate bar, whatever! It's the same danm thing as the one on the bottom of the screen and I don't need two of them. It takes up space and accomplishes nothing in return.
As for spatial browsing --- the OS X Finder is the most widely hated piece of the OS among Apple users...
Only the louder users. Most relish in the sanity. Have you seen apple sales decline recently. Need I state that the great J man himself has given spatial browsing the touch of death, as do most Gnome users.
What second taskbar? There is only one taskbar. The thing at the top is a menu bar. It's there because the top and bottom of the screen are easiest to access, so it makes sense to use them fully for important functions like launching and switching apps.
It's a taskbar! And it's there because some bigshot at Gnome said it should be there. It has nothing to do with usability of any kind. HiG studies my ass. Is this from the same genius that thought up spatial browsing in Nautilus? Even the boys at Apple dropped that one.
I like Gnome, but I think that whoever is calling the shots there is becoming ever more removed from reality.
Gnome's decision to put the second taskbar on the top. Very irritating. Had to change everything around. Took ages. Didn't like it. Bad decision. IMHO.
(btw You shouldn't have "DDOSed" the poor server. It contains really nice information.)
I tried not to, but the other Slashdotters pushed me into it. Honest!
Yes, GNOME 2.14 will be in both Fedora Core 5 and Ubuntu 6.04 aka Dapper Drake.
Fine. All I ask is that they don't try and force me into that wretched OSX two taskbar thing. One on the top?! What is this? Just buy the danm mac you hippies!!
That NOT true!
The File menu has simply been integrated into the Edit menu. The Edit menu was then dropped.
Just because math is involved in creating software, it is not the same as saying that math IS the software.
The software IS the maths.
If my code uses a fourier transform, why should Microsoft be able to take me to court over copyright just because their code uses the same algorithim?
Now, change fourier transform for any software technique you can think of. Sorting lists, compression using wavelet transforms, traversing data structures, obtaining user input, whatever. The same arguments apply as all these operations are mathematical algorithims.
It had nothing to do with emphasis; it was just the in vogue bastardization of "like" to mean "approximately", or "circa", or "about", or "around".
You have, like, totally misunderstood the usage.
I thought "sweet!!!" now we don't need to have Firefox, or Mozilla on a system to run XUL-based programs (not that I don't love Firefox), but the download for XULRunner is bigger than the Firefox download.
I don't think XUL apps should really be used outside the browser. XUL is really designed to be an easy to program javascript frontend enviornment for clients. It should be a slim-client connecting to your main application on the server.
XUL is very good RAD tool. Much.. much much better than HTML.
I would classify XUL as a good GUI development tool. It's rapidity is quickly lost if one delves into any XPCOM backends.
However, for simple, client side, frontend GUI operations, XUL is a very, very useful tool. It gives you the ability of DHTML in a way that isn't a hack.
Here's a good example of XUL's layout capabilities. IN terms of pure layout, there not really that much here that is different from HTML. However when you get dynamic, XUL really shines. People go on about AJAX, but XUL offers a huge amount of potential.
Personally, I feels XUL's only achilles heel is javascript. That language needs a serious overhawl if anyone is to be able to use it without all that hassle.
As a GUI application development tool, I would expect XUL and XAML to replace older methods such as GTK and *shudder* Windows "Visual" code. It's faster, cleaner, makes more sense, and you don't need 300 lines of code plus libraries to draw a hello world window.
It's not about controlling that 1% of consumers. It's about reinforcing the idea of THIS DVD IS BELONGS TO THE STUDIO NOT YOU", in the minds of the other 99%.
These restrictions are required to keep people fearful of the mighty power of the studios, to spook them into not downloading films and music. "If they can do this to the TV makers, just think what they can do to me!"
I'm not a big fan of "near-identical" copyrighting source code.. It's almost like copyrighting mathematical equations.
It's not just like it. It is copyrighting mathematical equations, or more appropriately, mathematical algorithms. All software is a mathematical algorithm.
Of course, publications containing mathematical algorithms are copyrighted every day. Papers, books, lecture notes, etc, etc. But to argue that if I've used a Fourier Transform in my paper means you can't is obviously a fallacy. To argue that you can't even if you change the symbols or the presentation is ludacrious.
Same goes for code.
In the first sentence, it's clear that the emphasis is on "five thousand years", as the author intended. In the second it is not clear where the emphasis is. Is it on the "truely new story", "no one's", "written". Is the entire sentence meant to be taken as exclamatory?
True, the editor could have used "...in over five thousand years" or perhaps even "...a truly new story; in five thousand years!", but I think the "like" gives enough pause and emphasis to the sentance to truely carry across the authors point.
People aren't using "like" flippantly for no reason. Sometimes it is used like "umm" and "aaa", but sometimes it is, like, very useful in emphasising certain sections of the sentence. OK?