Meanwhile, Apple arrogantly fights their consumers:
Consumers: We want x. Apple: No, you want y, you just don't know it. Consumers: No, we really really really want x. Apple: Well.... here's y. Now, do you really want x? Consumer: Nope. This is what I wanted all along! Apple: Told you so.
So, the kernel isn't open source anymore. So, what? If a closed source kernel scares you that much, then it's your loss. Apple doesn't have to appeal to open source "fanboys" that refuse to have a single binary on their systems that hasn't gone through a custom compilation process.
To those guys, go back to your Gentoo boxes and shut up. We productive people that don't care where a binary comes from as long as it works and doesn't do anything malicious will go back to our work while you tweak your little compiler options and add little hacks and brag about how fast your system can go with your kernel modifications like a bunch of street racers.
If a system is good enough to use, use it. If not, and you can't change it, don't. For 99.999999% of the population, the stock kernel is enough; ironically, only 99% of the population is okay with that, so we have that 0.999999% that thinks they have to tweak everything when it really has no effect on their productivity.
My experiences are similar. My sister poured coke (not joking) into the keyboard of my family's iMac, so I went to get another one and made my sister come with the keyboard for the embarrassment (so that maybe she wouldn't be so sloppy around the computer in the future... didn't work). I had her explain what she did, and they laughed, gave us a keyboard, and sent us on our way. No questions about warranty or anything.
I'm actually surprised at the number of negative comments this has generated. There are three main reasons I see for this:
You don't like Bush, so the mere fact that he said it makes it bad.
You don't know jack about economics.
You are a programmer living in the U.S.
Firstly, Bush is promoting world economics, not just U.S. economics. Secondly, everybody always looks at politics and thinks "How does this benefit me?", but the fact is, most things the government does will not benefit you specifically. In the long run, you will benefit, but the effects will not be so easily traceable back to that policy you disagreed with so long ago. Promoting world economics promotes U.S. economics.
Outsourcing lowers the value of programming in the U.S. since it could be more cheaply acquired by outsourcing; it's true. Now, look past that. This lowers the number of demanded programmers in the U.S. (and the pay of those who do score programming jobs). Costs for software development is lowered, and the need for cheaper software is met. People who can't find jobs programming go on to find other kinds of jobs, those that are more profitable. Whenever a job is more profitable, that's because there is an unsatisfied need in the economy for that product or service. Overall, people will enjoy cheaper and more readily available products in every field, not just software.
Why should our economy be locked into these few things like software development when diverting our resources into more needy areas would be a greater benefit?
Christianity and science are not incompatible, nor are they compatible. Christians have no responsibility to make their views or others' views compatible with science, nor do scientist have any responsibility to make their experiments support Christianity. They are completely orthogonal views of the world and need not clash as so many have attempted to force.
To the atheistic or agnostic scientist, why does it matter so much that we "ignorant" Christians support your theories?
To the unscientific Christian, how are you going to prove such a highly spiritual and intangible thing as the love of God and the sacrifice of Christ in scientific terms with no tangible evidence and repeatable experiments to support it? Do you hope to be as smart as God himself, able to explain how He created everything?
To the Christian scientists, why force these views into the same direction when they so obviously do not clash even without your attempts at making them fit? Christian beliefs are not meant to be fit so a strict scientific model, nor is a scientific model meant to be fit to an untestable idea.
It doesn't matter that there is evidence for macro-evolution or the big bang. Either could be true or false. God doesn't care about that. Why should we?
Ruby is nothing like Java! Granted, the two languages to both have frameworks for web applications, but this article, of course, has nothing to do with web applications. Ruby as a language should be compared with Perl, Python, Smalltalk, etc. Java was designed for completely different things. It's apples to oranges.
Well, as the OS X x86 developers will say, Rosetta is already running very fast on their development machines. I don't think Apple is referring to these new Intel chips when they say Rosetta is fast. They're talking about the PPC to x86 translation.
The point isn't that they explicitly support the independents, but that they don't hold any group higher than any other. The top 20 is unbiased, generated solely on statistics.
Re:My iBook died two months ago...
on
New Apples Next Week
·
· Score: 3, Informative
1. You're right, PPC will dominate for a while, but I suspect that a larger number of people will be getting new Macs once the Intel Macs come out since they will be so afraid of their PPC Macs becoming quickly outdated.
2. The latest XCode still requires a little hunting to find the checkbox, which is not checked by default. In addition, there is often a bit more to making it cross-platform than checking a little checkbox, particularly when there is code which needs to be different for little endian and big endian. For a Cocoa application, that is minimal, but for Carbon, it takes quite a bit of effort.
Current iPods don't try playing music without headphones; the built-in speaker is far too small and crappy to satisfactorily handle it. Parallel to that, an iPod will never play a movie on its tiny screen; the built-in screen is far too small and crappy to satisfactorily handle it. Just like existing iPods require headphones to play music, a video iPod would require an external display of some sort to play movies. This is not a problem as movies on the go are rather pointless. You can't generally be on the go if you have to stare at a tiny screen. It would be great to just be able to enter a room with a TV and plug an iPod up to it. That is all the iPod needs to do as far as movies go. If you really care to watch a movie "on the go," then a third party screen which clips to your iPod or something should work for you.
So, you had a couple run-ins with faulty iPods and you feel the need to anonymously discredit Apple by making up crap about stolen credit card numbers in iTunes? If this is any indication about how you think, then I can still rest assured that all sane people prefer iPods.
To troll-hunters: the last sentence is a joke.
A big reason for me like this (and dislike it at the same time for security reasons) is that with a widely distributed system like this is will make it easier to keep track of who said what, even across multiple web sites. Each person would have the same name across many web sites, so those of us who are involved in multiple online communities can more easily keep track of people that share more than one common community with us. For example, I could identify Slashdot posts by people that go to the iDevGames forums like I do.
If somebody made counterfeit money and threw it around in the streets for others to pick up, is it the streets' fault? Should streets everywhere be shut down?
My experiences are that God can be proven to exist (not necessarily in a way that would please a scientist, but basic intuition and some observation skills can go a long way). The Christian faith is not about God's existence, but in trusting your life to a God that you already believe in.
"And given that there is no proof of such a being, apart from events and instances attributed to it, it is a matter of faith, and thus not of science."
Replace the word "being" with "phenomena" (in the context of macro-evolution), and it still holds true.
I really don't like this "new" definition for science. It is poorly worded and not really that different from the original. The issue they are trying to address, however, is valid. Is Creationism science? Most people say no, but the new definition is meant to include Creationism. Is Evolutionism science? Most people say yes, but it doesn't even fit the old definition of science.
"I think the problem you have is with the people who literally believe that a white-bearded man in a robe literally created the Universe and Earth in 6 days around 6000 years ago, and then created the life to go on on it, and who discount valid science wholesale."
Then again, that is no less believable or valid than the big bang theory or macro-evolution. For some, it's not a matter of discounting science, but of not seeing compelling enough evidence to have any reason to believe otherwise. I just don't see Earth developing as it has with just a few physics and chemistry rules that God (or no God) came up with billions of years ago.
The way I envision the creation of the universe is that God made everything, which includes matter, light, even mediums for matter and light to exist in, etc.); if we were to envision that medium we exist in as water, why would you say that God doesn't stick His finger in the water occasionally to speed up the process He already started? Is it really asking so much of a scientist/Christian to believe that God, 6000 to 8000 years ago, could have created the world in 6 days?
I am somewhat familiar with Mystic Christianity, but I can't say that I find it to more accurately describe God's plan than most Christians would tell you. It seems to be a religion designed for the sole purpose of appealing to everybody at once.
I believe that prayer connects me with God, and during my prayers, He has not led me to doubt scripture. I have been led to doubt clergy and many modern teachings, but never scripture. That doesn't mean I'm saying it's infallible, only that I have yet to find an untrue statement in scripture.
Mine always checks whenever it gets the chance if it was off during the night. That is, if I turn it off every night, then it checks when I turn it back on in the morning.
Slashdot Mirror
Meanwhile, Apple arrogantly fights their consumers:
Consumers: We want x.
Apple: No, you want y, you just don't know it.
Consumers: No, we really really really want x.
Apple: Well.... here's y. Now, do you really want x?
Consumer: Nope. This is what I wanted all along!
Apple: Told you so.
I'm tempted to make a web comic with this joke. May I use it?
The site it would be on is not up yet, but it should be within a couple of months.
So, the kernel isn't open source anymore. So, what? If a closed source kernel scares you that much, then it's your loss. Apple doesn't have to appeal to open source "fanboys" that refuse to have a single binary on their systems that hasn't gone through a custom compilation process.
To those guys, go back to your Gentoo boxes and shut up. We productive people that don't care where a binary comes from as long as it works and doesn't do anything malicious will go back to our work while you tweak your little compiler options and add little hacks and brag about how fast your system can go with your kernel modifications like a bunch of street racers.
If a system is good enough to use, use it. If not, and you can't change it, don't. For 99.999999% of the population, the stock kernel is enough; ironically, only 99% of the population is okay with that, so we have that 0.999999% that thinks they have to tweak everything when it really has no effect on their productivity.
My experiences are similar. My sister poured coke (not joking) into the keyboard of my family's iMac, so I went to get another one and made my sister come with the keyboard for the embarrassment (so that maybe she wouldn't be so sloppy around the computer in the future... didn't work). I had her explain what she did, and they laughed, gave us a keyboard, and sent us on our way. No questions about warranty or anything.
Firstly, Bush is promoting world economics, not just U.S. economics. Secondly, everybody always looks at politics and thinks "How does this benefit me?", but the fact is, most things the government does will not benefit you specifically. In the long run, you will benefit, but the effects will not be so easily traceable back to that policy you disagreed with so long ago. Promoting world economics promotes U.S. economics.
Outsourcing lowers the value of programming in the U.S. since it could be more cheaply acquired by outsourcing; it's true. Now, look past that. This lowers the number of demanded programmers in the U.S. (and the pay of those who do score programming jobs). Costs for software development is lowered, and the need for cheaper software is met. People who can't find jobs programming go on to find other kinds of jobs, those that are more profitable. Whenever a job is more profitable, that's because there is an unsatisfied need in the economy for that product or service. Overall, people will enjoy cheaper and more readily available products in every field, not just software.
Why should our economy be locked into these few things like software development when diverting our resources into more needy areas would be a greater benefit?
Well, for your DVD ripping, Handbrake is excellent. As for Quicken, I never much liked it anyway, but to each his own.
Christianity and science are not incompatible, nor are they compatible. Christians have no responsibility to make their views or others' views compatible with science, nor do scientist have any responsibility to make their experiments support Christianity. They are completely orthogonal views of the world and need not clash as so many have attempted to force.
To the atheistic or agnostic scientist, why does it matter so much that we "ignorant" Christians support your theories?
To the unscientific Christian, how are you going to prove such a highly spiritual and intangible thing as the love of God and the sacrifice of Christ in scientific terms with no tangible evidence and repeatable experiments to support it? Do you hope to be as smart as God himself, able to explain how He created everything?
To the Christian scientists, why force these views into the same direction when they so obviously do not clash even without your attempts at making them fit? Christian beliefs are not meant to be fit so a strict scientific model, nor is a scientific model meant to be fit to an untestable idea.
It doesn't matter that there is evidence for macro-evolution or the big bang. Either could be true or false. God doesn't care about that. Why should we?
Ruby is nothing like Java! Granted, the two languages to both have frameworks for web applications, but this article, of course, has nothing to do with web applications. Ruby as a language should be compared with Perl, Python, Smalltalk, etc. Java was designed for completely different things. It's apples to oranges.
Well, as the OS X x86 developers will say, Rosetta is already running very fast on their development machines. I don't think Apple is referring to these new Intel chips when they say Rosetta is fast. They're talking about the PPC to x86 translation.
The point isn't that they explicitly support the independents, but that they don't hold any group higher than any other. The top 20 is unbiased, generated solely on statistics.
1. You're right, PPC will dominate for a while, but I suspect that a larger number of people will be getting new Macs once the Intel Macs come out since they will be so afraid of their PPC Macs becoming quickly outdated. 2. The latest XCode still requires a little hunting to find the checkbox, which is not checked by default. In addition, there is often a bit more to making it cross-platform than checking a little checkbox, particularly when there is code which needs to be different for little endian and big endian. For a Cocoa application, that is minimal, but for Carbon, it takes quite a bit of effort.
Does this mean that iTunes will provide the ability to rip a DVD the same way it can rip a CD?
Current iPods don't try playing music without headphones; the built-in speaker is far too small and crappy to satisfactorily handle it. Parallel to that, an iPod will never play a movie on its tiny screen; the built-in screen is far too small and crappy to satisfactorily handle it. Just like existing iPods require headphones to play music, a video iPod would require an external display of some sort to play movies. This is not a problem as movies on the go are rather pointless. You can't generally be on the go if you have to stare at a tiny screen. It would be great to just be able to enter a room with a TV and plug an iPod up to it. That is all the iPod needs to do as far as movies go. If you really care to watch a movie "on the go," then a third party screen which clips to your iPod or something should work for you.
So, you had a couple run-ins with faulty iPods and you feel the need to anonymously discredit Apple by making up crap about stolen credit card numbers in iTunes? If this is any indication about how you think, then I can still rest assured that all sane people prefer iPods. To troll-hunters: the last sentence is a joke.
And I will now correct myself. It would not do this at all unless web sites started using peoples' IDs from this service as their public IDs.
A big reason for me like this (and dislike it at the same time for security reasons) is that with a widely distributed system like this is will make it easier to keep track of who said what, even across multiple web sites. Each person would have the same name across many web sites, so those of us who are involved in multiple online communities can more easily keep track of people that share more than one common community with us. For example, I could identify Slashdot posts by people that go to the iDevGames forums like I do.
Quit modding up trolls, flames, and ignorant comments! We get two or three diehards here and they take over the whole thread!
If somebody made counterfeit money and threw it around in the streets for others to pick up, is it the streets' fault? Should streets everywhere be shut down?
My experiences are that God can be proven to exist (not necessarily in a way that would please a scientist, but basic intuition and some observation skills can go a long way). The Christian faith is not about God's existence, but in trusting your life to a God that you already believe in.
"And given that there is no proof of such a being, apart from events and instances attributed to it, it is a matter of faith, and thus not of science."
Replace the word "being" with "phenomena" (in the context of macro-evolution), and it still holds true. I really don't like this "new" definition for science. It is poorly worded and not really that different from the original. The issue they are trying to address, however, is valid. Is Creationism science? Most people say no, but the new definition is meant to include Creationism. Is Evolutionism science? Most people say yes, but it doesn't even fit the old definition of science.
"I think the problem you have is with the people who literally believe that a white-bearded man in a robe literally created the Universe and Earth in 6 days around 6000 years ago, and then created the life to go on on it, and who discount valid science wholesale."
Then again, that is no less believable or valid than the big bang theory or macro-evolution. For some, it's not a matter of discounting science, but of not seeing compelling enough evidence to have any reason to believe otherwise. I just don't see Earth developing as it has with just a few physics and chemistry rules that God (or no God) came up with billions of years ago.
The way I envision the creation of the universe is that God made everything, which includes matter, light, even mediums for matter and light to exist in, etc.); if we were to envision that medium we exist in as water, why would you say that God doesn't stick His finger in the water occasionally to speed up the process He already started? Is it really asking so much of a scientist/Christian to believe that God, 6000 to 8000 years ago, could have created the world in 6 days?
I am somewhat familiar with Mystic Christianity, but I can't say that I find it to more accurately describe God's plan than most Christians would tell you. It seems to be a religion designed for the sole purpose of appealing to everybody at once. I believe that prayer connects me with God, and during my prayers, He has not led me to doubt scripture. I have been led to doubt clergy and many modern teachings, but never scripture. That doesn't mean I'm saying it's infallible, only that I have yet to find an untrue statement in scripture.
Mine always checks whenever it gets the chance if it was off during the night. That is, if I turn it off every night, then it checks when I turn it back on in the morning.
Interestingly, Mac IE 5 is still better in many ways than IE 6 for Windows. Superior PNG support and CSS and HTML is at least as good as Win IE 6.