It would probably be pretty hard, considering that the XNU kernel OS X uses is based more on Mach than BSD. The underlying philosophy is different, too. Apple very much takes the attitude, "This is how do we it, this is the right way to do it, you had better do it this way too."
Ideologically at least, I support the idea of national missile defense. But one has to look at this from a cost-benefit angle. A system that could probably stop ICBMs would be worth spending quite a lot on (though not necessarily any obscene amount of money). A system that can maybe stop ICBMs under ideal conditions will probably not stop them in real life. It's still worth a lot, but not billions and billions. This is money that could be much better spent actually protecting America. For example, what's to stop somebody from landing a nuke on our shores in a small boat? How many thousands of times less would it cost to patrol our shores effectively than fuel some military-industrial boondoggle?
It depends. You can make a GUI "Hello world" in Cocoa without typing a single line of code: main() does contain a call to NSApplicationMain(), but that's part of the template when you start a new project.
I think the problem is that this "adaptation" is particularly egregious, even by Hollywood standards. Sure, maybe "I, Robot" had little to do with the book.
The value I derive from seeing movies is trivial compared to that I get from my education. Logically enough, going to the movies costs around $10. A college education can cost six-figures.
What teachers, doctors and sundry others do is worth far more per person than what actors do. But actors reach far more people. Am I willing to say Tom Hanks is worth a few bucks? Sure, and probably about that much of my money has actually gone to him.
This would be more like Microsoft discreetly changing Windows libraries just so that new programs won't work in Wine. Not exactly a nice thing to do, but I hardly think Microsoft has any obligation to the Wine developers.
RealNetworks knew that Apple would probably try to do this; did they warn their customers that their music files might not always work on the iPod? I don't know. Did Apple ever claim that Real's files would work on the iPod? No.
This is no more monopolistic than Sony players that only play ATRAC files. Sure, it's shitty, but they're honest about it.
Doesn't this raise a whole host of legal issues? What if the server crashes, can they be sued for neglect since they destroyed someone's property? IIRC other MMORPGs went out of their way to point out that their ingame items have no value and that buying them IRL is not allowed. Not that it isn't common anyway, but do game companies really want to get into property disputes?
The Linux boxes are not here. They are not anywhere. They are segfaulting in the parking lot as we speak. I must now inform you that you are too far from reality.
A processor with flashing neons while playing a cute little tune would become the next big thing.
The next big thing? I read on/. that they were going to stop production of the Pentium II. I assume this means that the moon suit disco parties are going to end.
Typically, affect is a verb and effect is a noun. However, affect can also be a noun with an entirely different meaning (feeling or emotion IIRC) when the accent is on the first syllable. Effect can also be a verb meaning to bring something about, as used in the summary. While it's true that the/. editors are not the paragon of proper English, at least in this indroduction they were correct.
To be honest, most OS X users just see the compass icon for Safari in the dock and think, "Oh, there's the internet," just like they do with IE on Windows.
But Earth doesn't value anything--people do. If there are no people, there are no values. Sure, we run the risk of destroying ourselves, but I think it's pretty arrogant for some people to say we should go away because we risk destroying the planet. If we launched all of our nuclear and chemical and biological weapons and shot everything and issued pointy sticks to everyone and told them to go out and kill, we couldn't even come close to wiping out the Earth. We probably couldn't even kill off humanity in the short run; after all, at least some of us are probably resistant to radiation, we just don't know it because we haven't watched our neighbors die from radiation poisoning while we didn't.
I may be rambling, but my point is that the Earth has been around a lot longer than we have, and it's perfectly capable of taking care of mass extinctions and the like. Our concern with the environment should be, "What are we going to do to ourselves?"
But the whole theme of the movie is that of science versus faith. We the audience are supposed to wonder whether or not to believe the machine really worked at all; it's not necessarily supposed to be "the real truth." By telling us loudly and obnoxiously, "YES IT WAS REAL!" it ruins the whole movie. I agree that your point is interesting, but not enough to merit a two hour movie with 10 seconds dedicated to that point.
I was moved by the "18 hours of static line." Specifically, I was moved to beat the shit out of whoever put that line in there.
Seriously though, I think that might be the worst line in movie history. If you take the line seriously, the movie was about absolutely nothing at all. It obliterates the entire meaning of the movie in one fell swoop. It's one of the most egregious examples of a movie being dumbed-down, and certainly the most economical, since it took only about five seconds of extra footage instead of changing the rest of the movie.
They should release a director's cut without that line.
But here in North Dakota, we're bigger fans of fuels like Ethanol and Soy Biodisel. Rumors abound lately of some new techniques in ethanol production that can reduce the energy required to produce the fuel by more than half! Why muddle about with high maintenance wind farms when plants will do the work for us?
In other words, Archer Daniels Midland pays congressmen millions of dollars more in kickbacks than some environmentalist hippies, so don't bother.
"Importance" is a human concept. It may be based on objective factors, but without humans there would be nobody (on Earth, at least) to judge importance at all. Nature doesn't tell us that people are more important than birds or vice versa. Nature just is. However, as a human being myself, I find it rational to attach more importance to the survival of myself and of fellow humans than other animals. I think it's important not to needlessly kill other animals because people can appreciate them, and because killing them off can lead to negative effects for humans. But realistically, we are going to kill animals (other animals kill as well anyway), so it's best to do so in a manner that has the best cost-benefit ratio. I'm no expert, but I can easily see how killing a few birds with wind farms has less of a negative impact on the environment than other sources of energy. The smart thing to do is find the best way to produce the most energy with the fewest drawbacks, not to refuse to do anything until some as of yet non-existent source of plentiful energy with no negative repercussions can be found.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but the camera in the store doesn't know your home address.
It would probably be pretty hard, considering that the XNU kernel OS X uses is based more on Mach than BSD. The underlying philosophy is different, too. Apple very much takes the attitude, "This is how do we it, this is the right way to do it, you had better do it this way too."
Hate to break it to you, but the primary audience for rap is childish white kids.
Ideologically at least, I support the idea of national missile defense. But one has to look at this from a cost-benefit angle. A system that could probably stop ICBMs would be worth spending quite a lot on (though not necessarily any obscene amount of money). A system that can maybe stop ICBMs under ideal conditions will probably not stop them in real life. It's still worth a lot, but not billions and billions. This is money that could be much better spent actually protecting America. For example, what's to stop somebody from landing a nuke on our shores in a small boat? How many thousands of times less would it cost to patrol our shores effectively than fuel some military-industrial boondoggle?
Because Mac OS X uses I/O Kit.
It only took a bit longer than writing a stdout version in vi.
But at least it had robots.
You see, organizations like the RIAA and MPAA like to say that copyright infringement is stealing.
It isn't. Stealing is taking a tangible thing from someone else without their consent.
The thing is, charging $12 or one cent or 52 octillion dollars to see a movie isn't stealing as long as people agree to pay it.
Overcharging is bad. Copyright infringement is (usually) a civil offense. Stealing is illegal.
You mean Code 431.322.12 of the Internet Privacy Act won't protect me? Damn, and I thought my warez site had foolproof protection...
What teachers, doctors and sundry others do is worth far more per person than what actors do. But actors reach far more people. Am I willing to say Tom Hanks is worth a few bucks? Sure, and probably about that much of my money has actually gone to him.
This would be more like Microsoft discreetly changing Windows libraries just so that new programs won't work in Wine. Not exactly a nice thing to do, but I hardly think Microsoft has any obligation to the Wine developers.
This is no more monopolistic than Sony players that only play ATRAC files. Sure, it's shitty, but they're honest about it.
You were still willing to join NAFTA.
Doesn't this raise a whole host of legal issues? What if the server crashes, can they be sued for neglect since they destroyed someone's property? IIRC other MMORPGs went out of their way to point out that their ingame items have no value and that buying them IRL is not allowed. Not that it isn't common anyway, but do game companies really want to get into property disputes?
The Linux boxes are not here. They are not anywhere. They are segfaulting in the parking lot as we speak. I must now inform you that you are too far from reality.
The next big thing? I read on /. that they were going to stop production of the Pentium II. I assume this means that the moon suit disco parties are going to end.
Typically, affect is a verb and effect is a noun. However, affect can also be a noun with an entirely different meaning (feeling or emotion IIRC) when the accent is on the first syllable. Effect can also be a verb meaning to bring something about, as used in the summary. While it's true that the /. editors are not the paragon of proper English, at least in this indroduction they were correct.
This is because Firefox for Mac is Carbon, not Cocoa. The Cocoa Gecko-based browser is Camino.
To be honest, most OS X users just see the compass icon for Safari in the dock and think, "Oh, there's the internet," just like they do with IE on Windows.
In America, only old people drive slowly!
I may be rambling, but my point is that the Earth has been around a lot longer than we have, and it's perfectly capable of taking care of mass extinctions and the like. Our concern with the environment should be, "What are we going to do to ourselves?"
But the whole theme of the movie is that of science versus faith. We the audience are supposed to wonder whether or not to believe the machine really worked at all; it's not necessarily supposed to be "the real truth." By telling us loudly and obnoxiously, " YES IT WAS REAL !" it ruins the whole movie. I agree that your point is interesting, but not enough to merit a two hour movie with 10 seconds dedicated to that point.
Seriously though, I think that might be the worst line in movie history. If you take the line seriously, the movie was about absolutely nothing at all. It obliterates the entire meaning of the movie in one fell swoop. It's one of the most egregious examples of a movie being dumbed-down, and certainly the most economical, since it took only about five seconds of extra footage instead of changing the rest of the movie.
They should release a director's cut without that line.
</rant>
In other words, Archer Daniels Midland pays congressmen millions of dollars more in kickbacks than some environmentalist hippies, so don't bother.
"Importance" is a human concept. It may be based on objective factors, but without humans there would be nobody (on Earth, at least) to judge importance at all. Nature doesn't tell us that people are more important than birds or vice versa. Nature just is. However, as a human being myself, I find it rational to attach more importance to the survival of myself and of fellow humans than other animals. I think it's important not to needlessly kill other animals because people can appreciate them, and because killing them off can lead to negative effects for humans. But realistically, we are going to kill animals (other animals kill as well anyway), so it's best to do so in a manner that has the best cost-benefit ratio. I'm no expert, but I can easily see how killing a few birds with wind farms has less of a negative impact on the environment than other sources of energy. The smart thing to do is find the best way to produce the most energy with the fewest drawbacks, not to refuse to do anything until some as of yet non-existent source of plentiful energy with no negative repercussions can be found.