In other countries, however, we sort of accept that the people aren't idiots, and that they know how to do things like weigh evidence and reach a reasoned verdict.
The answer to bad information is more information, not less. Trying, and failing, to keep important information away from the public smacks of tyranny to me.
I mean, let's not forget that this stuff is directly related to the elected government, huh? The people need this information to make good decisions when they vote.
I'm sorry, I'm having a rotten day so I may not be understanding you. Are you seriously suggesting that the jury system should be abolished? What do you suggest it be replaced with?
Point of trivia: MPEG-7 is already here. It's a metadata standard. It was all the rage five years ago, but it appears to have been basically ignored ever since. It seems like that's what often happens when standards-fetishists take over something. They hammer out a standard which is voluminous and complete and useless, and are shocked when nobody adopts it.
This is totally off message, but I have a very low opinion of standards bodies. I fall into the descriptive-not-normative camp. Codify what's already succeeded in the marketplace, don't hand out standards like the pope speaking ex cathedra and expect them to catch on.
Close. Not perfect. One hundred percent of the US population receives TV content via NTSC broadcasts. I think you're probably thinking about over-the-air versus cable and satellite. I don't know if the 15 percent number is right; I'll take your word for it.
NTSC defines a picture format. All television signals broadcast or received in the US are NTSC signals except for ATSC broadcasts.
Analog is always compatible. I've been happy with my first-generation Philips-branded TiVo for years now.
No, it doesn't record HD, but at the moment I'm willing to live with that, seeing as how my other choice seems to be to spend hundreds on a machine that might not record HD anyway.
You're also using a dictionary as a reference for usage and style. That's an error. You need to find a style book, like the Associated Press one or the University of Chicago one.
A PowerPC G5 running at 2 GHz churns out 8 GFLOPS, just for reference. I imagine the numbers of out an Intel-type CPU would be similar, but I don't know how the vector unit on an Intel-type CPU works --if at all --so I can't say for sure.
The X1E isn't intended to be a fastest-in-the-world supercomputer. It's intended to be a low-cost scalable vector system. The fact that it's fast is great, but it's not its main design feature.
Now, the X2, on the other hand, is a whale. They're talking 150 TFLOPS at roll-out next year (unimpressive) and 300 TFLOPS after the block 10 update the year after that (very impressive).
Of course, the X2 isn't working yet, so who the hell knows. But it's fun to think about.
You do realize that Apple's not a distributor, right? We're a manufacturer. We don't have to worry about losing a sale because of a 2-day shipping delay, because we make what we sell. You can't get a Mac unless you get it from us. Sure, if we can't ship it to you quickly enough you might pick up the phone and call one of our other customers -- like CDW, say -- and get it from them, but that's irrelevant to us. We've already sold it at that point.
Your goal, as a reseller, is to have inventory sitting on the shelf so you can fill orders quickly in order to compete with other resellers. That's how you do business.
Our goal, as a manufacturer, is to never build a single thing unless it's already sold. We can't do that, practically, because we can't sell something unless we've already built it, but we try to get as close to that as possible. We don't have warehouses. We don't sit on inventory waiting for the phone to ring. We don't pride ourselves on having things in stock. Just the opposite.
Our two companies live in completely different universes. You're silly to try to compare them.
I'm sorry to say that your impression is not correct, in at least two ways. Motion does not include Core Image. The currently-shipping version of Motion can't take advantage of Image Units. (The update to be announced in a few weeks at NAB will.)
Core Video is nothing but a convenient framework for handling QuickTime movies as OpenGL textures. It's not part of Motion either.
Both Core Image and Core Video were developed after Motion had already reached the late stages of development.
Second, the frameworks that are included with Motion, like all other application-specific frameworks, are private. They're not public. There's no published API for using them in your own applications.
I don't get the joke. What's wrong with "loaned?" Are you thinking it should be "lent?" That's a common error in usage. See, when you actually give somebody something temporarily, the word you should use is "loan." "Loan" is an entirely regular verb; it's past tense is "loaned."
When you figuratively give somebody something, the word is "lend," and it's past tense is "lent."
See, you "loan" your laptop, but you "lend" a hand.
Why do we "desperately need a successor to Objective-C?" Is Objective-C going somewhere?
In point of fact, most of those great new technologies that everybody is raving about would not be practical without Objective-C. Core Data, for instance, could not be implemented practically in either C or Java because of its dependence on features of the Objective-C runtime.
And we're kinda just starting to really take advantage of what Objective-C can bring to the party.
Re:If this isn't a joke, it means Java 1.5 arrives
on
Mac OS X Tiger Goes Gold
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I couldn't have said it better. Although I think it's worth making clear that what you said about the menu bar is just one example of how developers can piss off users by assuming that Java applications should be run unmodified on the Mac.
Drag and drop is a vital part of the Macintosh user interface. Java developers often neglect to implement it. Same with packaging and application metadata, application services, even the dock menu. Java developers often -- I'll go so far as to say "almost always" --completely ignore these important parts of the Mac operating environment, either blithely unaware of them or under the sadly mistake impression that users just won't miss them.
Like I said, if developers want Apple to give a shit about Java, they're going to need to start giving a shit about Apple.
Re:If this isn't a joke, it means Java 1.5 arrives
on
Mac OS X Tiger Goes Gold
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Just so you know, the reason Apple doesn't invest very much time or effort into Java is because there's zero demand for Java client applications on the Mac. And the reason there's zero demand for it is because Java applications that are ported to the Mac have so far been done very sloppily, resulting in a bad user experience all around.
If you want Java support for the Mac, do two things. First, sign up with ADC and express your opinion. Second, start writing good Java applications for the Mac.
Oh, boy, do we even have to talk about how wrong that is?
Do you know what Google's statistics measure? I'll give you a hint: It's not the demographics of all computer users. And it's not the demographics of all Internet users. Hell, it's not even the demographics of all Google users.
All those stats measure is the demographics of all Google requests.
If the number is 3 percent, than that means that exactly 3 percent of all requests to the Google web servers came from browsers that self-identify as being on a Mac. What does this tell us about the entire population of computers out there in use? Zip. Zilcho.
Example: I know of a business that owns upwards of 200 Macs. They're used for graphics production and video and audio editorial. The vast majority of these Macs will never have hit Google, because they're not used for that. They're used for running Motion and After Effects and Final Cut Pro and Pro Tools and that's all. Two or three shifts a day, six days a week, 52 weeks a year. Their representation in those Google stats you quoted? None at all.
Don't look to the Google stats for information that the numbers can't give you. You'll just end up being misled.
Puma was used too. The names of the releases were Cheetah (marketed as 10.0), Puma (marketed as 10.1), Jaguar (marketed as 10.2), Panther (marketed as 10.3) and Tiger (marketed as 10.4).
Slashdot Mirror
In other countries, however, we sort of accept that the people aren't idiots, and that they know how to do things like weigh evidence and reach a reasoned verdict.
The answer to bad information is more information, not less. Trying, and failing, to keep important information away from the public smacks of tyranny to me.
I mean, let's not forget that this stuff is directly related to the elected government, huh? The people need this information to make good decisions when they vote.
I'm sorry, I'm having a rotten day so I may not be understanding you. Are you seriously suggesting that the jury system should be abolished? What do you suggest it be replaced with?
Point of trivia: MPEG-7 is already here. It's a metadata standard. It was all the rage five years ago, but it appears to have been basically ignored ever since. It seems like that's what often happens when standards-fetishists take over something. They hammer out a standard which is voluminous and complete and useless, and are shocked when nobody adopts it.
This is totally off message, but I have a very low opinion of standards bodies. I fall into the descriptive-not-normative camp. Codify what's already succeeded in the marketplace, don't hand out standards like the pope speaking ex cathedra and expect them to catch on.
But that's just me.
Early adopters always get burned. That's why there are so few of them.
Close. Not perfect. One hundred percent of the US population receives TV content via NTSC broadcasts. I think you're probably thinking about over-the-air versus cable and satellite. I don't know if the 15 percent number is right; I'll take your word for it.
NTSC defines a picture format. All television signals broadcast or received in the US are NTSC signals except for ATSC broadcasts.
You, sir, have obviously not seen "Battlestar Galactica."
Analog is always compatible. I've been happy with my first-generation Philips-branded TiVo for years now.
No, it doesn't record HD, but at the moment I'm willing to live with that, seeing as how my other choice seems to be to spend hundreds on a machine that might not record HD anyway.
Nobody told me there would be sentence diagramming.
You're also using a dictionary as a reference for usage and style. That's an error. You need to find a style book, like the Associated Press one or the University of Chicago one.
It's very cheap for a vector supercomputer. Entry-level systems start in the low five figures.
A PowerPC G5 running at 2 GHz churns out 8 GFLOPS, just for reference. I imagine the numbers of out an Intel-type CPU would be similar, but I don't know how the vector unit on an Intel-type CPU works --if at all --so I can't say for sure.
Trolls post off-topic shit in an effort to stir up an argument. Just like your post.
The X1E isn't intended to be a fastest-in-the-world supercomputer. It's intended to be a low-cost scalable vector system. The fact that it's fast is great, but it's not its main design feature.
Now, the X2, on the other hand, is a whale. They're talking 150 TFLOPS at roll-out next year (unimpressive) and 300 TFLOPS after the block 10 update the year after that (very impressive).
Of course, the X2 isn't working yet, so who the hell knows. But it's fun to think about.
Thank you very much. Now I won't have to worry about reading your comments in the future.
Slashdot becomes much more manageable when you take the time to identify the trolls and filter them out.
The fact that you have a right to say something doesn't mean that it's right to say that thing. There's such a thing as restraint, you know?
Reasonable people can differ on what things it's okay to say. But all people should be able to agree that restraint is a virtue.
The Slashdot community really, really wishes that the Slashdot management would stop posting flamebait stories to drive up page views.
You do realize that Apple's not a distributor, right? We're a manufacturer. We don't have to worry about losing a sale because of a 2-day shipping delay, because we make what we sell. You can't get a Mac unless you get it from us. Sure, if we can't ship it to you quickly enough you might pick up the phone and call one of our other customers -- like CDW, say -- and get it from them, but that's irrelevant to us. We've already sold it at that point.
Your goal, as a reseller, is to have inventory sitting on the shelf so you can fill orders quickly in order to compete with other resellers. That's how you do business.
Our goal, as a manufacturer, is to never build a single thing unless it's already sold. We can't do that, practically, because we can't sell something unless we've already built it, but we try to get as close to that as possible. We don't have warehouses. We don't sit on inventory waiting for the phone to ring. We don't pride ourselves on having things in stock. Just the opposite.
Our two companies live in completely different universes. You're silly to try to compare them.
It's called an online membership.
I'm sorry to say that your impression is not correct, in at least two ways. Motion does not include Core Image. The currently-shipping version of Motion can't take advantage of Image Units. (The update to be announced in a few weeks at NAB will.)
Core Video is nothing but a convenient framework for handling QuickTime movies as OpenGL textures. It's not part of Motion either.
Both Core Image and Core Video were developed after Motion had already reached the late stages of development.
Second, the frameworks that are included with Motion, like all other application-specific frameworks, are private. They're not public. There's no published API for using them in your own applications.
I don't get the joke. What's wrong with "loaned?" Are you thinking it should be "lent?" That's a common error in usage. See, when you actually give somebody something temporarily, the word you should use is "loan." "Loan" is an entirely regular verb; it's past tense is "loaned."
When you figuratively give somebody something, the word is "lend," and it's past tense is "lent."
See, you "loan" your laptop, but you "lend" a hand.
Why do we "desperately need a successor to Objective-C?" Is Objective-C going somewhere?
In point of fact, most of those great new technologies that everybody is raving about would not be practical without Objective-C. Core Data, for instance, could not be implemented practically in either C or Java because of its dependence on features of the Objective-C runtime.
And we're kinda just starting to really take advantage of what Objective-C can bring to the party.
I couldn't have said it better. Although I think it's worth making clear that what you said about the menu bar is just one example of how developers can piss off users by assuming that Java applications should be run unmodified on the Mac.
Drag and drop is a vital part of the Macintosh user interface. Java developers often neglect to implement it. Same with packaging and application metadata, application services, even the dock menu. Java developers often -- I'll go so far as to say "almost always" --completely ignore these important parts of the Mac operating environment, either blithely unaware of them or under the sadly mistake impression that users just won't miss them.
Like I said, if developers want Apple to give a shit about Java, they're going to need to start giving a shit about Apple.
Just so you know, the reason Apple doesn't invest very much time or effort into Java is because there's zero demand for Java client applications on the Mac. And the reason there's zero demand for it is because Java applications that are ported to the Mac have so far been done very sloppily, resulting in a bad user experience all around.
If you want Java support for the Mac, do two things. First, sign up with ADC and express your opinion. Second, start writing good Java applications for the Mac.
Oh, boy, do we even have to talk about how wrong that is?
Do you know what Google's statistics measure? I'll give you a hint: It's not the demographics of all computer users. And it's not the demographics of all Internet users. Hell, it's not even the demographics of all Google users.
All those stats measure is the demographics of all Google requests.
If the number is 3 percent, than that means that exactly 3 percent of all requests to the Google web servers came from browsers that self-identify as being on a Mac. What does this tell us about the entire population of computers out there in use? Zip. Zilcho.
Example: I know of a business that owns upwards of 200 Macs. They're used for graphics production and video and audio editorial. The vast majority of these Macs will never have hit Google, because they're not used for that. They're used for running Motion and After Effects and Final Cut Pro and Pro Tools and that's all. Two or three shifts a day, six days a week, 52 weeks a year. Their representation in those Google stats you quoted? None at all.
Don't look to the Google stats for information that the numbers can't give you. You'll just end up being misled.
Puma was used too. The names of the releases were Cheetah (marketed as 10.0), Puma (marketed as 10.1), Jaguar (marketed as 10.2), Panther (marketed as 10.3) and Tiger (marketed as 10.4).