Okay, let's squash a couple of pieces of misinformation.
One: You're not thinking of Core Video. You're thinking of Core Image.
Two: Core Image has no requirements at all. Any computer that can run Tiger can run Core Image code.
Three: Core Image will take advantage of hardware acceleration if it's available. But it's also smart enough not to take advantage of hardware acceleration if the CPU is faster. For instance if you run a Core image application on a 2 x 2.5 GHz G5 with a GeForce 5200 card, nearly all Core Image functions will be executed in the CPU. Because it's faster.
Four: Motion does not use Core Image. Rather, Core Image is derived from some of the work that was done for Motion, with significant portability enhancements. Whether or not you can run Motion has nothing to do with Core Image.
Actually, 10.1 was free for everybody. All you had to do is ask for it. If you had to have it delivered by mail (hello, all those Apple customers in Outer Mongolia) they charged $19 for shipping.
Funny you should bring this up. I just finished -- and I mean just finished, like ten minutes ago -- a weekly column that I write. I loaned my PowerBook for a few days to someone who needed it more than I did, so I wrote it on a six-year-old iBook with a 300 MHz G3 processor and 256 MB of RAM.
This computer runs 10.3.8, and the application I used was Adobe InCopy 3.
It worked perfectly. Zero complaints. The only way I could tell the difference between the iBook and my PowerBook is the size of the screen. Of course, I wasn't running any other applications at the time; if I had been, I would have run out of RAM. But apart from that one constraint, I used it in exactly the same way I normally use my laptop, and noticed no difference in functionality or speed.
Actually, any product that's listed as "same day" is over stocked. Apple's supply-chain management is very tight. The company does not intend for products to sit on shelves waiting for orders to come in. A 2-3 day shipping window is what the company shoots for. If the product can ship the same day, that means orders have been slower than anticipated.
I... um... have no idea what relevance this might have on anything. But I thought you might find it interesting.
Believe me when I tell you that your generalizations are too broad. Every periodical I know of went to PDF years ago. Again, I'm sure there are those who are still using older, less reliable workflows, but I don't know of any. And I get around a bit.
Apart from what my comrade said about YUV, nobody does TV work in RGB. If you're not going to work in YUV, you work in RGBA. You have to have an alpha channel to store mattes.
I'm a little confused, Gigs. Did your comment somehow fall through a hole in time? Was it written in 1995?
I mock, but only gently. See, you talked about things that I swear I haven't heard a whisper about for ten years. PostScript? TIFF separations? DCS? They're all dead, dead and buried, dead as bones. They've all been blessedly replaced by PDF.
I'm sure there's legacy stuff out there, but it's just that I've never heard anybody talk about their legacy gear like it's the state of the art, as you have here.
Is it true that Gimp still lacks spot-color, RGBA, arbitrary-channel, raw and HDR support as well? I know that it did at one time, but it's been a good six years since I even thought about Gimp, so I don't know whether that's still true.
I never understood the point of a pure RGB program. Nobody uses just plain old RGB. Even Web designers are all using RGBA now.
Except when that so-called "accuracy" exists only to deceive and to advance a political agenda. "You're not really free anyway, so you have no moral ground on which to demand freedom for others." I've had enough of that, thank you very much.
Just like shooting someone in the head isn't illegal. It's the murder that that brings which is illegal.
Bad analogy. Shooting somebody in the head is, in fact, illegal. It's illegal if it's done on purpose, and it's illegal in a different way if it's done accidentally, depending on the nature of the accident.
Likewise, there are laws against shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Lots of them. There are laws against public endangerment, against inciting a riot, against creating a false panic (if there is no fire).
We regulate the hell out of speech. Just like we regulate the hell out of shooting people, whether or not the shots are fatal.
You completely misunderstood my point. I probably could have expressed it better.
There's the law, and then there's personal responsibility. Okay? They're two separate things, related to each other only in the most tenuous of ways.
Is it possible to objectively define the distinction between helpful and unhelpful speech? No, it's not. We can try, we can dance around it, but we can never nail it down with mathematical precision.
But we all know it when we see it.
We all, each of us, have a responsibility to be constructive rather than being destructive. We have a responsibility to add rather than taking away. We have a responsibility to eschew saying things that serve only to shut down the debate. That's really what it all boils down to, you know. Everybody who shouts "Bush is a moron!" is really saying "I do not wish to hear conflicting points of view, so I will try to drown them out."
It's a matter of personal responsibility. We can't legislate it, but that doesn't mean that it's not real or that it doesn't matter.
Have you ever read the preamble to the Constitution of the United States? I don't mean to be condescending. You could be from another English-speaking country. If you're from our country, you memorized it long ago and the words should be familiar to you.
"We, the people of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect union..."
See that? Nobody ever said that our society would be perfect, either in the normative or descriptive senses. Our goal in establishing our society was to form a more perfect union, to get closer to the unattainable perfect goal.
Freedom is a goal. It's a goal of our society that all people should be free. Is it an attainable goal? Of course not. That's like saying that we should all live forever or that the sun should shine every day.
Freedom is what we want, and it's what we work to grant ourselves. Saying "but we're not perfectly free" is just like saying "the sun doesn't shine every day." It's unarguably true, but it's also completely useless.
The question isn't whether we're completely, perfectly free. It's whether we've succeeded in our goal of forming a more perfect union.
People who complain that we're not perfectly free go into the same category as people who complain about continuity gaffes in movies. Their complaints are valid, true, and irrelevant.
See, one of the fundamental assumptions in our society is that the government is legitimate and that it obeys the rules set out for it. As long as that's true, the government should not be overthrown.
The first thing you need to realize is that the people who created our government were smarter than you are. That's nothing to be ashamed of; they were smarter than I am, and smarter than everybody I've ever known. We're talking about once-in-a-millennium minds here.
They concocted a system of government that works under all conditions, past or present. Our system of government has never yet failed. Even when we were in the darkest days of the civil war, when it seemed that our republic might fall, the government stood.
Is it perfect? No. Nothing ever is. But when we become aware of its flaws, the intricate and complex system of checks and balances comes into play and sets things right. The system is self-correcting, and when you really understand it, it's a wonder to behold.
So to answer your question, the government should not be overthrown. If circumstances ever did arise where it should be -- I'm not convinced that they will --then the question of whether it's legal to say so will be the least of your worries.
People like me are asked to do 10 different things and we don't have the luxury of spending thousands on databases or focusing purely on every morsel of data integrity.
But don't you see? That's the thing! Databases like PostgreSQL are free and take care of data integrity for you! You write the data integrity rules into the data model using things like foreign keys and constraints and triggers.
Does it require that you take some time to read the manual and understand how the database works? Yes. But once you've done that, your data is guaranteed to be consistent and valid no matter what your front-end application does or doesn't do.
Yes, that would definitely be material obstruction of justice. You're trying to find some way to actually obstruct justice that's technically not obstruction. Not gonna work.
Do you understand the difference between helpful and harmful discourse? You are legally free to say horrible things. But you have a moral responsibility to avoid inflicting harm on people as individuals or society as a whole with your speech.
In other words, on behalf of everybody, please stop being an asshole.
That's a hugely naïve, and utterly wrong, position.
Freedom is not absolute. It never is. The old saying that "your freedom to swing your fist ends at my face" is as good a way of explaining it as any.
The freedom of speech is the most abridged freedom we have. There are lots of ways in which you don't enjoy the freedom of speech. You're not free to tell somebody else's secrets. You're not free to repeat somebody else's words without permission (with a few exceptions). You're not free to lie, in may cases; lying to deprive somebody of money or value is fraud, and lying to cause harm is slander.
The freedom of speech is important, but like all freedoms it has to be balanced very carefully.
I know EXACTLY what is being inserted into the database every single time.
I promise you, in any non-trivial application, you really, really don't.
The one thing I would like is Triggers since I'd like to clean up orphan records but really, not a huge deal.
No, it is a huge deal, and it's further evidence of how you're not seeing the big picture here. You should never have an orphan record, ever. Orphan records are inconsistent data. The database should never contain inconsistent data, not even for a split second. That's why God gave us things like transactions, so we can make all changes atomic and consistent. If your data model allows you to delete, for example, a record from THIS table without also deleting the record from THAT table that refers to it by row ID, your data model is broken and should be fixed immediately.
Do you know the story of the software that runs the launch of the space shuttle? I read an article about it in Infoworld years ago. I don't guess there's a copy on line.
Short version: This software, which is maintained by a team of fewer than 20 people, has never failed in the field. It's multiply redundant, but those redundancies have never, to date, been necessary. It works perfectly all the time.
From the time that the first line of code was written back at Lockheed in the late 1970s to the time at the article I'm telling you about was written (1996 or so) a grand total of exactly 17 bugs was found in unit testing.
One member of the team was quoted as saying, "We don't work late. We know that if we work overtime and get tired, we might introduce a mistake. If we introduce a mistake, somebody that we go to meetings with every week will die."
(That's me paraphrasing, obviously, but the "somebody will die" wording is a quote. That's the kind of thing that stays with you, you know?)
When you consider that a huge amount of computer code being written today is used in things like airplane avionics systems, car and truck engines, life-support machines and, yes, space ships, you realize that this whole "we're not perfect, we rely on users to send us bug reports" attitude is laughable in the extreme.
You don't get a bug report when the software that controls the flaps on a 777 fails. You hear about it on the news.
You have exactly the wrong idea. A database is not just a container. A database is a container with a metric assload of logic that exists to enforce a data model.
But philosophical shortcomings aside, you are wasting a huge amount of time writing application logic to emulate functions that can be performed for you by your database. And, incidentally, you're introducing bugs and holes along the way.
Wow. It's been a long time since I read anything so completely wrong.
A database is not (to borrow my own phrase) just a flat file with an API. It's supposed to enforce a data model. In a perfect world, every piece of integrity and sanity checking would happen inside the database, with none inside the application layer. A database application that includes logic that looks like "if input is X then reject" is not a good database application.
I don't know whether you thought it was just understood, or what, but there's something very important missing from your comment.
It's not his job to report bugs to the developers. It's the job of the developers, through testing, to find bugs. In these two cases, it seems likely to me --just guessing here -- that the developers know about these flaws, but they've defined them as acceptable. The argument isn't over functionality; it's over parameters.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, let's squash a couple of pieces of misinformation.
One: You're not thinking of Core Video. You're thinking of Core Image.
Two: Core Image has no requirements at all. Any computer that can run Tiger can run Core Image code.
Three: Core Image will take advantage of hardware acceleration if it's available. But it's also smart enough not to take advantage of hardware acceleration if the CPU is faster. For instance if you run a Core image application on a 2 x 2.5 GHz G5 with a GeForce 5200 card, nearly all Core Image functions will be executed in the CPU. Because it's faster.
Four: Motion does not use Core Image. Rather, Core Image is derived from some of the work that was done for Motion, with significant portability enhancements. Whether or not you can run Motion has nothing to do with Core Image.
Actually, 10.1 was free for everybody. All you had to do is ask for it. If you had to have it delivered by mail (hello, all those Apple customers in Outer Mongolia) they charged $19 for shipping.
Funny you should bring this up. I just finished -- and I mean just finished, like ten minutes ago -- a weekly column that I write. I loaned my PowerBook for a few days to someone who needed it more than I did, so I wrote it on a six-year-old iBook with a 300 MHz G3 processor and 256 MB of RAM.
This computer runs 10.3.8, and the application I used was Adobe InCopy 3.
It worked perfectly. Zero complaints. The only way I could tell the difference between the iBook and my PowerBook is the size of the screen. Of course, I wasn't running any other applications at the time; if I had been, I would have run out of RAM. But apart from that one constraint, I used it in exactly the same way I normally use my laptop, and noticed no difference in functionality or speed.
Actually, any product that's listed as "same day" is over stocked. Apple's supply-chain management is very tight. The company does not intend for products to sit on shelves waiting for orders to come in. A 2-3 day shipping window is what the company shoots for. If the product can ship the same day, that means orders have been slower than anticipated.
... um ... have no idea what relevance this might have on anything. But I thought you might find it interesting.
I
Hmm. "Most of the industry?" "Almost no one?"
Believe me when I tell you that your generalizations are too broad. Every periodical I know of went to PDF years ago. Again, I'm sure there are those who are still using older, less reliable workflows, but I don't know of any. And I get around a bit.
Apart from what my comrade said about YUV, nobody does TV work in RGB. If you're not going to work in YUV, you work in RGBA. You have to have an alpha channel to store mattes.
I'm a little confused, Gigs. Did your comment somehow fall through a hole in time? Was it written in 1995?
I mock, but only gently. See, you talked about things that I swear I haven't heard a whisper about for ten years. PostScript? TIFF separations? DCS? They're all dead, dead and buried, dead as bones. They've all been blessedly replaced by PDF.
I'm sure there's legacy stuff out there, but it's just that I've never heard anybody talk about their legacy gear like it's the state of the art, as you have here.
Is it true that Gimp still lacks spot-color, RGBA, arbitrary-channel, raw and HDR support as well? I know that it did at one time, but it's been a good six years since I even thought about Gimp, so I don't know whether that's still true.
I never understood the point of a pure RGB program. Nobody uses just plain old RGB. Even Web designers are all using RGBA now.
Except when that so-called "accuracy" exists only to deceive and to advance a political agenda. "You're not really free anyway, so you have no moral ground on which to demand freedom for others." I've had enough of that, thank you very much.
If I had a nickel for everybody who's ever quoted Thomas Jefferson without actually understanding anything the man ever wrote, I'd be rich.
Oh God. I'm so sorry. I had no idea you were one of those nut-case tax protesters. If I'd known that, I would never have engaged you in conversation.
Sorry to have wasted your time. Have fun up at the hunting lodge or whatever you call your armed compound in the middle of nowhere.
Just like shooting someone in the head isn't illegal. It's the murder that that brings which is illegal.
Bad analogy. Shooting somebody in the head is, in fact, illegal. It's illegal if it's done on purpose, and it's illegal in a different way if it's done accidentally, depending on the nature of the accident.
Likewise, there are laws against shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Lots of them. There are laws against public endangerment, against inciting a riot, against creating a false panic (if there is no fire).
We regulate the hell out of speech. Just like we regulate the hell out of shooting people, whether or not the shots are fatal.
You completely misunderstood my point. I probably could have expressed it better.
There's the law, and then there's personal responsibility. Okay? They're two separate things, related to each other only in the most tenuous of ways.
Is it possible to objectively define the distinction between helpful and unhelpful speech? No, it's not. We can try, we can dance around it, but we can never nail it down with mathematical precision.
But we all know it when we see it.
We all, each of us, have a responsibility to be constructive rather than being destructive. We have a responsibility to add rather than taking away. We have a responsibility to eschew saying things that serve only to shut down the debate. That's really what it all boils down to, you know. Everybody who shouts "Bush is a moron!" is really saying "I do not wish to hear conflicting points of view, so I will try to drown them out."
It's a matter of personal responsibility. We can't legislate it, but that doesn't mean that it's not real or that it doesn't matter.
Have you ever read the preamble to the Constitution of the United States? I don't mean to be condescending. You could be from another English-speaking country. If you're from our country, you memorized it long ago and the words should be familiar to you.
"We, the people of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect union..."
See that? Nobody ever said that our society would be perfect, either in the normative or descriptive senses. Our goal in establishing our society was to form a more perfect union, to get closer to the unattainable perfect goal.
Freedom is a goal. It's a goal of our society that all people should be free. Is it an attainable goal? Of course not. That's like saying that we should all live forever or that the sun should shine every day.
Freedom is what we want, and it's what we work to grant ourselves. Saying "but we're not perfectly free" is just like saying "the sun doesn't shine every day." It's unarguably true, but it's also completely useless.
The question isn't whether we're completely, perfectly free. It's whether we've succeeded in our goal of forming a more perfect union.
People who complain that we're not perfectly free go into the same category as people who complain about continuity gaffes in movies. Their complaints are valid, true, and irrelevant.
See, one of the fundamental assumptions in our society is that the government is legitimate and that it obeys the rules set out for it. As long as that's true, the government should not be overthrown.
The first thing you need to realize is that the people who created our government were smarter than you are. That's nothing to be ashamed of; they were smarter than I am, and smarter than everybody I've ever known. We're talking about once-in-a-millennium minds here.
They concocted a system of government that works under all conditions, past or present. Our system of government has never yet failed. Even when we were in the darkest days of the civil war, when it seemed that our republic might fall, the government stood.
Is it perfect? No. Nothing ever is. But when we become aware of its flaws, the intricate and complex system of checks and balances comes into play and sets things right. The system is self-correcting, and when you really understand it, it's a wonder to behold.
So to answer your question, the government should not be overthrown. If circumstances ever did arise where it should be -- I'm not convinced that they will --then the question of whether it's legal to say so will be the least of your worries.
People like me are asked to do 10 different things and we don't have the luxury of spending thousands on databases or focusing purely on every morsel of data integrity.
But don't you see? That's the thing! Databases like PostgreSQL are free and take care of data integrity for you! You write the data integrity rules into the data model using things like foreign keys and constraints and triggers.
Does it require that you take some time to read the manual and understand how the database works? Yes. But once you've done that, your data is guaranteed to be consistent and valid no matter what your front-end application does or doesn't do.
It would have been better if I'd declared that Statesman X is Bodily Function Y?
Your criticism is so ironic it makes my head spin.
Yes, that would definitely be material obstruction of justice. You're trying to find some way to actually obstruct justice that's technically not obstruction. Not gonna work.
Justice is blind, not stupid.
Do you understand the difference between helpful and harmful discourse? You are legally free to say horrible things. But you have a moral responsibility to avoid inflicting harm on people as individuals or society as a whole with your speech.
In other words, on behalf of everybody, please stop being an asshole.
That's a hugely naïve, and utterly wrong, position.
Freedom is not absolute. It never is. The old saying that "your freedom to swing your fist ends at my face" is as good a way of explaining it as any.
The freedom of speech is the most abridged freedom we have. There are lots of ways in which you don't enjoy the freedom of speech. You're not free to tell somebody else's secrets. You're not free to repeat somebody else's words without permission (with a few exceptions). You're not free to lie, in may cases; lying to deprive somebody of money or value is fraud, and lying to cause harm is slander.
The freedom of speech is important, but like all freedoms it has to be balanced very carefully.
I know EXACTLY what is being inserted into the database every single time.
I promise you, in any non-trivial application, you really, really don't.
The one thing I would like is Triggers since I'd like to clean up orphan records but really, not a huge deal.
No, it is a huge deal, and it's further evidence of how you're not seeing the big picture here. You should never have an orphan record, ever. Orphan records are inconsistent data. The database should never contain inconsistent data, not even for a split second. That's why God gave us things like transactions, so we can make all changes atomic and consistent. If your data model allows you to delete, for example, a record from THIS table without also deleting the record from THAT table that refers to it by row ID, your data model is broken and should be fixed immediately.
Do you know the story of the software that runs the launch of the space shuttle? I read an article about it in Infoworld years ago. I don't guess there's a copy on line.
Short version: This software, which is maintained by a team of fewer than 20 people, has never failed in the field. It's multiply redundant, but those redundancies have never, to date, been necessary. It works perfectly all the time.
From the time that the first line of code was written back at Lockheed in the late 1970s to the time at the article I'm telling you about was written (1996 or so) a grand total of exactly 17 bugs was found in unit testing.
One member of the team was quoted as saying, "We don't work late. We know that if we work overtime and get tired, we might introduce a mistake. If we introduce a mistake, somebody that we go to meetings with every week will die."
(That's me paraphrasing, obviously, but the "somebody will die" wording is a quote. That's the kind of thing that stays with you, you know?)
When you consider that a huge amount of computer code being written today is used in things like airplane avionics systems, car and truck engines, life-support machines and, yes, space ships, you realize that this whole "we're not perfect, we rely on users to send us bug reports" attitude is laughable in the extreme.
You don't get a bug report when the software that controls the flaps on a 777 fails. You hear about it on the news.
You have exactly the wrong idea. A database is not just a container. A database is a container with a metric assload of logic that exists to enforce a data model.
But philosophical shortcomings aside, you are wasting a huge amount of time writing application logic to emulate functions that can be performed for you by your database. And, incidentally, you're introducing bugs and holes along the way.
Bad programmer. Go lay down.
Wow. It's been a long time since I read anything so completely wrong.
A database is not (to borrow my own phrase) just a flat file with an API. It's supposed to enforce a data model. In a perfect world, every piece of integrity and sanity checking would happen inside the database, with none inside the application layer. A database application that includes logic that looks like "if input is X then reject" is not a good database application.
I don't know whether you thought it was just understood, or what, but there's something very important missing from your comment.
It's not his job to report bugs to the developers. It's the job of the developers, through testing, to find bugs. In these two cases, it seems likely to me --just guessing here -- that the developers know about these flaws, but they've defined them as acceptable. The argument isn't over functionality; it's over parameters.