One interesting observation that I have made recently is that Netbeans seems to start much, much faster on Leopard than it does on Tiger. On the latter, the progress bar g ets 3/4 of the way through and pauses for a long while. On the former, it pauses just for a bit. I wonder if NB is doing some sort of multithreading of its initialization, and the concurrency is being handled on Leopard better. That's what it feels like, anyway.
That's just fucking great. The one project that had a uniform, predictable, internally-consistent versioning scheme is now well on its way to becoming "Linux2 EE 2009 UR1p1".
I recall that to, and was curious enough to see if the criticism was summarized well in Wikipedia. (It is.) Personally, I loved the book, and read it knowing that it was standing on the shoulders of other's work. I remember first reading about the idea of modeling the world as cellular automata in a 1988 issue of The Atlantic, in an article called Did the Universe Just Happen? (search for "Wolfram" in that page) and I thought his book was a terrific work on the subject.
I can understand how people's nerves got a little tender by having their contributions not been properly attributed, footnoted, etc. It didn't ruin my enjoyment though.
Steve could have announced the SDK for February 2008 from the very beginning...
Yeah, but that would be throwing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of free buzz down the shitter. The whole concept of a Stevenote hinges on refraining from announcing things until they're sure they can hit their target. If you don't like it, you may be happier with a vendor that sprays press releases like buckshot, hoping one or two will hit the mark.
In that "grand" alternate universe Lily Tomlin would have done a different character, perhaps, and we'd be accepting abuse from the computing utility company.
His thesis, from the beginning to the end, is that it's silly to talk about science "disproving" God--that science doesn't say anything about God.
Good observation. As the person the post was responding to, I'd like to point out that bringing the concept of 'proof' into the topic was a straw-man. My comment had to do with the mental gymnastics required to work god back into the model, and the general trend that it's heading. I said that it could be a clue or a hint. I never said that it constituted proof or disproof.
So, in my opinion, the post that you're defending actually committed the same sin of not paying attention to the point actually being made. As a mathematician, I'm frustrated that the concept of proof is mistakenly overgeneralized from the formal symbolic arts to the realm of the scientific method -- which actually works on iteratively testing and refining models, not formal proof.
But from the theistic perspective, it seems obvious that if God exists He would build the brain with some capacity to detect His presence under certain circumstances
Interesting spin, but you're stretching it. And I think this is interesting, because every time science learns something about the universe or the mind like this the rhetorical effort required to work God back into the model gets more tortured. And that trend, I would say, constitutes a hint as to where to look for philosophical insight, were one inclined to glean some.
I find the audiophile phenomenon to be mighty amusing, even though I'm guilty of throwing away a few extra dollars for an "oxygen free" guitar cable or two. But holy crap, that's quite a price difference -- and for what? If anybody ever gives me crap about getting a Cinema Display instead of a Dell monitor, I'll just think of the Pear Anjou cables. Getting a monitor to match your workstation's case at least has "interior decorating" to justify the difference in cost, but who's ever going to see your speaker cables? Yikes!
P.S. Did you know that if you mark around the edges of your CDs with a sharpie that the music sounds better?;-)
When you see that phrase applied to Microsoft, you can be certain that it refers to Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's "Conclusions of Law" in the United States vs. Microsoft case. The wikipedia page currently summarizes it like this: "Then on April 3, 2000, he issued a two-part ruling: his conclusions of law were that Microsoft had committed monopolization, attempted monopolization, and tying in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act...".
So, while monopolies are indeed legal, tying while being a monopoly is a violation of law, making the phrase "convicted monopolist" apropos.
Assuming...the iPhone really runs...OS X that would, in turns, mean they're not allowing developers to develop software for their [personal computer]...as well?
If I understand your question correctly, I would say the clear answer is "no". The multitouch framework (the relevant API that we're assuming to be in flux and therefore not ready for public consumption) is not something that has made its way to the desktop operating system, and so it's not yet relevant for those machines or those who develop applications for them.
The design of good APIs is several orders of magnitude harder than getting a program to stand up & run in time for release. It tends to take several iterations to get things right. It's likely that they have given rough-cut APIs to internal teams (and perhaps some select partners) for developing apps. (perhaps the iTunes WiFi store is one example). Feedback from such developer projects may result in changes to, and perhaps even radical restructuring of, the underlying frameworks.
And, to answer your question, that is why an update could break something. If I have a program that calls a library, and the interface to that library changes, my program falls down, goes boom.
I bet they'll release a kit when they're sure they've frozen the API.
Further, after Apple acquired NeXT, it had no obligation to release anything in NeXT's portfolio.
Thank you for adding detail to the history. One minor quibble, though: it was actually NeXT that acquired Apple for a negative 427 million dollars. Wikipedia gets that wrong too.
If the troll posting the original blurb had meant to say that Apple used open source to beat the crap out of Microsoft's OS development plans, then yes, that would be accurate.
Not a problem -- the architectural decision was made by NeXT software developers. Apple's subsequent aquisition of it was not an architectural decision; it was the purchase of software that they recognized to be well-architected.
After all, Apple itself used open source with OS X (kernel, web browser) mainly because they knew it would irritate Microsoft
Really...I don't recall Apple even being involved at the moment that architectural decision was made. Or are you saying that this was the reason Apple acquired NeXT instead of Be? To irritate the Beast of Redmond? So tragic that historical accuracy is just a few clicks away, and still it eludes everybody.
If a virus or trojan has that access already, you're screwed anyway. Might as well wipe the box and start over.
True, but if the write is not detected and reported to the user, the user can't know that it's time to wipe & reinstall. In my opinion, anti-malware software should be expected to do that detection and reporting -- although I agree that "anti-virus" software is too narrow a genre for the sake of this discussion.
Still, I think the orginal question still stands. In the UNIX world, for example, software like tripwire does exactly what the original poster desired: detects and reports writes to system files that only root can write. Why isn't the anti-malware industry on Windows, which is so much more mature by necessity (one would think) able to raise a flag when something like this happens?
I was only pointing out your fallacy. I never told you anything about how I feel about intellectual property or the importance of protecting innovation. All of that you inferred, and incorrectly.
I did not offer support because it is a trivial matter to reflect on the fact that memes replicate without cost whereas physical objects cannot. Said another way: if I "take" (use) your idea, you still have your idea for your own use. If I take your building, however, I deprive you of it. This difference changes the context of the argument after you make your fallacious substitution.
The difference is that memes replicate without cost, whereas physical objects to not. I did not offer this support in my original comment because I thought it was obvious.
Slashdot Mirror
One interesting observation that I have made recently is that Netbeans seems to start much, much faster on Leopard than it does on Tiger. On the latter, the progress bar g ets 3/4 of the way through and pauses for a long while. On the former, it pauses just for a bit. I wonder if NB is doing some sort of multithreading of its initialization, and the concurrency is being handled on Leopard better. That's what it feels like, anyway.
That's just fucking great. The one project that had a uniform, predictable, internally-consistent versioning scheme is now well on its way to becoming "Linux2 EE 2009 UR1p1".
I recall that to, and was curious enough to see if the criticism was summarized well in Wikipedia. (It is.) Personally, I loved the book, and read it knowing that it was standing on the shoulders of other's work. I remember first reading about the idea of modeling the world as cellular automata in a 1988 issue of The Atlantic, in an article called Did the Universe Just Happen? (search for "Wolfram" in that page) and I thought his book was a terrific work on the subject.
I can understand how people's nerves got a little tender by having their contributions not been properly attributed, footnoted, etc. It didn't ruin my enjoyment though.
Where are the scores of Microsoft fanboys bashing Apple, damn it!
90% of them don't have any real passions or sense of quality and are just playing follow-the-market-leader.
The other 10% are too busy chewing Ayn Rand's carpet
.Steve could have announced the SDK for February 2008 from the very beginning...
Yeah, but that would be throwing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of free buzz down the shitter. The whole concept of a Stevenote hinges on refraining from announcing things until they're sure they can hit their target. If you don't like it, you may be happier with a vendor that sprays press releases like buckshot, hoping one or two will hit the mark.
Nexum++
In that "grand" alternate universe Lily Tomlin would have done a different character, perhaps, and we'd be accepting abuse from the computing utility company.
His thesis, from the beginning to the end, is that it's silly to talk about science "disproving" God--that science doesn't say anything about God.
Good observation. As the person the post was responding to, I'd like to point out that bringing the concept of 'proof' into the topic was a straw-man. My comment had to do with the mental gymnastics required to work god back into the model, and the general trend that it's heading. I said that it could be a clue or a hint. I never said that it constituted proof or disproof.
So, in my opinion, the post that you're defending actually committed the same sin of not paying attention to the point actually being made. As a mathematician, I'm frustrated that the concept of proof is mistakenly overgeneralized from the formal symbolic arts to the realm of the scientific method -- which actually works on iteratively testing and refining models, not formal proof.
But from the theistic perspective, it seems obvious that if God exists He would build the brain with some capacity to detect His presence under certain circumstances
Interesting spin, but you're stretching it. And I think this is interesting, because every time science learns something about the universe or the mind like this the rhetorical effort required to work God back into the model gets more tortured. And that trend, I would say, constitutes a hint as to where to look for philosophical insight, were one inclined to glean some.
Does this mean Mr. Graves is the world's first man-made chimera?
Thank you for the suggestion, but it was a broader question and not related to my own mod points.
A person can grow a lot in 6 years. Is there no amnesty for those who lost mod-point status in their flaming youth?
I find the audiophile phenomenon to be mighty amusing, even though I'm guilty of throwing away a few extra dollars for an "oxygen free" guitar cable or two. But holy crap, that's quite a price difference -- and for what? If anybody ever gives me crap about getting a Cinema Display instead of a Dell monitor, I'll just think of the Pear Anjou cables. Getting a monitor to match your workstation's case at least has "interior decorating" to justify the difference in cost, but who's ever going to see your speaker cables? Yikes!
P.S. Did you know that if you mark around the edges of your CDs with a sharpie that the music sounds better? ;-)
When you see that phrase applied to Microsoft, you can be certain that it refers to Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's "Conclusions of Law" in the United States vs. Microsoft case. The wikipedia page currently summarizes it like this: "Then on April 3, 2000, he issued a two-part ruling: his conclusions of law were that Microsoft had committed monopolization, attempted monopolization, and tying in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act...".
So, while monopolies are indeed legal, tying while being a monopoly is a violation of law, making the phrase "convicted monopolist" apropos.
Assuming...the iPhone really runs...OS X that would, in turns, mean they're not allowing developers to develop software for their [personal computer]...as well?
If I understand your question correctly, I would say the clear answer is "no". The multitouch framework (the relevant API that we're assuming to be in flux and therefore not ready for public consumption) is not something that has made its way to the desktop operating system, and so it's not yet relevant for those machines or those who develop applications for them.
The design of good APIs is several orders of magnitude harder than getting a program to stand up & run in time for release. It tends to take several iterations to get things right. It's likely that they have given rough-cut APIs to internal teams (and perhaps some select partners) for developing apps. (perhaps the iTunes WiFi store is one example). Feedback from such developer projects may result in changes to, and perhaps even radical restructuring of, the underlying frameworks.
And, to answer your question, that is why an update could break something. If I have a program that calls a library, and the interface to that library changes, my program falls down, goes boom.
I bet they'll release a kit when they're sure they've frozen the API.
Further, after Apple acquired NeXT, it had no obligation to release anything in NeXT's portfolio.
Thank you for adding detail to the history. One minor quibble, though: it was actually NeXT that acquired Apple for a negative 427 million dollars. Wikipedia gets that wrong too.
If the troll posting the original blurb had meant to say that Apple used open source to beat the crap out of Microsoft's OS development plans, then yes, that would be accurate.
So true.
Not a problem -- the architectural decision was made by NeXT software developers. Apple's subsequent aquisition of it was not an architectural decision; it was the purchase of software that they recognized to be well-architected.
After all, Apple itself used open source with OS X (kernel, web browser) mainly because they knew it would irritate Microsoft
Really...I don't recall Apple even being involved at the moment that architectural decision was made. Or are you saying that this was the reason Apple acquired NeXT instead of Be? To irritate the Beast of Redmond? So tragic that historical accuracy is just a few clicks away, and still it eludes everybody.
No, I'll own up to modifying and reposting the one from the last thread. I'm just a man, weak of flesh...
If a virus or trojan has that access already, you're screwed anyway. Might as well wipe the box and start over.
True, but if the write is not detected and reported to the user, the user can't know that it's time to wipe & reinstall. In my opinion, anti-malware software should be expected to do that detection and reporting -- although I agree that "anti-virus" software is too narrow a genre for the sake of this discussion.
Still, I think the orginal question still stands. In the UNIX world, for example, software like tripwire does exactly what the original poster desired: detects and reports writes to system files that only root can write. Why isn't the anti-malware industry on Windows, which is so much more mature by necessity (one would think) able to raise a flag when something like this happens?
What is happening in MyanMar.
What Myanmar is.
I was only pointing out your fallacy. I never told you anything about how I feel about intellectual property or the importance of protecting innovation. All of that you inferred, and incorrectly.
I did not offer support because it is a trivial matter to reflect on the fact that memes replicate without cost whereas physical objects cannot. Said another way: if I "take" (use) your idea, you still have your idea for your own use. If I take your building, however, I deprive you of it. This difference changes the context of the argument after you make your fallacious substitution.
The difference is that memes replicate without cost, whereas physical objects to not. I did not offer this support in my original comment because I thought it was obvious.
Substitute "meme" for "mens" -- the latter is what my iPhone's autocorrect thought I meant. :-/