Touch screens are already supported by J2ME, Apple could have submitted a JSR for multi-touch.
Touch screen != multi-touch UI.
There are lots of things that can be done using multi-touch UI that can't be done using a simple touch screen (which is little more than a mouse-like device). There are things that can't even be easily done using a regular "full keyboard + multi-button mouse". Sure, you can do things like shift-click = rotate, and other "memorize the magic combinations of modifiers and buttons in no real intuitive way" but with multi-touch you can do things like "first finger touch anchors the object, the other finger combines rotations and scaling around the anchor point (and if you add a third finger, it applies perspective transforms around the axis defined by the first two finger)".
The point is that Apple wants things that take advantage of the features of the iPhone - they don't want to be "just another J2ME phone". Instead they focus on the unique features of the platform which make people purchase it instead of the other J2ME phone (after all, if an app can run on any J2ME phone, how does that help the phone manufacturer sell more of their specific phones?). The iPhone isn't the success that it is because it has features just like any other J2ME phone, it's because it's built around unique features. They don't want J2ME apps - they want "Cocoa Touch" apps.
If one were to directly port a J2MEE app, it would look like shite on the iPhone. Apple wants apps that look good and follow the iPhone UI (how many J2MEE apps are built around a multi-touch UI paradigm?). Apple has always taken quality over quantity...
Core Animation is just the next logical step from Core Image (which is in 10.4) - instead of using static images or movies as input to the filter, allow entire interactive UI views to be the input of a filter, integrating CI into the view architecture.
Throw in some Interface Builder and Objective-C magic to make it really easy to use, and ta-dah...
Now things like multi-touch (assuming that makes it back to the desktop platform), would be a clearer case of iPhone -> desktop.
Personally I was hoping for Daily Show's "Resident Expert" John Hodgman to be involved in the interview, but I guess we know now why that didn't happen...
That'll teach me to finish my coffee before posting - part of my brain was saying that the text didn't match what I was focusing on in the image I was looking at. I guess all the more proof of how easy it is to get distracted and not notice important things like that!
One big component of the problem is a fundamental design issue in windows - namely the whole "nested windows" concept.
If you look at Fig 2 in the original article ("Picture-in-picture attack"), they show what looks like a browser window, but it is just a picture inside another window. Since users are use to seeing windows inside another, they won't notice that this second thing isn't actually a window. For a Mac user, it would definitely look suspicious (at the very least, two "highlighted as frontmost" windows would be a red flag).
On the other hand, the "homograph" attack (Fig 5) where the attacker spawns a window with all the adorners hidden and provides their own copies of the URL field, etc... is already addressed in Safari which uses the window title bar itself to display the "lock icon". If the indicator is in a part of the "chrome" where the content can never be, it's much harder to spoof... (it's surprising that the article doesn't suggest such an approach as a solution to this).
10:32--Cisco calls CNET News.com reporter with a statement about Apple's use of the term "iPhone" for its new product. "Given Apple's numerous requests for permission to use Cisco's iPhone trademark over the past several years and our extensive discussions with them recently, it is our belief that with their announcement today, Apple intends to agree to the final document and public statements that were distributed to them last night and that address a few remaining items we expect to receive a signed agreement today."
Apple never sued FreeType - see FreeType's own account about this myth
The patents Apple has in TrueType also have to do with grid-fitting of curves, and not antialiasing - basically a way to provide hints to adjust control points for curves on limited resolution contexts, effectively so that you don't have to do any antialiasing (which on a B&W device is impossible).
And let's not forget about how you "dial a number".
Or how you can't get through if it is "off the hook"
Or how when you're done, you "hang up" (as in hang the headset back up on the hook)
Presumably the ISPs figure you'll just take your business and your bot-infested computer elsewhere
How many people actually want to have a bot-infested computer? Wouldn't the average consumer be happier if their ISP told them "you're computer is infected, sending out spam, and possibly stealing your private information, and here's what you need to do to clean it up"? I just don't see people thinking "hey, I just want to keep run my bot infested computer without hindrance" and switch to a different ISP.
I'm guessing the real money issue is that the ISPs don't want to (or don't have the resources to) help their users clean up their infested machines.
The president has the authority to start the process to declassify things wherever he wants, like, actually, anyone who has access to classified material. If you know it exists, you can ask the right people to review the classification. He does not, however, have the authority to just say things outloud and magically declassify them.
But White House spokesman Scott McClellan argued Friday that the president staunchly opposes releasing classified information that could affect U.S. security. And he pointed out that the president reserves the right to declassify material
So the White House has stated that the president does have the right to declassify material - not to have it reviewed, but to flat out declassify it.
According to this administration, "if you've done nothing illegal, you've got nothing to worry about having others find out about it".
So if the NSA actions are "perfectly LEGAL", why are they worried about people finding out about it?
What this really is, is an exercise in "grooming" the public to accept privacy invasion on an even greater scale.
There is no expectation of privacy on a public street, so how is this an invasion of privacy where there is none?
Now if those cameras were mounted to peer over privacy fences, that would be another matter, but if you're out in public you've got no expectation of privacy to be invaded.
"H5N1 is the most powerful influenza virus we've seen in modern human history"
and if you don't feel like reading the whole article:
This virus is quite different from what we see with the standard annual flu, and what we saw in 1957 and 1968, because of the cytokine storm it causes. In 1918, the vast majority of the people who died were healthy young people, 20 to 40 years of age. And that was in large part because they had the strongest immune systems.
So the fact that the more healthy you are, the more likely this thing could kill you. Yikes!
Rosetta supports Altivec, and surprisingly well in fact (I tested a fractal rendering application I've written and the Rosetta Altivec version ran a surprising 6.3x faster than the Rosetta non-Altivec version, as opposed to the much more expected 3.2x faster that it did on a G5).
Re:How will this affect the Studio Ghibli deal?
on
Disney Buys Pixar
·
· Score: 1
That's not exactly what http://www.turnerclassicmovies.com/thismonth/artic le.jsp?cid=114166&mainArticleId=114160 says about Castle in the Sky:
For Disney's 1999 English-language version, composer Joe Hisaishi rescored the film to make it suitable for Western audiences, both in terms of the soundtrack's fidelity and its orchestral arrangements, while using the original themes as a starting point.
So the RIAA has those little http://www.riaa.com/issues/parents/advisory.asp"Ex plicit Lyrics" Parental Advisory stickers placed on various albums, with the goal "to help parents make the choice about when -- and whether -- their children should be able to listen to a particular recording". So now child wants to buy album, responsible parent decides to investigate lyrics themselves, to determine appropriateness. Where are they going to find them if they can't find them online anymore?
Slashdot Mirror
Touch screen != multi-touch UI.
There are lots of things that can be done using multi-touch UI that can't be done using a simple touch screen (which is little more than a mouse-like device). There are things that can't even be easily done using a regular "full keyboard + multi-button mouse". Sure, you can do things like shift-click = rotate, and other "memorize the magic combinations of modifiers and buttons in no real intuitive way" but with multi-touch you can do things like "first finger touch anchors the object, the other finger combines rotations and scaling around the anchor point (and if you add a third finger, it applies perspective transforms around the axis defined by the first two finger)".
The point is that Apple wants things that take advantage of the features of the iPhone - they don't want to be "just another J2ME phone". Instead they focus on the unique features of the platform which make people purchase it instead of the other J2ME phone (after all, if an app can run on any J2ME phone, how does that help the phone manufacturer sell more of their specific phones?). The iPhone isn't the success that it is because it has features just like any other J2ME phone, it's because it's built around unique features. They don't want J2ME apps - they want "Cocoa Touch" apps.
How is this a bad thing?
If one were to directly port a J2MEE app, it would look like shite on the iPhone. Apple wants apps that look good and follow the iPhone UI (how many J2MEE apps are built around a multi-touch UI paradigm?). Apple has always taken quality over quantity...
And be one sided...
Core Animation is just the next logical step from Core Image (which is in 10.4) - instead of using static images or movies as input to the filter, allow entire interactive UI views to be the input of a filter, integrating CI into the view architecture.
Throw in some Interface Builder and Objective-C magic to make it really easy to use, and ta-dah...
Now things like multi-touch (assuming that makes it back to the desktop platform), would be a clearer case of iPhone -> desktop.
Personally I was hoping for Daily Show's "Resident Expert" John Hodgman to be involved in the interview, but I guess we know now why that didn't happen...
That'll teach me to finish my coffee before posting - part of my brain was saying that the text didn't match what I was focusing on in the image I was looking at. I guess all the more proof of how easy it is to get distracted and not notice important things like that!
One big component of the problem is a fundamental design issue in windows - namely the whole "nested windows" concept. If you look at Fig 2 in the original article ("Picture-in-picture attack"), they show what looks like a browser window, but it is just a picture inside another window. Since users are use to seeing windows inside another, they won't notice that this second thing isn't actually a window. For a Mac user, it would definitely look suspicious (at the very least, two "highlighted as frontmost" windows would be a red flag).
On the other hand, the "homograph" attack (Fig 5) where the attacker spawns a window with all the adorners hidden and provides their own copies of the URL field, etc... is already addressed in Safari which uses the window title bar itself to display the "lock icon". If the indicator is in a part of the "chrome" where the content can never be, it's much harder to spoof... (it's surprising that the article doesn't suggest such an approach as a solution to this).
Apple never sued FreeType - see FreeType's own account about this myth
The patents Apple has in TrueType also have to do with grid-fitting of curves, and not antialiasing - basically a way to provide hints to adjust control points for curves on limited resolution contexts, effectively so that you don't have to do any antialiasing (which on a B&W device is impossible).
And let's not forget about how you "dial a number".
Or how you can't get through if it is "off the hook"
Or how when you're done, you "hang up" (as in hang the headset back up on the hook)
Not that long ago, people were saying things like "well, if you have an open mail server, it's OK for me to use it to relay my fabulous offers".
At that point we'll clearly see that the emperor has no clothes!
According to this administration, "if you've done nothing illegal, you've got nothing to worry about having others find out about it". So if the NSA actions are "perfectly LEGAL", why are they worried about people finding out about it?
So did the PDA market suck because Apple left, or did Apple leave the PDA market because the it sucked?
Rosetta supports Altivec, and surprisingly well in fact (I tested a fractal rendering application I've written and the Rosetta Altivec version ran a surprising 6.3x faster than the Rosetta non-Altivec version, as opposed to the much more expected 3.2x faster that it did on a G5).
No, the battery life is about the same, but since they run twice as fast you get twice as much done...
Maybe if Jonathon the Impaler were in charge of the FTC...
That's not exactly what http://www.turnerclassicmovies.com/thismonth/artic le.jsp?cid=114166&mainArticleId=114160 says about Castle in the Sky:
For Disney's 1999 English-language version, composer Joe Hisaishi rescored the film to make it suitable for Western audiences, both in terms of the soundtrack's fidelity and its orchestral arrangements, while using the original themes as a starting point.
So the RIAA has those little http://www.riaa.com/issues/parents/advisory.asp"Ex plicit Lyrics" Parental Advisory stickers placed on various albums, with the goal "to help parents make the choice about when -- and whether -- their children should be able to listen to a particular recording". So now child wants to buy album, responsible parent decides to investigate lyrics themselves, to determine appropriateness. Where are they going to find them if they can't find them online anymore?
> this is not very commonly known.
o pyright Law of the United States of America knows about it.
So uncommon that not even the http:///http://copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf>C
The only place where "20 percent" appears at all is a section on rolayty payments...