What do you suppose would happen if the Book publishing industry went to Congress and demanded that all used bookstores pay a percentage of all book sales back to the book publishers?
How far would the Electronics and Jewelry industry get if they demanded that pawn shops do the same to them?
Used video games are not infinite goods. A book, a video game, a stereo system, and a diamond ring are, as far as the law is concerned, indistinguishable from one another. When you buy one, it is yours. It no longer belongs to the person who sold it to you. You can do what you wish with it (aside from violating copyright). You can break it, burn it, or give it away.
I don't care much for Ruby myself. I'm a Python guy, but I don't give a frack what language people use.
"Least used scripting language"? Right, because nobody develops on Rails (like it or hate it).
Ever check the stats on Developers who use Macs (vs. the general populace)? Didn't think so.
And finally: that which makes MacRuby very very fast can also make Ruby on *nix very very fast.
The problem with Ruby is not the language. It is the VM. Improve the VM, and more people will look at other uses where Ruby is a great fit but for its speed.
Actually, I do have a problem with the case design of the old-style Aluminum Macbook Pros. The cases are weak. They dent or bend WAY too easily. I have stripped more than one of them down just to pound out the dents and bend the case back into shape.
Take it from someone who has actually replaced LCD panels in a MacBook Pro. This is NOT a relatively trivial hack.
And you cannot just "get the backlight off the LCD". The back portion of the panel proper is a reflective surface. Take that off, and your panel goes dark, except for two of the edges where the CCFL tubes or LED arrays are located.
On the MacBook Pro what this guy is doing would be nearly impossible. There is just no room between the panel and the shell. There's a bit more room in the regular MacBook.
Scary as hell. This sort of thing is not impossible on Linux/OSX/BSD, but's it's a hell of a lot more difficult to pull off (unless you run as root all the time).
This is a scary thought that might be relevant. Wired recently published an interview with a repentant spyware author who mentioned that they had figured out how to run the virus as a series of discrete threads which are not running as part of any parent process, something that Windows evidently allows. He also stated that they considered using a completely threadless model, by installing the code as an interrupt handler. Just tie it to an interrupt that regularly fires, and their code runs in an utterly transparent manner - something Windows also allows. The guy claimed that they didn't actually do the interrupt trick. But the frightening think was that it is even possible. I have no doubt that someone will do it eventually.
Close. Brainless troubleshooting-tree-following monkeys. You know, like when you call tech support on an "everything's covered" service plan, and tell them "My computer was struck by lightening and the motherboard is quite literally fried", and they ask, "Is the green light lit up on your monitor?"
And if this country had been run on libertarian principles for the last 100 years, you might have a point.
When the government demands that lenders make more loans to the least qualified people, when the government enforces a debt-based monetary policy, how exactly is that libertarian?
You should see people freak out when they try to type on my Das Keyboard II, with the Dvorak layout activated.
But to your point: I recently learned to type fully pointed Hebrew using a layout designed for academic work (SBL Tiro, FYI. It is based upon the modern Hebrew typewriter layout). Not having the keycaps, I avoided making incorrect associations between English and Hebrew letters. I'm reaching for a daleth or a gimel now, and not a D or a G.
I predict that people will still support the Dvorak layout for years to come, regardless of evidence for or against it's usefulness based purly off being differnt or a desire to believe that stupidity stops people from seeing Dvorak's improvements and thus anyone who does use the layout is a better human being.
And as long as there are Dvorak users around, there will be people like you who cannot tolerate the existence of happy non-conformists, and feel obligated to get in their face. And when they happily tell you, "I'm fine, thank you. Now piss off," you can feel content that there are people in the world obviously more ignorant than you.
“Absolutely” it is possible — if the Chrome developers would do something so utterly foolish as to spend hundreds of hours writing an API emulation layer for Chrome, add tons of hooks into the base browser code to support the emulation layer, add massive code bloat, slow the browser, find some way to make this jive with their multiple-process execution model, probably only work with a limited number of extensions, and saddle everything they do to the design decisions that Mozilla may make in the future. In short, yeah, if they re-write Chrome to be no different than Firefox, and thus erase it's entire reason for existing, it would work.
How in blazes are “installed by the end user” and “deeply tied to Mozilla's internal API” contradictory? Do you even know what an XPI is? Evidently not. Go Google it and stop making such a fool out of yourself.
No, this is completely false. You are confusing plugins with extensions. Plugins are compiled to architecture-specific machine code, and Chrome already supports them.
Plugins allow you to display content types that your browser does not natively support. Flash is a plugin. So is Java applet support. Extensions extend the browser itself, and are deeply tied to Mozilla's internal API.
Mozilla extensions are written in XUL and Javascript. Chrome does not and will never support XUL. And, as the Javascript in Extensions calls into the Mozilla/XUL object model, that won't work on Chrome either.
OS X has a habit of introducing radically new APIs in newer versions of the OS, such as Core Animation in Leopard. There are usually lots of goodies that developers can't help but play with, which then make their apps non-backward compatible. This then cascades to the end-user purchasing OS upgrades from Apple. Now, I may be wrong, but I doubt that there is anything in Core Animation that requires Leopard. Apple could choose to create installable versions of the newer APIs for Tiger (and perhaps Panther). However, they have no financial incentive to do so.
Now, Microsoft also introduces new APIs. The difference is that Microsoft has historically back-ported APIs to previous versions of the OS. For example, WIndows XP shipped with DirectX 8.1. When DirectX 9 came out, Microsoft released it for both Windows 2000 and XP. The same can be said for.NET. (2.0 supports W2K, 3.0 does not - but it does support XP). Of course, now Microsoft is following Apple's lead, and DirectX 10 only installs on Vista.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean, they are rather bland looking, have poor 3G coverage, and limited memory.
To each his own, I suppose, but Java better keep it's damn mitts off MY G1.
What do you suppose would happen if the Book publishing industry went to Congress and demanded that all used bookstores pay a percentage of all book sales back to the book publishers?
How far would the Electronics and Jewelry industry get if they demanded that pawn shops do the same to them?
Used video games are not infinite goods. A book, a video game, a stereo system, and a diamond ring are, as far as the law is concerned, indistinguishable from one another. When you buy one, it is yours. It no longer belongs to the person who sold it to you. You can do what you wish with it (aside from violating copyright). You can break it, burn it, or give it away.
I am astounded at the gall of these prima donas.
I don't care much for Ruby myself. I'm a Python guy, but I don't give a frack what language people use.
"Least used scripting language"? Right, because nobody develops on Rails (like it or hate it).
Ever check the stats on Developers who use Macs (vs. the general populace)? Didn't think so.
And finally: that which makes MacRuby very very fast can also make Ruby on *nix very very fast.
The problem with Ruby is not the language. It is the VM. Improve the VM, and more people will look at other uses where Ruby is a great fit but for its speed.
Actually, I do have a problem with the case design of the old-style Aluminum Macbook Pros. The cases are weak. They dent or bend WAY too easily. I have stripped more than one of them down just to pound out the dents and bend the case back into shape.
And, of course, I can't read. Sorry. My bad.
Seems like a relatively trivial hack
Take it from someone who has actually replaced LCD panels in a MacBook Pro. This is NOT a relatively trivial hack.
And you cannot just "get the backlight off the LCD". The back portion of the panel proper is a reflective surface. Take that off, and your panel goes dark, except for two of the edges where the CCFL tubes or LED arrays are located.
On the MacBook Pro what this guy is doing would be nearly impossible. There is just no room between the panel and the shell. There's a bit more room in the regular MacBook.
Yeah, I was just going to say. That "anomaly" is around 126 miles, corner-to-corner, and the "streets" are something like 1.5 miles wide.
I'm not sure what to call it, and suspect that it is actually just a processing glitch, but in any case, it's not exactly "city" material.
caprica(web-ecommerce); kobol(fileserver); adama(admin); gaeta(database); starbuck(prototyping)
Scary as hell. This sort of thing is not impossible on Linux/OSX/BSD, but's it's a hell of a lot more difficult to pull off (unless you run as root all the time).
This is a scary thought that might be relevant. Wired recently published an interview with a repentant spyware author who mentioned that they had figured out how to run the virus as a series of discrete threads which are not running as part of any parent process, something that Windows evidently allows. He also stated that they considered using a completely threadless model, by installing the code as an interrupt handler. Just tie it to an interrupt that regularly fires, and their code runs in an utterly transparent manner - something Windows also allows. The guy claimed that they didn't actually do the interrupt trick. But the frightening think was that it is even possible. I have no doubt that someone will do it eventually.
Close. Brainless troubleshooting-tree-following monkeys. You know, like when you call tech support on an "everything's covered" service plan, and tell them "My computer was struck by lightening and the motherboard is quite literally fried", and they ask, "Is the green light lit up on your monitor?"
Yeah, forgot to capitalize the noun.
I would tell Twitter to shut up, even when I agree with him.
Now, do I agree with him, or don't I? Can't tell? Then you shut up too.
Shut up, Twitter.
And if this country had been run on libertarian principles for the last 100 years, you might have a point.
When the government demands that lenders make more loans to the least qualified people, when the government enforces a debt-based monetary policy, how exactly is that libertarian?
Gotta love post-modernists...
Yeah, I was going to say. Try transposing a tune on a C#-D button-box, and come back and tell me that it's a “slight mental shift”.
You should see people freak out when they try to type on my Das Keyboard II, with the Dvorak layout activated.
But to your point: I recently learned to type fully pointed Hebrew using a layout designed for academic work (SBL Tiro, FYI. It is based upon the modern Hebrew typewriter layout). Not having the keycaps, I avoided making incorrect associations between English and Hebrew letters. I'm reaching for a daleth or a gimel now, and not a D or a G.
Now try it this way:
LANG=C grep -v "[^aoeuidhtns]" /usr/share/dict/words | grep "^.*" | wc -w
vs.
LANG=C grep -v "[^asdfghjkl]" /usr/share/dict/words | grep "^.*" | wc -w
Coincidence? I think not.
I predict that people will still support the Dvorak layout for years to come, regardless of evidence for or against it's usefulness based purly off being differnt or a desire to believe that stupidity stops people from seeing Dvorak's improvements and thus anyone who does use the layout is a better human being.
And as long as there are Dvorak users around, there will be people like you who cannot tolerate the existence of happy non-conformists, and feel obligated to get in their face. And when they happily tell you, "I'm fine, thank you. Now piss off," you can feel content that there are people in the world obviously more ignorant than you.
You hate Microsoft so much that you have a keyboard with two Fs?
“Absolutely” it is possible — if the Chrome developers would do something so utterly foolish as to spend hundreds of hours writing an API emulation layer for Chrome, add tons of hooks into the base browser code to support the emulation layer, add massive code bloat, slow the browser, find some way to make this jive with their multiple-process execution model, probably only work with a limited number of extensions, and saddle everything they do to the design decisions that Mozilla may make in the future. In short, yeah, if they re-write Chrome to be no different than Firefox, and thus erase it's entire reason for existing, it would work.
How in blazes are “installed by the end user” and “deeply tied to Mozilla's internal API” contradictory? Do you even know what an XPI is? Evidently not. Go Google it and stop making such a fool out of yourself.
Actually, I would like to understand this point as well, so I'm not sure about all this "HP Conspiracy" stuff. Sounds like an honest question to me.
If components were ever discovered that could couple Flow and Charge, or Flow and Flux, why would those not be "fundamental"?
Why was there only one missing circuit element? Why not three?
No, this is completely false. You are confusing plugins with extensions. Plugins are compiled to architecture-specific machine code, and Chrome already supports them.
Plugins allow you to display content types that your browser does not natively support. Flash is a plugin. So is Java applet support. Extensions extend the browser itself, and are deeply tied to Mozilla's internal API.
Mozilla extensions are written in XUL and Javascript. Chrome does not and will never support XUL. And, as the Javascript in Extensions calls into the Mozilla/XUL object model, that won't work on Chrome either.
OS X has a habit of introducing radically new APIs in newer versions of the OS, such as Core Animation in Leopard. There are usually lots of goodies that developers can't help but play with, which then make their apps non-backward compatible. This then cascades to the end-user purchasing OS upgrades from Apple. Now, I may be wrong, but I doubt that there is anything in Core Animation that requires Leopard. Apple could choose to create installable versions of the newer APIs for Tiger (and perhaps Panther). However, they have no financial incentive to do so.
Now, Microsoft also introduces new APIs. The difference is that Microsoft has historically back-ported APIs to previous versions of the OS. For example, WIndows XP shipped with DirectX 8.1. When DirectX 9 came out, Microsoft released it for both Windows 2000 and XP. The same can be said for .NET. (2.0 supports W2K, 3.0 does not - but it does support XP). Of course, now Microsoft is following Apple's lead, and DirectX 10 only installs on Vista.
To whomever modded this "Offtopic": What the Dickens is the matter with you?
Yet another illiterate modder who can't even be bothered to use google.