I don't know a whole lot about kernels so I can only make an intuitive guess here. My guess is that it probably wouldn't be profitable to anyone to extend the QNX RTOS, which is propietary, as a server or desktop OS, so we don't and won't know if it would be better as a server or a desktop OS. As far as I know it isn't QNX who writes the systems for the machines on which QNX RTOS is used. QNX just provides the kernel, libraries, support, etc. So even if it were to be built up as a server or desktop OS, the results would probably depend more on who's building the system rather than on the fact that they're building it on QNX RTOS.
Re:I just can't get the hang of vim
on
Vim 7 Released
·
· Score: 1
I'm a fan of both emacs and vi, but I do agree with you. When the bloat of emacs gets in the way instead of helping I need vi, not vim which both RedHat and Apple try to force down our throats on their systems. I always install the real thing from sourceforge on any machine I'm going to spend a significant amount of time on. Lightning fast, no surprises in the keystrokes, no highlighting to make it unreadable on certain terminals... Sometimes it just feels like coming home.
Why would this be seen as bad? For centuries, the meat and potatoes of musicians had been live performance. Then recording had gotten to the point where getting one really big hit was like winning the lottery. Now musicians are having to go back in front of a live audience to make a living like their predecessors before them. However, unlike recording distribution they can see how much they're making when they're making it because they will actually be there to make it. So although the musicians will have to work harder, managers and record companies can't just walk off with their money anymore because the musicians have to be physically there to generate that money.
Mac OS X isn't just about a nice interface for performing basic OS and file system tasks, it's about the libraries available for applications written for that platform. Running MS Windows programs on Mac OS X will make it look like it's limited to only what MS Windows can do. Furthermore, even if Microsoft were to give Apple everything they needed to write the necessary libraries, there's just no way the applications could run as well as they do on the platform for which they were written. That would make Mac OS X look even worse. It would also give application developers a reason to not develop with the libraries that take advantage of the strengths of Mac OS X over the weaknesses of MS Windows. I could only hope this guy is wrong. It would be a disaster if he was right.
I think it was nice of him to show people what he's done. Maybe you can get a better perspective on this if instead of thinking of it as a guitar you think of it as a guitar-inspired something-to-have-fun-with. Well, it looks like he's having fun with it, and there are probably some sounds you can make with this thing that you couldn't make with a regular guitar. And people are only assuming he doesn't know how to play guitar as. Maybe he does, and just thinks this is also fun to do.
Of course, if I had my druthers, I'druther see a slashdot article on John D'Angelico New Yorkers or Lloyd Loar Gibson L-5's or some other drool inducing honeys.
It might help to post the actual ammendment of which you are speaking:
AMENDMENT XVI
Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
I believe the background is that before the 16th ammendment, it was unconstitutional to tax people's income. This ammendment allowed that and also repealed standard protections where assessment and collection of income taxes are involved. For example, where you might be protected by a separation of powers, say, you would not be tried in a police department court of the police officer who arrested you. However for tax cases, after you get charged by the IRS, you get tried in an IRS court. The 16th ammendment makes that constitutional because it allows congress to pass laws for the assessment and collection of taxes without any limit of any kind. If you were laughing, ``yeah, like they could pass laws using torture if they attached it to a tax issue'', well, you can just stop laughing because legally, they can.
You need to re-read that quote you put at the top of your comment. He did not refer to any scientists as alarmists. I don't even see it as being implied. Your accusation is as unjust as it is ironic.
When you're speaking in a representative capacity for your employer, your employer has the right, actually the responsibility, to make demands of you. If you need to speak for yourself, then you have no right to make it sound like the message is coming from your employer. He's not being forbidden to speak freely as a U.S. citizen. He's just not paid to say anything he wants as representative of NASA or to use NASA's name to put weight behind his own viewpoint. At worst he could get fired for that, not arrested.
Here, you want a quote from your article? How about him saying through the media, "I object to the fact that I'm not able to freely communicate via the media". That's sort of like me saying I object to the fact I can't submit a comment to slashdot.
You haven't really answered the original poster's question. It seems likely that the obvious sequence of events will be first and most obviously, providers of pornography will get.xxx sites to makes themselves easy to find. Next and just as obivously, a lot of people and places will filter out.xxx sites. And finally, people providing content that some consider pornographic will be forced to put their web sites in the.xxx domain thus causing serious issues concerning free speech. An alternative to the first extreme outcome that's just as bad is that if it isn't on.xxx then companies that provide filtering services may be forbidden from filtering it for fear of impeding someone's freedom of speech thus impeding someone else's freedom of choice. It seems this is just an incredibly stupid idea. So the original question comes back. Why would you want to do this?
Sellers of porn do not need a.xxx domain to identify their content anymore than providers of any other kind of information need a special domain for their data. There are far better ways to identify what they do outside of the domain name, and by doing so they have a much better chance of lessening government meddling in their business.
Steve Jobs managed to have NeXT ``bought out'' by Apple which put him in the driver's seat. When Disney was messing around with Pixar, Steve Jobs could manage Disney's buy out of Pixar which made his group the most powerful part of Disney---essentially they get what they want now. The Apple Corps has been a thorn in the side of the Apple computer company for many years now. Why has he and the other Apple CEOs let this go on for so long when it seems apparent he can make similar business arrangements that would settle this whole thing profitably for everyone once and for all? Yes, the ex-Beatles or their widows understandably want control of the fruits of their hard work, but if they don't want the Apple computer company to have control of the fruits of their own hard work, especially when this is the livelihood of one heck of a lot more people than those who work for the Apple Corps, it's time for Jobs to get matters in hand. Enough is enough.
I'm sorry if you feel that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically stupid, but this development is just not that important. Most Mac users are a different audience from MS Windows users. There are a few people who will benefit from this, apparently all of whom seem to have something to do with slashdot, but this is just not that big of a deal.
I found the cost of the home edition of MS Windows XP to be $200 at CompUSA. The Professional version, which would be the more useful version, is $300. Apple will not bundle MS Windows with their machines nor are they in the least likely going to support running MS Windows on their machine. In most cases, you are going to be better off with a separate PC bundled with MS Windows at a reasonable cost that will be supported by the vendor. And they'll network with each other quite nicely and allow you to run both operating systems at the same time.
Yeah, I know, you're freaking out and thinking I'm just incredibly stupid. You and the moderator need to get a grip.
When you complain about being tired of an argument, it only makes sense to either stop at that complaint, or be sure that you follow the complaint with an argument that has fresher insight than the argument you've complained about. I don't see your argument providing us with anything I haven't read many times before and that hasn't already been addressed many times before. At least the person you're criticizing made the effort to inject humor into his comment. That alone makes his comment less tiring than yours.
This scenario seems more than just a little far fetched. Have you ever tried buying MS Windows for a PC that wasn't bundled with it? That's about another $300 if you ever bothered to check. And then there's the hassle it takes to do a complete installation of any operating system---ouch! That's not ``a few more bucks'' to ``just install Windows''.
I don't think most people would take kindly to being told they should just spend that kind of money and go through all that trouble just to read some documents or play games. For that kind of money and trouble, they would obviously be better off getting a completely new separate machine bundled with MS Windows, and just using the Mac for whatever they originally got it, usually media related purposes like photography, video and audio engineering, etc---things for which Mac OS X and company are more appropriate.
Plus, if there's anything to be learned from the whole OS/2 experience it's that perfect emulation of your rival's platform brings no market advantage.
That would be true if they were trying to make their profit chiefly off of software. However, Apple has always made most of their profit from their machines so if MS Windows + Intel Mac makes for a better MS Windows box, all the better for Apple. In the unlikely event that MS Windows + Intel Mac catches on, they'll be making plenty of money from the machines and the peripherals they would make for the computer.
It seems no matter how many times people are reminded that Apple is fundamentally a hardware company who see their software as a selling point and as support for their hardware, they still forget or ignore that fact and keep bringing up the OS/2 comparisons. Apple will have made just as much profit off of their computer if you removed Mac OS X and installed MS Windows in exactly the same way Dell will have made just as much profit off of their computer if you remove MS Windows and install a Linux distribution.
I had a psychology teacher who pointed out that the term ``subconscious'' is pretty much a Hollywood popularized word. You're either talking about being conscious or not being conscious, that is, unconscious. The writer of the article seems to agree with her because they don't use the term subconscious. Sorry to nitpick, but the word unconscious communicates the idea more clearly, while the subconscious is vague. Besides, I think it's safe to say that if you're asleep, you're unconscious.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know a whole lot about kernels so I can only make an intuitive guess here. My guess is that it probably wouldn't be profitable to anyone to extend the QNX RTOS, which is propietary, as a server or desktop OS, so we don't and won't know if it would be better as a server or a desktop OS. As far as I know it isn't QNX who writes the systems for the machines on which QNX RTOS is used. QNX just provides the kernel, libraries, support, etc. So even if it were to be built up as a server or desktop OS, the results would probably depend more on who's building the system rather than on the fact that they're building it on QNX RTOS.
I'm a fan of both emacs and vi, but I do agree with you. When the bloat of emacs gets in the way instead of helping I need vi, not vim which both RedHat and Apple try to force down our throats on their systems. I always install the real thing from sourceforge on any machine I'm going to spend a significant amount of time on. Lightning fast, no surprises in the keystrokes, no highlighting to make it unreadable on certain terminals... Sometimes it just feels like coming home.
And hate is a pretty strong word---I personally wouldn't go that far in my description of what Apple is doing here. It's ridicule, for sure, but hate?
Why would this be seen as bad? For centuries, the meat and potatoes of musicians had been live performance. Then recording had gotten to the point where getting one really big hit was like winning the lottery. Now musicians are having to go back in front of a live audience to make a living like their predecessors before them. However, unlike recording distribution they can see how much they're making when they're making it because they will actually be there to make it. So although the musicians will have to work harder, managers and record companies can't just walk off with their money anymore because the musicians have to be physically there to generate that money.
Mac OS X isn't just about a nice interface for performing basic OS and file system tasks, it's about the libraries available for applications written for that platform. Running MS Windows programs on Mac OS X will make it look like it's limited to only what MS Windows can do. Furthermore, even if Microsoft were to give Apple everything they needed to write the necessary libraries, there's just no way the applications could run as well as they do on the platform for which they were written. That would make Mac OS X look even worse. It would also give application developers a reason to not develop with the libraries that take advantage of the strengths of Mac OS X over the weaknesses of MS Windows. I could only hope this guy is wrong. It would be a disaster if he was right.
I think it was nice of him to show people what he's done. Maybe you can get a better perspective on this if instead of thinking of it as a guitar you think of it as a guitar-inspired something-to-have-fun-with. Well, it looks like he's having fun with it, and there are probably some sounds you can make with this thing that you couldn't make with a regular guitar. And people are only assuming he doesn't know how to play guitar as. Maybe he does, and just thinks this is also fun to do.
Of course, if I had my druthers, I'druther see a slashdot article on John D'Angelico New Yorkers or Lloyd Loar Gibson L-5's or some other drool inducing honeys.
AMENDMENT XVI
Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
I believe the background is that before the 16th ammendment, it was unconstitutional to tax people's income. This ammendment allowed that and also repealed standard protections where assessment and collection of income taxes are involved. For example, where you might be protected by a separation of powers, say, you would not be tried in a police department court of the police officer who arrested you. However for tax cases, after you get charged by the IRS, you get tried in an IRS court. The 16th ammendment makes that constitutional because it allows congress to pass laws for the assessment and collection of taxes without any limit of any kind. If you were laughing, ``yeah, like they could pass laws using torture if they attached it to a tax issue'', well, you can just stop laughing because legally, they can.
You need to re-read that quote you put at the top of your comment. He did not refer to any scientists as alarmists. I don't even see it as being implied. Your accusation is as unjust as it is ironic.
Here, you want a quote from your article? How about him saying through the media, "I object to the fact that I'm not able to freely communicate via the media". That's sort of like me saying I object to the fact I can't submit a comment to slashdot.
You haven't really answered the original poster's question. It seems likely that the obvious sequence of events will be first and most obviously, providers of pornography will get .xxx sites to makes themselves easy to find. Next and just as obivously, a lot of people and places will filter out .xxx sites. And finally, people providing content that some consider pornographic will be forced to put their web sites in the .xxx domain thus causing serious issues concerning free speech. An alternative to the first extreme outcome that's just as bad is that if it isn't on .xxx then companies that provide filtering services may be forbidden from filtering it for fear of impeding someone's freedom of speech thus impeding someone else's freedom of choice. It seems this is just an incredibly stupid idea. So the original question comes back. Why would you want to do this?
.xxx domain to identify their content anymore than providers of any other kind of information need a special domain for their data. There are far better ways to identify what they do outside of the domain name, and by doing so they have a much better chance of lessening government meddling in their business.
Sellers of porn do not need a
Steve Jobs managed to have NeXT ``bought out'' by Apple which put him in the driver's seat. When Disney was messing around with Pixar, Steve Jobs could manage Disney's buy out of Pixar which made his group the most powerful part of Disney---essentially they get what they want now. The Apple Corps has been a thorn in the side of the Apple computer company for many years now. Why has he and the other Apple CEOs let this go on for so long when it seems apparent he can make similar business arrangements that would settle this whole thing profitably for everyone once and for all? Yes, the ex-Beatles or their widows understandably want control of the fruits of their hard work, but if they don't want the Apple computer company to have control of the fruits of their own hard work, especially when this is the livelihood of one heck of a lot more people than those who work for the Apple Corps, it's time for Jobs to get matters in hand. Enough is enough.
I'm sorry if you feel that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically stupid, but this development is just not that important. Most Mac users are a different audience from MS Windows users. There are a few people who will benefit from this, apparently all of whom seem to have something to do with slashdot, but this is just not that big of a deal.
I found the cost of the home edition of MS Windows XP to be $200 at CompUSA. The Professional version, which would be the more useful version, is $300. Apple will not bundle MS Windows with their machines nor are they in the least likely going to support running MS Windows on their machine. In most cases, you are going to be better off with a separate PC bundled with MS Windows at a reasonable cost that will be supported by the vendor. And they'll network with each other quite nicely and allow you to run both operating systems at the same time.
Yeah, I know, you're freaking out and thinking I'm just incredibly stupid. You and the moderator need to get a grip.
When you complain about being tired of an argument, it only makes sense to either stop at that complaint, or be sure that you follow the complaint with an argument that has fresher insight than the argument you've complained about. I don't see your argument providing us with anything I haven't read many times before and that hasn't already been addressed many times before. At least the person you're criticizing made the effort to inject humor into his comment. That alone makes his comment less tiring than yours.
This scenario seems more than just a little far fetched. Have you ever tried buying MS Windows for a PC that wasn't bundled with it? That's about another $300 if you ever bothered to check. And then there's the hassle it takes to do a complete installation of any operating system---ouch! That's not ``a few more bucks'' to ``just install Windows''.
I don't think most people would take kindly to being told they should just spend that kind of money and go through all that trouble just to read some documents or play games. For that kind of money and trouble, they would obviously be better off getting a completely new separate machine bundled with MS Windows, and just using the Mac for whatever they originally got it, usually media related purposes like photography, video and audio engineering, etc---things for which Mac OS X and company are more appropriate.
It seems no matter how many times people are reminded that Apple is fundamentally a hardware company who see their software as a selling point and as support for their hardware, they still forget or ignore that fact and keep bringing up the OS/2 comparisons. Apple will have made just as much profit off of their computer if you removed Mac OS X and installed MS Windows in exactly the same way Dell will have made just as much profit off of their computer if you remove MS Windows and install a Linux distribution.
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
Although it's a worn cliche, sometimes the occasional rehashing can be called for: if you don't already exist, then how can you think?
I had a psychology teacher who pointed out that the term ``subconscious'' is pretty much a Hollywood popularized word. You're either talking about being conscious or not being conscious, that is, unconscious. The writer of the article seems to agree with her because they don't use the term subconscious. Sorry to nitpick, but the word unconscious communicates the idea more clearly, while the subconscious is vague. Besides, I think it's safe to say that if you're asleep, you're unconscious.