However the BSD + mach kernel still is lineaged to NeXT as well.
And NeXT did buy Apple, I mean NeXT's CEO became Apple's CEO.
BTW I am another AC than your parent post.
So, by your logic, Steve Jobs, who was originally the CEO of Apple, became NeXT's CEO; so NeXT was just a subsidiary of Apple, and Apple just decided to buy out H. Ross Perot's share of the subsidiary for $400 mil. And close the Subsidiary.
And then the person placed in charge of the NeXT subsidiary came back to Apple to resume his former position as CEO.
And as far as the lineage of OS X goes, well, that is quite a bit more convoluted than you imply. Sure, their is the BSD + Mach kernel, but that is simply part of the Darwin layer. OS X is MUCH more than that. And if we want to trace the origins of those BSD and Mach layers, well, that starts to look like a Geneology chart of the Origin of the Species...
For those whose brains are now breaking, that is entirely true. When NeXT got bought by Apple (or more accurately, NeXT bought Apple for negative 400 million dollars), they were using Display Postscript for graphics. Adobe charged a lot for the licensing of DPS. Apple didn't want to pay that for every Macintosh computer sold (and probably didn't want to pay more than zero in any case), so they created a new graphics kernel (Quartz) based on PDF instead of Display Postscript.
Interesting. I knew about NeXT being DPS-based; but didn't know that was why Quartz was created; but it makes sense.
However, I do kinda resist the notion of "NeXT buying Apple for -$400 million", because, in the end, other than the Dock, the Column-View Mode in Finder, and a bunch of API calls that start with "NS", Macs (thank Cthulu) never DID turn in NeXTStations (although there was a bit of an attempt with the G4 Cube), and the OS X GUI of today still looks essentially the same as it has since MacOS 1.4 debuted in 1984.
Apple even had created a relatively fully-functional Unix-based OS (A/UX) LONG-prior to the NeXT acquisition, so even THAT wasn't something that can be directly traced to NeXT and NeXT alone.
Yeah, I removed the Flash plugin from my computer maybe a year ago. Prior to that, I'd been running ClickToFlash for several years... but then I realized just how infrequently I actually "clicked" to enable anything. Plus Adobe's insistence on installing it for all users, and with admin privileges to boot - really ridiculous, especially given Flash's horrible track record.
Since Chrome has Flash built in, and since I don't use Chrome as my main browser - if there's ever something Flash-based I actually want to access, I just launch that browser. But I can't remember the last time I actually did that...
My 2013 MacBook Pro didn't come with Flash installed. I counted that as a Feature.
2016, and that MBP is still blissfully Flash-Free...
If you had the tine, I'd recommend getting your local ACLU to take that Sheriff to court fir denying you a Fundamental Right under the U.S. Constitution. The "default" SHOULD be "Issue permit unless...", not the other way around.
I'm too lazy to research this one so I'll just go with it. I got my definition from the very youtuber I mentioned earlier, perhaps not the most reliable of sources.
You DO know the "assault weapons ban" (and with it, the bullshit arbitrary "definition" thereof) was allowed to EXPIRE in 2004. So, as of now, there is no such thing, legally, as an "assault" ANYTHING.
As an aside, have you noticed that my original comment shot up to +5 and now sits at 0? Gotta love argumentum per viam modum. Ah, well, I have karma to burn.
Welcome to MY world! I have had my Karma go from Excellent to Poor in one day, THREE TIMES since I joined/. in 2004.
That may be true, but the federal government doesn't see it that way. They all but banned one for private ownership and the other is available for immediate purchase without registration.
Actually, the Federal Government sees it EXACTLY that way. Or rather, SHOULD, under the Constitution and Statutory Law.
The "assault weapons ban" (a/k/a "Brady Bill") was allowed to "sunset" during the Bush Administration (probably the only thing he ever got right).
So no, the only place the term "assault weapon/rifle" has any meaning is in the (minuscule) minds of the anti-gun nuts and the media outlets that perpetuate their mindset.
Damnit, just when I was starting to like you again you make me spit coffee all over my laptop.
Well, at least this time it was just a Windows laptop... (I kid!!!)
LOL! At least we found something to agree on!!!
Actually, it was a modification of the line I use when people say that you should just dial 911 if someone breaks into your house: "Stop or I'll DIAL!"
An assault rifle is a real thing. It's not what the media applies the label to, but it is a real thing. A fully automatic military rifle is an assault rifle. What was used in Orlando was not that.
You don't correct incorrect usage of a term by not using the term yourself and allowing others to continue using it incorrectly; you correct it by using it correctly yourself and correcting others when you hear them use it incorrectly.
I thought you, of all people, would be on board with that concept.
The term "assault rifle" was created in 1992 (I believe) by the anti-gun crowd (you know, Diane Feinstein, Charles Schumer and friends, the Brady Bill people) to attempt to categorize "scary-looking" guns with a "scary-sounding" name.
It DID have a "legal definition", true; but that was for the purposes of the Brady Bill.
But the term literally did not exist until that drumbeat started after James Brady got in the way of the bullet intended for Ronald Regan.
Until then, there was NO SUCH THING as an "Assault Rifle", period. And there STILL isn't.
An Assault Rifle has a large capacity magazine (often >25 rounds) and an automatic and/or burst fire mode. Hunting rifles are either bolt action or semi-auto and usually have smaller magazine capacities (1-5) and are often chambered for larger calibers.
Whats the diff between a hunting and assault rifle?
There are no such thing as either of those. It's a rifle. You can use an AR-15 Sporter to hunt squirrels just as easily as you can use a Remington to kill people in a bar.
that would have been a LOT different outcome at a Country 'n' Western or Biker Bar
That's an exact quote of a youtuber I subscribe to, followed by two points they made in a recent video, almost verbatim. I'm not saying you stole it (and more power to you if you did, it's a good message, spread it), but... might you be that youtuber?
No, sorry. I just came up with it talking with my roomate watching the TV coverage the other day.
That argument falls apart inside a crowded night club. Bar tender calls for final drinks, shooter opens fire with an assault rifle. The first 20 to 30 people in front of the shooter are already dead.
That's Sig-Sauer rifle is a SEMI-automatic. One pull, one bullet. Sorry. He took THREE HOURS to shoot a little over 100 people. That's only TWO PER MINUTE (average).
he person with a concealed gun may already be dead. People starts running to the exits. The person with a concealed gun may already be the first one out the door.
"May" this, "May" that. But what WAS was Fish-In-A-Barrel.
There is absolutely NO argument you can logically make that doesn't INCREASE the odds on the side of the "Fish", if they are armed. None.
But that didn't stop you from giving your expert opinion on the matter, did it?
"There are only two guards, but it's common for people to be armed. I probably won't get very far even if I take out the guards first."
So, people at a heavy metal concert or in a club should be blamed for their own murders because they didn't have guns? Way to blame the victims you piece of shit.
I don't think that's what he was saying, or even implying. Don't be deliberately obtuse. Or are you just that way naturally?
What he said (and which is undeniably true) is that strict gun laws don't do anything to make people safer; simply because no matter how many laws you pass, the ONLY people who will OBEY them are the same ones that will NEVER BE SHOOTERS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Sorry; but until you can invent a device that SIMULTANEOUSLY disables ALL guns, Mutually-Assured-Destruction is the ONLY way. Handcuffing the innocents just turns them into fish-in-a-barrel.
Which is EXACTLY what was demonstrated at Pulse.
THREE FUCKING HOURS, FFS!!! Can you even IMAGINE how many people wished they could have had a gun materialize in their hands at that point, and HOW MANY LIVES WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED?!?
You know what stops mass shootings? Ironically, the same thing that allows them to happen in the first place: guns.
If just one patron of that night club last week had a gun, they could have put one between the shooter's eyes when he first started shooting and fewer people would have died. If more people carried, more people would think twice about using guns to commit crimes.
Sure, that wouldn't be the case if guns didn't exist but, oh, look at that. They do.
More restrictions really don't help. Look at France; strict gun laws just ensure that, when gun crimes occur (and they will), they're more devastating than they would be if an armed citizen had been there to stop them.
Exactly! Mod this Up!!!!
As I said to someone the other day, that would have been a LOT different outcome at a Country 'n' Western or Biker Bar (because presumably SOMEONE would have been armed). Truth is, the gunman probably wouldn't have even TRIED to shoot-up such a place.
Just ONE person with a gun could have made that more like FIVE people shot instead of over ONE HUNDRED.
Oh, and all the talking-heads that are squawking that "No one on a Terror Watch List should be able to even BUY a gun" CONVENIENTLY IGNORE the facts that
1. The Orlando gunman WAS NOT ON ANY "WATCH LIST" (he was at one time, but then he was "cleared")
2. These "Watch Lists" are EXTRA-JUDICIAL in nature. That is, they require exactly ZERO DUE PROCESS to be placed-on; the criteria (if there are any) are ENTIRELY opaque, and you play absolute HELL getting OFF of one. So, do you REALLY want a Government that has the POWER TO REMOVE YOUR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS with ZERO DUE PROCESS? No Thankyouverymuch!
Obesity kills far more humans than "rifles" ever will, and yet you see no artists blocking food emojis, and no companies worrying about what do to when someone posts a cake emoji.
But we DO have things like Philadelphia's "Sugar Tax" (and NYC's earlier one). So, it's not like "society" is completely oblivious to the dangers of obesity.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows 10 does as well now...
Wow, I'm impressed! OS X has only had that for sixteen years (Hint: Since OS X 10.0.0)...
WTF, MODS? How can a REPLY be FLAMEBAIT?!?
Oh, wait. I understand now. I dared to post a FACTUAL pro- Apple comment on Slashdot. My bad...
However the BSD + mach kernel still is lineaged to NeXT as well.
And NeXT did buy Apple, I mean NeXT's CEO became Apple's CEO.
BTW I am another AC than your parent post.
So, by your logic, Steve Jobs, who was originally the CEO of Apple, became NeXT's CEO; so NeXT was just a subsidiary of Apple, and Apple just decided to buy out H. Ross Perot's share of the subsidiary for $400 mil. And close the Subsidiary.
And then the person placed in charge of the NeXT subsidiary came back to Apple to resume his former position as CEO.
And as far as the lineage of OS X goes, well, that is quite a bit more convoluted than you imply. Sure, their is the BSD + Mach kernel, but that is simply part of the Darwin layer. OS X is MUCH more than that. And if we want to trace the origins of those BSD and Mach layers, well, that starts to look like a Geneology chart of the Origin of the Species...
For those whose brains are now breaking, that is entirely true. When NeXT got bought by Apple (or more accurately, NeXT bought Apple for negative 400 million dollars), they were using Display Postscript for graphics. Adobe charged a lot for the licensing of DPS. Apple didn't want to pay that for every Macintosh computer sold (and probably didn't want to pay more than zero in any case), so they created a new graphics kernel (Quartz) based on PDF instead of Display Postscript.
Interesting. I knew about NeXT being DPS-based; but didn't know that was why Quartz was created; but it makes sense.
However, I do kinda resist the notion of "NeXT buying Apple for -$400 million", because, in the end, other than the Dock, the Column-View Mode in Finder, and a bunch of API calls that start with "NS", Macs (thank Cthulu) never DID turn in NeXTStations (although there was a bit of an attempt with the G4 Cube), and the OS X GUI of today still looks essentially the same as it has since MacOS 1.4 debuted in 1984.
Apple even had created a relatively fully-functional Unix-based OS (A/UX) LONG-prior to the NeXT acquisition, so even THAT wasn't something that can be directly traced to NeXT and NeXT alone.
Windows 10 does as well now...
Wow, I'm impressed! OS X has only had that for sixteen years (Hint: Since OS X 10.0.0)...
That's one of the things I have always liked about OS X: Native PDF support for both Reading and Writing PDFs.
Flash is literally a zombie at this point.
Yeah, I removed the Flash plugin from my computer maybe a year ago. Prior to that, I'd been running ClickToFlash for several years... but then I realized just how infrequently I actually "clicked" to enable anything. Plus Adobe's insistence on installing it for all users, and with admin privileges to boot - really ridiculous, especially given Flash's horrible track record.
Since Chrome has Flash built in, and since I don't use Chrome as my main browser - if there's ever something Flash-based I actually want to access, I just launch that browser. But I can't remember the last time I actually did that...
My 2013 MacBook Pro didn't come with Flash installed. I counted that as a Feature.
2016, and that MBP is still blissfully Flash-Free...
Don't miss it at all.
iMessage just sends regular text messages to non-Apple things. I've never had an issue with texting people with Android phones from my iPhone.
Exactly.
Other than the color of the text bubbles, there's really no difference between messages between iMessage users and IMessage SMS/MMS users.
But I do blame you for this. Not because I think you had anything to do with actually modding me down, but because you suggested people mod me up.
Jeez, talk about "No good deed goes unpunished!" Story of my life... ;-)
If you had the tine, I'd recommend getting your local ACLU to take that Sheriff to court fir denying you a Fundamental Right under the U.S. Constitution. The "default" SHOULD be "Issue permit unless...", not the other way around.
I'm too lazy to research this one so I'll just go with it. I got my definition from the very youtuber I mentioned earlier, perhaps not the most reliable of sources.
You DO know the "assault weapons ban" (and with it, the bullshit arbitrary "definition" thereof) was allowed to EXPIRE in 2004. So, as of now, there is no such thing, legally, as an "assault" ANYTHING.
As an aside, have you noticed that my original comment shot up to +5 and now sits at 0? Gotta love argumentum per viam modum. Ah, well, I have karma to burn.
Welcome to MY world! I have had my Karma go from Excellent to Poor in one day, THREE TIMES since I joined /. in 2004.
That may be true, but the federal government doesn't see it that way. They all but banned one for private ownership and the other is available for immediate purchase without registration.
Actually, the Federal Government sees it EXACTLY that way. Or rather, SHOULD, under the Constitution and Statutory Law.
The "assault weapons ban" (a/k/a "Brady Bill") was allowed to "sunset" during the Bush Administration (probably the only thing he ever got right).
So no, the only place the term "assault weapon/rifle" has any meaning is in the (minuscule) minds of the anti-gun nuts and the media outlets that perpetuate their mindset.
Damnit, just when I was starting to like you again you make me spit coffee all over my laptop.
Well, at least this time it was just a Windows laptop... (I kid!!!)
LOL! At least we found something to agree on!!!
Actually, it was a modification of the line I use when people say that you should just dial 911 if someone breaks into your house: "Stop or I'll DIAL!"
An assault rifle is a real thing. It's not what the media applies the label to, but it is a real thing. A fully automatic military rifle is an assault rifle. What was used in Orlando was not that.
You don't correct incorrect usage of a term by not using the term yourself and allowing others to continue using it incorrectly; you correct it by using it correctly yourself and correcting others when you hear them use it incorrectly.
I thought you, of all people, would be on board with that concept.
The term "assault rifle" was created in 1992 (I believe) by the anti-gun crowd (you know, Diane Feinstein, Charles Schumer and friends, the Brady Bill people) to attempt to categorize "scary-looking" guns with a "scary-sounding" name.
It DID have a "legal definition", true; but that was for the purposes of the Brady Bill.
But the term literally did not exist until that drumbeat started after James Brady got in the way of the bullet intended for Ronald Regan.
Until then, there was NO SUCH THING as an "Assault Rifle", period. And there STILL isn't.
Too late- a 12 year old girl posted a gun emoji on Instagram and was charged with making terroristic threats against her school. [washingtonpost.com]
We're doomed.
An assault rifle is capable of fully automatic fire. Requires an FFL to purchase and possess.
captcha: eviller
Then, by your definition, that Sig-Sauer rifle the Orlando gunman used was NOT "an Assault Rifle", right?
Your definition, not mine.
An Assault Rifle has a large capacity magazine (often >25 rounds) and an automatic and/or burst fire mode. Hunting rifles are either bolt action or semi-auto and usually have smaller magazine capacities (1-5) and are often chambered for larger calibers.
Bullshit arbitrary "classification".
Whats the diff between a hunting and assault rifle?
There are no such thing as either of those. It's a rifle. You can use an AR-15 Sporter to hunt squirrels just as easily as you can use a Remington to kill people in a bar.
It's the APPLICATION, not the GUN.
Neither has the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment was to protect us Citizens against the GOVERNMENT, and so far, it has (kinda) worked.
that would have been a LOT different outcome at a Country 'n' Western or Biker Bar
That's an exact quote of a youtuber I subscribe to, followed by two points they made in a recent video, almost verbatim. I'm not saying you stole it (and more power to you if you did, it's a good message, spread it), but... might you be that youtuber?
No, sorry. I just came up with it talking with my roomate watching the TV coverage the other day.
;-)
Great minds and all, ya know...
Yes, with an assault rifle
PLEASE don't use that term, EVER. It just plays into "their" narrative...
That argument falls apart inside a crowded night club. Bar tender calls for final drinks, shooter opens fire with an assault rifle. The first 20 to 30 people in front of the shooter are already dead.
That's Sig-Sauer rifle is a SEMI-automatic. One pull, one bullet. Sorry. He took THREE HOURS to shoot a little over 100 people. That's only TWO PER MINUTE (average).
he person with a concealed gun may already be dead. People starts running to the exits. The person with a concealed gun may already be the first one out the door.
"May" this, "May" that. But what WAS was Fish-In-A-Barrel.
There is absolutely NO argument you can logically make that doesn't INCREASE the odds on the side of the "Fish", if they are armed. None.
One wonders why there wasn't even any pepper spray available/used.
Somehow, "Stop or I'll Spray!" doesn't have the same impact...
But that didn't stop you from giving your expert opinion on the matter, did it?
So, people at a heavy metal concert or in a club should be blamed for their own murders because they didn't have guns? Way to blame the victims you piece of shit.
I don't think that's what he was saying, or even implying. Don't be deliberately obtuse. Or are you just that way naturally?
What he said (and which is undeniably true) is that strict gun laws don't do anything to make people safer; simply because no matter how many laws you pass, the ONLY people who will OBEY them are the same ones that will NEVER BE SHOOTERS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Sorry; but until you can invent a device that SIMULTANEOUSLY disables ALL guns, Mutually-Assured-Destruction is the ONLY way. Handcuffing the innocents just turns them into fish-in-a-barrel.
Which is EXACTLY what was demonstrated at Pulse.
THREE FUCKING HOURS, FFS!!! Can you even IMAGINE how many people wished they could have had a gun materialize in their hands at that point, and HOW MANY LIVES WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED?!?
You know what stops mass shootings? Ironically, the same thing that allows them to happen in the first place: guns.
If just one patron of that night club last week had a gun, they could have put one between the shooter's eyes when he first started shooting and fewer people would have died. If more people carried, more people would think twice about using guns to commit crimes.
Sure, that wouldn't be the case if guns didn't exist but, oh, look at that. They do.
More restrictions really don't help. Look at France; strict gun laws just ensure that, when gun crimes occur (and they will), they're more devastating than they would be if an armed citizen had been there to stop them.
Exactly! Mod this Up!!!!
As I said to someone the other day, that would have been a LOT different outcome at a Country 'n' Western or Biker Bar (because presumably SOMEONE would have been armed). Truth is, the gunman probably wouldn't have even TRIED to shoot-up such a place.
Just ONE person with a gun could have made that more like FIVE people shot instead of over ONE HUNDRED.
Oh, and all the talking-heads that are squawking that "No one on a Terror Watch List should be able to even BUY a gun" CONVENIENTLY IGNORE the facts that
1. The Orlando gunman WAS NOT ON ANY "WATCH LIST" (he was at one time, but then he was "cleared")
2. These "Watch Lists" are EXTRA-JUDICIAL in nature. That is, they require exactly ZERO DUE PROCESS to be placed-on; the criteria (if there are any) are ENTIRELY opaque, and you play absolute HELL getting OFF of one. So, do you REALLY want a Government that has the POWER TO REMOVE YOUR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS with ZERO DUE PROCESS? No Thankyouverymuch!
First they came for...
Obesity kills far more humans than "rifles" ever will, and yet you see no artists blocking food emojis, and no companies worrying about what do to when someone posts a cake emoji.
But we DO have things like Philadelphia's "Sugar Tax" (and NYC's earlier one). So, it's not like "society" is completely oblivious to the dangers of obesity.