October 2003 Archives
I never got around to figuring out how to do remote Apple events with Mac OS X. All I knew is that the old method from Mac OS of filling in a complex data structure didn't work.
It worked great on Mac OS, but wouldn't work on Mac OS X. So tonight I decided to figure it out, and I did. Instead of packing the data structure, I just construct a URL. That's all. Something like eppc://pudge@mac.example.com/Finder. And Mac::Glue makes it even simpler:
There's also a place in the URL for specifying UID or PID, in those cases where more than one app of that name is running. I tested this and it didn't work, it just chose one and sent the event to that app every time, no matter what. Hm.
Regardless, it's working. Send events to your other Macs. Astound your friends. Requires today's newly updated Mac::Carbon, Mac::AppleEvents::Simple, and Mac::Glue.
It worked great on Mac OS, but wouldn't work on Mac OS X. So tonight I decided to figure it out, and I did. Instead of packing the data structure, I just construct a URL. That's all. Something like eppc://pudge@mac.example.com/Finder. And Mac::Glue makes it even simpler:
# normal way, for local FinderThat's it. Then use $finder as though it were local. Of course, there is the issue of security. You can pass the username and password to the constructor, or just pass the username and get a dialog box asking for the password. If neither is included, you'll get a dialog box, too. Either way, click "Add to Keychain?" and you never have to see the dialog box again, for that username/hostname combination.
$finder = new Mac::Glue 'Finder';
# method for remote Finder
$finder = new Mac::Glue 'Finder', eppc => Finder => 'mac.example.com';
There's also a place in the URL for specifying UID or PID, in those cases where more than one app of that name is running. I tested this and it didn't work, it just chose one and sent the event to that app every time, no matter what. Hm.
Regardless, it's working. Send events to your other Macs. Astound your friends. Requires today's newly updated Mac::Carbon, Mac::AppleEvents::Simple, and Mac::Glue.
Mac-Glue-1.14 has been released. Download it from the CPAN or SF.net.
(Note: it may take time for the release to propagate to the various download mirrors.)
Changes:
(Note: it may take time for the release to propagate to the various download mirrors.)
Changes:
* v1.14, Friday, October 31, 2003Posted using release by brian d foy.
Added support for remote Apple events under Mac OS X. Example:
my $glue = Mac::Glue->new('Finder',
eppc => 'Finder', 'mac.example.com'
);
Fixed proper preparation of the data with the right data type when using
param_type().
Mac-AppleEvents-Simple-1.08 has been released. Download it from the CPAN or SF.net.
(Note: it may take time for the release to propagate to the various download mirrors.)
Changes:
(Note: it may take time for the release to propagate to the various download mirrors.)
Changes:
* v1.08, Friday, October 31, 2003Posted using release by brian d foy.
Added pack_eppc_x() for creating a target to an application on
a remote computer, for Mac OS X. Basic syntax:
$target = pack_eppc_x('Finder', 'mac.example.com');
I have my PowerBook sometimes connected to an external monitor. When MacCvsX leaves a window on the external monitor, it keeps it offscreen, whereas most applications will put the windows on the current monitor (or make it easy to arrange them on the current monitor). So I lose the Console Window forever, unless I can hook it up to a monitor, or ...
#!/usr/local/bin/perl(Requires most recent Mac::AppleEvents::Simple, v1.07.)
use Mac::Glue;
my $cvs = new Mac::Glue "MacCvsX";
my $bounds = $cvs->prop(bounds => window => "Console Window");
my $d = $bounds->get;
$bounds->set(to => [20, 100,
$d->[2] - ($d->[0] - 20),
$d->[3] - ($d->[1] - 100)
]);
The gay bishop of the Anglican church story isn't a new one, but as more church leaders from the U.S. and around the world speak out against it -- and the official consecration of Rev. V. Gene Robinson comes up -- the story is once again in the news.
Robinson was on This Week this weekend. Every time I've heard him, I've liked him and agreed with almost all of what he's said. For example, I think is right about reaching out to the gay and lesbian community, which seems to be his primary focus in this discussion. But I can see absolutely no justification for making the leap from that to "homosexuality is not a sin."
It's one thing to say that gay people should be accepted in the church, should not be treated as outcasts. It is another to say that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Robinson talks about how Jesus reached out to the outcasts of the world, like prostitutes and tax collectors and drunkards. But Jesus didn't say these people should be leaders in the church.
One similar example in today's church is a divorced person. Many churches traditionally will not ordain people who have divorced and remarried, as that is considered to be living in sin, because marriage is for life. We've seen a lot more acceptance of divorced people in the last few decades, but many churches still will not ordain them (coincidentally, Robinson is also divorced), because that would be a sign from the church that divorce is acceptable.
To be consecrated as a bishop, as a homosexual, the church is saying that there is no sin in homosexuality. Now, I am not an Anglican. And I am not here making an argument about truth, whatever that may be. I am not trying to tell you that homosexuality is, in fact, a sin. I am making an argument about what the Bible says, and about what that means in the context of the Christian religion.
There are many sections of scripture that speak out against homosexuality, including in thw first chapter of Romans, where Paul describes homosexuality as "(not) natural", "indecent" and an "error", something that is penalized. This is listed among other sins, such as idolatry, unriughteousness, wckedness, greef, envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, disobedience to parents, etc. (NASB)
Robinson is correct when he says that God's truth is continually revealed through the ages. But that doesn't mean God contradicts himself. Christianity states that the Bible is God's Word, including this clear statement that homosexuality is a sin. I've not heard Robinson do anything to say how he can dimiss this scripture, and others. I've not heard alternate explanations that both accept the inerrancy of Scripture, and allow for homosexuality to be not sinful.
Again, I am not an Anglican. I really have no horse in this race, it's just an interesting subject to me. But I am a Christian, and when I see a leader of a Christian sect asserting that the Bible doesn't say what it does say, I admit it does bother me, on both an intellectual and personal level.
But beyond saying homosexuality is not a sin, I've never really had serious problems with Robinson or what he says ... until this week, anyway, when he said that the people who are threatening to leave the church are saying this one issue that pushes them apart is "greater" and "more important" than other issues that bind them together, like the Trinity, the various creeds, etc.
That is completely illogical. What if the one issue they disagreed with was that "killing babies for fun is OK?" I wouldn't say that issue is more important than the Trinity, but it certainly is justification for a split. The issue is not whether this issue is "more important," but whether it is fundamental enough that it amounts to a different belief system, such that a split is logically required. If your church says that a section of the Bible is incorrect, and you say that the Bible is inerrant and that this idea is fundamental to your faith, how can that not justify a split?
As the sixth chapter of 2 Corinthians says, "Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?" The question is not what issues are more important than others. Again, the question is if this issue constitutes a different system of beliefs. I am not an Anglican, so I cannot answer that question for the Anglican church, and I am not saying Robsinon represents lawless or darkness. I am just saying that if it were my church, I would cease attending if a majority, or the leaders, of the church started claiming things that went against what I saw as the fundamental precepts of the church, fundamentals of my beliefs.
It's not about truth, it's about fellowship between people with like beliefs. The Anglican church in America has changed its stated fundamental beliefs, and people who still hold to those fundamental beliefs are fully justified in leaving -- and in light of 2 Corinthians, arguably required to leave.
Robinson was on This Week this weekend. Every time I've heard him, I've liked him and agreed with almost all of what he's said. For example, I think is right about reaching out to the gay and lesbian community, which seems to be his primary focus in this discussion. But I can see absolutely no justification for making the leap from that to "homosexuality is not a sin."
It's one thing to say that gay people should be accepted in the church, should not be treated as outcasts. It is another to say that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Robinson talks about how Jesus reached out to the outcasts of the world, like prostitutes and tax collectors and drunkards. But Jesus didn't say these people should be leaders in the church.
One similar example in today's church is a divorced person. Many churches traditionally will not ordain people who have divorced and remarried, as that is considered to be living in sin, because marriage is for life. We've seen a lot more acceptance of divorced people in the last few decades, but many churches still will not ordain them (coincidentally, Robinson is also divorced), because that would be a sign from the church that divorce is acceptable.
To be consecrated as a bishop, as a homosexual, the church is saying that there is no sin in homosexuality. Now, I am not an Anglican. And I am not here making an argument about truth, whatever that may be. I am not trying to tell you that homosexuality is, in fact, a sin. I am making an argument about what the Bible says, and about what that means in the context of the Christian religion.
There are many sections of scripture that speak out against homosexuality, including in thw first chapter of Romans, where Paul describes homosexuality as "(not) natural", "indecent" and an "error", something that is penalized. This is listed among other sins, such as idolatry, unriughteousness, wckedness, greef, envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, disobedience to parents, etc. (NASB)
Robinson is correct when he says that God's truth is continually revealed through the ages. But that doesn't mean God contradicts himself. Christianity states that the Bible is God's Word, including this clear statement that homosexuality is a sin. I've not heard Robinson do anything to say how he can dimiss this scripture, and others. I've not heard alternate explanations that both accept the inerrancy of Scripture, and allow for homosexuality to be not sinful.
Again, I am not an Anglican. I really have no horse in this race, it's just an interesting subject to me. But I am a Christian, and when I see a leader of a Christian sect asserting that the Bible doesn't say what it does say, I admit it does bother me, on both an intellectual and personal level.
But beyond saying homosexuality is not a sin, I've never really had serious problems with Robinson or what he says ... until this week, anyway, when he said that the people who are threatening to leave the church are saying this one issue that pushes them apart is "greater" and "more important" than other issues that bind them together, like the Trinity, the various creeds, etc.
That is completely illogical. What if the one issue they disagreed with was that "killing babies for fun is OK?" I wouldn't say that issue is more important than the Trinity, but it certainly is justification for a split. The issue is not whether this issue is "more important," but whether it is fundamental enough that it amounts to a different belief system, such that a split is logically required. If your church says that a section of the Bible is incorrect, and you say that the Bible is inerrant and that this idea is fundamental to your faith, how can that not justify a split?
As the sixth chapter of 2 Corinthians says, "Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?" The question is not what issues are more important than others. Again, the question is if this issue constitutes a different system of beliefs. I am not an Anglican, so I cannot answer that question for the Anglican church, and I am not saying Robsinon represents lawless or darkness. I am just saying that if it were my church, I would cease attending if a majority, or the leaders, of the church started claiming things that went against what I saw as the fundamental precepts of the church, fundamentals of my beliefs.
It's not about truth, it's about fellowship between people with like beliefs. The Anglican church in America has changed its stated fundamental beliefs, and people who still hold to those fundamental beliefs are fully justified in leaving -- and in light of 2 Corinthians, arguably required to leave.
I got Eudora to not crash while sending mail under Panther. Under the Hosts settings, I deselected "Use mail-exchange records" under "Sending Mail". So now I can send you mail once more, fear!
Of course, I was only WITHOUT mail-sending capabilities for the four hours while I was installing/migrating to Panther, and then the four hours I slept. But it seemed like a lot longer.
Speaking of which, I was up until 3 a.m. setting my laptop up for Panther, and I woke up shortly after 7 a.m., and I have a hockey game at 10:20 p.m. tonight. I am not sure how this is going to work.
Of course, I was only WITHOUT mail-sending capabilities for the four hours while I was installing/migrating to Panther, and then the four hours I slept. But it seemed like a lot longer.
Speaking of which, I was up until 3 a.m. setting my laptop up for Panther, and I woke up shortly after 7 a.m., and I have a hockey game at 10:20 p.m. tonight. I am not sure how this is going to work.
Mac-Carbon-0.61 has been released. Download it from the CPAN or SF.net.
(Note: it may take time for the release to propagate to the various download mirrors.)
Changes:
(Note: it may take time for the release to propagate to the various download mirrors.)
Changes:
* v0.61, 28 October 2003Posted using release by brian d foy.
Adjust Mac::Speech test to work with fresh install of Panther, where
(on my machine) the Good News voice won't load, so CountVoices()
returns less than the test thinks it should. Only this one test has
been changed, no need to upgrade from 0.60.
Mac-Carbon-0.60 has been released. Download it from the CPAN or SF.net.
(Note: it may take time for the release to propagate to the various download mirrors.)
Changes:
(Note: it may take time for the release to propagate to the various download mirrors.)
Changes:
* v0.60, 27 October 2003Posted using release by brian d foy.
Updated a bunch of docs for Carbon compatibility
Cleaned up docs a bit
Reverted AESend to use AESend without an idle proc,
instead of AESendMessage with a mach port
Undef I_POLL for Panther compatibility (Matthew Drayton)
There were a ton of anti-left books against Clinton, Hillary, Gore etc. during the 90s. They didn't seem to do much to hurt Clinton. Now there are a ton of anti-right books. My questions are twofold: will these books, or the underlying hatred, do any more to hurt Bush than the previous hatred did to hurt Clinton; and which books sold more, the ones of the 90s or the ones of today? The latter question I intentionally leave inspecific, if you have any data, I'd be interested in seeing it, just qualify what the data specifically refers to.
I got Robomower. I didn't get to install it this weekend, as the box did not include any of the necessary accessories (wire, stakes, box to run current through wire, directions, etc.). Went back to dealer on Monday to pick those things up. I'll do that the next day I am not bogged down at work, and it is not raining (maybe Friday, Saturday?).
I also am returning my Harmony Remote SST-768 in favor of the more user-friendly SST-659. The new one is shaped like a TiVo remote, it has dedicated directional pad (old one shared it with numeric keypad, which was my single biggest frustration with it), dedicated activity buttons, etc. My only fear is that it apparently does not allow XML customizations of the configuration like the old one did. I hope that won't be an issue (I did have a few customizations in the old one, mostly to add items to menus, but the new one has more buttons to play with, so it shouldn't be an issue).
I also am returning my Harmony Remote SST-768 in favor of the more user-friendly SST-659. The new one is shaped like a TiVo remote, it has dedicated directional pad (old one shared it with numeric keypad, which was my single biggest frustration with it), dedicated activity buttons, etc. My only fear is that it apparently does not allow XML customizations of the configuration like the old one did. I hope that won't be an issue (I did have a few customizations in the old one, mostly to add items to menus, but the new one has more buttons to play with, so it shouldn't be an issue).
... how utterly retarded Grady Little is. If the Red Sox management has an inkling of sense, they will fire him immediately after the game.
This is seriously tempting me. I could spend less and work more, or spend more and work less than the least, but still more than the this. And being battery powered, it is also a lot cheaper to operate, better for environment blah blah blah.
Pedro Martinez had men on second and third, one run in, nobody out, in game 3 of the ALCS, and hit Karim Garcia on the first pitch. There is simply no justification for saying it was intentional. When you hit someone intentionally, you do it when it won't significantly hurt your team. People who say it was "clearly" intentional are morons. Maybe it was on purpose, but the evidence is -- um, clearly -- stacked against that hypothesis.
And even if you somehow disagree with the above analysis of the situation -- that if you are gonna hit someone, you don't do it in that worst-of-all situations, a truism that casts serious doubt on the claim of intent -- you are still left with the fact that it is only a guess, a hypothesis, a theory as to what his intentions were. You don't know. It is not clear. You are a moron. Stop it.
And even if you somehow disagree with the above analysis of the situation -- that if you are gonna hit someone, you don't do it in that worst-of-all situations, a truism that casts serious doubt on the claim of intent -- you are still left with the fact that it is only a guess, a hypothesis, a theory as to what his intentions were. You don't know. It is not clear. You are a moron. Stop it.
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
