So? Pretty bloody obvious why it's worth noting: the task is wholly graphical in nature, so obviously hardware acceleration will give IE9 and FF4 an advantage on Windows (and FF4 is not HW accelerated on OS X). So it's kind of a no-brainer why there's a huge discrepancy
I agree. Apple II or Apple ][, sure. Apple '2'? What's an Apple '2'?
Actually for a better example, iPhone 4 would work better - complete forgot about that. But then they were somewhat pushed into that name (for clarity reasons) by the stupid names of the previous iPhones. Not so with the iPad
In my opinion, there are two big issues against this supposed iPad 2: First, prototypes of Apple stuff have shown up before (on eBay) - however the key thing is, they tend to use the name / badges of the previous generation, or their name plates are simply blank (prototype Macbooks had 'power book' on them and the prototype macbook air's badge was blank)
On top of that, Apple has so far never named a product with a '2'. There is no Macbook 2, no iPod touch '2', no iPhone 2 etc.
So the likelihood that a) the prototype is a reflection of the finished product (with a proper 'iPad 2' name on it) and b) Apple have put a '2' in a product's name seems doubtful
On twitter, the original link to the pastebin is from 'IntelGlobalPR'. Is that a fake account, hacked, or is this actually a publicity stunt from Intel for something?
...most young programmers understand that experience is a massive factor in being productive. Assuming they're not complete morons, most would like to spend time / work along side an older more experienced programmer (assuming they're actually decent and not complete morons themselves) - a la a mentor of sorts.
Heck, for most types of software dev I would jump at that chance. Someone who already knows the 'does and don'ts' of a specific area etc. can save you a bundle of time hitting your head against a wall. Further than that, I think I'm only in this field in the first place because of a relative who basically became my computer idol/'mentor' of sorts. Sure, you eventually grow out of your original mentor, but they certainly put you on the right track to learn more. And I'm certain most 'old timers' would also jump at the chance to show the youngsters the ropes
I don't understand how these data recorders work - but I'm guessing they're electronic/computer controller rather than mechanical - in which case, surely it's possible for the brakes to not be pressed according to this recorder/computer even when they are? i.e. could that the root of the problem? (whatever control system is in charge can't "see" the brakes are pressed and hence the press isn't recorded either)
Well that's the other flaw in these statistics: what degree did they get? A first? (Outstanding) A second? Maybe even a third?
Degrees aren't all born equal which is something else this survey ignores (which is stupid really - they may have been able to draw a trend between the degree type and the unemployment rate per subject etc.)
....would be a % of how many of those graduates actually understand anything about CS, or can apply it at all. My bet is that rather than CS grads having high unemployment, there is just a higher % of 'chaff' graduates that are just totally useless - which is likely considering CS is quite a bit more difficult to 'get' and apply than many other subjects
In the UK a collegiate university means a university built up of individual colleges (a college is not synonymous with university in British English)
UCL is one college which forms part of the university of London. Hence it's a college of a university in Lodon. Or specifically, a university college of London [University]
So yeah. Given college != university the above isn't really that funny
The article's title (Don't call it a sinkhole) is certainly on the money. I was shocked. If you haven't read/looked at the article, do. I was expecting, you know, a little crater thing or something. This is far, far beyond that. It is literally a massive cylindrical hole. It's amazing.
Not to troll or flame the US here - but maybe this is wrong question. Rather than asking "Why are Indian kids so good?" we should be saying "Why are all the other kids not as good?
Answer: Ding ding ding! The education system! It seems more likely that with the (stereotyped) Indian parents that actually care about their kids education, they will 'fix' the holes that the education system ignores (and beyond a stereotype, this is also a cultural thing - education is highly valued - as it should be. If that means picking up the slack that the 'system' ignores, so be it)
And that 'slack' could be anything - like being able to spell. Or do anything, for that matter (this is the same in the UK, by the way - not just a troll at the US. Numeracy and literacy has become 'measure' obsessed rather than "Can these kids do basic skill XYZ?" - spell, count etc.)
So in essence, what I'm saying is: Maybe the education system is failing everybody else, and only these American-Indian families (who actually value education) are smart enough to 'fill in the holes' (where the education system fails)?
Does no-one see the problem here? If this becomes accurate to predict anything of actual use, the markets themselves will start using it... which renders the predictions themselves useless.
It's like seeing into the future and acting upon what you see - by doing that you alter the future itself, making the initial prediction invalid.
I love the weasel words that come out in these kinds of discussions. "Most" - what is "most"? One competitor? (Maybe, Apple?). Because it certainly does not include (on an OS level) Linux, BSDs etc. Heck I'd be surprised if you could say definitively that MS trumps Google (I certainly don't think that's the case)
In a rough sense, irony means a contradiction. In which case, can someone please explain how this:
"There is some irony here that is hard to overlook. For starters, check out this story from Mashable a few months ago where it was reported that Yale University had halted their move to Gmail (and their move to Google’s Google Apps for Education package) citing both security and privacy concerns."
makes sense as a comparison, let alone counts as irony/ironic? What the hell is ironic here?
The fact Google is moving away from MS citing security concerns, and something else citing Google security concerns is not any kind of a contradiction as far as I can see.
"The thing is, nobody ever defined “fragmentation”"
Let me try: You have several different versions of Android 'in the wild' on different phones, different carriers, etc. There are different stances on whether these version of Android can be updated (based on manufacturer) etc. yadda yadda
Now, looking at that situation, I would say 'fragmentation' is more along the lines of 'Is it going to remain easy for to target Android phones in general considering how many versions currently exist [/not obsolete] concurrently?'
So yes, it is mainly about compatibility. But it also means (much like any other platform) if the version leaping continues (and so many versions exist concurrently all the time) playing to the 'lowest common denominator' of supported features will be required
Oh yeah, I know of Gnash et al. - but I think this is going to hit a nerve much more than those projects because it has "You are obsolete" written all over it: Not only can JS displace Flash, it can bend over backwards and run Flash itself. It's a big statement. I don't think Adobe will take kindly to it (or not as kindly as they've accepted generic FOSS re-implementations)
Adobe insisted Flash is an open platform: This will be a good test of their claims. Will they compete admirably against a JS re-implementation of their own wares (and improve their own runtime - hence Smokescreen as competition to foster improvement) or will they fight dirty?
Games aren't the same as any other 'nontrivial software project' (and yes thank you, I have)
Games change continually through production. Business software can do this also (changing requirements and whatnot) but nowhere near to the extent of games. Because games have to be fun. Other applications don't. What this means is that sometimes 'something has gotta give'. You cannot have a codebase that is constantly in flux and 'down with' the concept of the game and a beautiful perfectly structured codebase. The two things are diametrically opposed concepts.
I'm not explicitly stating that a horrible codebase = more likely to finish on time. I'm saying not fixating on codebase quality when your end product is a constantly moving target = more likely to finish at all
(I'd just like to clarify that I agree some of the code is pretty nasty. Especially the amount of #ifdef DEMO abuse. But if this the code that got the game finished, then so what? Generally it seems that nice code and a finished article are opposite concepts)
Who cares how bad the code is? The game got finished. It's playable and it's fun. The end user doesn't give a toss how many magic numbers there are
I think there comes a point in any project where you have a choice between "Make my code pretty and perfect" and "Get this fucking thing finished". This guy obviously chose the latter. Fair play to him. Also, the coding being vile gives the FOSS community something to do, if you think about it.
...that the Transmeta Crusoe processor has sod-all to do with porting or different programming models. The whole point of the Crusoe was that it could distil down various types of instruction (e.g. x86, even Java bytecode) to native instructions it understood. It could run 'anything' so to speak, given the right abstraction layer in between
Its lack of success was nothing to do with programming - just that no one needed a processor that could these things. The demand wasn't there
Oh no - but I mean, as per usual, this means they'll end up making an example out of someone that is probably completely innocent rather than catching the real culprit. So it's a sham case really
Wasn't there that case with the woman tracked by IP (and sued) that had never even owned a computer? Or something stupid like that
Slashdot Mirror
So? Pretty bloody obvious why it's worth noting: the task is wholly graphical in nature, so obviously hardware acceleration will give IE9 and FF4 an advantage on Windows (and FF4 is not HW accelerated on OS X). So it's kind of a no-brainer why there's a huge discrepancy
Isn't this also because FF4 and IE9 both use hardware acceleration on Windows? (+ The points made already about comparing dev builds vs. stable)
I agree. Apple II or Apple ][, sure. Apple '2'? What's an Apple '2'?
Actually for a better example, iPhone 4 would work better - complete forgot about that. But then they were somewhat pushed into that name (for clarity reasons) by the stupid names of the previous iPhones. Not so with the iPad
In my opinion, there are two big issues against this supposed iPad 2: First, prototypes of Apple stuff have shown up before (on eBay) - however the key thing is, they tend to use the name / badges of the previous generation, or their name plates are simply blank (prototype Macbooks had 'power book' on them and the prototype macbook air's badge was blank)
On top of that, Apple has so far never named a product with a '2'. There is no Macbook 2, no iPod touch '2', no iPhone 2 etc.
So the likelihood that a) the prototype is a reflection of the finished product (with a proper 'iPad 2' name on it) and b) Apple have put a '2' in a product's name seems doubtful
On twitter, the original link to the pastebin is from 'IntelGlobalPR'. Is that a fake account, hacked, or is this actually a publicity stunt from Intel for something?
...most young programmers understand that experience is a massive factor in being productive. Assuming they're not complete morons, most would like to spend time / work along side an older more experienced programmer (assuming they're actually decent and not complete morons themselves) - a la a mentor of sorts.
Heck, for most types of software dev I would jump at that chance. Someone who already knows the 'does and don'ts' of a specific area etc. can save you a bundle of time hitting your head against a wall. Further than that, I think I'm only in this field in the first place because of a relative who basically became my computer idol/'mentor' of sorts. Sure, you eventually grow out of your original mentor, but they certainly put you on the right track to learn more. And I'm certain most 'old timers' would also jump at the chance to show the youngsters the ropes
Who fills out all their personal information into OS X's address/contact listing? I certainly don't
I don't understand how these data recorders work - but I'm guessing they're electronic/computer controller rather than mechanical - in which case, surely it's possible for the brakes to not be pressed according to this recorder/computer even when they are? i.e. could that the root of the problem? (whatever control system is in charge can't "see" the brakes are pressed and hence the press isn't recorded either)
Well that's the other flaw in these statistics: what degree did they get? A first? (Outstanding) A second? Maybe even a third?
Degrees aren't all born equal which is something else this survey ignores (which is stupid really - they may have been able to draw a trend between the degree type and the unemployment rate per subject etc.)
....would be a % of how many of those graduates actually understand anything about CS, or can apply it at all. My bet is that rather than CS grads having high unemployment, there is just a higher % of 'chaff' graduates that are just totally useless - which is likely considering CS is quite a bit more difficult to 'get' and apply than many other subjects
What is this? The freaking tautology hour?
In the UK a collegiate university means a university built up of individual colleges (a college is not synonymous with university in British English)
UCL is one college which forms part of the university of London. Hence it's a college of a university in Lodon. Or specifically, a university college of London [University]
So yeah. Given college != university the above isn't really that funny
The article's title (Don't call it a sinkhole) is certainly on the money. I was shocked. If you haven't read/looked at the article, do. I was expecting, you know, a little crater thing or something. This is far, far beyond that. It is literally a massive cylindrical hole. It's amazing.
Not to troll or flame the US here - but maybe this is wrong question. Rather than asking "Why are Indian kids so good?" we should be saying "Why are all the other kids not as good?
Answer: Ding ding ding! The education system! It seems more likely that with the (stereotyped) Indian parents that actually care about their kids education, they will 'fix' the holes that the education system ignores (and beyond a stereotype, this is also a cultural thing - education is highly valued - as it should be. If that means picking up the slack that the 'system' ignores, so be it)
And that 'slack' could be anything - like being able to spell. Or do anything, for that matter (this is the same in the UK, by the way - not just a troll at the US. Numeracy and literacy has become 'measure' obsessed rather than "Can these kids do basic skill XYZ?" - spell, count etc.)
So in essence, what I'm saying is: Maybe the education system is failing everybody else, and only these American-Indian families (who actually value education) are smart enough to 'fill in the holes' (where the education system fails)?
Does no-one see the problem here? If this becomes accurate to predict anything of actual use, the markets themselves will start using it... which renders the predictions themselves useless.
It's like seeing into the future and acting upon what you see - by doing that you alter the future itself, making the initial prediction invalid.
I love the weasel words that come out in these kinds of discussions. "Most" - what is "most"? One competitor? (Maybe, Apple?). Because it certainly does not include (on an OS level) Linux, BSDs etc. Heck I'd be surprised if you could say definitively that MS trumps Google (I certainly don't think that's the case)
In a rough sense, irony means a contradiction. In which case, can someone please explain how this:
"There is some irony here that is hard to overlook. For starters, check out this story from Mashable a few months ago where it was reported that Yale University had halted their move to Gmail (and their move to Google’s Google Apps for Education package) citing both security and privacy concerns."
makes sense as a comparison, let alone counts as irony/ironic? What the hell is ironic here?
The fact Google is moving away from MS citing security concerns, and something else citing Google security concerns is not any kind of a contradiction as far as I can see.
"The thing is, nobody ever defined “fragmentation”"
Let me try: You have several different versions of Android 'in the wild' on different phones, different carriers, etc. There are different stances on whether these version of Android can be updated (based on manufacturer) etc. yadda yadda
Now, looking at that situation, I would say 'fragmentation' is more along the lines of 'Is it going to remain easy for to target Android phones in general considering how many versions currently exist [/not obsolete] concurrently?'
So yes, it is mainly about compatibility. But it also means (much like any other platform) if the version leaping continues (and so many versions exist concurrently all the time) playing to the 'lowest common denominator' of supported features will be required
Oh yeah, I know of Gnash et al. - but I think this is going to hit a nerve much more than those projects because it has "You are obsolete" written all over it: Not only can JS displace Flash, it can bend over backwards and run Flash itself. It's a big statement. I don't think Adobe will take kindly to it (or not as kindly as they've accepted generic FOSS re-implementations)
Adobe insisted Flash is an open platform: This will be a good test of their claims. Will they compete admirably against a JS re-implementation of their own wares (and improve their own runtime - hence Smokescreen as competition to foster improvement) or will they fight dirty?
Games aren't the same as any other 'nontrivial software project' (and yes thank you, I have)
Games change continually through production. Business software can do this also (changing requirements and whatnot) but nowhere near to the extent of games. Because games have to be fun. Other applications don't. What this means is that sometimes 'something has gotta give'. You cannot have a codebase that is constantly in flux and 'down with' the concept of the game and a beautiful perfectly structured codebase. The two things are diametrically opposed concepts.
I'm not explicitly stating that a horrible codebase = more likely to finish on time. I'm saying not fixating on codebase quality when your end product is a constantly moving target = more likely to finish at all
(I'd just like to clarify that I agree some of the code is pretty nasty. Especially the amount of #ifdef DEMO abuse. But if this the code that got the game finished, then so what? Generally it seems that nice code and a finished article are opposite concepts)
Who cares how bad the code is? The game got finished. It's playable and it's fun. The end user doesn't give a toss how many magic numbers there are
I think there comes a point in any project where you have a choice between "Make my code pretty and perfect" and "Get this fucking thing finished". This guy obviously chose the latter. Fair play to him. Also, the coding being vile gives the FOSS community something to do, if you think about it.
...that the Transmeta Crusoe processor has sod-all to do with porting or different programming models. The whole point of the Crusoe was that it could distil down various types of instruction (e.g. x86, even Java bytecode) to native instructions it understood. It could run 'anything' so to speak, given the right abstraction layer in between
Its lack of success was nothing to do with programming - just that no one needed a processor that could these things. The demand wasn't there
Oh no - but I mean, as per usual, this means they'll end up making an example out of someone that is probably completely innocent rather than catching the real culprit. So it's a sham case really
Wasn't there that case with the woman tracked by IP (and sued) that had never even owned a computer? Or something stupid like that