With ARC, there really isn't a need for a garbage collector. I've used both, and the only things that happen in ARC that bite you are things that happen in Java, et al. I.e. you can still use a null pointer and such and get an error.
The only place I have been truly surprised is that some of the Foundation stuff can perform weird or unexpectedly. That's more that ARC is fully Cocoa ready and that you need to tread carefully when using toll-free stuff. But then ARC warns you, and then you need to just follow some simple rules of thumb about giving ARC a hint about how you plan to use the Foundation object. I suspect that might get resolved later.
All in all, I am *very* impressed with ARC. It makes life so much easier, and it gets you almost all the advantages of GC--or at least all the ones that matter or people really use.
Java Preferences now shows all discovered JVMs in a single list in the General tab. This list shows the name, vendor, architecture, and full version of each JVM (8146434). It also coalesces multiple versions of the same major platform version from the same vendor and architecture into the same line. Clicking on the version at the end of the line shows a popup menu which chooses between these multiple versions.
People who *actually develop* on Mac have always complained about the JVM being behind, and it sounds like Apple is opening up the JVM hooks so that third parties can write JVMs for the Mac and get the full integration. So Apple is really giving everyone what they wanted: a stock JVM maintained by the Java Source (Oracle/Sun) just like all the other platforms.
Sheesh, paranoid much? Everyone on Slashdot is so convinced that the Mac App Store is the coming of the apocalypse that they are jumping to some insane conclusions.
Oracle is trying to claim that Dalvik, Android's virtual machine infringes on mobile java patents. Mobile java was not included when Java received it's current "open" licensing.
And I'm sure part of the reason why Mobile Java wasn't in the "open licensing" was the carriers. That is, Sun had already extracted some money out of the carriers and met with a very nice bit of success there. Remember, before Apple's iPhone and Google's Android, JavaME was a big success in offering advanced features (that sucks compared to today's offerings). It was a big success for Sun licensing wise--something the original Java was not.
But with that money came a very, very hefty price. They had to bend over backwards to give the carriers what they wanted in order to "add value". One of those was charging developers $500+ a pop to be able to release applications for their network. Another for the developers to pay extra to access certain features (location). And another still was for companies like Verizon and Sprint to just flat out turn off certain features.
Which is why Apple didn't do JavaME (I remember being pretty bummed when they didn't)--they wanted complete control, and they would never get that with JavaME.
And Google had similar needs--but also didn't want to pay the licensing costs everyone else did.
JavaME was a money maker for Sun (unlike the standard Java VM), but the process of making money off of it made it a nightmare to deploy apps on. Development--writing code--was ok, but getting it to work on multiple headsets (nevermind multiple carriers) was a huge headache. And it was a huge headache because of all the compromises Sun made to get the carriers on board. And that nightmare (in addition to licensing costs) is why Google came up with their own VM implementation.
I used to be a big Java proponent for mobile development. I'm not anymore. But it is interesting to see how all those bad decisions (I cursed Sun weekly as I tried to wrestle another carrier or headset down) played out into what we have now.
Google didn't want to pay the money. Microsoft (via Miguel) likes to say they would have been better, but they are just as bad on the licensing (see HTC and now Motorola). Sounds to me like Google got used to their free ride on Java and balked at the idea of giving anyone a slice of their work and money on Android.
I'm not saying Ellison is not squeezing them (he definitely is), just that Google is kind of getting a bucket of cold water in their face about how the tech companies "collaborate" in new tech fields. Not "fair", but it is kind of predictable.
It's bad enough Mac users still have to install MS Office because it won't really interoperate with things like iWork or open office. Now imagine all those Mac creative types experiencing the pain of a MS-owned and focused Adobe.
I have to say, this is a crazy time to be in IT, software, and the mobile space. It's almost reminiscent of the chaos of the dot-com days: constant tech churn, companies rising and falling, etc. Hopefully we can avoid the bubble part;-)
Actually, again, you need to read the links I posted, because he does bring economics to bear on the problem.
No, the mods aren't reading the links either. Oh well--wouldn't be the first time:-)
His supposition is that the primary solutions of the environmental movement are both damaging to the economies of the world while producing little benefit. He doesn't say burn the earth, he champions applying resources to both solve the problem AND not squander the resources we have. His point isn't that we shouldn't do something, but that simple economic analysis shows that some solutions are just going to have more impact--unfortunately he's not too kind to Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth".
He's not arguing profitability, he's arguing "biggest bang for buck". I.e. let's get some results. So he's not the enemy of the environmental movement, he's just slaughtering sacred cows and then asking us to be serious about the problem.
So again, I stand by my comment: you should have read the links (or just googled it) before making statements about how "he couldn't have meant economics". Again, he's an economist--I think he knows what he means:-)
I've heard of this solution before via people like Dyson (his infamous book review; see my earlier comment). I'm not sure this is proposed as a "just keep abusing the world and make super trees"--although I'm entirely sure there are some who would do just that. It's been more championed as an elegant hack to the big issue: yes, we can alter our behavior, but if the models are right we are screwed, screwed, screwed because CO2 is going to cook us all.
Again, I'm sure there's some loon who thinks we should burn down the rain forest for cattle grazing, burn coal unfiltered, AND use genetic trees to make it all "ok"... but I think this is more of a solution for the carbon sequestering problem. I believe there may also be some people making some unpopular suggestions (like the economist Lomborg) who might see this as a more efficient solution to carbon with a more orthogonal approach to human behavior (such as raising people out of poverty and stabilizing emerging economies--because that actually lowers pollution while stabilizing/improving the human populace). But again, I'm not sure anyone but the loons are saying "Burn it all down and replace it with super-trees."
Doesn't mean we shouldn't change our behavior AND consider radical carbon sequestering--but I think getting the science/facts/research right might be the best no matter what solution(s) we choose.
(No... didn't click your links... and I'm certain my response just doesn't make sense either... but only if 'economics,' wasn't a poorly chosen term).
Yeah, actually he DID mean economics... cuz he's an economist.
Cripes, man, I gave you links. You could have even googled the name and gotten articles. I suppose you at least admitted you were so dead-set on saying your bit that you wouldn't want to be bothered actually getting informed about what you were responding to...
Which kind of proves my whole point: people aren't having a conversation or even discussing this stuff, they are just talking at each other. Like you just did:-)
I would deeply, deeply love to see this pan out and become a viable approach with scientific evidence to back it up, if only so the rabid Climatology factions would have to eat crow and maybe apologize to Freeman Dyson (you might remember the outrage from the Climate Change community over his book reviews: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2008/jun/12/the-question-of-global-warming/ ). Not because I'm for super-trees, but just because I hate the fanaticism being brought to this whole issue.
He was metaphorically burned at the stake for those comments, but honestly, it made sense--*if* the science backed it up. And I mean "made sense" in that it's a huge issue and that would be an elegant hack to solving some of the key problems we are having. It might even open up other possible solutions--better solutions--but those ideas were dismissed out of hand.
The whole affair reminded me of the outrage over Lomborg (http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html) who basically pointed out that the economics of the the environmental solutions espoused by the Climate Change community just didn't make sense. Or that you could have larger impacts in terms of changing society and the global community by putting your money into other "apparently orthogonal" solutions.
While it has been debated about whether these guys are "climate change deniers" (I think that's a red herring from fanatics), they are pointing out alternatives or uncomfortable facts. Let's do some science, some research, and some testing to make sure they don't have a point. If it's that important to address Climate Change, why are not ALL solutions on the table (as opposed to ones that fit a particular agenda or world-view)?
"I know I'm not that lazy, as I can spend hours on end writing software, but there's something about testing that makes my mind constantly want to wander off and think about something else."
Well, actually, that is kind of lazy:-)
Seriously: you do the parts you enjoy and you skip the parts you don't. That, my friend, is lazy. Or at least undisciplined. And if you are getting paid to do it... well, that's just unprofessional.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, it's just that I have been at this for 15 years, and I constantly run into people who don't bother to test. It pays off in the long run, it makes for better software, and it makes you a better developer... you just have to have some professional pride and buckle down. I mean you know that you need to, you know it would make better software, and yet you can't seem to find the interest/sel-interest/professional pride/whatever to do it? Don't you see a problem there?
Are you seriously comparing the OLPC XO Sugar interface to iOS and the iPad?
I own both. While I have always loved the OLPC for what it represents, the total experience is not even in the same league as an iPad. Not even remotely close. I'm not dissing OLPC--I love mine. But it isn't even fair to put the two in the same ring and say they are the same kind of polish or experience.
I agree with your points about Macs vs. PCs--Apple has somehow cast the conversation about the OS and the UI and then magically extended that to the hardware. But your comparison of Sugar and iOS is... wow.
And the other is that the last time I checked, Verizon doesn't have GSM. Why would Apple manufacture two different devices, and one that can't be used in all the other world markets? I'm not trying to start a GSM/CDMA holy war, just acknowledging that Apple is doing just fine with AT&T and GSM. Why would they go through all that trouble just to get Verizon customers?
Especially since Verizon seems to insist on branding all phones they offer--I don't see how Steve would accept that either.
This is how the iPhone does its cool animated transitions. People threw a stink when that was first discovered, but I can't remember if Apple resolved it. I know a factory reset does work on the iPhone though:-)
Until they improve their service, forget it. Even on low, I have a hard time getting non-choppy feeds at time.
Compare this to Netflix On Demand which has better quality all around--and doesn't have any commercials.
I wish Apple would start to compete on price here--it's about the same to buy some of these shows on DVD. Granted, iTunes is available right then during the series airing, but I shouldn't have to pay $50-60 to watch something in high def. If they lowered the prices, I would buy a ton of series just for the convenience. As it is, I'm skipping the series all over--and usually remembering I might have liked them when I see it on Netflix.
Which means everyone just missed out on a chance to make me part with my money. iTunes worked because of the magic $0.99/$9.99 price point (which has fluxed a little, but is still around there). They never found the right price point for TV (or movies), and neither of those has taken off quite as well as music.
And for those wondering:
* Movies: $4.99 - $6.99 (not $9.99 - $14.99)
* TV Series: $15.99 - $25.99
Yes, yes, I'm sure someone is going to scream robbery, but these are *digital* goods. Make them once, sell them over and over and over again. You still have advertising on TV (and Hulu). Give people a reason to buy the digital forms and they would buy them (and probably not pirate as much--convenience is an amazing motivator, and say what you want about iTunes it is unbelievably convenient).
And while I'm ranting, Yo, Apple... what's up with AppleTV being such a freaking wasted opportunity? Here's a clue:
* Streaming like Netflix. You already have the infrastructure for rentals, why not get in on the action?
* Or some subscription model around the price of a cable/satellite bill ($60/month?)
* And what about Apps? The thing runs Mac OS X (more or less)--make an App market for it.
I just downloaded some of the release notes (the beta is slowly coming over my pipe), but yes, it is using Grand Central to do the multi-tasking. It is listed as one of the key foundational technologies added.
There's also quite a bit of documentation on how to use "blocks" (closures and lambdas to you unwashed, non-Apple people).
I agree, it is clever to use GCD. But I'm also very surprised--I didn't think GCD was light-weight enough for something like the iPhone. Pretty cool!
P.S. I'd link or copy and paste, but *technically* that would violate the NDA you sign as an iPhone developer. Hey wait, does talking about it... [Apple gestapo busts down door]:-)
The wikipedia article on DataMatrix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Matrix#Patent_issues) seems to imply it is unencumbered--perhaps I'm misunderstanding something?
Prior to the expiration of U.S. Patent 5,612,524, intellectual property company Acacia Technologies claimed that Data Matrix was partially covered by its contents. As the patent owner, Acacia allegedly contacted Data Matrix users demanding license fees related to the patent.
Cognex Corporation, a large manufacturer of 2D barcode devices, filed a declaratory judgment complaint on March 13, 2006 after receiving information that Acacia had contacted its customers demanding licensing fees. On May 19, 2008 Judge Joan N. Ericksen of the U.S. District Court in Minnesota ruled in favor of Cognex. The ruling held that the '524 patent, which claimed to cover a system for capturing and reading 2D symbology codes, is both invalid and unenforceable due to inequitable conduct by the defendants during the procurement of the patent.
Notably, since the '524 patent expired in November 2007, a ruling against Cognex wouldn't have affected current use of Data Matrix anyway. However, it would have established that use of Data Matrix prior to November 2007 could potentially be covered by the '524 patent.
Except that this is WA--where there is no state income tax. So WA state isn't getting all that much from MS employees (who probably buy quite a bit online and dodge the local sales tax too).
I make the initial best-guess estimates based on past projects and past developer performance. I track the initial estimate, and then I track all effort spent as it is logged. I.e. each checkin gets an "effort spent" number. I then track "actual vs. estimate" and come up with a total amount of overrun so far. I take that overrun, get a percentage (e.g. "over by 15%") and then add that back to the total estimate.
So, if the total estimate is 100 man hours, and we are currently over by 15%, I then say it will actually take us 115 hours total to finish the project.
This is based on the sage wisdom of Mythical Man Month: if you first estimate is off, so are all your estimates, usually by the same amount. As depressing as that might initially sound, it's actually accurate and it gives you a great tool for getting a real estimate once the project is underway.
So I mark my first estimates as "estimates" and then I consider the adjusted estimate once we are 2-4 weeks in to be more accurate. It has usually put us one to two weeks within the actual delivery date--which based on my experience with software development over the past 15 years is really good estimating:-) The norm on the projects I was a developer on was that overrun was closer to 90-100%. My last project I managed was 25% with new developers--I considered that a victory:-)
I seriously had to stop and read this twice. Apparently hell froze over.
Like Mozilla switching to Bing will ever end well. I can see Ballmer on the edge of the chair (he was about to throw), trying to keep a poker face and not burst out in evil laughter.
In Gerrold's Chtorr series, they used this. A lot of US military tech was in the hands of rebels, and they just deployed a kill switch. But in the book, it was expressed as a last-ditch measure. Once you use it, everyone knows about it, and you lose the advantage. Suddenly all the US allies were very, very concerned, as they began to wonder what US technology wasn't booby trapped.
I'd be really surprised we'd just hand this over to the Israelis if we had it. I'd think we would be saving this for a major military catastrophe for the US--kind of a "oh crap, we are up against the wall and this is our only hope of stopping the enemy." Because you only get to use it once with real effectiveness. Blowing it on a raid by another country (who would have taken them out anyways) seems stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
With ARC, there really isn't a need for a garbage collector. I've used both, and the only things that happen in ARC that bite you are things that happen in Java, et al. I.e. you can still use a null pointer and such and get an error.
The only place I have been truly surprised is that some of the Foundation stuff can perform weird or unexpectedly. That's more that ARC is fully Cocoa ready and that you need to tread carefully when using toll-free stuff. But then ARC warns you, and then you need to just follow some simple rules of thumb about giving ARC a hint about how you plan to use the Foundation object. I suspect that might get resolved later.
All in all, I am *very* impressed with ARC. It makes life so much easier, and it gets you almost all the advantages of GC--or at least all the ones that matter or people really use.
If you could get the apple logo to glow on the back like that MacBooks do, I'd totally buy that.
And maybe pray to it occasionally.
From the release notes linked to in the article:
People who *actually develop* on Mac have always complained about the JVM being behind, and it sounds like Apple is opening up the JVM hooks so that third parties can write JVMs for the Mac and get the full integration. So Apple is really giving everyone what they wanted: a stock JVM maintained by the Java Source (Oracle/Sun) just like all the other platforms.
Sheesh, paranoid much? Everyone on Slashdot is so convinced that the Mac App Store is the coming of the apocalypse that they are jumping to some insane conclusions.
Oracle is trying to claim that Dalvik, Android's virtual machine infringes on mobile java patents. Mobile java was not included when Java received it's current "open" licensing.
And I'm sure part of the reason why Mobile Java wasn't in the "open licensing" was the carriers. That is, Sun had already extracted some money out of the carriers and met with a very nice bit of success there. Remember, before Apple's iPhone and Google's Android, JavaME was a big success in offering advanced features (that sucks compared to today's offerings). It was a big success for Sun licensing wise--something the original Java was not.
But with that money came a very, very hefty price. They had to bend over backwards to give the carriers what they wanted in order to "add value". One of those was charging developers $500+ a pop to be able to release applications for their network. Another for the developers to pay extra to access certain features (location). And another still was for companies like Verizon and Sprint to just flat out turn off certain features.
Which is why Apple didn't do JavaME (I remember being pretty bummed when they didn't)--they wanted complete control, and they would never get that with JavaME.
And Google had similar needs--but also didn't want to pay the licensing costs everyone else did.
JavaME was a money maker for Sun (unlike the standard Java VM), but the process of making money off of it made it a nightmare to deploy apps on. Development--writing code--was ok, but getting it to work on multiple headsets (nevermind multiple carriers) was a huge headache. And it was a huge headache because of all the compromises Sun made to get the carriers on board. And that nightmare (in addition to licensing costs) is why Google came up with their own VM implementation.
I used to be a big Java proponent for mobile development. I'm not anymore. But it is interesting to see how all those bad decisions (I cursed Sun weekly as I tried to wrestle another carrier or headset down) played out into what we have now.
Google didn't want to pay the money. Microsoft (via Miguel) likes to say they would have been better, but they are just as bad on the licensing (see HTC and now Motorola). Sounds to me like Google got used to their free ride on Java and balked at the idea of giving anyone a slice of their work and money on Android.
I'm not saying Ellison is not squeezing them (he definitely is), just that Google is kind of getting a bucket of cold water in their face about how the tech companies "collaborate" in new tech fields. Not "fair", but it is kind of predictable.
You mean, I'm not killing baby bees every time I take a call or text? My, what a relief!
It's bad enough Mac users still have to install MS Office because it won't really interoperate with things like iWork or open office. Now imagine all those Mac creative types experiencing the pain of a MS-owned and focused Adobe.
I have to say, this is a crazy time to be in IT, software, and the mobile space. It's almost reminiscent of the chaos of the dot-com days: constant tech churn, companies rising and falling, etc. Hopefully we can avoid the bubble part ;-)
Actually, again, you need to read the links I posted, because he does bring economics to bear on the problem.
No, the mods aren't reading the links either. Oh well--wouldn't be the first time :-)
His supposition is that the primary solutions of the environmental movement are both damaging to the economies of the world while producing little benefit. He doesn't say burn the earth, he champions applying resources to both solve the problem AND not squander the resources we have. His point isn't that we shouldn't do something, but that simple economic analysis shows that some solutions are just going to have more impact--unfortunately he's not too kind to Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth".
He's not arguing profitability, he's arguing "biggest bang for buck". I.e. let's get some results. So he's not the enemy of the environmental movement, he's just slaughtering sacred cows and then asking us to be serious about the problem.
So again, I stand by my comment: you should have read the links (or just googled it) before making statements about how "he couldn't have meant economics". Again, he's an economist--I think he knows what he means :-)
I've heard of this solution before via people like Dyson (his infamous book review; see my earlier comment). I'm not sure this is proposed as a "just keep abusing the world and make super trees"--although I'm entirely sure there are some who would do just that. It's been more championed as an elegant hack to the big issue: yes, we can alter our behavior, but if the models are right we are screwed, screwed, screwed because CO2 is going to cook us all.
Again, I'm sure there's some loon who thinks we should burn down the rain forest for cattle grazing, burn coal unfiltered, AND use genetic trees to make it all "ok" ... but I think this is more of a solution for the carbon sequestering problem. I believe there may also be some people making some unpopular suggestions (like the economist Lomborg) who might see this as a more efficient solution to carbon with a more orthogonal approach to human behavior (such as raising people out of poverty and stabilizing emerging economies--because that actually lowers pollution while stabilizing/improving the human populace). But again, I'm not sure anyone but the loons are saying "Burn it all down and replace it with super-trees."
Doesn't mean we shouldn't change our behavior AND consider radical carbon sequestering--but I think getting the science/facts/research right might be the best no matter what solution(s) we choose.
(No... didn't click your links... and I'm certain my response just doesn't make sense either... but only if 'economics,' wasn't a poorly chosen term).
Yeah, actually he DID mean economics ... cuz he's an economist.
Cripes, man, I gave you links. You could have even googled the name and gotten articles. I suppose you at least admitted you were so dead-set on saying your bit that you wouldn't want to be bothered actually getting informed about what you were responding to ...
Which kind of proves my whole point: people aren't having a conversation or even discussing this stuff, they are just talking at each other. Like you just did :-)
I would deeply, deeply love to see this pan out and become a viable approach with scientific evidence to back it up, if only so the rabid Climatology factions would have to eat crow and maybe apologize to Freeman Dyson (you might remember the outrage from the Climate Change community over his book reviews: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2008/jun/12/the-question-of-global-warming/ ). Not because I'm for super-trees, but just because I hate the fanaticism being brought to this whole issue.
He was metaphorically burned at the stake for those comments, but honestly, it made sense--*if* the science backed it up. And I mean "made sense" in that it's a huge issue and that would be an elegant hack to solving some of the key problems we are having. It might even open up other possible solutions--better solutions--but those ideas were dismissed out of hand.
The whole affair reminded me of the outrage over Lomborg (http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html) who basically pointed out that the economics of the the environmental solutions espoused by the Climate Change community just didn't make sense. Or that you could have larger impacts in terms of changing society and the global community by putting your money into other "apparently orthogonal" solutions.
While it has been debated about whether these guys are "climate change deniers" (I think that's a red herring from fanatics), they are pointing out alternatives or uncomfortable facts. Let's do some science, some research, and some testing to make sure they don't have a point. If it's that important to address Climate Change, why are not ALL solutions on the table (as opposed to ones that fit a particular agenda or world-view)?
"I know I'm not that lazy, as I can spend hours on end writing software, but there's something about testing that makes my mind constantly want to wander off and think about something else."
Well, actually, that is kind of lazy :-)
Seriously: you do the parts you enjoy and you skip the parts you don't. That, my friend, is lazy. Or at least undisciplined. And if you are getting paid to do it ... well, that's just unprofessional.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, it's just that I have been at this for 15 years, and I constantly run into people who don't bother to test. It pays off in the long run, it makes for better software, and it makes you a better developer ... you just have to have some professional pride and buckle down. I mean you know that you need to, you know it would make better software, and yet you can't seem to find the interest/sel-interest/professional pride/whatever to do it? Don't you see a problem there?
Are you seriously comparing the OLPC XO Sugar interface to iOS and the iPad?
I own both. While I have always loved the OLPC for what it represents, the total experience is not even in the same league as an iPad. Not even remotely close. I'm not dissing OLPC--I love mine. But it isn't even fair to put the two in the same ring and say they are the same kind of polish or experience.
I agree with your points about Macs vs. PCs--Apple has somehow cast the conversation about the OS and the UI and then magically extended that to the hardware. But your comparison of Sugar and iOS is ... wow.
How can anyone post this when we have the exclusive deal confirmed? http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/10/confirmed-apple-and-atandt-signed-five-year-iphone-exclusivity-de/
And the other is that the last time I checked, Verizon doesn't have GSM. Why would Apple manufacture two different devices, and one that can't be used in all the other world markets? I'm not trying to start a GSM/CDMA holy war, just acknowledging that Apple is doing just fine with AT&T and GSM. Why would they go through all that trouble just to get Verizon customers?
Especially since Verizon seems to insist on branding all phones they offer--I don't see how Steve would accept that either.
This is how the iPhone does its cool animated transitions. People threw a stink when that was first discovered, but I can't remember if Apple resolved it. I know a factory reset does work on the iPhone though :-)
Until they improve their service, forget it. Even on low, I have a hard time getting non-choppy feeds at time.
Compare this to Netflix On Demand which has better quality all around--and doesn't have any commercials.
I wish Apple would start to compete on price here--it's about the same to buy some of these shows on DVD. Granted, iTunes is available right then during the series airing, but I shouldn't have to pay $50-60 to watch something in high def. If they lowered the prices, I would buy a ton of series just for the convenience. As it is, I'm skipping the series all over--and usually remembering I might have liked them when I see it on Netflix.
Which means everyone just missed out on a chance to make me part with my money. iTunes worked because of the magic $0.99/$9.99 price point (which has fluxed a little, but is still around there). They never found the right price point for TV (or movies), and neither of those has taken off quite as well as music.
And for those wondering:
* Movies: $4.99 - $6.99 (not $9.99 - $14.99)
* TV Series: $15.99 - $25.99
Yes, yes, I'm sure someone is going to scream robbery, but these are *digital* goods. Make them once, sell them over and over and over again. You still have advertising on TV (and Hulu). Give people a reason to buy the digital forms and they would buy them (and probably not pirate as much--convenience is an amazing motivator, and say what you want about iTunes it is unbelievably convenient).
And while I'm ranting, Yo, Apple ... what's up with AppleTV being such a freaking wasted opportunity? Here's a clue:
* Streaming like Netflix. You already have the infrastructure for rentals, why not get in on the action?
* Or some subscription model around the price of a cable/satellite bill ($60/month?)
* And what about Apps? The thing runs Mac OS X (more or less)--make an App market for it.
Oh well.
I just downloaded some of the release notes (the beta is slowly coming over my pipe), but yes, it is using Grand Central to do the multi-tasking. It is listed as one of the key foundational technologies added.
There's also quite a bit of documentation on how to use "blocks" (closures and lambdas to you unwashed, non-Apple people).
I agree, it is clever to use GCD. But I'm also very surprised--I didn't think GCD was light-weight enough for something like the iPhone. Pretty cool!
P.S. I'd link or copy and paste, but *technically* that would violate the NDA you sign as an iPhone developer. Hey wait, does talking about it ... [Apple gestapo busts down door] :-)
The wikipedia article on DataMatrix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Matrix#Patent_issues) seems to imply it is unencumbered--perhaps I'm misunderstanding something?
"Lawrence Lessig, the foundational voice of the free culture movement ..."
Oh, I bet that statement just burns his biscuits ;-)
Except that this is WA--where there is no state income tax. So WA state isn't getting all that much from MS employees (who probably buy quite a bit online and dodge the local sales tax too).
I make the initial best-guess estimates based on past projects and past developer performance. I track the initial estimate, and then I track all effort spent as it is logged. I.e. each checkin gets an "effort spent" number. I then track "actual vs. estimate" and come up with a total amount of overrun so far. I take that overrun, get a percentage (e.g. "over by 15%") and then add that back to the total estimate.
So, if the total estimate is 100 man hours, and we are currently over by 15%, I then say it will actually take us 115 hours total to finish the project.
This is based on the sage wisdom of Mythical Man Month: if you first estimate is off, so are all your estimates, usually by the same amount. As depressing as that might initially sound, it's actually accurate and it gives you a great tool for getting a real estimate once the project is underway.
So I mark my first estimates as "estimates" and then I consider the adjusted estimate once we are 2-4 weeks in to be more accurate. It has usually put us one to two weeks within the actual delivery date--which based on my experience with software development over the past 15 years is really good estimating :-) The norm on the projects I was a developer on was that overrun was closer to 90-100%. My last project I managed was 25% with new developers--I considered that a victory :-)
Bah! Hardly original. Cobra C.L.A.W. anyone?
http://www.yojoe.com/vehicles/84/claw/
I seriously had to stop and read this twice. Apparently hell froze over.
Like Mozilla switching to Bing will ever end well. I can see Ballmer on the edge of the chair (he was about to throw), trying to keep a poker face and not burst out in evil laughter.
In Gerrold's Chtorr series, they used this. A lot of US military tech was in the hands of rebels, and they just deployed a kill switch. But in the book, it was expressed as a last-ditch measure. Once you use it, everyone knows about it, and you lose the advantage. Suddenly all the US allies were very, very concerned, as they began to wonder what US technology wasn't booby trapped.
I'd be really surprised we'd just hand this over to the Israelis if we had it. I'd think we would be saving this for a major military catastrophe for the US--kind of a "oh crap, we are up against the wall and this is our only hope of stopping the enemy." Because you only get to use it once with real effectiveness. Blowing it on a raid by another country (who would have taken them out anyways) seems stupid.
*shudder*
I remember reading that in High School. It freaked me out then, and it freaks me out now!
Forcing companies to standardize?!? Will no one think of the innovation? Who's protecting the innocent innovation from being preyed upon?