The central theme of the article is whether or not tech companies should continue try to grow their business, or should they decide to not compete with established industries. A specific cited example is that Apple created a net job loss through iTunes by ruining Tower Records. The summary makes it sound like the article is asking whether or not tech companies should feel bad for the fact people play Farmville rather than look for a job.
Seeing as they aren't mission-critical, and just an experiment, they don't need to be rad-hard. If one of these guys fail, its not the a big deal. The life-support system computer needs to be hardened, on the other hand.
I don't see how it's Fox's fault, all TFA said was that Elon Musk said the craft could be used to complete the Mars mission. Summary was way off from reality, but the article seemed to be done without hyperbole or bias.
The UI changes to the homescreen would be bad on a screen smaller than 7". Multiple windows, side menus, physical buttons replaced by software buttons, size of buttons relative to the screen, this sort of thing. Essentially with the bigger screen, screen space can be taken up by secondary needs (launcher, menus, options, etc), whereas on the small screen, 95% of the screen is dedicated to the user's immediate content, and things are relatively big to improve the user experience. In Honeycomb, UI elements are smaller, and screen area can be dedicated to not just a primary task, but useful information and quick access to facets of the program formerly hidden behind the menu button.
Android 3.0 brings a new UI designed for tablets and other larger screen devices, but it also is fully compatible with applications developed for earlier versions of the platform, or for smaller screen sizes. Existing applications can seamlessly participate in the new holographic UI theme without code changes, by adding a single attribute in their manifest files. The platform emulates the Menu key, which is replaced by the overflow menu in the Action Bar in the new UI. Developers wanting to take fuller advantage of larger screen sizes can also create dedicated layouts and assets for larger screens and add them to their existing applications.
So, to sum up, old apps work fine, a small tweak will make the UI look right, and you can add a custom tablet UI to existing software.
Supposedly there is a 2.4 Ice Cream as the next smartphone iteration of Android. I'm not sure what the numbers mean exactly.
I think this fragmentation might be good because you want apps that are written explicitly for tablets, and take advantage of the screen size, that don't have to work on small screens. Also, 2.x apps are going to be able to run on Honeycomb according to Google. From what I've seen of the Honeycomb SDK, the changes are to interact with the new UI, the hardware API's seem unchanged.
Back when I was doing driver's ed, my instructor asked me if I played video games. He said that he had noticed that people who played video games tend to grasp the visual feedback quicker than most people. So that most 15 year olds see a straight road and don't steer, gamers would constantly make corrections based on visual feedback, because that was already a natural thing to do.
Really, I thought it was because geek culture is a marginally stable system. Poles right on j-omega axis/unit circle depending on your analog/digital preference.
"Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How’s that again? I missed something.
Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let’s play that over again, too. Who decides?" - Robert Heinlein
What in defense spending isn't really defense: paying troops, operations, maintenance, basic research, system development, or building new stuff? Or do you just object to having it called defense as a whole?
None of those came from NSF though, modern medicine is NIH, Internet was DARPA, Lasers were Bell Labs. None possible without the US Government spending money (or providing a Sherman Act exemption), but not through NSF. In my experience NSF is there to give money to Bill Nye the Science Guy and keep my professors doing research in crazy things that have big promise, but little chance of success.
While the diplomats are (if they are doing their job) working to benefit the US, if they are doing their jobs competently, the information disclosed in working communications should represent their perception of reality more so than publicly disclosed information, which would obviously be said in a way to make the US look good. Hopefully the diplomats have a fairly accurate perception of reality.
MATLAB does most everything with doubles, int and float formats are really only there when dealing with input/output to files. If i put A = 1 into a command line, its put in memory as a double. I use MATLAB most of my working day for signal processing algorithim design, and I don't think I've ever needed the precision of a 64 bit integer. Numbers bigger than a 32 bit integer can handle pop up from time to time, but never with more precision than a double provides.
$1 million is probably enough to handle 6 or so people working in an office. If they are there to facilitate the cross-pollination of ideas, writing and maintaining a couple hundred page piece of FAA regulations, and another document to explain how to manage the airspace involved, that's probably the right amount of money to get started.
Actually, the federal government has supreme authority over interstate commerce, not sole authority, the states are welcome to institute additional regulations on either end, provided they don't contradict each other, and they don't conflict with Federal law.
In Maryland, where I live, the law is the same as Florida's. I've seen the light turn red on me just as I pass under and the red light camera never took a picture. I think there's a law requiring some sort of review before they send you a ticket, so if there was a good reason, you don't get ticketed.
right on, two recent projects I've done, one my senior design project, and my first professional job had me using RS-232 to connect a laptop to an embedded system. If the host machine only needs to see a single floating point number a couple times a second, RS-232 is plenty fast enough, and is much less time consuming from a design standpoint than say a TCP/IP connection.
Of course, the climate model from the 5 years ago wouldn't predict the past 5 years, climate models can't resolve that small amount of time. The fundamental issue of the predictive properties is that by the time we know if the model is right it will be too late to fix the problem, and the models constantly get better as more powerful computers become available and climate science becomes more sophisticated. There's no good way to test the validity of the models, since theres not alot of good data, similar to the problems of doing macroeconomic modelling. The real issue is how much money and time to invest as a result of the conclusions of the models.
Slashdot Mirror
The central theme of the article is whether or not tech companies should continue try to grow their business, or should they decide to not compete with established industries. A specific cited example is that Apple created a net job loss through iTunes by ruining Tower Records. The summary makes it sound like the article is asking whether or not tech companies should feel bad for the fact people play Farmville rather than look for a job.
Seeing as they aren't mission-critical, and just an experiment, they don't need to be rad-hard. If one of these guys fail, its not the a big deal. The life-support system computer needs to be hardened, on the other hand.
its 70% if you pay for delivery costs as well. Kindle Direct Publishing Pricing Help
I don't see how it's Fox's fault, all TFA said was that Elon Musk said the craft could be used to complete the Mars mission. Summary was way off from reality, but the article seemed to be done without hyperbole or bias.
A good representative works for the people he represent's best interest, not necessarily what they want.
I've heard these can prevent the digital dust menace, though only for a short while.
I think Wikipedia has been listening to Glenn Beck
The UI changes to the homescreen would be bad on a screen smaller than 7". Multiple windows, side menus, physical buttons replaced by software buttons, size of buttons relative to the screen, this sort of thing. Essentially with the bigger screen, screen space can be taken up by secondary needs (launcher, menus, options, etc), whereas on the small screen, 95% of the screen is dedicated to the user's immediate content, and things are relatively big to improve the user experience. In Honeycomb, UI elements are smaller, and screen area can be dedicated to not just a primary task, but useful information and quick access to facets of the program formerly hidden behind the menu button.
There's currently an unveiling going on covering Sony Ericsson's new products , seems to be Android phones loaded with Gingerbread, the "PlayStation Phone" included.
From Android Development's Website:
Android 3.0 brings a new UI designed for tablets and other larger screen devices, but it also is fully compatible with applications developed for earlier versions of the platform, or for smaller screen sizes. Existing applications can seamlessly participate in the new holographic UI theme without code changes, by adding a single attribute in their manifest files. The platform emulates the Menu key, which is replaced by the overflow menu in the Action Bar in the new UI. Developers wanting to take fuller advantage of larger screen sizes can also create dedicated layouts and assets for larger screens and add them to their existing applications.
So, to sum up, old apps work fine, a small tweak will make the UI look right, and you can add a custom tablet UI to existing software.
Supposedly there is a 2.4 Ice Cream as the next smartphone iteration of Android. I'm not sure what the numbers mean exactly. I think this fragmentation might be good because you want apps that are written explicitly for tablets, and take advantage of the screen size, that don't have to work on small screens. Also, 2.x apps are going to be able to run on Honeycomb according to Google. From what I've seen of the Honeycomb SDK, the changes are to interact with the new UI, the hardware API's seem unchanged.
Back when I was doing driver's ed, my instructor asked me if I played video games. He said that he had noticed that people who played video games tend to grasp the visual feedback quicker than most people. So that most 15 year olds see a straight road and don't steer, gamers would constantly make corrections based on visual feedback, because that was already a natural thing to do.
Really, I thought it was because geek culture is a marginally stable system. Poles right on j-omega axis/unit circle depending on your analog/digital preference.
Geeks pick up stuff early, the best of it filters into mainstream, then geeks pick up something new.
Susan Collins is considered a "moderate", rather then wanting to expand government when her party is in power, she's always in favor of it.
"Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How’s that again? I missed something.
Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let’s play that over again, too. Who decides?" - Robert Heinlein
What in defense spending isn't really defense: paying troops, operations, maintenance, basic research, system development, or building new stuff? Or do you just object to having it called defense as a whole?
None of those came from NSF though, modern medicine is NIH, Internet was DARPA, Lasers were Bell Labs. None possible without the US Government spending money (or providing a Sherman Act exemption), but not through NSF. In my experience NSF is there to give money to Bill Nye the Science Guy and keep my professors doing research in crazy things that have big promise, but little chance of success.
While the diplomats are (if they are doing their job) working to benefit the US, if they are doing their jobs competently, the information disclosed in working communications should represent their perception of reality more so than publicly disclosed information, which would obviously be said in a way to make the US look good. Hopefully the diplomats have a fairly accurate perception of reality.
MATLAB does most everything with doubles, int and float formats are really only there when dealing with input/output to files. If i put A = 1 into a command line, its put in memory as a double. I use MATLAB most of my working day for signal processing algorithim design, and I don't think I've ever needed the precision of a 64 bit integer. Numbers bigger than a 32 bit integer can handle pop up from time to time, but never with more precision than a double provides.
$1 million is probably enough to handle 6 or so people working in an office. If they are there to facilitate the cross-pollination of ideas, writing and maintaining a couple hundred page piece of FAA regulations, and another document to explain how to manage the airspace involved, that's probably the right amount of money to get started.
Actually, the federal government has supreme authority over interstate commerce, not sole authority, the states are welcome to institute additional regulations on either end, provided they don't contradict each other, and they don't conflict with Federal law.
In Maryland, where I live, the law is the same as Florida's. I've seen the light turn red on me just as I pass under and the red light camera never took a picture. I think there's a law requiring some sort of review before they send you a ticket, so if there was a good reason, you don't get ticketed.
right on, two recent projects I've done, one my senior design project, and my first professional job had me using RS-232 to connect a laptop to an embedded system. If the host machine only needs to see a single floating point number a couple times a second, RS-232 is plenty fast enough, and is much less time consuming from a design standpoint than say a TCP/IP connection.
Of course, the climate model from the 5 years ago wouldn't predict the past 5 years, climate models can't resolve that small amount of time. The fundamental issue of the predictive properties is that by the time we know if the model is right it will be too late to fix the problem, and the models constantly get better as more powerful computers become available and climate science becomes more sophisticated. There's no good way to test the validity of the models, since theres not alot of good data, similar to the problems of doing macroeconomic modelling. The real issue is how much money and time to invest as a result of the conclusions of the models.