Some application, restricted in functionality could be signed by developer without developer certificate(LocalServices, UserEnvironment, NetworkServices,ReadUserData,WriteUserData). User can allow application which use only those capabilities to run on his device.
In different words, Symbian apps can read and write data, use the network, and multitask without having to be approved by Symbian and without any restrictions.
iPhone apps can't, since Apple imposes restrictions on everything and Apple needs to sign everything.
My point exactly.
The rest - Network control, Multimedia driver, Communication driver, disk admi, PowerMgmt, Location, ProtServ, ReadDeviceData, Surroundings driver, SwEvent, TrustedUI, WriteDeviceData - should be signed online through Symbian website or offline by other certified body.
Even if true, who cares? The iPhone doesn't even provide APIs for some of these, and most of them don't matter to users or application writers.
It seems to me that, at this point, launch loops are a much more realistic and practical choice for a launch structure than space elevators.
Unlike space eleveators, launch loops require no exotic materials (just iron and steel), are essentially self-erecting, are anchored, and accelerate people quickly through the radiation belt.
We could probably build a launch loop in a decade or two, if we embarked on an Apollo-like program.
People write parallel applications all the time, for gaming, multimedia, science, engineering, control systems, artificial intelligence, etc.
and we're back to threads and locks.
Threads and locks are a useful low-level primitives on multicore and multi-CPU machines. Most of what one needs to build can be built on top of that. After all, programming languages still have arrays even though they also have dictionaries.
but I'll buy the "no silver bullet" when we actually have wide adoption of anything -- even multiple things -- other than threads and locks.
I have no problem getting my parallel programming problems solved: there are plenty of useful abstractions and libraries available.
The problem with people like you seems to be education: you don't know what's out there and what has been done. In fact, even your view of parallel programming is depressingly narrow.
the guy has a "startup in stealth mode" called parallel computing. Of course he wants to generate buzz.
Decade after decade, people keep trying to sell silver bullets for parallel computing: the perfect language, the perfect network, the perfect os, etc. Nothing ever wins big. Instead, there is a diversity of solutions for a diversity of problems, and progress is slow but steady.
Yes, which translates into "get nickeled and dimed to death" from a user's point of view. This alone is reason enough not to buy an iPhone.
Java ME is build, test on every phone, sign on every phone, sell nowhere.
I like the "sell nowhere" part of that. Why should I pay yet again for ssh and keyring and the half dozen other phone utilities that I use just because Apple decides to come up with yet another proprietary platform?
the iPod touch is totally much worse than a Palm III?
Yes, as a PDA (the kind of device you use to keep track of appointments, contacts, etc.), it is a much worse device. The iPod's calendar and contact functionality are laughably primitive.
Banning uncertified code? Banning background processes? That sounds pretty damned prudent to me.
Smart phones have had background processes and uncertified code for many years, and there have been almost no problems with it in practice. Half of Nokia's phone lineup are fully programmable, multi-tasking machines, capable of running ssh, BitTorrent, Python, VNC client and server, Apache web server, and anything else you can think of. There's even software for turning Symbian phones into WiFi access points for sharing the 3G connection.
Anybody who claims that one needs to ban uncertified code and background processes to avert disaster simply doesn't know the mobile phone business... or is lying through their teeth.
Using my iPod Touch as my PDA for a while now, I can testify that the device itself (and it's brother the iPhone), is a plain revolution in terms of style, usability and class
Compared to what? In my experience, the iPod Touch makes a poor PDA even compared to an old Palm, both in terms of functionality and in terms of usability.
Can't argue with the iPod Touch having "style" or "class", but... who cares?
Symbian 3rd edition, hava also limitations to developers, for certain type of capabilities the program must be signed by nokia. And there is a license 10.000$ for developers
That's pure fiction. I have half a dozen unsigned apps on my phone, several of them free and open source.
Among the mobile phone makers, who hands out SDKs for creating applications on the phones?
Almost every manufacturer, actually: there are SDKs for Symbian (Nokia, Motorola, Samsung), Windows Mobile (Motorola, Samsung, HTC,...), Palm OS (Palm), etc. Symbian is a multitasking OS with Linux-like APIs. And almost all modern phones other than the iPhone can be programmed in MIDP.
I wouldn't even know where to start if I wanted to develop an application for my Sony Ericsson W910,
The W910 runs J2ME and MIPD, just like most phones these days. There are thousands of applications for that and it's easy to develop for.
call me clueless but I don't see anything comparable to the iPhone SDK for any other phone.
Yup, you're clueless. In terms of SDK, the iPhone is about the worst there is among modern phone platforms.
They aren't quite clear about what you get for that fee. On the one hand, they talk about "access to a database of all music", but then they talk about freeing the ISPs from liability. This might well mean that for your fee, the only thing you can legally do is "access" music in Windows-only formats from an unreliable and poorly maintained RIAA server, whose notion of "all music" is limited to top-20 stuff.
In any case, any proposal like this should have a clear and well-defined path in it towards dismantling the RIAA and making its members obsolete; a world in which music can be shared and distributed freely does not require record companies in the traditional sense. The only thing these people still can hold on to should be the old copyrights they managed to obtain from less lucky artists.
I think you should seriously consider Ubuntu: for all those things that people usually use a Mac Mini for (music, video, photos, web browsing, text processing, Skype, etc.), it's actually probably a better choice. Ubuntu supports more audio, video, and file formats, it's easier to keep updated, and all the applications are preinstalled. Oh, and Ubuntu will talk just fine to your iPod, and unlike iTunes, will let you copy both to and from the iPod.
(I have a Mac Mini, an iMac, and several iPods, but I now mostly use my Ubuntu systems for everything)
Among the most frustrating findings for Arsenault: Just over half of all attacks originated from the.edu domain. "[That's] a fundamental problem," he said. "We've got to do a better job with the university systems to stop that."
There's a simple solution: stop maintaining the fiction that one company and one operating system can do it all. If you want to be a vendor of high-uptime, high-reliability systems, concentrate on that market segment and stop marketing your systems to the mass market. On the other hand, if you want to be a vendor of flaky commodity operating systems, stop worrying about your systems not being secure and stop marketing them as such (oh, and run your own corporate operations on something that actually is secure).
However, if the article was supposed to articulate the fact that US doesn't comply unless it is in their favor... well, it is really an outdated news
It's not "outdated" at all, it's as true today as it was a decade ago.
While if it is otherwise situation nothing will change since US government considers themselves to be kings of the world and that their laws and points of view should prevail over everything and everyone else.
The US government does what it can get away with. And it can get away with less if people know the facts. And in order for people to know the facts, they need to be repeated and the story needs to be kept alive.
Even though, I'm sure I will be modded either Troll or Flaimbait but it is a sad truth.
I think you should just be modded "Stupid", actually. Apparently, you yourself don't like the fact that the US is not acting fairly, yet you criticize the media for reminding people of this based on some silly notion that if it's been said once, it need not be said again.
I find the assumption that the only way of fixing nitrogen requires molybdenum rather implausible. Chances are that molybdenum got used for that purpose once it became available, and before that, nitrogen fixation was either not needed (because there was enough ammonia and/or nitrous oxide around), or there were other pathways.
If we had a co-evolutionary environment, one where the proponents of OpenXML and OpenDocument, their respective organizations, national bodies and others interested groups could meet to discuss the future of those proposals, the future revisions of both would likely be quite different.
It's an office format, not nuclear fusion reactor design. ODF is already the better format, and there's nothing that ODF can learn from OOXML. Whatever expertise might flow from other standards into ODF already does because ODF (unlike OOXML) builds on existing standards.
But there's another reason why ODF won't benefit: OOXML "standardization" is just a trophy to Microsoft, a check-list item for buyers who want a standardized, open document format. Microsoft is going to keep adding proprietary extensions as they see fit, without bothering going through standardization or documenting them.
(The guy also grossly misuses the term "co-evolution", but let's not dwell on that.)
Slashdot Mirror
Squirrels, for goodness sake!?
Space squirrels? Are they at least mean space squirrels? With laser beams on their heads?
Some application, restricted in functionality could be signed by developer without developer certificate(LocalServices, UserEnvironment, NetworkServices,ReadUserData ,WriteUserData). User can allow application which use only those capabilities to run on his device.
In different words, Symbian apps can read and write data, use the network, and multitask without having to be approved by Symbian and without any restrictions.
iPhone apps can't, since Apple imposes restrictions on everything and Apple needs to sign everything.
My point exactly.
The rest - Network control, Multimedia driver, Communication driver, disk admi, PowerMgmt, Location, ProtServ, ReadDeviceData, Surroundings driver, SwEvent, TrustedUI, WriteDeviceData - should be signed online through Symbian website or offline by other certified body.
Even if true, who cares? The iPhone doesn't even provide APIs for some of these, and most of them don't matter to users or application writers.
Symbian's APIs are not even close to being "Linux-like".
You don't have to use Symbian's original APIs; Symbian provides a library that has gives you Linux-like APIs.
Nokia doesn't really update their old phones very well. The N73 runs old, slow software on old, slow hardware.
...
If you want a cheap, fast Symbian phone, get an E51: quad band, 3.5G, WiFi, fast processor, 2Mpixel, thin,
It seems to me that, at this point, launch loops are a much more realistic and practical choice for a launch structure than space elevators.
Unlike space eleveators, launch loops require no exotic materials (just iron and steel), are essentially self-erecting, are anchored, and accelerate people quickly through the radiation belt.
We could probably build a launch loop in a decade or two, if we embarked on an Apollo-like program.
For nerds, it's obviously the "P" (male) and "V" (female) ports that are, for practical purposes, never used and hence obsolete.
I know, people like to make sure that their "P" port remains gleaming and in good shape by regularly polishing it, but, seriously, give it up guys.
Most of them are completely unused
People write parallel applications all the time, for gaming, multimedia, science, engineering, control systems, artificial intelligence, etc.
and we're back to threads and locks.
Threads and locks are a useful low-level primitives on multicore and multi-CPU machines. Most of what one needs to build can be built on top of that. After all, programming languages still have arrays even though they also have dictionaries.
but I'll buy the "no silver bullet" when we actually have wide adoption of anything -- even multiple things -- other than threads and locks.
I have no problem getting my parallel programming problems solved: there are plenty of useful abstractions and libraries available.
The problem with people like you seems to be education: you don't know what's out there and what has been done. In fact, even your view of parallel programming is depressingly narrow.
the guy has a "startup in stealth mode" called parallel computing. Of course he wants to generate buzz.
Decade after decade, people keep trying to sell silver bullets for parallel computing: the perfect language, the perfect network, the perfect os, etc. Nothing ever wins big. Instead, there is a diversity of solutions for a diversity of problems, and progress is slow but steady.
The iPhone SDK will be build, sign, sell
Yes, which translates into "get nickeled and dimed to death" from a user's point of view. This alone is reason enough not to buy an iPhone.
Java ME is build, test on every phone, sign on every phone, sell nowhere.
I like the "sell nowhere" part of that. Why should I pay yet again for ssh and keyring and the half dozen other phone utilities that I use just because Apple decides to come up with yet another proprietary platform?
the iPod touch is totally much worse than a Palm III?
Yes, as a PDA (the kind of device you use to keep track of appointments, contacts, etc.), it is a much worse device. The iPod's calendar and contact functionality are laughably primitive.
Banning uncertified code? Banning background processes? That sounds pretty damned prudent to me.
Smart phones have had background processes and uncertified code for many years, and there have been almost no problems with it in practice. Half of Nokia's phone lineup are fully programmable, multi-tasking machines, capable of running ssh, BitTorrent, Python, VNC client and server, Apache web server, and anything else you can think of. There's even software for turning Symbian phones into WiFi access points for sharing the 3G connection.
Anybody who claims that one needs to ban uncertified code and background processes to avert disaster simply doesn't know the mobile phone business... or is lying through their teeth.
Using my iPod Touch as my PDA for a while now, I can testify that the device itself (and it's brother the iPhone), is a plain revolution in terms of style, usability and class
Compared to what? In my experience, the iPod Touch makes a poor PDA even compared to an old Palm, both in terms of functionality and in terms of usability.
Can't argue with the iPod Touch having "style" or "class", but... who cares?
Symbian 3rd edition, hava also limitations to developers, for certain type of capabilities the program must be signed by nokia. And there is a license 10.000$ for developers
That's pure fiction. I have half a dozen unsigned apps on my phone, several of them free and open source.
Among the mobile phone makers, who hands out SDKs for creating applications on the phones?
...), Palm OS (Palm), etc. Symbian is a multitasking OS with Linux-like APIs. And almost all modern phones other than the iPhone can be programmed in MIDP.
Almost every manufacturer, actually: there are SDKs for Symbian (Nokia, Motorola, Samsung), Windows Mobile (Motorola, Samsung, HTC,
I wouldn't even know where to start if I wanted to develop an application for my Sony Ericsson W910,
The W910 runs J2ME and MIPD, just like most phones these days. There are thousands of applications for that and it's easy to develop for.
call me clueless but I don't see anything comparable to the iPhone SDK for any other phone.
Yup, you're clueless. In terms of SDK, the iPhone is about the worst there is among modern phone platforms.
Spare us the sarcasm. "Multiple divisions" is obviously not working for them, otherwise this guy wouldn't be so desperate in the first place.
If they want to write a more secure web browser, they shouldn't start with a C++-based layout engine.
They aren't quite clear about what you get for that fee. On the one hand, they talk about "access to a database of all music", but then they talk about freeing the ISPs from liability. This might well mean that for your fee, the only thing you can legally do is "access" music in Windows-only formats from an unreliable and poorly maintained RIAA server, whose notion of "all music" is limited to top-20 stuff.
In any case, any proposal like this should have a clear and well-defined path in it towards dismantling the RIAA and making its members obsolete; a world in which music can be shared and distributed freely does not require record companies in the traditional sense. The only thing these people still can hold on to should be the old copyrights they managed to obtain from less lucky artists.
I think you should seriously consider Ubuntu: for all those things that people usually use a Mac Mini for (music, video, photos, web browsing, text processing, Skype, etc.), it's actually probably a better choice. Ubuntu supports more audio, video, and file formats, it's easier to keep updated, and all the applications are preinstalled. Oh, and Ubuntu will talk just fine to your iPod, and unlike iTunes, will let you copy both to and from the iPod.
(I have a Mac Mini, an iMac, and several iPods, but I now mostly use my Ubuntu systems for everything)
Among the most frustrating findings for Arsenault: Just over half of all attacks originated from the .edu domain. "[That's] a fundamental problem," he said. "We've got to do a better job with the university systems to stop that."
There's a simple solution: stop maintaining the fiction that one company and one operating system can do it all. If you want to be a vendor of high-uptime, high-reliability systems, concentrate on that market segment and stop marketing your systems to the mass market. On the other hand, if you want to be a vendor of flaky commodity operating systems, stop worrying about your systems not being secure and stop marketing them as such (oh, and run your own corporate operations on something that actually is secure).
However, if the article was supposed to articulate the fact that US doesn't comply unless it is in their favor ... well, it is really an outdated news
It's not "outdated" at all, it's as true today as it was a decade ago.
While if it is otherwise situation nothing will change since US government considers themselves to be kings of the world and that their laws and points of view should prevail over everything and everyone else.
The US government does what it can get away with. And it can get away with less if people know the facts. And in order for people to know the facts, they need to be repeated and the story needs to be kept alive.
Even though, I'm sure I will be modded either Troll or Flaimbait but it is a sad truth.
I think you should just be modded "Stupid", actually. Apparently, you yourself don't like the fact that the US is not acting fairly, yet you criticize the media for reminding people of this based on some silly notion that if it's been said once, it need not be said again.
I find the assumption that the only way of fixing nitrogen requires molybdenum rather implausible. Chances are that molybdenum got used for that purpose once it became available, and before that, nitrogen fixation was either not needed (because there was enough ammonia and/or nitrous oxide around), or there were other pathways.
Fortunately, non-free WiFi and non-open WiFi doesn't have the same kinds of health hazards.
just turn it off? If the connections to ORDB fail, people will notice it soon enough.
It's an office format, not nuclear fusion reactor design. ODF is already the better format, and there's nothing that ODF can learn from OOXML. Whatever expertise might flow from other standards into ODF already does because ODF (unlike OOXML) builds on existing standards.
But there's another reason why ODF won't benefit: OOXML "standardization" is just a trophy to Microsoft, a check-list item for buyers who want a standardized, open document format. Microsoft is going to keep adding proprietary extensions as they see fit, without bothering going through standardization or documenting them.
(The guy also grossly misuses the term "co-evolution", but let's not dwell on that.)
His argument is too tenacious,
Get yourself a dictionary!