Yay for hand-wavy OH NOES GUBMINT IS INTERFEERING! tea-party populism.
If you want to complain about subsidies, I know a corn industry that could really use a talking-to. Or maybe oil & gas company subsidies? A $7k tax break for some people to kick-start a nascent, but promising economy is nothing compared to the kickbacks those corporations get.
The economy did well because Bush could afford to ride a pretty prosperous wave. Typically the effects of an administration only really take hold after that presidency has ended. 8 years is not very long for widespread social and organizational change. If the economy did "pretty well" under GW, it was only because he was riding the coat-tails of past administrations.
The fact that the economy is in such dire straits now speaks volumes for the Bush administration's policies.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Oracle seems to be doing everything in their power to gut the core of the Java community, so until a strong non-Oracle/Sun maintainer with deep pockets (ahem, IBM) steps in to pick up the slack, I'd stay away from Java as the basis for building a full platform.
How do you know someone won't go homicidal while watching paint dry? Or reading a book? Yes, let's ban everything because it might someday make someone fly into a murderous rage.
Only if you agree with the direction your union is taking. It works if you agree with the union leadership, but if you think they're being unreasonable (for example, demanding wage increases even if the employer is known to be under financial troubles), they're serving no one. If the unions were actual "locals," run by locals with a relationship with the employer, then things could be a bit more reasonable. But now we have these huge national unions (CUPE, CAW), and local leadership is often directed in a certain direction based on national policies, rather than an intimate knowledge of the specific nuances of the relationship between an employer and their employees.
.... or until some citizen's group wins a major class-action lawsuit because wastewater from the landfill leached into the local water supply, or something along those lines. It only takes a couple multi-million-dollar lawsuits to make it worth trying to keep as much stuff out of the ground as possible.
Restaurants will have to change to HTML5 if they want to keep the mobile market. Those that don't will lose a lot of customers.
Javascript, SVG & WebGL should handle those nicely
The video tag isn't a total replacement for Flash, but it is a replacement for Flash Video, which is probably the large segment of use for Flash right now
Another great example of this ignorance (and misinformation spread by Apple) is that Mac OSX is virus-free and will stay so, while in fact there have been several recent instances of malware on OSX. The funny thing is that because Apple spreads these lies and users blindly trust them, they also are ignorant and can't see it. It's the classic lalalalala.
Malware != virus, just so we're clear. Do you have any citations to back your claim up about OS X viruses? Didn't think so.
Apple hasn't claimed that OS X will stay virus free; they have just claimed that it's more virus free than Windows. But hey, don't let facts get in the way.
1/100 = 1% of phone calls are dropped with the 3GS. 2/100 = 2% of phone calls are dropped with the 4. Saying it's a "doubling" of the number of dropped calls is misleading - the ratio of a 1% difference scales linearly through the range. If the 3GS dropped 50/100 calls, then the iphone 4 would only drop 51/100 - a 1% change, not a 50% change. So when the ratios are low, it's a problem with the design of the phone, but when we imagine numbers that make the problem look much better for the phone model, it's a problem with the network?
Earlier? How much less than 22 days would you have expected it? And they haven't said they'll cut it off after two months; they said they would "re-evaluate" the possible solutions.
The only design flaw they made was putting the gap in an obvious and touchable place, which SJ outright admitted (the whole "X marks the spot" bit). If they'd put that on the top, away from the palm of the hand, I don't think you'd see near the amount of problems.
Really? That's how you read it? 'Cuz the way I read it is that Apple was saying "There are tradeoffs any phone makes. Just because a Blackberry doesn't have a media storm about the antenna doesn't mean that the same problems don't affect them."
I mostly agree with you, but by what measure would you say they've "dragged their feet"? The thing's been out for less than a month. In internet time, that is dragging your feet; in the real world, that's an incredibly short turnaround to come up with a) reliable data for the phenomena; and b) a comprehensive solution to the issue.
Flash doesn't do any of that. H.264, the video codec Flash puts its own wrapper around, delivers all of that stuff. Remove the wrapper, and you've still got the same video stream. The issue isn't that the content is not available in an video format that the iPad can't play, it's that all the websites are slow to catch up on the shift. Give them time, however, and Flash will follow Realplayer into the history books.
The article (and most of the discussion) is about how the record company gives an artist a loan, makes that loan back by collecting 63% of every dollar they make on the album, while still requiring that the band pay back the full amount they loaned them out of the 37% and keeping the copyright over the works. If that's not a crooked scheme, I don't know what is.
I don't see it as a means to justify piracy, but I do see it as a means to question the RIAA when they push for draconian DRM & copyright laws in the name of "protecting the artists." Explain to me how purchasing an album legally helps the artist, if.63 for every dollar goes directly to the label, while the other 37 also goes to the label, except it's shuttled through the band's books first.
To put it in software terms, imagine a company that pays funds a group of employees to develop a software application. The company then turns around, sells it for $10mil, keeps $6.3mil off the top, and docks the pay of each of the employees that worked on it for promotion, expenses, sales channels, etc. PLUS docking them for the initial outlay of the cost of developing the software. And when it's all done, the employees don't get to keep the rights to redistribute or sell the software that they developed. Does that seem fair, even if the employees were dumb enough to sign a contract? Doesn't that seem like something labour laws were enacted to combat?
I guess that was the point I was trying to make. SJ is as much a "threat" to free software as RMS is. If everyone in the world released their software under the GPL, would we have a truly "free" software ecosystem? No, because would still be restrictions that you have to play nice with. That's OK, but I don't think its fair to villianize SJ on the grounds that Apple wants to control its own platform.
Objective-C is an open language and compilers are available through GCC and CLANG. Apple has had a history of always contributing their work on Obj-C back to GCC, and now with the LLVM project they're doing a whole new Open Source compiler infrastructure that is GCC-compatible, but produces better results. This is available to the Mac, Linux, Windows, *BSD, etc. In other words, yes, there is a threat that Apple will always wall off its Obj-C implementation. There are similar threats that Oracle could do the same to Java, or Larry Wall could do to Perl, or Linus could do the same to the Linux Kernel, which is to say that there is always the possibility, but right now all signs point to No.
I get your point - I certainly don't want Apple to have anywhere near the amount of control over mobile computing as Microsoft had over desktop computing. It's a different ballgame now, though. I don't think they chose Obj-C out of malice like, say, ActiveX or Microsoft's own Java VM that guaranteed a lock-in to the platform. I think they did it to maintain a certain amount of mobility in a fast-moving market. Apple chose Obj-C because they only wanted to support Obj-C. From their perspective, this is an important choice. It guarantees a certain level of consistency, and the ability to change their entire platform's direction on a moment's notice.
Personally, I think it's going in the other direction. Obj-C is a legacy from the NeXT days and its days are numbered at Apple, at least as the sole language they support on the iPhone. It would be entirely like Apple to introduce a new language that compiles down to the same binary as code written in Obj-C, but is easier to write or learn, or comes with more bells & whistles as a feature of the language itself (e.g. easier to write threaded code). They use Obj-C because that's what their Mac developers know and they wanted to capitalize on that knowledge to get the platform off the ground. Now that the iOS is well and firmly launched, look for them to start branching out to include more features to entice more developers to join.
I keep bringing back the LLVM project, but you should really look at the features that project supports if you want to see where Apple is heading. With that project, they can give devs the option to write code in e.g. Python, and it compiles down to the same bytecode as the ObjC implementation. They're not funding the development of that project out of the kindness of their hearts - I think they have a business direction wrapped up in those features, and they're just waiting for it to mature.
Slashdot Mirror
What part of what he said isn't true?
Yay for hand-wavy OH NOES GUBMINT IS INTERFEERING! tea-party populism.
If you want to complain about subsidies, I know a corn industry that could really use a talking-to. Or maybe oil & gas company subsidies? A $7k tax break for some people to kick-start a nascent, but promising economy is nothing compared to the kickbacks those corporations get.
Theoretically, yes. But why? OS X Server can be virtualized now. If you want to run OS X server to manage your Mac network, run it in a VM.
The economy did well because Bush could afford to ride a pretty prosperous wave. Typically the effects of an administration only really take hold after that presidency has ended. 8 years is not very long for widespread social and organizational change. If the economy did "pretty well" under GW, it was only because he was riding the coat-tails of past administrations.
The fact that the economy is in such dire straits now speaks volumes for the Bush administration's policies.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Oracle seems to be doing everything in their power to gut the core of the Java community, so until a strong non-Oracle/Sun maintainer with deep pockets (ahem, IBM) steps in to pick up the slack, I'd stay away from Java as the basis for building a full platform.
How do you know someone won't go homicidal while watching paint dry? Or reading a book? Yes, let's ban everything because it might someday make someone fly into a murderous rage.
Only if you agree with the direction your union is taking. It works if you agree with the union leadership, but if you think they're being unreasonable (for example, demanding wage increases even if the employer is known to be under financial troubles), they're serving no one. If the unions were actual "locals," run by locals with a relationship with the employer, then things could be a bit more reasonable. But now we have these huge national unions (CUPE, CAW), and local leadership is often directed in a certain direction based on national policies, rather than an intimate knowledge of the specific nuances of the relationship between an employer and their employees.
Have you been living under a rock?
.... or until some citizen's group wins a major class-action lawsuit because wastewater from the landfill leached into the local water supply, or something along those lines. It only takes a couple multi-million-dollar lawsuits to make it worth trying to keep as much stuff out of the ground as possible.
Uh... wouldn't that create irradiated water? Could you even use that water again, once it's been exposed to such high levels of radiation?
Apparently posting about it doesn't require using the product either.
77% of iPhone users would give money again to Apple.
20% of Android users would do the same to any number of manufacturers
Is it any wonder Apple's cleaning up in the mobile industry?
Malware != virus, just so we're clear. Do you have any citations to back your claim up about OS X viruses? Didn't think so.
Apple hasn't claimed that OS X will stay virus free; they have just claimed that it's more virus free than Windows. But hey, don't let facts get in the way.
Umm... not to be a spoiler, but you might want to catch up on the series if you think they killed her fiancee. Just sayin'.
I'm sorry - you lost me.
1/100 = 1% of phone calls are dropped with the 3GS. 2/100 = 2% of phone calls are dropped with the 4. Saying it's a "doubling" of the number of dropped calls is misleading - the ratio of a 1% difference scales linearly through the range. If the 3GS dropped 50/100 calls, then the iphone 4 would only drop 51/100 - a 1% change, not a 50% change. So when the ratios are low, it's a problem with the design of the phone, but when we imagine numbers that make the problem look much better for the phone model, it's a problem with the network?
Earlier? How much less than 22 days would you have expected it? And they haven't said they'll cut it off after two months; they said they would "re-evaluate" the possible solutions.
According to their data, they *haven't* done anything wrong. But hey, why use data when you can grind an axe on imagined "facts", right?
The only design flaw they made was putting the gap in an obvious and touchable place, which SJ outright admitted (the whole "X marks the spot" bit). If they'd put that on the top, away from the palm of the hand, I don't think you'd see near the amount of problems.
Really? That's how you read it? 'Cuz the way I read it is that Apple was saying "There are tradeoffs any phone makes. Just because a Blackberry doesn't have a media storm about the antenna doesn't mean that the same problems don't affect them."
I mostly agree with you, but by what measure would you say they've "dragged their feet"? The thing's been out for less than a month. In internet time, that is dragging your feet; in the real world, that's an incredibly short turnaround to come up with a) reliable data for the phenomena; and b) a comprehensive solution to the issue.
Flash doesn't do any of that. H.264, the video codec Flash puts its own wrapper around, delivers all of that stuff. Remove the wrapper, and you've still got the same video stream. The issue isn't that the content is not available in an video format that the iPad can't play, it's that all the websites are slow to catch up on the shift. Give them time, however, and Flash will follow Realplayer into the history books.
The article (and most of the discussion) is about how the record company gives an artist a loan, makes that loan back by collecting 63% of every dollar they make on the album, while still requiring that the band pay back the full amount they loaned them out of the 37% and keeping the copyright over the works. If that's not a crooked scheme, I don't know what is.
I don't see it as a means to justify piracy, but I do see it as a means to question the RIAA when they push for draconian DRM & copyright laws in the name of "protecting the artists." Explain to me how purchasing an album legally helps the artist, if .63 for every dollar goes directly to the label, while the other 37 also goes to the label, except it's shuttled through the band's books first.
To put it in software terms, imagine a company that pays funds a group of employees to develop a software application. The company then turns around, sells it for $10mil, keeps $6.3mil off the top, and docks the pay of each of the employees that worked on it for promotion, expenses, sales channels, etc. PLUS docking them for the initial outlay of the cost of developing the software. And when it's all done, the employees don't get to keep the rights to redistribute or sell the software that they developed. Does that seem fair, even if the employees were dumb enough to sign a contract? Doesn't that seem like something labour laws were enacted to combat?
Wait.... the iPad isn't a mainstream hit? It sure looks like it is from here...
I guess that was the point I was trying to make. SJ is as much a "threat" to free software as RMS is. If everyone in the world released their software under the GPL, would we have a truly "free" software ecosystem? No, because would still be restrictions that you have to play nice with. That's OK, but I don't think its fair to villianize SJ on the grounds that Apple wants to control its own platform.
Objective-C is an open language and compilers are available through GCC and CLANG. Apple has had a history of always contributing their work on Obj-C back to GCC, and now with the LLVM project they're doing a whole new Open Source compiler infrastructure that is GCC-compatible, but produces better results. This is available to the Mac, Linux, Windows, *BSD, etc. In other words, yes, there is a threat that Apple will always wall off its Obj-C implementation. There are similar threats that Oracle could do the same to Java, or Larry Wall could do to Perl, or Linus could do the same to the Linux Kernel, which is to say that there is always the possibility, but right now all signs point to No.
I get your point - I certainly don't want Apple to have anywhere near the amount of control over mobile computing as Microsoft had over desktop computing. It's a different ballgame now, though. I don't think they chose Obj-C out of malice like, say, ActiveX or Microsoft's own Java VM that guaranteed a lock-in to the platform. I think they did it to maintain a certain amount of mobility in a fast-moving market. Apple chose Obj-C because they only wanted to support Obj-C. From their perspective, this is an important choice. It guarantees a certain level of consistency, and the ability to change their entire platform's direction on a moment's notice.
Personally, I think it's going in the other direction. Obj-C is a legacy from the NeXT days and its days are numbered at Apple, at least as the sole language they support on the iPhone. It would be entirely like Apple to introduce a new language that compiles down to the same binary as code written in Obj-C, but is easier to write or learn, or comes with more bells & whistles as a feature of the language itself (e.g. easier to write threaded code). They use Obj-C because that's what their Mac developers know and they wanted to capitalize on that knowledge to get the platform off the ground. Now that the iOS is well and firmly launched, look for them to start branching out to include more features to entice more developers to join.
I keep bringing back the LLVM project, but you should really look at the features that project supports if you want to see where Apple is heading. With that project, they can give devs the option to write code in e.g. Python, and it compiles down to the same bytecode as the ObjC implementation. They're not funding the development of that project out of the kindness of their hearts - I think they have a business direction wrapped up in those features, and they're just waiting for it to mature.