I highly doubt that yelling on the mouthpiece will do anything to improve the signal-to-noise ratio, which is what is really hindering your communication.;)
It's obvious that they are not going to ditch their network just because Romania has been accepted into the EU. However, if you read their press releases you will find that their new networks are UMTS-based rather than CDMA2000-based, as they underline.
Maybe you're right and all they want is a smoking gun in case problems arise. It certainly bothers me not being able to write my own programs for my own device without paying, but I guess the likes of me won't make them enough money to be considered in their strategy.
Maybe, in the end, all I am asking is to be able to build my own software (or any OSS software, for that matter). It should be easy to provide users who requested it with a certificate valid only for their own handset (linked to S/N) so they could execute whatever they wanted to without compromising others' security. That would accomplish the goals you describe (and that I do not dispute) and would also pave the way for OSS applications.
I understand your point, but I somewhat doubt that paying a fee is going to improve the quality of the software written for the iPhone. A lousy application won't be any better for being signed.
I do not know all the SDK terms, but I take it that Apple does not necessarily get to see the code--and if they did, they would certainly lack the resources to audit every submitted piece of software--, so the only way to really protect their users is a very carefully designed API and execution subsystem. If they have got this part right, no poorly writen application should be able to crash the handset.
In other words, I fail to see how this measure is for users' sake and not plain bullshit for generating (even more) revenues for them. Obviously, I do not blame them for trying, it is their product and they can do whatever they please, but it certainly won't be a selling point for me.
The fact that other vendors are even worse than Apple in this respect does not make Apple's attitude right!
They may say that code signing is there to protect me and to make sure that my phone does not crash because of a badly-made application, but I would rather be given the choice.
I mean, all they have to do is refuse technical support on any iPhone with unsigned software installed onto it and provide a reasonable way to restore any iPhone to its initial state in case something I install turns out to make the handset misbehave. I do not need further protection and, what is more, do not want it!
As for 1, the number of digits indicates the precision, it's floating point we're talking about.
As for 2, you're absolutely right, I made indeed a mistake! It should have been:
function "/"(Left : Distance; Right : Time) return Speed is begin (code here) end;
Anyway, if I had tried to use the correct operands, the compiler would have called me idiot at once and I would have caught the definition error at once, which was exactly the point!
Its syntax is fairly easy, and it provides means to avoid common mistakes in other languages such as the ability of deriving new types from primitive types and strong typing even with numeric types. Thus, I could define types *and* operators which are really significant for the problem at hand, no matter which machine it runs on:
type Distance is digits 4 range 0.0.. 100000.0; type Time is digits 4 range 0.0.. 1000.0; type Speed is digits 4 range 0.0.. 200.0; -- Based on physical constraints, for instance
function "/"(Left : Distance; Right : Speed) return Speed is begin (code here) end;
This way, there is no way I can mangle arguments, a Time/Distance operation is undefined, for example, and will raise a compilation error. Besides, I don't have to care which size those variables take, I just specify what I really need and the compiler and runtime will take care of the details.
On the other hand, advantages such as this one only work if the programmer adapts herself to this way of thinking, instead of using predefined types as she would have done in C.
For a quick review of interesting characteristics of the language which make it useful to avoid mistakes (and, for the purpose of the article, cut debugging time), you can refer to this set of slides (PDF).
Surprisingly, there is a somewhat "legal" definition of a cup in the US, at least according to the FDA, which is equal to 16 international tablespoons or 12 australian tablespoons or 240 ml, whatever you feel like.
More information about the cup as a (crazy) measuring unit in the good ol' Wikipedia.
Slashdot Mirror
And he didn't even use Super Cow Powers to do it!
I highly doubt that yelling on the mouthpiece will do anything to improve the signal-to-noise ratio, which is what is really hindering your communication. ;)
It's obvious that they are not going to ditch their network just because Romania has been accepted into the EU. However, if you read their press releases you will find that their new networks are UMTS-based rather than CDMA2000-based, as they underline.
In Soviet Russia, government standards set YOU!
What do you store that tape for then?
Being a /. reader, it's more than probable that it's a guy. What could you possibly want *his* body for? ;)
Maybe you're right and all they want is a smoking gun in case problems arise. It certainly bothers me not being able to write my own programs for my own device without paying, but I guess the likes of me won't make them enough money to be considered in their strategy.
Maybe, in the end, all I am asking is to be able to build my own software (or any OSS software, for that matter). It should be easy to provide users who requested it with a certificate valid only for their own handset (linked to S/N) so they could execute whatever they wanted to without compromising others' security. That would accomplish the goals you describe (and that I do not dispute) and would also pave the way for OSS applications.
I understand your point, but I somewhat doubt that paying a fee is going to improve the quality of the software written for the iPhone. A lousy application won't be any better for being signed.
I do not know all the SDK terms, but I take it that Apple does not necessarily get to see the code--and if they did, they would certainly lack the resources to audit every submitted piece of software--, so the only way to really protect their users is a very carefully designed API and execution subsystem. If they have got this part right, no poorly writen application should be able to crash the handset.
In other words, I fail to see how this measure is for users' sake and not plain bullshit for generating (even more) revenues for them. Obviously, I do not blame them for trying, it is their product and they can do whatever they please, but it certainly won't be a selling point for me.
The fact that other vendors are even worse than Apple in this respect does not make Apple's attitude right!
They may say that code signing is there to protect me and to make sure that my phone does not crash because of a badly-made application, but I would rather be given the choice.
I mean, all they have to do is refuse technical support on any iPhone with unsigned software installed onto it and provide a reasonable way to restore any iPhone to its initial state in case something I install turns out to make the handset misbehave. I do not need further protection and, what is more, do not want it!
As for 1, the number of digits indicates the precision, it's floating point we're talking about. As for 2, you're absolutely right, I made indeed a mistake! It should have been: function "/"(Left : Distance; Right : Time) return Speed is begin (code here) end; Anyway, if I had tried to use the correct operands, the compiler would have called me idiot at once and I would have caught the definition error at once, which was exactly the point!
Its syntax is fairly easy, and it provides means to avoid common mistakes in other languages such as the ability of deriving new types from primitive types and strong typing even with numeric types. Thus, I could define types *and* operators which are really significant for the problem at hand, no matter which machine it runs on:
.. 100000.0; .. 1000.0; .. 200.0; -- Based on physical constraints, for instance
type Distance is digits 4 range 0.0
type Time is digits 4 range 0.0
type Speed is digits 4 range 0.0
function "/"(Left : Distance; Right : Speed) return Speed is begin (code here) end;
This way, there is no way I can mangle arguments, a Time/Distance operation is undefined, for example, and will raise a compilation error. Besides, I don't have to care which size those variables take, I just specify what I really need and the compiler and runtime will take care of the details.
On the other hand, advantages such as this one only work if the programmer adapts herself to this way of thinking, instead of using predefined types as she would have done in C.
For a quick review of interesting characteristics of the language which make it useful to avoid mistakes (and, for the purpose of the article, cut debugging time), you can refer to this set of slides (PDF).
I, for one, do NOT welcome our new evil-genetic-modifier wannabe overlords!
Surprisingly, there is a somewhat "legal" definition of a cup in the US, at least according to the FDA, which is equal to 16 international tablespoons or 12 australian tablespoons or 240 ml, whatever you feel like. More information about the cup as a (crazy) measuring unit in the good ol' Wikipedia.