Finally, how do you know you need to implement a FSM if you don't know what one is?
Like I explained in my previous post, if you let information flow to you, the internet will have already told you about finite state machines long before you need to know what one is. It is just a matter of remembering the name and what it is. Something I find quite easy to do.
Like I also explained in my previous post, everyone has a different learning style. While this method works fantastically for me, it may not work at all for you. I am not suggesting it is the answer to everyone's education, but university isn't the answer for everyone either.
The exhaust is trapped in the ground, so it doesn't really have a chance to affect anything like it does when released into the atmosphere. Though I do agree that electric is a better long term solution for many reasons.
That's not really true either. The outputs from an engine make great fertilizer to grow crops, which can be turned back into fuel. It is already happening on a small scale, but it is true that there is no large scale emission recycling happening today.
I am not sure where you are going with this. I wholeheartedly agree that different technologies get different names. SMTP was a different way to use TCP/IP, thus it was given a name. Web 2.0 was a different way to use HTTP, aka the web, and therefore it also was given a name.
SMTP was a big deal. NNTP was a big deal. IRC was a big deal. And Web 2.0 was a big deal. I am sure the next big protocols that we use in the future will also be big deals.
It was not a matter of know-how, it was a matter of doing. Until web 2.0, very few online services exposed their content in machine consumable formats that any developer can access. Now, almost everyone does to some degree. It was a significant shift in how the web was used.
I would have never known why to look for finite state machines.
That is not how I use the internet. I rarely look for information. Instead I let the information from the internet flow to me.
I would not look for a finite state machine. I would, instead, casually read comments like yours and when I see terms I am not familiar with, I research the term to the point that I have a very brief understanding of what the term means and why I would want to it. When the time comes that I have an application for the concept, I would further my research into understand how to actually use it. There is absolutely no benefit in knowing how to apply a finite state machine before you need to implement one. For the record, I have implemented finite state machines on several occasions without any formal training about finite state machines.
With that said, I believe everyone has a different learning style. I am sure that some people do need to know how to do everything up front, the way university presents the information. For me, I do not see the benefit. The information is out there, and it is easily accessible at the exact moment you need it.
Web 2.0 really was a real shift in how the web is used. It was about freeing the web from the web browser. Until web 2.0, very few sites offered computer consumable content. Everything was HTML, images, video, etc. Stuff that is easy to display, but quite difficult for a machine to understand. Web 2.0 brought formats like RSS, JSON, web services, etc. allowing people to use the web outside of their web browser and consume content the way they want to consume it.
People, outside of developers, do not, and should not, care about web 2.0 because it is content for computers, not humans. The net generation most certainly are using web 2.0 every day, they just do not know it.
Re:I Guess I Don't Exist Then ...
on
Why Wave Failed
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Meetings. The kind you would traditionally hold face to face with a group of people and record minutes. In the specific case I was referring to, allowing the general public to view and perhaps even join in to specific discussions would have been an added bonus.
I realize you can accomplish the same with a number of individual technologies, but Wave brought it all together and made it easy for the average person to use.
Re:I Guess I Don't Exist Then ...
on
Why Wave Failed
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
As it stood, most people had no reason to use it.
I have several acquaintances whom I feel would have benefited greatly from Wave.
I'm all like, Wave is exactly the tool you have been looking for. They are like great, how can I try it out? Me: Well, you need to find some random person on the internet to give you an invite. Them: Okay... I'll go back to what I'm doing now.
Wave failed, in my opinion, because the only people who had access to it were the people who had no reason to use it.
Wave was much better than a phone call. The phone might be okay if you want to have a chat with a friend, but the phone has absolutely no place in business.
Re:I Guess I Don't Exist Then ...
on
Why Wave Failed
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The problem, as I see it, was that Wave was only accessible to geeks. You had to have connections just to get into the service in the first place. People who check their email once a week do not have those connections, yet those are the people who, through the organizations* they are involved in, would have benefited most from the service.
I don't think Wave was ever going to change the world, but had Google marketed it to the right people, I think it would have been more successful.
* Think small non-profits who are just starting to learn you can exchange Word documents while talking about it over the telephone. I know of a few of them.
The Gatner article you are referring to clearly states that those marketshare numbers are for cell phones. The majority of iOS devices are not cell phones at all.
And you really need a reality check if you think iOS is anywhere *near* the biggest mobile OS.
Who is a bigger player? It is true that Symbian outsells the iPhone more than two to one, but the iPhone is outsold by both the iPod touch and iPad. Some reports claim iOS has twice as many installs compared to the nearest competition.
I realize the numbers are not perfect, but they at least give some indication where iOS stands in the mobile OS wars. I do not doubt that there are more BB and Nokia phones than iPhones out there, but the iPhone only accounts for, according to some reports, about one third of all iOS sales.
I am not sure why people keep quoting that article when it comes to OS share. Apple sells more iPod touches and iPads than iPhones. Android barely squeaks past just iPhone and only in the US market. I do expect that one day Android will dominate the market, but it has a long way to go.
Though you do bring up an interesting point. iOS is the biggest mobile operating system player right now, and even with that large market share, so far nobody has turned all of those iPhones into a botnet. If Windows had the same bug, we would have millions of maliciously compromised systems by now. What gives?
The 4G standard says that all transmissions must be data, including voice. It is true that the providers are going to milk 3G as long as they can, but all-VOIP isn't really that far away.
If you made $30,000 in 1986 and $30,000 in 2009, the percentage of your income required to purchase two computers of the same price is constant. Who cares what inflation was?
The iPhone 4 only became available three days ago. iOS 4 became available over a month ago. The iPhone 3G was only one generation behind the currently available model up until last week, and that was if you could even get your hands on one.
This site claims the average household income in 1986 was $30,000 before taxes. For comparison, the average household income in the region where I live is about $35,000 today. I really see no reason why the average person was unable to afford a computer in the 80s, though I welcome numbers to show otherwise.
What language would you suggest? Keep in mind that Objective-C is C. If you can compile C on your target device, you can compile Objective-C to the same device. The only other option on the iPhone for native development is C++.
Objective-C has a long history of portability. OpenStep, an open standard for GUI applications, implementations were implemented atop Objective-C. You'll find numerous open source implementations of the Foundation and AppKit libraries that you may use on non-Apple devices. Granted, the open source UIKit implementations are immature at best. Even Java was heavily inspired by Objective-C.
Yes, using Objective-C and UIKit might make porting your code to another platform difficult. Of course there is nothing stopping you from implementing UIKit yourself. But otherwise, Objective-C is a fantastic choice if portability is a concern.
I was too young to remember, but this image claims you could purchase a Tandy 1000EX for $799 way back in the mid 80s. Most PC systems still sell for that price, even today.
My parents were farmers and most of my friends' parents were farmers. From what I can remember, we all had PCs in our home by the late 80s. There are very few farmers whom I would consider rich, and from what I understand the 80s was an especially trying time.
I am sure the PC was very expensive at one point, but I think the average person could afford one by the mid 80s. It seems to me that the problem was not the cost, but the value. What was the average person going to do with a computer? The late 90s brought affordable internet connections. That is the point where the average person started seeing the value of computers.
Or it could be a result of the iPhone having an app for just about every online service. These apps can transfer a minimal amount of data as the interface is already stored on the device. Android users, on the other hand, have to visit the service's website which requires them to download the app's data and interface on every request.
The iPad is old news. Wired reported on the existence of the iPad way back in 1999. Why wasn't Microsoft working on their iPad-competior way back then? More importantly, why are they trying to play catch up now? Should they not be working on the next big thing?
Slashdot Mirror
Like I explained in my previous post, if you let information flow to you, the internet will have already told you about finite state machines long before you need to know what one is. It is just a matter of remembering the name and what it is. Something I find quite easy to do.
Like I also explained in my previous post, everyone has a different learning style. While this method works fantastically for me, it may not work at all for you. I am not suggesting it is the answer to everyone's education, but university isn't the answer for everyone either.
The exhaust is trapped in the ground, so it doesn't really have a chance to affect anything like it does when released into the atmosphere. Though I do agree that electric is a better long term solution for many reasons.
That's not really true either. The outputs from an engine make great fertilizer to grow crops, which can be turned back into fuel. It is already happening on a small scale, but it is true that there is no large scale emission recycling happening today.
I am not sure where you are going with this. I wholeheartedly agree that different technologies get different names. SMTP was a different way to use TCP/IP, thus it was given a name. Web 2.0 was a different way to use HTTP, aka the web, and therefore it also was given a name.
SMTP was a big deal. NNTP was a big deal. IRC was a big deal. And Web 2.0 was a big deal. I am sure the next big protocols that we use in the future will also be big deals.
It was not a matter of know-how, it was a matter of doing. Until web 2.0, very few online services exposed their content in machine consumable formats that any developer can access. Now, almost everyone does to some degree. It was a significant shift in how the web was used.
That is not how I use the internet. I rarely look for information. Instead I let the information from the internet flow to me.
I would not look for a finite state machine. I would, instead, casually read comments like yours and when I see terms I am not familiar with, I research the term to the point that I have a very brief understanding of what the term means and why I would want to it. When the time comes that I have an application for the concept, I would further my research into understand how to actually use it. There is absolutely no benefit in knowing how to apply a finite state machine before you need to implement one. For the record, I have implemented finite state machines on several occasions without any formal training about finite state machines.
With that said, I believe everyone has a different learning style. I am sure that some people do need to know how to do everything up front, the way university presents the information. For me, I do not see the benefit. The information is out there, and it is easily accessible at the exact moment you need it.
Web 2.0 really was a real shift in how the web is used. It was about freeing the web from the web browser. Until web 2.0, very few sites offered computer consumable content. Everything was HTML, images, video, etc. Stuff that is easy to display, but quite difficult for a machine to understand. Web 2.0 brought formats like RSS, JSON, web services, etc. allowing people to use the web outside of their web browser and consume content the way they want to consume it.
People, outside of developers, do not, and should not, care about web 2.0 because it is content for computers, not humans. The net generation most certainly are using web 2.0 every day, they just do not know it.
Meetings. The kind you would traditionally hold face to face with a group of people and record minutes. In the specific case I was referring to, allowing the general public to view and perhaps even join in to specific discussions would have been an added bonus.
I realize you can accomplish the same with a number of individual technologies, but Wave brought it all together and made it easy for the average person to use.
I have several acquaintances whom I feel would have benefited greatly from Wave.
I'm all like, Wave is exactly the tool you have been looking for. They are like great, how can I try it out? Me: Well, you need to find some random person on the internet to give you an invite. Them: Okay... I'll go back to what I'm doing now.
Wave failed, in my opinion, because the only people who had access to it were the people who had no reason to use it.
Wave was much better than a phone call. The phone might be okay if you want to have a chat with a friend, but the phone has absolutely no place in business.
The problem, as I see it, was that Wave was only accessible to geeks. You had to have connections just to get into the service in the first place. People who check their email once a week do not have those connections, yet those are the people who, through the organizations* they are involved in, would have benefited most from the service.
I don't think Wave was ever going to change the world, but had Google marketed it to the right people, I think it would have been more successful.
* Think small non-profits who are just starting to learn you can exchange Word documents while talking about it over the telephone. I know of a few of them.
The Gatner article you are referring to clearly states that those marketshare numbers are for cell phones. The majority of iOS devices are not cell phones at all.
Who is a bigger player? It is true that Symbian outsells the iPhone more than two to one, but the iPhone is outsold by both the iPod touch and iPad. Some reports claim iOS has twice as many installs compared to the nearest competition.
Wikipedia cites some OS market share numbers as of June: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems
Note that these numbers included desktop operating systems:
iOS: 1.12%
Blackberry: 0.35%
Android: 0.23%
Symbian: 0.16%
I realize the numbers are not perfect, but they at least give some indication where iOS stands in the mobile OS wars. I do not doubt that there are more BB and Nokia phones than iPhones out there, but the iPhone only accounts for, according to some reports, about one third of all iOS sales.
I am not sure why people keep quoting that article when it comes to OS share. Apple sells more iPod touches and iPads than iPhones. Android barely squeaks past just iPhone and only in the US market. I do expect that one day Android will dominate the market, but it has a long way to go.
More secure does not equal completely secure.
Though you do bring up an interesting point. iOS is the biggest mobile operating system player right now, and even with that large market share, so far nobody has turned all of those iPhones into a botnet. If Windows had the same bug, we would have millions of maliciously compromised systems by now. What gives?
The 4G standard says that all transmissions must be data, including voice. It is true that the providers are going to milk 3G as long as they can, but all-VOIP isn't really that far away.
If you made $30,000 in 1986 and $30,000 in 2009, the percentage of your income required to purchase two computers of the same price is constant. Who cares what inflation was?
The iPhone 4 is available carrier unlocked in most countries. They still don't give you root access.
The iPhone 4 only became available three days ago. iOS 4 became available over a month ago. The iPhone 3G was only one generation behind the currently available model up until last week, and that was if you could even get your hands on one.
This site claims the average household income in 1986 was $30,000 before taxes. For comparison, the average household income in the region where I live is about $35,000 today. I really see no reason why the average person was unable to afford a computer in the 80s, though I welcome numbers to show otherwise.
What language would you suggest? Keep in mind that Objective-C is C. If you can compile C on your target device, you can compile Objective-C to the same device. The only other option on the iPhone for native development is C++.
Objective-C has a long history of portability. OpenStep, an open standard for GUI applications, implementations were implemented atop Objective-C. You'll find numerous open source implementations of the Foundation and AppKit libraries that you may use on non-Apple devices. Granted, the open source UIKit implementations are immature at best. Even Java was heavily inspired by Objective-C.
Yes, using Objective-C and UIKit might make porting your code to another platform difficult. Of course there is nothing stopping you from implementing UIKit yourself. But otherwise, Objective-C is a fantastic choice if portability is a concern.
I was too young to remember, but this image claims you could purchase a Tandy 1000EX for $799 way back in the mid 80s. Most PC systems still sell for that price, even today.
My parents were farmers and most of my friends' parents were farmers. From what I can remember, we all had PCs in our home by the late 80s. There are very few farmers whom I would consider rich, and from what I understand the 80s was an especially trying time.
I am sure the PC was very expensive at one point, but I think the average person could afford one by the mid 80s. It seems to me that the problem was not the cost, but the value. What was the average person going to do with a computer? The late 90s brought affordable internet connections. That is the point where the average person started seeing the value of computers.
Or it could be a result of the iPhone having an app for just about every online service. These apps can transfer a minimal amount of data as the interface is already stored on the device. Android users, on the other hand, have to visit the service's website which requires them to download the app's data and interface on every request.
The iPad is old news. Wired reported on the existence of the iPad way back in 1999. Why wasn't Microsoft working on their iPad-competior way back then? More importantly, why are they trying to play catch up now? Should they not be working on the next big thing?