Not the editors. My bet was this was copy/pasted from a news generator bot. A lot of news organizations are using them now to generate articles faster than a human could review and report.
You are no longer the norm. My teams build and support a web ecommerce platform for 9 name-brand apparel companies (names you'd recognize) that all are under one parent publicly-traded corporation. The platform does a huge amount of online sales every day, and individually the brands hit $1m days on a regular basis. The brands have very divergent market segments and product lines, from high-income outdoor enthusiasts, to midwest soccer moms, to teenage punk rockers.
Want to know what's common across all the brands we manage on our platform? For at least the last 2 years, they have all seen over 50% of online sales coming from mobile visitors.
Actually, it's less about having access to the underlying code (what MS was guilty of with Office), and more that they build to the APIs their OS provides.
Adobe has to build it's video editing products with an extra abstraction layer because they want the same application code to run on multiple platforms. The same premise applies when building something on GTK/Qt for cross-compatibility with Linux/Win/OSX, or when building something in Unity3D for iOS/Android cross platform support. That extra abstraction layer introduces overhead, and there's always performance-related features that you can't leverage because the functionality of the APIs underneath aren't 1:1.
If you only target a single hardware/OS platform, then you can focus on best using the APIs that platform provides.
Granted, there is some additional benefit for Apple's software teams because they get early access to what's coming and are pressured to actually use the new features that a 3rd party might be too conscious to implement.
MOMA showcases industrial design in addition to pure "art". There is a very strong argument about the cultural importance and impact of the first emoji set, and definitely a worthwhile inclusion as milestone in digital communications.
"The Internet" hasn't meant the physical network for at least 2 decades. Since at least the early '90s and the "internet superhighway", average people have used "The Internet" to refer to the collective set of interactive services and activities made possible by the network, rather than the underlying network hardware itself.
What good is the physical link if nothing intended to run on it is actually functioning?
As a max karma poster who's been here since 1999 or so, I give up.
The last couple weeks, every time I open an article I get a hijacked redirect to the App Store.
Since you can't be bothered to police your ad network, I'm leaving for someone less intrusive (ArsTechnica)
I suffered through John Katz, pink ponies, multiple acquisitions with cross promotion, the infamous Beta and 2.0 redesigns, multiple attempts to modernize. I was here when this was almost the only site still responding and active during 9/11. I was here for the marriage proposal. I was here when making a/. story meant your little site had "made it" and the first you found out was that your server was hosed by the/. effect. I was here for the community and insightful (and inciteful) discussing.
Considering the American approach to this sort of thing is "let the free market sort it out", aka, force everyone to use entrenched businesses for a fundamental service to manage the issue, regardless of how bloated it gets, I'm not holding out hope for reform.
You don't calculate your income tax 5-10 times a day. And income tax involves a crap ton of work to do every year and even two different programs can spit out wildly different results using the same data based on different interpretations and order-of-operations.
And now your "simple" solution is complicated because the carriers don't know what's inside the box they are shipping (unless it falls into a prohibited or dangerous class of goods that require special handling).
And you still haven't solved the classification problems. Biologists debate the taxonomy of known species all the time (see bison bison bison vs. bison bison athabascae) and you think there's some simple way to classify manufactured products? Even Amazon hasn't solved that problem.
Even if you could come up with some magic taxonomy for manufactured products it still wouldn't work for taxation because the tax laws in even a single jurisdiction are riddled with exceptions for certain buyers, or for different types of use. For example, buying a sandwich at Subway "to go" is not taxed in CA because it's considered groceries and not a served meal. But if it's a hot sandwich, you eat-in, or you opt to have the sandwich toasted, and it's taxable as a meal. Buy the same sandwich at the grocery store deli, and it's not taxed because it's groceries. Unless they package it as ready-to-eat and have picnic tables and suddenly it might be taxable and depends on how they wrap/package it. In some jurisdictions the soda that came with your meal has a tax, but not if you got ice tea or lemonade out of the exact same fountain.
That's just one state, with just a simple fast-food meal. And isn't even including the counties, cities, special taxation districts, etc that all complicate it further.
The only way to make this work is to rip it all out and replace sales tax with a Federal standard (see Europe and VAT), and that's not gonna happen.
I think it's exactly the opposite. For so long PGP and other security features were email were ignored because you can't communicate with users on email providers that don't enable it. Same thing with various spam controls - we've always bitched that we can't turn them on because the big vendors ignore it.
This is a GOOD thing by Google. By turning it on, and making it blatantly obvious to their users, they force the industry as a whole into better practices. They've done the same thing with HTTPS (now mixed-mode errors invalidate your "lock" status) and also spam control (reverse DNS lookups, etc). They are using their position of influence to encourage improvements across the industry and should be applauded.
It's going to take multiple steps to get to the final goal of end-to-end encryption. You can't jump to the end overnight. Give credit where credit is due.
And unlike Dell or HP who updates their lineup of hardware configurations by the minute leaving you completely lost as to which options are beneficial or detrimental (or even purchasable again 2 weeks later), Apple refreshes only once or twice a year. Everyone who purchases Apple equipment for professional use knows this and already factors it into their purchasing cycles.
There are quite a few CAD packages for OSX (ArchiCAD and even AutoCAD come to mind), several 3D applications (like Maya) and also quite a few compositing applications (Combustion) that run wonderfully on a Mac.
And that's before opening the door to video editing.
Ironically, there was a point where I had a Mac Pro (aluminum, not trashcan) running Windows XP x64 because that was the absolute fastest hardware available under $10K for the particular software package and work that I was doing at the time.
Yep, let's make MORE POINTS OF FAILURE by having ANOTHER MACHINE TO MAINTAIN.
It's called separation of concern. If I want to upgrade my workstation to the latest greatest shiny super-fast processing work horse, I don't need to update my data storage. Likewise if I need to grow my available storage space, swap out the performance of my data storage, or introduce hardware redundancy, I don't need to update my workstation to do so.
Yeah, let's make MORE RISK by having A SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE.
The amount of quickly addressable space you have usable depends on the bus and the number of GPU cores. There are scenarios where having more memory addressable per-instruction is more important than the total number of parallel GPU instructions, and the opposite is also true. It all depends on what your shaders need to do. Shaders for gaming are designed to maximize the number of simultaneous shaders, and assume the game developer is trying to minimize the number of polygons, and minimize the memory footprint of their texture maps. People doing 3D modeling find it more important to have as many polygons as possible, and their real-time shaders usually aren't as complex since so much will happen when they "bake" their renderings. People doing video editing have a completely different set of needs that require raw bandwidth for getting as many pixels from source video footage decoded and onto screen in a single frame as possible. And people doing compositing need very very few polygons, but benefit greatly from transformation layers and particle systems. Each of these different use cases puts different optimization requirements on what is the most value in a graphics card. When you're spending $4K, $10K, or even $100K on a single software license, you make damn sure that the hardware to run it is optimized for your particular use case.
In my grandparent post I meant GPU in the sense of the graphics card, not GPU as in the discreet processing core. I should have been more precise in my language choice since the terms are used interchangeably.
No, I had a Qaudro card back in the day when you could mess with other drivers and force the hardware to be seen as a different card. There was a physical hardware difference between the Quadro and the gaming GPUs and the features the Quadro provided were not possible from the gaming GPU (and the opposite was true). It's just like Intel and CPUs. They turn out a million of them using the same silicon die, and after testing the various circuit paths for manufacturing errors, they classify them as one chip type or another based on which circuits work, and which done. I'm sure due to manufacturing quotas they will put chips that theoretically could do both into one bucket or another. But once classified, things change rapidly as they implement different memory, different bus designs, and other features on the card that go beyond just the GPU core.
Actually, you can support external GPUs via thunderbolt (and there are some out there). But again, since these are designed as high-end workstations, not gaming rigs, you're not going to find much in the way of Apple or 3rd parties building gaming GPUs for them.
Same thing with BoxxTech and numerous other vendors that target this particular market.
The Quadros have some crazy features, like antialiasing and polycounts in wireframe mode that result in FPS in CAD or 3D Studio/Maya at levels that a gaming card can't even touch.
The tradeoff however is that these card suck at DirectX and gaming-oriented shader techniques.
No, they have high-end professional GPUs which are tuned for different behaviors, like much more memory for textures, raytracing, particle systems, and higher poly counts, which comes at the expense of lower FPS and other shader-specific differences.
The Mac Pros are using GPUs designed for the people who are creating content, rather than those consuming the content. This stuff goes back decades. I remember buying specific more-expensive GPUs from NVidia sepcifically because they had enhancements and features that 3DStudio and Maya would use, but no game ever would. And gaming performance sucked, but there were things I could do in real-time while 3D modeling that no other card could provide.
A. Non-company issued phones may be monitored in some ways depending on how Exchange or other apps are configured B. Company-issued phones may NOT be monitored, depending on how the company has set things up.
If my employer hands me a fresh boxed iPhone and says "have fun, here's the mail server settings", then there's a good chance my phone itself isn't being monitored.
My company doesn't use MDM and gives us fresh phones. Out of the box they are usable, and not monitored. However, we cannot setup mail/calendar/etc ourselves; we have to install a 3rd party app (MobileIron) which configures our account setup "securely". I have no idea whether MobileIron installs any kind of monitoring. I would suspect it does, but I have no visibility into what it is or is not monitoring, IT verbally told us when they handed them out: "We can see what apps you have installed, but none of your data, and none of your text messages, phone logs, etc".... For all I know, that's changed and I wouldn't receive any notification from MobileIron or IT about the change.
Of course I assume that the company may monitor and/or take away my phone at any time. So I keep things strictly segregated with my personal device (not having a unified calendar for personal and company schedules really sucks). But I am a power-user. The average employee will think "free iPhone paid for by work, sweet!" and proceed to load it up with everything personal they want to do and not hassle with multiple devices.
That makes the cynic in me think this is a ploy for Apple to get additional sales out of people who'd want 2 devices if reminded that their employer is watching.
Every cycle some turd says "we can leverage our locked-in user base to display partner promotions that will make $XXX million in revenue growth". And every cylce someone high enough up in the company org chart says "great idea! 0-risk income! bonuses all around!"
Slashdot Mirror
From a tax perspective paying employees a bonus is an operating cost tax write off exactly equivalent to donating to charity.
The difference is internal accounting of where those funds come from (on-hand overstock inventory vs. cash outlay)
Not the editors. My bet was this was copy/pasted from a news generator bot. A lot of news organizations are using them now to generate articles faster than a human could review and report.
You are no longer the norm. My teams build and support a web ecommerce platform for 9 name-brand apparel companies (names you'd recognize) that all are under one parent publicly-traded corporation. The platform does a huge amount of online sales every day, and individually the brands hit $1m days on a regular basis. The brands have very divergent market segments and product lines, from high-income outdoor enthusiasts, to midwest soccer moms, to teenage punk rockers.
Want to know what's common across all the brands we manage on our platform? For at least the last 2 years, they have all seen over 50% of online sales coming from mobile visitors.
Actually, it's less about having access to the underlying code (what MS was guilty of with Office), and more that they build to the APIs their OS provides.
Adobe has to build it's video editing products with an extra abstraction layer because they want the same application code to run on multiple platforms. The same premise applies when building something on GTK/Qt for cross-compatibility with Linux/Win/OSX, or when building something in Unity3D for iOS/Android cross platform support. That extra abstraction layer introduces overhead, and there's always performance-related features that you can't leverage because the functionality of the APIs underneath aren't 1:1.
If you only target a single hardware/OS platform, then you can focus on best using the APIs that platform provides.
Granted, there is some additional benefit for Apple's software teams because they get early access to what's coming and are pressured to actually use the new features that a 3rd party might be too conscious to implement.
MOMA showcases industrial design in addition to pure "art". There is a very strong argument about the cultural importance and impact of the first emoji set, and definitely a worthwhile inclusion as milestone in digital communications.
Those are emoticons, not emojis.
"The Internet" hasn't meant the physical network for at least 2 decades. Since at least the early '90s and the "internet superhighway", average people have used "The Internet" to refer to the collective set of interactive services and activities made possible by the network, rather than the underlying network hardware itself.
What good is the physical link if nothing intended to run on it is actually functioning?
As a max karma poster who's been here since 1999 or so, I give up.
The last couple weeks, every time I open an article I get a hijacked redirect to the App Store.
Since you can't be bothered to police your ad network, I'm leaving for someone less intrusive (ArsTechnica)
I suffered through John Katz, pink ponies, multiple acquisitions with cross promotion, the infamous Beta and 2.0 redesigns, multiple attempts to modernize. I was here when this was almost the only site still responding and active during 9/11. I was here for the marriage proposal. I was here when making a /. story meant your little site had "made it" and the first you found out was that your server was hosed by the /. effect. I was here for the community and insightful (and inciteful) discussing.
I'm leaving because of the ad abuse.
Those other stores aren't foreign owned and so don't have the same restriction.
Considering the American approach to this sort of thing is "let the free market sort it out", aka, force everyone to use entrenched businesses for a fundamental service to manage the issue, regardless of how bloated it gets, I'm not holding out hope for reform.
You don't calculate your income tax 5-10 times a day. And income tax involves a crap ton of work to do every year and even two different programs can spit out wildly different results using the same data based on different interpretations and order-of-operations.
Your analogy is flawed.
And now your "simple" solution is complicated because the carriers don't know what's inside the box they are shipping (unless it falls into a prohibited or dangerous class of goods that require special handling).
And you still haven't solved the classification problems. Biologists debate the taxonomy of known species all the time (see bison bison bison vs. bison bison athabascae) and you think there's some simple way to classify manufactured products? Even Amazon hasn't solved that problem.
Even if you could come up with some magic taxonomy for manufactured products it still wouldn't work for taxation because the tax laws in even a single jurisdiction are riddled with exceptions for certain buyers, or for different types of use. For example, buying a sandwich at Subway "to go" is not taxed in CA because it's considered groceries and not a served meal. But if it's a hot sandwich, you eat-in, or you opt to have the sandwich toasted, and it's taxable as a meal. Buy the same sandwich at the grocery store deli, and it's not taxed because it's groceries. Unless they package it as ready-to-eat and have picnic tables and suddenly it might be taxable and depends on how they wrap/package it. In some jurisdictions the soda that came with your meal has a tax, but not if you got ice tea or lemonade out of the exact same fountain.
That's just one state, with just a simple fast-food meal. And isn't even including the counties, cities, special taxation districts, etc that all complicate it further.
The only way to make this work is to rip it all out and replace sales tax with a Federal standard (see Europe and VAT), and that's not gonna happen.
I got a check for $10 or $15 out of it. But I figured out the game early. By the time everyone was doing it, it was too late for the company.
I think it's exactly the opposite. For so long PGP and other security features were email were ignored because you can't communicate with users on email providers that don't enable it. Same thing with various spam controls - we've always bitched that we can't turn them on because the big vendors ignore it.
This is a GOOD thing by Google. By turning it on, and making it blatantly obvious to their users, they force the industry as a whole into better practices. They've done the same thing with HTTPS (now mixed-mode errors invalidate your "lock" status) and also spam control (reverse DNS lookups, etc). They are using their position of influence to encourage improvements across the industry and should be applauded.
It's going to take multiple steps to get to the final goal of end-to-end encryption. You can't jump to the end overnight. Give credit where credit is due.
And now it's a Trump resort; Win-Win!
And unlike Dell or HP who updates their lineup of hardware configurations by the minute leaving you completely lost as to which options are beneficial or detrimental (or even purchasable again 2 weeks later), Apple refreshes only once or twice a year. Everyone who purchases Apple equipment for professional use knows this and already factors it into their purchasing cycles.
There are quite a few CAD packages for OSX (ArchiCAD and even AutoCAD come to mind), several 3D applications (like Maya) and also quite a few compositing applications (Combustion) that run wonderfully on a Mac.
And that's before opening the door to video editing.
Ironically, there was a point where I had a Mac Pro (aluminum, not trashcan) running Windows XP x64 because that was the absolute fastest hardware available under $10K for the particular software package and work that I was doing at the time.
It's called separation of concern. If I want to upgrade my workstation to the latest greatest shiny super-fast processing work horse, I don't need to update my data storage. Likewise if I need to grow my available storage space, swap out the performance of my data storage, or introduce hardware redundancy, I don't need to update my workstation to do so.
Yeah, let's make MORE RISK by having A SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE.
The amount of quickly addressable space you have usable depends on the bus and the number of GPU cores. There are scenarios where having more memory addressable per-instruction is more important than the total number of parallel GPU instructions, and the opposite is also true. It all depends on what your shaders need to do. Shaders for gaming are designed to maximize the number of simultaneous shaders, and assume the game developer is trying to minimize the number of polygons, and minimize the memory footprint of their texture maps. People doing 3D modeling find it more important to have as many polygons as possible, and their real-time shaders usually aren't as complex since so much will happen when they "bake" their renderings. People doing video editing have a completely different set of needs that require raw bandwidth for getting as many pixels from source video footage decoded and onto screen in a single frame as possible. And people doing compositing need very very few polygons, but benefit greatly from transformation layers and particle systems. Each of these different use cases puts different optimization requirements on what is the most value in a graphics card. When you're spending $4K, $10K, or even $100K on a single software license, you make damn sure that the hardware to run it is optimized for your particular use case.
In my grandparent post I meant GPU in the sense of the graphics card, not GPU as in the discreet processing core. I should have been more precise in my language choice since the terms are used interchangeably.
No, I had a Qaudro card back in the day when you could mess with other drivers and force the hardware to be seen as a different card. There was a physical hardware difference between the Quadro and the gaming GPUs and the features the Quadro provided were not possible from the gaming GPU (and the opposite was true). It's just like Intel and CPUs. They turn out a million of them using the same silicon die, and after testing the various circuit paths for manufacturing errors, they classify them as one chip type or another based on which circuits work, and which done. I'm sure due to manufacturing quotas they will put chips that theoretically could do both into one bucket or another. But once classified, things change rapidly as they implement different memory, different bus designs, and other features on the card that go beyond just the GPU core.
Actually, you can support external GPUs via thunderbolt (and there are some out there). But again, since these are designed as high-end workstations, not gaming rigs, you're not going to find much in the way of Apple or 3rd parties building gaming GPUs for them.
Same thing with BoxxTech and numerous other vendors that target this particular market.
The Quadros have some crazy features, like antialiasing and polycounts in wireframe mode that result in FPS in CAD or 3D Studio/Maya at levels that a gaming card can't even touch.
The tradeoff however is that these card suck at DirectX and gaming-oriented shader techniques.
No, they have high-end professional GPUs which are tuned for different behaviors, like much more memory for textures, raytracing, particle systems, and higher poly counts, which comes at the expense of lower FPS and other shader-specific differences.
The Mac Pros are using GPUs designed for the people who are creating content, rather than those consuming the content. This stuff goes back decades. I remember buying specific more-expensive GPUs from NVidia sepcifically because they had enhancements and features that 3DStudio and Maya would use, but no game ever would. And gaming performance sucked, but there were things I could do in real-time while 3D modeling that no other card could provide.
A. Non-company issued phones may be monitored in some ways depending on how Exchange or other apps are configured
B. Company-issued phones may NOT be monitored, depending on how the company has set things up.
If my employer hands me a fresh boxed iPhone and says "have fun, here's the mail server settings", then there's a good chance my phone itself isn't being monitored.
My company doesn't use MDM and gives us fresh phones. Out of the box they are usable, and not monitored. However, we cannot setup mail/calendar/etc ourselves; we have to install a 3rd party app (MobileIron) which configures our account setup "securely". I have no idea whether MobileIron installs any kind of monitoring. I would suspect it does, but I have no visibility into what it is or is not monitoring, IT verbally told us when they handed them out: "We can see what apps you have installed, but none of your data, and none of your text messages, phone logs, etc".... For all I know, that's changed and I wouldn't receive any notification from MobileIron or IT about the change.
Of course I assume that the company may monitor and/or take away my phone at any time. So I keep things strictly segregated with my personal device (not having a unified calendar for personal and company schedules really sucks). But I am a power-user. The average employee will think "free iPhone paid for by work, sweet!" and proceed to load it up with everything personal they want to do and not hassle with multiple devices.
That makes the cynic in me think this is a ploy for Apple to get additional sales out of people who'd want 2 devices if reminded that their employer is watching.
Every cycle some turd says "we can leverage our locked-in user base to display partner promotions that will make $XXX million in revenue growth". And every cylce someone high enough up in the company org chart says "great idea! 0-risk income! bonuses all around!"