So, Google decided to do something about traffic. Instead of having dozens of cars on the roads, spewing greenhouse gasses and burning foreign oil, they decide to do the "green" thing and provide buses, and they are condemned for it?!
The big problem is most cities are going to have to end up making most their streets mass transit or walking only. It's already happening in Portland.
So to a city planner, working on an already tightly compact urban core, buses are better than cars... But if all roads could be eliminated in favor of only foot traffic, that is most ideal.
Of course, that means having everything on needs, including work, in walking or at least light rail range.
The other alternative that's been floated is that Google and Apple could have pooled their money with the city and built light rail down to their own headquarters, and thus more businesses than just their own could have had more efficient travel, making the region better as a whole.
It always seems that when companies start trying to branch out into wildly dissimilar industries, it's a sign of trouble within the organization. Do what you do well, figure out how to do it better if things aren't going how you'd like them. Don't try making sushi if you've always sold donuts.
Google's in a similar boat. Self driving cars, robots, barges in the San Francisco bay...
If Apple bought Tesla, they should just buy a controlling stake to keep Google away from purchasing Tesla, and then let Tesla keep doing it's thing. Make Apple's tremendous software design resources available for Tesla, but don't try and micro manage.
But as I said, everyone is doing the same branching out. I agree it's not a good sign, but at this point, we've run out of innovation steam on mobile and most of PC, so companies are just playing games to try to build monopolies instead of winning customers through new products.
At least Apple has the iWatch and a few other rumored products to shake things up a bit.
Android is based on Linux. The Google apps are not. Despite what some people claim, not everything written for a GPL operating system must be open source.
I don't think the argument is that Google is doing something illegal. I think the question is are they being unethical. They've been trumpeting how open Android is, and their contracts basically say if you work with them you cannot treat it as an open system. They're acting as if Android is more like Linux, but in practice it's more like iOS. I can go check out the base source for iOS/OS X from source control too if I wanted (http://opensource.apple.com).
They may have released the compiler front end, they never released their Objective-C runtime library making the code worthless and hard to maintain - apple would publish their updates as required without any of the effort necessary to stay compatible with anything but their own non-GPL runtime.
Having read TFA, this collaboration appears to be partly about build compatibility. So far, it sounds like LLVM/Clang has been imitating GCC options.
Apple used to have something called LLVM-GCC. I think it's still there so things like make, or other things that assume GCC still work, but at least in their Xcode tools they no longer support LLVM-GCC.
Would they have BSD-licensed clang if there had not been the competing GPLed GCC? Who knows...
There was no competition. Apple was a GCC user, distributor, and contributor until GPLv3. Apple never opposed open source compilers, in fact they're in favor of them because they don't have the staff on hand to write a finely optimized compiler themselves. The problem was the restrictions that would have been placed on them with GPLv3.
BSD gives the author freedom, but screws the user. (1-1=0) GP gives the author freedom, and preserves it for the user also. (1+1=2)
Really, this is simple math, there is no excuse for such a fundamental mistake.
Unless I ignore the Gnu implementation because of my commercial interests so the user never sees an implementation.
So we go back to Gnu = 0.
Seriously. I've seen projects and implementations totally scuttled over GPL. We would have LOVED to support the standard and commit code back, but the restrictions on our own code were unsustainable. So we went with BSD alternatives instead.
This sounds an awful lot like the arguments I heard in the early 90s on open systems vs proprietary. Your points are all valid but do they make the iOS platform sufficiently better for it to carry on? Given that Android is actively developed, just how long are the advantages you describe going to be an issue?
Maybe?
Large chunks of iOS are open source, so I don't know if I buy the "iOS will die because Android has more momentum." Android up until 4.4 was still using iOS's web renderer and JavaScript runtime, and finally in 4.4 they forked it. http://opensource.apple.com/ (A lot of iOS stuff is in the Mac section.)
The private components of iOS are still being actively developed, and share a lot of foundation with the Mac, which is also being actively developed.
I think, like any platform, continued development of iOS will be reliant on it's market share. If market share dips below 15%, you'll see interest wane. But in the US, majority share is still going back and forth between iOS and Android. Worldwide, we typically see iOS more around the 30% mark, but iOS active usage share and app store activity is far higher. So I think we're looking at years before we settle whether or not Android or iOS will become the only OS worth someone's development time, if that ever gets settled at all. I don't think a Windows style OS monopoly in the OS industry would be good at all. And as Google has taken more share, we've seen them becoming more abusive of their power (such as clamping down on source availability and certification for Android.)
For now I see Android competing with iOS but I do think it's just a matter of time before there will be no advantage for Apple to continue developing their own OS. Woz is right, Apple could easily find themselves in the same situation as Blackberry and they need to be ready to deal with it.
And that is a possibility. But it's also a possibility that Google could stop working on Android. Google gives Android away, makes no money from it, and puts a lot of support into it. I know, similar arguments have been made against Linux, but hear me out... If you're Google, and Android is only being done to keep people on Google services and ads, the best course of action is to hand over Android to Samsung (which, to be frank, is the only Android manufacturer seeing significant adoption), make a services agreement with Samsung, and then re-build their services agreement with Apple. That gives Google %100 share of the market, excluding the insignificant Microsoft bits, and no cost of developing Android.
If you're Apple, that possibility looks ugly enough to keep you developing on iOS. Plus Apple gets the advantage that if they want to build a new device category like a watch or something akin to a new class like a tablet, they have enough expertise and resources in house to rearrange all the OS bits in a way they see fit.
There is also the Mac. Even if Apple dropped iOS in favor of Android, they can't stop developing iOS. iOS is Mac OS X, and Apple still sells Macs. So even if this all plays out the way it all seems to in Woz's head, Apple can't even stop iOS development.
Woz should have understood that, which makes me wonder about him. He's spent enough time at Apple, he understands Apple values knowing and controlling both the software and hardware, and he should understand that iOS and Mac share source and their fates are intertwined. I'm not sure if he realized that advocating for Apple to spin down iOS development isn't possible with the Mac existing. I've previously had a high opinion of Woz, but he's not thinking like an engineer or innovator here, which worries me. Apple adopting Android would make them a lot like Nokia, Dell, or HP. And look where those companies are now. I'm not even sure Woz is correct. If Blackberry had adopted Android would they have survived? Or would they have been run off the market by Samsung like every other company that put their lot in with Android (except for Samsung?)
To get our iPhone app on iTunes' App Store will be an absolute frickin nightmare compared to the ease of getting our Android version on the Play Store and all the early signs are that the Objective-C/iOS API will be much more of a pain in the ass than the Android API.
I know both the Android and iOS APIs.
There are some things each API does better than the other. And one is written in Obj-C and one is written in Java. HOWEVER...
The iOS API is much more consistent than the Android API. Sure, it's Obj-C. And you have to learn Obj-C. And you might complain that Obj-C is new and different and not Java (which does NOT make it a bad language. Different != bad.) But if you know Obj-C, and if you know Java, the iOS API is just generally more sensible and easy to use. I would not define the iOS API as a pain in the ass. You'd call it a pain in the ass, but then again, I know it, and you don't.
The Android API has several advantages. The Activities concept is a nice thing the iOS 6 and later APIs are just starting to play with. But they also make several boneheaded decisions. Rotating the device creates a new activity? WTF? Fragments? Fragments are nice but they're window dressing on a broken concept that iOS at least got right the first time. And native code support on Android is... lacking. Yes, you can technically do it, but not without jumping through a lot of development hoops you don't have to with the iOS tools. It would be nice if Android at least shipped with some Neon optimization code paths. And low latency audio on Android? Nope, still not there. Great if you're playing back or recording an audio file. Not great for much else. And don't get me started on all the bizarre OpenGL issues that iOS doesn't have.
I don't mean to trash on Android too much. What I'm basically saying is I'm having trouble taking this seriously as a level headed comparison when it's basically "I spend a lot of time with Android, I know it, and I like it. I don't know iOS, and it seems totally crazy to me!" The iOS APIs are basically child APIs of what shipped in OS X, and from there what shipped in NeXTStep. A lot of developers have spent a lot of time with the APIs over the last 20 years. It's not like these are bizzaro APIs that came out of nowhere that have never been peer reviewed, iterated on and improved, or worked with for long periods of time. Which is more than I can say for the Android APIs.
Here's a picture of your FACOM 100, c'mon, check your facts before you do the Wikipedia copy/paste. It's pretty obvious Schiller meant PCs, even the Slashdot title says "PC Maker." http://museum.ipsj.or.jp/compu...
You're using the date of 1984, which is the Mac. OP clearly was not talking about the Mac intro date, he calls the Mac's release date out as a separate date in several sections.
You arguments about Bitcoin's level of acceptance can be equally applied to PayPal in 1999. There where almost no sites accepting PayPal balance and you certainly could not pay your groceries and rent with PayPal. If someone sent you money with PayPal, all you could do was withdraw it to your bank account in local currency and that was about it.
Which is why everyone is keeping all of their money in Paypal, right?
Why not simply shoot them? I'm staunchly against the death penalty myself, but if you must do it then at least make it quick.
Of course, putting a bullet in someone's head might make the people invited to watch the event just a tad squeamish...
Because if you miss and don't kill them instantly, than you're back in torture/cruel-and-unusual land. Imagine shooting someone in the eye but not killing them and then having to take a second shot. Or a third shot. Or a forth shot. Shooting them is just a step above beating them to death with a hammer.
The advantage with lethal injection is you are killing them without inflicting any side issues or taking any risk that you'd be exposing them to torture by the state, which is illegal. Just the sentence is carried out, nothing more.
I'm almost home. I see the neighbor kid playing basketball in his driveway. He shoots. He misses. I know as soon as he misses that there is a good chance the ball will roll out into the street, and knowing how oblivious the neighbor kid is I can expect him to follow. Will the computer know this? In fact, I see the kid running towards the street, but he is hidden behind a parked van and will not actually be visible in the street until he's in the street directly in front of me. Will the car track him all the way from the upper end of his driveway?
Most neighborhood speed limits are set so a car should have appropriate time for a car to stop once a child enters the road. Kids hit chasing balls are usually hit by drivers who are speeding and can't stop in time.
So an automated car would solve this in two ways: - It would follow the speed limit so it was going slow enough to stop in a far shorter time anyway. - It would be monitoring for a child entering the road, and if the child entered the road, it would have enough time to stop. You seem to think this is a step back, but a automated car has a 360 degree, never distracted, field of view, which is a clear step up over what a distracted, radio listening, possibly texting human driver has.
The factor of predicting a child will enter the road is only a problem if you're speeding, and you couldn't stop in time in case the child actual entered the road. Because an automated car wouldn't be speeding, it would have to do the additional work of predicting when something will occur that should stop it from speeding.
You think the govt needs to hack the car to kill you? I'm more worried about the govt being able to track where every car is, since once they're driverless the next step is to allow them to communicate with each other, and if they can talk then the govt can see where the cars are.
We might as well bomb ourselves back to the stone ages if the threat of any possibly government monitoring is a problem.
- "I'm worried about the government being able to watch what I say and where I am once all computers communicate with the internet" - "I'm worried about the government being able to listen what I say once my house has a telephone" - "I'm worried about the government being able to control what I buy once they make currency" - "I'm worried about the government being able to know where I live and see my house if we live in communities"
Sure, let's talk about how to secure it, but we crossed the line of the government knowing where we are a long time ago. Do you carry a cell phone? Log on to the internet? (I'm going to assume yes on that one given the current context.) Great, the government already has the context to know where you are.
Well maybe, but also there is the trend that most people are playing games on smart phones and not consoles. For everyone that bought a new game for PS4 or Xbox One, there are probably 10x as many consumers who bought Candy Crush Saga. Not everyone wants to spend hours in front of TV or monitor playing games. Some people just want a bit of downtime between doing other things.
Ehhhh. That's not the reason behind this.
You're right, mobile gaming is huge. But Candy Crush Saga doesn't require a Kepler GPU. There aren't many popular mobile games, tablet or otherwise, crying out for more horsepower at this point.
NVidia has a more basic problem. As the grandparent post noted, their customers are drying up. The industry has pretty much agreed the IGP is the future. IGP delivers extremely fast compute performance and lower power usage. Both the Xbox One and PS4 use a single chip for graphics and GPU. So if you look at the landscape: - Intel has the Core processor and the Iris Pro IGP. - AMD has their processors and the Radeon IGP. - NVidia has ??? and GeForce.
Cue an Nvidia scramble. In order to compete against all in one chips, they need a processor architecture. Intel's x86 processors would be a great candidate, but Intel has pretty much decided on going their own for integrated graphics. Nvidia implementing their own x86 silicon against two established competitors would also be an uphill climb, if they could even get a license.
But Nvidia does have the option of ARM open to them. They can (and they did) build an Nvidia GPU coupled with an ARM CPU. Problem solved! Except ARM hasn't caught on yet with PCs. So they now need a market for their ARM chips until PCs warm up to ARM. So Nvidia begins making Tegra for tablets and phones.
This is why Nvidia is pitching silicon for a use case that doesn't exist. If they don't come up with a single chip solution, they'll be run out of business. They're using the tablet and phone market to keep themselves floating until they can launch Tegra on PC and consoles. Both may never happen, but if Nvidia wants to stay alive, that's really the safest bet to make.
I'm not sure OP was going for an explanation this deep, but he wasn't THAT far off in calling this a response to being drummed out of consoles.
In the worst case, it is exactly like a private company (looking after its pockets).
No. That is not the worst case. The worst case for government is when they murder millions of their own citizens. Like this, this, this, this, or this.
You don't think a private company would kill as well for their own ends?
The scale might be different, but in that case, what's stopping them is fear of the law. If not, what are the chances you think a corporation would poison the water supply or food supply of millions for their own short sighted ends?
You could make the argument that slavery was allowed by the us government, but it was also the institution of government that allowed it, and it was private companies making use of slavery.
In the worst case, it is exactly like a private company (looking after its pockets).
No. That is not the worst case. The worst case for government is when they murder millions of their own citizens. Like this, this, this, this, or this.
You don't think a private company would kill as well for their own ends?
The scale might be different, but in that case, what's stopping them is fear of the law. If not, what are the chances you think a corporation would poison the water supply or food supply of millions for their own short sighted ends?
Apple then holds onto the original specs for years (the last Mac Pro being a perfect example), until they are forced to retool. I'll even go out on a limb and predict a five year interim before we see another significant revision.
The Mac Pro was updated every year from 2006-2010; it was only the 2010 version that was stuck in place, probably in part due to the development of this new machine.
Don't forget the G5, which was updated every year before that since 2003.
Not voting is a decision that gives consent to whatever happens as a result of your apathy.
Nope.
Not voting reveals the system for what it is: violence concealed by the division of labor.
Voting in an election is as moral as bidding in a slave auction. In both cases participation gives both processes the illusion of legitimacy they do not deserve.
And by not voting you're electing not to be a slave just to the system, but also a slave to everyone around you. You think you've made some point. You have not. You've only surrendered the little power you have to take none at all.
And you've done so voluntarily, which is the real kicker. You think you're standing up to anyone? People who don't vote is exactly what corruption wants. You've voluntarily given up your rights to those you claim to stand up against. And you don't even realize you're playing right into their game.
Slashdot Mirror
So, Google decided to do something about traffic. Instead of having dozens of cars on the roads, spewing greenhouse gasses and burning foreign oil, they decide to do the "green" thing and provide buses, and they are condemned for it?!
The big problem is most cities are going to have to end up making most their streets mass transit or walking only. It's already happening in Portland.
So to a city planner, working on an already tightly compact urban core, buses are better than cars... But if all roads could be eliminated in favor of only foot traffic, that is most ideal.
Of course, that means having everything on needs, including work, in walking or at least light rail range.
The other alternative that's been floated is that Google and Apple could have pooled their money with the city and built light rail down to their own headquarters, and thus more businesses than just their own could have had more efficient travel, making the region better as a whole.
Actually, I don't know if they could.
If Facebook had bought him a ticket, that could have been considered a bribe, and the regulatory agencies would have had all sorts of fun with that.
It always seems that when companies start trying to branch out into wildly dissimilar industries, it's a sign of trouble within the organization. Do what you do well, figure out how to do it better if things aren't going how you'd like them. Don't try making sushi if you've always sold donuts.
Google's in a similar boat. Self driving cars, robots, barges in the San Francisco bay...
If Apple bought Tesla, they should just buy a controlling stake to keep Google away from purchasing Tesla, and then let Tesla keep doing it's thing. Make Apple's tremendous software design resources available for Tesla, but don't try and micro manage.
But as I said, everyone is doing the same branching out. I agree it's not a good sign, but at this point, we've run out of innovation steam on mobile and most of PC, so companies are just playing games to try to build monopolies instead of winning customers through new products.
At least Apple has the iWatch and a few other rumored products to shake things up a bit.
Businesses that migrate to IPv6 don't drop their IPv4 addresses. They still need them to talk to legacy clients.
I've migrated to IPv6 at home but I still have an additional IPv4 addresses internally and externally for talking to IPv4 servers and devices.
Knowing Apple, it will probably only work with iTunes, the worst POS software since Windows...
I'd go further than that. No iTunes compatibility at all. Requires an iPhone.
Android is based on Linux. The Google apps are not. Despite what some people claim, not everything written for a GPL operating system must be open source.
I don't think the argument is that Google is doing something illegal. I think the question is are they being unethical. They've been trumpeting how open Android is, and their contracts basically say if you work with them you cannot treat it as an open system. They're acting as if Android is more like Linux, but in practice it's more like iOS. I can go check out the base source for iOS/OS X from source control too if I wanted (http://opensource.apple.com).
I think OP is trying to make a witty joke comparing the North Korean government to the US's. Unfortunately, it's not all that witty.
They may have released the compiler front end, they never released their Objective-C runtime library making the code worthless and hard to maintain - apple would publish their updates as required without any of the effort necessary to stay compatible with anything but their own non-GPL runtime.
Fortunately, they don't have a monopoly on Obj-C runtimes.
http://www.gnustep.org/
http://www.cocotron.org/
Having read TFA, this collaboration appears to be partly about build compatibility. So far, it sounds like LLVM/Clang has been imitating GCC options.
Apple used to have something called LLVM-GCC. I think it's still there so things like make, or other things that assume GCC still work, but at least in their Xcode tools they no longer support LLVM-GCC.
Would they have BSD-licensed clang if there had not been the competing GPLed GCC? Who knows ...
There was no competition. Apple was a GCC user, distributor, and contributor until GPLv3. Apple never opposed open source compilers, in fact they're in favor of them because they don't have the staff on hand to write a finely optimized compiler themselves. The problem was the restrictions that would have been placed on them with GPLv3.
Except that you did it wrong.
BSD gives the author freedom, but screws the user. (1-1=0)
GP gives the author freedom, and preserves it for the user also. (1+1=2)
Really, this is simple math, there is no excuse for such a fundamental mistake.
Unless I ignore the Gnu implementation because of my commercial interests so the user never sees an implementation.
So we go back to Gnu = 0.
Seriously. I've seen projects and implementations totally scuttled over GPL. We would have LOVED to support the standard and commit code back, but the restrictions on our own code were unsustainable. So we went with BSD alternatives instead.
This sounds an awful lot like the arguments I heard in the early 90s on open systems vs proprietary. Your points are all valid but do they make the iOS platform sufficiently better for it to carry on? Given that Android is actively developed, just how long are the advantages you describe going to be an issue?
Maybe?
Large chunks of iOS are open source, so I don't know if I buy the "iOS will die because Android has more momentum." Android up until 4.4 was still using iOS's web renderer and JavaScript runtime, and finally in 4.4 they forked it.
http://opensource.apple.com/
(A lot of iOS stuff is in the Mac section.)
The private components of iOS are still being actively developed, and share a lot of foundation with the Mac, which is also being actively developed.
I think, like any platform, continued development of iOS will be reliant on it's market share. If market share dips below 15%, you'll see interest wane. But in the US, majority share is still going back and forth between iOS and Android. Worldwide, we typically see iOS more around the 30% mark, but iOS active usage share and app store activity is far higher. So I think we're looking at years before we settle whether or not Android or iOS will become the only OS worth someone's development time, if that ever gets settled at all. I don't think a Windows style OS monopoly in the OS industry would be good at all. And as Google has taken more share, we've seen them becoming more abusive of their power (such as clamping down on source availability and certification for Android.)
For now I see Android competing with iOS but I do think it's just a matter of time before there will be no advantage for Apple to continue developing their own OS. Woz is right, Apple could easily find themselves in the same situation as Blackberry and they need to be ready to deal with it.
And that is a possibility. But it's also a possibility that Google could stop working on Android. Google gives Android away, makes no money from it, and puts a lot of support into it. I know, similar arguments have been made against Linux, but hear me out... If you're Google, and Android is only being done to keep people on Google services and ads, the best course of action is to hand over Android to Samsung (which, to be frank, is the only Android manufacturer seeing significant adoption), make a services agreement with Samsung, and then re-build their services agreement with Apple. That gives Google %100 share of the market, excluding the insignificant Microsoft bits, and no cost of developing Android.
If you're Apple, that possibility looks ugly enough to keep you developing on iOS. Plus Apple gets the advantage that if they want to build a new device category like a watch or something akin to a new class like a tablet, they have enough expertise and resources in house to rearrange all the OS bits in a way they see fit.
There is also the Mac. Even if Apple dropped iOS in favor of Android, they can't stop developing iOS. iOS is Mac OS X, and Apple still sells Macs. So even if this all plays out the way it all seems to in Woz's head, Apple can't even stop iOS development.
Woz should have understood that, which makes me wonder about him. He's spent enough time at Apple, he understands Apple values knowing and controlling both the software and hardware, and he should understand that iOS and Mac share source and their fates are intertwined. I'm not sure if he realized that advocating for Apple to spin down iOS development isn't possible with the Mac existing. I've previously had a high opinion of Woz, but he's not thinking like an engineer or innovator here, which worries me. Apple adopting Android would make them a lot like Nokia, Dell, or HP. And look where those companies are now. I'm not even sure Woz is correct. If Blackberry had adopted Android would they have survived? Or would they have been run off the market by Samsung like every other company that put their lot in with Android (except for Samsung?)
To get our iPhone app on iTunes' App Store will be an absolute frickin nightmare compared to the ease of getting our Android version on the Play Store and all the early signs are that the Objective-C/iOS API will be much more of a pain in the ass than the Android API.
I know both the Android and iOS APIs.
There are some things each API does better than the other. And one is written in Obj-C and one is written in Java. HOWEVER...
The iOS API is much more consistent than the Android API. Sure, it's Obj-C. And you have to learn Obj-C. And you might complain that Obj-C is new and different and not Java (which does NOT make it a bad language. Different != bad.) But if you know Obj-C, and if you know Java, the iOS API is just generally more sensible and easy to use. I would not define the iOS API as a pain in the ass. You'd call it a pain in the ass, but then again, I know it, and you don't.
The Android API has several advantages. The Activities concept is a nice thing the iOS 6 and later APIs are just starting to play with. But they also make several boneheaded decisions. Rotating the device creates a new activity? WTF? Fragments? Fragments are nice but they're window dressing on a broken concept that iOS at least got right the first time. And native code support on Android is... lacking. Yes, you can technically do it, but not without jumping through a lot of development hoops you don't have to with the iOS tools. It would be nice if Android at least shipped with some Neon optimization code paths. And low latency audio on Android? Nope, still not there. Great if you're playing back or recording an audio file. Not great for much else. And don't get me started on all the bizarre OpenGL issues that iOS doesn't have.
I don't mean to trash on Android too much. What I'm basically saying is I'm having trouble taking this seriously as a level headed comparison when it's basically "I spend a lot of time with Android, I know it, and I like it. I don't know iOS, and it seems totally crazy to me!" The iOS APIs are basically child APIs of what shipped in OS X, and from there what shipped in NeXTStep. A lot of developers have spent a lot of time with the APIs over the last 20 years. It's not like these are bizzaro APIs that came out of nowhere that have never been peer reviewed, iterated on and improved, or worked with for long periods of time. Which is more than I can say for the Android APIs.
Dell traces its origins to 1984, when Michael Dell created PC's Limited while a student of the University of Texas at Austin. The dorm-room headquartered company sold IBM PC-compatible computers built from stock components.
8 years after Apple started making computers, just like the OP said.
The Micro-Professor MPF-I, introduced in 1981 by Multitech (which, in 1987, changed its name to Acer)
5 years after Apple started making computers.
Really?
7 years after Apple.
Cray never made PCs
In 1954, Fujitsu manufactured Japan's first computer, the FACOM 100, and in 1961 launched the transistorized FACOM 222.
Here's a picture of your FACOM 100, c'mon, check your facts before you do the Wikipedia copy/paste. It's pretty obvious Schiller meant PCs, even the Slashdot title says "PC Maker."
http://museum.ipsj.or.jp/compu...
Pretty sloppy counterargument. Your biggest problem? Apple built their first PC in 1976.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
You're using the date of 1984, which is the Mac. OP clearly was not talking about the Mac intro date, he calls the Mac's release date out as a separate date in several sections.
Because if you miss and don't kill them instantly, [...]
A Shotgun should eliminate that risk...
This is real life, not Halo. Lot's of people survive direct shotgun blasts. Lot's also do die, but still the same problem.
You arguments about Bitcoin's level of acceptance can be equally applied to PayPal in 1999. There where almost no sites accepting PayPal balance and you certainly could not pay your groceries and rent with PayPal. If someone sent you money with PayPal, all you could do was withdraw it to your bank account in local currency and that was about it.
Which is why everyone is keeping all of their money in Paypal, right?
Why not simply shoot them? I'm staunchly against the death penalty myself, but if you must do it then at least make it quick.
Of course, putting a bullet in someone's head might make the people invited to watch the event just a tad squeamish...
Because if you miss and don't kill them instantly, than you're back in torture/cruel-and-unusual land. Imagine shooting someone in the eye but not killing them and then having to take a second shot. Or a third shot. Or a forth shot. Shooting them is just a step above beating them to death with a hammer.
The advantage with lethal injection is you are killing them without inflicting any side issues or taking any risk that you'd be exposing them to torture by the state, which is illegal. Just the sentence is carried out, nothing more.
I'm almost home. I see the neighbor kid playing basketball in his driveway. He shoots. He misses. I know as soon as he misses that there is a good chance the ball will roll out into the street, and knowing how oblivious the neighbor kid is I can expect him to follow. Will the computer know this? In fact, I see the kid running towards the street, but he is hidden behind a parked van and will not actually be visible in the street until he's in the street directly in front of me. Will the car track him all the way from the upper end of his driveway?
Most neighborhood speed limits are set so a car should have appropriate time for a car to stop once a child enters the road. Kids hit chasing balls are usually hit by drivers who are speeding and can't stop in time.
So an automated car would solve this in two ways:
- It would follow the speed limit so it was going slow enough to stop in a far shorter time anyway.
- It would be monitoring for a child entering the road, and if the child entered the road, it would have enough time to stop. You seem to think this is a step back, but a automated car has a 360 degree, never distracted, field of view, which is a clear step up over what a distracted, radio listening, possibly texting human driver has.
The factor of predicting a child will enter the road is only a problem if you're speeding, and you couldn't stop in time in case the child actual entered the road. Because an automated car wouldn't be speeding, it would have to do the additional work of predicting when something will occur that should stop it from speeding.
You think the govt needs to hack the car to kill you? I'm more worried about the govt being able to track where every car is, since once they're driverless the next step is to allow them to communicate with each other, and if they can talk then the govt can see where the cars are.
We might as well bomb ourselves back to the stone ages if the threat of any possibly government monitoring is a problem.
- "I'm worried about the government being able to watch what I say and where I am once all computers communicate with the internet"
- "I'm worried about the government being able to listen what I say once my house has a telephone"
- "I'm worried about the government being able to control what I buy once they make currency"
- "I'm worried about the government being able to know where I live and see my house if we live in communities"
Sure, let's talk about how to secure it, but we crossed the line of the government knowing where we are a long time ago. Do you carry a cell phone? Log on to the internet? (I'm going to assume yes on that one given the current context.) Great, the government already has the context to know where you are.
Well maybe, but also there is the trend that most people are playing games on smart phones and not consoles. For everyone that bought a new game for PS4 or Xbox One, there are probably 10x as many consumers who bought Candy Crush Saga. Not everyone wants to spend hours in front of TV or monitor playing games. Some people just want a bit of downtime between doing other things.
Ehhhh. That's not the reason behind this.
You're right, mobile gaming is huge. But Candy Crush Saga doesn't require a Kepler GPU. There aren't many popular mobile games, tablet or otherwise, crying out for more horsepower at this point.
NVidia has a more basic problem. As the grandparent post noted, their customers are drying up. The industry has pretty much agreed the IGP is the future. IGP delivers extremely fast compute performance and lower power usage. Both the Xbox One and PS4 use a single chip for graphics and GPU. So if you look at the landscape:
- Intel has the Core processor and the Iris Pro IGP.
- AMD has their processors and the Radeon IGP.
- NVidia has ??? and GeForce.
Cue an Nvidia scramble. In order to compete against all in one chips, they need a processor architecture. Intel's x86 processors would be a great candidate, but Intel has pretty much decided on going their own for integrated graphics. Nvidia implementing their own x86 silicon against two established competitors would also be an uphill climb, if they could even get a license.
But Nvidia does have the option of ARM open to them. They can (and they did) build an Nvidia GPU coupled with an ARM CPU. Problem solved! Except ARM hasn't caught on yet with PCs. So they now need a market for their ARM chips until PCs warm up to ARM. So Nvidia begins making Tegra for tablets and phones.
This is why Nvidia is pitching silicon for a use case that doesn't exist. If they don't come up with a single chip solution, they'll be run out of business. They're using the tablet and phone market to keep themselves floating until they can launch Tegra on PC and consoles. Both may never happen, but if Nvidia wants to stay alive, that's really the safest bet to make.
I'm not sure OP was going for an explanation this deep, but he wasn't THAT far off in calling this a response to being drummed out of consoles.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States
In the worst case, it is exactly like a private company (looking after its pockets).
No. That is not the worst case. The worst case for government is when they murder millions of their own citizens. Like this, this, this, this, or this.
You don't think a private company would kill as well for their own ends?
The scale might be different, but in that case, what's stopping them is fear of the law. If not, what are the chances you think a corporation would poison the water supply or food supply of millions for their own short sighted ends?
And as evidence, I submit this one case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States
You could make the argument that slavery was allowed by the us government, but it was also the institution of government that allowed it, and it was private companies making use of slavery.
In the worst case, it is exactly like a private company (looking after its pockets).
No. That is not the worst case. The worst case for government is when they murder millions of their own citizens. Like this, this, this, this, or this.
You don't think a private company would kill as well for their own ends?
The scale might be different, but in that case, what's stopping them is fear of the law. If not, what are the chances you think a corporation would poison the water supply or food supply of millions for their own short sighted ends?
The Mac Pro was updated every year from 2006-2010; it was only the 2010 version that was stuck in place, probably in part due to the development of this new machine.
Don't forget the G5, which was updated every year before that since 2003.
Or the Power Mac G4.
Or the Power Mac G3.
Nope.
Not voting reveals the system for what it is: violence concealed by the division of labor.
Voting in an election is as moral as bidding in a slave auction. In both cases participation gives both processes the illusion of legitimacy they do not deserve.
And by not voting you're electing not to be a slave just to the system, but also a slave to everyone around you. You think you've made some point. You have not. You've only surrendered the little power you have to take none at all.
And you've done so voluntarily, which is the real kicker. You think you're standing up to anyone? People who don't vote is exactly what corruption wants. You've voluntarily given up your rights to those you claim to stand up against. And you don't even realize you're playing right into their game.