Windows has nothing to do with it. No other music management program pegs the CPU while syncing media over USB. This is purely the fault of Apple programmers not caring or not knowing how to program for Windows.
You don't give Apple programmers enough credit -- the USB transfer routine includes a surreptitious Bitcoin mining thread. That's how Apple builds up its cash reserves.
There's a big difference between saying "We aren't going to do any work to support your stuff," and saying "We are going to work to make sure your stuff can't be supported."
Is the latter action illegal? If so, under what circumstances?
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any particularly compelling reason why company X should be required to permit a competitors' software to make use of the company X's servers.
As a real Sync user (from 2012), my experience has been that its problems have more to do with user interface than "stability". Even if QNX improves on the latter, it does nothing for the former.
Well, it might help indirectly. Every hour the developers don't spend trying to debug the OS is an hour they can instead spend on making the user interface work better. I suspect that a lot of mediocre products appear simply because there were so many showstopping bugs to chase down that there was never any time to smooth out the rough edges.
But, if you end up buying a newer Keurig machine... suddenly you get DRM, specifically because it's the razor blade business model, and Keurig has decided you must buy from them.
If there's any justice in the world, Keurig will be getting a lot of post-Christmas returns this year, when people realize that the coffee machine they just upgraded to is incompatible with most of the coffee they wanted to make.
Why would I put my grandchildren's videos on Youtube?
I don't know why you'd do it, but I think the reason many people put their videos on YouTube is because it's an easy way to share said videos with the people they want to share them with. Sending someone a YouTube URL is a lot easier and quicker than figuring out how to get a multi-gigabyte video file from your computer to their computer.
Actually, I don't know why they don't "acquiesce" somewhat to the demands - and offer to sell to the dealers at the same price as they sell in other states.
I don't think there is anything stopping a Texas auto dealer from going to Tesla's web site today and buying as many cars as he wants to buy.
The real issue is that the dealer would then want to service and support these cars, which would require a more in-depth working relationship with Tesla; and Tesla (quite reasonably IMO) does not trust dealers to do as good a job with that as Tesla itself can. Without quality service and support, OTOH, there is no reason why a customer should want to buy through a dealership and pay extra for inferior support.
The weirdest thing is that this hatred of "government" seems to come, without a trace of irony, from politicians.
It's perfect cover: as an anti-government politician, if your policies don't work, that's only more proof that government is incompetent and you were right all along to oppose. If they do work, OTOH, you're a hero! You can't lose:^)
Also, explain to me why anyone should use an interpreted programming language when even CommonLisp was already compiled in the 80s?
In a large number of scenarios, the limiting factor is the skill of the (often easily-intimidated newbie) programmer, not the speed of the resulting program's execution.
In those cases, a "slow" language that is easy to learn and use (e.g. Python) typically produces a better result than a really fast/powerful language that isn't as newbie-friendly. Computers are fast enough these days that for a lot of things, a slow/inefficient program is nevertheless more than adequate to the task at hand.
In particular, I think the ability to run the Python interpreter and enter python code into it interactively is an easy and convenient way for people to experiment and learn how Python works. Compiled languages make that harder to do, as you have to enter all your changes at once, then recompile, rather than being able to type in a single line and get an instant result.
Which language is that? Phython? C++? C? Java? A language "does not cut it"... how retarded.
It's not retarded at all; it's a simple fact that each language comes with its own set of design decisions that make some tasks easier and some tasks more difficult. Thinking that all languages are equivalent would be a newbie mistake.
For example, Python, while it is a great high-level language and easy to learn and use, will almost never produce software that runs at the speed of an equivalent compiled C or C++ program. Furthermore, its continuing reliance on a Global Interpreter Lock means that multithreaded Python programs will not utilize multiple cores efficiently for the forseeable future.
Java, OTOH, avoids those problems but using Java means you'll need to include a Java runtime environment and JIT on any platform you deploy on; that makes it inappropriate for many embedded devices or otherwise constrained environments. Also the non-deterministic timing of the built-in garbage collector makes Java a poor fit for real-time programming.
C/C++, finally, can run mostly anywhere, but their low-level nature makes them a bit harder to learn, and a great deal more conducive to shooting yourself in the foot with (if you don't use them correctly).
Python, C, C++, Perl, Java, Ruby, etc. are all very similar and there's a point where you'll know enough that you'll just have to google the 'if' and loop syntax and you're good to go.
I'm reminded of this quote:
"The determined Real Programmer can write FORTRAN programs in any language." -- Ed Post
The heating process would be 100% efficient, measure from the point of the output wires of the panels.
Not very cost-efficient upstream of those output wires, though. You could save a good bit of money by skipping the PV panels and harvesting the heat directly instead.
As soon as too many people start putting power from solar back onto the grid at one time, in one area? They can't really do anything with it, so it gets wasted.
A possible twist on this outcome: before this happens, the price and performance of energy storage (e.g. electric-car style battery packs) improves to the point where it becomes economical for most solar panel owners (or perhaps even the power company) to store any excess electricity that would otherwise be wasted. Dunno if or when it will happen, but it certainly would simplify things.
A system that moves the panels shouldn't add that much to the cost and will probably pay for itself very quickly with the extra energy collected.
I'm not so sure about that -- anything with moving parts is liable to wear out and need expensive repairs. I certainly wouldn't expect it to last anywhere near the 20-25 years that the rest of the system will. Given enough space, it's probably cheaper and easier just to buy more fixed panels than to add motorized sun-tracking equipment.
Straight out of Agenda 21. Stack-and-pack all the people, allow ownership and taxation of property, but control usage from a central authority, and slowly ban development, and eventually humans entirely, from the vast majority of land.
As the human population approaches the planet's capacity, such authoritarian measures are going to proliferate, if only because the alternative is economic failure and societal collapse.
In a sparsely populated, open system (e.g. the Old West), there are effectively unlimited natural resources, so no formal resource management is necessary. Libertarian/individualist principles work fine there, as what group A does or doesn't do to the environment has limited effect on group B, who (in the worst case) is always free to find a new plot of land to live off of.
In a submarine at sea, at the other extreme, resources are extremely limited, and everybody depends on everyone else to keep the environment stable. Bad actors cannot be tolerated. Therefore, in submarines you will find only very authoritarian social systems, as more permissive structures would tend to get everyone killed in short order.
Population growth moves us steadily away from the "old west / do whatever you want" scenario and towards the "submarine / co-operation is required to stave off disaster" scenario.
Decry it as creeping socialism (or whatever) all you want, but you're looking at a symptom, not the underlying problem.
[The ZipCar] will also still be there after you finish shopping.
That's a very good point -- but OTOH if you are worried about that, you also have the option of leaving your Car2Go car "locked" (and thus guaranteed to stay put) while you shop. You'll pay more if you do that, of course, but it's up to you to decide whether you prefer "cheaper" or "guaranteed available".
Then you're living in a daydream. There simply isn't enough land for things like big solar farms to create that scale. Or wind farms. And, for ENVIRONMENTAL reasons, Hydro in at least the US is nearly as developed as it's going to get.
The point is, non-renewables run out. That's why they are called non-renewable. That means we will be transitioning away from them at some point, whether we like it or not.
Whether we end up transitioning to solar, wind, fission, fusion, or just to shivering-in-the-dark in an open question, but we will be transitioning to something, because once the oil and coal has been burned, it won't be coming back.
What money is that? They already have sources of power as it is.
Residential power demand grows over time, as more houses are built, and/or people in existing houses start using more power.
When an area's peak power demand surpasses the capacity of the power company's existing power plants, the power company has to build more power plants; otherwise they risk brownouts or blackouts during peak usage periods (e.g. hot summer afternoons when everyone is running the A/C).
Building (and then maintaining) those additional power plants costs the power company money.
On the other hand, if the new houses (and/or some of the existing houses) add solar panels, that reduces the peak power demand, which means that additional peaking plants no longer have to be built, or maintained. That reduces the power company's future costs.
That's why it's not "charity" -- it's a win/win situation for both the consumer and the power company.
Bird kills do happen. The relevant questions to ask would be: (a) how much do wind-farm bird kills effect the bird population, relative to other sources of bird mortality, and (b) how many birds would die in the alternative scenario, where the wind farm is not built?
The answer to (b) would of course depend a whole lot on how society chose to produce its energy instead of by from wind. If society continued to burn fossil fuels instead, the likelihood is that climate change would wipe out a lot more birds than windmills ever could. OTOH, if society chose to build nuclear plants or solar plants instead, it's possible that those options would kill fewer birds. As with most hypotheticals, there isn't an easy answer; but pretty much every energy solution (other than energy conservation, which is very much underrated IMO) comes with some environmental cost, and of course bird conservation is only one of many considerations that have to be taken into account.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows has nothing to do with it. No other music management program pegs the CPU while syncing media over USB. This is purely the fault of Apple programmers not caring or not knowing how to program for Windows.
You don't give Apple programmers enough credit -- the USB transfer routine includes a surreptitious Bitcoin mining thread. That's how Apple builds up its cash reserves.
There's a big difference between saying "We aren't going to do any work to support your stuff," and saying "We are going to work to make sure your stuff can't be supported."
Is the latter action illegal? If so, under what circumstances?
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any particularly compelling reason why company X should be required to permit a competitors' software to make use of the company X's servers.
As a real Sync user (from 2012), my experience has been that its problems have more to do with user interface than "stability". Even if QNX improves on the latter, it does nothing for the former.
Well, it might help indirectly. Every hour the developers don't spend trying to debug the OS is an hour they can instead spend on making the user interface work better. I suspect that a lot of mediocre products appear simply because there were so many showstopping bugs to chase down that there was never any time to smooth out the rough edges.
But, if you end up buying a newer Keurig machine ... suddenly you get DRM, specifically because it's the razor blade business model, and Keurig has decided you must buy from them.
If there's any justice in the world, Keurig will be getting a lot of post-Christmas returns this year, when people realize that the coffee machine they just upgraded to is incompatible with most of the coffee they wanted to make.
Why in the hell would anybody buy a coffee maker that uses DRM to prevent using "non-genuine" coffee?
When polled on this question, the number one response from consumers was: "What is DRM?"
You can't have a currency that changes value significantly in the time it takes to get to the grocery store.
Agreed, but the hope/expectation is that as the user base grows, the valuation will become less volatile, making it more useful as a currency.
But once it's there it's really not yours anymore. And years down the road it may not exist at all.
There's nothing that says you have to delete your original file after you've uploaded a copy of it to YouTube.
Why would I put my grandchildren's videos on Youtube?
I don't know why you'd do it, but I think the reason many people put their videos on YouTube is because it's an easy way to share said videos with the people they want to share them with. Sending someone a YouTube URL is a lot easier and quicker than figuring out how to get a multi-gigabyte video file from your computer to their computer.
So basically, once global warming takes its course, Earth is going to look like Mars.
If you want a global-warming nightmare scenario, Venus is a better candidate.
Actually, I don't know why they don't "acquiesce" somewhat to the demands - and offer to sell to the dealers at the same price as they sell in other states.
I don't think there is anything stopping a Texas auto dealer from going to Tesla's web site today and buying as many cars as he wants to buy.
The real issue is that the dealer would then want to service and support these cars, which would require a more in-depth working relationship with Tesla; and Tesla (quite reasonably IMO) does not trust dealers to do as good a job with that as Tesla itself can. Without quality service and support, OTOH, there is no reason why a customer should want to buy through a dealership and pay extra for inferior support.
The weirdest thing is that this hatred of "government" seems to come, without a trace of irony, from politicians.
It's perfect cover: as an anti-government politician, if your policies don't work, that's only more proof that government is incompetent and you were right all along to oppose. If they do work, OTOH, you're a hero! You can't lose :^)
And, Godwin'd. That's a wrap everyone, have a great evening, see you in the next thread.
Also, explain to me why anyone should use an interpreted programming language when even CommonLisp was already compiled in the 80s?
In a large number of scenarios, the limiting factor is the skill of the (often easily-intimidated newbie) programmer, not the speed of the resulting program's execution.
In those cases, a "slow" language that is easy to learn and use (e.g. Python) typically produces a better result than a really fast/powerful language that isn't as newbie-friendly. Computers are fast enough these days that for a lot of things, a slow/inefficient program is nevertheless more than adequate to the task at hand.
In particular, I think the ability to run the Python interpreter and enter python code into it interactively is an easy and convenient way for people to experiment and learn how Python works. Compiled languages make that harder to do, as you have to enter all your changes at once, then recompile, rather than being able to type in a single line and get an instant result.
Which language is that? Phython? C++? C? Java? A language "does not cut it" ... how retarded.
It's not retarded at all; it's a simple fact that each language comes with its own set of design decisions that make some tasks easier and some tasks more difficult. Thinking that all languages are equivalent would be a newbie mistake.
For example, Python, while it is a great high-level language and easy to learn and use, will almost never produce software that runs at the speed of an equivalent compiled C or C++ program. Furthermore, its continuing reliance on a Global Interpreter Lock means that multithreaded Python programs will not utilize multiple cores efficiently for the forseeable future.
Java, OTOH, avoids those problems but using Java means you'll need to include a Java runtime environment and JIT on any platform you deploy on; that makes it inappropriate for many embedded devices or otherwise constrained environments. Also the non-deterministic timing of the built-in garbage collector makes Java a poor fit for real-time programming.
C/C++, finally, can run mostly anywhere, but their low-level nature makes them a bit harder to learn, and a great deal more conducive to shooting yourself in the foot with (if you don't use them correctly).
Python, C, C++, Perl, Java, Ruby, etc. are all very similar and there's a point where you'll know enough that you'll just have to google the 'if' and loop syntax and you're good to go.
I'm reminded of this quote:
"The determined Real Programmer can write FORTRAN programs in any language." -- Ed Post
The heating process would be 100% efficient, measure from the point of the output wires of the panels.
Not very cost-efficient upstream of those output wires, though. You could save a good bit of money by skipping the PV panels and harvesting the heat directly instead.
As soon as too many people start putting power from solar back onto the grid at one time, in one area? They can't really do anything with it, so it gets wasted.
A possible twist on this outcome: before this happens, the price and performance of energy storage (e.g. electric-car style battery packs) improves to the point where it becomes economical for most solar panel owners (or perhaps even the power company) to store any excess electricity that would otherwise be wasted. Dunno if or when it will happen, but it certainly would simplify things.
A system that moves the panels shouldn't add that much to the cost and will probably pay for itself very quickly with the extra energy collected.
I'm not so sure about that -- anything with moving parts is liable to wear out and need expensive repairs. I certainly wouldn't expect it to last anywhere near the 20-25 years that the rest of the system will. Given enough space, it's probably cheaper and easier just to buy more fixed panels than to add motorized sun-tracking equipment.
How is this automatically "homoerotic"? Girls don't "sip" from "straws"??
Girls aren't the target audience of a toy like Buzz Lightyear.
If Star Wars taught us anything, in the future (but somehow the past) Blacks are relegated to positions of being political shills for the empire.
And then you've got Darth Vader: the blackest brother in the galaxy. Nubian God.
Straight out of Agenda 21. Stack-and-pack all the people, allow ownership and taxation of property, but control usage from a central authority, and slowly ban development, and eventually humans entirely, from the vast majority of land.
As the human population approaches the planet's capacity, such authoritarian measures are going to proliferate, if only because the alternative is economic failure and societal collapse.
In a sparsely populated, open system (e.g. the Old West), there are effectively unlimited natural resources, so no formal resource management is necessary. Libertarian/individualist principles work fine there, as what group A does or doesn't do to the environment has limited effect on group B, who (in the worst case) is always free to find a new plot of land to live off of.
In a submarine at sea, at the other extreme, resources are extremely limited, and everybody depends on everyone else to keep the environment stable. Bad actors cannot be tolerated. Therefore, in submarines you will find only very authoritarian social systems, as more permissive structures would tend to get everyone killed in short order.
Population growth moves us steadily away from the "old west / do whatever you want" scenario and towards the "submarine / co-operation is required to stave off disaster" scenario.
Decry it as creeping socialism (or whatever) all you want, but you're looking at a symptom, not the underlying problem.
[The ZipCar] will also still be there after you finish shopping.
That's a very good point -- but OTOH if you are worried about that, you also have the option of leaving your Car2Go car "locked" (and thus guaranteed to stay put) while you shop. You'll pay more if you do that, of course, but it's up to you to decide whether you prefer "cheaper" or "guaranteed available".
Then you're living in a daydream. There simply isn't enough land for things like big solar farms to create that scale. Or wind farms. And, for ENVIRONMENTAL reasons, Hydro in at least the US is nearly as developed as it's going to get.
The point is, non-renewables run out. That's why they are called non-renewable. That means we will be transitioning away from them at some point, whether we like it or not.
Whether we end up transitioning to solar, wind, fission, fusion, or just to shivering-in-the-dark in an open question, but we will be transitioning to something, because once the oil and coal has been burned, it won't be coming back.
What money is that? They already have sources of power as it is.
Residential power demand grows over time, as more houses are built, and/or people in existing houses start using more power.
When an area's peak power demand surpasses the capacity of the power company's existing power plants, the power company has to build more power plants; otherwise they risk brownouts or blackouts during peak usage periods (e.g. hot summer afternoons when everyone is running the A/C).
Building (and then maintaining) those additional power plants costs the power company money.
On the other hand, if the new houses (and/or some of the existing houses) add solar panels, that reduces the peak power demand, which means that additional peaking plants no longer have to be built, or maintained. That reduces the power company's future costs.
That's why it's not "charity" -- it's a win/win situation for both the consumer and the power company.
What about bird kills, though.
Bird kills do happen. The relevant questions to ask would be: (a) how much do wind-farm bird kills effect the bird population, relative to other sources of bird mortality, and (b) how many birds would die in the alternative scenario, where the wind farm is not built?
The answer to (a) is: not very much.
The answer to (b) would of course depend a whole lot on how society chose to produce its energy instead of by from wind. If society continued to burn fossil fuels instead, the likelihood is that climate change would wipe out a lot more birds than windmills ever could. OTOH, if society chose to build nuclear plants or solar plants instead, it's possible that those options would kill fewer birds. As with most hypotheticals, there isn't an easy answer; but pretty much every energy solution (other than energy conservation, which is very much underrated IMO) comes with some environmental cost, and of course bird conservation is only one of many considerations that have to be taken into account.