Right. I can even believe in that in sheer number of interacting components (albeit of different sorts), my computer is as complicated as an airplane.
But you, as a System Administrator, are not re-etching its transistors. IT is the ATC, airport and related infrastructure. Users are pilots. I understand that the airport has to regulate what pilots do for everyone's safety and efficient functioning. It is the hubris , where the ATC staff decides it knows more about the aircraft than the pilot or the Aeronautical engineer, which leads to the tension - exactly as in your post.
Yes, I know it goes both ways - pilots shouldn't be telling you guys when to wash the runway - but if he tells you he sees blue lights better than yellow lights for a night time landing, you should spare a thought.
Whatever it is, I give them props for trying to solve this in the most honest, transparent way possible and remaining open to being wrong. They're exemplifying "good" scientific method and that makes them more credible to begin with.
The most widely spoken language is not the language with most speakers. Languages in India are dispersed in local regions (states) where >90% speak that language.
Your argument is the same as saying : German has the highest number of speakers among Europeans and is therefore the common language of Europe. I assure you, it doesn't hold in Paris.
In any case, Hindi itself is known as a secondary language by most people. The closest thing to a 'common' language, in terms of area of coverage AND number of people who speak it, is English .
Take it from an Indian. That is incorrect. Try speaking Hindi anywhere in South India.
For one, it is not THE official language of India. It is one of 25 or so official languages. The language of the Parliament in English or Hindi along with any official language. The language of the Judiciary is English.
English is the closest thing to a common language.
You may consider it trolling, but I maintain and have defended my position in the other thread. Reading through the thread, I was not corrected because I did not make an incorrect statement. I still see the eco-system as a lock down, if not the device in particular. You may consider it subjective, but at least do not misrepresent what was said.
As for this thread and "bashing", I have not uttered a single ad hominem against Apple (which is not something you can say about your comments to me). I happen to disagree with their way of doing things.
Why are you so riled up over one person's dissatisfaction with Apple? Or is it that the smallest grain of truth in my discourse is bugging you?
What is speculative about a fact that they used code that was already licensed as open-source and so they had to release source? Developing your own engine is much harder, just like developing your own OS layer is harder when BSD is sitting there all ready with the basics. Even harder than splitting hairs.
Oh, it was a smart move to do that, I agree. Just like taking the mouse idea from Xerox was. I am reluctant to associate any benevolence or credit though
Yeah, and you can use a multimeter and wire your iPod to a standard USB port. That doesn't make it USB-compatible.
The point was about being "locked" to the eco-system, not to iTunes. Everything about Apple's gadgets is proprietory. Including the design of their software, like iTunes. 50 comments over here about how iPod does not play FLAC.
Calling it FUD without reading carefully does not make it FUD.
You are locked to their eco-system. iTunes, Propreitory docks and cables, etc. Note that the spirit of the OP's comment applies to iPod Touch and iPhone too.
Only because they HAD to. They made Webkit from opensource Konqueror (KDE) code which ran on POSIX, to use in their new POSIX style OS. Apple uses Webkit in everything on Mac OS X+.
Pi is as much a 'a pattern of nature' as is root 2. Pi just happens to be related to circles, and root 2 is to squares or right-angled triangles. There is no reason to attach any mysticism to it. Too much pop-sci there, huh?
The real constants of nature , i.e, the Planck constant or the related Fine-structure constant have certain real physical interpretations. Those are the ones that seem to have certain values, when they could in principle have other values (and we see no reason that their be fixed). These are the subject of intense theoretical physics studies, and probably would be more justified as objects of metaphysical fantasy
Yes. Algorithmic methods developed to do such a thing are often useful in many other areas involving computation. The Chudnovsky algorithm , which is the current favorite has dramatically sped up modelling and simulation processes and is used in nearly every code package that does that sort of thing. Since that algorithm is only workable upto 17 billion significant digits, clearly this is a different method or modification thereof. (I didn't RTFA).
Really, this is the case with every achievement of number theory. Solutions to problems we don't know are problems yet. Think lasers.
No. It isn't. To anyone who knows a little biology, it was misleading on a couple of levels.
1. Viruses can be DNA or RNA based.
2. Bacteria also have both DNA and RNA
3. There was some doubt about what the identity of the Plague pathogen was - if it turned out to be a virus, it would be newsworthy.
4. If one knew, the plague pathogen was bacterium, isolating RNA from a bacterium would be a world-first and an immense technical feat. Hell, even the idea that RNA survives that long opens all sorts of pandora's boxes.
Lateral resolution is about 0.61*wavelength / NumericalAperture. The smaller this number , the smaller the distance at which two distinct points of light can be resolved.
It is entirely meaningful to compare the spatial resolution of two devices observing in different wavelengths. Shorter wavelengths have a lower theoretical limit , sure. But even if Hubble observes at shorter wavelengths, the ALMA has a big fucking numerical aperture. Which makes its resolution better.
What looks like one galaxy to the Hubble in the visible spectrum, may now be seen by ALMA to be two galaxies in its mm-wavelength , because it has better resolution. This is not apples and oranges if you're looking at the same galaxies in different frequency bands.
I am sure you optics whizzes understand that basic lateral resolution is about 0.61*wavelength / NumericalAperture. The smaller this number , the smaller the distance at which two distinct points of light can be resolved.
It is entirely meaningful to compare the spatial resolution of two devices observing in different wavelengths. Shorter wavelengths have a lower theoretical limit , sure. But even if Hubble observes at shorter wavelengths, the ALMA has a big fucking numerical aperture. Which makes its resolution better.
What looks like one galaxy to the Hubble in the visible spectrum, may now be seen by ALMA to be two galaxies in its mm-wavelength , becauseit has better resolution.
The debate though, is not about that fact. It's about how much credit Apple really deserves for innovation.
And as of 2011, does the iPhone really deserve its sales on the basis of its capabilities etc., or if it is , as someone mentioned before, a case of Stockholm syndrome?
Oh don't bother. This is 'exploitation ' by the same flawed logic that "I don't have common sense, and am incompetent at paying attention to my environment and making my own decisions about what I should and should not do. Therefore, I can sue you if my coffee cup doesn't say "Hot Contents". " Pure balderdash.
Slashdot Mirror
F-14? God, its 2011....upgrade to the F-22 already!
Right. I can even believe in that in sheer number of interacting components (albeit of different sorts), my computer is as complicated as an airplane.
But you, as a System Administrator, are not re-etching its transistors. IT is the ATC, airport and related infrastructure. Users are pilots. I understand that the airport has to regulate what pilots do for everyone's safety and efficient functioning. It is the hubris , where the ATC staff decides it knows more about the aircraft than the pilot or the Aeronautical engineer, which leads to the tension - exactly as in your post.
Yes, I know it goes both ways - pilots shouldn't be telling you guys when to wash the runway - but if he tells you he sees blue lights better than yellow lights for a night time landing, you should spare a thought.
Whatever it is, I give them props for trying to solve this in the most honest, transparent way possible and remaining open to being wrong. They're exemplifying "good" scientific method and that makes them more credible to begin with.
The most widely spoken language is not the language with most speakers. Languages in India are dispersed in local regions (states) where >90% speak that language.
Your argument is the same as saying : German has the highest number of speakers among Europeans and is therefore the common language of Europe. I assure you, it doesn't hold in Paris.
In any case, Hindi itself is known as a secondary language by most people. The closest thing to a 'common' language, in terms of area of coverage AND number of people who speak it, is English .
Take it from an Indian. That is incorrect. Try speaking Hindi anywhere in South India.
For one, it is not THE official language of India. It is one of 25 or so official languages.
The language of the Parliament in English or Hindi along with any official language.
The language of the Judiciary is English.
English is the closest thing to a common language.
Average Salary for a Janitor : $24000 per annnum
Average Salary for a Post-doc scientist with a Ph.D+1 year experience: $27000 per annum
Average Salary for a Assistant Store Manager at McDonalds : $29,382
Do you see the problem?
You may consider it trolling, but I maintain and have defended my position in the other thread. Reading through the thread, I was not corrected because I did not make an incorrect statement. I still see the eco-system as a lock down, if not the device in particular. You may consider it subjective, but at least do not misrepresent what was said.
As for this thread and "bashing", I have not uttered a single ad hominem against Apple (which is not something you can say about your comments to me). I happen to disagree with their way of doing things.
Why are you so riled up over one person's dissatisfaction with Apple? Or is it that the smallest grain of truth in my discourse is bugging you?
Here : http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2328
Could you point to a device on this page which has any variety of a standard USB port on it : Mini, Micro, Full Size?
What is speculative about a fact that they used code that was already licensed as open-source and so they had to release source? Developing your own engine is much harder, just like developing your own OS layer is harder when BSD is sitting there all ready with the basics. Even harder than splitting hairs.
Oh, it was a smart move to do that, I agree. Just like taking the mouse idea from Xerox was. I am reluctant to associate any benevolence or credit though
.
Yeah, and you can use a multimeter and wire your iPod to a standard USB port. That doesn't make it USB-compatible.
The point was about being "locked" to the eco-system, not to iTunes. Everything about Apple's gadgets is proprietory. Including the design of their software, like iTunes. 50 comments over here about how iPod does not play FLAC.
Calling it FUD without reading carefully does not make it FUD.
You are locked to their eco-system. iTunes, Propreitory docks and cables, etc. Note that the spirit of the OP's comment applies to iPod Touch and iPhone too.
Only because they HAD to. They made Webkit from opensource Konqueror (KDE) code which ran on POSIX, to use in their new POSIX style OS. Apple uses Webkit in everything on Mac OS X+.
In other news the Alphabet song goes "ABCD..".and sings out the Alphabet.
Serves you right for trying to use an iPod.
Ok , ok, I couldn't resist showing my distaste for those infernal locked down devices.
Pi is as much a 'a pattern of nature' as is root 2. Pi just happens to be related to circles, and root 2 is to squares or right-angled triangles. There is no reason to attach any mysticism to it. Too much pop-sci there, huh?
The real constants of nature , i.e, the Planck constant or the related Fine-structure constant have certain real physical interpretations. Those are the ones that seem to have certain values, when they could in principle have other values (and we see no reason that their be fixed). These are the subject of intense theoretical physics studies, and probably would be more justified as objects of metaphysical fantasy
Yes. Algorithmic methods developed to do such a thing are often useful in many other areas involving computation. The Chudnovsky algorithm , which is the current favorite has dramatically sped up modelling and simulation processes and is used in nearly every code package that does that sort of thing. Since that algorithm is only workable upto 17 billion significant digits, clearly this is a different method or modification thereof. (I didn't RTFA).
Really, this is the case with every achievement of number theory. Solutions to problems we don't know are problems yet. Think lasers.
No. It isn't. To anyone who knows a little biology, it was misleading on a couple of levels.
Thanks for the adrenaline rush anyway.
Lateral resolution is about 0.61*wavelength / NumericalAperture. The smaller this number , the smaller the distance at which two distinct points of light can be resolved.
It is entirely meaningful to compare the spatial resolution of two devices observing in different wavelengths. Shorter wavelengths have a lower theoretical limit , sure. But even if Hubble observes at shorter wavelengths, the ALMA has a big fucking numerical aperture. Which makes its resolution better.
What looks like one galaxy to the Hubble in the visible spectrum, may now be seen by ALMA to be two galaxies in its mm-wavelength , because it has better resolution. This is not apples and oranges if you're looking at the same galaxies in different frequency bands.
They don't have to. The article is obviously talking about spatial resolution.
I am sure you optics whizzes understand that basic lateral resolution is about 0.61*wavelength / NumericalAperture. The smaller this number , the smaller the distance at which two distinct points of light can be resolved.
It is entirely meaningful to compare the spatial resolution of two devices observing in different wavelengths. Shorter wavelengths have a lower theoretical limit , sure. But even if Hubble observes at shorter wavelengths, the ALMA has a big fucking numerical aperture. Which makes its resolution better.
What looks like one galaxy to the Hubble in the visible spectrum, may now be seen by ALMA to be two galaxies in its mm-wavelength , becauseit has better resolution.
You can stop harping about the summary now
.
Yes. That much is true.
The debate though, is not about that fact. It's about how much credit Apple really deserves for innovation.
And as of 2011, does the iPhone really deserve its sales on the basis of its capabilities etc., or if it is , as someone mentioned before, a case of Stockholm syndrome?
You got the sequence of event wrong, Android was announce before the iPhone on november 2007 and the iPhone was announced on January 2007.
November 2007 is after January 2007 ?
Besides that, there is a difference between a public announcement and industry-insiders knowing when something new is forthcoming.
..which is why making strawman arguments like battery life concerns is just insulting to the very people he is trying to sell Windows 8 to.
How about you make the x86 Windows apps run on the ARM tablet, and let me worry about how much battery I have. Ok?
Oh don't bother. This is 'exploitation ' by the same flawed logic that "I don't have common sense, and am incompetent at paying attention to my environment and making my own decisions about what I should and should not do. Therefore, I can sue you if my coffee cup doesn't say "Hot Contents". " Pure balderdash.