No one can get to the Moon and no one has the resources to do so.
I am thoroughly convinced that this statement is about to be proven wrong... to borrow a phrase from a particular US President, while speaking about almost identical subject matter, "by the end of the decade". I do not mean the US reference to make make any implications as to which nation(s) might accomplish the task, however.
The key point of the poster to whom you responded was that in Canada, *ALL* carriers use it... which is what makes it effective. If only certain carriers use it, even if only the smallest ones do not, then it's effectiveness is largely neutralized.
Optimization flags could be embedded into the metadata of the output object file from the compilation phase. The linker could then easily determine if optimization flags of two separately compiled units were compatible and refuse to link them if they were not.
Even better, a compiler writer ought not to make a compiler that cannot reliably link separately compiled unoptimized and optimized code such that they will work as they are written to. That is, if a optimization switch is being used that cannot reliably work with separately compiled unoptimized code, then they should not be able to link together in the first place. The compiler/linker should bitch about it even before the program is first run.
No, actually... they don't necessarily need new API's at all, except to the extent that Apple might enforce the requirement that a new API be utilized to run on the more modern OS, while not necessarily offering any additional functionality that the end user might notice in an application.
The problem is, however, that an increasing number of applications, will not work on previous IOS versions... even if there is nothing particular about the newer IOS version that the application actually requres. The only way to prevent this is to target the application for the oldest IOS version you want to support at build time. But doing so would not optimize the app for more recent IOS versions.
Okay... the price per square inch is great... now just make one with a 14" diagonal (ie, about a4 or letter size) with the same resolution and at the same cost per square inch (so about $160 or so for the tablet) and I'll be all over it like maple syrup on pancakes.
Then yes, it can. The quality may not be HD, but you can still clearly see what it is seeing (and this video is to a "micro version" of the one being talked about in the article, so the 20cm one would likely be able to carry an even better camera).
Guess what else the studies show, all else being equal, adding a RLC to an intersection increases the number of accidents and injuries
Point to any study that shows this for which the increase in accidents and injuries cannot be attributed to other variables (such as the city reducing the yellow light timing, thus actively trying to use the RLC as a money-making scheme).
I completely agree with the principle behind what you are saying, but unfortunately, DRM is almost useless without copyright, since laws governing copyright are ultimately the only thing that legally prevents people from being able to freely copy the work, and because no DRM is foolproof, there's absolutely no incentive for the publisher to rely on it to protect their interests in place of copyright. Copyright was originally about making a trade... anything else that is used in place of it should be as well.
Otherwise, yeah... I agree with what you are saying.
I would argue that although I agree with some of your conclusions, I would disagree that the customer gains nothing by paying for a digital work.
What a person gains by paying for digital content is trust... trust from the publisher that their interests will continue to be respected in the future, and in so doing, provide some incentive to the publisher to continue to provide publications that can continue to enrich society. Copyright is supposed to be a trade... the publisher is supposed to get something, and the public is supposed to get something. DRM is not a trade at all... it's the publisher invoking self-censorship so that instead of permitting society to be enriched by the works that they make, instead only a few actually may benefit, because the publisher has placed arbitrary restrictions on the manner in which the work may be used.
Now to some people, the trust that they might gain by paying for the work may not be worth what is being charged for the work... but really, that is an entirely subjective evaluation, and it's unfair to suggest matter-of-factually that a person always gains absolutely nothing by paying for such works.
As I said, however, your conclusion is one I can definitely sympathize with... certainly with the presence of DRM, a customer is *always* better served pirating the information... and I would only argue that this might be a ubiquitous truth about digital content only to the same extent that DRM itself is quite universally used by publishers (which with most works these days, it unfortunately seems to be).
Copyright, when it was introduced, was a kind of attempt on the part of publishers to hold onto some of the control that they used to have over their works by mere virtue of the fact that previously it had been too diificult, error-prone, and expensive to try to copy somebody else's work. It was a large money sink with very little commercial benefit, so previously, it was not a problem...
Then the printing press came about, and a lot of that changed. Suddenly it was possible for people with access to sufficient, but still definitely very finite resources to copy a work in a manner that would be economically practical at scales that were achievable without much additional cost beyond the initial investment of a printing press.
Enter copyright... a means to artificially try to limit what the general public was permitted to do with a work that claimed such protection. Basically, copyright was a kind of informal contract between society and the publisher which went something along the lines of if society agrees, even if simply out of courtesy, to respect the original publisher of a work and refrain from copying it, the publisher will, in turn, be given sufficient incentive to trust that they won't try to do likewise to future works, thus offering some incentive to continue to produce new such works. In exchange, of course, the public would receive access to the work, and be enriched by it, where it would otherwise be kept in very strict confidence, perhaps seen only by a very select few or the elite. Laws were eventually created to protect this publisher interest, but in the end, it was still just a publisher trying to control something that they could not possibly control once they had actually gone and published a work anyways.
As copying got easier for the public to do, and copyright infringement started becoming more of a problem, publishers began to lose confidence in the protections that copyright alone once appeared to offer them (although such control was really all just illusory the whole time... it just happened to have backing by the law), and started trying to resort to other means to protect what they perceived were their interests. Unfortunately, DRM, which restricts the circumstances under which people who might legitimately purchase such a work can access it, ultimately amounts to exactly the same sort of self-censorship that copyright itself was designed to prevent... it limits the public availability of the work, and in turn, limits how much society can be enriched by it. With laws that actively protect DRM, as copyright was once protected, the situation can only get even worse.
We made a seriously wrong turn somewhere along the line... and I can only pray that somehow, some way, we can fix this thing before the damage becomes irreversible.
Slashdot Mirror
HCF assembly opcodes notwithstanding....
Giving it a vague title like "the object" implicitly connotes a sense of mystery and potential for some sort of unforeseen discovery.
It's an unknown obstruction... if they are going to call it anything, they should have just called it that.
You're absolutely right.
You're no rocket scientist.
I know... I was trying to make a joke.
It's apparently a white flag. Does that mean that the nation that put it there is surrendering?
Hyperbole much? "Never" is an extremely long time.
I am thoroughly convinced that this statement is about to be proven wrong... to borrow a phrase from a particular US President, while speaking about almost identical subject matter, "by the end of the decade". I do not mean the US reference to make make any implications as to which nation(s) might accomplish the task, however.
If it was stolen from you, then how is it that you have it to sell?
The key point of the poster to whom you responded was that in Canada, *ALL* carriers use it... which is what makes it effective. If only certain carriers use it, even if only the smallest ones do not, then it's effectiveness is largely neutralized.
Optimization flags could be embedded into the metadata of the output object file from the compilation phase. The linker could then easily determine if optimization flags of two separately compiled units were compatible and refuse to link them if they were not.
Even better, a compiler writer ought not to make a compiler that cannot reliably link separately compiled unoptimized and optimized code such that they will work as they are written to. That is, if a optimization switch is being used that cannot reliably work with separately compiled unoptimized code, then they should not be able to link together in the first place. The compiler/linker should bitch about it even before the program is first run.
I've found this more to be an issue with being stuck on iOS5 than iOS 6, the latter of which does not run on the iPad 1.
No, actually... they don't necessarily need new API's at all, except to the extent that Apple might enforce the requirement that a new API be utilized to run on the more modern OS, while not necessarily offering any additional functionality that the end user might notice in an application.
Can you really? Isn't porn usually highly dependant on flash?
The problem is, however, that an increasing number of applications, will not work on previous IOS versions... even if there is nothing particular about the newer IOS version that the application actually requres. The only way to prevent this is to target the application for the oldest IOS version you want to support at build time. But doing so would not optimize the app for more recent IOS versions.
It's only about 5 times the cost, actually.... and yes, it's well worth it.
A 40 inch diagonal screen has more than 16 times the area of an an ipad mini, which wouldn't exactly be very cheap.
Okay... the price per square inch is great... now just make one with a 14" diagonal (ie, about a4 or letter size) with the same resolution and at the same cost per square inch (so about $160 or so for the tablet) and I'll be all over it like maple syrup on pancakes.
Then yes, it can. The quality may not be HD, but you can still clearly see what it is seeing (and this video is to a "micro version" of the one being talked about in the article, so the 20cm one would likely be able to carry an even better camera).
Point to any study that shows this for which the increase in accidents and injuries cannot be attributed to other variables (such as the city reducing the yellow light timing, thus actively trying to use the RLC as a money-making scheme).
Otherwise, yeah... I agree with what you are saying.
I would argue that although I agree with some of your conclusions, I would disagree that the customer gains nothing by paying for a digital work.
What a person gains by paying for digital content is trust... trust from the publisher that their interests will continue to be respected in the future, and in so doing, provide some incentive to the publisher to continue to provide publications that can continue to enrich society. Copyright is supposed to be a trade... the publisher is supposed to get something, and the public is supposed to get something. DRM is not a trade at all... it's the publisher invoking self-censorship so that instead of permitting society to be enriched by the works that they make, instead only a few actually may benefit, because the publisher has placed arbitrary restrictions on the manner in which the work may be used.
Now to some people, the trust that they might gain by paying for the work may not be worth what is being charged for the work... but really, that is an entirely subjective evaluation, and it's unfair to suggest matter-of-factually that a person always gains absolutely nothing by paying for such works.
As I said, however, your conclusion is one I can definitely sympathize with... certainly with the presence of DRM, a customer is *always* better served pirating the information... and I would only argue that this might be a ubiquitous truth about digital content only to the same extent that DRM itself is quite universally used by publishers (which with most works these days, it unfortunately seems to be).
Define "real camera".
Copyright, when it was introduced, was a kind of attempt on the part of publishers to hold onto some of the control that they used to have over their works by mere virtue of the fact that previously it had been too diificult, error-prone, and expensive to try to copy somebody else's work. It was a large money sink with very little commercial benefit, so previously, it was not a problem...
Then the printing press came about, and a lot of that changed. Suddenly it was possible for people with access to sufficient, but still definitely very finite resources to copy a work in a manner that would be economically practical at scales that were achievable without much additional cost beyond the initial investment of a printing press.
Enter copyright... a means to artificially try to limit what the general public was permitted to do with a work that claimed such protection. Basically, copyright was a kind of informal contract between society and the publisher which went something along the lines of if society agrees, even if simply out of courtesy, to respect the original publisher of a work and refrain from copying it, the publisher will, in turn, be given sufficient incentive to trust that they won't try to do likewise to future works, thus offering some incentive to continue to produce new such works. In exchange, of course, the public would receive access to the work, and be enriched by it, where it would otherwise be kept in very strict confidence, perhaps seen only by a very select few or the elite. Laws were eventually created to protect this publisher interest, but in the end, it was still just a publisher trying to control something that they could not possibly control once they had actually gone and published a work anyways.
As copying got easier for the public to do, and copyright infringement started becoming more of a problem, publishers began to lose confidence in the protections that copyright alone once appeared to offer them (although such control was really all just illusory the whole time... it just happened to have backing by the law), and started trying to resort to other means to protect what they perceived were their interests. Unfortunately, DRM, which restricts the circumstances under which people who might legitimately purchase such a work can access it, ultimately amounts to exactly the same sort of self-censorship that copyright itself was designed to prevent... it limits the public availability of the work, and in turn, limits how much society can be enriched by it. With laws that actively protect DRM, as copyright was once protected, the situation can only get even worse.
We made a seriously wrong turn somewhere along the line... and I can only pray that somehow, some way, we can fix this thing before the damage becomes irreversible.
The ability to see, and transmit what it sees, is far from useless. I think that the poster to whom you responded nailed it with his first sentence.