Oh, oh... Executive Officers clean up overflowing toilets. Not so they get an appreciation of what is being done, but for the general entertainment of the rest of us!
Hell, I'd pay to see just one of the suits around here cleanin' a shitter or two...
Then try working for a small company that is owned by one person, or maybe two if they are spouses. Then you may very well see an owner come in half an hour early to clean the bathroom in the morning. And yes one person I once worked for who did so was a suit, a business/marketing guy. He never asked one of the programmers, qa/support guys or the receptionist to do so. Small shop, 6 employees, plus a consultant or two at times.
As an added bonus the suit above trusted our judgement on technical issues.
At the same event, they also hacked iOS6. Just to give an unbiased view...
Actually you seem a little misleading given that the iPhones don't have NFC. I think the true subject of the article is NFC not Android. The fact that iOS and Android can get hacked by a malicious webpage seems a bit off topic.
Android and Samsung are mentioned prominently only to get people's attention.
This is becoming MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Maybe that's the point. Maybe Motorolla is trying to teach Apple how to play Tic-Tac-Toe. Number of players: 0
There is no MAD, Apple can easily sidestep the issue. Remove, or more likely rewrite, the offending iMessage app.
Also note that with in-air refueling modern aircraft carriers can launch a strike from a much greater distance, thereby reducing its vulnerability.
Where are the tankers supposed to come from? Those are a bit large to launch from a deck, let alone store.
Some launch from the carrier. For example F/A-18s do "buddy tanking". One F/A-18 will be loaded with special tanks that let it refuel other F/A-18s that are part of the strike. I believe the USN had used S-3 and A-7 aircraft that were retired from their traditional roles as buddy tankers too. However I am not sure if they were permanently modified for this role or simply carrying specialized tanks like the F/A-18.
Also traditional land based tankers are sometimes sent far out to sea to refuel carrier aircraft. Pick a spot hundreds of miles out to sea, top off the strike aircraft before they go in, top them off again as they come out.
The US had two or three at the end of WW2, surrendered by Imperial Japan. Incidentally there was a plan by Imperial Japan to use these to deliver plague infested fleas to the US west coast. These submarines were no joke. The US scuttled them when the Russians, an ally at the time, wanted to inspect them.
... but vulnerable to modern weapons. Critics note air-power killed the battleship; people now suggest super-sonic 'carrier-killer' missiles will make the carrier a relic of the past...
Aircraft carriers have always been vulnerable to submarines and aircraft. These new missiles are modern analogs to the dive bombers, torpedo bombers and kamikazes of the past. While the offensive weaponry has improved, so has the defensive. Computers and radars have replaced the manually operated guns. Supersonic missile meet supersonic interceptor missile, wall of lead/steel from a computer/radar controlled gatling gun, etc. It is not a given that a modern carrier is any more vulnerable to modern missiles than WW2 era carriers were vulnerable to enemy aircraft.
Also note that with in-air refueling modern aircraft carriers can launch a strike from a much greater distance, thereby reducing its vulnerability.
Most schools don't have an unlimited budget, as it seems yours does.
Nope. It was a quite ordinary state university.
In addition to personalizing the assignments as mentioned above, classes can sometimes be challenged. "Completed" by a single written exam.
I've only ever seen this happen in exceptional cases. 99% of the time, there just isn't time to do any kind of personalization for students.
Weren't you referring to the exceptional case where the student happens to be thoroughly well versed in the topic? I'll agree it is rare but for a different reason. Students seeking to challenge a class are often given a brief verbal quiz to determine if the written exam is warranted and it turns out that they are not the experts that they thought themselves to be.
Because the book is only part of the education. Additional material and insights can be provided by lectures.
Lecturers are only supposed to talk about course material. Additional material means the course was badly designed to begin with.
Are you seriously arguing that the only course material is the textbook, that nothing outside the textbook should be discussed?
Questions from students. Remember the university is a hub of peers who are bright, talented and curious just like you. You will learn a lot from each other, you will learn a lot collaborating on each other's personal projects. You are generally not going to find a cluster of people like that in other settings.
Because it's so very helpful for the others when students keep interrupting the class with stupid questions
The learning I am referring to is among a self selected group working on personal things outside of class.
Why did you not do as the professors I referred to earlier? Why did you not offer the students more of a challenge?
Because time is limited.
It took the professor who gave friends and I access to some equipment only available while in a particular class about 5 minutes to do so. It took the professor who let me do an alternative class project about 5 to 10 minutes to hear my proposal and another 10 minutes to see the demo at the end of the class. Again, most students in a computer science program are their to get a piece of paper, not because they are there to learn things that they have a genuine interest in. Its my experience that many professors are happy to give the later a few minutes of their time. Its a morale boost for them, it gives them hope that their efforts are not in vain.
You were discussing the rare student who happens to be knowledgeable of the material to be covered in class. Such students are rare enough that no significant amount of time is needed to accommodate them.
I don't know where you went to school, but I'm willing to bet that kind of environment is not what most students globally see.
An ordinary state university in California. If such things are not seen it is usually because most students never asked for such things.
Farmers don't need iPads. They need to have the government...
The two are completely unrelated. Tablets are just a modern way to do things that farmers have been doing for centuries. Looking up data (almanac), researching historical trends (memory, chats with neighbors), communicating with suppliers and buyers, etc.
... most people in the country know what a computer is... they simply don't have much use for one...
Strange, in the early 80s the agriculture department at a local southern California university setup what was probably the first microcomputer lab on campus. The ag students were using existing software packages for farm and ranch and some were developing new software. They were taking this tech back home during summer breaks and showing mom and dad how to use it and incorporate it into the farm or ranch operations.
From chats I've had with family that moved to semi-rural Texas I get the impression that nerdy/geeky conversations with the neighbors happens there too.
Historically farms have usually been hi tech to a degree. The exceptions seem to be more related to economic/social collapse than a lack of interest.
In the early 80s I remember a bunch of Apple//e computers being delivered to a local university. They were for the agriculture department. They may have had the first microcomputer lab on campus. The computer science labs were dumb terminals connecting to the minis and mainframes via a serial port.
... The willingness of Linux users to pay for software...
Being willing to pay for a Linux version of a game is insufficient. With most Linux gamers already buying the Windows version and dual booting or running under Wine these gamers are already customers. Its only new customers who justify the Linux version, not someone switching from the Windows version to a Linux version.
Psych students are all nuts and think they will somehow figure out their own issues at school.
That makes a lot of sense. I've often found that engineering students are shoddily put together and hope to figure out their own issues at school. Also that physics students are mostly composed from particles beyond the Standard Model and medical students are dying of cancer. English lit students can't read and communications majors tend to be deaf-mutes. Based on your shoddy understanding of logic, I'm guessing... philosophy major?
Mock the GP all you like but my Psych 101 professor basically said they occasionally do have people choose the major in an attempt at self-treatment. The professor confessed he did so himself. He said that when he came home from Vietnam he was able to go to college using G.I. Bill benefits, wasn't sure what he wanted to study and chose psychology hoping it would help him deal with his personal issues. He said it did not, that it never does, and that anyone sitting in the class thinking of going that route should save themselves some time and frustration and seek professional help now.
He was a great professor by the way. His humorous description of how he progressed through all five stages of grief (denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance) in seconds during his first firefight was quite memorable. This sh*t can't be happening... why is that mother f'er shooting at me... God is you let me survive this... sh*t I am not going to survive this... might as well do my "job" until then.
... the whole "Linux always finds a way to work" irks me. Linux doesn't fine a way, some extremely talented and hard working individuals spend vast amounts of their time building/designing/testing code to support hardware. It's not magical...
... Intel is falsely advertising that a chip with all the standard (for today) x86 instructions will not run Linux, which is an x86 compatible kernel, and says that the chip is for Windows 8...
Backwards compatibility is not the issue. It seems to be an issue of supporting new features. For example from the article:
"Intel went to great lengths to highlight the new P-states and C-states in which it can completely shut down the clock of a core. The firm said the operating system needs to provide "hints" to the processor in order to make use of power states and it seems likely that such hints are presently not provided by the Linux kernel in order to properly make use of Clover Trail."
Linux for the desktop has such a small market share
That may be true for "desktop" as in the user's environment but not "desktop" as in PC hardware. Linux has some success as the server running in the closet, many of those machines are former desktop PCs.
Let's say that Intel wants to limit the audience for the chip, and cut their own sales. Let's say that AMD, VIA, and the ARMs makers will be delighted to fill in any vacuum.
What vacuum? This is not the only cpu that Intel will sell. If a vendor cares they can buy a different Intel cpu.
Re:There are five screens ... same layout for some
on
Fragmentation Comes To iOS
·
· Score: 3, Informative
This isn't technically correct:
Layout is defined in terms of points not pixels, and since points = 1.0 pixels on non-retina and 2.0 pixels on retina there are no scaling artifacts to worry about.
Yes, the defined measurement system is points (1/72 inch) and yes, the retina displays are exactly 2.0x the width and height, but when displaying legacy apps on a retina device iOS will place black bars along the edges of the screen to make room for the "1x"/"2x" buttons. So it's closer to 1.8x scaling.
No. The 1x/2x buttons are for running an iPhone app on an iPad, not running a non-retina app on a retina. At 2x a non-retina iPhone app takes 960x640 of the iPad's 1024x768 pixels. There is room for a 1x/2x in the blank regions outside the centered 960x640 app.
I grew up in south-west Virginia in the 80s, and I knew people in High School that said that dinosaur fossils, and other galaxies for that matter, were created by God as things for us to "discover".
Well given an omniscient God he would know how to create a comprehensive mathematical model of a universe and be able to instantiate that universe at time t = 13 billion years into that model.:-)
Except maps usually mark magnetic north since it is useful. Magnetic north would only be an issue in the far north and very large maps. You have just never used real maps?
Really? The maps I've seen with magnetic north generally also show true north and give the magnetic declination. If only one "north" is shown I believe it is true north, at least for modern maps.
What does the size of the map have to do with anything? If my current declination is 15deg it is 15deg regardless of whether I am looking at a small map or a large map.
Now Apple decides it's time to make a phone with an entirely different aspect ratio. Really, what was the point of bothering with the resolution-independent screen positioning in their API's in the first place if they were just going to go and produce a completely different screen size that the programmer is going to have to write extra code to account for anyways?
Programmers don't have to do anything. If they do nothing the app looks exactly the same on the iPhone 5 as it does on an iPhone 4. The app is centered on the display and the portion used is a pixel by pixel match, its even physically the same size given that pixels per inch is the same between the two devices. Its similar to what was done when running iPhone apps on an iPad. Of course in the iPhone 5 case the unused pixels are minimal.
I agree that what "fragmentation" exists is certainly far different than the fragmentation that exists under Android.
There are four screen resolutions, which is the only thing developers (for which the term fragmentation typically applies) need to worry about. This includes the 3.5" iPhone/iPod retina display resolution, the new 4" iPhone/iPod retina display resolution, the iPad retina display resolution, and the older non-retina iPad display resolution, which is automatically converted.
There are five screens. There are the non-retina 3.5" iPhone/iPod touch devices. The 3GS was only obsoleted yesterday, developers are still going to support such devices. They are fully supported by Apple given that they will run iOS 6.
Also saying there are X screens that need to be supported is a little misleading. There are two parts to supporting a particular screen. One is the layout of user interface elements, the other is possibly skinning those elements (applying some sort of bitmap).
When going between a non-retina and retina display the layout is the same. Layout is defined in terms of points not pixels, and since points = 1.0 pixels on non-retina and 2.0 pixels on retina there are no scaling artifacts to worry about.
So there are at most 3 layouts to worry about. 3.5", 4" and 9.7" (iPad).
For 3.5" and 9.7" non-retina and retina may be an issue for skinning those user interface elements. Given 1:2 scaling iOS can scale non-retina art quite effectively. Some apps might not need to supply retina versions of art. For those that do, or prefer to, iOS handles it automatically. The developer needs to make **no code changes**. Merely add a retina version of a given art file to the project. For example if my code/resources refer to image.png I add image@2x.png to the project. When the time comes to load image.png iOS automatically checks to see if it is running on a retina device, if so it checks to see if an @2x version of the file in question exists and makes the substitution if it does.
So there are at most four sets of artwork, iPhone/iPad and non-retina/retina, and the non-retina/retina case is handled by iOS not by an app's code or resources. Assuming of course that the app uses artwork in its user interface.
Note my use of "at most". If a developer targets only the 3.5" iPhone screen the app still works very well on an iPad or a 4" iPhone display. Both center the 3.5" layout, there is no stretching, everything looks exactly like the developer intended. On the iPad there is a 2x zoom button if the user wishes, again since it is an exact 2.0 scaling artifacts are minimal if any.
So while it is possible to only target one display, it is more plausible to only target two displays. Non-retina iPhone and non-retina iPad. If a developer is not doing any skinning and the user interface consists of entirely built-in UI widgets then we go from plausible to very practical since iOS handles the scaling for you. All one would miss out on are the extra pixels (in only one dimension) of the 4" display, the app would look exactly the same with absolutely no artifacts.
My understanding is that partners are always liable for what other partners do. However incorporation limits that liability to the corporate assets. So what one partner invested into the corporation is always at risk due to the other partner's actions. It is only personal assets that are protected. I believe this is true for LLPs as well.
The self-guided route does not lead to a lesser result as you put it, it leads to a 'different' result, with different advantages.
The advantages of which, are not always readily understood by your typical academic types.
I am not an academic. I am someone who has gone down both paths, self-taught and formally trained. I have 25+ years of experience and have worked with many people who have gone down one path or the other, and folks like me who have gone down both paths. The advantages of self-taught are not in conflict with formal training. Self-taught adds to, it complements, the formal training; as formal training ads to, complements, self-taught. As I said in the beginning, its probably best to have both.
Formal education is usually designed for zero pre-knowledge and slow learners. Most teachers expect you to sit through years of not learning anything, for that rare insight.
That is so wrong. Except for the intro to CS type class you can generally go as far as you want. Most professors I know are thrilled when a student wants to go farther than the class assignments. For example when I had my networking class I asked the professor if I could replace the assigned final project with one that I had been thinking about doing on my own. My suggested project was a networked multiplayer blackjack game, something far more complex that the assigned project. The professor knew the assigned project would not be a challenge for me so he let me do the substitute. Myself and friends who wanted to do other personal projects unrelated to classes we were taking could easily find a professor to authorize our access to equipment we would not normally have access to.
Many professors are saddened by the students who have no interest or curiosity in CS and are there just to get a degree/job, who never write a line of code that is not assigned. They tend to support and encourage students who want to pursue things on their own. I've seen them get all excited and display big smiles when discussing interesting topics, problems, techniques, etc with such students who are working on things completely unrelated to coursework.
Since it's extremely difficult to skip over courses (or do it any other way) in the bureaucracy that is modern education.
In addition to personalizing the assignments as mentioned above, classes can sometimes be challenged. "Completed" by a single written exam.
Just because you're educating yourself, doesn't mean you can't get the full advantage of a formal education, it just depends on how you do it.
Of course. The problem is that individuals tend to delude themselves with respect to their ability to actually do so. The individuals who can actually do so are extremely rare. Plus there is the problem of ignoring topics that one is not interested in or erroneously think are not relevant. Consider someone who wants to do video games. I can probably explain how nearly every class in a core CS curriculum is relevant and surprise (and possibly depress) the aspiring video game programmer.
Why sit in a classroom all day long listening to a lecture, when you can read the book it's based on, at your own pace in one 1/50 of that time.
Because the book is only part of the education. Additional material and insights can be provided by lectures. Questions from students. Remember the university is a hub of peers who are bright, talented and curious just like you. You will learn a lot from each other, you will learn a lot collaborating on each other's personal projects. You are generally not going to find a cluster of people like that in other settings. Again, I am emphasizing that a university is not purely about the formal training, it can also be a big piece of the self-taught learning. If you are only doing the formal assigned stuff at the university you are doing it wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, oh... Executive Officers clean up overflowing toilets. Not so they get an appreciation of what is being done, but for the general entertainment of the rest of us!
Hell, I'd pay to see just one of the suits around here cleanin' a shitter or two...
Then try working for a small company that is owned by one person, or maybe two if they are spouses. Then you may very well see an owner come in half an hour early to clean the bathroom in the morning. And yes one person I once worked for who did so was a suit, a business/marketing guy. He never asked one of the programmers, qa/support guys or the receptionist to do so. Small shop, 6 employees, plus a consultant or two at times.
As an added bonus the suit above trusted our judgement on technical issues.
YMMV.
At the same event, they also hacked iOS6. Just to give an unbiased view...
Actually you seem a little misleading given that the iPhones don't have NFC. I think the true subject of the article is NFC not Android. The fact that iOS and Android can get hacked by a malicious webpage seems a bit off topic.
Android and Samsung are mentioned prominently only to get people's attention.
This is becoming MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Maybe that's the point. Maybe Motorolla is trying to teach Apple how to play Tic-Tac-Toe. Number of players: 0
There is no MAD, Apple can easily sidestep the issue. Remove, or more likely rewrite, the offending iMessage app.
Also note that with in-air refueling modern aircraft carriers can launch a strike from a much greater distance, thereby reducing its vulnerability.
Where are the tankers supposed to come from? Those are a bit large to launch from a deck, let alone store.
Some launch from the carrier. For example F/A-18s do "buddy tanking". One F/A-18 will be loaded with special tanks that let it refuel other F/A-18s that are part of the strike. I believe the USN had used S-3 and A-7 aircraft that were retired from their traditional roles as buddy tankers too. However I am not sure if they were permanently modified for this role or simply carrying specialized tanks like the F/A-18.
Also traditional land based tankers are sometimes sent far out to sea to refuel carrier aircraft. Pick a spot hundreds of miles out to sea, top off the strike aircraft before they go in, top them off again as they come out.
What we need is a submarine aircraft carrier!
The US had two or three at the end of WW2, surrendered by Imperial Japan. Incidentally there was a plan by Imperial Japan to use these to deliver plague infested fleas to the US west coast. These submarines were no joke. The US scuttled them when the Russians, an ally at the time, wanted to inspect them.
... but vulnerable to modern weapons. Critics note air-power killed the battleship; people now suggest super-sonic 'carrier-killer' missiles will make the carrier a relic of the past ...
Aircraft carriers have always been vulnerable to submarines and aircraft. These new missiles are modern analogs to the dive bombers, torpedo bombers and kamikazes of the past. While the offensive weaponry has improved, so has the defensive. Computers and radars have replaced the manually operated guns. Supersonic missile meet supersonic interceptor missile, wall of lead/steel from a computer/radar controlled gatling gun, etc. It is not a given that a modern carrier is any more vulnerable to modern missiles than WW2 era carriers were vulnerable to enemy aircraft.
Also note that with in-air refueling modern aircraft carriers can launch a strike from a much greater distance, thereby reducing its vulnerability.
Most schools don't have an unlimited budget, as it seems yours does.
Nope. It was a quite ordinary state university.
In addition to personalizing the assignments as mentioned above, classes can sometimes be challenged. "Completed" by a single written exam.
I've only ever seen this happen in exceptional cases. 99% of the time, there just isn't time to do any kind of personalization for students.
Weren't you referring to the exceptional case where the student happens to be thoroughly well versed in the topic? I'll agree it is rare but for a different reason. Students seeking to challenge a class are often given a brief verbal quiz to determine if the written exam is warranted and it turns out that they are not the experts that they thought themselves to be.
Because the book is only part of the education. Additional material and insights can be provided by lectures.
Lecturers are only supposed to talk about course material. Additional material means the course was badly designed to begin with.
Are you seriously arguing that the only course material is the textbook, that nothing outside the textbook should be discussed?
Questions from students. Remember the university is a hub of peers who are bright, talented and curious just like you. You will learn a lot from each other, you will learn a lot collaborating on each other's personal projects. You are generally not going to find a cluster of people like that in other settings.
Because it's so very helpful for the others when students keep interrupting the class with stupid questions
The learning I am referring to is among a self selected group working on personal things outside of class.
Why did you not do as the professors I referred to earlier? Why did you not offer the students more of a challenge?
Because time is limited.
It took the professor who gave friends and I access to some equipment only available while in a particular class about 5 minutes to do so. It took the professor who let me do an alternative class project about 5 to 10 minutes to hear my proposal and another 10 minutes to see the demo at the end of the class. Again, most students in a computer science program are their to get a piece of paper, not because they are there to learn things that they have a genuine interest in. Its my experience that many professors are happy to give the later a few minutes of their time. Its a morale boost for them, it gives them hope that their efforts are not in vain.
You were discussing the rare student who happens to be knowledgeable of the material to be covered in class. Such students are rare enough that no significant amount of time is needed to accommodate them.
I don't know where you went to school, but I'm willing to bet that kind of environment is not what most students globally see.
An ordinary state university in California. If such things are not seen it is usually because most students never asked for such things.
Farmers don't need iPads. They need to have the government ...
The two are completely unrelated. Tablets are just a modern way to do things that farmers have been doing for centuries. Looking up data (almanac), researching historical trends (memory, chats with neighbors), communicating with suppliers and buyers, etc.
... most people in the country know what a computer is... they simply don't have much use for one ...
Strange, in the early 80s the agriculture department at a local southern California university setup what was probably the first microcomputer lab on campus. The ag students were using existing software packages for farm and ranch and some were developing new software. They were taking this tech back home during summer breaks and showing mom and dad how to use it and incorporate it into the farm or ranch operations.
From chats I've had with family that moved to semi-rural Texas I get the impression that nerdy/geeky conversations with the neighbors happens there too.
Historically farms have usually been hi tech to a degree. The exceptions seem to be more related to economic/social collapse than a lack of interest.
//e computers being delivered to a local university. They were for the agriculture department. They may have had the first microcomputer lab on campus. The computer science labs were dumb terminals connecting to the minis and mainframes via a serial port.
In the early 80s I remember a bunch of Apple
... The willingness of Linux users to pay for software ...
Being willing to pay for a Linux version of a game is insufficient. With most Linux gamers already buying the Windows version and dual booting or running under Wine these gamers are already customers. Its only new customers who justify the Linux version, not someone switching from the Windows version to a Linux version.
Psych students are all nuts and think they will somehow figure out their own issues at school.
That makes a lot of sense. I've often found that engineering students are shoddily put together and hope to figure out their own issues at school. Also that physics students are mostly composed from particles beyond the Standard Model and medical students are dying of cancer. English lit students can't read and communications majors tend to be deaf-mutes. Based on your shoddy understanding of logic, I'm guessing... philosophy major?
Mock the GP all you like but my Psych 101 professor basically said they occasionally do have people choose the major in an attempt at self-treatment. The professor confessed he did so himself. He said that when he came home from Vietnam he was able to go to college using G.I. Bill benefits, wasn't sure what he wanted to study and chose psychology hoping it would help him deal with his personal issues. He said it did not, that it never does, and that anyone sitting in the class thinking of going that route should save themselves some time and frustration and seek professional help now.
... why is that mother f'er shooting at me ... God is you let me survive this ... sh*t I am not going to survive this ... might as well do my "job" until then.
He was a great professor by the way. His humorous description of how he progressed through all five stages of grief (denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance) in seconds during his first firefight was quite memorable. This sh*t can't be happening
... the whole "Linux always finds a way to work" irks me. Linux doesn't fine a way, some extremely talented and hard working individuals spend vast amounts of their time building/designing/testing code to support hardware. It's not magical ...
So you are saying Linux kernels are people? ;-)
... Intel is falsely advertising that a chip with all the standard (for today) x86 instructions will not run Linux, which is an x86 compatible kernel, and says that the chip is for Windows 8 ...
Backwards compatibility is not the issue. It seems to be an issue of supporting new features. For example from the article:
"Intel went to great lengths to highlight the new P-states and C-states in which it can completely shut down the clock of a core. The firm said the operating system needs to provide "hints" to the processor in order to make use of power states and it seems likely that such hints are presently not provided by the Linux kernel in order to properly make use of Clover Trail."
Linux for the desktop has such a small market share
That may be true for "desktop" as in the user's environment but not "desktop" as in PC hardware. Linux has some success as the server running in the closet, many of those machines are former desktop PCs.
Let's say that Intel wants to limit the audience for the chip, and cut their own sales. Let's say that AMD, VIA, and the ARMs makers will be delighted to fill in any vacuum.
What vacuum? This is not the only cpu that Intel will sell. If a vendor cares they can buy a different Intel cpu.
This isn't technically correct:
Layout is defined in terms of points not pixels, and since points = 1.0 pixels on non-retina and 2.0 pixels on retina there are no scaling artifacts to worry about.
Yes, the defined measurement system is points (1/72 inch) and yes, the retina displays are exactly 2.0x the width and height, but when displaying legacy apps on a retina device iOS will place black bars along the edges of the screen to make room for the "1x"/"2x" buttons. So it's closer to 1.8x scaling.
No. The 1x/2x buttons are for running an iPhone app on an iPad, not running a non-retina app on a retina. At 2x a non-retina iPhone app takes 960x640 of the iPad's 1024x768 pixels. There is room for a 1x/2x in the blank regions outside the centered 960x640 app.
So... who's going to patent this ~7,000-year-old technology?
I'd expect that the original patents issued by the Royal Egyptian Patent and Trademark Office have expired. So its public domain?
I grew up in south-west Virginia in the 80s, and I knew people in High School that said that dinosaur fossils, and other galaxies for that matter, were created by God as things for us to "discover".
Well given an omniscient God he would know how to create a comprehensive mathematical model of a universe and be able to instantiate that universe at time t = 13 billion years into that model. :-)
In Stargate, they had cool helmets, but no time travel.
I think you missed an episode or two of the TV series. :-)
Except maps usually mark magnetic north since it is useful. Magnetic north would only be an issue in the far north and very large maps. You have just never used real maps?
Really? The maps I've seen with magnetic north generally also show true north and give the magnetic declination. If only one "north" is shown I believe it is true north, at least for modern maps.
What does the size of the map have to do with anything? If my current declination is 15deg it is 15deg regardless of whether I am looking at a small map or a large map.
Now Apple decides it's time to make a phone with an entirely different aspect ratio. Really, what was the point of bothering with the resolution-independent screen positioning in their API's in the first place if they were just going to go and produce a completely different screen size that the programmer is going to have to write extra code to account for anyways?
Programmers don't have to do anything. If they do nothing the app looks exactly the same on the iPhone 5 as it does on an iPhone 4. The app is centered on the display and the portion used is a pixel by pixel match, its even physically the same size given that pixels per inch is the same between the two devices. Its similar to what was done when running iPhone apps on an iPad. Of course in the iPhone 5 case the unused pixels are minimal.
There are four screen resolutions, which is the only thing developers (for which the term fragmentation typically applies) need to worry about. This includes the 3.5" iPhone/iPod retina display resolution, the new 4" iPhone/iPod retina display resolution, the iPad retina display resolution, and the older non-retina iPad display resolution, which is automatically converted.
There are five screens. There are the non-retina 3.5" iPhone/iPod touch devices. The 3GS was only obsoleted yesterday, developers are still going to support such devices. They are fully supported by Apple given that they will run iOS 6.
Also saying there are X screens that need to be supported is a little misleading. There are two parts to supporting a particular screen. One is the layout of user interface elements, the other is possibly skinning those elements (applying some sort of bitmap). When going between a non-retina and retina display the layout is the same. Layout is defined in terms of points not pixels, and since points = 1.0 pixels on non-retina and 2.0 pixels on retina there are no scaling artifacts to worry about.
So there are at most 3 layouts to worry about. 3.5", 4" and 9.7" (iPad).
For 3.5" and 9.7" non-retina and retina may be an issue for skinning those user interface elements. Given 1:2 scaling iOS can scale non-retina art quite effectively. Some apps might not need to supply retina versions of art. For those that do, or prefer to, iOS handles it automatically. The developer needs to make **no code changes**. Merely add a retina version of a given art file to the project. For example if my code/resources refer to image.png I add image@2x.png to the project. When the time comes to load image.png iOS automatically checks to see if it is running on a retina device, if so it checks to see if an @2x version of the file in question exists and makes the substitution if it does.
So there are at most four sets of artwork, iPhone/iPad and non-retina/retina, and the non-retina/retina case is handled by iOS not by an app's code or resources. Assuming of course that the app uses artwork in its user interface.
Note my use of "at most". If a developer targets only the 3.5" iPhone screen the app still works very well on an iPad or a 4" iPhone display. Both center the 3.5" layout, there is no stretching, everything looks exactly like the developer intended. On the iPad there is a 2x zoom button if the user wishes, again since it is an exact 2.0 scaling artifacts are minimal if any.
So while it is possible to only target one display, it is more plausible to only target two displays. Non-retina iPhone and non-retina iPad. If a developer is not doing any skinning and the user interface consists of entirely built-in UI widgets then we go from plausible to very practical since iOS handles the scaling for you. All one would miss out on are the extra pixels (in only one dimension) of the 4" display, the app would look exactly the same with absolutely no artifacts.
My understanding is that partners are always liable for what other partners do. However incorporation limits that liability to the corporate assets. So what one partner invested into the corporation is always at risk due to the other partner's actions. It is only personal assets that are protected. I believe this is true for LLPs as well.
The self-guided route does not lead to a lesser result as you put it, it leads to a 'different' result, with different advantages. The advantages of which, are not always readily understood by your typical academic types.
I am not an academic. I am someone who has gone down both paths, self-taught and formally trained. I have 25+ years of experience and have worked with many people who have gone down one path or the other, and folks like me who have gone down both paths. The advantages of self-taught are not in conflict with formal training. Self-taught adds to, it complements, the formal training; as formal training ads to, complements, self-taught. As I said in the beginning, its probably best to have both.
Formal education is usually designed for zero pre-knowledge and slow learners. Most teachers expect you to sit through years of not learning anything, for that rare insight.
That is so wrong. Except for the intro to CS type class you can generally go as far as you want. Most professors I know are thrilled when a student wants to go farther than the class assignments. For example when I had my networking class I asked the professor if I could replace the assigned final project with one that I had been thinking about doing on my own. My suggested project was a networked multiplayer blackjack game, something far more complex that the assigned project. The professor knew the assigned project would not be a challenge for me so he let me do the substitute. Myself and friends who wanted to do other personal projects unrelated to classes we were taking could easily find a professor to authorize our access to equipment we would not normally have access to. Many professors are saddened by the students who have no interest or curiosity in CS and are there just to get a degree/job, who never write a line of code that is not assigned. They tend to support and encourage students who want to pursue things on their own. I've seen them get all excited and display big smiles when discussing interesting topics, problems, techniques, etc with such students who are working on things completely unrelated to coursework.
Since it's extremely difficult to skip over courses (or do it any other way) in the bureaucracy that is modern education.
In addition to personalizing the assignments as mentioned above, classes can sometimes be challenged. "Completed" by a single written exam.
Just because you're educating yourself, doesn't mean you can't get the full advantage of a formal education, it just depends on how you do it.
Of course. The problem is that individuals tend to delude themselves with respect to their ability to actually do so. The individuals who can actually do so are extremely rare. Plus there is the problem of ignoring topics that one is not interested in or erroneously think are not relevant. Consider someone who wants to do video games. I can probably explain how nearly every class in a core CS curriculum is relevant and surprise (and possibly depress) the aspiring video game programmer.
Why sit in a classroom all day long listening to a lecture, when you can read the book it's based on, at your own pace in one 1/50 of that time.
Because the book is only part of the education. Additional material and insights can be provided by lectures. Questions from students. Remember the university is a hub of peers who are bright, talented and curious just like you. You will learn a lot from each other, you will learn a lot collaborating on each other's personal projects. You are generally not going to find a cluster of people like that in other settings. Again, I am emphasizing that a university is not purely about the formal training, it can also be a big piece of the self-taught learning. If you are only doing the formal assigned stuff at the university you are doing it wrong.
I used to work as a teacher in classic