Until our electricity comes from renewable sources hydrogen power is worse than fossil fuels.
I don't think it is quite that simple. Hydrogen moves the pollution from many mobile sources, cars, to a very small number of non-mobile sources, power generation stations. With all pollution coming from these stations there is the opportunity for remediation, capturing the pollution to prevent its entry into the environment. Doing so is expensive and technically challenging but plausible.
I remember division not being exactly accurate, so the solution I needed to use was to round up and down results that are really close.
Just so you know, division is never accurate in floats, even when the CPU doesn't have bugs. If you're using doubles you'll get better accuracy, but with a 32 bit floating point number, you shouldn't be surprised to find errors in the third digit after the decimal point.
Just to be clear its not limited to division. Hell, errors can creep in just by converting a decimal number to floating point. This is why calculators use decimal arithmetic, well some of them - like Perpenso Calc for iPhone iPad RPN Scientific Stats Business Hex. Try "0.5 - 0.4 - 0.1" in your favorite calculator app, it might indicate whether the app is using the FPU or decimal arithmetic. Of course the app may be doing something naive like the "BASIC MMORG", rounding results. Its naive because it is another source of rounding error, some results are legitimately a little bit off from a nicely round number.
Paramount is going to spend substantial money on this project. Not only do they have to find all of the pieces of film in the valuts, but the latter four years the special effects were done strictly on low rez CGI. They're going to have to recreate those effects, much like they did on the original series BluRays.
Maybe not. Even in the 90s the CGI resolution probably exceeded 1080p. The low res may have been introduced in the conversion to TV. Or are you really referring to low triangle counts and primitive shading compared to today's norms?
Based on the fact that its competitor, oil, will also experience greater demand and increasing prices. So increased fuel prices occur regardless of whether we continue with oil or switch to natural gas. It doesn't seem to be much of a negative in this light. However natural gas remains domestic, in great supply, has cleaner emission when burned, etc.
And if you want to look out 10+ years there is a greater threat with oil prices than natural gas prices. You have referred to demand, but with oil being past peak production oil will also experience decreased supply. Keeping the transportation system on oil is far more risky than moving it to natural gas.
The biggest problem, in my view, is that when cars start demanding lots and lots of natural gas to run, the prices will skyrocket - which in turn will make using Natural Gas for any other thing extremely hard.
Demand for natural gas is not really a major problem. Oil is at peak production and demand is predicted to skyrocket as China, India and various other countries continue to grow their middle class. So the next best (as in what we could use with *existing* technology) alternative has the same problem.
The advantage of natural gas is really that it is a domestic source that can last for quite a while. It could be the bridge that we need to get us through the decades of research and development that solar, wind, tidal, etc still needs. It keeps the money spent on fuel in the US. That is not just jobs but national security as well.
Whilst Apple and iPhone are no doubt trademarks in the computing and phone business, if they have not registered their intention to enter the gas stove market then surely it is legitimate as trademarks are limited to the product area you're involved in.
Just as legal as two fans of Apple Records (the Beatle's music label) naming their new computer company Apple Computer?
The computer company was sued by the music label and ended up paying the music label $80K and promised not to enter the music business, and the music label agreed not to enter the computer business. Additional lawsuits occurred over time, with additional and much larger payments to Apple Records. Eventually the computer company bought the trademarks from the music label and licensed them back to the label.
I'd recommend that Apple Computer quickly enter the stove market to prevent the infringer from getting a foothold, to prevent history from repeating.
There is nothing wrong with telling parents "Oh, this game allows you to..."
Agreed. Informative labels are fine. Stores deciding for themselves that they do not want to carry products with a certain label is fine. I do however think that we have crossed a line when the courts or the police get involved because of foul language or simulated violence.
It is amazing to watch the very same people who in their youth were outraged when Al Gore led his crusade against music become the middle aged people who support a crusade against video games.
That wasn't Al Gore. That was Tipper Gore, his wife.
A Senator's wife does not call for Senate Hearings. Senator Al did that and testified in support as well.
Also, the PMRC advocated voluntary use of warning labels, rather than outright censorship.
That was a fall back position. They originally wanted to bar the sale of the "most offensive" music to minors. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the recording industry introduced an industry based rating system and warning labels and undercut the PRMC's efforts.
Good. Maybe this will teach future political leaders that censorship is a bad idea. Oh who am I kidding, these idiots never learn anything.
That is not quite true. You have a very different perspective than the politicians. The politicians have already banked the votes of frightened parents. Wasting money and time and going counter to the constitution are irrelevant to them. All they care about are the votes and the likely voters are the silly frightened parents and not the gamers.
It is amazing to watch the very same people who in their youth were outraged when Al Gore led his crusade against music become the middle aged people who support a crusade against video games.
Using an unaltered screen shot merely gives the false impression that the app is up and ready, hiding the load and setup time. My variation does no harm to the user, others have expressed that there is a benefit to the user because the unavailability of the user interface is honestly communicated.
That argument is a red herring. A properly done launch image for your app would include the blue area, and the button shapes. But there would be no labels on the buttons. So the unavailability is communicated in the standard. The reason it's done like that is because launch screens are not localized.
You are mistaken. The launch image can be localized.
And I note that you were unable to come up with any other way that your splash screen with app name/version number/copyright message benefitted the user. In fact I see that that information is already the first thing the user gets if they hit the info button in the toolbar. It seems to be there in the splash screen for nothing more than pride on your part.
Its not that I am unable. My point is that there is neither a benefit nor a detriment to the user. That the real beneficiary is either Apple or myself. My benefit is that the copyright notice on the default image makes my attorney happy. With respect to the info on the flip side view, the info is only displayed when the user selects the manual tab and we all know users never look at manuals.:-)
Go to the academics that represent your users. Ask them what they want to see in a visualization, how they expect to do a search, how they expect to manipulate things. Give them paper and pencil and tell them to just draw things however they think it should be, not what they are used to seeing in their current environment and applications, rather whatever they can imagine would be a good way, a way that feels natural.
How my default image may differ from Apple's concept is that it is a screen shot that has been converted to grayscale and dimmed; and has a product name, version and copyright notice positioned over the calculator's main display. Basically I incorporated a visual clue that the user interface is disabled (not up and running to be more accurate) and I use the standard iOS default image as a splash screen.
That's a halfway house between the launch screen Apple recommends and a splash screen. It's not as bad as a full on splash screen. It's not as good as the apple recommended launch screen. What benefit to the user do you think you're giving by giving the app name, version and copyright notice? What advantage that makes you think you know better than the Apple recommendation?
We seem to be confusing a benefit to Apple as a benefit to the user. Using an unaltered screen shot merely gives the false impression that the app is up and ready, hiding the load and setup time. My variation does no harm to the user, others have expressed that there is a benefit to the user because the unavailability of the user interface is honestly communicated. The question of benefiting the user seems to be a red herring. The only question is benefitting Apple or benefiting myself.
That make you think your way is better than the way it's done in Apple's apps? I've already pointed out what the detriment to the user is. Inconsistency. You're drawing attention to the random fact of whether the app is just being switched to or whether it's being restarted. Of course these two states will always be different in terms of time taken. But there's no need to draw attention to it, and ever reason to minimise that difference.
The problem with the consistent visual appearance is that it misleads the user with respect to the interface being up and ready in the "just launched" scenario. Visually representing that a control is not currently available is actually a long term theme in Apple human interface guidelines. These default images, screen shots shown during launch, seem to be a departure if they visually represent controls as available.
Having said that, from the screenshots your app does look nice.
You're saying your iOS Calculator app has a different experience when you switch to it, depending on whether its still running, or it was killed in the background sometime since the last time I used it. Design flaw. I'm afraid you didn't understand Apple's reasoning behind launch screens. And why they advise against splash screens.
My app behaves precisely as Apple intends apps to behave. When it is launched the default image is displayed. When it switches from background to foreground it does not display the default image. All of this is under iOS' control, not the app's.
How my default image may differ from Apple's concept is that it is a screen shot that has been converted to grayscale and dimmed; and has a product name, version and copyright notice positioned over the calculator's main display. Basically I incorporated a visual clue that the user interface is disabled (not up and running to be more accurate) and I use the standard iOS default image as a splash screen.
Splash screens can be implemented in a manner where there is no detriment to the user.
And there is also the use of threading. Put as much of your initialization as possible into a separate thread. Your user interface and the most basic functionality can be available from the main thread while secondary functionality and assets are being initialized/loaded in the separate thread.
People who complain about slow load times (the reason de etra for splash screens) won't complain about hourglass icons while lazy-loaded assets are initialized? Which part of bizarro world do you live on sir?
I would rather have my app load everything in to memory/initialize connections at startup. As an added bonus you don't have to throw locking logic around everything that might not be finished loading yet. KISS.
The point of the secondary thread is that the primary thread with the UI and primary functionality is available right away. There is no hourglass while the secondary thread loads secondary code and art. The user can be using the primary functionality while the secondary is doing its thing.
Also the lazy loading the GGP refers to does not necessarily introduce noticeable delays. Lets say there are four secondary areas that each take 0.5s to load/configure. If we follow your advice every startup takes two seconds longer. If we follow the GGP's advice the user experiences, and probably doesn't really notice, a 0.5s delay the first time one of the secondary areas is used.
And there is also the use of threading. Put as much of your initialization as possible into a separate thread. Your user interface and the most basic functionality can be available from the main thread while secondary functionality and assets are being initialized/loaded in the separate thread. When that separate thread completes enable the UI components that offer the secondary functionality.
I agree that putting up a full screen graphic that looks like your loaded app can just be a gimmick cell phone manufacturers prefer to give the *illusion* of performance. There is no harm in showing a splash screen rather than the fake user interface. The splash screen serves your interests, the fake user interface serves the cell phone manufacturer's interests. Serving your interests rather than the manufacturer's does not harm the user, **unless** you do something like introduce a delay to force the user to see your splash. And as you say apps should delay loading of resources to minimize their startup time.
In a calculator app (RPN scientific statistics business hex) that I've developed the screenshot that I use was converted to gray scale and dimmed to suggest the buttons are not enabled. My splash is just a product name and copyright notice and I put that in the standard numeric display. The user experience is an instant but disabled user interface with a copyright notice, the notice is replaced with numerics as soon as the interface is enabled. There is no artificial delay. Splashes can be done is a reasonable and honest (UI has a disabled visual appearance) manner.
It suggests that big programs should launch instantly (or appear to)
No, it should not "appear to" launch instantly. Putting up a full screen graphic that looks like your loaded app is just a gimmick cell phone manufacturers prefer to give the *illusion* of performance. There is no harm in showing a splash screen rather than the fake user interface. The splash screen serves your interests, the fake user interface serves the cell phone manufacturer's interests. Serving your interests rather than the manufacturer's does not harm the user, **unless** you do something like introduce a delay to force the user to see your splash.
Of course it is sometimes practical to do both, combine the fake user interface and splash info. In a calculator app (RPN Scientific Stats Business Hex) that I have I am able to do both in a way. The screenshot that I use was converted to gray scale and dimmed to suggest the buttons are not enabled. My splash is just a product name and copyright notice and I put that in the numeric display. The user experience is an instant but disabled user interface with a copyright notice, the notice is replaced with numerics as soon as the interface is enabled.
Also, you should not depend on the user seeing a spash every time the app launches. On iOS apps go into the background rather than quit. When "re-launched' the app merely moves to the foreground and is in fact instantly useable. Forcing a spash screen at this time would fall into the "harmful to the user" category.
Sign up with a new account and compartmentalize your activities appropriately.
Unless a network enforces one account per individual.
With different emails, profiles, behaviors, etc how would they notice? Likes, interests, posts etc should be completely segregated between professional and personal. Maybe use different names as well, for example the formal Michael on the business account and the familiar Mike on the personal account. They can't really tell from IP. Maybe Michael is a father's account and Mike is a son's - again, avoid personal info like birthday's etc on the business account. A business account at a particular company has no need to contain birthdays, schools, etc.
You're going to need to show your work on that one... It looks like you tried to just double the 132, and accidentally came to 234 instead of 264. You're wrong regardless, since the resolution is doubling in both the X and the Y dimensions, meaning that the total pixels per inch should be quadrupled. 4 x 132 = 528.
Pixels per inch is a one dimension unit. 2 x 132 = 264 is correct. 264 ppi along X and 264 ppi along Y.
This is not surprising at all. Most iOS developers expected no change in screen resolution until 2x was possible. The repositioning of screen widgets and the scaling of bitmap images works better with whole number multiples. If 2x is the multiple then the iPad 3 could automatically recycle the 2x bitmap images found in iPhone 4 aware apps.
You are mistaken. At the heart of your misunderstanding is the fact that trade secrets are a legally defined and protected form of intellectual property. The protection of trade secrets goes back centuries. Trade secrets have to meet a certain legal criteria and the company has to take steps to prevent disclosure to the public, employees (current and former) are legally obliged to respect the owner's rights. There is no expiration, as long as the company maintains the secret it is protected. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secrets
The basic idea behind it all is that both the company and the employee have rights. Sometimes these rights are in conflict. In the case of anti-compete clauses the courts have ruled that the employee's right to move to another job is the stronger right. However with respect to trade secrets the courts have ruled that the company's right is the stronger, the company shared a secret that the employee could not have discovered on his own and therefore it should remain a secret.
Now if the company trains you in industry specific knowledge that is general known or obtainable outside of the company, regardless of how valuable or specialized the training is, that is not a trade secret and you are perfectly free to take that knowledge and apply it elsewhere.
I agree there is nothing illegal about walking out and reproducing algorithms you have learned.
Nope. If those algorithms represent the trade secrets of your former employer then it is illegal to disclose them. For example **undisclosed** details on when to bid and how much to bid given market conditions.
General knowledge is transportable. How to optimize C and assembly code, how to optimize network communications, **publicly available** details on when to bid and how much to bid given market conditions.
Slashdot Mirror
Until our electricity comes from renewable sources hydrogen power is worse than fossil fuels.
I don't think it is quite that simple. Hydrogen moves the pollution from many mobile sources, cars, to a very small number of non-mobile sources, power generation stations. With all pollution coming from these stations there is the opportunity for remediation, capturing the pollution to prevent its entry into the environment. Doing so is expensive and technically challenging but plausible.
Logan's Run?
... payload bay is 2.1 x 1.2 m ...
So a modern satellite reconnaissance camera/sensor package is about 2x1m?
I remember division not being exactly accurate, so the solution I needed to use was to round up and down results that are really close.
Just so you know, division is never accurate in floats, even when the CPU doesn't have bugs. If you're using doubles you'll get better accuracy, but with a 32 bit floating point number, you shouldn't be surprised to find errors in the third digit after the decimal point.
Just to be clear its not limited to division. Hell, errors can creep in just by converting a decimal number to floating point. This is why calculators use decimal arithmetic, well some of them - like Perpenso Calc for iPhone iPad RPN Scientific Stats Business Hex. Try "0.5 - 0.4 - 0.1" in your favorite calculator app, it might indicate whether the app is using the FPU or decimal arithmetic. Of course the app may be doing something naive like the "BASIC MMORG", rounding results. Its naive because it is another source of rounding error, some results are legitimately a little bit off from a nicely round number.
Paramount is going to spend substantial money on this project. Not only do they have to find all of the pieces of film in the valuts, but the latter four years the special effects were done strictly on low rez CGI. They're going to have to recreate those effects, much like they did on the original series BluRays.
Maybe not. Even in the 90s the CGI resolution probably exceeded 1080p. The low res may have been introduced in the conversion to TV. Or are you really referring to low triangle counts and primitive shading compared to today's norms?
... Yefremov actually did have some talent for writing
I think his work was much better in the original Klingon. :-)
Based on the fact that its competitor, oil, will also experience greater demand and increasing prices. So increased fuel prices occur regardless of whether we continue with oil or switch to natural gas. It doesn't seem to be much of a negative in this light. However natural gas remains domestic, in great supply, has cleaner emission when burned, etc.
And if you want to look out 10+ years there is a greater threat with oil prices than natural gas prices. You have referred to demand, but with oil being past peak production oil will also experience decreased supply. Keeping the transportation system on oil is far more risky than moving it to natural gas.
The biggest problem, in my view, is that when cars start demanding lots and lots of natural gas to run, the prices will skyrocket - which in turn will make using Natural Gas for any other thing extremely hard.
Demand for natural gas is not really a major problem. Oil is at peak production and demand is predicted to skyrocket as China, India and various other countries continue to grow their middle class. So the next best (as in what we could use with *existing* technology) alternative has the same problem.
The advantage of natural gas is really that it is a domestic source that can last for quite a while. It could be the bridge that we need to get us through the decades of research and development that solar, wind, tidal, etc still needs. It keeps the money spent on fuel in the US. That is not just jobs but national security as well.
Whilst Apple and iPhone are no doubt trademarks in the computing and phone business, if they have not registered their intention to enter the gas stove market then surely it is legitimate as trademarks are limited to the product area you're involved in.
Just as legal as two fans of Apple Records (the Beatle's music label) naming their new computer company Apple Computer?
The computer company was sued by the music label and ended up paying the music label $80K and promised not to enter the music business, and the music label agreed not to enter the computer business. Additional lawsuits occurred over time, with additional and much larger payments to Apple Records. Eventually the computer company bought the trademarks from the music label and licensed them back to the label.
I'd recommend that Apple Computer quickly enter the stove market to prevent the infringer from getting a foothold, to prevent history from repeating.
There is nothing wrong with telling parents "Oh, this game allows you to ..."
Agreed. Informative labels are fine. Stores deciding for themselves that they do not want to carry products with a certain label is fine. I do however think that we have crossed a line when the courts or the police get involved because of foul language or simulated violence.
It is amazing to watch the very same people who in their youth were outraged when Al Gore led his crusade against music become the middle aged people who support a crusade against video games.
That wasn't Al Gore. That was Tipper Gore, his wife.
A Senator's wife does not call for Senate Hearings. Senator Al did that and testified in support as well.
Also, the PMRC advocated voluntary use of warning labels, rather than outright censorship.
That was a fall back position. They originally wanted to bar the sale of the "most offensive" music to minors. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the recording industry introduced an industry based rating system and warning labels and undercut the PRMC's efforts.
Good. Maybe this will teach future political leaders that censorship is a bad idea. Oh who am I kidding, these idiots never learn anything.
That is not quite true. You have a very different perspective than the politicians. The politicians have already banked the votes of frightened parents. Wasting money and time and going counter to the constitution are irrelevant to them. All they care about are the votes and the likely voters are the silly frightened parents and not the gamers.
It is amazing to watch the very same people who in their youth were outraged when Al Gore led his crusade against music become the middle aged people who support a crusade against video games.
Using an unaltered screen shot merely gives the false impression that the app is up and ready, hiding the load and setup time. My variation does no harm to the user, others have expressed that there is a benefit to the user because the unavailability of the user interface is honestly communicated.
That argument is a red herring. A properly done launch image for your app would include the blue area, and the button shapes. But there would be no labels on the buttons. So the unavailability is communicated in the standard. The reason it's done like that is because launch screens are not localized.
You are mistaken. The launch image can be localized.
And I note that you were unable to come up with any other way that your splash screen with app name/version number/copyright message benefitted the user. In fact I see that that information is already the first thing the user gets if they hit the info button in the toolbar. It seems to be there in the splash screen for nothing more than pride on your part.
Its not that I am unable. My point is that there is neither a benefit nor a detriment to the user. That the real beneficiary is either Apple or myself. My benefit is that the copyright notice on the default image makes my attorney happy. With respect to the info on the flip side view, the info is only displayed when the user selects the manual tab and we all know users never look at manuals. :-)
I'd use [software environment and platform here] ...
No. Just use paper and pencil. Create a story board, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Story_board, showing how the user will use the interface.
Go to the academics that represent your users. Ask them what they want to see in a visualization, how they expect to do a search, how they expect to manipulate things. Give them paper and pencil and tell them to just draw things however they think it should be, not what they are used to seeing in their current environment and applications, rather whatever they can imagine would be a good way, a way that feels natural.
How my default image may differ from Apple's concept is that it is a screen shot that has been converted to grayscale and dimmed; and has a product name, version and copyright notice positioned over the calculator's main display. Basically I incorporated a visual clue that the user interface is disabled (not up and running to be more accurate) and I use the standard iOS default image as a splash screen.
That's a halfway house between the launch screen Apple recommends and a splash screen. It's not as bad as a full on splash screen. It's not as good as the apple recommended launch screen. What benefit to the user do you think you're giving by giving the app name, version and copyright notice? What advantage that makes you think you know better than the Apple recommendation?
We seem to be confusing a benefit to Apple as a benefit to the user. Using an unaltered screen shot merely gives the false impression that the app is up and ready, hiding the load and setup time. My variation does no harm to the user, others have expressed that there is a benefit to the user because the unavailability of the user interface is honestly communicated. The question of benefiting the user seems to be a red herring. The only question is benefitting Apple or benefiting myself.
That make you think your way is better than the way it's done in Apple's apps? I've already pointed out what the detriment to the user is. Inconsistency. You're drawing attention to the random fact of whether the app is just being switched to or whether it's being restarted. Of course these two states will always be different in terms of time taken. But there's no need to draw attention to it, and ever reason to minimise that difference.
The problem with the consistent visual appearance is that it misleads the user with respect to the interface being up and ready in the "just launched" scenario. Visually representing that a control is not currently available is actually a long term theme in Apple human interface guidelines. These default images, screen shots shown during launch, seem to be a departure if they visually represent controls as available.
Having said that, from the screenshots your app does look nice.
Thank you.
You're saying your iOS Calculator app has a different experience when you switch to it, depending on whether its still running, or it was killed in the background sometime since the last time I used it. Design flaw. I'm afraid you didn't understand Apple's reasoning behind launch screens. And why they advise against splash screens.
My app behaves precisely as Apple intends apps to behave. When it is launched the default image is displayed. When it switches from background to foreground it does not display the default image. All of this is under iOS' control, not the app's.
How my default image may differ from Apple's concept is that it is a screen shot that has been converted to grayscale and dimmed; and has a product name, version and copyright notice positioned over the calculator's main display. Basically I incorporated a visual clue that the user interface is disabled (not up and running to be more accurate) and I use the standard iOS default image as a splash screen.
Splash screens can be implemented in a manner where there is no detriment to the user.
People who complain about slow load times (the reason de etra for splash screens) won't complain about hourglass icons while lazy-loaded assets are initialized? Which part of bizarro world do you live on sir? I would rather have my app load everything in to memory/initialize connections at startup. As an added bonus you don't have to throw locking logic around everything that might not be finished loading yet. KISS.
The point of the secondary thread is that the primary thread with the UI and primary functionality is available right away. There is no hourglass while the secondary thread loads secondary code and art. The user can be using the primary functionality while the secondary is doing its thing.
Also the lazy loading the GGP refers to does not necessarily introduce noticeable delays. Lets say there are four secondary areas that each take 0.5s to load/configure. If we follow your advice every startup takes two seconds longer. If we follow the GGP's advice the user experiences, and probably doesn't really notice, a 0.5s delay the first time one of the secondary areas is used.
And there is also the use of threading. Put as much of your initialization as possible into a separate thread. Your user interface and the most basic functionality can be available from the main thread while secondary functionality and assets are being initialized/loaded in the separate thread. When that separate thread completes enable the UI components that offer the secondary functionality.
I agree that putting up a full screen graphic that looks like your loaded app can just be a gimmick cell phone manufacturers prefer to give the *illusion* of performance. There is no harm in showing a splash screen rather than the fake user interface. The splash screen serves your interests, the fake user interface serves the cell phone manufacturer's interests. Serving your interests rather than the manufacturer's does not harm the user, **unless** you do something like introduce a delay to force the user to see your splash. And as you say apps should delay loading of resources to minimize their startup time.
In a calculator app (RPN scientific statistics business hex) that I've developed the screenshot that I use was converted to gray scale and dimmed to suggest the buttons are not enabled. My splash is just a product name and copyright notice and I put that in the standard numeric display. The user experience is an instant but disabled user interface with a copyright notice, the notice is replaced with numerics as soon as the interface is enabled. There is no artificial delay. Splashes can be done is a reasonable and honest (UI has a disabled visual appearance) manner.
It suggests that big programs should launch instantly (or appear to)
No, it should not "appear to" launch instantly. Putting up a full screen graphic that looks like your loaded app is just a gimmick cell phone manufacturers prefer to give the *illusion* of performance. There is no harm in showing a splash screen rather than the fake user interface. The splash screen serves your interests, the fake user interface serves the cell phone manufacturer's interests. Serving your interests rather than the manufacturer's does not harm the user, **unless** you do something like introduce a delay to force the user to see your splash.
Of course it is sometimes practical to do both, combine the fake user interface and splash info. In a calculator app (RPN Scientific Stats Business Hex) that I have I am able to do both in a way. The screenshot that I use was converted to gray scale and dimmed to suggest the buttons are not enabled. My splash is just a product name and copyright notice and I put that in the numeric display. The user experience is an instant but disabled user interface with a copyright notice, the notice is replaced with numerics as soon as the interface is enabled.
Also, you should not depend on the user seeing a spash every time the app launches. On iOS apps go into the background rather than quit. When "re-launched' the app merely moves to the foreground and is in fact instantly useable. Forcing a spash screen at this time would fall into the "harmful to the user" category.
Sign up with a new account and compartmentalize your activities appropriately.
Unless a network enforces one account per individual.
With different emails, profiles, behaviors, etc how would they notice? Likes, interests, posts etc should be completely segregated between professional and personal. Maybe use different names as well, for example the formal Michael on the business account and the familiar Mike on the personal account. They can't really tell from IP. Maybe Michael is a father's account and Mike is a son's - again, avoid personal info like birthday's etc on the business account. A business account at a particular company has no need to contain birthdays, schools, etc.
You're going to need to show your work on that one... It looks like you tried to just double the 132, and accidentally came to 234 instead of 264. You're wrong regardless, since the resolution is doubling in both the X and the Y dimensions, meaning that the total pixels per inch should be quadrupled. 4 x 132 = 528.
Pixels per inch is a one dimension unit. 2 x 132 = 264 is correct. 264 ppi along X and 264 ppi along Y.
This is not surprising at all. Most iOS developers expected no change in screen resolution until 2x was possible. The repositioning of screen widgets and the scaling of bitmap images works better with whole number multiples. If 2x is the multiple then the iPad 3 could automatically recycle the 2x bitmap images found in iPhone 4 aware apps.
You are mistaken. At the heart of your misunderstanding is the fact that trade secrets are a legally defined and protected form of intellectual property. The protection of trade secrets goes back centuries. Trade secrets have to meet a certain legal criteria and the company has to take steps to prevent disclosure to the public, employees (current and former) are legally obliged to respect the owner's rights. There is no expiration, as long as the company maintains the secret it is protected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secrets
The basic idea behind it all is that both the company and the employee have rights. Sometimes these rights are in conflict. In the case of anti-compete clauses the courts have ruled that the employee's right to move to another job is the stronger right. However with respect to trade secrets the courts have ruled that the company's right is the stronger, the company shared a secret that the employee could not have discovered on his own and therefore it should remain a secret.
Now if the company trains you in industry specific knowledge that is general known or obtainable outside of the company, regardless of how valuable or specialized the training is, that is not a trade secret and you are perfectly free to take that knowledge and apply it elsewhere.
I agree there is nothing illegal about walking out and reproducing algorithms you have learned.
Nope. If those algorithms represent the trade secrets of your former employer then it is illegal to disclose them. For example **undisclosed** details on when to bid and how much to bid given market conditions.
General knowledge is transportable. How to optimize C and assembly code, how to optimize network communications, **publicly available** details on when to bid and how much to bid given market conditions.