IMO - Apple products are successful because they have bridged the gap between "generic computing product" and "consumer appliance". This is *especially* true with the iOS products, but also true for the Macintosh line. Apple makes appliances.
If I have a problem which can be solved with either group, I will generally go for the consumer appliance, even if it costs more. If there is one thing I have learned in life, it is that I cannot buy time.
Of course, the whole "is Apple worthwhile" question is always asked ass-backwards. Normal people, who make up the majority of the buying public (as oppsed to FOSS nerds and hardware hackers), buy solutions to problems, not systems architectures or ideologies.
If I want to buy a product which I can type on and carry with me that can run a web browser and an ssh client -- any laptop will do the job, be it a MacBook, a Wintel box, or something running Linux. So, aside from the usual differentiators (how WELL does it run them, will YouTube chunk because of crappy Linux video drivers, is the keyboard comfortable, etc) -- you need to factor in the price. To some people, spending $500 more for the same hardware but less personal time consumed over the lifetime of the product it is worth it. For others, it is not. Simple as that.
I have ranted on this subject before -- people who say "I would never buy a 10" tablet because it is almost as big as a laptop" don't get it. You don't buy a tablet to replace a laptop. You buy a tablet to solve a problem.
I bought my tablet (yes, an iPad) to let me store sheet music in a form factor that is more convenient to carry around than 5 milk crates full of books. It works *great*.
A laptop simply does not balance well on a music stand -- the keyboard gets in the way, and the screen is oriented in the wrong direction. And then there's the fact that multi-touch touchscreens are a really great user interface for adjusting the size of the print and turning the page, that sort of thing.
It's all about using the device. I used to work at a computer store, many many years ago. I told my customers: "Buy what you need, when you need it", and "pick the software first, then determine your hardware needs based on the needs of the software". Any other advice is just ass-backwards.
Can you imagine buying a car and then getting annoyed because the manufacturer prevented you from driving across the lake? It's the same thing, only people seem to think that any kind of electronics should be able to fill any need. That's just stupid.
I went to Best Buy, and typed on every single netbook on display under $800.
Then I bought the one with the best keyboard. Simple, eh?
My logic: They are all "good enough" to run a browser and an ssh client. What else would you use a Windows box for?
FWIW, I wound up with an Acer Aspire something-something. They came in three colours, so I bought blue, because that's the company colour. It was even the right shade!
It has 3GB of ram, a 2GHz or better CPU (probably single core) and a really big harddrive (350GB?). It came with a Vista license and a free upgrade to Windows 7. I think it was like $350 or something.
And, of course, a web cam, wifi, ethernet, bluetooth, some USB ports, maybe a card reader..
Fan-freaking-tastic machine as far as I am concerned. Runs like a champ. I even put Office '97 on it. It flies!
Dude, the cops were going "Dien Papiers, bitte" (yes, in German, wearing nazi uniforms!" for just walking down the street around York and fucking Wellington.
The arrested a guy who prunes trees driving downtown and showed off his "terrorist weapons" -- a chainsaw and some gas.
Lord Jesus, they'd better not look in my garden shed. I've got a lawn tractor!
Spoiled ballots do not get counted. Instead, in provicial elections, go to your voting station, register, and refuse your ballot. They will write that down, and you WILL be counted.
You're kinda screwed for federal elections, though. I suppose you could eat it.
As a chem major ('94), there is a difference between a Chemist and a Chemical Engineer. As there is between a Physicist and all the other physical engineers. I would think the distinction would apply to computers and software
The OP's point was that computer science students should only concentrate on things like algorithm development and that they should not even learn how to program.
I disagree, and by way of analogy pointed out that chem majors have to learn how to work in a chem lab -- they don't spend their entire undergrad working with pen-and-paper.
I had plenty of chem major friends at school - we had Engineering Chemistry, Chemical Engineering and "Chemistry" majors. The first two were under the faculty of *Applied* Science. Friends with all three majors spent time in labs -- some more than others.
Did you successfully complete a degree in chemistry without stepping foot in a lab? If so, please tell us where!
Actually, I think the Bloq are probably the best of the bunch. Except for that part about wanting to tear the country apart. I live in Ontario and would vote for the Bloq if they ran a candidate in my riding.
The conservatives are nothing more than a bunch of freedom-loathing ass hats. Remember, this is NOT the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. It's the Reform Party, with a new name specifically designed to confuse voters.
I don't understand what you mean by "C-teaching" university etc.
Do universities *really* teach these languages?
When I went to school, we were taught Turing in first year, and were told straight-up that we would never use it in the real world. It was a fine language for exploring CS concepts, having easy (pascal-like) syntax and support for abstract data types.
In second year, we were taught Miranda, SmallTalk and Prolog. Quickly, all in one half-semester course. We learned just enough of each programming language to write programs in each of the functional, object-oriented, and logical programming paradigms. These weren't hand-holding courses, either: basic syntax and ideas were explained, after that it was pretty much RTFM for details.
In third year, we had a digital electronics course that required us to interface with our VHDL projects in C. Nobody taught us C, but there were tutorials available for the hopelessly-lost. We were expected to learn the language on our own. I don't know if the tutorials were any good or not; attending would have affected my party schedule.
In third year, we also had a software engineering course that taught client-server architecture using X11 as a model and discussed object oriented programming design. We were expected to be able to write a simple GUI application in C++ using X11 base classes, and to override bits of one of the widget toolkits to do something or other.
I've had a successful career programming in many languages - mostly C. I didn't need to learn how to write program in C in school; I just needed to learn how to write programs.
IMHO, anybody who thinks a university should be teaching them a particular programming language should probably be going to a community college. I RTFA and I think CMU is on the right track. And given the quality of all the CMU grads I've ever had the pleasure of working with, I'd have to say that whoever is running their CS program is doing a really great job.
> But there is one last thing I have noticed over my many years in the industry. > Whichever language you learn first will likely be the one you favor forever.
You must not know many of us who grew up hacking BASIC on 8-bit microcomputers.
Nah, Global and CityTV already have iPad apps. And they are available to anybody, regardless of who you get your internet from.
We're just waiting for CTV's iPad app and we can ditch the satellite. Their web site is pretty good, but I like the mobility of the iPad. And AirPlay, of course.
> If the issue is expensive certs and user-hassle (clicking away that authentication popup)
When I pointed out that rapidssl.com certs are FREE I expected you to draw the conclusion that expensive certs were not the issue, since most people can afford free certs.
The biggest real cost to HTTPS is IPv4 addresses. If you want HTTPS everywhere, solve that problem instead.
This is precisely how http-digest authentication works, except without the JavaScript part. It's been built into every browser for the last decade, although (at least in years gone past) you needed to hack Apache for it to work well with IE (nonce was being handled wrong IIRC).
> If there's a security vulnerability from running your javascript > using Apple's engine then that risk is identical with or without the chrome - isn't it?
Presumably applications embedding the browser have access to Obj-C interfaces that aren't exposed to the web.
This means that the browser and JS engine have to run in the same process space as your non-safari program.
Which means that your non-safari program is one buffer overflow away from executing arbitrary machine code stored in data segments, because the JS JIT requires that ability itself.
Do you understand now? Do you trust that every app in the app store is as well written and tested as Safari?
Slashdot Mirror
IMO - Apple products are successful because they have bridged the gap between "generic computing product" and "consumer appliance". This is *especially* true with the iOS products, but also true for the Macintosh line. Apple makes appliances.
If I have a problem which can be solved with either group, I will generally go for the consumer appliance, even if it costs more. If there is one thing I have learned in life, it is that I cannot buy time.
Of course, the whole "is Apple worthwhile" question is always asked ass-backwards. Normal people, who make up the majority of the buying public (as oppsed to FOSS nerds and hardware hackers), buy solutions to problems, not systems architectures or ideologies.
If I want to buy a product which I can type on and carry with me that can run a web browser and an ssh client -- any laptop will do the job, be it a MacBook, a Wintel box, or something running Linux. So, aside from the usual differentiators (how WELL does it run them, will YouTube chunk because of crappy Linux video drivers, is the keyboard comfortable, etc) -- you need to factor in the price. To some people, spending $500 more for the same hardware but less personal time consumed over the lifetime of the product it is worth it. For others, it is not. Simple as that.
I have ranted on this subject before -- people who say "I would never buy a 10" tablet because it is almost as big as a laptop" don't get it. You don't buy a tablet to replace a laptop. You buy a tablet to solve a problem.
I bought my tablet (yes, an iPad) to let me store sheet music in a form factor that is more convenient to carry around than 5 milk crates full of books. It works *great*.
A laptop simply does not balance well on a music stand -- the keyboard gets in the way, and the screen is oriented in the wrong direction. And then there's the fact that multi-touch touchscreens are a really great user interface for adjusting the size of the print and turning the page, that sort of thing.
It's all about using the device. I used to work at a computer store, many many years ago. I told my customers: "Buy what you need, when you need it", and "pick the software first, then determine your hardware needs based on the needs of the software". Any other advice is just ass-backwards.
Can you imagine buying a car and then getting annoyed because the manufacturer prevented you from driving across the lake? It's the same thing, only people seem to think that any kind of electronics should be able to fill any need. That's just stupid.
That's because American robots watch too much TV and eat french fries instead of rice.
It was actually a netbook, but same deal.
I went to Best Buy, and typed on every single netbook on display under $800.
Then I bought the one with the best keyboard. Simple, eh?
My logic: They are all "good enough" to run a browser and an ssh client. What else would you use a Windows box for?
FWIW, I wound up with an Acer Aspire something-something. They came in three colours, so I bought blue, because that's the company colour. It was even the right shade!
It has 3GB of ram, a 2GHz or better CPU (probably single core) and a really big harddrive (350GB?). It came with a Vista license and a free upgrade to Windows 7. I think it was like $350 or something.
And, of course, a web cam, wifi, ethernet, bluetooth, some USB ports, maybe a card reader..
Fan-freaking-tastic machine as far as I am concerned. Runs like a champ. I even put Office '97 on it. It flies!
> I'm far more interested in how they generated those '1 million'
> pre-labelled test images in the first place.
Snapshots from the webcams attached to computers running Windows.
> Most bills are confidence bills.
This was not true before Stephen Hitler was elected.
Went perfectly?
Dude, the cops were going "Dien Papiers, bitte" (yes, in German, wearing nazi uniforms!" for just walking down the street around York and fucking Wellington.
The arrested a guy who prunes trees driving downtown and showed off his "terrorist weapons" -- a chainsaw and some gas.
Lord Jesus, they'd better not look in my garden shed. I've got a lawn tractor!
Spoiled ballots do not get counted. Instead, in provicial elections, go to your voting station, register, and refuse your ballot. They will write that down, and you WILL be counted.
You're kinda screwed for federal elections, though. I suppose you could eat it.
The OP's point was that computer science students should only concentrate on things like algorithm development and that they should not even learn how to program.
I disagree, and by way of analogy pointed out that chem majors have to learn how to work in a chem lab -- they don't spend their entire undergrad working with pen-and-paper.
I had plenty of chem major friends at school - we had Engineering Chemistry, Chemical Engineering and "Chemistry" majors. The first two were under the faculty of *Applied* Science. Friends with all three majors spent time in labs -- some more than others.
Did you successfully complete a degree in chemistry without stepping foot in a lab? If so, please tell us where!
Actually, I think the Bloq are probably the best of the bunch. Except for that part about wanting to tear the country apart. I live in Ontario and would vote for the Bloq if they ran a candidate in my riding.
The conservatives are nothing more than a bunch of freedom-loathing ass hats. Remember, this is NOT the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. It's the Reform Party, with a new name specifically designed to confuse voters.
I don't understand what you mean by "C-teaching" university etc.
Do universities *really* teach these languages?
When I went to school, we were taught Turing in first year, and were told straight-up that we would never use it in the real world. It was a fine language for exploring CS concepts, having easy (pascal-like) syntax and support for abstract data types.
In second year, we were taught Miranda, SmallTalk and Prolog. Quickly, all in one half-semester course. We learned just enough of each programming language to write programs in each of the functional, object-oriented, and logical programming paradigms. These weren't hand-holding courses, either: basic syntax and ideas were explained, after that it was pretty much RTFM for details.
In third year, we had a digital electronics course that required us to interface with our VHDL projects in C. Nobody taught us C, but there were tutorials available for the hopelessly-lost. We were expected to learn the language on our own. I don't know if the tutorials were any good or not; attending would have affected my party schedule.
In third year, we also had a software engineering course that taught client-server architecture using X11 as a model and discussed object oriented programming design. We were expected to be able to write a simple GUI application in C++ using X11 base classes, and to override bits of one of the widget toolkits to do something or other.
I've had a successful career programming in many languages - mostly C. I didn't need to learn how to write program in C in school; I just needed to learn how to write programs.
IMHO, anybody who thinks a university should be teaching them a particular programming language should probably be going to a community college. I RTFA and I think CMU is on the right track. And given the quality of all the CMU grads I've ever had the pleasure of working with, I'd have to say that whoever is running their CS program is doing a really great job.
> But there is one last thing I have noticed over my many years in the industry.
> Whichever language you learn first will likely be the one you favor forever.
You must not know many of us who grew up hacking BASIC on 8-bit microcomputers.
Are you actually suggesting that CS majors should only learn one way to write computer programs? Where did you go to school, Java U.?
> Can someone name me some actual real world, large
> software projects based on functional programming?
Ericsson's stuff scales to billions-of-cell phones and is written in Erlang.
Geez, I don't know.
Most kids go to school for four years. Maybe they'll learn OOP in one of the other three?
When I went to school, graphics was an elective.
I didn't take graphics, so I didn't get a job where I needed to write a ray tracer or whatever.
See how that works? Not so hard.
Chem majors do work in chem labs.
Physics majors do work in physics labs.
Why shouldn't CS students do lab work?
Nah, Global and CityTV already have iPad apps. And they are available to anybody, regardless of who you get your internet from.
We're just waiting for CTV's iPad app and we can ditch the satellite. Their web site is pretty good, but I like the mobility of the iPad. And AirPlay, of course.
I don't see what the big deal is. Everybody knew about this vulnerability as soon as Microsoft told them about it anyhow.
I think you are grossly overestimating the number of routable addresses.
Use Rapidssl.com certs.
They're free and work pretty much everywhere.
> If the issue is expensive certs and user-hassle (clicking away that authentication popup)
When I pointed out that rapidssl.com certs are FREE I expected you to draw the conclusion that expensive certs were not the issue, since most people can afford free certs.
The biggest real cost to HTTPS is IPv4 addresses. If you want HTTPS everywhere, solve that problem instead.
rapidssl.com certs are free, but you can't wild card 'em.
You know what isn't free, though? IPv4 addresses. And they have a 1:1 relationship with HTTPS domains..
This is precisely how http-digest authentication works, except without the JavaScript part. It's been built into every browser for the last decade, although (at least in years gone past) you needed to hack Apache for it to work well with IE (nonce was being handled wrong IIRC).
It's not a problem with IIS nor your webmaster. It's a feature of HTTPS.
> If there's a security vulnerability from running your javascript
> using Apple's engine then that risk is identical with or without the chrome - isn't it?
Presumably applications embedding the browser have access to Obj-C interfaces that aren't exposed to the web.
This means that the browser and JS engine have to run in the same process space as your non-safari program.
Which means that your non-safari program is one buffer overflow away from executing arbitrary machine code stored in data segments, because the JS JIT requires that ability itself.
Do you understand now? Do you trust that every app in the app store is as well written and tested as Safari?