I don't know the details of Anobit's technology, but it sure sounds like they are, essentially, adding Forward Error Correction to the written data. Thus, even if the data you get back is a little garbled you can detect how garbled it is and recover the original signal if it's not TOO garbled. You lose some percentage of your capacity, but, like RAID, you can use more cheaper parts to provide the same effective capacity cheaper.
It sounds like a clever and retroactively obvious thing to do-- I wonder if they've patented it and how much Slashdot will scream if they did.
Does it make a difference that it's 1W of blue light as opposed to red light? I'm not exactly sure how laser power is measured... I assume 1W of blue would require fewer but more energetic photons than 1W of red.
If you consider the stock market to be a tool to enable investment and growth, it's fairly substantially broken.
Fortunately, that's not what the stock market is intended to be. It's a tool to enable valuation and exchange. And in that sense this algorithm is fulfilling the market's purpose beautifully. If you want the market to be as efficient as possible, it seems like this algorithm helps the market reach new equilibriums faster and thus represent a more accurate valuation of listed assets.
(It's clear to see that the market is not a tool to enable investment because when you buy a share of a company no money is exchanged with said company, and it's not a tool for growth because the stock price of a company has little effect on its growth... in theory the causal effect should in fact be the other way around.)
Albert Einstein didn't have a laptop in school. Ben Franklin didn't have a laptop in school. Stephen Hawking didn't have a laptop in school. Thomas Edison didn't have a laptop in school. Nikola Tesla didn't have a laptop in school. Even Bill Gates didn't have a laptop in school.
...and near as I can tell, not one of them could code worth a crap!:)
Actually, the vast majority of their products are some combination of open and closed source. Their operating system kernel is completely open source, as is the core of their browser (which has since become the core of a large number of other browsers) and JavaScript engine. Their WebDAV and CalDAV implementations are rather nice and they've open-sourced those. They contribute quite a lot to LLVM and created clang as a front-end to it, thus giving the open source community a choice besides the gcc toolchain. They open-sourced their new "FaceTime" video conferencing implementation. Bonjour, Quicktime Streaming Server, Grand Central Dispatch (along with the blocks extension to C), and a zillion contributions to smaller projects.
In general, Apple contributes more man-hours of development into open source than most companies that are given the "open source" label. But because they don't toe the FSF line and prefer BSD to GPL, a lot of the "free" software folks try to make it seen like Apple is some sort of draconian force in the FOSS community.
Except that Microsoft has two software monopolies: Desktop/laptop operating systems and business office software. What monopolies does Apple have? The iPod, which isn't a software platform. Apple doesn't even have a majority, let alone a monopoly, in any of their most profitable businesses.
Besides, Apple isn't telling developers they can't use other services. Just that they can't use other services owned by companies they directly compete with, thus giving those companies vast amounts of information about their current and future devices. That kinda seems reasonable to me.
Indeed, I think that LLVM's ability to create more symbolic representations of code that are easier to instrument and refactor during debugging are far more valuable than the pure speed. While LLVM is proving to be faster than the gcc/gdb toolchain in every metric from compile to runtime speed, that's not even its best selling point.
Since it is under a BSD-esque license, LLVM itself is definitely a candidate for being the "mainstream free and open development toolchain"; but only if the majority of real-world support scenarios don't involve proprietary actors taking advantage of that fact.
Perhaps ironically, though, it is exactly that aspect of LLVM that has led to LLVM's accelerated development. Apple has been contributing vast resources to it, and it is quickly replacing the gcc toolchain in MacOS and iOS development. I'm quite sure that the BSD license played a large role in Apple's decision to go the LLVM route. Apple has been using it internally for years as a way to create CPU vs GPU agnostic graphics code that can run on the best available hardware, and probably wouldn't want to have had to release that aspect of their work under GPL rules.
And you'd still be getting those same free rotary-dial phones today to hook up when/if they felt like it, and still need permission from them for each device you connected to your POTS line, once that device type had been cleared with AT&T.
They do, but if you want to use any of the functions for things like, say, UI, you need to use Objective-C at some point because their API is only in Objective-C.
Depends what you're doing. While UIKIt requires Objective-C, you can essentially go full-screen with a handful of lines of code and write directly to OpenGL from C for the rest. Thus, you could write a game that was 99.9% C/C++ with just a tiny stub to get you into the full-screen OpenGL.
It's called cooking the books. It's not profit or anything like that, it's how that people *think* profit is going.
Apple really is an insanely profitable company. Their margins are sky-high and the volume is high enough to get the top-tier of economies of scale. They pull in billions of dollars of actual cash profit per quarter. The P/E is about 20, which isn't astronomical (less than twice Microsoft's). This isn't some dot-com speculation-- Apple really is performing phenomenally well financially.
Apple is not even the people who violated the GPL-- it's the authors of the App who are distributing it (through Apple's store). Said authors are responsible, although I'm sure the FSF would love to go after Apple's deeper pockets instead.
Apple doesn't give App developers 1099's for the same reason-- Apple isn't selling; they are providing the marketplace infrastructure for the app developers to sell.
Re:OSI is getting exactly what they pushed
on
Why We Still Need OSI
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If you use the BSD license you end up with OSX and (I mean this as seriously as I can say it): fuck Apple. I think Apple is a great reason to never chose the BSD license.
Yeah! Fuck Apple! Fuck WebKit and the Chrome it rode in on! Fuck LLVM and clang! Fuck GrandCentralDispatch and their attempts at bringing us into the modern world of parallelism. Fuck the dozens and dozens of projects that Apple has spent their money contributing to.
Seriously, man, calm down. Apple is actually a perfect case study in why BSD-like licenses are a great thing for innovation and code sharing in the corporate world. Your Chrome browser running on your Android wouldn't be half so nice if not for Apple...
I recently toured the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab (where they're working on nuclear fusion research). The control center appeared to be mostly Macintoshes with a smattering of Windows and some kind of XWindows system (probably Linux).
Personally, I think the best thing you can do for a future scientist is give them a taste of several different systems. The very premise of enforcing homogeneity and a locked-down lab goes against the spirit of scientific exploration, IMHO, and will naturally lead to worse results.
Thus, my recommendation: iMacs with large screens and a virtualization system with XP, Win7, and Ubuntu images available.
The Flushing Remonstrance was the first example in this country (or, the territory that would become this country) of attempting to officially assert the "freedom of religion". It dealt with the right of Quakers to meet, who were not considered "Christians" by the local (Dutch) colonial government. The locals basically said they didn't care, and they didn't want anyone telling them that they could or couldn't meet or worship the way they wanted. It's actually fairly close in principle to the 1st amendment 100 years later.
This is very typical for Russian democracy: one wins in a shady election, "popularity" is the state-controlled media environment is totally BS.
My measure of democracy is not whether someone is elected into office, but elected out of office. So far Russia has yet to strip a President of their power via an election, so I'm still withholding my opinion on whether it's a democracy.
--- I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
I find Slashdot far more tolerable with Funny set to -5 as well.
Actually, no, it wasn't known for awhile. Apple pulled 64-bit Carbon support a few months before release. Prior to that they had explicitly stated that 64-bits would be supported in Carbon, and had even had an entire session on it at the preceding WWDC. I'm not saying that Adobe didn't drag their feet too long in porting to Cocoa, but Apples notoriously bad future roadmap communication is what held 64-bit Photoshop back. You can't change gears on a project like that in a few months.
Adobe still hasn't gone to Cocoa with CS5. Its part of the reason why CS5 isn't 64bit on OS X.
Actually that entire sentence is the opposite of true. Adobe did go to Cocoa with CS5 which is why it is 64-bit on OSX. The reason CS4 wasn't 64-bit is because Adobe believed Apple when they promised a 64-bit Carbon API, then wasn't prepared when Apple reneged less than a year later at the last minute.
I'm guessing this still means no adblock plus and no noscript for Chrome? Without those I have no interest.
Yes, does it also let you steal from online stores, take money from other people's bank accounts, misappropriate bandwidth you haven't paid for or pirate software, too? Without that I'm not interested either.
Pretty much, although usually "unknown" replaces "maybe". It's isn't that uncommon to have Boolean objects in Java that are either true, false, or null (unassigned). It's kind of the boolean version of NAN.
Re:Keep hating Microsoft while Apple goes unchecke
on
Apple To Buy ARM?
·
· Score: 1
But we all let Apple get away with murder.
Huh? Slashdot in particular is very anti-Apple these days compared to the public at large. The public likes them because they make great products that are very useful. Some developers like them because they allow clear monetization of all sorts of previously murky business areas. Other developers hate them because they're controlling bastards and hate freedom.
But I'm not sure what Apple is doing that Microsoft isn't. Windows Phone 7 is almost exactly like iPhone OS 2.x from a couple years ago, and Microsoft seems perfectly willing to lock things down just as much whenever they can get away with it.
This has nothing to do with the current and prospective feature set of the iPad, iPod Touch, or iPhone. It relates only to the features available to the developers on those systems. This article does not discuss Flash in a browser or embedded web content, but rather Flash as a development environment that can be compiled down to native iPhoneOS binaries. So it really only matters to developers of existing Flash games who want to port their content to the iPhone easily. Given the market share of the App Store in the mobile space, though, my guess is it won't put much of a dent in app availability, and thus not affect end-users at all.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know the details of Anobit's technology, but it sure sounds like they are, essentially, adding Forward Error Correction to the written data. Thus, even if the data you get back is a little garbled you can detect how garbled it is and recover the original signal if it's not TOO garbled. You lose some percentage of your capacity, but, like RAID, you can use more cheaper parts to provide the same effective capacity cheaper.
It sounds like a clever and retroactively obvious thing to do-- I wonder if they've patented it and how much Slashdot will scream if they did.
Does it make a difference that it's 1W of blue light as opposed to red light? I'm not exactly sure how laser power is measured... I assume 1W of blue would require fewer but more energetic photons than 1W of red.
How is this different from what Apple has had it in their shipping products for years? Unless Microsoft is going to claim that the entirety of MacOS X is a "small testbed".
Fortunately, that's not what the stock market is intended to be. It's a tool to enable valuation and exchange. And in that sense this algorithm is fulfilling the market's purpose beautifully. If you want the market to be as efficient as possible, it seems like this algorithm helps the market reach new equilibriums faster and thus represent a more accurate valuation of listed assets.
(It's clear to see that the market is not a tool to enable investment because when you buy a share of a company no money is exchanged with said company, and it's not a tool for growth because the stock price of a company has little effect on its growth... in theory the causal effect should in fact be the other way around.)
Actually, the vast majority of their products are some combination of open and closed source. Their operating system kernel is completely open source, as is the core of their browser (which has since become the core of a large number of other browsers) and JavaScript engine. Their WebDAV and CalDAV implementations are rather nice and they've open-sourced those. They contribute quite a lot to LLVM and created clang as a front-end to it, thus giving the open source community a choice besides the gcc toolchain. They open-sourced their new "FaceTime" video conferencing implementation. Bonjour, Quicktime Streaming Server, Grand Central Dispatch (along with the blocks extension to C), and a zillion contributions to smaller projects.
In general, Apple contributes more man-hours of development into open source than most companies that are given the "open source" label. But because they don't toe the FSF line and prefer BSD to GPL, a lot of the "free" software folks try to make it seen like Apple is some sort of draconian force in the FOSS community.
Except that Microsoft has two software monopolies: Desktop/laptop operating systems and business office software. What monopolies does Apple have? The iPod, which isn't a software platform. Apple doesn't even have a majority, let alone a monopoly, in any of their most profitable businesses.
Besides, Apple isn't telling developers they can't use other services. Just that they can't use other services owned by companies they directly compete with, thus giving those companies vast amounts of information about their current and future devices. That kinda seems reasonable to me.
Indeed, I think that LLVM's ability to create more symbolic representations of code that are easier to instrument and refactor during debugging are far more valuable than the pure speed. While LLVM is proving to be faster than the gcc/gdb toolchain in every metric from compile to runtime speed, that's not even its best selling point.
Perhaps ironically, though, it is exactly that aspect of LLVM that has led to LLVM's accelerated development. Apple has been contributing vast resources to it, and it is quickly replacing the gcc toolchain in MacOS and iOS development. I'm quite sure that the BSD license played a large role in Apple's decision to go the LLVM route. Apple has been using it internally for years as a way to create CPU vs GPU agnostic graphics code that can run on the best available hardware, and probably wouldn't want to have had to release that aspect of their work under GPL rules.
And you'd still be getting those same free rotary-dial phones today to hook up when/if they felt like it, and still need permission from them for each device you connected to your POTS line, once that device type had been cleared with AT&T.
Depends what you're doing. While UIKIt requires Objective-C, you can essentially go full-screen with a handful of lines of code and write directly to OpenGL from C for the rest. Thus, you could write a game that was 99.9% C/C++ with just a tiny stub to get you into the full-screen OpenGL.
It's roughly the same as the iPad (9" @ 1024x768 color) which has quickly become the benchmark for such things.
Yes. Here's a good guide on what to do.
Apple really is an insanely profitable company. Their margins are sky-high and the volume is high enough to get the top-tier of economies of scale. They pull in billions of dollars of actual cash profit per quarter. The P/E is about 20, which isn't astronomical (less than twice Microsoft's). This isn't some dot-com speculation-- Apple really is performing phenomenally well financially.
Apple is not even the people who violated the GPL-- it's the authors of the App who are distributing it (through Apple's store). Said authors are responsible, although I'm sure the FSF would love to go after Apple's deeper pockets instead.
Apple doesn't give App developers 1099's for the same reason-- Apple isn't selling; they are providing the marketplace infrastructure for the app developers to sell.
Yeah! Fuck Apple! Fuck WebKit and the Chrome it rode in on! Fuck LLVM and clang! Fuck GrandCentralDispatch and their attempts at bringing us into the modern world of parallelism. Fuck the dozens and dozens of projects that Apple has spent their money contributing to.
Seriously, man, calm down. Apple is actually a perfect case study in why BSD-like licenses are a great thing for innovation and code sharing in the corporate world. Your Chrome browser running on your Android wouldn't be half so nice if not for Apple...
I recently toured the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab (where they're working on nuclear fusion research). The control center appeared to be mostly Macintoshes with a smattering of Windows and some kind of XWindows system (probably Linux).
Personally, I think the best thing you can do for a future scientist is give them a taste of several different systems. The very premise of enforcing homogeneity and a locked-down lab goes against the spirit of scientific exploration, IMHO, and will naturally lead to worse results.
Thus, my recommendation: iMacs with large screens and a virtualization system with XP, Win7, and Ubuntu images available.
The Flushing Remonstrance was the first example in this country (or, the territory that would become this country) of attempting to officially assert the "freedom of religion". It dealt with the right of Quakers to meet, who were not considered "Christians" by the local (Dutch) colonial government. The locals basically said they didn't care, and they didn't want anyone telling them that they could or couldn't meet or worship the way they wanted. It's actually fairly close in principle to the 1st amendment 100 years later.
My measure of democracy is not whether someone is elected into office, but elected out of office. So far Russia has yet to strip a President of their power via an election, so I'm still withholding my opinion on whether it's a democracy.
I find Slashdot far more tolerable with Funny set to -5 as well.
Actually, no, it wasn't known for awhile. Apple pulled 64-bit Carbon support a few months before release. Prior to that they had explicitly stated that 64-bits would be supported in Carbon, and had even had an entire session on it at the preceding WWDC. I'm not saying that Adobe didn't drag their feet too long in porting to Cocoa, but Apples notoriously bad future roadmap communication is what held 64-bit Photoshop back. You can't change gears on a project like that in a few months.
Actually that entire sentence is the opposite of true. Adobe did go to Cocoa with CS5 which is why it is 64-bit on OSX. The reason CS4 wasn't 64-bit is because Adobe believed Apple when they promised a 64-bit Carbon API, then wasn't prepared when Apple reneged less than a year later at the last minute.
Yes, does it also let you steal from online stores, take money from other people's bank accounts, misappropriate bandwidth you haven't paid for or pirate software, too? Without that I'm not interested either.
Pretty much, although usually "unknown" replaces "maybe". It's isn't that uncommon to have Boolean objects in Java that are either true, false, or null (unassigned). It's kind of the boolean version of NAN.
Huh? Slashdot in particular is very anti-Apple these days compared to the public at large. The public likes them because they make great products that are very useful. Some developers like them because they allow clear monetization of all sorts of previously murky business areas. Other developers hate them because they're controlling bastards and hate freedom.
But I'm not sure what Apple is doing that Microsoft isn't. Windows Phone 7 is almost exactly like iPhone OS 2.x from a couple years ago, and Microsoft seems perfectly willing to lock things down just as much whenever they can get away with it.
This has nothing to do with the current and prospective feature set of the iPad, iPod Touch, or iPhone. It relates only to the features available to the developers on those systems. This article does not discuss Flash in a browser or embedded web content, but rather Flash as a development environment that can be compiled down to native iPhoneOS binaries. So it really only matters to developers of existing Flash games who want to port their content to the iPhone easily. Given the market share of the App Store in the mobile space, though, my guess is it won't put much of a dent in app availability, and thus not affect end-users at all.