However, European laws do not allow this, and I would assume Apple would want a worldwide patent lock, so this may be aimed at something they've not yet shown.
I have approximately zero interest in vi. I almost never need a text editor, and 90% of the time, when I need a text editor, I just use medit, which is the MATLAB-included text editor which has syntax-related highlighting and all that for the programming language I usually use.
The other 10% of the time I have to fight with Metrowerks' IDEs. Either way, vi is not really wanted.
(But I re-iterate - the problem with vi is that you can't exit it if you don't already know how, a problem most programs (even text based ones - look at nano/pico!!) have solved a long time ago).
My point is that any tool where you have to know how to get help in order to get it (and, I would argue, know how to exit in order to exit), has a broken interface.
Because if notepad is open, I can quit it easily and go open medit. This takes me about 2 seconds.
But if vi is open, I have to either flail at the keys trying to remember what the fucking exit sequence is, or just kill the job. Then I can go open medit. This takes me about 2 minutes.
Therefore, notepad is both more usable and more learnable!
Yes, yes, I'm used to c-t-f, because I use OSX and Windows, but for the way I work (generally maximized windows, alt-tabbing to change, because the applications I usually use NEED a lot of screen space (ECAD at work, music production at home)) ffm offers me no benefit at all, and mostly just annoys me.
One of the things a few of them (Mentor Graphics products do, maybe others?) do is mouse gestures, which I love. If you're an occasional user, they won't do you any good, but if you spend your life doing ECAD, you learn the 'strokes' (what they call gestures) you need to use.
They're spinning it off, actually, not selling it. Going to be called Freescale Semiconductor.
So, you could say Motorola is giving up on semiconductors... but the division that worked on the G4 will continue to work on PPC. Just under a different name.
They gave up on desktop PPC. They still do a lot of new PPCs, just working on improving MIPS/watt instead of pure MIPS. Embedded space is a lot higher volume and bigger profit than Apple.
Seriously? You lost me when you said "You shouldn't have to walk a few blocks". The correct statement is "You shouldn't have to walk more than roughly 1/4-1/3 mile to get to a station."
Expecting masstrans to show up at your door is silly. Expecting there to be a station within a reasonable walking distance (I define reasonable walking distance as a 5 minute walk, max) is reasonable.
Instead of a centralized system (more vulnerable to failure, privacy issues, so on, so forth) - the cars form an ad hoc mesh network. Each car knows how fast/high it can go, and they negotiate non-interfering routes. This eliminates all kinds of problems with central control, while maintaining the benefit of the cars knowing where other cars are without having to sense them. When a car wants to jump into the stream, it negotiates into the network, and grabs a slot to fly in.
If someone buys a stolen iPod on ebay, not knowing its stolen, and it were to report home "I was stolen", then the seller has committed a crime and the appropriate agencies can be used to trace the seller and retrieve the money. Meantime, the stolen iPod could be reunited with its owner.
And if it becomes known that a stolen iPod phones home, then the first thing a mugger *will* think of is "Damn, better not fire up iTunes." Criminals aren't all stupid.
I have heard of this quicksort, this sieve, this tree... but I don't think I could implement them in C, much less Simulink.:)
A linked list data structure I have implemented, and isn't hard to implement into Simulink, except that you would have to implement in MATLAB, the underlying textual language for Simulink, rendering the whole point null and void.
First off, its not meaningless, because the marginal cost of reproducing something illegally is a major determinant in how much illegal copying you see, and the fixed cost is meaningless in that domain. The reason you don't see rip-off Rolls Royce's is because making a rip-off Rolls would cost about as much as buying one.
And it isn't necessarily meaningless in other ways, and there is a single proof for that:
Linux. The fixed cost is paid in time and effort put in by volunteers, but for many portions of it, the fixed cost is underwritten by someone who needs the add-on and doesn't mind other people getting to use that add-on.
Beyond that point, your argument is based on hardware, where there is a FIXED and REAL cost of production per car. A S500 costs more to manufacture than an Accord; there's more physical parts in there. Of course they fold their R&D budget in; no one's going to buy that first Mercedes.
We're talking software, where the R&D cost is the only cost involved (neglecting that $0.01 cost to replicate the software, which is insignificant).
This cost has to be paid somehow, but there are circumstances where the fixed price is paid and the code is then made available freely; for one thing, this happens at universities ALL THE TIME.
The only entity that would see a benefit in not allowing others to make use of the software they caused to be created (with the reasonable expectation that others would behave similarly) is a competitive corporate entity whose competitors could derive significant benefit from that software. All other actors see no benefit in restricting use of that software, and often see utility in its release. Oh, and the company that wrote the software, they'd see benefit to keeping it secret.
That was long-winded and pro-Linux, which are quite different than how I usually operate. I must be reading too much Slashdot.
Your point about relative simplicity does not hold for complex MIMO control systems, and I find the computational models used in implementing robust control methods fairly challenging. I'm a controls person, so I don't necessarily have anything to compare it against. Simulink handles both of these circumstances well.
But even then, I understand your point - within restricted domains, I see uses, but as a general purpose setup? No.
We have 1 *reactor*, while the Soviets have ~35. These are true reactors, not RTGs. We have quite a few RTGs up there, but mostly we use them for deep space missions, so the number in earth orbit may be low.
RTGs do not provide power for all that long; they use fast-decaying isotopes, because they're powered by decay heat. However, an RTG can be made pretty much indestructible; not so for a true reactor.
Hopefully this was just you being mixed up, and not the Lockheed guy misleading the students.
Thinking back to the early 80s there has always been some well meaning salesman or other telling us that generic visual programming is just around the corner... yet I am still to see a single convincing example where, for example, a classic algorithm can be more easily or more clearly accurately specified in a graphical format than in a conventional textual language.
Simulink, in the uses of doing analysis for infinite-impulse-response (continuous time) filters, and also in the use of doing control system algorithm development.
Both of these are easy graphically, and (relatively) hard textually. Simulink can even be used, in some cases, for doing automatic code generation and providing run-ready code to embedded devices implementing the algorithm of your choice.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, within one year of first public release.
However, European laws do not allow this, and I would assume Apple would want a worldwide patent lock, so this may be aimed at something they've not yet shown.
I have approximately zero interest in vi. I almost never need a text editor, and 90% of the time, when I need a text editor, I just use medit, which is the MATLAB-included text editor which has syntax-related highlighting and all that for the programming language I usually use.
The other 10% of the time I have to fight with Metrowerks' IDEs. Either way, vi is not really wanted.
(But I re-iterate - the problem with vi is that you can't exit it if you don't already know how, a problem most programs (even text based ones - look at nano/pico!!) have solved a long time ago).
What if we prove that porn leads people to be less likely to, e.g., rape?
Do we then mandate that all men must watch their daily dose of Katja Kean getting her daily dose?
What a world it would be...
My point is that any tool where you have to know how to get help in order to get it (and, I would argue, know how to exit in order to exit), has a broken interface.
Therefore, vi has a broken interface.
Notepad is, of course, more usable than vi.
Because if notepad is open, I can quit it easily and go open medit. This takes me about 2 seconds.
But if vi is open, I have to either flail at the keys trying to remember what the fucking exit sequence is, or just kill the job. Then I can go open medit. This takes me about 2 minutes.
Therefore, notepad is both more usable and more learnable!
I hate focus follows mouse.
Yes, yes, I'm used to c-t-f, because I use OSX and Windows, but for the way I work (generally maximized windows, alt-tabbing to change, because the applications I usually use NEED a lot of screen space (ECAD at work, music production at home)) ffm offers me no benefit at all, and mostly just annoys me.
CAD programs have notoriously bad interfaces.
One of the things a few of them (Mentor Graphics products do, maybe others?) do is mouse gestures, which I love. If you're an occasional user, they won't do you any good, but if you spend your life doing ECAD, you learn the 'strokes' (what they call gestures) you need to use.
I love mouse gestures in Firefox too.
He works at a weed shelter and smokes homeless people.
He claims the winos are best; the stale alcohol smell really gets him off.
And $5,000,000 Canadian!
A brain.
Also, its a pitiful attempt at an April Fool's Joke. Of course, its slashdot, so the author probably thought they were being hilarious.
1) The G4 is not the only PPC. And for embedded, the G4 is far from the best choice. Nice try.
2) No knowledge, but wouldn't surprise me.
3) They do okay in my application segment (automotive embedded). Not great, but okay.
4) I don't work there, so no knowledge.
None of this changes my point: Motorola still produces and actively develops PPC.
They're spinning it off, actually, not selling it. Going to be called Freescale Semiconductor.
So, you could say Motorola is giving up on semiconductors... but the division that worked on the G4 will continue to work on PPC. Just under a different name.
Motorola didn't give up on PPC.
They gave up on desktop PPC. They still do a lot of new PPCs, just working on improving MIPS/watt instead of pure MIPS. Embedded space is a lot higher volume and bigger profit than Apple.
Seriously? You lost me when you said "You shouldn't have to walk a few blocks". The correct statement is "You shouldn't have to walk more than roughly 1/4-1/3 mile to get to a station."
Expecting masstrans to show up at your door is silly. Expecting there to be a station within a reasonable walking distance (I define reasonable walking distance as a 5 minute walk, max) is reasonable.
Alternately;
Instead of a centralized system (more vulnerable to failure, privacy issues, so on, so forth) - the cars form an ad hoc mesh network. Each car knows how fast/high it can go, and they negotiate non-interfering routes. This eliminates all kinds of problems with central control, while maintaining the benefit of the cars knowing where other cars are without having to sense them. When a car wants to jump into the stream, it negotiates into the network, and grabs a slot to fly in.
How about radar?
If it detects an object moving into its path - ANY object - it slows down and moves to avoid hitting it.
You don't really think the car companies would be so *stupid* as to not let their self-driving cars look to the sides, do you?
(For the record, I work for an automotive supplier, and we're working on these sorts of technologies.)
If someone buys a stolen iPod on ebay, not knowing its stolen, and it were to report home "I was stolen", then the seller has committed a crime and the appropriate agencies can be used to trace the seller and retrieve the money. Meantime, the stolen iPod could be reunited with its owner.
And if it becomes known that a stolen iPod phones home, then the first thing a mugger *will* think of is "Damn, better not fire up iTunes." Criminals aren't all stupid.
An iPod can be loaded with music without using iTunes.
Check ephPod.
I have heard of this quicksort, this sieve, this tree... but I don't think I could implement them in C, much less Simulink. :)
A linked list data structure I have implemented, and isn't hard to implement into Simulink, except that you would have to implement in MATLAB, the underlying textual language for Simulink, rendering the whole point null and void.
First off, its not meaningless, because the marginal cost of reproducing something illegally is a major determinant in how much illegal copying you see, and the fixed cost is meaningless in that domain. The reason you don't see rip-off Rolls Royce's is because making a rip-off Rolls would cost about as much as buying one.
And it isn't necessarily meaningless in other ways, and there is a single proof for that:
Linux. The fixed cost is paid in time and effort put in by volunteers, but for many portions of it, the fixed cost is underwritten by someone who needs the add-on and doesn't mind other people getting to use that add-on.
Beyond that point, your argument is based on hardware, where there is a FIXED and REAL cost of production per car. A S500 costs more to manufacture than an Accord; there's more physical parts in there. Of course they fold their R&D budget in; no one's going to buy that first Mercedes.
We're talking software, where the R&D cost is the only cost involved (neglecting that $0.01 cost to replicate the software, which is insignificant).
This cost has to be paid somehow, but there are circumstances where the fixed price is paid and the code is then made available freely; for one thing, this happens at universities ALL THE TIME.
The only entity that would see a benefit in not allowing others to make use of the software they caused to be created (with the reasonable expectation that others would behave similarly) is a competitive corporate entity whose competitors could derive significant benefit from that software. All other actors see no benefit in restricting use of that software, and often see utility in its release. Oh, and the company that wrote the software, they'd see benefit to keeping it secret.
That was long-winded and pro-Linux, which are quite different than how I usually operate. I must be reading too much Slashdot.
Your point about relative simplicity does not hold for complex MIMO control systems, and I find the computational models used in implementing robust control methods fairly challenging. I'm a controls person, so I don't necessarily have anything to compare it against. Simulink handles both of these circumstances well.
But even then, I understand your point - within restricted domains, I see uses, but as a general purpose setup? No.
You're mixed up.
We have 1 *reactor*, while the Soviets have ~35. These are true reactors, not RTGs. We have quite a few RTGs up there, but mostly we use them for deep space missions, so the number in earth orbit may be low.
RTGs do not provide power for all that long; they use fast-decaying isotopes, because they're powered by decay heat. However, an RTG can be made pretty much indestructible; not so for a true reactor.
Hopefully this was just you being mixed up, and not the Lockheed guy misleading the students.
Your grasp of actual economics is marginal.
Software has a (close to) zero marginal production cost, and a high fixed production cost.
I.E. Copy #1 costs $10 million. Copy's #2 through infinity cost $.50 (cost of printing CD, box, and manuals).
Is it impossible that grandparent was referring to the marginal cost?
Thinking back to the early 80s there has always been some well meaning salesman or other telling us that generic visual programming is just around the corner... yet I am still to see a single convincing example where, for example, a classic algorithm can be more easily or more clearly accurately specified in a graphical format than in a conventional textual language.
Simulink, in the uses of doing analysis for infinite-impulse-response (continuous time) filters, and also in the use of doing control system algorithm development.
Both of these are easy graphically, and (relatively) hard textually. Simulink can even be used, in some cases, for doing automatic code generation and providing run-ready code to embedded devices implementing the algorithm of your choice.
This is a special case, though.
No.
A Mac inside an apple. You know. The fruit?