They have a good software development history as many other companies, they just don't have the lead on it. Although a case can be made for their almost hegemony in the high end processor technology and market, the same can hardly be said in any software market I am aware of.
I disagree. Applications can be easily installed locally and you gain nothing by running them from the cloud. It is handy, sometimes, to install them from a remote repository, or to synch your devices through such a repository, but running it from the cloud is only useful for the cloud owner, who can make money by renting you the "service" or sending you ads, for example. For you there won't be any advantages at all compared to just installing such applications in your device.
A local application will always be faster more reliable and won't make you overuse your data plan limits in a mobile device without any good motive. You can synch and install very quickly all your applications from markets like iTunes and Google Play with exactly the same trouble you would have to access the remote "service", with the notable exception that you need to do it only once.
Remote storage and synchronization do justify centralized structures (at least for small amounts of non critical data), but the subject in hand, which we are discussing in this thread, is the shift in active tasks to the Cloud in a similar way we had with mainframes in the past.
I was around back then, and mainframes died because processing power became cheap, and the economic advantages of using dumb terminals became non existent, while the disadvantages of having to exchange larger and larger amounts of data and concentrating the processing power of more and more endpoints in a single node became greater and greater.
Today we have enough processing power in about any end user device to perform the great majority of tasks I can think about. There is simply no point in relaying the task to a centralized cloud. It just wastes resources, makes things slower and dependent on online connections that are not always there and gives absolute control over your data to third parties. Cloud structure is just plain stupid and as the use escalates it will collapse on its own, because it is not sustainable.
Which is how it should work, just backward. If a file is opened and you ask the system to eject the media the file should be forcibly closed and the media should be ejected, after at most a confirmation (preferably one that can be switched off by default).
Well, if they won't contribute because they don't want to be forced to share, I highly doubt they will do it in any meaningful way from good will when they are not. So let those who don't want to share develop their proprietary solutions themselves with their own resources without making use of the combined efforts of those who are willing to share. That is fair and in this case they should and are entitled to do whatever they want with the results of their efforts.
Yes, because it is way easier to do all the processing in a central place, overtaxing its capacity and creating a lot of escalation problems, and then uselessly throw away bandwidth transporting data from and back this place, instead of using the ridiculous amount of distributed processing power already existent to do the processing in the place it needs to be done...
Sure they do have the best technology in some areas, like processor manufacturing, there is no point in arguing that. But they do not have the lead in other areas, like software development, which is the relevant area for this discussion.
His point, which is a valid one is that if the license didn't force them too they most likely wouldn't, and therefore there is a very good motive for GPL licenses to exist.
That certainly happens. A lot of radical movements like Green Peace have done far more to hinder their causes than the other way around, for example. But those are two things that are not self-excluding. In-fighting and lack of focus because of ego and other misguided ideas certainly play a hand in making otherwise valid movements inane, but that has been so since the dawn of mankind. On the other hand what did change from then to now is the vast increase of power the governments have for propaganda and mass manipulation.
Sophistry is what you have been spilling in this thread since the beginning.
To learn is to absorb knowledge, what you infer from this knowledge varies from person to person, but there is a way to correct wrong conclusions and that is... more knowledge.
And I have to agree with at least one of your statements psychology as it is practiced by most professionals nowadays is indeed at best pseudo-science. Neurology is not, at least most of the time, but the field holds still too many unknowns to be able to reach the conclusions you want it to reach.
The comparison with Global Warming is valid to a point. The world will be warmer 50 years from now in these conditions, that much is scientifically provable. The term "much" on the other hand is a subjective word, and therefore makes your affirmation scientifically useless, at least until you define exactly what you mean by much. When you do we can then go ahead and you can try to prove with some degree of certainty that the warming will be within a reasonable range around your figure. You may or may not be able to do so regarding Global warming, but in the case you are trying to make relating exposure to violent scenes and negative effects on children nobody was able even to make a scientifically convincing theory, much less produce any prove that could survive scrutiny from other scientists.
And your links do absolutely nothing in refuting any of them.
1) Nobody has been able to offer any scientific proof that exposure to violence has any significant and negative effect on a "developing mind". You can find a thousand articles of psychologists saying that it "may be" and a thousand others disagreeing with this theory.
2) Nobody has been able to define in a objective way what is a "developing mind". There are differences between the cognitive process of a children and an adult, but there are as many differences between the cognitive process of a children and another children and an adult and another adult. By seeing only the former and ignoring the last you fall into a scientific bias. Even defining what is a "child" is subjective to be honest and varies from country to country and through time. Besides that the point is, no matter how different 2 minds are, there is still, by definition, only one kind of learning, and that consists in absorbing information, period. The way you deal with that information varies, from people to people, but age is just one of a myriad of factors that influence this process.
One of your links is just a bunch of half-assed opinions. Two are studies about violence that don't reach any meaningful conclusion beyond "may". That I can do as well: You may have a heart attack in the next 30 years. It is certainly possible. And do you know why they only go as far as say "may"? Because they don't have enough data to back up any further claims without being sued.
The last three of your links is even worse it has absolutely nothing to do with your attempt to champion censorship. They only describe theories about neurological development processes of infants and learning. One of them is about LEXICALISATION for gods sake and completely off topic.
I know you are on the ropes here to try and justify what cannot be logically justified, but come on, don't force it...
Oh, and regarding your "safe zones" please, tell me a single animal that prevents its offspring from seeing anything, and in special any sexual act (no matter how forceful or odd) the adults perpetrate. Please do tell me.
There isn't two kinds of learning, only one. You are not better, smarter, or even better prepared to deal with the unknown than your children, only your arrogance makes you think so. There is absolute no proof that seeing unusual sex pictures, playing violent games, watching action movies, or even porno movies do any harm at all to children, nor any data that even suggests it.
My parents never ever prohibited me from seeing and knowing anything, and I grew as a successful professional a husband and a father, even though I've been exposed to any sex and violence content (among any content at all) I bothered to look for since I can remember. In the same way there won't ever be any restrictions to what my children can or cannot see.
Knowledge is never harmful. Prejudice and ignorance are.
That is why massification is bad, but fear not, as the business model of the great media corporations dwindle people tastes and art consumption will fragment more and more, which is better for everybody, especially to the majority of the relatively unknown artists.
Our minds have to develop too. There are far more things I, you or any adult does not know than the things we know. Comparable to that the difference in knowledge between us and children is tiny.
Saying that children need to grow up in a bubble controlled by their parents is a ridiculous assumption based in absolutely no data to back it up. During thousands of years this excessive care never existed in human civilization and children were not in the slight affected by what you judge to be so deleterious in your prejudiced mind.
Your way of parenting is a suffocation, restrictive way of creating people unprepared to deal with the world around them. You think you are doing a favor to your children, but you are doing way more harm than good with your ways.
Apple certainly can deliver a desktop map service, but it is not their policy to open things and release it to non MacOS/iOS systems. Maybe this time they will open an exception, who knows. And I beg to disagree, but scope matters a lot. I spend far more time planning routes and finding places in my desktop than I do in my mobile phone, being able to interchange information between them is mandatory to me, and I bet I am not alone on this.
You and the poster above you miss the point. Google Map is not only usable from Android devices. It is usable from any desktop out there, and iOS device and any other operational system of any Internet able device mobile or not that I am aware of.
Apple can't compete with that with a service restricted only to their OS as it is usually its practice when developing anything. That is what the parent poster means.
Slashdot Mirror
They have a good software development history as many other companies, they just don't have the lead on it. Although a case can be made for their almost hegemony in the high end processor technology and market, the same can hardly be said in any software market I am aware of.
I disagree. Applications can be easily installed locally and you gain nothing by running them from the cloud. It is handy, sometimes, to install them from a remote repository, or to synch your devices through such a repository, but running it from the cloud is only useful for the cloud owner, who can make money by renting you the "service" or sending you ads, for example. For you there won't be any advantages at all compared to just installing such applications in your device.
A local application will always be faster more reliable and won't make you overuse your data plan limits in a mobile device without any good motive. You can synch and install very quickly all your applications from markets like iTunes and Google Play with exactly the same trouble you would have to access the remote "service", with the notable exception that you need to do it only once.
Remote storage and synchronization do justify centralized structures (at least for small amounts of non critical data), but the subject in hand, which we are discussing in this thread, is the shift in active tasks to the Cloud in a similar way we had with mainframes in the past.
I was around back then, and mainframes died because processing power became cheap, and the economic advantages of using dumb terminals became non existent, while the disadvantages of having to exchange larger and larger amounts of data and concentrating the processing power of more and more endpoints in a single node became greater and greater.
Today we have enough processing power in about any end user device to perform the great majority of tasks I can think about. There is simply no point in relaying the task to a centralized cloud. It just wastes resources, makes things slower and dependent on online connections that are not always there and gives absolute control over your data to third parties. Cloud structure is just plain stupid and as the use escalates it will collapse on its own, because it is not sustainable.
Which is how it should work, just backward. If a file is opened and you ask the system to eject the media the file should be forcibly closed and the media should be ejected, after at most a confirmation (preferably one that can be switched off by default).
Well, if they won't contribute because they don't want to be forced to share, I highly doubt they will do it in any meaningful way from good will when they are not. So let those who don't want to share develop their proprietary solutions themselves with their own resources without making use of the combined efforts of those who are willing to share. That is fair and in this case they should and are entitled to do whatever they want with the results of their efforts.
Yes, because it is way easier to do all the processing in a central place, overtaxing its capacity and creating a lot of escalation problems, and then uselessly throw away bandwidth transporting data from and back this place, instead of using the ridiculous amount of distributed processing power already existent to do the processing in the place it needs to be done...
Sure they do have the best technology in some areas, like processor manufacturing, there is no point in arguing that. But they do not have the lead in other areas, like software development, which is the relevant area for this discussion.
His point, which is a valid one is that if the license didn't force them too they most likely wouldn't, and therefore there is a very good motive for GPL licenses to exist.
That certainly happens. A lot of radical movements like Green Peace have done far more to hinder their causes than the other way around, for example. But those are two things that are not self-excluding. In-fighting and lack of focus because of ego and other misguided ideas certainly play a hand in making otherwise valid movements inane, but that has been so since the dawn of mankind. On the other hand what did change from then to now is the vast increase of power the governments have for propaganda and mass manipulation.
Or do the smart thing and look for girls in a place where offer and demand are not so skewed to the wrong side.
It is just because in US you don't need to kill the dissidents. It is easier just to discredit them, especially when you have big media on your side.
Suit yourself, my good sir. Everybody is free to hold to their dogmas, no matter how illogical they may be. I reckon it is more comfortable this way.
Sophistry is what you have been spilling in this thread since the beginning.
To learn is to absorb knowledge, what you infer from this knowledge varies from person to person, but there is a way to correct wrong conclusions and that is... more knowledge.
And I have to agree with at least one of your statements psychology as it is practiced by most professionals nowadays is indeed at best pseudo-science. Neurology is not, at least most of the time, but the field holds still too many unknowns to be able to reach the conclusions you want it to reach.
The comparison with Global Warming is valid to a point. The world will be warmer 50 years from now in these conditions, that much is scientifically provable. The term "much" on the other hand is a subjective word, and therefore makes your affirmation scientifically useless, at least until you define exactly what you mean by much. When you do we can then go ahead and you can try to prove with some degree of certainty that the warming will be within a reasonable range around your figure. You may or may not be able to do so regarding Global warming, but in the case you are trying to make relating exposure to violent scenes and negative effects on children nobody was able even to make a scientifically convincing theory, much less produce any prove that could survive scrutiny from other scientists.
And your links do absolutely nothing in refuting any of them.
1) Nobody has been able to offer any scientific proof that exposure to violence has any significant and negative effect on a "developing mind". You can find a thousand articles of psychologists saying that it "may be" and a thousand others disagreeing with this theory.
2) Nobody has been able to define in a objective way what is a "developing mind". There are differences between the cognitive process of a children and an adult, but there are as many differences between the cognitive process of a children and another children and an adult and another adult. By seeing only the former and ignoring the last you fall into a scientific bias. Even defining what is a "child" is subjective to be honest and varies from country to country and through time. Besides that the point is, no matter how different 2 minds are, there is still, by definition, only one kind of learning, and that consists in absorbing information, period. The way you deal with that information varies, from people to people, but age is just one of a myriad of factors that influence this process.
One of your links is just a bunch of half-assed opinions. Two are studies about violence that don't reach any meaningful conclusion beyond "may". That I can do as well: You may have a heart attack in the next 30 years. It is certainly possible. And do you know why they only go as far as say "may"? Because they don't have enough data to back up any further claims without being sued. The last three of your links is even worse it has absolutely nothing to do with your attempt to champion censorship. They only describe theories about neurological development processes of infants and learning. One of them is about LEXICALISATION for gods sake and completely off topic. I know you are on the ropes here to try and justify what cannot be logically justified, but come on, don't force it...
Oh, and regarding your "safe zones" please, tell me a single animal that prevents its offspring from seeing anything, and in special any sexual act (no matter how forceful or odd) the adults perpetrate. Please do tell me.
There isn't two kinds of learning, only one. You are not better, smarter, or even better prepared to deal with the unknown than your children, only your arrogance makes you think so. There is absolute no proof that seeing unusual sex pictures, playing violent games, watching action movies, or even porno movies do any harm at all to children, nor any data that even suggests it.
My parents never ever prohibited me from seeing and knowing anything, and I grew as a successful professional a husband and a father, even though I've been exposed to any sex and violence content (among any content at all) I bothered to look for since I can remember. In the same way there won't ever be any restrictions to what my children can or cannot see.
Knowledge is never harmful. Prejudice and ignorance are.
That is why massification is bad, but fear not, as the business model of the great media corporations dwindle people tastes and art consumption will fragment more and more, which is better for everybody, especially to the majority of the relatively unknown artists.
Do without helps absolutely nobody. If he won't buy a product anyways he helps nobody by not pirating it.
As I said above it is possible, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Our minds have to develop too. There are far more things I, you or any adult does not know than the things we know. Comparable to that the difference in knowledge between us and children is tiny. Saying that children need to grow up in a bubble controlled by their parents is a ridiculous assumption based in absolutely no data to back it up. During thousands of years this excessive care never existed in human civilization and children were not in the slight affected by what you judge to be so deleterious in your prejudiced mind. Your way of parenting is a suffocation, restrictive way of creating people unprepared to deal with the world around them. You think you are doing a favor to your children, but you are doing way more harm than good with your ways.
Apple certainly can deliver a desktop map service, but it is not their policy to open things and release it to non MacOS/iOS systems. Maybe this time they will open an exception, who knows. And I beg to disagree, but scope matters a lot. I spend far more time planning routes and finding places in my desktop than I do in my mobile phone, being able to interchange information between them is mandatory to me, and I bet I am not alone on this.
No it is not. You need to cache 2 regions around 2 points and you will have the whole island cached.
You and the poster above you miss the point. Google Map is not only usable from Android devices. It is usable from any desktop out there, and iOS device and any other operational system of any Internet able device mobile or not that I am aware of. Apple can't compete with that with a service restricted only to their OS as it is usually its practice when developing anything. That is what the parent poster means.