Either way, Nokia and its shareholders seem to have gotten royally screwed in the process.
Microsoft paid Nokia over $7B for the acquisition. Even now NOK is well over its price before the deal was announced. I made a tidy profit selling NOK back in late 2013.
Yes, it's true, natural gas has seeped into well water ever since people have dug wells. And fracking is done far below the water table. However, there have been some instances of the well cement casing being compromised and gas escaping into the water as it's being pumped out.
There's no free lunch when it comes to energy production. Even for renewables. The solution isn't to ban all fracking, it's to keep it regulated so failures such as I described above can be kept to a minimum.
I take it you've never written cross-platform code for MacOS? There's a lot of things like memory management, for one, that you'd want to use Obj-C for. By the time you've done all the "required proprietary API" changes, you'd have been better off just writing the whole thing in Obj-C. Not only would it save dev time, the end product would be a lot more stable and have better overall performance, but I guess it depends on what trade-offs you're willing to accept.
Cross platform Obj-C? You mean with GNUStep? I have never used it. Have only written Obj-C in Xcode. As far as memory management, C++ has smart pointers, including one that does reference counting. Why would the performance be better with Obj-C?
Although my experience with Obj-C is more limited I find it more painful to use than C++.
We tried this. It turned out to be not much fun. (Thought maybe we weren't doing it right).
To be fair, my experience with this was taking a Windows/Mac OSX program written by predominately C++ programmers and porting it to iOS and Android. The C++ code was already well debugged.
Threading is usually a big concern. In Objective-C/C/Swift tools like grand-central dispatch make this easy, however in C++ its p-threads. C++11 has threads, but this isn't supported by Android yet.
The native environment give you an API of libraries and a community of open-source projects to fill in the gaps. With C++ you have identify and source your own stack. Poco or boost. etc.
Boost assuredly. It's what has been incorporated into C++11 and makes up the bulk of its new features(e.g. you mentioned threading).
"Swift will not only supplant Objective-C when it comes to developing apps for the Mac, iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, and devices to come, but it will also replace C for embedded programming on Apple platforms."
Not if you want to write something that compiles on other platforms. With Android/iOS being based on Linux/BSD it could very well make sense to write the back end of your app in C/C++ and only then branch into a different language as required by the GUI framework and other required proprietary APIs you'll be using.
Voters were told in 2008 that the project would cost $39 billion. Now Gov. Brown says it will cost $69 billion. And it's still over a decade away. Under the bond measure the state isn't allowed to subsidize the operation of the project. It must be covered by the fares. Since there is so much uncertainty about the cost of the project it makes no sense to try to guess the cost of a ticket.
Even the National Highway Traffic Administration says measured active THC levels can't be correlated with impairment:
"It is difficult to establish a relationship between a person's THC blood or plasma concentration and performance impairing effects... It is inadvisable to try and predict effects based on blood THC concentrations alone." - http://www.businessinsider.com...
Also, given the difference in absorption rates between edibles and smoking, it's possible for someone who ate it to be more impaired but give a lower reading than someone who smoked it. - http://www.theverge.com/2012/1...
Boosting a fission bomb entails injecting tritium-deuterium gas into the center of a plutonium core implosion design before detonation. It boost the yield 2x to 2.5x. If an entity can build a reactor to create plutonium then it can create hydrogen isotopes. It would be easier for a clandestine terrorist group to figure out how to steal enough enriched uranium and build a gun bomb then steal enough plutonium to make an implosion bomb. Enriched uranium is safe to handle and figuring out a gun design easier to do. Little Boy was a gun design and didn't need a live test before being dropped on Hiroshima. As everybody has pointed out, if this world ever gets to the point where tritium-deuterium gas are produced in large enough amounts where theft is a worry so much time will have gone past that the world will be a very different place.
Alopecia universalis is a rare autoimmune disorder, and it's understandable that a drug that works on a pathway to alleviate arthritis could also work for it. The more common male pattern baldness is caused by the sensitivity of certain hair follicles to androgens, specifically testosterone and its more active form dihydrotestosterone. It's unknown why some hair follicles respond to it by growing hair(think chest hair) and others miniaturize until the hair is nearly invisible(think hairline and top of the head).
It's a receiver that doesn't require a power source, but to say change the channel on a TV, it needs to be connected to some sort of transmitter that DOES require a power source.
You see, you can put this device IN THE TV as part of it. Now you don't need a standard battery powered remote control.
Then what would be the point of it not requiring an external power source if it's built into something that does?
Also, "The prototype could correctly identify the gestures more than 90 percent of the time while performed more than 2 feet away from the device."
I prefer sitting much more than 2 feet from a TV. There are already powered hand gesture systems with much better range that can be built into a TV.
It's a receiver that doesn't require a power source, but to say change the channel on a TV, it needs to be connected to some sort of transmitter that DOES require a power source.
I first thought the genetic sequence of an organism would be the input to a hash function, but reading further that doesn't seem to be the case.
"Using Vinatzer's genome sequence, the Ames strain used in the bioterrorist attack would, for example, be known as lvlw0x and the ancestor of this strain stored at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases would be known as lvlwlx."
The output name would still show ancestry using identical values, when one of the key properties of a hash function is that small changes in the input result in a completely changed output.
IT/Software Development is one of the rare, if not unique, fields where people can be very paid well, the job market is currently hot, and one can learn everything from inexpensive books(or even free online courses) combined with motivation. It's positively egalitarian. If the premise had to do with medicine and law, where there's required expensive schooling and potential for a "good ol' boys" club atmosphere, then I'd find it more believable.
When I've interviewed for development positions where the person went to school was of little importance. In fact, our CTO(who has his BS and MS in CS from Stanford) even jokes that it's the people straight from academia that sometimes seem the most incompetent. The only things we care about are if you know your stuff and have some body of previous work you can point to and talk about. But then I work in Silicon Valley where a competent developer can pretty much write his own ticket right now.
My experience in commercial development the last 13 years had me working with females. They were almost always foreign born, often with English as a second language. Yes, it's mostly males, but a large part of them are East Asians and Indians, not all white males.
In short, the bar of entry in my experience is low as long as you're motivated and competent. Why aren't there more women? Look at practically every engineering and scientific accomplishment in human history. Are you going to tell it's just culture that has kept those accomplishments relegated almost entirely to men?
Use sockets. In majority of cases the performance is more than good enough, especially if designed properly, and you get network transparency "for free". Sure there are cases where sockets are not appropriate, but IMHO they are far too seldom used.
Seems obvious to me. I, like many others, live in an apartment. My parking spot doesn't have an electrical outlet anywhere nearby, and neither does my office parking lot.
On the surface these comparisons are interesting but when you understand how these systems were designed you'll see it's not accurate. Curiosity is an example of an embedded system. The code that runs on it is only meant to operate the rover and its instruments. Comparing its hardware to a general purpose computer meant to run various applications is flawed. And because their purposes are different so are their operating systems.
The last time I read about VxWorks and a Mars rover had to do with Pathfinder. They had some problems with the rover randomly rebooting once it was on Mars and had to debug it. The problem turned out to be a classic example of priority inversion.
. unless you just dedicate one to each process (not to each thread - that opens up problems with cache and data consistency).
How so? Any issues with cache consistency have to do with each core having their own L1/L2 caches but sharing the same memory. This is what hardware based cache coherence protocols like MESI were invented for and have nothing to with running multiple processes vs. multiple threads. Are you're referring to the fact that threads in the same process share the same address space? There has to be care taken to serialize access to critical sections(such as using a lock based on a mutex), and while blocking threads at critical sections can be detrimental to performance by reducing parallelism, the OS scheduler can just as effectively schedule multiple threads in one process to run on multiple cores as it can schedule a single thread in multiple processes. Multiple processes require the same sort of serialization for accessing shared memory between them. The difference between the two is how the MMU is used to configure address spaces, not scheduling.
Nokia: it must be solid as a rock, work for 10,000 years, and the interface must exist. If it is convenient, that is a bonus, but not important.
This was the old way; you are now out of date. Nokia has sold all of it's old factories (e.g Salo) where quality ruled. It is no longer using the Finnish design guys who were insisting on Scandinavian quality. It's now designed in the US and built in China by Foxconn (and that's the top end phones).
You obviously never spent time with a recent Lumia. The 800 and 900 phones have the sturdiest build quality of any recent smart phone, including the iPhone.
Slashdot Mirror
I always pick item[0]
Either way, Nokia and its shareholders seem to have gotten royally screwed in the process.
Microsoft paid Nokia over $7B for the acquisition. Even now NOK is well over its price before the deal was announced. I made a tidy profit selling NOK back in late 2013.
Yes, it's true, natural gas has seeped into well water ever since people have dug wells. And fracking is done far below the water table. However, there have been some instances of the well cement casing being compromised and gas escaping into the water as it's being pumped out.
There's no free lunch when it comes to energy production. Even for renewables. The solution isn't to ban all fracking, it's to keep it regulated so failures such as I described above can be kept to a minimum.
I take it you've never written cross-platform code for MacOS? There's a lot of things like memory management, for one, that you'd want to use Obj-C for. By the time you've done all the "required proprietary API" changes, you'd have been better off just writing the whole thing in Obj-C. Not only would it save dev time, the end product would be a lot more stable and have better overall performance, but I guess it depends on what trade-offs you're willing to accept.
Cross platform Obj-C? You mean with GNUStep? I have never used it. Have only written Obj-C in Xcode. As far as memory management, C++ has smart pointers, including one that does reference counting. Why would the performance be better with Obj-C?
Although my experience with Obj-C is more limited I find it more painful to use than C++.
We tried this. It turned out to be not much fun. (Thought maybe we weren't doing it right).
To be fair, my experience with this was taking a Windows/Mac OSX program written by predominately C++ programmers and porting it to iOS and Android. The C++ code was already well debugged.
Threading is usually a big concern. In Objective-C/C/Swift tools like grand-central dispatch make this easy, however in C++ its p-threads. C++11 has threads, but this isn't supported by Android yet.
The native environment give you an API of libraries and a community of open-source projects to fill in the gaps. With C++ you have identify and source your own stack. Poco or boost. etc.
Boost assuredly. It's what has been incorporated into C++11 and makes up the bulk of its new features(e.g. you mentioned threading).
"Swift will not only supplant Objective-C when it comes to developing apps for the Mac, iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, and devices to come, but it will also replace C for embedded programming on Apple platforms."
Not if you want to write something that compiles on other platforms. With Android/iOS being based on Linux/BSD it could very well make sense to write the back end of your app in C/C++ and only then branch into a different language as required by the GUI framework and other required proprietary APIs you'll be using.
Voters were told in 2008 that the project would cost $39 billion. Now Gov. Brown says it will cost $69 billion. And it's still over a decade away. Under the bond measure the state isn't allowed to subsidize the operation of the project. It must be covered by the fares. Since there is so much uncertainty about the cost of the project it makes no sense to try to guess the cost of a ticket.
He could have placed restrictions on my uncle Leon's methane emissions after Thanksgiving dinner.
Even the National Highway Traffic Administration says measured active THC levels can't be correlated with impairment:
"It is difficult to establish a relationship between a person's THC blood or plasma concentration and performance impairing effects ... It is inadvisable to try and predict effects based on blood THC concentrations alone." - http://www.businessinsider.com...
Also, given the difference in absorption rates between edibles and smoking, it's possible for someone who ate it to be more impaired but give a lower reading than someone who smoked it. - http://www.theverge.com/2012/1...
Boosting a fission bomb entails injecting tritium-deuterium gas into the center of a plutonium core implosion design before detonation. It boost the yield 2x to 2.5x. If an entity can build a reactor to create plutonium then it can create hydrogen isotopes. It would be easier for a clandestine terrorist group to figure out how to steal enough enriched uranium and build a gun bomb then steal enough plutonium to make an implosion bomb. Enriched uranium is safe to handle and figuring out a gun design easier to do. Little Boy was a gun design and didn't need a live test before being dropped on Hiroshima. As everybody has pointed out, if this world ever gets to the point where tritium-deuterium gas are produced in large enough amounts where theft is a worry so much time will have gone past that the world will be a very different place.
Just like I was when Chris Christie's own lawyers wrote up with a report exonerating him of Bridgegate.
Alopecia universalis is a rare autoimmune disorder, and it's understandable that a drug that works on a pathway to alleviate arthritis could also work for it. The more common male pattern baldness is caused by the sensitivity of certain hair follicles to androgens, specifically testosterone and its more active form dihydrotestosterone. It's unknown why some hair follicles respond to it by growing hair(think chest hair) and others miniaturize until the hair is nearly invisible(think hairline and top of the head).
It's a receiver that doesn't require a power source, but to say change the channel on a TV, it needs to be connected to some sort of transmitter that DOES require a power source.
You see, you can put this device IN THE TV as part of it. Now you don't need a standard battery powered remote control.
Then what would be the point of it not requiring an external power source if it's built into something that does?
Also, "The prototype could correctly identify the gestures more than 90 percent of the time while performed more than 2 feet away from the device."
I prefer sitting much more than 2 feet from a TV. There are already powered hand gesture systems with much better range that can be built into a TV.
Wow, that sure took a lot of thought!
Obviously it didn't.
It's a receiver that doesn't require a power source, but to say change the channel on a TV, it needs to be connected to some sort of transmitter that DOES require a power source.
Not if you need to actually debug it.
Randomising in the way a true hash does is of no real value.
There's nothing random about a hash function. It has to be deterministic; the same input will always result in the same output.
I first thought the genetic sequence of an organism would be the input to a hash function, but reading further that doesn't seem to be the case.
"Using Vinatzer's genome sequence, the Ames strain used in the bioterrorist attack would, for example, be known as lvlw0x and the ancestor of this strain stored at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases would be known as lvlwlx."
The output name would still show ancestry using identical values, when one of the key properties of a hash function is that small changes in the input result in a completely changed output.
What a moronic idea.
How about a demo of Jay Miner demoing the Amiga 1000?
IT/Software Development is one of the rare, if not unique, fields where people can be very paid well, the job market is currently hot, and one can learn everything from inexpensive books(or even free online courses) combined with motivation. It's positively egalitarian. If the premise had to do with medicine and law, where there's required expensive schooling and potential for a "good ol' boys" club atmosphere, then I'd find it more believable.
When I've interviewed for development positions where the person went to school was of little importance. In fact, our CTO(who has his BS and MS in CS from Stanford) even jokes that it's the people straight from academia that sometimes seem the most incompetent. The only things we care about are if you know your stuff and have some body of previous work you can point to and talk about. But then I work in Silicon Valley where a competent developer can pretty much write his own ticket right now.
My experience in commercial development the last 13 years had me working with females. They were almost always foreign born, often with English as a second language. Yes, it's mostly males, but a large part of them are East Asians and Indians, not all white males.
In short, the bar of entry in my experience is low as long as you're motivated and competent. Why aren't there more women? Look at practically every engineering and scientific accomplishment in human history. Are you going to tell it's just culture that has kept those accomplishments relegated almost entirely to men?
Use sockets. In majority of cases the performance is more than good enough, especially if designed properly, and you get network transparency "for free".
Sure there are cases where sockets are not appropriate, but IMHO they are far too seldom used.
At that point one might as well go with RPC.
Seems obvious to me. I, like many others, live in an apartment. My parking spot doesn't have an electrical outlet anywhere nearby, and neither does my office parking lot.
On the surface these comparisons are interesting but when you understand how these systems were designed you'll see it's not accurate. Curiosity is an example of an embedded system. The code that runs on it is only meant to operate the rover and its instruments. Comparing its hardware to a general purpose computer meant to run various applications is flawed. And because their purposes are different so are their operating systems.
The last time I read about VxWorks and a Mars rover had to do with Pathfinder. They had some problems with the rover randomly rebooting once it was on Mars and had to debug it. The problem turned out to be a classic example of priority inversion.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/raj/www/mars.html
. unless you just dedicate one to each process (not to each thread - that opens up problems with cache and data consistency).
How so? Any issues with cache consistency have to do with each core having their own L1/L2 caches but sharing the same memory. This is what hardware based cache coherence protocols like MESI were invented for and have nothing to with running multiple processes vs. multiple threads. Are you're referring to the fact that threads in the same process share the same address space? There has to be care taken to serialize access to critical sections(such as using a lock based on a mutex), and while blocking threads at critical sections can be detrimental to performance by reducing parallelism, the OS scheduler can just as effectively schedule multiple threads in one process to run on multiple cores as it can schedule a single thread in multiple processes. Multiple processes require the same sort of serialization for accessing shared memory between them. The difference between the two is how the MMU is used to configure address spaces, not scheduling.
Nokia: it must be solid as a rock, work for 10,000 years, and the interface must exist. If it is convenient, that is a bonus, but not important.
This was the old way; you are now out of date. Nokia has sold all of it's old factories (e.g Salo) where quality ruled. It is no longer using the Finnish design guys who were insisting on Scandinavian quality. It's now designed in the US and built in China by Foxconn (and that's the top end phones).
You obviously never spent time with a recent Lumia. The 800 and 900 phones have the sturdiest build quality of any recent smart phone, including the iPhone.
http://www.knowyourmobile.com/blog/1385835/video_shows_nokia_lumia_900_will_survive_pretty_much_anything.html