It's kind of difficult to give a fair trial to a guy who doesn't throw down his AK-47 when they come for him. OBL had zero interest in being taken alive. If killed by US troops, he would be a martyr. If taken alive, not so much.
That's massive for the tablet form factor. Various eReader fans claim that the iPad, at less than a pounds and a half, is far too heavy to be used comfortably.
Aside from which, it's mostly (but not entirely) pointless without (2).
It's one thing to be educated relative to automotive mechanics and another thing to be educated in anthropology just like it's one thing to be self-educated and another thing to be educated in an institution of some sort.
That said, in most fields, the odds of someone with a graduate degree in that field being better and more educated than someone who isn't are pretty high. There are exceptions. But they are just that, exceptions.
But making sense out of the numbers all depends on the question you're trying to ask.
If you're most interested in knowing that given that someone (a) is a liberal and (b) took the survey, what are the odds that they have a Mac vs. having a Windows machine, then you're way of presenting the numbers is more illumanitive.
But if you're most interested in knowing that given that someone (a) owns a Mac and (b) took the survey, what are the odds that they are a liberal vs. being a converative, then you're way of presenting the numbers isn't very illumanitive. In fact, it's a bit misleading.
So it isn't the numbers that are misleading. It's taking the numbers for the answer to a particular question that is misleading.
If you're absolutely convinced that sharp edges are a non-starter, go in the other direction. The design patent is for a device with a rectangular case with four uniformly rounded edges. The case could be trapezoidal or the corners could be non-uniform.
1. Ramping up production is not an easy thing if you want to keep an eye on quality control and only ramp up as much as you know you need to ramp up. Apple has the cash to ramp up to insane volumes. But they won't do that. Doing that would be idiocy. Far better to sell every device they make and slowly ramp up until they get to a point where they're only selling almost every device they make. That would appear to be what they're doing.
2. Other phones are catching up? Really? Name one model of smartphone that is selling anywhere close to the iPhone4 in terms of raw numbers.
3. Can't work around having rounded edges? Seriously? How about by having sharp edges?
4. I mostly agree with you on the issue of Oracle "already" doing what TFA says that Apple wants to do. It's really apples and oranges. For the most part, Apple doesn't care how much other phone manfacturers pay to license an OS. Why don't they care? Simple, Apple's profit margin is already higher per unit even when other companies get their OS for free. And, believe it or not, Apple doesn't really care about market share. What they care about is profits.
(PS. if Oracle wins against Google and other Android devs, the handset manufcturers that use Android will be next on the list.)
In the past few years, mobile devices have become predominantly consumer appliances rather than enterprise tools. And when they are used as enterprise tools, the users expect them to operate the same way as the consumer appliances that they're familiar with.
But I think that just makes life more difficult for Blackberry. I think the real issue is a corporate culture that takes its former success for granted and not staying lean and hungry. That happens to quite a few enterprises.
It didn't just access iTunes, it ran iTunes. Motorola licensed a fair bit of technology from Apple to make it work. Advertising ran the iTunes logo just as prominently as the Motorola logo and the music player looked identical to the iPod interface.
But it is true that RIM holds sole responsibility rather than responsibility being split between two companies (Moto and Apple). On the other hand, I think I recall TFA saying that the Playbook atually runs QNX.
In any case, they do need to fix something quick if they're going to be anything other than an also-ran.
We may do well to remember that the iPhone was the second iTunes branded phone. Apple's first phone was the Motorola ROKR.
That the ROKR was pants doesn't seem to have hurt Apple's later success with the iPhone. That the first edition of the Playbook is pants doesn't necessarily mean that the product line is dead in the water.
Now, one can certainly make the argument that given Blackberry's reputation, further generations are unlikely to be significantly better. But that's really a different argument.
If it is the case that print ads are still more profitable than web ads, then subtley encouraging people to get the print edition because it's cheaper increases revenues. Now, whether the the increased costs (printing and distribution of the paper edition) are greater than or less than the increased revenues is another question entirely.
In the late nineties, a Cincinnati Enquirer reporter wrote a series of articles about Chiquita Banana. Parts of the series alleged immoral and illegal practices on the part of Chiquita. Eventually, it came to light that the reporter in question had gained access to the voice mail of Chiquita executive officers. The Enquirer retracted the entire series of articles, going so far as to pull them from Gannett's electronic database (the Enquirer was owned by Gannett at the time) leaving print copies as the only record. The reporter was convicted of several crimes, fired and the Enquirer paid several millions of dollars to Chiquita.
Now, if the allegations of immoral and illegal conduct were true, is that really a good ending to the story? An investigative reporter had his career effectively ended, a large corporation had their record whitewashed in an Orwellian fasion, and a newspaper effectively agred to longer investigate allegations of illegal deeds by one of the largest produce companies in the US.
It seems to me that if the allegations were true, society is better off by them becoming public. And even if they weren't true, a case could be made that making the evidence public to allow informed citizens to make up their own mind serves the public interest.
In such cases, an organization like WikiLeaks is a good thing over all. Sure, it's messy. Sure, there are gray areas. Sure, it's possible for them to overstep the bounds of what ought to be released. But those dangers pose less danger than the alternative, media silence on such issues.
The difference between the Chiquita/Enquirer SNAFU and the present News Corp. situation is largely over corporate vs. individual communications. (Although, to be fair, some of the government communications intercepted by News Corp. would fall under the corporate rubric rather than the individual rubric.) There is also another possible distinction, tabloid journalism vs. "serious" journalism. But I don't think that there is any real way to limit one without limiting the other.
So, in the end, I think it's not a cut and dried situation. On the balance, I think investigative reporting and organizations lie WikiLeaks serve the public good. But insofar as they do target individuals in their private capacity rather than in a corporate role, they do pose a danger to basic civil rights.
Just wait, someday the industry will look back condescendingly at the day yet to come where some tech firm president says something like, '64 cores ought to be enough for anybody.'
Aside from that, streaming a hi-def movie while talking over VOIP with an IRC bot running, a couple of open spreadsheets, and several open Word documents in the background will be far snappier with a quad-core.
Not to mention mobile games. Phones will shortly be the new handheld gaming devinces and users will want to be able to plug them into their large screen HD TVs and still get full screen HD graphics.
Gosling is in a rather unique position to testify to which parts of Java and its virtual machine implementation are obvious applications of existing methods in the industry and which parts are innovative, new, and worthy of being patented.
As such, he would be helpful to have as a friendly witness.
In that regards, it's kind of irrelevant that Gosling went to Google. Oracle's mistake was running Sun in a way that pissed Gosling off.
An analogy aids comprehension by translating the idea from an unfamiliar context to a familiar context. One can simplify but it isn't necessary to the analogy.
One should simplify, of course, but not too much. Was it Einstein that advocated making things as simple as possible but no simpler? A fair amount of simplification can be done, especially when the invention can be reduced to implementing mathematics, but at a certain point, the simplification crosses the line and what you're left with is something other than what you've started with.
That's got the beginnings of a great analogy, but the implentation fails.
Traditional compilation: the grocery list is sent to a translater, who translates the whole list at once. This list is then given to a shopper who can read it.
JIT: An interpreter goes with the shopper and translates one item at a time as the shopper reads the list, but the translation for each item is written on a new list so that once it's translated, the shopper doesn't have to ask for a translation for that item.
Traditional interpreter: An interpreter goes with the shopper and every time the shopper looks at the list, the interpreter has to translate regardless of how many times a given item occurs on the list.
Gosling in a unique position to explain to a judge (or a jury) which parts of Java are standard applications of computer science and which parts of Java are innovative.
That is to say that Gosling would be an "ace in the hole" to have as a friendly witness when it comes to explaining what bits of Java were standard applications of known art in the field and which bits of Java are unique.
Slashdot Mirror
He needs to put his hands pierced in the side of the long form before hewill believe.
It's kind of difficult to give a fair trial to a guy who doesn't throw down his AK-47 when they come for him. OBL had zero interest in being taken alive. If killed by US troops, he would be a martyr. If taken alive, not so much.
Works fine.
So there.
It was a sad day when they gave up their goal of keeping the browser so small and tightly coded enough that it could fit on a single floppy disk.
Nevertheless, I suspect that it's your best bet for a resource unintensive browser.
But the real question is, if you're doing an internship, why are you web browsing instead of working?
That's massive for the tablet form factor. Various eReader fans claim that the iPad, at less than a pounds and a half, is far too heavy to be used comfortably.
Aside from which, it's mostly (but not entirely) pointless without (2).
Just has to be capacitive.
I couldn't possibly care less about an employee's motivation to do well on a test.
I do, however, care about an employee's motivation to do a job and do it well.
It's one thing to be educated relative to automotive mechanics and another thing to be educated in anthropology just like it's one thing to be self-educated and another thing to be educated in an institution of some sort.
That said, in most fields, the odds of someone with a graduate degree in that field being better and more educated than someone who isn't are pretty high. There are exceptions. But they are just that, exceptions.
But making sense out of the numbers all depends on the question you're trying to ask.
If you're most interested in knowing that given that someone (a) is a liberal and (b) took the survey, what are the odds that they have a Mac vs. having a Windows machine, then you're way of presenting the numbers is more illumanitive.
But if you're most interested in knowing that given that someone (a) owns a Mac and (b) took the survey, what are the odds that they are a liberal vs. being a converative, then you're way of presenting the numbers isn't very illumanitive. In fact, it's a bit misleading.
So it isn't the numbers that are misleading. It's taking the numbers for the answer to a particular question that is misleading.
If you're absolutely convinced that sharp edges are a non-starter, go in the other direction. The design patent is for a device with a rectangular case with four uniformly rounded edges. The case could be trapezoidal or the corners could be non-uniform.
There are many ways to work around it.
1. Ramping up production is not an easy thing if you want to keep an eye on quality control and only ramp up as much as you know you need to ramp up. Apple has the cash to ramp up to insane volumes. But they won't do that. Doing that would be idiocy. Far better to sell every device they make and slowly ramp up until they get to a point where they're only selling almost every device they make. That would appear to be what they're doing.
2. Other phones are catching up? Really? Name one model of smartphone that is selling anywhere close to the iPhone4 in terms of raw numbers.
3. Can't work around having rounded edges? Seriously? How about by having sharp edges?
4. I mostly agree with you on the issue of Oracle "already" doing what TFA says that Apple wants to do. It's really apples and oranges. For the most part, Apple doesn't care how much other phone manfacturers pay to license an OS. Why don't they care? Simple, Apple's profit margin is already higher per unit even when other companies get their OS for free. And, believe it or not, Apple doesn't really care about market share. What they care about is profits.
(PS. if Oracle wins against Google and other Android devs, the handset manufcturers that use Android will be next on the list.)
In the past few years, mobile devices have become predominantly consumer appliances rather than enterprise tools. And when they are used as enterprise tools, the users expect them to operate the same way as the consumer appliances that they're familiar with.
But I think that just makes life more difficult for Blackberry. I think the real issue is a corporate culture that takes its former success for granted and not staying lean and hungry. That happens to quite a few enterprises.
It didn't just access iTunes, it ran iTunes. Motorola licensed a fair bit of technology from Apple to make it work. Advertising ran the iTunes logo just as prominently as the Motorola logo and the music player looked identical to the iPod interface.
But it is true that RIM holds sole responsibility rather than responsibility being split between two companies (Moto and Apple). On the other hand, I think I recall TFA saying that the Playbook atually runs QNX.
In any case, they do need to fix something quick if they're going to be anything other than an also-ran.
We may do well to remember that the iPhone was the second iTunes branded phone. Apple's first phone was the Motorola ROKR.
That the ROKR was pants doesn't seem to have hurt Apple's later success with the iPhone. That the first edition of the Playbook is pants doesn't necessarily mean that the product line is dead in the water.
Now, one can certainly make the argument that given Blackberry's reputation, further generations are unlikely to be significantly better. But that's really a different argument.
Presuming that is a 10 point scale, that equates to getting a 54% on a test which is a failing grade in most courses.
Also, note that it equates to the "poor" category.
If it is the case that print ads are still more profitable than web ads, then subtley encouraging people to get the print edition because it's cheaper increases revenues. Now, whether the the increased costs (printing and distribution of the paper edition) are greater than or less than the increased revenues is another question entirely.
In the late nineties, a Cincinnati Enquirer reporter wrote a series of articles about Chiquita Banana. Parts of the series alleged immoral and illegal practices on the part of Chiquita. Eventually, it came to light that the reporter in question had gained access to the voice mail of Chiquita executive officers. The Enquirer retracted the entire series of articles, going so far as to pull them from Gannett's electronic database (the Enquirer was owned by Gannett at the time) leaving print copies as the only record. The reporter was convicted of several crimes, fired and the Enquirer paid several millions of dollars to Chiquita.
Now, if the allegations of immoral and illegal conduct were true, is that really a good ending to the story? An investigative reporter had his career effectively ended, a large corporation had their record whitewashed in an Orwellian fasion, and a newspaper effectively agred to longer investigate allegations of illegal deeds by one of the largest produce companies in the US.
It seems to me that if the allegations were true, society is better off by them becoming public. And even if they weren't true, a case could be made that making the evidence public to allow informed citizens to make up their own mind serves the public interest.
In such cases, an organization like WikiLeaks is a good thing over all. Sure, it's messy. Sure, there are gray areas. Sure, it's possible for them to overstep the bounds of what ought to be released. But those dangers pose less danger than the alternative, media silence on such issues.
The difference between the Chiquita/Enquirer SNAFU and the present News Corp. situation is largely over corporate vs. individual communications. (Although, to be fair, some of the government communications intercepted by News Corp. would fall under the corporate rubric rather than the individual rubric.) There is also another possible distinction, tabloid journalism vs. "serious" journalism. But I don't think that there is any real way to limit one without limiting the other.
So, in the end, I think it's not a cut and dried situation. On the balance, I think investigative reporting and organizations lie WikiLeaks serve the public good. But insofar as they do target individuals in their private capacity rather than in a corporate role, they do pose a danger to basic civil rights.
Windows of various incarnations and IE has run on many platforms.
Now, show me the latest version of Microsoft Office running on ARM with file compatibility with the x86 version. Then I'll be impressed.
Just wait, someday the industry will look back condescendingly at the day yet to come where some tech firm president says something like, '64 cores ought to be enough for anybody.'
Aside from that, streaming a hi-def movie while talking over VOIP with an IRC bot running, a couple of open spreadsheets, and several open Word documents in the background will be far snappier with a quad-core.
Not to mention mobile games. Phones will shortly be the new handheld gaming devinces and users will want to be able to plug them into their large screen HD TVs and still get full screen HD graphics.
Gosling is in a rather unique position to testify to which parts of Java and its virtual machine implementation are obvious applications of existing methods in the industry and which parts are innovative, new, and worthy of being patented.
As such, he would be helpful to have as a friendly witness.
In that regards, it's kind of irrelevant that Gosling went to Google. Oracle's mistake was running Sun in a way that pissed Gosling off.
An analogy aids comprehension by translating the idea from an unfamiliar context to a familiar context. One can simplify but it isn't necessary to the analogy.
One should simplify, of course, but not too much. Was it Einstein that advocated making things as simple as possible but no simpler? A fair amount of simplification can be done, especially when the invention can be reduced to implementing mathematics, but at a certain point, the simplification crosses the line and what you're left with is something other than what you've started with.
That's got the beginnings of a great analogy, but the implentation fails.
Traditional compilation: the grocery list is sent to a translater, who translates the whole list at once. This list is then given to a shopper who can read it.
JIT: An interpreter goes with the shopper and translates one item at a time as the shopper reads the list, but the translation for each item is written on a new list so that once it's translated, the shopper doesn't have to ask for a translation for that item.
Traditional interpreter: An interpreter goes with the shopper and every time the shopper looks at the list, the interpreter has to translate regardless of how many times a given item occurs on the list.
Gosling in a unique position to explain to a judge (or a jury) which parts of Java are standard applications of computer science and which parts of Java are innovative.
That is to say that Gosling would be an "ace in the hole" to have as a friendly witness when it comes to explaining what bits of Java were standard applications of known art in the field and which bits of Java are unique.
Unless you're a prescriptivist, usage defines language. The job of a dictionary vendor is merely to catalog how language is used.
Of course l'Académie française would disagree.
Personally, I'm glad that the OED crew is closer to my position that that of l'Académie.