LTE is actually something of a marketing plan and strategy as much as it is any certain technology. Its multiple technologies and something of a roadmap. Its a multi-stage process. It begins with sort of 3.9GPP; and that is what Verizon and then AT&T are rolling out first. This is not 4G. This is UMTS, HSPA+, and such. Its actually faster then Sprint's 4G, but its not 4G yet. This is what the iPhone4 supports: it will run fast on the new LTE networks that Verizon and AT&T are rolling out./Then/ comes the next step, LTE Advanced, which is the true 4G, to come around in a couple years(+).
It was a joke, not to be analyzed quite so literally. (Flamebait? Really?)
That said: Yeah, I've lived in SF:P I don't think San Francisco quite gets lumped into Northern California when people are discussing it. I'm talking around Sacramento and north. Surely San Fran would fall over into the sea too. Berkeley would probably end up The New San Francisco then.
You're right about the O.C. They'd elect G.W. again if they could.
But San Diego isn't so bad. The city at least has sense.
Then again, California's districts are so utterly screwed up by design, you end up with a point even if the city isn't all that bad. Its practically impossible by design for the Republicans to get control of the Assembly, but its also practically impossible for them to actually lose any of their seats. Ah, well.
Actually, many are off-the-shelf: at least, after a licensee makes them and sells them as such. Nvidia's Tegra for example, Qualcomm's Snapdragon. Those are off-the-shelf in that they're commodity items that basically any hardware manufacturer can decide to integrate.
ARM itself isn't off-the-shelf ever, no; you're right about that. ARM just sells specs. But licensees can take that and foundation and make chips of their own. Those can be commodity, off-the-shelf sort of items. This one isn't, Apple's keeping it to itself. That's interesting. (Interesting, not surprising)
And we indeed did get a Slashdot story when Nvidia came out with the Tegra and entered the market: its a new chip, its interesting. We've also gotten a Slashdot article about an upcoming Snapdragon release. So yeah, we do get news about this stuff. Why not about the A4?
Apple deciding to make their own CPU instead of going for a commodity one, and the fact that it seems to be unusually low-powered, and is going to end up in millions and millions and millions of devices -- it seems to be a natural nerd-interest to tear it apart and get a closer look. Seems quite appropriate to \.
On behalf of California, I'd like to ask you to please restrict your funding of drilling holes into the crust to the other side of the country, or maybe like the middle, y'know? Really far away from fault lines, basically.
If you accidentally tick off The Big One and Southern California falls into the ocean, all you'll have left are those crazy Northern California people, and we'll -so- become a Red State.
Trust me, your boss doesn't want that.
Yeah, I know its possible to do geothermal energy safely. Its also possible to make earthquakes with it. Let's side over on the cautious end in the west coast, shall we?
Frankly, I'm happy for the FCC to step in. Why? Because business-as-usual isn't cutting it.
I live in a major metropolitan area, and my broadband access is *abysmal*. I have two basic choices:
DSL from AT&T (perhaps resold) and cable from Time Warner. Both are horrible. Exactly how horrible depends from year to year.
Currently, I'm on Time Warner, and my experience is oh... 50% of the time its just fine. 20% of the time, it doesn't even work at all for an hour or two. As for the rest, its slow. These bad times don't just match up to peak times either-- I'm aware of the shared nature of cable connections.
What the FCC is talking about doing is not just a question of "net neutrality", but doing some light regulation on the infrastructure -- and it needs it. The companies are content with their balkanized monopolies, each carving out their chunks of the nation and sharing their customers with what is likely only one real competitor in each market.
I'm desperately waiting for Sprint's WIMAX to roll out into my area just to have another chance of something. I really don't want to have to pay to get some dedicated fiber to my house just to be able to use the internet *reliably* in 2010 in a major metropolitan area.
20% of the time it simply doesn't work.
And the other 30% its just very slow.
And these numbers don't go with "peak" hours regularly, either.
The components on the die are different then any other chip, including the basic Cortex A8 design its based on. Ergo, it is different then any other chip. Ergo, they redesigned the chip.
Exactly how, no one is entirely sure. They can't actually tell yet exactly what all the components are. Its very similar to a Samsung chip that the company they bought (Intrinsity) previously designed, but in a couple notable places, it is different. But its possible there's other changes in the other modules, even if said modules appear in the same places and are of similar sizes.
Its different. That's all we know, but its known for a fact. Its not like Apple posts the full design of the silicon or anything for analysis:P
There's really absolutely no argument that's supportable for the position that they didn't re-design the chip to specialize it: even if specialize is only "remove a module from the die that are not needed" -- that's all that's required to fulfill the requirements to have been made "specifically for use in its mobile devices". I'm not saying that's all they did, but they did at least that, and so the statement holds.
Its actually not terribly easy to look at a microchip and tell exactly what all is going on in it.
What boggles the mind is why can't they pay a few more bucks to the people working in Foxconn(who are jumping off buildings) who actually make these iDevices? Couldn't hurt Apple's bottomline really that much, can it?
Uhh, they did -- http://www.electronista.com/articles/10/05/31/said.to.stem.from.internal.investigation/
Further... You know that Foxconn plant isn't like, an Apple exclusive manufacturer don't you? Dell, HP, Playstations, Wii's, Xbox, the Kindle... phones by plenty of other people, and basically practically anything electronic.
But Apple's greedy and is running the sweatshop and should direct a few bucks to the poor guys (... which they did, a 30% raise). No one else does. Bad, evil, greedy Apple does.
The whole suicide thing is way overplayed in the media. Its a sweatshop and can't have anything to do with the fact that Foxconn was paying silly amounts of compensation to families when this happened (a year's salary!), practically giving incentive in a society with very different social values then western ones (look up the differences between a shame and a guilt-based society: they're the former, we're the latter). And it can't be anything like a suicide chain which has happened more then once in this country.
Did you read the actual article? Do you know anything about how the ARM architecture works?
Its sort of a "plug and play" architecture-- they license out the core design, the Cortex A8, but that design isn't set in stone. It includes options and modules that you can decide what to include or not, and there's all kinds of ways you can choose to optimize it and modify it to suit your needs.
Some people take this design and market their own customized version of the architecture for various purposes -- Nvidia's Tegra is one such. Its an ARM chip, but not all ARM chips are created equal (and it depends greatly on the purpose one customized an ARM chip for).
The A4 isn't some entirely new sort of chip-- its not as custom as Quallcomm's Snapdragon-- but its also not the same as any other chip on the market. They left some things out. They added some things in(or, more, changed some things). They tweaked its design to suit their purposes. Its not a general-purpose chip, needed for multiple vendors and different device types, so they left off some things to optimize it.
Therefore... its not off-the-shelf. You can't buy one. If you're an ARM-licensee, you could make one if you really wanted if you peered close enough and figured out which modules all the various parts on the die are.
Dude, I get that we Americans think we're basically in charge of the world, and can go around an do whatever we want, and everyone else better fall in line.
But I thought we all understood that was firmly in the Executive branch. They were the ones who could go around doing whatever they wanted.
Since when did we decide that our judiciary was supreme over the entire world, so that somehow this company that operates *entirely* in another country (with a distinct legal system and set of laws) is now under the jurisdiction of any state court?
I mean, I'm all for it, don't get me wrong. Go Judicial Imperialism. I just didn't realize we'd *started* it. I thought we were still working on Legislative Imperialism with the ACTA and stuff, trying to force everyone into passing our laws. Judicial Imperialism wasn't on the schedule for a couple years I thought. Damn.
Define "10 hour battery life" for me-- is that claimed, or based on "moderate usage", or? And how moderate is moderate, if that's it?
Because I've never seen a laptop which got anywhere near the claimed battery life with what I consider "moderate" usage... and most die out from 2 to 4 hours of continual usage. Let alone if you're doing something intense, i.e. watching a video. I may be wrong: I've never used a netbook, and maybe these netbook makers finally managed (since I stopped using laptops a few years ago) to get battery life to actually useful levels.
The iPad's 10 hour battery life is 10 full hours of real continual usage. Really, its like 11 hours of real work if you aren't on the 3G the whole time and aren't streaming over WIFI, but about 10 even if you are. And about 9 if you're on the 3G. Even if you're spending all that time doing intense stuff, like watching a video. Or playing games.
It does make a difference in the usability of the device.
But, the person signing the contract *said* they *were* the rights holder.
Whoever submitted this app committed fraud: they agreed that they had the rights to grant Apple license to distribute their software, and that doing so would in no way infringe upon anyone else's rights.
That's a complete lie. They stole code from the FSF, submitted it as their own, and told Apple they were free to distribute it as per the normal App Store rules.
Whoever submitted this app are the ones who violated the GPL, and their contract with Apple to boot. There's no way Apple'd get more then a slap on the wrist in liability if this went to court.
How do you get to this? How conceivably is OSX more closed then Windows?
Its extensively documented, the full suite of development tools needed to make software on it are provided for free by the vendor, and its *really* cheap to get beta/pre-releases to test against -- seriously, have you *seen* a MSDN license, vs the $99 Apple charges? (Yes, I'm aware of the Express editions MS has been offering)
Yes, the iPhone OS is closed as all hell. Mac != iPhone, even though they share a lot in common.
As a *platform*, the Mac is pretty open. Open as in there are very little barriers for entry for developers. Anyone can write software it, there's no licensing you need to get your software on it, all the tools are available to anyone, with everything documented well.
Windows, by comparison, is more open then iPhone OS, certainly... and of late its documentation is pretty good. But for the fully enabled toolchain and documentation set and access to beta-versions and everything is hundreds to thousands of dollars.
... umm, did you miss the part of the story where they *aren't* storing the student's identity with the DNA? I could walk outside for an hour or two and get a couple hundred random DNA samples from random strangers for study, and have absolutely no more idea who they belong to. Since our DNA just sort of falls off of us terribly easily.
The profiles aren't connected to students names, records, SSN, identities, nothing. Just a random number encoded in a barcode. The only way anyone can know that 123456789 happens to be you is if you tell them or show them your barcode.
Its research. And an interesting service.
Yes, the tinfoil hat wearing can argue that between IP logs and cookies and such, someone could probably figure out your identity if they really wanted to.
But then they can also just get your DNA from your *skin cells* that you shed all the time. And if they were going to be nefarious like that, the usage of that DNA sample for any random purpose against your interests would probably be legal: you have no expectation of privacy there.
These kinds of responses just baffle me. There's been a few of them here. They're just sort of... absurd.
First, the Detective wanted to search the guy's place, because he thought the various things would contain evidence of the multiple felonies he had probable cause to believe Chen committed. Detective != Apple. Yes, he's doing it because Apple initiated a complaint -- that's their right. If the police determine no crime was committed, they'll file it away. But here they determined multiple felonies were committed.
Yeah, I blinked a bit when they wanted all ID's and credit cards-- not sure what the point is. Then again several references were talking about identifying the guy, careful to note the Abstract Jason Chen really is the Jason Chen who committed the crime, and that this random human who happens to look Jason Chen-like really is Jason Chen. I have no idea if its standard procedure or not. Seems a bit over the top: but the cop asked for it and the Judge signed off on it.
The cop asked for it. Not Apple. Apple didn't direct how things should go, or what should be done. They filed a complaint. The cop took it, determined it was legitimate and a crime probably happened, and investigated. *Apple* didn't search anything, didn't see anything, can't even *touch* any of the stuff gathered from Chen's house. Its in evidence lockers, sealed up, or being processed by an investigator to try to dig out evidence with a strict chain of custody.
This leads me to Second.
So... violent crime is bad, yes. It has to be prioritized first -- and is! It has more resources and priority then the say, the property divisions. Narcotics is probably right behind. But you think theft(and this is, according to the law, theft-- even if Hogen didn't slip it out of the guys back pocket) shouldn't be enforced until... all violent crime is solved?
If this guy weren't investigating -this- crime, he would not be investigating a violent crime. He'd be off investigating something else related to high tech crap. There's divisions. The guys who investigate violent crime are over here; the guys who investigate narcotics are over there; the guys who investigate say, murder, are over there. And the people who investigate theft are over there.
Its not like there's some central pool of Detectives and everytime one looks into something, it somehow takes away someone who otherwise would have been working on violent crime.
Sure, the violent crime departments should be prioritized highest-- and get more resources, more Detectives. And maybe an argument should be made for reducing some specialized departments (such as this one, which looks into high tech stuff-- because it requires a specialized training and knowledge-base that the regular Detectives don't have).
But, y'know? As long as there's even one guy in REACT, he'd probably have investigated the case anyways. Maybe not right away, depending on what all the cases they handle are. But a stolen high tech prototype is kinda-sorta one of those things his team was designed for. Nerd or nerd-adjacent crimes.
If you think taskforces like REACT shouldn't get any resources until such time as all violent crime is solved, well then-- start up a referendum. We Californian's can do crazy crap on election day. But doing so would mean a large class of laws and crimes would effectively cease to be crimes, as a crime without someone enforcing it is meaningless. Including things like, identity theft, which have real victims and ruins lives, even if its not violent. Specially-trained cops focusing on certain types of crimes are sort of needed. Or those crimes'll just never get solved.
This is a silly comparison. There's nothing that the DAO DLC adds that you couldn't add yourself by making a mod-- or use one of the -countless- mods others have put out there that do -precisely- that.
They released the whole DAO toolchain; there's almost nothing they give you in a purchasable DLC that its not entirely possible for you to add yourself, or others to add. The exception is new models which is a PITA to make, but still possible.
That's different then the Mass Effect situation, where the only way you can get certain things is by having that one-time use Cerebrus network code.
The problem is that Microsoft determined the rules for when people could advertise according to a certain sticker: Microsoft set the rules for the stickers and were the sole party able to determine the usage of those stickers.
Microsoft then bankrolled large advertising campaigns to promote Vista and its stickers; yes certain retailers participated and included their use in their own advertising -- but only according to the rules Microsoft set.
In the marketplace there was an established history about such stickers being provided by Microsoft under Microsoft guidance; the "XP Ready" stickers when XP came out. The marketplace had been taught, primarily by Microsoft's own PR machine, that these stickers were a reliable way to determine capability with the OS that Microsoft released.
Then late in the game, Microsoft changed the story. The "Vista Capable" sticker didn't really mean what was generally understood for it to mean; the "Vista Capable" program being/entirely/ controlled by/Microsoft/.
Sure there was a "Vista Ready" sticker also available but there it was not at all clear to users the difference between the two. And throughout all the advertising that Microsoft put out, Aero was everywhere so much that to most people Vista = Aero.
It's true, a educated and motivated user could go out and find the difference and gather the information needed to know what kind of machine they'd need to run the Vista that they all though they'd be running. But that doesn't change the fact that this/certification/ program -- administered by Microsoft and under the advertising umbrella of Microsoft -- misled people.
The summary is the kind of batshit crazy that is kinda making \. annoying in some respects lately -- not that its more batshit crazy in some respects then before, its just getting on my nerves lately.
Can we please have someone rewrite vitriolic summaries? A little?
What Google is doing is what countless companies do; its nothing strange or new. At my company those "ideas" are called feature requests. If we decide its a worthwhile enough idea to be good for more then one customer we'll do it for free -- and consider that we give it to the requester free more then ample compensation.
If its a niche idea they'd like, then THEY have to pay US before their idea becomes a reality.
Sheesh. A company with the possible will and ability to execute your idea may just do so-- IF you CHOOSE to give them that idea because you yourself do not have either that will nor that ability. How horribly evil and unethical of them.
You don't have to be logged in when a skill update happens exactly, but you can't schedule a -new- skill to be updated after.
So if you're training your Frigate skill and it takes two days to complete, after those two days you have it if you're logged in or not-- but you have to log in then to set what skill to start training next.
There's already some iPhone utilities fans made (in addition to some great Windows ones for planning your future skill update path in the most efficient way possible), but they're just plans-- they can show you your current status with the API Eve provides, but once one is trained you have to log in again to get started on the next step.
If Eve provides the way to initiate training over their web API... that'd be awesome.
This is quite true: but sort of irrelevant. Even the core developers on Python-dev have been seen to state on more then one occasion that they don't expect Python 3.0 to be the "standard" for a period of time that will stretch to years: one? three? The specifics don't exactly matter.
That's why they've done the releasing of Python 2.6 and Python 3.0 in parallel (although 3.0 was recently delayed a little, the development of each have been hand in hand); they fully expect to maintain the 2.x line for awhile, and are already talking of 2.7.
Each new iteration of 2.x will bring it closer to 3.0, and the third party modules will steadily become more and more available. Right now the IMHO biggest hurdle in the development of the modules for 3.0 is a lack of a serious conversion document from the point of view of the C internals. But they're even working on that.
3.0 seems to be, more then anything else, a work yet in progress. Even when it's released, its not fully expected to everyone will be converting their code over to be 3.0. They don't expect people to *really* start using it in a standard way until 3.1, 3.2 or so -- and whatever version of 2.x that will accompany it that people willll be converting from at that time, complete with additional features to help ease the transition.
Personally, I find the strategy for migrating Python to 3.0... comforting. I don't necessarily agree with *all* of the changes done to 3.0, but most I quite like. Since I have a massive codebase at work that's currently running on 2.x, a major/incompatible change to "fix" the language is something that alarmed me early on.
However, now I know that 2.x will be supported for quite awhile, and new releases will be made upon it to ease the way, I have a roadmap to follow that makes the burden significantly easier. Once we update our codebase to 2.6., I'll probably start slowly modifying things to activate more optional 3.x-isms, and by that time the myriad third party libraries will probably be supported.
2.6 brings a number of interesting features to us; and allows us to start working slowly towards migrating to the 3.0 world. This is a -very- well thought out migration plan, IMHO.
There is this big trend lately, it seems, of networks and content providers letting you view content online-- as if it were some great answer to reaching us the people.
I am starting to seriously wonder if I am the in the minority of people who want to watch TV.. ON MY TELEVISION.
It's a shocking thought.
I want to watch a TV show ON MY TV.
I am a TiVO subscriber because I want to watch those shows according to my schedule, my time, my situation.
I have an Apple TV box so I can watch shows that appear on Apple TV that either are in conflict with other shows I watch-- or are long since released.
Its frankly alarming to me that Amazon would consider switching from Unbox to a "browser streaming download" service; I have no interest in it. I have no interest in seeing these shows on my computer.
I have this big TV over there. I spent a small fortune on it. My friends and I watch shows together on it.
My computer I do things for myself on. Television is for something else entirely.
... Umm? If Finder itself is dead, just Command + Option + Escape, which has been around since the dawn of time, select Finder, and click Restart.. It'll Force Quit and restart Finder... I've done it plenty of times, even in cases where Finder is in a beachball spin.
And this "it just vanishes" is sorta kinda a little bit a lie, donchaknow. It pops up a little dialog, which lets you OK or Reopen the app. If you want more useful information, check Console.
Uh... right. And the nukes are all that were dropped.
We didn't continuously firebomb Tokyo and the infrastructure of Japan from 1942 to 1945. We did *far* more damage to Tokyo and other industry cities then we did with the nukes- the *physical* destruction of Tokyo was almost *complete*. We *leveled* these cities.
My understanding is that while you can do that, you'll lose a great deal of the features you're getting from having the iPhone. Things like the "Visual Voicemail" required the carrier to develop a level of access that traditional networks don't expose directly. It'll still call, sure, and a lot of it'll work-- but Apple saught a partner for the device because they needed to, not just 'cuz'. The iPhone on any non-Cingular network will be crippled because those networks just don't support the featureset that Apple and Cingular developed to make its features go.
I can't remember where I read it-- so can't provide a link-- but I believe the exclusive contract with Cingular is only 5-years... after that, I wouldn't be surprised (and would actually be shocked if the opposite is true) if other carriers are going to be quite interested in doing whats nessecary to get iPhone-compatible.
Slashdot Mirror
That, too, is not correct.
LTE is actually something of a marketing plan and strategy as much as it is any certain technology. Its multiple technologies and something of a roadmap. Its a multi-stage process. It begins with sort of 3.9GPP; and that is what Verizon and then AT&T are rolling out first. This is not 4G. This is UMTS, HSPA+, and such. Its actually faster then Sprint's 4G, but its not 4G yet. This is what the iPhone4 supports: it will run fast on the new LTE networks that Verizon and AT&T are rolling out. /Then/ comes the next step, LTE Advanced, which is the true 4G, to come around in a couple years(+).
It was a joke, not to be analyzed quite so literally. (Flamebait? Really?)
That said: Yeah, I've lived in SF :P I don't think San Francisco quite gets lumped into Northern California when people are discussing it. I'm talking around Sacramento and north. Surely San Fran would fall over into the sea too. Berkeley would probably end up The New San Francisco then.
You're right about the O.C. They'd elect G.W. again if they could.
But San Diego isn't so bad. The city at least has sense.
Then again, California's districts are so utterly screwed up by design, you end up with a point even if the city isn't all that bad. Its practically impossible by design for the Republicans to get control of the Assembly, but its also practically impossible for them to actually lose any of their seats. Ah, well.
Actually, many are off-the-shelf: at least, after a licensee makes them and sells them as such. Nvidia's Tegra for example, Qualcomm's Snapdragon. Those are off-the-shelf in that they're commodity items that basically any hardware manufacturer can decide to integrate.
ARM itself isn't off-the-shelf ever, no; you're right about that. ARM just sells specs. But licensees can take that and foundation and make chips of their own. Those can be commodity, off-the-shelf sort of items. This one isn't, Apple's keeping it to itself. That's interesting. (Interesting, not surprising)
And we indeed did get a Slashdot story when Nvidia came out with the Tegra and entered the market: its a new chip, its interesting. We've also gotten a Slashdot article about an upcoming Snapdragon release. So yeah, we do get news about this stuff. Why not about the A4?
Apple deciding to make their own CPU instead of going for a commodity one, and the fact that it seems to be unusually low-powered, and is going to end up in millions and millions and millions of devices -- it seems to be a natural nerd-interest to tear it apart and get a closer look. Seems quite appropriate to \.
On behalf of California, I'd like to ask you to please restrict your funding of drilling holes into the crust to the other side of the country, or maybe like the middle, y'know? Really far away from fault lines, basically.
If you accidentally tick off The Big One and Southern California falls into the ocean, all you'll have left are those crazy Northern California people, and we'll -so- become a Red State.
Trust me, your boss doesn't want that.
Yeah, I know its possible to do geothermal energy safely. Its also possible to make earthquakes with it. Let's side over on the cautious end in the west coast, shall we?
Okay, I call epic editing fail on myself.
Frankly, I'm happy for the FCC to step in. Why? Because business-as-usual isn't cutting it.
I live in a major metropolitan area, and my broadband access is *abysmal*. I have two basic choices:
DSL from AT&T (perhaps resold) and cable from Time Warner. Both are horrible. Exactly how horrible depends from year to year.
Currently, I'm on Time Warner, and my experience is oh... 50% of the time its just fine. 20% of the time, it doesn't even work at all for an hour or two. As for the rest, its slow. These bad times don't just match up to peak times either-- I'm aware of the shared nature of cable connections.
What the FCC is talking about doing is not just a question of "net neutrality", but doing some light regulation on the infrastructure -- and it needs it. The companies are content with their balkanized monopolies, each carving out their chunks of the nation and sharing their customers with what is likely only one real competitor in each market.
I'm desperately waiting for Sprint's WIMAX to roll out into my area just to have another chance of something. I really don't want to have to pay to get some dedicated fiber to my house just to be able to use the internet *reliably* in 2010 in a major metropolitan area.
20% of the time it simply doesn't work.
And the other 30% its just very slow.
And these numbers don't go with "peak" hours regularly, either.
The components on the die are different then any other chip, including the basic Cortex A8 design its based on. Ergo, it is different then any other chip. Ergo, they redesigned the chip.
Exactly how, no one is entirely sure. They can't actually tell yet exactly what all the components are. Its very similar to a Samsung chip that the company they bought (Intrinsity) previously designed, but in a couple notable places, it is different. But its possible there's other changes in the other modules, even if said modules appear in the same places and are of similar sizes.
Its different. That's all we know, but its known for a fact. Its not like Apple posts the full design of the silicon or anything for analysis :P
There's really absolutely no argument that's supportable for the position that they didn't re-design the chip to specialize it: even if specialize is only "remove a module from the die that are not needed" -- that's all that's required to fulfill the requirements to have been made "specifically for use in its mobile devices". I'm not saying that's all they did, but they did at least that, and so the statement holds.
Its actually not terribly easy to look at a microchip and tell exactly what all is going on in it.
What boggles the mind is why can't they pay a few more bucks to the people working in Foxconn(who are jumping off buildings) who actually make these iDevices? Couldn't hurt Apple's bottomline really that much, can it?
Uhh, they did -- http://www.electronista.com/articles/10/05/31/said.to.stem.from.internal.investigation/
Further... You know that Foxconn plant isn't like, an Apple exclusive manufacturer don't you? Dell, HP, Playstations, Wii's, Xbox, the Kindle... phones by plenty of other people, and basically practically anything electronic.
But Apple's greedy and is running the sweatshop and should direct a few bucks to the poor guys (... which they did, a 30% raise). No one else does. Bad, evil, greedy Apple does.
The whole suicide thing is way overplayed in the media. Its a sweatshop and can't have anything to do with the fact that Foxconn was paying silly amounts of compensation to families when this happened (a year's salary!), practically giving incentive in a society with very different social values then western ones (look up the differences between a shame and a guilt-based society: they're the former, we're the latter). And it can't be anything like a suicide chain which has happened more then once in this country.
No, It's Apple's fault.
Did you read the actual article? Do you know anything about how the ARM architecture works?
Its sort of a "plug and play" architecture-- they license out the core design, the Cortex A8, but that design isn't set in stone. It includes options and modules that you can decide what to include or not, and there's all kinds of ways you can choose to optimize it and modify it to suit your needs.
Some people take this design and market their own customized version of the architecture for various purposes -- Nvidia's Tegra is one such. Its an ARM chip, but not all ARM chips are created equal (and it depends greatly on the purpose one customized an ARM chip for).
The A4 isn't some entirely new sort of chip-- its not as custom as Quallcomm's Snapdragon-- but its also not the same as any other chip on the market. They left some things out. They added some things in(or, more, changed some things). They tweaked its design to suit their purposes. Its not a general-purpose chip, needed for multiple vendors and different device types, so they left off some things to optimize it.
Therefore... its not off-the-shelf. You can't buy one. If you're an ARM-licensee, you could make one if you really wanted if you peered close enough and figured out which modules all the various parts on the die are.
Dude, I get that we Americans think we're basically in charge of the world, and can go around an do whatever we want, and everyone else better fall in line.
But I thought we all understood that was firmly in the Executive branch. They were the ones who could go around doing whatever they wanted.
Since when did we decide that our judiciary was supreme over the entire world, so that somehow this company that operates *entirely* in another country (with a distinct legal system and set of laws) is now under the jurisdiction of any state court?
I mean, I'm all for it, don't get me wrong. Go Judicial Imperialism. I just didn't realize we'd *started* it. I thought we were still working on Legislative Imperialism with the ACTA and stuff, trying to force everyone into passing our laws. Judicial Imperialism wasn't on the schedule for a couple years I thought. Damn.
Define "10 hour battery life" for me-- is that claimed, or based on "moderate usage", or? And how moderate is moderate, if that's it?
Because I've never seen a laptop which got anywhere near the claimed battery life with what I consider "moderate" usage... and most die out from 2 to 4 hours of continual usage. Let alone if you're doing something intense, i.e. watching a video. I may be wrong: I've never used a netbook, and maybe these netbook makers finally managed (since I stopped using laptops a few years ago) to get battery life to actually useful levels.
The iPad's 10 hour battery life is 10 full hours of real continual usage. Really, its like 11 hours of real work if you aren't on the 3G the whole time and aren't streaming over WIFI, but about 10 even if you are. And about 9 if you're on the 3G. Even if you're spending all that time doing intense stuff, like watching a video. Or playing games.
It does make a difference in the usability of the device.
But, the person signing the contract *said* they *were* the rights holder.
Whoever submitted this app committed fraud: they agreed that they had the rights to grant Apple license to distribute their software, and that doing so would in no way infringe upon anyone else's rights.
That's a complete lie. They stole code from the FSF, submitted it as their own, and told Apple they were free to distribute it as per the normal App Store rules.
Whoever submitted this app are the ones who violated the GPL, and their contract with Apple to boot. There's no way Apple'd get more then a slap on the wrist in liability if this went to court.
How do you get to this? How conceivably is OSX more closed then Windows?
Its extensively documented, the full suite of development tools needed to make software on it are provided for free by the vendor, and its *really* cheap to get beta/pre-releases to test against -- seriously, have you *seen* a MSDN license, vs the $99 Apple charges? (Yes, I'm aware of the Express editions MS has been offering)
Yes, the iPhone OS is closed as all hell. Mac != iPhone, even though they share a lot in common.
As a *platform*, the Mac is pretty open. Open as in there are very little barriers for entry for developers. Anyone can write software it, there's no licensing you need to get your software on it, all the tools are available to anyone, with everything documented well.
Windows, by comparison, is more open then iPhone OS, certainly... and of late its documentation is pretty good. But for the fully enabled toolchain and documentation set and access to beta-versions and everything is hundreds to thousands of dollars.
... umm, did you miss the part of the story where they *aren't* storing the student's identity with the DNA? I could walk outside for an hour or two and get a couple hundred random DNA samples from random strangers for study, and have absolutely no more idea who they belong to. Since our DNA just sort of falls off of us terribly easily.
The profiles aren't connected to students names, records, SSN, identities, nothing. Just a random number encoded in a barcode. The only way anyone can know that 123456789 happens to be you is if you tell them or show them your barcode.
Its research. And an interesting service.
Yes, the tinfoil hat wearing can argue that between IP logs and cookies and such, someone could probably figure out your identity if they really wanted to.
But then they can also just get your DNA from your *skin cells* that you shed all the time. And if they were going to be nefarious like that, the usage of that DNA sample for any random purpose against your interests would probably be legal: you have no expectation of privacy there.
These kinds of responses just baffle me. There's been a few of them here. They're just sort of ... absurd.
First, the Detective wanted to search the guy's place, because he thought the various things would contain evidence of the multiple felonies he had probable cause to believe Chen committed. Detective != Apple. Yes, he's doing it because Apple initiated a complaint -- that's their right. If the police determine no crime was committed, they'll file it away. But here they determined multiple felonies were committed.
Yeah, I blinked a bit when they wanted all ID's and credit cards-- not sure what the point is. Then again several references were talking about identifying the guy, careful to note the Abstract Jason Chen really is the Jason Chen who committed the crime, and that this random human who happens to look Jason Chen-like really is Jason Chen. I have no idea if its standard procedure or not. Seems a bit over the top: but the cop asked for it and the Judge signed off on it.
The cop asked for it. Not Apple. Apple didn't direct how things should go, or what should be done. They filed a complaint. The cop took it, determined it was legitimate and a crime probably happened, and investigated. *Apple* didn't search anything, didn't see anything, can't even *touch* any of the stuff gathered from Chen's house. Its in evidence lockers, sealed up, or being processed by an investigator to try to dig out evidence with a strict chain of custody.
This leads me to Second.
So... violent crime is bad, yes. It has to be prioritized first -- and is! It has more resources and priority then the say, the property divisions. Narcotics is probably right behind. But you think theft(and this is, according to the law, theft-- even if Hogen didn't slip it out of the guys back pocket) shouldn't be enforced until... all violent crime is solved?
If this guy weren't investigating -this- crime, he would not be investigating a violent crime. He'd be off investigating something else related to high tech crap. There's divisions. The guys who investigate violent crime are over here; the guys who investigate narcotics are over there; the guys who investigate say, murder, are over there. And the people who investigate theft are over there.
Its not like there's some central pool of Detectives and everytime one looks into something, it somehow takes away someone who otherwise would have been working on violent crime.
Sure, the violent crime departments should be prioritized highest-- and get more resources, more Detectives. And maybe an argument should be made for reducing some specialized departments (such as this one, which looks into high tech stuff-- because it requires a specialized training and knowledge-base that the regular Detectives don't have).
But, y'know? As long as there's even one guy in REACT, he'd probably have investigated the case anyways. Maybe not right away, depending on what all the cases they handle are. But a stolen high tech prototype is kinda-sorta one of those things his team was designed for. Nerd or nerd-adjacent crimes.
If you think taskforces like REACT shouldn't get any resources until such time as all violent crime is solved, well then-- start up a referendum. We Californian's can do crazy crap on election day. But doing so would mean a large class of laws and crimes would effectively cease to be crimes, as a crime without someone enforcing it is meaningless. Including things like, identity theft, which have real victims and ruins lives, even if its not violent. Specially-trained cops focusing on certain types of crimes are sort of needed. Or those crimes'll just never get solved.
MP3 isn't the only way to distribute non-DRM music.
An M4A file from iTunes is an AAC file in an MPEG 4 Audio envelope. AAC provides better quality at the same bitrates, generally speaking.
Audacity may or may not support opening the file, but it is *not* DRM'd or locked down in any way. You can convert it to a MP3 if you really want to.
Uhh.
This is a silly comparison. There's nothing that the DAO DLC adds that you couldn't add yourself by making a mod-- or use one of the -countless- mods others have put out there that do -precisely- that.
They released the whole DAO toolchain; there's almost nothing they give you in a purchasable DLC that its not entirely possible for you to add yourself, or others to add. The exception is new models which is a PITA to make, but still possible.
That's different then the Mass Effect situation, where the only way you can get certain things is by having that one-time use Cerebrus network code.
The problem is that Microsoft determined the rules for when people could advertise according to a certain sticker: Microsoft set the rules for the stickers and were the sole party able to determine the usage of those stickers.
Microsoft then bankrolled large advertising campaigns to promote Vista and its stickers; yes certain retailers participated and included their use in their own advertising -- but only according to the rules Microsoft set.
In the marketplace there was an established history about such stickers being provided by Microsoft under Microsoft guidance; the "XP Ready" stickers when XP came out. The marketplace had been taught, primarily by Microsoft's own PR machine, that these stickers were a reliable way to determine capability with the OS that Microsoft released.
Then late in the game, Microsoft changed the story. The "Vista Capable" sticker didn't really mean what was generally understood for it to mean; the "Vista Capable" program being /entirely/ controlled by /Microsoft/.
Sure there was a "Vista Ready" sticker also available but there it was not at all clear to users the difference between the two. And throughout all the advertising that Microsoft put out, Aero was everywhere so much that to most people Vista = Aero.
It's true, a educated and motivated user could go out and find the difference and gather the information needed to know what kind of machine they'd need to run the Vista that they all though they'd be running. But that doesn't change the fact that this /certification/ program -- administered by Microsoft and under the advertising umbrella of Microsoft -- misled people.
The story itself is moderately interesting.
The summary is the kind of batshit crazy that is kinda making \. annoying in some respects lately -- not that its more batshit crazy in some respects then before, its just getting on my nerves lately.
Can we please have someone rewrite vitriolic summaries? A little?
What Google is doing is what countless companies do; its nothing strange or new. At my company those "ideas" are called feature requests. If we decide its a worthwhile enough idea to be good for more then one customer we'll do it for free -- and consider that we give it to the requester free more then ample compensation.
If its a niche idea they'd like, then THEY have to pay US before their idea becomes a reality.
Sheesh. A company with the possible will and ability to execute your idea may just do so-- IF you CHOOSE to give them that idea because you yourself do not have either that will nor that ability. How horribly evil and unethical of them.
You don't have to be logged in when a skill update happens exactly, but you can't schedule a -new- skill to be updated after.
So if you're training your Frigate skill and it takes two days to complete, after those two days you have it if you're logged in or not-- but you have to log in then to set what skill to start training next.
There's already some iPhone utilities fans made (in addition to some great Windows ones for planning your future skill update path in the most efficient way possible), but they're just plans-- they can show you your current status with the API Eve provides, but once one is trained you have to log in again to get started on the next step.
If Eve provides the way to initiate training over their web API... that'd be awesome.
This is quite true: but sort of irrelevant. Even the core developers on Python-dev have been seen to state on more then one occasion that they don't expect Python 3.0 to be the "standard" for a period of time that will stretch to years: one? three? The specifics don't exactly matter.
That's why they've done the releasing of Python 2.6 and Python 3.0 in parallel (although 3.0 was recently delayed a little, the development of each have been hand in hand); they fully expect to maintain the 2.x line for awhile, and are already talking of 2.7.
Each new iteration of 2.x will bring it closer to 3.0, and the third party modules will steadily become more and more available. Right now the IMHO biggest hurdle in the development of the modules for 3.0 is a lack of a serious conversion document from the point of view of the C internals. But they're even working on that.
3.0 seems to be, more then anything else, a work yet in progress. Even when it's released, its not fully expected to everyone will be converting their code over to be 3.0. They don't expect people to *really* start using it in a standard way until 3.1, 3.2 or so -- and whatever version of 2.x that will accompany it that people willll be converting from at that time, complete with additional features to help ease the transition.
Personally, I find the strategy for migrating Python to 3.0 ... comforting. I don't necessarily agree with *all* of the changes done to 3.0, but most I quite like. Since I have a massive codebase at work that's currently running on 2.x, a major/incompatible change to "fix" the language is something that alarmed me early on.
However, now I know that 2.x will be supported for quite awhile, and new releases will be made upon it to ease the way, I have a roadmap to follow that makes the burden significantly easier. Once we update our codebase to 2.6., I'll probably start slowly modifying things to activate more optional 3.x-isms, and by that time the myriad third party libraries will probably be supported.
2.6 brings a number of interesting features to us; and allows us to start working slowly towards migrating to the 3.0 world. This is a -very- well thought out migration plan, IMHO.
There is this big trend lately, it seems, of networks and content providers letting you view content online-- as if it were some great answer to reaching us the people.
I am starting to seriously wonder if I am the in the minority of people who want to watch TV.. ON MY TELEVISION.
It's a shocking thought.
I want to watch a TV show ON MY TV.
I am a TiVO subscriber because I want to watch those shows according to my schedule, my time, my situation.
I have an Apple TV box so I can watch shows that appear on Apple TV that either are in conflict with other shows I watch-- or are long since released.
Its frankly alarming to me that Amazon would consider switching from Unbox to a "browser streaming download" service; I have no interest in it. I have no interest in seeing these shows on my computer.
I have this big TV over there. I spent a small fortune on it. My friends and I watch shows together on it.
My computer I do things for myself on. Television is for something else entirely.
This trend is bothersome. :|
... Umm? If Finder itself is dead, just Command + Option + Escape, which has been around since the dawn of time, select Finder, and click Restart.. It'll Force Quit and restart Finder ... I've done it plenty of times, even in cases where Finder is in a beachball spin.
And this "it just vanishes" is sorta kinda a little bit a lie, donchaknow. It pops up a little dialog, which lets you OK or Reopen the app. If you want more useful information, check Console.
Uh... right. And the nukes are all that were dropped.
We didn't continuously firebomb Tokyo and the infrastructure of Japan from 1942 to 1945. We did *far* more damage to Tokyo and other industry cities then we did with the nukes- the *physical* destruction of Tokyo was almost *complete*. We *leveled* these cities.
My understanding is that while you can do that, you'll lose a great deal of the features you're getting from having the iPhone. Things like the "Visual Voicemail" required the carrier to develop a level of access that traditional networks don't expose directly. It'll still call, sure, and a lot of it'll work-- but Apple saught a partner for the device because they needed to, not just 'cuz'. The iPhone on any non-Cingular network will be crippled because those networks just don't support the featureset that Apple and Cingular developed to make its features go.
I can't remember where I read it-- so can't provide a link-- but I believe the exclusive contract with Cingular is only 5-years... after that, I wouldn't be surprised (and would actually be shocked if the opposite is true) if other carriers are going to be quite interested in doing whats nessecary to get iPhone-compatible.