What you're describing is top-down programming, and to be fair, the top-down vs bottom-up debate* has been ongoing since long before there were IDEs, and doesn't even have much to do with an IDE except that automatically generated code stubs have made it easier.
* Debate is probably the wrong word. It's usually a matter of using the appropriate development style for a given project/team, though as with anything else, you'll find people who adhere religiously to one or the other.
Siri is all but useless right now. It can't launch external apps (aside from a limited subset of APIs for built-in apps), it can only run TTS on the very latest text you've received, it doesn't speak its answers -- which severely limits its value as a hands-free tool -- it won't accept spelling in lieu of a word it doesn't recognize, like a surname or a business with a pun, and it always just takes a stab at interpreting your request instead of asking for clarification when it's interpretation is (or should be) beneath a threshold of certainty. Oh, and dictating a text or email will cease if you pause for two beats. There's no way to correct what you've said, and half the time when I say "Tell [person] [message to be texted]," it just starts calling them instead, and then I have to hit every button on the phone to try to cancel before it goes through.
That said, Siri wasn't at all a deciding factor in upgrading my 3GS to a 4S, so I don't really care much either way. And of course, there's the disclaimer that it's ostensibly still in beta, for whatever that's worth.
Not true. It depends on a multitude of factors, but in general as speed approaches the limits of the vehicle and driver's ability to maneuver around obstacles, the probability of an accident approaches 1. You wouldn't be prudent to try to drive through a forest at anything over a few MPH, for example. This limit, for the median car/driver on a given road, may be significantly higher than the posted speed limit, but it still exists. But you don't want to set the speed limit right at the average maneuverability limit anyway, because then the bottom half of drivers/vehicles are guaranteed to crash. You want to set it at about half that, which still guarantees some accidents, but not significantly more than any lower value > 0. With higher standards for vehicle roadworthiness and driver performance (namely through automation), you may be able to raise those limits a bit, but even with perfect driver performance there's still a physical limit to a vehicle's ability to overcome inertia and change direction.
Good logic, except if your tags are expired, you're not abiding the law. Anyway, driving around without even temporary tags will get you pulled over in most states. I can't explain CA, but then, few people can.
Not to mention getting a liver transplant with full-blown pancreatic cancer* which had already metastasized**, possibly due to his unwillingness to undergo surgery at an earlier date***, by adding himself to the transplant list in multiple states****. And he actually bad-mouthed Bill Gates for doing full-time philanthropy... I'm no Gates fan, especially during his reign at MS, but give me a break.
* Generally a no-no, but I guess they make exceptions for billionaires. ** According to second-hand accounts, though it's unlikely he'd need a new liver unless the cancer had already spread. And transplanting an organ due to secondary (metastasized) cancer is a HUGE no-no, but again, I guess they make exceptions for billionaires. *** There's no way to know for sure if his delay made any difference, but regardless, it's almost as bad as giving a lung transplant to a patient who keeps smoking after their diagnosis. **** Not illegal, but most people can't afford to do it.
Well it points out the problem with vigilantism gone wrong, implying there's a right way to do it. I was posting tongue in cheek though, I'm sure you didn't mean it that way.
What it really means vigilantes now have another tool to learn where offenders live so they can ensure their children stay away from those locations, as well as beat the crap out of them and torch their homes, even if it means endangering others at the same location, or targeting the wrong person because the perp moved elsewhere and nobody updated the database....because vigilantism is perfectly okay as long as the person deserves it.
Agreed, subsidy is probably the wrong word, but easy, nearly guaranteed access to cheap money in nearly unlimited quantities artificially inflates pricing, because people are willing to pay more with money they haven't earned and don't have to budget than they otherwise would. This is especially true for kids going to college who haven't learned the value of money yet, or who have unrealistic expectations regarding their earning potential with a degree, but it's also true for many adults, as exemplified by the housing bubble. IMO housing prices are *still* a good 25-50% above a healthy range in many areas, but that's a discussion for another time.
That's weird, I thought good tech came from having a charismatic, visionary CEO with a God complex and a penchant for perfectionism and absolute control, and the engineers only exist to execute His will.
The original assumption... was that known sources may be more expensive, but they also are more tightly regulated than counterfeit goods.
No it wasn't.
I'd rather pay up and be assured I'm getting the correct medicine from a well regulated facility.
There's no such assurance, and "well regulated" is clearly anything but.
I'm not arguing for less regulation, I'm saying current regulation (and enforcement) is insufficient. No one knows how insufficient because there's no public documentation. But if I have to gamble, my money is on the high-value name brand pills being counterfeit over the generic low-cost drugs from India, many of which are imported into the EU and so are subject to the same quality controls as other EU sources (for whatever that's worth).
And no one needs to own their own lab; there are a number of labs that accept samples for testing.
Nice try though, and I don't blame you for posting that twisted argument AC.
The original assertion was that paying more for known sources provides some sort of guarantee of quality.
Article 1) The plant was shutdown after the fact. Adulterated drugs were released and consumed, and there's no reason to assume it was an isolated incident. It could have been, but it could also be the tip of an iceberg. Either way, it demonstrates that legitimate manufacturers have, at best, questionable quality controls.
Article 2) Counterfeit drugs have wound up in US hospitals and pharmacies. Specifically, page 3 asserts that between 5 (drug manufacturer's ceiling) and 80+ (independent assessment) people died from taking heparin manufactured by a legitimate supplier using counterfeit active ingredients, which is further evidence that buying from legitimate sources provides, at best, limited protection. Of course, that doesn't help much when you're dead.
When it comes to prescription drugs, It's naive to believe that paying more will necessarily get you more. Buy from whomever you want and pay what you want, but if you're not getting your medication tested by an independent laboratory, you're rolling the dice no matter who your supplier is.
"This has 'Pfizer' written all over it," Gupta remarked, looking at some of the counterfeit drugs. "And it's even got the newer Pfizer emblem with the little slant on it and stuff. I mean from the packaging, you'd never know," Clark said. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/10/60minutes/main20040693.shtml
I'll address all 3 responses in one post if that's okay.
SciFi is the extrapolation of technology based on science. It's fiction because it's not a true story, but it's still an educated guess based on fact.
Fantasy is based on nothing more than imagination, and doesn't claim otherwise. Spells, sorcery, and anything else based on supernatural (i.e., non-scientifically explainable) phenomenon.
Most SciFi doesn't have fantasy elements, and most fantasy doesn't have SciFi elements. If a particular book overlaps, such as "Star Wars," with both starships and "the force," then it goes in both categories, the same way a movie can be both comedy and drama, but the categories shouldn't be combined just because there are a few outliers. Not all dramas are funny, and not all comedies are dramas.
Yes, the bookstore section for each would be smaller then the two combined -- perhaps too small to justify -- but physical book retailers are almost extinct, so that's not a very good rationale IMO. To be fair, Amazon now lets the user drill-down to select one or the other, but it's still not sorted out very well, since many hard-fantasy books (namely the Song of Ice and Fire AKA Game of Thrones series) still show up in the SciFi section.
I was thinking the same thing, but I'm going to speculate that these will only be legal to use by fully sober licensed drivers, at in the foreseeable future. I can't see the government condoning their use by incapacitated or underage persons, at least in the US, where even our left wing is fairly conservative by global standards. The gov't will always want a person "behind the wheel" to hold accountable. Even Nevada's new law requires "a driverâ(TM)s license endorsement for the operation of an autonomous vehicle on the highways of this State." http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/76th2011/Bills/AB/AB511_EN.pdf
Slashdot Mirror
What you're describing is top-down programming, and to be fair, the top-down vs bottom-up debate* has been ongoing since long before there were IDEs, and doesn't even have much to do with an IDE except that automatically generated code stubs have made it easier.
* Debate is probably the wrong word. It's usually a matter of using the appropriate development style for a given project/team, though as with anything else, you'll find people who adhere religiously to one or the other.
Have you disabled "raise to speak" in Siri settings? That was reported on day one (or two) and solved my problem immediately.
I can imagine a future screen-less phone that's just a stick with a speaker, mic, and button, with everything being done via voice...
I can't wait to play Angry Birds on that bad boy.
Siri is all but useless right now. It can't launch external apps (aside from a limited subset of APIs for built-in apps), it can only run TTS on the very latest text you've received, it doesn't speak its answers -- which severely limits its value as a hands-free tool -- it won't accept spelling in lieu of a word it doesn't recognize, like a surname or a business with a pun, and it always just takes a stab at interpreting your request instead of asking for clarification when it's interpretation is (or should be) beneath a threshold of certainty. Oh, and dictating a text or email will cease if you pause for two beats. There's no way to correct what you've said, and half the time when I say "Tell [person] [message to be texted]," it just starts calling them instead, and then I have to hit every button on the phone to try to cancel before it goes through.
That said, Siri wasn't at all a deciding factor in upgrading my 3GS to a 4S, so I don't really care much either way. And of course, there's the disclaimer that it's ostensibly still in beta, for whatever that's worth.
Call them on it.
No, the blood would be on the hands of the cartel, and anyone who says otherwise is full of shit.
Thanks for taking the time to read beyond the first sentence of my post.
My colon's been aware of the supercharging power of applesauce for decades.
Not true. It depends on a multitude of factors, but in general as speed approaches the limits of the vehicle and driver's ability to maneuver around obstacles, the probability of an accident approaches 1. You wouldn't be prudent to try to drive through a forest at anything over a few MPH, for example. This limit, for the median car/driver on a given road, may be significantly higher than the posted speed limit, but it still exists. But you don't want to set the speed limit right at the average maneuverability limit anyway, because then the bottom half of drivers/vehicles are guaranteed to crash. You want to set it at about half that, which still guarantees some accidents, but not significantly more than any lower value > 0. With higher standards for vehicle roadworthiness and driver performance (namely through automation), you may be able to raise those limits a bit, but even with perfect driver performance there's still a physical limit to a vehicle's ability to overcome inertia and change direction.
Your state sucks then. Around here, in the past 5 years, one 55 zone was raised to 65, and one 70 was raised to 75.
Good logic, except if your tags are expired, you're not abiding the law. Anyway, driving around without even temporary tags will get you pulled over in most states. I can't explain CA, but then, few people can.
Not to mention getting a liver transplant with full-blown pancreatic cancer* which had already metastasized**, possibly due to his unwillingness to undergo surgery at an earlier date***, by adding himself to the transplant list in multiple states****. And he actually bad-mouthed Bill Gates for doing full-time philanthropy... I'm no Gates fan, especially during his reign at MS, but give me a break.
* Generally a no-no, but I guess they make exceptions for billionaires.
** According to second-hand accounts, though it's unlikely he'd need a new liver unless the cancer had already spread. And transplanting an organ due to secondary (metastasized) cancer is a HUGE no-no, but again, I guess they make exceptions for billionaires.
*** There's no way to know for sure if his delay made any difference, but regardless, it's almost as bad as giving a lung transplant to a patient who keeps smoking after their diagnosis.
**** Not illegal, but most people can't afford to do it.
Well it points out the problem with vigilantism gone wrong, implying there's a right way to do it. I was posting tongue in cheek though, I'm sure you didn't mean it that way.
What it really means vigilantes now have another tool to learn where offenders live so they can ensure their children stay away from those locations, as well as beat the crap out of them and torch their homes, even if it means endangering others at the same location, or targeting the wrong person because the perp moved elsewhere and nobody updated the database. ...because vigilantism is perfectly okay as long as the person deserves it.
Agreed, subsidy is probably the wrong word, but easy, nearly guaranteed access to cheap money in nearly unlimited quantities artificially inflates pricing, because people are willing to pay more with money they haven't earned and don't have to budget than they otherwise would. This is especially true for kids going to college who haven't learned the value of money yet, or who have unrealistic expectations regarding their earning potential with a degree, but it's also true for many adults, as exemplified by the housing bubble. IMO housing prices are *still* a good 25-50% above a healthy range in many areas, but that's a discussion for another time.
That's weird, I thought good tech came from having a charismatic, visionary CEO with a God complex and a penchant for perfectionism and absolute control, and the engineers only exist to execute His will.
No it wasn't.
I'd rather pay up and be assured I'm getting the correct medicine from a well regulated facility.
There's no such assurance, and "well regulated" is clearly anything but.
I'm not arguing for less regulation, I'm saying current regulation (and enforcement) is insufficient. No one knows how insufficient because there's no public documentation. But if I have to gamble, my money is on the high-value name brand pills being counterfeit over the generic low-cost drugs from India, many of which are imported into the EU and so are subject to the same quality controls as other EU sources (for whatever that's worth).
And no one needs to own their own lab; there are a number of labs that accept samples for testing.
Nice try though, and I don't blame you for posting that twisted argument AC.
Unless your single home land-line phone comes with free mobile service, your analogy is way off.
Bah... that's all in the past. History never repeats itself!
The original assertion was that paying more for known sources provides some sort of guarantee of quality.
Article 1) The plant was shutdown after the fact. Adulterated drugs were released and consumed, and there's no reason to assume it was an isolated incident. It could have been, but it could also be the tip of an iceberg. Either way, it demonstrates that legitimate manufacturers have, at best, questionable quality controls.
Article 2) Counterfeit drugs have wound up in US hospitals and pharmacies. Specifically, page 3 asserts that between 5 (drug manufacturer's ceiling) and 80+ (independent assessment) people died from taking heparin manufactured by a legitimate supplier using counterfeit active ingredients, which is further evidence that buying from legitimate sources provides, at best, limited protection. Of course, that doesn't help much when you're dead.
When it comes to prescription drugs, It's naive to believe that paying more will necessarily get you more. Buy from whomever you want and pay what you want, but if you're not getting your medication tested by an independent laboratory, you're rolling the dice no matter who your supplier is.
Don't forget the Transformer Prime, Optimus Prime, LexisNexis, and the upcoming Jellyroll running on Alexis Texas with full TRIM support.
I'd rather pay up and be assured I'm getting the correct medicine from a well regulated facility.
LOL.... Naivety is so cute.
GlaxoSmithKline has agreed to pay $750 million to resolve Justice Department allegations that the company sold adulterated and improperly made drugs.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39852323/ns/health-health_care/t/drug-maker-pay-million-defective-meds/#.TqBDwt6Ao8k
"This has 'Pfizer' written all over it," Gupta remarked, looking at some of the counterfeit drugs.
"And it's even got the newer Pfizer emblem with the little slant on it and stuff. I mean from the packaging, you'd never know," Clark said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/10/60minutes/main20040693.shtml
I'll address all 3 responses in one post if that's okay.
SciFi is the extrapolation of technology based on science. It's fiction because it's not a true story, but it's still an educated guess based on fact.
Fantasy is based on nothing more than imagination, and doesn't claim otherwise. Spells, sorcery, and anything else based on supernatural (i.e., non-scientifically explainable) phenomenon.
Most SciFi doesn't have fantasy elements, and most fantasy doesn't have SciFi elements. If a particular book overlaps, such as "Star Wars," with both starships and "the force," then it goes in both categories, the same way a movie can be both comedy and drama, but the categories shouldn't be combined just because there are a few outliers. Not all dramas are funny, and not all comedies are dramas.
Yes, the bookstore section for each would be smaller then the two combined -- perhaps too small to justify -- but physical book retailers are almost extinct, so that's not a very good rationale IMO. To be fair, Amazon now lets the user drill-down to select one or the other, but it's still not sorted out very well, since many hard-fantasy books (namely the Song of Ice and Fire AKA Game of Thrones series) still show up in the SciFi section.
Fantasy is pretty much the opposite of science. Can we stop grouping it with SciFi?
I was thinking the same thing, but I'm going to speculate that these will only be legal to use by fully sober licensed drivers, at in the foreseeable future. I can't see the government condoning their use by incapacitated or underage persons, at least in the US, where even our left wing is fairly conservative by global standards. The gov't will always want a person "behind the wheel" to hold accountable. Even Nevada's new law requires "a driverâ(TM)s license endorsement for the operation of an autonomous vehicle on the highways of this State." http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/76th2011/Bills/AB/AB511_EN.pdf
In other words, don't hold your breath.