Apple didn't become one of the biggest companies on the planet by signing deals that wasn't in their favour. Potential for abuse by Apple when the contracts were drawn up aside, I would think that the contracts are pretty solid and Apple knows exactly what it's rights are and has protected itself.
That assumption does not explain the multibillion-dollar lawsuits that have been going back and forth between Apple and Samsung, Apple and Qualcomm, all of the above companies and international regulatory agencies, etc. Nobody's really protected until a judge rules it so.
1. TFA is not an article in Scientific American magazine, it is a "guest blog." Quote: "The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American."
2. The author teaches computer science at a private undergraduate college. He has written a series of books, all of which use Python examples to explain concepts.
3. When he talks about "modern languages," he's clearly referring to languages that look and feel a lot like Python. Mainly Python.
4. When he talks about "eliminating intermediary languages," he means things like pseudocode. He believes (and gives an example to illustrate) that Python is now expressive enough that anything you might previously have expressed in pseudocode you can now express in Python in one go.
5. From there, he makes the leap that you no longer need to teach computer science from a "math-first" approach; you can instead use a "code-first" approach, where you teach students to "think" in Python.
on windows, it's a frontend for hyper-v. you CAN still use the *legacy* virtualbox native hypervisor but it's not selected by default.
Considering that Windows client systems don't come with Hyper-V enabled by default, and yet Virtualbox still works, your theory seems unlikely to be true.
The "owners of AI" will be anyone will a cellphone.
Who is going to stop you from running an AI engine on your GPU? The same people that stop common people from owning cars and computers?
The catch is what data set is your pocket AI going to operate on, and to what end? You think the same information that multinationals, big financial institutions, and governments will use to rule the lives of billions of people is going to be available to you?
This is simply another fail policy; fact checking of late has be shown to to be biased.
Of course it has. And Hilary Clinton is a Reptoid from the Hollow Earth and Donald Trump has been negotiating with gray aliens for the cure to cancer. Do not believe the people who tell you these are not facts. They're biased.
Same. Only mine was later upgraded with a 16KB RAM card (for a total of 64KB, like the later//e), a Mockingboard sound card, an 80-column text board, and I even did a little hack where I connected a line from the shift key to one of the paddle buttons on the motherboard, so that you could use the shift key like it was meant to be used in AppleWriter.
My dad had the version with the 16KB RAM module you plugged in the back. Unfortunately, if you banged that membrane keyboard a little too hard, it would fall out, and then you'd lose everything.
The fact that you said "one of the best" instead of "the best" is the point here. Any company that makes a benchmark (or other test) for a product they make never intends for a competitor to come out as #1.
Dumb. Chrome goes through Canary, Developer, and Beta channels before the general public ever sees a new build. You can use Octane on any of those. By your reckoning, of course no version of Chrome ever comes out behind. But what actually happens is the benchmark score bounces up and down with ongoing development of the engine.
You know... I suppose one thing from my POV is that I can't remember ever staying at a hotel where I liked the room so much that I consciously booked the same hotel again, next time I was in town. And if I do repeat stays (ugggh, Las Vegas) it's usually because I have to stay at that hotel for reasons of proximity, and being made to stay there doesn't make me feel like their "honored guest" or anything. I guess I've just never bought into that culture of "premium service" at hotels. To me, my room's mostly there to sleep in, watch TV, and hold my travel bag while I'm away.
But if I booked my travel with a site like Expedia (as per the topic), you already have all that information. No need to "enter it from scratch." It's always there on the computer when I show up at the front desk. A little hand-waving and they hand me my keys.
Yeah, the "by the hour" hotels you stay at don't ask for or keep any info, but have you ever checked into a Marriott?
I can't count how many hotels I've checked into using aggregate services like the ones described. Never once have I seen the poor, quivering guy at the front desk have to take down my personal details with a quill pen, and I've never had to fill them out either.
That Google feels the need to retire Octane over this is almost unbelievable... there must be some ulterior motivation.
Why that assumption? Google explained its reasons quite clearly:
Investigations into the execution profile of running Octane versus loading common websites (such as Facebook, Twitter, or Wikipedia) revealed that the benchmark doesn’t exercise V8’s parser or the browser loading stack the way real-world code does. Moreover, the style of Octane’s JavaScript doesn’t match the idioms and patterns employed by most modern frameworks and libraries (not to mention transpiled code or newer ES2015+ language features). This means that using Octane to measure V8 performance didn’t capture important use cases for the modern web, such as loading frameworks quickly, supporting large applications with new patterns of state management, or ensuring that ES2015+ features are as fast as their ES5 equivalents.
In addition, we began to notice that JavaScript optimizations which eked out higher Octane scores often had a detrimental effect on real-world scenarios.
If you think about the above, consider also that every JavaScript engine in use today that I can think of is open source. That means the projects accept contributions from independent developers all over the world. Many of those developers may be submitting patches designed to improve the performance of the engine. It may even be that most of the patches are designed to improve performance. But if the "proof" that the patches increase performance is the Octane benchmark suite, and the Octane suite doesn't model real-world web scenarios, then some of those performance "enhancements" may actually decrease real-world performance.
Google is retiring the benchmark suite so that good-intentioned open source developers will not be able to use it as a proof point for why their patches improve performance, when in fact they don't.
P.S. It seems one other group is disappointed that the benchmark is going away, though, and that's Chromebook fans. They've been using Octane to benchmark the performance of hardware from different vendors running the same version of Chrome OS. That still seems like a legit use case to me.
You are correct, but so is the GGP's point... it's RH's influence that's concerning. It's not that RH is "evil," it's that it's just so big. Being big in itself is no crime, but if major applications start relying on stuff that's standard on RHEL and its derivatives but might not be standard on other distros (let's say systemd, just for argument's sake), then those other distros are pretty much forced to follow RH's lead or start slipping into irrelevancy. Their only other choice would be to pony up the resources to maintain forks of those projects for their own distros, but that's asking a lot.
The people that bitch about systemd wouldn't care so much if they weren't worried that Linux is becoming a monoculture where there's no real choice but to run things you don't want to run because other things won't run without them. It doesn't matter if competing distros aren't direct forks of the RHEL codebase if the components in those distros are the same as RHEL's because they have to be.
Then an assistant manager came over. The manager says to her, "If he comes back, we'll probably hire him because he can speak English."
And why not? Have you watched them work behind the counter at McDonald's? It's unskilled labor. It's basically about making the assembly line move as fast as possible. So if workers don't need skills beyond speaking a little English and being able to learn how to work a couple machines, why not hire anyone who's willing and legal? People love to complain about unemployed immigrants and minorities, but how are they supposed to stop being chronically unemployed if they can't even get in on the ground floor (or subbasement floor)?
Perhaps Apple did hamstring the Qualcomm chip so that the performance differential to Intel's chipset would be lower, and thus prevent customers from self-selecting the Qualcomm-equipped models. Even so, that's between Apple and its customers. Qualcomm has no place interceding itself in that process.
No? Qualcomm's claims are all there in the filing. Among them:
235. Apple’s Misstatements About the Relative Performance of the Qualcomm Versus Intel Modems in iPhone 7 and Its Threat Have Harmed Qualcomm and Consumers. Absent Apple’s conduct, Qualcomm’s chipsets would be in higher demand, and Qualcomm would be able to sell more chips to Apple to meet that demand. Apple’s decision not to use Qualcomm’s enhanced chipsets denied consumers access to higher-performing devices, and Apple’s threats and other efforts to hide the truth deprived consumers of meaningful choice. And, as noted above, by choosing not to utilize the higher data rates that Qualcomm’s chipsets can reach for the Qualcomm-based iPhones, Apple reduces the data download resources available to other smartphones operating on the network.
236. By choosing not to use the best performing Qualcomm-based iPhones (and risking that consumers would find out), Apple faced a potential backlash from its customers. It avoided that backlash by concealing the truth, at the expense of Qualcomm and consumers alike.
So in other words, Qualcomm is saying that the fact that consumers could not self-select Qualcomm iPhones materially affected its business. It further alleges that consumers were not properly informed, not just because Apple withheld information, but because Apple deliberately misrepresented the facts by stating publicly that the performance of both models was identical.
This isn't the main claim of the lawsuit, though. Qualcomm is alleging Apple interfered with Qualcomm's patent licensing contracts with manufacturers (like Foxconn, Wistron, Pegatron) by encouraging them not to pay the full royalties Qualcomm asks for and not to comply with independent royalty audits. Apple is alleging that Qualcomm's royalty licensing practices are anticompetitive. It'll all go on for years.
I understand Apple's desire to cheap out on the modems to squeeze a dime from a business perspective. However, they position the iPhone as a premium product and using sub-par chips that provide sub-par performance will give consumers the opposite idea. If Apple was concerned with having a consistent user experience, they wouldn't be using Intel modems at all.
It's hard to love either company. It's easy to hate on Apple, but most consumers know nothing about how Qualcomm is getting sued all over the world for anticompetitive practices -- including by regulators in the U.S., who don't like how Qualcomm licenses its patents. I don't blame Apple for wanting to open up the market. The problem appears to be that it underestimated the inferiority of Intel's modems. The question is... is Intel 100 percent to blame for that underperformance, or does it once again have something to do with Qualcomm's patents?
I can't really overemphasize how bitter the litigation in the mobile market has become. First Apple v. Samsung, now this.
We can't simply check repeat guests in from history—we (and they) have to enter their personal info from scratch every single time.
What kind of "personal info" is that? I've never had to do anything but flash an ID and hand over a credit card to cover incidentals, except maybe if I'm traveling overseas and they need passport details.
I once remember my internet went out and Netflix still "streamed" for 30 minutes
I had an internet outage recently and Netflix shut down a few seconds after the loss of connectivity (I was browsing on a tablet at the time). It may depend on your device, though -- this was via an Android TV device that probably doesn't have much of a storage buffer.
Um, like, you mean like the same Ford that took a cozy hayride to Washington a few years back, with Chrysler and GM, to, like, ask the government for taxpayer money to pay for their mistakes, because they all were "too big to fail" . . . ? You mean, like, that Ford?
Except of the three, Ford didn't really need to be bailed out. It only asked to be included in the bailout because if it wasn't, it would be the only automaker of the big three that wasn't getting massive government subsidies, thereby forcing it to compete in an unfair market.
This is how it works: a business analyst runs into office with cries "build me that, that, and that", a PMs jumps from his chair and skypes Moscow office with an order "write me libs that do that, that, and that". Libs that are done in two weeks time, and they only have to be glued together by a junior dev monkey, " realising higher order business functions" and taking all credit. Ask any person who ran away from Google
Sounds pretty efficient. I know Oracle does roughly the same. What's wrong with this model, if it works? (Other than feeling butthurt about "credit.")
That being said, it makes sense not to give most work visas to a narrow set of professions, but rather spread it out to more disciplines.
Which the U.S. already does. An H-2A, for example, is a temporary visa for foreign agricultural workers. We just only talk about H-1B visas here because it's the one that most often applies to our own jobs -- which, by the way, include "Specialty Occupations, DOD Cooperative Research and Development Project Workers, and Fashion Models."
Slashdot Mirror
It sounds to me like you're of the opinion that Linux is primarily a desktop OS. You might want to examine some of the history on that.
Multi-factor?
Apple didn't become one of the biggest companies on the planet by signing deals that wasn't in their favour. Potential for abuse by Apple when the contracts were drawn up aside, I would think that the contracts are pretty solid and Apple knows exactly what it's rights are and has protected itself.
That assumption does not explain the multibillion-dollar lawsuits that have been going back and forth between Apple and Samsung, Apple and Qualcomm, all of the above companies and international regulatory agencies, etc. Nobody's really protected until a judge rules it so.
Oh, and adding to my own comment: No, he never once uses terms like "functional programming," "Lisp," "Scheme," etc.
Everybody simmer down. TL;DR:
1. TFA is not an article in Scientific American magazine, it is a "guest blog." Quote: "The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American."
2. The author teaches computer science at a private undergraduate college. He has written a series of books, all of which use Python examples to explain concepts.
3. When he talks about "modern languages," he's clearly referring to languages that look and feel a lot like Python. Mainly Python.
4. When he talks about "eliminating intermediary languages," he means things like pseudocode. He believes (and gives an example to illustrate) that Python is now expressive enough that anything you might previously have expressed in pseudocode you can now express in Python in one go.
5. From there, he makes the leap that you no longer need to teach computer science from a "math-first" approach; you can instead use a "code-first" approach, where you teach students to "think" in Python.
6. Hand-waving about the future from there.
on windows, it's a frontend for hyper-v. you CAN still use the *legacy* virtualbox native hypervisor but it's not selected by default.
Considering that Windows client systems don't come with Hyper-V enabled by default, and yet Virtualbox still works, your theory seems unlikely to be true.
The "owners of AI" will be anyone will a cellphone.
Who is going to stop you from running an AI engine on your GPU? The same people that stop common people from owning cars and computers?
The catch is what data set is your pocket AI going to operate on, and to what end? You think the same information that multinationals, big financial institutions, and governments will use to rule the lives of billions of people is going to be available to you?
This is simply another fail policy; fact checking of late has be shown to to be biased.
Of course it has. And Hilary Clinton is a Reptoid from the Hollow Earth and Donald Trump has been negotiating with gray aliens for the cure to cancer. Do not believe the people who tell you these are not facts. They're biased.
Same. Only mine was later upgraded with a 16KB RAM card (for a total of 64KB, like the later //e), a Mockingboard sound card, an 80-column text board, and I even did a little hack where I connected a line from the shift key to one of the paddle buttons on the motherboard, so that you could use the shift key like it was meant to be used in AppleWriter.
My dad had the version with the 16KB RAM module you plugged in the back. Unfortunately, if you banged that membrane keyboard a little too hard, it would fall out, and then you'd lose everything.
The fact that you said "one of the best" instead of "the best" is the point here. Any company that makes a benchmark (or other test) for a product they make never intends for a competitor to come out as #1.
Dumb. Chrome goes through Canary, Developer, and Beta channels before the general public ever sees a new build. You can use Octane on any of those. By your reckoning, of course no version of Chrome ever comes out behind. But what actually happens is the benchmark score bounces up and down with ongoing development of the engine.
You know ... I suppose one thing from my POV is that I can't remember ever staying at a hotel where I liked the room so much that I consciously booked the same hotel again, next time I was in town. And if I do repeat stays (ugggh, Las Vegas) it's usually because I have to stay at that hotel for reasons of proximity, and being made to stay there doesn't make me feel like their "honored guest" or anything. I guess I've just never bought into that culture of "premium service" at hotels. To me, my room's mostly there to sleep in, watch TV, and hold my travel bag while I'm away.
But if I booked my travel with a site like Expedia (as per the topic), you already have all that information. No need to "enter it from scratch." It's always there on the computer when I show up at the front desk. A little hand-waving and they hand me my keys.
Yeah, the "by the hour" hotels you stay at don't ask for or keep any info, but have you ever checked into a Marriott?
I can't count how many hotels I've checked into using aggregate services like the ones described. Never once have I seen the poor, quivering guy at the front desk have to take down my personal details with a quill pen, and I've never had to fill them out either.
That Google feels the need to retire Octane over this is almost unbelievable... there must be some ulterior motivation.
Why that assumption? Google explained its reasons quite clearly:
Investigations into the execution profile of running Octane versus loading common websites (such as Facebook, Twitter, or Wikipedia) revealed that the benchmark doesn’t exercise V8’s parser or the browser loading stack the way real-world code does. Moreover, the style of Octane’s JavaScript doesn’t match the idioms and patterns employed by most modern frameworks and libraries (not to mention transpiled code or newer ES2015+ language features). This means that using Octane to measure V8 performance didn’t capture important use cases for the modern web, such as loading frameworks quickly, supporting large applications with new patterns of state management, or ensuring that ES2015+ features are as fast as their ES5 equivalents.
In addition, we began to notice that JavaScript optimizations which eked out higher Octane scores often had a detrimental effect on real-world scenarios.
If you think about the above, consider also that every JavaScript engine in use today that I can think of is open source. That means the projects accept contributions from independent developers all over the world. Many of those developers may be submitting patches designed to improve the performance of the engine. It may even be that most of the patches are designed to improve performance. But if the "proof" that the patches increase performance is the Octane benchmark suite, and the Octane suite doesn't model real-world web scenarios, then some of those performance "enhancements" may actually decrease real-world performance.
Google is retiring the benchmark suite so that good-intentioned open source developers will not be able to use it as a proof point for why their patches improve performance, when in fact they don't.
P.S. It seems one other group is disappointed that the benchmark is going away, though, and that's Chromebook fans. They've been using Octane to benchmark the performance of hardware from different vendors running the same version of Chrome OS. That still seems like a legit use case to me.
Thing is, even with age restrictions on the vehicles allowed, they're still going to get older, dirtier, smellier.
Why? It's not like Uber operates its own fleet of vehicles. The drivers bring their own cars. The last one I was in was a nice, well-kept BMW.
You are correct, but so is the GGP's point ... it's RH's influence that's concerning. It's not that RH is "evil," it's that it's just so big. Being big in itself is no crime, but if major applications start relying on stuff that's standard on RHEL and its derivatives but might not be standard on other distros (let's say systemd, just for argument's sake), then those other distros are pretty much forced to follow RH's lead or start slipping into irrelevancy. Their only other choice would be to pony up the resources to maintain forks of those projects for their own distros, but that's asking a lot.
The people that bitch about systemd wouldn't care so much if they weren't worried that Linux is becoming a monoculture where there's no real choice but to run things you don't want to run because other things won't run without them. It doesn't matter if competing distros aren't direct forks of the RHEL codebase if the components in those distros are the same as RHEL's because they have to be.
Then an assistant manager came over. The manager says to her, "If he comes back, we'll probably hire him because he can speak English."
And why not? Have you watched them work behind the counter at McDonald's? It's unskilled labor. It's basically about making the assembly line move as fast as possible. So if workers don't need skills beyond speaking a little English and being able to learn how to work a couple machines, why not hire anyone who's willing and legal? People love to complain about unemployed immigrants and minorities, but how are they supposed to stop being chronically unemployed if they can't even get in on the ground floor (or subbasement floor)?
Perhaps Apple did hamstring the Qualcomm chip so that the performance differential to Intel's chipset would be lower, and thus prevent customers from self-selecting the Qualcomm-equipped models. Even so, that's between Apple and its customers. Qualcomm has no place interceding itself in that process.
No? Qualcomm's claims are all there in the filing. Among them:
235. Apple’s Misstatements About the Relative Performance of the
Qualcomm Versus Intel Modems in iPhone 7 and Its Threat Have Harmed
Qualcomm and Consumers. Absent Apple’s conduct, Qualcomm’s chipsets would
be in higher demand, and Qualcomm would be able to sell more chips to Apple to
meet that demand. Apple’s decision not to use Qualcomm’s enhanced chipsets
denied consumers access to higher-performing devices, and Apple’s threats and
other efforts to hide the truth deprived consumers of meaningful choice. And, as
noted above, by choosing not to utilize the higher data rates that Qualcomm’s
chipsets can reach for the Qualcomm-based iPhones, Apple reduces the data
download resources available to other smartphones operating on the network.
236. By choosing not to use the best performing Qualcomm-based iPhones
(and risking that consumers would find out), Apple faced a potential backlash from
its customers. It avoided that backlash by concealing the truth, at the expense of
Qualcomm and consumers alike.
So in other words, Qualcomm is saying that the fact that consumers could not self-select Qualcomm iPhones materially affected its business. It further alleges that consumers were not properly informed, not just because Apple withheld information, but because Apple deliberately misrepresented the facts by stating publicly that the performance of both models was identical.
This isn't the main claim of the lawsuit, though. Qualcomm is alleging Apple interfered with Qualcomm's patent licensing contracts with manufacturers (like Foxconn, Wistron, Pegatron) by encouraging them not to pay the full royalties Qualcomm asks for and not to comply with independent royalty audits. Apple is alleging that Qualcomm's royalty licensing practices are anticompetitive. It'll all go on for years.
I understand Apple's desire to cheap out on the modems to squeeze a dime from a business perspective. However, they position the iPhone as a premium product and using sub-par chips that provide sub-par performance will give consumers the opposite idea. If Apple was concerned with having a consistent user experience, they wouldn't be using Intel modems at all.
It's hard to love either company. It's easy to hate on Apple, but most consumers know nothing about how Qualcomm is getting sued all over the world for anticompetitive practices -- including by regulators in the U.S., who don't like how Qualcomm licenses its patents. I don't blame Apple for wanting to open up the market. The problem appears to be that it underestimated the inferiority of Intel's modems. The question is ... is Intel 100 percent to blame for that underperformance, or does it once again have something to do with Qualcomm's patents?
I can't really overemphasize how bitter the litigation in the mobile market has become. First Apple v. Samsung, now this.
We can't simply check repeat guests in from history—we (and they) have to enter their personal info from scratch every single time.
What kind of "personal info" is that? I've never had to do anything but flash an ID and hand over a credit card to cover incidentals, except maybe if I'm traveling overseas and they need passport details.
I once remember my internet went out and Netflix still "streamed" for 30 minutes
I had an internet outage recently and Netflix shut down a few seconds after the loss of connectivity (I was browsing on a tablet at the time). It may depend on your device, though -- this was via an Android TV device that probably doesn't have much of a storage buffer.
Um, like, you mean like the same Ford that took a cozy hayride to Washington a few years back, with Chrysler and GM, to, like, ask the government for taxpayer money to pay for their mistakes, because they all were "too big to fail" . . . ? You mean, like, that Ford?
Except of the three, Ford didn't really need to be bailed out. It only asked to be included in the bailout because if it wasn't, it would be the only automaker of the big three that wasn't getting massive government subsidies, thereby forcing it to compete in an unfair market.
This is how it works: a business analyst runs into office with cries "build me that, that, and that", a PMs jumps from his chair and skypes Moscow office with an order "write me libs that do that, that, and that". Libs that are done in two weeks time, and they only have to be glued together by a junior dev monkey, " realising higher order business functions" and taking all credit. Ask any person who ran away from Google
Sounds pretty efficient. I know Oracle does roughly the same. What's wrong with this model, if it works? (Other than feeling butthurt about "credit.")
The Russian men can leave. The hot Russian women can stay.
Sure. They're the ones who make the most money anyway.
That being said, it makes sense not to give most work visas to a narrow set of professions, but rather spread it out to more disciplines.
Which the U.S. already does. An H-2A, for example, is a temporary visa for foreign agricultural workers. We just only talk about H-1B visas here because it's the one that most often applies to our own jobs -- which, by the way, include "Specialty Occupations, DOD Cooperative Research and Development Project Workers, and Fashion Models."