LOL - I'm quite aware of HTML5. The only positives, for application writing, that HTML5 has over Flash (I'm not a flash fan myself but it has its uses) is that you can use structured storage (Flash has unstructured/hackish storage.) All of the other 'pluses' you're referring to with HTML5 existed in Flash/Java ages ago.
Your statement that "iPhone HTML5 apps are definitively superior to anything you can achieve in Flash or Java on any other platform" is patently ridiculous. Of course, given that you are obviously technology biased in this case ("Our new MindBeam 'application'") I'll forgive you for that; however, I'll also happily point out that you don't have sockets, or video, you don't have nearly the animation capabilities of flash, you don't have performance of flash or java (even in chrome, where I have personally written a very simple software 3D renderer), you have enormously larger testing footprints (HTML5 is implemented quite differently in browsers even on the same operating system.) I could go on, but why?
Don't think I am disparaging HTML5, I think it's awesome, if something of a bastardization of the purpose of HTML (something you can accuse flash of being as well - a bastardization of the original purpose of flash), but claiming that it's better for writing applications in than Java or Flash? It might be time to put you in a home;).
"Your theory was that it was all about requiring application sales through the App Store, was it not" It was mostly based on that premise; however, you forget that Apple chooses what aspects of HTML 5 to implement or not implement, including avoiding support for Ogg/Theora, avoiding the other HTML5 features found in Safari on Mac OSX but NOT on the iPhone; ergo, Apple will not be supporting web sockets in HTML5 on the iPhone until they are forced to via the threat of lawsuit or investigation as just one example.
"That Apple chooses to not let the inferior legacy technologies of Flash or Java drag down the iPhone user experience" - That's a particularly silly statement considering that flash was ok'd by Apple just recently, as long as they crippled it. LOL.
I'm sure you're very happy that Flash and Java are not allowed to run on the iPhone, because you'd face more competition. Oops, sorry, didn't mean to 'out' you.
Actually, you haven't demonstrated anything except for a tendency to wax prosaic as if you were some great learned cove condescending to educate the poor unfortunates, such as myself.:)
"People are indeed developing for the iPhone without an SDK and publishing/selling applications without the crApp Store right now, using HTML5" - Wow, you are proposing that application development in HTML is an acceptable alternative to application development in Java or Flash?
Apparently you're a bit old to recall this, my dear old man, but people have been building HTML applications for years and the results are terrible in comparison to what you can do in Flash or Java. This isn't to diminish those HTML developers because they've chose HTML due to platform/availability/market constraints (which is exactly why you've got an HTML example application for the iPhone.)
I guess, by this logic, Slashdot has published an iPhone application because you can see this website on your iPhone and (probably) put in comments.;)
As for my "theory" not "holding up" - I guess SUN and Adobe have been repeatedly rebuffed by Apple for the sake of the iPhone users, eh? LOL. Somehow a crippled version of flash is acceptable on the iPhone, but not full Flash - Oh, ye Gods and little boarlets, thanks be to Apple for saving our poor iPhone users from the terrible damage that regular flash would have done. LOL.
You're seriously confused. The reason a full flash implementation does not exist on the iPhone is precisely because you wouldn't have to use the app store to use flash applications, *they don't have to be installed locally*. You do not have to store a flash application on your local filesystem. You can write quite complex and useful applications as flash (and applets if you enjoy a bit o' UI pain) where absolutely nothing is stored on the local filesystem. Settings, data, history, all easily stored on the server. Our company actually serves a full on application in this fashion to some of its clients.
Oh, by the way, the two methods you proposed for building iPhone apps without needing a Mac explicitly state that you need both a Mac AND the iPhone SDK.
"Don't like the hardware prices, don't buy"? Really? How the heck am I supposed to develop an iPhone app without using the Apple SDK on an Apple machine? I guess I should hack the SDK if I "Don't like the hardware prices" - LOL.
Microsoft? Who cares about Microsoft? (Ignoring that you can get versions of Visual Studio for free and the hardware to run it would save me tons of money compared to buying anything remotely similar at Apple)
I write applications for Android, my IDE - free, my SDK runs on a multitude of platforms, my language - Java, my experience - enjoyable.
"maybe a couple of Win mobile phones" - I guess you don't test your iPhone apps on more than one iPhone then, neh?
Typical Apple disciple, turn this into a Microsoft comparison when that has nothing to do with it.
Do you still have to buy a hideously overpriced Apple machine to use as a dev box?
Flash (REAL, unchained and fettered, Flash) and Java do not exist on the iPhone for one simple reason: GREED.
If a complete Flash Player and Java are on the iPhone, everyone can develop for the iPhone without an SDK, everyone can publish/sell applications without the crApp Store.
I have no problem with a company making money off its products, but the lengths to which Apple disciples will go to justify the hideousness of its corporate behavior is only matched by their ability to ignore Apple's ridiculous prices.
That would depend upon the pump, the scenario you describe assumes that the pump maintains a constant output pressure - that seems, to me, unlikely to be the case. In any case, if the pump did maintain a constant output pressure the fluctuations in BP you're referring to are analogous to how your tire pressure changes when your tires heat up/cool down from driving/parking. They're primarily affected by external stimuli; however, like you stated, ultrasound would probably be the most effective way to measure.
Being a veteran myself I can simply suggest, from my own experience, that 60% of the people I ever observed in their position were incompetent idiots or total slackers doing the absolute minimum to ride out for their 20 years. Now, perhaps the duty stations I had assignments for were filled with an inordinate amount of morons, but other intelligent personnel seemed to have the same experience that I did. I can only speak with regards to the Navy and Air Force (I didn't interact with the Marines, God Bless them, or the Army.)
...to me that your kid will not be getting the same heart monitor each time. Otherwise, if they weren't 'sharing' monitors, they could just use the strap the monitor came with instead of having what appears to be a hygiene concern.
Wouldn't purchasing "your own" straps suggest that your kid will not be getting the same heart monitor each time? Otherwise, if they weren't 'sharing' monitors, they could just use the strap the monitor came with instead of having what appears to be a hygiene concern.
IF you are agreeing that this legislation should happen, and IF you put software out there for people to use, and you did so "knowing" that it was buggy, and someone used it and was 'hurt' (in some fashion) due to these bugs why shouldn't you be as liable as a company that does the same thing but charges for it?
What on earth does money have to do with responsibility outside of a contract?
As for most consumer software not having a contract, you take your chances, just like you would with free software with no contract.
There's quite a bit of FOSS that I like, and I contribute to it occasionally (I don't code much outside of work anymore sadly), but I don't think it deserves any special protection under the law because it is free. It should be treated in exactly the same manner, legally, as software that people purchase. BTW, I don't think either type of code should be bound to some indirect contractual guidelines, it doesn't make sense.
It's not a good analogy at all. You did not create the goods in question that you donated to charity, but if you DID create the goods (like a bicycle for example) and you knowingly donated it knowing it had seroius flaws and someone was hurt - how does it matter that you gave it away for free?
Contract? Nobody is talking breach of contract, this is a push for legislative bindings that would punish people who 'ship' software with bugs knowingly. Whether you charge for your code or not should be immaterial to whether you can be sued for knowing publishing buggy software for people to use. Why should FOSS be exempted? Many major FOSS projects are only 'sort of free' in any case, charging for support for example (again, there's nothing wrong with that.)
Personally, I think that issues like this should be left to the contract involved (thereby automatically exempting most FOSS) and the traditional method for handling things like this. New legislation and/or legal guidelines in this area is simply opening a large can of worms.
First, that's a very inaccurate description of what FOSS is. There are FOSS developers who make a living just doing FOSS, for example, charging for support, training, prioritization of bug fixes/feature requests, et cetera. Second, and most importantly, what has that got to do with basic fairness?
Whether you charge for software or do not charge for software should not affect your liability in the legal system for issues with that software.
You're arguing that this is putatively a punishment rather than a compliance enforcement. That doesn't seem to be the case according to the disposition of the EU which is that to avoid further fines, Microsoft needs to comply with the EU's desire that PC users be given the opportunity to download multiple browsers; ergo, everyone should have to do this.
Hell, it's ridiculous to argue that they shouldn't since, supposedly, people are aggrieved with Microsoft because they denied people choice - yet arguing against making this requirement pervasive is doing the very same thing.
I'd like to see Mozilla offered to OSX users on install/activation/first-run, why should the 'degree' of oppression matter when we're talking about what is a black and white issue?:)
What has American 'nationalism' got to do with equality under the law? If the point is that Operating System vendors should supply their users with a choice of browsers during installation, why would Apple get a free pass?
What has your opinion of what is or is not 'crap' got to do with what is right? Personally, I couldn't care less if Microsoft has to offer other browsers, I only use IE8 at work, I use Mozilla at home, but what's good for the Goose should be good for the Gander, yes/no?
KDE and GNOME aren't operating systems, and Linux doesn't qualify because it is packaged (generally) in a distribution and there are many distributions to choose from with many different browsers so you can do your choosing that way.
I have a hard time fathoming why Microsoft would have to do this but not Apple...
Absurd? Are you taking the piss?
on
P.I.I. In the Sky
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Seriously, the IP address of a computer in your public library, or a school, or in a house with more than one person, how is that personally identifiable information? Talk about absurd...
It sounds like your new school is trying to give you an education. In my personal and professional opinion, your computer science degree should not be illuminating you on the method of preventing memory fragmentation in C++, it should be teaching you about how languages (such as C++) ultimately make use of hardware (such as memory) and what the potential unexpected pitfalls could be. You shouldn't be thinking of your degree as a 'degree in ' but as a degree in computational science (or similar.) Sadly, there are many schools out there that have 'Computer Science' degrees that are, in actuality, software engineering degrees - or worse - programming degrees. Now, my school was very heavy on theory, but the practical applications of that theory in the labs and software projects were language independent. The profs didn't care what you used as long as it worked well (stable/useful) and your code looked like you'd given some thought to its design and layout;). Needless to say, only about 10% of the people who started CSCI at this school finished - not because it was particularly difficult (though it wasn't easy) but because it rapidly separated those who wanted to tinker from those who really were interested in computing.
Anyhow, I think you should be glad that your new school doesn't focus on a given language but instead on theory. Now, it is up to you to develop the practical skills to embrace and extend (and perhaps extinguish) those theories.
It is very easy to get to know a language intimately, write complete applications - not samples.
LOL, you're dead on the money (do you work in computer vision?;)) because these types of products tend to benchmark each other by "false alarm rates" and you wouldn't believe how incredibly spurious the marketing hype can be. "We get 97% accurate alarming", then you ask them "what were the conditions of the test? Was it sunny? Cloudy? Night? Is that black/white, 2CIF, 320x240, 640x480, NTSC/PAL? Was it raining? Foggy? Winter or summer?" - They can never answer any of it, because it is INCREDIBLY difficult to test in a 'generic' fashion and everyone always tests (shocker) in their favor.:) The only time you can clearly benchmark these products against each other (for quality of detection) is when a group like SPAWAR holds a little contest for a given contract and THEY decide the detection tests.
Tests like these are hugely valuable just due to your ability to discern who has a 'product' and who has a 'demo.' The people with a real product spend their time configuring and tuning the product for the test. Most of the others present brought a compiler with them;) (seriously!)
Slashdot Mirror
LOL - I'm quite aware of HTML5. The only positives, for application writing, that HTML5 has over Flash (I'm not a flash fan myself but it has its uses) is that you can use structured storage (Flash has unstructured/hackish storage.) All of the other 'pluses' you're referring to with HTML5 existed in Flash/Java ages ago.
Your statement that "iPhone HTML5 apps are definitively superior to anything you can achieve in Flash or Java on any other platform" is patently ridiculous. Of course, given that you are obviously technology biased in this case ("Our new MindBeam 'application'") I'll forgive you for that; however, I'll also happily point out that you don't have sockets, or video, you don't have nearly the animation capabilities of flash, you don't have performance of flash or java (even in chrome, where I have personally written a very simple software 3D renderer), you have enormously larger testing footprints (HTML5 is implemented quite differently in browsers even on the same operating system.) I could go on, but why?
Don't think I am disparaging HTML5, I think it's awesome, if something of a bastardization of the purpose of HTML (something you can accuse flash of being as well - a bastardization of the original purpose of flash), but claiming that it's better for writing applications in than Java or Flash? It might be time to put you in a home ;).
"Your theory was that it was all about requiring application sales through the App Store, was it not" It was mostly based on that premise; however, you forget that Apple chooses what aspects of HTML 5 to implement or not implement, including avoiding support for Ogg/Theora, avoiding the other HTML5 features found in Safari on Mac OSX but NOT on the iPhone; ergo, Apple will not be supporting web sockets in HTML5 on the iPhone until they are forced to via the threat of lawsuit or investigation as just one example.
"That Apple chooses to not let the inferior legacy technologies of Flash or Java drag down the iPhone user experience" - That's a particularly silly statement considering that flash was ok'd by Apple just recently, as long as they crippled it. LOL.
I'm sure you're very happy that Flash and Java are not allowed to run on the iPhone, because you'd face more competition. Oops, sorry, didn't mean to 'out' you.
Actually, you haven't demonstrated anything except for a tendency to wax prosaic as if you were some great learned cove condescending to educate the poor unfortunates, such as myself. :)
"People are indeed developing for the iPhone without an SDK and publishing/selling applications without the crApp Store right now, using HTML5" - Wow, you are proposing that application development in HTML is an acceptable alternative to application development in Java or Flash?
Apparently you're a bit old to recall this, my dear old man, but people have been building HTML applications for years and the results are terrible in comparison to what you can do in Flash or Java. This isn't to diminish those HTML developers because they've chose HTML due to platform/availability/market constraints (which is exactly why you've got an HTML example application for the iPhone.)
I guess, by this logic, Slashdot has published an iPhone application because you can see this website on your iPhone and (probably) put in comments. ;)
As for my "theory" not "holding up" - I guess SUN and Adobe have been repeatedly rebuffed by Apple for the sake of the iPhone users, eh? LOL. Somehow a crippled version of flash is acceptable on the iPhone, but not full Flash - Oh, ye Gods and little boarlets, thanks be to Apple for saving our poor iPhone users from the terrible damage that regular flash would have done. LOL.
You're seriously confused. The reason a full flash implementation does not exist on the iPhone is precisely because you wouldn't have to use the app store to use flash applications, *they don't have to be installed locally*. You do not have to store a flash application on your local filesystem. You can write quite complex and useful applications as flash (and applets if you enjoy a bit o' UI pain) where absolutely nothing is stored on the local filesystem. Settings, data, history, all easily stored on the server. Our company actually serves a full on application in this fashion to some of its clients.
Oh, by the way, the two methods you proposed for building iPhone apps without needing a Mac explicitly state that you need both a Mac AND the iPhone SDK.
I'm still waiting for you to make sense.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
"Don't like the hardware prices, don't buy"? Really? How the heck am I supposed to develop an iPhone app without using the Apple SDK on an Apple machine? I guess I should hack the SDK if I "Don't like the hardware prices" - LOL.
Microsoft? Who cares about Microsoft? (Ignoring that you can get versions of Visual Studio for free and the hardware to run it would save me tons of money compared to buying anything remotely similar at Apple)
I write applications for Android, my IDE - free, my SDK runs on a multitude of platforms, my language - Java, my experience - enjoyable.
"maybe a couple of Win mobile phones" - I guess you don't test your iPhone apps on more than one iPhone then, neh?
Typical Apple disciple, turn this into a Microsoft comparison when that has nothing to do with it.
...sign that horrid SDK license?
Do you still have to buy a hideously overpriced Apple machine to use as a dev box?
Flash (REAL, unchained and fettered, Flash) and Java do not exist on the iPhone for one simple reason: GREED.
If a complete Flash Player and Java are on the iPhone, everyone can develop for the iPhone without an SDK, everyone can publish/sell applications without the crApp Store.
I have no problem with a company making money off its products, but the lengths to which Apple disciples will go to justify the hideousness of its corporate behavior is only matched by their ability to ignore Apple's ridiculous prices.
That would depend upon the pump, the scenario you describe assumes that the pump maintains a constant output pressure - that seems, to me, unlikely to be the case. In any case, if the pump did maintain a constant output pressure the fluctuations in BP you're referring to are analogous to how your tire pressure changes when your tires heat up/cool down from driving/parking. They're primarily affected by external stimuli; however, like you stated, ultrasound would probably be the most effective way to measure.
Probably by pump telemetry I would guess... I can think of more humorous ways, but... ;)
Curious, honestly... I wonder what the long term ramifications of having a non-fluctuating bp are?
Being a veteran myself I can simply suggest, from my own experience, that 60% of the people I ever observed in their position were incompetent idiots or total slackers doing the absolute minimum to ride out for their 20 years. Now, perhaps the duty stations I had assignments for were filled with an inordinate amount of morons, but other intelligent personnel seemed to have the same experience that I did. I can only speak with regards to the Navy and Air Force (I didn't interact with the Marines, God Bless them, or the Army.)
...to me that your kid will not be getting the same heart monitor each time. Otherwise, if they weren't 'sharing' monitors, they could just use the strap the monitor came with instead of having what appears to be a hygiene concern.
Wouldn't purchasing "your own" straps suggest that your kid will not be getting the same heart monitor each time? Otherwise, if they weren't 'sharing' monitors, they could just use the strap the monitor came with instead of having what appears to be a hygiene concern.
IF you are agreeing that this legislation should happen, and IF you put software out there for people to use, and you did so "knowing" that it was buggy, and someone used it and was 'hurt' (in some fashion) due to these bugs why shouldn't you be as liable as a company that does the same thing but charges for it?
What on earth does money have to do with responsibility outside of a contract?
As for most consumer software not having a contract, you take your chances, just like you would with free software with no contract.
There's quite a bit of FOSS that I like, and I contribute to it occasionally (I don't code much outside of work anymore sadly), but I don't think it deserves any special protection under the law because it is free. It should be treated in exactly the same manner, legally, as software that people purchase. BTW, I don't think either type of code should be bound to some indirect contractual guidelines, it doesn't make sense.
It's not a good analogy at all. You did not create the goods in question that you donated to charity, but if you DID create the goods (like a bicycle for example) and you knowingly donated it knowing it had seroius flaws and someone was hurt - how does it matter that you gave it away for free?
Contract? Nobody is talking breach of contract, this is a push for legislative bindings that would punish people who 'ship' software with bugs knowingly. Whether you charge for your code or not should be immaterial to whether you can be sued for knowing publishing buggy software for people to use. Why should FOSS be exempted? Many major FOSS projects are only 'sort of free' in any case, charging for support for example (again, there's nothing wrong with that.)
Personally, I think that issues like this should be left to the contract involved (thereby automatically exempting most FOSS) and the traditional method for handling things like this. New legislation and/or legal guidelines in this area is simply opening a large can of worms.
First, that's a very inaccurate description of what FOSS is. There are FOSS developers who make a living just doing FOSS, for example, charging for support, training, prioritization of bug fixes/feature requests, et cetera. Second, and most importantly, what has that got to do with basic fairness?
Whether you charge for software or do not charge for software should not affect your liability in the legal system for issues with that software.
I'm not anti-FOSS in any way, I'm just wondering why it would be exempted...
You're arguing that this is putatively a punishment rather than a compliance enforcement. That doesn't seem to be the case according to the disposition of the EU which is that to avoid further fines, Microsoft needs to comply with the EU's desire that PC users be given the opportunity to download multiple browsers; ergo, everyone should have to do this.
Hell, it's ridiculous to argue that they shouldn't since, supposedly, people are aggrieved with Microsoft because they denied people choice - yet arguing against making this requirement pervasive is doing the very same thing.
I'd like to see Mozilla offered to OSX users on install/activation/first-run, why should the 'degree' of oppression matter when we're talking about what is a black and white issue? :)
What has American 'nationalism' got to do with equality under the law? If the point is that Operating System vendors should supply their users with a choice of browsers during installation, why would Apple get a free pass?
What has your opinion of what is or is not 'crap' got to do with what is right? Personally, I couldn't care less if Microsoft has to offer other browsers, I only use IE8 at work, I use Mozilla at home, but what's good for the Goose should be good for the Gander, yes/no?
Why would that be moronic?
Does Apple bundle non-Apple browsers with OSX?
KDE and GNOME aren't operating systems, and Linux doesn't qualify because it is packaged (generally) in a distribution and there are many distributions to choose from with many different browsers so you can do your choosing that way.
I have a hard time fathoming why Microsoft would have to do this but not Apple...
Seriously, the IP address of a computer in your public library, or a school, or in a house with more than one person, how is that personally identifiable information? Talk about absurd...
It sounds like your new school is trying to give you an education. In my personal and professional opinion, your computer science degree should not be illuminating you on the method of preventing memory fragmentation in C++, it should be teaching you about how languages (such as C++) ultimately make use of hardware (such as memory) and what the potential unexpected pitfalls could be. You shouldn't be thinking of your degree as a 'degree in ' but as a degree in computational science (or similar.) Sadly, there are many schools out there that have 'Computer Science' degrees that are, in actuality, software engineering degrees - or worse - programming degrees. Now, my school was very heavy on theory, but the practical applications of that theory in the labs and software projects were language independent. The profs didn't care what you used as long as it worked well (stable/useful) and your code looked like you'd given some thought to its design and layout ;). Needless to say, only about 10% of the people who started CSCI at this school finished - not because it was particularly difficult (though it wasn't easy) but because it rapidly separated those who wanted to tinker from those who really were interested in computing.
Anyhow, I think you should be glad that your new school doesn't focus on a given language but instead on theory. Now, it is up to you to develop the practical skills to embrace and extend (and perhaps extinguish) those theories.
It is very easy to get to know a language intimately, write complete applications - not samples.
Good luck :)
...something like Ballmer with a chair, Gates has been gone for a while now (and scarily enough - being incredibly philanthropic.)
...a school advertising in the back of Mad Magazine?
LOL, you're dead on the money (do you work in computer vision? ;)) because these types of products tend to benchmark each other by "false alarm rates" and you wouldn't believe how incredibly spurious the marketing hype can be. "We get 97% accurate alarming", then you ask them "what were the conditions of the test? Was it sunny? Cloudy? Night? Is that black/white, 2CIF, 320x240, 640x480, NTSC/PAL? Was it raining? Foggy? Winter or summer?" - They can never answer any of it, because it is INCREDIBLY difficult to test in a 'generic' fashion and everyone always tests (shocker) in their favor. :) The only time you can clearly benchmark these products against each other (for quality of detection) is when a group like SPAWAR holds a little contest for a given contract and THEY decide the detection tests.
Tests like these are hugely valuable just due to your ability to discern who has a 'product' and who has a 'demo.' The people with a real product spend their time configuring and tuning the product for the test. Most of the others present brought a compiler with them ;) (seriously!)