That's what I came here to post. I can't believe the editors continue to post crap from Gartner. They're excellent at making very bad predictions, or in this case absolutely meaningless ones. They have absolutely no idea what's going to happen to this market in four years.
Are you sure about that? Has Netcraft confirmed it?
1. I should spend a month or two of engineering time to write specifications for a block that isn't part of my core competency?
No, a brief description or contact information for the implementing company would be fine
2. Don't take "liar" literally. Marketing is always guilty of Puffery, and in the US this is acceptable. Datasheets always have specifications which, if taken out of context or tested outside the conditions in the tiny print, can be proven wrong. In the market, to remain a viable business, you have to "puff" as much as your competitors do - look at beer, cigarette, car, computer advertising.
A lie is still a lie. Deception is still deception. It amazes me how acceptable false advertising has become. I feel insulted by most ads I watch. Marketing and advertising is well and truly out of control, and claiming you have not choice in being honest is just LAME.
3. Yes, really.
So don't provide support. Put a disclaimer in the released code. Done.
4. Yes, I know that's bullshit. Tell that to my CEO and CFO.
Perhaps instead you should be explaining why security through obscurity is a bad idea.
5. OK, we'll lose your business - that's $3 worth of revenue that we won't receive, once. We hope that you'll see the value of our products in the future and be willing to consider us then.
You think he's the only one whose business you'll lose? I'm pretty sure there's more than one person out there running Linux
Amazing how you're willing to defend your actions on a financial basis then dismiss the negative impact those actions also have on your bottom line.
The actual reason is that the users still haven't learned from the last 9 years of experience.
Some users weren't around 9 years ago. Making it sound like users are all stupid may be popular here but it's childish. There are lots of reasons why a user may not know better or may slip up. You need education, not blame.
Battery life is fine if you keep the screen off. I get a standby power draw of roughly 5mA on average on my Desire. That works out to about 280h of standby time, and that's with a bunch of always-connected applications (Google Sync always active, an IM client, SIP client) in the background, and WiFi and Bluetooth on. Turn all that stuff off and I get values more around 3mA... 466h.
Obviously a screen that draws almost 100x as much (seriously, at full power the AMOLED screen draws close to 300mA!) is going to kill off the battery very quickly.
In comparison, the SoC uses very little power (full CPU load on the Desire's Snapdragon is 40mA higher than idle - tested with SetCPU's stress test) and scales very well with load. If you really want to increase use time, build more efficient screens... fuck the processor.
So what you're saying is that if you never actually look at your phone, or use it as a phone, you can run idle applications in the background. Colour me impressed.
- A non importance of solid data handling and storage. Flat files were the order of the day.
- Antialiasing was not prevalent. While not required for anayltical work, in presentation it was, but many big name tools did not make the jump. 8 bit was common.
- Presentation was done by govt depts and were fairly snazzy for the day, in 8bit alisaed glory
If that is how you count to 2, I hope to the spaghetti monster that I never have to use one of your maps.
I'm sure you know many adults who behave reprehensibly, knowing fully well why what they do is wrong. Why would you expect more from children?
Because I teach my children values, morals and consequences (whilst I have nothing to do with the adults).
Sure the kid has the last say. But children are flexible and if you give them good positive examples and good reasons to behave well, you can certainly influence them to do so. That isn't to say they'll always behave perfectly but they will learn that when doing the right things they get what they want but doing the wrong things they don't. It's the parent's job to show them that.
But generally we don't punish purported victims of crimes just because the alleged perpetrator was not found guilty. And personally I think no alleged criminal should have his or her name revealed prior to being found guilty.
Pity it doesn't work that way. In any case you haven't refuted my argument.
Parents can have an influence on how a child turns out, but they do not have the last say.
You certainly can while they are young and you are legally responsible for them until they are 18. I'm not saying that there are no children out there who can choose to be scum or that there are no sociopathic children but on the whole most children if you give them a reason to behave well will do so.
The Walkman wasn't/isn't nearly as interactive as the iPod/iPhone. Much more random access storage and the ability to check e-mail and SMS and worse yet respond to such things is what trip people up.
Mobile phones have been around for some time too. So have books and newspapers. Do I need to mention billboards? They have definitely cost lives, especially where they are of scantily clad women. What about daydreaming? Perhaps we should legislate against that too? Anythign to avoid having to educate people to watch where they are going.
Shouldn't the copyright on something published in 1920 have expired by now?
"As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first."
120 fucking years?!? How exactly does having copyright extend much longer for works for hire (i.e. owned by a corporation) then for works copyrighted by the author himself encourage the creation of new art?
It doesn't of course, but the argument is since the work can be sold for longer it is worth more and there is therefore more incentive to create it.
What's ironic about this particular law is that it encourages the murder of the creator, since this makes the copyright expire sooner. It's no accident that it's life plus the lifetime of anyone old enough to kill the creator.
Having music devices around isn't the problem. Stupid overprotective mollycoddling laws are the problem. What you're probably seeing is the result of lowering the speed limit to 40km/hr around school zones while cutting back on educating kids about the danger of cars. The number of kids who should be old enough - in late highschool - to behave at least somewhat sensibly and look both ways, but instead blindly walk out in front of oncoming traffic because they know they won't be blamed if they or someone else is hurt is mind boggling. It is now way too RARE to see kids actually look both ways crossing a road.
This is just a prime example of how badly the Australian political system has gone off the rails. In Australia we're happy to throw away freedoms left right and center, and if anyone else is doing well or having fun, we like to put a stop to it. It's sad, because I've lived here all my life and while there was always an element of Tall Poppy Syndrome here it has gotten WAY out of hand. This country use to be a lovely place. In polite company manners counted. Now if you catch an (overcrowded hellish) Sydney train you're lucky not to get shoved out of the way or sworn at.
We don't need new laws. We need enforcement of the existing laws. There is already a law in NSW against pedestrians walking out in front of a car. My cousin while 12 was almost charged because he blindly stumbled out from behind a bus and was hit. I'm in 2 minds about this. On the one hand at least the driver wasn't penalised when he could have done nothing to prevent the accident. On the other, do you really think it is a good idea to charge the victim of an accident, who may have been mamed by it? Or penalise the parent who now has to look after a sick child? Is that really what a stretched police force should be out doing? And these are already existing laws. Do we really need more of the same? The "Pedestrian Council of Australia" needs to have it's head read. I can just see it now "Were you wearing headphones when you were hit ma'am?" "Ah yes but I..." "No buts ma'am. I'm afraid we're going to have to place you under arrest".
That's a silly as saying that we shouldn't make rape a crime because it encourages to rapist to then kill the victim to cover it up. Same goes for robbery or any other crime where escalation can cover it up.
There are times when it can be proven a woman has made up a rape allegation. It does not always involve the woman confessing. Those women should be prosecuted harshly as they are attempting to do serious harm to the man they accuse.
As for women being less willing to retract the claim, that may be true in some circumstances. Perhaps that's why until guilt is proven we shouldn't be making the name of the accused public. If there really is sufficient evidence, he should be named and go to jail. If there isn't his life should not be ruined as a result of an unproven accusation.
Who'd have thought that taking a leisure product and making it into a game would take off?! What will they think of next? Special shoes for recreational activities like basketball and running? I'm truly in awe of Nike's prowess!
This 'gamification' is shiny and new like monetization, as if the concept of making money only occurred to some tween in the mid noughties.
He gets free publicity from the newspapers by announcing these outrageous ideas. None of them ever come to pass, but the column inches he gets could cost millions if he had to pay for them.
Yeah. Brilliant plan. He's got half the planet vowing never to fly Ryanair without ever trying their service. What next? Poking babies in the eye for publicity? Throwing puppies in the river?
Until the pilot has a heart attack and dies, which happens periodically. There was one such case just last June on Continental Airlines, and another in February of 2008.... So yeah, if you're willing to increase the number of large airplane crashes by almost one per year, go ahead and cut out the copilots.
There are a lot of incidents and emergencies where having a second person in the plane to distribute the workload to is vital to avoiding disaster. It wouldn't just be one a year.
I'd like to suggest cutting out the CEO of Ryanair. Clearly he's a big mouthed idiot who doesn't know his own business. Since you're already flying with a defective CEO you wouldn't be losing much...and with the salary saved you could keep the co-pilots.
The truth is that the "hard" way of doing things is often more fun, because you have the challenge of learning a new tool or API. Plus sometimes it's actually easier in the long run because you've engineered a solution for the outer bounds conditions of scalability, so if your application takes off, it can handle the load.
I'll counter: There are plenty of technically hard problems to solve without reinventing the wheel or solving simple problems in a more difficult way. Wasting your effort on a solved problem when you could be contributing something new is not in anyone's best interests. As for scalability and bounds conditions, if you pick a well used product chances are it's been not only built with that in mind but had more effort put into testing before you picked it up than you'll ever be able to contribute. It's probably been used in a much wider set of scenarios than your particular use case too. (There are exceptions. If the existing solution is junk, rolling your own can be the way to go....but only after you've exhausted other avenues).
Isn't crying "rape" such an awesome tool for character assassination? You don't have to be a bad person at all. You could be the most saintly person in the world, but as long as I find a female or maybe a little boy to claim you did something vague, I can ruin the rest of your entire life.
I'm all for rapists being punished. However I also believe a woman who knowingly falsely accuses a man of rape should have to serve the maximum sentence he would have served if convicted. If this were enforced, I think you'd see a huge reduction in the number of rape allegations....and for those feminists who cry foul, I'm not suggesting that if the man isn't convicted the woman should be - I'm only talking about applying this to blatant false accusation.
Slashdot Mirror
Funeral notices are the classic... what close family members don't go to the funeral?
Clearly you've never met my family.
That's what I came here to post. I can't believe the editors continue to post crap from Gartner. They're excellent at making very bad predictions, or in this case absolutely meaningless ones. They have absolutely no idea what's going to happen to this market in four years.
Are you sure about that? Has Netcraft confirmed it?
Reductum ad absurdum is not simply a logical argument but an overall strategy
It's hard to reduce to absurdity that which is already absurd. Copyright and patent law has been absurd for decades.
1. I should spend a month or two of engineering time to write specifications for a block that isn't part of my core competency?
No, a brief description or contact information for the implementing company would be fine
2. Don't take "liar" literally. Marketing is always guilty of Puffery, and in the US this is acceptable. Datasheets always have specifications which, if taken out of context or tested outside the conditions in the tiny print, can be proven wrong. In the market, to remain a viable business, you have to "puff" as much as your competitors do - look at beer, cigarette, car, computer advertising.
A lie is still a lie. Deception is still deception. It amazes me how acceptable false advertising has become. I feel insulted by most ads I watch. Marketing and advertising is well and truly out of control, and claiming you have not choice in being honest is just LAME.
3. Yes, really.
So don't provide support. Put a disclaimer in the released code. Done.
4. Yes, I know that's bullshit. Tell that to my CEO and CFO.
Perhaps instead you should be explaining why security through obscurity is a bad idea.
5. OK, we'll lose your business - that's $3 worth of revenue that we won't receive, once. We hope that you'll see the value of our products in the future and be willing to consider us then.
You think he's the only one whose business you'll lose? I'm pretty sure there's more than one person out there running Linux
Amazing how you're willing to defend your actions on a financial basis then dismiss the negative impact those actions also have on your bottom line.
The actual reason is that the users still haven't learned from the last 9 years of experience.
Some users weren't around 9 years ago. Making it sound like users are all stupid may be popular here but it's childish. There are lots of reasons why a user may not know better or may slip up. You need education, not blame.
It's called cat5e.
"Heaviest users of Facebook are Narcissists, Insecure" is more appropriate title.
What does body mass have to do with it? ;-)
So yes, they needed a fucking study.
Well they picked the wrong people. These people have low self esteem and no lives so there's not much fucking going on.
Until the bacterium reroute the main power conduits through the deflector beam to create an inverse tachyon pulse. Then what?
Is there any way to turn the tacky off?
Sure moving objects with light is cool, but this is pushing, not pulling.
I beg to differ. This story summary is all about pulling. Pure masturbation.
Battery life is fine if you keep the screen off. I get a standby power draw of roughly 5mA on average on my Desire. That works out to about 280h of standby time, and that's with a bunch of always-connected applications (Google Sync always active, an IM client, SIP client) in the background, and WiFi and Bluetooth on. Turn all that stuff off and I get values more around 3mA... 466h.
Obviously a screen that draws almost 100x as much (seriously, at full power the AMOLED screen draws close to 300mA!) is going to kill off the battery very quickly.
In comparison, the SoC uses very little power (full CPU load on the Desire's Snapdragon is 40mA higher than idle - tested with SetCPU's stress test) and scales very well with load. If you really want to increase use time, build more efficient screens... fuck the processor.
So what you're saying is that if you never actually look at your phone, or use it as a phone, you can run idle applications in the background. Colour me impressed.
Two things stood out in the culture of GIS:
- A non importance of solid data handling and storage. Flat files were the order of the day.
- Antialiasing was not prevalent. While not required for anayltical work, in presentation it was, but many big name tools did not make the jump. 8 bit was common.
- Presentation was done by govt depts and were fairly snazzy for the day, in 8bit alisaed glory
If that is how you count to 2, I hope to the spaghetti monster that I never have to use one of your maps.
I'm sure you know many adults who behave reprehensibly, knowing fully well why what they do is wrong. Why would you expect more from children?
Because I teach my children values, morals and consequences (whilst I have nothing to do with the adults).
Sure the kid has the last say. But children are flexible and if you give them good positive examples and good reasons to behave well, you can certainly influence them to do so. That isn't to say they'll always behave perfectly but they will learn that when doing the right things they get what they want but doing the wrong things they don't. It's the parent's job to show them that.
But generally we don't punish purported victims of crimes just because the alleged perpetrator was not found guilty. And personally I think no alleged criminal should have his or her name revealed prior to being found guilty.
Pity it doesn't work that way. In any case you haven't refuted my argument.
Parents can have an influence on how a child turns out, but they do not have the last say.
You certainly can while they are young and you are legally responsible for them until they are 18. I'm not saying that there are no children out there who can choose to be scum or that there are no sociopathic children but on the whole most children if you give them a reason to behave well will do so.
The Walkman wasn't/isn't nearly as interactive as the iPod/iPhone. Much more random access storage and the ability to check e-mail and SMS and worse yet respond to such things is what trip people up.
Mobile phones have been around for some time too. So have books and newspapers. Do I need to mention billboards? They have definitely cost lives, especially where they are of scantily clad women. What about daydreaming? Perhaps we should legislate against that too? Anythign to avoid having to educate people to watch where they are going.
Shouldn't the copyright on something published in 1920 have expired by now?
"As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first."
120 fucking years?!? How exactly does having copyright extend much longer for works for hire (i.e. owned by a corporation) then for works copyrighted by the author himself encourage the creation of new art?
It doesn't of course, but the argument is since the work can be sold for longer it is worth more and there is therefore more incentive to create it.
What's ironic about this particular law is that it encourages the murder of the creator, since this makes the copyright expire sooner. It's no accident that it's life plus the lifetime of anyone old enough to kill the creator.
Having music devices around isn't the problem. Stupid overprotective mollycoddling laws are the problem. What you're probably seeing is the result of lowering the speed limit to 40km/hr around school zones while cutting back on educating kids about the danger of cars. The number of kids who should be old enough - in late highschool - to behave at least somewhat sensibly and look both ways, but instead blindly walk out in front of oncoming traffic because they know they won't be blamed if they or someone else is hurt is mind boggling. It is now way too RARE to see kids actually look both ways crossing a road.
This is just a prime example of how badly the Australian political system has gone off the rails. In Australia we're happy to throw away freedoms left right and center, and if anyone else is doing well or having fun, we like to put a stop to it. It's sad, because I've lived here all my life and while there was always an element of Tall Poppy Syndrome here it has gotten WAY out of hand. This country use to be a lovely place. In polite company manners counted. Now if you catch an (overcrowded hellish) Sydney train you're lucky not to get shoved out of the way or sworn at.
We don't need new laws. We need enforcement of the existing laws. There is already a law in NSW against pedestrians walking out in front of a car. My cousin while 12 was almost charged because he blindly stumbled out from behind a bus and was hit. I'm in 2 minds about this. On the one hand at least the driver wasn't penalised when he could have done nothing to prevent the accident. On the other, do you really think it is a good idea to charge the victim of an accident, who may have been mamed by it? Or penalise the parent who now has to look after a sick child? Is that really what a stretched police force should be out doing? And these are already existing laws. Do we really need more of the same? The "Pedestrian Council of Australia" needs to have it's head read. I can just see it now "Were you wearing headphones when you were hit ma'am?" "Ah yes but I..." "No buts ma'am. I'm afraid we're going to have to place you under arrest".
IDIOTS.
That's a silly as saying that we shouldn't make rape a crime because it encourages to rapist to then kill the victim to cover it up. Same goes for robbery or any other crime where escalation can cover it up.
There are times when it can be proven a woman has made up a rape allegation. It does not always involve the woman confessing. Those women should be prosecuted harshly as they are attempting to do serious harm to the man they accuse.
As for women being less willing to retract the claim, that may be true in some circumstances. Perhaps that's why until guilt is proven we shouldn't be making the name of the accused public. If there really is sufficient evidence, he should be named and go to jail. If there isn't his life should not be ruined as a result of an unproven accusation.
Who'd have thought that taking a leisure product and making it into a game would take off?! What will they think of next? Special shoes for recreational activities like basketball and running? I'm truly in awe of Nike's prowess!
This 'gamification' is shiny and new like monetization, as if the concept of making money only occurred to some tween in the mid noughties.
"Your honour, my milk stool is complete"
Disclaimer: IANACP (I Am Not a Commercial Pilot) but IAAP (I Am A Pilot)
Disclaimer: Unnecessary acronyms ahead. Proceed with caution!
He gets free publicity from the newspapers by announcing these outrageous ideas. None of them ever come to pass, but the column inches he gets could cost millions if he had to pay for them.
Yeah. Brilliant plan. He's got half the planet vowing never to fly Ryanair without ever trying their service. What next? Poking babies in the eye for publicity? Throwing puppies in the river?
Until the pilot has a heart attack and dies, which happens periodically. There was one such case just last June on Continental Airlines, and another in February of 2008.... So yeah, if you're willing to increase the number of large airplane crashes by almost one per year, go ahead and cut out the copilots.
There are a lot of incidents and emergencies where having a second person in the plane to distribute the workload to is vital to avoiding disaster. It wouldn't just be one a year.
I'd like to suggest cutting out the CEO of Ryanair. Clearly he's a big mouthed idiot who doesn't know his own business. Since you're already flying with a defective CEO you wouldn't be losing much...and with the salary saved you could keep the co-pilots.
The truth is that the "hard" way of doing things is often more fun, because you have the challenge of learning a new tool or API. Plus sometimes it's actually easier in the long run because you've engineered a solution for the outer bounds conditions of scalability, so if your application takes off, it can handle the load.
I'll counter: There are plenty of technically hard problems to solve without reinventing the wheel or solving simple problems in a more difficult way. Wasting your effort on a solved problem when you could be contributing something new is not in anyone's best interests. As for scalability and bounds conditions, if you pick a well used product chances are it's been not only built with that in mind but had more effort put into testing before you picked it up than you'll ever be able to contribute. It's probably been used in a much wider set of scenarios than your particular use case too. (There are exceptions. If the existing solution is junk, rolling your own can be the way to go....but only after you've exhausted other avenues).
Isn't crying "rape" such an awesome tool for character assassination? You don't have to be a bad person at all. You could be the most saintly person in the world, but as long as I find a female or maybe a little boy to claim you did something vague, I can ruin the rest of your entire life.
I'm all for rapists being punished. However I also believe a woman who knowingly falsely accuses a man of rape should have to serve the maximum sentence he would have served if convicted. If this were enforced, I think you'd see a huge reduction in the number of rape allegations....and for those feminists who cry foul, I'm not suggesting that if the man isn't convicted the woman should be - I'm only talking about applying this to blatant false accusation.