So any law is up for amending at funding time? That's not a reasoned debate, that's a blackmail. This sort of 'negotiation' is unprecedented, it's only happened once before, you really want to govern by yearly review? How can anything get done that way?
Repubs are demanding he kick his grandest achievement to the curb or they won't negotiate.
Republicans are asking for a one year delay for the individual just as Obama himself asked for a one year delay for corporate entities. Republicans grant Obama his wish, now Obama wants to play hardball on a system that the very people who passed it into law are admitting isn't ready for prime time.
You know very well that that's not the real reason this delay is being proposed, it's a tactic to get it delayed closed enough into the next election and then repealed.
Democrats love it even more. They have a complicit media pointing all the fingers at Republicans, and every liberal and democrat cranking out bulletin board posts using the R word with no mention of the D word to be found. If an alien were to visit from outer space, they would be led to think that there are only Republicans in government.
But yeah, those crazy tea party 'muricans wanting to run their own lives with only essential gubment involvement...bunch of extremists and anarchists they are.
But is *IS* the Tea Party's fault! The bill has been passed, it is now *law*. The Republicans *lost* the debate, the correct procedures were followed and the bill has become law. And *now* they're still trying to fight it using blackmail tactics over funding.
That is the current proposal from the GOP. The Senate and president are REFUSING to even talk to them about it.
THE DISCUSSION IS OVER. The senate and president don't *need* to talk to the crazies because IT IS ALREADY A LAW. You've already had this debate.
Or is this up for debate every year? Every time an already existing and passed law needs funding, but some disagree with it, the whole country can be held to ransom by those who disagree?
You people make me sick. You ignore your own system, you are destroying your own government for fringe interests.
Makes me wonder what the point of having a UK upper house is - especially since, I believe, the HoL can't introduce legislation either. I mean, I know that's sort of the point - you leave the aristocracy their positions as a sop, while removing any power they have - but it still basically removes any point of having a bicameral system.
Mainly delaying & amending... Commons don't want to use Parliament Act because it's a sledgehammer and it takes years before they are allowed to. It's rarely used, if it gets used then it's got lots of publicity and time for public opinion to be made. It's only been used a handful of times in the last 60 years.
At some point you have to have a supreme house though... otherwise you get stalemate like the US system. Whether you think that's better or worse than the 'wrong' choice being made is a matter of how you view politics I suppose...
I read that not so much as 'should be able to' as 'will be able to benefit from'.
Except even the simplest thing, like taking a shot of a friend and having the depth of field short enough that the background is out of focus, is beyond the point-and-shoot. Sure, not everybody needs the top camera, but the benefits of the physics of SLRs is still massive.
That is for me and the doctor to decided, not the government.
You mean you, the doctor, and the insurance company? Because that's the current situation, is it not? It constantly amazes me how a profit-making private company can be more trusted than a non-profit public organisation.
But then I live in one of those communist European states that have had universal healthcare for 60 years, what would I know.
So, yes, SteamOS will bring the Linux kernel to the masses, but as to the actual *benefits* of Linux -- transparency and freedom -- Valve is going to kill those.
What are you basing this prediction on? Valve have not acted like this so far... so...? Just because they can do something doesn't not mean that will actually happen.
Be careful about your hipster-hating ways... hating people who want to take a fun vacation in the desert is the latest trend, you know. And following the latest trends might make you...a hipster.
Fully agreed! So disappointing to see a backlash against something as a fashion. I'll wager those hating it have never been.
I'm talking about stuff like how much lag there is between me swiping my finger and the app list scrolling to the next page
Actually I think there's a design decision here. The scrolling motion (up and down and paging side to side) takes a little more finger movement before the screen responds on Android. This means that it's generally easier to hit a button (because buttons activate even with a little side finger movement) but feels less responsive to scroll. I'm an Android user, and I find it quite hard to hit iPhone screen buttons, but the scrolling does feel much more responsive.
I would suggest that 99.9% of the population who use smart phones would endorse new features at the cost of performance. I'll assume you're the 0.1% in this instance.
I don't know if I agree with your proportions.. I've seen so many iPhones that have effectively been upgraded into uselessness, where their owners crave a new phone so that it will work again...
Why does it matter if some code and data is memory resident or not? Closing apps manually is something that a user will get wrong often too ("oh wait what was it on that screen, I'll just check again"). A properly written app will stop any threads onPause() and will be doing pretty much nothing when switched away, and eventually will be properly cleaned up when required. Whether an app is in memory should be of no concern to you, it uses no power. If an app does, it is written wrongly, and that used to be a problem but I don't really see it any more, onPause good practice has been drummed into enough developers now. Do you fret about the 20 or so daemons in the background of a desktop OS?
If you press back on the first screen of an app, it *will* close that app. If you press Home, usually that will not immediately close the app.
This certainly isn't a security hole unless your developer has done something very bizarre (which app ever logs you out on exit these days? All apps maintain permanent sessions for convenience on all platforms), and apps should save data when they are not visible.
The idea that you need to manually close apps is an archaic leftover from the Windows world. This stuff *should* be managed by the OS.
More than that, it *has* to be that. The main performance drivers for moving to x64 on x86 was to get rid fo the 4GB limit, and to add some needed general purpose registers (not related to 64-bit, but a bottleneck in x86 and AMD were breaking compatibility anyway so decided to add some). Neither of these problems are problems with current 32-bit ARM chips, being able to address 1TB of memory and without the low register count.
This is by far the main reason why x64 code runs faster than 32-bit x86 code, AMD were able to break the bottleneck in x86 because they were breaking compatibility, and add some much needed general purpose registers. I don't know if this is the case in ARM though, ARM doesn't have the same bottleneck.
Android is ready for x64, TFA doesn't have a clue. It's just a recompile away.
Bullshit. Making an OS 64 bit is far more complex than a recompile. And the next Android version, Kit-Kat is not expected to be 64 bit compatible.
Android 64 bit is at least a year away.
Based on what? Was latest iPhone expected to be 64 bit? Nobody outside of Android knows what's in Kit Kat.
Android *already runs on two completely different architectures* in x86 and ARM (and several variants of ARM at that). It's already far further along the multiarch than iOS, I'd say moving 64-bit on the same architecture is unlikely to be a big deal.
Also, the Android OS version apparently doesn't really matter anymore... they moved all of the critical API stuff to "Google Play Services" which auto-updates every week or so, and pretty much supports everything back to Android 2.2
Actually, it's more insidious than that. By moving code to Google Services they've moved previously open source functionality that (say) Amazon could use on their devices, into functionality tied to Google devices. Develop using Google Services and you can't then put that app on Amazon App Store without some porting.
So, it is better to be incompetent than to be evil?
Because any decent software developer would test something as basic as local playback *before* doing a release.
It's got a SDK that is in developer preview and subject to change. Why is this so hard to understand on a supposedly technical site? When the SDK is stable, and it gets changed to disallow local playback (or the SDK somehow never makes it to a stable release), *then* we can all jump up and down. Calm the hell down, consumer devices have been released like this for years now. The iPhone didn't have a stable SDK on its first release, later it did. Chromecast doesn't, later it will.
Slashdot Mirror
So any law is up for amending at funding time? That's not a reasoned debate, that's a blackmail. This sort of 'negotiation' is unprecedented, it's only happened once before, you really want to govern by yearly review? How can anything get done that way?
Repubs are demanding he kick his grandest achievement to the curb or they won't negotiate.
Republicans are asking for a one year delay for the individual just as Obama himself asked for a one year delay for corporate entities. Republicans grant Obama his wish, now Obama wants to play hardball on a system that the very people who passed it into law are admitting isn't ready for prime time.
You know very well that that's not the real reason this delay is being proposed, it's a tactic to get it delayed closed enough into the next election and then repealed.
Democrats love it even more. They have a complicit media pointing all the fingers at Republicans, and every liberal and democrat cranking out bulletin board posts using the R word with no mention of the D word to be found. If an alien were to visit from outer space, they would be led to think that there are only Republicans in government.
But yeah, those crazy tea party 'muricans wanting to run their own lives with only essential gubment involvement...bunch of extremists and anarchists they are.
But is *IS* the Tea Party's fault! The bill has been passed, it is now *law*. The Republicans *lost* the debate, the correct procedures were followed and the bill has become law. And *now* they're still trying to fight it using blackmail tactics over funding.
That is the current proposal from the GOP. The Senate and president are REFUSING to even talk to them about it.
THE DISCUSSION IS OVER. The senate and president don't *need* to talk to the crazies because IT IS ALREADY A LAW. You've already had this debate.
Or is this up for debate every year? Every time an already existing and passed law needs funding, but some disagree with it, the whole country can be held to ransom by those who disagree?
You people make me sick. You ignore your own system, you are destroying your own government for fringe interests.
Makes me wonder what the point of having a UK upper house is - especially since, I believe, the HoL can't introduce legislation either. I mean, I know that's sort of the point - you leave the aristocracy their positions as a sop, while removing any power they have - but it still basically removes any point of having a bicameral system.
Mainly delaying & amending... Commons don't want to use Parliament Act because it's a sledgehammer and it takes years before they are allowed to. It's rarely used, if it gets used then it's got lots of publicity and time for public opinion to be made. It's only been used a handful of times in the last 60 years.
At some point you have to have a supreme house though... otherwise you get stalemate like the US system. Whether you think that's better or worse than the 'wrong' choice being made is a matter of how you view politics I suppose...
I read that not so much as 'should be able to' as 'will be able to benefit from'.
Except even the simplest thing, like taking a shot of a friend and having the depth of field short enough that the background is out of focus, is beyond the point-and-shoot. Sure, not everybody needs the top camera, but the benefits of the physics of SLRs is still massive.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
What's an intensive purpose?
That is for me and the doctor to decided, not the government.
You mean you, the doctor, and the insurance company? Because that's the current situation, is it not? It constantly amazes me how a profit-making private company can be more trusted than a non-profit public organisation.
But then I live in one of those communist European states that have had universal healthcare for 60 years, what would I know.
So, yes, SteamOS will bring the Linux kernel to the masses, but as to the actual *benefits* of Linux -- transparency and freedom -- Valve is going to kill those.
What are you basing this prediction on? Valve have not acted like this so far... so...? Just because they can do something doesn't not mean that will actually happen.
Be careful about your hipster-hating ways... hating people who want to take a fun vacation in the desert is the latest trend, you know. And following the latest trends might make you...a hipster.
Fully agreed! So disappointing to see a backlash against something as a fashion. I'll wager those hating it have never been.
I'm talking about stuff like how much lag there is between me swiping my finger and the app list scrolling to the next page
Actually I think there's a design decision here. The scrolling motion (up and down and paging side to side) takes a little more finger movement before the screen responds on Android. This means that it's generally easier to hit a button (because buttons activate even with a little side finger movement) but feels less responsive to scroll. I'm an Android user, and I find it quite hard to hit iPhone screen buttons, but the scrolling does feel much more responsive.
I would suggest that 99.9% of the population who use smart phones would endorse new features at the cost of performance. I'll assume you're the 0.1% in this instance.
I don't know if I agree with your proportions.. I've seen so many iPhones that have effectively been upgraded into uselessness, where their owners crave a new phone so that it will work again...
At least it doesn't have a ridiculous name like Raspberry Pi
Yeah, what sort of fool would name a computer after fruit, I mean if we continue like this we'll get computers called Apple, Acorn, Apricot...
Why does it matter if some code and data is memory resident or not? Closing apps manually is something that a user will get wrong often too ("oh wait what was it on that screen, I'll just check again"). A properly written app will stop any threads onPause() and will be doing pretty much nothing when switched away, and eventually will be properly cleaned up when required. Whether an app is in memory should be of no concern to you, it uses no power. If an app does, it is written wrongly, and that used to be a problem but I don't really see it any more, onPause good practice has been drummed into enough developers now. Do you fret about the 20 or so daemons in the background of a desktop OS?
Crap, that's true.
I stand by my last paragraph though...
Girls code. Girls hack.
Yes, but does THIS girl do any of that?
Oh wait, I just saw the pic and realized she's Asian, so she probably did actually earn her place.
*Brilliant*. You have replaced sexism with racism. Well fucking done.
If you press back on the first screen of an app, it *will* close that app. If you press Home, usually that will not immediately close the app.
This certainly isn't a security hole unless your developer has done something very bizarre (which app ever logs you out on exit these days? All apps maintain permanent sessions for convenience on all platforms), and apps should save data when they are not visible.
The idea that you need to manually close apps is an archaic leftover from the Windows world. This stuff *should* be managed by the OS.
*Ahem* Someone is going to have to pay for that.
And it won't be all those low income people.
And it won't be any of the people exempted from Obamacare; like most unions and Federal employees.
Yeah. Fuck 'em, right? Let 'em, die?
More than that, it *has* to be that. The main performance drivers for moving to x64 on x86 was to get rid fo the 4GB limit, and to add some needed general purpose registers (not related to 64-bit, but a bottleneck in x86 and AMD were breaking compatibility anyway so decided to add some). Neither of these problems are problems with current 32-bit ARM chips, being able to address 1TB of memory and without the low register count.
64 bit gives more registers
This is by far the main reason why x64 code runs faster than 32-bit x86 code, AMD were able to break the bottleneck in x86 because they were breaking compatibility, and add some much needed general purpose registers. I don't know if this is the case in ARM though, ARM doesn't have the same bottleneck.
Android is ready for x64, TFA doesn't have a clue. It's just a recompile away.
Bullshit. Making an OS 64 bit is far more complex than a recompile. And the next Android version, Kit-Kat is not expected to be 64 bit compatible.
Android 64 bit is at least a year away.
Based on what? Was latest iPhone expected to be 64 bit? Nobody outside of Android knows what's in Kit Kat.
Android *already runs on two completely different architectures* in x86 and ARM (and several variants of ARM at that). It's already far further along the multiarch than iOS, I'd say moving 64-bit on the same architecture is unlikely to be a big deal.
Also, the Android OS version apparently doesn't really matter anymore... they moved all of the critical API stuff to "Google Play Services" which auto-updates every week or so, and pretty much supports everything back to Android 2.2
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/09/balky-carriers-and-slow-oems-step-aside-google-is-defragging-android/
Actually, it's more insidious than that. By moving code to Google Services they've moved previously open source functionality that (say) Amazon could use on their devices, into functionality tied to Google devices. Develop using Google Services and you can't then put that app on Amazon App Store without some porting.
So, it is better to be incompetent than to be evil?
Because any decent software developer would test something as basic as local playback *before* doing a release.
It's got a SDK that is in developer preview and subject to change. Why is this so hard to understand on a supposedly technical site? When the SDK is stable, and it gets changed to disallow local playback (or the SDK somehow never makes it to a stable release), *then* we can all jump up and down. Calm the hell down, consumer devices have been released like this for years now. The iPhone didn't have a stable SDK on its first release, later it did. Chromecast doesn't, later it will.
It should be pointed out...is an API change undocumented if the API itself is documented??
Or... is it an API at all if it's undocumented?
I suspected it was some mistake, but I still think they're evil.
Well indeed, but let's atleast get our reasons straight...