apple, Microsoft and Sun all have radically changed their widowing systems on many occasions while maintaining continuity for their developers. It did not mean no work, it just meant that recompiles could produce a functional product in most cases, albeit one that might look like poo and not have any of the new capabilities of the windowing system.
I find it somewhat hard to believe that the original design of X was so perfectly extendible that after decades of use it is not straining its seems.
So a change may be good.
However, i do see a downside. The nice thing about X unlike Windows and Macs main display interface is that it is more easily separated from the desktop. If you want to use a mac or windows system remotely you have to use something like VNC or a remote desktop app. In both cases you are getting the whole desktop not a display window. You can't run multiple instances of it. That's the main thing I like about X.
Quite the reverse actually. I did not fully appreciate the ipads market position until I had my own personal epiphany about own purchasing habits. THe point I was trying to make was that in the abstract I could see why someting with more specs than an ipad that cost $100 less was logically more valuable. But it was when I went from thinking about it actually having to put my money down that my real preferences crystallized. If I'm paying $600 I want something I know will work perfectly for me and thus will be something I will use and not be frustrated with. I know that's true of the apple, I'm fairly sure it's not true of the Android if history is a guide. On the other hand I do enjoy tinkering sometimes. But not when the toy if $600. I'll tinker in $100 toys cause I can just toss them if they suck.
The primary requirement for voting is that convinces the losers they lost fairly. Technology impedes that objective and Cryptography that no one understands denies it entirely. Transparent observation that people with high school educations can appreciate. Things that decentralize rather than centralize control are valuable too since it makes cheating a retail operation not a wholesale operation. cryptography centralizes things. someone controls the keys.
All other desired features pale in comparison to transparency and anonymity. Don't lard them on.
I've been shopping myself and in the process have discovered something. I want an ipad. given that I won't settle for anything else unless it's just no-brainer cheap. that is, I find myslef looking at the $169 android 2.2 pads and thinking-- boy I bet these will be below $100 by January and I can wait. Then that would be worth buying. But if I'm paying more than $200 then I'm going to go all the way up to an ipad.
Which is funny to me since I did not know that would be come so clear to me. It's either ridiculously cheap or an ipad. aything with the similar or even better specs than an ipad has no interest to me if the price is within $300 dollars. I know from experience that the apple experience is well worth $300 in non-wasted effort. THat is apple products are things you use not things you dick around with trying to make work. On the other hand $100 is just fun money and the chance to dick around and make it work would be more of a fun hobby.
It's the in between prices that are have no appeal no matter what the specs. There is this dead zone between cheap fun and luxury.
Perhaps there is some research going on there but a description of it was not found in the article. The article makes no sense. It calls antibodies "war machines". Antibodies just bind proteins. They don't even destroy proteins though often they bind them in ways that inhibits their action until they can be degraded by other proteins. If an anti-body is binding to the coat protein of a virus then it is possible that it can inhibit the viral penetration of the cell. But once the virus dumps it's payload into then the coat protein gets shed. Even if the antibody were still clinging to the coat, the payload is already inside. An antibody that made it inside the cell would have nothing to do! TO be able to do something the antibody would need to be able to bind a DNA or RNA from the virus payload. But antibodies are specialists: an antibody that bound to the coat protein would be very unlikely to also bind DNA or RNA, though it's not beyond possibility. The antibody, assuming the cell did not simply destroy it, could possibly bind to a coat protein produced in the cell by the action of the virus but there are going to be many of those proteins produced so binding to one would do nothing much.
this is indeed marketing. I wonder what the actual science was.
In computer science one is always warned that if you create a backdoor the bad guys will find it. But apparently it works the other way too in biology.
Now more cheating or campaigns needed. we'll just google to determine who wins. Much less expensive. Plus people in other parts of the world can help determine our outcome, unlike now where it's just hackers in Norway.
you have the sources. go ahead and modify them. nothing is stopping you.
Unless, of course, you obtained the software through the App Store...which is what this is all about. The App Store policies, the mandatory DRM, are the problem here.
Huh?? many GPL application make the source code freely available outside the app. they have web sites for this. Or you could even have the app show it's own source code if you really wanted to insist the code is delivered by the same distribution channel.
You can even install and run it on an iphone via xcode apple freely provides
When last I checked, you had to pay Apple for this privilege; that seems to run afoul of the GPL in and of itself, at least in spirit. Again, though, the point here is about the App Store which has policies that are inherently incompatible with the GPL.
You have to pay for the apple operating system too (same with windows). On linux if you want your application to run fast you might consider paying for an INtel optimized compiler. Or if you want it to run on some processors the only compilers available cost money. The GPL3 does not require that the operating system or compiler has to have no cost.
You can run apps freely in OSX with the developer tools. To transfer them to an iphone you need some additional software that you have to buy from apple. But anyone can get it.
How does that answer the Grand parent post? you have the sources. go ahead and modify them. nothing is stopping you.
You can even install and run it on an iphone via xcode apple freely provides. You can run it on any mac via the emulator apple freely provides. YOu can redistribute them at will.
I confess I've not read the GPL with an eye towards that exact question but I have read it and don't recall anything like that in it. As I recall it requires me to make available the sources of anything I compile. But I don't see why a delivery channel that wraps something in DRM is against the GPL. I can have the sources available both via the app istelf and online. DOes the GPL prevent me from using SSH or HTTS from _sending_ and _installing_ any code. No. so why should apple's encrypted conduit matter. And as for app signing, well you have to do that to run apps on any OSX machine now without getting warning messages in the logs. SO could someone explain how apple's app store is interfering with the GPL?
I did not assume 50% efficiency. I assumed they would need cooling and was trying to say it would be a fractionally significant number. In the worked example, I pegged it at 25% loss. (that totals to a 50% loss since you have the original 25% loss plus a roughly equal amount of electricity for cooling).
Anyhow if you want to ignore cooling and heat losses that does not really change the point I was making.
To propel a honda shaped car at around 60 Mph takes 30KW of power to overcome wind resistance. It does not matter how efficient the storage and conversion is. that is the baseline set by drag. inefficiency just adds more. and anything with less wind drag than a honda shaped car would be like riding in a tubular suppository; ie pointless.
So.. to go 375 miles at 60 miles per hour will take over 6 hours. 6 hours = 360 minutes. 360/ 6 = 60. 60 * 30KW = 1.8 Mega watts.
So physics says the if you want to charge a car to go 375 miles and the car has the same drag as a honda then it takes 1.8 megawatts if you want to charge it in 6 minutes. that's the minimum. bad batteries and motors require more.
My feeling is that delivering that much wattage would probably melt it unless there was some serious cooling going on. Lets suppse that half the power goes into heat. To remove heat takes-- typically-- about an equal number of watts to the heat you want to remove. This varies by altitude and humidity but it's a good ball park.
SO add atleast another 50% to that ignoring the storage efficiency.
The canonical traveling salesman problem usually is states that all cities must be visited. The bee is not under this constraint. This changes the problem from a do-or-fail NP hard problem to a more simple approximate optimization problem. The latter have many many many many many good solution paths in computers. Perhaps the newest and best approach that resembles the bee's agent based learning approach is called Probability Collectives (google it). You'll want to learn it since it works well on parallel computers, distributed computing, and most of all on systems composed on many dumb subunits on a sparsely connected network with no central command and control (think mobile devices).
I'm betting on mandatory code signing for applications outside the Mac App Store, making freeware impossible and shareware only available if the App Store censor allows it by 10.9. All for the customers' own good, you understand (viruses, uncertainty of downloading off the internet, and stuff).
At that point the web browser starts to become less important as newspapers can be accessed by (paid-for) apps.
You don't understand how code signing works do you? Any app can sign it's own code when you install it. it's called self signing. You don't need apple's permission. More over anyone who buys a Thawte (or other) registered code signing certificate can by pass self-signing without apple's permission.
uh did you read the article? it's all about fear and suggesting possibilities (that is to say uncertainty) and questions apples commitments to openness (i.e. doubt). Anyone remembt when commenters on slash dot were rational? No... me neither.
Slashdot Mirror
How can a transparent thing absorb a large fraction of the energy? This sounds like an oxymoron.
apple, Microsoft and Sun all have radically changed their widowing systems on many occasions while maintaining continuity for their developers. It did not mean no work, it just meant that recompiles could produce a functional product in most cases, albeit one that might look like poo and not have any of the new capabilities of the windowing system.
I find it somewhat hard to believe that the original design of X was so perfectly extendible that after decades of use it is not straining its seems.
So a change may be good.
However, i do see a downside. The nice thing about X unlike Windows and Macs main display interface is that it is more easily separated from the desktop. If you want to use a mac or windows system remotely you have to use something like VNC or a remote desktop app. In both cases you are getting the whole desktop not a display window. You can't run multiple instances of it. That's the main thing I like about X.
in the Atlantic?
using underwater paper like this.
scratch it on an iceberg.
Quite the reverse actually. I did not fully appreciate the ipads market position until I had my own personal epiphany about own purchasing habits. THe point I was trying to make was that in the abstract I could see why someting with more specs than an ipad that cost $100 less was logically more valuable. But it was when I went from thinking about it actually having to put my money down that my real preferences crystallized. If I'm paying $600 I want something I know will work perfectly for me and thus will be something I will use and not be frustrated with. I know that's true of the apple, I'm fairly sure it's not true of the Android if history is a guide. On the other hand I do enjoy tinkering sometimes. But not when the toy if $600. I'll tinker in $100 toys cause I can just toss them if they suck.
The primary requirement for voting is that convinces the losers they lost fairly. Technology impedes that objective and Cryptography that no one understands denies it entirely. Transparent observation that people with high school educations can appreciate. Things that decentralize rather than centralize control are valuable too since it makes cheating a retail operation not a wholesale operation. cryptography centralizes things. someone controls the keys.
All other desired features pale in comparison to transparency and anonymity. Don't lard them on.
I've been shopping myself and in the process have discovered something. I want an ipad. given that I won't settle for anything else unless it's just no-brainer cheap. that is, I find myslef looking at the $169 android 2.2 pads and thinking-- boy I bet these will be below $100 by January and I can wait. Then that would be worth buying. But if I'm paying more than $200 then I'm going to go all the way up to an ipad.
Which is funny to me since I did not know that would be come so clear to me. It's either ridiculously cheap or an ipad. aything with the similar or even better specs than an ipad has no interest to me if the price is within $300 dollars. I know from experience that the apple experience is well worth $300 in non-wasted effort. THat is apple products are things you use not things you dick around with trying to make work. On the other hand $100 is just fun money and the chance to dick around and make it work would be more of a fun hobby.
It's the in between prices that are have no appeal no matter what the specs. There is this dead zone between cheap fun and luxury.
Since the primary purpose of the internet is porn or seeking hookups via facebook, it would be logical to consider all cyber crime as sex crime.
Perhaps there is some research going on there but a description of it was not found in the article. The article makes no sense. It calls antibodies "war machines". Antibodies just bind proteins. They don't even destroy proteins though often they bind them in ways that inhibits their action until they can be degraded by other proteins. If an anti-body is binding to the coat protein of a virus then it is possible that it can inhibit the viral penetration of the cell. But once the virus dumps it's payload into then the coat protein gets shed. Even if the antibody were still clinging to the coat, the payload is already inside. An antibody that made it inside the cell would have nothing to do! TO be able to do something the antibody would need to be able to bind a DNA or RNA from the virus payload. But antibodies are specialists: an antibody that bound to the coat protein would be very unlikely to also bind DNA or RNA, though it's not beyond possibility. The antibody, assuming the cell did not simply destroy it, could possibly bind to a coat protein produced in the cell by the action of the virus but there are going to be many of those proteins produced so binding to one would do nothing much.
this is indeed marketing. I wonder what the actual science was.
This is just marketing to upgrade my free common cold to uncommon colds. Then fees for gold level colds and platinum level colds.
In computer science one is always warned that if you create a backdoor the bad guys will find it. But apparently it works the other way too in biology.
Grep on ascii is more than 100x faster for complex string expressions. THere's a lot of good reasons not to use unicode.
Now more cheating or campaigns needed. we'll just google to determine who wins. Much less expensive. Plus people in other parts of the world can help determine our outcome, unlike now where it's just hackers in Norway.
You can even install and run it on an iphone via xcode apple freely provides.
As I understand, you can run it on the emulator for free with the purchase of any Mac, but you need to buy the certificate to run it on your device.
Don't forget you have to buy a mac too. Which means, by this logic, no apple computer or windows computer or linux computer can run GPLv3.
you have the sources. go ahead and modify them. nothing is stopping you.
Unless, of course, you obtained the software through the App Store...which is what this is all about. The App Store policies, the mandatory DRM, are the problem here.
Huh?? many GPL application make the source code freely available outside the app. they have web sites for this. Or you could even have the app show it's own source code if you really wanted to insist the code is delivered by the same distribution channel.
You can even install and run it on an iphone via xcode apple freely provides
When last I checked, you had to pay Apple for this privilege; that seems to run afoul of the GPL in and of itself, at least in spirit. Again, though, the point here is about the App Store which has policies that are inherently incompatible with the GPL.
You have to pay for the apple operating system too (same with windows). On linux if you want your application to run fast you might consider paying for an INtel optimized compiler. Or if you want it to run on some processors the only compilers available cost money. The GPL3 does not require that the operating system or compiler has to have no cost.
You can run apps freely in OSX with the developer tools. To transfer them to an iphone you need some additional software that you have to buy from apple. But anyone can get it.
How does that answer the Grand parent post? you have the sources. go ahead and modify them. nothing is stopping you.
You can even install and run it on an iphone via xcode apple freely provides. You can run it on any mac via the emulator apple freely provides. YOu can redistribute them at will.
Apple just won't sell it in their store for you.
I confess I've not read the GPL with an eye towards that exact question but I have read it and don't recall anything like that in it. As I recall it requires me to make available the sources of anything I compile. But I don't see why a delivery channel that wraps something in DRM is against the GPL. I can have the sources available both via the app istelf and online. DOes the GPL prevent me from using SSH or HTTS from _sending_ and _installing_ any code. No. so why should apple's encrypted conduit matter. And as for app signing, well you have to do that to run apps on any OSX machine now without getting warning messages in the logs. SO could someone explain how apple's app store is interfering with the GPL?
Thank you! at least someone gets it.
I did not assume 50% efficiency. I assumed they would need cooling and was trying to say it would be a fractionally significant number. In the worked example, I pegged it at 25% loss. (that totals to a 50% loss since you have the original 25% loss plus a roughly equal amount of electricity for cooling).
Anyhow if you want to ignore cooling and heat losses that does not really change the point I was making.
To propel a honda shaped car at around 60 Mph takes 30KW of power to overcome wind resistance. It does not matter how efficient the storage and conversion is. that is the baseline set by drag. inefficiency just adds more. and anything with less wind drag than a honda shaped car would be like riding in a tubular suppository; ie pointless.
So.. to go 375 miles at 60 miles per hour will take over 6 hours. 6 hours = 360 minutes. 360/ 6 = 60. 60 * 30KW = 1.8 Mega watts.
So physics says the if you want to charge a car to go 375 miles and the car has the same drag as a honda then it takes 1.8 megawatts if you want to charge it in 6 minutes. that's the minimum. bad batteries and motors require more.
My feeling is that delivering that much wattage would probably melt it unless there was some serious cooling going on. Lets suppse that half the power goes into heat. To remove heat takes-- typically-- about an equal number of watts to the heat you want to remove. This varies by altitude and humidity but it's a good ball park.
SO add atleast another 50% to that ignoring the storage efficiency.
they have to pay them is they want to sell in the US. If they only sell in their own country then fine.
The canonical traveling salesman problem usually is states that all cities must be visited. The bee is not under this constraint. This changes the problem from a do-or-fail NP hard problem to a more simple approximate optimization problem. The latter have many many many many many good solution paths in computers. Perhaps the newest and best approach that resembles the bee's agent based learning approach is called Probability Collectives (google it). You'll want to learn it since it works well on parallel computers, distributed computing, and most of all on systems composed on many dumb subunits on a sparsely connected network with no central command and control (think mobile devices).
I think it's obvious (heh heh) that it forces you to think about the content in order to read it
This is why I program exclusively in brainfuck and ObjectiveC.
I'm betting on mandatory code signing for applications outside the Mac App Store, making freeware impossible and shareware only available if the App Store censor allows it by 10.9. All for the customers' own good, you understand (viruses, uncertainty of downloading off the internet, and stuff).
At that point the web browser starts to become less important as newspapers can be accessed by (paid-for) apps.
You don't understand how code signing works do you? Any app can sign it's own code when you install it. it's called self signing. You don't need apple's permission. More over anyone who buys a Thawte (or other) registered code signing certificate can by pass self-signing without apple's permission.
uh did you read the article? it's all about fear and suggesting possibilities (that is to say uncertainty) and questions apples commitments to openness (i.e. doubt). Anyone remembt when commenters on slash dot were rational? No... me neither.