Google goggle guggle (flow in an irregular current with a bubbling noise) gurgle burgle burgee (A triangular sailing flag, a show of force by colors) burger burker (to murder or supress without leaving evidence) bucker bicker wicker wicked
yes I meant that postscript was the only laser printer macs would accept. in the PC world every laser printer beand spoke a different language to avoid paying the adobe tax. Most printers sold were not postscript. Apple just forced the issue and postscript caught on. NeXT even standardized to Display Postscript.
Does ChromeOS not support CUPS for printers that apple and linux both use? and if not why the hell not?
It does not. It only supports "cloud enabled printers".
The plausible reason for this is that there's no reason to put printer drivers in the OS in the year 2014. Printers should be smart, blackboxes, with a universal interface advertising their capabilities. Apple too seems to have the same philosophy of dropping support for things early when there's a better but less used solution available. Postscript printerts, 3.5" floppies, parallel ports, serial ports, and dropping Flash support on iphones all were logical moves, that while causing a little pain, ultimately ushered in the right way of doing things.
Oh the other sucky thing about chromebooks is that, ironically, they are the one platform that does not support google remote desktop! Moreover, since they don't run java at all, you can't even use any of the other desktop sharing viewers out there. so you can't remote admin the computer or even help by seeing the other person's screen. The good news is that chromebooks have very little to admin and can be set to autoupdate everything, so there'smuch less need for a remote desktop or viewer.
Overall I'd reccomend a chromebook over linux. But unless you are a cheapskate, I'd reccomend a mac over either for granny.
I bought a chrome book to replace my mothers imac. On paper this seemed like a really good idea since simply put ChromeOS removes everything you don't need. it's a browser that self updates and stores stuff on line. Unfortuntatley this did not go as well as I hoped and the imac is back.
what went wrong: chromebooks can't use your existing printer unless it's one of a select few, or you have another "real" computer in the house to network a piggybacked connection off of. I see no point in expensive chromebooks because things like a Pixel are more expensive than a better macbook. But the cheap chromebooks (e.g. Acer) have unusably bad speakers and the trackpad clicks and tracking suck (super duper suck). I added a nice apple mouse to it, but for some reason chrime doesn't respond smoothely to apple mouse (I dont' see why this should be the case, but empirically that's my experience). Finally the browser was just enough different than chrome on mac that she just got all confused. Frankly to me the two are nearly indistinguishable but not to her. I figured she'd get over this after a couple weeks but somehow the mac exerience was much smoother and intuitive for her. Finally, imac screens are just awesom compared to most inexepnsive monitors. Simple things like effortless tilting and easy adjustment of brightness, along with really good font display are marks of high polish and ease of use for older folks.
So I came away chasened and with a new found regard for the Apple Human interface and polish of the little details. I now use the chromebook myself as a backup computer and to be a media viewer, because overall chrombooks are not versatile like a mac. They are just good at one thing and that's geting rid of the complications of having an OS layer just to run a browser. Every other good feature, like fast books, autoupdates, and good speed even on cheap hardware pretty much stems from that simplification.
Now what was true was that there was no app that my mother needed that required a mac. Everything she needed to do was available on the chromebook so that's a plus.
If I were doing this over again I'd buy the printer and external speakers and test out mice beforehand. My approach was to give it to here then adapt to these problems as they emerged which made the transition for her rougher than in needed to be. Perhaps the transplant would have not been rejected
FInally the biggest dissappointment for me with the chromebook is that they totally suck for linux use. The problem is the hardwired requirement to run in developer mode if you want to boot linux. The firmware offers to erase your disk if you will kindly touch the spacebar at every wake. one mistake and poof your configuration is gone. The easiest ways to install linux end up not having full network access so are crippled. and you can't change the firmware behaviour without some fairly bangersous and unspported reflashes of the firmware, sometimes involving hardware jumpers. Since I'm using this for myself, not granny, now, I'd like to just erase the chrome and go to linux totaly. But the chormebook walled garden won't allow this in any conveneinet way.
Right. To begin with red hat is a company and they also make money. for both reasons they get no exception to export restrictions. It doesn't mean you have to like it. But that's the law and there's no reason to grant an exception
So I have a reasonable question I'll post here. On the one hand it seems, at first glance, to be stupid to put your e-coins in a third party vault. Unlike gold, your home computer is theoretically as good as any third party as a vault/wallet for e-coins. So people who lost money at Mt Gox just seem like doofuses for using it as an online wallet. In the case of flex coin, the money lost is flex coins apparently, not their depositirs who were in off line storage.
But then rethinking that, maybe it is better to trust a professional 3rd party (i.e. but not perhaps Magic the gathering wizards) to manage your security? there's big bussinesses in managing computer fleets simply because doing it right, rolling your own, is non trivial. It's just like the notion of not writing your own implementation of SSL in PHP for your e-commerce site-- dumb. Much better to find an environmentally tested and hardened openSSL with a good history.
Managing your own coins has all sorts of patch, trojan and back up failure perils. sure you might do it right but if it's to become a ubiquitous currency, my grandma has to be able to do it right. So even though individually the accounts are distributed, they are potentially large and easy to get to, compared to say mugging.
So is it really dumb afterall to trust a third party with your bitcoins? Isn't waht is really missing here is some sort of accreditation standards for third parties so we can know that size doesn't equal quality (see Mt Gox).
I would pretty much take it for granted that close to all of those low cost crap tablets are in desk drawers by now. I myslef bought chromebook at an irresistable price to try it. Yes it stinks.
The stockholders own the company. If the stockholders want the energy policy changed, then you do as your bosses say.
Wrong. The stockholders have no power to fire him. He reports to the board of directors. The stockholders can only vote to change the board. In some cases, don't know about apple, they might be able to raise motions at meetings for the board to take up. But even there was a motion to fire him, it would be up to the directors to execute it. So this policy is presumably backed by the board.
Cook was giving good advice too. The stock holder coould have tried to change the board or passed a motion but that would be ineffective. His only real power to make himself heard would be to sell a large chunk of his stock and get other to do so. That would be a loss at the man's expense (not apple) but the lower stock price would be noticed by other apple shareholders.
nice observation. Even weirder, is that the list of capitals shown for the tour is in a different order than the map that is drawn. I'm thinking this has something to do with that//last.
You should watch the demo. At one point he enters a natural language expression "Show a blue dodecahedron and two red spheres" which pops up a shaded 3D image model of just that.
Cramming 20 commands and 8 layers of brackets into one line doesn't make your programm an 'impressive 5-liner'. It, at most, makes a neat stunt by a mathematician in a proprietary programming language he invented himself. I'd be tempted to call it shitty programming.
Nothing to see here folks, move along.
No you miss the point. It shows that two things have been accomplished
first every command has an almost universal API for input and output letting you pipeline everything you do. try that with almost any normal library. it fails. now imagine achieving that across a language that is staggeringl comprehensive, deep and wide. it's a tour de force.
then imagine someone told you that, by the way, that API was also symbolic.
I first looked at the examples given in the article and said "harrumph this is mathematica". But then I watched his demo and I see what he's getting at. You could say this is just a really nice library but it's way more than the sum of it's parts. I think he's using the term Language not in the sense of "programming language", but rather in the sense that every real world speaking language like english, spanish contains an intrinsic model of the world itself and every part of a spoken language can be coupled to every other part. That is speaking has no incompatible interface between ideas does it? That question would never occur to you, but of course we have that problem with every programming library API.
SO he's talking about a Language for programming as much as a programming language. His accomplishment is to make a language of programming a programming language.
One of the great tricks he accomplishes is to combine symbolic programming and functional programming. I was somewhat surprised to notice that reactive programming actually falls out of that by accident. There's been a lot of spamvertising articles on Slashdot lately about the dogs dinner versions of Reactive programming for databases. Those are toys. Wolfram gets it right by not making it just fall out accidentally of two greater programming principles.
Decades ago I toyed with mathematica. The problem I had with is it was that the symbolics were nice but they let you easily create problems with permutations so large that it became incomprehensibly slow as your problem scaled. This if course was the users fault. I'm just saying that the power of the language gave me the power to be stupid. In a similar way APL with it's outerproducts instead of loops could easily use up all your computer memory in one command line without you even appreciating what had just happened. With procedural languages you had to think about how your algorithm was going to manage its own complexity and thus oddly worked better for scaling to complex problems.
It looks like what has happened is that mathematica --- now wolfram language--- has a lot more speed and wisdom about how to manage complexity and choose more wise approaches. SO perhaps that problem is solved more. But it's hard to say from the demo.
If you don't like my theory then then consider a less benign but equivalent Short sale angle. If you are confident Bitcoin is going to lose value then you "borrow" all the bit coin entrusted to your exchange and sell it on another exchange for dollars. Then when the price falls you buy it back. Shorting are a common practice to leverage huge gains from little investment and are a good way to get in real trouble fast if the price goes up instead.
Your explanation only works if their "revenue shortfall" expenses were in bitcoin and their "bridge loan" embezzlement was as well. You know, for all those business startup costs that are denominated in.... bitcoin... rather than local currency.
Right, *or* they could be incompetent fuckups who got scammed and then tried to cover it up (and also get a bailout from the other exchanges).
Occam doesn't seem to be conflicted here.
it's not hard to turn bitcoin into govt money. They just had to sell it on another exchange. IN fact if they thought bit coins price was going down, it would be a clever way to short it by borrowing the bitcoin and selling it all on another exchange, buy it back when the price falls.
I speculate that the real story behind mT Gox is not the one they are telling us. My guess is that back when bitcoins were worth pennies that Mt Gox needed a bridge loan to cover a shorfall in revenues wrt to expenses. I imagine they gave themselves a loan from their holdings intending to pay it back from downstream revenues. But then bit coin went 10,000 fold in exchange rate and they could never pay back the 400 million that was now due. Their only hope was to either wait for the market price to drop, or to act like a ponzi scheme where they paid demands out of other depositors money. All of which they could do because they controlled the coins. Even if they paid everything back but $4000 of an original bit coin loan, that would now be worth the 400 million they are short. Perhaps they also boofed the maliabile ID too at some point, but they would have easily detected that instantly because their total assets would be different that their total liabilities. Unless of course they already had a deficit in assets that was masking that.
Slashdot Mirror
googly goggly giggly jiggly jingly tingly tinkly dinkly dinkey dinked winked wicked
Google
goggle
guggle (flow in an irregular current with a bubbling noise)
gurgle
burgle
burgee (A triangular sailing flag, a show of force by colors)
burger
burker (to murder or supress without leaving evidence)
bucker
bicker
wicker
wicked
Interesting idea about the drone however most drones can only fly slowly so it would be hard to match the speed of a airliner.
The plane was carrying a cargo of 400 million dollars in Bitcoin. nuff said.
yes I meant that postscript was the only laser printer macs would accept. in the PC world every laser printer beand spoke a different language to avoid paying the adobe tax. Most printers sold were not postscript. Apple just forced the issue and postscript caught on. NeXT even standardized to Display Postscript.
this is a viewer to control a mac from a chrome book not to control a chromebook from a mac
Does ChromeOS not support CUPS for printers that apple and linux both use? and if not why the hell not?
It does not. It only supports "cloud enabled printers".
The plausible reason for this is that there's no reason to put printer drivers in the OS in the year 2014. Printers should be smart, blackboxes, with a universal interface advertising their capabilities. Apple too seems to have the same philosophy of dropping support for things early when there's a better but less used solution available. Postscript printerts, 3.5" floppies, parallel ports, serial ports, and dropping Flash support on iphones all were logical moves, that while causing a little pain, ultimately ushered in the right way of doing things.
I am not the Satoshi Nakamoto. I deny this. I am the Batman.
Oh the other sucky thing about chromebooks is that, ironically, they are the one platform that does not support google remote desktop! Moreover, since they don't run java at all, you can't even use any of the other desktop sharing viewers out there. so you can't remote admin the computer or even help by seeing the other person's screen. The good news is that chromebooks have very little to admin and can be set to autoupdate everything, so there'smuch less need for a remote desktop or viewer.
Overall I'd reccomend a chromebook over linux. But unless you are a cheapskate, I'd reccomend a mac over either for granny.
I bought a chrome book to replace my mothers imac. On paper this seemed like a really good idea since simply put ChromeOS removes everything you don't need. it's a browser that self updates and stores stuff on line. Unfortuntatley this did not go as well as I hoped and the imac is back.
what went wrong: chromebooks can't use your existing printer unless it's one of a select few, or you have another "real" computer in the house to network a piggybacked connection off of. I see no point in expensive chromebooks because things like a Pixel are more expensive than a better macbook. But the cheap chromebooks (e.g. Acer) have unusably bad speakers and the trackpad clicks and tracking suck (super duper suck). I added a nice apple mouse to it, but for some reason chrime doesn't respond smoothely to apple mouse (I dont' see why this should be the case, but empirically that's my experience). Finally the browser was just enough different than chrome on mac that she just got all confused. Frankly to me the two are nearly indistinguishable but not to her. I figured she'd get over this after a couple weeks but somehow the mac exerience was much smoother and intuitive for her. Finally, imac screens are just awesom compared to most inexepnsive monitors. Simple things like effortless tilting and easy adjustment of brightness, along with really good font display are marks of high polish and ease of use for older folks.
So I came away chasened and with a new found regard for the Apple Human interface and polish of the little details. I now use the chromebook myself as a backup computer and to be a media viewer, because overall chrombooks are not versatile like a mac. They are just good at one thing and that's geting rid of the complications of having an OS layer just to run a browser. Every other good feature, like fast books, autoupdates, and good speed even on cheap hardware pretty much stems from that simplification.
Now what was true was that there was no app that my mother needed that required a mac. Everything she needed to do was available on the chromebook so that's a plus.
If I were doing this over again I'd buy the printer and external speakers and test out mice beforehand. My approach was to give it to here then adapt to these problems as they emerged which made the transition for her rougher than in needed to be. Perhaps the transplant would have not been rejected
FInally the biggest dissappointment for me with the chromebook is that they totally suck for linux use. The problem is the hardwired requirement to run in developer mode if you want to boot linux. The firmware offers to erase your disk if you will kindly touch the spacebar at every wake. one mistake and poof your configuration is gone. The easiest ways to install linux end up not having full network access so are crippled. and you can't change the firmware behaviour without some fairly bangersous and unspported reflashes of the firmware, sometimes involving hardware jumpers. Since I'm using this for myself, not granny, now, I'd like to just erase the chrome and go to linux totaly. But the chormebook walled garden won't allow this in any conveneinet way.
Right. To begin with red hat is a company and they also make money. for both reasons they get no exception to export restrictions. It doesn't mean you have to like it. But that's the law and there's no reason to grant an exception
This is why you should always roll your own SSL scripts in php like the guy at Magic the Gathering Online Exchange did.
So I have a reasonable question I'll post here. On the one hand it seems, at first glance, to be stupid to put your e-coins in a third party vault. Unlike gold, your home computer is theoretically as good as any third party as a vault/wallet for e-coins. So people who lost money at Mt Gox just seem like doofuses for using it as an online wallet. In the case of flex coin, the money lost is flex coins apparently, not their depositirs who were in off line storage.
But then rethinking that, maybe it is better to trust a professional 3rd party (i.e. but not perhaps Magic the gathering wizards) to manage your security? there's big bussinesses in managing computer fleets simply because doing it right, rolling your own, is non trivial. It's just like the notion of not writing your own implementation of SSL in PHP for your e-commerce site-- dumb. Much better to find an environmentally tested and hardened openSSL with a good history.
Managing your own coins has all sorts of patch, trojan and back up failure perils. sure you might do it right but if it's to become a ubiquitous currency, my grandma has to be able to do it right. So even though individually the accounts are distributed, they are potentially large and easy to get to, compared to say mugging.
So is it really dumb afterall to trust a third party with your bitcoins? Isn't waht is really missing here is some sort of accreditation standards for third parties so we can know that size doesn't equal quality (see Mt Gox).
Can't load additional comments, password goofiness at login. this blows.
I would pretty much take it for granted that close to all of those low cost crap tablets are in desk drawers by now. I myslef bought chromebook at an irresistable price to try it. Yes it stinks.
The stockholders own the company. If the stockholders want the energy policy changed, then you do as your bosses say.
Wrong. The stockholders have no power to fire him. He reports to the board of directors. The stockholders can only vote to change the board. In some cases, don't know about apple, they might be able to raise motions at meetings for the board to take up. But even there was a motion to fire him, it would be up to the directors to execute it. So this policy is presumably backed by the board.
Cook was giving good advice too. The stock holder coould have tried to change the board or passed a motion but that would be ineffective. His only real power to make himself heard would be to sell a large chunk of his stock and get other to do so. That would be a loss at the man's expense (not apple) but the lower stock price would be noticed by other apple shareholders.
"Find an image on the web resembling a torus being stretched by two hands"
nice observation. Even weirder, is that the list of capitals shown for the tour is in a different order than the map that is drawn. I'm thinking this has something to do with that //last.
You should watch the demo. At one point he enters a natural language expression "Show a blue dodecahedron and two red spheres" which pops up a shaded 3D image model of just that.
Cramming 20 commands and 8 layers of brackets into one line doesn't make your programm an 'impressive 5-liner'. It, at most, makes a neat stunt by a mathematician in a proprietary programming language he invented himself. I'd be tempted to call it shitty programming.
Nothing to see here folks, move along.
No you miss the point. It shows that two things have been accomplished
first every command has an almost universal API for input and output letting you pipeline everything you do. try that with almost any normal library. it fails. now imagine achieving that across a language that is staggeringl comprehensive, deep and wide. it's a tour de force.
then imagine someone told you that, by the way, that API was also symbolic.
and wait it's also a functional programing
and reactive.
I first looked at the examples given in the article and said "harrumph this is mathematica". But then I watched his demo and I see what he's getting at. You could say this is just a really nice library but it's way more than the sum of it's parts. I think he's using the term Language not in the sense of "programming language", but rather in the sense that every real world speaking language like english, spanish contains an intrinsic model of the world itself and every part of a spoken language can be coupled to every other part. That is speaking has no incompatible interface between ideas does it? That question would never occur to you, but of course we have that problem with every programming library API.
SO he's talking about a Language for programming as much as a programming language. His accomplishment is to make a language of programming a programming language.
One of the great tricks he accomplishes is to combine symbolic programming and functional programming. I was somewhat surprised to notice that reactive programming actually falls out of that by accident. There's been a lot of spamvertising articles on Slashdot lately about the dogs dinner versions of Reactive programming for databases. Those are toys. Wolfram gets it right by not making it just fall out accidentally of two greater programming principles.
Decades ago I toyed with mathematica. The problem I had with is it was that the symbolics were nice but they let you easily create problems with permutations so large that it became incomprehensibly slow as your problem scaled. This if course was the users fault. I'm just saying that the power of the language gave me the power to be stupid. In a similar way APL with it's outerproducts instead of loops could easily use up all your computer memory in one command line without you even appreciating what had just happened. With procedural languages you had to think about how your algorithm was going to manage its own complexity and thus oddly worked better for scaling to complex problems.
It looks like what has happened is that mathematica --- now wolfram language--- has a lot more speed and wisdom about how to manage complexity and choose more wise approaches. SO perhaps that problem is solved more. But it's hard to say from the demo.
In any case that was a staggering demo.
This looks a lot like Mathematica. When does something become programming language? Wasn't mathematica a programming language too?
If you don't like my theory then then consider a less benign but equivalent Short sale angle. If you are confident Bitcoin is going to lose value then you "borrow" all the bit coin entrusted to your exchange and sell it on another exchange for dollars. Then when the price falls you buy it back. Shorting are a common practice to leverage huge gains from little investment and are a good way to get in real trouble fast if the price goes up instead.
Your explanation only works if their "revenue shortfall" expenses were in bitcoin and their "bridge loan" embezzlement was as well. You know, for all those business startup costs that are denominated in.... bitcoin... rather than local currency.
Right, *or* they could be incompetent fuckups who got scammed and then tried to cover it up (and also get a bailout from the other exchanges).
Occam doesn't seem to be conflicted here.
it's not hard to turn bitcoin into govt money. They just had to sell it on another exchange. IN fact if they thought bit coins price was going down, it would be a clever way to short it by borrowing the bitcoin and selling it all on another exchange, buy it back when the price falls.
I speculate that the real story behind mT Gox is not the one they are telling us. My guess is that back when bitcoins were worth pennies that Mt Gox needed a bridge loan to cover a shorfall in revenues wrt to expenses. I imagine they gave themselves a loan from their holdings intending to pay it back from downstream revenues. But then bit coin went 10,000 fold in exchange rate and they could never pay back the 400 million that was now due. Their only hope was to either wait for the market price to drop, or to act like a ponzi scheme where they paid demands out of other depositors money. All of which they could do because they controlled the coins. Even if they paid everything back but $4000 of an original bit coin loan, that would now be worth the 400 million they are short. Perhaps they also boofed the maliabile ID too at some point, but they would have easily detected that instantly because their total assets would be different that their total liabilities. Unless of course they already had a deficit in assets that was masking that.