Why are you using the name Bolex? Isn't that trademarked?
We're working in partnership with Bolex International, SA. The collaborators on this project are based in Los Angeles, Toronto, China, and Switzerland.
What is the nature of "working in partnership," I don't know. Hopefully it's a close partnership, because otherwise it seems like you'd be crazy to buy such a complex product from somebody who never made one before, when there are already entrenched, world-class competitors.
Well, Linux is still tied to X11. Which means the window manager is separate from the graphics display interface, leading to a profusion of different user interfaces and fragmentation of developer effort.
Now, I know perfectly well we could dicker about whether or not X11 is technically part of Unix, and whether X11 has hobbled or helped the adoption of unix-based systems. But mainly I find it interesting how many have tried and failed to displace X11 on Linux. Apple, on the other hand, pulled it off, and now there's an entire ecosystem of popular software for Quartz or Cocoa or whatever it is. Microsoft's pivot from DOS to Windows-NT was also huge, and key to the long-term profits they have enjoyed.
So my point was that re-use and commonality aren't always good. The organizational ability to junk something good to create something even better is necessary at times.
Convergence is the past, IMHO. Prior to the iPhone, mobile developers tended to resist the idea of custom development for specific platforms. The idea was to use Java everywhere, or some semblance of the Windows API, and to use markup languages to let the client determine presentation. Then Apple said, "screw it, we're going to optimize everything for end users on this specific platform, and let content developers and code developers cope." And it worked. With Metro, Windows is still pursuing unification, and it's (still) not working. Not unlike the transition of Unix to the PC era, which never did work out. (OSX owes practically nothing to Unix at the UI level). And Web Standards bodies are mostly ignored now. Cross-platform applications are almost always beat out by native ones. All somewhat sad, but again, true IMHO.
I think the main problem with new technologies like tracking in smartphones (or even the Web in its current form) is that there is practically no way to opt out, because you don't even know who is collecting what information about you in response to any little action you take.
Let's say I want location-aware reminders on my google glass ("you said you wanted Monkey's Uncle Ale, well this store you're walking by has it for $X") OK. Does that mean all reminders I create are mined for shopping-related keywords? Does it mean my location over time is recorded and sold, and to whom?
"Weeding out naysayers" is a advice that should be applied very carefully IMHO. Anybody who's worked around engineers and been on slashdot a while can get the point - there are plenty of guys who never heard an idea they didn't hate, who only ever see problems and never opportunities. On the other hand, I imagine a few level-headed and empowered naysayers could have done a lot of good at Enron and Bear Stearns. I am not sure if there is really a principled way to tell the difference defeatists and prophets though. I spent a good part of this morning reading Sundown in America, and the reader replies to it, and trying to decide whether the guy is loony, or America is doomed.
It is like everything in modern life... how do you build a lathe without a lathe? Or a generator without electricity? It would take a thousand years to start from nothing and get back to where we are now.
Those were amazing times. I got a Dell Pentium 90 mid-1995, and it was over $3000. (To this day it is still the most expensive thing I've ever bought besides a home and cars/motorcycles). But the amazing part is that within a year it was somewhat outdated. But it got me through my CS program and so, I think, repaid itself many times over:)
I am starting to feel like a relic, because in my world, running a buch of feature-rich applications on a powerful computer with a large screen still seems like a great thing to do most of the time. All I see on the web is how "most people" don't use the full power of Word/Powerpoint/Outlook, therefore it should be removed. And then Microsoft comes out with Metro just to confirm my fears.
It's nice to see an application (yeah, I typed out the whole word!) slammed for being too simplistic.
This summary is saying, "I won't choose you for me team because you scored lots of points against me. Politicians and execs don't really "care" about things. They are professionals doing a job.
How about not having a removable battery, does Intel mandate that? That's just taking advantage of consumers' inability to foresee future pain at the time of purchase IMHO. I suppose the couple of millimeters saved are more defensible in a phone, but not in a laptop.
They're not.
In single-thread performance, the very fastest CPU (Xeon E3 1290 v2) at 3.7 GHz (2178 Passmark) is only 2.5x the speed of the Pentium 4 3.8 GHz (866 PassMark) from almost 10 years ago! Going down another factor of 2.5x puts you at the P4 1.5 GHz (344 Passmark), which was released only 4 years before that, in 2000.
Put another way, if you go back 10 years from the P4 3.8GHz in 2004, you are at the Pentium 75 in 1994. I don't even know where to find a single benchmark to compare the two! The performance difference would be more like 20x, not 2.5x. Intel went from the P75 to the P200 in 20 months, and that was a bigger increase in single-core performance than we've seen in the last decade.
Increases in IPC are very small compared to what we enjoyed as clock speed ramped up.
Actually, no, people have in fact become more intelligent, at least throughout the 20th century (which is about when measurement because standardized and regularly applied enough to tell).
The error in your assessment is that it doesn't involve any actual measures. It's all too easy to idealize the past.
- simple stuff like foreach() and other iterators eliminate off-by-1 errors and boundary conditions.
To me, the distaste for iterating over a counter (i.e. a traditional C for loop) is the perfect example of much ado about nothing. If your implementation of "apply" gives me parallelism for free, then great, but otherwise it's one of those obsessive stylistic things that really does not matter.
Nope, not in California anyways. There is no way the Ferrari would come even close to meeting the tailpipe emissions requirement with that engine. "Hybrid" is not an automatic qualification.
Massively overpowered cars don't fishtail and spin anymore - at least they don't need to unless the owners choose to turn off the electronics. In the last 5 years, I've watched the motorcycle magazines shift from being very leery of fly-by-wire (or even fuel injection, 10 years ago), to dismissing aging models based mainly on the inferiority or lack of traction control, wheelie control, ABS, and dynamic throttle response. Now real-time suspension tuning is the big thing. Ferrari is obviously deep into F1 where the allowable degree of automation is a matter of constant debate and rule changes every year, so their street cars probably have more electronic control than their race cars do.
This is a "proof of concept" in the same way that turning over a shovelful of dirt is a proof of concept for digging a basement. The "concept" isn't at issue; it's all the gruntwork and polish that would be required to make it good enough to displace what's already out there and working. With software, the first few function points appear to solve the crux of the problem, but unfortunately the vast majority of function points still remain and each is just as time-consuming, yet less rewarding, than the first few.
I think the correct answer is that "clone" has come to mean "delayed-time identical twin" when it was previously intended more literally. In the Stepford Wives, for example, they were robots made to look just like the women they replaced (which DNA "clones" will not). Most pedants today will argue that it's silly to depict "clones" as the same in personality, since DNA doesn't fully determine personality. But I would argue that this just shows the word "clone" is being abused because DNA replication doesn't measure up to it, and we should hold out on using the word "clone" for a copy of me who is still me, like Multiplicity.
I would like to see some evidence of that, rather than what I have seen in response to yahoo's decision - which is an outcry by people who telecommute and want to continue to telecommute, mainly for personal reasons.
I work with people who telecommute. It is a justifiable accommodation for an especially good performer who would otherwise have to leave. But from my perspective, it doesn't seem as good as having the same person nearby, when that is possible to do.
(she was once left suspended mid-cabin in the ISS as a practical joke by the others on the mission; she had to rely on the A/C to push her to the walls since she couldn't reach them on her own, which ended up taking 45 minutes, if I recall correctly)
That in itself is scary as well. Can you imagine getting out of reach of your spacecraft by just ONE inch and having NO way to bridge that gap?
He would at least have a point if guns were banned in the US, which they are not. They are manufactured and purchased by the millions. There is not even a proposal on the table to ban any gun with the capabilities of his "printed" gun (which I put in scare quotes since all the functional parts are not printed). His implication of victimhood and outlaw is entirely manufactured.
Personally, no. SpaceX and Tesla are both high in the running for "coolest company" in my book. The fact that the same guy is behind them both makes me think it's not just luck. (It would be so tempting to troll Apple at this point, but I think I'll just stop here).
Slashdot Mirror
What is the nature of "working in partnership," I don't know. Hopefully it's a close partnership, because otherwise it seems like you'd be crazy to buy such a complex product from somebody who never made one before, when there are already entrenched, world-class competitors.
Now, I know perfectly well we could dicker about whether or not X11 is technically part of Unix, and whether X11 has hobbled or helped the adoption of unix-based systems. But mainly I find it interesting how many have tried and failed to displace X11 on Linux. Apple, on the other hand, pulled it off, and now there's an entire ecosystem of popular software for Quartz or Cocoa or whatever it is. Microsoft's pivot from DOS to Windows-NT was also huge, and key to the long-term profits they have enjoyed.
So my point was that re-use and commonality aren't always good. The organizational ability to junk something good to create something even better is necessary at times.
Convergence is the past, IMHO. Prior to the iPhone, mobile developers tended to resist the idea of custom development for specific platforms. The idea was to use Java everywhere, or some semblance of the Windows API, and to use markup languages to let the client determine presentation. Then Apple said, "screw it, we're going to optimize everything for end users on this specific platform, and let content developers and code developers cope." And it worked. With Metro, Windows is still pursuing unification, and it's (still) not working. Not unlike the transition of Unix to the PC era, which never did work out. (OSX owes practically nothing to Unix at the UI level). And Web Standards bodies are mostly ignored now. Cross-platform applications are almost always beat out by native ones. All somewhat sad, but again, true IMHO.
Let's say I want location-aware reminders on my google glass ("you said you wanted Monkey's Uncle Ale, well this store you're walking by has it for $X") OK. Does that mean all reminders I create are mined for shopping-related keywords? Does it mean my location over time is recorded and sold, and to whom?
"Weeding out naysayers" is a advice that should be applied very carefully IMHO. Anybody who's worked around engineers and been on slashdot a while can get the point - there are plenty of guys who never heard an idea they didn't hate, who only ever see problems and never opportunities. On the other hand, I imagine a few level-headed and empowered naysayers could have done a lot of good at Enron and Bear Stearns. I am not sure if there is really a principled way to tell the difference defeatists and prophets though. I spent a good part of this morning reading Sundown in America, and the reader replies to it, and trying to decide whether the guy is loony, or America is doomed.
It is like everything in modern life... how do you build a lathe without a lathe? Or a generator without electricity? It would take a thousand years to start from nothing and get back to where we are now.
Those were amazing times. I got a Dell Pentium 90 mid-1995, and it was over $3000. (To this day it is still the most expensive thing I've ever bought besides a home and cars/motorcycles). But the amazing part is that within a year it was somewhat outdated. But it got me through my CS program and so, I think, repaid itself many times over :)
It's nice to see an application (yeah, I typed out the whole word!) slammed for being too simplistic.
+1 Insightful.
This summary is saying, "I won't choose you for me team because you scored lots of points against me. Politicians and execs don't really "care" about things. They are professionals doing a job.
How about not having a removable battery, does Intel mandate that? That's just taking advantage of consumers' inability to foresee future pain at the time of purchase IMHO. I suppose the couple of millimeters saved are more defensible in a phone, but not in a laptop.
Put another way, if you go back 10 years from the P4 3.8GHz in 2004, you are at the Pentium 75 in 1994. I don't even know where to find a single benchmark to compare the two! The performance difference would be more like 20x, not 2.5x. Intel went from the P75 to the P200 in 20 months, and that was a bigger increase in single-core performance than we've seen in the last decade.
Increases in IPC are very small compared to what we enjoyed as clock speed ramped up.
Accounts of average people throughout history were valuable because they were rare. Now they are billions of times less rare.
The error in your assessment is that it doesn't involve any actual measures. It's all too easy to idealize the past.
To me, the distaste for iterating over a counter (i.e. a traditional C for loop) is the perfect example of much ado about nothing. If your implementation of "apply" gives me parallelism for free, then great, but otherwise it's one of those obsessive stylistic things that really does not matter.
Nope, not in California anyways. There is no way the Ferrari would come even close to meeting the tailpipe emissions requirement with that engine. "Hybrid" is not an automatic qualification.
Massively overpowered cars don't fishtail and spin anymore - at least they don't need to unless the owners choose to turn off the electronics. In the last 5 years, I've watched the motorcycle magazines shift from being very leery of fly-by-wire (or even fuel injection, 10 years ago), to dismissing aging models based mainly on the inferiority or lack of traction control, wheelie control, ABS, and dynamic throttle response. Now real-time suspension tuning is the big thing. Ferrari is obviously deep into F1 where the allowable degree of automation is a matter of constant debate and rule changes every year, so their street cars probably have more electronic control than their race cars do.
This is a "proof of concept" in the same way that turning over a shovelful of dirt is a proof of concept for digging a basement. The "concept" isn't at issue; it's all the gruntwork and polish that would be required to make it good enough to displace what's already out there and working. With software, the first few function points appear to solve the crux of the problem, but unfortunately the vast majority of function points still remain and each is just as time-consuming, yet less rewarding, than the first few.
I think the correct answer is that "clone" has come to mean "delayed-time identical twin" when it was previously intended more literally. In the Stepford Wives, for example, they were robots made to look just like the women they replaced (which DNA "clones" will not). Most pedants today will argue that it's silly to depict "clones" as the same in personality, since DNA doesn't fully determine personality. But I would argue that this just shows the word "clone" is being abused because DNA replication doesn't measure up to it, and we should hold out on using the word "clone" for a copy of me who is still me, like Multiplicity.
I work with people who telecommute. It is a justifiable accommodation for an especially good performer who would otherwise have to leave. But from my perspective, it doesn't seem as good as having the same person nearby, when that is possible to do.
I hope that was a joke and not a desperate grasp for something resembling a "free-market solution" to spam.
That in itself is scary as well. Can you imagine getting out of reach of your spacecraft by just ONE inch and having NO way to bridge that gap?
Not sure in what sense you meant that, but it would be premature to start running around having unprotected sex with everybody in celebration.
He would at least have a point if guns were banned in the US, which they are not. They are manufactured and purchased by the millions. There is not even a proposal on the table to ban any gun with the capabilities of his "printed" gun (which I put in scare quotes since all the functional parts are not printed). His implication of victimhood and outlaw is entirely manufactured.
Personally, no. SpaceX and Tesla are both high in the running for "coolest company" in my book. The fact that the same guy is behind them both makes me think it's not just luck. (It would be so tempting to troll Apple at this point, but I think I'll just stop here).