Perhaps both are suitable for different devices or different people? The 1280x800 screen on the Galaxy Note is more than most PC's had throughout the 90's and into the mid 00's, and those always had overlapping windows. The original iPhone had a 480x320 screen, so you could tile 4 of those onto today's screens with room to spare.
Anyways it's just a software change and can probably be turned off if it sucks.
It amazes me now how much people want to white wash him as some visionary and cult hero, he was just a ruthless entrepreneur who would walk over anybody to get what he wanted.
The whitewashers don't worry me so much as the people who know very well what he did, and proceed to envy, admire, and emulate him because he exemplifies their own power fantasies and vision of "success."
...unless you're going to at least bother to track down the patent in question and link to it, so we can decide for ourselves whether anything in it is interesting. I would guess there is more to it than just the basic idea of chording.
I'm delighted that Minecraft is in Java because my son plays it all the time, it's more constructive than other games, and it also happens to be just about the ONLY game that will run on our computer, because it's Linux. (Well, flash web games work too, and Club Penguin had a healthy run at our place... but I doubt Flash is what you are advocating).
OK, I realize there has been some variety of games over the years which were released for Linux like quake 3. But as for games on Linux that are actually currently popular, and which people playing on different OS can link up and talk to each other, there are extremely few.
Although, the efficiency they now achieved on a film is about the same with the very best high-end stuff was 20-25 years ago. So the panels on the Hubble, for example, which was launched in 1990, launched with panels little or no better than this.
So you don't believe the statistics that their life expectancy exceeds ours? Because I think that's a pretty good bottom-line measure. (Although our embargo against allowing Hardee's to operate there must help quite a bit too).
Hayek strikes again, "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."
Human limitations and fallibility have nothing to do with economics in particular. We only see a tiny fraction of our own tiny corner of the world, and have limited means to process that information, so why would it be otherwise? Unintended consequences are a constant result of everything that we do, starting with getting out of bed in the morning. Does that mean we'd be better off not using the limited faculties that we do have? No, in general they help us. Otherwise we would still be bacteria.
Google is the one with billions in profits to safeguard, not you. Connecting to them securely will safeguard their proprietary database of your every move from the prying eyes of competitors such as Comcast (unless of course they pay tribute to google first, like anybody else who wants to know what you've been up to). And you don't find that terribly exciting?
Communism is an unstable state in nature. It was tried lots of places besides Russia at around the same time - including many religious colonies in the US. None lasted. So the meaningful question is not, "what is a Communist nation like" but rather, "what tends to happen when a nation pursues Communism." (And by the way, the same is true of libertarianism - it is unstable. Unregulated freedom for everybody lasts for about 5 minutes before power consolidates.)
What's the cost of the hostage situation in Algeria? You know, at the BP plant? And who is paying? For once the Wall Street Journal article does not delve into the economics at all.
It's not about whether it's me vs. one some other guy. My point is that if we spend several billion dollars to send somebody to Mars, 99.9999% of the population will still be sitting on earth, looking at pictures of Mars exactly like the ones they're already looking at (or not bothering to look at). I just don't see what it would change.
I think the mileage that government space programs have gotten out of entertainment value for the home audience is huge, regardless of its purported minimal role. In fact I think that, plus technology from or for (unmanned) defense applications, just about covers it.
I wish the analogy between crossing the Atlantic Ocean vs. traveling 12 light years to Tau Ceti were better than it is. I really don't think the technologies currently in use for space travel are even steps in the right direction towards traveling interstellar distances. Teleportation does not seem impossible (reconstructing ourselves at the destination), but if we can do that, then we can probably also just live inside a computer and actuate through some sort of distributed robot body if/when necessary. I realize this is starting to sound silly. Well, my point is that transporting our bodies tens of light years is even less feasible than that.
I'm increasingly having trouble remembering why it seemed like a space mission would be so much cooler with a person onboard. Would the Hubble be so much better with a guy in it? Would the Curiosity Mars rover? Just because "somebody" gets to have an experience doesn't mean I do, and offhand I can't think of any moon science that was done by people and could not now be done by a robot. Even hitting golf balls.
Getting technology that was only available in a $60,000 router into my PC at an affordable price is what I'd call progress. The article says Intel had optical Thunderbolt at CES. I would be delighted if I could run a $50, 50m fiber to extend consoles to different parts of my house instead of having 3 PCs running 24/7. (Of course PCs themselves are getting so cheap and power efficient that the race is still on...)
I disagree that "software is software." Everything changes in adversarial situations, where you are combatting adaptive, intelligent adversaries. The regulatory regime that is good for safeguarding against flaws in medical devices such as Therac-25 is not appropriate for the day-to-day operations of staying on top of computer security threats.
This is where technical considerations and political considerations collide. The NSA has high-end capabilities, but is a spy agency that has always been explicitly prohibited from targeting the US. Just as we created the FBI to police ourselves vs. the CIA to police the world. Here is an article on the subject. Personally I do not think we should turn the NSA loose on ourselves. But admittedly in the case of computer security it can be extremely difficult to even determine whether a threat is foreign or domestic.
What does HHS or FDA know about computer security? Nothing. It is a technical niche. Trying to independently stand up a computer security audit group within every niche of government just because they all use computers is crazy.
As for DHS covering too many things.... DHS isn't really anything in itself. It's just an umbrella created after 911 to try and make connections between what where (and still are for the most part) essentially independent organizations that suffer from too much redundancy and tribalism. (Which is not to say the DHS is necessarily doing a good job of solving these problems).
overseas labor is cheap because the operations needed -require- human hands, eyesight and abilities that robots still don't have.
sheesh, if we COULD use robots for things (like iphone assemblies) we would (they would).
Robots are getting those abilities, and it is causing some manufacturing repatriation:
Foxconn begins replacing workers with robots ahead of US expansion
"In June 2011, Foxconn CEO Terry Gou announced plans to deploy one million robots across factory assembly lines, as part of a company-wide effort to adopt more automated manufacturing processes. The company has been reluctant to discuss any progress toward this goal, but according to the Wall Street Journal, the automation process is already underway, and some workers are beginning to feel its effects.
One such employee is a man known as Zhang, who has spent the last two years working on the assembly lines at Foxconn's Shenzhen plant. Zhang told the Journal that he and some of his colleagues were recently transferred to different positions after factory managers began deploying robotic arms to plug components into a motherboard. "There were about 20 to 30 people on the line before, but after they added the robots it went down to five people, who just pushed buttons and ran the machines," he said."
Woo struck a similar chord last week, when Foxconn announced plans to expand operations to North America.
cite
there's a great story about how GM spent 1 million bucks to get a robot to stick stickers aligned right on the dash for speedometers, but Toyota spent like 500 bucks coming up with a guide and had a person do it.
And I guess the person operating that jig worked for free without a paycheck, healthcare or a pension?
GM was bankrupt down by pay and benefits, not robot purchases.
Well, that is a good answer with good examples. In retrospect anyways the current fire doesn't seem quite analogous, but as you say the whole point is to avoid an analogous mishap and you never have perfect information at the time either.
Well, I think this is becoming a bit of a mania, too. Would a warning light of the same nature triggered an emergency landing and deployment of the inflatable slides on any other plane? I doubt it. The passengers were in no immediate threat, especially after the plane landed, and chute evacuations always result in some minor injuries. So why did they do it? I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, just that life gets a lot tougher once everybody views you with skepticism.
Everybody is rushing to agree with you, but I don't see how the use of a USB drive is the problem in this case. USB drives are a bad way to transfer information to secure systems because they are writable, so sensitive information can leak back into the open environment. But that's not what happened here, so it makes no difference whether the upload to the sensitive system had been done with a CD, USB drive, floppy... what do you think they should use, and what difference would it make? Are you assuming they failed to run a virus scanner on the software they uploaded? Those aren't 100%, especially not for targeted attacks. All secure systems are loaded with software and hardware that is ultimately from the open, so there is a chance of bad stuff leaking through. Even if you built the whole computer system onsite from sand and software written from scratch (which is absurd), there is still the trustworthiness of the people who do the work.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyways it's just a software change and can probably be turned off if it sucks.
That explains the gender pay gap and glass ceiling; it's easier to appear exceptional than to be exceptional, and one side is more willing to cheat :)
The whitewashers don't worry me so much as the people who know very well what he did, and proceed to envy, admire, and emulate him because he exemplifies their own power fantasies and vision of "success."
...unless you're going to at least bother to track down the patent in question and link to it, so we can decide for ourselves whether anything in it is interesting. I would guess there is more to it than just the basic idea of chording.
OK, I realize there has been some variety of games over the years which were released for Linux like quake 3. But as for games on Linux that are actually currently popular, and which people playing on different OS can link up and talk to each other, there are extremely few.
Although, the efficiency they now achieved on a film is about the same with the very best high-end stuff was 20-25 years ago. So the panels on the Hubble, for example, which was launched in 1990, launched with panels little or no better than this.
So you don't believe the statistics that their life expectancy exceeds ours? Because I think that's a pretty good bottom-line measure. (Although our embargo against allowing Hardee's to operate there must help quite a bit too).
I guess his scientific output would be more but his notoriety would be less.
Human limitations and fallibility have nothing to do with economics in particular. We only see a tiny fraction of our own tiny corner of the world, and have limited means to process that information, so why would it be otherwise? Unintended consequences are a constant result of everything that we do, starting with getting out of bed in the morning. Does that mean we'd be better off not using the limited faculties that we do have? No, in general they help us. Otherwise we would still be bacteria.
Google is the one with billions in profits to safeguard, not you. Connecting to them securely will safeguard their proprietary database of your every move from the prying eyes of competitors such as Comcast (unless of course they pay tribute to google first, like anybody else who wants to know what you've been up to). And you don't find that terribly exciting?
Communism is an unstable state in nature. It was tried lots of places besides Russia at around the same time - including many religious colonies in the US. None lasted. So the meaningful question is not, "what is a Communist nation like" but rather, "what tends to happen when a nation pursues Communism." (And by the way, the same is true of libertarianism - it is unstable. Unregulated freedom for everybody lasts for about 5 minutes before power consolidates.)
What's the cost of the hostage situation in Algeria? You know, at the BP plant? And who is paying? For once the Wall Street Journal article does not delve into the economics at all.
It's not about whether it's me vs. one some other guy. My point is that if we spend several billion dollars to send somebody to Mars, 99.9999% of the population will still be sitting on earth, looking at pictures of Mars exactly like the ones they're already looking at (or not bothering to look at). I just don't see what it would change.
I wish the analogy between crossing the Atlantic Ocean vs. traveling 12 light years to Tau Ceti were better than it is. I really don't think the technologies currently in use for space travel are even steps in the right direction towards traveling interstellar distances. Teleportation does not seem impossible (reconstructing ourselves at the destination), but if we can do that, then we can probably also just live inside a computer and actuate through some sort of distributed robot body if/when necessary. I realize this is starting to sound silly. Well, my point is that transporting our bodies tens of light years is even less feasible than that.
I'm increasingly having trouble remembering why it seemed like a space mission would be so much cooler with a person onboard. Would the Hubble be so much better with a guy in it? Would the Curiosity Mars rover? Just because "somebody" gets to have an experience doesn't mean I do, and offhand I can't think of any moon science that was done by people and could not now be done by a robot. Even hitting golf balls.
Getting technology that was only available in a $60,000 router into my PC at an affordable price is what I'd call progress. The article says Intel had optical Thunderbolt at CES. I would be delighted if I could run a $50, 50m fiber to extend consoles to different parts of my house instead of having 3 PCs running 24/7. (Of course PCs themselves are getting so cheap and power efficient that the race is still on...)
I disagree that "software is software." Everything changes in adversarial situations, where you are combatting adaptive, intelligent adversaries. The regulatory regime that is good for safeguarding against flaws in medical devices such as Therac-25 is not appropriate for the day-to-day operations of staying on top of computer security threats.
This is where technical considerations and political considerations collide. The NSA has high-end capabilities, but is a spy agency that has always been explicitly prohibited from targeting the US. Just as we created the FBI to police ourselves vs. the CIA to police the world. Here is an article on the subject. Personally I do not think we should turn the NSA loose on ourselves. But admittedly in the case of computer security it can be extremely difficult to even determine whether a threat is foreign or domestic.
As for DHS covering too many things.... DHS isn't really anything in itself. It's just an umbrella created after 911 to try and make connections between what where (and still are for the most part) essentially independent organizations that suffer from too much redundancy and tribalism. (Which is not to say the DHS is necessarily doing a good job of solving these problems).
Robots are getting those abilities, and it is causing some manufacturing repatriation:
Foxconn begins replacing workers with robots ahead of US expansion
"In June 2011, Foxconn CEO Terry Gou announced plans to deploy one million robots across factory assembly lines, as part of a company-wide effort to adopt more automated manufacturing processes. The company has been reluctant to discuss any progress toward this goal, but according to the Wall Street Journal, the automation process is already underway, and some workers are beginning to feel its effects.
One such employee is a man known as Zhang, who has spent the last two years working on the assembly lines at Foxconn's Shenzhen plant. Zhang told the Journal that he and some of his colleagues were recently transferred to different positions after factory managers began deploying robotic arms to plug components into a motherboard. "There were about 20 to 30 people on the line before, but after they added the robots it went down to five people, who just pushed buttons and ran the machines," he said."
Woo struck a similar chord last week, when Foxconn announced plans to expand operations to North America. cite
And I guess the person operating that jig worked for free without a paycheck, healthcare or a pension?
GM was bankrupt down by pay and benefits, not robot purchases.
Well, that is a good answer with good examples. In retrospect anyways the current fire doesn't seem quite analogous, but as you say the whole point is to avoid an analogous mishap and you never have perfect information at the time either.
I really was referring to the deplaning, not the diversion and landing.
Well, I think this is becoming a bit of a mania, too. Would a warning light of the same nature triggered an emergency landing and deployment of the inflatable slides on any other plane? I doubt it. The passengers were in no immediate threat, especially after the plane landed, and chute evacuations always result in some minor injuries. So why did they do it? I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, just that life gets a lot tougher once everybody views you with skepticism.
Everybody is rushing to agree with you, but I don't see how the use of a USB drive is the problem in this case. USB drives are a bad way to transfer information to secure systems because they are writable, so sensitive information can leak back into the open environment. But that's not what happened here, so it makes no difference whether the upload to the sensitive system had been done with a CD, USB drive, floppy... what do you think they should use, and what difference would it make? Are you assuming they failed to run a virus scanner on the software they uploaded? Those aren't 100%, especially not for targeted attacks. All secure systems are loaded with software and hardware that is ultimately from the open, so there is a chance of bad stuff leaking through. Even if you built the whole computer system onsite from sand and software written from scratch (which is absurd), there is still the trustworthiness of the people who do the work.