Yes, Microsoft has certainly demonstrated their ability to move from one market to another successfully.
Are you serious? Microsoft has tried over and over to get Windows and Office on non-PCs. Office for Tablets? Is that one going to go over like Windows Tablet Edition?
Um, do you have any references to back any of that up?
The Kinect is the best selling consumer gadget of all time, but it's closely followed by the original iPad, the previous record holder. And after it's initial burst the Kinect slowed off. It looks like the Microsoft shipped 10 million Kinects to retailers in it's first four months, selling at $150 apiece. Note that those are shipped to retailers, not necessary sold.
In the last three months of 2010 Apple sold 7.33 million iPads, 16.24 million iPhones and 19.45 million iPods. So no, the Kinect didn't outsell iPads, iPhones and iPods combined, unless you were looking at a very short period of time right around launch. Besides which, the Kinect is a $150 device while the iPad averages about $600 and iPhones are around $800.
The Kinect is a neat gadget, and a decent innovation, but it's not particularly revolutionary and a $150 peripheral isn't going to turn Microsoft around.
Potential profits for the next few years determine stock price. Apple's profits are multiplying (x7 since 2006 apparently). Microsoft's are going up, so far, a little bit.
As for diversity, Microsoft makes most of their money from two closely linked software products - Office and Windows. Both of which are losing market share. Apple makes most of their money from phones, tablets, music players, computers, apps and music, all but one of which is growing, fast. Which of those is more diverse?
The prediction is based on Nokia choosing to go with Windows 7. For some reason the analysts think that a) Nokia is going to put Windows 7 on all their phones and b) people will actually buy those phones in the same numbers that they buy current Nokia phones. If those two miracles were to happen then Windows 7 would top Apple's phone market share.
According to the article Apple has septupled their profits since 2006, so a mere doubling doesn't seem particularly farfetched.
Re:everything toxic in large quantities
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 1
"Any refined chemical is likely toxic as it is taken out of natural proportions, with natural protections, and concentrated to unhealthy dosages."
Yup, deadly nightshade, hemlock and strychnine seeds are perfectly safe because they're natural and not "refined."
Purified water now, that stuff is refined out the ying yang and extremely toxic.
Re:This is not the logic you are looking for
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 1
I think that's the point - the guy giving the lecture knows what he's talking about. The "OMG sugar is a toxin!11!" crowd doesn't, and haven't really listened to what Lustig is saying.
I've found it's considerably easier to implement something described in a paper (most people's algorithm papers are TERRIBLE) when you've got a reference implementation, even if it is ugly MatLab code, to work from.
A nice C implementation would be fantastic though. Maybe someone will merge it back into OpenCV.
He's doing object tracking in realtime without using a GPU. And it's learning and improving it's performance while doing that tracking, not being trained ahead of time like most SURF/SIFT implementations.
In standard usage, saying X is a Y language refers to the canonical implementation of X. So Python is an interpreted language means CPython is interpreted, and doesn't refer to any of the experimental JIT versions.The Python that everyone actually uses is an interpreter that works with an intermediate bytecode representation. The Java everyone has uses a just in time compiler. The difference is kind of hazy sometimes, but there is enough of one to talk meaningfully about Python being interpreted and Java being compiled. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpreter_(computing))
Don't forget to read to the bottom of that PyPy blog article. PyPy is certainly an impressive tool, but you can get a big improvement with something like Cython that lets you give the translator hints. The actual benchmarks:
CPython: 59.593 s PyPy: 8.947 s Cython: 3.5 s after adding a few types
Adding a few types in Cython means statically typing a few heavily used variables. His other (approx. 26 s) result with Cython I can only assume involved just Cythoning his straight Python code, which isn't really what Cython is supposed to do. The beautiful part of Cython is that you CAN give it straight Python code, or straight C code, or anything you want in between.
In eight years on Slashdot I wonder if you've ever accidentally posted something that might link to you. I can't be bothered to find out, but I'm sure that information might be valuable to someone.
Of course, you probably drag cookies around like everyone else anyway.
Python is slower because it's a highly dynamic, interpreted language, and it's interpreter has also gotten a lot less attention than Java's compiler. Java is a compiled, much less dynamic language.
You're right, a regular JVM might not do such a hot job of working through all the code generated by something like Python, but it could be used effectively with a language that is less annoying than Java while still being fairly static.
I doubt Ceylon is going to be a language I'd be much interested in. Python + Cython + C is a pretty potent combination for pretty much everything. It might be good for some things though.
A new language that relies on an x86 processor to run sounds like it's in for an uphill battle....
There's no reason not to use the JVM. It's a highly optimized, widely distributed virtual machine (just like x86 processors are highly optimized, widely distributed actual machines).
Now Java as a language... leaves something to be desired.
First two should do the trick for Mac and Windows. The third is DVD Jon's reference implementation. The last one looks like it can pretend to be a second sound card on Linux.
Apparently you are confusing math and arithmetic. Calculators do arithmetic really well. As such, they can speed up some problems in the interesting parts of math that are not arithmetic but do involve it.
A few calculators are also symbolic equation solving systems. These can do a few other interesting parts of math, but still do mostly arithmetic.
You can have something way better than an array of these. There's one in every digital camera. I'm not sure how you get 3D with it though, or what "true 3D" is.
No. It depends on whether you accelerate or not. If you fly around the planet at a particular speed you'll experience less time than someone left behind. It doesn't matter which direction you go. Since the planet, solar system, galaxy etc. are all in inertial reference frames, their relative rate of time is not affected by their relative velocities.
Slashdot Mirror
Only if you jailbreak your phone.
Of course, if you jailbreak your phone then any app can track you without reading this file.
Yes, Microsoft has certainly demonstrated their ability to move from one market to another successfully.
Are you serious? Microsoft has tried over and over to get Windows and Office on non-PCs. Office for Tablets? Is that one going to go over like Windows Tablet Edition?
Um, do you have any references to back any of that up?
The Kinect is the best selling consumer gadget of all time, but it's closely followed by the original iPad, the previous record holder. And after it's initial burst the Kinect slowed off. It looks like the Microsoft shipped 10 million Kinects to retailers in it's first four months, selling at $150 apiece. Note that those are shipped to retailers, not necessary sold.
In the last three months of 2010 Apple sold 7.33 million iPads, 16.24 million iPhones and 19.45 million iPods. So no, the Kinect didn't outsell iPads, iPhones and iPods combined, unless you were looking at a very short period of time right around launch. Besides which, the Kinect is a $150 device while the iPad averages about $600 and iPhones are around $800.
The Kinect is a neat gadget, and a decent innovation, but it's not particularly revolutionary and a $150 peripheral isn't going to turn Microsoft around.
Potential profits for the next few years determine stock price. Apple's profits are multiplying (x7 since 2006 apparently). Microsoft's are going up, so far, a little bit.
As for diversity, Microsoft makes most of their money from two closely linked software products - Office and Windows. Both of which are losing market share. Apple makes most of their money from phones, tablets, music players, computers, apps and music, all but one of which is growing, fast. Which of those is more diverse?
The prediction is based on Nokia choosing to go with Windows 7. For some reason the analysts think that a) Nokia is going to put Windows 7 on all their phones and b) people will actually buy those phones in the same numbers that they buy current Nokia phones. If those two miracles were to happen then Windows 7 would top Apple's phone market share.
According to the article Apple has septupled their profits since 2006, so a mere doubling doesn't seem particularly farfetched.
"Any refined chemical is likely toxic as it is taken out of natural proportions, with natural protections, and concentrated to unhealthy dosages."
Yup, deadly nightshade, hemlock and strychnine seeds are perfectly safe because they're natural and not "refined."
Purified water now, that stuff is refined out the ying yang and extremely toxic.
I think that's the point - the guy giving the lecture knows what he's talking about. The "OMG sugar is a toxin!11!" crowd doesn't, and haven't really listened to what Lustig is saying.
I prefer things I write aren't automatically linked to whatever some other crazy person might write while referencing me, thanks.
Ted Nelson might agree if his original statements were linked to the mocking he's taking here.
I've found it's considerably easier to implement something described in a paper (most people's algorithm papers are TERRIBLE) when you've got a reference implementation, even if it is ugly MatLab code, to work from.
A nice C implementation would be fantastic though. Maybe someone will merge it back into OpenCV.
He's doing object tracking in realtime without using a GPU. And it's learning and improving it's performance while doing that tracking, not being trained ahead of time like most SURF/SIFT implementations.
"Which standard are you using?"
Java uses a just in time compiler, so it's compiled. The wikipedia article agrees. I said the difference is subtle.
"Did Java suddenly transform from being an "interpreted language" to a "compiled language" when Sun started including the HotSpot JIT compiler?"
Yes.
In standard usage, saying X is a Y language refers to the canonical implementation of X. So Python is an interpreted language means CPython is interpreted, and doesn't refer to any of the experimental JIT versions.The Python that everyone actually uses is an interpreter that works with an intermediate bytecode representation. The Java everyone has uses a just in time compiler. The difference is kind of hazy sometimes, but there is enough of one to talk meaningfully about Python being interpreted and Java being compiled. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpreter_(computing))
Don't forget to read to the bottom of that PyPy blog article. PyPy is certainly an impressive tool, but you can get a big improvement with something like Cython that lets you give the translator hints. The actual benchmarks:
CPython: 59.593 s
PyPy: 8.947 s
Cython: 3.5 s after adding a few types
Adding a few types in Cython means statically typing a few heavily used variables. His other (approx. 26 s) result with Cython I can only assume involved just Cythoning his straight Python code, which isn't really what Cython is supposed to do. The beautiful part of Cython is that you CAN give it straight Python code, or straight C code, or anything you want in between.
In eight years on Slashdot I wonder if you've ever accidentally posted something that might link to you. I can't be bothered to find out, but I'm sure that information might be valuable to someone.
Of course, you probably drag cookies around like everyone else anyway.
Python is slower because it's a highly dynamic, interpreted language, and it's interpreter has also gotten a lot less attention than Java's compiler. Java is a compiled, much less dynamic language.
You're right, a regular JVM might not do such a hot job of working through all the code generated by something like Python, but it could be used effectively with a language that is less annoying than Java while still being fairly static.
I doubt Ceylon is going to be a language I'd be much interested in. Python + Cython + C is a pretty potent combination for pretty much everything. It might be good for some things though.
Yeah, Windows 7 won't run on my 486 either. Wah.
Um, didn't bother reading the post I replied to hey?
A new language that relies on an x86 processor to run sounds like it's in for an uphill battle....
There's no reason not to use the JVM. It's a highly optimized, widely distributed virtual machine (just like x86 processors are highly optimized, widely distributed actual machines).
Now Java as a language... leaves something to be desired.
OS is short for operating system. Flash has nothing to do with the operating system.
I know Slashdot has gone downhill in the last ten years, but are you sure you're on the right site?
Apple seems to be making a pretty good go of it.
Was that a joke?
Darwin, which is the actual OS underlying OS X is also the actual OS underlying iOS, which runs on iPhones and iPads. It's also open source.
http://www.rogueamoeba.com/airfoil/mac/
https://www.ohloh.net/p/axStream
http://nanocr.eu/software/justeport/
http://raop-play.sourceforge.net/
First two should do the trick for Mac and Windows. The third is DVD Jon's reference implementation. The last one looks like it can pretend to be a second sound card on Linux.
Apparently you are confusing math and arithmetic. Calculators do arithmetic really well. As such, they can speed up some problems in the interesting parts of math that are not arithmetic but do involve it.
A few calculators are also symbolic equation solving systems. These can do a few other interesting parts of math, but still do mostly arithmetic.
You can have something way better than an array of these. There's one in every digital camera. I'm not sure how you get 3D with it though, or what "true 3D" is.
No. It depends on whether you accelerate or not. If you fly around the planet at a particular speed you'll experience less time than someone left behind. It doesn't matter which direction you go. Since the planet, solar system, galaxy etc. are all in inertial reference frames, their relative rate of time is not affected by their relative velocities.