https://www.google.com
End-to-end encryption keeps them from knowing squat about your browsing habits other than the fact that you prefer Google. Of course, Google knows all.
You'll have to run your own DNS or else they'll still know.
That's very true. And I run my own DNS so I'd forgotten about that.
Does this also encrypt the traffic for the link you click from the search results? If no, then Verizon still has the site you're eventually destined for and the search itself is moot.
That's true. I don't see how it could, since you're navigating away from Google. And, actually, the search itself isn't moot: Verizon would dearly love to know what you're searching for. That's actually more useful than the link you clink on, because you may very well search for something you're interested in and not find it. Might even be more valuable to an advertiser: here's some user trying locate an item that he might like to purchase but (maybe because of poor searching skills) he's not locating it. Immediately present him with a relevant ad.
Speaking of rooting, why doesn't the Android OS give the user the option to gain root access? sudo even?
Up until Android 1.5 all releases were shipped rooted by default. However, that allowed users to get access to the directories where downloaded (and, more importantly, purchased) applications were stored. Google removed root access because developers were concerned that users would make illegal copies of their products. As if the average user would have the slightest idea how to do that.
If you want a mobile proxy, one thing you can do is set up a VPN server (PPTP, IPSec, etc.) and tunnel through that. All requests from your phone will appear to be coming from your home service. I don't know if the stock firmware provided by various carriers allows it or not, but I know that the Cyanogenmod ROM does.
Funny though, how our biggest concerns about privacy have less to do with the various sites and services we use, and more to do with our Internet service providers.. That needs to get addressed, and soon: these guys need to be told, in no uncertain terms, who their customers really are.
Or, more probably, he consulted with the attorneys and business teams and decided they'd go see exactly how much tracking they could get away with.
A legal team isn't supposed to tell you "you can't do something" - not when you're in charge of them, anyway (everyday employees are another mater). You're supposed to tell them what you want to do, and they try to help you accomplish it legally (or how you're most likely to get away with it, depending on how ethical you are).
True... and part of due diligence is that you tell the client when his proposed activities are likely to land him in court. It's also possible that said attorneys did not perform due diligence.
A firewall won't prevent your ISP from telling advertisers that you like to google Nike shoes and them then targeting you with advertisements...
Well, an outgoing firewall can help prevent malware (which ISPs love to install on your equipment) from getting out. But there's an easier way, if you're concerned about your browser habits being tracked by your ISP. For example, you like to use Google for your search, just type this into your Location bar:
https://www.google.com
End-to-end encryption keeps them from knowing squat about your browsing habits other than the fact that you prefer Google. Of course, Google knows all.
That isn't what the law says though. The law only applies in wiretapping cases.
You can try and change the law to include tracking cookies, but you cannot apply the wiretapping law to this case.
I'll bet they can. "Wiretapping" doesn't necessarily have to involve wire. I'm not a lawyer, and I haven't read the statute in question, but if these States Attorneys didn't feel they had a case I doubt they'd have filed suit. Furthermore, even if the law doesn't sound to applicable to the technical types that populate Slashdot, odds are it can be made to sound that way in court. Just takes a friendly or misinformed judge to allow a twisted interpretation to stand. You just have to look at thirty-odd thousand RIAA copyright infringement cases for any number of stellar examples of how courts can get technical issues dead wrong.
Wonder how many FacePalms there were at FaceBook after this little verdict?
There should not have been any. This is not rocket science, from a legal perspective. Either Zuckerberg ignored the advice of his attorneys... or never bothered to consult them in the first place.
Facebook more than deserves any fallout from this because there was no need for it.
Otherwise, people will run out of battery power because they think they only have 10 miles left to go, when in reality they have another 15.
It would be interesting to link the battery management firmware with the car's GPS. If it knows where you're going, it could tell you that you can't make it, or give you the option of risking your battery pack to get there.
1. Nobody uses Ni-Cad anymore. It's poisonous and low capacity, the only point in still using it is very high current applications, and even there people mostly use Li-Ion/LiPo these days. Modern usage is very limited.
2. The memory effect was something observed in satellites, which have extremely regular charge and discharge patterns for years on end. You're not going to do the same thing to your mp3 player. It's also specific to one kind of Ni-Cad and not all of them.
3. What you can cure with a deep discharge is voltage depression, which is caused by overcharging. It's not a form of maintenance, as it damages the battery. It's a fix for something that shouldn't have happened in the first place. Get a good charger instead.
The memory effect is an artifact of only using the top few percent of a cell's charge range. The people that use their cordless phones for an hour and then put it back on the charger are the folks that end up complaining about memory. Let the battery run down for a while before you recharge it and you won't see a memory effect.
And, actually, nickel-cadmium batteries are used all over the place to this very day. Most of the remote-controlled toy vehicles you see are Ni-Cad, because they are capable of accepting extremely high charging currents without self-destructing, especially when compared to lithium-ion. That's really handy when you're racing your radio-controlled dune-buggy and need to juice up between events. They are also more robust then lithium ion and can be mistreated more readily, are more stable, and tend not to blow up. They're also used in just about every low-powered wireless device on the planet, such as cordless phones, because you don't need high energy density when you're only transmitting fifty feet.
http://www.apple.com/batteries/iphone.html
"Use iPhone Regularly
For proper maintenance of a lithium-based battery, it’s important to keep the electrons in it moving occasionally. Be sure to go through at least one charge cycle per month (charging the battery to 100% and then completely running it down )."
"Use Your iPad Regularly
For proper reporting of the battery’s state of charge, be sure to go through at least one charge cycle per month (charging the battery to 100% and then completely running it down)."
"keep the electrons moving." That is so typical of Apple: dumb things down so even a moron will think he understands it.
In any event, as another poster pointed out, that has nothing to do with maximizing the longevity of the battery: in fact, it's going to lessen the total number of charge/discharge cycles that you get. I don't know of any chemical system whereby periodic deep cycling is considered good for the cells (even Ni-Cads: the memory effect is real, but you still don't need to deep cycle the things to prevent that.) This is actually a matter of keeping the battery management system in sync with the battery's actual state of charge, to get more run time before the device thinks the battery is almost dead.
Battery management isn't exactly trivial. It's a hell of a lot easier with a lead-acid battery, since the terminal voltage drops pretty linearly with the state of charge. That's a problem for electronics, since you need a much higher nominal voltage than you actually need and have to regulate it down, or must use a DC-DC converter to maintain a minimum level after the terminal voltage drops below what your equipment needs. Still, it's pretty straightforward to determine how much charge is left.
It's much more complicated with nickel-cadmium, nickel-metal-hydride or lithium-ion cells, since they do not have a linear discharge curve. Ni-Cads, for example, remain damn near flat until near the very end, where the voltage drops suddenly to a lower value for a while before going to zero. If you go beyond that "knee", you will likely damage cells (or in the case of a series pack, drive one or more cells into reverse... bad news.) On the other hand, that flat discharge curve is great for electronic devices since your terminal voltage stays relatively constant. The problem comes in when trying to figure out how much juice you have left: you have to make an estimate of the amount of energy put in during charging, and how much taken out in operation.
Eventually, your estimate is going to be off. Batteries age and lose capacity, and errors in data acquisition occur. That's a real problem when charging: if you don't know when the pack is fully charged you're going to overcharge it and reduce its lifespan. Consequently, most commercial batteries have a thermistor or other temperature sensor in them which is monitored by battery management: when the battery has reached full charge, any additional charging current comes out as heat. The sudden rise in temperature indicates that the battery is charged.
Perhaps Nissan knows something about their batteries and BMS that he doesn't, and the false zero reading is there to ensure the batteries last as long as they're intended to? Last I heard, you weren't supposed to completely discharge lithium batteries if you wanted to ensure a usefully long service life.
Yes, it's called "deep cycling" and it's something that you don't want to do to pretty much any type of secondary cell.
Just think, what, forty years ago he designed a programming language in order to port an operating system that would eventually run on everything from PDP-11's through cell phones, so they could play a computer game on (then) new hardware.
It's not just that C is the second most common programming language: Most of the other languages are actually written in C. That includes Perl, Python, and PHP.
Not only that, but realistically you have to count embedded systems, not just personal computing devices. By that measure, C is still by far the most popular programming language on the planet.
Add SCADA. That controls the most powerful systems our civilization depends on.
No argument. SCADA devices are programmed in a variety of high-level languages... but under the hood you'll find plenty of C and assembler. Actually, as CPU power has increased and optimizing compilers have improved, the use of hand-tuned assembler isn't so common anymore.
I'm not. The problem I think they had was that of many startups with a great product: they expected customers to flock to them because they were, in fact, good. The reality is that even great ideas and products need marketing. Bad ideas and products even more so. The "if you build it they will come" mentality rarely works out in practice. At the very least, you have to let people know you have a product, and that requires sales and marketing.
I'm sure you're upset because you knew Dennis, but what the parent post said is objectively true, and it is not a slight on Dennis Ritchie. Did you even stop to think, you're calling his post BS in a discussion on a Steve Jobs article, in which most of the posts above this are about Dennis Ritchie? Every discussion forum about Steve these days has a bunch of posts about Dennis - if Steve hadn't died, these posts about Dennis wouldn't be here. I'm not getting the hate for his post.
That's very true, but then again, timing is everything. People that respected Ritchie (like me) are bothered by the fact that someone who created one of the major pillars of the computing world, the Internet, and the personal computer revolution goes largely unknown, while Steve Jobs (with all his warts) gets credit as one of the greatest "innovators" of all time, right up there with Edison, Tesla and Einstein. Not that the public at large could give a damn, but among the self-absorbed tech-elite that populate Slashdot, it's especially annoying. We should know better.
On the other hand, from what I do know of Dennis Ritchie, that's exactly how he would have wanted it.
I can understand someone who was actually important getting their own day, such as Washington's Birthday/President's Day, but this is ridiculous. If they want to give Steve Jobs a day, then it should be a shared day with other technology giants.
On the other hand, generally you are supposed to be dead before you can get a holiday named after you, so by that measure Steve qualifies. It would have been nice if they'd waited for a while though. That's what irritates me the most: not so much that they're trying to honor Steve Jobs, but that it's so obviously an attempt to garner some political capital.
I love that analogy. It gives them both their due in equivalent proportions.
Yeah... but do you see the incessant whining... like is all over slashdot, ars, and the like, right now over Jobs vs. Ritchie... about the fact that everybody knows who Frank Lloyd Wright is, but no one can remember who invented glass, concrete, or steel?
The whining about Dennis Ritchie's comparative historical footnote is infinitely preferable to the fawning over Steve Jobs and the global outpouring of tears over his death. Tears! And mind you, those aren't tears for Steve Jobs: very few people knew him well enough to legitimately cry over his loss. I was an Apple ][ user back in the seventies (still have it, low serial number) so I have a long history with Apple, and probably am more aware of Apple's effect on the industry than most. But I don't know the man, never met him nor anyone that did. Rather, I believe that those who are losing it are terrified that they won't be receiving on schedule the toys that they so much desire. That's what scares them: millions of customers are thoroughly addicted to Apple products, and now they're suffering a sort of pre-withdrawal syndrome. Weird, actually. Doesn't say much for their opinion of Apple, Inc without Jobs at the helm: time will tell if Mr. Cook is up to the task. For the sake of rehab centers around the world, I hope he is.
Furthermore, the reason that no-one remembers who invented the things that we all depend upon is this: our education system has failed. I was around back in America's heydey as an industrial concern, and when I was in school, you better damn well believe we were taught who invented things, and why, and how those inventions impacted our own lives. We were taken on field trips to manufacturing plants and laboratories, so that we would know where the stuff comes from. That was considered important at the time. It's not anymore. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.
There are a lot of people here who are not only capable of respecting Dennis Ritchie for his contribution, but are actually able to recognize the significance of that contribution. Hell, the Internet as we know it was founded upon C and Unix, let alone the fact that the operating system underlying all of Apple's current Mac and iPhone products is Unix (sorry, Apple fans... no innovation there, just good engineering and good business sense.) That proved to be a very wise decision on Jobs' part, and much of his ultimate success can be traced to the key decision not to try and continue Apple's proprietary approach to operating systems. A custom GUI layer with a solid underpinning of BSD Unix proved to be a winning combination.
Remember also that personal computers and smartphones are only a teeny-tiny part of the world of computing. There are billions of lines of C running on every production line on the planet, millions of Web servers running one Unix variant or another serving trillions of Web pages, to name but a few applications of Ritchie's brainchild. Yes, Mr. Ritchie's (and Ken Thompson's!) contribution was certainly relevant, and on a global scale far outweighs what Mr. Jobs has done. It is largely invisible to the average person, but no less noteworthy for that.
So yes. I think a little whining is in order, even if the man himself would have preferred the anonymity.
Just think, what, forty years ago he designed a programming language in order to port an operating system that would eventually run on everything from PDP-11's through cell phones, so they could play a computer game on (then) new hardware.
It's not just that C is the second most common programming language: Most of the other languages are actually written in C. That includes Perl, Python, and PHP.
Not only that, but realistically you have to count embedded systems, not just personal computing devices. By that measure, C is still by far the most popular programming language on the planet.
In my state, for example, it is no longer allowed to prosecute a policeman for any crime they commit against a citizen, unless actual malice can be shown. That was a well-intended law that has backfired and led to all kinds of police abuses. But they can still be prosecuted under the Federal statute, 18 USC 242.
Ha. That wouldn't be Illinois, would it? I know in that State the police cannot be taken to court for false arrest, and any number of other things.
It's funny, you would think that politicians would be very aware of the disease of unaccountability (most of them already being infected themselves) but apparently the idea of gun-toting cops with immunity from consequence being a problem never occurred to them.
"Had there not been a crime... the house wouldn't have been raided."
Your naïveté is almost endearing. Look, regardless of the merits (or otherwise) of this particular case, by that comment you exhibit an unreasoning and undeserved trust in the judiciary and law enforcement. The unfortunate truth is that illegal searches and seizures are made all the time on warrants filed in bad faith by police, or upon bad information. Or both. In this case, apparently, the warrant issued was later invalidated. So much for due diligence. So much for a crime having been committed.
Whatever your opinion of Gizmodo, if the DA had had sufficient legally-obtained evidence of wrongdoing there'd be a trial scheduled. Apple, you can bet, was pushing for just that, if nothing else for the deterrent effect. But... the DA dropped it. Not enough evidence. So as far as the law is concerned, there was no crime. So why the raid, if not for Apple Inc pressuring city officials to take illegal action? The real criminals here are those officials. Malfeasance in office at the very least.
Matter of fact, in some jurisdictions blank, signed warrants are available to police so that they can go on a raid without prior judicial oversight. Sure, if they screw up they can be in trouble later, but by then the damage is done. That's why a judge is supposed to be in the loop before the cops take any action. It wouldn't surprise me if that's what happened here: presumably a judge wouldn't have signed an illegal warrant in the first place.
In an event, assuming that every raid is the result of the commission of an actual crime is unwise.
We're talking about a Gawker Media property. Sorry, but I'm not going to waste my brain cells being outraged about anything that happens to parts of the Gawker empire.
Call me when a responsible citizen's rights are being trampled, and I'll duly respond with all due outrage. But for these guys....live by the sword, die by the sword.
I agree with your opinion of them, but civil liberties are required to be non-selective, or they serve little purpose.
The android market is fantastic if you are wanting to distribute software. If you are wanting to get paid for writing software, well good luck with that.
Not really. The GP is right, if nothing else because the market for Android software is substantially larger, and there are multiple markets. It's a different environment than Apple's way, but it can be profitable if you know what you're doing.
Furthermore, Google responded to developers complaints that too many potential customers would only use a piece of software for a day and then return it for a refund. So they changed the refund window to 15 minutes. That thoroughly pissed off the customer base, but they did it to accommodate developers. So now what are they whining about? The situation is just about as bad for users as the Apple store: it's really easy to buy a piece of software and get your fingers burned. How can you evaluate an application in fifteen minutes?
I got news for you: the guys who are writing good software are making money. I don't see any reason why yet another Arnold Schwarzenegger soundboard should make a single penny. What people are pissed about is that the bar for making money on software is higher as the market is maturing (and users are becoming more aware of what constitutes good software), and that's how it should be. Quality should be and is being rewarded: the crap isn't. And you'll note that most of the folks complaining about not being able to make money are the ones pushing crap.
Audio Pros are all snobs. You dont need a mac. Buy a pc, there is plenty of great hardware and software for it that rival a mac with ancient protools.
The only time I'd ever book a room with a Microsoft Windows system is if I wanted somewhere to do my accounts. Why would I want to use an inferior OS that can "rival a Mac" when any pro room already has an Apple machine?
I couldn't give a shit which DAW you use. PT, Reaper, Logic, Ardour (Mixbus)... print any moves and effects and STFU. The my DAW is better than your DAW arguments are pathetic, either your work is good and holds up or it isn't.
Face it, OS support for such applications isn't really an issue anymore. I/O performance, memory management, stability, those are all old problems long since resolved for most environments, so calling Windows or Linux an "inferior" operating system is ridiculous. They're superior in certain regards (the user interface is not the only part of an OS, you know... it's just the part you see.) What you may more legitimately claim is that the applications that exist on one platform or another are superior. I'm not going to argue with you there, but the "Mac is intrinsically better just because it is" position doesn't hold water anymore. Too much depends upon what a given individual does, and how they do it, to make generic claims of "better". Not today. Ten, fifteen years ago sure.
Well, that's a problem with elitism in general, and is hardly limited to Apple users, but they're guilty of it. In the real world, a dispassionate evaluation of one's own requirements generally results in better purchasing decisions, a close match between work requirements and the equipment meant to service them. That's one complaint I have with the Apple-using community: they tend to see all problem domains as having the only solution in terms of Apple. When your only tool is a hammer... well. The world of computing is vast, the needs of users varied, and the products of one single company cannot reasonably be expected to serve the needs of everyone.
The other aspect to that mindset is the ability to rationalize away faults and missing capabilities. Blows my mind. I've had more than a few conversations with Apple users that usually run along these lines:
"How come your nav is still talking? You're playing an MP3 and browsing the Web."
"Multitasking."
"Huh. Well, mine doesn't do that... but why would you want to?"
"???"
Yes yes, I know I'm talking about an early iPhone, that's not the point. I'm talking about attitudes here, not the hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
https://www.google.com End-to-end encryption keeps them from knowing squat about your browsing habits other than the fact that you prefer Google. Of course, Google knows all.
You'll have to run your own DNS or else they'll still know.
That's very true. And I run my own DNS so I'd forgotten about that.
Does this also encrypt the traffic for the link you click from the search results? If no, then Verizon still has the site you're eventually destined for and the search itself is moot.
That's true. I don't see how it could, since you're navigating away from Google. And, actually, the search itself isn't moot: Verizon would dearly love to know what you're searching for. That's actually more useful than the link you clink on, because you may very well search for something you're interested in and not find it. Might even be more valuable to an advertiser: here's some user trying locate an item that he might like to purchase but (maybe because of poor searching skills) he's not locating it. Immediately present him with a relevant ad.
Speaking of rooting, why doesn't the Android OS give the user the option to gain root access? sudo even?
Up until Android 1.5 all releases were shipped rooted by default. However, that allowed users to get access to the directories where downloaded (and, more importantly, purchased) applications were stored. Google removed root access because developers were concerned that users would make illegal copies of their products. As if the average user would have the slightest idea how to do that.
If you want a mobile proxy, one thing you can do is set up a VPN server (PPTP, IPSec, etc.) and tunnel through that. All requests from your phone will appear to be coming from your home service. I don't know if the stock firmware provided by various carriers allows it or not, but I know that the Cyanogenmod ROM does.
Funny though, how our biggest concerns about privacy have less to do with the various sites and services we use, and more to do with our Internet service providers.. That needs to get addressed, and soon: these guys need to be told, in no uncertain terms, who their customers really are.
Or, more probably, he consulted with the attorneys and business teams and decided they'd go see exactly how much tracking they could get away with.
A legal team isn't supposed to tell you "you can't do something" - not when you're in charge of them, anyway (everyday employees are another mater). You're supposed to tell them what you want to do, and they try to help you accomplish it legally (or how you're most likely to get away with it, depending on how ethical you are).
True ... and part of due diligence is that you tell the client when his proposed activities are likely to land him in court. It's also possible that said attorneys did not perform due diligence.
Oh well. Couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch.
Am glad I am too poor to afford Verizon service any more, you are much harder to track when your phone boasts SMS as its top feature
Yeah. Face it, the higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Hm. You know, that wouldn't be a bad tagline.
A firewall won't prevent your ISP from telling advertisers that you like to google Nike shoes and them then targeting you with advertisements...
Well, an outgoing firewall can help prevent malware (which ISPs love to install on your equipment) from getting out. But there's an easier way, if you're concerned about your browser habits being tracked by your ISP. For example, you like to use Google for your search, just type this into your Location bar:
https://www.google.com
End-to-end encryption keeps them from knowing squat about your browsing habits other than the fact that you prefer Google. Of course, Google knows all.
That isn't what the law says though. The law only applies in wiretapping cases.
You can try and change the law to include tracking cookies, but you cannot apply the wiretapping law to this case.
I'll bet they can. "Wiretapping" doesn't necessarily have to involve wire. I'm not a lawyer, and I haven't read the statute in question, but if these States Attorneys didn't feel they had a case I doubt they'd have filed suit. Furthermore, even if the law doesn't sound to applicable to the technical types that populate Slashdot, odds are it can be made to sound that way in court. Just takes a friendly or misinformed judge to allow a twisted interpretation to stand. You just have to look at thirty-odd thousand RIAA copyright infringement cases for any number of stellar examples of how courts can get technical issues dead wrong.
Wonder how many FacePalms there were at FaceBook after this little verdict?
There should not have been any. This is not rocket science, from a legal perspective. Either Zuckerberg ignored the advice of his attorneys ... or never bothered to consult them in the first place.
Facebook more than deserves any fallout from this because there was no need for it.
Otherwise, people will run out of battery power because they think they only have 10 miles left to go, when in reality they have another 15.
It would be interesting to link the battery management firmware with the car's GPS. If it knows where you're going, it could tell you that you can't make it, or give you the option of risking your battery pack to get there.
A few things:
1. Nobody uses Ni-Cad anymore. It's poisonous and low capacity, the only point in still using it is very high current applications, and even there people mostly use Li-Ion/LiPo these days. Modern usage is very limited.
2. The memory effect was something observed in satellites, which have extremely regular charge and discharge patterns for years on end. You're not going to do the same thing to your mp3 player. It's also specific to one kind of Ni-Cad and not all of them.
3. What you can cure with a deep discharge is voltage depression, which is caused by overcharging. It's not a form of maintenance, as it damages the battery. It's a fix for something that shouldn't have happened in the first place. Get a good charger instead.
The memory effect is an artifact of only using the top few percent of a cell's charge range. The people that use their cordless phones for an hour and then put it back on the charger are the folks that end up complaining about memory. Let the battery run down for a while before you recharge it and you won't see a memory effect.
And, actually, nickel-cadmium batteries are used all over the place to this very day. Most of the remote-controlled toy vehicles you see are Ni-Cad, because they are capable of accepting extremely high charging currents without self-destructing, especially when compared to lithium-ion. That's really handy when you're racing your radio-controlled dune-buggy and need to juice up between events. They are also more robust then lithium ion and can be mistreated more readily, are more stable, and tend not to blow up. They're also used in just about every low-powered wireless device on the planet, such as cordless phones, because you don't need high energy density when you're only transmitting fifty feet.
http://www.apple.com/batteries/iphone.html "Use iPhone Regularly For proper maintenance of a lithium-based battery, it’s important to keep the electrons in it moving occasionally. Be sure to go through at least one charge cycle per month (charging the battery to 100% and then completely running it down )." "Use Your iPad Regularly For proper reporting of the battery’s state of charge, be sure to go through at least one charge cycle per month (charging the battery to 100% and then completely running it down)."
"keep the electrons moving." That is so typical of Apple: dumb things down so even a moron will think he understands it.
... bad news.) On the other hand, that flat discharge curve is great for electronic devices since your terminal voltage stays relatively constant. The problem comes in when trying to figure out how much juice you have left: you have to make an estimate of the amount of energy put in during charging, and how much taken out in operation.
In any event, as another poster pointed out, that has nothing to do with maximizing the longevity of the battery: in fact, it's going to lessen the total number of charge/discharge cycles that you get. I don't know of any chemical system whereby periodic deep cycling is considered good for the cells (even Ni-Cads: the memory effect is real, but you still don't need to deep cycle the things to prevent that.) This is actually a matter of keeping the battery management system in sync with the battery's actual state of charge, to get more run time before the device thinks the battery is almost dead.
Battery management isn't exactly trivial. It's a hell of a lot easier with a lead-acid battery, since the terminal voltage drops pretty linearly with the state of charge. That's a problem for electronics, since you need a much higher nominal voltage than you actually need and have to regulate it down, or must use a DC-DC converter to maintain a minimum level after the terminal voltage drops below what your equipment needs. Still, it's pretty straightforward to determine how much charge is left.
It's much more complicated with nickel-cadmium, nickel-metal-hydride or lithium-ion cells, since they do not have a linear discharge curve. Ni-Cads, for example, remain damn near flat until near the very end, where the voltage drops suddenly to a lower value for a while before going to zero. If you go beyond that "knee", you will likely damage cells (or in the case of a series pack, drive one or more cells into reverse
Eventually, your estimate is going to be off. Batteries age and lose capacity, and errors in data acquisition occur. That's a real problem when charging: if you don't know when the pack is fully charged you're going to overcharge it and reduce its lifespan. Consequently, most commercial batteries have a thermistor or other temperature sensor in them which is monitored by battery management: when the battery has reached full charge, any additional charging current comes out as heat. The sudden rise in temperature indicates that the battery is charged.
Perhaps Nissan knows something about their batteries and BMS that he doesn't, and the false zero reading is there to ensure the batteries last as long as they're intended to? Last I heard, you weren't supposed to completely discharge lithium batteries if you wanted to ensure a usefully long service life.
Yes, it's called "deep cycling" and it's something that you don't want to do to pretty much any type of secondary cell.
Just think, what, forty years ago he designed a programming language in order to port an operating system that would eventually run on everything from PDP-11's through cell phones, so they could play a computer game on (then) new hardware.
It's not just that C is the second most common programming language: Most of the other languages are actually written in C. That includes Perl, Python, and PHP.
Not only that, but realistically you have to count embedded systems, not just personal computing devices. By that measure, C is still by far the most popular programming language on the planet.
Add SCADA. That controls the most powerful systems our civilization depends on.
No argument. SCADA devices are programmed in a variety of high-level languages ... but under the hood you'll find plenty of C and assembler. Actually, as CPU power has increased and optimizing compilers have improved, the use of hand-tuned assembler isn't so common anymore.
"A thing comes into being because it is its time". That's true enough, I suppose.
I'm genuinely confused by NeXT's failures.
I'm not. The problem I think they had was that of many startups with a great product: they expected customers to flock to them because they were, in fact, good. The reality is that even great ideas and products need marketing. Bad ideas and products even more so. The "if you build it they will come" mentality rarely works out in practice. At the very least, you have to let people know you have a product, and that requires sales and marketing.
I'm sure you're upset because you knew Dennis, but what the parent post said is objectively true, and it is not a slight on Dennis Ritchie. Did you even stop to think, you're calling his post BS in a discussion on a Steve Jobs article, in which most of the posts above this are about Dennis Ritchie? Every discussion forum about Steve these days has a bunch of posts about Dennis - if Steve hadn't died, these posts about Dennis wouldn't be here. I'm not getting the hate for his post.
That's very true, but then again, timing is everything. People that respected Ritchie (like me) are bothered by the fact that someone who created one of the major pillars of the computing world, the Internet, and the personal computer revolution goes largely unknown, while Steve Jobs (with all his warts) gets credit as one of the greatest "innovators" of all time, right up there with Edison, Tesla and Einstein. Not that the public at large could give a damn, but among the self-absorbed tech-elite that populate Slashdot, it's especially annoying. We should know better.
On the other hand, from what I do know of Dennis Ritchie, that's exactly how he would have wanted it.
I can understand someone who was actually important getting their own day, such as Washington's Birthday/President's Day, but this is ridiculous. If they want to give Steve Jobs a day, then it should be a shared day with other technology giants.
On the other hand, generally you are supposed to be dead before you can get a holiday named after you, so by that measure Steve qualifies. It would have been nice if they'd waited for a while though. That's what irritates me the most: not so much that they're trying to honor Steve Jobs, but that it's so obviously an attempt to garner some political capital.
I love that analogy. It gives them both their due in equivalent proportions.
Yeah... but do you see the incessant whining... like is all over slashdot, ars, and the like, right now over Jobs vs. Ritchie... about the fact that everybody knows who Frank Lloyd Wright is, but no one can remember who invented glass, concrete, or steel?
The whining about Dennis Ritchie's comparative historical footnote is infinitely preferable to the fawning over Steve Jobs and the global outpouring of tears over his death. Tears! And mind you, those aren't tears for Steve Jobs: very few people knew him well enough to legitimately cry over his loss. I was an Apple ][ user back in the seventies (still have it, low serial number) so I have a long history with Apple, and probably am more aware of Apple's effect on the industry than most. But I don't know the man, never met him nor anyone that did. Rather, I believe that those who are losing it are terrified that they won't be receiving on schedule the toys that they so much desire. That's what scares them: millions of customers are thoroughly addicted to Apple products, and now they're suffering a sort of pre-withdrawal syndrome. Weird, actually. Doesn't say much for their opinion of Apple, Inc without Jobs at the helm: time will tell if Mr. Cook is up to the task. For the sake of rehab centers around the world, I hope he is.
... no innovation there, just good engineering and good business sense.) That proved to be a very wise decision on Jobs' part, and much of his ultimate success can be traced to the key decision not to try and continue Apple's proprietary approach to operating systems. A custom GUI layer with a solid underpinning of BSD Unix proved to be a winning combination.
Furthermore, the reason that no-one remembers who invented the things that we all depend upon is this: our education system has failed. I was around back in America's heydey as an industrial concern, and when I was in school, you better damn well believe we were taught who invented things, and why, and how those inventions impacted our own lives. We were taken on field trips to manufacturing plants and laboratories, so that we would know where the stuff comes from. That was considered important at the time. It's not anymore. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.
There are a lot of people here who are not only capable of respecting Dennis Ritchie for his contribution, but are actually able to recognize the significance of that contribution. Hell, the Internet as we know it was founded upon C and Unix, let alone the fact that the operating system underlying all of Apple's current Mac and iPhone products is Unix (sorry, Apple fans
Remember also that personal computers and smartphones are only a teeny-tiny part of the world of computing. There are billions of lines of C running on every production line on the planet, millions of Web servers running one Unix variant or another serving trillions of Web pages, to name but a few applications of Ritchie's brainchild. Yes, Mr. Ritchie's (and Ken Thompson's!) contribution was certainly relevant, and on a global scale far outweighs what Mr. Jobs has done. It is largely invisible to the average person, but no less noteworthy for that.
So yes. I think a little whining is in order, even if the man himself would have preferred the anonymity.
It's not just that C is the second most common programming language: Most of the other languages are actually written in C. That includes Perl, Python, and PHP.
Not only that, but realistically you have to count embedded systems, not just personal computing devices. By that measure, C is still by far the most popular programming language on the planet.
In my state, for example, it is no longer allowed to prosecute a policeman for any crime they commit against a citizen, unless actual malice can be shown. That was a well-intended law that has backfired and led to all kinds of police abuses. But they can still be prosecuted under the Federal statute, 18 USC 242.
Ha. That wouldn't be Illinois, would it? I know in that State the police cannot be taken to court for false arrest, and any number of other things.
It's funny, you would think that politicians would be very aware of the disease of unaccountability (most of them already being infected themselves) but apparently the idea of gun-toting cops with immunity from consequence being a problem never occurred to them.
"Had there not been a crime ... the house wouldn't have been raided."
... the DA dropped it. Not enough evidence. So as far as the law is concerned, there was no crime. So why the raid, if not for Apple Inc pressuring city officials to take illegal action? The real criminals here are those officials. Malfeasance in office at the very least.
Your naïveté is almost endearing. Look, regardless of the merits (or otherwise) of this particular case, by that comment you exhibit an unreasoning and undeserved trust in the judiciary and law enforcement. The unfortunate truth is that illegal searches and seizures are made all the time on warrants filed in bad faith by police, or upon bad information. Or both. In this case, apparently, the warrant issued was later invalidated. So much for due diligence. So much for a crime having been committed.
Whatever your opinion of Gizmodo, if the DA had had sufficient legally-obtained evidence of wrongdoing there'd be a trial scheduled. Apple, you can bet, was pushing for just that, if nothing else for the deterrent effect. But
Matter of fact, in some jurisdictions blank, signed warrants are available to police so that they can go on a raid without prior judicial oversight. Sure, if they screw up they can be in trouble later, but by then the damage is done. That's why a judge is supposed to be in the loop before the cops take any action. It wouldn't surprise me if that's what happened here: presumably a judge wouldn't have signed an illegal warrant in the first place.
In an event, assuming that every raid is the result of the commission of an actual crime is unwise.
We're talking about a Gawker Media property. Sorry, but I'm not going to waste my brain cells being outraged about anything that happens to parts of the Gawker empire.
Call me when a responsible citizen's rights are being trampled, and I'll duly respond with all due outrage. But for these guys....live by the sword, die by the sword.
I agree with your opinion of them, but civil liberties are required to be non-selective, or they serve little purpose.
over to android ... lol come now
The android market is fantastic if you are wanting to distribute software. If you are wanting to get paid for writing software, well good luck with that.
Not really. The GP is right, if nothing else because the market for Android software is substantially larger, and there are multiple markets. It's a different environment than Apple's way, but it can be profitable if you know what you're doing.
Furthermore, Google responded to developers complaints that too many potential customers would only use a piece of software for a day and then return it for a refund. So they changed the refund window to 15 minutes. That thoroughly pissed off the customer base, but they did it to accommodate developers. So now what are they whining about? The situation is just about as bad for users as the Apple store: it's really easy to buy a piece of software and get your fingers burned. How can you evaluate an application in fifteen minutes?
I got news for you: the guys who are writing good software are making money. I don't see any reason why yet another Arnold Schwarzenegger soundboard should make a single penny. What people are pissed about is that the bar for making money on software is higher as the market is maturing (and users are becoming more aware of what constitutes good software), and that's how it should be. Quality should be and is being rewarded: the crap isn't. And you'll note that most of the folks complaining about not being able to make money are the ones pushing crap.
The only time I'd ever book a room with a Microsoft Windows system is if I wanted somewhere to do my accounts. Why would I want to use an inferior OS that can "rival a Mac" when any pro room already has an Apple machine?
I couldn't give a shit which DAW you use. PT, Reaper, Logic, Ardour (Mixbus)... print any moves and effects and STFU. The my DAW is better than your DAW arguments are pathetic, either your work is good and holds up or it isn't.
Face it, OS support for such applications isn't really an issue anymore. I/O performance, memory management, stability, those are all old problems long since resolved for most environments, so calling Windows or Linux an "inferior" operating system is ridiculous. They're superior in certain regards (the user interface is not the only part of an OS, you know ... it's just the part you see.) What you may more legitimately claim is that the applications that exist on one platform or another are superior. I'm not going to argue with you there, but the "Mac is intrinsically better just because it is" position doesn't hold water anymore. Too much depends upon what a given individual does, and how they do it, to make generic claims of "better". Not today. Ten, fifteen years ago sure.
Different strokes for different folks.
Audio Pros are all snobs.
Well, that's a problem with elitism in general, and is hardly limited to Apple users, but they're guilty of it. In the real world, a dispassionate evaluation of one's own requirements generally results in better purchasing decisions, a close match between work requirements and the equipment meant to service them. That's one complaint I have with the Apple-using community: they tend to see all problem domains as having the only solution in terms of Apple. When your only tool is a hammer ... well. The world of computing is vast, the needs of users varied, and the products of one single company cannot reasonably be expected to serve the needs of everyone.
... but why would you want to?"
The other aspect to that mindset is the ability to rationalize away faults and missing capabilities. Blows my mind. I've had more than a few conversations with Apple users that usually run along these lines:
"How come your nav is still talking? You're playing an MP3 and browsing the Web."
"Multitasking."
"Huh. Well, mine doesn't do that
"???"
Yes yes, I know I'm talking about an early iPhone, that's not the point. I'm talking about attitudes here, not the hardware.