Given your unfortunate second sentence (albeit one lacking punctuation), I see that you'd be one of the ones lying on the ground having been "quick knifed" by a faster student.
The main problem with the US system, beyond all the hyper-waste and profiteering and the salaried employees in insurance companies whose job it is to deny legitimate care where possible is that the culture has turned away from the attitude that prevention is better than cure, precisely because it costs money to go to the doctor.
Then, instead of clearing up relatively minor issues early on, people leave it and just hope they'll get better. Sometimes they do, but often they'll end up in a worse situation and by the time a doctor gets involved it becomes complicated, expensive and crippling.
There's a reason the US's life expectancy is so low, compared to the quality of care available (assuming you can afford to pay for it). A hybrid private/public system (like everyone else in the world) would do more for your economy that almost anything else bar slashing the military budget or repealing the Bush tax cuts - a productive, healthy workforce, much reduced costs on businesses and employees, more flexible working environment for employees who are no longer chained to their job for fear of losing their health insurance so are free to be able to strike out on their own or simply change careers, consumer spending power will increase since they no longer have giant medical insurance and co-pay costs...
A nationalised system does not mean the US will turn into the USSR, it simply means the US will just accentuate all of the best parts of itself when its population are not constantly burdened by healthcare debt.
And, if I don't have a PC and someone hands me a copy of Linux on a CD? Is the licence "not satisfied" because I have to go and buy one?
You didn't say "cost effective"; you said that it didn't satisfy the licence because you needed to buy a Mac (since we're assuming the hypothetical person does not already own one, or an iOS device).
Assuming i have the software and the device (hardware+software) on which to run the software how do i actually execute that run it on the device?
Well if it's Linux and I'm running it on a PC i simply install it on the PC or use the live disc/USB...no additional hardware or software required. If it's an iOS app and an iOS device I can't just install it directly on there, i need a Mac and a developer program subscription.
And if someone gives me a copy of Android and I only have an iOS device? Will I get a free Android phone to install it on, or do I have to buy one?
And, if I don't have a PC and someone hands me a copy of Linux on a CD? Is the licence "not satisfied" because I have to go and buy one?
You didn't say "cost effective"; you said that it didn't satisfy the licence because you needed to buy a Mac (since we're assuming the hypothetical person does not already own one, or an iOS device).
We're not all the USA. All other countries have socialised healthcare where this sort of thing will be "free"
Ha-ha. You think socialist healthcare will give old farts operations costing tens of thousands of dollars for free.
One of the main reasons why the NHS (for example) is cheaper than US healthcare is that it routinely refuses treatment for old farts. If I remember correctly, something like 50% of lifetime healthcare spending for the average American happens in the last couple of months of their life, when socialist healthcare would just let them die earlier.
Errr... yes?
In my own family alone, "old farts" that I know personally have had a heart transplant, an 18-hour spinal realignment, major heart surgery, a partial liver transplant... all for "free".
Of course, it's not "free" - we pay for it with national insurance contributions. The cost is vastly, vastly lower than what is spent in the US because we have a nationalised system. While there is waste and overhead, it is nowhere near what it is in the US. It's why we spend less than half our GDP per capita compared to the USA (8% vs 16%), yet have longer life expectancy and no crippling debts brought on by healthcare costs.
If you think that the NHS "routinely refuses treatment" for old farts then I suggest you stop getting your "facts" from Fox News and talk to people who *actually live here*.
We're not all the USA. All other countries have socialised healthcare where this sort of thing will be "free" (paid for by national insurance contributions at a vastly lower cost than private US medical care).
The longer your population is productive, the more it benefits your economy. Reducing retirements caused by becoming sick or infirm reduces health and welfare costs and keeps your workforce healthy.
You can reduce the scarring by inhibiting the body's healing response, but that only gets you so far. You also have problems with aseptic loosening when it comes to joint replacements, due to bone reclamation by the body.
It's certainly not all figured out, but we are going to become more and more like hardware with replaceable parts as we age.
Your comment only applies to GPLv3 - and that was not Apple's doing.
GPLv2 code is fine on the app store (and there's a fair bit of it on there). Apple even changed their terms and conditions after the VLC incident to clarify the issue. There's nothing stopping you from releasing a GPLv2 app on the store and distributing the binaries and the source via other means (or even within the app).
The "hostility" comes in the form of the GPLv3, written seemingly in a fit of nerd rage that while the Tivo box was technically using the code legally, the spirit of the licence wasn't being followed, thus the highly restrictive v3 was born. I can totally understand why it was written, but to try and claim that the reason you can't use GPLv3 code on the app store is *Apple* hostility is just not painting the true picture. The v3 licence is simply incompatible by design *of the writers of the licence* to be hostile to App Store and Tivo-type business models.
Again, I can understand and respect that position, but it's not all on Apple for "being totally anti freedom".
The app store is not incompatible with GPLv2 - there are several GPL apps on there, in fact. They even changed some of their terms and conditions to clarify the position in the wake of the VLC incident.
It *is* incompatible with GPLv3, but this is due to the specific design of the v3 licence. In other words, it was written specifically to be incompatible with such app stores and Tivo-type devices. Hardly the "platform tyrant's" fault there.
Apple did not "make it that way" - the FSF did, and they have their reasons for doing so. I can respect their position, even if I disagree with it.
I also find it interesting that you consider a corporation to be "fascist" if it has a service that is incompatible with a software licence that you happen to like. Does that mean that those who maintain the Linux kernel are also fascists because they won't include closed source code into it? I mean, it's incompatible, right?
you can make the application available to anyone else who wants it by telling them where to download it
How does that satisfy the requirement for "Installation Information" (GPLv3) or "scripts used to control [...] installation of the executable" (GPLv2)? One still has to buy a $649 Mac and a $396 certificate (assuming four-year service life of an iOS device) to install it.
I just downloaded Linux on a friend's computer, since I don't have one of my own. It seems to violate the GPL because I need to buy a $250 PC to install it!
I assume the FSF will give me a computer to run it, right? Or am I obligated to buy one of my own?
I think that's the way the human race will eventually go - once we can grow replacement organs from stem cells, we can just sub them in as we age as we all start living longer and longer. I think the only sticking point will be the brain, unless we work out how to rejuvenate it.
You're a well known iFanboy. You don't get to make jokes about Android, because we know you're just trolling.
And try making jokes about Apple products and see how quickly the devout fanbase goes nuts over them.
What? That the name "Finder" is an oxymoron, because even Apple realised it didn't work and gave us Spotlight! That sort of thing?
Or how about "feels snappier" as a reply to any update to an Apple product? No? What about posting the Fry "shut up and take my money" meme in discussion threads about upcoming products?
And as far as being a "well known" fanboy - yes, that's what tends to happen when you log in to post and spend a lot of time in a community. How is this a bad thing?
Why don't I get to make jokes about Android? Is it because you can't stand to hear any criticism, even in jest? There's a difference between trolling and having a joke in a community - as you'll see from my previous posts (that's what happens when you log in - you have a posting history) I'm not mean spirited or malicious, and I have plenty of positive things to say about Android. It's more telling that you, the brave AC, forbid me from joking about it because you're too sensitive a "Fandroid" (can I call you that, given that you're categorising me as an "iFanboy") to even consider that people might make jokes about your platform of choice. Of course, there are *never* any jokes about Apple products or Apple users from non-Apple users on slashdot, right? Or am I allowed to go around like a petulant child and whine that they're not allowed to make jokes about Apple because they're "well known non-Apple-users"? If the answer to that rhetorical question is "no" then the term you're looking for is hypocrite.
In the mean time, try not to take any jokes about your beloved Android so personally; you'll have fewer nerd rage incidents that cause you to forget to log in.
"The definition of Retina Display..." Hahahaha, good one!
The definition of Retina Display is "the display on whatever new device Apple is launching."
Apple chooses different resolutions and densities for whatever reason (e.g. we still don't have a framework for resolution-independent graphics, so we're just going to double each dimension), and then calls the result Retina Display.
It's pure marketing BS.
No, it really isn't. Well, it is certainly a marketing *term* used to describe an actual mathematical formula and how it relates to human vision of an object a certain distance away from that human. It's obvious you've not actually done any research on it before dismissing it out of hand as "marketing BS", but it's a huge effort for you "I hated all that mainstream marketing and corporate BS before it was cool to hate them" types to even read the summary of a slashdot article, let alone do any actual googling.
Since it's clearly beyond your abilities to look up (there are some great sites teaching you how to use google you just have to google for them.... oh I see your problem);
Size of object on human retina related by: tan(a/2) = s/2*d
Where a is the viewing angle (the angle subtended by the distance between two pixels), s is the spacing between two pixels (centre to centre or same edge to same edge), and d is the distance from those pixels to your eye. Below a certain threshold for a person with "perfect" vision, the point where it is impossible to distinguish individual pixels on a given display at a particular distance [say, the normal viewing distance for the size of display], that display is termed "Retina".
As you increase d, you can also increase a. In other words, as you move the screen further away the pixel spacing (the DPI of the screen) can increase, and thus it can still be a "Retina" display even if the DPI is lower, since that screen is viewed from further away.
You'll note that Apple also released other notebooks at the same time as the new Retina MBP and did not class those as "Retina" - because they are not.
Claim it's all BS if you like, but from the original introduction of the term by Apple at the launch of the iPhone 4, Apple have not "marketing BS'ed" their way around the original definition they gave (they even included the formula linking the viewing angle and the distance to the screen in the original keynote). Claiming it's "pure marketing BS" just shows your ignorance (or your inability to use google).
There are plenty of reasons for you frothy neckbeards who define themselves by hating a specific company to actually have a genuine beef with Apple - the ridiculous lawsuits are usually a good jumping off point - but the terminology behind the Retina Display is simply not one of them.
Ah, you can tell the real problems with a platform by how touchy the extremely brave anonymous fans are who take the bait when you post a joke about it.
Who says Apple users don't know what Swype is? I have been pretty vocal about how much I wish it could be included on the iPhone. I thought it was great.
Why the Apple comparison? If there's one company known to be the antithesis of vapourware it's got to be Apple - they simply do not announce products unless they are almost ready to ship, and software is only publicly announced if it has a definite internal release date.
Other than the white iPhone (which did eventually ship), I can't think of any vapourware products from Apple, so I'm not really seeing the relevance of mentioning them, unless you were going for a cheap dig, but you're above that, right?
There's nothing about "now claiming" - the definition of Retina Display includes the viewing distance to the screen, so a laptop or desktop doesn't need to be as high a dpi figure to meet the definition, since you view the screen from further away. All that is required is that (for someone with 'perfect' uncorrected vision), the eye cannot distinguish the individual pixels at the standard viewing distance of the screen in question.
For phones and tablets this distance is small than for laptops, hence the MBP's screen being "only" 220 DPI but still counting - at the distance it is viewed from, it does meet the definition.
The much larger screens in the iMac and TB Display are not far off "Retina" already - they're not quite there at the moment, but they don't need to pixel double in both dimensions or anything near that as some people have been suggesting.
For this 7" tablet to have a retina screen at 220 DPI it would need to be viewed at the same distance as the MBP's screen during normal use - which I suppose is possible, but I imagine most people will hold it closer than that.
Slashdot Mirror
Given your unfortunate second sentence (albeit one lacking punctuation), I see that you'd be one of the ones lying on the ground having been "quick knifed" by a faster student.
And if someone gives me a copy of Android and I only have an iOS device?
You have to use a Mac and a certificate to install the virtual machine in which to run Android.
But I don't have a Mac, only an iOS device. I guess that means it doesn't satisfy the licence.
The main problem with the US system, beyond all the hyper-waste and profiteering and the salaried employees in insurance companies whose job it is to deny legitimate care where possible is that the culture has turned away from the attitude that prevention is better than cure, precisely because it costs money to go to the doctor.
Then, instead of clearing up relatively minor issues early on, people leave it and just hope they'll get better. Sometimes they do, but often they'll end up in a worse situation and by the time a doctor gets involved it becomes complicated, expensive and crippling.
There's a reason the US's life expectancy is so low, compared to the quality of care available (assuming you can afford to pay for it). A hybrid private/public system (like everyone else in the world) would do more for your economy that almost anything else bar slashing the military budget or repealing the Bush tax cuts - a productive, healthy workforce, much reduced costs on businesses and employees, more flexible working environment for employees who are no longer chained to their job for fear of losing their health insurance so are free to be able to strike out on their own or simply change careers, consumer spending power will increase since they no longer have giant medical insurance and co-pay costs...
A nationalised system does not mean the US will turn into the USSR, it simply means the US will just accentuate all of the best parts of itself when its population are not constantly burdened by healthcare debt.
And, if I don't have a PC and someone hands me a copy of Linux on a CD? Is the licence "not satisfied" because I have to go and buy one?
You didn't say "cost effective"; you said that it didn't satisfy the licence because you needed to buy a Mac (since we're assuming the hypothetical person does not already own one, or an iOS device).
Assuming i have the software and the device (hardware+software) on which to run the software how do i actually execute that run it on the device?
Well if it's Linux and I'm running it on a PC i simply install it on the PC or use the live disc/USB...no additional hardware or software required.
If it's an iOS app and an iOS device I can't just install it directly on there, i need a Mac and a developer program subscription.
And if someone gives me a copy of Android and I only have an iOS device? Will I get a free Android phone to install it on, or do I have to buy one?
Even 70 K is extremely chilly as far as water goes, meaning sublimation will be very slow.
And, if I don't have a PC and someone hands me a copy of Linux on a CD? Is the licence "not satisfied" because I have to go and buy one?
You didn't say "cost effective"; you said that it didn't satisfy the licence because you needed to buy a Mac (since we're assuming the hypothetical person does not already own one, or an iOS device).
At 10 or so Kelvin, perhaps less, sublimation is going to be extremely slow.
We're not all the USA. All other countries have socialised healthcare where this sort of thing will be "free"
Ha-ha. You think socialist healthcare will give old farts operations costing tens of thousands of dollars for free.
One of the main reasons why the NHS (for example) is cheaper than US healthcare is that it routinely refuses treatment for old farts. If I remember correctly, something like 50% of lifetime healthcare spending for the average American happens in the last couple of months of their life, when socialist healthcare would just let them die earlier.
Errr... yes?
In my own family alone, "old farts" that I know personally have had a heart transplant, an 18-hour spinal realignment, major heart surgery, a partial liver transplant... all for "free".
Of course, it's not "free" - we pay for it with national insurance contributions. The cost is vastly, vastly lower than what is spent in the US because we have a nationalised system. While there is waste and overhead, it is nowhere near what it is in the US. It's why we spend less than half our GDP per capita compared to the USA (8% vs 16%), yet have longer life expectancy and no crippling debts brought on by healthcare costs.
If you think that the NHS "routinely refuses treatment" for old farts then I suggest you stop getting your "facts" from Fox News and talk to people who *actually live here*.
We're not all the USA. All other countries have socialised healthcare where this sort of thing will be "free" (paid for by national insurance contributions at a vastly lower cost than private US medical care).
The longer your population is productive, the more it benefits your economy. Reducing retirements caused by becoming sick or infirm reduces health and welfare costs and keeps your workforce healthy.
You can reduce the scarring by inhibiting the body's healing response, but that only gets you so far. You also have problems with aseptic loosening when it comes to joint replacements, due to bone reclamation by the body.
It's certainly not all figured out, but we are going to become more and more like hardware with replaceable parts as we age.
Your comment only applies to GPLv3 - and that was not Apple's doing.
GPLv2 code is fine on the app store (and there's a fair bit of it on there). Apple even changed their terms and conditions after the VLC incident to clarify the issue. There's nothing stopping you from releasing a GPLv2 app on the store and distributing the binaries and the source via other means (or even within the app).
The "hostility" comes in the form of the GPLv3, written seemingly in a fit of nerd rage that while the Tivo box was technically using the code legally, the spirit of the licence wasn't being followed, thus the highly restrictive v3 was born. I can totally understand why it was written, but to try and claim that the reason you can't use GPLv3 code on the app store is *Apple* hostility is just not painting the true picture. The v3 licence is simply incompatible by design *of the writers of the licence* to be hostile to App Store and Tivo-type business models.
Again, I can understand and respect that position, but it's not all on Apple for "being totally anti freedom".
The app store is not incompatible with GPLv2 - there are several GPL apps on there, in fact. They even changed some of their terms and conditions to clarify the position in the wake of the VLC incident.
It *is* incompatible with GPLv3, but this is due to the specific design of the v3 licence. In other words, it was written specifically to be incompatible with such app stores and Tivo-type devices. Hardly the "platform tyrant's" fault there.
Apple did not "make it that way" - the FSF did, and they have their reasons for doing so. I can respect their position, even if I disagree with it.
I also find it interesting that you consider a corporation to be "fascist" if it has a service that is incompatible with a software licence that you happen to like. Does that mean that those who maintain the Linux kernel are also fascists because they won't include closed source code into it? I mean, it's incompatible, right?
you can make the application available to anyone else who wants it by telling them where to download it
How does that satisfy the requirement for "Installation Information" (GPLv3) or "scripts used to control [...] installation of the executable" (GPLv2)? One still has to buy a $649 Mac and a $396 certificate (assuming four-year service life of an iOS device) to install it.
I just downloaded Linux on a friend's computer, since I don't have one of my own. It seems to violate the GPL because I need to buy a $250 PC to install it!
I assume the FSF will give me a computer to run it, right? Or am I obligated to buy one of my own?
I think that's the way the human race will eventually go - once we can grow replacement organs from stem cells, we can just sub them in as we age as we all start living longer and longer. I think the only sticking point will be the brain, unless we work out how to rejuvenate it.
You're a well known iFanboy. You don't get to make jokes about Android, because we know you're just trolling.
And try making jokes about Apple products and see how quickly the devout fanbase goes nuts over them.
What? That the name "Finder" is an oxymoron, because even Apple realised it didn't work and gave us Spotlight! That sort of thing?
Or how about "feels snappier" as a reply to any update to an Apple product? No? What about posting the Fry "shut up and take my money" meme in discussion threads about upcoming products?
And as far as being a "well known" fanboy - yes, that's what tends to happen when you log in to post and spend a lot of time in a community. How is this a bad thing?
Why don't I get to make jokes about Android? Is it because you can't stand to hear any criticism, even in jest? There's a difference between trolling and having a joke in a community - as you'll see from my previous posts (that's what happens when you log in - you have a posting history) I'm not mean spirited or malicious, and I have plenty of positive things to say about Android. It's more telling that you, the brave AC, forbid me from joking about it because you're too sensitive a "Fandroid" (can I call you that, given that you're categorising me as an "iFanboy") to even consider that people might make jokes about your platform of choice. Of course, there are *never* any jokes about Apple products or Apple users from non-Apple users on slashdot, right? Or am I allowed to go around like a petulant child and whine that they're not allowed to make jokes about Apple because they're "well known non-Apple-users"? If the answer to that rhetorical question is "no" then the term you're looking for is hypocrite.
In the mean time, try not to take any jokes about your beloved Android so personally; you'll have fewer nerd rage incidents that cause you to forget to log in.
"The definition of Retina Display..." Hahahaha, good one!
The definition of Retina Display is "the display on whatever new device Apple is launching."
Apple chooses different resolutions and densities for whatever reason (e.g. we still don't have a framework for resolution-independent graphics, so we're just going to double each dimension), and then calls the result Retina Display.
It's pure marketing BS.
No, it really isn't. Well, it is certainly a marketing *term* used to describe an actual mathematical formula and how it relates to human vision of an object a certain distance away from that human. It's obvious you've not actually done any research on it before dismissing it out of hand as "marketing BS", but it's a huge effort for you "I hated all that mainstream marketing and corporate BS before it was cool to hate them" types to even read the summary of a slashdot article, let alone do any actual googling.
Since it's clearly beyond your abilities to look up (there are some great sites teaching you how to use google you just have to google for them.... oh I see your problem);
Size of object on human retina related by: tan(a/2) = s/2*d
Where a is the viewing angle (the angle subtended by the distance between two pixels), s is the spacing between two pixels (centre to centre or same edge to same edge), and d is the distance from those pixels to your eye. Below a certain threshold for a person with "perfect" vision, the point where it is impossible to distinguish individual pixels on a given display at a particular distance [say, the normal viewing distance for the size of display], that display is termed "Retina".
As you increase d, you can also increase a. In other words, as you move the screen further away the pixel spacing (the DPI of the screen) can increase, and thus it can still be a "Retina" display even if the DPI is lower, since that screen is viewed from further away.
You'll note that Apple also released other notebooks at the same time as the new Retina MBP and did not class those as "Retina" - because they are not.
Claim it's all BS if you like, but from the original introduction of the term by Apple at the launch of the iPhone 4, Apple have not "marketing BS'ed" their way around the original definition they gave (they even included the formula linking the viewing angle and the distance to the screen in the original keynote). Claiming it's "pure marketing BS" just shows your ignorance (or your inability to use google).
There are plenty of reasons for you frothy neckbeards who define themselves by hating a specific company to actually have a genuine beef with Apple - the ridiculous lawsuits are usually a good jumping off point - but the terminology behind the Retina Display is simply not one of them.
hi bonch,
Then why is apple suing samsung?
Please respond.
Please log in.
Cool story bro.
Also, you fell for it. ;)
Ah, you can tell the real problems with a platform by how touchy the extremely brave anonymous fans are who take the bait when you post a joke about it.
Who says Apple users don't know what Swype is? I have been pretty vocal about how much I wish it could be included on the iPhone. I thought it was great.
So that's how they're getting around Android fragmentation! Just call everything the same name and model number. No more fragmentation!
Why the Apple comparison? If there's one company known to be the antithesis of vapourware it's got to be Apple - they simply do not announce products unless they are almost ready to ship, and software is only publicly announced if it has a definite internal release date.
Other than the white iPhone (which did eventually ship), I can't think of any vapourware products from Apple, so I'm not really seeing the relevance of mentioning them, unless you were going for a cheap dig, but you're above that, right?
There's nothing about "now claiming" - the definition of Retina Display includes the viewing distance to the screen, so a laptop or desktop doesn't need to be as high a dpi figure to meet the definition, since you view the screen from further away. All that is required is that (for someone with 'perfect' uncorrected vision), the eye cannot distinguish the individual pixels at the standard viewing distance of the screen in question.
For phones and tablets this distance is small than for laptops, hence the MBP's screen being "only" 220 DPI but still counting - at the distance it is viewed from, it does meet the definition.
The much larger screens in the iMac and TB Display are not far off "Retina" already - they're not quite there at the moment, but they don't need to pixel double in both dimensions or anything near that as some people have been suggesting.
For this 7" tablet to have a retina screen at 220 DPI it would need to be viewed at the same distance as the MBP's screen during normal use - which I suppose is possible, but I imagine most people will hold it closer than that.
So Android tablets have no style?
You heard it here first, folks. I'm not one to argue.
So does Apple.
Citation needed please.
Log in please.
So does Apple. So do many companies. It doesn't give either Apple nor Google a free pass when they do something unpleasant though.