Since Apple reviews every app that goes into the App Store, Apple could simply rate down apps that are not up to the quality expected for the iPhone platform. This would give more incentive to the developers to improve their apps to Apple's standards.
If Apple wanted to simply restrict low quality third-party software, they could have provided a rating system, where apps that behave badly, including those that drain the battery unnecessarily, would have been rated lower than other apps. Apple already controls the app release process for iPhone/iPod/iPad, and Apple also reviews any app that goes in the app store.
It seems to me that Apple's move is not mainly about quality control, but about specific vendor lock out, i.e. Adobe.
What about translating Unity Script to C++, for example? Unless Apple inspects the development environment, they can't possibly know that the C++ code is the result of translation (provided that the result C++ resembles human-written code).
Re:Apple has made Microsoft look "open".
on
The Apple Two
·
· Score: 1
Who the fuck modded you insightful? your post is full of bullshit. Excuse me, but it needs to be said!
Your aunt can't use a PC for email but she can use the iPad? what the fuck can't she do with a PC email client that she can do with iPad? email in iPad is exactly the same as any other computer!
Why the fuck desktop OSes are not meant for a tablet? the interface is pretty much the same! they both have icons that you have to click!
Why are you fooling yourself that the iPad is an 'entirely' new paradigm? what's so entirely new? the interface of iPad is exactly the same goddamn graphical user interface found in computers from 1981! it still has buttons, icons, textboxes, comboboxes, scrollbars and all the widgets found in the classic GUI!
Why the fuck do you think that an open system can't be stable? have you ever worked on Solaris? I've seen universities on a single Solaris network with thousands of machines and they never had an incident with a virus or anything!
CAN WE PLEASE STOP WITH THE BULLSHIT ABOUT THE IPAD? IT'S NOT A NEW PARADIGM AND IT IS NOT INNOVATIVE. IT STILL HAS BUTTONS AND ICONS FOR THE USER TO CLICK, IT STILL REQUIRES THE USER TO KNOW WHAT IS HE DOING, BECAUSE EMAIL IS EMAIL AND THE WEB IS THE WEB!!!!!!
In C++, you can use size-based and type-based pool allocators, which is the fastest way to allocate memory from. Since most programs have a few hundred types max, using a specific allocator for each type is actually a very good idea.
If combined with thread-specific pools, then it can provide good performance without busy loops and other tricks.
but eventually all the locking and contention at the kernel level starts costing you a lot.
Locking and contention is a matter of design. It the Windows kernel does not scale well for multicore machines, it seems it is not designed correctly; just like Linux had a big kernel lock a few years back.
Both the OS and the associated.NET-like language are designed to put constraints on the programming such that the processes can be parallelized efficiently without excessive locking.
And if I want to write assembly because I have a part of my app that requires performance not offered by.NET? Then I would have to use another operating system.
The real issue in scaling is the hardware. I don't understand why CPUs don't offer hardware-based in-process component isolation. As CPUs are currently designed, it's all (no isolation) or nothing (user-supervisor mode). There needs to be a better component isolation between components within a process.
What's the point of free Unixoid OSes having separate codebases? Is Solaris so much better than Linux that Sun couldn't merge it with Linux? this is what happens when people refuse to co-operate due to pride or corporate blindness.
It's actually extremely hard to create such universes. No one has ever made one, as we speak. Not only there are hardware limitations (for example, a HL2 level takes almost all of 1 GB), but there are also software limitations. In order, for example, to have a successful "return-back-to-base" scenario, the programmers should encode a yet unseen AI into the program that turns the game into a war drama, instead of a fighting game.
and (at least with open-source implementations) can be updated by anyone.
While true in theory, in practice it does not work like that: learning a complex code base like one for a web browser can take months, and it can even take years before one is accepted as a developer.
I was bullied in school as I was an introvert guy, up until I decided I couldn't take it any more. After some serious fistfighting that resulted in bloody wounds, the bullying stopped. Unfortunately, the only solution is to fight back.
The European Union does not have more than 20 years left. It will be fragmented and get back to the way things were right after WWII and before the European Coal and Steel Community. The reason is that the EU is an economic union but not a social and cultural union.
The 'no one is being force' part requires a big discussion about the options women have in our society. I am not so sure that these women are not being forced into it. According to various studies, the pay gap between genders is getting worse (example: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusandstatistics/a/paygapgrows.htm).
The concept of 'document' is wrong when it comes to computers. The paperless office will not materialize if information is not stopped being distributed in the form of 'documents'.
The problem has been worsened by long time use of word processors that make document creation easy, thus allowing people to cram all the relevant information about a task in a document. And since information is in a document, people prefer to hold a physical copy in their hands, because the paper seems less annoying than the screen.
One of the reasons for not being parallel enough is that the C programming language is not easy for parallelism. It's not that it can't be done, but the language's basic purpose is at odds with the principles of parallelism. Something like Haskell is much easier to automatically parallelize, because of the lack of destructive updating, but Haskell goes to the other extreme. Something in between is required, but it's not here yet.
Every tablet running Windows 7 (released 5 months ago) has a multitouch interface.
Released 5 months ago equals to not being available right now. At least in my country. And the lowest price in the page you posted is $1399.
The ASUS Eee PC T91 convertible tablet is $453 (with Windows XP) and the Lenovo S10 convertible netbook tablet is $480.
They are both netbooks, not tablets. Their software is for netbook use, not tablet use. The T91 runs WinXP, which I doubt it has a good touch interface. The $480 price is for 1 system with 1 GB of memory, running Windows 7, which is not enough for any serious use.
The Eee PC T91 (9-inch screen) weighs 2.1 pounds. The Lenovo S10 (10-inch screen) weighs 3 pounds and has 16 times more storage than the $500 3g-less iPad.
Still heavier than the iPad, which is 1.6 pounds.And the S10 has 160 GB capacity, whereas the iPad has maximum 64 GB capacity, which is hardly 16 times more storage.
And the iPad's power duration is superior (10 hours) instead of 5 for the T91 or S10.
And the aesthetics of those devices suck, compared to Apple.
The real reason behind the problem is that the way a computer operates is totally inappropriate for parallelism. The concept of data moving through a bus to a proccessing core is totally at odds with parallelism. We do see tremendous parallelism around us. Why? Because, in the real world, there is no bus to move the data over, and there is no central core! In the real world, each object is its own cpu! If reality was like a computer, all objects would have to be moved to a special place in order to be processed! If we could take a hint from nature...in our bodies, it's not data that are moved around, it's commands that travel on our "buses", i.e. our nervous system!
Apple's tablet is different from other tablets so far:
1. it does not have a user interface that follows the desktop metaphor, which is not appropriate for a tablet. 2. it has a multitouch interface, unlike other tablets. 3. it has quite a low price. 4. it boots way faster than other devices. 5. it is lighter than other devices.
For me, the only reason not considering an iPad is lack of Flash support and lack of openness. I think it's on the right path, and if these two are solved, I'll consider buying one.
Slashdot Mirror
Since Apple reviews every app that goes into the App Store, Apple could simply rate down apps that are not up to the quality expected for the iPhone platform. This would give more incentive to the developers to improve their apps to Apple's standards.
If Apple wanted to simply restrict low quality third-party software, they could have provided a rating system, where apps that behave badly, including those that drain the battery unnecessarily, would have been rated lower than other apps. Apple already controls the app release process for iPhone/iPod/iPad, and Apple also reviews any app that goes in the app store.
It seems to me that Apple's move is not mainly about quality control, but about specific vendor lock out, i.e. Adobe.
What about translating Unity Script to C++, for example? Unless Apple inspects the development environment, they can't possibly know that the C++ code is the result of translation (provided that the result C++ resembles human-written code).
Who the fuck modded you insightful? your post is full of bullshit. Excuse me, but it needs to be said!
Your aunt can't use a PC for email but she can use the iPad? what the fuck can't she do with a PC email client that she can do with iPad? email in iPad is exactly the same as any other computer!
Why the fuck desktop OSes are not meant for a tablet? the interface is pretty much the same! they both have icons that you have to click!
Why are you fooling yourself that the iPad is an 'entirely' new paradigm? what's so entirely new? the interface of iPad is exactly the same goddamn graphical user interface found in computers from 1981! it still has buttons, icons, textboxes, comboboxes, scrollbars and all the widgets found in the classic GUI!
Why the fuck do you think that an open system can't be stable? have you ever worked on Solaris? I've seen universities on a single Solaris network with thousands of machines and they never had an incident with a virus or anything!
CAN WE PLEASE STOP WITH THE BULLSHIT ABOUT THE IPAD? IT'S NOT A NEW PARADIGM AND IT IS NOT INNOVATIVE. IT STILL HAS BUTTONS AND ICONS FOR THE USER TO CLICK, IT STILL REQUIRES THE USER TO KNOW WHAT IS HE DOING, BECAUSE EMAIL IS EMAIL AND THE WEB IS THE WEB!!!!!!
And If I don't want to play with/against other humans?
In C++, you can use size-based and type-based pool allocators, which is the fastest way to allocate memory from. Since most programs have a few hundred types max, using a specific allocator for each type is actually a very good idea.
If combined with thread-specific pools, then it can provide good performance without busy loops and other tricks.
Locking and contention is a matter of design. It the Windows kernel does not scale well for multicore machines, it seems it is not designed correctly; just like Linux had a big kernel lock a few years back.
And if I want to write assembly because I have a part of my app that requires performance not offered by .NET? Then I would have to use another operating system.
The real issue in scaling is the hardware. I don't understand why CPUs don't offer hardware-based in-process component isolation. As CPUs are currently designed, it's all (no isolation) or nothing (user-supervisor mode). There needs to be a better component isolation between components within a process.
Is anyone forcing you to not to buy other computers? you can have an iPad and an Android Tablet, for example.
What's the point of free Unixoid OSes having separate codebases? Is Solaris so much better than Linux that Sun couldn't merge it with Linux? this is what happens when people refuse to co-operate due to pride or corporate blindness.
Yes, but perhaps the new situation of yours is better in terms of job security ;-).
It's actually extremely hard to create such universes. No one has ever made one, as we speak. Not only there are hardware limitations (for example, a HL2 level takes almost all of 1 GB), but there are also software limitations. In order, for example, to have a successful "return-back-to-base" scenario, the programmers should encode a yet unseen AI into the program that turns the game into a war drama, instead of a fighting game.
While true in theory, in practice it does not work like that: learning a complex code base like one for a web browser can take months, and it can even take years before one is accepted as a developer.
I was bullied in school as I was an introvert guy, up until I decided I couldn't take it any more. After some serious fistfighting that resulted in bloody wounds, the bullying stopped. Unfortunately, the only solution is to fight back.
It's just like calling someone Afro-American, although he or she might have never been or linked to Africa in any way.
DNS is not encrypted.
And that's the root of the problem. I wonder when we are going to have encrypted DNS widely deployed for the average consumer.
...he was the star in the game!!!
The European Union does not have more than 20 years left. It will be fragmented and get back to the way things were right after WWII and before the European Coal and Steel Community. The reason is that the EU is an economic union but not a social and cultural union.
The UKSA is one example of such a trend.
So, prostitution and stripping are good professions?
Would you let your daughter become a prostitute then?
The 'no one is being force' part requires a big discussion about the options women have in our society. I am not so sure that these women are not being forced into it. According to various studies, the pay gap between genders is getting worse (example: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusandstatistics/a/paygapgrows.htm).
The concept of 'document' is wrong when it comes to computers. The paperless office will not materialize if information is not stopped being distributed in the form of 'documents'.
The problem has been worsened by long time use of word processors that make document creation easy, thus allowing people to cram all the relevant information about a task in a document. And since information is in a document, people prefer to hold a physical copy in their hands, because the paper seems less annoying than the screen.
One of the reasons for not being parallel enough is that the C programming language is not easy for parallelism. It's not that it can't be done, but the language's basic purpose is at odds with the principles of parallelism. Something like Haskell is much easier to automatically parallelize, because of the lack of destructive updating, but Haskell goes to the other extreme. Something in between is required, but it's not here yet.
Released 5 months ago equals to not being available right now. At least in my country. And the lowest price in the page you posted is $1399.
They are both netbooks, not tablets. Their software is for netbook use, not tablet use. The T91 runs WinXP, which I doubt it has a good touch interface. The $480 price is for 1 system with 1 GB of memory, running Windows 7, which is not enough for any serious use.
Still heavier than the iPad, which is 1.6 pounds.And the S10 has 160 GB capacity, whereas the iPad has maximum 64 GB capacity, which is hardly 16 times more storage.
And the iPad's power duration is superior (10 hours) instead of 5 for the T91 or S10.
And the aesthetics of those devices suck, compared to Apple.
The real reason behind the problem is that the way a computer operates is totally inappropriate for parallelism. The concept of data moving through a bus to a proccessing core is totally at odds with parallelism.
We do see tremendous parallelism around us. Why? Because, in the real world, there is no bus to move the data over, and there is no central core! In the real world, each object is its own cpu! If reality was like a computer, all objects would have to be moved to a special place in order to be processed!
If we could take a hint from nature...in our bodies, it's not data that are moved around, it's commands that travel on our "buses", i.e. our nervous system!
The one and only...the G.O.A.T...The man who has banged every green chick from here to the Delta Quadrant...
WILLIAM SHATNER!!!
Hmmm...now i know why aliens do not dare to land...they obviously mistook ST-TOS for reality...;-)
Apple's tablet is different from other tablets so far:
1. it does not have a user interface that follows the desktop metaphor, which is not appropriate for a tablet.
2. it has a multitouch interface, unlike other tablets.
3. it has quite a low price.
4. it boots way faster than other devices.
5. it is lighter than other devices.
For me, the only reason not considering an iPad is lack of Flash support and lack of openness. I think it's on the right path, and if these two are solved, I'll consider buying one.