So the author is a fan of Apple TV even though he doesn't seem to be familiar with the concept. My nephew "sends movies" from his iPod to the TV now. I for one don't want to keep charging batteries in my "remote". TV is fine just the way it is. In fact, it's time for me to unplug cable and go back to real HD with the antenna.
At 2 years, the age when children are typically diagnosed, 30 percent of the children were found to have autism. The researchers then compared the brain images of the autistic children with the others. They saw differences in the brain's white matter...
They need to do another experiment. It's not right to look at the scans AFTER you know which ones have a problem. Otherwise you start to "see things" to support the conclusion. They don't really need to re-scan, they could just show all the scans to people who don't know the results and see how well they spot the ones with a problem. Then you can talk about predictive ability of the scans.
Once we lock down the computers and turn them into industry approved "content viewers", we will have taken the greatest communications system devised to date and turned it into something that looks just like Cable TV. If MPAA thinks this is better than cable (because the cable company charges both parties) they are mistaken - once it's all locked down, the ISPs will start collecting fees from "content providers".
I agree we shouldn't, but that won't stop them from trying to do it. Sony et al would happily outlaw the general purpose computer to make sure we were all running only industry approved devices which give them all of the control.
And then we'd have turned the internet into cable TV.
Music companies have been streaming content without DRM (not on demand) for decades on the radio. iTunes lets you listen to anything, but only download it if you pay for it and you can get it without DRM. Nobody at RIAA actually wants to provide music on demand for free IN ANY FORM with or without DRM - nobody would buy it. They demand more from the internet than from radio. Why?
No, you are still welcome to build your own computer, write your own software, make your own movie, distribute your own movie, watch your own movie, and do anything with your own hardware and software and movie that you like. But, the people that make their own movies want to be in control of their content. Nothing is wrong with that. If you want to view their content on their terms, you are welcome to. If you don't like their terms, don't watch their content.
The problem is that the internet does not support "their terms" and nobody outside that industry wants it to. I really don't understand what the problem with broadcast television is. Or is it that we can record that for later playback? They don't realize that no matter what the delivery mechanism someone can use a camera to record off whatever device it's viewed on. This problem has mostly been solved by cable TV - most people don't know how to record from an encrypted channel or want to bother. The question is WHY do they want "content" on the internet so badly? While bandwidth has increase dramatically, I don't think a single cable can carry enough data for every home to have VOD anyway, so their vision of moving television to the net is flawed from the start.
Recalls are great. The company pays for the repairs instead of the customer. They acknowledge a problem. Management gets all pissed off and it causes people to get in trouble. At Toyota this supposedly leads to someone losing their job (not just an engineer, but a manager). Don't compare a product recall to a shitty product that costs the customers thousands of extra dollars in the first 5-10 years.
Just imagine nVidia makes GPUs at Intel to get a full process node ahead of ATI/AMD. It seems unlikely they'd let AMD use their 22nm process to compete with themselves. OTOH, nVidia is now a competitor as well.
I was wondering if/when Intel would do this, since they are essentially a full process generation ahead of the whole world.
I can't leave Office because I can not guarantee that my resume will look the same on someone elses computer running Office if I make it under LibraOffice
I suspect this is the case for more than your resume. If not, just save it to PDF from OpenOffice. That makes it hard to put in a big searchable database, but you may find a more direct approach works better for getting jobs anyway;-)
The horses were not missed except by horse lovers. The keyboard will be missed by a lot of people, but not by those who don't use the device for work. Mostly though, I wanted to address the way the author called MS unimportant while missing the fact that Apple is in the exact same situation. Me - I run Linux and claimed people could just walk away from MS 10 years ago. Turns out that thinking overlooks a number of factors that keep users on a platform.
'Like the curtain finally falling from the Wizard of Oz to find just a small, frail, man pretending to be far more powerful and relevant than he really was,
That actually sounds like someone talking about Apple more than Microsoft.
Truth is they just want MS Office on Apple products because tablets will continue to be irrelevant to a large part of the world unless they have those apps. Also, the people trying to use them for business think what's missing is Office, but when they get it, they'll be missing the keyboard too, and probably the mouse.
Most farmers do everything they can to get rain water to run off the fields so they don't flood and over-water the crops. Then they pump water out of the ground and apply it to the fields as needed. The rain water then dumps very quickly into the rivers and causes flooding down stream. A simple way to take care of this is to dig a large basin (1-2 percent the area of the fields and say 20-30 feet deep) to collect the rain water, then pump that back onto the fields as needed and only when it's dry would they need to pump water from the deep aquifer. It would help all of the problems, but would cost a bit to set up. Oh, and this would re-apply the fertilizer that washes away when it rains - which is another problem both down-stream and as a cost to farmers and a natural resource issue (phosphorous).
All those problems come down to poor resource management.
Many of us creating Linux don't care about "gaining market share." It is a tool we create for our use not for whiners trying to escape the tyranny of a commercial vendor.
Anyone who thinks that should not be on the Gnome team, or working for RedHat, or on the Fedora project. Since all of these organizations claim to be developing stuff for their "users" not their developers.
Yes, Apple uses a desktop interface on the desktop and a phone interface on portable devices. Gnome thinks a poorly done phone interface is good for the desktop too.
I would say that a good desktop interface might scale down to a tablet, and a phone interface can scale UP to a tablet. But the phone interface does not work, and will never work on the desktop. If these people understood what people actually DO with devices of different types, they might understand this.
His definitions require replication with variations. So if someone found a way to suppress genetic mutation in humans, we would not be alive right? An artificial creation can also not be alive unless it can reproduce? Does factory production count? It seems we can shorten his definition even more if we embrace his bias:
Life is: from evolution.
I don't object to evolution, but I don't think it's correct to define life by this existing process. Or am I missing something?
If you think these methods of rating programmers are faulty then this patent is good. Nobody will be able to use these faulty metrics (except IBM) because they are patented;-)
"...which protects the sale of intellectual property copies..."
The law does not recognize "intellectual property" or copies thereof. The section linked specifically calls out copyrighted works as well as "literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works". But no, the popular catch phrase "intellectual property" is not to be found. Just sayin (like RMS) there is no IP, only copyright, trademark, and patent law. Let us not try to broaden any one category by deliberately confusing them all, or elevate them to some higher "intellectual" level.
How does the code look that much different? Besides some syntax differences, they're all almost *exactly* the same. Some languages force you to format your declarations and types differently, but a for loop is a for loop
for (x=0; x lessthan 10; x++)//sorry, can do lt in comment
{
square[x] = x*x;
}
That's a for loop, while this:
square = [x*x for x in range(10)]
is a list comprehension in Python.
You can write it like a for loop - and I did when I was first learning Python - but it sucks to do that. This is probably what the GP was alluding to. If you really know a language you don't want to read crap written by people who think they're all the same with different syntax. This of course is but a single small example.
I don't like the binary blobs for because they 1) break when I get automatic updates that include a kernel 2) don't support the new 3d architecture and hence will 3) not work with Wayland when it matures. OTOH nouveau is completely painless to use for 2D ( I run Fedora ) but sucks for 3D. I can't run blender. Gnome 3 is very laggy when it works. I can't run Neverball for very long. Yet they think this driver needs OpenCL? WTF? Between Gnome3 and nouveau I need to buy new hardware, and it won't be nVidia this time. I just want my desktop and some OGL apps to work out of the box.
Great, but does it do 3D graphics yet? I've had an NV44A since 2006 and it's still not working very well. 3D support is there, but buggy and not "Done". At the time, this was a "new" nVidia card. And the Gallium came along (which is good BTW) and then NV50 and now nvC0. Only these latest 2 generation seem to be very active, and they don't even have full functionality, so it seems silly to be putting time into OpenCL. It seems AMD is better supported by open source these days, when it used to be nVidia was the obvious choice.
So when you take off, do you actually take the time to plan a straight ahead landing into whatever is there just in case? That would seem to be the prudent thing to do. If it's a plan, it might reduce the tendency to try turning back.
yes,Its a certification for high-risk aircraft, or aircraft in some high risk activity.
It's an FAA certification for aircraft not produced though a certified process. Commercial aircraft (even Cessna) are built using an extremely well documented process. Process certification is expensive - very expensive. Even planes constructed at Scaled Composites are certified experimental - not because they are built by buffoons, not because the designs are unsafe, not because they are dangerous, but because even they are usually one of a kind. IIRC even the small fleet of white nights built for Virgin are going to be individually certified experimental.
I supposed being built by an individual rather than coming off a production line does imply more risk, but that's what the testing phase is for. After that, the safety record is quite good.
Same with experimental planes. They are not "certified" to be airworthy, hence they are experimental.
All flying experimental aircraft are certified as airworthy by an FAA examiner. They review construction records and check out the plane itself. You are not allowed to take passengers for the first 25 hours (40 hours for non-certified engines). Most experimental accidents occur during this initial testing phase. After that, the accident rate drops quite close to the rate for normally certified aircraft. The distinction is weather the plane was built using a certified "process" or not. Perhaps the AC here was confusing experimental and ultralight aircraft.
Slashdot Mirror
So the author is a fan of Apple TV even though he doesn't seem to be familiar with the concept. My nephew "sends movies" from his iPod to the TV now. I for one don't want to keep charging batteries in my "remote". TV is fine just the way it is. In fact, it's time for me to unplug cable and go back to real HD with the antenna.
They need to do another experiment. It's not right to look at the scans AFTER you know which ones have a problem. Otherwise you start to "see things" to support the conclusion. They don't really need to re-scan, they could just show all the scans to people who don't know the results and see how well they spot the ones with a problem. Then you can talk about predictive ability of the scans.
Once we lock down the computers and turn them into industry approved "content viewers", we will have taken the greatest communications system devised to date and turned it into something that looks just like Cable TV. If MPAA thinks this is better than cable (because the cable company charges both parties) they are mistaken - once it's all locked down, the ISPs will start collecting fees from "content providers".
And then we'd have turned the internet into cable TV.
Music companies have been streaming content without DRM (not on demand) for decades on the radio. iTunes lets you listen to anything, but only download it if you pay for it and you can get it without DRM. Nobody at RIAA actually wants to provide music on demand for free IN ANY FORM with or without DRM - nobody would buy it. They demand more from the internet than from radio. Why?
The problem is that the internet does not support "their terms" and nobody outside that industry wants it to. I really don't understand what the problem with broadcast television is. Or is it that we can record that for later playback? They don't realize that no matter what the delivery mechanism someone can use a camera to record off whatever device it's viewed on. This problem has mostly been solved by cable TV - most people don't know how to record from an encrypted channel or want to bother. The question is WHY do they want "content" on the internet so badly? While bandwidth has increase dramatically, I don't think a single cable can carry enough data for every home to have VOD anyway, so their vision of moving television to the net is flawed from the start.
Recalls are great. The company pays for the repairs instead of the customer. They acknowledge a problem. Management gets all pissed off and it causes people to get in trouble. At Toyota this supposedly leads to someone losing their job (not just an engineer, but a manager). Don't compare a product recall to a shitty product that costs the customers thousands of extra dollars in the first 5-10 years.
Just imagine nVidia makes GPUs at Intel to get a full process node ahead of ATI/AMD. It seems unlikely they'd let AMD use their 22nm process to compete with themselves. OTOH, nVidia is now a competitor as well.
I was wondering if/when Intel would do this, since they are essentially a full process generation ahead of the whole world.
I suspect this is the case for more than your resume. If not, just save it to PDF from OpenOffice. That makes it hard to put in a big searchable database, but you may find a more direct approach works better for getting jobs anyway ;-)
The horses were not missed except by horse lovers. The keyboard will be missed by a lot of people, but not by those who don't use the device for work. Mostly though, I wanted to address the way the author called MS unimportant while missing the fact that Apple is in the exact same situation. Me - I run Linux and claimed people could just walk away from MS 10 years ago. Turns out that thinking overlooks a number of factors that keep users on a platform.
That actually sounds like someone talking about Apple more than Microsoft.
Truth is they just want MS Office on Apple products because tablets will continue to be irrelevant to a large part of the world unless they have those apps. Also, the people trying to use them for business think what's missing is Office, but when they get it, they'll be missing the keyboard too, and probably the mouse.
Most farmers do everything they can to get rain water to run off the fields so they don't flood and over-water the crops. Then they pump water out of the ground and apply it to the fields as needed. The rain water then dumps very quickly into the rivers and causes flooding down stream. A simple way to take care of this is to dig a large basin (1-2 percent the area of the fields and say 20-30 feet deep) to collect the rain water, then pump that back onto the fields as needed and only when it's dry would they need to pump water from the deep aquifer. It would help all of the problems, but would cost a bit to set up. Oh, and this would re-apply the fertilizer that washes away when it rains - which is another problem both down-stream and as a cost to farmers and a natural resource issue (phosphorous).
All those problems come down to poor resource management.
Anyone who thinks that should not be on the Gnome team, or working for RedHat, or on the Fedora project. Since all of these organizations claim to be developing stuff for their "users" not their developers.
Yes, Apple uses a desktop interface on the desktop and a phone interface on portable devices. Gnome thinks a poorly done phone interface is good for the desktop too.
I would say that a good desktop interface might scale down to a tablet, and a phone interface can scale UP to a tablet. But the phone interface does not work, and will never work on the desktop. If these people understood what people actually DO with devices of different types, they might understand this.
His definitions require replication with variations. So if someone found a way to suppress genetic mutation in humans, we would not be alive right? An artificial creation can also not be alive unless it can reproduce? Does factory production count? It seems we can shorten his definition even more if we embrace his bias:
Life is: from evolution.
I don't object to evolution, but I don't think it's correct to define life by this existing process. Or am I missing something?
If you think these methods of rating programmers are faulty then this patent is good. Nobody will be able to use these faulty metrics (except IBM) because they are patented ;-)
"...which protects the sale of intellectual property copies..."
The law does not recognize "intellectual property" or copies thereof. The section linked specifically calls out copyrighted works as well as "literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works". But no, the popular catch phrase "intellectual property" is not to be found. Just sayin (like RMS) there is no IP, only copyright, trademark, and patent law. Let us not try to broaden any one category by deliberately confusing them all, or elevate them to some higher "intellectual" level.
for (x=0; x lessthan 10; x++) //sorry, can do lt in comment
{
square[x] = x*x;
}
That's a for loop, while this:
square = [x*x for x in range(10)]
is a list comprehension in Python.
You can write it like a for loop - and I did when I was first learning Python - but it sucks to do that. This is probably what the GP was alluding to. If you really know a language you don't want to read crap written by people who think they're all the same with different syntax. This of course is but a single small example.
I don't like the binary blobs for because they 1) break when I get automatic updates that include a kernel 2) don't support the new 3d architecture and hence will 3) not work with Wayland when it matures. OTOH nouveau is completely painless to use for 2D ( I run Fedora ) but sucks for 3D. I can't run blender. Gnome 3 is very laggy when it works. I can't run Neverball for very long. Yet they think this driver needs OpenCL? WTF? Between Gnome3 and nouveau I need to buy new hardware, and it won't be nVidia this time. I just want my desktop and some OGL apps to work out of the box.
Great, but does it do 3D graphics yet? I've had an NV44A since 2006 and it's still not working very well. 3D support is there, but buggy and not "Done". At the time, this was a "new" nVidia card. And the Gallium came along (which is good BTW) and then NV50 and now nvC0. Only these latest 2 generation seem to be very active, and they don't even have full functionality, so it seems silly to be putting time into OpenCL. It seems AMD is better supported by open source these days, when it used to be nVidia was the obvious choice.
So when you take off, do you actually take the time to plan a straight ahead landing into whatever is there just in case? That would seem to be the prudent thing to do. If it's a plan, it might reduce the tendency to try turning back.
It's an FAA certification for aircraft not produced though a certified process. Commercial aircraft (even Cessna) are built using an extremely well documented process. Process certification is expensive - very expensive. Even planes constructed at Scaled Composites are certified experimental - not because they are built by buffoons, not because the designs are unsafe, not because they are dangerous, but because even they are usually one of a kind. IIRC even the small fleet of white nights built for Virgin are going to be individually certified experimental.
I supposed being built by an individual rather than coming off a production line does imply more risk, but that's what the testing phase is for. After that, the safety record is quite good.
All flying experimental aircraft are certified as airworthy by an FAA examiner. They review construction records and check out the plane itself. You are not allowed to take passengers for the first 25 hours (40 hours for non-certified engines). Most experimental accidents occur during this initial testing phase. After that, the accident rate drops quite close to the rate for normally certified aircraft. The distinction is weather the plane was built using a certified "process" or not. Perhaps the AC here was confusing experimental and ultralight aircraft.
That's almost fast enough that they could request a change to the part during surgery. OK, maybe off by a factor of 4 to 10.
And lets not forget about porosity issues that can arise with cast aluminium ;-) No mater the method, making stuff can be challenging.