The importance of the distinction still exists and I fight for keeping the technical jargon term emulator pure. Wine was once an api implementation, now it is better called a clone. A clone offers the theoretical potential of native performance whereas an emulator trades performance for theoretically perfect completeness. Neither generally delivers on those theoretical potentials but in practice they do generally have superior performance/completion relative to one another where you find both approaches taken to a problem.
Emulate does not in a broad sense mean anything. There is the common language definition which has little relationship to the technical jargon in which emulator has a very specific meaning of a technical implementation which emulates machine code. It is a useful distinction because an emulator offers higher potential theoretical compatibility vs a clone which is what wine is now (it was once an api implementation which is just a library but has grown to encompass several apis now). An emulator does not "pretend to be" windows in any fashion, it very specifically replicates the machine code of the underlying computer windows run on, a complete emulator would run windows.
It seems that jargon nuance is lost over time. The term emulator in technical jargon refers to something emulating a separate machine code instruction set or other hardware. The JVM itself is an emulator, emulating an invented instruction set. Wine has grown into more than an API implementation but at most you could call it a windows "clone" much like FreeDOS is a dos clone, Minetest is a Minecraft clone, and Openoffice is a MS Office clone.
Keeping the nuance allows us to effectively communicate the difference between these things expediently among one another but more and more the waters get muddied by the common English definition of emulate. This jargon developed for a reason. The common English definitions do not cover these technical distinctions, they are too generic.
The utility for "emulator" is far from obsolete or past. An emulator would run windows not pretend to be it. We use emulators for game consoles, for thousands of arcade systems, for mobile development, etc and emulators will always offer theoretically improved compatibility vs clones while clones will have theoretical performance advantages.
Right, the problem is the flavor of development you've chosen requires you to either hire non-windows devs who will have to struggle with all this windows nonsense, or windows devs who will feel hamstrung. Either way your staff is going to complain endlessly about the toolset.
True, but that one choice is what most of their users want or at least is generally one of the better choices one could make. Microsoft is shoving choices down people's throat that very few would want.
This is especially troubling, I wouldn't be surprised if variations on this technique couldn't also be used to acquire a user's secondary authentication device.
Wouldn't work, people wouldn't think to do #2 and doing #1 would make it take longer to unlock your phone. At that point there is no advantage over pin entry.
Fair enough but it is worth remembering that something like that usage comparison will be true at some point of whatever search does dethrone Google in the end.
The good thing about a search engine is that it is a tool that works equally well regardless of whether others have adopted it or not. This is quite distinct from tools that gain their value through some sort of interaction with data created by other users of the tool.
No no, they stream the data to their affiliates real time so they can honestly say they don't retain anything. Of course, one of those affiliates is likely a data warehouse owned by them with them as the only client but DDG deletes everything!
The correct fine would be to take literally all profit uber has made via these deceptive practices and treble it, applying ultimate responsibility for paying to top 10% shareholders and all executive level staff who held shares at any point during the practice without any regard whatsoever for the probability that debt causes the company to fold.
Intentional wrongdoing should always cost a company treble everything it made via the wrongdoing and the debt follow the key players so they can't simply fold up and open a new paper entity without paying the price. Penalties should never be reduced to keep a company from folding either.
Of course the fines should preempt all other creditors and go into the justice department budget. We do this to give police misplaced priorities with regard to drug offenders why not use the same tactic to give valid priorities to the justice department regarding corporate wrongdoing?
Anything less and companies will just look at potential fines as the cost of doing business... if you made a million and paid a 500k fine why would you pass on to the next shady practice?
My amazon prime sub should be able to fund plenty of stuff I don't want to watch just like yours should fund stuff I want to watch but you aren't interested in.
They are two separate issues. As a prime subscriber I don't want to see Amazon going down the path of bait and switch up-selling and charging extra for content instead of including it with prime. That said, if they are going to do it anyway I'm critical of their choice. You are right, I'd be more upset if it were good content rather than just anime but they aren't exactly producing premium content like sci-fi fantasy, marvel/dc, etc and I wouldn't want this to set a precedent leading to them wanting me to pay them yet more.
I have praise and complaints about Amazon. They actually have a number of shows that are surprisingly good. They've also unfortunately axed great shows. My biggest gripe with their content is the previews are terrible and give you absolutely no idea what a show is about or whether it is any good. They seem to just be random collections of 3 or 4 second bits of the show that give no context or insight.
Second to last time I called Comcast I was upset because they lied about a service and its pricing in online chat support. Being quite polite I was hung on up 3 or 4 times, blind transferred repeatedly, had a few reps pretend they were supervisors, and when I finally got a callback from a real superior they demanded I provide the chat transcript or it never happened. When I actually had saved the transcript and provided it the supervisor said they weren't authorized to promise me that and would not amend the bill even historically. This process took three days of calling.
My last experience with Comcast was a business internet account. I called and canceled the service because I was moving, the rep was very helpful and took the date. They didn't ask for the modem back and in the hassle of moving I forgot completely. Several months later I received a bill from comcast at my new address. I thought this must be the final bill, it included a charge for the cost of the modem. I paid it figuring that would settle everything, the rep I spoke to when I called indicated that they had no record of me canceling which is why the charges were higher than expected but that she'd corrected it and this payment would settle everything. Three months later I get another bill which includes a charge for the cost of the modem again. I call and they have no record of me canceling, can't explain why they are charging me for a modem if they don't think I've canceled and or why they are trying to charge it again but the charges have been corrected and the system is updated. A month later another bill, a new charge for the modem, call again and they indicate they are charging me for the modem because it wasn't returned. When I point out that I've now moved and there is no way I could possibly return the modem they indicate they will continue to charge me the full cost of modem every month until it is returned. Finally, I report to the BBB and their response is similar with an additional claim that it doesn't matter if I called and canceled or that their representative indicated the request was submitted, etc because somewhere in the fine print on the agreement it indicated I'd have to cancel in writing. The BBB cleared them automatically because I eventually gave up on going round and round, Comcast can afford to pay drones to auto-reply longer than I can and the BBB is a joke.
After the BBB request they stopped trying to add charges and a couple years later I successfully booted them from my credit report. Your millage may vary but more likely you've just been beaten down by lousy customer service so hard that you just think this is how it works. Most companies have reps that either say they will do something to resolve issues or won't agree to do something... every so often I have a fluke where something gets messed up but Comcast is only company I've interacted with they consistently lie saying they are resolving the issue and then not.
Yeah, AT&T sucks too if anything goes wrong but in three years of my wife having cell service with them I've never had to call. With comcast it was every couple months.
Which is the next issue I have with this. I pay for Amazon's content already. I don't have an issue with some third party content costing a premium but I already pay for access to any of the actual Amazon content.
So what exactly did they do with the $34 million dollars? That seems like a substantial amount of funding just to ship a first round of a basic electronics product.
And so long as sex offender charges are handed out for similarly ridiculous situations do you really think it is fair to have everyone who has been charged with such an offense branded a sex offender, posted in a publicly accessible online database, and as people in said database grouped categorically and viewed as "child molesters" by the general public.
"Perspective is something for people who are making assumptions. Google doesn't need perspective, they have analytics."
Analytics have to be interpreted... through a lens of perspective. I was looking at a cpu usage graph today... someone pointed out a huge spike and asked for an explanation... the graph scaled automatically so the massive spike was only a 5% usage increase on a system that was mostly idle and created the illusion of a massive spike because a measly 5% was massive relative to the variance over the rest of the period in the graph. Even a graph can have perspective.
Google's perspective could lead to cutting something that costs them next to nothing to maintain and has hundreds of thousands or even millions of users because that is peanuts compared to gmail... their "graph" has scaled in the opposite direction making such usage look like a tiny blip.
Analytics are a bunch of data, you can spin them, twist them, and interpret/misinterpret them in so many ways they are very nearly useless. I leave pretending nearly meaningless correlations are extremely valuable hard data to poor bastards who have to convince the non-technical idiot decision makers and advertising con men.
Unless you are one of the tiny subset of the population that both dives and needs to tell time while doing it there really isn't much point to them anymore. There are more accurate clocks everywhere, including on your phone.
If you are going to wear something on your wrist go with a fitbit.
Google sometimes lacks perspective on what constitutes "unpopular", there is a pretty wide margin between genuinely unpopular and unpopular relative to Google's most widely used applications. Some google solutions are applicable to a wide audience and some hit a niche but are still quite popular like google voice. Those smaller single niche purpose tools might not be nearly as popular but having them available those times you need them is a big part of Google's value.
I think Google is missing the point here, Duo (which I'm hearing about for the first time now) is only a video app... video is a great buzz feature but outside of a few special situations where you are far apart from someone important you generally want good old text communication. Hangouts provides that without need to facebook interact, actually keeps a nice searchable history, works from your email client which is perfectly appropriate for work unlike social media and also works on your phone.
Why? Does anyone actually bother with voice/video anymore? It's nice to know those features are there but basically hangouts was just the annoying replacement for google chat and it is a handy IM app that neither requires me to find someone on Facebook nor requires me to use my phone when I'm sitting at a real keyboard. Also it supports group messaging... my work peers and eye have kept a "hangout" open for a few years now for comments when we aren't officially available at work and things we'd rather not say in our official work im.
"you're trying to chide people who couldn't care less about breastfeeding in public"
Hardly, the irrational roadblock is for those who have an issue with breastfeeding in the universally present appropriate place. The restroom. Despite actually being far more sanitary than other random locations one could choose many have a hangup about it and think it is "dirty." I'm not sure how your feeling that the room is supposed to magically contaminate your nipple but apparently some think it does.
Slashdot Mirror
The importance of the distinction still exists and I fight for keeping the technical jargon term emulator pure. Wine was once an api implementation, now it is better called a clone. A clone offers the theoretical potential of native performance whereas an emulator trades performance for theoretically perfect completeness. Neither generally delivers on those theoretical potentials but in practice they do generally have superior performance/completion relative to one another where you find both approaches taken to a problem.
Emulate does not in a broad sense mean anything. There is the common language definition which has little relationship to the technical jargon in which emulator has a very specific meaning of a technical implementation which emulates machine code. It is a useful distinction because an emulator offers higher potential theoretical compatibility vs a clone which is what wine is now (it was once an api implementation which is just a library but has grown to encompass several apis now). An emulator does not "pretend to be" windows in any fashion, it very specifically replicates the machine code of the underlying computer windows run on, a complete emulator would run windows.
It seems that jargon nuance is lost over time. The term emulator in technical jargon refers to something emulating a separate machine code instruction set or other hardware. The JVM itself is an emulator, emulating an invented instruction set. Wine has grown into more than an API implementation but at most you could call it a windows "clone" much like FreeDOS is a dos clone, Minetest is a Minecraft clone, and Openoffice is a MS Office clone.
Keeping the nuance allows us to effectively communicate the difference between these things expediently among one another but more and more the waters get muddied by the common English definition of emulate. This jargon developed for a reason. The common English definitions do not cover these technical distinctions, they are too generic.
The utility for "emulator" is far from obsolete or past. An emulator would run windows not pretend to be it. We use emulators for game consoles, for thousands of arcade systems, for mobile development, etc and emulators will always offer theoretically improved compatibility vs clones while clones will have theoretical performance advantages.
Right, the problem is the flavor of development you've chosen requires you to either hire non-windows devs who will have to struggle with all this windows nonsense, or windows devs who will feel hamstrung. Either way your staff is going to complain endlessly about the toolset.
It should and it does. What you are referring to is just a clone.
No, an emulator is a tool for emulating a cpu instruction set. Wine is just a reverse engineered win32 api implementation.
A native API wrapper/implementation. Wine doesn't emulate a cpu instruction set and therefore isn't an emulator.
True, but that one choice is what most of their users want or at least is generally one of the better choices one could make. Microsoft is shoving choices down people's throat that very few would want.
In fairness that is just a hit counter, you don't need to retain any specifics just to keep count.
This is especially troubling, I wouldn't be surprised if variations on this technique couldn't also be used to acquire a user's secondary authentication device.
Wouldn't work, people wouldn't think to do #2 and doing #1 would make it take longer to unlock your phone. At that point there is no advantage over pin entry.
Fair enough but it is worth remembering that something like that usage comparison will be true at some point of whatever search does dethrone Google in the end.
The good thing about a search engine is that it is a tool that works equally well regardless of whether others have adopted it or not. This is quite distinct from tools that gain their value through some sort of interaction with data created by other users of the tool.
No no, they stream the data to their affiliates real time so they can honestly say they don't retain anything. Of course, one of those affiliates is likely a data warehouse owned by them with them as the only client but DDG deletes everything!
The correct fine would be to take literally all profit uber has made via these deceptive practices and treble it, applying ultimate responsibility for paying to top 10% shareholders and all executive level staff who held shares at any point during the practice without any regard whatsoever for the probability that debt causes the company to fold.
Intentional wrongdoing should always cost a company treble everything it made via the wrongdoing and the debt follow the key players so they can't simply fold up and open a new paper entity without paying the price. Penalties should never be reduced to keep a company from folding either.
Of course the fines should preempt all other creditors and go into the justice department budget. We do this to give police misplaced priorities with regard to drug offenders why not use the same tactic to give valid priorities to the justice department regarding corporate wrongdoing?
Anything less and companies will just look at potential fines as the cost of doing business... if you made a million and paid a 500k fine why would you pass on to the next shady practice?
My amazon prime sub should be able to fund plenty of stuff I don't want to watch just like yours should fund stuff I want to watch but you aren't interested in.
They are two separate issues. As a prime subscriber I don't want to see Amazon going down the path of bait and switch up-selling and charging extra for content instead of including it with prime. That said, if they are going to do it anyway I'm critical of their choice. You are right, I'd be more upset if it were good content rather than just anime but they aren't exactly producing premium content like sci-fi fantasy, marvel/dc, etc and I wouldn't want this to set a precedent leading to them wanting me to pay them yet more.
I have praise and complaints about Amazon. They actually have a number of shows that are surprisingly good. They've also unfortunately axed great shows. My biggest gripe with their content is the previews are terrible and give you absolutely no idea what a show is about or whether it is any good. They seem to just be random collections of 3 or 4 second bits of the show that give no context or insight.
Second to last time I called Comcast I was upset because they lied about a service and its pricing in online chat support. Being quite polite I was hung on up 3 or 4 times, blind transferred repeatedly, had a few reps pretend they were supervisors, and when I finally got a callback from a real superior they demanded I provide the chat transcript or it never happened. When I actually had saved the transcript and provided it the supervisor said they weren't authorized to promise me that and would not amend the bill even historically. This process took three days of calling.
My last experience with Comcast was a business internet account. I called and canceled the service because I was moving, the rep was very helpful and took the date. They didn't ask for the modem back and in the hassle of moving I forgot completely. Several months later I received a bill from comcast at my new address. I thought this must be the final bill, it included a charge for the cost of the modem. I paid it figuring that would settle everything, the rep I spoke to when I called indicated that they had no record of me canceling which is why the charges were higher than expected but that she'd corrected it and this payment would settle everything. Three months later I get another bill which includes a charge for the cost of the modem again. I call and they have no record of me canceling, can't explain why they are charging me for a modem if they don't think I've canceled and or why they are trying to charge it again but the charges have been corrected and the system is updated. A month later another bill, a new charge for the modem, call again and they indicate they are charging me for the modem because it wasn't returned. When I point out that I've now moved and there is no way I could possibly return the modem they indicate they will continue to charge me the full cost of modem every month until it is returned. Finally, I report to the BBB and their response is similar with an additional claim that it doesn't matter if I called and canceled or that their representative indicated the request was submitted, etc because somewhere in the fine print on the agreement it indicated I'd have to cancel in writing. The BBB cleared them automatically because I eventually gave up on going round and round, Comcast can afford to pay drones to auto-reply longer than I can and the BBB is a joke.
After the BBB request they stopped trying to add charges and a couple years later I successfully booted them from my credit report. Your millage may vary but more likely you've just been beaten down by lousy customer service so hard that you just think this is how it works. Most companies have reps that either say they will do something to resolve issues or won't agree to do something... every so often I have a fluke where something gets messed up but Comcast is only company I've interacted with they consistently lie saying they are resolving the issue and then not.
Yeah, AT&T sucks too if anything goes wrong but in three years of my wife having cell service with them I've never had to call. With comcast it was every couple months.
Which is the next issue I have with this. I pay for Amazon's content already. I don't have an issue with some third party content costing a premium but I already pay for access to any of the actual Amazon content.
Shouldn't that be attempt 437 after you've already tried everything people might actually pay for?
P.S. Where is sneaky pete?
So what exactly did they do with the $34 million dollars? That seems like a substantial amount of funding just to ship a first round of a basic electronics product.
And so long as sex offender charges are handed out for similarly ridiculous situations do you really think it is fair to have everyone who has been charged with such an offense branded a sex offender, posted in a publicly accessible online database, and as people in said database grouped categorically and viewed as "child molesters" by the general public.
"Perspective is something for people who are making assumptions. Google doesn't need perspective, they have analytics."
Analytics have to be interpreted... through a lens of perspective. I was looking at a cpu usage graph today... someone pointed out a huge spike and asked for an explanation... the graph scaled automatically so the massive spike was only a 5% usage increase on a system that was mostly idle and created the illusion of a massive spike because a measly 5% was massive relative to the variance over the rest of the period in the graph. Even a graph can have perspective.
Google's perspective could lead to cutting something that costs them next to nothing to maintain and has hundreds of thousands or even millions of users because that is peanuts compared to gmail... their "graph" has scaled in the opposite direction making such usage look like a tiny blip.
Analytics are a bunch of data, you can spin them, twist them, and interpret/misinterpret them in so many ways they are very nearly useless. I leave pretending nearly meaningless correlations are extremely valuable hard data to poor bastards who have to convince the non-technical idiot decision makers and advertising con men.
Unless you are one of the tiny subset of the population that both dives and needs to tell time while doing it there really isn't much point to them anymore. There are more accurate clocks everywhere, including on your phone.
If you are going to wear something on your wrist go with a fitbit.
Google sometimes lacks perspective on what constitutes "unpopular", there is a pretty wide margin between genuinely unpopular and unpopular relative to Google's most widely used applications. Some google solutions are applicable to a wide audience and some hit a niche but are still quite popular like google voice. Those smaller single niche purpose tools might not be nearly as popular but having them available those times you need them is a big part of Google's value.
I think Google is missing the point here, Duo (which I'm hearing about for the first time now) is only a video app... video is a great buzz feature but outside of a few special situations where you are far apart from someone important you generally want good old text communication. Hangouts provides that without need to facebook interact, actually keeps a nice searchable history, works from your email client which is perfectly appropriate for work unlike social media and also works on your phone.
Why? Does anyone actually bother with voice/video anymore? It's nice to know those features are there but basically hangouts was just the annoying replacement for google chat and it is a handy IM app that neither requires me to find someone on Facebook nor requires me to use my phone when I'm sitting at a real keyboard. Also it supports group messaging... my work peers and eye have kept a "hangout" open for a few years now for comments when we aren't officially available at work and things we'd rather not say in our official work im.
"you're trying to chide people who couldn't care less about breastfeeding in public"
Hardly, the irrational roadblock is for those who have an issue with breastfeeding in the universally present appropriate place. The restroom. Despite actually being far more sanitary than other random locations one could choose many have a hangup about it and think it is "dirty." I'm not sure how your feeling that the room is supposed to magically contaminate your nipple but apparently some think it does.