People forget that even Apple didn't originally envision support for third-party iOS native apps. iOS 1.0 shipped with only the ability to create web snipets encapsulated as icons, giving the simulation of native apps without actually delivering the capability. Then saurik (Jay Freeman) released his Cydia store for apps on jail-broken iPhones on iOS 1.1, and Jobs realized he had made a mistake. The iTunes App Store followed with iOS 2.0, and apple cashed in on saurik's vision. The rest is history, and Cydia and jail breaking are healthy to this day, proving that many customers want the flexibility of openness that all Android users get automatically (but with the resulting security vulnerabilities).
Ironically, it seems that Jobs' initial closed-mindedness led to an inherently more-secure application environment. Although people can install arbitrary apps after jailbreaking, most iOS users never take that step, leaving the bulk of active devices well protected.
While it's true that Android seems like a bigger target, based on sales, iOS is the more prevalent OS based n web stats. The reason it's hacked less is because Apple's closed AppStore ecosystem is easier to secure in more situations. That's a trade off against freedom to innovate, although with both OSes users often have to jailbreak their devices due to hardware manufacturer restrictions on arbitrary software installation.
A robust signed-code infrastructure helps, but was late in coming to both platforms.
Actually, climate models are among the worst ever made. The computer models that the authors of IPCC reports rely upon have the built-in assumption that human CO2 emissions are now the primary factor causing global temperature increases. The models are based on other assumptions that mainstream scientists (outside the climatologist realm) have questioned. In particular, the IPCC-used models never tested the possibility that CO2 emissions are not a factor.
IPCC-accepted modelers caution that they produce scenarios, not forecasts. Scenarios are stories constructed from a collection of assumptions, not necessarily from observed historic climate dats. Climate scenarios can seem convincing, in the same way that a well-written novel is, but they are not forecasts, and don't pretend to be. Scenarios don't use validated forecasting methods, which is a point of contention among scientists using mathematical modeling in other disciplines.
Other concerns include too-small sample sizes, the lack of homogeneity of sampling methods, data cherry picking, and rejection of negative results. The IPCC-favored models also have no formal methodology to eliminate confirmation bias, and are unscientific in the sense that they are not falsifiable. Any difference between modeled scenarios and actual future climate measurements (witness the infamous "pause") are explained away as resolution errors.
An audit of computational procedures used by IPCC-selected models found that they ignore 80% of established scientific forecasting principles. But the IPCC promotes these scenarios as if they were forecasts.
Even the IPCC admits that there is no certainty that global warming is man-made. It only says there is "consensus". But science is not a consensus enterprise. 100 scientists can believe in some theory, but a single objecting scientist with non-conforming results is supposed to send everyone back to the drawing board. That hasn't happened with climate "science".
Here's a list of credentialed scientists that take issue with the IPCC's "consensus":
We either have rule of law, or we don't. These scientific paper copyright infringers violate current law. If they don't like the law, they can lobby to change it. They have no right to violate the rights of others anonymously.
But global warming has no demonstrated ill effects. Only predicted ones. Predictions based on dubious results from demonstrably unreliable climate models.
"People being so underwhelmed by a product that immediately following a new product release they actively seek out competitor's products," says Ryan Sipes, Community Manager, System76."
Especially when the claim is self-serving. Sorry, fails the conflict-of-interest test. Shame on Slashdot.
There is no need to scroll down, as both definitions fit on the same page. You probably just don't understand the difference between formal and informal definitions. OED clearly marks the older definition of "hacker" as informal, and hence secondary. It's like the difference between the formal definition of "Neanderthal" -- An extinct species of human that was widely distributed in ice-age Europe between c.120,000 and 35,000 years ago, with a receding forehead and prominent brow ridges" -- and the informal definition as someone who stubbornly lives in the past.
You are confused about how word defintions are canonized. Check the Oxford English Dictionary: words are defined by their current language and practical usage. This is why "cleave" today means "separate" when in the past it meant "join".
Nostalgic tinkerers from yesteryear cling to the earliest, now extinct, definition of hacker, which was indeed innocuous. That definition dates from the 1950s, when consumers seldom used technical means for electronics or computing. Today's usage of "hackin", in an era when most consumers are much more technical than in the mid-20th, refers almost exclusively to illegal intrusive technical means.
For a smart guy, Elon seems amazingly stupid about statistics. Trillions of human-driven miles accumulate each year, and that's just in the U.S. The fatal accident rate compared to miles driven is extremely low -- about 25 deaths per billion miles driven (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year). And this is with drivers actively evading dangerous situations tens of thousands of times per day. Not perfectly, but acceptably. In contrast, driverless cars have not competed with nearly enough vehicles for any valid statistical significance. Moreover, nobody knows how well driverless cars interact with each other, since there are so few on the road.
So Musk's claim that media reports are killing people is statistical poppycock.
The problem is that cops can scan anyone's cards -- not just gift cards but debit cards as well -- and then drain the accounts, seizing the money by claiming a criminal connection. They don't have to prove a thing -- or even charge the victim with a crime! It's happening today:
https://www.google.com/amp/m.h...
To you, maybe. Apparently you have cheap and ready access to all the environments you need to be productive in your career. I assure you that VR is alive and well for cost-effective and safe training in aviation, surgery, deep sea diving, and other costly and risky work environments. A pilot can safely practice single-engine instrument approaches to minimums in a VR simulator, for instance. Maybe you want to do that in a real aircraft, but I don't.
You're right that VR doesn't fit Apple's vibe. And there's nothing wrong with that. Apple doesn't have a commercial database for the MacOS either, leaving that to Microsoft and Oracle. They are free to choose their fields of battle, and it's unwise -- as Microsoft has learned -- to try to do everything.
A reef is no more a "living thing" than a forest is a "living thing." These guys call it a "living thing" just so they can "the largest living thing", to make their breathless alarm more alarmy. Both systems are complex networks of individual living things. When environmentalists claim aggregates are organisms (e.g. "An ant colony is a living thing." No, it isn't), they are thingomorphizing. Otherwise known as fantasy.
Now, what causes these periodic die-offs? Are they normal or anthropogenic? Nobody knows, because we haven't got near enough data. And correlation with vague temperature averages isn't remotely enough to qualify as scientific proof of anything. Yes, we should study it. No, we should not panic. Nor become breathless-alarmy.
This is not AI, because we cannot even explain how human reasoning works, let alone reproduce it in a computer. In fact, we can't even explain how learning works, and reasoning is based on learning. In fact, we can't even explain how semantic memory works, and reasoning and learning both depend upon semantic memory. In fact, we can't even explain how an answer reasons. Yet it do.
I reject your argument that VR and AR compete. R&D isn't a zero sum game. Their individual markets drives each, and a growing market in both can support simultaneously aggressive R&D expenditures. And your comparison of simultaneous use by a single person is bogus as well. We're talking about products sold, not products used at the same time. I am quite as likely to buy both AR and VR, for their respective (and non-intersecting) applications, as I am to buy both fruit and footwear, for their respective (and non-intersecting) applications.
...that there is a dichotomy between VR and AR. They are not mutually exclusive, any more than fruit and footwear are mutually exclusive. VR and AR don't compete, either; they have different applications. The intent of VR is not to emulate human interaction, but to artificially immerse people in environments to which most don't have ready access: flight simulation, museum tours, product design, etc. The purpose of AR is to overlay information on everyone's existing experience: navigation, shopping, and the like.
Slashdot Mirror
Ironically, it seems that Jobs' initial closed-mindedness led to an inherently more-secure application environment. Although people can install arbitrary apps after jailbreaking, most iOS users never take that step, leaving the bulk of active devices well protected.
A robust signed-code infrastructure helps, but was late in coming to both platforms.
Slashdot, I hardly know ya.
iOS has always been the most-used OS, based on web stats. Android ships phones because they NEED to ship phones -- as replacements!
IPCC-accepted modelers caution that they produce scenarios, not forecasts. Scenarios are stories constructed from a collection of assumptions, not necessarily from observed historic climate dats. Climate scenarios can seem convincing, in the same way that a well-written novel is, but they are not forecasts, and don't pretend to be. Scenarios don't use validated forecasting methods, which is a point of contention among scientists using mathematical modeling in other disciplines.
Other concerns include too-small sample sizes, the lack of homogeneity of sampling methods, data cherry picking, and rejection of negative results. The IPCC-favored models also have no formal methodology to eliminate confirmation bias, and are unscientific in the sense that they are not falsifiable. Any difference between modeled scenarios and actual future climate measurements (witness the infamous "pause") are explained away as resolution errors.
An audit of computational procedures used by IPCC-selected models found that they ignore 80% of established scientific forecasting principles. But the IPCC promotes these scenarios as if they were forecasts.
Even the IPCC admits that there is no certainty that global warming is man-made. It only says there is "consensus". But science is not a consensus enterprise. 100 scientists can believe in some theory, but a single objecting scientist with non-conforming results is supposed to send everyone back to the drawing board. That hasn't happened with climate "science".
Here's a list of credentialed scientists that take issue with the IPCC's "consensus":
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
We either have rule of law, or we don't. These scientific paper copyright infringers violate current law. If they don't like the law, they can lobby to change it. They have no right to violate the rights of others anonymously.
But global warming has no demonstrated ill effects. Only predicted ones. Predictions based on dubious results from demonstrably unreliable climate models.
But how are those of less importance than global warming, which is completely normal (as is global cooling)?
Really? What?
Thanks for reminding us of the heavy financial motivations for pro-AGW climate research! I agree, it is indeed sinful.
Does anyone else see a problem with this sample size?
Especially when the claim is self-serving. Sorry, fails the conflict-of-interest test. Shame on Slashdot.
There is no need to scroll down, as both definitions fit on the same page. You probably just don't understand the difference between formal and informal definitions. OED clearly marks the older definition of "hacker" as informal, and hence secondary. It's like the difference between the formal definition of "Neanderthal" -- An extinct species of human that was widely distributed in ice-age Europe between c.120,000 and 35,000 years ago, with a receding forehead and prominent brow ridges" -- and the informal definition as someone who stubbornly lives in the past.
You are confused about how word defintions are canonized. Check the Oxford English Dictionary: words are defined by their current language and practical usage. This is why "cleave" today means "separate" when in the past it meant "join".
Nostalgic tinkerers from yesteryear cling to the earliest, now extinct, definition of hacker, which was indeed innocuous. That definition dates from the 1950s, when consumers seldom used technical means for electronics or computing. Today's usage of "hackin", in an era when most consumers are much more technical than in the mid-20th, refers almost exclusively to illegal intrusive technical means.
For a smart guy, Elon seems amazingly stupid about statistics. Trillions of human-driven miles accumulate each year, and that's just in the U.S. The fatal accident rate compared to miles driven is extremely low -- about 25 deaths per billion miles driven (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year). And this is with drivers actively evading dangerous situations tens of thousands of times per day. Not perfectly, but acceptably. In contrast, driverless cars have not competed with nearly enough vehicles for any valid statistical significance. Moreover, nobody knows how well driverless cars interact with each other, since there are so few on the road.
So Musk's claim that media reports are killing people is statistical poppycock.
The problem is that cops can scan anyone's cards -- not just gift cards but debit cards as well -- and then drain the accounts, seizing the money by claiming a criminal connection. They don't have to prove a thing -- or even charge the victim with a crime! It's happening today: https://www.google.com/amp/m.h...
To you, maybe. Apparently you have cheap and ready access to all the environments you need to be productive in your career. I assure you that VR is alive and well for cost-effective and safe training in aviation, surgery, deep sea diving, and other costly and risky work environments. A pilot can safely practice single-engine instrument approaches to minimums in a VR simulator, for instance. Maybe you want to do that in a real aircraft, but I don't.
You're right that VR doesn't fit Apple's vibe. And there's nothing wrong with that. Apple doesn't have a commercial database for the MacOS either, leaving that to Microsoft and Oracle. They are free to choose their fields of battle, and it's unwise -- as Microsoft has learned -- to try to do everything.
A reef is no more a "living thing" than a forest is a "living thing." These guys call it a "living thing" just so they can "the largest living thing", to make their breathless alarm more alarmy. Both systems are complex networks of individual living things. When environmentalists claim aggregates are organisms (e.g. "An ant colony is a living thing." No, it isn't), they are thingomorphizing. Otherwise known as fantasy.
Now, what causes these periodic die-offs? Are they normal or anthropogenic? Nobody knows, because we haven't got near enough data. And correlation with vague temperature averages isn't remotely enough to qualify as scientific proof of anything. Yes, we should study it. No, we should not panic. Nor become breathless-alarmy.
I accept your rejection. EOF. :)
No, give it :)
This is not AI, because we cannot even explain how human reasoning works, let alone reproduce it in a computer. In fact, we can't even explain how learning works, and reasoning is based on learning. In fact, we can't even explain how semantic memory works, and reasoning and learning both depend upon semantic memory. In fact, we can't even explain how an answer reasons. Yet it do.
I reject your argument that VR and AR compete. R&D isn't a zero sum game. Their individual markets drives each, and a growing market in both can support simultaneously aggressive R&D expenditures. And your comparison of simultaneous use by a single person is bogus as well. We're talking about products sold, not products used at the same time. I am quite as likely to buy both AR and VR, for their respective (and non-intersecting) applications, as I am to buy both fruit and footwear, for their respective (and non-intersecting) applications.
...that there is a dichotomy between VR and AR. They are not mutually exclusive, any more than fruit and footwear are mutually exclusive. VR and AR don't compete, either; they have different applications. The intent of VR is not to emulate human interaction, but to artificially immerse people in environments to which most don't have ready access: flight simulation, museum tours, product design, etc. The purpose of AR is to overlay information on everyone's existing experience: navigation, shopping, and the like.
Move along.
PschoSlashDot: That is a perfect mathematical derivation!