Samsung is a global conglomerate that makes 750 models of Android smartphone - and each model can have several variants. I believe they have a few feature phones too. Each is targeted at a different consumer. Some are for the most price sensitive, some the most demanding of cutting edge features, some for those who crave only the most open phone. If you want to be helpful maybe you could mention the specific model that raised your ire? And then maybe the selection criteria and buying process that led to you buying it without knowing if it would meet your needs. As far as I know they've got the variety thing well covered and I'm curious as to why you think if you bought the wrong phone for you it was their fault. Did a Samsung employee sell it to you directly or were you assisted by a retailer or carrier? Did you not consider the rich buffet of options of all brands, models, features, carriers and plan options before you and make a considered and informed choice? Whose fault is that?
I love my two Samsung LED SmartTV HDTVs. I have a 50" and a 55". The picture is glorious. I love how slim they are. The smart TV feature though? That's an implement of torture. Certainly they never intended it be used - it's just one more logo that has to be on the box. It's a big monitor. The audio is okish, for audio that's integrated into a TV, but that's not saying much. I don't use the speakers either. Frankly I almost never use the tuner either.
I don't think anybody in their right mind lets their TV connect to the network. There's just no value-add to be had there. If you want Smart TV get an Android HDMI stick, or the new Chromecast, or Roku, or one of the many other third party solutions.
On the upside, I was in a store yesterday and apparently you can get a 1080p display for under $400 now in about 47". Prices have come down a lot.
I know people are worrying about turning on the TV's webcam, to which I would ask who in their right mind would buy a TV with a webcam in it in the first place? Do you people not read Orwell? That's almost as bad as buying a games console with a webcam you can't turn off.
It exists because the courts are so slow. By the time it's judged and appealed we will be on the iPhone 9. But fine, as long as it's fair. When Apple is on the other side of this one let's have even treatment.
With no injunction capability, the patents can be safely ignored. Not that injunctions were going to do anything anyway. We're talking about the iPhone 4 and the iPad 2 here. By the time things get to this point we're already two or three generations ahead on products anyway.
Most of the area of these glaciers is less than 13,000 years old. On the level of erosion of mountains, not significant. The glacier cover is quite new on this scale of time.
Apple makes both the OS and the phone, so they can hold the OS release until their new phone is done testing and then push it out to the other phones. Motorola is owned by Google but they're keeping an arm's length relationship - i.e. they don't get early access. What you want is for Moto to crawl up inside the Android team, do the vertical integration thing with bidirectional engineering, ruin all the partner relationships. Obviously that is not going to happen. Boo hoo. Moto is not as dumb as you want them to be.
The Moto phone will get 4.3 when it's done testing. They'll put a lot of work into pushing it out as fast as they can, but they're not getting an earlier peek than any other OHA member.
Nexus phones are different. The Nexus phone maker gets special access, Google gets special influence. These are the closest thing to Apple's vertical integration there is in Android.
Eventually software patents will be ruled invalid, as software is math. Corporations funded most of this math BTW, as can be seen in the attributions of the articles in the Communications of the ACM.
I get the whole OO thing. Inheritance has issues in that it makes the meaning of the instant code non-obvious. You can't see an inheritance. That makes debugging a stone bitch. As for portability, I'll let history be your guide.
Over 90% of C++ in the wild is just plain ordinary C. The useful parts special to C++ are just one possible shortcut to attaching functions to dynamically created data structures. The un-useful parts - overloading and inheritance for example, detract from that. To get the maximum value from C++ you have to know which parts to use. C has no such limitation. C has no un-useful parts.
When you use features special to C++ it's best to ask: "why am I doing this? Could this not be done better without the C++ extensions to C?" Trimming back reliance on the C++ extensions usually leads to more maintainable and portable code.
I do C++ too, and the object with methods metaphor is a cool way to quickly layup a dancing bTree with a bidirectional linked list spine and indexed bucket hash - my favorite sorting/indexing/search scheme. It's close to O(n) for indexing and O(3) for search. But like recursion, the C++ implementation is a crutch because it makes assumptions that will not always be valid. Reimplementing it in pure C reveals logical errors, fallacious assumptions, and eliminates failure modes. Sometimes I do things in C++ to rough it out, and then C to lock it down.
These guys were openly publishing their brilliance before hiding how your shit works was even a thing. Believe it or not once upon a time if you invented a brilliant thing in code you shared it for others to build upon so you could learn and grow and benefit. Hiding it for profit wasn't even thought of yet. It wasn't just undesirable: the thought did not even occur. That was the golden age of much progress, as each genius built upon the prior - standing upon the shoulders of giants reaching for fame. Now that we're in a hiding era we go around and around reinventing the same shit over and over, suing each other over who invented it first. It is madness. In the process we have moved backwards, losing decades of developed wisdom.
Lady Gaga is mentioned because she is both a classically trained artist and sui-generis of successful PopTart art through self-exploitation. Yes, the reference is recursive - as this sort of folk are prone to be. They can also be rude, if you bother to click through, as they give not one shit about propriety - they respect skill and art and nothing else.
When I plussed this one on the Firehose I knew most of us weren't going to "get it" and that's OK. Once in a while we need an article that's for the outliers on the curve to maintain the site's "geek cred". This is one of those. Don't let it bother you. Most people aren't going to understand it. Actually, if you can begin to grasp why it's important to understand this you're at least three sigmas from the mean.
Since you don't understand why it's important, I wouldn't click through to the article and attempt to participate in the discussion with these giants of technology. It would be bad for your self-esteem.
For the audience though, these are the folk that made this stuff and if you appreciate the gifts of the IT art here is where you can duck in and say "thanks."
Make slashdot.org/tag the index page for the list of tags. http://slashdot.org/tag/$tag isn't cutting it. Put more than five seconds of effort into its format. Put a link to it in the left column menu, or next to the toe tag icon. Sorted. Optionals: On the tag search page put a top 10 list of "related" tags - tags which most commonly occur in conjunction with this tag in a story. This provides a "conceptual web of themes" or meme map. Allow searching for tag1+tag2-tag3... and so on. Normalize the tag database: in the index list of tags will be some misspellings, synonyms and such - hunt those down with search and replace to get rid of redundant and obvious error tags to get the length of the tag list down to something comprehensible. I would suggest some more, but that's a lot of work already.
Slashdot Mirror
Pay cable TV? People still do that?
Samsung is a global conglomerate that makes 750 models of Android smartphone - and each model can have several variants. I believe they have a few feature phones too. Each is targeted at a different consumer. Some are for the most price sensitive, some the most demanding of cutting edge features, some for those who crave only the most open phone. If you want to be helpful maybe you could mention the specific model that raised your ire? And then maybe the selection criteria and buying process that led to you buying it without knowing if it would meet your needs. As far as I know they've got the variety thing well covered and I'm curious as to why you think if you bought the wrong phone for you it was their fault. Did a Samsung employee sell it to you directly or were you assisted by a retailer or carrier? Did you not consider the rich buffet of options of all brands, models, features, carriers and plan options before you and make a considered and informed choice? Whose fault is that?
I love my two Samsung LED SmartTV HDTVs. I have a 50" and a 55". The picture is glorious. I love how slim they are. The smart TV feature though? That's an implement of torture. Certainly they never intended it be used - it's just one more logo that has to be on the box. It's a big monitor. The audio is okish, for audio that's integrated into a TV, but that's not saying much. I don't use the speakers either. Frankly I almost never use the tuner either.
I don't think anybody in their right mind lets their TV connect to the network. There's just no value-add to be had there. If you want Smart TV get an Android HDMI stick, or the new Chromecast, or Roku, or one of the many other third party solutions.
On the upside, I was in a store yesterday and apparently you can get a 1080p display for under $400 now in about 47". Prices have come down a lot.
I know people are worrying about turning on the TV's webcam, to which I would ask who in their right mind would buy a TV with a webcam in it in the first place? Do you people not read Orwell? That's almost as bad as buying a games console with a webcam you can't turn off.
It exists because the courts are so slow. By the time it's judged and appealed we will be on the iPhone 9. But fine, as long as it's fair. When Apple is on the other side of this one let's have even treatment.
The problem is keeping the promises to spend that our parents and grandparents made. Unfortunately, breaking the promises is also bad.
In space though, it is the best there is for now.
With no injunction capability, the patents can be safely ignored. Not that injunctions were going to do anything anyway. We're talking about the iPhone 4 and the iPad 2 here. By the time things get to this point we're already two or three generations ahead on products anyway.
Most of the area of these glaciers is less than 13,000 years old. On the level of erosion of mountains, not significant. The glacier cover is quite new on this scale of time.
There is an 8 core phone available now in China. $180 off contract.
I guess the only possible response to this is, "yes, they are that stupid."
/Where stupid is doing the right thing.
Apple makes both the OS and the phone, so they can hold the OS release until their new phone is done testing and then push it out to the other phones. Motorola is owned by Google but they're keeping an arm's length relationship - i.e. they don't get early access. What you want is for Moto to crawl up inside the Android team, do the vertical integration thing with bidirectional engineering, ruin all the partner relationships. Obviously that is not going to happen. Boo hoo. Moto is not as dumb as you want them to be.
The Moto phone will get 4.3 when it's done testing. They'll put a lot of work into pushing it out as fast as they can, but they're not getting an earlier peek than any other OHA member.
Nexus phones are different. The Nexus phone maker gets special access, Google gets special influence. These are the closest thing to Apple's vertical integration there is in Android.
Can you not click the toe tag icon?
Another Warmist then?
Eventually software patents will be ruled invalid, as software is math. Corporations funded most of this math BTW, as can be seen in the attributions of the articles in the Communications of the ACM.
I get the whole OO thing. Inheritance has issues in that it makes the meaning of the instant code non-obvious. You can't see an inheritance. That makes debugging a stone bitch. As for portability, I'll let history be your guide.
You are confusing simple for bad. Common mistake.
OK, GOTO is considered harmful. Who ever used that?
Over 90% of C++ in the wild is just plain ordinary C. The useful parts special to C++ are just one possible shortcut to attaching functions to dynamically created data structures. The un-useful parts - overloading and inheritance for example, detract from that. To get the maximum value from C++ you have to know which parts to use. C has no such limitation. C has no un-useful parts.
When you use features special to C++ it's best to ask: "why am I doing this? Could this not be done better without the C++ extensions to C?" Trimming back reliance on the C++ extensions usually leads to more maintainable and portable code.
I do C++ too, and the object with methods metaphor is a cool way to quickly layup a dancing bTree with a bidirectional linked list spine and indexed bucket hash - my favorite sorting/indexing/search scheme. It's close to O(n) for indexing and O(3) for search. But like recursion, the C++ implementation is a crutch because it makes assumptions that will not always be valid. Reimplementing it in pure C reveals logical errors, fallacious assumptions, and eliminates failure modes. Sometimes I do things in C++ to rough it out, and then C to lock it down.
To thwart an engineer from doing useful things, promote him to management.
These guys were openly publishing their brilliance before hiding how your shit works was even a thing. Believe it or not once upon a time if you invented a brilliant thing in code you shared it for others to build upon so you could learn and grow and benefit. Hiding it for profit wasn't even thought of yet. It wasn't just undesirable: the thought did not even occur. That was the golden age of much progress, as each genius built upon the prior - standing upon the shoulders of giants reaching for fame. Now that we're in a hiding era we go around and around reinventing the same shit over and over, suing each other over who invented it first. It is madness. In the process we have moved backwards, losing decades of developed wisdom.
Lady Gaga is mentioned because she is both a classically trained artist and sui-generis of successful PopTart art through self-exploitation. Yes, the reference is recursive - as this sort of folk are prone to be. They can also be rude, if you bother to click through, as they give not one shit about propriety - they respect skill and art and nothing else.
When I plussed this one on the Firehose I knew most of us weren't going to "get it" and that's OK. Once in a while we need an article that's for the outliers on the curve to maintain the site's "geek cred". This is one of those. Don't let it bother you. Most people aren't going to understand it. Actually, if you can begin to grasp why it's important to understand this you're at least three sigmas from the mean.
Since you don't understand why it's important, I wouldn't click through to the article and attempt to participate in the discussion with these giants of technology. It would be bad for your self-esteem.
For the audience though, these are the folk that made this stuff and if you appreciate the gifts of the IT art here is where you can duck in and say "thanks."
This indicates that the feature is searched, not indexed. On a site that should be engineered for volume that is a disaster.
Make slashdot.org/tag the index page for the list of tags. http://slashdot.org/tag/$tag isn't cutting it. Put more than five seconds of effort into its format. Put a link to it in the left column menu, or next to the toe tag icon. Sorted. Optionals: On the tag search page put a top 10 list of "related" tags - tags which most commonly occur in conjunction with this tag in a story. This provides a "conceptual web of themes" or meme map. Allow searching for tag1+tag2-tag3... and so on. Normalize the tag database: in the index list of tags will be some misspellings, synonyms and such - hunt those down with search and replace to get rid of redundant and obvious error tags to get the length of the tag list down to something comprehensible. I would suggest some more, but that's a lot of work already.
Oh, sure. What could possibly go wrong?
Talk to Aaron. He downloaded a lot of these.