They saw all the press Apple has been getting lately, first for "not really having a retina display" then for displaying the wrong number of bars to indicate signal reception strength. They wanted in on this, so they... wait a minute, they had to have started all of this before the iPhone4 was released. Dunno, maybe they're just plain evil.
I think your estimate of 5,000 people experiencing an actual problem is too high. I think the actual number is likely 500 given the very few number of bloggers, etc. reporting the problem. Seriously, with 1.7million sold the first weekend if there was a 10% problem rate and only 1% of the users had access to an Internet venue to blow steam -- that would be 1,700 unique complaints from initial sales alone. And what do we actually have? Maybe a dozen with some "me too" comments added in?
The following illustrates how people blow this out of all proportion. I was told by two people that they had confirmed the dropped reception issue on an iPhone4. Turns out they observed the signal bars dropping, but had never experienced an actual problem. Personally, I consider it very possible that Apple tweaked their "signal bars" algorithm originally to overrate the signal strength because of the psychological impact it would have on users ("see, I've still got 5 bars on my iPhone and your phone has dropped to 2 bars") and then got bit because there *is* a greater than typical signal drop on the iPhone4 under some circumstances (including "how you hold it").
What the Apple haters are ignoring here is that it *starts* with better tower reception than other phones so when its signal plunges by 24db (which was a worst case figure) it has some extra room to drop. It doesn't seem to matter how many reports of "clearer reception than previous iPhone", technical explanations by experts who test the signal strength and its reduction, or other sane, rational explanations come to light: obviously Apple screwed up and people should be pissed. Anyone who doesn't hate Apple is a blind fanboi who doesn't understand how much better WinMo/Android/whatever is.
What do you mean by "list"? You mean echo to the screen? Print it out? Something else? Are you trying to say that you can't see the indentation? Really? If you can't follow 4-space indents (the recommended amount) visually then you are unlikely to be able to read the text accurately either.
It sounds like you prefer "line noise" languages that suffer from readability problems when abused in such fashion. More power to you. But you only sound confused and backwards when you can't even express your thoughts clearly. I recommend you try Python. Its rigorous requirements may help you order your thoughts as well as your programs into precise clarity.
so, what you are saying is that 35mm film is about 4400x2400 -- a reasonably good resolution. In comparison a typical wide screen monitor is 1920x2400 so the horizontal resolution is better on film, but the vertical is close to the same. A current wide screen TV has 1920x1080 and thus lags a bit, but is getting close to film.
Even if GPs exaggerated claim of 10,000 dpi was correct, it is misleading given that it is talking about a rather smaller surface than what people are accustomed to viewing images on.
Your choice: putting your pride before your pleasure. Stay strong, because once you've gone iPhone you never go back.
Me, I dealt with the devil (though I gave AT&T some "stern words" in customer feedback on signup... just to soothe my pride) and I haven't looked back. In fact, I'm trying to convince my wife that we need new iPhones...
People don't like to hear this, but it is true: AT&T has stated the numbers for iPhone users that were new to AT&T customers (I'm one of those...) and it is high. These people are drawn to AT&T by the iPhone (we were Sprint customers before). I think it unlikely that the iPhone will actually be allowed out of exclusive contract -- it would mean a significant drop in revenue for AT&T as all of those "AT&T only for the iPhone" customers leave so AT&T will fight it. Gives Apple a mean stick to beat them with...
As you noted, the google model is nothing more than blame-shifting, just like MS's UAC. When compared to Apple's walled garden from a security perspective there isn't even a question as to which is better. The margin could be debated, and whether that margin is significant, but Apple's vetted application approach is far more useful security than a user vetted. User's click bad links in email, provide credentials on email request (the return on phishing is absurdly high), so on and so forth.
Outside of the question of the security merits of Apple's approach is the bigger question of is it "better" for the user. The difficult part here is to define "better". This is where I see it being an open question. There is a secondary, and even more important, question as well: do the users even care? Someone brought up smartphones with applications and they new of the iphone and android. windows mobile didn't even get honorable mention, security, walled gardens vs blame-the-user didn't matter. What *did* matter was if there were apps for X, where X was to assist what the person did.
Normal people don't actively care about security, or about how the apps get to their phone, they just care about what apps *do* get to their phone.
While blowing off the idea or possibility of an attack is stupid, your sky is falling routine is just as bad. You're first paragraph makes general assertions without any evidence of truth. Though Unix systems today are vulnerable (what isn't?) that is nothing compared to Windows.
It isn't a "naive lack of fear" to use a system that has more secure foundations and then be happy for it.
On the other hand, waiting for a bad exploit to occur before taking even the most basic precautions is equally absurd. Reactionary security is worthless security. For example, after the Khobar Towers bombing in Dhahran the military mandated a 1,000m standoff. Why? Because they figured that would be the required standoff to have protected from the last attack.
And what was the next attack? Small arms and vehicular assault in Riyadh. Basically, a perimeter rush using multiple, agile components. The 1,000 meter perimeter just went out the window.
Its so easy to stick your head in the sand and claim "all systems are vulnerable, lalala" or "no known remote exploits for mine, all is fine lalala" that the proper middle ground gets lost.
Someone where I work is setting up to secure a lab. They have checked and are looking to use a product that will provide limited capability logins (sounding very similar to OS X's limited user) -- but when I suggested to take the additional precaution of setting the bios password and turning off the ability to boot from anything but the hard drive the response I got was "why go to all that trouble?"
Here you have a sufficient concern to investigate and purchase a product, but no interest in taking the most basic steps to secure the hardware. Security isn't about patching some specific problem (the Windows approach), its about design, concept and approach (which FireFox is attempting, the unix-style operating systems take a stab at). To ignore the efforts in this regard is not just stupid, but counterproductive.
But I have a feeling you either lack any real depth of security understanding or are wearing MS blinders -- just like those poor fools who will wait for armageddon before taking any precaution.
Chemical weapons bother me more than biological. Biological weapons have issues with surviving in the environment (e.g., little things like exposure to sunlight) and are subject to so many factors that they are very random in terms of final results. This unpredictability makes them not particularly useful for military operation.
And counter-biowarfare does NOT need development thereof. There are general preventatives (e.g., bleach) and if you are intending concerns about "special breeds" it would only apply to what *your* bioweapons developers made, not others.
OTOH biowarfare (other than the whole problem with developing it in the first place) works tolerably well for terrorists. The reliability is still an issue, but the fear factor is extreme because of bad information and misinformation.
Chemical warfare is absolutely hideous. There are only countermeasures, no treatments. And countermeasure means prevention of exposure. I detest the vile bastards who sold the DoD on the concept of using "low level" nerve agents as a means of inoculating soldiers -- the "idea" being that exposure to the nerve agents would stimulate the body's defense mechanism. What defense mechanism? Soldiers being deployed for the Gulf War were being given, on an inconsistent nearly random basis, variable dosages. This continued after deployment as well.
But I digress. Chemical weapons are consistent and reliable enough to be militarily useful (and were used, for example, in the Iran-Iraq war). Anyone who has seen the results of chemical warfare and is unmoved has lost their humanity. War is terrible, getting shot up isn't pretty, losing limbs or life to landmines is no good thing. Getting exposed to a modern nerve agent is worse.
What the h*ll makes you think this is a democracy? Its a republic representing corporate interests. Do you have any idea how the president is (officially) selected? Surely you are aware that his first term was by appointment and not election. Surely you are aware of the leaked administrations plans to "win" the election no matter what?
I voted against Bush, but it doesn't really matter. Even if there were no issues about him having become president your assertion is still absurd. Someone can belong to a sizable minority that opposed the election and by your view its that persons fault he is in power?
If you subscribe to the "mob rule" interpretation of democracy and if the USA were really a democracy you stance would have merit. But all it takes is the fact that the USA is not a democracy to make that fall apart.
IMO the main failing of our presidential system is that it is all or nothing. At best you have one party controlling the executive branch and the "other" party controlling the legislative branch. In a contentious situation nothing gets done. In the worst case you have one party controlling both and there is no check or balance (the judicial branch's "check and balance" is after the fact in special cases -- too little, too late and ignores the fact that they are selected for partisan views).
The truth, short of a revolution, this is not changing. Why? Because the problem is the government, its very structure. With both parties having gravitated to the same stance (with some superficial difference decoration) there is no way they, or the corporations they represent, will allow that level of change. It would require re-writing the Constitution for crying out loud.
And advocating revolution is treason. So combining your logic with reality you are saying its the fault of the USA citizens for not committing treason and revolting?
Perhaps, but I'm not going that far out on a limb.
Because a 32-bit processor word is 32 bits and a 64-bit processor word is... 64-bits. So if the application uses an int it will take twice the memory as previously.
In truth it is somewhat more complicated than that, but that is roughly what is going on. The jump from 16-bit to 32-bit was significantly good because of the available numeric ranges. But, for many things, 32 bits is plenty. It is less clear what (generic) benefit will result from 64-bit computing. Although -- if it takes 1GB to run your application now with a comfortable OS base of a quarter that with increased memory requirements the 32-bit version will likely quickly hit the limits of what can be addressed in 32 bits.
For normal text OCR what you actually want is sufficient DPI. Too much doesn't gain anything and can actually hurt. For example, if you have a speck on the paper that is 1/300 inch across and are scanning at 75dpi it will be unlikely to even register. At 600dpi it becomes a "dust" speck.
The reverse is also true, meaning if there is missing "ink" because of imperfect printing, flaking, whatever then by scanning at higher resolutions all you are doing is capturing these defects.
Since real printed paper has printing defects these problems exist. This is especially bad when it alters the outline of the desired glyph. An OCR application will have routines for "dust removal", but nothing is perfect so you are in reality merely reducing the accuracy rate of the OCR. Perhaps not by much, but some nonetheless.
Although DPI matters it isn't an over riding factor in quality. This is true for scanners, printers and digital cameras. Your assertion fails because you assume that all scanned/printed/imaged pixels are equal. They are not.
A very good illustration of this is with color scanning. If you buy an expensive scanner its color accuracy should be quite good. If you buy a cheap scanner, not so much. Something that is common is getting dark blue for black.
Ah! You say, if you *really* care about the color accuracy (and who does?) then you just "apply a filter" in Photoshop. Not so fast -- if black comes in as dark blue, the question is what does dark blue come in as? if it also comes in as dark blue you just lost information and it can't be recovered.
Even if there is little information loss, "just" compressing of color space then it is something a bit beyond a simple filter. Color matching software is about the only way to deal with this problem, something Apple provides out of the box and is little used elsewhere.
My first scanner was a UMAX 1200 and with a scan target and some software I was able to create a color match profile for that scanner. The improvement in scan quality was very significant.
The short of it? It doesn't really matter if you scanner can go to 48000000 dpi if all of those "dots" are garbage. That's why getting a quality scanner is important. Scanning in a resolution higher than you will use is also a waste of time and storage, but that is another matter.
For digital cameras you get the same issues as with scanners. Ooo! Its 500 Mega Pixels! Means absolutely nothing if the reds are washed out, the blacks are blue, etc.
And printers are even more fun because people use different inks on different papers so color matching is even more hit and miss. But the original weakening of DPI as being useful to gauge printer output was when inkjet printer resolution started getting ramped up.
The problem is that the printer could place, say, 720 dots in an inch, but each dot was maybe 1/72 inch across (from memory -- at this point I don't remember the actual size of a dot on the inkjets as I don't use them). So all you got out of the 720 DPI was overly wet paper. (Well, it also allowed some smoothing of diagonals, but considering the bleeding problem with inkjets that point is of questionable value.)
If you think 10.3 is slow its a good thing you didn't switch in 10.2. Apple Mail has serious performance issues and, without a redesign, I"m not sure how much can be done.
1. IMAP public folders -- where I work is a Microsoft environment. We ditched sendmail years ago in favor of Exchange (never mind the three month email outage which followed). I access my email via IMAP and the biggest performance issue here is it traversing the entire available directory structure. A large organization with ridiculous amounts of public folders.
This pretty much killed Apple Mail in 10.2 -- it would not respond while getting a read count for the bazillion folders I never even look at. In 10.3 they managed to background this check: it still happens but is pre-empted by actually trying to use Apple Mail.
2. IMAP -- folder size. What will still kill Apple Mail in 10.3 is the size of the folders. I get a ridiculous amount of email (technically not spam) and have server-side filtering to get it in the right folder. The problem is responsiveness, Apple Mail (even in 10.3) becomes completely unresponsive -- perhaps total hangs? who wants to wait half an hour to find out? -- and has to be force quit.
I'm not sure of the folder sizes, but the whole thing is usually under 50MB. My solution? I move mail to local folders. This is a (minor) problem in that they are then obviously only available from my desktop system and I found that my initial plan of keeping it separated into years was not aggressive enough, and then discovered that moving mail older than 30 days at the beginning of each month wasn't aggressive enough. Currently I'm at no older than two weeks, more or less.
I know the problem for number 1 and they addressed that in 10.3. I'm not sure what the issue with number 2 is (yes, IMAP isn't the best way to go, but there are people like me who have the option of using Apple Mail or using my WinXP box). My fear is that it is fundamental limitations in IMAP and insurmountable.
MAPI (exchange client) isn't feasible for anyone other than MS and MS is keeping it that way. Interestingly enough, one way MS is fighting OS X is by not providing an exchange client. The last exchange client for the mac was Outlook 2001 which is OS 9, corrupts its install fairly routinely and -- is OS 9. Ack!
Both Entourage and Apple Mail advertise Exchange support -- both do it through IMAP kludges. And Entourage is so buggy as to be worthless in an exchange environment which leaves Apple Mail or Windows.
How is what he said blatantly false, Oh modded insightful troll? I have mod points but would rather post a counter to your absurd comment.
That constant you refer to does exist, but has nothing to do with compiler optimization. Were you asleep in CS101 or do you enjoy misrepresentation? DING DING DING, WAKE UP.
Two O(n^2) algorithms are only the same speed for sufficiently large data sets such that the (presumed different) constant has negligible effect. For sufficiently small data sets an O(n^n) algorithm may be faster than an O(1), it just depends on the value of the constant. Again, this has nothing to do with compiler optimization -- it doesn't have the option to "use small data sets" or to select an algorithm that is most efficient for a particular data set.
Secondly, where did you get the idea that compiler optimizations give speed increases of "two, three, or four times faster". Compilers *do* have some tricks (e.g., loop unrolling), but outside of forced examples you are not going to get speedups like you imply for large code sets like KDE and Gnome.
Thirdly, do you really think no other distro enables optimization? It may not be "optimized" for "your hardware" but, get over it, "your hardware" isn't somehow magically different than all the other hardware for your platform (x86, PPC, whatever).
So stating unrelated truisms (not getting "speedups related to a function of the data size") is all it takes to get modded insightful? Bah!
I've done clearance work (target interviews, background checks, etc.) and I can assure you that what I described is real. It is particularly bad with contractors. The problem is how long it can take for permanent adjudication. In some cases indefinite (yes, there are supposed to be time limits. Funny how those sometimes slip). When faced with work stoppage or ignoring the rules... well I might also point out that security inspections are meaningless unless unannounced and even then only if the person requesting the inspection wants the real results.
If someone gets nailed for DUI they have problems, but then again you have problems in most jobs. You get caught dealing (or even using) you are going to have problems (and again, this is true for most jobs). But that doesn't stop it from happening (I know of a specific case where a ring was busted). I wasn't trying to make it sound like it was commonplace, but in my experience it is no less common among those with clearances than those without (talking about working professionals, not college students).
Polys *are* a joke. I actually met someone who was impressed with the CI scope poly (after going through it) and that is exactly what they depend on. If you don't believe in the power of the poly -- all it does is measure physiological reactions which are so muddled that they rely on 2/3 expert opinion. And I wasn't trying to say that the NSA doesn't require lifestyle for some positions (when you are talking compartments you are allowed arbitrary requirements anyway) -- but it most certainly doesn't require it for all positions which is the implication I got from your original post.
Why are polys used (when they aren't even admissible as evidence in court)? The same reason as the SSBI. Its all a warm, fuzzy security blanket for high level administrators. The secret clearance does do some basic screening and a *basic* background check does have some screening utility as well. The rest is a waste of time (which equates to money).
If you look through the known cases of espionage you will notice that 99% share the same things in common: they had proper clearance and they were bought. Everyone has their price, its just a question of how high. The clearance scheme does little to address this being more concerned with other (generally ineffective) means of turning an individual. Blackmail, for example, is nowhere near as effective as portrayed in novels or movies.
My favorite clearance story is the (ex) drug dealer who was approved for TS/SCI. All it took was a poly. (How do you get a clearance? Don't lie. *Every* case I saw denied was due to lying.)
You vastly overrate what it takes to get through an SSBI. CI scope polys are BFD. I won't argue with you on the Lifestyle, but... I really don't see them worrying about that. NSA only requires CI scope poly, not Lifestyle (perhaps you were thinking of another TLA?)
I also wonder how many people with clearances you've known and how long you've known them. Having clearance certainly didn't slow down the drinking or even stop drug usage.
Q: How many people do you think are in positions requiring TS/SCI clearance but have only had (expired) temps?
hmmm... yeah, that works so well. That's why the US has the worst chemical defense measures of any advanced nation despite the fact we've spent much more on (semi-secretly) developing biochemical warefare.
You start out so well, but bringing rape into it is just trying to incite negative emotions toward the guy and clouds the issue unnecessarily.
1. No sexual encounter occurred. That would generally be a requirement for rape. As there wasn't even a sexual encounter why even bring up rape?
2. Protected from predators? What evidence is there that he was a predator, sexual or otherwise? If there was a string of broken hearts then using that loaded term would have some validity, but not in this case. This just comes across as being very defensive and antagonistic toward the guy.
Instead of "...would be protected from predators" saying "...would be prevented from having intimate encounters" or, even better, "...would be prevented from sexual encounters" makes the point more clearly.
I have no direct knowledge of AOL's advertising, but it certainly seems in line with what I do know about them and so, yes, I can easily see them being held accountable.
That doesn't change the fact that by appearances this is a money grab and that clearly no crime was committed. So...
"There is not a crime. This is not a criminal trial. It is a lawsuit. And it is certainly not frivolous....... at least in this particular case.
"The age of consent has nothing to do with it. The expectation based on AOL advertising was that minors would be protected from [having intimate or sexual encounters. That no sexual act occurred, or if it had that it would have been consensual, is irrelevant -- the issue is if the advertised service was provided.]
"And they absolutely can be liable...... Even an [sic] disclaimer is often not enough."
Speaking as a linguist, where are these computer programs that can be trained to translate text between languages? You're point is taken, but it is extremely misleading to imply that automated methods exist to translate between human languages (machine is another matter entirely and your example indicates you are talking about human, not machine, languages).
I'm thinking the same thing. I'm sure they are legally correct -- this "usage fee" that just happens to be exactly like copyright license fee.
I saw the $30 reproduction fee and I thought that was reasonable (well, perhaps a bit steep, but it covers the costs of providing the free lo-res). Then, what's this? The lo-res online images are only free for personal use?
What the heck! I have a lot of books published by Dover, all royalty free images that are in the public domain. I certainly don't mind paying Dover for the books -- after all, publishing etc. costs. The only restriction they try to put amounts to redistribution in competition. Fair enough. After all, if they can't make a living off of selling the books then no one has the books. Its a minimal cost.
But $30 for an image that you can't even distribute? And it is actually quite a bit more than that. A minimum order would be something like $100 for a single image ($30 image fee, $15 order fee, $50 minimum reproduction fee) for an image that they have already scanned. Otherwise, more.
What a way to blow something that could be so cool. I think what happened is someone figured out that they are sitting on a valuble collection -- they just needed to figure out a way to convert it into cash. I don't buy for a minute the crap they say about furthering education and discourse. This is simply an attempt to turn a buck.
I'm not anti-capitalist, but I can't stand liars and they are lying about their motivations and purposes.
thoromyr
And, yeah, it irks me that they pretend to offer up our public domain cultural heritage and then come in with a price tag.
I don't think you understood what I wrote. I said there was no conspiracy. The problem is there doesn't need to be.
Things are definitely *not* in the open and they are definitely *not* legal. You avoided the drug interdiction issue.
You may not like to believe it, but I *do* know what I'm talking about. I've worked for a three letter agency and dealt with others. There is a reason that I don't do so any more and it is choice. I actually believe in the constitution and the bill of rights, I believe that there are reasons why the military is not allowed to conduct law enforcement activity. That things are eroding is a fact and IMO it is inevitable. It isn't a matter of writing to someone or agency to get a denial about consitutionally incorrect behavior.
My point was it burns me when people dismiss the erosion of rights, the constitution, whatever (direct or indirect because of the attitudes it leads to). I'm not saying its the end of the world and I am saying there is no conspiracy.
While what you say is true it is so blind I'm not sure where to start. Have you ever heard of a slippery slope? Its hard to run a conspiracy: you have to act and change things while remaining secret. The two are directly opposed and the larger the conspiracy the more likely it is to lose secrecy.
I'm not (too) worried about conspiracies, what does concern me is human nature and the nature of organizations. Its like the problem of having government surveillance in your home. On the one hand, what do have to hide while providing a Big Brother approach to security -- and on the other do you really trust whoever is on the other end of the surveillance. Really trust? After all, they're just human like you.
Everything from being used for voyeurism to helping with criminal conduct are not only likely but inevitable when there is no oversight. Something I learned about security from working with the US government (a lesson it hasn't learned) is that it isn't a matter of trust: if you didn't trust the person why would you give them any job? (Personnel) security comes through accountability.
Anyway, you do realize that drug interdiction is a matter for law enforcement? And you realize that it is illegal to use the military to enforce the law? And that the military is routinely used for drug interdiction (and has been for at least two decades)?
That is what happens when you have all of those resources (personnel, reconnaissance, etc.) just sitting around and a neighbor who could really, really use them -- there's just this silly little rule. Forget the rule!
What's the problem? A precedent has been set and then you get yahoos saying, "look, its no big deal -- its done all the time" whenever the scope gets enlarged. And it will be. It isn't a matter of conspiracy, that isn't even required.
You are very, very right, but unfortunately, that isn't what the Optiplex line is, at least any more.
I've had to deal with supporting Dimensions and they are steaming piles of doodoo (I've seen worse from Tiger Direct, but still). In my experience the Optiplex hardware is more stable than the Dimensions and of a higher quality -- both of which reduce support costs. They are also a breeze to take apart, swap parts, etc.
But try this on: we're a preferred partner or whatever Dell is calling it so we're supposed to get advance notification of changes x months in advance and also get to preview hardware so that we can actually support it.
This last fall Dell changed an order of GX270s to GX280s because they were removing them from the market. Mind you, they were still selling them... but an outstanding order was changed without notice.
And when we get the computers we find that they the hardware has changed from the preview systems Dell provided and our image wouldn't work.
This did not reduce support costs one bit. The hardware might as well have been bought in a single lot from any random vendor.
Slashdot Mirror
They saw all the press Apple has been getting lately, first for "not really having a retina display" then for displaying the wrong number of bars to indicate signal reception strength. They wanted in on this, so they... wait a minute, they had to have started all of this before the iPhone4 was released. Dunno, maybe they're just plain evil.
I think your estimate of 5,000 people experiencing an actual problem is too high. I think the actual number is likely 500 given the very few number of bloggers, etc. reporting the problem. Seriously, with 1.7million sold the first weekend if there was a 10% problem rate and only 1% of the users had access to an Internet venue to blow steam -- that would be 1,700 unique complaints from initial sales alone. And what do we actually have? Maybe a dozen with some "me too" comments added in?
The following illustrates how people blow this out of all proportion. I was told by two people that they had confirmed the dropped reception issue on an iPhone4. Turns out they observed the signal bars dropping, but had never experienced an actual problem. Personally, I consider it very possible that Apple tweaked their "signal bars" algorithm originally to overrate the signal strength because of the psychological impact it would have on users ("see, I've still got 5 bars on my iPhone and your phone has dropped to 2 bars") and then got bit because there *is* a greater than typical signal drop on the iPhone4 under some circumstances (including "how you hold it").
What the Apple haters are ignoring here is that it *starts* with better tower reception than other phones so when its signal plunges by 24db (which was a worst case figure) it has some extra room to drop. It doesn't seem to matter how many reports of "clearer reception than previous iPhone", technical explanations by experts who test the signal strength and its reduction, or other sane, rational explanations come to light: obviously Apple screwed up and people should be pissed. Anyone who doesn't hate Apple is a blind fanboi who doesn't understand how much better WinMo/Android/whatever is.
What do you mean by "list"? You mean echo to the screen? Print it out? Something else? Are you trying to say that you can't see the indentation? Really? If you can't follow 4-space indents (the recommended amount) visually then you are unlikely to be able to read the text accurately either.
It sounds like you prefer "line noise" languages that suffer from readability problems when abused in such fashion. More power to you. But you only sound confused and backwards when you can't even express your thoughts clearly. I recommend you try Python. Its rigorous requirements may help you order your thoughts as well as your programs into precise clarity.
thoromyr
so, what you are saying is that 35mm film is about 4400x2400 -- a reasonably good resolution. In comparison a typical wide screen monitor is 1920x2400 so the horizontal resolution is better on film, but the vertical is close to the same. A current wide screen TV has 1920x1080 and thus lags a bit, but is getting close to film.
Even if GPs exaggerated claim of 10,000 dpi was correct, it is misleading given that it is talking about a rather smaller surface than what people are accustomed to viewing images on.
thoromyr
Your choice: putting your pride before your pleasure. Stay strong, because once you've gone iPhone you never go back.
Me, I dealt with the devil (though I gave AT&T some "stern words" in customer feedback on signup... just to soothe my pride) and I haven't looked back. In fact, I'm trying to convince my wife that we need new iPhones...
People don't like to hear this, but it is true: AT&T has stated the numbers for iPhone users that were new to AT&T customers (I'm one of those...) and it is high. These people are drawn to AT&T by the iPhone (we were Sprint customers before). I think it unlikely that the iPhone will actually be allowed out of exclusive contract -- it would mean a significant drop in revenue for AT&T as all of those "AT&T only for the iPhone" customers leave so AT&T will fight it. Gives Apple a mean stick to beat them with...
thoromyr
As you noted, the google model is nothing more than blame-shifting, just like MS's UAC. When compared to Apple's walled garden from a security perspective there isn't even a question as to which is better. The margin could be debated, and whether that margin is significant, but Apple's vetted application approach is far more useful security than a user vetted. User's click bad links in email, provide credentials on email request (the return on phishing is absurdly high), so on and so forth.
Outside of the question of the security merits of Apple's approach is the bigger question of is it "better" for the user. The difficult part here is to define "better". This is where I see it being an open question. There is a secondary, and even more important, question as well: do the users even care? Someone brought up smartphones with applications and they new of the iphone and android. windows mobile didn't even get honorable mention, security, walled gardens vs blame-the-user didn't matter. What *did* matter was if there were apps for X, where X was to assist what the person did.
Normal people don't actively care about security, or about how the apps get to their phone, they just care about what apps *do* get to their phone.
thoromyr
While blowing off the idea or possibility of an attack is stupid, your sky is falling routine is just as bad. You're first paragraph makes general assertions without any evidence of truth. Though Unix systems today are vulnerable (what isn't?) that is nothing compared to Windows.
It isn't a "naive lack of fear" to use a system that has more secure foundations and then be happy for it.
On the other hand, waiting for a bad exploit to occur before taking even the most basic precautions is equally absurd. Reactionary security is worthless security. For example, after the Khobar Towers bombing in Dhahran the military mandated a 1,000m standoff. Why? Because they figured that would be the required standoff to have protected from the last attack.
And what was the next attack? Small arms and vehicular assault in Riyadh. Basically, a perimeter rush using multiple, agile components. The 1,000 meter perimeter just went out the window.
Its so easy to stick your head in the sand and claim "all systems are vulnerable, lalala" or "no known remote exploits for mine, all is fine lalala" that the proper middle ground gets lost.
Someone where I work is setting up to secure a lab. They have checked and are looking to use a product that will provide limited capability logins (sounding very similar to OS X's limited user) -- but when I suggested to take the additional precaution of setting the bios password and turning off the ability to boot from anything but the hard drive the response I got was "why go to all that trouble?"
Here you have a sufficient concern to investigate and purchase a product, but no interest in taking the most basic steps to secure the hardware. Security isn't about patching some specific problem (the Windows approach), its about design, concept and approach (which FireFox is attempting, the unix-style operating systems take a stab at). To ignore the efforts in this regard is not just stupid, but counterproductive.
But I have a feeling you either lack any real depth of security understanding or are wearing MS blinders -- just like those poor fools who will wait for armageddon before taking any precaution.
A very good set of points. One more (related to 3):
4) How many unfixed vulnerabilities are there. The one that comes to mind is ActiveX
Chemical weapons bother me more than biological. Biological weapons have issues with surviving in the environment (e.g., little things like exposure to sunlight) and are subject to so many factors that they are very random in terms of final results. This unpredictability makes them not particularly useful for military operation.
And counter-biowarfare does NOT need development thereof. There are general preventatives (e.g., bleach) and if you are intending concerns about "special breeds" it would only apply to what *your* bioweapons developers made, not others.
OTOH biowarfare (other than the whole problem with developing it in the first place) works tolerably well for terrorists. The reliability is still an issue, but the fear factor is extreme because of bad information and misinformation.
Chemical warfare is absolutely hideous. There are only countermeasures, no treatments. And countermeasure means prevention of exposure. I detest the vile bastards who sold the DoD on the concept of using "low level" nerve agents as a means of inoculating soldiers -- the "idea" being that exposure to the nerve agents would stimulate the body's defense mechanism. What defense mechanism? Soldiers being deployed for the Gulf War were being given, on an inconsistent nearly random basis, variable dosages. This continued after deployment as well.
But I digress. Chemical weapons are consistent and reliable enough to be militarily useful (and were used, for example, in the Iran-Iraq war). Anyone who has seen the results of chemical warfare and is unmoved has lost their humanity. War is terrible, getting shot up isn't pretty, losing limbs or life to landmines is no good thing. Getting exposed to a modern nerve agent is worse.
What the h*ll makes you think this is a democracy? Its a republic representing corporate interests. Do you have any idea how the president is (officially) selected? Surely you are aware that his first term was by appointment and not election. Surely you are aware of the leaked administrations plans to "win" the election no matter what?
I voted against Bush, but it doesn't really matter. Even if there were no issues about him having become president your assertion is still absurd. Someone can belong to a sizable minority that opposed the election and by your view its that persons fault he is in power?
If you subscribe to the "mob rule" interpretation of democracy and if the USA were really a democracy you stance would have merit. But all it takes is the fact that the USA is not a democracy to make that fall apart.
IMO the main failing of our presidential system is that it is all or nothing. At best you have one party controlling the executive branch and the "other" party controlling the legislative branch. In a contentious situation nothing gets done. In the worst case you have one party controlling both and there is no check or balance (the judicial branch's "check and balance" is after the fact in special cases -- too little, too late and ignores the fact that they are selected for partisan views).
The truth, short of a revolution, this is not changing. Why? Because the problem is the government, its very structure. With both parties having gravitated to the same stance (with some superficial difference decoration) there is no way they, or the corporations they represent, will allow that level of change. It would require re-writing the Constitution for crying out loud.
And advocating revolution is treason. So combining your logic with reality you are saying its the fault of the USA citizens for not committing treason and revolting?
Perhaps, but I'm not going that far out on a limb.
Because a 32-bit processor word is 32 bits and a 64-bit processor word is... 64-bits. So if the application uses an int it will take twice the memory as previously.
In truth it is somewhat more complicated than that, but that is roughly what is going on. The jump from 16-bit to 32-bit was significantly good because of the available numeric ranges. But, for many things, 32 bits is plenty. It is less clear what (generic) benefit will result from 64-bit computing. Although -- if it takes 1GB to run your application now with a comfortable OS base of a quarter that with increased memory requirements the 32-bit version will likely quickly hit the limits of what can be addressed in 32 bits.
thoromyr
For normal text OCR what you actually want is sufficient DPI. Too much doesn't gain anything and can actually hurt. For example, if you have a speck on the paper that is 1/300 inch across and are scanning at 75dpi it will be unlikely to even register. At 600dpi it becomes a "dust" speck.
The reverse is also true, meaning if there is missing "ink" because of imperfect printing, flaking, whatever then by scanning at higher resolutions all you are doing is capturing these defects.
Since real printed paper has printing defects these problems exist. This is especially bad when it alters the outline of the desired glyph. An OCR application will have routines for "dust removal", but nothing is perfect so you are in reality merely reducing the accuracy rate of the OCR. Perhaps not by much, but some nonetheless.
thoromyr
Although DPI matters it isn't an over riding factor in quality. This is true for scanners, printers and digital cameras. Your assertion fails because you assume that all scanned/printed/imaged pixels are equal. They are not.
A very good illustration of this is with color scanning. If you buy an expensive scanner its color accuracy should be quite good. If you buy a cheap scanner, not so much. Something that is common is getting dark blue for black.
Ah! You say, if you *really* care about the color accuracy (and who does?) then you just "apply a filter" in Photoshop. Not so fast -- if black comes in as dark blue, the question is what does dark blue come in as? if it also comes in as dark blue you just lost information and it can't be recovered.
Even if there is little information loss, "just" compressing of color space then it is something a bit beyond a simple filter. Color matching software is about the only way to deal with this problem, something Apple provides out of the box and is little used elsewhere.
My first scanner was a UMAX 1200 and with a scan target and some software I was able to create a color match profile for that scanner. The improvement in scan quality was very significant.
The short of it? It doesn't really matter if you scanner can go to 48000000 dpi if all of those "dots" are garbage. That's why getting a quality scanner is important. Scanning in a resolution higher than you will use is also a waste of time and storage, but that is another matter.
For digital cameras you get the same issues as with scanners. Ooo! Its 500 Mega Pixels! Means absolutely nothing if the reds are washed out, the blacks are blue, etc.
And printers are even more fun because people use different inks on different papers so color matching is even more hit and miss. But the original weakening of DPI as being useful to gauge printer output was when inkjet printer resolution started getting ramped up.
The problem is that the printer could place, say, 720 dots in an inch, but each dot was maybe 1/72 inch across (from memory -- at this point I don't remember the actual size of a dot on the inkjets as I don't use them). So all you got out of the 720 DPI was overly wet paper. (Well, it also allowed some smoothing of diagonals, but considering the bleeding problem with inkjets that point is of questionable value.)
Thoromyr
If you think 10.3 is slow its a good thing you didn't switch in 10.2. Apple Mail has serious performance issues and, without a redesign, I"m not sure how much can be done.
1. IMAP public folders -- where I work is a Microsoft environment. We ditched sendmail years ago in favor of Exchange (never mind the three month email outage which followed). I access my email via IMAP and the biggest performance issue here is it traversing the entire available directory structure. A large organization with ridiculous amounts of public folders.
This pretty much killed Apple Mail in 10.2 -- it would not respond while getting a read count for the bazillion folders I never even look at. In 10.3 they managed to background this check: it still happens but is pre-empted by actually trying to use Apple Mail.
2. IMAP -- folder size. What will still kill Apple Mail in 10.3 is the size of the folders. I get a ridiculous amount of email (technically not spam) and have server-side filtering to get it in the right folder. The problem is responsiveness, Apple Mail (even in 10.3) becomes completely unresponsive -- perhaps total hangs? who wants to wait half an hour to find out? -- and has to be force quit.
I'm not sure of the folder sizes, but the whole thing is usually under 50MB. My solution? I move mail to local folders. This is a (minor) problem in that they are then obviously only available from my desktop system and I found that my initial plan of keeping it separated into years was not aggressive enough, and then discovered that moving mail older than 30 days at the beginning of each month wasn't aggressive enough. Currently I'm at no older than two weeks, more or less.
I know the problem for number 1 and they addressed that in 10.3. I'm not sure what the issue with number 2 is (yes, IMAP isn't the best way to go, but there are people like me who have the option of using Apple Mail or using my WinXP box). My fear is that it is fundamental limitations in IMAP and insurmountable.
MAPI (exchange client) isn't feasible for anyone other than MS and MS is keeping it that way. Interestingly enough, one way MS is fighting OS X is by not providing an exchange client. The last exchange client for the mac was Outlook 2001 which is OS 9, corrupts its install fairly routinely and -- is OS 9. Ack!
Both Entourage and Apple Mail advertise Exchange support -- both do it through IMAP kludges. And Entourage is so buggy as to be worthless in an exchange environment which leaves Apple Mail or Windows.
thoromyr
How is what he said blatantly false, Oh modded insightful troll? I have mod points but would rather post a counter to your absurd comment.
That constant you refer to does exist, but has nothing to do with compiler optimization. Were you asleep in CS101 or do you enjoy misrepresentation? DING DING DING, WAKE UP.
Two O(n^2) algorithms are only the same speed for sufficiently large data sets such that the (presumed different) constant has negligible effect. For sufficiently small data sets an O(n^n) algorithm may be faster than an O(1), it just depends on the value of the constant. Again, this has nothing to do with compiler optimization -- it doesn't have the option to "use small data sets" or to select an algorithm that is most efficient for a particular data set.
Secondly, where did you get the idea that compiler optimizations give speed increases of "two, three, or four times faster". Compilers *do* have some tricks (e.g., loop unrolling), but outside of forced examples you are not going to get speedups like you imply for large code sets like KDE and Gnome.
Thirdly, do you really think no other distro enables optimization? It may not be "optimized" for "your hardware" but, get over it, "your hardware" isn't somehow magically different than all the other hardware for your platform (x86, PPC, whatever).
So stating unrelated truisms (not getting "speedups related to a function of the data size") is all it takes to get modded insightful? Bah!
I've done clearance work (target interviews, background checks, etc.) and I can assure you that what I described is real. It is particularly bad with contractors. The problem is how long it can take for permanent adjudication. In some cases indefinite (yes, there are supposed to be time limits. Funny how those sometimes slip). When faced with work stoppage or ignoring the rules... well I might also point out that security inspections are meaningless unless unannounced and even then only if the person requesting the inspection wants the real results.
If someone gets nailed for DUI they have problems, but then again you have problems in most jobs. You get caught dealing (or even using) you are going to have problems (and again, this is true for most jobs). But that doesn't stop it from happening (I know of a specific case where a ring was busted). I wasn't trying to make it sound like it was commonplace, but in my experience it is no less common among those with clearances than those without (talking about working professionals, not college students).
Polys *are* a joke. I actually met someone who was impressed with the CI scope poly (after going through it) and that is exactly what they depend on. If you don't believe in the power of the poly -- all it does is measure physiological reactions which are so muddled that they rely on 2/3 expert opinion. And I wasn't trying to say that the NSA doesn't require lifestyle for some positions (when you are talking compartments you are allowed arbitrary requirements anyway) -- but it most certainly doesn't require it for all positions which is the implication I got from your original post.
Why are polys used (when they aren't even admissible as evidence in court)? The same reason as the SSBI. Its all a warm, fuzzy security blanket for high level administrators. The secret clearance does do some basic screening and a *basic* background check does have some screening utility as well. The rest is a waste of time (which equates to money).
If you look through the known cases of espionage you will notice that 99% share the same things in common: they had proper clearance and they were bought. Everyone has their price, its just a question of how high. The clearance scheme does little to address this being more concerned with other (generally ineffective) means of turning an individual. Blackmail, for example, is nowhere near as effective as portrayed in novels or movies.
My favorite clearance story is the (ex) drug dealer who was approved for TS/SCI. All it took was a poly. (How do you get a clearance? Don't lie. *Every* case I saw denied was due to lying.)
You vastly overrate what it takes to get through an SSBI. CI scope polys are BFD. I won't argue with you on the Lifestyle, but... I really don't see them worrying about that. NSA only requires CI scope poly, not Lifestyle (perhaps you were thinking of another TLA?)
I also wonder how many people with clearances you've known and how long you've known them. Having clearance certainly didn't slow down the drinking or even stop drug usage.
Q: How many people do you think are in positions requiring TS/SCI clearance but have only had (expired) temps?
hmmm... yeah, that works so well. That's why the US has the worst chemical defense measures of any advanced nation despite the fact we've spent much more on (semi-secretly) developing biochemical warefare.
right.
You start out so well, but bringing rape into it is just trying to incite negative emotions toward the guy and clouds the issue unnecessarily.
... at least in this particular case.
... Even an [sic] disclaimer is often not enough."
1. No sexual encounter occurred. That would generally be a requirement for rape. As there wasn't even a sexual encounter why even bring up rape?
2. Protected from predators? What evidence is there that he was a predator, sexual or otherwise? If there was a string of broken hearts then using that loaded term would have some validity, but not in this case. This just comes across as being very defensive and antagonistic toward the guy.
Instead of "...would be protected from predators" saying "...would be prevented from having intimate encounters" or, even better, "...would be prevented from sexual encounters" makes the point more clearly.
I have no direct knowledge of AOL's advertising, but it certainly seems in line with what I do know about them and so, yes, I can easily see them being held accountable.
That doesn't change the fact that by appearances this is a money grab and that clearly no crime was committed. So...
"There is not a crime. This is not a criminal trial. It is a lawsuit. And it is certainly not frivolous....
"The age of consent has nothing to do with it. The expectation based on AOL advertising was that minors would be protected from [having intimate or sexual encounters. That no sexual act occurred, or if it had that it would have been consensual, is irrelevant -- the issue is if the advertised service was provided.]
"And they absolutely can be liable...
Nor should it be.
Speaking as a linguist, where are these computer programs that can be trained to translate text between languages? You're point is taken, but it is extremely misleading to imply that automated methods exist to translate between human languages (machine is another matter entirely and your example indicates you are talking about human, not machine, languages).
thoromyr
I'm thinking the same thing. I'm sure they are legally correct -- this "usage fee" that just happens to be exactly like copyright license fee.
I saw the $30 reproduction fee and I thought that was reasonable (well, perhaps a bit steep, but it covers the costs of providing the free lo-res). Then, what's this? The lo-res online images are only free for personal use?
What the heck! I have a lot of books published by Dover, all royalty free images that are in the public domain. I certainly don't mind paying Dover for the books -- after all, publishing etc. costs. The only restriction they try to put amounts to redistribution in competition. Fair enough. After all, if they can't make a living off of selling the books then no one has the books. Its a minimal cost.
But $30 for an image that you can't even distribute? And it is actually quite a bit more than that. A minimum order would be something like $100 for a single image ($30 image fee, $15 order fee, $50 minimum reproduction fee) for an image that they have already scanned. Otherwise, more.
What a way to blow something that could be so cool. I think what happened is someone figured out that they are sitting on a valuble collection -- they just needed to figure out a way to convert it into cash. I don't buy for a minute the crap they say about furthering education and discourse. This is simply an attempt to turn a buck.
I'm not anti-capitalist, but I can't stand liars and they are lying about their motivations and purposes.
thoromyr
And, yeah, it irks me that they pretend to offer up our public domain cultural heritage and then come in with a price tag.
I don't think you understood what I wrote. I said there was no conspiracy. The problem is there doesn't need to be.
Things are definitely *not* in the open and they are definitely *not* legal. You avoided the drug interdiction issue.
You may not like to believe it, but I *do* know what I'm talking about. I've worked for a three letter agency and dealt with others. There is a reason that I don't do so any more and it is choice. I actually believe in the constitution and the bill of rights, I believe that there are reasons why the military is not allowed to conduct law enforcement activity. That things are eroding is a fact and IMO it is inevitable. It isn't a matter of writing to someone or agency to get a denial about consitutionally incorrect behavior.
My point was it burns me when people dismiss the erosion of rights, the constitution, whatever (direct or indirect because of the attitudes it leads to). I'm not saying its the end of the world and I am saying there is no conspiracy.
thoromyr
While what you say is true it is so blind I'm not sure where to start. Have you ever heard of a slippery slope? Its hard to run a conspiracy: you have to act and change things while remaining secret. The two are directly opposed and the larger the conspiracy the more likely it is to lose secrecy.
I'm not (too) worried about conspiracies, what does concern me is human nature and the nature of organizations. Its like the problem of having government surveillance in your home. On the one hand, what do have to hide while providing a Big Brother approach to security -- and on the other do you really trust whoever is on the other end of the surveillance. Really trust? After all, they're just human like you.
Everything from being used for voyeurism to helping with criminal conduct are not only likely but inevitable when there is no oversight. Something I learned about security from working with the US government (a lesson it hasn't learned) is that it isn't a matter of trust: if you didn't trust the person why would you give them any job? (Personnel) security comes through accountability.
Anyway, you do realize that drug interdiction is a matter for law enforcement? And you realize that it is illegal to use the military to enforce the law? And that the military is routinely used for drug interdiction (and has been for at least two decades)?
That is what happens when you have all of those resources (personnel, reconnaissance, etc.) just sitting around and a neighbor who could really, really use them -- there's just this silly little rule. Forget the rule!
What's the problem? A precedent has been set and then you get yahoos saying, "look, its no big deal -- its done all the time" whenever the scope gets enlarged. And it will be. It isn't a matter of conspiracy, that isn't even required.
thoromyr
You are very, very right, but unfortunately, that isn't what the Optiplex line is, at least any more.
I've had to deal with supporting Dimensions and they are steaming piles of doodoo (I've seen worse from Tiger Direct, but still). In my experience the Optiplex hardware is more stable than the Dimensions and of a higher quality -- both of which reduce support costs. They are also a breeze to take apart, swap parts, etc.
But try this on: we're a preferred partner or whatever Dell is calling it so we're supposed to get advance notification of changes x months in advance and also get to preview hardware so that we can actually support it.
This last fall Dell changed an order of GX270s to GX280s because they were removing them from the market. Mind you, they were still selling them... but an outstanding order was changed without notice.
And when we get the computers we find that they the hardware has changed from the preview systems Dell provided and our image wouldn't work.
This did not reduce support costs one bit. The hardware might as well have been bought in a single lot from any random vendor.
thoromyr