How can apple possibly discern between a binary written in it's environment and a binary generated by a third party scheme that compiles to C code and is then compiled in Xcode? Does anyone know if this is feasible?
Unfortunately I think many are often more interested in flame wars and stroking their egos by putting down other people. Especially on/., land of the I-Told-You-So. The trifecta of Apple vs. MS vs. Linux/Android/Firefox gets tiring.
On a lot of devices over 20 different device [sic]
That is precisely the problem with Android. Couple that with the fact that half the devices haven't been updated to the newest version of Android because the cell carriers have control and it is plain to see that developing for the iPhone is much easier. Fewer devices to worry about is a good thing for a developer. We only care about how many users there are. It is one of the reasons why MS has in the past had a harder time getting Windows to work with ALL computers than Apple has with Mac OS X on Apple computers. The more variety there is in devices the harder it is for a developer to make sure the thing works well on all of them.
You slashdotters out there: did you first get into computing and technology in order to consume more advertising and to have someone else tell you which software to run? Or did you turn to technology and computing in rejection of advertising and lockdowns (aka "command and control")? When you first got into computing and technology did you learn more from the gear that you had to fiddle with or the gear that "just worked"?
Um, neither. I got into technology because it is cool, and I thought I could improve it, not because I liked or disliked advertising. In fact, advertising wasn't remotely on my mind. Did you really get into technology because you don't like advertising?
Just curious, why would you type your password into a browser's address bar? Is there some trick I'm missing to auto-login to a web-based email client?
I agree, why switch to IE? A Trojan is much more of a privacy concern than Chrome is. Is this simply an attempt by MS to spread some FUD about Chrome since it was top dog at Pwn2Own?
But those same 90% have already given out all their details to facebook, so who cares if the browser also collects information on them. It's not like they have that much less privacy with a browser that knows what URLs they went to.
And besides, I really think 90% is a huge leap. As with Android, Geeks use Chrome, regular people use IE.
Another thing, if we are going to keep talking FUD, your ISP knows who you are and can parse/sniff/store all the HTTP traffic you send, and even for encrypted traffic they know where it is going. Google is not that big of a worry.
I think it is good to have this pointed out so people know exactly what they are doing when they do it, but I'm perfectly willing to accept the lowered privacy in return for having a single bar. Plus I use facebook, and anyone who uses facebook (as you point out) has no leg to stand on to complain about privacy concerns. I like having the unified search bar/address bar. I really missed it when I switched from some old version of firefox (which had it, at least I think it was firefox) to other browsers.
I also wouldn't be feel quite so secure about MS keeping my privacy safe as you do. First, remember that MS itself is in the search-and-serve-ads business, and is trying to move more, not less, into that space. Second, remember that both are publicly traded companies, and that the reason for existence for a publicly traded company (regardless of their corporate mission statement) is to maximize shareholder value. If MS has any data on you, then your privacy is no more or less safe than the same data is with Google. You could check TOSes with the services you use from each company to compare (though I bet they are pretty much the same, and don't reserve you that much privacy in either case), and that might give you some level of comparison and/or peace of mind, but these companies aren't in existence to serve you and your privacy concerns they are in business to make money, so if you are really worried about your privacy, you shouldn't trust either of them (and definitely not facebook, if you have a facebook then your privacy is screwed anyway).
The only real computer privacy is the same as the only real computer security--unplug your machine from the internet, or better yet, never use it. Even then you won't have complete privacy since so many public records are online, and your friends and workplace may put information about you online as well.
I believe the 1, 0 and blank are the characters of the TM's alphabet, not the states. The states are internal to the machine and there can be quite a lot of them depending on what the program is to accept the TM's language.
The parent, my friends, is an example of the literal.net. The grandparent to this post was clearly being sarcastic, but that was lost of the anonymous coward above.
Oh, and I think the article says something about a gun being 21 times more likely to injure your family than to protect it. So the answer to your last question is, probably not.
I firmly believe people ought to be able to own guns, but I personally never will because of the dangers to my family.
The purpose of jail time is two-fold. Rehabilitation is only half of the equation. The other half is the debt of justice. A just society must punish crimes. That seems to have been forgotten recently.
Oh yeah, I agree totally. The mathematical side is still very much alive and well, it just isn't the majority of whats done under the umbrella of programming any more. Also, as one other commenter pointed out in response to my post, there have been engineering apps as well. I think that Knuth is probably (potentially unfairly) lamenting that the majority of programming these days has become engineering (this is because there are lots of things that need to be built and so many more engineering tasks, not because there are fewer mathematical tasks).
I think the difference is like that between mathematics and engineering. Programming used to be more of a math, you were basically writing an executable form of a proof. Now programming is more about assembling all the previously developed tools to produce a useful result in the same way that engineers use a bunch of mathematical tools (that they may not necessarily know how to derive--and for that matter don't need to) to build a bridge. For a mathematical guy like Knuth, the engineering bit is a drag (for me as well) and the act of problem solving is the interesting part. I would even wager that to such a person the means (or methods of solving) are more important than the end result. The beauty is in the elegance of the solution, not in the fact that we now have a solution. Now programming is much more of an engineering task. The tools might as well be black boxes that we assemble in different ways to produce results. Another type of person likes this sort of thing (not me). These people are more interested in the ends, not the means. They are more driven to produce something cool rather than to produce something in a cool way. (Am I making any sense?)
Neither of these groups is better or worse than the other, just different. Both are needed for progress. There will always be mathematical problems to solve, and there will always be a need to apply the toolbox created by such mathematics to practical tasks with an emphasis on results rather than methods.
Yeah, the problem is that a lot of academic papers have been published recently with "real time" ray tracers. But by "real time" they tend to mean 10-15 fps on the latest and greatest NVIDIA graphics hardware (usually over-clocked) with the ray tracer written in CUDA, which means
It may simply be that the paper is out for review, which would explain why I can't find it. The SIGGRAPH 2010 reviews come in on Monday (which means a busy day for me:)).
The other reason is the gut instinct that ray tracing is not an algorithm that is well suited for the GPU the way rasterization is, and so doesn't benefit nearly as much from advances in the GPU. I believe there is some work to design ray tracing specific hardware (it won't look much like a GPU) but I don't know how far they've come. Now they may have figured out some sort of clever acceleration structure, but I really want to see some video of the thing in action, and I want to read the paper on how they do it.
Slashdot Mirror
How can apple possibly discern between a binary written in it's environment and a binary generated by a third party scheme that compiles to C code and is then compiled in Xcode? Does anyone know if this is feasible?
Unfortunately I think many are often more interested in flame wars and stroking their egos by putting down other people. Especially on /., land of the I-Told-You-So. The trifecta of Apple vs. MS vs. Linux/Android/Firefox gets tiring.
I liked his comment about seeing the stylus means blowing it.
:-).
I mean, I am an Apple fanboi and all, but I am going to buy a stylus for my iPad, so I guess Steve blew it
That is precisely the problem with Android. Couple that with the fact that half the devices haven't been updated to the newest version of Android because the cell carriers have control and it is plain to see that developing for the iPhone is much easier. Fewer devices to worry about is a good thing for a developer. We only care about how many users there are. It is one of the reasons why MS has in the past had a harder time getting Windows to work with ALL computers than Apple has with Mac OS X on Apple computers. The more variety there is in devices the harder it is for a developer to make sure the thing works well on all of them.
Um, neither. I got into technology because it is cool, and I thought I could improve it, not because I liked or disliked advertising. In fact, advertising wasn't remotely on my mind. Did you really get into technology because you don't like advertising?
I could have sworn it was 89.3472%
Yeah, it seems pretty limited which ones are available. Oh well.
You can also select it from the resolution selection box.
Just curious, why would you type your password into a browser's address bar? Is there some trick I'm missing to auto-login to a web-based email client?
How is this news? All of the information is clearly spelled out in black and white at: http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/privacy.html
I agree, why switch to IE? A Trojan is much more of a privacy concern than Chrome is. Is this simply an attempt by MS to spread some FUD about Chrome since it was top dog at Pwn2Own?
But those same 90% have already given out all their details to facebook, so who cares if the browser also collects information on them. It's not like they have that much less privacy with a browser that knows what URLs they went to.
And besides, I really think 90% is a huge leap. As with Android, Geeks use Chrome, regular people use IE.
Another thing, if we are going to keep talking FUD, your ISP knows who you are and can parse/sniff/store all the HTTP traffic you send, and even for encrypted traffic they know where it is going. Google is not that big of a worry.
I think it is good to have this pointed out so people know exactly what they are doing when they do it, but I'm perfectly willing to accept the lowered privacy in return for having a single bar. Plus I use facebook, and anyone who uses facebook (as you point out) has no leg to stand on to complain about privacy concerns. I like having the unified search bar/address bar. I really missed it when I switched from some old version of firefox (which had it, at least I think it was firefox) to other browsers.
I also wouldn't be feel quite so secure about MS keeping my privacy safe as you do. First, remember that MS itself is in the search-and-serve-ads business, and is trying to move more, not less, into that space. Second, remember that both are publicly traded companies, and that the reason for existence for a publicly traded company (regardless of their corporate mission statement) is to maximize shareholder value. If MS has any data on you, then your privacy is no more or less safe than the same data is with Google. You could check TOSes with the services you use from each company to compare (though I bet they are pretty much the same, and don't reserve you that much privacy in either case), and that might give you some level of comparison and/or peace of mind, but these companies aren't in existence to serve you and your privacy concerns they are in business to make money, so if you are really worried about your privacy, you shouldn't trust either of them (and definitely not facebook, if you have a facebook then your privacy is screwed anyway).
The only real computer privacy is the same as the only real computer security--unplug your machine from the internet, or better yet, never use it. Even then you won't have complete privacy since so many public records are online, and your friends and workplace may put information about you online as well.
I believe the 1, 0 and blank are the characters of the TM's alphabet, not the states. The states are internal to the machine and there can be quite a lot of them depending on what the program is to accept the TM's language.
How about:
IE8, Safari, FF, iPhone All Fall At Pwn2Own
It has fewer characters.
Or, focus on one area: IE8, Safari, Firefox all Fall At Pwn2Own
And they didn't bother to mention Firefox in the description either, which clearly had enough space to include the word "Firefox."
The parent, my friends, is an example of the literal.net. The grandparent to this post was clearly being sarcastic, but that was lost of the anonymous coward above.
Ah, that is a really good thing to know/keep in mind. Thanks.
I am so tired of lying by means of statistical facts.
Oh, and I think the article says something about a gun being 21 times more likely to injure your family than to protect it. So the answer to your last question is, probably not.
I firmly believe people ought to be able to own guns, but I personally never will because of the dangers to my family.
The purpose of jail time is two-fold. Rehabilitation is only half of the equation. The other half is the debt of justice. A just society must punish crimes. That seems to have been forgotten recently.
It is true that the results of such "research" are useless, but how many click-throughs did such a poor attempt at research generate? \cynicism
Proof positive that money can buy scientific results?
Is bone marrow transplant as dangerous for the donor (or is it non-live donation)?
Oh yeah, I agree totally. The mathematical side is still very much alive and well, it just isn't the majority of whats done under the umbrella of programming any more. Also, as one other commenter pointed out in response to my post, there have been engineering apps as well. I think that Knuth is probably (potentially unfairly) lamenting that the majority of programming these days has become engineering (this is because there are lots of things that need to be built and so many more engineering tasks, not because there are fewer mathematical tasks).
I think the difference is like that between mathematics and engineering. Programming used to be more of a math, you were basically writing an executable form of a proof. Now programming is more about assembling all the previously developed tools to produce a useful result in the same way that engineers use a bunch of mathematical tools (that they may not necessarily know how to derive--and for that matter don't need to) to build a bridge. For a mathematical guy like Knuth, the engineering bit is a drag (for me as well) and the act of problem solving is the interesting part. I would even wager that to such a person the means (or methods of solving) are more important than the end result. The beauty is in the elegance of the solution, not in the fact that we now have a solution. Now programming is much more of an engineering task. The tools might as well be black boxes that we assemble in different ways to produce results. Another type of person likes this sort of thing (not me). These people are more interested in the ends, not the means. They are more driven to produce something cool rather than to produce something in a cool way. (Am I making any sense?)
Neither of these groups is better or worse than the other, just different. Both are needed for progress. There will always be mathematical problems to solve, and there will always be a need to apply the toolbox created by such mathematics to practical tasks with an emphasis on results rather than methods.
Yeah, the problem is that a lot of academic papers have been published recently with "real time" ray tracers. But by "real time" they tend to mean 10-15 fps on the latest and greatest NVIDIA graphics hardware (usually over-clocked) with the ray tracer written in CUDA, which means :)).
It may simply be that the paper is out for review, which would explain why I can't find it. The SIGGRAPH 2010 reviews come in on Monday (which means a busy day for me
The other reason is the gut instinct that ray tracing is not an algorithm that is well suited for the GPU the way rasterization is, and so doesn't benefit nearly as much from advances in the GPU. I believe there is some work to design ray tracing specific hardware (it won't look much like a GPU) but I don't know how far they've come. Now they may have figured out some sort of clever acceleration structure, but I really want to see some video of the thing in action, and I want to read the paper on how they do it.