Please provide a link to the API documentation. Because as far as I can tell, there is no API.
To sync with the iTunes music database, you use the programmatic AppleScript or COM interfaces. You can add songs, change play counts, create playlists, etc.
Did you not get the joke, or are you just putting your opinion of screen keyboards out there as an opinion that indirectly supports the joke's meta-meaning?
A tablet-esque computer as described in the summary, where one of the screens was a keyboard, would be a normal laptop.
David Berg, president of American Crystal Sugar Company, the nation's largest sugar beet processor, said food companies had accepted sugar from the biotech beets. "They've been a big nonevent in terms of customer acceptance," he said.
A "nonevent", eh? I bet there would most certainly be an "event" if there were labels on the food.
You are probably right. There probably would be in an event if there were labels on the packaging. But that would still be stupid, because, look, sugar is sugar. It doesn't have ingredients, it has a specific chemical composition and shape (it's crystal sugar, even says so in the company's name). Sugar from genetically engineered plants is exactly the same as sugar from a natural plant, or a chemical process, or fallen from heaven!
Actually, if you read what most of the comments are about is not the company turning a profit, it's about the safety of a mono-cultured GM food and a monopoly in the food/seed business run by a company with shady business ethics.
Substitute "OS" for "GM food" and "software" for "food/seed," and you're talking about Microsoft stories.
The OP was as least partially incorrect. Micronutrients include both vitamins and minerals that we only need in trace quantities. We've known about a lot of vitamins and a lot of minerals for a long time, but we keep finding new ones that turn out to be probably useful, but it's very hard to prove. Wkipedia has a list.
If you could make a program bug-free just by choosing a particular language, don't you think all programmers would use that language to the exclusion of all others?
You'd think so, right? But we've had Ada and Eiffel for how long?
Decimal arithmetic is, I think, a major advantage. I am amazed that numeric processing is allowed to be as unsafe and inaccurate as it is, in most languages. No overflow or underflow detection? Can't test floating-point numbers for equality? WTF?! Hello, bugs!
Imperative code in Haskell looks and behaves just like imperative code in every other programming language. But because Haskell gives a name (monad) to something which imperative languages take for granted, people get confused trying to understand what that name "means" (it just means a type with associated functions named ">>=" and "return", and that's *all* it means).
What do >>= and return do? If the answer is, "anything you want," that's not the right answer. How are they intended to be used?
And can you explain what that "something" is that monads make explicit, without delving into category theory? Because while most mathematicians know what category theory is (I assume), most software engineers do not.
You can never abstract too much. You're probably used to creating functions which have a very specific use case. E.g. not only do all of the parameters have concrete types (e.g. date), but represent a very specific piece of information (e.g. date of birth).
Yes. Exactly. You can have too much abstraction, because, at the end of the day, you want to accomplish a specific task.
It is extra cognitive load to figure out which abstractions — or combination of abstractions — in your toolkit are even applicable, and more effort to decide which of those is the best choice. You want a specific use case, because that makes it easy to figure out a solution. You want to avoid choice paralysis.
It is also additional cognitive load to try to figure out how your own code can be made more abstract. It is easy and fast to crank out something that will do a specific task. It is considerably more difficult to consider if and how that code can be altered to work in the abstract task space, with arbitrary data and performance characteristics. Haskell development is the antithesis of the ideas behind extreme programming and rapid application development. Haskell software design is all about the analysis stage of the waterfall model.
Additionally, you can't easily learn a set of abstractions directly. You have to learn them by example, or by discussion. The documentation needs to lay out a set of examples or use cases and explain what the commonality is. This kind of documentation seems to be missing from Haskell, which should probably be using the GoF Patterns book as a model. But even with documentation, you need to work with these tools and experiment until they finally click.
Mathematicians — and math aficionados — love Haskell, because they do this kind of thing on a daily basis. It is their job and/or passion. They are good at dealing with the house of cards that comes from piling abstraction upon abstraction, because they get lots of practice. This is not true of the software industry as a whole. Most of us prefer to build a house of Legos (to extend the metaphor).
Coding function with undocumented one-liners seems to be considered a virtue.
In most languages, people only comment that which isn't blatantly obvious. As with most languages, Haskell programmers tend to consider "obvious" from the point of someone who is at least moderately familiar with the language, rather than a novice.
Plus there are absolutely no statistics saying that a quiet car is any more dangerous than a regular car.
Really? You want them to do a study? And, when the results come out, you'll be like "Really? If you can't hear a car it's more dangerous? Why thank you Captain Obvious, I never would have guessed! Why do they waste money on this crap?"
This smells of government pork. Just people trying for a money grab, both in the government and the people selling to the government.
Government has nothing to do with this. This is all Nissan's idea.
I find it interesting that I'm presenting a very simple and clear idea without attacking anyone, but I'm being attacked and called ignorant or uneducated.
You are calling thasmudyen's post an attack? Seriously? That post was civil and informative. Actually, let me correct myself. It would be civil and informative for the Real World; it was amazingly civil and informative for the Internet. And he didn't call you uneducated or ignorant. You were using the terms incorrectly, and he gave you the correct meanings, but he did not insult you in doing so.
You've got some kind of persecution complex going on. Quit it.
My point is, though, that most of the workings in the criminal justice system are out of the hands of poorly informed jurors. They only get the really tricky ones that are hotly contested and the most difficult to rule on.
Yes, because one device was vetted by the FDA and proven to be reliable, the other is a fucking cell phone. And its not just that it has a non-medical use... its MAIN use is non-medical.
That's dumb. The iPhone can do the job of the medical device, for cheaper. "There's an app for that." You install the app, you have a medical device. And it can do more, bonus! Why is that a problem?
If someone has a limp, they'd have an easier time getting around with a car. Should the policy give out free cars to everyone with a limp?
No, they should give out canes, because canes are more versatile and much, much cheaper. Now, for text-to-speech purposes, should the policy give out $300 iPhones, or $3,000 speech boxes that hang from your chest?
Erm, if I read that article correctly, it means Apple finally discovered that cutting edge new technology, the "thread pool". Oh, and they hacked closures into Objective C. How is that not simply a ThreadPoolExector?
There are some significant differences.
First, it doesn't create a dozen threads. It only creates the useful number of threads, which is probably the number of threads corresponding to your cores and processors.
Second, the Grand Central thing considers the system-wide load. It knows how many apps are running, and how loaded the CPUs and cores are, therefore it can schedule things more intelligently. Like, if one CPU is fully loaded, it'll only use the other one for tasks.
Third, and related to the above, it special cases things like timers and I/O so that it does not have to create a bunch of threads that do nothing but wait around for an event to happen. This is extensible, by the way.
Fourth, it's a lightweight technology, in both interface and implementation. It doesn't drop down to the kernel to do its queuing or dequeuing. It is designed to be efficient even when you've got a thousand small jobs. You don't have to create a Runnable to use it; you just give it a block (aka lambda, closure, local function), which is simpler to declare than even an anonymous class (and can accept arguments to boot).
It isn't revolutionary, true, but everyone whose reviews I've read has agreed that it is a very good technology.
Yeah, It's such a good business strategy; I've totally got my bank by the balls by holding over negative 100 thousand dollars over their heads. Give me a few years and I'll own that place!
That's actually a business truism. It goes something like "If you owe the bank a thousand dollars, you have a problem. If you owe the bank a hundred thousand dollars, the bank has the problem."
Also it should be noted that the (.) in the official name of the organization is a tiny dot in parentheses, not a ASCII boobie, no matter how much you'd like it to be one.
I, for one, welcome our floating breast-shaped macroscopic organism overlords.
My home town had a bunch of open sewer and runoff trenches running through various parts of the city. The sides were sloped easily enough so that you could sit on them comfortably. We used to hang out and play around in them. They didn't smell that bad, really.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I mean the Sync Services API.
To sync with the iTunes music database, you use the programmatic AppleScript or COM interfaces. You can add songs, change play counts, create playlists, etc.
To sync with everything else, you use the Sync Services API.
Did you not get the joke, or are you just putting your opinion of screen keyboards out there as an opinion that indirectly supports the joke's meta-meaning?
A tablet-esque computer as described in the summary, where one of the screens was a keyboard, would be a normal laptop.
You are probably right. There probably would be in an event if there were labels on the packaging. But that would still be stupid, because, look, sugar is sugar. It doesn't have ingredients, it has a specific chemical composition and shape (it's crystal sugar, even says so in the company's name). Sugar from genetically engineered plants is exactly the same as sugar from a natural plant, or a chemical process, or fallen from heaven!
Substitute "OS" for "GM food" and "software" for "food/seed," and you're talking about Microsoft stories.
Sure the legal entity/incorporation is different. But has the corporate culture changed?
Well, the agricultural Monsanto is probably a lot more litigious than the chemical Monsanto ever was.
The OP was as least partially incorrect. Micronutrients include both vitamins and minerals that we only need in trace quantities. We've known about a lot of vitamins and a lot of minerals for a long time, but we keep finding new ones that turn out to be probably useful, but it's very hard to prove. Wkipedia has a list.
Oh, and Prolog. Forgot about that one.
You'd think so, right? But we've had Ada and Eiffel for how long?
Decimal arithmetic is, I think, a major advantage. I am amazed that numeric processing is allowed to be as unsafe and inaccurate as it is, in most languages. No overflow or underflow detection? Can't test floating-point numbers for equality? WTF?! Hello, bugs!
And why is ratio handling so rare?
What do >>= and return do? If the answer is, "anything you want," that's not the right answer. How are they intended to be used?
And can you explain what that "something" is that monads make explicit, without delving into category theory? Because while most mathematicians know what category theory is (I assume), most software engineers do not.
Yes. Exactly. You can have too much abstraction, because, at the end of the day, you want to accomplish a specific task.
It is extra cognitive load to figure out which abstractions — or combination of abstractions — in your toolkit are even applicable, and more effort to decide which of those is the best choice. You want a specific use case, because that makes it easy to figure out a solution. You want to avoid choice paralysis.
It is also additional cognitive load to try to figure out how your own code can be made more abstract. It is easy and fast to crank out something that will do a specific task. It is considerably more difficult to consider if and how that code can be altered to work in the abstract task space, with arbitrary data and performance characteristics. Haskell development is the antithesis of the ideas behind extreme programming and rapid application development. Haskell software design is all about the analysis stage of the waterfall model.
Additionally, you can't easily learn a set of abstractions directly. You have to learn them by example, or by discussion. The documentation needs to lay out a set of examples or use cases and explain what the commonality is. This kind of documentation seems to be missing from Haskell, which should probably be using the GoF Patterns book as a model. But even with documentation, you need to work with these tools and experiment until they finally click.
Mathematicians — and math aficionados — love Haskell, because they do this kind of thing on a daily basis. It is their job and/or passion. They are good at dealing with the house of cards that comes from piling abstraction upon abstraction, because they get lots of practice. This is not true of the software industry as a whole. Most of us prefer to build a house of Legos (to extend the metaphor).
I don't know how hard it is to get to that "blatantly obvious" point. But I will point out an appropriate comic: "I don't document things that are 'no-brainers.'"
Plus there are absolutely no statistics saying that a quiet car is any more dangerous than a regular car.
Really? You want them to do a study? And, when the results come out, you'll be like "Really? If you can't hear a car it's more dangerous? Why thank you Captain Obvious, I never would have guessed! Why do they waste money on this crap?"
This smells of government pork. Just people trying for a money grab, both in the government and the people selling to the government.
Government has nothing to do with this. This is all Nissan's idea.
If they were on Namek, wouldn't it be OVER 3000 instead of 1400?
Perhaps there is an industrial application for woman repellent?
I was going to say gay bars, but thought better of it. Women make up, like, half their customers.
You are calling thasmudyen's post an attack? Seriously? That post was civil and informative. Actually, let me correct myself. It would be civil and informative for the Real World; it was amazingly civil and informative for the Internet. And he didn't call you uneducated or ignorant. You were using the terms incorrectly, and he gave you the correct meanings, but he did not insult you in doing so.
You've got some kind of persecution complex going on. Quit it.
Is that supposed to be reassuring?
Yes, because one device was vetted by the FDA and proven to be reliable, the other is a fucking cell phone. And its not just that it has a non-medical use... its MAIN use is non-medical.
That's dumb. The iPhone can do the job of the medical device, for cheaper. "There's an app for that." You install the app, you have a medical device. And it can do more, bonus! Why is that a problem?
If someone has a limp, they'd have an easier time getting around with a car. Should the policy give out free cars to everyone with a limp?
No, they should give out canes, because canes are more versatile and much, much cheaper. Now, for text-to-speech purposes, should the policy give out $300 iPhones, or $3,000 speech boxes that hang from your chest?
That's actually a business truism. It goes something like "If you owe the bank a thousand dollars, you have a problem. If you owe the bank a hundred thousand dollars, the bank has the problem."
That would be a senryu, not a haiku.
Hello Kitty sleeps,
Soaking up the summer sun.
(Senryu? My bad.)
I read that as "superhotties" and rejoiced, briefly.
I, for one, welcome our floating breast-shaped macroscopic organism overlords.
Or, as I like to call them, our Juggy Moos.
My home town had a bunch of open sewer and runoff trenches running through various parts of the city. The sides were sloped easily enough so that you could sit on them comfortably. We used to hang out and play around in them. They didn't smell that bad, really.
Why did it have to be Narnia? Why couldn't it have been Discworld? Sigh...
A satire of Discworld would either be a) reality, or b) make the universe implode.