Also, if you want to compare numbers, Apple is projected to earn more revenue in paid apps in the first 10 days of January than Android is projected to sell all year.
Current app sales projections from Analysts for 2011 are Apple: $2.4B and Andriod: $60M.
Part of this has to do with market fragmentation and lack of clear purchasing on Android. I have a technically adept friend who is an Android user and he doesn't even KNOW HOW to pay for an app. This is not a common problem even for technically incompetent iPhone users.
It's probably a perfectly accurate statement. Any company with a six-figure ad budget can afford these ads. Joe's Homemade Lemonade probably cannot. What's ridiculous is that you think only big players will do this, as opposed to practically every company of moderate size.
The article and summary both mention and imply this will be done by large companies such as coke and starbucks. You bring up a completely different point though. Since this is the internet with personalized tracking, what's there to prevent small companies from having "micro-ads" with your face on them. Just like Google lets you have inexpensive targetted search ads, why won't Facebook do the same. Maybe Facebook will actually use your face to market "Joe's Homemade Lemonade" to your friends or friends of friends. And it's possible with limited display and targetting that Facebook could bring eventually this to any company with a 2 or 3-figure advertising budget and still make money.
The privacy implications here are even more frightening to use some sort of assumed promotion to people you know for everything you do rather than just a random face to a stranger.
The "six or seven-figure ad budget" is a ridiculous statement considering that a single ad exec may make that much at major corporations. The video game I'm working on has an EIGHT FIGURE ad budget (i.e. over $10M). Starbucks does spend remarkably little on advertising but is still in the 8-figure range and there are chains like McDonalds that spend NINE FIGURES (i.e. $700M+) annually.
I made the same "joke" about half an hour ago except it was somewhat serious when talking about the Game Industry. It's not nearly as bad now as it used to be though.
Umm... no. I was younger, naive, and very hungry to work on games. I worked my ass off for a virtual song. As I said, from the programmer stand-point, this is a very poor case to present to your bosses as an example.
I got the game done and was proud of my work. I had some health issues for about a year after. I'd say it was a mixed bag.
I knew the project was an unreasonable crunch though. I even asked management for help several times if they wanted it done in the time period allowed but they didn't put another person on the project so I just had to work super-humanly hard. In the end, they were doing stuff like grabbing food for me so I could work through lunch. In the month of October that year, I pretty much lived at the office and slept there when I wasn't coding and I got pretty stinky. I only left the office for three days and two days of that was so I could be at my brother's wedding.
Haha, I believe you just proved my point perfectly. Bosses take note!
I don't know if you want the bosses to take note on that example. In that particular case, I made the company a ton of money (at least compared to what I was getting paid) and successfully finished a game under the incredible strain of near literal death march. All it showed the company was that nearly working your employees to death can be quite profitable.
Yeah... that project wrecked me. I had to port several hundred thousand lines of assembler all by myself for "NBA Jam" on the Jaguar. Mind you, about 75% of that was data tables which is pretty easy to port but it was still over 100,000 lines of real code as well plus implementing all the architectural changes for a new platform. I had some health issues with my liver almost failing from work stress that plagued me for about a year afterwards (i.e. yellowish eyes / jaundice) but eventually I recovered and I am fine today many years later.
That post was written a DAY AFTER my post. Perhaps you are the one being repetitive here since you wrote the same thing 24 hours after I already said it ?
It's already illegal to beat someone up. But then we had to go and make special laws that make it "extra bad" if the victim was part of some special minority group (race, sexual orientation, religion, etc...)? If the assault was already a crime, then what we are criminalizing is the person's thoughts. That sounds like dangerous ground to me.
No, this is a bad example, because INTENT is important in deciding the punishment. For example, it's illegal to kill someone under most circumstances (except in certain cases of self-defence and capital punishment). However, if you kill someone accidentally, you may be charged with manslaughter. If you plan and premeditate a killing, you will be charged with "murder". Murder is *EXACTLY* a case where the THOUGHT process differentiates the CRIME from Manslaughter.
For the same reason, hate crimes are an "extra bad" category. They require some sort of prejudice and targetting and are often premeditated.... i.e. "let's go beat up a faggot" or "let's go lynch a black guy" is much worse than getting in an a random argument at a bar and starting a fight with him and beating him up.
Sorry, math is not science, nor "a" science. Math is math.
All computers do with programs at a low level is precisely execute mathematical steps in a logical order. If math cannot be part of science, then there is never going to be any science in computer programming.
It seems like what we call "real computer science" (like algorithms or theory of computation) is actually math. I don't see anything scientific about it at all.
The only things I can think of that I would call "science" are: (1) benchmarking a complex system to get some empirical results; and (2) troubleshooting problems.
>
The math and proofs are totally science. They can be used to generate theories of how things might work to to make predictions on how code should perform. They may be not even practical to test. I've seen papers modeling lock-free transactions using DCAS (double CAS to separate non-contiguous addresses) or papers on how hardware transactional memory could work. Neither one of these is implemented on any common processor so they are doing purely mathematical models first to set up possible simulation in a second step.
A lot of computer science (the proofs, O(N) determination, etc) does overlap with Math but the fact that remains that it is still science although it is "theoretical" science. You propose only calling things you can actually work with (benchmarking a large system and troubleshooting) science. Well, the benchmarking is science ("experimental", "practical", "applied" are several ways it's described) but troubleshooting depends upon whether it's bugs in the algorithm and design (in which pure science and proofs could help) or just a bad implementation or typos (in which case you're being a "code mechanic" to make the bad code match the desired correct algorithm -- possibly the equivalent in science of making sure you wash your test tubes before repeating a chemistry experiment so you don't contaminate results). Also, there is a difference between programming (or software engineering as you call it) and the Science -- Programming is the equivalent of bridge building where the computer science is how to actually design the parts of a bridge and the overall architecture and form.
Anyhow, without the theory, we would not get a lot of the cutting edge advances in both software and hardware.
Perhaps they should break Computer Science down into two groups of class. Theoretical Computer Science and Applied Computer Science. I believe they are all valid applications of Computer Science. Even Software Engineers need to use a lot of Computer Science to do their jobs just like any other Engineer.
You don't need a full VM though with a Modern OS. You can run a plug-in as a child process with almost no access privileges and then it has to request minimal (and hopefully secure) access API's from the host/parent process. This way the plug-in can't directly access file IO without going through an extra layer where it can be scrubbed and gated. Also, since it's running in a different process, it can not directly access any of the memory through pointers in the host/parent process.
The way to understand the anti-abortion mindset is extremely simple, but very difficult (apparently) for many supposedly "rational" thinkers. They believe that a person is alive and has rights from the moment of conception. Potential life, in their eyes, is to be as revered as full life-- in fact in some ways more so because it has no adequate defenses or ability to survive without help*.
One thing to note for the grandparent is that even to discard fertilized eggs from IVF is just as bad as abortion. The Catholic Church is against IVF and artificial fertility methods that discard fertilized embryos because they destroy a life. The actual church doctrine says it's better for a couple to be barren and without children than to use methods that may destroy embryos. It's important to know that IVF fertility treatment is just as bad a sin as abortion if any of the eggs not implanted and subsequently are discarded.
They're coming up this Saturday night. Set your DVR's. Last year had the cast of Jersey Shores and Mike Tyson -- what more could you want?
On a more serious note, I work in video games on Mortal Kombat, a couple guys from our studio are actually going to be in the audience for the awards ceremonies, and I *ACTUALLY* do have my DVR set to record them.
a man roared past him in a giant automatic beach combing and starfish catapulting machine which he had designed and built with his massive fortune as part of a fleet of vehicles to comb the worlds seashores spewing starfish back into the ocean
Ah yes, no matter how many times I hear it, the ancient fable of the giant starfish-catapulting machine is still a heartwarming classic.
Or at least it was until starfish population grew out of control, ate everything else in the ocean, and cause the biosphere to implode from the starfish imbalance.
I can certainly respect this. It's true altruism, quite unlike when government takes money by force and redistributes it. This is 100% voluntary, and therefore much more impressive and worthy of respect than any government program.
Definitely, the whims of a generous billionaire are certainly worth more than having libraries and public schools in every community. Being able to drive along public roads to pretty much every town in the country is in no reason for the government to take money by force from me. Instead we should live in a free* society (by free I mean in the tea-party sense of paying no taxes) and all of our problems should be magically cured by the free market and the magnificent billionaires who have so much money from not paying taxes that it's just too much money for themselves and decided to use it all for the benevolence of society.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, if you want to compare numbers, Apple is projected to earn more revenue in paid apps in the first 10 days of January than Android is projected to sell all year.
Current app sales projections from Analysts for 2011 are Apple: $2.4B and Andriod: $60M.
Part of this has to do with market fragmentation and lack of clear purchasing on Android. I have a technically adept friend who is an Android user and he doesn't even KNOW HOW to pay for an app. This is not a common problem even for technically incompetent iPhone users.
It's probably a perfectly accurate statement. Any company with a six-figure ad budget can afford these ads. Joe's Homemade Lemonade probably cannot. What's ridiculous is that you think only big players will do this, as opposed to practically every company of moderate size.
The article and summary both mention and imply this will be done by large companies such as coke and starbucks. You bring up a completely different point though. Since this is the internet with personalized tracking, what's there to prevent small companies from having "micro-ads" with your face on them. Just like Google lets you have inexpensive targetted search ads, why won't Facebook do the same. Maybe Facebook will actually use your face to market "Joe's Homemade Lemonade" to your friends or friends of friends. And it's possible with limited display and targetting that Facebook could bring eventually this to any company with a 2 or 3-figure advertising budget and still make money.
The privacy implications here are even more frightening to use some sort of assumed promotion to people you know for everything you do rather than just a random face to a stranger.
And Coke and Nike (neither really location based though) both have TEN FIGURE ad budgets.
The "six or seven-figure ad budget" is a ridiculous statement considering that a single ad exec may make that much at major corporations. The video game I'm working on has an EIGHT FIGURE ad budget (i.e. over $10M). Starbucks does spend remarkably little on advertising but is still in the 8-figure range and there are chains like McDonalds that spend NINE FIGURES (i.e. $700M+) annually.
I'd definitely give the Matrix 4 and 5 a chance, maybe the Wachowskis have learned something from 2 and 3.
I heard they took what they learned from the Matrix Sequels and applied that to Speed Racer.
I made the same "joke" about half an hour ago except it was somewhat serious when talking about the Game Industry. It's not nearly as bad now as it used to be though.
Yeah... weird how my parent post got modded "Funny" when I was dead serious about the Games Industry.
Umm... no. I was younger, naive, and very hungry to work on games. I worked my ass off for a virtual song. As I said, from the programmer stand-point, this is a very poor case to present to your bosses as an example.
I got the game done and was proud of my work. I had some health issues for about a year after. I'd say it was a mixed bag.
I knew the project was an unreasonable crunch though. I even asked management for help several times if they wanted it done in the time period allowed but they didn't put another person on the project so I just had to work super-humanly hard. In the end, they were doing stuff like grabbing food for me so I could work through lunch. In the month of October that year, I pretty much lived at the office and slept there when I wasn't coding and I got pretty stinky. I only left the office for three days and two days of that was so I could be at my brother's wedding.
Haha, I believe you just proved my point perfectly. Bosses take note!
I don't know if you want the bosses to take note on that example. In that particular case, I made the company a ton of money (at least compared to what I was getting paid) and successfully finished a game under the incredible strain of near literal death march. All it showed the company was that nearly working your employees to death can be quite profitable.
Yeah... that project wrecked me. I had to port several hundred thousand lines of assembler all by myself for "NBA Jam" on the Jaguar. Mind you, about 75% of that was data tables which is pretty easy to port but it was still over 100,000 lines of real code as well plus implementing all the architectural changes for a new platform. I had some health issues with my liver almost failing from work stress that plagued me for about a year afterwards (i.e. yellowish eyes / jaundice) but eventually I recovered and I am fine today many years later.
Seriously... I work in the game industry and on one project I worked over 100 hours a week for four months straight.
I'd take a reduction in hours anyday.
That post was written a DAY AFTER my post. Perhaps you are the one being repetitive here since you wrote the same thing 24 hours after I already said it ?
Exactly...
It's already illegal to beat someone up. But then we had to go and make special laws that make it "extra bad" if the victim was part of some special minority group (race, sexual orientation, religion, etc...)? If the assault was already a crime, then what we are criminalizing is the person's thoughts. That sounds like dangerous ground to me.
No, this is a bad example, because INTENT is important in deciding the punishment. For example, it's illegal to kill someone under most circumstances (except in certain cases of self-defence and capital punishment). However, if you kill someone accidentally, you may be charged with manslaughter. If you plan and premeditate a killing, you will be charged with "murder". Murder is *EXACTLY* a case where the THOUGHT process differentiates the CRIME from Manslaughter.
For the same reason, hate crimes are an "extra bad" category. They require some sort of prejudice and targetting and are often premeditated.... i.e. "let's go beat up a faggot" or "let's go lynch a black guy" is much worse than getting in an a random argument at a bar and starting a fight with him and beating him up.
You can't truly appreciate Shakespeare until you've heard him in the original Klingon.
Sorry, math is not science, nor "a" science. Math is math.
All computers do with programs at a low level is precisely execute mathematical steps in a logical order. If math cannot be part of science, then there is never going to be any science in computer programming.
It seems like what we call "real computer science" (like algorithms or theory of computation) is actually math. I don't see anything scientific about it at all.
The only things I can think of that I would call "science" are: (1) benchmarking a complex system to get some empirical results; and (2) troubleshooting problems.
>
The math and proofs are totally science. They can be used to generate theories of how things might work to to make predictions on how code should perform. They may be not even practical to test. I've seen papers modeling lock-free transactions using DCAS (double CAS to separate non-contiguous addresses) or papers on how hardware transactional memory could work. Neither one of these is implemented on any common processor so they are doing purely mathematical models first to set up possible simulation in a second step.
A lot of computer science (the proofs, O(N) determination, etc) does overlap with Math but the fact that remains that it is still science although it is "theoretical" science. You propose only calling things you can actually work with (benchmarking a large system and troubleshooting) science. Well, the benchmarking is science ("experimental", "practical", "applied" are several ways it's described) but troubleshooting depends upon whether it's bugs in the algorithm and design (in which pure science and proofs could help) or just a bad implementation or typos (in which case you're being a "code mechanic" to make the bad code match the desired correct algorithm -- possibly the equivalent in science of making sure you wash your test tubes before repeating a chemistry experiment so you don't contaminate results). Also, there is a difference between programming (or software engineering as you call it) and the Science -- Programming is the equivalent of bridge building where the computer science is how to actually design the parts of a bridge and the overall architecture and form.
Anyhow, without the theory, we would not get a lot of the cutting edge advances in both software and hardware.
Perhaps they should break Computer Science down into two groups of class. Theoretical Computer Science and Applied Computer Science. I believe they are all valid applications of Computer Science. Even Software Engineers need to use a lot of Computer Science to do their jobs just like any other Engineer.
aliterate/litrit/
Noun: An aliterate person.
Adjective: Unwilling to read, although able to do so
I believe he meant illiterate though which is unable to read rather than unwilling to.
Fox News
23% Basic
73% Intermediate
2% Advanced
...we called this a "virtual machine".
You don't need a full VM though with a Modern OS. You can run a plug-in as a child process with almost no access privileges and then it has to request minimal (and hopefully secure) access API's from the host/parent process. This way the plug-in can't directly access file IO without going through an extra layer where it can be scrubbed and gated. Also, since it's running in a different process, it can not directly access any of the memory through pointers in the host/parent process.
The way to understand the anti-abortion mindset is extremely simple, but very difficult (apparently) for many supposedly "rational" thinkers. They believe that a person is alive and has rights from the moment of conception. Potential life, in their eyes, is to be as revered as full life-- in fact in some ways more so because it has no adequate defenses or ability to survive without help*.
One thing to note for the grandparent is that even to discard fertilized eggs from IVF is just as bad as abortion. The Catholic Church is against IVF and artificial fertility methods that discard fertilized embryos because they destroy a life. The actual church doctrine says it's better for a couple to be barren and without children than to use methods that may destroy embryos. It's important to know that IVF fertility treatment is just as bad a sin as abortion if any of the eggs not implanted and subsequently are discarded.
They're coming up this Saturday night. Set your DVR's. Last year had the cast of Jersey Shores and Mike Tyson -- what more could you want?
On a more serious note, I work in video games on Mortal Kombat, a couple guys from our studio are actually going to be in the audience for the awards ceremonies, and I *ACTUALLY* do have my DVR set to record them.
a man roared past him in a giant automatic beach combing and starfish catapulting machine which he had designed and built with his massive fortune as part of a fleet of vehicles to comb the worlds seashores spewing starfish back into the ocean
Ah yes, no matter how many times I hear it, the ancient fable of the giant starfish-catapulting machine is still a heartwarming classic.
Or at least it was until starfish population grew out of control, ate everything else in the ocean, and cause the biosphere to implode from the starfish imbalance.
I can certainly respect this. It's true altruism, quite unlike when government takes money by force and redistributes it. This is 100% voluntary, and therefore much more impressive and worthy of respect than any government program.
Definitely, the whims of a generous billionaire are certainly worth more than having libraries and public schools in every community. Being able to drive along public roads to pretty much every town in the country is in no reason for the government to take money by force from me. Instead we should live in a free* society (by free I mean in the tea-party sense of paying no taxes) and all of our problems should be magically cured by the free market and the magnificent billionaires who have so much money from not paying taxes that it's just too much money for themselves and decided to use it all for the benevolence of society.