The N70 is 2nd edition device, so that will run unsigned applications, but the other two are 3rd edition and won't. Of course, I'm talking about native applications (ie written in C++), not java/etc.
This has been the main problem for developers targeting S60 3rd edition. Even freeware needs to be signed (a slow, slow, slow process). You can sign them yourself, as a developer, so they'll run only on your own phone (or a small selection) but they've been cracking down on that over the last month or so since (shock) it's only supposed to be for developers.
Perhaps there's some small subset of applications that will run unsigned (don't use any capabilities, for example), but nothing useful.
> When Nokia do launch this device, or a similar one, I've no doubt it will support technologies... third party (unsigned) applications
You're kidding, surely?
They don't support that now, intentionally. I know developers hate the whole SymbianSigning thing, but are you really suggesting that they'll listen to developers and stop that somehow?
>...and the way science it taught, students are shown precisely that. It's part and parcel of teaching the scientific method.
Not in my experience, which is that students are taught that the conclusion as fact, not the evidence. Furthermore, just like on/., questioning that conclusion results in ridicule.
>... and you've just described science....and that's fine, except that the conclusion is taught as fact, rather than the evidence; and the consequence is that anyone who questions the conclusion is nuts.
Indeed, though that is supposedly one of the methods God uses to communicate. It is not, however, something one should act upon without testing or confirmation of some form, IIRC - I'm talking about Christianity (plain old regular type) here, of course.
There's usually not a problem with listening to people, it's what you do as a result. Don't just believe what you're told, but test it.
There are other ways God (supposedly) communicates too - in person, of course (if you believe the reports); via the Holy Spirit (again, difficult to discern from some random idea you have, or intuition/guilt/conscience, I'd guess); via The Bible (again, this is mostly a Holy Spirit thing, I think).
One pastor I listen to a lot often says that what he says could be rubbish (he doesn't use those words), and prays that his words reflect the will of God and such. I think this is fairly common.
>... But why must kids be forced to learn religion tarted up and presented as 'science' when it ain't no such animal?
That's a rhetorical question, right? Clearly, they shouldn't.
However, I would also argue that there is a case for not stating something is fact beyond all doubt, and teaching people to come to their own conclusions. Of course, it's fine to say things like, "Well, I can't be 100% sure, but when *I* look at all that evidence, it seems obvious to me that it happened this way."
It reminds me of how I react to people who seem to constantly state things as if they were fact, when they are not; or who state their opinions with certainty, which then prove to be not the case. For example, saying that it's definitely 'this' way to get to a certain place, when it later proves not to be that way. I find that my "guesses" (ie, "I think it's this way") are far more reliable than such people's "100% certain".
I guess that goes back to that whole 'trust' thing...if I were to meet someone who fairly consistently tells me things that turn out to be true, then I find it much easier to believe their opinions or the things they believe in.
Of course, if I want to actually have my own independent opinion, then I need to look at all the evidence for myself. I used to love going to (not taking part in) debates while I was at school, and hearing both sides of an argument (or whatever). I also love to read debated topics in Wikipedia for the same reason - all sides are usually represented in some form.
The problem is that not everyone wants to learn everything about every subject. In fact, a lot of people aren't capable of knowing everything about everything; or even everything about a single subject. At some point, we all have to rely on what someone else is telling us. How much we believe such 'experts' is based on many things, including the reputation of and previous behaviour of said person.
Of course, most(?) 'religious' people don't just believe in the existence of God, but believe they actually *know* God (to some degree) and have a real relationship with Him. Futhermore, such people consider God to be the most reliable person in their life. If you understand that, then their reluctance to believe perfect strangers is perhaps more understandable.
The problem is at least in part that *you* don't believe *them* - ie that there is a God, that they know God and that they have a personal relationship with Him (and therefore have a good personal reason to believe Him rather than you).
Of course, there's pretty much nothing anyone can do about that.
1) may not have yet been built yet (ie SGI is still around and ever isn't over yet), and 2) the biggest one built to date probably also had higher theoretical floating point performance in *it's* graphics hardware too.
..neat, but it's been done before. This might be better than done previously, but I don't really see how I can know for sure.
I wonder how many pixels the new LED display is at "The Place" in Beijing. The thing is massive (2,296' by 88') - and it's supposed to be second to one in Las Vegas somewhere (I read that's five XGA-equivalent displays working as one single display - what does that make it? Probably not a lot).
Futuretech was one of my favourite SGI sites, and it has this on Onyx2 RealityMonster
Also found this which says each pipe is 8.3M pixels. So 16 x 8.3M = only 132.8 M pixels. I believe the limit is per pipe, since the DG basically split up the output of the RMs for each display.
However, I'll bet there were some machines with more than 16 pipes out there....probably secret or something, but I bet they're there somewhere.
They don't seem to quote polygons per second; I'd guess because it's somewhat meaningless, though it could also be because they were so much slower than the competition (ie PC cards) on that metric - that is if you don't bother to figure out what 'a polygon' actually means.
Silicon Graphics' Onyx IR4 could drive this many pixels, couldn't it?
IIRC, it was 16 pipes, 8 displays per pipe, 1920x1200 per display - I make that almost 300M (pixels, not dollars - it'd be *many* more dollars) - probably not remembering correctly, but still.... and OpenGL Performer could make it all work nicely for visualisation too. I wonder what's happened to OpenGL Performer.
Slashdot Mirror
> Depopulated?
Yeah, it's what happens when you drop a nuclear bomb on a place.
> Nuclear detonation of a nuke is not a problem in any case.
Could have chosen better words, per chance?
A review of the warranty might reveal what Apple think about unlocking. I don't have one to hand, unfortunately.
+4 insightful. Wow, that *was* quick.
> I have no idea if the iPhone is subsidised.
An AT&T memo said not, but I don't believe it.
"flamebait"???
come on moderators. what are you thinking? the poster is absolutely correct...his spin is somewhat negative, but that's not 'flamebait'.
doh.
:|
you are correct, of course. nothing worse than a joke not told properly
> As a half Swede, I must you correct; It's borg borg borg.
Right. "bork bork bork" would be Icelandic^3.
> N70, N80, 6120
The N70 is 2nd edition device, so that will run unsigned applications, but the other two are 3rd edition and won't. Of course, I'm talking about native applications (ie written in C++), not java/etc.
This has been the main problem for developers targeting S60 3rd edition. Even freeware needs to be signed (a slow, slow, slow process). You can sign them yourself, as a developer, so they'll run only on your own phone (or a small selection) but they've been cracking down on that over the last month or so since (shock) it's only supposed to be for developers.
Perhaps there's some small subset of applications that will run unsigned (don't use any capabilities, for example), but nothing useful.
> When Nokia do launch this device, or a similar one, I've no doubt it will support technologies ... third party (unsigned) applications
You're kidding, surely?
They don't support that now, intentionally. I know developers hate the whole SymbianSigning thing, but are you really suggesting that they'll listen to developers and stop that somehow?
> ...the third failure occurred before all of the swapping from the second failure hadn't been completed.
Then it was all swapped in time then, right?
> Nothing on the box other than a "A" "B" or "C" in tiny print in a corner.
Well, that's enough, isn't it?
If these drives had such a marking, then this article wouldn't be here.
> ...and the way science it taught, students are shown precisely that. It's part and parcel of teaching the scientific method.
/., questioning that conclusion results in ridicule.
Not in my experience, which is that students are taught that the conclusion as fact, not the evidence. Furthermore, just like on
Well, that does indeed sound promising.
> ... and you've just described science. ...and that's fine, except that the conclusion is taught as fact, rather than the evidence; and the consequence is that anyone who questions the conclusion is nuts.
Indeed, though that is supposedly one of the methods God uses to communicate. It is not, however, something one should act upon without testing or confirmation of some form, IIRC - I'm talking about Christianity (plain old regular type) here, of course.
There's usually not a problem with listening to people, it's what you do as a result. Don't just believe what you're told, but test it.
There are other ways God (supposedly) communicates too - in person, of course (if you believe the reports); via the Holy Spirit (again, difficult to discern from some random idea you have, or intuition/guilt/conscience, I'd guess); via The Bible (again, this is mostly a Holy Spirit thing, I think).
One pastor I listen to a lot often says that what he says could be rubbish (he doesn't use those words), and prays that his words reflect the will of God and such. I think this is fairly common.
> ... But why must kids be forced to learn religion tarted up and presented as 'science' when it ain't no such animal?
That's a rhetorical question, right? Clearly, they shouldn't.
However, I would also argue that there is a case for not stating something is fact beyond all doubt, and teaching people to come to their own conclusions. Of course, it's fine to say things like, "Well, I can't be 100% sure, but when *I* look at all that evidence, it seems obvious to me that it happened this way."
It reminds me of how I react to people who seem to constantly state things as if they were fact, when they are not; or who state their opinions with certainty, which then prove to be not the case. For example, saying that it's definitely 'this' way to get to a certain place, when it later proves not to be that way. I find that my "guesses" (ie, "I think it's this way") are far more reliable than such people's "100% certain".
I guess that goes back to that whole 'trust' thing...if I were to meet someone who fairly consistently tells me things that turn out to be true, then I find it much easier to believe their opinions or the things they believe in.
Of course, if I want to actually have my own independent opinion, then I need to look at all the evidence for myself. I used to love going to (not taking part in) debates while I was at school, and hearing both sides of an argument (or whatever). I also love to read debated topics in Wikipedia for the same reason - all sides are usually represented in some form.
The problem is that not everyone wants to learn everything about every subject. In fact, a lot of people aren't capable of knowing everything about everything; or even everything about a single subject. At some point, we all have to rely on what someone else is telling us. How much we believe such 'experts' is based on many things, including the reputation of and previous behaviour of said person.
Of course, most(?) 'religious' people don't just believe in the existence of God, but believe they actually *know* God (to some degree) and have a real relationship with Him. Futhermore, such people consider God to be the most reliable person in their life. If you understand that, then their reluctance to believe perfect strangers is perhaps more understandable.
The problem is at least in part that *you* don't believe *them* - ie that there is a God, that they know God and that they have a personal relationship with Him (and therefore have a good personal reason to believe Him rather than you).
Of course, there's pretty much nothing anyone can do about that.
So, why bother?
> 2) Better integration of Linux with Microsoft Exchange servers and Windows domains.
Finally, someone saying what I'm thinking...
Of course, wrt Exchange, I'd prefer something completely independent of Microsoft, but functionally equivalent.
Basically this is just an up-to-date Reality Centre. Nothing particularly revolutionary about it these days.
To be fair, the biggest SGI system ever built :
1) may not have yet been built yet (ie SGI is still around and ever isn't over yet), and
2) the biggest one built to date probably also had higher theoretical floating point performance in *it's* graphics hardware too.
..neat, but it's been done before. This might be better than done previously, but I don't really see how I can know for sure.
I wonder how many pixels the new LED display is at "The Place" in Beijing. The thing is massive (2,296' by 88') - and it's supposed to be second to one in Las Vegas somewhere (I read that's five XGA-equivalent displays working as one single display - what does that make it? Probably not a lot).
missed the link to futuretech.
...no...(I don't remember)
Futuretech was one of my favourite SGI sites, and it has this on Onyx2 RealityMonster
Also found this which says each pipe is 8.3M pixels. So 16 x 8.3M = only 132.8 M pixels. I believe the limit is per pipe, since the DG basically split up the output of the RMs for each display.
However, I'll bet there were some machines with more than 16 pipes out there....probably secret or something, but I bet they're there somewhere.
They don't seem to quote polygons per second; I'd guess because it's somewhat meaningless, though it could also be because they were so much slower than the competition (ie PC cards) on that metric - that is if you don't bother to figure out what 'a polygon' actually means.
Silicon Graphics' Onyx IR4 could drive this many pixels, couldn't it?
... and OpenGL Performer could make it all work nicely for visualisation too. I wonder what's happened to OpenGL Performer.
IIRC, it was 16 pipes, 8 displays per pipe, 1920x1200 per display - I make that almost 300M (pixels, not dollars - it'd be *many* more dollars) - probably not remembering correctly, but still.