Oh, silly me. I should have known better to even question Apple's practices. Excuse me while I go and gouge my eyes out now.
Apple makes about 30% profit on their devices. They make 30% profit on apps sold through the app store. Would it really f'in kill them if they let someone else make a buck? What, having the highest market cap of any technology company is not good enough for them?
You're right, IANAL, but I do have a brain and a sense of right and wrong and my "greedometer" gets pegged just about daily every time Apple makes a move.
I used to think IBM was a greedy corporation, then Microsoft came along and made them look like Ed McMurray. Now, Microsoft looks like like a gentle giant compared to the Apple. One big difference that worries me is that Microsoft seemed to care about the bad press they got and occasionally tried to smooth things over. Apple seem to just give the finger to anyone that complains about their business practices, and yet they manage to maintain a religious following, the likes of which I've never seen in 35 year in the business.
Those old Apple 1984 commercials could not be more ironic.
But Apple has a complete monopoly of the iOS device market. WTF does that have to do with anti-competitive behavior? Technically, Google has close to 0% of the mobile device market. HTC, Motorola, Samsung, etc all have chunks, but Google (with the exception of the Nexus) has very little. Being a monopoly is not a requirement to being charged with anti-competitive business practices last time I checked.
I just don't get it. Why is it that if Google doesn't want to comply, their only option is to pull the app. But if Google were to strip Apple from it's search engine results, that would be anti-competitive behavior?
I wonder what the implications would be if Google were to license JME (Java mobile edition) from Oracle and replace Dalvik with the standard JVM. This would bring Android into compliance with Oracle's license. All that would be needed is for Android to implement a loader to convert the Android APK into standard java bytecode to run them. This would also allow standard java class files (or.jar) files to be executed as well. The Android API could remain as a compatibility layer on top of the JVM. The original purpose of Dalvik was to get around the issue of resource constraints that existed on early android devices (little memory, slow CPUs), but android devices are now coming out with 1GB ram and 1Ghz dual-core processors so the resource constraints are not such a factor. Oracle has already shown that the standard JVM outperforms dalvik, primarily due to it's more sophisticated and highly optimized JVM (and JIT).
It matters a lot, oncce again we are countimg devices that developers will never release software for as part of the Android platform.
I'm not sure what that even means. An example is the Craig Android tablet ($99 or $79 with coupon) runs Android 2.2 and has Android Market access. Sure, it's not powerful enough for all apps to work on it, but many apps that don't require much power run just fine on it. And these should not be counted why? My iPhone 3G wont run many apps in the app store. Does that mean they shouldn't be counted as iOS devices?
I feel your pain. The problem is, on/., once you misplace a semicolon or put an apostrophe in the wrong place your credibility goes out the window regardless of the actual point you were trying to make.
Slight rant: I know that drug addiction is considered a "disease" as in alcoholism, but I personally think that is the same kind of labeling that makes people feel better about bad decisions they've made. I know there are addictive properties but it's unrealistic to expect that anyone, prior to drinking or doing drugs, hasn't heard all about it - and even if they have, there are a ton of programs to help fix the problem.
I heard about alcoholism before I had my first beer, but that didn't stop me (or ANYONE else I'm aware of) from trying it. I, like most, didn't turn out to be an alcoholic. However, some are not so lucky. Drugs, like alcohol, have different effects on different people. The problem I have with turning those unfortunate folks into criminals is that if they do become addicted, they are no longer in full control of making these decisions - the drugs/alcohol are making the decisions for them. If you've ever had to deal with a family member with this problem, you know exactly what I'm talking about. Rather than treating them as criminals (and thereby exacerbating their psychosis) they (IMO) should be treated as patients and treatment made available to them.
As far as "programs to help fix the problem", unless you happen to be wealthy enough or have a decent enough healthcare policy, most effective rehab programs are prohibitively expensive. Sticking someone in jail alongside rapists and murderers have very little rehabilitative value.
Considering there are $99 Android 2.1 tablets that you can get in stores like Walgreens or CVS, is it any wonder they're "gaining marketshare"?
They're on the low end of the spectrum, but they do browse the web and can play Angry Birds.
What does the price of the Android tablets have to do with the number of units sold? If it will make you feel better, I'll sell you the same $99 tablet for $499. As an app developer, the fact that machines are available for a modest sum that can run (and therefore purchase) my apps is a plus, not a negative.
Currently, Apple allows OS X Server to be run virtualized. We have a server with 200 virtual instances available. We've massaged the install so that to the users, it's just regular OS X. I imagine, as Apple blurs the line between regular and server versions, they'll make it easier to virtualize it.
Virtualizing OS/X is not the problem. The problem is that it can only be virtualized on Apple hardware which, it the server space is sorely lacking.
Apparently even Apple engineers can't, seeing as how they killed the Xserve.
It's not that they "can't" make a pretty server, it's just that it's pointless. Why make a pretty server that just sits in a back room or closet somewhere where no one can gush over it's elegant lines. Servers, by there very nature, focus on function over form - just the opposite of Jobs' vision.
Allowing OS X to run as a guest on non-Apple servers, and even on the desktop under VDI, would bring enormous administrative benefits to companies using Macs
Apple would never allow this. As has been often noted, Apple is a hardware company. Allowing OS/X on non-Apple hardware would only cut into their hardware business. Besides, no one can make their servers "pretty" enough to meet Steve's artistic tastes (except Apple's engineers of course).
Not to beat a dead horse, but as a point of clarification; when I refer to "converting" energy to mass, or mass to energy, I'm referring to conversion in the mathematical sense. That is, a conversion of mass units to energy units or vice-versa. In the physical sense, energy is never converted into mass, nor mass into energy. They are both representation of the same phenomenon. If you remove mass from a system, you have necessarily removed energy as well. This is a common misconception, probably due to a misunderstanding of what the E=mc^2 actually represents. In fact, getting back to the earlier discussion, if we were to present the formula in terms of "natural units", whereby the constant c = 1, we could actually rewrite the equation as E=m.
Yes, but IBM patented a solution to the problem (called "thunking" IIRC) that was actually pretty elegant. Because IBM had the patent, Win95 was never able to run protected mode applications.
No, this is not false. E = mc^2 is a formula the shows the relationship between energy (E) and mass (m) with (c) being the constant representing the speed of light. I never said the E = m as you are suggesting. However, E=mc^2 is called the mass-energy equivalence formula for a reason.
I said that Matter is a form of energy, and it is. Matter is simply a "substance" that contains mass. As such, using the formula, any amount of mass can be converted to the resultant amount of energy and reciprocally, any amount of energy can be converted into is resultant mass.In effect, energy and mass ARE different embodiments of the same fundamental concept.
If you expose matter to anti-matter you get (a huge amount) of energy. Nothing is lost in the process.
If you expose a tank to an anti-tank shell, you get a huge amount of energyh. Nothing is lost in the process.?
That's correct. In the context of physics (which is what we are discussing), NOTHING is lost. Every particle can be accounted for, either from the resulting debris, the heat generated or the energy dissipated into the air in the form of a blast wave.
Rather, by anyone's proper understanding of the word.
Again, context is important here. We're discussing physics, therefore, the colloquial understanding does not apply.
It is a confirmation that a particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model [wikipedia.org] actually does. Which will allow for (even) more confidence in this model and more discoveries to be made.
I agree 100%. That's really what I was getting at in my original post, but it got picked apart. In my way of thinking, a "Discover New Particle" would entail the discovery of a particle that had not been previously contemplated, whether found through experimental or theoretical (mathematical) means.
whomever is modding this down doesn't understand basic physics. This is correct. Matter can certainly become "not matter"
E=MC^2
Agreed. That would be through a conversion process and would require a great deal of energy, but none of it would be "destroyed", only converted. This is the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy). Basically, Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.
In any process in an isolated system, the total energy remains the same.
Your concept of antimatter is a bit simplistic. Matter (and antimatter) are forms of energy. If you expose matter to anti-matter you get (a huge amount) of energy. Nothing is lost in the process. Anti-matter is simply matter that is composed of antiparticles. Antiparticles are exactly the same as their particle counterpart, except with an opposite charge.
Hawking was the only respected physicist I'm aware of in modern times that tried to claim that something (quantum information in this case) could be destroyed (the black hole information paradox), but he admitted to being incorrect several years later.
Of course, quantum physics is a strange world where common sense and intuition are alien, so I wouldn't rule out the possibility that a case where energy/matter could be destroyed may yet be discovered, but I'm not aware of any cases at the present time.
Then again, I'm not a theoretical physicist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
Slashdot Mirror
Where did you get this idea?
Oh, silly me. I should have known better to even question Apple's practices. Excuse me while I go and gouge my eyes out now.
Apple makes about 30% profit on their devices. They make 30% profit on apps sold through the app store. Would it really f'in kill them if they let someone else make a buck? What, having the highest market cap of any technology company is not good enough for them?
You're right, IANAL, but I do have a brain and a sense of right and wrong and my "greedometer" gets pegged just about daily every time Apple makes a move.
I used to think IBM was a greedy corporation, then Microsoft came along and made them look like Ed McMurray. Now, Microsoft looks like like a gentle giant compared to the Apple. One big difference that worries me is that Microsoft seemed to care about the bad press they got and occasionally tried to smooth things over. Apple seem to just give the finger to anyone that complains about their business practices, and yet they manage to maintain a religious following, the likes of which I've never seen in 35 year in the business.
Those old Apple 1984 commercials could not be more ironic.
But Apple has a complete monopoly of the iOS device market. WTF does that have to do with anti-competitive behavior? Technically, Google has close to 0% of the mobile device market. HTC, Motorola, Samsung, etc all have chunks, but Google (with the exception of the Nexus) has very little. Being a monopoly is not a requirement to being charged with anti-competitive business practices last time I checked.
I just don't get it. Why is it that if Google doesn't want to comply, their only option is to pull the app. But if Google were to strip Apple from it's search engine results, that would be anti-competitive behavior?
I don't like seeing the best operating system there is backsliding like this.
Backsliding is the only option because it was "perfect" before. It was perfect because it was from Apple and everything Apple does is perfect.
I wonder what the implications would be if Google were to license JME (Java mobile edition) from Oracle and replace Dalvik with the standard JVM. This would bring Android into compliance with Oracle's license. All that would be needed is for Android to implement a loader to convert the Android APK into standard java bytecode to run them. This would also allow standard java class files (or .jar) files to be executed as well. The Android API could remain as a compatibility layer on top of the JVM. The original purpose of Dalvik was to get around the issue of resource constraints that existed on early android devices (little memory, slow CPUs), but android devices are now coming out with 1GB ram and 1Ghz dual-core processors so the resource constraints are not such a factor. Oracle has already shown that the standard JVM outperforms dalvik, primarily due to it's more sophisticated and highly optimized JVM (and JIT).
It matters a lot, oncce again we are countimg devices that developers will never release software for as part of the Android platform.
I'm not sure what that even means. An example is the Craig Android tablet ($99 or $79 with coupon) runs Android 2.2 and has Android Market access. Sure, it's not powerful enough for all apps to work on it, but many apps that don't require much power run just fine on it. And these should not be counted why? My iPhone 3G wont run many apps in the app store. Does that mean they shouldn't be counted as iOS devices?
I believe you are correct. Electroweak IS the unified description of the electromagnetic and weak forces.
I feel your pain. The problem is, on /., once you misplace a semicolon or put an apostrophe in the wrong place your credibility goes out the window regardless of the actual point you were trying to make.
CD-ROMs were already well adopted by the time floppies came along.
Wha?
.gnola emac seippolf emit eht by detpoda llew ydaela erew sMOR-DC
There, FTFA.
Slight rant: I know that drug addiction is considered a "disease" as in alcoholism, but I personally think that is the same kind of labeling that makes people feel better about bad decisions they've made. I know there are addictive properties but it's unrealistic to expect that anyone, prior to drinking or doing drugs, hasn't heard all about it - and even if they have, there are a ton of programs to help fix the problem.
I heard about alcoholism before I had my first beer, but that didn't stop me (or ANYONE else I'm aware of) from trying it. I, like most, didn't turn out to be an alcoholic. However, some are not so lucky. Drugs, like alcohol, have different effects on different people. The problem I have with turning those unfortunate folks into criminals is that if they do become addicted, they are no longer in full control of making these decisions - the drugs/alcohol are making the decisions for them. If you've ever had to deal with a family member with this problem, you know exactly what I'm talking about. Rather than treating them as criminals (and thereby exacerbating their psychosis) they (IMO) should be treated as patients and treatment made available to them.
As far as "programs to help fix the problem", unless you happen to be wealthy enough or have a decent enough healthcare policy, most effective rehab programs are prohibitively expensive. Sticking someone in jail alongside rapists and murderers have very little rehabilitative value.
So why don't we just arrest and throw everyone in jail that catches a computer virus!
Considering there are $99 Android 2.1 tablets that you can get in stores like Walgreens or CVS, is it any wonder they're "gaining marketshare"?
They're on the low end of the spectrum, but they do browse the web and can play Angry Birds.
What does the price of the Android tablets have to do with the number of units sold? If it will make you feel better, I'll sell you the same $99 tablet for $499. As an app developer, the fact that machines are available for a modest sum that can run (and therefore purchase) my apps is a plus, not a negative.
Currently, Apple allows OS X Server to be run virtualized. We have a server with 200 virtual instances available. We've massaged the install so that to the users, it's just regular OS X. I imagine, as Apple blurs the line between regular and server versions, they'll make it easier to virtualize it.
Virtualizing OS/X is not the problem. The problem is that it can only be virtualized on Apple hardware which, it the server space is sorely lacking.
Apparently even Apple engineers can't, seeing as how they killed the Xserve.
It's not that they "can't" make a pretty server, it's just that it's pointless. Why make a pretty server that just sits in a back room or closet somewhere where no one can gush over it's elegant lines. Servers, by there very nature, focus on function over form - just the opposite of Jobs' vision.
Allowing OS X to run as a guest on non-Apple servers, and even on the desktop under VDI, would bring enormous administrative benefits to companies using Macs
Apple would never allow this. As has been often noted, Apple is a hardware company. Allowing OS/X on non-Apple hardware would only cut into their hardware business. Besides, no one can make their servers "pretty" enough to meet Steve's artistic tastes (except Apple's engineers of course).
Not to beat a dead horse, but as a point of clarification; when I refer to "converting" energy to mass, or mass to energy, I'm referring to conversion in the mathematical sense. That is, a conversion of mass units to energy units or vice-versa. In the physical sense, energy is never converted into mass, nor mass into energy. They are both representation of the same phenomenon. If you remove mass from a system, you have necessarily removed energy as well. This is a common misconception, probably due to a misunderstanding of what the E=mc^2 actually represents. In fact, getting back to the earlier discussion, if we were to present the formula in terms of "natural units", whereby the constant c = 1, we could actually rewrite the equation as E=m.
Yes, but IBM patented a solution to the problem (called "thunking" IIRC) that was actually pretty elegant. Because IBM had the patent, Win95 was never able to run protected mode applications.
No, this is not false. E = mc^2 is a formula the shows the relationship between energy (E) and mass (m) with (c) being the constant representing the speed of light. I never said the E = m as you are suggesting. However, E=mc^2 is called the mass-energy equivalence formula for a reason.
I said that Matter is a form of energy, and it is. Matter is simply a "substance" that contains mass. As such, using the formula, any amount of mass can be converted to the resultant amount of energy and reciprocally, any amount of energy can be converted into is resultant mass.In effect, energy and mass ARE different embodiments of the same fundamental concept.
If you expose a tank to an anti-tank shell, you get a huge amount of energyh. Nothing is lost in the process.?
That's correct. In the context of physics (which is what we are discussing), NOTHING is lost. Every particle can be accounted for, either from the resulting debris, the heat generated or the energy dissipated into the air in the form of a blast wave.
Again, context is important here. We're discussing physics, therefore, the colloquial understanding does not apply.
Because Apple has a patent on the eye phone.
It is a confirmation that a particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model [wikipedia.org] actually does. Which will allow for (even) more confidence in this model and more discoveries to be made.
I agree 100%. That's really what I was getting at in my original post, but it got picked apart. In my way of thinking, a "Discover New Particle" would entail the discovery of a particle that had not been previously contemplated, whether found through experimental or theoretical (mathematical) means.
whomever is modding this down doesn't understand basic physics. This is correct. Matter can certainly become "not matter" E=MC^2
Agreed. That would be through a conversion process and would require a great deal of energy, but none of it would be "destroyed", only converted. This is the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy). Basically, Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. In any process in an isolated system, the total energy remains the same.
Your concept of antimatter is a bit simplistic. Matter (and antimatter) are forms of energy. If you expose matter to anti-matter you get (a huge amount) of energy. Nothing is lost in the process. Anti-matter is simply matter that is composed of antiparticles. Antiparticles are exactly the same as their particle counterpart, except with an opposite charge.
Hawking was the only respected physicist I'm aware of in modern times that tried to claim that something (quantum information in this case) could be destroyed (the black hole information paradox), but he admitted to being incorrect several years later.
Of course, quantum physics is a strange world where common sense and intuition are alien, so I wouldn't rule out the possibility that a case where energy/matter could be destroyed may yet be discovered, but I'm not aware of any cases at the present time.
Then again, I'm not a theoretical physicist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
If I was Hamad's neighbor, I'd pay my team to write "<-- is a dumbass".
No, you're wrong. It IS old, but they descoverred it.
That would make it a new discovery, not a new particle.