Re:06-12-17 status of mobile os market share
on
Origin of the iPhone
·
· Score: 1
Not that it matters much in the smartphone-or-not argument, but the iPhone does support non-purchased ringtones (with iTunes 7.5 and iPhone 1.1.2).
Take a sound file less than 40 seconds in length, encode as an m4a file, rename the extension to m4r, add to iTunes and sync the phone. Poof, Custom ringtone.
Yep. This is why I never check my speedometer or mirrors or shoulder check when changing lanes. Lord knows there's not a second that your eyes can't be focused on the road. Also through training, I've nearly eliminated my peripheral vision -- far too much sensory input comes in from that to allow me to function on the road.
I, for one, would appreciate a "hang up" button as I tend to push this a million times when I want to hang up... it is nice to have a solid feeling as you wait for the UI to respond. With a softkey, did you really hit it? Did the UI register it? You don't know without watching the screen.
Hit the sleep/wake button on the top of the phone.
No. I'm suffering from the reality that there aren't enough "good" coders to fill all the necessary coding positions. You simply aren't going to have quality professionals at every keyboard. So why not eliminate the types of errors that a compiler/runtime can easily eliminate to keep the inevitable mass of lesser programmers (and occasional slip ups from the quality programmers)? Using a language with these features (and hopefully we'll see mare advanced features like dependent types make it into widespread use in the near future too) doesn't preclude one from using a quality programming process in addition. What exactly is being lost here? Why the resistance using a seatbelt *and* and airbag?
And why do you assume that an eliminated bug will necessarily be replaced by a different bug? Yes, the other bugs will still be there -- bugs always are, but if one can cut out the simple things why should the more complex multiply to replace them?
If these problems can be fixed by people taking software development serious, then it is indeed a core issue with people, no?;)
Fixing the language requires one thing to change, fixing the people requires an ungodly amount of changes.
And the problem with the "the languages have these facilities already" argument is that those facilities are not available as the default and are rarely used even when they would be essentially transparent. Make it so one has to expend effort to turn the safety features off, rather than on and people will start to use them.
Finally, with the bad programmer argument, yes, 90% of everything is crap. And bad programmers will be bad programmers in most languages. However, if you eliminate the most common mistakes that a bad programmer can make, you've saved yourself from having to find those bugs as well as the more complex bugs that they will make whether they're programming in C, Haskell, Ruby, assembler, or Erlang.
Well, I'll offer up a simple counter point to that assertion: cryptology.
Crypto started out (and really stayed up until the 1970s) as a sort of ad hoc discipline, not particularly grounded in mathematics. No one really understood why things worked or how things worked beyond a level of "well there's a lot of possibilities, and I can't figure them out). But over time, things started changing and math started creeping in with work from Shannon and of course Turing's work on practical cryptanalysis (and let's not forget the work of the Polish mathematicians on breaking early pre-war versions of the Enigma). And by the 70's math had really gained a strong foothold in the world of crypto. Now, the interesting work in the field is almost entirely based in the realm of mathematics -- math has become fundamental to the field, but it certainly wasn't that way for most of its existence.
Yeah, I too found the applause silly, but there were plenty of customers there that were getting into it, high fiving the staff on the way out the door and all. Plus it helps build a festival atmosphere, which looks good for the reporters that are going to be there -- it just adds to the buzz for the next big release.
I just want to go in and to my business without the annoying hooplah, but I understand why they did it.
I'm pretty sure he was wandering about migrating existing plans to the iPhone, not the cost of the iPhone plan. It sounds like he recently started a new contract with AT&T.
Well, I've heard from AT&T in the past that they're pretty amenable to upgrading phone plans near the end of the contract (if you just started the contract they may make you pay the early termination fee), but I've never tried it. I have about eight months left on my current contract, so we'll see...
See, now I've always thought of it as one of the most overrated movies ever. Bad set design, bad wardrobe, overblown visuals, over the top acting, all of which drown what was a pretty decent story. Every now and again I watch it, sure that I'm just missing something and that the greatness will shine through. But invariably, I always end up laughing at how ridiculous it is.
Meh. We can't all like the same things, I suppose.
The defining feature of a digital watermark is that it cannot be removed given only the watermarked data.
That may be the ultimate goal, but I have yet to see it be included as a requirement in any formal definition in any fairly standard reference. It's a bit like "encryption". The term encryption implies some notion of security, but it's not really a requirement at all, the Caesar Cipher is a form of encryption even though it's trivial to break. And so we formalize notions such as semantic security and ciphertext indistinguishability to capture these requirements. And like encryption, watermarking is a nebulous notion without a formal definition.
Net necessarily. For example, you can mark a gif file by inserting information in unused portions of the color table and leaving the image data completely untouched. Is this a watermark by pour definition? Or is it one only if used color entries or pixel entries are altered? Or is it a watermark of the container, but not the data (even though it is potential data...)?
Really, nitpicking about something that was never given a formal definition in the first place is just silly.
Slashdot Mirror
Not that it matters much in the smartphone-or-not argument, but the iPhone does support non-purchased ringtones (with iTunes 7.5 and iPhone 1.1.2).
Take a sound file less than 40 seconds in length, encode as an m4a file, rename the extension to m4r, add to iTunes and sync the phone. Poof, Custom ringtone.
What I would do, of course, is wait a couple of weeks to see what they release at MacWorld before considering buying any Mac this time of year.
Where are the Test-Case Discussions. Beautiful code needs testcases that are the same.
Perhaps in chapters 6 and 7?
Yeah... and with all the wing to wing traffic they have to deal with up there, it's a wonder there haven't been more fuselage-benders.
Yep. This is why I never check my speedometer or mirrors or shoulder check when changing lanes. Lord knows there's not a second that your eyes can't be focused on the road.
Also through training, I've nearly eliminated my peripheral vision -- far too much sensory input comes in from that to allow me to function on the road.
Small buttons crammed close together (e.g. Blackberry keyboard) don't suffer from this?
I, for one, would appreciate a "hang up" button as I tend to push this a million times when I want to hang up... it is nice to have a solid feeling as you wait for the UI to respond. With a softkey, did you really hit it? Did the UI register it? You don't know without watching the screen.
Hit the sleep/wake button on the top of the phone.
What!!! Dude! Say it isn't so...!!!
Well, you don't have to reset the device, just the dictionary.
Settings -> General -> Reset -> Reset Keyboard Dictionary
I'd go as high as a buck forty-seven. One eighty if it had a button that got me free popcorn.
* picks up iPhone *
* types just fine using the little point of finger where flesh and nail meet *
Wha?
Try it, it's actually easier this way, as you're less likely to land in the wrong spot.
No. I'm suffering from the reality that there aren't enough "good" coders to fill all the necessary coding positions. You simply aren't going to have quality professionals at every keyboard. So why not eliminate the types of errors that a compiler/runtime can easily eliminate to keep the inevitable mass of lesser programmers (and occasional slip ups from the quality programmers)? Using a language with these features (and hopefully we'll see mare advanced features like dependent types make it into widespread use in the near future too) doesn't preclude one from using a quality programming process in addition. What exactly is being lost here? Why the resistance using a seatbelt *and* and airbag?
And why do you assume that an eliminated bug will necessarily be replaced by a different bug? Yes, the other bugs will still be there -- bugs always are, but if one can cut out the simple things why should the more complex multiply to replace them?
If these problems can be fixed by people taking software development serious, then it is indeed a core issue with people, no? ;)
Fixing the language requires one thing to change, fixing the people requires an ungodly amount of changes.
And the problem with the "the languages have these facilities already" argument is that those facilities are not available as the default and are rarely used even when they would be essentially transparent. Make it so one has to expend effort to turn the safety features off, rather than on and people will start to use them.
Finally, with the bad programmer argument, yes, 90% of everything is crap. And bad programmers will be bad programmers in most languages. However, if you eliminate the most common mistakes that a bad programmer can make, you've saved yourself from having to find those bugs as well as the more complex bugs that they will make whether they're programming in C, Haskell, Ruby, assembler, or Erlang.
But if these problems can be largely fixed at the language level, then it is indeed a core issue with the programming language, no?
Who do you think granted you those rights to you in the first place?
I do believe that would be the person who chose to release their work under the GPL.
Well, I'll offer up a simple counter point to that assertion: cryptology.
Crypto started out (and really stayed up until the 1970s) as a sort of ad hoc discipline, not particularly grounded in mathematics. No one really understood why things worked or how things worked beyond a level of "well there's a lot of possibilities, and I can't figure them out). But over time, things started changing and math started creeping in with work from Shannon and of course Turing's work on practical cryptanalysis (and let's not forget the work of the Polish mathematicians on breaking early pre-war versions of the Enigma). And by the 70's math had really gained a strong foothold in the world of crypto. Now, the interesting work in the field is almost entirely based in the realm of mathematics -- math has become fundamental to the field, but it certainly wasn't that way for most of its existence.
Yes. By all means, don't give it a more descriptive name...
Yeah, I too found the applause silly, but there were plenty of customers there that were getting into it, high fiving the staff on the way out the door and all.
Plus it helps build a festival atmosphere, which looks good for the reporters that are going to be there -- it just adds to the buzz for the next big release.
I just want to go in and to my business without the annoying hooplah, but I understand why they did it.
So you shouldn't need to shell out more cash to move over to an iPhone plan.
I'm pretty sure he was wandering about migrating existing plans to the iPhone, not the cost of the iPhone plan. It sounds like he recently started a new contract with AT&T.
Well, I've heard from AT&T in the past that they're pretty amenable to upgrading phone plans near the end of the contract (if you just started the contract they may make you pay the early termination fee), but I've never tried it. I have about eight months left on my current contract, so we'll see...
See, now I've always thought of it as one of the most overrated movies ever. Bad set design, bad wardrobe, overblown visuals, over the top acting, all of which drown what was a pretty decent story. Every now and again I watch it, sure that I'm just missing something and that the greatness will shine through. But invariably, I always end up laughing at how ridiculous it is.
Meh. We can't all like the same things, I suppose.
The defining feature of a digital watermark is that it cannot be removed given only the watermarked data.
That may be the ultimate goal, but I have yet to see it be included as a requirement in any formal definition in any fairly standard reference. It's a bit like "encryption". The term encryption implies some notion of security, but it's not really a requirement at all, the Caesar Cipher is a form of encryption even though it's trivial to break. And so we formalize notions such as semantic security and ciphertext indistinguishability to capture these requirements. And like encryption, watermarking is a nebulous notion without a formal definition.
Yes, it is, in fact. It uses the same 30-pin dock connector as all current iPods
Except the Shuffle. Unless you buy the dock converter for it.
Net necessarily. For example, you can mark a gif file by inserting information in unused portions of the color table and leaving the image data completely untouched. Is this a watermark by pour definition? Or is it one only if used color entries or pixel entries are altered? Or is it a watermark of the container, but not the data (even though it is potential data...)?
Really, nitpicking about something that was never given a formal definition in the first place is just silly.