Granted, but the only time I recall ever hearing "app" was in the canned expression "killer app". Everything else was always an "application" or "program" to me.
No. The platform was already vulnerable to piracy (though it required a jailbreak USB stick). The release of the keys simply allowed anyone to sign any code (including their own) to run on the PS3, without any additional hardware.
No, it says that an appropriation of money cannot be for a longer term than two years. If you renew the appropriation at least every two years, it's completely within the rules.
That said, I do agree that the military should be cut substantially. There's no Constitutional argument to make on that point, though.
I recall hearing a developer mention that they were not using vector graphics, but rather high resolution 2D assets. I don't know if that's standard practice on Android or not.
As for the rest of your comment, I wasn't talking about the positioning of objects on the screen--you're preaching to the choir, there. My comment was dealing solely with the 2D assets and the problem of scaling (not in the sense of "how big does this need to be on the screen?", but "does this look like crap on this screen?"). With vector graphics, not a problem, but if you're not using vector graphics, your phone-resolution assets will scale really badly to the tablet screen, even if they're positioned correctly.
The vast majority of the games I've downloaded on my Xoom look great--not blocky at all. Since there is such a wide range of resolutions on Android devices, I have to assume that most game developers include high-resolution assets to facilitate scaling to any resolution.
Your calculations are wrong. The 80% reduction was 68GWh, meaning there is 17GWh = 17000MWh per year left. One year is 365.25*.24 = 8766 hours. 17000MWh/8766h = 1.94 MW, which means that continuous sunlight would, in fact, be more than enough to power the building. In any case, with realistic amounts of sunlight, the generation would take care of a significant fraction of the building's usage.
Before we start calling people "stupid fucks", you might want to notice that the first part of the GP's post was "Here's my analogy:". He clearly did not state it as fact.
Now you're the one who needs schooling. Yes, the original, very old iPhone apps do the 2x scaling thing - that was an intermediate step to allow porting of apps. Anyone designing with iOS 3.0 or greater should know better and at least do the resolution independent stuff (same applies for Retina display); the new apps are written as such. However, the tablet-optimized is more important in the LAYOUT of the user interface or content. It is obvious when done right and there are tonnage such for the iPad.
Duly noted, but the point is that the apps did, indeed, have to be changed to look right on the iPad (if only to implement the resolution-independence, which I understand is not as insignificant a task as it may seem), compared to Android, where many of the old apps look fine even without the developers getting involved. Also, resolution independence wasn't implemented until iOS 4.0 (to accomodate the retina display), over two months after the iPad's release. This means that there may be plenty of apps out there that are not resolution independent (though it would, indeed, be a sign of developers that don't maintain their product).
The fact that developers do not need to get involved is particularly important as the Android tablets begin to pick up steam--with the iPad, there was just one device, the SDK was released well in advance, and there was a good reason to believe that single device would sell well (since it's made by Apple). This meant that there were lots of iPad-specific apps from the start.
Android is different, though. Adoption of Android started off fairly slowly (and, likewise, so did the number of apps). Soon after Android 2.0 was released, adoption of Android increased quickly and so did the app count. I think we're seeing something similar with tablets. The Android 2.x tablets were slow sellers, but I think the 3.0 tablets are going to sell pretty well (maybe not the Xoom in particular, but there's going to be a lot of 3.0 tablets out there in the coming months). As the Honeycomb tablets start selling, developers are going to step up (and they've already begun to). In the meantime, it's very important for Android that the old phone apps work well, since not all developers are concerned with the tablet form factor just yet. Android was designed perfectly for this, though, so all the apps by developers who don't care about tablets will continue to work well until those apps' developers get with the program or their apps are superseded by ones that do take full advantage of the screen.
The main point here is that with the iPad, you know exactly what you're getting: what it can do, what apps it has, and what its limitations are--and that's fine for most people. With the Xoom (and other Honeycomb tablets), the shortcomings are ones that can easily be fixed with either a software update (or with just more apps being developed). While iOS could be improved similarly, Apple has consistently shown that it's not interested in your suggestions until everybody screams really loudly (at which point the new feature is "revolutionary" or "magical"). Sure, with Android, there's no guarantee that a nagging issue will be fixed, but you know that if enough people care, someone in the community will fix it. Besides, if something really bothers you, and you have the knowhow, you have the source code with which to do as you please. Motorola has given the Xoom an unlockable/relockable bootloader, which, combined with Android being open-source, leaves the door wide open for custom firmwares without needing to hack around any measures the manufacturer might put in to stop you.
My take of that paragraph was completely different. Here's the money quote:
"...but the number of tablet-specific apps in the Android Market has more than doubled in the past two weeks, from 16 to 37."
You must be f@cking joking me. There are over 65K tablet-specific apps in the Apple app store. And this just nudges the iPad one point over the Xoom?
You'd have a point if that were accurate. The 37 apps mentioned are the ones listed under "Featured Tablet Apps". There are lots of other apps out there for tablets that aren't featured--the accurate criticism here is that there isn't a good way to get a complete list of which apps are designed for tablets.
The point may well be moot, though, as Android was designed from the ground up to scale well to all sorts of resolutions. The upshot here is that for most apps, where the programmers did their job right, the phone apps scale very well to the tablet resolution (so well, in fact, many phone apps look like they were made for the tablet all along). In comparison, iPhone apps do the 2x scaling thing and look like crap, making it absolutely necessary that developers write iPad-specific versions of their apps.
I hate to be "that guy", but "whom" is not a fancy way of saying "who"; it has grammatical significance, and when you use it wrong, it makes you look like a fool.
Well, for Scots, much of the confusion is that people think "Scots" means "Scottish English". Of course, linguists don't always agree on what constitutes a language, either. What prompted my response was that you referred to "Scots English", which means that you clearly conflated Scots and Scottish English.
Anyhow, it's true that in many cases, the old adage applies: "A language is a dialect with an army and navy."
Scottish English is English; Scots is not (it branched off from Middle English, and is related to English much like Norwegian and Swedish are related to each other). Jamaican Creole is (obviously) a Creole, meaning it borrows elements of other languages, and is not to be confused with Jamaican English, which is just a dialect of English.
In short, Scottish English, British English, American English, and Jamaican English should be mutually intelligible (aside from a few possibly confusing differences in accent or in use of certain words). Jamaican Creole should be mostly mutually intelligible, since it's an English-based creole. Scots is not really mutually intelligible, though you could probably understand a Scots speaker to some reasonable degree if you tried really hard (much like Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish have a degree of mutual intelligibility).
But to *knowingly* challenge the laws and then ask for donations when the shit hits the fan? He gets no help from me. I don't condone the means.
The proper way to address this is with politics. SONY has him by the balls, no matter how unsound the laws are.
The legislators aren't going to be changing/repealing the DMCA anytime soon. Unjust laws should not be abided; they should be actively violated and challenged.
I suspect that the reasons consoles move higher volumes of games are:
a) The console is a standardized platform, allowing you to guarantee the game's performance (e.g. you know that everybody's Xbox 360 will have the same CPU).
b) You can easily connect your console to your TV, which is almost certainly much larger than your monitor. Even if your computer has HDMI out, it's still a cumbersome experience (and see point (c) below).
c) Consoles are designed to look good among your other equipment (PCs are generally big and/or ugly).
d) Console games are designed for use with some sort of controller (or Kinect) rather than a keyboard.
e) Consoles are cheap.
Points (a) through (d) are always going to be advantages of consoles. As for the price, console makers could probably still keep the price low, even with an open system. Official Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo certified games will still be very popular, and most people will happily buy them. Look at smartphones, for instance. The vast majority of Android and iPhone users stick to getting apps from the official app stores on the respective platforms. In the case of Android, this is true even though nothing is done to try to prevent the existence of other app stores or "off-market" app installations.
No matter what happens, the console makers will still make money off of the >99% of users who don't care about homebrew software. As for the cheaters, that should be addressed server-side, and I fully support PSN/Xbox Live banning people who cheat.
The problem is that you're thinking of it as a process of adding digits to the end, rather than the infinite digits that are just there in the decimal representation. No matter how long you continue the "expansion process" for a finite number of steps, you will not get rid of the remainder. The whole point of having infinite 3s on the decimal representation of 1/3 is that no finite number of 3s would be exact.
Infinity is a hard concept for many people to grasp. As soon as you understand that infinity does not mean "a really large number" or even "as far as you could count if you started from the start of the universe and continued until its eventual destruction", you'll understand why 0.999...=1.
At any particular n, the sum is less than the fraction it represents. This the same issue for 1/3 as it is for 3/3 or 1.
Sure, as long as n is finite. The "..." at the end means it's infinite. I don't know why it's so hard for you people to grasp the idea that infinite means not finite. As soon as you think about an end to the sequence, it's not infinite anymore, and the equality does not apply. If you're having trouble with the infinite concept, think of it this way: every time you think of ending the sequence, add infinite 3s (or 9s, as the case may be).
The notation 0.333... (usually with a dot above the last 3) suggests that you expand the answer to an infinite number of places, but even this will have a left over infinitesimal fraction.
No. You are expanding to an infinite number of places, so you will not have any fraction left over. You would only have some amount left over if you expanded to a finite (no matter how large) number of places and stopped.
Think of it this way: 0.333... could be thought of as an infinite number of 3's, or you could think of it as some finite number of 3's (in this case, I'm showing 3 of them), followed by infinite 3's. No matter how many 3's you conceive in the expansion of that decimal, there's still infinite 3's following them. Any amount leftover after your finite number of 3's is accounted for by the infinite 3's.
While there is a (nonstandard) pronunciation of "clear" without a diphthong, I was intentionally not considering it, as the point about there being a diphthong was not being disputed.
When I was referring to the diphthong as "ea", I was talking about the lexical representation within the word "clear". If I wanted to talk about the phonemes, I would've put it in slashes.
My point was that if you wanted to somehow interpret "clear" as two syllables, you would have to have two separate vowels in there, and the lexical boundary between the syllables would probably fall between the "e" and the "a", irrespective of the actual phonemes.
Of course, not all diphthongs are represented by digraphs (and similarly, not all monophthongs are represented by a single grapheme). It seems, however, that the only reason the OP thought "clear" was two syllables was that there were two lexical "vowels" in the word (or that the diphthong somehow separated the syllables)--my response was a direct retort.
No. The fact that "ea" is a diphthong is exactly the reason that it's not two syllables. By definition, a diphthong is a sort of glide between two vowels within the same syllable. Since 'e' and 'a' are the only vowels in "clear", and each syllable needs a nucleus (generally a vowel), the only options are the monosyllabic "clear" (where the "ea" is a diphthong), or the (incorrect) disyllabic "klee-er" where the vowels are pronounced separately. (I tried to include IPA here, but it didn't show up in the preview, so I'm going with a phonetic approximation.)
I have never heard of any linguist who could put forth an argument that a diphthong could somehow be split among two syllables, or otherwise split a word like "clear" into more than one syllable. If you have a source, I'd be interested in reading the argument. There have been many loons in linguistics over the years (and maybe one proposed what you're saying), but I'd like to see an argument that holds water.
Linguistics seems to be one of the only fields that lets you say something that's wrong, add a disclaimer that "some definitions" disagree, and go on your merry way without anyone questioning it.
Slashdot Mirror
Granted, but the only time I recall ever hearing "app" was in the canned expression "killer app". Everything else was always an "application" or "program" to me.
No. The platform was already vulnerable to piracy (though it required a jailbreak USB stick). The release of the keys simply allowed anyone to sign any code (including their own) to run on the PS3, without any additional hardware.
No, it says that an appropriation of money cannot be for a longer term than two years. If you renew the appropriation at least every two years, it's completely within the rules.
That said, I do agree that the military should be cut substantially. There's no Constitutional argument to make on that point, though.
I recall hearing a developer mention that they were not using vector graphics, but rather high resolution 2D assets. I don't know if that's standard practice on Android or not.
As for the rest of your comment, I wasn't talking about the positioning of objects on the screen--you're preaching to the choir, there. My comment was dealing solely with the 2D assets and the problem of scaling (not in the sense of "how big does this need to be on the screen?", but "does this look like crap on this screen?"). With vector graphics, not a problem, but if you're not using vector graphics, your phone-resolution assets will scale really badly to the tablet screen, even if they're positioned correctly.
The vast majority of the games I've downloaded on my Xoom look great--not blocky at all. Since there is such a wide range of resolutions on Android devices, I have to assume that most game developers include high-resolution assets to facilitate scaling to any resolution.
365.25*24, of course, not 365.25*.24
Your calculations are wrong. The 80% reduction was 68GWh, meaning there is 17GWh = 17000MWh per year left. One year is 365.25*.24 = 8766 hours. 17000MWh/8766h = 1.94 MW, which means that continuous sunlight would, in fact, be more than enough to power the building. In any case, with realistic amounts of sunlight, the generation would take care of a significant fraction of the building's usage.
Before we start calling people "stupid fucks", you might want to notice that the first part of the GP's post was "Here's my analogy:". He clearly did not state it as fact.
Now you're the one who needs schooling. Yes, the original, very old iPhone apps do the 2x scaling thing - that was an intermediate step to allow porting of apps. Anyone designing with iOS 3.0 or greater should know better and at least do the resolution independent stuff (same applies for Retina display); the new apps are written as such. However, the tablet-optimized is more important in the LAYOUT of the user interface or content. It is obvious when done right and there are tonnage such for the iPad.
Duly noted, but the point is that the apps did, indeed, have to be changed to look right on the iPad (if only to implement the resolution-independence, which I understand is not as insignificant a task as it may seem), compared to Android, where many of the old apps look fine even without the developers getting involved. Also, resolution independence wasn't implemented until iOS 4.0 (to accomodate the retina display), over two months after the iPad's release. This means that there may be plenty of apps out there that are not resolution independent (though it would, indeed, be a sign of developers that don't maintain their product).
The fact that developers do not need to get involved is particularly important as the Android tablets begin to pick up steam--with the iPad, there was just one device, the SDK was released well in advance, and there was a good reason to believe that single device would sell well (since it's made by Apple). This meant that there were lots of iPad-specific apps from the start.
Android is different, though. Adoption of Android started off fairly slowly (and, likewise, so did the number of apps). Soon after Android 2.0 was released, adoption of Android increased quickly and so did the app count. I think we're seeing something similar with tablets. The Android 2.x tablets were slow sellers, but I think the 3.0 tablets are going to sell pretty well (maybe not the Xoom in particular, but there's going to be a lot of 3.0 tablets out there in the coming months). As the Honeycomb tablets start selling, developers are going to step up (and they've already begun to). In the meantime, it's very important for Android that the old phone apps work well, since not all developers are concerned with the tablet form factor just yet. Android was designed perfectly for this, though, so all the apps by developers who don't care about tablets will continue to work well until those apps' developers get with the program or their apps are superseded by ones that do take full advantage of the screen.
The main point here is that with the iPad, you know exactly what you're getting: what it can do, what apps it has, and what its limitations are--and that's fine for most people. With the Xoom (and other Honeycomb tablets), the shortcomings are ones that can easily be fixed with either a software update (or with just more apps being developed). While iOS could be improved similarly, Apple has consistently shown that it's not interested in your suggestions until everybody screams really loudly (at which point the new feature is "revolutionary" or "magical"). Sure, with Android, there's no guarantee that a nagging issue will be fixed, but you know that if enough people care, someone in the community will fix it. Besides, if something really bothers you, and you have the knowhow, you have the source code with which to do as you please. Motorola has given the Xoom an unlockable/relockable bootloader, which, combined with Android being open-source, leaves the door wide open for custom firmwares without needing to hack around any measures the manufacturer might put in to stop you.
And a pool is just a stupidly oversized bathtub. No difference in use cases.
I bet you're really in shape from swimming all those laps in your bathtub.
Or he's really clean from taking all those baths in the pool.
My take of that paragraph was completely different. Here's the money quote:
"...but the number of tablet-specific apps in the Android Market has more than doubled in the past two weeks, from 16 to 37."
You must be f@cking joking me. There are over 65K tablet-specific apps in the Apple app store. And this just nudges the iPad one point over the Xoom?
You'd have a point if that were accurate. The 37 apps mentioned are the ones listed under "Featured Tablet Apps". There are lots of other apps out there for tablets that aren't featured--the accurate criticism here is that there isn't a good way to get a complete list of which apps are designed for tablets.
The point may well be moot, though, as Android was designed from the ground up to scale well to all sorts of resolutions. The upshot here is that for most apps, where the programmers did their job right, the phone apps scale very well to the tablet resolution (so well, in fact, many phone apps look like they were made for the tablet all along). In comparison, iPhone apps do the 2x scaling thing and look like crap, making it absolutely necessary that developers write iPad-specific versions of their apps.
I hate to be "that guy", but "whom" is not a fancy way of saying "who"; it has grammatical significance, and when you use it wrong, it makes you look like a fool.
Well, for Scots, much of the confusion is that people think "Scots" means "Scottish English". Of course, linguists don't always agree on what constitutes a language, either. What prompted my response was that you referred to "Scots English", which means that you clearly conflated Scots and Scottish English.
Anyhow, it's true that in many cases, the old adage applies: "A language is a dialect with an army and navy."
Scottish English is English; Scots is not (it branched off from Middle English, and is related to English much like Norwegian and Swedish are related to each other). Jamaican Creole is (obviously) a Creole, meaning it borrows elements of other languages, and is not to be confused with Jamaican English, which is just a dialect of English.
In short, Scottish English, British English, American English, and Jamaican English should be mutually intelligible (aside from a few possibly confusing differences in accent or in use of certain words). Jamaican Creole should be mostly mutually intelligible, since it's an English-based creole. Scots is not really mutually intelligible, though you could probably understand a Scots speaker to some reasonable degree if you tried really hard (much like Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish have a degree of mutual intelligibility).
But to *knowingly* challenge the laws and then ask for donations when the shit hits the fan? He gets no help from me. I don't condone the means. The proper way to address this is with politics. SONY has him by the balls, no matter how unsound the laws are.
The legislators aren't going to be changing/repealing the DMCA anytime soon. Unjust laws should not be abided; they should be actively violated and challenged.
I suspect that the reasons consoles move higher volumes of games are:
a) The console is a standardized platform, allowing you to guarantee the game's performance (e.g. you know that everybody's Xbox 360 will have the same CPU).
b) You can easily connect your console to your TV, which is almost certainly much larger than your monitor. Even if your computer has HDMI out, it's still a cumbersome experience (and see point (c) below).
c) Consoles are designed to look good among your other equipment (PCs are generally big and/or ugly).
d) Console games are designed for use with some sort of controller (or Kinect) rather than a keyboard.
e) Consoles are cheap.
Points (a) through (d) are always going to be advantages of consoles. As for the price, console makers could probably still keep the price low, even with an open system. Official Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo certified games will still be very popular, and most people will happily buy them. Look at smartphones, for instance. The vast majority of Android and iPhone users stick to getting apps from the official app stores on the respective platforms. In the case of Android, this is true even though nothing is done to try to prevent the existence of other app stores or "off-market" app installations.
No matter what happens, the console makers will still make money off of the >99% of users who don't care about homebrew software. As for the cheaters, that should be addressed server-side, and I fully support PSN/Xbox Live banning people who cheat.
The 4th Amendment--unreasonable search and seizure (on the grounds of monitoring the kid at 8 PM).
Where in the Constitution does it say that you only get your rights once you've graduated high school?
In other news, hell has frozen over.
The problem is that you're thinking of it as a process of adding digits to the end, rather than the infinite digits that are just there in the decimal representation. No matter how long you continue the "expansion process" for a finite number of steps, you will not get rid of the remainder. The whole point of having infinite 3s on the decimal representation of 1/3 is that no finite number of 3s would be exact.
Infinity is a hard concept for many people to grasp. As soon as you understand that infinity does not mean "a really large number" or even "as far as you could count if you started from the start of the universe and continued until its eventual destruction", you'll understand why 0.999...=1.
Only if by "non-standard", you mean "wrong".
At any particular n, the sum is less than the fraction it represents. This the same issue for 1/3 as it is for 3/3 or 1.
Sure, as long as n is finite. The "..." at the end means it's infinite. I don't know why it's so hard for you people to grasp the idea that infinite means not finite. As soon as you think about an end to the sequence, it's not infinite anymore, and the equality does not apply. If you're having trouble with the infinite concept, think of it this way: every time you think of ending the sequence, add infinite 3s (or 9s, as the case may be).
The notation 0.333... (usually with a dot above the last 3) suggests that you expand the answer to an infinite number of places, but even this will have a left over infinitesimal fraction.
No. You are expanding to an infinite number of places, so you will not have any fraction left over. You would only have some amount left over if you expanded to a finite (no matter how large) number of places and stopped.
Think of it this way: 0.333... could be thought of as an infinite number of 3's, or you could think of it as some finite number of 3's (in this case, I'm showing 3 of them), followed by infinite 3's. No matter how many 3's you conceive in the expansion of that decimal, there's still infinite 3's following them. Any amount leftover after your finite number of 3's is accounted for by the infinite 3's.
While there is a (nonstandard) pronunciation of "clear" without a diphthong, I was intentionally not considering it, as the point about there being a diphthong was not being disputed.
When I was referring to the diphthong as "ea", I was talking about the lexical representation within the word "clear". If I wanted to talk about the phonemes, I would've put it in slashes.
My point was that if you wanted to somehow interpret "clear" as two syllables, you would have to have two separate vowels in there, and the lexical boundary between the syllables would probably fall between the "e" and the "a", irrespective of the actual phonemes.
Of course, not all diphthongs are represented by digraphs (and similarly, not all monophthongs are represented by a single grapheme). It seems, however, that the only reason the OP thought "clear" was two syllables was that there were two lexical "vowels" in the word (or that the diphthong somehow separated the syllables)--my response was a direct retort.
No. The fact that "ea" is a diphthong is exactly the reason that it's not two syllables. By definition, a diphthong is a sort of glide between two vowels within the same syllable. Since 'e' and 'a' are the only vowels in "clear", and each syllable needs a nucleus (generally a vowel), the only options are the monosyllabic "clear" (where the "ea" is a diphthong), or the (incorrect) disyllabic "klee-er" where the vowels are pronounced separately. (I tried to include IPA here, but it didn't show up in the preview, so I'm going with a phonetic approximation.)
I have never heard of any linguist who could put forth an argument that a diphthong could somehow be split among two syllables, or otherwise split a word like "clear" into more than one syllable. If you have a source, I'd be interested in reading the argument. There have been many loons in linguistics over the years (and maybe one proposed what you're saying), but I'd like to see an argument that holds water.
Linguistics seems to be one of the only fields that lets you say something that's wrong, add a disclaimer that "some definitions" disagree, and go on your merry way without anyone questioning it.