I want guarantees that no-one and nothing at Google, Inc or anywhere else I don't expressly authorise has access to anything I drop into this magic box in my browser.
Their guarantees would be worthless, the only solution is to never send your waves to Google. If Google backs out of documenting their federation protocol, that will be the end of the format.
There's this popular misconception that Google Wave is some sort of service, when in fact it's a protocol built on XMPP. Google's offering of the service is of course a major part of this, but the essential character of the thing is a protocol and messaging semantic.
I liked this book too, though when I bought it it was almost $80 and it tends toward the very minute and technical, and doesn't have as much operational or programming-type stuff I wanted. Digital Apollo isn't as specific about the whole technical process, but it has a lot of interesting discussion about the astronauts and how they related to the computer, how initially they rejected the idea of the thing, etc... Also cheaper and more readable for a layman.
So if anyone said P66 (which the transcript [nasa.gov] doesn't indicate literally happened), it was more likely the Commander, who would've entered the program.
Pedantic 2x: It's true that the Commander would pilot the LM and use the LPD to pick the landing site, and literally had his hand on ths stick, but Buzz was the one specifically charged with operating the computer. Neil would ask to see numbers and go into programs, and Buzz would enter the commands, so Neil didn't have to take his eyes off the window or hands off the controls.
I'm pretty sure it's impossible, information-theoretically, to examine the bitmap of several images and decide which among them is of the "highest quality," because you in order to decide the fidelity of an image you need the original un-lossy image, to compare with the others to make an objective determination of the total signal noise and distortion. Either that, or somehow have metadata in the file that captures knowledge of how much data was lost in the transform.
You could use mturk or some sort of program that detects the signature of particular JPEG artifacts, but in the end this will just be heuristic, and won't give you a positive answer. For all of these heuristics, I'd bet simply nominating the largest of all files found to be of the same image will pick the best image as often as any more sophisticated method.
You are indicating that the appropriate answer is "yes", since you're saying that my answer of "no" was done in bad faith, correct?
If you're putting a smiley emoticon after the unstated parenthetical of your answer, and also admitting to us that you probably know more than the average person on the street, which was explicitly the question they asked, I'm not sure exactly what other answer is available to you. They didn't say anything about the "Cambridge jury pool," they used a completely standard term with a commonsense meaning, which could only be intentionally misconstrued.
I am not a sociologist nor statistician
I am not a lawyer, but I know when someone who has had law enforcement training tells me that he doesn't have a better understanding of the law than a common person, he's pulling my leg. The question was completely appropriate; they were satisfied you knew more than the average person because of your experience, res ipso loquitor. They just wanted to see if you would answer a possibly-disqualifying question ingenuously. Which you didn't. You were swinging your arms with your eyes closed, and if you smacked the truth, you were satisfied it was the truth's fault.
And cops wonder why they sometimes encounter distrust from civilians...
I answered "no sir.", because I don't know what the common person knows.:)
Ah, so not only do you have more knowledge of law enforcement than the average person, but you also give bad-faith answers to questions from officers of the court. You're a great juror!
That's just it, isn't it? Your CUSTOMERS. Shouldn't it be up to the customers, not you, what they want to do with the software running on their computer?
Ideally, but it's not some holy writ or anything. It's up to the customers to decide if the liberty they give away is worth the benefit they receive. If it significantly bothers people, we will see iTunes share of the market go down, and people will move to UnBox.
I liken this to the old saying Windows isn't done until 1-2-3 won't run.
iTunes isn't a development platform, so it's not really comparable.
Even if it was, under what standard would it be wrong for Windows to break Lotus 1-2-3? If Microsoft has a monopoly, it becomes anti-competitive and possibly liable for sanction in the US. But at the time of the Lotus crisis, Microsoft didn't have a monopoly, and was using its platform to leverage its applications. Why didn't Lotus simply ship an OS with their application environment? MS put a lot of effort into writing Windows (suppress my guffaw), and they wanted to put that effort to use selling other products.
To compete with a platform vendor, the only real way to prevent them from leveraging their platform to sell extended services is to create your own platform, viz. Google and Android. You can play nice with your competitor's platform insofar as your competitor allows, but any house you build on their platform is built on sand.
The FBI arrested two procurers in his office for taking a bribe from a contractor (you'd think, him being the boss and everything, if he knew about it it would be HIM getting the bribe, but I digress). He was not implicated. But if you want to go around accusing people of felonies because it suits your politics, get ready for it to be thrown back at you someday.
I've heard that on programmer level it's very unstandard (no specifics here, sorry, but for example the author of 'UADE' said so and I have high respect for his skills).
"Non-standard"? Or just "different from GTk, Java or.NET".
You're the third person on this thread so far that has criticized the Mac OS X developer environment, while in the same breath conceding you have no knowledge of the environment...
Google "sony PRS". Cheaper and reads PDF better, the tradeoff is that the Sony bookstore is atrocious and requires software on your computer -- the Kindle store is pretty well stocked with contemporary books and downloads them over the air in a relatively painless process. FWIW I'm a Sony employee and get a break on buying Sony gear and I bought the Kindle, mainly because of the bookstore/subscription selection. No regrets.
With each new generation of hardware the geek seems determined to re-invent the web appliance.
Which no one wants and no one buys.
It's a challenging use case. For the form factor we're talking about, lacking a keyboard but being very thin, having limited proc, and being only marginaly cheaper than a netbook, the real competition in its market is paper. If this thing isn't as useful as paper, why bother getting this for someone to use when an actual nominal "computer" is only marginally more expensive.
I think it's clear that someday something like this will replace a lot of paper, not all of it, but lots of ephemera. I already use my knidle to read my screenplays, and that's already saved 500 sheets in the past 3 months. If something like the kindle had better searching and browsing, and could actually read HTML documents in the manner they were intended, I could be keeping phonebooks full of film codebooks and sound library stuff in their right now.
Something I've noticed with my iPhone, on the other hand, despite the fact that it's a little small to use properly as paper, is that it's extremely difficult to be browsing something on my computer, and then to continue my browsing session on the phone, or vice versus. The only way to do it is to email links to yourself, and that's a supreme pain.... Something I still think about from Minority Report were the larger pad-like storage devices they used to move files from one rig to another, like when Tom Cruise's assistant would look up a series of mugshots on one machine and bring them over to his. The assistant would collect the mugshots, drag them off his screen and ONTO the screen of the pad, as if the pad, by nature of touching the computer, were an extension of his monitor, and then he could take the pad, which had a display and could show everything it held, and carried it to the other computer. From there, the pad then became an extention on Anderton's monitor, and he could look at the material directly on the pad or drag it to his system, completing the loop. Why the fuck can't someone build an internet tablet that can do that? All that haptic stuff was cool, but for some reason, in my work, I'm constantly wishing I could take something I'm working on at this moment, drag it to a pad, and carry it somewhere, perhaps to move, perhaps just to work in-situ on the pad.
What can you get a friend who has decided to become a game developer?
The second most important thing to give them would be The C++ Programming Language. The first most important thing to give them, of course, is a bullet in the head, now, while they're still happy.
Slashdot Mirror
The demo video at http://wave.google.com/ actually shows a command-line client, around the hour mark.
I want guarantees that no-one and nothing at Google, Inc or anywhere else I don't expressly authorise has access to anything I drop into this magic box in my browser.
Their guarantees would be worthless, the only solution is to never send your waves to Google. If Google backs out of documenting their federation protocol, that will be the end of the format.
There's this popular misconception that Google Wave is some sort of service, when in fact it's a protocol built on XMPP. Google's offering of the service is of course a major part of this, but the essential character of the thing is a protocol and messaging semantic.
I liked this book too, though when I bought it it was almost $80 and it tends toward the very minute and technical, and doesn't have as much operational or programming-type stuff I wanted. Digital Apollo isn't as specific about the whole technical process, but it has a lot of interesting discussion about the astronauts and how they related to the computer, how initially they rejected the idea of the thing, etc... Also cheaper and more readable for a layman.
So if anyone said P66 (which the transcript [nasa.gov] doesn't indicate literally happened), it was more likely the Commander, who would've entered the program.
Pedantic 2x: It's true that the Commander would pilot the LM and use the LPD to pick the landing site, and literally had his hand on ths stick, but Buzz was the one specifically charged with operating the computer. Neil would ask to see numbers and go into programs, and Buzz would enter the commands, so Neil didn't have to take his eyes off the window or hands off the controls.
I'm pretty sure it's impossible, information-theoretically, to examine the bitmap of several images and decide which among them is of the "highest quality," because you in order to decide the fidelity of an image you need the original un-lossy image, to compare with the others to make an objective determination of the total signal noise and distortion. Either that, or somehow have metadata in the file that captures knowledge of how much data was lost in the transform.
You could use mturk or some sort of program that detects the signature of particular JPEG artifacts, but in the end this will just be heuristic, and won't give you a positive answer. For all of these heuristics, I'd bet simply nominating the largest of all files found to be of the same image will pick the best image as often as any more sophisticated method.
You are indicating that the appropriate answer is "yes", since you're saying that my answer of "no" was done in bad faith, correct?
If you're putting a smiley emoticon after the unstated parenthetical of your answer, and also admitting to us that you probably know more than the average person on the street, which was explicitly the question they asked, I'm not sure exactly what other answer is available to you. They didn't say anything about the "Cambridge jury pool," they used a completely standard term with a commonsense meaning, which could only be intentionally misconstrued.
I am not a sociologist nor statistician
I am not a lawyer, but I know when someone who has had law enforcement training tells me that he doesn't have a better understanding of the law than a common person, he's pulling my leg. The question was completely appropriate; they were satisfied you knew more than the average person because of your experience, res ipso loquitor. They just wanted to see if you would answer a possibly-disqualifying question ingenuously. Which you didn't. You were swinging your arms with your eyes closed, and if you smacked the truth, you were satisfied it was the truth's fault.
And cops wonder why they sometimes encounter distrust from civilians...
I answered "no sir.", because I don't know what the common person knows. :)
Ah, so not only do you have more knowledge of law enforcement than the average person, but you also give bad-faith answers to questions from officers of the court. You're a great juror!
I think if you're right, implying that this thing has a mouth, we've got bigger problems on our hands.
iPod/iPhone + iTunes synchronization doesn't hit the network, not for media content, anyways.
That's just it, isn't it? Your CUSTOMERS. Shouldn't it be up to the customers, not you, what they want to do with the software running on their computer?
Ideally, but it's not some holy writ or anything. It's up to the customers to decide if the liberty they give away is worth the benefit they receive. If it significantly bothers people, we will see iTunes share of the market go down, and people will move to UnBox.
I liken this to the old saying Windows isn't done until 1-2-3 won't run.
iTunes isn't a development platform, so it's not really comparable.
Even if it was, under what standard would it be wrong for Windows to break Lotus 1-2-3? If Microsoft has a monopoly, it becomes anti-competitive and possibly liable for sanction in the US. But at the time of the Lotus crisis, Microsoft didn't have a monopoly, and was using its platform to leverage its applications. Why didn't Lotus simply ship an OS with their application environment? MS put a lot of effort into writing Windows (suppress my guffaw), and they wanted to put that effort to use selling other products.
To compete with a platform vendor, the only real way to prevent them from leveraging their platform to sell extended services is to create your own platform, viz. Google and Android. You can play nice with your competitor's platform insofar as your competitor allows, but any house you build on their platform is built on sand.
Why doesn't Palm just write their own Jukebox?
I wonder if this is how Cringely got started.
The FBI arrested two procurers in his office for taking a bribe from a contractor (you'd think, him being the boss and everything, if he knew about it it would be HIM getting the bribe, but I digress). He was not implicated. But if you want to go around accusing people of felonies because it suits your politics, get ready for it to be thrown back at you someday.
He's only had sex with 0.15 women.
You're not skynet. I am.
I have Kathyrn Bigelow's. We should get them back together....
Yeah that's the tradeoff. On the other hand, it was perfectly secure. The storage medium could be walked anywhere and acts as a physical token.
I've heard that on programmer level it's very unstandard (no specifics here, sorry, but for example the author of 'UADE' said so and I have high respect for his skills).
"Non-standard"? Or just "different from GTk, Java or .NET".
You're the third person on this thread so far that has criticized the Mac OS X developer environment, while in the same breath conceding you have no knowledge of the environment...
Noone is a she, and she married anyone in a pretty how town (with up so floating may bells down)
Google "sony PRS". Cheaper and reads PDF better, the tradeoff is that the Sony bookstore is atrocious and requires software on your computer -- the Kindle store is pretty well stocked with contemporary books and downloads them over the air in a relatively painless process. FWIW I'm a Sony employee and get a break on buying Sony gear and I bought the Kindle, mainly because of the bookstore/subscription selection. No regrets.
It's a challenging use case. For the form factor we're talking about, lacking a keyboard but being very thin, having limited proc, and being only marginaly cheaper than a netbook, the real competition in its market is paper. If this thing isn't as useful as paper, why bother getting this for someone to use when an actual nominal "computer" is only marginally more expensive.
I think it's clear that someday something like this will replace a lot of paper, not all of it, but lots of ephemera. I already use my knidle to read my screenplays, and that's already saved 500 sheets in the past 3 months. If something like the kindle had better searching and browsing, and could actually read HTML documents in the manner they were intended, I could be keeping phonebooks full of film codebooks and sound library stuff in their right now.
Something I've noticed with my iPhone, on the other hand, despite the fact that it's a little small to use properly as paper, is that it's extremely difficult to be browsing something on my computer, and then to continue my browsing session on the phone, or vice versus. The only way to do it is to email links to yourself, and that's a supreme pain.... Something I still think about from Minority Report were the larger pad-like storage devices they used to move files from one rig to another, like when Tom Cruise's assistant would look up a series of mugshots on one machine and bring them over to his. The assistant would collect the mugshots, drag them off his screen and ONTO the screen of the pad, as if the pad, by nature of touching the computer, were an extension of his monitor, and then he could take the pad, which had a display and could show everything it held, and carried it to the other computer. From there, the pad then became an extention on Anderton's monitor, and he could look at the material directly on the pad or drag it to his system, completing the loop. Why the fuck can't someone build an internet tablet that can do that? All that haptic stuff was cool, but for some reason, in my work, I'm constantly wishing I could take something I'm working on at this moment, drag it to a pad, and carry it somewhere, perhaps to move, perhaps just to work in-situ on the pad.
I've posted some relatively long comments from an iPhone, it's when you want to start linking to things the impractical aspects start to show thru.
Old joke, updated:
What can you get a friend who has decided to become a game developer?
The second most important thing to give them would be The C++ Programming Language. The first most important thing to give them, of course, is a bullet in the head, now, while they're still happy.
You're mama's so fat, she's got her own term in the mathematical definition of the 2003 USGS geoid!
You're mama's so fat, when you stand next to her with a GPS, it says you're underground and 3 seconds in the past!
I'm here all week, try the veal!