Actually, the iPhone represents the typical all season tire.
Great for most, but when those users encounter usage/experience with a summer tire, winter tire, rain tire, or high mileage tire, the all-season tire sort of gets pushed into the trash bin. Yes, it supports everything, but does it at the level of the less common denominator (hence why the iPhone is popular).
As for an iPopd/iPhone, one trying a small N95 (from a call quality and QoS standpoint) and a Zune or Sony Digital Walkman (sound QoS) would definitely change their attitude on which scenario is better...
From that statement, I have come to the conclusion all interfaces are terrible for me. From a no-brainer google.com to a PhD researched and developed Squeak UI. They all suck.
Famous software engineers were either former Applied Physicists, or Electrical Engineers. Again, to the rest of the CS audience: that's software engineering. That means making things work, proving concepts in hardware and software. The "how" part.
I've find Mathematicians excel in the [pure] Software Development part (i.e. Computer Science), in other words, the "why". Pure by means of: interested in writing a new language?
This is likely directly related to your interests: In s/w development, it's all about syntax, and doing it in the theoretically correct way (thinking like a mathematician). In s/w engineering, it's fitting a solution around the problem and working with unchangeable h/w constraints (thinking like an engineer)
Deep down there is a difference. Note that most Physicists hate math (or lazy at it;) )and vice versa.... As for math classes, if you want to be a software engineer: PDE, Math Analysis, vectors, euclidean space are beneficial IMO. For hard core software development, discrete math and graph analysis are better. And this is from a former physicist's POV.
Having FOSS at the bottom will fix the one thing that companies always get into trouble for: cornering a market.
As with Android, being FOSS lowers the cost of entry and keeps it low. This prevents companies from inflating the value of their product, which in turn they get sucked into becoming a monopoly by inflating the cost of entry into their "turf". Lowering the cost of entry will either force the big, more established players a choice of buying out a smaller player (usually good for the owner, maybe not for the customers), or losing market share (competition is good). And of course this is the internet, so these situations can happen overnight, which is a good thing.
As long as Google keeps Android FOSS and yearly updated, this model will become the de facto standard of selling apps.
BS! It's not 'Java is too complex', that's just believing the anti-Java marketing hype.
All devs know that pretty much all languages eventually become too complex (from Basic to Perl to Python). It also applies to non-computer languages: you think English is easier than Arabic? Both are equally complex...same for Java vs. C# vs C vs C++ vs Perl vs VB vs (in the near future) Ruby and Scala.
The real problem with Java was its JCP, it became a design by committee language and the current, popular problems we solved thru group think (slow, political, result: complex!) vs. common sense. C# and the CLR took the lessons learned and was crafted to solve today's problems (and a pretty good job), but it will hit the same barriers when tomorrow's problems show up and become even more complex.
Also, everyone wanted to use Java from replacing ASM code (Java cores) to Databases (EJB) to webservices (WS/Fx) to running your wrist watch... So the hype cycle was use for and against itself. Then again, if you think about it, C evolved the same way.
unfortunately it will require deficit spending, but Moon-shot programs will create good, profitable jobs, and promote higher education standards. And that's compared to healthcare [of people who did take care of themselves in the 1st place] which likely promotes education at the lowest common denominator due to the corporations/gov'ts thrist for easy money.
Unless they can intercept and alter the signal, they're still going to get blown up. It's just their commanders (or subordinates if a UAV strikes a HQ) can do a real post mortem on why "UAVs" > "sticks and stones".
And in TFA, it's a video feed. Video feeds are not use in command and control of UAV--but instead target verification and post analysis--which is useless intel to an adversary during a unfolding mission. Also, you know if they encrypt it, they need more processing power. If an unencrypted stream barely provides real-time, low-latency video through a satellite network (thousands of miles wirelessly), and moving at a few hundred miles an hour, adding encryption will surely kill the performance and add a boat load of latency on the vehicle side...
Is this a surprise to non-military, web-programmers, h*ll yes. But to the milspec programmer I can see there was a bunch of technical tradeoffs involved in going 'unencrypted'.
And sure, you probably could get wireshark sniffing packets off their connection...for FREE.
I thought if the motion compensation algo is better at 9mbits, than at 16, then it could look better, especially if there's a lot of action. Can't remember if the MPEG4/H.264 specs allow one to change it.
The again, it's BBC, all the shows are a bunch of folks sitting around a coffee table drinking tea with static images in the background, talking slowly. Or at least that's how they explained British TV on Family Guy. You will see a difference with bitrate in that case.
Agreed, will all the brainpower, testing and effort put into this, they might as well had prototyped a non-nvidia hardware design, opensourced the design to someone like intel to create a mass producible ref design and then licensed it to Nvidia. Then we'd have stuff like GMA's architecture (and plays very easy with FOSS code) with Nvidia power.... and everyone wins.
The OP's approach is really a nose in the air, we're smarter than everyone else and going it alone approach--if Nvidia takes note to compete, it will bite this effort in the butt down the road.
"this article as knock-offs of existing applications"
Aside from the web 2.0 services, aren't all the other applications essentially knock offs from PocketPC or PalmOS apps? I mean music players, photo manipulators, pac mac, pinball, and card games, funnies, and such have been around for what, 7years? (Since the Tungsten W).
Hulu is mainly a joint venture between NBC, ABC, and Fox.
I noticed all the articles about this deal killing Hulu--sure NBC has nearly all their shows on Hulu, but why bloggers are trying to make Hulu = NBC... I don't understand.
Sort of like the animal kingdom, Google is the receiver of a lot of other software and hardware that's out there in order to be successful. Hence they are dependent, like a bear is dependent on fish that is dependent on algae. And a good big fish is better than a small fish for that bear to survive. In other words, they are at the end of the technology cycle (from h/w to s/w to services cycle).
This whole brilliance thing is that they just think they're human (top of the food chain).
are just simulations? Sure we can simulate going to the moon, million miles away and get there in reality, but to simulate hundred of thousands of years to predict hundreds of years into the future? IMO, that's would be a bit more complex and take longer than 20yrs to figure out. Climate research is a scale issue and we already know one theory doesn't apply to all (Quantum Physics vs. Newtonian Physics).
One renown scientist told me that simulations are just models that you tweak to get results you want.
This [now political situation] appears to have followed that same principle.
It's funny that everyone talk about the internet and "information wants to be free", but in the end it basically breaks down all hierarchies--bring fairness to everyone and empowers everyone equally: and that includes criminals, the homeless, the predator, and the politician. I rather think of it as information wants to be discovered...and exploited.
I can't wait until F/OSS gets exploited by the internet--Granted F/OSS is benefitting the world more-so-ever, but so far it's a blind love fest.We all talk about freedom and the internet in the same words, and well.... you're going to get what you ask for.
It maybe a choke point if there are fees--and Handango has none (yes, they do take more revenue in their sharing model, but then again their apps are more expensive on average)... And with a inconsistent approval process--mainly for updating apps (new apps are ok it appears), and a ceiling point before you get paid ($250), well, as a choke point? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck...
"The only ones to "stick it out" are the ones who are the most likely to profit."
And those most likely to profit are those with deep pockets in order to promote their apps in the sea of crud. Note the last 6month's top ten apps were from Global 2000 companies. There's been a novelity app from an independent here and there, but we know there's a catch to it from Apple to heavily promote its success in order to keep developers salivating at making millions in the appstore. And if it's not a marketing app, your get what you pay for.... which means high quality apps will definitely see an increase in price as this exodus continues which is risk to Apple (they prefer lower price apps as in their game app initiative)..
As for me, what broke the camel's back was the $99/yr subscription and every 2.8GB download for each SDK update. Thanks, but moving to Android and Maemo. The approval process has been average for me and the profit for a indie dev has been close to non-existent.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the iPhone represents the typical all season tire.
Great for most, but when those users encounter usage/experience with a summer tire, winter tire, rain tire, or high mileage tire, the all-season tire sort of gets pushed into the trash bin. Yes, it supports everything, but does it at the level of the less common denominator (hence why the iPhone is popular).
As for an iPopd/iPhone, one trying a small N95 (from a call quality and QoS standpoint) and a Zune or Sony Digital Walkman (sound QoS) would definitely change their attitude on which scenario is better...
From that statement, I have come to the conclusion all interfaces are terrible for me. From a no-brainer google.com to a PhD researched and developed Squeak UI. They all suck.
Well, except the [Buy Now] button UI on Amazon.
You're right.
;) )and vice versa.... As for math classes, if you want to be a software engineer: PDE, Math Analysis, vectors, euclidean space are beneficial IMO. For hard core software development, discrete math and graph analysis are better. And this is from a former physicist's POV.
Famous software engineers were either former Applied Physicists, or Electrical Engineers. Again, to the rest of the CS audience: that's software engineering. That means making things work, proving concepts in hardware and software. The "how" part.
I've find Mathematicians excel in the [pure] Software Development part (i.e. Computer Science), in other words, the "why". Pure by means of: interested in writing a new language?
This is likely directly related to your interests: In s/w development, it's all about syntax, and doing it in the theoretically correct way (thinking like a mathematician). In s/w engineering, it's fitting a solution around the problem and working with unchangeable h/w constraints (thinking like an engineer)
Deep down there is a difference. Note that most Physicists hate math (or lazy at it
Having FOSS at the bottom will fix the one thing that companies always get into trouble for: cornering a market.
As with Android, being FOSS lowers the cost of entry and keeps it low. This prevents companies from inflating the value of their product, which in turn they get sucked into becoming a monopoly by inflating the cost of entry into their "turf". Lowering the cost of entry will either force the big, more established players a choice of buying out a smaller player (usually good for the owner, maybe not for the customers), or losing market share (competition is good). And of course this is the internet, so these situations can happen overnight, which is a good thing.
As long as Google keeps Android FOSS and yearly updated, this model will become the de facto standard of selling apps.
Look, both languages will be around for a long time.
Java == geared for maintainable/long term functionality (code that can be refactored)
C# == geared for short lived, variable customer-changing functionality (code that can be reengineered).
nuff said.
BS! It's not 'Java is too complex', that's just believing the anti-Java marketing hype.
All devs know that pretty much all languages eventually become too complex (from Basic to Perl to Python). It also applies to non-computer languages: you think English is easier than Arabic? Both are equally complex...same for Java vs. C# vs C vs C++ vs Perl vs VB vs (in the near future) Ruby and Scala.
The real problem with Java was its JCP, it became a design by committee language and the current, popular problems we solved thru group think (slow, political, result: complex!) vs. common sense. C# and the CLR took the lessons learned and was crafted to solve today's problems (and a pretty good job), but it will hit the same barriers when tomorrow's problems show up and become even more complex.
Also, everyone wanted to use Java from replacing ASM code (Java cores) to Databases (EJB) to webservices (WS/Fx) to running your wrist watch... So the hype cycle was use for and against itself. Then again, if you think about it, C evolved the same way.
And why is this news?
unfortunately it will require deficit spending, but Moon-shot programs will create good, profitable jobs, and promote higher education standards. And that's compared to healthcare [of people who did take care of themselves in the 1st place] which likely promotes education at the lowest common denominator due to the corporations/gov'ts thrist for easy money.
Unless they can intercept and alter the signal, they're still going to get blown up. It's just their commanders (or subordinates if a UAV strikes a HQ) can do a real post mortem on why "UAVs" > "sticks and stones".
And in TFA, it's a video feed. Video feeds are not use in command and control of UAV--but instead target verification and post analysis--which is useless intel to an adversary during a unfolding mission. Also, you know if they encrypt it, they need more processing power. If an unencrypted stream barely provides real-time, low-latency video through a satellite network (thousands of miles wirelessly), and moving at a few hundred miles an hour, adding encryption will surely kill the performance and add a boat load of latency on the vehicle side...
Is this a surprise to non-military, web-programmers, h*ll yes. But to the milspec programmer I can see there was a bunch of technical tradeoffs involved in going 'unencrypted'.
And sure, you probably could get wireshark sniffing packets off their connection...for FREE.
I thought if the motion compensation algo is better at 9mbits, than at 16, then it could look better, especially if there's a lot of action. Can't remember if the MPEG4/H.264 specs allow one to change it.
The again, it's BBC, all the shows are a bunch of folks sitting around a coffee table drinking tea with static images in the background, talking slowly.
Or at least that's how they explained British TV on Family Guy. You will see a difference with bitrate in that case.
Asnwer: too many men and women.
By now, we should have nothing but robots in computing.
"It won't have any statutory authority. It won't have any budgetary authority. That does not give it much authority of any kind"
Kinda represents the majority of IT departments in big corporations.
Agreed, will all the brainpower, testing and effort put into this, they might as well had prototyped a non-nvidia hardware design, opensourced the design to someone like intel to create a mass producible ref design and then licensed it to Nvidia. Then we'd have stuff like GMA's architecture (and plays very easy with FOSS code) with Nvidia power.... and everyone wins.
The OP's approach is really a nose in the air, we're smarter than everyone else and going it alone approach--if Nvidia takes note to compete, it will bite this effort in the butt down the road.
"this article as knock-offs of existing applications"
Aside from the web 2.0 services, aren't all the other applications essentially knock offs from PocketPC or PalmOS apps? I mean music players, photo manipulators, pac mac, pinball, and card games, funnies, and such have been around for what, 7years? (Since the Tungsten W).
Hulu is mainly a joint venture between NBC, ABC, and Fox.
I noticed all the articles about this deal killing Hulu--sure NBC has nearly all their shows on Hulu, but why bloggers are trying to make Hulu = NBC... I don't understand.
Sort of like the animal kingdom, Google is the receiver of a lot of other software and hardware that's out there in order to be successful. Hence they are dependent, like a bear is dependent on fish that is dependent on algae. And a good big fish is better than a small fish for that bear to survive. In other words, they are at the end of the technology cycle (from h/w to s/w to services cycle).
This whole brilliance thing is that they just think they're human (top of the food chain).
are just simulations? Sure we can simulate going to the moon, million miles away and get there in reality, but to simulate hundred of thousands of years to predict hundreds of years into the future? IMO, that's would be a bit more complex and take longer than 20yrs to figure out. Climate research is a scale issue and we already know one theory doesn't apply to all (Quantum Physics vs. Newtonian Physics).
One renown scientist told me that simulations are just models that you tweak to get results you want.
This [now political situation] appears to have followed that same principle.
It's funny that everyone talk about the internet and "information wants to be free", but in the end it basically breaks down all hierarchies--bring fairness to everyone and empowers everyone equally: and that includes criminals, the homeless, the predator, and the politician. I rather think of it as information wants to be discovered...and exploited.
I can't wait until F/OSS gets exploited by the internet--Granted F/OSS is benefitting the world more-so-ever, but so far it's a blind love fest.We all talk about freedom and the internet in the same words, and well.... you're going to get what you ask for.
Power issues? Don't ask this guy...
Well, considering most Asus laptops are 1/2 the price of a MacBookPro....
It maybe a choke point if there are fees--and Handango has none (yes, they do take more revenue in their sharing model, but then again their apps are more expensive on average)... And with a inconsistent approval process--mainly for updating apps (new apps are ok it appears), and a ceiling point before you get paid ($250), well, as a choke point? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck...
may not be a good year for AT&T.
"The only ones to "stick it out" are the ones who are the most likely to profit."
And those most likely to profit are those with deep pockets in order to promote their apps in the sea of crud. Note the last 6month's top ten apps were from Global 2000 companies. There's been a novelity app from an independent here and there, but we know there's a catch to it from Apple to heavily promote its success in order to keep developers salivating at making millions in the appstore. And if it's not a marketing app, your get what you pay for.... which means high quality apps will definitely see an increase in price as this exodus continues which is risk to Apple (they prefer lower price apps as in their game app initiative)..
As for me, what broke the camel's back was the $99/yr subscription and every 2.8GB download for each SDK update. Thanks, but moving to Android and Maemo. The approval process has been average for me and the profit for a indie dev has been close to non-existent.
Google has some smart tech guys. But not the smartest.On the flip side they probably have the smartest business folks.
To keep the business rolling--it's the business guys. The tech guys are there to justify spending that invested cash.
Why can't we just call a "death march" .... just a failed project (or project that will fail).
All these buzzwords and cliq names are just building a fantasy environment.