Steve Jobs has been in the past an horrible father and a horrible bully, but that doesn't negate everything else he has done.
Which was what, exactly? Being a good marketeer? Being a follower of bullshit, sorry, alternate medicine? Being at the right place at the right time, and knowing the exact people? Am I missing something?
He founded Apple, and he founded Pixar, and he founded NeXT. That in itself more than most people have ever achieved in their lives. If you think Steve got to where he got by just being a good marketer, then you are seriously deluded. Yes, the guy wasn't an engineer, but he was certainly a visionary.
And he had his flaws, really big flaws, but he achieved a lot nonetheless.
Not the same. You use Google's API to access their service. Very different from a programming API. Google has no obligation to let you access their services for free, they choose to do so, and also choose to make those people who want to access their services programmatically pay for the privilege.
I think it's more than that. I think this is possibly what is referred to as cockpit resource management. The pilots were not communicating, which is the single worst thing that can happen in an emergency. The captain should know what the first officer is doing and vice versa. so when the stall warning came on, they pilots should have diagnosed the problem together, and agreed on the solution, and implemented it. In this case, nose down, and some throttle may have been the correct solution, but both pilots needed to know that this is what they needed to do.
Fly by wire means your electric inputs are converted into physical inputs by some other system. The two control sticks could be joined together, and the system would still be fly by wire if there was no mechanical link between the controls and the actual surfaces you are controlling.
I remember that on Wall-E too. They also created the lens flare to give some of the scenes the illusion that they were actually filmed, rather than computer generated. I also remember reading about some director/cinematographer who actually requested lower quality lenses because the ones he had received were too good and eliminated the lens artefacts which made the pictures look too refined/polished.
A single counterexample is not a significant data point. Statistical likelihood is all that matters. Otherwise we should reject all medicine that is not guaranteed to heal you, even though, in 90% of the cases, it will produce a healing effect.
Because, as you claim, a single counterexample is a significant data point.
GPL, the freedom is not for the users. Users have their freedom curtailed. You cannot use the code in many non-free ways. The most obvious one is that you cannot distribute derivative works under a different license.
BSD, the user is free to use the code, and improve upon it and distribute it as he/she wishes, without contributing back. You can create derivative works and use a different, non-free license.
And that is why the Android model is flawed. Not fatally mind you, but flawed nonetheless.
You can't expect people to have to audit every bit of software that they install on their smartphone. In fact, it ought to be reasonable for users to expect software they download off the official repositories (App Store, Market) to be malware free.
And yes freedom comes with risks. But freedom also allows users to choose a phone that doesn't require them to expend more effort than necessary to be able to do what they require. Don't forget, a smartphone is a luxury, not a necessity.
People aren't paying with their privacy. People are paying in dollars. People buy stuff advertised on facebook and their partner sites. The privacy angle is mostly about them targeting ads, or creating a large enough userbase (people who want to look at your photos) that they can advertise to.
I am not that paranoid by the way, but once the information is there, and you were involved in an accident, how hard is it going to be for the police to get a court order to access your data. They don't have to single you out either.
- Police - 3 cars were involved in the crash your honor, so we are want to view the contents of all their black boxes (who says boxen?). Please?
The article does say the handset division of Samsung made about 2/3 of its profits. But you have to take into account that Samsung is the world's largest mobile phone manufacturer by volume, and those dumb phones and feature phones also contributed to that figure.
One of the good things about text messaging is that it costs money (hear me out) and so it is less likely to be spammed. I still get text spam, but not nearly as much as I do with email.
The bad thing is that it costs money, so I have to either pay to send me, or get a plan with many texts included.
Now, I would kill for a text messaging service that:
- costs a "trivial amount" for an individual (say a fiver a month) but would discourage a spammer
- limits the number of text messages one can send (really important anti-spam feature);
- doesn't cost more to send half-way round the world as is does to someone two feet away.
One of the problems with text messaging is that the companies won't come up with a single messaging standard that works on all platforms (What'sapp doesn't count). So we have BBM and iMessage. I wish they would cooperate more, I really do!
If anything, in England it is probably cricket. But given that the English invented Rugby (Union and League), Association Football, Cricket, there really is no de jure national sport.
A model does not have to produce the closest prediction for it to be the most correct model. Getting the closest prediction can be completely down to chance.
For example, how much CO2 did he predict we would have put up there. How much rainforest depletion did he allow for. How much did he allow for other greenhouse gases. It could turn out that he predicted much higher temperatures based on a much smaller amount of CO2 emitted, which would make his model wrong. it would turn out that he did not allow for any increase in methane, which would make his model wrong. All this, even if he somehow lucked onto the correct forecast.
When you have a lot of models, one of them is going to be closer than others. If the models were black boxes, then you would choose the model that produced the best prediction, but once you know more about the models, you may find that the models that produced the best predictions may be the worst fitting models overall.
The big difference between CO2/Global warming and cigarettes/cancer is that for cigarettes cancer, we have all the people who don't smoke, and are not exposed to copious amounts of smoke as a control. For CO2/global warming, no control exists. Temperatures have always fluctuated, and so it is difficult to discern whether we have a trend or not, therefore it is harder to be more certain as to the effect of CO2 on the climate.
And besides, I have not seen too much evidence that CO2 does bad things. My own not very informed hypothesis is that the increased CO2 might actually be a good thing if it means plants can grow faster and healthier because of the increased amount of raw material (CO2) present. But it is just that, a hypothesis.
Yes, lets blame Google. But see how well that human curating worked out for Yahoo. The internet is too large for human curators on search engines. The only workable alternative is to allow people to vote down websites in the site results, but then you are exposing people to another kind of extortion. Imagine a botnet operator demanding money from people to _not_ use their millions strong botnet to vote down your site.
There was a time that buggy whip manufacturers had a lead on their competitors, even after their fate had been sealed. The trend has been for Apple and Android to take their market share for a few years.
I remember a point where Apple and RIM were both claiming the lead of the smartphone market. It was at that point that it became clear that RIM had lost. Momentum is quite the force. Apple and Android slung-shot past RIM at that point, and the only outcome was RIM losing.
I find it interesting that most of these projects are in fact losing money. Given the level of effort and the quality of the software that is being written, I wish that there was real pay days associated with the projects, but from what I can tell no one is making much money.
How is it a surprise that projects using a development that makes it hard to make money wind up losing money?
OP didn't say anything about not having a project manager. Once you have ten engineers, you also get yourself a dedicated project manager, so leave the engineering to the engineers, and the project management to the PM.
The tau version follows from the pi version. The pi version does not necessarily follow from the tau version, because the tau version would still be true if e^(pi*i) = 1.
So the tau version is missing some very important information.
No it isn't. It completely misses the point of e^(pi * i) = -1, which is that the left side gives you a bloody negative number.
The tau version is rather obvious, since you are squaring (-1). Put it another way, if e^(pi * i) had happened to equal 1, the tau version would be exactly the same. The tau version doesn't really tell you what is special about Euler's identity.
Slashdot Mirror
Steve Jobs has been in the past an horrible father and a horrible bully, but that doesn't negate everything else he has done.
Which was what, exactly? Being a good marketeer? Being a follower of bullshit, sorry, alternate medicine? Being at the right place at the right time, and knowing the exact people? Am I missing something?
He founded Apple, and he founded Pixar, and he founded NeXT. That in itself more than most people have ever achieved in their lives. If you think Steve got to where he got by just being a good marketer, then you are seriously deluded. Yes, the guy wasn't an engineer, but he was certainly a visionary.
And he had his flaws, really big flaws, but he achieved a lot nonetheless.
Not the same. You use Google's API to access their service. Very different from a programming API. Google has no obligation to let you access their services for free, they choose to do so, and also choose to make those people who want to access their services programmatically pay for the privilege.
I think it's more than that. I think this is possibly what is referred to as cockpit resource management. The pilots were not communicating, which is the single worst thing that can happen in an emergency. The captain should know what the first officer is doing and vice versa. so when the stall warning came on, they pilots should have diagnosed the problem together, and agreed on the solution, and implemented it. In this case, nose down, and some throttle may have been the correct solution, but both pilots needed to know that this is what they needed to do.
Fly by wire means your electric inputs are converted into physical inputs by some other system. The two control sticks could be joined together, and the system would still be fly by wire if there was no mechanical link between the controls and the actual surfaces you are controlling.
So who needs to get a clue now?
I remember that on Wall-E too. They also created the lens flare to give some of the scenes the illusion that they were actually filmed, rather than computer generated. I also remember reading about some director/cinematographer who actually requested lower quality lenses because the ones he had received were too good and eliminated the lens artefacts which made the pictures look too refined/polished.
How do you run through 26^7 possible password combinations on an online service?
Unless Microsoft lost the password hash database, it should be impossible to brute force a 7 letter password.
Just sayin'.
A single counterexample is not a significant data point. Statistical likelihood is all that matters. Otherwise we should reject all medicine that is not guaranteed to heal you, even though, in 90% of the cases, it will produce a healing effect.
Because, as you claim, a single counterexample is a significant data point.
Actually, I would say it's the exact opposite.
GPL, the freedom is not for the users. Users have their freedom curtailed. You cannot use the code in many non-free ways. The most obvious one is that you cannot distribute derivative works under a different license.
BSD, the user is free to use the code, and improve upon it and distribute it as he/she wishes, without contributing back. You can create derivative works and use a different, non-free license.
And that is why the Android model is flawed. Not fatally mind you, but flawed nonetheless.
You can't expect people to have to audit every bit of software that they install on their smartphone. In fact, it ought to be reasonable for users to expect software they download off the official repositories (App Store, Market) to be malware free.
And yes freedom comes with risks. But freedom also allows users to choose a phone that doesn't require them to expend more effort than necessary to be able to do what they require. Don't forget, a smartphone is a luxury, not a necessity.
People aren't paying with their privacy. People are paying in dollars. People buy stuff advertised on facebook and their partner sites. The privacy angle is mostly about them targeting ads, or creating a large enough userbase (people who want to look at your photos) that they can advertise to.
I am not that paranoid by the way, but once the information is there, and you were involved in an accident, how hard is it going to be for the police to get a court order to access your data. They don't have to single you out either.
- Police -
3 cars were involved in the crash your honor, so we are want to view the contents of all their black boxes (who says boxen?). Please?
Besides, if he has nothing to hide...
- Judge -
OK.
You made up the Android part!
The article does say the handset division of Samsung made about 2/3 of its profits. But you have to take into account that Samsung is the world's largest mobile phone manufacturer by volume, and those dumb phones and feature phones also contributed to that figure.
One of the good things about text messaging is that it costs money (hear me out) and so it is less likely to be spammed. I still get text spam, but not nearly as much as I do with email.
The bad thing is that it costs money, so I have to either pay to send me, or get a plan with many texts included.
Now, I would kill for a text messaging service that:
- costs a "trivial amount" for an individual (say a fiver a month) but would discourage a spammer
- limits the number of text messages one can send (really important anti-spam feature);
- doesn't cost more to send half-way round the world as is does to someone two feet away.
One of the problems with text messaging is that the companies won't come up with a single messaging standard that works on all platforms (What'sapp doesn't count). So we have BBM and iMessage. I wish they would cooperate more, I really do!
No it isn't.
If anything, in England it is probably cricket. But given that the English invented Rugby (Union and League), Association Football, Cricket, there really is no de jure national sport.
That problem from physics is not similar at all.
A model does not have to produce the closest prediction for it to be the most correct model. Getting the closest prediction can be completely down to chance.
For example, how much CO2 did he predict we would have put up there. How much rainforest depletion did he allow for. How much did he allow for other greenhouse gases. It could turn out that he predicted much higher temperatures based on a much smaller amount of CO2 emitted, which would make his model wrong. it would turn out that he did not allow for any increase in methane, which would make his model wrong. All this, even if he somehow lucked onto the correct forecast.
When you have a lot of models, one of them is going to be closer than others. If the models were black boxes, then you would choose the model that produced the best prediction, but once you know more about the models, you may find that the models that produced the best predictions may be the worst fitting models overall.
The big difference between CO2/Global warming and cigarettes/cancer is that for cigarettes cancer, we have all the people who don't smoke, and are not exposed to copious amounts of smoke as a control. For CO2/global warming, no control exists. Temperatures have always fluctuated, and so it is difficult to discern whether we have a trend or not, therefore it is harder to be more certain as to the effect of CO2 on the climate.
And besides, I have not seen too much evidence that CO2 does bad things. My own not very informed hypothesis is that the increased CO2 might actually be a good thing if it means plants can grow faster and healthier because of the increased amount of raw material (CO2) present. But it is just that, a hypothesis.
Yes, lets blame Google. But see how well that human curating worked out for Yahoo. The internet is too large for human curators on search engines. The only workable alternative is to allow people to vote down websites in the site results, but then you are exposing people to another kind of extortion. Imagine a botnet operator demanding money from people to _not_ use their millions strong botnet to vote down your site.
There was a time that buggy whip manufacturers had a lead on their competitors, even after their fate had been sealed. The trend has been for Apple and Android to take their market share for a few years.
I remember a point where Apple and RIM were both claiming the lead of the smartphone market. It was at that point that it became clear that RIM had lost. Momentum is quite the force. Apple and Android slung-shot past RIM at that point, and the only outcome was RIM losing.
What you need is the market share graph. 50 percent of people may now be using smartphones, but more than 50% are buying smartphones already.
I find it interesting that most of these projects are in fact losing money. Given the level of effort and the quality of the software that is being written, I wish that there was real pay days associated with the projects, but from what I can tell no one is making much money.
How is it a surprise that projects using a development that makes it hard to make money wind up losing money?
OP didn't say anything about not having a project manager. Once you have ten engineers, you also get yourself a dedicated project manager, so leave the engineering to the engineers, and the project management to the PM.
Apple isn't Foxconn's only customer. If Apple pays more than IBM, Dell etc, then they are essentially subsidising their competitors.
Umm, no!
e^(pi*i) = -1 implies e^(tau*i) = 1
e^(tau*i) = 1 does not imply e^(pi*i) = -1
The tau version follows from the pi version. The pi version does not necessarily follow from the tau version, because the tau version would still be true if e^(pi*i) = 1.
So the tau version is missing some very important information.
No it isn't. It completely misses the point of e^(pi * i) = -1, which is that the left side gives you a bloody negative number.
The tau version is rather obvious, since you are squaring (-1). Put it another way, if e^(pi * i) had happened to equal 1, the tau version would be exactly the same. The tau version doesn't really tell you what is special about Euler's identity.