My impression after reading the article is that this allows for easier predictions of the outcomes of particle interactions, like you might show with Feynman diagrams (particle decay, collisions that produce different particles, etc). Basically, the kinds of things that we'd study in a particle accelerator (so, quantum interactions, rather than classical ones).
Right....but the AC said that it's the Peter Principle at work. That is, the situation they described (using inappropriate metrics of suitability for a job, like being able to clock in at the right time as a judgement of being able to clean the tube station) is an example of something that might happen when the manager is an employee who has risen beyond their level of competence.
Right, it doesn't help you if the cable company starts broadcasting all-digital channels. I know that in my area, basic cable still comes over the line (basically, a non-HD version of what I can pick up OTA). Anything beyond that requires a box to decrypt/decode/whatever the digital stream that takes up the rest of the TV bandwidth on the line.
I remember that time, too. But I also remember when I got my own separate computer that I was able to borrow from my dad's game collection, and load things from there onto my computer, while he was playing something else. Sharing physical hardware is fine; it's a physical fact that you can't olay two computer games at once if you don't have to computers. The difference here is that you have two computers, a license to play two games, and access to the data for both games, but there's an artificial limitation preventing you from using those two licenses at once. One's a practical limitation, one's artificial. Apples and oranges.
So, why didn't you go for one of those digital-to-analog converter boxes when they were being provided for cheap a few years ago? You can still get them, but the price looks like it's around $40 for a lot of them.
OK, now read the actual security advisory and try to find a mention of terrorism, instead of looking to the sensationalized newspaper and Slashdot headlines.
When have I said *anything* about invalidating a patent?? I don't think you're actually reading what I'm writing (or at least not understanding it). All that I've done this whole time is: examine how Apple's patent is similar to functionality that I already have access to, and to what degree I see a similarity. I haven't been trying to say that something similar isn't patentable, or that something based on something else isn't patentable. From the things you've said, that's how you're trying to interpret my meaning, though.
OK, fine. I can also use a text password, a pin, or my face to get past the lock screen. I use the pattern because it's easy to do quickly. The lock mechanisms are separately patentable, and I didn't ever argue that they weren't. I argued that they have the same purpose....which they do. Different designs of folding chairs are separately patentable too. What's your point?
And then you describe account passwords, a different thing again.
I disagree that they're fundamentally different. They're both "information I need to know to access a capability" (that is, I'd consider my unlock pattern to have the same purpose as any of my account passwords that are used to access functionality built into my phone).
And more than 2 categories.
Right...and I acknowledged that already.
Inventions are never "completely new things".
([etc etc]) I never said that a patent or invention needed to be "completely new" or revolutionary; I was speculating on one reason that other posters' are whining about the "obviousness" of this particular example. A reinterpretation of features that already exist can certainly be patentable, especially if they're used in a new configuration or for a new purpose.
I can access the camera app without using my passcode, because it's among the list of apps that I've made available on my lock screen. I can take pictures from the app without unlocking my phone. If I want to manage my photo album, I have to sign in. Two levels of access. Similarly, I can sign into my phone and queue up some music. Then, from my lock screen, I can control the playback of the audio. If I unlock the phone and go to buy some music, it prompts me for a text password. That seems like three levels of access to the same app. What apple has done is to make those levels persist between different apps (If I'm allowed to buy some music, maybe I should be allowed to buy some apps too, for instance).
It's a neat idea, but it feels more like a "refocusing" of ACLs, multi-user login, or the lock screen app access I already have than it does a completely new thing. Basically, it's not revolutionary, and I think that's what most of the naysayers in the thread are complaining about.
Right....I never said that it wasn't. my claim is that the ones that it matters to (developers) already know that as well. I'll give you that RMS is technically correct, but I don't think he's *practically* correct. The people to whom a given system's architecture matters will either know it already or be forced to figure it out. For everyone else....well, my sister doesn't care how her phone's userspace is architected, but she *does* care that it's "Android", since that actually impacts how she uses it.
I'll furthermore add that Debian, and OS that many people like you would like to simply call "Linux"
I'd call Debian GNU/Linux "Debian", or "Debian Linux" if I were introducing it to someone that may have heard "Linux" but may not know specific distributions. If I ever had the need to, I'd call the Debian with an alternate kernel "Debian BSD" or something.
Names are important and the situation has not taken care of itself.
I disagree, for most cases. I've never seen a practical case of: "Ohhhhh, you wanted *GNU*/Linux. Sorry, I loaded Android/Linux on your computer!" or "I thought you meant Debian GNU/BSD, not Debian GNU/Linux!" If/when cases like that become a practical concern, I'll start specifying distro+userspace+kernel. Until such time, I'll stick with my current, sufficiently-unambiguous ways.
At this point, Android/Linux is usually just "Android", and GNU/Linux is just "Linux". The only times that I hear a different use in my life is when someone's trying to sound smart on the internet. So far, it seems like disambiguation has kind of taken care of itself.
From some (presumably fan-subbed) Japanese subtitles for the show:
Yoru ni tsudoi watashi no kanshi wa ima yori hajimarimasu. Sore wa watashi no shi made hitotoki mo tomarimasen. Watashi wa tsuma mo metorazu, tochi mo shoyuu sezu, kodomo-tachi no chichi to wa narimasen, soshite eiyo mo eikou mo motomemasen. Watashi wa shokumu ni iki soshite shinimasu. Watashi no ken wa kurayami ni arimasu. Watashi wa kabe no kanshinin desu. Watashi wa ryouiki o keigo shi tate to narimasu. Watashi wa, inochi to, meiyo o kake waitou~otchi ni seiyaku shimasu. Kon'ya kara, otozureru subete no yoru ni.
Android 1.0 and 1.1 didn't have special dessert names. Apparently, Android 1.2-1.4 were internal-only versions. Cupcake (Android 1.5) began with C, being the third publicly-released version of the OS.
If the guy that posted the video was in the U.S., then it would depend on which state he was in. Federal law provides for 1-party consent, where only one side of the conversation would need to consent, in order to record the entire conversation. 38 states have adopted that law as state law. The remaining 12 states require 2-party consent. Then again, the guy isn't in the US anyhow, so it's a moot point.
While answering the above, please enlighten everyone to what "United States version of America" even mean? What "America" is there?
I've known some people (Canadians, Central and South Americans) to take umbrage at the fact that people in the United States are frequently referred to as "Americans", both by themselves, and from, well, a good bit of the rest of the world. Presumably, their phrasing was supposed to show that they are offended.
Well, if you live in a world where definitions in the dictionary don't mean anything, and anyone can make up whatever they want for a definition, then you are correct. Personally, I live on planet Earth.
Those two worlds are one and the same. Dictionaries document commonly-understood definitions and spellings of words, but no more than that.
For most words, dictionaries do a decent job of keeping up with their meanings, but it's not true in all cases. Regardless, definitions in the dictionary mean about as much as comments in code: You hope they're up to date, and you use other information (like context) to decide if they aren't.
It's a metaphorical comparison, not a literal one.
They say nothing about the behavior of individuals, but make useful predictions about the statistical distribution of behaviors in the population.
Individual particles of a gas don't necessarily share all of the qualities of the gas as a whole. Some particles may be highly energetic in a low-energy mass, similar to how an individual may be a genius in a population of people with mediocre intelligence.
Slashdot Mirror
My impression after reading the article is that this allows for easier predictions of the outcomes of particle interactions, like you might show with Feynman diagrams (particle decay, collisions that produce different particles, etc). Basically, the kinds of things that we'd study in a particle accelerator (so, quantum interactions, rather than classical ones).
Right....but the AC said that it's the Peter Principle at work. That is, the situation they described (using inappropriate metrics of suitability for a job, like being able to clock in at the right time as a judgement of being able to clean the tube station) is an example of something that might happen when the manager is an employee who has risen beyond their level of competence.
I could find a single modern SUV with worse MPG
Really? Not a single one?
Right, it doesn't help you if the cable company starts broadcasting all-digital channels. I know that in my area, basic cable still comes over the line (basically, a non-HD version of what I can pick up OTA). Anything beyond that requires a box to decrypt/decode/whatever the digital stream that takes up the rest of the TV bandwidth on the line.
Their site still says "Every game on GOG.com is 100% DRM-free", and in my experience, it's completely true.
I remember that time, too. But I also remember when I got my own separate computer that I was able to borrow from my dad's game collection, and load things from there onto my computer, while he was playing something else. Sharing physical hardware is fine; it's a physical fact that you can't olay two computer games at once if you don't have to computers. The difference here is that you have two computers, a license to play two games, and access to the data for both games, but there's an artificial limitation preventing you from using those two licenses at once. One's a practical limitation, one's artificial. Apples and oranges.
So, why didn't you go for one of those digital-to-analog converter boxes when they were being provided for cheap a few years ago? You can still get them, but the price looks like it's around $40 for a lot of them.
OK, now read the actual security advisory and try to find a mention of terrorism, instead of looking to the sensationalized newspaper and Slashdot headlines.
When have I said *anything* about invalidating a patent?? I don't think you're actually reading what I'm writing (or at least not understanding it). All that I've done this whole time is: examine how Apple's patent is similar to functionality that I already have access to, and to what degree I see a similarity. I haven't been trying to say that something similar isn't patentable, or that something based on something else isn't patentable. From the things you've said, that's how you're trying to interpret my meaning, though.
OK, fine. I can also use a text password, a pin, or my face to get past the lock screen. I use the pattern because it's easy to do quickly. The lock mechanisms are separately patentable, and I didn't ever argue that they weren't. I argued that they have the same purpose....which they do. Different designs of folding chairs are separately patentable too. What's your point?
I presume the high pressure, tightly packed and heavier than (liquid) water solid form isprobably called "heavy ice"?
There are 15 known solid phases of water. They're called things like Ice-III.
And then you describe account passwords, a different thing again.
I disagree that they're fundamentally different. They're both "information I need to know to access a capability" (that is, I'd consider my unlock pattern to have the same purpose as any of my account passwords that are used to access functionality built into my phone).
And more than 2 categories.
Right...and I acknowledged that already.
Inventions are never "completely new things".
([etc etc])
I never said that a patent or invention needed to be "completely new" or revolutionary; I was speculating on one reason that other posters' are whining about the "obviousness" of this particular example. A reinterpretation of features that already exist can certainly be patentable, especially if they're used in a new configuration or for a new purpose.
It's a neat idea, but it feels more like a "refocusing" of ACLs, multi-user login, or the lock screen app access I already have than it does a completely new thing. Basically, it's not revolutionary, and I think that's what most of the naysayers in the thread are complaining about.
Uhm, but Android truly is Linux.
Right....I never said that it wasn't. my claim is that the ones that it matters to (developers) already know that as well. I'll give you that RMS is technically correct, but I don't think he's *practically* correct. The people to whom a given system's architecture matters will either know it already or be forced to figure it out. For everyone else....well, my sister doesn't care how her phone's userspace is architected, but she *does* care that it's "Android", since that actually impacts how she uses it.
I'll furthermore add that Debian, and OS that many people like you would like to simply call "Linux"
I'd call Debian GNU/Linux "Debian", or "Debian Linux" if I were introducing it to someone that may have heard "Linux" but may not know specific distributions. If I ever had the need to, I'd call the Debian with an alternate kernel "Debian BSD" or something.
Names are important and the situation has not taken care of itself.
I disagree, for most cases. I've never seen a practical case of: "Ohhhhh, you wanted *GNU*/Linux. Sorry, I loaded Android/Linux on your computer!" or "I thought you meant Debian GNU/BSD, not Debian GNU/Linux!" If/when cases like that become a practical concern, I'll start specifying distro+userspace+kernel. Until such time, I'll stick with my current, sufficiently-unambiguous ways.
At this point, Android/Linux is usually just "Android", and GNU/Linux is just "Linux". The only times that I hear a different use in my life is when someone's trying to sound smart on the internet. So far, it seems like disambiguation has kind of taken care of itself.
Those models differ in other ways (CPU/GPU speeds, RAM speed, etc).
Yoru ni tsudoi watashi no kanshi wa ima yori hajimarimasu.
Sore wa watashi no shi made hitotoki mo tomarimasen.
Watashi wa tsuma mo metorazu, tochi mo shoyuu sezu, kodomo-tachi no chichi to wa narimasen, soshite eiyo mo eikou mo motomemasen.
Watashi wa shokumu ni iki soshite shinimasu.
Watashi no ken wa kurayami ni arimasu.
Watashi wa kabe no kanshinin desu.
Watashi wa ryouiki o keigo shi tate to narimasu.
Watashi wa, inochi to, meiyo o kake waitou~otchi ni seiyaku shimasu.
Kon'ya kara, otozureru subete no yoru ni.
Android 1.0 and 1.1 didn't have special dessert names. Apparently, Android 1.2-1.4 were internal-only versions. Cupcake (Android 1.5) began with C, being the third publicly-released version of the OS.
Wrong Prince Albert. The tobacco is named after his son, who was originally named Albert Edward.
If the guy that posted the video was in the U.S., then it would depend on which state he was in. Federal law provides for 1-party consent, where only one side of the conversation would need to consent, in order to record the entire conversation. 38 states have adopted that law as state law. The remaining 12 states require 2-party consent. Then again, the guy isn't in the US anyhow, so it's a moot point.
There's going to be a lot
(from the post's subject line)
Seems like they just forgot to edit their body text to match their subject, or something.
While answering the above, please enlighten everyone to what "United States version of America" even mean? What "America" is there?
I've known some people (Canadians, Central and South Americans) to take umbrage at the fact that people in the United States are frequently referred to as "Americans", both by themselves, and from, well, a good bit of the rest of the world. Presumably, their phrasing was supposed to show that they are offended.
Well, if you live in a world where definitions in the dictionary don't mean anything, and anyone can make up whatever they want for a definition, then you are correct. Personally, I live on planet Earth.
Those two worlds are one and the same. Dictionaries document commonly-understood definitions and spellings of words, but no more than that.
For most words, dictionaries do a decent job of keeping up with their meanings, but it's not true in all cases. Regardless, definitions in the dictionary mean about as much as comments in code: You hope they're up to date, and you use other information (like context) to decide if they aren't.
Saying that no one complains about the first failure mode you specified sounds like an odd assertion, given the article that you're commenting on.
They say nothing about the behavior of individuals, but make useful predictions about the statistical distribution of behaviors in the population.
Individual particles of a gas don't necessarily share all of the qualities of the gas as a whole. Some particles may be highly energetic in a low-energy mass, similar to how an individual may be a genius in a population of people with mediocre intelligence.