In addition to what Artifakt said, if you read the GP carefully you should understand that a 50 MB FLAC file is going to gather WAY more dust than your typical Word file of less than 500 KB.
If you have problems getting the keyboard to strum, you may need to turn off Google Instant in your search settings. Then, click somewhere out of the text box, and go nuts with the keyboard.
Ooooooh, I get it! You are saying that "aspect correct full screen with black bars is better than aspect correct full screen without black bars," because that way you won't miss the parts of the image that would have to be cropped in order to fill the whole screen without stretching. Now I get you; cool!
It is painfully slow. It's too slow to be useful even on a fast wired LAN.
I care to differ. Totally. As I said, I use it on a daily basis (alongside RDC and X) for 3D visualization of CT and MRI data (and PET and SPECT).
Does it feel like sitting on the computer itself? No. Is it totally usable? Hell, yes!
It is true that I use it on a Gigabit Ethernet network, but it is a quite congested one. It is pleasant enough to use that I prefer it to walking to the room where the computer is, around 40 feet away.
If you are putting up with it and even defending it then I would characterize that as religious self flaggelation.
Or maybe I have faster hardware than you so the inefficiency of Screen Sharing becomes irrelevant for me. (Or maybe you are basing your comments on outdated experiences with outdated hardware under subpar conditions, or maybe you have a religious hatred for Macs, hell if I know).
X and Windows are engineered specifically to accomodate the remote GUI use case and it really shows.
Oh, yeah, I agree with that. It shows. They are better. Are they better by much, in daily use, under my conditions? No, not at all.
Apple is a big fat loser when it comes to remote display. [...] I can see how people might criticize the features of remote performance of X when compared to Win7 RDP but this stuff is a disaster in MacOS.
Mmmm.... care to elaborate? I use RDC, X, and MacOS X's screen sharing on a daily basis (CT related stuff on Windows systems, MRI on Linux, and cheap kick-ass visualizers on Mac). Even though the Mac screen sharing is clearly more sluggish than the other two (or said in another way, it's slightly sluggish) I find it perfectly usable and extremely useful.
And things always display perfectly, unlike RDC where regardless of the client some windows come up with the colors screwed up one third of the time forcing me to re-launch the program and other windows always display pure gibberish. Other than that, RDC is my favorite Microsoft application, but I still love both X and the Mac's Screen Sharing.
It absolutely works on Snow Leopard. Haven't tried Lion yet.
I did notice that apparently you can't have a user already logged in. That is, it seems that you can't use Fast User Switching to go back to the log-in screen and try to log into the console. Or maybe my user is doing something wrong.
But if the use logs off, then yes, >console works.
If you really want to use your iPhone/iPod touch in the bath, put it inside a zip-loc bag. Of course there is a chance of a little moisture passing through, so put the sealed bag inside another zip-loc bag. Just make sure that the labels of both bags are facing the back of your device so they don't obstruct your view.
And yes, you can still control the touch screen even through two layers of plastic and using your wet finger.
Extra tip: get sandwich-sized bags of two different brands, so that one is slightly narrower than the other and fit nicely inside it.
I suggest that before installing the update you try for yourself to access the infamous database from your latest iPhone backup. (One of the "fixes" in the iOS 4.3.3 update is that the database will no longer be backed-up). You can get the instructions on how to locate the SQLite database and how to open the CellLocation table using the SQLite Manager plug-in for Firefox directly from the people that "discovered" the issue. The most relevant fields are Timestamp, Latitude and Longitude.
The timestamp field shows the time of an entry in seconds since January 1st, 2001, at 0:00. The first shocking thing is that the data is not acquired continuously or at a regular interval, but rather in "blobs". Each of these "blobs" of data will have several entries, some five or less, but most (in my case) have 60 or more, *many* more, sometimes over 100. All those entries have literally the EXACT SAME timestamp, to the microsecond. I can't believe that my iPhone sees more than 100 different WiFi stations and cell towers at the SAME time.
Furthermore, most of the many entries for each particular "blob" happen to be several miles (up to 25) from the location where I know I was at that particular timestamp (say, midnight on a Wednesday). And indeed the info is close to useless: the average of all the 121 entries in the blob in a particular case was over 1.5 miles away from my actual location, and even the average of the 15 points closest to me (note that that required a priori knowledge of what you are looking for: my location) was 0.55 miles away.
My point is: Apple may be collecting the data from the radio logs to create their famous "crowdsourced" database, but the CellLocation table, which is the center of the whole issue, is not data from the radio logs of your specific device.
More coverage at ABC News, at CNN, and at Al Jazeera. The reports say that Bin Laden was actually killed about a week ago by a bomb in Pakistan, and the time taken to confirm his identity via DNA testing helped delay the news. In downtown Austin, Texas, in the time since the story broke I've heard what sound like numerous celebratory gunshots.
That's from the summary. NONE of the three sources state that, and none of the sources I read have said anything like that. I'm not going to jump to conclusions and say he was killed by a bomb in Pakistan a week ago, when the President said he was killed in a ground operation. He was likely killed by American rifles, whether face-to-face or initially from a distance.
Actually, last night I looked around a couple news websites just after Obama's speech. I wanted to see how they were reporting the issue. The only one where I saw any mention of a bombing one week ago was Fox News, and they didn't say much more. Today, I was unable to find that piece of information on their website.
[...] i never encountered anything totally new that wasn't detected by anything.
That's quite a tautology (in the Mathematical sense). If you had encountered something, then it would have been because one of the AV's detected it. That is, no antivirus will find a virus that it can't find.
It's sad when even the dictionary mixes Democracy and Representative Democracy. You don't have to go back far to find that second definition listed. Then again, the dictionary represents "popular usage" of words, not the original definition. That we have profaned Democracy and Representative Democracy by the unknowing to mean the same thing does not change the underlying structure of "the system"
The problem is that you and the GP poster are equating Democracy with Direct Democracy. Think of Direct and Representative Democracies as two forms of Democracy. Then, it is reasonable to mention both definitions in the same entry.
As to Republic, you only need go the the "Pledge of Allegiance" to read, "and to the Republic for which it stands". My "Us History to the Reformation" lists the US as a Republic using a Representative Democracy form of government.
I agree, the US is a Republic. I never argued it is not. I only argued against the misconception that the only form of Democracy is a Direct Democracy.
Of course. That is because the US is a republic. I am not arguing against that. I am only arguing against the misconception that all democracies are direct democracies and how the US can be a democracy (and at the same time a republic).
(Sorry for cross-posting a reply, but you said the same thing as two other guys).
Of course. That is because the US is a republic. I am not arguing against that. I am only arguing against the misconception that all democracies are direct democracies and how the US can be a democracy (and at the same time a republic).
(Sorry for cross-posting a reply, but you said the same thing as another guy).
It's not brainwashing nor nonsense. From the same dictionaries you referenced: (...)
Of course. That is because the US is a republic. I am not arguing against that. I am only arguing against the misconception that all democracies are direct democracies and how the US can be a democracy (and at the same time a republic).
The post I responded to merely quotes three dictionary definitions of democracy. I see no assertion that a republic is a kind of democracy, just an attack on someone who rejects the vague label of democracy and accepts the more specific label of republic. You are being extraordinarily generous in your interpretation of this post.:-)
Nope, as I said above he is interpreting my post exactly as I meant it. My original post has nothing to do with the term "republic" and whether it applies to the US or not (in fact, I believe it does). Just with the term "democracy"
Jeez, you're both right, there is no contradiction, except from the poster who asserted that the US isn't a democracy. It's clearly both a republic and a democracy, and yes, that's very easily possible. It's like having having a beverage and having a beer- it's both.
Actually the post that I responded to was asserting that the US gov't was not a republic, claiming that those who thought it a republic were brainwashed. So there was a contradiction and various other shortcomings.
No, I never asserted that the US government is not a republic. In fact, I agree: the US is a republic. I am just arguing that it is also a democracy and that the reason given by most to say it is not is based on the misconception that all democracies are direct democracies. The perpetuation of the misconception is the "brainwashing" part. That's all.
Where's the definitions of what a republic is? I get that the US is a form of democracy, but what about it also being a republic? I know I'm probably spewing invalid facts propagated from biased elementary teachers, but what I do remember is that at the federal level we are a republic. And that's what I was taught in every elementary history class I took, some of which were in California(who probably hate non-celebrity Republics more than Utah hates Democrats). If you are going to state the facts, state all the facts.
Oh, I agree with you, the US is a republic. I'm not arguing it is not. I am arguing that it is also a democracy and that the reason given by most to say it is not is based on the misconception that all democracies are direct democracies. That's all.
I'm also guessing you didn't RTFA. No where in it do they say that they passed the law because democracy is related to the Democratic party. They have a quote about it being a socialist witch hunt or something, but as far as I can tell not all Democrats are socialists and vice versa.
I'm guessing you didn't RTF last line of my post.;-)
Technically they're right. We are not a democracy, we are a republic. Their reasons for doing this may be wrong, but I agree with the overall outcome.
I know that they brainwashed you in school to believe that, but I would rather believe the New Oxford American Dictionary (emphasis mine):
democracy |dimäkrs| noun ( pl. -cies) a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives (...)
democracy noun \di-mä-kr-s\ plural democracies Definition of DEMOCRACY 1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections (...)
democracy [dih-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA –noun, plural -cies. 1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. (...)
(Sorry for cross-posting this, but this nonsense has to stop).
We're going to ignore the fact that this is more accurate, as a democracy is where everyone makes every decision, which is impractical on any large scale, while a republic is where we elect people to make decisions for us.
I know that they brainwashed you in school to believe that, but I would rather believe the New Oxford American Dictionary (emphasis mine):
democracy |dimäkrs| noun ( pl. -cies) a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives (...)
democracy noun \di-mä-kr-s\ plural democracies Definition of DEMOCRACY 1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections (...)
democracy [dih-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA –noun, plural -cies. 1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. (...)
Regardless of that, it must be noted that the article makes no mention of Utah making the decision because "democracy" suggests a relation to the "Democratic" party.
R+D, marketing, salaries, overhead, facilities costs have nothing to do with a product's bill-of-materials cost. NOTHING.
Yeah, that's why I said, and I quote: "Of course that does not include R&D, marketing and support costs (...)".
So imagine that iSuppli is correct with their $230 BOM cost (they're not). The R+D, etc all comes out of the difference between the BOM cost and the wholesale price. So if a product lists for $500, wholesale might generally be 60% of list ($300), (...)
Huh? That makes no sense... in other words, [citation needed]!
leaving only $70 to pay for everything Apple needs to run its business? Absurd.
Yeah, that would be absurd.
So the BOM cost is substantially lower, more like $100 to $150.
That, or your other assumption (wholesale price of Apple products being a paltry 60% of the list price) is what is wrong.
Of course Apple does have their direct sales channels, which cut out the middleman (like Dell) so there is added profit there, but there still is a cost associated with a retail operation.
With that I agree.
Ok, so the GP said "Does anyone else sort of get the feeling that they are losing money on the sales and making it back in app store? ", implying that Apple's margins on the iPad hardware are very small or even negative. I said something along the lines of "The margins must be higher because apparently their costs are lower than you think".... and yet you say that I'm wrong because... their costs (according to you) are even lower than what I quoted? Bizarre logic, mate...
Slashdot Mirror
In addition to what Artifakt said, if you read the GP carefully you should understand that a 50 MB FLAC file is going to gather WAY more dust than your typical Word file of less than 500 KB.
Oh, by the way: Whooooooooooosh !!
10^4 = 10000
Woosh, that flew right over your head.
Given that it wasn't a joke, I would love to know what you thought was the joke.
If you have problems getting the keyboard to strum, you may need to turn off Google Instant in your search settings. Then, click somewhere out of the text box, and go nuts with the keyboard.
Please excuse my ignorance, but... what's geman porn?
I am guessing it involves recordings of carnal acts performed by government bureaucrats wearing g-strings.
Eeewwwwwwww..... No wonder they didn't want to be caught with such filthy stuff on their own hard drives!
Half a dozen years ago, I worked at a company that got hacked due to a web vulnerability. The hackers simply used our storage to store geman porn.
Please excuse my ignorance, but... what's geman porn?
Ooooooh, I get it! You are saying that "aspect correct full screen with black bars is better than aspect correct full screen without black bars," because that way you won't miss the parts of the image that would have to be cropped in order to fill the whole screen without stretching. Now I get you; cool!
Aspect correct full screen without black bars is better than aspect correct full screen without black bars.
Huh?
goberment is also how someone with Spanish as a first language might pronounce government :-P
Pronounce it and spell it: gobierno. Which makes a lot of sense since the word govern comes from the Latin gubernare (in Spanish, gobernar).
> it's slightly sluggish
That is putting it mildly.
It is painfully slow. It's too slow to be useful even on a fast wired LAN.
I care to differ. Totally. As I said, I use it on a daily basis (alongside RDC and X) for 3D visualization of CT and MRI data (and PET and SPECT).
Does it feel like sitting on the computer itself? No. Is it totally usable? Hell, yes!
It is true that I use it on a Gigabit Ethernet network, but it is a quite congested one. It is pleasant enough to use that I prefer it to walking to the room where the computer is, around 40 feet away.
If you are putting up with it and even defending it then I would characterize that as religious self flaggelation.
Or maybe I have faster hardware than you so the inefficiency of Screen Sharing becomes irrelevant for me. (Or maybe you are basing your comments on outdated experiences with outdated hardware under subpar conditions, or maybe you have a religious hatred for Macs, hell if I know).
X and Windows are engineered specifically to accomodate the remote GUI use case and it really shows.
Oh, yeah, I agree with that. It shows. They are better. Are they better by much, in daily use, under my conditions? No, not at all.
Apple is a big fat loser when it comes to remote display. [...] I can see how people might criticize the features of remote performance of X when compared to Win7 RDP but this stuff is a disaster in MacOS.
Mmmm.... care to elaborate? I use RDC, X, and MacOS X's screen sharing on a daily basis (CT related stuff on Windows systems, MRI on Linux, and cheap kick-ass visualizers on Mac). Even though the Mac screen sharing is clearly more sluggish than the other two (or said in another way, it's slightly sluggish) I find it perfectly usable and extremely useful.
And things always display perfectly, unlike RDC where regardless of the client some windows come up with the colors screwed up one third of the time forcing me to re-launch the program and other windows always display pure gibberish. Other than that, RDC is my favorite Microsoft application, but I still love both X and the Mac's Screen Sharing.
It absolutely works on Snow Leopard. Haven't tried Lion yet.
I did notice that apparently you can't have a user already logged in. That is, it seems that you can't use Fast User Switching to go back to the log-in screen and try to log into the console. Or maybe my user is doing something wrong.
But if the use logs off, then yes, >console works.
What a silly invention.
If you really want to use your iPhone/iPod touch in the bath, put it inside a zip-loc bag. Of course there is a chance of a little moisture passing through, so put the sealed bag inside another zip-loc bag. Just make sure that the labels of both bags are facing the back of your device so they don't obstruct your view.
And yes, you can still control the touch screen even through two layers of plastic and using your wet finger.
Extra tip: get sandwich-sized bags of two different brands, so that one is slightly narrower than the other and fit nicely inside it.
No, you (and the GGP) are wrong.
I suggest that before installing the update you try for yourself to access the infamous database from your latest iPhone backup. (One of the "fixes" in the iOS 4.3.3 update is that the database will no longer be backed-up). You can get the instructions on how to locate the SQLite database and how to open the CellLocation table using the SQLite Manager plug-in for Firefox directly from the people that "discovered" the issue. The most relevant fields are Timestamp, Latitude and Longitude.
The timestamp field shows the time of an entry in seconds since January 1st, 2001, at 0:00. The first shocking thing is that the data is not acquired continuously or at a regular interval, but rather in "blobs". Each of these "blobs" of data will have several entries, some five or less, but most (in my case) have 60 or more, *many* more, sometimes over 100. All those entries have literally the EXACT SAME timestamp, to the microsecond. I can't believe that my iPhone sees more than 100 different WiFi stations and cell towers at the SAME time.
Furthermore, most of the many entries for each particular "blob" happen to be several miles (up to 25) from the location where I know I was at that particular timestamp (say, midnight on a Wednesday). And indeed the info is close to useless: the average of all the 121 entries in the blob in a particular case was over 1.5 miles away from my actual location, and even the average of the 15 points closest to me (note that that required a priori knowledge of what you are looking for: my location) was 0.55 miles away.
My point is: Apple may be collecting the data from the radio logs to create their famous "crowdsourced" database, but the CellLocation table, which is the center of the whole issue, is not data from the radio logs of your specific device.
More coverage at ABC News, at CNN, and at Al Jazeera. The reports say that Bin Laden was actually killed about a week ago by a bomb in Pakistan, and the time taken to confirm his identity via DNA testing helped delay the news. In downtown Austin, Texas, in the time since the story broke I've heard what sound like numerous celebratory gunshots.
That's from the summary. NONE of the three sources state that, and none of the sources I read have said anything like that. I'm not going to jump to conclusions and say he was killed by a bomb in Pakistan a week ago, when the President said he was killed in a ground operation. He was likely killed by American rifles, whether face-to-face or initially from a distance.
Actually, last night I looked around a couple news websites just after Obama's speech. I wanted to see how they were reporting the issue. The only one where I saw any mention of a bombing one week ago was Fox News, and they didn't say much more. Today, I was unable to find that piece of information on their website.
[...] i never encountered anything totally new that wasn't detected by anything.
That's quite a tautology (in the Mathematical sense). If you had encountered something, then it would have been because one of the AV's detected it. That is, no antivirus will find a virus that it can't find.
It's sad when even the dictionary mixes Democracy and Representative Democracy. You don't have to go back far to find that second definition listed.
Then again, the dictionary represents "popular usage" of words, not the original definition. That we have profaned Democracy and Representative Democracy by the unknowing to mean the same thing does not change the underlying structure of "the system"
The problem is that you and the GP poster are equating Democracy with Direct Democracy. Think of Direct and Representative Democracies as two forms of Democracy. Then, it is reasonable to mention both definitions in the same entry.
As to Republic, you only need go the the "Pledge of Allegiance" to read, "and to the Republic for which it stands".
My "Us History to the Reformation" lists the US as a Republic using a Representative Democracy form of government.
I agree, the US is a Republic. I never argued it is not. I only argued against the misconception that the only form of Democracy is a Direct Democracy.
Of course. That is because the US is a republic. I am not arguing against that. I am only arguing against the misconception that all democracies are direct democracies and how the US can be a democracy (and at the same time a republic).
(Sorry for cross-posting a reply, but you said the same thing as two other guys).
Of course. That is because the US is a republic. I am not arguing against that. I am only arguing against the misconception that all democracies are direct democracies and how the US can be a democracy (and at the same time a republic).
(Sorry for cross-posting a reply, but you said the same thing as another guy).
It's not brainwashing nor nonsense. From the same dictionaries you referenced:
(...)
Of course. That is because the US is a republic. I am not arguing against that. I am only arguing against the misconception that all democracies are direct democracies and how the US can be a democracy (and at the same time a republic).
The post I responded to merely quotes three dictionary definitions of democracy. I see no assertion that a republic is a kind of democracy, just an attack on someone who rejects the vague label of democracy and accepts the more specific label of republic. You are being extraordinarily generous in your interpretation of this post. :-)
Nope, as I said above he is interpreting my post exactly as I meant it. My original post has nothing to do with the term "republic" and whether it applies to the US or not (in fact, I believe it does). Just with the term "democracy"
Jeez, you're both right, there is no contradiction, except from the poster who asserted that the US isn't a democracy. It's clearly both a republic and a democracy, and yes, that's very easily possible. It's like having having a beverage and having a beer- it's both.
Actually the post that I responded to was asserting that the US gov't was not a republic, claiming that those who thought it a republic were brainwashed. So there was a contradiction and various other shortcomings.
No, I never asserted that the US government is not a republic. In fact, I agree: the US is a republic. I am just arguing that it is also a democracy and that the reason given by most to say it is not is based on the misconception that all democracies are direct democracies. The perpetuation of the misconception is the "brainwashing" part. That's all.
Where's the definitions of what a republic is? I get that the US is a form of democracy, but what about it also being a republic? I know I'm probably spewing invalid facts propagated from biased elementary teachers, but what I do remember is that at the federal level we are a republic. And that's what I was taught in every elementary history class I took, some of which were in California(who probably hate non-celebrity Republics more than Utah hates Democrats). If you are going to state the facts, state all the facts.
Oh, I agree with you, the US is a republic. I'm not arguing it is not. I am arguing that it is also a democracy and that the reason given by most to say it is not is based on the misconception that all democracies are direct democracies. That's all.
I'm also guessing you didn't RTFA. No where in it do they say that they passed the law because democracy is related to the Democratic party. They have a quote about it being a socialist witch hunt or something, but as far as I can tell not all Democrats are socialists and vice versa.
I'm guessing you didn't RTF last line of my post. ;-)
Technically they're right. We are not a democracy, we are a republic. Their reasons for doing this may be wrong, but I agree with the overall outcome.
I know that they brainwashed you in school to believe that, but I would rather believe the New Oxford American Dictionary (emphasis mine):
democracy |dimäkrs|
noun ( pl. -cies)
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives (...)
Or Merriam-Webster:
democracy noun \di-mä-kr-s\
plural democracies
Definition of DEMOCRACY
1
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections (...)
Or other popular but authoritative sources of information on the definition of words:
democracy
[dih-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA
–noun, plural -cies.
1.
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. (...)
(Sorry for cross-posting this, but this nonsense has to stop).
We're going to ignore the fact that this is more accurate, as a democracy is where everyone makes every decision, which is impractical on any large scale, while a republic is where we elect people to make decisions for us.
I know that they brainwashed you in school to believe that, but I would rather believe the New Oxford American Dictionary (emphasis mine):
democracy |dimäkrs|
noun ( pl. -cies)
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives (...)
Or Merriam Webster:
democracy noun \di-mä-kr-s\
plural democracies
Definition of DEMOCRACY
1
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections (...)
Or other popular but authoritative sources of information on the definition of words:
democracy
[dih-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA
–noun, plural -cies.
1.
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. (...)
Regardless of that, it must be noted that the article makes no mention of Utah making the decision because "democracy" suggests a relation to the "Democratic" party.
R+D, marketing, salaries, overhead, facilities costs have nothing to do with a product's bill-of-materials cost. NOTHING.
Yeah, that's why I said, and I quote: "Of course that does not include R&D, marketing and support costs (...)".
So imagine that iSuppli is correct with their $230 BOM cost (they're not). The R+D, etc all comes out of the difference between the BOM cost and the wholesale price. So if a product lists for $500, wholesale might generally be 60% of list ($300), (...)
Huh? That makes no sense... in other words, [citation needed]!
leaving only $70 to pay for everything Apple needs to run its business? Absurd.
Yeah, that would be absurd.
So the BOM cost is substantially lower, more like $100 to $150.
That, or your other assumption (wholesale price of Apple products being a paltry 60% of the list price) is what is wrong.
Of course Apple does have their direct sales channels, which cut out the middleman (like Dell) so there is added profit there, but there still is a cost associated with a retail operation.
With that I agree.
Ok, so the GP said "Does anyone else sort of get the feeling that they are losing money on the sales and making it back in app store? ", implying that Apple's margins on the iPad hardware are very small or even negative. I said something along the lines of "The margins must be higher because apparently their costs are lower than you think".... and yet you say that I'm wrong because... their costs (according to you) are even lower than what I quoted? Bizarre logic, mate...