Definitely not... Developer, and a high resolution makes it easier on the eyes with a small font. A character 3mm high is much easier to read if drawn with more pixels.
So with a higher resolution i can use a much smaller font, without straining my eye's, allowing me to have around 20-25% more lines of code on screen at any single time. Another use is that i can fit a editor on one side and a browser/document on the other allowing me to switch between reading documentation and writing code without switching workspaces etc. Just read up about the benefits of having 2 monitors for the same purpose.
I run Xubuntu on a Macbook pro laptop because it was cheaper for the wanted hardware.. The requirements i had where: - Good keyboard (i like it anyway) - Good screen (1080 pixels high is just bad..) - Good battery time. (getting 7-8 hours without problem) - No dual gfx card.. Intel only... - Good CPU. - Size/Weight of laptop including AC adapter.. (since i do travel a bit) When searching around i found a couple of laptops.. but none fit the requirements i had.. Either it had a good cpu and keyboard, but not a good screen or battery time. Or it was good screen/keyboard/battery-time but a slow CPU..
So in the end i found 2 options... Either one that was a bit heavy and price at around 2500EUR or the current macbook that i got for 2000EUR..
It is not perfetct hardware, but it does give back for the buck.. There are several negative things with it like lack of docking, non-replacable battery etc, but none of those are too important for me..
Here in Sweden i just got upgraded from 100/10 to 100/100 Mbit... and monthly fee reduced from about 13 to 12 EUR.... (Our building-cooperation have a really sweet deal with the ISP)
Equalized in terms of that all people are worth the same - Yes. Equalized in terms of that all people gets the same amount of wealth - No.
Life is a long struggle, but making it so everyone have the same opportunities to start with is something we should strive for.
Two things in life that most people want and need.. Education and healthcare... Make those two free for everyone and the world would be come a much more interesting and safe place..
The thing with open-source projects is that you do not need to have it documented to the extreme.. For run-time you need descriptions of all the configuration and usage, but for API's you can keep the documentation fairly basic since you have access to the source and can see exactly what is happening.
I have seen it many times in closed-source software where you need to init things in a very specific order and the order is only available in a few simple examples. When having the source you can run it in a debugger and actually see the full flow, and you can even modify it to take care of corner-cases the original developers did not think of..
Best of two worlds is to have a well-documented proprietary software with a source-code license.
I would more say that it's a case of MS complaining that it cannot do whatever they want, like they used to be able to...
Look at what MS have been doing with their previous versions of the application... I would myself start to be extremely strict on the TOS for any company that have blatantly ignored it from the beginning.
According to a "angry letter" posted on technet... If you do a simple search for this and read a few of the articles you can see a behavior from MS that is not ok... I can understand Google for forcing MS to follow the TOS to the letter after the crap they have tried to pull.
Even if Google is slow on providing MS with what they must comply with and how they can do this does not make it ok for MS to publish an application that still fails to meet the terms.
If MS is having issues then they can pay for some youtube experienced developer to come over and assist them with the stuff..... Can be from Google or other places...
Yes, i read the article and also a few more related articles about this... The link was to what Microsoft wrote on technet, ie their opinion of what is happening.. If you actually check a few more sources you can actually find a bit of history of how Microsoft have behaved since the start of this. If a company blatantly ignores terms and continues to say that "we fixed it" without actually fixing the opposite party might become more and more strict on the terms specified for the service.
https://developers.google.com/youtube/terms There you go.. It's for the publicly available API, not for the ad-enabled API but to get access to that you have to agree to a similar terms, and you have about the same level of documentation for that.
And just because they have not yet received the information does not make it ok for them to publish the application that fails to follow the terms. If they have problems to fulfill all the terms maybe they should pay google for a single person to do a simple "do we fulfill the terms now" test before they go public with the app.
Slowing down for turns would break that model and could create congestion. Hence me question.
Nope, not if you place them at a optimal distance between each other. Since all carts will have to pass the bend they will all slow down. So as long as the distance between each cart is at least the difference in distance a cart will go at the slower speed compared to full speed, and that is probably not that much and should probably fit the time it takes to unload/load passengers on each end.
Google are not being assholes, they are protecting their revenue from the ad's playing together with the videos..
They had 2 requirements that microsoft listed in the article. - Not an HTML5 app. (requirement from Google maybe?) - Google claims that the application does not show the AD's as it should in all instances.
Only time Microsoft can complain is if they fulfill all the listed requirements and Google still refuses them access.
Google claims that one problem with our new app is that it doesn’t always serve ads based on conditions imposed by content creators.
Why should Google allow any other company to develop their own application without following the requirements specified for the service?
If Google says "you gonna have to write it in Amiga E and then emulate a 68000 cpu on the phone to run it" that will be the terms of using the service... It's only google than can decide what the rules are and they are free to set them to any level they want and they can be as hard and as soft as they want towards anyone implementing it... Microsoft have a reputation of not playing nicely so then Google might just be a bit more string on the rules.
And if comparing this to how Microsoft behaved back in the day this is nothing..
Well...... Look it up how much ad-revenue the different channels make on a popular show on prime-time....
It's that the companies wants to make more money... And the channels and the cable-companies are usually separate partners where the cable-operator has to license the channel, even for ad-driven ones... Then you have crap where a studio would license that only this channel is allowed to air this series in this country during this time-period, and then that channel then makes plans to make allot of money on the show during this time...
It's all economics, and the old channels/cable-operators are still clinging on to the old ways since the current distribution model will hopefully be gone in 5-10 years allowing new service-providers to offer this content in more specialiced ways and cutting out the middle-man (the channel) and just leaving the production-company and the service-provider.
For a 40 minute episode even having one ad-break is too much for something you have to pay to get access to.. Having 20 minutes advertising during a 40 minute episode is way to much!
And usually the ad-breaks are placed where something exiting is happening just to try and keep you in the sofa during the break and not change channel either.
Slashdot Mirror
For reference
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
FYI - Just in China about 270000 people die due to coal-plants per year..
Forget about that... it would not die.. they would switch to another way of operating, like subscription/micropayment-based or maybe donation-based..
Definitely not... Developer, and a high resolution makes it easier on the eyes with a small font. A character 3mm high is much easier to read if drawn with more pixels.
So with a higher resolution i can use a much smaller font, without straining my eye's, allowing me to have around 20-25% more lines of code on screen at any single time. Another use is that i can fit a editor on one side and a browser/document on the other allowing me to switch between reading documentation and writing code without switching workspaces etc. Just read up about the benefits of having 2 monitors for the same purpose.
Because i do not want or need OSX..
I run Xubuntu on a Macbook pro laptop because it was cheaper for the wanted hardware.. The requirements i had where:
- Good keyboard (i like it anyway)
- Good screen (1080 pixels high is just bad..)
- Good battery time. (getting 7-8 hours without problem)
- No dual gfx card.. Intel only...
- Good CPU.
- Size/Weight of laptop including AC adapter.. (since i do travel a bit)
When searching around i found a couple of laptops.. but none fit the requirements i had.. Either it had a good cpu and keyboard, but not a good screen or battery time. Or it was good screen/keyboard/battery-time but a slow CPU..
So in the end i found 2 options... Either one that was a bit heavy and price at around 2500EUR or the current macbook that i got for 2000EUR..
It is not perfetct hardware, but it does give back for the buck.. There are several negative things with it like lack of docking, non-replacable battery etc, but none of those are too important for me..
Here in Sweden i just got upgraded from 100/10 to 100/100 Mbit... and monthly fee reduced from about 13 to 12 EUR.... (Our building-cooperation have a really sweet deal with the ISP)
Equalized in terms of that all people are worth the same - Yes.
Equalized in terms of that all people gets the same amount of wealth - No.
Life is a long struggle, but making it so everyone have the same opportunities to start with is something we should strive for.
Two things in life that most people want and need.. Education and healthcare... Make those two free for everyone and the world would be come a much more interesting and safe place..
The thing with open-source projects is that you do not need to have it documented to the extreme.. For run-time you need descriptions of all the configuration and usage, but for API's you can keep the documentation fairly basic since you have access to the source and can see exactly what is happening.
I have seen it many times in closed-source software where you need to init things in a very specific order and the order is only available in a few simple examples. When having the source you can run it in a debugger and actually see the full flow, and you can even modify it to take care of corner-cases the original developers did not think of..
Best of two worlds is to have a well-documented proprietary software with a source-code license.
10baseT??? .. that's not too long ago... i think of 10base2 when people say things like that...
Going from 10base2 to 10baseT was heaven.. :)
How much of the weight is plastic? Deduct that and you might be able to fit a few more in the car...
Hey... Just imagine the trouble of training the sharks to paint a bat-signal in the sky with their lasers......
Hey... We got this bunch of patents here... Pay us a fee for using them or else we will find some obscure patent to sue you over!
Quite a few of the images there includes technology that we use in transportation today...
I would more say that it's a case of MS complaining that it cannot do whatever they want, like they used to be able to...
Look at what MS have been doing with their previous versions of the application... I would myself start to be extremely strict on the TOS for any company that have blatantly ignored it from the beginning.
According to a "angry letter" posted on technet... If you do a simple search for this and read a few of the articles you can see a behavior from MS that is not ok... I can understand Google for forcing MS to follow the TOS to the letter after the crap they have tried to pull.
Even if Google is slow on providing MS with what they must comply with and how they can do this does not make it ok for MS to publish an application that still fails to meet the terms.
If MS is having issues then they can pay for some youtube experienced developer to come over and assist them with the stuff..... Can be from Google or other places...
Yes, i read the article and also a few more related articles about this... The link was to what Microsoft wrote on technet, ie their opinion of what is happening.. If you actually check a few more sources you can actually find a bit of history of how Microsoft have behaved since the start of this.
If a company blatantly ignores terms and continues to say that "we fixed it" without actually fixing the opposite party might become more and more strict on the terms specified for the service.
https://developers.google.com/youtube/terms
There you go.. It's for the publicly available API, not for the ad-enabled API but to get access to that you have to agree to a similar terms, and you have about the same level of documentation for that.
And just because they have not yet received the information does not make it ok for them to publish the application that fails to follow the terms. If they have problems to fulfill all the terms maybe they should pay google for a single person to do a simple "do we fulfill the terms now" test before they go public with the app.
Slowing down for turns would break that model and could create congestion. Hence me question.
Nope, not if you place them at a optimal distance between each other. Since all carts will have to pass the bend they will all slow down. So as long as the distance between each cart is at least the difference in distance a cart will go at the slower speed compared to full speed, and that is probably not that much and should probably fit the time it takes to unload/load passengers on each end.
However Microsoft isn't allowing Google to write the Windows Phone app.
I think i read that Google did not want to write an application currently because the Windows-Phone market-share was too small.
They can not leverage a de-facto monopoly in one area to block competition in another. That is what Google is doing now.
They can as long Microsoft fails to comply with the requirements-list.
Why should Google be forced to allow a platform with 3.3% smartphone market-share to bypass the rules they have set for other platforms?
Google are not being assholes, they are protecting their revenue from the ad's playing together with the videos..
They had 2 requirements that microsoft listed in the article.
- Not an HTML5 app. (requirement from Google maybe?)
- Google claims that the application does not show the AD's as it should in all instances.
Only time Microsoft can complain is if they fulfill all the listed requirements and Google still refuses them access.
From the article:
Google claims that one problem with our new app is that it doesn’t always serve ads based on conditions imposed by content creators.
Why should Google allow any other company to develop their own application without following the requirements specified for the service?
If Google says "you gonna have to write it in Amiga E and then emulate a 68000 cpu on the phone to run it" that will be the terms of using the service... It's only google than can decide what the rules are and they are free to set them to any level they want and they can be as hard and as soft as they want towards anyone implementing it... Microsoft have a reputation of not playing nicely so then Google might just be a bit more string on the rules.
And if comparing this to how Microsoft behaved back in the day this is nothing..
Open web is what Google is selling
Open web != Use our stuff any way you want.
Open web == Use our stuff for free as long as you follow or requirements.
Well...... Look it up how much ad-revenue the different channels make on a popular show on prime-time ....
It's that the companies wants to make more money... And the channels and the cable-companies are usually separate partners where the cable-operator has to license the channel, even for ad-driven ones... Then you have crap where a studio would license that only this channel is allowed to air this series in this country during this time-period, and then that channel then makes plans to make allot of money on the show during this time...
It's all economics, and the old channels/cable-operators are still clinging on to the old ways since the current distribution model will hopefully be gone in 5-10 years allowing new service-providers to offer this content in more specialiced ways and cutting out the middle-man (the channel) and just leaving the production-company and the service-provider.
For a 40 minute episode even having one ad-break is too much for something you have to pay to get access to.. Having 20 minutes advertising during a 40 minute episode is way to much!
And usually the ad-breaks are placed where something exiting is happening just to try and keep you in the sofa during the break and not change channel either.