The point is that apple got paid to use someone elses inventions.
ah, you are indeed being intentionally dense, my friend. As others pointed out, the deal struck between Xerox and Apple used discounted Apple shares as compensation. The stigma you are attempting to attach to the deal just isn't there. And Apple innovated far more than they borrowed. You're view of this history is, quite simply, entirely inaccurate. To put it another way, what you believe is not the truth.
UPS drivers touch the package most likely once... when they actually deliver it. The drivers' trucks are packed for them. (UPS Driver is actually a decent paying, highly coveted position.)
But it does have something to do with Apple fanbois crowing about how iOS is somehow superior because "look at all the apps that don't work on the iPhone!!!!11!1"
Are you retarded? Reread my post, troll. The complaint was valid for about 5 months over a year and a half ago.
None of this iOS "buy the app for your phone, buy the tablet "HD" version for three times the price".
just FYI, that has nothing to do with iOS. Its about when the hw was released and that some developers decided to have multiple apps to increase their revenue, kinda like Microsoft and all the versions of Windows. Most iOS devs stopped doing this when the iPhone 4 was released, and subsequenly maintain a single app for all iDevices. Also, its not necessarily a resolution-dependant issue, but a size-interface issue. While doubling the resolution of an app designed for a smaller screen will work on a screen that is bigger, sometimes the bigger display begs for a different interface that isn't merely doubling resolution, but fundamentally different somehow. But even in this case, having multiple apps for different screen sizes has nothing to do with any perceived iOS deficiency. It is entirely up to the developer whether to fleece their customers or not.
PlayStation 3s have proved a cost efficient way of setting up large scale parallel processing systems. Of course you'll have to find your way around Sony's blocks on the OtherOS system, and you'll need to keep it off the internet or firewalled in some way, but you essentially get cheap processing subsidised by the games that you don't need to buy.
It does have a conspicuously high price/performance ratio, but if you use it for a cluster, you won't be able to play any games. I'm pretty certain Sony locks PS3 clusters out of their gaming network, for reasons unknown to anyone but themselves.
Every Scientist knows that Einsteins Relativity is wrong and that the Standard model is wrong but they are the best we have right now.
FWIW, all models are wrong... always and necessarily. They are not reality, they are models. Observation may be correct, but any attempt to model what is observed will always remain what it actually is: only a model.
That's not quite right, a model may by definition be a simplified picture of reality, but it shouldn't actually disagree with that reality
...
That makes it sound a little bit more negative than it is. All models are approximations, which aren't wrong/right in a binary sense but instead sit on a continuum of progressively closer agreement with experiment.
Perhaps I am being too binary with the meaning of 'wrong,' nevertheless, a model is fundamentally metaphor and can be anything at all as long as it somehow successfully describes some aspect of reality. Some models will be perfect for what they accomplish... dead on accuracy concerning their little window describing reality... but to ask if they of themselves are reality, the true thing in-itself, is always abruptly apologized for with a "no... its only a model, but it works very well for what we need it to do" A model is often more than simple metaphor, though if it is, usually (can't think of when its not) its a closed system. I don't know of any models that are concious of themselves, like, technically, the real universe is; no models account for anthropomorphic principles and all glaze over the shocking idea that an individual's life could be (if not already able to be, using drugs and audio/video + dedicated tactile inputs, then soon will be able to be) completely emulated in a hollodeck-like experience (going back to first philosophy, I do wonder if Descartes could possibly have fathomed his fantasies would truly be real someday).
If a only single instance of a model not describing reality is necessary to show that it is wrong, consider the instance where it describes itself.
As others have pointed out, Atom is pretty weak. It has a rep for being powerful, idky. The Atom is on par with the PowerPC G4... an old chip that uses a lot more energy. I'd be very surprised if ARM couldn't easily match it. If you want more proc power in a low power chip, AMD E-350 blows Atom away. I really don't undertand everyone's crush on Atom.
In some ideal fantasy world focused purely on safety and low of traffic, the ideal action would be that when the system detects detects someone is about to run a light, it keeps the light yellow for longer and/or delays turning the cross traffic light from red to green.. Allowing the driver to pass safely and keeping cross traffic stopped.
YES! Let's make this world, that world... except that the ideal is to eliminate traffic altogether, maximizing safety and efficiency (fuel economy). All we need is a smart traffic light. The smart traffic light is... most simply put... a traffic cop emulator.
If we put our best computer scientists on this, I strongly believe we will achieve a viable solution... a drop-in replacement that networks automatically to nearby lights, that sees you.... sees everything... and tracks everything... and better than any traffic cop, directs traffic so effectively that traffic itself is eliminated when it is running. The work at MIT is good. Any work on either side of the current or proposed models will ultimately be helpful in achieving the ultimate traffic cop emulator.
If you study the history of technology one of the themes is that people don't change, technology changes. Except that with traffic lights, nothing has changed since pretty much inception (just the packaging has changed). What we want is to coddle them. That's actually progress. What we want is no more traffic. What we want is a smart traffic light that recognizes when an intersection is empty and sees vehicals approaching the intersection and makes logical decisions which minimize energy consumption. We have all heard of those neat gadgets that switch the light to green. What we want is a system that works as though everyone had a magical "green light" button.
Apple is currently being outsold by almost 2:1 by Android phones.
Burger King is currently being outsold by almost 2:1 by fried burgers.
trying to show why this doesn't matter... Your metric "iPhone vs. ALL-OTHER-SMARTPHONES" is silly, and means nothing. Would it mean anything to you if I showed you how well any single particular individual Android phone was selling against every other phone on the market? No... only if every other phone was individually examined as well. "Android" is not a company. Apple isn't competing against Android. The metaphor is that Burger King isn't competing against fried burgers. They are competing against McDonald's and Wendy's and other manufacturers of similar product.
who can't comprehend how expensive facilities stretching across hundreds of acres can create only 50 new jobs
Yup! Its amazing that the whole project was actually completed with only 50 local people... who now have posh jobs running the place. Actually, it would have taken far less people, but curious onlookers kept getting too close to the packed ACME Instant Data Center (tm), so Apple had to hire 49 more people to make sure the crowd stood back while a single drop of water was added to the ACME package and it expanded instantly into the glorious data center that stands there today.
How does quantum-randomness square with Chaos Theory? Consider the Butterfly Effect... where initial conditions determine an outcome that is not random, unpredicatable, yet determined.
Every Scientist knows that Einsteins Relativity is wrong and that the Standard model is wrong but they are the best we have right now.
FWIW, all models are wrong... always and necessarily. They are not reality, they are models. Observation may be correct, but any attempt to model what is observed will always remain what it actually is: only a model.
with only 11 per cent of 11 to 19 year-olds using it.
What an odd metric. Why would an information technology company base anything off of what the general populace of 11 to 19 year olds does? Have they suddenly become a lightning rod to what's hip in information technology? Why would what is or isn't trendy ever enter a conversation about how a company should internally communicate? I wonder what percentage of 11 to 19 year olds end up working in IT as... idk... say... postmasters.
I think they meant "manipulate directly". I think the most impressive bit there was when he had a full 3D keyboard model up on the display.
You have a good eye. I noticed flat pictures. Interesting choice of media considering its a 3D display. I believe you nailed the only 3D content demoed.
If you're looking for negligence, it is readily apparent in that case. McDonald's was negligent in not warning the customer that the coffee was dangerously hot. Also, McDonald's was negligent in failing to provide a container that was void of defect... (if you remember the old coffee cups at McDonald's, a mild squeeze, just ever so slightly more pressure than is need to lift it, and the top would pop off, and the coffee would spill all over your hand, burning you). Again, the TEMPERATURE OF THE COFFEE DOESN'T MATTER, it is a red herring. Had the coffee been AS HOT AS THE SUN, as long as they had properly notified customers that it was hot with posted warnings, and provided a defect-free container, then McDonald's MIGHT have had a chance. Unfortunately for McDonald's, they DID NOT have any warnings, and their coffee cups were notoriously defective. The case was valid, and justice was served.
The temperature of the coffee is what I would call a red herring. It matters not what temperature the coffee was served at... what matters is where the victim was injured. If she tripped on her own shoelaces in the restaurant, and was injured in a fall, McDonald's is culpable. If the temp of the coffee was only 108F, and she incurred her injury on the premises (which she did), McDonald's is culpable for damages. The facts of the actual case are clear that she sustained a rather bad injury on McDonald's premises. It matters not whether McDonald's was negligent afa coffee temperature. What matters is that she was severly injured on McDonald's property with McDonald's product, irregardless of what that product was. Imagine a kid in Toy r Us... Mom buys him a toy which he promptly chokes to death on in Toys r us. Toys R Us is absolutely culpable and any case brought against them is most certainly valid and necessarily non-frivolous. Same is true of the McDonald's coffee case.
But hardly a security feature... merely a privacy screen with a small aperture. Wouldn't any pair of polarized glasses reveal the screen? Also, superspies picking up the monitor's leaky signals would be unaffected by it. Also... seems like he has destroyed a perfectly good monitor (but I guess we have enough).
Slashdot Mirror
The point is that apple got paid to use someone elses inventions.
ah, you are indeed being intentionally dense, my friend. As others pointed out, the deal struck between Xerox and Apple used discounted Apple shares as compensation. The stigma you are attempting to attach to the deal just isn't there. And Apple innovated far more than they borrowed. You're view of this history is, quite simply, entirely inaccurate. To put it another way, what you believe is not the truth.
UPS drivers touch the package most likely once... when they actually deliver it. The drivers' trucks are packed for them. (UPS Driver is actually a decent paying, highly coveted position.)
just FYI, that has nothing to do with iOS.
But it does have something to do with Apple fanbois crowing about how iOS is somehow superior because "look at all the apps that don't work on the iPhone!!!!11!1"
Are you retarded? Reread my post, troll. The complaint was valid for about 5 months over a year and a half ago.
None of this iOS "buy the app for your phone, buy the tablet "HD" version for three times the price".
just FYI, that has nothing to do with iOS. Its about when the hw was released and that some developers decided to have multiple apps to increase their revenue, kinda like Microsoft and all the versions of Windows. Most iOS devs stopped doing this when the iPhone 4 was released, and subsequenly maintain a single app for all iDevices. Also, its not necessarily a resolution-dependant issue, but a size-interface issue. While doubling the resolution of an app designed for a smaller screen will work on a screen that is bigger, sometimes the bigger display begs for a different interface that isn't merely doubling resolution, but fundamentally different somehow. But even in this case, having multiple apps for different screen sizes has nothing to do with any perceived iOS deficiency. It is entirely up to the developer whether to fleece their customers or not.
It's admittedly dog-slow to startup and even console logins are slow to process and launching the Exchange GUI is agonizing
Not sure if anyone told you, but the one space virtualization doesn't help is in email. So keep mail servers on the iron.
Go old school and immerse the entire machine in a tub of mineral oil?
The best stuff to use is synthetic plasma (as in blood plasma). Its rather expensive though. [citation needed]
PlayStation 3s have proved a cost efficient way of setting up large scale parallel processing systems. Of course you'll have to find your way around Sony's blocks on the OtherOS system, and you'll need to keep it off the internet or firewalled in some way, but you essentially get cheap processing subsidised by the games that you don't need to buy.
It does have a conspicuously high price/performance ratio, but if you use it for a cluster, you won't be able to play any games. I'm pretty certain Sony locks PS3 clusters out of their gaming network, for reasons unknown to anyone but themselves.
Every Scientist knows that Einsteins Relativity is wrong and that the Standard model is wrong but they are the best we have right now.
FWIW, all models are wrong... always and necessarily. They are not reality, they are models. Observation may be correct, but any attempt to model what is observed will always remain what it actually is: only a model.
That's not quite right, a model may by definition be a simplified picture of reality, but it shouldn't actually disagree with that reality
...
That makes it sound a little bit more negative than it is. All models are approximations, which aren't wrong/right in a binary sense but instead sit on a continuum of progressively closer agreement with experiment.
Perhaps I am being too binary with the meaning of 'wrong,' nevertheless, a model is fundamentally metaphor and can be anything at all as long as it somehow successfully describes some aspect of reality. Some models will be perfect for what they accomplish... dead on accuracy concerning their little window describing reality... but to ask if they of themselves are reality, the true thing in-itself, is always abruptly apologized for with a "no... its only a model, but it works very well for what we need it to do" A model is often more than simple metaphor, though if it is, usually (can't think of when its not) its a closed system. I don't know of any models that are concious of themselves, like, technically, the real universe is; no models account for anthropomorphic principles and all glaze over the shocking idea that an individual's life could be (if not already able to be, using drugs and audio/video + dedicated tactile inputs, then soon will be able to be) completely emulated in a hollodeck-like experience (going back to first philosophy, I do wonder if Descartes could possibly have fathomed his fantasies would truly be real someday).
If a only single instance of a model not describing reality is necessary to show that it is wrong, consider the instance where it describes itself.
As others have pointed out, Atom is pretty weak. It has a rep for being powerful, idky. The Atom is on par with the PowerPC G4... an old chip that uses a lot more energy. I'd be very surprised if ARM couldn't easily match it. If you want more proc power in a low power chip, AMD E-350 blows Atom away. I really don't undertand everyone's crush on Atom.
In some ideal fantasy world focused purely on safety and low of traffic, the ideal action would be that when the system detects detects someone is about to run a light, it keeps the light yellow for longer and/or delays turning the cross traffic light from red to green.. Allowing the driver to pass safely and keeping cross traffic stopped.
YES! Let's make this world, that world... except that the ideal is to eliminate traffic altogether, maximizing safety and efficiency (fuel economy). All we need is a smart traffic light. The smart traffic light is... most simply put... a traffic cop emulator.
If we put our best computer scientists on this, I strongly believe we will achieve a viable solution... a drop-in replacement that networks automatically to nearby lights, that sees you.... sees everything... and tracks everything... and better than any traffic cop, directs traffic so effectively that traffic itself is eliminated when it is running. The work at MIT is good. Any work on either side of the current or proposed models will ultimately be helpful in achieving the ultimate traffic cop emulator.
So let's quit coddling them...
If you study the history of technology one of the themes is that people don't change, technology changes. Except that with traffic lights, nothing has changed since pretty much inception (just the packaging has changed). What we want is to coddle them. That's actually progress. What we want is no more traffic. What we want is a smart traffic light that recognizes when an intersection is empty and sees vehicals approaching the intersection and makes logical decisions which minimize energy consumption. We have all heard of those neat gadgets that switch the light to green. What we want is a system that works as though everyone had a magical "green light" button.
Apple is currently being outsold by almost 2:1 by Android phones.
Burger King is currently being outsold by almost 2:1 by fried burgers.
trying to show why this doesn't matter... Your metric "iPhone vs. ALL-OTHER-SMARTPHONES" is silly, and means nothing. Would it mean anything to you if I showed you how well any single particular individual Android phone was selling against every other phone on the market? No... only if every other phone was individually examined as well. "Android" is not a company. Apple isn't competing against Android. The metaphor is that Burger King isn't competing against fried burgers. They are competing against McDonald's and Wendy's and other manufacturers of similar product.
who can't comprehend how expensive facilities stretching across hundreds of acres can create only 50 new jobs
Yup! Its amazing that the whole project was actually completed with only 50 local people... who now have posh jobs running the place. Actually, it would have taken far less people, but curious onlookers kept getting too close to the packed ACME Instant Data Center (tm), so Apple had to hire 49 more people to make sure the crowd stood back while a single drop of water was added to the ACME package and it expanded instantly into the glorious data center that stands there today.
How does quantum-randomness square with Chaos Theory? Consider the Butterfly Effect... where initial conditions determine an outcome that is not random, unpredicatable, yet determined.
Every Scientist knows that Einsteins Relativity is wrong and that the Standard model is wrong but they are the best we have right now.
FWIW, all models are wrong... always and necessarily. They are not reality, they are models. Observation may be correct, but any attempt to model what is observed will always remain what it actually is: only a model.
Try throwing water on an exposed lithium battery and see how well that works out.
like this? Thanks for the tip... better issue every passenger some pliers, gloves and a bucket of water.
What do you call couples that practice the testicular WiFi-proximity method of birth control?
parents!
there certainly needs to be the means to extinguish an electrical fire.
Might I humbly suggest each passenger be issued standard a bottle of water?
with only 11 per cent of 11 to 19 year-olds using it.
What an odd metric. Why would an information technology company base anything off of what the general populace of 11 to 19 year olds does? Have they suddenly become a lightning rod to what's hip in information technology? Why would what is or isn't trendy ever enter a conversation about how a company should internally communicate? I wonder what percentage of 11 to 19 year olds end up working in IT as ... idk... say... postmasters.
I think they meant "manipulate directly". I think the most impressive bit there was when he had a full 3D keyboard model up on the display.
You have a good eye. I noticed flat pictures. Interesting choice of media considering its a 3D display. I believe you nailed the only 3D content demoed.
If you're looking for negligence, it is readily apparent in that case. McDonald's was negligent in not warning the customer that the coffee was dangerously hot. Also, McDonald's was negligent in failing to provide a container that was void of defect... (if you remember the old coffee cups at McDonald's, a mild squeeze, just ever so slightly more pressure than is need to lift it, and the top would pop off, and the coffee would spill all over your hand, burning you). Again, the TEMPERATURE OF THE COFFEE DOESN'T MATTER, it is a red herring. Had the coffee been AS HOT AS THE SUN, as long as they had properly notified customers that it was hot with posted warnings, and provided a defect-free container, then McDonald's MIGHT have had a chance. Unfortunately for McDonald's, they DID NOT have any warnings, and their coffee cups were notoriously defective. The case was valid, and justice was served.
I take a hammer and accidentally hit my thumb and break it. Does Craftsman owe me the money for the medical expense since their hammer was used?
Absolutely, YES: if and only if you incurred the injury on Craftsman's property.
an unreasonable abuse of the legal process.
The temperature of the coffee is what I would call a red herring. It matters not what temperature the coffee was served at... what matters is where the victim was injured. If she tripped on her own shoelaces in the restaurant, and was injured in a fall, McDonald's is culpable. If the temp of the coffee was only 108F, and she incurred her injury on the premises (which she did), McDonald's is culpable for damages. The facts of the actual case are clear that she sustained a rather bad injury on McDonald's premises. It matters not whether McDonald's was negligent afa coffee temperature. What matters is that she was severly injured on McDonald's property with McDonald's product, irregardless of what that product was. Imagine a kid in Toy r Us... Mom buys him a toy which he promptly chokes to death on in Toys r us. Toys R Us is absolutely culpable and any case brought against them is most certainly valid and necessarily non-frivolous. Same is true of the McDonald's coffee case.
I think the real point is that your off hand comment shows that you didn't actually know any more about plutonium than "the public".
Why should ignorance prevent someone from having a crowd-think based opinion?
But hardly a security feature... merely a privacy screen with a small aperture. Wouldn't any pair of polarized glasses reveal the screen? Also, superspies picking up the monitor's leaky signals would be unaffected by it. Also... seems like he has destroyed a perfectly good monitor (but I guess we have enough).