There might be some truth to that.. I know at least some lines of lab rats used, there is a very high rate of tumors. My understanding, is that in order to keep the genes from mutating too much, there isn't a lot of diversity in the breeding pools, which can cause strange genetic diseases to happen.
On one hand, it's good to know that the rat you use one day is essentially the same as the rat you use the next day. On the other hand, you could be introducing other strange artifacts.
This is funny, because some of those EU countries are also demanding that the music be un-DRM'd. At least with DRM, you can in theory handle returns in a sane manner (invalidate the license on the music), while for MP3 files, it's much more difficult. One way around this *might* be to finger print the MP3s, and keep a database of what you're allowed to play. Hackable? Yes, but so is everything else.
Of course, some compromise could probably negate most of the negative impacts, such as limiting the number of returns per year, and only giving in-store credit.
At first glance, the.xxx idea seems fine to me. Right now the.com domain space is cluttered with random domain names that will bring up porn. It's not so much the children, as just the sanity of it all. The probability that you can type in a random URL and likely pull up porn says that the usefulness of the domain name is diminishing.
The domain name is supposed to be some type of mapping between a company's name, general interest, etc. to a specific web page. This was great when the web was small, but even without all the porn, it still mostly fails. Thus the search engine.
So URLs are relegated to (sometimes) brand name, (sometimes) company names, bookmarks, and printed ads. That is, all other times, it doesn't really matter what the domain name is.
The.xxx TLD ends up being a small subset of a larger problem, and doesn't even fix the subset problem. As many people have suggested, it's not going to force porn companies from using.com. It may act as a magnet for children, though I'll suspect most browsers will block.xxx by default (think of the children!). Making the entire venture, a method to get lots of money for some TLD company.
Perhaps a better approach would be to actually put some structure on naming. A hierarchical is already somewhat in use per domain, but is not problem free. Also, name.adult.com is essentially the same as name.xxx.
Tagging is an already wide-used technique employed on the net, why not use it for names too? The tags can be done in an inclusive manner, such that an organization can allow acceptance of a particular web page to that tag. For example, 'child' could be applied to make sure there is no objectionable material. But wait, by whose standard? Well, there could be several 'child' tag organizations. For parents, they can pick the one which agrees with their standards.
Am I in favor of censorship? Definitely not. But I'm also going to have to live with the fact that some people are going to disagree with my sensibilities. Why not give them their own playground, and get them out of mine?
Thanks for the info.. I was looking for something like this before without finding any info.. there is also a third party developer who suggests filing a bug report with Apple for there being no support under XCode.. I think it's at least worth a try if enough people file the bug -- at least they'll see it, and have to acknowledge it to some extent.
Please mod parent up -- it would be great if more people knew about the petition. I don't actually have high hopes of it working, but at least it's nice to have our voice heard every once in a while.
At first I was outraged by the the fact it was going to be a closed system. I'm still mad, and if there is a petition to sign, I'd sign it, but in the end it's not so surprising given how Apple has treated the IPod.
It's not clear how they'll close their platform. Some people have suggested Widgets might still be usuable, or the fact that you can still play flash games through web pages. For a couple of things, widgets might be good enough.. while I hate javascript, I hear they are fairly versitile. Some current apps I would personally like are: listings of restaurants I like tied in which the google.maps; locate *other* people carrying GPS devices (e.g. trying to find friend in a crowd); a non-SMS chat program; simplified food-ordering program (see seamlessweb.com); python interpreter; simplified database; ebook reader that allows bookmarking and markup of pages; interactive NYC subway map (things like, if a train is down, how the hell do I get there...)
Because there's a web browser, I'm assuming you'll be able to at least d/l apps to it. I'm also told that OS X 10.5 will have signed binaries. So they can restrict use of apps by either requiring them to be signed by Apple, or they can take the approach they did with the IPod, and just make it a pain in the neck to get the apps in (e.g. secret directory + some file you need to edit to add an entry in).
While it's true, 3rd party apps can always make the platform more unstable, at the same time, Apple will never (nor want to) write apps specific to everyone's needs (e.g. NYC subway map). However, some app like that would be invaluable to me. Maybe some compromise of Apple testing some top percent of apps, and allowing them to be d/l'd with some warning of how it will cause you immediate death to just run the app.
Here is another post about 3rd party apps. I'm not sure how much I beleive it, as mentioned before, the IPod has games sold by 3rd party apps -- though one big diff, is that only a few companies were bless by Apple, versus being up for grabs.
Here is someone who started a petition, by filing the lack of open-ness as as bug.
On the 3rd party app subject, it isn't looking good. I'm sure that games will be made for it -- it would be strange that Apple would release games for POI (plain old Ipod), but not for this. However, according to Gimodo, it won't be open for everyone.
Why make such a big deal out of it being OS X underneath? Maybe the info from Gizmodo is wrong, and they will release an XCode module to create apps, or maybe they want to charge a license to develop for the platform much like how many other companies operate.
It seems strange to me, as Apple has to some extent embraced the open-source community. But the problem they continually have is deciding whether they are more on the soft or hard side of the Wares. If they are simply trying to sell the hardware known as the iPhone, then they better open it up for everyone to write software for. People have claimed this is unnecessary because they never did for the IPod, but this is clearly not just an IPod.
On the other hand, if they aren't make much profit on the HW (which wouldn't completely surprise me.. most cellphones are sold at a loss), then they want to get a revenue stream from somewhere. I'd be curious if anyone knew how this might break down.
There is also always the possibility that if it's closed that someone figures out how to hack it. I'm guessing if they are trying to keep it closed, they would make all binaries to be signed -- since you have internet access, it seems trivial to get the apps onto the device.
As a final thought, I don't think it's likely that Apple will release a version with a larger HD anytime soon. I'm guessing Jobs would insist on it being as slim as possible, which would rule out a real HD. What I think will be interesting is what the next IPod will be. It's hard to imagine that it won't be widescreened. But then there is the question, will it have WIFI? If it has WIFI, then it competes in some way with the iPhone. On the other hand, if they don't put WIFI in there, then can the POI compete with the Zune (I assume it will eventually get better)?
Science would maintain one simple fact: we are our brains. Nothing more, nothing less. From that, logically it follows that if you alter your brain, it will also alter you, your choices, and preferences. Does that spell the end of free will? That is a much more difficult question. Just because this makes a claim against having a soul, no one has proven it demands the end of free will.
I'm not even sure if 'free will' is something you can test for. What is it? What metric do you use? On the philisophical level you might argue against it by claiming all my choices are predetermined. Perhaps I'm no more than an automaton with illusions of making choices. But then who is having the illusion? An interpretation still has to be made of the events to form the illusion, and that still requires making choices. This is by no means an attempt to prove otherwise, but rather trying to point out the difficulties in making any claims either way.
Also, If I remember my history correctly, at one point the Christian church beleived that even with a soul you had no free will. And in ancient Mesopotamia the Sumerians beleived that you were you body (no soul). So really this is a very old argument we're getting around to once again.
Finally, the article does not say exactly where the brain tumor was, which is an important consideration. For example, if it were on his orbital-frontal cortex, similar to Fineas Gage's brain damage, then it unlikely that the tumor caused him to be paedophilic. Rather it took away his inhibition towards such feelings.
It's a first that I've seen someone call Javascript beautiful. Javascript, for what it was first conceptualized for, got the job done (back when it was Livescript). The misunderstood part of Javascript, is that it is prototype-language, which is unlike most other languages. That is, you can create object types on the fly due to how the associative arrays work. foo.bar is the same as foo['bar']. From that you can get all the OOP you want (note: although Python is much more of an OOP'd language, it can also be used as a prototype-language).
But this is definitely where the beauty is in the eye of the beholder comes into play. Is this some quick syntactical sugar that gives the impression of structure, or is there indeed a well thought out design to the language. Of course, the fact it's been a slowly evolving/hacked together language would point more towards the former in my book.
Personally, I've never been a fan of the Javascript method of doing things, and prefer a much stronger structure in the language. Python does a great job of it, I like what little I've seen on Ruby (especially Rails), and there is of course my personal favorite C++ (yes, flame all you want, but *know* the language first before you complain about it).
Prototyping languages, from what I've seen so far, are great for hacking together small projects, but get messy when you try to do anything on a larger scale. This is where strong language structure comes nicely into play.
While Java is not my favorite language (I usually refer to it simply as, 'that bastardized c++ language'), I am excited about trying this out. I'm curious as it will compare against RoR, Django, etc. The prospect of being able to write a well maintained library for web interfaces that is easily extendable is a much worked on and much needed item in the world of webs.
It's not like the rumor is exactly new. There is the claim by a company that they received manufacturing orders from Apple, as well as other claims from the rumor-mill (e.g. Kevin Rose's claim that his friend at Apple has a 4GB and a 8GB phone).
I remember when buying my Macbook Pro there were all sorts of rumors not to buy one. That there would something to be shortly released that would supersede it (of course, at the time, the only thing that could be cooler was a iTablet). People claim that Apple enjoys these rumors, though I have to imagine to some extent it hurts their sales. Some speculate it is a good way for them to figure out what the public wants. Others that it is simply subterfuge to hide their real activity from their competitors.
I give this rumor *some* credence simply because it seems like the hardware is already there. It's not that large of a stretch of an imagination to think of a Nano being put together with a cell phone -- much like how many cell phone companies are putting ipod like devices with their cell phones. Which means the big question is whether Apple actually *wants* this. My suspicion is that easier access to the iTunes store is probably a large incentive to them.
Personally the iPhone isn't that appealing to me. If the only extra functionality I get from it is that it takes less space, I think I'll pass. However, as far as the iPDA -- that is something I'd want. The iPod already has a large HD (80GBs anyone?), a processor capable of playing music, games, doing calendaring, etc. Is it that big a of a stretch that it should be able to maybe do email? Maybe surf the web? Heck, if Opera can make a web browser for cell phones and DS, it's hard to see why not.
The big catch seems to be the input device. It's not clear how Apple feels about a stylus. However, things like the Blackberry seem to do well with just a keyboard and a scroll wheel. Sound familiar?
Also, please, really, PLEASE, if this does come true, don't make us subscribe to.mac. It's not like I can actually afford the iPDA.. forcing me to pay a monthly subscription for owning a piece of hardware is too much.
You might be right.. I profess not to know the inner workings of these companies. I think the point still remain valid -- M$ does not really care about the consumers. I think it is in the end to their own detriment, as I agree with Apple that flat rates for music makes sense (though not for TV shows -- especially when paying $2 for *each* episode of the Daily Show).
I'm definitely in the camp that to support the Zune is to support the big-bad music companies (and terrorists when you're at it).
Normally I would agree with you.. it would be nice for Apple to have pressure to do new better stuff with their ipod besides make it smaller and redder. But, and this pains me to say, in this case Apple seems to have actually done good with their dictatorship (it pains me to say dictatorships are good, rather than saying something bad about Apple).
See the related./ stories, but because M$ caved into Universal, it's now causing issues for Apple. Apple was the only company willing to fight for a flat rate for the consumer and make it work. If it weren't for Apple's iTunes store, buying music onlne would still really suck.
And no, I don't like DRM'd crap, but I do like our environment better, and don't care to pollute it with more CDs that I'm just going to rip. Would I rather just because to get plain MP3s. Yeah, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon. From personal experience, Apple's DRM is pretty decent, and only got in the way once, where I had to deauthorize all my computers.
So in this case, competition actually isn't looking good for consumer's rights, primarily because most consumers buying these things aren't well informed.
Last I checked, Web 2.0 was AJAX, which was a way of making a medium that was originally mean to be static, less static. I feel it's more akin to compiling a bunch of photos into a flipbook rather than the actual creation of a TV.
Sure, javascript will do your dishes for you now, but it's not really anything new. I mean, back when javascript was livescript, or actionscript, or somethingscript, and Java was a seed planted in someone's head, there existed things call programs that could *still* communicate over the interweb. Did they do it over web page? No, but I'm still not sure why having it display in a web browser makes sense. Does the back button taken the place of undo? If I hit reload will my essay get better?
If you *really* want to credit apps in web pages, I think Java and M$ should get the prize. Java, with the whole language that could run an app anyhwere, and M$ with OLE/COM/DCOM/ActiveX/VirusCom. The whole excel spreadsheet in a web page, once again, didn't ever especially appeal to me. If I wanted to edit something on a remote server I would much rather: (a) access the remote file system with something like NFS, or (b) run the actual application remotely (ala X Window). And no, windows remote desktop is not the same.
So why the Web 2.0 crazyness? My suspicion is: (a) it's easy to start (though I would argue not to finish) an interface, (b) no need to compile anything, download anything, etc. (c) automatic file sharing (i.e. the whole internet thing again).
Java's success has been mixed. I don't think many people would argue that when it was first released, the press it received was overblown. The AWT, IMHO, leaves much to desire. While Swing did come along and resolve some of the issues, compare to a full featured toolkit like Cocoa, and I think it's still hard to compare. But it does provide one thing that no other toolkit does: a cross-platform app without major licensing issues or recompilation (I'm sure someone is going to complain that I fail to mention Tcl/Tk).
Google opening up their APIs to third party apps might actually for once and all start to solve these issues. You can access your data from any computer, you don't need to install anything (AJAX interface), but you can use a more sophisticated interface if needed.
Though I would love if someone actually made a cross-platform VM that had a GUI on the same level as Coca, but easily allowed any language to compile for it (yes, I know, you can compile any language for the Java VM with the GNU toolkit [e.g. gcj]).
I like the idea of an episodic model, as I'm more likely to actually finish an installment. Additionally, with larger games, you need to constantly increase the difficulty of the levels because the person feels like need ramp up to something better. I feel like with installments, the person is going to have some off time, so you can keep the difficulty curve more flat, allowing for more people to get in on the fun.
Someone mentioned previously that it's the difference between movies and TV shows. It could be easy to interpolate this to mean that the plot lines would suck. Hopefully this will not be the case, and each could be a continuation of what happened last (e.g. Battlestar Gallatica).
One final point, is I think this model is a great boon to small software companies as a whole. As another person pointed out, this is how shareware used to be done. While a big movie game is sometimes nice to play, in the end what really matters is that the game is fun. Shorter development times can help keep the focus on the fun rather than making sure all the bells and whistles are in.
Firstly, I think the poster didn't mean to use the term 'strong AI', which usually refers to needing to codify all the 'intelligent behavior', unlike weak AI, which must learn the behavior itself.
I agree with his point that there is nothing magical about the brain, but I think he's off his rockers to say it will happen in 10-15 years. Perhaps he should beef up on some neuroscience papers before such grand claims. While I think there should eventually be a link between the AI and neuroscience worlds, it really isn't there yet. Nor, IMHO, will there be for a long long time. The closest thing that exists currently is the subfield of mathematical psychology, primarily run by mathematicians and physicists.
On the AI side, we're still missing anything that even comes close to 'moderate AI'. We have machines that can beat just about any human at chess, and that's about it. After watching enough documentaries on insects (who actually can do some interesting problem solving -- even if it's done in a communal fashion), I've come to the conclusion we're probably not even that close to creating a robot ant, let alone getting an intelligent android.
the chances of getting the job are astronomically low. Besides, you're thesis will probably just get black-holed. Perhaps it's worth getting the position still, for all the star-power?
Sorry, couldn't resist. I understand if you have to mod me down.
There is GNUStep, which is a clone of NextStep, on which aqua is built. Without the resources of Apple, the project doesn't have all the same high-tech gadgetry, but in principle it's fairly close. In fact, you can in theory write a program for GNUStep, and have it in theory compile with Cocoa. I've never tried it myself.
It seemed to me one of the major issues GNUStep had, was that it kept the NextStep interface, which, IMHO, is fugly. It didn't for me want to just use it. I also have memories of it being a bit buggy and crashing a bit.
Anyways, the point is, while I'm sure you are right that people would try to port it over, it's not clear to me it would succeed. In theory if people really wanted it, or if the resources were really there, it would have happened already. It *could have* happened already, just not enough people seemed to care.
Objective-C is actually part of why Apple is so successful. Yes, they could go status-quo, and do everything in C. Much like Windows. But in the case of writing a large GUI application (such as the OS X shell), I think the right tool for the right job really applies.
M$ has worked very hard in making C an OOP-like language. It's not that C doesn't allow you to do everything that C++ or Obj-C does.. they are after all just languages (besides which, Obj-C and C++ were originally just precompilers that generated C code). Nothing magical. but Obj-C especially provides language feature that become especially nice in a windowing environment.
For example, compare how Apple's tools works versus M$: In M$ (at least last time I used them) you draw a GUI, and it generates a huge amount of code with comments intersperesed through saying things like "DON'T EDIT THIS". This, IMHO, creates a large amount of code, which from experience quickly becomes unmaintainable (esp. when other people created in the first place).
Apple's Project Builder on the other hand produces no code, but rather serialized objects. Because Obj-C can do runtime class inspection, it makes life easier. You create the classes, make instances of them, set the properties, and then they get loaded when your program runs. Because they are just instances of classes, it's easy to change their properties (for the most part) in your code too, if for some reason you want to.
I'm not sure I'd call.NET/C# a 'real language'. It hasn't to my knowledge been used in anything as large as a windowing system. I would point out, that at least some bindings for other languages have been made (e.g. Python). Including C#.
Advertising to doctors seems like a justifiable action. While, and especially since it involves people's lives, such practices should be under close scrutiny from the government, I would never say they should be illegal. But this is far different from trying to sell to the patients. It is one thing to raise awareness for problems out there (though, if it is a medical condition that really needs attention, I'm going to assume the person will likely see a doctor anyways), creating a sense of hysteria or urgency does not seem okay to me.
Also, it is a well known phenomena that doctors in training self-diagnose themselves with countless of diseases. It's only natural, as anyone at any point in time can exhibit at least some of the symptoms. This is why people should be getting diagnosed by their doctor, and not TV commerical.
I am certainly not arguing that the drug companies do no valid research. Nor that research isn't extremely hard and difficult. But as you point out, it is a business that they run. In the end it isn't humanity that they are trying to improve, but rather their profit margins. Money spent on advertisement will in the end more likely get them more money than money spent on research, so that is how the money will be spent.
It's true, innovation is necessary to deal with the patent issue (though sometime pharma companies will pay off the generics not to produce a certain drug), but all that is necessary is to produce something that works slightly better. I am not suggesting that the big pharmas are holding back (though that could be in their best interest), but rather the types of research that will get funded are going to be things that have a high chance of making a drug slightly more effective than a radical new drug treatment.
Of course, if a pharma only invested in risky research, it would likely go out of business rather quickly. So there is a balance to keep, but I am far from convinced that the big pharmas are anywhere near that balance right now.
Also, as far as 'drugs that just sell themselves', again, I would say that if it was something more than just a small improvement, then it would. If it's simply a matter of 2% better, then you are right.
Probably because the pharmas are notorious for being primarily profit driven, while complaining about lack of funding. Just look at the number of ads that these companies put on tv, the number of items the give away to doctors, and the amount they give to lobbyists. You might argue that they are merely trying to do business, and sell their product. But think about it. If they had a drug that just worked, would they really have to advertise this hard? Some of the drugs that they put advertisement for don't work so well, and they are trying to recover lost money. They can get consumers to demand a drug from their doctor, which will usually result in a prescription.
As far as the research side of things, at least one case I know about relates to anti-psyhcotic drugs. It is well known that there is a correlation with anti-psychotics, and a decrease in dopamine levels. A decrease in dopamine levels causes parkinsonian like symptoms. Therefore, to find a new drug, you give mice a bunch of chemicals, and the drugs that cause parkinsonian like symptoms will likely act as anti-psychotics.
However, this is in the end only treating the symptoms, and causes a much larger issue. People who should be taking the anti-psyhcotics, don't, because who wants parkisonian like symptoms? Additionally, even if the pharmas could cure a large number of diseases, it's not even always in their best interest. They need to have you take a pill every week/day/hour in order to get a good profit. Suppose they could develop a magic pill that simply cured you. Even if they could charge a large sum of money, it would not be on nearly the same magnitude as something you had to continually take.
It's been suggested before that much of the money spent on 'research', goes towards research on advertisements rather than actual cures. That is not to say that these companies don't do actual important research. They do. But ot nearly to the extent that they should. Why do you think that many of the key discoveries still comes from academia?
It might make sense for them to hold off on releasing it. I have to wonder how many people will actually buy it after it's been lambasted for so long. Granted, this doesn't mean it's a *bad* game, just that most games enjoy a certain amount of hype before being released. While some say that any press is good press, was that true for Daikatana?
I think their best bet, is hold off on releasing the game until everyone who remembers when it first was created either becomes senile or dies.
Well, to agree with just about everyone else here, for the whole team to learn Java, get used it its quirks, etc. is going to take a good amount of time. One thing that it does sound like, is that there is a library issue -- your current library is unmaintainable, and perhaps the ones Java provides takes care of that. Maybe that can cover for the time it takes to learn Java (since it's based on C++, it's not so difficult, but at least last time I checked, it lacks many features that you'll have gotten used to in C++).
Main sticking points (since it's been years since I've last used Java, someone will probably have to correct this): * lack of templates * lack of double inheritence * everything is a pointer (both good and bad) * you have to be aware of garbage collector for optimizations * more verbose: both libraries are verbose in nature, and syntax can be a bit more verbose
I think most issues people have with C++ can be solved with the right library. Want garbage collection, use a garbage collection library. Or use the STL (check out boost too!), which has just about all the container classes you could possibly want or need. Roguewave has also always provided a good amount of commercial quality C++ libraries. And don't forget QT. Way way way better than any interface provided by Java. I'm not a big fan of Swing (or AWT) at all.
If you want to talk in terms of productivity, one method of sticking with C++ (although it sounds maybe the decision was made already) is to use a hybrid (come on, everyone else is doing it!). I use the boost::python library a whole lot (though there is SWIG, Weave and Pyrex as well). All my optimized code stays in C++, and everything else is in Python. I know Python isn't the fastest language in the world, but I don't have to worry about that. If I need to read in a configuration file, write a quick XML parser, etc. -- easily done in Python.
Python is far from a perfect language -- I get bitten by the whitespace issue quite a bit (yes, if you stick with one editor it's fine, but you might always have that luxary, and some editors insist on using tabs). It is definitely one of the more complete interpreted languages with a huge amount of libraries written for it. Also boost::python, like all template library will slow your compile down by a lot. On the other hand, you compile your code less, since most of your work is in Python. And Python takes 1 day to learn.
Something it seems no one has mentioned is that the President's focus on hydrogen is a bit strong. Why should that be? Well, to package the fuel cells, you need use energy. The energy can come from anywhere. Solar, wind, water, or.. gas/oil. In all likelihood, at least in the short run, what will happen is that big oil companies would produce hydrogen fuel cells 'magically' charging more than they did previously for gas. It's new technology, and besides you have a choice -- you could always just have a gas-fueled car.
So what about non-gas companies? Well, it's true you can use solar, wind, water, etc., but I imagine it's much faster to create a large number of fuel cells from gas. Any company that tries to compete with the gas companies will fail.
The really big question (besides why not give way more money) is why not fund *any* non-gas based car? Why the specifics on hydrogen? Especially when scientists are starting to think the reaction for hydrogen fuel cells may not be so great for the ozone layer either.
I suspect that the majority of people are not buying macs to run windows as their primary OS. If so, I'm going to agree with him. If I wanted to spend the same amount of money and run windows, I'd get a tablet. If only Apple made one...
The fact is, the majority of people buying the MacTel, are buying it because it runs OSX AND Windows. No other laptop can really claim that -- at least legally (and easily). This is a really important distinction. I love OSX. I'm a linuxhead, but just having things work, and work together seamlessly. Priceless. (though my desktop is still a linux box)
For my laptop, I have no desire to run windows. I'm through with that agony in my life. I want to enjoy my computing experience. However, I am realistic. There are some applications, unfortunately, that still require windows. Bootcamp gives me the perfect compromise.
So, this editor is way off base. It's true, Apple isn't performing a public service. But they are taking down one more barrier that would normally stop people from buying their computers. And it's true. Once you start using OS X, you find yourself much less likely to go back to Windows. But not because of some strange Apple conspiracy. Because it kicks M$'s ass (comparing apples to lemons?). And this is from someone who wouldn't touch a Mac a couple years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
There might be some truth to that .. I know at least some lines of lab rats used, there is a very high rate of tumors. My understanding, is that in order to keep the genes from mutating too much, there isn't a lot of diversity in the breeding pools, which can cause strange genetic diseases to happen.
On one hand, it's good to know that the rat you use one day is essentially the same as the rat you use the next day. On the other hand, you could be introducing other strange artifacts.
This is funny, because some of those EU countries are also demanding that the music be un-DRM'd. At least with DRM, you can in theory handle returns in a sane manner (invalidate the license on the music), while for MP3 files, it's much more difficult. One way around this *might* be to finger print the MP3s, and keep a database of what you're allowed to play. Hackable? Yes, but so is everything else.
Of course, some compromise could probably negate most of the negative impacts, such as limiting the number of returns per year, and only giving in-store credit.
At first glance, the .xxx idea seems fine to me. Right now the .com domain space is cluttered with random domain names that will bring up porn. It's not so much the children, as just the sanity of it all. The probability that you can type in a random URL and likely pull up porn says that the usefulness of the domain name is diminishing.
.xxx TLD ends up being a small subset of a larger problem, and doesn't even fix the subset problem. As many people have suggested, it's not going to force porn companies from using .com. It may act as a magnet for children, though I'll suspect most browsers will block .xxx by default (think of the children!). Making the entire venture, a method to get lots of money for some TLD company.
The domain name is supposed to be some type of mapping between a company's name, general interest, etc. to a specific web page. This was great when the web was small, but even without all the porn, it still mostly fails. Thus the search engine.
So URLs are relegated to (sometimes) brand name, (sometimes) company names, bookmarks, and printed ads. That is, all other times, it doesn't really matter what the domain name is.
The
Perhaps a better approach would be to actually put some structure on naming. A hierarchical is already somewhat in use per domain, but is not problem free. Also, name.adult.com is essentially the same as name.xxx.
Tagging is an already wide-used technique employed on the net, why not use it for names too? The tags can be done in an inclusive manner, such that an organization can allow acceptance of a particular web page to that tag. For example, 'child' could be applied to make sure there is no objectionable material. But wait, by whose standard? Well, there could be several 'child' tag organizations. For parents, they can pick the one which agrees with their standards.
Am I in favor of censorship? Definitely not. But I'm also going to have to live with the fact that some people are going to disagree with my sensibilities. Why not give them their own playground, and get them out of mine?
Al Gore does serve as a powerful prophylactic.
Thanks for the info .. I was looking for something like this before without finding any info.. there is also a third party developer who suggests filing a bug report with Apple for there being no support under XCode .. I think it's at least worth a try if enough people file the bug -- at least they'll see it, and have to acknowledge it to some extent.
Please mod parent up -- it would be great if more people knew about the petition. I don't actually have high hopes of it working, but at least it's nice to have our voice heard every once in a while.
At first I was outraged by the the fact it was going to be a closed system. I'm still mad, and if there is a petition to sign, I'd sign it, but in the end it's not so surprising given how Apple has treated the IPod.
.. while I hate javascript, I hear they are fairly versitile. Some current apps I would personally like are: listings of restaurants I like tied in which the google.maps; locate *other* people carrying GPS devices (e.g. trying to find friend in a crowd); a non-SMS chat program; simplified food-ordering program (see seamlessweb.com); python interpreter; simplified database; ebook reader that allows bookmarking and markup of pages; interactive NYC subway map (things like, if a train is down, how the hell do I get there...)
It's not clear how they'll close their platform. Some people have suggested Widgets might still be usuable, or the fact that you can still play flash games through web pages. For a couple of things, widgets might be good enough
Because there's a web browser, I'm assuming you'll be able to at least d/l apps to it. I'm also told that OS X 10.5 will have signed binaries. So they can restrict use of apps by either requiring them to be signed by Apple, or they can take the approach they did with the IPod, and just make it a pain in the neck to get the apps in (e.g. secret directory + some file you need to edit to add an entry in).
While it's true, 3rd party apps can always make the platform more unstable, at the same time, Apple will never (nor want to) write apps specific to everyone's needs (e.g. NYC subway map). However, some app like that would be invaluable to me. Maybe some compromise of Apple testing some top percent of apps, and allowing them to be d/l'd with some warning of how it will cause you immediate death to just run the app.
Here is someone who started a petition, by filing the lack of open-ness as as bug.
Why make such a big deal out of it being OS X underneath? Maybe the info from Gizmodo is wrong, and they will release an XCode module to create apps, or maybe they want to charge a license to develop for the platform much like how many other companies operate.
It seems strange to me, as Apple has to some extent embraced the open-source community. But the problem they continually have is deciding whether they are more on the soft or hard side of the Wares. If they are simply trying to sell the hardware known as the iPhone, then they better open it up for everyone to write software for. People have claimed this is unnecessary because they never did for the IPod, but this is clearly not just an IPod.
On the other hand, if they aren't make much profit on the HW (which wouldn't completely surprise me .. most cellphones are sold at a loss), then they want to get a revenue stream from somewhere. I'd be curious if anyone knew how this might break down.
There is also always the possibility that if it's closed that someone figures out how to hack it. I'm guessing if they are trying to keep it closed, they would make all binaries to be signed -- since you have internet access, it seems trivial to get the apps onto the device.
As a final thought, I don't think it's likely that Apple will release a version with a larger HD anytime soon. I'm guessing Jobs would insist on it being as slim as possible, which would rule out a real HD. What I think will be interesting is what the next IPod will be. It's hard to imagine that it won't be widescreened. But then there is the question, will it have WIFI? If it has WIFI, then it competes in some way with the iPhone. On the other hand, if they don't put WIFI in there, then can the POI compete with the Zune (I assume it will eventually get better)?
Science would maintain one simple fact: we are our brains. Nothing more, nothing less. From that, logically it follows that if you alter your brain, it will also alter you, your choices, and preferences. Does that spell the end of free will? That is a much more difficult question. Just because this makes a claim against having a soul, no one has proven it demands the end of free will.
I'm not even sure if 'free will' is something you can test for. What is it? What metric do you use? On the philisophical level you might argue against it by claiming all my choices are predetermined. Perhaps I'm no more than an automaton with illusions of making choices. But then who is having the illusion? An interpretation still has to be made of the events to form the illusion, and that still requires making choices. This is by no means an attempt to prove otherwise, but rather trying to point out the difficulties in making any claims either way.
Also, If I remember my history correctly, at one point the Christian church beleived that even with a soul you had no free will. And in ancient Mesopotamia the Sumerians beleived that you were you body (no soul). So really this is a very old argument we're getting around to once again.
Finally, the article does not say exactly where the brain tumor was, which is an important consideration. For example, if it were on his orbital-frontal cortex, similar to Fineas Gage's brain damage, then it unlikely that the tumor caused him to be paedophilic. Rather it took away his inhibition towards such feelings.
It's a first that I've seen someone call Javascript beautiful. Javascript, for what it was first conceptualized for, got the job done (back when it was Livescript). The misunderstood part of Javascript, is that it is prototype-language, which is unlike most other languages. That is, you can create object types on the fly due to how the associative arrays work. foo.bar is the same as foo['bar']. From that you can get all the OOP you want (note: although Python is much more of an OOP'd language, it can also be used as a prototype-language).
But this is definitely where the beauty is in the eye of the beholder comes into play. Is this some quick syntactical sugar that gives the impression of structure, or is there indeed a well thought out design to the language. Of course, the fact it's been a slowly evolving/hacked together language would point more towards the former in my book.
Personally, I've never been a fan of the Javascript method of doing things, and prefer a much stronger structure in the language. Python does a great job of it, I like what little I've seen on Ruby (especially Rails), and there is of course my personal favorite C++ (yes, flame all you want, but *know* the language first before you complain about it).
Prototyping languages, from what I've seen so far, are great for hacking together small projects, but get messy when you try to do anything on a larger scale. This is where strong language structure comes nicely into play.
While Java is not my favorite language (I usually refer to it simply as, 'that bastardized c++ language'), I am excited about trying this out. I'm curious as it will compare against RoR, Django, etc. The prospect of being able to write a well maintained library for web interfaces that is easily extendable is a much worked on and much needed item in the world of webs.
It's not like the rumor is exactly new. There is the claim by a company that they received manufacturing orders from Apple, as well as other claims from the rumor-mill (e.g. Kevin Rose's claim that his friend at Apple has a 4GB and a 8GB phone).
.mac. It's not like I can actually afford the iPDA .. forcing me to pay a monthly subscription for owning a piece of hardware is too much.
I remember when buying my Macbook Pro there were all sorts of rumors not to buy one. That there would something to be shortly released that would supersede it (of course, at the time, the only thing that could be cooler was a iTablet). People claim that Apple enjoys these rumors, though I have to imagine to some extent it hurts their sales. Some speculate it is a good way for them to figure out what the public wants. Others that it is simply subterfuge to hide their real activity from their competitors.
I give this rumor *some* credence simply because it seems like the hardware is already there. It's not that large of a stretch of an imagination to think of a Nano being put together with a cell phone -- much like how many cell phone companies are putting ipod like devices with their cell phones. Which means the big question is whether Apple actually *wants* this. My suspicion is that easier access to the iTunes store is probably a large incentive to them.
Personally the iPhone isn't that appealing to me. If the only extra functionality I get from it is that it takes less space, I think I'll pass. However, as far as the iPDA -- that is something I'd want. The iPod already has a large HD (80GBs anyone?), a processor capable of playing music, games, doing calendaring, etc. Is it that big a of a stretch that it should be able to maybe do email? Maybe surf the web? Heck, if Opera can make a web browser for cell phones and DS, it's hard to see why not.
The big catch seems to be the input device. It's not clear how Apple feels about a stylus. However, things like the Blackberry seem to do well with just a keyboard and a scroll wheel. Sound familiar?
Also, please, really, PLEASE, if this does come true, don't make us subscribe to
You might be right .. I profess not to know the inner workings of these companies. I think the point still remain valid -- M$ does not really care about the consumers. I think it is in the end to their own detriment, as I agree with Apple that flat rates for music makes sense (though not for TV shows -- especially when paying $2 for *each* episode of the Daily Show).
I'm definitely in the camp that to support the Zune is to support the big-bad music companies (and terrorists when you're at it).
Normally I would agree with you .. it would be nice for Apple to have pressure to do new better stuff with their ipod besides make it smaller and redder. But, and this pains me to say, in this case Apple seems to have actually done good with their dictatorship (it pains me to say dictatorships are good, rather than saying something bad about Apple).
./ stories, but because M$ caved into Universal, it's now causing issues for Apple. Apple was the only company willing to fight for a flat rate for the consumer and make it work. If it weren't for Apple's iTunes store, buying music onlne would still really suck.
See the related
And no, I don't like DRM'd crap, but I do like our environment better, and don't care to pollute it with more CDs that I'm just going to rip. Would I rather just because to get plain MP3s. Yeah, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon. From personal experience, Apple's DRM is pretty decent, and only got in the way once, where I had to deauthorize all my computers.
So in this case, competition actually isn't looking good for consumer's rights, primarily because most consumers buying these things aren't well informed.
The Web 2.0 revolution will not be televised!
Last I checked, Web 2.0 was AJAX, which was a way of making a medium that was originally mean to be static, less static. I feel it's more akin to compiling a bunch of photos into a flipbook rather than the actual creation of a TV.
Sure, javascript will do your dishes for you now, but it's not really anything new. I mean, back when javascript was livescript, or actionscript, or somethingscript, and Java was a seed planted in someone's head, there existed things call programs that could *still* communicate over the interweb. Did they do it over web page? No, but I'm still not sure why having it display in a web browser makes sense. Does the back button taken the place of undo? If I hit reload will my essay get better?
If you *really* want to credit apps in web pages, I think Java and M$ should get the prize. Java, with the whole language that could run an app anyhwere, and M$ with OLE/COM/DCOM/ActiveX/VirusCom. The whole excel spreadsheet in a web page, once again, didn't ever especially appeal to me. If I wanted to edit something on a remote server I would much rather: (a) access the remote file system with something like NFS, or (b) run the actual application remotely (ala X Window). And no, windows remote desktop is not the same.
So why the Web 2.0 crazyness? My suspicion is: (a) it's easy to start (though I would argue not to finish) an interface, (b) no need to compile anything, download anything, etc. (c) automatic file sharing (i.e. the whole internet thing again).
Java's success has been mixed. I don't think many people would argue that when it was first released, the press it received was overblown. The AWT, IMHO, leaves much to desire. While Swing did come along and resolve some of the issues, compare to a full featured toolkit like Cocoa, and I think it's still hard to compare. But it does provide one thing that no other toolkit does: a cross-platform app without major licensing issues or recompilation (I'm sure someone is going to complain that I fail to mention Tcl/Tk).
Google opening up their APIs to third party apps might actually for once and all start to solve these issues. You can access your data from any computer, you don't need to install anything (AJAX interface), but you can use a more sophisticated interface if needed.
Though I would love if someone actually made a cross-platform VM that had a GUI on the same level as Coca, but easily allowed any language to compile for it (yes, I know, you can compile any language for the Java VM with the GNU toolkit [e.g. gcj]).
I like the idea of an episodic model, as I'm more likely to actually finish an installment. Additionally, with larger games, you need to constantly increase the difficulty of the levels because the person feels like need ramp up to something better. I feel like with installments, the person is going to have some off time, so you can keep the difficulty curve more flat, allowing for more people to get in on the fun.
Someone mentioned previously that it's the difference between movies and TV shows. It could be easy to interpolate this to mean that the plot lines would suck. Hopefully this will not be the case, and each could be a continuation of what happened last (e.g. Battlestar Gallatica).
One final point, is I think this model is a great boon to small software companies as a whole. As another person pointed out, this is how shareware used to be done. While a big movie game is sometimes nice to play, in the end what really matters is that the game is fun. Shorter development times can help keep the focus on the fun rather than making sure all the bells and whistles are in.
Firstly, I think the poster didn't mean to use the term 'strong AI', which usually refers to needing to codify all the 'intelligent behavior', unlike weak AI, which must learn the behavior itself.
I agree with his point that there is nothing magical about the brain, but I think he's off his rockers to say it will happen in 10-15 years. Perhaps he should beef up on some neuroscience papers before such grand claims. While I think there should eventually be a link between the AI and neuroscience worlds, it really isn't there yet. Nor, IMHO, will there be for a long long time. The closest thing that exists currently is the subfield of mathematical psychology, primarily run by mathematicians and physicists.
On the AI side, we're still missing anything that even comes close to 'moderate AI'. We have machines that can beat just about any human at chess, and that's about it. After watching enough documentaries on insects (who actually can do some interesting problem solving -- even if it's done in a communal fashion), I've come to the conclusion we're probably not even that close to creating a robot ant, let alone getting an intelligent android.
the chances of getting the job are astronomically low. Besides, you're thesis will probably just get black-holed. Perhaps it's worth getting the position still, for all the star-power?
Sorry, couldn't resist. I understand if you have to mod me down.
There is GNUStep, which is a clone of NextStep, on which aqua is built. Without the resources of Apple, the project doesn't have all the same high-tech gadgetry, but in principle it's fairly close. In fact, you can in theory write a program for GNUStep, and have it in theory compile with Cocoa. I've never tried it myself.
It seemed to me one of the major issues GNUStep had, was that it kept the NextStep interface, which, IMHO, is fugly. It didn't for me want to just use it. I also have memories of it being a bit buggy and crashing a bit.
Anyways, the point is, while I'm sure you are right that people would try to port it over, it's not clear to me it would succeed. In theory if people really wanted it, or if the resources were really there, it would have happened already. It *could have* happened already, just not enough people seemed to care.
M$ has worked very hard in making C an OOP-like language. It's not that C doesn't allow you to do everything that C++ or Obj-C does .. they are after all just languages (besides which, Obj-C and C++ were originally just precompilers that generated C code). Nothing magical. but Obj-C especially provides language feature that become especially nice in a windowing environment.
For example, compare how Apple's tools works versus M$: In M$ (at least last time I used them) you draw a GUI, and it generates a huge amount of code with comments intersperesed through saying things like "DON'T EDIT THIS". This, IMHO, creates a large amount of code, which from experience quickly becomes unmaintainable (esp. when other people created in the first place).
Apple's Project Builder on the other hand produces no code, but rather serialized objects. Because Obj-C can do runtime class inspection, it makes life easier. You create the classes, make instances of them, set the properties, and then they get loaded when your program runs. Because they are just instances of classes, it's easy to change their properties (for the most part) in your code too, if for some reason you want to.
I'm not sure I'd call .NET/C# a 'real language'. It hasn't to my knowledge been used in anything as large as a windowing system. I would point out, that at least some bindings for other languages have been made (e.g. Python). Including C#.
Advertising to doctors seems like a justifiable action. While, and especially since it involves people's lives, such practices should be under close scrutiny from the government, I would never say they should be illegal. But this is far different from trying to sell to the patients. It is one thing to raise awareness for problems out there (though, if it is a medical condition that really needs attention, I'm going to assume the person will likely see a doctor anyways), creating a sense of hysteria or urgency does not seem okay to me.
Also, it is a well known phenomena that doctors in training self-diagnose themselves with countless of diseases. It's only natural, as anyone at any point in time can exhibit at least some of the symptoms. This is why people should be getting diagnosed by their doctor, and not TV commerical.
I am certainly not arguing that the drug companies do no valid research. Nor that research isn't extremely hard and difficult. But as you point out, it is a business that they run. In the end it isn't humanity that they are trying to improve, but rather their profit margins. Money spent on advertisement will in the end more likely get them more money than money spent on research, so that is how the money will be spent.
It's true, innovation is necessary to deal with the patent issue (though sometime pharma companies will pay off the generics not to produce a certain drug), but all that is necessary is to produce something that works slightly better. I am not suggesting that the big pharmas are holding back (though that could be in their best interest), but rather the types of research that will get funded are going to be things that have a high chance of making a drug slightly more effective than a radical new drug treatment.
Of course, if a pharma only invested in risky research, it would likely go out of business rather quickly. So there is a balance to keep, but I am far from convinced that the big pharmas are anywhere near that balance right now.
Also, as far as 'drugs that just sell themselves', again, I would say that if it was something more than just a small improvement, then it would. If it's simply a matter of 2% better, then you are right.
Probably because the pharmas are notorious for being primarily profit driven, while complaining about lack of funding. Just look at the number of ads that these companies put on tv, the number of items the give away to doctors, and the amount they give to lobbyists. You might argue that they are merely trying to do business, and sell their product. But think about it. If they had a drug that just worked, would they really have to advertise this hard? Some of the drugs that they put advertisement for don't work so well, and they are trying to recover lost money. They can get consumers to demand a drug from their doctor, which will usually result in a prescription.
As far as the research side of things, at least one case I know about relates to anti-psyhcotic drugs. It is well known that there is a correlation with anti-psychotics, and a decrease in dopamine levels. A decrease in dopamine levels causes parkinsonian like symptoms. Therefore, to find a new drug, you give mice a bunch of chemicals, and the drugs that cause parkinsonian like symptoms will likely act as anti-psychotics.
However, this is in the end only treating the symptoms, and causes a much larger issue. People who should be taking the anti-psyhcotics, don't, because who wants parkisonian like symptoms? Additionally, even if the pharmas could cure a large number of diseases, it's not even always in their best interest. They need to have you take a pill every week/day/hour in order to get a good profit. Suppose they could develop a magic pill that simply cured you. Even if they could charge a large sum of money, it would not be on nearly the same magnitude as something you had to continually take.
It's been suggested before that much of the money spent on 'research', goes towards research on advertisements rather than actual cures. That is not to say that these companies don't do actual important research. They do. But ot nearly to the extent that they should. Why do you think that many of the key discoveries still comes from academia?
It might make sense for them to hold off on releasing it. I have to wonder how many people will actually buy it after it's been lambasted for so long. Granted, this doesn't mean it's a *bad* game, just that most games enjoy a certain amount of hype before being released. While some say that any press is good press, was that true for Daikatana?
I think their best bet, is hold off on releasing the game until everyone who remembers when it first was created either becomes senile or dies.
Well, to agree with just about everyone else here, for the whole team to learn Java, get used it its quirks, etc. is going to take a good amount of time. One thing that it does sound like, is that there is a library issue -- your current library is unmaintainable, and perhaps the ones Java provides takes care of that. Maybe that can cover for the time it takes to learn Java (since it's based on C++, it's not so difficult, but at least last time I checked, it lacks many features that you'll have gotten used to in C++).
Main sticking points (since it's been years since I've last used Java, someone will probably have to correct this):
* lack of templates
* lack of double inheritence
* everything is a pointer (both good and bad)
* you have to be aware of garbage collector for optimizations
* more verbose: both libraries are verbose in nature, and syntax can be a bit more verbose
I think most issues people have with C++ can be solved with the right library. Want garbage collection, use a garbage collection library. Or use the STL (check out boost too!), which has just about all the container classes you could possibly want or need. Roguewave has also always provided a good amount of commercial quality C++ libraries. And don't forget QT. Way way way better than any interface provided by Java. I'm not a big fan of Swing (or AWT) at all.
If you want to talk in terms of productivity, one method of sticking with C++ (although it sounds maybe the decision was made already) is to use a hybrid (come on, everyone else is doing it!). I use the boost::python library a whole lot (though there is SWIG, Weave and Pyrex as well). All my optimized code stays in C++, and everything else is in Python. I know Python isn't the fastest language in the world, but I don't have to worry about that. If I need to read in a configuration file, write a quick XML parser, etc. -- easily done in Python.
Python is far from a perfect language -- I get bitten by the whitespace issue quite a bit (yes, if you stick with one editor it's fine, but you might always have that luxary, and some editors insist on using tabs). It is definitely one of the more complete interpreted languages with a huge amount of libraries written for it. Also boost::python, like all template library will slow your compile down by a lot. On the other hand, you compile your code less, since most of your work is in Python. And Python takes 1 day to learn.
Something it seems no one has mentioned is that the President's focus on hydrogen is a bit strong. Why should that be? Well, to package the fuel cells, you need use energy. The energy can come from anywhere. Solar, wind, water, or .. gas/oil. In all likelihood, at least in the short run, what will happen is that big oil companies would produce hydrogen fuel cells 'magically' charging more than they did previously for gas. It's new technology, and besides you have a choice -- you could always just have a gas-fueled car.
So what about non-gas companies? Well, it's true you can use solar, wind, water, etc., but I imagine it's much faster to create a large number of fuel cells from gas. Any company that tries to compete with the gas companies will fail.
The really big question (besides why not give way more money) is why not fund *any* non-gas based car? Why the specifics on hydrogen? Especially when scientists are starting to think the reaction for hydrogen fuel cells may not be so great for the ozone layer either.
I suspect that the majority of people are not buying macs to run windows as their primary OS. If so, I'm going to agree with him. If I wanted to spend the same amount of money and run windows, I'd get a tablet. If only Apple made one...
The fact is, the majority of people buying the MacTel, are buying it because it runs OSX AND Windows. No other laptop can really claim that -- at least legally (and easily). This is a really important distinction. I love OSX. I'm a linuxhead, but just having things work, and work together seamlessly. Priceless. (though my desktop is still a linux box)
For my laptop, I have no desire to run windows. I'm through with that agony in my life. I want to enjoy my computing experience. However, I am realistic. There are some applications, unfortunately, that still require windows. Bootcamp gives me the perfect compromise.
So, this editor is way off base. It's true, Apple isn't performing a public service. But they are taking down one more barrier that would normally stop people from buying their computers. And it's true. Once you start using OS X, you find yourself much less likely to go back to Windows. But not because of some strange Apple conspiracy. Because it kicks M$'s ass (comparing apples to lemons?). And this is from someone who wouldn't touch a Mac a couple years ago.