In the same way a prisoner with his spirit broken values his cell.
It's more in the way that I prefer walls around my home, instead of living in a tent. And we all live in a rather large prison of which only about a dozen people or two ever escaped for about a week, and nobody complains much.
The AppStore has about 600,000 apps. Without walled garden, there would be those 600,000 apps, plus maybe a dozen more useful apps, plus a million apps that you really don't want on your device.
I would be pissed if I paid for something I could get for free unless I knew about it before hand.
So what? Are you seriously saying that you think you have a right to complain because someone is generous enough to give something away for free? You paid for it, so obviously you thought it was worth the money.
Make a version using iBook Author. Put it on the Apple iBook Store. If you want people to get a free version or pay, that's very simple: Make a sample that covers the whole book, except a page that says this person has paid. Samples are free to download, and you get a button on the last page automatically that allows to pay for the full version.
Now with my cynicial world view, making teachers pay for something that they can get for free is very, very, very difficult.
If your code style calls for tabs, by all means use tabs, but deal with the fact that it must look good when tabs are defined as 8. Don't set tabs at 3 or 4, and then use tabs to line up things that will produce a horrible mess when viewed with tabs at 8.
If you come to where I work, you better deal with the fact that tabs are set to 4, and if you mess with that, you will be strangled.
Having a consistent style means that you don't end up in the situation we are, where we have several patches that are probably a days work to merge with the main line, not because our patches are large, but because some bonehead decided it would be good to run an automated code reformatter on his source tree.
Sorry, but that should be zero days work on your side. Let the bonehead do the merge, you review it before it is checked in, and if any of his formatting changes are there, you reject it.
The "life span" of other consumer hardware can be measured in months while consoles, which are supposed to be high tech pieces of equipment, move at a glacial pace. It isn't surprising that some believe this is why consoles as a "sealed set top box" is done. Hell 5 years from now the TV itself could have a hardware that is more advanced and powerful than console released next year.
I checked this: XBox 360 was introduced November 2005. At that time the current desktop Macintosh was an iMac G5 with one single core G5 processor running around 2 GHz. Now it's October 2012. The XBox 360 is the same. The current desktop Macintosh is a quad core Intel processor with hyperthreading, with 256 bit vector operations, capable of about 50 GFlop/sec (twice that in single precision). Intel integrated graphics probably runs circles around the XBox 360. About the same happened with PCs.
Voted up as "+5 informative" and totally wrong. Fact is: Samsung asked for this to be put on Apple's home page. The judge decided that it should _not_ go on Apple's home page. But maybe Samsung could put on _their_ homepage that Samsung's tablets are not cool enough. That they tried to copy the iPad but failed.
What is wrong with apologizing to the wronged party? This is how disputes are resolved in a civilized society. Do you think that a huge fine for slandering their opponent would be a more appropriate response?
Well, the judge made quite clear that he thinks Samsung has _copied_ the iPad design, just not enough to infringe on Apple's design patents. We also know that Samsung kept a 130 page book that described how the iPhone UI was better than the Samsung UI, and how to change the Samsung UI accordingly. So yes, Samsung should apologize.
And, if they withdrew from the case after they found out about the fraud, and they didn't immediately report it... that is even worse. Frankly, no one would have paid attention to Ceglia in the first place if it weren't for the fact that he had attorneys with good reputations backing him up. If they knew about any of this or even had a hint of it, they deserve a severe punishment as well.
Not sure how this works with lawyer/client privilege.
Hearing aids are unique among consumer electronic items, because they have almost zero tolerance for latency. If the media stream coming from your entertainment device is delayed by 12ms, you'll never notice the difference. If the sound coming out of your hearing aids is delayed by 12ms, your ability to locate items by sound and react to them is going to be completely borked. At best, you'll be stressed out and irritated. At worst, you'll feel disoriented and confused.
Is that so? I can understand that different latencies on the left and right ear would cause problems, because the brain uses tiny differences in the arrival of sound on the left and right ear to determine direction. But if you manage to keep the latency absolutely identical, I would think it should cause no problems.
My left and right ear should receive signals at most maybe 0.6ms apart, so the difference in latency should be a lot less than that. Probably below 0.1ms or less.
It's actually the other way around, for the reason you note... The studios own the copyrights, so if you make an unauthorized derivative work, they could claim that as copyright owner, they have implied rights in that work too. Netflix doesn't own the content, but is just a licensee, so the studios would have to grant them a license to the implied third-party derivative work, which starts getting a little sticky.
No, they don't have any rights to unauthorized derivative works. What saves them in practice is that if you "steal" a movie from Netflix, and Netflix "steals" subtitles from you, you are not in a position to take them to court. (There _have_ been people calling the police because someone stole drugs from them, which is a bloody stupid thing to do. And I read about one case where the police successfully arrested both the thief, and the victim of the theft for drug possession).
Of course, that could be highly unfair treatment. It assumes that past behavior is a reliable predictor of future behavior.
You are misunderstanding what this is about. This is not "there's a 17 year old, tall, strong kid looking at me. If he's never done anything wrong, then he is harmless. If he has a history of fights, then I look for my gun". This is a case "The guy shooting the 17 year old claims it was self defence. There are no witnesses. Do we believe him? If the 17 year old has never been in trouble, then the guy is likely lying. If the 17 year old has a history of fights, then it is quite possible that the story is true".
Just saying: According to German law (for example), a crime happens in the place where it has an effect, not in the place where someone took an illegal action. These are often the same places. But for example, when sending a letter bomb the crime takes place where the bomb explodes, not where it was built or sent from. Hacking from a flat in London into US military computers takes place in the USA. Distributing copyrighted materials in the USA from a server somewhere else takes place in the USA.
I don't want to defend the authors, but Foxconn did recently admit that some of it vocational interns were 14 - 16 years old. It was on the BBC [bbc.co.uk], among others.
16 years old is perfectly legal. In China and in other countries. If you look at below 16 years, that would be illegal. You can go to Apple's web site, where they report what they have found about employment of underage (below 16 workers), and you'll find it happens for various reasons. One reason being that young people who are almost 16 like to make money, just like people who _are_ 16, and sometimes lie about their age, sometimes it isn't checked properly, and in very few cases it was not checked intentionally. Apple has cancelled contracts with companies where they felt this happened intentionally and not by mistake.
In the USA, there are plenty of people - millions actually - who have the means to kill anyone wearing a pacemaker quite easily. These people are called "gun owners". Now the number has increased by one - some idiot hacker who figures out how to hack into the pacemaker software. So what has changed?
I don't understand what you're trying to say; all the signals are received at exactly the same time (which I called t). If you receive the signals at different times, than the whole thing doesn't work, because then the relative positions of the satellites will have changed -- and the whole point is to use the relative positions of the satellites to determine your position.
Not a big problem, if the times are close together. If you receiver four signals at t, t + 1 microseconds, t + 2 microseconds, and t + 3 microseconds, then even the last satellite has only moved for 3 microseconds, just a few centimetres.
Only three if the speed of light was instant:) The time of transmission from each satellite is not equal since they are in different places a very long way apart and timing is critical in this situation.
If the speed of light was instant, GPS wouldn't work. You would receive n identical time stamps from n satellites and would be stuck.
Just quoting someone else without knowing what you are talking about doesn't make you right. Come up with scientific reasoning using trigonometry and publicly available specs for GPS to prove your point, or keep your mouth shut, please.
People who think they know everything are pretty annoying to those who actually do:-)
GPS doesn't use triangulation. There is no way for a receiver to determine what direction a satellite signal is coming from.
The satellite has an atomic clock. It transmits a time signal at 1 MHz frequency (but because of doppler effect you receive each satellite at a different frequency, which is why non-assisted GPS takes so long to work when you turn it on: It doesn't know where and when it is, so it doesn't know at which frequencies to expect signals, so it has to scan they whole band around 1 MHz for multiple very weak signals). The signal is digital, and a good receiver detects edges of the signal with 10 ns precision.
So the receiver gets n timestamps from n satellites with good precision. The other bit of information that it has is the exact path that each satellite is following and where it should be at any moment in time. A single timestamp gives you the real time within 0.1 seconds (making the assumption that you are on earth), and that gives you the satellite positions within a kilometer (since they are moving at finite speed), so you can position your n satellites in space roughly.
Now if you had time within a few nanoseconds, each timestamp would tell you within a few meters your distance from one satellite (and you would now know the satelitte position with very little error as well). But you don't have that time. So you take two timestamps, and you know "the distance to satellite A is x meters more/less than the distance to satellite B". One satelitte - you have nothing. Two satellites - you know you are on some curved plain. Three satellites - you are somewhere on some curved line. Three satelittes plus assuming you are on the surface of the earth - there are two points where you could be. But climb on a ladder, and you get it wrong. Four satellites - you know where you are.
I hadn't considered that we could use the 4th signal this way... that's really quite brilliant.
If you had a super precise clock, you could use GPS with only 3 receivers. 1 ns error in the clock = 30cm position error. 1 microsecond = 300 meters.
Because you don't have that super precise clock, you need four satellites. You read the time stamps from each signal, but because you don't know the actual time precisely enough, you only know "I'm x nanoseconds closer to satellite A than satellite B, and y nanoseconds further from satelitte C" and so on.
Even a single satellite would give you a rather precise clock (you know you are about 20,000 to 40,000 km away, no matter where you are, so take time stamp + 0.1 seconds, and you have 0.05 seconds precision), which is why it is quite surprising that I have to set the time on a TomTom manually. Of course with four satellites you know your time within a few ten nanoseconds.
Doubt it. The first reason AppleTVs are not popular is because home consoles even though they cost way more. The PS3 and Xbox360 can do everything the AppleTV do and much more(Bluray and DVD, real games, more digital content etc, better media streaming tools, better control interfaces and recording capabilities). The only thing I know more complete than a PS3 to hook up to a home theater setup is a custom made HTPC.
Actually, Apple TV sold more units in the last quarter than XBox 360. Admittedly, this is more because XBox 360 sales are dropping, and not so much because Apple TV is selling so well.
Shouldn't run too bad, actually. There are of course MacOS X apps that you wouldn't want to run on an ARM chip, and full MacOS X on an iPad would also be a rubbish idea, but an Air running MacOS X would be feasible. And as long as an app has a 32 bit version and no assembler code, a recompile should be enough.
I don't even own a phone yet I seem morally obliged to support Android over Apple.
Why would that be? Google is the world's biggest advertising company, and all their actions are aimed at hurting companies that might interfere with that. That's why you have Google+ attacking Facebook, Google Apps attacking Microsoft, and Android attacking Apple. None of these are there to make money for Google, they are just meant to keep their competitors busy. Google just spent $12 billion on Motorola, to get patents to attack Apple and Microsoft even more, in a business where Google doesn't actually make any meaningful money, just to attack companies that might eventually get into the advertising business.
So what makes you morally obliged to support an OS created by the world's biggest enemy of privacy solely for the purpose to hurt its competitors?
Slashdot Mirror
In the same way a prisoner with his spirit broken values his cell.
It's more in the way that I prefer walls around my home, instead of living in a tent. And we all live in a rather large prison of which only about a dozen people or two ever escaped for about a week, and nobody complains much.
The AppStore has about 600,000 apps. Without walled garden, there would be those 600,000 apps, plus maybe a dozen more useful apps, plus a million apps that you really don't want on your device.
To technical people, the average /.er, the computer is a tool. You code something, the computer does it.
Well said. But consider that to average people, the average /.er is a tool.
I would be pissed if I paid for something I could get for free unless I knew about it before hand.
So what? Are you seriously saying that you think you have a right to complain because someone is generous enough to give something away for free? You paid for it, so obviously you thought it was worth the money.
Make a version using iBook Author. Put it on the Apple iBook Store. If you want people to get a free version or pay, that's very simple: Make a sample that covers the whole book, except a page that says this person has paid. Samples are free to download, and you get a button on the last page automatically that allows to pay for the full version.
Now with my cynicial world view, making teachers pay for something that they can get for free is very, very, very difficult.
If your code style calls for tabs, by all means use tabs, but deal with the fact that it must look good when tabs are defined as 8. Don't set tabs at 3 or 4, and then use tabs to line up things that will produce a horrible mess when viewed with tabs at 8.
If you come to where I work, you better deal with the fact that tabs are set to 4, and if you mess with that, you will be strangled.
Having a consistent style means that you don't end up in the situation we are, where we have several patches that are probably a days work to merge with the main line, not because our patches are large, but because some bonehead decided it would be good to run an automated code reformatter on his source tree.
Sorry, but that should be zero days work on your side. Let the bonehead do the merge, you review it before it is checked in, and if any of his formatting changes are there, you reject it.
The "life span" of other consumer hardware can be measured in months while consoles, which are supposed to be high tech pieces of equipment, move at a glacial pace. It isn't surprising that some believe this is why consoles as a "sealed set top box" is done. Hell 5 years from now the TV itself could have a hardware that is more advanced and powerful than console released next year.
I checked this: XBox 360 was introduced November 2005. At that time the current desktop Macintosh was an iMac G5 with one single core G5 processor running around 2 GHz. Now it's October 2012. The XBox 360 is the same. The current desktop Macintosh is a quad core Intel processor with hyperthreading, with 256 bit vector operations, capable of about 50 GFlop/sec (twice that in single precision). Intel integrated graphics probably runs circles around the XBox 360. About the same happened with PCs.
Voted up as "+5 informative" and totally wrong. Fact is: Samsung asked for this to be put on Apple's home page. The judge decided that it should _not_ go on Apple's home page. But maybe Samsung could put on _their_ homepage that Samsung's tablets are not cool enough. That they tried to copy the iPad but failed.
What is wrong with apologizing to the wronged party? This is how disputes are resolved in a civilized society. Do you think that a huge fine for slandering their opponent would be a more appropriate response?
Well, the judge made quite clear that he thinks Samsung has _copied_ the iPad design, just not enough to infringe on Apple's design patents. We also know that Samsung kept a 130 page book that described how the iPhone UI was better than the Samsung UI, and how to change the Samsung UI accordingly. So yes, Samsung should apologize.
And, if they withdrew from the case after they found out about the fraud, and they didn't immediately report it... that is even worse. Frankly, no one would have paid attention to Ceglia in the first place if it weren't for the fact that he had attorneys with good reputations backing him up. If they knew about any of this or even had a hint of it, they deserve a severe punishment as well.
Not sure how this works with lawyer/client privilege.
Hearing aids are unique among consumer electronic items, because they have almost zero tolerance for latency. If the media stream coming from your entertainment device is delayed by 12ms, you'll never notice the difference. If the sound coming out of your hearing aids is delayed by 12ms, your ability to locate items by sound and react to them is going to be completely borked. At best, you'll be stressed out and irritated. At worst, you'll feel disoriented and confused.
Is that so? I can understand that different latencies on the left and right ear would cause problems, because the brain uses tiny differences in the arrival of sound on the left and right ear to determine direction. But if you manage to keep the latency absolutely identical, I would think it should cause no problems.
My left and right ear should receive signals at most maybe 0.6ms apart, so the difference in latency should be a lot less than that. Probably below 0.1ms or less.
It's actually the other way around, for the reason you note... The studios own the copyrights, so if you make an unauthorized derivative work, they could claim that as copyright owner, they have implied rights in that work too. Netflix doesn't own the content, but is just a licensee, so the studios would have to grant them a license to the implied third-party derivative work, which starts getting a little sticky.
No, they don't have any rights to unauthorized derivative works. What saves them in practice is that if you "steal" a movie from Netflix, and Netflix "steals" subtitles from you, you are not in a position to take them to court. (There _have_ been people calling the police because someone stole drugs from them, which is a bloody stupid thing to do. And I read about one case where the police successfully arrested both the thief, and the victim of the theft for drug possession).
Of course, that could be highly unfair treatment. It assumes that past behavior is a reliable predictor of future behavior.
You are misunderstanding what this is about. This is not "there's a 17 year old, tall, strong kid looking at me. If he's never done anything wrong, then he is harmless. If he has a history of fights, then I look for my gun". This is a case "The guy shooting the 17 year old claims it was self defence. There are no witnesses. Do we believe him? If the 17 year old has never been in trouble, then the guy is likely lying. If the 17 year old has a history of fights, then it is quite possible that the story is true".
Just saying: According to German law (for example), a crime happens in the place where it has an effect, not in the place where someone took an illegal action. These are often the same places. But for example, when sending a letter bomb the crime takes place where the bomb explodes, not where it was built or sent from. Hacking from a flat in London into US military computers takes place in the USA. Distributing copyrighted materials in the USA from a server somewhere else takes place in the USA.
I don't want to defend the authors, but Foxconn did recently admit that some of it vocational interns were 14 - 16 years old. It was on the BBC [bbc.co.uk], among others.
16 years old is perfectly legal. In China and in other countries. If you look at below 16 years, that would be illegal. You can go to Apple's web site, where they report what they have found about employment of underage (below 16 workers), and you'll find it happens for various reasons. One reason being that young people who are almost 16 like to make money, just like people who _are_ 16, and sometimes lie about their age, sometimes it isn't checked properly, and in very few cases it was not checked intentionally. Apple has cancelled contracts with companies where they felt this happened intentionally and not by mistake.
In the USA, there are plenty of people - millions actually - who have the means to kill anyone wearing a pacemaker quite easily. These people are called "gun owners". Now the number has increased by one - some idiot hacker who figures out how to hack into the pacemaker software. So what has changed?
I don't understand what you're trying to say; all the signals are received at exactly the same time (which I called t). If you receive the signals at different times, than the whole thing doesn't work, because then the relative positions of the satellites will have changed -- and the whole point is to use the relative positions of the satellites to determine your position.
Not a big problem, if the times are close together. If you receiver four signals at t, t + 1 microseconds, t + 2 microseconds, and t + 3 microseconds, then even the last satellite has only moved for 3 microseconds, just a few centimetres.
Only three if the speed of light was instant :) The time of transmission from each satellite is not equal since they are in different places a very long way apart and timing is critical in this situation.
If the speed of light was instant, GPS wouldn't work. You would receive n identical time stamps from n satellites and would be stuck.
Just quoting someone else without knowing what you are talking about doesn't make you right. Come up with scientific reasoning using trigonometry and publicly available specs for GPS to prove your point, or keep your mouth shut, please.
People who think they know everything are pretty annoying to those who actually do :-)
GPS doesn't use triangulation. There is no way for a receiver to determine what direction a satellite signal is coming from.
The satellite has an atomic clock. It transmits a time signal at 1 MHz frequency (but because of doppler effect you receive each satellite at a different frequency, which is why non-assisted GPS takes so long to work when you turn it on: It doesn't know where and when it is, so it doesn't know at which frequencies to expect signals, so it has to scan they whole band around 1 MHz for multiple very weak signals). The signal is digital, and a good receiver detects edges of the signal with 10 ns precision.
So the receiver gets n timestamps from n satellites with good precision. The other bit of information that it has is the exact path that each satellite is following and where it should be at any moment in time. A single timestamp gives you the real time within 0.1 seconds (making the assumption that you are on earth), and that gives you the satellite positions within a kilometer (since they are moving at finite speed), so you can position your n satellites in space roughly.
Now if you had time within a few nanoseconds, each timestamp would tell you within a few meters your distance from one satellite (and you would now know the satelitte position with very little error as well). But you don't have that time. So you take two timestamps, and you know "the distance to satellite A is x meters more/less than the distance to satellite B". One satelitte - you have nothing. Two satellites - you know you are on some curved plain. Three satellites - you are somewhere on some curved line. Three satelittes plus assuming you are on the surface of the earth - there are two points where you could be. But climb on a ladder, and you get it wrong. Four satellites - you know where you are.
I hadn't considered that we could use the 4th signal this way... that's really quite brilliant.
If you had a super precise clock, you could use GPS with only 3 receivers. 1 ns error in the clock = 30cm position error. 1 microsecond = 300 meters.
Because you don't have that super precise clock, you need four satellites. You read the time stamps from each signal, but because you don't know the actual time precisely enough, you only know "I'm x nanoseconds closer to satellite A than satellite B, and y nanoseconds further from satelitte C" and so on.
Even a single satellite would give you a rather precise clock (you know you are about 20,000 to 40,000 km away, no matter where you are, so take time stamp + 0.1 seconds, and you have 0.05 seconds precision), which is why it is quite surprising that I have to set the time on a TomTom manually. Of course with four satellites you know your time within a few ten nanoseconds.
Doubt it. The first reason AppleTVs are not popular is because home consoles even though they cost way more. The PS3 and Xbox360 can do everything the AppleTV do and much more(Bluray and DVD, real games, more digital content etc, better media streaming tools, better control interfaces and recording capabilities). The only thing I know more complete than a PS3 to hook up to a home theater setup is a custom made HTPC.
Actually, Apple TV sold more units in the last quarter than XBox 360. Admittedly, this is more because XBox 360 sales are dropping, and not so much because Apple TV is selling so well.
You keep using that word but you clearly don't know what it means.
You clearly have never thought about _why_ Google would bother releasing Android at all.
full osx on arm though? yuck.
Shouldn't run too bad, actually. There are of course MacOS X apps that you wouldn't want to run on an ARM chip, and full MacOS X on an iPad would also be a rubbish idea, but an Air running MacOS X would be feasible. And as long as an app has a 32 bit version and no assembler code, a recompile should be enough.
I don't even own a phone yet I seem morally obliged to support Android over Apple.
Why would that be? Google is the world's biggest advertising company, and all their actions are aimed at hurting companies that might interfere with that. That's why you have Google+ attacking Facebook, Google Apps attacking Microsoft, and Android attacking Apple. None of these are there to make money for Google, they are just meant to keep their competitors busy. Google just spent $12 billion on Motorola, to get patents to attack Apple and Microsoft even more, in a business where Google doesn't actually make any meaningful money, just to attack companies that might eventually get into the advertising business.
So what makes you morally obliged to support an OS created by the world's biggest enemy of privacy solely for the purpose to hurt its competitors?
And what about a 1000 mpg car? Sounds much more interesting to me.
Why not try both? Start with a car that uses one gallon per hour. Then see how fast you can get it while still using one gallon per hour.