That would be a pretty stupid way to implement it anyway, even for legitimate speed limit changes, so it wouldn't be done like that. A limit on acceleration would deal with the majority of cases. If they really cared enough about acceleration sue to downhill slopes, they could add in very gentle braking too.
If the speed limit changes, let's say from 70mph to 50mph, you have to have a speed of 50mph or less _at the sign_. So you wouldn't hit the brakes _at_ the sign. You would slow down a lot earlier. For fuel efficiency, you would do that by lifting your foot off the gas pedal quite a bit ahead, so you'd hit the speed limit without any use of your brakes. You'd only use brakes if you mis-calculated the speeds involved and would reach the speed limit sign too fast.
So, when pointed out that a cheap calculator is a much better educational deal than an expensive tablet, your answer is 'install an emulator on the expensive tablet'?
Just when I thought Apple fans couldn't sink any lower...
The argument was: "A cheap calculator is a much better education deal than an iPad, because the cheap calculator allows kids to l learn how to program a cheap calculator, while the iPad doesn't". That argument is false, because an iPad with a cheap calculator emulator allows kids to learn how to program a cheap calculator. That's the argument refuted, which doesn't decide which one is the better education deal. But nobody claimed it decided the question, so really you just set up a strawman argument. Nobody claimes that a tablet with an emulator was a better value for someone wanting a cheap calculator.
However, the purpose of a tablet is to provide a multitude of text books, plus a huge range of educational software, both valuable for education and impossible for the cheap calculator to provide. There is very little use in learning to program cheap calculators, and it isn't taught in school.
iPhone share of the phone market has grown from 6.6% to 7.2%. Since 2007, the iPhone share of the phone market has been growing continuously and is still growing.
Actually, this is bearing them out. EA tends to hire fresh out of uni grads as quick as they can. When one game's done, they fire all the developers on the team, and rehire only those who are willing to carry on working for very low wages, working 100 hour weeks. This is a running trend throughout the games industry where there's an enormous supply of fresh "talent" coming through all the time.
In short, EA pay low wages to crap, inexperienced coders, and they get what they pay for.
One great wisdom that I found in a book written by some Microsoft manager (about 20 years ago): "You can make people stay in the office for 80 hours. You can't make them work for more than 40 hours. ".
Everyone except the idiots at EA knows that making people work long hours over extended lengths of time is just stupid. If people have been working 100 hours a week for three months, I can probably produce more working code in 40 hours than two of them in 100 hours - assuming no difference in intelligence, just a bit more experience on my side, and a mind that hasn't been turned into mush be these long hours.
But it's not only stupid, it is also evil. Kids, don't be stupid and think writing computer games is great. It's not.
OS X is likely similar - the EA programmers assumed something to be a fixed string that got localized in the end.
There is always the danger that someone without a clue translates something that shouldn't be translated. Like all your images are in the "images" directory and some twat translates it so the German version looks in the "Bilder" directory and doesn't find anything. That's just clueless.
But there's a different problem on MacOS X: When you localise an app, all the code assumes that either everything is translated, or nothing is translated. If nothing is translated, then the English version on a French system will work perfectly fine, showing everything in English. If 90% of things are translated, then the missing 10% don't come up in English, they don't come up at all. There are of course tools that check that all localisations contain the same things, but again if you are clueless and don't use these tools, you are going to lose.
How many of these problems are DRM based rather than game-programming based?
DRM mean Broken-by-Design
DRM means Digital Rights Management. What you say is mindless repetition of slogans that you don't understand.
DRM for a game has two possible failure modes: 1. You can't play a game that you should be able to play. 2. You can play a game that you shouldn't be able to play.
That's not an upgrade. That's a downgrade to MS-DOS. I want my modern PC to do actual multitasking, not half-assed TSR stuff.
Two possibilities: Apple devs are idiots, or you are an idiot. Which is more likely?
So you want your PC to do multitasking. You want your apps to waste CPU time and battery life _when you can't see what they are doing_. Great.
Apps that do _useful_ work while in the background and while the user cannot see them call an API that tells the OS about it, and they can spend all the CPU time that they want.
Re:If by "looking good", you mean "looking like iO
on
Inside OS X Mavericks
·
· Score: 1
"Longhorn" was announced about at the time when MacOS X 10.3 "Panther" was released. And panthers kill longhorn. Microsoft delayed delivery until after the release of 10.4 "Tiger". Tigers and longhorn don't live in the same place.
which are laughably high odds. More like a million to one. Seriously, under what circumstances could you imagine Tim Cook, CEO of possibly the worlds most profitable and well loved company accepting a job offer to be CEO of a smaller, shittier company that everyone hates and represents everything that Apple hates about technology? Maybe if he was fired from Apple in the next year for doing something horrible but Microsoft was still desperate enough to want to hire him.
$100 million a year, with a ten year contract. That would be convincing:-)
I think before starting he would ask the board: How easy is it to fire any managers? And I mean fire without paying them any money?
If it is easy, then he might be able to turn this ship around. Give every executive two weeks time to produce a plan how to make their department work much better for the benefit of the company, not for the benefit of that manager. For every executive, let two subordinates make exactly the same plan. After two weeks, every executive without a promising plan is fired and replaced with one of the two subordinates. After three months, every executive who didn't execute on the plan is fired.
The problem at Microsoft is not the products, it is how the whole company is run. Obviously that leads to awful products, but you don't fix it by trying to make better products, you fix it by running the company better.
The rise in stock price is though a buy back of its own shares, and if you bought shares on the low side you made a good chunk of change. Whatever you think of that. Its not the same as from new technology or even better current technology, or even buying it. The lack of these things causing the drop in the first place. Its just share price manipulation, not innovation; not new products; not sales
Actually... the stock market is deeply irrational. Apple going above $700 was irrational. Apple dropping to $400 was irrational. Right now around $500 Apple is more where it should be, but the reason (share buyback) is again irrational.
If you think about it, spending a billion dollars to buy back shares means that the company has now fewer shares, so each shareholder would own a slightly larger part of the company, but on the other hand the company is now worth a billion dollar less. If the share price had been "correct", the two effects should exactly cancel out. If the share price was not correct, there is still no way how this should have increased market caps by almost $100 billion.
But the GP was referring to jailbreaks - I thought those were exploits "used for good"?
If you have an exploit, you can use it for good or evil. On the other hand, if it is an exploit where the device owner has to do things actively (like downloading an app, connecting the device through USB cable, running the app, clicking five buttons on the device) then there is no danger except the possibility of trojans, so Apple doesn't need to fix it. If it is an exploit that could be used to attack unsuspecting users, then it _must_ be fixed.
I thought Apple added address space randomization back in Leopard? What happened?
The problem that was reported leads to a crash. A crash is _safe_. An attacker can't gain any advantage by crashing your computer. They can merely annoy you.
Address Space Randomization cannot prevent crashes. Its purpose is to prevent crashes being turned into exploits. An attacker does two things: Find a way to make your software fail, then find a way to turn that failure into an advantage for the attacker. The second part is where Address Space Randomization comes in. The next step is Sandboxing, where even if the attacker finds a way past ASR and takes over your code, your code would be in a sandbox and can't do any harm outside.
That may look good to you, but it isn't. If you had 100 pieces of malware, and each affected 1% of the possible users, then you would have 80 pieces of Android malware and 20 pieces of other malware, so an Android user would have an 80% chance of being affected, while other users would only have a 20% chance.
It may give an explanation why there is so much malware, but it doesn't help you. (BTW iPhone was said to be attacked by 0.7% of all malware, which makes every iPhone user about 100 times safer. And all iPhone users have bought an expensive phone, while the high Android numbers come from all the cheap Android phones around, so your "Fort Knox vs. piggy bank" comparison is a bit stupid. ).
The current management put Ballmer in charge, they are going to select another Ballmer not someone who will change their culture.
If that was the case, why would Ballmer be leaving? I don't think that he is doing what he is doing badly, the problem is that he is doing the wrong things. Replacing him with someone who does the same things, maybe slightly better or slightly worse, isn't going to help one bit.
Technically, email is like sending postcards - it's complete;y open for anyone to read. (Although few do because who has the time to really read every single postcard sent through the mail? The NSA, perhaps).
A postcard isn't open for anyone to read. It's only open to read for the very few people who touch it while in transit from the sender to me. And I'm quite sure there is some amount of legal protection. If you stood in front of my house waiting for the postman and asked him to let you read postcards to me, I'm quite sure that would be illegal.
Patents are, and should be, about technical issues only, legality and ethics does not enter into the decision over whether something is patentable.
Ethics possibly not, but a patent has to be for a useful invention, and if what the patent enables me to do was illegal, then I could never legally do it, so the invention wouldn't be useful and couldn't be patented.
No offense, but whatever happened to simple self-control?
That's what the judge said. If you know that someone is driving, and you know that the person is an idiot who will reply to text messages without stopping, then you need the simple self-control not to send them messages.
Except that the same data would show that people who are simply passengers in a moving vehicle would also have their calls blocked when in fact they have no expectation of needing to pay attention to anything.
Most phones today have a camera. Add a feature that in order to use your phone while moving at speed, you have to point your camera at a face at more than arm length's distance.
...and she can reasonably expect that you will pull over briefly to read and respond to a text that she sends you, assuming you can't just wait till you arrive at your destination.
She can, because she knows me. On the other hand, I've seen two people carrying a heavy fridge (helping someone who was moving), one guy's phone rang, and he just let go, dropping the fridge on the ground to take the phone out of his pocket. Some people are stupid.
If I was one of those stupid people, and you knew that, and you texted my while you know I'm driving, you'd be partially responsible for what hapens.
How come that every single time this question is asked, it is by someone denying personal responsibility? Is that an American thing, denying responsibility and trying to shift it to someone else?
So, texting should require and tags? How do you know when someone is done driving? Can you text them again 5 minutes later? 20 minutes? Are you liable for any texts you send them until they send a "I am not driving" text?. In theory they don't expect you to have ESP, but in practice...
You are really behaving like a little child. Do you need everything in your live prescribed by exact rules, or can you think for yourself?
Slashdot Mirror
That would be a pretty stupid way to implement it anyway, even for legitimate speed limit changes, so it wouldn't be done like that. A limit on acceleration would deal with the majority of cases. If they really cared enough about acceleration sue to downhill slopes, they could add in very gentle braking too.
If the speed limit changes, let's say from 70mph to 50mph, you have to have a speed of 50mph or less _at the sign_. So you wouldn't hit the brakes _at_ the sign. You would slow down a lot earlier. For fuel efficiency, you would do that by lifting your foot off the gas pedal quite a bit ahead, so you'd hit the speed limit without any use of your brakes. You'd only use brakes if you mis-calculated the speeds involved and would reach the speed limit sign too fast.
So, when pointed out that a cheap calculator is a much better educational deal than an expensive tablet, your answer is 'install an emulator on the expensive tablet'?
Just when I thought Apple fans couldn't sink any lower...
The argument was: "A cheap calculator is a much better education deal than an iPad, because the cheap calculator allows kids to l learn how to program a cheap calculator, while the iPad doesn't". That argument is false, because an iPad with a cheap calculator emulator allows kids to learn how to program a cheap calculator. That's the argument refuted, which doesn't decide which one is the better education deal. But nobody claimed it decided the question, so really you just set up a strawman argument. Nobody claimes that a tablet with an emulator was a better value for someone wanting a cheap calculator.
However, the purpose of a tablet is to provide a multitude of text books, plus a huge range of educational software, both valuable for education and impossible for the cheap calculator to provide. There is very little use in learning to program cheap calculators, and it isn't taught in school.
Well, with their marketshare falling like a rock
iPhone share of the phone market has grown from 6.6% to 7.2%. Since 2007, the iPhone share of the phone market has been growing continuously and is still growing.
Actually, this is bearing them out. EA tends to hire fresh out of uni grads as quick as they can. When one game's done, they fire all the developers on the team, and rehire only those who are willing to carry on working for very low wages, working 100 hour weeks. This is a running trend throughout the games industry where there's an enormous supply of fresh "talent" coming through all the time.
In short, EA pay low wages to crap, inexperienced coders, and they get what they pay for.
One great wisdom that I found in a book written by some Microsoft manager (about 20 years ago): "You can make people stay in the office for 80 hours. You can't make them work for more than 40 hours. ".
Everyone except the idiots at EA knows that making people work long hours over extended lengths of time is just stupid. If people have been working 100 hours a week for three months, I can probably produce more working code in 40 hours than two of them in 100 hours - assuming no difference in intelligence, just a bit more experience on my side, and a mind that hasn't been turned into mush be these long hours.
But it's not only stupid, it is also evil. Kids, don't be stupid and think writing computer games is great. It's not.
OS X is likely similar - the EA programmers assumed something to be a fixed string that got localized in the end.
There is always the danger that someone without a clue translates something that shouldn't be translated. Like all your images are in the "images" directory and some twat translates it so the German version looks in the "Bilder" directory and doesn't find anything. That's just clueless.
But there's a different problem on MacOS X: When you localise an app, all the code assumes that either everything is translated, or nothing is translated. If nothing is translated, then the English version on a French system will work perfectly fine, showing everything in English. If 90% of things are translated, then the missing 10% don't come up in English, they don't come up at all. There are of course tools that check that all localisations contain the same things, but again if you are clueless and don't use these tools, you are going to lose.
How many of these problems are DRM based rather than game-programming based?
DRM mean Broken-by-Design
DRM means Digital Rights Management. What you say is mindless repetition of slogans that you don't understand.
DRM for a game has two possible failure modes: 1. You can't play a game that you should be able to play. 2. You can play a game that you shouldn't be able to play.
Nobody complains about either of these.
That's not an upgrade. That's a downgrade to MS-DOS. I want my modern PC to do actual multitasking, not half-assed TSR stuff.
Two possibilities: Apple devs are idiots, or you are an idiot. Which is more likely?
So you want your PC to do multitasking. You want your apps to waste CPU time and battery life _when you can't see what they are doing_. Great.
Apps that do _useful_ work while in the background and while the user cannot see them call an API that tells the OS about it, and they can spend all the CPU time that they want.
... and now they name their own OS "Mavericks" ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mavericks_(location)
"Longhorn" was announced about at the time when MacOS X 10.3 "Panther" was released. And panthers kill longhorn. Microsoft delayed delivery until after the release of 10.4 "Tiger". Tigers and longhorn don't live in the same place.
It's written in C and it's a buffer overflow exploit, right?
It's a crash. It's not an exploit. Therefore you are wrong, it is not a buffer overflow exploit.
This exploit was released because even though Apple were made aware of it quite some time ago, they didn't patch it.
Surely this was released because someone's ego had to be satisfied by releasing it? What other purpose does it serve to release it?
which are laughably high odds. More like a million to one. Seriously, under what circumstances could you imagine Tim Cook, CEO of possibly the worlds most profitable and well loved company accepting a job offer to be CEO of a smaller, shittier company that everyone hates and represents everything that Apple hates about technology? Maybe if he was fired from Apple in the next year for doing something horrible but Microsoft was still desperate enough to want to hire him.
$100 million a year, with a ten year contract. That would be convincing :-)
I think before starting he would ask the board: How easy is it to fire any managers? And I mean fire without paying them any money?
If it is easy, then he might be able to turn this ship around. Give every executive two weeks time to produce a plan how to make their department work much better for the benefit of the company, not for the benefit of that manager. For every executive, let two subordinates make exactly the same plan. After two weeks, every executive without a promising plan is fired and replaced with one of the two subordinates. After three months, every executive who didn't execute on the plan is fired.
The problem at Microsoft is not the products, it is how the whole company is run. Obviously that leads to awful products, but you don't fix it by trying to make better products, you fix it by running the company better.
The rise in stock price is though a buy back of its own shares, and if you bought shares on the low side you made a good chunk of change. Whatever you think of that. Its not the same as from new technology or even better current technology, or even buying it. The lack of these things causing the drop in the first place. Its just share price manipulation, not innovation; not new products; not sales
Actually... the stock market is deeply irrational. Apple going above $700 was irrational. Apple dropping to $400 was irrational. Right now around $500 Apple is more where it should be, but the reason (share buyback) is again irrational.
If you think about it, spending a billion dollars to buy back shares means that the company has now fewer shares, so each shareholder would own a slightly larger part of the company, but on the other hand the company is now worth a billion dollar less. If the share price had been "correct", the two effects should exactly cancel out. If the share price was not correct, there is still no way how this should have increased market caps by almost $100 billion.
But the GP was referring to jailbreaks - I thought those were exploits "used for good"?
If you have an exploit, you can use it for good or evil. On the other hand, if it is an exploit where the device owner has to do things actively (like downloading an app, connecting the device through USB cable, running the app, clicking five buttons on the device) then there is no danger except the possibility of trojans, so Apple doesn't need to fix it. If it is an exploit that could be used to attack unsuspecting users, then it _must_ be fixed.
I thought Apple added address space randomization back in Leopard? What happened?
The problem that was reported leads to a crash. A crash is _safe_. An attacker can't gain any advantage by crashing your computer. They can merely annoy you.
Address Space Randomization cannot prevent crashes. Its purpose is to prevent crashes being turned into exploits. An attacker does two things: Find a way to make your software fail, then find a way to turn that failure into an advantage for the attacker. The second part is where Address Space Randomization comes in. The next step is Sandboxing, where even if the attacker finds a way past ASR and takes over your code, your code would be in a sandbox and can't do any harm outside.
Android:
79.3% marketshare.
80% of malware.
That may look good to you, but it isn't. If you had 100 pieces of malware, and each affected 1% of the possible users, then you would have 80 pieces of Android malware and 20 pieces of other malware, so an Android user would have an 80% chance of being affected, while other users would only have a 20% chance.
It may give an explanation why there is so much malware, but it doesn't help you. (BTW iPhone was said to be attacked by 0.7% of all malware, which makes every iPhone user about 100 times safer. And all iPhone users have bought an expensive phone, while the high Android numbers come from all the cheap Android phones around, so your "Fort Knox vs. piggy bank" comparison is a bit stupid. ).
The current management put Ballmer in charge, they are going to select another Ballmer not someone who will change their culture.
If that was the case, why would Ballmer be leaving? I don't think that he is doing what he is doing badly, the problem is that he is doing the wrong things. Replacing him with someone who does the same things, maybe slightly better or slightly worse, isn't going to help one bit.
I think the wording of this statement is misleading. It implies that some information about you is being sent to advertisers, which is not the case.
But it is the case. The information is "this address passed the criteria for emails that you asked us for".
Technically, email is like sending postcards - it's complete;y open for anyone to read. (Although few do because who has the time to really read every single postcard sent through the mail? The NSA, perhaps).
A postcard isn't open for anyone to read. It's only open to read for the very few people who touch it while in transit from the sender to me. And I'm quite sure there is some amount of legal protection. If you stood in front of my house waiting for the postman and asked him to let you read postcards to me, I'm quite sure that would be illegal.
Patents are, and should be, about technical issues only, legality and ethics does not enter into the decision over whether something is patentable.
Ethics possibly not, but a patent has to be for a useful invention, and if what the patent enables me to do was illegal, then I could never legally do it, so the invention wouldn't be useful and couldn't be patented.
No offense, but whatever happened to simple self-control?
That's what the judge said. If you know that someone is driving, and you know that the person is an idiot who will reply to text messages without stopping, then you need the simple self-control not to send them messages.
Unless the sender is holding a gun to your head, there should be no reasonable expectation that a text message will be acted on immediately.
I know people where it is entirely unreasonable to expect that they are not reading the text message immediately.
Except that the same data would show that people who are simply passengers in a moving vehicle would also have their calls blocked when in fact they have no expectation of needing to pay attention to anything.
Most phones today have a camera. Add a feature that in order to use your phone while moving at speed, you have to point your camera at a face at more than arm length's distance.
...and she can reasonably expect that you will pull over briefly to read and respond to a text that she sends you, assuming you can't just wait till you arrive at your destination.
She can, because she knows me. On the other hand, I've seen two people carrying a heavy fridge (helping someone who was moving), one guy's phone rang, and he just let go, dropping the fridge on the ground to take the phone out of his pocket. Some people are stupid.
If I was one of those stupid people, and you knew that, and you texted my while you know I'm driving, you'd be partially responsible for what hapens.
Whatever happened to personal accountability?
How come that every single time this question is asked, it is by someone denying personal responsibility? Is that an American thing, denying responsibility and trying to shift it to someone else?
So, texting should require and tags? How do you know when someone is done driving? Can you text them again 5 minutes later? 20 minutes? Are you liable for any texts you send them until they send a "I am not driving" text?. In theory they don't expect you to have ESP, but in practice...
You are really behaving like a little child. Do you need everything in your live prescribed by exact rules, or can you think for yourself?