Something else I noticed about OnLive: because all the game servers are at the same location, you don't get traditional multiplayer lag (you know, where the guy you're shooting suddenly appears behind you and beats you down.)
A recent article claims that OnLive actually works better for FPS games like UT3, where textures are not very high resolution. The latency is more noticeable for games like World of Goo, where the cartoon graphics are high resolution and there is not enough action to distract you from the latency.
I wish I could find the article, but I can't anymore. Regardless, my experience matches those claims.
Agreed, a contract is a contract. If one side violates it, the other is no longer held to the agreement and can sue for breach of contract. Detroit has that ability, unless it's determined that Detroit violated their contract because of the Michigan law.
Wrong. The iPhone was designed to run third party apps purchased through the Apple app store. That is the advertised feature.
Why don't you talk about how the XBox 360, Wii, and PS3 don't allow any and all third-party apps? Heck, the 360 requires you to purchase a subscription to Live Gold just to use Facebook, or any other app. And really, those machines are MUCH closer to a regular computer than a phone is. So why do people like you harp on how the iPhone is so closed? Evidently millions of customers disagree, so much that huge corporations like Google, Microsoft, Motorola, HTC, Samsung, etc. are going down a very similar route in order to gain customers their way.
The price for OnLive hasn't been set... the article mentions $5/month for the second year, at least to early adopters. And OnLive lets you game from home or wherever you have a computer with a good Internet connection.
Don't forget that XBox Live Gold costs $10/month (or better, $44 for 13 months at Amazon right now). So that's at least $288 for 26 months.
They aren't even close! One is talking about fraud... illegal. One is talking about license bundling... which is perfectly fine, and Apple has never been misleading about it.* How do you say these are similar?
*Apple is misleading about some policies, like excluding apps that don't meet certain internal criteria. That's plain wrong, and they should be taken to court over it IMHO.
More specifically, you can buy a license to the upgrade without buying a Mac. Apple does not sell a full retail version of OS X that does not come bundled with a Mac.
Now what Apple's doing isn't illegal, and what the Bondi store's doing probably is, but ethically, they are certainly close enough to hold hands.
No, they aren't. Two totally different things. JB advertises an item at a certain price, but they refuse to sell at that price... you must buy extra stuff. Apple has always said that the iPhone can only be used with AT&T, and OS X can only be purchased for a Mac, and that apps can only be purchased through their app store.
You might not like it, but it doesn't make these things the same or even similar.
Then they reconsidered an offered him a refund, but only if he signs a lifelong gag order (non-disclosure agreement).
Have you considered that if the NDA is legal, then free speech isn't a right in this case? Over here in the states, free speech is guaranteed to never be deprived by the government... but private industry has no such limitation.
Here's the question that guides the economics of text messaging: Is it worth 20 cents for me to send a message to my friend?
If nobody was willing to pay, they would charge less. It frankly amazes me that with all the alternatives on most newer phones, SMS is still used and abused.
I am willing to change my plan to the $15/month plan, because it would have saved me $60 in the past 7 months had I had that plan... even including the overage charge.
If Apple has distributed something derived from GPL'd code, without complying with the terms of the GPL, then they are liable for copyright infringement
Keep in mind that anyone may opt out of the GPL, and in such case standard copyright laws apply. But only the copyright owners (those listed in AUTHORS) have legal standing to sue over copyright infringement. I doubt Apple would want to go down that route, because it opens them up to being sued, and they probably won't sue in return.
So let's say they opt-in to the GPL. Anyone who purchases the software can then require the source code of the derivative software from Apple, and Apple would then require it from the authors. And it would stop there, to my understanding... the GPL would not apply to anything like the App Store or the iPhone OS software, so it's really just a matter of Apple enforcing its rights in order to comply with ours.
Microsoft is obviously choosing a path where they can control spam posting more easily. I don't see how this is bad. Not everything the company does is bad.
It depends on your definition of worse. Apple may be overly controlling, but it seems to work well for them and their target market. Don't you remember how fast the iPhone grew and how it changed the world of smartphones?
My guess is that you don't fit perfectly in their target market. I don't see how that would make them "bad". It just means that they have chosen the best path for growing their business and company. You are still perfectly free to say "F--- you, Apple!" and go find a Droid, Pre, Blackberry, W7 Phone, etc.
I'm in west Alabama, so I don't know many people who really know what it should look like.
I'm not looking for a ground track or even a sky track, which are at that page... I'm more wondering if I should be looking for a fast streak across the sky (or perhaps as slow as a passenger jet), would it be orange or just look like a plane, about how high would it be (as high as a passenger jet, or maybe lower), would it have a smoke trail, etc. Just visual cues that would let me know that what I'm seeing is the shuttle.
But the software couldn't be built anymore because it could only be built via Visual Studio and the current release of Visual Studio was incompatible with the version of VS that the app had been created under.
That hasn't been the case in many years. Every.NET version of Visual Studio (2003, 2005, 2008, and 2010) are backwards compatible with the previous project files and solutions from prior.NET versions. Since I don't use VS for C++ or VB, I can't say whether compatibility goes back further.
As far as the language and libraries go, Microsoft makes a point to keep things compatible unless there was a major bug with an API. C# 4.0 will compile C# 1.0 source code, and the libraries will still work, assuming you used them correctly and are not dependent on bugs in 1.0/1.1. (One major exception... ASP.NET 1.0/1.1 code is somewhat incompatible with later versions. I call this a feature, considering that the newer versions more strictly conform with the XHTML standard.)
.NET 3.0+ features like WPF are not available on certain older operating systems, but that's a different subject. The 3.0 features are just additional libraries that run on CLR 2.0. If you don't use those libraries, compile your code for.NET 2.0 and you can use it on the older operating systems. 2.0 compilation has been provided since its introduction in VS 2005.
As Apple gains market share (and they are), this type of attitude is 180 degrees away from where development should be heading.
I highlighted "market" on purpose. Your statement assumes that Apple's target market is the one you think it is... which I assume is general personal computing. But I doubt that's the case. Think of it this way... game consoles have a tradition of being locked down. Many of them through time have allowed developers into their ecosystem only if they follow rules that, even compared with Apple's standards, seem locked down. (I know this isn't true of all... just a generalization.)
Apple has made it clear that they aren't after an expanded role into existing markets. They claim to have entered a new, non-traditional market, and with that the rules have changed; take it or leave it.
(As an aside, I would personally prefer they be more open as well... but I'm not Steve, so what I say doesn't go.)
If you have an efficient algorithm to calculate if you can solve a given puzzle in n moves, then you can answer the question what is the smallest number of moves required by doing a binary search and calling your algorithm every time in the binary search.
Yes, but that's not my question. My question said "25 moves", not "n moves".
I know I can solve any 14x14 puzzle in 14x14 = 196 moves, because I can just loop over columns (i from 1 to 14) and rows (j from 1 to 14) and choose the next color to be the color at cell (i,j). Perhaps I can determine a variant algorithm to solve it in 195 moves. Perhaps then 194, and then 193, etc. But at some point, I assume there is some number of moves for which I can no longer vary my algorithm and come up with a solution every time... even if it's a low number like 10 or 5.
Your binary search algorithm will only work if we can that for n moves, where n is any number between 1 and 196, a solution either 1) can always be found, 2) can never be found, or 3) has a deterministic polynomial time decision algorithm. Do that, and generalize for any size grid, and you'll have solved P=NP.
To be fair, I left "3)" out of the discussion the first time. But adding that as a possibility, my second question may be polynomial-time solvable even if the answer is not always "Yes". Also, to be fair, the first question could be in P because of the 14x14 limitation. But the general problem without such constraints is NP-Hard.
Even more, you have to know what problem you're trying to solve. There are two obvious possibilities:
What is the smallest number of moves I can make to complete a 14x14 puzzle?
Can I complete a given 14x14 puzzle in 25 moves?
The first is NP-Hard. But the second may be much easier... if possible, come up with an algorithm to solve every puzzle of that nature in 25 moves. Then your answer would always be yes (a tautology), and the problem is no longer NP-Hard. It's the same as if I asked if every puzzle with at least 5 colors can be solved in 1 move. That's an obvious no (a contradiction), so that question is also not NP-Hard. (I don't know if every puzzle can be solved in 25 moves... perhaps so, but maybe not.)
Slashdot Mirror
That widget is dated a month after the Microsoft patent application was filed.
Something else I noticed about OnLive: because all the game servers are at the same location, you don't get traditional multiplayer lag (you know, where the guy you're shooting suddenly appears behind you and beats you down.)
A recent article claims that OnLive actually works better for FPS games like UT3, where textures are not very high resolution. The latency is more noticeable for games like World of Goo, where the cartoon graphics are high resolution and there is not enough action to distract you from the latency.
I wish I could find the article, but I can't anymore. Regardless, my experience matches those claims.
Not Obama.
I am too, but 70,000 homes is not "vastly increasing" anything.
And why isn't the government paying my electric bill? I don't live in any of those states.
Agreed, a contract is a contract. If one side violates it, the other is no longer held to the agreement and can sue for breach of contract. Detroit has that ability, unless it's determined that Detroit violated their contract because of the Michigan law.
The iPhone was designed to run third party apps.
Wrong. The iPhone was designed to run third party apps purchased through the Apple app store. That is the advertised feature.
Why don't you talk about how the XBox 360, Wii, and PS3 don't allow any and all third-party apps? Heck, the 360 requires you to purchase a subscription to Live Gold just to use Facebook, or any other app. And really, those machines are MUCH closer to a regular computer than a phone is. So why do people like you harp on how the iPhone is so closed? Evidently millions of customers disagree, so much that huge corporations like Google, Microsoft, Motorola, HTC, Samsung, etc. are going down a very similar route in order to gain customers their way.
The price for OnLive hasn't been set... the article mentions $5/month for the second year, at least to early adopters. And OnLive lets you game from home or wherever you have a computer with a good Internet connection.
Don't forget that XBox Live Gold costs $10/month (or better, $44 for 13 months at Amazon right now). So that's at least $288 for 26 months.
They aren't even close! One is talking about fraud... illegal. One is talking about license bundling... which is perfectly fine, and Apple has never been misleading about it.* How do you say these are similar?
*Apple is misleading about some policies, like excluding apps that don't meet certain internal criteria. That's plain wrong, and they should be taken to court over it IMHO.
More specifically, you can buy a license to the upgrade without buying a Mac. Apple does not sell a full retail version of OS X that does not come bundled with a Mac.
Now what Apple's doing isn't illegal, and what the Bondi store's doing probably is, but ethically, they are certainly close enough to hold hands.
No, they aren't. Two totally different things. JB advertises an item at a certain price, but they refuse to sell at that price... you must buy extra stuff. Apple has always said that the iPhone can only be used with AT&T, and OS X can only be purchased for a Mac, and that apps can only be purchased through their app store.
You might not like it, but it doesn't make these things the same or even similar.
The right to free speech.
Then they reconsidered an offered him a refund, but only if he signs a lifelong gag order (non-disclosure agreement).
Have you considered that if the NDA is legal, then free speech isn't a right in this case? Over here in the states, free speech is guaranteed to never be deprived by the government... but private industry has no such limitation.
Here's the question that guides the economics of text messaging: Is it worth 20 cents for me to send a message to my friend?
If nobody was willing to pay, they would charge less. It frankly amazes me that with all the alternatives on most newer phones, SMS is still used and abused.
I am willing to change my plan to the $15/month plan, because it would have saved me $60 in the past 7 months had I had that plan... even including the overage charge.
If Apple has distributed something derived from GPL'd code, without complying with the terms of the GPL, then they are liable for copyright infringement
Keep in mind that anyone may opt out of the GPL, and in such case standard copyright laws apply. But only the copyright owners (those listed in AUTHORS) have legal standing to sue over copyright infringement. I doubt Apple would want to go down that route, because it opens them up to being sued, and they probably won't sue in return.
So let's say they opt-in to the GPL. Anyone who purchases the software can then require the source code of the derivative software from Apple, and Apple would then require it from the authors. And it would stop there, to my understanding... the GPL would not apply to anything like the App Store or the iPhone OS software, so it's really just a matter of Apple enforcing its rights in order to comply with ours.
So I wonder what they would do with the abandoned shuttle... spacewalk and fix it, leave it to safely deorbit?
So he takes a computer that can accept new software, inserts it in his hand, and puts new software on it. How novel.
He's not using a 3G iPad... so at least he'll end up in a ditch 100 feet from his house, instead of endangering the highway.
With correct definitions for "involved" and "present", you can guarantee security.
So what you mean is:
- Kill everyone
- Burn down all locations
Microsoft is obviously choosing a path where they can control spam posting more easily. I don't see how this is bad. Not everything the company does is bad.
It's even worse than just proprietary software.
It depends on your definition of worse. Apple may be overly controlling, but it seems to work well for them and their target market. Don't you remember how fast the iPhone grew and how it changed the world of smartphones?
My guess is that you don't fit perfectly in their target market. I don't see how that would make them "bad". It just means that they have chosen the best path for growing their business and company. You are still perfectly free to say "F--- you, Apple!" and go find a Droid, Pre, Blackberry, W7 Phone, etc.
I'm in west Alabama, so I don't know many people who really know what it should look like.
I'm not looking for a ground track or even a sky track, which are at that page... I'm more wondering if I should be looking for a fast streak across the sky (or perhaps as slow as a passenger jet), would it be orange or just look like a plane, about how high would it be (as high as a passenger jet, or maybe lower), would it have a smoke trail, etc. Just visual cues that would let me know that what I'm seeing is the shuttle.
What should I look for, about 500 miles straight-line distance along the path from the runway?
Last time I had this chance, I think I saw a plane cross the sky, but it seemed too slow.
But the software couldn't be built anymore because it could only be built via Visual Studio and the current release of Visual Studio was incompatible with the version of VS that the app had been created under.
That hasn't been the case in many years. Every .NET version of Visual Studio (2003, 2005, 2008, and 2010) are backwards compatible with the previous project files and solutions from prior .NET versions. Since I don't use VS for C++ or VB, I can't say whether compatibility goes back further.
As far as the language and libraries go, Microsoft makes a point to keep things compatible unless there was a major bug with an API. C# 4.0 will compile C# 1.0 source code, and the libraries will still work, assuming you used them correctly and are not dependent on bugs in 1.0/1.1. (One major exception... ASP.NET 1.0/1.1 code is somewhat incompatible with later versions. I call this a feature, considering that the newer versions more strictly conform with the XHTML standard.)
.NET 3.0+ features like WPF are not available on certain older operating systems, but that's a different subject. The 3.0 features are just additional libraries that run on CLR 2.0. If you don't use those libraries, compile your code for .NET 2.0 and you can use it on the older operating systems. 2.0 compilation has been provided since its introduction in VS 2005.
As Apple gains market share (and they are), this type of attitude is 180 degrees away from where development should be heading.
I highlighted "market" on purpose. Your statement assumes that Apple's target market is the one you think it is... which I assume is general personal computing. But I doubt that's the case. Think of it this way... game consoles have a tradition of being locked down. Many of them through time have allowed developers into their ecosystem only if they follow rules that, even compared with Apple's standards, seem locked down. (I know this isn't true of all... just a generalization.)
Apple has made it clear that they aren't after an expanded role into existing markets. They claim to have entered a new, non-traditional market, and with that the rules have changed; take it or leave it.
(As an aside, I would personally prefer they be more open as well... but I'm not Steve, so what I say doesn't go.)
If you have an efficient algorithm to calculate if you can solve a given puzzle in n moves, then you can answer the question what is the smallest number of moves required by doing a binary search and calling your algorithm every time in the binary search.
Yes, but that's not my question. My question said "25 moves", not "n moves".
I know I can solve any 14x14 puzzle in 14x14 = 196 moves, because I can just loop over columns (i from 1 to 14) and rows (j from 1 to 14) and choose the next color to be the color at cell (i,j). Perhaps I can determine a variant algorithm to solve it in 195 moves. Perhaps then 194, and then 193, etc. But at some point, I assume there is some number of moves for which I can no longer vary my algorithm and come up with a solution every time... even if it's a low number like 10 or 5.
Your binary search algorithm will only work if we can that for n moves, where n is any number between 1 and 196, a solution either 1) can always be found, 2) can never be found, or 3) has a deterministic polynomial time decision algorithm. Do that, and generalize for any size grid, and you'll have solved P=NP.
To be fair, I left "3)" out of the discussion the first time. But adding that as a possibility, my second question may be polynomial-time solvable even if the answer is not always "Yes". Also, to be fair, the first question could be in P because of the 14x14 limitation. But the general problem without such constraints is NP-Hard.
Even more, you have to know what problem you're trying to solve. There are two obvious possibilities:
The first is NP-Hard. But the second may be much easier... if possible, come up with an algorithm to solve every puzzle of that nature in 25 moves. Then your answer would always be yes (a tautology), and the problem is no longer NP-Hard. It's the same as if I asked if every puzzle with at least 5 colors can be solved in 1 move. That's an obvious no (a contradiction), so that question is also not NP-Hard. (I don't know if every puzzle can be solved in 25 moves... perhaps so, but maybe not.)