Oh please. I am sure that has nothing to do with apple being a design company and not actually having (almost) any hardware or radio patents.
I don't see Apple applying common sense like they are doing now when they want a product to be banned for having rounded corners.
If we start applying common sense like Samsung is doing for defense against Apple (or like Apple is doing right now) then 99.9% of all patents and lawsuits should be invalidated. But oh boy, do they like to play the patents game! All of them are just obvious and not innovative at all (ipad/iphone design is just *popular*, nothing *new*, and there's no patent for "popular"), or critical to entering a market, like these FRAND patents. Apple saying now that they think its unfair because its a silly patent when they are King Of Suing For Silly Patents is just being hypocrite.
I'd like to see how others compete with Apple if they can't produce stuff with rounded corners, horizontal picture scrolling, a grid of icons, etc... like Apple wants them to.
Re:What if they had not cought you?
on
Ask Kevin Mitnick
·
· Score: 1
Sorry for the typos. I obviously meant "What do you think" (I rephrased and didn't notice). I have no excuse for mistyping "caught", however:P
How would you proceed if someone broke into your company and managed to download your company's most sensitive information, and what (if anything) would you tell your clients if, for example, their sensitive info got leaked?
Security-Convenience tradeoff
on
Ask Kevin Mitnick
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Would you agree that mostly there exists a tradeoff between security and convenience? If so, how much security (or convenience) do you think is worth sacrificing for the other?
What if they had not cought you?
on
Ask Kevin Mitnick
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
How do you think would have happened in a scenario where you managed to escape the FBI and the hackers that helped them?
It's also about threading. But even then, while developers don't have access to APIs that spawn processes, the OS _does_ multitasking.
Also, it's not only a matter of performance, but it's also a matter of power. A quad core processor allows the thing to scale in an energy-proportional manner. Only need a single core? Appropriate performance and every other core will remain powered down - consuming a lot less power. And for mobile, battery life is King. Need a lot more power? (games, for example) Yup, its there, just power up all 4 cores and have lots of threads running concurrently. (At least that's how it works in theory, every chip and implementation will vary in practice)
What makes one online pharmacy legal or illegal (maybe non-trivial for them to tell, since they aren't authorities), or are they all illegal (should be easy to check, makes them lazy/irresponsible for not checking)
While I wish they had featured GLaDOS, I think its nice that they put a little twist to it with the guards. It reminds me of the Half Life guards, and its nice because Portal and Half Life are supposedly from the same "universe".
But now on second thought, it makes perfect sense. Skilled hackers can work on new stuff and on more important stuff, while unskilled "soldiers" can just use the tools to cause damage. Remember, not being l33t does not equal not being effective. As we have seen again and again, script kiddies have always been able to do successful attacks. Many defacers, as lame as they are, succeed in their goal of defacing websites. One member scans, another one prepares a message, the other hacks the website and uploads the material, etc..
It becomes apparent that maybe this "section" does not intend to be cool or l337, but effective.
Believe it or not, I recently found out about very insightful thoughts written by a respected scientist, M. Alfonseca. I found it interesting because you don't see such a well-written and insightful written piece about Intelligent Design written by a scientist every day.
The three modes of divine action, sketched in this paper, provide an inkling of how God could manipulate an intelligent design of the universe, in such a way that the result may be indistinguishable, from within, from the play of chance. If this is correct, we shall never be able to prove scientifically that the universe is the consequence of an intelligent design (and therefore God's existence). Intelligent design may never become a scientific discipline, if proving its falsity is impossible. However, it is a defensible metaphysical theory, at the same level as denying the existence of a creator and stating that everything in the universe is the consequence of mere chance: an atheistic ideology which is often confused with the theory of evolution, from which it should be clearly distinguished, for the second falls under the umbrella of the scientific method, totally strange to the former.
While some of the terms you cite are a bit abstract (what truth exactly do you want to know about law?) you can totally apply science to know more about love, literature, and art. For example, why we use those concepts while other animals don't, or which parts of the brain are responsible for them, and how they work in our mind. There are a lot of published works on that subject.
Science merely aims to uncover the truth about what things really are, how and why they exist that way. Of course, all based on experience, evidence and in a repeatable, verifiable way.
I think many people don't get that it is possible to believe while knowing that there is (or may be) no god. Just because they follow scripture as a way of life of how they should act morally. However, I don't really consider that a religion, which usually implies some sort of god with supernatural powers.
Just to add evidence to what you just said, this is what the pope had to say to the young catholics just a few days ago in Madrid:
"There are many that, believing they are god, gods, think they have no need for any roots or foundations other than themselves, they would like to decide for themselves what is true or isn't, what is right and wrong, what's just and unjust, decide who deserves to live and who can be sacrificed for other preferences, taking a step in the direction of chance, without a fixed path, allowing themselves to be taken by the pulse of each moment, these temptations are always there, it's important not to succumb to them,"
and
"Above all,seek the Truth,which is not an idea or an ideology or a slogan,but a person:Christ,God himself,who has come into our midst!"
If that isn't being brainwashed, which is very close to saying "We tell you what is truth and what isn't" and they even insist that their church is equal to god (also said by the pope), I don't know what it is.
And now imagine thousands of people applauding those words. I find it a bit scary, honestly.
If one is not supposed to do a literal interpretation of, say, the bible, then who determines how to interpret it? Doesn't that leave us with an arbitrary number of interpretations? Fragmentation? Who is then interpreting it right? Wouldn't that make it a story which should not be "believed"?
Is there such a thing as evangelical science? Isn't that mutually exclusive terms? You could formulate an hypothesis that states their beliefs, but doesn't that include the bible, which is full of "impossible" statements?
Genuinely asking here.
As others have suggested, I think that would also imply that they would need to stop using proprietary drivers, which would definitely push them away from using Android. Good thing about Android is that most of the high-level platform is Apache licensed, so they can be free to do whatever they want. Freedom includes locking phones down and delayed updates, unfortunately.
Probably "nothing" to do with background processes or RAM and more to do with the Dalvik VM and its Garbage Collector, and Android's lack of _full_ hardware-accelerated UI framework.;)
Yes, they spread FUD. Also, how is somehow the acquisition of Motorola giving other manufacturers less opportunities, given that MS is now so close no Nokia? My hypocrisy detector is beeping.
Can Microsoft really say they provide a truly open mobile ecosystem? There are a lot of closed doors in the WP7 platform, starting with its source code NOT being available, which is all that's really open about Android.
Yeah, they must have chosen it because it was free, even though they cite the fact that it was the best solution to their needs because of the lower latencies compared to alternatives and because of its flexibility.
Since when do people like you bring a relevant argument to the table? Oh, that's right. You're an AC.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh please.
I am sure that has nothing to do with apple being a design company and not actually having (almost) any hardware or radio patents.
I don't see Apple applying common sense like they are doing now when they want a product to be banned for having rounded corners.
If we start applying common sense like Samsung is doing for defense against Apple (or like Apple is doing right now) then 99.9% of all patents and lawsuits should be invalidated. But oh boy, do they like to play the patents game!
All of them are just obvious and not innovative at all (ipad/iphone design is just *popular*, nothing *new*, and there's no patent for "popular"), or critical to entering a market, like these FRAND patents.
Apple saying now that they think its unfair because its a silly patent when they are King Of Suing For Silly Patents is just being hypocrite.
I'd like to see how others compete with Apple if they can't produce stuff with rounded corners, horizontal picture scrolling, a grid of icons, etc... like Apple wants them to.
Sorry for the typos. I obviously meant "What do you think" (I rephrased and didn't notice). :P
I have no excuse for mistyping "caught", however
LOL, please someone mod this up
How would you proceed if someone broke into your company and managed to download your company's most sensitive information, and what (if anything) would you tell your clients if, for example, their sensitive info got leaked?
Would you agree that mostly there exists a tradeoff between security and convenience? If so, how much security (or convenience) do you think is worth sacrificing for the other?
How do you think would have happened in a scenario where you managed to escape the FBI and the hackers that helped them?
What and how much has changed nowadays? In other words, how would a (hacker) Kevin Mitnick getting started in 2011 hack and exploit?
It's also about threading. But even then, while developers don't have access to APIs that spawn processes, the OS _does_ multitasking.
Also, it's not only a matter of performance, but it's also a matter of power. A quad core processor allows the thing to scale in an energy-proportional manner. Only need a single core? Appropriate performance and every other core will remain powered down - consuming a lot less power. And for mobile, battery life is King.
Need a lot more power? (games, for example) Yup, its there, just power up all 4 cores and have lots of threads running concurrently.
(At least that's how it works in theory, every chip and implementation will vary in practice)
How does google know that they are illegal?
What makes one online pharmacy legal or illegal (maybe non-trivial for them to tell, since they aren't authorities), or are they all illegal (should be easy to check, makes them lazy/irresponsible for not checking)
Yes, exactly. The soldier/grunts. I played the game so long ago I barely remember. (time to replay!)
Good thing for her that the "landscape wall" is positioned on the building she jumps to, and is not the building itself :)
While I wish they had featured GLaDOS, I think its nice that they put a little twist to it with the guards. It reminds me of the Half Life guards, and its nice because Portal and Half Life are supposedly from the same "universe".
Yeah, I thought that too.
But now on second thought, it makes perfect sense.
Skilled hackers can work on new stuff and on more important stuff, while unskilled "soldiers" can just use the tools to cause damage. Remember, not being l33t does not equal not being effective. As we have seen again and again, script kiddies have always been able to do successful attacks. Many defacers, as lame as they are, succeed in their goal of defacing websites. One member scans, another one prepares a message, the other hacks the website and uploads the material, etc..
It becomes apparent that maybe this "section" does not intend to be cool or l337, but effective.
Believe it or not, I recently found out about very insightful thoughts written by a respected scientist, M. Alfonseca.
I found it interesting because you don't see such a well-written and insightful written piece about Intelligent Design written by a scientist every day.
Here is the english translation: http://arantxa.ii.uam.es/~alfonsec/docs/day6.htm
Taken from the conclusion:
The three modes of divine action, sketched in this paper, provide an inkling of how God could manipulate an intelligent design of the universe, in such a way that the result may be indistinguishable, from within, from the play of chance. If this is correct, we shall never be able to prove scientifically that the universe is the consequence of an intelligent design (and therefore God's existence). Intelligent design may never become a scientific discipline, if proving its falsity is impossible. However, it is a defensible metaphysical theory, at the same level as denying the existence of a creator and stating that everything in the universe is the consequence of mere chance: an atheistic ideology which is often confused with the theory of evolution, from which it should be clearly distinguished, for the second falls under the umbrella of the scientific method, totally strange to the former.
While some of the terms you cite are a bit abstract (what truth exactly do you want to know about law?) you can totally apply science to know more about love, literature, and art.
For example, why we use those concepts while other animals don't, or which parts of the brain are responsible for them, and how they work in our mind. There are a lot of published works on that subject.
Science merely aims to uncover the truth about what things really are, how and why they exist that way. Of course, all based on experience, evidence and in a repeatable, verifiable way.
I think many people don't get that it is possible to believe while knowing that there is (or may be) no god. Just because they follow scripture as a way of life of how they should act morally. However, I don't really consider that a religion, which usually implies some sort of god with supernatural powers.
Just to add evidence to what you just said, this is what the pope had to say to the young catholics just a few days ago in Madrid:
"There are many that, believing they are god, gods, think they have no need for any roots or foundations other than themselves, they would like to decide for themselves what is true or isn't, what is right and wrong, what's just and unjust, decide who deserves to live and who can be sacrificed for other preferences, taking a step in the direction of chance, without a fixed path, allowing themselves to be taken by the pulse of each moment, these temptations are always there, it's important not to succumb to them,"
and
"Above all,seek the Truth,which is not an idea or an ideology or a slogan,but a person:Christ,God himself,who has come into our midst!"
If that isn't being brainwashed, which is very close to saying "We tell you what is truth and what isn't" and they even insist that their church is equal to god (also said by the pope), I don't know what it is.
And now imagine thousands of people applauding those words. I find it a bit scary, honestly.
If one is not supposed to do a literal interpretation of, say, the bible, then who determines how to interpret it? Doesn't that leave us with an arbitrary number of interpretations? Fragmentation? Who is then interpreting it right? Wouldn't that make it a story which should not be "believed"?
Is there such a thing as evangelical science? Isn't that mutually exclusive terms? You could formulate an hypothesis that states their beliefs, but doesn't that include the bible, which is full of "impossible" statements? Genuinely asking here.
As others have suggested, I think that would also imply that they would need to stop using proprietary drivers, which would definitely push them away from using Android. Good thing about Android is that most of the high-level platform is Apache licensed, so they can be free to do whatever they want. Freedom includes locking phones down and delayed updates, unfortunately.
Probably "nothing" to do with background processes or RAM and more to do with the Dalvik VM and its Garbage Collector, and Android's lack of _full_ hardware-accelerated UI framework. ;)
Look! A Windows XP theme for iOS!
Yes, they spread FUD. Also, how is somehow the acquisition of Motorola giving other manufacturers less opportunities, given that MS is now so close no Nokia? My hypocrisy detector is beeping.
Can Microsoft really say they provide a truly open mobile ecosystem? There are a lot of closed doors in the WP7 platform, starting with its source code NOT being available, which is all that's really open about Android.
Yeah, they must have chosen it because it was free, even though they cite the fact that it was the best solution to their needs because of the lower latencies compared to alternatives and because of its flexibility.
Since when do people like you bring a relevant argument to the table? Oh, that's right. You're an AC.
I wish I had modpoints :P Mod parent up!