One reason why there are fewer apps is because Microsoft has a history of dicking thier partners. Apple's no wide-eyed innocent either, but at least they have the market, and money can be made from them. Subsequently, it's why Apple sees Android as such a threat.
Google has both developer confidence and the marketshare.
They start with the statement of "It is a scientific fact that global warming is happening," which is true. That the Earth is getting warmer outside of known cycles is a claim of fact, something you can measure, and measurements show it is indeed correct. No problems there.
But it's a bit more than "warming". That's where everybody gets held up. They think "warming" and automatically equate it with a temperature rise.
Yes, there is a temperature rise. But the temperature rise is a symptom, not the disease, so to speak. The overall temperature rise is a result of there being more energy in the system (our planet's climate). How much of that extra energy translates to how much temperature rise is an equation left to the scientists.
There are other symptoms of having energy in the system. For example, more powerful and frequent storms, more extreme weather phenomenon (heat wave, cold snaps), etc. What this means is generally unknown, but to think that they'd be beneficial is unlikely.
Human civilization relies on stability. It relies on being able to measure risk, which means being able to make accurate predictions based on past data. Increasing the amount of energy in the system does exactly the opposite.
To say that an increase in energy will bring about the downfall of civilization would be a bit far fetched. But it wouldn't be unreasonable to think that things will get harder overall for everyone in the short to medium term. For most of us, it's not the end of the world. We may need those winter jackets for a few more days, or might need to clean our gutters more often. But the poor and impoverished will be impacted the greatest (exactly how much is still yet to be determined), as they always are when there is systemic instability.
What all this ultimately means, what "global warming" ultimately does to society and this world, is anybody's guess. And we won't really know until the system stabilizes at another point again.
Based on past history, it's probably not going to be beneficial. It may not be end-of-the-world disastrous, but only the delusional or ignorant would think that if things at all get better in the end, it won't get worse first (again, exactly how much is up for debate).
As true (or not) as this may be, I think the study itself would indicate that you should pay attention to other smart people pointing out your mistakes.
On the other hand, stupid people might not even be able to see the mistake.
Admittedly, "smart" and "stupid" are only relevent with context. Someone could be absolutely brilliant at solving math problems but wouldn't have the slightly clue what to do in a social setting (which could range from being in a party to being mugged in an alley).
The real error is to dismiss others as stupid because they're not smart in the same way.
Your understanding of karma may depend on the particular school of Buddhism you subscribe to.
Buddhism is a philosophy turned into a religion because philosophies can't really gain traction among the unwashed masses if it doesn't alleviate some of their fears, doubts, and uncertainties. It would only be natural for certain Buddhist concepts to be turned into a structure for punishment and reward in the course of moving to a religion.
Your analogy doesn't quite work. Calculators solve math problems. Besides addition and subtraction, a calculator trivializes the work needed to arrive at the solution. It gives you the solution, without you needing to perform any of the in-between steps.
Programming is not a math problem. Computer science is applied mathematics, but even that is not a math problem. Computer science is more like fitting the right mathematics to the problem to arrive at a solution. But programming isn't computer science either.
Programming is far more abstract (as I mentioned above). It exists on a completely different level. The mathematical thinking necessary to solve math problems is needed to write programs, but being able to methodically solve problems is where the similarities end.
But I digress. The goal of this new "language" is to make programming easier from both production and consumption standpoints by making it friendlier to the eye. It does not solve your programming problems for you the way a calculator will solve math problems. You still have to write the algorithms yourself. It's just easier to figure out than say, figuring out the syntax of C or Perl.
Redstone is great, but it simulates digital circuits. Programming languages exist at a high abstraction. You can certainly create programming "units" in Minecraft, but to actually make it do useful work requires a lot of time and room.
Some mods and add-ons address the tediousness, but at best, it goes from circuit design to coding in assembly. Assembly isn't exactly what you'd learn to write code with.
Minecraft is probably more suited for the EE or MicroE novice who's learnnig circuit layout and design. With the mods, it's more for CompE who's into embedded systems and real time programming.
The producers are not the consumers. You are rooting for free speech, because the alternative does not actually address the actual issue you're concerned about.
You're effectively asking the question of whether you want real safety or the perception of safety (and whatever amount of real safety that might come with it). Personally, I'd go for real safety. And in this case, it means doing real detective work and catching the perps taking the pictures and videos, instead of nabbing the low-hanging fruit (and consequently making a big stink about it, despite not having prevented anything or saved anyone).
TL:DR: Moving services to the cloud lets you do things you otherwise wouldn't be able to do before, and do more things overall from the savings on maintenance time.
True. But there are data and services that are appropriate to send to the cloud, and there are things that are not nearly as appropriate. This is the point most IT people are trying to make.
I believe it's French or some other Romance language. It's definitely not Latin, though the "M" comes from the Latin word for thousand in the same way that all other words in Romance languages come from Latin.
On the desktop, you pay for the connection, but there's no limit to how much you can download (outside of the max bandwidth x time calculation). In that case, the price of advertising is fairly cheap to the consumer.
On the phone, you're paying by the bit. This means even the extra text that gets sent across the air to your phone is costing you money. That cost becomes fairly significant when you're receiving flash or HTML5 ads with animation and video and whatnot.
The answer to why mobile advertising remains largely untapped is fairly obvious: it directly impacts the customer's wallet.
It boils down to choice, and the perception of choice. We do these things we may consider "evil" because we do not perceive we have a choice (to chose the alternative would result in an overall worse outcome). Any sane person given the choice between equal benefits but less "evil" deeds in the process, would chose the path of less "evil."
There may be a concerted effort by the powerful and wealthy to prevent discovering alternatives or to discredit it, because it is a threat to their income stream. But that is something else entirely.
I've seen sites that just post the plaintext password. Maybe it's not the best thing to do, but at least you know what not to change your new password to.
Nobody believes we can reverse entropy. That's about as difficult an engineering task as it gets, and as close to impossible as there ever will be.
Most people are merely trying to cushion the blow as much as possible. There's a big difference between landing on concrete from falling 10 stories, landing on water, and landing on a giant air cushion.
The key to the industrial revolution was fossil fuels. The amount of energy output these new fuel sources made possible dwarfed everything else at the time (which mostly involved animals or humans, or for more advanced purposes, dead trees). The industrial revolution was based on harnessing this new abundant source of energy in new and interesting ways. Notice that every "breakthrough" in the late 19th century into the early 20th century involved using more energy than previous methods. It's not that the technology kept up with the needs of society so much as technology was playing catch-up to the potential that fossil fuels allowed.
At this point, there is no new (relatively) immense source of power to facilitate the next technological revolution. Fission was at one point one such viable candidate, but there's a social stigma attached to it now. It can be considered a stepping stone to the next thing, but at the moment, there is no next thing. We're more or less hit the limits of how cheap energy can become.
The only solution to the looming crisis at this point requires a real breakthrough that somehow allows using less energy to perform the same task. I find that unlikely to happen, simply due to the fact that nobody's really looking in this direction, and the second law of thermodynamics (which explains the former).
Considering some of these exploits are algorithmic and have nothing to do with the implementation, no. You don't "patch" these exploits. You move to a different algorithm entirely.
On the flip side, if you don't reuse your passwords, you're never going to remember how to access all 200 sites that require it. Most people barely remember their username, nevermind their password.
There's a bigger problem here than just password reuse. It has to do with passwords as an authentication factor in general.
Most people barely understand that passwords need to be hashed, and how to use the hash value. These people certainly don't understand why. If they did, they'd know that salting is important.
There are still plenty of places where passwords are stored in plain text. Sometimes, it's appropriate. Sometimes, it's not. But knowing when is appropriate for what situation is the key, and that's what most people (in general, not just developers and authentication) lack.
But the average person thinks they understand climate
FTFY.
Most people don't actually understand climate. Most people who make climate their life's study don't understand a good deal of it, and nobody in the world fully understands it (ironically, the ones who claim to understand it the most are the ones who actually understand it the least).
Most people understand weather, but that's not climate.
Slashdot Mirror
It is the Windows Classic theme. If you consider the Windows 2.0 to be classic that is.
I don't think the previous poster knows what they're talking about.
Agreed. Shooting yourself in the dick is very, very, very painful.
One reason why there are fewer apps is because Microsoft has a history of dicking thier partners. Apple's no wide-eyed innocent either, but at least they have the market, and money can be made from them. Subsequently, it's why Apple sees Android as such a threat.
Google has both developer confidence and the marketshare.
They start with the statement of "It is a scientific fact that global warming is happening," which is true. That the Earth is getting warmer outside of known cycles is a claim of fact, something you can measure, and measurements show it is indeed correct. No problems there.
But it's a bit more than "warming". That's where everybody gets held up. They think "warming" and automatically equate it with a temperature rise.
Yes, there is a temperature rise. But the temperature rise is a symptom, not the disease, so to speak. The overall temperature rise is a result of there being more energy in the system (our planet's climate). How much of that extra energy translates to how much temperature rise is an equation left to the scientists.
There are other symptoms of having energy in the system. For example, more powerful and frequent storms, more extreme weather phenomenon (heat wave, cold snaps), etc. What this means is generally unknown, but to think that they'd be beneficial is unlikely.
Human civilization relies on stability. It relies on being able to measure risk, which means being able to make accurate predictions based on past data. Increasing the amount of energy in the system does exactly the opposite.
To say that an increase in energy will bring about the downfall of civilization would be a bit far fetched. But it wouldn't be unreasonable to think that things will get harder overall for everyone in the short to medium term. For most of us, it's not the end of the world. We may need those winter jackets for a few more days, or might need to clean our gutters more often. But the poor and impoverished will be impacted the greatest (exactly how much is still yet to be determined), as they always are when there is systemic instability.
What all this ultimately means, what "global warming" ultimately does to society and this world, is anybody's guess. And we won't really know until the system stabilizes at another point again.
Based on past history, it's probably not going to be beneficial. It may not be end-of-the-world disastrous, but only the delusional or ignorant would think that if things at all get better in the end, it won't get worse first (again, exactly how much is up for debate).
Hypoxia(TM) may cause...certain forms of cancer
But known only to the State of California.
And this is all probably true for his time. But since then, the manufacturing has been outsourced to Canada since they have more cows.
As true (or not) as this may be, I think the study itself would indicate that you should pay attention to other smart people pointing out your mistakes.
On the other hand, stupid people might not even be able to see the mistake.
Admittedly, "smart" and "stupid" are only relevent with context. Someone could be absolutely brilliant at solving math problems but wouldn't have the slightly clue what to do in a social setting (which could range from being in a party to being mugged in an alley).
The real error is to dismiss others as stupid because they're not smart in the same way.
I'm not sure why this solution hasn't been mentioned earlier: Go buy an Android tablet and find the same (or similar) app there.
Sometimes, I get this feeling that every Apple user suffers from battered person syndrome.
Your understanding of karma may depend on the particular school of Buddhism you subscribe to.
Buddhism is a philosophy turned into a religion because philosophies can't really gain traction among the unwashed masses if it doesn't alleviate some of their fears, doubts, and uncertainties. It would only be natural for certain Buddhist concepts to be turned into a structure for punishment and reward in the course of moving to a religion.
Your analogy doesn't quite work. Calculators solve math problems. Besides addition and subtraction, a calculator trivializes the work needed to arrive at the solution. It gives you the solution, without you needing to perform any of the in-between steps.
Programming is not a math problem. Computer science is applied mathematics, but even that is not a math problem. Computer science is more like fitting the right mathematics to the problem to arrive at a solution. But programming isn't computer science either.
Programming is far more abstract (as I mentioned above). It exists on a completely different level. The mathematical thinking necessary to solve math problems is needed to write programs, but being able to methodically solve problems is where the similarities end.
But I digress. The goal of this new "language" is to make programming easier from both production and consumption standpoints by making it friendlier to the eye. It does not solve your programming problems for you the way a calculator will solve math problems. You still have to write the algorithms yourself. It's just easier to figure out than say, figuring out the syntax of C or Perl.
Redstone is great, but it simulates digital circuits. Programming languages exist at a high abstraction. You can certainly create programming "units" in Minecraft, but to actually make it do useful work requires a lot of time and room.
Some mods and add-ons address the tediousness, but at best, it goes from circuit design to coding in assembly. Assembly isn't exactly what you'd learn to write code with.
Minecraft is probably more suited for the EE or MicroE novice who's learnnig circuit layout and design. With the mods, it's more for CompE who's into embedded systems and real time programming.
The producers are not the consumers. You are rooting for free speech, because the alternative does not actually address the actual issue you're concerned about.
You're effectively asking the question of whether you want real safety or the perception of safety (and whatever amount of real safety that might come with it). Personally, I'd go for real safety. And in this case, it means doing real detective work and catching the perps taking the pictures and videos, instead of nabbing the low-hanging fruit (and consequently making a big stink about it, despite not having prevented anything or saved anyone).
TL:DR: Moving services to the cloud lets you do things you otherwise wouldn't be able to do before, and do more things overall from the savings on maintenance time.
True. But there are data and services that are appropriate to send to the cloud, and there are things that are not nearly as appropriate. This is the point most IT people are trying to make.
Probably a bamboo drink coaster for your coffee mug.
The coaster's pink to match your brand new pink slip.
I believe it's French or some other Romance language. It's definitely not Latin, though the "M" comes from the Latin word for thousand in the same way that all other words in Romance languages come from Latin.
On the desktop, you pay for the connection, but there's no limit to how much you can download (outside of the max bandwidth x time calculation). In that case, the price of advertising is fairly cheap to the consumer.
On the phone, you're paying by the bit. This means even the extra text that gets sent across the air to your phone is costing you money. That cost becomes fairly significant when you're receiving flash or HTML5 ads with animation and video and whatnot.
The answer to why mobile advertising remains largely untapped is fairly obvious: it directly impacts the customer's wallet.
It boils down to choice, and the perception of choice. We do these things we may consider "evil" because we do not perceive we have a choice (to chose the alternative would result in an overall worse outcome). Any sane person given the choice between equal benefits but less "evil" deeds in the process, would chose the path of less "evil."
There may be a concerted effort by the powerful and wealthy to prevent discovering alternatives or to discredit it, because it is a threat to their income stream. But that is something else entirely.
I've seen sites that just post the plaintext password. Maybe it's not the best thing to do, but at least you know what not to change your new password to.
For those who don't understand what this is saying, here's the skinny:
Nobody believes we can reverse entropy. That's about as difficult an engineering task as it gets, and as close to impossible as there ever will be.
Most people are merely trying to cushion the blow as much as possible. There's a big difference between landing on concrete from falling 10 stories, landing on water, and landing on a giant air cushion.
The key to the industrial revolution was fossil fuels. The amount of energy output these new fuel sources made possible dwarfed everything else at the time (which mostly involved animals or humans, or for more advanced purposes, dead trees). The industrial revolution was based on harnessing this new abundant source of energy in new and interesting ways. Notice that every "breakthrough" in the late 19th century into the early 20th century involved using more energy than previous methods. It's not that the technology kept up with the needs of society so much as technology was playing catch-up to the potential that fossil fuels allowed.
At this point, there is no new (relatively) immense source of power to facilitate the next technological revolution. Fission was at one point one such viable candidate, but there's a social stigma attached to it now. It can be considered a stepping stone to the next thing, but at the moment, there is no next thing. We're more or less hit the limits of how cheap energy can become.
The only solution to the looming crisis at this point requires a real breakthrough that somehow allows using less energy to perform the same task. I find that unlikely to happen, simply due to the fact that nobody's really looking in this direction, and the second law of thermodynamics (which explains the former).
Considering some of these exploits are algorithmic and have nothing to do with the implementation, no. You don't "patch" these exploits. You move to a different algorithm entirely.
On the flip side, if you don't reuse your passwords, you're never going to remember how to access all 200 sites that require it. Most people barely remember their username, nevermind their password.
There's a bigger problem here than just password reuse. It has to do with passwords as an authentication factor in general.
No. Hashing is, but salting is not.
Most people barely understand that passwords need to be hashed, and how to use the hash value. These people certainly don't understand why. If they did, they'd know that salting is important.
There are still plenty of places where passwords are stored in plain text. Sometimes, it's appropriate. Sometimes, it's not. But knowing when is appropriate for what situation is the key, and that's what most people (in general, not just developers and authentication) lack.
But the average person thinks they understand climate
FTFY.
Most people don't actually understand climate. Most people who make climate their life's study don't understand a good deal of it, and nobody in the world fully understands it (ironically, the ones who claim to understand it the most are the ones who actually understand it the least).
Most people understand weather, but that's not climate.