The Internet is a packet-switching network. As far as I can tell the iPhone has just as much connectivity as any home computer, it's not sandboxed into some crappy WAP corner nobody cares about. In that sense the advert is true.
The complaint is actually about the Web, which is not the Internet and not what Apple were claiming to have all of. Besides, Flash and Java are not really part of the Web, they're applications which are accessed via the Internet. If the Java and Flash files can be saved to the iPhone, even if they don't run, their claim is not misleading.
This is actually a pretty scary prospect, since WebKit is one of the most standards compliant browser engines there is, and it's drawing fire for not running proprietary (at least when the iPhone was being developed) third-party applications just because those things happen to work "at home" (ie. on a desktop/laptop probably running IE).
Firefox is already written in XUL, which is heavily based on web technologies. If Firefox uses CSS for themes then I see no reason not to increase the usage of JavaScript in the application.
Afterall, Firefox developers probably aren't the most 1337 C/C++ coders out there, but they are probably amongst the best JavaScript ones.
Just FWIW, the last time I checked Apple had the largest product placement budget of any computer maker I could find.
Actually, Apple doesn't pay for product placement. There are a few notable exceptions, like ID4 and MI which were more involved than mere product placement and were really cross-marketing.
The reason you see so many Macs on TV and in films is because they tend to look good. iPods get shown because that's what people have (do you really think a show wants to alienate/confuse its viewers by talking about an iRiver?).
Well, call it paranoia if you want, but on this http://house.wikia.com/wiki/It's_a_Wonderful_Lie episode of House I noticed 2 Macbooks (mother's and daughter's) being checked for a possible patient history, although I don't recall any patient email accounts being checked in previous episodes. All of the hospital monitoring equipment was using Macs for control and display. Plus House was given an iPhone for Christmas. Yes, it was the Christmas episode.
Say what you like but I'm sure that the Apple company wallet lost more than a little weight to get that holiday screen time for their products.
There are two categories (with a blurred border) that would like to see the fabled year of the Linux desktop. Only one of those categories sees OSX as at all relevant, ie. the UNIX lovers.
The obvious way to find out which camp you're in is to ask yourself this: Would you care if the year of the Linux desktop actually turned out to be the year of the ReactOS desktop? Personally, I wouldn't.
Well he has full access so he can do the search from the notebook and get perfect results:)
Only in the kiddie porn case, not the RIAA one. If he wants to attract the RIAA then he should get the thieves to move as far away from any computer as possible, and get jobs as cleaners or something. Then it's just a matter of time before the court cases come rolling in.
Alas, the computers will no longer be anywhere near the thieves, which at least doesn't invalidate the "RIAA lawsuits are pointless" arguments.
I'd say that a lot of the reason for people opposing the Gates Foundation is due to sensationalist media reports. Nobody is particularly interested in a headline of "Charity does what it says it would!" (which is a good thing, since that means charities usually do what they are supposed to) so there aren't any, but when a story like "Gates Foundation ate my hamster!" (eg. http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=gates+foundation+harmful ) comes along (which is highly probable given the number of investments it makes) it gets spread around.
Now, I'm not going to enter the debate of whether the Foundation is good or evil, since that is the topic of flamewars. I am merely saying that looking at the issue objectively is very difficult given the disproportionate amount of negative-but-popular information available versus the amount of positive-but-boring.
Seems that the description in TFA is a bit simplified for non-physicists, which makes it really confusing to physicists who are after the removed information:P
In the situation you describe, however, the wave model of light says that they are "transparent" to each other, ie. if you sent 2 beams through each other at right angles you would detect them out the other side exactly the same as if they didn't cross. The only difference would be if you measured the intensity at the point where they intersect, the intensity being the sum of the intensities of both waves (which, depending on their phase and coherence, will be between zero and the sum of the waves' maxima)
Using humans to generate electricity is not a green source. Humans generate methane, a green house gas, from their fuel (food). Well, it is green in the Soylent sense of the word........
Makes me slightly annoyed whilst I sit here watching my windows stutter around the screen when I switch desktops since all of my graphics are being processed by my CPU.
I can't help but wonder about untindended consequences. Looking around at all the plastics, having them inadventantly eaten by bacteria would be a BAD thing. EXACTLY! This is terrible news for global warming, since there won't be any fuel for Mr Fusion if these bacteria become widespread, and thus cars will still be using petrol/diesel engines!
Had MS come up with a truly better standard and had attempted to see it passed legitimately, I doubt we'd see the complaints we do now. I have seen no one with a specific problem over the VC-1 standard, despite the fact that it is based off of an MS-created codec. If they had truly been interested in actually furthering the state of the art and technical quality, I would personally defend them for actually doing a good job. Microsoft do not own 90%+ of the multimedia world, thus they are forced to entice people over to them by making something useful.
In the office world Microsoft is the vastly dominant player and can shovel out whatever crap they like if it means some organisations will stick with them.
Which, ironically, depends on whether those words are invented or discovered, ie. whether they are convenient human constructs which aren't really well defined or whether they represent true and distinct concepts of the Universe.
It seems pretty accepted that RPM has "dependancy hell" issues. The HUGE problem with package management, for me, is that there are a lot of people saying RPM should be ditched in favour of Dpkg or some yet-to-be-made system, but ALL of those arguments are essentially arguing for a packaging standard.
Therefore the call for standards is essentially a call for everyone to use RPM, whilst it seems pretty well known that RPM has serious problems. Of course, RPM has a *HUGE* inertia which means it won't be leaving anytime soon either.
PS: When I used Fedora back in the Core 3 days I used Apt4RPM and Synaptic (this is before I discovered Debian), don't know if it's still going though.
If I use your bandwidth when you are not, I cant see how that really affects you in any way. And when my ISP cuts off my service because I've used too much bandwidth this month? Sounds like you need a different ISP. I pay for a connection with a certain amount of bandwidth, and although I get less than the advertised amount due to the laws of Physics (advertised as 24Mb, I only get about 5 or 6 because of my pretty isolated location) that is what I get and use, quite a lot, and even when I'm out some of my neighbours use it. Nobody should put up with a cap, it's false advertising in my opinion.
And when the government subpoenas me because someone on my account was browsing child porn sites? Then they have probable cause for a search, not any kind of evidence. Hey, who knows, maybe a tech-savvy/. reader's logging setup will help catch a paedophile?
And when the RIAA files suit against me for 'making available' copyrighted material (off of your laptop, of course)? Then they have nothing against you, since your laptop does not infringe copyright, and you make a nice sum in damages from your defamation counter claim.
But if those moral blinders are working for you, hey... who am I to disagree? How are those moral blinders?! There is absolutely NO moral issue discussed AT ALL in those points. The entire argument seems to be sorted by one sentence:
"Please stop assuming that just because a lot of other people are the sole users of their Internet subscription then that means that I am."
Sorting out the issues after that explanation have varying time frames though. They range from maybe a month to getting a non-shit ISP, to several decades as the RIAA refuse to believe that someone isn't going to pay them $10,000,000,000 for 2 file names they matched to an IP address.
This knee-jerk debate always comes down to one thing: broadcasting.
If you leave your front door unlocked, you're probably not standing on the porch yelling "Free house, come and get it!" and handing out name tags. If you do, then you can't turn around and claim the guests were trespassing.
If you install an unsecured Wi-Fi gateway with DHCP, the device is yelling to everyone within 100 meters "Free network, come on in" and handing out IP addresses to any takers. It is _YOUR_ responsibility for leaving it open.
The argument against locking routers down by default, is that it's too complicated for the user. Bullshit! People use locks and keys all the time for their home, car, office, filing cabinet, safe deposit box... all things of value they wouldn't want to have stolen. How is your private, personal network any different ? If you don't want people poking around your shared files and internet access, then put a freakin' lock on the thing.
I have no pity for people who fail at common sense. Just because it plugs in the wall doesn't give you an excuse to be stupid.
I disagree with your "Free Network, come on in!" argument, I don't think unencumbered wireless networks broadcast an encouraging message at all, they merely don't broadcast the message of a lock.
That's the reason my ADSL2 router has "Free Internets" as a network name, because I think all of the fear mongering propaganda that goes on by the network equipment manufacturers and ISPs makes some people think twice about connecting.
I wonder which of the new features users will notice first?:P
Seriously though, I think programs with splash screens need some rethinking (why make me wait whilst it loads a multitude of Python extensions and such when I haven't even got an image open? Load enough to open the UI and images, do the rest in the background after it is loaded then get rid of the splash screen)
I see how you correlate the examples you provide for the power struggle for resources, but I don't see how they're specific to Islamic culture. Provide examples that are specific to Islamic culture. Are you serious? The Fremen are "Zensunni" (a projected combination of Zen Buddhism and Sunni Islam). The Fremen lore and culture is full of Islamic references, for instance Paul's Fremen name is Usul (pillar).
This is no doubt due to the time Frank Herbert spent with desert dwelling people here on Earth.
Personally I bought the Lynch film on VHS because I needed a third video to use the store's "3 for £20" offer.
Watching it made me fall asleep. The first 3 times. However, my brain was so fried by it that I bought the book just to work out what the hell I was watching.
The book is incredible. The film is awful. The miniseries is better, but at conveying the story. In my opinion it is the overwhelming complexity of the Universe portrayed that makes Dune special, but that can't really be conveyed well in a film.
Plus, I like the way Dune's science works. It essentially can be reduced to 3 non-standard princples:
1) Memory is stored in DNA. This leads to Gholas regaining memory, the Other Memory of Reverand Mothers and the Kwisatz Haderach, etc.
2) The "Holtzmann" field, which is a controllable anti-gravity field. Give it a little power and it will make things float. Give it a little more and it will repel things (shields). Give it even more and it can 'fold' space through higher dimensions to make a journey's destination arrive at the departure point. Finally, cranking up the juice fully will fold space completely around something and thus make it drop out of reality (a No Field).
3) Spice can elevate one's mind to a higher dimension. This allows someone to see the entirety of everything over all time (analogous to looking at Flatland from the third dimension, but including time). Of course this destroys one's mind through information overload if it doesn't have certain abilities (passed on through genes).
Aside from that everything else just seems plausible with our current scientific understanding if we had thousands of years to advance and a vast number of life-supporting planets to explore.
Comparing this to, eg. Star Trek, where the problem of the week can be overcome thanks to some new invention of Mr Spock (or whoever) which relies on some vague scientific dictionary mashup of terms, this gives a more convincing story (issues seem more insurmountable when Mr Spock isn't around to discover something which will save the day) and situation (having few new concepts means that they can be explored more completely and crop up in more places. With too many new ideas there can be a shallow feel to the Universe portrayed, for example if the reader/viewer can think of a novel use for some technology that isn't shown then surely trillions of people thinking over thousands of years would come up with it?)
The article is all about running such a server to add a social network to a website, but does it ease creation of open source desktop applications for social networking (ie. where the user has their own database stored on their machine)? It also mentions the ability to talk to Facebook and in the future others, but can they talk to each other in a seamless way (which would be needed to make the first point have any use)?
Slashdot Mirror
Grid: I want the wind power!
Windfarm: YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE WIND POWER!
The Internet is a packet-switching network. As far as I can tell the iPhone has just as much connectivity as any home computer, it's not sandboxed into some crappy WAP corner nobody cares about. In that sense the advert is true.
The complaint is actually about the Web, which is not the Internet and not what Apple were claiming to have all of. Besides, Flash and Java are not really part of the Web, they're applications which are accessed via the Internet. If the Java and Flash files can be saved to the iPhone, even if they don't run, their claim is not misleading.
This is actually a pretty scary prospect, since WebKit is one of the most standards compliant browser engines there is, and it's drawing fire for not running proprietary (at least when the iPhone was being developed) third-party applications just because those things happen to work "at home" (ie. on a desktop/laptop probably running IE).
Honestly though, Why the hell dont the laptops have anti virus software?
Antivirus software would've weighed too much.
If you read the blog you will see they have some pretty good privacy reasons to pull that API I am sorry to say.
And here I was thinking that PGP was a security measure rather than a security hole. :P
Firefox is already written in XUL, which is heavily based on web technologies. If Firefox uses CSS for themes then I see no reason not to increase the usage of JavaScript in the application.
Afterall, Firefox developers probably aren't the most 1337 C/C++ coders out there, but they are probably amongst the best JavaScript ones.
Just FWIW, the last time I checked Apple had the largest product placement budget of any computer maker I could find.
Actually, Apple doesn't pay for product placement. There are a few notable exceptions, like ID4 and MI which were more involved than mere product placement and were really cross-marketing.
The reason you see so many Macs on TV and in films is because they tend to look good. iPods get shown because that's what people have (do you really think a show wants to alienate/confuse its viewers by talking about an iRiver?).
Well, call it paranoia if you want, but on this http://house.wikia.com/wiki/It's_a_Wonderful_Lie episode of House I noticed 2 Macbooks (mother's and daughter's) being checked for a possible patient history, although I don't recall any patient email accounts being checked in previous episodes. All of the hospital monitoring equipment was using Macs for control and display. Plus House was given an iPhone for Christmas. Yes, it was the Christmas episode.
Say what you like but I'm sure that the Apple company wallet lost more than a little weight to get that holiday screen time for their products.
There are two categories (with a blurred border) that would like to see the fabled year of the Linux desktop. Only one of those categories sees OSX as at all relevant, ie. the UNIX lovers.
The obvious way to find out which camp you're in is to ask yourself this: Would you care if the year of the Linux desktop actually turned out to be the year of the ReactOS desktop? Personally, I wouldn't.
Well he has full access so he can do the search from the notebook and get perfect results :)
Only in the kiddie porn case, not the RIAA one. If he wants to attract the RIAA then he should get the thieves to move as far away from any computer as possible, and get jobs as cleaners or something. Then it's just a matter of time before the court cases come rolling in.
Alas, the computers will no longer be anywhere near the thieves, which at least doesn't invalidate the "RIAA lawsuits are pointless" arguments.
I'd say that a lot of the reason for people opposing the Gates Foundation is due to sensationalist media reports. Nobody is particularly interested in a headline of "Charity does what it says it would!" (which is a good thing, since that means charities usually do what they are supposed to) so there aren't any, but when a story like "Gates Foundation ate my hamster!" (eg. http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=gates+foundation+harmful ) comes along (which is highly probable given the number of investments it makes) it gets spread around.
Now, I'm not going to enter the debate of whether the Foundation is good or evil, since that is the topic of flamewars. I am merely saying that looking at the issue objectively is very difficult given the disproportionate amount of negative-but-popular information available versus the amount of positive-but-boring.
Seems that the description in TFA is a bit simplified for non-physicists, which makes it really confusing to physicists who are after the removed information :P
In the situation you describe, however, the wave model of light says that they are "transparent" to each other, ie. if you sent 2 beams through each other at right angles you would detect them out the other side exactly the same as if they didn't cross. The only difference would be if you measured the intensity at the point where they intersect, the intensity being the sum of the intensities of both waves (which, depending on their phase and coherence, will be between zero and the sum of the waves' maxima)
Makes me slightly annoyed whilst I sit here watching my windows stutter around the screen when I switch desktops since all of my graphics are being processed by my CPU.
:(
Thanks a lot ATI
(PS: This is in Enlightenment not Compiz)
I think this is actually negative publicity for the open source development model, since this merely shows that collaboration results in broken code.
In the office world Microsoft is the vastly dominant player and can shovel out whatever crap they like if it means some organisations will stick with them.
Which, ironically, depends on whether those words are invented or discovered, ie. whether they are convenient human constructs which aren't really well defined or whether they represent true and distinct concepts of the Universe.
Meta-argument 4TW
The last T-* branded thing I heard about didn't turn out to be all that good...
It seems pretty accepted that RPM has "dependancy hell" issues. The HUGE problem with package management, for me, is that there are a lot of people saying RPM should be ditched in favour of Dpkg or some yet-to-be-made system, but ALL of those arguments are essentially arguing for a packaging standard.
Well, RPM *IS* the packaging standard in the Linux Standard Base (see http://refspecs.linux-foundation.org/LSB_3.2.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/pkgformat.html ). Thus a standard Linux system should either use the RPM package system or have an equivalent system which can install RPM packages in addition to its own (note: dpkg can't do this, and alien doesn't count).
Therefore the call for standards is essentially a call for everyone to use RPM, whilst it seems pretty well known that RPM has serious problems. Of course, RPM has a *HUGE* inertia which means it won't be leaving anytime soon either.
PS: When I used Fedora back in the Core 3 days I used Apt4RPM and Synaptic (this is before I discovered Debian), don't know if it's still going though.
Moore's law would say that in about 5 years we'll have transistors smaller than an atom, which would suggest some kind of splitting going on.
Don't know about you but I wouldn't like to pay for the cooling system on it.
"Please stop assuming that just because a lot of other people are the sole users of their Internet subscription then that means that I am."
Sorting out the issues after that explanation have varying time frames though. They range from maybe a month to getting a non-shit ISP, to several decades as the RIAA refuse to believe that someone isn't going to pay them $10,000,000,000 for 2 file names they matched to an IP address.
If you leave your front door unlocked, you're probably not standing on the porch yelling "Free house, come and get it!" and handing out name tags. If you do, then you can't turn around and claim the guests were trespassing.
If you install an unsecured Wi-Fi gateway with DHCP, the device is yelling to everyone within 100 meters "Free network, come on in" and handing out IP addresses to any takers. It is _YOUR_ responsibility for leaving it open.
The argument against locking routers down by default, is that it's too complicated for the user. Bullshit! People use locks and keys all the time for their home, car, office, filing cabinet, safe deposit box... all things of value they wouldn't want to have stolen. How is your private, personal network any different ? If you don't want people poking around your shared files and internet access, then put a freakin' lock on the thing.
I have no pity for people who fail at common sense. Just because it plugs in the wall doesn't give you an excuse to be stupid.
I disagree with your "Free Network, come on in!" argument, I don't think unencumbered wireless networks broadcast an encouraging message at all, they merely don't broadcast the message of a lock.
That's the reason my ADSL2 router has "Free Internets" as a network name, because I think all of the fear mongering propaganda that goes on by the network equipment manufacturers and ISPs makes some people think twice about connecting.
I wonder which of the new features users will notice first? :P
Seriously though, I think programs with splash screens need some rethinking (why make me wait whilst it loads a multitude of Python extensions and such when I haven't even got an image open? Load enough to open the UI and images, do the rest in the background after it is loaded then get rid of the splash screen)
This is no doubt due to the time Frank Herbert spent with desert dwelling people here on Earth.
Personally I bought the Lynch film on VHS because I needed a third video to use the store's "3 for £20" offer.
Watching it made me fall asleep. The first 3 times. However, my brain was so fried by it that I bought the book just to work out what the hell I was watching.
The book is incredible. The film is awful. The miniseries is better, but at conveying the story. In my opinion it is the overwhelming complexity of the Universe portrayed that makes Dune special, but that can't really be conveyed well in a film.
Plus, I like the way Dune's science works. It essentially can be reduced to 3 non-standard princples:
1) Memory is stored in DNA. This leads to Gholas regaining memory, the Other Memory of Reverand Mothers and the Kwisatz Haderach, etc.
2) The "Holtzmann" field, which is a controllable anti-gravity field. Give it a little power and it will make things float. Give it a little more and it will repel things (shields). Give it even more and it can 'fold' space through higher dimensions to make a journey's destination arrive at the departure point. Finally, cranking up the juice fully will fold space completely around something and thus make it drop out of reality (a No Field).
3) Spice can elevate one's mind to a higher dimension. This allows someone to see the entirety of everything over all time (analogous to looking at Flatland from the third dimension, but including time). Of course this destroys one's mind through information overload if it doesn't have certain abilities (passed on through genes).
Aside from that everything else just seems plausible with our current scientific understanding if we had thousands of years to advance and a vast number of life-supporting planets to explore.
Comparing this to, eg. Star Trek, where the problem of the week can be overcome thanks to some new invention of Mr Spock (or whoever) which relies on some vague scientific dictionary mashup of terms, this gives a more convincing story (issues seem more insurmountable when Mr Spock isn't around to discover something which will save the day) and situation (having few new concepts means that they can be explored more completely and crop up in more places. With too many new ideas there can be a shallow feel to the Universe portrayed, for example if the reader/viewer can think of a novel use for some technology that isn't shown then surely trillions of people thinking over thousands of years would come up with it?)
The article is all about running such a server to add a social network to a website, but does it ease creation of open source desktop applications for social networking (ie. where the user has their own database stored on their machine)? It also mentions the ability to talk to Facebook and in the future others, but can they talk to each other in a seamless way (which would be needed to make the first point have any use)?