Profits aren't inherently evil. It's how you come by them.
The average walmart employee's wage is under the poverty line. 40% of employee's families are on government assistance. The majority of walmart locations are built almost entirely from taxpayer dollars because in addition to and receive enormous tax breaks from local governments (Walmart is one of the top recipients of corporate welfare dollars, a bit of a rarity for a fortune 500 company posting record profits). Oh, did I mention the cleaning staff at non-24 hour locations are locked inside the building to prevent theft(sorry, "to ensure cleaning staff safety".
I'm sure I could handily undercut the local Bashas if you built my store, I paid no rent, and I treated my staff inhumanely. Walmart's profits are artificial -- they rely upon the upfront costs and recurring expenses being paid for by somebody else.
It's funny, if Walmart was so terrible to its employees you'd think they would have trouble hiring anyone, especially when a brand-new store opens. But I've never heard of that...
Then you must not be looking hard enough. Perhaps they haven't any problems hiring people, but getting people to stay there is another story. Walmart's turnover rate hovers at around 50% (in 1999 it was 65%). Industry average is around 15%.
The turnover is precisely because walmart is so terrible to it's employees. The high turnover works out well for walmart since employees only receive healthcare coverage after 6 months (2 years for part time).
Ironically, you're cynicism smacks of someone who has not had their daily dose of black magic.
I like the free market and you don't. I aint gonna try to change your commie mind on that issue. I'll only argue with
4) Reduce the number of artistic venues by putting small coffee shops out of business with our pre-packaged experience
Before Starbucks came to my area (i live near mesa, az) there were 2 proper coffee houses. After starbucks, there are at least 5 that I know of. Why? Starbucks has grown the market. And ironically the competition here manages to stay afloat by emphasizing live bands, poetry readings(ugh), and offering better pastries (I like starbucks coffee, but their food is crap).
Independent competition thrives, but they must be competitive. Once Starbucks starts buying up coffee plantations and shutting out buyers, or if these Oxfam allegations are true I'll take issue with it. If a company that works hard to earn my business and is good to their employees, why not reward them w/ my patronage?
Microsoft isn't giving anyone anything.. they're seeing how much we'll pay for what we can get for free.
What are you talking about? A consumer/indie console sdk is a dream come true for anywone who's wanted to develop on a console. Show my any pygame app deployed on any console that comes anywhere close to looking like XNA Racer.
While I think that you are misinterpreting parts of the article, your clever Akira reference indicates you are cool and deserve better than a Digg-style "u r teh dumb" reply. Kaneda!!!!!!!!!!
Anyway... I agree that experiences are experiences irrespective of whether they come from a "virtual" reality. In fact, It sounds like these experiments were in-fact based on this assumption, and the results back up this claim.
The 'false memories', however, refer to the subject's recollection of the details of the virtual camera that weren't actually in the simulation at all. This doesn't really have as much to do with how observant the subjects were, but rather that we tend to use our imagination to extrapolate details that we miss or that are not conveyed in the information we have available. You're doing the same thing when you read a book and "visualize" how the characters look based on the author's description. Even if the author does a great job your mind fills in features that the author never explicitly included. You make assumptions (book says man is "old and withered", he *must* have gray hair!), or fill in the blanks w/ what we would prefer (even if subconciously).
So it's no surprise that you see the same thing in the virtual reality. Computers are getting better and better, but they ultimately they approximate The Real Thing, and leave out details that are too complex to model. So, your mind fills in the rest.
That said, I didn't read into their claims but I think the claims of "injecting" false memories after the fact are a bit overstated.
the olpc initiative will help children. does bill gates want to join in and help children?
NO WAY! imagine what TREMENDOUS educational vehicle olpc could be for the parents! specific educational information could be included in a "parents only" folder - and it can be customized by region. how to make water safe, how to avoid aids, how to get help for emergencies, etc...
I don't doubt the potential for good of the OLPC. However, it is simply wrong to deny or minimize the tremendous amount of good that Bill Gates has done for children in developing nations. His focus is on problem areas where the conditions are so basic and horrible that the OLPC is a sick joke.
now, don't get me wrong. i'm glad the selfish sob is giving (and getting others to give) to help the needy. i hope his promises aren't more lies, though, and only actions will convince me.
What the heck is it gonna take? The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the largest charitable institution in the world. They're endowment sits at around 32 billion. They give around 1.5 billion per year. The amount given to vaccine programs is almost equal to the budget of the UN World Health Organization.
now, if he actually did charity against his financial self interest, like help out the olpc initiative, because it was plain and simply the right thing to do, I'D BE IMPRESSED.
Why is this? Why must he donate to the OLPC project to warrant your respect, and that none of the other charitable work he does matter to you?
Who knows what's really inside Bill Gates head, or what's behind his intentions. But the same can be said about Nicholas Negroponte. To those who benefit from vaccines and those who benefit from the OLPC, does it matter!?
If you always need to stay in touch, YOU need to sacrifice attending certain public events
The thing is, he *will* make that sacrifice. As will a sizeable portion of moviegoing audiences with a similar, though probably not as dire, need to be reachable.
This argument is moot, anyway. You argue all the scenarios until you're blue in the face about the hypotheticals. However the simple fact is that if you start this jamming, audience attendance will go down, not up. It's just one more inconvenience that makes DVD's (and bittorent) more appealing than movie theaters. Now all of a sudden it *is* your problem because ticket prices are going up to cover the losses.
Back before cellphones and pagers, people used to give the 'sitter the number of the theater
True, but back in those days, theater owners published the phone number of their theater. Not anymore. Try looking up the individual phone number nowadays. And even if you do get the number, often it's an automated response that you need to know the proper extention to get to a human.
If they're not dicks they'll turn off their phones anyway.
No, the 99% simply turn their phone to vibrate, and quietly leave the theater if a call comes in that they should take.
Also, these jammers aren't precise enough to limit their range to *only* the darkened theater. What if you are in the lobby? No cell phone there either.
Funny, you quoted my original post but apparently you didn't read it. I stated I'd probably wait until she was older, or perhaps me or my spouse would go to the movie alone while the other watches her. Or perhaps we'd try to line up an adult relative. Maybe I'd simply see more movies that I can take my kid to. I'm not quite sure. The point is that I'd at least go to the movies less, not more.
But I'm sure if you really tried, someone could help you with that mental illness.
I'm guessing you aren't a parent. If I'm not able to be reached, there's fewer situations where where I'll be comfortable leaving the house. That makes me insane?
This is probably the most popular application of this technology. As much we hate people that talk on their cell phone during the movie or forgetting to turn off their MP3 ringtones, jamming is a BAD IDEA.
As a parent, I appreciate the fact our baby sitter can get a hold of us in the event of an emergency, even if I'm in a movie theater. Someone will exclaim that the sitter should call 911, not me. In fact, we tell our sitter to call 911, *then* me. Still, I'd really like to know that my child is on her way to the hospital, rather than find out potentially two hours after-the-fact.
Obviously I wouldn't leave the house without my daughter unless I knew she was in good hands, so I suppose that my daughter is just as safe regardless of whether I have cell phone coverage or not. But I'll probably just stop going to movies until she's older.
Most of the Slashdot/Digg set couldn't care less about parents not getting calls. But I'd guess that a sizable portion of the movie audience are parents. If theaters jam calls you'll probably wind up w/ an even smaller movie audience (bad for theater managers), and Talking-On-Phone-During-Movie-Guy will be replaced by Takes-Child-To-Rated-R-Movie-Guy (bad for everybody).
(And I know this is a far-fetched example, but consider how authorities got their information during the Moscow theater hostage crisis.)
Cool. And when web application doesn't work for my client, and they complain that AOL users, IE6 users, and Mac users are unable to purchase products from their website, I'll just tell them that it's not my problem because a W3C validator says so. While we're at it, I'll use the same argument during my exit interview.
Welcome to the real world. The W3C doesn't pay me, so occasionally I'll need to concede a few idiological points to the folks that do.
I'm not overly religious, but I'd bet that putting Paris Hilton and Ada Byron in the same top-ten list guarantees the author one of the top-ten spots in hell.
Obviously this article needs help. Let's nominate some replacements.
Hmm... seems you're ignoring the FAQ, too. The faq doesn't say that they *wont* do international stories, just that they they will be predominantly US-based. Furthermore, given that MSFT is a US-based corporation, one could argue that this story is relevant as a US-based story.
If you don't like a site anymore, just stop clicking. Last I checked, there we're lots of other websites. It reminds me of people that "hate" Howard Stern, yet listen to his show more regularly than his fans.
Couldn't agree with you more. I feel DeBeers is a truly evil organization, yet the sham they've been able to pull is nothing short of a marketing masterstroke.
Take the "two-months-salary" thing. Convincing the consumer that this is a legitimate scenario is the holy grail of product pricing. Imagine asking a jeweler "hey, how much does that ring cost?", and blindly pulling out your wallet when the jeweler says "well... how much ya got?". Yeah, I'm oversimplifying... but considering prices are so inflated, the consumer is really paying in proportion to his/her income rather than in proportion to the diamond's size.
Somehow DeBeers got it in people's heads that two-months salary is somehow indicative of the your love and ultimately the strength of the marriage. The irony here is that that financial woes are the leading cause of divorce -- if anything this silly notion is probably setting up young couples to fail.
Those are good points, but I"m still somewhat surprised of the attention this is getting, given that Vista is so close to release. I believe the that the whole kernel-lockout thing in 64-bit Vista is not new information.
Besides, in spite of what Symantec says, I'd argue that not allowing kernel patches *increases* security rather than weakens it. The infamous Sony rootkit used kernal patches, after all.
XP 64 is more of an oddity than anything else. The question will be what percentage of home users will have a 64-bit version of Windows shipping on their new boxes.
Windows 2003 Server is much more popular and also prohibits kernel patches. Still, I agree with your point that it's all about what version home users buy. My hunch howeveris most home users, even power users, will shy away from the 64bit windows as it is still more geared at the enterprise/server level. In fact, one of the other aspects of the 64-bit versions is that you MUST use signed device drivers. The implications are much more profound to the end-user than, say, blocking kernel patches. I'm surprised people aren't worked up about that instead.
Well, no. Not really. I *do* find it surprising that so many people would completely ignore the actual content of the post (Scott Adams no longer aflicted by Spasmodic Dysphonia--an extremely interesting story, imho), and instead rail on Keith Dawson for... his choice of a freaking icon.
Beyond that, your implication is that Keith not be very good of an editor. Tastes vary, of course, but I was a big fan of his TBTF newsletter, which ran from 1995 to 2003.
Perhaps he's new to slashcode, but he's an accomplished tech news editor/author. So, I'll let icon choices slide.
Correct me if I'm wrong, this lockdown only applies to the 64-bit versionof Vista, and that in the 64-bit version of XP the kernel is locked down in a similar fashion? If so, I don't see why Symantec and Mcaffe are making such a fuss?
Furthermore, 64-bit vista looks like it will have the same enterprise level demographic (db/web servers and such). So it's not like Symantec's core business is being threatened. It looks like they're just playing this up so for the EC to leverage over MSFT.
I suspect he can be disbarred in any state where he practices pro hac vice, but I doubt other states bars will even want to hear it. And this case was in Florida anyway.
Let's just make a game called Pro hac Vice City so he'll be against that, too.
In the USA, a $300 phone is probably subsidized by your upwards of %50. That's why they lock you into multi-year contracts and sell you the first 10 seconds of a Blink-182 song for $2.50 a pop. I'm not sure if this is as big of an issue in Europe because I believe SIM cards are portable across service providers by law.
Don't think that this $600 phone is any more expensive than equivalent piece of hardware from T-mobile or Verizon. Considering that I'll be able to install whatever the hell I want on it I'd say it's a steal.
This phone is the last thing service providers want on the market -- the only thing they'd have left to differentiate themselves from the competition is rates and service (the horror!!). I predict they'll try to kill it.
"Paul Otellini, Intel's president and CEO, kicked off this season's IDF by coining the phrase "It's what's inside that counts", and spoke about why processing power matters again"
But then this in another article covering the same event: "Otellini briefly responded to concerns that Intel's first quad-core packages are simply "glued-together" dual-core processors while AMD is working on a native, single-die quad-core chip. "So what?," said Otellini, adding, "The public doesn't care what's inside a processor."
Personally, I think it's a silly catchphrase, but that aside I don't necessarily see these two quotes as a contradiction given the contexts he gave them in. I think Otellini was saying was that raw cpu performance is still relevant. That said, if Intel can create a quad-core that performs very well and doesn't get too hot, I could care less if it's four cores on one die, 2 glued dual-core, or four single-core dies glued together, or a legion of microscopic gremlins that are really good at math.
That AMD is going for a single die approach is no surprise: If you glued two high-end rev.f opterons 240 watt monster. They pretty much are forced to do a redesign. By contrast, the "glued" Intel quad core uses 120watts (still alot, but it's conceivable that you could cool the thing). They could be more efficient by going on a single die, but this approach allows them to get to market sooner, which is fine by me.
Had Sony not priced the PS3 at $600-friggin-dollars and shipped on time, I'm convinced that the Wii would have been $200 and that the Xbox360 would have seen a fall price drop.
So, thanks Sony. Not only do you suck, but you suck so bad that you've created a halo-effect that causes your competetors to suck also.
There are many programs that do not take advantage multiple processors: legacy code,code that can't (or wont) utilize threads, etc.. Supposing you had, say, eight single-threaded apps, would you be able to somehow mitigate the their single-threaded nature by assigning the respective processes to it's own core? Can you do this in OSX (or Linux/Windows for that matter)?
If this feature doesn't currently exist, is it even theoretically possible? I'm not a computer engineeer, so if anyone can weigh in on this I'd be delighted.
Slashdot Mirror
Profits aren't inherently evil. It's how you come by them.
The average walmart employee's wage is under the poverty line. 40% of employee's families are on government assistance. The majority of walmart locations are built almost entirely from taxpayer dollars because in addition to and receive enormous tax breaks from local governments (Walmart is one of the top recipients of corporate welfare dollars, a bit of a rarity for a fortune 500 company posting record profits). Oh, did I mention the cleaning staff at non-24 hour locations are locked inside the building to prevent theft(sorry, "to ensure cleaning staff safety".
I'm sure I could handily undercut the local Bashas if you built my store, I paid no rent, and I treated my staff inhumanely. Walmart's profits are artificial -- they rely upon the upfront costs and recurring expenses being paid for by somebody else.
Then you must not be looking hard enough. Perhaps they haven't any problems hiring people, but getting people to stay there is another story. Walmart's turnover rate hovers at around 50% (in 1999 it was 65%). Industry average is around 15%.
The turnover is precisely because walmart is so terrible to it's employees. The high turnover works out well for walmart since employees only receive healthcare coverage after 6 months (2 years for part time).
Damn these HTML markup tags! Please mentally unitalicize my post. I need more coffee.
I like the free market and you don't. I aint gonna try to change your commie mind on that issue. I'll only argue with
Before Starbucks came to my area (i live near mesa, az) there were 2 proper coffee houses. After starbucks, there are at least 5 that I know of. Why? Starbucks has grown the market. And ironically the competition here manages to stay afloat by emphasizing live bands, poetry readings(ugh), and offering better pastries (I like starbucks coffee, but their food is crap).
Independent competition thrives, but they must be competitive. Once Starbucks starts buying up coffee plantations and shutting out buyers, or if these Oxfam allegations are true I'll take issue with it. If a company that works hard to earn my business and is good to their employees, why not reward them w/ my patronage?
What are you talking about? A consumer/indie console sdk is a dream come true for anywone who's wanted to develop on a console. Show my any pygame app deployed on any console that comes anywhere close to looking like XNA Racer.
To:
There, much better. I guarantee Microsoft will release a patch *immediately*.
While I think that you are misinterpreting parts of the article, your clever Akira reference indicates you are cool and deserve better than a Digg-style "u r teh dumb" reply. Kaneda!!!!!!!!!!
Anyway... I agree that experiences are experiences irrespective of whether they come from a "virtual" reality. In fact, It sounds like these experiments were in-fact based on this assumption, and the results back up this claim.
The 'false memories', however, refer to the subject's recollection of the details of the virtual camera that weren't actually in the simulation at all. This doesn't really have as much to do with how observant the subjects were, but rather that we tend to use our imagination to extrapolate details that we miss or that are not conveyed in the information we have available. You're doing the same thing when you read a book and "visualize" how the characters look based on the author's description. Even if the author does a great job your mind fills in features that the author never explicitly included. You make assumptions (book says man is "old and withered", he *must* have gray hair!), or fill in the blanks w/ what we would prefer (even if subconciously).
So it's no surprise that you see the same thing in the virtual reality. Computers are getting better and better, but they ultimately they approximate The Real Thing, and leave out details that are too complex to model. So, your mind fills in the rest.
That said, I didn't read into their claims but I think the claims of "injecting" false memories after the fact are a bit overstated.
I don't doubt the potential for good of the OLPC. However, it is simply wrong to deny or minimize the tremendous amount of good that Bill Gates has done for children in developing nations. His focus is on problem areas where the conditions are so basic and horrible that the OLPC is a sick joke.
What the heck is it gonna take? The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the largest charitable institution in the world. They're endowment sits at around 32 billion. They give around 1.5 billion per year. The amount given to vaccine programs is almost equal to the budget of the UN World Health Organization.
Why is this? Why must he donate to the OLPC project to warrant your respect, and that none of the other charitable work he does matter to you?
Who knows what's really inside Bill Gates head, or what's behind his intentions. But the same can be said about Nicholas Negroponte. To those who benefit from vaccines and those who benefit from the OLPC, does it matter!?
The thing is, he *will* make that sacrifice. As will a sizeable portion of moviegoing audiences with a similar, though probably not as dire, need to be reachable.
This argument is moot, anyway. You argue all the scenarios until you're blue in the face about the hypotheticals. However the simple fact is that if you start this jamming, audience attendance will go down, not up. It's just one more inconvenience that makes DVD's (and bittorent) more appealing than movie theaters. Now all of a sudden it *is* your problem because ticket prices are going up to cover the losses.
True, but back in those days, theater owners published the phone number of their theater. Not anymore. Try looking up the individual phone number nowadays. And even if you do get the number, often it's an automated response that you need to know the proper extention to get to a human.
No, the 99% simply turn their phone to vibrate, and quietly leave the theater if a call comes in that they should take.
Also, these jammers aren't precise enough to limit their range to *only* the darkened theater. What if you are in the lobby? No cell phone there either.
Better to block cell phones period and prevent any problem of that sort.
So, it's better to inconvenience the 99% of cell phone users that aren't dicks? Aren't you just trading one inconvenience for another?
I'm guessing you aren't a parent. If I'm not able to be reached, there's fewer situations where where I'll be comfortable leaving the house. That makes me insane?
This is probably the most popular application of this technology. As much we hate people that talk on their cell phone during the movie or forgetting to turn off their MP3 ringtones, jamming is a BAD IDEA.
As a parent, I appreciate the fact our baby sitter can get a hold of us in the event of an emergency, even if I'm in a movie theater. Someone will exclaim that the sitter should call 911, not me. In fact, we tell our sitter to call 911, *then* me. Still, I'd really like to know that my child is on her way to the hospital, rather than find out potentially two hours after-the-fact.
Obviously I wouldn't leave the house without my daughter unless I knew she was in good hands, so I suppose that my daughter is just as safe regardless of whether I have cell phone coverage or not. But I'll probably just stop going to movies until she's older.
Most of the Slashdot/Digg set couldn't care less about parents not getting calls. But I'd guess that a sizable portion of the movie audience are parents. If theaters jam calls you'll probably wind up w/ an even smaller movie audience (bad for theater managers), and Talking-On-Phone-During-Movie-Guy will be replaced by Takes-Child-To-Rated-R-Movie-Guy (bad for everybody).
(And I know this is a far-fetched example, but consider how authorities got their information during the Moscow theater hostage crisis.)
Cool. And when web application doesn't work for my client, and they complain that AOL users, IE6 users, and Mac users are unable to purchase products from their website, I'll just tell them that it's not my problem because a W3C validator says so. While we're at it, I'll use the same argument during my exit interview.
Welcome to the real world. The W3C doesn't pay me, so occasionally I'll need to concede a few idiological points to the folks that do.
I'm not overly religious, but I'd bet that putting Paris Hilton and Ada Byron in the same top-ten list guarantees the author one of the top-ten spots in hell.
Obviously this article needs help. Let's nominate some replacements.
Hmm... seems you're ignoring the FAQ, too. The faq doesn't say that they *wont* do international stories, just that they they will be predominantly US-based. Furthermore, given that MSFT is a US-based corporation, one could argue that this story is relevant as a US-based story.
If you don't like a site anymore, just stop clicking. Last I checked, there we're lots of other websites. It reminds me of people that "hate" Howard Stern, yet listen to his show more regularly than his fans.
Couldn't agree with you more. I feel DeBeers is a truly evil organization, yet the sham they've been able to pull is nothing short of a marketing masterstroke.
Take the "two-months-salary" thing. Convincing the consumer that this is a legitimate scenario is the holy grail of product pricing. Imagine asking a jeweler "hey, how much does that ring cost?", and blindly pulling out your wallet when the jeweler says "well... how much ya got?". Yeah, I'm oversimplifying... but considering prices are so inflated, the consumer is really paying in proportion to his/her income rather than in proportion to the diamond's size.
Somehow DeBeers got it in people's heads that two-months salary is somehow indicative of the your love and ultimately the strength of the marriage. The irony here is that that financial woes are the leading cause of divorce -- if anything this silly notion is probably setting up young couples to fail.
Besides, in spite of what Symantec says, I'd argue that not allowing kernel patches *increases* security rather than weakens it. The infamous Sony rootkit used kernal patches, after all.
Windows 2003 Server is much more popular and also prohibits kernel patches. Still, I agree with your point that it's all about what version home users buy. My hunch howeveris most home users, even power users, will shy away from the 64bit windows as it is still more geared at the enterprise/server level. In fact, one of the other aspects of the 64-bit versions is that you MUST use signed device drivers. The implications are much more profound to the end-user than, say, blocking kernel patches. I'm surprised people aren't worked up about that instead.
Well, no. Not really. I *do* find it surprising that so many people would completely ignore the actual content of the post (Scott Adams no longer aflicted by Spasmodic Dysphonia--an extremely interesting story, imho), and instead rail on Keith Dawson for... his choice of a freaking icon.
Beyond that, your implication is that Keith not be very good of an editor. Tastes vary, of course, but I was a big fan of his TBTF newsletter, which ran from 1995 to 2003.
Perhaps he's new to slashcode, but he's an accomplished tech news editor/author. So, I'll let icon choices slide.
Correct me if I'm wrong, this lockdown only applies to the 64-bit versionof Vista, and that in the 64-bit version of XP the kernel is locked down in a similar fashion? If so, I don't see why Symantec and Mcaffe are making such a fuss?
Furthermore, 64-bit vista looks like it will have the same enterprise level demographic (db/web servers and such). So it's not like Symantec's core business is being threatened. It looks like they're just playing this up so for the EC to leverage over MSFT.
Let's just make a game called Pro hac Vice City so he'll be against that, too.
In the USA, a $300 phone is probably subsidized by your upwards of %50. That's why they lock you into multi-year contracts and sell you the first 10 seconds of a Blink-182 song for $2.50 a pop. I'm not sure if this is as big of an issue in Europe because I believe SIM cards are portable across service providers by law.
Don't think that this $600 phone is any more expensive than equivalent piece of hardware from T-mobile or Verizon. Considering that I'll be able to install whatever the hell I want on it I'd say it's a steal.
This phone is the last thing service providers want on the market -- the only thing they'd have left to differentiate themselves from the competition is rates and service (the horror!!). I predict they'll try to kill it.
Personally, I think it's a silly catchphrase, but that aside I don't necessarily see these two quotes as a contradiction given the contexts he gave them in. I think Otellini was saying was that raw cpu performance is still relevant. That said, if Intel can create a quad-core that performs very well and doesn't get too hot, I could care less if it's four cores on one die, 2 glued dual-core, or four single-core dies glued together, or a legion of microscopic gremlins that are really good at math.
That AMD is going for a single die approach is no surprise: If you glued two high-end rev.f opterons 240 watt monster. They pretty much are forced to do a redesign. By contrast, the "glued" Intel quad core uses 120watts (still alot, but it's conceivable that you could cool the thing). They could be more efficient by going on a single die, but this approach allows them to get to market sooner, which is fine by me.
Had Sony not priced the PS3 at $600-friggin-dollars and shipped on time, I'm convinced that the Wii would have been $200 and that the Xbox360 would have seen a fall price drop.
So, thanks Sony. Not only do you suck, but you suck so bad that you've created a halo-effect that causes your competetors to suck also.
There are many programs that do not take advantage multiple processors: legacy code,code that can't (or wont) utilize threads, etc.. Supposing you had, say, eight single-threaded apps, would you be able to somehow mitigate the their single-threaded nature by assigning the respective processes to it's own core? Can you do this in OSX (or Linux/Windows for that matter)?
If this feature doesn't currently exist, is it even theoretically possible? I'm not a computer engineeer, so if anyone can weigh in on this I'd be delighted.