You don't suppose the fact that Sony requires developers to pay them for the privilege and that up until now there's been no way of developing for it? It seems a bit premature to make that sort of assertion given the limited opportunity to do homebrew for the PS3. Even when the other OS feature was still there, if I'm not mistaken, you couldn't make use of the entire PS3.
Part of that is that the most recent revisions are shy a few chips which the older ones had. And they didn't bother to advertise that the newer versions are essentially gimped so that they don't lose as much money on them. The Slim for instance had no other OS feature and had the chips for emulating both the PS and PS2 not included so that Sony could save a few dollars on production. And from what I gather, they'd removed the PS emulation from previous revisions as well.
You mean it adds back functionality that they used to include with the PS3. Don't forget that they have removed functionality from recent firmware editions as a response to the threat to their exclusivity. And the latest report is that the next firmware update is going to disable the USB ports. Sony has learned very little from getting clobbered over that rootkit they installed on computers as DRM.
Yeah, and I'm guessing that they're going to have another massive lawsuit on their hands if they follow through with their threats to disable portions of the PS3 as a response. It was questionable to say the least when they started releasing PS3s without all the chips that the first gen PS3s had, but now that they're apparently removing features from consoles that people have already purchased, they're going to be in a world of hurt.
I used to stand for just about that long routinely as a part of my job. And actually considering the likelihood of deep vein thrombosis presumably goes down if you're not sitting for long periods of time, it's not without it's upside.
Except that with a train, anybody can stop one of those when given instructions, whereas even with a similar level of instruction the likelihood of bringing in a commercial jet is much lower. At least with a train, they can tell you where the brakes are and how to apply them without derailing and you're good to go. With a jet, it's somewhat more complicated and there's a lot more to worry about.
That argument boils down to what you're more concerned with, Boeing planes allow the pilot to assume control over absolutely everything on the basis that under some rare circumstances it might be necessary. Airbus engineers on the other hand are more concerned with the more typical cases where the pilot is ultimately at fault. The problem is that there's a slightly better chance of a pilot recovering from a sensor problem then a computer.
It's sort of like the debate between DOT approved motorcycle helmets and ones which are Snell certified as well. DOT approval is better for the accidents that one is most likely to have, but the Snell criteria are more focused on the catastrophic crashes that happen at high speeds and with more force. Neither one is better than the other, it just depends on what the conditions you're normally operating under suggest you worry about. You're never going to need the Snell if you're driving side streets at slow speed.
Under normal circumstances you're correct, during a flight which is completely ordinary AI would do just fine. However, things happen which are difficult to program for, and even beyond that a single cosmic ray hitting the wrong part of memory could have disastrous effects. AI has a purpose, engineers wouldn't have created autopilots if AI didn't have a place, but trusting it to that extent would also cause problems. At least with pilot and co-pilot you've got a better fall over system. Most of flight it ends up being autopilot, pilot, co-pilot or something like that.
It's Ryanair, a lot of these suggestions are never intended to be put into service or even investigated. It's a way of getting free publicity for always looking for ways of cutting costs. And the press falls for it just about every time.
Somehow that doesn't strike me as wise. You might get away with cutting the number down, but unless you want the pilot or co-pilot to have to leave the cockpit to deal with passengers, I'd suggest that it's really not a luxury. Not to mention that you'd also have to spend more time waiting to take off as the pilot would end up giving the safety talk, making sure things are stowed, then get back from being distracted to make sure that nothing on their preflight check list has changed.
Eh, isn't that the basic difference between a programmer and an engineer? When I took my programming courses, there was a distinct focus on writing code with the smallest amount of new code possible, using preexisting libraries whenever possible and if there was any suspicion that the code might be useful later to split it off into a subroutine or method of some sort as done in the particular language. Sure it's a good idea to be able to write your own libraries and solutions, but it's a waste of time once you get to the point where you know how to do it. And generally using a library that's shared by other projects is much less likely that you're going to stumble on an undiscovered bugs with your program.
Well, yes commenting on your intent is a good idea, but it's not really enough. You also ought to be commenting on _why_ you're doing something rather than an alternative it makes it a lot easier later on when you're debugging and wondering why you picked that solution. Makes it a lot less likely that you fix the code and reintroduce whatever it was that you were trying to avoid in the first place. But when it comes to the what, if you have to put a what comment into your code, then you've done something horribly wrong and need to rewrite it ASAP.
As for the indents that people are talking about, tabs are more reasonable now than they used to be, but you're giving up screen space for them. Not really the problem it was when you were limited to 80 character columns, but it still has it's benefits and costs.
Yeah, IMAP is the way to go, personally, I use IMAP on my email account and mailstorehome to do the actual download and backup. The OP will probably end up having to set up a personal server to get the program to download the older mail, but that can be done easily enough via a virtual machine.
True netbooks are starting to become rare. The $100 to $200 price range ones are getting to be a rarity and increasingly the choice involves Windows and higher specs than a netbook really needs. Which is really unfortunate, because while I like my Asus eeepc, it does have that battery life problem where the USB ports are constantly powered up. It looks to me like the manufacturers have really lost touch with the point of a netbook. It's supposed to be inexpensive and relatively spartan to make it mobile while still being reasonably functional for basic computing tasks.
The problem is that manufacturers seem to be stuck bundling some sort of an OS with their computers. IIRC that was the justification that Dell gave for offering FreeDOS with some of their computers, since they'd likely end up in trouble for encouraging piracy, they had to include something.
In this one area, and mostly because if the Chinese people had to actually pay for the property like the rest of us they'd be much more likely to be pissed off about how the Chinese government is purposely keeping them in poverty.
Considering that my Nexus One was purchased by me and doesn't require any service whatsoever to operate other than a WiFi or bluetooth connection, this could be very bad for cell carriers. Skype for instance seems to only need a fraction of what this would provide. Granted it would require a second device at this stage to make it available to my phone, but it would allow me to be completely without cell service over much the country and still able to talk. Consequently, it's hardly shocking that the cell carriers would want this thing dead.
Let me get this straight, the solution to federal agencies giving corporate interests what they want in preference to what the citizens want is solved by abolishing them? I'm sorry, but there's something about that which I clearly don't understand. That seems like the solution to getting a bit wet in the rain from puddles is to cut holes in ones umbrella.
Strictly speaking you shouldn't be doing any of those things anyways. Thinking outside the box isn't universally a good thing. Sometimes the box has limits set at a given point for a reason. The reaction time at 90mph is the same as it is at 70, 55, 30 or for that matter even 10mph, but the stopping distance is greatly increased over even 70mph. Motorcycle riders tend to be more aware of it than car drivers are, but even slowing from 90 down to 70 mph is enough to cut the stopping distance from roughly 420 feet down to roughly 280 feet, if wolfram alpha is correct on this one. Which is a huge difference in safety margin even beyond just the energy that you'll have if you hit something. That assumes dry pavement, good tires, and a reaction time of 1.1s or so.
In other words this isn't a matter of thinking outside the box, this is an attempt at currying favor with people that are either insane or ignorant as to how physics works. Then to add in the mixture of people allowed to go 90mph and the ones that aren't, is just mind bogglingly dangerous. There's a reason why there are typically laws against holding up traffic and why LEOs focus on the first car in a grouping of vehicles that are speeding.
Or more likely that he's a nut job that doesn't know what he's talking about. Roads are constructed to engineering specs. Even if you're on a long stretch of straight road, there's still engineering that goes on to determine the maximum safe speed. Things like lane size and spacing are taken into account. As are the size and spacing of the shoulder and the considerations as to how far away buildings need to be. Not to mention the fact that any road that has a curve is engineered to handle traffic going up to a maximum speed. The angle of the bank and the radius of the curve are chose on the assumption that people will be traveling at no more than a certain speed.
While libertarians tend to get all outraged about things like this, there's no evidence that it's as safe to go 90mph on those roads as it is 70mph or whatever the current limit is. Even for roads like the Autobahn, when you do have a wreck, it tends to be pretty spectacular and much worse than the ones we typically get in the US. Beyond that mixing traffic speeds is a real danger. There's a reason why you're urged to keep up with traffic flow even if the traffic flow is going somewhat over the speed limit. It represents a risk to other vehicles to have people that aren't keeping up.
Back in olden times when literacy was very low, we had in western nations town criers who would stand on the corner and spread the news for people to listen. Sort of like modern day TV news or radio. Which with income as low as it is in most of those places would probably be more cost effective while the other problems are being fixed. Once you've got access to clean water, food, education and have the basic economy functioning, then the information component becomes both useful and essential.
Monthly income isn't the issue that people think it is. It's just a number, the question though is what does it get you and what do you do with it? While generally in parts of the world where incomes are low like that there are the other problems as well, it's hardly a hard link. For example with a tax rate of about half when municipal taxes and national taxes are taken into account, Sweden looks a lot worse with respect to income figures than it really is. Mostly because a lot of the things that we in the US have to pay for as individuals gets covered through taxation.
The problem is that if it's not already the case, it will be the case in the near future that to be competitive you have to have some sort of internet access, and eventually some sort of broad band. It's like education in a way, if you don't have it you're just going to fall further behind until something remedies the situation.
In my experience, leadership isn't something which can be taught, anymore than integrity and strength can. Sure you can help somebody develop those skills, but at the end of the day, it comes from someplace within.
People tend to follow me for the simple reason that I'm not scared of really anything, but haven't lost my respect for the dangers out there. I'm willing to take responsibility for the people that are following my orders and willing to tell people to screw off when I have the need to do so.
The absolute worst thing that a leader can do is flip flop and fold on a subordinate following orders.
The technical skills can all be taught, pretty much anybody willing to put in the time and effort can learn them, same goes for the laws applicable to the situation.
Good luck getting any funding like that. One of the big challenges of running a business competently is that it's really hard to get funding like that. Investors for the most part flock to companies like Walmart, which despite losing it's edge on efficiency is still the darling of Wall street, even as it's competitive edge wanes and it faces increased resistance from neighborhoods and astronomical labor costs.
Which is sort of the point, a few companies isn't enough to change the inertia of the market, it takes a large number of companies, and probably regulatory reform discouraging short term holdings and requiring CEO compensation to bear at least some resemblance to actual performance.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't suppose the fact that Sony requires developers to pay them for the privilege and that up until now there's been no way of developing for it? It seems a bit premature to make that sort of assertion given the limited opportunity to do homebrew for the PS3. Even when the other OS feature was still there, if I'm not mistaken, you couldn't make use of the entire PS3.
Sweet, I'll have to try that. I wish I could mod you for that, but I've already posted here.
Part of that is that the most recent revisions are shy a few chips which the older ones had. And they didn't bother to advertise that the newer versions are essentially gimped so that they don't lose as much money on them. The Slim for instance had no other OS feature and had the chips for emulating both the PS and PS2 not included so that Sony could save a few dollars on production. And from what I gather, they'd removed the PS emulation from previous revisions as well.
You mean it adds back functionality that they used to include with the PS3. Don't forget that they have removed functionality from recent firmware editions as a response to the threat to their exclusivity. And the latest report is that the next firmware update is going to disable the USB ports. Sony has learned very little from getting clobbered over that rootkit they installed on computers as DRM.
Yeah, and I'm guessing that they're going to have another massive lawsuit on their hands if they follow through with their threats to disable portions of the PS3 as a response. It was questionable to say the least when they started releasing PS3s without all the chips that the first gen PS3s had, but now that they're apparently removing features from consoles that people have already purchased, they're going to be in a world of hurt.
I used to stand for just about that long routinely as a part of my job. And actually considering the likelihood of deep vein thrombosis presumably goes down if you're not sitting for long periods of time, it's not without it's upside.
Except that with a train, anybody can stop one of those when given instructions, whereas even with a similar level of instruction the likelihood of bringing in a commercial jet is much lower. At least with a train, they can tell you where the brakes are and how to apply them without derailing and you're good to go. With a jet, it's somewhat more complicated and there's a lot more to worry about.
That argument boils down to what you're more concerned with, Boeing planes allow the pilot to assume control over absolutely everything on the basis that under some rare circumstances it might be necessary. Airbus engineers on the other hand are more concerned with the more typical cases where the pilot is ultimately at fault. The problem is that there's a slightly better chance of a pilot recovering from a sensor problem then a computer.
It's sort of like the debate between DOT approved motorcycle helmets and ones which are Snell certified as well. DOT approval is better for the accidents that one is most likely to have, but the Snell criteria are more focused on the catastrophic crashes that happen at high speeds and with more force. Neither one is better than the other, it just depends on what the conditions you're normally operating under suggest you worry about. You're never going to need the Snell if you're driving side streets at slow speed.
Under normal circumstances you're correct, during a flight which is completely ordinary AI would do just fine. However, things happen which are difficult to program for, and even beyond that a single cosmic ray hitting the wrong part of memory could have disastrous effects. AI has a purpose, engineers wouldn't have created autopilots if AI didn't have a place, but trusting it to that extent would also cause problems. At least with pilot and co-pilot you've got a better fall over system. Most of flight it ends up being autopilot, pilot, co-pilot or something like that.
It's Ryanair, a lot of these suggestions are never intended to be put into service or even investigated. It's a way of getting free publicity for always looking for ways of cutting costs. And the press falls for it just about every time.
Somehow that doesn't strike me as wise. You might get away with cutting the number down, but unless you want the pilot or co-pilot to have to leave the cockpit to deal with passengers, I'd suggest that it's really not a luxury. Not to mention that you'd also have to spend more time waiting to take off as the pilot would end up giving the safety talk, making sure things are stowed, then get back from being distracted to make sure that nothing on their preflight check list has changed.
Eh, isn't that the basic difference between a programmer and an engineer? When I took my programming courses, there was a distinct focus on writing code with the smallest amount of new code possible, using preexisting libraries whenever possible and if there was any suspicion that the code might be useful later to split it off into a subroutine or method of some sort as done in the particular language. Sure it's a good idea to be able to write your own libraries and solutions, but it's a waste of time once you get to the point where you know how to do it. And generally using a library that's shared by other projects is much less likely that you're going to stumble on an undiscovered bugs with your program.
Well, yes commenting on your intent is a good idea, but it's not really enough. You also ought to be commenting on _why_ you're doing something rather than an alternative it makes it a lot easier later on when you're debugging and wondering why you picked that solution. Makes it a lot less likely that you fix the code and reintroduce whatever it was that you were trying to avoid in the first place. But when it comes to the what, if you have to put a what comment into your code, then you've done something horribly wrong and need to rewrite it ASAP.
As for the indents that people are talking about, tabs are more reasonable now than they used to be, but you're giving up screen space for them. Not really the problem it was when you were limited to 80 character columns, but it still has it's benefits and costs.
Yeah, IMAP is the way to go, personally, I use IMAP on my email account and mailstorehome to do the actual download and backup. The OP will probably end up having to set up a personal server to get the program to download the older mail, but that can be done easily enough via a virtual machine.
True netbooks are starting to become rare. The $100 to $200 price range ones are getting to be a rarity and increasingly the choice involves Windows and higher specs than a netbook really needs. Which is really unfortunate, because while I like my Asus eeepc, it does have that battery life problem where the USB ports are constantly powered up. It looks to me like the manufacturers have really lost touch with the point of a netbook. It's supposed to be inexpensive and relatively spartan to make it mobile while still being reasonably functional for basic computing tasks.
The problem is that manufacturers seem to be stuck bundling some sort of an OS with their computers. IIRC that was the justification that Dell gave for offering FreeDOS with some of their computers, since they'd likely end up in trouble for encouraging piracy, they had to include something.
In this one area, and mostly because if the Chinese people had to actually pay for the property like the rest of us they'd be much more likely to be pissed off about how the Chinese government is purposely keeping them in poverty.
Considering that my Nexus One was purchased by me and doesn't require any service whatsoever to operate other than a WiFi or bluetooth connection, this could be very bad for cell carriers. Skype for instance seems to only need a fraction of what this would provide. Granted it would require a second device at this stage to make it available to my phone, but it would allow me to be completely without cell service over much the country and still able to talk. Consequently, it's hardly shocking that the cell carriers would want this thing dead.
Let me get this straight, the solution to federal agencies giving corporate interests what they want in preference to what the citizens want is solved by abolishing them? I'm sorry, but there's something about that which I clearly don't understand. That seems like the solution to getting a bit wet in the rain from puddles is to cut holes in ones umbrella.
Strictly speaking you shouldn't be doing any of those things anyways. Thinking outside the box isn't universally a good thing. Sometimes the box has limits set at a given point for a reason. The reaction time at 90mph is the same as it is at 70, 55, 30 or for that matter even 10mph, but the stopping distance is greatly increased over even 70mph. Motorcycle riders tend to be more aware of it than car drivers are, but even slowing from 90 down to 70 mph is enough to cut the stopping distance from roughly 420 feet down to roughly 280 feet, if wolfram alpha is correct on this one. Which is a huge difference in safety margin even beyond just the energy that you'll have if you hit something. That assumes dry pavement, good tires, and a reaction time of 1.1s or so.
In other words this isn't a matter of thinking outside the box, this is an attempt at currying favor with people that are either insane or ignorant as to how physics works. Then to add in the mixture of people allowed to go 90mph and the ones that aren't, is just mind bogglingly dangerous. There's a reason why there are typically laws against holding up traffic and why LEOs focus on the first car in a grouping of vehicles that are speeding.
Or more likely that he's a nut job that doesn't know what he's talking about. Roads are constructed to engineering specs. Even if you're on a long stretch of straight road, there's still engineering that goes on to determine the maximum safe speed. Things like lane size and spacing are taken into account. As are the size and spacing of the shoulder and the considerations as to how far away buildings need to be. Not to mention the fact that any road that has a curve is engineered to handle traffic going up to a maximum speed. The angle of the bank and the radius of the curve are chose on the assumption that people will be traveling at no more than a certain speed.
While libertarians tend to get all outraged about things like this, there's no evidence that it's as safe to go 90mph on those roads as it is 70mph or whatever the current limit is. Even for roads like the Autobahn, when you do have a wreck, it tends to be pretty spectacular and much worse than the ones we typically get in the US. Beyond that mixing traffic speeds is a real danger. There's a reason why you're urged to keep up with traffic flow even if the traffic flow is going somewhat over the speed limit. It represents a risk to other vehicles to have people that aren't keeping up.
Back in olden times when literacy was very low, we had in western nations town criers who would stand on the corner and spread the news for people to listen. Sort of like modern day TV news or radio. Which with income as low as it is in most of those places would probably be more cost effective while the other problems are being fixed. Once you've got access to clean water, food, education and have the basic economy functioning, then the information component becomes both useful and essential.
Monthly income isn't the issue that people think it is. It's just a number, the question though is what does it get you and what do you do with it? While generally in parts of the world where incomes are low like that there are the other problems as well, it's hardly a hard link. For example with a tax rate of about half when municipal taxes and national taxes are taken into account, Sweden looks a lot worse with respect to income figures than it really is. Mostly because a lot of the things that we in the US have to pay for as individuals gets covered through taxation.
The problem is that if it's not already the case, it will be the case in the near future that to be competitive you have to have some sort of internet access, and eventually some sort of broad band. It's like education in a way, if you don't have it you're just going to fall further behind until something remedies the situation.
In my experience, leadership isn't something which can be taught, anymore than integrity and strength can. Sure you can help somebody develop those skills, but at the end of the day, it comes from someplace within.
People tend to follow me for the simple reason that I'm not scared of really anything, but haven't lost my respect for the dangers out there. I'm willing to take responsibility for the people that are following my orders and willing to tell people to screw off when I have the need to do so.
The absolute worst thing that a leader can do is flip flop and fold on a subordinate following orders.
The technical skills can all be taught, pretty much anybody willing to put in the time and effort can learn them, same goes for the laws applicable to the situation.
Good luck getting any funding like that. One of the big challenges of running a business competently is that it's really hard to get funding like that. Investors for the most part flock to companies like Walmart, which despite losing it's edge on efficiency is still the darling of Wall street, even as it's competitive edge wanes and it faces increased resistance from neighborhoods and astronomical labor costs.
Which is sort of the point, a few companies isn't enough to change the inertia of the market, it takes a large number of companies, and probably regulatory reform discouraging short term holdings and requiring CEO compensation to bear at least some resemblance to actual performance.