The problem with WinMo isn't the OS itself. It's that Microsoft never pushed OEMs to build much more into their devices than the existing apps and services supplied with the WinMo development kit. So it's a half-baked system sold as a complete solution.
Google Android has the exact same problem. Google is focused on developing a great OS, but the better the OS is out of the box, the less likely OEMs are to develop their own IP and create real differentiation, not to mention a truly user-centric experience.
This is where Apple's iPhone really shines. Since it is in itself a final product, Apple can exert a huge amount of effort in order to meet their own user-centric standards. The product succeeds or fails as a product, not as a delivery of middleware to handset manufacturers.
I tried to draw a picture of a man with an erection. I labeled him "porn guy". Then I drew a picture of a woman with her mouth open and labeled her "porn whore cumshot".
The composite picture was fine except that the man and the woman were far apart from each other. In addition, even if I were to draw them closer together (hey, I'm working with a mouse here), the result would still have been sized incorrectly.
This technology holds lots of promise and is already pretty cool. I hope they can work out the kinks.
How about I come park outside your house and enhance your sleeping pleasure by blaring Swedish death metal at all hours of the night? I bet with the right combination of Mayhem and Burzum you'd find that not only was the intrusion on your sleepytime making the overall sleep experience better but also that your dreams were brighter and more colorful.
STOP ADVERTISING TO ME WHEN I'VE ALREADY PAID FOR YOUR PRODUCT, ASSHOLE.
The leakiest of organizations in any country is the government. Anything leaked is leaked deliberately with a concrete reasoning behind it. Most of the time it is used to float trial balloons, but sometimes it's used to mislead the public for purposes of control.
The American government is particularly good at this.
Up to this point Wikileaks has been an unbiased (as far as a left-wing org can be) third party. However reporters are typically not so neutral. By giving leakers the ability to target specific reporters simply means that the leaks will lose credibility. We know Olbermann and Matthews love Obama, so anti-neocon leaks are most likely to be reported there. OTOH, Drudge and Hannity will be much more likely to report anti-democrat leaks. Since the same old same old is reported by these guys, the leaks themselves lose a lot of their steam.
Yes, we don't like the hypocrisy, but if you really don't believe in imaginary property then what he did isn't questionable at all.
I think there needs to be a balance struck between the rights of creators and users so that everyone comes out ahead. The idea that anything accessible should be shareable is clearly bankrupt, but without a viable alternative (without resorting to draconian laws) I fear that we are heading towards that undesirable outcome.
This only affects the browser market where Microsoft is steadily losing ground anyway. The fact of the matter is that the operating system itself is still untouched and Microsoft still has no penalty for pulling more and more functionality into the OS itself.
The problem has never been just browsers or messaging utilities or office suites or default home pages. It is about how Microsoft uses its monopoly power on the desktop to stifle competitors. This could have been handled years ago except the American judge couldn't stay awake long enough to do anything but parrot the prosecuting attorney's notes.
MS should have been broken into an OS company and an apps company long ago. But it didn't happen, and we're all still the worse off for it. Trying to change anything by half-assed measures like forcing the user to choose a browser is just not going to work.
Flash seems like it would need all sort of runtime support to do all the cool things that Flash is supposed to be able to do. If there is no runtime, and the language is just compiled down to native code, and it simply relies on existing iPhone libraries, then is Flash/ActionScript really all that useful and attractive as an implementation language?
This is where Android really shines. You can program in any language, as long as it's Java.
The I Love Lucy and The Honeymooners shows are arguably much more influential (and funnier) than Monty Python, as far as actual influence goes. MP may have been funny and set the standard for sketch comedy, it doesn't really have much influence on popular culture. The two shows mentioned above have essentially defined the groundwork and format for all sitcoms to follow.
Whether popular culture should be used to judge the positive influence of something could be debated, of course.
FTFA: What is striking in the image is how impressive the colour-coding allows us to differentiate material that is extremely cold (red) from that which is warmer.
I don't mean to take anything away from the great work you guys are doing, but wouldn't it make sense to color code these things in a way that the warmer areas were red? It would jive better with our existing preconceptions.
- The conservative (like this guy). He understands his company's strengths only as a function of what it currently is. He can fortify the company's business in good times.
- The forward-thinker (like *gack* Larry Ellison). He understands not only his own company's strengths in regard to what it is, but also in regards to the changing environment. He can take action to position the company well for the future.
- The visionary (like Steve Jobs or Sergey Brin). He understands both his company and the changing environment and can perceive the changes within the changing environment. He is able to not only strengthen the core competences of his company but drive new business and create new markets.
- The idiot (like Woz (sorry)). They grab on to anything that looks like a good idea and drive it forward without care for business, competition, longevity.
What happens is that every once in a while the idiot will strike it big (Jeff Bezos). Most of the time, these guys go out of business. On the other hand, the conservative leaders will do what they can and most of the time it pays off. Markets really don't change very much, and there will always be winners and losers. All they need to do is try to stay on the winning side as much as possible.
But RMN stuck to what it knew and failed. This is what happens in business. But to look back now and to analyze the failure is a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking. Of course it's easy to see all the trends after they've passed. It's easy to see where mistakes were made and how easily it probably could have been to avoid them. But at the time it would have been much more difficult to make the same judgment call.
It was a failure of management to fail to adapt to the changing business environment, but not every leader is going to be a forward thinker and even fewer will be visionaries. You can academically analyze these business cases from now to eternity, but unless you're actually in the leadership chair at the moment of crisis, you'll never know whether you would make the right choice.
programs are literally symbolic representations of math
I'd like to understand how a program which sets a bit in a register to turn on an LED is math.
I hear the opinion you are expressing all the time, but I really would like to understand how math comes into play at all for a large set of programs. So I created a very simple program above whose relationship with math I don't understand. Can you help by providing some insight?
The proper fusion of bone has always depended on the lateral strength of the bracing mechanism. While this does away with the need for painful pins and rods, it still requires the use of casts and other immobilizers. In the case of compound fractures, the bone splinters may be dislodged away from the point of fracture and still need surgery to remove.
Breaking a bone is never a pleasant experience, but rapid healing and non-invasive resetting should make recovery faster and less scarring. This particular advance in recovery medicine should help pave the way for technologies such as tricorder automatic healing and other non-touch healing techniques.
On the battlefield and anywhere where injury risk is very high and away from medical help, this type of at-the-scene treatment can help preserve not just bones and limbs, but lives too.
The value of a novel idea is in the idea itself. Whether this is something that can be built into a physical object or can only be programmed into electronic memory gates, the idea is what is important. With the idea, it is possible to recreate the actual implementation many times over.
In some ways, CS is still tied to mathematics. It is quantifiable and therein lies its only true link to mathematics. The development and study of algorithms is what CS is all about, and to the extent that mathematics can be used to measure these things it is useful.
But real world development is much more like seatbelt manufacturing than number crunching. Systems must be developed, not algorithms. In fact, algorithms, for the most part, are already done. It's the combination of these disparate parts into a cohesive whole that is the cornerstone of CS in today's industry.
So when someone develops a way of doing something electronically that is novel, it should be just as worthy of receiving a patent as another idea that needs physical implementation. The milieu shouldn't matter.
What does matter is the quality of the idea and the quality of the process to determine the validity of the patent application. This is where the problem lies today. It's not that people shouldn't get patents for software, it's that the patents that are being granted are of such poor quality that it calls into question the whole system.
Slashdot Mirror
Nanoparticles killed up to 80% of the brain cancer cells...
Team these nanoparticles with some microbrews for the ultimate in killer brain food.
This is the internet. Sketch your own porn, bro.
The problem with WinMo isn't the OS itself. It's that Microsoft never pushed OEMs to build much more into their devices than the existing apps and services supplied with the WinMo development kit. So it's a half-baked system sold as a complete solution.
Google Android has the exact same problem. Google is focused on developing a great OS, but the better the OS is out of the box, the less likely OEMs are to develop their own IP and create real differentiation, not to mention a truly user-centric experience.
This is where Apple's iPhone really shines. Since it is in itself a final product, Apple can exert a huge amount of effort in order to meet their own user-centric standards. The product succeeds or fails as a product, not as a delivery of middleware to handset manufacturers.
I tried to draw a picture of a man with an erection. I labeled him "porn guy". Then I drew a picture of a woman with her mouth open and labeled her "porn whore cumshot".
The composite picture was fine except that the man and the woman were far apart from each other. In addition, even if I were to draw them closer together (hey, I'm working with a mouse here), the result would still have been sized incorrectly.
This technology holds lots of promise and is already pretty cool. I hope they can work out the kinks.
How about I come park outside your house and enhance your sleeping pleasure by blaring Swedish death metal at all hours of the night? I bet with the right combination of Mayhem and Burzum you'd find that not only was the intrusion on your sleepytime making the overall sleep experience better but also that your dreams were brighter and more colorful.
STOP ADVERTISING TO ME WHEN I'VE ALREADY PAID FOR YOUR PRODUCT, ASSHOLE.
I'm not saying that there aren't genuine mistakes and leaks.
I'm saying that "leaked" information is always deliberately leaked. There is no transitive conjugation of the word "leak" except to indicate intent.
Tegra, Tegra, wherefore art though Tegra?
The leakiest of organizations in any country is the government. Anything leaked is leaked deliberately with a concrete reasoning behind it. Most of the time it is used to float trial balloons, but sometimes it's used to mislead the public for purposes of control.
The American government is particularly good at this.
Up to this point Wikileaks has been an unbiased (as far as a left-wing org can be) third party. However reporters are typically not so neutral. By giving leakers the ability to target specific reporters simply means that the leaks will lose credibility. We know Olbermann and Matthews love Obama, so anti-neocon leaks are most likely to be reported there. OTOH, Drudge and Hannity will be much more likely to report anti-democrat leaks. Since the same old same old is reported by these guys, the leaks themselves lose a lot of their steam.
I don't think this is a good idea at all.
Yes, we don't like the hypocrisy, but if you really don't believe in imaginary property then what he did isn't questionable at all.
I think there needs to be a balance struck between the rights of creators and users so that everyone comes out ahead. The idea that anything accessible should be shareable is clearly bankrupt, but without a viable alternative (without resorting to draconian laws) I fear that we are heading towards that undesirable outcome.
God wears a gown, you moron. Those farts aren't going anywhere.
Water and organic material scattered across the universe happens when God sneezes.
God bless you!
This only affects the browser market where Microsoft is steadily losing ground anyway. The fact of the matter is that the operating system itself is still untouched and Microsoft still has no penalty for pulling more and more functionality into the OS itself.
The problem has never been just browsers or messaging utilities or office suites or default home pages. It is about how Microsoft uses its monopoly power on the desktop to stifle competitors. This could have been handled years ago except the American judge couldn't stay awake long enough to do anything but parrot the prosecuting attorney's notes.
MS should have been broken into an OS company and an apps company long ago. But it didn't happen, and we're all still the worse off for it. Trying to change anything by half-assed measures like forcing the user to choose a browser is just not going to work.
Theirs goes, 'Ding ding ding dingy ding-ding.' Ours goes, 'Ding ding ding ding dingy ding-ding.
It's clearly not the same at all.
There are a few books I recommend to kids just starting out in the industry.
Code Complete
Writing Solid Code
Programming Pearls
and The Practice of Programming
Even old stalwarts like Kernighan's The C Programming Language aren't as useful in the longterm as the 4 books above are.
Anyone who wants to make the jump from "code monkey" to professional should really take the time to read the books.
Flash seems like it would need all sort of runtime support to do all the cool things that Flash is supposed to be able to do. If there is no runtime, and the language is just compiled down to native code, and it simply relies on existing iPhone libraries, then is Flash/ActionScript really all that useful and attractive as an implementation language?
This is where Android really shines. You can program in any language, as long as it's Java.
The I Love Lucy and The Honeymooners shows are arguably much more influential (and funnier) than Monty Python, as far as actual influence goes. MP may have been funny and set the standard for sketch comedy, it doesn't really have much influence on popular culture. The two shows mentioned above have essentially defined the groundwork and format for all sitcoms to follow.
Whether popular culture should be used to judge the positive influence of something could be debated, of course.
FTFA: What is striking in the image is how impressive the colour-coding allows us to differentiate material that is extremely cold (red) from that which is warmer.
I don't mean to take anything away from the great work you guys are doing, but wouldn't it make sense to color code these things in a way that the warmer areas were red? It would jive better with our existing preconceptions.
There are a handful of leader-types.
- The conservative (like this guy). He understands his company's strengths only as a function of what it currently is. He can fortify the company's business in good times.
- The forward-thinker (like *gack* Larry Ellison). He understands not only his own company's strengths in regard to what it is, but also in regards to the changing environment. He can take action to position the company well for the future.
- The visionary (like Steve Jobs or Sergey Brin). He understands both his company and the changing environment and can perceive the changes within the changing environment. He is able to not only strengthen the core competences of his company but drive new business and create new markets.
- The idiot (like Woz (sorry)). They grab on to anything that looks like a good idea and drive it forward without care for business, competition, longevity.
What happens is that every once in a while the idiot will strike it big (Jeff Bezos). Most of the time, these guys go out of business. On the other hand, the conservative leaders will do what they can and most of the time it pays off. Markets really don't change very much, and there will always be winners and losers. All they need to do is try to stay on the winning side as much as possible.
But RMN stuck to what it knew and failed. This is what happens in business. But to look back now and to analyze the failure is a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking. Of course it's easy to see all the trends after they've passed. It's easy to see where mistakes were made and how easily it probably could have been to avoid them. But at the time it would have been much more difficult to make the same judgment call.
It was a failure of management to fail to adapt to the changing business environment, but not every leader is going to be a forward thinker and even fewer will be visionaries. You can academically analyze these business cases from now to eternity, but unless you're actually in the leadership chair at the moment of crisis, you'll never know whether you would make the right choice.
Gases are also fluids.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid
Due to the non-crystalline molecular structure of glass, it is indeed a fluid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid
programs are literally symbolic representations of math
I'd like to understand how a program which sets a bit in a register to turn on an LED is math.
I hear the opinion you are expressing all the time, but I really would like to understand how math comes into play at all for a large set of programs. So I created a very simple program above whose relationship with math I don't understand. Can you help by providing some insight?
Glass is a fluid, not a liquid.
The proper fusion of bone has always depended on the lateral strength of the bracing mechanism. While this does away with the need for painful pins and rods, it still requires the use of casts and other immobilizers. In the case of compound fractures, the bone splinters may be dislodged away from the point of fracture and still need surgery to remove.
Breaking a bone is never a pleasant experience, but rapid healing and non-invasive resetting should make recovery faster and less scarring. This particular advance in recovery medicine should help pave the way for technologies such as tricorder automatic healing and other non-touch healing techniques.
On the battlefield and anywhere where injury risk is very high and away from medical help, this type of at-the-scene treatment can help preserve not just bones and limbs, but lives too.
Kudos to the team for a great job!
No, that's different from what I'm talking about.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsmobile/en-us/business/solutions/enterprise/mdm-security-features.mspx
The value of a novel idea is in the idea itself. Whether this is something that can be built into a physical object or can only be programmed into electronic memory gates, the idea is what is important. With the idea, it is possible to recreate the actual implementation many times over.
In some ways, CS is still tied to mathematics. It is quantifiable and therein lies its only true link to mathematics. The development and study of algorithms is what CS is all about, and to the extent that mathematics can be used to measure these things it is useful.
But real world development is much more like seatbelt manufacturing than number crunching. Systems must be developed, not algorithms. In fact, algorithms, for the most part, are already done. It's the combination of these disparate parts into a cohesive whole that is the cornerstone of CS in today's industry.
So when someone develops a way of doing something electronically that is novel, it should be just as worthy of receiving a patent as another idea that needs physical implementation. The milieu shouldn't matter.
What does matter is the quality of the idea and the quality of the process to determine the validity of the patent application. This is where the problem lies today. It's not that people shouldn't get patents for software, it's that the patents that are being granted are of such poor quality that it calls into question the whole system.