Please list off all the viruses that will run on Snow Leopard.
Well, via Parallels or VirtualBox, one can run the following viruses on Snow Leapard: Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 2000... and I am sure others.;-)
Inadvertent or not Google broke laws in some countries. Accidentally breaking the law doesn't eliminate responsibility or culpability - even if people shouldn't have left their WiFi unsecured.
If I accidentally run over someone with my car because I wasn't paying attention to what I was doing, it doesn't absolve me of the liability - even if that old lady had it coming, er, was jaywalking.
Actually, it does change things to some extent. Manslaughter becomes murder (didnt see the old lady, or saw her and ran her down intentionally). Same applies here in a similar fashion. Illegal? Yes. As illegal as if it was done intentionally? No, probably not (if these countries' laws are similar to US ones).
Galileo was politics, not about scientific theory (the church actually agreed with his science).
While perhaps politically motivated in some aspects, the church "eventually" agreed with him - long after he died. They agreed that it could be taught and discussed in scientific circles, but not to the general populace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
Bruno, expanded up Copernicus, but what got him in trouble was proclaiming life on other worlds and that man is not unique. Now, while it is quite possible that there is life on other planets, even quite probable, there is yet no scientific proof of it. And, Bruno, was turned in by his peers, not the church going after him -- of course, once the church got a hold of him, things went very poorly for him (like burning at the stake as a heretic).
While he may (or may not) have been wrong, that isnt the relevant part of it. The burning at the stake because he was a heretic part is the relevant part.
Finally, DaVinci was a life long Catholic and even in his will, made arrangements for masses to be said on his behalf.
Which is irrelevant to whether or not he was persecuted - which he was, and escaped worse due to the patronage of another country. Many people who are lifelong catholics have found themselves kicked out of their churches for a variety of reasons - yet remained catholic. Even in this day and age... 40-50 years ago and earlier for wanting to marry interracially. Today, for being anything but straight. And a plethora of other reasons over the years, where a variety of people remained catholic even when they were being ostracized, excommunicated, abandoned - or (as in the people we discussed above) burned at the stake. I always wondered how many catholic "witches" were burned at the stake and died horribly still considering themselves christian?
Point was, it's been more than a couple hundred years... it's been an ongoing thing for 2-3 times that length of time - at the least.
Science and religion are diametrically opposed in one specific thing - religion insists on telling us "it is so", while science will treat us like adults and tell us "we don't know - here is our best guess so far".
Ummm, it's only been the last couple hundred years that science and religion are diametrically opposed. Prior to that, science and religion worked together. Why do you think all of those moon craters are named after Jesuits? Plus, it was a Jesuit that first came up with the big bang based on Einstein's research.
If science and religion are diametrically opposed, then it is because today's science goes out of it's way to oppose religion. When, in reality, they both serve different purposes. Science tries to explain the "How," while religion focuses on the "Why."
It's been longer than that. Ask DaVinci, Galileo, Bruno and others...
That's a rather anomalous variety of "running homeless shelters" and "tackling social problems". The UNHCR runs refugee camps, mostly in war zones and former war zones; it doesn't run soup kitchens in Brazil, or generally in any way attempt to improve the lot of poor people in non-warzones.
Nor does it try to indoctrinate people into myths and nonsense dragging them back to the dark ages. Nor are the churches the only ones who do non wartime, non warzone aid. Heck, there have even been religious groups that have made their support contingent on their beliefs being forced upon the people who need the help. Or others, who though not going so far, mistake "providing education" for "indoctrinating lots of people as the price for their food, shelter and clothing" - or ones in countries suffering AIDS epidemics and other sexually transmitted disease epidemics where they "teach" them that protection isn't the answer, abstinence or trusting in being in god's hands is.
Though the fact that the people get fed and clothed is good, there seems little altruistic intent when a price tag is attached to it.
Again though, this does not cover all religious groups who endeavor to help the poor and needy - but it does cover quite a few of the bigger ones.
True, but today we have the technology to make any water source drinkable - from cleaning up rivers to desalinating sea water. Guys, you got gardens blooming in the middle of the Nevada desert. And still the problem comes up - that's the scary bit.
And partially due to that, water rationing during various summer months since that water supply is also the same one used for other areas that need it for more important things... like drinking the water instead of trying to make a desert look like an oasis.
California depends on snow that accumulates in the Sierra Nevada for much of its water needs. The spring thaw that melts the snowpack is relied on to replenish reservoirs that are vital to millions of people.
The region also takes water from the Colorado River, which runs east of California.
So... the problem isn't limited to China... we experience it here as well. In California, Nevada, and New York City (and numerous other areas). Some of the few areas that do not run into this problem are eastern Long Island where the water comes from deep aquifer wells. Many areas do not have that ability/advantage.
Regardless, as "immoral" as it is for Intel to continue such practices, it seems to be entirely with the blessing of the Chinese government. Intel alone is not to blame. The Chinese government is more than capable of restricting such practices (probably more so than our own government), but does not.
I almost know nothing on the subject, but I'm thinking the 11 year cycle was empiricaly determined. One has to wonder do we have enough data on the subject compared to the age of the sun?
Why in the world would we need 5 BILLION years of data to make wild speculation about the various Sun cycles?!?!?!
Oh, wait... they actually dont think it's just wild speculation, do they? Ah well. Yeah, in that case, I agree with you. a few hundred years of data is a drop in the bucket compared to the Sun's current age.
I think he meant an alternative which would let him get a copy of recent films without paying anything to the copyright holder, and without getting caught for his illegal actions.
He could get a job in a movie theater... he may not be able to get a copy, depending on well they watch for those things... but at least he will get to see it, in better quality no less, for free, and possibly even before the general public when the theater does it's pre-screen testing.;-)
The stats on the servers I run also show very different figures. Those stats at least are from all viewers, and not just a sample pool.
On Star Trek New Voyages Forums, the stats are as follows (yes, the crowd MAY be more tech savvy):
1. Firefox 6,939 41.89%
2. Internet Explorer 6,055 36.55%
3. Safari 1,548 9.34%
4. Chrome 1,249 7.54%
5. Opera 556 3.36%
6. SeaMonkey 105 0.63%
7. Mozilla 55 0.33%
8. Camino 25 0.15%
9. Konqueror 7 0.04%
10. Mozilla Compatible Agent 6 0.04%"
IE's breakdown is as follows:
1. 8.0 75.44%
2. 7.0 17.09%
3. 6.0 7.46%
On one of our general websites, the stats are a bit different:
1. Internet Explorer 44.44%
2. Firefox 33.33%
3. Chrome 12.70%
4. Safari 8.73%
5. Mozilla 0.79%
The breakdown for IE isn't too far off there as well:
1. 8.0 67.86%
2. 7.0 23.21%
3. 6.0 8.93%
The thing to note though, is that the site type/genre, definitely seems to be a major factor in determining the browser that will be used... though, regardless, IE6 is barely being used on any of our sites. 8.9% of IE's 44% share of site users on one, and 7.5% of IE's 37% share on the other.
Nevertheless, what American would tolerate a car that hit 60 in nearly 14 seconds? Consider that a 2010 Honda Odyssey (a minivan of all things) hits 60mph in under 8 seconds.
When it comes to performance Americans are quite spoiled. The average HP for passenger cars in the US is nearing 250hp. The average in 1980 was above 110hp. One caveat is that cars today are actually heavier than they used to be because of safety components and other features.
Fuel efficiency has increased over the last few decades, but without question we could likely have more fuel efficient cars if power were sacrificed to some extent. But again, you do need some additional power to motivate the added weight efficiently. Either that or start using more exotic, but extremely expensive, materials to reduce weight.
You are honestly comparing a 3.5L V6 18/25mpg mini-VAN to a car designed for economy? Why not compare it to one of today's fuel efficient cars?
But how heavy was the Accord vs. the new car its engine was placed into? 13.8s in a 2,000 lb. card does not mean the engine will do 13.8s in a 4,000 lb. car.
Do some research next time. The RSV was 2,500 pounds. Per PopSci two pages down in the returned result.
RTFA - they used a Honda 4 cylinder engine. It probably took 3 minutes to get up to 55mph. And no word on how expensive they would have been to build. I'm guessing that there are a plethora of reasons why they were never built. Remeber, Ford tried to sell a safe car back in the 60s. It didn't sell, but not because people didn't want safe cars, but because it was a really crappy car. As usual, Detroit learned the wrong lesson from that experiance.
That's the most ridiculous things I've heard this week... I owned an old VW Dasher wagon (36/49mpg) listed here: MPGoMatic and got great gas mileage and had decent performance.
Many of the other cars on that list that got 40-57mpg were also decent performers and decent cars, such as a variety of the Subaru and Toyota cars on the list. Sadly, it seems you've bought into the Big 3 Automaker's nonsense of the time.
Or their current nonsense. Think about it... most of those cars had carburetors. Supposedly the new, more expensive fuel injectors, get better fuel economy... so why is it that cars get WORSE fuel economy now? Surely it's not the few pounds of extra weight that airbags and ECUs add to the equation. Almost every car on that list gets better CITY mpg than today's non-hybrid cars WITH fuel injection systems and an ECU get for HIGHWAY driving. Why is that again?
So... nowadays, with safer cars that weigh about the same, and have comparable engines (displacement) and fuel injectors, why do they get such horrendous gas mileage? Performance (acceleration) on a low end to mid range car is near the same - or not too far off to make it undriveable... the VW Dasher did 12 seconds 0-60, or 19 with the diesel engine. Not bad for almost FIFTY mpg.
I'd be happy with a bit better performance, and say... 35-45mpg (instead of 40-57mpg) highway... but the car companies seem to have forgotten how to do that... though again, I would expect that the better, fuel economy improving technologies (fuel injectors and ECU and such) should have helped with that all on their own.
See, the thing is that I'm not skipping HTC...you just don't realize how small number of mobile phones they sell. HTC says they shipped 11.71 million units throughout whole 2009(lots of those with WinMob and BREW, too!). Now, put it in some perspective -
Calling HTC a "major cellphone maker" is a misunderstanding.
Percentages I gave are also strictly by volume - number of given devices sold, in relation to...all mobile phones sold.
"Vast amounts of Android phones selling" are a...damn, not quite a confirmation bias, but... (I am actually trying to recollect one better term here;p - I need a nap soon)
LoL, lets put it in it's proper perspective. Nokia and others ship a lot of "dumb phones" and "barely smart phones" - HTC, not so much. Every model I have seen from them can be truly counted as a smart phone. When comparing their marketshare in the smartphone world, they are indeed a very major player.
Comparing non-smart phones seems to have no relevance in this discussion. Considering the volume of Droids (HTC and Moto) and HTC MyTouch3G (the previous Android top seller per PCMag) and previously the G1 (which remainded an Android top seller for a while after it had competition), that says a lot about how many phones HTC sells in that arena. So, in the arena being explicitly discussed (Android), HTC has been and still is very relevant.
So, I think we are just looking at this from different directions. I am looking at it as it applies to the Android market, and then to the smartphone market as a whole.
As for "vast amounts" of Android phones being sold, the supposedly low estimate is 65,000 a day. I dunno if that qualifies as vast, but it is a lot...;-)
The simpler your application the fewer issues you will have with it, the so called "issue" of fragmentation is only true for the most complex of applications, if you are writing a simple XML parser then you wont have a problem.
I think this is the whole point of the fear. When you invest in creating a complex app you want to know it's going to work for everyone. There's an inherently higher risk involved with developing for a platform with such varied hardware & software.
Saying that the fragmentation isn't an issue is glossing over the problem. Kind of like saying there's not fragmentation in desktop computers because you can run flash apps the same across different operating systems. Not every app developed is a fart soundboard.
When you are creating a complex app (for a cell phone), chances are that you are doing so for the purpose of profit (either that, or you are a really big geek with too much time on your hands), or you are doing it for work, where such efforts will be funded by your boss. In either respect, the added work and testing (which isnt that much) should fit into one's plans since they are releasing a commercial app. I dont see the issue here.
People have brought up the PC in comparison, and others have debunked it. But the PC is a valid comparison. Why you ask? Simple. Video games. "Back in the day" programmers had to make sure their video game worked on a variety of graphics hardware. And even to this day, it needs to support a variety of graphics capabilities. Yet video game manufacturers somehow manage. And from my experience with a variety of paid and free apps in the Android Marketplace, so do many (yes, not all) Android app developers.
What this all boils down to is what is the definition being used for the word "issue(s)"? More work involved? Sure... but like we both noted, that's nothing new to any decent developer. And not as nightmarishly difficult as earlier graphics and video apps on the PC.
While I sympathize with what your post meant to convey, the key data that you mention are not exactly accurate...
First "marketshare doubling every quarter" naturally can't last;)...plus "2nd place" only when looking at sales in one, rather small market and a bit ill-defined category of "smartphones".
But most importantly, when it comes to "Every major cellphone maker standardizing on the platform" - no. Just no. Nokia won't do it. Samsung - not quite (yes, they might have few now and then; but their bada OS is what Samsung bets on). LG and SE also aren't exactly dedicated (while having some Android devices, they use also other smartphone OSes; and ship much more of those).
Above are the 4 largest manufacturers, with 73% of mobile phones sold worldwide (N 37%, S 21%, LG 11%, SE 5%). The biggest one standardizing on Android, Motorola, has just 5%.
You're skipping HTC (you know... the makers of the Droid, G1/Dream, MyTouch, Magic and N1). You're also skipping the fact that though Android based phones by model may be a fraction of the number of models out there, Android phones by volume sold (a more accurate number to use) is a lot higher than your figures would indicate.
I for one dont see a reason why they should have 50 different Android phones out there when 2-5 different ones at a time cover everyone's needs (those needs being price, performance, functionality, and other specs (ie: keyboard/no keyboard, big screen/small screen, multitouch/no mt).
With the vast amounts of Android phones selling, I am sure the manufacturers (who probably like making phones people want to buy... something to do with their bottom line and such) will gladly roll out more models if the demand is there. But quite frankly, I can already pick an Android phone with every capability I want - more choices from the manufacturers does not improve that ability in any way for me - and quite simply confuses the marketplace and creates products that may not recoup their initial investment due to too many choices of phones that do the same thing.
But oh noes!!! some fucking iPhone developer is spewing bullshit about his iPhone Fart App being developed on Android.
HEY! I've been waiting very patiently for that app!!! I bought an Android phone specifically because I was promised that app would be ported to the Android OS!!! Until then, my phone is useless!!!
There's hardware heterogeneity issues also, though: some phones have multitouch and some don't, for example, and the processor speeds and screen sizes are different. Even for devices with the same sensors, the sensors can behave differently, e.g. what kind of control over the camera you have and what data it feeds you, and what the accelerometer's characteristics are.
Doesn't matter for a decent number of apps, but matters for, say, mobile games.
I dont think it matters at all. A smart programmer should easily be able to query the device for it's capabilities and then only enable the capabilities supported by the device. A simply example is the entirely free "Tricorder" app in the Android Marketplace (yeah, I'm a geek... what can I say?). It offers fake data (or no data) for sensors that dont exist on certain phones, and offers real data for sensors that do exist. Works with everything from the G1 up to the Droid. Having simple device profiles also allows for fine tuning the data collection to the specific sensors and phone. Also a pretty trivial step if one has access to the phone, or feedback from the community (which is pretty easy the way the Android Marketplace is set up for any paid app). Other apps, like the free FoxyRing allow calibrating how it reacts to certain data.
And if it's a paid app (especially as free apps have figured out all of the above), it behooves the developer to take those few extra steps. Since many of the apps get downloaded to the SD card, and then run an installer, it should be pretty simple to (a) install multitouch interface support or (b) install standard touch interface; while also determining which sensors it can use, etc and storing that data so it knows which to use and which dont exist on each run.
That aside, there are other problems I have not seen mentioned, for instance dead batteries. If you are a city driver, and barely get over engine idle rpm during your drive, constantly stopping and restarting your engine can drain your battery. There are times I've had to drive in NYC and been on a two way main street going against the flow of traffic lights, meaning I've gotten stuck at a bunch of traffic lights during my trip. As anyone who has had engine (or lack of fuel) problems has noticed, if one repeatedly tries to start their engine, the battery will eventually get below "restart power levels" - meaning a bunch of people stuck at a traffic light without enough power to restart their engine. Add a cold winter day into the mix and this definitely should apply. As it is, I have experienced "uber cold" days on my visits to upstate New York where it sounded like if I had two or three attempts to start my engine, I would be lucky. Fortunately, my car only requires one. But driving a few hundred feet, shutting it off and trying again, then repeating that 5-10 times in under a mile would probably run me into problems as the car wouldnt have been running long enough at high enough RPM (1800?) to (a) recharge the battery enough for another start at those temperatures and/or (b) heat the battery enough for it to be able to deliver more starts.
You are forgetting that it is much easier to start a warm engine, a cold engine does not engage for several cycles but a warm one often engages on the first piston stroke in any given cylinder. Actual battery drain would be much less than you'd expect, which would also reduce the amount of heat generated in the starter windings.. A car that has been running few minutes before hitting a stream of lights would do fine. Likewise, how many drivers in "uber cold" places do not idle their car a little while cleaning off snow and/or getting the interior heater blasting?
I am forgetting no such thing. Wake up in NYC on a very cold winter morning (there were enough this year), step into your car, drive the half block to the first traffic light without having warmed up your car like most people do when in a rush for work, and since the light is red, your car now turns off, engine still cold.
That aside, even a warm engine takes power to start. Do you realize that batteries are rated in the hundreds of CCAs? And alternators are rated at a lot less amps? It takes a bunch of power to turn an engine with an electric motor.
Drivers who do switch off their engines may do so inefficiently. For example, a driver may switch off the engine, only to start it up a short time later. In such cases, more fuel may be consumed in restarting the engine.
So it seems like they're at least aware of the intricacies involved in maximizing fuel efficiency. Their idea seems to be that, if the signal is on a timer, they can use that information (which is unavailable to the driver) to maximize efficiency.
It is also unavailable to them in many cases, as there are still a bunch of mechanical, and electro-mechanical (but not computerized) timers that do not provide that data.
Then there's a matter of (the car) being able to determine what data to pay attention to. Is that signal from the traffic light I am approaching? The one I just passed? The one a block ahead?
Or of course, if it's just based on the assumption that the signal is on a timer and "gee, it's red" then there isnt a way to know how long it's been red. Is it a 2 minute wait, or is it about to change back to green?
Then there's the complexity added to the situation where many many traffic lights have road sensors now, which affect the timer cycle. Sadly, the better intersections to use such a technology are in the suburban areas and some few city areas. And many of those traffic lights fall into this category, making the application of this technology useless.
Now (going back to an earlier point in this post) if it's a matter of using this for "smart lights" that are computer controlled and can broadcast their status and timing, there's the added safety factor that I havent seen discussed; namely, if your car can read that data... so can you. How long before someone figures out what that data is, makes a mod and starts selling it? How many people will be looking at their "traffic light monitor thingy" watching the countdown to green and figure they'll "jump the green" - or watching the countdown to yellow and accelerate to make the light?
Without such technology, such situations already cause all sorts of accidents from people trying to gauge such things. Heck, I've watched someone wait for the cross traffic to get a red signal, and floor it into the intersection. Sadly for them (and more sadly for the other vehicle occupants), they forgot to take into account two things: (1) the cross-traffic turning light (that goes on after forward traffic is stopped), and (2) the fact that various lights have different delays between the red and cross-traffic green - which is something many drivers riding the yellow try to exploit. Fortunately, as the driver turning wasnt going fast, and the driver who jumped the light didnt have enough distance to gain any real speed, the accident was minor.
You raise interesting points, but as you say, you've only speculated. If you had done a Google search for "shutting off engine," you would have found http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/myths/idling.html provided to us by the state in which all things cause cancer CA and where emissions laws like those in North Dakota, where I'm from, might as well be viewed as permissive of pouring-gasoline-on-the-ground-and-lighting-it-aflame (no one checks our vehicle emissions). Long story short, CA found that 10 seconds is all it takes to get a return on your investment. The article also notes that not all gas is burned at idle. This is true and causes a non-stoichiometric reaction producing extra CO and unburned hydrocarbons. So apart from the decreased gasoline consumption, you spew out less gas too!
As a side note, I do this routinely and don't find it a great inconvenience.
Actually, I saw that and others with that figure. If you had kept on using Google you would notice that others disagree with that figure, including various vehicle manufacturers (who are more likely to have an accurate figure on their particular vehicle than a government agency that only tested 2 or 10 or 20 vehicles).
And I also noted that in my post: the fact that various government agencies and auto manufacturers disagreed - hence the suggestion that a lot mroe research in this area needed to be done.
And as someone else noted, though hybrids may be designed with constant restart in mind, pure fossil fuel vehicles are not.
Why would you need to shut off your car when making a delivery? It only takes a minute to hand the pizza, take the money, and go back to your car. Every pizza guy I've had leaves the car running.
Though I dont know about the OP, I have delivered pizzas in areas, that though not "slums" or "crime ridden" it still would be a bad idea to leave a car running while running into a townhouse/small apartment complex to deliver a pizza; if only for the simple fact that some delinquent may decide to take it for a joy ride.
Places like the Baltimore suburbs (and increasingly Long Island) have a lot of 2 story, townhouse-looking apartments that a pizza delivery to requires going up a set of stairs or into an enclosed vestibule where your car is out of your sight.
Hmmm, a computer at a railway crossing that can remotely disable a car's engine. To use the parlance of our times "What could possibly go wrong?"
Besides the possibilities of "what could possibly go wrong?" the simple fact is, I am hoping IBM has done their research on this.
Some car manufacturers claim that stopping and restarting the engine will use more gas, and cause increased wear on the starter. Others claim it will save as much as 10% in gas and not cause wear on the starter. I wonder where the truth really lies? Jeep recommends (for some of their vehicles) at least 1 minute of idle time expected before one turns off the engine to save gas. The government says (basically) "do it every time" - but the government also says that modern cars only need 20 seconds to warm up to a usable temperature in the winter. For those of you who have an actual temperature gauge in your car, you know that is not true... so I am not sure how accurate the rest of the government's data/speculation is (or quite simply, they did not test enough cars).
That aside, there are other problems I have not seen mentioned, for instance dead batteries. If you are a city driver, and barely get over engine idle rpm during your drive, constantly stopping and restarting your engine can drain your battery. There are times I've had to drive in NYC and been on a two way main street going against the flow of traffic lights, meaning I've gotten stuck at a bunch of traffic lights during my trip. As anyone who has had engine (or lack of fuel) problems has noticed, if one repeatedly tries to start their engine, the battery will eventually get below "restart power levels" - meaning a bunch of people stuck at a traffic light without enough power to restart their engine. Add a cold winter day into the mix and this definitely should apply. As it is, I have experienced "uber cold" days on my visits to upstate New York where it sounded like if I had two or three attempts to start my engine, I would be lucky. Fortunately, my car only requires one. But driving a few hundred feet, shutting it off and trying again, then repeating that 5-10 times in under a mile would probably run me into problems as the car wouldnt have been running long enough at high enough RPM (1800?) to (a) recharge the battery enough for another start at those temperatures and/or (b) heat the battery enough for it to be able to deliver more starts.
Also, unless starter technology has changed recently, the starter has a cool-down period between start attempts. Something mentioned in only a few car manuals simply because one starts the car, drives it, then shuts it off - usually exceeding the cooldown period. If you are needing to stop at a traffic light every city block, and restart your engine, then chances are, you aren't reaching the end of the cooldown cycle. The more the starter is turned on without reaching it, the hotter it gets. Anyone who has played with an electric motor knows what happens if they overheat.
And as for the engine wear part of the equation, as anyone who knows a little physics can tell you, starting an engine does wear it more than normal driving... something to do with overcoming inertia (ie: the massive flywheel, and the internal inertia of the engine itself). Yes, above-normal driving (and to a much lesser extent, normal driving) still has similar factors to overcome, but there are other differences involved, namely that the flywheel is before the torque converter or clutch and the torque converter/clutch "absorbs" some of the "stand-still" force being overcome in driving/accelerating (ie: not as jarring to the engine - in comparison to "wrenching" a standing still flywheel into motion).
And of course, all of the above could entirely be speculation... but that's not really the point that matters... the point that matters is, it's all based off one or more combinations of vehicle manufacturer information, various studies on the matter, and various real world applications of the situation (cold s
Slashdot Mirror
If the death penalty is murder, then jail is kidnapping, fines are theft.
Ever see the verdicts/"fines" on those cases the RIAA won?
Trojans aren't viruses.
Please list off all the viruses that will run on Snow Leopard.
Well, via Parallels or VirtualBox, one can run the following viruses on Snow Leapard: Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 2000... and I am sure others. ;-)
Inadvertent or not Google broke laws in some countries. Accidentally breaking the law doesn't eliminate responsibility or culpability - even if people shouldn't have left their WiFi unsecured. If I accidentally run over someone with my car because I wasn't paying attention to what I was doing, it doesn't absolve me of the liability - even if that old lady had it coming, er, was jaywalking.
Actually, it does change things to some extent. Manslaughter becomes murder (didnt see the old lady, or saw her and ran her down intentionally). Same applies here in a similar fashion. Illegal? Yes. As illegal as if it was done intentionally? No, probably not (if these countries' laws are similar to US ones).
Galileo was politics, not about scientific theory (the church actually agreed with his science).
While perhaps politically motivated in some aspects, the church "eventually" agreed with him - long after he died. They agreed that it could be taught and discussed in scientific circles, but not to the general populace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
Bruno, expanded up Copernicus, but what got him in trouble was proclaiming life on other worlds and that man is not unique. Now, while it is quite possible that there is life on other planets, even quite probable, there is yet no scientific proof of it. And, Bruno, was turned in by his peers, not the church going after him -- of course, once the church got a hold of him, things went very poorly for him (like burning at the stake as a heretic).
While he may (or may not) have been wrong, that isnt the relevant part of it. The burning at the stake because he was a heretic part is the relevant part.
Finally, DaVinci was a life long Catholic and even in his will, made arrangements for masses to be said on his behalf.
Which is irrelevant to whether or not he was persecuted - which he was, and escaped worse due to the patronage of another country. Many people who are lifelong catholics have found themselves kicked out of their churches for a variety of reasons - yet remained catholic. Even in this day and age... 40-50 years ago and earlier for wanting to marry interracially. Today, for being anything but straight. And a plethora of other reasons over the years, where a variety of people remained catholic even when they were being ostracized, excommunicated, abandoned - or (as in the people we discussed above) burned at the stake. I always wondered how many catholic "witches" were burned at the stake and died horribly still considering themselves christian?
Point was, it's been more than a couple hundred years... it's been an ongoing thing for 2-3 times that length of time - at the least.
Ummm, it's only been the last couple hundred years that science and religion are diametrically opposed. Prior to that, science and religion worked together. Why do you think all of those moon craters are named after Jesuits? Plus, it was a Jesuit that first came up with the big bang based on Einstein's research.
If science and religion are diametrically opposed, then it is because today's science goes out of it's way to oppose religion. When, in reality, they both serve different purposes. Science tries to explain the "How," while religion focuses on the "Why."
It's been longer than that. Ask DaVinci, Galileo, Bruno and others...
That's a rather anomalous variety of "running homeless shelters" and "tackling social problems". The UNHCR runs refugee camps, mostly in war zones and former war zones; it doesn't run soup kitchens in Brazil, or generally in any way attempt to improve the lot of poor people in non-warzones.
Nor does it try to indoctrinate people into myths and nonsense dragging them back to the dark ages. Nor are the churches the only ones who do non wartime, non warzone aid. Heck, there have even been religious groups that have made their support contingent on their beliefs being forced upon the people who need the help. Or others, who though not going so far, mistake "providing education" for "indoctrinating lots of people as the price for their food, shelter and clothing" - or ones in countries suffering AIDS epidemics and other sexually transmitted disease epidemics where they "teach" them that protection isn't the answer, abstinence or trusting in being in god's hands is.
Though the fact that the people get fed and clothed is good, there seems little altruistic intent when a price tag is attached to it.
Again though, this does not cover all religious groups who endeavor to help the poor and needy - but it does cover quite a few of the bigger ones.
True, but today we have the technology to make any water source drinkable - from cleaning up rivers to desalinating sea water. Guys, you got gardens blooming in the middle of the Nevada desert. And still the problem comes up - that's the scary bit.
And partially due to that, water rationing during various summer months since that water supply is also the same one used for other areas that need it for more important things... like drinking the water instead of trying to make a desert look like an oasis.
California depends on snow that accumulates in the Sierra Nevada for much of its water needs. The spring thaw that melts the snowpack is relied on to replenish reservoirs that are vital to millions of people.
The region also takes water from the Colorado River, which runs east of California.
So... the problem isn't limited to China... we experience it here as well. In California, Nevada, and New York City (and numerous other areas). Some of the few areas that do not run into this problem are eastern Long Island where the water comes from deep aquifer wells. Many areas do not have that ability/advantage.
Regardless, as "immoral" as it is for Intel to continue such practices, it seems to be entirely with the blessing of the Chinese government. Intel alone is not to blame. The Chinese government is more than capable of restricting such practices (probably more so than our own government), but does not.
I almost know nothing on the subject, but I'm thinking the 11 year cycle was empiricaly determined. One has to wonder do we have enough data on the subject compared to the age of the sun?
Why in the world would we need 5 BILLION years of data to make wild speculation about the various Sun cycles?!?!?!
Oh, wait... they actually dont think it's just wild speculation, do they? Ah well. Yeah, in that case, I agree with you. a few hundred years of data is a drop in the bucket compared to the Sun's current age.
I think he meant an alternative which would let him get a copy of recent films without paying anything to the copyright holder, and without getting caught for his illegal actions.
He could get a job in a movie theater... he may not be able to get a copy, depending on well they watch for those things... but at least he will get to see it, in better quality no less, for free, and possibly even before the general public when the theater does it's pre-screen testing. ;-)
Actually, MIniCars developed several models of RSV. It was a research program, after all. One was 1700 lbs, another was 2500 lbs.
The previous SV program produced three ton monsters-- but the participants weren't all that imaginative.
Thanks for the correction! Too busy at work (yet here I am back on slashdot) to have dug any deeper than "2,500lbs is nowhere near 4,000lbs" :-)
The stats on the servers I run also show very different figures. Those stats at least are from all viewers, and not just a sample pool.
On Star Trek New Voyages Forums, the stats are as follows (yes, the crowd MAY be more tech savvy):
1. Firefox 6,939 41.89%
2. Internet Explorer 6,055 36.55%
3. Safari 1,548 9.34%
4. Chrome 1,249 7.54%
5. Opera 556 3.36%
6. SeaMonkey 105 0.63%
7. Mozilla 55 0.33%
8. Camino 25 0.15%
9. Konqueror 7 0.04%
10. Mozilla Compatible Agent 6 0.04%"
IE's breakdown is as follows:
1. 8.0 75.44%
2. 7.0 17.09%
3. 6.0 7.46%
On one of our general websites, the stats are a bit different:
1. Internet Explorer 44.44%
2. Firefox 33.33%
3. Chrome 12.70%
4. Safari 8.73%
5. Mozilla 0.79%
The breakdown for IE isn't too far off there as well:
1. 8.0 67.86%
2. 7.0 23.21%
3. 6.0 8.93%
The thing to note though, is that the site type/genre, definitely seems to be a major factor in determining the browser that will be used... though, regardless, IE6 is barely being used on any of our sites. 8.9% of IE's 44% share of site users on one, and 7.5% of IE's 37% share on the other.
Nevertheless, what American would tolerate a car that hit 60 in nearly 14 seconds? Consider that a 2010 Honda Odyssey (a minivan of all things) hits 60mph in under 8 seconds.
When it comes to performance Americans are quite spoiled. The average HP for passenger cars in the US is nearing 250hp. The average in 1980 was above 110hp. One caveat is that cars today are actually heavier than they used to be because of safety components and other features.
Fuel efficiency has increased over the last few decades, but without question we could likely have more fuel efficient cars if power were sacrificed to some extent. But again, you do need some additional power to motivate the added weight efficiently. Either that or start using more exotic, but extremely expensive, materials to reduce weight.
You are honestly comparing a 3.5L V6 18/25mpg mini-VAN to a car designed for economy? Why not compare it to one of today's fuel efficient cars?
But how heavy was the Accord vs. the new car its engine was placed into? 13.8s in a 2,000 lb. card does not mean the engine will do 13.8s in a 4,000 lb. car.
Do some research next time. The RSV was 2,500 pounds. Per PopSci two pages down in the returned result.
RTFA - they used a Honda 4 cylinder engine. It probably took 3 minutes to get up to 55mph. And no word on how expensive they would have been to build. I'm guessing that there are a plethora of reasons why they were never built. Remeber, Ford tried to sell a safe car back in the 60s. It didn't sell, but not because people didn't want safe cars, but because it was a really crappy car. As usual, Detroit learned the wrong lesson from that experiance.
That's the most ridiculous things I've heard this week... I owned an old VW Dasher wagon (36/49mpg) listed here: MPGoMatic and got great gas mileage and had decent performance.
Many of the other cars on that list that got 40-57mpg were also decent performers and decent cars, such as a variety of the Subaru and Toyota cars on the list. Sadly, it seems you've bought into the Big 3 Automaker's nonsense of the time.
Or their current nonsense. Think about it... most of those cars had carburetors. Supposedly the new, more expensive fuel injectors, get better fuel economy... so why is it that cars get WORSE fuel economy now? Surely it's not the few pounds of extra weight that airbags and ECUs add to the equation. Almost every car on that list gets better CITY mpg than today's non-hybrid cars WITH fuel injection systems and an ECU get for HIGHWAY driving. Why is that again?
So... nowadays, with safer cars that weigh about the same, and have comparable engines (displacement) and fuel injectors, why do they get such horrendous gas mileage? Performance (acceleration) on a low end to mid range car is near the same - or not too far off to make it undriveable... the VW Dasher did 12 seconds 0-60, or 19 with the diesel engine. Not bad for almost FIFTY mpg.
I'd be happy with a bit better performance, and say... 35-45mpg (instead of 40-57mpg) highway... but the car companies seem to have forgotten how to do that... though again, I would expect that the better, fuel economy improving technologies (fuel injectors and ECU and such) should have helped with that all on their own.
Then try VistaPrint. Quick turnaround, decent quality, and cheap.
See, the thing is that I'm not skipping HTC...you just don't realize how small number of mobile phones they sell. HTC says they shipped 11.71 million units throughout whole 2009 (lots of those with WinMob and BREW, too!). Now, put it in some perspective - Calling HTC a "major cellphone maker" is a misunderstanding.
Percentages I gave are also strictly by volume - number of given devices sold, in relation to...all mobile phones sold.
"Vast amounts of Android phones selling" are a...damn, not quite a confirmation bias, but... (I am actually trying to recollect one better term here ;p - I need a nap soon)
LoL, lets put it in it's proper perspective. Nokia and others ship a lot of "dumb phones" and "barely smart phones" - HTC, not so much. Every model I have seen from them can be truly counted as a smart phone. When comparing their marketshare in the smartphone world, they are indeed a very major player.
Comparing non-smart phones seems to have no relevance in this discussion. Considering the volume of Droids (HTC and Moto) and HTC MyTouch3G (the previous Android top seller per PCMag) and previously the G1 (which remainded an Android top seller for a while after it had competition), that says a lot about how many phones HTC sells in that arena. So, in the arena being explicitly discussed (Android), HTC has been and still is very relevant.
So, I think we are just looking at this from different directions. I am looking at it as it applies to the Android market, and then to the smartphone market as a whole.
As for "vast amounts" of Android phones being sold, the supposedly low estimate is 65,000 a day. I dunno if that qualifies as vast, but it is a lot... ;-)
The simpler your application the fewer issues you will have with it, the so called "issue" of fragmentation is only true for the most complex of applications, if you are writing a simple XML parser then you wont have a problem.
I think this is the whole point of the fear. When you invest in creating a complex app you want to know it's going to work for everyone. There's an inherently higher risk involved with developing for a platform with such varied hardware & software.
Saying that the fragmentation isn't an issue is glossing over the problem. Kind of like saying there's not fragmentation in desktop computers because you can run flash apps the same across different operating systems. Not every app developed is a fart soundboard.
When you are creating a complex app (for a cell phone), chances are that you are doing so for the purpose of profit (either that, or you are a really big geek with too much time on your hands), or you are doing it for work, where such efforts will be funded by your boss. In either respect, the added work and testing (which isnt that much) should fit into one's plans since they are releasing a commercial app. I dont see the issue here.
People have brought up the PC in comparison, and others have debunked it. But the PC is a valid comparison. Why you ask? Simple. Video games. "Back in the day" programmers had to make sure their video game worked on a variety of graphics hardware. And even to this day, it needs to support a variety of graphics capabilities. Yet video game manufacturers somehow manage. And from my experience with a variety of paid and free apps in the Android Marketplace, so do many (yes, not all) Android app developers.
What this all boils down to is what is the definition being used for the word "issue(s)"? More work involved? Sure... but like we both noted, that's nothing new to any decent developer. And not as nightmarishly difficult as earlier graphics and video apps on the PC.
While I sympathize with what your post meant to convey, the key data that you mention are not exactly accurate...
First "marketshare doubling every quarter" naturally can't last ;)...plus "2nd place" only when looking at sales in one, rather small market and a bit ill-defined category of "smartphones".
But most importantly, when it comes to "Every major cellphone maker standardizing on the platform" - no. Just no. Nokia won't do it. Samsung - not quite (yes, they might have few now and then; but their bada OS is what Samsung bets on). LG and SE also aren't exactly dedicated (while having some Android devices, they use also other smartphone OSes; and ship much more of those). Above are the 4 largest manufacturers, with 73% of mobile phones sold worldwide (N 37%, S 21%, LG 11%, SE 5%). The biggest one standardizing on Android, Motorola, has just 5%.
You're skipping HTC (you know... the makers of the Droid, G1/Dream, MyTouch, Magic and N1). You're also skipping the fact that though Android based phones by model may be a fraction of the number of models out there, Android phones by volume sold (a more accurate number to use) is a lot higher than your figures would indicate.
I for one dont see a reason why they should have 50 different Android phones out there when 2-5 different ones at a time cover everyone's needs (those needs being price, performance, functionality, and other specs (ie: keyboard/no keyboard, big screen/small screen, multitouch/no mt).
With the vast amounts of Android phones selling, I am sure the manufacturers (who probably like making phones people want to buy... something to do with their bottom line and such) will gladly roll out more models if the demand is there. But quite frankly, I can already pick an Android phone with every capability I want - more choices from the manufacturers does not improve that ability in any way for me - and quite simply confuses the marketplace and creates products that may not recoup their initial investment due to too many choices of phones that do the same thing.
But oh noes!!! some fucking iPhone developer is spewing bullshit about his iPhone Fart App being developed on Android.
HEY! I've been waiting very patiently for that app!!! I bought an Android phone specifically because I was promised that app would be ported to the Android OS!!! Until then, my phone is useless!!!
;-)
There's hardware heterogeneity issues also, though: some phones have multitouch and some don't, for example, and the processor speeds and screen sizes are different. Even for devices with the same sensors, the sensors can behave differently, e.g. what kind of control over the camera you have and what data it feeds you, and what the accelerometer's characteristics are.
Doesn't matter for a decent number of apps, but matters for, say, mobile games.
I dont think it matters at all. A smart programmer should easily be able to query the device for it's capabilities and then only enable the capabilities supported by the device. A simply example is the entirely free "Tricorder" app in the Android Marketplace (yeah, I'm a geek... what can I say?). It offers fake data (or no data) for sensors that dont exist on certain phones, and offers real data for sensors that do exist. Works with everything from the G1 up to the Droid. Having simple device profiles also allows for fine tuning the data collection to the specific sensors and phone. Also a pretty trivial step if one has access to the phone, or feedback from the community (which is pretty easy the way the Android Marketplace is set up for any paid app). Other apps, like the free FoxyRing allow calibrating how it reacts to certain data.
And if it's a paid app (especially as free apps have figured out all of the above), it behooves the developer to take those few extra steps. Since many of the apps get downloaded to the SD card, and then run an installer, it should be pretty simple to (a) install multitouch interface support or (b) install standard touch interface; while also determining which sensors it can use, etc and storing that data so it knows which to use and which dont exist on each run.
That aside, there are other problems I have not seen mentioned, for instance dead batteries. If you are a city driver, and barely get over engine idle rpm during your drive, constantly stopping and restarting your engine can drain your battery. There are times I've had to drive in NYC and been on a two way main street going against the flow of traffic lights, meaning I've gotten stuck at a bunch of traffic lights during my trip. As anyone who has had engine (or lack of fuel) problems has noticed, if one repeatedly tries to start their engine, the battery will eventually get below "restart power levels" - meaning a bunch of people stuck at a traffic light without enough power to restart their engine. Add a cold winter day into the mix and this definitely should apply. As it is, I have experienced "uber cold" days on my visits to upstate New York where it sounded like if I had two or three attempts to start my engine, I would be lucky. Fortunately, my car only requires one. But driving a few hundred feet, shutting it off and trying again, then repeating that 5-10 times in under a mile would probably run me into problems as the car wouldnt have been running long enough at high enough RPM (1800?) to (a) recharge the battery enough for another start at those temperatures and/or (b) heat the battery enough for it to be able to deliver more starts.
You are forgetting that it is much easier to start a warm engine, a cold engine does not engage for several cycles but a warm one often engages on the first piston stroke in any given cylinder. Actual battery drain would be much less than you'd expect, which would also reduce the amount of heat generated in the starter windings.. A car that has been running few minutes before hitting a stream of lights would do fine. Likewise, how many drivers in "uber cold" places do not idle their car a little while cleaning off snow and/or getting the interior heater blasting?
I am forgetting no such thing. Wake up in NYC on a very cold winter morning (there were enough this year), step into your car, drive the half block to the first traffic light without having warmed up your car like most people do when in a rush for work, and since the light is red, your car now turns off, engine still cold.
That aside, even a warm engine takes power to start. Do you realize that batteries are rated in the hundreds of CCAs? And alternators are rated at a lot less amps? It takes a bunch of power to turn an engine with an electric motor.
From the application:
Drivers who do switch off their engines may do so inefficiently. For example, a driver may switch off the engine, only to start it up a short time later. In such cases, more fuel may be consumed in restarting the engine.
So it seems like they're at least aware of the intricacies involved in maximizing fuel efficiency. Their idea seems to be that, if the signal is on a timer, they can use that information (which is unavailable to the driver) to maximize efficiency.
It is also unavailable to them in many cases, as there are still a bunch of mechanical, and electro-mechanical (but not computerized) timers that do not provide that data.
Then there's a matter of (the car) being able to determine what data to pay attention to. Is that signal from the traffic light I am approaching? The one I just passed? The one a block ahead?
Or of course, if it's just based on the assumption that the signal is on a timer and "gee, it's red" then there isnt a way to know how long it's been red. Is it a 2 minute wait, or is it about to change back to green?
Then there's the complexity added to the situation where many many traffic lights have road sensors now, which affect the timer cycle. Sadly, the better intersections to use such a technology are in the suburban areas and some few city areas. And many of those traffic lights fall into this category, making the application of this technology useless.
Now (going back to an earlier point in this post) if it's a matter of using this for "smart lights" that are computer controlled and can broadcast their status and timing, there's the added safety factor that I havent seen discussed; namely, if your car can read that data... so can you. How long before someone figures out what that data is, makes a mod and starts selling it? How many people will be looking at their "traffic light monitor thingy" watching the countdown to green and figure they'll "jump the green" - or watching the countdown to yellow and accelerate to make the light?
Without such technology, such situations already cause all sorts of accidents from people trying to gauge such things. Heck, I've watched someone wait for the cross traffic to get a red signal, and floor it into the intersection. Sadly for them (and more sadly for the other vehicle occupants), they forgot to take into account two things: (1) the cross-traffic turning light (that goes on after forward traffic is stopped), and (2) the fact that various lights have different delays between the red and cross-traffic green - which is something many drivers riding the yellow try to exploit. Fortunately, as the driver turning wasnt going fast, and the driver who jumped the light didnt have enough distance to gain any real speed, the accident was minor.
You raise interesting points, but as you say, you've only speculated. If you had done a Google search for "shutting off engine," you would have found http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/myths/idling.html provided to us by the state in which all things cause cancer CA and where emissions laws like those in North Dakota, where I'm from, might as well be viewed as permissive of pouring-gasoline-on-the-ground-and-lighting-it-aflame (no one checks our vehicle emissions). Long story short, CA found that 10 seconds is all it takes to get a return on your investment. The article also notes that not all gas is burned at idle. This is true and causes a non-stoichiometric reaction producing extra CO and unburned hydrocarbons. So apart from the decreased gasoline consumption, you spew out less gas too!
As a side note, I do this routinely and don't find it a great inconvenience.
Actually, I saw that and others with that figure. If you had kept on using Google you would notice that others disagree with that figure, including various vehicle manufacturers (who are more likely to have an accurate figure on their particular vehicle than a government agency that only tested 2 or 10 or 20 vehicles).
And I also noted that in my post: the fact that various government agencies and auto manufacturers disagreed - hence the suggestion that a lot mroe research in this area needed to be done.
And as someone else noted, though hybrids may be designed with constant restart in mind, pure fossil fuel vehicles are not.
Why would you need to shut off your car when making a delivery? It only takes a minute to hand the pizza, take the money, and go back to your car. Every pizza guy I've had leaves the car running.
Though I dont know about the OP, I have delivered pizzas in areas, that though not "slums" or "crime ridden" it still would be a bad idea to leave a car running while running into a townhouse/small apartment complex to deliver a pizza; if only for the simple fact that some delinquent may decide to take it for a joy ride.
Places like the Baltimore suburbs (and increasingly Long Island) have a lot of 2 story, townhouse-looking apartments that a pizza delivery to requires going up a set of stairs or into an enclosed vestibule where your car is out of your sight.
Hmmm, a computer at a railway crossing that can remotely disable a car's engine. To use the parlance of our times "What could possibly go wrong?"
Besides the possibilities of "what could possibly go wrong?" the simple fact is, I am hoping IBM has done their research on this.
Some car manufacturers claim that stopping and restarting the engine will use more gas, and cause increased wear on the starter. Others claim it will save as much as 10% in gas and not cause wear on the starter. I wonder where the truth really lies? Jeep recommends (for some of their vehicles) at least 1 minute of idle time expected before one turns off the engine to save gas. The government says (basically) "do it every time" - but the government also says that modern cars only need 20 seconds to warm up to a usable temperature in the winter. For those of you who have an actual temperature gauge in your car, you know that is not true... so I am not sure how accurate the rest of the government's data/speculation is (or quite simply, they did not test enough cars).
That aside, there are other problems I have not seen mentioned, for instance dead batteries. If you are a city driver, and barely get over engine idle rpm during your drive, constantly stopping and restarting your engine can drain your battery. There are times I've had to drive in NYC and been on a two way main street going against the flow of traffic lights, meaning I've gotten stuck at a bunch of traffic lights during my trip. As anyone who has had engine (or lack of fuel) problems has noticed, if one repeatedly tries to start their engine, the battery will eventually get below "restart power levels" - meaning a bunch of people stuck at a traffic light without enough power to restart their engine. Add a cold winter day into the mix and this definitely should apply. As it is, I have experienced "uber cold" days on my visits to upstate New York where it sounded like if I had two or three attempts to start my engine, I would be lucky. Fortunately, my car only requires one. But driving a few hundred feet, shutting it off and trying again, then repeating that 5-10 times in under a mile would probably run me into problems as the car wouldnt have been running long enough at high enough RPM (1800?) to (a) recharge the battery enough for another start at those temperatures and/or (b) heat the battery enough for it to be able to deliver more starts.
Also, unless starter technology has changed recently, the starter has a cool-down period between start attempts. Something mentioned in only a few car manuals simply because one starts the car, drives it, then shuts it off - usually exceeding the cooldown period. If you are needing to stop at a traffic light every city block, and restart your engine, then chances are, you aren't reaching the end of the cooldown cycle. The more the starter is turned on without reaching it, the hotter it gets. Anyone who has played with an electric motor knows what happens if they overheat.
And as for the engine wear part of the equation, as anyone who knows a little physics can tell you, starting an engine does wear it more than normal driving... something to do with overcoming inertia (ie: the massive flywheel, and the internal inertia of the engine itself). Yes, above-normal driving (and to a much lesser extent, normal driving) still has similar factors to overcome, but there are other differences involved, namely that the flywheel is before the torque converter or clutch and the torque converter/clutch "absorbs" some of the "stand-still" force being overcome in driving/accelerating (ie: not as jarring to the engine - in comparison to "wrenching" a standing still flywheel into motion).
And of course, all of the above could entirely be speculation... but that's not really the point that matters... the point that matters is, it's all based off one or more combinations of vehicle manufacturer information, various studies on the matter, and various real world applications of the situation (cold s