How do you come up with signals that not only constructively and destructively interfere in precisely the right spot in precisely the right way to deliver data to a device, but also for those same signals to simultaneously interfere at other points to deliver different data?
Designing radio signals that will interfere with one another in just the right way takes complex mathematics and careful coordination among the different DIDO transmitters. "The computational requirements are very large, but we solved that by using a cloud server," says Perlman.
Oh! The cloud. I thought he might dodge the question with some hand-waving. But he's got the cloud on it.
Where do I sign up? And how do I make sure the guy sitting next to me isn't stealing my signal?
HL7, CDA, and a national private network. Problem solved. Yes, it'll be expensive - but you don't need to "define" anything because everything you need is defined already.
I was just thinking the same thing, particularly in response to the posters writing that GPs and hospitals have gone forward with their own computerized system that are now not interoperable.
For those who don't know, HL7 includes, among other things, an XML schema for health care information. Let each office or organization build their own system--with a list of 'best practices' from the NHS to reduce reinventing the wheel--and use the existing standard for inter-org communications.
Given that these are healthcare-related data with personal identification information, if the 70% covered by the trivial system does not include security, then there's good reason to hold out for the 99.99% solution (no complex system is ever 100%) rather than use the 70% solution in the interim.
I have three friends who are accomplished novelists. Two of them have cut off all Internet access to their homes. The other leaves his devices behind and sits in an unconnected cafe with a pen and a stack of paper for several hours a day. They know that even their impressive abilities to concentrate can't compete with a connected computer.
This guy comes up with a preposterous thesis and declares anyone who doesn't fit in with his world view is a loser. "If you're not trying to do 5 different digital things at a time, it's because you've given up, not because you actually want to concentrate on a single task."
He also ignores all the evidence that we aren't as good at multitasking as we thing we are.
Our culture, especially within business, is, however, very hostile to the idea of using progress in production efficiency to produce a little more with fewer labour inputs rather than a lot more with constant labour inputs. Negotiating your salary with a potential employer is fine. Try negotiating your hours and it'll be considered unacceptable in most industries. For most people the one thing you're not allowed to buy with your increasing income is extra leisure time.
Huh? Employers aren't likely to offer you a 30-hr work week instead of 40, at the same salary, because you're working more efficiently. But they will fire the guy sitting next to you, because you can the work of 2 people in a 50-hr week. Business has absolutely embraced the idea of producing the same (or a little) more with less labor. They just do it by cutting jobs rather than cutting amount of work from each employee.
As for buying extra leisure time, isn't that what I'm doing when I buy a car to use in place of public transportation? Or when I move closer to my job to reduce commuting time? Or purchase a dish washer vs. a wash board? Or pay some one to mow my lawn?
With video quality, the relevant technologies for modern techniques are patented. This means...
...competing companies have incentive to innovate and build on their existing work to compete with the patented technologies, so the state of the art is fast to advance.
I know that if I owned a large company, I'd try to keep as much as possible in-house and expand the company rather than use third-parties. Greater control, greater profit, and other services you can offer other companies. If I were Google, I *would* own a motherboard manufacturer by now, and be churning out my own custom-built PC's. I probably wouldn't own a processor manufacturer (economies of scale again), but I'd almost certainly be doing lots of things in-house by expanding the scope of the company, to the point where I'd be making my own racking, basic datacentre equipment, etc. What better advert than "Google only uses Google motherboards/UPS/rack/cables/switches/etc. - which will be available for sale next year"?
Every time you employ a third party, you are paying the amount that they have to charge to a) do the job you want, b) do lots of other jobs for other people, c) hiring people to do all those jobs permanently, pay pensions, h&s, etc. and d) make a profit and expand their own business. Do it yourself, and you save all of d) and quite a bit of the others to get exactly what you want.
Would you make your own toilet paper for the bathrooms? And build your own office furniture? You think Google's best use of resources is to buy coffee farms to supply beans for the office coffee maker?
Do you do that now? An an individual, you are a large company. (Billions of individual cells, on top of the all consultants you have working in-house (bacteria, viruses).) Do you grow your own food? Did you build your own computer from the ground up? Did you build your own car? Do you supply your own electricity or pay someone else to do it?
To put it another way, what if everyone thought the same way? What if we all thought, I should do my own search engine, email, web ads, etc. Why should I support Google's profits? What if everyone did that, then where would Google be?
As far as the ConocoPhillips move, this is shuffling papers. In a few years, the new executives will need to put their mark on the company, and they'll discover they can reduce duplication and improve profits by combining companies.
And a few years after that, another round of new executives will decide the exact opposite.
Not to mention that a windfall like that has a very real possibility of *reducing* your quality of life. If you can't keep your mouth shut (or live in a state that doesn't allow blind trusts to claim lottery prizes), you'll have to deal with the inevitable deluge of "cousins," "friends," and lawsuits.
I don't think blind trust means what you think it means.
Putting your lottery winnings in a blind trust doesn't mean no one knows you won it; it means you don't know how it is invested.
Loses and expenses can be taken against winnings. I'm not sure if that includes the cost of the winning ticket, but let's assume not.
If the average winning ticket is worth $1000 (a number I just pulled out of my butt after having RTFA in the paper yesterday; I don't recall if it gives an actual average pay-out per ticket), $280,000 means 280 winning tickets. Which also means 99,720 losing tickets.
At $2 per ticket, they pay taxes on $280,000 - 199,440 = 80,560.
Basically, they're only paying taxes on profit, not income, just like any other business.
Since when is playing by the same rules set out for everyone else "finding a way to game the system"?
Good luck with restoring your contact list then buddy.... maybe you keep a hardcopy backup in your tinfoil hat?
BTW nice reading comprehension... no one ever said the phone was "bricked", hell even the summary says you can still use it as a phone and send texts or even email through SMTP / POP / IMAP on your data connection. You will lose your contacts though on a factory reset and the only way I know for sure to get them back is to *gasp* sync the phone to your gmail account! You know, kind of like we have been saying.
What are you talking about? I have an android phone. I had the contacts from my previous phone transferred to the android phone. I have a gmail account.
If I can't access gmail, why would I need to do a factory reset on my phone? How would I lose the contacts on my phone?
The post I was replying to, "Damn, this is the FIRST TIME I've wished I'd standardized on iPhones instead of Androids. Never heard of apple (or even MS) basically bricking phones," seems to imply this person is concerned about Google bricking an android phone.
I'm not the one with the tinfoil hat. I'm also not the one who needs to work on reading comprehension. How would syncing my phone and gmail account restore the contacts on my phone, IF I NEVER SYNCED THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE?
The contacts on my phone are not the same as is my gmail. The contacts in my gmail are not the same as on my phone. I don't call email addresses and I don't send email to phone numbers.
You are missing the fact that your iphone won't lose all contact information if you switch to a different gmail account. All contact information on android phones are synced with your gmail account as contacts.
I haven't tried with a locked gmail account but it is quite possible that you could not add or edit contact information on android if it can not sync with the associated gmail account anymore.
No, it isn't. The contacts on MY android phone and not synced with MY gmail account. This is FUD. It may be an option to integrate gmail and other Google accounts with Android, but it is certainly not a requirement.
This idea of an android phone being 'bricked' by Google seems to rest on the idea that gmail is required to use an android phone. I don't believe that to be the case.
Ah. Dark side means "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it."
I think of it more as, Dark Side means, "think about why you are wishing for a particular outcome; do the people pointing you towards a particular outcome have a hidden agenda?"
The one before that has gotten us into several badly defined wars, and bailed out banks which should have died due to their bad business policy.
For the most part what the current president has done was strictly reactionary for the given situation (wars, economy, etc.). In the same situation, with the same Congress, I don't think the world would be a much different place if McCain had won.
As for the previous president, in the end we got expansions of the size of government (in terms of jobs), the size of government (in terms of the economy), the size of government (in terms of citizens' lives and personal privacy). And this was with the guy from the supposedly small-government party.
Think things would have been much different if the guy from the supposedly big-government party had won?
Does the war in Iraq happen if Gore carries his home state? Probably not. But what will have the bigger lasting effect on the American people: the particular names at the top in Baghdad oppressing the Iraqi people? Or the deconstruction of the American economy to deal with overwhelming federal debt?
I say the debt. And I say, that debt happens anyway, even without the war in Iraq.
I'm not a conspiracy nut (which I realize is the first thing I would say if I was a conspiracy nut), but just look at the facts of the previous presidency.
Under Bush we a new cabinet-level department in the federal government, expansion of socialized medicine, the unprecedented bail out. They were actually loading up cargo planes with pallets full of cash to send to Iraq.
The one common thread in every policy enacted under Bush, the guiding principle of the Republican Party--if I was to divine such a thing from past actions--is to downplay to the extreme the cost of any action, and then spend spend spend! like crazy when given the chance.
If you ask Republicans, they say they are for smaller federal government, more responsible economic policies, balanced budgets, lower debt. Then they vote for the exact opposite. How do you explain that?
Are the majority of Republicans idiots, who just keep voting for the wrong people? Were the Jedi idiots, who just kept fighting for a sith lord?
I'm sure the Jedi did not think they were idiots, but look how that turned. I'm sure Republicans don't think they are idiots, but how is that working out?
And before the Republicans jump on me, I could say the very same about Democrats. And that's my point. When you realize the same sith load is behind the empire and the rebels, the question of "which side are you on" takes on a new meaning.
The powers-that-be, both Republican and Democratic, are purposely destroying the US economy so it can be rebuilt, the same way the galactic federation was destroyed to be rebuilt as an empire.
So to go back to the Tea Party/Jedi analogy: if that is the case, if both "sides" in the US government are both working towards the same end, where does the Tea Party fit in?
It's more reasonable to use your real google accounts with gmail, calendar, picasa, etc on the phones, where it's actually USEFUL, and limit G+ to the fake google account on a pc.
(And after this brouhaha, to find non-google solutions for your phone data.)
Damn, this is the FIRST TIME I've wished I'd standardized on iPhones instead of Androids. Never heard of apple (or even MS) basically bricking phones.
Why? You've never heard of Google bricking an Android phone either.
I having a hard time finding the story here. I don't have an iPhone, but I assume you could use an iPhone to work with Gmail. What would happen in that case if Google closed your Gmail account? Your iPhone would still do everything it does, except work with your closed Gmail account.
So what happens with an Android phone and Google closes your Gmail account? Your iPhone would still do everything it does, except work with your closed Gmail account.
By "Dark Side" I mean, widespread implementation of Tea Party ideals in US government is not in the best interest of most members of the Tea Party, any more than victory by the Empire was in the long term interests of the Jedi.
My side is that those who benefited most from the policies that resulted in the huge government debt should play a proportional role in paying off that debt.
Another aspect of the Jedi comparison which did not occur to me originally but I think is interesting is eventually you reach a point where it doesn't matter who wins. In the movies, the Jedi defeat the rebels and the robot armies, and we know how that worked out for the Jedi. Would the fate of the Jedi been different if the rebels had defeated the Empire?
I'm sure most Tea Party folks are middle class, small-c conservative, not anarchists but don't want the government in folks' personal lives either. Call me a cynic if you will, but how much do you think the winner of the next presidential election will effect those people's lives?
I think a better analogy is, the Tea Party is like the Jedi in the Star Wars prequels.
For the most part, they are earnest and mean well but not too bright. In the end, they will win. And only then will they realize they've been working for the dark side the whole time. Only then will they realize the disastrous conclusion of their campaign.
And of course, by then it will be too late.
If it makes you feel any better, just like the younglings at Jedi HQ, the Tea Party folks will be the first up against the wall when the time comes.
Sure, to some extent this covers fanbois and sheeple, but the full 35%.
For example, if included in the survey my wife would be in that 35%. She's looking for a smart phone that will also replace her iPod. She also doesn't get a new phone every other day, so when she does upgrade, she goes to the latest and greatest.
If the iPhone 5 was a year off, she'd just go ahead and get an iPhone 4. But since she expects the 5 in September, she's going to wait.
The potentially faulty assumption she is making is not that having the newest iPhone is a social symbol, but that the new iPhone will be at least as good as the old iPhone.
Why is it so strange or sad folks would want the new iPhone sight unseen? If you felt that way about the first iPhone, yeah then you might be a fanboi. But at this point, we know what the iPhone does, what its weaknesses are, what level of changes we see from one generation to the next.
It's like asking if you'd be interested in dating a supermodel's sister, sight unseen. Not quite the same as asking if you're interested a random woman pulled off the street.
I did 2 summers at the gifted program at Blair Academy in NJ. Rather than a single-subject experience like math camp or computer camp, it was more like college for kids.
There was a wide variety of subjects available, most at the college level. And don't recall prerequisites being an issue. In the real world I was a math/science nerd, but at Blair I got to take things like creative writing.
But I think more important than the academic aspect (for me) was the social aspect. With everyone living on campus with minimal adult supervision, it was also like college socially (without alcohol). And since it wasn't camp for a specific subject, we didn't have the gender-bias seen in certain subjects. I had many good times with the nerd girls of summer.
Although it was only for a handful of weeks over 2 summers, the relationships have been lasting. I'm more in touch with friends from nerd camp than from high school.
If you and I follow Lady Gaga and Paul Mc Cartney, and both of them publish a new tweet, you see Lady Gags new message before Pauls, and I see Pauls before Lady Gagas.... who the fuck cares?
If the list of feeds I follow includes Lady Gaga, but the list of Lady Gaga followers does not include me, then when I check my account, it looks like I should get Gaga's tweets. But when Gaga tweets, it won't get sent to me.
Big volume NoSQL DBs have one goal: they are eventually consistent.
Ah, I get it now. It's perfect for something like Twitter, where your users are your product and your only goal is to maximize your number of users. This allows Twitter to handle the maximum number of feeds and subscribers by ignoring quality.
But for a service where the users are the customers, that is if I don't deliver quality data I don't get paid, this doesn't work at all.
And I don't mean that sarcastically. For something like Facebook or Twitter, "eventually consistent" is good enough. Of course, that's only if I don't think about how Twitter is becoming part of the emergency warning system. If the campus PD are sending out an alert because a Columbine or Virginia Tech type situation, I'd like to know sooner than "eventually".
But if my 'friend' needs to be at the gym in 26 minutes, yeah I can wait for that news flash.
If a kid learns that falling off a high place hurts, he'll be less likely to do so in the future. Its how people learn.
Indeed. A good playground should contain elements where the kids can evaluate the risk of doing something, but protect them from serious injuries if they misjudge. A kid should be able to get banged up a bit, but not die or lose a limb.
WTF is that shiate? How can they evaluate the risk if they are protected from the consequence? Do you suggest they read a white paper?
What's an example of where NoSQL is useful? I'm not a DBA or SQL guru, but I do work with traditional relational databases, and I'm having trouble thinking of a scenario where I'd want NoSQL.
I did a little research and the example I found was Twitter, and it sounded like a mess. You have a list of feeds with their followers, and a list of followers with the feeds each follows. It sounds nice for finding who follows a feed or for finding which feeds someone is following.
The issue I see is the duplication of information. Every time someone changes which feeds they follow, the number of data updates to make is doubled. And what happens when the 2 lists get out of sync? How much extra resources are spent making sure the feeds-to-followers list is consistent with the followers-to-feeds? Any time you store a piece of information in 2 places, it's just a matter of time until the 2 don't agree.
If that's poster child for NoSQL, I can see why some people are skeptical.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple is intuitive, stylish, and their software just works. They think differently.
Are saying iTunes is either not software or not from Apple? Because it certainly is not intuitive, stylish, not just works
How do you come up with signals that not only constructively and destructively interfere in precisely the right spot in precisely the right way to deliver data to a device, but also for those same signals to simultaneously interfere at other points to deliver different data?
Designing radio signals that will interfere with one another in just the right way takes complex mathematics and careful coordination among the different DIDO transmitters. "The computational requirements are very large, but we solved that by using a cloud server," says Perlman.
Oh! The cloud. I thought he might dodge the question with some hand-waving. But he's got the cloud on it.
Where do I sign up? And how do I make sure the guy sitting next to me isn't stealing my signal?
HL7, CDA, and a national private network. Problem solved. Yes, it'll be expensive - but you don't need to "define" anything because everything you need is defined already.
I was just thinking the same thing, particularly in response to the posters writing that GPs and hospitals have gone forward with their own computerized system that are now not interoperable.
For those who don't know, HL7 includes, among other things, an XML schema for health care information. Let each office or organization build their own system--with a list of 'best practices' from the NHS to reduce reinventing the wheel--and use the existing standard for inter-org communications.
Given that these are healthcare-related data with personal identification information, if the 70% covered by the trivial system does not include security, then there's good reason to hold out for the 99.99% solution (no complex system is ever 100%) rather than use the 70% solution in the interim.
The article may be anti-multitasking, but there is a definite streak of resignation.
"Almost no one does just one thing anymore. The screens won't let us."
His friends "can't compete with a connected computer," no one can avoid multitasking, " the screens won't let us."
You show you're anti-multitasking by not multitasking, not by multitasking but complaining about it.
I have three friends who are accomplished novelists. Two of them have cut off all Internet access to their homes. The other leaves his devices behind and sits in an unconnected cafe with a pen and a stack of paper for several hours a day. They know that even their impressive abilities to concentrate can't compete with a connected computer.
This guy comes up with a preposterous thesis and declares anyone who doesn't fit in with his world view is a loser. "If you're not trying to do 5 different digital things at a time, it's because you've given up, not because you actually want to concentrate on a single task."
He also ignores all the evidence that we aren't as good at multitasking as we thing we are.
Our culture, especially within business, is, however, very hostile to the idea of using progress in production efficiency to produce a little more with fewer labour inputs rather than a lot more with constant labour inputs. Negotiating your salary with a potential employer is fine. Try negotiating your hours and it'll be considered unacceptable in most industries. For most people the one thing you're not allowed to buy with your increasing income is extra leisure time.
Huh? Employers aren't likely to offer you a 30-hr work week instead of 40, at the same salary, because you're working more efficiently. But they will fire the guy sitting next to you, because you can the work of 2 people in a 50-hr week. Business has absolutely embraced the idea of producing the same (or a little) more with less labor. They just do it by cutting jobs rather than cutting amount of work from each employee.
As for buying extra leisure time, isn't that what I'm doing when I buy a car to use in place of public transportation? Or when I move closer to my job to reduce commuting time? Or purchase a dish washer vs. a wash board? Or pay some one to mow my lawn?
With video quality, the relevant technologies for modern techniques are patented. This means...
...competing companies have incentive to innovate and build on their existing work to compete with the patented technologies, so the state of the art is fast to advance.
I know that if I owned a large company, I'd try to keep as much as possible in-house and expand the company rather than use third-parties. Greater control, greater profit, and other services you can offer other companies. If I were Google, I *would* own a motherboard manufacturer by now, and be churning out my own custom-built PC's. I probably wouldn't own a processor manufacturer (economies of scale again), but I'd almost certainly be doing lots of things in-house by expanding the scope of the company, to the point where I'd be making my own racking, basic datacentre equipment, etc. What better advert than "Google only uses Google motherboards/UPS/rack/cables/switches/etc. - which will be available for sale next year"?
Every time you employ a third party, you are paying the amount that they have to charge to a) do the job you want, b) do lots of other jobs for other people, c) hiring people to do all those jobs permanently, pay pensions, h&s, etc. and d) make a profit and expand their own business. Do it yourself, and you save all of d) and quite a bit of the others to get exactly what you want.
Would you make your own toilet paper for the bathrooms? And build your own office furniture? You think Google's best use of resources is to buy coffee farms to supply beans for the office coffee maker?
Do you do that now? An an individual, you are a large company. (Billions of individual cells, on top of the all consultants you have working in-house (bacteria, viruses).) Do you grow your own food? Did you build your own computer from the ground up? Did you build your own car? Do you supply your own electricity or pay someone else to do it?
To put it another way, what if everyone thought the same way? What if we all thought, I should do my own search engine, email, web ads, etc. Why should I support Google's profits? What if everyone did that, then where would Google be?
As far as the ConocoPhillips move, this is shuffling papers. In a few years, the new executives will need to put their mark on the company, and they'll discover they can reduce duplication and improve profits by combining companies.
And a few years after that, another round of new executives will decide the exact opposite.
Not to mention that a windfall like that has a very real possibility of *reducing* your quality of life. If you can't keep your mouth shut (or live in a state that doesn't allow blind trusts to claim lottery prizes), you'll have to deal with the inevitable deluge of "cousins," "friends," and lawsuits.
I don't think blind trust means what you think it means.
Putting your lottery winnings in a blind trust doesn't mean no one knows you won it; it means you don't know how it is invested.
Loses and expenses can be taken against winnings. I'm not sure if that includes the cost of the winning ticket, but let's assume not.
If the average winning ticket is worth $1000 (a number I just pulled out of my butt after having RTFA in the paper yesterday; I don't recall if it gives an actual average pay-out per ticket), $280,000 means 280 winning tickets. Which also means 99,720 losing tickets.
At $2 per ticket, they pay taxes on $280,000 - 199,440 = 80,560.
Basically, they're only paying taxes on profit, not income, just like any other business.
Since when is playing by the same rules set out for everyone else "finding a way to game the system"?
Good luck with restoring your contact list then buddy.... maybe you keep a hardcopy backup in your tinfoil hat?
BTW nice reading comprehension... no one ever said the phone was "bricked", hell even the summary says you can still use it as a phone and send texts or even email through SMTP / POP / IMAP on your data connection. You will lose your contacts though on a factory reset and the only way I know for sure to get them back is to *gasp* sync the phone to your gmail account! You know, kind of like we have been saying.
What are you talking about? I have an android phone. I had the contacts from my previous phone transferred to the android phone. I have a gmail account.
If I can't access gmail, why would I need to do a factory reset on my phone? How would I lose the contacts on my phone?
The post I was replying to, "Damn, this is the FIRST TIME I've wished I'd standardized on iPhones instead of Androids. Never heard of apple (or even MS) basically bricking phones," seems to imply this person is concerned about Google bricking an android phone.
I'm not the one with the tinfoil hat. I'm also not the one who needs to work on reading comprehension. How would syncing my phone and gmail account restore the contacts on my phone, IF I NEVER SYNCED THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE?
The contacts on my phone are not the same as is my gmail. The contacts in my gmail are not the same as on my phone. I don't call email addresses and I don't send email to phone numbers.
You are missing the fact that your iphone won't lose all contact information if you switch to a different gmail account. All contact information on android phones are synced with your gmail account as contacts.
I haven't tried with a locked gmail account but it is quite possible that you could not add or edit contact information on android if it can not sync with the associated gmail account anymore.
No, it isn't. The contacts on MY android phone and not synced with MY gmail account. This is FUD. It may be an option to integrate gmail and other Google accounts with Android, but it is certainly not a requirement.
This idea of an android phone being 'bricked' by Google seems to rest on the idea that gmail is required to use an android phone. I don't believe that to be the case.
Ah. Dark side means "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it."
I think of it more as, Dark Side means, "think about why you are wishing for a particular outcome; do the people pointing you towards a particular outcome have a hidden agenda?"
The one before that has gotten us into several badly defined wars, and bailed out banks which should have died due to their bad business policy.
For the most part what the current president has done was strictly reactionary for the given situation (wars, economy, etc.). In the same situation, with the same Congress, I don't think the world would be a much different place if McCain had won.
As for the previous president, in the end we got expansions of the size of government (in terms of jobs), the size of government (in terms of the economy), the size of government (in terms of citizens' lives and personal privacy). And this was with the guy from the supposedly small-government party.
Think things would have been much different if the guy from the supposedly big-government party had won?
Does the war in Iraq happen if Gore carries his home state? Probably not. But what will have the bigger lasting effect on the American people: the particular names at the top in Baghdad oppressing the Iraqi people? Or the deconstruction of the American economy to deal with overwhelming federal debt?
I say the debt. And I say, that debt happens anyway, even without the war in Iraq.
I'm not a conspiracy nut (which I realize is the first thing I would say if I was a conspiracy nut), but just look at the facts of the previous presidency.
Under Bush we a new cabinet-level department in the federal government, expansion of socialized medicine, the unprecedented bail out. They were actually loading up cargo planes with pallets full of cash to send to Iraq.
The one common thread in every policy enacted under Bush, the guiding principle of the Republican Party--if I was to divine such a thing from past actions--is to downplay to the extreme the cost of any action, and then spend spend spend! like crazy when given the chance.
If you ask Republicans, they say they are for smaller federal government, more responsible economic policies, balanced budgets, lower debt. Then they vote for the exact opposite. How do you explain that?
Are the majority of Republicans idiots, who just keep voting for the wrong people? Were the Jedi idiots, who just kept fighting for a sith lord?
I'm sure the Jedi did not think they were idiots, but look how that turned. I'm sure Republicans don't think they are idiots, but how is that working out?
And before the Republicans jump on me, I could say the very same about Democrats. And that's my point. When you realize the same sith load is behind the empire and the rebels, the question of "which side are you on" takes on a new meaning.
The powers-that-be, both Republican and Democratic, are purposely destroying the US economy so it can be rebuilt, the same way the galactic federation was destroyed to be rebuilt as an empire.
So to go back to the Tea Party/Jedi analogy: if that is the case, if both "sides" in the US government are both working towards the same end, where does the Tea Party fit in?
It's more reasonable to use your real google accounts with gmail, calendar, picasa, etc on the phones, where it's actually USEFUL, and limit G+ to the fake google account on a pc.
(And after this brouhaha, to find non-google solutions for your phone data.)
Damn, this is the FIRST TIME I've wished I'd standardized on iPhones instead of Androids. Never heard of apple (or even MS) basically bricking phones.
Why? You've never heard of Google bricking an Android phone either.
I having a hard time finding the story here. I don't have an iPhone, but I assume you could use an iPhone to work with Gmail. What would happen in that case if Google closed your Gmail account? Your iPhone would still do everything it does, except work with your closed Gmail account.
So what happens with an Android phone and Google closes your Gmail account? Your iPhone would still do everything it does, except work with your closed Gmail account.
What am I missing?
By "Dark Side" I mean, widespread implementation of Tea Party ideals in US government is not in the best interest of most members of the Tea Party, any more than victory by the Empire was in the long term interests of the Jedi.
My side is that those who benefited most from the policies that resulted in the huge government debt should play a proportional role in paying off that debt.
Another aspect of the Jedi comparison which did not occur to me originally but I think is interesting is eventually you reach a point where it doesn't matter who wins. In the movies, the Jedi defeat the rebels and the robot armies, and we know how that worked out for the Jedi. Would the fate of the Jedi been different if the rebels had defeated the Empire?
I'm sure most Tea Party folks are middle class, small-c conservative, not anarchists but don't want the government in folks' personal lives either. Call me a cynic if you will, but how much do you think the winner of the next presidential election will effect those people's lives?
I think a better analogy is, the Tea Party is like the Jedi in the Star Wars prequels.
For the most part, they are earnest and mean well but not too bright. In the end, they will win. And only then will they realize they've been working for the dark side the whole time. Only then will they realize the disastrous conclusion of their campaign.
And of course, by then it will be too late.
If it makes you feel any better, just like the younglings at Jedi HQ, the Tea Party folks will be the first up against the wall when the time comes.
Sure, to some extent this covers fanbois and sheeple, but the full 35%.
For example, if included in the survey my wife would be in that 35%. She's looking for a smart phone that will also replace her iPod. She also doesn't get a new phone every other day, so when she does upgrade, she goes to the latest and greatest.
If the iPhone 5 was a year off, she'd just go ahead and get an iPhone 4. But since she expects the 5 in September, she's going to wait.
The potentially faulty assumption she is making is not that having the newest iPhone is a social symbol, but that the new iPhone will be at least as good as the old iPhone.
Why is it so strange or sad folks would want the new iPhone sight unseen? If you felt that way about the first iPhone, yeah then you might be a fanboi. But at this point, we know what the iPhone does, what its weaknesses are, what level of changes we see from one generation to the next.
It's like asking if you'd be interested in dating a supermodel's sister, sight unseen. Not quite the same as asking if you're interested a random woman pulled off the street.
In my dabbling in graduate courses, I found many CS students who couldn't software engineer themselves out of a bag.
So? You might as well complain about students in cooking school who can't farm.
There have been other cases, but really, isn't once enough?
I did 2 summers at the gifted program at Blair Academy in NJ. Rather than a single-subject experience like math camp or computer camp, it was more like college for kids.
There was a wide variety of subjects available, most at the college level. And don't recall prerequisites being an issue. In the real world I was a math/science nerd, but at Blair I got to take things like creative writing.
But I think more important than the academic aspect (for me) was the social aspect. With everyone living on campus with minimal adult supervision, it was also like college socially (without alcohol). And since it wasn't camp for a specific subject, we didn't have the gender-bias seen in certain subjects. I had many good times with the nerd girls of summer.
Although it was only for a handful of weeks over 2 summers, the relationships have been lasting. I'm more in touch with friends from nerd camp than from high school.
If you and I follow Lady Gaga and Paul Mc Cartney, and both of them publish a new tweet, you see Lady Gags new message before Pauls, and I see Pauls before Lady Gagas .... who the fuck cares?
If the list of feeds I follow includes Lady Gaga, but the list of Lady Gaga followers does not include me, then when I check my account, it looks like I should get Gaga's tweets. But when Gaga tweets, it won't get sent to me.
Big volume NoSQL DBs have one goal: they are eventually consistent.
Ah, I get it now. It's perfect for something like Twitter, where your users are your product and your only goal is to maximize your number of users. This allows Twitter to handle the maximum number of feeds and subscribers by ignoring quality.
But for a service where the users are the customers, that is if I don't deliver quality data I don't get paid, this doesn't work at all.
And I don't mean that sarcastically. For something like Facebook or Twitter, "eventually consistent" is good enough. Of course, that's only if I don't think about how Twitter is becoming part of the emergency warning system. If the campus PD are sending out an alert because a Columbine or Virginia Tech type situation, I'd like to know sooner than "eventually".
But if my 'friend' needs to be at the gym in 26 minutes, yeah I can wait for that news flash.
If a kid learns that falling off a high place hurts, he'll be less likely to do so in the future. Its how people learn.
Indeed. A good playground should contain elements where the kids can evaluate the risk of doing something, but protect them from serious injuries if they misjudge. A kid should be able to get banged up a bit, but not die or lose a limb.
WTF is that shiate? How can they evaluate the risk if they are protected from the consequence? Do you suggest they read a white paper?
What's an example of where NoSQL is useful? I'm not a DBA or SQL guru, but I do work with traditional relational databases, and I'm having trouble thinking of a scenario where I'd want NoSQL.
I did a little research and the example I found was Twitter, and it sounded like a mess. You have a list of feeds with their followers, and a list of followers with the feeds each follows. It sounds nice for finding who follows a feed or for finding which feeds someone is following.
The issue I see is the duplication of information. Every time someone changes which feeds they follow, the number of data updates to make is doubled. And what happens when the 2 lists get out of sync? How much extra resources are spent making sure the feeds-to-followers list is consistent with the followers-to-feeds? Any time you store a piece of information in 2 places, it's just a matter of time until the 2 don't agree.
If that's poster child for NoSQL, I can see why some people are skeptical.
Sounds the issue is your choice of "friends", not any technical issue with skype or SMS.