Games aren't the only thing that will mentally challenge someone...hell, most iPad games don't.
If you want an inexpensive tablet-format device that will mentally challenge her, get a Kindle or a Nook. They're great for elderly people because they allow the font to be increased for easy viewing. And with the tight integration with Amazon/B&N, she wouldn't have to get out of bed to order new books. The Kindle even has some pretty fun games, though the eInk screen makes the interface crap (Nook might have them to...I don't own one, so I can't say.)
Best of all, it fits in the "cheap" category coming in at roughly 1/5 the price of the cheapest iPad. And it they need charging so infrequently, you could do it whenever you visit so that she doesn't have to worry about doing it herself.
BTW how long do you think handset makers and carriers should be forced to update phone software for?
Let's start with the length of the cell phone contract and work from there. If they're going to sell 2-year contracts, you should reasonably expect that the phone you buy will receive updates during that time. Once the contract expires, people can base their decision to get a new phone or switch carriers on the lack of updates. But when you're still under contract, you've got no choice but to accept the crappy situation, and that's not right.
This story is pointing out a legitimate problem with Android. As of yet, not one single iPhone has been sold that has not been supported for the entire 2-year contract. Meanwhile, 7 of the listed Android phones never ran the latest version of the OS, even when they were sold. I don't really take sides in the Android vs. iOS argument, but this is an area that Google really needs to address.
Since the behavior that you use annoys so many others because it's so easy to do accidentally, why not require it to be an explicit action rather than an implicit one governed solely by mouse accuracy. Wouldn't it make sense to tie the tear-off functionality to a modifier key such that dragging merely re-ordered but SHIFT+drag (since SHIFT+click on a link opens the link in a new window) separated it into its own window?
Usability is all about making the most common usage patterns natural and the rest easy enough for people to adapt to them. For advanced users like you, I don't see a problem with requiring a slightly more complex action if it will make the product less annoying for the majority of users.
The good old days will be 140 years ago, instead of just 60.
I know this is a somewhat off-the-cuff statement, but I think there's profound implications of this. With people living longer, our connection to historical events will become that much stronger. Growing up in the 70s and 80s, I view events from the depression era on very differently from events prior to that. WWII feels much more concrete to me than the Civil War because I've met and talked to so many survivors (both military and those that fled Germany) and heard so many personal stories. If Civil War veterans had lived to an average age of 150, I would have met some of them and see those events through a much different lens than I do now. If the founding fathers had lived to that age, there would a lot of us who could have heard first-hand accounts from great-great-great grandparents about personal encounters with those men...given how often we debate what their intent was when writing the constitution and creating our governments, it would make those discussions a lot more interesting.
It's fascinating to think about, for me, the implications of a world where events take that much longer to get put into the historical archive where they're no longer part of living memory. Would we, as a society, be more aware of our history and less likely to repeat past mistakes? Would people behave differently when the requirements for and results of leaving your mark on society change so radically? And would we spend a larger part of our lives studying what is currently known and delay entering our useful part of our lives or would we be just as quick to move from learning to doing?
On a less profound note, we'd need to come up with a better system for referring to ancestors. Having to say or write great-great-great so frequently would get annoying.
If you're making a superior product, then there's no reason to do the other
Sure there is...people don't make purchasing decisions based solely on quality. Otherwise, no one would by anything from Walmart and we wouldn't import everything from China. The free (as in Beer) nature of Android lends itself to outcompeting iOS even if iOS is a superior product since iOS has to be better by a healthy margin to justify the difference in price. Note I'm not arguing that iOS is better, just that if it were it wouldn't necessarily be enough of an advantage over Android.
Price is an important consideration and, from Apple's perspective, using their patents could be a way of protecting them from having to compete solely on a price and specs basis. Android handset manufacturers have always been able to cram more impressive specs into the phone for a lower price than Apple. Apple likely sees iOS as a competitive advantage that allows them to sell hardware for more than they would otherwise be able to. If Android copies iOS (again, not saying they have), Apple may feel that it diminishes that competitive advantage and that they need to use their patents to protect that advantage.
From the sound of it, it decouples the service call from the service end point and allows the user to select which end point they'd like to use. Rather than making a call to a specific service provider, the page simply registers that it'd like some intent to be completed and then dispatches it. The user then gets to pick from the list of sites/apps that have registered their ability to handle that type of intent.
According to this page, you've got until July, 2012 before they stop supporting 1.6. When 1.6 was released, they continued to release fixes for 1.5, so I would assume they'll do the same for the 1.6 to 1.7 transition.
Some of the things on your list can't be done automatically without possibly causing problems.
You can't rewrite inefficient selectors or remove CSS rules because classes can be applied and DOM elements inserted dynamically in JavaScript. Unless you're going to do fairly complex analysis of the JavaScript on the page to determine that it's not changing classes on DOM elements or adding/removing to/from the DOM.
You also can't easily move JavaScript to the bottom of the page without possibly breaking things. There's a reason rendering stops when it hits JavaScript code...it's because document.write can introduce HTML code that needs to be added at the point the script executes. You can check whether a script uses document.write directly, but JavaScript is dynamic enough to give you quite a few ways of invoking that function (eval, document["write"], etc.) You could run it through a browser to determine if document.write ever gets called, but even if that passed, there's no way to ensure that the JavaScript isn't browser specific.
You can recommend those steps to developers because they can ensure that those rare occurrences aren't happening, but you can't apply them automatically without at least telling developers so they can add some HTTP header or other means for opting out of that functionality.
In my experience, you don't really have to worry about the types of SQL that MySQL won't accept or the specialized syntax that MySQL will accept. The biggest pain is worrying about the SQL that MySQL will accept and choose the stupidest execution plan possible. This leads to unintuitive queries designed around MySQL's shortcomings.
For example, one hack we had to employ regularly was to select only the columns from a table that were part of the WHERE or ORDER BY clauses and then join back against the original table once the results had been filtered and sorted. When we just selected normally from the table, MySQL would retrieve the entire rows and then determine that the amount of data it had to sort through exceeded the amount of RAM we had on the machine so it must use a file sort. This technique would commonly bring queries that were taking days to complete down to under 1 minute.
In the end, our application was full of this kind of "keep MySQL from doing the stupidest thing possible" queries that would probably run decently under Oracle or PostgreSQL but would be better written in a way that allows a real SQL database to perform its own optimization and allows the developer to easily grok what the query does. It's that kind of SQL that's the most insidious. The kind of SQL that MySQL forces on you not through syntax errors by through painful lessons.
Moreover, resisting code reviews is directly overlooking something very important, which just proves what you're saying that anyone can overlook something.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the person resisting code reviews is that mythically-rare example of someone who doesn't overlook things and doesn't make mistakes. If that's the case, why would you waste the opportunity to have other mere-mortal members of the team learn from reviewing the divinely perfect code that this individual produces? By questioning why certain decisions were made when writing the code, less experienced coders can learn to improve their own code. To deny them that opportunity would be entirely selfish and counterproductive to the goals of the team.
Basically, code reviews should have multiple goals. In addition to improving the code being reviewed, they should improve the code that hasn't yet been written by improving the coders who will be writing it. To only consider the first benefit is being incredibly shortsighted.
Except that, according to the article, those HTTP connections that included no personal data did include session cookies, which creates a session hijacking vulnerability. It's possible to architect the app such that HTTP connections are used for things that aren't sensitive, but you need to separate it into its own domain so that the client doesn't send the session cookie. The developer didn't do that.
So someone shipping a watermelon would pay significantly more taxes than someone shipping a million dollars in diamonds. Sounds like a good plan.
If you want out of the box, states should be leaning on the credit card companies. They should start threatening consumer protection legislation that hurts creditors when dealing with its residents. In exchange for not passing that legislation, they should require those companies to collect data on interstate transactions of their residents including whether tax was assessed and what category of item was purchased and report it back to the state. From that information, they can easily come up with a list of people who aren't paying their required use taxes. At that point, it becomes a matter of simply enforcing existing laws.
No new taxes. Minimal legislation that needs to be passed. And you only really have to deal with 4 companies to get it done (Visa, MC, AmEx and Discover.) That's outside the box and it would work.
And, even if it did, where does it say that the military must be the size that it is?
Conservatives love to talk about cutting government, however they always seem to conveniently forget to include the military in those cuts. It doesn't matter that we could halve the military budget and still be spending more than any other country. If we did that, we might actually be able to pay our firefighters and we'd also have enough left over to keep Social Security solvent and pay for universal health care like every other civilized nation on earth.
When will the anti-tax movement wake up and realize they can have every one of their desired tax cuts if we just bring the troops home, worry only about defending our own country and employ a little of the conventional diplomacy that other countries engage in rather than our heavy handed intimidation strategy? This is how all of the most powerful empires die...drowning in debt from the cost of conquering.
But no...we need to strip funding from Planned Parenthood and the NEA so we can have tax cuts. Never mind that that works out to a little over $1 per taxpayer while defense related spending works out to over $10k per taxpayer.
Maybe you could buffer to a lower power SD card or something, 4GB should do
A 4G SD card won't be much cheaper than an extra 4G of RAM, which would be the best solution in all regards. It sounds like a lot of the problems come from trying to minimize the cost of the devices...put 6-8G of RAM in each box and the power issues become fairly simple to solve. You wouldn't even have to have the HDs spun up constantly while recording, since you could buffer to RAM and flush to disk periodically.
If these devices are costing people an extra $10/mo in power costs, perhaps some government pressure to spec the boxes correctly could lead them to at least offer low power options for ~$40 more that would pay for themselves in ~6 months and let consumers have the choice.
That was the point...BitCoin is great for people who got in early and mined a lot. But for everyone else, adopting it means essentially giving those early adopters stuff for free.
With BitCoin limited to a pre-determined amount and the difficulty of mining new BitCoins, it seems that this gives a huge advantage to people who got into BitCoin early and have already amassed a considerable amount of BitCoins. Is this true and, if so, do you think this disincentive will undermine BitCoin's ability to become more popular since the majority of the population will have to work so much harder to obtain the currency?
You're reaching the wrong conclusions from the data you've presented. Apple has publicly stated that they're trying to take the best from iOS and add it to OS X. The key word there is 'add'. It's entirely reasonable to say that, since you've got 2 OSs, you can take knowledge gleaned from one of them and apply it to improving the other.
When you may start to have a point is when Apple starts removing things from OS X to make it more like iOS. They haven't done this, nor have they shown any indication that they will. Lion still allows you to install apps the traditional way, the App Store is just an additional vector for software installation. Lion still allows all the flexibility of a Unix computer. Nothing has changed in that regard, they've just poached what they see as the best features from iOS.
Just because they're adding things that make OS X more like iOS doesn't mean they're making it like iOS in every way. There's no evidence, as of yet, to support that conclusion. The only conclusion I can see from the Lion presentation is that I'd bet dollars to donuts that the post-Lion Mac computers will all have touchscreens. I expect the September refreshes of the MBPs to support all of the gestures detailed yesterday on both the trackpads and the touchscreen.
Of course they're not going to kill it off. The only people suggesting as much are paranoid Apple haters. If nothing else, Apple will need OS X to enable developers to build applications for iOS devices.
I knew as soon as I heard Steve Jobs say those words about demoting the PC that they would be taken entirely wrongly by some people. But all that he meant is that they're extracting a feature (the storage hub and interconnect of all iDevices) from the PC and moving it to iCloud. He only meant that iCloud sees the PC as "just another device" that isn't given special treatment above and beyond what iOS devices are given. But even then he went on to contradict that statement by revealing the particulars of the implementation. iOS devices will not store all information (songs, photos, etc) that OS X computers will.
In shortthere's nothing to see herejust a misinterpreted phrase from a 2-hour presentation that mistakenly confirms the paranoid beliefs of people who want to see Apple in a negative light. There's no logical reason to believe what the story claims. Apple knows that it needs OS X to maintain its developer community. They know that without the developer community, people would abandon iOS. So until developers can do everything they need to do to create apps for iOS on iOS itself, OS X isn't going away.
Yes, because there's no concept of continuous use when it comes to a device like the Kindle...it would all depend on how fast you read each page. Devices like the Kindle should have their battery life measured in page refreshes rather than hours. The only thing that uses power continuously is the wireless, which kills battery life anyways.
And the whole argument is foolish to begin with considering the non-wireless battery life for these devices tends to be measured not in days or even weeks but rather months. Does it really matter that one device lasts 1 month and the other lasts 2? Next up, let's argue about which e-reader holds more books...the Nook can only hold 1000 books while the Kindle can hold 3,500.
It's not hard to find a place to charge your device every few weeks and 1000 book storage is more than 99% of users will ever need. Both devices last long enough and hold enough that users shouldn't care about these specs. This is just a petty squabble between two marketing departments that the rest of us should ignore.
The hurdle has been the lack of a generic and complete platform security and content protection mechanism available for Android. The same security issues that have led to piracy concerns on the Android platform have made it difficult for us to secure a common Digital Rights Management (DRM) system on these devices. Setting aside the debate around the value of content protection and DRM, they are requirements we must fulfill in order to obtain content from major studios for our subscribers to enjoy.
It looks like the random element could be introduced in the RsaKey.getInstance() call as that could be generating a new key each time, though I don't see that class in the BouncyCastle API documentation and RsaKey is an interface in the JDK, so I'm not sure what code that's calling.
Homosexuality is unnatural, as in not a normal human trait.
How do you know it's not a natural response to over population or other challenges? What if, at a certain point, it stops being advantageous to pass down your own genes and starts being advantageous to become part of a community providing for children? A quick search turns up a study that claims that for each older brother, a male child is be 33% more likely to be gay...something like that could be explained by positing that, under certain circumstances, having more providers for each child rather than more children with certain genes maximizes the chances that a child will reach childbearing age and successfully pass down their genes.
Whatever the cause, whether genetic or the result of child rearing, there's ample evidence that by the time a sexual identity emerges, it's not a choice. If a phenomenon is this widespread, how is it possible for it not to be natural? The answer is that it isn't possible...it's a behavioral trait that we've evolved to deal with certain situations that we don't yet fully understand and, judging by the fact that it's survived to this point, it provides some advantage in successful procreation. Whether that advantage is still applicable to today's society is another matter, but that has no bearing on whether it's a natural occurrence.
The most popular response may have been marijuana reform, but that doesn't mean that the reform is popular. California, which tends to be pretty forward thinking and marijuana friendly, put it to a vote and it failed. I'm fully convinced that it was partly due to voter apathy (the 2010 midterm elections skewed toward an older demographic than we saw in 2008), but it went down pretty convincingly.
I'd be willing to be that it's even less popular on a national level.
FWIW, I happily voted for legalization. I'm all for people being able to decide what they put into their bodies, but I primarily feel it should be legal for fiscal reasons...the decreased prison spending and the increased tax revenues from taxing legalized sales would have all but eliminated our budget deficit.
Slashdot Mirror
Games aren't the only thing that will mentally challenge someone...hell, most iPad games don't.
If you want an inexpensive tablet-format device that will mentally challenge her, get a Kindle or a Nook. They're great for elderly people because they allow the font to be increased for easy viewing. And with the tight integration with Amazon/B&N, she wouldn't have to get out of bed to order new books. The Kindle even has some pretty fun games, though the eInk screen makes the interface crap (Nook might have them to...I don't own one, so I can't say.)
Best of all, it fits in the "cheap" category coming in at roughly 1/5 the price of the cheapest iPad. And it they need charging so infrequently, you could do it whenever you visit so that she doesn't have to worry about doing it herself.
BTW how long do you think handset makers and carriers should be forced to update phone software for?
Let's start with the length of the cell phone contract and work from there. If they're going to sell 2-year contracts, you should reasonably expect that the phone you buy will receive updates during that time. Once the contract expires, people can base their decision to get a new phone or switch carriers on the lack of updates. But when you're still under contract, you've got no choice but to accept the crappy situation, and that's not right.
This story is pointing out a legitimate problem with Android. As of yet, not one single iPhone has been sold that has not been supported for the entire 2-year contract. Meanwhile, 7 of the listed Android phones never ran the latest version of the OS, even when they were sold. I don't really take sides in the Android vs. iOS argument, but this is an area that Google really needs to address.
Since the behavior that you use annoys so many others because it's so easy to do accidentally, why not require it to be an explicit action rather than an implicit one governed solely by mouse accuracy. Wouldn't it make sense to tie the tear-off functionality to a modifier key such that dragging merely re-ordered but SHIFT+drag (since SHIFT+click on a link opens the link in a new window) separated it into its own window?
Usability is all about making the most common usage patterns natural and the rest easy enough for people to adapt to them. For advanced users like you, I don't see a problem with requiring a slightly more complex action if it will make the product less annoying for the majority of users.
The good old days will be 140 years ago, instead of just 60.
I know this is a somewhat off-the-cuff statement, but I think there's profound implications of this. With people living longer, our connection to historical events will become that much stronger. Growing up in the 70s and 80s, I view events from the depression era on very differently from events prior to that. WWII feels much more concrete to me than the Civil War because I've met and talked to so many survivors (both military and those that fled Germany) and heard so many personal stories. If Civil War veterans had lived to an average age of 150, I would have met some of them and see those events through a much different lens than I do now. If the founding fathers had lived to that age, there would a lot of us who could have heard first-hand accounts from great-great-great grandparents about personal encounters with those men...given how often we debate what their intent was when writing the constitution and creating our governments, it would make those discussions a lot more interesting.
It's fascinating to think about, for me, the implications of a world where events take that much longer to get put into the historical archive where they're no longer part of living memory. Would we, as a society, be more aware of our history and less likely to repeat past mistakes? Would people behave differently when the requirements for and results of leaving your mark on society change so radically? And would we spend a larger part of our lives studying what is currently known and delay entering our useful part of our lives or would we be just as quick to move from learning to doing?
On a less profound note, we'd need to come up with a better system for referring to ancestors. Having to say or write great-great-great so frequently would get annoying.
If you're making a superior product, then there's no reason to do the other
Sure there is...people don't make purchasing decisions based solely on quality. Otherwise, no one would by anything from Walmart and we wouldn't import everything from China. The free (as in Beer) nature of Android lends itself to outcompeting iOS even if iOS is a superior product since iOS has to be better by a healthy margin to justify the difference in price. Note I'm not arguing that iOS is better, just that if it were it wouldn't necessarily be enough of an advantage over Android.
Price is an important consideration and, from Apple's perspective, using their patents could be a way of protecting them from having to compete solely on a price and specs basis. Android handset manufacturers have always been able to cram more impressive specs into the phone for a lower price than Apple. Apple likely sees iOS as a competitive advantage that allows them to sell hardware for more than they would otherwise be able to. If Android copies iOS (again, not saying they have), Apple may feel that it diminishes that competitive advantage and that they need to use their patents to protect that advantage.
From the sound of it, it decouples the service call from the service end point and allows the user to select which end point they'd like to use. Rather than making a call to a specific service provider, the page simply registers that it'd like some intent to be completed and then dispatches it. The user then gets to pick from the list of sites/apps that have registered their ability to handle that type of intent.
According to this page, you've got until July, 2012 before they stop supporting 1.6. When 1.6 was released, they continued to release fixes for 1.5, so I would assume they'll do the same for the 1.6 to 1.7 transition.
Some of the things on your list can't be done automatically without possibly causing problems.
You can't rewrite inefficient selectors or remove CSS rules because classes can be applied and DOM elements inserted dynamically in JavaScript. Unless you're going to do fairly complex analysis of the JavaScript on the page to determine that it's not changing classes on DOM elements or adding/removing to/from the DOM.
You also can't easily move JavaScript to the bottom of the page without possibly breaking things. There's a reason rendering stops when it hits JavaScript code...it's because document.write can introduce HTML code that needs to be added at the point the script executes. You can check whether a script uses document.write directly, but JavaScript is dynamic enough to give you quite a few ways of invoking that function (eval, document["write"], etc.) You could run it through a browser to determine if document.write ever gets called, but even if that passed, there's no way to ensure that the JavaScript isn't browser specific.
You can recommend those steps to developers because they can ensure that those rare occurrences aren't happening, but you can't apply them automatically without at least telling developers so they can add some HTTP header or other means for opting out of that functionality.
In my experience, you don't really have to worry about the types of SQL that MySQL won't accept or the specialized syntax that MySQL will accept. The biggest pain is worrying about the SQL that MySQL will accept and choose the stupidest execution plan possible. This leads to unintuitive queries designed around MySQL's shortcomings.
For example, one hack we had to employ regularly was to select only the columns from a table that were part of the WHERE or ORDER BY clauses and then join back against the original table once the results had been filtered and sorted. When we just selected normally from the table, MySQL would retrieve the entire rows and then determine that the amount of data it had to sort through exceeded the amount of RAM we had on the machine so it must use a file sort. This technique would commonly bring queries that were taking days to complete down to under 1 minute.
In the end, our application was full of this kind of "keep MySQL from doing the stupidest thing possible" queries that would probably run decently under Oracle or PostgreSQL but would be better written in a way that allows a real SQL database to perform its own optimization and allows the developer to easily grok what the query does. It's that kind of SQL that's the most insidious. The kind of SQL that MySQL forces on you not through syntax errors by through painful lessons.
Moreover, resisting code reviews is directly overlooking something very important, which just proves what you're saying that anyone can overlook something.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the person resisting code reviews is that mythically-rare example of someone who doesn't overlook things and doesn't make mistakes. If that's the case, why would you waste the opportunity to have other mere-mortal members of the team learn from reviewing the divinely perfect code that this individual produces? By questioning why certain decisions were made when writing the code, less experienced coders can learn to improve their own code. To deny them that opportunity would be entirely selfish and counterproductive to the goals of the team.
Basically, code reviews should have multiple goals. In addition to improving the code being reviewed, they should improve the code that hasn't yet been written by improving the coders who will be writing it. To only consider the first benefit is being incredibly shortsighted.
Except that, according to the article, those HTTP connections that included no personal data did include session cookies, which creates a session hijacking vulnerability. It's possible to architect the app such that HTTP connections are used for things that aren't sensitive, but you need to separate it into its own domain so that the client doesn't send the session cookie. The developer didn't do that.
So someone shipping a watermelon would pay significantly more taxes than someone shipping a million dollars in diamonds. Sounds like a good plan.
If you want out of the box, states should be leaning on the credit card companies. They should start threatening consumer protection legislation that hurts creditors when dealing with its residents. In exchange for not passing that legislation, they should require those companies to collect data on interstate transactions of their residents including whether tax was assessed and what category of item was purchased and report it back to the state. From that information, they can easily come up with a list of people who aren't paying their required use taxes. At that point, it becomes a matter of simply enforcing existing laws.
No new taxes. Minimal legislation that needs to be passed. And you only really have to deal with 4 companies to get it done (Visa, MC, AmEx and Discover.) That's outside the box and it would work.
And, even if it did, where does it say that the military must be the size that it is?
Conservatives love to talk about cutting government, however they always seem to conveniently forget to include the military in those cuts. It doesn't matter that we could halve the military budget and still be spending more than any other country. If we did that, we might actually be able to pay our firefighters and we'd also have enough left over to keep Social Security solvent and pay for universal health care like every other civilized nation on earth.
When will the anti-tax movement wake up and realize they can have every one of their desired tax cuts if we just bring the troops home, worry only about defending our own country and employ a little of the conventional diplomacy that other countries engage in rather than our heavy handed intimidation strategy? This is how all of the most powerful empires die...drowning in debt from the cost of conquering.
But no...we need to strip funding from Planned Parenthood and the NEA so we can have tax cuts. Never mind that that works out to a little over $1 per taxpayer while defense related spending works out to over $10k per taxpayer.
Maybe you could buffer to a lower power SD card or something, 4GB should do
A 4G SD card won't be much cheaper than an extra 4G of RAM, which would be the best solution in all regards. It sounds like a lot of the problems come from trying to minimize the cost of the devices...put 6-8G of RAM in each box and the power issues become fairly simple to solve. You wouldn't even have to have the HDs spun up constantly while recording, since you could buffer to RAM and flush to disk periodically.
If these devices are costing people an extra $10/mo in power costs, perhaps some government pressure to spec the boxes correctly could lead them to at least offer low power options for ~$40 more that would pay for themselves in ~6 months and let consumers have the choice.
That was the point...BitCoin is great for people who got in early and mined a lot. But for everyone else, adopting it means essentially giving those early adopters stuff for free.
With BitCoin limited to a pre-determined amount and the difficulty of mining new BitCoins, it seems that this gives a huge advantage to people who got into BitCoin early and have already amassed a considerable amount of BitCoins. Is this true and, if so, do you think this disincentive will undermine BitCoin's ability to become more popular since the majority of the population will have to work so much harder to obtain the currency?
You're reaching the wrong conclusions from the data you've presented. Apple has publicly stated that they're trying to take the best from iOS and add it to OS X. The key word there is 'add'. It's entirely reasonable to say that, since you've got 2 OSs, you can take knowledge gleaned from one of them and apply it to improving the other.
When you may start to have a point is when Apple starts removing things from OS X to make it more like iOS. They haven't done this, nor have they shown any indication that they will. Lion still allows you to install apps the traditional way, the App Store is just an additional vector for software installation. Lion still allows all the flexibility of a Unix computer. Nothing has changed in that regard, they've just poached what they see as the best features from iOS.
Just because they're adding things that make OS X more like iOS doesn't mean they're making it like iOS in every way. There's no evidence, as of yet, to support that conclusion. The only conclusion I can see from the Lion presentation is that I'd bet dollars to donuts that the post-Lion Mac computers will all have touchscreens. I expect the September refreshes of the MBPs to support all of the gestures detailed yesterday on both the trackpads and the touchscreen.
Of course they're not going to kill it off. The only people suggesting as much are paranoid Apple haters. If nothing else, Apple will need OS X to enable developers to build applications for iOS devices.
I knew as soon as I heard Steve Jobs say those words about demoting the PC that they would be taken entirely wrongly by some people. But all that he meant is that they're extracting a feature (the storage hub and interconnect of all iDevices) from the PC and moving it to iCloud. He only meant that iCloud sees the PC as "just another device" that isn't given special treatment above and beyond what iOS devices are given. But even then he went on to contradict that statement by revealing the particulars of the implementation. iOS devices will not store all information (songs, photos, etc) that OS X computers will.
In shortthere's nothing to see herejust a misinterpreted phrase from a 2-hour presentation that mistakenly confirms the paranoid beliefs of people who want to see Apple in a negative light. There's no logical reason to believe what the story claims. Apple knows that it needs OS X to maintain its developer community. They know that without the developer community, people would abandon iOS. So until developers can do everything they need to do to create apps for iOS on iOS itself, OS X isn't going away.
Yes, because there's no concept of continuous use when it comes to a device like the Kindle...it would all depend on how fast you read each page. Devices like the Kindle should have their battery life measured in page refreshes rather than hours. The only thing that uses power continuously is the wireless, which kills battery life anyways.
And the whole argument is foolish to begin with considering the non-wireless battery life for these devices tends to be measured not in days or even weeks but rather months. Does it really matter that one device lasts 1 month and the other lasts 2? Next up, let's argue about which e-reader holds more books...the Nook can only hold 1000 books while the Kindle can hold 3,500.
It's not hard to find a place to charge your device every few weeks and 1000 book storage is more than 99% of users will ever need. Both devices last long enough and hold enough that users shouldn't care about these specs. This is just a petty squabble between two marketing departments that the rest of us should ignore.
This ruling, of course.
Oh...you were referring to the arbitration...my bad.
They've explained why...:
The hurdle has been the lack of a generic and complete platform security and content protection mechanism available for Android. The same security issues that have led to piracy concerns on the Android platform have made it difficult for us to secure a common Digital Rights Management (DRM) system on these devices. Setting aside the debate around the value of content protection and DRM, they are requirements we must fulfill in order to obtain content from major studios for our subscribers to enjoy.
So, yeah...it has nothing to do with it.
It looks like the random element could be introduced in the RsaKey.getInstance() call as that could be generating a new key each time, though I don't see that class in the BouncyCastle API documentation and RsaKey is an interface in the JDK, so I'm not sure what code that's calling.
Homosexuality is unnatural, as in not a normal human trait.
How do you know it's not a natural response to over population or other challenges? What if, at a certain point, it stops being advantageous to pass down your own genes and starts being advantageous to become part of a community providing for children? A quick search turns up a study that claims that for each older brother, a male child is be 33% more likely to be gay...something like that could be explained by positing that, under certain circumstances, having more providers for each child rather than more children with certain genes maximizes the chances that a child will reach childbearing age and successfully pass down their genes.
Whatever the cause, whether genetic or the result of child rearing, there's ample evidence that by the time a sexual identity emerges, it's not a choice. If a phenomenon is this widespread, how is it possible for it not to be natural? The answer is that it isn't possible...it's a behavioral trait that we've evolved to deal with certain situations that we don't yet fully understand and, judging by the fact that it's survived to this point, it provides some advantage in successful procreation. Whether that advantage is still applicable to today's society is another matter, but that has no bearing on whether it's a natural occurrence.
If the revolutions mantra of "No taxation without representation" is true then why are Green Card holders taxed?
Simple, because green card holders are equally able to donate to political campaigns.
What? You think voting is in any way linked with representation anymore?
The most popular response may have been marijuana reform, but that doesn't mean that the reform is popular. California, which tends to be pretty forward thinking and marijuana friendly, put it to a vote and it failed. I'm fully convinced that it was partly due to voter apathy (the 2010 midterm elections skewed toward an older demographic than we saw in 2008), but it went down pretty convincingly.
I'd be willing to be that it's even less popular on a national level.
FWIW, I happily voted for legalization. I'm all for people being able to decide what they put into their bodies, but I primarily feel it should be legal for fiscal reasons...the decreased prison spending and the increased tax revenues from taxing legalized sales would have all but eliminated our budget deficit.