Re: Neutron decay
Protons and neutrons are not protons and neutrons in nucleii. It's all a bit more complicated than that.
3173 posts • joined 16 Apr 2007
Protons and neutrons are not protons and neutrons in nucleii. It's all a bit more complicated than that.
Always use ISO (YYYY-MM-DD) if you want anyone else to be able to make sense. Sorts in the right order as well.
Exactly, what you don't want to do when serialising OOXML is create a DOM as DOM's use a lot of memory and are very slow. So string concatenation of one form of another is the preferred approach. This can still be wrapped in functions to ensure that tags are well-formed but that doesn't really help much, there are still a lot of things that can go wrong, and even more that the consuming application can complain about viz. the different behaviour of Word and LibreOffice to the broken file.
Unfortunately, the OOXML developers forgot to learn the lessons of HTML and include a section on error handling.
Specifically for the MS files the Office OpenXML SDK Productivity Tool is to be recommended. It can open most archives as long as the [Content_Types].xml - it's fussy about the namespace in this file. It includes validation and comparison tools and will automatically reflow the XML.
Otherwise simply unpack the archive with unzip, run suspect files through tidy and open them in you editor of choice.
unzip -d xml fucked_file.docx
tidy -m -xml xml/word/document.xml
To be fair to the LibreOffice developers, OOXML is a shit format. It's difficult to get right partly because it's so fucking verbose. The specification is thousands of pages long and even then vague. However, the LibreOffice developers also have a history of releasing poor code. I've replaced it with the more conservative OpenOffice because it crashes too much on my Mac.
Mine's the one with the ECMA 476 specification in the pockets, ta.
While satisfying news for Google and Android fans at a higher level, the numbers demonstrate just how fragmented the Android market really is.
And how much of this is a problem? The Android API has been pretty stable for the last couple of years and I've yet to come across an app that won't run on any of my three devices, the oldest of which is nearly three years old and it's still on Android 4.0. It's true that this wasn't the case initially with the API expanding rapidly and often requiring stuff in hardware that older kit didn't have.
As others have pointed out in the Windows world there is XP, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1 plus the server versions. The vast majority of software runs fine on all those versions. However, you are generally up shit creek without a paddle if you want to straddle the 32-bit / 64-bit worlds easily on Windows. And don't mention ARM. If you want an example of fragmentation look no further than that.
In the IOS world a lot of developers march neatly in lockstep with new releases and quickly require the newest version of IOS. I'll admit I don't have first-hand experience of this but a mate of mine with quite a bit of Apple kit complains about it regularly. One of the reasons why it's done is because it's a nice way to force paid for upgrades. And if it works for people - that Apple punters are happier to part with their money than others - then good luck to them.
Indeed. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. It may just be a nice way of documenting the function calls but as the forensics improve it might at some point help detect vulnerabilities early.
forking a codebase brings with it the requirement (on the forker) to continue monitoring…
Do you think that code to fix known but not yet publicly disclosed bugs goes into the public repository with comments like "fixes something we're not allowed to talk about"?
This was the argument that IBM made with OS/2. And it was true. So true in fact that, because companies could use OS/2 to safely run their multiple DOS/Windows programs, they didn't buy OS/2 software.
If binary translation from ARM to x86 is so good that no one notices, no one will bother doing native x86 versions. Developers won't really care if it becomes a push-button option in their IDE.
But Intel's real problem will be convincing manufacturers that it won't jack up prices once it has killed the competition. Currently, Intel is able to sweet talk some manufacturers into using its kit because it is a useful bargaining chip with Qualcomm. But ARM is developing faster and the number of manufacturers is increasing: Qualcomm, Broadcom, Samsung, nVidia, TI, Mediatek, …
ARM is RISC - Intel is CISC
That hasn't been true for years. Intel has been more RISC than CISC since the Pentium (IIRC) and certainly since the P4 debacle.
Imagine what they could do if they let go of x86 and put their talents into making the best ARM out there.
The chips would be fantastic but their margins would suffer. They need the x86 lock-in to preserve those margins and it's what the salesforce knows how to sell.
Actually, since Intel has already started contract manufacturing this might happen sooner than anyone expects.
You won't think you're so funny after three years in Guantanamo! Your appeal has been refused because we can't be sure you were being sarcastic until our sarcasm detection software works.
I've got a generator based on the Twat-o-Tron that will generate nowtrage on demand for Twitter. Based on the number of followers it got, it managed to convince the public / other bots out there.
What the fuck are "influencers"? Online hypnotists?
It's much more mathematically (and syntactically) satisfying for that reason.
I suspect it depends very much on what you're programming: whether you're essentially programming mathematical functions or doing something else. Which is why we use brackets sparingly when writing. And even then it remains a personal preference.
Indentation is not more arbitrary for structure as it has to be consistent in order to be machine readable.
A few users is not a success. Where is Go in real-world use, something like 0.01% of developers? I bet there are more active Haskell developers
No idea and no idea how anyone can reliably collect such statistics: what about all the shell and embedded stuff that never appears online?
There probably are more people involved with Haskell than Go, though probably has a lot to do with the fact that it's taught at quite a lot of universities. The most recent Go conference managed to garner some 700 participants and I assume some of the sponsors are using it; we know Google and Canonical are.
I think they'd be stupid not to open source it (the core at least) and get academics paid by someone else to kick the tyres. Would surprise me greatly if they don't do it.
I don't think there was ever a real chance for that to happen and the fact that the presentation makes no reference to Ruby says a lot.
Much as I like Python as a language I also have to admit that it isn't always the best choice. Google still makes extensive use of it internally but developed Go for the heavy lifting systems work. But having a simpler syntax for app development (assumes the runtime can handles most of the necessary magic) might work quite nicely.
WTH is wrong with brackets?
The standard answer is that the brackets are there for the compiler not the programmer. People tend to prefer other methods for structuring blocks, but if you like them then good luck to you.
Go is finding fans all over the place, though mainly in systems, because of its concurrency support. C# is, er, a rehash of Java for the MS runtime.
Yeah, I liked Federighi in the Mac OS part. I don't have an I-thingy just a Mac so the IOS stuff is less interesting anyway.
This was the first time I've seen Cook on stage and man was he poor. Okay, the numbers don't lie and Apple is still creaming the money, but the performance was nothing like Jobs. Relying on quote from a ZD hack to attack Android would have been below Jobs, even if the very idea of Android made his blood boil.
Fragmentation? How about properly (the I-Pad Mini is a hack) supporting multiple form factors Apple? Android is running on watches, phone, tablets, notebooks and TVs.
Update - tell us about the 10 % or so who can't update to the latest version or even the version before that because Apple invalidated the hardware. Then again, many of those users may, like the millions of Android users with older versions, be perfectly happy with their hardware.
I switched off after about 5 minutes. Did it get any better?
I'm with you in the heterogenous hardware environment: most of this release produces "meh" at most.
But I don't mind yearly updates for the OS as long as these aren't used to arbitrarily exclude older hardware or APIgasms don't break lots of software. Version updates are one of the best ways of making sure everyone installs the security patches.
We'll probably need to wait to find out more about what's going on under the hood (support for MacOS on ARM or similar) but some of the stuff looked to me like intelligent use of the underlying OpenDoc/Taligent stuff in the OS that has been so underused in MacOS.
Also, Federighi is quite a good presenter / salesman. That might become increasingly important if Cook's performance on stage doesn't improve.
See what the summer brings. I won't be installing this on release day: will wait at least until MacPorts has binaries for most of my packages.
You mean your headset isn't multipoint capable?
I can understand the reason to flatten on mobile OS's - the requirement to save battery life seemingly overriding style
I'm not sure why you think the IOS 7 aesthetics does anything to improve battery life because it doesn't. It was a necessary move away from skeuomorphism + Sir Jony's need to mark his territory. If you hold a new I-Phone up to your nose you can still smell the piss! ;-)
10.6 (Snow Leopard) was a bit of a brown bag to be honest with the move to x86_64 pretty hamfisted. Some of the bugs have still not been properly ironed out: my system will pause for a couple of seconds every time Time Machine fires up the external (Firewire) drive. It never did that in Leopard. Lots of drivers were broken and some got broken in the series. Can't remember exactly when but Bluetooth audio got totally fucked and the only solution was to upgrade.
While I understand the basic rationale behind the release cycle (cleaning up the toolchain) and simplifying patch levels, a key part of it is creating obsolescence by somewhat randomly declaring certain hardware no longer supported. So my MacMini (x86_64 capable) can't be updated because Apple and or nVidia won't update the drivers. I assume another generation of hardware will get the chop with 10.10 so that owners can go out and buy some new kit. If they're really lucky they'll have to get new peripherals as well: quite a few manufacturers don't support Mavericks. Fortunately, this is one of things that Windows VMs are good for, so I can still use my Canon scanner the odd times I need to.
The notification centre is okay with most things disabled. Pity you can't disable the fecking Finder messages!
You already get that with tablets. The OS does make it pretty easy to target other form factors.
A bigger challenge is the support of the OS for keyboard and mouse. I'd to get a look at one of these machines re. ergonomics and weight.
Controlling STDs is an entirely different kettle of worms.
Not going to dispute that. My main point was about possible motivation for behaviour.
Then again, being rich is generally associated with better medical care and, therefore, lower perceived risks associated with personal choice. I think this has been shown across a range of activities from substance abuse to driving.
Birth control is key. Sleeping around without becoming unwantedly pregnant and, even the event, with the resources to "deal with it", depends upon informed access to methods of birth control. Remove that and it becomes a whole different, er, ball game.
Tells you a lot about the PR value of joining such an industry group. And that tells you a lot about the real aims of such a group.
and it took a major vulnerability…
That attitude in a nutshell is a part of the problem with much of the commercial approach: we won't admit it's broken till it's breached.
The OpenBSD project was born out of an explicit need to make software as secure as possible. This doesn't guarantee security, but by making it an explicit priority they have certainly helped improve the chances of something being secure.
Other than politics I see little reason for this move by the "Linux Foundation". Working with LibreSSL with the perspective of using it in future instead of OpenSSL would be proper infrastructure development. Unless there are licensing or technical issues that I'm not aware of.
And who pays if it's the Google car's fault? Google? Or the passenger for not pressing stop?
That's a big question isn't it? Nobody is going to be allowed to use of these on the road without the insurance question being resolved. But in the event of these cars being run as fleets (great opportunity for better yield) I can see Google quite happily negotiating with the insurance companies. It already has vast amounts of telemetry from the existing trials and one recorded accident, where the human took control and was responsible.
Assuming they can get the telemetry then I would imagine insurance companies will happily offer terms. It's becoming increasingly common to provide telemetry for car insurance. In fact, it's now standard with rental cars.
No, I don't think either insurance or traffic in <insert-hellish-place-to-drive-here> are going to the real problem. It will be working out quite how much redundant kit is required in order to be able to still function reasonably. There is already some information on this for ships, planes, space vehicles, etc. But very few of those are really involved in such dynamic environments as traffic, especially where other people aren't necessarily obeying the rules.
Maxdome maybe German only. Watchever is pretty international. Both were set up by companies that have been trading in film rights so they tend to be heavy on films but deals for series are becoming more and more common.
Maxdome, Watchever, Netflix, etc. not available where you live?
Agreed. But then again it's what the single market is for.
When we switch to driverless cars we will need to give up the illusion of control that an accelerator or brake appear to give us. As we will become accustomed not to trying to control the car then we will quickly lose our already limited ability to act sensibly in an emergency. I drive infrequently and will freely admit that partly as a result I'm not a very good driver: town traffic quickly pushes me to my cognitive limits.
Yes, there are still lots of problems to iron out but I suspect the lack of manual controls aren't one of them. How robust is the software? Can it be manipulated easily? How much redundancy is built in so that the car still works if some sensors fail or are impeded?
If you're stuck in a queue then you're stuck.
I'm with you in spirit - you can't beat text/plain for general communication. Encrypt or use another channel when required. The trackers and beacons are a cancer on the internet and their use somewhat shortsighted. I used to be far more tolerant of them than I am now: as a result virtually all are blocked by default.
But when it comes to statistics - I'm not interested per se in where you've been and what browser you personally have - but there is value in the aggregate data.
Latency on wireless depends a lot on what kind of wireless. 3G and below is high latency, LTE, which is what's in Google's backyard, isn't that bad.
SPDY deserves some credit for persistency, better handling of multiple requests and encryption. A working implementation is always better than the best pipe dream. Without SPDY we'd probably still have little prospect of getting off HTTP 1.1
However, the criticisms should be taken seriously. Google normally plays pretty nicely in such discussions - better than most "industry leaders" in any case. Maybe they'll take the criticism onboard and try and fix SPDY if the WG does decide to drop it.
Plus, racism and general nowtrage and are more accessible to the average voter.
But there’s no arguing with the fact that Microsoft, more than any other mobile device vendor, is at least familiar with the needs of enterprise IT
I reckon BlackBerry is at least as familiar with corporate customers.
For any large corporate deployment pretty much any manufacturer will provide custom ROMs as required (plain Android, Cyanogen, corporate app-store, etc.). For smaller orders fulfilment will be key as I believe Don Jefe pointed out recently.
No-one wants to get companies upgrading to newer versions of Windows than Microsoft. They would far rather people were using IE9+ on Windows 7+ than legacy old stuff which they are contractually obliged to support
Most corporates are on Windows 7 but they still have to use IE 8 because of its "legacy" support. But Microsoft is happy because it usually means Office 2010 and relevant server kit.
IE 8 still makes up a around 30 % of corporate desktops. Quite often because legacy "browser apps" that were designed to work in IE 6. Probably because of ActiveX
One of my customers is a large company and IE 8 is still the standard IE version because of the legacy support for internal browser-based apps written for IE 6 back in the day. Rewrites are either prohibitively expensive or not even possible so I think Browsium is the only solution.
Makes you wonder why companies stick with Microsoft but there are still too few alternatives for desktop machines. As long as Microsoft can continue to collect licences for this kind of shoddy product management then they're unlikely to change their practices.
You are Jeremy Clarkson and I claim my five pounds...
Also: go straight to jail, do not pass go and do not collect any endorsements!
The processor didn't need taking up to an i7.
I'm inclined to agree with you on this. It's for the same reason that Apple doesn't put i7's in their Air: there's very little call for that kind of oomph on the go and the cost in terms of battery and heat isn't worth it.
Along with many I quite like most of the specs but I'd rather have them in a notebook without a touch screen at half the price. For tabletty things I'll stick with my slightly more expensive than cheap as chips tablet that weighs less than 500g.
Still, good luck Microsoft. Maybe targeting the professionals will work better than the mass market. Competition is good™.
I wouldn't worry about it. 4 downvotes seems par for the course on this topic if you're even slightly critical. Surface has its fanbois, too.
Actually, it’s gotten much, much better. From 10.0 - 10.4, I would never update until I had read the litany of issues over at Macintouch. I remember issues like losing Wifi, or even losing RAM from cheap suppliers—all from OS updates.
I think 10.5 was my first version and it was pretty solid. 10.6.0 (the move to x86_64) was a "brown bag" release and I generally steer clear of the x.0 releases. The OS is in general better now that the number of toolkits has been reduced but there's still room for improvement: adopting a "ports" like approach for the Posix stuff would be a big plus.
That Apple isn't invincible has nothing to do with Microsoft's chances of taking them on.
X-Box aside, Microsoft has yet to show success in a market outside its core Windows+ area. And with Windows Phone it's still not clear whether it is going to go for exclusivity or continue the tried and tested OEM + software route to domination. Until that decision has been taken and communicated it's not possible to say much. In the meantime both IOS and Android are becoming more accepted in the enterprise: taking MS on where it is strongest and beating it; having already whipped it in the consumer space. The Windows 8 own goal isn't going to help much there, either.
If MS decides to become a services company then it can hope to be a winner, whatever OS is running. MS services on devices could be very attractive and it could ironically call upon competition authorities to enforce market access.
The retrospective justification of Apple's success based on theory X has the bias of hindsight. Extrapolating it for the future is, therefore, somewhat unwise.
Regarding Beats - I think it's best to see whether there will be a deal and if so, exactly what the terms are. I'm not really convinced by either the "move into wearables" or the "move into streaming" arguments. But such a purchase hardly fits into Apple's purchasing history: they tend to buy smaller companies with good IP portfolios. Or partner. Do we have any figures from the ITunes streaming service to indicate whether it's a Ping-type flop or not?