> The cost of the C# approach is that existing classes could not be gradually migrated to be generic; existing
collections had to be effectively deprecated and replaced, or a "flag
day" had to be declared where all the code (library and client) changes
simultaneously. These are not options for us. At the risk of being
obnoxious, C# was able to get away with it because at the time, they had
a very small base of existing users and code and were not yet successful
enough to have to worry about compatibility.
The reason C# was able to do it is not because they had so few users that a "flag day" was acceptable, it was because they went with the first option and rewrote all their collections. C# did genetics right the first time, and didn't end up in this bizarre type-erasing, half-ass world that Java find itself in today.
Wait, isn't "Memory Clean" just one of those apps that allocates a huge chunk of memory, forcing the OS to page everything else to disk? Those things are snake oil, they don't improve anything and in fact are often worse than doing nothing at all...
Plus, a modern OS can sensibly manage it's own memory. If a lot of your memory is buffered, the OS will deal with it. If it's all taken, well, no additional application is going to help you with that.
I think this panic started with Windows Vista where there was no distinction between actually used memory and memory used for caches and buffers. Hence the complaints about how Vista was so inefficient, it didn't have enough memory even when freshly launched with no apps open.
People tend to hold their phones in "portrait" mode, rather than "landscape". So, width would typically refer to the second largest dimension when talking about (most) phones. Additionally, given that phones are 3d objects, interacted with in physical space, the "feeling" of width would also include the phone's thickness, to some extent.
In this context, the iPhone 6 is actually smaller than the Nexus 5, by about 20%.
So if they leave SPDY in place along with HTTP 2.0, they could wind up with strange incompatibilities occurring or site operators feeling like they need to support both SPDY and the HTTP 2.0 standard (rather than just the HTTP 2.0 standard).
Looking at it, it actually seems more progressive to dump SPDY and move to the SPDY-based HTTP 2.0 at this stage. Then ten years down the road hopefully SPDY will be dead and there will just be HTTP/1.1 and HTTP/2.0.
But they could just inject a "fake" recipient device with their own public/private key and decrypt messages as they transit the system. They might not be able to decrypt messages you've sent in the past, but I can see no reason why they couldn't read messages as you send them if they wanted to (or were required by a wiretapping agency, for example).
I also recall a while ago a researcher who showed that if you forgot your iCloud password, there was a way to get Apple to reset the password and give you access to all your previously-stored data. If they had no way to decrypt your data remotely, that should be impossible.
On the first point, you're coreect. That's also why you get those extremely annoying modal dialogs each time a device/key pair is added to your iMessage account, because a device added without your knowledge could be used to eavesdrop on you.
You only get that dialog for the devices you add. The public key added by the NSA or Apple themselves does not trigger the dialog.
(explanatory note as the sarcasm in the comment might not have been obvious: I do not know whether such a facility exists in the services or not, so this might or might not be true.
But: The fact that it's possible that this "feature" already exists or can easily be added in the future, potentially even without an update of the client leads me to my current opinion which is that iMessage is not secure and all traffic is open to Apple, rogue employees at Apple and whatever government Apple is cooperating with).
It is not impossible so long as there is a linked device that has access to the data. Was there a precise accounting of the state of the researcher's icloud account before the reset, and everything done during the reset?
That’s not true. Well, strictly speaking it is, but the 2048 did know about another Threes clone. I don’t think he meant much by it and I don’t really fault the original 2048 author … but these guys … that’s not ok.
I don't think it's as bad as that. It's the mean number of friends, not the median.
The example of twitter makes this a bit more clear: your followers have more followers, on average, than you. But that's because you likely follow someone with a million followers. That one person greatly affects the mean follower count.
So if you follow 10 people, one of whom has 1000 followers, and the rest just have one, the paradox still holds.
Off topic: I would be curious to get statistics about the evolution of the ratio of downvotes/upvotes the past few years on HN. I also have the sentiment that HNers have been very "downvote-happy" lately, as you put it. I really think downvotes should be rationed in some way (and not just enabled after some karma threshold is reached).
My new habit: Automatically up-vote every greyed-out comment I encounter. I don't go searching for them, but when I see one, I upvote it without even reading it.
I used to read them carefully first, to decide whether I should up-vote. But from that experience, I've learned I almost always should -- the downvotes were rarely warranted, and almost always lazy and brainless. So I may as well save time and cut to the chase -- just upvote.
(If enough of us do this, maybe we can minimize the problem HN is seemingly unwilling and/or unable to address.)
I've been doing that as well. Sometimes a downvoted comment is truly deserving of its status, but often incorrect statements get downvotes even though they spawn interesting discussions. I try to offset that, because even if they're wrong, they're still an important part of the conversation.
> Android Wear seems still in the experimental stage, but this app is not labeled a beta.
This is the impression I get, after using one for about a week. Not only does it seem rather unfinished, it's also quite buggy (some notifications never disappear, the navigation integration is basically unusable, and there was a point where I was getting no notifications and had to clear data for the Google Play Services app to get them back).
However, when it does work, it works brilliantly and I'm kind of lucky that it doesn't look monstrously big on my wrist, so I think I'm going to stick with it for now.
> Android Wear seems still in the experimental stage, but this app is not labeled a beta.
That seems to be how Google is doing things now. Look at Google Glass. It's listed on the Play Store as 'explorer edition' and marketed on the page not as an experimental product but as something hikers, cyclists, photographers etc. should use. It's actually quite dishonest especially considering it costs £1,000.
(1) “to detect contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image”; (2) “to continuously move the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the detected contact”; (3) “to unlock the hand held electronic device if the unlock image is moved from the first predefined location on the touch screen to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display”; and (4) “visual cues to communicate a direction of movement of the unlock image required to unlock the device.”
It really sounds like Apple's lawyers are struggling to make "drag the image to unlock" sound more complicated than it really is.
No, Apple's lawyers are just trying to make it sound more concrete than Samsung's lawyers are trying to make it sound abstract. The key difference is complexity has no bearing on patentability, but abstractness does.
To be fair, the claims do require all those elements, so it really is narrower than "moving an image to unlock a device". You could imagine a number of implementations of the latter that would not be covered by the claims.
Yes, but what aspect of it is novel? Images, touch screens, animation? None of it is new; "the conclusion that when a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious." I would venture to say the patent NEVER should have been granted, even under pre-Alice conditions.
Parent was talking about complexity, I simply corrected them to say that it was about abstraction, and why it mattered. I was not making any point about the novelty or other quality metrics of the patent.
However, now that you've brought it up, possibly outside of material science, every invention in the history of engineering falls under the description of "old elements doing old things producing expected results". Taking that quote out of context misses a very important question: was it obvious beforehand that such a result was desirable enough to put those elements together?
The answer to your question of "what's novel" is, literally, the combination of elements and the difference it presents over prior art. However, at a higher level, what this quantitative approach misses is this: slide-to-unlock provides a convenient, usable and visually appealing way to unlock a phone. You'll note that these adjectives are some that Apple users regularly attribute to Apple products (since before the iPhone!). These qualities are arguably a primary reason for their success.
Sure, when boiled down to their implementation, they don't look so impressive, yet few others are said to match Apple's level of polish. Why is that the case if such features are so easy to implement? Maybe because the feature itself is not obvious. Such qualitative aspects are not always apparent from looking at the claims alone.