Probably closer to $7-8, as they definitely have some significant avenues of revenue growth available to them, namely mobile. But $38 is rather silly for a company to be valued at $104 billion initially off of earnings of $1 billion a year.
Though because it was an IPO day, the retail investor was likely locked out for most of the early trading (especially because the NASDAQ screwed up with delays). It might have actually benefited them though, because they probably didn't get a chance to buy it at $42-$45. But whoever bought it at that price just lost ~30% of their money in a day based on today's price of $33. Suckers!
It's all fun and games until someone hacks your bank, releases your identity, then you have lots of credit cards opened up in your name. "But your bank was secure and they were just doing it for the lulz!!!"
People only care about this stuff when it happens to them. Even if you think what lulzsec is doing is a good thing, it encourages hackers with worse motives to try the same tactics with far more disastrous results. But of course, you think it's a great idea, so sure, let's let them continue!
Even if it's profitable, it's probably better to pour their limited resources into a car that would have larger mass-market appeal. They only have so many engineers.
And here I was thinking that Google owned the trademark to "Chrome" as it refers to browsers and "Chromebook" would be an extension of that. How on earth is "Chromebook" the same as "ChromiumPC Modular Computer"??
The nerve some companies have these days.
And this is why you should get a phone that can be rooted and have a custom ROM on it, no wireless carrier is going to be able to install their shitty software OTA just to make a buck.
How do you use 250GB/month? Have a family and you'll find out.
It becomes REALLY easy to bump against the cap if you ditch cable and buy all your TV shows from iTunes.
An important thing to realize is that multi-tasking is NOT the same thing as as an app/OS being multi-threaded. While most apps need to be specifically coded to be multi-threaded, operating systems for a long time have had the ability to take advantage of multiple CPUs to complete tasks.
Now, while a big jump in a single application may come from taking a huge CPU task and chopping it up into little pieces, there are definitely some tasks that lend themselves very easily to being multi-threaded. For example, probably the most important one is independently-executed Javascript threads. Browser performance can really be improved from multiple CPUs chewing on Javascript threads and then powering down to a low power state. Now, will it really matter when most of the wait for a page loading is downloading images? Probably not, but better performance is still better performance.
The key goal with dual/quad core chips is making sure the system itself still feels responsive when doing tasks. A good example of this is if you have an iPhone and you are listening to a video podcast while running Safari, the system will definitely see some slowdown. Or running any app while the OS is installing something from the App Store, uploading a photo to Flickr in the background, or streaming Pandora. As refined as smartphones seem, they are still just pocket computers with limited resources.
That's why developers create middleware engines to abstract away most of the low-end stuff because they don't want to be bothered with it. Ever heard of Unreal Engine 3?
a) It would be VERY irresponsible of her to stop taking that medication cold turkey. It doesn't get out of your system for days/weeks and in the short term would have had rebound effects.
b) She would have been told very clearly not to drink while on any anti-depressant/anti-psychotic medication. She obviously broke that rule.
Adds these two points together and you get someone with poor judgement and not able to take very good care of herself.
I don't you read the article that well. This part in particular is troubling for a Twitter developer:
"*The Opportunity for Developers*
Developers have told us that they’d like more guidance from us about the
best opportunities to build on Twitter. More specifically, developers ask
us if they should build client apps that mimic or reproduce the mainstream
Twitter consumer client experience. The answer is no. "
Basically, they are saying, "Don't bother writing a Twitter client, ours is so much better than yours." Of course, the REALLY funny part is that Twitter just bought Atebits, rebranded Tweetie and turned that into their iPhone Twitter client. Can you honestly tell me that Twitterific or TweetDeck weren't easily as worthy?
And since they've essentially kicked developers out of their primary bread and butter, what's to stop them from going after other areas involving Twitter? They already have an official URL shortening service, so it's only a matter of time before images and video are taken as well. It's the patented "Extend and Extinguish" model pioneered by another famous tech company we all know...
What this really means is that Twitter doesn't want users to have clients that outright refuse to display Promoted Tweets or things like the #dickbar. Seems they are all about the money now...
It's not so much as google getting worse or better, but people and companies building businesses around pagerank, and thus the need for very aggressive SEO.
Were you to dump the same "low-quality" sites onto the Internet in 2000, I'm sure the results from Google would have been FAR worse than what we see today.
Because fiber cables cost more than copper ones? I doubt USB 3.0 is dead, considering Light Peak is protocol-agnostic, it's just a way to send lots of data over a pipe. It doesn't define what that data is like USB or FireWire is.
Nice thing is you should be able to get a port replicator that will have whatever port you want, possibly including USB 3.0.
What about DRM on things you don't purchase but stream, like Netflix and Hulu? Since you don't own it, you shouldn't be able to download it, and DRM is necessary to protect those companies interest.
Again, with content you OWN, DRM = evil because it limits rights. But with streaming content, it gives just enough rights so that in theory, prices should be cheaper (Apple TV rental being cheaper than purchase, despite it being the same bits sent to you).
So Mozilla wants everyone to switch to WebM, but also thinks that a company like Hulu would be happy if people were able to download it's content by looking at the source code and seeing ???
Really? Come on now. There's standing up for a "free" internet and then also making sure that people can't easily steal web video content with a simple click. NO business in their right mind would agree to something like that.
Umm... the Android G1 had a 524Mhz Qualcomm processor and that was 2008. The first Android phone to come out with a 1Ghz Snapdragon was the Nexus One, and that wasn't until January 2010. And as far as current-gen Android phones having a 1.2Ghz processor, none of those have been released yet. All Android phones released in 2010 were capped at 1Ghz with chips from either Qualcomm or Samsung. The Samsung Infuse 4G is the first phone I'm aware of that at stock is greater than 1Ghz (it is 1.2Ghz).
Sure it's written by nVidia, but I doubt they are allowed to flat out lie, as that's some pretty bad PR. And it's the whole theory behind having dual cores in laptops anyway. 2 cores running at a lower clock speed is more power efficient than running one core at a higher clock speed.
I'm surprised people still type in www.google.com anymore. All of my google searches are through the address bar, in which case, Google Instant has little impact on me.
Because that keeps enabling IE6. And providing even "basic support" takes a lot of work because of the number of hacks needed to make anything look decent. It's basically designing a different site just for IE6. No one likes doing that, which is why web developers want to explicitly not support IE6 to avoid that headache.
You can certainly put it up there, but physicians and their staff won't be able to edit it since it's not "secure". And since patients almost never put info into a medical record by themselves, the issue is a non-starter.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably closer to $7-8, as they definitely have some significant avenues of revenue growth available to them, namely mobile. But $38 is rather silly for a company to be valued at $104 billion initially off of earnings of $1 billion a year. Though because it was an IPO day, the retail investor was likely locked out for most of the early trading (especially because the NASDAQ screwed up with delays). It might have actually benefited them though, because they probably didn't get a chance to buy it at $42-$45. But whoever bought it at that price just lost ~30% of their money in a day based on today's price of $33. Suckers!
It's all fun and games until someone hacks your bank, releases your identity, then you have lots of credit cards opened up in your name. "But your bank was secure and they were just doing it for the lulz!!!" People only care about this stuff when it happens to them. Even if you think what lulzsec is doing is a good thing, it encourages hackers with worse motives to try the same tactics with far more disastrous results. But of course, you think it's a great idea, so sure, let's let them continue!
Even if it's profitable, it's probably better to pour their limited resources into a car that would have larger mass-market appeal. They only have so many engineers.
The Windows Mobile and Windows NT kernel are not the same thing.
And here I was thinking that Google owned the trademark to "Chrome" as it refers to browsers and "Chromebook" would be an extension of that. How on earth is "Chromebook" the same as "ChromiumPC Modular Computer"?? The nerve some companies have these days.
And this is why you should get a phone that can be rooted and have a custom ROM on it, no wireless carrier is going to be able to install their shitty software OTA just to make a buck.
How do you use 250GB/month? Have a family and you'll find out. It becomes REALLY easy to bump against the cap if you ditch cable and buy all your TV shows from iTunes.
An important thing to realize is that multi-tasking is NOT the same thing as as an app/OS being multi-threaded. While most apps need to be specifically coded to be multi-threaded, operating systems for a long time have had the ability to take advantage of multiple CPUs to complete tasks. Now, while a big jump in a single application may come from taking a huge CPU task and chopping it up into little pieces, there are definitely some tasks that lend themselves very easily to being multi-threaded. For example, probably the most important one is independently-executed Javascript threads. Browser performance can really be improved from multiple CPUs chewing on Javascript threads and then powering down to a low power state. Now, will it really matter when most of the wait for a page loading is downloading images? Probably not, but better performance is still better performance. The key goal with dual/quad core chips is making sure the system itself still feels responsive when doing tasks. A good example of this is if you have an iPhone and you are listening to a video podcast while running Safari, the system will definitely see some slowdown. Or running any app while the OS is installing something from the App Store, uploading a photo to Flickr in the background, or streaming Pandora. As refined as smartphones seem, they are still just pocket computers with limited resources.
That's why developers create middleware engines to abstract away most of the low-end stuff because they don't want to be bothered with it. Ever heard of Unreal Engine 3?
a) It would be VERY irresponsible of her to stop taking that medication cold turkey. It doesn't get out of your system for days/weeks and in the short term would have had rebound effects. b) She would have been told very clearly not to drink while on any anti-depressant/anti-psychotic medication. She obviously broke that rule. Adds these two points together and you get someone with poor judgement and not able to take very good care of herself.
What is the difference between a phone and an iPad? Only screen resolution (and it's about 20%). That's about it.
I don't you read the article that well. This part in particular is troubling for a Twitter developer: "*The Opportunity for Developers* Developers have told us that they’d like more guidance from us about the best opportunities to build on Twitter. More specifically, developers ask us if they should build client apps that mimic or reproduce the mainstream Twitter consumer client experience. The answer is no. " Basically, they are saying, "Don't bother writing a Twitter client, ours is so much better than yours." Of course, the REALLY funny part is that Twitter just bought Atebits, rebranded Tweetie and turned that into their iPhone Twitter client. Can you honestly tell me that Twitterific or TweetDeck weren't easily as worthy? And since they've essentially kicked developers out of their primary bread and butter, what's to stop them from going after other areas involving Twitter? They already have an official URL shortening service, so it's only a matter of time before images and video are taken as well. It's the patented "Extend and Extinguish" model pioneered by another famous tech company we all know...
What this really means is that Twitter doesn't want users to have clients that outright refuse to display Promoted Tweets or things like the #dickbar. Seems they are all about the money now...
It's not so much as google getting worse or better, but people and companies building businesses around pagerank, and thus the need for very aggressive SEO. Were you to dump the same "low-quality" sites onto the Internet in 2000, I'm sure the results from Google would have been FAR worse than what we see today.
Because fiber cables cost more than copper ones? I doubt USB 3.0 is dead, considering Light Peak is protocol-agnostic, it's just a way to send lots of data over a pipe. It doesn't define what that data is like USB or FireWire is. Nice thing is you should be able to get a port replicator that will have whatever port you want, possibly including USB 3.0.
No release date. Verizon has it's hooks cast into Motorola telling them when they can release a WiFi only version.
What you need is a NAS server dude.
What about DRM on things you don't purchase but stream, like Netflix and Hulu? Since you don't own it, you shouldn't be able to download it, and DRM is necessary to protect those companies interest. Again, with content you OWN, DRM = evil because it limits rights. But with streaming content, it gives just enough rights so that in theory, prices should be cheaper (Apple TV rental being cheaper than purchase, despite it being the same bits sent to you).
So Mozilla wants everyone to switch to WebM, but also thinks that a company like Hulu would be happy if people were able to download it's content by looking at the source code and seeing ??? Really? Come on now. There's standing up for a "free" internet and then also making sure that people can't easily steal web video content with a simple click. NO business in their right mind would agree to something like that.
Businesses don't care about open source. They care about patent liability. Using a codec that can get you sued isn't in their best interests.
Businesses aren't going nor should they care if a format is open or not. They just want a reliable product to be delivered to their customers.
Umm... the Android G1 had a 524Mhz Qualcomm processor and that was 2008. The first Android phone to come out with a 1Ghz Snapdragon was the Nexus One, and that wasn't until January 2010. And as far as current-gen Android phones having a 1.2Ghz processor, none of those have been released yet. All Android phones released in 2010 were capped at 1Ghz with chips from either Qualcomm or Samsung. The Samsung Infuse 4G is the first phone I'm aware of that at stock is greater than 1Ghz (it is 1.2Ghz).
As for battery life, I'd like to direct you to this white paper: http://www.nvidia.com/content/PDF/tegra_white_papers/Benefits-of-Multi-core-CPUs-in-Mobile-Devices_Ver1.2.pdf
Sure it's written by nVidia, but I doubt they are allowed to flat out lie, as that's some pretty bad PR. And it's the whole theory behind having dual cores in laptops anyway. 2 cores running at a lower clock speed is more power efficient than running one core at a higher clock speed.
I'm surprised people still type in www.google.com anymore. All of my google searches are through the address bar, in which case, Google Instant has little impact on me.
Because that keeps enabling IE6. And providing even "basic support" takes a lot of work because of the number of hacks needed to make anything look decent. It's basically designing a different site just for IE6. No one likes doing that, which is why web developers want to explicitly not support IE6 to avoid that headache.
You can certainly put it up there, but physicians and their staff won't be able to edit it since it's not "secure". And since patients almost never put info into a medical record by themselves, the issue is a non-starter.