Seriously, I like the scenario where we can't communicate and our mechanisms for that turned out tobe confused with weapons (lights in encounters of third kind?)
Well, Google is all over the news, because EVERYONE is scared with their move. Note that even cable companies are intrigued about the move on the tv-boxes used by many companies. There's a lot going out with the move, so it seems reasonable hearing "bashing" and excitement depending their perspective.
Same thing here. If something, I pull the little box to read the RSS feeds or check on messages (and even send some messages) when I'm by myself in a place and haven't had the chance of meeting anyone.
It must be the utter social ineptitude part from the knack.
I can see some reasons why Google would take over Motorola: 1. Because is an American based company. Which probably means they have been growing their patent portfolio in the US for longer and probably have more legal tools for a battle. 2. Because Apple just called the war against them, so Google probably wants to go a face the issue face to face, given that Apple has been going around the bushes attacking the manufacturers supporting Google's OS. 3. Historical hardware developments from Motorola. If someone has precedents about telecommunication innovations, I'd put Motorola in a really good place, some others in top places are either too big or have no consumer device market segment.
But mainly it's interesting because for the Apple vs. Motorola, it's now Google showing up for the meeting. It's like a bully fight in school.
Hey this is an old video but I'm pretty sure that if they are providing you with a mechanism to increase the frequency, is because they're confident you won't blow your processor.
Again, let me know if you find what they "charge" for the offered upgrade.
Did you try the upgrade already? Did you have to pay for it? Nice way to go with your rants. I have an i5 so I can't try it, but I went to the link and downloaded with no much trouble with NO QUESTIONS ASKED.
But let the rage blind us and start senseless rants, just like in London!
There is no article. The only link on the summary is a link to the upgrade page, where you can download an upgrade for Windows. I wasn't even asked anything, just downloaded the file. If you have one of the processors from the list, perhaps you can try it. I didn't see they were charging for it.
To me, they probably found that these can run faster without blowing them and they are providing you with the option. Of course, I assume also, this will also increase the power consumption.
The summary says they "offered upgrades" not that they are charging for it. And I was able to download the installer without being asked about anything. They seem to be providing a "patch", perhaps they found they could change stuff and make it work better.
But sounds awesome that you think otherwise! Because you'll never try to get it thinking it's going to cost you money!
Hey, if by this time you haven't realized that articles starring with the word "why" on the title are very poor and read them with care or just ignore them, you need to keep "learning slashdot".
The problem doesn't stop there. This will be helpful for governments to track whistle-blowers, so I don't think the "tracking" feature will go away. And since the media industry is also feeding lawyers and the penitentiary system, everybody is happy.
I think the drinking age should be lowered but for other reasons (which I share with US Universities):
Because parents keep thinking that colleges should teach kids how to deal with alcohol. With drinking ages above high school ages, the kids will try by themselves instead of being responsibly taught by parents.
Although I must agree that nowadays, people in general think they can do more than one thing while driving a car. And that seems to be a bad habit from adults and kids.
That data says that the fatal crashes have being reduced by 10000 in the past years, and has no information whatsoever about "fuel efficiency", that I can see.
The eternal problem of correlation and causation. Where is the research that supports the hypothesis? Is it possible that the population growth is the one that is causing more cars to be sold (and economy pushes for better efficiency standards) and therefore more accidents?
Is it also that more kids start driving at younger ages? I don't see the clear causation of fuel efficiency vs. death toll, but certainly I see a correlation.
Is this a trick to make insurance companies charge me more for fuel efficient vehicles?
The ramifications of this seem larger. My first thought is, if they have a pool of patents, then no-one has any advantage over the others and the one with more "outsider" patents will still lead the parade.
Google wants to buy patents so they can trade the use of such patents. Agreeing to pay altogether with a pool of companies, means Google has no advantage whatsoever and "patent-all" companies like Apple or MS will still have that advantage that will cause Google to owe them money.
So, If I were Google, why would I help them to pay billions for a set of patents that will not help my cause? Instead, I bid against them, and raise dramatically the price of the patents, and see what the law thinks about it. Best result, would be that Google lobbies a patent law reform and lowers the cost of those patents.
But, also, there has been a lot of research in the area of Vehicle to Grid which allows also to return to the grid, not only to your house. I'd assume it will be safer to provide only local and then think about going further and return back to the grid.
You're telling me that millions of UPS systems around the world can cause a reflection towards the electrical network and kill the worker that is trying to fix the problem. Yet, nobody has complained about it?
You seem to be missing an important part. Make sure they all are different! I'm afraid you wouldn't be making much if you buy them all the same! (and by today standards, I'm positive someone could just do that);)
Slashdot Mirror
Exterminate, Exterminate!
Seriously, I like the scenario where we can't communicate and our mechanisms for that turned out tobe confused with weapons (lights in encounters of third kind?)
Damn! Again it's the "females" bringing up the fights between slashdotters!
Also, they are patenting removing the top half. Can I patent removing the bottom one?
2) If consumer devices users weren't so trusted and ran anything that crosses their eyes (trojans included), no device would be locked.
Well, Google is all over the news, because EVERYONE is scared with their move. Note that even cable companies are intrigued about the move on the tv-boxes used by many companies. There's a lot going out with the move, so it seems reasonable hearing "bashing" and excitement depending their perspective.
Same thing here. If something, I pull the little box to read the RSS feeds or check on messages (and even send some messages) when I'm by myself in a place and haven't had the chance of meeting anyone.
It must be the utter social ineptitude part from the knack.
Furthermore, if that's the result of an innovative creation by their employees, they should patent it, and get the 20 years patents should get.
I can see some reasons why Google would take over Motorola:
1. Because is an American based company. Which probably means they have been growing their patent portfolio in the US for longer and probably have more legal tools for a battle.
2. Because Apple just called the war against them, so Google probably wants to go a face the issue face to face, given that Apple has been going around the bushes attacking the manufacturers supporting Google's OS.
3. Historical hardware developments from Motorola. If someone has precedents about telecommunication innovations, I'd put Motorola in a really good place, some others in top places are either too big or have no consumer device market segment.
But mainly it's interesting because for the Apple vs. Motorola, it's now Google showing up for the meeting. It's like a bully fight in school.
Thanks! Since I don't have an i3, I didn't want to even try. But I see everyone ranting about it. I don't see pricing or anything anywhere.
Hey this is an old video but I'm pretty sure that if they are providing you with a mechanism to increase the frequency, is because they're confident you won't blow your processor.
Again, let me know if you find what they "charge" for the offered upgrade.
Did you try the upgrade already? Did you have to pay for it? Nice way to go with your rants. I have an i5 so I can't try it, but I went to the link and downloaded with no much trouble with NO QUESTIONS ASKED.
But let the rage blind us and start senseless rants, just like in London!
There is no article. The only link on the summary is a link to the upgrade page, where you can download an upgrade for Windows. I wasn't even asked anything, just downloaded the file. If you have one of the processors from the list, perhaps you can try it. I didn't see they were charging for it.
To me, they probably found that these can run faster without blowing them and they are providing you with the option. Of course, I assume also, this will also increase the power consumption.
Are they charging for it? I didn't see that anywhere in the link and I downloaded the installer. Unluckily, I have an i5 so I'm not even trying.
The summary says they "offered upgrades" not that they are charging for it. And I was able to download the installer without being asked about anything. They seem to be providing a "patch", perhaps they found they could change stuff and make it work better.
But sounds awesome that you think otherwise! Because you'll never try to get it thinking it's going to cost you money!
Hey, if by this time you haven't realized that articles starring with the word "why" on the title are very poor and read them with care or just ignore them, you need to keep "learning slashdot".
The problem doesn't stop there. This will be helpful for governments to track whistle-blowers, so I don't think the "tracking" feature will go away. And since the media industry is also feeding lawyers and the penitentiary system, everybody is happy.
But hey, 7 out of 10 false alarms? Isn't that the purpose of it? Making people believe someone is doing something for the "safety" of the passengers?
I think the drinking age should be lowered but for other reasons (which I share with US Universities):
Because parents keep thinking that colleges should teach kids how to deal with alcohol. With drinking ages above high school ages, the kids will try by themselves instead of being responsibly taught by parents.
Although I must agree that nowadays, people in general think they can do more than one thing while driving a car. And that seems to be a bad habit from adults and kids.
That data says that the fatal crashes have being reduced by 10000 in the past years, and has no information whatsoever about "fuel efficiency", that I can see.
So where did they get that "research" from?
The eternal problem of correlation and causation. Where is the research that supports the hypothesis? Is it possible that the population growth is the one that is causing more cars to be sold (and economy pushes for better efficiency standards) and therefore more accidents?
Is it also that more kids start driving at younger ages? I don't see the clear causation of fuel efficiency vs. death toll, but certainly I see a correlation.
Is this a trick to make insurance companies charge me more for fuel efficient vehicles?
The ramifications of this seem larger. My first thought is, if they have a pool of patents, then no-one has any advantage over the others and the one with more "outsider" patents will still lead the parade.
Google wants to buy patents so they can trade the use of such patents. Agreeing to pay altogether with a pool of companies, means Google has no advantage whatsoever and "patent-all" companies like Apple or MS will still have that advantage that will cause Google to owe them money.
So, If I were Google, why would I help them to pay billions for a set of patents that will not help my cause? Instead, I bid against them, and raise dramatically the price of the patents, and see what the law thinks about it. Best result, would be that Google lobbies a patent law reform and lowers the cost of those patents.
And Muslim?
But, also, there has been a lot of research in the area of Vehicle to Grid which allows also to return to the grid, not only to your house. I'd assume it will be safer to provide only local and then think about going further and return back to the grid.
You're telling me that millions of UPS systems around the world can cause a reflection towards the electrical network and kill the worker that is trying to fix the problem. Yet, nobody has complained about it?
You seem to be missing an important part. Make sure they all are different! I'm afraid you wouldn't be making much if you buy them all the same! (and by today standards, I'm positive someone could just do that) ;)