The article states the size of the asteroid as 900 feet... which is three American football fields... $1.2 Billion in tax payer money is needed to study the discrepancy.
Unfortunately, the leader in proprietary software is... money.
In proprietary software the customer gets the software they want by giving the company money. The company develops the software for the customer so they can get more customers and then money.
In the free software model, the customer is the developer. The customer gets the software they want by either writing it themselves or by giving software they wrote for something else to someone else (contribution). In either case the primary exchange is dependent on someone volunteering their time to write code. Because of this, it is difficult for someone without any coding knowledge or someone who does not have the time to actually write the code to get the software they want. There may exist some piece of software that is close, as is the case when the customer needs are the same needs as the developer, and so a few customers will use it. But the number of customers that can use the software will be limithttp://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/12/21/142228/Androids-Success-a-Threat-To-Free-Software#ed because the software is not developed based on the customer needs, it is developed based on the developers needs, which are not necessarily the same for all customers.
Money solves this by compensating the developers time to write software that the customer wants but may not have any value to the developer. If the free software model is to beat the proprietary model then the free model needs a way to reward or compensate the developer for creating apps that the customer wants not just apps the developer wants. The fundamental problem is that free software is developed for the community and not for the soccer mom or cheerleader.
You might think that Google breaks this logic, until you consider that Google makes money by selling advertising. They are developing Android for the customer so they can sell more advertising, primarily through their search. They were successful with this approach with gMail, Picasa and bunch of other apps and are now applying it to Android.
There are some sayings: "Money talks" and "The customer is always right". There is a reason why those saying exist.
Unfortunately, the leader in proprietary software is... money.
In proprietary software the customer gets the software they want by giving the company money. The company develops the software for the customer so they can get more customers and then money.
In the free software model, the customer is the developer. The customer gets the software they want by either writing it themselves or by giving software they wrote for something else to someone else (contribution). In either case the primary exchange is dependent on someone volunteering their time to write code. Because of this, it is difficult for someone without any coding knowledge or someone who does not have the time to actually write the code to get the software they want. There may exist some piece of software that is close, as is the case when the customer needs are the same needs as the developer, and so a few customers will use it. But the number of customers that can use the software will be limited because the software is not developed based on the customer needs, it is developed based on the developers needs, which are not necessarily the same for all customers.
Money solves this by compensating the developers time to write software that the customer wants but may not have any value to the developer. If the free software model is to beat the proprietary model then the free model needs a way to reward or compensate the developer for creating apps that the customer wants not just apps the developer wants. The fundamental problem is that free software is developed for the community and not for the soccer mom or cheerleader.
You might think that Google breaks this logic, until you consider that Google makes money by selling advertising. They are developing Android for the customer so they can sell more advertising, primarily through their search. They were successful with this approach with gMail, Picasa and bunch of other apps and are now applying it to Android.
There are some sayings: "Money talks" and "The customer is always right". There is a reason why those saying exist.
An "external force" is just Apple's term for the black shirted people who believe that everything that Apple makes is wonderful. It is what other companies call their 'customers'." writes Nick Farrell.'
No, an "external force" is an end user putting the device in an oven at 350 degrees, or driving a nail through the battery.
No, if that were the case then Apple would have said "User abuse" rather than "external force". By calling it external force implies that they either do not know what the root cause is or they do not want to admit there is a problem.
That would imply that they know better in the first place. They did proof read it, as with all newspaper/blogs, they simply did not find anything wrong. To them the writing is perfectly clear and understandable.
You only half understand what you are talking about. The fuel economy estimates and CO2 emissions for cars are measured on a dyno. These are two separate measurements from one test procedure. One is telling you the amount of fuel you would use and the other tells you the amount of CO2 produced. Both are measured assuming you were to drive in a specified way.
The problem with fuel economy and battery life measurements is that in the real world you do not drive same as when the vehicle was tested on a dyno. The dyno test specifies how fast to drive, how quickly to accelerate, the number of stop lights, and how far to drive. Your daily commute will be different for each one of these parameters which changes your actual fuel economy. Even on your daily commute, your average speed will even change from day to day. So, even though your destination is the same, your fuel consumption will be different on a daily basis.
The problem with fuel economy testing is that it attempts to specify a driving cycle that represents that average for all Americans. As you know the way people driving in Los Angles is completely different that the way people drive in rural Wyoming. So, people in LA get completely different fuel economy than people in Wyoming
The same problem exists with predicting battery life. You simply don't know how the machine is going to be used. How can you predict the future? If you are using the optical drive you will use more power, which shortens your battery life. The best you can do is to try and predict life based on some average statistics for a given machine. Standardized tests will help, but you will never be able to provide precise number because of the variations on power consumption.
The other problem with battery life is that as the battery ages, the capacity of the battery decreases, which further shortens your battery life. In order to accurately predict battery life you need to model the aging properties of the battery. Having a background in batteries, I can say that this is not simple.
Ummm, don't forgot about the news writers on the economy who aren't necessarily smart enough to understand the "famous Slashdot Mantra: Correlation is not causation." They tend to think that if it happened on the same day, then it must have been the root cause. To them this tool will be a God send, they will be able to postulate all sorts of insane theories such as the number of shoppers on black Friday to snow fall in the midwest.
So, why do they need the kill switch in the first place? If apps from the app store are the only ones that can be killed, why don't they simply audit and approve the apps *before* it is posted to the app store. Seeing as they will need to audit the app after it is posted to determine if it should be killed.
Ok First of all this device is not powered by gravity. It is powered by the human or machine that has to turn the lamp over to get it started. The human is the source of the energy... the energy is being stored as potential energy (mass at a height) from the human.
Second, who (besides the inventor) would actually use a lamp that needs to be turned over every hour or four hours when you can just plug in a LED based lamp?
Conclusion: Green != Realistic
That is exactly the problem the parent is trying address. You were required to use your knowledge to setup the system properly. Linux needs to be straight forward enough that your 10year old daughter can set it up by herself, without daddy there walking here through the steps. I call Bullshit, She couldn't setup windows either. How is that bullshit? I am making the point that if Linux was easy enough for a ten year old to setup then it would be better than windows which would be a good reason for the average Joe to switch. In my opinion the average technical expertise of the average Joe consumer is at about a ten year old level. It may even be less, as I know a lot of middle aged people that know less about computers then there ten year old kids.
Slashdot Mirror
You must be new here. RTFA
size of two-and-a-half football fields.
The article states the size of the asteroid as 900 feet ... which is three American football fields ... $1.2 Billion in tax payer money is needed to study the discrepancy.
more recent calculations have put the odds of collision at 1 in 250,000
A lot of people buy lottery tickets hoping win big money with odds a lot worse than that!
Unfortunately, the leader in proprietary software is ... money.
In proprietary software the customer gets the software they want by giving the company money. The company develops the software for the customer so they can get more customers and then money.
In the free software model, the customer is the developer. The customer gets the software they want by either writing it themselves or by giving software they wrote for something else to someone else (contribution). In either case the primary exchange is dependent on someone volunteering their time to write code. Because of this, it is difficult for someone without any coding knowledge or someone who does not have the time to actually write the code to get the software they want. There may exist some piece of software that is close, as is the case when the customer needs are the same needs as the developer, and so a few customers will use it. But the number of customers that can use the software will be limithttp://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/12/21/142228/Androids-Success-a-Threat-To-Free-Software#ed because the software is not developed based on the customer needs, it is developed based on the developers needs, which are not necessarily the same for all customers.
Money solves this by compensating the developers time to write software that the customer wants but may not have any value to the developer. If the free software model is to beat the proprietary model then the free model needs a way to reward or compensate the developer for creating apps that the customer wants not just apps the developer wants. The fundamental problem is that free software is developed for the community and not for the soccer mom or cheerleader.
You might think that Google breaks this logic, until you consider that Google makes money by selling advertising. They are developing Android for the customer so they can sell more advertising, primarily through their search. They were successful with this approach with gMail, Picasa and bunch of other apps and are now applying it to Android.
There are some sayings: "Money talks" and "The customer is always right". There is a reason why those saying exist.
Unfortunately, the leader in proprietary software is ... money.
In proprietary software the customer gets the software they want by giving the company money. The company develops the software for the customer so they can get more customers and then money.
In the free software model, the customer is the developer. The customer gets the software they want by either writing it themselves or by giving software they wrote for something else to someone else (contribution). In either case the primary exchange is dependent on someone volunteering their time to write code. Because of this, it is difficult for someone without any coding knowledge or someone who does not have the time to actually write the code to get the software they want. There may exist some piece of software that is close, as is the case when the customer needs are the same needs as the developer, and so a few customers will use it. But the number of customers that can use the software will be limited because the software is not developed based on the customer needs, it is developed based on the developers needs, which are not necessarily the same for all customers.
Money solves this by compensating the developers time to write software that the customer wants but may not have any value to the developer. If the free software model is to beat the proprietary model then the free model needs a way to reward or compensate the developer for creating apps that the customer wants not just apps the developer wants. The fundamental problem is that free software is developed for the community and not for the soccer mom or cheerleader.
You might think that Google breaks this logic, until you consider that Google makes money by selling advertising. They are developing Android for the customer so they can sell more advertising, primarily through their search. They were successful with this approach with gMail, Picasa and bunch of other apps and are now applying it to Android.
There are some sayings: "Money talks" and "The customer is always right". There is a reason why those saying exist.
An "external force" is just Apple's term for the black shirted people who believe that everything that Apple makes is wonderful. It is what other companies call their 'customers'." writes Nick Farrell.'
No, an "external force" is an end user putting the device in an oven at 350 degrees, or driving a nail through the battery.
No, if that were the case then Apple would have said "User abuse" rather than "external force". By calling it external force implies that they either do not know what the root cause is or they do not want to admit there is a problem.
YES! Linux needs standardization, without it no-one wants to develop for it and it will forever remain as an experimental OS.
Yeah, like gMail. It has been in beta forEVER! Maybe they are to stupid to make an actual release.
That would imply that they know better in the first place. They did proof read it, as with all newspaper/blogs, they simply did not find anything wrong. To them the writing is perfectly clear and understandable.
The problem with fuel economy and battery life measurements is that in the real world you do not drive same as when the vehicle was tested on a dyno. The dyno test specifies how fast to drive, how quickly to accelerate, the number of stop lights, and how far to drive. Your daily commute will be different for each one of these parameters which changes your actual fuel economy. Even on your daily commute, your average speed will even change from day to day. So, even though your destination is the same, your fuel consumption will be different on a daily basis.
The problem with fuel economy testing is that it attempts to specify a driving cycle that represents that average for all Americans. As you know the way people driving in Los Angles is completely different that the way people drive in rural Wyoming. So, people in LA get completely different fuel economy than people in Wyoming
The same problem exists with predicting battery life. You simply don't know how the machine is going to be used. How can you predict the future? If you are using the optical drive you will use more power, which shortens your battery life. The best you can do is to try and predict life based on some average statistics for a given machine. Standardized tests will help, but you will never be able to provide precise number because of the variations on power consumption.
The other problem with battery life is that as the battery ages, the capacity of the battery decreases, which further shortens your battery life. In order to accurately predict battery life you need to model the aging properties of the battery. Having a background in batteries, I can say that this is not simple.
Yep and in three years will be the year of linux! I can't wait.
three years of hardware development means the hardware will be fast enough to support it.
Ummm, don't forgot about the news writers on the economy who aren't necessarily smart enough to understand the "famous Slashdot Mantra: Correlation is not causation." They tend to think that if it happened on the same day, then it must have been the root cause. To them this tool will be a God send, they will be able to postulate all sorts of insane theories such as the number of shoppers on black Friday to snow fall in the midwest.
What is amazing is that this is coming from someone who just yesterday said that congress' day's of pork as a strategy are over. I guess he was not referring to his own pork. "You know, the days of just pork coming out of Congress as a strategy, those days are over."
Ha, Google is using the old MS strategy: embrace, extend, extinguish. Google is the new Microsoft! Bastards.
So, why do they need the kill switch in the first place? If apps from the app store are the only ones that can be killed, why don't they simply audit and approve the apps *before* it is posted to the app store. Seeing as they will need to audit the app after it is posted to determine if it should be killed.
So why was the code name "windows 7" if it didn't have *something* to do with the release number?
Sulpher Stinks! Phew
Seriously, stop humping your keyboard and get a date! (algorithm: Locate eyes, look ~17inches down, score proportional to size of round bulges)
Ok First of all this device is not powered by gravity. It is powered by the human or machine that has to turn the lamp over to get it started. The human is the source of the energy ... the energy is being stored as potential energy (mass at a height) from the human.
Second, who (besides the inventor) would actually use a lamp that needs to be turned over every hour or four hours when you can just plug in a LED based lamp?
Conclusion: Green != Realistic
The slashdot affect is in place ... has anyone found a mirror?