Animals aren't that complicated, really. If they're not hungry and do not feel threatened, they have no reason to attack humans, no matter what size they are.
You take it to the garage, who tells you they'll need to order a new one. Probably takes weeks (I have no first-hand experience but I doubt I'm far off).
Now imagine that your Honda engine was 100% compatible with any Ford chassis and any Renault chassis etc. Now, if you break your engine and go to the garage, there's a pretty good chance he will have a compatible engine in stock, because now having such a stock makes sense. It doesn't when there's a few hundred different engine models you need to stock.
And you get your car back the next day...
You get a phone, it runs Android, no problem. And, just like your car, as long as you don't want to change anything or add anything, it won't become a problem.
"A new software built by my company is released. The UI locks up. The computer crashes and loses everyone's data. Now, should we initiate a patch? Take the number of copies of our software in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a patch, we don't do one."
I'd find it highly unlikely that a system would rely on ONE SINGLE laser. Not only do you have a point about mirrors, but what about if you're heading straight for a telephone pole? If you have only one laser and it's not actually pointed at that pole, it'll just give an all clear...
So unless they're stupid, there's more than one laser and error-correction between them.
That's not quite what I read into that post: "Google's goal is to commodify (reduce the marginal profit to zero) of everything that they don't make money on."
The reason for this is simple: every Google consumer must first have a PC and an Internet connection (ignoring Android for now). So, to have as many customers as possible, Google must first make sure as many people as possible have a PC and an Internet connection. The best way to achieve that is to make these items both as cheap and as attractive as possible.
Thus, it isn't about weakening competitors. Microsoft does NOT want to sell as many copies of Windows as possible, it wants to earn as much profit as possible. At some price point, reducing the price by 1% might only earn MS 0.5% more customers, so to them, going below this price is not a good move. But, every customer that Microsoft 'ignores' in this way is almost always also lost to Google (and every other software producer).
So, in order to maximize its own potential consumer base (= potential profits), Google must put pressure on Microsoft to allow even more people into the software marketplace. How? By changing the perceived value of OSes and office packages, also known as Total Cost of Ownership (TCO). If I can get an OS and an office suite for free, why would I buy MS stuff? Well, if the free office package can't read the dominant file format, that's a huge increase to my TCO. If the free package also has a bunch of useful elements not present in the other one, then that might balance things out.
Google's aim is to drive down the TCO of a typical computer setup, including OS and office tools and then make their profit on additional software. Microsoft's aim is to drive down the TCO of a typical computer WITHOUT OS and office tools and then make their profit on those items.
So yes, Google is directly aiming at Microsoft, but that in and of itself is not their strategy, it's just a simple fact that they cannot both win in the current situation.
Two reasons. The first one is that the world was just coming out of the second global war in 30 years that the Germans had started. The second one is that they weren't even part of the UN until 1973.
The sentiment is of course wonderful -- no one is going to argue that point. What's even better, though, is that the laptops aren't truly "given away." An extra dollar or two might be a hardship for some families, but it won't likely break them -- and what's infinitely more important is the child pledging to try to make a difference, in front of family and friends -- and then being presented a powerful tool to make that happen.
If it's perfectly free, then every freeloader will line up for one, drowning out those who would gain most.
Yes, Linux is not 'what people are used to'. That doesn't mean it's not 'idiot-friendly', you just need the right kind of idiot: a pure, fresh idiot, one who has *never* been behind a Windows box either.
Because, like you correctly stated, it's not what people are used to, it's different from Windows. You can't take an idiot that's been working on Windows for the past 5 years, drop them in front of Linux and then then expect them to display the same level of mediocrity. You wouldn't be able to do it the other way round either.
One person's freedom ends where another man's freedom begins.
So when a developer uses *his* freedom and develops in Flash, he ends up taking away everybody else's freedom because now they must use Flash as well if they want to see this site.
Installing and using Flash is *not* giving yourself more choice, it's taking back the choice that others took away from you. And that shouldn't happen.
Looking back, I feel that the one thing all our technological progress has given us more than anything else, is more and better means of communication.
You can talk to people on the other side of the world, heck, on the other side of the solar system if you don't mind the delay. Video feeds, planes that'll actually get you there in less than a day,...
And yet, with all of this, it seems that we're not actually doing it. A company explaining what went wrong is the exception. Internet forums without flamers and trolls? Exception.
"Anything you say can and will be used against you."
Any 'ergonomic' product is basically a sham. A truly ergonomic item must be customized for its user, that is the only way to be 100% that it will properly 'fit'. Anything you find in the shops is mass-produced and thus aimed at a broad swath of average people.
If you fit in that swath, fine. If you don't, that 'ergonomic' item might just do more harm than good. So spend some time with your child making a nice gift coupon and then go buy the chair with your husband present.
Why would that middle stanza only be a mapping, used to decode those three items? There seems to be too much information for it to be just that, especially since you only need to decode 3 'letters'.
So why the rest of the key? Why are some hex numbers repeated?
Why does every hex number (that shows up) appear once, twice or three times? Again with the three, again with the ternary? *Three* stanzas, all in some form of base *three*?
Just wondering out loud, I couldn't really get far with this train of thought but maybe someone else will be able to hop on.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oEYH7m1cmo
Animals aren't that complicated, really. If they're not hungry and do not feel threatened, they have no reason to attack humans, no matter what size they are.
Nah, your last three letters are correctly capitalized.
Yeah, but what happens when your engine breaks?
You take it to the garage, who tells you they'll need to order a new one. Probably takes weeks (I have no first-hand experience but I doubt I'm far off).
Now imagine that your Honda engine was 100% compatible with any Ford chassis and any Renault chassis etc. Now, if you break your engine and go to the garage, there's a pretty good chance he will have a compatible engine in stock, because now having such a stock makes sense. It doesn't when there's a few hundred different engine models you need to stock.
And you get your car back the next day...
You get a phone, it runs Android, no problem. And, just like your car, as long as you don't want to change anything or add anything, it won't become a problem.
"A new software built by my company is released. The UI locks up. The computer crashes and loses everyone's data. Now, should we initiate a patch? Take the number of copies of our software in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a patch, we don't do one."
Original quote from Fight Club.
I'd find it highly unlikely that a system would rely on ONE SINGLE laser. Not only do you have a point about mirrors, but what about if you're heading straight for a telephone pole? If you have only one laser and it's not actually pointed at that pole, it'll just give an all clear...
So unless they're stupid, there's more than one laser and error-correction between them.
That's not quite what I read into that post: "Google's goal is to commodify (reduce the marginal profit to zero) of everything that they don't make money on."
The reason for this is simple: every Google consumer must first have a PC and an Internet connection (ignoring Android for now). So, to have as many customers as possible, Google must first make sure as many people as possible have a PC and an Internet connection. The best way to achieve that is to make these items both as cheap and as attractive as possible.
Thus, it isn't about weakening competitors. Microsoft does NOT want to sell as many copies of Windows as possible, it wants to earn as much profit as possible. At some price point, reducing the price by 1% might only earn MS 0.5% more customers, so to them, going below this price is not a good move. But, every customer that Microsoft 'ignores' in this way is almost always also lost to Google (and every other software producer).
So, in order to maximize its own potential consumer base (= potential profits), Google must put pressure on Microsoft to allow even more people into the software marketplace. How? By changing the perceived value of OSes and office packages, also known as Total Cost of Ownership (TCO). If I can get an OS and an office suite for free, why would I buy MS stuff? Well, if the free office package can't read the dominant file format, that's a huge increase to my TCO. If the free package also has a bunch of useful elements not present in the other one, then that might balance things out.
Google's aim is to drive down the TCO of a typical computer setup, including OS and office tools and then make their profit on additional software.
Microsoft's aim is to drive down the TCO of a typical computer WITHOUT OS and office tools and then make their profit on those items.
So yes, Google is directly aiming at Microsoft, but that in and of itself is not their strategy, it's just a simple fact that they cannot both win in the current situation.
Two reasons. The first one is that the world was just coming out of the second global war in 30 years that the Germans had started. The second one is that they weren't even part of the UN until 1973.
Or perhaps we can trust that they all cheat in roughly the same amount, cancelling each other out :-)
Quote from TFA:
The sentiment is of course wonderful -- no one is going to argue that point. What's even better, though, is that the laptops aren't truly "given away." An extra dollar or two might be a hardship for some families, but it won't likely break them -- and what's infinitely more important is the child pledging to try to make a difference, in front of family and friends -- and then being presented a powerful tool to make that happen.
If it's perfectly free, then every freeloader will line up for one, drowning out those who would gain most.
Yes, Linux is not 'what people are used to'. That doesn't mean it's not 'idiot-friendly', you just need the right kind of idiot: a pure, fresh idiot, one who has *never* been behind a Windows box either.
Because, like you correctly stated, it's not what people are used to, it's different from Windows. You can't take an idiot that's been working on Windows for the past 5 years, drop them in front of Linux and then then expect them to display the same level of mediocrity. You wouldn't be able to do it the other way round either.
One person's freedom ends where another man's freedom begins.
So when a developer uses *his* freedom and develops in Flash, he ends up taking away everybody else's freedom because now they must use Flash as well if they want to see this site.
Installing and using Flash is *not* giving yourself more choice, it's taking back the choice that others took away from you. And that shouldn't happen.
Not feasible since the array would need to be rebuilt every time you swap a drive.
What if your millionaire uncle tells you you're gonna vote for x, or you'll be out of his will?
What if your employer tells you you'd better vote for y or you'll be fired?
If your vote is public, all sorts of nasty stuff can happen because of your vote, and just knowing that it might will already influence your vote.
Looking back, I feel that the one thing all our technological progress has given us more than anything else, is more and better means of communication.
You can talk to people on the other side of the world, heck, on the other side of the solar system if you don't mind the delay. Video feeds, planes that'll actually get you there in less than a day, ...
And yet, with all of this, it seems that we're not actually doing it. A company explaining what went wrong is the exception. Internet forums without flamers and trolls? Exception.
"Anything you say can and will be used against you."
I also have to agree with this advice.
Any 'ergonomic' product is basically a sham. A truly ergonomic item must be customized for its user, that is the only way to be 100% that it will properly 'fit'. Anything you find in the shops is mass-produced and thus aimed at a broad swath of average people.
If you fit in that swath, fine. If you don't, that 'ergonomic' item might just do more harm than good. So spend some time with your child making a nice gift coupon and then go buy the chair with your husband present.
Why would that middle stanza only be a mapping, used to decode those three items? There seems to be too much information for it to be just that, especially since you only need to decode 3 'letters'.
So why the rest of the key? Why are some hex numbers repeated?
Why does every hex number (that shows up) appear once, twice or three times? Again with the three, again with the ternary? *Three* stanzas, all in some form of base *three*?
Just wondering out loud, I couldn't really get far with this train of thought but maybe someone else will be able to hop on.