The right answer here is to encourage high-schools to have trade schools (traditionally called "Vo-Tech") that can make students productive right out of high school. With no debt to anyone. The best part is that it is effectively "free" in the sense that you're educating these young people anyway. But typically, we're gearing high school education as a "prep" school which is probably not useful to at least half the population.
Its a far more effective mechanism than sending everybody to college, pick a major and hope they can be employable.
...that once the police "get their man", their effort is spent proving that he was the guy, not to look for things that disprove their theory, correct?
What makes a patent strong is how much money the holder is willing to try to enforce it.
Consider what IBM had to do to defend itself against SCO. The claims were non-existent, the patents were non-existent, and yet it dragged on for years.
So if Google could really cause another competitor to squirm. Look at Apple; they managed to convince a judge the shape of an iPad and iPhone are unique and worthy of protection and so they're used to cause Samsung pain. It doesn't matter if its valid or not, Samsung can't sell their devices.
Patents are legal tools to aid in delaying a competitor. Once you understand that, then the real value of patents become clear.
What's amazing is AT&T could build out their infrastructure; AT&T Wireless is very profitable (check their annual report), but they choose to pay investors instead of invest in their own infrastructure.
Its their company, they should do with it as they think best, but when they consistently have a bad network, and blame their users for it, it rings a bit hollow, doesn't it/
Almost every time someone says this about an IT problem, that usually means they don't understand the complexity of requirements, and you'll end up spending 10x as much as you think you will.
I'm not defending the integrators in this case (we don't know enough about this project to say who is at fault), but there is rarely a large IT project that can be solved as simply as "throw up a data base and...".
Software patents have always been about raising the cost of entry to new competitors.
Oracle, Microsoft, IBM, etc fight each other for business, but its sort of a gentlemen's game, with the players, stakes and products well known.
New players shake up the status quo, change markets, obsolete product lines. Stuff that big companies hate.
Years ago, I argued here on/. against software patents, arguing that despite what developers thought, they were really for the benefit of large companies, not upstart new companies.
The only exception to this might be a diesel that is tuned to provide torque in a narrow power band; an automatic transmission might provide a better match to road conditions under various conditions.
" Now, the auto transmission will delay engagement or bring the power on more slowly than that - meaning the transmission can use cheaper parts because you will only ever use 80% of what is possible."
Yes, and its damned annoying. When I was buying my last car, the salesman was trying to convince me to buy the auto (they had lots of them on the lot).
I got to a stop sign and floored the gas. You know what happened? Nothing. The computer decided I couldn't possibly mean that I wanted to accelerate fast. So it spooled up almost a second later and gave me spritely acceleration.
So we took the manual transmission out, and I revved it and dropped the clutch and even with traction control, it immediately took off and hard. The car, would spin the wheels on gear changes if you so chose all the way up through 4th.
I asked "How can people drive a car where it doesn't do precisely what they tell it to?"?
The salesman just said "Okay, we'll order what you want".
No wonder people view driving as a chore. It is with an automatic transmission.
(and to save you the question, I drive in heavy traffic all the time, and no your leg does not get tired)
C'mon, I drive in city traffic every day for 50 miles, and I've yet to wear out a clutch in 3 cars and 20 miles. This is in a variety of cars
They will eventually wear out sure, but the lifetime cost is far cheaper than any automatic I've owned.
It seems automakers assume most people get rid of a car after about 80-100K miles. A shame as that is the most productive time in a car's life. Its paid for, you only have to do maintenance and its still quite dependable.
Manual transmissions save money on the initial purchase price and long term maintenance. In many
I would recommend a manual for anyone who intends to keep a car longer than 5 years or drives lots of miles.
A big reason people get rid of their car just after the century mark is the automatic transmission fails, and the replacement price is upwards of $2-6K depending on the brand. At that point, people opt to buy a new car. Manual transmissions are bulletproof and will last as long as the engine in the car.
$15,000 for a new car will pay for a lot of gas for the suburban.
I'm not defending the suburban, but you can't ignore the initial purchase price, particularly if the suburban is paid for. All you're buying is gas at that point.
Thanks, I wasn't aware of the half-assed design that Ford had inflicted on owners. I just wasn't aware of any mainstream GM passenger car sold in the united states that would make me buy a GM diesel car.
Not saying they can't do it, they simply haven't been interested. I'm still not convinced they're interested in doing a diesel engine right for a car.
I'd tread lightly on any of the domestics cars with a diesel, and GM has too much history with any new engine or technology to make me buy anything the first year from them.
Great car, but for the price the expected payoff is well over 10 years. Useful if you need the extended range, but from an economy standpoint, it makes little sense.
Also keep in mind that diesel in the U.S. is more expensive than high-test.
Slashdot Mirror
Parents could co-sign.
The right answer here is to encourage high-schools to have trade schools (traditionally called "Vo-Tech") that can make students productive right out of high school. With no debt to anyone. The best part is that it is effectively "free" in the sense that you're educating these young people anyway. But typically, we're gearing high school education as a "prep" school which is probably not useful to at least half the population.
Its a far more effective mechanism than sending everybody to college, pick a major and hope they can be employable.
The government abandoned the property, he should claim it as salvage.
If that doesn't work, claim the camera was taken outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. or any worldly jurisdiction.
NASA really wants that camera back. I wonder why?
...that once the police "get their man", their effort is spent proving that he was the guy, not to look for things that disprove their theory, correct?
What makes a patent strong is how much money the holder is willing to try to enforce it.
Consider what IBM had to do to defend itself against SCO. The claims were non-existent, the patents were non-existent, and yet it dragged on for years.
So if Google could really cause another competitor to squirm. Look at Apple; they managed to convince a judge the shape of an iPad and iPhone are unique and worthy of protection and so they're used to cause Samsung pain. It doesn't matter if its valid or not, Samsung can't sell their devices.
Patents are legal tools to aid in delaying a competitor. Once you understand that, then the real value of patents become clear.
Tivo has been doing this for quite some time; so this is an actual implementation in use.
The USPTO strikes again.
AMMYY is a remote desktop program (http://www.ammyy.com/en/solutions.html) and it makes sense why they'd try to get someone to install it.
What's amazing is AT&T could build out their infrastructure; AT&T Wireless is very profitable (check their annual report), but they choose to pay investors instead of invest in their own infrastructure.
Its their company, they should do with it as they think best, but when they consistently have a bad network, and blame their users for it, it rings a bit hollow, doesn't it/
Interesting. graphic in that it showed the iPad is one in a line of tablets that have been around for about 10 years
Its not clear if that was the intent of the graphic, however.
Before going down the 3rd time, a drowning man thrashes harder than ever.
"t would be trivial to deploy a..."
Almost every time someone says this about an IT problem, that usually means they don't understand the complexity of requirements, and you'll end up spending 10x as much as you think you will.
I'm not defending the integrators in this case (we don't know enough about this project to say who is at fault), but there is rarely a large IT project that can be solved as simply as "throw up a data base and...".
No, this corresponds to my experience. Verizon FIOS is a premier service. Really nothing bad to say about them.
I almost posted the same thing.
It makes you smile. Maybe they were hoping for more money.
Software patents have always been about raising the cost of entry to new competitors.
Oracle, Microsoft, IBM, etc fight each other for business, but its sort of a gentlemen's game, with the players, stakes and products well known.
New players shake up the status quo, change markets, obsolete product lines. Stuff that big companies hate.
Years ago, I argued here on /. against software patents, arguing that despite what developers thought, they were really for the benefit of large companies, not upstart new companies.
I'm actually sorry that I was proven correct.
The only exception to this might be a diesel that is tuned to provide torque in a narrow power band; an automatic transmission might provide a better match to road conditions under various conditions.
" Now, the auto transmission will delay engagement or bring the power on more slowly than that - meaning the transmission can use cheaper parts because you will only ever use 80% of what is possible."
Yes, and its damned annoying. When I was buying my last car, the salesman was trying to convince me to buy the auto (they had lots of them on the lot).
I got to a stop sign and floored the gas. You know what happened? Nothing. The computer decided I couldn't possibly mean that I wanted to accelerate fast. So it spooled up almost a second later and gave me spritely acceleration.
So we took the manual transmission out, and I revved it and dropped the clutch and even with traction control, it immediately took off and hard. The car, would spin the wheels on gear changes if you so chose all the way up through 4th.
I asked "How can people drive a car where it doesn't do precisely what they tell it to?"?
The salesman just said "Okay, we'll order what you want".
No wonder people view driving as a chore. It is with an automatic transmission.
(and to save you the question, I drive in heavy traffic all the time, and no your leg does not get tired)
Probably because people with manual transmissions tend to have better situational awareness of what's happening around them.
Yes, I think most people who poo-poo manual transmissions simply don't know how to drive them.
They probably think you steer a car with the steering wheel, too.
C'mon, I drive in city traffic every day for 50 miles, and I've yet to wear out a clutch in 3 cars and 20 miles. This is in a variety of cars
They will eventually wear out sure, but the lifetime cost is far cheaper than any automatic I've owned.
It seems automakers assume most people get rid of a car after about 80-100K miles. A shame as that is the most productive time in a car's life. Its paid for, you only have to do maintenance and its still quite dependable.
The premium for the 335d over the other 3 series is close to $10K, so the diesel in this case is considered a premium option.
It won't save you any money, although you may enjoy the amazing low-RPM torque.
I prefer BMW's normally aspirated 3.0L engine in the car.
The range is a big reason for choosing a diesel.
Also, the torque on a diesel makes it well suited for many applications.
Manual transmissions save money on the initial purchase price and long term maintenance. In many
I would recommend a manual for anyone who intends to keep a car longer than 5 years or drives lots of miles.
A big reason people get rid of their car just after the century mark is the automatic transmission fails, and the replacement price is upwards of $2-6K depending on the brand. At that point, people opt to buy a new car. Manual transmissions are bulletproof and will last as long as the engine in the car.
$15,000 for a new car will pay for a lot of gas for the suburban.
I'm not defending the suburban, but you can't ignore the initial purchase price, particularly if the suburban is paid for. All you're buying is gas at that point.
Thanks, I wasn't aware of the half-assed design that Ford had inflicted on owners. I just wasn't aware of any mainstream GM passenger car sold in the united states that would make me buy a GM diesel car.
Not saying they can't do it, they simply haven't been interested. I'm still not convinced they're interested in doing a diesel engine right for a car.
I'd tread lightly on any of the domestics cars with a diesel, and GM has too much history with any new engine or technology to make me buy anything the first year from them.
Great car, but for the price the expected payoff is well over 10 years. Useful if you need the extended range, but from an economy standpoint, it makes little sense.
Also keep in mind that diesel in the U.S. is more expensive than high-test.
Does GM have any real-life experience with a diesel powerplant in passenger car that is positive?
This is what I think of when I think of GM and Diesel engines:
http://books.google.com/books?id=tOIDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=GM+diesel+delta+88&source=bl&ots=-ibHbCl1Kr&sig=v_Z1TqGku7AweZHgtLbXnlkuUmg&hl=en&ei=i8wqTtAOyvXSAYjphIAL&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=GM%20diesel%20delta%2088&f=false
(Sorry for the long link).
To summarize, GM's diesel's from the 80's were a disaster.