Yeah, the current struck me as unreasonably high too. I even went and checked the datasheet for the processor to make sure I wasn't missing anything. My guess is that they simply figured that this device will always be powered off a wire and didn't bother giving it a particularly robust sleep mode.
You don't seem to understand how it works. If my app costs $1, and Amazon decides to "punish" me by selling it for 5 cents, then I make 20 cents on every sale (20% of asking) and they lose 15 cents. The free app day is an exception to the 20% rule.
Apple offers 70% of the list price, with the list price being the developer's asking price. Amazon offers 70% of the list price, or 20% of the developer's asking price, whichever is greater.
If I make a $1 app and sell it in both Amazon's and Apple's app stores, I'll make 70 cents from each and Amazon/Apple make 30 cents. The difference is that Amazon reserves the right to sell my app for, say, 50 cents instead, in which case I only make 35 cents from that sale and they make 15. You can argue that Amazon shouldn't be the one to set the price -- if so, don't use their store. But they aren't doing it out of greed. They take the same cut regardless. They are doing this because they think that they're better at setting a price than you are. And they're probably right.
Amazon never really said that they'd give developers 20% of their asking price on the free app day.
Here's a recap of how Amazon's app store works: The developer sets an asking price, X. Amazon comes up with their own price, Y. Customers pay Y. Amazon pays the developer 0.2X or 0.7Y, whichever is greater.
Now, you could look at this and say, "Aha! On the free app day, they're just lowering Y to $0. I should get 20% of X!" But this would clearly be a hugely losing proposition for Amazon, and they never say that this is how the free app days work. Instead, they get your agreement to lower X to $0 on that day. Neither you nor they make any money on "sales" that day. But you both get publicity.
At no point were they dishonest about how the free app day works. No rational person should expect Amazon to be giving away tens of millions of dollars a year. The devs knew full well what they were getting into. They were looking for an excuse to bash Amazon.
Look at the specs. Arduino's "beefy" MCU is 16 MHz, 8 bits. This is 72 MHz, 32 bits. Arduino draws a sub-10 uA sleep current. This thing draws a 40 mA (yes, milliamp) sleep current. They're completely different devices targeting completely different markets. Talk of "killing" Arduino is just meant to draw eyeballs and clicks.
The difference is that his statement is based on natural laws, rather than assumptions about the source of the energy. Unless the fundamental laws of thermodynamics turn out to be wildly incorrect, his statement will stand.
Denying this by claiming that technology will always improve is like denying that there's an end to Moore's law. Yes, we've been able to find ways to keep it going so far. But by 2150, some quick math says that transistors would need to be smaller than the Planck length. It requires some serious magical thinking to believe that not only will we reach that target, but that we'll be able to keep making them even smaller than that!
Being a free app of the day gets tens or hundreds of thousands of people to download and review your app. Unless it really sucks, the reviewers tend to be quite generous. Amazon guarantees a front page listing for your app for two weeks after that, and even after that point it will show up whenever someone sorts by downloads or ratings. If you and I both make a todo list app, and mine is the free app of the day at some point, then a year from now whenever someone searches the app store for "todo list" they're going to see: Artor3's To Do List, 4.5 stars, 150k downloads oGMo's To Do List, 3.5 stars, 2k downloads
If they have significant support costs, then they shouldn't have agreed to give the app away for free. The article is very clear that they knew what they were getting into and decided to do it anyway.
The developers were told that they'd get no income from the giveaway. The developers asked Amazon for confirmation that they'd get no money. Amazon responded that yes, they would get no money. The developers decided to give their app away regardless. The developers were upset that they then got no money. The developers decided to bitch and moan about it.
Cry me a river.
And where is the evidence that they didn't see increased sales from this? Where is the evidence that Amazon refuses to let developers publicly discuss the terms -- especially considering that this dev is publicly discussing the terms?
Because thought isn't instantaneous, and there is bound to be a delay from when your mind starts the "move a muscle" signal and when that signal actually travels down your spine and to the muscles.
Your mind does not go through the process of applying the brakes without your actually doing so. It's not like your muscles have minds of their own and think "oh, that silly brain! he's just messing with me!" Your conscious mind may consider sending the signals, but the signals are not actually sent - if they are, then your muscles would move.
Your brain either sends the signal to the muscles or it does not. That's the signal they should be looking for.
Why trigger off the brain signal corresponding to the word "stop"? Perhaps they can trigger it off the brain signal that tells your foot to move left and push. My (admittedly limited) understanding of the brain is that it's easier to pick up on motor control signals than thoughts anyway. Added bonus - parents teaching their kids to drive could wear the sensors too, so that now when you slam on the imaginary passenger-side brake, the car actually stops!
I don't know... despite my best efforts, I was unable to find what statements the defendant made that violated this law. If it was to the effect of "Jane Doe lives at 123 4th Street, Apt 16, and is alone Tuesday nights, maybe I'll go teach her a lesson" then I'd say this is a perfectly reasonable use of an anti-stalking law that was expanded under the Violence Against Women Act of 2005. If it was more along the lines of "Man, that Jane Doe is such a bitch" then it will surely be thrown out, but that won't necessarily mean the whole law is struck down.
Who cares if they're kids? Tearing off their cloak of anonymity and giving them a nice hard slap on the wrist will help to dissuade other anon kiddies from participating in the future.
Guns can stop people with guns. I can't believe I even have to explain this, but if you shoot someone, they can't shoot back any more. If a group decides they want to attack your town, then your town will use guns to defend itself. If it did not, it would be conquered by people with guns.
Likewise, patents can stop people with patents. I'm surprised to be explaining this too, but if your company gets sued for patent infringement, the typical defense is to find a patent of your own that the aggressor is infringing on. At that point, you make some cross-licensing deal and call it a day. Without defensive patents, you're screwed.
You may wish for a world with no guns. You may also with for a world with no patents. But both exist, and you need to use them to defend yourself against them. And before you come back and howl about how you don't own a gun, let me remind you that the people protecting you (cops, soldiers) do.
It's not even luck, either. It's down to your ability to hob-nob with other psychopaths. My friend's brother-in-law was a trader five years back (pre-recession) and lost something like $800 million (of other people's money) in bad speculations. He was fired for it, but hired into a new firm thanks to his "connections" a few weeks later, at a higher salary than his previous job. Oh, and of course he kept the bonuses he made at the first firm before his investment went bust.
Wall street is the world's greatest argument against the notion that capitalism rewards people in proportion to their skill and hard work.
Yes, everyone agrees that the patent system as it currently exists is insane. But it is what it is. Ignoring that reality and not stocking up on defensive patents is foolish.
Guns exist. Buying guns to hurt people is bad. Buying guns to protect people from bad guys with guns is okay. It would be nice if guns didn't exist at all, but they do, so we have to deal with it.
There needs to be lots of choices for users, and an easy, free way to transfer all data from one company to another. Otherwise all the disclosure in the world is meaningless, since they can hold your data hostage to make you accept their new terms.
It's at the point half of every incoming dollar has to be immediately spent to pay interest.
That's a goddamned lie, and you should be ashamed for repeating it. Our interest payments aren't even at 10% of our income, and that's with the economy weakened by recession and war and the irresponsible Bush tax cuts.
Are you kidding? The Democrats have been bending over backwards trying to get the limit raised. The Republicans have refused to negotiate in any capacity. They have a gun to the head of the country, and are demanding that we give them everything they want, or they'll blow our collective brains out. This isn't a debt crisis. It's a hostage situation.
The sad thing is that they do make games worth paying for. They make Assassin's Creed and Far Cry and Splinter Cell and Beyond Good & Evil and more. They make lots of innovative titles that are well worth playing. And yet I don't buy their games any more, because the copy protection just got to be too much of a pain in the ass.
They don't need to spend more time working on their games. They just need to drop the copy protection. It's a case of addition by subtraction if ever there was one.
EOS failures can do funny things. Single IOs can fail while the rest of the chip works fine. It's hard to catch such problems. Ideally during startup, you'd run a test on every pin to make sure they're all still working. Even if the lightning strike occurred immediately before the crash, I would hope that after being hit by lightning they'd stop and test their systems.
This sounds like it's more a problem with their safety protocols, and less a problem with the particular circuit that failed.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, the current struck me as unreasonably high too. I even went and checked the datasheet for the processor to make sure I wasn't missing anything. My guess is that they simply figured that this device will always be powered off a wire and didn't bother giving it a particularly robust sleep mode.
You don't seem to understand how it works. If my app costs $1, and Amazon decides to "punish" me by selling it for 5 cents, then I make 20 cents on every sale (20% of asking) and they lose 15 cents. The free app day is an exception to the 20% rule.
You don't understand the terms.
Apple offers 70% of the list price, with the list price being the developer's asking price.
Amazon offers 70% of the list price, or 20% of the developer's asking price, whichever is greater.
If I make a $1 app and sell it in both Amazon's and Apple's app stores, I'll make 70 cents from each and Amazon/Apple make 30 cents. The difference is that Amazon reserves the right to sell my app for, say, 50 cents instead, in which case I only make 35 cents from that sale and they make 15. You can argue that Amazon shouldn't be the one to set the price -- if so, don't use their store. But they aren't doing it out of greed. They take the same cut regardless. They are doing this because they think that they're better at setting a price than you are. And they're probably right.
Playstation killed the Dreamcast. The Xbox didn't even come out until several months after the Dreamcast had been pulled from the American market.
Amazon never really said that they'd give developers 20% of their asking price on the free app day.
Here's a recap of how Amazon's app store works:
The developer sets an asking price, X.
Amazon comes up with their own price, Y.
Customers pay Y.
Amazon pays the developer 0.2X or 0.7Y, whichever is greater.
Now, you could look at this and say, "Aha! On the free app day, they're just lowering Y to $0. I should get 20% of X!" But this would clearly be a hugely losing proposition for Amazon, and they never say that this is how the free app days work. Instead, they get your agreement to lower X to $0 on that day. Neither you nor they make any money on "sales" that day. But you both get publicity.
At no point were they dishonest about how the free app day works. No rational person should expect Amazon to be giving away tens of millions of dollars a year. The devs knew full well what they were getting into. They were looking for an excuse to bash Amazon.
Look at the specs. Arduino's "beefy" MCU is 16 MHz, 8 bits. This is 72 MHz, 32 bits. Arduino draws a sub-10 uA sleep current. This thing draws a 40 mA (yes, milliamp) sleep current. They're completely different devices targeting completely different markets. Talk of "killing" Arduino is just meant to draw eyeballs and clicks.
The difference is that his statement is based on natural laws, rather than assumptions about the source of the energy. Unless the fundamental laws of thermodynamics turn out to be wildly incorrect, his statement will stand.
Denying this by claiming that technology will always improve is like denying that there's an end to Moore's law. Yes, we've been able to find ways to keep it going so far. But by 2150, some quick math says that transistors would need to be smaller than the Planck length. It requires some serious magical thinking to believe that not only will we reach that target, but that we'll be able to keep making them even smaller than that!
Being a free app of the day gets tens or hundreds of thousands of people to download and review your app. Unless it really sucks, the reviewers tend to be quite generous. Amazon guarantees a front page listing for your app for two weeks after that, and even after that point it will show up whenever someone sorts by downloads or ratings. If you and I both make a todo list app, and mine is the free app of the day at some point, then a year from now whenever someone searches the app store for "todo list" they're going to see:
Artor3's To Do List, 4.5 stars, 150k downloads
oGMo's To Do List, 3.5 stars, 2k downloads
Guess which one they're gonna go for.
If they have significant support costs, then they shouldn't have agreed to give the app away for free. The article is very clear that they knew what they were getting into and decided to do it anyway.
The developers were told that they'd get no income from the giveaway.
The developers asked Amazon for confirmation that they'd get no money.
Amazon responded that yes, they would get no money.
The developers decided to give their app away regardless.
The developers were upset that they then got no money.
The developers decided to bitch and moan about it.
Cry me a river.
And where is the evidence that they didn't see increased sales from this? Where is the evidence that Amazon refuses to let developers publicly discuss the terms -- especially considering that this dev is publicly discussing the terms?
Because thought isn't instantaneous, and there is bound to be a delay from when your mind starts the "move a muscle" signal and when that signal actually travels down your spine and to the muscles.
It includes mobile systems. The other is iPhones/Pads/Pods and Androids.
Your mind does not go through the process of applying the brakes without your actually doing so. It's not like your muscles have minds of their own and think "oh, that silly brain! he's just messing with me!" Your conscious mind may consider sending the signals, but the signals are not actually sent - if they are, then your muscles would move.
Your brain either sends the signal to the muscles or it does not. That's the signal they should be looking for.
Why trigger off the brain signal corresponding to the word "stop"? Perhaps they can trigger it off the brain signal that tells your foot to move left and push. My (admittedly limited) understanding of the brain is that it's easier to pick up on motor control signals than thoughts anyway. Added bonus - parents teaching their kids to drive could wear the sensors too, so that now when you slam on the imaginary passenger-side brake, the car actually stops!
I don't know... despite my best efforts, I was unable to find what statements the defendant made that violated this law. If it was to the effect of "Jane Doe lives at 123 4th Street, Apt 16, and is alone Tuesday nights, maybe I'll go teach her a lesson" then I'd say this is a perfectly reasonable use of an anti-stalking law that was expanded under the Violence Against Women Act of 2005. If it was more along the lines of "Man, that Jane Doe is such a bitch" then it will surely be thrown out, but that won't necessarily mean the whole law is struck down.
Who cares if they're kids? Tearing off their cloak of anonymity and giving them a nice hard slap on the wrist will help to dissuade other anon kiddies from participating in the future.
Man, you are utterly oblivious to the real world.
Guns can stop people with guns. I can't believe I even have to explain this, but if you shoot someone, they can't shoot back any more. If a group decides they want to attack your town, then your town will use guns to defend itself. If it did not, it would be conquered by people with guns.
Likewise, patents can stop people with patents. I'm surprised to be explaining this too, but if your company gets sued for patent infringement, the typical defense is to find a patent of your own that the aggressor is infringing on. At that point, you make some cross-licensing deal and call it a day. Without defensive patents, you're screwed.
You may wish for a world with no guns. You may also with for a world with no patents. But both exist, and you need to use them to defend yourself against them. And before you come back and howl about how you don't own a gun, let me remind you that the people protecting you (cops, soldiers) do.
It's not even luck, either. It's down to your ability to hob-nob with other psychopaths. My friend's brother-in-law was a trader five years back (pre-recession) and lost something like $800 million (of other people's money) in bad speculations. He was fired for it, but hired into a new firm thanks to his "connections" a few weeks later, at a higher salary than his previous job. Oh, and of course he kept the bonuses he made at the first firm before his investment went bust.
Wall street is the world's greatest argument against the notion that capitalism rewards people in proportion to their skill and hard work.
Yes, everyone agrees that the patent system as it currently exists is insane. But it is what it is. Ignoring that reality and not stocking up on defensive patents is foolish.
Guns exist. Buying guns to hurt people is bad. Buying guns to protect people from bad guys with guns is okay. It would be nice if guns didn't exist at all, but they do, so we have to deal with it.
There needs to be lots of choices for users, and an easy, free way to transfer all data from one company to another. Otherwise all the disclosure in the world is meaningless, since they can hold your data hostage to make you accept their new terms.
It's at the point half of every incoming dollar has to be immediately spent to pay interest.
That's a goddamned lie, and you should be ashamed for repeating it. Our interest payments aren't even at 10% of our income, and that's with the economy weakened by recession and war and the irresponsible Bush tax cuts.
Are you kidding? The Democrats have been bending over backwards trying to get the limit raised. The Republicans have refused to negotiate in any capacity. They have a gun to the head of the country, and are demanding that we give them everything they want, or they'll blow our collective brains out. This isn't a debt crisis. It's a hostage situation.
The sad thing is that they do make games worth paying for. They make Assassin's Creed and Far Cry and Splinter Cell and Beyond Good & Evil and more. They make lots of innovative titles that are well worth playing. And yet I don't buy their games any more, because the copy protection just got to be too much of a pain in the ass.
They don't need to spend more time working on their games. They just need to drop the copy protection. It's a case of addition by subtraction if ever there was one.
EOS failures can do funny things. Single IOs can fail while the rest of the chip works fine. It's hard to catch such problems. Ideally during startup, you'd run a test on every pin to make sure they're all still working. Even if the lightning strike occurred immediately before the crash, I would hope that after being hit by lightning they'd stop and test their systems.
This sounds like it's more a problem with their safety protocols, and less a problem with the particular circuit that failed.
I don't recall anything about a gas-powered bike in I, Robot....
Oh, you mean the filmed raping of Asimov's legacy? Please drop your geek card in the shredder on the way out.