Usually "shipped" means "sent to retailers", which doesn't necessarily mean sold. However, it tends to be an accurate enough approximation of units sold, since retailers wouldn't stock up on millions of devices they never would sell. Should that happen, the units shipped would quickly drop to almost nil after the first few months, which isn't the case here.
Still, I have to agree in that I have never seen anything but iPads around. Then again, I can't seem to glimpse anything but iPods and iPhones either, so maybe I'm just surrounded by a statistical anomaly.
Whether this movement is a good thing depends on one major factor: the price of used games.
If, because used games have less value thanks to not being able to go online, resellers drop prices, then I actually like the idea a lot. For me, who doesn't give a shit about most multiplayer components in games, I'd much rather get a single player-only game for cheaper. Mark down the prices by ten bucks and let me decide whether I'll get the MP component or not. In fact, that kind of modularity would be nice even at retail. Maybe it'd show publishers that you don't need to cram a multiplayer mode in every damn game.
Now, if resellers don't drop prices, then they'll see a dearth of customers and the entire thing will suck. Let's hope they'll take the sensible approach.
The thing is that the chances of them failing are higher than that of succeeding, and failure in this case would have disastrous consequences, both for Germany and for the world economy.
Germany is the world's largest operator of non-hydroelectric renewable power plants in the world. That, to me, doesn't mean a whole lot (after all, we all know how much pollution hydroelectric dams cause during normal operation, right?), especially when you factor in that only 17% of the country's energy production comes from that. Increasing it to cover the entirety of nuclear's production will be extremely costly and complex, if at all possible. Chances are they'll just import from other countries like France or Russia.
It's worth pointing out that Germany imports 2/3rds of its energy from other countries. Thus, in fact, it's only covering 6% of its energy consumption with local renewables. It's nice and cool to say your production is green, but if it means you're importing dirty energy, you're not that much better off.
The GP isn't offtopic. The problem with Fukushima wasn't so much the plant's design as the exceptional circumstances (record-breaking earthquake AND tsunami) that caused the failure. It doesn't mean we should be abandoning nuclear, that's just blaming the wrong thing for the issue.
I agree with you that Gen II plants are outdated and should be scrapped, though.
Depends on the technology. It's all a matter of whether the reaction causes a positive feedback or a negative feedback.
If you only look at BWRs, then no, they cannot be 100% resistant to meltdown because more heat pumped in will cause the reaction to accelerate.
On the flip side, reactor designs like pebble bed are inherently and passively safe. The reaction cannot speed up; if the plant shuts down, the reaction stops. This is entirely foolproof as far as meltdowns are concerned. This does not mean the reactor has absolutely no risks, sure, but it removes the most important one.
Funny you say that... There has been quite the discussion on the subject of de facto unions here in Quebec, which apparently will lead to common-law unions having similar protections to married unions - food pensions, school pensions, etc. This is all part of the Eric v. Lola alimony case.
I'm still using it. If somebody wishes to steal my programming homework or my course notes on statistical mechanics, go right ahead. My valuable stuff is either not on Dropbox or it's in a Truecrypt volume - good luck breaking into that.
All this goes to show is that common sense once more comes out the victor: assuming that any such FREE service is secure and full of goodwill is foolish. They might be, but would you really want to take the risk? Start by assuming anybody can peek at your data and go from there.
I've invited my friends just fine. You just need to share something with them, at which point they'll get an email with info and a link to join Google+.
No... Just, no. You can't cherry-pick "positive" effects of global warming and say that because of this, Canada would benefit from it. We will ALL suffer from global warming, no matter where the hell we live. If all you think about is your own sorry ass, good for you, but your children, if you have/plan on having any, will hate you for it. They'll live with the consequences of your shortsighted perception.
Also, I'd really love it if you could quote a Conservative agreeing to AGW. So far all I've seen is dodging the question or plainly denying. Conservatives are in bed with oil corps from Alberta, they'll act in their own interests and that of the vast majority of their voters, which unfortunately tends to be also very shortsighted.
Unlike facebook or MySpace, G+ is just a subproject of Google. That already is a large difference in dynamics. Google might be willing to experiment more with it than a company whose entire business model relies on their social network's success.
From what I gathered from glancing at TFA, the panel was looking at algorithmic similarities, not necessarily code ones. In those cases, there is no need to have the source, since the algorithms will naturally be visible through the program's execution.
From this point on, Rajlich will need to prove that he did not in fact copy Fruit or Crafty, though this may be hard to do so if the above is to be trusted (ie he could've made his own code but used the exact same behaviors by simply looking at how Fruit worked). He'd most likely need to rewrite all offending parts from scratch, and then provide full source to the panel so that they could analyze it. Validation can be done through a binary comparison of Rajlich's executables against the panel's own, built from the given source code. There may be differences, but they should be small enough.
I don't care that some obscure computers have preceded the IBM-PC and could be considered "personal". IBM has defined the market for "Personal Computer" and ushered the way in for everybody else. This just sounds like a summary poster craving for attention by having a highly sensationalist claim.
I also like how the blog post barely speaks of that and doesn't even tell us who, in fact, did, if not IBM.
IBM? This is a worldwide trend that all companies are going through. Sack the human part of your corporation, bask in the short term profit and quickly run before the ship sinks. Customer support is getting offshored, reduced, quality control is down the drain, designs are as cheap as can be, customers are a herd to be exploited...
I just hope that trend ends sooner rather than later because it's becoming entirely ridiculous and, unlike what all the suits say, it does not help the company in the long run.
Never did he say that those were man-made issues, he simply used them to illustrate how fickle and changing nature can be, which is entirely appropriate and not up to questioning.
You should read what it is you're replying to, it helps.
Slashdot Mirror
Usually "shipped" means "sent to retailers", which doesn't necessarily mean sold. However, it tends to be an accurate enough approximation of units sold, since retailers wouldn't stock up on millions of devices they never would sell. Should that happen, the units shipped would quickly drop to almost nil after the first few months, which isn't the case here.
Still, I have to agree in that I have never seen anything but iPads around. Then again, I can't seem to glimpse anything but iPods and iPhones either, so maybe I'm just surrounded by a statistical anomaly.
Also, lizards.
Whether this movement is a good thing depends on one major factor: the price of used games.
If, because used games have less value thanks to not being able to go online, resellers drop prices, then I actually like the idea a lot. For me, who doesn't give a shit about most multiplayer components in games, I'd much rather get a single player-only game for cheaper. Mark down the prices by ten bucks and let me decide whether I'll get the MP component or not. In fact, that kind of modularity would be nice even at retail. Maybe it'd show publishers that you don't need to cram a multiplayer mode in every damn game.
Now, if resellers don't drop prices, then they'll see a dearth of customers and the entire thing will suck. Let's hope they'll take the sensible approach.
If 2/3rds of the user base stays with a 50% price increase, then they've increased revenue while decreasing expenses (less bandwidth usage).
Question is whether it'll stay at just a third leaving.
If Germany succeeds, everybody will cheer them.
The thing is that the chances of them failing are higher than that of succeeding, and failure in this case would have disastrous consequences, both for Germany and for the world economy.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-30/germany-becomes-net-power-importer-from-france-after-atomic-halt.html
We all know nuclear radiations respect borders and exportation regulations.
And nice use of selective figures...
Germany is the world's largest operator of non-hydroelectric renewable power plants in the world. That, to me, doesn't mean a whole lot (after all, we all know how much pollution hydroelectric dams cause during normal operation, right?), especially when you factor in that only 17% of the country's energy production comes from that. Increasing it to cover the entirety of nuclear's production will be extremely costly and complex, if at all possible. Chances are they'll just import from other countries like France or Russia.
It's worth pointing out that Germany imports 2/3rds of its energy from other countries. Thus, in fact, it's only covering 6% of its energy consumption with local renewables. It's nice and cool to say your production is green, but if it means you're importing dirty energy, you're not that much better off.
The GP isn't offtopic. The problem with Fukushima wasn't so much the plant's design as the exceptional circumstances (record-breaking earthquake AND tsunami) that caused the failure. It doesn't mean we should be abandoning nuclear, that's just blaming the wrong thing for the issue.
I agree with you that Gen II plants are outdated and should be scrapped, though.
Depends on the technology. It's all a matter of whether the reaction causes a positive feedback or a negative feedback.
If you only look at BWRs, then no, they cannot be 100% resistant to meltdown because more heat pumped in will cause the reaction to accelerate.
On the flip side, reactor designs like pebble bed are inherently and passively safe. The reaction cannot speed up; if the plant shuts down, the reaction stops. This is entirely foolproof as far as meltdowns are concerned. This does not mean the reactor has absolutely no risks, sure, but it removes the most important one.
Funny you say that... There has been quite the discussion on the subject of de facto unions here in Quebec, which apparently will lead to common-law unions having similar protections to married unions - food pensions, school pensions, etc. This is all part of the Eric v. Lola alimony case.
I'm still using it. If somebody wishes to steal my programming homework or my course notes on statistical mechanics, go right ahead. My valuable stuff is either not on Dropbox or it's in a Truecrypt volume - good luck breaking into that.
All this goes to show is that common sense once more comes out the victor: assuming that any such FREE service is secure and full of goodwill is foolish. They might be, but would you really want to take the risk? Start by assuming anybody can peek at your data and go from there.
Why yes, lawsuits.
I've invited my friends just fine. You just need to share something with them, at which point they'll get an email with info and a link to join Google+.
Yes, just like parking meters are always vandalized and nobody uses them because of that risk.
No... Just, no. You can't cherry-pick "positive" effects of global warming and say that because of this, Canada would benefit from it. We will ALL suffer from global warming, no matter where the hell we live. If all you think about is your own sorry ass, good for you, but your children, if you have/plan on having any, will hate you for it. They'll live with the consequences of your shortsighted perception.
Also, I'd really love it if you could quote a Conservative agreeing to AGW. So far all I've seen is dodging the question or plainly denying. Conservatives are in bed with oil corps from Alberta, they'll act in their own interests and that of the vast majority of their voters, which unfortunately tends to be also very shortsighted.
Unlike facebook or MySpace, G+ is just a subproject of Google. That already is a large difference in dynamics. Google might be willing to experiment more with it than a company whose entire business model relies on their social network's success.
From what I gathered from glancing at TFA, the panel was looking at algorithmic similarities, not necessarily code ones. In those cases, there is no need to have the source, since the algorithms will naturally be visible through the program's execution.
From this point on, Rajlich will need to prove that he did not in fact copy Fruit or Crafty, though this may be hard to do so if the above is to be trusted (ie he could've made his own code but used the exact same behaviors by simply looking at how Fruit worked). He'd most likely need to rewrite all offending parts from scratch, and then provide full source to the panel so that they could analyze it. Validation can be done through a binary comparison of Rajlich's executables against the panel's own, built from the given source code. There may be differences, but they should be small enough.
Delivery in 15 seconds or less, guaranteed.
I don't care that some obscure computers have preceded the IBM-PC and could be considered "personal". IBM has defined the market for "Personal Computer" and ushered the way in for everybody else. This just sounds like a summary poster craving for attention by having a highly sensationalist claim.
I also like how the blog post barely speaks of that and doesn't even tell us who, in fact, did, if not IBM.
IBM? This is a worldwide trend that all companies are going through. Sack the human part of your corporation, bask in the short term profit and quickly run before the ship sinks. Customer support is getting offshored, reduced, quality control is down the drain, designs are as cheap as can be, customers are a herd to be exploited...
I just hope that trend ends sooner rather than later because it's becoming entirely ridiculous and, unlike what all the suits say, it does not help the company in the long run.
Nature changes, but does not disappear. It can change extremely quickly, for better or for worse. If that isn't fickle, I don't know what it is.
Note that fickle does not exclude robust, so your point's rather off-topic.
Never did he say that those were man-made issues, he simply used them to illustrate how fickle and changing nature can be, which is entirely appropriate and not up to questioning.
You should read what it is you're replying to, it helps.
Surely you must mean Aptana?
So basically you're saying that Netflix's actual customers are movie producers? Weird, that gives a vague hint of déjà vu.