I agree mirroring would be problematic with regard to the displays and UI, but not wholly flawed.
With a display of sufficient size and at least a close portrait aspect ratio you mitigate a lot of the technical display issues. The size will help scale the UI to a friendlier size and panels of HD resolution and aspect ratio are probably the most common to source. It's true that any old "car" display won't work as well.
But think of iPhone-only apps on an iPad -- when I run those, the UIs seem just fine from a size perspective. OK, iPad retina resolution-matched graphics would look better, but again for maps or music it's not necessary.
I don't think it would mean to be a replacement for all app use cases (although with a bluetooth keyboard while parked...) but stuff like maps, music, would be reasonable on a large enough screen. Sure, many wouldn't work well while driving down the road, but I don't expect to read the NY Times while I drive or play games, either.
A bigger problem is that many apps don't support portrait rotation, including the home screen, and dealing with that would be a nuisance.
Driving-oriented UI is fine, but the current phone interface isn't that far off.
I'm a big iPhone phone, but not always a big fan of Apple's control-minded mindset.
I'm worried that they will act as gate-keeper and charge admission to "CarPlay", and not just some kind of secondary, iTunes-store fee, but a very high fee that they can extract from app vendors as protection from upstarts that offer competing services.
Apple's come-one-come-all app store has become cluttered and clean slate like the car dash offers them an opportunity to create a premium space that they can sell access to as well as use defensively to keep out Google and other competitors.
I hope they don't take this tack and instead make in-dash app access available to all app developers on a transparent, technical basis like software support for the display and whatever safety criteria is sure to apply (no CandyCrush Saga on the dash). It would seem short-sighted to not to set the technical criteria and let developers innovate.
As for cabling, charging is nice, but car makers often have a really bone-headed idea as to what constitutes a "good" place to put their USB ports or cable interfaces in a car.
I feel the same way. I think it has potential but it depends on how easy/hard Apple makes for developers to get their apps to work on the dash.
I think a more elegant solution would have been airplay mirroring; I find it hard to believe there isn't a remote display touch-enablement built into the protocol, and it would have put everything on the in-dash display.
There's probably some halfway legitimate arguments to be made for the "separate display" concept, either from an orientation/aspect ratio or safety, but it adds a layer of complexity and I guess it wouldn't surprise me if Apple was expecting some kind of $$$ to be put on the "CarPhone" approved list.
At the end of the day, it might just be easier to mount an iPad mini.
How widely supported is MirrorLink by handset makers?
The MirrorLink consortium list of smartphones only returns one Samsung and a whole lot of Nokia and Sony models.
How about car makers? The way auto makers integrate car functionality into infotainment units makes it complicated-to-impossible to add aftermarket units to cars. Aftermarket head units aren't good enough.
Personally, I'm a little disappointed with Apple's system. First, it's not wireless, and second, it doesn't give me the ability to see arbitrary apps on my display. I sometimes drive up to 500 miles for projects and its nice to be able to look at a radar map if the sky turns dark or the weather is bad.
I'm not in the market for a new car, so little of this matters now. I could just as easily get all of this with an iPad mini and an aux plug now.
And the shopping cart in the grocery store will happily announce you don't have any Megacorp Brand Product X at home. It won't tell you that you have a competitor's product at home.
But this is slashdot, where fault-finding and nit-picking are part of the bargain.
You have to expect all the posts about how the design is bad, it costs too much, there are N other versions which are better, you can build your own for less money, it's bad for the environment, in {Europe, China, Brazil,...} they do it differently, or there's just something inherently evil and antisocial about it.
The whole drive behind IOT isn't convenience, it's monetization of information.
The marginal cost of a "smart" device is much more than the marginal return selling such a device on its own merits. Either you jack up the price of the device to cover the gee-whiz features or you don't, but the only reason they don't is because they have figured out how to sell this info to someone else.
The Nest is a great example. I think the last 7 day programmable thermostat I bought might have been $50; the Nest is $249 from their online store. What, exactly, does the Nest do that my Honeywell model not do for $200? It may be able to vaguely predict occupancy and make adjustments, but the "dumb" Honeywell model pretty much covers this -- we get up, we leave the house, we come home, we go to bed at about the same time. There's so few use cases where automagic adjustment would make any sense (and many where it wouldn't work).
A smart fridge is one where there's almost no use cases that don't involve product/marketing tie-ins -- selling my use of tagged products to marketers.
The only way you're going to get IOT is if you either pay the freight for the intelligence or let the device sell your info.
Anyone who has paid even slight attention would have predicted this.
The Crimea is the home of the Russian Black Sea fleet, Putin is not going to walk away from that (in fact they have a lease, although it has a somewhat dubious approval).
Putin would like to keep all of Ukraine in his orbit, but I think even he has doubts about his ability to seize Ukraine with force. The West will whine about the Crimea but has no leverage and will just hope they can bluff enough to maintain the rest of the existing Ukrainian borders without having Moscow annex the eastern part, too.
The whole east/west struggle is something of a pyrrhic victory for no matter who "wins" -- Ukraine's economy is a trainwreck, and the "winner" will have to spend big bucks to keep it propped up, which nobody wants to do.
This is what they should be doing, but I fear it will be something more idiotic than that.
They can already do Airplay mirroring now and it's hard to believe that there's not an as-of-yet unimplemented protocol extension that would allow the touch input on the remote display to be sent to the phone. About the hardest part would be making sure the in-dash display was big enough and the right aspect ratio.
It'd be the most elegant solution -- all your apps with cellular data on the in-dash screen. No cords. They'd have to suppress messaging and maybe the keyboard in any app except maps or when not moving.
But I fear it will be iOS somehow adapted to the car itself and running on its hardware with a mandatory cellular data contract to make any of it useful and the 'apps' will be limited to a half-dozen or so and we'll still just use bluetooth for music and phones.
For my '07 S80-V8 an iPod connector and in-dash stereo integration was a factory option (which I added).
It works pretty well -- playlists, artists, etc. It's the "older" dock connector so a 30 pin iPhone complains about it and won't charge, but I just put in an old 60 GB iPod and leave it in there and run my iPhone off a ProClip holder with a lightning-30pin adapter run to a split USB/aux cable that connects to the AUX in, so I can have iPhone audio on the stereo, too. It's kind of a Rube Goldberg setup, but the cables are neat and its nice to do podcasts or Pandora if I want.
Bluetooth would be better overall (less stuff, less cords) but the bluetooth from that year isn't as nice as the iPod control is.
I wonder why Apple can't make AirPlay mirroring with touch to an in-dash display a standard. For makers, it would make it something Android could support with an additional protocol and it would eliminate the need for most of the horrible in-dash infotainment systems car makers come up with.
The education you get at Harvard or Yale isn't first on the list of reasons why people want to go to those schools (or maybe even second or third).
The big reasons are the cachet of a diploma from those schools opens doors at grad schools and employers, and maybe even more importantly it's the people you go to school with are the economic elite. You get to rub shoulders with the rich and make contacts with them.
Other schools may offer equal or even better educations, but they don't offer access to those people.
It just seems to me that the best policy is to not have your name put on any law enforcement list of any kind unless there is some moral imperative that would compel you to, like being a witness to a crime.
This is kind of sad, because I would think it would be nice to be able to provide meaningful information to law enforcement but there just seems to be too many ways it could turn around and bite you, especially if your helpful information was deemed to be something that could be embarrassing to the agency in question.
Even though we're all supposed to believe IPX was inferior to IP, I still think the addressing scheme has some advantages over IPv4.
It's a larger address space, with 32 bits of network addressing and 48 bits of node addressing using the MAC address by default, and there was no need for DHCP as clients could easily autoconfig node addresses by listening to the wire.
Assuming IP had adopted this addressing scheme, I sometimes wonder how many man-hours and dollars would have been saved over the years from the effort expended when merging or internetworking private IP networks with overlapping address spaces (renumbering or implementing NAT) or expanding networks that outstripped/24s.
Would even be talking about IPv6 if the network space of IPv4 included 32 bits of network?
A/16 is a huge allocation by existing IPv4 standards, but a relatively small total network in terms of/24s, yet with IPX style addressing a single/16 network assignment could satisfy the internetworking needs of a huge network since every bit could be used for a unique subnet, and fewer total subnets would be needed since the unique node space is the entire MAC space. LANs could scale without routing layers (up to whatever is sane for a single broadcast domain).
For example, McDonalds has 34,000+ restaurants worldwide. A single/16 IPX-style network assignment could be used to internetwork every restaurant in the world with more than enough left over to cover every other possible use. A single/8 could cover squad-level unique network assignments to the entire People's Liberation Army and probably unique assignments to every single vehicle, ship and plane in inventory.
I'd like to see the pricing models MS uses for pricing Windows desktop, server, Office, SQL/Exchange, and server OS & apps CALs.
I wonder if MS builds in interdependencies for these pricing and what kind of assumptions they make on how the pricing for one product relates to expected sales of another -- ie, if the price of desktop "Pro" is raised past X, how many fewer copies do they expect to sell of the desktop OS and how many fewer copies of Office or fewer server licenses and CALs?
My guess is that they follow the option to maximize pricing, keeping X at some value that maximizes how much they can charge without too adversely affecting other sales.
It makes me wonder, though, if someone has ever said "Hey, what happens if we make the pro desktop free but raise the price of server, server apps, and CALs by some percentage to both make up for some of the lost revenue, does it increase the sales of these items?"
And with a free desktop OS, I'd wager people would be more likely to accept crap like Win 8 versus hanging onto XP forever.
That's why I let my dog lick my plastic cutting boards clean and then run them through the dishwasher with the "heat dry" and "sanitize" settings.
The dog licking is amazing. If I cut red meat on it and wash it in the dishwasher with the above settings, the board is still faintly stained. But when the dog is done, even before washing, there is NO staining.
Presumably a ship like this would have a much smaller (but non-zero) amount of structure dedicated to crew facilities, which would make it lighter, but that extra space would probably get filled with containers, basically nullifying that savings.
I don't know what percentage of the fuel burn is dedicated to ship electrical generation, but this seems trivial relative to the amount of fuel used to move it through the water.
...or a tablet or a desktop or a smartphone and the use of its peripherals, depending on what I plug it into?
Or does this just get me the a smartphone that sends me in a constant search for drivers and debugging why my Nikon camera module causes my Linksys RF module to crap out?
Density is probably the principal reason for VM adoption, but part of the need for density is the desire to segregate applications/services from each other even when resources are available because operating systems have done a historically poor job of providing in-OS segmentation of them from resource, security, etc perspectives, as well as easing maintenance so a reboot/restore/rebuild of app system X doesn't take out other apps/services in the process.
They also gain significant portability across hardware platforms, easing disaster recovery, hardware migrations, fault tolerance/high availability, etc.
I think there's a problem with the "training" that's available for people with existing experience in IT fields that makes it difficult to gain knowledge and expertise allowing you to move to a different specialty.
One one end of the spectrum you have "college" which people usually go to once. Heavy on theory, light on practice, expensive, time-consuming and not realistic for most people with broad, in-field experience. Close to this are technical schools of various kinds, which mostly seem to focus on ground-up education as some kind of a college substitute, and not really as applicable to people looking to gain expertise in an IT subfield.
Then there's the various corporate "training" usually run by vendors or teaching vendor-produced curriculum. Because their audience is usually employed, this kind of training is brief and shallow, almost a tour of user interfaces with little in-depth application taught.
Between these two seems to be a gap that might teach more in-depth skills and knowledge that would help educate people already in the IT field who want to gain expertise not just in a single vendor product but in its real-world application while still providing some of the theoretical background so you don't just crank out MCSE-style "experts".
I have nearly two decades of experience in infrastructure -- operating systems, virtualization (well, maybe only a decade here), servers, networking, yet if I wanted to become a DBA, developer, my only real option is to pound it out on my own and hope I'd figured out enough to not fail day 1 on the job.
I wish there was some way to unify the spectrum used by carriers so there wasn't so much wasted spectrum. With 4 major cell carriers you need 4x the spectrum for any given footprint.
Why can't this same total spectrum be used by all the carriers simultaneously, with some kind of back-end accounting determining what proportion of the tower costs are paid by each carrier, depending on subscriber mix?
..when I worked at a large University, we had a massive AppleTalk/EtherTalk network with a ton of zones, most of which had LaserJet printers.
A cow-orker in another department and I wanted to come up with software that would let us dump files to these printers and somehow masquerade our source info so nobody would know it was us.
Is Tesla and their cars great because they have to be -- selling a new kind of car at a high price to a customer base that demands to be catered to, in small enough quantities to care?
Or are they great because they're doing it better and even if some magic happens to the basic technology and they can sell a mid-sized sedan with model S specs in the mid-$40s will they still be great, or will they just devolve into yet another car company with all the car company shenanigans?
Or, to put it another way is the Tesla S a really great car with a great ownership experience and can owning any future Tesla aimed at the larger marketplace remain this way?
Slashdot Mirror
I agree mirroring would be problematic with regard to the displays and UI, but not wholly flawed.
With a display of sufficient size and at least a close portrait aspect ratio you mitigate a lot of the technical display issues. The size will help scale the UI to a friendlier size and panels of HD resolution and aspect ratio are probably the most common to source. It's true that any old "car" display won't work as well.
But think of iPhone-only apps on an iPad -- when I run those, the UIs seem just fine from a size perspective. OK, iPad retina resolution-matched graphics would look better, but again for maps or music it's not necessary.
I don't think it would mean to be a replacement for all app use cases (although with a bluetooth keyboard while parked...) but stuff like maps, music, would be reasonable on a large enough screen. Sure, many wouldn't work well while driving down the road, but I don't expect to read the NY Times while I drive or play games, either.
A bigger problem is that many apps don't support portrait rotation, including the home screen, and dealing with that would be a nuisance.
Driving-oriented UI is fine, but the current phone interface isn't that far off.
I'm a big iPhone phone, but not always a big fan of Apple's control-minded mindset.
I'm worried that they will act as gate-keeper and charge admission to "CarPlay", and not just some kind of secondary, iTunes-store fee, but a very high fee that they can extract from app vendors as protection from upstarts that offer competing services.
Apple's come-one-come-all app store has become cluttered and clean slate like the car dash offers them an opportunity to create a premium space that they can sell access to as well as use defensively to keep out Google and other competitors.
I hope they don't take this tack and instead make in-dash app access available to all app developers on a transparent, technical basis like software support for the display and whatever safety criteria is sure to apply (no CandyCrush Saga on the dash). It would seem short-sighted to not to set the technical criteria and let developers innovate.
As for cabling, charging is nice, but car makers often have a really bone-headed idea as to what constitutes a "good" place to put their USB ports or cable interfaces in a car.
I feel the same way. I think it has potential but it depends on how easy/hard Apple makes for developers to get their apps to work on the dash.
I think a more elegant solution would have been airplay mirroring; I find it hard to believe there isn't a remote display touch-enablement built into the protocol, and it would have put everything on the in-dash display.
There's probably some halfway legitimate arguments to be made for the "separate display" concept, either from an orientation/aspect ratio or safety, but it adds a layer of complexity and I guess it wouldn't surprise me if Apple was expecting some kind of $$$ to be put on the "CarPhone" approved list.
At the end of the day, it might just be easier to mount an iPad mini.
How widely supported is MirrorLink by handset makers?
The MirrorLink consortium list of smartphones only returns one Samsung and a whole lot of Nokia and Sony models.
How about car makers? The way auto makers integrate car functionality into infotainment units makes it complicated-to-impossible to add aftermarket units to cars. Aftermarket head units aren't good enough.
Personally, I'm a little disappointed with Apple's system. First, it's not wireless, and second, it doesn't give me the ability to see arbitrary apps on my display. I sometimes drive up to 500 miles for projects and its nice to be able to look at a radar map if the sky turns dark or the weather is bad.
I'm not in the market for a new car, so little of this matters now. I could just as easily get all of this with an iPad mini and an aux plug now.
And the shopping cart in the grocery store will happily announce you don't have any Megacorp Brand Product X at home. It won't tell you that you have a competitor's product at home.
But this is slashdot, where fault-finding and nit-picking are part of the bargain.
You have to expect all the posts about how the design is bad, it costs too much, there are N other versions which are better, you can build your own for less money, it's bad for the environment, in {Europe, China, Brazil, ...} they do it differently, or there's just something inherently evil and antisocial about it.
The whole drive behind IOT isn't convenience, it's monetization of information.
The marginal cost of a "smart" device is much more than the marginal return selling such a device on its own merits. Either you jack up the price of the device to cover the gee-whiz features or you don't, but the only reason they don't is because they have figured out how to sell this info to someone else.
The Nest is a great example. I think the last 7 day programmable thermostat I bought might have been $50; the Nest is $249 from their online store. What, exactly, does the Nest do that my Honeywell model not do for $200? It may be able to vaguely predict occupancy and make adjustments, but the "dumb" Honeywell model pretty much covers this -- we get up, we leave the house, we come home, we go to bed at about the same time. There's so few use cases where automagic adjustment would make any sense (and many where it wouldn't work).
A smart fridge is one where there's almost no use cases that don't involve product/marketing tie-ins -- selling my use of tagged products to marketers.
The only way you're going to get IOT is if you either pay the freight for the intelligence or let the device sell your info.
Anyone who has paid even slight attention would have predicted this.
The Crimea is the home of the Russian Black Sea fleet, Putin is not going to walk away from that (in fact they have a lease, although it has a somewhat dubious approval).
Putin would like to keep all of Ukraine in his orbit, but I think even he has doubts about his ability to seize Ukraine with force. The West will whine about the Crimea but has no leverage and will just hope they can bluff enough to maintain the rest of the existing Ukrainian borders without having Moscow annex the eastern part, too.
The whole east/west struggle is something of a pyrrhic victory for no matter who "wins" -- Ukraine's economy is a trainwreck, and the "winner" will have to spend big bucks to keep it propped up, which nobody wants to do.
This is what they should be doing, but I fear it will be something more idiotic than that.
They can already do Airplay mirroring now and it's hard to believe that there's not an as-of-yet unimplemented protocol extension that would allow the touch input on the remote display to be sent to the phone. About the hardest part would be making sure the in-dash display was big enough and the right aspect ratio.
It'd be the most elegant solution -- all your apps with cellular data on the in-dash screen. No cords. They'd have to suppress messaging and maybe the keyboard in any app except maps or when not moving.
But I fear it will be iOS somehow adapted to the car itself and running on its hardware with a mandatory cellular data contract to make any of it useful and the 'apps' will be limited to a half-dozen or so and we'll still just use bluetooth for music and phones.
For my '07 S80-V8 an iPod connector and in-dash stereo integration was a factory option (which I added).
It works pretty well -- playlists, artists, etc. It's the "older" dock connector so a 30 pin iPhone complains about it and won't charge, but I just put in an old 60 GB iPod and leave it in there and run my iPhone off a ProClip holder with a lightning-30pin adapter run to a split USB/aux cable that connects to the AUX in, so I can have iPhone audio on the stereo, too. It's kind of a Rube Goldberg setup, but the cables are neat and its nice to do podcasts or Pandora if I want.
Bluetooth would be better overall (less stuff, less cords) but the bluetooth from that year isn't as nice as the iPod control is.
I wonder why Apple can't make AirPlay mirroring with touch to an in-dash display a standard. For makers, it would make it something Android could support with an additional protocol and it would eliminate the need for most of the horrible in-dash infotainment systems car makers come up with.
The education you get at Harvard or Yale isn't first on the list of reasons why people want to go to those schools (or maybe even second or third).
The big reasons are the cachet of a diploma from those schools opens doors at grad schools and employers, and maybe even more importantly it's the people you go to school with are the economic elite. You get to rub shoulders with the rich and make contacts with them.
Other schools may offer equal or even better educations, but they don't offer access to those people.
....any interest.
It just seems to me that the best policy is to not have your name put on any law enforcement list of any kind unless there is some moral imperative that would compel you to, like being a witness to a crime.
This is kind of sad, because I would think it would be nice to be able to provide meaningful information to law enforcement but there just seems to be too many ways it could turn around and bite you, especially if your helpful information was deemed to be something that could be embarrassing to the agency in question.
Even though we're all supposed to believe IPX was inferior to IP, I still think the addressing scheme has some advantages over IPv4.
It's a larger address space, with 32 bits of network addressing and 48 bits of node addressing using the MAC address by default, and there was no need for DHCP as clients could easily autoconfig node addresses by listening to the wire.
Assuming IP had adopted this addressing scheme, I sometimes wonder how many man-hours and dollars would have been saved over the years from the effort expended when merging or internetworking private IP networks with overlapping address spaces (renumbering or implementing NAT) or expanding networks that outstripped /24s.
Would even be talking about IPv6 if the network space of IPv4 included 32 bits of network?
A /16 is a huge allocation by existing IPv4 standards, but a relatively small total network in terms of /24s, yet with IPX style addressing a single /16 network assignment could satisfy the internetworking needs of a huge network since every bit could be used for a unique subnet, and fewer total subnets would be needed since the unique node space is the entire MAC space. LANs could scale without routing layers (up to whatever is sane for a single broadcast domain).
For example, McDonalds has 34,000+ restaurants worldwide. A single /16 IPX-style network assignment could be used to internetwork every restaurant in the world with more than enough left over to cover every other possible use. A single /8 could cover squad-level unique network assignments to the entire People's Liberation Army and probably unique assignments to every single vehicle, ship and plane in inventory.
I'd like to see the pricing models MS uses for pricing Windows desktop, server, Office, SQL/Exchange, and server OS & apps CALs.
I wonder if MS builds in interdependencies for these pricing and what kind of assumptions they make on how the pricing for one product relates to expected sales of another -- ie, if the price of desktop "Pro" is raised past X, how many fewer copies do they expect to sell of the desktop OS and how many fewer copies of Office or fewer server licenses and CALs?
My guess is that they follow the option to maximize pricing, keeping X at some value that maximizes how much they can charge without too adversely affecting other sales.
It makes me wonder, though, if someone has ever said "Hey, what happens if we make the pro desktop free but raise the price of server, server apps, and CALs by some percentage to both make up for some of the lost revenue, does it increase the sales of these items?"
And with a free desktop OS, I'd wager people would be more likely to accept crap like Win 8 versus hanging onto XP forever.
That's why I let my dog lick my plastic cutting boards clean and then run them through the dishwasher with the "heat dry" and "sanitize" settings.
The dog licking is amazing. If I cut red meat on it and wash it in the dishwasher with the above settings, the board is still faintly stained. But when the dog is done, even before washing, there is NO staining.
So far, nobody here has gotten sick...
Presumably a ship like this would have a much smaller (but non-zero) amount of structure dedicated to crew facilities, which would make it lighter, but that extra space would probably get filled with containers, basically nullifying that savings.
I don't know what percentage of the fuel burn is dedicated to ship electrical generation, but this seems trivial relative to the amount of fuel used to move it through the water.
...or a tablet or a desktop or a smartphone and the use of its peripherals, depending on what I plug it into?
Or does this just get me the a smartphone that sends me in a constant search for drivers and debugging why my Nikon camera module causes my Linksys RF module to crap out?
I'm interested in the former but not the latter.
You just need M.C. Escher to design your moat.
Density is probably the principal reason for VM adoption, but part of the need for density is the desire to segregate applications/services from each other even when resources are available because operating systems have done a historically poor job of providing in-OS segmentation of them from resource, security, etc perspectives, as well as easing maintenance so a reboot/restore/rebuild of app system X doesn't take out other apps/services in the process.
They also gain significant portability across hardware platforms, easing disaster recovery, hardware migrations, fault tolerance/high availability, etc.
I think there's a problem with the "training" that's available for people with existing experience in IT fields that makes it difficult to gain knowledge and expertise allowing you to move to a different specialty.
One one end of the spectrum you have "college" which people usually go to once. Heavy on theory, light on practice, expensive, time-consuming and not realistic for most people with broad, in-field experience. Close to this are technical schools of various kinds, which mostly seem to focus on ground-up education as some kind of a college substitute, and not really as applicable to people looking to gain expertise in an IT subfield.
Then there's the various corporate "training" usually run by vendors or teaching vendor-produced curriculum. Because their audience is usually employed, this kind of training is brief and shallow, almost a tour of user interfaces with little in-depth application taught.
Between these two seems to be a gap that might teach more in-depth skills and knowledge that would help educate people already in the IT field who want to gain expertise not just in a single vendor product but in its real-world application while still providing some of the theoretical background so you don't just crank out MCSE-style "experts".
I have nearly two decades of experience in infrastructure -- operating systems, virtualization (well, maybe only a decade here), servers, networking, yet if I wanted to become a DBA, developer, my only real option is to pound it out on my own and hope I'd figured out enough to not fail day 1 on the job.
I wish there was some way to unify the spectrum used by carriers so there wasn't so much wasted spectrum. With 4 major cell carriers you need 4x the spectrum for any given footprint.
Why can't this same total spectrum be used by all the carriers simultaneously, with some kind of back-end accounting determining what proportion of the tower costs are paid by each carrier, depending on subscriber mix?
Another great dystopian future novel, with some science fiction.
Not really science fiction but definitely a great novel about a dystopian future.
..when I worked at a large University, we had a massive AppleTalk/EtherTalk network with a ton of zones, most of which had LaserJet printers.
A cow-orker in another department and I wanted to come up with software that would let us dump files to these printers and somehow masquerade our source info so nobody would know it was us.
Too bad this probably pre-dated Goatse.
Is Tesla and their cars great because they have to be -- selling a new kind of car at a high price to a customer base that demands to be catered to, in small enough quantities to care?
Or are they great because they're doing it better and even if some magic happens to the basic technology and they can sell a mid-sized sedan with model S specs in the mid-$40s will they still be great, or will they just devolve into yet another car company with all the car company shenanigans?
Or, to put it another way is the Tesla S a really great car with a great ownership experience and can owning any future Tesla aimed at the larger marketplace remain this way?