Robots might make sense to handle their routine volume,
I think not. From what I know of industrial robots, they can do repetitive tasks, but have no adaptability. Good on assembly lines, but useless when even the most basic decision-making is required.
I have to wonder what Amazon was thinking, building such a labor-intensive operation four hours from the nearest major labor pool.
I studied in Mexico for a while and it is quite common for many people, especially kids, to go to the neighborhood Internet cafe and pay a small fee to use their computers.
Where in Mexico? In a fairly big urban center I imagine. Not enough customers to keep such a business in business otherwise. Go out far enough into the countryside, and you'll find villages without even electricity.
Just because you've spent a while in a country, don't assume that you know how all the people in that country live. It's like somebody visiting NYC and concluding that all Americans ride subways.
AC has garbled the story slightly. The fraudulent part was not the degree of compression, but the software's supposed ability to recognize objects in a video stream.
I'm not a Mac guy, but I seem to recall that Apple never provided a command line either. The one they have now came for free when they switched to using NextStep OS, which got it for free from the Mach OS, which got it for free from BSD.
Don't get me started on those early-switch fees. Some time back I managed to run up a big cell bill because I was collaborating with a guy two time zones away. So I called up Sprint and switched to a plan with more free minutes. (Which I ended up never using!) Then much later, I decided to switch to AT&T. Sprint hit me with the full early termination fee, because the plan I had switched two required me to stick with them for two years. It was almost that long, and I just sort of assumed that it had been long enough.
Which is what they count on. Look at your bill, or at the fancy "customer service" web site. You won't find the slightest mention of when your contract expires. If you lose track, they won't tell you unless you call them up and ask. And why should they? Those fees must represent a big revenue stream for them.
Wrong, I'm in the U.S. Did you miss the part where I said I used AT&T?
The one advantage is that if you're willing to put up with purchasing a locked phone (and a commitment to a provider), you can get a pretty deep discount.
That is not an advantage. There's no free lunch here. The money for that "free" phone has to come from somewhere, and it comes in the form of higher rates. The nasty thing is that you pay that premium whether you get the "free" phone or not.
I stand corrected on the role of this kind of engine. But
If no one had bought big blocks, they would have stopped making them earlier.
Doesn't follow. GM has a long history of pushing product long after there ceased to be a viable market for it. All big companies do. They fall in love with their own product and stay loyal to it long after it ceases to be viable.
I speak from personal experience here. I used to work at Sun, documenting x64 servers. Sun got into this business a decade ago, when it became clear that the market for SPARC systems was shrinking rapidly. (There will always be some, of course, but it will never be the mainstream technology Sun used to think it would be.) They bought an x64 company to gain the necessary expertise. Then they had to repeat that expensive exercise three more times because each time they managed to drive away all that talent they'd spent so much acquiring.
Recently they did it again. And just to show they meant business this time, they promoted the head of the x64 division to be in charge of all hardware. And still the institutional SPARC-uber-alles mindset persists. I once got into an argument with a sales guy who had walked into a meeting with a big customer that already owned thousands of x64 servers — and tried to sell them SPARC systems!
But are there enough people like that to make old-fashioned fix-it-yourself cars a viable product? Bear in mind that an assembly line has to sell a lot of product to pay for itself.
Sorry, there isn't a business case here. GM was just doing what it knew how to do, and sticking their head in the sand whenever somebody mentioned market share or the rising cost of oil.
It depends on the platform. None of the GSM phones I've ever owned has has needed to be unlocked. The fact that Apple supports this kind of user lockin is one big reason I haven't been tempted by the iPhone. (The other is the developer lockin.) I've never used Blackberry, mainly because I'm not the kind of user they're designed for, but this lockin issue adds to that. With these two exceptions, I can't think of another platform that cripples GSM phones this way.
Other cell technologies are easier to control, since the IMEI is built into the phone, not part of a separate SIM card. I suspect that's the main reason most U.S. providers stayed away from GSM, though the official reason was that it was "less efficient".
Regardless of "better" designs, we're witnessing an end of an era here, considering this format has survived for 50 out of the last 100 years of the automobile. A sad day indeed.
What's sad is that GM had to almost go out of business before they'd finally acknowledge that such an inefficient engine type was obsolete. The handwriting's been on the wall since 19 ****ing 74, for crisakes. But GM couldn't change its mindset, and instead sat and twiddled their thumbs while the Japanese took away their business.
I'm reminded of Sun's inability to shift to commodity processors. But then, I'm an embittered ex-Sun employee...
Easy or not, doesn't it bother you that you can't change SIM card in your own phone without AT&T's permission?
I use AT&T too, but never with a Blackberry phone. The facts I've learned today make it slightly less likely that I'll ever give the BB a try. Not impossible, but jeez...
I guess it's fair to say that all the service providers will screw us over, given the chance. Which is why I vastly prefer GSM networks to the others, since having a SIM card takes away the provider's ability to dictate which phone I'll use. Though then you still get screwed; if you don't take the free or discounted phone, you're effectively paying for your phone twice.
The Europeans did it right: all service providers use GSM, which creates a nice competitive market for SIM cards and gives consumers control over their devices.
If you don't want AT&T dictating which network you use, you may (or may not) find it worthwhile to use two SIM cards. You can even get a phone with two SIM slots.
If you need to push your product by paying another company to force your product to be used, I don't think that says very good things about your product.
Nonsense. Google as a lot of lockin. I'm often curious about other search engines, but it's always too much trouble to give them a proper trial. Any software tool has users that just can't be bothered to switch. Look at Yahoo: they never really did provide a good search solution (the original product was just a glorified bookmark page!) yet they dominated the market for a long time, just because they got there first. If Google hadn't been so unavoidably superior (they were they first search engine to realize that any search solution had to be able to scale fast enough to keep up with the web's absurd growth), Yahoo would still be on top.
That said, bribing a carrier to lock out your competitors is pretty dubious. And although Verizon is also acting questionably, the main lesson I take from this is the Blackberry is a poor choice if you want control of your own device.
Tax software is a bad example (as several people have already pointed out) but in general you're correct. This kind of revives the original argument against "free" software back when RMS invented it in the 80s: if you can stop anybody from copying your software, you can't make them pay for it, so what's your incentive to write it in the first place? And the answer is none.
Except for (as you point out) technical applications. That happens because technology companies find it expedient to donate their services to "free" software projects. Which is how it evolved from "free" to "open source", a concept that RMS abhors.
You're quite correct. And that suggests an interesting approach to tax reform: require that all tax laws and regulations fit into something like an XML schema. That would have benefits way beyond the realm of software.
Probably never happen though. Ambiguity is too important in politics.
Have you actually read your service agreement? If you do, you'll probably find that's not true. Their rules might well be loose enough to make any Android hacker happy (some providers are cool that way, others are extremely restrictive) but there are always some restrictions on how you use the service.
Slashdot Mirror
Robots might make sense to handle their routine volume,
I think not. From what I know of industrial robots, they can do repetitive tasks, but have no adaptability. Good on assembly lines, but useless when even the most basic decision-making is required.
I have to wonder what Amazon was thinking, building such a labor-intensive operation four hours from the nearest major labor pool.
I studied in Mexico for a while and it is quite common for many people, especially kids, to go to the neighborhood Internet cafe and pay a small fee to use their computers.
Where in Mexico? In a fairly big urban center I imagine. Not enough customers to keep such a business in business otherwise. Go out far enough into the countryside, and you'll find villages without even electricity.
Just because you've spent a while in a country, don't assume that you know how all the people in that country live. It's like somebody visiting NYC and concluding that all Americans ride subways.
AC has garbled the story slightly. The fraudulent part was not the degree of compression, but the software's supposed ability to recognize objects in a video stream.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/47141377.html
Which explains the credulity. This software would have been very valuable if it had been legit.
I'm not a Mac guy, but I seem to recall that Apple never provided a command line either. The one they have now came for free when they switched to using NextStep OS, which got it for free from the Mach OS, which got it for free from BSD.
OK, I'll bite: what's the utility of providing a compatibility layer for APIs that are already available in the native form?
Don't get me started on those early-switch fees. Some time back I managed to run up a big cell bill because I was collaborating with a guy two time zones away. So I called up Sprint and switched to a plan with more free minutes. (Which I ended up never using!) Then much later, I decided to switch to AT&T. Sprint hit me with the full early termination fee, because the plan I had switched two required me to stick with them for two years. It was almost that long, and I just sort of assumed that it had been long enough.
Which is what they count on. Look at your bill, or at the fancy "customer service" web site. You won't find the slightest mention of when your contract expires. If you lose track, they won't tell you unless you call them up and ask. And why should they? Those fees must represent a big revenue stream for them.
Learn to read. I made no apologies for what Verizon or MS did. Quite the opposite. But that doesn't validate the bad logic of TPP.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22class+4%22+truck+japan
Wrong, I'm in the U.S. Did you miss the part where I said I used AT&T?
The one advantage is that if you're willing to put up with purchasing a locked phone (and a commitment to a provider), you can get a pretty deep discount.
That is not an advantage. There's no free lunch here. The money for that "free" phone has to come from somewhere, and it comes in the form of higher rates. The nasty thing is that you pay that premium whether you get the "free" phone or not.
I stand corrected on the role of this kind of engine. But
If no one had bought big blocks, they would have stopped making them earlier.
Doesn't follow. GM has a long history of pushing product long after there ceased to be a viable market for it. All big companies do. They fall in love with their own product and stay loyal to it long after it ceases to be viable.
I speak from personal experience here. I used to work at Sun, documenting x64 servers. Sun got into this business a decade ago, when it became clear that the market for SPARC systems was shrinking rapidly. (There will always be some, of course, but it will never be the mainstream technology Sun used to think it would be.) They bought an x64 company to gain the necessary expertise. Then they had to repeat that expensive exercise three more times because each time they managed to drive away all that talent they'd spent so much acquiring.
Recently they did it again. And just to show they meant business this time, they promoted the head of the x64 division to be in charge of all hardware. And still the institutional SPARC-uber-alles mindset persists. I once got into an argument with a sales guy who had walked into a meeting with a big customer that already owned thousands of x64 servers — and tried to sell them SPARC systems!
Big organizations have a logic all their own.
But are there enough people like that to make old-fashioned fix-it-yourself cars a viable product? Bear in mind that an assembly line has to sell a lot of product to pay for itself.
Sorry, there isn't a business case here. GM was just doing what it knew how to do, and sticking their head in the sand whenever somebody mentioned market share or the rising cost of oil.
It depends on the platform. None of the GSM phones I've ever owned has has needed to be unlocked. The fact that Apple supports this kind of user lockin is one big reason I haven't been tempted by the iPhone. (The other is the developer lockin.) I've never used Blackberry, mainly because I'm not the kind of user they're designed for, but this lockin issue adds to that. With these two exceptions, I can't think of another platform that cripples GSM phones this way.
Other cell technologies are easier to control, since the IMEI is built into the phone, not part of a separate SIM card. I suspect that's the main reason most U.S. providers stayed away from GSM, though the official reason was that it was "less efficient".
"Suddenly"? GM's been losing market share for decades.
Ok then. A car is like a, well, you know....
Oh, right, because almost everybody likes to work on their own car.
A few enthusiasts buying cars for the collectability value is not a "frenzy". If GM were able to work up a frenzy, they wouldn't have gone bankrupt.
Oh, right, and that's why GM still dominates the market.
And they're still "working on it".
Regardless of "better" designs, we're witnessing an end of an era here, considering this format has survived for 50 out of the last 100 years of the automobile. A sad day indeed.
What's sad is that GM had to almost go out of business before they'd finally acknowledge that such an inefficient engine type was obsolete. The handwriting's been on the wall since 19 ****ing 74, for crisakes. But GM couldn't change its mindset, and instead sat and twiddled their thumbs while the Japanese took away their business.
I'm reminded of Sun's inability to shift to commodity processors. But then, I'm an embittered ex-Sun employee...
Easy or not, doesn't it bother you that you can't change SIM card in your own phone without AT&T's permission?
I use AT&T too, but never with a Blackberry phone. The facts I've learned today make it slightly less likely that I'll ever give the BB a try. Not impossible, but jeez...
I guess it's fair to say that all the service providers will screw us over, given the chance. Which is why I vastly prefer GSM networks to the others, since having a SIM card takes away the provider's ability to dictate which phone I'll use. Though then you still get screwed; if you don't take the free or discounted phone, you're effectively paying for your phone twice.
The Europeans did it right: all service providers use GSM, which creates a nice competitive market for SIM cards and gives consumers control over their devices.
If you don't want AT&T dictating which network you use, you may (or may not) find it worthwhile to use two SIM cards. You can even get a phone with two SIM slots.
If you need to push your product by paying another company to force your product to be used, I don't think that says very good things about your product.
Nonsense. Google as a lot of lockin. I'm often curious about other search engines, but it's always too much trouble to give them a proper trial. Any software tool has users that just can't be bothered to switch. Look at Yahoo: they never really did provide a good search solution (the original product was just a glorified bookmark page!) yet they dominated the market for a long time, just because they got there first. If Google hadn't been so unavoidably superior (they were they first search engine to realize that any search solution had to be able to scale fast enough to keep up with the web's absurd growth), Yahoo would still be on top.
That said, bribing a carrier to lock out your competitors is pretty dubious. And although Verizon is also acting questionably, the main lesson I take from this is the Blackberry is a poor choice if you want control of your own device.
Tax software is a bad example (as several people have already pointed out) but in general you're correct. This kind of revives the original argument against "free" software back when RMS invented it in the 80s: if you can stop anybody from copying your software, you can't make them pay for it, so what's your incentive to write it in the first place? And the answer is none.
Except for (as you point out) technical applications. That happens because technology companies find it expedient to donate their services to "free" software projects. Which is how it evolved from "free" to "open source", a concept that RMS abhors.
You're quite correct. And that suggests an interesting approach to tax reform: require that all tax laws and regulations fit into something like an XML schema. That would have benefits way beyond the realm of software.
Probably never happen though. Ambiguity is too important in politics.
Have you actually read your service agreement? If you do, you'll probably find that's not true. Their rules might well be loose enough to make any Android hacker happy (some providers are cool that way, others are extremely restrictive) but there are always some restrictions on how you use the service.