I agree, pcs are more and more commoditized and it is harder to make a profit, but why is this something to hope for?
Maybe a fan of the Apple/MS Surface/Lumia model? That the OEMs aren't really adding any value and you could just cut the middle man. Because from what I understand that's mainly what they do these days, they take hardware from AMD/nVidia/Intel + various others for screen, touchpad etc., software mainly from Microsoft and outsource the assembly to Foxconn-style assemblers and the support to call centers somewhere. It would probably be pretty bad for Linux users, not sure it'd be all that bad for Windows users. The Surface line seems to be getting pretty good reviews and sell well...
The reality is that most of geology and palaeontology are on the same level as history, as being theories about recorded facts, rather than 'science'. This doesn't make them worthless - as a hard scientist who is now working for an MA in history I've got a dog in this race - but their claim to be 'science' is dubious.
Everybody knows history can't be independently reproduced and verified in the lab, but I think you're underestimating the value of scientific research to lend credibility to a particular version of it. Like if a woman claims you made her pregnant, a DNA test would be a good start. Of course she might have stolen a tissue from a hotel room where you entertained yourself. Or she's got a genetics lab that can create a sperm cell from a strand of hair. It's not absolute proof and even if it were written down, the next historian can only read about it being done but not reproduce it. Maybe the recorded facts are a falsification. But if you're talking about a theory like that a gigantic asteroid killed the dinosaurs, well then finding and investigating the impact crater, estimating the age and size and composition, simulating the environmental impact and so on is what makes it a lot more credible that this was an extinction level event than saying "Big boom. Dinos die. Least that's what me thinks."
Whoever has the most time to spare and obsessive compulsive interest, wins. And maybe a few celebrities that could make something go viral and make this proposition see 10x the usual voter turnout, 90%+ representing one special interest group. Even the Congressmen are saying there's no time to personally read everything related to every bill, they have aides for that and that's their full time job. If you want a functioning democracy that reasonably accurately represents the will of people, you have to limit the volume and frequency to a level where most of the population will participate. In Switzerland that means once every three months, less than ten proposals (at the federal level anyway) and at that stage in the process a simple yes or no. The process to formulate those proposals are ongoing though. And you also need some form of budget process taking into account the economic consequences of the laws passed, where you are as likely to get as many opinions as you have people. That is why the budget is still formed through representative democracy also in Switzerland, so a simple prohibition/legalization may take effect quicker but anything that requires the government to take fiscal action won't be before the next budge anyway.
For example, the theory that all matter is made up of small, indivisible bits (atomos) is unscientific. Whenever you find a new smallest building block (atom) there's a chance you'll find they're built by even smaller blocks (a core of protons and neutrons surrounded by electrons) and that protons again are made from even smaller particles (quarks). And maybe the quarks are built from superstrings. And maybe the superstrings are build from something we don't even have a name for yet. That doesn't make them bad ideas to guide scientific research and design experiments. Just like causality is a rabbit hole with no end, even if we could explain the whole formation of the universe back to the Big Bang we'd always be looking for what caused the Big Bang. And what caused that which caused the Big Bang. Scientific exploration is an educated guesswork, you take some observations and try to find a system or pattern or formula and if the results don't contradict reality, great. It's obviously even better if you can predict something new, but if I find that E = mc^2 and show a few reproducible examples it's up to the rest of the scientific community to find a contradiction where E != mc^2. I feel it's a bit like that with superstring theory, if we got multiple theories that both come to the same results then either they're different formulations of the same model or there will be distinct differences that are at least hypothetically testable.
How much does your $100 million satellite cost per-unit if you build five of them, instead? If a launch also costs $100 million, you might not bother, but if a launch costs $1million, would it be worth it to build enough to have a reasonable chance of success across several launches?
Depends on the nature of the satellite, I would think. Like the mirrors for space telescopes are ridiculously expensive high-precision work where building a spare just in case is out of the question. Other satellites are designed to be part of a series like the GPS satellites, where you're already doing some form of serial production and extras can be kept as spares or used to retire existing satellites early. And then you probably have some in between, where they're fairly ordinary but you don't really need more than one. But if you've kept all the documentation and extra parts where you have some kind of unique production run or setup/testing costs that you'd like to avoid doing again, the cost for creating another satellite on-demand could be quite reasonable.
Mozilla needs to step up their game. The smartphone situation wasn't much of a success because they did it backwards in my opinion. I understand where they were coming from, and it was noble indeed (if you don't follow, they started selling "affordable" phones in developing countries). If they had gone the other way and shot for the moon and announced a superphone in North America, and did a good job of it, they would be in a better position today in my opinion.
How many iterations of Android did that take Google? FirefoxOS 1.0 was competing against Android 4.2.2, after almost five years of user feedback and continuous improvements. Actually, they need to step down their game and stop believing they can wave the magic open source wand to compete with the likes of Apple, Google and Microsoft. The only reason they beat Microsoft once is that IE6 was intentionally kept archaic and broken to stall the development of web apps. Firefox would have had a hard enough time just going with AOSP and finding alternatives to all the other Google apps they couldn't have, since Chrome as default would obviously be out of the question.
They could offer more mainstream privacy protecting alternatives than Blackphone, include Thunderbird and maybe get a partnership with CyanogenMod, ownCloud, OpenStreetMap and Calligra, give people an alternative that wasn't tied to Big Business with fine grained access control, firewall, ad blocking plug-ins and so on. Instead they went on a quest to reimplement low level OS and app development frameworks because NIH. Ubuntu Phone is stuck in the same hellhole and will never get out. Sure, that'd leave Google in the driver's seat. But being a backseat driver still beats trying to catch up on foot.
After my previous post I went and talked to my teacher wife directly about this. She said at the age level that she teaches (first and second grade) it would be a really bad idea. They are just then learning their directions and compass directions and changing the perspective would make it very confusing.
Maybe I'm overestimating my own abilities in first and second grade, but I would think this is something you could easily solve with real world role play. One kid is given poses and instructs another kid to turn left/right/around to match. If you actually see the 90/180 degree turn happening, it's not a complicated concept and I think they'd pretty quickly be able to tell the difference between their own right and the other kid's right and give instructions in the other kid's reference. Once they've understood the logic, program it. You can use the same concept to verify it, do a side-by-side with a kid and the computer taking the same instructions. Sure it doesn't have to be the first lesson, but I don't think it's an age-inappropriate one.
They should use an adblocker that really blocks ads, with no whitelists. The only acceptable ad is a blocked ad!
Consider it a bit like the Geneva Conventions, they don't make war a good thing but maybe we could get a ban on the worst forms of advertisement until we all hold hands and sing kumbayah.
There is always a kill switch on the controller, intended for those cases where the drone is out of control and at the risk of doing something really stupid. Of course this will cause it to fall out of the sky like a brick, so that has to be better than the alternative. It sounds like it was activated, but the reasons they give why are dubious.
The company responsible for the drone, sports marketing agency Infront, said its initial investigation "indicates a malfunction of the drone." "The most likely reason is a strong and unforeseen interference on the operating frequency, leading to limited operability," Infront said in a statement. "The pilot followed the official security procedure, purposely flying the drone as close as possible to the ground before releasing it. The aim was to destroy the drone, in order to prevent it from losing control."
If there was interference, then the return to home option would be the sanest assuming they had set it up properly. But assuming the drone started at the top and followed the course down, that might violate some maximum altitude rules as the return function is a bit crude going straight up, in a straight line back to base and down. The alternative would be try setting it down, I have no idea why they didn't try a landing. Perhaps the rotor blades on a drone this size are considered so dangerous that falling the last meters is preferable to cutting up people. Or maybe it's all easier in hindsight and somebody thought this was the least bad way to bring it down.
"irrevocable" only covers ongoing actions and agreements If they had an agreement that he could continue to take photos at his leisure, that could be revoked and disputed. That said, there is nobody here saying he should be able to do what ever he wants with her and a camera forever. So you are arguing ad absurdum.
Please, don't use big words if you don't understand what they mean. He has some rights as photographer, she has some rights as the depicted. It is the same in the US, that is why model releases exist. Those rights exist as long as the photo exists and has nothing to do with any photos taken before or since.
Socratic method time. Lets reduce and look at similar law.
Like, totally different law? Work for hire is a simple swap, you get paid and I get the result. If you think allowing your significant other to take a picture for the family album is a remotely analogous to the commercial act of hiring a model, I feel sorry for your family. This is more like me giving you a key to water my plants, but refusing to give it back. And you accept that I've withdrawn the consent to enter my house, but you want to keep the key anyway for sentimental value - or just to rob me blind. You refuse to acknowledge that giving you the key was a temporary act in the context of watering my plants, so I go to court to get the key destroyed. And the court agrees.
There's a reason most contracts and licenses use the word "irrevocable", because by default I can change my mind. The court found that even though he took the pictures with her permission, she retains personal integrity rights governing possession and use of the pictures that shows intimate areas and sexual activity. Like you could show ordinary photos of your ex-gf to your friends without consent, but not the sex photos. And hypothetically that would be an ongoing consent that could be given or revoked at any time. The German court found those rights extend to possession, if you possess intimate material of someone you must delete them on request, unless you have an explicit agreement to the contrary.
It should be noted that some of these sex photos had found their way to the woman's husband through unknown third parties and the court goes far to hint that if he were to retain possession it is not certain the remaining material would be treated with the appropriate care to protect against unauthorized viewing. In short, they can't prove he maliciously send or spread those pictures but they're going to take away his means to do it again. Then again if you suspect they might be spread illegally well you should also suspect a copy will be kept illegally, but it adds legal ammo. Honestly I think it's a very reasonable and narrow ruling, it only applies if the following three conditions are met:
1) They are made informally, no written terms 2) They're intimate in nature 3) The subject has requested it
Do I have any rights if I am not allowed to board my connecting flight because I arrived late at the gates due to a delay with the first flight?
If the delay to the first flight was within the control of the airline, then you are entitled to compensation for denied boarding on the connecting flight.
You have to read it in context, you don't get a refund for not checking in on time, not being at the gate including behind held by security, not having the necessary travel papers like passport and visa or anything else that's not the fault of the airline. That you don't have valid travel papers is not such circumstances, that the US government might have led you to believe you did is not the airline's fault.
The google cars are driving themselves already now. One could easily just replicate the technology they use and get those things onto the streets, right now. But it would be extremely risky, because google drives them in a fairly controlled environment, and the number of accidents that will happen will multiply by a large count. The question is whether one should start throwing a technology onto the markets when its still incomplete and not polished, or whether one should wait some years before that is possible.
Well, except technology doesn't age like a fine wine. It won't be mature technology before it has lots of real world testing and a lot of developers have worked on it for a long time to work out the bugs, both of which involve bringing a product to market and getting a cash flow going. Google's approach has been the Big Bang, when it's <agile>Done</agile> the car will drive itself and until then it will be a lab project doing controlled experiments. Tesla's approach has been to put it out there and let idiots abuse it leaving them to take the fall, while getting lots of paying beta testers who are formally required to be just as attentive as when it's off. I'm guessing that somewhere in the terms for using it, Tesla is getting data feedback.
Assuming the actual go-ahead for a fully autonomous consumer car that doesn't require you to pay attention will take longer than predicted, considering all the technical, practical and legal hurdles to be crossed the Google project might just linger and linger while Tesla gradually improves to fill the role while saying "Well it could drive by itself, but the law won't let it" or at least pretending their 95% solution could, as long as they don't have to prove it. From a safety and PR perspective it seems to work out for Tesla so far, the main concern have been the reckless and the reckless have mainly taken the blame. There still haven't been any big crash and media case where it did something horribly wrong.
Not everyone is enlightened as we few, we happy delusional few, we band of nerds who actually believe we're all going to be riding in self-driving cars in our lifetime.
To be honest, I don't care. As long as they haven't been out with the torches and pitchforks against Google's car, they hopefully won't protest against others riding in self-driving cars. All the people who won't ride the newfangled horseless carriage is not really my concern.
There's a few practical considerations: 1) They're operated by professionals. I have a relative that is a long haul driver here in Norway, here's some of the differences: a) Far more rigorous training to drive a truck than my car b) Health cerificate (otherwise only drivers above 70) c) More frequent renewal d) Rest periods verified by electronic meter e) Can not drink alcohol up to 24 hours before driving f) Maximum speed is capped to 90-100 km/h depening on class g) Far more frequent road checks of papers, technical condition and securing of cargo
2) Pilots, bus drivers, train drivers and so on have a responsibility for a lot of lives. Most of them take it very seriously and act professionally.
3) We only need a small fraction of the population to be professional drivers, if it's not right for you there's plenty of other occupations.
Regular cars on the other hand is operated by almost everyone, which tells you the requirements aren't all too high. And we have a lot of people who might be qualified drivers if they were sober, rested and paying attention but just drive when they shouldn't. Or our health is failing and the car is our lifeline to getting around, so we refuse to give it up. And ultimately we as a society depend on cars, so we don't really want to put the thumbscrews on the requirements or punishments. So the potential for improvement is far greater.
Here's what I don't understand. I think stage 1 landed about 10 miles from where it launched. It was travelling almost exactly 6,000 kph at separation. Did it really slow down to zero and actually fly back the way it came to land at the Cape? I guess it takes much, much less fuel to go from 6,000 to zero on an empty first stage in vacuum versus 0 to 6k, fully loaded in the atmosphere.
No, it didn't stop and turn around as such, the primary direction is up and it just reversed the slight horizontal component and slowed itself down as it fell to earth. This infographic is pretty good, it's not at all like a plane turning around.
The US already has a reliable launch vehicle called the X37-B. It can reach orbit (...) The US is also developing the Space Launch System (SLS). (...) Why waste money and resources on rockets whose sole purpose is to launch satellites into orbit or play taxi for the ISS?
Not sure if troll or serious, but since your posting history looks rather sincere... The X37-B is not a launch vehicle, it launches on top of an Atlas rocket. As for the SLS program it will cost $20-35 billion to fully develop and hideously expensive to launch, just throwing away four RD-25 engines will cost around $900 million alone. Given the extremely few launches that are planned, estimates for the amortized cost has been as high as $5 billion/launch. When you compare that to SpaceX's fixed $60-130 million per launch that also covers their R&D expenses it's a bargain.
When the Falcon Heavy launches you get 70% of a SLS Block 1 for a small fraction of the cost and you can assemble 50+ ton modules in LEO if you need to. Like you could launch the whole Apollo mission (CSM+LEM) in one go, then add engines, then add fuel and break orbit for TLI. Looking at delta-v charts there doesn't seem to be any significant penalty for doing so and docking in space we've done many, many times now with the ISS. The only downside is if you genuinely need an even larger monolithic module due to structural integrity or something.
the Falcon 9 is about on par in lifting power with the Delta IV and low-end configurations of the Atlas V, and Falcon Heavy will be competing with Delta IV Heavy more than anything else.
Actually the Falcon Heavy is aiming to be much heavier at 53,000 kg to LEO vs 29,000 kg for the Delta IV Heavy, which probably means it can match capacity in reusable mode. Imagine both boosters (essentially headless stage 1s) and first stage returning to land like one-two-three and ready to get back in action. Somebody at ULA is going to have kittens when they realize where SpaceX is going.
No one knows, this booster will probably be dissected to see just where the wear/tear occurs. After that, SpaceX will probably have to mod/update future boosters to ensure it can fly multiple times. It may be that the cost to mod/upgrade/refurbish will be more expensive than just rebuilding, but we'll have to see.
Actually I think SpaceX got a pretty good idea, they've tested burn/reignite cycles staticly and found the engines can be reused 40 times, since that's likely to be the most expensive component that'll probably be their target. And if the reliability stays high there's a good chance that 1 in 40 launches will require a full burn, no reuse booster so there's no waste. They've said the first stage is roughly 70% of the cost and just refueling the rocket costs about 0.3% of a full launch, so the cost savings potential is huge.
If you don't see any value in sending people except as means to an end, then no they won't be cost effective. But I'd argue that putting a man on the moon had more non-scientific value than merely putting a science probe on the moon. It's a bit like the first guy to climb Mount Everest, that hundreds if not thousands of people do it is just to stroke their ego. But the first time was proving that we could. There's a lot of armchair quarterbacks saying that we could, because we put a man on the moon. But we know it's harder and we haven't actually tried. Proving that it is within the realm of technological progress to put a man on Mars is actually important.
That's a mistatement. The problem is that controversy and conflict drives page hits and viewership. so their is a strong economic incentive to present sensational headline, not inciteful journalism.
Yes, but that was primarily front page news since once you'd bought the newspaper you had it. The rest had to be interesting enough to not appear just as filler, but not really more than that either. And you weren't in a second-to-second competition to bring out the most rushed, poorly fact-checked rumor/story, it came out once a day or at most twice a day. A lot of what you're seeing is exactly like it were, except everything now has to be headline news to get the clicks.
I know a lot of people think Sander's views would put us in line with that of Nordic countries
Hahahahahaha no. There's not a US party that would stand a snowflake's chance in hell in a Norwegian election, nor a Norwegian party in a US election. For example, here's the policy for healthcare and care for the elderly of our right-most party, the Progress Party:
Elderly
What we will do The Progress Party believes that everyone should have a good and dignified elderly. Thus it is important that the government takes the bill for elderly care, and that does not address shall determine whether you get a worthwhile offer or not.
For better elderly care, and ensure everyone a good offer, we wish to competitive tendering services in that it is the best option that takes on work - whether it is a public or private is not the most important, but that the elderly get a good services that meet their quality of life.
All older shall have the right nursing home placement when they need this. There is no municipal budgets that will be decisive for whether seniors receive the necessary help - it will come automatically through state funding. At the same time we must allow private operators to offer good services in elderly care. This way you can decide for yourself which older offerings to suit them, and reject bad deals. A4 systems does not contribute to a warm and dignified elderly.
The Progress Party believes that everyone should have a worthy offer, thus we must give the elderly the opportunity to stay at home as long as they wish. This must be done through a broad and varied offer. (...) Health
What we will do Progress will change health structure fundamentally, so that patients are put in the center and that absolutely everybody gets safe and prompt medical care regardless of their wallet. We will do this through efforts based funding, which means that hospitals receive funding based on how many patients they treat. When someone needs treatment, it should automatically get the means to treat them. In one of the richest countries, we will not experience that one does not receive health care on the basis of lack of funding. Everyone shall have the right to good health care.
Health Queues must be reduced. After they have grown so much during the coalition government it is necessary to reform health care to put patients at the center.
Free user choice is a right all patients should have. It should be up to each individual to decide how they want to receive health care. This applies to both private and public institutions. It is not up to the bureaucracy to think where and how to be treated. It is a matter between you and your doctor - no one else.
I'm guess most of this would fly like a lead balloon in the US. And the left side of our politics consists of Red, Socialist Left and the Worker's Party, proud socialists. For a good laugh watch the series "Lillyhammer" about a New York mafia boss who retreats to rural Norway, it's a hilarious culture clash. And no, it's not really all that exaggerated either.
You seem to not understand that the automotive industry is all about lock in with really crappy electronics. You will never EVER get what you ask for from any car maker on this planet.
To be fair, no business likes to just hand over a market that operates on/in/with their product. Like SmartTVs, sure TV could say "we'll just deliver the screen you use your cable box, HTPC, Apple TV, Chromecast or whatever" but of course they won't. Let's face it, just about any car on the road will get you from A to B in pretty much exactly the same time, given speed limits and traffic. A Ferrari can make you look cool and shave a few seconds off your acceleration but the only place it's significantly faster is on a race track. Aside from purely practical matters like the size of the car they're selling you brand, comfort and gizmos. You don't give up a selling point like the infotainment system without a fight.
If Microsoft had been smart about their strategy, they'd have made the tablet and phone modes for Windows able to revert to a full desktop when a keyboard, mouse and display are connected. Corporate America would **love** a phone with 4GB of RAM and a good Atom CPU that can be plugged into a standard display and use bluetooth inputs to become a small desktop computer. Microsoft would probably have jumped from 2.5% to 20% of the market within two years if they'd adopted a strategy that was based on the premise that Windows adopts to your usage and any Windows device is a computer.
This is pretty much what they're doing with the Lumia 950/950 XL and the dock, problem is that it's an ARM processor so the only thing that'll run are universal apps. To run traditional x86 applications they need a x86 processor, like the last generation of Surface products. And while a "Surface Phone" using an Intel X3 Atom SoC has been rumored for a long time, it's a no-show thus far. My guess is that Intel is the blocker, despite their CPU/GPU experience they struggle to create a compelling x86 platform with all the communication bits and so on. Same thing with WinRT, it wasn't something Microsoft wanted to do but it was an ARM stop-gap until there was an x86 platform.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, pcs are more and more commoditized and it is harder to make a profit, but why is this something to hope for?
Maybe a fan of the Apple/MS Surface/Lumia model? That the OEMs aren't really adding any value and you could just cut the middle man. Because from what I understand that's mainly what they do these days, they take hardware from AMD/nVidia/Intel + various others for screen, touchpad etc., software mainly from Microsoft and outsource the assembly to Foxconn-style assemblers and the support to call centers somewhere. It would probably be pretty bad for Linux users, not sure it'd be all that bad for Windows users. The Surface line seems to be getting pretty good reviews and sell well...
The reality is that most of geology and palaeontology are on the same level as history, as being theories about recorded facts, rather than 'science'. This doesn't make them worthless - as a hard scientist who is now working for an MA in history I've got a dog in this race - but their claim to be 'science' is dubious.
Everybody knows history can't be independently reproduced and verified in the lab, but I think you're underestimating the value of scientific research to lend credibility to a particular version of it. Like if a woman claims you made her pregnant, a DNA test would be a good start. Of course she might have stolen a tissue from a hotel room where you entertained yourself. Or she's got a genetics lab that can create a sperm cell from a strand of hair. It's not absolute proof and even if it were written down, the next historian can only read about it being done but not reproduce it. Maybe the recorded facts are a falsification. But if you're talking about a theory like that a gigantic asteroid killed the dinosaurs, well then finding and investigating the impact crater, estimating the age and size and composition, simulating the environmental impact and so on is what makes it a lot more credible that this was an extinction level event than saying "Big boom. Dinos die. Least that's what me thinks."
Whoever has the most time to spare and obsessive compulsive interest, wins. And maybe a few celebrities that could make something go viral and make this proposition see 10x the usual voter turnout, 90%+ representing one special interest group. Even the Congressmen are saying there's no time to personally read everything related to every bill, they have aides for that and that's their full time job. If you want a functioning democracy that reasonably accurately represents the will of people, you have to limit the volume and frequency to a level where most of the population will participate. In Switzerland that means once every three months, less than ten proposals (at the federal level anyway) and at that stage in the process a simple yes or no. The process to formulate those proposals are ongoing though. And you also need some form of budget process taking into account the economic consequences of the laws passed, where you are as likely to get as many opinions as you have people. That is why the budget is still formed through representative democracy also in Switzerland, so a simple prohibition/legalization may take effect quicker but anything that requires the government to take fiscal action won't be before the next budge anyway.
For example, the theory that all matter is made up of small, indivisible bits (atomos) is unscientific. Whenever you find a new smallest building block (atom) there's a chance you'll find they're built by even smaller blocks (a core of protons and neutrons surrounded by electrons) and that protons again are made from even smaller particles (quarks). And maybe the quarks are built from superstrings. And maybe the superstrings are build from something we don't even have a name for yet. That doesn't make them bad ideas to guide scientific research and design experiments. Just like causality is a rabbit hole with no end, even if we could explain the whole formation of the universe back to the Big Bang we'd always be looking for what caused the Big Bang. And what caused that which caused the Big Bang. Scientific exploration is an educated guesswork, you take some observations and try to find a system or pattern or formula and if the results don't contradict reality, great. It's obviously even better if you can predict something new, but if I find that E = mc^2 and show a few reproducible examples it's up to the rest of the scientific community to find a contradiction where E != mc^2. I feel it's a bit like that with superstring theory, if we got multiple theories that both come to the same results then either they're different formulations of the same model or there will be distinct differences that are at least hypothetically testable.
How much does your $100 million satellite cost per-unit if you build five of them, instead? If a launch also costs $100 million, you might not bother, but if a launch costs $1million, would it be worth it to build enough to have a reasonable chance of success across several launches?
Depends on the nature of the satellite, I would think. Like the mirrors for space telescopes are ridiculously expensive high-precision work where building a spare just in case is out of the question. Other satellites are designed to be part of a series like the GPS satellites, where you're already doing some form of serial production and extras can be kept as spares or used to retire existing satellites early. And then you probably have some in between, where they're fairly ordinary but you don't really need more than one. But if you've kept all the documentation and extra parts where you have some kind of unique production run or setup/testing costs that you'd like to avoid doing again, the cost for creating another satellite on-demand could be quite reasonable.
Mozilla needs to step up their game. The smartphone situation wasn't much of a success because they did it backwards in my opinion. I understand where they were coming from, and it was noble indeed (if you don't follow, they started selling "affordable" phones in developing countries). If they had gone the other way and shot for the moon and announced a superphone in North America, and did a good job of it, they would be in a better position today in my opinion.
How many iterations of Android did that take Google? FirefoxOS 1.0 was competing against Android 4.2.2, after almost five years of user feedback and continuous improvements. Actually, they need to step down their game and stop believing they can wave the magic open source wand to compete with the likes of Apple, Google and Microsoft. The only reason they beat Microsoft once is that IE6 was intentionally kept archaic and broken to stall the development of web apps. Firefox would have had a hard enough time just going with AOSP and finding alternatives to all the other Google apps they couldn't have, since Chrome as default would obviously be out of the question.
They could offer more mainstream privacy protecting alternatives than Blackphone, include Thunderbird and maybe get a partnership with CyanogenMod, ownCloud, OpenStreetMap and Calligra, give people an alternative that wasn't tied to Big Business with fine grained access control, firewall, ad blocking plug-ins and so on. Instead they went on a quest to reimplement low level OS and app development frameworks because NIH. Ubuntu Phone is stuck in the same hellhole and will never get out. Sure, that'd leave Google in the driver's seat. But being a backseat driver still beats trying to catch up on foot.
After my previous post I went and talked to my teacher wife directly about this. She said at the age level that she teaches (first and second grade) it would be a really bad idea. They are just then learning their directions and compass directions and changing the perspective would make it very confusing.
Maybe I'm overestimating my own abilities in first and second grade, but I would think this is something you could easily solve with real world role play. One kid is given poses and instructs another kid to turn left/right/around to match. If you actually see the 90/180 degree turn happening, it's not a complicated concept and I think they'd pretty quickly be able to tell the difference between their own right and the other kid's right and give instructions in the other kid's reference. Once they've understood the logic, program it. You can use the same concept to verify it, do a side-by-side with a kid and the computer taking the same instructions. Sure it doesn't have to be the first lesson, but I don't think it's an age-inappropriate one.
They should use an adblocker that really blocks ads, with no whitelists. The only acceptable ad is a blocked ad!
Consider it a bit like the Geneva Conventions, they don't make war a good thing but maybe we could get a ban on the worst forms of advertisement until we all hold hands and sing kumbayah.
There is always a kill switch on the controller, intended for those cases where the drone is out of control and at the risk of doing something really stupid. Of course this will cause it to fall out of the sky like a brick, so that has to be better than the alternative. It sounds like it was activated, but the reasons they give why are dubious.
The company responsible for the drone, sports marketing agency Infront, said its initial investigation "indicates a malfunction of the drone." "The most likely reason is a strong and unforeseen interference on the operating frequency, leading to limited operability," Infront said in a statement. "The pilot followed the official security procedure, purposely flying the drone as close as possible to the ground before releasing it. The aim was to destroy the drone, in order to prevent it from losing control."
If there was interference, then the return to home option would be the sanest assuming they had set it up properly. But assuming the drone started at the top and followed the course down, that might violate some maximum altitude rules as the return function is a bit crude going straight up, in a straight line back to base and down. The alternative would be try setting it down, I have no idea why they didn't try a landing. Perhaps the rotor blades on a drone this size are considered so dangerous that falling the last meters is preferable to cutting up people. Or maybe it's all easier in hindsight and somebody thought this was the least bad way to bring it down.
"irrevocable" only covers ongoing actions and agreements If they had an agreement that he could continue to take photos at his leisure, that could be revoked and disputed. That said, there is nobody here saying he should be able to do what ever he wants with her and a camera forever. So you are arguing ad absurdum.
Please, don't use big words if you don't understand what they mean. He has some rights as photographer, she has some rights as the depicted. It is the same in the US, that is why model releases exist. Those rights exist as long as the photo exists and has nothing to do with any photos taken before or since.
Socratic method time. Lets reduce and look at similar law.
Like, totally different law? Work for hire is a simple swap, you get paid and I get the result. If you think allowing your significant other to take a picture for the family album is a remotely analogous to the commercial act of hiring a model, I feel sorry for your family. This is more like me giving you a key to water my plants, but refusing to give it back. And you accept that I've withdrawn the consent to enter my house, but you want to keep the key anyway for sentimental value - or just to rob me blind. You refuse to acknowledge that giving you the key was a temporary act in the context of watering my plants, so I go to court to get the key destroyed. And the court agrees.
There's a reason most contracts and licenses use the word "irrevocable", because by default I can change my mind. The court found that even though he took the pictures with her permission, she retains personal integrity rights governing possession and use of the pictures that shows intimate areas and sexual activity. Like you could show ordinary photos of your ex-gf to your friends without consent, but not the sex photos. And hypothetically that would be an ongoing consent that could be given or revoked at any time. The German court found those rights extend to possession, if you possess intimate material of someone you must delete them on request, unless you have an explicit agreement to the contrary.
It should be noted that some of these sex photos had found their way to the woman's husband through unknown third parties and the court goes far to hint that if he were to retain possession it is not certain the remaining material would be treated with the appropriate care to protect against unauthorized viewing. In short, they can't prove he maliciously send or spread those pictures but they're going to take away his means to do it again. Then again if you suspect they might be spread illegally well you should also suspect a copy will be kept illegally, but it adds legal ammo. Honestly I think it's a very reasonable and narrow ruling, it only applies if the following three conditions are met:
1) They are made informally, no written terms
2) They're intimate in nature
3) The subject has requested it
The FAQ is making it clearer what is meant:
Do I have any rights if I am not allowed to board my connecting flight because I arrived late at the gates due to a delay with the first flight?
If the delay to the first flight was within the control of the airline, then you are entitled to compensation for denied boarding on the connecting flight.
You have to read it in context, you don't get a refund for not checking in on time, not being at the gate including behind held by security, not having the necessary travel papers like passport and visa or anything else that's not the fault of the airline. That you don't have valid travel papers is not such circumstances, that the US government might have led you to believe you did is not the airline's fault.
That's what the hamsters want you to think. Like their overlords the mice, they're just running wheels to fool us.
The google cars are driving themselves already now. One could easily just replicate the technology they use and get those things onto the streets, right now. But it would be extremely risky, because google drives them in a fairly controlled environment, and the number of accidents that will happen will multiply by a large count. The question is whether one should start throwing a technology onto the markets when its still incomplete and not polished, or whether one should wait some years before that is possible.
Well, except technology doesn't age like a fine wine. It won't be mature technology before it has lots of real world testing and a lot of developers have worked on it for a long time to work out the bugs, both of which involve bringing a product to market and getting a cash flow going. Google's approach has been the Big Bang, when it's <agile>Done</agile> the car will drive itself and until then it will be a lab project doing controlled experiments. Tesla's approach has been to put it out there and let idiots abuse it leaving them to take the fall, while getting lots of paying beta testers who are formally required to be just as attentive as when it's off. I'm guessing that somewhere in the terms for using it, Tesla is getting data feedback.
Assuming the actual go-ahead for a fully autonomous consumer car that doesn't require you to pay attention will take longer than predicted, considering all the technical, practical and legal hurdles to be crossed the Google project might just linger and linger while Tesla gradually improves to fill the role while saying "Well it could drive by itself, but the law won't let it" or at least pretending their 95% solution could, as long as they don't have to prove it. From a safety and PR perspective it seems to work out for Tesla so far, the main concern have been the reckless and the reckless have mainly taken the blame. There still haven't been any big crash and media case where it did something horribly wrong.
Not everyone is enlightened as we few, we happy delusional few, we band of nerds who actually believe we're all going to be riding in self-driving cars in our lifetime.
To be honest, I don't care. As long as they haven't been out with the torches and pitchforks against Google's car, they hopefully won't protest against others riding in self-driving cars. All the people who won't ride the newfangled horseless carriage is not really my concern.
There's a few practical considerations:
1) They're operated by professionals. I have a relative that is a long haul driver here in Norway, here's some of the differences:
a) Far more rigorous training to drive a truck than my car
b) Health cerificate (otherwise only drivers above 70)
c) More frequent renewal
d) Rest periods verified by electronic meter
e) Can not drink alcohol up to 24 hours before driving
f) Maximum speed is capped to 90-100 km/h depening on class
g) Far more frequent road checks of papers, technical condition and securing of cargo
2) Pilots, bus drivers, train drivers and so on have a responsibility for a lot of lives. Most of them take it very seriously and act professionally.
3) We only need a small fraction of the population to be professional drivers, if it's not right for you there's plenty of other occupations.
Regular cars on the other hand is operated by almost everyone, which tells you the requirements aren't all too high. And we have a lot of people who might be qualified drivers if they were sober, rested and paying attention but just drive when they shouldn't. Or our health is failing and the car is our lifeline to getting around, so we refuse to give it up. And ultimately we as a society depend on cars, so we don't really want to put the thumbscrews on the requirements or punishments. So the potential for improvement is far greater.
Here's what I don't understand. I think stage 1 landed about 10 miles from where it launched. It was travelling almost exactly 6,000 kph at separation. Did it really slow down to zero and actually fly back the way it came to land at the Cape? I guess it takes much, much less fuel to go from 6,000 to zero on an empty first stage in vacuum versus 0 to 6k, fully loaded in the atmosphere.
No, it didn't stop and turn around as such, the primary direction is up and it just reversed the slight horizontal component and slowed itself down as it fell to earth. This infographic is pretty good, it's not at all like a plane turning around.
The US already has a reliable launch vehicle called the X37-B. It can reach orbit (...) The US is also developing the Space Launch System (SLS). (...) Why waste money and resources on rockets whose sole purpose is to launch satellites into orbit or play taxi for the ISS?
Not sure if troll or serious, but since your posting history looks rather sincere... The X37-B is not a launch vehicle, it launches on top of an Atlas rocket. As for the SLS program it will cost $20-35 billion to fully develop and hideously expensive to launch, just throwing away four RD-25 engines will cost around $900 million alone. Given the extremely few launches that are planned, estimates for the amortized cost has been as high as $5 billion/launch. When you compare that to SpaceX's fixed $60-130 million per launch that also covers their R&D expenses it's a bargain.
When the Falcon Heavy launches you get 70% of a SLS Block 1 for a small fraction of the cost and you can assemble 50+ ton modules in LEO if you need to. Like you could launch the whole Apollo mission (CSM+LEM) in one go, then add engines, then add fuel and break orbit for TLI. Looking at delta-v charts there doesn't seem to be any significant penalty for doing so and docking in space we've done many, many times now with the ISS. The only downside is if you genuinely need an even larger monolithic module due to structural integrity or something.
the Falcon 9 is about on par in lifting power with the Delta IV and low-end configurations of the Atlas V, and Falcon Heavy will be competing with Delta IV Heavy more than anything else.
Actually the Falcon Heavy is aiming to be much heavier at 53,000 kg to LEO vs 29,000 kg for the Delta IV Heavy, which probably means it can match capacity in reusable mode. Imagine both boosters (essentially headless stage 1s) and first stage returning to land like one-two-three and ready to get back in action. Somebody at ULA is going to have kittens when they realize where SpaceX is going.
No one knows, this booster will probably be dissected to see just where the wear/tear occurs. After that, SpaceX will probably have to mod/update future boosters to ensure it can fly multiple times. It may be that the cost to mod/upgrade/refurbish will be more expensive than just rebuilding, but we'll have to see.
Actually I think SpaceX got a pretty good idea, they've tested burn/reignite cycles staticly and found the engines can be reused 40 times, since that's likely to be the most expensive component that'll probably be their target. And if the reliability stays high there's a good chance that 1 in 40 launches will require a full burn, no reuse booster so there's no waste. They've said the first stage is roughly 70% of the cost and just refueling the rocket costs about 0.3% of a full launch, so the cost savings potential is huge.
If you don't see any value in sending people except as means to an end, then no they won't be cost effective. But I'd argue that putting a man on the moon had more non-scientific value than merely putting a science probe on the moon. It's a bit like the first guy to climb Mount Everest, that hundreds if not thousands of people do it is just to stroke their ego. But the first time was proving that we could. There's a lot of armchair quarterbacks saying that we could, because we put a man on the moon. But we know it's harder and we haven't actually tried. Proving that it is within the realm of technological progress to put a man on Mars is actually important.
That's a mistatement. The problem is that controversy and conflict drives page hits and viewership. so their is a strong economic incentive to present sensational headline, not inciteful journalism.
Yes, but that was primarily front page news since once you'd bought the newspaper you had it. The rest had to be interesting enough to not appear just as filler, but not really more than that either. And you weren't in a second-to-second competition to bring out the most rushed, poorly fact-checked rumor/story, it came out once a day or at most twice a day. A lot of what you're seeing is exactly like it were, except everything now has to be headline news to get the clicks.
I know a lot of people think Sander's views would put us in line with that of Nordic countries
Hahahahahaha no. There's not a US party that would stand a snowflake's chance in hell in a Norwegian election, nor a Norwegian party in a US election. For example, here's the policy for healthcare and care for the elderly of our right-most party, the Progress Party:
Elderly
What we will do
The Progress Party believes that everyone should have a good and dignified elderly. Thus it is important that the government takes the bill for elderly care, and that does not address shall determine whether you get a worthwhile offer or not.
For better elderly care, and ensure everyone a good offer, we wish to competitive tendering services in that it is the best option that takes on work - whether it is a public or private is not the most important, but that the elderly get a good services that meet their quality of life.
All older shall have the right nursing home placement when they need this. There is no municipal budgets that will be decisive for whether seniors receive the necessary help - it will come automatically through state funding. At the same time we must allow private operators to offer good services in elderly care. This way you can decide for yourself which older offerings to suit them, and reject bad deals. A4 systems does not contribute to a warm and dignified elderly.
The Progress Party believes that everyone should have a worthy offer, thus we must give the elderly the opportunity to stay at home as long as they wish. This must be done through a broad and varied offer.
(...)
Health
What we will do
Progress will change health structure fundamentally, so that patients are put in the center and that absolutely everybody gets safe and prompt medical care regardless of their wallet.
We will do this through efforts based funding, which means that hospitals receive funding based on how many patients they treat. When someone needs treatment, it should automatically get the means to treat them. In one of the richest countries, we will not experience that one does not receive health care on the basis of lack of funding. Everyone shall have the right to good health care.
Health Queues must be reduced. After they have grown so much during the coalition government it is necessary to reform health care to put patients at the center.
Free user choice is a right all patients should have. It should be up to each individual to decide how they want to receive health care. This applies to both private and public institutions. It is not up to the bureaucracy to think where and how to be treated. It is a matter between you and your doctor - no one else.
I'm guess most of this would fly like a lead balloon in the US. And the left side of our politics consists of Red, Socialist Left and the Worker's Party, proud socialists. For a good laugh watch the series "Lillyhammer" about a New York mafia boss who retreats to rural Norway, it's a hilarious culture clash. And no, it's not really all that exaggerated either.
You seem to not understand that the automotive industry is all about lock in with really crappy electronics. You will never EVER get what you ask for from any car maker on this planet.
To be fair, no business likes to just hand over a market that operates on/in/with their product. Like SmartTVs, sure TV could say "we'll just deliver the screen you use your cable box, HTPC, Apple TV, Chromecast or whatever" but of course they won't. Let's face it, just about any car on the road will get you from A to B in pretty much exactly the same time, given speed limits and traffic. A Ferrari can make you look cool and shave a few seconds off your acceleration but the only place it's significantly faster is on a race track. Aside from purely practical matters like the size of the car they're selling you brand, comfort and gizmos. You don't give up a selling point like the infotainment system without a fight.
If Microsoft had been smart about their strategy, they'd have made the tablet and phone modes for Windows able to revert to a full desktop when a keyboard, mouse and display are connected. Corporate America would **love** a phone with 4GB of RAM and a good Atom CPU that can be plugged into a standard display and use bluetooth inputs to become a small desktop computer. Microsoft would probably have jumped from 2.5% to 20% of the market within two years if they'd adopted a strategy that was based on the premise that Windows adopts to your usage and any Windows device is a computer.
This is pretty much what they're doing with the Lumia 950/950 XL and the dock, problem is that it's an ARM processor so the only thing that'll run are universal apps. To run traditional x86 applications they need a x86 processor, like the last generation of Surface products. And while a "Surface Phone" using an Intel X3 Atom SoC has been rumored for a long time, it's a no-show thus far. My guess is that Intel is the blocker, despite their CPU/GPU experience they struggle to create a compelling x86 platform with all the communication bits and so on. Same thing with WinRT, it wasn't something Microsoft wanted to do but it was an ARM stop-gap until there was an x86 platform.