Even standard small prop aircraft gets middling mileage, and earns points only by its ability to fly in a straight line.
So you're comparing a plane designed 40-50 years ago with a brand new invention? Put a good diesel engine (that can burn Jet A) and clean up the aerodynamics and you'll be far more efficient AND remove the lead from the fuel. Of course, super-clean-flying planes are somewhat harder for a new pilot to handle since it's harder to bleed off speed on landing. While I agree it's probably impractical, I don't think it's as clear-cut as you imply.
And should you copy the lat/lon by hand off your GPS into your email address? Or be forced to talk to someone and hope they record everything properly. This is news because it shows that if you make something dramatically cheaper, faster, easier, and more accurate by using new technology it can redefine the community-government relationship. It brings us closer to Democracy.
Oracle still makes their money on software. Making money by selling people extremely expensive software licenses only really works if you can get various kinds of locks and holds on them, if you can control their behavior. You can sell them consulting, support and hardware all day without needing any kind of lock, but not software.
It's funny, I have exactly the opposite opinion about software business models. My view of Linux is that the business plan is to find the most obtuse, difficult to maintain, esoteric software stack in the industry today, give it away for free, then charge for support. Companies like Apple would rather just charge you a higher price up front for something that actually works well and needs little maintenance or consulting. I think Oracle falls somewhere in-between.
We are. The US wins almost any robotics competitions there are, and our robotics programs are world-class. Just because some other country happens to come up with a nice demo every once in awhile it doesn't mean we've lost the lead.
And, I hate to say it, we are paying the price for that with our jobs.
Ironically, the reason we're losing our jobs is because of our robotics prowess. The US remains the biggest manufacturing country in the world and manufacturing output continues to increase (barring a hiccup for the recession). The problem is that the US is also the most efficient nation on Earth, getting more from each worker (both Government and private) per dollar and per unit time than any other nation on Earth. And efficiency continues to advance faster than growth, leading to manufacturing job losses.
Pay out the nose for our high speed internet! but if you dare use that speed we will lock you up.
Not to be overly nitpicky, but technically they are against you using quantity, not speed. There is a difference between having a super-fast internet for the times when you need it and someone saturating the entire connection with torrents 24/7. I think Verizon needs to start making the distinction clear-- remove the word "Unlimited data" and leave it strategically ambiguous in the marketing if necessary, while still guaranteeing the speed.
I have no problem with the electric company not explicitly limiting my power, with the understanding that if everyone maxes out their line the entire system could go down and that those who are unreasonable in their usage need to be mitigated somehow. I similarly have no problem with Verizon promising virtually unlimited speeds with the understanding that if I peg the connection 24/7 I'm going to be throttled.
Scientist 1: "Let's see who can punch the softest. You go first!" Scientist 2: "I managed to punch with 6 Yoctonewtons! Beat that!" Scientist 2: "OW!" Scientist 1: "You win."
but those of us who really want a functional and versatile mobile computer with a small form-factor will remain frustrated.
...but only those who are unwilling to pay the $99 and write their own apps for themselves. So casual users who want an "information appliance" will love it, and true hard-core geeks will love it, but I think you're right that there's a middle ground of "geek dabbler" who like to tinker but can't/won't really dig into things that will remain frustrated.
If an "implementation" were all that was at issue, in the field of software copyright would be more than adequate.
No, copyright covers an instance of an implementation of an idea. Patents can cover a virtual mechanism regardless of exact syntax and choice of object breakdown. And in this day and age it's pretty obvious to me that if you allow patents for any physical invention it would be silly not to also offer patents on virtual inventions.
My mother had cancer when she was pregnant with me. I'm now 36 and she's as healthy as me, and me and my kids are much better off for having her around. And Stephen Hawking?
Yes, everyone dies. But health insurance is one of the best investments you can make-- you're shifting money from when you're healthy and can afford it to when you're sick and can't.
But in open source, if you so choose, you, or anyone, from the youngest child to Bill Gates himself, can fork Shuttleworth's tree, right then and there. Then you can have it your way. And if you are right, and people care, then people will join you and leave Shuttleworth out in the cold. It's happened many times before. And if not, then maybe your idea just wasn't that great, or that important, after all. Happens all the time. But the result, as with any democracy, is that leadership is largely consensual and generally merit-driven.
While I agree with the sentiment of your post, the assertion that the ideas of a given fork/branch are the sole factor in its success is a vast oversimplification. Program management, project management, marketing, design, and all the other aspects of your standard software production business still apply in open source. Companies don't do that sort of thing because it's fun.
Bonus: The countries that are exactly like that, are only that way because the USA buys their oil.
And US states. Alaska is the biggest socialist government in the northern hemisphere, and the rest of the country pays Alaskan citizens cash for the privilege of buying their oil.
NPR did a couple of interviews with Chinese bloggers and internet publishers. They were fighting for less Chinese Government restrictions, but even they started one sentence with: "Obviously, the Government needs to protect some people from dangerous information, but..." I haven't heard many native Chinese express the belief that a completely Government-unfiltered communications system is a fundamental right or even something that's unquestionably a good thing on the balance. It's those kinds of attitudes, though, that make me think that China is currently where Japan was in the 80's, and will have a self-limiting success as they run out of Western technology to copy and have trouble creating their own in a communication-stifled society.
IS isn't a "feature" of the OS, it's an application that runs on the OS. Considering XPs market share, it's obviously more of a business decision than a technical one to drop support. Every other browser has found a way to work with XP and if IE was a separately responsible business area of Microsoft this problem would get solved.
You obviously have a huge bias against Java for emotional reasons, but may I point out that extremely comprehensive 3D desktop effects existed in Java with Project Looking Glass long before they became standard fare on Windows. From Nasa WorldWind to Jake2 to JSatTrack and a zillion custom (usually vertical) apps, a lot of folks have dispelled the myth that Java is slow for 3D work. In addition, there are plenty of people doing 2D scenegraph work in Java to create some fairly revolutionary UI's, such as Project Piccolo. It's actually more than fast enough to keep a GPU occupied.
Why don't more desktop packages use Java? Not sure, but it's not due to speed. I use OpenOffice, Eclipse, and XMind on a regular basis and there's a lot of Java in there. I've played online Java games, although they tend to use Flash a lot these days.
(I believe Bill took the concept from Steve who bought the concept from Xerox)
Just corrected that common misconception in your statement. Apple actually paid Xerox in Apple shares for those visits, and at the time it was said to be the most lucrative thing PARC had done up to then.
And some apps (like Google Voice) are permenantly "pending". I think that's exactly what Hizonner meant - Apple is inconsistent. Some apps are approved quickly and others aren't. You can't know ahead of time which yours will be.
His assertion went further than complaining about inconsistency. He made the link between that inconsistency and one being likely "stupid" to participate. My point is that yes, this is a risk in doing business in the App Store, but the risk can be mitigated to some degree and everything has risks. Could it be better? Sure. Could it be worse? Obviously, since everything that came before it was worse in terms of monetization of one's work. Can it be replaced with something better? The jury's still out on this one-- Google's platform has freedom and fragmentation with lots of customers who dislike paying for anything; Windows Mobile will be great "someday" but sucks today, as is typical of Microsoft; WebOS has tiny market share; JavaME is more fragmented than Android without the benefit of Google behind it...
Your understanding from personal experience, from Apple's official stance, or from what you hear from a few developers?
It seems as if Apple can decide to block an application without actually rejecting it (in order to keep the FCC of their tails) - I'm currently on day 63 "In Review" with an app which I now consider (unofficially) rejected by Apple
My experience was about two weeks last year. I haven't submitted anything this year but colleagues have reported even shorter review times in 2010 than 2009.
Apple is slow and inconsistent about approving apps.
My understanding is that Apple now approves most apps in a few days.
It changes the rules and yanks apps all the time.
This is the biggest issue with Apple. Even so, it has affected a few percent of all the apps available for the platform, and most of those were "cookie cutter" apps that took virtually no resources to develop. I'm only aware of a tiny fraction of a percent of apps that truly took an investment but later was undermined by Apple. Of course those developers made a lot of noise (and justifiably so), but in the end it's very, very rare.
Nonetheless, many people seem to be willing to bet their livelihoods on Apple. [...] What's the reason for that?
Money. The vast majority of all money changing hands in the mobile app market happens through the App Store. In fact for a small development house the App Store is likely to be significantly more lucrative than desktop development. Combine that with Apple's rather well-done SDK and a myriad of third-party tools to make iPhone/iPod Touch development easier, and you have a pretty good opportunity for a decent return on investment. The better businesses do things to mitigate the risk of running afoul of some Apple policy, such has having a more diverse portfolio than they might otherwise have, but you're right that it is a risk to such a business.
It's hard to argue that this contract is too one-sided when so many people are making so much money in such an effective win-win agreement.
...except when they [added "Woman's Rights"|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Women.27s_rights] as a part of the Civil Rights Act to try to sink it, since obviously no one would support that...
Oh, I beg to differ on this one. I would KILL to be able to replace my battery in my iPhone or plug in a memory stick (and save email attachments to it.)
Apparently Apple disagreed with jcoleman (139158) regarding "easily openable case == design feature"
Or, "openable case == design feature"
Apple knows their markets very well. The high-end Mac Pro tower is far, far easier to open and modify than any other tower case I've used. Lift a lever, pull away the side, and you have each access to everything. Because that's what most of the Mac Pro customers want. iPhone customers? Not so much.
Sure, and the tablet PCs are a "me too" to the Newton and eMate, etc. The difference is that you can actually buy iPods and you'll be able to order an iPad next week for delivery about a month from now. These leaks from Microsoft are just an attempt to spread FUD and suppress iPad sales until Microsoft can whip up a competing product. Fortunately, Microsoft's typical "suppress innovation until we're ready with an almost-ran" tactic isn't going to work very well against Apple because of their momentum with the iPhone and iPod Touch.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're comparing a plane designed 40-50 years ago with a brand new invention? Put a good diesel engine (that can burn Jet A) and clean up the aerodynamics and you'll be far more efficient AND remove the lead from the fuel. Of course, super-clean-flying planes are somewhat harder for a new pilot to handle since it's harder to bleed off speed on landing. While I agree it's probably impractical, I don't think it's as clear-cut as you imply.
I think every software review needs to include reading and understanding the EULA in the "time to install" and "time to update" metric.
When the review hits the stands that "Windows 7 takes a week and $200 in lawyers fees to install" maybe something will change?
And should you copy the lat/lon by hand off your GPS into your email address? Or be forced to talk to someone and hope they record everything properly. This is news because it shows that if you make something dramatically cheaper, faster, easier, and more accurate by using new technology it can redefine the community-government relationship. It brings us closer to Democracy.
It's funny, I have exactly the opposite opinion about software business models. My view of Linux is that the business plan is to find the most obtuse, difficult to maintain, esoteric software stack in the industry today, give it away for free, then charge for support. Companies like Apple would rather just charge you a higher price up front for something that actually works well and needs little maintenance or consulting. I think Oracle falls somewhere in-between.
We are. The US wins almost any robotics competitions there are, and our robotics programs are world-class. Just because some other country happens to come up with a nice demo every once in awhile it doesn't mean we've lost the lead.
Ironically, the reason we're losing our jobs is because of our robotics prowess. The US remains the biggest manufacturing country in the world and manufacturing output continues to increase (barring a hiccup for the recession). The problem is that the US is also the most efficient nation on Earth, getting more from each worker (both Government and private) per dollar and per unit time than any other nation on Earth. And efficiency continues to advance faster than growth, leading to manufacturing job losses.
Not to be overly nitpicky, but technically they are against you using quantity, not speed. There is a difference between having a super-fast internet for the times when you need it and someone saturating the entire connection with torrents 24/7. I think Verizon needs to start making the distinction clear-- remove the word "Unlimited data" and leave it strategically ambiguous in the marketing if necessary, while still guaranteeing the speed.
I have no problem with the electric company not explicitly limiting my power, with the understanding that if everyone maxes out their line the entire system could go down and that those who are unreasonable in their usage need to be mitigated somehow. I similarly have no problem with Verizon promising virtually unlimited speeds with the understanding that if I peg the connection 24/7 I'm going to be throttled.
Let me guess how this experiment started...
Scientist 1: "Let's see who can punch the softest. You go first!"
Scientist 2: "I managed to punch with 6 Yoctonewtons! Beat that!"
Scientist 2: "OW!"
Scientist 1: "You win."
No, copyright covers an instance of an implementation of an idea. Patents can cover a virtual mechanism regardless of exact syntax and choice of object breakdown. And in this day and age it's pretty obvious to me that if you allow patents for any physical invention it would be silly not to also offer patents on virtual inventions.
My mother had cancer when she was pregnant with me. I'm now 36 and she's as healthy as me, and me and my kids are much better off for having her around. And Stephen Hawking?
Yes, everyone dies. But health insurance is one of the best investments you can make-- you're shifting money from when you're healthy and can afford it to when you're sick and can't.
Do people on gaming platforms other than the iPhone really pay more than $10-$15 for a game??
While I agree with the sentiment of your post, the assertion that the ideas of a given fork/branch are the sole factor in its success is a vast oversimplification. Program management, project management, marketing, design, and all the other aspects of your standard software production business still apply in open source. Companies don't do that sort of thing because it's fun.
And US states. Alaska is the biggest socialist government in the northern hemisphere, and the rest of the country pays Alaskan citizens cash for the privilege of buying their oil.
NPR did a couple of interviews with Chinese bloggers and internet publishers. They were fighting for less Chinese Government restrictions, but even they started one sentence with: "Obviously, the Government needs to protect some people from dangerous information, but..." I haven't heard many native Chinese express the belief that a completely Government-unfiltered communications system is a fundamental right or even something that's unquestionably a good thing on the balance. It's those kinds of attitudes, though, that make me think that China is currently where Japan was in the 80's, and will have a self-limiting success as they run out of Western technology to copy and have trouble creating their own in a communication-stifled society.
IS isn't a "feature" of the OS, it's an application that runs on the OS. Considering XPs market share, it's obviously more of a business decision than a technical one to drop support. Every other browser has found a way to work with XP and if IE was a separately responsible business area of Microsoft this problem would get solved.
You obviously have a huge bias against Java for emotional reasons, but may I point out that extremely comprehensive 3D desktop effects existed in Java with Project Looking Glass long before they became standard fare on Windows. From Nasa WorldWind to Jake2 to JSatTrack and a zillion custom (usually vertical) apps, a lot of folks have dispelled the myth that Java is slow for 3D work. In addition, there are plenty of people doing 2D scenegraph work in Java to create some fairly revolutionary UI's, such as Project Piccolo. It's actually more than fast enough to keep a GPU occupied.
Why don't more desktop packages use Java? Not sure, but it's not due to speed. I use OpenOffice, Eclipse, and XMind on a regular basis and there's a lot of Java in there. I've played online Java games, although they tend to use Flash a lot these days.
I'm not sure, since there is only one Library of Congress and you're talking about duplicates of them, not creating different entities.
In any case, I thought MP3 songs were the new benchmark for capacity.
Just corrected that common misconception in your statement. Apple actually paid Xerox in Apple shares for those visits, and at the time it was said to be the most lucrative thing PARC had done up to then.
His assertion went further than complaining about inconsistency. He made the link between that inconsistency and one being likely "stupid" to participate. My point is that yes, this is a risk in doing business in the App Store, but the risk can be mitigated to some degree and everything has risks. Could it be better? Sure. Could it be worse? Obviously, since everything that came before it was worse in terms of monetization of one's work. Can it be replaced with something better? The jury's still out on this one-- Google's platform has freedom and fragmentation with lots of customers who dislike paying for anything; Windows Mobile will be great "someday" but sucks today, as is typical of Microsoft; WebOS has tiny market share; JavaME is more fragmented than Android without the benefit of Google behind it...
My experience was about two weeks last year. I haven't submitted anything this year but colleagues have reported even shorter review times in 2010 than 2009.
My understanding is that Apple now approves most apps in a few days.
This is the biggest issue with Apple. Even so, it has affected a few percent of all the apps available for the platform, and most of those were "cookie cutter" apps that took virtually no resources to develop. I'm only aware of a tiny fraction of a percent of apps that truly took an investment but later was undermined by Apple. Of course those developers made a lot of noise (and justifiably so), but in the end it's very, very rare.
Money. The vast majority of all money changing hands in the mobile app market happens through the App Store. In fact for a small development house the App Store is likely to be significantly more lucrative than desktop development. Combine that with Apple's rather well-done SDK and a myriad of third-party tools to make iPhone/iPod Touch development easier, and you have a pretty good opportunity for a decent return on investment. The better businesses do things to mitigate the risk of running afoul of some Apple policy, such has having a more diverse portfolio than they might otherwise have, but you're right that it is a risk to such a business.
It's hard to argue that this contract is too one-sided when so many people are making so much money in such an effective win-win agreement.
...except when they [added "Woman's Rights"|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Women.27s_rights] as a part of the Civil Rights Act to try to sink it, since obviously no one would support that...
You are not most people.
Apple knows their markets very well. The high-end Mac Pro tower is far, far easier to open and modify than any other tower case I've used. Lift a lever, pull away the side, and you have each access to everything. Because that's what most of the Mac Pro customers want. iPhone customers? Not so much.
Sure, and the tablet PCs are a "me too" to the Newton and eMate, etc. The difference is that you can actually buy iPods and you'll be able to order an iPad next week for delivery about a month from now. These leaks from Microsoft are just an attempt to spread FUD and suppress iPad sales until Microsoft can whip up a competing product. Fortunately, Microsoft's typical "suppress innovation until we're ready with an almost-ran" tactic isn't going to work very well against Apple because of their momentum with the iPhone and iPod Touch.