I'm guessing it's been a while since you checked, since AOL for broadband is free. It's basically an advertising platform. And since you're right that it's only old people - and worse, old people born before a certain date - that's not exactly a viable business plan.
I'm surprised that most people in that situation don't just stop paying the bill. They'll cut off your account eventually, right? And if you're not planning on buying a house in the next few years, it's not like the hit to your credit will matter.
I keep hearing that Apple's stock is overpriced, but that really only holds if you expect their earnings to go down (e.g. as a result of Job's departure). There's a reason they timed this with the earnings report, because their earnings have been insane for the last couple years.
Of course, I do think that their earnings are unsustainable without Jobs, and the volatility of the stock indicates I'm not alone in that, but it's hardly a foregone conclusion so it's not surprising to see people betting both ways.
Alternately, it is owned by investors who are expecting the business to grow so that when it does start paying dividends they will be strong. Without folks like that the entire basis underlying growth stocks vanishes, and the whole system falls apart.
It's some of both, of course, but with a P/E of only 22 it's not trading solely on hype.
That was my first thought, too. Then I realized that they can simply reject the submission.
What I want to know is how the contract words the right of the developer to pull their app from the store. Can they throw it out there as an experiment, and pull it if it turns out that other stores are more lucrative?
Oh, absolutely. But think of the opportunity here. We have a hypothesis: that a significant portion of the observed rise in temperatures is anthropogenic. If we can convince a significant portion of humanity to take action to attempt to change that, we might be able to come up with a data point to suggest whether it is true. If the experiment works, we can repeat it, and set a target for what we want global average temperatures to be. After a couple experiments, if the hypothesis holds, we have rudimentary weather control!
If the 'greens' are right, they are handing to the establishment the keys to completely destroy the ecosystem. Mad Science FTW!
If you would care to provide a climate system that can be reliably reset so that we can run some experiments, I'd be delighted. Until then, climate researchers, along with astronomers and geologists, are just going to have to rely on old models of inductive reasoning and incomplete models. Some limited understanding is better than none at all.
The Nexus S requires nothing like jailbreaking, it is in fact open by design. There are others that aren't, and that does tarnish the brand, but that doesn't change the fact that people have options. If an Iphone user wants an open phone and doesn't want to jailbreak, their options are... well, Android, I suppose.
The use of open standards on the web allows for end users to make the software and content they choose.
That's only half right. As you point out, H.264 does not restrict aspiring CONTENT producers in any meaningful way. It does, however, impose significant restrictions on aspiring SOFTWARE producers, most notably with regards to browsers but anything that plays video is affected.
I'm pretty sure that's GP's point... if Google is going to provide a less capable product, why should MS complain? Shouldn't the only thing they have to do to win this be what they're already doing?
The SSMEs are actually quite expensive on a per-unit basis as well because of their complexity. The idea was that since they were reusable and the costs could be amortized over a number of flights (so the per-flight cost is reasonable, even accounting R&D), they could make an incredibly efficient engine and not have to worry about the fact that the manufacturing process would be complicated. Sure, making more of them would bring that cost down, but still not as much as something with fewer parts.
If you're just going to throw the engine away, it makes sense to "waste" fuel by having a less efficient but very simple engine. That's basically the lesson SpaceX took from the Shuttle and, as I understand it, the primary reason they use RP-1 instead of LH2. (Of course, if you can have a simple engine and reuse it, you've hit the jackpot. We'll see if they get there.)
Really, it was expected that they would use the Ares V. The Augustine report had good things to say about it, their problem was with the Ares I. Killing Constellation was really about ditching that as no longer required so they could get serious about the V and the actual deep space equipment (whether it is for the moon, an asteroid, whatever). The problem that I see is that the mandate that they reuse as many shuttle components as possible means that they made some significant changes to the Ares V before giving it back to congress, namely reusing the SSMEs instead of RS-68. The SSMEs are amazingly efficient, but also amazingly expensive, so they don't fit on an expendable segment. Fortunately, they seem to have left themselves an opening to renegotiate that later, FTFProposal:
“This design would allow NASA to use existing Shuttle main engine and booster component assets in the near term, with the opportunity for upgrades and/or competition downstream for eventual upgrades in designs needed for production of engines after flying out the current inventory of main engines and booster components"
As always, though, this project is set up to fail.
“However, to be clear, neither Reference Vehicle Design currently fits the projected budget profiles nor schedule goals outlined in the Authorization Act,”
I seem to recall that that case was settled, meaning either MS didn't think it would stand up in court, Lindows didn't think they had enough money to fight, or both. So we really still don't know what the court would say, although I bet the current case will give us a pretty good idea.
Did anyone actually attack it? I certainly can't think of any cases, and it seems to me that most people have just ignored it because it hasn't caused harm to anyone big enough to fight.
I think his point was that he only used it for the customer who paid for it, and when they were done with that convinced his boss to not make it part of their standard package just because they had experience with it.
Please tell my why I should use it when I have a superior option available at a reasonable price?
The same reason people developed sites that would work on IE6 for so long: on the web, eyeballs are money. If this move works, you're going to have to implement it in WebM anyway, just to get it in front of Chrome users. (It's worth noting that the "reasonable price" is only for content creators, not browser creators, so their interests differ from yours.)
Um, even if the code wasn't the same, you still would have had that right based on the fact that you received it under the GPL. (Assuming here that you're working here off the last available source, and haven't decompiled the closed version.)
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know, man, with Tomb of Horrors a night in lockup might be a welcome relief.
We've already tried once. I'm sure it's just a matter of time.
Expensively. It's all part of the conspiracy to get you to upgrade!
No, after you've given them notice, preferably by certified mail, you just stop paying the bill.
I'm guessing it's been a while since you checked, since AOL for broadband is free. It's basically an advertising platform. And since you're right that it's only old people - and worse, old people born before a certain date - that's not exactly a viable business plan.
I'm surprised that most people in that situation don't just stop paying the bill. They'll cut off your account eventually, right? And if you're not planning on buying a house in the next few years, it's not like the hit to your credit will matter.
Oh, I think the surprise will be more over the fact that Mars is populated by monkeys.
I keep hearing that Apple's stock is overpriced, but that really only holds if you expect their earnings to go down (e.g. as a result of Job's departure). There's a reason they timed this with the earnings report, because their earnings have been insane for the last couple years.
Of course, I do think that their earnings are unsustainable without Jobs, and the volatility of the stock indicates I'm not alone in that, but it's hardly a foregone conclusion so it's not surprising to see people betting both ways.
Alternately, it is owned by investors who are expecting the business to grow so that when it does start paying dividends they will be strong. Without folks like that the entire basis underlying growth stocks vanishes, and the whole system falls apart.
It's some of both, of course, but with a P/E of only 22 it's not trading solely on hype.
That was my first thought, too. Then I realized that they can simply reject the submission.
What I want to know is how the contract words the right of the developer to pull their app from the store. Can they throw it out there as an experiment, and pull it if it turns out that other stores are more lucrative?
Oh, absolutely. But think of the opportunity here. We have a hypothesis: that a significant portion of the observed rise in temperatures is anthropogenic. If we can convince a significant portion of humanity to take action to attempt to change that, we might be able to come up with a data point to suggest whether it is true. If the experiment works, we can repeat it, and set a target for what we want global average temperatures to be. After a couple experiments, if the hypothesis holds, we have rudimentary weather control!
If the 'greens' are right, they are handing to the establishment the keys to completely destroy the ecosystem. Mad Science FTW!
If you would care to provide a climate system that can be reliably reset so that we can run some experiments, I'd be delighted. Until then, climate researchers, along with astronomers and geologists, are just going to have to rely on old models of inductive reasoning and incomplete models. Some limited understanding is better than none at all.
Oh, wow. When else in the last two decades has there been a cool phone available in the States but not Japan? I've always heard the reverse.
That would be the N900. Shame it hasn't gotten an update recently.
The Nexus S requires nothing like jailbreaking, it is in fact open by design. There are others that aren't, and that does tarnish the brand, but that doesn't change the fact that people have options. If an Iphone user wants an open phone and doesn't want to jailbreak, their options are... well, Android, I suppose.
to quote GP:
The use of open standards on the web allows for end users to make the software and content they choose.
That's only half right. As you point out, H.264 does not restrict aspiring CONTENT producers in any meaningful way. It does, however, impose significant restrictions on aspiring SOFTWARE producers, most notably with regards to browsers but anything that plays video is affected.
I'm pretty sure that's GP's point... if Google is going to provide a less capable product, why should MS complain? Shouldn't the only thing they have to do to win this be what they're already doing?
The SSMEs are actually quite expensive on a per-unit basis as well because of their complexity. The idea was that since they were reusable and the costs could be amortized over a number of flights (so the per-flight cost is reasonable, even accounting R&D), they could make an incredibly efficient engine and not have to worry about the fact that the manufacturing process would be complicated. Sure, making more of them would bring that cost down, but still not as much as something with fewer parts.
If you're just going to throw the engine away, it makes sense to "waste" fuel by having a less efficient but very simple engine. That's basically the lesson SpaceX took from the Shuttle and, as I understand it, the primary reason they use RP-1 instead of LH2. (Of course, if you can have a simple engine and reuse it, you've hit the jackpot. We'll see if they get there.)
Really, it was expected that they would use the Ares V. The Augustine report had good things to say about it, their problem was with the Ares I. Killing Constellation was really about ditching that as no longer required so they could get serious about the V and the actual deep space equipment (whether it is for the moon, an asteroid, whatever). The problem that I see is that the mandate that they reuse as many shuttle components as possible means that they made some significant changes to the Ares V before giving it back to congress, namely reusing the SSMEs instead of RS-68. The SSMEs are amazingly efficient, but also amazingly expensive, so they don't fit on an expendable segment. Fortunately, they seem to have left themselves an opening to renegotiate that later, FTFProposal:
“This design would allow NASA to use existing Shuttle main engine and booster component assets in the near term, with the opportunity for upgrades and/or competition downstream for eventual upgrades in designs needed for production of engines after flying out the current inventory of main engines and booster components"
As always, though, this project is set up to fail.
“However, to be clear, neither Reference Vehicle Design currently fits the projected budget profiles nor schedule goals outlined in the Authorization Act,”
I seem to recall that that case was settled, meaning either MS didn't think it would stand up in court, Lindows didn't think they had enough money to fight, or both. So we really still don't know what the court would say, although I bet the current case will give us a pretty good idea.
Did anyone actually attack it? I certainly can't think of any cases, and it seems to me that most people have just ignored it because it hasn't caused harm to anyone big enough to fight.
I think his point was that he only used it for the customer who paid for it, and when they were done with that convinced his boss to not make it part of their standard package just because they had experience with it.
Both platforms have excessive fault tolerance not found elsewhere?
Please tell my why I should use it when I have a superior option available at a reasonable price?
The same reason people developed sites that would work on IE6 for so long: on the web, eyeballs are money. If this move works, you're going to have to implement it in WebM anyway, just to get it in front of Chrome users. (It's worth noting that the "reasonable price" is only for content creators, not browser creators, so their interests differ from yours.)
Um, even if the code wasn't the same, you still would have had that right based on the fact that you received it under the GPL. (Assuming here that you're working here off the last available source, and haven't decompiled the closed version.)