The question is how much time will it take for the supply to balance the demand. Data centers take time to build (unless, of course, we're talking Google portable data containers).
When an industrial worker at one of Ford's factories 100 years ago went to work, what could he steal? A 20-ton forge? But nowadays, with so much high-value, high-density, low-volume stuff available to employees (and management) at arms length, the question of trust is a clear concern. When this new office worker works 20 meters from an unsupervised closet full of confidential business reports, would it make sense to check whether (s)he is at minus $20,000 on her/his MasterCard?
The problem in the situation described in the article is those companies failed to inform the prospective employees of their legal rights.
There is no connection between Apple the computer company and Apple the Beatles music company. Not on the name, not on the logo. These two companies even agreed on that at the end of a lengthy lawsuit in the '80s.
The labor conditions in India and China during those days were *much* worse than today (ever heard of the "Great Leap Ahead"?). And without the box containers, there is absolutely no way the US ports could cope with the amount of international shipping.
I hope you realize my two arguments above didn't even start touching the cost advantage.
Writer G. Pascal Zachary argues that Eric Schmidt has identified a sea-change in the software business, as signaled by Microsoft's recent problems and by the advancement of cloud computing.
Google didn't identified anything, they just have enough cash to fund long-term such project. And is not a head-on assault on Microsoft grip on the OS market, but rather a typical asymmetric warfare operation. Any dollar Google pours into Chrome OS, even if it doesn't defeat Microsoft, it makes them hemorrhage maybe another $500-1,000. If Google can fund Chrome OS long enough the loses of Microsoft will become harder and harder to justify in front of their board and ultimately in front of their shareholders.
It's very similar, strategically, with the asymmetric warfare strategy facing the American troops in Afghanistan.
This is just an arms race between the majors and Apple. None of them has a clear idea why are they doing it, but the simple fact that THE OTHER PART is doing it makes them race even faster.
Then a few years down the road they'll see the public so uninterested in their specs and "results", they'll just pretend it never happened.
It's just a matter of time till the so-called TV stations will become irrelevant. We are steadily advancing towards a future where the internet connection provides us with all the entertainment we may ever need, plus a few tons more. "TV" is basically pre-programmed entertainment and news, in various proportions (depending on channel, audience, etc.). All such services can be easily replicated either by an all-automated approach such as the one displayed today by services like Google News or it can be "crowdsourced" to follow an individual' or a group of individual's preferences (so you can call it a mostly-automatic approach). Both ways can offer *now* better programming than most channels available today on cable.
The spelling is on the wall, and these guys just want to squeeze the last drop till it lasts.
Frankly I agree with most of what you said above, with only one correction:
Russia had 0% unemployment but 1/3 of the country could not afford a loaf of bread per day. Even if they could afford it, the supply always ran out. China caught things before it got that bad,
The Chinese went *much* worse than the Russians (including the Stalin-induced famine in Ukraine in the '30s, mostly due to the bizarre era of the so-called "Great Leap Forward", the second five-year plan that started in 1958.
It shouldn't matter to you if it's a big corporation or a common people either when winning or losing. By underscoring it's a BIG corporation winning against COMMON people you only reveal yourself to be prejudiced.
The only thing important is whether the trial was fair and the sentence legal.
A creature that has spent several thousand years being domesticated by humans -- I'd damn well expect it to be able to emulate certain kinds of human behavior and show types of intelligence other animals do not, that's exactly what domestication is supposed to do.
We men also spent several thousand years being domesticated by females, yet all we can show up with is lots of beer and cavemen behavior when watching sports with buddies in front of the living room TV.
These services will / might succeed if they can be used also as video services. Since they also provide their own "DRM" that's accepted by the end-users, they could be in the position of allowing acces to video content while still keeping MPAA happy.
if they don't add video content to the mix they arer doomed, since they can't offer a unique competitive advantage over existing players in the field.
Slashdot Mirror
13 + 13 people? And results from such utterly irrelevant sample are supposed to make news?
Yeah, Slashdot, 'stuff that matters" indeed.
...is "no".
The question is how much time will it take for the supply to balance the demand. Data centers take time to build (unless, of course, we're talking Google portable data containers).
So, if you lose your Mojo, does it mean you got Austin Powers around?
When an industrial worker at one of Ford's factories 100 years ago went to work, what could he steal? A 20-ton forge? But nowadays, with so much high-value, high-density, low-volume stuff available to employees (and management) at arms length, the question of trust is a clear concern. When this new office worker works 20 meters from an unsupervised closet full of confidential business reports, would it make sense to check whether (s)he is at minus $20,000 on her/his MasterCard?
The problem in the situation described in the article is those companies failed to inform the prospective employees of their legal rights.
Green cement is people! Green cement is people!
And...? AND...? Please stop the suspense and tell us what happened!
There is no connection between Apple the computer company and Apple the Beatles music company. Not on the name, not on the logo. These two companies even agreed on that at the end of a lengthy lawsuit in the '80s.
The labor conditions in India and China during those days were *much* worse than today (ever heard of the "Great Leap Ahead"?). And without the box containers, there is absolutely no way the US ports could cope with the amount of international shipping.
I hope you realize my two arguments above didn't even start touching the cost advantage.
Seems like the only reason they keep coming up with such contests is their advertising value. Just my 2 cents.
Writer G. Pascal Zachary argues that Eric Schmidt has identified a sea-change in the software business, as signaled by Microsoft's recent problems and by the advancement of cloud computing.
Google didn't identified anything, they just have enough cash to fund long-term such project. And is not a head-on assault on Microsoft grip on the OS market, but rather a typical asymmetric warfare operation. Any dollar Google pours into Chrome OS, even if it doesn't defeat Microsoft, it makes them hemorrhage maybe another $500-1,000. If Google can fund Chrome OS long enough the loses of Microsoft will become harder and harder to justify in front of their board and ultimately in front of their shareholders.
It's very similar, strategically, with the asymmetric warfare strategy facing the American troops in Afghanistan.
Shame on them, for selling out. They should have become Open Source ;-)
Now seriously, is there any chance of writing the summary in a way that's not leftier than Stallman?
This is just an arms race between the majors and Apple. None of them has a clear idea why are they doing it, but the simple fact that THE OTHER PART is doing it makes them race even faster.
Then a few years down the road they'll see the public so uninterested in their specs and "results", they'll just pretend it never happened.
Is it a wired or a wireless connection?
Let the bad taste jokes begin ;-)
But I thought that pranks want to be free!
Oops...
Look, ma', I'm smart!
It's just a matter of time till the so-called TV stations will become irrelevant. We are steadily advancing towards a future where the internet connection provides us with all the entertainment we may ever need, plus a few tons more. "TV" is basically pre-programmed entertainment and news, in various proportions (depending on channel, audience, etc.). All such services can be easily replicated either by an all-automated approach such as the one displayed today by services like Google News or it can be "crowdsourced" to follow an individual' or a group of individual's preferences (so you can call it a mostly-automatic approach). Both ways can offer *now* better programming than most channels available today on cable.
The spelling is on the wall, and these guys just want to squeeze the last drop till it lasts.
Don't worry, they'll "fix" this ;-)
Frankly I agree with most of what you said above, with only one correction:
Russia had 0% unemployment but 1/3 of the country could not afford a loaf of bread per day. Even if they could afford it, the supply always ran out. China caught things before it got that bad,
The Chinese went *much* worse than the Russians (including the Stalin-induced famine in Ukraine in the '30s, mostly due to the bizarre era of the so-called "Great Leap Forward", the second five-year plan that started in 1958.
It shouldn't matter to you if it's a big corporation or a common people either when winning or losing. By underscoring it's a BIG corporation winning against COMMON people you only reveal yourself to be prejudiced.
The only thing important is whether the trial was fair and the sentence legal.
A creature that has spent several thousand years being domesticated by humans -- I'd damn well expect it to be able to emulate certain kinds of human behavior and show types of intelligence other animals do not, that's exactly what domestication is supposed to do.
We men also spent several thousand years being domesticated by females, yet all we can show up with is lots of beer and cavemen behavior when watching sports with buddies in front of the living room TV.
So instead of .eco, Gorbatched should better reuse goold old .su
Well, seems like Gorbatchev and Al Gore are competing for that position ;-)
These services will / might succeed if they can be used also as video services. Since they also provide their own "DRM" that's accepted by the end-users, they could be in the position of allowing acces to video content while still keeping MPAA happy.
if they don't add video content to the mix they arer doomed, since they can't offer a unique competitive advantage over existing players in the field.