Thanks to Cook, in the 70s your rallying cry should have been "You are only limited by your imagination and... computational complexity" Damn you NP Completeness!
Can't give your kid a chemistry set, those don't exist. Can't buy chemicals, you might be making a bomb.
There are plenty of chemistry sets, and I can buy all the chemicals I'd be willing to give to a child.
For several years (after 9/11) you couldn't buy a model rocket engine, 'cause of course you could use it for terrorism somehow.
Citation? I was involved in a project in 2002 that involved model rockets. Had no problem buying the required materials
Until recently you couldn't build a UAV. Well, you could build it, but flying it was illegal.
I've been involved in UAV research for a few years. Another baseless claim. You need the proper permits depending on how and where you want to fly, but other than that I've flown quadrocopters in my back yard and at the park.
Students are arrested if they bring electronics projects to school (Can't find the link, remember reading about this).
Of course you can't, because it was probably a one off isolated incident that was most likely anecdotal. Science and engeering fairs like ISEF are stronger than ever, and many projects involve electronics.
Having canning jars and a bag of fertilizer in your car can get you arrested for having bomb-making materials.
Citation? This certainly doesn't happen every day. Don't see how this supports the position that we've created a hostile environment for children anyway.
Taking apart a smoke detector (and using it to demonstrate alpha radiation) is a "grievous offense" (actual NRC term) and can get you raided and have *all* your lab equipment taken away.
Citation?
Your hackerspace will be shut down [nhpr.org] instead of "given 30 days for compliance" as would be the case for a company.
MakeIt Labs was operating without a certificate to occupy, which they couldn't obtain because they didn't have exit signs, emergency lighting, metal tops for tables with power tools, and the ventilation was insufficient. Sounds like a death trap that needed to get shut down immediately.
your prospects are doing what you studied for, and getting paid peanuts, or going into finance, and making an ass ton while not doing a lot of work
I read that as: "your prospects are getting paid a small amount to do what you love everyday, or getting paid an ass ton to do something you despise." I'm a PhD student and I currently am paid $25k a year to conduct my research and go to school. But I enjoy every single day because I'm doing what I love. After my undergraduate I actually turned down a $80k job offer to work on wall street to do this PhD instead, and I've never ever regretted it. Quite frankly if you start a PhD with money as your sole motivation, you probably won't make it through the program anyway.
I can assure you if Apple weren't amazingly profitable they would certainly be concerned with quarterly profits. Surely if SpaceX weren't publicly funded, they would as well.
First, not all PhDs are created equally, and certainly not all grant applications are. There are many many PhDs out there, and there are above average researchers and below average researchers, and even terrible researchers apply for grants to fund terrible ideas. If you have a good idea, your chances of getting it are much higher than the 10% accept rate, which includes rejecting all the terrible ideas.
Second, not all disciplines are created equally. Try getting a grant to do researching in ancient russian literature vs. state of the art robotics research. You're going to be hard pressed to find people who want to fund your humanities research, whereas the scientist/engineer can go to NSF, DARPA, NASA, national laboratories, funding from industry, etc.
I think what it comes down to is that there are good ideas and merely okay, maybe kind of interesting ideas. Those with the good, applicable ideas will find funding, regardless of whatever grant acceptance rate you want to cite.
Looking at the most well rested and least, there's only a difference of like 4 minutes. Really, 4 minutes makes the difference between a good night's rest and being "sleep deprived?"
Compare this to generic video content, music, hell even video conferencing and you start to see just how pitifully restricted your movie viewing privileges really are.
Don't like it, don't pay for it. You have your choices including buying a physical disc and ripping it. Netflix suits my needs just fine, and I'm happy to pay for the service. It's a shame they can't offer it DRM free because some people want to freeload and enjoy the content without paying for it.
If you want to listen on your phone/mp3 player you either have to be near wifi or use your data plan. Also I find it interesting that you use Grooveshark as an example when they rewrote their site using HTML5, yet left the music player component in flash. I wonder why they did that. Further, it's unclear how much longer services like Grooveshark will be around, seeing as that they're being sued by pretty much everyone.
We won no DRM in music we purchase. There is still DRM in music you rent through subscription services, and for good reason. In the same line, there ought to exist DRM for services that stream video content like Netflix and Hulu.
Sure, that's the counter claim. But when you remember Google makes 96% of their revenue (and probably close to 99% of their net income) from advertising, it's not hard to come to the conclusion that Google could pack up their Google Apps for Business division (or any other division really) at the drop of a hat, and not really feel the blow. On the other hand, Microsoft's Business Division earned them 52% of their net income last year. You can bet your ass they're not going anywhere.
The points the Googlighting video try to make is that Google has an unknown track record with office applications, their products lack features compared to the competition, and they have a track record of starting projects and abandoning them without much warning, especially cloud applications. So when Microsoft asks, "is this a product you want to bet your business on?" while it may be FUD, it's a pertinent question.
Microsoft recently commented that Office 15 will be very touch friendly. Some brief screenshots were shown off recently of Office 15 on ARM, but they didn't offer much insight as to how the UI works.
Depending on the application. Some will try some palm rejection techniques, but the ones I've used weren't the best and you'd still get some phantom marks. Others allow you to define an area where you will put your hand, but this is very restrictive and feels unnatural. But even if these techniques were perfect, writing on the iPad still suffers from its capacitive screen, in that the stylus must be large and chunky with no extra features. You end up zooming in very close to your text and writing very large to compensate. With a digitizer, the stylus looks and feels just like a pen. It writes with the same accuracy and offers features like pressure sensitivity. Further you can have extra buttons on the stylus for erase mode or alternate pen modes. None of this is possible on the iPad.
I understand exactly what you said. Maybe you need some reading, or at least context comprehension.
Recap:
Anubis IV claims developers shouldn't have to pay to submit bug patches because Xbox live customers already pay for data centers and infrastructure.
I ask why I should pay for developers to use my gaming infrastructure to patch a broken game that probably shouldn't have been released in the first place.
You note that on the PC, developers include new content in patches, so it's not just about fixing a broken game, but adding new content and I should want to pay for that privilege.
I claim on the Xbox, new content is available via DLC, and conjecture that it is most likely cheaper to submit DLC to the marketplace because tons of content is free, just as on the PC.
You then rail against me for not being able to follow the conversation. So where exactly am I not understanding you here? Did I miss anything? Again I ask: Why should I have to pay for a developer to host and distribute a patch to fix a broken game on the Xbox? Developers are paying for hosting and bandwidth to distribute patches on the PC. They should have to pay on the Xbox as well. I pay $60 a year for the Xbox live gold services, and I don't like the idea of lazy developers who can't bother to release a finished game getting a free ride on my subscription. They should have an incentive to release a working game in the first place.
Do you own an Xbox? That's the way the content you describe is delivered on this platform. It doesn't have to be paid either; I've downloaded many extra levels, character packs, holiday specials etc. for games without paying anything.
What's with the curly brackets around {unspoken}? Is it punctuation free-for-all day" where we can just use any punctuation mark as we see fit] I!m not sure if I like the idea or not( but I could get used to it/
Patent trolls are usually companies whose sole source of revenue is patent lawsuit settlements, and who don't actually produce any products using the IP they hold. It's hard to call Kodak, RIM, HTC, and even Apple a troll given that. No, what we see here is a breakdown of the patent system, where the player has been issued very general patents, and therefore all these companies can point to pretty much any other company out there and find a patent they infringe on.
Would you want to require the developer to submit "Game (with barcodes and high score submission)", "Game (with barcodes only)", "Game (with high score submission only)", and "Game (no extra features)" as separate apps?
Of course not, which is why Android should change to give user control over permissions, and the developer should handle all the different scenarios within their app.
Most of those things you mentioned are forms of DLC and not patches. I don't know what the cost of submitting DLC to the marketplace is, but I would bet it's much less than a patch.
both of which are presumably being applied towards handling the same set of expenses
I think that this presumption is wrong. First, there obviously is some set of services that do not overlap, like testing and certifying patches. So Microsoft has to hire personnel to do the certification and make sure the patch won't destroy your console.
But even if we ignore that, I see it as a simple supply and demand issue. If Microsoft were to pay for all the infrastructure, data centers, and certifiers with your Live subscription, leaving no cost for the developers, Microsoft would simply be flooded with patch submissions. Every time someone fixed the tiniest bug, they would submit a patch request. What do they have to lose? Charging developers a fee ensures that they have something to lose by submitting a patch. They are forced to get it right the first time, rather than develop shoddy code with the mindset that "I can always fix it later."
Obviously Microsoft can't service this kind of environment, and the user experience would suffer when you have to download a new patch every time you want to play. Thus Microsoft charges a fee to decrease demand. So perhaps the $40k is high, but it's probably priced at a level that pays for all Microsoft's costs, attenuates demand, and earns them a little profit as well. For anyone who can't afford this kind of certification, there's always the Xbox Live Indie Games to get your game on the marketplace.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks to Cook, in the 70s your rallying cry should have been "You are only limited by your imagination and... computational complexity" Damn you NP Completeness!
Can't give your kid a chemistry set, those don't exist. Can't buy chemicals, you might be making a bomb.
There are plenty of chemistry sets, and I can buy all the chemicals I'd be willing to give to a child.
For several years (after 9/11) you couldn't buy a model rocket engine, 'cause of course you could use it for terrorism somehow.
Citation? I was involved in a project in 2002 that involved model rockets. Had no problem buying the required materials
Until recently you couldn't build a UAV. Well, you could build it, but flying it was illegal.
I've been involved in UAV research for a few years. Another baseless claim. You need the proper permits depending on how and where you want to fly, but other than that I've flown quadrocopters in my back yard and at the park.
Students are arrested if they bring electronics projects to school (Can't find the link, remember reading about this).
Of course you can't, because it was probably a one off isolated incident that was most likely anecdotal. Science and engeering fairs like ISEF are stronger than ever, and many projects involve electronics.
Having canning jars and a bag of fertilizer in your car can get you arrested for having bomb-making materials.
Citation? This certainly doesn't happen every day. Don't see how this supports the position that we've created a hostile environment for children anyway.
Taking apart a smoke detector (and using it to demonstrate alpha radiation) is a "grievous offense" (actual NRC term) and can get you raided and have *all* your lab equipment taken away.
Citation?
Your hackerspace will be shut down [nhpr.org] instead of "given 30 days for compliance" as would be the case for a company.
MakeIt Labs was operating without a certificate to occupy, which they couldn't obtain because they didn't have exit signs, emergency lighting, metal tops for tables with power tools, and the ventilation was insufficient. Sounds like a death trap that needed to get shut down immediately.
They're talking about scientists and engineers. A UI designer is neither.
your prospects are doing what you studied for, and getting paid peanuts, or going into finance, and making an ass ton while not doing a lot of work
I read that as: "your prospects are getting paid a small amount to do what you love everyday, or getting paid an ass ton to do something you despise." I'm a PhD student and I currently am paid $25k a year to conduct my research and go to school. But I enjoy every single day because I'm doing what I love. After my undergraduate I actually turned down a $80k job offer to work on wall street to do this PhD instead, and I've never ever regretted it. Quite frankly if you start a PhD with money as your sole motivation, you probably won't make it through the program anyway.
If you're paying for a PhD you probably shouldn't be doing one. Most PhD programs will place you in a position that pays stipend+tuition.
I can assure you if Apple weren't amazingly profitable they would certainly be concerned with quarterly profits. Surely if SpaceX weren't publicly funded, they would as well.
Sounds like you've had some bad managers. Maybe instead of off-shoring yours, you should just get better ones.
Depends on the BS. I have a BS in physics and had several offers out of college, each at least 50k.
First, not all PhDs are created equally, and certainly not all grant applications are. There are many many PhDs out there, and there are above average researchers and below average researchers, and even terrible researchers apply for grants to fund terrible ideas. If you have a good idea, your chances of getting it are much higher than the 10% accept rate, which includes rejecting all the terrible ideas.
Second, not all disciplines are created equally. Try getting a grant to do researching in ancient russian literature vs. state of the art robotics research. You're going to be hard pressed to find people who want to fund your humanities research, whereas the scientist/engineer can go to NSF, DARPA, NASA, national laboratories, funding from industry, etc.
I think what it comes down to is that there are good ideas and merely okay, maybe kind of interesting ideas. Those with the good, applicable ideas will find funding, regardless of whatever grant acceptance rate you want to cite.
Looking at the most well rested and least, there's only a difference of like 4 minutes. Really, 4 minutes makes the difference between a good night's rest and being "sleep deprived?"
Compare this to generic video content, music, hell even video conferencing and you start to see just how pitifully restricted your movie viewing privileges really are.
Don't like it, don't pay for it. You have your choices including buying a physical disc and ripping it. Netflix suits my needs just fine, and I'm happy to pay for the service. It's a shame they can't offer it DRM free because some people want to freeload and enjoy the content without paying for it.
If you want to listen on your phone/mp3 player you either have to be near wifi or use your data plan. Also I find it interesting that you use Grooveshark as an example when they rewrote their site using HTML5, yet left the music player component in flash. I wonder why they did that. Further, it's unclear how much longer services like Grooveshark will be around, seeing as that they're being sued by pretty much everyone.
We won no DRM in music we purchase. There is still DRM in music you rent through subscription services, and for good reason. In the same line, there ought to exist DRM for services that stream video content like Netflix and Hulu.
Oh, are they not willing to show their movies to people unless it is incredibly inconvenient for customers?
Netflix and Hulu are probably the two most convenient ways for me to watch the shows I enjoy, and the only reason they exist is because of DRM.
Sure, that's the counter claim. But when you remember Google makes 96% of their revenue (and probably close to 99% of their net income) from advertising, it's not hard to come to the conclusion that Google could pack up their Google Apps for Business division (or any other division really) at the drop of a hat, and not really feel the blow. On the other hand, Microsoft's Business Division earned them 52% of their net income last year. You can bet your ass they're not going anywhere.
The points the Googlighting video try to make is that Google has an unknown track record with office applications, their products lack features compared to the competition, and they have a track record of starting projects and abandoning them without much warning, especially cloud applications. So when Microsoft asks, "is this a product you want to bet your business on?" while it may be FUD, it's a pertinent question.
I'm not aware of a similar project for Office.
Microsoft recently commented that Office 15 will be very touch friendly. Some brief screenshots were shown off recently of Office 15 on ARM, but they didn't offer much insight as to how the UI works.
Depending on the application. Some will try some palm rejection techniques, but the ones I've used weren't the best and you'd still get some phantom marks. Others allow you to define an area where you will put your hand, but this is very restrictive and feels unnatural. But even if these techniques were perfect, writing on the iPad still suffers from its capacitive screen, in that the stylus must be large and chunky with no extra features. You end up zooming in very close to your text and writing very large to compensate. With a digitizer, the stylus looks and feels just like a pen. It writes with the same accuracy and offers features like pressure sensitivity. Further you can have extra buttons on the stylus for erase mode or alternate pen modes. None of this is possible on the iPad.
I understand exactly what you said. Maybe you need some reading, or at least context comprehension.
Recap:
Anubis IV claims developers shouldn't have to pay to submit bug patches because Xbox live customers already pay for data centers and infrastructure.
I ask why I should pay for developers to use my gaming infrastructure to patch a broken game that probably shouldn't have been released in the first place.
You note that on the PC, developers include new content in patches, so it's not just about fixing a broken game, but adding new content and I should want to pay for that privilege.
I claim on the Xbox, new content is available via DLC, and conjecture that it is most likely cheaper to submit DLC to the marketplace because tons of content is free, just as on the PC.
You then rail against me for not being able to follow the conversation. So where exactly am I not understanding you here? Did I miss anything? Again I ask: Why should I have to pay for a developer to host and distribute a patch to fix a broken game on the Xbox? Developers are paying for hosting and bandwidth to distribute patches on the PC. They should have to pay on the Xbox as well. I pay $60 a year for the Xbox live gold services, and I don't like the idea of lazy developers who can't bother to release a finished game getting a free ride on my subscription. They should have an incentive to release a working game in the first place.
Do you own an Xbox? That's the way the content you describe is delivered on this platform. It doesn't have to be paid either; I've downloaded many extra levels, character packs, holiday specials etc. for games without paying anything.
What's with the curly brackets around {unspoken}? Is it punctuation free-for-all day" where we can just use any punctuation mark as we see fit] I!m not sure if I like the idea or not( but I could get used to it/
Patent trolls are usually companies whose sole source of revenue is patent lawsuit settlements, and who don't actually produce any products using the IP they hold. It's hard to call Kodak, RIM, HTC, and even Apple a troll given that. No, what we see here is a breakdown of the patent system, where the player has been issued very general patents, and therefore all these companies can point to pretty much any other company out there and find a patent they infringe on.
Would you want to require the developer to submit "Game (with barcodes and high score submission)", "Game (with barcodes only)", "Game (with high score submission only)", and "Game (no extra features)" as separate apps?
Of course not, which is why Android should change to give user control over permissions, and the developer should handle all the different scenarios within their app.
Most of those things you mentioned are forms of DLC and not patches. I don't know what the cost of submitting DLC to the marketplace is, but I would bet it's much less than a patch.
both of which are presumably being applied towards handling the same set of expenses
I think that this presumption is wrong. First, there obviously is some set of services that do not overlap, like testing and certifying patches. So Microsoft has to hire personnel to do the certification and make sure the patch won't destroy your console.
But even if we ignore that, I see it as a simple supply and demand issue. If Microsoft were to pay for all the infrastructure, data centers, and certifiers with your Live subscription, leaving no cost for the developers, Microsoft would simply be flooded with patch submissions. Every time someone fixed the tiniest bug, they would submit a patch request. What do they have to lose? Charging developers a fee ensures that they have something to lose by submitting a patch. They are forced to get it right the first time, rather than develop shoddy code with the mindset that "I can always fix it later."
Obviously Microsoft can't service this kind of environment, and the user experience would suffer when you have to download a new patch every time you want to play. Thus Microsoft charges a fee to decrease demand. So perhaps the $40k is high, but it's probably priced at a level that pays for all Microsoft's costs, attenuates demand, and earns them a little profit as well. For anyone who can't afford this kind of certification, there's always the Xbox Live Indie Games to get your game on the marketplace.