The exact same thing that defines success in non-open source software: It does what you wanted.
Doesn't matter whether it's a log rotation script, a web app, a POS system or firmware for electronics on the next spaceship. Software success is determined by only one metric. Open source doesn't enter into it.
They're simultaneously saying that it's most beneficial for northern/southern areas where daylight is diminished and that it's a more compact arrangement of cells.
Those two don't go together well... Most northern and southern areas have very large open areas due to having low overall population density.
Cost/Watt is all that matters in most areas for solar panels, Watt/weight in the rest. I can't see this being of use except in powering small devices
I think you're taking this much further than my comment ever entailed:
I said: Anyone who specifically buys a new HDTV for sports has no brain.
Everyone heard: Anyone who watches sports ever is a dolt.
Very different. Now I freely admit that my comment was a bit ambiguous as to which I meant, but I assure you I meant the former.
Anyone who is *that* absorbed in sports needs help. That's distinct from having the money to buy an HDTV at your leisure and enjoying the additional resolution on things you already watch.
Don't worry, the military is already lots interested in superconductors that work at room temperature.
More money would help, more money is more eyes on the problem. But frankly the superconductor field is kind of waiting for it's Einstein if you will. We fundamentally lack understanding about some key things and more than likely it's only going to be solved when somebody has the eureka moment.
So assuming I buy everything they're selling (I don't entirely, as my anecdotal evidence says the exact opposite of this study)
What's "better" in this case; they seem to be focusing entirely on employee input to business direction and other feel good stuff.
Meanwhile, some (if not all) of the most successful companies from an economical standpoint were/are run by tyrants (amazon and apple to name two easy ones).
I don't just question their findings, but I'm outright calling bullshit on the conclusion.
You only need half of the equation (the superconductor) to do that. You don't care about "cloaking" anything when trying to dissipate the MRI field, you just get rid of it.
As far as I know (and admittedly, when it comes to MRI machines that isn't a great deal) there isn't any real technical hurdle regarding removing it's magnetic field. It would be annoying (keeping even a high temperature super conductor cool), expensive, and a lot harder than just telling everyone to empty their pockets.
You (not you, they) believe in the bible and Jesus and invisible friends in the sky, great. That in no way interferes with the proven fact that organisms evolve based on their surroundings.
Even if you want to completely dismiss that humans evolved, you should still (as an educator, no matter how dumb) desire to pass on knowledge.
So your contention is then that a loaf of bread is worth approximately 80x what it was a hundred years ago.
You're wrong.
The human race got along without abundant fossil fuels for *FAR* longer than it has with. Supply and Demand absolutely do change the value of things (duh) but there is no natural decree that they must always increase.
Inflation exists for several reasons, none of which are what you posted.
1. Money *was* only a medium for the exchange of goods, however with the invention of investing in debts and such nonsense that is absolutely untrue now.
2. devaluation = inflation. period. Inflation is not a natural occurrence, things do not naturally become worth more. It isn't evil or anything, but it *is* devaluation.
Actually, they are the most profitable company. They have lower absolute profits than exxon, but the margins are higher.
Wealthiest? they have the largest cash reserves of any company in all of history. They *also* have the highest market capitalization. Not to mention book value, free cash per share or any of the other dozen metrics that all say Apple is the wealthiest company out there.
Apple's reserves are oh-so-close to enough to buy a controlling stake in Google.
They have half of Google's market cap in *reserves* Anything they do with that money would be a silly risk that would tarnish a track record that is nothing but stunning of late. Instead they've chosen to effectively freeze their cash reserves at $100B (they're making more per year than they've planned to spend)
They are in a situation where they literally cannot spend the money, share holders would revolt if they started doing stupid shit with it and there just aren't enough useful things to do to burn through that kind of money.
You should learn something about business and economics before calling the single most profitable and wealthy company out on their strategies.
They've had a rough patch with the whole Foxconn and Jobs ordeals. Although the stock has performed amazingly well given the situation it never hurts to buy a little extra confidence.
If only there were a medium that could spread a message without needing a lot of money to do so... The sort of thing that you could put your message out there for people to read, and if they agreed with you they would act in kind.
To be honest, I think C# was a big success partly as you say because Microsoft rammed it down everyone's throat with.net, and partly because it made Java programmers not wet themselves with fear.
I'd personally say it's 50/50 between those two. I know a lot of people who learned Java first that are absolutely petrified of ever having to actually understand how a computer works. C# appeals to that in a big way.
Slashdot Mirror
You'll note that if you actually look at Google's products that doesn't change anything.
Android: a way to gather user data and a platform for ad delivery
Gmail: an ad delivery vector
Google Voice: a (marginally successful) attempt to extend the gmail snooping to phone calls
Google Earth: a method for determining where you are at any given time to ensure they can give you the best local ads
Whatever way you slice it, Google is an advertising company
The exact same thing that defines success in non-open source software: It does what you wanted.
Doesn't matter whether it's a log rotation script, a web app, a POS system or firmware for electronics on the next spaceship. Software success is determined by only one metric. Open source doesn't enter into it.
Yes, you are a moron.
The cost/watt is higher, this is DOA I dare say.
They're simultaneously saying that it's most beneficial for northern/southern areas where daylight is diminished and that it's a more compact arrangement of cells.
Those two don't go together well... Most northern and southern areas have very large open areas due to having low overall population density.
Cost/Watt is all that matters in most areas for solar panels, Watt/weight in the rest. I can't see this being of use except in powering small devices
Out of legitimate curiosity: you realize that such services have existed for years, yes?
The only difference is payment option: Other services require money, whereas google snoops through your calls and voicemails.
Google is just as greedy as everyone else, they're just making money off of your information rather than you directly.
No, you really can't get away with saying that.
Google made 96% of it's money in 2011 from ads. They are an ad company.
They are an ad company that is trying new things and maybe making an honest effort to diversify, but they are an ad company.
http://investor.google.com/financial/tables.html
I think you're taking this much further than my comment ever entailed:
I said: Anyone who specifically buys a new HDTV for sports has no brain.
Everyone heard: Anyone who watches sports ever is a dolt.
Very different. Now I freely admit that my comment was a bit ambiguous as to which I meant, but I assure you I meant the former.
Anyone who is *that* absorbed in sports needs help. That's distinct from having the money to buy an HDTV at your leisure and enjoying the additional resolution on things you already watch.
Just watching, but yes that's about right.
Didn't watch the video, but from a few comments here I think it's summed up in one word:
sports
In other words, no one with a brain need care.
Don't kid yourself, they don't give a rat's ass about your privacy.
They just know that 85% of Facebook traffic comes from work and they don't want anymore unemployed.
Don't worry, the military is already lots interested in superconductors that work at room temperature.
More money would help, more money is more eyes on the problem. But frankly the superconductor field is kind of waiting for it's Einstein if you will. We fundamentally lack understanding about some key things and more than likely it's only going to be solved when somebody has the eureka moment.
So assuming I buy everything they're selling (I don't entirely, as my anecdotal evidence says the exact opposite of this study)
What's "better" in this case; they seem to be focusing entirely on employee input to business direction and other feel good stuff.
Meanwhile, some (if not all) of the most successful companies from an economical standpoint were/are run by tyrants (amazon and apple to name two easy ones).
I don't just question their findings, but I'm outright calling bullshit on the conclusion.
Well, yes but no.
You only need half of the equation (the superconductor) to do that. You don't care about "cloaking" anything when trying to dissipate the MRI field, you just get rid of it.
As far as I know (and admittedly, when it comes to MRI machines that isn't a great deal) there isn't any real technical hurdle regarding removing it's magnetic field. It would be annoying (keeping even a high temperature super conductor cool), expensive, and a lot harder than just telling everyone to empty their pockets.
I am still stunned that people think this way...
You (not you, they) believe in the bible and Jesus and invisible friends in the sky, great. That in no way interferes with the proven fact that organisms evolve based on their surroundings.
Even if you want to completely dismiss that humans evolved, you should still (as an educator, no matter how dumb) desire to pass on knowledge.
So your contention is then that a loaf of bread is worth approximately 80x what it was a hundred years ago.
You're wrong.
The human race got along without abundant fossil fuels for *FAR* longer than it has with. Supply and Demand absolutely do change the value of things (duh) but there is no natural decree that they must always increase.
Inflation exists for several reasons, none of which are what you posted.
1. Money *was* only a medium for the exchange of goods, however with the invention of investing in debts and such nonsense that is absolutely untrue now.
2. devaluation = inflation. period. Inflation is not a natural occurrence, things do not naturally become worth more. It isn't evil or anything, but it *is* devaluation.
3 and 4 you're correct on.
Actually, they are the most profitable company. They have lower absolute profits than exxon, but the margins are higher.
Wealthiest? they have the largest cash reserves of any company in all of history. They *also* have the highest market capitalization. Not to mention book value, free cash per share or any of the other dozen metrics that all say Apple is the wealthiest company out there.
You're just very confused is your problem.
Apple's reserves are oh-so-close to enough to buy a controlling stake in Google.
They have half of Google's market cap in *reserves* Anything they do with that money would be a silly risk that would tarnish a track record that is nothing but stunning of late. Instead they've chosen to effectively freeze their cash reserves at $100B (they're making more per year than they've planned to spend)
They are in a situation where they literally cannot spend the money, share holders would revolt if they started doing stupid shit with it and there just aren't enough useful things to do to burn through that kind of money.
You should learn something about business and economics before calling the single most profitable and wealthy company out on their strategies.
They've had a rough patch with the whole Foxconn and Jobs ordeals. Although the stock has performed amazingly well given the situation it never hurts to buy a little extra confidence.
Then they have breached the contract and the cause is void.
People need to think before they get all worked up about things.
If only there were a medium that could spread a message without needing a lot of money to do so... The sort of thing that you could put your message out there for people to read, and if they agreed with you they would act in kind.
To be honest, I think C# was a big success partly as you say because Microsoft rammed it down everyone's throat with .net, and partly because it made Java programmers not wet themselves with fear.
I'd personally say it's 50/50 between those two. I know a lot of people who learned Java first that are absolutely petrified of ever having to actually understand how a computer works. C# appeals to that in a big way.
I assume you mean aside from Objective-C being one of the best languages available?
You should really do some reading about neutrinos before applying standard EM attenuations to them.
Okay but seriously, forging a signature really isn't that hard.
In fact I'm 99.9999% certain you could put together a simple ink plotter style arm that would copy a signature exactly for cheap.
There's a reason you've *always* been supposed to keep copies of this stuff