Assuming Android turns into a monopoly - what incentive is there to improve it? Once improvements slow down, fragmentation will increase as manufacturers increasingly customize their versions of the OS. Just like Windows Mobile - in the end, nearly every phone had some sort of alternative interface. If Microsoft hadn't thrown money at the Xbox, Sony would probably have a monopoly on the non-casual gaming console market.
Competition is always good, especially for the one on top - because when competition returns after a period of absence, the one on top tends to fall.
I don't see why you actively want WP7 to fail. Competition is always good, even if you don't like their products.
Let's take your Xbox analogy. You could say that WP7 is a completely new market, since it throws away nearly everything Windows Mobile was.
The Xbox was a completely new market, and as such they took the wrong approach and had a hard time making it profitable, so they threw money at the problem and planned the 360 by correcting the original's flaws and trying some of Sony's strategies. The 360 was definitely successful.
The same can happen with WP7: Make a rough sketch of where you're going and push it. If it fails, keep financing it and wait for the refresh. Mango was widely expected to be the huge refresh, and while it did improve the OS a lot, it still didn't address many core concerns. I'd compare it to a (ficticious) Xbox 180 that would have solved small issues like size, weight and DVD playback (which required an IR adapter and remote).
WP8, from a technical point of view, has a lot more promise than Mango ever had. By switching from Windows CE to the real Windows kernel, they solve a significant number of problems at once - hardware support increases dramatically (multi-core processors, anything that is used in tablets can be made to work with WP8 with minor changes), security updates are the same as for Windows 8, application portability is much improved (especially between ARM tablets and WP8), to name a few.
Of course, this is all potential - they have to make something out of it now.
They wouldn't sell her (except to a museum or similar organisation) even if they had the money.
Not to mention they'd need to fit her with new reactors.
They've recently moved to serving magnet links only, which makes it far easier to host. Still a lot easier to just place on some old ship. Add solar panels on every surface and you might have a decent option, if you manage to keep power consumption in check and secure some sort of downlink
I don't think Metro's problem is lack of R&D, it's probably R&D too focused on tablets and phones, with mouse and keyboard functionality tacked on at the last minute.
1 Gbit connections for home users are actually available in at least three countries as of around January 2011 (Japan, South Korea and Portugal, if you're interested). As far as I can tell, they're everything but widespead, but they're there, if you've got the cash.
Local disks, even SSDs top out at 6Gbit/sec at the interface. But your internet access might be 100Gbit if you live in the right place.
Good luck finding 100Gb Ethernet, to carry your imaginary 100Gb Internet connection. Unless you live in a big datacenter and manage to leech off a couple of servers' connections using fiber networking, of course.
We're not discussing how much bandwidth it needs. We're discussing how much is realistically available through the kinds of links that can be used with drones. Frankly, I don't see that kind of bandwidth available for multiple drones. Really rough estimate says 2 drones would saturate a single satellite, assuming some older tech.
Yeah, 100BaseT is frequently seen running at ~95 Mb/s. I haven't really hit gigabit's limit, but everything points to a realistic 990 Mb/s.
It's probably the only standard where the advertised speed nearly equals real-life throughput.
It's neither 500 megabytes/s nor even 500 megabits/s. There is no link capability in the U.S. space communications systems, or even anywhere, that could handle that reliably from just one drone, never mind multiple drones at the same time. That drone would need a big effing antenna to push that much data over a couple dozen thousand kilometers to the space segment. Let's get real: do the/. editors have no sense of magnitude at all?!
You said it. Come on, Gigabit ETHERNET pushes, realistically, ~120 MB/s. HSPA+ pushes some 4 MB/s (VERY high estimate). Satelite links are projected to supply 1.5MB/s, which means, realistically, less than 1 MB/s per user, with high latency and a stationary satelite dish.
I'd say that the 500MB/s figure is probably for the data before it's compressed (losslessly, of course)
If they do deploy the F-22s, I doubt they'd deploy the F-15s and F-16s as air superiority fighters. They'd probably be used mainly in the ground-attack role, after the F-22s have cleared the airspace and SAMs are mostly destroyed.
What I see here is a small-ish void - their AA defences may be a bit too good to send in non-stealth aircraft until they're mostly neutralized, which means, in essence, more B-2 missions, since the F-35 is nowhere near ready for deployment. B-2s have the inconvenient of having to cross the atlantic for each mission, with all the issues that involves. I'm not sure if the F-22 can carry (as in, today) anything that can be used against active radar sites. F-117s are retired, so it's really down to the B-2s.
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming Android turns into a monopoly - what incentive is there to improve it? Once improvements slow down, fragmentation will increase as manufacturers increasingly customize their versions of the OS. Just like Windows Mobile - in the end, nearly every phone had some sort of alternative interface. If Microsoft hadn't thrown money at the Xbox, Sony would probably have a monopoly on the non-casual gaming console market.
Competition is always good, especially for the one on top - because when competition returns after a period of absence, the one on top tends to fall.
I don't see why you actively want WP7 to fail. Competition is always good, even if you don't like their products.
Let's take your Xbox analogy. You could say that WP7 is a completely new market, since it throws away nearly everything Windows Mobile was.
The Xbox was a completely new market, and as such they took the wrong approach and had a hard time making it profitable, so they threw money at the problem and planned the 360 by correcting the original's flaws and trying some of Sony's strategies. The 360 was definitely successful.
The same can happen with WP7: Make a rough sketch of where you're going and push it. If it fails, keep financing it and wait for the refresh. Mango was widely expected to be the huge refresh, and while it did improve the OS a lot, it still didn't address many core concerns. I'd compare it to a (ficticious) Xbox 180 that would have solved small issues like size, weight and DVD playback (which required an IR adapter and remote).
WP8, from a technical point of view, has a lot more promise than Mango ever had. By switching from Windows CE to the real Windows kernel, they solve a significant number of problems at once - hardware support increases dramatically (multi-core processors, anything that is used in tablets can be made to work with WP8 with minor changes), security updates are the same as for Windows 8, application portability is much improved (especially between ARM tablets and WP8), to name a few.
Of course, this is all potential - they have to make something out of it now.
You might as well quote it: http://xkcd.com/1022/
Yeah, but they ended up giving Apple free money for OS X
http://xkcd.com/938/
The N9 and the Lumia 800 are made in Finland and China. European models tend to be made in Finland.
Cost, weight and lost cargo/fuel space. The three demons of commercial flight.
They wouldn't sell her (except to a museum or similar organisation) even if they had the money. Not to mention they'd need to fit her with new reactors.
I doubt the US would really want to shoot down a Swedish registered aircraft over copyright infringement. Would set something of a precedent.
That's if they're registered, which I don't consider likely. It's much easier and cheaper to just get them airborne before they piss anyone off
They've recently moved to serving magnet links only, which makes it far easier to host. Still a lot easier to just place on some old ship. Add solar panels on every surface and you might have a decent option, if you manage to keep power consumption in check and secure some sort of downlink
I don't think Metro's problem is lack of R&D, it's probably R&D too focused on tablets and phones, with mouse and keyboard functionality tacked on at the last minute.
He's being ironic. I hope...
You must be quoting that mythical Star Wars prequel trilogy that somehow spread around like wildfire. Good thing it's just a myth.
I'm pretty sure you're trolling, but somebody should try that kind of approach. Just for the laughs.
1 Gbit connections for home users are actually available in at least three countries as of around January 2011 (Japan, South Korea and Portugal, if you're interested). As far as I can tell, they're everything but widespead, but they're there, if you've got the cash.
Local disks, even SSDs top out at 6Gbit/sec at the interface. But your internet access might be 100Gbit if you live in the right place.
Good luck finding 100Gb Ethernet, to carry your imaginary 100Gb Internet connection. Unless you live in a big datacenter and manage to leech off a couple of servers' connections using fiber networking, of course.
It's rare to see so much hate for a specific programming language, unless it happens to be C++
Man you're pissed. Is service that bad where you live?
By what mechanism exactly?
So, deep down, is this Maemo, Moblin, "MeeGo Harmattan" (As Nokia puts it), Bada or what?
We're not discussing how much bandwidth it needs. We're discussing how much is realistically available through the kinds of links that can be used with drones. Frankly, I don't see that kind of bandwidth available for multiple drones. Really rough estimate says 2 drones would saturate a single satellite, assuming some older tech.
Yeah, 100BaseT is frequently seen running at ~95 Mb/s. I haven't really hit gigabit's limit, but everything points to a realistic 990 Mb/s. It's probably the only standard where the advertised speed nearly equals real-life throughput.
It's neither 500 megabytes/s nor even 500 megabits/s. There is no link capability in the U.S. space communications systems, or even anywhere, that could handle that reliably from just one drone, never mind multiple drones at the same time. That drone would need a big effing antenna to push that much data over a couple dozen thousand kilometers to the space segment. Let's get real: do the /. editors have no sense of magnitude at all?!
You said it. Come on, Gigabit ETHERNET pushes, realistically, ~120 MB/s. HSPA+ pushes some 4 MB/s (VERY high estimate). Satelite links are projected to supply 1.5MB/s, which means, realistically, less than 1 MB/s per user, with high latency and a stationary satelite dish. I'd say that the 500MB/s figure is probably for the data before it's compressed (losslessly, of course)
If they do deploy the F-22s, I doubt they'd deploy the F-15s and F-16s as air superiority fighters. They'd probably be used mainly in the ground-attack role, after the F-22s have cleared the airspace and SAMs are mostly destroyed.
What I see here is a small-ish void - their AA defences may be a bit too good to send in non-stealth aircraft until they're mostly neutralized, which means, in essence, more B-2 missions, since the F-35 is nowhere near ready for deployment. B-2s have the inconvenient of having to cross the atlantic for each mission, with all the issues that involves. I'm not sure if the F-22 can carry (as in, today) anything that can be used against active radar sites. F-117s are retired, so it's really down to the B-2s.
"I could care less" means the same as "I couldn't care less". Language isn't always logically defined, unfortunately.
can be interpreted as "Flamebait".