No, they're just a middle man. They own nothing of exceptional value on Youtube. The high value stuff is owned by others and they have agreements in place for revenue sharing on the ads. It's like everything else in their portfolio - they're really just a middle man.
Does Starbucks grow coffee? Of course not - they offer free seating and wireless connections in thousands of locations for the purpose of packaging and selling high-markup derivatives of coffee beans. If you a whole class of people started bringing in their own coffee, or a cup and a full thermos of their favorite beverage, that Starbucks location would lose out on a potential sale and upper management would start inquiring why they were always packed but their sales numbers sucked.
So Microsoft appears to have made the perfect youtube client? Sonofabitch. When I had limited mobile data, I dreamed for a simple youtube client that could cache several videos for off-line or repeated watching. Of course, Apple won't build a client like - they would rather you not even know youtube existed so you would just buy iTunes everything.
I'd wager that a true professional will use any available technology to maximize their efficiency. The only thing standing in the way is machismo. There was a time when professional chefs eschewed the use of food processors for preparing ingredients - they were fast enough without them. There was a time when pilots would never give up mechanically linked controls or allow a machine to fly their planes.
To be so short sighted that the data-human interface will never evolve beyond an ipad (a very inexpensive way to develop a technology interface), or that a custom scope wouldn't be fabricated at a cost 100x the current unit cost for specialty operations, is to ignore the past entirely.
Why not make 0.02% BAC universal? I understand that there are practical limits, but should you really be going out for dinner, downing a bottle, and driving home? (a 750ml bottle of wine over 2 hours for a 180lb person @ 0.08 = legal)
Have a glass of wine or a beer with dinner. Heck, go ahead and have two. But if you're going to drink any more than that DON'T FUCKING DRIVE A CAR.
Some people are just there for the money. Others are all about the game. I think this is especially prevalent in Lawyers and Engineers. You want to win - whatever game it is you're playing. When Gates played computer monopoly, he played to win. Now he's playing save the world.
I'm not sure whether Jobs was just about the money (though I suspect it), whether he felt his defeat early on meant he could never play another game, or if his early death simply meant he never had the option to switch games.
Can't you build a patented device personally without a license?
The crux here seems that seeds for sowing are protected by the patent, but NOT protected for consumption. If this farmer purchased seed from a third party, and then used these seeds only for internal sowing use, only selling his seed for consumption - is that an actual violation? I (perhaps mistakenly) understood that you were allowed to build anything for your own use without patent licensing fees, but you could not sell those same items for commercial gain. If he's not selling GM seeds for sowing, and only for consumption (and sells them under that condition), he's not violating the patent.
Example: I make, in my backyard, a patented Soybean Harvester out of plans I obtained from the USPTO, or by taking pictures and measurements of my neighbor's. I then use that to harvest my soybeans. It works so well I make three more for my farm. When they break down, I re-build them. Am I liable for patent infringement? I'm not selling the patented Harvester - only using it myself.
I'm sure there are not-lawyers here who can sort this out.
That's fine for additives, but you're not going to dive into an 8oz filet of ant. Americans already eat stuff that would likely be considered nearly inedible in its native form, but have managed to make items of no redeeming dietary value into a party for our tastebuds. It's not necessarily what you're eating, it's the marketing and flavor you get on the consumer end. Make it transparent and you've got yourself a market.
Of course I didn't RTFA, but it sounds like - when "intelligence" and socioeconomic status are filtered, there is still a correlation, which means a poor kid who does well is still more likely to "succeed."
It's a study of the system which produces certain outputs. I would expect the next step would be to find the causes. Depending on your particular funding source, that would mean being able to either evaluate how to change the system to increase success of those who are not excelling by age 7, or ensuring that those of higher socioeconomic status succeed regardless of 7 yo performance standards.
It's still right. If you show that people who perform well at age 7 are likely to perform well as an adult is says absolutely nothing about if you perform poorly at age 7. It's also statistics. Even if the relationship were true in the negative, anecdotes like yours are merely parts of the sample which have high deviations from the mean.
Well, yes, but I'm willing to support this as an interim step (since the actual repeal of the DMCA is a pipe dream at the moment). I think this will have enormous opposition from the content industry and it will take a Herculean effort for this common sense bill to prevail.
Last second maneuvering would be one way to avoid this, but this has a far higher tolerance than a kinetic vehicle defense system. For an incoming munition, a quick shift just a few feet is enough to foil a kinetic attack as the reaction rate is low even for a thrust vectored, active kill vehicle. An az-el tracking system at 1km out is going to be dealing with arc-minutes of shift per second even if the incoming vehicle is pulling several Gs of acceleration. At burnout, that rocket was likely seeing 5-10 Gs of deceleration, maybe more. High power amateur rockets with fast-burning propellants can see burnout decellerations in excess of 30Gs, especially for transonic regions. (I know; I had one shred at 60 feet in the air after leaving the pad at nearly 220Gs acceleration)
As for overwhelming the system, that's another tack. But you've just increase the cost-per-kill for your enemy. That may not seem like it matters, but a cruise missile has a 7 figure pricetag, and you can only make and transport so many of them in theater.
A target tracking system for an incoming missile will have a much lower slew rate than the video, where the target is flying perpendicular to the beam. Unless the missile starts doing the Harlem Shake on the way in, it's a sitting duck for a laser adjacent to the target. Also note that the internal tracking system is good to 5km out, so that gives it 10 seconds to lock onto the final trajectory, and it can be tied into a larger tracking system as well.
This is clearly limited to smaller, slower, less sophisticated munitions right now, but I would anticipate larger power as they get better, which means effectiveness further out and quicker kills. Heck, you don't need any laser research to quadruple the power of this laser - just bring in four of them and target the same incoming vehicle.
That *might* be true. Remember that Mach 10 is not the likely speed of the craft at full atmospheric density, and at high speeds the integrity of the heat sheilding is very critical to performance. For an incoming missile, the long range slew rate on the laser will be very low (i.e. easy to acquire and track), and actual penetration of the airframe won't be necessary if the skin is at or near it's thermal limits on final approach to the target.
So, yes, 1.5km will be covered very, very quickly by a hypersonic vehicle on final targeting (likely around 2 seconds, M=2.5, at 1 atm), but it won't take much more before this system will be capable of destroying one as long as it can track it and apply power as soon as it enters the effective zone.
It just takes slightly longer to destroy them. The best reflective surfaces are easily fouled by handling. Ever see what happens when you accidentally touch a headlamp (or projector) bulb with your finger while installing it? It still looks perfectly transparent, but *boom* it doesn't last long under even a 50W heat load. Now take your awesome mirror finish and send it through tens or hundreds of miles of atmospheric dust/bugs/ impurities. All of a sudden your ideal mirror becomes just good. Then we hit it with a laser and the energy that does get absorbed chars whatever is on there, which makes it even less reflective, and just like that your perfect mirror becomes just another ho-hum surface we can cook popcorn inside of.
Build the perfect system with documented calls and public APIs for everything.
Now roll out a new component which is tied to all of that which is missing one or more "legacy" actions. (1) find all the incompatibilities (2) rewrite your software, and document the changes (3) roll out a version of the software which can successfully manage both the old and the new component simultaneously
Understand that in an organization with just 10,000 employees, the moment your services go down you're taking a $1M/hr productivity cost hit. That means there needs to be a fairly robust effort prior to the upgrade. Putting it off one cycle would likely seem a good value proposition given the advances of one cycle. Of course, it just gets harder to change as time goes on, even if you had a great system to begin with.
As soon as you aren't doing basic wordprocessing and email, you're out of "alternative" platforms. Know what it costs to retrain someone from Pro/Engineer or AutoCAD, or Bentley Analysis (and those are just my narrow field of engineering)? Try $10,000-$40,000 a person, plus a license for the new software under a different OS. Retraining to a technical program in any engineering field is significant. Even retraining administrative workers on a new data entry system can be several thousand dollars a head.
Android/iOS? Wow, I guess if you're an unemployed hipster it seems like there's so much you can do. Just don't try to do anything significant on that kind of an OS, because it will fail miserably. Good for pet projects, hobbies, and throwaway stuff; lousy for critical billable work except in a pinch.
No, this time never existed. Back when everyone who had an internet connection cared about their connectivity there was no NAT - or at least none at the provider level. It's only when consumers hit the internet that we got NAT on a wide scale, and all those people only consumed data for the most part. People who were early adopters and were used to being hands on, a small fraction of the growing tide, cared then and care now. As time marches on, that fraction gets smaller and smaller.
You get a wild hair, you pick up a 3d Print-o-matic at Staples, and two days later you're out on the town playing Zombie Refuge. That's the fear/problem. To make a gun requires skill and machinery which is both expensive and - more importantly - time consuming. You don't get a wild hair and then spend the next two years learning all the operations and machinery skills necessary to make a working firearm. Well, you could, but the intersection of bat-shit crazy and patient enough to learn gunsmithing skills is pretty small.
I was in school when the Russians did it, and that was nice and unique because it happened in flight. Except that they had to accelerate to beyond M5 before they turned it on because the net thrust was effectively negative (it slowed down quickly as soon as the SCRAMjet was fired). It buried itself in the Siberian tundra (as planned) as part of a simple ballistic trajectory.
Even the HyShot was not designed to produce actual thrust.
The Waverider produced net positive thrust, accelerating the vehicle from Mach 4.8 to Mach 5.1. It's one thing to turn on a scramjet at supersonic and prove you can make it work; it's quite another to actually have it produce enough thrust to not only maintain speed but accelerate the vehicle. And, on top of that, they used a conventional fuel instead of the much-easier-to-fire hydrogen.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they're just a middle man. They own nothing of exceptional value on Youtube. The high value stuff is owned by others and they have agreements in place for revenue sharing on the ads. It's like everything else in their portfolio - they're really just a middle man.
Does Starbucks grow coffee? Of course not - they offer free seating and wireless connections in thousands of locations for the purpose of packaging and selling high-markup derivatives of coffee beans. If you a whole class of people started bringing in their own coffee, or a cup and a full thermos of their favorite beverage, that Starbucks location would lose out on a potential sale and upper management would start inquiring why they were always packed but their sales numbers sucked.
So Microsoft appears to have made the perfect youtube client? Sonofabitch. When I had limited mobile data, I dreamed for a simple youtube client that could cache several videos for off-line or repeated watching. Of course, Apple won't build a client like - they would rather you not even know youtube existed so you would just buy iTunes everything.
I'd wager that a true professional will use any available technology to maximize their efficiency. The only thing standing in the way is machismo. There was a time when professional chefs eschewed the use of food processors for preparing ingredients - they were fast enough without them. There was a time when pilots would never give up mechanically linked controls or allow a machine to fly their planes.
To be so short sighted that the data-human interface will never evolve beyond an ipad (a very inexpensive way to develop a technology interface), or that a custom scope wouldn't be fabricated at a cost 100x the current unit cost for specialty operations, is to ignore the past entirely.
Why not make 0.02% BAC universal? I understand that there are practical limits, but should you really be going out for dinner, downing a bottle, and driving home?
(a 750ml bottle of wine over 2 hours for a 180lb person @ 0.08 = legal)
Have a glass of wine or a beer with dinner. Heck, go ahead and have two. But if you're going to drink any more than that DON'T FUCKING DRIVE A CAR.
Some people are just there for the money. Others are all about the game. I think this is especially prevalent in Lawyers and Engineers. You want to win - whatever game it is you're playing. When Gates played computer monopoly, he played to win. Now he's playing save the world.
I'm not sure whether Jobs was just about the money (though I suspect it), whether he felt his defeat early on meant he could never play another game, or if his early death simply meant he never had the option to switch games.
Can't you build a patented device personally without a license?
The crux here seems that seeds for sowing are protected by the patent, but NOT protected for consumption. If this farmer purchased seed from a third party, and then used these seeds only for internal sowing use, only selling his seed for consumption - is that an actual violation? I (perhaps mistakenly) understood that you were allowed to build anything for your own use without patent licensing fees, but you could not sell those same items for commercial gain. If he's not selling GM seeds for sowing, and only for consumption (and sells them under that condition), he's not violating the patent.
Example: I make, in my backyard, a patented Soybean Harvester out of plans I obtained from the USPTO, or by taking pictures and measurements of my neighbor's. I then use that to harvest my soybeans. It works so well I make three more for my farm. When they break down, I re-build them. Am I liable for patent infringement? I'm not selling the patented Harvester - only using it myself.
I'm sure there are not-lawyers here who can sort this out.
That's going to make the resale of anything covered by a patent rather difficult.
Yeah, but then you'd have to live in South Korea. ;-)
That's fine for additives, but you're not going to dive into an 8oz filet of ant. Americans already eat stuff that would likely be considered nearly inedible in its native form, but have managed to make items of no redeeming dietary value into a party for our tastebuds. It's not necessarily what you're eating, it's the marketing and flavor you get on the consumer end. Make it transparent and you've got yourself a market.
Of course I didn't RTFA, but it sounds like - when "intelligence" and socioeconomic status are filtered, there is still a correlation, which means a poor kid who does well is still more likely to "succeed."
It's a study of the system which produces certain outputs. I would expect the next step would be to find the causes. Depending on your particular funding source, that would mean being able to either evaluate how to change the system to increase success of those who are not excelling by age 7, or ensuring that those of higher socioeconomic status succeed regardless of 7 yo performance standards.
It's still right. If you show that people who perform well at age 7 are likely to perform well as an adult is says absolutely nothing about if you perform poorly at age 7. It's also statistics. Even if the relationship were true in the negative, anecdotes like yours are merely parts of the sample which have high deviations from the mean.
Seriously. Isn't this "heist" considered rounding error for financial CEO bonuses?
Well, yes, but I'm willing to support this as an interim step (since the actual repeal of the DMCA is a pipe dream at the moment). I think this will have enormous opposition from the content industry and it will take a Herculean effort for this common sense bill to prevail.
Sorry, my mod points expired yesterday, otherwise I would have used one for this AC
Last second maneuvering would be one way to avoid this, but this has a far higher tolerance than a kinetic vehicle defense system. For an incoming munition, a quick shift just a few feet is enough to foil a kinetic attack as the reaction rate is low even for a thrust vectored, active kill vehicle. An az-el tracking system at 1km out is going to be dealing with arc-minutes of shift per second even if the incoming vehicle is pulling several Gs of acceleration. At burnout, that rocket was likely seeing 5-10 Gs of deceleration, maybe more. High power amateur rockets with fast-burning propellants can see burnout decellerations in excess of 30Gs, especially for transonic regions. (I know; I had one shred at 60 feet in the air after leaving the pad at nearly 220Gs acceleration)
As for overwhelming the system, that's another tack. But you've just increase the cost-per-kill for your enemy. That may not seem like it matters, but a cruise missile has a 7 figure pricetag, and you can only make and transport so many of them in theater.
A target tracking system for an incoming missile will have a much lower slew rate than the video, where the target is flying perpendicular to the beam. Unless the missile starts doing the Harlem Shake on the way in, it's a sitting duck for a laser adjacent to the target. Also note that the internal tracking system is good to 5km out, so that gives it 10 seconds to lock onto the final trajectory, and it can be tied into a larger tracking system as well.
This is clearly limited to smaller, slower, less sophisticated munitions right now, but I would anticipate larger power as they get better, which means effectiveness further out and quicker kills. Heck, you don't need any laser research to quadruple the power of this laser - just bring in four of them and target the same incoming vehicle.
That *might* be true. Remember that Mach 10 is not the likely speed of the craft at full atmospheric density, and at high speeds the integrity of the heat sheilding is very critical to performance. For an incoming missile, the long range slew rate on the laser will be very low (i.e. easy to acquire and track), and actual penetration of the airframe won't be necessary if the skin is at or near it's thermal limits on final approach to the target.
So, yes, 1.5km will be covered very, very quickly by a hypersonic vehicle on final targeting (likely around 2 seconds, M=2.5, at 1 atm), but it won't take much more before this system will be capable of destroying one as long as it can track it and apply power as soon as it enters the effective zone.
It just takes slightly longer to destroy them. The best reflective surfaces are easily fouled by handling. Ever see what happens when you accidentally touch a headlamp (or projector) bulb with your finger while installing it? It still looks perfectly transparent, but *boom* it doesn't last long under even a 50W heat load. Now take your awesome mirror finish and send it through tens or hundreds of miles of atmospheric dust/bugs/ impurities. All of a sudden your ideal mirror becomes just good. Then we hit it with a laser and the energy that does get absorbed chars whatever is on there, which makes it even less reflective, and just like that your perfect mirror becomes just another ho-hum surface we can cook popcorn inside of.
you forgot that part.
Build the perfect system with documented calls and public APIs for everything.
Now roll out a new component which is tied to all of that which is missing one or more "legacy" actions.
(1) find all the incompatibilities
(2) rewrite your software, and document the changes
(3) roll out a version of the software which can successfully manage both the old and the new component simultaneously
Understand that in an organization with just 10,000 employees, the moment your services go down you're taking a $1M/hr productivity cost hit. That means there needs to be a fairly robust effort prior to the upgrade. Putting it off one cycle would likely seem a good value proposition given the advances of one cycle. Of course, it just gets harder to change as time goes on, even if you had a great system to begin with.
As soon as you aren't doing basic wordprocessing and email, you're out of "alternative" platforms. Know what it costs to retrain someone from Pro/Engineer or AutoCAD, or Bentley Analysis (and those are just my narrow field of engineering)? Try $10,000-$40,000 a person, plus a license for the new software under a different OS. Retraining to a technical program in any engineering field is significant. Even retraining administrative workers on a new data entry system can be several thousand dollars a head.
Android/iOS? Wow, I guess if you're an unemployed hipster it seems like there's so much you can do. Just don't try to do anything significant on that kind of an OS, because it will fail miserably. Good for pet projects, hobbies, and throwaway stuff; lousy for critical billable work except in a pinch.
No, this time never existed. Back when everyone who had an internet connection cared about their connectivity there was no NAT - or at least none at the provider level. It's only when consumers hit the internet that we got NAT on a wide scale, and all those people only consumed data for the most part. People who were early adopters and were used to being hands on, a small fraction of the growing tide, cared then and care now. As time marches on, that fraction gets smaller and smaller.
To quote Tom Lehrer, "We'd rather kill them off by peaceful means."
You get a wild hair, you pick up a 3d Print-o-matic at Staples, and two days later you're out on the town playing Zombie Refuge. That's the fear/problem. To make a gun requires skill and machinery which is both expensive and - more importantly - time consuming. You don't get a wild hair and then spend the next two years learning all the operations and machinery skills necessary to make a working firearm. Well, you could, but the intersection of bat-shit crazy and patient enough to learn gunsmithing skills is pretty small.
I was in school when the Russians did it, and that was nice and unique because it happened in flight. Except that they had to accelerate to beyond M5 before they turned it on because the net thrust was effectively negative (it slowed down quickly as soon as the SCRAMjet was fired). It buried itself in the Siberian tundra (as planned) as part of a simple ballistic trajectory.
Even the HyShot was not designed to produce actual thrust.
The Waverider produced net positive thrust, accelerating the vehicle from Mach 4.8 to Mach 5.1. It's one thing to turn on a scramjet at supersonic and prove you can make it work; it's quite another to actually have it produce enough thrust to not only maintain speed but accelerate the vehicle. And, on top of that, they used a conventional fuel instead of the much-easier-to-fire hydrogen.