Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is basically Bayes' theorem put into words. It's pure math.
The tricky part is deciding what the prior estimate (usually denoted P(A) in probability theory books) of the probability of something being true is. Who decides how extraordinary something is?
Perhaps you could use prior research and apply critical thinking to make a ballpark guess. Perhaps not. My understanding is that this idea is an area of active debate within the scientific community.
FPGA:s typically change their configuration by changing the content of lookup tables, not by changing the physical wiring. 'GA' in FPGA stands for gate array, but that's actually nothing more than a pedagogic lie. An FPGA is really an array of lookup tables and flip-flops and other hardware resources like multipliers, block RAM and clock managers.
Configuring an FPGA is essentially done by writing information to the LUT:s. That's all well and fine, except each LUT that your signal has to pass through adds latency (lowers the maximum clock rate) and increases power consumption.
If you could physically rewire things in a useful fashion you could potentially make faster parts, or get longer battery life...
But yeah, most potentially disruptive innovations in the semiconductor industry are not economical. When stuff is already good you tend to want to make incremental improvements on existing tech. Since FPGA:s are basically RAM:s and flip-flops they follow the same curve as everything else.
I agree. This is Corporatism at work. But i am saddened to see that the worldview today is so straightforward and simple minded.
Sure the Occupy crowd is right, but no one in it mentions that Corporatism can only be "installed" if the Government has no "UAC". We have a big and weak government (the worst kind actually), where legislation which creates Freddie and Fannie (inducting huge market distortions), Housing Acts etc, etc, which do more harm than good.
And when the corporations mess up, they get bailed out whereas people have no jobs and no income. No wonder that the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street have more than 30% common variance.
This is perceived unfairness. One wants the Government out, the other the corporations down. Both are right.
And while I agree with you on each and single argument you have there, put one from me on that list:
Screw the Government because it is the only one with legislative power and have done nothing but crap with it.
Screw them because they have taken away our freedom in the name of defense.
Screw them because they are in the same boat with corporations, who in my view want nothing to do a Free Market. All they want is Government protection and consumer gouging.
In fact, screw them all.
While I sympathize with your wish to nuance your critique I have to disagree about one of your premises.
As a matter of fact the US government is relatively small. If we limit ourselves to countries with freedom, democracy and acceptable living standards we find that only Taiwan, South Korea and (arguably) Croatia have a smaller government share than the US has. South Korea and Croatia have roughly the same total tax rate as the US. If you're for both small government and prosperity Taiwan is really the only country that you can point to. One example is all you need to prove that it is possible, of course...
Say what you want about the size of the US government relative to your personal ideal society, but let's not pretend that it has a big government in relation to real life societies.
The way I see it scrolling versus browser-integrated page flipping would be a choice between granularity of control and ease of control. Scrolling gives you precise control over how you view the content, while page flipping would present the content in easy to digest pieces.
Choices are good if the user can easily understand them and use them.
In this case you probably wouldn't even need to have an actual switch. The browser could be made to deduce which mode you want to use based on your input patterns. For example, the browser could enable scrolling mode when the user scrolls the scroll wheel, or when the user makes a downward swipe on a tablet. The browser could enable page view when the user clicks a "next page" or "previous page" button (or uses the next/previous keyboard shortcut), or when the user makes a sideways swipe on a tablet.
...I quite liked where the interface was going. It reminded me very much of my experience with WebOS - just start typing for whatever you want. Get rid of all of the stupid buttons you don't really need. It is a big paradigm change, but it seems they actually thought through it.
Yeah, I like where it's supposedly going, but that's nothing new and it's not nearly there yet.
My Gnome 2 desktop has worked like that for years thanks to applications like Gnome Do. Gnome 3 is nowhere near Gnome Do in ease of use or features. Especially not in ease of use since it doesn't learn which applications I open the most. With Gnome Do I can just hit Super T and get a terminal running. Someone who doesn't use the terminal might hit Super T and get the text editor. In Gnome 3 the application that opens when you type Super T is set in stone.
Gnome 3 seems to me like a promising tech demo that needs a couple of more years of work before it's ready for general use.
Or even people who just don't want Facebook to know what they listen to because they don't want to get targeted ads for their guilty pleasures, or for their partner's favorite bands.
Migration is not even a useful metaphor since most everyone has time to be active (to a minimal degree) at two or more communities at a time.
When someone becomes active at a community or at a service and starts spending some of his or her limited time there that someone is going to spend less time at his or her least favorite community, which is most likely not Facebook. It's more likely that G+ will drain web forums, wikis, cooking communities and the likes than that it will drain Facebook.
Facebook did not kill MySpace on it's own. It was the unified force of Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Gmail and various country-specific communities like QQ that killed MySpace.
4) No fear of the software being bought and gimped by a big corporation. Imagine if Hollywood could buy all Bittorrent software for example.
Re:For the uninformed like me....
on
Arduino Goes ARM
·
· Score: 1
The TL;DR of this post is basically self-driving robot: 8-bit MCU. Self-flying robot: 32-bit MCU. Don't mess up the analog stuff.
Of course the ARM has 32 registers everywhere. That's kind of the point. It also has 32-bit arithmetic units, including division I presume (but don't quote me on that). 32-bit arithmetic units will come in handy in a lot of advanced applications such as signal processing and control systems where you're often working with more than 8 significant bits of data. (Caveat: As always, the analog input has to have a good enough SNR and the input has to be low-pass filtered by an analog filter before sampling in order to avoid aliasing.)
The 8-bit AVR:s only do 8-bit addition, subtraction and multiplication. Division by powers of two can be done rather easily by shifting data, other division has to be done by some kind of program. Programs tend to get large quickly when you implement a lot of processing.
"Class warfare may make for really good politics but it makes for rotten economics."
Hey, that's actually true! Why didn't you shout out during the Bush administration?
Tax cuts for the rich, huge public deficit, enormous public debt, continued private indebting of the middle class, withering away of the public school system and other government systems that the American middle class and lower classes depend on...
Terrible acts of class war that lead to terrible economics, especially in the long term when the debt is going to be paid off, or alternatively when the US decides to default.
So you're right. Of course, if you don't want a class war the first thing to do is to remember to not start one.
The current copyright scheme seems to be something like 20 + (current year - 2011) years, which if course is the same as eternal copyright.
Your proposal of one year seems reasonable compared to eternity, but I'm not sure it's optimal. What about independent movies that spread through word of mouth? My suggestion would be that copyright should last for about one generation, or 30 years, so that a content creator can think of a work as a long-term investment.
This would mean that books and movies released before 1981 should be free to copy. This rhymes very well with my personal perception. I think of 1980 films in much the same way as I think of 1880 books. It's old stuff. Most of those films have a generic late 70s/early 80s feel and most of them are painful to watch today. Some are brilliant and could rightly be called classics by now. The classics can be re-released in updated and improved editions, which effectively extends the copyright for another 30 years for the improved version, which is the one that most people are going to want to watch.
[Google CEO Eric Schmidt] replied by saying that G+ was build primarily as an identity service, so fundamentally, it depends on people using their real names if they're going to build future products that leverage that information.
Straight from the horse's mouth: You are the product, not the consumer.
Well, duh.
You're only the customer to the extent that you provide the cash flow. The internet hasn't changed this, nor will it ever, nor will anything. It's as certain as death, taxes and the laws of thermodynamics.
I think you need to ask yourself a more general question. What can Google do to maximize their ad revenue per person per hour spent in the living room? Well, obviously all the ads that the user sees should be personally tailored Google ads. How do you achieve that? Now keep in mind that you have the R&D muscle to design the innards of a TV from scratch and give away the blueprints to Sony et al. Okay, so let's design a TV...
1. The TV shall have an active internet connection. The obvious answer is to ship every TV with a built-in WiFi chip.
2. The TV shall be running Google software or Google web apps. The answer seems to be to put a version of Android or Chrome OS on every TV.
3. There needs to be a fun and simple way for the user to control the TV. This is probably the most part difficult part to get right. Perhaps it should be something like the Wiimote, or something like Kinect. Perhaps it should be a traditional button remote and on-screen menu system. Lots of work needs to be put into this.
4. There needs to be a huge amount of content available through Google-affiliated content providers that operate through the web so that Google can control the flow of ads that the user sees. These providers would be direct competitors to the cable companies...
So in other words it doesn't seem like there is much opportunity for cooperation between Google and TV cable providers, except for the fact that Google needs the cable providers to stay alive, because a lot of users connect to the internet through cable. The cable companies will probably want a cut of Google's ad revenue. Google will probably try to outmaneuver the cable companies by some form of mobile internet connection scheme and that is where it gets interesting from a nerd perspective. Is it possible to have everyone in a city watch HDTV (including live broadcasts) over some form of radio connection? What kind of technology could achieve that?
Perhaps it is possible to get the cable companies to morph into internet-based Google-affiliated content providers and avoid the conflict altogether.
In addition to that you need to keep in mind that there is a difference between the carbon footprint of a bicycle and the net carbon footprint of a person's decision to buy a bicycle. The net carbon footprint of the decision to buy a bicycle is lower than the footprint of the bicycle, because if you don't spend say $600 on a bicycle you will most likely spend close to $600 on something else and that something else would have a carbon footprint.
The US economy outputs about 0.5 kg of CO2 per dollar of GDP, so the net emission of your decision to buy a bicycle could be close to zero. It could even negative if you buy an expensive bicycle.
The purpose of Google+ is to make more money off of ads. Adding stuff that will make people spend more time on the site and possibly divulge more information to more people is likely to help increase the ad revenue.
So by definition they're not ruining it, they're improving it.
If you want a social network that caters to your wants and needs you are always going to have to pay periodic fees that finance the service and provide profit for the service provider. That's the way the world works...
Of course, there is as of yet no major social network that lets you pay monthly fees to get rid of the ad/spyware/creepware crap. That's not the way the web works...
I don't own a tablet, but I sometimes buy paperback books and I think there's probably reasons for why they are about 6" big. As you said, one reason is that you can carry them with one hand. Another is that they can be carried in a woman's handbag.
That's not to say that there isn't room for a 10" tablet. I think 10-12" is probably just right for something that spends most of its time sitting on your coffee table.
You can fix the problem by putting a couple of " around each word, but that is a pain to do if you're experimenting with different search queries. Is there a better way to turn it off? A switch somewhere?
It's as if Google hasn't learned the lessons that are to be learned from the success of the Iphone and Android. Smartphones are popular because they are both easy to use and more powerful than the phones that came before them. Not just easy to use. Part of their popularity stems from that they have standalone apps that you can install. Remember how Apple claimed it didn't need apps because browser apps/websites would give you the full experience? Wrong!
People don't need dumbbooks. People need smartbooks. Basically, a professional Linux distro with a good UI and some extras on top. Ubuntu and Mint aren't getting there fast enough. Fedora isn't trying to get there. Apple is close, but they're not aiming for the sub $500 market, at least not yet (and it's not Linux and it's not free software for the most part, but that's parenthetical in the minds of most people).
Come to think of it, some people actually might want dumbbooks. I'm thinking of places that offer public computers and offices that don't do any creative work beyond writing reports and copy-pasting existing images. Maybe. But not schools, please. You'll ruin a whole generation of geeks.
I know we're all supposed to be in the "Privacy Stockholm Syndrome Groupthink" so I am very naughty for preferring they continue to not get access.
I don't know, I suppose it depends on whether you are prepared to pay to get rid of the ad profiling and corporate spying.
Back when services were supported by simple non-targeted ads, before ad-blockers, you could usually pay to get an ad-free service. Why can't I do that now?
In my opinion the spying and profiling is disturbing enough that I think it's time for governments to regulate the market. Digital service providers should be forced to offer a spying-free service to customers who who request it. The provider should of course be allowed to charge a reasonable market rate fee, as with any other service.
I'm sure people were having similar discussions about Ford and the T-Ford back in the day. It's never a question of if, it's always a question of when.
And the answer is when you stop innovating and someone else catches up with you.
Now, I remember seeing a diagram somewhere of how LED lighting mass production was going to ramp up drastically through 2011, 2012, 2013. I wouldn't be surprised if prices will have been cut in half by this time of year in 2013.
I they're running Windows 7 it would be more like:
Troubleshoot reactor failure. *click* Your reactor is having a meltdown. Would you like to attempt to fix the problem? Yes/No *click* The cooling pumps have been activated. Did this solve your problem? Yes/No *click* Troubleshoot further. *click* Windows does not have more solutions for your meltdown problems. Would you like to search the internet for a solution? Yes/No *click*
I'm not a Microsoft fan, but you have to admit it's a significant step in the right direction.
Slashdot is the only site that has given me any trouble so far.
For me F3 has always been 'the' search key and it works in Chrome too. F3 does the same thing as CTRL+F. Those work fine, but it's hard too wean yourself off the auto search feature and onto the F3 or CTRL+F when you've gotten used to just typing whatever you think. It may sound silly but pushing F3 breaks my train of thought for a second, which is annoying when you're trying to get something done.
Slashdot Mirror
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is basically Bayes' theorem put into words. It's pure math.
The tricky part is deciding what the prior estimate (usually denoted P(A) in probability theory books) of the probability of something being true is. Who decides how extraordinary something is?
Perhaps you could use prior research and apply critical thinking to make a ballpark guess. Perhaps not. My understanding is that this idea is an area of active debate within the scientific community.
FPGA:s typically change their configuration by changing the content of lookup tables, not by changing the physical wiring. 'GA' in FPGA stands for gate array, but that's actually nothing more than a pedagogic lie. An FPGA is really an array of lookup tables and flip-flops and other hardware resources like multipliers, block RAM and clock managers.
Configuring an FPGA is essentially done by writing information to the LUT:s. That's all well and fine, except each LUT that your signal has to pass through adds latency (lowers the maximum clock rate) and increases power consumption.
If you could physically rewire things in a useful fashion you could potentially make faster parts, or get longer battery life...
But yeah, most potentially disruptive innovations in the semiconductor industry are not economical. When stuff is already good you tend to want to make incremental improvements on existing tech. Since FPGA:s are basically RAM:s and flip-flops they follow the same curve as everything else.
I agree. This is Corporatism at work. But i am saddened to see that the worldview today is so straightforward and simple minded.
Sure the Occupy crowd is right, but no one in it mentions that Corporatism can only be "installed" if the Government has no "UAC". We have a big and weak government (the worst kind actually), where legislation which creates Freddie and Fannie (inducting huge market distortions), Housing Acts etc, etc, which do more harm than good.
And when the corporations mess up, they get bailed out whereas people have no jobs and no income. No wonder that the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street have more than 30% common variance.
This is perceived unfairness. One wants the Government out, the other the corporations down. Both are right.
And while I agree with you on each and single argument you have there, put one from me on that list:
Screw the Government because it is the only one with legislative power and have done nothing but crap with it.
Screw them because they have taken away our freedom in the name of defense.
Screw them because they are in the same boat with corporations, who in my view want nothing to do a Free Market. All they want is Government protection and consumer gouging.
In fact, screw them all.
While I sympathize with your wish to nuance your critique I have to disagree about one of your premises.
As a matter of fact the US government is relatively small. If we limit ourselves to countries with freedom, democracy and acceptable living standards we find that only Taiwan, South Korea and (arguably) Croatia have a smaller government share than the US has. South Korea and Croatia have roughly the same total tax rate as the US. If you're for both small government and prosperity Taiwan is really the only country that you can point to. One example is all you need to prove that it is possible, of course...
Say what you want about the size of the US government relative to your personal ideal society, but let's not pretend that it has a big government in relation to real life societies.
What makes you think it would be a bad idea?
The way I see it scrolling versus browser-integrated page flipping would be a choice between granularity of control and ease of control. Scrolling gives you precise control over how you view the content, while page flipping would present the content in easy to digest pieces.
Choices are good if the user can easily understand them and use them.
In this case you probably wouldn't even need to have an actual switch. The browser could be made to deduce which mode you want to use based on your input patterns. For example, the browser could enable scrolling mode when the user scrolls the scroll wheel, or when the user makes a downward swipe on a tablet. The browser could enable page view when the user clicks a "next page" or "previous page" button (or uses the next/previous keyboard shortcut), or when the user makes a sideways swipe on a tablet.
...I quite liked where the interface was going. It reminded me very much of my experience with WebOS - just start typing for whatever you want. Get rid of all of the stupid buttons you don't really need. It is a big paradigm change, but it seems they actually thought through it.
Yeah, I like where it's supposedly going, but that's nothing new and it's not nearly there yet.
My Gnome 2 desktop has worked like that for years thanks to applications like Gnome Do. Gnome 3 is nowhere near Gnome Do in ease of use or features. Especially not in ease of use since it doesn't learn which applications I open the most. With Gnome Do I can just hit Super T and get a terminal running. Someone who doesn't use the terminal might hit Super T and get the text editor. In Gnome 3 the application that opens when you type Super T is set in stone.
Gnome 3 seems to me like a promising tech demo that needs a couple of more years of work before it's ready for general use.
Or even people who just don't want Facebook to know what they listen to because they don't want to get targeted ads for their guilty pleasures, or for their partner's favorite bands.
Migration is not even a useful metaphor since most everyone has time to be active (to a minimal degree) at two or more communities at a time.
When someone becomes active at a community or at a service and starts spending some of his or her limited time there that someone is going to spend less time at his or her least favorite community, which is most likely not Facebook. It's more likely that G+ will drain web forums, wikis, cooking communities and the likes than that it will drain Facebook.
Facebook did not kill MySpace on it's own. It was the unified force of Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Gmail and various country-specific communities like QQ that killed MySpace.
Don't like this news story? Read another news story.
4) No fear of the software being bought and gimped by a big corporation. Imagine if Hollywood could buy all Bittorrent software for example.
The TL;DR of this post is basically self-driving robot: 8-bit MCU. Self-flying robot: 32-bit MCU. Don't mess up the analog stuff.
Of course the ARM has 32 registers everywhere. That's kind of the point. It also has 32-bit arithmetic units, including division I presume (but don't quote me on that). 32-bit arithmetic units will come in handy in a lot of advanced applications such as signal processing and control systems where you're often working with more than 8 significant bits of data. (Caveat: As always, the analog input has to have a good enough SNR and the input has to be low-pass filtered by an analog filter before sampling in order to avoid aliasing.)
The 8-bit AVR:s only do 8-bit addition, subtraction and multiplication. Division by powers of two can be done rather easily by shifting data, other division has to be done by some kind of program. Programs tend to get large quickly when you implement a lot of processing.
"Class warfare may make for really good politics but it makes for rotten economics."
Hey, that's actually true! Why didn't you shout out during the Bush administration?
Tax cuts for the rich, huge public deficit, enormous public debt, continued private indebting of the middle class, withering away of the public school system and other government systems that the American middle class and lower classes depend on...
Terrible acts of class war that lead to terrible economics, especially in the long term when the debt is going to be paid off, or alternatively when the US decides to default.
So you're right. Of course, if you don't want a class war the first thing to do is to remember to not start one.
The current copyright scheme seems to be something like 20 + (current year - 2011) years, which if course is the same as eternal copyright.
Your proposal of one year seems reasonable compared to eternity, but I'm not sure it's optimal. What about independent movies that spread through word of mouth? My suggestion would be that copyright should last for about one generation, or 30 years, so that a content creator can think of a work as a long-term investment.
This would mean that books and movies released before 1981 should be free to copy. This rhymes very well with my personal perception. I think of 1980 films in much the same way as I think of 1880 books. It's old stuff. Most of those films have a generic late 70s/early 80s feel and most of them are painful to watch today. Some are brilliant and could rightly be called classics by now. The classics can be re-released in updated and improved editions, which effectively extends the copyright for another 30 years for the improved version, which is the one that most people are going to want to watch.
[Google CEO Eric Schmidt] replied by saying that G+ was build primarily as an identity service, so fundamentally, it depends on people using their real names if they're going to build future products that leverage that information.
Straight from the horse's mouth:
You are the product, not the consumer.
Well, duh.
You're only the customer to the extent that you provide the cash flow. The internet hasn't changed this, nor will it ever, nor will anything. It's as certain as death, taxes and the laws of thermodynamics.
I think you need to ask yourself a more general question. What can Google do to maximize their ad revenue per person per hour spent in the living room? Well, obviously all the ads that the user sees should be personally tailored Google ads. How do you achieve that? Now keep in mind that you have the R&D muscle to design the innards of a TV from scratch and give away the blueprints to Sony et al. Okay, so let's design a TV...
1. The TV shall have an active internet connection. The obvious answer is to ship every TV with a built-in WiFi chip.
2. The TV shall be running Google software or Google web apps. The answer seems to be to put a version of Android or Chrome OS on every TV.
3. There needs to be a fun and simple way for the user to control the TV. This is probably the most part difficult part to get right. Perhaps it should be something like the Wiimote, or something like Kinect. Perhaps it should be a traditional button remote and on-screen menu system. Lots of work needs to be put into this.
4. There needs to be a huge amount of content available through Google-affiliated content providers that operate through the web so that Google can control the flow of ads that the user sees. These providers would be direct competitors to the cable companies...
So in other words it doesn't seem like there is much opportunity for cooperation between Google and TV cable providers, except for the fact that Google needs the cable providers to stay alive, because a lot of users connect to the internet through cable. The cable companies will probably want a cut of Google's ad revenue. Google will probably try to outmaneuver the cable companies by some form of mobile internet connection scheme and that is where it gets interesting from a nerd perspective. Is it possible to have everyone in a city watch HDTV (including live broadcasts) over some form of radio connection? What kind of technology could achieve that?
Perhaps it is possible to get the cable companies to morph into internet-based Google-affiliated content providers and avoid the conflict altogether.
In addition to that you need to keep in mind that there is a difference between the carbon footprint of a bicycle and the net carbon footprint of a person's decision to buy a bicycle. The net carbon footprint of the decision to buy a bicycle is lower than the footprint of the bicycle, because if you don't spend say $600 on a bicycle you will most likely spend close to $600 on something else and that something else would have a carbon footprint.
The US economy outputs about 0.5 kg of CO2 per dollar of GDP, so the net emission of your decision to buy a bicycle could be close to zero. It could even negative if you buy an expensive bicycle.
Why in the hell they want to ruin Google+?
The purpose of Google+ is to make more money off of ads. Adding stuff that will make people spend more time on the site and possibly divulge more information to more people is likely to help increase the ad revenue.
So by definition they're not ruining it, they're improving it.
If you want a social network that caters to your wants and needs you are always going to have to pay periodic fees that finance the service and provide profit for the service provider. That's the way the world works...
Of course, there is as of yet no major social network that lets you pay monthly fees to get rid of the ad/spyware/creepware crap. That's not the way the web works...
At least not yet.
I don't own a tablet, but I sometimes buy paperback books and I think there's probably reasons for why they are about 6" big. As you said, one reason is that you can carry them with one hand. Another is that they can be carried in a woman's handbag.
That's not to say that there isn't room for a 10" tablet. I think 10-12" is probably just right for something that spends most of its time sitting on your coffee table.
Yeah. The NASA TV schedule say there's going to be a 1 hour long "Video file" in about 30 minutes from when I post this, followed by "JUNO Tweet Up".
I'm not sure if the schedule is anything to go by, it could be outdated because of the press conference.
You can fix the problem by putting a couple of " around each word, but that is a pain to do if you're experimenting with different search queries. Is there a better way to turn it off? A switch somewhere?
It's as if Google hasn't learned the lessons that are to be learned from the success of the Iphone and Android. Smartphones are popular because they are both easy to use and more powerful than the phones that came before them. Not just easy to use. Part of their popularity stems from that they have standalone apps that you can install. Remember how Apple claimed it didn't need apps because browser apps/websites would give you the full experience? Wrong!
People don't need dumbbooks. People need smartbooks. Basically, a professional Linux distro with a good UI and some extras on top. Ubuntu and Mint aren't getting there fast enough. Fedora isn't trying to get there. Apple is close, but they're not aiming for the sub $500 market, at least not yet (and it's not Linux and it's not free software for the most part, but that's parenthetical in the minds of most people).
Come to think of it, some people actually might want dumbbooks. I'm thinking of places that offer public computers and offices that don't do any creative work beyond writing reports and copy-pasting existing images. Maybe. But not schools, please. You'll ruin a whole generation of geeks.
I know we're all supposed to be in the "Privacy Stockholm Syndrome Groupthink" so I am very naughty for preferring they continue to not get access.
I don't know, I suppose it depends on whether you are prepared to pay to get rid of the ad profiling and corporate spying.
Back when services were supported by simple non-targeted ads, before ad-blockers, you could usually pay to get an ad-free service. Why can't I do that now?
In my opinion the spying and profiling is disturbing enough that I think it's time for governments to regulate the market. Digital service providers should be forced to offer a spying-free service to customers who who request it. The provider should of course be allowed to charge a reasonable market rate fee, as with any other service.
I'm sure people were having similar discussions about Ford and the T-Ford back in the day. It's never a question of if, it's always a question of when.
And the answer is when you stop innovating and someone else catches up with you.
Here's a review. They sell for about $40.
Now, I remember seeing a diagram somewhere of how LED lighting mass production was going to ramp up drastically through 2011, 2012, 2013. I wouldn't be surprised if prices will have been cut in half by this time of year in 2013.
I they're running Windows 7 it would be more like:
Troubleshoot reactor failure. *click*
Your reactor is having a meltdown. Would you like to attempt to fix the problem? Yes/No *click*
The cooling pumps have been activated. Did this solve your problem? Yes/No *click*
Troubleshoot further. *click*
Windows does not have more solutions for your meltdown problems. Would you like to search the internet for a solution? Yes/No *click*
I'm not a Microsoft fan, but you have to admit it's a significant step in the right direction.
Slashdot is the only site that has given me any trouble so far.
For me F3 has always been 'the' search key and it works in Chrome too. F3 does the same thing as CTRL+F. Those work fine, but it's hard too wean yourself off the auto search feature and onto the F3 or CTRL+F when you've gotten used to just typing whatever you think. It may sound silly but pushing F3 breaks my train of thought for a second, which is annoying when you're trying to get something done.