I'm supposing that the numbers that you are using have nothing whatsoever do do with Google's actual costs. I'm also supposing that the people at Google didn't just wake up one morning and say "BEEELIONS OF BYTES FOR EVERYBODY! FREE! FREEEEEEEE!" I bet they did, like, a business plan and stuff.
Is it a good idea? I dunno. But I imagine they've got firmer numbers than yours, that indicate that they won't go bankrupt doing this.
It also decreases the costs and barriers to entry to productive hacking. Many (if not most) of the administrators couldn't possibly "create their own".
You're right, much better to stick one's head in the sand and not advance technology. Because, of course, nobody else is going to do it if I don't, right?
I struggle with this. I am an aerospace engineer, and right now if I want to work in the field I love, I need to work for a defense contractor. This is not my ideal solution. I believe, however, that America (my country, which I do believe in) does far more good than harm with its military. I know lots of people disagree with me, and that's OK. I happen to think that this adventure into Iraq was particularly ill-advised. However, at the end of the day, helping America to design more precise weapons and surveillance systems will a) keep my country strong, and b) save peoples' lives both home and abroad.
That's my moral code. Yours might be different. Many warriors have died to defend our right to disagree. Many engineers have worked their entire lives to decrease the amount of death required to accomplish that goal. I think both are noble pursuits.
"Know how to really stop stupid drivers from hurting themselves and others behind the wheel? Here's a hint: There's no steering wheel at the back of a bus."
Yeah, because it'd be much better if we all drove crank-started cars with leaded gas and no seatbelts. Complexity is ALWAYS a bad thing, and NEVER makes things safer or perform better.
Your argument does not hold up. Would I trust Microsoft to write control loops for my car? No way. Would I buy a car that runs MS software in any capacity? No. But there's no reason to think that well-engineered systems can't improve safety.
You mean GM is bad at designing cars, and the Suburban is unsuitable for driving on public roads?
Astounding. Stop the presses.
Everybody else on Earth seems to have figured out excellent ABS computers. Juat because GM doesn't, isn't an indictment of the technology, only of GM's incompetence and recklessness.
What if your hydraulic brake line fails on your manually controlled car? What if your transmission explodes and sends you into an uncontrolled skid?
Then you're hosed. Systems fail, and accidents (sometimes fatal ones) happen.
Odds are good that the last aircraft you flew in was driven by a computer, and you didn't die. The question is, would smart cars create a net reduction in roadway casualties?
Computers can be made fail-safe and fail-soft. Just because Microsoft can't do it doesn't mean it can't be done.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, because Iomega's reputation for designing reliable mechanisms is magnificent. They've never had any drives fail, losing their customers' data.
*snort*
My Bernoulli 230 died.
My ZIP drive died.
Twice bitten.
Er, no. A lot.
I'm supposing that the numbers that you are using have nothing whatsoever do do with Google's actual costs. I'm also supposing that the people at Google didn't just wake up one morning and say "BEEELIONS OF BYTES FOR EVERYBODY! FREE! FREEEEEEEE!" I bet they did, like, a business plan and stuff.
Is it a good idea? I dunno. But I imagine they've got firmer numbers than yours, that indicate that they won't go bankrupt doing this.
If people opted into free phone service with the understanding that that would happen, sure.
I wonder if Google gets better rates for co-lo than you do. Hmmm...
Why are we having a pissing contest about the two most boring sports ever?
It also decreases the costs and barriers to entry to productive hacking. Many (if not most) of the administrators couldn't possibly "create their own".
Same argument, right?
So you refine your return fuel on the surface of Mars. Entirely feasible.
I'll sleep just fine knowing that I at least have the courage to put my name on my principles.
Hope springs eternal. I'm not employed yet, but I'm hoping for a birthday present. : )
You're right, much better to stick one's head in the sand and not advance technology. Because, of course, nobody else is going to do it if I don't, right?
I struggle with this. I am an aerospace engineer, and right now if I want to work in the field I love, I need to work for a defense contractor. This is not my ideal solution. I believe, however, that America (my country, which I do believe in) does far more good than harm with its military. I know lots of people disagree with me, and that's OK. I happen to think that this adventure into Iraq was particularly ill-advised. However, at the end of the day, helping America to design more precise weapons and surveillance systems will a) keep my country strong, and b) save peoples' lives both home and abroad.
That's my moral code. Yours might be different. Many warriors have died to defend our right to disagree. Many engineers have worked their entire lives to decrease the amount of death required to accomplish that goal. I think both are noble pursuits.
Hold on.
What the hell are you talking about?
How do you have an autonomous car without software? Why do you think I'm talking about not fixing design problems, and putting on software band-aids?
I think you're having a different discussion than I'm having.
Uh, I retire in 2039. So I get a few measly bucks for three years, and then get to eat cat food. Woo and yay.
Of course, I'm going to be SMART, and provide for my own retirement. Sure wish I wasn't being taxed to death to pay for everybody else's.
"Know how to really stop stupid drivers from hurting themselves and others behind the wheel? Here's a hint: There's no steering wheel at the back of a bus."
No, but there is a pile of vomit.
Thanks, but no thanks.
You're absolutely wrong. They don't care about making money from games. They care about controlling the next-generation home information architecture.
"Computer software, however, is too complicated to do complete testing"
Simply not true. Fly by wire works just fine.
But I (me this one the consumer) don't want Microsoft to control the market, and I base my purchasing decisions on that motivation.
They don't sell the X-Box to sell games.
They sell the X-Box to control the gaming market.
If there are emulators, they can not control the market.
See?
Maybe because graphics horsepower doesn't have a lot to do with the overall appeal of the system?
Of course there's nothing wrong with it. What does tha have to do with Microsoft landing on these poor saps with both feet?
Yeah, because it'd be much better if we all drove crank-started cars with leaded gas and no seatbelts. Complexity is ALWAYS a bad thing, and NEVER makes things safer or perform better.
Your argument does not hold up. Would I trust Microsoft to write control loops for my car? No way. Would I buy a car that runs MS software in any capacity? No. But there's no reason to think that well-engineered systems can't improve safety.
Trust me, you don't want to work with me after I've ridden my bike or walked to work unless there are showers on the premises.
Train and bus service in my area is a joke.
I love mass transit, and human powered systems...when and if they are practical. Which in many cases in this country, they are not.
You mean GM is bad at designing cars, and the Suburban is unsuitable for driving on public roads?
Astounding. Stop the presses.
Everybody else on Earth seems to have figured out excellent ABS computers. Juat because GM doesn't, isn't an indictment of the technology, only of GM's incompetence and recklessness.
What if your hydraulic brake line fails on your manually controlled car? What if your transmission explodes and sends you into an uncontrolled skid?
Then you're hosed. Systems fail, and accidents (sometimes fatal ones) happen.
Odds are good that the last aircraft you flew in was driven by a computer, and you didn't die. The question is, would smart cars create a net reduction in roadway casualties?
Computers can be made fail-safe and fail-soft. Just because Microsoft can't do it doesn't mean it can't be done.
Glad to brighten your day.
Unless you were being sarcastic, in which case I'm glad to annoy you. Asshat.