I completely agree. I find two party systems encourage going negative. It doesn't matter how bad you make yourself look when attacking the other party, as long as you make them look worse.
but we keep having to telling them there's no demand for it. I mean can't they understand that there's no business case for it if none of customers want it. Oh wait...
You don't pay for "X bandwidth" on home internet connections, you pay for a particular type of connection with a theoretical maximum that the provider makes quite clear a) you may never actually reach (eg: due to unavoidable technical limitations like distance from the exchange) and b) they are under no obligation to deliver at all, let alone constantly.
And I'd be totally happy with that if ISP's were required to advertise their oversell ratio right next to their maximum speed and be legally held to that oversell ratio. That way, when deciding which ISP to sign up with, I can compare them on that basis.
If that's too much government intervention then at least make the ISP's publish their current oversell ratio, so that you can decide to drop them if it starts to suck too much.
If I'm willing to pay the money to power my appliance, and the power company is making a profit off me, who exactly is losing?>
Joe Next Door loses when electricity rates go up in reponse to the increased electricity demand. They likely won't come down until years after a new generation plant is built to pay off the cap-ex. So your increase in demand is being subsidized by your Joe Next Door paying more for the same amount of electricity, or by his reduction in electricity use to maintain the same agregate demand.
Seriously, it's the magic of the invisible hand that issues like that are taken care of.
In this case, the pressure to improve power efficiency would have been delayed while waiting for the invisible hand to stop scratching its ass.
On the broader issue of global warming, waiting for the invisible hand to correct the market is a non-starter. By the time market pressures build enough for people to notice, the damage has been done. The damage needs to be done (ie population reduction due to decreased food production) for there to be a market pressure.
Sure, but the SEC could fix this by requiring the broker or insider to publish the details of their pre-planned stock plan. That way when a trade doesn't go through the market can know that the insider took the option of not selling. Or even better, announce when the insider has chosen to not sell with two trading days advance notice.
Japan is used to getting all the latest tech toys first. Now all the sudden here's a tech toy that the US is getting before them, and they're thinking WTF?!?!
Wi-Lan's core patent is 528222 for OFDM (Orhogonal Frequency Division Muliplexing). It expires in 2012.
Wi-Lan is using this to sue users of 802.11 and Wi-Max.
They also acquired several patents from other companies, notably Ensemble for stuff relating to implementing a MAC layer for Wi-Max. "Inovative" ideas such as using a MAC co-processor. There's about 20 of those.
These days they are in the business of buying moldy old patents that companies can't be bothered with enforcing and trying take make money off of them.
Fujitsu acquired most of Wi-Lan's engineering team. The people that actually developed products.
The lawyers and the sue-happy founder stayed at Wi-Lan with the desk drawer full of patents, the majority of which were acquired from other companies (ie not developed by Wi-Lan).
Wi-Lan in it's current incarnation is fully to blame for their current sue-happy business model. Fujitsu isn't behind the scenes manipulating this one. Maybe blame Nokia for caving in to easily for $15 million in cash to help keep them afloat and for giving more patents as part of their settlement to beat other companies over the head with.
"Sometimes, the patented technology is worth well in excess the material cost of the end product."
A patent is worth what the market will pay for it, end of story. If the end customers won't pay a extra 10% or whatever of the cost of the product then the patent license isn't worth that much.
If it costs you more than the market value of the patent to develop the technology, well sucks to be you, do your market research next time.
I remember the US government (current administration) hemming and hawing about what it would do about the potential injunction of Blackberries. In the end they didn't have to make any touch decisions because RIM bit the bullet and shelled out $612 M to license some useless patents that were later invalidated.
Thus I severely doubt the US government will do anything in this case except hope it all works out.
I think it's plausible that he saw smoke. The flames are a bit of a stretch.
Some people mentioned the flaming laptop video, but batteries in laptops are a lot bigger that what's in the Nano so I doubt there was any flames.
It looks like the battery had an internal short, generally caused by metallic particle contamination during production. Li-ion (all Li-Polymer these days) batteries will heat up, the electrolyte vaporizes and causes the battery to expand, which is why the case is split open. If battery case splits (it's just some sheets of plastic coated aluminum sealed a the edges) the electrolyte will escape. The battery may go into thermal runaway if it heats up enough and may "vent with flame", which depending on the battery means it will create a lot of smoke for smaller batteries or something worse with larger batteries.
Lithium batteries (Li-Poly) contain no metallic lithium unless they have been overcharged. I'm guessing that's what your concern is. All the lithium is either bound to the anode/cathode or its a dissolved salt in the electrolyte.
In general, water can cause an electrical short. Lithium batteries can produce a quite a spark if they are shorted at the terminals before the protection circuitry. The short will also cause the battery to heat up through it's internal resistance.
I don't know whether water reacts with the electrolyte though.
Don't worry the Conservatives will try to spin this as the Liberals fault, just like all their other problems and try to maintain their image as an ethical government.
I can hear it now: "Patricia Neri was in office while the Liberals were in charge and they had 13 years to do something about it..." yada yada yada
The history of the Gracenote article is a big edit war between two completely different versions of the article which are both being incrementally updated along the way. See someexamples.
One version is the original (and current) article starting with the wording "Gracenote is a commercial enterprise". The other version (starting with "Gracenote is a company") is being maintained by a group of users who are presumably related to Gracenote (ie Steve Scherf and Gracenote employees/friends).
I thought the best approach to correcting an article you don't agree with on Wikipedia was to make or suggest small incremental edits. Outright changing virtually the entire content of an article over and over and accusing others of vandalism along the way is kinda petty.
Steve: if you want to write your own article on the history of Gracenote as you see it, put it up on Gracenote's website or your own personal website. I'm sure no one would have a problem with Wikipedia linking to your article so they can include all points of view.
Slashdot Mirror
I completely agree. I find two party systems encourage going negative. It doesn't matter how bad you make yourself look when attacking the other party, as long as you make them look worse.
but we keep having to telling them there's no demand for it. I mean can't they understand that there's no business case for it if none of customers want it. Oh wait...
You don't pay for "X bandwidth" on home internet connections, you pay for a particular type of connection with a theoretical maximum that the provider makes quite clear a) you may never actually reach (eg: due to unavoidable technical limitations like distance from the exchange) and b) they are under no obligation to deliver at all, let alone constantly.
And I'd be totally happy with that if ISP's were required to advertise their oversell ratio right next to their maximum speed and be legally held to that oversell ratio. That way, when deciding which ISP to sign up with, I can compare them on that basis.
If that's too much government intervention then at least make the ISP's publish their current oversell ratio, so that you can decide to drop them if it starts to suck too much.
AMD does not recommend pouring liquid nitrogen on your head or on your friend's head...
Unless, of course, your friend works at Intel.
If I'm willing to pay the money to power my appliance, and the power company is making a profit off me, who exactly is losing?>
Joe Next Door loses when electricity rates go up in reponse to the increased electricity demand. They likely won't come down until years after a new generation plant is built to pay off the cap-ex. So your increase in demand is being subsidized by your Joe Next Door paying more for the same amount of electricity, or by his reduction in electricity use to maintain the same agregate demand.
Seriously, it's the magic of the invisible hand that issues like that are taken care of.
In this case, the pressure to improve power efficiency would have been delayed while waiting for the invisible hand to stop scratching its ass.
On the broader issue of global warming, waiting for the invisible hand to correct the market is a non-starter. By the time market pressures build enough for people to notice, the damage has been done. The damage needs to be done (ie population reduction due to decreased food production) for there to be a market pressure.
Sure, but the SEC could fix this by requiring the broker or insider to publish the details of their pre-planned stock plan. That way when a trade doesn't go through the market can know that the insider took the option of not selling. Or even better, announce when the insider has chosen to not sell with two trading days advance notice.
to cut Iran off from the internet?
I have a feeling it's a case first adopters envy.
Japan is used to getting all the latest tech toys first. Now all the sudden here's a tech toy that the US is getting before them, and they're thinking WTF?!?!
Wi-Lan's core patent is 528222 for OFDM (Orhogonal Frequency Division Muliplexing). It expires in 2012.
Wi-Lan is using this to sue users of 802.11 and Wi-Max.
They also acquired several patents from other companies, notably Ensemble for stuff relating to implementing a MAC layer for Wi-Max. "Inovative" ideas such as using a MAC co-processor. There's about 20 of those.
You can find a list of Wi-Lan's patents here:
http://www.wi-lan.com/patents/patents-issued.aspx
These days they are in the business of buying moldy old patents that companies can't be bothered with enforcing and trying take make money off of them.
Why blame Fujitsu?
Fujitsu acquired most of Wi-Lan's engineering team. The people that actually developed products.
The lawyers and the sue-happy founder stayed at Wi-Lan with the desk drawer full of patents, the majority of which were acquired from other companies (ie not developed by Wi-Lan).
Wi-Lan in it's current incarnation is fully to blame for their current sue-happy business model. Fujitsu isn't behind the scenes manipulating this one. Maybe blame Nokia for caving in to easily for $15 million in cash to help keep them afloat and for giving more patents as part of their settlement to beat other companies over the head with.
"Sometimes, the patented technology is worth well in excess the material cost of the end product."
A patent is worth what the market will pay for it, end of story. If the end customers won't pay a extra 10% or whatever of the cost of the product then the patent license isn't worth that much.
If it costs you more than the market value of the patent to develop the technology, well sucks to be you, do your market research next time.
I remember the US government (current administration) hemming and hawing about what it would do about the potential injunction of Blackberries. In the end they didn't have to make any touch decisions because RIM bit the bullet and shelled out $612 M to license some useless patents that were later invalidated.
Thus I severely doubt the US government will do anything in this case except hope it all works out.
Ssshhhhh!!!!
We all know it's fake, but we're hoping the spammers don't!!!!!!
I think it's plausible that he saw smoke. The flames are a bit of a stretch.
Some people mentioned the flaming laptop video, but batteries in laptops are a lot bigger that what's in the Nano so I doubt there was any flames.
It looks like the battery had an internal short, generally caused by metallic particle contamination during production. Li-ion (all Li-Polymer these days) batteries will heat up, the electrolyte vaporizes and causes the battery to expand, which is why the case is split open. If battery case splits (it's just some sheets of plastic coated aluminum sealed a the edges) the electrolyte will escape. The battery may go into thermal runaway if it heats up enough and may "vent with flame", which depending on the battery means it will create a lot of smoke for smaller batteries or something worse with larger batteries.
Lithium batteries (Li-Poly) contain no metallic lithium unless they have been overcharged. I'm guessing that's what your concern is. All the lithium is either bound to the anode/cathode or its a dissolved salt in the electrolyte.
In general, water can cause an electrical short. Lithium batteries can produce a quite a spark if they are shorted at the terminals before the protection circuitry. The short will also cause the battery to heat up through it's internal resistance.
I don't know whether water reacts with the electrolyte though.
Don't worry the Conservatives will try to spin this as the Liberals fault, just like all their other problems and try to maintain their image as an ethical government.
I can hear it now: "Patricia Neri was in office while the Liberals were in charge and they had 13 years to do something about it..." yada yada yada
Up here we would be only too happy to get US cell phone rates.
With the way the lost revenue due to piracy is inflated, $500 million is equivalent to some guy selling CD's out of the back of a truck.
The moderators are are crack (well 50% anyway). This comment is not informative. These lost brothers don't exist, the parent poster was kidding.
Did you mean to say eunuchs? Seeing as how they've created monads already they are only one gonad away...
1 Joule is the amount of energy required to raise 1kg to a height of 1m.
Sorry but I gotta put my physics Natzi boots on:
1 Joule = 1 Newton * 1m
To raise a 1 kg mass to a height of 1 m needs:
mgh = 1kg * 9.81 m/s^2 * 1m = 9.81 J
They also asked:
Is Microsoft:
a) a great company
b) the greatest company
The history of the Gracenote article is a big edit war between two completely different versions of the article which are both being incrementally updated along the way. See some examples.
One version is the original (and current) article starting with the wording "Gracenote is a commercial enterprise". The other version (starting with "Gracenote is a company") is being maintained by a group of users who are presumably related to Gracenote (ie Steve Scherf and Gracenote employees/friends).
I thought the best approach to correcting an article you don't agree with on Wikipedia was to make or suggest small incremental edits. Outright changing virtually the entire content of an article over and over and accusing others of vandalism along the way is kinda petty.
Steve: if you want to write your own article on the history of Gracenote as you see it, put it up on Gracenote's website or your own personal website. I'm sure no one would have a problem with Wikipedia linking to your article so they can include all points of view.
Maybe, but Marx said it first and he's more closely associated with the quote.
Anyways your point that you shouldn't endorse socialist European policies on a US site is well taken...