To the AI, these are all just patterns. If they have an algorithm to use to steer the car while matching that pattern, then they use that algorithm. If they don't have an algorithm then they can use the closest one, or learn a new one (find a new algorithm to describe the pattern). As for merging, lane contraction and expansion, unmarked roads etc. There is video out there somewhere of a Carnegie Mellon self-driving car in 1998 doing all these things using modes and a simple learning algorithm.
Pattern matching and a simple learning algorithm accomplishes the same thing with no need for more equipment. Seriously, this problem has been solved for more than a decade. If the computer can't see the lane markers, then it moves into a mode where it uses the edges of the road to calculate its position. This is not a difficult problem.
People have been making self-driving cars using learning algorithms and pattern matching since the 90's. There are even some good videos from Carnegie Mellon if you can find them.
FUD, pure and simple. Apple paid Samsung a total of less then $7 billion last year. Samsung Electronics made more than $140 billion in revenue. In addition, 70% of Samsung Electronics $11.5 billion in profits came from their own smartphones. Apple is a blip on Samsung's earning report, nothing more.
They probably have changed tactics (many times even), but not everything is aimed at the U.S. People forget that Osama's goal was to overthrow the Saudi monarchy (for several reasons, one of which was allowing U.S. troops). They attacked the U.S. when Osama concluded that American aid and military power was making his goal impossible.
Personally, I am not privy to the current plots of Al Quaeda inside the United States, so I can only really speculate, but assuming a terrorist force has some tactical flexibility is probably prudent.
That's funny when you consider that the killer app ended up being the AppStore. Apple bragged that there were 60 million AppStore downloads in the first month after the launch of the 3g.
Indeed, both companies (and many more) had been moving in the same direction in their designs for years (evidenced by community designs and design patents in the preceeding few years). The iPhone and the LG prada were the natural progression (evolution) of phones, neither one revolutionary in their appearance or function.
Where did you see the news? Goldman Sachs cut their growth targets for smartphones on Monday, but they still believe the market will grow 38% in 2012. They didn't have anything negative to say about either Apple or Samsung (unlike the downgrade they gave RIM).
Additionally, Samsung announced on Monday that the Galaxy SIII is their best selling smartphone ever and estimated sales of 10 million by the end of July (although they are having a components shortage right now due to demand).
I am guessing the news was including dumbphone sales.
I agree with you that the OS for the iPhone was a big innovation compared to the rest of the market. It really allowed them to build a strong app repository (something other companies had tried and failed).
You don't arrest them because then the enemy would know you've been onto them. Instead, you can use them for both collecting information and passing bogus information to the enemy. As soon as they are arrested, the enemy may change their tactics and disregard all the information you have fed them through the operative.
A monopoly is not defined by whether or not a company has competitors, but by whether or not they can use their position to dictate the terms of the market. By your definition, a monopoly is impossible. At its height U.S Steel only made about 2/3 of American steel. Even a government sanctioned monopoly usually has some competition (usually small scale and/or illegal). Perhaps the problem is we have different definitions of monopoly. Personally, I see your definition of monopoly akin to free markets. Both are impossible in the real world.
As to your AT&T analysis, First it ignores my argument. AT&T became a monopoly before the Kingsbury Commitment. By 1913, AT&T controlled 95% of all long distance telephone infrastructure and had just purchased Western Union to control all telegraph lines too. The government intervened AFTER AT&T become a monopoly, thus they did not create them (unless you want to consider patents creating the Bell system).
Second, The Kingsbury Commitment in 1913 was an effort from the government to create competition in the market, not make AT&T a state monopoly (that would happen in 1934). Under the agreement, AT&T had to sell Western Union and allow any local phone company to use their long distance network. The Cato institute argues that if the government had not intervened, AT&T might have overstepped and the small companies might have banded together to create their own competitive long distance network. The Kingsbury Commitment took away the incentive to create their own network by guaranteeing them all access. I am not convinced. Furthermore, because the Kingsbury agreement allowed AT&T to purchase its competitors only if if agreed to sell a company, AT&T decided to purchase and spin off companies to create local monopolies, which colluded to fix prices. This situation should not have been allowed by AT&T's regulators as it was certainly against the spirit of the Kingsbury Commitment, but the regulator had been captured by this point.
As for examples of long living monopolies, I think De Beers would have to make the list. They controlled the world's diamond supply for more than 60 years. Even today, they are the biggest player and collusion keeps the price of diamonds artificially high. Of course, since they never controlled all the world's supply, by your definition they were not a monopoly.
Getting back to the point at hand. You claimed that government regulation creates monopolies due to regulatory capture. This again demonstrates that companies may use regulatory capture to further their monopoly (at point we agree on I think), but I still don't see evidence of the regulatory capture creating the monopoly.
My position has been conditional all along, but it hinges on data. If it is cost effective to create high quality textbooks by the states directly, then think it is worth trying. Otherwise, I am opposed to it. The difference in our position is that I am not convinced the states can do it for less. I am also concerned of externalities, such as the further politicization of the textbooks and hence the curriculum. However, if the price is right, I would give it a try.
I hear you and I am not arguing with you because I don't understand the internal economics of this industry. My years in business have taught me that costs can be opaque and not obvious to someone outside the industry (and that the "efficiencies" of private businesses are usually overstated). So, I will withhold my judgement until I have a better since of the costs. You can plead your argument all you want, but unless you are linking to hard data, it will not sway me.
Many companies will use whatever means to further their pursuit of monopoly status
This is a good thing. Natural monopolies aren't a bad thing in and of themselves. Government endorsed monopolies, not so much.
Are you suggesting that Intel, Google, Microsoft, and Facebook are Natural Monopolies because of their drive and success? Are you suggesting that these companies rose to their positions primarily due to government regulations? In your mind, should the government intervene to ensure these companies do not abuse their positions?
Government regulation creates monopolies due to regulatory capture.
In most cases I have seen, first a company reaches a monopoly position (or oligopoly) before it can leverage regulators to keep its competitors out (for example AT&T). If this is the case, then it would be wrong to say the government regulation caused the monopoly (which is how I am interpreting your argument). This is not to say the the government does not grant monopolies, but these monopolies are also more stringently regulated and, ideally, Natural Monopolies.
We are in agreement that government regulators can help maintain a monopoly and that this is undesirable.
I would honestly be interested in knowing what you're referring to. Steel industry, railroad industry?
Those are good examples. However, the best examples would be Standard Oil and AT&T off the top of my head. The latter is also a textbook example of how a monopoly can use regulators to maintain their position.
I think you have it backwards. Monopolies survive in spite of government regulation due to regulatory capture. All profit seeking companies want to become a monopoly because that is the state of highest profitability. Many companies will use whatever means to further their pursuit of monopoly status. This includes using the government to create barriers to entry for competitors or force competitors from the market. If you removed government regulations, it would not change that all companies are trying to increase market share and drive out competitors. Instead, you would get increased predatory actions, many of which are well documented during the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries in America.
What's the alternative? Apple has limitations; some technical, but mostly philosophical, that ensure they won't cannibalize the Linux world. Microsoft and Linux are still miles apart on both technical and philosophical aspects. Where are the Linux users going to go?
I think a cost-benefit would be in order here. This would cost the state significant additional staff to manage the text book creation; project managers, graphic artists, content creators, editors and proofreaders, etc. Perhaps the reason state's don't do this now is that the savings realized by the publishing houses with their economies of scale outweigh their inflated profit margins, making it more expensive for the states to self-publish. I don't know the numbers on this, but I'm not convinced the states could do it for less.
If all a tablet will do is replace the textbooks, then the what is the cost benefit of that. Including breakage, IT support, etc., is it cheaper to buy tablets than textbooks?
Slashdot Mirror
I think Frankie is being sarcastic.
To the AI, these are all just patterns. If they have an algorithm to use to steer the car while matching that pattern, then they use that algorithm. If they don't have an algorithm then they can use the closest one, or learn a new one (find a new algorithm to describe the pattern). As for merging, lane contraction and expansion, unmarked roads etc. There is video out there somewhere of a Carnegie Mellon self-driving car in 1998 doing all these things using modes and a simple learning algorithm.
Pattern matching and a simple learning algorithm accomplishes the same thing with no need for more equipment. Seriously, this problem has been solved for more than a decade. If the computer can't see the lane markers, then it moves into a mode where it uses the edges of the road to calculate its position. This is not a difficult problem.
You think driving a car it bad, imagine if computers flew airplanes with hundreds of people of them. Now that would be crazy.
People have been making self-driving cars using learning algorithms and pattern matching since the 90's. There are even some good videos from Carnegie Mellon if you can find them.
R&D spending for 2011:
Samsung spent $9.1 billion
Google spent $5.2 billion
Apple spent $2.6 billion
I wouldn't feel too bad for Sammy. Their display division lost millions last year. Nearly all their profits came from their own devices.
FUD, pure and simple. Apple paid Samsung a total of less then $7 billion last year. Samsung Electronics made more than $140 billion in revenue. In addition, 70% of Samsung Electronics $11.5 billion in profits came from their own smartphones. Apple is a blip on Samsung's earning report, nothing more.
They probably have changed tactics (many times even), but not everything is aimed at the U.S. People forget that Osama's goal was to overthrow the Saudi monarchy (for several reasons, one of which was allowing U.S. troops). They attacked the U.S. when Osama concluded that American aid and military power was making his goal impossible.
Personally, I am not privy to the current plots of Al Quaeda inside the United States, so I can only really speculate, but assuming a terrorist force has some tactical flexibility is probably prudent.
That's funny when you consider that the killer app ended up being the AppStore. Apple bragged that there were 60 million AppStore downloads in the first month after the launch of the 3g.
Indeed, both companies (and many more) had been moving in the same direction in their designs for years (evidenced by community designs and design patents in the preceeding few years). The iPhone and the LG prada were the natural progression (evolution) of phones, neither one revolutionary in their appearance or function.
Where did you see the news? Goldman Sachs cut their growth targets for smartphones on Monday, but they still believe the market will grow 38% in 2012. They didn't have anything negative to say about either Apple or Samsung (unlike the downgrade they gave RIM).
Additionally, Samsung announced on Monday that the Galaxy SIII is their best selling smartphone ever and estimated sales of 10 million by the end of July (although they are having a components shortage right now due to demand).
I am guessing the news was including dumbphone sales.
I agree with you that the OS for the iPhone was a big innovation compared to the rest of the market. It really allowed them to build a strong app repository (something other companies had tried and failed).
You don't arrest them because then the enemy would know you've been onto them. Instead, you can use them for both collecting information and passing bogus information to the enemy. As soon as they are arrested, the enemy may change their tactics and disregard all the information you have fed them through the operative.
Sometimes I think it is impossible to be both a realist and an optimist. Then I remember it could be a lot worse.
A monopoly is not defined by whether or not a company has competitors, but by whether or not they can use their position to dictate the terms of the market. By your definition, a monopoly is impossible. At its height U.S Steel only made about 2/3 of American steel. Even a government sanctioned monopoly usually has some competition (usually small scale and/or illegal). Perhaps the problem is we have different definitions of monopoly. Personally, I see your definition of monopoly akin to free markets. Both are impossible in the real world.
As to your AT&T analysis, First it ignores my argument. AT&T became a monopoly before the Kingsbury Commitment. By 1913, AT&T controlled 95% of all long distance telephone infrastructure and had just purchased Western Union to control all telegraph lines too. The government intervened AFTER AT&T become a monopoly, thus they did not create them (unless you want to consider patents creating the Bell system).
Second, The Kingsbury Commitment in 1913 was an effort from the government to create competition in the market, not make AT&T a state monopoly (that would happen in 1934). Under the agreement, AT&T had to sell Western Union and allow any local phone company to use their long distance network. The Cato institute argues that if the government had not intervened, AT&T might have overstepped and the small companies might have banded together to create their own competitive long distance network. The Kingsbury Commitment took away the incentive to create their own network by guaranteeing them all access. I am not convinced. Furthermore, because the Kingsbury agreement allowed AT&T to purchase its competitors only if if agreed to sell a company, AT&T decided to purchase and spin off companies to create local monopolies, which colluded to fix prices. This situation should not have been allowed by AT&T's regulators as it was certainly against the spirit of the Kingsbury Commitment, but the regulator had been captured by this point.
As for examples of long living monopolies, I think De Beers would have to make the list. They controlled the world's diamond supply for more than 60 years. Even today, they are the biggest player and collusion keeps the price of diamonds artificially high. Of course, since they never controlled all the world's supply, by your definition they were not a monopoly.
Getting back to the point at hand. You claimed that government regulation creates monopolies due to regulatory capture. This again demonstrates that companies may use regulatory capture to further their monopoly (at point we agree on I think), but I still don't see evidence of the regulatory capture creating the monopoly.
My position has been conditional all along, but it hinges on data. If it is cost effective to create high quality textbooks by the states directly, then think it is worth trying. Otherwise, I am opposed to it. The difference in our position is that I am not convinced the states can do it for less. I am also concerned of externalities, such as the further politicization of the textbooks and hence the curriculum. However, if the price is right, I would give it a try.
I hear you and I am not arguing with you because I don't understand the internal economics of this industry. My years in business have taught me that costs can be opaque and not obvious to someone outside the industry (and that the "efficiencies" of private businesses are usually overstated). So, I will withhold my judgement until I have a better since of the costs. You can plead your argument all you want, but unless you are linking to hard data, it will not sway me.
Many companies will use whatever means to further their pursuit of monopoly status
This is a good thing. Natural monopolies aren't a bad thing in and of themselves. Government endorsed monopolies, not so much.
Are you suggesting that Intel, Google, Microsoft, and Facebook are Natural Monopolies because of their drive and success? Are you suggesting that these companies rose to their positions primarily due to government regulations? In your mind, should the government intervene to ensure these companies do not abuse their positions?
Government regulation creates monopolies due to regulatory capture.
In most cases I have seen, first a company reaches a monopoly position (or oligopoly) before it can leverage regulators to keep its competitors out (for example AT&T). If this is the case, then it would be wrong to say the government regulation caused the monopoly (which is how I am interpreting your argument). This is not to say the the government does not grant monopolies, but these monopolies are also more stringently regulated and, ideally, Natural Monopolies.
We are in agreement that government regulators can help maintain a monopoly and that this is undesirable.
I would honestly be interested in knowing what you're referring to. Steel industry, railroad industry?
Those are good examples. However, the best examples would be Standard Oil and AT&T off the top of my head. The latter is also a textbook example of how a monopoly can use regulators to maintain their position.
I would be more persuaded by something non-anecdotal. I am not saying states couldn't do this, but I am a skeptic by nature.
I think you have it backwards. Monopolies survive in spite of government regulation due to regulatory capture. All profit seeking companies want to become a monopoly because that is the state of highest profitability. Many companies will use whatever means to further their pursuit of monopoly status. This includes using the government to create barriers to entry for competitors or force competitors from the market. If you removed government regulations, it would not change that all companies are trying to increase market share and drive out competitors. Instead, you would get increased predatory actions, many of which are well documented during the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries in America.
This is a design patent. It is more akin to trademark than utility patents.
What's the alternative? Apple has limitations; some technical, but mostly philosophical, that ensure they won't cannibalize the Linux world. Microsoft and Linux are still miles apart on both technical and philosophical aspects. Where are the Linux users going to go?
I think a cost-benefit would be in order here. This would cost the state significant additional staff to manage the text book creation; project managers, graphic artists, content creators, editors and proofreaders, etc. Perhaps the reason state's don't do this now is that the savings realized by the publishing houses with their economies of scale outweigh their inflated profit margins, making it more expensive for the states to self-publish. I don't know the numbers on this, but I'm not convinced the states could do it for less.
If all a tablet will do is replace the textbooks, then the what is the cost benefit of that. Including breakage, IT support, etc., is it cheaper to buy tablets than textbooks?
It makes me wonder how "too big to fail" impacts your analysis.