How can Microsoft claim that "Windows 7 doesn't meet the demands for modern Technology"? Technology hasn't changed enough since the release of Windows 7!.... Microsoft, I propose a new headline: "Windows 10 doesn't meet the demands for customer usability".
This. Microsoft definitely has this demand concept backwards.
The phrase, "It's been __ years since man walked on the moon" as a yardstick for progress [or lack of] has been an old, trite phrase many years, but it starts to have some meaning again when you realize these pioneers are dying off.
It was a 'design patent'. Not something about technology or production, but rather about looks....the entire concept is total B.S. Gee, bevels in glass so it doesn't have the sharp edges. Corners on rectangles to they don't poke you when in your pocket. Total obvious garbage.
The 1990's Nokia cell phones had beveled edges, should no one have ever been allowed to have a beveled edge on a phone afterward? Phones have certain functionality constraints that limit design possibilities which I think should be considered. I appreciate the patent and copyright systems to protect inventors, artists, and entrepreneurs, but we all know they are imperfect systems. IMHO, this Apple vs Samsung case has been counter to the spirit of the system and this saga should have ended long ago [I understand my opinion is worth nothing to most people].
Well, batteries can be recycled pretty easily so the toxic elements should only enter the environment if they leak out when activated.
You're a little off the mark here... The most significant environmental contamination is far far more likely going to occur where the batteries are manufactured from handling [or mishandling] of bulked raw materials and wastes. The overlook is understandable though, because electronics manufacturing and recycling operations typically occur in poorer Asian countries and people in the western world rarely take note environmental damage unless it happens in their backyard. (That's not meant as an insult, just a statement about people in general)
In addition, it can be very hard to determine environmental risk until a chemical is used and monitored in the environment for a period of time. You cannot wait until all questions of potential risk are answered before allowing technology progress. Proceed with caution is usually the best approach for everyone.
Personally, I prefer a bit of leaked flame retardant over a plane crash. Plane crashes kind of suck for the environment, too.
I agree with this sentiment in there are plenty of potential applications for a safer Lion battery that could save lives. For example, many industries have with potentially flammable environments require "Intrinsically Safe" equipment http://www.indsci.com/services... (e.g. oil refineries, chemical plants, natural gas utilities, etc.) or sensitive locations that can't risk even small fires or explosions (e.g. planes, data centers, electric grid, historical buildings, etc.).
Most new games are released to the various consoles. Seems like you can't hardly buy any of the better games for PC anymore.
There are major studios producing games solely or primarily or have PC exclusives, even more so as Sony and MS push the lifespans of their aging consoles, while PC hardware continues to improve. The improvement in PC hardware over consoles is important for many gamers. Even for games on both consoles and PC, if the developer puts marginal effort into their PC version it will typically have advantages for gamers like better graphics, better interface, more customization options, and/or competitive play options. The PC hardware improvement is also important to many developers, particularly those who design their own game engines (e.g. Id Software and Epic Games), because a large part of their business is licensing their engine to other game makers for years to come. The game doubles as a playable marketing tool/demo to other game designers, therefore having it on the latest technology available (i.e. PC) has value to them.
Lithium ion car battery life is more like 8-12+ years, not 3-5 years so you need to change your calculations there. If you have a Nissan Leaf their battery warranty is 8 years, so a replacement within that period costs the owner nothing. You also did not factor in that typical maintenance costs for EVs are much less than ICE cars. Many items that wear out are not even present in EVs... transmissions, fuel pump, engine air intake, starter, engine alternator, drive belts, exhaust system (no yearly emissions test either), and EV engine oil is self-contained and doesn't need replacing for ~10 years. There's not much maintenance besides tires, topping off windshield washer fluid, and replacing brakes pads, although the regenerative braking systems extend brake pad life by years. Over the life of the car all those little maintenance items in addition to fuel savings add up.
- It has mods and modpacks... possible for others to make these. These mods add huge value to the game... the original game is really boring
That sounds like how Quake, Half-Life, and to a lesser extent Unreal Tournament were must-have PC games, because they had mods that were as good or better than the original games... Capture the Flag (Quake), Team Fortress (Quake), Team Fortress Classic (Half-Life), Counterstrike (Half-Life), Natural Selection (Half-Life), Thievery (UT), Alien Swarm (UT), and many more, including mods within mods. The mods kept these base games alive and relevant long past typical game expiration dates.
I'll stop having a place to live and I'll stop eating for the next five years to afford a car.
You don't have to buy a Tesla and there are deals among used cars. Most "early-adopters" of EVs lease their cars for 1-3 years and then there's a glut of them on the used car markets a few years after the initial fanfare.The depreciation is a bitch for buyers of new EVs, but there are good deals for savy used car shoppers.
There's also the fact that most the electric power generated still comes from fossil fuels...
A common argument with a kernel of truth, but it's more complicated that that. Mind you that any grid electricity generated by renewables is going to be a significant off-set to this assumption. (I'll get back to this)
The other side of this efficiency. Standard car internal combustion engines only use 20%-30% of the gasoline's potential energy propels the car, and the rest of the energy is lost primarily to heat and secondarily to friction. Power plants, even the dirtiest of coal plants, are way more efficient creating electricity from a fossil fuel than the car's internal combustion engine is (power plant efficiency vary by plant and fuel source, but they are all higher than 30%). The electric car engine is 80-95% efficient at propelling a car with the losses mostly from friction. Now if any of the electric grid comes from renewables then that translates into better overall EV efficiency and "green factor" but exactly how efficient and green will vary depending on the grid sources where you live. In the US, the portion of electric grid power generated by fossil fuel sources varies significantly by state. Here's a nice breakdown of each US state's electric grid sources. http://www.npr.org/2015/09/10/... (Relatedly, notice that renewables are increasing mostly across the board, and/or coal is being replaced with more efficient and lower emission natural gas.)
...or requires renewable energy collection methods that are created initially by fossil fuels.
Criticising renewables for being created initially by fossil fuels isn't really fair because fossil fuels play a role in creating pretty much everything, whether it's renewable or not. The point is to use the fossil fuels to create something that adds more long time value and efficiency to our lives than simply burning more fossil fuels to spin a turbine.
Road-trippers would likely rent or have an ICE. Planning charging stops sounds like PITA and make for a much longer trip. Whatever... I am not an EV cultist. My wife and I have a two car household, one is ICE and the other as a commuter EV just works well for us. Your results may vary.
First, as much as I appreciate your analysis on my household transportation finances, I'll point that my wife and I have had two ICE cars for years before (we each have jobs to commute to, so we're not getting by with one car). I swapped my ICE for an EV. So, no real change in our finances other than spending less on one of the cars.
Second, regarding the fear-mongering over battery changes, it's simply overblown. If you want to see how these batteries perform in real world conditions all you have to do is look at the hyrbids, like the Toyota Prius, which have been on the roads since around 2002. Have you heard massive battery replacement issues with hybrids? Nope... The battery tech EVs is very similar, it's just bigger. These are not cell phone batteries designed to wear out in 2 years. I still have years left on my factory warranty and you quoting me today's replacement EV battery prices are really no bearing on what EV replacement battery prices will be years from now if I need to do that. Mind you that, in addition to fuel savings, with an EV you will never have to fix an exhaust system, transmission, radiator, alternator, or many other ICE related parts. You don't even change oil in an EV. If a battery replacement is needed someday, I've probably made up that cost elsewhere.
What happens then? Does cold weather affect battery performance? Without an internal combustion engine, the only way to get heat in the cabin is via electricity, which is going to impose a considerable burden on the battery.
Not really...Consider this, if the battery is powerful enough to drive the car around for miles then powering a little heater and fan isn't going to tax it that much. I'm driving my Nissan LEAF in Pennsylvania in 20 degree F weather this week and I drove it all through last winter too. There is an ~10-20% hit to the range in colder weather, but the heater [and my heated steering wheel] isn't that big of deal, certainly no more than running the AC in the summer. It gets along just fine. In fact, last winter I jumped my wife's Honda Accord car with my LEAF when her battery died on a very cold morning... in that regard, EVs are more reliable to at least start in the cold.
I think people worry because they are stuck in the mindset of going to a station to "fill up." But, a typical EV owner would do the vast majority of their charging at home overnight, which for many people a standard 120V line is sufficient. It's the only way I've charged my Nissan LEAF for the past year a half of owning the car. There are charging stations around me and I could install a faster 240V charger in my house, but I have no need them.
...ultimately, what keeps most people from ever considering an electric vehicle: They're just too damn expensive.
Not necessarily... Just like regular cars you can find bargains if you buy used and you still get all the EV's long-term cost savings others mention. In July 2015 I bought a certified-used 2013 Nissan LEAF with 11K miles on it for ~$15K. If I had bought that car new in the same trim it would have been ~34K. It's been great. Someone else took the bulk of the depreciation hit, I still get the vast majority of the factory warranty, fueling is cheaper, maintenance is cheaper, and inspections are cheaper (no emission test needed). All of my charging has been in my garage overnight on a standard 120V line (no special charging system installation), which is way more convenient than any gas station. I have never been stranded out of charge (you adapt to the range very quickly). My wife has an Honda Accord, so we use her car for longer trips or swap cars if I need to go further than the LEAF's range for day. Whether it's "green" isn't even a factor, because the bottom line is it saves us money.
The panels could even be used as a roof over the road...most likely cheaper than these panels.
Good point.... and panels over roads could improve driver safety by blocking or reducing dangerous weather conditions that make road surfaces slippery or impede driver visibility, e.g. rain, snow, sun glare.
Hardening solar panels to withstand the wear of vehicles on them is fine for research, but you gotta believe there are other no-impact places to put them that would reduce the cost and win an argument for preference unequivocally when planning a big deployment.
That would be true in rural areas, but closer to the cities there is an awful lot of real estate taken up by roads.
If you can't think of under-used space to put solar panels other than high wear roads then you're not thinking hard enough. Off the top of my head solar panels could be placed more easily and operate more efficiently at... -over parking lots -over empty grass medians between divided highway/interstate roads -on roofs of big-box stores, malls, office parks, industrial parks, stadiums, warehouses, gas station canopies, etc. -over storm-water retention basins, -over landfills -on bridges
Most of the above are in close proximity to urban areas where the electricity is needed most. I support solar, but when there are so many other easy places to do it there's no reason to spend millions of dollars over-engineering our roads for an inherently inefficient solar source [because roads are typically flat, not angled].
A $10 starting price gives Nintendo flexibility to run sales to boost purchases when initial sales start tapering. When a $10 app has a 50% off sale it gets more attention than a $0.99 app; and at $5 Nintendo would still make a handy profit. If the price started at the bottom there's no where to go from there.
Besides, making $21 million in four days doesn't sounds like a problem to me. I doubt it cost Nintendo that much to design the game.
What Nintendo needs to do is sell a custom bluetooth case for the iPhone that essentially uses what the phone has (display/electronics etc) and adds what it is sorely lacking (real buttons, D pad/thumb stick, maybe speakers etc.)
Exactly this. Nintendo has the hardware design and manufacturing experience to easily do this. With a standardized controller Nintendo could simply repackage and resell their library of old games, which they are masters of. They wouldn't even have to bother developing new games to make this work, because even a straight port of original Metroid, Mario Bros, Kirby, Zelda, etc. would be more fun than 99% of mobiles games out there.
On Android there is a joystick standard. Just make a deal with one of the many nintendo emulators out there, and you could port ALL your titles and charge between.99 and 4.99 and people would loooove it.... There is tens of millions waiting on the table for just a negotiation with an emulator, and weeks worth of interns populating and uploading games.
It's a good idea and Nintendo is the undisputed expert at repackaging and reselling old games over and over again. Nintendo could even use their hardware experience to make a Nintendo-branded controller for mobile games with DRM baked into the controller, which would be hated by Slashdotters but average people wouldn't care and it could ease Nintendo's concern for their trademarks. I'm not a rose-tinted glasses nostalgic type for old games, but even I think re-playing a straight port of original Metroid on a mobile phone or tablet would be more fun than 99% of the mobile games available, including Mario Run.
...The last time I had to explain to a 5 year old why his game stop working when he gets in the car was not fun, I'd rather not go through that again.
I don't expect that I'll be able to hide the existence of the new Mario game from him forever, but I'll do my best to hide it for as long as I can.
You might not have to hide it that long, because as you I'm sure you know kids learn technology quickly. Before too long he'll probably be showing you how to work your phone and gadgets.
You can get a lot of free games for the price of a $10 app. I didn't even know there were $10 phone games. I'm not sure they've thought this through - But what do I know? I'm sure they've done their homework - That's why all this collected data is so valuable, right?
Square Enix has been pricing their various Final Fantasy and Dragon's Quest mobile games at $10-$20 (sometimes higher) for many years. The model seems to be working for them. Nintendo has a similar history and following as Square, so I expect it will probably work for them too.
A higher base price has advantages to a company beyond profit margins too. Price lets a company to differentiate their app from others in a crowded app market, and offer discounts to boost sales and interest. When an app is free, if active users and downloads drop there's nothing the developer can do to make the free app stand-out from the sea of other free apps. A price makes an app stand out and more so if you run a sale. But, if an app is $2 and they run a 50% off sale, few will care. If an app is $10 and they run a 50% off sale it's probably going to get more interest and sales.
Seemingly lost in the hyperbolic arguments above is that fake news websites phishing for clicks and ad revenue are a very real thing and if you haven't heard then you're just not paying attention... here's Fox News talking about it: http://video.foxnews.com/v/521... The original Slate article focuses heavily on the more controversial 3rd-party fact-checking so many arguing about, but this Wired article on Facebook's policy has a slightly different emphasis. https://www.wired.com/2016/12/... Most noteably Wired gives more details in how Facebook says they will check the source domains of articles to see if they are traceable to fake or spoofed websites and ultimately attempt to deincentivize fake news creators by hitting them in their ad revenue/pocketbooks. Facebook is trying to reduce the effect of fraudsters who are well documented by left and right leaning news sources. Rational people would keep the argument focused there.
It's disheartening to read the hyperbole, misdirection, and insults through this discussion on both sides. I've been less impressed with the contributions to Slashdot over the last year and this discussion is a new low for me.
How much are they really saving? Wouldn't it be a similar cost to just launch a new satellite than it would be to launch a larger servicing/refueling craft?
As someone mentioned if the launch vehicles can be reused then probably costs would be cheaper.
I think you also have to weigh the risks of launches. If a gov't or private company launches a replacement satellite and it blows up at launch or fails to reach orbit that could be very costly. If the satellite in orbit is working fine, then just launching some fuel or spare parts could be much less risky financially than launching a full replacement satellite. Along those lines, reducing the potential financial risk of launches can reduce launch costs throughout the industry. If a launch fails someone does pay for it somehow (e.g. a private reimbursement/guarantee, insurance policy, gov't backing, etc.) and one way or another that cost will be reflected in the larger costs of the satellite launching industry, so reducing financial risk of some launches should reduce costs everywhere.
Keep in mind too the article states this robot could potentially be used to gather or redirect space junk or asteroids, which despite sounding like long-shots could be very useful, and even an incremental step towards those goals could be valuable.
Slashdot Mirror
How can Microsoft claim that "Windows 7 doesn't meet the demands for modern Technology"? Technology hasn't changed enough since the release of Windows 7! .... Microsoft, I propose a new headline: "Windows 10 doesn't meet the demands for customer usability".
This. Microsoft definitely has this demand concept backwards.
The phrase, "It's been __ years since man walked on the moon" as a yardstick for progress [or lack of] has been an old, trite phrase many years, but it starts to have some meaning again when you realize these pioneers are dying off.
RIP, Gene.
It was a 'design patent'. Not something about technology or production, but rather about looks....the entire concept is total B.S. Gee, bevels in glass so it doesn't have the sharp edges. Corners on rectangles to they don't poke you when in your pocket. Total obvious garbage.
The 1990's Nokia cell phones had beveled edges, should no one have ever been allowed to have a beveled edge on a phone afterward? Phones have certain functionality constraints that limit design possibilities which I think should be considered. I appreciate the patent and copyright systems to protect inventors, artists, and entrepreneurs, but we all know they are imperfect systems. IMHO, this Apple vs Samsung case has been counter to the spirit of the system and this saga should have ended long ago [I understand my opinion is worth nothing to most people].
Yeah, reducing a widespread fire risk can be very valuable to a society, even if there is a shift of risk to the environmental side.
Well, batteries can be recycled pretty easily so the toxic elements should only enter the environment if they leak out when activated.
You're a little off the mark here... The most significant environmental contamination is far far more likely going to occur where the batteries are manufactured from handling [or mishandling] of bulked raw materials and wastes. The overlook is understandable though, because electronics manufacturing and recycling operations typically occur in poorer Asian countries and people in the western world rarely take note environmental damage unless it happens in their backyard. (That's not meant as an insult, just a statement about people in general)
In addition, it can be very hard to determine environmental risk until a chemical is used and monitored in the environment for a period of time. You cannot wait until all questions of potential risk are answered before allowing technology progress. Proceed with caution is usually the best approach for everyone.
Personally, I prefer a bit of leaked flame retardant over a plane crash. Plane crashes kind of suck for the environment, too.
I agree with this sentiment in there are plenty of potential applications for a safer Lion battery that could save lives. For example, many industries have with potentially flammable environments require "Intrinsically Safe" equipment http://www.indsci.com/services... (e.g. oil refineries, chemical plants, natural gas utilities, etc.) or sensitive locations that can't risk even small fires or explosions (e.g. planes, data centers, electric grid, historical buildings, etc.).
Most new games are released to the various consoles. Seems like you can't hardly buy any of the better games for PC anymore.
There are major studios producing games solely or primarily or have PC exclusives, even more so as Sony and MS push the lifespans of their aging consoles, while PC hardware continues to improve. The improvement in PC hardware over consoles is important for many gamers. Even for games on both consoles and PC, if the developer puts marginal effort into their PC version it will typically have advantages for gamers like better graphics, better interface, more customization options, and/or competitive play options. The PC hardware improvement is also important to many developers, particularly those who design their own game engines (e.g. Id Software and Epic Games), because a large part of their business is licensing their engine to other game makers for years to come. The game doubles as a playable marketing tool/demo to other game designers, therefore having it on the latest technology available (i.e. PC) has value to them.
I hear wax cylinders are making a comeback!
Lithium ion car battery life is more like 8-12+ years, not 3-5 years so you need to change your calculations there. If you have a Nissan Leaf their battery warranty is 8 years, so a replacement within that period costs the owner nothing. You also did not factor in that typical maintenance costs for EVs are much less than ICE cars. Many items that wear out are not even present in EVs... transmissions, fuel pump, engine air intake, starter, engine alternator, drive belts, exhaust system (no yearly emissions test either), and EV engine oil is self-contained and doesn't need replacing for ~10 years. There's not much maintenance besides tires, topping off windshield washer fluid, and replacing brakes pads, although the regenerative braking systems extend brake pad life by years. Over the life of the car all those little maintenance items in addition to fuel savings add up.
- It has mods and modpacks... possible for others to make these. These mods add huge value to the game... the original game is really boring
That sounds like how Quake, Half-Life, and to a lesser extent Unreal Tournament were must-have PC games, because they had mods that were as good or better than the original games... Capture the Flag (Quake), Team Fortress (Quake), Team Fortress Classic (Half-Life), Counterstrike (Half-Life), Natural Selection (Half-Life), Thievery (UT), Alien Swarm (UT), and many more, including mods within mods. The mods kept these base games alive and relevant long past typical game expiration dates.
I'll stop having a place to live and I'll stop eating for the next five years to afford a car.
You don't have to buy a Tesla and there are deals among used cars. Most "early-adopters" of EVs lease their cars for 1-3 years and then there's a glut of them on the used car markets a few years after the initial fanfare.The depreciation is a bitch for buyers of new EVs, but there are good deals for savy used car shoppers.
There's also the fact that most the electric power generated still comes from fossil fuels...
A common argument with a kernel of truth, but it's more complicated that that. Mind you that any grid electricity generated by renewables is going to be a significant off-set to this assumption. (I'll get back to this)
The other side of this efficiency. Standard car internal combustion engines only use 20%-30% of the gasoline's potential energy propels the car, and the rest of the energy is lost primarily to heat and secondarily to friction. Power plants, even the dirtiest of coal plants, are way more efficient creating electricity from a fossil fuel than the car's internal combustion engine is (power plant efficiency vary by plant and fuel source, but they are all higher than 30%). The electric car engine is 80-95% efficient at propelling a car with the losses mostly from friction. Now if any of the electric grid comes from renewables then that translates into better overall EV efficiency and "green factor" but exactly how efficient and green will vary depending on the grid sources where you live. In the US, the portion of electric grid power generated by fossil fuel sources varies significantly by state. Here's a nice breakdown of each US state's electric grid sources. http://www.npr.org/2015/09/10/...
(Relatedly, notice that renewables are increasing mostly across the board, and/or coal is being replaced with more efficient and lower emission natural gas.)
...or requires renewable energy collection methods that are created initially by fossil fuels.
Criticising renewables for being created initially by fossil fuels isn't really fair because fossil fuels play a role in creating pretty much everything, whether it's renewable or not. The point is to use the fossil fuels to create something that adds more long time value and efficiency to our lives than simply burning more fossil fuels to spin a turbine.
Road-trippers would likely rent or have an ICE. Planning charging stops sounds like PITA and make for a much longer trip. Whatever... I am not an EV cultist. My wife and I have a two car household, one is ICE and the other as a commuter EV just works well for us. Your results may vary.
First, as much as I appreciate your analysis on my household transportation finances, I'll point that my wife and I have had two ICE cars for years before (we each have jobs to commute to, so we're not getting by with one car). I swapped my ICE for an EV. So, no real change in our finances other than spending less on one of the cars.
Second, regarding the fear-mongering over battery changes, it's simply overblown. If you want to see how these batteries perform in real world conditions all you have to do is look at the hyrbids, like the Toyota Prius, which have been on the roads since around 2002. Have you heard massive battery replacement issues with hybrids? Nope... The battery tech EVs is very similar, it's just bigger. These are not cell phone batteries designed to wear out in 2 years. I still have years left on my factory warranty and you quoting me today's replacement EV battery prices are really no bearing on what EV replacement battery prices will be years from now if I need to do that. Mind you that, in addition to fuel savings, with an EV you will never have to fix an exhaust system, transmission, radiator, alternator, or many other ICE related parts. You don't even change oil in an EV. If a battery replacement is needed someday, I've probably made up that cost elsewhere.
What happens then? Does cold weather affect battery performance? Without an internal combustion engine, the only way to get heat in the cabin is via electricity, which is going to impose a considerable burden on the battery.
Not really...Consider this, if the battery is powerful enough to drive the car around for miles then powering a little heater and fan isn't going to tax it that much. I'm driving my Nissan LEAF in Pennsylvania in 20 degree F weather this week and I drove it all through last winter too. There is an ~10-20% hit to the range in colder weather, but the heater [and my heated steering wheel] isn't that big of deal, certainly no more than running the AC in the summer. It gets along just fine. In fact, last winter I jumped my wife's Honda Accord car with my LEAF when her battery died on a very cold morning... in that regard, EVs are more reliable to at least start in the cold.
What worries me is the charging.
I think people worry because they are stuck in the mindset of going to a station to "fill up." But, a typical EV owner would do the vast majority of their charging at home overnight, which for many people a standard 120V line is sufficient. It's the only way I've charged my Nissan LEAF for the past year a half of owning the car. There are charging stations around me and I could install a faster 240V charger in my house, but I have no need them.
...ultimately, what keeps most people from ever considering an electric vehicle: They're just too damn expensive.
Not necessarily... Just like regular cars you can find bargains if you buy used and you still get all the EV's long-term cost savings others mention. In July 2015 I bought a certified-used 2013 Nissan LEAF with 11K miles on it for ~$15K. If I had bought that car new in the same trim it would have been ~34K. It's been great. Someone else took the bulk of the depreciation hit, I still get the vast majority of the factory warranty, fueling is cheaper, maintenance is cheaper, and inspections are cheaper (no emission test needed). All of my charging has been in my garage overnight on a standard 120V line (no special charging system installation), which is way more convenient than any gas station. I have never been stranded out of charge (you adapt to the range very quickly). My wife has an Honda Accord, so we use her car for longer trips or swap cars if I need to go further than the LEAF's range for day. Whether it's "green" isn't even a factor, because the bottom line is it saves us money.
The panels could even be used as a roof over the road...most likely cheaper than these panels.
Good point.... and panels over roads could improve driver safety by blocking or reducing dangerous weather conditions that make road surfaces slippery or impede driver visibility, e.g. rain, snow, sun glare.
Hardening solar panels to withstand the wear of vehicles on them is fine for research, but you gotta believe there are other no-impact places to put them that would reduce the cost and win an argument for preference unequivocally when planning a big deployment.
That would be true in rural areas, but closer to the cities there is an awful lot of real estate taken up by roads.
If you can't think of under-used space to put solar panels other than high wear roads then you're not thinking hard enough. Off the top of my head solar panels could be placed more easily and operate more efficiently at...
-over parking lots
-over empty grass medians between divided highway/interstate roads
-on roofs of big-box stores, malls, office parks, industrial parks, stadiums, warehouses, gas station canopies, etc.
-over storm-water retention basins,
-over landfills
-on bridges
Most of the above are in close proximity to urban areas where the electricity is needed most. I support solar, but when there are so many other easy places to do it there's no reason to spend millions of dollars over-engineering our roads for an inherently inefficient solar source [because roads are typically flat, not angled].
A $10 starting price gives Nintendo flexibility to run sales to boost purchases when initial sales start tapering. When a $10 app has a 50% off sale it gets more attention than a $0.99 app; and at $5 Nintendo would still make a handy profit. If the price started at the bottom there's no where to go from there.
Besides, making $21 million in four days doesn't sounds like a problem to me. I doubt it cost Nintendo that much to design the game.
What Nintendo needs to do is sell a custom bluetooth case for the iPhone that essentially uses what the phone has (display/electronics etc) and adds what it is sorely lacking (real buttons, D pad/thumb stick, maybe speakers etc.)
Exactly this. Nintendo has the hardware design and manufacturing experience to easily do this. With a standardized controller Nintendo could simply repackage and resell their library of old games, which they are masters of. They wouldn't even have to bother developing new games to make this work, because even a straight port of original Metroid, Mario Bros, Kirby, Zelda, etc. would be more fun than 99% of mobiles games out there.
On Android there is a joystick standard. Just make a deal with one of the many nintendo emulators out there, and you could port ALL your titles and charge between .99 and 4.99 and people would loooove it.... There is tens of millions waiting on the table for just a negotiation with an emulator, and weeks worth of interns populating and uploading games.
It's a good idea and Nintendo is the undisputed expert at repackaging and reselling old games over and over again. Nintendo could even use their hardware experience to make a Nintendo-branded controller for mobile games with DRM baked into the controller, which would be hated by Slashdotters but average people wouldn't care and it could ease Nintendo's concern for their trademarks. I'm not a rose-tinted glasses nostalgic type for old games, but even I think re-playing a straight port of original Metroid on a mobile phone or tablet would be more fun than 99% of the mobile games available, including Mario Run.
...The last time I had to explain to a 5 year old why his game stop working when he gets in the car was not fun, I'd rather not go through that again.
I don't expect that I'll be able to hide the existence of the new Mario game from him forever, but I'll do my best to hide it for as long as I can.
You might not have to hide it that long, because as you I'm sure you know kids learn technology quickly. Before too long he'll probably be showing you how to work your phone and gadgets.
You can get a lot of free games for the price of a $10 app. I didn't even know there were $10 phone games. I'm not sure they've thought this through - But what do I know? I'm sure they've done their homework - That's why all this collected data is so valuable, right?
Square Enix has been pricing their various Final Fantasy and Dragon's Quest mobile games at $10-$20 (sometimes higher) for many years. The model seems to be working for them. Nintendo has a similar history and following as Square, so I expect it will probably work for them too.
A higher base price has advantages to a company beyond profit margins too. Price lets a company to differentiate their app from others in a crowded app market, and offer discounts to boost sales and interest. When an app is free, if active users and downloads drop there's nothing the developer can do to make the free app stand-out from the sea of other free apps. A price makes an app stand out and more so if you run a sale. But, if an app is $2 and they run a 50% off sale, few will care. If an app is $10 and they run a 50% off sale it's probably going to get more interest and sales.
Seemingly lost in the hyperbolic arguments above is that fake news websites phishing for clicks and ad revenue are a very real thing and if you haven't heard then you're just not paying attention... here's Fox News talking about it: http://video.foxnews.com/v/521... The original Slate article focuses heavily on the more controversial 3rd-party fact-checking so many arguing about, but this Wired article on Facebook's policy has a slightly different emphasis. https://www.wired.com/2016/12/... Most noteably Wired gives more details in how Facebook says they will check the source domains of articles to see if they are traceable to fake or spoofed websites and ultimately attempt to deincentivize fake news creators by hitting them in their ad revenue/pocketbooks. Facebook is trying to reduce the effect of fraudsters who are well documented by left and right leaning news sources. Rational people would keep the argument focused there.
It's disheartening to read the hyperbole, misdirection, and insults through this discussion on both sides. I've been less impressed with the contributions to Slashdot over the last year and this discussion is a new low for me.
How much are they really saving? Wouldn't it be a similar cost to just launch a new satellite than it would be to launch a larger servicing/refueling craft?
As someone mentioned if the launch vehicles can be reused then probably costs would be cheaper.
I think you also have to weigh the risks of launches. If a gov't or private company launches a replacement satellite and it blows up at launch or fails to reach orbit that could be very costly. If the satellite in orbit is working fine, then just launching some fuel or spare parts could be much less risky financially than launching a full replacement satellite. Along those lines, reducing the potential financial risk of launches can reduce launch costs throughout the industry. If a launch fails someone does pay for it somehow (e.g. a private reimbursement/guarantee, insurance policy, gov't backing, etc.) and one way or another that cost will be reflected in the larger costs of the satellite launching industry, so reducing financial risk of some launches should reduce costs everywhere.
Keep in mind too the article states this robot could potentially be used to gather or redirect space junk or asteroids, which despite sounding like long-shots could be very useful, and even an incremental step towards those goals could be valuable.