It would be nice to have hardware support.. and the support of Intel.. and guess they don't want to be accused of favoring some parties and not others.. and certainly there is a cost to adding to the hardware but still is it not also a chicken and egg problem?
In a Prius the engine still spins but it doesn't run (consume gas) and so it's easy to re-start on demand... although technically it isn't really stopped as much as its not producing power.
I saw a video of cars in San Diego (or some south western city) where the cars followed guide wires in the ground. Then all the cars acted much like a train.. but not coupled.. I like this area better than cars having to actually waste computer power to drive themselves (I would like a car that could drive me anywhere, but I would be happy with a commuter system that allowed the cloud to drive me using guide wires and sensors but not having to steer the car (except for exceptions.... vs. 100% driving by machine vision...)
The intent here is for a car like mine, a Prius which can have a stopped engine (gas) without actually stopping the car... or preventing it from driving..
Even when the gas engine is off, the motor is still spinning.. this seems to be a method for allowing the traffic control system to send a suggestion to my car, letting it know how much time will elapse before it will need to move allowing the car to decide turn off the engine (the engine is still spinning; in the case of my car)...
As long as this is a suggestion to participating cars and not an override.. then this is good.
I would like a future where I get on a highway and turn over control of my car to some cloud based computer which will control my cars and others allowing me to commute to my destination without the need to be aware or focused on driving.. and then some test to show I'm alert again and then having me take over controls when we hit the local roads..
the hyper polarized tabloid language. They are serial abusers of privacy...:(
They need to be taken to court and get a consent degree or something that is binding, otherwise they will keep on repeating this process of doing stuff until their victims complain too loud, and then make a half hearted "pull back" enough to appease the average 'protester' but then a few months later try it again and again...
Facebook management has a long history of flouting User Privacy concerns and then want the firestorm gets' large, they back off.. the issue is the long history of repeatedly doing this.. clearly the only thing they have learned is that if they make a mistake they can apologize for it later...
You are reading into what I wrote with your own bias clearly. There are ethical reporters and they are few and far between.. but they did once exist in a far greater #.
How Nixon gets' into the conversation I'm not sure. I am a huge support of Nixon.
You seem to really be attacking me and you don't know me.. you also seem to be missing the larger point of my post.
News used to come from reporters.. and some of it still does, full time professional ethically balanced reporters. These are different from news readers and talking heads who have a bias and and a point of view.
However more and more of what seems to be news is actually generated through the PR business; PR companies pitch stories to reporters looking for "news." Some time they provide footage and certainly make people available for interview including primary sources but also third parties who may seem neutral, etc.
As more and more news comes from the PR process, there is less and less need for the local news since they are not really reporting anything that could not be directly posted on YouTube. In the end we will have "news" channels' like http://gothamist.com/ which collects and presents, curates, and presents stories that other people have reported.
In the future we will have a few real reporters and the rest will be a collection of people who report ABOUT the news pushed by the PR folks. Collaborative filtering and other social filtering methods will help us find the news we need.
They don't have to be a public company.. when you are in the market, that's a risk and as others have said when perception, psychology or sentiment of traders changes so can your stock price. If your a well managed company with cash reserves it's a good time to buy back (assuming that's legal; there are of course restrictions on how insiders can trade).
If I had a public company and it was legal I would have it set up in our notices and in our filings so if there was ever a huge dip in the stock price that the company could instantly buy back stock.
My point being that Apple is far from changing the foundation of computers in the US or the planet. Don't get me wrong I like their stuff and I hate their pay walls.
It is a special purpose PC and I agree that it's a special purpose device, I did call it a "game console." But it comes from the PC universe and you can use it for Internet, etc.
In countries were people earn a few $1,000 a year or even a few hundred, I don't see how Apple could make a product cheap enough to make $$.. but it would be great if they had a $50 phone that worked on more than one network at a reasonable price (and on a network that works).
The computer, consumer electronic market and the gaming console market are like quick sand; its hard to say who is really winning or losing.
26% of the Planet is online.. but the vast majority of them are connecting with Mobile Devices. The rest are connecting with some type of Intel/AMD based device and some with other processors like ARM but very few of them (I don't have the exact percent) are running an Apple OS.
Thus in that context Apple while is winning in consumer electronics (phone, music play, etc.) versus Microsoft there is real competition and MS had phones for a lot longer. MS is winning over Apple in the gaming console area but has lots of competition from real gaming companies..
It's a really great video. Actually shows how it works and addresses pro's and con's.. i'm very impressed not only with the technology but the reporting and the video.
The article notes that the motor runs (or can run) at a constant speed, which isn't always the case for gas powered engines, although I'm sure they each have a good zone where they produce power effectively. It seems this type of transmission would be perfect for electric motors which can operate at a full constant level of power right off the line. It still seems like you would want a few power settings; one for heavy traffic, one for the city, one for the highway (at least).
I have a continuously variable transmission in my Prius; I am eager to learn how this differs when I read the article.
I did see something on one of the TV channels that electric cars with their really "high" off the line torque can benefit from this type of transmission because they can get maximum power to the wheels yet never spin.
yes, was hoping it was part of the regular data plan and it should have been.. but it's hard to have a phone w/ no cap and then allow eight users to bang on it.. so it's not as great as I would have liked but can understand sprints' position..
For those who need it, it's clearly a good value. Just wish there was a low volume alternative included "free" with the 70-120 dollar a month plans..
Slashdot Mirror
It would be nice to have hardware support.. and the support of Intel.. and guess they don't want to be accused of favoring some parties and not others.. and certainly there is a cost to adding to the hardware but still is it not also a chicken and egg problem?
In a Prius the engine still spins but it doesn't run (consume gas) and so it's easy to re-start on demand... although technically it isn't really stopped as much as its not producing power.
I saw a video of cars in San Diego (or some south western city) where the cars followed guide wires in the ground. Then all the cars acted much like a train.. but not coupled.. I like this area better than cars having to actually waste computer power to drive themselves (I would like a car that could drive me anywhere, but I would be happy with a commuter system that allowed the cloud to drive me using guide wires and sensors but not having to steer the car (except for exceptions.... vs. 100% driving by machine vision...)
The intent here is for a car like mine, a Prius which can have a stopped engine (gas) without actually stopping the car... or preventing it from driving..
Even when the gas engine is off, the motor is still spinning.. this seems to be a method for allowing the traffic control system to send a suggestion to my car, letting it know how much time will elapse before it will need to move allowing the car to decide turn off the engine (the engine is still spinning; in the case of my car)...
As long as this is a suggestion to participating cars and not an override.. then this is good.
I would like a future where I get on a highway and turn over control of my car to some cloud based computer which will control my cars and others allowing me to commute to my destination without the need to be aware or focused on driving.. and then some test to show I'm alert again and then having me take over controls when we hit the local roads..
the hyper polarized tabloid language. They are serial abusers of privacy... :(
They need to be taken to court and get a consent degree or something that is binding, otherwise they will keep on repeating this process of doing stuff until their victims complain too loud, and then make a half hearted "pull back" enough to appease the average 'protester' but then a few months later try it again and again...
Facebook management has a long history of flouting User Privacy concerns and then want the firestorm gets' large, they back off.. the issue is the long history of repeatedly doing this.. clearly the only thing they have learned is that if they make a mistake they can apologize for it later...
You are reading into what I wrote with your own bias clearly. There are ethical reporters and they are few and far between.. but they did once exist in a far greater #.
How Nixon gets' into the conversation I'm not sure. I am a huge support of Nixon.
You seem to really be attacking me and you don't know me.. you also seem to be missing the larger point of my post.
They are out there. I didn't say they all are; and I separated out the talking heads... who are not reporters either.
News used to come from reporters.. and some of it still does, full time professional ethically balanced reporters. These are different from news readers and talking heads who have a bias and and a point of view.
However more and more of what seems to be news is actually generated through the PR business; PR companies pitch stories to reporters looking for "news." Some time they provide footage and certainly make people available for interview including primary sources but also third parties who may seem neutral, etc.
As more and more news comes from the PR process, there is less and less need for the local news since they are not really reporting anything that could not be directly posted on YouTube. In the end we will have "news" channels' like http://gothamist.com/ which collects and presents, curates, and presents stories that other people have reported.
In the future we will have a few real reporters and the rest will be a collection of people who report ABOUT the news pushed by the PR folks. Collaborative filtering and other social filtering methods will help us find the news we need.
They don't have to be a public company.. when you are in the market, that's a risk and as others have said when perception, psychology or sentiment of traders changes so can your stock price. If your a well managed company with cash reserves it's a good time to buy back (assuming that's legal; there are of course restrictions on how insiders can trade).
If I had a public company and it was legal I would have it set up in our notices and in our filings so if there was ever a huge dip in the stock price that the company could instantly buy back stock.
cheap and actually have some functionality... Wifi is enough.. doesn't have to be cell based.. but we are talking about internet devices basically..
My point being that Apple is far from changing the foundation of computers in the US or the planet. Don't get me wrong I like their stuff and I hate their pay walls.
It is a special purpose PC and I agree that it's a special purpose device, I did call it a "game console." But it comes from the PC universe and you can use it for Internet, etc.
In countries were people earn a few $1,000 a year or even a few hundred, I don't see how Apple could make a product cheap enough to make $$.. but it would be great if they had a $50 phone that worked on more than one network at a reasonable price (and on a network that works).
Change tracking is important in my line of work. I know there are a few other features as well. Not mention graphics, etc.
yes. I made that point as a counter to the view that the "PC world is losing.. " since the MS console is basically a PC..
Agreed they have their limit but lets' also agree that what ever Apple does will be beyond their price range for many years...
And while it would suck to not have a PC and only have a phone, at least you get email, facebook, a few blogs as you suggest.. better than nothing.
The computer, consumer electronic market and the gaming console market are like quick sand; its hard to say who is really winning or losing.
26% of the Planet is online.. but the vast majority of them are connecting with Mobile Devices. The rest are connecting with some type of Intel/AMD based device and some with other processors like ARM but very few of them (I don't have the exact percent) are running an Apple OS.
Thus in that context Apple while is winning in consumer electronics (phone, music play, etc.) versus Microsoft there is real competition and MS had phones for a lot longer. MS is winning over Apple in the gaming console area but has lots of competition from real gaming companies..
http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
When you open a DOCX or DOC file in Google Docs it converts them and Google Docs doesn't have the same functionality either.
But in terms of the data, it's not Google's fault that MS hasn't created an open standard for the document files..
Might even be good for driving the prop in a submarine etc. where you could get the motors, etc. in a low sound "RPM" and sound proof the gears..
Thanks
It's a really great video. Actually shows how it works and addresses pro's and con's.. i'm very impressed not only with the technology but the reporting and the video.
The article notes that the motor runs (or can run) at a constant speed, which isn't always the case for gas powered engines, although I'm sure they each have a good zone where they produce power effectively. It seems this type of transmission would be perfect for electric motors which can operate at a full constant level of power right off the line. It still seems like you would want a few power settings; one for heavy traffic, one for the city, one for the highway (at least).
I have a continuously variable transmission in my Prius; I am eager to learn how this differs when I read the article.
I did see something on one of the TV channels that electric cars with their really "high" off the line torque can benefit from this type of transmission because they can get maximum power to the wheels yet never spin.
I always loved the way the Amiga offered functions other computers of the same era never came close to matching..
I love the quote from the owner who produced the working model.. "My Amiga Killed a Troll!"
yes, was hoping it was part of the regular data plan and it should have been.. but it's hard to have a phone w/ no cap and then allow eight users to bang on it.. so it's not as great as I would have liked but can understand sprints' position..
For those who need it, it's clearly a good value. Just wish there was a low volume alternative included "free" with the 70-120 dollar a month plans..