Patients aren't told as much as you would think. When my infant son got his, we were given a list that basically included anything wireless. It wasn't until we asked around a little before we got more reasonable information.
With that in mind, this article taught me something new. I had always assumed interference was related to the wireless nature of pacemakers. My son's is regularly re-programmed via a wireless device set anywhere near his chest. I had assumed if there was a problem it would be related to whatever memory was being programmed. The ipod article suggests the interference is just an interruption between the device and its leads. They suggest the interference won't cause lasting problems once the patient is separated from the interfering device. That's not something that was in the 50 page booklet that they provided with the pacemaker.
You are looking at it from only one side, the consumer's. What you say would be true if there existed only one supplier. When you add more suppliers in free competition, the price is defined by competition among sellers.
You make it sound like he was making stuff up off the top of his head. He was explaining the laws of supply and demand. Adding competition to the mix changes nothing (as if all the economists in the world got together to create the laws of supply and demand and forgot about competition).
Competition decreases demand, moving the demand curve lower. The seller still needs to decide if the price point is profitable enough before deciding whether or not to sell. The cost of production still doesn't effect the price... just whether or not the product will be sold.
AppleTV doesn't have downloads. Its plays back downloads from the iTunes music store which were around before the XBox 360.
Your also missing the parent's point. Microsoft is adding support for codecs in reaction to AppleTv. There's nothing for Microsoft to be ashamed of here, MSFanBoi. They're just listening to the market.
In the end does the stock price really matter to Google?
In my opinion google is doing a very good job of looking long term. It's a concept that many companies don't grasp, and was especially absent in the bubble. Ironically this long term mentality has put them at odds with the type of people who buy their stock. I'm under the impression that the leaders at Google are more interested in putting together a legacy than keeping the stock price up. They've already cached in enough (as a company, not just as individuals) to keep the dream rolling for years to come. I expect them to continue to be a R&D style company that isn't really trying to make money, but will cache in on an existing project if money is ever needed.
Are you asking how effective the ads are in terms of 'clicks per page impression'. That won't matter because advertisers only pay for the clicks. How well the clicks translate into sales can many times be measured directly by the advertiser (assuming the sales are online). So advertisers have a very good idea of how much these ads are worth to them, which is part of the appeal of this kind of advertising.
The real threat to google's advertising model is click fraud (and the fact that advertising revenues can't possibly grow fast enough to catch up to the companies market cap).
But instead of having to actively re-render the filters each time you want to make a change, as you would with Photoshop, you can just adjust the filter's settings in realtime (or close enough to realtime)
This doesn't really contradict your post, but I thought I'd clarify: Photoshop does have adjustment layers which act similarly to Aperture's non-destructive editing. But since they were 5 or 6 versions into their product before they thought of non-destructive editing, they still use destructive editing for the bulk of their processing (filters are a good example). Also, Photoshop rasterizes the RAW image on import (via camera raw), so using an adjustment at that point is just non-destructivly editing the rasterized copy of the RAW image.
Apple has the huge advantage of hindsight over Adobe. Microsoft has used that same advantage to create a tool that supports both rasters and vectors (both the simple Illustrator kind and the complicated Painter kind). It will be interesting to see how the market shakes out over the next couple years.
Pump out bad superhero movie after bad superhero movie and suddenly everyone is interested in the slasher revival, or really great pulp action movies, or (gasp) well written dialog with deep characters. After 10 movies, won't people want to see something... else?
This is exactly why Marvel is making the movies themselves. After the studios trashed the Electra script (Jennifer Gardner almost left after the rewrite), Marvel figured out that they can't trust the studios to put together a thoughtful deep movie. The studios just want a formula movie that opens well. Marvel wants to protect their characters.
I don't believe a large volume of movies will hurt anything as long as the stories are good. I know I've seen at least a half dozen comic movies in the last few years (some good, some bad). When it comes to telling all the good stories already out there in the comic book world, I don't feel like they've even scratched the surface. I look forward to seeing more.
I'm simply pointing out that the reason they reached this conclusion wasn't because they were using StarOffice, but because everybody else was using Microsoft Office.
Actually your point was that cops don't need sophisticated word processors. You said they should be using text editors instead. You reached this conclusion by trivializing their job responsibilities based on your knowledge of their industry (which you probably got by watching Dragnet).
I imagine arguing is a lot easier when you can change your central argument at any time, but keep in mind that all your previous posts are still here. We know what you said.
I'm in the exact opposite position. All our applications are heavy on data entry and visualization. Every company I go to is the same. They want to make web apps because that's what they hear they should be doing; but all their applications are built for a single platform, a very small set of users, and an interface that must be tight and interactive.
Although an online store makes for a great web site, we haven't found a good reason to restart a manufacture line from a web page yet... but we have people thinking about it!
Ok, without wishing to start an OS flame war, I have to point out that XP can do all of that, in almost exactly the same manner.
XP doesn't support any of these features. XP leaves drag and drop support to the applications. Office chooses to implement many of the features but few other applications do.
Open source is just software's way of commoditizing. While in the electronics industry, chips, memory and capacitors became commodities; in software web servers, some libraries, web browsers and operating systems and languages have become commodities. The difference between commodities in software and in other industries is that software can be much easier to duplicate. Portability and reusability of the code and the license are the only things keeping all software from being commodities. There is very little reason to pay people to invent a better web browser because we have more pressing issues. Most of those issues involve more domain knowledge than technical knowledge.
If we do our jobs right, we will eventually eliminate the need for our jobs. That's fine with me. There are plenty of interesting puzzles left to solve.
No one is talking about taking movies out of the theaters. They just want them on DVD sooner. Some of us don't appreciate the movie theater experience, but still love movies. By holding movies back from DVD release the studio's allow the good movies to float to the top and the bad movies to sink before the home viewers get a shot at them. As home viewers become more and more of the market, this means that the studio has less and less control of sales through marketing. DVD renters have already been warned about the crappy movies and won't watch them. They turn towards the good movies that may have been under-marketed, but were recommended by others. This lack of control is seen by the studio as a very bad thing. The solution is to shorten the theatrical run.
This is all fine with me, as I would rather watch a bad movie in my home, than a good one in the theater. I can't remember the last time I left a theater in a good mood. For those of you who like the theaters (you don't have to explain your reasoning to me), the experience is not going away. You just won't be holding on to a monopoly over new movies any more. If you're really there for the experience, it shouldn't bother you.
That reminds me of an issue I once had with Linux. I had just installed linux (can't remember which distro, had this issue with, but the environment was Gnome). My scroll wheel on my mouse didn't work, so I found the configuration screen to configure the mouse. I changed the option from three button mouse to scroll mouse. When I saved the changes, my mouse stopped working. So I used the keyboard to reload the configuration screen, and tried to tab over the the list of mouse drivers... but the tab order didn't go through the list! I had to use my mac to lookup the correct text file to edit to get my mouse back.
I'm sure it's been fixed by now, but at the time, I was very frustrated with the state of things on the linux desktop.
Microsoft hasn't been able to leverage their OS monompoly against Google yet. I'm sure they will think of ways eventually.
One method might be XAML. All the new Avalon features found in Longhorn are deployable over the web (kind of like Java WebStart). This would allow.net apps that were written for longhorn to be embeded in a web page (a little like activeX, but it's all in a managed environment, and supposedly safer).
Google wouldn't touch XAML, because they want to keep cross platform/browser compatibility (something I think they could still do better at). But XAML will allow Microsoft to write rich web-like apps in a fraction of the time it takes Google to write it's javascript/css monstrosities.
I'm not saying it will work. Just saying this might be their strategy.
You just don't get it. Podcasting isn't about blogging with audio, or time shifting radio programs. Its about distributing radio programs. If you think of Tivo as a hack that creates an on-demand system out of a streaming media, podcasting is the on-demand system that Tivo wanted to be. It's just a new buzz word for audio on demand. It is overhyped, but it isn't a fad. One day, this is how we'll watch the news on TV.
What bothers me about this (if it's true), is to see Apple trying to compete in the feature matrix wars. Putting another check in a feature matrix is not what Apple does best. Trying to compete on that level will only get them into trouble. I'd much rather see them continue to bring us well designed products that fill an existing need.
Slashdot Mirror
Patients aren't told as much as you would think. When my infant son got his, we were given a list that basically included anything wireless. It wasn't until we asked around a little before we got more reasonable information.
With that in mind, this article taught me something new. I had always assumed interference was related to the wireless nature of pacemakers. My son's is regularly re-programmed via a wireless device set anywhere near his chest. I had assumed if there was a problem it would be related to whatever memory was being programmed. The ipod article suggests the interference is just an interruption between the device and its leads. They suggest the interference won't cause lasting problems once the patient is separated from the interfering device. That's not something that was in the 50 page booklet that they provided with the pacemaker.
You make it sound like he was making stuff up off the top of his head. He was explaining the laws of supply and demand. Adding competition to the mix changes nothing (as if all the economists in the world got together to create the laws of supply and demand and forgot about competition).
Competition decreases demand, moving the demand curve lower. The seller still needs to decide if the price point is profitable enough before deciding whether or not to sell. The cost of production still doesn't effect the price... just whether or not the product will be sold.
Did I say any of those things? Did I even imply them?
Wait... I just remebered why I had stopped reading Slashdot comments.
AppleTV doesn't have downloads. Its plays back downloads from the iTunes music store which were around before the XBox 360.
Your also missing the parent's point. Microsoft is adding support for codecs in reaction to AppleTv. There's nothing for Microsoft to be ashamed of here, MSFanBoi. They're just listening to the market.
In the end does the stock price really matter to Google?
In my opinion google is doing a very good job of looking long term. It's a concept that many companies don't grasp, and was especially absent in the bubble. Ironically this long term mentality has put them at odds with the type of people who buy their stock. I'm under the impression that the leaders at Google are more interested in putting together a legacy than keeping the stock price up. They've already cached in enough (as a company, not just as individuals) to keep the dream rolling for years to come. I expect them to continue to be a R&D style company that isn't really trying to make money, but will cache in on an existing project if money is ever needed.
Are you asking how effective the ads are in terms of 'clicks per page impression'. That won't matter because advertisers only pay for the clicks. How well the clicks translate into sales can many times be measured directly by the advertiser (assuming the sales are online). So advertisers have a very good idea of how much these ads are worth to them, which is part of the appeal of this kind of advertising.
The real threat to google's advertising model is click fraud (and the fact that advertising revenues can't possibly grow fast enough to catch up to the companies market cap).
Google doesn't seem to be placing any ads yet: http://scruffles.googlepages.com/
And what is the difference between this and a new linux distro?
But instead of having to actively re-render the filters each time you want to make a change, as you would with Photoshop, you can just adjust the filter's settings in realtime (or close enough to realtime)
This doesn't really contradict your post, but I thought I'd clarify: Photoshop does have adjustment layers which act similarly to Aperture's non-destructive editing. But since they were 5 or 6 versions into their product before they thought of non-destructive editing, they still use destructive editing for the bulk of their processing (filters are a good example). Also, Photoshop rasterizes the RAW image on import (via camera raw), so using an adjustment at that point is just non-destructivly editing the rasterized copy of the RAW image.
Apple has the huge advantage of hindsight over Adobe. Microsoft has used that same advantage to create a tool that supports both rasters and vectors (both the simple Illustrator kind and the complicated Painter kind). It will be interesting to see how the market shakes out over the next couple years.
songs over 14 years should be public domain
Obviously not, or the spell check in the native text field would have caught his typos.
Pump out bad superhero movie after bad superhero movie and suddenly everyone is interested in the slasher revival, or really great pulp action movies, or (gasp) well written dialog with deep characters. After 10 movies, won't people want to see something... else?
This is exactly why Marvel is making the movies themselves. After the studios trashed the Electra script (Jennifer Gardner almost left after the rewrite), Marvel figured out that they can't trust the studios to put together a thoughtful deep movie. The studios just want a formula movie that opens well. Marvel wants to protect their characters.
I don't believe a large volume of movies will hurt anything as long as the stories are good. I know I've seen at least a half dozen comic movies in the last few years (some good, some bad). When it comes to telling all the good stories already out there in the comic book world, I don't feel like they've even scratched the surface. I look forward to seeing more.
I'm simply pointing out that the reason they reached this conclusion wasn't because they were using StarOffice, but because everybody else was using Microsoft Office.
Actually your point was that cops don't need sophisticated word processors. You said they should be using text editors instead. You reached this conclusion by trivializing their job responsibilities based on your knowledge of their industry (which you probably got by watching Dragnet).
I imagine arguing is a lot easier when you can change your central argument at any time, but keep in mind that all your previous posts are still here. We know what you said.
I'm in the exact opposite position. All our applications are heavy on data entry and visualization. Every company I go to is the same. They want to make web apps because that's what they hear they should be doing; but all their applications are built for a single platform, a very small set of users, and an interface that must be tight and interactive.
Although an online store makes for a great web site, we haven't found a good reason to restart a manufacture line from a web page yet... but we have people thinking about it!
Ok, without wishing to start an OS flame war, I have to point out that XP can do all of that, in almost exactly the same manner.
XP doesn't support any of these features. XP leaves drag and drop support to the applications. Office chooses to implement many of the features but few other applications do.
Open source is just software's way of commoditizing. While in the electronics industry, chips, memory and capacitors became commodities; in software web servers, some libraries, web browsers and operating systems and languages have become commodities. The difference between commodities in software and in other industries is that software can be much easier to duplicate. Portability and reusability of the code and the license are the only things keeping all software from being commodities. There is very little reason to pay people to invent a better web browser because we have more pressing issues. Most of those issues involve more domain knowledge than technical knowledge.
If we do our jobs right, we will eventually eliminate the need for our jobs. That's fine with me. There are plenty of interesting puzzles left to solve.
No one is talking about taking movies out of the theaters. They just want them on DVD sooner. Some of us don't appreciate the movie theater experience, but still love movies. By holding movies back from DVD release the studio's allow the good movies to float to the top and the bad movies to sink before the home viewers get a shot at them. As home viewers become more and more of the market, this means that the studio has less and less control of sales through marketing. DVD renters have already been warned about the crappy movies and won't watch them. They turn towards the good movies that may have been under-marketed, but were recommended by others. This lack of control is seen by the studio as a very bad thing. The solution is to shorten the theatrical run.
This is all fine with me, as I would rather watch a bad movie in my home, than a good one in the theater. I can't remember the last time I left a theater in a good mood. For those of you who like the theaters (you don't have to explain your reasoning to me), the experience is not going away. You just won't be holding on to a monopoly over new movies any more. If you're really there for the experience, it shouldn't bother you.
I guess this was after 'Sliders'?
It might have been two years ago now
MSN have more than a screenshot, they have video
errr. so does Keyhole. Google Earth is just a beta. They don't need marketing material yet. They're not done.
That reminds me of an issue I once had with Linux. I had just installed linux (can't remember which distro, had this issue with, but the environment was Gnome). My scroll wheel on my mouse didn't work, so I found the configuration screen to configure the mouse. I changed the option from three button mouse to scroll mouse. When I saved the changes, my mouse stopped working. So I used the keyboard to reload the configuration screen, and tried to tab over the the list of mouse drivers... but the tab order didn't go through the list! I had to use my mac to lookup the correct text file to edit to get my mouse back.
I'm sure it's been fixed by now, but at the time, I was very frustrated with the state of things on the linux desktop.
The only platform I have that I have had trouble pulling the files off of the iPod on is Mac.
The cp command works for me. Maybe I need to try something less obvious?
Microsoft hasn't been able to leverage their OS monompoly against Google yet. I'm sure they will think of ways eventually.
.net apps that were written for longhorn to be embeded in a web page (a little like activeX, but it's all in a managed environment, and supposedly safer).
One method might be XAML. All the new Avalon features found in Longhorn are deployable over the web (kind of like Java WebStart). This would allow
Google wouldn't touch XAML, because they want to keep cross platform/browser compatibility (something I think they could still do better at). But XAML will allow Microsoft to write rich web-like apps in a fraction of the time it takes Google to write it's javascript/css monstrosities.
I'm not saying it will work. Just saying this might be their strategy.
Podcasting is a fad.
You just don't get it. Podcasting isn't about blogging with audio, or time shifting radio programs. Its about distributing radio programs. If you think of Tivo as a hack that creates an on-demand system out of a streaming media, podcasting is the on-demand system that Tivo wanted to be. It's just a new buzz word for audio on demand. It is overhyped, but it isn't a fad. One day, this is how we'll watch the news on TV.
What bothers me about this (if it's true), is to see Apple trying to compete in the feature matrix wars. Putting another check in a feature matrix is not what Apple does best. Trying to compete on that level will only get them into trouble. I'd much rather see them continue to bring us well designed products that fill an existing need.