Because... sitting in front of computers, with a big screen showing a real time feed of any situations that need to be handled is a true indicator that things will get accomplished.
It's the lawyers who are making these decisions. If you get rid of all the lawyers, these types of abuses go away, and the business can get back to doing what they do best.
And if Google did do that there would be people who would cry and complain for entirely different reasons. Google knows that they can't please all the people all of the time, and I'm pretty sure they are ok with that.
An example of reasonable reasoning would be to fund a research effort because proven scientists and engineers think it is worthy, rather than to fund a research effort because a politician or a marketing guy says to do so.
You seem to be coming around to my original thoughts on this. Clearly you aren't advocating unfettered waste, and I have agreed all along that reasonable research should be funded. Knowledge can indeed have multiple benefits, and not everyone experiences each benefit.
BTW, I'm at least your age, and since you detected my idealism, I must ask: what happened to yours?
Your example ("Aftershow", wrt Jamie's elaborate bullet shield) identifies some avoidable waste. Was the "real gun shooting at a real person" test necessary for the result (the show), no. Some up-front thought would have negated the need for that effort and cost, and I would bet that Jamie and Adam (along with their lawyers) would agree it was some money they could have saved their investors. Is all research waste avoidable, no. But clearly some of the "Duh" research, that consumes public funds, is.
> You're citing a show that does experiments with (almost always) known outcomes as > your evidence of conducting beneficial research.
No, I cited a TV show as an example of making reasoned decisions about what to research and test in order to achieve a result. It's just an example, not a gold standard.
There exists reasonable reasoning that can and does define worthy versus unworthy research efforts. Just watch some episodes of Myth Busters, they do a great job of conducting beneficial research without getting bogged down with unnecessary or wasted effort.
Slashdot Mirror
....is this listed on /. under "apple"?
TFA seems like an advert for some patent analysis software.
Traffic is traffic. 6 days, to scale-up a financial infrastructure, is actually pretty good.
Because... sitting in front of computers, with a big screen showing a real time feed of any situations that need to be handled is a true indicator that things will get accomplished.
It's not a fix if they can, or might, undo it in the future.
This has been known since the Like button first appeared. Quit FB, or learn to use NoScript.
touché
Apple is late to the IP game. Still, when it's all said and done, the consumer is the loser, and will always be as long as mankind can patent ideas.
... Jeans
Duh, figures on Wikipedia seem to suggest otherwise:
92.1m(June 2010)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_mobile_network_operators_of_the_Americas&diff=379881459&oldid=379828763#United_States
93.2m (September 2010)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_mobile_network_operators_of_the_Americas&diff=405757817&oldid=404703849#United_States
Link?
How else would that industry be able to sell upgrades?
Spoken like a true lawyer!
It's the lawyers who are making these decisions. If you get rid of all the lawyers, these types of abuses go away, and the business can get back to doing what they do best.
Well yes, that was sort of implied as Google doesn't keep underperforming products around long.
And if Google did do that there would be people who would cry and complain for entirely different reasons. Google knows that they can't please all the people all of the time, and I'm pretty sure they are ok with that.
The solution is to charge a premium to iPhone users.
*this*
Really? You read all that in what I wrote?
An example of reasonable reasoning would be to fund a research effort because proven scientists and engineers think it is worthy, rather than to fund a research effort because a politician or a marketing guy says to do so.
Heh. Buy low, sell high.
You seem to be coming around to my original thoughts on this. Clearly you aren't advocating unfettered waste, and I have agreed all along that reasonable research should be funded. Knowledge can indeed have multiple benefits, and not everyone experiences each benefit.
BTW, I'm at least your age, and since you detected my idealism, I must ask: what happened to yours?
Your example ("Aftershow", wrt Jamie's elaborate bullet shield) identifies some avoidable waste. Was the "real gun shooting at a real person" test necessary for the result (the show), no. Some up-front thought would have negated the need for that effort and cost, and I would bet that Jamie and Adam (along with their lawyers) would agree it was some money they could have saved their investors. Is all research waste avoidable, no. But clearly some of the "Duh" research, that consumes public funds, is.
> You're citing a show that does experiments with (almost always) known outcomes as
> your evidence of conducting beneficial research.
No, I cited a TV show as an example of making reasoned decisions about what to research and test in order to achieve a result. It's just an example, not a gold standard.
There exists reasonable reasoning that can and does define worthy versus unworthy research efforts. Just watch some episodes of Myth Busters, they do a great job of conducting beneficial research without getting bogged down with unnecessary or wasted effort.
Research is research. Wasted research is wasted research. True scientists and engineers know the difference.