Honestly you can build a modest, normal sized home that can do most of this without any "high tech" by using building techniques from the 1950's and 1960's and modern insulation.
Apparently you haven't been in many houses built in the 50's and 60's...
Pressed board siding, blown in paper insulation, thin walls, single pane windows, substandard wiring, no weather wrapping, inefficient heating and cooling... only someone who literally knew *nothing* about house construction or was high as a kite would say houses built in the 50's and 60's were superior in *any* way to today. That was the initial "suburbia" boom and houses were slapped together as quickly and inexpensively as possible -- and there were no modern codes to ensure they were done well. If you were to pick ANY decades that, hands down, produced the worst quality construction in the last 125 years, those would be it. (Although, arguably, if you look at the rise of slap-together condo construction in the late 70's and early 80's, those would be worse... but its a small part of the market.)
If you're trying to wax nostalgic about structural quality, you need to go a LOT farther back than that, back to pre-WWII, when houses were built to last... but even those are a joke when it comes to energy efficiency. There's nothing you can do with modern insulation to fix a house with 4" thick exterior walls, short of filling them with aerogels... which is why modern houses in cold climates require 6"-8" exterior walls, with appropriate insulation, appropriately sealed windows, proper siding and home wrap.
I've been in the industry nearly 15 years now. I think not having a degree has only come up maybe one or two times. Sure didn't stop me from getting recruited by Microsoft.
IMO, all things considered, that being on your resume would help more than any degree. Say what you want about Microsoft, the company, or their products, but if there's one thing they do well its hire and mentor engineers. Microsoft experience trumps degree any day when I'm hiring.
The fact that we are repeating the insanity does not make it any more sane. All it really demonstrates is that we fail to learn from history.
You aren't a farmer right now because of those laws. Something you'd understand if you "learned from history". Industrialization happened (globally, not just in the US) in countries that protected intellectual property. (Hell, even China started to see significant growth in quality of life for its population once it started to crack down on it.)
Individuals and companies that aren't rewarded for their risk don't take the risk.
You may wish to believe otherwise, but that's a cold, hard fact backed by direct evidence.
This is the key problem. Microsoft has not contributed (from what I can tell) any useful advice, experience, designs or code to Android. So no, in my book, they deserve not a red cent of profit from the Android markets.
That's a pretty ignorant position to take, lacking even a single bit of information on the subject. That's simply an attempt at "I know what I want to think, and I'll try to talk like its a rational position".
Just curious, but when has Microsoft refused top license something?
But hey, why be accurate, right? No point being accurate.. being right and shit is for suckers.
You're exactly right. Microsoft spends nearly $10b a year in pure research, and loves licensing patents on that research. They make a significant chunk of revenue on patents on a ton of things -- not just hardware and software. And they're very aggressive about cross-licensing. That's why the amount MS makes off an Android phone varies by manufacturer -- the license costs cover just the value imbalance of the cross-licensed portfolios. (As they should!)
That's how technology companies have worked since they came into existence, its nothing new, and its (frankly) not broken these days. The system is working exactly as designed, and exactly as it has for 150+ years.
Great. So we've gone from big companies sueing each other into oblivion, to big companies forming powerful patent cabals. Must suck to be part of a start-up.
No, that's how the economy has worked since the start of the industrial revolution, and precisely the intent of patent law. Its been just fine for startups for 200 years. You either pay to license IP, or you develop something substantial enough on your own to warrant cross-licensing.
Google "patent thicket" and get reading. Of particular interest are loom and sewing machine companies of the 1800's, the telegraph companies of the 1800's and the mechanical calculator companies of the late 19th and early 20th century. There's some good stories to be had there, and they'll open your eyes.
When playing a game, I can easily tell if it's running at 30 fps or 60 fps, and I *much* prefer the higher framerate, for obvious reasons. It'll definitely take a bit of getting used to when it comes to moves, but it is no doubt a good thing.
Strangely enough, I enjoy high framerate film, but I can't manage to stomach PC gaming precisely because of the high frame rate.
I would be willing to see it in 48fps (as a second viewing), but likely never will get the chance to see it, because that version is only offered in 3D. Beyond the fact that I don't see any benefit to 3D, it gives me a massive headache within minutes.
I still don't understand the industry's obsession with 3D. Even my young nieces and nephews don't care about it. Never mind...I do understand. They get more money for it. I wonder if that actually makes 3D a boon for theaters too small to afford the new projectors.
When you use a federated single-sign-on capability like this, your password is NEVER sent to the service provider (the one you're logging in to using you Yahoo/Facebook/Google/etc account). It is only sent to the authenticating service (the identity provider), who already has it, and then that provider generates a signed message in a specific format (OpenID, SAML, etc) that vouches for your identity to the other site. In this model, your password is actually exposed LESS than if you create an account at the site in question.
How can you know that at any random 3rd party website? Sure that is ideally how it works, but theres nothing to stop someone to add a 'log in with facebook button' and capture your entries. Do we want to teach random users to simply trust anything with a facebook logo on it and forget about the age old advice of having separate passwords for everywhere you go?
They link you over to the destination identity provider. The safest way is to login directly to Facebook and then login with your FB credentials to the other site -- you're already logged in and Facebook will just ask you for permission to pass the authentication along. Same thing happens with Microsoft accounts and Google accounts (the other two big ones).
And will last for a few hours until your supply of fuel runs out. Remember please that the gas station pumps are electric powered so if the power goes out you cannot get more gas than you have on hand.
Sheesh, kids these days. That's what your neighbor's gas tank and 5' of plastic hose are for...
Don't knock it, man... it was good practice for not being a two pump chump with the ladies. When it takes 15 minutes of watching the paper scroll to get to the good part, you learned to take your time...
Or even a server. In spite of your low/. id#, that made me laugh.
Windows 8, Windows Server 2012 and Windows Server 2012 HPC are all essentially the same OS. GUI aside, so is WP8.
That's one set of services that run from your phone onto top-25 caliber supercomputer clusters. WP8 aside, you can write one program and have that binary run, without recompiling or any code changes, on Windows 8 and a top-tier compute cluster. Hell, pay a few tens of thousands of dollars and you can take your app from your desktop and run it on an Azure compute cluster scaled nearly as high as your money will go.
Isn't MS planning on doing the same thing apple is through the windows store? and isn't the windows store the only way to get things on Windows RT?
No, Microsoft takes 30% or less on transactions they run, but developers can collect money any way they want. An app can be free through the store and paid for via a license key bought on a company website if the developer wants to build their own infrastructure for that.
Apple says, in essence, you can't sell content or features in an application through any mechanism but theirs, and they get the 30% in perpetuity if that sale is a subscription. That's why you can buy things in the Kindle app on Windows 8 but not on iOS. Microsoft isn't saying "you have to sell your application and anything associated with it through us", they're simply saying "you can only distribute modern apps via the Windows Store". You can monetize those via their services for 30%, or you can do it yourself via another mechanism and pay the percentage the other registration service charges. Or DIY and pay the processor fees.
It's Apple's platform. I agree that a 30% cut is a bit too much, and there could be tiers introduced based on company size, revenue, etc., but to manage this would probably be a bit too much for them, although it would be beneficial for small startups.
Devil's advocate here. If I manufacture a brick, I set the price that I am willing to sell that brick to a brick store. That brick store can then apply whatever margin they wish to my brick before they sell it to the public. While I can recommend a retail price (MSRP) I cannot enforce that price without simply not selling my bricks to the brick store. I set the price of my brick at the amount I need to cover cost of manufacturing plus some profit. If the brick store's retail price is so high that it discourages people from buying my bricks, I have no recourse. I can certainly request a price drop but have no real influence other than ceasing my supply.
Why would the digital distribution model be any different?
That's a bad analogy. Microsoft's concern isn't the 30% on the sale, its the recurring 30% for anyone buying Office365 via the iOS version of the application, even when people use it on other platforms or completely discontinue use on iOS. A better analogy would be buying Photoshop on iOS and Apple forcing Adobe to pay them 30% when you buy it for Windows later.
The really interesting opportunity is to unify all of these different kinds of computing. Let's make one OS that runs on the phone AND on your supercomputer
Like... Windows 8?
Not trying to suggest its not good for Ubuntu to do so, but does he really not understand that a) its not a new idea and b) already exists? Is he answering/. questions with marketing-quality responses?
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly you can build a modest, normal sized home that can do most of this without any "high tech" by using building techniques from the 1950's and 1960's and modern insulation.
Apparently you haven't been in many houses built in the 50's and 60's...
Pressed board siding, blown in paper insulation, thin walls, single pane windows, substandard wiring, no weather wrapping, inefficient heating and cooling ... only someone who literally knew *nothing* about house construction or was high as a kite would say houses built in the 50's and 60's were superior in *any* way to today. That was the initial "suburbia" boom and houses were slapped together as quickly and inexpensively as possible -- and there were no modern codes to ensure they were done well. If you were to pick ANY decades that, hands down, produced the worst quality construction in the last 125 years, those would be it. (Although, arguably, if you look at the rise of slap-together condo construction in the late 70's and early 80's, those would be worse... but its a small part of the market.)
If you're trying to wax nostalgic about structural quality, you need to go a LOT farther back than that, back to pre-WWII, when houses were built to last... but even those are a joke when it comes to energy efficiency. There's nothing you can do with modern insulation to fix a house with 4" thick exterior walls, short of filling them with aerogels... which is why modern houses in cold climates require 6"-8" exterior walls, with appropriate insulation, appropriately sealed windows, proper siding and home wrap.
If I paid for the food that made that heat, and paid to be in the space they're using to collect that heat, I'm sending someone a bill...
I've been in the industry nearly 15 years now. I think not having a degree has only come up maybe one or two times. Sure didn't stop me from getting recruited by Microsoft.
IMO, all things considered, that being on your resume would help more than any degree. Say what you want about Microsoft, the company, or their products, but if there's one thing they do well its hire and mentor engineers. Microsoft experience trumps degree any day when I'm hiring.
I really can't see one.
Its not rocket science.
Wait, yes it is. That might be your problem.
The fact that we are repeating the insanity does not make it any more sane. All it really demonstrates is that we fail to learn from history.
You aren't a farmer right now because of those laws. Something you'd understand if you "learned from history". Industrialization happened (globally, not just in the US) in countries that protected intellectual property. (Hell, even China started to see significant growth in quality of life for its population once it started to crack down on it.)
Individuals and companies that aren't rewarded for their risk don't take the risk.
You may wish to believe otherwise, but that's a cold, hard fact backed by direct evidence.
This is the key problem. Microsoft has not contributed (from what I can tell) any useful advice, experience, designs or code to Android. So no, in my book, they deserve not a red cent of profit from the Android markets.
That's a pretty ignorant position to take, lacking even a single bit of information on the subject. That's simply an attempt at "I know what I want to think, and I'll try to talk like its a rational position".
Just curious, but when has Microsoft refused top license something?
But hey, why be accurate, right? No point being accurate.. being right and shit is for suckers.
You're exactly right. Microsoft spends nearly $10b a year in pure research, and loves licensing patents on that research. They make a significant chunk of revenue on patents on a ton of things -- not just hardware and software. And they're very aggressive about cross-licensing. That's why the amount MS makes off an Android phone varies by manufacturer -- the license costs cover just the value imbalance of the cross-licensed portfolios. (As they should!)
That's how technology companies have worked since they came into existence, its nothing new, and its (frankly) not broken these days. The system is working exactly as designed, and exactly as it has for 150+ years.
Great. So we've gone from big companies sueing each other into oblivion, to big companies forming powerful patent cabals. Must suck to be part of a start-up.
No, that's how the economy has worked since the start of the industrial revolution, and precisely the intent of patent law. Its been just fine for startups for 200 years. You either pay to license IP, or you develop something substantial enough on your own to warrant cross-licensing.
Google "patent thicket" and get reading. Of particular interest are loom and sewing machine companies of the 1800's, the telegraph companies of the 1800's and the mechanical calculator companies of the late 19th and early 20th century. There's some good stories to be had there, and they'll open your eyes.
Thank-you.
I thought it was pretty damn cool ... back in 1998.
Its interesting there's still cycles being spent on it. Good for them.
How can 3.2km be the closest asteroid flyby when Hayabusa returned a sample from an asteroid?
http://www.space.com/9538-asteroid-dust-successfully-returned-japanese-space-probe.html
I guess I'll have to RTFA...
Arguably that's a fly-to, not a fly-by.
This was done better and cheaper than the USA could have accomplished.
Don't forget, this is the Chinese with a history of faking scientific discoveries and other things.
When it's independently verified, then I'll believe it.
Astronomers have been tracking it for months... There's no faking going on.
When playing a game, I can easily tell if it's running at 30 fps or 60 fps, and I *much* prefer the higher framerate, for obvious reasons. It'll definitely take a bit of getting used to when it comes to moves, but it is no doubt a good thing.
Strangely enough, I enjoy high framerate film, but I can't manage to stomach PC gaming precisely because of the high frame rate.
I would be willing to see it in 48fps (as a second viewing), but likely never will get the chance to see it, because that version is only offered in 3D. Beyond the fact that I don't see any benefit to 3D, it gives me a massive headache within minutes.
I still don't understand the industry's obsession with 3D. Even my young nieces and nephews don't care about it. Never mind...I do understand. They get more money for it. I wonder if that actually makes 3D a boon for theaters too small to afford the new projectors.
Wear an eyepatch.
When you use a federated single-sign-on capability like this, your password is NEVER sent to the service provider (the one you're logging in to using you Yahoo/Facebook/Google/etc account). It is only sent to the authenticating service (the identity provider), who already has it, and then that provider generates a signed message in a specific format (OpenID, SAML, etc) that vouches for your identity to the other site. In this model, your password is actually exposed LESS than if you create an account at the site in question.
How can you know that at any random 3rd party website? Sure that is ideally how it works, but theres nothing to stop someone to add a 'log in with facebook button' and capture your entries. Do we want to teach random users to simply trust anything with a facebook logo on it and forget about the age old advice of having separate passwords for everywhere you go?
They link you over to the destination identity provider. The safest way is to login directly to Facebook and then login with your FB credentials to the other site -- you're already logged in and Facebook will just ask you for permission to pass the authentication along. Same thing happens with Microsoft accounts and Google accounts (the other two big ones).
And will last for a few hours until your supply of fuel runs out. Remember please that the gas station pumps are electric powered so if the power goes out you cannot get more gas than you have on hand.
Sheesh, kids these days. That's what your neighbor's gas tank and 5' of plastic hose are for ...
Lead batteries clean?
Affordable??? (laughing)
Safe? Not sure how solar panels on my roof and a bank of car batteries in my basement is safer than getting my electricity from the grid?
If you recycle them instead of tossing them in a river, yes.
Why would a data set of three have any statistical relevance out of a set of 50,000?
Oh yeah, it doesn't. But congrats on avoiding being scammed.
I don't think you know what a line printer is (was). They printed over 500 lines per minute back in the 1950s.
At 300 baud, they didn't...
ASCII porn on the line printer.
Don't knock it, man... it was good practice for not being a two pump chump with the ladies. When it takes 15 minutes of watching the paper scroll to get to the good part, you learned to take your time ...
If you HAVE a 386, don't you also REALLY want a pre-2.0 kernel, anyway? :-)
Real men run .99, and wait 16 hours for their kernel to compile.
(Of course, that was 1/4 the time it took X to compile ...)
Or even a server. In spite of your low /. id#, that made me laugh.
Windows 8, Windows Server 2012 and Windows Server 2012 HPC are all essentially the same OS. GUI aside, so is WP8.
That's one set of services that run from your phone onto top-25 caliber supercomputer clusters. WP8 aside, you can write one program and have that binary run, without recompiling or any code changes, on Windows 8 and a top-tier compute cluster. Hell, pay a few tens of thousands of dollars and you can take your app from your desktop and run it on an Azure compute cluster scaled nearly as high as your money will go.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/windowsazure/archive/2012/11/13/windows-azure-benchmarks-show-top-performance-for-big-compute.aspx
Might find that informative.
Isn't MS planning on doing the same thing apple is through the windows store? and isn't the windows store the only way to get things on Windows RT?
No, Microsoft takes 30% or less on transactions they run, but developers can collect money any way they want. An app can be free through the store and paid for via a license key bought on a company website if the developer wants to build their own infrastructure for that.
Apple says, in essence, you can't sell content or features in an application through any mechanism but theirs, and they get the 30% in perpetuity if that sale is a subscription. That's why you can buy things in the Kindle app on Windows 8 but not on iOS. Microsoft isn't saying "you have to sell your application and anything associated with it through us", they're simply saying "you can only distribute modern apps via the Windows Store". You can monetize those via their services for 30%, or you can do it yourself via another mechanism and pay the percentage the other registration service charges. Or DIY and pay the processor fees.
It's Apple's platform. I agree that a 30% cut is a bit too much, and there could be tiers introduced based on company size, revenue, etc., but to manage this would probably be a bit too much for them, although it would be beneficial for small startups.
Devil's advocate here. If I manufacture a brick, I set the price that I am willing to sell that brick to a brick store. That brick store can then apply whatever margin they wish to my brick before they sell it to the public. While I can recommend a retail price (MSRP) I cannot enforce that price without simply not selling my bricks to the brick store. I set the price of my brick at the amount I need to cover cost of manufacturing plus some profit. If the brick store's retail price is so high that it discourages people from buying my bricks, I have no recourse. I can certainly request a price drop but have no real influence other than ceasing my supply.
Why would the digital distribution model be any different?
That's a bad analogy. Microsoft's concern isn't the 30% on the sale, its the recurring 30% for anyone buying Office365 via the iOS version of the application, even when people use it on other platforms or completely discontinue use on iOS. A better analogy would be buying Photoshop on iOS and Apple forcing Adobe to pay them 30% when you buy it for Windows later.
The really interesting opportunity is to unify all of these different kinds of computing. Let's make one OS that runs on the phone AND on your supercomputer
Like... Windows 8?
Not trying to suggest its not good for Ubuntu to do so, but does he really not understand that a) its not a new idea and b) already exists? Is he answering /. questions with marketing-quality responses?