As far as I can tell, based on some of my Facebook friends, because they actually want people to know they shop at KMart and get their hair cut at Super Cuts.
These days I mostly jailbrean when I can to ensure I have the ability to downgrade the phone in the future. They've released far too many buggy versions to be at the mercy of Apple's whim as to if I can downgrade again.
Perhaps it comes down to the fact that Bush/Cheney and Obama both have access to a vast amount more information about the real state of the world than you do.
When two diametrically opposed sets of people reach the same conclusion, it may be time to question why you believe the conclusion is wrong.
I'm not defending either group, or saying you're wrong, but you need to ask yourself that.
Musk and Rutan are two very different people. I've seen them both talking about their passions, and have spent some time chatting with Rutan about it...
Musks vision is going to be the guy who gets equipment in space, gets astronauts into space, and maybe gets people on off to Mars, by providing the technology that governments and other companies use to do it.
Rutan is going to get *me* into space.
I applaud them both. Their "fuck it, I'm doing this" attitude is what will get us off this rock, and maybe kick us, as a species, finally in the direction of doing that permanently.
If you are a CA citizen and commit a crime in NY, you can be extradited from CA to NY.
If you harm me in NY, I can file suit against you in NY and if you don't show up to the trial, you lose.
If you violate my copyright in NY (assuming NY has these laws), if I can convince a judge that the jurisdiction that your action injured me in was NY (because I was injured and that is where I was) and thus NY has jurisdiction, I can file a lawsuit. You can pay a lawyer to fight for a change in jurisdiction, assuming you have the money for that... but you may lose.
Temperatures near 100C aren't all that uncommon in hot climates on dark roofs.
And 200C in a controlled collector is no less safe than 100C spread over an entire roof -- both are below the combustion point of anything else on the roof.
Actually lots of it has. PV arrays are far more efficient now than even ten years ago, and the technologies around heat-based concentrators is also far advanced. There are parts of the country where its affordable to run a house entirely off solar -- something not possible a decade ago.
Just because the whole world hasn't converted doesn't mean the innovations aren't making it to the market, it just means even doubling efficiency hasn't helped make it cheaper than oil.
Comcast charges a fee per cable box, DVR or cable card. If you have a digital cable ready TV, it works just fine and there is no per month charge.
I have a TV in my guest room and in my garage that both have QAM tuners and get all the digital channels (including HD) just fine without any per-set fee.
Did you expect them to give you hardware for free?
FYI -- Microsoft has had, and continues to have one of the largest, if not the largest, research budget in the industry.
Apple researches things you see -- phone UX, manufacturing techniques. Microsoft does an enormous amount of pure research, nearly sci-fi like technology development, language development looking a decade ahead, not two years ahead. The vast majority of that research shows up licensed in products made by dozens of other companies -- its stuff you'd never know came out of Microsoft, but the company makes money off the sale of every one of those items. Only a small part of that ends up in Microsoft's products because Microsoft sells in a market vastly different than any "competitor".
Apple can spend a fortune in research coming up with something like iMovie, which needs to sell via iLive to ten or twenty million people to make it worthwhile.
Microsoft, in the aggregate, thinks in the hundreds of millions range for the kind of products you're likely to see. Its a whole different scale, and a whole different model. Microsoft does have heavy innovation in a lot of smaller vertical markets that you're not likely to ever see if you aren't working in that field. Microsoft is a massive company, and the examples you called out are a few of hundreds of areas of innovation (and frankly, probably the least interesting ones...)
I've already said this in another reply, but that is a vast oversimplification of economics and business, and frankly is an incorrect statement.
Example: You're Avis. You buy a Ford Fusion for $15k. Two years later you sell it for $5k. Was that a bad business decision? No, you got $5k out of an asset that was going to eventually drop to zero... *after* you already made $15k in revenue from renting it. Could you spend more money keeping it up to date and running? Sure, but your costs of upkeep skyrocket as you try to keep the vehicle modernized and competitive with the other companies with newer fleets. You're better off getting your $5k and applying that towards a new vehicle that you can make another $15k off of in the next two years.
Its the same thing with any business investment. The total cost of the investment is the difference between what you paid for it and then sold it for. There's nothing wrong with the asset depreciating, particularly if you are making revenue off owning the asset and its not an investment purchase. In fact, that's the whole point of the purchase of an asset like that.
In the case of a web property, culture is a fickle thing. Popularity changes over time. You can spend billions chasing popularity, or you can focus on being profitable over the time you own that asset. From a business standpoint, the latter is the right decision. Fans of the property may disagree, but a dwindling fan base doesn't matter in the business world.
There's nothing wrong with buying a company for $400m and selling it for $200m ten years later if you make $300m in profit from it during that time.
A car rental company sells cars for a lot less than they payed for it, and still got profitable use out of them.
AOL may not have done so in these cases, but you can't assume a business transaction has to be buy low, sell high to be profitable or successful. In fact, it can be a smart move if you do the analysis and determine the work you need to upkeep the property in question isn't worth it relative to the revenue its generating.
Slashdot Mirror
M. Night Shiamalan will probably make a stupid movie about this.
Well, that'd be quite a step up from his other movies, at least.
As far as I can tell, based on some of my Facebook friends, because they actually want people to know they shop at KMart and get their hair cut at Super Cuts.
These days, most deaths are not surprises. Maybe not in Facebook's demographics, but most deaths are not.
These days I mostly jailbrean when I can to ensure I have the ability to downgrade the phone in the future. They've released far too many buggy versions to be at the mercy of Apple's whim as to if I can downgrade again.
Perhaps it comes down to the fact that Bush/Cheney and Obama both have access to a vast amount more information about the real state of the world than you do.
When two diametrically opposed sets of people reach the same conclusion, it may be time to question why you believe the conclusion is wrong.
I'm not defending either group, or saying you're wrong, but you need to ask yourself that.
I don't buy that nearly as many people on here understood that as are going to post on here acting like they understood that.
Hopefully one of Slashdot's crack editors will repost a lighter story this morning to comment on ...
He's dead. He doesn't care.
Odds are, at his age, his wife and any immediate family are not in the /. demographic anyway.
I've heard there are some good tractor trailer training schools out there ...
Apparently it was hosting their website.
Even the original article has been updated to say the initial knee jerk reaction was wrong.
And apparently Slashdot's editors, probably for more ad impressions, decided to overlook it and post this anyway.
Musk and Rutan are two very different people. I've seen them both talking about their passions, and have spent some time chatting with Rutan about it ...
Musks vision is going to be the guy who gets equipment in space, gets astronauts into space, and maybe gets people on off to Mars, by providing the technology that governments and other companies use to do it.
Rutan is going to get *me* into space.
I applaud them both. Their "fuck it, I'm doing this" attitude is what will get us off this rock, and maybe kick us, as a species, finally in the direction of doing that permanently.
That marketese has gotten him a company successfully launching rockets into orbit.
My vision has got me sitting on my couch in my underpants.
Just to put that in perspective.
I don't believe its that black and white.
If you are a CA citizen and commit a crime in NY, you can be extradited from CA to NY.
If you harm me in NY, I can file suit against you in NY and if you don't show up to the trial, you lose.
If you violate my copyright in NY (assuming NY has these laws), if I can convince a judge that the jurisdiction that your action injured me in was NY (because I was injured and that is where I was) and thus NY has jurisdiction, I can file a lawsuit. You can pay a lawyer to fight for a change in jurisdiction, assuming you have the money for that ... but you may lose.
So don't assume you're safe.
Temperatures near 100C aren't all that uncommon in hot climates on dark roofs.
And 200C in a controlled collector is no less safe than 100C spread over an entire roof -- both are below the combustion point of anything else on the roof.
Actually lots of it has. PV arrays are far more efficient now than even ten years ago, and the technologies around heat-based concentrators is also far advanced. There are parts of the country where its affordable to run a house entirely off solar -- something not possible a decade ago.
Just because the whole world hasn't converted doesn't mean the innovations aren't making it to the market, it just means even doubling efficiency hasn't helped make it cheaper than oil.
Comcast charges a fee per cable box, DVR or cable card. If you have a digital cable ready TV, it works just fine and there is no per month charge.
I have a TV in my guest room and in my garage that both have QAM tuners and get all the digital channels (including HD) just fine without any per-set fee.
Did you expect them to give you hardware for free?
It wasn't a post about the puzzle, it was a post about the counter-intuitiveness of the puzzle.
FYI -- Microsoft has had, and continues to have one of the largest, if not the largest, research budget in the industry.
Apple researches things you see -- phone UX, manufacturing techniques. Microsoft does an enormous amount of pure research, nearly sci-fi like technology development, language development looking a decade ahead, not two years ahead. The vast majority of that research shows up licensed in products made by dozens of other companies -- its stuff you'd never know came out of Microsoft, but the company makes money off the sale of every one of those items. Only a small part of that ends up in Microsoft's products because Microsoft sells in a market vastly different than any "competitor".
Apple can spend a fortune in research coming up with something like iMovie, which needs to sell via iLive to ten or twenty million people to make it worthwhile.
Microsoft, in the aggregate, thinks in the hundreds of millions range for the kind of products you're likely to see. Its a whole different scale, and a whole different model. Microsoft does have heavy innovation in a lot of smaller vertical markets that you're not likely to ever see if you aren't working in that field. Microsoft is a massive company, and the examples you called out are a few of hundreds of areas of innovation (and frankly, probably the least interesting ones...)
I say: fuck that noise, ya hoooooser
There, I fixed it for ya.
Don't pay any attention to him, he's just out of touch.
Actually you can both stop and restart them, at least in theory.
The rocket engines on SpaceShip 1 and Virgin's craft are controllable solid fuel rockets.
I've already said this in another reply, but that is a vast oversimplification of economics and business, and frankly is an incorrect statement.
Example: You're Avis. You buy a Ford Fusion for $15k. Two years later you sell it for $5k. Was that a bad business decision? No, you got $5k out of an asset that was going to eventually drop to zero... *after* you already made $15k in revenue from renting it. Could you spend more money keeping it up to date and running? Sure, but your costs of upkeep skyrocket as you try to keep the vehicle modernized and competitive with the other companies with newer fleets. You're better off getting your $5k and applying that towards a new vehicle that you can make another $15k off of in the next two years.
Its the same thing with any business investment. The total cost of the investment is the difference between what you paid for it and then sold it for. There's nothing wrong with the asset depreciating, particularly if you are making revenue off owning the asset and its not an investment purchase. In fact, that's the whole point of the purchase of an asset like that.
In the case of a web property, culture is a fickle thing. Popularity changes over time. You can spend billions chasing popularity, or you can focus on being profitable over the time you own that asset. From a business standpoint, the latter is the right decision. Fans of the property may disagree, but a dwindling fan base doesn't matter in the business world.
Don't oversimplify the business market ...
There's nothing wrong with buying a company for $400m and selling it for $200m ten years later if you make $300m in profit from it during that time.
A car rental company sells cars for a lot less than they payed for it, and still got profitable use out of them.
AOL may not have done so in these cases, but you can't assume a business transaction has to be buy low, sell high to be profitable or successful. In fact, it can be a smart move if you do the analysis and determine the work you need to upkeep the property in question isn't worth it relative to the revenue its generating.
Make is to DIY what Wired is to technology ...
When you are paid in ad impressions, views matters, not accuracy.
Which of those two statements is going to get people on Slashdot to read it?