Everyone is different, but I think that good music produces good work for most people. If you work in a noisy environment, I suspect you could find some sort of gentle music that would be less distracting (try "The Pearl" by Brian Eno and Harold Budd or other "ambient" music). If you actually require SILENCE in order to work, I think you're going to have a hard time in any kind of office situation, even if you have a room all to yourself.
Of course not. However, they have a much smaller market share than, say, Microsoft. If you go back to the 1980's (the time of the PC/Mac split), Apple clearly took the "boutique" route. It's worked out OK for them, but it worked out much better for the other folks.
Also, I don't think much of Apple's recent growth has been fueled by Macintosh.
The difference and problem with your analogy is that Google doesn't get a cent off Android
I think that's actually fairly consistent with my analogy. Google is defining an open platform just like IBM defined the PC platform, but never made a cent off of Dell's sales.
Android will be #1 in sheer volume, but iPhone will be #1 in pure profit
Isn't that pretty much what I'm saying too? Apple will take the high-end sliver of the market. High margins, but low volume.
And we all know how that turned out for Apple (vs. Intel/Microsoft).
If you want a high-end phone and are willing to pay a premium so that that software and hardware work together seamlessly (because they're both made by the same company), you'll buy an Apple iPhone.
If you want a commodity phone that runs a ubiquitous UI (OS), but maybe doesn't work perfectly in all situations (e.g. driver problems), you'll buy a gPhone containing standardized hardware (read: cheap, in both senses of the word).
Apple will continue to be the high-end boutique. But someone else will make most of the money.
Right, but that in case, Congress would have to pass an law explicitly granting the Executive branch the power to spy on Internet traffic. Presumably the public is not yet so brain-dead as to allow this to happen without an uproar.
In case it's not already blindingly obvious, IANAL.
The insufficiency of analogy to more traditional means of communication (postal service in sealed envelopes, telegraph, town crier, word of mouth, whatever) is sufficient demonstration that the constitution is unclear on these matters.
Fine. Have you by any chance ever read the 10th Amendment?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
In other words, if the Constitution is unclear and there is no relevant law then the Federal Govt. has no power whatsoever to intercept our Internet traffic.
I think it's the other way around - dedicated TV cable/fiber to the consumer will lose ground on two fronts at once.
On the onc hand, TV stations are broadcasting digital signals over the air (wireless!). These look beautiful in HD today and will only get more numerous and stronger, especially when analog signals go away in a few years and interference is no longer an issue.
For the few non-broadcast TV providers worth watching (e.g. ESPN, HBO), the Internet will become the platform of choice. The need for a special "set-top box" to receive cable signals will be displaced by plain old PC's connected to the Internet.
Anyone who has both Cable and Internet is basically paying for the same thing twice (especially if you get one of those stupid "triple plays" from the same provider). People will eventually figure out that Cable is a subset of Internet and stop paying separately for it.
Phone service, on the other hand, may survive as a distinct offering because of its importance in real life. No one has an emergency need for Cable TV, though, so it will fade.
This is the lesson of the PC revolution, repeated over and over: General purpose PC (with networking) displaces special purpose hardware. This is why Netflix (or its descendants) will be around long after Cable is a memory.
C'mon, WWRPD (what would Ron Paul do)? This is an ideological test for you all, and you're flunking! This is the free market at work, right? Scalpers are able and willing to buy in volume. What, you want the Nanny State to come in and regulate? Bunch of crybabies. Ayn Rand would be so disappointed.
I first found the site in 1998 when a work colleague (and Linux-head) pointed me to it. I liked the site well enough to sign up, but was discouraged when I realized that the site already had over 1000 users! I created an account anyway, even though I was sure the fun times were already over since the site was so large.
I assume you're joking, but in case you're not: The phone company has a separate power source that operates even when the consumer power lines are down. Sending this electricity through copper lines to operate household phones works fine. But glass fiber is not quite as electrically conductive.
When I switched from cable internet to FiOS earlier this year I was told that had to permanently cut the copper wire to my house. So I now have fiber phone service. Works fine, except for the short delay that always occurs between picking up the phone and using it. They also put a battery in my basement to give me eight hours of phone service during a power outage.
I usually like to learn subtle details, but the distinction you're making between "factoring" and "factorization" is pointless pedantry. Factoring a number into 1 and itself is obviously not relevant in this context.
Anyone who modded this up as "Informative" needs to think about what the word means.
"Unlimited" is an old term from the days of dialup modems, and refers to the maximum amount of time you are allowed to stay dialed in and connected.
I would argue that it's still fraud under that definition. The ISP's position in this case is you can be connected 24x7, but that you can't use your connection 24x7. What's the point of paying for something you're not allowed to use?
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone is different, but I think that good music produces good work for most people. If you work in a noisy environment, I suspect you could find some sort of gentle music that would be less distracting (try "The Pearl" by Brian Eno and Harold Budd or other "ambient" music). If you actually require SILENCE in order to work, I think you're going to have a hard time in any kind of office situation, even if you have a room all to yourself.
One word: Headphones
Growing at 30% a year is somehow bad?
Of course not. However, they have a much smaller market share than, say, Microsoft. If you go back to the 1980's (the time of the PC/Mac split), Apple clearly took the "boutique" route. It's worked out OK for them, but it worked out much better for the other folks.
Also, I don't think much of Apple's recent growth has been fueled by Macintosh.
The difference and problem with your analogy is that Google doesn't get a cent off Android
I think that's actually fairly consistent with my analogy. Google is defining an open platform just like IBM defined the PC platform, but never made a cent off of Dell's sales.
Android will be #1 in sheer volume, but iPhone will be #1 in pure profit
Isn't that pretty much what I'm saying too? Apple will take the high-end sliver of the market. High margins, but low volume.
And we all know how that turned out for Apple (vs. Intel/Microsoft).
If you want a high-end phone and are willing to pay a premium so that that software and hardware work together seamlessly (because they're both made by the same company), you'll buy an Apple iPhone.
If you want a commodity phone that runs a ubiquitous UI (OS), but maybe doesn't work perfectly in all situations (e.g. driver problems), you'll buy a gPhone containing standardized hardware (read: cheap, in both senses of the word).
Apple will continue to be the high-end boutique. But someone else will make most of the money.
Right, but that in case, Congress would have to pass an law explicitly granting the Executive branch the power to spy on Internet traffic. Presumably the public is not yet so brain-dead as to allow this to happen without an uproar.
In case it's not already blindingly obvious, IANAL.
Fine. Have you by any chance ever read the 10th Amendment?In other words, if the Constitution is unclear and there is no relevant law then the Federal Govt. has no power whatsoever to intercept our Internet traffic.
I think it's the other way around - dedicated TV cable/fiber to the consumer will lose ground on two fronts at once.
On the onc hand, TV stations are broadcasting digital signals over the air (wireless!). These look beautiful in HD today and will only get more numerous and stronger, especially when analog signals go away in a few years and interference is no longer an issue.
For the few non-broadcast TV providers worth watching (e.g. ESPN, HBO), the Internet will become the platform of choice. The need for a special "set-top box" to receive cable signals will be displaced by plain old PC's connected to the Internet.
Anyone who has both Cable and Internet is basically paying for the same thing twice (especially if you get one of those stupid "triple plays" from the same provider). People will eventually figure out that Cable is a subset of Internet and stop paying separately for it.
Phone service, on the other hand, may survive as a distinct offering because of its importance in real life. No one has an emergency need for Cable TV, though, so it will fade.
This is the lesson of the PC revolution, repeated over and over: General purpose PC (with networking) displaces special purpose hardware. This is why Netflix (or its descendants) will be around long after Cable is a memory.
I agree.
(This exact comment has already been posted. Try to be more original...)
C'mon, WWRPD (what would Ron Paul do)? This is an ideological test for you all, and you're flunking! This is the free market at work, right? Scalpers are able and willing to buy in volume. What, you want the Nanny State to come in and regulate? Bunch of crybabies. Ayn Rand would be so disappointed.
I first found the site in 1998 when a work colleague (and Linux-head) pointed me to it. I liked the site well enough to sign up, but was discouraged when I realized that the site already had over 1000 users! I created an account anyway, even though I was sure the fun times were already over since the site was so large.
Did you even ask them not to pull the copper?
:)
No, I didn't. They told me they had to pull the copper and I believed them. Hey, I'm a software guy, what do I know?
No, I'm saying that they told me that they had to cut the standard (copper) line. Whether they actually had to or just wanted to, I can't say.
I assume you're joking, but in case you're not: The phone company has a separate power source that operates even when the consumer power lines are down. Sending this electricity through copper lines to operate household phones works fine. But glass fiber is not quite as electrically conductive.
When I switched from cable internet to FiOS earlier this year I was told that had to permanently cut the copper wire to my house. So I now have fiber phone service. Works fine, except for the short delay that always occurs between picking up the phone and using it. They also put a battery in my basement to give me eight hours of phone service during a power outage.
Google would have thought of spoofing it's IPs long ago, to avoid people being able to track them, though I can't say how you'd go about that.
Easy: Hire a relatively unknown 3rd party to perform the comparison for you.
According to the Cleveland paper, he "agreed that a police officer did nothing wrong in arresting him after he refused to show his driver's license."
Mr. Righi is outraged about this: "I never said such a thing and would never say such a thing.". He points to the release he signed as proof.
The release, however, seems to disagree. It says quite plainly that "all parties mutually release each other of all claims".
In other words, not only does the City drop its charges against Mr. Righi, but Mr. Righi cannot claim that the the police offer did anything wrong.
It's a shame that Mr. Righi apparently did not read or did not understand what he was signing.
I usually like to learn subtle details, but the distinction you're making between "factoring" and "factorization" is pointless pedantry. Factoring a number into 1 and itself is obviously not relevant in this context.
Anyone who modded this up as "Informative" needs to think about what the word means.
Just about anything in .NET beyond console applications, everything is patented, copyrighted, etc
I think this is considerably overstated. For example, my understanding is that windowed applications ("WinForms") are not protected.
They really should have just made an agreement to tax each and every out of state sale
You think California has the power to tax sales made in other states?
Yes. Some of us still like to be surprised, be exposed to new music, etc.
"Unlimited" is an old term from the days of dialup modems, and refers to the maximum amount of time you are allowed to stay dialed in and connected.
I would argue that it's still fraud under that definition. The ISP's position in this case is you can be connected 24x7, but that you can't use your connection 24x7. What's the point of paying for something you're not allowed to use?
That makes sense.
Not to be pendantic, but the maximum 16-bit integer is actually 0xffff = (2^16)-1.
LOL
I think we have a winner.
The 3-body problem IS chaotic, in general. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem.
A good book that discusses this is Mathematics and the Unexpected.