This comes up occasionally and this is not a traditional patent, but a design patent. You can still build a wedge-shaped laptop, you just can't have it look exactly like a MacBook Air. There are lots of ways of designing around it. You could make it almost the same, but with a different finish, for example.
No, you didn't get a "nothing to see here". You actually got an answer. By design, if a water-moderated reactor loses its cooling, it also loses moderation of the neutrons. Fast neutrons don't work as well, so the reaction rate would slow. The residual heat would still have melted the fuel rods and it would be a big mess to clean up, but nobody would have died.
I know it is not the answer you want, but there you have it. It would not have been a Chernobyl-type accident. The Chernobyl reactor had a positive-void coefficient, which means that the reaction rate would go up if cooling was lost. Davis-Besse has negative-void coefficient. The reaction rate will go down if coolant is lost.
Thunderbolt is not exclusive to Apple. They are just the first mover on it. They also have a large market (video and audio editing) that will eat this up. For that group, USB3 is basically a non-starter. The implementations are still buggy, and the throughput isn't as good.
Also, because Thunderbolt basically tunnels PCIe for communication, devices that use it just need a Thunderbolt adaptor chip coupled with a PCIe chip to convert to any protocol you like. You don't need a new ASIC, you just buy the Thunderbolt one from Intel and then use any PCIe chip you like. Thunderbolt is basically external PCIe. In fact, Sonnet has announced a PCIe expansion chassis using Thunderbolt.
They promised to give up the one thing that Verizon has held out on all this time, Verizon branding all over the phone.
It will be verizon free, free of all the extra apps and crap they want installed on the system. It will remain an Apple device, exactly what Apple has always wanted and only AT&T would agree to.
It hasn't been an exclusive agreement or Apple's will that kept the phone on AT&T, it's Verizon's vanity and need for control over a device that is yours to use.
With LTE coming up, they didn't want to miss out on an iDevice for another generation of wireless data.
If that were true, we've have seen the iPhone on T-Mobile or Sprint by now. This was AT&T's exclusivity expiring. AT&T knew it was coming. That is why AT&T was so generous with people upgrading from the 3GS to the 4, even though it had only been a year. It let them lock people into contracts through 2012, knowing that the Verizon version was coming in just a few months.
You'd have to be an idiot to think that APPL is genuinely worth about double what MSFT is.
Why? They have similar revenue, but Apple makes a much higher profit. Don't get me wrong, Microsoft still makes boatloads of money off of Windows and Office, but the compitition for them is Linux and OpenOffice/GoogleDocs. They will be constantly competing against free, which will keep squeezing their margins and therefore their revenue and their profit. Apple is in a position where they make hardware that allows them to charge a premium.
Apple on the other hand, keeps very close to the leading edge and has a reputation for quality. They've seamlessly moved from product category to product category and find the most profitable niche. They've still got a lot of growth potential, even just by starting to manufacture a Verizon iPhone. In the last ten years, they've managed to enter and dominate the market for portable music players, smartphones, smart-not-a-phones, and tablets.
Because, believe it or not, Apple came in at a price point that nobody could match without Apple's sales volume.
So Apple sell a netbook with no keyboard and an ARM CPU for twice the price of a netbook and no-one can compete with it on price?
Perhaps you're right, but that seems... odd.
Calling the iPad a netbook with no keyboard it a bit of a stretch. Even if you don't like Apple, you'd be hard pressed to find a netbook with an IPS LCD display, for example. Also, I don't know of any netbooks that have a touchscreen, which more than makes up (costwise) for the lack of a keyboard.
Anyway, If anyone could make a 10" iPad competitor at $500 or less, they'd have done so by now. That everyone who is trying is coming in at half the screen size should be confirmation. There were stories when the iPad was announced that it was going to $800-$1000. Everyone was preparing tablet competitors to go up against that price range. When the iPad came out at $500, it submarined everyone else's plans. It killed the HP Slate, for instance.
Because, believe it or not, Apple came in at a price point that nobody could match without Apple's sales volume. The only way to under cut Apple's price is to reduce the screen size. By half, it turns out (7^2 = 49, 10^2 =100).
Apple didn't shut down Lala.com with licensing. They bought Lala (apparently for the engineering talent) and decided to discontinue their signature product.
I care if it doesn't work. I care if it has security flaws. I paid for them, so I'd like to have the latest version.
But it is a real pain if I haven't used an app since, say, Leopard. If it doesn't work on Snow Leopard, the app's own built-in update mechanism is useless.
It is also a pain if I need a little utility that I bought two years ago on my wife's computer. Not only to I have to download it, I also have to find the license key and hope it will let me activate it.
Well, you can't get all your apps up to date at one time with Sparkle. I have a lot of apps that I only use occasionally. Every time I run one of them, I have t update it. Sometimes I even find an app that won't run because it needs updating for compatibility with whichever version of MacOS X I'm on now.
It would be nice to have a centralized system for updating third-party apps. This isn't perfect, but it is a step in the right direction
According to engadget it's going to cost 2.5 million. At $26 per ton that's 96,153 tons of recyclables before the new bins are paid off.
According to the article they picked up 5,800 tons of recyclables last year. Assuming that's the average for the recycling to pay off the new bins it's going to take 16 years.
Actually, your numbers are off. The city gets paid $26/ton for recyclables, but if those same recyclables go to the landfill, it costs $30/ton. So the city nets $56/ton from recyclables.
Also, I live in Cleveland. The recycling rate here is really pitiful. I think it is around 3% last I heard. Most of the city doesn't have curbside recycling pickup (aside from a few pilot areas). You have to haul your recyclables to a drop off. If this system gives us curbside pickup and some enforcement, it is easy to expect the rate would at least quadruple. Combine that with the $56/ton savings and it is paid for in two years.
The thief, Brian Hogan, was asked by his friends to return the phone, because the loss would likely destroy the career of Gray Powell. His answer: "Sucks for him. He lost his phone. Shouldn't have lost his phone." So to Brian Hogan I would say "Sucks for you. You stole the phone. Shouldn't have stolen the phone".
Would you be this vehement if it weren't an Apple prototype?
I certainly would. Whether it was stolen from Palm, Google, or Nokia. The circumstances were still a criminal act regardless of who it was stolen from.
With the iPhone, there is actually a benefit to having that signature. It explains why your reply is so short and why you might have some really strange word substitutions due to the iPhone autocorrect. I changed mine to "Sent from my iPhone (in case you are wondering why this email is so short and full of typos)."
Frankly, it doesn't even matter if people care whether they've lost "Other OS". If they can get some money back from a PS3 they bought in the last few years, many will take it.
With some minor tweaks here and there (nowhere ear enough to bankrupt them), Ford could sell its Euro models in the US and be right on top of those regulations. Even if they skipped out all of their diesels (which are outstanding) and only sold the petrol ones, the lowest mpg petrol Focus they sell is 35.3mpg - for the automatic one. The worst diesel automatic does 48.6mpg (best does 74mpg, but you need the manual gearbox).
Are those US gallons or Imperial gallons? Makes a big difference
Well, if the only cost that goes away when you go to an eBook is printing, then how much should the cost drop? I'm genuinely curious. My guess would be maybe 10%. I'd be shocked if more than 20%. In which case you could lower the cost of the eBook proportionally.
But if the eBook is only 10% cheaper to produce, then a $15 printed book would become a $13.50 eBook. Unfortunately, that isn't going to satisfy the type of people who think that eBooks should be substantially cheaper than printed books. To the end user, that marginal cost is within the noise. People around here seem to expect that a $15 printed book should be $5 as an eBook.
Now, I'm not accounting for distribution costs, which you mention as being higher than the printing cost. So maybe you could give us an estimate of the savings to the publisher by going to eBooks. How much of a discount do people expect when the marginal cost of reproduction drops actually to zero? I suspect that most people would be disappointed.
I was exaggerating a bit, but my point was just that the cost of printing was not what sets the price of a book. You agree, I think, since you say it is not the dominant cost.
Actually, I refuse to believe Jobs is that short-sighted or stupid. That hoopla over web apps was Jobs telling you what you had while he had the team feverishly working on the SDK in the background.
He couldn't say nothing. And he couldn't say it was coming later, because if he did, no one would have touched the iPhone for the first year.
There was more to it than that. I think there was a debate between a native SDK and using a web-based SDK (like what Palm did with WebOS). Apple was clearly working on both tracks, but WebKit was just not ready fast enough. There was evidence of this.
One of the complaints about the web SDK approach was the lack of local storage for offline use. A SQL interface had been proposed for HTML5, but hadn't been implemented by anyone yet. Apple announced the iPhone native SDK on Oct 17. That weekend (on Oct 19th), quietly on the WebKit Blog, HTML5 client-side SQL storage was quietly checked in. Coincidence? No way.
The other thing is for certain, the iPhone native SDK was not ready in time for iPhone 1.0. The jailbreakers had to deal with regular app breakage due to Apple changing APIs. Apple wasn't screwing with the jailbreakers, they were refining the SDK. That is much easier to do if you only have a dozen in-house applications to work on. Once it was declared final for iPhone 2.0, Apple had to support it fully. There have been few changes to the public API since, though there were some for iPhone 3.0.
Oddly enough, I think the people who wish the iPhone to be more open would have been happier if the webSDK approach had won out. It would have made it easy for other companies to support iPhone apps by including a WebKit-based browser.
Fullerenes have been around for nearly 25 years now. It they had anything more than hype, they'd be commercialized by now.
You could say the same about aluminum before development of the Bayer process, or titanium prior to the Kroll process. This could be the equivalent for nanotubes.
But, probably not...
I don't dispute that at all. When/if someone develops that "Bayer"-type process for nanotubes, they'll make a billion dollars and win a Nobel prize. Until then, fullerenes remain hype.
Slashdot Mirror
This comes up occasionally and this is not a traditional patent, but a design patent. You can still build a wedge-shaped laptop, you just can't have it look exactly like a MacBook Air. There are lots of ways of designing around it. You could make it almost the same, but with a different finish, for example.
No, you didn't get a "nothing to see here". You actually got an answer. By design, if a water-moderated reactor loses its cooling, it also loses moderation of the neutrons. Fast neutrons don't work as well, so the reaction rate would slow. The residual heat would still have melted the fuel rods and it would be a big mess to clean up, but nobody would have died.
I know it is not the answer you want, but there you have it. It would not have been a Chernobyl-type accident. The Chernobyl reactor had a positive-void coefficient, which means that the reaction rate would go up if cooling was lost. Davis-Besse has negative-void coefficient. The reaction rate will go down if coolant is lost.
Thunderbolt is not exclusive to Apple. They are just the first mover on it. They also have a large market (video and audio editing) that will eat this up. For that group, USB3 is basically a non-starter. The implementations are still buggy, and the throughput isn't as good.
Also, because Thunderbolt basically tunnels PCIe for communication, devices that use it just need a Thunderbolt adaptor chip coupled with a PCIe chip to convert to any protocol you like. You don't need a new ASIC, you just buy the Thunderbolt one from Intel and then use any PCIe chip you like. Thunderbolt is basically external PCIe. In fact, Sonnet has announced a PCIe expansion chassis using Thunderbolt.
They promised to give up the one thing that Verizon has held out on all this time, Verizon branding all over the phone.
It will be verizon free, free of all the extra apps and crap they want installed on the system. It will remain an Apple device, exactly what Apple has always wanted and only AT&T would agree to.
It hasn't been an exclusive agreement or Apple's will that kept the phone on AT&T, it's Verizon's vanity and need for control over a device that is yours to use. With LTE coming up, they didn't want to miss out on an iDevice for another generation of wireless data.
If that were true, we've have seen the iPhone on T-Mobile or Sprint by now. This was AT&T's exclusivity expiring. AT&T knew it was coming. That is why AT&T was so generous with people upgrading from the 3GS to the 4, even though it had only been a year. It let them lock people into contracts through 2012, knowing that the Verizon version was coming in just a few months.
You'd have to be an idiot to think that APPL is genuinely worth about double what MSFT is.
Why? They have similar revenue, but Apple makes a much higher profit. Don't get me wrong, Microsoft still makes boatloads of money off of Windows and Office, but the compitition for them is Linux and OpenOffice/GoogleDocs. They will be constantly competing against free, which will keep squeezing their margins and therefore their revenue and their profit. Apple is in a position where they make hardware that allows them to charge a premium. Apple on the other hand, keeps very close to the leading edge and has a reputation for quality. They've seamlessly moved from product category to product category and find the most profitable niche. They've still got a lot of growth potential, even just by starting to manufacture a Verizon iPhone. In the last ten years, they've managed to enter and dominate the market for portable music players, smartphones, smart-not-a-phones, and tablets.
Because, believe it or not, Apple came in at a price point that nobody could match without Apple's sales volume.
So Apple sell a netbook with no keyboard and an ARM CPU for twice the price of a netbook and no-one can compete with it on price?
Perhaps you're right, but that seems... odd.
Calling the iPad a netbook with no keyboard it a bit of a stretch. Even if you don't like Apple, you'd be hard pressed to find a netbook with an IPS LCD display, for example. Also, I don't know of any netbooks that have a touchscreen, which more than makes up (costwise) for the lack of a keyboard.
Anyway, If anyone could make a 10" iPad competitor at $500 or less, they'd have done so by now. That everyone who is trying is coming in at half the screen size should be confirmation. There were stories when the iPad was announced that it was going to $800-$1000. Everyone was preparing tablet competitors to go up against that price range. When the iPad came out at $500, it submarined everyone else's plans. It killed the HP Slate, for instance.
Because, believe it or not, Apple came in at a price point that nobody could match without Apple's sales volume. The only way to under cut Apple's price is to reduce the screen size. By half, it turns out (7^2 = 49, 10^2 =100).
Apple didn't shut down Lala.com with licensing. They bought Lala (apparently for the engineering talent) and decided to discontinue their signature product.
I care if it doesn't work. I care if it has security flaws. I paid for them, so I'd like to have the latest version. But it is a real pain if I haven't used an app since, say, Leopard. If it doesn't work on Snow Leopard, the app's own built-in update mechanism is useless. It is also a pain if I need a little utility that I bought two years ago on my wife's computer. Not only to I have to download it, I also have to find the license key and hope it will let me activate it.
the second is the ability to update apps to new versions with one click.
Yeah, because no Mac applications currently have that ability. Oh, unless you count the ~750 listed here, that use Sparkle.
~Philly
Well, you can't get all your apps up to date at one time with Sparkle. I have a lot of apps that I only use occasionally. Every time I run one of them, I have t update it. Sometimes I even find an app that won't run because it needs updating for compatibility with whichever version of MacOS X I'm on now.
It would be nice to have a centralized system for updating third-party apps. This isn't perfect, but it is a step in the right direction
According to engadget it's going to cost 2.5 million. At $26 per ton that's 96,153 tons of recyclables before the new bins are paid off.
According to the article they picked up 5,800 tons of recyclables last year. Assuming that's the average for the recycling to pay off the new bins it's going to take 16 years.
Actually, your numbers are off. The city gets paid $26/ton for recyclables, but if those same recyclables go to the landfill, it costs $30/ton. So the city nets $56/ton from recyclables.
Also, I live in Cleveland. The recycling rate here is really pitiful. I think it is around 3% last I heard. Most of the city doesn't have curbside recycling pickup (aside from a few pilot areas). You have to haul your recyclables to a drop off. If this system gives us curbside pickup and some enforcement, it is easy to expect the rate would at least quadruple. Combine that with the $56/ton savings and it is paid for in two years.
Cleveland, for what it is worth, has been handing out free rainbarrels and encouraging their use.
The thief, Brian Hogan, was asked by his friends to return the phone, because the loss would likely destroy the career of Gray Powell. His answer: "Sucks for him. He lost his phone. Shouldn't have lost his phone." So to Brian Hogan I would say "Sucks for you. You stole the phone. Shouldn't have stolen the phone".
Can I get an "Amen" brothers?
Would you be this vehement if it weren't an Apple prototype?
I certainly would. Whether it was stolen from Palm, Google, or Nokia. The circumstances were still a criminal act regardless of who it was stolen from.
With the iPhone, there is actually a benefit to having that signature. It explains why your reply is so short and why you might have some really strange word substitutions due to the iPhone autocorrect. I changed mine to "Sent from my iPhone (in case you are wondering why this email is so short and full of typos)."
Frankly, it doesn't even matter if people care whether they've lost "Other OS". If they can get some money back from a PS3 they bought in the last few years, many will take it.
With some minor tweaks here and there (nowhere ear enough to bankrupt them), Ford could sell its Euro models in the US and be right on top of those regulations. Even if they skipped out all of their diesels (which are outstanding) and only sold the petrol ones, the lowest mpg petrol Focus they sell is 35.3mpg - for the automatic one. The worst diesel automatic does 48.6mpg (best does 74mpg, but you need the manual gearbox).
Are those US gallons or Imperial gallons? Makes a big difference
He can't have been too far wrong about RAW sockets. Microsoft quietly took them out of Windows XP three years later.
http://seclists.org/nmap-hackers/2005/4
Well, if the only cost that goes away when you go to an eBook is printing, then how much should the cost drop? I'm genuinely curious. My guess would be maybe 10%. I'd be shocked if more than 20%. In which case you could lower the cost of the eBook proportionally.
But if the eBook is only 10% cheaper to produce, then a $15 printed book would become a $13.50 eBook. Unfortunately, that isn't going to satisfy the type of people who think that eBooks should be substantially cheaper than printed books. To the end user, that marginal cost is within the noise. People around here seem to expect that a $15 printed book should be $5 as an eBook.
Now, I'm not accounting for distribution costs, which you mention as being higher than the printing cost. So maybe you could give us an estimate of the savings to the publisher by going to eBooks. How much of a discount do people expect when the marginal cost of reproduction drops actually to zero? I suspect that most people would be disappointed.
I was exaggerating a bit, but my point was just that the cost of printing was not what sets the price of a book. You agree, I think, since you say it is not the dominant cost.
The marginal cost of printing a book is pretty close to zero too. That isn't why they cost as much as they do.
Actually, I refuse to believe Jobs is that short-sighted or stupid. That hoopla over web apps was Jobs telling you what you had while he had the team feverishly working on the SDK in the background.
He couldn't say nothing. And he couldn't say it was coming later, because if he did, no one would have touched the iPhone for the first year.
There was more to it than that. I think there was a debate between a native SDK and using a web-based SDK (like what Palm did with WebOS). Apple was clearly working on both tracks, but WebKit was just not ready fast enough. There was evidence of this.
One of the complaints about the web SDK approach was the lack of local storage for offline use. A SQL interface had been proposed for HTML5, but hadn't been implemented by anyone yet. Apple announced the iPhone native SDK on Oct 17. That weekend (on Oct 19th), quietly on the WebKit Blog, HTML5 client-side SQL storage was quietly checked in. Coincidence? No way.
The other thing is for certain, the iPhone native SDK was not ready in time for iPhone 1.0. The jailbreakers had to deal with regular app breakage due to Apple changing APIs. Apple wasn't screwing with the jailbreakers, they were refining the SDK. That is much easier to do if you only have a dozen in-house applications to work on. Once it was declared final for iPhone 2.0, Apple had to support it fully. There have been few changes to the public API since, though there were some for iPhone 3.0.
Oddly enough, I think the people who wish the iPhone to be more open would have been happier if the webSDK approach had won out. It would have made it easy for other companies to support iPhone apps by including a WebKit-based browser.
That's not an argument. Flash is too ineficient, bloated and plain sucks in any platform.
The Windows version of Flash craps out unicorns compared to the Mac version.
Basically, Apple demands something better than Adobe is willing to develop.
Do you have a non-speculative source for this?
Have you ever used Flash on the Mac?
You could say the same about aluminum before development of the Bayer process, or titanium prior to the Kroll process. This could be the equivalent for nanotubes.
But, probably not...
I don't dispute that at all. When/if someone develops that "Bayer"-type process for nanotubes, they'll make a billion dollars and win a Nobel prize. Until then, fullerenes remain hype.