Somehow, prior to high-frequency trading, the world had plenty of liquidity, extremely narrow spreads, and not any more volatility than today (and probably less). I think the (real) world will do just fine without HFT.
No, spreads were typically 12.5 cents to 25 cents. Now on active equities they are typically two to four cents, and sometimes a mere penny. For example, right now as I type you could buy shares of Sprint for $2.94 and sell them for $2.93. That a tiny percentage. Before the prices would have been 2 7/8 and 3. And who benefitted from that enormous spread? The Market Maker. A person or company that would be designated as the MM for that equity. In exchange for "making a market" (in effect creating artificial liquidity) they would reap enormous profits from scooping up that spread all day long. And on top of that the broker would charge a $25 commission to execute the trade for you. With my broker today I could buy, say, 200 shares of sprint and pay a commission of somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 cents. I don't know why you believe what you do, but it is completely backwards.
It's just that it's more that now iPhone is a generation ahead in voice recognition where Android was a generation ahead previously.
So then you agree with him. And "voice recognition" is not what it is, any more than a "wheel" is a car. It won't work without it, but it's only part of the foundation.
Good question. In Asia they sell millions of the Galaxy Mini, which is an android (2.2) phone. It sells retail for about $150 unlocked and contract-free. It's really not much of a smart phone but it's a reasonably good phone. Browsing web pages on it is absolute torture. I've spent hundreds of dollars on iPad apps, but the chances of me buying a single app for the Mini are about zero. But it still counts just as much as an iPhone in calculating market share, though I can't imagine Samsung earning more than just a few dollars profit on it.
Also donating money has very little to do with your status.
How about his time? Did you know that he actually taught high school after leaving Apple? It certainly wasn't for the money nor for "publicity." It was what he wanted to do and he thought he could do some good. And he has nothing to do with Apple other than receiving a token ($100 a week) salary. He doesn't sell iPhones.
That's one of the things that's going away with this update. They've even got an app for configuring their wireless router, so it's now possible for someone to not ever own a traditional computer and still fully use these devices.
The thing I remember most was the burning of their recordings. Did the music somehow sound different now because it was two fat guys singing? To me it was more of a display of the shallowness of the people who bought the music more than an exposure of of the front men.
You're right, the statement is too simple. Free is not so important. If they make money because you use it, and that money does not come from you, then you are the product.
Well, then I can see why you accept it, and that's pretty reasonable, but why would you use it? "Raises the question" is a simple and clear alternative. Often a new use for a word improves the language, but others that only subvert a useful meaning cheapen it. For two recent examples, making a verb out of "party" is a good example of improvement, while IMHO the current use of "awesome" merely cheapens the word and does nothing to improve the language. It effectively removes a word from the English vocabulary.
Most people around here can see the strings, though.
I've seen this type of comment several times, but it's always been in the form of a simple assertion. It may well be the case that I simply lack the sophistication to see it, but I haven't found evidence of it in his writings. I get the impression that, right or wrong, he is presenting his genuine analysis. We all have biases, and biases can unknowingly affect his thinking, but of course they can also unknowingly affect the thinking of his critics.
So, I reckon they have a budget of $1 billion to scrub their source of patent claims.
I think by then they would have a non-functional phone. And trying to scrub only the "non-bogus" claims is probably impossible. I don't think it's possible today to create any useful electronic device that does not attract a stack of patent claims.
Which begs the question[sic] "why not simply go by the odometer reading?"
That only tells raw distance. They want to include the the time of day and the location. Downtown during rush hour is much worse that either downtown at night or the countryside during rush hour.
Slashdot Mirror
Which rarely makes sense, especially when dealing with actual fire.
No, spreads were typically 12.5 cents to 25 cents. Now on active equities they are typically two to four cents, and sometimes a mere penny. For example, right now as I type you could buy shares of Sprint for $2.94 and sell them for $2.93. That a tiny percentage. Before the prices would have been 2 7/8 and 3. And who benefitted from that enormous spread? The Market Maker. A person or company that would be designated as the MM for that equity. In exchange for "making a market" (in effect creating artificial liquidity) they would reap enormous profits from scooping up that spread all day long. And on top of that the broker would charge a $25 commission to execute the trade for you. With my broker today I could buy, say, 200 shares of sprint and pay a commission of somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 cents. I don't know why you believe what you do, but it is completely backwards.
So then you agree with him. And "voice recognition" is not what it is, any more than a "wheel" is a car. It won't work without it, but it's only part of the foundation.
Good question. In Asia they sell millions of the Galaxy Mini, which is an android (2.2) phone. It sells retail for about $150 unlocked and contract-free. It's really not much of a smart phone but it's a reasonably good phone. Browsing web pages on it is absolute torture. I've spent hundreds of dollars on iPad apps, but the chances of me buying a single app for the Mini are about zero. But it still counts just as much as an iPhone in calculating market share, though I can't imagine Samsung earning more than just a few dollars profit on it.
But the "kinda of sloppy" didn't bother you?
A feat made all the more difficult by it being stored hexagonally.
Heck, some iPhone users don't even recognize Steve Jobs.
(explaining the OP's joke)
How about his time? Did you know that he actually taught high school after leaving Apple? It certainly wasn't for the money nor for "publicity." It was what he wanted to do and he thought he could do some good. And he has nothing to do with Apple other than receiving a token ($100 a week) salary. He doesn't sell iPhones.
And he's not a billionaire.
Yes. So you can some old shitty napster version of a song and it will get you the officially released version.
That's one of the things that's going away with this update. They've even got an app for configuring their wireless router, so it's now possible for someone to not ever own a traditional computer and still fully use these devices.
It shouldn't be legal to agree to not discuss something? Really? People do that all the time.
Presumably it will already (be attempting to) cancel out the sound it's passing on to the TV.
The thing I remember most was the burning of their recordings. Did the music somehow sound different now because it was two fat guys singing? To me it was more of a display of the shallowness of the people who bought the music more than an exposure of of the front men.
You're right, the statement is too simple. Free is not so important. If they make money because you use it, and that money does not come from you, then you are the product.
Even the 6502 had JSR and RTS.
Not sure why my brain insists on remembering thirty year old stuff like that, and yet I forget where my keys are.
You ask too much. They didn't even get the developer's name right, and yet we should expect that much attention to detail?
"The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet." - Damon Runyon
If you're going to all that trouble, why leave out that he also wrote about an ATM machine?
I don't have access to the Oxford Shorter, but Macquarie gives only this:
adverb so; thus (often used parenthetically to show that something, especially an error, has been copied exactly from the original). [Latin]
Well, then I can see why you accept it, and that's pretty reasonable, but why would you use it? "Raises the question" is a simple and clear alternative. Often a new use for a word improves the language, but others that only subvert a useful meaning cheapen it. For two recent examples, making a verb out of "party" is a good example of improvement, while IMHO the current use of "awesome" merely cheapens the word and does nothing to improve the language. It effectively removes a word from the English vocabulary.
I've seen this type of comment several times, but it's always been in the form of a simple assertion. It may well be the case that I simply lack the sophistication to see it, but I haven't found evidence of it in his writings. I get the impression that, right or wrong, he is presenting his genuine analysis. We all have biases, and biases can unknowingly affect his thinking, but of course they can also unknowingly affect the thinking of his critics.
I think by then they would have a non-functional phone. And trying to scrub only the "non-bogus" claims is probably impossible. I don't think it's possible today to create any useful electronic device that does not attract a stack of patent claims.
That only tells raw distance. They want to include the the time of day and the location. Downtown during rush hour is much worse that either downtown at night or the countryside during rush hour.
(also, it raises the question, not begs it. That means something else.)