I'd bet dollars to donuts that the bird story is a myth. The return signature (from what I've found online) is roughly that of a small bird. I could find no other references to a bird in relation to Have Blue or Project Harvey. It was mentioned that visual confirmation had to be made of all radar tests, but nothing about a bird being used (accidentally or otherwise) as a substitute.
Moreover, without visual confirmation, how would they have known that a bird landed on the plane? In other words, if they could see a bird, surely they could also see that the plane was still on its test stand.
The problem is that while the situation you describe may be true for efficiency, in a monopoly there is no incentive to pass the savings on to the consumer, either in the form of lower prices or an improved product. Of course that's not a problem for the monopoly, but nobody ever argued that monopolies were bad for the holders.
But as you say, MS doesn't have a monopoly on operating systems, so the point is largely moot.
That might be funny/insightful if blog rhymed with lose, but lose(r) is one of the few words -- certianly the only one in common use -- with a single O pronounced as "ew". In almost every other case the same sound is represented by double O's.
Although since the word blog is a stupid word to begin with (and yes, that's an objective fact), I don't think any grammar fanatics will particularly care if it gets mangled.
I'd never heard of waste toner -- and I've never had a problem with toner running out before expected EOL on my old Epson laser -- but I Googled and found this. Looks like my next laser will be a Toshiba.
First of all, there's never been a documented "snuff" film, ever -- that is, a film depicting an actual murder for the purpose of entertainment. There have obviously been videos of people being killed, but never for the purpose of entertainment.
Second, while children are certainly resilliant, they are ill equipped for either self-defense or appreciation of context, which means they are more vulnerable physically and mentally. If an adult is kidnapped, tortured, and raped, they will surely be traumatized, likely for the rest of their lives, but they will still understand that it was a freak event, even if they feel more vulnerable. If the same thing happens to a child, they will not only be traumatized, they will think it's a typical experience. They have no understanding of typical vs. atypical -- no life experience to draw from -- they know only what they've experienced in their short existance. Counseling and further life experience can help in that regard, but it's a huge setback.
Aside from ethical concerns and actual damage to the victims (which are sort of insane things to disregard in the first place), child abduction and abuse is statistically *by far* more of a problem than adult abduction:
In 2001, 840,279 persons (adults and juveniles) were reported missing to the police. The FBI estimates that 85-90% of missing persons were statistics of kidnapped children (juveniles). Approximately 725,000 cases or 2,000 per day in the disappearance of a child was serious enough that a parent called the police. http://www.eyesofamerica.org/US_abduction_kidnappi ng_statistics.htm
So while there may be instances of events with adult victims similar to those alleged in the NYT article linked above, the problem is less epidemic. I don't know about you, but I'm all for fighting the biggest threats, which is why a "war on terror" over the actions of 19 people seems ridiculous to me when 652,000 people die every year from heart disease in the US. Not to trivialize the deaths of over 2,000 people, but I favor a response proportionate to the threat.
I won't directly question your intelligence, but I suggest you revisit your logic from premise to conclusion.
But is easier, not harder, to find and prosecute these individuals when they are out in the open.
That's precisely why they wouldn't come out in the open. You can advertise a public spot for people to do their murdering as well, but that doesn't mean anybody's going to show up. If it's a honeypot you're trying to describe, advertising its existance in a public and brazen manner is not at all the way to go about it.
making it more efficient to climb up to the clouds and thereby easier to defray building costs with golden geese.
I think I see a fatal flaw with your business model; namely your revenue stream. Extensive testing has confirmed that there is, in fact, only one golden goose, which leads me to believe your have either overestimated or intentionally inflated your projections for potential golden egg harvesting.
If you're going to attack someone for ignorance, at least specify a legitimate gap in their knowledge. I'll be the first to admit I don't have all the facts in this case, but nothing you said contradicts anything I said.
nearly 60% of their revenue comes from actual product sold, with less than 30% coming from licensing
That doesn't mean they aren't trying to leverage their patents beyond the scope of what was covered. I'm sure not everything a pickpocket does is bad either, but that doesn't mean we should overlook the fact that he steals wallets.
From their press releases, the licenses appear to be legit
Imagine that.
For the record, the patents in question are 6,275,213 and 6,424,333, neither of which, if you read the abstracts, seems to apply specifically to the generic rumble function of a controller -- they're both for special circumstances and/or methods to use the function. But here's the kicker: The earliest of those patents was filed in 2001, while the Dual Shock was released in '98, and the Nintendo Rumble Pak was introduced in '97 -- clear examples of prior art, and obviously why every console manufacturer tried to fight the case. Likely the patents were granted because the USPTO decided the patent was unique enough that it didn't pertain to standard rumble controllers, and the jury was too stupid to understand that.
Of course, I don't know a whole lot about what I'm talking about, so feel free to clue me in.
Just making it bulletproof requires solid tires, and THAT is enough to blow your efficiency out of the water.
What?!?
A) Tires do not need to be solid to be bulletproof. See: Kevlar, carbon fiber, and other composites. B) Armored cars typically use run-flat tires. C) Tire deformation contributes substantially to inefficiency, which is why it's important to maintain adequate tire pressure. Fuel efficiency is inversely proportional to traction (friction), and soft "sport" tires get worse milage than their daily driving counterparts. A solid tire would, if anything, reduce that inefficiency, at the cost of a very rough ride, less stability, and less traction.
That said, the weight of the car itself would definately increase, especially if they used 2" thick layered glass.
I'm not saying I made the best decision, just presenting the decision I made. Anyway, I think teachers are wrong often enough that I'll get another chance in the near future.;) Though probably not until September, at least.
I would probably feel worse if Immersion Corp wasn't a patent troll, claiming that a rumble function violates their patent on haptic technology. If haptic technology is novel and non-obvious (patent-worthy), and if rumble technology is any part of haptic technology, then clearly it is a novel and non-obvious implementation thereof. Sounds like a keyboard patent holder suing a mouse manufacturer for infringement because they're both input mechanisms. But what do I know.. IANAL.
I remember the frustration as well, but what I conveniently forget (which has been painfully illustrated by my own kids) is how often I was wrong. We judge people's insight based on past performance, and kids generally have a poor track record because, among other things, while they may clearly remember a conversation, or an event that occurred, they frequently mis-interpret what actually transpired, or leave out important details. For example, when his teacher asked him to confirm that "xxx-xxxx" was our phone number, my 6 year-old came to the conclusion that his teacher had the same phone number as we did, and vehemently insisted that this was true. For some reason or another, he had completely misinterpreted what had happened. As another example, apparently his school is still teaching that Pluto is a planet (as of last month). I was completely unsuccessful at convincing him otherwise, probably because he doesn't yet completely understand that definitions are not absolute (although I didn't try very hard because I didn't want him to fail his assignments. Yes, I could have pressed the issue with the school, but I think it will be easier, and no less effective in the long run, to just explain it when he's a bit older). Anyway, when someone presents you with misinformation on a fairly constant basis, you have to take everything they say with a grain of salt, and that's true whether the source is a child or an adult. I try to give the benefit of the doubt, but unless you have kids, or deal with them on a regular basis, it's hard to appreciate how often they're just plain wrong. Given that, it's not hard to understand why parents assume their children are wrong if what their children say conflicts with their view of reality. Parents should probably try to be open to the idea that their children are right, but at the same time, learning to present a convincing argument (and when not to bother) is an important part of growing up.
And most importantly of all, it helped traumatize the public, keeping them in the palms of exploitive politicians.
I'd argue that it was more of a panacea.. the people were already traumatized, and getting people *too* worried is counter productive.
That said, and in response to a sibling post, fallout is largely a function of wind direction. It's possible to be inside the blast radius blast radius and them move outside of the fallout danger zone. While this zone is roughly 5 miles from ground zero, keep in mind that, by definition, the amount of people affected increases exponentially with the radius, assuming a fairly regular population distribution, so far more people would be in this middle-ground than those caught in the essentially unsurvivable inner blast zone. The likelyhood of avoiding fallout increases rapidly if you can move at least 10 miles in any direction greater than 90 degrees leeward from ground zero within 6 hours (although continued travel would obviously be recommended).
Granted, a slow, agonizing death might be worse than a quick one, but that assumes either that you can't survive (there are 50,000 Hiroshima survivors still living in the city today), or that it's not worth trying, in which case feel free to go stand on the roof if there's ever a nuclear bomb threat.
If you think the iPhone will "revolutionize" mobile web browsing, then I invite you to resize your browser window (viewable area) to 640x480 and do some surfing. Granted, today's browsers aren't designed with those resolutions in mind, so the controls themselves may be difficult to use, but navigating pages will be frustrating even when discounting the controls. Now consider that the iPhone's actual resolution is, in fact, 320x480. Finger scrolling on the touchscreen may improve the controls, but it won't counter the annoyance of having such a limited view of a typical page, especially (and ironically, considering the TV spots) pages like the NYT frontpage where you want to view and select from a large number of links on a page 5-6 columns wide. To be fair, even if the resolution was infinite, the screen size itself would be the limiting factor, since you can only make text so small before it becomes illegible.
And then there's the data entry methods: How do you call up the on-screen keyboard? How accurate will typing be? How intelligent will it be in resolving "yahoo" or "nyt" instead of protocol://FQDN?
I conceed that linear page layouts and/or those designed specifically for the iPhone should look good, and bookmarking frequently visited sites should largely avoid the hassle of text entry, but I still don't think the device will live up to the hype. Not that that would be a departure from the marketing of any other product.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd bet dollars to donuts that the bird story is a myth. The return signature (from what I've found online) is roughly that of a small bird. I could find no other references to a bird in relation to Have Blue or Project Harvey. It was mentioned that visual confirmation had to be made of all radar tests, but nothing about a bird being used (accidentally or otherwise) as a substitute.
Moreover, without visual confirmation, how would they have known that a bird landed on the plane? In other words, if they could see a bird, surely they could also see that the plane was still on its test stand.
The problem is that while the situation you describe may be true for efficiency, in a monopoly there is no incentive to pass the savings on to the consumer, either in the form of lower prices or an improved product. Of course that's not a problem for the monopoly, but nobody ever argued that monopolies were bad for the holders.
But as you say, MS doesn't have a monopoly on operating systems, so the point is largely moot.
That might be funny/insightful if blog rhymed with lose, but lose(r) is one of the few words -- certianly the only one in common use -- with a single O pronounced as "ew". In almost every other case the same sound is represented by double O's.
Although since the word blog is a stupid word to begin with (and yes, that's an objective fact), I don't think any grammar fanatics will particularly care if it gets mangled.
I'd never heard of waste toner -- and I've never had a problem with toner running out before expected EOL on my old Epson laser -- but I Googled and found this. Looks like my next laser will be a Toshiba.
Don't worry -- printer manufacturers got wise to that, and now come with cartridges filled with only 50-100pg worth of ink.
I've never thought of it that way befo.. Wait, are you saying it's okay for men to be non-confrontational??? Turn in your man card. Now!
Second, while children are certainly resilliant, they are ill equipped for either self-defense or appreciation of context, which means they are more vulnerable physically and mentally. If an adult is kidnapped, tortured, and raped, they will surely be traumatized, likely for the rest of their lives, but they will still understand that it was a freak event, even if they feel more vulnerable. If the same thing happens to a child, they will not only be traumatized, they will think it's a typical experience. They have no understanding of typical vs. atypical -- no life experience to draw from -- they know only what they've experienced in their short existance. Counseling and further life experience can help in that regard, but it's a huge setback.
Aside from ethical concerns and actual damage to the victims (which are sort of insane things to disregard in the first place), child abduction and abuse is statistically *by far* more of a problem than adult abduction:So while there may be instances of events with adult victims similar to those alleged in the NYT article linked above, the problem is less epidemic. I don't know about you, but I'm all for fighting the biggest threats, which is why a "war on terror" over the actions of 19 people seems ridiculous to me when 652,000 people die every year from heart disease in the US. Not to trivialize the deaths of over 2,000 people, but I favor a response proportionate to the threat.
I won't directly question your intelligence, but I suggest you revisit your logic from premise to conclusion.
But is easier, not harder, to find and prosecute these individuals when they are out in the open.
That's precisely why they wouldn't come out in the open. You can advertise a public spot for people to do their murdering as well, but that doesn't mean anybody's going to show up. If it's a honeypot you're trying to describe, advertising its existance in a public and brazen manner is not at all the way to go about it.
A space station turned into little more than a low-orbit money sink.
That's one drain I wouldn't mind circling.
if the participants know that the whole thing is a simulation, it robs the experiment of any useful insight into many aspects of psychological stress
Good point.
"ESA seeks volunteers for actual mission to mars! Updates in launch technology and artificial gravity ensure you'll barely notice you've left earth."
The good news is that your application has been accepted.
The bad news is that the alien is microbial.
making it more efficient to climb up to the clouds and thereby easier to defray building costs with golden geese.
I think I see a fatal flaw with your business model; namely your revenue stream. Extensive testing has confirmed that there is, in fact, only one golden goose, which leads me to believe your have either overestimated or intentionally inflated your projections for potential golden egg harvesting.
Quiet, you utopia denier! Things were always better in the past, and moral decay will be the downfall of society!
If you're going to attack someone for ignorance, at least specify a legitimate gap in their knowledge. I'll be the first to admit I don't have all the facts in this case, but nothing you said contradicts anything I said.
nearly 60% of their revenue comes from actual product sold, with less than 30% coming from licensing
That doesn't mean they aren't trying to leverage their patents beyond the scope of what was covered. I'm sure not everything a pickpocket does is bad either, but that doesn't mean we should overlook the fact that he steals wallets.
From their press releases, the licenses appear to be legit
Imagine that.
For the record, the patents in question are 6,275,213 and 6,424,333, neither of which, if you read the abstracts, seems to apply specifically to the generic rumble function of a controller -- they're both for special circumstances and/or methods to use the function. But here's the kicker: The earliest of those patents was filed in 2001, while the Dual Shock was released in '98, and the Nintendo Rumble Pak was introduced in '97 -- clear examples of prior art, and obviously why every console manufacturer tried to fight the case. Likely the patents were granted because the USPTO decided the patent was unique enough that it didn't pertain to standard rumble controllers, and the jury was too stupid to understand that.
Of course, I don't know a whole lot about what I'm talking about, so feel free to clue me in.
Just making it bulletproof requires solid tires, and THAT is enough to blow your efficiency out of the water.
What?!?
A) Tires do not need to be solid to be bulletproof. See: Kevlar, carbon fiber, and other composites.
B) Armored cars typically use run-flat tires.
C) Tire deformation contributes substantially to inefficiency, which is why it's important to maintain adequate tire pressure. Fuel efficiency is inversely proportional to traction (friction), and soft "sport" tires get worse milage than their daily driving counterparts. A solid tire would, if anything, reduce that inefficiency, at the cost of a very rough ride, less stability, and less traction.
That said, the weight of the car itself would definately increase, especially if they used 2" thick layered glass.
Ka-Ping Yee makes my eyes hurt.
I'm not saying I made the best decision, just presenting the decision I made. Anyway, I think teachers are wrong often enough that I'll get another chance in the near future. ;) Though probably not until September, at least.
I would probably feel worse if Immersion Corp wasn't a patent troll, claiming that a rumble function violates their patent on haptic technology. If haptic technology is novel and non-obvious (patent-worthy), and if rumble technology is any part of haptic technology, then clearly it is a novel and non-obvious implementation thereof. Sounds like a keyboard patent holder suing a mouse manufacturer for infringement because they're both input mechanisms. But what do I know.. IANAL.
Another senseless killing by the Shadow Knight.
Yeah, the 45 year-old chain smoker voice really kills the illusion of the young dainty wood-elf as well. Especially when it's a man.
I remember the frustration as well, but what I conveniently forget (which has been painfully illustrated by my own kids) is how often I was wrong. We judge people's insight based on past performance, and kids generally have a poor track record because, among other things, while they may clearly remember a conversation, or an event that occurred, they frequently mis-interpret what actually transpired, or leave out important details. For example, when his teacher asked him to confirm that "xxx-xxxx" was our phone number, my 6 year-old came to the conclusion that his teacher had the same phone number as we did, and vehemently insisted that this was true. For some reason or another, he had completely misinterpreted what had happened. As another example, apparently his school is still teaching that Pluto is a planet (as of last month). I was completely unsuccessful at convincing him otherwise, probably because he doesn't yet completely understand that definitions are not absolute (although I didn't try very hard because I didn't want him to fail his assignments. Yes, I could have pressed the issue with the school, but I think it will be easier, and no less effective in the long run, to just explain it when he's a bit older). Anyway, when someone presents you with misinformation on a fairly constant basis, you have to take everything they say with a grain of salt, and that's true whether the source is a child or an adult. I try to give the benefit of the doubt, but unless you have kids, or deal with them on a regular basis, it's hard to appreciate how often they're just plain wrong. Given that, it's not hard to understand why parents assume their children are wrong if what their children say conflicts with their view of reality. Parents should probably try to be open to the idea that their children are right, but at the same time, learning to present a convincing argument (and when not to bother) is an important part of growing up.
Oops, yeah.. essentially two dimensional, not three.
Turned out better than this one in Texas.
In summary: "We recommend you don't go below 110 feet."
And most importantly of all, it helped traumatize the public, keeping them in the palms of exploitive politicians.
I'd argue that it was more of a panacea.. the people were already traumatized, and getting people *too* worried is counter productive.
That said, and in response to a sibling post, fallout is largely a function of wind direction. It's possible to be inside the blast radius blast radius and them move outside of the fallout danger zone. While this zone is roughly 5 miles from ground zero, keep in mind that, by definition, the amount of people affected increases exponentially with the radius, assuming a fairly regular population distribution, so far more people would be in this middle-ground than those caught in the essentially unsurvivable inner blast zone. The likelyhood of avoiding fallout increases rapidly if you can move at least 10 miles in any direction greater than 90 degrees leeward from ground zero within 6 hours (although continued travel would obviously be recommended).
Granted, a slow, agonizing death might be worse than a quick one, but that assumes either that you can't survive (there are 50,000 Hiroshima survivors still living in the city today), or that it's not worth trying, in which case feel free to go stand on the roof if there's ever a nuclear bomb threat.
If you think the iPhone will "revolutionize" mobile web browsing, then I invite you to resize your browser window (viewable area) to 640x480 and do some surfing. Granted, today's browsers aren't designed with those resolutions in mind, so the controls themselves may be difficult to use, but navigating pages will be frustrating even when discounting the controls. Now consider that the iPhone's actual resolution is, in fact, 320x480. Finger scrolling on the touchscreen may improve the controls, but it won't counter the annoyance of having such a limited view of a typical page, especially (and ironically, considering the TV spots) pages like the NYT frontpage where you want to view and select from a large number of links on a page 5-6 columns wide. To be fair, even if the resolution was infinite, the screen size itself would be the limiting factor, since you can only make text so small before it becomes illegible.
And then there's the data entry methods: How do you call up the on-screen keyboard? How accurate will typing be? How intelligent will it be in resolving "yahoo" or "nyt" instead of protocol://FQDN?
I conceed that linear page layouts and/or those designed specifically for the iPhone should look good, and bookmarking frequently visited sites should largely avoid the hassle of text entry, but I still don't think the device will live up to the hype. Not that that would be a departure from the marketing of any other product.