Google is to Motorola as an excited six-year-old is to a box of cereal with a prize inside: Moto's patent portfolio was the only part Google cared about. They rest of the company is filler, except to the extent that it generates more patents.
This page shows the orbit of the ISS. I believe what we're seeing is:
0:00 - Seattle / Vancouver as a dot on the horizon at left. 0:05 - Left to right: Seattle, Portland, San Francisco. 0:12 - ISS passes over land slightly north of San Francisco, moving toward Las Vegas; Los Angeles and San Diego on the right. 0:16 - ISS passes almost directly over Las Vegas (bottom center). 0:18 - ISS passes almost directly over Phoenix. Gulf of California on the right; Dallas and Houston on the horizon at far left. 0:28 - Mexico City. Gulf of Mexico on the left, Pacific Ocean on the right. 0:34 - Central American coast flyby, complete with tropical storms. 0:43 - South American coast flyby: Colombia, then Ecuador, then Peru. 0:51 - Lima, Peru. 0:55 - Border between Peru and Chile. The station's orbit begins to curve inland (eastward). 0:58 - Valparaiso and Santiago on the horizon at right (behind the solar panels after 0:59). 0:59 - Buenos Aires, Argentina is just appearing on the horizon (top center) as the video ends.
So I don't think Antarctica is ever visible - the station's orbit starts to turn eastward before that happens.
You have a right to be rude, the police officer has a right to issue you with a ticket.
A subtle distinction, but an important one: A police officer does not have the right to issue a ticket -- he/she has the power to issue a ticket. Rights belong to the people, who grant powers to the government.
The police are not super-citizens who have extra bonus rights -- they are, rather, people who've been entrusted with certain powers and are expected to use them responsibly. And I think it's safe to question whether the officers in this video are keeping their end of the bargain.
If we're talking about the iPhone/iPad market, then Apple does indeed have a "monopoly".
By these definitions of "market" and "monopoly", every manufacturer has a monopoly on every product they sell: Nintendo has a monopoly in the Wii market, Ford has a monopoly in the Taurus market, and so on.
Of course, it's unlikely that Apple will have such a dominating market share by the end of 2010: Apple's "app store" business model caught the entire smartphone industry flat-footed, but they're all racing to catch up now. The Android Store and the Windows Mobile Media Smartphone Zune Seven Series Platinum Edition KIN Store are gearing up and trying to attract developers -- and, clearly, it's in Apple's corporate best interests right now to make it as difficult as possible to write cross-platform apps.
I don't know, however, that Apple is crossing the line into abuse of monopoly power. Apple can make a plausible argument that what they're doing is no different than a Nintendo approving Wii console games, and that their actions are in the best interest of consumers whose batteries would be drained by bloated cross-platform runtimes. It's certainly in Apple's best interest that developers write for the iPhone / iPad first, and then port to Android or Windows Mobile Zune KIN Bob Smartphone Seven Mobile as necessary; whether it's an abuse of monopoly power to insist on that approach is probably something that Adobe and Apple will litigate.
Of course, there weren't any high-voltage transmission lines near Hoover Dam when they built that, so this is sort of a spurious argument: If your plan for building a wind farm didn't include connecting it to the grid in some useful way, then your plan was incomplete.
Not really. Apple's relationship with the music industry (and, to a large extent, their handling of iPhone apps) is more like Volvo's relationship to the petroleum industry... if the entire petroleum industry had failed, in spectacular fashion, to come up with a workable means of delivering gasoline to consumers, had spent half a decade suing anyone who tried to deliver gasoline to consumers, and then Volvo had stepped in and opened the Volvo Gas Store. Apple started selling music online because the RIAA wouldn't, not because they wanted to compete with music retailers - although it certainly didn't hurt that the music industry morons accidentally gave Apple enough pricing power to made 99-cent tracks the new sales model.
In other words, Apple is in the business of selling hardware; the music is just a commodity to them, and their only purpose in selling it is to drive more sales of Apple hardware. On the internet bandwidth is already a pure commodity, and Apple's music store is no danger of fading into oblivion: If anything the opposite is true and Apple is dominating online music sales, again thanks to the music industry morons who gave Apple an insurmountable lead (and made the even dumber mistake of allowing DRM that locked the music to the Apple hardware, but that's another story).
It's also telling that iPhone apps quickly raced to the bottom of the pricing scale: If a 99-cent app delivers more than a dollar's worth of value to the customer, then the app has effectively added value to the phone, and Apple pockets the difference in increased hardware sales. If AT&T Wireless became a pure-bandwidth provider, the only thing Apple would do is to stop turning away apps AT&T doesn't like - Skype, Google Voice, Slingbox, etc. - and let those apps add value to the phone as well.
The only thing that might endanger Apple's walled-garden approach to selling iPhone apps would be a competitor with a wide-open app store that attracted more developers, led to more interesting apps, and threatened to reduce the value that third-party apps currently deliver to the iPhone. The Nexus One is a signal that Google wants to go there (and, in passing, that Verizon and other carriers will fight tooth and nail to prevent opening their networks), but the most likely outcome here is pressure on Apple to make their app rejection policies more transparent and developer-friendly.
So I don't think there's a scenario where Apple's music and app stores fade into oblivion, even if wireless bandwidth becomes a commodity - again, bandwidth is already a commodity on the wired internet, and both the music store and the iPod Touch are thriving.
Honestly, they just need to provision 100% of what users are paying for; and figure out the growth rate and provision accordingly.
...and there'd only be 50 cell phones per city, because no one else could afford one. (Back when AT&T was a monopoly, this was actually the business model: Cell phones were planned as a high-end luxury item found only in limousines and such.) For guaranteed 100% availability of "what users are paying for," every cell site in the network would have to have one radio channel per customer... and that channel would sit idle and unused 99.9% of the time, but it still has to be there, ready and waiting, in case all 50 customers are stuck in the same traffic jam.
To borrow a downthread commenter's analogy, this is the difference between paying for 1.5Mbps DSL and running a full-bore T-1 line to your house: One of these things costs 5x more than the other, and if we insist that ISPs build to that capacity level then most of today's customers will be priced out of the market.
Not that AT&T couldn't have done a better job of growing their capacity, but they really do have a tiger by the tail here: The iPhone is hammering their data network like nothing before or since. Even if they had accurately forecasted the iPhone's impact, they wouldn't have been able to build enough capacity in time.
I don't know how it works in Seattle, but here in Los Angeles that whole sob story about not being able to visit your partner in the hospital is a load of bollocks and sensationalism.
In the absence of an external interfering force (e. g., the army of the Soviet Union), the fate of a nation is determined by its people. Period.
Um, no. This is a neocon fallacy - the belief that stable democracies are the default form of government, and that if we just go in and remove Saddam / the Taliban / the Red Army's influence, a representative government will spontaneously form. This led to disaster when the true believers charged into Iraq without even a plan for post-war administration and reconstruction -- the neocons truly believed we'd topple Saddam, grateful Iraqis would form a democracy, and the troops would be home in six months.
History says otherwise, though. The successful formation of a representative government is highly dependent on the starting conditions; trying to build a democracy without first laying the foundation of property rights, the rule of law, a government monopoly on the use of force, and other preconditions, usually leads to disappointing results.
The good news is that Iran comes closer than many countries to meeting these preconditions, and has the stabilizing factor of an educated middle class - if the reformers in Iran can excise the theocratic elements of their society, without extinguishing the rule of law or otherwise damaging the foundations, they can probably establish a democratic form of government much more easily than the people of, say, Iraq or Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia.
The Iranians bear 100% of the blame for the existence of a tyrannical government in Iran.
...and history began in 1953. The U.S. and U.K. helpfully converted Iran into a dictatorship back in '53, because the democratically elected prime minister had decided the people of Iran should share in the oil wealth; that didn't go over well with the Western oil companies and their lucrative one-sided contracts, so we installed the Shah and negotiated a deal with him instead.
Needless to say, anti-American and anti-Western sentiments were well represented in the coalition that ousted the Shah in '79 -- and Islamic theocracy was the banner they united behind, because Iran's earlier democracy had been too fragile to stand up to Western business interests.
Chemistry would work the best since there are so many obvious constants.
Rather than spoil the ending of the classic sci-fi short story Omnilingual by H. Beam Piper, I'll just post a link - it's a short read, like the label says. (A team of explorers on Mars find a dead civilization, complete with an utterly untranslatable library of books....)
that means a lot of people that don't pay any taxes at all are getting a "tax break".
Absolute nonsense. I challenge you to find a living American who didn't pay "any taxes at all" last year -- you'll be lucky to find one who avoided sales tax, much less payroll taxes or the excise tax on gasoline.
This is a misunderstanding. All other things being equal (given the same power output, antennas, etc.), carriers using a lower radio frequency will need fewer cells to cover the same area. Lower frequencies can travel through denser materials without loss of signal; ultra-low frequencies can travel through solid rock, for instance, while certain high-end frequences have trouble passing through raindrops.
At the same time, higher frequencies are better for high-speed data because they can carry more bits: When a radio signal is oscillating at, say, 850 million times a second (850 MHz), the frequency represents a hard upper bound on how much information it can carry. So the frequency represents a tradeoff between coverage and bandwidth, at least for applications involving wireless data.
Sprint's original spectrum licenses were in the PCS band, at 1900 MHz; Nextel used the SMR band (and was something of an oddball in that regard) at 800 MHz, which was actually a lower frequency than the cellular licensees at 850 MHz. The WiMAX deal involves the 2500 MHz band, so the RF engineers will be busy figuring out which cell towers to re-use and where to put new ones - but this has nothing to do with "inferior cell tower technology" and everything to do with spectrum.
Many years ago I (briefly) owned the e-mail address uucp@aol.com, which received all sorts of interesting messages from platforms that blindly assumed everyone else was running Unix too. After suspending the address and asking AOL to put it on their reserved list (which they did), I wrote it up for the RISKS Digest.
The other key difference between crimes and torts ("tort" is the legal term for copyright violation, breach of contract, etc.) is the question of who pays to prosecute the offender. Taxpayers (i.e., you) foot the bill for prosecuting crimes; in principle, a crime is an offense against society as a whole - a public offense - so the government handles the prosecution. That's why criminal cases are "The People vs. So-and-So" and civil litigation isn't.
A tort is a private offense: If you breach the terms of your lease, your landlord is much, much more interested in pursuing legal action than anyone else is. Violating someone's copyright is a tort, not a crime - as the original poster says - and the RIAA's has a financial interest in muddying the waters: If copyright violation is a crime, then it's you who gets stuck with the tab for what should be the RIAA's private legal expenses.
Setting aside the health impacts, high fructose corn syrup is "cheaper" than sugar only because the government subsidizes corn growers and puts a tariff on sugar imports, to the point where sugar is 2x to 3x more expensive than it should be in the USA. It's public policy, not "some PhD somewhere", that drove every sugar-consuming business in America to look for more economical alternatives.
Here's what a former chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers (under the GWB administration, no less) has to say on the subject.
...John McCain is not going to be choosing cabinet officials anytime soon. The right-wing extremists who dominate the GOP primaries still mistrust him for publicly calling them out in 2000, and the centrists who loved McCain back then have since been alienated by his blatant pandering to the right-wing extremists. All McCain has left to attract voters is a lingering nostalgia for the pre-Dubya, pre-9/11 days when political moderates roamed the earth and had not yet been pulverized into extinction.
Slashdot Mirror
Google is to Motorola as an excited six-year-old is to a box of cereal with a prize inside: Moto's patent portfolio was the only part Google cared about. They rest of the company is filler, except to the extent that it generates more patents.
This page shows the orbit of the ISS. I believe what we're seeing is:
0:00 - Seattle / Vancouver as a dot on the horizon at left.
0:05 - Left to right: Seattle, Portland, San Francisco.
0:12 - ISS passes over land slightly north of San Francisco, moving toward Las Vegas; Los Angeles and San Diego on the right.
0:16 - ISS passes almost directly over Las Vegas (bottom center).
0:18 - ISS passes almost directly over Phoenix. Gulf of California on the right; Dallas and Houston on the horizon at far left.
0:28 - Mexico City. Gulf of Mexico on the left, Pacific Ocean on the right.
0:34 - Central American coast flyby, complete with tropical storms.
0:43 - South American coast flyby: Colombia, then Ecuador, then Peru.
0:51 - Lima, Peru.
0:55 - Border between Peru and Chile. The station's orbit begins to curve inland (eastward).
0:58 - Valparaiso and Santiago on the horizon at right (behind the solar panels after 0:59).
0:59 - Buenos Aires, Argentina is just appearing on the horizon (top center) as the video ends.
So I don't think Antarctica is ever visible - the station's orbit starts to turn eastward before that happens.
Granted, professional journalism does cost money, but what does this have to do with Rupert Murdoch?
A subtle distinction, but an important one: A police officer does not have the right to issue a ticket -- he/she has the power to issue a ticket. Rights belong to the people, who grant powers to the government.
The police are not super-citizens who have extra bonus rights -- they are, rather, people who've been entrusted with certain powers and are expected to use them responsibly. And I think it's safe to question whether the officers in this video are keeping their end of the bargain.
Quickly, we need to implant microchips in Georgia state legislators while it's still legal to do so!
By these definitions of "market" and "monopoly", every manufacturer has a monopoly on every product they sell: Nintendo has a monopoly in the Wii market, Ford has a monopoly in the Taurus market, and so on.
A more useful distinction (and one that fits closer to the legal definition of monopoly) is that Apple has 99.4% of the market for smartphone application sales... and they're taking steps to ensure those apps will only run on Apple devices.
Of course, it's unlikely that Apple will have such a dominating market share by the end of 2010: Apple's "app store" business model caught the entire smartphone industry flat-footed, but they're all racing to catch up now. The Android Store and the Windows Mobile Media Smartphone Zune Seven Series Platinum Edition KIN Store are gearing up and trying to attract developers -- and, clearly, it's in Apple's corporate best interests right now to make it as difficult as possible to write cross-platform apps.
I don't know, however, that Apple is crossing the line into abuse of monopoly power. Apple can make a plausible argument that what they're doing is no different than a Nintendo approving Wii console games, and that their actions are in the best interest of consumers whose batteries would be drained by bloated cross-platform runtimes. It's certainly in Apple's best interest that developers write for the iPhone / iPad first, and then port to Android or Windows Mobile Zune KIN Bob Smartphone Seven Mobile as necessary; whether it's an abuse of monopoly power to insist on that approach is probably something that Adobe and Apple will litigate.
Pickens has shelved his plans to build a massive wind farm in Texas due to - as an upthread post noted - a lack of electricity-transmission lines.
Of course, there weren't any high-voltage transmission lines near Hoover Dam when they built that, so this is sort of a spurious argument: If your plan for building a wind farm didn't include connecting it to the grid in some useful way, then your plan was incomplete.
It'll have a stylus and handwriting recognition, and they're calling it the "Newton."
Not really. Apple's relationship with the music industry (and, to a large extent, their handling of iPhone apps) is more like Volvo's relationship to the petroleum industry... if the entire petroleum industry had failed, in spectacular fashion, to come up with a workable means of delivering gasoline to consumers, had spent half a decade suing anyone who tried to deliver gasoline to consumers, and then Volvo had stepped in and opened the Volvo Gas Store. Apple started selling music online because the RIAA wouldn't, not because they wanted to compete with music retailers - although it certainly didn't hurt that the music industry morons accidentally gave Apple enough pricing power to made 99-cent tracks the new sales model.
In other words, Apple is in the business of selling hardware; the music is just a commodity to them, and their only purpose in selling it is to drive more sales of Apple hardware. On the internet bandwidth is already a pure commodity, and Apple's music store is no danger of fading into oblivion: If anything the opposite is true and Apple is dominating online music sales, again thanks to the music industry morons who gave Apple an insurmountable lead (and made the even dumber mistake of allowing DRM that locked the music to the Apple hardware, but that's another story).
It's also telling that iPhone apps quickly raced to the bottom of the pricing scale: If a 99-cent app delivers more than a dollar's worth of value to the customer, then the app has effectively added value to the phone, and Apple pockets the difference in increased hardware sales. If AT&T Wireless became a pure-bandwidth provider, the only thing Apple would do is to stop turning away apps AT&T doesn't like - Skype, Google Voice, Slingbox, etc. - and let those apps add value to the phone as well.
The only thing that might endanger Apple's walled-garden approach to selling iPhone apps would be a competitor with a wide-open app store that attracted more developers, led to more interesting apps, and threatened to reduce the value that third-party apps currently deliver to the iPhone. The Nexus One is a signal that Google wants to go there (and, in passing, that Verizon and other carriers will fight tooth and nail to prevent opening their networks), but the most likely outcome here is pressure on Apple to make their app rejection policies more transparent and developer-friendly.
So I don't think there's a scenario where Apple's music and app stores fade into oblivion, even if wireless bandwidth becomes a commodity - again, bandwidth is already a commodity on the wired internet, and both the music store and the iPod Touch are thriving.
...and there'd only be 50 cell phones per city, because no one else could afford one. (Back when AT&T was a monopoly, this was actually the business model: Cell phones were planned as a high-end luxury item found only in limousines and such.) For guaranteed 100% availability of "what users are paying for," every cell site in the network would have to have one radio channel per customer... and that channel would sit idle and unused 99.9% of the time, but it still has to be there, ready and waiting, in case all 50 customers are stuck in the same traffic jam.
To borrow a downthread commenter's analogy, this is the difference between paying for 1.5Mbps DSL and running a full-bore T-1 line to your house: One of these things costs 5x more than the other, and if we insist that ISPs build to that capacity level then most of today's customers will be priced out of the market.
Not that AT&T couldn't have done a better job of growing their capacity, but they really do have a tiger by the tail here: The iPhone is hammering their data network like nothing before or since. Even if they had accurately forecasted the iPhone's impact, they wouldn't have been able to build enough capacity in time.
You're right. You don't know how it works in Seattle.
Verizon's current technology isn't used much outside of the U.S., but Verizon is switching to LTE in 2010.
Um, no. This is a neocon fallacy - the belief that stable democracies are the default form of government, and that if we just go in and remove Saddam / the Taliban / the Red Army's influence, a representative government will spontaneously form. This led to disaster when the true believers charged into Iraq without even a plan for post-war administration and reconstruction -- the neocons truly believed we'd topple Saddam, grateful Iraqis would form a democracy, and the troops would be home in six months.
History says otherwise, though. The successful formation of a representative government is highly dependent on the starting conditions; trying to build a democracy without first laying the foundation of property rights, the rule of law, a government monopoly on the use of force, and other preconditions, usually leads to disappointing results.
The good news is that Iran comes closer than many countries to meeting these preconditions, and has the stabilizing factor of an educated middle class - if the reformers in Iran can excise the theocratic elements of their society, without extinguishing the rule of law or otherwise damaging the foundations, they can probably establish a democratic form of government much more easily than the people of, say, Iraq or Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia.
Needless to say, anti-American and anti-Western sentiments were well represented in the coalition that ousted the Shah in '79 -- and Islamic theocracy was the banner they united behind, because Iran's earlier democracy had been too fragile to stand up to Western business interests.
Rather than spoil the ending of the classic sci-fi short story Omnilingual by H. Beam Piper, I'll just post a link - it's a short read, like the label says. (A team of explorers on Mars find a dead civilization, complete with an utterly untranslatable library of books....)
Absolute nonsense. I challenge you to find a living American who didn't pay "any taxes at all" last year -- you'll be lucky to find one who avoided sales tax, much less payroll taxes or the excise tax on gasoline.
This is a misunderstanding. All other things being equal (given the same power output, antennas, etc.), carriers using a lower radio frequency will need fewer cells to cover the same area. Lower frequencies can travel through denser materials without loss of signal; ultra-low frequencies can travel through solid rock, for instance, while certain high-end frequences have trouble passing through raindrops.
At the same time, higher frequencies are better for high-speed data because they can carry more bits: When a radio signal is oscillating at, say, 850 million times a second (850 MHz), the frequency represents a hard upper bound on how much information it can carry. So the frequency represents a tradeoff between coverage and bandwidth, at least for applications involving wireless data.
Sprint's original spectrum licenses were in the PCS band, at 1900 MHz; Nextel used the SMR band (and was something of an oddball in that regard) at 800 MHz, which was actually a lower frequency than the cellular licensees at 850 MHz. The WiMAX deal involves the 2500 MHz band, so the RF engineers will be busy figuring out which cell towers to re-use and where to put new ones - but this has nothing to do with "inferior cell tower technology" and everything to do with spectrum.
Many years ago I (briefly) owned the e-mail address uucp@aol.com, which received all sorts of interesting messages from platforms that blindly assumed everyone else was running Unix too. After suspending the address and asking AOL to put it on their reserved list (which they did), I wrote it up for the RISKS Digest.
The other key difference between crimes and torts ("tort" is the legal term for copyright violation, breach of contract, etc.) is the question of who pays to prosecute the offender. Taxpayers (i.e., you) foot the bill for prosecuting crimes; in principle, a crime is an offense against society as a whole - a public offense - so the government handles the prosecution. That's why criminal cases are "The People vs. So-and-So" and civil litigation isn't.
A tort is a private offense: If you breach the terms of your lease, your landlord is much, much more interested in pursuing legal action than anyone else is. Violating someone's copyright is a tort, not a crime - as the original poster says - and the RIAA's has a financial interest in muddying the waters: If copyright violation is a crime, then it's you who gets stuck with the tab for what should be the RIAA's private legal expenses.
...if you can prove that he only did it once, yes. Otherwise no.
That certainly would be an attractive option, if it weren't illegal in the United States. Write your Senators and complain.
Oh, okay, so we're not going to run out of oil - it's just that you and I won't be able to afford any. That's a relief.
Men are no longer allowed to play Tomb Raider.
So you could rack up, what, 2.4 million frequent flyer miles in a week?
Setting aside the health impacts, high fructose corn syrup is "cheaper" than sugar only because the government subsidizes corn growers and puts a tariff on sugar imports, to the point where sugar is 2x to 3x more expensive than it should be in the USA. It's public policy, not "some PhD somewhere", that drove every sugar-consuming business in America to look for more economical alternatives.
Here's what a former chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers (under the GWB administration, no less) has to say on the subject.
...John McCain is not going to be choosing cabinet officials anytime soon. The right-wing extremists who dominate the GOP primaries still mistrust him for publicly calling them out in 2000, and the centrists who loved McCain back then have since been alienated by his blatant pandering to the right-wing extremists. All McCain has left to attract voters is a lingering nostalgia for the pre-Dubya, pre-9/11 days when political moderates roamed the earth and had not yet been pulverized into extinction.