I worked for an insurance company, and they are out to make money. Where I worked, the rates were regulated by the state, and the company wasn't allowed to discriminate in pricing due to numerous things, such as credit scores (a lower credit score was highly correlated with more accidents). They got around this by advertising in areas with better credit scores, and direct mailing only to those with high credit scores.
My point is that insurance companies will do what they can to save money. Even if you're a safe driver, if there is something else they believe has a high correlation with accidents, such as where you park your car or the areas in which you drive, they may come up with an excuse to cancel (or not renew) your policy.
In addition, they will most likely be reviewing the video of people who do have accidents but got through their net the first time to find other indicators of people likely to get in an accident, and they would (in my opinion) be willing to jump at any correlation if it had a chance to cut their costs - please don't give them the ammunition.
Now that Google is getting more involved with energy production, how long do you think it will be before the DOJ gets more involved in manufacturing an anti-competitive case against them? Threatening oil company profits could turn a lot of 'civil servants' anti-Google.
the author did not put any version of MS internet explorer in the Arena. Now that's understandable, all windows system come with IE installed, so the rationale, as I see it , is that there's no point in benchmarking a program that no one has to choose on its own. I only wonder what will happen if Europe goes forward in forcing MS to sell OEM copies of Win7 without IE installed.
I assumed it was because IE isn't competitive. Including IE would stretch the scale on the various graphs so you wouldn't be able to discern the differences between the browsers from competent software engineers.
I watch almost all of my tv through hulu now, so the time slot shuffling isn't much of an issue for me; I like their queue implementation - new episodes of shows I pick automatically get added to my queue, so when I'm looking for something to watch I just check what's available from that.
OTOH, I'm not sure if hulu counts as viewership to the networks, though - I've read that online programming isn't making much money compared to regular tv.
In this case, Google isn't using copy protection out of greed, or to try to control users' behavior - this copy protection is an option for developers.
Just because they're selling guns doesn't mean people have to shoot themselves in the foot.
I could be mistaken, I haven't tried this, but perhaps this is the firmware colonslash is referring to.
Yes - that's the link. I installed the no device checks version. For those not reading the entire thread, this lets me see paid apps on the Android Market with a developer g1.
I have a Dev Phone 1, I created an app for it, and I couldn't see my own paid-app on the Market. Installing the Google bonus phone firmware let me access paid apps on the Android Market.
...he also had to ensure that anyone who could actually afford them would be denied.
The conspiracist in me jumps to the conclusion that they were forced into this. Maybe some company they deal with didn't want their profitable markets taken away. It is hard to believe they would be this stupid out of principle.
software development becomes a game for the very rich where you can buy certain must-have technologies.
That is where prior art comes in. I think open source could be more creative than it is, and if someone had implemented this before Apple, then Apple couldn't get or defend a patent on this.
...in some areas the money needed to license a patent would be the only expenditure
I don't think that applies in this example. Apple must pay a lot of people a lot of money to come up with different interface designs, and programmers to implement them.
Is it possible that Apple could license this IP? If they do, then the inventor will be paid for their invention, and people will get to use it in other devices.
I think the retarding progress for 20 years is a little much - others just can't rip off Apple's approach. One possible consequence of this patent is that other companies may employ some interface designers to make a competitive implementation, and we may get more useful interfaces instead of lots of copies of this one.
The velocity of money: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money would determine the net loss to the economy; having more employed people would stimulate the economy, so the transaction is not so simple.
I would argue that giving money to the people who can't afford the necessities to live would have the greatest initial turn-around.
In addition, by hiring out of work people, the government is giving money to people who may otherwise rely on welfare-type programs. In your example, let's say that saves the tax payer $20,000, leaving a net outlay of $50,000.
Lastly, hopefully the net $50,000 spent by the government would produce more value than the total outlay of $100,000 (that is why businesses hire employees - the work they do is presumably worth more than their total cost to the employer), producing a net gain to society.
So, in this example, the net the taxpayer pays is $50,000, let's say that over 1 year the $70,000 received by the worker is spent a couple of times in the economy, for $140,000 pumped into the economy, and $120,000 of value is created by the work. The cost to the taxpayer of $50,000 yields $260,000 for the economy.
My guess is that they feel their product wouldn't be competitive with the soon to be released in Australia G1, and they don't want to support just a handful of customers- that doesn't give them economies of scale.
I've made an Android app, and I was dreading trying to make it usable for the smaller screen (although I have found the Android layout model very flexible).
2) The businesses that buy advertising don't automatically have the money to increase advertising budgets in a 'slowing economy'.
When advertising budgets shrink, the remaining money will go to the cheaper media - businesses can reach a lot of people through Google Ads for relatively little money.
It only lost 60% of its value this year. If you think that isn't having a MAJOR impact on it you are on crack.
Fuck, I hate it when I'm on crack.
I think you meant stock valuation, not value. Google's earnings numbers haven't dropped for Q3, and I don't believe in the prescience of the market.
Who are the promising 3rd party candidates? I don't like Bob Barr at all- his page on Wikipedia makes him sound like he's not really a Libertarian - voting for the Patriotic Act, his stance on the drug war:
Clearly, the court today has ignored the constitutional right and responsibility of Congress to pass laws protecting citizens from dangerous and addictive narcotics, and the right of Congress to exert legislative control over the District of Columbia as the nation's capital.
-Bob Barr, March 28 2002
, and this:
Religious freedom
In Congress, he also controversially proposed that the Pentagon ban the practice of Wicca in the military.
I forget which of those things he later regretted and begged forgiveness for, but he doesn't seem like a Libertarian at heart to me.
I think I'm still an Obama supporter until I see something better come along.
The alleged urine, Nestor maintained, was actually three buckets, two of which contained dirty water used to flush toilets while conserving water. The third was seized from an illegal apartment occupied by someone not connected to the RNC protests. There was no bathroom in the illegal apartment and urine was collected in a bucket, Nestor said.
I just started an open source project at work. My reasons are:
To learn about the technology
To make tools that make the data we sell more readily accessible and usable
To use the tools I make in my own work
To help advertise our company (through source code) to people who may not otherwise consider buying our data
I think my reasons all help my company.
The part of my contribution that doesn't is pissing off our larger software partners, like Oracle, by making and promoting free products that are in competition with their pricey and bloated offerings.
If I quit my job, then I would lose my benefits, including health insurance (I live in the United States, which is often cited as the only 'civilized' country without universal health care).
So, if I left my job, I, and my family, would not be able to afford health care to keep us alive. My life is not being directly threatened, but my life is in jeopardy by leaving just the same.
I know there are ways to escape this situation, but there are also ways to escape literal slavery.
This is the problem I have with nuclear energy - currently we don't recycle this material in the US, and so there is a real problem with waste.
I have a hard time understanding people who are so gung-ho on nuclear energy that they don't qualify what is an acceptable use of the technology.
I also think Obama would make a much better candidate overall, so I hope McCain just gave the "hysteria-spreading, anti-nuclear, tree-huggers" the rope to hang him politically.
One of my favorite scifi books, The Great Explosion, has societal rejects being sent to different planets, and they create their own societies. The book has people with ideas that are rejected by the mainstream (such as libertarianism) making societies that work based on these ideas.
My point is that it can be the other way around - a haven for groups that are not well tolerated by society.
Slashdot Mirror
It has been in the works- I just believe it will be ramping up now that they are threatening Big Oil.
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-08/mf_googlopoly
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/19/214239
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/29/1218201
I worked for an insurance company, and they are out to make money. Where I worked, the rates were regulated by the state, and the company wasn't allowed to discriminate in pricing due to numerous things, such as credit scores (a lower credit score was highly correlated with more accidents). They got around this by advertising in areas with better credit scores, and direct mailing only to those with high credit scores.
My point is that insurance companies will do what they can to save money. Even if you're a safe driver, if there is something else they believe has a high correlation with accidents, such as where you park your car or the areas in which you drive, they may come up with an excuse to cancel (or not renew) your policy.
In addition, they will most likely be reviewing the video of people who do have accidents but got through their net the first time to find other indicators of people likely to get in an accident, and they would (in my opinion) be willing to jump at any correlation if it had a chance to cut their costs - please don't give them the ammunition.
Now that Google is getting more involved with energy production, how long do you think it will be before the DOJ gets more involved in manufacturing an anti-competitive case against them? Threatening oil company profits could turn a lot of 'civil servants' anti-Google.
the author did not put any version of MS internet explorer in the Arena. Now that's understandable, all windows system come with IE installed, so the rationale, as I see it , is that there's no point in benchmarking a program that no one has to choose on its own. I only wonder what will happen if Europe goes forward in forcing MS to sell OEM copies of Win7 without IE installed.
I assumed it was because IE isn't competitive. Including IE would stretch the scale on the various graphs so you wouldn't be able to discern the differences between the browsers from competent software engineers.
I watch almost all of my tv through hulu now, so the time slot shuffling isn't much of an issue for me; I like their queue implementation - new episodes of shows I pick automatically get added to my queue, so when I'm looking for something to watch I just check what's available from that.
OTOH, I'm not sure if hulu counts as viewership to the networks, though - I've read that online programming isn't making much money compared to regular tv.
I don't think this is evil.
In this case, Google isn't using copy protection out of greed, or to try to control users' behavior - this copy protection is an option for developers.
Just because they're selling guns doesn't mean people have to shoot themselves in the foot.
Apuzil - please take a look.
I could be mistaken, I haven't tried this, but perhaps this is the firmware colonslash is referring to.
Yes - that's the link. I installed the no device checks version. For those not reading the entire thread, this lets me see paid apps on the Android Market with a developer g1.
It's not the device that is banned...
I have a Dev Phone 1, I created an app for it, and I couldn't see my own paid-app on the Market. Installing the Google bonus phone firmware let me access paid apps on the Android Market.
Give Microsoft the advertising business and give Google the operating system business.
Why bother?
Google Android is now available on phone(s). I expect netbooks soon, and then they will move up the device profile chain.
It's Microsoft's fault for having such tasty lunch.
...he also had to ensure that anyone who could actually afford them would be denied.
The conspiracist in me jumps to the conclusion that they were forced into this. Maybe some company they deal with didn't want their profitable markets taken away. It is hard to believe they would be this stupid out of principle.
software development becomes a game for the very rich where you can buy certain must-have technologies.
That is where prior art comes in. I think open source could be more creative than it is, and if someone had implemented this before Apple, then Apple couldn't get or defend a patent on this.
...in some areas the money needed to license a patent would be the only expenditure
I don't think that applies in this example. Apple must pay a lot of people a lot of money to come up with different interface designs, and programmers to implement them.
Is it possible that Apple could license this IP? If they do, then the inventor will be paid for their invention, and people will get to use it in other devices.
I think the retarding progress for 20 years is a little much - others just can't rip off Apple's approach. One possible consequence of this patent is that other companies may employ some interface designers to make a competitive implementation, and we may get more useful interfaces instead of lots of copies of this one.
The velocity of money: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money would determine the net loss to the economy; having more employed people would stimulate the economy, so the transaction is not so simple.
I would argue that giving money to the people who can't afford the necessities to live would have the greatest initial turn-around.
In addition, by hiring out of work people, the government is giving money to people who may otherwise rely on welfare-type programs. In your example, let's say that saves the tax payer $20,000, leaving a net outlay of $50,000.
Lastly, hopefully the net $50,000 spent by the government would produce more value than the total outlay of $100,000 (that is why businesses hire employees - the work they do is presumably worth more than their total cost to the employer), producing a net gain to society.
So, in this example, the net the taxpayer pays is $50,000, let's say that over 1 year the $70,000 received by the worker is spent a couple of times in the economy, for $140,000 pumped into the economy, and $120,000 of value is created by the work. The cost to the taxpayer of $50,000 yields $260,000 for the economy.
My guess is that they feel their product wouldn't be competitive with the soon to be released in Australia G1, and they don't want to support just a handful of customers- that doesn't give them economies of scale.
I've made an Android app, and I was dreading trying to make it usable for the smaller screen (although I have found the Android layout model very flexible).
I've seen these numbers, but I don't see how they are relevant. What are the survival rates for billionaires? Surely Steve can buy some more life.
Steve Jobs - Net Worth: US $5.4 Billion (2008 Forbes)
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs
When advertising budgets shrink, the remaining money will go to the cheaper media - businesses can reach a lot of people through Google Ads for relatively little money.
Fuck, I hate it when I'm on crack.
I think you meant stock valuation, not value. Google's earnings numbers haven't dropped for Q3, and I don't believe in the prescience of the market.
Yes and no.
, and this:
I forget which of those things he later regretted and begged forgiveness for, but he doesn't seem like a Libertarian at heart to me.
I think I'm still an Obama supporter until I see something better come along.
I think my reasons all help my company.
The part of my contribution that doesn't is pissing off our larger software partners, like Oracle, by making and promoting free products that are in competition with their pricey and bloated offerings.
If I quit my job, then I would lose my benefits, including health insurance (I live in the United States, which is often cited as the only 'civilized' country without universal health care).
So, if I left my job, I, and my family, would not be able to afford health care to keep us alive. My life is not being directly threatened, but my life is in jeopardy by leaving just the same.
I know there are ways to escape this situation, but there are also ways to escape literal slavery.
This is the problem I have with nuclear energy - currently we don't recycle this material in the US, and so there is a real problem with waste.
I have a hard time understanding people who are so gung-ho on nuclear energy that they don't qualify what is an acceptable use of the technology.
I also think Obama would make a much better candidate overall, so I hope McCain just gave the "hysteria-spreading, anti-nuclear, tree-huggers" the rope to hang him politically.
One of my favorite scifi books, The Great Explosion, has societal rejects being sent to different planets, and they create their own societies. The book has people with ideas that are rejected by the mainstream (such as libertarianism) making societies that work based on these ideas.
My point is that it can be the other way around - a haven for groups that are not well tolerated by society.