Major software companies make releases more frequently then every five years, so a five year copyright would hardly effect their business model at all - except that they would have to compete not only with their own releases from five years ago, they would also have to compete with improved zero cost versions of their product from five years ago. More competition in the software market can only be a good thing.
You are ignoring the fact that the copyright clock may be starting years before a product is shipped, so you don't really have five years to make all your R&D back before 1.0 goes public. If you lose your IP 3-4 years after launch, why will investors want to fund small startups? You really will kill off the small developers, this really would be a step backwards. Not unlike the bad-old-days where most of your software came from your mainframe vendor, in other words it was subsidized.
Secondly you will slow down innovation. Developers will have a very big incentive to sit on improvements and innovations. 1.1, etc will contain minimal bug fixes. Companies will sit on improvements until 2.0, which will coincide with the expiration of 1.0. In short the big improvements will happen every 5 years to maximize the different between the free 1.0 and the new 2.0
You remind me very much of our lawmakers. Well intentioned by fairly blind to the unintended consequences they will bring forth.;-)
Twenty years is still far too long. I think the right number is five years...
You are not considering that some software is under development for several years before release, that early version may be shown outside the company a year or more in advance of release.
That way the producers get 95+% of the potential revenues, and people get to remix (think "reuse" for code) it before it's completely culturally obsolete.
You are also failing to consider that some software has an income generating lifespan beyond five years. The "guts" of 1.0 may appear in 2.0 and 3.0.
You also fail to address a very important issue, that of investment. The ability to find investors to support the development of a software product would virtually disappear. There would be few small startups. The big corporations that have motives beyond direct revenue from a software product, synergies(1), would become more powerful.
I understand your sentiment, but things are far more complicated than you are allowing for.
(1) Although grossly overused by business types, "synergy" is a real term, basically f(a + b) > f(a) + f(b)
There is another and more logical reason for the army to have it's soldiers practice shooting at targets and that is to become better at hitting their targets. I'm guessing that is why it is called "target practice" and not "desensitisation drill".
Actually they call it "marksmanship training", "target practice" is for your local civilian range. Also, there is a VERY STRONG desensitation element. They do not use round bulls-eye targets like a civilian range, they use human silhouette targets. Furthermore, these human silhouettes are then made to move, pop up and drop down as if taking cover, and fall over when hit like human beings; not remain static like in target practice. Even hunters use static target, they don't (well are not supposed to) take a shot while an animal like a deer is moving. Finally, some training is going digital and are effectively serious video games. These simulation allow for even more realistic movement and situations. We have moved beyond desensitation and have moved into stimulus/response and muscle memory, things that formerly had to be learned in the mud not in front of the computer.
The military believes in desensitation. In a ROTC class we were shown color combat footage shot by Navy combat camermen who went ashore with Marines during the invasion of the island of Tarawa. Numerous Navy cameramen were killed, they were in the middle of this assault. Think of the opening scene in Saving Private Ryan, now think more graphic, more blood. Now dwell on the fact that it was real. We were told that the purpose of these training films was desensitation. That we weren't immunized in any way, that the goal was to shorten the duration of the initial shock of combat should we find ourselves in such circumstances. Now keep in mind that this was a passive activity. A video game is interactive, you participate, your actions have results - this have even greater effect for desensitation.
All that said, we have the right to play a violent video game just as we have the right to read a violent book or watch a violent movie. In defense of these rights, do not undermine your credibility by dismissing desensitation, it is real.
Adding stores could increase sales, and if they think it will, then they should!
Dell used to have one advantage from highly optimized logistics. IIRC, the time between receiving parts and shipping them in a finished computer was typically about 3 days. But this is something that traditional competitors can/have adopted as well, it fits with both direct and retail models.
Dell used to have another advantage by being highly customizable. Now nearly everyone has online build-to-order.
Dell used to have, or maybe still has, an advantage by focusing on more "sophisticated" buys. "Sophisticated" as in people who have had a computer before, first time buys need more support. In-store buyers are more likely to be first timers.
Dell has an AMAZING ADVANTAGE with respect to cash flow and financing. The parts that it buys are on terms where the money is not due for many days after delivery, lets say 30 days to make it a nice round number - it is likely to be far more than that. However Dell bills customer credit cards when a system ships. So, Dell buys parts, ships to customers and collects money 3 days later, and pays for the parts 27 days later (30 since arrival). They don't need to have any cash/credit on hand to buy parts. This is the real advantage of the direct model. However, when you sell through stores you lose this advantage. Dell would have to give terms to retailers, lets say 60 days - its likely to be more than that. Now Dell needs to use cash or get credit to pay for those parts. Now it gets worse. As those machines sit in the store they lose value. CPU prices drop, faster CPUs come out, video card prices drop, faster video cards come out,...; and the store has the option to RETURN unsold systems to DELL. So machines coming back to Dell are worth less. Another way to look at things is that stores mean a lot more inventory, and inventory is generally considered a poor use of money, inventory tends to depreciate.
Many vendors, including IBM, would be happy to sell you such a contract for a Linux based system. In fact, I'd be very surprised if Qantas didn't already had such a contract for their Linux based system.
Linux is a low end product for IBM, it is useful to get you into the *NIX family. Once there, they can upgrade you to the higher end platform, AIX.
"Most of the major differences between Linux and AIX stem from the fact that while Linux is well suited to running a interdepartmental server or even a small to medium sized Internet site, it lacks many of the features required to make it suitable for large scale systems. These issues are being addressed by Linux developers, but at the present, Linux is still best suited for less demanding tasks and really large, mission critical applications may be better served by AIX."
"I'm sorry but Americans have voted with their wallets decades ago. From cars to screwdrivers, Americans have said they prefer the lower cost foreign made goods."
You can't be serious. US consumers pick foreign cars, not simply because they're cheaper, but because they're either better looking, more fuel efficient, more reliable, or a combination of two or more of the above.
Re-read my post, note "decades ago". When Japanese cars first entered the US market they were primarily lower cost, I'm refering to the 1950s/60s. The same largely holds for the 70s as well. These cars did not really begin to dominate in reliability, looks, etc until after their sales had taken off. In the late 70s there may have been a minor advantage in fuel economy, but the statistics are confusing because the Japanese did not compete in all segments of the auto industry. However again, the growth trend and growing popularity had been established before the oil crisis. Its like the angle of an already positive slope increased a little.
Look at the computer industry and consumer electronics where Apple has in recent years succeeded with their "unorthodox" concept of focusing on a quality user experience rather than just aiming for the longest list of features coupled with the lowest conceivable price.
Actually computers and electronics prove my point, Apple is the exception not the rule. Also, the iPod is a unique product that has a high status symbol component to its popularity. Do you really think iPods will continue to dominate once a foreign electronics firm finally manages to develop a competing product that is as easy and convenient to use? iPods will eventually become a niche product. Apple's current iPod situation is very similar to their situation in the early 80s when the Apple II dominated the personal computer market.
If anything, it demonstrates that the modern corporation can hardly be counted on to "do the right thing" based on free-market forces, seeing as corporations value short term profits over long term stability... The solution is the willingness to establish common-sense laws and regulations when necessary to guide and restrict corporations...
You are mistaken, the problem is not the corporations, it is the free-market forces, the consumers. Consumers are not "doing the right thing". While you are entirely correct that US auto manufacturers royally screwed up by focusing on only one market segment and not having a broader line of products, the demand for SUVs (the problem) is entirely consumer driven. Also, government is part of the problem. Government incentives encourage consumer preference for SUVs via small business tax breaks. This is a classic example of why market forces are superior to well meaning government intervention. Governments have proven over and over again that despite their best intentions there are often undesirable unintended consequences.
if you really in this game to win then build a couple of manufacturing plants in the u.s. to build these hd-dvd drives.. I can't imagine that this country doesn't have the ability to build cd drives efficiently.. you could win over a lot of people this way, build positive press, etc..
I'm sorry but Americans have voted with their wallets decades ago. From cars to screwdrivers, Americans have said they prefer the lower cost foreign made goods. You are recycling a very old argument/sentiment. Anyone else here old enough to remember seeing "Save a Job, Buy American" bumper stickers and billboards all over the place?
Contrary to the message of those who make a living from the anti-establishment marketing campaigns targeted at the never ending supply of rebellious youth, Consumers have power over the Corporations. Corporations outsourced because Consumers showed a preference for lower priced foreign goods, Corporations built gas guzzling SUVs because Consumers showed a preference for SUVs, etc.
to be fair, the ak is 9.5lb to the m16's 7.8lb. not a massive difference, and the ak's shorter length compensates for its weight in fast-aim situations.
It's not quite that simple, you need to factor in the weight of the ammo. With the M16 you are either carrying a lighter load for the same number of rounds, or you are carrying a greater number of rounds for the same load.
Women received about 38 percent of the computer science bachelor's degrees awarded in the United States in 1985, the peak year, but in 2003, the figure was only about 28 percent, according to the National Science Foundation.
I graduated in the late 80s from the University of California, I expect my class offers some insights into that 38%. 38% in 1985 is highly misleading. While I recall 30'something percent nearly all were foreign students, only a handful were US citizens. Before we start trying to address American cultural issues and American perceptions, we need a breakdown of those 1985 and 2003 figures showing foreign and US numbers.
Really, I thought home-grown "evil" emerged when they decided to scan your email in order to better target advertising. Of course, they can argue you volunteered to have your emails scanned.
TFA says that (1) EA is only purchasing 19% of The9 and (2) 99% of The9's revenue comes from WoW. EA can't screw with WoW, the other 81% of the owners won't let them. EA is just trying to get a foothold in China. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to get into the Chinese market if you are 100% foreign owned. A domestic partner is necessary.
With such a low output per unit, is it even worthwhile?
One thing to consider is that wave based systems could conceivably be hidden, unlike wind based systems. Wind turbine projects in the US are often stalled or canceled because someone's view is going to be affected. Ideally the wave based units would be well below the surface and therefore not a navigational hazard, and therefore deployable over a wider area. In other words, we'll make up for the low output with volume.:)
I've got to wonder how much energy has gone into producing, designing, and deploying this system.
That is an interesting factoid, but irrelevant to the decision of whether or not to deploy. The R&D is a "sunk cost", the money/energy is gone and can not be recovered.
So if Blizzard is so proud of their "comprehensive and up-to-date database" of character and item info, are they going to stop giving people who've had their accounts hacked the total BS "we can't restore gear because we have no way of knowing what you were equipped with" excuse anymore?
"Up-to-date" means what you have now, not what you had previously. There is no reason to believe old database records are preserved anywhere before they are overwritten with updated data. Nothing has changed since day 1 other than the public can read it.
You might notice that I put "loss leader" in quotes. iTMS is not a literal loss leader, but it does function very much like one. The relevant point is that it's mission is to promote/sell something else. The fact that they have been able to refine their operations to go from "breaking even" to "minor revenue source" is largely irrelevant. Keep in mind that with only "minor revenue" iTMS should be shut down, the yield from the investment being too small. However iTMS serves a larger strategic purpose so it continues.
The problem with the "trivial" commercial products will be the price tag.
For law enforcement the years of appraisal are not really necessary. The application would not be scientific data that meets courtroom evidenciary standards, it would merely be a sufficiently reliable indication to meet probably cause and allow searches and the collection of the "real" evidence. Think of getting your shoes swabbed at an airport. A positive indicator could not convict you in court, but it will get you a visit to private room where you and your baggage are subject to further inspection.
Similarly, the military does not need absolute certainty for all operations. There's a bomb factory in a neighborhood, scanning could help develop a list of who and where to visit first, as opposed to cordoning off the neighborhood and going door to door.
Yeah, medical application will be right up there with military and law enforcement.
First use will be military, second law enforcement
on
Purdue Unveils a Tricorder
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
So I will predict the first mass use of Purdue's Tricorder: Japanese toilets!!!. It can already recognize "biomarkers" in urine, so someone will build a cheap version of it into a toilet and every time you take a dump it will tell you what you should not have been eating, how sick you will be tomorrow and that if you continue that way your insurance won't cover your therapy. It will save the health systems billions.
The first use will be counterterrorism/counterinsurgency, the second law enforcement. In the law enforcement context they will analyze the air around you when they stop you to chat, pull you over, etc. The molecules leaving your body/clothing/car will enter the public domain atmosphere and be fair game for analysis. It think there is precedent from having dogs sniff the exterior of a car at a border crossing, the pot smell entered the public domain, the trained dog signaled, instant probably cause for a search. Similar justifications will be safety related. "I need to interview you, but first for your safety and mine, I need to scan you."
The base mini is $600 without a mouse, keyboard, or monitor. Adding those peripherals from Apple brings it closer to $1200.
Don't buy them from Apple, buy them from a local retailer, a local clone shop, Dell, whoever...
Adding enough RAM to make it usable raises the price further still.
It raises the price precisely US$75. Or you can go to your local retailer, clone shop, etc. Personally, for US$75 I just had Apple do the upgrade despite the fact that for PCs I generally buy parts and assemble everything myself. Of course I do that more as a hobby than any cost savings, well, hobby and having anal retentive control over every component.
I someone who has building his own PCs for 10+ years, and someone who owns a Mini, I'd say that the Mini is the one exception to the rule that Macs are more expensive. The Mini is highly competitive for what it offers, and that includes size and noise.
MP3 will not get phased out, every digital device supports it, vast personal libraries are primarily MP3. To introduce a player on the market that does not play MP3 is suicidal. All that someone could do is not rip to MP3, but that will largely just push customers to use 3rd party apps. Both MS and Apple have failed to convince a large segment of their respective users to stop using MP3, even though they both have alternative DRM-free formats. Why use DRM-free AAC when storage space is cheap and MP3 has far better compatibility?
but it does still puzzle me why they don't allow artists to opt out of having DRM applied to their work. Hopefully we will see that change in the near future.
The reason is that the stores reason for existence is to pump up iPod sales. It is not a profit center. Now that may change, or is in the process of changing, but iPod sales explains everything to date.
Steve Jobs has publicly stated that the DRM is there only because the record industry demands it, and that if the record industry would allow DRM-free music sales, Apple would remove the DRM from the iTunes Store.
Translation #1: Now that iPod monopolizes the digital music player market we no longer need the "loss leader" iTMS sales. iTMS has accomplished its mission of pumping up iPod sales. Now it can transition to a new role, perhaps even become a profit center.
Translation #2: "Europe" wants to force us to license fair play to others, lets start a FUD/PR campaign and "play the victim"; blame our product's lack of interoperability on the recording industry. It doesn't matter that we ask for something unrealistic, it makes us look like heroes, and give politicians an out after our lobbyists visit them.
If you are going to cite a dictionary you should learn how to use one. You should look beyond the first entry, especially when later entries are domain specific. For example, a definition from a Law Dictionary:
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source
Main Entry: theft
Function: noun
Etymology: Old English thiefth
: LARCENY; broadly : a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent
NOTE: Theft commonly encompasses by statute a variety of forms of stealing formerly treated as distinct crimes.
Obviously, this was caused by the fact that the Yorktown's control software was of a really bad design.
You are mistaken. Safeguards were intentionally disabled.
The truth is that a server app corrupted it's data, a client app tried to use that bad data, and the client app failed to control equipment. Can happen with any OS. Add to this the fact that the ship was a test platform not an operational ship and they were trying to break things.
"Others insist that NT was not the culprit. According to Lieutenant Commander Roderick Fraser, who was the chief engineer on board the ship at the time of the incident, the fault was with certain applications that were developed by CAE Electronics in Leesburg, Va. As Harvey McKelvey, former director of navy programs for CAE, admits, "If you want to put a stick in anybody's eye, it should be in ours." But McKelvey adds that the crash would not have happened if the navy had been using a production version of the CAE software, which he asserts has safeguards to prevent the type of failure that occurred."
"McKelvey writes that the failure, "was not the result of any system software or design deficiency but rather a decision to allow the ship to manipulate the software to stimulate [sic] machinery casualties for training purposes and the 'tuning' of propulsion machinery operating parameters. In the usual shipboard installation, this capability is not allowed.""
Slashdot Mirror
Major software companies make releases more frequently then every five years, so a five year copyright would hardly effect their business model at all - except that they would have to compete not only with their own releases from five years ago, they would also have to compete with improved zero cost versions of their product from five years ago. More competition in the software market can only be a good thing.
;-)
You are ignoring the fact that the copyright clock may be starting years before a product is shipped, so you don't really have five years to make all your R&D back before 1.0 goes public. If you lose your IP 3-4 years after launch, why will investors want to fund small startups? You really will kill off the small developers, this really would be a step backwards. Not unlike the bad-old-days where most of your software came from your mainframe vendor, in other words it was subsidized.
Secondly you will slow down innovation. Developers will have a very big incentive to sit on improvements and innovations. 1.1, etc will contain minimal bug fixes. Companies will sit on improvements until 2.0, which will coincide with the expiration of 1.0. In short the big improvements will happen every 5 years to maximize the different between the free 1.0 and the new 2.0
You remind me very much of our lawmakers. Well intentioned by fairly blind to the unintended consequences they will bring forth.
Twenty years is still far too long. I think the right number is five years ...
You are not considering that some software is under development for several years before release, that early version may be shown outside the company a year or more in advance of release.
That way the producers get 95+% of the potential revenues, and people get to remix (think "reuse" for code) it before it's completely culturally obsolete.
You are also failing to consider that some software has an income generating lifespan beyond five years. The "guts" of 1.0 may appear in 2.0 and 3.0.
You also fail to address a very important issue, that of investment. The ability to find investors to support the development of a software product would virtually disappear. There would be few small startups. The big corporations that have motives beyond direct revenue from a software product, synergies(1), would become more powerful.
I understand your sentiment, but things are far more complicated than you are allowing for.
(1) Although grossly overused by business types, "synergy" is a real term, basically f(a + b) > f(a) + f(b)
There is another and more logical reason for the army to have it's soldiers practice shooting at targets and that is to become better at hitting their targets. I'm guessing that is why it is called "target practice" and not "desensitisation drill".
Actually they call it "marksmanship training", "target practice" is for your local civilian range. Also, there is a VERY STRONG desensitation element. They do not use round bulls-eye targets like a civilian range, they use human silhouette targets. Furthermore, these human silhouettes are then made to move, pop up and drop down as if taking cover, and fall over when hit like human beings; not remain static like in target practice. Even hunters use static target, they don't (well are not supposed to) take a shot while an animal like a deer is moving. Finally, some training is going digital and are effectively serious video games. These simulation allow for even more realistic movement and situations. We have moved beyond desensitation and have moved into stimulus/response and muscle memory, things that formerly had to be learned in the mud not in front of the computer.
The military believes in desensitation. In a ROTC class we were shown color combat footage shot by Navy combat camermen who went ashore with Marines during the invasion of the island of Tarawa. Numerous Navy cameramen were killed, they were in the middle of this assault. Think of the opening scene in Saving Private Ryan, now think more graphic, more blood. Now dwell on the fact that it was real. We were told that the purpose of these training films was desensitation. That we weren't immunized in any way, that the goal was to shorten the duration of the initial shock of combat should we find ourselves in such circumstances. Now keep in mind that this was a passive activity. A video game is interactive, you participate, your actions have results - this have even greater effect for desensitation.
All that said, we have the right to play a violent video game just as we have the right to read a violent book or watch a violent movie. In defense of these rights, do not undermine your credibility by dismissing desensitation, it is real.
Adding stores could increase sales, and if they think it will, then they should!
...; and the store has the option to RETURN unsold systems to DELL. So machines coming back to Dell are worth less. Another way to look at things is that stores mean a lot more inventory, and inventory is generally considered a poor use of money, inventory tends to depreciate.
Dell used to have one advantage from highly optimized logistics. IIRC, the time between receiving parts and shipping them in a finished computer was typically about 3 days. But this is something that traditional competitors can/have adopted as well, it fits with both direct and retail models.
Dell used to have another advantage by being highly customizable. Now nearly everyone has online build-to-order.
Dell used to have, or maybe still has, an advantage by focusing on more "sophisticated" buys. "Sophisticated" as in people who have had a computer before, first time buys need more support. In-store buyers are more likely to be first timers.
Dell has an AMAZING ADVANTAGE with respect to cash flow and financing. The parts that it buys are on terms where the money is not due for many days after delivery, lets say 30 days to make it a nice round number - it is likely to be far more than that. However Dell bills customer credit cards when a system ships. So, Dell buys parts, ships to customers and collects money 3 days later, and pays for the parts 27 days later (30 since arrival). They don't need to have any cash/credit on hand to buy parts. This is the real advantage of the direct model. However, when you sell through stores you lose this advantage. Dell would have to give terms to retailers, lets say 60 days - its likely to be more than that. Now Dell needs to use cash or get credit to pay for those parts. Now it gets worse. As those machines sit in the store they lose value. CPU prices drop, faster CPUs come out, video card prices drop, faster video cards come out,
Many vendors, including IBM, would be happy to sell you such a contract for a Linux based system. In fact, I'd be very surprised if Qantas didn't already had such a contract for their Linux based system.
/ it-schenk1/schenk3.html
Linux is a low end product for IBM, it is useful to get you into the *NIX family. Once there, they can upgrade you to the higher end platform, AIX.
"Most of the major differences between Linux and AIX stem from the fact that while Linux is well suited to running a interdepartmental server or even a small to medium sized Internet site, it lacks many of the features required to make it suitable for large scale systems. These issues are being addressed by Linux developers, but at the present, Linux is still best suited for less demanding tasks and really large, mission critical applications may be better served by AIX."
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/ibm/library
"I'm sorry but Americans have voted with their wallets decades ago. From cars to screwdrivers, Americans have said they prefer the lower cost foreign made goods."
... The solution is the willingness to establish common-sense laws and regulations when necessary to guide and restrict corporations ...
You can't be serious. US consumers pick foreign cars, not simply because they're cheaper, but because they're either better looking, more fuel efficient, more reliable, or a combination of two or more of the above.
Re-read my post, note "decades ago". When Japanese cars first entered the US market they were primarily lower cost, I'm refering to the 1950s/60s. The same largely holds for the 70s as well. These cars did not really begin to dominate in reliability, looks, etc until after their sales had taken off. In the late 70s there may have been a minor advantage in fuel economy, but the statistics are confusing because the Japanese did not compete in all segments of the auto industry. However again, the growth trend and growing popularity had been established before the oil crisis. Its like the angle of an already positive slope increased a little.
Look at the computer industry and consumer electronics where Apple has in recent years succeeded with their "unorthodox" concept of focusing on a quality user experience rather than just aiming for the longest list of features coupled with the lowest conceivable price.
Actually computers and electronics prove my point, Apple is the exception not the rule. Also, the iPod is a unique product that has a high status symbol component to its popularity. Do you really think iPods will continue to dominate once a foreign electronics firm finally manages to develop a competing product that is as easy and convenient to use? iPods will eventually become a niche product. Apple's current iPod situation is very similar to their situation in the early 80s when the Apple II dominated the personal computer market.
If anything, it demonstrates that the modern corporation can hardly be counted on to "do the right thing" based on free-market forces, seeing as corporations value short term profits over long term stability
You are mistaken, the problem is not the corporations, it is the free-market forces, the consumers. Consumers are not "doing the right thing". While you are entirely correct that US auto manufacturers royally screwed up by focusing on only one market segment and not having a broader line of products, the demand for SUVs (the problem) is entirely consumer driven. Also, government is part of the problem. Government incentives encourage consumer preference for SUVs via small business tax breaks. This is a classic example of why market forces are superior to well meaning government intervention. Governments have proven over and over again that despite their best intentions there are often undesirable unintended consequences.
if you really in this game to win then build a couple of manufacturing plants in the u.s. to build these hd-dvd drives.. I can't imagine that this country doesn't have the ability to build cd drives efficiently.. you could win over a lot of people this way, build positive press, etc..
I'm sorry but Americans have voted with their wallets decades ago. From cars to screwdrivers, Americans have said they prefer the lower cost foreign made goods. You are recycling a very old argument/sentiment. Anyone else here old enough to remember seeing "Save a Job, Buy American" bumper stickers and billboards all over the place?
Contrary to the message of those who make a living from the anti-establishment marketing campaigns targeted at the never ending supply of rebellious youth, Consumers have power over the Corporations. Corporations outsourced because Consumers showed a preference for lower priced foreign goods, Corporations built gas guzzling SUVs because Consumers showed a preference for SUVs, etc.
to be fair, the ak is 9.5lb to the m16's 7.8lb. not a massive difference, and the ak's shorter length compensates for its weight in fast-aim situations.
It's not quite that simple, you need to factor in the weight of the ammo. With the M16 you are either carrying a lighter load for the same number of rounds, or you are carrying a greater number of rounds for the same load.
Women received about 38 percent of the computer science bachelor's degrees awarded in the United States in 1985, the peak year, but in 2003, the figure was only about 28 percent, according to the National Science Foundation.
I graduated in the late 80s from the University of California, I expect my class offers some insights into that 38%. 38% in 1985 is highly misleading. While I recall 30'something percent nearly all were foreign students, only a handful were US citizens. Before we start trying to address American cultural issues and American perceptions, we need a breakdown of those 1985 and 2003 figures showing foreign and US numbers.
I fear the evil is creeping in the side door...
Really, I thought home-grown "evil" emerged when they decided to scan your email in order to better target advertising. Of course, they can argue you volunteered to have your emails scanned.
EA is going to choke warcraft from the bottom up.
TFA says that (1) EA is only purchasing 19% of The9 and (2) 99% of The9's revenue comes from WoW. EA can't screw with WoW, the other 81% of the owners won't let them. EA is just trying to get a foothold in China. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to get into the Chinese market if you are 100% foreign owned. A domestic partner is necessary.
Fable 2: an adventurer and his dog
;)
For those who missed it: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072730/
Is that a sequel to "A Boy and His Dog"?
re-using something that already exists for another use is not an invention.
The invention can be the process by which a sea shell becomes an electronic circuit.
With such a low output per unit, is it even worthwhile?
:)
One thing to consider is that wave based systems could conceivably be hidden, unlike wind based systems. Wind turbine projects in the US are often stalled or canceled because someone's view is going to be affected. Ideally the wave based units would be well below the surface and therefore not a navigational hazard, and therefore deployable over a wider area. In other words, we'll make up for the low output with volume.
I've got to wonder how much energy has gone into producing, designing, and deploying this system.
That is an interesting factoid, but irrelevant to the decision of whether or not to deploy. The R&D is a "sunk cost", the money/energy is gone and can not be recovered.
So if Blizzard is so proud of their "comprehensive and up-to-date database" of character and item info, are they going to stop giving people who've had their accounts hacked the total BS "we can't restore gear because we have no way of knowing what you were equipped with" excuse anymore?
"Up-to-date" means what you have now, not what you had previously. There is no reason to believe old database records are preserved anywhere before they are overwritten with updated data. Nothing has changed since day 1 other than the public can read it.
Everyone keeps calling it a loss-leader.
You might notice that I put "loss leader" in quotes. iTMS is not a literal loss leader, but it does function very much like one. The relevant point is that it's mission is to promote/sell something else. The fact that they have been able to refine their operations to go from "breaking even" to "minor revenue source" is largely irrelevant. Keep in mind that with only "minor revenue" iTMS should be shut down, the yield from the investment being too small. However iTMS serves a larger strategic purpose so it continues.
The problem with the "trivial" commercial products will be the price tag. For law enforcement the years of appraisal are not really necessary. The application would not be scientific data that meets courtroom evidenciary standards, it would merely be a sufficiently reliable indication to meet probably cause and allow searches and the collection of the "real" evidence. Think of getting your shoes swabbed at an airport. A positive indicator could not convict you in court, but it will get you a visit to private room where you and your baggage are subject to further inspection. Similarly, the military does not need absolute certainty for all operations. There's a bomb factory in a neighborhood, scanning could help develop a list of who and where to visit first, as opposed to cordoning off the neighborhood and going door to door. Yeah, medical application will be right up there with military and law enforcement.
So I will predict the first mass use of Purdue's Tricorder: Japanese toilets!!!. It can already recognize "biomarkers" in urine, so someone will build a cheap version of it into a toilet and every time you take a dump it will tell you what you should not have been eating, how sick you will be tomorrow and that if you continue that way your insurance won't cover your therapy. It will save the health systems billions.
The first use will be counterterrorism/counterinsurgency, the second law enforcement. In the law enforcement context they will analyze the air around you when they stop you to chat, pull you over, etc. The molecules leaving your body/clothing/car will enter the public domain atmosphere and be fair game for analysis. It think there is precedent from having dogs sniff the exterior of a car at a border crossing, the pot smell entered the public domain, the trained dog signaled, instant probably cause for a search. Similar justifications will be safety related. "I need to interview you, but first for your safety and mine, I need to scan you."
The base mini is $600 without a mouse, keyboard, or monitor. Adding those peripherals from Apple brings it closer to $1200.
...
Adding enough RAM to make it usable raises the price further still.
Don't buy them from Apple, buy them from a local retailer, a local clone shop, Dell, whoever
It raises the price precisely US$75. Or you can go to your local retailer, clone shop, etc. Personally, for US$75 I just had Apple do the upgrade despite the fact that for PCs I generally buy parts and assemble everything myself. Of course I do that more as a hobby than any cost savings, well, hobby and having anal retentive control over every component. I someone who has building his own PCs for 10+ years, and someone who owns a Mini, I'd say that the Mini is the one exception to the rule that Macs are more expensive. The Mini is highly competitive for what it offers, and that includes size and noise.
If mp3 gets fazed out ...
MP3 will not get phased out, every digital device supports it, vast personal libraries are primarily MP3. To introduce a player on the market that does not play MP3 is suicidal. All that someone could do is not rip to MP3, but that will largely just push customers to use 3rd party apps. Both MS and Apple have failed to convince a large segment of their respective users to stop using MP3, even though they both have alternative DRM-free formats. Why use DRM-free AAC when storage space is cheap and MP3 has far better compatibility?
but it does still puzzle me why they don't allow artists to opt out of having DRM applied to their work. Hopefully we will see that change in the near future.
The reason is that the stores reason for existence is to pump up iPod sales. It is not a profit center. Now that may change, or is in the process of changing, but iPod sales explains everything to date.
Steve Jobs has publicly stated that the DRM is there only because the record industry demands it, and that if the record industry would allow DRM-free music sales, Apple would remove the DRM from the iTunes Store.
Translation #1: Now that iPod monopolizes the digital music player market we no longer need the "loss leader" iTMS sales. iTMS has accomplished its mission of pumping up iPod sales. Now it can transition to a new role, perhaps even become a profit center.
Translation #2: "Europe" wants to force us to license fair play to others, lets start a FUD/PR campaign and "play the victim"; blame our product's lack of interoperability on the recording industry. It doesn't matter that we ask for something unrealistic, it makes us look like heroes, and give politicians an out after our lobbyists visit them.
If you are going to cite a dictionary you should learn how to use one. You should look beyond the first entry, especially when later entries are domain specific. For example, a definition from a Law Dictionary:
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source
Main Entry: theft
Function: noun
Etymology: Old English thiefth
: LARCENY; broadly : a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent NOTE: Theft commonly encompasses by statute a variety of forms of stealing formerly treated as distinct crimes.
Obviously, this was caused by the fact that the Yorktown's control software was of a really bad design.
h tml
You are mistaken. Safeguards were intentionally disabled.
The truth is that a server app corrupted it's data, a client app tried to use that bad data, and the client app failed to control equipment. Can happen with any OS. Add to this the fact that the ship was a test platform not an operational ship and they were trying to break things.
"Others insist that NT was not the culprit. According to Lieutenant Commander Roderick Fraser, who was the chief engineer on board the ship at the time of the incident, the fault was with certain applications that were developed by CAE Electronics in Leesburg, Va. As Harvey McKelvey, former director of navy programs for CAE, admits, "If you want to put a stick in anybody's eye, it should be in ours." But McKelvey adds that the crash would not have happened if the navy had been using a production version of the CAE software, which he asserts has safeguards to prevent the type of failure that occurred."
http://www.sciam.com/1998/1198issue/1198techbus2.
"McKelvey writes that the failure, "was not the result of any system software or design deficiency but rather a decision to allow the ship to manipulate the software to stimulate [sic] machinery casualties for training purposes and the 'tuning' of propulsion machinery operating parameters. In the usual shipboard installation, this capability is not allowed.""
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/20.37.html#subj1