In the end it will come down to the Adam-a family being the biblical adam--the origin of man. Somehow the human race will struggle to some new planet and start over shore of their technology but in paradise. Till they are once again expelled as a consequence of their seeking knowledge -- that is biblical "know" and carnal knowledge's purpose is the creation of new life--that is cylons with independent will.
The ultimate irony is that endure the rigors of space and the time it takes will require sturdier carriers of the seed. Namley the hybrids are the next generation of humans.
A few pure cylons will stay behind on the radiated planet since they are immune to radiation.
It will turn out the mechanical cylons sis not create the wetware human like cylons as is generally assumed. after all where are the missing links? No instead it will turn out that when the mechanized ones that are created by the tranpslanted human hybrids encouter the left behind cylons they will be enslaved by them and then return to conquer the hybrid humans.
In case no one noticed, is the topic post simply forgetting Star Trek. It to "ran past" the issues but it did present them. It should not be neccessary to recite examples but it seems like it is required.
Hmmm a man who's half black feels he has the moral right to enslave a man who is half white.
An integrated crew, and even a miscegenating kiss?
A prime directive that , to rephrase it a lot, basically said other cultural values are equal valid as your own technologically advance society, hung out before the audience every week.
The futility of doomesday logic?
Even the trouble with tribbles had a message that Russians and Americans still have common desires and interests.
On the otherhand this was what early science fiction was about. Long before Andy Warhol and crew got the idea of decontextualization as the means to seeing things as they are, science fiction was mainly about seeing what happens when you transplant a cultural norm into a different society, usually by means of a technological story telling device.
it was not all techno whiz larry niven (who later on also started contemplative sci fi with the Mote in gods eye) or space opera flash gordon.
think about flowers for algernon, or the canticle for lebowitz, the lathe of heaven, farenheight 451.... Or for you young kids, Ghost in the shell.
Star trek was designed to grab the flash gordon audience and show them a short 1 hour play about moral issues under heavy syrup.
Galactica is in this tradition, not in the tradition of "Buck rogers" or star wars.
Just leave him alone! He's suffered enough, can't you all see that. Just leave the poor guy alone.
In any case, this SEC thing seems sort of silly. The SEC while it has the power to abusively coerce responses, techincally Jobs is just he CEO, not a golden child. How can his health issues be any more important than those of head of tupperware or American Toyota, who's name you don't know.
Is it because you know his name that makes his health techincally relevant? Then what about some who's names you do know, like Jack Welch, or Larry Ellison. Should they have been given annual public proctology exams since that's a high cancer risk for men their ages?
Sure the cult of Steve is an importnat phenomena to apple, but it's not a techincal criteria that I can see. It's not like Apple is somehow misrepresenting it's products or it's book value or it's liabilities to it's shareholders.
I had a set of Western digitial bought at the same time but put in unrelated computers that all failed within days of each other. Never bough another western digital in the last ten years. But now from what I read they have a good rep.
My last drive was a refurbed Seagate 750GB. died after about 30 days. Vendor replaced it. then it died again. Seagate replaced it. Died again.
So now Seagate is on my shit list. My next drive however is going to be a western digital as they seem to be very quiet compared to the seagates these days.
Exactly. The intelligent designer concept is only working if you can't think 'til the next step:
1 Where is that designer? 2 What is he in? 3 Who created the designer? 4 Who created, whatever the designer is in? 5 GOTO 1
Well yes. But even in your scheme, each step has a designer that creates the next layer.
The problem you assert is that it seems like an endless loop since we usually have no more evidence at any step of the loop to assert that this is the last step. But the whole point of the original post was the reverse. It was to assert that at least from what we can measure at this layer, it is very suggestive that we are not the top layer. So there needs to be atleast one more layer where our world's esigner lives.
Was that layer designed to? Can't say since I have no observations of what it is like.
Is design implausible? no necessarily. We do live in a finite universe. We have more than enough computing on the planet to simmulate multiple synaptic cortexes and the level of neural activation. And if you did the simmulation slower than real time you could simmulate many many of these. That's just with the feeble computation we have.
Now imagine that we are embedded in not simply a larger world but a world that is for example 4 dimensional. There's plenty of matter around there to simmulate 3 d worlds just as we have planty of matter with which to simmilate 2d worlds.
SO it's not inconceivable there could be a higher level. and given that what we can measure has the earmarks of design, it makes it even more plausible.
but it says notghing about how many simmulations deep we might be.
I hear Nvidia is updating the universes GPU and soon we will get less grains. Mac Users will be able to switch between GPU, one with faster performance and shorter lifespan and one grainier but longer lasting.
it is interesting to note that the universe is mainly built out of second order laws. This means that in many cases there are a small number of poles or zeros that can control macroscopic behaviour and often analytic solutions exist. This would be how a desiginer would do it. given a choice one chooses a qaudradic over a 6th order polynomial since an anytic solution to the zeros exits.
Likewise when things in a game are not observed you don't keep maintaining them. You just recreate them when needed. That is you keep the wireframe but don't texturize it till it is on screen. This is analgous to the way in QM the details are not predictcable till you look, and when you do the details of other things not simultaneously observed can change at a distance.
simmilarly in optics resolution behaves the way it does in video games. pixelation means that the farther something is away the less resolved it appears. There is constant angular resoltuion not spatial.
On my 300 Mhz 192mb Pentium 2 fuji lifebook Damn small linux boots on 25 seconds. It hardly makes a diffenence if I use the CD or install it on the HD.
Interestingly, on a modern computer it takes almost the same amount of time.
So I'm guessing most of that time has to do with a combination of device initializations and timeouts, and disk I/O
ubuntu takes about 15 minutes to boot off CD on the computer.
So one reason you don't have a 1 second booting computer is that if you ever did get the boot under 25 seconds all that is going to happen is that since that is plenty fast, people will lard the thing back up with new features to bring it back to 25 seconds.
One thing I always enjoy about boot ups is that it sort of reminds me of the way a developing fetus goes through all these steps that resemble the vestigial characteristics of more primitive animals. On my mac you see the hardware checks then the boot loader then the services come on, and the screen change to one color of blue, then a slightly different hue, then it gets graphics. etc.... It's like recapitulating it's development in a way that is alive at every point along the way.
If you want something faster I think you need to discard the layered boot. Have a direct boot to the final state instead of bootstrapping one layer from the next.
How does an iphone pull it off? Afterall it is running OSX and on a slow PCU to boot (pun).
see page 196 of "Straight and Level: practical airplan economics". Here is the google book search link. though that may not be a stable link. You can also look here or here.
In theory risk and cost can be equated. You could (in theory) take out an insurace policy for the precise value of undoing the disaster if a mistake is made. The premium would be the cost.
Of course in reality their are externalities that are hard to price: the damage to students if for a year or so their computer trainingis in chaos. The risk to the principal's job status.
But nevermind, it does not matter if you can really take out a policy. What matters is you can say that the risks are not worth the cost savings.
So the illinois experiment is actually lowering the risk costs.
I actually read chunks of adam smith long ago and Recall with patchy clarity that he did set out as an axiom that trades, while not equally so, are still something that both the seller and buyer agree is worth doing.
But scanning the wikipedia on adam smith for a refresher they dwell a lot on his Labor Theory of Value, which finds amorphous usage.
The discrepancy, and one that Marx among many latched onto, is that there can be a difference between the price of an item and the sum of the cost of the labor that went into. The latter is it's labor value, and former is it's selling price.
Lots of people have weighed in, but I think Smith's original point is right. Both sides entering a contract are aregging it is worthwhile. Presumbaly the labor cost to the seller where he to pay try other means of reproducing the item, either through his own labor or through the effort of finding another seller, are give it a higher value than the price. Thus to both the Labor cost makes it worthwhile.
Far from being unfair this is actually socially ideal. In the ideal limit people pay for something exactly what it is worth.
Ah I like to reason about this kind of things! What do we mean by "exactly what it is worth" in this case? Is it in the eyes of the buyer or the seller?
Adam smith would say both. A price is s single thing: it's what the buyer pays and the seller gets. For any deal to happen it has to be worth it to both sides.
It's not dumping if the competition (Linux) is free. They are not going to put Linux out of bussiness by undercutting linux's profit margin. It might be possible they are however dumping with regard to software support (red hat, IBM, Novell,...) But I think this would be hard to argue succesfully.
Even the memos from MS state MS cannot and will not compete soley on the basis of price.
The thing is their products are agile in price since they have high fixed costs and low marginal costs. Airlines are classic example of this. Airlines try to create price structures (e.g. saturday stays, advance purchase, limited kinds of seats, luggage limits,... ) so that they integrate the area under the demand curve.
Far from being unfair this is actually socially ideal. In the ideal limit people pay for something exactly what it is worth. depsite the fact that some folks pay more than others, over all nearly everyone, including the people paying the higher price, are paying LESS than they would have to pay if it was sold for a fixed price, because of the increased demand lowers the per capitia fixed costs.
I also question broad statements like " Windows is not really competitive and schools that switch save tens of millions of dollars.". Anecdotally maybe this is has happened. But it's not really clear that this is true in general. School systems are one of the most budget limited govt run orgs. They try everything to shave dollars, like fees for art supplies, to hot lunches paid for by PTO fund raisers. I find it hard to believe the schools would somehow be so blind as to over look an easy "tens of millions" if the case was clear cut.
" Windows is not really competitive and schools that switch save tens of millions of dollars. "
yes but my point is still valid. A 15" monitor weighs about 20 pounds and has a 1.7 pounds of lead. not 7 pounds. Most of the lead is neck and frit and can be recovered. The rest is bound in a glass matrix (it can still leach but is a good start on containing it).
I sort of gagged on the number 350,000 cell phones (130,000) computers a day? But it makes sense. in 2005 a survey found 69% of americans had cell phones. That's about 250 million users. So if mean replacement time is 2 years, that's 342K a day! Computer's last longer aparently to account for the lower discard number.
However the 7 pounds of lead in a 15 pound computer is complete BS. First most CRTs weigh about 30 pounds so this 15 pound number is perverse. If we assume that only referes to the computer itself and not the CRT we can still estimate the amount of lead using numbers from various studies:
According to this report 98% of the lead attributed to computers is in the CRT glass. (interesting the report also notes that 75% of CRTs are stored not recycled). However for a 15 pound computer system, only slightly more than half of that is the CRT. And CRT's are not made of 90% lead. indeed this pdf article determiened that nearly all the lead in a CRT is not in the heavy panel portion but is in fact in the neck and frit seals.
most of the lead however is bound up. the leachable lead is still considerable however.
The actual amount of lead in a 27 pound CRT (19% screen) is 2.2 or less than 10%. If CRT's have 90% of the lead in a computer system then a computer is about 1% of it's weight in lead. so a 15 pound computer ought ot have about 0.15 pounds of lead not 7 pounds.
from the answer: "Though the demonstration was impressive, notable absentees from the demo were video streaming and any in-depth show of the music player."
It also has an externally replaceable battery, so one guesses the individual batteries won't last as long as an iphone or else it's thick as a brick. (they don't give the dimensions or show it in profile)
No mention of the enterprise-like push apps that Rim and iphone now sport. No mention of corresponding desktop based easy-management software like itunes or me.com
and of course it is yet-another OS. is there an SDK?
Microsoft is supposedly about to layoff 17% of it's worldwide workforce despite cash reserves. I wonder is perhaps they are positioning themselves to be more nimble in the new hire arena so as to profit from this transient IT burst.
After this has to be a burst. The whole point is for this kind of infra structure investment to lead to longer term efficiencies and ultimatle less redundant and incompatible IT make work. The only way it can actually lead to greater IT in the long run is if it somehow creates new opportunities in Health care that make more investment in health care a worthwhile thing. Right now, I think the evidence is that health care is saturated were paying more than socialized medicine countries but outcomes are not in aggregate better, they are only better in the individual but insubstantially few cases.
So this kind of investment if it's valuable should lead to more centralized and pre-packaged software solution and not to more IT jobs in the long run.
It will be like all the linesmen they need to put up the next generation grid. eventually the grid will be up and the extra help, particularly the experts in executing it, not needed. They will just need the maytag repairman and the telephone sanitizers.
After all who is actually ready to roll out IT systems that companies are willing to bet on? Microsoft. Sure the open source community has better solutions in the long run. But to roll anything out, no matter how clever, you need a bussiness model to back it. That's why haliburton and Bechtel and boeing keep getting the big systems integrator contracts. Not because they are so good at what they do. but because they have the scalable bussiness model to ramp up fast.
Microsoft thus needs a weight loss program. it's lethargic. But it is big and can do essentially every task and companies trust it even while IT folks grumble.
Why do you think Jobs bought Pixar? to make cartoons? No they are working to cross the uncanny divide where live action animated figures are indistinguishable from humans. They will just have an all digital Jobs up there in a few years presenting the products and you will never know.
Indeed maybe they already have. Jobs maybe is not ill but actually just an early version like Tom Hanks in Polar express.
You should look at the x-ray images they showed. You do indeed lose even more that 30% of your space. And this is pretty obvious too since the fill factor for cyllinders is on that order. They went to flat pack batteries.
So they not only made the battery last longer but it also is thinner.
They stated it can be charged 1000 times. That means if you use your laptop every day you will need a new one in 2.7 years.
if you use it every day, including saturdays and sundays, FOR 8 HOURS A DAY, then in 2.7 years, the battery will be down to an 80% charge or 6.4 hours. Which is longer than your current 5 hour battery lasts.
I seriously doubt many users use a computer 7 days a week, soley on batteries for 8 hours a day!
finally you can replace the battery. There's just no simple pop-out mechanism. But unscrewing the case once in the life of a computer is not a big deal.
Additionally Apple care will cover the battery for 3 years-- that's not something you get on most warantee contracts.
Slashdot Mirror
In the end it will come down to the Adam-a family being the biblical adam--the origin of man. Somehow the human race will struggle to some new planet and start over shore of their technology but in paradise. Till they are once again expelled as a consequence of their seeking knowledge -- that is biblical "know" and carnal knowledge's purpose is the creation of new life--that is cylons with independent will.
The ultimate irony is that endure the rigors of space and the time it takes will require sturdier carriers of the seed. Namley the hybrids are the next generation of humans.
A few pure cylons will stay behind on the radiated planet since they are immune to radiation.
It will turn out the mechanical cylons sis not create the wetware human like cylons as is generally assumed. after all where are the missing links? No instead it will turn out that when the mechanized ones that are created by the tranpslanted human hybrids encouter the left behind cylons they will be enslaved by them and then return to conquer the hybrid humans.
starting the whole story over.
In case no one noticed, is the topic post simply forgetting Star Trek. It to "ran past" the issues but it did present them. It should not be neccessary to recite examples but it seems like it is required.
Hmmm a man who's half black feels he has the moral right to enslave a man who is half white.
An integrated crew, and even a miscegenating kiss?
A prime directive that , to rephrase it a lot, basically said other cultural values are equal valid as your own technologically advance society, hung out before the audience every week.
The futility of doomesday logic?
Even the trouble with tribbles had a message that Russians and Americans still have common desires and interests.
On the otherhand this was what early science fiction was about. Long before Andy Warhol and crew got the idea of decontextualization as the means to seeing things as they are, science fiction was mainly about seeing what happens when you transplant a cultural norm into a different society, usually by means of a technological story telling device.
it was not all techno whiz larry niven (who later on also started contemplative sci fi with the Mote in gods eye) or space opera flash gordon.
think about flowers for algernon, or the canticle for lebowitz, the lathe of heaven, farenheight 451.... Or for you young kids, Ghost in the shell.
Star trek was designed to grab the flash gordon audience and show them a short 1 hour play about moral issues under heavy syrup.
Galactica is in this tradition, not in the tradition of "Buck rogers" or star wars.
Just leave him alone! He's suffered enough, can't you all see that. Just leave the poor guy alone.
In any case, this SEC thing seems sort of silly. The SEC while it has the power to abusively coerce responses, techincally Jobs is just he CEO, not a golden child. How can his health issues be any more important than those of head of tupperware or American Toyota, who's name you don't know.
Is it because you know his name that makes his health techincally relevant? Then what about some who's names you do know, like Jack Welch, or Larry Ellison. Should they have been given annual public proctology exams since that's a high cancer risk for men their ages?
Sure the cult of Steve is an importnat phenomena to apple, but it's not a techincal criteria that I can see. It's not like Apple is somehow misrepresenting it's products or it's book value or it's liabilities to it's shareholders.
So what does the SEC have to argue here.
I had a set of Western digitial bought at the same time but put in unrelated computers that all failed within days of each other. Never bough another western digital in the last ten years. But now from what I read they have a good rep.
My last drive was a refurbed Seagate 750GB. died after about 30 days. Vendor replaced it. then it died again. Seagate replaced it. Died again.
So now Seagate is on my shit list. My next drive however is going to be a western digital as they seem to be very quiet compared to the seagates these days.
Exactly. The intelligent designer concept is only working if you can't think 'til the next step:
1 Where is that designer?
2 What is he in?
3 Who created the designer?
4 Who created, whatever the designer is in?
5 GOTO 1
Well yes. But even in your scheme, each step has a designer that creates the next layer.
The problem you assert is that it seems like an endless loop since we usually have no more evidence at any step of the loop to assert that this is the last step. But the whole point of the original post was the reverse. It was to assert that at least from what we can measure at this layer, it is very suggestive that we are not the top layer. So there needs to be atleast one more layer where our world's esigner lives.
Was that layer designed to? Can't say since I have no observations of what it is like.
Is design implausible? no necessarily. We do live in a finite universe. We have more than enough computing on the planet to simmulate multiple synaptic cortexes and the level of neural activation. And if you did the simmulation slower than real time you could simmulate many many of these. That's just with the feeble computation we have.
Now imagine that we are embedded in not simply a larger world but a world that is for example 4 dimensional. There's plenty of matter around there to simmulate 3 d worlds just as we have planty of matter with which to simmilate 2d worlds.
SO it's not inconceivable there could be a higher level. and given that what we can measure has the earmarks of design, it makes it even more plausible.
but it says notghing about how many simmulations deep we might be.
I hear Nvidia is updating the universes GPU and soon we will get less grains. Mac Users will be able to switch between GPU, one with faster performance and shorter lifespan and one grainier but longer lasting.
it is interesting to note that the universe is mainly built out of second order laws. This means that in many cases there are a small number of poles or zeros that can control macroscopic behaviour and often analytic solutions exist. This would be how a desiginer would do it. given a choice one chooses a qaudradic over a 6th order polynomial since an anytic solution to the zeros exits.
Likewise when things in a game are not observed you don't keep maintaining them. You just recreate them when needed. That is you keep the wireframe but don't texturize it till it is on screen. This is analgous to the way in QM the details are not predictcable till you look, and when you do the details of other things not simultaneously observed can change at a distance.
simmilarly in optics resolution behaves the way it does in video games. pixelation means that the farther something is away the less resolved it appears. There is constant angular resoltuion not spatial.
Apple dipped 10% in afterhours. But now it's back up from that to just -6%.
and the "i" in iCEO is not a letter but actually a tiny picture of Steve.
On my 300 Mhz 192mb Pentium 2 fuji lifebook Damn small linux boots on 25 seconds. It hardly makes a diffenence if I use the CD or install it on the HD.
Interestingly, on a modern computer it takes almost the same amount of time.
So I'm guessing most of that time has to do with a combination of device initializations and timeouts, and disk I/O
ubuntu takes about 15 minutes to boot off CD on the computer.
So one reason you don't have a 1 second booting computer is that if you ever did get the boot under 25 seconds all that is going to happen is that since that is plenty fast, people will lard the thing back up with new features to bring it back to 25 seconds.
One thing I always enjoy about boot ups is that it sort of reminds me of the way a developing fetus goes through all these steps that resemble the vestigial characteristics of more primitive animals. On my mac you see the hardware checks then the boot loader then the services come on, and the screen change to one color of blue, then a slightly different hue, then it gets graphics. etc.... It's like recapitulating it's development in a way that is alive at every point along the way.
If you want something faster I think you need to discard the layered boot. Have a direct boot to the final state instead of bootstrapping one layer from the next.
How does an iphone pull it off? Afterall it is running OSX and on a slow PCU to boot (pun).
I will ask you. Please name one product which used differential prices which provided savings to anyone compared to the original price structure?
1) airlines
2) software.
see page 196 of "Straight and Level: practical airplan economics". Here is the google book search link. though that may not be a stable link. You can also look here or here.
In theory risk and cost can be equated. You could (in theory) take out an insurace policy for the precise value of undoing the disaster if a mistake is made. The premium would be the cost.
Of course in reality their are externalities that are hard to price: the damage to students if for a year or so their computer trainingis in chaos. The risk to the principal's job status.
But nevermind, it does not matter if you can really take out a policy. What matters is you can say that the risks are not worth the cost savings.
So the illinois experiment is actually lowering the risk costs.
I actually read chunks of adam smith long ago and Recall with patchy clarity that he did set out as an axiom that trades, while not equally so, are still something that both the seller and buyer agree is worth doing.
But scanning the wikipedia on adam smith for a refresher they dwell a lot on his Labor Theory of Value, which finds amorphous usage.
The discrepancy, and one that Marx among many latched onto, is that there can be a difference between the price of an item and the sum of the cost of the labor that went into. The latter is it's labor value, and former is it's selling price.
Lots of people have weighed in, but I think Smith's original point is right. Both sides entering a contract are aregging it is worthwhile. Presumbaly the labor cost to the seller where he to pay try other means of reproducing the item, either through his own labor or through the effort of finding another seller, are give it a higher value than the price. Thus to both the Labor cost makes it worthwhile.
they integrate the area under the demand curve.
Far from being unfair this is actually socially ideal. In the ideal limit people pay for something exactly what it is worth.
Ah I like to reason about this kind of things! What do we mean by "exactly what it is worth" in this case? Is it in the eyes of the buyer or the seller?
Adam smith would say both. A price is s single thing: it's what the buyer pays and the seller gets. For any deal to happen it has to be worth it to both sides.
It's not dumping if the competition (Linux) is free. They are not going to put Linux out of bussiness by undercutting linux's profit margin. It might be possible they are however dumping with regard to software support (red hat, IBM, Novell, ...) But I think this would be hard to argue succesfully.
Even the memos from MS state MS cannot and will not compete soley on the basis of price.
The thing is their products are agile in price since they have high fixed costs and low marginal costs. Airlines are classic example of this. Airlines try to create price structures (e.g. saturday stays, advance purchase, limited kinds of seats, luggage limits,... ) so that they integrate the area under the demand curve.
Far from being unfair this is actually socially ideal. In the ideal limit people pay for something exactly what it is worth. depsite the fact that some folks pay more than others, over all nearly everyone, including the people paying the higher price, are paying LESS than they would have to pay if it was sold for a fixed price, because of the increased demand lowers the per capitia fixed costs.
I also question broad statements like " Windows is not really competitive and schools that switch save tens of millions of dollars.". Anecdotally maybe this is has happened. But it's not really clear that this is true in general. School systems are one of the most budget limited govt run orgs. They try everything to shave dollars, like fees for art supplies, to hot lunches paid for by PTO fund raisers. I find it hard to believe the schools would somehow be so blind as to over look an easy "tens of millions" if the case was clear cut.
" Windows is not really competitive and schools that switch save tens of millions of dollars. "
yes but my point is still valid. A 15" monitor weighs about 20 pounds and has a 1.7 pounds of lead. not 7 pounds. Most of the lead is neck and frit and can be recovered. The rest is bound in a glass matrix (it can still leach but is a good start on containing it).
I sort of gagged on the number 350,000 cell phones (130,000) computers a day? But it makes sense. in 2005 a survey found 69% of americans had cell phones. That's about 250 million users. So if mean replacement time is 2 years, that's 342K a day! Computer's last longer aparently to account for the lower discard number.
However the 7 pounds of lead in a 15 pound computer is complete BS. First most CRTs weigh about 30 pounds so this 15 pound number is perverse. If we assume that only referes to the computer itself and not the CRT we can still estimate the amount of lead using numbers from various studies:
According to this report 98% of the lead attributed to computers is in the CRT glass. (interesting the report also notes that 75% of CRTs are stored not recycled). However for a 15 pound computer system, only slightly more than half of that is the CRT. And CRT's are not made of 90% lead.
indeed this pdf article determiened that nearly all the lead in a CRT is not in the heavy panel portion but is in fact in the neck and frit seals.
most of the lead however is bound up. the leachable lead is still considerable however.
The actual amount of lead in a 27 pound CRT (19% screen) is 2.2 or less than 10%. If CRT's have 90% of the lead in a computer system then a computer is about 1% of it's weight in lead. so a 15 pound computer ought ot have about 0.15 pounds of lead not 7 pounds.
the article is BS.
Ooh, I can use it as an actual music player now :D
Now, if I could just *afford* it...
I hate being in college sometimes.
from the answer:
"Though the demonstration was impressive, notable absentees from the demo were video streaming and any in-depth show of the music player."
It also has an externally replaceable battery, so one guesses the individual batteries won't last as long as an iphone or else it's thick as a brick. (they don't give the dimensions or show it in profile)
No mention of the enterprise-like push apps that Rim and iphone now sport. No mention of corresponding desktop based easy-management software like itunes or me.com
and of course it is yet-another OS. is there an SDK?
Microsoft is supposedly about to layoff 17% of it's worldwide workforce despite cash reserves. I wonder is perhaps they are positioning themselves to be more nimble in the new hire arena so as to profit from this transient IT burst.
After this has to be a burst. The whole point is for this kind of infra structure investment to lead to longer term efficiencies and ultimatle less redundant and incompatible IT make work. The only way it can actually lead to greater IT in the long run is if it somehow creates new opportunities in Health care that make more investment in health care a worthwhile thing. Right now, I think the evidence is that health care is saturated were paying more than socialized medicine countries but outcomes are not in aggregate better, they are only better in the individual but insubstantially few cases.
So this kind of investment if it's valuable should lead to more centralized and pre-packaged software solution and not to more IT jobs in the long run.
It will be like all the linesmen they need to put up the next generation grid. eventually the grid will be up and the extra help, particularly the experts in executing it, not needed. They will just need the maytag repairman and the telephone sanitizers.
After all who is actually ready to roll out IT systems that companies are willing to bet on? Microsoft. Sure the open source community has better solutions in the long run. But to roll anything out, no matter how clever, you need a bussiness model to back it. That's why haliburton and Bechtel and boeing keep getting the big systems integrator contracts. Not because they are so good at what they do. but because they have the scalable bussiness model to ramp up fast.
Microsoft thus needs a weight loss program. it's lethargic. But it is big and can do essentially every task and companies trust it even while IT folks grumble.
SO maybe this is their big comeback.
That's why apple uses Lithium polymer (conformal) and not lithium ion (round). RTFA.
Wow. I think you've seen one too many episodes of the X-Files.
Well scully did oust jobs for a time. And moulder is no where to be found. It's not a turtle neck, it's the black oil.
Why do you think Jobs bought Pixar? to make cartoons? No they are working to cross the uncanny divide where live action animated figures are indistinguishable from humans. They will just have an all digital Jobs up there in a few years presenting the products and you will never know.
Indeed maybe they already have. Jobs maybe is not ill but actually just an early version like Tom Hanks in Polar express.
retard.
flat pack batteries have a 30% higher fill factor than cyllindrical batteries. that is 4/pi
You should look at the x-ray images they showed. You do indeed lose even more that 30% of your space. And this is pretty obvious too since the fill factor for cyllinders is on that order. They went to flat pack batteries.
So they not only made the battery last longer but it also is thinner.
They stated it can be charged 1000 times. That means if you use your laptop every day you will need a new one in 2.7 years.
if you use it every day, including saturdays and sundays, FOR 8 HOURS A DAY, then in 2.7 years, the battery will be down to an 80% charge or 6.4 hours. Which is longer than your current 5 hour battery lasts.
I seriously doubt many users use a computer 7 days a week, soley on batteries for 8 hours a day!
finally you can replace the battery. There's just no simple pop-out mechanism. But unscrewing the case once in the life of a computer is not a big deal.
Additionally Apple care will cover the battery for 3 years-- that's not something you get on most warantee contracts.