Hard drive progress has dramatically slacked off in general, not just in laptops.
here is my recent usenet rant on the topic. The upshot is that if trends from 2001 had continued, you could now buy a 5 terabyte drive for $300. Instead it's $300 for 750GB.
Customers walk in, browse, leave and order the book from amazon.com for 10-20% less.
Really? Prove it. I think more customers do product research online, then buy locally for impulse satisfaction. Amazon is better than any bookstore for browsing because you can see others' ratings and read their reviews.
I'm not saying online doesn't cut into retailers, but I think it's because online is often better. I haven't seen any evidence that online is leeching from retailers rather than simply competing with them, as you claim.
I do think retailers have a legitimate beef with sales tax though.
He went on to say that in the absence of active government support these conspiracies are doomed due to chiselling and competition from those outside of the cartel... More like the AMA than, say, Microsoft or Google. Smith was not arguing for government antitrust regulation, but rather for governments to avoid mandating or encouraging industry self-regulation.
Fair enough, since you mentioned the doctor's union which so effectively restricts supply to raise prices for medical services, what shall we do? Perhaps you're right that the AMA would have no power if not for government regulation, but I'm not in favor of totally deregulating medicine. Like if some hack surgeon kills me, I should go somewhere else next time?
My MP3 player fits in the palm of my hand or in my pocket and has a 15 hour playing time.
Newer players get twice that from a single AA. If you're charging your phone every other day anyways, let's assume somebody uses the music player on average for 2 hours every day, then you'd be using about 1/8 of a single AA battery between each recharge, or approximately 10% of your cellphone battery (which has roughly equal mAh to an AA). It's not enough to matter. Look at it this way, if they simply made the cellphone battery 10% larger to compensate, that would add by far less weight and expense than carrying a second, standalone mp3 device.
Arranging a teleconference between half a dozen people at different sites takes more time than actually holding it. Yes it is necessary sometimes, but it sure is hard work finding a time when everybody is available. I can't imagine how people ever managed to arrange teleconferences at all before email:)
I think you have a point about writing being better thought out. The problem is, some people simply don't work that way. I know a couple guys at work to whom I just don't bother writing detailed emails, because every time I've tried, it's obvious they simply don't read them, no matter how important they are and how well I craft the language.
Similarly, I used to wonder why people travel to expensive training courses when you can get all the same information from a book - which is usually better organized and from a more authoritative source, anyways. But I've realized, many people simply do not, and will not, sit down and master the information in a book to save their lives. Even successful people. You have to sit them in a room with minimal distractions and engage them face to face.
I agree, DOS (like Windows) could so easily have gone to a competitor instead. I guess it just shows how pivotal certain moments can be. IBM in particular made blunder after blunder, refusing the take the PC seriously. I guess their mainframes were doing just fine and they didn't want to open their eyes to the implications of Moore's Law - that $500 PCs would ultimately take most of the market for computing hardware. Just like all the others - Sun, Silicon Graphics, Cray, DEC...
It is funny to hear it straight from Gates though. He owes almost his entire fortune to IBM's failure to deliver on OS/2, and (to be fair) Microsoft's successful delivery of DOS+Windows (crap that it was).
Running a business is not academics. There are academic fields relating to business, but Bill Gates has little to do with them. Awarding Bill Gates an honerary doctorate in business or computer science is like awarding Mike Tyson an honorary doctorate in exercise physiology.
But how would you feel if your partner starts maneuvering to put you on salary and keep all the equity for himself because "I'm making all the strategic moves to grow this company?"
I'm not really saying that would happen to you, but in general it's not as if management and techies are on equal footing and reap equal rewards. Moving up means leaving technical work behind, and I'm torn by that.
I don't think that explanation will fly. The irony is too much. I wouldn't expect Colbert to lie down if he were sued for parodying Bill Oreilly, even if Oreilly did try to distance himself from it.
Especially of the Colbert Report (of all things). Even ignoring the "oh-you're-one-of-them" reaction from fans, somehow I don't think it's in Colbert's best financial interests to restrict parody.
I don't think it's insurmountable. Air bags cause unnecessary death sometimes, but they're a big net gain and we keep them.
I do think we'll see unmanned transport planes first, though. Flying is easy. There's less to crash into, you only land at a pre-set number of known locations, and planes can be much more expensive than cars to cover the costs of new technology.
That's funny... I thought it was the new Iraqi government that hung Saddam...
Sure, sort of. There are several factions battling for control of Iraq. The one we created, and are propping up, and to whom we handed Saddam for execution after capturing him, is the one that executed him. So in that sense "we" didn't do it. Even if you absolutely accept them as the legitimate government of Iraq, it's 100% clear that he never would have been executed without US actions, and almost as clear that Ahmadinejad would be disposed of in a similar indirect manner if we were to topple Iran.
I don't think we should allow Iran to have nukes, I'm just saying our actions have given them every reason to think their national security is in grave jeapordy and that nukes are the answer. We've made nonproliferation pretty tough on ourselves, now it will cost us.
If you think that conflicts are going to stop or be minimized, you are dead wrong, it's only going to get worse, and the only thing we do is find better ways to kill each other.
Huh? Compared to the first half of the 20th century, the last 60 years have been a cake walk.
I think I agree with the rest of your comment. The only dire threat to our national security right now is he proliferation of nuclear weapons. Obviously we should strive to minimize terrorism as well, but Muslim extremists haven't a prayer of wiping us off the map (except for the aforementioned nukes). An arms race certainly won't reduce the nuclear problem. Proving to Iran that it has every reason to be paranoid by invading its neighbor on false pretenses and hanging its president, on the other hand, is definitely a giant leap in the wrong direction.
They designed a game machine with an awesome cutting-edge processor, a high-capacity next-gen optical storage, and bottled it up behind a mediocre graphics card. Thus it will never dominate over the cheaper XBox 360 in the screenshot wars. OOPS!
Neuroscience makes a connection between the hard science and soft sciences
It wishes! The gulf between neuroscience and the soft sciences is enormous. No technology to sense neuronal activations with enough spatial or temporal resolution to relate them to intelligence is even on the horizon. I doubt neuroscience will explain or create intelligence any faster than birdwatching taught us how to make airplanes, or the Kreb cycle taught us how to make engines.
I was about to buy 3 of these, but when I actually looked closely at the graph I realised how biased it is toward the biomedical/health sciences. Math is a puny cluster of small dots, there's no area labeled Engineering and Chemistry looks like it has more lines than all the hard sciences put together.
What are your expectations based on? The chart is based on scientific publications, and IME it is representative. Federal research budget in 2004:
So the only mismatch here is Engineering. But it's the "Map of Science," so I'm not sure Engineering really belongs in there. Math, I'm afraid, really is a puny cluster.
Medicine is where all the money is. It's 16% of the GDP! (I realize most of that's not research, but still...)
I just found the reference you were probably referring to. As of 2003, 98.5% of the PowerStroke Diesel-equipped F-Series were still on the road. But those haven't been manufactured for as long Ford trucks in general.
The report found that, in terms of years, passenger cars are lasting longer, while SUVs and other light trucks are not running as long as before. Transportation officials said the survival rate for light trucks may have dropped because the vehicles are used more for day-to-day transportation needs than hauling cargo.
For passenger cars, the report said nearly 79 percent of 10-year-old vehicles are still on the road, up 7 percentage points for comparable vehicles in the 1995 data.
Among SUVs, pickups and vans, it found that 69 percent of all 10-year-old light trucks are still being driven. The 1995 study found that 81 percent of all 10-year-old light trucks were still in use.
It still doesn't say how many reach 300K miles, but I doubt that's the average lifespan as the Humvee article assumes.
Actually, if you go to the junkyard you probably won't find any F350s at all, because the vast majority of Ford trucks ever built are still on the road -- 98% as of the last JDPower stat I saw.
Ford has built and sold more than 26 million F-Series trucks, and more than 8 million are still on the road. Not bad. But 90%? Not even close.
Slashdot Mirror
Hard drive progress has dramatically slacked off in general, not just in laptops. here is my recent usenet rant on the topic. The upshot is that if trends from 2001 had continued, you could now buy a 5 terabyte drive for $300. Instead it's $300 for 750GB.
I'm not saying online doesn't cut into retailers, but I think it's because online is often better. I haven't seen any evidence that online is leeching from retailers rather than simply competing with them, as you claim.
I do think retailers have a legitimate beef with sales tax though.
Arranging a teleconference between half a dozen people at different sites takes more time than actually holding it. Yes it is necessary sometimes, but it sure is hard work finding a time when everybody is available. I can't imagine how people ever managed to arrange teleconferences at all before email :)
Similarly, I used to wonder why people travel to expensive training courses when you can get all the same information from a book - which is usually better organized and from a more authoritative source, anyways. But I've realized, many people simply do not, and will not, sit down and master the information in a book to save their lives. Even successful people. You have to sit them in a room with minimal distractions and engage them face to face.
I agree, DOS (like Windows) could so easily have gone to a competitor instead. I guess it just shows how pivotal certain moments can be. IBM in particular made blunder after blunder, refusing the take the PC seriously. I guess their mainframes were doing just fine and they didn't want to open their eyes to the implications of Moore's Law - that $500 PCs would ultimately take most of the market for computing hardware. Just like all the others - Sun, Silicon Graphics, Cray, DEC...
It is funny to hear it straight from Gates though. He owes almost his entire fortune to IBM's failure to deliver on OS/2, and (to be fair) Microsoft's successful delivery of DOS+Windows (crap that it was).
I associate oversized caches with Intel's "Extreme" line of processors, which (for some reason) offered virtually no performance boost.
Running a business is not academics. There are academic fields relating to business, but Bill Gates has little to do with them. Awarding Bill Gates an honerary doctorate in business or computer science is like awarding Mike Tyson an honorary doctorate in exercise physiology.
I'm not really saying that would happen to you, but in general it's not as if management and techies are on equal footing and reap equal rewards. Moving up means leaving technical work behind, and I'm torn by that.
I don't think that explanation will fly. The irony is too much. I wouldn't expect Colbert to lie down if he were sued for parodying Bill Oreilly, even if Oreilly did try to distance himself from it.
Especially of the Colbert Report (of all things). Even ignoring the "oh-you're-one-of-them" reaction from fans, somehow I don't think it's in Colbert's best financial interests to restrict parody.
I do think we'll see unmanned transport planes first, though. Flying is easy. There's less to crash into, you only land at a pre-set number of known locations, and planes can be much more expensive than cars to cover the costs of new technology.
I don't think we should allow Iran to have nukes, I'm just saying our actions have given them every reason to think their national security is in grave jeapordy and that nukes are the answer. We've made nonproliferation pretty tough on ourselves, now it will cost us.
I think I agree with the rest of your comment. The only dire threat to our national security right now is he proliferation of nuclear weapons. Obviously we should strive to minimize terrorism as well, but Muslim extremists haven't a prayer of wiping us off the map (except for the aforementioned nukes). An arms race certainly won't reduce the nuclear problem. Proving to Iran that it has every reason to be paranoid by invading its neighbor on false pretenses and hanging its president, on the other hand, is definitely a giant leap in the wrong direction.
They designed a game machine with an awesome cutting-edge processor, a high-capacity next-gen optical storage, and bottled it up behind a mediocre graphics card. Thus it will never dominate over the cheaper XBox 360 in the screenshot wars. OOPS!
Life Sciences: 54%
Engineering: 17%
Physical Sciences: 10%
Environmental Sciences: 7%
Math, Computer Science: 5%
Social Sciences: 2%
Psychology: 2%
Other: 2%
So the only mismatch here is Engineering. But it's the "Map of Science," so I'm not sure Engineering really belongs in there. Math, I'm afraid, really is a puny cluster.
Medicine is where all the money is. It's 16% of the GDP! (I realize most of that's not research, but still...)
Some recent information compared to 1995 data:
It still doesn't say how many reach 300K miles, but I doubt that's the average lifespan as the Humvee article assumes.