I'm trying to imagine how Huawei could be worse than any of the others? All smartphones are saturated with spyware. I was setting up my wife's new Galaxy S3 last night, which is Android, and the number of times you have to click, "go ahead and do whatever you want with my data" to get it working in a useful manner is mind-numbing.
Sort of. Without knowing the unknowable "true" value of the patents (how many, which ones, how much they generate in royalties, how important they might be to google's future plans...), it could just as well be face-saving spin by google management to head off the wrath of shareholders. In other words, even assuming the management team is trying to do whatever is best for the company, they also have a strong incentive to give the impression they are doing a good job.
I think it's interesting that we give so much emphasis to "stars" (that is, controlled tests) and so little to accident statistical data. I would never argue against controlled tests, but there is a risk of overlooking some important variable - like variability in occupant size, for example. If we focused more on the bottom line - safety the real world - then the car companies would have an incentive to do a wider range of tests.
Based on my experience with this type of thing, the answer is, "here is a scientist posed with a random piece of equipment and staged lighting to make a visually appealing image that looks science-y."
More seriously, I think this crowdsourcing effort is likely to be overwhelmed with clever jokes or well-intentioned guesses.
There are plenty of ideas that are waaayyy out in front of the technology already. The important thing at this point is making a printer with enough capability at low enough cost to make significant strides towards the vision and do something useful.
It's like the space age, people assumed getting into space (at all) was the hard part, but no, just getting people into space didn't change daily life at all, and getting to the next solar system is thousands of times harder.
Wow! It is incredibly refreshing to see a new opportunity for a piece of commercial PC software that is expected to cost more than $2. It must be the first time in about 10 years.
Perhaps one of the established players will decide to bow out of the high-end, and target 3d printing. Or, make a new cut-rate home/small business version, ala Photoshop Elements.
On the open-source side we'll have to see if things turn out more like Gimp or Blender (usable options), or more like the video editing situation (failure).
It lives on. Anyways, I am mainly giving them props for making the effort. To the extent they are "just" making computers with commodity CPUs, it's because that's what works out best, not because they're unimaginative or unambitious.
The "original cray?" I'd be surprised if even the power plug is the same type. 1972 is a long time ago, what carryover would you expect? But besides big gangs of commodity CPUs (which are actually not just a beowulf cluster, by the way), they still develop interesting new architectures.
So why SHOULDN'T you prefer to get the benefits of using a CC if you are going to be paying the same exact amount for something anyway?
That is the crux of it right there.
There are certainly gas stations that accept debit but charge more to use a Credit Card, or don't accept them at all (e.g. Costco, except Amex IIRC). There is no way the CurrenC consortium can dislodge the CC companies unless they do the same. But the CC companies are heavily entrenched middlemen - not even Walmart can suddenly cut ties with them - so this should be fun to watch!
I'm getting sick of these posts. This is a review of a cutting/bleeding edge product, and is not especially glowing either, but with quite a bit of data on scan/print times etc.
For my first attempt at replicating an object, I chose 5-in. long model of a Porsche 911 turbo sports car. Unfortunately, the 3D scan of it failed, as did several other attempts to scan various other objects.
Sorry, but anything beyond academic research is, in fact, a product for sale.
When you see a breathless article devoid of information about a boring product, then by all means, start bitching about slashvertisement.
Does any of these wristbands have continuous heart rate monitoring without a chest strap? And does it actually work?
I am a runner and have a love/hate relation with my Garmin GPS watch, because it's useful, but was expensive and is bug-ridden. And in contrast to the GP, I've come to believe that heart rate is KEY. Distance in itself doesn't tell you so much if there is significant variation in slope, elevation, surface type, and temperature. What really matters is effort times time, and heart rate measures effort. But I rarely wear the chest strap for my Garmin because it's a nuisance and a bit uncomfortable. But without a chest strap, can these things do continuous heart rate measurement at all?
Refrigerators aside, wireless charging within a 15 foot radius would be most welcome at the gates in airports, for example on the pillars between rows of seats. Usually there are too few outlets and a big tangle of wires strewn across walkways because everybody needs to recharge their stuff!
The other extremely useful place for this would be in your car - the family is rolling down the road with about half a dozen tablets etc, all getting charged. Most people are in their car often enough that they'd never have to worry about charging again.
I don't know either but it's fun to speculate - perhaps bandwidth to the location is limited/expensive so they're doing a bunch of onboard image processing to detect whatever they're looking for.
That has long been Amazon's strategy, and it was working - solid growth that was essentially self-funding. But look at this graph.
In the past the "loss" was always negligible - they would run a small profit or loss each quarter while investing heavily and posting solid growth, indicating they could choose to start taking profits at any moment even without raising prices.
But last quarter's loss was big, too big. That is why the stock suddenly took a hit.
If you want a good price, you generally have to work for it, which means looking around, and waiting. Little tricks like deleting your cookies will never make a dent - how do you know they didn't decide last night to start charging "nobodies" more?
Markets keep getting more and more efficient, and that means there are fewer and fewer "tricks," by which I mean consistently getting a better price without working at it.
None of which is to say you "ought" to work for lower prices - how much is your time worth? You could almost always save another dime by waiting and looking more. Just check a few different products at a few different sites, and you will do OK. Don't settle into a rut, like "oh I have Amazon Prime so I just get everything from them," unless the convenience is worth getting milked.
At the very least I'm glad they closed this potential loophole before it opened, otherwise the vast majority of US workers would be fired and re-hired by wholly-owned foreign subsidiaries within weeks. "Sorry suckers, you're in Cambodia now! For legal purposes at least! Hahahahahah!!!"
It is very premature to excoriate Microsoft for discontinuing research. Yes they closed the Bay Area site, but Microsoft Research is headquartered in Redmond, along with Microsoft Corporate HQ. If anything, Microsoft has been knocked for pouring money into MS Research with little to show for it (although their patent portfolio may be the most profitable thing they have going in the mobile arena).
If Microsoft is flagging, I actually don't think it's lack of research, in their case. They are way out in front of every movement in industry (hence the patent fees), what they lack is the design and marketing to capitalize on it themselves.
Yes, Intel is a great American company. But are its fortunes rising or sinking? I see very minimal long-term growth (if at all) in that chart, which is scary given than the worldwide market for semiconductors is growing fast. Compare to Samsung.
Granted we are just comparing individual companies. Apple is an American company and has done amazingly well. But, personal opinion here, Apple's magic is not very substantive, and people are very fickle in what is considered cool. (Not that Apple's products aren't good, but their success in recent years has been way out of proportion to how good they are - the quality created a fad - and that won't last).
It's not so much getting "caught," but I have realized that I have done myself no favors by just sitting through meetings quietly for years and thinking, "Yeah, no kidding! I could have said that, why does everybody listen to them!" Staying engaged in meetings doesn't come naturally to me but it is a form of valuable work and leads to other things.
I have been surprised in just the last few years how many full-time telecommuters I suddenly know, and equally surprised by how useful video-conferencing is in making my interactions with them more engaging, as opposed to just talking on the phone. So far, the experience is sub-optimal because there are frequent glitches and disconnects (whether it is the person's Internet connection, or our VPN, or Lync, I am not entirely sure). But the digital divide is no longer a notional idea for me, because I work daily with people who can't earn their living without a good connection.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm trying to imagine how Huawei could be worse than any of the others? All smartphones are saturated with spyware. I was setting up my wife's new Galaxy S3 last night, which is Android, and the number of times you have to click, "go ahead and do whatever you want with my data" to get it working in a useful manner is mind-numbing.
Sort of. Without knowing the unknowable "true" value of the patents (how many, which ones, how much they generate in royalties, how important they might be to google's future plans...), it could just as well be face-saving spin by google management to head off the wrath of shareholders. In other words, even assuming the management team is trying to do whatever is best for the company, they also have a strong incentive to give the impression they are doing a good job.
I think it's interesting that we give so much emphasis to "stars" (that is, controlled tests) and so little to accident statistical data. I would never argue against controlled tests, but there is a risk of overlooking some important variable - like variability in occupant size, for example. If we focused more on the bottom line - safety the real world - then the car companies would have an incentive to do a wider range of tests.
More seriously, I think this crowdsourcing effort is likely to be overwhelmed with clever jokes or well-intentioned guesses.
It's like the space age, people assumed getting into space (at all) was the hard part, but no, just getting people into space didn't change daily life at all, and getting to the next solar system is thousands of times harder.
Perhaps one of the established players will decide to bow out of the high-end, and target 3d printing. Or, make a new cut-rate home/small business version, ala Photoshop Elements.
On the open-source side we'll have to see if things turn out more like Gimp or Blender (usable options), or more like the video editing situation (failure).
It lives on. Anyways, I am mainly giving them props for making the effort. To the extent they are "just" making computers with commodity CPUs, it's because that's what works out best, not because they're unimaginative or unambitious.
The "original cray?" I'd be surprised if even the power plug is the same type. 1972 is a long time ago, what carryover would you expect? But besides big gangs of commodity CPUs (which are actually not just a beowulf cluster, by the way), they still develop interesting new architectures.
I keep hearing this and I don't understand it. How is it any different than the majority of people who use the same credit card at different stores?
That is the crux of it right there. There are certainly gas stations that accept debit but charge more to use a Credit Card, or don't accept them at all (e.g. Costco, except Amex IIRC). There is no way the CurrenC consortium can dislodge the CC companies unless they do the same. But the CC companies are heavily entrenched middlemen - not even Walmart can suddenly cut ties with them - so this should be fun to watch!
Sorry, but anything beyond academic research is, in fact, a product for sale.
When you see a breathless article devoid of information about a boring product, then by all means, start bitching about slashvertisement.
.
From the review it's clear that this device is very limited. On the other hand, what currently available product is better for the price?
I am a runner and have a love/hate relation with my Garmin GPS watch, because it's useful, but was expensive and is bug-ridden. And in contrast to the GP, I've come to believe that heart rate is KEY. Distance in itself doesn't tell you so much if there is significant variation in slope, elevation, surface type, and temperature. What really matters is effort times time, and heart rate measures effort. But I rarely wear the chest strap for my Garmin because it's a nuisance and a bit uncomfortable. But without a chest strap, can these things do continuous heart rate measurement at all?
The other extremely useful place for this would be in your car - the family is rolling down the road with about half a dozen tablets etc, all getting charged. Most people are in their car often enough that they'd never have to worry about charging again.
I don't know either but it's fun to speculate - perhaps bandwidth to the location is limited/expensive so they're doing a bunch of onboard image processing to detect whatever they're looking for.
But last quarter's loss was big, too big. That is why the stock suddenly took a hit.
One has to wonder if a DOJ-imposed breakup might not have been a gift to shareholders.
Markets keep getting more and more efficient, and that means there are fewer and fewer "tricks," by which I mean consistently getting a better price without working at it.
None of which is to say you "ought" to work for lower prices - how much is your time worth? You could almost always save another dime by waiting and looking more. Just check a few different products at a few different sites, and you will do OK. Don't settle into a rut, like "oh I have Amazon Prime so I just get everything from them," unless the convenience is worth getting milked.
At the very least I'm glad they closed this potential loophole before it opened, otherwise the vast majority of US workers would be fired and re-hired by wholly-owned foreign subsidiaries within weeks. "Sorry suckers, you're in Cambodia now! For legal purposes at least! Hahahahahah!!!"
If Microsoft is flagging, I actually don't think it's lack of research, in their case. They are way out in front of every movement in industry (hence the patent fees), what they lack is the design and marketing to capitalize on it themselves.
Granted we are just comparing individual companies. Apple is an American company and has done amazingly well. But, personal opinion here, Apple's magic is not very substantive, and people are very fickle in what is considered cool. (Not that Apple's products aren't good, but their success in recent years has been way out of proportion to how good they are - the quality created a fad - and that won't last).
Yeah, sort of, except it's a mutual give-and-take, and "forced" is a big exaggeration.
It's not so much getting "caught," but I have realized that I have done myself no favors by just sitting through meetings quietly for years and thinking, "Yeah, no kidding! I could have said that, why does everybody listen to them!" Staying engaged in meetings doesn't come naturally to me but it is a form of valuable work and leads to other things.
Anyways, that's just it... there's no social pressure without eye contact. It is too tempting to websurf during a teleconference.
So I want to have stable, low-latency, 20-way video conferencing before I hear anybody claim more bandwidth wouldn't be useful.
(Of course even then telecommuters have to download big files often enough).
I have been surprised in just the last few years how many full-time telecommuters I suddenly know, and equally surprised by how useful video-conferencing is in making my interactions with them more engaging, as opposed to just talking on the phone. So far, the experience is sub-optimal because there are frequent glitches and disconnects (whether it is the person's Internet connection, or our VPN, or Lync, I am not entirely sure). But the digital divide is no longer a notional idea for me, because I work daily with people who can't earn their living without a good connection.