People who work in places where you can't have cameras either have a phone without one, or two phones. Google Glass users are going to have to get used to doing the same.
Using the GPs shower example, if you're covered in blood and refuse a search you'll be held until a search warrant can be obtained. If the FBI did anything wrong here it was holding him for so long without searching him, since he voluntarily submitted.
"How honest are you" is just begging for it. There's a famous case of a professor of logic who, when asked if he had ever told a lie, thought for a long time and then answered "yes".
Did he say that so people who don't understand logic but heard about it on a stupid website somewhere would say "hey, I see what you did there!"
Find a new business model. There was a time, before the ads got thick, when many websites had a donation button. You could click it and toss the author a few bucks. It was difficult then, before PayPal. Now it's trivial.
Also, a great many web sites used to be put up to advertise (in a good way) the business that put them up (restaurants putting up a page with their menus, location and hours, for example). When I go to those I'm interested in patronizing the business belonging to the site. Other sites were made by people or groups who were just interested in sharing with the world. Hobbyists, various organizations, whatever. They don't need payment.
Now, everybody tosses some ads on their site just because you might as well try and make a buck.
Let's see. Slashdot was here. It was more of a hobby run by people who were interested in Slashdot itself than by a big company looking for profit.
There are a couple of blogs I follow that were. They weren't called "blogs" then, but rather personal web pages where people wrote things because they were interested in them.
There were lots of other personal web sites that had interesting things that you'd search for and find, read, then leave forever. Same as the previous.
The rest of the stuff I use the Internet for might not have been around in the early days, but it tends to be services I pay for (e-mail, Flickr), or Facebook. I'd happily pay a bit for a Facebook type service without the scumminess.
In the worst possible case you'd have a program that lets you click images to label them as an ad, then stores a descriptor for them and never shows a matching image again. Realistically, I bet you can recognize ads, especially the most obnoxious ones, the same way you can recognize them on TV. They're less sparse. TV ads are famous for not being "louder" for a particular definition of loudness, but they have more audio power. Visual ads are similar - they're made to be eye catching, bright, with lots of things in them.
Not really. You can make scale-invariant hashes. There aren't that many ads out there.
The only way you can make an ad that can't be easily blocked is to make it nearly indistinguishable from content. There are two ways to do that: poorly and well. If you do it poorly, you'll just piss everybody off. Doing it well requires a lot of effort, something web advertisers are not known for.
It seems to me very odd that anybody would want to force ads on people who specifically block them. I'm not going to buy anything from your sucky ad that you managed to manipulate past my blocker. Just give up and thank me for not wasting your bandwidth.
Yeah if that's never actually done, bitcoin might still succeed. The first time any kind of blacklisting is done in any volume, it's game over. Who wants to accept payment or exchange or whatever in a currency where you have to carefully inspect the entire history of each token to make sure it will be accepted?
Many places already won't accept $50 bills because of the (remote) chance they might be counterfeit.
You can get an ATMega for less than $3. It's getting someone else to put the OS on it that makes it expensive. Still, you don't just throw an extra micro controller into a product you're planning for manufacturing. It's great for prototyping, but not so good for a finished product. It's not exactly hard to run IO natively on whatever uC you happen to be using.
I don't suppose you've found some good, self-contained JS widgets have you? It makes me sad when I'm looking for something, find a beautiful widget, and have to hit next because it requires JQuery.
That sounds about right. You could trim a few more dollars off by buying a microcontroller and burning your own Arduino OS onto it. You could save a lot by not using their $39 spark core, which looks like a great embedded wifi development board but not like something you'd use in a finished product. In particular, there's no reason for your thermostat to have two microcontrollers (three, actually, the TI wifi module has an integrated one). Especially not when one of them is a 72 mHz ARM. The TI module is available for about $13-$15, rather than $39 for the spark unit. If you built a pure cloud device you could probably drop the Arduino entirely.
1. It still is. Nest is a niche company that accounts for a tiny fraction of thermostat installs. People are going to love it when nest.google.com isn't getting the adoption Google would like and they decide to shut it down. Google's track record with hardware is... horrible. Actually, Google's track record with software is pretty bad too.
2. Bingo. That's what Google wants. More data on you so they can sell you stuff. Is it worth 3.2 billion? Maybe. Google undoubtedly knows better than I do. Either way, Google didn't buy Nest because thermostats are hard to make. It bought Nest because it wants to monitor what temperature your house is set at.
3. There are cheaper ways to hire people than paying 3.2 billion dollars for the company they work for. Google is a much bigger, better known, better respected name than Nest. If they actually want to sell thermometers, the first thing they'll do is retire the Nest name. Kinda like they're doing with Motorola Mobility.
4. Google isn't going to be laughing at SCADA exploits. They've now made themselves responsible for some of them.
5. Does Nest contract with power companies? I don't see that on their web page. Are you making stuff up now? Sure Google COULD do that in the future, but they could also do that with a Google thermostat instead of a Nest thermostat.
So what? The cost of the raw materials is more indicative of what it would cost to get a final product manufactured than the prototype price, including everything. It actually seems to me their cost is a little high, probably because they've built a local thermostat instead of a cloud one.
Thermostats aren't exactly complicated. There have been electronic ones around for a long time and the idea of "smart" thermostats for even longer. Connecting things to smartphones is also not a new idea.
If you're saying that Nest didn't do anything all that impressive, I'm with you. Their thermostat is pretty. If it worked well it would be a reasonable offering. But I don't see how it's worth 3.2 billion dollars.
This would seem likely to be another insanely overpriced acquisition that will either end up at a fraction of it's value in a few years or get merged into the rest of the company to hide the loss.
Every time something happens bitcoin looks shakier. Your "anonymous" currency that can't have transactions reversed can be rendered worthless by being put on a blacklist by somebody? What, some random group of miners somewhere?
In the situation mentioned by the OP - you've eaten at a restaurant - the money you owe the restaurant is a debt. By not making you pay in advance they've given you credit. My reading of that statement is that they must accept any legal tender you choose to offer to pay off that debt. So if you want to give them a $20 they can take it or dissolve the debt.
On the other hand, if they didn't want to take the $20 and you offered it in advance, they could refuse to serve you.
I doubt it. Not for $28 million. It will just go up for auction like a car or house. There were probably lots of other assets seized as well. The speculator who buys them may sell them off slowly, or just dump them for a quick return, depending on how much attention the auction gets and how high the price goes.
Slashdot Mirror
People who work in places where you can't have cameras either have a phone without one, or two phones. Google Glass users are going to have to get used to doing the same.
Using the GPs shower example, if you're covered in blood and refuse a search you'll be held until a search warrant can be obtained. If the FBI did anything wrong here it was holding him for so long without searching him, since he voluntarily submitted.
Because a major part of the US's GDP depends on copyright and patents.
Perhaps he muffed up the line because he was too busy thinking to himself "god, I wish when people retold my jokes they'd get them right."
Did he say that so people who don't understand logic but heard about it on a stupid website somewhere would say "hey, I see what you did there!"
Find a new business model. There was a time, before the ads got thick, when many websites had a donation button. You could click it and toss the author a few bucks. It was difficult then, before PayPal. Now it's trivial.
Also, a great many web sites used to be put up to advertise (in a good way) the business that put them up (restaurants putting up a page with their menus, location and hours, for example). When I go to those I'm interested in patronizing the business belonging to the site. Other sites were made by people or groups who were just interested in sharing with the world. Hobbyists, various organizations, whatever. They don't need payment.
Now, everybody tosses some ads on their site just because you might as well try and make a buck.
Let's see. Slashdot was here. It was more of a hobby run by people who were interested in Slashdot itself than by a big company looking for profit.
There are a couple of blogs I follow that were. They weren't called "blogs" then, but rather personal web pages where people wrote things because they were interested in them.
There were lots of other personal web sites that had interesting things that you'd search for and find, read, then leave forever. Same as the previous.
The rest of the stuff I use the Internet for might not have been around in the early days, but it tends to be services I pay for (e-mail, Flickr), or Facebook. I'd happily pay a bit for a Facebook type service without the scumminess.
In the worst possible case you'd have a program that lets you click images to label them as an ad, then stores a descriptor for them and never shows a matching image again. Realistically, I bet you can recognize ads, especially the most obnoxious ones, the same way you can recognize them on TV. They're less sparse. TV ads are famous for not being "louder" for a particular definition of loudness, but they have more audio power. Visual ads are similar - they're made to be eye catching, bright, with lots of things in them.
Not really. You can make scale-invariant hashes. There aren't that many ads out there.
The only way you can make an ad that can't be easily blocked is to make it nearly indistinguishable from content. There are two ways to do that: poorly and well. If you do it poorly, you'll just piss everybody off. Doing it well requires a lot of effort, something web advertisers are not known for.
It's not a falsehood. It's just got a typo (I don't know whether it was in the original quote. The correct version should be:
"The customers are always right."
If a significant number of your customers are telling you something, listen, or die.
Ha ha ha. Most humans can be outwitted by Word 1.0.
It seems to me very odd that anybody would want to force ads on people who specifically block them. I'm not going to buy anything from your sucky ad that you managed to manipulate past my blocker. Just give up and thank me for not wasting your bandwidth.
Yeah if that's never actually done, bitcoin might still succeed. The first time any kind of blacklisting is done in any volume, it's game over. Who wants to accept payment or exchange or whatever in a currency where you have to carefully inspect the entire history of each token to make sure it will be accepted?
Many places already won't accept $50 bills because of the (remote) chance they might be counterfeit.
You can get an ATMega for less than $3. It's getting someone else to put the OS on it that makes it expensive. Still, you don't just throw an extra micro controller into a product you're planning for manufacturing. It's great for prototyping, but not so good for a finished product. It's not exactly hard to run IO natively on whatever uC you happen to be using.
What do you mean? Slashdot doesn't have ads. Just that little checkbox that says thank you next to it. What's that for anyway?
So what you're saying is that if you make something on the cheap it looks and works like it was made on the cheap?
You're not.
I don't suppose you've found some good, self-contained JS widgets have you? It makes me sad when I'm looking for something, find a beautiful widget, and have to hit next because it requires JQuery.
That sounds about right. You could trim a few more dollars off by buying a microcontroller and burning your own Arduino OS onto it. You could save a lot by not using their $39 spark core, which looks like a great embedded wifi development board but not like something you'd use in a finished product. In particular, there's no reason for your thermostat to have two microcontrollers (three, actually, the TI wifi module has an integrated one). Especially not when one of them is a 72 mHz ARM. The TI module is available for about $13-$15, rather than $39 for the spark unit. If you built a pure cloud device you could probably drop the Arduino entirely.
1. It still is. Nest is a niche company that accounts for a tiny fraction of thermostat installs. People are going to love it when nest.google.com isn't getting the adoption Google would like and they decide to shut it down. Google's track record with hardware is... horrible. Actually, Google's track record with software is pretty bad too.
2. Bingo. That's what Google wants. More data on you so they can sell you stuff. Is it worth 3.2 billion? Maybe. Google undoubtedly knows better than I do. Either way, Google didn't buy Nest because thermostats are hard to make. It bought Nest because it wants to monitor what temperature your house is set at.
3. There are cheaper ways to hire people than paying 3.2 billion dollars for the company they work for. Google is a much bigger, better known, better respected name than Nest. If they actually want to sell thermometers, the first thing they'll do is retire the Nest name. Kinda like they're doing with Motorola Mobility.
4. Google isn't going to be laughing at SCADA exploits. They've now made themselves responsible for some of them.
5. Does Nest contract with power companies? I don't see that on their web page. Are you making stuff up now? Sure Google COULD do that in the future, but they could also do that with a Google thermostat instead of a Nest thermostat.
So what? The cost of the raw materials is more indicative of what it would cost to get a final product manufactured than the prototype price, including everything. It actually seems to me their cost is a little high, probably because they've built a local thermostat instead of a cloud one.
Thermostats aren't exactly complicated. There have been electronic ones around for a long time and the idea of "smart" thermostats for even longer. Connecting things to smartphones is also not a new idea.
If you're saying that Nest didn't do anything all that impressive, I'm with you. Their thermostat is pretty. If it worked well it would be a reasonable offering. But I don't see how it's worth 3.2 billion dollars.
This would seem likely to be another insanely overpriced acquisition that will either end up at a fraction of it's value in a few years or get merged into the rest of the company to hide the loss.
Somebody needs to go take a formal logic class.
Every time something happens bitcoin looks shakier. Your "anonymous" currency that can't have transactions reversed can be rendered worthless by being put on a blacklist by somebody? What, some random group of miners somewhere?
In the situation mentioned by the OP - you've eaten at a restaurant - the money you owe the restaurant is a debt. By not making you pay in advance they've given you credit. My reading of that statement is that they must accept any legal tender you choose to offer to pay off that debt. So if you want to give them a $20 they can take it or dissolve the debt.
On the other hand, if they didn't want to take the $20 and you offered it in advance, they could refuse to serve you.
I doubt it. Not for $28 million. It will just go up for auction like a car or house. There were probably lots of other assets seized as well. The speculator who buys them may sell them off slowly, or just dump them for a quick return, depending on how much attention the auction gets and how high the price goes.