The MP3 player marketplace, when apple entered it and gained its dominant market share, is entirely different from the cell phone marketplace now. Apple is entering an already well developed cell phone marketplace. I don' think the same could be said about the MP3 player marketplace when Apple entered.
I have to give Apple credit for making a sleek and highly marketable device, allowing them to take market share in MP3 players while competitors had their thumbs up their arse. Competitors in MP3 players still don't seem to get it. But people are already onto that sales angle in phones (see RAZR, SLVR, Q, etc).
So the market for high end cell phones is a little more than 1% of the whole market. Does that mean that Apple will own approx 86% of the high end cell phone market? That seems a little less reasonable.
You don't even have to be faculty. You can be engineering staff at one of the university labs. You get awesome state employee benefits, good salary and a laid back atmosphere. I can do amazing work if I want, or I can slink back and practically disappear
Where I work does mostly defense type work. Its sort of like working for a defense contractor only less (though not no) bullshit. My group is particularly laid back/free form since its small. I can work with faculty, take classes and have complete access to awesome library facilities.
Warning: I've heard bad things about some labs you'd think would be awesome. I always wanted to work as an intern at Lincoln Labs and Draper Labs (both parts of MIT) and was dissapointed I never got in. But all my friend who worked there said their job sucked. One friend even worked at both Lincoln and Draper and didn't have great things to say about them.
only between memories from different VR experiences.
In fact, the study leads me to believe that experiences in reality will produce almost as many false memories as the 'object interactive' VR expereinces
"Indeed, scholars argue that although learning via physical experience with a product is vivid, it can create an illusory sense of competence (Hoch and Deighton 1989)"
Here, the 'object interactive' VR experiences create more vivid memories than the 'picture site'.
"Likewise, Bartlett (1932) argued that reconstructive memory is more likely to occur with rich than simplified materials because in the former case, individuals are more likely to "fill in" the missing pieces of their memories"
What's more vivid than real experiences? Arguably, because people are less familiar with the VR environment, they might be more prone to produce memories so that their minds can make sense of what occurred.
In the end, I believe false memories occur because people have models (conciously or subconciously) of how the world works in their heads. When the experience is richer, the model must be more complex. When the model is more complex, there are more things to not understand/remember. When there are more things to no understand/remember, there are more things to make up to make sense of it all
Scarier still, what if someone patents a tax aversion method that isn't legal yet, then gets a law passed that makes her method legal. Everyone will want to do it and think it is obvious, but it wasn't at the time her patent was accepted. She could then charge a fee from everyone providing services that use that tax method. It would be like legistlating yourself a share of the federal tax pie
Does it really require lots of backroom meetings? I think all it requires is people with similar mindsets acting independently towards their independent goals. It doesn't even require a central organizer keeping everyone in lockstep, just influential people giving the mass a decent nudge in the 'right' direction every now and then.
There's evidence of this if you look at the development of causes that have no real champion who might directly and greatly benefit from their cause. Women's rights, civil rights, the environment. They all had key players but no individual who orchestrated it all and no army who was in lockstep.
So as long as you have a sucession of people in power who want to tilt things the way they want it (even if only ever so slightly) and a populace generally accepting it, I think you have a sufficient substitution for backroom meetings.
Arguably, here what you have here is a president who wants to lay the foundation for the logic that the US as a sovereign nation can and should defend itself through both the possession and, more importantly, the judicious use of a strong offense and a populace who says "amen, brother"
So, presupposing that you believe that the best defense is a well used offense, the problem is that not everyone can use this logic in a harmonious world. North Korea is trying to use this logic right now and its not going over too well
So for the sake of efficiency and because other people don't need to know the real reasons why you say something, you can just go ahead and cut to the chase? Sounds like you're learning a lot from papa bear.
Do you think that the tone of your post really encourages people to think freely? I think it encourages people to be reactionary, if anything?
I'm not really sure where you get the idea that the parent was praising proliferation of weapson. Parent poster specifically stated that saying the treaty does "not apply to space propulsion" is a positive development for space propulsion. I do think that its correct to fear how the administration might use this wiggle room to do less constructive things, but you don't make that distinction.
I've got the xpad too. The site is still a little cheesy, but the product is pretty good.
It does pretty well on the heat isolation, but what I like best is that my laptop's fan actually goes on less when I use the xpad. I would like to claim it extends my battery life, but I have no statistics about it to pull out of my arse.
Why is this insightful? The first bit is informative, perhaps, but the second bit about bush being the only reason we aren't bowing to rocks is absurd.
Since when are there armies of muslims trying to invade our country and implement "regime change" in the US? That there is a group who want to influence US policy with terrorism is clear. But to say that there is a large enough group with the intent to force us all to Islam is absurd.
The reason for many of the terroist incidents the parent lists was to disuade the US from trying to control governments in the middle east, not to convert us to Islam. Parent doesn't seem very aware of the true reasons for those terrorist acts. For example, Osama bin Laden's main goal is to get US troops out of Saudi Arabia.
And we also sit around talking about technology being developed to help the disabled. This article is one such example. The first paragraph of cyberkinetics' website specifically addresses treating nervous system disorders.
You seem to be really caught up on your idea of "everyone is selfish". My comment about selfishness was addressing your argument about economic motivation. Could I have possibly been saying that just because there isn't a profit to be made (and for sure there is in this) doesn't mean people won't do something to help others? Ever hear of doctors without borders?
To address the other type of selfishness that you digress into, apparently there are people who will give more than just a finger for people they dont' know. They're called the armed forces.
Your assumption is that there's no money in helping the disabled. Well there's a lot of money in it, with lifetime care of each patient costing over a million dollars on average, making it a multi-billion dollar industry.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to give Apple credit for making a sleek and highly marketable device, allowing them to take market share in MP3 players while competitors had their thumbs up their arse. Competitors in MP3 players still don't seem to get it. But people are already onto that sales angle in phones (see RAZR, SLVR, Q, etc).
So the market for high end cell phones is a little more than 1% of the whole market. Does that mean that Apple will own approx 86% of the high end cell phone market? That seems a little less reasonable.
Where I work does mostly defense type work. Its sort of like working for a defense contractor only less (though not no) bullshit. My group is particularly laid back/free form since its small. I can work with faculty, take classes and have complete access to awesome library facilities.
Warning: I've heard bad things about some labs you'd think would be awesome. I always wanted to work as an intern at Lincoln Labs and Draper Labs (both parts of MIT) and was dissapointed I never got in. But all my friend who worked there said their job sucked. One friend even worked at both Lincoln and Draper and didn't have great things to say about them.
Entrepreneurs, marketers and the like can tell you how products are conceived and positioned
In fact, the study leads me to believe that experiences in reality will produce almost as many false memories as the 'object interactive' VR expereinces
"Indeed, scholars argue that although learning via physical experience with a product is vivid, it can create an illusory sense of competence (Hoch and Deighton 1989)"Here, the 'object interactive' VR experiences create more vivid memories than the 'picture site'.
"Likewise, Bartlett (1932) argued that reconstructive memory is more likely to occur with rich than simplified materials because in the former case, individuals are more likely to "fill in" the missing pieces of their memories"What's more vivid than real experiences? Arguably, because people are less familiar with the VR environment, they might be more prone to produce memories so that their minds can make sense of what occurred.
In the end, I believe false memories occur because people have models (conciously or subconciously) of how the world works in their heads. When the experience is richer, the model must be more complex. When the model is more complex, there are more things to not understand/remember. When there are more things to no understand/remember, there are more things to make up to make sense of it all
Scarier still, what if someone patents a tax aversion method that isn't legal yet, then gets a law passed that makes her method legal. Everyone will want to do it and think it is obvious, but it wasn't at the time her patent was accepted. She could then charge a fee from everyone providing services that use that tax method. It would be like legistlating yourself a share of the federal tax pie
Its not vandalism, its adding to the body of truth. Praise be to the truth bringers!
There's evidence of this if you look at the development of causes that have no real champion who might directly and greatly benefit from their cause. Women's rights, civil rights, the environment. They all had key players but no individual who orchestrated it all and no army who was in lockstep.
So as long as you have a sucession of people in power who want to tilt things the way they want it (even if only ever so slightly) and a populace generally accepting it, I think you have a sufficient substitution for backroom meetings.
Arguably, here what you have here is a president who wants to lay the foundation for the logic that the US as a sovereign nation can and should defend itself through both the possession and, more importantly, the judicious use of a strong offense and a populace who says "amen, brother"
So, presupposing that you believe that the best defense is a well used offense, the problem is that not everyone can use this logic in a harmonious world. North Korea is trying to use this logic right now and its not going over too well
So for the sake of efficiency and because other people don't need to know the real reasons why you say something, you can just go ahead and cut to the chase? Sounds like you're learning a lot from papa bear. Do you think that the tone of your post really encourages people to think freely? I think it encourages people to be reactionary, if anything?
I'm not really sure where you get the idea that the parent was praising proliferation of weapson. Parent poster specifically stated that saying the treaty does "not apply to space propulsion" is a positive development for space propulsion. I do think that its correct to fear how the administration might use this wiggle room to do less constructive things, but you don't make that distinction.
I've got the xpad too. The site is still a little cheesy, but the product is pretty good.
It does pretty well on the heat isolation, but what I like best is that my laptop's fan actually goes on less when I use the xpad. I would like to claim it extends my battery life, but I have no statistics about it to pull out of my arse.
Since when are there armies of muslims trying to invade our country and implement "regime change" in the US? That there is a group who want to influence US policy with terrorism is clear. But to say that there is a large enough group with the intent to force us all to Islam is absurd.
The reason for many of the terroist incidents the parent lists was to disuade the US from trying to control governments in the middle east, not to convert us to Islam. Parent doesn't seem very aware of the true reasons for those terrorist acts. For example, Osama bin Laden's main goal is to get US troops out of Saudi Arabia.
And we also sit around talking about technology being developed to help the disabled. This article is one such example. The first paragraph of cyberkinetics' website specifically addresses treating nervous system disorders.
You seem to be really caught up on your idea of "everyone is selfish". My comment about selfishness was addressing your argument about economic motivation. Could I have possibly been saying that just because there isn't a profit to be made (and for sure there is in this) doesn't mean people won't do something to help others? Ever hear of doctors without borders?
To address the other type of selfishness that you digress into, apparently there are people who will give more than just a finger for people they dont' know. They're called the armed forces.
http://www.spinalcord.uab.edu/show.asp?durki=21446
You also seem to neglect the fact that not all people are selfish