People already have the incentive, lower ongoing costs. If people don't even know that there is a difference incadescents, what good will more (what do you propose anyway?) incentives do? It took forever for people to realize that CFLs even existed, and they at least look wildly different.
But I do not think street view is fundamentally more useful than a very good 3D mode, if it covers where you want to look.
I'll give you that a 3D map that can let you discern street level details is sufficient for many, but not all, end user scenarios. Don't, however, underestimate the value of the data. Streetview cars are the boots on the ground that ensure that the map data matches reality is some very rough fashion. New roads in particular will be added when they survey an area at the very least. They are also using it to improve address accuracy via reCaptcha. Probably useful for all sorts of editing and corrections, and whatever else they can come up with.
Wi-fi location services depend on those cars as well. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if sticking up the cameras was an afterthought to collecting wi-fi location data that paid off embarrassingly well for maps.
Absolutely Google has vastly more coverage but it also takes way more effort to keep current.
You mentioned scalability, I think Apple has the longer term more scalable approach to showing you areas you may want to visit for context.
Streetview appears to be an embarrassingly parallel problem once you have the infrastructure in place. The difference between extrapolating 3D maps and Streetview is that the former will require a lot of bodies fixing the extrapolation issues and updating those fixes as the scenery changes and the later requires a lot of bodies collecting more data. So long as Google puts in the effort they will stay ahead, map making is, in the end, a labor intensive task.
I doubt that these rules would prohibit you from raising R&D funds, as that is not funding to bring a widget to the market. You wouldn't be able to promise any devices to the backers though, so good luck convincing the people who treat kickstater as a store for dreams (just about all of them) to back you.
You are actually arguing that Apple is evil for giving updates to the 3GS because that proves it wasn't a good phone when it came out?
I'm arguing that the suggestion that such updates are a significant consideration when picking a phone is flawed if the updates aren't optimized for the phone.
You are implying that planned obsolescence on Android is a good thing.and that Android phones, no matter how crappy, are worth their money as long as they don't get updates - which is almost certain.
I'm implying that such a thing is neutral if the alternative is lag. Android is a (relatively) open platform, thish means that while you have to do due dilligence, you also get real choice. Just barely enough to run current Android is an economical tradeoff, you pick a cheap phone with the intention of upgrading, there is nothing wrong with that. If you want ongoing support you have to pick something that isn't locked down and has a large developer community, e.g. there is a third party Jelly Bean build for the Nexus One.
That's the most stretched rationalizing I've come across in a long time.
That kind of thing happens when you stretch what someone says. The TL;DR of it that Apple advocates don't get to argue updates vs. upgrades both ways. It either is supported well enough that one doesn't need to upgrade to get a smooth experience or it is a tick-tock where being two generations behind degrades your user experience. I hear both, usually whichever looks better in the given context, but only one can be true. There is a certain class of user for whom the degraded experience is sufficient and it that special case Apple's update policy is beneficial, but that is a specific argument not the general case.
Quote me on not bringing features onto older iPhones or retract that shit. The argument is that pretending that laggy update significantly extend longetivity is fairly unconvincing. If you need to upgrade your device to get a good experience you are de-facto not getting the updates that your money is supposed to buy. Magic (blame Apple if you don't like that term) to lag is not impressive in the slightest. You can run the latest Linux on a i368 machine, great ongoing support, eh? Would you want to use it?
Let me guess, Cyanogen is concerned about performance so instead of putting out a subpar rom they don't do it at all, am I in the ballpark? But yeah, I hear you loud and clear, your premium payment provides you with laggy updates that will frustrate you into upgrading. Magic indeed.
No, I'm saying that the contrary accounts of longetivity of iPhones are baffling. But I suppose you fucked off already because you knew that you supposed your supposition wasn't entirely corrent?
But I hear that the 3GS is totally supported due the high profit margins or something, and investing in an iPhone means that you don't have to upgrade to get updates unlike those pesky Nexus devices. So how come your friend is upgrading away from a supported iDevice that is getting updates? Does time somehow let the magic out or what?
It's OK to jump to conclusions based on a crappy headline, it's OK to make up shit about Sun, but apparently it's not OK to see that it's Acer who was presured and not due to using an Android fork, but due to using an Android fork while in an organization promoting Android.
Theoretically someone could stumble over http://someuser:p0wned@example.com/secret.zip as well, yet publsishing it would directly expose a very real password. It seems that the judge in this case was very insightfull by recognizing that a private link is no different
Does that mean that every movie that reuses props needs it's budget revised? How about shooting on location in a city, does that need to be counted as how much a similar set would cost? Do 3Dfications have a budged in excess of the originals as their conversion budget clearly doesn't cover making the movie?
Because competitve analysis, I mean come on, every time a company worries about a competitor there is something wrong? The difference between Dyson and Apple is that Dyson made an effort to be distinct both from generic forms and other vacuums. Apple wanted to be the every-phone, to rule the market of touchscreen phones, so they created a very generic, if highly polished, product that encapsulated the design estetic of the time (yes, really, just because people whip up silly examples of featurephones morphing into iPhone "clones" overnight doesn't mean that's how things actually went). LG was actually ahead of the design curve, the iPhone 4 looks more like the LG Prada that was released alongside the iPhone than an iPhone.
What Google actually shows is some random strings of text starting with what you typed in without any context whatsoever. That's not a factual statement, it is barely a statement at all, what it is (as it stands) is an explicit link of one thing to another, courtesy of Google's servers.
That isn't even the good old "some say" weasle that will self-fulfill itself by tomorrow and leave the rumor mongers clear.
Sorry, did you have anything but anecdotes to back up your opinion? Say, somewhat neutral stats of the hassle/convictions you go trough if you cooperate vs if you don't?
If the results are to be speech (and protected accordingly), they certainly can be libel as well. If not, you are the one who needs to rething your notion of libel.
Slashdot Mirror
...bringing an all electric vehicle infrastructure within potential reach (on the battery end of things anyway). Lithium just isn't going to cut it.
People already have the incentive, lower ongoing costs. If people don't even know that there is a difference incadescents, what good will more (what do you propose anyway?) incentives do? It took forever for people to realize that CFLs even existed, and they at least look wildly different.
I'll give you that a 3D map that can let you discern street level details is sufficient for many, but not all, end user scenarios. Don't, however, underestimate the value of the data. Streetview cars are the boots on the ground that ensure that the map data matches reality is some very rough fashion. New roads in particular will be added when they survey an area at the very least. They are also using it to improve address accuracy via reCaptcha. Probably useful for all sorts of editing and corrections, and whatever else they can come up with.
Wi-fi location services depend on those cars as well. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if sticking up the cameras was an afterthought to collecting wi-fi location data that paid off embarrassingly well for maps.
Streetview appears to be an embarrassingly parallel problem once you have the infrastructure in place. The difference between extrapolating 3D maps and Streetview is that the former will require a lot of bodies fixing the extrapolation issues and updating those fixes as the scenery changes and the later requires a lot of bodies collecting more data. So long as Google puts in the effort they will stay ahead, map making is, in the end, a labor intensive task.
A 3D print sounds very much like a prototype to me.
I doubt that these rules would prohibit you from raising R&D funds, as that is not funding to bring a widget to the market. You wouldn't be able to promise any devices to the backers though, so good luck convincing the people who treat kickstater as a store for dreams (just about all of them) to back you.
I'm arguing that the suggestion that such updates are a significant consideration when picking a phone is flawed if the updates aren't optimized for the phone.
I'm implying that such a thing is neutral if the alternative is lag. Android is a (relatively) open platform, thish means that while you have to do due dilligence, you also get real choice. Just barely enough to run current Android is an economical tradeoff, you pick a cheap phone with the intention of upgrading, there is nothing wrong with that. If you want ongoing support you have to pick something that isn't locked down and has a large developer community, e.g. there is a third party Jelly Bean build for the Nexus One.
That kind of thing happens when you stretch what someone says. The TL;DR of it that Apple advocates don't get to argue updates vs. upgrades both ways. It either is supported well enough that one doesn't need to upgrade to get a smooth experience or it is a tick-tock where being two generations behind degrades your user experience. I hear both, usually whichever looks better in the given context, but only one can be true. There is a certain class of user for whom the degraded experience is sufficient and it that special case Apple's update policy is beneficial, but that is a specific argument not the general case.
Quote me on not bringing features onto older iPhones or retract that shit. The argument is that pretending that laggy update significantly extend longetivity is fairly unconvincing. If you need to upgrade your device to get a good experience you are de-facto not getting the updates that your money is supposed to buy. Magic (blame Apple if you don't like that term) to lag is not impressive in the slightest. You can run the latest Linux on a i368 machine, great ongoing support, eh? Would you want to use it?
Let me guess, Cyanogen is concerned about performance so instead of putting out a subpar rom they don't do it at all, am I in the ballpark? But yeah, I hear you loud and clear, your premium payment provides you with laggy updates that will frustrate you into upgrading. Magic indeed.
No, I'm saying that the contrary accounts of longetivity of iPhones are baffling. But I suppose you fucked off already because you knew that you supposed your supposition wasn't entirely corrent?
But I hear that the 3GS is totally supported due the high profit margins or something, and investing in an iPhone means that you don't have to upgrade to get updates unlike those pesky Nexus devices. So how come your friend is upgrading away from a supported iDevice that is getting updates? Does time somehow let the magic out or what?
The difference is that Be was not Windows with some compatibility removed and some other bits added. And that is all the difference in the world.
It's OK to jump to conclusions based on a crappy headline, it's OK to make up shit about Sun, but apparently it's not OK to see that it's Acer who was presured and not due to using an Android fork, but due to using an Android fork while in an organization promoting Android.
So the tetris company was right all along?
Theoretically someone could stumble over http://someuser:p0wned@example.com/secret.zip as well, yet publsishing it would directly expose a very real password. It seems that the judge in this case was very insightfull by recognizing that a private link is no different
Does that mean that every movie that reuses props needs it's budget revised? How about shooting on location in a city, does that need to be counted as how much a similar set would cost? Do 3Dfications have a budged in excess of the originals as their conversion budget clearly doesn't cover making the movie?
Particularly after rockbox optimizes the playback code.
Why would anyone buy a camera that spits out H.264 video, but doesn't give you a license to commercially distribute said video?
Because competitve analysis, I mean come on, every time a company worries about a competitor there is something wrong? The difference between Dyson and Apple is that Dyson made an effort to be distinct both from generic forms and other vacuums. Apple wanted to be the every-phone, to rule the market of touchscreen phones, so they created a very generic, if highly polished, product that encapsulated the design estetic of the time (yes, really, just because people whip up silly examples of featurephones morphing into iPhone "clones" overnight doesn't mean that's how things actually went). LG was actually ahead of the design curve, the iPhone 4 looks more like the LG Prada that was released alongside the iPhone than an iPhone.
Yes, all of Africa is the same. Furthermore no one could ever benefit from applied math if they have a spotty water supply.
What Google actually shows is some random strings of text starting with what you typed in without any context whatsoever. That's not a factual statement, it is barely a statement at all, what it is (as it stands) is an explicit link of one thing to another, courtesy of Google's servers.
That isn't even the good old "some say" weasle that will self-fulfill itself by tomorrow and leave the rumor mongers clear.
Sorry, did you have anything but anecdotes to back up your opinion? Say, somewhat neutral stats of the hassle/convictions you go trough if you cooperate vs if you don't?
So, just who does Google share all of anyone's activity with?
If the results are to be speech (and protected accordingly), they certainly can be libel as well. If not, you are the one who needs to rething your notion of libel.
Opinion != fact.
It might or might now be because he wasn't white, but the manager being a paranoid prick was certainly the main factor.