Contrary to popular believe its always been the case that tools and machines were made just good enough.
The definition of "just good enough" depends almost entirely on the cost to manufacturer any given device.
When a given tool is manufactured, its engineered to withstand its expected life span, within the budget available.
If you know you can buy a plow that will last for 20 years for X dollars, and a longer lasting plow for a lot more money, you immediately start thinking about how much cheaper it will be to build the same plow in 5 years, after the new mine is open, and the new forge set up. If its going to be cheaper, you don't bother beefing it up.
Things in the past were built to last their expected life time (or the life of the owner), or the duration for which the device is needed.
Per unit Cost, and per unit lead time to manufacture just about anything has shortened progressively over the centuries.
We don't need the plow, the ship, or the building to last that long any more, and in fact it is detrimental that they do, because that delays progress of new technology. Its easier to recycle it and build next year's model, which will be cheaper.
I don't see anything new here. Its been this way since dirt.
Even my long dead grandfather used to complain "They don't make em like the used to".
Nielsen is NOT about how many people watch a show. It's about how many people watch the COMMERCIALS. DVR folks generally skip past those. People who watch broadcast TV cannot. Although they can get up and make a sandwich, or whatever.
True.
But just because they do not focus on who is using a DVR does not mean that the big cable companies have no data to sell.
The cable boxes can be polled remotely to determine what channel it is tuned to.
A comcast or a quest can and does make a tidy profit by simply adding a little software to their head end and selling the anonymous aggregate data.
Further, they can poll before a commercial, poll after a commercial and tell you how many people switched away during the commercial, which speaks to the quality of both the commercial and the show.
They are still valuable, and something to consider, but still very much a "projection" and not a "concrete plan with funding".
And you know this HOW?
Are you privilege to Intel internal budget and development cycles?
I see no reason this gets your vote for fairy-tale status. The shrinkage from 65nm to to 45nm was achieved about 18 months after the first mass produced 64nm processors hit the market.
Whether this is actually doable in practice remains to be seen.
A crystal of bulk silicon has a lattice constant of 0.543 nm, so such transistors are on the order of 100 atoms across in a 64nm chip.
Cutting that down to 2nm starts to run perilously close to single atom switches, and the risk of small structures falling thru/into the substrate lattice. A different substrate is the likely choice here.
But still, the roadmap is probably close, within an uncertainty of plus or minus 10 years.
Let me rephrase your post, if I may presume: "I can't see a use for it, therefore it is not useful. Because so many other people find it useful in spite of this, it is a failing in them."
Yes. You have hit the nail squarely on the head.
Contrary to your intent to be a tad snarky, you have exposed the actual truth.
> and they're telling the Supreme Court to apply the > Bilski ruling narrowly, so that it doesn't > invalidate patents like theirs
Microsoft is in a bit of a bind here. Even raising Bilski arguments puts their patent in question as well as providing ammunition for any future challenges of Microsoft patents.
Their best bet is to pretend they never heard of Bilski and find other grounds for their challenge, or just license i4i's technology to preserve their own claims.
If you can't find the machine unless IT tells YOU what drop its on, I suggest you find a new line of work. Besides, wifi in the work place makes this a limited option. Machines move from desk to desk without the involvement of IT. Happens every day.
Machine name should be unique and fixed for the life of the machine in the corporate world.
Some things are tied to machine name, (some software licenses, etc) and windows objects when you put two machines with the same name on the same network. So EITHER when you set up the new one, OR when you re-purpose the old one you run the risk of knocking someone off the net in the middle of something important.
Just use your corporate property tag number. (You do have one of those don't you?) This can be tracked thru your property system to purchase documents, departments, and dates.
In the absence of a property system use its mac address. These things hardly ever change anymore, as the days of failing nics is pretty much past, and it makes the machine traceable on your network (if you REALLY can't find it any other way).
Resist the urge for cutsie or personal names, or names that reflect function or even location. These leads to trouble when people leave, or machines move.
If you can figure out when fatigued metal will break under a certain sheer force, that's approximately the same class of problem. It hasn't happened yet, AFAIK.
There are machines for that. Your can measure the tensile strength and sheer resistance of metals rather precisely, and with enough accuracy for just about all practical applications (except perhaps Bridges in Minneapolis).
But rocks as various depths are a problem of a different nature. Measuring is hit or miss, and flat impossible in most strata. Rocks actually flow and deform. There is no such thing as a pure rock formation.
But now that you mention it, it sees you are pretty insistent that everyone simply MUST agree with your methods, where as I was suggesting there are other viewpoints.
No, I don't care to elaborate. I think its high time you broaden your horizons on your own time.
There are entire cultures where this subject is simply not discussed with children of 5 years.
That you can't see this, and are so mired in your own world view, suggests strongly that attempts at education are pointless. You really should investigate a few other cultures.
Just take it on faith that in some cultures a child of 5 asking where they came from is likely to be told they were found under a cabbage plant. (Yes, that is a literal example).
The point here is that unwillingness to answer a question to the satisfaction of some self appointed third party does not indicate an inability to do so.
Assuming you could hang enough solar panels on your roof to charge a car (doubtfull), you could charge battery banks at home and then plug the car into that.
the lowest bidder will likely be the one with the smallest CO2 output.
I see where this is going.
Never mind the real costs. Lets set building prices based on some half baked idea that CO2 emission is more dangerous than anything else that could possibly happen.
Slashdot Mirror
There is nothing inherently wrong with caching resources for the future.
Today's landfills and junk heaps are the future's Mines.
"Production line savings" end up in the purchaser's pockets, in the industrialist's pocket, in the grocery shopper's pocket.
Don't turn this thread into a class warfare issue. Its not that at all. Its been going on throughout history.
Contrary to popular believe its always been the case that tools and machines were made just good enough.
The definition of "just good enough" depends almost entirely on the cost to manufacturer any given device.
When a given tool is manufactured, its engineered to withstand its expected life span, within the budget available.
If you know you can buy a plow that will last for 20 years for X dollars, and a longer lasting plow for a lot more money, you immediately start thinking about how much cheaper it will be to build the same plow in 5 years, after the new mine is open, and the new forge set up. If its going to be cheaper, you don't bother beefing it up.
Things in the past were built to last their expected life time (or the life of the owner), or the duration for which the device is needed.
Per unit Cost, and per unit lead time to manufacture just about anything has shortened progressively over the centuries.
We don't need the plow, the ship, or the building to last that long any more, and in fact it is detrimental that they do, because that delays progress of new technology. Its easier to recycle it and build next year's model, which will be cheaper.
I don't see anything new here. Its been this way since dirt.
Even my long dead grandfather used to complain "They don't make em like the used to".
Thanks for that.
And the root canal takes a whole lot less time than listening to them trot out "The Borg" swoon again for the 47th time.
Legacy?
This sync method was the foundation for a lot of devices beyond palm. The fact that Palm is moving on is not germane.
Its just code, code that has already been extensively debugged, widely deployed and is still in use by many people for many devices.
This isn't about legacy.
Its about that child running Apple, and his petty tantrums.
Nielsen is NOT about how many people watch a show. It's about how many people watch the COMMERCIALS. DVR folks generally skip past those. People who watch broadcast TV cannot. Although they can get up and make a sandwich, or whatever.
True.
But just because they do not focus on who is using a DVR does not mean that the big cable companies have no data to sell.
The cable boxes can be polled remotely to determine what channel it is tuned to.
A comcast or a quest can and does make a tidy profit by simply adding a little software to their head end and selling the anonymous aggregate data.
Further, they can poll before a commercial, poll after a commercial and tell you how many people switched away during the commercial, which speaks to the quality of both the commercial and the show.
http://techliberation.com/2009/01/12/cable-companies-to-log-viewing-habits-is-privacy-at-risk/
You are correct, they plan to transition from silicon to unobtainium.
No, probably Gallium arsenide (GaAs).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallium_arsenide
They are still valuable, and something to consider, but still very much a "projection" and not a "concrete plan with funding".
And you know this HOW?
Are you privilege to Intel internal budget and development cycles?
I see no reason this gets your vote for fairy-tale status. The shrinkage from 65nm to to 45nm was achieved about 18 months after the first mass produced 64nm processors hit the market.
Whether this is actually doable in practice remains to be seen.
A crystal of bulk silicon has a lattice constant of 0.543 nm, so such transistors are on the order of 100 atoms across in a 64nm chip.
Cutting that down to 2nm starts to run perilously close to single atom switches, and the risk of small structures falling thru/into the substrate lattice. A different substrate is the likely choice here.
But still, the roadmap is probably close, within an uncertainty of plus or minus 10 years.
> No Charge.
Pro bono. Write it off on your taxes.
Thanks.
What does "as a matter of law" really mean?
How does it differ from "as a matter of fact"?
IANAL - nor can I afford one to answer this question.
Pandora has some semblance of interactivity that regular streaming radio does not.
You can vote song/artists off the island, and fine tune the selection to your particular tastes.
Still, you might be on to something here because you still can't order up a song at will, nor know what is coming ahead of time.
Let me rephrase your post, if I may presume: "I can't see a use for it, therefore it is not useful. Because so many other people find it useful in spite of this, it is a failing in them."
Yes. You have hit the nail squarely on the head.
Contrary to your intent to be a tad snarky, you have exposed the actual truth.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32408652/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/
> and they're telling the Supreme Court to apply the
> Bilski ruling narrowly, so that it doesn't
> invalidate patents like theirs
Microsoft is in a bit of a bind here. Even raising Bilski arguments puts their patent in question as well as providing ammunition for any future challenges of Microsoft patents.
Their best bet is to pretend they never heard of Bilski and find other grounds for their challenge, or just license i4i's technology to preserve their own claims.
A pox on both their houses.
How does a pathetic rip off of a Gemini design qualify as a top secret re-entry vehicle?
What was secret about it? Which Nasa subcontractor they paid ?
Dumb idea.
If you can't find the machine unless IT tells YOU what drop its on, I suggest you find a new line of work. Besides, wifi in the work place makes this a limited option. Machines move from desk to desk without the involvement of IT. Happens every day.
Machine name should be unique and fixed for the life of the machine in the corporate world.
Some things are tied to machine name, (some software licenses, etc) and windows objects when you put two machines with the same name on the same network. So EITHER when you set up the new one, OR when you re-purpose the old one you run the risk of knocking someone off the net in the middle of something important.
Just use your corporate property tag number. (You do have one of those don't you?) This can be tracked thru your property system to purchase documents, departments, and dates.
In the absence of a property system use its mac address. These things hardly ever change anymore, as the days of failing nics is pretty much past, and it makes the machine traceable on your network (if you REALLY can't find it any other way).
Resist the urge for cutsie or personal names, or names that reflect function or even location. These leads to trouble when people leave, or machines move.
If you can figure out when fatigued metal will break under a certain sheer force, that's approximately the same class of problem. It hasn't happened yet, AFAIK.
There are machines for that. Your can measure the tensile strength and sheer resistance of metals rather precisely, and with enough accuracy for just about all practical applications (except perhaps Bridges in Minneapolis).
But rocks as various depths are a problem of a different nature. Measuring is hit or miss, and flat impossible in most strata. Rocks actually flow and deform. There is no such thing as a pure rock formation.
Its a lot harder.
Really? I didn't see any accusations being made.
But now that you mention it, it sees you are pretty insistent that everyone simply MUST agree with your methods, where as I was suggesting there are other viewpoints.
Now who is open minded?
No, I don't care to elaborate. I think its high time you broaden your horizons on your own time.
There are entire cultures where this subject is simply not discussed with children of 5 years.
That you can't see this, and are so mired in your own world view, suggests strongly that attempts at education are pointless. You really should investigate a few other cultures.
Just take it on faith that in some cultures a child of 5 asking where they came from is likely to be told they were found under a cabbage plant.
(Yes, that is a literal example).
The point here is that unwillingness to answer a question to the satisfaction of some self appointed third party does not indicate an inability to do so.
They may be idiots in your opinion, but that hardly means that they are UNABLE to answer the question.
Please also consider that there are those that do not subscribe to your method of child rearing.
Perhaps not something parents care to discuss with a young child.
Child reports back to teacher, teacher marks parents as idiots.
And /. has grist for the mill.
>We can get 100%of all the power we need right now from industrial solar thermal.
Dream on.
If it were easy, whores would do it.
Hey, its Gartner!
How could it possibly be anything other than idiotic?
The only question when Gartner is involved is figuring out who the PAYING client is.
Assuming you could hang enough solar panels on your roof to charge a car (doubtfull), you could charge battery banks at home and then plug the car into that.
But 25kwh of solar is expensive. And massive.
> If we assume that the car charging times are evenly distributed,
Ok, hold it right there!
Think that thru, and get back to me tomorrow after you SLEEP on it.
the lowest bidder will likely be the one with the smallest CO2 output.
I see where this is going.
Never mind the real costs. Lets set building prices based on some half baked idea that CO2 emission is more dangerous than anything else that could possibly happen.