Is it nondiscriminatory if you charge a partner company a certain price (or nothing at all) and charge a competitor a higher price? A court is not likely to find such terms nondiscriminatory.
If the cost is low enough, you could use this to replace conventional solar cells. Just place a thermocouple between two pieces of metal (paint the top one black). The top one will get hot and the bottom one would be shaded and air cooled. Instant solar cell. You wouldn't need to worry about keeping it clean or directing it toward the sun or anything like that.
Apple does not want 3rd parties to build anything for their products... period. You can't even make a charger for an iPod without licensing the connector from them.
Doesn't the mere fact that a licensing program exists prove that you are totally wrong on this point? How about the fact that you can buy said third party devices on their website? Does it makes sense to you that they'd sell you devices they don't want 3rd parties to build? Does it make sense that they devote a portion of every keynote address to highlighting some of the notable 3rd party products? And if they hate third party developers so much, why do they include an "app store" on almost every device they sell so that users can extend the functionality of those devices?
Not really. Apple made the case that this was all a part of their trade dress, and their design patents are meant to protect their trade dress so they were a very integral part of the case. The way Samsung spins it, you'd think the case was all about rounded rectangles.
They don't let you introduce your technology in to a standard like this unless you agree to make it available to everyone. Perhaps in the future, IEEE should require people to turn over their patents as a condition for inclusion in order to prevent this kind of nonsense.
The practice of replacing software and equipment every few years for thousands of dollars a seat doesn't make sense anymore. Business computing is really starting to become a mature market, and there are no benefits to upgrading in many situations. It may be time to start looking at software as a service and not a product. And it's definitely time to sit down and draft some firm standards regarding business computers, so that software can be compliant with those standards. It's time to move away from proprietary operating systems like windows and towards standard operating systems so that software can be guaranteed to work on business computers for decades into the future.
People have used metamaterials to achieve results that seem to violate the laws of physics (such as materials having a negative refractive index). Speculating that such an exotic material could be produced is not hand waving. Just because we don't know how to do something today doesn't mean we'll never figure it out.
And no, the energy argument was not secondary. Before you could argue that even if we could make the materials necessary it would require a prohibitive amount of energy to work. Now the argument is only about the materials needed.
Since the actual kinetic energy of a ship traveling this way would not be proportional to the square of it's velocity, it's hard to say what would happen if were to collide with another body.
The problem is that people buy features, not specifications. Everything you cite there is a numeric specification. But when it comes down to usefulness, there's nothing important those android phones can do that an older iPhone can't. And the iPhone looks and feels like a higher quality phone. In citing the specs, you're asking users to choose a phone that doesn't feel as fast or as high quality, based on your assurances that it's actually better because of a few numbers. In reality, you're the one who is being duped. All they had to do was throw some big numbers at you and you were sold. You didn't actually consider the merits of the individual devices.
In reality, the specs have little to do with how useful a phone will actually be. Things like how responsive the interface is and what kind of visual feedback it can provide are much more important to the user experience. The S3 is a good example of a phone that was designed to have specifications that exceed the iPhone. It's screen is much larger, but that means the phone itself is too big for most women (and some men) to use comfortably in one hand. It has more ram and more, faster processors, but the UI doesn't seem any faster or more responsive.
People buy a phone that works for them. Once they buy into a platform, once you start factoring in software (apps) and the cost of that, people are reluctant to change.
I don't think the $20-$30 worth of apps I have on my phone would be a significant deterrent to me switching to a different platform. Unless those apps weren't available on another platform.
I'm not sure I believe you, but lets assume for the sake of argument you are right. You are asking web developers to develop two versions of their software in order to support you. Do you honestly think its more reasonable to expect every web developer everywhere, or even just a particular web developer like Google, to do that? Or should you come to terms with the fact that technology has moved on and you need to run two browsers on your machine in order to deal with the reality of the situation?
I'm looking at the linked article, and that doesn't seem to be the case. It shows the Galaxy SIII at 1560 while it shows the iPhone 5 at 1601. Care to elaborate?
I don't have a case for my 4S, I didn't have one for my 3GS, and I didn't have one for my original iPhone, which I got from my brother when he upgraded to a 3G. My brother also is on his third phone and doesn't use a case. In all that time only one's ever fallen on the ground. My friend asked to hold it, and immediately dropped it onto a concrete floor when I handed it to him. It was the original iPhone. It put a small dent in the corner of the case, but it didn't really damage it. I'd hardly call the device fragile.
The population of iPhone owners seems pretty evenly split between people with cases and people without. I certainly appreciate a device that looks good and feels good in my hand. I'm not really concerned with breaking it since I look after my things. A lot of other iPhone users are the same.
School it there to institutionalize students. To make them compliant, and to teach them not to question authority. Learning is something you do on the job.
HTML5 has been coming down the pipeline for quite a while now. There're no excuse for not being ready for it. If you're picking external applications, don't pick someone using ancient technology. If you're developing internal applications, future proofing is even easier. If you already know that IE breaks compatibility with every new release, and that they have a great deal of difficulty keeping to standards, so you shouldn't have been using IE in the first place. There has always been a better, more standard compliant browser available. If you're not aware of that, it means you don't know what you're doing. If you'd started to switch to applications compatible with Firefox or Chrome years ago, you'd pretty much be ready for IE 10 today.
I don't know how you can honestly spin this as anything other than gross incompetence. The only reason IT departments operate this way and get away with it is leadership that doesn't have the technical knowledge to understand the magnitude of their incompetence.
You are wrong. There are a number of HTML 5 technologies (especially canvas objects) that IE 8 doesn't support. Many special concessions must be made to support IE 8 from a modern web-based application. It often means writing two versions of you code, one for IE 8 and one for everything else. Supporting IE 8 means limiting the functionality of you application while adding complexity to your code. I'm sure there was a collective sigh of relief among web developers when they heard Google was dropping IE 8, it means their employers will soon follow suit.
They aren't blocking IE 8 users, they're just dropping support for the browser. That means some features won't work correctly or at all, and as time goes on the whole site will stop working as the continue to roll out new features that aren't supported in IE 8.
Anyone still using IE 8 deserves to be left out in the cold. Modern browsers are free, and work much better than that ancient piece of crap. If your IT department doesn't have it's shit together enough to let you run a real web browser, you can't expect most of the internet to work for you either. Don't complain to Google, you should seriously be considering replacing whoever it is who is making your IT decisions for you.
If that were true, this would only work if the sun were at a very specific angle. But that's not how it works. It concentrates light from the entire sky into a narrow beam which is then split into different wavelengths. It says that right in the summary.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it isn't. Heat is a transfer of energy. Read the Wikipedia article if you don't believe me.
Is it nondiscriminatory if you charge a partner company a certain price (or nothing at all) and charge a competitor a higher price? A court is not likely to find such terms nondiscriminatory.
If the cost is low enough, you could use this to replace conventional solar cells. Just place a thermocouple between two pieces of metal (paint the top one black). The top one will get hot and the bottom one would be shaded and air cooled. Instant solar cell. You wouldn't need to worry about keeping it clean or directing it toward the sun or anything like that.
Heat is the transfer of energy. It is not the the energy itself.
Doesn't the mere fact that a licensing program exists prove that you are totally wrong on this point? How about the fact that you can buy said third party devices on their website? Does it makes sense to you that they'd sell you devices they don't want 3rd parties to build? Does it make sense that they devote a portion of every keynote address to highlighting some of the notable 3rd party products? And if they hate third party developers so much, why do they include an "app store" on almost every device they sell so that users can extend the functionality of those devices?
Not really. Apple made the case that this was all a part of their trade dress, and their design patents are meant to protect their trade dress so they were a very integral part of the case. The way Samsung spins it, you'd think the case was all about rounded rectangles.
They don't let you introduce your technology in to a standard like this unless you agree to make it available to everyone. Perhaps in the future, IEEE should require people to turn over their patents as a condition for inclusion in order to prevent this kind of nonsense.
The practice of replacing software and equipment every few years for thousands of dollars a seat doesn't make sense anymore. Business computing is really starting to become a mature market, and there are no benefits to upgrading in many situations. It may be time to start looking at software as a service and not a product. And it's definitely time to sit down and draft some firm standards regarding business computers, so that software can be compliant with those standards. It's time to move away from proprietary operating systems like windows and towards standard operating systems so that software can be guaranteed to work on business computers for decades into the future.
People have used metamaterials to achieve results that seem to violate the laws of physics (such as materials having a negative refractive index). Speculating that such an exotic material could be produced is not hand waving. Just because we don't know how to do something today doesn't mean we'll never figure it out.
And no, the energy argument was not secondary. Before you could argue that even if we could make the materials necessary it would require a prohibitive amount of energy to work. Now the argument is only about the materials needed.
Since the actual kinetic energy of a ship traveling this way would not be proportional to the square of it's velocity, it's hard to say what would happen if were to collide with another body.
The problem is that people buy features, not specifications. Everything you cite there is a numeric specification. But when it comes down to usefulness, there's nothing important those android phones can do that an older iPhone can't. And the iPhone looks and feels like a higher quality phone. In citing the specs, you're asking users to choose a phone that doesn't feel as fast or as high quality, based on your assurances that it's actually better because of a few numbers. In reality, you're the one who is being duped. All they had to do was throw some big numbers at you and you were sold. You didn't actually consider the merits of the individual devices.
In reality, the specs have little to do with how useful a phone will actually be. Things like how responsive the interface is and what kind of visual feedback it can provide are much more important to the user experience. The S3 is a good example of a phone that was designed to have specifications that exceed the iPhone. It's screen is much larger, but that means the phone itself is too big for most women (and some men) to use comfortably in one hand. It has more ram and more, faster processors, but the UI doesn't seem any faster or more responsive.
I don't think the $20-$30 worth of apps I have on my phone would be a significant deterrent to me switching to a different platform. Unless those apps weren't available on another platform.
Next I suppose you'll complain that Ferrari doesn't make a pickup truck.
I'm not sure I believe you, but lets assume for the sake of argument you are right. You are asking web developers to develop two versions of their software in order to support you. Do you honestly think its more reasonable to expect every web developer everywhere, or even just a particular web developer like Google, to do that? Or should you come to terms with the fact that technology has moved on and you need to run two browsers on your machine in order to deal with the reality of the situation?
I'm looking at the linked article, and that doesn't seem to be the case. It shows the Galaxy SIII at 1560 while it shows the iPhone 5 at 1601. Care to elaborate?
I don't have a case for my 4S, I didn't have one for my 3GS, and I didn't have one for my original iPhone, which I got from my brother when he upgraded to a 3G. My brother also is on his third phone and doesn't use a case. In all that time only one's ever fallen on the ground. My friend asked to hold it, and immediately dropped it onto a concrete floor when I handed it to him. It was the original iPhone. It put a small dent in the corner of the case, but it didn't really damage it. I'd hardly call the device fragile.
The population of iPhone owners seems pretty evenly split between people with cases and people without. I certainly appreciate a device that looks good and feels good in my hand. I'm not really concerned with breaking it since I look after my things. A lot of other iPhone users are the same.
Because then they might sell the weapon to somebody else.
School it there to institutionalize students. To make them compliant, and to teach them not to question authority. Learning is something you do on the job.
HTML5 has been coming down the pipeline for quite a while now. There're no excuse for not being ready for it. If you're picking external applications, don't pick someone using ancient technology. If you're developing internal applications, future proofing is even easier. If you already know that IE breaks compatibility with every new release, and that they have a great deal of difficulty keeping to standards, so you shouldn't have been using IE in the first place. There has always been a better, more standard compliant browser available. If you're not aware of that, it means you don't know what you're doing. If you'd started to switch to applications compatible with Firefox or Chrome years ago, you'd pretty much be ready for IE 10 today.
I don't know how you can honestly spin this as anything other than gross incompetence. The only reason IT departments operate this way and get away with it is leadership that doesn't have the technical knowledge to understand the magnitude of their incompetence.
You are wrong. There are a number of HTML 5 technologies (especially canvas objects) that IE 8 doesn't support. Many special concessions must be made to support IE 8 from a modern web-based application. It often means writing two versions of you code, one for IE 8 and one for everything else. Supporting IE 8 means limiting the functionality of you application while adding complexity to your code. I'm sure there was a collective sigh of relief among web developers when they heard Google was dropping IE 8, it means their employers will soon follow suit.
They aren't blocking IE 8 users, they're just dropping support for the browser. That means some features won't work correctly or at all, and as time goes on the whole site will stop working as the continue to roll out new features that aren't supported in IE 8.
Anyone still using IE 8 deserves to be left out in the cold. Modern browsers are free, and work much better than that ancient piece of crap. If your IT department doesn't have it's shit together enough to let you run a real web browser, you can't expect most of the internet to work for you either. Don't complain to Google, you should seriously be considering replacing whoever it is who is making your IT decisions for you.
If that were true, this would only work if the sun were at a very specific angle. But that's not how it works. It concentrates light from the entire sky into a narrow beam which is then split into different wavelengths. It says that right in the summary.
Yes, you'd have to be insane to believe all muslims think and act a certain way. You'd also have to be completely ignorant about the religion.
One of these things doesn't belong on a list of unreasonable motivations for a riot.