It means they're going to take the resources they put into virtualisation, and whatever technology they developed for it, and put it into whatever else the company is doing. They've managed to state the bleeding obvious in thousand-dollar words, as usual.
Sound waves don't discriminate, however, and physicists worked out the basic principle of "acoustic levitation" nearly a century ago. A vibrating plate generates a sound wave that bounces against another surface to create a stable standing wave. The points of lower pressure in this static pattern can trap a particle. Scientists have learned how to hold increasingly heavy particles including superdense iridium and even liquid droplets in this acoustic sweet spot.
But until now, that was pretty much the extent of the trick, says mechanical engineer Dimos Poulikakos of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich. "It's like we had a car which we made fancier and fancier, but it stayed parked. We were never able to drive." Moving a liquid with sound is a delicate balancing act, he says. As you vary the acoustic force to push the droplet around, you run the risk of shattering it with too much pressure.
The "take everything out of your back pockets" dance that some jeans-wearing people do when they sit down amuses me. You know your jeans have pockets in the front too, right?
Unfortunately That's not the case; there's at least one instance where a successful bombing was performed because this device gave the all clear at a checkpoint.
"IBM PC" was derived from "PC", not the other way around. It was originally assigned to things like Commodore machines and Macs. And if everyone transitions over to ARM for some reason they won't stop being personal computers.
Bear in mind it will be fatal to those companies who built their entire business selling $500 laptops to people who just want Facebook and Youtube; the PC business is massively oversized right now because of those companies. The "work PC" isn't going anywhere though.
It includes laptops, but excludes tablets and smartphones. (Some analysts idiosyncratically include Windows tablets, or non-Apple tablets, or whatever happens to make a more sellable story.)
It's interesting because tablet computers are growing while laptops and desktops are shrinking. It's a transitional period.
If storing the data is "completely irrelevant" I wonder what it is you expect to read once you've engineered high-longevity reading equipment. Aren't both kind of important, smartarse?
That's a clear disincentive for developers to bother with the APIs implemented in Android 4.0, no? Thereby a disincentive for Android apps to stay technically competitive.
That's like arguing that if you don't like US law, you can just start up your own country. There's no ground to plant it on, not enough people to start it with, and you have no power with which to defend yourself. As you can see for yourself, the small publishers charging less didn't experience any significant growth when the collusion was in place, and sales did not suffer as one would expect from price elasticity. That strongly implies that normal market forces were overridden by the collusion.
I don't know what the correct shape of a potato is, but if one plopped out of a big potato-making machine in front of me I'd be quite justified in calling it artificial.
What competing publishing firm? The heart of the issue is that all of the US's (and the world's) biggest publishers were part of the group. If even a few of them had defected there not only wouldn't have been anything illegal, the collusion would have failed because of competition.
An artificial price is one decided by fiat and not by market forces. By definition, when a trade group decides on a single price, that's an artificial price.
There are no others to set up competing services in this context; the group that decided the prices is composed of every major publisher in the United States.
If you're all following exactly the same plan, for the same objective, you're no longer individuals. You're a single entity. (As far as the market goes.) When that single entity is effectively the entire ebook market, then you have a market controlled by fiat.
You understand that this isn't Apple vs the "publishing biz", right? The publishers were in on it from beginning to end and were set to profit handsomely from the arrangement.
Individuals can set their prices however they want, because they're heterogeneous and competing, i.e. the marketplace is free. A single group cannot be permitted to control an entire market, because that market is no longer free.
The "fundimental concept of an e-book" is a document format intended for distributing books*; it has nothing to do with DRM and we were using the term back when your go-to standalone reader was a Palm PDA. Rage against the DRM, do but get the facts right.
*There's a reason we don't just use multi-megabyte Word files.
Slashdot Mirror
It means they're going to take the resources they put into virtualisation, and whatever technology they developed for it, and put it into whatever else the company is doing. They've managed to state the bleeding obvious in thousand-dollar words, as usual.
...which TFA acknowledges:
The "take everything out of your back pockets" dance that some jeans-wearing people do when they sit down amuses me. You know your jeans have pockets in the front too, right?
The fact that none of those people drive to work with their eyes closed and no seat belt strongly suggests otherwise.
Unfortunately That's not the case; there's at least one instance where a successful bombing was performed because this device gave the all clear at a checkpoint.
If you deactivate the feature without using it, how do you know how large the benefits and drawbacks are?
Yes! I can't believe nobody has posted this yet. It's the bible on how to write a bug report, written in plain English.
"IBM PC" was derived from "PC", not the other way around. It was originally assigned to things like Commodore machines and Macs. And if everyone transitions over to ARM for some reason they won't stop being personal computers.
Bear in mind it will be fatal to those companies who built their entire business selling $500 laptops to people who just want Facebook and Youtube; the PC business is massively oversized right now because of those companies. The "work PC" isn't going anywhere though.
It includes laptops, but excludes tablets and smartphones. (Some analysts idiosyncratically include Windows tablets, or non-Apple tablets, or whatever happens to make a more sellable story.)
It's interesting because tablet computers are growing while laptops and desktops are shrinking. It's a transitional period.
Obvious joke: gross incompetence and Federal agents, those things don't overlap often.
came to the conclusion that permanence doesn't exist in the world. [...] informed Western and Eastern thought to this very day
Yeah, no permanence there.
If storing the data is "completely irrelevant" I wonder what it is you expect to read once you've engineered high-longevity reading equipment. Aren't both kind of important, smartarse?
That's a clear disincentive for developers to bother with the APIs implemented in Android 4.0, no? Thereby a disincentive for Android apps to stay technically competitive.
It's bad. How bad is an open question.
If you don't know what market forces are with relation to the price of goods I'm going to have to pull the loud handle on this conversation. Goodbye.
That's like arguing that if you don't like US law, you can just start up your own country. There's no ground to plant it on, not enough people to start it with, and you have no power with which to defend yourself. As you can see for yourself, the small publishers charging less didn't experience any significant growth when the collusion was in place, and sales did not suffer as one would expect from price elasticity. That strongly implies that normal market forces were overridden by the collusion.
In case you didn't notice, this isn't about the rights of an individual, it's about the rights of an extraordinarily large group.
I don't think you know what fiat means.
I don't know what the correct shape of a potato is, but if one plopped out of a big potato-making machine in front of me I'd be quite justified in calling it artificial.
What competing publishing firm? The heart of the issue is that all of the US's (and the world's) biggest publishers were part of the group. If even a few of them had defected there not only wouldn't have been anything illegal, the collusion would have failed because of competition.
An artificial price is one decided by fiat and not by market forces. By definition, when a trade group decides on a single price, that's an artificial price.
There are no others to set up competing services in this context; the group that decided the prices is composed of every major publisher in the United States.
Your idea of a free market is "we make the decisions, but you're free to leave"? What is this, the USSR?
If you're all following exactly the same plan, for the same objective, you're no longer individuals. You're a single entity. (As far as the market goes.) When that single entity is effectively the entire ebook market, then you have a market controlled by fiat.
You understand that this isn't Apple vs the "publishing biz", right? The publishers were in on it from beginning to end and were set to profit handsomely from the arrangement.
Individuals can set their prices however they want, because they're heterogeneous and competing, i.e. the marketplace is free. A single group cannot be permitted to control an entire market, because that market is no longer free.
The "fundimental concept of an e-book" is a document format intended for distributing books*; it has nothing to do with DRM and we were using the term back when your go-to standalone reader was a Palm PDA. Rage against the DRM, do but get the facts right.
*There's a reason we don't just use multi-megabyte Word files.