There's a natural 2-year product refresh cycle in play. Thanks to carrier contracts (at least domestically), every two years you have to buy a new phone. Not coincidentally, Apple refreshes annually, and major updates every two years, to ride that perpectual wave of hardware purchases. Plus, they are selling into China. 1.2 billion customers are clamoring for their goods. I don't think they're dead in the water just yet.
Adobe killed mobile Flash last year. Are you expecting Apple to now build their own Flash client implementation for this buggy, insecure, dying technology?
Jobs was right about Flash.
Your post doesn't make any sense. You can't accumulate, store, or access data without hardware. Advertising is a different industry than the ones Apple chiefly participates in (iAd being a mere blip on their earnings report).
Apple's products are not viewed as commodities by the market, which is why they command huge margins--margins that went up year over year if you bothered to read the earnings report.
Apple's products have been copied and copied again and they still maintain premium status in the eyes of the consumer--margins haven't been destroyed and there's no reason to think they will be in the near term.
Also, "faster" has a material bearing on dosage... For example, imaging doing a vascular run-off with a four-slice scanner. The narrow detector array means the patient will be bombarded with ionizing radiation for far longer than a wider detector array (higher Z-axis efficiency with more slices). And if you're doing dynamic (4D) scans (e.g., coronary functional CT scans), then getting a whole volume in one rotation is also huge and saves on radiation.
...or they could simply not want their billions of dollars invested in R&D to be stolen by competitors... They spent money licensing and developing features so that they could be competitive differentiators. Try to look at it from the perspective of someone trying to run a business.
There are career paths out of development, such as project management, technical architecture, product management, consulting, etc... Something else that could be interesting is to try to work in a completely different paradigm... Do some Haskell or something:)
Good point. Medicare, Medicaid, and most (all?) private payers use mainframes for claims adjudication and record keeping; so, that's quite significant.
Mainframes are huge, you just don't read about them as much.
Thus I think what he's saying is that if we sort out M-Theory (which is the formalisation of many string theories that are all "crap" for various values of "crap", until we get a single, logically consistent theory that explains all the shortcomings and "crap"), we'll discover that gravitons can pass through other dimensions and yet still affect our own, and thus a "Big Bang" is more an externally-triggered event that creates a universe from which it's hard to see outside, even mathematically, and guess what else is outside it.
I'll admit I haven't RTFA, but that statement about gravitons passing through unseen dimensions is nothing new. The relative weakness of gravity compared to the other fundamental forces has already been theorized to be due to it being spread across multiple branes or parallel universes, and the idea of the Big Bang being externally triggered (say, by a collision of branes) is also old news.
Indeed the universe's pre-Big Bang singularity was smaller than the head of a pin, and I think even smaller than an electron. Hawking's reputation is somewhat diminished in recent years though. A "modern day Einstein" would be Ed Witten, though Hawking is a genius and had his day. Based on how Hawking's last paper was received (since I don't know enough to evaluate either on its own merits), I would not accept this as gospel or even likely until we see how it's received by the field. There are people (and plenty of them) who will challenge this, no doubt.
Yeah, I don't feel like I have... What we we talking about again?
iOS 4 ignored IMO the two biggest feature deficits
on
iOS 4 Releases Today
·
· Score: 1
1: A notification system that doesn't use annoying modal popups
2: Speech-to-text into all fields
(*note* I refrained from mentioning the AT&T lock-in, but we all know it's an issue)
I think the quality of the OS is far more important than that and I hate WM6. I have had many WM5-6 devices and don't like Professional or any other version of any of them I've used. Simply horrid. (I have to use it on my work phones.)
I am really sick of ignorant people misstating what Common Critera is. All a high EAL means is that your system has been tested and it does what you claim it does in your Security Target, which describes your system, and which vendors can write HOWEVER they want. Sometimes there are standard "templates" called Protection Profiles for certain classes of security assets, which restrict how vendors can draft their targets, but still, all the EAL is is an assurance level that those requirements are met by the solution. You could Common Criteria certify an absolute trainwreck to a very high EAL: if your requirements as stipulated in your Security Target include, for instance, "There will only be null passwords," and the lab verifies that, among other bad requirements, those items as assured to a high degree, you could wind up with an EXCEEDINGLY insecure system at a high EAL. A security practitioner reviewing the CC documentation can make a determination about whether the protection profile is worthwhile, and then the assurance level simply provides assurance that what s/he has read in the Security Target is actually how the system is engineered. It's not rocket science, I just don't understand how people keep mouthing off about crap they clearly don't understand.
Yeah, pay taxes for nothing, that sounds great! More bridge collapses and crappy emergency response, no education, and being completely vulnerable to any nefarious loons who want to perpetrate acts of terror against us. Sounds like paradise!
What is with this lunatic obsession with killing off the government?
We've known about this for a while. Time had a cover story about it when the movie Falling Down came out.
Remove the accountability for what one says and you remove the filter, getting pure ejaculations of id. And they are really mad. You know, because they have suffered so much for so long.
I believe that this study is discussing more lizard brain fears, and you're talking about fears that live in the cerebrum. In other words, being startled is a completely different thing than worry. Being startled is reflexive and does not involve thought. Being worried involves pondering your situation. So, if this study were accurate, it could imply that progressives are more thoughtful.
I object to the nonsequitur:
If you're afraid that you can't afford adequate health care for your children, you'll want socialized medicine.
Socialized medicine is not a part of the Democratic platform. Most progressives want affordable health care. Affordable health care does not necessarily mean socialized medicine. It could be insurance reform.
He is 14, thus she did cheat (though I mainly blame China). That's the whole point. Whether or not you agree with the IOC's rationale for the rule, and whether or not the rule is shared by other bodies, it is the rule under which the countries agreed to compete. It is clearly cheating to break the rule.
The rationale for the age limit is actually pretty clear: it is due to the fragility of young athletes and put in place in order to protect them from injury. The same rationale applies to Little League managers who won't let kids throw breaking pitches at certain levels.
Shame on China for cheating. Athletes have been busted individually cheating in the games (doping, for example). But to see systematic cheating abetted by a government, and to see that cheating result in diminished achievement for deserving athletes of any nation (but to be honest, it stings more to see my countrywomen denied) is a tough thing to bear.
Nastia Liukin is a triple gold medalist and Shawn Johnson is a double gold medalist as far as I'm concerned.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a natural 2-year product refresh cycle in play. Thanks to carrier contracts (at least domestically), every two years you have to buy a new phone. Not coincidentally, Apple refreshes annually, and major updates every two years, to ride that perpectual wave of hardware purchases. Plus, they are selling into China. 1.2 billion customers are clamoring for their goods. I don't think they're dead in the water just yet.
Adobe killed mobile Flash last year. Are you expecting Apple to now build their own Flash client implementation for this buggy, insecure, dying technology? Jobs was right about Flash.
A sage move. I mean, look at how sales have fallen off since the "marketing genius" died...
Your post doesn't make any sense. You can't accumulate, store, or access data without hardware. Advertising is a different industry than the ones Apple chiefly participates in (iAd being a mere blip on their earnings report). Apple's products are not viewed as commodities by the market, which is why they command huge margins--margins that went up year over year if you bothered to read the earnings report. Apple's products have been copied and copied again and they still maintain premium status in the eyes of the consumer--margins haven't been destroyed and there's no reason to think they will be in the near term.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfslY_AvhLw
Also, "faster" has a material bearing on dosage... For example, imaging doing a vascular run-off with a four-slice scanner. The narrow detector array means the patient will be bombarded with ionizing radiation for far longer than a wider detector array (higher Z-axis efficiency with more slices). And if you're doing dynamic (4D) scans (e.g., coronary functional CT scans), then getting a whole volume in one rotation is also huge and saves on radiation.
"Top of the line" is now 320 rows for Toshiba, or dual-source 128 rows for Siemens. I think there are 256 detector row scanners as well.
...or they could simply not want their billions of dollars invested in R&D to be stolen by competitors... They spent money licensing and developing features so that they could be competitive differentiators. Try to look at it from the perspective of someone trying to run a business.
There are career paths out of development, such as project management, technical architecture, product management, consulting, etc... Something else that could be interesting is to try to work in a completely different paradigm... Do some Haskell or something :)
Good point. Medicare, Medicaid, and most (all?) private payers use mainframes for claims adjudication and record keeping; so, that's quite significant. Mainframes are huge, you just don't read about them as much.
derp
Don't know why this is down voted. I know we're not supposed to carp on grammar but this is a valid point.
Thus I think what he's saying is that if we sort out M-Theory (which is the formalisation of many string theories that are all "crap" for various values of "crap", until we get a single, logically consistent theory that explains all the shortcomings and "crap"), we'll discover that gravitons can pass through other dimensions and yet still affect our own, and thus a "Big Bang" is more an externally-triggered event that creates a universe from which it's hard to see outside, even mathematically, and guess what else is outside it.
I'll admit I haven't RTFA, but that statement about gravitons passing through unseen dimensions is nothing new. The relative weakness of gravity compared to the other fundamental forces has already been theorized to be due to it being spread across multiple branes or parallel universes, and the idea of the Big Bang being externally triggered (say, by a collision of branes) is also old news.
Indeed the universe's pre-Big Bang singularity was smaller than the head of a pin, and I think even smaller than an electron. Hawking's reputation is somewhat diminished in recent years though. A "modern day Einstein" would be Ed Witten, though Hawking is a genius and had his day. Based on how Hawking's last paper was received (since I don't know enough to evaluate either on its own merits), I would not accept this as gospel or even likely until we see how it's received by the field. There are people (and plenty of them) who will challenge this, no doubt.
Yeah, I don't feel like I have... What we we talking about again?
1: A notification system that doesn't use annoying modal popups 2: Speech-to-text into all fields (*note* I refrained from mentioning the AT&T lock-in, but we all know it's an issue)
I think the quality of the OS is far more important than that and I hate WM6. I have had many WM5-6 devices and don't like Professional or any other version of any of them I've used. Simply horrid. (I have to use it on my work phones.)
I am really sick of ignorant people misstating what Common Critera is. All a high EAL means is that your system has been tested and it does what you claim it does in your Security Target, which describes your system, and which vendors can write HOWEVER they want. Sometimes there are standard "templates" called Protection Profiles for certain classes of security assets, which restrict how vendors can draft their targets, but still, all the EAL is is an assurance level that those requirements are met by the solution. You could Common Criteria certify an absolute trainwreck to a very high EAL: if your requirements as stipulated in your Security Target include, for instance, "There will only be null passwords," and the lab verifies that, among other bad requirements, those items as assured to a high degree, you could wind up with an EXCEEDINGLY insecure system at a high EAL. A security practitioner reviewing the CC documentation can make a determination about whether the protection profile is worthwhile, and then the assurance level simply provides assurance that what s/he has read in the Security Target is actually how the system is engineered. It's not rocket science, I just don't understand how people keep mouthing off about crap they clearly don't understand.
What is with this lunatic obsession with killing off the government?
Dumb comment. Violence and anger are two different things. Violence can be motivated by desperation, greed, insanity, addiction, etc.
We've known about this for a while. Time had a cover story about it when the movie Falling Down came out. Remove the accountability for what one says and you remove the filter, getting pure ejaculations of id. And they are really mad. You know, because they have suffered so much for so long.
I object to the nonsequitur:
Socialized medicine is not a part of the Democratic platform. Most progressives want affordable health care. Affordable health care does not necessarily mean socialized medicine. It could be insurance reform.
He is 14, thus she did cheat (though I mainly blame China). That's the whole point. Whether or not you agree with the IOC's rationale for the rule, and whether or not the rule is shared by other bodies, it is the rule under which the countries agreed to compete. It is clearly cheating to break the rule.
notice how none of those were the Olympics?
Shame on China for cheating. Athletes have been busted individually cheating in the games (doping, for example). But to see systematic cheating abetted by a government, and to see that cheating result in diminished achievement for deserving athletes of any nation (but to be honest, it stings more to see my countrywomen denied) is a tough thing to bear.
Nastia Liukin is a triple gold medalist and Shawn Johnson is a double gold medalist as far as I'm concerned.