I think you missed the point. They aren't trying to make sure everyone gets a drive. They aren't trying to get things into the hands of people who need them most. They are trying to maximize their profits. HDDs are only a single category in their inventory. Other categories are closely related to HDDs: OEM Windows, motherboards, hardware raid, memory, cases, etc.
If they sell 20 drives to a guy who really *needs* a RAID, they'll sell him the drives (at a possibly steeper premium) and one set of hardware to go with it. If they sell 20 drives to 10-20 guys who really *need* a system, they'll sell them the drives (at some premium) and 10-20 sets of hardware to go with them.
As long as supply is constant there is no trade off. Once the supply is reduced, they have to decide which of the two scenarios above is more profitable.
And that's strictly the numbers. There is also goodwill and other factors to think about which may affect their long term viability after the shortage.
I don't agree that it is stupid. They sell more than HDDs. If I am building a system and can't get my hands on an HDD I'm not buying the other components either.
Yeah, there's a lot of questionable choices on the list.
Sanderson's Mistborn trilogy (I'm a fan, but it shouldn't be on the list in lieu of some others...) World War Z (I really don't get why people love this one so much.) The Wheel of Time (I'm a huge fan OBVS, but it's not even FINISHED yet. Likewise Song of Fire and Ice by GRRM which also is not finished.) The Xanth series (Maybe the first few, but who the hell over the age of 13 can make it through the whole series? And Incarnations of Immortality was better anyway) etc., etc.,
And don't get me started on the order. (Ender's Game over Dune?!)
The summary is inaccurate. This is more like a twitter announcement service. Each post is a link to the actual court document hosted on their own website.
I'm talking about the novel, not the movie. Continuing into the series, there actually is interesting interaction between the new technology and humans. I won't reveal any spoilers now though.
My point with the question was you are drawing such a hard line that I think you are taking the fiction out of science fiction. I don't think any science fiction, no matter how hard, really fits your definition. You're talking about speculative essays or just plain 'fiction' that focuses heavily on science.
Consider historical fiction. Historical fiction is not historical in the sense that those things actually happened in the past. It's historical in the sense that the fiction could have happened in the past. We believe the story because it fits with our understanding of history, even though we know it is not true.
"Real" science fiction is the same. If it is presented in a way that we can conceive it as scientifically possible (regardless of the factuality), we believe it, even though we know it is a work of fiction. Clarke's technology seems magical to us, but he presents it as technology created by beings so much more advanced than us that we can't tell the difference. I don't think most readers of Clarke view the monoliths as supernatural, just natural devices we don't understand.
Contrast that with fantasy. We know fantasy to not be literally true, but our litmus test there for believability isn't "is it possible" but "is it consistent within the rules of its own world." Future fantasy falls under that same litmus test.
I think what determines *real* science fiction is that test of how we determine credibility within the story. As another poster stated, it's how the story is framed.
Toys stop being choking hazards when kids are about 3(-ish?) and stop trying to put everything into their mouths. That's why happy meal toys are different for the really really small kids. This device is for older kids.
That will never happen, but I think we can make it less open to, shall we say, loose interpretation.
Make the spirit of the law explicit. The first part of the law should state "This is the problem we are trying to resolve."
Then let judges determine whether or not the executive (or a plaintiff) is using that law for that particular purpose. If they're trying to use it for another purpose, let them go to Congress to get a new law passed.
A spokesperson for Braehead said it wanted to "maintain a safe and enjoyable environment" for shoppers.
There is literally nothing I enjoy more than to have a security guard and the police question me in front of my small child when all I was doing was minding my own business.
No, not really. It just means you have drones that are either useful, but inferior to direct human action or you have a situation where drones are better at one task and actual humans at another task. Of course, I'm pretty sure I saw all this as a kid on USA Up All Night.
GP didn't say anything about the economics of it. He said research base. He said donate. Imagine what NASA could do with twice the funds and none of the Congressional oversight. Now imagine what NASA as we have it now would do with twice the funds (but not guaranteed) and the same amount of Congressional oversight.
As for a 'not-insane business plan' it seems pretty obvious to me that if you think what is lacking is the technology than that is where you should put your money first.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you missed the point. They aren't trying to make sure everyone gets a drive. They aren't trying to get things into the hands of people who need them most. They are trying to maximize their profits. HDDs are only a single category in their inventory. Other categories are closely related to HDDs: OEM Windows, motherboards, hardware raid, memory, cases, etc.
If they sell 20 drives to a guy who really *needs* a RAID, they'll sell him the drives (at a possibly steeper premium) and one set of hardware to go with it.
If they sell 20 drives to 10-20 guys who really *need* a system, they'll sell them the drives (at some premium) and 10-20 sets of hardware to go with them.
As long as supply is constant there is no trade off. Once the supply is reduced, they have to decide which of the two scenarios above is more profitable.
And that's strictly the numbers. There is also goodwill and other factors to think about which may affect their long term viability after the shortage.
I don't agree that it is stupid. They sell more than HDDs. If I am building a system and can't get my hands on an HDD I'm not buying the other components either.
You think 4cm is a big pee-pee? Man, I should be doing porn I guess.
Hold out long enough and America will give up and send the troops somewhere else.
FTFY
I'm going to be a little more straightforward than the ACs:
Read a fucking book.
Yeah, there's a lot of questionable choices on the list.
Sanderson's Mistborn trilogy (I'm a fan, but it shouldn't be on the list in lieu of some others...)
World War Z (I really don't get why people love this one so much.)
The Wheel of Time (I'm a huge fan OBVS, but it's not even FINISHED yet. Likewise Song of Fire and Ice by GRRM which also is not finished.)
The Xanth series (Maybe the first few, but who the hell over the age of 13 can make it through the whole series? And Incarnations of Immortality was better anyway)
etc., etc.,
And don't get me started on the order. (Ender's Game over Dune?!)
...welcome our robotic idiot savant overlords?
The summary is inaccurate. This is more like a twitter announcement service. Each post is a link to the actual court document hosted on their own website.
I'm talking about the novel, not the movie. Continuing into the series, there actually is interesting interaction between the new technology and humans. I won't reveal any spoilers now though.
My point with the question was you are drawing such a hard line that I think you are taking the fiction out of science fiction. I don't think any science fiction, no matter how hard, really fits your definition. You're talking about speculative essays or just plain 'fiction' that focuses heavily on science.
Consider historical fiction. Historical fiction is not historical in the sense that those things actually happened in the past. It's historical in the sense that the fiction could have happened in the past. We believe the story because it fits with our understanding of history, even though we know it is not true.
"Real" science fiction is the same. If it is presented in a way that we can conceive it as scientifically possible (regardless of the factuality), we believe it, even though we know it is a work of fiction. Clarke's technology seems magical to us, but he presents it as technology created by beings so much more advanced than us that we can't tell the difference. I don't think most readers of Clarke view the monoliths as supernatural, just natural devices we don't understand.
Contrast that with fantasy. We know fantasy to not be literally true, but our litmus test there for believability isn't "is it possible" but "is it consistent within the rules of its own world." Future fantasy falls under that same litmus test.
I think what determines *real* science fiction is that test of how we determine credibility within the story. As another poster stated, it's how the story is framed.
http://xkcd.com/548/
What *is* the difference?
Are the monoliths from Clarke's 2001: A Space Odyssey witchcraft or science?
I'm gonna say all that is only going to happen if it arrives before anime robot sex slaves.
Who came up with magic flying carpets? Same tech, different name.
Market forces didn't create $MEGACORP. Guess who did.
Please forgive me.
Dunecat
Toys stop being choking hazards when kids are about 3(-ish?) and stop trying to put everything into their mouths. That's why happy meal toys are different for the really really small kids. This device is for older kids.
You're right. Three is a crowd. This was six and two-thirds crowds. When will people learn.
That will never happen, but I think we can make it less open to, shall we say, loose interpretation.
Make the spirit of the law explicit. The first part of the law should state "This is the problem we are trying to resolve."
Then let judges determine whether or not the executive (or a plaintiff) is using that law for that particular purpose. If they're trying to use it for another purpose, let them go to Congress to get a new law passed.
A spokesperson for Braehead said it wanted to "maintain a safe and enjoyable environment" for shoppers.
There is literally nothing I enjoy more than to have a security guard and the police question me in front of my small child when all I was doing was minding my own business.
Partial credit. The correct answer is "Hell no." I would also have accepted "Fuck you."
No, not really. It just means you have drones that are either useful, but inferior to direct human action or you have a situation where drones are better at one task and actual humans at another task. Of course, I'm pretty sure I saw all this as a kid on USA Up All Night.
This just came for you:
His name is Rod Serling. Stop making me feel old.
Would a thinking computer want to design a system that would make itself obsolete?
GP didn't say anything about the economics of it. He said research base. He said donate. Imagine what NASA could do with twice the funds and none of the Congressional oversight. Now imagine what NASA as we have it now would do with twice the funds (but not guaranteed) and the same amount of Congressional oversight.
As for a 'not-insane business plan' it seems pretty obvious to me that if you think what is lacking is the technology than that is where you should put your money first.