Apple got burned when they launched Apple Music by not paying royalties to artists during free trials. They quickly changed their policy, but got quite a lot of flack for it.
I think this is less of them being clever than them just not wanting to touch this with a ten foot pole.
Mod up please. I mean, how bad is the pollution if the river is catching fire -- let alone the long-term damage to the fish (very likely no longer edible) and other wildlife?
Which is just one reason why btc will never replace traditional payment networks. No one is going to wait 10 to 20 minutes for a transaction to be verified when they're at a checkout. Nor are they going to effectively bid to have their transactions accepted by miners in what is a global limitation of less than 10 transactions per second.
Visa can process a peak or 56,000 transactions per second and regularly does 4,000 per second. Apparently Mastercard does even more than that. There's AMEX too, and many others. All of which operate simultaneously, as they're all methods of transferring fiat currency, not specific Visa Dollars or Mastercard Money. The customer's bank also deals with currency conversion automatically. I don't care that the thing I'm selling to a guy in Japan is paid for in Yen, I get my dollars in exchange, in less than a second. At most it costs me 2.5% in fees. Usually less.
BTC fees can be upwards of $40.
As a consumer, if someone steals my credit card number, there's a limit to how much can be taken, and most likely I'll get the fraudulent transactions reversed. Nothing lost.>
How long does your bank take to actually complete money transfer transactions? For most things, the transaction takes *days*. Even with a cashier's check you can't be guaranteed that the money is transferred in a timely manner. That's why when you're selling your car, most people are unwilling to except a check or a cashier's check. You do it in cash or at a bank (with two accounts at the same bank).
All that Visa/MasterCard/AMEX/etc are doing is just buffering the money transfer as credit. The true payment to the creditors can take a long time.
The time when *any* company wrote better software is over. Seriously every day it seems like there is another security flaw. Facebook's flaw that allowed you full write access to anyone's profile, Google+ being complete shut down due to security flaws, the ton of Windows 10 issues all come to mind.
Hi all, OP here. I'm afraid I wrote my original post rather quickly, and in my haste I've caused a massive thread of misunderstanding. My apologies about that. Also, I'd call a day where Bruce Perens replies to any post of mine a good day.:)
Indeed I meant to say GPS transponder (and by that I mean a GPS device with an additional transmitter that can send the airplane's location to satellites). And hopefully in this new incarnation it's impossible (or rather, extremely difficult) to turn off, much like the airplane's flight recorder. In the case of flight MH370, I believe the pilot turned off any of the usual communication devices (ACARS? I'm not familiar with the technical terms) which would have made it easier to track the airplane.
Apple could set up production elsewhere and refuse to sell devices in China. But that likely would take them even further from discussions with China about changing their laws.
Ok everyone needs to calm down a little. ifixit just showed that you or third parties can still repair the latest Mac hardware. The original article is incorrect.
That xiph.org video is great for theory, but not in practice. The Digital-Audio converters introduce their own inconsistencies in conversion. Not to mention the steep low-pass filter that needs to be used to remove the aliasing frequency (which is less steep at higher sampling frequencies). These create a noticeable difference in sound quality between CDs and high resolution formats.
Don't believe me? Studies show that people *can* hear a difference between 16 bit 44.1/48k and high resolution audio:
I worked in a recording studio in the late 1990's, and I was disappointed at the time hearing the sound quality of a mixdown from multitrack to 16bit, 44.1 DAT (the standard for mixdowns at the time). Quite a bit of the original sound was lost in conversion.
As for vinyl vs. CD quality, I think the difference is more subjective; both formats have their faults. For me, vinyl tends to have a clearer sound in the high frequencies, while CDs have better low frequency reproduction. Since most of the music I listen to doesn't need solid low frequencies, I like listening to vinyl better. Overall though I would prefer digital files in high resolution format (24 bit, 96k or higher), but since most music can't be bought at that quality, vinyl is the best substitute.
"...Results showed a small but statistically significant ability of test subjects to discriminate high resolution content, and this effect increased dramatically when test subjects received extensive training..."
Regarding Bluetooth on a portable, I agree 24bit/96k is useless. But for folks using a portable with high quality plug-in headphones (particularly with an external DAC) it may be desirable.
It it matters to the engineer's ears, it matters to the audiophile's ears as well. Some folks want to hear the exact same sound that was created in the studio. The technology exists, it's not that expensive, and these days the file sizes are more than manageable. There is a difference that can be heard. The high sampling frequency means that the anti-aliasing filter doesn't have to be as steep and affect the higher frequencies that can be heard. There are other differences as well, but you have to know what to listen for.
That being said (trying to tie this to the article), if you're an audiophile and really care about the sound, you won't be listening to music on your phone on the go. And if you really need to use high-end headphones with your phone and you don't have a headphone jack, you'll likely use a dongle, or (even more likely) a high-end external D/A converter.
6 times an hour * 18 hours is 108 times. With text messages, checking meeting times, news/Twitter notifications, etc. I don't think those numbers are terribly far off. I'm fully willing to admit that I was looking at my phone a lot -- but I also believe many other people follow a similar (or perhaps worse) usage pattern.
I've had the Apple Watch for quite awhile, and it has some convenient features. Using it for payments is faster than credit card chips, heart rate monitor is excellent, it can unlock my computer, reading quick texts/notifications is nice, I like looking quickly to see my next meeting location, outside temperature at a glance is a help, and GPS directions at a glance with taps is often better than looking at the phone (when I'm driving a car that doesn't have a phone mount). I used to take my phone out of my pocket probably 100-200 times a day. Now it's more like once or twice an hour.
The battery has never run out on me. If I've forgotten to charge it overnight I put it on the charger for about 20 minutes while I'm getting ready in the morning and that's enough for the day.
As far as a status symbol, I don't think that's the case. The people I know who have one wear it for the features, not the status. In fact I'd rather not have the that kind of attention.
So the reason we don't need to investigate major election tampering is because everyone does it? That doesn't sound like good policy. It also doesn't help prevent it in the future.
BTW, it's not just the Democrats who have said there is strong evidence that the Russian government was involved, the Republicans have stated this as well.
Is there a hidden advanced search? It would be nice to find images larger than a certain resolution, especially with our high resolution screens and printers these days. It would be nice to have some other options as well.
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Google sued the other party first, which is an extremely offensive move and again is a specific example that goes against your original statement. Suing to invalidate a patent can be offensive, and this case shows this. Google has shown many times (Java, Android, server technologies, and more) that it does not respect patents or intellectual property. While we may agree that patent reform needs to happen--it hasn't happened yet. The end result is if you have a small technology company and Google uses your patented technology without paying you, you don't even think about trying to contact them, they will put you out of business with a team of lawyers.
And now they're working both sides of the game: they're using their own patent portfolio to sue other companies *and* they're not respecting other people's patents at the same time.
I don't think you understand. Google is playing the patent game here. At the beginning they didn't have the patent portfolio, so instead they had to try to invalidate everyone else's patents--even aggressively, taking the offensive by suing first (as I showed in the first example). Now that they have the portfolio, they can push folks around. Google is just like any other public company, they are beholden to their shareholders and do what is in the best interest of making the most money and protecting their assets. Don't be fooled; there is no higher standard here. Google is even working to get back with increased presence in China, despite being against government censorship. The dollar amount is too large for Google to keep pretending like they live to a higher standard.
And let's get back to the OP's quote that you had an issue with:
I don't care if you're a Microsoft fanboi, an Apple fanboi, a Google fanboi, or a Samsung fanboi... these patents and the lawsuits which stem from them more or less amount of a bunch of multi-billion dollar corporations carving up the industry and making sure nobody else can get into the game.
The first two examples I gave I think are pretty illustrative of the issue here, and Google is a major player. Patent reform is second only perhaps to gun control and changes to copyright law that need to happen in the US, and given the lack of movement all of these cases I'm not very confident it will happen, unfortunately.
I did read the links. The first was an example of Google taking the offensive in a patent lawsuit (which you said didn't exist). The second was Google using patents to stifle innovation and bring down smaller developers. In each of these examples the smaller companies are getting screwed.
With these lawsuits, Google is doing what Google feel they have to do. Just like Apple's doing with their lawsuits. That's fine. Any company sufficiently large is indistinguishable from evil. Just be candid with your users about it. Tell them you're going thermonuclear. Don't hold up a dove and play a hippie jingle, all the while lighting up the napalm.
Google is just like any other large tech company; they're playing the patent game.
As you said, Google didn't have a large patent war chest until recently. This explains why they couldn't go on the offensive: they would have gotten eaten alive.
Now that they've purchased a patent portfolio, they're like every other company: protect your IP at all costs. Google is no different than Apple, Microsoft, or Samsung. In fact they need to protect their IP or risk losing it.
As for Google never filing a non-defensive patent lawsuit, that's not true. A quick Duck Duck Go search reveals this:
It seems like a lot of the car manufacturers are having some major software issues. This Range Rover issue certainly isn't the worst one.
For instance, see this blog post (which links to US court testimony documents) where an embedded software expert (Michael Barr) reviews Toyota's code and finds numerous flaws:
Did Toyota fix these flaws? Who knows? Toyota still denies that there's even a problem. They released an update to the Prius last year which corrected a problem with premature engine shutdown, but that was only for limited number of Priuses. Accorrding to Michael Barr, these software issues affect Toyota, Lexus (and possibly Scions) made in the last ten years.
The only way in my mind to be pretty sure our cars are safe is for the manufacturers to release their software as open source, where it can be reviewed and any flaws are found. While folks wouldn't be able to find *every* bug, it sure would be a lot better than we have now.
Slashdot Mirror
Not sure why it didn't link directly to the iFixit article, but here it is:
https://www.ifixit.com/Teardow...
The Slashdot poster edited the original quote when they probably shouldn't have. The original quote used "enroute" without the space.
And please, Anonymous Coward, don't be a troll.
Apple got burned when they launched Apple Music by not paying royalties to artists during free trials. They quickly changed their policy, but got quite a lot of flack for it.
I think this is less of them being clever than them just not wanting to touch this with a ten foot pole.
Mod up please. I mean, how bad is the pollution if the river is catching fire -- let alone the long-term damage to the fish (very likely no longer edible) and other wildlife?
Which is just one reason why btc will never replace traditional payment networks.
No one is going to wait 10 to 20 minutes for a transaction to be verified when they're at a checkout.
Nor are they going to effectively bid to have their transactions accepted by miners in what is a global limitation of less than 10 transactions per second.
Visa can process a peak or 56,000 transactions per second and regularly does 4,000 per second.
Apparently Mastercard does even more than that.
There's AMEX too, and many others. All of which operate simultaneously, as they're all methods of transferring fiat currency, not specific Visa Dollars or Mastercard Money. The customer's bank also deals with currency conversion automatically. I don't care that the thing I'm selling to a guy in Japan is paid for in Yen, I get my dollars in exchange, in less than a second. At most it costs me 2.5% in fees. Usually less.
BTC fees can be upwards of $40.
As a consumer, if someone steals my credit card number, there's a limit to how much can be taken, and most likely I'll get the fraudulent transactions reversed. Nothing lost.>
How long does your bank take to actually complete money transfer transactions? For most things, the transaction takes *days*. Even with a cashier's check you can't be guaranteed that the money is transferred in a timely manner. That's why when you're selling your car, most people are unwilling to except a check or a cashier's check. You do it in cash or at a bank (with two accounts at the same bank).
All that Visa/MasterCard/AMEX/etc are doing is just buffering the money transfer as credit. The true payment to the creditors can take a long time.
The time when *any* company wrote better software is over. Seriously every day it seems like there is another security flaw. Facebook's flaw that allowed you full write access to anyone's profile, Google+ being complete shut down due to security flaws, the ton of Windows 10 issues all come to mind.
@Controller
class ThisWillActuallyRun {
@RequestMapping("/")
@ResponseBody
String home() {
"Hello World!"
}
}
https://twitter.com/rob_winch/...
Hi all, OP here. I'm afraid I wrote my original post rather quickly, and in my haste I've caused a massive thread of misunderstanding. My apologies about that. Also, I'd call a day where Bruce Perens replies to any post of mine a good day. :)
Indeed I meant to say GPS transponder (and by that I mean a GPS device with an additional transmitter that can send the airplane's location to satellites). And hopefully in this new incarnation it's impossible (or rather, extremely difficult) to turn off, much like the airplane's flight recorder. In the case of flight MH370, I believe the pilot turned off any of the usual communication devices (ACARS? I'm not familiar with the technical terms) which would have made it easier to track the airplane.
I think they also need to make it impossible to turn off GPS. IIRC, that's what the pilot did on flight MH370.
Apple could set up production elsewhere and refuse to sell devices in China. But that likely would take them even further from discussions with China about changing their laws.
I thought that's where the turtles are.
Ok everyone needs to calm down a little. ifixit just showed that you or third parties can still repair the latest Mac hardware. The original article is incorrect.
That xiph.org video is great for theory, but not in practice. The Digital-Audio converters introduce their own inconsistencies in conversion. Not to mention the steep low-pass filter that needs to be used to remove the aliasing frequency (which is less steep at higher sampling frequencies). These create a noticeable difference in sound quality between CDs and high resolution formats.
Don't believe me? Studies show that people *can* hear a difference between 16 bit 44.1/48k and high resolution audio:
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/brows...
I worked in a recording studio in the late 1990's, and I was disappointed at the time hearing the sound quality of a mixdown from multitrack to 16bit, 44.1 DAT (the standard for mixdowns at the time). Quite a bit of the original sound was lost in conversion.
As for vinyl vs. CD quality, I think the difference is more subjective; both formats have their faults. For me, vinyl tends to have a clearer sound in the high frequencies, while CDs have better low frequency reproduction. Since most of the music I listen to doesn't need solid low frequencies, I like listening to vinyl better. Overall though I would prefer digital files in high resolution format (24 bit, 96k or higher), but since most music can't be bought at that quality, vinyl is the best substitute.
Here you go:
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/brows...
"...Results showed a small but statistically significant ability of test subjects to discriminate high resolution content, and this effect increased dramatically when test subjects received extensive training..."
Regarding Bluetooth on a portable, I agree 24bit/96k is useless. But for folks using a portable with high quality plug-in headphones (particularly with an external DAC) it may be desirable.
It it matters to the engineer's ears, it matters to the audiophile's ears as well. Some folks want to hear the exact same sound that was created in the studio. The technology exists, it's not that expensive, and these days the file sizes are more than manageable. There is a difference that can be heard. The high sampling frequency means that the anti-aliasing filter doesn't have to be as steep and affect the higher frequencies that can be heard. There are other differences as well, but you have to know what to listen for.
That being said (trying to tie this to the article), if you're an audiophile and really care about the sound, you won't be listening to music on your phone on the go. And if you really need to use high-end headphones with your phone and you don't have a headphone jack, you'll likely use a dongle, or (even more likely) a high-end external D/A converter.
6 times an hour * 18 hours is 108 times. With text messages, checking meeting times, news/Twitter notifications, etc. I don't think those numbers are terribly far off. I'm fully willing to admit that I was looking at my phone a lot -- but I also believe many other people follow a similar (or perhaps worse) usage pattern.
I've had the Apple Watch for quite awhile, and it has some convenient features. Using it for payments is faster than credit card chips, heart rate monitor is excellent, it can unlock my computer, reading quick texts/notifications is nice, I like looking quickly to see my next meeting location, outside temperature at a glance is a help, and GPS directions at a glance with taps is often better than looking at the phone (when I'm driving a car that doesn't have a phone mount). I used to take my phone out of my pocket probably 100-200 times a day. Now it's more like once or twice an hour.
The battery has never run out on me. If I've forgotten to charge it overnight I put it on the charger for about 20 minutes while I'm getting ready in the morning and that's enough for the day.
As far as a status symbol, I don't think that's the case. The people I know who have one wear it for the features, not the status. In fact I'd rather not have the that kind of attention.
So the reason we don't need to investigate major election tampering is because everyone does it? That doesn't sound like good policy. It also doesn't help prevent it in the future.
BTW, it's not just the Democrats who have said there is strong evidence that the Russian government was involved, the Republicans have stated this as well.
This is a little bit of "blame the victim". If the Russians were involved with this, we need to know and prevent election manipulation in the future.
Is there a hidden advanced search? It would be nice to find images larger than a certain resolution, especially with our high resolution screens and printers these days. It would be nice to have some other options as well.
Other than that, the site is terrific!
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Google sued the other party first, which is an extremely offensive move and again is a specific example that goes against your original statement. Suing to invalidate a patent can be offensive, and this case shows this. Google has shown many times (Java, Android, server technologies, and more) that it does not respect patents or intellectual property. While we may agree that patent reform needs to happen--it hasn't happened yet. The end result is if you have a small technology company and Google uses your patented technology without paying you, you don't even think about trying to contact them, they will put you out of business with a team of lawyers.
And now they're working both sides of the game: they're using their own patent portfolio to sue other companies *and* they're not respecting other people's patents at the same time.
I don't think you understand. Google is playing the patent game here. At the beginning they didn't have the patent portfolio, so instead they had to try to invalidate everyone else's patents--even aggressively, taking the offensive by suing first (as I showed in the first example). Now that they have the portfolio, they can push folks around. Google is just like any other public company, they are beholden to their shareholders and do what is in the best interest of making the most money and protecting their assets. Don't be fooled; there is no higher standard here. Google is even working to get back with increased presence in China, despite being against government censorship. The dollar amount is too large for Google to keep pretending like they live to a higher standard.
And let's get back to the OP's quote that you had an issue with:
The first two examples I gave I think are pretty illustrative of the issue here, and Google is a major player. Patent reform is second only perhaps to gun control and changes to copyright law that need to happen in the US, and given the lack of movement all of these cases I'm not very confident it will happen, unfortunately.
I did read the links. The first was an example of Google taking the offensive in a patent lawsuit (which you said didn't exist). The second was Google using patents to stifle innovation and bring down smaller developers. In each of these examples the smaller companies are getting screwed.
Here's a different example:
http://www.imore.com/google-de...
To quote the article:
Google is just like any other large tech company; they're playing the patent game.
As you said, Google didn't have a large patent war chest until recently. This explains why they couldn't go on the offensive: they would have gotten eaten alive.
Now that they've purchased a patent portfolio, they're like every other company: protect your IP at all costs. Google is no different than Apple, Microsoft, or Samsung. In fact they need to protect their IP or risk losing it.
As for Google never filing a non-defensive patent lawsuit, that's not true. A quick Duck Duck Go search reveals this:
http://www.informationweek.com...
And there are plenty of examples of Google trolling other companies with patents as well:
http://blog.splitwise.com/2013...
Google should stay on the list, for sure.
It seems like a lot of the car manufacturers are having some major software issues. This Range Rover issue certainly isn't the worst one.
For instance, see this blog post (which links to US court testimony documents) where an embedded software expert (Michael Barr) reviews Toyota's code and finds numerous flaws:
http://embeddedgurus.com/barr-...
Did Toyota fix these flaws? Who knows? Toyota still denies that there's even a problem. They released an update to the Prius last year which corrected a problem with premature engine shutdown, but that was only for limited number of Priuses. Accorrding to Michael Barr, these software issues affect Toyota, Lexus (and possibly Scions) made in the last ten years.
The only way in my mind to be pretty sure our cars are safe is for the manufacturers to release their software as open source, where it can be reviewed and any flaws are found. While folks wouldn't be able to find *every* bug, it sure would be a lot better than we have now.