While this certainly looks like a noble clause I think if you look through history you will find many instances of wars starting by this very same reasoning. One nation (or one ruler if you really go back) assumes that 'something' rightfully belongs to them and then proceed to attempt to claim it back. I'm sure you could name at least a couple conflicts going on right now which could fall under that category. In some cases you could say that was just an excuse for expanding territory, in others you could said they honestly did believe that they though something of theirs was taken. It's only something a 3rd party observer could judge.
It's good to see somebody address the economics point of view - it's all too often we look at things we own as free simply because we paid for them in the past.
One point though, is that those costs and all that equipment has multiple purposes. For instance you need to factor out watching TV or playing video games or listening to music on the sound system. These are all benefits you get from your equipment that you could not from watching a movie in a theatre. How big a factor that is can vary greatly from person to person so those costs and benefits end up becoming very personal.
I think there are two main reasons: a part of it is just a fan-following for the director/actor(s) involved in the project. So the movie's release becomes an event since you've been anxious to see their next work. The other part of it is that movies are a social experience. If people are talking about a movie, referring to it then it's mostly only topical during when the movie comes out. Nobody's going to want to discuss the ending to the 6th Sense with you when it comes out on dvd 6 months later, but it was on the tip of everyone's tounge when it first came out.
Well computational power is hardily the limiting factor - its just that we face the exact same problem we did decades ago: we use lots and lots of expensive fuel to lift very heavy objects very high up in the sky. The problem is, and always has been, that the 'overhead' (fuel, delivery system, safety, repairs, etc) for doing anything worthwhile in space is extremly high.
Faster computers help you analyze data better, but they're not of that much use when it comes to finding a better solution to get to the data in the first place.
Interestingly enough, the best (or at least most efficient) solution we have created for space travel - nuclear propolution, most commonly represented in the Orion project - was done in a large part on pen, paper and calculators.
I am glad I am not the only one who spotted this. I am all for going to the moon and mars, but as soon as countries start claiming other planets and moons as theirs, it is going to be a huge mess. Imagine both China and the U.S trying to claim the moon. Bleah!
Sounds to me like the perfect setup for some competition - and competition would lead to faster progress. If US and China were both trying to claim the moon, then that would most likely mean there is something of value to claim. Or at least it would mean that they have the foresight to realize that the moon could be of worthwhile value in the future and it's better that have it claimed than someone else.
You're right though that if other countries arbitrarily start claiming planets and moons as their own, it'd just be a tax-wasting political mess. But if these claims are backed by actually getting there and making somehow using the moon for gain, then it'd be an interesting and worthwhile competition.
Unless, of course, Apple themselves create a cell-phone/ipod hybrid. Technologically and from a business point of view this would be quite a bit of a shift from Apple's currently strategy but if they could pull it off it would be very interesting. A lot of people complain about usability with phones (button sizes, menus, etc) - Apple could address these issues very well. They could even get a another party on board to integrate a camera if they saw that as necessary.
It'd be a risky move, but if Bill's prediction is right it might be worth a shot.
The display appears to promise lower costs for a full 40" HDTV screen bringing the price down to $400 for the manufacturer.
As a few other have hinted at, the original statement is highly misleading. Yes, the cost of the actual parts is a factor in determining the price of a product - but it's only one of many. It's effect on the price is also inversely proportional to how much the item is a 'luxury' item or a 'necessary item.'
So need to worry if you just spent $5k on a plasma which cost the manufacturer $3k to produce. Because if it cost them only $400 to produce it, they would still have charged you $5k...and rightfully so as you were willing to pay that amount in the first place.
So this is definitely exciting news for TV manufacturers as it will serve nicely to increase the profit margin. When will we benefit? When nobody wants to pay as much for a plasma anymore - and, more importantly, doesn't.
[More Realistic Angle]
Nikon wants to sell more copies of its Nikon Capture software, which is a superior RAW converter, hands down. $100 for a copy of NC is penuts to a pro, and the savings in their time will be significant.
For a pro, this is a true. They will investigate the best RAW converters available (including Adobe, Nikon Capture, C1, Bibble, etc.) and choose the best one. This decision will be almost regardless of cost as it's such as integral part of the workflow that it would be rather silly to cheap out on the raw converter for a pro. So for this reason i find it hard to buy the 'nikon-friendly angle'
However, nikon has cameras aimed at the lower end of the market as well (the D70 for now, with more planned in the near future.) Most of the people buying these aren't pros. They also don't need the best or most efficient workflow - they're not selling prints to clients and trying to make a living from it. This is market Nikon probably wants to make sure buys *their* RAW converters and not the other guy's.
While this discussion might be interesting for discussion's sake, the whole debate is rather moot.
First of all, adblocking will be (if it isn't already) factored into the equation for advertiser. That is, if they used to pay 10c a hit before adblocking, but new statistics reveal that 20% of viewer use adblock they will simply lower the payout to 8c (pulling these numbers of out thin air, btw.) Surely TV advertisers take this into acount already. The know that just because they showed an ad during a show with 30mil viewers doesn't mean 30mil saw the ad. Prices are adjusted accordingly: people go to the washroom, get food, flip channels, etc. It's not as we are all clever geniuses in defying the advertisers - it's just that these factors are taken into account in the grad scheme of things.
I think the more important point is what is the long term effect of everybody blocking ads? Well either the site owner will decided to maintain the site for free (ie. out of their own pocket) or they'll charge you for the site or the site will simply close down. I guess it's a personal preference deciding if those alternatives are better or worse than seeing ads; and it's those inevitable consequences which should define if adlbocking is 'right' or 'wrong' (whatever that may mean.)
What's the big deal? People are important, companies are just a way to organize them. If bad management takes over Pixar, the creative people will just move elsewhere.
But a certain organization of people, just the right mix of certain skills, personalities and experiences is what is able to create something truly unique.
Pardon the cliche, but a good company really is more than the sum of its parts (and i suppose the inverse would hold true for a really bad company.) I really don't believe there is a shortage of brilliant people in the world, it's just that getting the right mix of them to produce something unique and creative is surprisingly bloody hard.
This is esspecially true in a creative field; you can't just expect to sick a bunch of highly skilled people together and expect another Pixar to happen.
I hear their comment line/code line ratio is about 7 to 1.
If this number is correct, most likely the "7" refers to all the documentation behind the code. Requirements, design, review comments, testing, actual comments etc. So i wouldn't be at all surprised to hear a 7:1 documentation to code ratio. But a 7:1 comments ratio just for comments in the actual code seems highly unlikely; it would make the code almost unreadable. Imagine trying to read a story when between every sentence there are a few pages of pictures.
(1) ISS is not equipped to "park" a trailer sized telescope,
Actually, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadarm2 canadarm2 is capable of handling payload of 116,000 kg (not coincidentally, the approx weight of a space shuttle.) HST only weighs 11,000 kg, so grabbing it with the ISS wouldn't be out of the question at all.
Exactly, good profs and good schools award going the extra mile. I did bonus for a few large projects (simply because i, and my partner(s), was really into the project) and we got a few marks of over 100% for that project. Whether they really entered 100% into the system or if it actually couldn't toward my final mark is really insignificant - it shows that they appreciated, recognized and awarded the extra effort.
Slashdot Mirror
While this certainly looks like a noble clause I think if you look through history you will find many instances of wars starting by this very same reasoning. One nation (or one ruler if you really go back) assumes that 'something' rightfully belongs to them and then proceed to attempt to claim it back. I'm sure you could name at least a couple conflicts going on right now which could fall under that category. In some cases you could say that was just an excuse for expanding territory, in others you could said they honestly did believe that they though something of theirs was taken. It's only something a 3rd party observer could judge.
Unless, of course, the satellite is capable of shooting down the oncoming ship.
One point though, is that those costs and all that equipment has multiple purposes. For instance you need to factor out watching TV or playing video games or listening to music on the sound system. These are all benefits you get from your equipment that you could not from watching a movie in a theatre. How big a factor that is can vary greatly from person to person so those costs and benefits end up becoming very personal.
I think there are two main reasons: a part of it is just a fan-following for the director/actor(s) involved in the project. So the movie's release becomes an event since you've been anxious to see their next work. The other part of it is that movies are a social experience. If people are talking about a movie, referring to it then it's mostly only topical during when the movie comes out. Nobody's going to want to discuss the ending to the 6th Sense with you when it comes out on dvd 6 months later, but it was on the tip of everyone's tounge when it first came out.
What's the formula for coming up with the values for the variables that fill in this formula?
I expect to see it in shelves by the end of the month
Remember, you heard it from here first.
Faster computers help you analyze data better, but they're not of that much use when it comes to finding a better solution to get to the data in the first place.
Interestingly enough, the best (or at least most efficient) solution we have created for space travel - nuclear propolution, most commonly represented in the Orion project - was done in a large part on pen, paper and calculators.
Sounds to me like the perfect setup for some competition - and competition would lead to faster progress. If US and China were both trying to claim the moon, then that would most likely mean there is something of value to claim. Or at least it would mean that they have the foresight to realize that the moon could be of worthwhile value in the future and it's better that have it claimed than someone else.
You're right though that if other countries arbitrarily start claiming planets and moons as their own, it'd just be a tax-wasting political mess. But if these claims are backed by actually getting there and making somehow using the moon for gain, then it'd be an interesting and worthwhile competition.
It'd be a risky move, but if Bill's prediction is right it might be worth a shot.
As a few other have hinted at, the original statement is highly misleading. Yes, the cost of the actual parts is a factor in determining the price of a product - but it's only one of many. It's effect on the price is also inversely proportional to how much the item is a 'luxury' item or a 'necessary item.'
So need to worry if you just spent $5k on a plasma which cost the manufacturer $3k to produce. Because if it cost them only $400 to produce it, they would still have charged you $5k...and rightfully so as you were willing to pay that amount in the first place.
So this is definitely exciting news for TV manufacturers as it will serve nicely to increase the profit margin. When will we benefit? When nobody wants to pay as much for a plasma anymore - and, more importantly, doesn't.
For a pro, this is a true. They will investigate the best RAW converters available (including Adobe, Nikon Capture, C1, Bibble, etc.) and choose the best one. This decision will be almost regardless of cost as it's such as integral part of the workflow that it would be rather silly to cheap out on the raw converter for a pro. So for this reason i find it hard to buy the 'nikon-friendly angle'
However, nikon has cameras aimed at the lower end of the market as well (the D70 for now, with more planned in the near future.) Most of the people buying these aren't pros. They also don't need the best or most efficient workflow - they're not selling prints to clients and trying to make a living from it. This is market Nikon probably wants to make sure buys *their* RAW converters and not the other guy's.
First of all, adblocking will be (if it isn't already) factored into the equation for advertiser. That is, if they used to pay 10c a hit before adblocking, but new statistics reveal that 20% of viewer use adblock they will simply lower the payout to 8c (pulling these numbers of out thin air, btw.) Surely TV advertisers take this into acount already. The know that just because they showed an ad during a show with 30mil viewers doesn't mean 30mil saw the ad. Prices are adjusted accordingly: people go to the washroom, get food, flip channels, etc. It's not as we are all clever geniuses in defying the advertisers - it's just that these factors are taken into account in the grad scheme of things.
I think the more important point is what is the long term effect of everybody blocking ads? Well either the site owner will decided to maintain the site for free (ie. out of their own pocket) or they'll charge you for the site or the site will simply close down. I guess it's a personal preference deciding if those alternatives are better or worse than seeing ads; and it's those inevitable consequences which should define if adlbocking is 'right' or 'wrong' (whatever that may mean.)
But a certain organization of people, just the right mix of certain skills, personalities and experiences is what is able to create something truly unique.
Pardon the cliche, but a good company really is more than the sum of its parts (and i suppose the inverse would hold true for a really bad company.) I really don't believe there is a shortage of brilliant people in the world, it's just that getting the right mix of them to produce something unique and creative is surprisingly bloody hard.
This is esspecially true in a creative field; you can't just expect to sick a bunch of highly skilled people together and expect another Pixar to happen.
If this number is correct, most likely the "7" refers to all the documentation behind the code. Requirements, design, review comments, testing, actual comments etc. So i wouldn't be at all surprised to hear a 7:1 documentation to code ratio. But a 7:1 comments ratio just for comments in the actual code seems highly unlikely; it would make the code almost unreadable. Imagine trying to read a story when between every sentence there are a few pages of pictures.
Actually, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadarm2 canadarm2 is capable of handling payload of 116,000 kg (not coincidentally, the approx weight of a space shuttle.) HST only weighs 11,000 kg, so grabbing it with the ISS wouldn't be out of the question at all.
Exactly, good profs and good schools award going the extra mile. I did bonus for a few large projects (simply because i, and my partner(s), was really into the project) and we got a few marks of over 100% for that project. Whether they really entered 100% into the system or if it actually couldn't toward my final mark is really insignificant - it shows that they appreciated, recognized and awarded the extra effort.