Here's to the tinkers. The individuals. The power users. The people that don't readily conform to one generic set standard and would like to personalize their experience outside of just having different apps available. They're not fond of rules and they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify and vilify them. About the only thing you can't do is ignore them because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as crazy, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.
You can walk across a busy highway, and by some miracle escape being hit by a vehicle. That doesn't prove that everyone who told you that you are doing something stupid was wrong.
Fair enough. The question is, how many times do you have to walk across the busy highway and escape being hit by a vehicle in order to prove the person's fears were invalid? 10 times? 100 times? 1000 times?
You're right--she didn't prove him wrong because it is possible that a bad thing could have happened. The issue here is how likely is it that something bad could happen. If I rent my condo 1000 times for $50, I've made $50,000. If I have one bad person who causes $10,000 worth of damage, I'm still ahead. If I have 10 bad people, I've lost money renting my place. The questions is, "How many bad people are out there who are doing this?" Is it a 1% chance? If I rent to 100 people, is it likely that 1 of them will trash the place? Should I charge more with the understanding that, at some point, it's going to happen and I'm going to have to pay to have things fixed?
Bruce Schneier has an interesting article on Worst Case Thinking. While it relates to security, it can also relate to how we look at the world. Is the world full of bad people that we have to defend against and there are only a few good people out there we can trust? Is the world full of good people who we can trust and there are only a few bad people out there that we have to defend against?
I'm not all that impressed with Airbnb. They were originally sympathetic and offered to help. But those offers went away when she posted the blog about what happened and the CEO of the company seemed more concerned about what her blog post might do to the investment money than in helping someone.
If I were Airbnb, I would make sure that this person was happy. That's going to do a hell of a lot more to impress investors than trying to sweep it under the rug and pretend it never happened. Such a thing is a possibility--we can argue about how remote this possibility is, certainly, but is is possible. Airbnb should be doing it's best to protect it's customers from such things happening. Nothing is perfect and there will always be incidents like this one. How Airbnb responds is going to be very important.
I would imagine that it's true--at least as far as any news story is true.
Call me naive, but I tend to doubt the darker conspiracy. You see these sorts of stories from time to time--Parents Sell Children for . Heck, there've been stories of people offering their children for sale on craigslist. People get a laugh/shock out of these stories. They're popular. Thus, when they happen, they get reported.
While I like a good conspiracy as much as the next guy, Occam's Razor applies: Newspapers print these stories because people like to read these stories.
Add to it his co-author, Col. Walter Cunningham (USMCR Ret.), served as the NASA lunar module pilot for Apollo 7.
Ad Hominem attack: Apollo 7 was a test of the Command/Service Module. There was no lunar module on Apollo 7. Which means that Cunningham's job was to sit there and convert oxygen to carbon dioxide in order to test the scrubbers. To use Shuttle terminology, he was a "Payload Specialist."
It's real simple: Get NASA out of low-earth orbit. LOE can be handled quite easily by a large collection of US and foreign countries. Let's get on to the next big thing (IMHO, establishing a permanent and self-sufficient presence on the Moon, but that's another story).
But it could happen! See, you smarty-pants engineers calculate what could happen based on what happens around Arizona in the past, but what happens if the San Andreas fault lets go and most of California sinks into the ocean? Then Arizona ends up right next to the coast and could be affected by hurricanes! What then, Mr. Smarty Pants?!
(The above is sarcasm, by the way)
Seriously, though, I assume the GP meant "tornado" as hurricanes tend not to "land," though they do make land-fall. Tornados "touch down" which is somewhat similar to landing. Of course, the answer is that you reinforce and weigh down the tube so that the tornado won't pick it up, carry it hundreds of miles, and drop it on a church.
I'm not entirely sure. I can't find it, alas, but I remember that there was one of those "OMG! People Can Track You!" articles that mentioned that the iPhone and Nike+ used ANT, according to researchers. There's also been plenty of talk about it online. Of course, Apple does not publish the APIs so that you can actually access it.
Neat idea! Unfortunately, we're talking a 22,000 mile orbit--I think the highest the Shuttle has gone is 400 miles.
Also, this satellite wasn't designed to be serviced in orbit, so there's nothing for a Shuttle arm to grab onto so that they could fix the problem, refuel it, and send it on it's way.
Don't be too sure. Way back when--and I think it's still true--Apple used an "agency" model. The difference is somewhat subtle.
As an Apple reseller, you are an agent of Apple. What this means is that you sell stuff for Apple. Apple gets the money from the sale when you sell it. You may have 50 iPads sitting in your warehouse, but those are Apple's iPads. They are not your iPads. This is in contrast to the retail model where you, say, Samsung a wholesale price and then add whatever mark-up the market will bear. So those 50 Samsung tablets sitting in your warehouse are your tablets--bought and paid for and you're responsible for moving them.
That said, some wholesale agreements have a "saleability" clause where if you can't sell it, the vendor will buy it back. Vendors will also do "channel stuffing" where they knowingly ship too much inventory in order to make their sales numbers look good. Later on, when they have to take these things back, they take the hit but by then the salesman has already made his commission or the company has gotten the appropriate good press.
So, yes, Tablet makers may be stuffing the channel in order to get the good press. If I say that I sold 1 million tablets (to the channel, not to customers) it's good news. Investors are happy, the press has a story about "Samsung selling tons of tablets" which may get actual customers into those stores ("Hey, if Samsung sold 1 million tablets, they must be good.") to help move the glut.
Bluetooth 4.0 competes with ANT. One reason Apple wants this is the Nike+ device communicates with the iPhone/iPod via ANT. That means, in the iPhone and iPod touch at least, yet another radio stuck in the device. If Apple can run it through Bluetooth 4.0 and get the same battery life, they can drop the ANT stuff.
That does by no means mean that it will be a success, neither does it mean that manufacturers will instantly jump the bandwagon.
Well, Apple does have some leverage over device makers--namely the vaunted "Made for iPhone" program.
If you want that logo, you have to follow Apple's rules. If Apple says, "You want the logo, you have to support Bluetooth 4.0," you'll need to support Apple's rules. If you don't have the logo, your iPhone gives you snarky messages when you attach the device.
I'd also point out that, after the Apollo 1 accident, the manned phase of the Apollo missions was delayed for 20 months--close to 2 years. And that was during the supposed "guts & glory" phase of the American program.
Three data centers is not enough to give each of the branches of the military its own dedicated data center for operations. There are five (technically) branches: Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard.
Which, of course, brings up another question: Why do we need five branches?
Start with the obvious one: Why do we have the Marines and the Army? Isn't the job of both of them to run around and shoot people? Should it makes a difference that one rides a boat to get there and another one rides in a tank or Armored Personnel Carrier?
The Coast Guard is a bit different--they're actually part of DOT and they have non-military functions like rescuing people and inspecting ships.
But I think the concept is more that it might be cheaper to have three big data centers. Is there a reason that each military branch needs their own data center versus sharing with the other branches and saving money?
It went up with just 4 astronauts, surely a soyuz capsule can bring them back.
It'd have to be organized a bit better. A Soyuz can only carry three astronauts.
Let's just leave the shuttle there as a large-scale escape pod and science area. Why not do that with all the shuttles?
First, ISS may not have the capability to supply oxygen to that much space. Second, if you've seen the Shuttle docked with ISS, it takes up a lot of room. Third, if the Shuttle is docked, that's one less docking port you have for a Soyuz Capsule.
It's a cool idea, don't get me wrong. But I don't think it's worth spending the money on the Shuttle to turn it into a space station component.
My attitude, it's time for NASA to get out of LEO. Personally, I think it'd be interesting to get NASA out of ISS and have it run by NSF maybe.
Personally, I think he broke the law. While he can argue that he "received permission to take pictures," how he was taking the pictures was not fully disclosed and I think that's what is ultimately his downfall.
However, he didn't really do it someplace where there was an expectation of privacy (like a bathroom or changing room) and there was no malicious intent. Personally, if I was in the jury box, I'd let him off.
Slashdot Mirror
According to the article, it went back to the usual two or three per day.
Police raided his apartment after he had contacted the Swedish Radiation Authority to inquire if it was legal to construct a nuclear reactor at home.
I'd take that as a "No."
How about Eskimos & Leprechauns?
Here's to the tinkers. The individuals. The power users. The people that don't readily conform to one generic set standard and would like to personalize their experience outside of just having different apps available. They're not fond of rules and they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify and vilify them. About the only thing you can't do is ignore them because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as crazy, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
[...] the fact is that the iPad is outselling all Android tablets by a very wide margin [...]
Yeah. And Mac OS X is not a strong contender, either. There's no way it can succeed--Windows outsells it 10:1. Windows must be better than Mac OS X.
Or, to put it another way, EAT SHIT: 10,000,0000 flies can't be wrong.
You can walk across a busy highway, and by some miracle escape being hit by a vehicle. That doesn't prove that everyone who told you that you are doing something stupid was wrong.
Fair enough. The question is, how many times do you have to walk across the busy highway and escape being hit by a vehicle in order to prove the person's fears were invalid? 10 times? 100 times? 1000 times?
You're right--she didn't prove him wrong because it is possible that a bad thing could have happened. The issue here is how likely is it that something bad could happen. If I rent my condo 1000 times for $50, I've made $50,000. If I have one bad person who causes $10,000 worth of damage, I'm still ahead. If I have 10 bad people, I've lost money renting my place. The questions is, "How many bad people are out there who are doing this?" Is it a 1% chance? If I rent to 100 people, is it likely that 1 of them will trash the place? Should I charge more with the understanding that, at some point, it's going to happen and I'm going to have to pay to have things fixed?
Bruce Schneier has an interesting article on Worst Case Thinking. While it relates to security, it can also relate to how we look at the world. Is the world full of bad people that we have to defend against and there are only a few good people out there we can trust? Is the world full of good people who we can trust and there are only a few bad people out there that we have to defend against?
I'm not all that impressed with Airbnb. They were originally sympathetic and offered to help. But those offers went away when she posted the blog about what happened and the CEO of the company seemed more concerned about what her blog post might do to the investment money than in helping someone.
If I were Airbnb, I would make sure that this person was happy. That's going to do a hell of a lot more to impress investors than trying to sweep it under the rug and pretend it never happened. Such a thing is a possibility--we can argue about how remote this possibility is, certainly, but is is possible. Airbnb should be doing it's best to protect it's customers from such things happening. Nothing is perfect and there will always be incidents like this one. How Airbnb responds is going to be very important.
I would imagine that it's true--at least as far as any news story is true.
Call me naive, but I tend to doubt the darker conspiracy. You see these sorts of stories from time to time--Parents Sell Children for . Heck, there've been stories of people offering their children for sale on craigslist. People get a laugh/shock out of these stories. They're popular. Thus, when they happen, they get reported.
While I like a good conspiracy as much as the next guy, Occam's Razor applies: Newspapers print these stories because people like to read these stories.
Add to it his co-author, Col. Walter Cunningham (USMCR Ret.), served as the NASA lunar module pilot for Apollo 7.
Ad Hominem attack: Apollo 7 was a test of the Command/Service Module. There was no lunar module on Apollo 7. Which means that Cunningham's job was to sit there and convert oxygen to carbon dioxide in order to test the scrubbers. To use Shuttle terminology, he was a "Payload Specialist."
It's real simple: Get NASA out of low-earth orbit. LOE can be handled quite easily by a large collection of US and foreign countries. Let's get on to the next big thing (IMHO, establishing a permanent and self-sufficient presence on the Moon, but that's another story).
But it could happen! See, you smarty-pants engineers calculate what could happen based on what happens around Arizona in the past, but what happens if the San Andreas fault lets go and most of California sinks into the ocean? Then Arizona ends up right next to the coast and could be affected by hurricanes! What then, Mr. Smarty Pants?!
(The above is sarcasm, by the way)
Seriously, though, I assume the GP meant "tornado" as hurricanes tend not to "land," though they do make land-fall. Tornados "touch down" which is somewhat similar to landing. Of course, the answer is that you reinforce and weigh down the tube so that the tornado won't pick it up, carry it hundreds of miles, and drop it on a church.
That's a pretty small SUV.
C'mon, NASA! Put a Humvee on Mars!
I'm not entirely sure. I can't find it, alas, but I remember that there was one of those "OMG! People Can Track You!" articles that mentioned that the iPhone and Nike+ used ANT, according to researchers. There's also been plenty of talk about it online. Of course, Apple does not publish the APIs so that you can actually access it.
Neat idea! Unfortunately, we're talking a 22,000 mile orbit--I think the highest the Shuttle has gone is 400 miles.
Also, this satellite wasn't designed to be serviced in orbit, so there's nothing for a Shuttle arm to grab onto so that they could fix the problem, refuel it, and send it on it's way.
Still, it's a neat idea. Pity it won't work.
Don't be too sure. Way back when--and I think it's still true--Apple used an "agency" model. The difference is somewhat subtle.
As an Apple reseller, you are an agent of Apple. What this means is that you sell stuff for Apple. Apple gets the money from the sale when you sell it. You may have 50 iPads sitting in your warehouse, but those are Apple's iPads. They are not your iPads. This is in contrast to the retail model where you, say, Samsung a wholesale price and then add whatever mark-up the market will bear. So those 50 Samsung tablets sitting in your warehouse are your tablets--bought and paid for and you're responsible for moving them.
That said, some wholesale agreements have a "saleability" clause where if you can't sell it, the vendor will buy it back. Vendors will also do "channel stuffing" where they knowingly ship too much inventory in order to make their sales numbers look good. Later on, when they have to take these things back, they take the hit but by then the salesman has already made his commission or the company has gotten the appropriate good press.
So, yes, Tablet makers may be stuffing the channel in order to get the good press. If I say that I sold 1 million tablets (to the channel, not to customers) it's good news. Investors are happy, the press has a story about "Samsung selling tons of tablets" which may get actual customers into those stores ("Hey, if Samsung sold 1 million tablets, they must be good.") to help move the glut.
I could maybe see it in the MacBook Air, but you're right about the Mac mini...
Bluetooth 4.0 competes with ANT. One reason Apple wants this is the Nike+ device communicates with the iPhone/iPod via ANT. That means, in the iPhone and iPod touch at least, yet another radio stuck in the device. If Apple can run it through Bluetooth 4.0 and get the same battery life, they can drop the ANT stuff.
That does by no means mean that it will be a success, neither does it mean that manufacturers will instantly jump the bandwagon.
Well, Apple does have some leverage over device makers--namely the vaunted "Made for iPhone" program.
If you want that logo, you have to follow Apple's rules. If Apple says, "You want the logo, you have to support Bluetooth 4.0," you'll need to support Apple's rules. If you don't have the logo, your iPhone gives you snarky messages when you attach the device.
I'd also point out that, after the Apollo 1 accident, the manned phase of the Apollo missions was delayed for 20 months--close to 2 years. And that was during the supposed "guts & glory" phase of the American program.
Whoops. You're a generation off.
The iPhone 3G had some problems running iOS 4.0 (4.1 supposedly helped considerably). The 3GS runs iOS 4.x just fine--I have one and it works fine.
Three data centers is not enough to give each of the branches of the military its own dedicated data center for operations. There are five (technically) branches: Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard.
Which, of course, brings up another question: Why do we need five branches?
Start with the obvious one: Why do we have the Marines and the Army? Isn't the job of both of them to run around and shoot people? Should it makes a difference that one rides a boat to get there and another one rides in a tank or Armored Personnel Carrier?
The Coast Guard is a bit different--they're actually part of DOT and they have non-military functions like rescuing people and inspecting ships.
But I think the concept is more that it might be cheaper to have three big data centers. Is there a reason that each military branch needs their own data center versus sharing with the other branches and saving money?
Yeah, and the Newton was doing auto phone number recognition before that.
See? It's a good thing Apple didn't spin off Newton...
I remember that incident as well. But there is that issue of the fifth MiG...
You say this like it's a bad thing.
To Red Wine! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems!
It went up with just 4 astronauts, surely a soyuz capsule can bring them back.
It'd have to be organized a bit better. A Soyuz can only carry three astronauts.
Let's just leave the shuttle there as a large-scale escape pod and science area. Why not do that with all the shuttles?
First, ISS may not have the capability to supply oxygen to that much space. Second, if you've seen the Shuttle docked with ISS, it takes up a lot of room. Third, if the Shuttle is docked, that's one less docking port you have for a Soyuz Capsule.
It's a cool idea, don't get me wrong. But I don't think it's worth spending the money on the Shuttle to turn it into a space station component.
My attitude, it's time for NASA to get out of LEO. Personally, I think it'd be interesting to get NASA out of ISS and have it run by NSF maybe.
I would hope he doesn't go to jail.
Personally, I think he broke the law. While he can argue that he "received permission to take pictures," how he was taking the pictures was not fully disclosed and I think that's what is ultimately his downfall.
However, he didn't really do it someplace where there was an expectation of privacy (like a bathroom or changing room) and there was no malicious intent. Personally, if I was in the jury box, I'd let him off.