Seriously, though, there is a difference. A soap bubble in the eye will cause no permanent harm, but it will certainly affect your ability to do your job while your eyes tear up. While this doesn't make much difference to a kid playing with soap bubbles, it certainly can affect a police officer's ability to do his job.
Actually, it wasn't necessarily bandwidth that was the problem. FTFA:
T-Mobile network service was temporarily degraded recently when an independent application developer released an Android-based instant messaging application that was designed to refresh its network connection with substantial frequency.
In other words, this app was continually connecting and disconnecting. It didn't really have anything to do with bandwidth.
What's funny to me, though, is the solution:
These signaling problems [...] ended up forcing T-Mobile's UMTS radio vendors to re-evaluate the architecture of their Radio Network Controllers to address this never-before-seen signaling issue. Ultimately, this was solved in the short term by reaching out to the developer directly to work out a means of better coding the application.
So T-Mobile's UMTS radio vendors learned something. The developer learned something. And T-Mobile's network, ideally, won't suffer from this problem again.
Sounds like a win-win to me. I don't see the problem.
Can't find one for my make and model. Again, "little sports car."
I don't like the strap-on ones. I'm not necessarily good with straps. I once had a bikini top almost blow off my Jeep because I did the straps wrong. Besides, I can't even find one of those that will work with my car (no rear bumper).
So I like the convenience of a minivan where I can just bungee the bike to the side of the van and drive off. But I'd rather drive the cute little sports car day-to-day.
It's a trade-off. There are things that can be used in both a good way and a bad way. You look at the benefits, you look at the deficits, and you try to decide whether the benefits out-weigh the deficits.
Personal opinion, I don't have any problem with this App's existence. But I don't see how I would use it, except for entertainment purposes. "Oh, look! There's an airplane up in the sky! I wonder where they're going." It's not like I'm going to stand in my back yard and wave my phone in the air to say, "Oh! There's my roomate's flight! I'd better get to the airport!"
So I don't see much benefit to this App. I certainly wouldn't spend £1.79 for it.
[...] when I do drive, it's generally over 500 miles (my trips have been 700-1500 miles and I do maybe four or so of them per year [...] Even if I do transition to a typical commuter profile, I still am going to be very reluctant to maintain two cars (one for commuting and one for traveling) when all I really need is one car which has typical endurance (300-400 miles between refuel/recharge).
Two words: Rental Car.
You have the electric for most of your driving. When you need a car for some kind of distance, rent one. Especially if you're doing it only four times per year.
I like to do bike rides in my area. I'll rent a minivan for a day once a month, since I have a little sports car that won't fit a bicycle. It costs me around $50. That's cheaper than a car payment on a second car.
I'd like to see it, too, but for different reasons.
The U.S. ventured out to the Moon in the late 1960s. Afterwards, they got hung up in Earth orbit with Skylab and the Space Shuttle, doing scientific experiments and hoping to find something interesting to get private industry involved ("make pure crystals in zero G!"). Generally speaking, private industry didn't care except for some of the medical research. But since the Apollo missions, NASA hasn't done much with the Moon.
Hopefully, someone else will. It's a big hunk of rock orbiting our planet. I imagine that you could build some useful things there. As a U.S. Citizen, I'd rather see the U.S. do it. But if someone else does it, that works, too.
See, as long as NASA keeps putting people into space, you won't see much of a private industry to do the same thing. Now that NASA is getting out the "putting people in low-earth orbit" business, you see plenty of companies popping up who claim they'll be able to do the job. NASA can choose the best and cheapest one for the job.
Personally, I'd give running the US portion of the ISS over to the National Science Foundation and let them decide who to use--like McMurdo. Get NASA completely out of the ISS business and turn it over to scientists, etc. Send up a "station commander" once a year and be done with it.
My brother and I rented COUNTLESS NES and SNES games from our local video store [...]
Years ago, I bought the GameStation software from Connectix. When Sony bought the software out and discontinued it, I was left with a couple of PlayStation games and nothing to play them on. Since this newfangled PS2 thingie was out, I figured I'd check it out.
A trip to my local Blockbuster video allowed me to rent a PlayStation 2 and some of the PlayStation 2 versions of the games that I had. But without the keyboard, I didn't do very well and ended up returning the whole kit-and-kaboodle.
Still, it was nice to be able to try out a PlayStation 2. Does GameStop, etc. let you do that?
The "dot-bomb" fails were a quest for market-share above all else. "If we build it, they will come, and then we'll figure out how to make money." That's why the "???" shows up in that particular business plan meme.
Consider that it takes a big hunk of money to build a cell tower and connect it to the local telephone system. But actual operating costs are pretty low. So most of the money they make selling access is profit. Also, there aren't too many companies competing in these markets, so you can pretty much set prices as you want, based upon local conditions. Obviously, $70-per-month phone plans aren't going to work where the average person makes $700-per-year. But if you can talk 100,000 people into paying $3 per month (or 5% of their monthly income), that's $300,000 per month or $3.6 million per year. Again, with low expenses, that can be mostly profit.
Many companies go into debt in order to build things. The big question is are they making money to pay off that debt? The smaller question, assuming the answer to the previous question is "yes", is how long will it take?
How did we get into the "combined crew & cargo" paradigm?
Well, Apollo used it quite well. Y'know, send the crew up with the LEM, etc. The reason for this was that NASA felt it couldn't successfully validate the two different launch systems (one for the LEM, etc. and one for the crew) in time to meet the "end of the decade" schedule.
In the case of the space shuttle, one reason was that NASA was going to use satellite launches to subsidize the manned space program. We're going to send a rocket into space. If we can get people to pay us to take some satellites with us, we make launches "cheaper" by having them generate revenue which can be used to offset the costs. Way back when, the government was the sole gateway to outer space. But by the time the shuttle came along, this was opening up.
I'm pretty sure AT&T has nothing to say about Apps on the iPhone. However, I'm sure they have given some guidelines, which Apple have dutifully passed along.
2.15: Apps larger than 20MB in size will not download over cellular networks (this is automatically prohibited by the App Store) 9.3: Audio streaming content over a cellular network may not use more than 5MB over 5 minutes 9.4: Video streaming content over a cellular network longer than 10 minutes must use HTTP Live Streaming and include a baseline 64 kbps audio-only HTTP Live stream
NBC / ABC / CBS / FOX are not all developing their own content, they buy that content from a show producer.
Way back when, that was true. Nowadays, not so much.
Remember nowadays the networks are part of conglomerates that own studios. So you find that the majority of shows on ABC, for example, are produced by Disney or that the majority of shows on NBC are produced by Universal. It's one of those funny things--you can see Star Trek:TOS episodes on the CBS website because CBS is owned by Viacom, as is Paramount studios.
Yes, the networks buy their content from the producer. But since the producer and the network are under the same umbrella corporation, the money actually never leaves the corporation. It's just "funny money" shuffled around the corporation.
That said, it is an interesting proposal. One issue, of course, would be promotion. There are indie producers creating shows on the Internet. Of course, there's no promotion so nobody knows anything about them. Gee, if only Apple had some kind of Advertising network as a way to reach a bunch of people...
Actually, from my old Telecom classes, I remember it being 300Hz to 3KHz here in the US. But I may be wrong.
As it was explained, though, essentially most of the "important" information in the delivery of the english language exists in these ranges. So while you may miss the nuances of the woman's voice on the other end, you'll be able to understand what words she is saying. And because they used analog multiplexing back then, the important number was how many calls you could put on a long distance wire.
In Star Wars, Darth Vader uses gesture-based technology to strangle people and make stuff fly around the room. That's much cooler than anything Star Trek could come up with.
First, let me state that, in my opinion, I have no problem using stem cells from abortions or miscarriages. They're only going to be destroyed anyway. You can argue whether we should have abortions, but if we're going to have them, we might as well have some good come out of them. About the only thing I would do is require that the stem cells be donated free of charge in order to remove the belief that someone is making money off of this.
Second, my father passed away about 10 months ago after a couple of years of problems with Alzheimer's. Alzheimer's is a frightening disease to watch and, after seeing what it did to my father, I'm more convinced than ever that, when I reach a certain age, I want to move someplace with poor medical conditions so that I will likely die before I have to suffer such problems.
That said, I'm not sure I like your dismissal of the moral implications because it may happen to you someday. As long as it doesn't happen to you or your loved ones, it's okay to protect the unborn? But if it might affect you personally, "I don't care how many dead babies it takes to find me a cure!" The implication is that others don't matter as long as it helps you. And that leads to lots of dark thoughts...
Again, in this instance, I have no problem with the moral implications of stem cells any more than I have with the use of cadavers for medical training or people donating their organs after they're dead. But don't dismiss the moral implications just because the resolution may have an impact on you.
So how do you know that Apple has negotiated audio rights for their works?
I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.
Seriously, I don't know. It's guesswork. But it's based on Apple's track record.
First, Apple negotiated with the music companies to make sure that their customers could use their music in iMovie and iDVD. Second, Apple negotiated ring-tones with the music industry. Third, Apple encrypted music going to their Airport Express in order to protect the music companies. Fourth, Apple licensed Amazon's "One-Click" patent.
Apple has shown itself more than willing to license and protect the IP of it's Apple Store providers. So it would make sense that Apple would have considered this angle and made certain that, when they negotiated with the rights-holders, they had the right to play audio.
I mean, it makes no sense for the Author's Guild to castigate Amazon yet remain silent in regard to Apple. Since anything Apple immediately hits the airwaves, you would think it would be just the opposite. So if they're staying silent, it probably means that they have an agreement with Apple. It may be an Apple imposed one--"You want to be in the iBook Store, you have to give us audio rights"--but it's an agreement.
Remember the issue with Amazon was that Amazon was creating audio versions of books without having negotiated the right to do so, unlike companies like Audible.com. It wasn't that the Author's Guild was against this kind of software, just that they wanted to be compensated for it. Whether they deserved to be compensated or not is debatable, no doubt. But Apple won't bother with those kinds of arguments--they'll just give them some money no matter how ridiculous it is (see ring tones).
Amazon did not negotiate audio rights for the book when they set up their contracts. They got into trouble because of it and disabled the feature until the could negotiate the audio rights. Apple saw this and, when they negotiated their contracts, made sure that they had the audio rights for all books in the iBook Store.
Apple, as the e-book follower, learned about this problem in advance from Amazon's leadership in the market and had the contracts set up to allow audio. There's no big conspiracy here.
State and local governments in major cities always have their hands in public transportation in one way or another; it's true for bus, light rail, subway, etc.; so what's so special about bikes?
One difference between the two, I suppose, is that bus, light rail, subway, etc. are for efficiently moving a large group of people. You don't see local, state, or federal government in the car rental business or the Segway rental business. Why should they be in the bike rental business?
Slashdot Mirror
Since the launch hasn't happened yet, it is definite "Too Soon."
Don't give them any ideas... :^D
Seriously, though, there is a difference. A soap bubble in the eye will cause no permanent harm, but it will certainly affect your ability to do your job while your eyes tear up. While this doesn't make much difference to a kid playing with soap bubbles, it certainly can affect a police officer's ability to do his job.
Actually, it wasn't necessarily bandwidth that was the problem. FTFA:
T-Mobile network service was temporarily degraded recently when an independent application developer released an Android-based instant messaging application that was designed to refresh its network connection with substantial frequency.
In other words, this app was continually connecting and disconnecting. It didn't really have anything to do with bandwidth.
What's funny to me, though, is the solution:
These signaling problems [...] ended up forcing T-Mobile's UMTS radio vendors to re-evaluate the architecture of their Radio Network Controllers to address this never-before-seen signaling issue. Ultimately, this was solved in the short term by reaching out to the developer directly to work out a means of better coding the application.
So T-Mobile's UMTS radio vendors learned something. The developer learned something. And T-Mobile's network, ideally, won't suffer from this problem again.
Sounds like a win-win to me. I don't see the problem.
I've considered it. My issues:
So I like the convenience of a minivan where I can just bungee the bike to the side of the van and drive off. But I'd rather drive the cute little sports car day-to-day.
Well, not necessarily.
It's a trade-off. There are things that can be used in both a good way and a bad way. You look at the benefits, you look at the deficits, and you try to decide whether the benefits out-weigh the deficits.
Personal opinion, I don't have any problem with this App's existence. But I don't see how I would use it, except for entertainment purposes. "Oh, look! There's an airplane up in the sky! I wonder where they're going." It's not like I'm going to stand in my back yard and wave my phone in the air to say, "Oh! There's my roomate's flight! I'd better get to the airport!"
So I don't see much benefit to this App. I certainly wouldn't spend £1.79 for it.
Sounds good! All you need is for somebody to dig through that permafrost to lay some fiber-optic cables...
After all, a data center needs some way to actually, I don't know, deliver data...
Have you considered the VW Polo?
[...] when I do drive, it's generally over 500 miles (my trips have been 700-1500 miles and I do maybe four or so of them per year [...] Even if I do transition to a typical commuter profile, I still am going to be very reluctant to maintain two cars (one for commuting and one for traveling) when all I really need is one car which has typical endurance (300-400 miles between refuel/recharge).
Two words: Rental Car.
You have the electric for most of your driving. When you need a car for some kind of distance, rent one. Especially if you're doing it only four times per year.
I like to do bike rides in my area. I'll rent a minivan for a day once a month, since I have a little sports car that won't fit a bicycle. It costs me around $50. That's cheaper than a car payment on a second car.
I'd like to see it, too, but for different reasons.
The U.S. ventured out to the Moon in the late 1960s. Afterwards, they got hung up in Earth orbit with Skylab and the Space Shuttle, doing scientific experiments and hoping to find something interesting to get private industry involved ("make pure crystals in zero G!"). Generally speaking, private industry didn't care except for some of the medical research. But since the Apollo missions, NASA hasn't done much with the Moon.
Hopefully, someone else will. It's a big hunk of rock orbiting our planet. I imagine that you could build some useful things there. As a U.S. Citizen, I'd rather see the U.S. do it. But if someone else does it, that works, too.
It's a "chicken-or-egg" problem.
See, as long as NASA keeps putting people into space, you won't see much of a private industry to do the same thing. Now that NASA is getting out the "putting people in low-earth orbit" business, you see plenty of companies popping up who claim they'll be able to do the job. NASA can choose the best and cheapest one for the job.
Personally, I'd give running the US portion of the ISS over to the National Science Foundation and let them decide who to use--like McMurdo. Get NASA completely out of the ISS business and turn it over to scientists, etc. Send up a "station commander" once a year and be done with it.
My brother and I rented COUNTLESS NES and SNES games from our local video store [...]
Years ago, I bought the GameStation software from Connectix. When Sony bought the software out and discontinued it, I was left with a couple of PlayStation games and nothing to play them on. Since this newfangled PS2 thingie was out, I figured I'd check it out.
A trip to my local Blockbuster video allowed me to rent a PlayStation 2 and some of the PlayStation 2 versions of the games that I had. But without the keyboard, I didn't do very well and ended up returning the whole kit-and-kaboodle.
Still, it was nice to be able to try out a PlayStation 2. Does GameStop, etc. let you do that?
The "dot-bomb" fails were a quest for market-share above all else. "If we build it, they will come, and then we'll figure out how to make money." That's why the "???" shows up in that particular business plan meme.
Consider that it takes a big hunk of money to build a cell tower and connect it to the local telephone system. But actual operating costs are pretty low. So most of the money they make selling access is profit. Also, there aren't too many companies competing in these markets, so you can pretty much set prices as you want, based upon local conditions. Obviously, $70-per-month phone plans aren't going to work where the average person makes $700-per-year. But if you can talk 100,000 people into paying $3 per month (or 5% of their monthly income), that's $300,000 per month or $3.6 million per year. Again, with low expenses, that can be mostly profit.
Many companies go into debt in order to build things. The big question is are they making money to pay off that debt? The smaller question, assuming the answer to the previous question is "yes", is how long will it take?
How did we get into the "combined crew & cargo" paradigm?
Well, Apollo used it quite well. Y'know, send the crew up with the LEM, etc. The reason for this was that NASA felt it couldn't successfully validate the two different launch systems (one for the LEM, etc. and one for the crew) in time to meet the "end of the decade" schedule.
In the case of the space shuttle, one reason was that NASA was going to use satellite launches to subsidize the manned space program. We're going to send a rocket into space. If we can get people to pay us to take some satellites with us, we make launches "cheaper" by having them generate revenue which can be used to offset the costs. Way back when, the government was the sole gateway to outer space. But by the time the shuttle came along, this was opening up.
How does she find it?
No one wants their Director-of-100-Million-Dollar-Project walking off one day because the main competitor offered him double to recreate the project.
Then be prepared to make certain that employee has no desire to go work for the main competitor. Isn't that how capitalism is supposed to work?
I'm pretty sure AT&T has nothing to say about Apps on the iPhone. However, I'm sure they have given some guidelines, which Apple have dutifully passed along.
NBC / ABC / CBS / FOX are not all developing their own content, they buy that content from a show producer.
Way back when, that was true. Nowadays, not so much.
Remember nowadays the networks are part of conglomerates that own studios. So you find that the majority of shows on ABC, for example, are produced by Disney or that the majority of shows on NBC are produced by Universal. It's one of those funny things--you can see Star Trek:TOS episodes on the CBS website because CBS is owned by Viacom, as is Paramount studios.
Yes, the networks buy their content from the producer. But since the producer and the network are under the same umbrella corporation, the money actually never leaves the corporation. It's just "funny money" shuffled around the corporation.
That said, it is an interesting proposal. One issue, of course, would be promotion. There are indie producers creating shows on the Internet. Of course, there's no promotion so nobody knows anything about them. Gee, if only Apple had some kind of Advertising network as a way to reach a bunch of people...
Actually, from my old Telecom classes, I remember it being 300Hz to 3KHz here in the US. But I may be wrong.
As it was explained, though, essentially most of the "important" information in the delivery of the english language exists in these ranges. So while you may miss the nuances of the woman's voice on the other end, you'll be able to understand what words she is saying. And because they used analog multiplexing back then, the important number was how many calls you could put on a long distance wire.
In Star Wars, Darth Vader uses gesture-based technology to strangle people and make stuff fly around the room. That's much cooler than anything Star Trek could come up with.
First, let me state that, in my opinion, I have no problem using stem cells from abortions or miscarriages. They're only going to be destroyed anyway. You can argue whether we should have abortions, but if we're going to have them, we might as well have some good come out of them. About the only thing I would do is require that the stem cells be donated free of charge in order to remove the belief that someone is making money off of this.
Second, my father passed away about 10 months ago after a couple of years of problems with Alzheimer's. Alzheimer's is a frightening disease to watch and, after seeing what it did to my father, I'm more convinced than ever that, when I reach a certain age, I want to move someplace with poor medical conditions so that I will likely die before I have to suffer such problems.
That said, I'm not sure I like your dismissal of the moral implications because it may happen to you someday. As long as it doesn't happen to you or your loved ones, it's okay to protect the unborn? But if it might affect you personally, "I don't care how many dead babies it takes to find me a cure!" The implication is that others don't matter as long as it helps you. And that leads to lots of dark thoughts...
Again, in this instance, I have no problem with the moral implications of stem cells any more than I have with the use of cadavers for medical training or people donating their organs after they're dead. But don't dismiss the moral implications just because the resolution may have an impact on you.
So how do you know that Apple has negotiated audio rights for their works?
I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.
Seriously, I don't know. It's guesswork. But it's based on Apple's track record.
First, Apple negotiated with the music companies to make sure that their customers could use their music in iMovie and iDVD. Second, Apple negotiated ring-tones with the music industry. Third, Apple encrypted music going to their Airport Express in order to protect the music companies. Fourth, Apple licensed Amazon's "One-Click" patent.
Apple has shown itself more than willing to license and protect the IP of it's Apple Store providers. So it would make sense that Apple would have considered this angle and made certain that, when they negotiated with the rights-holders, they had the right to play audio.
I mean, it makes no sense for the Author's Guild to castigate Amazon yet remain silent in regard to Apple. Since anything Apple immediately hits the airwaves, you would think it would be just the opposite. So if they're staying silent, it probably means that they have an agreement with Apple. It may be an Apple imposed one--"You want to be in the iBook Store, you have to give us audio rights"--but it's an agreement.
Remember the issue with Amazon was that Amazon was creating audio versions of books without having negotiated the right to do so, unlike companies like Audible.com. It wasn't that the Author's Guild was against this kind of software, just that they wanted to be compensated for it. Whether they deserved to be compensated or not is debatable, no doubt. But Apple won't bother with those kinds of arguments--they'll just give them some money no matter how ridiculous it is (see ring tones).
Amazon did not negotiate audio rights for the book when they set up their contracts. They got into trouble because of it and disabled the feature until the could negotiate the audio rights. Apple saw this and, when they negotiated their contracts, made sure that they had the audio rights for all books in the iBook Store.
Apple, as the e-book follower, learned about this problem in advance from Amazon's leadership in the market and had the contracts set up to allow audio. There's no big conspiracy here.
State and local governments in major cities always have their hands in public transportation in one way or another; it's true for bus, light rail, subway, etc.; so what's so special about bikes?
One difference between the two, I suppose, is that bus, light rail, subway, etc. are for efficiently moving a large group of people. You don't see local, state, or federal government in the car rental business or the Segway rental business. Why should they be in the bike rental business?
Besides, as I understand it, Paris is having some problems with it's bike rental system.
MADD is already trying to get them installed as standard equipment in cars.