Just as Microsoft drifts along in a sort of commercial terminal velocity, so too will Apple.
I remember reading somewhere that, during Microsoft's heyday and with the cash that they had, they could pretty much not sell anything (i.e., $0 in revenue) and still go on for about 30 years before they ran out of money.
Yea sorry but the people buying Mac Minis to be webservers aren't a big market.
Agreed. But here's the question: What benefit do I--as a customer--get from the changes Apple made?
Were there customers who were eschewing the Mac mini because, dag nabbit, it was just too big and powerful? Were there people not buying Mac minis because they just had too many USB ports?
Apple benefits from things like soldered RAM--it cuts manufacturing costs. But when they sell the box at the same price and improve their margin, the customer doesn't benefit.
I was just going to say that we, here in LA, were going to try this on the 405, but it's always covered with cars.
Seriously, I would imagine that this wouldn't make sense for a high-traffic freeway. But I could see it, maybe, making some sense in a rural area where people are put off by "ugly" solar collectors. Place it in the road--it may not be as efficient but it may be efficient enough to power the houses along the side of the road in a rural area.
I have to admit, I don't use it either, so I'm a bit lost as well.
I assume, rashly, the communications can either be secure or insecure, which is why you need an indicator. Fair enough. If I care, I will be very happy with the indicator. If I don't care, I will ignore the indicator. So why have a switch to turn the indicator on or off?
At the last investor call, Tim was talking up Apple's services. With iPhone sales slowing, Apple has to do something to take advantage of their installed base.
Wait a few months and they'll be rethinking their attitudes on advertising...
For purely CG stuff (e.g. Pixar), I'll pay for the 3D. It definitely adds something intangible to my viewing experience. Can't speak for everyone else, of course. I enjoyed Avatar, which was filmed in 3D.
But "post-processed 3D"? Not worth it.
I ended up seeing "Guardians of the Galaxy" in 3D. The problem that I had was that all the human characters looked flat--like a picture painted on cardboard--whereas all the CG stuff was beautifully rendered. It was particularly bad in GotG because you had a couple of CG characters who looked great but then you put them next to the human characters and it just enhances the flatness.
One other issue is if you can do anything digitally, you end up with an unrealistic story because anything can be done.
Years ago there was an action movie called "The Transporter." Great action movie with lots of great stunts. Did pretty well at the box office, I guess, because they did a not-so-great sequel, "Transporter 2."
At one point, the bad guys have placed a bomb underneath our hero's car. So our hero drives along until he finds a convenient spot with an appropriate ramp and a crane, drives the car up the ramp and into the air, flipping the car upside down and catching the bomb with the crane. Of course, he continues the flip and lands on two wheels and continues driving while the bad guy ends up blowing up the crane but thinks he blew up the good guy.
Pretty ridiculous, but quite easily done with CGI. So nobody asked, "should we do this pretty ridiculous thing?"
Yeah, 20 years ago, Microsoft is the only one of those that would have made such a list. AOL, IBM, Yahoo, and Netscape probably would have rounded out a 'top 5' list in that timeline[...]
Wow, I feel old. I remember when Ashton-Tate (dBase), Satellite Software (WordPerfect), and Lotus Corporation (Lotus 1-2-3) were unassailable.
I think the argument is that lots of research is going into supporting this fragile biology and yet comparatively little is going into transferring consciousness into computers. So rather than devoting the resources to figure out how to keep people alive in a hostile environment, perhaps we should devote those resources into figuring out how to make a "person" that can survive in the hostile environment.
The reason, as you state, is that we know more about our fragile biology than we know about that thing called "consciousness."
Someone has to go through every second of video [...]
Yes. All 684,000 of them. And for what purpose?
Look, I'm all for body cameras. I'm all for freedom of the press. But 190 hours? For what purpose? Basically, so some reporter can look at all of it and decide whether or not an officer behaved in a way that a reporter might think would make a good story.
No, I'm sorry. If I'm a defendant and I need that video for my defense, there shouldn't be a charge. But I can't imagine there's a particular "story" involved when they need 190 hours of police video. It's a fishing expedition. And my tax dollars shouldn't be paying for it.
We have that here in the US. Heck, I live right near Little Saigon.
Guess what? Moving someplace with a weird language and weird customs and weird food can be tough. My roommate's family came over from Vietnam in the 1990s. Their english language skills weren't great and Little Saigon offered them places to go and things to do which were comfortable. While they have assimilated to a degree, they still tend to go to Little Saigon for restaurants (though they'll shop elsewhere for other things).
Their kids, on the other hand? For the most part, they're "assimilated." They speak english, enjoy "American" food, enjoy the culture, and barely speak the native language.
So, yes, these "immigrant" neighborhoods will grow because there are more immigrants coming in who need that support. Those immigrants will meet people, fall in love, have kids, and those kids will have more experience with the native culture than that of their parents. Give it a generation or two.
Let's get the most science for the dollar, which is not done by "flags and footprints". It's done by continuing to push the envelope of robotic exploration.
That is an interesting assumption. Do probes actually give us more "science" for the dollar?
Did we learn more about the Moon from the Apollo missions than the Soviet Union learned from all of their Luna missions? I'd argue that we learned more than they did. But it cost us more money. Unfortunately, there isn't really a good way to know the actual cost of the Luna missions (socialist governments and all) so it's tough to compare the cost/knowledge.
In reality, sending human beings is the best option. Humans can solve problems and have greater capabilities than probes. But human are really expensive to send because of all the reasons that you give. While you may get more "science" from the larger amount of money and the ratios might be better than sending probes, it's still a large amount of money to spend over a fairly long time. That can be tricky to arrange in any political climate.
Probes, to me, are the next best thing. They're more limited, but they are much cheaper. So rather than spending a billion dollars to send scientists to Mars to learn as much as possible, I can spend 1 million to send a probe to Mars to look for evidence of water (as an aside, how many probes did we send to Mars to find evidence of water?) and spend another million to send a probe to Mars to sample the air and so on. Spread that out over 40 some-odd years and it's not quite so painful to the pocket book than putting everything into one mission.
Falcon Heavy will probably be launching manned missions before the Senate Launch System ever launches humans in non-test missions.
This is an interesting issue in regards to NASA--what should they be doing about rockets?
One the one hand, NASA does research and they should be looking at rocket technology as a benefit to the space community. Look at the Shuttle Engines: they are beasts. They burn hydrogen, not some hydrocarbon. The SLS will use 6 engines to lift a little more than the same amount of cargo as the Falcon Heavy's 18 engines. And NASA is looking at ways to improve that further. This sort of research is a good thing. And while research is a wonderful thing, shouldn't we take advantage of this research and build systems to use it?
On the other hand, does NASA really need it's own rocket to do it's missions? The rocket business, now-a-days, is such that NASA can get the same capabilities for significantly less from private industry. It's not like SLS will necessarily do something that Falcon/Falcon Heavy can't, at least in regards to lifting payloads into whatever orbit you might want. And should the government even be in the rocket business at this point? Yeah, there was a time when it was necessary, but is it still necessary today? Hell, the Space Shuttle put a serious crimp in the US rocket business when it first came out, because they could underbid everyone else. NASA was going into orbit with the Shuttle anyway, so they could give space away at a loss because it lowered the cost of flying the Shuttle.
I'm sure the victims would feel a ton better with random people taking pictures and spreading them instead of a news channel or newspaper.
Well, as I understand it, the newspapers/news channels tend to wait until the police/public officials notify the family before broadcasting the name of the person.
This enters an interesting realm. Consider facial recognition or the like and the ability to be notified when pictures of you or your loved ones are posted on a social network.
Slashdot Mirror
Just as Microsoft drifts along in a sort of commercial terminal velocity, so too will Apple.
I remember reading somewhere that, during Microsoft's heyday and with the cash that they had, they could pretty much not sell anything (i.e., $0 in revenue) and still go on for about 30 years before they ran out of money.
Yea sorry but the people buying Mac Minis to be webservers aren't a big market.
Agreed. But here's the question: What benefit do I--as a customer--get from the changes Apple made?
Were there customers who were eschewing the Mac mini because, dag nabbit, it was just too big and powerful? Were there people not buying Mac minis because they just had too many USB ports?
Apple benefits from things like soldered RAM--it cuts manufacturing costs. But when they sell the box at the same price and improve their margin, the customer doesn't benefit.
I was just going to say that we, here in LA, were going to try this on the 405, but it's always covered with cars.
Seriously, I would imagine that this wouldn't make sense for a high-traffic freeway. But I could see it, maybe, making some sense in a rural area where people are put off by "ugly" solar collectors. Place it in the road--it may not be as efficient but it may be efficient enough to power the houses along the side of the road in a rural area.
I have to admit, I don't use it either, so I'm a bit lost as well.
I assume, rashly, the communications can either be secure or insecure, which is why you need an indicator. Fair enough. If I care, I will be very happy with the indicator. If I don't care, I will ignore the indicator. So why have a switch to turn the indicator on or off?
At the last investor call, Tim was talking up Apple's services. With iPhone sales slowing, Apple has to do something to take advantage of their installed base.
Wait a few months and they'll be rethinking their attitudes on advertising...
It made money, but not enough for Apple to keep spending the R&D cash to upgrade it.
Well, they mention that they are partnering with two Internet exchanges, so I assume TWC is not involved.
3D is slightly different.
For purely CG stuff (e.g. Pixar), I'll pay for the 3D. It definitely adds something intangible to my viewing experience. Can't speak for everyone else, of course. I enjoyed Avatar, which was filmed in 3D.
But "post-processed 3D"? Not worth it.
I ended up seeing "Guardians of the Galaxy" in 3D. The problem that I had was that all the human characters looked flat--like a picture painted on cardboard--whereas all the CG stuff was beautifully rendered. It was particularly bad in GotG because you had a couple of CG characters who looked great but then you put them next to the human characters and it just enhances the flatness.
One other issue is if you can do anything digitally, you end up with an unrealistic story because anything can be done.
Years ago there was an action movie called "The Transporter." Great action movie with lots of great stunts. Did pretty well at the box office, I guess, because they did a not-so-great sequel, "Transporter 2."
At one point, the bad guys have placed a bomb underneath our hero's car. So our hero drives along until he finds a convenient spot with an appropriate ramp and a crane, drives the car up the ramp and into the air, flipping the car upside down and catching the bomb with the crane. Of course, he continues the flip and lands on two wheels and continues driving while the bad guy ends up blowing up the crane but thinks he blew up the good guy.
Pretty ridiculous, but quite easily done with CGI. So nobody asked, "should we do this pretty ridiculous thing?"
So, an empty chamber [...]
But what happens if somebody breaks into my house and I need to shoot them right now?
That's why I always keep my guns loaded with a round in the chamber, just in case.
(And, yes, this is sarcasm. I don't even own a gun.)
5G is whatever Verizon says it is. Kind of like AT&T's Faux-G non-LTE network.
Pluto is a planet and that makes this new one "Planet 10."
And we'll be going there real soon.
Yeah, but we developed a pen that could write in space while the Russians just used a pencil. So I guess both sides overcomplicate things.
(It's a joke. Yes, I know that NASA didn't spend billions of dollars developing a space pen.)
Yeah, 20 years ago, Microsoft is the only one of those that would have made such a list. AOL, IBM, Yahoo, and Netscape probably would have rounded out a 'top 5' list in that timeline[...]
Wow, I feel old. I remember when Ashton-Tate (dBase), Satellite Software (WordPerfect), and Lotus Corporation (Lotus 1-2-3) were unassailable.
I think the argument is that lots of research is going into supporting this fragile biology and yet comparatively little is going into transferring consciousness into computers. So rather than devoting the resources to figure out how to keep people alive in a hostile environment, perhaps we should devote those resources into figuring out how to make a "person" that can survive in the hostile environment.
The reason, as you state, is that we know more about our fragile biology than we know about that thing called "consciousness."
I'm pretty sure they're not the same, but I'll admit I had the same thought.
Someone has to go through every second of video [...]
Yes. All 684,000 of them. And for what purpose?
Look, I'm all for body cameras. I'm all for freedom of the press. But 190 hours? For what purpose? Basically, so some reporter can look at all of it and decide whether or not an officer behaved in a way that a reporter might think would make a good story.
No, I'm sorry. If I'm a defendant and I need that video for my defense, there shouldn't be a charge. But I can't imagine there's a particular "story" involved when they need 190 hours of police video. It's a fishing expedition. And my tax dollars shouldn't be paying for it.
Statistically you are in more danger from your own family/friends.
Especially children. Won't somebody think of them?
What will be the religion of their children ? Have a guess ?
...and this matters...why?
We have that here in the US. Heck, I live right near Little Saigon.
Guess what? Moving someplace with a weird language and weird customs and weird food can be tough. My roommate's family came over from Vietnam in the 1990s. Their english language skills weren't great and Little Saigon offered them places to go and things to do which were comfortable. While they have assimilated to a degree, they still tend to go to Little Saigon for restaurants (though they'll shop elsewhere for other things).
Their kids, on the other hand? For the most part, they're "assimilated." They speak english, enjoy "American" food, enjoy the culture, and barely speak the native language.
So, yes, these "immigrant" neighborhoods will grow because there are more immigrants coming in who need that support. Those immigrants will meet people, fall in love, have kids, and those kids will have more experience with the native culture than that of their parents. Give it a generation or two.
Some kinds of radiation don't respond to magnetic or electric fields so they cannot be deflected [...]
In that case, wouldn't those of us on Earth have the same problem?
Let's get the most science for the dollar, which is not done by "flags and footprints". It's done by continuing to push the envelope of robotic exploration.
That is an interesting assumption. Do probes actually give us more "science" for the dollar?
Did we learn more about the Moon from the Apollo missions than the Soviet Union learned from all of their Luna missions? I'd argue that we learned more than they did. But it cost us more money. Unfortunately, there isn't really a good way to know the actual cost of the Luna missions (socialist governments and all) so it's tough to compare the cost/knowledge.
In reality, sending human beings is the best option. Humans can solve problems and have greater capabilities than probes. But human are really expensive to send because of all the reasons that you give. While you may get more "science" from the larger amount of money and the ratios might be better than sending probes, it's still a large amount of money to spend over a fairly long time. That can be tricky to arrange in any political climate.
Probes, to me, are the next best thing. They're more limited, but they are much cheaper. So rather than spending a billion dollars to send scientists to Mars to learn as much as possible, I can spend 1 million to send a probe to Mars to look for evidence of water (as an aside, how many probes did we send to Mars to find evidence of water?) and spend another million to send a probe to Mars to sample the air and so on. Spread that out over 40 some-odd years and it's not quite so painful to the pocket book than putting everything into one mission.
Falcon Heavy will probably be launching manned missions before the Senate Launch System ever launches humans in non-test missions.
This is an interesting issue in regards to NASA--what should they be doing about rockets?
One the one hand, NASA does research and they should be looking at rocket technology as a benefit to the space community. Look at the Shuttle Engines: they are beasts. They burn hydrogen, not some hydrocarbon. The SLS will use 6 engines to lift a little more than the same amount of cargo as the Falcon Heavy's 18 engines. And NASA is looking at ways to improve that further. This sort of research is a good thing. And while research is a wonderful thing, shouldn't we take advantage of this research and build systems to use it?
On the other hand, does NASA really need it's own rocket to do it's missions? The rocket business, now-a-days, is such that NASA can get the same capabilities for significantly less from private industry. It's not like SLS will necessarily do something that Falcon/Falcon Heavy can't, at least in regards to lifting payloads into whatever orbit you might want. And should the government even be in the rocket business at this point? Yeah, there was a time when it was necessary, but is it still necessary today? Hell, the Space Shuttle put a serious crimp in the US rocket business when it first came out, because they could underbid everyone else. NASA was going into orbit with the Shuttle anyway, so they could give space away at a loss because it lowered the cost of flying the Shuttle.
But does it have value to the public discourse...right now?
I'm sure the victims would feel a ton better with random people taking pictures and spreading them instead of a news channel or newspaper.
Well, as I understand it, the newspapers/news channels tend to wait until the police/public officials notify the family before broadcasting the name of the person.
This enters an interesting realm. Consider facial recognition or the like and the ability to be notified when pictures of you or your loved ones are posted on a social network.