Also, sometimes two roads are very close to each other, so when the device tells me to "turn right" I need to glance at the screen so see whether should I turn right now or go 15m and then turn right.
The smart thing to do would be for your Nav to say, "Turn right on Algonquin Street" rather than just saying "Turn right" and expecting you to stare at the screen to figure out which street it means.
Going into old fart mode, I remember back when you had directions printed out from MapQuest that would say "drive 3 miles and turn right on Algonquin." This way, you looked at your odometer and calculated 3 miles. When you hit about 2.5 miles or so, you started looking out the window for street signs on the right saying, "Algonquin." While you were looking out the window, you might notice that kid chasing a ball into the street or something. Ah, memories...
You don't see legislation to outlaw paper maps, coffee cups, makeup, food, etc from vehicles.
Part of the reason, I think, is that while those things are a distraction, people don't tend to "drive through" them.
I've had friends of mine that "drive the GPS." They don't watch the road, they watch the GPS. If a turn is coming up, they're not looking ahead, they're looking at the GPS to see where to turn.
Paper maps are a good example. When I first moved to California in the early 90s, I was introduced to something called "The Thomas Guide."--essentially a book of maps with all the local streets. Very handy. If you had an address and a city, you could look up where it was an how to get there. You'd write down the directions on a little piece of paper and then you'd head off. If you got lost, you'd pull over and pull out the Thomas Guide and figure out where you were and figure out where you'd gone wrong, re-orient yourself, and get back on the road.
The point being, you would pull over to do these things. You didn't see people driving along staring at a Thomas Guide.
I somewhat agree, though, that there are lots of people who figure "There oughta be a law!" So some representative drafts up a law to make our roads safer for the children (because, Dear Lord, Won't somebody think of the Children). We already have laws against reckless driving, but no, we need new laws to combat this scourge.
There are hundreds of millions of Windows users out there, so obviously Windows has to be pretty good. McDonalds has sold billions of hamburgers--they must have great hamburgers! Britney Spears has sold millions of records--she must be a pretty good singer.
Start to get the point? Just because something sells well does make it good.
[...] that's a 2009 Beajoulais from the Paul Beaudet winery in central France.
It's not often you find a red wine that goes well with fish and can reduce electrical resistance.
(I wish I could find it on the web, but it reminds me of an old Shoe comic reviewing a wine where the writer says, "It's not often you find a wine that goes well with your dinner and you can burn in your furnace.")
A few years ago, I spent a week in Seattle in July. The weather was great--sunny and warm. Everyone was talking about how I picked a great week to visit. I told them I didn't notice it because we'd had the same kind of weather for the last 4 months in Southern California.
They seemed to get upset by that. I don't know why...
Or fight the war to see who's standing over the oil fields.
Of course, the advantage to fighting the war is that we can already do that and we don't have to develop any fancy new technology to do it. I mean, we're already paying an army, so we might as well use it for something worthwhile. And I could either give the money to a bunch of companies who make bombs and finance my campaigns or to a bunch of nerdy scientist-types.
Many of the people who buy these things are also short-sighted. They love their iPad/iPhone/Droid RAZR because it's thin and lightweight and sexy and cool. Of course, then the battery goes and..."$100 TO REPLACE A #@&*! BATTERY?!"
About the same time, the next generation comes out and they say, "Gosh, this looks like a good excuse to get rid of my antique iPad/iPhone/Droid RAZR and pick up the new hotness..." whereas if they had a battery that was conveniently replaceable, people who probably do that instead of even considering it...
I dunno. I did a tandem jump from 12,000 feet and that strong wind on the way down definitely discouraged any thoughts of floating or flying. But the scale is so big that you don't really get the feeling of falling, either.
- it was a complete failure with regard to its original purpose, making orbital travel routine and inexpensive
I think they definitely succeeded in the first part--making orbital travel routine. The inexpensive part, they didn't succeed but the method they were using to make it inexpensive was more of an accounting trick than some sort of new technology. The idea was to block people from using anything except the Shuttle to put things into orbit. The idea was that the Shuttle is going to go up anyway, so you load it up with a bunch of paying customers' satellites and they end up paying for the launch.
- it was a spectacularly inefficient tool for what it was actually used for
Well, that depends. Through the 80s and 90s, it was mostly used as a launchable space station, keeping a crew of 7 alive in a shirt-sleeve environment doing research. The problem is that the Shuttle could only stay up for a few weeks--experiments that needed longer were out-of-luck. Of course, the solution was a space station but NASA didn't have the money to build one. That said, once the ISS was online, the Shuttle did become a very inefficient tool for delivering people to the ISS.
- what it was actually used for wasn't very interesting either: the ISS has not been a good investment compared to the unmanned programs
That depends. Lots of interesting research happens on ISS. The problem is that it's all boring sciency stuff--it isn't exploring the great unknown out there. As an aside, I'm seeing the "No Bucks, No Buck Rogers" POV here--it's just that Buck has been replaced by a robot. Go take pictures of rocks on Titan? Hell yeah! Actually try to figure out the differences between the rocks on Titan and Earth and why those differences exist? Snoooooooze. I'd rather see pictures of the rocks on Triton!
- it was incapable of going anywhere more interesting than low orbit, let alone the moon or Mars
Now you're conflicting with your first point: "it was a complete failure with regard to its original purpose, making orbital travel routine and inexpensive." It wasn't supposed to go anywhere interesting.
- it was sucking the life out of the manned space program anyway, and often crippling the unmanned programs because they were designed around the shuttle
This one, I agree with wholeheartedly and that was the best reason to end the Shuttle program.
As I mentioned above, the ISS was basically the nail in the Shuttle's coffin. The whole raison d'etre for the Shuttle was to do experiments in space. Now we have ISS for that. So the Shuttle is just a really expensive way to get some people up to the ISS--the equivalent of driving your huge gas guzzling SUV to the corner grocery store to pick up a coke. I wholeheartedly agree with NASA shutting it down. Personally, I don't even think they should waste time building a rocket to get them back there--give that task to some contractor and promise that, if successful, they'll pay for x flights. There are various companies already working in that direction--let them ferry scientists up to the ISS. Personally, I'd consider moving ISS management over to the National Science Foundation or some other group and get it completely out of NASA, but that might be going a bit far.
Bloomberg's Mysterious Source: Microsoft will show the Xbox 720 this year! Microsoft: No we won't. Bloomberg's Mysterious Source: Microsoft will show the Xbox 720 next year!
Next we'll hear that Microsoft was planning on showing it this year, but something happened at the last minute and they couldn't. So the rumor-monger wasn't wrong--it was a last minute change.
For those of you who are missing it, he's referring to the Newton. People sometimes forget that Apple did some innovative stuff even when Steve Jobs wasn't there...
I pretty much only see people with e-book readers on planes, not "tablets" per se. [...] Ebook readers are great for reading (esp. with the e-ink screens), but that's about it.
Whereas people using iPads on an airplane are composing music, writing the next Great American Novel, or curing cancer?
I see iPads on airplanes. People use them to read books, watch movies, or play games. I see people using the small Samsung Tablets or Nooks doing the same thing.
According to TFA, the publishers went 'agency' in order to try to stop Amazon from 'cornering the market' by selling books cheaply. Now they are under DoJ fire for what was essentially an attempt to set an artificial price floor across the industry.
Well, part of the reason was also that Apple wanted to use the agency model (like they do with music) but there was that little addition to the contract that said that they can't sell it to anyone else cheaper than they can sell it to Apple.
So they couldn't have a "wholesale" price and an "agency" price because then they'd have to give Apple the "wholesale" price.
Why should a publisher/author/whatever not be able to charge whatever they want for an eBook?
Agreed. However, there's this thing called "the market" that will force them to adjust their price.
For example, I spend years writing the most amazing book ever written. I've poured my time and effort into this book and I deserve to be compensated. So I'm going to charge $1,000,000 for each copy. After all, I can set the price the way that I want.
Of course, no one is going to pay that much money for my book. So I end up making...$0.
Setting prices is a negotiation. As has been pointed out, sometimes you can charge less and make it up in volume. More people will spend $1 on a book than $10. If more than 10 times as many people will spend $1 on a book, you make more money by dropping the price. Finding that magic price point is the tricky part.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, sometimes two roads are very close to each other, so when the device tells me to "turn right" I need to glance at the screen so see whether should I turn right now or go 15m and then turn right.
The smart thing to do would be for your Nav to say, "Turn right on Algonquin Street" rather than just saying "Turn right" and expecting you to stare at the screen to figure out which street it means.
Going into old fart mode, I remember back when you had directions printed out from MapQuest that would say "drive 3 miles and turn right on Algonquin." This way, you looked at your odometer and calculated 3 miles. When you hit about 2.5 miles or so, you started looking out the window for street signs on the right saying, "Algonquin." While you were looking out the window, you might notice that kid chasing a ball into the street or something. Ah, memories...
Hey! Get off my lawn!
You don't see legislation to outlaw paper maps, coffee cups, makeup, food, etc from vehicles.
Part of the reason, I think, is that while those things are a distraction, people don't tend to "drive through" them.
I've had friends of mine that "drive the GPS." They don't watch the road, they watch the GPS. If a turn is coming up, they're not looking ahead, they're looking at the GPS to see where to turn.
Paper maps are a good example. When I first moved to California in the early 90s, I was introduced to something called "The Thomas Guide."--essentially a book of maps with all the local streets. Very handy. If you had an address and a city, you could look up where it was an how to get there. You'd write down the directions on a little piece of paper and then you'd head off. If you got lost, you'd pull over and pull out the Thomas Guide and figure out where you were and figure out where you'd gone wrong, re-orient yourself, and get back on the road.
The point being, you would pull over to do these things. You didn't see people driving along staring at a Thomas Guide.
I somewhat agree, though, that there are lots of people who figure "There oughta be a law!" So some representative drafts up a law to make our roads safer for the children (because, Dear Lord, Won't somebody think of the Children). We already have laws against reckless driving, but no, we need new laws to combat this scourge.
EAT SHIT: 10,000,000,000 flies can't be wrong!
There are hundreds of millions of Windows users out there, so obviously Windows has to be pretty good. McDonalds has sold billions of hamburgers--they must have great hamburgers! Britney Spears has sold millions of records--she must be a pretty good singer.
Start to get the point? Just because something sells well does make it good.
It's not often you find a red wine that goes well with fish and can reduce electrical resistance.
(I wish I could find it on the web, but it reminds me of an old Shoe comic reviewing a wine where the writer says, "It's not often you find a wine that goes well with your dinner and you can burn in your furnace.")
...and I had a hard-drive failure. Damn you, Los Alamos!
Link to the giant nuclear boobies.
Heck, maybe you could rent it out for The Abyss II.
...and you live in Seattle?
A few years ago, I spent a week in Seattle in July. The weather was great--sunny and warm. Everyone was talking about how I picked a great week to visit. I told them I didn't notice it because we'd had the same kind of weather for the last 4 months in Southern California.
They seemed to get upset by that. I don't know why...
No word yet on whether he's consulting with George Lucas on how to rape people's childhoods.
FTFY.
Or fight the war to see who's standing over the oil fields.
Of course, the advantage to fighting the war is that we can already do that and we don't have to develop any fancy new technology to do it. I mean, we're already paying an army, so we might as well use it for something worthwhile. And I could either give the money to a bunch of companies who make bombs and finance my campaigns or to a bunch of nerdy scientist-types.
(The above is sarcasm)
Just one question: Where's the bathroom? If I'm having 64oz of my favorite delicious fountain beverage, I'm gonna need to pee...
I tend to agree--with one caveat.
Many of the people who buy these things are also short-sighted. They love their iPad/iPhone/Droid RAZR because it's thin and lightweight and sexy and cool. Of course, then the battery goes and..."$100 TO REPLACE A #@&*! BATTERY?!"
About the same time, the next generation comes out and they say, "Gosh, this looks like a good excuse to get rid of my antique iPad/iPhone/Droid RAZR and pick up the new hotness..." whereas if they had a battery that was conveniently replaceable, people who probably do that instead of even considering it...
...Or Michelle Ryan
such an amazing feeling of floating [...]
I dunno. I did a tandem jump from 12,000 feet and that strong wind on the way down definitely discouraged any thoughts of floating or flying. But the scale is so big that you don't really get the feeling of falling, either.
But I agree--it's very cool.
Buttons? How quaint!
Not entirely accurate, but close.
I think they definitely succeeded in the first part--making orbital travel routine. The inexpensive part, they didn't succeed but the method they were using to make it inexpensive was more of an accounting trick than some sort of new technology. The idea was to block people from using anything except the Shuttle to put things into orbit. The idea was that the Shuttle is going to go up anyway, so you load it up with a bunch of paying customers' satellites and they end up paying for the launch.
Well, that depends. Through the 80s and 90s, it was mostly used as a launchable space station, keeping a crew of 7 alive in a shirt-sleeve environment doing research. The problem is that the Shuttle could only stay up for a few weeks--experiments that needed longer were out-of-luck. Of course, the solution was a space station but NASA didn't have the money to build one. That said, once the ISS was online, the Shuttle did become a very inefficient tool for delivering people to the ISS.
That depends. Lots of interesting research happens on ISS. The problem is that it's all boring sciency stuff--it isn't exploring the great unknown out there. As an aside, I'm seeing the "No Bucks, No Buck Rogers" POV here--it's just that Buck has been replaced by a robot. Go take pictures of rocks on Titan? Hell yeah! Actually try to figure out the differences between the rocks on Titan and Earth and why those differences exist? Snoooooooze. I'd rather see pictures of the rocks on Triton!
Now you're conflicting with your first point: "it was a complete failure with regard to its original purpose, making orbital travel routine and inexpensive." It wasn't supposed to go anywhere interesting.
This one, I agree with wholeheartedly and that was the best reason to end the Shuttle program.
As I mentioned above, the ISS was basically the nail in the Shuttle's coffin. The whole raison d'etre for the Shuttle was to do experiments in space. Now we have ISS for that. So the Shuttle is just a really expensive way to get some people up to the ISS--the equivalent of driving your huge gas guzzling SUV to the corner grocery store to pick up a coke. I wholeheartedly agree with NASA shutting it down. Personally, I don't even think they should waste time building a rocket to get them back there--give that task to some contractor and promise that, if successful, they'll pay for x flights. There are various companies already working in that direction--let them ferry scientists up to the ISS. Personally, I'd consider moving ISS management over to the National Science Foundation or some other group and get it completely out of NASA, but that might be going a bit far.
Bloomberg's Mysterious Source: Microsoft will show the Xbox 720 this year!
Microsoft: No we won't.
Bloomberg's Mysterious Source: Microsoft will show the Xbox 720 next year!
Next we'll hear that Microsoft was planning on showing it this year, but something happened at the last minute and they couldn't. So the rumor-monger wasn't wrong--it was a last minute change.
Gads, they're as bad as the Apple rumor mongers.
I hope they do another lander--or better yet a rover.
This morning there will be children standing on the side of roads waiting for their school buses in the dark.
Dear God, won't somebody think of the children?
All these children standing around in the dark makes them more susceptible to child predators!
For those of you who are missing it, he's referring to the Newton. People sometimes forget that Apple did some innovative stuff even when Steve Jobs wasn't there...
I pretty much only see people with e-book readers on planes, not "tablets" per se. [...] Ebook readers are great for reading (esp. with the e-ink screens), but that's about it.
Whereas people using iPads on an airplane are composing music, writing the next Great American Novel, or curing cancer?
I see iPads on airplanes. People use them to read books, watch movies, or play games. I see people using the small Samsung Tablets or Nooks doing the same thing.
But at least we'll be able to race hovercars.
According to TFA, the publishers went 'agency' in order to try to stop Amazon from 'cornering the market' by selling books cheaply. Now they are under DoJ fire for what was essentially an attempt to set an artificial price floor across the industry.
Well, part of the reason was also that Apple wanted to use the agency model (like they do with music) but there was that little addition to the contract that said that they can't sell it to anyone else cheaper than they can sell it to Apple.
So they couldn't have a "wholesale" price and an "agency" price because then they'd have to give Apple the "wholesale" price.
Why should a publisher/author/whatever not be able to charge whatever they want for an eBook?
Agreed. However, there's this thing called "the market" that will force them to adjust their price.
For example, I spend years writing the most amazing book ever written. I've poured my time and effort into this book and I deserve to be compensated. So I'm going to charge $1,000,000 for each copy. After all, I can set the price the way that I want.
Of course, no one is going to pay that much money for my book. So I end up making...$0.
Setting prices is a negotiation. As has been pointed out, sometimes you can charge less and make it up in volume. More people will spend $1 on a book than $10. If more than 10 times as many people will spend $1 on a book, you make more money by dropping the price. Finding that magic price point is the tricky part.
I doubt we'd go to war with the sun. We'd probably just send in some Navy SEALs at night...
It's...