Subsidizing solar power is the wrong approach. The right approach is to start buying up lots of solar panels for installations on the tops of government buildings. That will increase demand and make it more more profitable to get into the business (provided the main criteria isn't cheapest solar panel our tax dollars can buy). More profit will drive more companies to open up solar manufacturing and R&D. Sowe get a double benefit. We get more solar power production and we get the added benefit of getting more solar power onto the grid right from the startnot X number of years down the R&D road.
The more respected global warming papers have been published and accepted in peer reviewed journals. Point out any global warming denialist papers that have done the same.
Dude, by definition, if there is a conspiracy going on among "peers", then there will not be any dissenting papers that are "legitimatized" by accepting them in peer reviewed journals. Come on. You can do better than that.
Your fundamental problem in arguing with a person who denies global warming is that they use erroneous logic. They find one uncertainty or minor flaw in a study and suddenly volumes of studies -- even those unrelated -- can be thrown out and dismissed.
Wait, I thought that Adobe claimed that Flash was the best method for creating cross-platform, browser-based, rich internet applications. And i thought that Google agreed with Adobe and was supporting them against Apple. Shouldn't they be moving Gmail to a Flash system? Or are they just talking out of both sides of their mouths and hoping that no one notices?
The root of this story is about a guy trying to solve a specific internal application problem – not a widely distributed and publicly available application. And, he is writing the application in Ruby, which is good for web development.
However, I think that I would have written a native application to the platform that they are using instead of a web application.
Where are the rants against closed and proprietary systems? Shouldn't there be posts extolling the yet-to-be-announced Android handheld gaming systems that are sure to come out and eliminate the gaming systems from Nintendo, Sony, etc? Where are the guys saying how they would never buy one, because they can build a better/cheaper one with a Reb Bull can form factor? Maybe these types of posts are just saved for products made by Apple.
Yep. No evil. Just like the crack dealer that gives you your first three or so hits for free! Of course, once you are hooked...well...things change. Google wants you to use their platform so that they can get your usage data from you and so they can sell targeted advertising at you. Sure, they'll make a platform for it and give it away, but once you are hooked...here come the ads whether you like it or not.
Microsoft was not a monopoly in theory. It was legally declared a monopoly in the United States and thus was in reality one in that country. However, being a monopoly is not illegal. It is what you do after being declared a monopoly to maintain your market share that matters. It was found that Microsoft was using means that are illegal for monopolies to use in retaining that position. That was the problem.
Apple may be declared a monopoly one day, but I don't think that likely with the Linux and Android platforms available, strong, and growing. As long as you have true choice (which was not really the case when Microsoft used Office compatibility to maintain their position), there is little likelihood of there being a monopoly declaration with Apple.
While Google is locked out of the iPhone for now, there is nothing so far as I know keeping them from running their stuff on the other phones out there. But then I could be wrong. Not that many want to, but can and does AdMob run on the RIM devices? How about Nokia's Symbian devices? If yes, then there is a much larger market than the iPhone. If not, shouldn't the hew and cry be over the devices/makers with much larger overall market share than Apple?
1. The bar at the top of OS X makes for a very consistent place where every user knows they can go for menu items. As opposed to the hugely wasted space at the top of damn near every Windows/Linux window where the same thing is duplicated for every window open.
2. Why should the number of instances, for normal users, matter? I'll bet because you want to *know* and not for any practical reason. Yes, there is room for innovation and Apple could use some more.
3. Personal preference. BTWI see just how much fail it is by the lack of popularity of the iPod/iPhone linenot.
4. You should expand your list of those you know beyond the geek group. Most people outside of that group don't know you a database is or care. Even less so with iTunes. They just want their music to be on the device they want to use when they want to use it. Do they care about AM or FM on the care radio and the reasons why? No. They want good sound and they want to push a button to find what they want to listen to. Apple hateboys can get their heads out of their collective refuse exhaust ports and realize that stuff built for them won't appeal to the masses.
No contradiction at all. Apple decided not to allow Google Voice. Google decided not to develop navigation for the iPhone.
Apple is taken to task over its decision, by this crowd. Google is not. All because Google is 'perceived' as being open.
Google and open...really? Just try to pry into their crown jewels and see how open they are. Yes, you can use their crack (Chrome, Android, Gmail, etc.) for free...well...with one little catch. They want to know everything about you so they can target marketing to you. And no need to get upset when the government (pick your country) comes calling for that information. After all, it's just about what you do on-line. I'm sure no one here has done anything that my even appear out of order. So, of course, Google is good, and Apple is bad.
You are absolutely correct! However, a major player choosing to control what goes on what platform is a problem for this crowd, or so I thought. I guess that it's okay for Google to not put a piece of software on a competitors phone, in order to secure an advantage, but not okay for Apple to keep a competitors software off their hardware if it will lead to poaching of valuable assets and market opportunity – in this case advertising opportunities.
I guess this crowd really is not concerned with facts and fair play. They just like to pick an enemy and verbally run them to the ground and support those that do exactly what they decry–all the while being blind to their own hypocrisy. Ahsounds just like home on/.
I've been there, too. The iPhone is not the most popular phone...and may will never be. But it is certainly not the complete failure pictured by the guy I responded to originally. The numbers are correct, however. Will they be at that level or higher/lower, next quarter? Who knows. That is the toughest mobile market in the world.
The iPhone has 72% of the smart phone market share in Japan. However, even I take that with a grain of salt, because the definition of a 'smart phone' is even more confused than it is here. However, the iPhone has 4.9% of the total market, and growing.
However you cut it, seems to me that they are doing quite well in what may be the toughest mobile market in the world. A place that has destroyed attempts by others do the same thing.
Google Voice was denied by Apple, from what I remember. However, I don't recall the reason–don't know if a reason was ever given. That is Apple's fault.
Google Maps with Navigation, that is Google's fault. They are the ones that have denied iPhone users that opportunity.
On a slightly different, but very related issue, it is funny how the people here often rail against Apple's managed platform, but not against Google's very aggressive collection of user data, for their own uses with Android. Very interesting and very funny to me.
Your car, just like computers, are a mixture of standards and proprietary. However, this was not in response to a statement about your car (or the iPad hardware). The parent said there are no standard-based formats being used by any Apple media device. HTML is a standard-based *format* in use by an Apple media device. My comment was a direct response to the statement. Nothing more and nothing less.
I tend to like correct facts in debating issues. We are all sometimes mistaken with facts, but the orignal comments smacked of just anti-Apple bull.
Thank you! At last sanity exposed. Vote with you wallets people. When and if Apple ever get to a monopoly status like Microsoft did, then I would have a problem with a completely closed computing environment. However, there is a huge amount of choice out there. Apple won't be a problem until people start telling me that I can only access some standard data only on an Apple device. That is what it got to be with Microsoft and its Office documents. It was very difficult to create, open, and edit documents unless you had the official Office package. Only since the backlash against that have things changed. The same will happen to Apple if they go too far.
So right. I mean no company like Amazon would try to make and release a locked down digital media device. I'm sure if they did, that they would come up with some lame name, like maybe, I don't know, Kindle or something like that.
They already release a Mac mini with this OS. It is called OS X. They also release laptops, desktops, and servers with this OS. I would think that readers of a geek web site would know that. The difference is primarily in the UI later.
Beside proper sentence capitalization, you missed at least one little acronym, "ePub". The last time I checked, that is at least one open format in use by an Apple media device. And I am pretty sure the MP4 is another. I think that HTML might be considered yet another. I guess I could on, butwellthat might interfere with your version of the world.
Just how did Apple force Cisco to accept their terms? Cisco was certainly no small company then (or now for that matter). If Cisco thought it would have been more profitable to keep their ownership of the name, then I do not doubt that they could have done just that. But rather than stick with a failing product, they saw a way to recoup some money by selling the rights to the name to Apple. Standard business practice.
If Cisco had not wanted to sell the name, there is nothing Apple could have done to force them to do so. Who is trying to rewrite history here?
Aha frustrated professor (either real or in your mind). Your comments give you away. Look for a real job. And, no, I don't work for Apple or any company that benefits from them. Not do I have or ever had any stock in Apple (or any related company). I simply took exception to your obviously biased comments and the axe you had to grind. Thank you for showing your hand. You can be dismissed now.
So, in your world, (must be a stupid or obfuscated one), you are only doing research if you are sharing it? Really? Interesting, as much as I dislike the patent system, that would seem to be where most companies show their R&D. Posting it in peer review articles, university collaborations, public research grants is not the only metric.
Sounds to me like someone has a bone to pick with Apple. Maybe Apple turned down your appeal to fund some project you like. Maybe it is even your own academic project and you needed the money to keep going and pay the mortgage?
Slashdot Mirror
Subsidizing solar power is the wrong approach. The right approach is to start buying up lots of solar panels for installations on the tops of government buildings. That will increase demand and make it more more profitable to get into the business (provided the main criteria isn't cheapest solar panel our tax dollars can buy). More profit will drive more companies to open up solar manufacturing and R&D. Sowe get a double benefit. We get more solar power production and we get the added benefit of getting more solar power onto the grid right from the startnot X number of years down the R&D road.
The more respected global warming papers have been published and accepted in peer reviewed journals. Point out any global warming denialist papers that have done the same.
Dude, by definition, if there is a conspiracy going on among "peers", then there will not be any dissenting papers that are "legitimatized" by accepting them in peer reviewed journals. Come on. You can do better than that.
Your fundamental problem in arguing with a person who denies global warming is that they use erroneous logic. They find one uncertainty or minor flaw in a study and suddenly volumes of studies -- even those unrelated -- can be thrown out and dismissed.
One minor flaw? Try this one http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/11/years-global-cooling-coming-leading-scientist-says/
If you think this is the 'final days' of this mess, you are sadly mistaken.
Wellyou got one right.
Wait, I thought that Adobe claimed that Flash was the best method for creating cross-platform, browser-based, rich internet applications. And i thought that Google agreed with Adobe and was supporting them against Apple. Shouldn't they be moving Gmail to a Flash system? Or are they just talking out of both sides of their mouths and hoping that no one notices?
The root of this story is about a guy trying to solve a specific internal application problem – not a widely distributed and publicly available application. And, he is writing the application in Ruby, which is good for web development.
However, I think that I would have written a native application to the platform that they are using instead of a web application.
Where are the rants against closed and proprietary systems? Shouldn't there be posts extolling the yet-to-be-announced Android handheld gaming systems that are sure to come out and eliminate the gaming systems from Nintendo, Sony, etc? Where are the guys saying how they would never buy one, because they can build a better/cheaper one with a Reb Bull can form factor? Maybe these types of posts are just saved for products made by Apple.
Yep. No evil. Just like the crack dealer that gives you your first three or so hits for free! Of course, once you are hooked...well...things change. Google wants you to use their platform so that they can get your usage data from you and so they can sell targeted advertising at you. Sure, they'll make a platform for it and give it away, but once you are hooked...here come the ads whether you like it or not.
Microsoft was not a monopoly in theory. It was legally declared a monopoly in the United States and thus was in reality one in that country. However, being a monopoly is not illegal. It is what you do after being declared a monopoly to maintain your market share that matters. It was found that Microsoft was using means that are illegal for monopolies to use in retaining that position. That was the problem.
Apple may be declared a monopoly one day, but I don't think that likely with the Linux and Android platforms available, strong, and growing. As long as you have true choice (which was not really the case when Microsoft used Office compatibility to maintain their position), there is little likelihood of there being a monopoly declaration with Apple.
While Google is locked out of the iPhone for now, there is nothing so far as I know keeping them from running their stuff on the other phones out there. But then I could be wrong. Not that many want to, but can and does AdMob run on the RIM devices? How about Nokia's Symbian devices? If yes, then there is a much larger market than the iPhone. If not, shouldn't the hew and cry be over the devices/makers with much larger overall market share than Apple?
You need to read and learn about what a monopoly is in the context of the free market. So do your moderators it would seem.
1. The bar at the top of OS X makes for a very consistent place where every user knows they can go for menu items. As opposed to the hugely wasted space at the top of damn near every Windows/Linux window where the same thing is duplicated for every window open.
2. Why should the number of instances, for normal users, matter? I'll bet because you want to *know* and not for any practical reason. Yes, there is room for innovation and Apple could use some more.
3. Personal preference. BTWI see just how much fail it is by the lack of popularity of the iPod/iPhone linenot.
4. You should expand your list of those you know beyond the geek group. Most people outside of that group don't know you a database is or care. Even less so with iTunes. They just want their music to be on the device they want to use when they want to use it. Do they care about AM or FM on the care radio and the reasons why? No. They want good sound and they want to push a button to find what they want to listen to. Apple hateboys can get their heads out of their collective refuse exhaust ports and realize that stuff built for them won't appeal to the masses.
No contradiction at all. Apple decided not to allow Google Voice. Google decided not to develop navigation for the iPhone.
Apple is taken to task over its decision, by this crowd. Google is not. All because Google is 'perceived' as being open.
Google and open...really? Just try to pry into their crown jewels and see how open they are. Yes, you can use their crack (Chrome, Android, Gmail, etc.) for free...well...with one little catch. They want to know everything about you so they can target marketing to you. And no need to get upset when the government (pick your country) comes calling for that information. After all, it's just about what you do on-line. I'm sure no one here has done anything that my even appear out of order. So, of course, Google is good, and Apple is bad.
You are absolutely correct! However, a major player choosing to control what goes on what platform is a problem for this crowd, or so I thought. I guess that it's okay for Google to not put a piece of software on a competitors phone, in order to secure an advantage, but not okay for Apple to keep a competitors software off their hardware if it will lead to poaching of valuable assets and market opportunity – in this case advertising opportunities.
I guess this crowd really is not concerned with facts and fair play. They just like to pick an enemy and verbally run them to the ground and support those that do exactly what they decry–all the while being blind to their own hypocrisy. Ahsounds just like home on /.
The body of evidence is too large to list all the sources here. Just run a Google search for "google privacy concerns" and read them.
Have fun.
I've been there, too. The iPhone is not the most popular phone...and may will never be. But it is certainly not the complete failure pictured by the guy I responded to originally. The numbers are correct, however. Will they be at that level or higher/lower, next quarter? Who knows. That is the toughest mobile market in the world.
What are you smoking? Judging by the mod of 4 and 'insightful', it must be a group water pipe, filled with some really good shit.
http://erictric.com/2010/04/23/iphone-market-share-in-japan-surpasses-72/
The iPhone has 72% of the smart phone market share in Japan. However, even I take that with a grain of salt, because the definition of a 'smart phone' is even more confused than it is here. However, the iPhone has 4.9% of the total market, and growing.
However you cut it, seems to me that they are doing quite well in what may be the toughest mobile market in the world. A place that has destroyed attempts by others do the same thing.
Google Voice was denied by Apple, from what I remember. However, I don't recall the reason–don't know if a reason was ever given. That is Apple's fault.
Google Maps with Navigation, that is Google's fault. They are the ones that have denied iPhone users that opportunity.
On a slightly different, but very related issue, it is funny how the people here often rail against Apple's managed platform, but not against Google's very aggressive collection of user data, for their own uses with Android. Very interesting and very funny to me.
LOL! Dell doesn't do hardware either! They are assemblers.
Your car, just like computers, are a mixture of standards and proprietary. However, this was not in response to a statement about your car (or the iPad hardware). The parent said there are no standard-based formats being used by any Apple media device. HTML is a standard-based *format* in use by an Apple media device. My comment was a direct response to the statement. Nothing more and nothing less.
I tend to like correct facts in debating issues. We are all sometimes mistaken with facts, but the orignal comments smacked of just anti-Apple bull.
I agree. Farble made a false statement. I was simply correcting that.
Thank you! At last sanity exposed. Vote with you wallets people. When and if Apple ever get to a monopoly status like Microsoft did, then I would have a problem with a completely closed computing environment. However, there is a huge amount of choice out there. Apple won't be a problem until people start telling me that I can only access some standard data only on an Apple device. That is what it got to be with Microsoft and its Office documents. It was very difficult to create, open, and edit documents unless you had the official Office package. Only since the backlash against that have things changed. The same will happen to Apple if they go too far.
So right. I mean no company like Amazon would try to make and release a locked down digital media device. I'm sure if they did, that they would come up with some lame name, like maybe, I don't know, Kindle or something like that.
(check sarcasm alerts before responding)
They already release a Mac mini with this OS. It is called OS X. They also release laptops, desktops, and servers with this OS. I would think that readers of a geek web site would know that. The difference is primarily in the UI later.
"their media devices don't use open formats."
Beside proper sentence capitalization, you missed at least one little acronym, "ePub". The last time I checked, that is at least one open format in use by an Apple media device. And I am pretty sure the MP4 is another. I think that HTML might be considered yet another. I guess I could on, butwellthat might interfere with your version of the world.
Just how did Apple force Cisco to accept their terms? Cisco was certainly no small company then (or now for that matter). If Cisco thought it would have been more profitable to keep their ownership of the name, then I do not doubt that they could have done just that. But rather than stick with a failing product, they saw a way to recoup some money by selling the rights to the name to Apple. Standard business practice.
If Cisco had not wanted to sell the name, there is nothing Apple could have done to force them to do so. Who is trying to rewrite history here?
Aha frustrated professor (either real or in your mind). Your comments give you away. Look for a real job. And, no, I don't work for Apple or any company that benefits from them. Not do I have or ever had any stock in Apple (or any related company). I simply took exception to your obviously biased comments and the axe you had to grind. Thank you for showing your hand. You can be dismissed now.
So, in your world, (must be a stupid or obfuscated one), you are only doing research if you are sharing it? Really? Interesting, as much as I dislike the patent system, that would seem to be where most companies show their R&D. Posting it in peer review articles, university collaborations, public research grants is not the only metric.
Sounds to me like someone has a bone to pick with Apple. Maybe Apple turned down your appeal to fund some project you like. Maybe it is even your own academic project and you needed the money to keep going and pay the mortgage?