Might I humbly suggest that if the public cared about incompetency then Sony Entertainment would no longer be in business and most nearly every PS3 would already have been recycled.
Might I also suggest that if people cared about their digital property rights that Universal Music, EMI, etc., Paramount, Disney, etc. would be hemorrhaging money and preparing to file for bankruptcy protection.
The war that needs to be fought has not just one front but two. The people in charge and the people who could care less.
Nothing cuts off the venture capital funds to an entire industry quicker than an over-promised technology that fails to come even close to promised goals and delivery. This guy is promising the Moon--literally--within 5 years. He's not alone.
Actually, we know that concrete works with the present manufacturing techniques--pouring into forms with rebar. We also know that concrete has great compression strength but little tensile strength--hence the rebar. If these 3D printers were to see use in construction it would be far more likely to see them put to use manufacturing custom concrete forms used to pour the walls.
Learn to accept analogies, metaphors, etc.as not necessarily reality but good for illustrating ideas. The underlying idea is reasonable. If you can print at home (or store) basic kitchen utensils and other implements whose composition is simple and traditionally cast from moulds you do have the potential to eliminate logistical expense. Whether the 3D printer is cheaper to purchase and maintain than the savings gained due to simplifying logistics is another issue.
It's also faster and cheaper to setup forms and pour concrete walls than to setup a robot and build it up layer by layer. The only thing this robot has on the former is the ability to more easily produce curves.
That's the rub with these 3D printers. People see some form or other of extrusion printing of various objects then jump to irrational ideas. The most common being that it will either scale easily, and/or that adding the ability to print wiring, plumbing, circuits, etc. along side and within the structure is trivial (complete buildings, machines, self-replicating robots and such). Nothing can be further from the truth. Material properties seldom scale, and going from layering plastic/metal/etc. to fashion an object to fashioning a fully functional machine, house, etc. is a bit like discovering flammable liquids for the first time then going on to implement the internal combustion engine. Inventing present day 3D printers was the easy part not the hard part.
Are you really that obtuse or still just trolling?
Nobody said that marketing was a business model. The business model was the iDevice + iShop. No one had the iShop part but Apple. Unless you resorted to Napster type services for pirate copies of MP3s they were strictly "rip your own". Within the Geek circles and to some extent kids this was popular but average Joe adult was far more likely to pull out his Discman than his Diamond Rio, MPIO, or Nomad. It was a combination of being too new, not dumbed down, and hassle free while still being legal.
When the device itself came out and when the store came along has nothing to do with the fact that they were first to market with an MP3 player/MP3 store combination that provided the whole package to the consumer. They then marketed the hell out of it. To date no one but Microsoft has really even tried to compete.
As for the Kool-Aid bit you're grossly mistaken in interpreting my position with Apple. I have never owned an Apple product and for the foreseeable future will not own an Apple product. They're just not my song and dance. But, that doesn't change who they are and what they've accomplished, nor how they did it. You don't need to be a fanboy to recognize it.
Packaging consists of more than features, it's also the marketing campaign, and you're missing the business model part. None of the other MP3 players came with a viable iTunes equivalent. At that time MP3s were a harder to come by unless you felt like ripping CDs yourself--which most didn't. The iPod "package" wasn't just an electronic device, it also came with a music store shrink wrapped together to create a far more user friendly product.
You misread. I said "first to market with a well packed MP3 player and a business model to support it." (read iTunes) There were plenty of MP3 players before them (I still own and use one) but that wasn't my point.
Apple was first to market with a well packaged MP3 player and a business model to support it. Everything else has been largely riding on those coattails with incremental improvements. After the rest of the electronics manufacturers woke up they came back hard with mass quantities of spaghetti flying at all manner of walls. Often times the products featured superior aspects sometimes not. But, for one reason or another they played second fiddle to the comparable iDevice. Recently Apple has been losing ground. In part simply because of the sheer number of competitors with near equivalent products. It is causing the devices to look more like a nearly indistinguishable commodity than a specialized product. Also, in part because Apple is having a hard time out-innovating their previous generation product and their competitors are keeping in pretty close lock-step with them now.
Given that environment, and add to that the fact that the products from companies such as Samsung and HTC meanwhile are really starting to shine in their own right it is making Apple very nervous. When businesses get nervous they tend to play dirty. Often this means breaking out the patent lawyers. They'll come up with any and every excuse to bring lawsuits against their competitors. Not so much because they believe they have a legitimate case (usually they don't and they know it) but because it makes the shareholders of their competitor nervous which drives down share prices and ultimately hurts the business. When businesses can't out innovate they try to out litigate and this is what's going on now with Apple and it is very telling of their future.
Hopefully this really isn't so narrowly defined that a solid general education isn't provided. It might turn out kids that can code but would make for poor software engineers. It's essential that you understand the user as well as the problem domain and how they operate within it. That's a skill that would be very much hindered by hanging out in such a mono-culture.
However, I doubt they really mean for this school to be 90% math and computer science. It's an interesting experiment that may actually prove useful. Too often in secondary schools the "bad" students will wield an undue influence over the effective education of what would otherwise be "good" students. This comes in the form of peer pressure to be a deadbeat (intelligence discrimination), classroom disruption, etc.. By segregating students that actually care, want to and are motivated to pursuit a career in software development from the "losers" these "good" kids might actually stand a chance to get a decent if not quality education.
I don't understand focusing so narrowly on software engineering which really isn't that difficult.
Don't confuse sweatshop web monkey with software engineer. They are entirely distinct disciplines with the latter having nothing to do with HTML5/JavaScript powered LOL cat animations.
Ah, perhaps you're right it was a bit erudite... Ok, hows this? "There's still plenty of time to explain to the ITC panel the wisdom of ruling in favor of Apple." Will that work?
I'd say the breakup part does bare some consideration. Don't underestimate the power of combining economic collapse with "because f-you is why" people. We already have a majority portion of the latter and the former is all but guaranteed.
Amen to that. In so many ways I've long thought Lincoln a fool for trying to hang on to the south. As the saying goes "a house divided cannot stand". We might have kept the union together in name but they've done nothing but tear it apart ever since. Both sides have strong and largely opposite beliefs that if implemented may well be able to create a self-sustaining if not prosperous nation. Trying to combine the two has proven anything but productive and most certainly detrimental.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously not legal however, misdemeanor civil disobedience vs. "terrorism". Was Rosa a terrorist?
Do you think anyone--not already having an agenda--is bright enough to understand the difference?
Might I humbly suggest that if the public cared about incompetency then Sony Entertainment would no longer be in business and most nearly every PS3 would already have been recycled.
Might I also suggest that if people cared about their digital property rights that Universal Music, EMI, etc., Paramount, Disney, etc. would be hemorrhaging money and preparing to file for bankruptcy protection.
The war that needs to be fought has not just one front but two. The people in charge and the people who could care less.
How is the parent a troll?
So with a physical building you can camp out on the door steps an impede the flow of business. On the Internet you can...?
Do you get enough fiber in your diet...?
Nothing cuts off the venture capital funds to an entire industry quicker than an over-promised technology that fails to come even close to promised goals and delivery. This guy is promising the Moon--literally--within 5 years. He's not alone.
Actually, we know that concrete works with the present manufacturing techniques--pouring into forms with rebar. We also know that concrete has great compression strength but little tensile strength--hence the rebar. If these 3D printers were to see use in construction it would be far more likely to see them put to use manufacturing custom concrete forms used to pour the walls.
Learn to accept analogies, metaphors, etc.as not necessarily reality but good for illustrating ideas. The underlying idea is reasonable. If you can print at home (or store) basic kitchen utensils and other implements whose composition is simple and traditionally cast from moulds you do have the potential to eliminate logistical expense. Whether the 3D printer is cheaper to purchase and maintain than the savings gained due to simplifying logistics is another issue.
It's also faster and cheaper to setup forms and pour concrete walls than to setup a robot and build it up layer by layer. The only thing this robot has on the former is the ability to more easily produce curves.
That's the rub with these 3D printers. People see some form or other of extrusion printing of various objects then jump to irrational ideas. The most common being that it will either scale easily, and/or that adding the ability to print wiring, plumbing, circuits, etc. along side and within the structure is trivial (complete buildings, machines, self-replicating robots and such). Nothing can be further from the truth. Material properties seldom scale, and going from layering plastic/metal/etc. to fashion an object to fashioning a fully functional machine, house, etc. is a bit like discovering flammable liquids for the first time then going on to implement the internal combustion engine. Inventing present day 3D printers was the easy part not the hard part.
The fast easy way to spam your congress critters with your opinion on legislation....
Are you really that obtuse or still just trolling?
Nobody said that marketing was a business model. The business model was the iDevice + iShop. No one had the iShop part but Apple. Unless you resorted to Napster type services for pirate copies of MP3s they were strictly "rip your own". Within the Geek circles and to some extent kids this was popular but average Joe adult was far more likely to pull out his Discman than his Diamond Rio, MPIO, or Nomad. It was a combination of being too new, not dumbed down, and hassle free while still being legal.
When the device itself came out and when the store came along has nothing to do with the fact that they were first to market with an MP3 player/MP3 store combination that provided the whole package to the consumer. They then marketed the hell out of it. To date no one but Microsoft has really even tried to compete.
As for the Kool-Aid bit you're grossly mistaken in interpreting my position with Apple. I have never owned an Apple product and for the foreseeable future will not own an Apple product. They're just not my song and dance. But, that doesn't change who they are and what they've accomplished, nor how they did it. You don't need to be a fanboy to recognize it.
Packaging consists of more than features, it's also the marketing campaign, and you're missing the business model part. None of the other MP3 players came with a viable iTunes equivalent. At that time MP3s were a harder to come by unless you felt like ripping CDs yourself--which most didn't. The iPod "package" wasn't just an electronic device, it also came with a music store shrink wrapped together to create a far more user friendly product.
You misread. I said "first to market with a well packed MP3 player and a business model to support it." (read iTunes) There were plenty of MP3 players before them (I still own and use one) but that wasn't my point.
Apple was first to market with a well packaged MP3 player and a business model to support it. Everything else has been largely riding on those coattails with incremental improvements. After the rest of the electronics manufacturers woke up they came back hard with mass quantities of spaghetti flying at all manner of walls. Often times the products featured superior aspects sometimes not. But, for one reason or another they played second fiddle to the comparable iDevice. Recently Apple has been losing ground. In part simply because of the sheer number of competitors with near equivalent products. It is causing the devices to look more like a nearly indistinguishable commodity than a specialized product. Also, in part because Apple is having a hard time out-innovating their previous generation product and their competitors are keeping in pretty close lock-step with them now.
Given that environment, and add to that the fact that the products from companies such as Samsung and HTC meanwhile are really starting to shine in their own right it is making Apple very nervous. When businesses get nervous they tend to play dirty. Often this means breaking out the patent lawyers. They'll come up with any and every excuse to bring lawsuits against their competitors. Not so much because they believe they have a legitimate case (usually they don't and they know it) but because it makes the shareholders of their competitor nervous which drives down share prices and ultimately hurts the business. When businesses can't out innovate they try to out litigate and this is what's going on now with Apple and it is very telling of their future.
Hopefully this really isn't so narrowly defined that a solid general education isn't provided. It might turn out kids that can code but would make for poor software engineers. It's essential that you understand the user as well as the problem domain and how they operate within it. That's a skill that would be very much hindered by hanging out in such a mono-culture.
However, I doubt they really mean for this school to be 90% math and computer science. It's an interesting experiment that may actually prove useful. Too often in secondary schools the "bad" students will wield an undue influence over the effective education of what would otherwise be "good" students. This comes in the form of peer pressure to be a deadbeat (intelligence discrimination), classroom disruption, etc.. By segregating students that actually care, want to and are motivated to pursuit a career in software development from the "losers" these "good" kids might actually stand a chance to get a decent if not quality education.
I don't understand focusing so narrowly on software engineering which really isn't that difficult.
Don't confuse sweatshop web monkey with software engineer. They are entirely distinct disciplines with the latter having nothing to do with HTML5/JavaScript powered LOL cat animations.
Ah, perhaps you're right it was a bit erudite... Ok, hows this? "There's still plenty of time to explain to the ITC panel the wisdom of ruling in favor of Apple." Will that work?
Evidently I ruffled some fanboy's feathers...
There's still plenty of time to grease some palms before the ITC makes its ruling.
I'd say the breakup part does bare some consideration. Don't underestimate the power of combining economic collapse with "because f-you is why" people. We already have a majority portion of the latter and the former is all but guaranteed.
Why because of the crime, poverty, and lack of good healthcare for the non-elite of course.
Amen to that. In so many ways I've long thought Lincoln a fool for trying to hang on to the south. As the saying goes "a house divided cannot stand". We might have kept the union together in name but they've done nothing but tear it apart ever since. Both sides have strong and largely opposite beliefs that if implemented may well be able to create a self-sustaining if not prosperous nation. Trying to combine the two has proven anything but productive and most certainly detrimental.