The same right that anyone has to price what they sell at whatever price they like. As long as the information on what you sell is correct and good, you can basically ask for any price you want, there is no law forbiding you to charge more than the development cost.
Unfortunately, the market is not permitted to set the price in the "big media" content industry. RIAA and MPAA are cartels (which have been and continue to be accused of price fixing), Cable companies are typically regional monopolies--if consumers are lucky enough to have a choice in companies where they live it's usually between no more than 2 providers, or they can install DirecTV--again, virtually non-existant competition and steep barriers to entry allow providers to set prices however they please.
So good in fact, why don't they put the damn phone in your watch!
Interface. Battery limitations aside, the real reason cell phone watches haven't caught on is that no one's figured out a decent interface for a phone device as small as a wristwatch, and forget about text messages and other commonly used features in today's cell phones.
So if (when) SCO goes bankrupt, what are the implications for those companies that use their OS?
Once the corpse is picked clean, someone will wind up with the rights to SCO's dusty old Unixes so support would probably continue to be offered by other parties until those companies eventually migrate to an OS that's still being developed.
As long as their friends have one, its tough sh!t MS.
Are you implying that teenagers are label snobs and liable to shun others for not going with what's popular!? I'm so telling the whole school. No one's gonna sit with you any more next lunch period.
Why not (in addition to coupons and such) have ipod movie kiosks in between the DVD racks? I mean, the real advantage in going to a brick and mortar store is instant gratification. Some people have iPods and dial-up (primarilly ripping music from CDs and not fussing with video) or slower broadband (a full movie can take a while to download). I can see the benefits of a store like Wal-Mart having a library of titles locally cached that can be rapidly transferred to the customer's iPod . . .
Having said that, what's with all the big companies wanting to get into gaming PCs?
My guess would be the higher profit margins. The market may be tiny, but it's still got much fatter margins than the cutthroat bargain PC market where Dell is king and manufacturers fight bitterly over every last penny.
NASA has already stated they will consider this October whether or not it is prudent to conduct another Hubble servicing mission.
That is correct. Originally, in the aftermath of Columbia the answer was "far too risky, not a chance." NASA's previous administrator O'Keefe left standing orders that there would be no more shuttle missions that couldn't stop at the ISS . . . which ruled out just about everything that wasn't an ISS construction/resupply mission. Griffin's more open to the idea . . . but I'm still in the "not gonna happen" camp. It'll be astonishing if the shuttle can get the ISS built before it's retired, I'm not holding out hope there will be enough missions to allow one last bandaid for Hubble.
they need to have the right to use it without worrying about being sued because it's proprietry
It goes both ways too. With advertisers getting increasingly twitchy about their commercials being TiVoed away more of the networks are trying to woo them for product placement in the shows themselves. That screen would've been OSX or Vista had Apple or MS greased the right palms. No? Too bad. Open source it is!
The best bet would be to schedule in a repair stop during one of the space shuttle's remaining 13(?) scheduled space flights to deliver parts to the ISS.
I don't think that would be feasible. The shuttle can't just zip around to multiple different orbital rendezvous over the course of a single mission. I haven't been able to find any info, but I'm doubting very much that Hubble and the ISS are even remotely "on the way" to each other. Not to mention that the shuttle will be using much of its payload capacity to build the station and burning some of its limited orbital-manuevering fuel to correct the ISS's orbit. There's probably not enough room or enough in the tanks. (Hubble needs orbit correction too, as well as new gyroscopes in addition to this recent camera failure--no telling what that'll entail.) Even if they're close in orbital rendezvous terms, the shuttle would still probably have to fly a dedicated mission to fix hubble. Not gonna happen.
That'll never be feasible. Unfortunately some things just can't be done.
I think it would be well within present-tech ability to use a physics/chemistry engine to simulate a single cell and all the molecules therein. That alone could cause major breakthroughs in microbiology since we'll have what is essentially a perfect microscope--we can zoom in as much as we want and see precisely what's happening without the cell noticing a thing. To move to bigger organisms, we'll have to start abstracting to make everything feasible--no need to analyze the folding of every single protein, motion of every molecule and cell in the greater body--just enough to get a reasonably accurately working model of an actual human brain, in software. It's still pretty herculean, but computers are patient and there's no need to do this in realtime.
I'm sure I'm not the first person to have thought of this, but what if we just simulated a biological human in software? Computers are already pretty good at simulating chemical reactions, physics, even as far as protein folding . . . why not learn to build an AI by taking it a step further and refine the simulation models until they can accurately simulate single cells up to macro-sized multicellular animals and eventually humans? On a powerful enough computer (no doubt well beyond what's feasible today) and accurate enough models on all the underlying physics and chemistry (also needs a lot of work). Simulating a human down to the cellular level would leave you with what is effectively an AI "program" (in needs of LOTS of code pruning--that whole "body" thing). It's essentially the source code to a human being. You could eventually see exactly how the brain works and simulate just the intelligence portion in future AI devices.
Didn't NASA conduct (hah) an experiment that used a microsatelite attached via a tether to the shuttle and as one was placed in a higher orbit than the other it travelled faster and produced an electrical charge ?
They've conducted several experiments on electrodynamic tethers, but they work on different principles than a space elevator would. An orbiting tether generates its charge by its motion through the earth's magnetic field the same way a spinning magnet generates electricity in a coil of wire in a generator. The space elevator would be geostationary (kind of important to tie it down at the bottom) so it won't be moving relative to the earth's magnetic field.
Tethered satellites are still a neat trick, tho, since (like a generator/electric motor) it works both ways--trading velocity for electricity . . . or electricity for velocity. This can allow some orbital manuevers without burning any fuel.
. . . because I'm not sure if it's easy enough to blow this smoke up my butt. Is this massively encrypted? One-time pad? The article says nothing except "no records are kept." Every machine along the path keeps a log of something. At the very least, it can be researched that two machines shouted garbled stuff at each other. How is this any more secure than current encryption methods in place? Do the relevant machines do a secret handshake via gumbyspace?
As many have said, a system is only as safe as you build it. Besides, you could probably make the fueling station ungrounded making electrocution all but impossible. Besides, gasoline is no safer.
Even if the station was completely ungrounded, you, your car, the parts your standing on, etc. are all going to be considerably less charged than the "pump" so you can still get a potentially lethal shock at those power levels. i.e. a door knob isn't very well grounded, but you can discharge static and shock yourself to one pretty easily.
My MythTV box in the UK consumes about 1.4 GB of data per hour of programme.
Using an MPEG4 variant can easily halve that bandwidth requirement at nearly the same quality. You can get quality comparable to VHS much much lower--300-500kbits is not unreasonable, but might look crummy on a larger screen (then again, so would VHS).
Slashdot Mirror
With the keyboard on your computer when the Zune is attached via USB and you are running the setup program.
Unfortunately, the market is not permitted to set the price in the "big media" content industry. RIAA and MPAA are cartels (which have been and continue to be accused of price fixing), Cable companies are typically regional monopolies--if consumers are lucky enough to have a choice in companies where they live it's usually between no more than 2 providers, or they can install DirecTV--again, virtually non-existant competition and steep barriers to entry allow providers to set prices however they please.
Interface. Battery limitations aside, the real reason cell phone watches haven't caught on is that no one's figured out a decent interface for a phone device as small as a wristwatch, and forget about text messages and other commonly used features in today's cell phones.
Once the corpse is picked clean, someone will wind up with the rights to SCO's dusty old Unixes so support would probably continue to be offered by other parties until those companies eventually migrate to an OS that's still being developed.
Are you implying that teenagers are label snobs and liable to shun others for not going with what's popular!? I'm so telling the whole school. No one's gonna sit with you any more next lunch period.
Why not (in addition to coupons and such) have ipod movie kiosks in between the DVD racks? I mean, the real advantage in going to a brick and mortar store is instant gratification. Some people have iPods and dial-up (primarilly ripping music from CDs and not fussing with video) or slower broadband (a full movie can take a while to download). I can see the benefits of a store like Wal-Mart having a library of titles locally cached that can be rapidly transferred to the customer's iPod . . .
HP != Packard Bell
In fact, it appears Packard Bell is owned by Gateway now.
My guess would be the higher profit margins. The market may be tiny, but it's still got much fatter margins than the cutthroat bargain PC market where Dell is king and manufacturers fight bitterly over every last penny.
They wouldn't last long under a stampede of 50 meter giant insects.
Seriously. For the same price I can get an iPod *and* a song on iTunes to play on it. It doesn't even have Apple's innovative controller.
That is correct. Originally, in the aftermath of Columbia the answer was "far too risky, not a chance." NASA's previous administrator O'Keefe left standing orders that there would be no more shuttle missions that couldn't stop at the ISS . . . which ruled out just about everything that wasn't an ISS construction/resupply mission. Griffin's more open to the idea . . . but I'm still in the "not gonna happen" camp. It'll be astonishing if the shuttle can get the ISS built before it's retired, I'm not holding out hope there will be enough missions to allow one last bandaid for Hubble.
It goes both ways too. With advertisers getting increasingly twitchy about their commercials being TiVoed away more of the networks are trying to woo them for product placement in the shows themselves. That screen would've been OSX or Vista had Apple or MS greased the right palms. No? Too bad. Open source it is!
I don't think that would be feasible. The shuttle can't just zip around to multiple different orbital rendezvous over the course of a single mission. I haven't been able to find any info, but I'm doubting very much that Hubble and the ISS are even remotely "on the way" to each other. Not to mention that the shuttle will be using much of its payload capacity to build the station and burning some of its limited orbital-manuevering fuel to correct the ISS's orbit. There's probably not enough room or enough in the tanks. (Hubble needs orbit correction too, as well as new gyroscopes in addition to this recent camera failure--no telling what that'll entail.) Even if they're close in orbital rendezvous terms, the shuttle would still probably have to fly a dedicated mission to fix hubble. Not gonna happen.
I think it would be well within present-tech ability to use a physics/chemistry engine to simulate a single cell and all the molecules therein. That alone could cause major breakthroughs in microbiology since we'll have what is essentially a perfect microscope--we can zoom in as much as we want and see precisely what's happening without the cell noticing a thing. To move to bigger organisms, we'll have to start abstracting to make everything feasible--no need to analyze the folding of every single protein, motion of every molecule and cell in the greater body--just enough to get a reasonably accurately working model of an actual human brain, in software. It's still pretty herculean, but computers are patient and there's no need to do this in realtime.
You haven't been to an airport lately, have you? The speed limit through the security line is up to ~1 meter/hour.
I'm sure I'm not the first person to have thought of this, but what if we just simulated a biological human in software? Computers are already pretty good at simulating chemical reactions, physics, even as far as protein folding . . . why not learn to build an AI by taking it a step further and refine the simulation models until they can accurately simulate single cells up to macro-sized multicellular animals and eventually humans? On a powerful enough computer (no doubt well beyond what's feasible today) and accurate enough models on all the underlying physics and chemistry (also needs a lot of work). Simulating a human down to the cellular level would leave you with what is effectively an AI "program" (in needs of LOTS of code pruning--that whole "body" thing). It's essentially the source code to a human being. You could eventually see exactly how the brain works and simulate just the intelligence portion in future AI devices.
And they would all be named Bob.
They've conducted several experiments on electrodynamic tethers, but they work on different principles than a space elevator would. An orbiting tether generates its charge by its motion through the earth's magnetic field the same way a spinning magnet generates electricity in a coil of wire in a generator. The space elevator would be geostationary (kind of important to tie it down at the bottom) so it won't be moving relative to the earth's magnetic field.
Tethered satellites are still a neat trick, tho, since (like a generator/electric motor) it works both ways--trading velocity for electricity . . . or electricity for velocity. This can allow some orbital manuevers without burning any fuel.
. . . because I'm not sure if it's easy enough to blow this smoke up my butt. Is this massively encrypted? One-time pad? The article says nothing except "no records are kept." Every machine along the path keeps a log of something. At the very least, it can be researched that two machines shouted garbled stuff at each other. How is this any more secure than current encryption methods in place? Do the relevant machines do a secret handshake via gumbyspace?
Firefox could take us to the sites that will really help us take advantage of our Wiis.
Even if the station was completely ungrounded, you, your car, the parts your standing on, etc. are all going to be considerably less charged than the "pump" so you can still get a potentially lethal shock at those power levels. i.e. a door knob isn't very well grounded, but you can discharge static and shock yourself to one pretty easily.
What did your master use the robot arm for?
Summary mispelled privileges and missed the last part of the sentence: "you filthy theiving consumer SCUM!"
It's right after "+1 Old Joke That Refuses To Die".
About as much as "iPod" or "Walkman" did before they became the de facto portable audio devices of their day.
Using an MPEG4 variant can easily halve that bandwidth requirement at nearly the same quality. You can get quality comparable to VHS much much lower--300-500kbits is not unreasonable, but might look crummy on a larger screen (then again, so would VHS).