and also when they were engaged in a series of mentally challenging tasks associated with fluid intelligence, such as indicating whether a currently displayed image was the same as one displayed three images ago.
I believe Apple has hit the peak of possible margins with their current model and risks the same issues they faced in PCs against Microsoft. They either need a very hot new category that can drag the phones along with it of they need to radically change their model. It's unlikely they will achieve the former unless they are exceptionally lucky and it is very difficult for Tim Cook to abandon Job's path and do the latter.
How many Chinese ARM OEMs are giving back to the Open Source community? In China Android is forked and Google completely cut out and I haven't seen any of the Chinese "innovations" donated. If they follow the GPL but still manage to produce new innovations that they can protect then good on them.
I totally agree. I have for a long time thought that the only way to solve this problem is to split the wholesale and retail portions of the telecoms business by legislation. If all telco wholesalers (network operators) had to sell with flat terms through multiple resellers (customer owners/MVNOs) then in my opinion a lot more innovation would occur in the market. This would be easy to implement in wireless where there are multiple networks (tower ownership is still an area where there are monopoly concerns). Any natural monopolies in the system (last mile cable, towers) would need to be government administrated (government ownership with private contractors providing the service). This structure would also favor our national telecoms equipment providers who are getting massacred by Chinese state subsidized companies.
I doubt there is much difference between running your own computer or sharing a supercomputer that is roughly ten thousand times as powerful with at least ten thousand people. Not to mention the bottlenecks caused by the internet connection you need to tell it what to do, and get what it has done back from it.
Err. Not sure you grasp this.
Computer A and Computer B
Computer B is 10,000 times more powerful but is shared with 10,000 people
The key difference is timing and time. If all 10,000 people want to do the same thing that they do on their A computers on computer B at the same time then I agree with you. However that is not real life. If the distribution in time of tasks from the 10,000 users is spread out then my task will run up to 10,000 times faster on computer B than computer A.
If I could use computer B all the time there would be no point in sharing it. If I don't (and I assume all the others sharing computer B can't use it all the time either) then there is a benefit to me using computer B since my task will complete faster, maybe much faster.
As far as internet traffic is concerned I assume that the task I want to do on Computer B is compute intensive on local data, like ray tracing / animation.
I don't agree. Google wants the web standards that allow their products (sites) to work well to become standards. The browser is the means to this end but for a web standard to become a standard requires more than one browser to support it. By funding Mozilla they can encourage this to happen. He's absolutely right in saying that Mozilla "winning" is not an issue however they would probably like it not to win too much so they can continue to exert pressure on new features through Chrome.
In Chinese: 'We welcome foreign companies to invest and develop here, and we will continue to foster an open policy market.'
In English: 'We really want you to come here so that we can rip your IP off and then compete with you in your local markets with prices that are very low due to our feudal employment policies and government subsidies. In fact, Germany you are not moving enough production to China and we need you to because we haven't managed to spy on you much because your security is too good and we aren't smart enough to copy your stuff.'
I would add that the wholesale providers must not be allowed to discriminate based on the type of device the end user is using. Only based on the total number of devices and total usage of each type of service (voice, data, sms etc). Ideally they should also provide a way for retail providers who use multiple wholesale providers to easilly change their "preffered" wholesale provider.
Ideally one would also get rid of the technical compatibility problems in the US phone market (though those may be going away anyway with the move to LTE).
I'm not sure this is necessary. The wholesaler's only interest is to maximize the return on their network investment. Fill the pipe with the most valuable traffic. I don't really mind how they do that. I absolutely agree that retailers can use multiple wholesalers and that wholesalers should be barred from creating contract terms that tie a retailer to them.
The technical compatibility problems will probably continue until tunable, software definable radios become a reality for handsets. That still seems to be a few years away.
There is a very simple solution to this. Split wholesale wireless provision from retail.
One law. If you choose to build a network you may not sell it to end users only to resellers.Contract terms for retailers must be equal for the same commitments.
Start of real competition. End of problem.
Actually I did a little research on this and it has been anticipated and fixed as an issue (see http://playground.sun.com/ipv6/specs/ipv6-address-privacy.html)... perhaps... there is some randomization and temporal cycling of auto assigned IPv6 addresses although not everything seems to implement this at present. The worry for me is that it is possible and it is very difficult for the average consumer to detect (and understand) so it is likely to be used. NATing and more importantly the generally dynamic nature of IPV4 addresses as you roam around between home, work and mobile helps to enforce (although does not ensure) privacy.
The big difference in the European markets versus the US is that there is a wholesale market for subscriptions. In the US the carriers sell direct to retailers whereas in Europe subscriptions are also sold via wholesalers. Given that these wholesalers can buy phones from any manufacturer and themselves subsidize the phone by bundling with a subscription any phone can be brought to market (assuming it has type approval). Some US phones don't even have SIM cards so the US market locks customers far more to their carrier.
So there is more competition in the European market and less control by the carriers of which phones consumers can buy. This means that phone brands are more powerful. That said, some carriers still try to impose their branding in the actual phone (i.e. Orange).
We're still not in the very desirable state of the phone operators being reduced to pure pipes unfortunately.
the publisher and author are claiming losses of 68 trillion US Dollars in US sales alone because of the leak.
They figured the number based on the claims made by software and Music publishers over the past few years.
Music and software can be copied perfectly. A written book is a lot harder (unless transcribed). Most will wish to read the real thing and not blurry photos of pages.
As you said, West Germany and Japan are two very obvious examples - two of the world's top leaders in industry and manufacturing. America poured ridiculous amounts of money into West Berlin as a strategical measure
After WW1 the allies (including the US) did exactly the opposite with Germany, imposing crippling reparation payments and humiliating its citizens to get their revenge. This greatly contributed to the nationalist sentiments in Germany that made Hitler's rise possible. After WWII the same mistake was not made by the Allies but was by the Russians.
I'm not the AC you're replying to, but like you, I feel compelled to respond.
So do I.
This crap about the American military being the source of all evil is getting really fucking old. If American troops weren't in Iraq, would it magically be a better place? Do you live in such idealism that you really believe that after toppling Sadam and then simply leaving, Iraq would be a better place?
The American military is not the source of all evil and neither are those that direct it however recent polital decisions in the US have been motivated more by an "imperialist ideology" than common sense. Many less Iraqiis would have died if you had not invaded at the time you did so and with the lack of real support for your policies from your allies. Would their lives have been better? Probably. Would the region have been more stable? Definitely, if you had applied the resources that you have poured into Iraq into stabilizing the Pal/Israel situation. Now you face a real problem in whether to get out or not. I feel you are probably damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Are nations that have experienced "American Imperialism" by invasion, such as South Korea, Japan, (West) Germany, and yes, even Canada, such bad places?
Japan and Germany were invaded as a result of a world war and you were not alone. Looking at South Korea you have to include North Korea in your calculation of whether that region is better off for your actions.
It seems to me that only those places where our presence doesn't remain (Vietnam) remain more or less shitholes.
You should visit Vietnam. It's no shit hole. Compared to North Korea, it's paradise.
But like so many citizens, I agree that Iraq was a mistake, but almost certainly not for the same reasons. The world should have let Iraqis die until they decided they wanted freedom - clearly handing it to them on a silver platter was too much for them.
I think we agree. Political change takes generations to entrench. Expecting change in a few years is foolhardy. You cannot impose democracy. People have to learn (and be reminded) that it's the least worse option.
Did you go to Princeton? Didn't they teach you the difference between ownership of capital by the state and taxation?
The definition of socialism is correct. In a socialist economy the government controls capital. i.e. nationalizes companies, infrastructure, property. As I said all European economies have been moving in the opposite direction for many years. Taxation levels have nothing to do with socialism.
One of the key problems I see with socialism is that as capital is transferred to the state the state becomes a monopolistic capitalist. Generally power struggles within the state result in it being led by a single despot and his clan. So socialist states quickly transform into dictatorships, benevolent or otherwise. Venezuela would seem to be a good example of this at work.
Anyway back to the environmentalists. Please could you explain how the plans of the environmentalists relate to mass nationalization of US companies? Try not to make too much of a fool of yourself.
If you managed to get out of your own country and go to a few where environmental concerns are really taken seriously (and open your eyes when there) you would not be so flippant about your or your president's environment friendly status.
It seems to me that the best way for the rest of the world to react would be to stop negotiating with the US as a country and move to negotiating with the states. Some of them are as large as a reasonably sized country and act as such. California, for example, seems very ready to move on climate change.
The other states, some of which seem to have "rogue governments" that look very much like "axis of evil", can easily be ostracized. Sanctions can be implemented such as travel restrictions for their elected officials or freezing of funds in foreign bank accounts.
Of course military action cannot be ruled out but liberating Texas may be difficult.
From where I sit, any country that takes away 28-51.3% of your personal income s socialist (that figure was second only to Denmark, btw). But then again, I guess I'm just an ignorant redneck who couldn't afford a plane ticket to Germany in the 80's, as I was still in high school.
Where on wikipedia (or in school) did you learn that socialism is defined by the tax you pay?
Actually there are no true socialist states in Europe. They are all social democracies. Basically more or less liberal economies with safety nets of varying sizes.
How did you get onto this subject? The climate change one is far more important. What does socialism have to do with you and your president acting responsibly?
Slashdot Mirror
and also when they were engaged in a series of mentally challenging tasks associated with fluid intelligence, such as indicating whether a currently displayed image was the same as one displayed three images ago.
Perhaps they are not as dead as all that.
I believe Apple has hit the peak of possible margins with their current model and risks the same issues they faced in PCs against Microsoft. They either need a very hot new category that can drag the phones along with it of they need to radically change their model. It's unlikely they will achieve the former unless they are exceptionally lucky and it is very difficult for Tim Cook to abandon Job's path and do the latter.
How many Chinese ARM OEMs are giving back to the Open Source community? In China Android is forked and Google completely cut out and I haven't seen any of the Chinese "innovations" donated. If they follow the GPL but still manage to produce new innovations that they can protect then good on them.
I totally agree. I have for a long time thought that the only way to solve this problem is to split the wholesale and retail portions of the telecoms business by legislation. If all telco wholesalers (network operators) had to sell with flat terms through multiple resellers (customer owners/MVNOs) then in my opinion a lot more innovation would occur in the market. This would be easy to implement in wireless where there are multiple networks (tower ownership is still an area where there are monopoly concerns). Any natural monopolies in the system (last mile cable, towers) would need to be government administrated (government ownership with private contractors providing the service). This structure would also favor our national telecoms equipment providers who are getting massacred by Chinese state subsidized companies.
I would have thought that they wanted developers? This seems to push them into other hands.
It's quieter, very ecological and much more silent. Would be cheaper as well since it doesn't require loads of engineers to create it.
I doubt there is much difference between running your own computer or sharing a supercomputer that is roughly ten thousand times as powerful with at least ten thousand people. Not to mention the bottlenecks caused by the internet connection you need to tell it what to do, and get what it has done back from it.
Err. Not sure you grasp this.
Computer A and Computer B
Computer B is 10,000 times more powerful but is shared with 10,000 people
The key difference is timing and time. If all 10,000 people want to do the same thing that they do on their A computers on computer B at the same time then I agree with you. However that is not real life. If the distribution in time of tasks from the 10,000 users is spread out then my task will run up to 10,000 times faster on computer B than computer A.
If I could use computer B all the time there would be no point in sharing it. If I don't (and I assume all the others sharing computer B can't use it all the time either) then there is a benefit to me using computer B since my task will complete faster, maybe much faster.
As far as internet traffic is concerned I assume that the task I want to do on Computer B is compute intensive on local data, like ray tracing / animation.
I don't agree. Google wants the web standards that allow their products (sites) to work well to become standards. The browser is the means to this end but for a web standard to become a standard requires more than one browser to support it. By funding Mozilla they can encourage this to happen. He's absolutely right in saying that Mozilla "winning" is not an issue however they would probably like it not to win too much so they can continue to exert pressure on new features through Chrome.
Sticking my fingers into a cold fog all day seems highly unappealing.
In Chinese: 'We welcome foreign companies to invest and develop here, and we will continue to foster an open policy market.'
In English: 'We really want you to come here so that we can rip your IP off and then compete with you in your local markets with prices that are very low due to our feudal employment policies and government subsidies. In fact, Germany you are not moving enough production to China and we need you to because we haven't managed to spy on you much because your security is too good and we aren't smart enough to copy your stuff.'
They don't need any exploits. The calls are not encrypted inside their networks.
In fact. Don't speed up either.
I would add that the wholesale providers must not be allowed to discriminate based on the type of device the end user is using. Only based on the total number of devices and total usage of each type of service (voice, data, sms etc). Ideally they should also provide a way for retail providers who use multiple wholesale providers to easilly change their "preffered" wholesale provider.
Ideally one would also get rid of the technical compatibility problems in the US phone market (though those may be going away anyway with the move to LTE).
I'm not sure this is necessary. The wholesaler's only interest is to maximize the return on their network investment. Fill the pipe with the most valuable traffic. I don't really mind how they do that. I absolutely agree that retailers can use multiple wholesalers and that wholesalers should be barred from creating contract terms that tie a retailer to them.
The technical compatibility problems will probably continue until tunable, software definable radios become a reality for handsets. That still seems to be a few years away.
There is a very simple solution to this. Split wholesale wireless provision from retail. One law. If you choose to build a network you may not sell it to end users only to resellers.Contract terms for retailers must be equal for the same commitments. Start of real competition. End of problem.
Actually I did a little research on this and it has been anticipated and fixed as an issue (see http://playground.sun.com/ipv6/specs/ipv6-address-privacy.html) ... perhaps ... there is some randomization and temporal cycling of auto assigned IPv6 addresses although not everything seems to implement this at present. The worry for me is that it is possible and it is very difficult for the average consumer to detect (and understand) so it is likely to be used. NATing and more importantly the generally dynamic nature of IPV4 addresses as you roam around between home, work and mobile helps to enforce (although does not ensure) privacy.
or they could charge per IP
That isn't practical with IPV4 but with IPV6 it seems to me that it may become possible. A negative effect of IPV6 that I had not thought of before.
The big difference in the European markets versus the US is that there is a wholesale market for subscriptions. In the US the carriers sell direct to retailers whereas in Europe subscriptions are also sold via wholesalers. Given that these wholesalers can buy phones from any manufacturer and themselves subsidize the phone by bundling with a subscription any phone can be brought to market (assuming it has type approval). Some US phones don't even have SIM cards so the US market locks customers far more to their carrier.
So there is more competition in the European market and less control by the carriers of which phones consumers can buy. This means that phone brands are more powerful. That said, some carriers still try to impose their branding in the actual phone (i.e. Orange).
We're still not in the very desirable state of the phone operators being reduced to pure pipes unfortunately.
Music and software can be copied perfectly. A written book is a lot harder (unless transcribed). Most will wish to read the real thing and not blurry photos of pages.
Marking this as 4 (insightful) is very bad moderation. It is biased and uninformed.
Birth rates in the EU and the US are broadly similar. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Birth_rate_figu res_for_countries.PNG. If you want to move to a country with a large birth rate trot off to Africa.
High taxes. Tax rates across the EU vary wildly. Which country were you refering to?
EU Bureaucracy. As far as I know the EU is not my governement. The budget of the US Federal Government completely dwarfs the EU anyway.
After WW1 the allies (including the US) did exactly the opposite with Germany, imposing crippling reparation payments and humiliating its citizens to get their revenge. This greatly contributed to the nationalist sentiments in Germany that made Hitler's rise possible. After WWII the same mistake was not made by the Allies but was by the Russians.
A study of satire was clearly missing in your educational background.
So do I.
This crap about the American military being the source of all evil is getting really fucking old. If American troops weren't in Iraq, would it magically be a better place? Do you live in such idealism that you really believe that after toppling Sadam and then simply leaving, Iraq would be a better place?The American military is not the source of all evil and neither are those that direct it however recent polital decisions in the US have been motivated more by an "imperialist ideology" than common sense. Many less Iraqiis would have died if you had not invaded at the time you did so and with the lack of real support for your policies from your allies. Would their lives have been better? Probably. Would the region have been more stable? Definitely, if you had applied the resources that you have poured into Iraq into stabilizing the Pal/Israel situation. Now you face a real problem in whether to get out or not. I feel you are probably damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Are nations that have experienced "American Imperialism" by invasion, such as South Korea, Japan, (West) Germany, and yes, even Canada, such bad places?Japan and Germany were invaded as a result of a world war and you were not alone. Looking at South Korea you have to include North Korea in your calculation of whether that region is better off for your actions.
It seems to me that only those places where our presence doesn't remain (Vietnam) remain more or less shitholes.You should visit Vietnam. It's no shit hole. Compared to North Korea, it's paradise.
But like so many citizens, I agree that Iraq was a mistake, but almost certainly not for the same reasons. The world should have let Iraqis die until they decided they wanted freedom - clearly handing it to them on a silver platter was too much for them.I think we agree. Political change takes generations to entrench. Expecting change in a few years is foolhardy. You cannot impose democracy. People have to learn (and be reminded) that it's the least worse option.
Did you go to Princeton? Didn't they teach you the difference between ownership of capital by the state and taxation?
The definition of socialism is correct. In a socialist economy the government controls capital. i.e. nationalizes companies, infrastructure, property. As I said all European economies have been moving in the opposite direction for many years. Taxation levels have nothing to do with socialism.
One of the key problems I see with socialism is that as capital is transferred to the state the state becomes a monopolistic capitalist. Generally power struggles within the state result in it being led by a single despot and his clan. So socialist states quickly transform into dictatorships, benevolent or otherwise. Venezuela would seem to be a good example of this at work.
Anyway back to the environmentalists. Please could you explain how the plans of the environmentalists relate to mass nationalization of US companies? Try not to make too much of a fool of yourself.
If you managed to get out of your own country and go to a few where environmental concerns are really taken seriously (and open your eyes when there) you would not be so flippant about your or your president's environment friendly status.
It seems to me that the best way for the rest of the world to react would be to stop negotiating with the US as a country and move to negotiating with the states. Some of them are as large as a reasonably sized country and act as such. California, for example, seems very ready to move on climate change.
The other states, some of which seem to have "rogue governments" that look very much like "axis of evil", can easily be ostracized. Sanctions can be implemented such as travel restrictions for their elected officials or freezing of funds in foreign bank accounts.
Of course military action cannot be ruled out but liberating Texas may be difficult.
Where on wikipedia (or in school) did you learn that socialism is defined by the tax you pay?
Actually there are no true socialist states in Europe. They are all social democracies. Basically more or less liberal economies with safety nets of varying sizes.
How did you get onto this subject? The climate change one is far more important. What does socialism have to do with you and your president acting responsibly?