Full HD 1080p camcorder capabilities in a cell phone with significantly improved quality over current generation handsets (which generally have VGA or lower resolution camcorders)
Up to 20 megapixel digital camera with advanced features such as multiple shots per second, image stabilization, face and smile detection and panorama mode
The ability to render mobile games natively at up to 1080p resolution, which in combination with an on-board HDMI output, allows a console-quality gaming experience on large screen HDTVs
20% to 50% power reduction in comparison to the prior generation VideoCore® III multimedia processor
4 to 6 hours of 1080p video recording and 8 to 10 hours of mobile playback, with up to 16 hours of full HD playback over HDMI given sufficient handset storage
From the "VideoCore® III" page:
Support for 8 mega pixel camera modules enables a picture quality superior to most digital still cameras, while MPEG-4 video capability at VGA resolution offers state-of-the-art video technology for tape-less camcorders. In addition, support for the H.264 video compression standard enables next-generation cellular phones to incorporate DVB-H mobile TV capability.
The alternative is that the inventor still innovates, but keeps his or her innovations secret and exploits them behind closed doors.
This justification doesn't hold for software patents. We know this, in part, because nobody learns software by reading patents. The bargain is broken; society gets no benefit.
Managers aren't stupid; they don't "have trouble seeing the chain of innovation". By cutting R&D management can balance budgets, create short term profits, meet earnings projections, get huge bonuses, get promotions, and generally live the good life. It's the board and investors who are supposed to hold management to strategies of long term value, but they often don't have any long term commitment themselves.
Forget about what the cable companies want. If Google produces a device everyone wants they'll have no choice. They didn't want TiVo or any DVRs at first, or multiple TVs connected, or IPTV or any kind. Popularity will force their hand.
Imagine if a $200 box made it realistic/simple/practical to make video phone calls, and the same box could surf the web, play games, show and record TV. Good hardware isn't the issue, it's good software with open and free SDKs. As long as they don't "beta" it to premature death (like Google TV) I don't see how Google could lose.
The key for Google is ensuring open standards because they don't control the platform. With hardware in every home they could guarantee the long term viability of WebM, OpenGL ES, NaCl, HTML5 (esp. offline storage and 2D rendering).
I didn't even realise Motorola produced some of these things, but could it mean we'll see Google SatNavs, Google Car Kits, Google Cable/DSL modems, Google DVRs, and er, Google Baby Monitors?
Google Game System! Here's a chance for a standards based game computer in every home; promote Chrome/ChromeOS/NaCl/OpenGL ES; stick it to Microsoft; capitalize on software/SDK/game distribution/payment issues that Google excels at. Not to mention playing music, video and teleconferencing opportunities.
There's a current web site/service offering this but focused on protection: blocking SQL injection, botnet spam, etc... I can't for the life of me remember what it's called. They act as a CDN and reverse proxy too, but speeding up the sites was more of a side effect of reducing the number of queries by something like 30%.
The argument misunderstands trust; that we can only trust a single system, and we must trust it completely.
Let's assume for the purposes of argument, however, that an alternative Whois system is created and enough network operators trust it that this alternative system becomes operationally relevant and that a non-RIR resource transfer regime becomes practical. Does anybody really believe that there would be only one alternative Whois system—no copycatting? Or as in the case of alternative DNS described earlier, would not the number of potential alternative Whois systems be limited only by available capital?
(emphasis added) Duplicate systems can contain differing information, and be trusted at different levels. People do this all the time. The author's unstated premise is that the goal is 'a definitive, trusted, answer' and not some variable level of trust (or confidence) in the answer. Think Encyclopedia Britannica; not Wikipedia.
Inevitably, however, the same network would appear to be registered to different operators in different Whois systems since freedom from transfer limitations is the stated reason for the very existence of the alternative systems.
Do we trust a top-down, hierarchical system controlled by a single entity more then a distributed system based on varying levels of trust? That question has been asked and answered on the internet and we all know how it plays out.
My guess would be that the ISPs assign "expense" to the system and the MAFIAA pays the bill. There isn't any reason for the ISPs to do this if they aren't getting paid.
Voice/Data Usage Limitation: Sprint reserves the right, without notice, to limit throughput speeds, and to deny, terminate, modify, disconnect or suspend service if off-network usage in a month exceeds: (1) voice: 800 min. or a majority of minutes; or (2) data: 300 megabytes or a majority of kilobytes. Prohibited network use rules apply. See in-store materials or sprint.com/termsandconditions for specific prohibited uses.
Brilliant post. What you didn't cover are the things managers are supposed to address: communication, trust, openness, friendliness, security (in the office politics sense). Vendors and Contractors are often an issue of bad management, and little to do with IT staff. Think of how often just two people from different departments who like and trust each other, can work out issues quickly and correctly, and stop a project from turning into "some clueless manager who is trying to look good."
It's far more effective to simply watch them play the game, without speaking to them at all, and see what frustrates them, what confuses them, what they enjoy, and so on.
Are emotions visible and obvious without speaking to players? What about seeing a player going over one part of a map again and again tells you it's 'frustrating' or 'enjoyable' for them? Did you mean physically sitting next to them, because the article is about predicting in-game actions.
Here's a two part plan for Radio Shack: First, sell a limited selection (broad and shallow) of quality consumer goods at a high markup. Second, sell DIY parts without a profit so you can co-opt the knowledge of the DIY/geeks for product selection and trusted recommendations.
Brick and Mortar is expensive and can't compete with the web; so don't. Limit the selection of printers, for example, to 3 or 5 that are really good and sell them at a large premium over other retailers. Make service deals for the models, teach staff everything about those models, work every angle you can to convince people (esp. geeks) that they should just TRUST Radio Shack to have picked good printers. A desktop printer might be $90, but I'd happily pay $200 if I believed that you weren't just out for profit, but had really selected a great product and I could get great service for the product. Websites are cheaper, but Radio Shack can talk to you about your issues. Also, with corporate scale Radio Shack could make deals to allow for cheaper ink, in-store service, better software drivers, and many other "soft" issues that would make it worth a large premium to buy at Radio Shack. If Radio Shack just picked a few good printers, people could use the selections, but buy from Amazon. It's all the rest of the related issues that justify the premium, and that depends on trusting Radio Shack.
DIY geeks offers value to Radio Shack in 3 ways. First, by selecting products and sharing knowledge about issues, workarounds, alternate uses, and service opportunities for those products. The DIY crowd will hear about every problem with the printers you sold in the example above. Second, they are the ultimate marketing demographic for retail electronics. If the DIY/geek crowd recommends Radio Shack to everyone it'll be a success again. Third, they'll keep Radio Shack honest and on track. The culture of open and honest opinion will overwhelm short term corporate interest in the quarterly revenue statement, because Radio Shack will be dependent on the good opinion of a group that won't pull punches.
Selling resistors and LEDs without a profit (hopefully) makes sense considering the above two paragraphs. No profit on a 10 cent resistor doesn't matter, because you can't compete with the web on such things anyway, and the goodwill of the DIY/geek crowd can make the sale of consumer goods profitable. Here's a few ideas on how to get that group: Cheap prices; competitive with the internet stores. Let people order multiple parts online and ship them or pick them up at the store, and create "kits" of parts that the community recommends for projects. Retail space is expensive, so only have the most commonly needed parts at the store, and sell them at same cheap prices you have for online orders. Also, let the community tell you what components to stock in the stores. Make a DIY card for charging small parts, not another visa/charge card, but a community/club card that makes it easy to grab a handful of 3-cent parts and self-scan them; no waiting on a service person to check you out. Get Bruce Schneiner to design the DIY card. Give $50 worth of parts to every DIY group you can find. Let the community vote on everything, and offer suggestions on everything. Have some DIY items in-store, like Arduino's on display. Get health insurance for retail staff and pay them less (no commissions) so that geeks will choose to work there because they love the subject matter and environment.
There is still option of Google separating "obtain targetted display ads" permission from "Full network control"+"Phone location". Making the "ads" permission unblockable.
Or let people block the "Ads" permission, and the apps can react however's appropriate.
Thus, the experiences of new internet users now are profoundly different to those of new users even 10 years ago. Todays internet is less like a multi-way chatroom where you choose the topic of the conversation, and more like a one way television channel, where you can happen to post the odd message in your own little sandboxed corner.
It's the new shopping mall: there's some interesting things to see and buy, but people mostly just hang out in their little groups. We have a long way to go before the ease of joining new groups leads to changes in our more immediate, daily lives.
It would be a waste of time to go there within the near future. What we should do, is wait until we've mastered time travel, travel into the future for light-speed transportation, and hope we don't overshoot and end up when we've destroyed ourselves. Wait a second, why does that sounds like a cheesy sci-fi sitcom?
It would be 300,000 years of hope for those left behind.
CPU hardware security tied to end-user software is already on the way. See Why Intel bought McAfee.
Intel has waited for ages for its ecosystem partners to come up with ways to give consumers access to vPro's security benefits, and little has really panned out so now they're just going to take vPro (and any newer security technologies) directly to consumers via McAfee.
A customer is asking for one web page, mediacom is substituting another for monetary gain. How is this not wire fraud?
Market cap.
I know this was a joke, but I also think it's the literal truth: the justice system is corrupted by money, and big companies get away with things nobody else could. I always wonder if others think the same, and if so, why aren't they outraged about it? Is the US a society where everyone thinks justice is corrupted by money, but nobody wants to say it out loud? We only joke about it because it's too painful?
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.broadcom.com/products/Cellular/Mobile-Multimedia-Processors/BCM2763
Full HD 1080p camcorder capabilities in a cell phone with significantly improved quality over current generation handsets (which generally have VGA or lower resolution camcorders)
Up to 20 megapixel digital camera with advanced features such as multiple shots per second, image stabilization, face and smile detection and panorama mode
The ability to render mobile games natively at up to 1080p resolution, which in combination with an on-board HDMI output, allows a console-quality gaming experience on large screen HDTVs
20% to 50% power reduction in comparison to the prior generation VideoCore® III multimedia processor
4 to 6 hours of 1080p video recording and 8 to 10 hours of mobile playback, with up to 16 hours of full HD playback over HDMI given sufficient handset storage
From the "VideoCore® III" page:
Support for 8 mega pixel camera modules enables a picture quality superior to most digital still cameras, while MPEG-4 video capability at VGA resolution offers state-of-the-art video technology for tape-less camcorders. In addition, support for the H.264 video compression standard enables next-generation cellular phones to incorporate DVB-H mobile TV capability.
So say we all.
The alternative is that the inventor still innovates, but keeps his or her innovations secret and exploits them behind closed doors.
This justification doesn't hold for software patents. We know this, in part, because nobody learns software by reading patents. The bargain is broken; society gets no benefit.
Managers aren't stupid; they don't "have trouble seeing the chain of innovation". By cutting R&D management can balance budgets, create short term profits, meet earnings projections, get huge bonuses, get promotions, and generally live the good life. It's the board and investors who are supposed to hold management to strategies of long term value, but they often don't have any long term commitment themselves.
Forget about what the cable companies want. If Google produces a device everyone wants they'll have no choice. They didn't want TiVo or any DVRs at first, or multiple TVs connected, or IPTV or any kind. Popularity will force their hand.
Imagine if a $200 box made it realistic/simple/practical to make video phone calls, and the same box could surf the web, play games, show and record TV. Good hardware isn't the issue, it's good software with open and free SDKs. As long as they don't "beta" it to premature death (like Google TV) I don't see how Google could lose.
The key for Google is ensuring open standards because they don't control the platform. With hardware in every home they could guarantee the long term viability of WebM, OpenGL ES, NaCl, HTML5 (esp. offline storage and 2D rendering).
I didn't even realise Motorola produced some of these things, but could it mean we'll see Google SatNavs, Google Car Kits, Google Cable/DSL modems, Google DVRs, and er, Google Baby Monitors?
Google Game System! Here's a chance for a standards based game computer in every home; promote Chrome/ChromeOS/NaCl/OpenGL ES; stick it to Microsoft; capitalize on software/SDK/game distribution/payment issues that Google excels at. Not to mention playing music, video and teleconferencing opportunities.
On average, a website on CloudFlare ...
... loads twice as fast
... uses 60% less bandwidth
... has 65% fewer requests
... is way more secure
There's a current web site/service offering this but focused on protection: blocking SQL injection, botnet spam, etc... I can't for the life of me remember what it's called. They act as a CDN and reverse proxy too, but speeding up the sites was more of a side effect of reducing the number of queries by something like 30%.
Let's assume for the purposes of argument, however, that an alternative Whois system is created and enough network operators trust it that this alternative system becomes operationally relevant and that a non-RIR resource transfer regime becomes practical. Does anybody really believe that there would be only one alternative Whois system—no copycatting? Or as in the case of alternative DNS described earlier, would not the number of potential alternative Whois systems be limited only by available capital?
(emphasis added) Duplicate systems can contain differing information, and be trusted at different levels. People do this all the time. The author's unstated premise is that the goal is 'a definitive, trusted, answer' and not some variable level of trust (or confidence) in the answer. Think Encyclopedia Britannica; not Wikipedia.
Inevitably, however, the same network would appear to be registered to different operators in different Whois systems since freedom from transfer limitations is the stated reason for the very existence of the alternative systems.
Do we trust a top-down, hierarchical system controlled by a single entity more then a distributed system based on varying levels of trust? That question has been asked and answered on the internet and we all know how it plays out.
My guess would be that the ISPs assign "expense" to the system and the MAFIAA pays the bill. There isn't any reason for the ISPs to do this if they aren't getting paid.
Does it run on Linux? WINE rating goes from garbage to platinum. http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=9901
Centralizing service providers and making them bigger only serves those in power better. Monopolies play the game willingly.
Sprint is NOT unlimited:
Voice/Data Usage Limitation: Sprint reserves the right, without notice, to limit throughput speeds, and to deny, terminate, modify, disconnect or suspend service if off-network usage in a month exceeds: (1) voice: 800 min. or a majority of minutes; or (2) data: 300 megabytes or a majority of kilobytes. Prohibited network use rules apply. See in-store materials or sprint.com/termsandconditions for specific prohibited uses.
http://shop.sprint.com/mysprint/shop/plan_details.jsp?tabId=pt_individual_tab&planCatId=pln301001cat&planFamilyType=&flow=AAL&showDetailsTab=true
The website puts it as "Unlimited data (on our network)" not on the internet in general.
Brilliant post. What you didn't cover are the things managers are supposed to address: communication, trust, openness, friendliness, security (in the office politics sense). Vendors and Contractors are often an issue of bad management, and little to do with IT staff. Think of how often just two people from different departments who like and trust each other, can work out issues quickly and correctly, and stop a project from turning into "some clueless manager who is trying to look good."
It's far more effective to simply watch them play the game, without speaking to them at all, and see what frustrates them, what confuses them, what they enjoy, and so on.
Are emotions visible and obvious without speaking to players? What about seeing a player going over one part of a map again and again tells you it's 'frustrating' or 'enjoyable' for them? Did you mean physically sitting next to them, because the article is about predicting in-game actions.
Here's a two part plan for Radio Shack: First, sell a limited selection (broad and shallow) of quality consumer goods at a high markup. Second, sell DIY parts without a profit so you can co-opt the knowledge of the DIY/geeks for product selection and trusted recommendations.
Brick and Mortar is expensive and can't compete with the web; so don't. Limit the selection of printers, for example, to 3 or 5 that are really good and sell them at a large premium over other retailers. Make service deals for the models, teach staff everything about those models, work every angle you can to convince people (esp. geeks) that they should just TRUST Radio Shack to have picked good printers. A desktop printer might be $90, but I'd happily pay $200 if I believed that you weren't just out for profit, but had really selected a great product and I could get great service for the product. Websites are cheaper, but Radio Shack can talk to you about your issues. Also, with corporate scale Radio Shack could make deals to allow for cheaper ink, in-store service, better software drivers, and many other "soft" issues that would make it worth a large premium to buy at Radio Shack. If Radio Shack just picked a few good printers, people could use the selections, but buy from Amazon. It's all the rest of the related issues that justify the premium, and that depends on trusting Radio Shack.
DIY geeks offers value to Radio Shack in 3 ways. First, by selecting products and sharing knowledge about issues, workarounds, alternate uses, and service opportunities for those products. The DIY crowd will hear about every problem with the printers you sold in the example above. Second, they are the ultimate marketing demographic for retail electronics. If the DIY/geek crowd recommends Radio Shack to everyone it'll be a success again. Third, they'll keep Radio Shack honest and on track. The culture of open and honest opinion will overwhelm short term corporate interest in the quarterly revenue statement, because Radio Shack will be dependent on the good opinion of a group that won't pull punches.
Selling resistors and LEDs without a profit (hopefully) makes sense considering the above two paragraphs. No profit on a 10 cent resistor doesn't matter, because you can't compete with the web on such things anyway, and the goodwill of the DIY/geek crowd can make the sale of consumer goods profitable. Here's a few ideas on how to get that group: Cheap prices; competitive with the internet stores. Let people order multiple parts online and ship them or pick them up at the store, and create "kits" of parts that the community recommends for projects. Retail space is expensive, so only have the most commonly needed parts at the store, and sell them at same cheap prices you have for online orders. Also, let the community tell you what components to stock in the stores. Make a DIY card for charging small parts, not another visa/charge card, but a community/club card that makes it easy to grab a handful of 3-cent parts and self-scan them; no waiting on a service person to check you out. Get Bruce Schneiner to design the DIY card. Give $50 worth of parts to every DIY group you can find. Let the community vote on everything, and offer suggestions on everything. Have some DIY items in-store, like Arduino's on display. Get health insurance for retail staff and pay them less (no commissions) so that geeks will choose to work there because they love the subject matter and environment.
Thanks! This is why I read Slashdot.
There is still option of Google separating "obtain targetted display ads" permission from "Full network control"+"Phone location". Making the "ads" permission unblockable.
Or let people block the "Ads" permission, and the apps can react however's appropriate.
So a company that sells network control and monitoring software, and who has a dodgy past, says the bandwidth caps are OK.
DefectiveByDesign.org is run by the FSF You can read the tiny little letters at the bottom of the page.
Or you can read the great big letters at the top of the page: "Defective by Design.org A campaign by the Free Software Foundation."
Or you could view the source. :)
He should have dumped oil in San Fransisco Bay: no arrest or imprisonment, and payouts aren't made by individuals.
Thus, the experiences of new internet users now are profoundly different to those of new users even 10 years ago. Todays internet is less like a multi-way chatroom where you choose the topic of the conversation, and more like a one way television channel, where you can happen to post the odd message in your own little sandboxed corner.
It's the new shopping mall: there's some interesting things to see and buy, but people mostly just hang out in their little groups. We have a long way to go before the ease of joining new groups leads to changes in our more immediate, daily lives.
It would be a waste of time to go there within the near future. What we should do, is wait until we've mastered time travel, travel into the future for light-speed transportation, and hope we don't overshoot and end up when we've destroyed ourselves. Wait a second, why does that sounds like a cheesy sci-fi sitcom?
It would be 300,000 years of hope for those left behind.
CPU hardware security tied to end-user software is already on the way. See Why Intel bought McAfee.
Intel has waited for ages for its ecosystem partners to come up with ways to give consumers access to vPro's security benefits, and little has really panned out so now they're just going to take vPro (and any newer security technologies) directly to consumers via McAfee.
A customer is asking for one web page, mediacom is substituting another for monetary gain. How is this not wire fraud?
Market cap.
I know this was a joke, but I also think it's the literal truth: the justice system is corrupted by money, and big companies get away with things nobody else could. I always wonder if others think the same, and if so, why aren't they outraged about it? Is the US a society where everyone thinks justice is corrupted by money, but nobody wants to say it out loud? We only joke about it because it's too painful?