Exactly. How could they possibly be selling TVs at a loss? They are applying the Apple model, namely that every product should bring in money from it's post purchase use, and saying they are loosing money for not making 'that' money.
From Morrowind on, the game's subtitle became far more important than the fact that it was in the Elder Scrolls series. There really is no brand recognition. Every gamer knows Skyrim is coming out and they identify it as that not as TESV.
From the 'specs' it seems like it will only be marginally more powerful, though probably powerful enough for 1080p for the next 10 years or so. The fact that it can only support one tablet is also a bit discouraging. They should redesign it to support multiple tablets ( at least 2) by adding more power to each one or perhaps adding a second BT channel.
Good catch. I remembered the name but didn't catch the gross conflict of interest.
Good point. It is just a decline in what they are able to track, because one of the services they were tracking no longer allows for downloads.
I bet they want to inflate the system with a dual core atom rather than a low power solution like ARM. Something designed to monitor power consumption with the intention of saving energy really should be extremely efficient in itself.
Also keep in mind that they did not measure the speed and direction of a free Brownian particle. They confined it so it's not really the same problem. However I it is possible to watch a small fluorescent labeled protein molecule move around too. In that case if the protein is small enough and the concentration is dilute enough one can basically film their trajectories.
I am not sure how much creative input he had in it, but the video for Hot Chip's "I Fell Better" is Fucking hilarious. I was rather disappointed with the album due to it's lacking the humor I expect in a Hot Chip album, but this video more than makes up for it.
Why would anyone running XP fork over the dough for a 3TB HDD? XP is 9 years old and Win7 is a very good replacement for newer machines, particularly ones who's owners might want a 3TB drive for.
I used to be the type of person who would get a full cable TV package and rent movies on VHS frequently, now I just download. I typically watch video downloads then delete some time later to free up space. Clearly someone is missing out on my business and I am not at all averse to paying for some content. When Netflix starts offering more streaming content in HD then I am there.
I think there needs to be a different model for current TV programs though. It's hard to sit through ads when one can simply download a tvrip with them all removed. Paying $2 per episode is not reasonable to me because, even in season packs, the costs can very quickly balloon to well over the cost of cable + a custom built DVR. There needs to be some flate rate service or some service with really cheap transactions for a single episode. I would stick ads in as a way cheapen the cost. Looking at superbowl ads as an extreme case, it costs advertisers 3 million bucks to reach a potential 100 million viewers, or 3cents per viewer, per ad. For a typical 1 hour TV program we get 18 minutes of ads, or 36 commercials. At superbowl prices this costs all the advertisers about1 dollar combined, for regular TV I am sure it is far less than that but it's a nice number to look at and gives a rough idea how broadcasters are actually making money. They are making a very small sum for each ad they are making you watch. Why not turn that around and keep the costs in the same ballpark? (Greed obviously, but let's pretend someone can see the benefit to not being so greedy)
There are many ways one could play around with this as all I am talking about is a video on demand service, but let's say it works like this. Subscriber pays some small monthly fee to sign up for streaming service, netflix or Hulu or what have you. This service allows you to purchase new premium content, ie new episodes of Lost, for a small, reasonable fee. Refund this cost if user agrees to watch ads. These ads can be targeted based on users demographics and there will be considerably less than 18 minutes per hour. Show monthly balance on some navigation bar that is always present except when watching content to influence viewer's decision. Display some sort of logo, or preview screen of all ads to be shown during program while viewer is deciding to watch for free or to pay for the ad free version. Charge advertisers for ads that are viewed, this can be done at a premium because they can be targeted and will have less competition. Charge them less for the logo in the preview screen, but do charge them. Pocket the money from those who pay for the ad free version. Yes it would take a long time to make something like this work, but with the right pricing I think it can work and it is a way that content providers can benefit from the internet rather than lose out.
The article you cite describes how photosynthesis relies on quantum physics in general, not quantum entanglement which is a very specific type of quantum phenomenon.
I appreciate the idea, but it really doesn't apply to this particular case. Photosynthesis is not at all diverse. It is one of the many "designs" nature evolved that is used by countless species. I also find it hard to equate the development of quantum computers as a requisite for humanity's biological fitness.
Your comment only seems appropriate for the case when a drug is discovered in some plant or venom.
It's typical to overhype and exaggerate results like this. What's interesting is if it really is that easy to make reliable, robust, defect free logic circuits so easy, would it be a good thing or a bad thing economically. I'd certainly be out of a job if a grad student could magically mix up an SOC complete with electrical interconnects and packaging while his/her advisor slowly whittles away at his/her self esteem
Even after Moore's Law stops yielding smaller transistors there will be a drive to change fabrication technology so we can get faster chips that consume less power. I think the general idea behind his statement is a good one though even if it is covered with sound bytey BS. How long can we keep using the same X86 style architecture and expect to see huge advances in computing?
They are not being different. As soon as they own an Apple product they tend to go out of their way to stick it in people's faces to show them how awesome it is. I.e. they do exactly what the last douchebag they saw with an Apple product did.