In my experience, events like this point to some petty internal political battle. It was great for people using it, and I assume there was minimal overhead to running the program, so "stupidity and greed" seem like the most likely course. Unfortunate. Maybe some bureaucrat had a KPI to reduce external facing servers software cost...
While I still consider Glass to be a solution without of problem, unless people use and find problems with them, innovation will not occur. There is a process of failing that precedes success. I understood when I bought Glass there would be issues. I wear them to find these issues and attempt to improve them. That is why I love to program. I like to make things better.
I read the complaints on the Explorer board, and I am shocked that people expected a perfect product. This is meant to be beta testing. Google has been very clear about this.
If you don’t wish to seek innovation, and you are afraid of things not going perfectly, send them back. You are probably not the type of person who seeks to improve the world around them.
210 or 120?
That would be my guess as a good marker...
Because they have handle the power so well so far...
What are your parents using on the PC? My Dad uses his computer for e-mail and mostly browser based activity. What else do they need if they are basic users?
While I agree with the direction of the evolution of the programs, I don't think it is a fair comparison to define the cost of the Space Shuttle launch as the total program cost divided by the number of launches. Much of the technology and information Falcon is using is based upon the research done to achieve the Shuttle program.
You can't reason with idiots... it is pointless to even try.
I think there are a lot of people on Slashdot that need to read this...
What about Kool-aid?
MIT is like OZ for geeks...
Why was Google not able to make this successful? Is it because people aren't interested in being accountable for their information?
I understand the terms I will use could be viewed as callous, but I do not have better terms. My issue with the cost of the wars is not based in cost, but value. We have spent this much money, and neither our economic nor political standing has improved.
We seem to be fighting a war as if our enemy was the old USSR, when in fact our enemy is quite different. This type of conflict requires more human intelligence, and in country resources. As anyone in security knows, a static defense can be bypassed given time and effort. Does anyone really feel safer with Wal-Mart dropouts running the security at the airport? This is not where we should be putting our money, but it makes people feel better about security.
Why didn't we just search Google for his location? It is even marked!
It seems, after reading through the paper (to the extent my non-MIT mind understood things) that this is based upon a pricing model of European options. European options can only be exercise on the expiry date, American options can be exercised any time before that date.
Link to Original Source