At MIT, lot of research is done and published and the results can be used for anything including making weapons of mass destruction by terrorist and dictators. How come MIT research is tax exempt? In fact, both MIT and Yorba are involved in doing things which are good for the whole humanity without directly profiting from it and hence both should qualify EQUALLY. If one is banned then the other should be as well. In fact MIT and other educational institutions often directly work with commercial organizations and sell their IP for profit and still they are considered charity. If Yorba's purpose is to develop software specifically for commercial organization such as banks or retail stores, then it would have been a different matter.
Tesla and Leaf are not in the same category even when adjusted for range. Tesla is normally regarded luxury car like Mercedes, BMW, Lexus category and Leaf is considered as an alternative to Corolla and Prius. Even if Leaf range is same, it won't dent a sale of Tesla as I don't see any buyer overlap.
the first application of such devices would be more like a solar cell, power plant, backup generator etc. Putting a new device in car can take decades, but putting in these can be done much more quickly as the number of approvals needed is far few. Whenever, someone uses "car" where it is not justified, I know the innovation is most likely worthless showoff or it is decades away from practical use. Yes, one day all cars will run on fusion power. Thanks.
Didn't we almost had it? See Superconducting Super Collider This was proposed in 1983 and cancelled in 1992 after spending 2 billion USD.
There are still three things missing:
1. Scientists are only counting the laser energy absorbed by the fuel. Not all of the laser energy is absorbed by the fuel.
2. Lasers are not 100% efficient. They take lot more energy than they give out.
3. The generated energy is in the form of heat. Converting it to electrical is not there.
Overall, the efficiency is still less than 1%. Far away from anything usable.
The iPhone-C is a low end device with older hardware. Which means it will become obsolete faster and owners will upgrade in shorter time than iPhone-S owners will. Also, the price difference is not all that high (550 vs 650 USD for iphoneC and iphoneS). Assuming it is $50 cheaper to make iPhone, Apple will recover that in quicker upgrade cycle. Also, it allows Apple to sell iPhone to users who would have gone most likely to Android. In fact, this is the best thing Apple could have done. Apple's recent fall of stock price is because the investors believes that it should have introduced an even lower end device which they didn't. So imaging what would have happened without iPhone-C?
Replace Oracle with Apple or Microsoft and Solaris with Windows. Does MS give free OS upgrade for lifetime on your hardware? What if thirdparty tells you that it is licensed to provide you new versions of OS on your old PC? Oracle is going after those. Each customer gets certain upgrade free and then they have to either buy paid support which include free upgrade or have to pay to get upgrade. I am almost sure, the people in charge of Rimini street were in TomorrowNow which was found guilty of copyright infringement of Oracle software, so I won't call them totally clean.
The study referenced in article says, "And in Texas, regulators denied developers of a proposed 1,320-megawatt coal plant a permit to with draw 8.3 billion gallons". Since USA has about 1100 GW of installed capacity (including hydro), this approximately translates into 7.5 trillion gallons or about 20 billion gallons a day. According to ucsusa, the total withdrawal by power plants is 200 billion gallons a day. So it looks like the old power plants are the main culprits.
Just like PCs became faster and replaced Unix workstations at many places, the low end devices are becoming faster and are threatening the dedicated gaming consoles. Mostly all you need is a good quality controller and you can fairly use high end PC to replace your gaming console. Newer Wi-Fi standards are becoming faster by the day (to easily connect controller to PC) and also virtual controllers like Kinect can easily be ported to PC, so that shouldn't be a bottleneck. The game publishers will be more than willing to support open (relatively speaking) platforms as they don't have to invest huge amount upfront and don't have to pay per game commission to console makers. As of now, I am not planning to upgrade my gaming console. I will wait and watch whether it is worth or not.
Because of this, it had to go to the supreme court.
This is already the case. During my grad studies, only 20% of foreign editions were identical. The rest had either wrong page numbers or different questions (sometimes very similar questions with just a different set of numbers).
This means this is overturned as well.
Big win for Costco and Costco members.
You have to know in advance that the particles are entangled. That extra bit of information is needed. Thus when you measure one particle, you do get that extra bit of information about the other particle. So the information about the other particle is not free but is the direct result of the apriori information about entanglement.
Although pre-screening is not economically feasible, limited pre-emptive screening might be. If the view count exceeds 100, it should screen. Besides, the post summary says "72 hours of content every min". This is irrelevant, when you only do first few seconds of screening of each video. A more important measure would be number of videos a min. Also, if a video is uploaded by user with a nice record, then only a small sample of those users' video should be screened. Further automated analysis can analyze the quality of video. If the quality is poor, its effect on reducing sale of actual video is minor and can be removed as well. I don't have any statistics, but based on my viewing habits, this can eliminate need to screen > 98% of videos and the cost can fall to less than 1B. Still large, but not significantly lower.
Intel developed inexact math calculation technology in 1995 for Pentium. Now that the patent has expired, everyone wants to copy it.