Just to confirm my thought:
78% of americans own a cell phone:
http://www.itfacts.biz/78-of-americans-own-cell-phones/11802
28% of american population own a passport
http://www.gyford.com/phil/writing/2003/01/31/how_many_america.php
(according to the 2008 GAO report)
So basically they show that their car can learn by copying some known process in addition to their physics model.
Yet I'm curious to know how the car decide that they should use the learned process rather than their model. I mean, if they learned this parking maneuver on gravel, and tried that on slick pavement, anybody would probably fail. Can this car actually do better? I would be curious to see if the car can learn a maneuver in some given conditions and repeat it in slightly different conditions.
What you see is Market Share.
The report is about Sales (of new phones).
Nobody claim that Android phones have more market share than iPhones (which have been selling for almost 3 years now)...
AT&T and T-mobile's higher end phones all inherently offer world wide coverage, plus you can always just drop a local sim into your GSM phone.
Ahem... most GSM phones are still sold locked to your carrier, so you cant really just "drop" your foreign SIM in them... especially the iPhone. Unlock was fairly easy on basic Nokia or Moto phones, not so easy or safe on iPhones and smartphones.
Also, most people dont travel internationally very frequently, so its not likely to be a big incentive for them. Those people who do travel frequently are likely to have an extra phone and plan where they do most of their travel, or if they are on verizon, they are likely to have a world phone that also has GSM, with an international plan paid by their company. Verizon also has (or used to have) loaner GSM phones for the occasional international traveller.
Also, with the price of international roaming being what it is, my GSM phone is "just in case" when I'm not in the US.
GSM is one of the reason I started with Cingular, having a GSM phone was a lifesaver, worth the expensive calls in a couple of situations, but I dont think its going to be a decisive factor for most people.
Thats called Light Peak, by Intel...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Peak
Also HDMI 1.4 does not have USB in, but has ethernet...
Less cables? maybe, eventually.... But by the time you get the latest all-in-one, you will have some new technology coming along that offers something extra that you will want... So you will end up with a mix of new tech cables and old tech cables anyway
While true, it may not matter.
Why ?
Users dont buy Flash, they buy iPhones. Obviously most users dont care about iPhone being proprietary, and in the end, Apple will do anything to please the majority users enough so that they will buy more phones. That include keeping a tight control on the platform.
Users want to buy iPhones and Apps. They dont really care about how the way the apps were programmed, or if its open. They may care about the price and the quality.
Apple will occasionally switch their stance when they think its ultimately beneficial for them. For example, see how they want from only webapps to native apps. They saw how it would benefits the users, and allow them to sell more phones. They gave the users want they want.
For sure they will not make things easy for developers. Their strategy is please the users first, the developers will come. They will only encourage the developers if it eventually make it better for the user.
Microsoft in the past and Android now have the other strategy: please the developers (Who said: "developers! developers! developers!"), they will create great apps and the users will come for the apps, not the phone.
At the start of the PC era, Microsoft picked the right strategy and won against the Apple. Things have changed, PC and Smartphone users are not just geeks anymore, so Apple strategy might work better now....
Time will tell.... But the DOJ might be the wild card here....
He obviously omitted "modern", "useful" or some such other word to qualify video codecs.
If MPEG-1 was any good for low bitrate HD, there would have been no need for people to switch to Theora or H.264...
Buy an iPad, bring it to work and tell them this is the only computer you use for reading your email.
Watch the reaction....
Then either they will have to supply you with their own approved device, or you can just forget about working from home...
No. The annoying thing was the title: "Fairly realistic figures".
Thats the whole point of ISO isnt it ? Having a process and be slave to it.
So you start from 4 numbers, all of them are estimates...
Then you arrive at a number which is somewhat far off the "official" Ubuntu number....
And from that you learn.... what ?
Absolutely nothing.
I meant the article, not the people involved. "Family in middle America has fucked up issues." Why is this interesting?
Keyword: Facebook
Similar to what made the Reiser murder/trial story news that matter (albeit slightly less intense).
That murder trial had nothing to do with technology yet Wired had a day by day coverage of the trial.
They presumably did not have any expertise with building online services when they started building their infrastructure for iTunes... Yet now they have a all division for Music store, App Store, Book Store, MobileMe, etc...i
This came from the fact that they did a massive ad campaign for the iPod
Wait, you tell me that putting stylish iPod poster everywhere made the iTunes server work?
They presumably did not have any expertise dealing with cell phone technology, yet we all know what happened to iPhone...
It had the huge marketing campaign and just copied the concept of the Palm PDA (...). Again, nothing new from Apple just someone else technology with the Apple marketing campaign.
Wait, you are telling me that you just need a Concept and an Ad campaing the sell a few millions phone ?
I think people assume that Apple is only good at UI stuff because Apple does not really advertise the core technologies that they have behind the eye candy...
They have a very good core OS technology behind their computers and other devices, but really not something that anybody cares about... It think it would be naive to believe that Apple cannot gain or acquire the expertise and technology needed for a search engine if they wanted too...
I don't think Apple really advertises the core technologies that are beyond the eye candy because it's not theirs, it's just technology they 'borrowed' and farmed out really. (...) In the end, Apple doesn't make anything new, they make ads for product idea's they borrowed and rehashed from others.
Okay so thanks for proving my point which is:
Apple can ACQUIRE the technology they need and HIRE the expertise they need to do what they want to do, and Market it better than anyone else.
So if you apply this to a search engine, there is no reason that Apple could not steal/acquire the concepts and technology required to create a somewhat competitive search engine.... Then you would put their marketing machine (or Steve's RDF) to work and voila... iSearch...
I believe Apple is a Product company rather than a Technology company. They dont develop Technology for the sake of it. They develop Products. But they will develop or acquire the technology they need in the process, and integrate it into products with usually great results...
So basically, they apply garbage collection techniques to regular malloc/free program
Not bad, all things considered...
It's an old trick in parallel processing research: pick a slow algorithm, then speed it up via parallelism, rather than starting out with an efficient solution.
Actually its a very interesting trick.
There are so many slow algorithm in the wild that having a simple method to speed them all up would be very useful.
Ah, yes, this would not be a theoretical break-through, but a very practical one indeed...
Suggest you just sit there and wait till life gets easier.
