857 karma · joined February 28, 2011
Manufacturing limitations & launch pad availability, once they are resolved (along with launcher reuse) will lead to a point where there is not enough demand to fill the launch roster. This internal demand will help them fill it up.
Rocket launches generate revenue once per launch and for the foreseeable future, there will only a limited number launches per year.
Very good move by SpaceX.
I guess it is a fair assumption that the neural network is trained using a corpus of logos that already look "well made" to the human eye.
It is possible there may not have been any/many samples that would be considered bad.
It would be interesting to see how this neural net evaluates a bad logo, using a tool such as LIME.
Sorry about the nitpick; this really is a cool implementation :-)
For my location, I usually provide updates/corrections via Mapmaker; it goes through a community review process and shows up in the main Maps within a couple of months (at most).
Says Ellsworth: "Gabe was completely behind it... I talked to Gabe, and he talked to the lawyers, and he's like, 'It's theirs, make it happen,' because he could see we were passionate about it."
But in multiple situations I have seen significant web load performance improvements when the number of discrete files being loaded is reduced - merge all JS into one file, all CSS into another and sprite images. This is due to HTTP 2-connection rule.
Which action from those existing developers would be best for users?
a) Do not copy your product/service. Continue doing things the old way.
b) Make something different, not because it's better, but only for being different's sake. Forces users to adapt to something new instead of using what they're already used to.
c) Embrace the innovation. Put all that's good about your product/service in their offering. Then iterate through it and improve upon it. Now users have the best of both worlds, they have the brand new innovation, in a format they're used to. And taking benefit from next iterations improved from it.
So where does your preferred option (c) leave you in this scenario? Would you whole-heartedly welcome another player "embracing your innovation"?
If that happens to me, I'll lose all motivation to innovate any further. What is the point after all?
So I tend not to use opacity in my JS rendered SVG especially if there are any animations.
And pretty sophisticated JS libraries have been built to make use of this technology in web applications. The best IMHO is d3.js: http://d3js.org/
Those algorithms should be de facto standards and licensed under FRAND"
Came across the above comment at http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/151423/google-argues-popula...
EPEAT registry does not yet include certifications for smartphones or tablets.
Why does it have to be a "Personality Cult" or "Reality Distortion Field"?
"The letter to municipal agencies will cite a 2007 policy that mandates that city funds only be used to purchase EPEAT-certified desktops, laptops and monitors..."
Later on: "...the EPEAT registry does not yet include certifications for smartphones or tablets..."
Finally it also says: "...the city spent $45,579 on Apple desktops, laptops and iPads (the last of which are not certifiable under EPEAT and would not be barred by the city’s policy.)"
Headline too generic?
Citation please? Has it even started shipping yet? Google is still talking orders, right?
Before anyone makes any Ad Hominem comment, may I please request to focus on the point in that post relevant to the thread here?
If I had not explicitly signed-out of Facebook before visiting all these other sites, Facebook knows about it. And maybe also the browsing habits of people in my network. That gives a really deep profile about me - a lot more than just my demographics.
Recently there was an excellent article on ReadWriteWeb, about why Facebook terrifies Google: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/why_facebook_terrifies_...
Check out screen shots of their respective ad platforms in that article: the level of targeting that is possible with Facebook (which is only going to become deeper, given all the additional details they are gathering about me) is simply not possible with Google. This is one major reason why Google is pushing hard with Google+
Can you provide citation for the above?
As far as I know, neither Microsoft nor any of the Android H/W manufacturers have revealed any details on which patents are covered as part of the licensing agreement.
But how much should they pay? In this special case of patents, Motorola is expected to charge Apple the same rates as other licensees. In fact, they have committed to do so.
But now, they are going back on that commitment and also trying to double dip.
FRAND (Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory) patent commitment is an essential part of standard setting process. If companies are allowed to abuse FRAND committed patents like this, there will be chaos. We'll go back to the digital dark ages when there were no standards or interoperability.
Why could it not be the other way around? Maybe Apple was preparing in secret, fearing a law suit by Motorola. That is equally plausible.
Motorola contributed some patents to a mobile telecom standard; they made a commitment to license these standard essential patents in Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory terms to everyone who wants to build a "portable hand-held telephone device".
Motorola wants 2.25% of the sale price of each Apple device in which the standard is used.
Now, if each patent contributor to the standard demands the same rate as Motorola, the outgo will be above 100%.
Essentially, only those who have contributed to the patent pool can build a mobile phone. No one else can enter the market. How is that Fair, Reasonable or Non-Discriminatory?
That is why there is talk about EU & FTC in US investigating Google/Motorola for anti-competitive behavior.
Also, there is another interesting point here - all these patents are implemented in the baseband chip built by Qualcomm and used by Apple in its devices. Qualcomm has already paid the royalty for using Google/Motorola's patents. Now Motorola wants royalty from Apple also, for the same patents. Double-dipping anyone?
Motorola filed the first suit.
Even in the article you have linked, the author says "...why my position is that Apple attacked Motorola even though Motorola technically won the race to the courthouse". Irrespective of what the author thinks went in the background, he admits Motorola filed the suit first.