HN user
Recurring revenue - launch the satellite constellation once and generate monthly subscription revenue potentially running into billions of dollars a month.
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.
Satellite internet service should provide major operational cash flow for SpaceX. That too on recurring basis.
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.
Good point.
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.
This is cool. But should the fourth section (sub-seconds) be running from 0-99? It is currently running from 0-59, too.
Sorry about the nitpick; this really is a cool implementation :-)
Not sure if your location is covered by Google's Mapmaker.
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).
Just curious. Which company would be apt to provide "security solutions", then?
Some unintended consequences of playing the video backwards - when I go in reverse from slide 9 (Fan) to slide 8 (Thermal Core), the arrows indicating air flow and thermal flow are animated in reverse :-)
My respect for Gabe Newell just went up:
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."
PG's post from a couple of months ago, titled "Startup = Growth", might be relevant: http://paulgraham.com/growth.html
That is cool. And thanks Mike, for your incredible d3.js library.
Not sure what you mean by "rarely beneficial to compress to one single file".
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.
You are the founder of evolup.com. Let us say your product/service becomes a huge success. Seeing your success, existing social games developers want to do the same.
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?
As long as CSS opacity is not explicitly specified for any SVG element, I have found FF is not very slower than Chrome/Safari. But the moment opacity attribute is added even for a single element (even if the value is specified as 1), FF really slows down.
So I tend not to use opacity in my JS rendered SVG especially if there are any animations.
Has SVG not been around a lot longer than HTML5? The article says "This is a HTML5 tag to draw a vector graphics"
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/
"I actually agree with Google. On that note, I think their search algorithms have become essential for the industry. As much as I've tried switching to Bing or Yahoo, I keep coming back to Google's engine.
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...
"All eligible products" - in terms of product categories that EPEAT covers.
EPEAT registry does not yet include certifications for smartphones or tablets.
Maybe once in a while, people just want to appreciate a visionary like Elon Musk. No critique or judging, just appreciation.
Why does it have to be a "Personality Cult" or "Reality Distortion Field"?
True visionary. Lucky for the rest of us, he has the determination & financial muscle to make his visions a reality.
To quote from the article:
"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?
>who appear to be quickly running to the Nexus 7
Citation please? Has it even started shipping yet? Google is still talking orders, right?
I guess this post by MG Seigler is relevant here: http://parislemon.com/post/15604811641/why-i-hate-android
Before anyone makes any Ad Hominem comment, may I please request to focus on the point in that post relevant to the thread here?
Demographic info may not be the only thing they know about. Given a lot of sites embed some sort of Facebook widget on their pages, they have a tracking mechanism.
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+
That article is about a law suit involving motorola; not a license agreement MS has with several companies including Samsung & HTC. What about these other Android companies that have got license agreements with Microsoft? They have never publicly talked about patents covered by the agreement.
>>the patent that Microsoft is suing OEM's with is related to ActiveSync
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.
Apple should pay. No questions about that.
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.
In case of Motorola vs. Apple, it was Motorola that sued Apple first. See this thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4184714
What I believe is besides the point. And the attempt by Motorola to pre-empt is the Author's point of view, not mine.
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.
Let's talk about that in context.
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?
Same blog, earlier article: http://www.fosspatents.com/2010/12/apple-vs-motorola-now-42-...
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.
Okay. Let me qualify my point. I find it hard to believe such a high profile bribery can happen in the US (the article you have posted is a case of bribery by an American company in Mexico). And given Apple's profile and a lot of entities already pursuing their case (ex: NYT's iEconomy series), they would never do such a big blunder.