A watt is a unit of power, not energy. Power is energy per unit time, so NIF works by storing large amounts of energy in capacitor banks (transferring it from the grid slowly) in preparation for a shot and then releasing all of that energy over a very short timespan. Since the timespan is short, the power to target is extremely large.
An example to back you up: if the laser pulse was 1 nanosecond, the energy required to make the beam a 500 terawatt beam would be 500 kJ, or the energy released by the combustion of one gram of gasoline
I disagree with you on the details a bit, but I think viewing this as good at somethings and bad at others is far more constructive than arguing that this should replace a mouse, keyboard etc.
However, I would make the good/bad list a bit more general: * good for manipulating UI elements that represent 3D
* bad for manipulating UI elements that represent 2D
Maps and camera interactions (CAD) are perfect examples of things that represent 3D elements. Short games are another area that can represent 3D - longer games might also work well, but the user is likely to get tired of waving his/her arms around.
Much of what we do on computers today is strictly 2D. Coding, word processing, most web browsing, email, etc. Pencil tools/drawing tools are similarly usually just a 2D activity, so using a 3D-capable tool and reducing your movements to 2D doesn't really make sense.
I think your numbers are a bit off. I live in Livermore (25 minutes West of Tracy), and it takes me at least 45 mins to drive to SF (if there's no traffic). It's nice that BART comes as far as it does, but it's a 45 minute ride to SF, and that doesn't even include the 15 mins (30-40 from Tracy) drive to get to the station.
I get your point that Tracy has available housing, but I think a 1.5+ hour commute makes it a much less appealing solution than the 50 mins you mentioned.
I'm just curious - are you implying that you've personally encountered this sort of thing at government spy agencies or just that much of the government seems to have these characteristics?
One feature I miss: select all only selects the items on the first page. Maybe I get too many calls, but when I have 500+ items in the inbox and I want to clear them out, it's a hassle.
I can second this. Had to install a script to automate this. You would think that Google could get this implemented without too much hassle given that's the behavior in Gmail.
There may be some truth to that for the type of person who reads HN, but it's certainly not true for the wider public. Most people don't care about having full control of their mobile device, they just want it to work.
It's not irrelevant to them -- it's a concern that they are unable to articulate.
Anecdotal support: for the Android users I know who fall into this group, it manifests as a vague set of complaints -- certain apps don't run, had to take it into the store a lot, app claiming to be available for Android not available for their phone -- which are all symptoms of having what is called here an orphaned phone.
So yeah, they don't know or care whether they are running version 1.x or 2.y. But they do know that they are generally dissatisfied with their phone.
It's a great example of the excessive control given to rights holders, so excessive that a prominent company like Netflix ($300/share is certainly not something to shirk) and similar hypothetical businesses can be totally gutted at the pleasure of a handful of production companies and/or publishers. The diminution of Netflix is no small matter and will hopefully serve as a very visible demonstration of the cruel absurdity of current copyright law.
Netflix can only offer a relative few movies without the approval of content holders, mostly only those that are older than my grandparents. They don't even have the option of reverting to classics from the 40s, 50s, 60s or 70s.
The hope is that the dramatic demise of Netflix will raise awareness and visibility of these issues, promoting IP reform.
It seems as though you're suggesting that the movie studios that spend tens, sometimes hundreds, of million of dollars to produce a single film should be forced to sell it to companies like Netflix for pennies. The basic problem here is that Netflix is selling a total fantasy product that does not pay the rights holders enough money. Look at the math -- $8/month for unlimited access? How does that possibly work when your cable bill is $80/month, a DVD/BR costs $15-$30, and a movie ticket costs $10-15? HBO, which shows more recent movies, is about $20/month by itself. Just to offer competitive prices to the rights holders I suspect Netlix would have to charge between $50-$75/month.
I'm generally all for government regulation as needed but this seems absurd. Why would any film company produce movies anymore? People (un)happily pay a lot more for the content today in other mediums. We're going to force the film industry to charge them a lot less to prop up Netflix and other streaming video services? Again I have to go back to the simple fact that Netflix has always been selling a fantasy and their troubles today are totally self inflicted. They convinced people they could spend an insanely small amount of money to get a huge amount of value/content. Netflix is almost a ponzi scheme.
I have to disagree with you. Whats the point of an IP if you have no control of who uses it.
The problem is that the content holders don't realize who their friends and enemies are. They worry about the web, but when a solution to a lot of their issues arises, they want to charge them right out of business.
Whats the point of an IP if you have no control of who uses it.
Compulsory licensing already exists for music. Something similar could be done for movies. It may not fit in an $8/mo streaming plan, but the change would allow anyone to set up a streaming site as long as they pay the compulsory licensing fees.
Yeah, I can't believe the nerve these software developers have, they don't accept a $0.99 for all their apps. Let's make them lose their copyright and make sure app stores can dictate pricing freely, without having to negotiate with developers.
I'm not arguing for the abolishment of copyright entirely. I just think 90 years+ is a term far too long. I'd like to see it reduced to something in the 20-30 yr range, and perhaps some broadening of fair use and derivative works allowed without license.
Once copyright goes to 20-30 years, Netflix (or its successor) could have a tiered plan: $8/mo that streams fully-recouped and out of copyright movies, $x/mo for new releases.
> businesses can be totally gutted at the pleasure of a handful of production companies and/or publishers
If this were true, those studios would go out of business and more cooperative studios would rise up to replace them within a few years.
> $300/share is certainly not something to shirk
The important metric is market capitalization (share price multiplied by number of issued shares). Netflix's market cap is an optimistic $5 billion. Apple is $377 billion, equal to 75 Netflixes.
As I recall, their issue with the GV app was that it "duplicated features" like the phonebook and dialer. Whether you believe that was their real reason or not, the Sprint integration doesn't duplicate anything - everything can be done using the native phone functions.
You should be able to just dial directly from the phone app. I haven't tried this on my phone, but based on the way it works and the way Google describes the integration, you should be able to do it.
