In my family we've had several phones exposed to water. I can't say anything about the liquid damage sensors, but I can report about the durability of phones. My daughter unknowingly dropped her phone on a sidewalk. The case cracked and the phone sat in the rain for a while. It worked after it dried out, but only partially. My wife has dropped her phone in the toilet--not once, but twice--and both times the phone was trashed. My son ran his phone through the washing machine once and had the phone in his pocket when he immersed himself in cool water after a run. Both of these to the same phone, which works to this day. So water isn't instant death to phones, especially if you disconnect the battery and dry the phone as quickly as possible.
While I agree with the main point of the story, something in the quote isn't adding up...
The three largest film industries in the world are India, Nigeria and China. Nigeria cranks out some 2,000 films a year (Nollywood), India produces about 1,000 a year (Bollywood) and China less than 500. Together they produce four times as many films per year as Hollywood.
So if India, Nigeria, and China produce 3500 movies a year (2000+1000+500) and Hollywood produces one fourth as many, which is 875, then isn't the U.S. the third largest film industry in the world?
Another way that OCW can help the professor and the university is if some high school teachers use the OCW materials to enhance their teaching. With some difficult concepts it takes time to assimilate them. Having been exposed to a concept briefly in high school can make that concept less foreign when it is discussed in detail in college.
""You can't correlate the drop in crime to internet file sharing "
"I think you got that backwards"
There's no backwards in correlation. Correlation just means that A and B follow each other, i.e. when A increases, so does B and when A decreases so does B. Correlation does not imply causation, i.e. whether A causes B or B causes A or both are caused by C or they're not linked by cause. However, if there's no correlation, there's no causation, so establishing correlation is a necessary first step to establish causation.
I agree that the "drop in crime" argument is pretty weak. The "gateway crime" is even weaker.
While I think it's unfortunate that Larrikin Music chose to sue over this, I can see why the court ruled as they did. Kookaburra is such a short song. I count 37 notes. It's so short that identifying the song by name is probably infringement. (Note to LM: That was sarcasm; please don't sue me.) The part that Men At Work used is actually two pieces, each 11 notes long. So that's 59% of the tune quoted, multiple times, in Land Down Under.
While it's true the notes aren't part of the versus or chorus, they are the melody line for an instrumental interlude between verses and therefore feature prominently in the song. While not solely responsible for the success of Land Down Under, they do help to give it that Australian flavor.
I agree that the current copyright laws are overboard, but for now they are the law.
I think that the subject article makes some good points (although it maybe overstates its case a little). The point they are trying to make is that adapting was harder for buggy whip makers because the skill set they possessed ("braiding fiber around a hard core") didn't have an application in the automobile business. The carriage makers were closer, with mostly woodworking skills, while the carriage part makers were the closest, since many of them already had metalworking skills.
This isn't to say that a particular industry can't adapt. I take issue with the article's final statement: "But the buggy whip makers never had a fighting chance." In fact the article contradicts itself, as it mentions that a few whip makers survived by focusing on the equestrian market (polo, horse racing, etc.)
There's a saying "to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Humans have a tendency to try to solve problems with the skills and tools they already have rather than learning new ones. It takes an exceptional person to 1) recognize that their skills and tools are losing relevance, and 2) acquire new skills and tools to make a successful transition.
This is just my interpretation, but I think the point of the article is not that buggy whip makers aren't a good example of businesses disrupted by innovation. The point is rather that for most businesses, the carriage makers and carriage part makers are more apt analogies. Most modern businesses facing disruption have some (but not all) of the skills they will need for the future.
I think Mike was just too full of rage when he read the article. ;-)
The term robot is so broad, that it encompasses a multitude of devices, from the "simple" robotic arms that do factory work, to the self-aware android of science fiction.
senshikaze suggests that the Asmovian laws are all that are needed, but when my robotic lawn mower loses its bearings and mows down his prize-winning bonsai garden (without ever violating an Asmovian law), he might reconsider.
I can guarantee there will be moral panics where people will demand laws against "robostalking", "robobullying", etc., when in fact these are just stalking and bullying with the robot as a tool. And people will undoubtedly sue robot manufacturers when robots do what their owners told them to do. So I'm sure that some sort of safe harbor will be needed to protect manufacturers from the actions of users.
Mike and David came to an agreement that a "tiers" model would work for online media, but I was disappointed that no one gave any concrete examples of the scarcities that might be sold in such a tiered offering. I'm sure a company would have to try myriad offerings to find the ones that work, but can someone offer up some examples?
I certainly hope that my comment on the original post was one of the ones that Bev Stayart's lawyer (who also does not want Beverly Stayart's name associated with porn) wanted removed. I would consider it a badge of honor.
Set up tables for all the teachers in the gym (or whatever large room is handy). Each teacher has a sheet of paper for each class period they teach. Send in the seniors! Well, a portion of the senior class. They go to the teachers for each of the classes they need and sign up. Then the juniors and so on. At the end of the day, the freshmen get terrible schedules, but that's what happens inside the computer anyway. Then each of the teachers makes two copies of their class rosters: one for the administration, and one to send to SchoolMax to be entered into the database AT THEIR EXPENSE.
Years ago I read an article which described an experiment in computer modeling of evolutionary systems. In the experiment, a simulated organism with a very small genetic advantage was found to inexorably outcompete other organisms. It didn't matter that the advantage was tiny. The net effect over numerous competitions was to favor the fitter organism.
Of course, real world companies are much more complex than such a computer simulation, but I suspect the same principles apply. The WSJ may find a niche market of folks who will glady micropay for "high quality" news, but in the broader mass market, I suspect they will get creamed.
She's a legal assistant and CFO of a law firm. My guess is that she's been in the legal environment long enough that the thought of suing when someone displeases you just comes naturally. Yet another example of the Streisand Effect.
Important announcement for all people (and search engines) out there: Beverly Stayart does not want her name associated with Porn. Bev Stayart != Porn. When you think of Beverly Stayart, do not think of porn. Glad I could be of service.