Google Buys
a Quantum Computer
Kim Stallknecht for The New York Times A quantum computer
developed by D-Wave Systems.
Google and a corporation associated with NASA are forming a
laboratory to study artificial intelligence by means of computers
that use the unusual properties of quantum physics. Their quantum
computer, which performs complex calculations thousands of times
faster than existing supercomputers, is expected to be in active use
in the third quarter of this year.
The Quantum Artificial Intelligence Lab, as the entity is called,
will focus on machine learning, which is the way computers take note
of patterns of information to improve their outputs. Personalized
Internet search and predictions of traffic congestion based on GPS
data are examples of machine learning. The field is particularly
important for things like facial or voice recognition, biological
behavior, or the management of very large and complex systems.
“If we want to create effective environmental policies, we need
better models of what’s happening to our climate,” Google said in
a blog post announcing the partnership. “Classical computers aren’t
well suited to these types of creative problems.”
Google said it had already devised machine-learning algorithms
that work inside the quantum computer, which is made by D-Wave
Systems of Burnaby, British Columbia. One could quickly recognize
information, saving power on mobile devices, while another was
successful at sorting out bad or mislabeled data. The most effective
methods for using quantum computation, Google said, the quantum
computer involved combining the advanced machines with its clouds of
traditional computers.
Google bought the machine in cooperation with the Universities
Space Research Association, a nonprofit research corporation that
works with NASA and others to advance space science and technology.
Outside researchers will be invited to the lab as well.
This year D-Wave sold its first commercial quantum computer to
Lockheed Martin. Lockheed officials said the computer would be used
for the test and measurement of things like jet aircraft designs, or
the reliability of satellite systems.
The D-Wave computer works by framing complex problems in terms of
optimal outcomes. The classic example of this type of problem is
figuring out the most efficient way a traveling salesman can visit 10
customers, but real-world problems now include hundreds of such
variables and contingencies. D-Wave’s machine frames the problem in
terms of energy states, and uses quantum physics to rapidly determine
an outcome that satisfies the variables with the least use of energy.
In test last september, an independent researcher found that for
some types of problems the quantum computer was 3,600 times faster
than traditional supercomputers. According to a D-Wave official, the
machine performed even better in Google’s tests, which involved 500
variables with different constraints.
“The tougher, more complex ones had better performance,” said
Colin Williams, D-Wave’s director of business development. “For
most problems, it was 11,000 times faster, but in the more difficult
50 percent, it was 33,000 times faster. In the top 25 percent, it was
50,000 times faster.” Google declined to comment, aside from the
blog post.
The machine Google will use at NASA’s Ames Research facility,
located near Google headquarters, makes use of the interactions of
512 quantum bits, or qubits, to determine optimization. They plan to
upgrade the machine to 2,048 qubits when this becomes available,
probably within the next year or two. That machine could be
exponentially more powerful.
Google did not say how it might deploy a quantum computer into its
existing global network of computer-intensive data centers, which are
among the world’s largest. D-Wave, however, intends eventually for
its quantum machine to hook into cloud computing systems, doing the
exceptionally hard problems that can then be finished off by regular
servers.
Potential applications include finance, health care, and national
security, said Vern Brownell, D-Wave’s chief executive. “The
long-term vision is the quantum cloud, with a few high-end systems in
the back end,” he said. “You could use it to train an algorithm
that goes into a phone, or do lots of simulations for a financial
institution.”
Mr. Brownell, who founded a computer server company, was also the
chief technical officer at Goldman Sachs. Goldman is an investor in
D-Wave, with Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon.com. Amazon Web
Services is another global cloud, which rents data storage,
computing, and applications to thousands of companies.
This month D-Wave established an American company, considered
necessary for certain types of sales of national security technology
to the United States government.
I considerate very interest because a
quantum computer it is cheaper than super computer and this computer
can learn. Now is powerfull and the google and NASA can upgrade from
512-2048 qubits, this computer can preddict the traffic because the
quantum computer search to internet and learn patters , and take
note. I related to informatic engineer, because it's a supercomputer
that it isn't expensive than the supercomputer to save data
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/google-buys-a-quantum-computer/?ref=technology
New Apps Arrive on Google Glass
Jeff Chiu/Associated Press Google hopes that apps will make
Glass, the company’s Internet-connected glasses, more functional.
Google Glass, the company’s Internet-connected glasses, will
soon have seven new apps, including breaking news alerts from CNN,
fashion features from Elle, Twitter, Tumblr and Facebook posts and
reminder notes from Evernote.
Google announced the apps, which it calls Glassware, Thursday at
its I/O developers conference, the largest assembly yet of people
wearing Glass in the same place. They join Path and The New York
Times as the only apps so far available on Glass. The glasses also
offer Google services like search and maps, connect to users’
cellphones for text messaging, take photos and record video.
Just as apps transformed smartphones from cellphones into
devices that have become essential to daily life for many people,
so Google hopes that apps will make Glass more functional. Still,
Google is
moving
slowly and cautiously in opening Glass to developers. Apps have
limited access to Glass users’ data, for instance, and for now,
cannot include ads.
Google wants developers to experiment with building apps
tailored to Glass, as opposed to just transporting mobile apps to
the new device. Glass is different than phones because it is in a
user’s line of sight and has a smaller screen. So notifications,
for instance, could easily be disruptive or unwanted.
Google has given Glassware developers four pieces of advice:
keep it short and sweet for the small screen, make sure alerts are
relevant, send timely information people need on the go and make
tasks easier and more seamless than they are on other devices.
CNN’s app, for instance, lets people choose which types of
news alerts they receive (politics but no sports, for instance),
and the time of day at which they are delivered. Then they can read
or hear aloud a short summary and watch a video clip.
Google
A screenshot from the Elle app for Google Glass.
Similarly, Elle’s app allows people to choose the sections of
the magazine they want to see on Glass, swipe through photos from a
story, hear a section of a story read aloud, add stories to a
reading list for later and share stories with friends. At Elle,
there is a team dedicated to taking monthly magazine content and
turning it into real-time updates that make sense for Glass, like
posts from the Elle Dispatch blog.
Google
A screenshot from the Twitter app for Google Glass.
So far on Glass, photos are shareable only through Google Plus.
With the Facebook app, Glass users will be able to share photos
taken with Glass on Facebook. Twitter’s Glass app lets people
tailor their stream to only receive posts from certain people and
transcribe new posts using voice. Tumblr’s app shows a user’s
full feed or just select updates.
When people are using Evernote on the Web, they will be able to
send notes, like a grocery list, to Glass, so it’s accessible
when they need it.
Another new app was built by three of the developers who
received an early edition of Glass. It’s a game called Ice
Breaker that some people could say bridges the divide between the
physical and digital worlds — and others might say creates some
socially awkward situations. Glass users see a notification of
someone who is also playing the game nearby, and the people
introduce themselves and take a picture of one another, rate their
conversation and earn points.
The Glassware will be available to people who signed up and paid
$1,500 for an early edition of Glass. Though other developers are
beginning to build apps for the device, there is not yet an app
store where anyone can offer such apps.
I considerate this glasses very
interesting that you can obtain many informations with this and will
can use the police to identify and criminal or sospect due to that
you can put data from person and the glasses it has facial recognise
and if you have the glasses put you can see the date of birthday,
your home and many information that it has relate this person. And if
you see a different items the glasses give it information about this
item. It's a problem because don't protect the intimity of person but
google it is working to limit the information give to the person. I
related to informatic engineer because google is a company of
informatic engineering.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/new-apps-arrive-on-google-glass/?ref=technology
Which ear you hold your cell phone to may reveal
brain dominance
Researchers at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit
say that, similar to handedness, most people who hold their cell
phones to their left ear are right-hemisphere dominant and vice
versa.
It has long been understand that right-handed people -- who make
up about 90 percent of the population -- have left-hemisphere
dominant brains, and left-handed people the reverse. But the division
of labor isn't actually that simple. For some 95 percent of righties,
the left hemisphere almost exclusively handles language and the right
emotion and image processing, while for lefties, only 20 percent
experience such strict division.
Now there may be a new way,
apart
from handedness, to determine one's cerebral dominance: the cell
phone.
In a new study out of Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit,
published
in JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, researchers found
that most people who
hold
their cell phones to their left ear are right-hemisphere dominant,
while most who hold their cell phones to their right ear are
left-hemisphere dominant.
Now, one might ask, who cares? Lead researcher Michael Seidman,
director of the division of otologic and neurotologic surgery in the
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery at Henry Ford,
said in a school news release that these findings actually have
several implications.
Not only could this help us better understand the language center
of the brain, he said, but "by establishing a correlation
between cerebral dominance and sidedness of cell phone use, it may be
possible to develop a less-invasive, lower-cost option to establish
the side of the brain where speech and language occurs rather than
the
Wada test, a
procedure that injects an anesthetic into the carotid artery to put
part of the brain to sleep in order to map activity."
What's more, the findings suggest that cell phone use may not be
linked to brain, head, and neck tumors, given that nearly 80 percent
of people studied hold the cell phone to their right ear and yet
cancer doesn't appear more often on that side of the brain, head, or
neck.
Dr. Seidman first looked into cell phone handedness when he
noticed that most people use their right hand to hold their cell
phone to their right ear, even though this would make listening on
the phone while taking notes or other multitasking harder.
Related stories
So the team out of Henry Ford sent online surveys to 5,000 people
who were either patients undergoing Wada and MRI for noninvasive
localization or with an online otology group. Most respondents (90
percent) were right-handed, with 9 percent left and 1 percent
ambidextrous.
The survey included questions about time spent talking on cell
phones, diagnoses of head or neck tumors, and hand dominance for
tasks such as writing. Almost 70 percent of the righties held the
phone to their right ear, 25 percent to the left, and 7 percent to
either ear. In turn, 72 percent of the lefties used their left ears,
while 23 percent used their right and 5 percent had no preference.
(People with hearing differences between ears also preferred to use
the dominant ear when talking on their phones.)
Meanwhile, the researchers note that studies are already under way
investigating tumor registry banks of people with head, neck, and
brain cancer to investigate possible links to cell phone use. Until
we know more, Seidman suggests that people use their phones in
hands-free mode when possible.
I considerate very interest because can
be very useful for find solutions to different diseases and find
different cuestions that today no it isn't solutions how Alzheimer ,
Parkinson or other different disease of brain that already it haven't
solutions. I related to engineer because with one app it can study
big part of brain because it can be important know how to work the
brain.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57585076-76/which-ear-you-hold-your-cell-phone-to-may-reveal-brain-dominance/
New Computers Attacks
Traced to Iran, Officials Say
The targets have included several American oil, gas and
electricity companies, which government officials have refused to
identify. The goal is not espionage, they say, but sabotage.
Government officials describe the attacks as probes looking for ways
to seize control of critical processing systems.
Investigators began looking at the attacks several months ago, and
when the Department of Homeland Security issued a vaguely worded
warning this month, a government official told The New York Times
that “most everything we have seen is coming from the Middle East.”
Government officials and outside experts on Friday confirmed a
report in The Wall Street Journal that the source of the attacks had
been narrowed to Iran. They said the evidence was not specific enough
to conclude with confidence that the attacks were state-sponsored,
but control over the Internet is so centralized in Iran that they
said it was hard to imagine the attacks being done without government
knowledge.
While the attackers have been unsuccessful to date, they have made
enough progress to prompt the Homeland Security warning, which
compared the latest threat to the computer virus that hit Saudi
Aramco, the world’s largest oil producer, last year. After
investigations, American officials concluded that the Aramco attack,
and a subsequent one at RasGas, the Qatari energy company, were the
work of Iran.
Taken together, officials say, the attacks suggest that Iran’s
hacking skills have improved over the past 18 months. The Obama
administration has been focused on Iran because the attacks have
given the Iranian government a way to retaliate for tightened
economic sanctions against it, and for the American and Israeli
program that aimed similar attacks, using a virus known as
Stuxnet,
on the Natanz nuclear enrichment plant.
That effort, code-named Olympic Games, slowed Iran’s progress
for months, but also prompted it to create what Iran’s Islamic
Revolutionary Guards Corps calls a cyber corps to defend the country.
This week Iran denied being the source of any attacks, and said it
had been a victim of American sabotage. In a letter to the editor of
The Times, responding to a May 12 article that reported on the new
attacks’ similarity to the Saudi Aramco episode, Alireza
Miryousefi, the head of the press office of the Iranian mission to
the United Nations, wrote that Iran “never engaged in such attacks
against its Persian Gulf neighbors, with which Iran has maintained
good neighborly relations.”
“Unfortunately, wrongful acts such as authorizing the 2010
Stuxnet attack against Iran have set a bad, and dangerous, precedent
in breach of certain principles of international law,” he wrote.
American officials have not offered any technical evidence to back
up their assertions of Iranian authorship of the latest attacks, but
they describe the recent campaign as different from most attacks
against American companies — particularly those from China —
which quietly siphon off intellectual property for competitive
purposes.
The new attacks, officials say, were devised to destroy data and
manipulate the machinery that operates critical control systems, like
oil pipelines. One official described them as “probes that suggest
someone is looking at how to take control of these systems.”
The White House would not confirm that Iran was the source, but
Laura Lucas, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council, said
that “mitigating threats in cyberspace, whether theft of
intellectual property or intrusions against our critical
infrastructure” was a governmentwide initiative and that the United
States would consider “all of the measures at its disposal — from
diplomatic to law enforcement to economic — when determining how to
protect our nation, allies, partners, and interests in cyberspace.”
In the past, government officials have privately warned companies
under threat. But Homeland Security was able to issue a broader
warning because of an executive order, signed in February, promoting
greater information sharing about such threats between the government
and private companies that oversee the nation’s critical
infrastructure.
An agency called
ICS-Cert,
which monitors attacks on computer systems that run industrial
processes, issued the warning. It said the government was “highly
concerned about hostility against critical infrastructure
organizations,” and included a link to a previous warning about
Shamoon, the virus used in the Saudi Aramco attack last year.
That attack prompted Leon E. Panetta, then defense secretary, to
warn
of a “cyber-Pearl Harbor” if the United States did not take
the threat seriously.
Saudi Aramco and RasGas both said that the attackers had failed in
their efforts to infiltrate their oil production systems.
Government officials also say Iran was the source of a separate
continuing campaign of attacks on American financial institutions
that began last September and has since taken dozens of American
banks intermittently offline, costing millions of dollars. But that
attack was a less sophisticated “denial of service” effort.
Jeff Moss, chief security officer at the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers, the private body that oversees the basic
design of the Internet, said: “For the last year, Iran has been
focused on disrupting financial institutions’ Web sites. If they
are going after energy, and opening a multiprong front, at what point
does it cross from annoyance to a threshold?”
It's a proof that the computer engineer
it can destroy many structures, and proof that almost all it' s
computerized. I relate to computer engineer because it's due to
computerized attacks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/25/world/middleeast/new-computer-attacks-come-from-iran-officials-say.html?ref=technology&_r=0
Apple
1 breaks auction record, goes for $671,400
One of what's thought to be only six working
Apple 1 computers -- hand-built by Steve Wozniak -- flies out of a
German auction house for a tidy sum. The last one went for $640,000.
One of what's believed to be only six still-working Apple 1
computers set a record at auction Saturday, selling for $671,400 in
Germany.
The machine, built by Steve "The Woz" Wozniak in Steve
Jobs' parents garage back in 1976, was sold along with the original
owner's manual and a signed letter from Jobs to original owner Fred
Hatfield.
Breker, the German auction house that
handled
the sale, sold another Apple 1 in December for $640,000, a
substantial jump in price from
the
Apple 1 sold by Sotheby's in New York last June for $374,500.
(Credit: Breker)
Auctioner Uwe Breker said the appeal of the machine went far
beyond the realm of geekery.
"It is a superb symbol of the American dream," he
told
The New York Times' Bits blog. "You have two college dropouts
from California who pursued an idea and a dream, and that dream
becomes one of the most admired, successful, and valuable companies
in the world."
That can-do spirit is reflected in this brief description of the
Apple 1's genesis, given in the Sotheby's notes to last June's
auction (
PDF):
When Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs presented the Apple I
Computer to the Homebrew Computer Club in 1976, it was dismissed by
everyone but Paul Terrell, the owner of a chain of stores called Byte
Shop. Terrell ordered 50 computers for $500 apiece, insisting that
the circuit boards come fully assembled rather than as DIY kits
similar to the Altair, and Jobs and Woz managed to produce the
requisite computers in 30 days. They continued production,
immediately creating 50 additional Apple 1's to sell to friends and
an additional 100 to sell through vendors, at a retail price of
$666.66, a number that garnered complaints among conservative
Christians, but provided a lucrative 33 [percent] markup.
Let's see, 50 computers in 30 days -- that's about 1.67 Apple 1s
per day. At today's prices, that would add up to about $1,121,238 for
a day's work. Not too shabby.
Sotheby's estimates that another 44 Apple 1s exist, in addition to
the 6 that still actually work.
I considerate very interest because
it's curious how much cost this pieze of history. i'm not fun of
apple because it's more expensive than caracteristics than the have.
I related to computer engineer because it have created by students of
computer engineer.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57586204-37/apple-1-breaks-auction-record-goes-for-$671400/
How to learn the period table in 3 minutes
In high school science classes, students are encouraged to
memorize the first 20 elements of the periodic table. There are other
methods employed at the university level for all 118 -- many students
swear by mnemonics.
When it comes to tremendously catchy fun, though, a new song by
AsapScience
has them all beat. Called simply "The New Periodic Table Song
(In Order)," it's a chemical adventure that romps along to a
section of "
Infernal
Galop" (otherwise known as the Can-Can music) from Jacques
Offenbach's opera "Orpheus in the Underworld."
It goes, appropriately, at a fast gallop, but listen a few times,
and you'll soon find yourself confidently singing along.
I considerate very interest because
many times in our life we have to learn the periodic table but in
this video can explate how to learn easily the periodic table. This
video is famous in youtube and it have too many visits.
Apple cuts prices on
refurbished iPad Mini and iPad 4
Those of you eyeing an iPad Mini or fourth-generation iPad can now
save a bit more money on refurbished models courtesy of Apple.
As of Friday, Apple is offering 15 percent to 17 percent discounts
on all flavors of refurbished units of the
iPad
Mini and the
iPad
4.
The 16GB Wi-Fi-only
iPad
Mini is selling for $279, 15 percent off the usual price. The
32GB Wi-Fi Mini is available for $359, 16 percent off the full price.
And the 64GB Wi-Fi Mini can be had for $439, 17 percent off the
regular price.
The 16GB Wi-Fi version of the fourth-gen iPad is going for $419, a
16 percent discount. The 32GB Wi-Fi model is on sale for $499, also
16 percent off the usual price. And the 64GB Wi-Fi edition is selling
for $579, a hefty 17 percent cut in price.
Apple fully tests and certifies all of its refurbished products.
Equipped with a new battery and outer shell, the units come with a
one-year warranty.
It's more strange that
it's the first time that apple sell products refurbished and i don't
think that it is too much sale because 17% for a version refurbished
don't it is a sale but it is the same product and it is same
dependable. I related to computer engineer because it's a one product
that stocks of computer engineer.
GAME OVER FOR USED GAMES
Whether used games will work with the Xbox One remains up in the
air.
In case you missed it, Microsoft unveiled a new game console the
other day, the
Xbox
One. We now know a lot about it, but as with most game console
launches, we were left with a few unanswered questions that my
colleague Dan Ackerman summed up nicely in his "
Unanswered
questions about the Xbox One" piece.
It's the last one that seems to be generating the most
controversy: "Will used games work on the
Xbox
One?"
Simple question, complicated answerYou'd think the
answer would be a simple yes or no, but alas, it's murkier than that.
It all started when Microsoft VP Phil Harrison
described
to Wired how you'd use a game disc to install the game on the
Xbox One's hard drive. Once installed, the disc, Harrison said, was
no longer necessary. You owned that game and could download it from
your account at any time.
That sounds quite convenient on the surface -- and a good feature
-- but it also implied that Microsoft had developed some kind of
digital signature that locked a specific game to a specific user
account, which in turn would make it impossible to install a used
game locked to another person's account. And that had folks calling
foul. Was Microsoft taking an anti-consumer stance?
As the questions mounted in the hours after the launch event,
Microsoft issued the following statement (via the
site
of Xbox Live head honcho Larry "Major Nelson" Hryb):
We know there is some confusion around used games on Xbox
One and wanted to provide a bit of clarification on exactly what
we've confirmed today. While there have been many potential scenarios
discussed, today we have only confirmed that we designed Xbox One to
enable our customers to trade in and resell games at retail. Beyond
that, we have not confirmed any specific scenarios. Another piece of
clarification around playing games at a friend's house -- should you
choose to play your game at your friend's house, there is no fee to
play that game while you are signed in to your profile.
Nothing like mixing a little specificity with vagueness to stir
the pot. And take note of the wording. Nowhere does Microsoft say
that the Xbox One will play used games. Rather, the company says, "We
designed Xbox One to enable our customers to trade in and resell
games at retail." I'm not sure exactly what that means, but my
snap translation is, "We're going to allow some sort of economy
for used games to continue, but it may not work the same way it does
now."
Would you get a credit for a game you traded in and then have it
removed from your account? Could you only trade in a game toward the
purchase of a specific other game or games (from the same publisher)?
How would games be valued? And would buyers of used games have to pay
any additional fees?
Who knows. But as my colleague
Dan
said, "It's no secret that every major video game company
would like used games to go away, largely because they don't get a
cut of any of those resale dollars. The Xbox One gives Microsoft a
chance to reboot the idea of how game sales work."
Oh, and by the way, Sony faced similar questions when it teased
the
PlayStation 4 in
February. While Sony, too, claimed it would allow for used games, it
remains
unclear what caveats might be attached to the use of those games.
Since Sony's event was much more of a teaser, the company wasn't
grilled as aggressively as Microsoft has been. I suspect Sony will
encounter tougher questions at the
PS4's
true unveiling at E3 in a couple of weeks, especially if it doesn't
fully explain what the company has in store for used games.
It's no secret that every major video game company would like used
games to go away, largely because they don't get a cut of any of
those resale dollars.
While it's hard to say exactly what "potential scenarios"
Microsoft is weighing, the bigger question is what happens if the
used-game economy is altered, perhaps radically, to the point where
it's essentially gutted? Will it hurt the game industry or help it?
The $60 questionSure, there are people out there who
don't mind paying $60 for a game, especially a premium title that
they plan on playing for months. However, for a lot of folks $60 is a
lot to spend on a game, especially with very few truly special titles
being released these days (by special I mean something exciting and
fresh, not polished retreads), and more and more consumers are
turning to mobile (smartphone,
tablet)
games that cost less than $5 -- and sometimes don't cost anything.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the effort that goes into making
these games; some of the work being done is incredible and many
premium titles cost tens of millions of dollars to make. But a lot of
games end up disappointing simply because there's a
been-there-done-that feel to them. Plus, because you can find good
mobile games for so cheap, people inevitably expect more from a $60
game.
That said, one of the open secrets of the gaming industry is that
many people don't really pay $60 for a game. They use trade-in credit
at GameStop to buy games or simply sell games after they play them on
Amazon or eBay for a good fraction of what they bought them for. If
you play through a AAA title quickly enough, you can usually sell it
on Amazon for $45 or $50, meaning you only spent about $15 to $20 to
play it, including tax.
A small selection of coupons from GameStop's PowerUp rewards
program.
(Credit: Screenshot by David Carnoy/CNET)
To give an example, I bought a used copy of
BioShock
Infinite (Xbox 360) for right around $30 at GameStop shortly
after it was released. With my PowerUp reward points, I downloaded a
coupon good for $20 off a used game, and got an additional 10 percent
discount off the used game for being a "Pro" member. The
total, with tax, was a far cry from the $65 or so I would have had to
pay for a new copy.
If I'd played it through quickly, I could have actually traded it
in at GameStop for right around what I paid for it. And if I had sold
it on Amazon or eBay (disclaimer: I don't sell games on Amazon or
eBay), I could have probably gotten $45 to $50. (The price for the
standard version of the game has recently dropped to $39.99).
Of course, the bad part of all this is that the game publishers
get no money from my transactions. Having seen used copies of books
I've written up on Amazon selling for a fraction of the "real"
price, I'm well aware of being on the creator end of things where the
author doesn't get a dime on a used copy sale. It sucks, but then
again, someone might not have taken the chance of buying the
hardcover in the first place if it weren't possible to resell it
after reading it.
In the gaming world, the current system obviously isn't ideal for
game publishers and clearly benefits retailers like GameStop and
Amazon that have built nice businesses around the used-game market.
After all, GameStop wouldn't constantly be encouraging its customers
to trade in games if it weren't a lucrative market. Sounds good to me
to have a customer trade in BioShock Infinite for $30 and then sell
it back to customers for $50. (Note that
GameStop's
stock is up 88 percent over the past year.)
But if you pull the rug out from under the current system, it
could do real damage to the gaming industry. In the personal example
I gave, I bought a used copy of BioShock Infinite. It happened to be
the last one in the store. In many cases, because the difference in
price between the used copy of a AAA title and a new copy is pretty
small, a lot of people end up buying the new copy (particularly when
no used copies are available), choosing to put their existing
trade-in balance toward the new game. So trade-ins definitely fuel
sales of new copies of the game and people bank on the fact that they
can pull a few older titles out of their collection and get some
money for them to put toward a new game.
GameStop CEO Tony Bartel
told
Forbes recently that it puts $1 billion in trade into the market
and 70 percent of that money goes back into new game sales. "It's
a recognized way to make these games more affordable," Bartel
told Forbes. "All three new platforms understand that."
Addressing concerns that neither the Xbox One nor the PS4 would
play used games, which could be very detrimental to his company's
business, Bartel said, "Both Sony and Microsoft have said games
can be resold, and that's exactly what we anticipated."
Unfortunately, Bartel left out one small detail: while he said
you'd be able to resell games, he didn't say anything about being
able to buy used ones. I'm not sure if he did that intentionally, but
that's the way I'm reading his quote.
Steam the dream?For the publishers, anyway, the Steam
model seems much closer to their ideal. Despite its talk of discs, it
seems clear that Microsoft would prefer to move to digital downloads,
with it being the retailer. That's the future, although some of these
games are huge and many consumers are stuck with slow Internet
connections, bandwidth caps, or both.
Games are simply too expensive at $60, particularly for a digital
download.
One of the appealing things about Steam is the digital locker
aspect to it -- your games are stored in your account and you can
download them again when you get a new computer by simply logging
into your account (GameStop and EA, among others, also offer digital
lockers). Another attractive aspect is all the deals Steam offers.
Many of the bargains are on older titles, but there's certainly
plenty of quality stuff for reasonable prices, and some interesting
indie stuff.
The problem the publishers face is that games are simply too
expensive at $60, particularly for a digital download. Often, you get
no discount for downloading the digital version, so there's no
incentive to buy it when you can pick up the hard copy instead and
later trade it in, sell it, or simply swap with a friend for another
game. You'd think that if publishers wanted to tamp down the
used-copy sales, they'd push people toward digital downloads with
pricing incentives. But that would also upset the relationship they
have with retailers, so you're left with a backward-looking market.
The long and short of it is that if publishers, Microsoft, and
presumably others want to do away with the used-games market as we
know it, the pricing for games is going to have to change. At this
time, we don't know exactly how much new games for the next-gen
systems will cost -- prices could very well go up for AAA next-gen
titles -- but they ultimately need to go down, not up.
Somehow I doubt that will happen. But if it doesn't, fewer people
will buy games when they're first released. Some will wait till the
price drops (as the price for BioShock Infinite did).
But many more will gravitate toward spending their time -- and
money -- playing cheap mobile games. Or maybe not getting a new
console to begin with.
I considerate very interest because
it's the presentation of Xbox One but bad news, Microsoft confim that
can't be use used games. We will see if it affect to the sells . I
related to computer engineer because it's a new console
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-18438_7-57585778-82/game-over-for-used-games-how-xbox-one-and-ps4-could-gut-gamers-wallets/
iPhone 5 repairs won't come cheap
iPhone 5 repairs can cost more than other models of the device.
It's happened to a lot of people -- their iPhone drops from their
hands, falls off their lap, plunks into a toilet, or gets knocked off
a table.
Showing off a cracked iPhone screen is sometimes almost a point of
pride. I have one friend who lovingly calls his damaged phone "The
Hurt Locker," referring to the 2008 movie about a bomb disposal
team working during the Iraq War.
But, many of these damaged iPhones cease to work after going
through various mishaps. That's when repairs come into play -- and,
they're not cheap.
Currently, Apple charges up to $229 to replace a broken screen on
an
iPhone 5, according to
MarketWatch.
That's quite a lot considering a new phone on contract goes for $200
and without contract $650. If
iPhone
5 owners have the $99 AppleCare warranty, a screen replacement is
$49.
It seems that repair prices are on the rise. Two years ago
Apple
charged $199 to fix a busted screen. Since the device was first
introduced in 2007, damaged iPhones have cost Americans $5.9 billion
-- with one third of owners breaking their devices every year,
according
to a survey last September by gadget warranty firm SquareTrade.
Despite Apple now charging more to repair the iPhone 5, several
teardown and repair sites have said that this iteration of the device
is the easiest to repair.
Related stories
The iPhone 5 is opened front-to-back so "replacing a cracked
screen is going to be easier than ever,"
said
UMB TechInsights when the device debuted last September. "Compare
this to the
iPhone 4S,
where it took 38 steps to isolate the display assembly."
So, what gives for the high cost of repairs?
Apparently, the replacement parts for the iPhone 5 are far more
expensive than earlier models. In fact, they're so costly that some
independent fix-it shops refuse to do iPhone 5 repairs, according to
MarketWatch.
"Apple controls everything from the manufacturing to the gear
for the iPhone 5," editor at deal site TechBargains.com Jeff
Haynes told MarketWatch. "Apple is trying to get people to sign
up for Apple Care for $99 and to rely on their services at the Apple
store. If you don't, that cracked screen could cost you at least
$230."
I considerate interest because it
informate how muchs cost the repairs of apple products, apple many
years ago be denounced by the organise of costumers because scheduled
obsolecence because their battery of their products didn't work
passed 18 months. I relate to computer engineer because apple it is a
company of computer engineer.
Haswell Chip Primer: How
Intel Pinches Power
Haswell chip layout.
(Credit: Intel)
How serious is Intel about battery life on its next processor?
Very.
On Thursday, the world's largest chipmaker hauled out two chip
experts to brief journalists on the ways Intel's fourth-generation
core processor, aka Haswell, reduces power consumption and boosts
battery life.
Intel is claiming a 50 percent improvement in battery life for
devices using Haswell compared to the current Ivy Bridge silicon.
The chip will be officially introduced on June 3 and is expected
to power future Windows, Apple, and Chrome OS computers.
The information below was provided by Rani N. Borkar, general
manager, Intel Architecture Development Group, and Kaizad Mistry,
Technology and Manufacturing Group director, Logic Technology
Integration at Intel.
Haswell improvements:
On-chip voltage regulator:
Fully Integrated Voltage Regulator. This is an industry first, Intel
said. Combines multiple voltage regulators into one. This reduces
the motherboard footprint, leading to smaller and sleeker devices.
Power optimizer: Manages
power consumption for the platform (entire device). This chip
(inside Haswell) alone has as much compute power as an Intel
486
processor.
Active power reduction:
Aggressive use of lower-power circuits.
Idle (standby) power reduction:
Reduced by 20X over the previous generation. Architected new,
ultra-low-power processor states.
Power planes: Added new
power planes that can shut down most of the CPU transistors in
standby mode.
Transistor leakage:
Excessive leakage, which wastes power, is a big problem as
transistors get smaller. On Haswell's Tri-Gate (3D) transistors,
Intel was able to reduce the leakage of the transistors by a factor
of two to three, without impacting performance.
- Lowered minimum operating voltage: Lowered the minimum
functional operating voltage. This reduces the active power.
A concept Intel laptop powered by a Haswell processor.
I considerate very interest because the
most importants problems in laptops be power and efficiency of
battery. Intel present a new revolutionary processor that it have
less consuption. I relate to computer engineer because it is a
innovation about microprocessors of computers.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57586165-92/haswell-chip-primer-how-intel-pinches-power/
