this is the first time Apple has admitted any wrongdoing in relation to environmental pollution from any of its Chinese supply chains.
Or it would be, if they had, which they haven't.
Admitting that your suppliers have environmental problems is not the same as admitting wrongdoing, as I'm sure Apple's lawyers will be happy to remind you. That they have finally admitted that their _suppliers_ have a problem, and even made noises about improving their standards for suppliers, is a big step forward for Apple which they should get credit for. Its still a long cry from admitting that they did anything wrong, or - profit margins forbid! - offering to do anything about helping to clean up the mess.
Apple made real programmers cool... to other programmers, by dragging all the wannabe assemblyline tinkertoy engineers out of the "programmer" bucket and rebranding them "App Designers". (Don't forget the capitals; because They're Desperately Important.)
Its nice when you make a label popular enough that the marketing droids will brand themselves with it - saves you having to work out that they're fakes on your own.
Also, carrying a few sheets of paper around is much lighter and portable than any tablet; you can always tuck them in a folder when you get home for more secure storage. And the batteries never run out, ever!
If you're trying to argue that the current system isn't broken, then using an argument like "the current system doesn't do X elsewhere" (X, in this case, being restrict patents, and elsewhere being in hardware) is spurious and circular: if the current system ISN'T broken, then the fact that it works elsewhere is a given; if it IS broken, then using its current actions in one area as model behaviour for another is a bit pointless, isn't it? The argument assumes that the current system works to prove that the current system works, and doesn't end up proving anything.
And yet, if you close down those 5 departments, a quarter of a million people who currently have jobs - and pay for other peoples jobs by buying groceries, gas, etc. with their paychecks - will be out of work.
Again, I'm not claiming that its a good way to make jobs in the first place necessarily, but I don't see how anyone can claim that closing those 5 departments of the government will not cause at least a quarter of a million people to go from employed to unemployed. So maybe the job was never "created by the government" in the first place by your definition - fine. They're still jobless if you kick em out; I'm thinking the fine distinctions of terminology won't matter much to them or their families.
Was that his budget plan? Or his jobs plan? How many employees is that anyways? Well, not counting the follow-on jobs created by their activities, and only looking at their direct employees:
So not even counting the economic impact of ceasing their activities, or the cost of dismantling those departments and paying off their workers contracts (or, of course the humanitarian and societal effects of the loss of their activities - but this is Ron Paul we're talking about, so I assumed we would ignore those) he's cost the country a quarter of a million jobs before he could even take office.
I'm not saying all of those activities or jobs are necessarily justified, I'm just saying that they exist; you can't wave your hand and make them go away and pretend that that won't have an effect on the country.
So in this huge statistical study of _40_ women, we see results of an 11% improvement in "relaxation", according to the article.
What do you empirically measure relaxation in anyways; ohms?
If we assume something binary - like the ability to go to sleep, which the article also references - then an 11% improvement, in a sample size of 40 is... lesse here...
That would be an improvement from 9 to 10, 18 to 20, 27 to 30, or 36 to 40. If their experiment was even halfway decently designed, they're not getting 100% success at any point, and all 3 of the other options are statistically insignificant by the chi-square method; go back and collect more data.
Lets get this straight from the outset: these guys are gods among men. Smart and resourceful and well-trained and, oh yeah; cojones the size of small moons. They strapped themselves to the worlds tallest pile of explosives just to see if they could.
But lets also get this clear: one thing they _aren't_ is engineers qualified to say that the shuttle is safe to just "bring out of retirement". I know you guys want more than anything to see your own heroic journeys eclipsed by the shining and glorious future of mankind, and I think that that is just about the coolest thing ever, but Eugene? You did your masters aeronautical in when? 1963? And you've since spent how much time actually working on the shuttle program, the first launch of which was 5 years after you left NASA? They hired you guys, among other things, because you're crazy-brave but cautious, so you should know better than that; If the techs who are working on it _this_ century say it don't fly (mostly) safe, then it don't fly at all. Should we have replaced it with something better? I'd like to think so; some would say we did with the unmanned probes. I'm not going to argue that point. But wishing don't make it so. We _didn't_ replace it. And just because we didn't, we don't keep using outdated dangerous stuff because that's all we've got.
We make something better. And if you and I, Eugene, are dead before it lifts, so be it.
Receipt verification is that _a_ machine at the other end of the line got the FAX, not that anyone read it. With email, its trivial to set up encryption, digital signatures, and receipts in such a way that you could confirm that the _correct person_ - and only the correct person - actually opened it.
Of course you still can't prove they paid attention.
Because for the enormous percentage of the worlds population who _don't_ regularly travel internationally, it would be an huge pain in the arse for no benefit whatsoever.
I'm not sure it would have to be on the package. If Square's website said "Every copy includes a free coupon" and it wasn't there, then someone could reasonably take Square to task for that. And if it was GS' policies that caused it to be untrue, then Square could quite reasonably have their lawyers pass that grief straight on back to GS. Of course, the most likely thing to happen is that someone would complain about the lack of a coupon to Square, and Square will post them a form letter apology and a coupon, at which point trying to drag it into court becomes dodgy at best.
I think there's a legal issue even if it isn't advertised... from Square's pov. Now that word has gotten out that they're doing this, Square could claim that GS's practices are hurting the sales of their game. Not a law broken, as such, but certainly grounds for a civil suit.
Someone should analyze the graph and find the two people to introduce who will reduce the average path length of everyone else by the greatest amount...
And then kill one of them, to preserve the Bacon Throne.
So if you're heating houses with cloud servers, then you're stuck with transporting the heat somehow from your data farm to your houses. The obvious solution being to put the server in the house. If everyone ends up with their own cloud server in their house, is it still a cloud? Or is it just a desktop again?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole basis for the energy savings of a white roof appears to be in the assumed savings from running your air conditioner. If you don't _have_ an air conditioner, said savings is Jack ^ Squat. I don't have one, but I do have central heating, and live in a place where my roof isn't usually covered with snow. Seems to me the darker the better, as far as energy use goes.
Painting your air-conditionerless roof white might still make sense; if you _wish_ you had an air conditioner, it might make you more comfortable. But it won't save you energy.
Slashdot Mirror
Or it would be, if they had, which they haven't.
Admitting that your suppliers have environmental problems is not the same as admitting wrongdoing, as I'm sure Apple's lawyers will be happy to remind you. That they have finally admitted that their _suppliers_ have a problem, and even made noises about improving their standards for suppliers, is a big step forward for Apple which they should get credit for. Its still a long cry from admitting that they did anything wrong, or - profit margins forbid! - offering to do anything about helping to clean up the mess.
Apple made real programmers cool... to other programmers, by dragging all the wannabe assemblyline tinkertoy engineers out of the "programmer" bucket and rebranding them "App Designers". (Don't forget the capitals; because They're Desperately Important.)
Its nice when you make a label popular enough that the marketing droids will brand themselves with it - saves you having to work out that they're fakes on your own.
Also, carrying a few sheets of paper around is much lighter and portable than any tablet; you can always tuck them in a folder when you get home for more secure storage. And the batteries never run out, ever!
If you're trying to argue that the current system isn't broken, then using an argument like "the current system doesn't do X elsewhere" (X, in this case, being restrict patents, and elsewhere being in hardware) is spurious and circular: if the current system ISN'T broken, then the fact that it works elsewhere is a given; if it IS broken, then using its current actions in one area as model behaviour for another is a bit pointless, isn't it? The argument assumes that the current system works to prove that the current system works, and doesn't end up proving anything.
And yet, if you close down those 5 departments, a quarter of a million people who currently have jobs - and pay for other peoples jobs by buying groceries, gas, etc. with their paychecks - will be out of work.
Again, I'm not claiming that its a good way to make jobs in the first place necessarily, but I don't see how anyone can claim that closing those 5 departments of the government will not cause at least a quarter of a million people to go from employed to unemployed. So maybe the job was never "created by the government" in the first place by your definition - fine. They're still jobless if you kick em out; I'm thinking the fine distinctions of terminology won't matter much to them or their families.
Was that his budget plan? Or his jobs plan? How many employees is that anyways? Well, not counting the follow-on jobs created by their activities, and only looking at their direct employees:
Energy: 116,000
Commerce: 44,000
Interior: 70,000
Education: 5,000
HUD: 11,000
So not even counting the economic impact of ceasing their activities, or the cost of dismantling those departments and paying off their workers contracts (or, of course the humanitarian and societal effects of the loss of their activities - but this is Ron Paul we're talking about, so I assumed we would ignore those) he's cost the country a quarter of a million jobs before he could even take office.
I'm not saying all of those activities or jobs are necessarily justified, I'm just saying that they exist; you can't wave your hand and make them go away and pretend that that won't have an effect on the country.
So in this huge statistical study of _40_ women, we see results of an 11% improvement in "relaxation", according to the article.
What do you empirically measure relaxation in anyways; ohms?
If we assume something binary - like the ability to go to sleep, which the article also references - then an 11% improvement, in a sample size of 40 is... lesse here...
That would be an improvement from 9 to 10, 18 to 20, 27 to 30, or 36 to 40. If their experiment was even halfway decently designed, they're not getting 100% success at any point, and all 3 of the other options are statistically insignificant by the chi-square method; go back and collect more data.
Truly a visionary in the field of marketing. Shareholders will miss him.
Odd (or even, if you prefer) numbered release from Microsoft; who cares, noones going to use it anyways.
Lets get this straight from the outset: these guys are gods among men. Smart and resourceful and well-trained and, oh yeah; cojones the size of small moons. They strapped themselves to the worlds tallest pile of explosives just to see if they could.
But lets also get this clear: one thing they _aren't_ is engineers qualified to say that the shuttle is safe to just "bring out of retirement". I know you guys want more than anything to see your own heroic journeys eclipsed by the shining and glorious future of mankind, and I think that that is just about the coolest thing ever, but Eugene? You did your masters aeronautical in when? 1963? And you've since spent how much time actually working on the shuttle program, the first launch of which was 5 years after you left NASA? They hired you guys, among other things, because you're crazy-brave but cautious, so you should know better than that; If the techs who are working on it _this_ century say it don't fly (mostly) safe, then it don't fly at all. Should we have replaced it with something better? I'd like to think so; some would say we did with the unmanned probes. I'm not going to argue that point. But wishing don't make it so. We _didn't_ replace it. And just because we didn't, we don't keep using outdated dangerous stuff because that's all we've got.
We make something better. And if you and I, Eugene, are dead before it lifts, so be it.
Someone modded up your comment about not having mod points? Thats... awesome.
They want to shock people.
On the internet.
With graphic images.
On a porn site.
Weeeeeelll... its good to have goals I guess. Good luck with that one.
No, and yes.
What? Porn's porn. Local theater is terrible.
Receipt verification is that _a_ machine at the other end of the line got the FAX, not that anyone read it. With email, its trivial to set up encryption, digital signatures, and receipts in such a way that you could confirm that the _correct person_ - and only the correct person - actually opened it.
Of course you still can't prove they paid attention.
Please?
Because for the enormous percentage of the worlds population who _don't_ regularly travel internationally, it would be an huge pain in the arse for no benefit whatsoever.
Any further questions?
I'm not sure it would have to be on the package. If Square's website said "Every copy includes a free coupon" and it wasn't there, then someone could reasonably take Square to task for that. And if it was GS' policies that caused it to be untrue, then Square could quite reasonably have their lawyers pass that grief straight on back to GS. Of course, the most likely thing to happen is that someone would complain about the lack of a coupon to Square, and Square will post them a form letter apology and a coupon, at which point trying to drag it into court becomes dodgy at best.
I think there's a legal issue even if it isn't advertised... from Square's pov. Now that word has gotten out that they're doing this, Square could claim that GS's practices are hurting the sales of their game. Not a law broken, as such, but certainly grounds for a civil suit.
"We get results quickly and without fraud."
Awwww.... isn't that cute? He thinks there's no election fraud! Don't tell him the truth; true innocents aren't a renewable resource.
And the text you have to insert? "This site sponsored by the FBI." So apparently they're constrained by truth in advertising laws.
Someone should analyze the graph and find the two people to introduce who will reduce the average path length of everyone else by the greatest amount...
And then kill one of them, to preserve the Bacon Throne.
Did you really just refer to the likes of Thor, Green Lantern, and Green Hornet as "the best" of anything? Wow. That is a seriously low bar.
I don't believe it... do I?
Guys? Can we get a vote?
Yeah.
So if you're heating houses with cloud servers, then you're stuck with transporting the heat somehow from your data farm to your houses. The obvious solution being to put the server in the house. If everyone ends up with their own cloud server in their house, is it still a cloud? Or is it just a desktop again?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole basis for the energy savings of a white roof appears to be in the assumed savings from running your air conditioner. If you don't _have_ an air conditioner, said savings is Jack ^ Squat. I don't have one, but I do have central heating, and live in a place where my roof isn't usually covered with snow. Seems to me the darker the better, as far as energy use goes.
Painting your air-conditionerless roof white might still make sense; if you _wish_ you had an air conditioner, it might make you more comfortable. But it won't save you energy.