Well, this is entirely a blind stab in the dark, but their profits approximately doubled over last year, so the actual rate may be twice what the NYT said.
Well no, there's no doubt oppressive dictatorships frequently don't create great environments for small businesses.
But Bush banning the import of game engines certainly didn't help the matter. It only compounds the problem when sanctions make the people more dependent on the dictatorship, not less.
My intent was to say that in her own head, she might think her actions were for the good of the school, but professionally there is no gray area in gaining private information on students without their legitimate consent, no matter what that information is.
It's the information students share WITH THE WHOLE WORLD ONLY?
No it's not. Facebook has privacy settings to select who you share information with. No, that's not ironclad, but it's also no excuse for the principal to misrepresent herself to acquire this information that she could have not easily acquired without friending the kids.
If the whole world could get at the info, she wouldn't have needed to friend them in the first place, would she?
There are so many reasons this is wrong no matter the reasons. Whatever the principal's intentions, you'd still have access to information that if the principal even sees is a possible professional violation. Who's dating/sleeping with who, possible inappropriate pictures for an administrator to see (even kids in their swimsuits is extremely questionable), and yes, opinions on school staff that could bias her opinion in ways that it should not.
Whatever her intention, there is absolutely no professional excuse. She can't just filter out the safe information from the unsafe without seeing everything, which is the problem.
To be fair, a lot of the problem is they built the thing on a graveyard.
In context, 11 years is pretty good time for building a giant skyscraper on the final resting place of a few thousand people who all still have plenty of living relatives.
The problem is that the discussion has been had many times, and the demand that is always made is that everyone give up what they're doing and go to work on some $unified_platform, with the decisions made by $unknown_dictator as if they were a single corporation. The problem is that unless you find a way to incentivize or inhibit people who disagree with how things are done, you will get differentiation. No one ever offers a solution to the people problem.
And I agree completely. The model behind Linux may be a fundamental issue. If it's a real problem depends on the goals of Linux. If Linux trying to be mass market, or are they trying to provide diversity? Those may be two fundamentally incompatible goals. Not that one goal is worse than the other, but it might be better if Linux picked one and ran with it so that it was constantly leveraging it's strengths instead of creating an experience everyone was unhappy with (see: UI changes in Ubuntu.)
But again, there's no central authority to make such a decision.
I don't think I agree, if anything I see another window for Linux adoption coming up. Both Apple and Microsoft appear ready to abandon pros. Lion is getting more difficult for pros to use effectively... and Windows 8... well just look at the start menu.
Using Steve Job's analogy, Apple and Microsoft appear to be abandoning the truck market for the car market, but a lot of people still need to buy trucks. That truck could be Linux.
(Oh great. This turned into a car analogy on Slashdot.)
"Why do we keep getting these posts that are deliberately chosen to incite flamewars between pro- and anti-Linux people?"
If the story was trolling, I'd agree, but in this case, it's fact. Desktop Linux hasn't taken off. And a discussion about why is actually productive and could help improve Linux, even if a few people have hurt feelings that something bad was said about their favorite operating system along the way.
To be fair, "Designed in Cupertino by Apple." is a holdover from when they actually used to build the machines in California or the US. For a long time it instead said "Designed by Apple in California. Assembled in U.S.A" or something along those lines.
There are a whole host of enterprise features that Windows RT supports.
Unfortunately, reading through that article, they're at best only matching iOS and Android on those things. Apple is even a licensee of ActiveSync with the best mobile implementation currently, even better than WP7.
To really beat Apple, they had to get Active Directory support, which is the one bridge Apple hasn't crossed. They didn't... so... they probably won't make much of a splash.
If it's anonymous, they don't even know if the next bomb threat is coming from the same person. Might mess with how serious you take a bomb threat compared to the previous ones. You don't want the one coming from a copycat who's actually planting a bomb to be the one you ignore.
But today, the toxic waste of success cripples iTunes: increasingly non-sensical complexity, inconsistencies, layers of patches over layers of patches ending up in a structure so labyrinthine no individual can internalize it any longer.
Errr, didn't use it in the early days did you? iTunes has always been a godawful UI that violates all of Apple's own UI standards, then ported to Windows where it made no attempt to fit in. It's been terrible from day one, along with the QuickTime player.
Technically during OS 10.2 the brushed metal UI was written into the UI standards, and iTunes has been UI standards compliant since.
You mean back in the days of the original Mac with no slots or expansion? Or Apple providing absolutely no source code to users from it's inception? Or Apple not allowing competitors to run it's OS and suing them if they tried, which happened frequently with the Apple II?
I'm really struggling to see how Apple today is less hacker friendly than the Apple of the early 80s. I can still go out today and buy a Mac with four expansion slots, four open drive bays, two optical drive bays, upgradable RAM, and replaceable processors. Arguable more hacker friendly than the Apple II. Yes, Apple makes more closed off systems like the Mac Mini, but that's a choice I can make as a consumer. And unlike the early 80s Apple, I can download source code for the operating system, or even load on the operating system from their chief competitor, and be provided support and drivers to do so.
Again, I'm really having trouble buying your argument. No, Apple isn't as open as Linux, or a few of the Android vendors, but compared to early Apple? Apple after Steve returned was far more open than Apple ever was since the Apple II was released.
Yes, Apple is so evil that a part of the W3C that has existed for the last decade is having to carry out it's role in examine an Apple patent which Apple has so far not threatened the W3C with.
Evil I tell you.
I bet this is the first time that the W3C has ever had to do this, because Apple is so uncharacteristically horrible. If I look through the PAG's records, I should find no other times they had to review patents that might threaten the W3C, right?
They are not nearly as interested in actually working on _standards_.
Yeah, you're reaching... Needs citation. You need a concrete example of Apple actually seeking to block web standards.
Apple has worked closely with Google and accepted patches on WebKit. (Which brings them no value.) They helped Konquerer merge back in their changes (again, of no value). They ported to Windows, which doesn't really give them much.
But please, humor me. Cite situations in which Apple is actually acting to block open standards. And because it's the first thing people usually reach for, I'm not interested in H.264 because I think there are great technical reasons for H.264. But for such an abhorrent company like Apple, you should have no problem coming up with other concrete examples.
I would not hate Apple if they were not the control freaks that they are. If you deal with Apple in anyway, they own you. iTunes is exactly the type of control over the users that China and Iran want over their citizens.
This is a bit of hyperbole.
iTunes cares not where you get your music. You can get it of CD, and you can feed it in MP3s or AACs from competing services. It's sync software, with a store you can optionally use attached. Apple also does not block competing music stores and services from publishing apps.
Last I checked, Iran and China both care where you get your web content, unlike iTunes.
While the original Apple products where hacker friendly, that certainly was not the case after Steve Jobs returned.
I don't buy it.
Apple before Steve Jobs. Fully closed source. Unfriendly and unstandard hardware.
Apple after Steve Jobs. POSIX. Intel x86 hardware. OS X with about half the components open source and hosted by Apple. Bought and maintain CUPS, the printing system for both OS X and Linux (with Linux support still going strong.)
After Steve Jobs, Apple went from a fully closed company to a half open, which is certainly more hacker friendly than it used to be. After Jobs, you could actually download and modify the kernel to OS X. Couldn't do that before Jobs.
Apple pushes for standards? No, not really. For example, they're the only browser maker that does not employ _anyone_ to work on CSS specs. Google, Microsoft, Opera, Mozilla all have employees doing so. Apple? Not so much.
Exactly. Google is on their own out there, without any help from Apple. Thank goodness they came up with WebKit to build Chrome wi...
Wait, what's that? WebKit is actually Apple's project? Apple encouraged web rendering standards compliance so much they actually help support Google in using their web renderer on a competing platform?
While I agree that US diplomacy has been problematic, I don't agree that the proper response to a terrorist killing a few thousand people is to meet his demands just to placate him. If that was how justice worked, then we need to start buying yachts for the murderers we've locked up in prison.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, this is entirely a blind stab in the dark, but their profits approximately doubled over last year, so the actual rate may be twice what the NYT said.
Probably submitter thought it would be hilarious to make the Android fans have a minor freak out over putting "Google" in the same title as "iPhone."
Looks like it worked.
Well no, there's no doubt oppressive dictatorships frequently don't create great environments for small businesses.
But Bush banning the import of game engines certainly didn't help the matter. It only compounds the problem when sanctions make the people more dependent on the dictatorship, not less.
My intent was to say that in her own head, she might think her actions were for the good of the school, but professionally there is no gray area in gaining private information on students without their legitimate consent, no matter what that information is.
So yeah, I agree with you.
It's the information students share WITH THE WHOLE WORLD ONLY?
No it's not. Facebook has privacy settings to select who you share information with. No, that's not ironclad, but it's also no excuse for the principal to misrepresent herself to acquire this information that she could have not easily acquired without friending the kids.
If the whole world could get at the info, she wouldn't have needed to friend them in the first place, would she?
"or was it just to know the current vibe among?"
JUST to know the current vibe amount?
JUST?
There are so many reasons this is wrong no matter the reasons. Whatever the principal's intentions, you'd still have access to information that if the principal even sees is a possible professional violation. Who's dating/sleeping with who, possible inappropriate pictures for an administrator to see (even kids in their swimsuits is extremely questionable), and yes, opinions on school staff that could bias her opinion in ways that it should not.
Whatever her intention, there is absolutely no professional excuse. She can't just filter out the safe information from the unsafe without seeing everything, which is the problem.
Considering Apple themselves were the ones who did most the maintenance on the Objective-C compiler in GCC, I doubt GCC would be in much trouble.
Not that the ruling isn't troubling in general.
To be fair, a lot of the problem is they built the thing on a graveyard.
In context, 11 years is pretty good time for building a giant skyscraper on the final resting place of a few thousand people who all still have plenty of living relatives.
The problem is that the discussion has been had many times, and the demand that is always made is that everyone give up what they're doing and go to work on some $unified_platform, with the decisions made by $unknown_dictator as if they were a single corporation. The problem is that unless you find a way to incentivize or inhibit people who disagree with how things are done, you will get differentiation. No one ever offers a solution to the people problem.
And I agree completely. The model behind Linux may be a fundamental issue. If it's a real problem depends on the goals of Linux. If Linux trying to be mass market, or are they trying to provide diversity? Those may be two fundamentally incompatible goals. Not that one goal is worse than the other, but it might be better if Linux picked one and ran with it so that it was constantly leveraging it's strengths instead of creating an experience everyone was unhappy with (see: UI changes in Ubuntu.)
But again, there's no central authority to make such a decision.
I don't think I agree, if anything I see another window for Linux adoption coming up. Both Apple and Microsoft appear ready to abandon pros. Lion is getting more difficult for pros to use effectively... and Windows 8... well just look at the start menu.
Using Steve Job's analogy, Apple and Microsoft appear to be abandoning the truck market for the car market, but a lot of people still need to buy trucks. That truck could be Linux.
(Oh great. This turned into a car analogy on Slashdot.)
"Why do we keep getting these posts that are deliberately chosen to incite flamewars between pro- and anti-Linux people?"
If the story was trolling, I'd agree, but in this case, it's fact. Desktop Linux hasn't taken off. And a discussion about why is actually productive and could help improve Linux, even if a few people have hurt feelings that something bad was said about their favorite operating system along the way.
To be fair, "Designed in Cupertino by Apple." is a holdover from when they actually used to build the machines in California or the US. For a long time it instead said "Designed by Apple in California. Assembled in U.S.A" or something along those lines.
And while it's true they use a mix of licenses, they also own CUPS outright, yet that is also GPL.
Yep, Apple sure is hostile to open software.
http://www.macosforge.org/
http://www.webkit.org/ - Oh look! GPL licensed!
http://opensource.apple.com/
http://www.cups.org/
There are a whole host of enterprise features that Windows RT supports.
Unfortunately, reading through that article, they're at best only matching iOS and Android on those things. Apple is even a licensee of ActiveSync with the best mobile implementation currently, even better than WP7.
To really beat Apple, they had to get Active Directory support, which is the one bridge Apple hasn't crossed. They didn't... so... they probably won't make much of a splash.
Glass is required for the digitizer in current capacitive touch screens.
So like it or not, you're getting a glossy glass covered screen in a tablet (which this display is intended for it seems.)
If it's anonymous, they don't even know if the next bomb threat is coming from the same person. Might mess with how serious you take a bomb threat compared to the previous ones. You don't want the one coming from a copycat who's actually planting a bomb to be the one you ignore.
Errr, didn't use it in the early days did you? iTunes has always been a godawful UI that violates all of Apple's own UI standards, then ported to Windows where it made no attempt to fit in. It's been terrible from day one, along with the QuickTime player.
Technically during OS 10.2 the brushed metal UI was written into the UI standards, and iTunes has been UI standards compliant since.
You mean back in the days of the original Mac with no slots or expansion? Or Apple providing absolutely no source code to users from it's inception? Or Apple not allowing competitors to run it's OS and suing them if they tried, which happened frequently with the Apple II?
I'm really struggling to see how Apple today is less hacker friendly than the Apple of the early 80s. I can still go out today and buy a Mac with four expansion slots, four open drive bays, two optical drive bays, upgradable RAM, and replaceable processors. Arguable more hacker friendly than the Apple II. Yes, Apple makes more closed off systems like the Mac Mini, but that's a choice I can make as a consumer. And unlike the early 80s Apple, I can download source code for the operating system, or even load on the operating system from their chief competitor, and be provided support and drivers to do so.
Again, I'm really having trouble buying your argument. No, Apple isn't as open as Linux, or a few of the Android vendors, but compared to early Apple? Apple after Steve returned was far more open than Apple ever was since the Apple II was released.
Yes, Apple is so evil that a part of the W3C that has existed for the last decade is having to carry out it's role in examine an Apple patent which Apple has so far not threatened the W3C with.
Evil I tell you.
I bet this is the first time that the W3C has ever had to do this, because Apple is so uncharacteristically horrible. If I look through the PAG's records, I should find no other times they had to review patents that might threaten the W3C, right?
They are not nearly as interested in actually working on _standards_.
Yeah, you're reaching... Needs citation. You need a concrete example of Apple actually seeking to block web standards.
Apple has worked closely with Google and accepted patches on WebKit. (Which brings them no value.) They helped Konquerer merge back in their changes (again, of no value). They ported to Windows, which doesn't really give them much.
But please, humor me. Cite situations in which Apple is actually acting to block open standards. And because it's the first thing people usually reach for, I'm not interested in H.264 because I think there are great technical reasons for H.264. But for such an abhorrent company like Apple, you should have no problem coming up with other concrete examples.
I would not hate Apple if they were not the control freaks that they are. If you deal with Apple in anyway, they own you. iTunes is exactly the type of control over the users that China and Iran want over their citizens.
This is a bit of hyperbole.
iTunes cares not where you get your music. You can get it of CD, and you can feed it in MP3s or AACs from competing services. It's sync software, with a store you can optionally use attached. Apple also does not block competing music stores and services from publishing apps.
Last I checked, Iran and China both care where you get your web content, unlike iTunes.
While the original Apple products where hacker friendly, that certainly was not the case after Steve Jobs returned.
I don't buy it.
Apple before Steve Jobs. Fully closed source. Unfriendly and unstandard hardware.
Apple after Steve Jobs. POSIX. Intel x86 hardware. OS X with about half the components open source and hosted by Apple. Bought and maintain CUPS, the printing system for both OS X and Linux (with Linux support still going strong.)
After Steve Jobs, Apple went from a fully closed company to a half open, which is certainly more hacker friendly than it used to be. After Jobs, you could actually download and modify the kernel to OS X. Couldn't do that before Jobs.
Heck, this was one of his first products after he returned:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BW3TMPirrXs
Apple pushes for standards? No, not really. For example, they're the only browser maker that does not employ _anyone_ to work on CSS specs. Google, Microsoft, Opera, Mozilla all have employees doing so. Apple? Not so much.
Exactly. Google is on their own out there, without any help from Apple. Thank goodness they came up with WebKit to build Chrome wi...
Wait, what's that? WebKit is actually Apple's project? Apple encouraged web rendering standards compliance so much they actually help support Google in using their web renderer on a competing platform?
How very closed of them.
While I agree that US diplomacy has been problematic, I don't agree that the proper response to a terrorist killing a few thousand people is to meet his demands just to placate him. If that was how justice worked, then we need to start buying yachts for the murderers we've locked up in prison.