Depends very much on your field. If you have ambitions to be an accountant you WILL need an accounting certification. CPA, CMA, CFA, etc. If you want to be a civil engineer odds are very good you will need a PE certification to go very far. Want to work as a specialty physician? You'll need to be certified in your sub-specialty before anyone will hire you. Heck if you want to work in a professional kitchen you'll likely need some certificates for sanitation and safe food handling at minimum. Lots of professions require certification to work.
Other fields it doesn't matter at all for. My branch of engineering has some certificates but you can have a very productive career without one. Certificates can be helpful for getting you in for interviews but they won't get you or help you keep the job. Nobody (sane) is going to hire you just because you have a certificate. But they might overlook you in some cases if you don't.
It's not the intellience, its not having specific background.
True but that doesn't mean you cannot communicate the concept. E=MC^2 is well beyond most people's ability to derive but the concept that Energy = Matter isn't that hard to grasp. It's very possible to communicate difficult concepts to a lay-person. This requires a certain amount of skill. I would even go so far as to argue that if you cannot explain it to a reasonably intelligent lay-person chances may be that you don't understand the concept well enough yourself.
I'm guessing you are fairly young compared with me if you have the flexibility to sleep odd schedules like that. I used to do all sorts of weird sleep experiments too but such things aren't really compatible with most jobs and family responsibilities. I know it's possible to do successfully do some very unusual sleep schedules but it's hard to reconcile those with societal expectations. My work hours aren't especially flexible and my wife would be pissed if I was asleep between 6-9pm every day. I'd basically never see her.
Sleep is interesting and I REALLY wish I could get away with sleeping less. I consider it 1/3 of my life utterly wasted but there isn't really much I can do about it.
But it's, at best, a strawman (non-)argument to call them a tax dodge or to claim they owe your hypothetical billions.
If they took extraordinary action to avoid paying taxes while still staying within the letter of the law then they ARE dodging taxes. Any argument otherwise is merely equivocation.
Tax evasion and tax avoidance are two entirely different things.
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. And I don't buy your argument because it is basically a "might makes right" argument. Just because they have the ability to hire lots of lawyers and accountants to do clever tricks avoiding taxes does not mean it should be acceptable. Finding clever loopholes that force others to make up the slack in civil society is not something to be applauded.
But if you're going to attack someone else for not paying more tax than they are legally obligated to
I'm not. I'm attacking them for paying less than they are ethically obligated to. I don't care for a moment that they aren't technically breaking the law. The fact that the laws were imperfectly written does not excuse their behavior. I assure you that I am paying a FAR larger portion of my income in taxes than Microsoft is AND even if we paid the same percentage Microsoft would feel less financial pain from doing so. So until Microsoft starts paying an amount of tax that hurts them as much as what I pay hurts me your argument is bogus.
I think we might need a fourth branch of government that does nothing but hold the other three accountable.
We have that - it's called the press. Combined with an informed electorate it's pretty effective in the long run. It's not official in the government but you really don't want it to be. An official branch of government that isn't accountable itself is called a dictatorship. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like that.
Google's model is to tie their platform to their other platform. The Google Play apps and the Play Store must be installed on Android systems for them to be called Android. All of those tie back to Google
And what is your point? Google introduced Android basically as a defensive play to keep Microsoft and Apple and Blackberry from shutting them out of the mobile ad market. They don't need to make money directly on Android because they make their money elsewhere. Microsoft DOES need to make money on Windows because they do not have an alternate revenue stream.
While you're saying they won't succeed, that's not the same as saying that what they want to try is the same as what Apple's doing.
They won't do exactly the same thing as Apple but they are VERY unlikely to succeed selling software to an entrenched competitor giving away software for free. Their only hope for that to work is to somehow leverage their desktop OS and office suite monopolies and that is likely to be a big no-no given their prior anti-trust convictions.
Basically the reasons Microsoft is pushing so hard on the Metro interface is that they are trying to get a single interface for all devices. In principle this makes sense. Reduced learning curve, immediate familiarity whether using a PC or a tablet, etc. In practice it's a hard trick to pull off. But if they can get a critical mass of people to like it then they have a chance. It's only real way to leverage their desktop monopoly without getting into legal hot water.
Giving up most of the Nokia hardware business means they've given up on the vertical single-source solution pretty thoroughly.
That just means that they bungled the acquisition. They should have done it years earlier instead of waiting until Nokia wilted on the vine. Microsoft's strategic position isn't improved by them giving up on Nokia. I don't see any way for them to realistically displace Google with the third party handsets unless Google really drops the ball. And so far Microsoft has been very bad at making their own hardware. The only way I really see out of this for them is for them to tap their cash hoard and make a very smart acquisition of some sort.
It's better because it has a better UI, is more stable, and does much more by itself without needing extra "apps".
Better UI is subjective and personally I disagree with you on that. Most people really don't give a shit as long as it doesn't get in their way. People are familiar with iOS and Android and familiarity counts for a lot even if it isn't necessarily the most optimal way to do things. Look at how much hate Windows 8 has received even though in some cases it does make some improvements.
I have seen no objective evidence that Windows Phone is more or less stable than Android or iOS devices. You'll need to present some actual objective data for me to concede that point. Something more than your personal experiences.
As for doing more without extra apps - even if that were true (which I doubt), what does it do that makes having the feature built in versus in an app matter for?
Again, I don't understand why people don't buying them over Android.
Because Android is more available, less expensive to handset makers, does everything Windows Phones do, and was earlier to market, has a more robust ecosystem of apps and accessories, and is more familiar to consumers. Microsoft to all appearances has come out with a device that is fine but doesn't actually best the competition in any way that truly matters.
They're subsidizing the phones right now, but I'd happily pay more for a Windows Phone because it's a much better product, in my opinion.
And that's a fine opinion to hold but understand that most people do not agree with you. I wouldn't pay a penny more for a Windows Phone and given Microsoft's history I would personally need a very steep discount to even consider it.
Like most abilities, getting only a few hours of sleep and feeling fine the next day is an acquired skill.
Disagree. I'm fairly disciplined in my sleeping habits these days but if I get less than 7-8 hours I am absolutely going to feel it and my performance will degrade some. I won't be a vegetable but I won't be feeling fine either.
Yes, it requires time, discipline and willpower, but blaming your genes for being a lazy bum is not an excuse.
Good sleep hygiene requires some discipline but no amount of discipline is going to let me get away with sleeping only 4-6 hours per night. Some people clearly can including some in my family but speaking only for myself I cannot get away with that little sleep for more than a day or two and I feel the effects immediately. I know for a fact that most people need more sleep than just a few hours and no amount of discipline will change this.
And you can't see your backlit phone screen in a darkened room?
He's saying that there is no tactile feedback so you have to actually look at the touchscreen to use it. Otherwise you have no idea what "button" you are pressing. It's one of the serious problems with touchscreen interfaces in general. My car has a touchscreen GPS. Since it lacks buttons you have to take your eyes off the road to use it while driving which is dangerous. However I have physical buttons for my radio so I can change channels without looking. That's a non-trivial advantage of physical buttons.
Unless the buttons are lit, a real remote is worse than a phone.
No it is not. I know exactly where the buttons are on my remotes by touch even with the lights off. Having back-lit buttons is helpful but if you are familiar with the remote it isn't actually necessary. Furthermore since there is no tactile feedback from the phone you have to take your eyes off the screen to use its virtual "buttons" whereas you do not with a remote that has physical buttons.
The problem with most remotes is that they communicate one way and so they have no idea what the state of the device they are controlling is in. It is LONG past due that remotes should be able to query the state of the device(s) they are controlling. Until that happens all remotes are and will remain shit.
Some things simply didn't need to be "improved". Give me a real remote and a built-in Ethernet connection anyday like my WDTV Live has.
It is true that some things don't need improvement but remote controls are not on that list. I should NOT have to own or use a different and usually crappy remote for every device. I should NOT have to have a universal remote which has no way to determine the state of the device it is controlling.
Device manufacturers need to get together and come up with a standard for remotes that includes TWO WAY communication (to and from the remote) from every device AND the devices need to be able to talk to each other AND they need to use RF instead of IR in most cases. Yes this will be more expensive and I'm fine with that. I have a Logitech Harmony and it's not bad but ultimately it fails because it has no way to query the devices for their state so it gets confused rather often. Every stupid DVD player and TV has just an IR receiver but no transmitter which is inexcusable in 2015. It's not hard and not terribly expensive so I fail to understand why this hasn't happened yet.
Rare? I'd hardly call 8% of accusations in the US rare. Even the lowest estimates are between 1-2% of cases. While it can be difficult to prosecute he-said/she-said cases and (too) many rape cases never come to trial, false accusations of rape are anything but rare.
Basically the announcement reads "We want Windows Phone to be delivered the way Windows on the PC always has been: by every OEM out there".
Which probably will never happen so yeah, a distinction without a difference. I have no idea why a handset vendor would want to pay for Windows when they can get Android basically for free. The economics of it make no sense. There is almost zero retail demand for a Windows based handset and two very entrenched competitors with deep bank accounts and better public images. Microsoft's PC model simply cannot work in mobile I think. They can't afford to compete on price with Google since Google is giving Android away so the only realistic option is to go vertical like Apple. But since they don't have the brand Apple has that isn't looking great either. Their only real option is to tightly integrate with their PC platform which has gotten them in anti-trust hot water in the past.
They can talk a big game all they want but there has been essentially zero uptake by handset makers for several years and why on earth would they want to compete with Microsoft directly on the Windows platform? A big part of the reason Android remains popular is that Google has had the good sense to largely just produce reference hardware and mostly stay above the fray.
When is Apple going to publish current iWatch sales figures? The new product is cratering, a dismal failure. Word is getting out, the thing is a dud.
There doesn't seem to be clear evidence one way or the other. Personally I don't much care but we'll find out in due course. I suspect it is probably selling fine but it never was going to sell like the iPad or iPhone. Most likely it will take a generation or two to really hit its stride like most Apple products.
Apple is still selling phones, but most of us* aren't willing to spend that much on a phone.
Given that their sales figures keep going up, so far the evidence seems to show that isn't true. Furthermore they haven't even really hit their stride in quite a few less mature markets like China.
I use a Nokia that I bought at Radio shack for $69 and a $35/month Virgin Mobile no-contract service. People are gonna figure it out. Even Apple customers, eventually.
That's fine but there is not a single Nokia product that I'd seriously consider buying. Just doesn't fit what I need/want. Clearly most people seem to feel the same way. Apple customers aren't idiots - they just want something different than you do. Nothing wrong with what you want and nothing wrong with what they want.
I think that's true among many geeks but most people are basically indifferent to Microsoft. Unlike Apple which (deserved or not) seems to get much love from the general public, Microsoft generally gets about as much attention as the water company. People just don't care about them one way or the other.
No idea how MS can pull out of this one. I've mostly chalked it up that the sun is setting on the Microsoft empire, and someone new is going to take over the 2020's.
Unlikely I think. Microsoft has roughly $100B in cash. At current market caps they could buy both Ford AND GM in cash if they wanted to. They could buy a controlling stake in Amazon or Oracle in cash. Microsoft isn't going anywhere unless they are criminally stupid and I don't think they are. They might have to buy their way into a very different industry but they have the means to do that. Their cash cows (Windows and Office) might disappear and their margins are likely to suffer but the company will survive in some form or fashion.
The thing is, Windows Phone is a better OS than either iOS or Android, so it makes sense that they'd think that companies would want to pay to license their software.
"Better" in what way that matters? It has a different interface but the Windows version for mobile is functionally basically identical to iOS or Android. It's fine but there is nothing customers care about that Windows has that iOS or Android lack.
Anyway Microsoft's PC business model won't work in mobile. It makes no sense for companies to license Microsoft's software when Google is giving Android away for free. Microsoft should have pursued Apple's business model and vertically integrated for mobile. Now I think it is too little too late. Microsoft used to be able to buy their way into a market but Apple and Google both have enough cash that that tactic isn't likely to work.
So basically a pre-scan filter that leaves all questionable findings to the experts (human) for further review.
Yes but it also serves an error checking function. Sometimes humans overlook things quite by accident and it provides as way to help ensure that an unblinking set of eyes looks things over. Sometimes these systems flag things that the doctor's miss. (and vice-versa) Both human and machine are pretty good individually but together the results are even better.
This isn't Apple envy. They didn't say they want to focus on one offering. They said they want a vibrant ecosystem that includes their first-party devices.
Distinction without a difference really.
They've learned that when you're making the bulk of your OS's phones yourselves, there's little incentive for competitors to license your software.
Microsoft's problem is that their business model has been to SELL software. That worked fine in the PC market place because the hardware and the software were abstracted from each other AND they managed to become a de-facto standard before something like linux came along. Microsoft's problem in mobile is that they tried to replicate that business model (selling software to third party hardware makers) while Google was almost literally giving away Android to all of Microsoft's potential customers. Google makes their money from ads, not software sales so Google effectively evaporated any profit margin for Microsoft or anyone else who wasn't vertically integrated in mobile. The moment Nokia dumped their own platform for Windows they were effectively dead because nobody else wanted to use Microsoft's software and Nokia wasn't going to be able to drive it into the mobile marketplace by themselves.
So instead what Microsoft is belatedly realizing is that they should have followed Apple's model and vertically integrated for mobile. Apple is a software company fundamentally. What makes a mac different from a PC is OS X. What makes an iPhone different from an Android phone is iOS. The hardware is basically the same underneath. So Apple sells you their software but won't sell it without a fairly nice device to go along with it. However an important feature in this is that Apple has design chops and retail experience in their DNA. Microsoft doesn't. So Microsoft has to replicate what Apple is doing without the design culture that makes Apple successful at doing it.
Basically it's fortunate for Microsoft that they have a huge amount of cash in the bank because I think they are going to burn through a lot of it trying to transform the company into something they currently are not. They have enough cash that I'm not about to declare them dead but Microsoft doesn't have an easy road ahead of them I think.
The algorithm could also find application in other fields, such as medical imaging and early disease diagnosis.
Radiologists already use software that assists in scanning images for potentially interesting features. They aren't a replacement but they apparently do a fairly good job at helping to ensure as little as possible gets overlooked. I did some consulting work in a radiology clinic some years ago and they used this technology there to good effect.
I wouldn't be surprised to see anatomic pathologists using technology like this somewhere in the future. The logistics of it are much more complicated than for radiology but I think somewhere down the line it will probably happen.
If you drastically reduce the requirements for becoming a doctor, then you'll get prompt treatment from a well-rested doctor who can afford to spend a good long while with you and still charge you less. Sure, they'll make some mistakes... but so do current doctors.
And you'll get a lot of shitty doctors, drive up medical costs, drive up liability costs and hurt a lot of people in the process. Increasing the number of doctors is fine but lowering standards to do it is a DUMB idea. A better idea is to make working as a doctor more appealing so that you attract more good people to the profession. There are plenty of people who are smart enough to be doctors but who simply don't want the (often) horrid lifestyle that comes with it. This can be done without admitting a bunch of second rate applicants to medical school.
Requiring less training might actually reduce the number of mistakes.
Let me let you in on a little secret. EVERY doctor has killed someone. Not intentionally of course but because of a mistake they have made. Statistically the worst time to go into a hospital in the US is in late summer because that is when all the new interns start. They learn by working on you and there is no other way to do it. You can improve training without requiring less of it. Do you really want a minimally trained surgeon with no oversight working on you?
If a doctor contaminates patients, then the economic value of his work day is probably negative.
Unless he has a case of ebola that is unlikely to be true. Doctors and medical staff work around sick people all day. It is a virtual certainty that they will regularly transmit pathogens no matter how careful they are. Fortunately most people have robust immune systems so the system still works. Or would you rather that entire medical offices close every time someone gets a case of the sniffles?
I noted the point of high workloads, but it just suggests that we need more doctors, and that subsiding would make sense.
Training of doctors is already subsidized. It's primarily paid for through Medicare and the Department of Health and Human Services. This is actually a problem because since the hospitals are not paying for their residents they are effectively free labor. This creates a strong incentive for hospitals to wring every possible ounce of work out of these "unpaid" but talented workers.
Slashdot Mirror
2 resumes, both have equal work time in IT, one has several certs one doesn't.
Which would you hire?
The one that interviews better most likely.
Depends very much on your field. If you have ambitions to be an accountant you WILL need an accounting certification. CPA, CMA, CFA, etc. If you want to be a civil engineer odds are very good you will need a PE certification to go very far. Want to work as a specialty physician? You'll need to be certified in your sub-specialty before anyone will hire you. Heck if you want to work in a professional kitchen you'll likely need some certificates for sanitation and safe food handling at minimum. Lots of professions require certification to work.
Other fields it doesn't matter at all for. My branch of engineering has some certificates but you can have a very productive career without one. Certificates can be helpful for getting you in for interviews but they won't get you or help you keep the job. Nobody (sane) is going to hire you just because you have a certificate. But they might overlook you in some cases if you don't.
Getting a college degree, you actually learn something.
I've run into more than a few people who have made it through college quite uncontaminated by knowledge.
It's not the intellience, its not having specific background.
True but that doesn't mean you cannot communicate the concept. E=MC^2 is well beyond most people's ability to derive but the concept that Energy = Matter isn't that hard to grasp. It's very possible to communicate difficult concepts to a lay-person. This requires a certain amount of skill. I would even go so far as to argue that if you cannot explain it to a reasonably intelligent lay-person chances may be that you don't understand the concept well enough yourself.
I'm guessing you are fairly young compared with me if you have the flexibility to sleep odd schedules like that. I used to do all sorts of weird sleep experiments too but such things aren't really compatible with most jobs and family responsibilities. I know it's possible to do successfully do some very unusual sleep schedules but it's hard to reconcile those with societal expectations. My work hours aren't especially flexible and my wife would be pissed if I was asleep between 6-9pm every day. I'd basically never see her.
Sleep is interesting and I REALLY wish I could get away with sleeping less. I consider it 1/3 of my life utterly wasted but there isn't really much I can do about it.
But it's, at best, a strawman (non-)argument to call them a tax dodge or to claim they owe your hypothetical billions.
If they took extraordinary action to avoid paying taxes while still staying within the letter of the law then they ARE dodging taxes. Any argument otherwise is merely equivocation.
Tax evasion and tax avoidance are two entirely different things.
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. And I don't buy your argument because it is basically a "might makes right" argument. Just because they have the ability to hire lots of lawyers and accountants to do clever tricks avoiding taxes does not mean it should be acceptable. Finding clever loopholes that force others to make up the slack in civil society is not something to be applauded.
But if you're going to attack someone else for not paying more tax than they are legally obligated to
I'm not. I'm attacking them for paying less than they are ethically obligated to. I don't care for a moment that they aren't technically breaking the law. The fact that the laws were imperfectly written does not excuse their behavior. I assure you that I am paying a FAR larger portion of my income in taxes than Microsoft is AND even if we paid the same percentage Microsoft would feel less financial pain from doing so. So until Microsoft starts paying an amount of tax that hurts them as much as what I pay hurts me your argument is bogus.
I think we might need a fourth branch of government that does nothing but hold the other three accountable.
We have that - it's called the press. Combined with an informed electorate it's pretty effective in the long run. It's not official in the government but you really don't want it to be. An official branch of government that isn't accountable itself is called a dictatorship. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like that.
Google's model is to tie their platform to their other platform. The Google Play apps and the Play Store must be installed on Android systems for them to be called Android. All of those tie back to Google
And what is your point? Google introduced Android basically as a defensive play to keep Microsoft and Apple and Blackberry from shutting them out of the mobile ad market. They don't need to make money directly on Android because they make their money elsewhere. Microsoft DOES need to make money on Windows because they do not have an alternate revenue stream.
While you're saying they won't succeed, that's not the same as saying that what they want to try is the same as what Apple's doing.
They won't do exactly the same thing as Apple but they are VERY unlikely to succeed selling software to an entrenched competitor giving away software for free. Their only hope for that to work is to somehow leverage their desktop OS and office suite monopolies and that is likely to be a big no-no given their prior anti-trust convictions.
Basically the reasons Microsoft is pushing so hard on the Metro interface is that they are trying to get a single interface for all devices. In principle this makes sense. Reduced learning curve, immediate familiarity whether using a PC or a tablet, etc. In practice it's a hard trick to pull off. But if they can get a critical mass of people to like it then they have a chance. It's only real way to leverage their desktop monopoly without getting into legal hot water.
Giving up most of the Nokia hardware business means they've given up on the vertical single-source solution pretty thoroughly.
That just means that they bungled the acquisition. They should have done it years earlier instead of waiting until Nokia wilted on the vine. Microsoft's strategic position isn't improved by them giving up on Nokia. I don't see any way for them to realistically displace Google with the third party handsets unless Google really drops the ball. And so far Microsoft has been very bad at making their own hardware. The only way I really see out of this for them is for them to tap their cash hoard and make a very smart acquisition of some sort.
It's better because it has a better UI, is more stable, and does much more by itself without needing extra "apps".
Better UI is subjective and personally I disagree with you on that. Most people really don't give a shit as long as it doesn't get in their way. People are familiar with iOS and Android and familiarity counts for a lot even if it isn't necessarily the most optimal way to do things. Look at how much hate Windows 8 has received even though in some cases it does make some improvements.
I have seen no objective evidence that Windows Phone is more or less stable than Android or iOS devices. You'll need to present some actual objective data for me to concede that point. Something more than your personal experiences.
As for doing more without extra apps - even if that were true (which I doubt), what does it do that makes having the feature built in versus in an app matter for?
Again, I don't understand why people don't buying them over Android.
Because Android is more available, less expensive to handset makers, does everything Windows Phones do, and was earlier to market, has a more robust ecosystem of apps and accessories, and is more familiar to consumers. Microsoft to all appearances has come out with a device that is fine but doesn't actually best the competition in any way that truly matters.
They're subsidizing the phones right now, but I'd happily pay more for a Windows Phone because it's a much better product, in my opinion.
And that's a fine opinion to hold but understand that most people do not agree with you. I wouldn't pay a penny more for a Windows Phone and given Microsoft's history I would personally need a very steep discount to even consider it.
Like most abilities, getting only a few hours of sleep and feeling fine the next day is an acquired skill.
Disagree. I'm fairly disciplined in my sleeping habits these days but if I get less than 7-8 hours I am absolutely going to feel it and my performance will degrade some. I won't be a vegetable but I won't be feeling fine either.
Yes, it requires time, discipline and willpower, but blaming your genes for being a lazy bum is not an excuse.
Good sleep hygiene requires some discipline but no amount of discipline is going to let me get away with sleeping only 4-6 hours per night. Some people clearly can including some in my family but speaking only for myself I cannot get away with that little sleep for more than a day or two and I feel the effects immediately. I know for a fact that most people need more sleep than just a few hours and no amount of discipline will change this.
And you can't see your backlit phone screen in a darkened room?
He's saying that there is no tactile feedback so you have to actually look at the touchscreen to use it. Otherwise you have no idea what "button" you are pressing. It's one of the serious problems with touchscreen interfaces in general. My car has a touchscreen GPS. Since it lacks buttons you have to take your eyes off the road to use it while driving which is dangerous. However I have physical buttons for my radio so I can change channels without looking. That's a non-trivial advantage of physical buttons.
Unless the buttons are lit, a real remote is worse than a phone.
No it is not. I know exactly where the buttons are on my remotes by touch even with the lights off. Having back-lit buttons is helpful but if you are familiar with the remote it isn't actually necessary. Furthermore since there is no tactile feedback from the phone you have to take your eyes off the screen to use its virtual "buttons" whereas you do not with a remote that has physical buttons.
The problem with most remotes is that they communicate one way and so they have no idea what the state of the device they are controlling is in. It is LONG past due that remotes should be able to query the state of the device(s) they are controlling. Until that happens all remotes are and will remain shit.
Some things simply didn't need to be "improved". Give me a real remote and a built-in Ethernet connection anyday like my WDTV Live has.
It is true that some things don't need improvement but remote controls are not on that list. I should NOT have to own or use a different and usually crappy remote for every device. I should NOT have to have a universal remote which has no way to determine the state of the device it is controlling.
Device manufacturers need to get together and come up with a standard for remotes that includes TWO WAY communication (to and from the remote) from every device AND the devices need to be able to talk to each other AND they need to use RF instead of IR in most cases. Yes this will be more expensive and I'm fine with that. I have a Logitech Harmony and it's not bad but ultimately it fails because it has no way to query the devices for their state so it gets confused rather often. Every stupid DVD player and TV has just an IR receiver but no transmitter which is inexcusable in 2015. It's not hard and not terribly expensive so I fail to understand why this hasn't happened yet.
False rape accusations are rare.
Rare? I'd hardly call 8% of accusations in the US rare. Even the lowest estimates are between 1-2% of cases. While it can be difficult to prosecute he-said/she-said cases and (too) many rape cases never come to trial, false accusations of rape are anything but rare.
The Google, Apple, and Amazon cults aren't worth joining. A good system should be able to play anything.
I agree in principle. So where is this system that can play anything? Or do you mean to say there are no good systems?
Basically the announcement reads "We want Windows Phone to be delivered the way Windows on the PC always has been: by every OEM out there".
Which probably will never happen so yeah, a distinction without a difference. I have no idea why a handset vendor would want to pay for Windows when they can get Android basically for free. The economics of it make no sense. There is almost zero retail demand for a Windows based handset and two very entrenched competitors with deep bank accounts and better public images. Microsoft's PC model simply cannot work in mobile I think. They can't afford to compete on price with Google since Google is giving Android away so the only realistic option is to go vertical like Apple. But since they don't have the brand Apple has that isn't looking great either. Their only real option is to tightly integrate with their PC platform which has gotten them in anti-trust hot water in the past.
They can talk a big game all they want but there has been essentially zero uptake by handset makers for several years and why on earth would they want to compete with Microsoft directly on the Windows platform? A big part of the reason Android remains popular is that Google has had the good sense to largely just produce reference hardware and mostly stay above the fray.
When is Apple going to publish current iWatch sales figures? The new product is cratering, a dismal failure. Word is getting out, the thing is a dud.
There doesn't seem to be clear evidence one way or the other. Personally I don't much care but we'll find out in due course. I suspect it is probably selling fine but it never was going to sell like the iPad or iPhone. Most likely it will take a generation or two to really hit its stride like most Apple products.
Apple is still selling phones, but most of us* aren't willing to spend that much on a phone.
Given that their sales figures keep going up, so far the evidence seems to show that isn't true. Furthermore they haven't even really hit their stride in quite a few less mature markets like China.
I use a Nokia that I bought at Radio shack for $69 and a $35/month Virgin Mobile no-contract service. People are gonna figure it out. Even Apple customers, eventually.
That's fine but there is not a single Nokia product that I'd seriously consider buying. Just doesn't fit what I need/want. Clearly most people seem to feel the same way. Apple customers aren't idiots - they just want something different than you do. Nothing wrong with what you want and nothing wrong with what they want.
For me, it's because the brand name is poison.
I think that's true among many geeks but most people are basically indifferent to Microsoft. Unlike Apple which (deserved or not) seems to get much love from the general public, Microsoft generally gets about as much attention as the water company. People just don't care about them one way or the other.
No idea how MS can pull out of this one. I've mostly chalked it up that the sun is setting on the Microsoft empire, and someone new is going to take over the 2020's.
Unlikely I think. Microsoft has roughly $100B in cash. At current market caps they could buy both Ford AND GM in cash if they wanted to. They could buy a controlling stake in Amazon or Oracle in cash. Microsoft isn't going anywhere unless they are criminally stupid and I don't think they are. They might have to buy their way into a very different industry but they have the means to do that. Their cash cows (Windows and Office) might disappear and their margins are likely to suffer but the company will survive in some form or fashion.
The thing is, Windows Phone is a better OS than either iOS or Android, so it makes sense that they'd think that companies would want to pay to license their software.
"Better" in what way that matters? It has a different interface but the Windows version for mobile is functionally basically identical to iOS or Android. It's fine but there is nothing customers care about that Windows has that iOS or Android lack.
Anyway Microsoft's PC business model won't work in mobile. It makes no sense for companies to license Microsoft's software when Google is giving Android away for free. Microsoft should have pursued Apple's business model and vertically integrated for mobile. Now I think it is too little too late. Microsoft used to be able to buy their way into a market but Apple and Google both have enough cash that that tactic isn't likely to work.
So basically a pre-scan filter that leaves all questionable findings to the experts (human) for further review.
Yes but it also serves an error checking function. Sometimes humans overlook things quite by accident and it provides as way to help ensure that an unblinking set of eyes looks things over. Sometimes these systems flag things that the doctor's miss. (and vice-versa) Both human and machine are pretty good individually but together the results are even better.
This isn't Apple envy. They didn't say they want to focus on one offering. They said they want a vibrant ecosystem that includes their first-party devices.
Distinction without a difference really.
They've learned that when you're making the bulk of your OS's phones yourselves, there's little incentive for competitors to license your software.
Microsoft's problem is that their business model has been to SELL software. That worked fine in the PC market place because the hardware and the software were abstracted from each other AND they managed to become a de-facto standard before something like linux came along. Microsoft's problem in mobile is that they tried to replicate that business model (selling software to third party hardware makers) while Google was almost literally giving away Android to all of Microsoft's potential customers. Google makes their money from ads, not software sales so Google effectively evaporated any profit margin for Microsoft or anyone else who wasn't vertically integrated in mobile. The moment Nokia dumped their own platform for Windows they were effectively dead because nobody else wanted to use Microsoft's software and Nokia wasn't going to be able to drive it into the mobile marketplace by themselves.
So instead what Microsoft is belatedly realizing is that they should have followed Apple's model and vertically integrated for mobile. Apple is a software company fundamentally. What makes a mac different from a PC is OS X. What makes an iPhone different from an Android phone is iOS. The hardware is basically the same underneath. So Apple sells you their software but won't sell it without a fairly nice device to go along with it. However an important feature in this is that Apple has design chops and retail experience in their DNA. Microsoft doesn't. So Microsoft has to replicate what Apple is doing without the design culture that makes Apple successful at doing it.
Basically it's fortunate for Microsoft that they have a huge amount of cash in the bank because I think they are going to burn through a lot of it trying to transform the company into something they currently are not. They have enough cash that I'm not about to declare them dead but Microsoft doesn't have an easy road ahead of them I think.
Well, since Samsung and Apple are pretty much the only ones making any profits out of phones right now
Apparently not so much for Samsung lately.
The algorithm could also find application in other fields, such as medical imaging and early disease diagnosis.
Radiologists already use software that assists in scanning images for potentially interesting features. They aren't a replacement but they apparently do a fairly good job at helping to ensure as little as possible gets overlooked. I did some consulting work in a radiology clinic some years ago and they used this technology there to good effect.
I wouldn't be surprised to see anatomic pathologists using technology like this somewhere in the future. The logistics of it are much more complicated than for radiology but I think somewhere down the line it will probably happen.
If you drastically reduce the requirements for becoming a doctor, then you'll get prompt treatment from a well-rested doctor who can afford to spend a good long while with you and still charge you less. Sure, they'll make some mistakes... but so do current doctors.
And you'll get a lot of shitty doctors, drive up medical costs, drive up liability costs and hurt a lot of people in the process. Increasing the number of doctors is fine but lowering standards to do it is a DUMB idea. A better idea is to make working as a doctor more appealing so that you attract more good people to the profession. There are plenty of people who are smart enough to be doctors but who simply don't want the (often) horrid lifestyle that comes with it. This can be done without admitting a bunch of second rate applicants to medical school.
Requiring less training might actually reduce the number of mistakes.
Let me let you in on a little secret. EVERY doctor has killed someone. Not intentionally of course but because of a mistake they have made. Statistically the worst time to go into a hospital in the US is in late summer because that is when all the new interns start. They learn by working on you and there is no other way to do it. You can improve training without requiring less of it. Do you really want a minimally trained surgeon with no oversight working on you?
Prioritize the patient queue based on similar symptoms.
It's called triage and I assure you that medical people are well aware of it. Particularly in ERs.
If a doctor contaminates patients, then the economic value of his work day is probably negative.
Unless he has a case of ebola that is unlikely to be true. Doctors and medical staff work around sick people all day. It is a virtual certainty that they will regularly transmit pathogens no matter how careful they are. Fortunately most people have robust immune systems so the system still works. Or would you rather that entire medical offices close every time someone gets a case of the sniffles?
I noted the point of high workloads, but it just suggests that we need more doctors, and that subsiding would make sense.
Training of doctors is already subsidized. It's primarily paid for through Medicare and the Department of Health and Human Services. This is actually a problem because since the hospitals are not paying for their residents they are effectively free labor. This creates a strong incentive for hospitals to wring every possible ounce of work out of these "unpaid" but talented workers.