Let's look at this. Supporting the latest version of Java and binding it directly to MacOS is a development issue. It is not necessarily going to effect the Mac end user. Developers are expected to primarily use XCode. Not supporting the latest version of Java is simply going to mean that developers are not going to use macs, and Mac users are not going to be able to use the absolute latest software. To me this is bad, but Apple will do what Apple will do. Java is still available, and I,as an end user, can still run the Java apps.
The question is why isn't java important to Apple anymore. One reason is that Java is not all that incredible important, it is one to get cross platform application, but not the only way, and cross platform is not as important as it used to be. Another reason could be OO.org, and the fact that after many year there is still no MacOS native port of it. Perhaps Apple could have done more. Perhaps by backing Java 100% Apple was doing more, and perhaps Sun was not.
To me the depreciation of Java is more a sign that Apple is once again going off on it's own, a la iWork, rather than depending on unreliable third parties.
doesn't have the infrastructure in place to make landing in front of your house a viable alternative
I don't know about other people, but around where I live we don't have the infrastructure for the cars people want to drive. One Hummer parked on the side of the road, and there simply is not room for anything bigger than a Vespa to pass. With the building of the houses, many without adequate garages, I find an increasing number of roads to be impassable. Road that just a year ago were navigable and safe, have become impassable and risky due to the vehicles and driving habits of the new residents. God help us if they got a hold of flying cars.
Here is my idea of the use of flying cars. People who want to live in the suburbs can either build their houses for flying cars or drive their regular cars to a departure area. They can then fly to the bus, and take the bus in the 10-15 miles downtown. For may people, it would be no different from what they do now.
The cost to launch a shuttle is somewhere between 0.5 billion and 1 billion. That is one launch. The cost of a week at war is between 2-3 billion. The additional burden placed on local taxpayers for standardized testing, testing that was based on fabricated data during Bush's first education secretary's tenure at HISD, is immeasurable. And the head of heads of major private firms receive hundred of millions of dollars for borking the company to nearly bankruptcy.
I add this last bit because if the wisdom of the free market indicates that a little money thrown away is a good investment, how can those low life in government be so arrogant as not follow suite.
I certainly agree that it would be good if everyone would be deny themselves every available luxury. My food would be cheaper if the owner of my local restaurant would not own a hummer, not to mention my tax bill. My city could afford better education if they did not pay for downtown luxury offices and did not subsidize luxury sports arenas. School taxes would be much lower if we did not have luxury classrooms with lights and air conditioning. But everyone of us knows human nature is to do better work when on is appreciated, and when the environment is conformable. And if it takes.1% of the project budget to encourage the people to do a better a job, that might be a good investment. I would sooner see the parasites that leech off the education and military budget cut off than a single nasa party be canceled.
The phone will only work as long as Apple wants it to work
The Phone will cost a fortune to use outside of the local area
The phone is programmed to check mail and deliver revenue to your service provider even when it is "off"
The phone is a closed environment, and will probably require several days with a loaner phone, at additional cost, to repair.
this phone does not have the advanced features that everyone seems to find so critical in other phones, such as user generated custom ringtones.
I am sure there are others, but that is a good start. If you buy Apple products, like I do, it is better to go in with eyes wide open, rather than whine later. Most of these things are beyond the Apple SOP, which is why the iPhone, to me, is not nearly such a great product, but those who do buy it surely can no longer be surprised.
As long as they stop the irresponsible expenditure o public funds, I don't care what they do. In the seven years since the turn of the century, congress put the public in debt for 2.5 an additional 2.5 trillion dollars. , compared to about 1.6 trillion for the previous six years. Though much of this can be accounted for by the well known excuses that allow the military contractors to be on the dole at a higher level than any time in US history, on might consider a conservative government to offset that wiht fiscally responsible cuts or additional revenue generating schemes. In reality the legislative and executive branch colluded to spend public funds that it did not have.
Now that we are seeing some horse trading, haggling, and vetos, we at least are back to a situation where we think before we spend money we do not have. A definite improvement. Just like past irresponsible attempts at world domination, we will cut off funds before any truly long lasting damage is done, a la the fall of Spain after the spanish-american war, or the fall of geermany.
What is now considered a PDA is not what the Newton was, though newton defined the PDA market in the same way that the mac/pagemaker/laserwriter defined the desktop publishing market.
The newton, at least by the time it was discontinued, could do much of what a computer could do. It was a fully networked machine. I could plug in my full keyboard and write. It had a modem that let it send faxes. I had an address book and calendar was very good. What it did not do, which became quite critical as Palm redefined the standard, was play well with others. The newton was a standalone machine that did not want to be a subsidiary of a bigger sibling. This meant it was really hard to synchronize data between machines. This is still a big problem. Palm can do it if you use their software of third party adaptors. MS can do it if you use their products and costly licenses.
For the individual, Apple has solved the problem cheaply with.mac and the ilife applications. I wish they would have a solution for small groups, but they don't. What is clear is that the tablet would not have to have the limitations of the newton. General technological progress and specific improvements of Apple software will make the table useful. Give it full networking and a phone and it is what the iPhone should have been.
We also know that google is avoiding those with experience and instead hiring and training those who will tow the party line.
None of this seems particularly hopeful or optimistic. If a device is discoverable, it is easy enough hook up to and transfer a payload. In public areas I usually see at least a couple discoverable cell phones. Even if bluetooth security is working, people will pass trojans to one another, just like they did in the 90's. Trojans do count, and are the primary threat that must be defended aginst. To use and old metaphor, google is allowing a new generation of unsophisticated users to gain access to powerful and potentially dangerous applications. Not so bad in itself, but bad as google is a very young company, who seems to be blind to the benefits of experience, so appears to be ignoring the lessons of 20 years of security experience.
But you know, it is not just rudeness, it is safety. There are many things we don't allowed to be carried around while working, or used in a car, or even kept in place where people are present. In any case, rudeness is not an arbitrary metric. Many of the social norms exist because they allow us to get along. For instance, a greeting is useful to get a rough gauge of a person. Likewise, giving priority to someone who is present, and not someone who is far away, leads to a safer immediate environment. Can you imagine what it would be like if everyone on the street was paying more attention to an ethereal conversation rather than what was going on around them? I can. It is the death of several teenagers, and, more tragically, an innocent truck driver having to spend the rest of his life knowing he contributed to the death.
At some point social norms and laws will catch up with the cell phone. Until then we have vigilante justice that always preceded laws and social norms.
This is rather simplistic. Workers can only do what the engineers design, and engineers can only design what management lets them. When management is concerned primrily with cooking books to fabricate maximum profit to create maximum bonuses, very little of quality get designed. I have seen america companies compete with offshore interests. It takes dedication of the management to not maximize personal compensation, and to pay workers well, either through union efforts or out of enlightened self interest. Turnover is detrimental to quality. Lack of innovation is detrimental to quality. Keeping non productive workers on staff, either on the floor or in the offices, is detrimental to quality.
Quality does not happen by accident. It must be designed, and it must be balanced with materials, time, and other costs. One thing american manufacturers did in the late 60's and 70's to really fuck themselves was not pay to design quality. The anti-intellectualism, that the egg heads had nothing to contribute, lead to some very bad choices. Sure, part of this was unions trying to keep thier members employed, but that is what they do, just like management tries to hire workers at the lowest rate, even if that means the worker cannot feed their family. That is the way it goes. But one can hardly blame the worker that is told to build a 15 mpg car with a year warrenty instead of a 25 mpg car with a 3 year warranty. That is clearly a management decision. It reminds me of my management time. It was often best when I could delivery not what internal or external customer thought they wanted, but what they actually needed.
if the results are valid, one might have some legitimacy. It is true, many people will condone many destestable practices, as long as they get valid results. Moreover, some people will condone destestable practices even if they only haphazardly and occasionally get valid results. The problem is people condoning practices that have not gotten valid results, or were not necessary.
As far as real results gotten from unethical practices, I don't know how widespread they are. It is like saying torture is critical for intelligence gathering. Show me the examples other than ex-con grandmothers. For instance in neuropsycology, many of the advances are made when an brain injury occurs and doctors study the side effect. Or when a child is abused and the doctors document the side effects. It is almost never rea sonable to abuse or cut on the brain experimentally. What is that going to prove? I mean unless you start with twins, and abuse one and don't abuse the other. As far a psychology is concerned, one might as well use tea bags. Talking makes people feel better, sure, but psychology seems to be at the at the plum pudding stage of development. The results appear to reflect what the researcher wants to think as often as not. We can't isolate variables and create controls as easily in other fields. It is really still hit and miss.
I wish that security was not so often sacrificed for selling opportunities. When one is going through an online transaction, which is still a risky process due to man-in-the-middle attacks, one should not create an expectation of the user to see things characteristic of such attacks. There are no reason to have ads on such pages. There is no reason to set third party cookies to ad sites, or direct to other offers between the time that user checks out and the time the order is complete. If attacks such as these are successful, it is the fault of the companies that design the faulty web pages, and such companies should compensate the consumer.
Even firms that should know better, such as banks, promote such practices. I recently logged into my highly secure bank account, and instead of being greeted with my bank information was greeted with a survey. This is such a fundamental breach of security I wonder why I bank with them. Oh, I know. Because every other bank is selling out customer security to make a buck. it is nothing new. I used to recieve many offers on my banks letter head. When I called to see if they were responsible, the agent said they have nothing to do with. Well, I would reply, it is on your letterhead, should I call my AG and state that someone is representing themselves as you? Nothing was said after that.
IN any case, as long as people are trying to squeeze every dime out of every customer, we are going to have these security issues. I guess the only thing to do is to not conduct business with the worst of the worst, no matter how tempting it is.
By in large, the book appears to be highlighting a different problem. Research that merely cruel and has little validity. Most of these did not have a formal control group. Most of these did not have enough subjects to be statistically valid. Most of these conclusions were spurious at best.
Perhaps the book is written to indicate how much better science is now. How many wonderful controls we have. And of course it would be correct. Except for the Texas A&M biological research lab that was closed for making mistakes that a high school science student learns not to make. Or that we routinely subject out children to unscientific studies in education, nutrition, and marketing just to see what will happne. Or we continue to sacrifice huge number of animals with little scientific justification, because they are animals and have no right not to be sacrificed.
Perhaps this is the similarity between Tuskagee and most continuing research that the parent was looking for. The participants in the study were not considered human persons, but but merely humans without the rights of a person. Just like few would have a problem with sacrificing baby monkeys to study the effects of drugs during pregnancy, who would have a problem with this experiment? Are animals not there to serve the human person? This is a very convenient philosophy which allows to live with collateral losses, torturing enemy combatants, and spewing deadly substances into poor neighborhoods.
Pundits like to indentify a single source, but is it seldom so simple. Single sources make for good case studies, which make for good sales, but this is not reality. Reality is that at blockbuster you can get the latest movie on the way home, but perhaps you don't have time to return it for a week. Reality is that I can own most most movies for around $15-$20 from any store, or have then delivered for less in a couple days. The reality is that blockbuster did it's best to kill the rental business by killing every competitor. A single supplier commodity market is not viable as there is no one to fill in the holes.
Blockbuster was so susceptible to netflix because it was not has been in customer service oriented position in years. It base philosophy stems from the renting of trash containers to commercial interests, not serving end users. Blockbuster sets terms and conditions that will generate profits through brute force, not finesse sales through customer satisfaction.
I was thinking along similar lines. Adobe acquisition of Macromedia made sense in a way as it not only got rid of completing product, but also gave Adobe a product it did not have, flash. Flash is profit center as it is the only way in many cases that advertisers can reach consumers. Flash blockers are few, so most people will be forced to watch the ads. Flash does not have any controls, and can be set to repeat ad naseum. So unlike many acquisition where the company acquires nothing but liabilities, and a hope that reduce competition will generate sales, Adobe did, in fact, acquire a product.
What is the product for Apple. Does it really need anything Adobe has. Apple already has the right to use all adobe stuff, the mac has had PS and later PDF at it's center since day 1, and Apple does not have the liability of managing it. Apple has ventured into apps, but apple has done so before, and given up. Apple is clearly more interested in consumer hardware, and the unless they wish to push ads via flash, there is nothing Adobe has that Apple needs.
Although most writing is just rehashing of old ideas, only changing sets or characters, it seems that we are getting more straight hybrids, with little else change. For instance, the so-called bionic women seems more a hybrid of Alias and perhaps some young women show, maybe gilmore girls, though I realy don't know. No new writing, just put it in a blender.
The sad thing is that really out there ideas, those that are not rehashes, are not popular. Stuff like Salvage I. I guess people want what they want. This show, however, seems like a surrender to the status quo. After years of trying to be out there, the show is a realization that money is only made when we give people what they want. Firefly made no sense, and was sci fi, so it was dropped, thought it was still more realistic than friends. Oh well, like goes on.
Computer does not seem slower, but it does not seem faster. No major problems other than a problem at shutdown. Less that a gig or ram, 1 gig processor. Spaces works pretty fast.
The only GUI issue I have is that it is no longer easy to tell if an application is open from the images on the dock. Perhaps switch back to the old look and feel.
As far as developer problems, and resulting application problems, so of this simply stems from the compromise apple has made. Apple has always treated developers like paid professionals and user like, well, paying customers. This may not be right choice, but it gives users a much better overall system. One implication of this is that the Applications are often not ready as soon as the OS is. OTOH, as any sysadmin knows, one does install a brand new OS on production machines. That is why I am phasing in the installation. I can see what works and what does not, and if the OS is ready. I may or may not install the OS on my main machines for several weeks.
If any one want proof of religious extremism, this is it. The religious fanatics have engineered the so called war on terror to push their own personal beliefs on everyone, limiting freedom and the american way. The examples are endless. Science threatens their belief, so they stifle science. Instead of letting the military dead rest in peace, the picket the funerals. I have even heard congregants tell me that their pastor bemoaned the increase in mosques in the US, saying that it signified the fall of civilization and the end of security, even though so-called christians seem to have no problem killing innocent women and children.
This is not an attack on any group. it is just a reminder that our enemy is religious extremism in any form, and not just those that the extreme religious right might label terrorist. It is science, innovation, and a willingness to take risks that have gotten the US to where it is. We have safety, but we also have risk. For instance, we support research on biological agents even though there is a significant risk. Such research is critical. We allow guns even though guns can pose a risk. We allow drunk drivers to drive again, even though there is a risk. The later is a real eye opener. It is likely that, in the United States, more innocent persons are killed in one year from alcohol related accidents than in the past 10 years of terrorist attacks. In the face of this we spend perhaps half a trillion dollars on the foreign terrorists, but then let these domestic drunk terrorist go free.
We are heading into a dark age in the US. An age where we crawl into our shells, cowards who are to scared to create. As dangerous as it was, I had a real chemistry set when I was a kid, and the familiarity allowed me to excel at classes that others did not. None of the stuff was foreign to me. Just like we give kids toy kitchen sets, and toy guns, and toy cars, and toy phones, so that when they have the real thing that will not be afraid, we must also give the toy science devices. As as they get older, and the kitchen and the gun and the cars get more real, so must the science. Even to the point of a full lab for the home schooler that wants the kid to have a broad education.
Most of this is just nostalgia. I will certainly say that there is certain quality when one is listening to a record on a basic high quality turntable(no changer, one speed), through a vacuum tube amplifier and hardcore speakers in a brute force enclosure. It is the definition of sweet.
OTOH, music has always been a compromise. What most people know as vinyl was a compromise of sound quality and durability to get around 15 minutes on a side. The quality was further compromised for portability. We transfered it to tape, and ran it through cheap players, to get music on the go. I don't think that anyone would say a tape player is better than an MP3 player, and the battery lifetimes on cd player are pathetic. Talk about drowning the world in a battery landfill.
Seriously, don't shop there. Shop at a reputable dealer. it costs more, but they are less likely to screw you.
But even more seriously, why should we trust the report. A box without a harddisk. What is to say the customer did not make the switch. It would be nice for Best Buy to allow a return, but how much money is lost in the process? How much cheaper could the prices be if they did not allow such returns? Again, small shops have allowed me to return such products. I wouldn't expect large shops to so do.
Digging even deeper, we see the problem. Someone bought the hard disk, replaced the contents, resealed it, and returned it. This wasn't wrong because they were not ripping off someone who could afford it. I know this happens. I have heard first stories of how people do this. They get away with it if they don't do it too often. Of course what happens is a regular joe buys the missing product, and gets screwed. Big box stores process so many returns, and have so little to lose with fraudulent returns, that they just don't check. If a customer get screwed, there are a million of others to replace that lost sale. Smaller guys do care, and do check, and will often take responsibility. Another reason not to shop there.
About the only reason to shop at Best Buy is to get a low price, or in anticipation of making a fraudulent return.
More than likely, they will have XP included in the price of the XO machines. It will be good publicity and help their market share.
I believe where they wil make the money is in school licensing and in the overall fight against the Naked PC, boht of which has help them maintain market share. The former is the most important. If the a machine can run MS Windows, then it is my impression that under standard licensing it is assumed to run windows and is charged against. if a school changed to a mixed X0/MS Windows strategy, MS could stand to lose significant money, and could not really fight against it without publicity losses. If, however, the machines did run windows, then those machines would be incur an additional, a cost that might be significant enough to make other more traditional machines competitive.
In the end it just the same strategy of making sure that MS Windows runs on every machine on the planet so that MS can get their hands on increasing government money, whether they are the OS or not.
If there is a downhill slope, it begins with pong, not after pong. This slide is created by the equivalence of 'games' and 'graphics' There are perfectly good text games, and the graphics adds little or nothing to the experience. Wonderful games like star trader, HHGTG, and Zork did not need graphics. Graphic games like Pac Man were so mindless as to be nealy worthless to anyone over the age of 12.
OTOH, if games are seen as a way to push technology, then there is not downhill slide. Pac Man and Donkey Kong are not dissimilar to pong, but merely utilize available processor power to animate the character widget. As we move to Prince of Persia or Doom, it is again not much different, in terms of skill level, but we see the increasing use of the platform, often with technologies that are not stable enough for actual production tasks.
That last point might be the real downward slide. In a game, one often pushes the technology to the limit. It might work, it might not. It is a game, so it really does not matter, what matters is the experience of doing something that one would not risk in real work. What one does just for play. So really, what has happened is that games are such big business, that there is no risk. Everyone has to win. The game is exiting, but with no little risk. The FPS is simply donkey kong with pretty graphics, but mellowed by the modern sense of the computer game. The Sims is Sim City, but without the monster. Really, I guess, there is a point. Without risk it is boring.
What is next, pay extra for not having you luggage damaged?
Really, there are two issues with this. First, it seems that more people are using carry on anyway. In my experience flying, more carry on reduces the already dreadful flying experience. I see this as a competitive disincentive.
Second, I wonder if the cost of implementing such a plan, which would require marking and sorting bags, would be less than the additional revenue. This is the same question I have for the ISP. Will the costs of all the additional equipment really justify the additional fees such equipment would impose on the end user. Wouldn't it be better, like the airliines, to impose a fixed limit on throughput, and allow users to pay for more?
I think with the delay of OS X, and the change in name, and the release of the iPhone SDK, Apple has chosen where future growth will lie. They will likely keep making computers, laptop for consumers and towers for pro content creation, but small high profit consumer devices are the future.
If anything, Apple has decided that 5% of the computer market is all it will have, and little it does will displace the PC from corporate, the only way it can get much more than 10%. However, with good consumer toys, it can be the home electronics supplier for those with disposable incomes.
I have no mixed feeling about this. The effort to obtain names of those that merely bid for tickets is part of the pattern of anti-american activities that characterize most pro sports. They are against real competition, require government handouts to survive, and seem to wish to attack fans rather than cater to them. This last behavior is the result of pro sports becoming merely a fiction that allows advertisers to reach consumers, and rich firms to cater to clients. While I have no problem with any of this, I do not see why the US government must be burdened with helping such a private enterprise.
Given these particulars, I do not grant the sports teach full privileges to limit consumers of the tickets. Unlike Big Box stores, who generally do not beg for government handouts, most sports teams play in public funded facilities. I believe Yankeee Stadium cost the taxpayers 200 million dollars. Therefore, I do not consider most stadiums private property, and since the teams play at the pleasure of the congress due to the laws that were passed to forbid real compition, I do not consider the teams free to set draconian restrictions as I would the big box stores.
Therefore, while the big box stores, and events at private venues, absolutely can set arbitrary limits, I find that pro sports efforts to limit those that can attend in a public space ludicrous. If a season ticket holders needs to sell tickets at market value, so be it. If the team is not going to limit ticket sales to limit scalping, that is thier choice. Adding after the sale restrictions is not the answer.
One more thing. Capitalism is all about risk and minimizing risk. The team minimize risk by selling tickets at the highest the price they can, but low enough so they, hopefully, sell out. They also minimize risk by not excessively limiting per person ticket sales. When someone else buys a ticket that they intend to resell, that person takes on some risk, and, according to the rules of capitalism, should be compensating for the risk, and should not be limited by government enforced price fixing. I am not condoning scalping, but again stating that if the teams really wanted to minimize scalping they could limit ticket sales or charge more. This is just a way continue the status quo where scalpers help offset risk and fill the stadiums.
Slashdot Mirror
The question is why isn't java important to Apple anymore. One reason is that Java is not all that incredible important, it is one to get cross platform application, but not the only way, and cross platform is not as important as it used to be. Another reason could be OO.org, and the fact that after many year there is still no MacOS native port of it. Perhaps Apple could have done more. Perhaps by backing Java 100% Apple was doing more, and perhaps Sun was not.
To me the depreciation of Java is more a sign that Apple is once again going off on it's own, a la iWork, rather than depending on unreliable third parties.
I don't know about other people, but around where I live we don't have the infrastructure for the cars people want to drive. One Hummer parked on the side of the road, and there simply is not room for anything bigger than a Vespa to pass. With the building of the houses, many without adequate garages, I find an increasing number of roads to be impassable. Road that just a year ago were navigable and safe, have become impassable and risky due to the vehicles and driving habits of the new residents. God help us if they got a hold of flying cars.
Here is my idea of the use of flying cars. People who want to live in the suburbs can either build their houses for flying cars or drive their regular cars to a departure area. They can then fly to the bus, and take the bus in the 10-15 miles downtown. For may people, it would be no different from what they do now.
I add this last bit because if the wisdom of the free market indicates that a little money thrown away is a good investment, how can those low life in government be so arrogant as not follow suite.
I certainly agree that it would be good if everyone would be deny themselves every available luxury. My food would be cheaper if the owner of my local restaurant would not own a hummer, not to mention my tax bill. My city could afford better education if they did not pay for downtown luxury offices and did not subsidize luxury sports arenas. School taxes would be much lower if we did not have luxury classrooms with lights and air conditioning. But everyone of us knows human nature is to do better work when on is appreciated, and when the environment is conformable. And if it takes .1% of the project budget to encourage the people to do a better a job, that might be a good investment. I would sooner see the parasites that leech off the education and military budget cut off than a single nasa party be canceled.
- The phone will only work as long as Apple wants it to work
- The Phone will cost a fortune to use outside of the local area
- The phone is programmed to check mail and deliver revenue to your service provider even when it is "off"
- The phone is a closed environment, and will probably require several days with a loaner phone, at additional cost, to repair.
- this phone does not have the advanced features that everyone seems to find so critical in other phones, such as user generated custom ringtones.
I am sure there are others, but that is a good start. If you buy Apple products, like I do, it is better to go in with eyes wide open, rather than whine later. Most of these things are beyond the Apple SOP, which is why the iPhone, to me, is not nearly such a great product, but those who do buy it surely can no longer be surprised.Now that we are seeing some horse trading, haggling, and vetos, we at least are back to a situation where we think before we spend money we do not have. A definite improvement. Just like past irresponsible attempts at world domination, we will cut off funds before any truly long lasting damage is done, a la the fall of Spain after the spanish-american war, or the fall of geermany.
The newton, at least by the time it was discontinued, could do much of what a computer could do. It was a fully networked machine. I could plug in my full keyboard and write. It had a modem that let it send faxes. I had an address book and calendar was very good. What it did not do, which became quite critical as Palm redefined the standard, was play well with others. The newton was a standalone machine that did not want to be a subsidiary of a bigger sibling. This meant it was really hard to synchronize data between machines. This is still a big problem. Palm can do it if you use their software of third party adaptors. MS can do it if you use their products and costly licenses.
For the individual, Apple has solved the problem cheaply with .mac and the ilife applications. I wish they would have a solution for small groups, but they don't. What is clear is that the tablet would not have to have the limitations of the newton. General technological progress and specific improvements of Apple software will make the table useful. Give it full networking and a phone and it is what the iPhone should have been.
We know that there are certain security issues that google does not worry about.
We know that google will put feature about security.
We also know that google is avoiding those with experience and instead hiring and training those who will tow the party line.
None of this seems particularly hopeful or optimistic. If a device is discoverable, it is easy enough hook up to and transfer a payload. In public areas I usually see at least a couple discoverable cell phones. Even if bluetooth security is working, people will pass trojans to one another, just like they did in the 90's. Trojans do count, and are the primary threat that must be defended aginst. To use and old metaphor, google is allowing a new generation of unsophisticated users to gain access to powerful and potentially dangerous applications. Not so bad in itself, but bad as google is a very young company, who seems to be blind to the benefits of experience, so appears to be ignoring the lessons of 20 years of security experience.
At some point social norms and laws will catch up with the cell phone. Until then we have vigilante justice that always preceded laws and social norms.
Quality does not happen by accident. It must be designed, and it must be balanced with materials, time, and other costs. One thing american manufacturers did in the late 60's and 70's to really fuck themselves was not pay to design quality. The anti-intellectualism, that the egg heads had nothing to contribute, lead to some very bad choices. Sure, part of this was unions trying to keep thier members employed, but that is what they do, just like management tries to hire workers at the lowest rate, even if that means the worker cannot feed their family. That is the way it goes. But one can hardly blame the worker that is told to build a 15 mpg car with a year warrenty instead of a 25 mpg car with a 3 year warranty. That is clearly a management decision. It reminds me of my management time. It was often best when I could delivery not what internal or external customer thought they wanted, but what they actually needed.
Not to mention Latex. It takes me like ten times as much time to edit equation in MS Word or OO.org. Of course mathematica exports to AMS-LaTeX.
As far as real results gotten from unethical practices, I don't know how widespread they are. It is like saying torture is critical for intelligence gathering. Show me the examples other than ex-con grandmothers. For instance in neuropsycology, many of the advances are made when an brain injury occurs and doctors study the side effect. Or when a child is abused and the doctors document the side effects. It is almost never rea sonable to abuse or cut on the brain experimentally. What is that going to prove? I mean unless you start with twins, and abuse one and don't abuse the other. As far a psychology is concerned, one might as well use tea bags. Talking makes people feel better, sure, but psychology seems to be at the at the plum pudding stage of development. The results appear to reflect what the researcher wants to think as often as not. We can't isolate variables and create controls as easily in other fields. It is really still hit and miss.
Even firms that should know better, such as banks, promote such practices. I recently logged into my highly secure bank account, and instead of being greeted with my bank information was greeted with a survey. This is such a fundamental breach of security I wonder why I bank with them. Oh, I know. Because every other bank is selling out customer security to make a buck. it is nothing new. I used to recieve many offers on my banks letter head. When I called to see if they were responsible, the agent said they have nothing to do with. Well, I would reply, it is on your letterhead, should I call my AG and state that someone is representing themselves as you? Nothing was said after that.
IN any case, as long as people are trying to squeeze every dime out of every customer, we are going to have these security issues. I guess the only thing to do is to not conduct business with the worst of the worst, no matter how tempting it is.
Perhaps the book is written to indicate how much better science is now. How many wonderful controls we have. And of course it would be correct. Except for the Texas A&M biological research lab that was closed for making mistakes that a high school science student learns not to make. Or that we routinely subject out children to unscientific studies in education, nutrition, and marketing just to see what will happne. Or we continue to sacrifice huge number of animals with little scientific justification, because they are animals and have no right not to be sacrificed.
Perhaps this is the similarity between Tuskagee and most continuing research that the parent was looking for. The participants in the study were not considered human persons, but but merely humans without the rights of a person. Just like few would have a problem with sacrificing baby monkeys to study the effects of drugs during pregnancy, who would have a problem with this experiment? Are animals not there to serve the human person? This is a very convenient philosophy which allows to live with collateral losses, torturing enemy combatants, and spewing deadly substances into poor neighborhoods.
Blockbuster was so susceptible to netflix because it was not has been in customer service oriented position in years. It base philosophy stems from the renting of trash containers to commercial interests, not serving end users. Blockbuster sets terms and conditions that will generate profits through brute force, not finesse sales through customer satisfaction.
What is the product for Apple. Does it really need anything Adobe has. Apple already has the right to use all adobe stuff, the mac has had PS and later PDF at it's center since day 1, and Apple does not have the liability of managing it. Apple has ventured into apps, but apple has done so before, and given up. Apple is clearly more interested in consumer hardware, and the unless they wish to push ads via flash, there is nothing Adobe has that Apple needs.
The sad thing is that really out there ideas, those that are not rehashes, are not popular. Stuff like Salvage I. I guess people want what they want. This show, however, seems like a surrender to the status quo. After years of trying to be out there, the show is a realization that money is only made when we give people what they want. Firefly made no sense, and was sci fi, so it was dropped, thought it was still more realistic than friends. Oh well, like goes on.
The only GUI issue I have is that it is no longer easy to tell if an application is open from the images on the dock. Perhaps switch back to the old look and feel.
As far as developer problems, and resulting application problems, so of this simply stems from the compromise apple has made. Apple has always treated developers like paid professionals and user like, well, paying customers. This may not be right choice, but it gives users a much better overall system. One implication of this is that the Applications are often not ready as soon as the OS is. OTOH, as any sysadmin knows, one does install a brand new OS on production machines. That is why I am phasing in the installation. I can see what works and what does not, and if the OS is ready. I may or may not install the OS on my main machines for several weeks.
This is not an attack on any group. it is just a reminder that our enemy is religious extremism in any form, and not just those that the extreme religious right might label terrorist. It is science, innovation, and a willingness to take risks that have gotten the US to where it is. We have safety, but we also have risk. For instance, we support research on biological agents even though there is a significant risk. Such research is critical. We allow guns even though guns can pose a risk. We allow drunk drivers to drive again, even though there is a risk. The later is a real eye opener. It is likely that, in the United States, more innocent persons are killed in one year from alcohol related accidents than in the past 10 years of terrorist attacks. In the face of this we spend perhaps half a trillion dollars on the foreign terrorists, but then let these domestic drunk terrorist go free.
We are heading into a dark age in the US. An age where we crawl into our shells, cowards who are to scared to create. As dangerous as it was, I had a real chemistry set when I was a kid, and the familiarity allowed me to excel at classes that others did not. None of the stuff was foreign to me. Just like we give kids toy kitchen sets, and toy guns, and toy cars, and toy phones, so that when they have the real thing that will not be afraid, we must also give the toy science devices. As as they get older, and the kitchen and the gun and the cars get more real, so must the science. Even to the point of a full lab for the home schooler that wants the kid to have a broad education.
OTOH, music has always been a compromise. What most people know as vinyl was a compromise of sound quality and durability to get around 15 minutes on a side. The quality was further compromised for portability. We transfered it to tape, and ran it through cheap players, to get music on the go. I don't think that anyone would say a tape player is better than an MP3 player, and the battery lifetimes on cd player are pathetic. Talk about drowning the world in a battery landfill.
But even more seriously, why should we trust the report. A box without a harddisk. What is to say the customer did not make the switch. It would be nice for Best Buy to allow a return, but how much money is lost in the process? How much cheaper could the prices be if they did not allow such returns? Again, small shops have allowed me to return such products. I wouldn't expect large shops to so do.
Digging even deeper, we see the problem. Someone bought the hard disk, replaced the contents, resealed it, and returned it. This wasn't wrong because they were not ripping off someone who could afford it. I know this happens. I have heard first stories of how people do this. They get away with it if they don't do it too often. Of course what happens is a regular joe buys the missing product, and gets screwed. Big box stores process so many returns, and have so little to lose with fraudulent returns, that they just don't check. If a customer get screwed, there are a million of others to replace that lost sale. Smaller guys do care, and do check, and will often take responsibility. Another reason not to shop there.
About the only reason to shop at Best Buy is to get a low price, or in anticipation of making a fraudulent return.
I believe where they wil make the money is in school licensing and in the overall fight against the Naked PC, boht of which has help them maintain market share. The former is the most important. If the a machine can run MS Windows, then it is my impression that under standard licensing it is assumed to run windows and is charged against. if a school changed to a mixed X0/MS Windows strategy, MS could stand to lose significant money, and could not really fight against it without publicity losses. If, however, the machines did run windows, then those machines would be incur an additional, a cost that might be significant enough to make other more traditional machines competitive.
In the end it just the same strategy of making sure that MS Windows runs on every machine on the planet so that MS can get their hands on increasing government money, whether they are the OS or not.
OTOH, if games are seen as a way to push technology, then there is not downhill slide. Pac Man and Donkey Kong are not dissimilar to pong, but merely utilize available processor power to animate the character widget. As we move to Prince of Persia or Doom, it is again not much different, in terms of skill level, but we see the increasing use of the platform, often with technologies that are not stable enough for actual production tasks.
That last point might be the real downward slide. In a game, one often pushes the technology to the limit. It might work, it might not. It is a game, so it really does not matter, what matters is the experience of doing something that one would not risk in real work. What one does just for play. So really, what has happened is that games are such big business, that there is no risk. Everyone has to win. The game is exiting, but with no little risk. The FPS is simply donkey kong with pretty graphics, but mellowed by the modern sense of the computer game. The Sims is Sim City, but without the monster. Really, I guess, there is a point. Without risk it is boring.
Really, there are two issues with this. First, it seems that more people are using carry on anyway. In my experience flying, more carry on reduces the already dreadful flying experience. I see this as a competitive disincentive.
Second, I wonder if the cost of implementing such a plan, which would require marking and sorting bags, would be less than the additional revenue. This is the same question I have for the ISP. Will the costs of all the additional equipment really justify the additional fees such equipment would impose on the end user. Wouldn't it be better, like the airliines, to impose a fixed limit on throughput, and allow users to pay for more?
If anything, Apple has decided that 5% of the computer market is all it will have, and little it does will displace the PC from corporate, the only way it can get much more than 10%. However, with good consumer toys, it can be the home electronics supplier for those with disposable incomes.
Given these particulars, I do not grant the sports teach full privileges to limit consumers of the tickets. Unlike Big Box stores, who generally do not beg for government handouts, most sports teams play in public funded facilities. I believe Yankeee Stadium cost the taxpayers 200 million dollars. Therefore, I do not consider most stadiums private property, and since the teams play at the pleasure of the congress due to the laws that were passed to forbid real compition, I do not consider the teams free to set draconian restrictions as I would the big box stores.
Therefore, while the big box stores, and events at private venues, absolutely can set arbitrary limits, I find that pro sports efforts to limit those that can attend in a public space ludicrous. If a season ticket holders needs to sell tickets at market value, so be it. If the team is not going to limit ticket sales to limit scalping, that is thier choice. Adding after the sale restrictions is not the answer.
One more thing. Capitalism is all about risk and minimizing risk. The team minimize risk by selling tickets at the highest the price they can, but low enough so they, hopefully, sell out. They also minimize risk by not excessively limiting per person ticket sales. When someone else buys a ticket that they intend to resell, that person takes on some risk, and, according to the rules of capitalism, should be compensating for the risk, and should not be limited by government enforced price fixing. I am not condoning scalping, but again stating that if the teams really wanted to minimize scalping they could limit ticket sales or charge more. This is just a way continue the status quo where scalpers help offset risk and fill the stadiums.