I like Apple. I think that Apple does a lot of things right, and that a lot of criticism of Apple is motivated by historical grudges (on the part of techies) and petulance (on the part of business types.)
That said, this is a stupid, bad mistake. Happily, it's a hiccough, and not likely to have long-term technical ramifications. Unhappily, it's a really, really stupid oversight that should be basically automated--if not by a script, then by a business process.
I believe that walled gardens are an important part of a computing ecosystem where the vast majority of the population consists of casual users. That said, you can not afford to make stupid, easily avoidable mistakes in maintaining it.
I've made my peace with the fact that devs are expected to make an extra slog to get our stuff into the walled garden, and I understand why that is. We do that so that our users can live in a space that they don't need to cultivate themselves any more than they want to. But if we're willing to put up with that extra slog ourselves, It's not okay for our users to have to deal with this sort of thing, too.
...and yet here we are, my wife, daughter, and I, the three of us happy, loving, and well-adjusted. Thanks in no small part to her early and routine exposure to lots of other kids her age, our daughter has a natural comfort interacting with her peers that my wife and I lacked at her age. Her math and reading skills are several years ahead of her age group, thanks in no small part to the well-designed curriculum of her day care center. She's inquisitive, adventurous, kind, thoughtful, and boundlessly energetic; we love each other more than we could possibly have imagined; and we couldn't be more proud of her.
You seem not to really understand what day care is. You also seem to think that our decision to place our daughter in day care predicts a hostile end our loving, devoted, fifteen-year marriage. That doesn't really make any sense to me.
For it to be "right" for your kid, s/he must have liked day care more than being home with mom and dad. You might want to ask him it if was "right" for him, or if he would have preferred to be home with you and your spouse. My guess, your idea of "right" and theirs is not the same.
Goodness yes, my wife's and my idea of "right" is decidedly different than that of a preschool child! I mean, even today my daughter would vastly prefer to not go to first grade in favor spending her days riding bikes with dad, baking with mom, painting, playing with friends, and visiting grandma and grandpa--but abandoning her schooling to satisfy these desires would be a pretty dumb thing for her parents to do, yeah?
Woe to the parent who uses their two-year-old's wants as a compass for determining what's good for them.
Again, go back and actually read what I actually wrote; that you called my daughter "he" suggests you haven't really done so. I'm not saying that stay-at-home parenting is the wrong decision. I'm simply saying that it isn't the only possible right decision, and that daycare was the right decision for our family.
Stop pursuing money for gain while you have kids under 60 Months of age. Whatever you spent on daycare it wasn't worth it. Your kids would rather have you, than the things the second job affords.
For us, that would have meant either:
My wife abandoning her Biochemical, Molecular and Cellular Biology PhD about18 months before completing it, or
Me abandoning my career and us selling our modest house to move into a studio apartment, as PhD stipends don't make good sole incomes for a family of three.
We put our kid in my wife's school's day care center, which effectively cost us as much as my wife earned at her PhD program. Our kid thrived there: she got some outstanding early education, grew socially, blew past developmental markers, and still had two loving parents to come home to at the end of the day. Today, Doctor Mom is doing valuable schizophrenia and bipolar disorder research, Dad has earned a few promotions, and kiddo is in effervescent, inquisitive, caring first-grader. We moved into a nicer home, we have more financial security, more free time, and we both feel like we're great role models for our child.
We have no regrets about putting our kid in day care. It was absolutely right for our family--mom, dad, and kid alike. I continue to be bemused by people who believe that the One True Way To Rear Children requires a constant, dedicated parental presence. For us, doing that would have led to a worse life for all three of us.
Maybe, maybe not! The problem is that in order to find the answer to that, you're effectively already hosed and fighting an expensive uphill legal battle.
Pretty much your best case outcome is that you only lose a few months of your life to legal proceedings.
If a party to a contract puts language into a contract, the only safe assumption you can make is that said party wants to some day be able to do that thing.
The only appropriate response to "oh, we'd never actually do that" is "then remove it."
As much as the Republican presidential contest is a clown car, the Democrats have perhaps an even more difficult choice: goofy or sleazy, pick one.
I'll take goofy or sleazy over the flat-out mess that is the Republican field.
About the only thing the Republicans have going for them right now is that nobody's giving them any serious scrutiny, because everyone's pretty much in agreement that the whole thing is a complete and utter farce.
You know, with just a scraper, little sign paint and a few minutes after hours, they could very quickly repurpose the current (7th?) Benghazi investigative committee into an Emailgate investigative committee.
After all, this issue is inexpressibly grave, not at all motivated by overt partisan hackery, and clearly requires laser-like attention until at least late next spring.
Probably early November, though. Depending on, y'know, some things entirely unrelated to Presidential elections.
As President of the United States, would you make any significant changes to what drugs you take and how often you take them? If so, could you give us a general sense of what those changes might be?
Try THIS CHART [stlouisfed.org] from the St Louis Fed which shows that the NET gain in jobs for all of the Obama years is only about 1 million
THAT CHART says that when Obama took office in January 2009, total native-born employment was 119,061,000 people, and that in August of this year, it was 124,314,000--a difference of 5,253,000. That's over five times more as the one million you state.
and THIS CHART [stlouisfed.org] which shows NET gain in jobs for foreign-born workers over the same span of the Obama years as nearly 2 million.
THAT CHART says that when Obama took office in January 2009, total foreign-born employment was 21,375,000, and that in August of this year, it was 24,914,000--a difference of 3,539,000. That's about 1.5 times more as the 2 million you state.
So, to summarize; you cite two charts from the (very reputable) St.Louis Fed and claimed that the US has created twice as many jobs for foreign-born people than for native-born people during the Obama years. The charts actually say that during that time span, there were about 1.5 times more jobs created for native-born Americans.
On balance, your conclusion was that there were 2 times as many jobs created for foreign-born workers than for native-born workers. When properly read, the charts show that there were about 1.5 times as many jobs created for native-born workers than for foreign-born workers. You basically got the answer completely backwards.
All the political candidates (on BOTH SIDES) and their paid hacks, activist mouthpieces, and corporate and/or union shills play with numbers to mislead people in various ways...hoping the reader will misunderstand the data and mentally add them all up.
Seeing as you have grossly misrepresented your two source graphs, I can only assume that you're either engaging in your own personal political numbers-hackery, or that you don't know how to read a line chart.
Kickstarter is not one of countless organizations that do this, they may very well be the single LARGEST organization that does it, and we expect more from the big guys than the little guys.
Oh, unlike Vimeo ($40 mil annual revenue in 2013), Hulu (worth multiple billions of dollars), Powell's (market cap ~320 mil) or Redbox (tough to tell actual value of Redbox, but let's assume it's a few bucks north of nothing, shall we?), all hits that come right up on a quick Google search for "staff picks"?
And if you want to expand past the strict verbiage of "staff pick", there's the New York Times Editor's Choice list, Amazon's Editor's Picks, Google Play's Staff Picks, Apple's Featured Apps...
I mean, rail against staff picks on general principle, certainly. No problem whatsoever with that, even if I don't agree that it's a big problem. But don't pretend that this piece is is anything other than a hit piece/author's grudge against Kickstarter here.
When things are chosen by a "staff pick", the staff of a particular organization picks things they think look interesting. That's...the whole deal.
It's not a subjective process. It's also not a new process. Your local book, record and video stores, back when such things still existed, did this. Your local liquor store does this. This has concept has been around for ages.
The only thing that Kickstarter has to do with this entire concept is that they're one of countless organizations that do this.
On the Cube what was the problem other than being expensive? Obviously it inspired the design of the Mac mini.
In addition to being expensive, it had problems with overheating (recall it was a fanless design) and the acrylic case had a bad habit of developing cosmetic hairline cracks early on. These problems hit early and hard and got lots of press. They fixed the problem with the case, but the heat was still an issue; at any rate, it was too little, too late.
That said, they learned from these mistakes. The Cube was effectively an early predecessor of the (very successful) Mac Mini.
While HP appeared to continue dumping crappy products 7-8 years ago, it's competitor Lenovo has done a bang up job for a little more money.
7-8 years ago, yes. Apple released the Toilet Seat in 1999, and the Cube in 2000. That's another 15-16 years for those products alone, years before IBM sold their laptop business to Lenovo.
Back then, the design efforts of most other computer manufacturers focused on "how can we most efficiently construct and customize our machines?" You'll recall that Dell was doing some really clever stuff in terms of streamlining the manufacturing process, in particular; lots fewer screws, lots more quick-release tabs and easy-connect parts. This did wonders for manufacturing costs, and is what catapulted them ahead for a time--but they, like pretty much every other PC maker, were focusing on "how do we make what we already have cheaper/easier to build". They were chasing the margins. Eventually, the margins became too thin, and the big producers imploded in a hail of flimsy cases, cheap components and margins that you'd cut yourself on.
That's why I say that Apple had a big head-start. Today, lots of PC makers are making some pretty hefty investments in the same sorts of quality and novelty design areas that Apple has been doing for ages. They're still at a disadvantage, though, because it can take a long time and a lot of money to build up a solid in-house design group, and few companies share Apple's luxury of mountains of cash money lying about to do these sorts of blue-sky experiments with their production lines.
There was a time I understood this during the PPC era of mac, but now that macs run on commodity, non specialized CISC based x86, I have no idea why they retain their value. A lot of PC makers are starting to make machines that look *almost* as nice as a MBP. My HP Envy Beats laptops have a nice aluminum case.
One reason is that they've poured a lot of effort into materials design, visual design, and industrial design, and have been doing so for years. We laugh at the Toilet Seat, the Cube, and various other goofy flops they've had in their history, but it demonstrates a) just how far back their design efforts go, and b) just how much they've learned since. A lot of other companies are getting into this now, but Apple has a pretty big head start, and they're not showing any signs of abandoning this practice any time soon.
Slashdot Mirror
Asinine Alliteration Accentuates Author's Atrociously Antiquated Awareness About Awesome And Able Actress
I like Apple. I think that Apple does a lot of things right, and that a lot of criticism of Apple is motivated by historical grudges (on the part of techies) and petulance (on the part of business types.)
That said, this is a stupid, bad mistake. Happily, it's a hiccough, and not likely to have long-term technical ramifications. Unhappily, it's a really, really stupid oversight that should be basically automated--if not by a script, then by a business process.
I believe that walled gardens are an important part of a computing ecosystem where the vast majority of the population consists of casual users. That said, you can not afford to make stupid, easily avoidable mistakes in maintaining it.
I've made my peace with the fact that devs are expected to make an extra slog to get our stuff into the walled garden, and I understand why that is. We do that so that our users can live in a space that they don't need to cultivate themselves any more than they want to. But if we're willing to put up with that extra slog ourselves, It's not okay for our users to have to deal with this sort of thing, too.
Am I missing something, or is there not a single hole or bug being exploited here?
Are we...are we confirming that if a user downloads a program and actively grants it access, it can do things that programs are allowed to do?
For serious?
The Chromebook Pixel remains one of the very few notebooks on the market that directly supports USB-C.
Much like how RC Cola remains one of the very few brand-name colas on the market...
Yes, but does it have more space than a Nomad?
...and yet here we are, my wife, daughter, and I, the three of us happy, loving, and well-adjusted. Thanks in no small part to her early and routine exposure to lots of other kids her age, our daughter has a natural comfort interacting with her peers that my wife and I lacked at her age. Her math and reading skills are several years ahead of her age group, thanks in no small part to the well-designed curriculum of her day care center. She's inquisitive, adventurous, kind, thoughtful, and boundlessly energetic; we love each other more than we could possibly have imagined; and we couldn't be more proud of her.
You seem not to really understand what day care is. You also seem to think that our decision to place our daughter in day care predicts a hostile end our loving, devoted, fifteen-year marriage. That doesn't really make any sense to me.
For it to be "right" for your kid, s/he must have liked day care more than being home with mom and dad. You might want to ask him it if was "right" for him, or if he would have preferred to be home with you and your spouse. My guess, your idea of "right" and theirs is not the same.
Goodness yes, my wife's and my idea of "right" is decidedly different than that of a preschool child! I mean, even today my daughter would vastly prefer to not go to first grade in favor spending her days riding bikes with dad, baking with mom, painting, playing with friends, and visiting grandma and grandpa--but abandoning her schooling to satisfy these desires would be a pretty dumb thing for her parents to do, yeah?
Woe to the parent who uses their two-year-old's wants as a compass for determining what's good for them.
Again, go back and actually read what I actually wrote; that you called my daughter "he" suggests you haven't really done so. I'm not saying that stay-at-home parenting is the wrong decision. I'm simply saying that it isn't the only possible right decision, and that daycare was the right decision for our family.
Your kid liked day care more than mom and dad, and you think that is okay?
Wait, I said that?
Here is another thought.
Stop pursuing money for gain while you have kids under 60 Months of age. Whatever you spent on daycare it wasn't worth it. Your kids would rather have you, than the things the second job affords.
For us, that would have meant either:
We put our kid in my wife's school's day care center, which effectively cost us as much as my wife earned at her PhD program. Our kid thrived there: she got some outstanding early education, grew socially, blew past developmental markers, and still had two loving parents to come home to at the end of the day. Today, Doctor Mom is doing valuable schizophrenia and bipolar disorder research, Dad has earned a few promotions, and kiddo is in effervescent, inquisitive, caring first-grader. We moved into a nicer home, we have more financial security, more free time, and we both feel like we're great role models for our child.
We have no regrets about putting our kid in day care. It was absolutely right for our family--mom, dad, and kid alike. I continue to be bemused by people who believe that the One True Way To Rear Children requires a constant, dedicated parental presence. For us, doing that would have led to a worse life for all three of us.
Would such a clause be enforceable?
Maybe, maybe not! The problem is that in order to find the answer to that, you're effectively already hosed and fighting an expensive uphill legal battle.
Pretty much your best case outcome is that you only lose a few months of your life to legal proceedings.
If a party to a contract puts language into a contract, the only safe assumption you can make is that said party wants to some day be able to do that thing.
The only appropriate response to "oh, we'd never actually do that" is "then remove it."
As much as the Republican presidential contest is a clown car, the Democrats have perhaps an even more difficult choice: goofy or sleazy, pick one.
I'll take goofy or sleazy over the flat-out mess that is the Republican field.
About the only thing the Republicans have going for them right now is that nobody's giving them any serious scrutiny, because everyone's pretty much in agreement that the whole thing is a complete and utter farce.
You know, with just a scraper, little sign paint and a few minutes after hours, they could very quickly repurpose the current (7th?) Benghazi investigative committee into an Emailgate investigative committee.
After all, this issue is inexpressibly grave, not at all motivated by overt partisan hackery, and clearly requires laser-like attention until at least late next spring.
Probably early November, though. Depending on, y'know, some things entirely unrelated to Presidential elections.
If you'd like to avoid the ad-infested miasma that is TFA over at BetaNews, you can go straight to the proposal here:
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2015/10/07/proposed-principles-for-content-blocking/
This issue pertains to which types of data are being centrally tracked by the service itself, not dashboard data.
Mr. McAfee,
As President of the United States, would you make any significant changes to what drugs you take and how often you take them? If so, could you give us a general sense of what those changes might be?
Try THIS CHART [stlouisfed.org] from the St Louis Fed which shows that the NET gain in jobs for all of the Obama years is only about 1 million
THAT CHART says that when Obama took office in January 2009, total native-born employment was 119,061,000 people, and that in August of this year, it was 124,314,000--a difference of 5,253,000. That's over five times more as the one million you state.
and THIS CHART [stlouisfed.org] which shows NET gain in jobs for foreign-born workers over the same span of the Obama years as nearly 2 million.
THAT CHART says that when Obama took office in January 2009, total foreign-born employment was 21,375,000, and that in August of this year, it was 24,914,000--a difference of 3,539,000. That's about 1.5 times more as the 2 million you state.
So, to summarize; you cite two charts from the (very reputable) St.Louis Fed and claimed that the US has created twice as many jobs for foreign-born people than for native-born people during the Obama years. The charts actually say that during that time span, there were about 1.5 times more jobs created for native-born Americans.
On balance, your conclusion was that there were 2 times as many jobs created for foreign-born workers than for native-born workers. When properly read, the charts show that there were about 1.5 times as many jobs created for native-born workers than for foreign-born workers. You basically got the answer completely backwards.
All the political candidates (on BOTH SIDES) and their paid hacks, activist mouthpieces, and corporate and/or union shills play with numbers to mislead people in various ways...hoping the reader will misunderstand the data and mentally add them all up.
Seeing as you have grossly misrepresented your two source graphs, I can only assume that you're either engaging in your own personal political numbers-hackery, or that you don't know how to read a line chart.
Neither option makes you look particularly good.
Again: this is a front page story.
Minor point releases of Amiga OS have an order of magnitude more business being front page articles than this inanity.
This is a front page story.
I do, yes--thank you.
Kickstarter is not one of countless organizations that do this, they may very well be the single LARGEST organization that does it, and we expect more from the big guys than the little guys.
Oh, unlike Vimeo ($40 mil annual revenue in 2013), Hulu (worth multiple billions of dollars), Powell's (market cap ~320 mil) or Redbox (tough to tell actual value of Redbox, but let's assume it's a few bucks north of nothing, shall we?), all hits that come right up on a quick Google search for "staff picks"?
And if you want to expand past the strict verbiage of "staff pick", there's the New York Times Editor's Choice list, Amazon's Editor's Picks, Google Play's Staff Picks, Apple's Featured Apps...
I mean, rail against staff picks on general principle, certainly. No problem whatsoever with that, even if I don't agree that it's a big problem. But don't pretend that this piece is is anything other than a hit piece/author's grudge against Kickstarter here.
When things are chosen by a "staff pick", the staff of a particular organization picks things they think look interesting. That's...the whole deal.
It's not a subjective process. It's also not a new process. Your local book, record and video stores, back when such things still existed, did this. Your local liquor store does this. This has concept has been around for ages.
The only thing that Kickstarter has to do with this entire concept is that they're one of countless organizations that do this.
On the Cube what was the problem other than being expensive? Obviously it inspired the design of the Mac mini.
In addition to being expensive, it had problems with overheating (recall it was a fanless design) and the acrylic case had a bad habit of developing cosmetic hairline cracks early on. These problems hit early and hard and got lots of press. They fixed the problem with the case, but the heat was still an issue; at any rate, it was too little, too late.
That said, they learned from these mistakes. The Cube was effectively an early predecessor of the (very successful) Mac Mini.
While HP appeared to continue dumping crappy products 7-8 years ago, it's competitor Lenovo has done a bang up job for a little more money.
7-8 years ago, yes. Apple released the Toilet Seat in 1999, and the Cube in 2000. That's another 15-16 years for those products alone, years before IBM sold their laptop business to Lenovo.
Back then, the design efforts of most other computer manufacturers focused on "how can we most efficiently construct and customize our machines?" You'll recall that Dell was doing some really clever stuff in terms of streamlining the manufacturing process, in particular; lots fewer screws, lots more quick-release tabs and easy-connect parts. This did wonders for manufacturing costs, and is what catapulted them ahead for a time--but they, like pretty much every other PC maker, were focusing on "how do we make what we already have cheaper/easier to build". They were chasing the margins. Eventually, the margins became too thin, and the big producers imploded in a hail of flimsy cases, cheap components and margins that you'd cut yourself on.
That's why I say that Apple had a big head-start. Today, lots of PC makers are making some pretty hefty investments in the same sorts of quality and novelty design areas that Apple has been doing for ages. They're still at a disadvantage, though, because it can take a long time and a lot of money to build up a solid in-house design group, and few companies share Apple's luxury of mountains of cash money lying about to do these sorts of blue-sky experiments with their production lines.
There was a time I understood this during the PPC era of mac, but now that macs run on commodity, non specialized CISC based x86, I have no idea why they retain their value. A lot of PC makers are starting to make machines that look *almost* as nice as a MBP. My HP Envy Beats laptops have a nice aluminum case.
One reason is that they've poured a lot of effort into materials design, visual design, and industrial design, and have been doing so for years. We laugh at the Toilet Seat, the Cube, and various other goofy flops they've had in their history, but it demonstrates a) just how far back their design efforts go, and b) just how much they've learned since. A lot of other companies are getting into this now, but Apple has a pretty big head start, and they're not showing any signs of abandoning this practice any time soon.