It's sad that if the judge doesn't spell out every little detail of how the apology should appear, the company will take advantage and try to 'hide' it.
The judge needs to assign further penalties on Apple. And every time they do something like this, slap on another, larger penalty. Like the old punishment for kids that always interrupt or talk back. "You're grounded for the weekend. And don't argue." "That's not fair!" "Two weekends. Don't say another word." "But-!" "Three. Wanna go for four?"
"You're going to post an apology." "Fine." *hides it in the paper* "Not good enough.$100,000, and do it again." "Fine." *hides it on the website* "Not good enough. $500,000. Wanna try for a million?"
The one thing you could do to save on fuel is possibly power the non-essential technology from solar. The tv's, sound system, charging stations, satellite phones, and the like. You probably wouldn't see huge tonnages of fuel saved per flight. But over the course of a year, with all of their planes, it would probably add up to a noticeable savings for airlines and pay for itself in relatively little time.
And if it's night, the plane isn't above cloud cover, or there's an issue with the solar system, it should be a simple matter of automatically switching back to standard power. (I'd assume the planes wouldn't carry batteries due to extra weight)
Every company of significant size/market share should expect to be investigated for anti-competitive practices. If they've done nothing wrong, they've got nothing to worry about.
Anyone calling for an investigation of Google, should also be calling for investigations into Comcast, AT&T, and other large media providers.
So...The staff, a bunch of teachers, are IT illiterate. And, instead of TEACHING them how to actually use a computer, the answer is...to buy them iPads to try and avoid the issue.
No teacher has a right to complain about students not wanting to learn if they're not willing to learn how to use the tools required by their job.
And when are school boards and parents going to learn that throwing fancy new tech at a problem doesn't fix the problem...or even the symptoms of the problem? Changing tech doesn't fix things. Changing PROCESSES fixes things.
The first week, about 80% of my Olympics viewing was through the streaming. Not only was it live, but I got to watch events that would never get covered (or get more than 10 minutes of tv time several hours later). And I do applaud NBC for streaming every single event live. At least they got something right.
I usually preferred watching without commentary. It was nice not getting my ear talked off the whole time. It was also very nice that commentary could be turned off (and back on when I did want it) for those events with it.
Of course, AT&T throttled me the second week because god forbid I actually use my unlimited data plan through an app on a device they sell. So I pretty much couldn't stream during the weekday. But I definitely would have, otherwise.
Their website and app needed A LOT of work. Not very friendly at all, and it would take forever for the links to ended events to be removed.
Re:Not "Going out of Business," Persay...
on
Trouble At OnLive
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
So it's better they just fire everyone and go out of business?
That makes no sense.
Re:Not "Going out of Business," Persay...
on
Trouble At OnLive
·
· Score: 2
If they're doing that, so what?
Sounds like the company was about ready to go out of business anyway. So those jobs were gone no matter what.
If moving to another country keeps them in business, then so be it.
Perhaps it would be better if universities focused on programming skill and critical thinking rather than having to learn any particular language.
Maybe instead of learning, say, a C variant through all the years of college (which is really good to teach some things, and really bad to teach others), it would be better to use a language that, while not necessarily some type of industry standard, is actually a good tool for teaching a variety of programming techniques and critical thought. What good is it to learn to use a language if you can't program worth a damn?
Back in college, half my intro to programming class bombed out because it focused on how to use C++ instead of how to actually think about programming. Only those of us who had been programming in C++ beforehand were able to get a decent grade.
Shouldn't learning how to program be relatively language agnostic? Sure, you won't get to the fancy powerful tricks of a particular language in the classroom. But if you know how to program, not only should you be able to learn any language (assuming appropriate features and training materials), but you'll be able to pick up all that fancy stuff either on your own, in advanced language specific classes, or from work.
DARPA isn't the one to make this happen. They try to show that something is plausible...and they get the requisite people working with each other and exploring technology. They expect industry or the DoD to make it happen after DARPA's $3.5M feasibility study has ended.
Yes, DARPA will do the fundamental R&D.
But when the private sector sees the results (assuming they're promising and cost effective), they'll definitely want to jump on this. And when the Rust Belt politicians get wind that it'll help revitalize the manufacturing sector, they'll be throwing their support that way too. Gives them something to tell their constituents.
So...a factory that can more quickly and efficiently adapt to changes in demand? That can, instead of needing mass layoffs or closing up shop entirely, reconfigure their processes and retrain employees (increasing their skill sets if they ever need different future employment) to produce different things? Moving suppliers one level closer to being able to swiftly and effectively respond to the economic climate?
And all this research is only going to cost $3.5 million or so?
If they can make this work, and can be spread to other US suppliers, that $3.5 million investment will be paid back in no time in economic development. Hell, if it's a significant enough improvement, it could eventually help revitalize the US manufacturing industry by significantly upping our competitive advantage.
This article might have been interesting if it had actually suggested replacement icons.
But just pointing out that they're old?
It doesn't matter that their old, everyone that uses them knows what the icons mean because they've 'always' meant that. And those that don't just use menus.
Isn't this more or less what Apple is attempting to do, except they call the overhauled version "HTML 5"?
Sort of.
Apple is having to try and shift the industry away from Flash, which dominates, to a new standard. But HTML 5 wasn't, and still isn't, quite ready for prime time. And people are always going to resist moving to a new standard if the old one works 'good enough'.
But if Adobe changes Flash, then the industry standard has no choice but to change with it. And if Adobe could ever figure out how to make a decent Flash product that was still fairly backwards compatible, it could be a significant blow against Apple and HTML 5. If nothing else, it would give everyone using Flash a better internet experience.
Flash has become a bloated, security hole riddled piece of software. And over all these years, Adobe seems to be so concerned with handling backwards compatibility by just tacking on more features to an old product.
What Adobe needs to do is completely overhaul Flash. And by overhaul, I mean throw it away and create a brand new Flash player from scratch that fulfills the specifications. And if the specifications lead to security holes, then change the specifications. But Adobe is either unable to do this, or too scared to do it.
If a more secure Flash player requires sacrificing backward compatibility, causing programmers to update their work. then so be it. Because, at this rate, Flash will be dead soon, and they'll have to recode for its replacement anyway. And if they don't want to update their work, then their work isn't important enough to worry about anyway.
At this point, Adobe either needs to hire an entirely new project team, or open source Flash in someway and let the FOSS community make the improvements.
I stopped using OpenOffice months ago. It was really taking forever to load documents or get anything done.
I tried LibreOffice and it was much faster at everything. As has been said many times before, competition is good.
I've complained to AT&T. Time to keep that pressure up, I guess.
I'm actually going to contact my Representative too. I think a congressional investigation might be in order;)
Slashdot Mirror
It's sad that if the judge doesn't spell out every little detail of how the apology should appear, the company will take advantage and try to 'hide' it.
The judge needs to assign further penalties on Apple. And every time they do something like this, slap on another, larger penalty. Like the old punishment for kids that always interrupt or talk back.
"You're grounded for the weekend. And don't argue."
"That's not fair!"
"Two weekends. Don't say another word."
"But-!"
"Three. Wanna go for four?"
"You're going to post an apology."
"Fine." *hides it in the paper*
"Not good enough.$100,000, and do it again."
"Fine." *hides it on the website*
"Not good enough. $500,000. Wanna try for a million?"
The one thing you could do to save on fuel is possibly power the non-essential technology from solar. The tv's, sound system, charging stations, satellite phones, and the like. You probably wouldn't see huge tonnages of fuel saved per flight. But over the course of a year, with all of their planes, it would probably add up to a noticeable savings for airlines and pay for itself in relatively little time.
And if it's night, the plane isn't above cloud cover, or there's an issue with the solar system, it should be a simple matter of automatically switching back to standard power. (I'd assume the planes wouldn't carry batteries due to extra weight)
It's the perfect combination of drinking and driving!
Every company of significant size/market share should expect to be investigated for anti-competitive practices. If they've done nothing wrong, they've got nothing to worry about.
Anyone calling for an investigation of Google, should also be calling for investigations into Comcast, AT&T, and other large media providers.
So...The staff, a bunch of teachers, are IT illiterate. And, instead of TEACHING them how to actually use a computer, the answer is...to buy them iPads to try and avoid the issue.
No teacher has a right to complain about students not wanting to learn if they're not willing to learn how to use the tools required by their job.
And when are school boards and parents going to learn that throwing fancy new tech at a problem doesn't fix the problem...or even the symptoms of the problem? Changing tech doesn't fix things. Changing PROCESSES fixes things.
The first week, about 80% of my Olympics viewing was through the streaming. Not only was it live, but I got to watch events that would never get covered (or get more than 10 minutes of tv time several hours later). And I do applaud NBC for streaming every single event live. At least they got something right.
I usually preferred watching without commentary. It was nice not getting my ear talked off the whole time. It was also very nice that commentary could be turned off (and back on when I did want it) for those events with it.
Of course, AT&T throttled me the second week because god forbid I actually use my unlimited data plan through an app on a device they sell. So I pretty much couldn't stream during the weekday. But I definitely would have, otherwise.
Their website and app needed A LOT of work. Not very friendly at all, and it would take forever for the links to ended events to be removed.
So it's better they just fire everyone and go out of business?
That makes no sense.
If they're doing that, so what?
Sounds like the company was about ready to go out of business anyway. So those jobs were gone no matter what.
If moving to another country keeps them in business, then so be it.
I don't see Nook in the list. Although their site says other devices may come later.
Anyone else see something specific about the Nook?
Perhaps it would be better if universities focused on programming skill and critical thinking rather than having to learn any particular language.
Maybe instead of learning, say, a C variant through all the years of college (which is really good to teach some things, and really bad to teach others), it would be better to use a language that, while not necessarily some type of industry standard, is actually a good tool for teaching a variety of programming techniques and critical thought. What good is it to learn to use a language if you can't program worth a damn?
Back in college, half my intro to programming class bombed out because it focused on how to use C++ instead of how to actually think about programming. Only those of us who had been programming in C++ beforehand were able to get a decent grade.
Shouldn't learning how to program be relatively language agnostic? Sure, you won't get to the fancy powerful tricks of a particular language in the classroom. But if you know how to program, not only should you be able to learn any language (assuming appropriate features and training materials), but you'll be able to pick up all that fancy stuff either on your own, in advanced language specific classes, or from work.
DARPA isn't the one to make this happen. They try to show that something is plausible...and they get the requisite people working with each other and exploring technology. They expect industry or the DoD to make it happen after DARPA's $3.5M feasibility study has ended.
Yes, DARPA will do the fundamental R&D.
But when the private sector sees the results (assuming they're promising and cost effective), they'll definitely want to jump on this. And when the Rust Belt politicians get wind that it'll help revitalize the manufacturing sector, they'll be throwing their support that way too. Gives them something to tell their constituents.
So...a factory that can more quickly and efficiently adapt to changes in demand? That can, instead of needing mass layoffs or closing up shop entirely, reconfigure their processes and retrain employees (increasing their skill sets if they ever need different future employment) to produce different things? Moving suppliers one level closer to being able to swiftly and effectively respond to the economic climate?
And all this research is only going to cost $3.5 million or so?
If they can make this work, and can be spread to other US suppliers, that $3.5 million investment will be paid back in no time in economic development. Hell, if it's a significant enough improvement, it could eventually help revitalize the US manufacturing industry by significantly upping our competitive advantage.
This article might have been interesting if it had actually suggested replacement icons.
But just pointing out that they're old?
It doesn't matter that their old, everyone that uses them knows what the icons mean because they've 'always' meant that. And those that don't just use menus.
Isn't this more or less what Apple is attempting to do, except they call the overhauled version "HTML 5"?
Sort of.
Apple is having to try and shift the industry away from Flash, which dominates, to a new standard. But HTML 5 wasn't, and still isn't, quite ready for prime time. And people are always going to resist moving to a new standard if the old one works 'good enough'.
But if Adobe changes Flash, then the industry standard has no choice but to change with it. And if Adobe could ever figure out how to make a decent Flash product that was still fairly backwards compatible, it could be a significant blow against Apple and HTML 5. If nothing else, it would give everyone using Flash a better internet experience.
Flash has become a bloated, security hole riddled piece of software. And over all these years, Adobe seems to be so concerned with handling backwards compatibility by just tacking on more features to an old product.
What Adobe needs to do is completely overhaul Flash. And by overhaul, I mean throw it away and create a brand new Flash player from scratch that fulfills the specifications. And if the specifications lead to security holes, then change the specifications. But Adobe is either unable to do this, or too scared to do it.
If a more secure Flash player requires sacrificing backward compatibility, causing programmers to update their work. then so be it. Because, at this rate, Flash will be dead soon, and they'll have to recode for its replacement anyway. And if they don't want to update their work, then their work isn't important enough to worry about anyway.
At this point, Adobe either needs to hire an entirely new project team, or open source Flash in someway and let the FOSS community make the improvements.
I stopped using OpenOffice months ago. It was really taking forever to load documents or get anything done. I tried LibreOffice and it was much faster at everything. As has been said many times before, competition is good.
Shut up and take my money!!!!!
I've complained to AT&T. Time to keep that pressure up, I guess. I'm actually going to contact my Representative too. I think a congressional investigation might be in order ;)