Otherwise you're just aggravating people who have assumed the financial compensation was finalized.
Ask for it before they do paperwork, before you leave the negotiating meeting.
Well, they will have to withdraw their offer and present a new one with the bonus in it. Otherwise if they don't, guess what? They won't pay up. I mean, you're willing to sign right there, you ask for the bonus, and they can easily say "Yeah, sure, we can toss in $5000". You sign the paperwork, which probably says $0 bonus. Now you just screwed yourself because there's no evidence of the bonus. (And even if the HR guy isn't that calculating, they usually just plain forget, and if you remind them, they can say "well it says here there is no bonus").
So you've just prolonged the negotiations because they will have to withdraw the current offer. At which point one of two things happens - they fail to present you a new offer, or they update the paperwork.
In the first case, I've seen it happen where the executives and hiring managers just go and say "We give up, he's just too much trouble".
In the second case, well, you have to treat it as a new offer - because they WILL try to pull a fast one over you - you pull a fast one, they can just as well pull a fast one, hoping you'll just blindly sign it without realizing they changed a few things (e.g., reduced your salary).
My understanding is that he basically recased on old LED clock.
Which is utterly boring to adults, but to an 11 year old kid, it's pretty fascinating.
And while not patent worth in its own right, it shows a sense of curiosity and exploration, and maybe a desire to have something that no one else has - a cool looking clock.
I mean, sure, it's not really invention, but then again, we like people who repackage stuff - like Ben Heck who repackages consoles into "laptops" and stuff.
And think of it this way - she got arrested for repackaging a clock.
So they really weren't that concerned about having an open tor relay? When they invoked OMG terrorists! children! it was just so the board would make an informed decision? Sorry, but for them to claim no stake in the outcome belies their attempt to shut it down.
Not that their response is bad, it just isn't all that believable. Now, if they had said, "I'm disappointed, but at least they made an informed decision" it would come across like they actually believed in what they told the board. This makes it seem like they are acknowledging the fud didn't work.
It reminds me of a story a prof told me about a student who went in to argue about a grade, unsuccessfully. When the student left a friend in the hall asked, "did he buy it?" and the response was "nah." Just like here, didn't really have anything invested in it, and wasn't perturbed when the story didn't get traction.
Well, they were concerned, that's why they shut the relay down when the DHS sent them that note. They turned it off, and put it up for a vote by the board, and since they're librarians, they did research.
(Librarians are awesome).
So they did their research, and they went all in knowing it can be used for bad, but it can also be used for good. And the "good" outweighs any concern they can be helping pedos, terrorists and other "bad people".
So yes, they went all in, informed themselves of the issues and concerns, and decided that the freedom it provides outweighs the negatives.
These people aren't dumb. They actually research the issues themselves and make an informed decision.
If you can't stream over 50Mb/s, you're not getting 50Mb/s. BluRay video is between 16 and 32Mb/s.
As always, the cable company is screwing you with "up to" 50Mb/s, rather than the actual advertised speed.
Well, if you want the advertised speed, pay for it. You'll soon find out how cable companies are able to get the rates they do - $100/month for 50Mbps is stupid cheap. Because a business that wants to get guaranteed 50Mbps will easily pay $1000/month or more.
Consumer broadband works by splitting that among several people, so they pay for a share and as long as no one hogs it all, they can also share it. Sort of like a timeshare. Because few consumers will pay full freight, but split it up among 10 people and the price becomes something people are willing to pay, as long as they share it.
Also, what we're already seeing is more and more driver assist. My 2012 Dodge has an option for "smart" cruise control where is slows down if you're getting too close to the car In front. Most cars these days have traction control, where the computer automatically brakes the wheels independently in order to turn the car in the direction the steering wheel is pointed. Do we already have systems that will nudge the steering a bit when you start to drift out of your lane? If not, that could be added. Not overriding a clear steering input from the driver, just a slight torque so that the existing self-centering action of the steering wheel follows the lines which mark the lanes. In other words, with today's cars, if you let go if the steering it'll tend to go straight ahead. Mayb with tomorrow's cars if you let go of the wheel they'll TEND to follow the lane.
Yes, we have lane-keeping systems as well - they detect slight drifts in the lane. When the car is close to departing the lane, the car either flashes a warning, or newer ones actually steer (more like a nudge) the wheel in the right direction.
They disable themselves if you use the blinker or if you're quite obviously trying to change lanes. It's still a nudge so users can override it (and really, at highway speeds, you don't need much wheel turning to stay in the lane) in case the system guesses wrong. Most or all will disengage if they detect the road taking more than a slight curve because the actuators can't actually turn the wheel that far.
And they're in luxury vehicles as well as trickling down to the mainstream.
There's a video by Hyundai showing a bunch of their new cars following a truck - the cars and truck are piloted by stunt drivers, and what they do is once everyone is settled in a line behind the truck, they engage the smart cruise control (to maintain distance), and with modified lane keeping systems that don't disable themselves, the drivers in the cars then exit through the sunroof to a truck pulling up beside the convoy.
The truck continues to drive around the track, slowing down and speeding up, and the cars follow it through the curves and everything, with no drivers as they all have exited.
The other pieces missing are navigation and well, the ability to operate on city roads. Most of the lane keeping systems really only operate on highways.
John OÃ(TM)Sullivan is an Australian electrical engineer whose work in the application of Fourier transforms to radio astronomy led to his invention with colleagues of a core technology that made wireless LAN fast and reliable. This technology was patented by CSIRO and forms part of the 802.11a, 802.11g and 802.11n Wi-Fi standards and thus John O'Sullivan is also credited with the invention of WIFI. CSIRO is the Australian Government science research organization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
That ignores the fact that 802.11 and 802.11b actually exist without CSIRO's patents.
When what we knew as WiFi came out, or rather, 802.11b, a few data rates were defined - 1 and 2 Mbps using basic frequency hopping. This, not entirely coincidentally, is what the Lucent WaveLAN units worked at (prior to standardization).
802.11b added the 4/5/11Mbps using what we effectively call CDMA coding now, using a high-bitrate PRNG chip code. 802.11a added 54Mbps, 802.11g did the same on 2.4GHz using ODFM, which is the technology patented by CSIRO.
But 802.11b basically was what brought the WiFi revolution around no doubt helped by Apple and its consumer price friendly Airport base stations and built-in WiFI chipsets.
It's also why disabling stuff like long preambles and setting your AP to "G-only" mode do little - because the 802.11 header on 2.4GHz must be decodable to legacy clients. Even if they're not on the same network - just the same frequency. Otherwise your chances of collision increase greatly. So if the frequency is mostly unused, G-only and short preambles (and fast headers) work great, but the moment there's a legacy 802.11b or slower device in range, it steps down and re-enables the legacy stuff. This is especially so since the legacy client can occupy the frequency a really long time, so being able to lock the frequency (which was always in the standard - a virtual carrier) means it squelches other clients who may not be able to detect the data portion of the packet.
But the best way to make money from this platform will be to make it a full iOS platform, including 3rd party apps. That means you'll be putting in enough computing power to run 3D games-- not extremely high-end games, but iOS-like games. Now all you need is a sensible control scheme. So... why not run with it? It won't compete in the Xbox/Playstation market, but you might get some sales of casual games, party games, and maybe some action/adventure games.
Exactly. The new AppleTV's forte is it'll run apps. Sure, Sony and Microsoft do that, but not well. Sure, Apple may play up gaming because gaming is one of the biggest categories of apps out there.
Developers may complain that there's not enough there, but so what? I don't always need games with depth - a quick game or two might be all I need. And you know what? I have a Xbone and a PS4, so my in-depth gaming is there. But additionally, sometimes the time between starting it up and playing is so long, why not play a quick game of something else first?
So while my PS4 or Xbone is getting the latest updates and patches, I can play a round of candy crush or whatever, and as a bonus, sync it with my mobile when I'm done. It's only 5-10 minutes and I'm in front of the TV anyways.
I think that's what Apple is trying to go for - if you want in-depth games, there's plenty of those - the big three make consoles that do just that. But the funny thing is, those big three also make the biggest waits.
And everyone's saying "micro consoles don't sell well" - well what examples do you have? I know of Ouya, PS TV, and a random assortment of Android stuff. All of which have issues, Ouya has developer issues, PS TV well, Sony's pretty much abandoned the Vita and the PS TV can't run Vita games unpatched, so that's a waste (especially since the biggest Vita games don't run on PS TV...). And the little Android boxes well, suffer from just poor experiences and often try to do their own thing.
Apple's been good at taking a bunch of disjointed stuff and actually stitching it together in ways people like - it's actually what Apple actually does. Their innovation is seeing how others fail and improving upon the product in ways that delight users. (And no, you can call them a turd, but you can only polish a turd so much before people realize it's a turd).
Hell, Apple's been trying to "reinvent TV" for many years now, since before the iPad.
When I'm coding I might spend 30 minutes thinking about something or scribbling on paper and then spend maybe 2 minutes actually typing the code. Those are just fictitious numbers of course, but really both of those numbers could be much higher or much lower depending on the problem.
How does this service account for thinking time?
You're not the only one. I hate sitting at the computer and typing up code. Instead, I want to understand it, ponder it, think, and then write a succinct amount of code that does it cleanly, properly and correctly, is easy to maintain, and is pretty clear.
I'm sorry, but I can't just be given a task to write some code and write it (I can, but it's a waste of skill and time (and thus your money), and I will say so, but it is, in the end, your dime, which will buy less if you ask me to do it than a cheaper code monkey). I will try to architect the code, figure out what is needed and then proceed the write the least amount of code. I will also stop and think if I see myself copying and pasting code to see if the situations are such that it really warrants the duplication (too many small changes) or if there's something more general about it.
In practical terms, it has always been advised that anything unencrypted sent over the Internet should be assumed to be snooped upon, and now we merely know how true that assumption always was.
And not by governments, either.
Everyone's all about "gubmint's spying on me!" when using unencrypted protocols - guess what? Most likely, you're leaving more than a few digital footprints all over the place. And why is it government is bad for spying, when really, anyone can? No one worries about Comcast spying on them? It's somehow better than Uncle Sam? Or Verizon? Or one of the many ISPs that provide last mile connectivity? Sure they may not be compiling databases on who's a terrorist, but they're compiling databases of stuff to sell you. And they're willing to sell that database to anyone who asks. (The only reason they don't like government is because government doesn't pay up - they take. So if you have a database of users you sell for a million bucks, well, Uncle Sam getting it for free... not so nice).
And then you realize that sometimes, just go back to the basics. Remember dialup and BBSes and FidoNet? If you're sending sensitive information, FidoNet is often the better way to do it because a lot of that stuff happens beneath the eyes of government - just random phone calls happening all around the globe. It's actually kind of interesting the old methods work great when dealing with extreme surveillance. (The tighter your grip, the more stuff that actually escapes).
Sure latency is horrible, but it's less likely to be monitored, and in the real time nature of things, it's a lot harder to correllate because instead of windows of minutes, you now have windows of days and in the meantime, tons of data has flowed through.
Having a dedicated staff to driving the culture of your company can have a huge impact and pay massive dividends in retention, employee satisfaction, and willingness to go the extra mile.
One of my previous employers had an employee that started out as a receptionist. She always decorated for the holidays, and she was super social, so she organized extra circular activities. Bowling leagues, wine tastings, etc... She was also tasked with organizing our holiday party, summer picnic, office Olympics, city scour scavenger hunt, and tons of other ideas she helped build in the company.
Eventually, it became clear that these tasks took too much time for her to also be the receptionist, so the CEO created a new position for her to focus on the corporate culture, events, and social media.
Best decision he made. She wasn't a cheer leader running around in a short skirt, but her efforts to make the company a fun place to work were way more impactful than any executive direction.
Or, perhaps what your company, and it appears Chinese companies have realized that humans are social beings.
Even the stereotypical "loner geek" doesn't exist - there will be some group of people that person "hangs out" with, either physically or virtually. (Find someone who says they hate other people. You'll find they still interact with lots of "other people" through mailing lists and other mechanisms).
So what really happened is companies invested in helping their employees "break out of the shell" - which helps improve communications amongst employees, and that in general is a positive thing.
Far too often it was a self-reinforcing loop - loner feels isolated from others, others leave loner alone because he doesn't relate well, lather, rinse, repeat. What the Chinese companies have done is try to give those loners social skills (in a sort of crude way), which makes them more approachable and others start being able to communicate.
And when that happens, you start to realize things you never knew. Sure, you don't care about the latest movies coming out, but you'll meet people who have the same feelings in the company but share other interests. (Perhaps say, you share an interest in an open-source program or others). Because being sociable doesn't mean having to talk about the weather or other stuff, but can be just talking about something esoteric.
Heck, even if your interest is so esoteric, all it takes is someone showing interest. Even the lonliest of loners will probably spew a lot if someone asks "What is that? It looks cool!" or "That sounds interesting - tell me more"
Wikipedia says the server is "freemium" so I guess it's free but you can buy upgrades. There are apps for iOS and Android; the apps aren't free either. And there is some kind of cloud account you can get, and use for syncing your content across the Internet.
It's freemium.
Free features is local media server and online streaming.
Pay and you can get a premium account. Premium features include free apps, use of a third party cloud storage provider, offline mode and others.
The Plex apps work by either charging you a one-time in-app purchase, or if you have a premium account, it's free. So if your needs are low, you can get away with just paying $5 for the app.
There's no cloud storage provided, but you can link your account to Google Drive, DropBox and others. What happens then is the server can upload the files to those services so you can access it remotely as part of an automatic sync thing.
This sounds like Google Wallet, with a different name. Same technology.
Completely opposite, actually.
Google Pay works like Apple Pay - i.e., it's an implementation of EMV.
Google Wallet works with Bank of America. What happens in this case is when you set up Google Wallet, BoA creates a debit card in your name for your account. Whenever you use Google Wallet, the debit account details are sent to the merchant, who tries to debit the account. Since the account has no money, BoA forwards a money request to Google, who then funds the account from the various payment methods you have (Google charges you for the money, that money goes to BoA to fund the debit account which then goes to the merchant). With this method, any payment system works - as long as Google can charge it, it can be used. Not all merchants support it though.
Using EMV means all merchants who support EMV can accept Google/Apple Pay. However, to do it requires support of the bank to have the infrastructure necessary to create on-demand tokens, which is why it doesn't support all banks.
In addition, Google Wallet incurs double interchange fees - first from the debit charge, then from your payment mechanism charge. In the beginning, Google was absorbing the payment card charge (since the merchant was absorbing the debit charge as per a normal debit transaction).
Google Pay is like Apple Pay - just a regular electronic credit card, so only one fee is charged. And this method also ensures the transaction details stay private since Google is no longer involved in the transaction.
Basically, Apple Pay forced banks to support EMV, which means Google Pay was actually possible. And Apple Pay works because of the October mandate for more secure payment cards, forcing merchants to abandon swipe readers for ones that support Chip+PIN and which often come with NFC readers installed as well.
It just seems to me that companies want a disposable labor force that they don't need to pay benefits, vacation, etc. for. Basically, they want to go back to a pre-Depression era where workers just turn up at the factory gates every morning and hope to get work. That may be appealing to Millenials who don't have any family ties and will move at the drop of a hat. If we have to go this way, then things like real estate transactions need to be streamlined, life has to be restructured around variable income levels, etc. and I think society isn't ready for it yet.
And there you have it, the reason why everyone is championing the "sharing" economy.
Because those who work for Uber don't do things like pay for EI, or worker's comp insurance, or many other things that regular contractors pay for.
It's all about getting cheaper labor.
And if you think that's a good thing - see China. I'm sure if you like working for Uber, then Foxconn and the like aren't terribly bad either. Heck, those Foxconn workers for Apple probably have more rights and everything than anyone in the "sharing" economy. And of course, we blast Apple for the slave labor, while cheer on those Uber drivers...
Unfortunately it's relitively hard to open up the XBox One to replace the drive. Some have done so, and managed to clone the drive to a larger drive and gotten it to work. I took the easy route, as I have maybe 8 games and my 500gb drive was full. I got a Collective Minds Media Hub http://www.collectiveminds.ca/... (Also on Amazon). It snaps on to the end of the XBox One, making it appear as if it's part of the console, and gives you three front USB 3.0 ports for wired Controllers, Charging, whatever. The top feature, it contains a 2.5" Enclosure. I threw a 2TB 2.5" drive in there. I have it formatted to use as a system drive for games. I keep all my games on it, for archive, and keep the games I play at the time on my internal drive. A cheaper USB 3.0 external drive will work fine. Point being though, the article is correct, that 500gb for launch with games being REQUIRED to be installed to the drive is not enough, when 8 games, and reserved OS space, can fill it up.
The point is, you don't replace the Xbone hard drive. If you need more storage, you put in a USB drive. Because on Xbone, the USB drive acts just like the internal drive - you can install games, saves, and other content on the USB drive as you can with the internal.
Unlike the PS4, which requires games to be installed only on the internal drive, which means upgrading it is a PITA as you have to manually move all the saves to an external USB, upgrade the drive, then re-download and re-install all the games again.
Xbone? Either plug in another USB hard drive, plug in a larger hard drive and move the content within the UI (if you only wish to have one drive), and no need to redownload or reinstall.
A good example is removable batteries in mobile phones. I was shopping around a few days ago and the only major Smartphones that still have removable batteries are the LG G3/G4, Samsung S5 (not the S6), and I think the Moto X. Everyone else has jumped on the Apple ship and denied you access to the smartphone battery, preventing a hard reset.
Stop copying Apple, you lemmings!!
And yet, it's easy to open an iPhone and go and change the battery. Requires a little skill, but that never seems to have stopped people. Every iPhone from the iPhone 4 onwards have used a couple of special screws but then the phone comes apart fairly easily and the battery is exposed.
It's basically an intelligence test - if you're smart enough to acquire the special screwdriver and handle a soldering iron, you probably can change the battery yourself. If not, well, then stop trying to commit warranty fraud.
The only other use case are for those who swap batteries to last through the day, to which we have the problems of keeping all the batteries charged up with one charger. It's a small use case these days with portable external USB batteries.
But that use case is tiny - the vast majority of users will not have a spare battery for their cellphone.
The most annoying part is that luggage sold outside the US often has TSA locks on it. If they put a proper lock on there it would have some value to me, but instead I get to pay for a worthless one that I'll never need or use.
Once the warranty expires I usually fill the lock with epoxy (the main mechanism is a combination lock, the key is just for the TSA goons).
The purpose of a TSA lock is so the TSA can open and inspect your baggage. They have the right to do so (and many countries I presume use TSA keys as they have that right).
The reason we have TSA keys is because when they inspect baggage, they'll cut open any lock you have on it. And they will not relock it. So now your suitcase has been inspected, and the lock broken, which is how it will remain for the rest of the flight. Which means if someone else wants to go through your belongings, they're completely free to do so as it's now unlocked and easily unzipped, inspected and re-zipped.
The TSA lock means the TSA can inspect your bag, then re-lock it. On a lot of locks, doing this sets an indicator showing the lock was unlocked by the TSA key.
That's the whole purpose of a luggage lock. If you destroy the TSA unlock, then you're not really in a position to complain when you go to fetch your baggage and find it's basically open and its contents have been spilling all over the airport. If you're lucky, they'll use packaging tape to re-seal your bag, but that tape can easily split open.
The ROM's on early-80's consoles are still, on the whole, perfectly readable (as evidenced by MAME), and they don't even TRY to use error correcting codes to ensure resiliency.
I have CompactFlash of some vintage and it's all still perfectly readable. Even hard drives are quite readable if stored properly and not live for a long time.
I imagine if you really wanted to make something last 20 years and still be readable, a basic EEPROM with I2C-like serial interface will be readable, and you could probably describe a circuit/timing to read from it on the casing of the chip itself with one diagram.
Not really.
ROMs are readable because the data is literally part of the circuit - either it's mask-programmed (generally the case) in which case the actual circuit connections are physically embedded in the silicon, or it's OTP, which uses fuses that are blown to set the state of the memory.
Flash memory though is typically only guaranteed for 10 years power off retention. Your CF card works because you probably plug it in and access it, If you have a chip you programmed, 10 years from now when you rediscover it, its contents may or may not be readable. In this case, what happens is the data is stored by trapped electrons, and over time, those electrons escape the floating gate (remember, there's an excess of them on the gate, and quantum mechanics was used to tunnel them onto the gate, and on NAND, quantum mechanics is also used to tunnel them off. Well, it's possible over time for the charge to "leak out" by more quantum mechanical tunnelling.
So I suggest all you driving-hating people just suck it up and accept that most people prefer to drive themselves, manually-driven cars will not be the majority anytime soon, and if you hate it so much then please do find alternative transportation for yourselves, there's no worse safety hazard I can imagine than someone who is unwillingly engaging in operating a motor vehicle, or worse, is scared constantly while they're doing it. Enjoy the fact that so-called 'autonomous vehicle' technology will more likely manifest itself as features that prevent you from causing an accident; I know I will.
If that's the case, why is distracted driving now the #1 cause of accidents? It used to be, since time immemorial, drunk driving. Now distracted driving has overtaken drunk driving for the past few years as the leading cause of automotive injuries and accidents.
Could it be, and this is a stretch now, that people are bored and hate driving that they really be doing anything else but?
If people really enjoyed driving, they would pretty much give it their full attention. And not allow a moment of idleness suddenly cause them to reach out for something else.
And alternative methods of transportation don't exist in many areas. At least not practically.
I drive... the short trip to the parking lot where I take the commuter train in. I don't enjoy driving, but at least the trip is short and the hassle part of it is replaced by commuter train. But I'm lucky in that my work is near transit. I turned down a job with 20% more pay so I can remain this way rather than stuck in traffic.
In North America, people drive because they have to. In places where there is better transit, the "car = freedom" is not happening among teenagers. In fact, the proportion of 18 year olds and up with driving licenses is going down. People drive because they have to, not because they want to, and they reach out for their phones and other things because they want to do anything else but drive. Unfortunately, infrastructure in North America isn't as amenable to public transit, so it'll be a long time before this situation reverses.
Yeah, I know in Europe transit is popular and common and more importantly, good. So much so that if you hate driving, you don't have to. You can grow up in Europe without a driver's license and still travel about the continent fairly independently. This is good, because it means those who DO drive generally are those who want to. Those who don't aren't stuck and forced to drive, so they take transit.
To be fair, they are. Android's privacy policy for years has been 'you don't have any, once you click to install that screensaver that wants every possible permission so it can spy on you'. Microsoft's privacy policy with Windows 10 is apparently now 'ha-ha-ha.'
Apple are the holdout, among major commercial operating systems where the standard privacy policy is moving to 'all spyware, all the time'. Which is why I replaced my Android tablet with an iPad some time ago.
Or, to put it another way - Apple cares because they're using it as a differentiating factor from "the other guys".
Everyone knows Apple's iOS is nowhere near as technically advanced as Android - especially in hardware support. It's a very nice OS, but Androids are cheaper, and have more features (quad/octa/16+ core! 10GB of RAM! 1000GHz! 400 memory card types supported! 3D and depth sensing cameras! Lidar! Becomes a drone! Does your homework! etc). Apple cannot compete on that, so they compete on the one thing Android cannot - privacy.
Especially with Snowden and NSA in the news, this could be a nice differentiating point.
Not me. I'm going to stick with Android. But I do think it's a very positive thing on Apple's side of things that they are protective of peoples' privacy and try to do all the crunching locally. It's something I would like to see from Android - devs and manufacturers, but, well, the pessimist in me says "no effing chance, just prepare your anus."
Well, then you have to fix the Android update issue.
With a cloud service (which is what happens when data is shipped to a server and crunched there), you have access to super-powerful servers and the ability to improve results just by updating the servers. But do it locally and you have a limited amount of CPU power, and if you want to add a feature to the search, you have to update the software.
So naturally, it's easier to just do the app once and then hire all sorts of people to help improve results on the back end. To do that on the app means having to have developers add that stuff to the app, test and test and send it to the app store for updating. Much more work, and there's always a chance it will break on some phone. And there's a chance things can't be implemented because it takes too much CPU.
I'm sure we already all knew it, but it is good to hear it come from him for once.
It's been documented many times, actually, including Woz's book, iWoz.
Woz designed what became the Apple I as a hobby. He wanted a computer, and he built one. He then needed a way to talk to it, so he created a simple terminal, learning how to do NTSC using digital logic. He then married his hobby computer with the terminal, and produced what was sold as the Apple I. Woz then approached HP (because HP allowed people to use parts for personal projects, with the caveat that they get right to first refusal of the end result.). HP hated the fact that it could use "any regular TV" and they were worried things would look bad if they could use any old TV.
But that's where things would be - until Jobs realized what was done and managed to sell it. Even managed to convince a store to buy like 1000 of them, when neither of them had enough money to build more than 20. So they built like 10 at a time - none of the suppliers would extend Jobs/Woz credit, so Jobs would go to the factory, pay for the parts, pay for the assembly, then cart them to the store. He repeatedly did this until the order was fulfilled.
Woz then created the successor with a much better everything, and said store also went and held Jobs to task for promising BASIC but not delivering on the Apple I.
Woz and Jobs are the yin and yang - you need both to succeed. Woz's "Apple I" would've just sat on the shelf had Jobs not seen its potential. And Jobs would be at this Atari job had he not run into the technical wizard that Woz was. Both of whom would've been nobodies had they not met - just fading into the dark.
Job's only contribution to the Apple II was really taking Woz's stuff and putting a nice plastic case around it (the Apple I was sold as a circuit board, you could buy a power supply and a keyboard, but had to make your own case). Though, Jobs did know by putting a case around it meant the market expanded from hobbyists and into homes.
If the purpose of Chrome is to get rid of ad blockers, why haven't they gotten rid of any ad blockers in Chrome? One specific ad blocker isn't 100% effective with the Youtube app. Few people even use the Youtube app. This doesn't have anything to do with the browser, you know.
Easy - they need the research. If you're wanting to work around ad blockers, you need to figure out how they work, so having them in your catalog is a way to do that. Plus, if you don't have ad blockers, people will quickly realize it.
And the "Skip Ad" thing is still present - it's just Google rigged it so that the ad blocker sees *that* as the ad! In other words, the "Skip Ad" link is made to appear as an ad, so your ad blocker will dutifully block it.
It's happened a few times before - many sites that go and show historical ads often put the content up as "ads". Which often triggers ad blockers, and you can easily tell because they always put up comments as "I can't see the ads!".
Great. I now know that a company called âsecurity innovationsâ(TM) is basically a front for a bunch of marketing and PR muppets who will sell you some snake oil attached to whatever is the latest media feeding frenzy using fear and misinformation.
It's the way the industry works. If something is coming up and it's going to affect your core business, you have to react. And even if you have no science on your side, you do what has been done since the days of tobacco - you introduce doubt. Doubt the science. Doubt the seriousness, etc.
If you're looking for an interesting film, or a book to read, check out Merchants of Doubt, people whose entire lives are dedicated to manufacturing doubt by producing "controversy" or misinformation in an attempt to cloud the issue.
It started with tobacco, did the same to chemical manufacturers for fire retardants, and we see it today in climate change. The same playbook is in play everywhere now - manufacture doubt, especially if it threatens your core business.
It's not that osx is too hard, it is just more inefficient than any other window manager. Take the menu at the top as an example. Regardless of where your working window is, you need to move the cursor to the top of the screen to chose an option. I find doing that over and over again is exhausting. On the contrary, Windows and Linux have running tasks and the start menu at the bottom of the screen but you don't need to go there very often. In fact most start menus now you can use simply by pressing the windows key and typing what you want. Osx has plenty other frustrations as well. I find that applications never really maximize properly. The finder window only maximizes vertically in Yosemite, leaving most of the desktop visible. The other day I was trying to maximize xcode on my non-widescreen display and xcode would only stay in a widescreen ratio. I couldn't even resize it down to the bottom of the screen. Also to my knowledge there is no quick resizing feature to only take half the screen as in Windows when you slide to the left or right edge. These are things that I really miss when I use osx, to the point that the OS frustrates me to no end. Also there seems to be so much focus on the touchpad and gestures, but if your programming it doesn't make sense to move your hands to the touchpad so those functions are almost useless for me.
Well, if you think in terms of Windows, it's less efficient.
But there are no hard and fast rules in UI design, which is why you have differences like OS X and Windows. It's the same reason why we have 240V and 120V electricity, 50 and 60Hz, and various TV standards, etc.
First - menu bar on top of screen. By Fitt's Law, that makes the menu extremely easy to get to, which is important when you have menus that stay static (Apple menu, for example). It also avoids one of Windows' annouances - where the close button happens to fit on the corner so if your mouse hits that corner and click, you close the document/window/app/whatever. An infinitely sized close button is annoying, to say the least.
The second aspect to Fitt's Law is that a moving menu like you see in an app is you have to slow down and stop at the desired menu, but since the menus are attached to windows, they're a small target. With OS X (and GNOME/Unity), the menu is just up and you can aim for the vertical column you want without worrying about the Y location of the pointer. It may be less efficient, it may not. Depends how good your motor control is.
Maximize, well, on Windows, Maximize is either useful or completely useless. If you have a low-res screen, say under 1080p (1920x1080), it can be useful because the limited resolution means you have limited amount of space to see everything, so maximizing is useful to see mas much of the app as possible. But on higher-resolution screens, it completely wastes real estate. Take a 4K screen - maximize is completely useless because I don't care for a 3840x2160 sized terminal window (I maximized an xterm one day.. was something like 600 characters x 300 lines...). In fact, Window management is extremely frustrating becauxe Windows 7 only has two hot windows, so I can see stuff side by side. Well, 1920x2160 windows aren't terribly useful on a lot of things.
On OS X, the behavior of "maximize" is "try to show all the window contents" - it's not to occupy the entire screen, but to show as much content as possible for least scrolling. On some apps, like iPhoto where your gallery is big, that means using the entire screen. On others, it really depends. A web browser will generally expand vertically because the content goes up and down, and rarely left and right (though in small windows, it may expand horizontally to minimize scrolling). On a Finder window, that means expanding depending on the current view - if it's a collection of icons, it'll be as big to cover the icon extents. If it's a list view, it'll be as wide as the list details, and as tall as necessary to avoid scrolling. If a folder with few files, it
Isn't Tizen, I've never used it - obviously, considered to be pretty much the absolute worst programming target/language in common use and has zero redeeming qualities? I seem to recall that they had lousy help documents, a crappy SDK, and required esoteric knowledge for zero gain. I was reading about this a few months ago as I recall. I seem to recall some of the rants led me to the daily WTF site. I don't recall a single person defending it.
Well, you remember E? That is, Enlightenment? One of the hit popular window managers way back when?
That's the foundation of Tizen. Well, Tizen isn't E, but both use the same libraries - the Enlightenment Foundation Libraries, or EFL. And EFL... well...
FYI - Samsung is a major sponsor of E. As for defenders, I suspect they already work for Samsung and were the ones that convinced management to use EFL for their new smartphone OS.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, they will have to withdraw their offer and present a new one with the bonus in it. Otherwise if they don't, guess what? They won't pay up. I mean, you're willing to sign right there, you ask for the bonus, and they can easily say "Yeah, sure, we can toss in $5000". You sign the paperwork, which probably says $0 bonus. Now you just screwed yourself because there's no evidence of the bonus. (And even if the HR guy isn't that calculating, they usually just plain forget, and if you remind them, they can say "well it says here there is no bonus").
So you've just prolonged the negotiations because they will have to withdraw the current offer. At which point one of two things happens - they fail to present you a new offer, or they update the paperwork.
In the first case, I've seen it happen where the executives and hiring managers just go and say "We give up, he's just too much trouble".
In the second case, well, you have to treat it as a new offer - because they WILL try to pull a fast one over you - you pull a fast one, they can just as well pull a fast one, hoping you'll just blindly sign it without realizing they changed a few things (e.g., reduced your salary).
Which is utterly boring to adults, but to an 11 year old kid, it's pretty fascinating.
And while not patent worth in its own right, it shows a sense of curiosity and exploration, and maybe a desire to have something that no one else has - a cool looking clock.
I mean, sure, it's not really invention, but then again, we like people who repackage stuff - like Ben Heck who repackages consoles into "laptops" and stuff.
And think of it this way - she got arrested for repackaging a clock.
Well, they were concerned, that's why they shut the relay down when the DHS sent them that note. They turned it off, and put it up for a vote by the board, and since they're librarians, they did research.
(Librarians are awesome).
So they did their research, and they went all in knowing it can be used for bad, but it can also be used for good. And the "good" outweighs any concern they can be helping pedos, terrorists and other "bad people".
So yes, they went all in, informed themselves of the issues and concerns, and decided that the freedom it provides outweighs the negatives.
These people aren't dumb. They actually research the issues themselves and make an informed decision.
Well, if you want the advertised speed, pay for it. You'll soon find out how cable companies are able to get the rates they do - $100/month for 50Mbps is stupid cheap. Because a business that wants to get guaranteed 50Mbps will easily pay $1000/month or more.
Consumer broadband works by splitting that among several people, so they pay for a share and as long as no one hogs it all, they can also share it. Sort of like a timeshare. Because few consumers will pay full freight, but split it up among 10 people and the price becomes something people are willing to pay, as long as they share it.
Key word though is share.
Yes, we have lane-keeping systems as well - they detect slight drifts in the lane. When the car is close to departing the lane, the car either flashes a warning, or newer ones actually steer (more like a nudge) the wheel in the right direction.
They disable themselves if you use the blinker or if you're quite obviously trying to change lanes. It's still a nudge so users can override it (and really, at highway speeds, you don't need much wheel turning to stay in the lane) in case the system guesses wrong. Most or all will disengage if they detect the road taking more than a slight curve because the actuators can't actually turn the wheel that far.
And they're in luxury vehicles as well as trickling down to the mainstream.
There's a video by Hyundai showing a bunch of their new cars following a truck - the cars and truck are piloted by stunt drivers, and what they do is once everyone is settled in a line behind the truck, they engage the smart cruise control (to maintain distance), and with modified lane keeping systems that don't disable themselves, the drivers in the cars then exit through the sunroof to a truck pulling up beside the convoy.
The truck continues to drive around the track, slowing down and speeding up, and the cars follow it through the curves and everything, with no drivers as they all have exited.
The other pieces missing are navigation and well, the ability to operate on city roads. Most of the lane keeping systems really only operate on highways.
That ignores the fact that 802.11 and 802.11b actually exist without CSIRO's patents.
When what we knew as WiFi came out, or rather, 802.11b, a few data rates were defined - 1 and 2 Mbps using basic frequency hopping. This, not entirely coincidentally, is what the Lucent WaveLAN units worked at (prior to standardization).
802.11b added the 4/5/11Mbps using what we effectively call CDMA coding now, using a high-bitrate PRNG chip code. 802.11a added 54Mbps, 802.11g did the same on 2.4GHz using ODFM, which is the technology patented by CSIRO.
But 802.11b basically was what brought the WiFi revolution around no doubt helped by Apple and its consumer price friendly Airport base stations and built-in WiFI chipsets.
It's also why disabling stuff like long preambles and setting your AP to "G-only" mode do little - because the 802.11 header on 2.4GHz must be decodable to legacy clients. Even if they're not on the same network - just the same frequency. Otherwise your chances of collision increase greatly. So if the frequency is mostly unused, G-only and short preambles (and fast headers) work great, but the moment there's a legacy 802.11b or slower device in range, it steps down and re-enables the legacy stuff. This is especially so since the legacy client can occupy the frequency a really long time, so being able to lock the frequency (which was always in the standard - a virtual carrier) means it squelches other clients who may not be able to detect the data portion of the packet.
Exactly. The new AppleTV's forte is it'll run apps. Sure, Sony and Microsoft do that, but not well. Sure, Apple may play up gaming because gaming is one of the biggest categories of apps out there.
Developers may complain that there's not enough there, but so what? I don't always need games with depth - a quick game or two might be all I need. And you know what? I have a Xbone and a PS4, so my in-depth gaming is there. But additionally, sometimes the time between starting it up and playing is so long, why not play a quick game of something else first?
So while my PS4 or Xbone is getting the latest updates and patches, I can play a round of candy crush or whatever, and as a bonus, sync it with my mobile when I'm done. It's only 5-10 minutes and I'm in front of the TV anyways.
I think that's what Apple is trying to go for - if you want in-depth games, there's plenty of those - the big three make consoles that do just that. But the funny thing is, those big three also make the biggest waits.
And everyone's saying "micro consoles don't sell well" - well what examples do you have? I know of Ouya, PS TV, and a random assortment of Android stuff. All of which have issues, Ouya has developer issues, PS TV well, Sony's pretty much abandoned the Vita and the PS TV can't run Vita games unpatched, so that's a waste (especially since the biggest Vita games don't run on PS TV...). And the little Android boxes well, suffer from just poor experiences and often try to do their own thing.
Apple's been good at taking a bunch of disjointed stuff and actually stitching it together in ways people like - it's actually what Apple actually does. Their innovation is seeing how others fail and improving upon the product in ways that delight users. (And no, you can call them a turd, but you can only polish a turd so much before people realize it's a turd).
Hell, Apple's been trying to "reinvent TV" for many years now, since before the iPad.
You're not the only one. I hate sitting at the computer and typing up code. Instead, I want to understand it, ponder it, think, and then write a succinct amount of code that does it cleanly, properly and correctly, is easy to maintain, and is pretty clear.
I'm sorry, but I can't just be given a task to write some code and write it (I can, but it's a waste of skill and time (and thus your money), and I will say so, but it is, in the end, your dime, which will buy less if you ask me to do it than a cheaper code monkey). I will try to architect the code, figure out what is needed and then proceed the write the least amount of code. I will also stop and think if I see myself copying and pasting code to see if the situations are such that it really warrants the duplication (too many small changes) or if there's something more general about it.
Yes, I like to think before I type.
And not by governments, either.
Everyone's all about "gubmint's spying on me!" when using unencrypted protocols - guess what? Most likely, you're leaving more than a few digital footprints all over the place. And why is it government is bad for spying, when really, anyone can? No one worries about Comcast spying on them? It's somehow better than Uncle Sam? Or Verizon? Or one of the many ISPs that provide last mile connectivity? Sure they may not be compiling databases on who's a terrorist, but they're compiling databases of stuff to sell you. And they're willing to sell that database to anyone who asks. (The only reason they don't like government is because government doesn't pay up - they take. So if you have a database of users you sell for a million bucks, well, Uncle Sam getting it for free... not so nice).
And then you realize that sometimes, just go back to the basics. Remember dialup and BBSes and FidoNet? If you're sending sensitive information, FidoNet is often the better way to do it because a lot of that stuff happens beneath the eyes of government - just random phone calls happening all around the globe. It's actually kind of interesting the old methods work great when dealing with extreme surveillance. (The tighter your grip, the more stuff that actually escapes).
Sure latency is horrible, but it's less likely to be monitored, and in the real time nature of things, it's a lot harder to correllate because instead of windows of minutes, you now have windows of days and in the meantime, tons of data has flowed through.
Or, perhaps what your company, and it appears Chinese companies have realized that humans are social beings.
Even the stereotypical "loner geek" doesn't exist - there will be some group of people that person "hangs out" with, either physically or virtually. (Find someone who says they hate other people. You'll find they still interact with lots of "other people" through mailing lists and other mechanisms).
So what really happened is companies invested in helping their employees "break out of the shell" - which helps improve communications amongst employees, and that in general is a positive thing.
Far too often it was a self-reinforcing loop - loner feels isolated from others, others leave loner alone because he doesn't relate well, lather, rinse, repeat. What the Chinese companies have done is try to give those loners social skills (in a sort of crude way), which makes them more approachable and others start being able to communicate.
And when that happens, you start to realize things you never knew. Sure, you don't care about the latest movies coming out, but you'll meet people who have the same feelings in the company but share other interests. (Perhaps say, you share an interest in an open-source program or others). Because being sociable doesn't mean having to talk about the weather or other stuff, but can be just talking about something esoteric.
Heck, even if your interest is so esoteric, all it takes is someone showing interest. Even the lonliest of loners will probably spew a lot if someone asks "What is that? It looks cool!" or "That sounds interesting - tell me more"
It's freemium.
Free features is local media server and online streaming.
Pay and you can get a premium account. Premium features include free apps, use of a third party cloud storage provider, offline mode and others.
The Plex apps work by either charging you a one-time in-app purchase, or if you have a premium account, it's free. So if your needs are low, you can get away with just paying $5 for the app.
There's no cloud storage provided, but you can link your account to Google Drive, DropBox and others. What happens then is the server can upload the files to those services so you can access it remotely as part of an automatic sync thing.
Completely opposite, actually.
Google Pay works like Apple Pay - i.e., it's an implementation of EMV.
Google Wallet works with Bank of America. What happens in this case is when you set up Google Wallet, BoA creates a debit card in your name for your account. Whenever you use Google Wallet, the debit account details are sent to the merchant, who tries to debit the account. Since the account has no money, BoA forwards a money request to Google, who then funds the account from the various payment methods you have (Google charges you for the money, that money goes to BoA to fund the debit account which then goes to the merchant). With this method, any payment system works - as long as Google can charge it, it can be used. Not all merchants support it though.
Using EMV means all merchants who support EMV can accept Google/Apple Pay. However, to do it requires support of the bank to have the infrastructure necessary to create on-demand tokens, which is why it doesn't support all banks.
In addition, Google Wallet incurs double interchange fees - first from the debit charge, then from your payment mechanism charge. In the beginning, Google was absorbing the payment card charge (since the merchant was absorbing the debit charge as per a normal debit transaction).
Google Pay is like Apple Pay - just a regular electronic credit card, so only one fee is charged. And this method also ensures the transaction details stay private since Google is no longer involved in the transaction.
Basically, Apple Pay forced banks to support EMV, which means Google Pay was actually possible. And Apple Pay works because of the October mandate for more secure payment cards, forcing merchants to abandon swipe readers for ones that support Chip+PIN and which often come with NFC readers installed as well.
And there you have it, the reason why everyone is championing the "sharing" economy.
Because those who work for Uber don't do things like pay for EI, or worker's comp insurance, or many other things that regular contractors pay for.
It's all about getting cheaper labor.
And if you think that's a good thing - see China. I'm sure if you like working for Uber, then Foxconn and the like aren't terribly bad either. Heck, those Foxconn workers for Apple probably have more rights and everything than anyone in the "sharing" economy. And of course, we blast Apple for the slave labor, while cheer on those Uber drivers...
The point is, you don't replace the Xbone hard drive. If you need more storage, you put in a USB drive. Because on Xbone, the USB drive acts just like the internal drive - you can install games, saves, and other content on the USB drive as you can with the internal.
Unlike the PS4, which requires games to be installed only on the internal drive, which means upgrading it is a PITA as you have to manually move all the saves to an external USB, upgrade the drive, then re-download and re-install all the games again.
Xbone? Either plug in another USB hard drive, plug in a larger hard drive and move the content within the UI (if you only wish to have one drive), and no need to redownload or reinstall.
And yet, it's easy to open an iPhone and go and change the battery. Requires a little skill, but that never seems to have stopped people. Every iPhone from the iPhone 4 onwards have used a couple of special screws but then the phone comes apart fairly easily and the battery is exposed.
It's basically an intelligence test - if you're smart enough to acquire the special screwdriver and handle a soldering iron, you probably can change the battery yourself. If not, well, then stop trying to commit warranty fraud.
The only other use case are for those who swap batteries to last through the day, to which we have the problems of keeping all the batteries charged up with one charger. It's a small use case these days with portable external USB batteries.
But that use case is tiny - the vast majority of users will not have a spare battery for their cellphone.
The purpose of a TSA lock is so the TSA can open and inspect your baggage. They have the right to do so (and many countries I presume use TSA keys as they have that right).
The reason we have TSA keys is because when they inspect baggage, they'll cut open any lock you have on it. And they will not relock it. So now your suitcase has been inspected, and the lock broken, which is how it will remain for the rest of the flight. Which means if someone else wants to go through your belongings, they're completely free to do so as it's now unlocked and easily unzipped, inspected and re-zipped.
The TSA lock means the TSA can inspect your bag, then re-lock it. On a lot of locks, doing this sets an indicator showing the lock was unlocked by the TSA key.
That's the whole purpose of a luggage lock. If you destroy the TSA unlock, then you're not really in a position to complain when you go to fetch your baggage and find it's basically open and its contents have been spilling all over the airport. If you're lucky, they'll use packaging tape to re-seal your bag, but that tape can easily split open.
Not really.
ROMs are readable because the data is literally part of the circuit - either it's mask-programmed (generally the case) in which case the actual circuit connections are physically embedded in the silicon, or it's OTP, which uses fuses that are blown to set the state of the memory.
Flash memory though is typically only guaranteed for 10 years power off retention. Your CF card works because you probably plug it in and access it, If you have a chip you programmed, 10 years from now when you rediscover it, its contents may or may not be readable. In this case, what happens is the data is stored by trapped electrons, and over time, those electrons escape the floating gate (remember, there's an excess of them on the gate, and quantum mechanics was used to tunnel them onto the gate, and on NAND, quantum mechanics is also used to tunnel them off. Well, it's possible over time for the charge to "leak out" by more quantum mechanical tunnelling.
If that's the case, why is distracted driving now the #1 cause of accidents? It used to be, since time immemorial, drunk driving. Now distracted driving has overtaken drunk driving for the past few years as the leading cause of automotive injuries and accidents.
Could it be, and this is a stretch now, that people are bored and hate driving that they really be doing anything else but?
If people really enjoyed driving, they would pretty much give it their full attention. And not allow a moment of idleness suddenly cause them to reach out for something else.
And alternative methods of transportation don't exist in many areas. At least not practically.
I drive... the short trip to the parking lot where I take the commuter train in. I don't enjoy driving, but at least the trip is short and the hassle part of it is replaced by commuter train. But I'm lucky in that my work is near transit. I turned down a job with 20% more pay so I can remain this way rather than stuck in traffic.
In North America, people drive because they have to. In places where there is better transit, the "car = freedom" is not happening among teenagers. In fact, the proportion of 18 year olds and up with driving licenses is going down. People drive because they have to, not because they want to, and they reach out for their phones and other things because they want to do anything else but drive. Unfortunately, infrastructure in North America isn't as amenable to public transit, so it'll be a long time before this situation reverses.
Yeah, I know in Europe transit is popular and common and more importantly, good. So much so that if you hate driving, you don't have to. You can grow up in Europe without a driver's license and still travel about the continent fairly independently. This is good, because it means those who DO drive generally are those who want to. Those who don't aren't stuck and forced to drive, so they take transit.
Or, to put it another way - Apple cares because they're using it as a differentiating factor from "the other guys".
Everyone knows Apple's iOS is nowhere near as technically advanced as Android - especially in hardware support. It's a very nice OS, but Androids are cheaper, and have more features (quad/octa/16+ core! 10GB of RAM! 1000GHz! 400 memory card types supported! 3D and depth sensing cameras! Lidar! Becomes a drone! Does your homework! etc). Apple cannot compete on that, so they compete on the one thing Android cannot - privacy.
Especially with Snowden and NSA in the news, this could be a nice differentiating point.
Well, then you have to fix the Android update issue.
With a cloud service (which is what happens when data is shipped to a server and crunched there), you have access to super-powerful servers and the ability to improve results just by updating the servers. But do it locally and you have a limited amount of CPU power, and if you want to add a feature to the search, you have to update the software.
So naturally, it's easier to just do the app once and then hire all sorts of people to help improve results on the back end. To do that on the app means having to have developers add that stuff to the app, test and test and send it to the app store for updating. Much more work, and there's always a chance it will break on some phone. And there's a chance things can't be implemented because it takes too much CPU.
It's been documented many times, actually, including Woz's book, iWoz.
Woz designed what became the Apple I as a hobby. He wanted a computer, and he built one. He then needed a way to talk to it, so he created a simple terminal, learning how to do NTSC using digital logic. He then married his hobby computer with the terminal, and produced what was sold as the Apple I. Woz then approached HP (because HP allowed people to use parts for personal projects, with the caveat that they get right to first refusal of the end result.). HP hated the fact that it could use "any regular TV" and they were worried things would look bad if they could use any old TV.
But that's where things would be - until Jobs realized what was done and managed to sell it. Even managed to convince a store to buy like 1000 of them, when neither of them had enough money to build more than 20. So they built like 10 at a time - none of the suppliers would extend Jobs/Woz credit, so Jobs would go to the factory, pay for the parts, pay for the assembly, then cart them to the store. He repeatedly did this until the order was fulfilled.
Woz then created the successor with a much better everything, and said store also went and held Jobs to task for promising BASIC but not delivering on the Apple I.
Woz and Jobs are the yin and yang - you need both to succeed. Woz's "Apple I" would've just sat on the shelf had Jobs not seen its potential. And Jobs would be at this Atari job had he not run into the technical wizard that Woz was. Both of whom would've been nobodies had they not met - just fading into the dark.
Job's only contribution to the Apple II was really taking Woz's stuff and putting a nice plastic case around it (the Apple I was sold as a circuit board, you could buy a power supply and a keyboard, but had to make your own case). Though, Jobs did know by putting a case around it meant the market expanded from hobbyists and into homes.
Easy - they need the research. If you're wanting to work around ad blockers, you need to figure out how they work, so having them in your catalog is a way to do that. Plus, if you don't have ad blockers, people will quickly realize it.
And the "Skip Ad" thing is still present - it's just Google rigged it so that the ad blocker sees *that* as the ad! In other words, the "Skip Ad" link is made to appear as an ad, so your ad blocker will dutifully block it.
It's happened a few times before - many sites that go and show historical ads often put the content up as "ads". Which often triggers ad blockers, and you can easily tell because they always put up comments as "I can't see the ads!".
It's the way the industry works. If something is coming up and it's going to affect your core business, you have to react. And even if you have no science on your side, you do what has been done since the days of tobacco - you introduce doubt. Doubt the science. Doubt the seriousness, etc.
If you're looking for an interesting film, or a book to read, check out Merchants of Doubt, people whose entire lives are dedicated to manufacturing doubt by producing "controversy" or misinformation in an attempt to cloud the issue.
It started with tobacco, did the same to chemical manufacturers for fire retardants, and we see it today in climate change. The same playbook is in play everywhere now - manufacture doubt, especially if it threatens your core business.
Well, if you think in terms of Windows, it's less efficient.
But there are no hard and fast rules in UI design, which is why you have differences like OS X and Windows. It's the same reason why we have 240V and 120V electricity, 50 and 60Hz, and various TV standards, etc.
First - menu bar on top of screen. By Fitt's Law, that makes the menu extremely easy to get to, which is important when you have menus that stay static (Apple menu, for example). It also avoids one of Windows' annouances - where the close button happens to fit on the corner so if your mouse hits that corner and click, you close the document/window/app/whatever. An infinitely sized close button is annoying, to say the least.
The second aspect to Fitt's Law is that a moving menu like you see in an app is you have to slow down and stop at the desired menu, but since the menus are attached to windows, they're a small target. With OS X (and GNOME/Unity), the menu is just up and you can aim for the vertical column you want without worrying about the Y location of the pointer. It may be less efficient, it may not. Depends how good your motor control is.
Maximize, well, on Windows, Maximize is either useful or completely useless. If you have a low-res screen, say under 1080p (1920x1080), it can be useful because the limited resolution means you have limited amount of space to see everything, so maximizing is useful to see mas much of the app as possible. But on higher-resolution screens, it completely wastes real estate. Take a 4K screen - maximize is completely useless because I don't care for a 3840x2160 sized terminal window (I maximized an xterm one day.. was something like 600 characters x 300 lines...). In fact, Window management is extremely frustrating becauxe Windows 7 only has two hot windows, so I can see stuff side by side. Well, 1920x2160 windows aren't terribly useful on a lot of things.
On OS X, the behavior of "maximize" is "try to show all the window contents" - it's not to occupy the entire screen, but to show as much content as possible for least scrolling. On some apps, like iPhoto where your gallery is big, that means using the entire screen. On others, it really depends. A web browser will generally expand vertically because the content goes up and down, and rarely left and right (though in small windows, it may expand horizontally to minimize scrolling). On a Finder window, that means expanding depending on the current view - if it's a collection of icons, it'll be as big to cover the icon extents. If it's a list view, it'll be as wide as the list details, and as tall as necessary to avoid scrolling. If a folder with few files, it
Well, you remember E? That is, Enlightenment? One of the hit popular window managers way back when?
That's the foundation of Tizen. Well, Tizen isn't E, but both use the same libraries - the Enlightenment Foundation Libraries, or EFL. And EFL... well...
FYI - Samsung is a major sponsor of E. As for defenders, I suspect they already work for Samsung and were the ones that convinced management to use EFL for their new smartphone OS.