One thing I miss about my WebOS device is any/all such IM accounts were 'always on'. Now only gtalk seems to have that distinction on my android device.
ANY other IM program at least requires you to get your friends to sign up.
Ok.... Most everyone has an AIM or google account, and all android users have a google account. For me getting someone's google account is easier than phone number, they rattle off a human readable name rather than me having to jot or type down a number. Point taken though that there is a networking effect and iMessages used phone number as one sort of id for easier correlation between phone and im mechanism.
If you've got an i-device you use it automatically, transparently.
I think getting your friends to buy an iDevice is a *tad* more burdensome than getting them to use their free gmail acount....
Don't know why you'd give particularly extra credit to Apple, gTalk, AIM, skype, et al already give people little incentive to consider anything particularly extra for SMS. I fail to see what 'iMessage' gives that these do not. SMS use in the face of all those is generally amongst people who aren't about to change their ways, most of who now have plans where messaging really doesn't impact them one way or another (for example I don't use SMS yet I couldn't get a plan with the features I wanted without unlimited SMS).
Really? Humans as 'batteries' makes sense? Not merely sucking out energy of those living, but actively feeding and breeding them?
Re:That's why I like the basic Kindle
on
The eBook Backlash
·
· Score: 1
Not merely tablest failing to save them, perhaps publishers jumped on the bandwagon only to belatedly figure out the ebook bandwagon largely obsoletes the role of publishers as they exist today, and it's easier to fight change than adapt.
If you use the same logic, not observing God interacting with the world does not imply that God does not exist.
It is pretty much the same and no less valid in either case. Science hasn't *disproved* either option nor has it provided evidence in support of either as well. The concept of God is not something that lends itself to being disproved since a believer can always say God does not want to be observed and so will not exist.
'Aggresive' athiesm that declares there is no God is technically a faith kind of like how religion is also faith. Really the only scientificly sound postiion is agnosticism. Normally just science wouldn't lead someone to insist something doesn't exist that we have no evidence for or against, though I can see someone generally driven by science frustrated at a phenomenon with no supporting scientific evidence and adopting the contrary view out of sheer frustration.
It was completely hacked and the people who cracked it open seemed assured that the hole could not be closed. However, no one has cracked systems running 3.56 or higher, and Sony has successfully made much of the value of a PS3 evaporate if not up to date by blocking PSN. Completely hacked would suggest that I could go out today, grab a PS3 off the shelf, and use it for homebrew. I cannot do that, therefore it isn't 'completely' hacked.
Current PS3 games are for Cell indeed, but then again PS2 games of the time weren't and in fact cannot run on Cell. Just like PS1 games could not run on a PS2, but the PS2 had found a graceful way to incorporate PS1 guts for productive use even during native PS2 operation. Sadly, PS2 guts were nothing but a drain in the BC PS3 editions unless actually running PS2 games, causing Sony to drop it.
MS did not 'steal' anything. IBM went to MS and Sony and sold them both on different technologies that both happen to be PPC. MS elected a more conventional architecture while Sony went in for the significantly different Cell option. I think IBM sold the most comprehensive copy-protection story of the time which enticed MS away from x86. Reading the complexities of the exploits shows very deep design points around copy protection.
I will say one thing, the story explicitly said AMD *graphics*. Not even the unsubstantiated rumor said anything about the CPU one way or another. People may be presuming APU because the thermal characteristics seem a good fit, but that's just theory and not even rumor backed yet.
Or, take a step back from the specific suggestions the poster is submitting, realize it's a short-lived transient effort, and tell him to be less fancy, yank the drives, put in USB keys and be done with it. If one gets 'corrupted' through use/misuse, exchange keys and move on with their life.
For someone who lives day to day with tools like xCAT it's a natural enough thing to use it even for this circumstance and the suggestion of USB keys sounds downright kludgy and tortuously slow, but for one who has not used it before, kludging about with USB keys might ultimately be easier to wrap their head around and something they can do without learning more quickly for a one-shot effort. Particularly I wouldn't be lining up to 'borrow' the state of the hard drive and return it perfectly to previous condition if I were new to the whole game.
Which is why I point out that as soon as you get into maybe the ~10% purchase range, the value fluctuates a lot. While it may list 134 billion as Intel's market cap, an overture by Apple to buy would probably bump it up to 170 billion or so. Market cap number is somewhat 'imaginary' and meaning becomes extremely volatile on any coordinated effort to act based on the current value. In a buyout situation, it always jumps up significantly. If conversely someone goes to sell 15%, the value crashes quickly.
Also, that number represents only the 'best case', that all shares are truly available for purchase. If Bill Gates owned 51% of MS, then it's impossible unless Bill Gates explicitly wanted to give up his company.
If so, you may want to consider yanking the drives and iSCSI booting them. I know at least with Fedora and RHEL/CentOS you can do this, I presume Ubuntu can as well. Set root-path in dhcp in accordance with rfc4173 and boot iPXE. From there take any PXE-capable deployment mechanism and you can proceed without removing or resizing the partitions.
If only 30 and you lack the experience in this area, you may elect to hand tweak an autoinstall situation. I'm not sure if you need to be particularly picky about 'cloning'. In MS it's almost mandatory as so much of the value of an install is in third-party applications. In the ubuntu case all the packages you want are likely already in the distro and debian-installer is really all you need.
All this said, Live usb key is probably the easiest thing. Stock Ubuntu probably suffices...
For reality, it's hard to say. Through the end of 2010, all choices had to go through Jobs. Even if you can fairly say Cook 'made the decision', Jobs had final say and might have even vetoed some moves we never heard of. It seems unlikely that Cook was operating fully indpendently.
In terms of perception, Jobs was undeniably CEO until 2011 and his name was attached to all of the right decisions, whether earned or not. Without Jobs, the shareholders may be putting quite a different set of pressures on Cook. Even absent of that, I would expect Cook not making decisions conscious of how Jobs would think of them, rather as official CEO or as chairman of the board. It might be a full year before the body of shareholders and management really start showing how they will be different or not in a post-Jobs world.
Apple tried servers, they pretty well failed at it in the market. The problem being that Apple wants ludicrous margins for not particularly more customer service cost. In the consumer market, they have marketing efforts and brand value driving people to pay more for their products and experience than they would be willing to pay any other brand for the exact same experience.
Going into the server arena, companies need something a bit more concrete. Either hardware operating on razor thin margins, or if there are going to be high margins then gold-plated service and support practices that are priced high and enjoy bigger margins than hardware alone, but still cost a lot. There is relatively little 'profit' to be extracted from server clients compared to Apple consumer electronic customers. For companies that fail to establish as fanatic a following as Apple, the consumer space is the most unforgiving unprofitable market, but Apple makes it work for them.
But Jobs was pretty much afforded free reign. He was pretty well allowed to do as he saw fit because he drove the company to success and shareholders formed a strong correlation between Jobs and the success of Apple. If the shareholders were ever dissatisfied, they didn't act on it because they wouldn't want to kill the goose that lays golden eggs. Now with Jobs gone, it's less certain that the shareholders will permit the CEO the same allowances and push for more 'pillaging'.
Having thousands line up for a chance to work means that the general prospects are sufficiently poor that by comparison Foxconn is able to do pretty well by the local populace.
Apple is of course being exploitive, but I think the local population would rather be exploited than nothing. If Apple funded a wage that wouldn't repulse a United States Citizen, then they'd probably be paying US citizens for an even bigger PR boost of 'made in america'' and those 'lucky' Foxconn employees would then get nothing.
It's not retarded. As a society we should as much as possible keep the big picture in mind. If Apple practices can be popularly considered unethical, then the consumer market might punish them out of a sense of guilt (misplaced or otherwise). Even putting that aside, a more selfish consumer base thinking bigger picture may punish them for hiring overseas workers instead of domestic.
The wealth/wages/taxes aren't completely incidental, how consumers perceive the way those are managed factors in to the ability to sell. It's not the only thing by far, but I think there is a measurable impact of people refraining from Apple products because of the press on labor practices, even if they are just taking their money to worse, but more obscure companies.
I think realistically the thinking would be making Apple a much more desirable employer. To that end, a 'one time bonus' would not be the best use even if they decided to 10 billion in employee bonuses. You'd fund a bonus fund that would pay out repeatedly over the next few years. Knowing that it is happening and will continue to happen would help employee retention and draw in top talent. Of course, their success seems to indicate they may not need to worry too much about this issue.
That list is pretty terrible criteria for 'successful'.
One, its mostly data from over a year ago.
Two, the revenue numbers don't correlate well to each other as they represent different dates and different fiscal calendars with different companies being impacted by various degrees economic conditions changing over time.
Three, revenue is perhaps one of the weakest indicators of 'success'. If you get 1 trillion in revenue but had 1.1 trillion in expense, you are the worst company in the world practically speaking but would be number one in that list. By profit, Apple is likely easily in the top10 (data I could find put them at #8 in 2010, but a lot has changed since then). By Market cap, Apple is 487 billion, with Exxon at 413 billion, which is a strong indication of how valuable a company is perceived.
Well, to be fair, the guy who reigned over apple as it ascended to crazy success had this 'problem' as an explicit strategy. Tim Cook is questioning the wisdom of that decision.
So far, Tim Cook hasn't really done anything significant one way or another and has been kind of 'coasting' on the companies success. Now Tim Cook could start making decisions differently from what Jobs would have done. I do think 98 billion on hand is ludicrous, and if I were a significant shareholder or employee, I'd be kind of miffed about it, so I think he's right, but then again I didn't drive a company to nearly a half-trillion market cap..
One, why in the hell would you want Apple to sink Google, AMD, Intel, or Microsoft? From a user perspective killing any is bad. Alternatively, why the hell would Apple care to sink AMD or Intel, neither of which compete with Apple? If your claim is to stop other computer vendors from using the same instruction set as OSX systems, Apple has a pretty tight grip on OSX without instruction set lock-in (yes there are hackintoshes, but exceptionally rare in the scheme of things.
Second, that would be a fast way to draw attention for anti-competitive moves. Both from a regulator standpoint and quickly making enemies of a lot of companies with a lot of resources. They have a pretty comfortable competitive landscape right now, and a drastic move represents some huge unknowns that could be pretty devastating.
Finally, they frankly can't afford to buy most of those companies. Market cap is generally a good relative indicator of theoretical buy-out requirements: Google: 200 billion Intel: 134 billion Microsoft: 265 billion I don't know what percentage of shares is realistically available or how sky-high the price would be driven if Apple attempted a hostile takeover, but even baseline the market cap is beyond their reach. If they do have 98 billion cash on hand, then AMD is the only one they'd likely be able to subsume, but with a huge question of 'why would they?'.
Actually, I wasn't thinking of Pratchett (it's actually been a long time and I don't recall being bothered by footnotes for whatever reason). Maybe some can work them fine, but it was at least one huge detractor from a book I read recently that I don't recall well. Of course I also found the story pretty uninteresting, with or without the footnotes so maybe I didn't have enough to distract me from the footnote inconvenience...
There is a fourth option. There is generally narration. I consider this distinct from parenthetical. Parenthetical is when they break in just after a word is uttered and slap in the explanatory information and break right back into the sentence as if you weren't just reading something entirely out of sync with the rest of the words.
Though it wasn't hyperlink, I have read a few works of fiction that seemed to think it was neat to put gobs of stuff in footnotes. Now these weren't footnotes that explained obscure things the reader might not know to be skipped if you understood, it was explaining a completely fictional concept/historical event in the universe of the work in question.
This thoroughly breaks the flow no matter how you slice it. If you can't work some material more naturally into the narrative than hyperlinks/footnotes/jarring parentheticals, then something is very wrong. It severely detracts from the enjoyment of the story if I stop mid sentence to read it. If I chose to defer reading the material, then some things may make no sense until I get to the footnote and I have to figure out where the footnote ties back into the narrative in some cases where it isn't quite self-evident.
The question being what would be the mechanism to drive such a change. Just because we want to create a pattern doesn't mean we can absent of some scientific explanation as to why that would be the case.
I was under the impression the general understood consensus is that generally in evolution, usually past performance is not a reliable indicator of future events. If there is no selection pressure at work, things randomly vary one way or another and those variances 'just are'. There seems to be some popular desire for evolution to have some sort of will, some predictable course where toes dissolve and brains get bigger because we perceive toes as useless and brains as good. The grade of evolution is simply 'how successful at reproducing was the organism', quality of life and other factors may be valued by humanity, but do not serve as qualifiers for evolution.
Slashdot Mirror
One thing I miss about my WebOS device is any/all such IM accounts were 'always on'. Now only gtalk seems to have that distinction on my android device.
ANY other IM program at least requires you to get your friends to sign up.
Ok.... Most everyone has an AIM or google account, and all android users have a google account. For me getting someone's google account is easier than phone number, they rattle off a human readable name rather than me having to jot or type down a number. Point taken though that there is a networking effect and iMessages used phone number as one sort of id for easier correlation between phone and im mechanism.
If you've got an i-device you use it automatically, transparently.
I think getting your friends to buy an iDevice is a *tad* more burdensome than getting them to use their free gmail acount....
Don't know why you'd give particularly extra credit to Apple, gTalk, AIM, skype, et al already give people little incentive to consider anything particularly extra for SMS. I fail to see what 'iMessage' gives that these do not. SMS use in the face of all those is generally amongst people who aren't about to change their ways, most of who now have plans where messaging really doesn't impact them one way or another (for example I don't use SMS yet I couldn't get a plan with the features I wanted without unlimited SMS).
Really? Humans as 'batteries' makes sense? Not merely sucking out energy of those living, but actively feeding and breeding them?
Not merely tablest failing to save them, perhaps publishers jumped on the bandwagon only to belatedly figure out the ebook bandwagon largely obsoletes the role of publishers as they exist today, and it's easier to fight change than adapt.
If you use the same logic, not observing God interacting with the world does not imply that God does not exist.
It is pretty much the same and no less valid in either case. Science hasn't *disproved* either option nor has it provided evidence in support of either as well. The concept of God is not something that lends itself to being disproved since a believer can always say God does not want to be observed and so will not exist.
'Aggresive' athiesm that declares there is no God is technically a faith kind of like how religion is also faith. Really the only scientificly sound postiion is agnosticism. Normally just science wouldn't lead someone to insist something doesn't exist that we have no evidence for or against, though I can see someone generally driven by science frustrated at a phenomenon with no supporting scientific evidence and adopting the contrary view out of sheer frustration.
It was completely hacked and the people who cracked it open seemed assured that the hole could not be closed. However, no one has cracked systems running 3.56 or higher, and Sony has successfully made much of the value of a PS3 evaporate if not up to date by blocking PSN. Completely hacked would suggest that I could go out today, grab a PS3 off the shelf, and use it for homebrew. I cannot do that, therefore it isn't 'completely' hacked.
Current PS3 games are for Cell indeed, but then again PS2 games of the time weren't and in fact cannot run on Cell. Just like PS1 games could not run on a PS2, but the PS2 had found a graceful way to incorporate PS1 guts for productive use even during native PS2 operation. Sadly, PS2 guts were nothing but a drain in the BC PS3 editions unless actually running PS2 games, causing Sony to drop it.
MS did not 'steal' anything. IBM went to MS and Sony and sold them both on different technologies that both happen to be PPC. MS elected a more conventional architecture while Sony went in for the significantly different Cell option. I think IBM sold the most comprehensive copy-protection story of the time which enticed MS away from x86. Reading the complexities of the exploits shows very deep design points around copy protection.
I will say one thing, the story explicitly said AMD *graphics*. Not even the unsubstantiated rumor said anything about the CPU one way or another. People may be presuming APU because the thermal characteristics seem a good fit, but that's just theory and not even rumor backed yet.
Or, take a step back from the specific suggestions the poster is submitting, realize it's a short-lived transient effort, and tell him to be less fancy, yank the drives, put in USB keys and be done with it. If one gets 'corrupted' through use/misuse, exchange keys and move on with their life.
For someone who lives day to day with tools like xCAT it's a natural enough thing to use it even for this circumstance and the suggestion of USB keys sounds downright kludgy and tortuously slow, but for one who has not used it before, kludging about with USB keys might ultimately be easier to wrap their head around and something they can do without learning more quickly for a one-shot effort. Particularly I wouldn't be lining up to 'borrow' the state of the hard drive and return it perfectly to previous condition if I were new to the whole game.
Which is why I point out that as soon as you get into maybe the ~10% purchase range, the value fluctuates a lot. While it may list 134 billion as Intel's market cap, an overture by Apple to buy would probably bump it up to 170 billion or so. Market cap number is somewhat 'imaginary' and meaning becomes extremely volatile on any coordinated effort to act based on the current value. In a buyout situation, it always jumps up significantly. If conversely someone goes to sell 15%, the value crashes quickly.
Also, that number represents only the 'best case', that all shares are truly available for purchase. If Bill Gates owned 51% of MS, then it's impossible unless Bill Gates explicitly wanted to give up his company.
If so, you may want to consider yanking the drives and iSCSI booting them. I know at least with Fedora and RHEL/CentOS you can do this, I presume Ubuntu can as well. Set root-path in dhcp in accordance with rfc4173 and boot iPXE. From there take any PXE-capable deployment mechanism and you can proceed without removing or resizing the partitions.
If only 30 and you lack the experience in this area, you may elect to hand tweak an autoinstall situation. I'm not sure if you need to be particularly picky about 'cloning'. In MS it's almost mandatory as so much of the value of an install is in third-party applications. In the ubuntu case all the packages you want are likely already in the distro and debian-installer is really all you need.
All this said, Live usb key is probably the easiest thing. Stock Ubuntu probably suffices...
There are two aspects, reality and perception.
For reality, it's hard to say. Through the end of 2010, all choices had to go through Jobs. Even if you can fairly say Cook 'made the decision', Jobs had final say and might have even vetoed some moves we never heard of. It seems unlikely that Cook was operating fully indpendently.
In terms of perception, Jobs was undeniably CEO until 2011 and his name was attached to all of the right decisions, whether earned or not. Without Jobs, the shareholders may be putting quite a different set of pressures on Cook. Even absent of that, I would expect Cook not making decisions conscious of how Jobs would think of them, rather as official CEO or as chairman of the board. It might be a full year before the body of shareholders and management really start showing how they will be different or not in a post-Jobs world.
Apple tried servers, they pretty well failed at it in the market. The problem being that Apple wants ludicrous margins for not particularly more customer service cost. In the consumer market, they have marketing efforts and brand value driving people to pay more for their products and experience than they would be willing to pay any other brand for the exact same experience.
Going into the server arena, companies need something a bit more concrete. Either hardware operating on razor thin margins, or if there are going to be high margins then gold-plated service and support practices that are priced high and enjoy bigger margins than hardware alone, but still cost a lot. There is relatively little 'profit' to be extracted from server clients compared to Apple consumer electronic customers. For companies that fail to establish as fanatic a following as Apple, the consumer space is the most unforgiving unprofitable market, but Apple makes it work for them.
But Jobs was pretty much afforded free reign. He was pretty well allowed to do as he saw fit because he drove the company to success and shareholders formed a strong correlation between Jobs and the success of Apple. If the shareholders were ever dissatisfied, they didn't act on it because they wouldn't want to kill the goose that lays golden eggs. Now with Jobs gone, it's less certain that the shareholders will permit the CEO the same allowances and push for more 'pillaging'.
Having thousands line up for a chance to work means that the general prospects are sufficiently poor that by comparison Foxconn is able to do pretty well by the local populace.
Apple is of course being exploitive, but I think the local population would rather be exploited than nothing. If Apple funded a wage that wouldn't repulse a United States Citizen, then they'd probably be paying US citizens for an even bigger PR boost of 'made in america'' and those 'lucky' Foxconn employees would then get nothing.
It's not retarded. As a society we should as much as possible keep the big picture in mind. If Apple practices can be popularly considered unethical, then the consumer market might punish them out of a sense of guilt (misplaced or otherwise). Even putting that aside, a more selfish consumer base thinking bigger picture may punish them for hiring overseas workers instead of domestic.
The wealth/wages/taxes aren't completely incidental, how consumers perceive the way those are managed factors in to the ability to sell. It's not the only thing by far, but I think there is a measurable impact of people refraining from Apple products because of the press on labor practices, even if they are just taking their money to worse, but more obscure companies.
I think realistically the thinking would be making Apple a much more desirable employer. To that end, a 'one time bonus' would not be the best use even if they decided to 10 billion in employee bonuses. You'd fund a bonus fund that would pay out repeatedly over the next few years. Knowing that it is happening and will continue to happen would help employee retention and draw in top talent. Of course, their success seems to indicate they may not need to worry too much about this issue.
That list is pretty terrible criteria for 'successful'.
One, its mostly data from over a year ago.
Two, the revenue numbers don't correlate well to each other as they represent different dates and different fiscal calendars with different companies being impacted by various degrees economic conditions changing over time.
Three, revenue is perhaps one of the weakest indicators of 'success'. If you get 1 trillion in revenue but had 1.1 trillion in expense, you are the worst company in the world practically speaking but would be number one in that list. By profit, Apple is likely easily in the top10 (data I could find put them at #8 in 2010, but a lot has changed since then). By Market cap, Apple is 487 billion, with Exxon at 413 billion, which is a strong indication of how valuable a company is perceived.
Well, to be fair, the guy who reigned over apple as it ascended to crazy success had this 'problem' as an explicit strategy. Tim Cook is questioning the wisdom of that decision.
So far, Tim Cook hasn't really done anything significant one way or another and has been kind of 'coasting' on the companies success. Now Tim Cook could start making decisions differently from what Jobs would have done. I do think 98 billion on hand is ludicrous, and if I were a significant shareholder or employee, I'd be kind of miffed about it, so I think he's right, but then again I didn't drive a company to nearly a half-trillion market cap..
Well, multiple problems.
One, why in the hell would you want Apple to sink Google, AMD, Intel, or Microsoft? From a user perspective killing any is bad. Alternatively, why the hell would Apple care to sink AMD or Intel, neither of which compete with Apple? If your claim is to stop other computer vendors from using the same instruction set as OSX systems, Apple has a pretty tight grip on OSX without instruction set lock-in (yes there are hackintoshes, but exceptionally rare in the scheme of things.
Second, that would be a fast way to draw attention for anti-competitive moves. Both from a regulator standpoint and quickly making enemies of a lot of companies with a lot of resources. They have a pretty comfortable competitive landscape right now, and a drastic move represents some huge unknowns that could be pretty devastating.
Finally, they frankly can't afford to buy most of those companies. Market cap is generally a good relative indicator of theoretical buy-out requirements:
Google: 200 billion
Intel: 134 billion
Microsoft: 265 billion
I don't know what percentage of shares is realistically available or how sky-high the price would be driven if Apple attempted a hostile takeover, but even baseline the market cap is beyond their reach. If they do have 98 billion cash on hand, then AMD is the only one they'd likely be able to subsume, but with a huge question of 'why would they?'.
Actually, I wasn't thinking of Pratchett (it's actually been a long time and I don't recall being bothered by footnotes for whatever reason). Maybe some can work them fine, but it was at least one huge detractor from a book I read recently that I don't recall well. Of course I also found the story pretty uninteresting, with or without the footnotes so maybe I didn't have enough to distract me from the footnote inconvenience...
There is a fourth option. There is generally narration. I consider this distinct from parenthetical. Parenthetical is when they break in just after a word is uttered and slap in the explanatory information and break right back into the sentence as if you weren't just reading something entirely out of sync with the rest of the words.
Though it wasn't hyperlink, I have read a few works of fiction that seemed to think it was neat to put gobs of stuff in footnotes. Now these weren't footnotes that explained obscure things the reader might not know to be skipped if you understood, it was explaining a completely fictional concept/historical event in the universe of the work in question.
This thoroughly breaks the flow no matter how you slice it. If you can't work some material more naturally into the narrative than hyperlinks/footnotes/jarring parentheticals, then something is very wrong. It severely detracts from the enjoyment of the story if I stop mid sentence to read it. If I chose to defer reading the material, then some things may make no sense until I get to the footnote and I have to figure out where the footnote ties back into the narrative in some cases where it isn't quite self-evident.
The question being what would be the mechanism to drive such a change. Just because we want to create a pattern doesn't mean we can absent of some scientific explanation as to why that would be the case.
I was under the impression the general understood consensus is that generally in evolution, usually past performance is not a reliable indicator of future events. If there is no selection pressure at work, things randomly vary one way or another and those variances 'just are'. There seems to be some popular desire for evolution to have some sort of will, some predictable course where toes dissolve and brains get bigger because we perceive toes as useless and brains as good. The grade of evolution is simply 'how successful at reproducing was the organism', quality of life and other factors may be valued by humanity, but do not serve as qualifiers for evolution.