"FEMA has responded to a commonly asked question with the following statement: If you already have flood insurance, policies under the National Flood Insurance Program cover flood damages to insured buildings and contents, whether caused by man-made events such as an intentional opening of spillways or breaching of levees, or whether simply caused by a natural flooding event."
That directly contradicts what you are telling us. Perhaps you should speak to FEMA and clarify things, as I think you are mistaken about your coverage.
For the technologically confused, it's just a change in version numbering. That's all. 5.0 is essentially 4.1 (or maybe even 4.0.2). Nothing super-crazy going on.
So for a minor upgrade you probably only need minimal testing then you can deploy.
Now, how do you tell when a version upgrade contains some major change? Perhaps the could increase the version in increments of ten for big changes.
This sounds a lot like a way to add on a $3.99 recurring charge to new PC sales for Best Buy. I'd expect to see them pushing this heavily in store with new computer sales, and a lot of folk buying it then never using it. Allow cancelling only by telephone and only after waiting 20 minutes in a phone queue and that should keep their retention rate nice and high.
So your argument is that you don't care if it meets your needs, or is the best tool for the job, the fact it's made by Apple means you refuse to use it? You sound every bit as bad as those kids that type Micro$oft.
Go for t-mobile. As they have a prepaid unlimited plan for $50/mo. This will net you 100mb/mo.
Assuming they will be making mostly international calls, these won't be included in the 'unlimited' bundle. T-Mobile won't offer them 3G service on their iPhone which was a requirement, and AT&T will offer 500MB of data for $25.
And not every one of us is taken in by Apple's overpriced shine. Work out why you have 90%+ desktop marketshare instead of turning your back on it to chase the remaining 10%.
You seem to presume that 90% of PC owners are actually making a choice and selecting Windows.
Picasa, the desktop app, already does facial recognition. You need to train it because most of us are not celebrities. I guess it would be trivial for Google to include their celeb database, so Picasa can automagivally tag you if you add a photo of yourself posing with a celebrity.
I believe major publishers have pricing agreements, fixing a minimum price for their books.
This is why some major titles are more expensive as an ebook than in paper format despite paper being obviously more expensive. I found this with a couple of minutes searching Amazon:
$10.19 in paperback, $11.99 if you want the Kindle edition.
With publishers removing any opportunity to discount, it becomes nearly impossible to compete - especially if you have to give 30% of any sale to your competitor.
For some reason I forgot to add good old Google to the list of providers. Given that they have announced that they are offering movie rentals via YouTube, I'd expect to see a lot more content and a paid subscription model from them in the near future.
Who wants to pay a few more bucks a month for another channel? I think most folk want to pay fewer bucks per month and have a smaller number of higher quality channels. Cable has no interest in delivering that, so folk are moving away in droves. The audience that reads sites like/. are likely to be amongst the first switchers.
It could just be the economy, but subscriber numbers for cable declined in Q2, Q3 and Q4 of 2010. Personally I think it's a trend and one that will continue for quite some time.
Broadcast television is so 20th century. If you want access to quality older issues, your best hope is from Netflix, Hulu or Amazon.
How? It's not an antitrust case. MS doesn't have any presence in the VoIP arena (at least as far as I know.) There's not much to do about it.
Could it be an issue if they were to stop making a linux client?
Then they could be using Skype (and it's lack of availability for a competing platform) to strengthen their operating system base and weaken a competing OS.
I do not think it was trolling, if you are doing some serious work, get off your iPad. I have a iPad myself, and like many have stated before, its a device used to watch media and browse, you can stream video just fine at WIFI speeds, not sure what else you want to do here, if you really want a good connection plug a wire in.
Okay. Now imagine you are in an office. 10, 15 or 20 coworkers also have iPads and start streaming a 720p internal webinar/conference/training video at 3kbits/sec so as to keep their laptop or desktop free for email and other work. Your Wi-Fi is now saturated and the webinar probably failing to stream.
Plenty of offices exist where a handful of access points are providing data connections for perhaps hundreds of people. Even if the backend is capable, the wireless installations were not designed for the kind of data we can easily expect to be transferred over them today, let alone tomorrow.
Pretending that mobile users won't consume a lot of data won't make the issue go away.
So what? What is relevant is what those devices are doing. Anyone who needs to pull boatloads of data needs to sit the hell down, and at that point, you can serve them with a wire.
And where, exactly, do you suggest I plug in my iPad? The MacBook Air requires a separately purchased dongle to connect to a wired LAN.
Your solution assumes that a majority of devices continue to be developed with an ethernet port. As we move towards thinner, lighter laptops, I doubt Apple will stand alone in manufacturing devices that no longer have an easy way to connect to a wired network.
The whole thing makes no sense. Usually we use taxes to create incentives and disincentives, nudging the public in a direction determined by government.
By taxing gas you create an incentive for people to drive fewer miles and to use more efficient vehicles. I presume these are both aims of government.
Taxing per mile means there is no penalty for using an excessively large vehicle with poor fuel consumption over driving a smaller car that uses less fuel. I don't see any government implementing it in that simple form. It might be different if the proposal were to include bands for vehicles based on fuel consumption or emissions, with higher per mile charges for inefficient vehicles.
One disadvantage of taxing gas consumption or pollution is that we don't usually know how many people are in a vehicle. As a result, a family of six traveling in a minivan may be penalized at the same rate as an individual driving an SUV that has similar gas consumption.
Slashdot Mirror
So, because one guy is hypocritical you are suddenly exempted from personal responsibility? That's a great basis for decision taking.
Are you sure? Who told you this, the Feds?
I don't know what state you're in, but here's a helpful document from the South Dakota Department of Labor and Regulation:
http://dlr.sd.gov/news/releases11/nr060311_flood_insurance.pdf
It states:
"FEMA has responded to a commonly asked question with the following statement: If you already have flood insurance, policies under the National Flood Insurance Program cover flood damages to insured buildings and contents, whether caused by man-made events such as an intentional opening of spillways or breaching of levees, or whether simply caused by a natural flooding event."
That directly contradicts what you are telling us. Perhaps you should speak to FEMA and clarify things, as I think you are mistaken about your coverage.
So for a minor upgrade you probably only need minimal testing then you can deploy.
Now, how do you tell when a version upgrade contains some major change? Perhaps the could increase the version in increments of ten for big changes.
Why is there a patent on MagSafe? I had a deep fat fryer with a magnetic power cable in 2004. Apple's patent was filed on Christmas Day 2007.
This sounds a lot like a way to add on a $3.99 recurring charge to new PC sales for Best Buy. I'd expect to see them pushing this heavily in store with new computer sales, and a lot of folk buying it then never using it. Allow cancelling only by telephone and only after waiting 20 minutes in a phone queue and that should keep their retention rate nice and high.
So your argument is that you don't care if it meets your needs, or is the best tool for the job, the fact it's made by Apple means you refuse to use it? You sound every bit as bad as those kids that type Micro$oft.
Given they released the source, I'd expect anyone could be the third party. Mozilla, Opera or others.
Third parties could presumably offer other services, such as POTS connections letting folk make cheap phone calls from their browser.
Nor are you signing up for anything monthly with an AT&T go-phone. So, T-mobile is more expensive, with poorer coverage and probably no 3G.
Assuming they will be making mostly international calls, these won't be included in the 'unlimited' bundle. T-Mobile won't offer them 3G service on their iPhone which was a requirement, and AT&T will offer 500MB of data for $25.
Why exactly is t-mobile a better choice?
That should, of course, say 500MB not GB!
Will the iPhone 4 do 3G on T-mobile? I don't think it does.
So AT&T is then the only option. There, that makes things easy.
Buy a go-phone SIM at an AT&T store, and you can pay $25 for 500GB of data. Calls (in the US) are10 cents per minute.
The server is located amongst the universe's missing mass, so it may take some time.
You seem to presume that 90% of PC owners are actually making a choice and selecting Windows.
Now we have such a clear winner on the choice of distro, perhaps we can discuss which would be the best editor on the cluster?
Unfortunately the service appears to be limited to US search data. Hopefully this will be extended in the future.
Picasa, the desktop app, already does facial recognition. You need to train it because most of us are not celebrities. I guess it would be trivial for Google to include their celeb database, so Picasa can automagivally tag you if you add a photo of yourself posing with a celebrity.
According to this page the company is suing HP, Lexmark, Samsung, Hulu, Trend Micro, Canon, Lenovo and others over the same patent (amongst others).
I'd say big companies might just be involved already.
I believe major publishers have pricing agreements, fixing a minimum price for their books.
This is why some major titles are more expensive as an ebook than in paper format despite paper being obviously more expensive. I found this with a couple of minutes searching Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Devil-Wears-Prada-ebook/dp/B000FBFNBK/
$10.19 in paperback, $11.99 if you want the Kindle edition.
With publishers removing any opportunity to discount, it becomes nearly impossible to compete - especially if you have to give 30% of any sale to your competitor.
For some reason I forgot to add good old Google to the list of providers. Given that they have announced that they are offering movie rentals via YouTube, I'd expect to see a lot more content and a paid subscription model from them in the near future.
Who wants to pay a few more bucks a month for another channel? I think most folk want to pay fewer bucks per month and have a smaller number of higher quality channels. Cable has no interest in delivering that, so folk are moving away in droves. The audience that reads sites like /. are likely to be amongst the first switchers.
It could just be the economy, but subscriber numbers for cable declined in Q2, Q3 and Q4 of 2010. Personally I think it's a trend and one that will continue for quite some time.
Broadcast television is so 20th century. If you want access to quality older issues, your best hope is from Netflix, Hulu or Amazon.
Could it be an issue if they were to stop making a linux client?
Then they could be using Skype (and it's lack of availability for a competing platform) to strengthen their operating system base and weaken a competing OS.
Actually, Dan, it is a troll. You just lack the imagination to think of scenarios outside the little box you consider to be serious work.
I'm glad you're not running my network.
Okay. Now imagine you are in an office. 10, 15 or 20 coworkers also have iPads and start streaming a 720p internal webinar/conference/training video at 3kbits/sec so as to keep their laptop or desktop free for email and other work. Your Wi-Fi is now saturated and the webinar probably failing to stream.
Plenty of offices exist where a handful of access points are providing data connections for perhaps hundreds of people. Even if the backend is capable, the wireless installations were not designed for the kind of data we can easily expect to be transferred over them today, let alone tomorrow.
Pretending that mobile users won't consume a lot of data won't make the issue go away.
And where, exactly, do you suggest I plug in my iPad? The MacBook Air requires a separately purchased dongle to connect to a wired LAN.
Your solution assumes that a majority of devices continue to be developed with an ethernet port. As we move towards thinner, lighter laptops, I doubt Apple will stand alone in manufacturing devices that no longer have an easy way to connect to a wired network.
The whole thing makes no sense. Usually we use taxes to create incentives and disincentives, nudging the public in a direction determined by government.
By taxing gas you create an incentive for people to drive fewer miles and to use more efficient vehicles. I presume these are both aims of government.
Taxing per mile means there is no penalty for using an excessively large vehicle with poor fuel consumption over driving a smaller car that uses less fuel. I don't see any government implementing it in that simple form. It might be different if the proposal were to include bands for vehicles based on fuel consumption or emissions, with higher per mile charges for inefficient vehicles.
One disadvantage of taxing gas consumption or pollution is that we don't usually know how many people are in a vehicle. As a result, a family of six traveling in a minivan may be penalized at the same rate as an individual driving an SUV that has similar gas consumption.